Rich Brooks took over a program in 1977 that had only one winning season in the prior 12 years. While he had 4 2 win seasons in his first six years, he also had winning records in years 3 and 4, including a big win over the Huskies in Seattle when they were a true national power.
He coached 18 years and one half of his teams had winning …
Rich Brooks took over a program in 1977 that had only one winning season in the prior 12 years. While he had 4 2 win seasons in his first six years, he also had winning records in years 3 and 4, including a big win over the Huskies in Seattle when they were a true national power.
He coached 18 years and one half of his teams had winning records, all before the mid-1990's. His last 6 teams included 4 bowl games and 3 seasons of 8 or more wins, which for long suffering fans like me, were a lot of fun.
With all due respect to the Beavers, there was no real comparison quality wise between the two programs during the Rich Brooks era. Brooks managed to win 46% of his games during that era (and 55% in his last 5 years) while OSU won 22% during that 18 year stretch.
Whereas Brooks managed to have winning seasons in 1979 and 1980 (his 3d and 4th years), OSU did not have a winning season, once the Brooks era started, until 1998, or twenty years after Brooks put one together at Oregon.
In the 10 years before Brooks arrived at Oregon, the Ducks won 35% of their games and OSU 39%. One team started moving in one direction under Brooks and the other bottomed out, to be charitable.
OSU's record during that era was about as close to the worst winning percentage in college football without actually being last (they were second to last).
In many ways, that history makes OSU's recent accomplishments all the more memorable. They are now a program who can play with and beat anyone on any given day, which is what Brooks did for Oregon.
You completely missed the point, which if you are a hardcore Duck fan is very understandable. I wasn't drawing a comparison between the Brooks' Ducks and the Avezzano Beavers. I was pointing out that Eugene does not naturally draw 4 and 5 star athletes any more than Corvallis does. Neither program has any natural advantage in recruiting. That advantage must be created by the head coach, AD and boosters (aka Phil Knight). The Brooks years even the 2nd half, were not dynastic and recruits were mostly 3 stars, just like where the Beavers are now, which will get you a 6-8 win season in the Pac 12, if you have good coaching. In the late 70s, 80s and early 90s, the Beavers were routinely stacking their roster with 2 stars and many NRs. You have to do special things, like aggressively recruit Jucos or the Portal to break out of that funk, unless you are in Los Angeles or Seattle and have a big-city draw with big feeder HS programs. That was my point.
"They were a 2 to 5 win program (under Rich Brooks) until the mid 90s and did not recruit any better than the Beavers."
I believe those were your exact words and Oregon clearly, based upon results under the Brooks era, recruited much much better than the Beavers.
The Beavers were literally one of the worst teams in college football during the Brooks era and Oregon was in the middle, so to speak.
That wasn't just coaching, it was also recruiting. OSU actually had some decent coaches during that era and couldn't win with them if their lives depended upon it.
That is the comment I was responding to, which should have been obvious from the focus of my response. The Rich Brooks era.
As for the NIKE era, you state the obvious with regards to Oregon, I didn't disagree with it and hence, didn't discuss it in my post.
You can try all you want to misdirect, but I am not taking the bait. Phil Knight got personally involved in the football program around 1985 and began pumping money into the Ducks facilities and recruiting, building a new training facility, offering a team jet, etc. Plus, he upped the advertising game to feature Nike with the Ducks uniforms which got a lot of national attention. That is what changed the direction of the Ducks program. Until then, the two were almost identical in performance (the Beavers a little worse because Andros was a terrible AD). My point is that Brooks was no better a recruiter or coach than Avezzano, until Phil Knight's involvement. The money pumped into a program, the quality of the coaching and the AD front office, is what determines the recruiting and performance of the team. Got it?
Rich Brooks took over a program in 1977 that had only one winning season in the prior 12 years. While he had 4 2 win seasons in his first six years, he also had winning records in years 3 and 4, including a big win over the Huskies in Seattle when they were a true national power.
He coached 18 years and one half of his teams had winning records, all before the mid-1990's. His last 6 teams included 4 bowl games and 3 seasons of 8 or more wins, which for long suffering fans like me, were a lot of fun.
With all due respect to the Beavers, there was no real comparison quality wise between the two programs during the Rich Brooks era. Brooks managed to win 46% of his games during that era (and 55% in his last 5 years) while OSU won 22% during that 18 year stretch.
Whereas Brooks managed to have winning seasons in 1979 and 1980 (his 3d and 4th years), OSU did not have a winning season, once the Brooks era started, until 1998, or twenty years after Brooks put one together at Oregon.
In the 10 years before Brooks arrived at Oregon, the Ducks won 35% of their games and OSU 39%. One team started moving in one direction under Brooks and the other bottomed out, to be charitable.
OSU's record during that era was about as close to the worst winning percentage in college football without actually being last (they were second to last).
In many ways, that history makes OSU's recent accomplishments all the more memorable. They are now a program who can play with and beat anyone on any given day, which is what Brooks did for Oregon.
You completely missed the point, which if you are a hardcore Duck fan is very understandable. I wasn't drawing a comparison between the Brooks' Ducks and the Avezzano Beavers. I was pointing out that Eugene does not naturally draw 4 and 5 star athletes any more than Corvallis does. Neither program has any natural advantage in recruiting. That advantage must be created by the head coach, AD and boosters (aka Phil Knight). The Brooks years even the 2nd half, were not dynastic and recruits were mostly 3 stars, just like where the Beavers are now, which will get you a 6-8 win season in the Pac 12, if you have good coaching. In the late 70s, 80s and early 90s, the Beavers were routinely stacking their roster with 2 stars and many NRs. You have to do special things, like aggressively recruit Jucos or the Portal to break out of that funk, unless you are in Los Angeles or Seattle and have a big-city draw with big feeder HS programs. That was my point.
"They were a 2 to 5 win program (under Rich Brooks) until the mid 90s and did not recruit any better than the Beavers."
I believe those were your exact words and Oregon clearly, based upon results under the Brooks era, recruited much much better than the Beavers.
The Beavers were literally one of the worst teams in college football during the Brooks era and Oregon was in the middle, so to speak.
That wasn't just coaching, it was also recruiting. OSU actually had some decent coaches during that era and couldn't win with them if their lives depended upon it.
That is the comment I was responding to, which should have been obvious from the focus of my response. The Rich Brooks era.
As for the NIKE era, you state the obvious with regards to Oregon, I didn't disagree with it and hence, didn't discuss it in my post.
Here is an article to help you understand. And this was Phase 2. I will see if I can find a Phase 1, mid 80s story as well: https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/pac12/2014/12/29/oregon-nike-phil-knight-college-football-playoff/21013009/
You can try all you want to misdirect, but I am not taking the bait. Phil Knight got personally involved in the football program around 1985 and began pumping money into the Ducks facilities and recruiting, building a new training facility, offering a team jet, etc. Plus, he upped the advertising game to feature Nike with the Ducks uniforms which got a lot of national attention. That is what changed the direction of the Ducks program. Until then, the two were almost identical in performance (the Beavers a little worse because Andros was a terrible AD). My point is that Brooks was no better a recruiter or coach than Avezzano, until Phil Knight's involvement. The money pumped into a program, the quality of the coaching and the AD front office, is what determines the recruiting and performance of the team. Got it?
What bait, Brian.
Seriously?
This is a mostly friendly chat room and you seem to think this is Fox News on steroids.
I'm not wasting anymore time with you.
My point was not to rile you up, which I clearly did.
It was to disagree with your obviously incorrect comments regarding the Rich Brooks era as compared to OSU's performance.
That's it.
No bait, Brian-just a comment.