SB Nation User Blog: gribbit1

Dear Coach Bellotti,

gribbit1 — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 04:36:43 -0000

I would just like to say that no matter which quarterback starts next week, I hope you were taking notes as OSU knocked off USC. While I would prefer Darron Thomas, I'll take anyone who helps us win, even if it's short-passing Justin Roper.

It looked to me, though, like JJ and LB could do a damn good job running between the tackles. If you need a smaller guy, Remene Alston fits the bill. Apparently USC can't tackle short people.

Thanks,

Kevin

frustrated and encouraged

gribbit1 — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 22:58:16 -0000

well, that was a poor showing.

I had the opportunity to view my first CSN game today, as my beaver friends who have Comcast were out of town, and and allowed me to use their 16-foot projection screen.

I did not need to see this one in life-size HD.

The first reason we lost was because of a cheap, illegal, dangerous hit by the Boise State safety against Masoli. But it didn't end there.

The second reason we lost was because after Masoli went down, Chip Kelly and/or Mike Bellotti were every bit as stubborn running the ball as Andy Ludwig was in calling the bubble screen. It's clear that Harper has a long way to go to be a real QB. He's a running back in a direct snap formation right now. What surprised me was we never saw a conventional option from Harper. I can only guess that he hasn't been doing well with the lateral option play in practice. And speaking of bubble screens, they're the only pass play Harper should run for a while.

I was about to turn off the tv and leave when I heard Giansante say Thomas was on the field. "Well, let's see what he can do" I thought, and sat back down on the couch.

What he can do is a pretty damn good impression of Dennis Dixon. I can't remember who has the signature "d thomas=d dixon" but dude, you've got it right.

Thomas will make mistakes. He's going to throw a bunch of interceptions once defensive coordinators learn his tendencies. We ran pretty much the same play for him every down, too, and that won't work against pac 10 DBs, but if he can make an option pitch or a read-option mesh reasonably well, we're in pretty good shape.

But hey, he's a freshman. Don't get too comfortable. I see interceptions and fumbles in his future, and missed reads, some ill-advised sacks. But you know what? He looked better running this offense than Masoli, Harper, and Roper put together. Chip Kelly has proven that he can instill confidence, so I'm not worried that he'll let mistakes go to his head.

Thomas for QB. We'll lose some games, but we'll lose playing OREGON FOOTBALL again. At least, the kind that we played last year. Wouldn't that be awesome?

UO, Comcast SportsNet, and You. (Caution: long post ahead!)

gribbit1 — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 18:41:22 -0000

I've seen very little interpretation out there on the intertubz regarding the carriage issues of Comcast and OSN's agreement, so I thought I would offer mine.

A little background, first: I am a media professional with extensive experience planning advertising campaigns for several regional advertisers in the Northwest. I can virtually guarantee that if you live in Western Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, or Northern California, you've seen ads that I have helped to create and/or purchase. I keep close tabs on the media, especially television, as it's my job to know what is going on in the industry. I'm no expert, and I offer no inside information, but I consider myself an informed observer. If anyone out there knows the facts better than I do, PLEASE feel free to correct me in the comments. I'll endeavor to correct the original post to maintain its validity.

Most of what we know regarding the status of Comcast/IMG/OSN/Dish/Charter/DirecTV/etc. comes to us from goducks.com press releases or Joe Giansante's blog post with DSN here. There is not much to go on.

The root of this came when UO/OSN signed a pact with IMG a while back to be the promoter of the Oregon Athletics brand in just about all facets. After looking at the details of the deal when it occurred, I believe it's probably a good deal, business-wise for the athletics department, especially with the financial committments they have for basketball and baseball venues. If they didn't sign a deal like this, we never could have brought back baseball, and Uncle Phil never would have put down so much money for the hoops arena.

However, when UO signed their deal, they knew there would be problems and setbacks, too, and we're dealing with one of them here: The fact that UO shunned a longtime TV partner for a big, corporate entity that is a huge part of the sports marketing industry. The money for UO Athletics is better, no doubt. However, by changing the framework of the marketing arrangement, UO essentially shoved Chambers out of the picture, and I believe they knew this long before they signed the deal.

OSN/IMG will tell you that Chambers backed out at the last minute and it's all their fault, but that eventuality was a foregone conclusion the minute the IMG contract was signed. IMG changed the game, and Chambers simply would not be able to live up to new contract conditions that would cause them to lose significant amounts of money if they aired the Ducks.

UO/OSN knew this sort of thing could happen. If they didn't, then Pat Kilkenny and Joe Giansante were certainly not doing their jobs when negotiating the IMG deal. Mr. Giansante, especially, should have known that Chambers needed significant revenue from advertising to support the rights fee they paid the Ducks in previous years. After all, he worked for KEZI for years prior to becoming a UO employee.

So that's how we got into this situation. What's keeping it from being resolved?

When Chambers backed out, the UO Athletics department scrambled for a new vendor for programming. UO has always had a terrible relationship with Fox Sports Northwest, so that option was out immediately. I can't really say I blame them, given their coverage of any team from Oregon sucks. There are no statewide networks of broadcast stations to turn to, as Chambers was the only Oregon-based channel owner. Fisher Broadcasting owns KATU and KVAL, but they're based in Seattle and are in serious financial trouble as a company

Comcast SportsNet was the obvious choice, and here's why: they have the money. Comcast is a huge corporation based in Philadelphia, and they own most of the metropolitan cable systems in the United States, with the exception of the biggest markets, like New York and LA. They have more subscribers than any other cable company.

Comcast has multiple revenue streams, and this helps them greatly. They are able to sell cable subscriptions to people in their coverage areas, and they are able to sell local and quasi-national advertising to businesses who want to advertise on the cable networks.

Years ago, they got another idea: why not control the content as well? As the industry is set up, a cable company pays, say $3.26 per subscriber, per month to a third-party network like ESPN for rights to carry the network. This is where much of our cable/sattelite bills go-- straight to the networks. Comcast decided to do an end-run around the Fox Sports, YES Networks, and Raycom Sports of the world and start creating its own for-profit sports networks. Not only would they get the content without rights fees and own all of the advertising inventory, but they could SELL THE CONTENT TO OTHER PROGRAMMING PROVIDERS for yet another revenue stream.

This has worked well. Comcast continues to expand its sports presence, and now has ten different networks across the country. Their typical MO is to become the official carrier of several local sports teams, and muscle the other content providers into carrying them because of the public outcry from disgruntled fans.

And this is where we lose. Comcast is actively trying to get carriage on Charter, Dish, DirecTV, and all the others, just as OSN/IMG/CSN say. But they want to get carriage at THEIR PRICE. I don't know what they're charging, but it's too much at this point in time for any of the other providers to pay. They have to consider thier own costs, too. Do they drop another network to make room in the budget? Do they raise rates in order to pay the rights fee? They're negotiating. CSN wants as much money as possible, and your provider wants to bring you content for the lowest price possible.

That's why UO wants us to call our providers and tell them we want Comcast SportsNet. Well, it's not our responsibility. We're the victims here, in a game where IMG and Comcast are making all the money.

Bottom line for me: I can't watch my team play. It's frustrating and the situation is incredibly opaque. I think Oregon fans are the losers here, at least in the short term. UO and IMG have shown a pretty healthy disregard for the short-term well being of the fan base, mortgaging it for long-term profits. It may all work out, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. I would love to see some healthy communication from all parties, especially the UO Athletic Department, but we all know how much info the UO likes to give to the public.

Mostly, I resent being a pawn for all these big businesses.

Tupou's suspension

gribbit1 — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 04:23:28 -0000

So WTF's up with the NCAA suspending Tupou for accepting money from an agent?

These laws are terrible! if the link is to be believed, he should be getting an medal for his efforts to return the money and to self-report. If they're going to permit athletes to have contact with agents, the NCAA should be prepared for the eventuality that they will likely try to "force" benefits upon a potential client.

So Tupou tries to give the money back, and then probably comes in to the Assistant AD's office in a panic, saying that he didn't mean to, that he doesn't want the money, just get rid of it so it doesn't cause trouble. What do they do? Suspend him for the opener. Shows a lot of understanding on the NCAA's part.

But what am I complaining about? We've always known the NCAA is totally exploitative, tyrannical, and bureaucratic. I guess it's just another lost cause.

Who needs an option?

gribbit1 — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 05:05:46 -0000

I just don't get the people out there who are freaking out about the potential loss of Costa as the starting QB. Everybody seems to think that a "spread offense" automatically means the "spread option." Well, at Florida, West Virginia, and now Michigan, that is what it means. What people seem to miss is that there are many versions of the spread, and not all of them involve read-option plays.

6th-ranked Missouri is probably the best illustration of an excellent spread team that doesn't need a particularly mobile quarterback. They come out in 4 wide receiver sets and pick you apart while using a few more passes than UO might have done last year, but they seem to be pretty effective at it.

For those of you who are skeptical that Chip Kelly's offense will work without an incredibly mobile QB, look to Ricky Santos, his award-winning signal-caller from New Hampshire just before he came to Oregon. Much like Roper, he was semi-mobile, with good pocket awareness. Roper won't be running downfield too often, but I don't see that as being a big problem for this team. Roper will deliver crisper passes, be able to escape the pocket on occasion, and make more plays with his arm than Costa could.

I'll still miss seeing Dennis smoke opposing defenses though. If only Bellotti hadn't wasted his redshirt year.

Beavers: quit yer bitchin'

gribbit1 — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 02:33:19 -0000

I would just like to take a moment to thank Ted Miller for his honest, thoughtful, and most importantly, educated look at the Ducks-Beavers rivalry.

As a Duck, I've never really understood the hatred our Beaver brethren reserve for us. I mean, sure, Oregon is well-promoted, flashy, and image-conscious, but as Beaver fans are quick to point out, the programs are roughly equal in standing over the last couple decades.

I think most Ducks' attitude toward the Beavers is grudging respect, though we still like to call them our "little brothers" just to send them into a tizzy (if you can get a reaction like that out of someone, why not?). You hear a Duck say "I root for the Beavs when they're not playing the Ducks" but you never hear a Beaver say the opposite. I've also never heard a Duck assert that Civil War is "for the right to live in the state" like it's something that has bearing outside football. My most recent favorite is "yeah, but ours is HD." Think about whether you've ever met a fellow Duck who really, really hates the Beavers like they hate us.

The programs are different, sure. Both teams have come up from virtually nothing in the last two decades, but they have done it in entirely different manners. Bellotti has recruited, advertised, and upgraded, and Riley has coached, coached, coached. They have completely different styles, and of course, completely different means. But if the Resers owned, say, Taco Bell, and Phil Knight owned L.A. Gear, I bet we would be in the opposite situations and the Beavs would be more than willing to take the money.

So the Ducks have money. We have glitz, glamour, and national media attention. Guess what? That's how college sports work these days. To get ahead, you have to advertise. Sometimes, you do it with Times Square billboards and getting on the YES network for East Coast exposure-or even by spending on high-liter uniforms and world-class facilities to attract better athletes. Maybe that's not what the residents of Corvallis like, but it has worked. The Ducks have the attention of the nation, whether OSU thinks we deserve it or not.

Meanwhile, the Beavers, though proud of their "workmanlike" tradition, low profile, and ability to do lots with a little are pretty clearly jealous of all those fancy things they supposedly revile. They would be better served just ignoring our pompous, crass, self-indulgent style and focus on their own success.

Of course if they continue to be solid, workmanlike, and "coach up" all of their unheralded recruits, they're always going to be labeled as over-achieving, bland, and not very good in the preseason polls. That's how things work. These days, you're not just recognized for your record, your bowl performance, or your ability to make something out of nothing. You're also recognized by the amount of attention you can command.

That's the fundamental difference between the programs: They are roughly equal in record, but the Ducks get the media's attention with all the crazy stuff we do. So Beavers, quit hating us for grabbing attention when we can. It makes business sense, and that is why even though Mike Belotti is the state's highest-paid employee, you don't pay a dime of it. We Ducks DO pay Mike Riley's though, and every other Beaver Athletic department employee, because the Beavs don't turn a profit.

We like you, we really do. It's just that we have a grasp on the sports-as-business model that prevails today. If you don't like that, take it up with the NCAA, not the Ducks.

Meanwhile, we'll keep hating the Fuskies, because we actually have reasons to do so.

So I got bored at work...

gribbit1 — Thu, 08 May 2008 21:10:12 -0000

...and ended up writing a treatise.

So I see all the debate "raging" round Phil Knight's donations and so-called ownership of the Ducks athletic program. We're Nike U. The football team is soft because of the amenities in the locker room. We're shallow and money grubbing and making backroom deals for a new arena, all because of Phil.

The Oregonian certainly came down on one side of it this week by rehashing a ton of facts that we've already read and putting them in to one body of work. It could have been a "special section" expose' like the Seattle Times piece on Husky football players if it had been new material; Instead, it was a summary of pieces you can already find in their archives.

Still, the facts remain: Phil Knight has his hands all over Oregon athletics. That's true. My main problem has to do with the accusatory tone taken by the pieces and all the other detractors out there.

Here's what I don't get about it: this really shouldn't be a public debate. We all know that the athletic department is self sustaining. It may be part of a public system that is supposedly government-run (even though the government only provides maybe 10% of funds for the Oregon University System) but the fact that it's self-financed essentially makes it a private entity.

To my knowledge, none of the Oregon Athletic Department's big building projects are taxpayer-funded, even the arena. Correct me in the comments if I'm wrong. (For clarification to all you angry Beaver fans, the arena bonds are state-backed, not state-funded; the bonds will be sold to other entities as investments, with the state only on the hook if the University with its nice, secure $100 million legacy fund were to default on the debt. I'm sure the state would help you out too if you had a $100 million slush fund.) All the Oregon projects are privately funded by donations, advertising, media deals, and ticket sales. The fact that they're "public" boils down to semantics.

I look at the Ducks athletic department as a business. It's run that way, certainly. Look who we brought in to succeed Moos as AD--probably the second-most successful businessman to come out of UO, next to Uncle Phil. All these people who slander college athletics for becoming too much of a money machine and then criticize boosters for having their hands in the program just can't have it both ways. I embrace the money machine, and maybe that's where I differ from all those who hate on the Ducks. Still, the genie came out of the bottle a long time ago---it's time for them to grow up and admit that college athletics is run as a business now, and not an academic venture as it was early last century.

So, to get back to Phil, what's the big deal here? He helps fund what is essentially (but not literally, due to politics) a private entity that is associated with the University of Oregon. How is this bad? I'd say it's more of a crime that the government tries to call Knight's/Kilkenny's organization a public entity, despite the fact that they take no public funds.

Here's more of a crime: all the public universities out there who support their athletics with their general funds, which are partly comprised of taxpayer dollars (albeit that paltry 10% mentioned earlier). If they can't run their sports and entertainment organizations properly, we shouldn't be paying for them, right?

yay... my first diary

gribbit1 — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 04:03:36 -0000

because the wife was out of town and I had nothing better to do, I decided to watch the McDonald's All-American game tonight with an eye trained on Dunigan to see what we've got for next year.

First off, it was a typical bunch of 18-year-olds playing an exhibition game, so I don't put much stock into it, but...

Dunigan looked pretty good, considering the circumstances. The main problem was he never got a chance to play his game of posting up and overpowering a man down low. This was definitely a guards' game from start to finish. The big men all around were left to rebound and block shots. There was a distinct lack of effort, but I think that's a direct result of him playing in a meaningless exhibition game.

I noticed two things though:

One, he altered or blocked plenty of shots. I think he'll get credit for two blocks this game, but for what it's worth, he was a defensive presence in a game with no defense.

Second, he has some power in his legs. this guy is going to have great post up moves, especially if he learns anything from Joevan Catron with all his fakes and passing skills.

I'm really interested in how Ernie and the assistants are going to coach him next year. They have NEVER had anyone like Dunigan in the Kent era. The closest player I can think of is Robert Johnson, but Dunigan clearly has more scoring potential than Johnson ever had.

If he can play a little like Kevin Love on the defensive end, forcing bad shots, getting blocks and defensive rebounds, he's going to be a great asset for the transition game and players like TP and Longmire. Outlet passing will be key to his game.

Anybody else watch? what do you think?