If one of the goals going forward of the Pac-10 is to get every game on television (I believe I heard Larry Scott say something to that effect), then I'm all for the Beavs not playing USC very often. We'd still get an equal share of the TV revenue from them beating up Stanford and Cal. Seems like a win-win for the Beavs.

I'm not sure I get how this is such a bad thing for Oregon and Washington schools. It seems to me that by reducing the amount of games they will play against SC and UCLA, two schools that have historically been good in football, this would allow for an easier path to the Pac-10 championship game, as Stanford and Cal will be guaranteed games with those two schools every year, in effect giving a competitive advantage on the field to the NW schools. Part of the draw of playing the LA schools was the TV $$$$, but if the money is split equally, OSU and Washington State will benefit from a nationally televised Stanford/USC matchup just the same as if they were playing in it. The only drawback would be in the perceived recruiting disadvantage of not playing in LA, but you know what helps recruiting more than location? Winning. Ask Boise State.

Way to dream big, but unless you can figure out a way for a 3-3 team to "lose" two losses, the best we could possibly be going into the Stanford game is 7-3 (6-1 in conference). Also, the last four years under Riley the Beavs have a better win percentage than the four years under Erickson. If you want to debate if one phenomenal year is better than eight or nine good years, that's a legitimate debate....but to say that the Beavs are a "mediocre" team suggests they should be ranked around 60th in the country every year, when in reality, we're one of the top 30 year in and year out.

Couldn't agree less. Riley's been here for the better part of a decade, during which time he has a proven track record of success both on and off the field. For lack of a better phrase, "he is who we thought he was." I could see if this was one or two seasons of success early in his tenure, but we're talking about a team that is consistently competitive. That competitiveness is all we as fans can ask for. Giving Coach Robinson an extension may have been a bit premature, and if you want to go that way with your anger, feel free.

He does understand the deal at OSU, and he has been great for the school. However, recent comments he made seem to have the tone of someone who's frustrated with "the deal" and might be ready for a new challenge. Perhaps someone fresh to OSU would be able to pump a little juice into those 4,000 fans that can't seem to get to Reser six Saturdays a year.

Can we please stop with the criticizing the starting quarterback? Going on 10 years straight the backup quarterback has been the best option in the minds of the fan. When Smith was the quarterback, everyone wanted the "prototypical" Shane House. I don't think he ever got on the field, and Smith left as the best passer in school history. Then Derek Anderson got a shot, and immediately everyone wanted the "more polished" Gunderson. DA's playing on Sundays, Gunderson is carrying a clipboard and wearing khakis. (Those that can't, teach.) Matt Moore comes in, and everyone wants Canfield. Matt Moore leads us to one of more dramatic bowl wins in recent history. I feel bad for Moevao and Canfield, because no matter who's under center, people want the other guy. Now someone says we need to go to the "more poised" Ryan Katz? A freshman who's played one quarter against an FCS team? He's more poised than a fifth year senior? What planet are we on?

Trust the coaches.....have they lead you wrong in the last decade?