TAKE ONE: POWER SHIFT

With news breaking that the SEC and Big Ten are working behind the scenes to reshape the College Football Playoff, a harsh reality is about to set in for the Big 12, ACC, and any Group of Five teams with dreams of national relevance. Every new tweak to the playoff format seems to shrink their chances of winning a national championship, pushing college football even closer to an exclusive club dominated by just two conferences.

But it didn’t have to be this way.

Back in 2010, when the then-Pac-10 nearly became the Pac-16, there was a moment when college football could have embraced a more balanced future. There was plenty of handwringing about what conference realignment meant for the sport. Many people feared that college football was drifting toward an NFL-style model, one that would prioritize money and power over regional traditions and historic rivalries. But the truth is, realignment was inevitable. The writing was on the wall.

At the time, I argued that the best long-term solution was to lean into the change rather than fight it. The sport should have moved toward four 16-team conferences, each split into two divisions of eight. That setup would have created a clear structure: division winners would play in conference championships, conference champions would make the playoff, and a fair system of play-in games could have been implemented to give top teams outside the power structure a shot. It wasn’t a perfect solution, but it would have at least ensured that no major programs were left scrambling for relevance.

Had college football gone that route, programs like Washington State and Oregon State—who are now stranded in a crumbling Pac-12—would have secured their place at the table. It would have also forced Notre Dame to finally join a conference for football rather than continuing to float between independence and the ACC on its own terms. Instead, we ended up with years of half-measures and reactive decision-making that allowed the SEC to dictate the future while everyone else played catch-up.

Now, we’re staring at a playoff structure that will likely give the SEC and Big Ten the lion’s share of access. Oregon is lucky enough to be in one of the power leagues, meaning it will contend for one of the four automatic qualifier spots in most seasons. But look at what’s happening to the ACC and Big 12. Each of those conferences is only expected to receive two spots, further emphasizing how much influence has consolidated around the SEC and Big Ten.

For years, college football leadership operated with a mindset of "everyone against the SEC," trying to slow the league’s growing dominance. But in doing so, they failed to position themselves for the inevitable. They didn’t want to accept a future that resembled the NFL, but instead of preventing that outcome, they let the SEC shape it in its own image.

At this point, the idea of two super-conferences might be the best way forward. If the playoff is going to expand, there needs to be a clearer structure, and that could mean a fully realized version of what’s already happening—two massive conferences that house all the truly playoff-eligible teams, creating divisions that actually make sense. It would also force some stubborn holdouts to play nine conference games instead of eight, which would improve strength of schedule across the board. And while it wouldn’t be a perfect solution, it would at least bring more clarity to a system that has operated in chaos for too long.

There was a time when college football had a chance to steer this in a different direction. Instead, short-sighted leadership and an unwillingness to adapt led us here. The sport will survive—it always does—but for many programs, the road to a national championship just got a whole lot steeper.

TAKE TWO: GRINDING OUT WINS

It’s easy to get caught up in the highs and lows of a college basketball season. One week, a team looks like it’s back on track; the next, all the same problems resurface. That’s where we find the Ducks right now—fresh off solid wins against Northwestern and Rutgers but still facing big questions as they head into crucial matchups against Iowa and Wisconsin.

Yes, the Ducks looked good last week, but let’s not overlook the competition. Northwestern and Rutgers are two of the worst teams in the Big Ten, and in those games, Oregon’s shots were falling. The three-point barrage worked, and the Ducks rode it to convincing wins. But history tells us that this kind of success isn't sustainable. What happens when the outside shots don’t drop? That’s the real concern.

Basketball is about balance. The best teams find ways to win even when their shots aren’t dropping. Right now, the Ducks don’t seem to have that extra gear. When the three-point well runs dry, this team struggles to generate offense. They aren’t crashing the boards aggressively enough, they aren’t getting easy transition buckets, and most importantly, they aren’t locking down on defense when they need to.

As we head toward March, that has to change. The Ducks need to make defense their backbone—not just something they fall back on when the shots stop falling. It’s about getting stops, controlling the boards, and turning defensive energy into offense. Transition buckets don’t require a hot shooting night—they just require effort, discipline, and intensity.

Iowa and Wisconsin will provide the perfect test. Both teams can grind out wins, and both will force the Ducks to prove they can win without simply outshooting their opponents. If Oregon can turn up the defensive pressure and find a way to manufacture points in transition, they’ll have a real chance to make some noise in March. If not? It’s going to be a short and frustrating postseason.