en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/622878 Comments by Konce http://cliffkirkpatrick.mvourtown.com/2010/11/05/cliff-pac-12-schedule/#IDComment108281933 I realize that, but I don't understand why it's beneficial. Big whipdydip. Help me out here. Ryan Katz's first, and now thus ONLY game against USC is this year, his first year as a starter. I think it's unfortunate that some guys will only get one shot during their careers at the historic (esp. recently) big dog in the conference. Sat, 6 Nov 2010 22:38:27 +0000 http://cliffkirkpatrick.mvourtown.com/2010/11/05/cliff-pac-12-schedule/#IDComment108281933 http://cliffkirkpatrick.mvourtown.com/2010/09/02/cliff-quizz-video-more/#IDComment96778304 What gives, Angry, you say earlier that opinion can't be right or wrong, then state later that you're right 90% of the time. So, following your logic that opinion is neither right nor wrong, since you're right only 90% of the time, you're wrong more than you are right. Perhaps this is why there are some credibility issues. Fri, 3 Sep 2010 16:49:46 +0000 http://cliffkirkpatrick.mvourtown.com/2010/09/02/cliff-quizz-video-more/#IDComment96778304 http://cliffkirkpatrick.mvourtown.com/2010/09/02/cliff-quizz-video-more/#IDComment96656955 I can see that, Corvbeav, good point. Thu, 2 Sep 2010 21:48:07 +0000 http://cliffkirkpatrick.mvourtown.com/2010/09/02/cliff-quizz-video-more/#IDComment96656955 http://cliffkirkpatrick.mvourtown.com/2010/09/02/cliff-quizz-video-more/#IDComment96639854 I said it before, and I'll say it again. Who was the healthy talent pushing Philipp last year? If McAndrews would have been healthy last year, Philipp would have most likely red shirted. Simply because McAndrews is now healthy and Philipp has been hurt, doesn't mean that the coaches have lost their mind. And it's not like McAndrews has come out of nowhere...people have been high on him for awhile now, he's just been too hurt to play in previous seasons. Could it be possible that the Beaver's are actually have some depth at the position? Naw, it's too easy and too much fun to bash the coaches. Last year, as I recall, a certain poster was bashing Riley for having no depth at the position and thus being forced to start a true freshman. Now Riley's being bashed for having enough depth to put that true sophomore on the second string to start the season since he's missed a lot of time and a guy that's had talent all the while is finally healthy enough to play and has practiced all spring and fall. Maybe we should all calm down a little and at least let one game be played. Thu, 2 Sep 2010 19:36:59 +0000 http://cliffkirkpatrick.mvourtown.com/2010/09/02/cliff-quizz-video-more/#IDComment96639854 http://cliffkirkpatrick.mvourtown.com/2010/08/31/cliff-tcu-media-prep/#IDComment96247295 In regards to the left tackle spot, it may be helpful to remember that Philipp was not pressed last year by someone with a healthy body. If McAndrews would have been healthy last year, Philipp would have most likely red-shirted. Simply because McAndrews is now healthy and Philipp has been hurt doesn't mean that the coaches have lost their mind. Wed, 1 Sep 2010 00:24:09 +0000 http://cliffkirkpatrick.mvourtown.com/2010/08/31/cliff-tcu-media-prep/#IDComment96247295 http://brookshatch.mvourtown.com/2010/08/26/brooks-hatch-thursday-update-826/#IDComment96105362 So, losing a couple million dollars per year to equal revenue sharing is worth it knowing that USC and UCLA aren't making more. Nice. Sure it was cherry-picked, but at least it was the most relevant information available. The current revenue sharing does NOT state that OSU and every other non-LA school cannot make more than $2 of every $3 that USC gets. That's just what it's averaged out. OSU can do better, Bobby D. worked hard, and they did better recently. OSU is in a much better position for the beginning of the next contract than they were at the beginning of this one. That's what I was trying to demonstrate with the "cherry-picked" numbers. But hey, if OSU can lose a couple million/year to guarantee that USC doesn't get more...more power to 'em! (Believe it or not, I'm not necessarily against equal revenue sharing; playing devil's advocate a little here...I just don't think people realize that OSU received more money from the conference last year than, *gasp* UCLA. Listening to people talk, you would have thought there was a conference mandate stating that no LA school could receive lower than 2nd most. The Oregon schools finished 2-3, by the way.) Okay forget the money for a bit. I still have not heard an explanation why exposure in the LA market that's cut in half is negligible at worst as far as recruiting goes. Tue, 31 Aug 2010 06:05:40 +0000 http://brookshatch.mvourtown.com/2010/08/26/brooks-hatch-thursday-update-826/#IDComment96105362 http://brookshatch.mvourtown.com/2010/08/26/brooks-hatch-thursday-update-826/#IDComment95788396 I can't speak for the life of the contract, but what's happening at the end of the contract is more telling for the next one than what happened in the first few years. OSU has evidently successfully raised their profile in the latter stages of the current contract...to the tune of receiving the third most money from the conference in '08-'09. (USC and UO ahead of them). If revenue would have been distributed evenly, OSU would have received $1.3 million LESS. Yes, they would have taken a hit under equal revenue sharing. (About $8.6 mil vs. the $9.9 they reportedly got.) They actually received 86% of what USC did, last fiscal year, not 67%. Now over the life of the contract, I have no reason to doubt that 67%, I'm just saying the latest numbers should be more telling than the earliest numbers. Bobby D. did a good job getting OSU on TV recently and it payed off when it came time for the conference payouts. Granted, the previous fiscal year wasn't so good (8th), but I don't think many people realize that the Beavers have finished in the top 3 money-wise in the conference ANY year. Again, I realize it's not the life of the contract, but still, it is possible. If Bobby D. feels he can't maintain that level of TV appearances, ya, he should shoot for equal sharing, but if he COULD maintain that level, equal sharing would hit the Beavs in the pocketbook...not sure many people realize that. Okay, done with the money...but that wasn't my point originally. Evidently from what you've posted, OSU can't have both a good conference alignment and good revenue sharing, they must pick one so they're picking the revenue. Can't fault them there, I guess, but I hadn't realized those two items were mutually exclusive. For me, not playing in LA every single year is big based solely on the recruiting aspect (add TV revenue if it's not equal...and I'm not as convinced equality will happen as some other are). I've never been to a game in LA, don't have plans to go to a game in LA, so that part of it means nothing to me. California, especially Southern California is not only the primary recruiting base for OSU, but nearly every other team in the conference as well. And having those trips cut in half (at best, more like 60%...I would postulate that over a ten year period OSU would most likely play less than 5 games in LA) would not be as harmless as some would have us believe. I don't believe revenue sharing would be on the forefront of recruits' minds when considering a school to go to. "Hmm, OSU receives as much money as anybody else, I guess I'll go to OSU." Maybe I'm all wet, but I don't see that happening. "I'll only play down here by friends and family half the time, but hey, OSU gets the same amount of money from the conference, I guess that makes up for it, I'll go there." Half the exposure from media in the area would hurt as well... But of course, all of this is unquantifiable, so we could go round and round endlessly. And no, I don't think I'd make a good AD...or coach. Obviously, I'm not even a very good booster! Thanks for the space. ~Konce Sun, 29 Aug 2010 07:46:56 +0000 http://brookshatch.mvourtown.com/2010/08/26/brooks-hatch-thursday-update-826/#IDComment95788396 http://brookshatch.mvourtown.com/2010/08/26/brooks-hatch-thursday-update-826/#IDComment95634295 I didn't mention money...but since you brought it up...how much more money would have OSU received from the conference in fiscal year '08-'09 (most recent numbers that I know of) if it would have been distributed equally amongst all members? Sat, 28 Aug 2010 05:28:22 +0000 http://brookshatch.mvourtown.com/2010/08/26/brooks-hatch-thursday-update-826/#IDComment95634295 http://brookshatch.mvourtown.com/2010/08/26/brooks-hatch-thursday-update-826/#IDComment95596854 Visits to LA cut in half...no big deal. Sorry, not buying it. Fri, 27 Aug 2010 23:22:43 +0000 http://brookshatch.mvourtown.com/2010/08/26/brooks-hatch-thursday-update-826/#IDComment95596854 http://cliffkirkpatrick.mvourtown.com/2010/08/11/cliff-early-day-3-notes/#IDComment92330281 Time to get over McCants. Wed, 11 Aug 2010 20:46:52 +0000 http://cliffkirkpatrick.mvourtown.com/2010/08/11/cliff-early-day-3-notes/#IDComment92330281 http://cliffkirkpatrick.mvourtown.com/2010/07/27/cliff-pac-10-goings-on/#IDComment89638970 Agree with angry. Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:14:43 +0000 http://cliffkirkpatrick.mvourtown.com/2010/07/27/cliff-pac-10-goings-on/#IDComment89638970 http://brookshatch.mvourtown.com/2010/06/15/brooks-hatch-tuesday-614-update/#IDComment80590133 If it maintained conference membership, yes. I was not aware that OS had been delivered an ultimatum on conference membership. Thu, 17 Jun 2010 15:36:25 +0000 http://brookshatch.mvourtown.com/2010/06/15/brooks-hatch-tuesday-614-update/#IDComment80590133 http://brookshatch.mvourtown.com/2010/06/15/brooks-hatch-tuesday-614-update/#IDComment80501683 Fair enough, Brooks, but the concessions were to illustrate my point about the "fairness" of conference administration, not about whether it was worth it or not. By saying that the concessions by the Little 5 of the Big 12 were worth it, you're also saying that a North/South split would be worth it for the Beavers...even if you don't think it'll be split that way. Even if it is East/West, where's the guaranteed presence in LA every year (in football)...in a game in Corvallis with that school? (Unless OS plays the LA school on the road every year.) Better than nothing, but not quite the same. I'm not saying expansion is bad for the conference, but I still believe it's bad for the Beavers. With 10 teams there are 850 scholarship players...and OSU is consistently competing for the bottom 1/3 of those players, and quite often, competing with MWC teams for those players. Expanding the scholarship players to 1,020 (post USC sanctions) does not help OS in that regard. They were already losing players to Utah...I'd be hard pressed to see that getting any better.. Expansion will probably not be much of a problem for the top money teams in the league, but I suggest that it will be for the bottom money teams in the league. I don't have the numbers, but I'm guessing the Beavers are in the latter category. Utah & CU have to bring in 20% more to the table to be split 12 ways to even come up even with the current 10. CU isn't exactly a golden egg and, in fact, the conference has agreed to finance them in relation to joining the conference. (Whatever that means...besides CU needs money.) Who in the Big 12 was really sad to see them go? The Denver market isn't all it's made out to be. I'm not the first to point out that Denver isn't a college sports town, it's a professional sports town. Maybe the TV guys don't care about that, I don't know. If they don't, and the Pac 10 "owns" all these markets by virtue of having a team located there, doesn't the WAC and other lesser conferences own several of them as well? (SJSU comes to mind). The next TV deal will be better, but, personally, I think Larry Scott could have brokered a pretty good deal with the TV guys without adding CU and Utah. The current expansion, I believe, is much better for the two news teams than it is for the conference and may have a negative effect on the have-nots. (How many conference titles have Iowa State and Baylor been in the running for past mid-season in the last 14 years?) All this being said, if OS plays in the conference championship game three of the first four years and wins twice...all is well, of course. However, I don't see that happening or the current expansion being good for OS long-term, competition-wise. Giving up playing in the primary recruiting area (SoCal) of nearly every, if not every, conference team every year (as OS currently does), is not a good thing for OS football, no matter how one slices it. I'm not talking about playing a team FROM SoCal, I'm talking about playing IN SoCal. There is a difference. I still don't see how a divisional split would guarantee that OS would play football in SoCal every year. Every other, yes, but that's only half as much. We don't need to go back to the days when OS missed USC three or four years straight. Wed, 16 Jun 2010 23:48:44 +0000 http://brookshatch.mvourtown.com/2010/06/15/brooks-hatch-tuesday-614-update/#IDComment80501683 http://brookshatch.mvourtown.com/2010/06/15/brooks-hatch-tuesday-614-update/#IDComment80327759 "If the divisions are split up correctly..." That's an awfully big if, isn't it? What if they're not? Pac 10 North would soon enough be relegated to the old Pac 10 North in baseball. (Okay, not quite that bad, but bad enough.) I would be more surprised if it ends up East/West divisions than North/South. No, it wouldn't be fair, but when's the last time a conference cared? Look no further than the ridiculous concessions the rest of the old Big 12 made to "keep" Texas. As an OS fan, I don't like the expansion...too much risk relative to the supposed reward. Tue, 15 Jun 2010 23:40:37 +0000 http://brookshatch.mvourtown.com/2010/06/15/brooks-hatch-tuesday-614-update/#IDComment80327759 http://cliffkirkpatrick.mvourtown.com/2010/06/15/cliff-pac-16-bust/#IDComment80291707 I have been against Pac-10 expansion from the beginning, primarily because it most likely leads to North/South Division...and, as stated, that's bad for the Beavers. The 1 in 6 chance of playing in a Championship game does not, in my mind, overcome the detriment of not playing in the L.A. market every year (the very market that every team in the Pac-10 recruits the hardest). Also, gaining the Denver (for sure) market and the Utah (yet to be announced) is a little overrated. It's an addition, to be sure, but not such a big one as some would have you believe. Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:06:38 +0000 http://cliffkirkpatrick.mvourtown.com/2010/06/15/cliff-pac-16-bust/#IDComment80291707 http://stevelundeberg.mvourtown.com/2010/06/09/lundy-got-a-dime/#IDComment79321082 I was just thinking about the lack of payphones the other day. I have used one in the past year, however. The campground at Trail Bridge Reservoir doesn't come anywhere near cell phone service...but they do have a phone booth by the power station. I think it's closer to a dollar to make a call these days. Wed, 9 Jun 2010 16:44:56 +0000 http://stevelundeberg.mvourtown.com/2010/06/09/lundy-got-a-dime/#IDComment79321082 http://stevelundeberg.mvourtown.com/2010/03/27/lundy-nudity-for-a-price/#IDComment65031810 No. Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:17:42 +0000 http://stevelundeberg.mvourtown.com/2010/03/27/lundy-nudity-for-a-price/#IDComment65031810 http://stevelundeberg.mvourtown.com/2010/03/26/lundy-throw-in-the-towel/#IDComment64218945 Yes, you should get a new one every time...if you're not in the habit of getting clean whilst showering! If, however, one purposefully cleanses themselves while showering, double-digit uses would be the prudential use of the towel as the laundering process is actually harder on towels than drying one's body. Personally, one towel per week sounds about right to me. Two weeks, especially in winter, is inviting a little mold an mildew. (Unless, of course, you hang your towel in an exceptionally warm and dry area.) ~Konce Fri, 26 Mar 2010 16:54:49 +0000 http://stevelundeberg.mvourtown.com/2010/03/26/lundy-throw-in-the-towel/#IDComment64218945 http://cliffkirkpatrick.mvourtown.com/2009/10/02/cliff-osu-football-notes-3/#IDComment36868501 Uh, Angry, it's not for lack of recruiting better athletes...it's getting those athletes to commit. If you had said, "Land better athletes..." that would be another thing. They are recruiting plenty good athletes, most of them just don't go to OS. By the way, OS has gotten several "4 star" guys the last few years. Let me know what percentage of those guys has had an impact, much less even stepped foot on the football field for Oregon State. (Hint, it's not high). ~Konce Fri, 2 Oct 2009 17:26:30 +0000 http://cliffkirkpatrick.mvourtown.com/2009/10/02/cliff-osu-football-notes-3/#IDComment36868501 http://cliffkirkpatrick.mvourtown.com/2009/08/31/deeper-prediction/#IDComment32716322 Ah, Cliff, you just pick/hope the Beavers go to Vegas every year...I could have predicted your prediction! ;-) Seriously though, I can't find fault with it, 7-5 is a very reasonable prediction. ~Konce Mon, 31 Aug 2009 22:07:54 +0000 http://cliffkirkpatrick.mvourtown.com/2009/08/31/deeper-prediction/#IDComment32716322