Oregon does not have the history and tradition that a lot of other high profile schools have. Oregon got a really innovative and unique coach in Chip Kelly and a once in a generation QB in Mariota. But now both of those guys are gone and Oregon hasn't been the same. But the one thing Oregon has is Phil Knights pocketbook and resources. My question is, is this short term span of success in recent history and the uniqueness of the program and the connection with Nike enough to attract a big time head coach up to Eugene?

Oregon can probably get any coach they want that isn't at a top tier program already.

Easily Top Tier program.

I agree with the top tier comments completely. But what kind of coach could Oregon get? They definitely aren't in the running for Tom Herman and I think you have to look West Coast because you have to get someone with either a national brand as a coach or someone that knows the HS coaches out there. I honestly just don't know who they could attract up there. I think Art Briles would be the absolute best coach they could hire up there and he would have them back in the playoffs within 3 or 4 years. But with their association with Nike I'm not sure they would take the PR hit.

Oregon already took a nasty PR hit when it settled a case year with a woman who claimed three basketball players gang raped her. The three were dismissed and then they sued the school saying they were wrongly dismissed. I don't know the results or status of that litigation.

 

Long way of saying Oregon can't go anywhere near Briles.

Oregon already took a nasty PR hit when it settled a case year with a woman who claimed three basketball players gang raped her. The three were dismissed and then they sued the school saying they were wrongly dismissed. I don't know the results or status of that litigation.

 

Long way of saying Oregon can't go anywhere near Briles.

Agreed. Obviously not a PR fit at any school really, but from a system and style standpoint, Briles basically duplicated what Chip Kelly did at Oregon only at Baylor.

Rob Mullens, the Oregon AD who spent a lot of time at UK, does a great job in a really challenging situation (Phil Knight, like T. Boone at Okie State, thinks his funds allow him final decision making rights) and wouldn't hire Art Briles in 1,000 years.

I'm interested in the top tier comments... What makes Oregon a top tier program?

I'm interested in the top tier comments... What makes Oregon a top tier program?

Phil Knight and relative short term success recently.

Going a little bit off of what Deuce said, what is a better program, Oregon or UofL? I think it's Oregon, but I'm curious to see what you all think.

Going a little bit off of what Deuce said, what is a better program, Oregon or UofL? I think it's Oregon, but I'm curious to see what you all think.

 

Kind of where I was going with the what makes them top tier question... If Oregon is, Louisville assuredly is. And I wouldn't put Louisville in the top tier just yet.

Oregon, as we know it in today's time, has been the best run gimmick in college football. You can succeed at the collegiate level with flashy, innovative, smart coaching, and even do so with below "higher echelon level" talent levels. That is not a bad thing. They have embraced it and done well with it.

Edited October 5, 201610 yr by bugatti

Kind of where I was going with the what makes them top tier question... If Oregon is, Louisville assuredly is. And I wouldn't put Louisville in the top tier just yet.

It sort of depends on what your definition of top tier is. They are one of 7 teams who have made the playoffs so far and have been to 2 National Championships in recent history. But is that a product of a once in a generation coach in Chip Kelly and a heisman trophy winning QB? They've had limited success outside of Chip Kelly and UofL has shown they can be successful over a longer span and multiple coaches, but they haven't been to a championship like Oregon. Do you value consistency or do you value the phenomenal short term success Oregon has had? I think it's a good question.

It sort of depends on what your definition of top tier is. They are one of 7 teams who have made the playoffs so far and have been to 2 National Championships in recent history. But is that a product of a once in a generation coach in Chip Kelly and a heisman trophy winning QB? They've had limited success outside of Chip Kelly and UofL has shown they can be successful over a longer span and multiple coaches, but they haven't been to a championship like Oregon. Do you value consistency or do you value the phenomenal short term success Oregon has had? I think it's a good question.

 

Definitely a good debate, and like you said depends on what one considers top tier. If we are talking about TEAMS, it only takes one year for a particular team to be top tier. If you are judging PROGRAMS, that is a certain level of sustained success for a period of time.

It sort of depends on what your definition of top tier is. They are one of 7 teams who have made the playoffs so far and have been to 2 National Championships in recent history. But is that a product of a once in a generation coach in Chip Kelly and a heisman trophy winning QB? They've had limited success outside of Chip Kelly and UofL has shown they can be successful over a longer span and multiple coaches, but they haven't been to a championship like Oregon. Do you value consistency or do you value the phenomenal short term success Oregon has had? I think it's a good question.

 

Oregon has been a solid program for some time, not just when Kelly took over play calling in '07, or when he took over head coaching duties in 2009... well before UL came on the scene. No way you can say UL has traditionally had a more consistent winning product when you take in all factors. If anything, the reverse of that is more true, though I believe UL is now here to stay to build the long term success as long as Jurich continues putting the correct pieces in place.