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.

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.

I can see that, Corvbeav, good point.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

Visits to LA cut in half...no big deal. Sorry, not buying it.

Time to get over McCants.