I just listened. I think that QB regression at UW is linked to competition. Picket and Price both worked harder than ever in the off-season to win the job initially. After the job was theirs who pushed them? Paus? Montana? Great first years and then diminishing returns. Locker never had to earn the job. It was always his. He then never had to fight to keep it. Browning? Give me a break. Smith struck out on every prospect he went after during JBs four years. No one pushed Browning. Morris had to fight to win the job and then after he wins it Huard comes in the immediate spring after. That is motivation to work your ass off and improve. Just my two cents.
Good points regional manager.
Assistant to the assistant to the regional manager of can stacking and grocery bagging. I’m kind of a big deal.
I just listened. I think that QB regression at UW is linked to competition. Picket and Price both worked harder than ever in the off-season to win the job initially. After the job was theirs who pushed them? Paus? Montana? Great first years and then diminishing returns. Locker never had to earn the job. It was always his. He then never had to fight to keep it. Browning? Give me a break. Smith struck out on every prospect he went after during JBs four years. No one pushed Browning. Morris had to fight to win the job and then after he wins it Huard comes in the immediate spring after. That is motivation to work your ass off and improve. Just my two cents.
Good points regional manager.
Assistant to the assistant to the regional manager of can stacking and grocery bagging. I’m kind of a big deal.
Apparently you’re ballin enough to afford wam status. @FireCohen cant even afford that.
There's this common halfbrain refrain that Chris Petersen likes undersized, unathletic quarterbacks because he was one. Or something like that. And there's no way Haener could have REALLY been competing with Eason, and the whole quarterback competition was just OKG bullshit. As pointed out, Haener's leading mighty Fresno State, Eason's about to be leading the Colts. Doesn't add up, right?
I think it's possible (I'm not in the guy's head, so who knows) that Petersen wasn't playing games at all. I think we? might be erroneously assuming that what makes a quarterback good in the NFL is also what makes a quarterback successful in Chris Petersen's offense. Petersen thought he could win a game from the sideline, outsmarting the opposite team. Putting a talented guy on the field and hoping for some magic wasn't exactly his thing. There's no point having a quarterback on the field who can knife a ball between two safeties 30 yards downfield to a well-covered receiver when attempting such a throw in practice and it going wrong once in five is going to have the coach yanking him off the field anyway.
It'll be interesting to see what Haener does against the Ducks. I didn't watch Eason face them, but I don't remember reading about him being a world-beater in that game. And I definitely don't remember him lighting the world on fire in any of his starts that I did watch. Meanwhile, Haener's putting up pretty crazy numbers against the weak sisters of the poor. To borrow from Teq, a world exists in which Chris Petersen legitimately thought Haener executed his offense better, and it's as simple as that.
There's this common halfbrain refrain that Chris Petersen likes undersized, unathletic quarterbacks because he was one. Or something like that. And there's no way Haener could have REALLY been competing with Eason, and the whole quarterback competition was just OKG bullshit. As pointed out, Haener's leading mighty Fresno State, Eason's about to be leading the Colts. Doesn't add up, right?
I think it's possible (I'm not in the guy's head, so who knows) that Petersen wasn't playing games at all. I think we? might be erroneously assuming that what makes a quarterback good in the NFL is also what makes a quarterback successful in Chris Petersen's offense. Petersen thought he could win a game from the sideline, outsmarting the opposite team. Putting a talented guy on the field and hoping for some magic wasn't exactly his thing. There's no point having a quarterback on the field who can knife a ball between two safeties 30 yards downfield to a well-covered receiver when attempting such a throw in practice and it going wrong once in five is going to have the coach yanking him off the field anyway.
It'll be interesting to see what Haener does against the Ducks. I didn't watch Eason face them, but I don't remember reading about him being a world-beater in that game. And I definitely don't remember him lighting the world on fire in any of his starts that I did watch. Meanwhile, Haener's putting up pretty crazy numbers against the weak sisters of the poor. To borrow from Teq, a world exists in which Chris Petersen legitimately thought Haener executed his offense better, and it's as simple as that.
I don't think Petersen was playing mindgames or anything in that situation. I think he legit thought Haener may have been better and maybe in some way he was and to me part of that shows how flawed Petersen's offense was. It's also very possible Haener could have been better in 2019 but I'm also not betting on it.
I didn't like Eason in 2019. One of the most-disappointing Huskies I can ever remember given what I think he could have ben. I really wonder what he would have done had he come back in 2020 if there was a real season but we'll never know. I think Eason's game against Oregon in 2019 might have actually been his best as a Husky all things considered and that says a lot about how great I think he was as a Husky given how unremarkable he was in that game.
There's this common halfbrain refrain that Chris Petersen likes undersized, unathletic quarterbacks because he was one. Or something like that. And there's no way Haener could have REALLY been competing with Eason, and the whole quarterback competition was just OKG bullshit. As pointed out, Haener's leading mighty Fresno State, Eason's about to be leading the Colts. Doesn't add up, right?
I think it's possible (I'm not in the guy's head, so who knows) that Petersen wasn't playing games at all. I think we? might be erroneously assuming that what makes a quarterback good in the NFL is also what makes a quarterback successful in Chris Petersen's offense. Petersen thought he could win a game from the sideline, outsmarting the opposite team. Putting a talented guy on the field and hoping for some magic wasn't exactly his thing. There's no point having a quarterback on the field who can knife a ball between two safeties 30 yards downfield to a well-covered receiver when attempting such a throw in practice and it going wrong once in five is going to have the coach yanking him off the field anyway.
It'll be interesting to see what Haener does against the Ducks. I didn't watch Eason face them, but I don't remember reading about him being a world-beater in that game. And I definitely don't remember him lighting the world on fire in any of his starts that I did watch. Meanwhile, Haener's putting up pretty crazy numbers against the weak sisters of the poor. To borrow from Teq, a world exists in which Chris Petersen legitimately thought Haener executed his offense better, and it's as simple as that.
I don't think Petersen was playing mindgames or anything in that situation. I think he legit thought Haener may have been better and maybe in some way he was and to me part of that shows how flawed Petersen's offense was. It's also very possible Haener could have been better in 2019 but I'm also not betting on it.
I didn't like Eason in 2019. One of the most-disappointing Huskies I can ever remember given what I think he could have ben. I really wonder what he would have done had he come back in 2020 if there was a real season but we'll never know. I think Eason's game against Oregon in 2019 might have actually been his best as a Husky all things considered and that says a lot about how great I think he was as a Husky given how unremarkable he was in that game.
Here's my theory but it's not based on anything tangible. I think when Eason came in Petersen thought he was way too cocky, and forcing him into a competition was a way to try to bring about some humility. I also think Haener was good enough that Pete thought it could push Eason into getting better. I'm totally speculating.
There's this common halfbrain refrain that Chris Petersen likes undersized, unathletic quarterbacks because he was one. Or something like that. And there's no way Haener could have REALLY been competing with Eason, and the whole quarterback competition was just OKG bullshit. As pointed out, Haener's leading mighty Fresno State, Eason's about to be leading the Colts. Doesn't add up, right?
I think it's possible (I'm not in the guy's head, so who knows) that Petersen wasn't playing games at all. I think we? might be erroneously assuming that what makes a quarterback good in the NFL is also what makes a quarterback successful in Chris Petersen's offense. Petersen thought he could win a game from the sideline, outsmarting the opposite team. Putting a talented guy on the field and hoping for some magic wasn't exactly his thing. There's no point having a quarterback on the field who can knife a ball between two safeties 30 yards downfield to a well-covered receiver when attempting such a throw in practice and it going wrong once in five is going to have the coach yanking him off the field anyway.
It'll be interesting to see what Haener does against the Ducks. I didn't watch Eason face them, but I don't remember reading about him being a world-beater in that game. And I definitely don't remember him lighting the world on fire in any of his starts that I did watch. Meanwhile, Haener's putting up pretty crazy numbers against the weak sisters of the poor. To borrow from Teq, a world exists in which Chris Petersen legitimately thought Haener executed his offense better, and it's as simple as that.
I don't think Petersen was playing mindgames or anything in that situation. I think he legit thought Haener may have been better and maybe in some way he was and to me part of that shows how flawed Petersen's offense was. It's also very possible Haener could have been better in 2019 but I'm also not betting on it.
I didn't like Eason in 2019. One of the most-disappointing Huskies I can ever remember given what I think he could have ben. I really wonder what he would have done had he come back in 2020 if there was a real season but we'll never know. I think Eason's game against Oregon in 2019 might have actually been his best as a Husky all things considered and that says a lot about how great I think he was as a Husky given how unremarkable he was in that game.
Oregon was Easons best game for sure. He outplayed Herbert. If UW was playing Eddie O in that game they probably squeak out a win.
There's this common halfbrain refrain that Chris Petersen likes undersized, unathletic quarterbacks because he was one. Or something like that. And there's no way Haener could have REALLY been competing with Eason, and the whole quarterback competition was just OKG bullshit. As pointed out, Haener's leading mighty Fresno State, Eason's about to be leading the Colts. Doesn't add up, right?
I think it's possible (I'm not in the guy's head, so who knows) that Petersen wasn't playing games at all. I think we? might be erroneously assuming that what makes a quarterback good in the NFL is also what makes a quarterback successful in Chris Petersen's offense. Petersen thought he could win a game from the sideline, outsmarting the opposite team. Putting a talented guy on the field and hoping for some magic wasn't exactly his thing. There's no point having a quarterback on the field who can knife a ball between two safeties 30 yards downfield to a well-covered receiver when attempting such a throw in practice and it going wrong once in five is going to have the coach yanking him off the field anyway.
It'll be interesting to see what Haener does against the Ducks. I didn't watch Eason face them, but I don't remember reading about him being a world-beater in that game. And I definitely don't remember him lighting the world on fire in any of his starts that I did watch. Meanwhile, Haener's putting up pretty crazy numbers against the weak sisters of the poor. To borrow from Teq, a world exists in which Chris Petersen legitimately thought Haener executed his offense better, and it's as simple as that.
I don't think Petersen was playing mindgames or anything in that situation. I think he legit thought Haener may have been better and maybe in some way he was and to me part of that shows how flawed Petersen's offense was. It's also very possible Haener could have been better in 2019 but I'm also not betting on it.
I didn't like Eason in 2019. One of the most-disappointing Huskies I can ever remember given what I think he could have ben. I really wonder what he would have done had he come back in 2020 if there was a real season but we'll never know. I think Eason's game against Oregon in 2019 might have actually been his best as a Husky all things considered and that says a lot about how great I think he was as a Husky given how unremarkable he was in that game.
Oregon was Easons best game for sure. He outplayed Herbert. If UW was playing Eddie O in that game they probably squeak out a win.
There's this common halfbrain refrain that Chris Petersen likes undersized, unathletic quarterbacks because he was one. Or something like that. And there's no way Haener could have REALLY been competing with Eason, and the whole quarterback competition was just OKG bullshit. As pointed out, Haener's leading mighty Fresno State, Eason's about to be leading the Colts. Doesn't add up, right?
I think it's possible (I'm not in the guy's head, so who knows) that Petersen wasn't playing games at all. I think we? might be erroneously assuming that what makes a quarterback good in the NFL is also what makes a quarterback successful in Chris Petersen's offense. Petersen thought he could win a game from the sideline, outsmarting the opposite team. Putting a talented guy on the field and hoping for some magic wasn't exactly his thing. There's no point having a quarterback on the field who can knife a ball between two safeties 30 yards downfield to a well-covered receiver when attempting such a throw in practice and it going wrong once in five is going to have the coach yanking him off the field anyway.
It'll be interesting to see what Haener does against the Ducks. I didn't watch Eason face them, but I don't remember reading about him being a world-beater in that game. And I definitely don't remember him lighting the world on fire in any of his starts that I did watch. Meanwhile, Haener's putting up pretty crazy numbers against the weak sisters of the poor. To borrow from Teq, a world exists in which Chris Petersen legitimately thought Haener executed his offense better, and it's as simple as that.
I don't think Petersen was playing mindgames or anything in that situation. I think he legit thought Haener may have been better and maybe in some way he was and to me part of that shows how flawed Petersen's offense was. It's also very possible Haener could have been better in 2019 but I'm also not betting on it.
I didn't like Eason in 2019. One of the most-disappointing Huskies I can ever remember given what I think he could have ben. I really wonder what he would have done had he come back in 2020 if there was a real season but we'll never know. I think Eason's game against Oregon in 2019 might have actually been his best as a Husky all things considered and that says a lot about how great I think he was as a Husky given how unremarkable he was in that game.
I wanted to highlight this point just to agree. There was a time when I thought Petersen's offense was brilliant. Multiple tight ends, lots of motions and shifts to give the quarterback a pre-snap read, etc. It's a great way to be efficient with less-than talent. Then, the whole conference seemed to figure it out, and Petersen never adapted to stay ahead. There's a point where you just get good enough to attract the kind of players that can just go out and win a game for you. I'm not sure Petersen could have ever lived in that world, and that's maybe part of what explains 2019. I think you're getting what I was saying, and that's that Haener may have been at least competitive in a Petersen (last generation college) offense, but maybe that's part of the problem with the Huskies' trajectory.
I just listened. I think that QB regression at UW is linked to competition. Picket and Price both worked harder than ever in the off-season to win the job initially. After the job was theirs who pushed them? Paus? Montana? Great first years and then diminishing returns. Locker never had to earn the job. It was always his. He then never had to fight to keep it. Browning? Give me a break. Smith struck out on every prospect he went after during JBs four years. No one pushed Browning. Morris had to fight to win the job and then after he wins it Huard comes in the immediate spring after. That is motivation to work your ass off and improve. Just my two cents.
Good points regional manager.
Assistant to the assistant to the regional manager of can stacking and grocery bagging. I’m kind of a big deal.
Apparently you’re ballin enough to afford wam status. @FireCohen cant even afford that.
I sell exactly one blow job a month in the alley behind work for 10.95 to afford this place.
I think he’ll throw multiple picks against Oregon and UCLA. He presses when the windows are tight. If they fall behind big early I can see him rippin it and having a pretty bad game.
I just listened. I think that QB regression at UW is linked to competition. Picket and Price both worked harder than ever in the off-season to win the job initially. After the job was theirs who pushed them? Paus? Montana? Great first years and then diminishing returns. Locker never had to earn the job. It was always his. He then never had to fight to keep it. Browning? Give me a break. Smith struck out on every prospect he went after during JBs four years. No one pushed Browning. Morris had to fight to win the job and then after he wins it Huard comes in the immediate spring after. That is motivation to work your ass off and improve. Just my two cents.
Good points regional manager.
Assistant to the assistant to the regional manager of can stacking and grocery bagging. I’m kind of a big deal.
Apparently you’re ballin enough to afford wam status. @FireCohen cant even afford that.
I sell exactly one blow job a month in the alley behind work for 10.95 to afford this place.
I just listened. I think that QB regression at UW is linked to competition. Picket and Price both worked harder than ever in the off-season to win the job initially. After the job was theirs who pushed them? Paus? Montana? Great first years and then diminishing returns. Locker never had to earn the job. It was always his. He then never had to fight to keep it. Browning? Give me a break. Smith struck out on every prospect he went after during JBs four years. No one pushed Browning. Morris had to fight to win the job and then after he wins it Huard comes in the immediate spring after. That is motivation to work your ass off and improve. Just my two cents.
Good points regional manager.
Assistant to the assistant to the regional manager of can stacking and grocery bagging. I’m kind of a big deal.
Apparently you’re ballin enough to afford wam status. @FireCohen cant even afford that.
I sell exactly one blow job a month in the alley behind work for 10.95 to afford this place.
A little delayed in getting back to you on this as I've been largely traveling back to Seattle this past week, but definitely wanted to respond.
A few years ago when there was conversations about where UW stacked up nationally in terms of $$$ and whatnot, I did some research behind overall Athletic Department revenues as well as football. This is also something that comes in handy when looking at expansion candidates, etc.
For purposes of the discussion, I forget where I got the sport specific data at and only have through 2016 so the data I reference there will likely be more directional in nature. For overall Athletic Department revenue, the Knight Commission (http://cafidatabase.knightcommission.org/reports) is a great source in leveraging where programs reside.
Addressing the revenues in the Big 12 and how it pertains to expansion question
Big 12 revenues really tied into tiers ... Texas is by and away the largest with Oklahoma closer to the top of the PAC 12 schools than they are to Texas (2019 revenues for Texas/Oklahoma at $224M and $163M respectively). From there, Kansas is the next largest public school at $122M which is driven by hoops as football ranks at the bottom end of revenue numbers that I've seen. Once you get past that, everybody else falls between $90M (K-State) and $103M (West Virginia - hoops big factor here as well).
The wild cards in the Big 12 are the two private schools in TCU and Baylor. In both cases, there's some extrapolation that is required. A quick Google search can pull up reporting from the TCU Athletic Department annually on financial performance. However, they tend to report more on how much the AD profits ($15-$25M annually) than they do reporting overall numbers. More digging places TCU's annual revenues for their Athletic Department in the $115-$120M range for 2019. When looking at Baylor, most things I've seen/read on the subject suggests that Baylor's annual revenues tend to lag TCU's by about $10-$15M annually. This directionally makes sense to me given my understanding of the schools and the financial backing behind them.
Lastly, the football specific data that I have places TCU as the clear 3rd school in the Big 12 when it comes to football revenues which passes my smell test on the subject given that generally speaking when looking at recruiting over the years, TCU typically falls as the "best of the rest."
So the way I look at the Big 12 programs largely comes down to thinking about what they bring to the table and how that is prioritized as while there are gaps between the top/bottom, most of the programs more or less have their relative strengths and weaknesses.
Overall Revenue Profile of Big 12 (2019 totals)
Texas - $224M Oklahoma - $163M Kansas - $122M TCU - $115 to 120M (estimated) Baylor - $100M to $110M (estimated) West Virginia - $103M Texas Tech - $97M Iowa St - $95M Oklahoma St - $95M Kansas St - $90M
For a point of reference with the 4 schools being considered for expansion in the Big 12 with their 2019 revenues:
Washington - $134M Oregon - $128M Arizona St - $122M UCLA - $108M Arizona - $105M Utah - $100M Colorado - $95M Cal - $88M Oregon St - $82M Wazzu - $72M
Both Stanford and USC are private. Everything that I've seen recently suggests that USC slots in just below the UW/Oregon level and probably losing a bit of ground overall as the years progress (the scandals going on down there is not helping). Stanford isn't about annual revenue per se given that so much of their program is funded through endowments. Stanford is as fully funded and financially stable Athletic Department that there is in the grand scheme of things.
What you take away looking at the P12 revenues is that UW is the most consistently stable revenue earning program in the conference whereas Oregon fluctuates between 1 and 2 in the order depending on where Uncle Phil's money gets used for (it's something that UW can't really compete with per se). Arizona St has been very aggressive in recent years trying to close the gap from a resource standpoint ... it's pretty interesting because big picture there's no reason ASU shouldn't be more successful than they are (short list for most underachieving program in the country). ASU should be monitored in the coming years as I suspect that they are going to be going in the "win at all costs" direction. Utah's actually a really good example of what happens when you take a solid program and put it in a better position as their revenues have almost doubled since 2014. At minimum, if/when the next round of consolidation comes in the conferences, Utah's seat at the table is something that is probably more realistic than most would think.
The weakness of the P12 is pretty easy to identify. UCLA/Arizona are relatively mid tier in the conference in terms of revenue but that's inflated because of their basketball contributions ... the reality is their football interest is largely indifferent. Colorado cares but not that much. Cal's way too poor for a school given where they are located and an alumni base that should be successful (or said differently, they don't care). Oregon St and Wazzu don't really have a good path forward when it comes to keeping up with the top programs.
This is where I'd say that the Alliance agreement has a chance to really help the top P12 programs. I suspect as time progresses the gap at the top/bottom will only widen. Winning recruiting battles and keeping kids on the West Coast (or getting them to come to the West Coast) is predicated on playing high visibility games ... of which this conference can really only offer the games that involve UW/Oregon/USC. Getting more games for this group against top end teams in the Big 12 and ACC will increase visibility. Getting the CFP to expand from 4 to 12, combined with a more difficult schedule situation, will likely result in the P12 being able to send 2 members more often than not IMO. In the end, the future of the P12 is going to come down to how are they able to keep the Big 3 in the conference happy as it pertains to being competitive nationally.
Big picture, I like that the Big 12 is expanding out to 12 (they should be able to maintain being what I'd consider to be middle tier P5 conference programs). The long-term outcome of this is that it should really bottom out the "Group of 5" and IMO really create a situation where that level spins out to either it's own level or becomes left in a no-man's land. Creating leverage against the SEC should allow for a CFP expansion that comes out with more of an established set of criteria for getting in. Make no mistake, the biggest threat to CFB at this point is too much power being consolidated between the SEC and ESPN.
A little delayed in getting back to you on this as I've been largely traveling back to Seattle this past week, but definitely wanted to respond.
A few years ago when there was conversations about where UW stacked up nationally in terms of $$$ and whatnot, I did some research behind overall Athletic Department revenues as well as football. This is also something that comes in handy when looking at expansion candidates, etc.
For purposes of the discussion, I forget where I got the sport specific data at and only have through 2016 so the data I reference there will likely be more directional in nature. For overall Athletic Department revenue, the Knight Commission (http://cafidatabase.knightcommission.org/reports) is a great source in leveraging where programs reside.
Addressing the revenues in the Big 12 and how it pertains to expansion question
Big 12 revenues really tied into tiers ... Texas is by and away the largest with Oklahoma closer to the top of the PAC 12 schools than they are to Texas (2019 revenues for Texas/Oklahoma at $224M and $163M respectively). From there, Kansas is the next largest public school at $122M which is driven by hoops as football ranks at the bottom end of revenue numbers that I've seen. Once you get past that, everybody else falls between $90M (K-State) and $103M (West Virginia - hoops big factor here as well).
The wild cards in the Big 12 are the two private schools in TCU and Baylor. In both cases, there's some extrapolation that is required. A quick Google search can pull up reporting from the TCU Athletic Department annually on financial performance. However, they tend to report more on how much the AD profits ($15-$25M annually) than they do reporting overall numbers. More digging places TCU's annual revenues for their Athletic Department in the $115-$120M range for 2019. When looking at Baylor, most things I've seen/read on the subject suggests that Baylor's annual revenues tend to lag TCU's by about $10-$15M annually. This directionally makes sense to me given my understanding of the schools and the financial backing behind them.
Lastly, the football specific data that I have places TCU as the clear 3rd school in the Big 12 when it comes to football revenues which passes my smell test on the subject given that generally speaking when looking at recruiting over the years, TCU typically falls as the "best of the rest."
So the way I look at the Big 12 programs largely comes down to thinking about what they bring to the table and how that is prioritized as while there are gaps between the top/bottom, most of the programs more or less have their relative strengths and weaknesses.
Overall Revenue Profile of Big 12 (2019 totals)
Texas - $224M Oklahoma - $163M Kansas - $122M TCU - $115 to 120M (estimated) Baylor - $100M to $110M (estimated) West Virginia - $103M Texas Tech - $97M Iowa St - $95M Oklahoma St - $95M Kansas St - $90M
For a point of reference with the 4 schools being considered for expansion in the Big 12 with their 2019 revenues:
Washington - $134M Oregon - $128M Arizona St - $122M UCLA - $108M Arizona - $105M Utah - $100M Colorado - $95M Cal - $88M Oregon St - $82M Wazzu - $72M
Both Stanford and USC are private. Everything that I've seen recently suggests that USC slots in just below the UW/Oregon level and probably losing a bit of ground overall as the years progress (the scandals going on down there is not helping). Stanford isn't about annual revenue per se given that so much of their program is funded through endowments. Stanford is as fully funded and financially stable Athletic Department that there is in the grand scheme of things.
What you take away looking at the P12 revenues is that UW is the most consistently stable revenue earning program in the conference whereas Oregon fluctuates between 1 and 2 in the order depending on where Uncle Phil's money gets used for (it's something that UW can't really compete with per se). Arizona St has been very aggressive in recent years trying to close the gap from a resource standpoint ... it's pretty interesting because big picture there's no reason ASU shouldn't be more successful than they are (short list for most underachieving program in the country). ASU should be monitored in the coming years as I suspect that they are going to be going in the "win at all costs" direction. Utah's actually a really good example of what happens when you take a solid program and put it in a better position as their revenues have almost doubled since 2014. At minimum, if/when the next round of consolidation comes in the conferences, Utah's seat at the table is something that is probably more realistic than most would think.
The weakness of the P12 is pretty easy to identify. UCLA/Arizona are relatively mid tier in the conference in terms of revenue but that's inflated because of their basketball contributions ... the reality is their football interest is largely indifferent. Colorado cares but not that much. Cal's way too poor for a school given where they are located and an alumni base that should be successful (or said differently, they don't care). Oregon St and Wazzu don't really have a good path forward when it comes to keeping up with the top programs.
This is where I'd say that the Alliance agreement has a chance to really help the top P12 programs. I suspect as time progresses the gap at the top/bottom will only widen. Winning recruiting battles and keeping kids on the West Coast (or getting them to come to the West Coast) is predicated on playing high visibility games ... of which this conference can really only offer the games that involve UW/Oregon/USC. Getting more games for this group against top end teams in the Big 12 and ACC will increase visibility. Getting the CFP to expand from 4 to 12, combined with a more difficult schedule situation, will likely result in the P12 being able to send 2 members more often than not IMO. In the end, the future of the P12 is going to come down to how are they able to keep the Big 3 in the conference happy as it pertains to being competitive nationally.
Big picture, I like that the Big 12 is expanding out to 12 (they should be able to maintain being what I'd consider to be middle tier P5 conference programs). The long-term outcome of this is that it should really bottom out the "Group of 5" and IMO really create a situation where that level spins out to either it's own level or becomes left in a no-man's land. Creating leverage against the SEC should allow for a CFP expansion that comes out with more of an established set of criteria for getting in. Make no mistake, the biggest threat to CFB at this point is too much power being consolidated between the SEC and ESPN.
Comments
There's this common halfbrain refrain that Chris Petersen likes undersized, unathletic quarterbacks because he was one. Or something like that. And there's no way Haener could have REALLY been competing with Eason, and the whole quarterback competition was just OKG bullshit. As pointed out, Haener's leading mighty Fresno State, Eason's about to be leading the Colts. Doesn't add up, right?
I think it's possible (I'm not in the guy's head, so who knows) that Petersen wasn't playing games at all. I think we? might be erroneously assuming that what makes a quarterback good in the NFL is also what makes a quarterback successful in Chris Petersen's offense. Petersen thought he could win a game from the sideline, outsmarting the opposite team. Putting a talented guy on the field and hoping for some magic wasn't exactly his thing. There's no point having a quarterback on the field who can knife a ball between two safeties 30 yards downfield to a well-covered receiver when attempting such a throw in practice and it going wrong once in five is going to have the coach yanking him off the field anyway.
It'll be interesting to see what Haener does against the Ducks. I didn't watch Eason face them, but I don't remember reading about him being a world-beater in that game. And I definitely don't remember him lighting the world on fire in any of his starts that I did watch. Meanwhile, Haener's putting up pretty crazy numbers against the weak sisters of the poor. To borrow from Teq, a world exists in which Chris Petersen legitimately thought Haener executed his offense better, and it's as simple as that.
I didn't like Eason in 2019. One of the most-disappointing Huskies I can ever remember given what I think he could have ben. I really wonder what he would have done had he come back in 2020 if there was a real season but we'll never know. I think Eason's game against Oregon in 2019 might have actually been his best as a Husky all things considered and that says a lot about how great I think he was as a Husky given how unremarkable he was in that game.
The others I give for free.
In the practice reports, Haener did throw a lot of picks, but there weren’t reports about Eason carving the defense up.
I think it really was a close call, but Eason was the bigger and better talent so they went with him.
A little delayed in getting back to you on this as I've been largely traveling back to Seattle this past week, but definitely wanted to respond.
A few years ago when there was conversations about where UW stacked up nationally in terms of $$$ and whatnot, I did some research behind overall Athletic Department revenues as well as football. This is also something that comes in handy when looking at expansion candidates, etc.
For purposes of the discussion, I forget where I got the sport specific data at and only have through 2016 so the data I reference there will likely be more directional in nature. For overall Athletic Department revenue, the Knight Commission (http://cafidatabase.knightcommission.org/reports) is a great source in leveraging where programs reside.
Addressing the revenues in the Big 12 and how it pertains to expansion question
Big 12 revenues really tied into tiers ... Texas is by and away the largest with Oklahoma closer to the top of the PAC 12 schools than they are to Texas (2019 revenues for Texas/Oklahoma at $224M and $163M respectively). From there, Kansas is the next largest public school at $122M which is driven by hoops as football ranks at the bottom end of revenue numbers that I've seen. Once you get past that, everybody else falls between $90M (K-State) and $103M (West Virginia - hoops big factor here as well).
The wild cards in the Big 12 are the two private schools in TCU and Baylor. In both cases, there's some extrapolation that is required. A quick Google search can pull up reporting from the TCU Athletic Department annually on financial performance. However, they tend to report more on how much the AD profits ($15-$25M annually) than they do reporting overall numbers. More digging places TCU's annual revenues for their Athletic Department in the $115-$120M range for 2019. When looking at Baylor, most things I've seen/read on the subject suggests that Baylor's annual revenues tend to lag TCU's by about $10-$15M annually. This directionally makes sense to me given my understanding of the schools and the financial backing behind them.
Lastly, the football specific data that I have places TCU as the clear 3rd school in the Big 12 when it comes to football revenues which passes my smell test on the subject given that generally speaking when looking at recruiting over the years, TCU typically falls as the "best of the rest."
So the way I look at the Big 12 programs largely comes down to thinking about what they bring to the table and how that is prioritized as while there are gaps between the top/bottom, most of the programs more or less have their relative strengths and weaknesses.
Overall Revenue Profile of Big 12 (2019 totals)
Texas - $224M
Oklahoma - $163M
Kansas - $122M
TCU - $115 to 120M (estimated)
Baylor - $100M to $110M (estimated)
West Virginia - $103M
Texas Tech - $97M
Iowa St - $95M
Oklahoma St - $95M
Kansas St - $90M
For a point of reference with the 4 schools being considered for expansion in the Big 12 with their 2019 revenues:
Houston - $75M
UCF - $69M
Cincinnati - $69M
BYU - estimated $70-$75M (private)
As a FYI, Boise is at $51M in annual revenues
2019 Athletic Department Revenue for the PAC 12:
Washington - $134M
Oregon - $128M
Arizona St - $122M
UCLA - $108M
Arizona - $105M
Utah - $100M
Colorado - $95M
Cal - $88M
Oregon St - $82M
Wazzu - $72M
Both Stanford and USC are private. Everything that I've seen recently suggests that USC slots in just below the UW/Oregon level and probably losing a bit of ground overall as the years progress (the scandals going on down there is not helping). Stanford isn't about annual revenue per se given that so much of their program is funded through endowments. Stanford is as fully funded and financially stable Athletic Department that there is in the grand scheme of things.
What you take away looking at the P12 revenues is that UW is the most consistently stable revenue earning program in the conference whereas Oregon fluctuates between 1 and 2 in the order depending on where Uncle Phil's money gets used for (it's something that UW can't really compete with per se). Arizona St has been very aggressive in recent years trying to close the gap from a resource standpoint ... it's pretty interesting because big picture there's no reason ASU shouldn't be more successful than they are (short list for most underachieving program in the country). ASU should be monitored in the coming years as I suspect that they are going to be going in the "win at all costs" direction. Utah's actually a really good example of what happens when you take a solid program and put it in a better position as their revenues have almost doubled since 2014. At minimum, if/when the next round of consolidation comes in the conferences, Utah's seat at the table is something that is probably more realistic than most would think.
The weakness of the P12 is pretty easy to identify. UCLA/Arizona are relatively mid tier in the conference in terms of revenue but that's inflated because of their basketball contributions ... the reality is their football interest is largely indifferent. Colorado cares but not that much. Cal's way too poor for a school given where they are located and an alumni base that should be successful (or said differently, they don't care). Oregon St and Wazzu don't really have a good path forward when it comes to keeping up with the top programs.
This is where I'd say that the Alliance agreement has a chance to really help the top P12 programs. I suspect as time progresses the gap at the top/bottom will only widen. Winning recruiting battles and keeping kids on the West Coast (or getting them to come to the West Coast) is predicated on playing high visibility games ... of which this conference can really only offer the games that involve UW/Oregon/USC. Getting more games for this group against top end teams in the Big 12 and ACC will increase visibility. Getting the CFP to expand from 4 to 12, combined with a more difficult schedule situation, will likely result in the P12 being able to send 2 members more often than not IMO. In the end, the future of the P12 is going to come down to how are they able to keep the Big 3 in the conference happy as it pertains to being competitive nationally.
Big picture, I like that the Big 12 is expanding out to 12 (they should be able to maintain being what I'd consider to be middle tier P5 conference programs). The long-term outcome of this is that it should really bottom out the "Group of 5" and IMO really create a situation where that level spins out to either it's own level or becomes left in a no-man's land. Creating leverage against the SEC should allow for a CFP expansion that comes out with more of an established set of criteria for getting in. Make no mistake, the biggest threat to CFB at this point is too much power being consolidated between the SEC and ESPN.