I know many are skeptical about Chip Kelly and all that, but this was an interesting read. Could this be the last little kick we need to be in the picture year in and year out? The transition from Brooks putting us on the map. Bellotti giving this program traction and in peoples minds. Now Kelly? can he get us over that last hurdle? http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/recruiting/football/columns/story?columnist=shurburtt_jc&id=4283168
This is a risk, but the only way they are going to take the next step. If you wanted to compete with USC, you can't do it with the limited D1 players in the NW. Oregon has the brand and marketing ability to pull this off, but it won't be easy.
agree.. its what needs to be done IMO.. but there will be a lot more known strikeouts while swinging for the fences (I.E. Pryor, Bryce Brown, and Tahj Boyd) but I think I like what Kelly is doing as this being the next step.
What I never understood, was the negative comments that went with the "strikeouts". Even if you only get 1 east coast blue-chipper every 4 years, it's better than what Oregon did before.
Exactly. Oh well some people will always bitch no matter what (something we both have seen in here this summer lol) but I think we could be on the brink of something special starting here in Oregon.
Well at least the blue chippers are giving UO consideration. 15 years ago they would have laughed at an offer, now they are getting visits and getting national exposure. It's the next step. What it really comes down to is winning and getting players to succeed at the NFL level.
I think a potential negative is opportunity cost. How many west coast kids did you miss out on while you were wooing the east coast ones? I'm not saying that the school shouldn't spread its influence, but given the limited amount of resources a school has, there is a cost associated with swinging for the fences and missing... Ed O.
...it appears that another coach, just 45 minutes to the North, has no problem whatsoever in maximizing his "limited" D1 talent
I've got nothing but respect with what Mike Riley has done with limited talent, but you're missing the point. Oregon doesn't want to be on the Oregon St level, they want to be a team who can compete year-in and year-out for the Pac10 title. You can't do that with NW talent alone.
...define the word "compete" then, please?! I believe that no team, other than USC, has been more consistent than the Beavers in the PAC10 over the last few years
somewhat you are correct, but without blue chip talent competing for more than 2nd or 3rd place in the conference isnt going to happen.
while I'm not going to be roped into trash talk, and I respect everything Riley does has done. Until Riley gets OSU into the National championship mix a couple times, or even one time, Bellotti has done more for U of O than Riley has OSU. I think your goals are a little lower than what Bellotti's and Kelly's might be. But each to their own.
remind me again, what state did your team's two best players come from? I'd argue that they're pretty damn accurate, considering the scope of it all. Obviously some slip through the cracks, but in general, they correctly identify the future stars.
Well the article is talking about recruiting and I believe that was the topic of this post. USC recruits nationally and they do quite well, so I believe Oregon feels that is the only way to compete with them. Oregon has finished in the Top10 twice in the last five years. I don't think any other team outside of USC has done that. I could be wrong.
ESPN has a poll up that asks people to pick the most powerful 40 teams. Given the small population of Oregon and the prestige of other programs, after over 100k votes, Oregon is #12, voted higher than Tennessee, Miami, Notre Dame, Auburn, Nebraska and many other pretty strong programs. Oregon football has come a long, long way. It also depicts the difference in national opinion about Oregon and Oregon State even though they've had similar records of late. Total Votes: 103,486 72.0% Penn State 70.4% Ohio State 69.8% Oklahoma 69.3% Florida 68.0% Texas 66.8% LSU 66.8% Georgia 66.5% Alabama 66.1% Michigan 66.0% USC 65.2% Florida State 62.2% Oregon 61.1% Miami (FL) 59.8% Tennessee 59.3% Virginia Tech 58.8% Notre Dame 57.3% Oklahoma State 57.0% Auburn 56.2% Nebraska 55.8% Michigan State 53.9% California 53.9% Wisconsin 53.2% West Virginia 50.7% Texas Tech 50.6% UCLA 49.9% Georgia Tech 47.7% Missouri 45.5% Clemson 43.8% Iowa 42.8% Boston College 42.3% Arkansas 41.5% Texas A&M 38.2% Arizona State 38.1% Mississippi 35.8% Boise State 35.0% Pittsburgh 34.5% Colorado 34.3% Utah 34.3% Illinois 34.1% Oregon State 32.0% South Carolina 31.9% BYU 30.0% Kansas 28.0% Louisville 26.1% North Carolina 24.5% Arizona 24.3% Washington 22.5% Purdue 22.2% TCU 21.7% Maryland 20.3% Virginia 17.5% Minnesota 16.8% Wake Forest 16.6% Kansas State 14.1% Kentucky 14.0% Stanford 13.0% South Florida 13.0% Mississippi State 12.9% Cincinnati 12.6% Rutgers 12.3% North Carolina State 10.5% Fresno State 9.7% Air Force 9.2% Hawaii 9.1% Northwestern 8.2% Washington State 7.8% Indiana 7.3% Navy 6.9% Army 6.7% Syracuse 6.2% Vanderbilt 5.6% East Carolina 5.4% Connecticut 5.0% Iowa State 4.7% Akron 4.7% Southern Miss 4.6% Colorado State 4.4% Baylor 3.1% Arkansas State 3.0% Marshall 3.0% Buffalo 3.0% Houston 2.8% Duke 2.4% New Mexico 2.4% Ball State 2.3% Tulsa 2.3% UCF 2.2% Central Michigan 2.2% Troy 2.1% Wyoming 2.0% Nevada 1.9% UNLV 1.9% San Diego State 1.8% Idaho 1.8% Ohio 1.8% Miami (OH) 1.7% Louisiana Tech 1.7% Memphis 1.7% Utah State 1.5% SMU 1.5% Florida International 1.5% Bowling Green 1.4% Kent State 1.3% Western Michigan 1.3% Louisiana-Lafayette 1.3% Louisiana-Monroe 1.3% Rice 1.3% Temple 1.2% UTEP 1.2% UAB 1.1% Western Kentucky 1.1% Tulane 1.0% San Jose State 1.0% Toledo 0.9% Florida Atlantic 0.9% Northern Illinois 0.9% New Mexico State 0.8% Middle Tennessee State 0.8% Eastern Michigan 0.8% North Texas
