Sandbagging Steve

The Munster is in style these days

Add to this: When scheme and QB talent leads to the majority of the plays running on schedule with presnap reads, or the QB adjusting immediately after the snap, the defensive line begins to lose confidence in their ability to get to the quarterback. You break the will of the defense and you will get more time in the pocket when it is needed.

He ranks right below this legend in the hair department I had to do a double take when this pic pulled up on Google Images. That's former Nevada defensive player Brock Hekking.

Last year had all kinds of issues. A weak QB and not enough receivers, especially when Whittington got hurt. This year we have more weapons, but Card just can't execute the whole playbook and reacts a half second late. Ewers with X, Whitt, Sanders and the double threats at running back gives Sark the weapons he needs to run his creative offense. We have the kind of schemes that win championships, we just need to keep upgrading the talent $$$ Many mid-level 4-stars by the services are complete JAGs 1. Ewers 5-star 2. JT Sanders 5-stars 3. Whittington 5-stars 4. Bijan Robinson 5-stars 5. Xavier Worthy 62nd in the composite and should have been a 5-star 6. LT Kelvin Banks 5-stars Over half the starting line-up on offense were basically 5-stars coming out of high school. Nearly every skill player other than one in the starting line-up is a former five-star recruit. The one skill player that wasn't a five-star is a athletic former high school quarterback. And defense takes even more raw talent than offense, which we currently don't have on the field. Funny how most of the production from Blueblood programs hitting on all cylinders doesn't come from the mid-to-low-level ranked 4-star recruits. You can pile up 4-stars to a top 5 to top 10 team ranking. It doesn't matter. Top ranked recruits with verified size, speed, tape and a good mental make-up win most of the games. Those type players usually command a lot of money on the market. A lack of these type players has been a major issue at Texas in the past. You add to it bad offensive schemes and it just compounds the issue. We now have the schemes. It's up to the admin to get the rich donors invested in the program and consistently give Sark the talent he needs to win.

It takes more than a few good players to make a defense. Holton Hill was a stud here, when he stayed out of trouble. PJ Locke was a solid player here. Charlie had limited offensive talent and even worse offensive schemes. This put too much pressure on his defense in a league of quarterbacks. He was a terrible recruiter and an even worse evaluator. The culture at Texas just added insult to injury. I'm sure Charlie was shocked there was no pay for play system in place when he got here. His first defense, with some defensive talent leftover from Mack's tenure, was very good. We won't even get into the fact Charlie is regarded. He had no organizational skills whatsoever. Charlie's players knew the offense wasn't going to be able to win games for them. Confidence and motivation matters a great deal. You saw Texas more motivated on defense today as the game wore on. Texas has an offensive coordinator and a quarterback to lead the team. There's speed around him. The players have to believe in the upside of the team. Brent Venables had no issues developing defensive players at Clemson. He had talent all over the field. He's having issues now. His team lacks talent. His defensive coordinator is a joke and his offense doesn't have the players to run the Baylor system. Developing players is basic common sense. Recruiting talent and running good schemes is what separates coaches IMO. The biggest issues on the 40 have been terrible offensive schemes and lack of talent on both sides of the ball. Add in the fact that this leads to a bunch of new coaches and schemes and it's a recipe for disaster.

Isn't that Jimbo's new wife?

It's what happens when you take a creative offensive game and add a quarterback, speed and give the defensive players another year in the system. Talent and schemes when games. Development is overrated. Most coaches can develop, if they they have the right talent and good schemes. There's still a long ways to go. This team still needs more speed and depth, especially on defense, but this is a major step in the right direction. *win

My wife took these pictures of me during the game

can't edit: target audience would be more accurate I guess I'm Simple Jack

Don't forget the targeted audience

Chip on a bender

They won't admit it, but Texas 8&4 culture is similar to Russia in many ways. Plus, Jimbo and Putin are both cucked midgets.

JesusSweatDuck and his followers have been preaching the impending doom For 2,000 years In a world that was 4,000 years old at the time... Trust me, he's an expert on the proper uses of imminent and impending

Wtf? Talk about a fucking troll. I'm a Texan, born and raised. I have family that worked/retired at UT-Austin. I've been on that campus for most of my life. Wtf is your issue? My mom is from Oregon but I don't really care what conference they're in. To me, Oregon is the same team with without the B1G. It's just some of these posts are pure comedy, especially from USC fans. When USC/UCLA first accepted a bid from the B1G, everyone on forums and within the media said Oregon is next. And then some ex-FOX executive, with a propaganda, said Oregon was only worth $30 million, yet, the entire PAC is getting offers for $30 million per school. And then we hear/read really stupid shit from Canzana and the rest of the media on how the PAC is going to survive and stay together forever. People are buying into journalists with an agenda. College football makes money because live sports is worth more today than ever. It is not healthy. It's the same few teams competing for the title every year. They get nearly all the top recruits. Their third string talent is equal to some Bluebloods' first string. It didn't used to be that. Why are they expanding and looking for every dollar they can get their hands on? Attendance has been sinking for years. Saban has even said they need to line up and play each other or the fans are going to stop attending. Of course, Saban is a part of the issue. He's spent the past decade plus paying players under the table and hoarding all the talent. I don't blame him. Everyone else needs to join him and make it competitive.

Because it keeps a few more top recruits away from Alabama, Georgia, tOSU. The more teams competing for the title, the more it opens up recruiting for everyone. This would then open up recruiting to even more teams than the 3 listed. The issue right now is the majority of the top recruits are being bought by 4 or so programs. Those programs win all the games and it just becomes a compounded problem. Things were much better even 20 years ago. The internet age has allowed the under the table payment schemes to dominate not only regional recruiting, but nationwide. If you look at NIL, it's helped a little with this so far. There's more good recruits spreading out to more programs in different regions. We still have a long ways to go though. Go look at recruiting 20 years ago. The top recruits were spread-out all over the country. A better recruiting format, with actual enforceable rules, tougher schedules across the board and we would see results. Most teams used to line up and play each other. These days, too many teams dodge playing other good programs OOC. College football is not competitive right now. It's in the worse shape it has ever been in. If more Bluebloods were competing with and beating the pay for play schemes at tOSU, Alabama, and Georgia, it would open up recruiting, especially with NIL.

BTW, I have no issues with USC. USC's issues are the same as Texas. The admin of both programs don't get it. It's not the BMDs causing the downfall of either program. College football is much better when USC, Texas and Michigan are winning. It makes the sport much more competitive and fun to watch. But some of these talking points by USC fans in realignment don't add up. And most of these journalists out West are just straight up nuts. They sound like The Dude of West Virginia. A lot of propaganda fed to them by certain schools behind closed doors.

You're not funny, Lou. Give it a rest.

I never said anything about the USC admin playing anyone. I was referring to USC fans here admitting they don't want to play Oregon because they recruit the state of California. Mater Dei has nothing to do with the actual admin, but the fans her whining. As someone who knows a thing or two about the history of the sport, I'm well versed into the reasons USC doesn't like Oregon. It has nothing to do with "value". I hate to break it to you, but Oregon doesn't need USC to keep winning. Also, Oregon can't keep up with USC, if the Trojans admin knew how to take care of business. Texas has the same problem here. It does no good to debate from this point forward. Are you guaranteeing me Oregon will be left out of the B1G? That's all I really want to know. That's the bottom line. You seem to just know for sure Oregon is equivalent to Iowa State or Oregon State and they're not getting into the Big 2. They have no value and USC is God's country. I think you're going to be proven wrong within 10 years. I do appreciate you at least trying to explain your stance, although it's a very, very biased and one-sided take on the situation. And thanks to the other fuckface USC fan (USC_TMB) for the middle finger on a Texas board. USC_TMB, are you upset with USC's cheating past? Or the chicken shit move to avoid playing Oregon for recruiting purposes? If SC fan is going to call Oregon a cheater, they need to confess and maybe not be a hypocrite. If USC is going to say Oregon is worthless, maybe USC should sellout their stadium and stuff. It may be a start. Go back to your own board, if you want to live in a fantasy world USC_TMB.

1. The only reason CU won was because of the coach, who bought players. That coach is gone. He's not coming back. Oregon works from the admin level, not the coaching level. For this reason, there's no comparison between the two programs' future success. I don't consider paying employees for their work to be dirty. It's actually dirty NOT to pay them when you're running a billion dollar empire. I do consider all the other stuff going on at CU very dirty. 2.Why Oregon isn't being snatched up? Says who? Fanatics on the internet? No one, including the so-called journalists, have a clue until something actually happens. USC was "snatched up" because they called the B1G and begged to get in. I know the fanatics don't want to believe this, but these conferences actually do have to be careful about tampering. B1G can't just start adding a bunch of PAC schools at the same time as USC/UCLA because of not only tampering concerns, but because Stanford, Cal and most of the rest of the PAC would have blown up the deal and USC/UCLA would still be in the PAC. It was done in secrecy with the intentions of now fielding calls for future expansion. Once the dam is broke, it's more likely other programs will follow suit. B1G also now has leverage, as the PAC couldn't survive any losses (other than OSU,WSU), and can probably get other programs at a bargain. 2a. Cristobal left Oregon for one reason: Miami is his alma mater and has promised to pay players through NIL. 2b. Oregon has no more flaws than any other PAC program. I guess Washington may have more value, with their huge cable subscription advantage and fairly large fan base. I've lived in Vancouver, Washington, and this holds no water. It isn't 1950 anymore. Oregon State isn't even P5 worthy. Oregon owns that state. Oregon owns part of southern Washington as well. PNW area has plenty of rabid sports fans. This isn't California or Arizona. It's much closer to Utah, but with more people. This reminds me of Clemson fans in South Carolina. Clemson is winning big right now, but South Carolina actually owns that state. It's not even close. If you look at Clemson's viewership, considering the level of success, it is lacking. Oregon probably has more fans than Clemson. "Marketing creation built on paid recruits." You just described the majority of the most successful programs in America. Honestly, every program is supposed to be the front porch of the university. It's a marketing machine. The paying players part involves most winners in the NCAA, including USC and Ohio State. USC's entire history is built on paying players. How do you think the private school in the hood won so much? Go look at their history. Most of the fighting in the early days of the PAC was the PNW schools getting the California programs in trouble for paying players. USC always whined and said it wasn't true! Despite all the evidence to the contrary. USC used to fight it and has managed to get away with a bunch of stuff over the past 70 years. Even with the escapes, they're still one of the most penalized programs of all time. UCLA's entire basketball success was built on paying players before the days of the shoe companies. But you're going to blame Oregon for finally joining them in an attempt to level the playing field? It's only an issue when Oregon elects to start paying? Generations and generations after the southern schools started the so-called deed? Sweat shops? You are correct, but don't let me get into just about every other corporation, lawyer, university, religious organization and politician in the world. It's all turned dirty. This includes in our very own backyard. You may want to back off on that statement or be willing to call out all the dirty deeds around here as well. I'm all for the call outs BTW. It's time this country wakes up and starts looking in the mirror. All the above I mentioned is beyond filthy and needs a complete restructure. Probably a better topic on another forum. Again, every consistent winner does this. USC is the worst and the first in the PAC at doing this. It's the only way the private program from the hood was ever going to beat out UCLA for the recruits in the old days. The old days was also much more about strength than speed, something the northern schools had more of during that time period. There's also this thing called NIL and the fact that all these moves right now are a precursor to paying the athletes a salary. The commissioner of the B1G is already in talks with players about eventual payments down the road. The commissioner of the B1G actually sees your "bidding war" as a positive point in favor of Oregon to the B1G. And make no mistake about it, he's (w/ TV execs) pushing all the buttons with tOSU's support. The crazies at Wisconsin, Michigan, etc. will shut up and do as they're told. This is actually a good post, although the recruiting part doesn't hold up. Here's why: 1. Yes, all this realignment has happened because of the B1G. It's pretty hypocritical for them not to stand up and just say it. They point fingers when they are the one's who started all this. But that's the B1G for you. They've always been the biggest hypocrite in the room. Just like their complaining, back in the day, about paying players while some of their programs had old men fucking a bunch children and then covering it all up. Not to mention, Ohio State has one of the largest pay for play schemes in the whole business. 2. Two biggest reasons the B1G has been forced to expand over the years: lack of recruiting territory and too much deadweight at the bottom of the conference. If you take a look at your map, remove the top 4 recruiting hotbeds of California, Texas, Florida and Georgia. Now, there's not a whole lot left, but if you look at the NE you will see a somewhat blue area of New Jersey and Maryland. It's not much, but there's not much out there after the Big 4. How has that helped recruiting in New Jersey? Rutgers isn't getting the top players in their own state. Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State have always landed talent there. The fact is, the SEC has actually recruited very well there since Rutgers joined the B1G. The point? It doesn't matter about recruiting territory if the new programs can't actually land players in the recruiting territory. Oregon can actually land top ranked recruits. It's why they will eventually be included in the B1G, if there's expansion out West. You didn't answer my question. You said if Oregon and Washington had any value they would have been able to save the PAC. My counter is that makes no sense. If you want to cry on that hill, then USC is worthless because they couldn't save the PAC by themselves. I don't actually think USC is worthless. I'm just pointing out that your argument doesn't hold up. I've already answered your recruiting pitch above in another reply. Landing recruits is more important than actual recruiting territory. They both do matter. B1G is never going to outdo the SEC in recruiting territory. They need to make sure every program added can recruit. Why are you scared of Oregon and their recruiting in California? You or some other Trojan fan actually admitted this last month. "Oregon is taking our recruits." If you could get away with it, you'd invite Mater Dei HS for the easy win? I'm just here to say the old days of easy wins and manipulating schedules is about to be a thing of the past. We are in the last decade of it. BTW, Oregon is going to continue to recruit well in California, whether they're in the B1G or not. You're gonna bet the house Oregon isn't eventually in the B1G, if they expand with more PAC programs? B1G may take Stanford first, because of the future possibility of ND, but they aren't leaving out Oregon and Washington in the long term. No one has to pay for themselves anymore. This is what is getting lost in the shuffle on here right now. The journalists are completely lost on what is going on. The biggest programs are joining together to eventually increase the number of conference games played. That alone eliminates the cupcake schedules; allows commissioners/TV execs to create fair and competitive schedules for all teams; and increases TV viewership. The new scheduling will boost revenue and a deal will eventually be made to pay the players. In other words, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts and it's going to be a massive windfall for the Big 2. TRUTH.

Some good points. I can see there being an issue, if Oregon were to go on a long dry spell. Oregon's turnaround really started in Rich Brooks last season in 1994. He'd actually been building to that moment since the late 1980s. He went to the Rose Bowl that year and the Ducks were energized and had something to sell. It took Bellotti a few years of some really good and some really average to get some consistency, but Oregon's been solid for close to 30 years. Oregon keeps a smaller stadium for the consistent (actual) sellouts. We are talking actual attendance here and not the fake attendance many programs use. Their fans actually show up to the games. The complete drop-off of the PAC has hurt them though. That's not their fault and easily fixed with a better conference. There's been debate on whether they should continue to expand or hold steady. Yes, it's a young program, considering how bad they once were throughout their history. But Oregon could sell 80,000 tickets to big games. They want everyone to have a great seat and make each seat seem prized. They don't want empty seats against noncompetitive teams. Right now, in the PAC, you have plenty of matchups that just don't excite fan bases. Oregon held the record for the most current sellouts for a very long time. It ended in 2016 as the entire PAC became lackluster. A 110 game streak of sellouts. I believe they started another steak, but I haven't kept up to see if it is still current. The point is, they would have a higher average attendance by adding seats to their stadium. If they move to the B1G, they may increase their stadium size again. It's one of the best stadiums I've ever watched a live game. Not a single bad seat in the entire stadium. Incredible atmosphere and very, very loud. Let's not forget they've built up a solid following all across the country. Not just fans that watch because they are good, but diehard fans of the team. And they are a favorite of the young generation, thanks to Phil Knight. For that reason, you can't measure their impact on attendance alone. I do get your point: If they start losing, how will the fans react? But that's also a problem everywhere but a very few amount of programs. It's an issue at USC. You would get a huge increase in TV viewership for Oregon and Washington in the B1G, just like Texas/OU are going to get an increase in viewership in the SEC. It's going to be significant. Colorado's success was because of coach Bill McCartney; and then Neuheisel just flat out cheated. But the Colorado admin has never really cared enough about the program. Colorado always seems to have financial issues that will never be an issue at UO. Oregon was built with money and a good, steady admin that cares about a winning program. Oregon runs a business. Colorado runs a department much like Michigan, Texas, Notre Dame and UCLA, without the natural advantages of those programs. The coaches come and go, the Ducks program stays the same. They are on their seventh coach since 1994. Although NIL will change the landscape, I don't think it's going to kill the Oregon program. Knight has them setup for a very long time. I'll be the first to admit, Washington is worth more in the long run. I don't see that keeping Oregon out of it. As I stated earlier, there is eventually going to be an increase in conference games and a decrease in cupcake games. This consolidation isn't just about how much a program is worth right now. It's also about playing more competitive matchups against like-minded programs every single week. This will significantly boost TV viewership. Universities need to increase the cash cow in order to pay the players without having to fire a bunch administrative bloat within the departments, which would be admitting this has all been a sham for decades now. There's been plenty of revenue, they just spend it unnecessarily to make it look like there's no profits.

That makes no sense at all. Why wasn't USC able to save the PAC then? Under your own admission, USC must be worthless because they weren't able to get the entire PAC a better contract. That makes no sense at all. Comparing Oregon to Illinois just shows you're way too biased for this subject. You can go look at just about any list that rates the value of any program and there's no comparison. USC/UCLA didn't increase the value of the B1G. It's the B1GN that made up for it and that's not the future of television. Should the B1G tell USC no? Of course not. That would be stupid. There is only one team available in all of college football that increases the pie: Notre Dame. That doesn't mean adding top programs won't increase the pie later down the road. Oregon consistently playing in more competitive games against larger fan bases will increase their ratings. Same goes for all the other top programs. This is the new reality of college football. This is about top programs vs. top programs and eliminating everyone else from the regular season schedule. Why do you think I've been harping about an expansion in conference games on here for months? And Warren just mentioned going to ten conference games at some point? At some point, it's going to be more than ten conference games. That's where we are heading. That's where the money is at. The PACs weaknesses had nothing to do with Oregon and Washington and everything to do with the conferences region, the weak programs at the bottom and no fan bases as large as Ohio State, Michigan, Notre Dame to cover up for the weaknesses. Not even USC has a large enough fan base to cover for more than maybe one team, and that team better bring at least something of value. USC's fan base is not Michigan, Ohio State, Texas or Notre Dame. USC's strengths' are recruiting, tradition, and competitiveness. It's a helmet school with the biggest recruiting advantage in the country. Its fan base is the smallest of all the Bluebloods. If all PAC 12 teams were equal to Oregon and Washington, the conference would still be around. PAC 12 weaknesses: 1. Playing only out West 2. None of the very largest fan bases to cover for weak teams 3. You cannot carry Washington State, Oregon State, two uninterested programs in passive NorCal, two programs in Arizona and expect to survive with no Ohio State, Michigan type fan bases to cover up for it. Oregon and Washington had nothing to do with the downfall of the PAC or its money issues. Oregon brings another helmet program with speed that the B1G desperately needs in its conference. B1G's two biggest issues are competitiveness and recruiting territory. They solved some of that with USC/UCLA. It also makes no sense to stop at two teams in that time zone. You really need at least 4 solid teams to make sure there's a competitive game worth watching in the late time slot. Washington brings more of its over 4,000,000 Seattle metro and 7,500,000 state pop than Stanford brings the 7.7 San Francisco metro area. There's no difference in the two in size, other than one (Washington) has a much bigger following and has fans that actually care about the team. Oregon out-recruits Stanford every year. Stanford will get in because of Notre Dame and the fact the B1G still needs more teams in that time zone. It's going to be Oregon, Washington, Stanford in the B1G at some point.