Ducks Attack Message Board Forum

I was one of the Pac 12 defenders that said Oregon should be the Clemson of the Pac 12. The problem is those teams don't live to beat Clemson the way these bottom feeder Pac 12 teams want to beat Oregon. I would rather Oregon play teams that are more talented and hate them less and you'll find that in the Big 12. I don't really like playing Oregon St every year because they are a team that is just trying to ruin the Ducks season and nothing else. So, if Oregon goes to the Big 12, I'm for that now.

I have a theory that the internet used to be way better 20 years ago because the average IQ of posters was higher. Since the advent of the smart phone I believe the collective IQ of the internet has dropped 20 points. I don't think people like you posted too often on the internet 20 years ago.

AshlandDuck wrote:I have a theory that the internet used to be way better 20 years ago because the average IQ of posters was higher. Since the advent of the smart phone I believe the collective IQ of the internet has dropped 20 points. I don't think people like you posted too often on the internet 20 years ago.

Instead of a long-winded insult how bout you show me where I'm wrong?

duck023 wrote:I was one of the Pac 12 defenders that said Oregon should be the Clemson of the Pac 12. The problem is those teams don't live to beat Clemson the way these bottom feeder Pac 12 teams want to beat Oregon. I would rather Oregon play teams that are more talented and hate them less and you'll find that in the Big 12. I don't really like playing Oregon St every year because they are a team that is just trying to ruin the Ducks season and nothing else. So, if Oregon goes to the Big 12, I'm for that now.

"these bottom feeder Pac 12 teams" would beat most of the real "bottom feeder" teams of the ACC and they would be capable of beating Clemson on their good days. I'm sure every team in the ACC also has Clemson circled on the calendar. Its just that those other ACC teams are like the colorado and ASU of the PAC 12 while Clemson has maintained a CFP level of play, except this year.

alxtw wrote:

duck023 wrote:I was one of the Pac 12 defenders that said Oregon should be the Clemson of the Pac 12. The problem is those teams don't live to beat Clemson the way these bottom feeder Pac 12 teams want to beat Oregon. I would rather Oregon play teams that are more talented and hate them less and you'll find that in the Big 12. I don't really like playing Oregon St every year because they are a team that is just trying to ruin the Ducks season and nothing else. So, if Oregon goes to the Big 12, I'm for that now.

"these bottom feeder Pac 12 teams" would beat most of the real "bottom feeder" teams of the ACC and they would be capable of beating Clemson on their good days. I'm sure every team in the ACC also has Clemson circled on the calendar. Its just that those other ACC teams are like the colorado and ASU of the PAC 12 while Clemson has maintained a CFP level of play, except this year.

I'm glad you are willing to have a debate. You are right although Oregon was manhandling Washington and Oregon St for most of the game, so it felt like an upset, but they were top 25 teams and I do keep forgetting that. I just feel like Oregon St is very high risk and low reward. If Oregon won that game nobody would have given them credit for beating a ranked team.

I do agree with the title of this thread.
The best stat I saw this year, was that no team has finished undefeated since the Pac10 became the Pac12.
I think that is the best proof Oregon should leave the Pac.

shoparound wrote:I do agree with the title of this thread.
The best stat I saw this year, was that no team has finished undefeated since the Pac10 became the Pac12.
I think that is the best proof Oregon should leave the Pac.

Makes sense, between the 9 conference games and PAC-12 refs and their love to see a big upset. Makes you wonder why other conferences haven’t followed the SEC’s example and only do an 8 game conference schedule.

A lot of good points but at the end of the day Money will be the reason they leave
or the reason they stay.

The eight versus nine game conference slate is such an egregious unfairness. I don’t understand how it’s not a major discussion every season. Our conference has six in the top 17, and if we had an eight game conference scheduled with an extra cupcake like the SEC, every single one of those teams would have an extra win and one less loss.

Which would drastically change the rankings and the perception of this year‘s Pac 12 teams.

dthomas=ddixon wrote:The eight versus nine game conference slate is such an egregious unfairness. I don’t understand how it’s not a major discussion every season. Our conference has six in the top 17, and if we had an eight game conference scheduled with an extra cupcake like the SEC, every single one of those teams would have an extra win and one less loss.

Which would drastically change the rankings and the perception of this year‘s Pac 12 teams.

Not to mention the SEC schedules that extra cupcake game in the late third of the season. It's essentially giving their teams an extra by week late in the season, when teams need time to rest and heal up the most.

Aside from the Pac 12, I don't see why other conferences don't copy this adventurous scheduling when negotiating new media contracts.

I also do feel Oregon should leave the PAC, if it can't become the Clemson of the PAC. We'll see how recruiting goes this cycle...