"I think Oregon spent close to $40 [million] last year alone. So, that was just one year. Now, I might be off a few million."
"Oregon is paying a lot, a lot of money for their team. From a nonconference standpoint, there's coaches saying they should [play teams with similar budgets]."
"If you want to be a top-10 team in college football, you better be invested in winning. We spend to win. Some people save to have an excuse for why they don't. ... I can't speak on their situation; I have no idea what they got in their pockets over there."
Oklahoma State reported around $7 million spent on its team over the past three years while Oregon reportedly spent close to $40 million in a single year. The spending comparison was linked to roster advantages and the potential cost to retain quarterback Dante Moore. The discussion suggested program budgets should influence nonconference scheduling decisions. A response emphasized that reaching a top-10 national ranking requires substantial investment and that some programs prioritize spending to win rather than saving as an explanation for underperformance. Both teams entered the season 1-0, with Oregon ranked No. 7 and positioned as a College Football Playoff contender.
Read at ESPN.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]