http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/30671/considering-the-oregon-dynasty Couldn't agree more. All we're missing is that big BCS bowl win.
I do like that OS banned themselves from bowls the past two seasons to show solidarity with their Big Brother. That was very nice of Coach Golly Gee Riley.
dy·nas·ty/ˈdīnəstē/ Noun: A succession of people from the same family who play a prominent role in a certain field; lasting rule and dominance by a single team http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dynasty I hope you're wrong, T. This things is dragging on so long and one could look at that as a good thing - that the NCAA has no smoking gun and is being very detailed, or there is something there and continue to uncover things. No one really knows but it's good fodder for message board foes and assumptions. Anyway, if USC is the example for Pac dynasty, we're closing in but have a ways to go - and Miller is right, winning a major BCS bowl is the first step. One thing I'll say, I'm not a fan of punishing the kids with bowl and champ game bans. I'm no fan of USC and specifically Barkley. To be honest, I think he needs to eat a poo sandwich, but I don't think it's fair when he had nothing to do with Bushgate, was probably in junior high when it all went down, it's senseless to punish him and the other hard working players. JMHO, yo. I do think USC players are innocent and shouldn't be punished - and I even say that in the face of there being a good probability that USC would beat Oregon in the Pac Champ and go to the Rose Bowl instead of Oregon. Serious, why punish players? -Fine those responsible -Fine the AD -Restrict scholies -Restrict recruiting -Vacate bowl wins and conf champ IF the players on the team were in involved -Dock state support -Require community/charity style service by those responsible *don't punish the innocent and players who had nothing to do with violation
A quote from the article: Ergo: Oregon needs a BCS bowl win. That is a critical next step for the program. I disagree. At present we have a very young team. We have, as the article noted, been very competitive in the last two BCS bowls and could have won either game. I think we've reached that elite level.
No one really cares about a team being young, though. It's true/likely that the team will be better next year, but that could be said of many, many teams--including many of the elite programs like USC, Auburn and Florida State that have history on their side much more than the Ducks do. Whether it's this year or next year, the team DOES need to show well on the national stage of a BCS game--even if it's just beating up on a Big 10 team. Ed O.
I just don't get this line of thought, though. Somehow, Stanford winning the Orange Bowl against a mediocre Va Tech (who lost to James Madison) is considered a positive, while losing by 3 points to the undefeated SEC champion, on the last play of the game, is a bad thing. Stanford is 23-2 the past two seasons; guess who they lost to, and each game was by 21+ points. The ONLY thing standing between Stanford and back-to-back BCS title games has been Oregon, and Oregon flat out creamed them in big games that decided the Pac-12 in both seasons. Winning a Rose Bowl would be OK, but I'd rather win the Pac-12 undefeated and lose in the BCS title game in a close manner than beating some scrub team in a BCS bowl.
Not claiming we're assured a win but... Winning the Rose Bowl > Losing the NC in the closest of games Isn't Kelly winless in bowl games and even winless against top 10 OOC teams? Gotta seal the deal on that BCS national stage.
Can't agree with this. If UO wins the Rose Bowl, I certainly won't consider this year as having been more successful than last.
As a "fan" I can see your point. As a "dynasty" I'd disagree. A team is remembered for its wins, and no win is bigger (other than winning nc game) than a BCS bowl - Rose Bowl. Oregon hasn't won a Rose Bowl since 1917. In the last 50 years, Oregon has only been to the Rose Bowl twice. Winning Rose Bowl > Losing NC Game In twenty years I'll be telling my grandkids about the 2011/2012 Rose Bowl win - not the two losses on the season (which will be long forgotten) winning always > than losing
So, were you happy when Nebraska got the championship game berth against Miami? Do you think the Duck basketball team had a better season last year than Arizona?
Not sure I follow you but given the two options to tell my grandkids about: A) Yes, kids. It was the best season I remember. We won every conference game and lost the National Championship and I got to watch in person, Newton hoist that crystal football high above his head. B) Yes, kids. It was the best season I remember. We won the Rose Bowl and partied on the field with the players. We hadn't won since 1917! I'll take B.
Aw shucks, lets just go with the Canzano scenario: 1) Bellotti takes a high profile coaching job and poaches Chip's best assistants. 2) Chip bails for the NFL. 3) The program collapses.
And then your grandkids' other grandpa replies to be a topper (as old men are wont to do): A) Yeah, kids, that was great, but it wasn't as good as the next season. Yeah, we lost two games the next year, but we won the Rose Bowl, which we hadn't won since 1917! B) Yeah, kids. that was great, but it wasn't as good as the season before. We went undefeated the whole year, and were just a last-second field goal short in the national title game. Never been that close since! If I'm the other grandpa, I take scenario B.
Nah, your old balls must be smoking too much pipe. So, take away the old man. How about from a players perspective. Lose in the biggest of big games, or win a Rose Bowl that Oregon hasn't accomplished in almost 100 years. Gimme da Roses.
No offense, but if I have a team of players who would rather play in a BCS bowl and win it instead of the BCS title game and lose it, I wouldn't want those players in my program. The "Rose Bowl" bullshit is just internet fodder that Husky fans use to make them feel better about being UO's Other Little Brother these days.
I think teams that lose NC games are generally better than those that win Rose Bowl games... and that a Ducks team that did the former is PROBABLY a better team than one that did the latter. But I would bet--although I don's know this for sure--that a team that wins the Rose Bowl would be greeted with a warmer reception by recruits and pollsters. Especially if the team hasn't been able to win a bowl in a while. I'd rather have a team lose in the NC game than win the Rose Bowl, but I think that the latter might be better for the program in the long run. Ed O.
