ESPN College Football

Posted by ESPN.com's Ted Miller

Over? Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?!

Chris from Long Beach, Calif., wrote: Regarding this quote from the LA times "Their schedule was solid but I don't think it was as difficult as a Pac-10 schedule," Carroll said of Utah. "But they did what they had to do. They won all their games." If you look at USC's "PAC 10" schedule it was not that much harder than UTAH's. Using the final poll (AP) UTAH played #6 Alabama, #7 TCU, #18 Oregon State, #25 BYU. USC played #8 Penn State,#9 Ohio State, #10 Oregon, #18 Oregon State. Those seem pretty equal to me. Sure the bottom 9 teams on UTAH's plate were easier than the bottom 9 on USC's but UTAH schedule is close. Yes UTAH schedule was easier as a whole but the fact the UTAH went 13-0 should make up for the slightly "easier" schedule. Utah should be ranked ahead of USC and they have more reason to complain about not getting a shot to win the NC than USC does. In part because USC already wasted their first chance at a NC with the lost to Oregon State.

Ted Miller: I agree. And disagree.

I surprised myself this morning when I turned in my vote for ESPN.com's Power Rankings and it looked like this at the top:

1. Utah
2. Florida
3. USC
4. Texas
5. Oklahoma
6. TCU
7. Alabama
8. Penn State
9. Oregon
10. Ohio State

So, that -- duh! -- means I have Utah No. 1.

Now, if Utah were to play USC on Saturday, I'd pick the Trojans to win big. I could be wrong, but if you asked me if the Trojans were better than the Utes, I'd say 'yes' without reservation.

I'd also pick Florida to beat Utah. And USC to beat Florida.

So, why didn't I vote USC No. 1, followed by Florida and then Utah?

I didn't want to lean entirely on questions of pure talent. If we did that, USC would be No. 1 most years. That's a factor, but not the only one, and Utah's and Florida's overall resumes impressed me more.

So, Chris, I guess I'm agreeing with you and not with Pete Carroll.

Rob from Charlottesville Va., writes: Ted, I'm disappointed that Cal finished outside of the top 25. BYU has had a weaker schedule, no quality wins, and is 0-2 versus top 25 teams (Utah and TCU). Cal faced seven bowl teams this year (that went 6-1), played 4 top 25 teams (finishing 2-2), won its bowl game, and finished the season with three straight wins. Other than BYU's magic 10 wins, why did they finish ahead of the Bears?

Ted Miller: The Coaches Poll had the Bears 25th and the AP had them 26th. I had them 18th.

Rankings are funny things. How could a person rank Michigan State -- a bowl loser which also had four defeats, one of which came vs. Cal -- ahead of the Bears?

How could someone rank Oregon ahead of Boise State, which won in Autzen Stadium? Or rank Georgia Tech and leave out LSU, which kicked the snot out of the Rambling Wreck in a bowl game?

Rankings are basically a beauty contest -- and you often have to turn a blind eye to flaws in order to make distinctions. Thus we make judgments that seem arbitrary and inconsistent. Or even indefensible.

It's just the system we have.

Russ from Bend, Ore., writes: With the Pac-10 redeeming itself going 5-0. Do you think there is something to be said about the big 12 south being vastly overrated by barely squeaking out a 1-3 bowl record?

Ted Miller: Yes and no.

I know I've crowed about the Pac-10's bowl record, but I've never been a huge fan of treating bowl games as the equivalent of playoff games that render final judgments on teams.

The Big 12 clearly wasn't all that it was hyped to be much of the season. It only posted one impressive non-conference win -- Oklahoma over TCU -- in the regular season and flopped in the postseason.

Texas' comeback win over Ohio State in the Fiesta Bowl? Neh.

And yet, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State: That's still a fairly strong foursome, now and into the future.

Mike from Yorba Linda, Calif., writes: I'm not so certain there'll be that much of a drop off in USC's D. Yes Mays/Ellison/Maualug a/Cushing/Mathews/Maiava/Moala are terrific players and I'll miss them because I want to keep watching them play together. But Everson Griffin/Malik Jackson/Christina Tupou/Averil Spicer/Armond Armstead/DaJohn Harris/Michael Morgan/Mal Smith/Luther Brown/Chris Galippo/Will harris/Justin hart/Drew McAllister/Shareece Wright/Kevin Thomas all have a lot of playing time behind tham and have played together alot. Some of these backups are faster than their more famous "ones"." What are your thoughts? I think SC is in pretty good shape again next year on D. The defense surely will give up more points/yards but the offense will probably score more than enough. I'm more worried about special teams.

Ted Miller: The most impressive thing at USC's practices is all the "unknown" guys. USC has been stockpiling athletes on both sides of the ball and these freshmen and sophomores in most cases already own NFL bodies. Returning starters and contributors will be in knock-down-drag-out battles to retain their starting jobs.

To go out on a limb: I'm not sure that the D-line won't be better in some ways, at least more athletic, next season.

USC's defense as a unit, though, won't be the same next fall. Can't be. But it will rank in the nation's top-10 in most categories while the offense breaks out and pounds foes.

And you may be right to worry about special teams.

Jeff from Creswell, Ore., writes: Ted - with the BCS NC game tonight it seems every writer in America is complaining about the BCS match-up and saying the real national championship will not be settled by this game. They state a lot of reasons why this not the right game. One thing that is continually over looked, in my opinion, is the impact of the pre-season poll. It seems the national title game, well the BCS Title game has been pre-ordained by the preseason poll since the BCS came to being. Release a poll at about week 4 or 5 then it might mean something. All of the major conferences outside of the Pac-10 all play the Citadel, Grambling State, Coppin State, Coastal Carolina, Debbie's Do-Gooders, Never Played Football St., etc... anyway so the preseason rankings mean nothing and not releasing a poll until the 4th week might entice some of these so called powerhouses to play somebody in weeks 1-4 to actually establish themself in a high ranking position rather than just go by reputation. What is your take on that? What good does a preseason poll do anyway?

Ted Miller: Jeff, I get this question a lot -- as do the other college football writers. Most of us will say, "You are correct." And then we'll tell you that preseason polls will never go away because fans love 'em.

Evan from Vancouver, Wash., writes: Am I getting too excited about the future prospects of U-Dub? I'm glad that the university is finally dishing out some big cash get get some worthy coaches. But do I have it correct when I'm getting giddy about the upcoming years? Granted, the Huskies are going to be terrible the next few years. But a young budding offensive mind as a head coach, a great offensive line coach snagged for offensive coordinator, and finding the pot of gold by stealing the coordinator that ran the nation's best D? Naive or not, I'm excited.

Ted Miller: The good news, Evan, is it can't get any worse.

And you should be
excited. Steve Sarkisian has provided an injection of much-needed energy and confidence.

My most optimistic guess is the Huskies win two or three games next season and they will be back in the hunt for a .500 record and maybe even bowl game by 2010, Jake Locker's senior season.

That said: The Huskies have a huge problem with over-scheduling. Non-conference games in 2010? at BYU, Syracuse and Nebraska. What in the name of the East Dakota Garden Snails are the Huskies thinking, say the Big 12 and SEC?

Fender from Eugene, Ore., writes: Ted, a few questions. First, were you assigned the Pac 10 amid the talented collection of ESPN contributors, or was the West Coast your desired destination? Second, does it not frustrate you endlessly, as it certainly does all football spectators out west, that writers, prognosticators, coaches, media members, and of course fans always discount the Pac 10, short of USC? I believe the, umm, less-than-eloquent note left for you by Mike from Tulsa typifies the standard response from every Joe sixpack football "genius" east of the Rockies to any headway the Pac 10 might make in the college football world. I still engage in arguments with Ohio St. fans, even in the wake of another BCS loss, over the merits of the Big 10 vs. the Pac 10. (Bowl records, of course, mean nothing to them.) Oklahoma's performance on Thursday to me is similarly essential to salvage any respectability for what wo many pundits tabbed as the toughest division in college football this year. A loss, and the Big 12 South juggernauts will have notched a lovely 1-3. Long story short, while you and other Pac 10 analysts make wonderful points about the quality of the Pac 10's bowl performances (four teams ranked higher than the Pac 10 teams), the nation still won't buy it. Does ever get to be too much for you?

Ted Miller: I've been covering the Pac-10 for ESPN.com since 2002 and living on the West Coast since 1999.

Too much? Frustrate me? I never get tired of winning arguments.

I mean, you argue with Ohio State fans, right? Have you ever lost a debate? And, if you did, were you awake?

See what I mean?

Chris from San Francisco writes: You are from SEC country, yet defend the Pac-10. How did you become so enlightened?

Ted Miller: Lots of oysters and salmon in Seattle. And coffee.

And it helps that the Pac-10 has owned the SEC in recent years.