ESPN College Football

We've given you our thoughts recently on which Pac-12 player has the best shot at winning the Heisman. You've given your thoughts (an extremely tight poll) and now the folks at HeismanPundit.com have offered up their darkhorse candidates for 2012.

They looked at 12 not-as-mainstream candidates who could contend for the Heisman Trophy, and four of them are from the Pac-12.

First, the list:

• Eddie Lacy, Alabama
• Curtis McNeal, USC
• Fitzgerald Toussaint, Michigan
• Kenjon Barner, Oregon
• James Franklin, Missouri
• Braxton Miller, Ohio State
• Kiehl Frazier, Auburn
• Le'Veon Bell, Michigan State
• Cierre Wood, Notre Dame
• Christine Michael, Texas A&M
• Jesse Callier, Washington
• De'Anthony Thomas, Oregon

Their thoughts on each of the Pac-12 players:

On McNeal: A total of 150 carries have departed the program and there is little depth behind the senior, who will benefit from defenses focusing on USC’s strong passing attack. Give McNeal at least half of those departed carries and you are looking at a possible 1,500 yard season, if not more.

On Barner: There were times the rest of the year when he looked as good as, if not better than, James. This year, the Ducks lose not only James’ 247 carries, but also the 45 of freshman Tra Carson and the 56 of quarterback Darron Thomas, for a total of 347 carries to be redistributed.

On Callier: I actually think there is a good chance that Washington experiences no dropoff at this position and that Callier establishes himself as one of the top backs in the Pac-12 with a season exceeding 1,300 yards on the ground.

On Thomas: Thomas is obviously an interesting case since he is such an all-around dynamo. Last year, he had just 140 touches, with 39 of them coming in the return game. This was a wise move by Oregon, as keeping the rather slight Thomas fresh and healthy is the key to his effectiveness. It worked, as he had 18 touchdowns and 2,235 total yards. In that vein, Oregon might be tempted to put a huge workload on him in 2012, but I don’t foresee it unless there is a desperate need.

Fun list. With frontrunner Matt Barkley out there, along with Washington quarterback Keith Price, a couple of USC wide receivers and A-list running backs like John White IV and Stepfan Taylor, there is certainly no wanting for offensive talent in the conference. Per usual.

Which players emerge will definitely be one of the more fascinating stories to follow in 2012.

The Pac-12 is the conference of quarterbacks. The SEC is all about defense.

Oh, and winning national championships.

But as good as the defenses are in the SEC, what role does poor-to-middling offense play in that perception? As in, what would happen if those defenses played against a series of future NFL quarterbacks, as Pac-12 (and Big 12) defenses do?

The question before us is this: How would USC quarterback Matt Barkley do against those rough-tough SEC defenses?

Ted Miller: It’s sort of a chicken and the egg question. Are SEC defenses so good because they rarely play against A-list quarterbacks? Or do Pac-12 quarterbacks pile up eye-popping numbers because they don’t play against SEC defenses?

Is it more notable that four of the top 11 quarterbacks in the nation in terms of passing efficiency in 2011 were from the Pac-12, compared to none in the top 20 from the SEC? Or is it more important that six SEC defenses ranked in the top 17 in pass efficiency defense compared to zero for the Pac-12?

It’s hard to say. It’s likely a person’s home -- Los Angeles or Baton Rouge -- has a large influence on his or her opinion.

Pac-12 fans would be prone to point out: In 2005, LSU ranked No. 3 in the nation in passing efficiency defense. But in the Tigers' trip to Tempe that season, Arizona State’s Sam Keller completed 35 of 56 passes for 461 yards with four touchdowns and no interceptions in a 35-31 defeat.

Or this: LSU’s defense did a nice job against Oregon’s offense in the 2011 season opener. Of course, the Ducks scored more points on LSU than ANY OF THE OTHER 13 TEAMS LSU PLAYED.

Apologies for the caps lock. Reckless typing.

While we can all acknowledge the SEC -- at least the elite teams -- play better defense than the rest of the nation, it is also worth noting that when future first-round NFL draft picks played quarterback in the SEC, they put up good numbers, whether we’re talking about the Manning brothers, Matt Stafford or Cam Newton. And I’m sure, one day in the future --perhaps this decade! -- we’ll be able to add a name to that list.

There are some nice quartebacks in the SEC: Tyler Wilson, AJ McCarron and Aaron Murray. All three seem like they’d have a good chance of winning the backup job at USC. Maybe.

Chris Low: No way am I going to argue that Barkley wouldn't have success in the SEC.

He's a future pro and probably the front-runner to win the Heisman Trophy in 2012.

The question is: How much success would he have, and would he hit the proverbial wall going against SEC defenses on a weekly basis?

My feeling is that all quarterbacks hit that wall. Any coach will tell you (ask your buddy Lane Kiffin) that what separates SEC defenses is the speed in the front seven, particularly in the defensive line. There are fast players all over the country in college football, but the SEC has cornered the market on fast, explosive defensive linemen and pass-rushers who also have the size and strength to overpower people.

That's the difference, and that's where Barkley would notice the greatest difference.

It wasn't a banner year for quarterbacks in the SEC last season. And, yes, I realize that's an understatement. But it was a banner year for premier defensive players. That's why the first round of the NFL draft next month is going to look like an SEC who's who. As many as 10 SEC defensive players could go in the first round.

Don't sleep on the SEC's quarterback class this coming season, either. Wilson may be a future first-rounder. Murray has thrown nearly 60 touchdown passes in his first two seasons, and we all saw what McCarron did in the BCS title game against an LSU defense that was outstanding.

Barkley's a big-time talent, no question. But it's a different game when you're trying to throw from your back.

And in this league, ALL QUARTERBACKS (sorry, my caps tend to lock up, too) encounter that problem.

Ted Miller: Truth is, Wilson, Murray and McCarron are good quarterbacks who look like guys with NFL futures. Loved how McCarron handled the pressure of the title game, and Murray has Pac-12-type talent.

We're trash talking here, but if you can't acknowledge what is real, well, then it's just noise.

And the reality of this debate is this: Barkley would be more challenged on a weekly basis by SEC defenses than by Pac-12 defenses -- which I believe are underrated but still a step behind the SEC for the reasons the Inimitable Low mentioned above. If Barkley played at Vanderbilt, Mississippi State or Kentucky, he'd just be the best quarterback in the history of those programs while leading those teams to "historic" seasons. Like a third-place finish in their divisions.

Yet what makes Barkley, Barkley is not just Barkley. It's USC. It's his supporting cast. It's receivers Robert Woods and Marqise Lee, who will both have NFL careers. And two tight ends who will also. And a good offensive line, and a 1,000-yard rusher who averaged 6.9 yards per carry in 2011 (Curtis McNeal).

By the way, if you wonder where USC's true potential Achilles heel is this year, it's the defensive line. The Trojans have three A-listers -- guys who would be touted in the SEC -- but are thin thereafter. That's a problem for a team that views itself as a national title contender.

That's ultimately the rub here, too. If all goes according to plan, Barkley and USC should be in position to play for the national title. It's hard to imagine that wouldn't be against another SEC team.

Now, Chris, wouldn't it be fun if it were USC and LSU? Recall that in 2003, LSU won 1/16 of the national title when no one in the entire world thought LSU was better than USC, other than computers obviously loaded with all sorts of viruses.

Or USC-Alabama? Great history, and Saban versus Barkley & Co. would certainly attract plenty of eyeballs.

Chris Low: One of the most compelling things that could happen to college football next season would be for USC and Barkley to take their shot at an SEC defense in the money game.

Then, we could quit debating and let it play out on the field. As much as I knew that Alabama and LSU were the two best teams in the country last season, there was a part of me that wanted to see Oklahoma State against either the Alabama or LSU defense in the BCS title game.

It's the matchup we all want to see: A high-powered offense versus a suffocating defense.

Maybe that's what we'll be treated to this fall.

Of course, I go back to the 2010 national title game, and Oregon had been short-circuiting scoreboards all season long. The Ducks go up against an Auburn defense that had been opportunistic, but wasn't one of the best in the SEC that season statistically. But in that game, Auburn put the clamps on Oregon and won 22-19.

The Tigers won because the Ducks couldn't block Nick Fairley.

And that's what the Trojans would run into if they find themselves up against an SEC team next January in Miami.

It won't come down to Barkley. Sure, he'll make a few plays. He's legit. But what it will come down to is the group of guys blocking for Barkley, and that's where it always gets ugly against SEC defenses.

In the meantime, just make sure the Trojans get there. They've been known to stumble along the way, and what we're left with is a bunch of hollow chatter about what they would have done (or could have done) had they made it to the party.

We'll check the guest list in December and chat again then.

Rich Rodriguez has some work to do in his own backyard. That's the conclusion from ESPN The Magazine's LaRue Cook, who examined the worst in-state recruiters. Along with the RecruitingNation crew, ESPN The Magazine poured over the past five years of ESPNU 150 rankings, (750 total recruits) and found the worst 10 BCS programs at holding on to homegrown, elite talent.

Per the study, Arizona is 0-for-12 during that stretch at landing ESPNU 150 recruits while USC has been the top program in that state over that time.

Writes Cook:

Arizona has signed just two ESPNU 150 recruits over the past five years, and neither DE Apaiata Tuihalamaka (Gardena, Calif.) nor TE Rob Gronkowski (Pittsburgh) was a home-state product. While the Trojans have had the most success here, Arizona State was at least able to land two preps within its state borders. Last year, the state's top prospect (OT Christian Westerman of Chandler) signed with Auburn. In 2012, all eyes in Tucson are on the nation's top ATH Davonte Neal (Scottsdale), who's still considering the Wildcats and would certainly kick start Rich Rodriguez's tenure.

But Arizona isn't alone in the Top 5. Pac-12 brethren Stanford and Cal check in on the list at Nos. 3 and 4 respectively. Like Arizona, USC has been California's top recruiter during 2007-2011. Stanford has nabbed just 2-of-73 ESPNU recruits.

Cook on Stanford:

We gave Stanford props for its ability to go out of state to sign top prospects, but there's no ignoring the program's inability to create an elite pipeline in its state. (Meanwhile, UCLA has signed 12 in-state ESPNU 150 recruits over the last five years.) Sure, Cardinal fans can blame their program's struggles on academic constraints, but out of 73 players, surely more than two could qualify. In 2012, David Shaw doesn't have a single ESPNU 150 commit from California -- USC currently has four and UCLA has two -- but No. 4 OT Kyle Murphy (San Clemente) still has Stanford on his short list.

Cross-Bay rival Cal hasn't been much better. The Golden Bears have hauled in just 4-of-73 ESPNU 150 prospects during that time.

Cook on Cal:

We could make the same knock against the Golden Bears over the last five years, but Jeff Tedford has nearly matched his 2007-11 total in 2012. Cal is close to signing three of the state's top eight prospects, including the nation's No. 3 S Shaq Thompson (Sacramento).

You can cut Cal and Stanford a little slack, since California is a recruiting goldmine for the rest of the country -- not just USC. It isn't just the rest of the conference they are trying to fend off. And to compensate, both schools were praised by Cook as top five programs at recruiting out of state.

Oregon won the Arik Armstead lottery on Sunday.

Armstead, one of the nation's top-rated linemen, picked the Ducks over California, Washington, Auburn and Notre Dame. The one-time USC commitment will play defense for the Ducks -- he's rated higher as an offensive lineman -- and also will play basketball and will enroll at Oregon in time to participate in spring practices.

From ESPN Recruiting's Greg Biggins:

Before Cal defensive line coach Tosh Lupoi left for Washington, Armstead seemed like a very solid bet to end up with the Bears. Even late last week, there was talk among a few other 2012 recruits that it looked good for Cal to land Armstead.

Oregon, led by head coach Chip Kelly and linebacker coach Don Pellum, came in for a home visit last week and wowed the family.

Kelly was able to sell the opportunity to play for a national championship right away and Pellum sold Armstead on how he would fit in with the defense.

Interesting twist here. While Cal fans will be sour that Armstead didn't pick the Bears -- allegedly because of Lupoi's departure -- they also can take heart from the fact that he didn't make the flip for the Huskies.

Further, this seems to validate the contention of many -- including yours truly-- that Oregon coach Chip Kelly may actually have helped recruiting by flirting with Tampa Bay.

The real test of Lupoi's jump to Washington: Shaq Thompson. He's choosing between Cal, where he has committed, Washington and Oregon. Thompson and Armstead are close, but not necessarily a package deal.

If the Huskies get Thompson, Lupoi immediately yields fruit. If Cal does, Lupoi's loss gets muted, at least in the short term.

And if Oregon gets him, then the Ducks start to show signs of taking a step toward elite recruiting.

Some good stuff on Armstead here.

National signing day, if you haven't heard, is Wednesday.

Happy Friday.

Follow me on Twitter.

To the notes!

Kohler from Boise writes: I'm a bit confused about your end of season rankings. A 7-6 Washington, that finished #3 in the Pac-12 is given a final grade of a C. Meanwhile, a 4-8 WSU is ALSO given a final grade of a C? The Huskies Defense was horrible in 2011, but they still managed to overcome that and rise to the top of the league. I'd throw in some comment about how you must hate the Huskies, but I'm not one of those Duck haters who just looks for a reason to complain about your writing.

Ted Miller: A fair question.

Let's start with this (and assuming you are a Washington fan). Remember your August of 2011 self. Strapping. Confident. Trash talking. What record would you have projected for Washington? And for Washington State. My guess is most Huskies fans thought an eight-win regular season perfectly reasonable. And my guess is your Cougars brethren were hoping for six but foresaw something closer to 5-7. Each team had a different set of reasonable expectations. And both teams fell short of expectations. So both teams get docked.

In the same vein, if Oregon had finished, say, 9-3 and not won the North Division it likely would have been in the Cs. And at 8-4 with a loss to Washington, it might have been a D, though injuries and circumstances also play a role in the final grade.

Different teams, different sorts of expectations. So, yes, these grades are on a certain curve. All seasons don't start from the same place.

Further, there are variables. The Cougars received a benefit of the doubt because they lost their starting QB to injury for essentially the entire season. While the Huskies could counter that QB Keith Price was an unknown as a first-year starter, the complete collapse of the defense earned a major demerit because there were high preseason expectations that the unit would be vastly better than recent vintages. It wasn't. Meanwhile, the Cougars dramatically improved their numbers on both sides of the ball from 2010 to 2011. Washington, perhaps surprisingly, was much better on offense but much worse on defense.

Further, the Huskies get docked because of their downward trajectory at season's end. This 7-6 finish was not nearly the match of last year's 7-6 finish. They started 5-1 this fall, earned a national ranking, but then got exposed when the schedule toughened up. Losing four of the final five is a worse path to 7-6 than winning four in a row to end the season in 2010 was.

As far as their place in the Pac-12, it makes sense to rate the Huskies fourth (did you forget USC?), a decisive head-to-head win at Utah giving them an edge over the 8-5 Utes, who got a B for their strong showing in their first year of Pac-12 play. But that's largely a function of the competition for that spot. California, which got a C also? Or Arizona State, which got a D? Or UCLA, which got a D+?

To me, the Huskies and Cougars seasons seem very similar in terms of generating fan satisfaction. Neither team failed, but neither walked away happy. And both teams made major staff changes as a result -- changes both sets of fans, by the way, are thrilled about.

---

Patrick from Las Vegas writes: During the Pete Carroll years, we all wanted a USC vs SEC BCS title game. Isn't it kind of fitting that it USC has the best chance of all other contenders to end the SEC's run?

Ted Miller: Well, let's not count Trojans before they hatch. Keep in mind that the reason USC didn't win more national titles under Pete Carroll was its predilection to throw up on itself against a middling foe at least once a year. And, based on the totality of the 2011 season, they didn't completely kick that habit -- see the loss at Arizona State that, obviously, looks much worse now than it did at the time.

To play for the 2012 national title, the Trojans likely will need to go undefeated. They have a favorable schedule, but if they take a foe lightly, they will face plant. Paging leadership from Matt Barkley.

As for past misses between USC and the SEC: In 2003 and 2008, I would have been extremely confident picking USC over LSU and Florida, respectively. I'd rate 2006 a toss-up between USC and Florida.

But, as of today, I'd like LSU's chances against USC.

---

Brian from Syracuse, NY writes: One of the big unwritten rules in recruiting is that when a coach changes schools, he should cease recruitment of the kids he had been recruiting for his old school. Thus it is surprising how unapologetically Tosh Lupoi has continued to recruit since going to UW. How sacred are the unwritten rules among the coaching fraternity? Is the wrath of other coaches any real deterrent.

Ted Miller: Unwritten rules in recruiting?

There are written rules -- the NCAA's -- that get bent, twisted and broken all the time. As for unwritten rules, it's mostly about every man for himself.

Yes, as some of you have observed, I did write this on on Jan. 17:

If Lupoi aggressively tries to flip a handful of players committed to Cal -- something we honestly doubt he will do -- then, well, we'd hope that would cause him to lose some sleep. While all is fair in love, war and recruiting, that would be a bit sleazy. Of course, effective sleazy that is within NCAA rules often falls under this category: good recruiting.

Now, there is a difference between recruiting players committed to Cal, and recruiting players who are still uncommitted that he was recruiting for Cal. But, of course, Lupoi has been actively pursuing touted safety Shaq Thompson and athlete Cedric Dozier, who are both committed to Cal. Yes, that looks yucky.

My guess is Lupoi has lost some sleep on this and, yes, probably feels a little sleazy. But this is the business. It's sleazy. He was hired by Steve Sarkisian to kick butt and sign names, not win a Nobel Peace Prize.

I also think it might be helpful to imagine a workable recruiting pitch for Lupoi at present. It probably goes something like this, "Look, I'm not going to say anything bad about Cal and Jeff Tedford. Great school, great program. But let me tell you about Washington and Coach Sarkisian." And then Lupoi hopes his personality and ability to connect (or re-connect) with young men takes over. I can't believe Lupoi would badmouth Cal, because any athlete with a lick of sense would see right through that.

As for long-term relationships among the coaches, they tend to work themselves out. Sarkisian and Tedford are pros. They know the business. I'm sure Tedford isn't happy about things, and as a competitor he'd probably like to stick it to Sark in some way. But there will be no "wrath" between the two. That's a waste of energy.

---

Nick from Conway, Ark., writes: You're already writing off the Red Wolves in their opener against Oregon? We all saw what Mike Dyer did against them a couple of years ago. True, Oregon will likely win this game, but if the Ducks have the same mindset as you, this game can get interesting.

Ted Miller: Yes, Nick, I am writing off Arkansas State against Oregon on Sept. 1. If the Red Wolves are within 30, I'd be shocked.

As for Dyer's transfer from Auburn, that makes things worse for the Red Wolves. Chip Kelly will be able to play that excruciating video over and over again, so Ducks defenders should be plenty motivated to stick it to Dyer. And make sure he's down.

Of course, Dyer should feel fortunate that safety Eddie Pleasant is now off the to NFL. He's surely the one who'd most like another shot at Dyer.

The system of checks and balances is working in Los Angeles. Just consider new UCLA coach Jim Mora's recent hiring of a new new strength and conditioning coach.

The media in Los Angeles is calling attention to a horrible — and infamous — mistake Sal Alosi made when he worked for the New York Jets. It is opining on the riskiness of Mora's hire.

That is good. That is the media doing its job, holding public figures accountable for their actions.

And Mora and Alosi are talking about the hiring. They are not hiding.

"I understand the criticism, I expect the criticism, it's completely warranted," Mora told LA Times columnist Bill Plaschke. "But I know the fiber of this man."

That is good: Public figures stepping forward to explain themselves in a controversial situation.

And, by the way, well said, Jim.

I love Mora's hire here all the more, even without knowing a whole lot about Alosi as a strength coach, other than that he seems highly respected by a number of NFL players.

As you long-time readers know, I am a big second-chance guy. I believed LeGarrette Blount deserved a second chance. I believed Rick Neuheisel deserved a second chance. I think the ranting and raving of absolutists who act like everything is black-and-white is a pose, one that my life experience has often found to be situational and hypocritical.

But this isn't about praising Mora for giving a guy a second chance. It's about Mora doing what he wants to do with his team and not fretting the PR angles. This is a revealing moment that Bruins fans should feel good about.

Here's a secret of all good head coaches: They insist on autonomy. They hire who they want to hire. They don't allow administrators to dictate whom they hire. Sure, there are obvious parameters -- felonies and NCAA violations tend to disqualify assistant coaching candidates. But the quickest and surest path to failure is a new head coach taking a job and then being steered to hire assistants he doesn't know.

Perhaps the most important quality for a head coach is being a good CEO, and the first thing a good CEO does is hire the right people. He needs to build a cohesive unit that functions efficiently. To do that, he needs to know whom he's hiring. How he works. How he takes suggestions and criticism. How he teaches and motivates. His work ethic, both on the field and in recruiting.

Further, it's also about loyalty. An assistant who isn't connected to a head coach often feels little reason not to undermine him "off-the-record" if things get tough.

The worst case I can think of was Terry Bowden at Auburn back in the 1990s. His fatal mistake was retaining assistants who worked for Pat Dye. That became a train wreck of epic proportions.

UCLA fans are well-aware of another: Neuheisel's second chance was a dream — coaching his alma mater — that turned into a nightmare, in large part because he agreed to hire Norm Chow as his offensive coordinator and retain DeWayne Walker as his defensive coordinator. Chow and Walker are outstanding coaches, no doubt. But they weren't Neuheisel's guys. A major part of the problem in Westwood the past four years was a lack of cohesion on the Bruins coaching staff.

Obviously, this isn't the same thing. We're talking about a strength coach, not a coordinator. But I am choosing to freight the hiring of Alosi with meaning, meaning that speaks well of Mora and the early — early! — trajectory of his tenure.

Mora wanted to hire Alosi. He knew there would be some negative blowback, and not without justification. But he met that blowback head-on, and now he's got a the strength coach he wanted.

And he's got a strength coach who probably feels pretty darn obligated to bust his rear end and repay Mora's faith in him with a finely conditioned football team.

Got a text from a former Stanford player, "My heart hurts."

You can understand why. The Cardinal physically dominated the No. 3 team in the country in the Fiesta Bowl, and many believed Oklahoma State should have been playing LSU for the national title.

Physically dominated? Stanford outgained the Cowboys 590 yards to 412. While 412 yards is a chunk of change, the Cowboys had been averaging 557, including 170 yards rushing per game. They had 13 yards rushing against the Cardinal, which piled up 243 yards on the ground.

Stanford lost the turnover battle 2-1. It lost the penalty battle, getting flagged six times for 35 yards against just once for five yards for the Cowboys (42 pass plays, no holding? Obviously, not a Pac-12 crew officiating).

But, most critically, it lost the field-goal battle. The Cowboys were 2-for-2 on field goals. Stanford was 1-for-4, including missing a 35-yarder that could have won the game in regulation and another miss in overtime that sealed the Cardinal's fate.

Let's quickly reiterate: Field goals are important, particularly at important times during important games. Ask Auburn about last year's national title game win against Oregon. Ask Oregon about its home loss to USC. Ask Alabama about its regular-season loss to LSU.

And no one gives a flip about being physically superior when the scoreboard thumbs its nose at you. Missing field goals is no different than missing blocks, tackles and tossing interceptions. It's part of the game, so bemoaning this defeat as being any different than another is ultimately a moot point for message boards. History measures it a loss, which, yes, seems like a lousy way for QB Andrew Luck and a great group of Cardinal players done with their eligibility -- or joining Luck early in the NFL draft -- to go out.

Still, 23-3 over the past two years, two BCS bowl games. You couldn't have sold the notion to any Stanford fan in the summer of 2010.

So as we consider end-of-game second-guessing, let's keep that in perspective.

But, yes, just like many other sportswriters who have never coached a down of football, I have entertained the thought Stanford coach David Shaw should have been more aggressive at the end when he had a first down on the Cowboys 25-yard line with 52 seconds left and three timeouts. In fact, there seemed to be a plurality of opinion among the sportswriters gathered around a small TV in the Rose Bowl press box that articulated that very thing before the fact. And I am on record with Big Ten blogger Brian Bennett and Michael Lev of the Orange County Register as twice remarking that Stanford's freshman kicker Jordan Williamson looked nervous, including just before the kick.

Jon Wilner of the San Jose Mercury News says it very well here: "In my opinion, there was a better chance of Williamson missing from 35 yards than Luck throwing an interception in the red zone."

Still, when I type "more aggressive" what does that mean? Would you say that Oregon coach Chip Kelly was more or less aggressive in nearly the same situation against USC? Oregon had a first-and-10 on the Trojans 32 with 38 seconds left and two timeouts remaining, but Alejandro Maldonado missed from 37 yards as time expired to give USC its signature win of the season.

Here's what a coach is thinking at that moment:

• We can't turn the ball over.
• We don't want to give the ball back to Oklahoma State.
• We'd like to kick on third down so if we botch the snap, we can get a do-over on fourth down.
• We want to get as close as possible. Without turning the ball over.

There's also this: Based on how both teams moved the ball up and down the field, I'd have given Oklahoma State a 30 percent chance of tying the game in regulation if Stepfan Taylor scored a 25-yard TD on first down. Or if Luck threw a TD pass in the endzone. In the Rose Bowl, Wisconsin got all the way to Oregon's 25-yard line in 16 seconds, just missing getting a final shot for the tie.

What Shaw opted to do, ultimately, is go by the book and trust his kicker, who, by the way, was second-team All-Pac-12. And, if Luck had tossed an interception, or the Cardinal had fumbled on a third-down run, fans and media would be yammering, "What the heck was Shaw thinking?"

Kelly and Shaw are two of the more IQ-smart coaches you will meet. They didn't get dumb in these two instances. They rolled the dice and lost.

There's nothing wrong with second-guessing, by the way. It's part of the sports. Kelly and Shaw are paid well to roll the dice and win. Reporters are paid poorly to speculate after-the-fact when highly paid coaches roll snake eyes.

Yes, hearts are hurting on the Farm and in all the well-heeled places where Stanford alumni end up. Justifiably so.

Still: 23-3 over the past two years, two BCS bowl games. That's pretty darn special for the most elite academic university playing FBS football.

PASADENA, Calif. -- Sometimes storylines become so redundant that they feel like cliches. Reporters get just as bored with them as coaches and players do. But redundancy itself implies that something has been there and is there again and hasn't yet gone away.

When Oregon coach Chip Kelly and the Ducks were asked about what it would "mean" to win a BCS bowl game after losing two in a row, they mostly swatted the question aside. Kelly, for one, repeatedly insisted he's not a believer in legacies.

"We've always been a forward-thinking operation," Kelly said. "I find it humorous when people talk about 19-, 20-, 21-year old kids and what they're legacy is going to be. They're just kids."

Well, not really. Teams that win Rose Bowls become a part of history. Teams and players that win Rose Bowls are remembered. They become the connective tissue of the fan experience, such when a single 25-year-old fan here today 15 years from now will tell his 10-year-old son how he was there when LaMichael James rushed for 180 yards and three touchdowns against Wisconsin.

No legacy? Balderdash. And as forward-looking as Kelly wants to be, his counterpart Bret Bielema, whose Badgers lost here a year ago, knows that losing the last game of the season on a big and storied stage is something that's doesn't make it easy to avert a backwards glance.

"This is the feeling you'll have in your mouth for the next seven to eight months until we get ready for our opener a year from now," he said.

Winning a Rose Bowl is a gift that keeps on giving. And losing one is a wound that festers. All the forward-thinking in the world won't change that.

So we have a game that both teams want to win even more because both ended their 2010 seasons with such a wound.

Another redundancy: This is a classic Rose Bowl cliche: Big Ten power vs. Pac-12 flash. Oregon is fast. Wisconsin is huge. And both teams are extremely good at what they do.

"It's almost scary how balanced they are," Kelly said. "When you play most teams, you want them to play left-handed, and let's take away their strength. But they have strengths in both facets."

Still, both teams are going to focus on stopping the run first. If one team has consistent success running the ball, it's likely going to win. But it's also possible the defense will step up -- see last year's national title game between the Ducks and Auburn -- and make things difficult for the offenses. It's possible big plays in the passing game will provide a critical difference.

Will the Ducks, a good pass-rushing team, be able to disrupt the timing of the mobile and extremely efficient Russell Wilson, who has been sacked 23 times this sea? Will the Badgers be able to handle dumps to James and De'Anthony Thomas in space?

Those are the Xs and Os questions.

But the ultimate question is this: Which team walks away knowing it won't have to deal with "Can't win the big one" questions next year?

LOS ANGELES -- If reporters weren't going to ask Nick Aliotti interesting questions this week, well, maybe he'd ask them a few.

"I always find it interesting, not to be religious or anything like that, because I don't want to go there," Oregon's defensive coordinator said. "But it's always kind of like, we're praying for a win and they're praying for a win. So who's going to answer who?"

Pause for deep thought. Breathe in, breathe out.

Leave it to Aliotti to take a redundant question about Oregon needing to prove it can win a "big one" and turning it into a grounds for philosophical speculation.

What Aliotti was praying for likely was something engaging and different to talk about. There was clockwork predictability to the questions about his defense as it prepares for the Rose Bowl against Wisconsin. Here's a guess you could name them yourself.

1. How will Oregon's smaller defense handle Wisconsin's superior size? 2. How does Oregon hope to contain the Badgers' balanced attack with running back Montee Ball and quarterback Russell Wilson? 3. Does it bother him that his defense is overshadowed by the Ducks' flashy offense?

"All I know is last year, all we heard was how Auburn and Oregon were going to go up and down the field," he said of the national championship game last January. "That didn't quite happen."

The Ducks lost, of course, 22-19 on a last-second field goal, but that was the Tigers' second-lowest point total of the season.

There is some resignation to Aliotti -- "I'm trying to answer your question here," he repeatedly said to reporters -- because he'd like for his defense to get more credit, but he also knows that Oregon's national perception is gaudy uniforms and gaudy offensive statistics. That obscures how solid the Ducks' defense has been and is again this season.

No, Oregon is not as good as Alabama or LSU on defense. No, it won't send eight or nine guys to the NFL. But the Ducks did hold LSU to 273 yards, which is comparable to the 239 the Tigers had against the Crimson Tide. And Oregon did hold Auburn to fewer points than the Crimson Tide did in 2010 (28).

Aliotti wants to explain things, but he knows -- "I'm not trying to pat myself on the back; I'm giving you a long-winded answer" -- that a nuanced explanation often doesn't get much traction with an audience in search of simple -- simplistic? -- black and white numbers.

So what most see is this: Oregon’s defense ranks 59th in the nation in total yards, while Wisconsin's ranks eighth. Decisive advantage Badgers, correct? Well, Aliotti would note if he were typing this (and do you really know he's not?) that the Ducks and Badgers yield similar numbers on yards per play: Oregon 4.93, Wisconsin 4.85. And the Ducks are slightly better on third down.

You've heard this before, right? Because the Ducks' offense works so quickly, it ranks last in the nation in time of possession while also ranking third in scoring with 46.2 ppg. That meant more possessions for opposing offenses, which is why Oregon faced more plays than any team in the nation -- 1,005 -- other than Oklahoma State, which saw 1,008. Wisconsin's defense, with the benefit of an an offense that ranks 22nd in time of possession, only saw 786.

"So it's simple math," Aliotti said. "You play 80 plays, 4 yards a play is 320 yards. You play 60 plays, 5 yards a play is 300."

Speaking of math, Wisconsin's offensive line averages 6-foot-5, 320 pounds. The Ducks average 275 pounds among their eight regularly rotating defensive linemen. It's one thing to give up 25 pounds to a line that averages 300 pounds, like Stanford, but giving up 45 pounds is something else entirely.

Isn't it?

"It doesn't mean anything," defensive end Terrell Turner said. "The way our defensive line coach trains us, we can play against guys who are 7-foot-8, 390 pounds."

So there.

As for Ball and Wilson, Aliotti believes first down will be key. The Badgers convert 54 percent of their third-down plays, which ranks No. 1 in the nation, largely because they rarely face third-and-long.

"If they are in second-and-5 or less a lot of the game, then it will be hard to get them out of their rhythm," Aliotti said.

And second-and-5 is a great time for play-action, Wilson's forte. With senior Anthony Gildon highly questionable, the Ducks will be extremely young at cornerback, with redshirt freshmen Terrance Mitchell and Troy Hill as well as true freshman Ifo Ekpre-Olomu. While the Badgers are a power-running team, they are extremely efficient passing the ball, with Wilson throwing 31 TD passes and two receivers who caught at least 50 balls for more than 800 yards.

Of course, no one thought Oregon would hold Auburn and Heisman Trophy winning quarterback Cam Newton to 22 points last year.

It's clear that Aliotti and the Ducks respect the Wisconsin offense. And they are accustomed to being overlooked and dismissed. But there were a few times this week when Ducks defenders looked like cats purring with canaries in their mouths.

Said Aliotti, "We can't divulge any of the weaknesses because we'd have to kill 'ya."

The Granddaddy looks like a heck of a matchup between high-powered teams that do things very differently but equally effectively.

WHO TO WATCH: LaMichael James. He's had a brilliant career and is likely off to the NFL after this last hurrah, but the one thing lacking on his résumé is a big-time performance in a big-time nonconference game. Against Ohio State in the 2010 Rose Bowl, Auburn in last year's national championship game and LSU in the 2011 season opener, he never rushed for more than 70 yards and averaged a combined 3.8 yards per carry. Most believe, however, that the Badgers' front seven and run defense as a whole are weaker than those of any of those aforementioned teams. James needs 122 yards rushing to pass former Oregon State running back Ken Simonton and move into second place on the conference's career rushing list. If he gets that, expect the Ducks' chances to go up considerably. Another thing: Despite not being much of a factor running the ball, James was a key receiver against Auburn and LSU, catching 10 passes for 100 yards with two touchdowns in those games. So watch for James getting short dumps in space to give him a chance to do his thing.

WHAT TO WATCH: Wisconsin's offense does everything well. For real. It is balanced and efficient and almost never turns the ball over. The Badgers' one issue: pass-blocking. They have given up 1.77 sacks per game this season, which ranks 73rd in the nation. Oregon ranks third in the nation with 3.3 sacks per game. The Badgers' passing game is based on effective play-action. So the first task is slowing down the Badgers' running game and getting them into third-and-long and obvious passing downs. If that happens, the Ducks likely will open up an exotic bag of Nick Aliotti blitzes and stunts, using their superior speed to keep the huge Badgers offensive line off-balance. But if the Badgers' running game is chewing up yards and leaving them with third-and-short, the value of an effective pass rush is muted significantly.

WHY WATCH: Because this feels like it's going to be a great game, for one. It's a true clash of styles: Wisconsin's power versus Oregon's speed. It's a traditional Rose Bowl between top-10 teams from the Pac-12 and Big Ten. And there will be plenty of star power on the field from James to Badgers running back Montee Ball to Badgers quarterback Russell Wilson. Finally, both teams are smarting because they've previously fallen short in BCS bowl games. The Badgers lost to TCU here last year. The Ducks have lost two BCS bowls in a row. Both are hungry to end talk that they "can't win the big one."

PREDICTION: Wisconsin 35, Oregon 30. There are plenty of reasons to believe that Oregon will win. In the Big Ten championship game, a middling Michigan State team was able to make the Badgers' defense look slow on the perimeter. That's something that surely raised an eyebrow from Chip Kelly. This is not LSU's defense, or even Auburn's or Ohio State's. But Wisconsin's offense is the problem. It's power running, sure, but Wilson gives it an elite passing game. Expect a number of momentum shifts, but with the Badgers eventually grinding out a victory late in the fourth quarter. And, yes, a lot of this prediction is about the Ducks' needing to prove they can win one of these games. The Pac-12 blog is still smarting about picking the Ducks to win the national title game against Auburn -- and feeling an unusually high degree of certainty about it.

LOS ANGELES -- The 2012 Rose Bowl media day is now history. We'll have heaps of reports and videos the rest of the day.

But some quick impressions.

• More on the Rose Bowl

  For full coverage of the Wisconsin-Oregon matchup in the Rose Bowl Game presented by Vizio, check out the Rose Bowl home page.
  More:
  • Rose Bowl blog coverage
  • Big Ten blog | Pac-12 blog
  

  Oregon was the smaller team against Ohio State in the Rose Bowl two years ago and against Auburn in the national championship game last year, but Wisconsin dwarfs both of those teams. The Badgers, quite simply, are the biggest football team I've seen, and that includes a few years covering the NFL. That doesn't mean the Badgers are going to dominate up front. There are certain to be moments when their size creates mismatches and big plays, just as there are certain to be moments when the Ducks quickness makes the beefy Badgers look bad.
• This is clearly a business trip for both teams. There were very few wide-eyes over the media horde throwing out random, redundant and often silly questions, one after another. Both teams seemed loose and relaxed. Both teams seem more game-oriented than the whole "enjoying the bowl experience" thing.
• Wisconsin's outstanding center Peter Konz told ESPN.com's Brian Bennett the ankle injury that knocked him out of the final three games of the season feels much better. He wouldn't say for sure he was going to start on Monday, but the odds are certainly looking better than they did a week ago.
• Badgers receiver Jared Abbrederis is this year's Jeff Maehl. You look at the former walk-on and go, "Really?" -- just as the national media did at Maehl last year. But the sophomore is definitely a player to watch, considering his numbers nearly match leading receiver Nick Toon, son of former Wisconsin and NFL receiver Al Toon. He caught 55 passes for 822 yards -- 14.9 yards per catch -- with nine TDs this season. Looks, as Maehl showed over and over in 2010, can be deceiving.
• The Ducks said that coach Chip Kelly made no major changes to how the team prepared for the previous two bowl games. A couple said they felt like the team might be more serious this year, but that just might be because there are fewer seniors.

LOS ANGELES -- Oregon's football team is either the nation's best-dressed or the nation's worst-dressed -- depending on your new-school or old-school college football fashion tastes -- but at the very least one can say for sure that no other team's garb is more talked about.

Nike made sure it would be a hot topic during Rose Bowl preparations by revealing this week its latest space-age design, which the Ducks will don in the Rose Bowl on Monday.

The most dramatic addition is the reflective helmet, which suggests Darth Vader. The helmet was different enough to merit a question to Wisconsin's players on Wednesday.

Question: It looks like a big mirror. Have you seen the helmet? If so, are you worried about any reflection?

Wisconsin QB Russell Wilson confessed that he had not seen the helmet. He said he was "sure they're good-looking helmets" but he wasn't really worried about the Ducks helmets and whether he might be able to see his reflection in one.

"Oregon is a great football team," Wilson said. "They have, I guess, the fashion going on where they can wear whatever they want and look pretty good in it. But that's not what the game comes down to."

It's interesting that the Ducks mostly agree. Oregon's players embrace their varied looks, but few seem to spend much time thinking about it. Coach Chip Kelly insists that the uniform combinations be planned out in the preseason so it doesn't become a focus in the locker room.

"That stuff don't matter to us," safety Eddie Pleasant said. "It's nice to have it, but we don't care about that."

Added cornerback Anthony Gildon, "The jersey is cool to have, but it's more something for everybody that's looking in [at the program] than within the team."

Everybody seems to agree the players inside, not the uniforms, win games.

That said, sources who requested anonymity due to the fact they don't exist, said that the Ducks' lime green socks and shoes in last year's national title game against Auburn cost the Ducks four points from the football gods.

Let's play a quick game of fill in the blank: Oregon fans are ... What comes to mind? Keep it clean, folks. Behave!

Yes, it is fair to say that Oregon fans have eagerly, zealously and vociferously embraced the recent success of their team. The seed that was planted when Kenny Wheaton went the other way against Washington in 1994 is now a full-grown oak, and Oregon fans enjoy pointing out that their oak is more stately and beautiful than yours.

Eleven other Pac-12 teams want Oregon to go away. We have bad news for those 11. Not happening.

With the Rose Bowl on Jan. 2 against Wisconsin, the Ducks are playing in their third consecutive BCS bowl game. No other team in the country has played in three consecutive BCS bowl games. But this rise to the nation's elite started before this run of conference success. Oregon's first taste of national title contention was in 2000 and 2001. After a middling, post-Joey Harrington, pre-Chip Kelly interim, it was ranked No. 2 and a national title contender in 2007 before quarterback Dennis Dixon blew out his knee. Oregon finished the 2008 season ranked 10th. It finished 11th in 2009 after losing the Rose Bowl to Ohio State. It finished third in 2010 after losing to Auburn in the national title game.

While opposing fans can still pull out the "They haven't won a BCS bowl game under Kelly" card, that tweak comes from beneath the Ducks in the Pac-12 pecking order, so as ripostes go, it's rather pyrrhic.

And the Ducks, even if they lose to Wisconsin, will be a preseason top-10 team in 2012, probably top-five if they win the Granddaddy. There certainly is a lot to like about the depth chart.

Not including junior running back LaMichael James, who is likely off to the NFL, the Ducks should welcome back six starters on offense, six on defense and both specialists in 2012. But that doesn't tell the entire story.

For one, the Ducks will have a two-year starter returning at quarterback in Darron Thomas. While Thomas has had runs of inconsistent accuracy, there are two bottom lines: He's 22-3 as a starter and has thrown 63 touchdown passes with just 16 interceptions.

But what's notable about the Ducks' depth chart is not just returning starters.

Oregon only lists a two-deep. That means 44 players on offense and defense. Of the 22 names on offense, just four are departing seniors, not including James. Of the 22 names on defense, just six are seniors.

And most of the players who are leaving -- or are expected to leave, as in James' case -- are presently backed up by intriguing young talents who already have significant game experience. James leaving? Well, you all know who Kenjon Barner is. Tight end David Paulson? Freshman Colt Lyerla caught five touchdown passes this season. Lose two offensive linemen? Junior Ryan Clanton and freshman Jake Fisher have seen plenty of action. Lose two linebackers? Kiko Alonso has started five games and Boseko Lokombo has played a lot. Cornerback Anthony Gildon out the door? Redshirt freshman Troy Hill has started five games while Gildon has been hurt (and is doubtful for the Rose Bowl).

Further, the Ducks have some redshirt freshmen on both sides of the ball -- particularly at linebacker and receiver -- who figure to make an impact next year. Receivers Devon Blackmon, Tacoi Sumler and B.J. Kelley were highly touted 2011 signees, who could bolster the Ducks passing game.

If you were connecting the dots, you'd actually project the Ducks to be better in 2012 than their 2011, 11-2, Pac-12 champion selves.

And, even with the loss of Thomas after next season, the Ducks appear to set up nicely for 2013. And beyond.

I know. I know. Fans of those 11 other Pac-12 teams are jumping up and down and waving their arms, bellowing, "What about Willie Lyles and the NCAA?"

True, major NCAA sanctions would seem the mostly likely way the Ducks get knocked from their ascent to the nation's elite. And it could happen. You never know with the NCAA.

But the more I talk to people who make educated guesses on NCAA investigations, not to mention a few who have specific knowledge of the NCAA's inquiry into the Ducks, the more I'm leaning toward the position that the NCAA will not pound Oregon. I suspect sanctions will fall short of what Ohio State recently received.

Of course, I thought USC would receive less severe penalties than Alabama received in 2002, so I've also learned to not expect the NCAA to be logical and fair.

The point is this: If you are wondering what Oregon is likely to be doing in, say, 2014, my projection is they still will be annoying 11 other teams.

The Ducks aren't going to go away.

Oregon clearly was in trouble. Its opponent had all summer to prepare for the Ducks gimmicky offense, and we all know what that means. The defense could train its eyes. It could memorize the Ducks' feints and misdirection and personnel groupings. The scheme would become second-nature. Heck, stopping the Ducks' fancypants offense would be easy.

Then Oregon beat New Mexico 72-0 to open the 2010 season, gaining 720 yards.

A lot has been made of how teams with extra time to prepare for Oregon's offense seem to gain a significant advantage. And we're going to make something of it, too. But let's first understand something: When you talk about giving a team extra time, it's most likely the "team" part of the formula that is more important than the "extra time."

Oregon has lost six games under Chip Kelly. Only one defeat came against a team that didn't finish ranked in the nation's top five (8-5 Stanford in 2009). Only one came against a team with just one week to prepare (10-2 USC in 2011). But it's the four nonconference losses that are most notable, in large part because the Ducks' offense put up respectable numbers in the two conference defeats.

Those four games include three undefeated teams and 11-2 Ohio State. Auburn beat Oregon for the national title last year. LSU is playing Alabama for the national title on Jan. 9. In 2009, Boise State went 14-0.

So Kelly's explanation for his team's losses reduces each to a fundamental essence that puts the foundational justification for this story at risk.

"The games we lost are because the other team was better than us," he said.

Better on that day would be the way some in the Ducks locker room might phrase it.

Excuses are bad. No one likes to hear a loser making excuses. But let's make them anyway.

• Boise State 19, Oregon 8: Kelly's head coaching debut was a disaster. The game is best known for Ducks RB LeGarrette Blount's postgame punch. This was the one, truly dominant throttling of Kelly's offense: 152 total yards, including just 31 yards rushing. The Ducks were breaking in four new offensive linemen and it showed. Excuse? Oregon just got whipped in every area, including coaching.
• Ohio State 26, Oregon 17: This one was most notable for Buckeyes QB Terrelle Pryor posting the best game of his career, passing for a career-high 266 yards and two touchdowns and rushing for 72 yards. On the Ducks side, QB Jeremiah Masoli had his worst game of the season, completing 9-of-20 passes for 81 yards with an interception. And Ducks fans certainly remember the fumbled exchange between Masoli and Blount in the third quarter on second-and-2 on the Buckeyes 18 with Ohio State up 19-17. While much is made of the Ducks always losing the battle up front in these games, the Ducks outrushed Ohio State 179 to 153, averaging 5.4 yards per carry compared to 3.0 for the Buckeyes.
• Auburn 22, Oregon 19: The Ducks lost on a last-second field goal in the national title game -- there's shame in that? Sure, they didn't score much but they gained 449 yards. In terms of the physical matchup, sure, Oregon couldn't block DT Nick Fairley. The 2010 Lombardi Award winner was pretty good.
• LSU 40, Oregon 27: The excuse here is the most obvious: What if Oregon didn't lose the turnover battle 4-1, including a fumbled punt that gave LSU a TD? But if you won't entertain the excuses, just look at the facts of the season. How many teams scored 27 points on LSU? That would be none. Next highest totals were 21 and 17 points. The Ducks gained 335 yards. Only West Virginia gained more. Said Kelly, "When it was all said and done, that LSU defense, they are pretty freaking good."

Still, excuses are for losers. If the Ducks' ultimate goal is to rank among the nation's super-elite -- the top five -- it must win these games. It can't average 17.8 points and 95 yards rushing against highly ranked nonconference teams, as it did in these four games.

And if the Ducks go down against Wisconsin on Jan. 2 in the Rose Bowl, they will hear the same sort of chatter. Further, the Badgers believe the extra prep time gives them an advantage against Oregon.

"If you got done with a game on Saturday and you had to get ready for (them), I think it would be a very difficult challenge," Wisconsin coach Bret Bielema said. "But the extended prep and the opportunity to kind of slow things down a little bit mentally is going to be great."

Added defensive end Patrick Butrym, "It's such a difficult offense to go against. Honestly, it would be very hard to prepare for them if we only had a week. So I'm glad we have that extra time."

The key for the Ducks is the running game. In all four of the above defeats, the Ducks didn't approach their season average on the ground. That's understandable against good defenses, but the Oregon offense isn't the Oregon offense without an effective rushing attack.

Wisconsin has a good defense -- eighth in the nation in total defense and sixth in scoring -- but it's not as fast as LSU or Auburn and it doesn't have the NFL talent up front Ohio State did. The Badgers rank 46th in the nation against the run, surrendering 138 yards per game.

Kelly also pointed out that the Badgers, despite Big Ten stereotypes, have seen plenty of zone-read running plays and spread passing formations this season. The Ducks' offense won't be completely new.

For Kelly, the formula is simple. He needs to get his speedy playmakers the ball in space. The Ducks need balance. They need to convert on third down. And they need to win battles up front.

Extra prep time spelling doom for Oregon? That's probably part of the equation, but in the end it's just, well, football. Players making plays. Or not.

"It's a quick sound bite," Kelly said of the story that won't die until his team wins a marquee nonconference game.

"The answer is the team that has the best players is going to win the football game."

So are Oregon's players finally better?

After a year's hiatus, the Rose Bowl is back to its traditional self: A Pac-12-Big Ten matchup.

And it looks like a good matchup of good teams with contrasting styles.

Sounds like a good time for a blog debate!

Ted Miller: Well, Brian, we’re back to a traditional Pac-12-Big Ten Granddaddy and it looks like a good one: Midwest power versus West Coast flash. I’m a little surprised that Oregon is favored against Montee Ball, Russell Wilson and that mammoth group of biscuit and gravy eaters you call an offensive line. Give me an idea of what the Ducks are up against with the Badgers' offense. Is it all power football, or is it more sophisticated than that?

Brian Bennett: You'd better believe the Badgers have the baddest bunch of big uglies in college football, with an offensive line that outweighs many NFL units. Add in a couple of good tight ends, a senior fullback and Wisconsin's dedication to the ground game and you can see why the program has been one of the best running teams in the country for several years now. But it's not just all brute. The thing that makes these linemen stand out is that they are nimble and can really move, and I think many defenses are shocked by that combination of strength and athleticism early in games. Wilson has also given this team an entirely new dimension with his ability to make plays on the move and his outstanding accuracy. Opponents have no choice but to respect the run when playing Wisconsin, and that makes this offense the most dangerous play-action team in America. You'll see receivers getting huge cushions in the passing game, and Ball can break tackles even when the box is loaded.

That's why the Badgers average 44.6 points per game, just a tick below Oregon's 46.2 average. My question for you is, can the Ducks' defense handle this kind of offensive power, especially in a 3-4 scheme?

Ted Miller: Oooooo. I’m telling Chip Kelly that you said the Ducks run a 3-4! He hates that. No idea why. Coordinator Nick Aliotti will tell you that the Ducks throw a lot of stunts and looks -- 3-4, 4-3, 2-5, etc -- and crazy stuff at you. They are fast, underrated and bigger than many think. Their top four defensive tackles, who are in a regular rotation, weigh 321, 300, 283 and 286 pounds.

Oregon has faced big, powerful teams before. Stanford and USC the past two years, in conference, and Auburn and LSU out of conference. Forgotten in the talk about how Auburn and LSU slowed down the Ducks' offense is how the Ducks' defense slowed down both sets of Tigers. Oregon outgained LSU 372-273 but was done in by four horrible turnovers. The Ducks held Auburn and Cam Newton to 22 points, its second-lowest total of the season.

Sure, Oregon’s defense ranks 59th in the nation in total yards while Wisconsin ranks eighth. But they yield similar numbers on yards per play: Oregon 4.93, Wisconsin 4.85. And the Ducks are slightly better on third down. Oregon’s defense’s biggest problem is its offense, which scores a lot of points despite ranking LAST in the nation in time of possession. The Badgers' defense, with an offense that ranks 22nd in time of possession, only faced 786 plays this year. Oregon faced 1,005. That skews numbers.

Wait. Did I get all stats-y there? Sorry. My answer to the size question is what Oregon will say leading up to the Rose Bowl. It’s nothing new for them. They play their game, run their stunts, use their speed and see what happens. Stanford, which has two first-round NFL draft choices on its O-line, would be the most natural comparison with the Badgers. And for two years in a row, no team has played good enough defense to beat the Cardinal and Andrew Luck other than Oregon.

While Badgers fans expect Whisky to run over the Ducks with size -- Big Ten thinking! -- Ducks fans believe they can exploit the Badgers' defense with speed and misdirection -- Pac-12 thinking! What about some Brian Bennett thinking: Do the Badgers have the speed on defense to keep up with the Ducks? Is Bret Bielema going to use past blueprints to thwart Kelly?

(Read full post)