Pac-12: BCS
Our theme today, as part of our "Love to hate" week at ESPN.com, is "Left in the lurch." This is about coaches who bailed out on a Pac-12 program at an unexpected or awkward time. We're not including Urban Meyer leaving Utah for Florida or Jim Harbaugh leaving Stanford for the San Francisco 49ers because their departures were not unexpected and came only after unprecedented success.
Of course, these situations vary greatly in terms of circumstances and reaction. There aren't many college football jobs out there considered better than one in the Pac-12, so most of the coaches who bailed out on their programs left for the NFL.
But here is a sampling from the Pac-12. Feel free to provide your own thoughts below.
But two departures really stand out.
Don James is on the short list of greatest college football coaches of all time. In 18 seasons at Washington, from 1975 to 1992, he won a national title and four Rose Bowls. He went 153-57-2 (.726) and set a then-record of 98 conference victories. From 1990-92, the Huskies won 22 consecutive games.
He is the Dawgfather.
And that's why many Huskies fans will tell you the lowest moment in program history is when he resigned in protest of NCAA and Pac-12 sanctions on Aug. 22, 1993. (James really, really didn't like Washington president William Gerberding and athletic director Barbara Hedges, either).
His resignation just before the season forced Washington to promote defensive coordinator Jim Lambright, a good man and a good defensive coordinator but not an ideal fit as head coach. Other than a Rose Bowl victory after the 2000 season under Rick Neuheisel, things have never been the same in Husky Stadium. Not yet, at least.
A more recent shocker: Pete Carroll bolting USC after the 2009 season for the Seattle Seahawks.
Carroll's hiring in 2001 was widely panned, but all he did thereafter was build a college football dynasty, winning national championships in 2003 and 2004 and falling just short of a third consecutive title in 2005 in a thrilling loss to Texas. He went 97-19 (.836) in nine seasons (11-2 versus rivals Notre Dame and UCLA), won six BCS bowl games and finished ranked in the AP top-four seven times. He won 34 consecutive games from 2003-05 and coached three Heisman Trophy winners and 25 first-team All-Americans.
So, yeah, he accomplished a lot. And many thought he would coach USC for life, though many others also suspected the lure of the NFL would prove too much.
It was the timing of his sudden, stunning departure that frustrated many Trojans fans. While Carroll has repeatedly denied oncoming NCAA sanctions had anything to do with his decision to leave, that's a hard line to buy. He skipped town after a 9-4 season that featured blowout losses to Stanford and Oregon and left behind a team with a two-year bowl ban and deficit of 30 scholarships over three seasons.
Still, not unlike how James is viewed by Huskies fans, Carroll is mostly spared the wrath of Trojans fans because of what he accomplished.
There's no question, however, that both programs were left in the lurch.
Of course, these situations vary greatly in terms of circumstances and reaction. There aren't many college football jobs out there considered better than one in the Pac-12, so most of the coaches who bailed out on their programs left for the NFL.
But here is a sampling from the Pac-12. Feel free to provide your own thoughts below.
- California got dogged twice. First, after going 10-2 in 1991, Bruce Snyder bailed on the Golden Bears for Arizona State. It's rare for a coach to jump from one conference program to another, and it certainly hurts more. Then, in 1996, Steve Mariucci lasted just one year in Berkeley before jumping aboard with the San Francisco 49ers.[+] Enlarge
AP Photo/Don RyanPete Carroll stunned USC fans when he left after the 2009 season to coach the Seattle Seahawks. - Dennis Erickson twice left Pac-12 teams for sunnier pastures (at least in theory). After two years at Washington State, Erickson bolted for Miami after the 1988 season. Then, after a strong run at Oregon State from 1999-2002, Erickson left Corvallis for the San Francisco 49ers. He has repeatedly said that was the worst move of his career.
- Dick Vermeil lasted two seasons at UCLA. After going 9-2-1 in 1975 and upsetting No. 1 Ohio State in the Rose Bowl, he left for the Philadelphia Eagles.
- Rick Neuheisel shocked many when he left Colorado for Washington before the 1999 season for a million-dollar contract, which was at the time considered exorbitant. He left behind NCAA sanctions for the Buffaloes and immediately got into trouble with the Huskies. It didn't make folks in Boulder feel any better when the Huskies and Neuheisel swept a home-and-home series over the next two years.
But two departures really stand out.
Don James is on the short list of greatest college football coaches of all time. In 18 seasons at Washington, from 1975 to 1992, he won a national title and four Rose Bowls. He went 153-57-2 (.726) and set a then-record of 98 conference victories. From 1990-92, the Huskies won 22 consecutive games.
He is the Dawgfather.
And that's why many Huskies fans will tell you the lowest moment in program history is when he resigned in protest of NCAA and Pac-12 sanctions on Aug. 22, 1993. (James really, really didn't like Washington president William Gerberding and athletic director Barbara Hedges, either).
His resignation just before the season forced Washington to promote defensive coordinator Jim Lambright, a good man and a good defensive coordinator but not an ideal fit as head coach. Other than a Rose Bowl victory after the 2000 season under Rick Neuheisel, things have never been the same in Husky Stadium. Not yet, at least.
A more recent shocker: Pete Carroll bolting USC after the 2009 season for the Seattle Seahawks.
Carroll's hiring in 2001 was widely panned, but all he did thereafter was build a college football dynasty, winning national championships in 2003 and 2004 and falling just short of a third consecutive title in 2005 in a thrilling loss to Texas. He went 97-19 (.836) in nine seasons (11-2 versus rivals Notre Dame and UCLA), won six BCS bowl games and finished ranked in the AP top-four seven times. He won 34 consecutive games from 2003-05 and coached three Heisman Trophy winners and 25 first-team All-Americans.
So, yeah, he accomplished a lot. And many thought he would coach USC for life, though many others also suspected the lure of the NFL would prove too much.
It was the timing of his sudden, stunning departure that frustrated many Trojans fans. While Carroll has repeatedly denied oncoming NCAA sanctions had anything to do with his decision to leave, that's a hard line to buy. He skipped town after a 9-4 season that featured blowout losses to Stanford and Oregon and left behind a team with a two-year bowl ban and deficit of 30 scholarships over three seasons.
Still, not unlike how James is viewed by Huskies fans, Carroll is mostly spared the wrath of Trojans fans because of what he accomplished.
There's no question, however, that both programs were left in the lurch.
Happy Friday.
This is where you follow me on Twitter.
To the notes.
Dave from Birmingham writes: Not sure I get you. Why would you not want the four best teams to play in a playoff? That's what a playoff is about. I know there's a subjective part to this but that's inevitable. Is everyone that afraid of a consensus favoring the SEC because the SEC is the best conference?
Ted Miller: In a word, yes. And no matter how you frame it, that so-called consensus remains subjective. And I know this from experience.
In 1996, I worked at the Mobile Register and I was arguing with Mike Griffith, who then covered Alabama for the Register and voted in the AP poll. Now, everybody argues with Mike, but I thought he was being particularly obtuse this particular afternoon because he was touting Arizona State. I was blathering that Arizona State would have four losses if it played in the SEC.
Yes, I once was one of them. Why? Because that was the way I was raised. Football in the south, as writer Rick Bragg once ostentatiously pandered, is like a "knife fight in a ditch"! That's a bunch of silliness, but such sentiments nonetheless are inculcated into fans and they seep into the media coverage -- in the Southeast as well as other parts of the country where fetishizing the peculiarity of the South is embraced. So I understand the roots of the "just because" reaction of so many SEC fans. And I experienced its power as a sportswriter.
When I moved out to Seattle to cover Washington, I still had a "just because" feeling about West Coast vs. Southeast football. When Miami came to Husky Stadium in 2000, I thought the Hurricanes would blast the Huskies. Ergo, my initial transformative moment was watching Washington physically manhandle the Hurricanes. Don't be fooled by the final score: The Huskies owned Miami that day.
My point: Regional biases are strong and they cloud thinking, even when they feel rational. That's why there needs to be a safeguard in our new four-team playoff system for some degree of objectivity, which prioritizing conference champions provides.
I know any questions about SEC super-awesomeness make SEC folks angry. I know: Six crystal footballs. No one is doubting the SEC's ability to dominate the BCS system. And I have no doubt that dominance of a subjective system -- a beauty contest, really -- has helped push the SEC closer to something that can be judged as a more objective superiority (read: self-fulfilling prophecy).
But if we're going to have a national college football playoff, we need to create a selection process that doesn't leave open the possibility of a tag always going to a runner from a certain conference, just because.
Edward from Atlanta writes: Do you think USC coach Lane Kiffin and his staff are better at recruiting than Pete Carroll and his staff? I look at the fact that Lane Kiffin is only working with 15 scholarships and he is still bringing in top recruits after everything that has taking placed. Just imagine if he did had all his scholarships he would probably have a top 3 or top 5 recruiting class every year.
Ted Miller: No.
Kiffin and his staff are recruiting very well, but they can't do much better than Pete Carroll and his staff did from 2002-2009. You say top-three to -five each year? Carroll landed the No. 1 class multiple times. Any rare rating outside the top five was deemed an off-year. Carroll's recruiting run rates among the best run a program has produced -- think Bobby Bowden in the glory years at Florida State.
It's also worth noting that Carroll and Kiffin share two ace recruiters: Kiffin and Ed Orgeron.
Jeff from Tempe, Ariz., writes: Who do you think is going to be the starting quarterback for ASU to begin the season?
Ted Miller: That's a tough one. When I watched practice, I thought Mike Bercovici was so much better as a passer that he should be the guy. But then you have to realize that new coach Todd Graham wants to run some spread option, and that requires the quarterback to be a running threat. Bercovici is no running threat, while 6-foot-5, 242-pound Michael Eubank is. And Eubank has potential as a passer, though at present he's raw.
The easy answer is start Bercovici but use some packages with Eubank. But that's sort of a fan answer. Most coaches don't like playing two quarterbacks. They'll tell you if you play two, it means you don't have any. And QBs are not big fans of sharing the job.
I used to be a Bercovici lean, but now I'm leaning toward Eubank. Here's why: This team is much better at running back than at receiver. Even with Bercovici's live arm, this probably is going to be a run-first offense, and it makes things much more difficult for a defense if it must account for the QB as a runner. Eubank can become at least an adequate passer. Bercovici is unlikely to do the same as a runner.
Mark from Garden Grove, Calif., writes: If you could play matchmaker, which Big Ten/Pac-12 schools would you pair for the 2017 season -- and why?
Ted Miller: OK, I'll bite, basing things on where the college football world is today.
Rapsai from Eugene, Ore., writes: Ted, with Oregon's lack of depth at RB, do you see Josh Huff maybe sliding into the backfield to play some RB for the Ducks next season?
Ted Miller: A perfectly reasonable solution if there are injury issues in the backfield.
Does it make me a bad person that I don't think the Ducks are going to hurting at running back? I just think with Chip Kelly's emphasis on speed in recruiting that the Ducks will pretty much have an answer at RB, no matter how many guys get hurt. Recall that Kenjon Barner started out as a defensive back.
John from Los Angeles writes: I guess this falls into my "you know your old when you have a story for everything" file. In reading the post about Jonathan Ogden going into the HOF, I noticed your comment on his massive size. My buddies and I take a football road trip every year. We used to include the Baltimore Ravens in the trip because Will Demps (former Ravens safety) played at the high school where my buddy is the AD and he would get us tickets. Anyway, after a game against the Bengals at Cincinnati we are standing next to the Ravens team bus talking to Demps, Ogden and his people come up next to us - and he literally blocks out the sun!! You truly cannot appreciate how BIG the guy is until you stand right next to him. My buddy is wearing his USC cap (he is a big fan), so to amuse myself I keep whispering "Jack, show Ogden your hat." My friend kept his back to Ogden the entire time.
Ted Miller: I remember covering the 1996 Citrus Bowl between Ohio State and Tennessee -- which was cool because both were ranked No. 4 entering the game -- and walking up to the Ohio State bus. I saw No. 75 horsing around around this itty-bitty guy with a bald head who was No. 27.
The itty bitty guy was 6-foot-3, 240-pound, Heisman Trophy-winning running back Eddie George, and No. 75 was 6-foot-7, 325-pound Orlando Pace, who at that moment was the biggest dude I'd ever seen.
And Ogden -- at 6-foot-9, 345 -- darn near dwarfs Pace.
Only guy who ever impressed me as more spectacularly large was Shaquille O'Neal.
This is where you follow me on Twitter.
To the notes.
Dave from Birmingham writes: Not sure I get you. Why would you not want the four best teams to play in a playoff? That's what a playoff is about. I know there's a subjective part to this but that's inevitable. Is everyone that afraid of a consensus favoring the SEC because the SEC is the best conference?
Ted Miller: In a word, yes. And no matter how you frame it, that so-called consensus remains subjective. And I know this from experience.
In 1996, I worked at the Mobile Register and I was arguing with Mike Griffith, who then covered Alabama for the Register and voted in the AP poll. Now, everybody argues with Mike, but I thought he was being particularly obtuse this particular afternoon because he was touting Arizona State. I was blathering that Arizona State would have four losses if it played in the SEC.
Yes, I once was one of them. Why? Because that was the way I was raised. Football in the south, as writer Rick Bragg once ostentatiously pandered, is like a "knife fight in a ditch"! That's a bunch of silliness, but such sentiments nonetheless are inculcated into fans and they seep into the media coverage -- in the Southeast as well as other parts of the country where fetishizing the peculiarity of the South is embraced. So I understand the roots of the "just because" reaction of so many SEC fans. And I experienced its power as a sportswriter.
When I moved out to Seattle to cover Washington, I still had a "just because" feeling about West Coast vs. Southeast football. When Miami came to Husky Stadium in 2000, I thought the Hurricanes would blast the Huskies. Ergo, my initial transformative moment was watching Washington physically manhandle the Hurricanes. Don't be fooled by the final score: The Huskies owned Miami that day.
My point: Regional biases are strong and they cloud thinking, even when they feel rational. That's why there needs to be a safeguard in our new four-team playoff system for some degree of objectivity, which prioritizing conference champions provides.
I know any questions about SEC super-awesomeness make SEC folks angry. I know: Six crystal footballs. No one is doubting the SEC's ability to dominate the BCS system. And I have no doubt that dominance of a subjective system -- a beauty contest, really -- has helped push the SEC closer to something that can be judged as a more objective superiority (read: self-fulfilling prophecy).
But if we're going to have a national college football playoff, we need to create a selection process that doesn't leave open the possibility of a tag always going to a runner from a certain conference, just because.
Edward from Atlanta writes: Do you think USC coach Lane Kiffin and his staff are better at recruiting than Pete Carroll and his staff? I look at the fact that Lane Kiffin is only working with 15 scholarships and he is still bringing in top recruits after everything that has taking placed. Just imagine if he did had all his scholarships he would probably have a top 3 or top 5 recruiting class every year.
Ted Miller: No.
Kiffin and his staff are recruiting very well, but they can't do much better than Pete Carroll and his staff did from 2002-2009. You say top-three to -five each year? Carroll landed the No. 1 class multiple times. Any rare rating outside the top five was deemed an off-year. Carroll's recruiting run rates among the best run a program has produced -- think Bobby Bowden in the glory years at Florida State.
It's also worth noting that Carroll and Kiffin share two ace recruiters: Kiffin and Ed Orgeron.
Jeff from Tempe, Ariz., writes: Who do you think is going to be the starting quarterback for ASU to begin the season?
Ted Miller: That's a tough one. When I watched practice, I thought Mike Bercovici was so much better as a passer that he should be the guy. But then you have to realize that new coach Todd Graham wants to run some spread option, and that requires the quarterback to be a running threat. Bercovici is no running threat, while 6-foot-5, 242-pound Michael Eubank is. And Eubank has potential as a passer, though at present he's raw.
The easy answer is start Bercovici but use some packages with Eubank. But that's sort of a fan answer. Most coaches don't like playing two quarterbacks. They'll tell you if you play two, it means you don't have any. And QBs are not big fans of sharing the job.
I used to be a Bercovici lean, but now I'm leaning toward Eubank. Here's why: This team is much better at running back than at receiver. Even with Bercovici's live arm, this probably is going to be a run-first offense, and it makes things much more difficult for a defense if it must account for the QB as a runner. Eubank can become at least an adequate passer. Bercovici is unlikely to do the same as a runner.
Mark from Garden Grove, Calif., writes: If you could play matchmaker, which Big Ten/Pac-12 schools would you pair for the 2017 season -- and why?
Ted Miller: OK, I'll bite, basing things on where the college football world is today.
- Oregon-Ohio State: Urban Meyer vs. Chip Kelly. 'Nuff said.
- Arizona-Michigan: The Rich Rodriguez Bowl.
- Stanford-Wisconsin: Two really good schools that play smashmouth football.
- Oregon State-Michigan State: All that green would have the Beavers feeling like they're play Oregon.
- USC-Penn State: Two old-school powers whose uniforms are among the most recognizable.
- Nebraska-Arizona State: Any Sun Devils recall 1996?
- Northwestern-California: Two elite academic universities.
- Washington-Iowa: A rematch of the 1982, 1991 Rose Bowls, both won by the Huskies.
- Colorado-Purdue: Two great mascots. (Colorado would have been a good one for Nebraska, too.)
- Utah-Illinois: Utes vs. Fighting Illini.
- Washington State-Minnesota: The Cold Bowl.
- UCLA-Indiana: Two old-school basketball powers playing football.
Rapsai from Eugene, Ore., writes: Ted, with Oregon's lack of depth at RB, do you see Josh Huff maybe sliding into the backfield to play some RB for the Ducks next season?
Ted Miller: A perfectly reasonable solution if there are injury issues in the backfield.
Does it make me a bad person that I don't think the Ducks are going to hurting at running back? I just think with Chip Kelly's emphasis on speed in recruiting that the Ducks will pretty much have an answer at RB, no matter how many guys get hurt. Recall that Kenjon Barner started out as a defensive back.
John from Los Angeles writes: I guess this falls into my "you know your old when you have a story for everything" file. In reading the post about Jonathan Ogden going into the HOF, I noticed your comment on his massive size. My buddies and I take a football road trip every year. We used to include the Baltimore Ravens in the trip because Will Demps (former Ravens safety) played at the high school where my buddy is the AD and he would get us tickets. Anyway, after a game against the Bengals at Cincinnati we are standing next to the Ravens team bus talking to Demps, Ogden and his people come up next to us - and he literally blocks out the sun!! You truly cannot appreciate how BIG the guy is until you stand right next to him. My buddy is wearing his USC cap (he is a big fan), so to amuse myself I keep whispering "Jack, show Ogden your hat." My friend kept his back to Ogden the entire time.
Ted Miller: I remember covering the 1996 Citrus Bowl between Ohio State and Tennessee -- which was cool because both were ranked No. 4 entering the game -- and walking up to the Ohio State bus. I saw No. 75 horsing around around this itty-bitty guy with a bald head who was No. 27.
The itty bitty guy was 6-foot-3, 240-pound, Heisman Trophy-winning running back Eddie George, and No. 75 was 6-foot-7, 325-pound Orlando Pace, who at that moment was the biggest dude I'd ever seen.
And Ogden -- at 6-foot-9, 345 -- darn near dwarfs Pace.
Only guy who ever impressed me as more spectacularly large was Shaquille O'Neal.
AP Photo/Terry GilliamOhio State's Gene Smith and Pac-12 members seem to agree on a criteria for future playoff teams. Adam Rittenberg over at the Big Ten blog chatted with Ohio State AD Gene Smith, who was unequivocal about his top priority:
"The conference champion piece," Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith said. "We're a collegiate environment, and we've set everything up for competition to be conference champions, and we have it in every single sport that we have. ... When you go through your conference and you win your conference championship, that's pretty strong."
Other parties at the table in this playoff debate favor a "Four best teams plan," one that would only ensure the process remain just as subjective as the present BCS standings.
The good news is there is plenty of room for compromise between the folks who are right (winning a conference championship matters) and those who are wrong (let's pretend we can rank the four best teams).
The Pac-12 blog is on record supporting the "Top-six plan": Conference champions would be required to be ranked in the top six of the final rankings in order to earn automatic berths in the four-team playoff. If four conference champions aren't ranked in the top six, then the highest ranked at-large teams would fill however many voids there are.
But there's wiggle room here:
[Nebraska athletic director Tom] Osborne told ESPN.com that there has been "a lot of discussion" this week about having the top three conference champions and the highest-ranked at-large team in the four-team playoff. This model would give access to a team like reigning national champion Alabama, which didn't win its league or its division but finished No. 2 in the final BCS standings and beat LSU for the title.
"I don't think you can say all four placements are conference champions," Smith said. "You have to leave some room for that type of scenario, that best high-ranked team that is not a conference champion has some room to get in there."
Of course, you can immediately see how this could get controversial. What happens if a fourth conference champion has the same record as a more highly rated at-large team? Further, we still don't know the rating system -- the old BCS rankings, a new ratings system, a selection committee, etc.
The good news is that the Pac-12 and Big Ten are aligned on their thinking: Any playoff format needs to give priority to teams that win their conference championship.
AP Photo/Paul BeatyBig Ten commissioner Jim Delany's playoff proposal rewards actually winning one's conference.At the Pac-12 meetings last week in Phoenix, it became clear that conference coaches and athletic directors as well as commissioner Larry Scott favor a potential four-team college football playoff including a requirement that each of the four participants wins its respective conference championship.
The reasoning for that is logical and unassailable: A national title contender should first prove it's the best team in its conference. College football folks -- coaches, administrators, etc. -- frequently talk about preserving the value of the regular season. Not requiring a playoff team to win its conference directly contravenes that.
On the other side of the playoff debate are the folks who don't want any such requirements. They say introducing one muddies things up. They say it's important to pick the "four best teams." Keep it simple and credible!
Four best teams? Er, how will we determine that? The ole BCS rankings? A selection committee?
Not acceptable.
There needs to be give and take here. If the Pac-12 and Big Ten are going to sacrifice their automatic tie-in to the Rose Bowl, that means they need to get something in return. Thankfully, Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany already has proposed an equitable plan that allows for both sides of this debate to get most of what they want.
It's the top-six plan: Conference champions would be required to be ranked in the top six of the final rankings in order to earn automatic berths in the four-team playoff. If four conference champions aren't ranked in the top six, then the highest ranked at-large teams would fill however many voids there are.
CBS Sports' Brett McMurphy went through all the scenarios. He found that, since 2004, only seven top-four teams in the final BCS standings would have missed the playoffs with this top-six plan.
Writes McMurphy:
Under this format, in the past eight years, 30 of the 32 teams in the playoff would have been conference champions. Only two teams -- No. 2 Alabama (in 2011) and No. 4 Ohio State (in 2005) -- that weren't a conference champion would have qualified for the national semifinals.
Using the conference affiliation for the schools for each season and not their future affiliation, the SEC would have had the most schools in the playoffs from 2004-11 with eight, including seven conference champions. The Pac-12 and Big 12 would have been next, each with six schools, followed by the Big Ten with five (four conference champions, one at-large), the Mountain West with four, the Big East with two and the ACC with one.
Of the Mountain West's four representatives, two were by Utah, now in the Pac-12, and two by TCU, which joins the Big 12 this fall.
That sounds about right.
The teams left out? Stanford and Texas, both twice, and Alabama, Michigan and LSU.
[+] Enlarge
Chris Graythen/Getty ImagesThe Utah team that demolished Alabama in the 2009 Sugar Bowl might have gotten to play for the national title under Jim Delany's top-six plan.
Chris Graythen/Getty ImagesThe Utah team that demolished Alabama in the 2009 Sugar Bowl might have gotten to play for the national title under Jim Delany's top-six plan.The best scenario to look at is 2008. From McMurphy's breakdown:
Top 6 ranked teams: No. 1 Oklahoma (Big 12 champ), No. 2 Florida (SEC champ), No. 3 Texas (at-large), No. 4 Alabama (at-large), No. 5 USC (Pac-10 champ), No. 6 Utah (Mountain West champ).
Conference champs in four-team playoff: No. 1 Oklahoma, No. 2 Florida, No. 5 USC, No. 6 Utah.
Non-conference champs in four-team playoff: None.
Top-6 teams left out: No. 3 Texas, No. 4 Alabama.
Revisionist history: The good news is that the top four conference champions are all ranked among the nation's top six teams. The bad news is No. 3 Texas and No. 4 Alabama, both of which didn't win their conference, would not be included in the playoff. Lower ranked, but conference champion, USC (No. 5) and Utah (No. 6) would have made the field.
In 2008, the top-six model would have created a far superior postseason. The most likely scenario would have seen USC, clearly the best team in 2008, beating Utah, which physically manhandled Alabama 31-17 in the Sugar Bowl, for the national title.
Wait ... did I just pull one of those "Just because" deals there, making assumptions about how good a team is?
Yes, I did. Most folks outside of the Southeast -- including Vegas bookies -- believed USC was the best team in 2008. It finished the regular season with the same record as Florida and Oklahoma, but its loss on the road against an Oregon State team that won nine games was deemed worse than the Gators' and Sooners' blemishes. That judgment was arbitrary and ran counter to what many folks believed: The Trojans in 2008 would have left a bootprint on the foreheads of either Florida or Oklahoma.
And, of course, when Utah held Alabama to 208 total yards -- 31 yards rushing! -- it became nearly impossible to say the Crimson Tide belonged in the same building. Oh, that's right, an Alabama team playing in its first BCS bowl game since 1999 was SO disappointed that it lost the SEC title game that it decided not to try hard in the Sugar Bowl. Please.
Of course, this analysis is bothering some folks. Good. That's how the "Just because" stuff felt for the Trojans in 2008 and for Oklahoma State last year. The most certain way to ensure the new four-team playoff will foment annual controversy is to make the "Just because" element its foundation. We'll still be debating the subjectivity -- and inherent biases -- of the system for weeks as the season winds down.
See, out here on the West Coast, the top-six plan seems simple. It seems fair. It doesn't muddy anything up. It actually provides clarity: Win your conference.
It first tries to award the highest-rated conference champions for, you know, accomplishing something during the regular season, then it makes sure that we don't end up with a three-loss team in the playoff.
It's the best and most equitable endgame in the four-team playoff scenario. And the Pac-12 and Big Ten should fight for it.
PHOENIX -- Pac-12 coaches and athletic directors generally expressed optimism over the expected move toward a four-team college football playoff in 2014, but there was plenty of caution as well as a smack of defiance during the conference's spring meetings at the posh Arizona Biltmore Hotel.
Some, such as Utah coach Kyle Whittingham and Washington State coach Mike Leach, don't think four teams is enough. Some worried about losing the bowl games, particularly the Pac-12's longstanding and storied connection to the Rose Bowl. And just about everyone was concerned about the selection process.
That defiance? It's rooted in the general belief that some other conferences excel at masterful scheduling (read: avoiding challenging competition) and massaging public perception (read: creating a consensus of superiority based significantly on subjective judgments).
If the Pac-12 and Big 12 play nine conference games, and the ACC, SEC and Big Ten play eight, then those conferences are playing by different standards that have myriad measurable effects. If one conference features a majority of teams playing at least one or two tough nonconference foes a year and another features a majority of teams playing four directional schools, then those conferences are playing by different standards that have myriad measurable effects.
Even if one of those conferences has won six consecutive national titles.
"You need some competitive equity within all of the conferences if you are going to do this thing," USC athletic director Pat Haden said. "But if you're going to have a conference, it seems to me you should be playing your conference opponents rather than non-conference opponents. In USC and Stanford's case we really have 10 conference games if you include Notre Dame, because we both have a long history of playing Notre Dame."
While the sentiment is strong among the coaches to reduce the Pac-12 conference schedule to eight games, sentiments mostly lean the other way among the athletic directors. The topic was discussed this week, but commissioner Larry Scott confirmed that there is no short-term plan to reduce the conference slate to eight games.
A big reason for that: There's a wait-and-see attitude on the details of the four-team playoff. While, based on media reports, there seems to be considerable momentum behind incorporating the bowls into the new system, there is little consensus on the selection process for the four participating teams.
That is where the coaches have a dog in this fight. They don't really care where they play, but they do want to know how they get there.
"I'd hate to go to just one little group or one committee that picks the teams," Arizona coach Rich Rodriguez said. "I think it's way too important. The more people you have involved, probably the better."
Oregon coach Chip Kelly pointed out that if there was a final four in place last fall, then Stanford would have been in and his Ducks would have been out, despite their decisive win in Palo Alto. The biggest reason for that? Oregon lost to LSU in the season-opener, giving it one more defeat than Stanford. If the Ducks had played San Jose State, they almost certainly would have finished fourth.
"There seems like there are a lot of questions that still need to be answered before anybody can say, 'Hey, that's a great idea,'" Kelly said.
Therein lies the caution. And the defiance. There was a clear undercurrent with Scott, the coaches and athletic directors that they didn't want to be pushed into anything, particularly when the Pac-12 (and Big Ten) are being asked to sacrifice something -- their tie to the Rose Bowl -- while other conferences aren't. There's a widespread perception that the BCS standings favored an SEC way of doing things, and played a role in that conference's recent dominance. So how does it help the Pac-12 if the new format still relies on a BCS-like evaluation?
There's a concern that if, say, Oregon and Alabama both finish 11-1 that the Crimson Tide would benefit from a "just because" edge, one based entirely on a subjective judgment of SEC superiority. Such a judgment could give the SEC a near-annual second team in a final four while knocking the Pac-12 -- and other major conferences -- out entirely.
"I think a lot of people are going to want the human element out of it, because it would be hard for humans to make those decisions and not be biased in some way," USC coach Lane Kiffin said.
Which is why some, such as Whittingham, favor an expanded playoff.
"From my perspective, you can take it out of the hands of voting and more to on-field performance," he said.
Said Leach, "I'd like to see it more than four. My suspicion is eventually there will be. Because, five years ago, if somebody had said this was going to happen, the room would have started laughing."
Meetings here were long, and there were plenty of other topics, from officiating, to bowls, to scheduling. But the back-and-forth on the potential new playoff scenarios was the centerpiece of the week, at least in terms of intrigue.
Change is coming. That's almost certain. But the process this summer of putting together a concrete plan among entities with competing agendas figures to be contentious.
Said Washington coach Steve Sarkisian, "I think there are still a lot of conversations to go."
Some, such as Utah coach Kyle Whittingham and Washington State coach Mike Leach, don't think four teams is enough. Some worried about losing the bowl games, particularly the Pac-12's longstanding and storied connection to the Rose Bowl. And just about everyone was concerned about the selection process.
[+] Enlarge
AP Photo/Mark J. TerrillUtah coach Kyle Whittingham is among those who favor a playoff with more than four teams.
AP Photo/Mark J. TerrillUtah coach Kyle Whittingham is among those who favor a playoff with more than four teams.If the Pac-12 and Big 12 play nine conference games, and the ACC, SEC and Big Ten play eight, then those conferences are playing by different standards that have myriad measurable effects. If one conference features a majority of teams playing at least one or two tough nonconference foes a year and another features a majority of teams playing four directional schools, then those conferences are playing by different standards that have myriad measurable effects.
Even if one of those conferences has won six consecutive national titles.
"You need some competitive equity within all of the conferences if you are going to do this thing," USC athletic director Pat Haden said. "But if you're going to have a conference, it seems to me you should be playing your conference opponents rather than non-conference opponents. In USC and Stanford's case we really have 10 conference games if you include Notre Dame, because we both have a long history of playing Notre Dame."
While the sentiment is strong among the coaches to reduce the Pac-12 conference schedule to eight games, sentiments mostly lean the other way among the athletic directors. The topic was discussed this week, but commissioner Larry Scott confirmed that there is no short-term plan to reduce the conference slate to eight games.
A big reason for that: There's a wait-and-see attitude on the details of the four-team playoff. While, based on media reports, there seems to be considerable momentum behind incorporating the bowls into the new system, there is little consensus on the selection process for the four participating teams.
That is where the coaches have a dog in this fight. They don't really care where they play, but they do want to know how they get there.
"I'd hate to go to just one little group or one committee that picks the teams," Arizona coach Rich Rodriguez said. "I think it's way too important. The more people you have involved, probably the better."
Oregon coach Chip Kelly pointed out that if there was a final four in place last fall, then Stanford would have been in and his Ducks would have been out, despite their decisive win in Palo Alto. The biggest reason for that? Oregon lost to LSU in the season-opener, giving it one more defeat than Stanford. If the Ducks had played San Jose State, they almost certainly would have finished fourth.
"There seems like there are a lot of questions that still need to be answered before anybody can say, 'Hey, that's a great idea,'" Kelly said.
Therein lies the caution. And the defiance. There was a clear undercurrent with Scott, the coaches and athletic directors that they didn't want to be pushed into anything, particularly when the Pac-12 (and Big Ten) are being asked to sacrifice something -- their tie to the Rose Bowl -- while other conferences aren't. There's a widespread perception that the BCS standings favored an SEC way of doing things, and played a role in that conference's recent dominance. So how does it help the Pac-12 if the new format still relies on a BCS-like evaluation?
There's a concern that if, say, Oregon and Alabama both finish 11-1 that the Crimson Tide would benefit from a "just because" edge, one based entirely on a subjective judgment of SEC superiority. Such a judgment could give the SEC a near-annual second team in a final four while knocking the Pac-12 -- and other major conferences -- out entirely.
"I think a lot of people are going to want the human element out of it, because it would be hard for humans to make those decisions and not be biased in some way," USC coach Lane Kiffin said.
Which is why some, such as Whittingham, favor an expanded playoff.
"From my perspective, you can take it out of the hands of voting and more to on-field performance," he said.
Said Leach, "I'd like to see it more than four. My suspicion is eventually there will be. Because, five years ago, if somebody had said this was going to happen, the room would have started laughing."
Meetings here were long, and there were plenty of other topics, from officiating, to bowls, to scheduling. But the back-and-forth on the potential new playoff scenarios was the centerpiece of the week, at least in terms of intrigue.
Change is coming. That's almost certain. But the process this summer of putting together a concrete plan among entities with competing agendas figures to be contentious.
Said Washington coach Steve Sarkisian, "I think there are still a lot of conversations to go."
If you believe a four-team playoff will end controversy in college football as we know it, you probably believe that our culture would heal itself if only it could be rid of the Kardashians.
That's a silly analogy, but the point is something that is merely better doesn't mean it will be perfect. Or even much more than theoretically better. (As in: Perhaps there's a family out there that would cause even worse brain rot than the Kardashians if its vacuousness were on display in a TV reality series).
During the BCS Era, the epicenter of controversy was typically at No. 3. While some years things laid out perfectly and there was a wide consensus on the two best teams, many years there was little tangible justification to see the No. 2 -- or No 1 -- team as being any better than No. 3. For example, Oklahoma State was No. 3 this past season, and many would have rather watched the Cowboys play LSU for the title than an SEC West rematch between the Tigers and Alabama.
Well, in a four-team playoff, No. 5 becomes the new No. 3 -- the last team left out. Dennis Dodd goes back and ranks the best No. 5 teams from 1998-2011, and there is plenty of Pac-12 representation. Which means there would have been plenty of Pac-12 consternation.
And, oh boy, the conference would have been in the thick of controversy if there were a four-team playoff based on last year's BCS standings. Notes Dodd: "Look at last season when Pac-12 champ Oregon – fifth in the BCS -- would have not played in a four-team playoff but a division rival it beat (Stanford) would have. The difference? Oregon scheduled tougher."
Sure Oregon fans would have taken that well.
Of course, we still don't know how the four teams will be selected for the future playoff, and it's unlikely it will be the BCS standings as they are currently configured. Know that Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott will work hard to ensure a more accurate strength of schedule component.
As for Dodd's rankings, they are interesting, though Dodd should reverse the top-two. The 2009 Florida team would have lost to the 2008 USC team by double-digits. Everybody knows that.
Besides USC at No. 2 in 2008, he's got USC in 2006 at No. 4, Oregon in 2011 at No. 6, UCLA in 1998 at No. 10, California in 2004 at No. 11 and Oregon in 2005 at No. 13.
So a lot of different Pac-12 teams would have been frustrated by a subjective system leaving them out.
Further, don't think your team doesn't have dog in this hunt. If the Pac-12 gets left out of the Final Four, all 12 members will miss out on millions. Recall that the conference has equal revenue sharing. If Oregon makes the Final Four, Oregon State still gets an equal share. And if Oregon and USC makes the Final Four, that will mean even more money. If a BCS bowl game is worth $23 million, then just imagine what a Final Four game will be worth. And how it would hurt to miss out.
And if the Pac-12 gets left out a couple of years in a row, then it could find itself at a substantial revenue disadvantage compared to other conferences.
Not to be a party pooper, but there are tangible concerns going forward. Don't pack up your frustration with the system just yet.
That's a silly analogy, but the point is something that is merely better doesn't mean it will be perfect. Or even much more than theoretically better. (As in: Perhaps there's a family out there that would cause even worse brain rot than the Kardashians if its vacuousness were on display in a TV reality series).
During the BCS Era, the epicenter of controversy was typically at No. 3. While some years things laid out perfectly and there was a wide consensus on the two best teams, many years there was little tangible justification to see the No. 2 -- or No 1 -- team as being any better than No. 3. For example, Oklahoma State was No. 3 this past season, and many would have rather watched the Cowboys play LSU for the title than an SEC West rematch between the Tigers and Alabama.
Well, in a four-team playoff, No. 5 becomes the new No. 3 -- the last team left out. Dennis Dodd goes back and ranks the best No. 5 teams from 1998-2011, and there is plenty of Pac-12 representation. Which means there would have been plenty of Pac-12 consternation.
And, oh boy, the conference would have been in the thick of controversy if there were a four-team playoff based on last year's BCS standings. Notes Dodd: "Look at last season when Pac-12 champ Oregon – fifth in the BCS -- would have not played in a four-team playoff but a division rival it beat (Stanford) would have. The difference? Oregon scheduled tougher."
Sure Oregon fans would have taken that well.
Of course, we still don't know how the four teams will be selected for the future playoff, and it's unlikely it will be the BCS standings as they are currently configured. Know that Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott will work hard to ensure a more accurate strength of schedule component.
As for Dodd's rankings, they are interesting, though Dodd should reverse the top-two. The 2009 Florida team would have lost to the 2008 USC team by double-digits. Everybody knows that.
Besides USC at No. 2 in 2008, he's got USC in 2006 at No. 4, Oregon in 2011 at No. 6, UCLA in 1998 at No. 10, California in 2004 at No. 11 and Oregon in 2005 at No. 13.
So a lot of different Pac-12 teams would have been frustrated by a subjective system leaving them out.
Further, don't think your team doesn't have dog in this hunt. If the Pac-12 gets left out of the Final Four, all 12 members will miss out on millions. Recall that the conference has equal revenue sharing. If Oregon makes the Final Four, Oregon State still gets an equal share. And if Oregon and USC makes the Final Four, that will mean even more money. If a BCS bowl game is worth $23 million, then just imagine what a Final Four game will be worth. And how it would hurt to miss out.
And if the Pac-12 gets left out a couple of years in a row, then it could find itself at a substantial revenue disadvantage compared to other conferences.
Not to be a party pooper, but there are tangible concerns going forward. Don't pack up your frustration with the system just yet.
Welcome to the mailbag.
Follow me on Twitter.
To the notes!
Mitchell from Boston writes: The first round of the NFL draft should answer you pac fans about which conference is the best. But here's my question. What do you mean with this "Wimpy scheduling needs to be addressed, including finding ways to circumvent misleading measures of "strength of schedule." There is nothing "wimpy" about playing in the SEC. It's big-boy football. The SEC doesn't need to play a tough schedule because it already plays an SEC schedule.
Ted Miller: Glad to explain, Mitchell, because it's important to understand what I am saying and what I am not saying.
The SEC is the nation's best football conference. Six consecutive national titles leave little doubt, particularly with five different teams claiming at least one in the BCS era. And the draft numbers for Thursday were impressive. There is a gap between the SEC and every other conference, and my belief is that gap has widened over the past 10 years -- from being mostly perception to become (self-fulfilling?) reality.
So what am I saying about scheduling? Well, dagnabit, I'm going to pick on Mississippi State again. Apologies in advance, lovely Starkville.
Last year, the Bulldogs' nonconference schedule featured Memphis, Louisiana Tech, UAB and Tennessee-Martin. This is hard to believe, but the 2012 slate is even more embarrassing: Jackson State, Troy, South Alabama and Middle Tennessee.
Our new system for determining a four-team playoff needs to make it nearly impossible to play for the national title with a nonconference record like that, even if lightning struck and the Bulldogs went undefeated. There needs to be an evaluative component that specifically analyzes nonconference competition separate from conference competition, one that gives a team points for aggressively scheduling and deducts points for hiding like a quaking kitten from a challenge.
Further, the new system needs to find a way to spread this deduction throughout a conference. Why? Because Mississippi State starts the 2012 season 4-0. You can't say that about any Pac-12 team. Or Big 12 team, for that matter, because the Big 12 also plays a nine-game conference schedule.
Look at it this way. The worst record imaginable for the Bulldogs in 2012 is 4-8. There is only one sure-thing on Oregon State's schedule -- Nicholls State (I won't mention the Sacramento State debacle in 2011). The Beavers play Wisconsin and at BYU in their other two nonconference games. The Beavers conceivably could end up 1-11 and still be significantly better than Mississippi State. But that wouldn't show up in a typical strength of schedule measure.
Then there is that nine- vs. eight-game conference schedule issue. That almost automatically decreases the strength of schedule ranking for the Pac-12 because it guarantees six more losses annually in the conference. Further, there's this: Guess which three teams Georgia didn't play in the 2011 regular season? Alabama, LSU and Arkansas.
When you have three conference misses a year, it can skew things more than if you have two.
While we can certainly acknowledge the SEC has taken the lead in college football, the SEC can't expect a "just because" perception to be superimposed on the future. It can't be allowed to insist that just because it plays an SEC schedule that it doesn't have to play quality nonconference games -- and on the road, too.
Now let's give credit where credit is due. LSU posted perhaps the most impressive regular season in college football history last year, in large part due to nonconference wins over Oregon and West Virginia, which both ended up winning BCS bowl games. And Alabama deserves credit for playing Virginia Tech and Penn State in recent years and opening against Michigan in 2012. So, Alabama and LSU fans can take a bow and know we're not writing about you. Not directly.
There is no way to completely remove a substantial subjective element from determining a four-team playoff in college football. But if we're going to create a four-team playoff with mega-millions as the reward for earning a berth -- and a major revenue downer for not -- then we need to insist that our process of evaluation requires in advance certain standards for every conference.
Bob from Raleigh, N.C., writes: If the Pac decides to join the rest of CFB and go to 8 conference games, will they still have the provision of the Bay Schools playing SoCal schools every year? I realize sometimes to get a deal, some schools have to be bought (see Staples Center in basketball), but to be more equatable, they would have to break that up, right?
Ted Miller: If we do, indeed, end up with a four-team playoff in 2014, then the Pac-12 needs to end the nine-game conference schedule if the Big Ten and SEC are still playing an eight-game schedule. To not do so would simply be negligent. Too much money will be at stake to give those other conference an annual head start in the rankings.
And, if the Pac-12 goes to eight conference games, it almost certainly would end the guaranteed annual meetings between the Bay Area vs. Southern California schools.
Some fans would huff and puff, but the longterm benefit to the conference as a whole is too valuable. And, by the way, neither Bay Area coach would frown at such a change.
Miller from Aloha, Ore., writes: I do wonder what the rest of the country thinks/feels about Larry Scott. I'm obviously a huge fan due to what he has done for the Pac-12, but I think that many in the country might not like him because he has been too successful too quickly. And is there a chance this might make the other 11 Conference Commissioners (and the Domer representative) ignore his input due to jealousy, etc?
Ted Miller: Larry Scott is a likable guy. He's gracious and accessible. And he's the least imperious of the major conference commissioners, at least since Dan Beebe was forced out of the Big 12.
If anyone dislikes Scott, it's because he's smart and effective and ambitious. And, yes, I get the feeling that some commissioners don't count themselves as fans because of that. This a competitive business, and Scott has been winning too much for some folks liking. It's easier to like a competitor who is easy pickings.
But there also are no stupid men in the room. "Like" isn't as important as "respect," in any event. They all know that Scott, perhaps more than any other commissioner, knows how to grow revenue in our present age of advancing technology. Within a few months of his hiring, his consistent theme was how undervalued not only the then-Pac-10 was but also how undervalued college football was. His vision is big-picture. And it's clear he sees more of the field than many of the folks yammering in Florida this week.
So, no, they won't ignore Scott. He knows where the money is hiding.
Tim from Winston-Salem, N.C., writes: So far through the spring practices, Washington's defense seems to consistently be getting the better of the offense, with the secondary earning seemingly endless praise from the coaching staff. While I understand that the O-line is in shambles right now, do you think that the defense really is making big strides under Wilcox, or is it just the offense getting use to new looks from the D?
Ted Miller: First, I think Justin Wilcox is pretty much a sure-thing. He will make the Huskies defense better because he's never failed as a defensive coordinator. The biggest concern for Husky fans should be how long before he leaves to become a head coach.
That said: Spring practices won't reveal much of anything about the Huskies defense, particularly with them working against a patchwork offensive line. It muddies things further that the the Huskies are replacing their top skill guys, too.
But there are things you can notice. You bring up the secondary. How many times over the past three years did you go: How did he get so open? Where the heck is the safety? If you watched the Huskies scrimmage this spring, and you saw few if any clearly broken coverages, that suggests that guys understand where they are supposed to be. Being in the right place, properly in position to complete an assignment, is step two for a defense. It's one-third the battle. It's the difference between being sound and unsound, and the Huskies were too often unsound under Nick Holt.
What's the first step? Well, that's something else you can get a feel for after watching a few practices. The first step is playing hard every play. If you watch enough football -- and enough different teams -- you can start to see a difference in how teams play and practice. Is everybody running to the ball? Is there constant chatter and enthusiasm? Are pads popping all over the field? Way back when Chip Kelly used to let reporters watch practice, you could see that Oregon practiced hard. That might be a part of their recent success.
The third step? Being good enough to make the play when you're doing your best and know your assignment. That could be the area where Wilcox is most challenged this year. The Huskies still aren't where they need to be in terms of talent and depth on all three levels.
Ryan from Salt Lake City writes: So what is one supposed to do to pass the time until fall camp? Other than read the PAC 12 blog religiously.
Ted Miller: Well, you certainly hit the chief pass time. The Pac-12 blog NEVER GOES AWAY... even if college football does for a few months.
Other choices?
Read a book. Talk to your wife or kids. Perhaps both.
Watch the all five seasons of "The Wire." Go to the beach. Fix up your back yard. Fix up my backyard. Read -- or re-read -- two literary classics. Learn to cook a heavenly spaghetti carbonara. Train for a triathlon. Develop your own cocktail. Actually become informed on political issues instead of only blathering boilerplate ideological rants. Decide to definitively find out which restaurant makes the best hamburger within 20 miles of your home. Watch baseball. Volunteer with Habitat for Humanity. Expand your musical horizons.
Sleep.
Any other suggestions?
Follow me on Twitter.
To the notes!
Mitchell from Boston writes: The first round of the NFL draft should answer you pac fans about which conference is the best. But here's my question. What do you mean with this "Wimpy scheduling needs to be addressed, including finding ways to circumvent misleading measures of "strength of schedule." There is nothing "wimpy" about playing in the SEC. It's big-boy football. The SEC doesn't need to play a tough schedule because it already plays an SEC schedule.
Ted Miller: Glad to explain, Mitchell, because it's important to understand what I am saying and what I am not saying.
The SEC is the nation's best football conference. Six consecutive national titles leave little doubt, particularly with five different teams claiming at least one in the BCS era. And the draft numbers for Thursday were impressive. There is a gap between the SEC and every other conference, and my belief is that gap has widened over the past 10 years -- from being mostly perception to become (self-fulfilling?) reality.
So what am I saying about scheduling? Well, dagnabit, I'm going to pick on Mississippi State again. Apologies in advance, lovely Starkville.
Last year, the Bulldogs' nonconference schedule featured Memphis, Louisiana Tech, UAB and Tennessee-Martin. This is hard to believe, but the 2012 slate is even more embarrassing: Jackson State, Troy, South Alabama and Middle Tennessee.
Our new system for determining a four-team playoff needs to make it nearly impossible to play for the national title with a nonconference record like that, even if lightning struck and the Bulldogs went undefeated. There needs to be an evaluative component that specifically analyzes nonconference competition separate from conference competition, one that gives a team points for aggressively scheduling and deducts points for hiding like a quaking kitten from a challenge.
Further, the new system needs to find a way to spread this deduction throughout a conference. Why? Because Mississippi State starts the 2012 season 4-0. You can't say that about any Pac-12 team. Or Big 12 team, for that matter, because the Big 12 also plays a nine-game conference schedule.
Look at it this way. The worst record imaginable for the Bulldogs in 2012 is 4-8. There is only one sure-thing on Oregon State's schedule -- Nicholls State (I won't mention the Sacramento State debacle in 2011). The Beavers play Wisconsin and at BYU in their other two nonconference games. The Beavers conceivably could end up 1-11 and still be significantly better than Mississippi State. But that wouldn't show up in a typical strength of schedule measure.
Then there is that nine- vs. eight-game conference schedule issue. That almost automatically decreases the strength of schedule ranking for the Pac-12 because it guarantees six more losses annually in the conference. Further, there's this: Guess which three teams Georgia didn't play in the 2011 regular season? Alabama, LSU and Arkansas.
When you have three conference misses a year, it can skew things more than if you have two.
While we can certainly acknowledge the SEC has taken the lead in college football, the SEC can't expect a "just because" perception to be superimposed on the future. It can't be allowed to insist that just because it plays an SEC schedule that it doesn't have to play quality nonconference games -- and on the road, too.
Now let's give credit where credit is due. LSU posted perhaps the most impressive regular season in college football history last year, in large part due to nonconference wins over Oregon and West Virginia, which both ended up winning BCS bowl games. And Alabama deserves credit for playing Virginia Tech and Penn State in recent years and opening against Michigan in 2012. So, Alabama and LSU fans can take a bow and know we're not writing about you. Not directly.
There is no way to completely remove a substantial subjective element from determining a four-team playoff in college football. But if we're going to create a four-team playoff with mega-millions as the reward for earning a berth -- and a major revenue downer for not -- then we need to insist that our process of evaluation requires in advance certain standards for every conference.
Bob from Raleigh, N.C., writes: If the Pac decides to join the rest of CFB and go to 8 conference games, will they still have the provision of the Bay Schools playing SoCal schools every year? I realize sometimes to get a deal, some schools have to be bought (see Staples Center in basketball), but to be more equatable, they would have to break that up, right?
Ted Miller: If we do, indeed, end up with a four-team playoff in 2014, then the Pac-12 needs to end the nine-game conference schedule if the Big Ten and SEC are still playing an eight-game schedule. To not do so would simply be negligent. Too much money will be at stake to give those other conference an annual head start in the rankings.
And, if the Pac-12 goes to eight conference games, it almost certainly would end the guaranteed annual meetings between the Bay Area vs. Southern California schools.
Some fans would huff and puff, but the longterm benefit to the conference as a whole is too valuable. And, by the way, neither Bay Area coach would frown at such a change.
Miller from Aloha, Ore., writes: I do wonder what the rest of the country thinks/feels about Larry Scott. I'm obviously a huge fan due to what he has done for the Pac-12, but I think that many in the country might not like him because he has been too successful too quickly. And is there a chance this might make the other 11 Conference Commissioners (and the Domer representative) ignore his input due to jealousy, etc?
Ted Miller: Larry Scott is a likable guy. He's gracious and accessible. And he's the least imperious of the major conference commissioners, at least since Dan Beebe was forced out of the Big 12.
If anyone dislikes Scott, it's because he's smart and effective and ambitious. And, yes, I get the feeling that some commissioners don't count themselves as fans because of that. This a competitive business, and Scott has been winning too much for some folks liking. It's easier to like a competitor who is easy pickings.
But there also are no stupid men in the room. "Like" isn't as important as "respect," in any event. They all know that Scott, perhaps more than any other commissioner, knows how to grow revenue in our present age of advancing technology. Within a few months of his hiring, his consistent theme was how undervalued not only the then-Pac-10 was but also how undervalued college football was. His vision is big-picture. And it's clear he sees more of the field than many of the folks yammering in Florida this week.
So, no, they won't ignore Scott. He knows where the money is hiding.
Tim from Winston-Salem, N.C., writes: So far through the spring practices, Washington's defense seems to consistently be getting the better of the offense, with the secondary earning seemingly endless praise from the coaching staff. While I understand that the O-line is in shambles right now, do you think that the defense really is making big strides under Wilcox, or is it just the offense getting use to new looks from the D?
Ted Miller: First, I think Justin Wilcox is pretty much a sure-thing. He will make the Huskies defense better because he's never failed as a defensive coordinator. The biggest concern for Husky fans should be how long before he leaves to become a head coach.
That said: Spring practices won't reveal much of anything about the Huskies defense, particularly with them working against a patchwork offensive line. It muddies things further that the the Huskies are replacing their top skill guys, too.
But there are things you can notice. You bring up the secondary. How many times over the past three years did you go: How did he get so open? Where the heck is the safety? If you watched the Huskies scrimmage this spring, and you saw few if any clearly broken coverages, that suggests that guys understand where they are supposed to be. Being in the right place, properly in position to complete an assignment, is step two for a defense. It's one-third the battle. It's the difference between being sound and unsound, and the Huskies were too often unsound under Nick Holt.
What's the first step? Well, that's something else you can get a feel for after watching a few practices. The first step is playing hard every play. If you watch enough football -- and enough different teams -- you can start to see a difference in how teams play and practice. Is everybody running to the ball? Is there constant chatter and enthusiasm? Are pads popping all over the field? Way back when Chip Kelly used to let reporters watch practice, you could see that Oregon practiced hard. That might be a part of their recent success.
The third step? Being good enough to make the play when you're doing your best and know your assignment. That could be the area where Wilcox is most challenged this year. The Huskies still aren't where they need to be in terms of talent and depth on all three levels.
Ryan from Salt Lake City writes: So what is one supposed to do to pass the time until fall camp? Other than read the PAC 12 blog religiously.
Ted Miller: Well, you certainly hit the chief pass time. The Pac-12 blog NEVER GOES AWAY... even if college football does for a few months.
Other choices?
Read a book. Talk to your wife or kids. Perhaps both.
Watch the all five seasons of "The Wire." Go to the beach. Fix up your back yard. Fix up my backyard. Read -- or re-read -- two literary classics. Learn to cook a heavenly spaghetti carbonara. Train for a triathlon. Develop your own cocktail. Actually become informed on political issues instead of only blathering boilerplate ideological rants. Decide to definitively find out which restaurant makes the best hamburger within 20 miles of your home. Watch baseball. Volunteer with Habitat for Humanity. Expand your musical horizons.
Sleep.
Any other suggestions?
Pac-12 lunch links: Lots of draft picks today
April, 27, 2012
Apr 27
2:30
PM ET
By
Ted Miller | ESPN.com
Happy Friday.
- Former Arizona quarterback Nick Foles' dream will shortly come true.
- Not many surprises on Arizona State's depth chart -- no resolution at quarterback. Whatever happened to linebacker Vontaze Burfict? (I'll say this: He's worth a late-round pick. Period).
- For the first time in four years, no California player was a first-round pick. But a Bear likely will be tapped today.
- President Obama makes a positive impression on Colorado coaches. When might guard Ryan Miller go in the draft?
- No first round picks for Oregon? Who cares when you beat everybody's brains out! The Ducks do have one unPleasant question (I did that all by myself).
- Oregon State fans should expect good things from San Mannion 2.0. New defensive backs coach Rod Perry, an NFL lifer, is figuring out college life.
- The funny thing is it's a surprise just two Stanford players were picked in the first round.
- This well-traveled defensive lineman is making an impression for UCLA. Has redshirt freshman Brett Hundley made his move at quarterback?
- USC has two players selected in the first round, guys who know each other well from bumping heads. More on Matt Barkley returning to USC.
- A look at Utah after its second spring practice as a Pac-12 member. Questions remain on the offensive line and at linebacker.
- A cheat sheet for understanding the math of Washington's spring game. (Me: "It was my understanding that there would be no math during the spring game.")
- Washington State: The most Jake Rodgers moment ever. I had a great Jake Rodgers in high school back in the '80s by the way.
- Maybe the BCS died because college football listened to the fans. Not sure this guy doesn't deserve some credit, too. How about a T-shirt, Dan, "I killed the BCS."
College football playoff at neutral sites?
April, 24, 2012
Apr 24
7:40
PM ET
By
Ted Miller | ESPN.com
Changes are coming to the college football postseason, and it appears that the most likely scenario is to play the semifinals and national championship game at neutral sites, a source familiar with the negotiations told ESPN.com on Tuesday.
This part likely will be interesting to Pac-12 fans:
No offense to the source, but Oregon could produce plenty of hotel rooms within an hour's drive, probably more than most AQ conference teams. Just saying.
If the semifinals and finals were to be played in existing BCS bowls, the games could rotate in some fashion. What would that mean for the Rose Bowl? Well, that remains to be seen.
The elimination of the semifinal games being played at the higher seeds' home stadiums is good news for the BCS bowls, at least other than the Rose Bowl. It presents a scenario where they can still exist in a high-profile way, one that really doesn't dramatically change much for them.
Other, perhaps, than conference affiliation.
Stay tuned.
This part likely will be interesting to Pac-12 fans:
A proposal to play the semifinal games at the home stadiums of the higher-seeded teams is all but dead, according to the source. The semifinal games will either be hosted by the existing BCS bowl games or opened for bidding. The source said it seemed almost certain that the national championship game will be opened to bidding by the existing BCS bowl sites and other cities such as Atlanta, Dallas and Indianapolis.
The conference commissioners have reached a conclusion that some FBS schools' stadiums aren't large enough to host a national semifinal game and that many college towns don't have enough hotel rooms to accommodate bigger crowds.
"What happens if TCU finishes No. 2 in the country and hosts a semifinal game?" the source said. "TCU finished No. 3 two years ago. Are they really hosting No. 3 Ohio State in a 45,000-seat stadium? Where are people going to stay if Oregon hosts a semifinal game? In Portland? As much as it would be great for the sport to see a game played in Ann Arbor, Mich., Tuscaloosa, Ala., or Lincoln, Neb., some of the logistical issues are just too severe. I think that idea has come home to roost as far as these guys are concerned."
No offense to the source, but Oregon could produce plenty of hotel rooms within an hour's drive, probably more than most AQ conference teams. Just saying.
If the semifinals and finals were to be played in existing BCS bowls, the games could rotate in some fashion. What would that mean for the Rose Bowl? Well, that remains to be seen.
Conference commissioners are still debating about what to do with the Rose Bowl as well, according to the source. Rose Bowl officials have repeatedly said they prefer to keep their traditional matchup between Big Ten and Pac-12 teams; Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany and Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott also favor keeping the traditional tie-in intact. But if the Rose Bowl isn't willing to give up its affiliations with those conferences, it might fall out of a potential national semifinals rotation. However, the Rose Bowl would still be eligible to bid for a national championship game.
The elimination of the semifinal games being played at the higher seeds' home stadiums is good news for the BCS bowls, at least other than the Rose Bowl. It presents a scenario where they can still exist in a high-profile way, one that really doesn't dramatically change much for them.
Other, perhaps, than conference affiliation.
Stay tuned.
There are two priorities above all others as college football pooh-bahs try to restructure the college football postseason: 1. Create a better system -- read: quasi-playoff -- to select a national champion; 2. Preserve the Rose Bowl.
No. 2 is controversial.
Why? Because the Pac-12 and Big Ten play in the Rose Bowl. The other BCS conferences' champions are connected to great-but-less-great BCS bowls. So guess who wants to preserve the greatest event and asset in college football history? And who doesn't?
One of the four options that will be discussed -- as first reported by USA Today -- during the BCS meetings on April 24-26 in Hollywood, Fla., is the "Four Teams Plus" plan. It makes the Rose Bowl an automatic part of a "playoff" that would determine the national champion.
This week SEC commissioner Mike Slive volunteered that this plan, "is not one of my favorites." A completely understandable position, too.
The biggest reason for this is simple: The SEC doesn't have a contract with the Rose Bowl. You'd guess the ACC and Big 12 have similar feelings. Meanwhile, folks over in Big Ten and Pac-12 country feel differently.
My incredibly bright, prolific and downright lovable colleagues, Adam Rittenberg in the Big Ten blog and Chris "I can't see you from behind the SEC's six crystal footballs stacked in front of me" Low of the SEC, both opined this week that this "Four Teams Plus" plan is unworkable, agreeing with Slive. You can read Rittenberg here and Low here.
I mostly agree, in large part because the "Four Teams Plus" plan, when you get down to it, is ridiculous. What it does is -- again -- set up a plan where an ultimate judgment on the two teams playing for the national title won't be decided on the field. You would have two so-called semifinal winners and a Rose Bowl winner and then you'd need a subjective system to pick two of the three.
Anyone think that might get controversial?
That said: Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott and Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany need to make something clear in Florida: The Rose Bowl must endure. Period. Then we talk playoff. Or we walk.
That might ruffle some custom-tailored pinstripe suits, but it rests on a great truth that everyone in the room needs to acknowledge: The Rose Bowl is special. No other bowl matches it in terms of history or pageantry. It is the greatest tradition in all of college football. End of story. To not admit this truth is to be ignorant or disingenuous.
How this gets done, I'll mostly leave it up to the Big Brains meeting in Florida. To me, it doesn't seem that complicated to have a four-team playoff set, then let the Rose Bowl choose next, likely the best available teams from the Pac-12 and Big Ten.
It seems very likely the college football postseason will be different in 2014. And it's likely the adopted changes will -- again -- be controversial. A perfect system doesn't exist.
But Scott and Delany should not back down on the Rose Bowl. That's what's best for college football.
No. 2 is controversial.
Why? Because the Pac-12 and Big Ten play in the Rose Bowl. The other BCS conferences' champions are connected to great-but-less-great BCS bowls. So guess who wants to preserve the greatest event and asset in college football history? And who doesn't?
One of the four options that will be discussed -- as first reported by USA Today -- during the BCS meetings on April 24-26 in Hollywood, Fla., is the "Four Teams Plus" plan. It makes the Rose Bowl an automatic part of a "playoff" that would determine the national champion.
The four highest-ranked teams at the end of the regular season would meet in semifinals unless the Big Ten or Pac-12 champion, or both, were among the top four. Those leagues' teams still would meet in the Rose, and the next highest-ranked team or teams would slide into the semis. The national championship finalists would be selected after those three games.
This week SEC commissioner Mike Slive volunteered that this plan, "is not one of my favorites." A completely understandable position, too.
The biggest reason for this is simple: The SEC doesn't have a contract with the Rose Bowl. You'd guess the ACC and Big 12 have similar feelings. Meanwhile, folks over in Big Ten and Pac-12 country feel differently.
My incredibly bright, prolific and downright lovable colleagues, Adam Rittenberg in the Big Ten blog and Chris "I can't see you from behind the SEC's six crystal footballs stacked in front of me" Low of the SEC, both opined this week that this "Four Teams Plus" plan is unworkable, agreeing with Slive. You can read Rittenberg here and Low here.
I mostly agree, in large part because the "Four Teams Plus" plan, when you get down to it, is ridiculous. What it does is -- again -- set up a plan where an ultimate judgment on the two teams playing for the national title won't be decided on the field. You would have two so-called semifinal winners and a Rose Bowl winner and then you'd need a subjective system to pick two of the three.
Anyone think that might get controversial?
That said: Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott and Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany need to make something clear in Florida: The Rose Bowl must endure. Period. Then we talk playoff. Or we walk.
That might ruffle some custom-tailored pinstripe suits, but it rests on a great truth that everyone in the room needs to acknowledge: The Rose Bowl is special. No other bowl matches it in terms of history or pageantry. It is the greatest tradition in all of college football. End of story. To not admit this truth is to be ignorant or disingenuous.
How this gets done, I'll mostly leave it up to the Big Brains meeting in Florida. To me, it doesn't seem that complicated to have a four-team playoff set, then let the Rose Bowl choose next, likely the best available teams from the Pac-12 and Big Ten.
It seems very likely the college football postseason will be different in 2014. And it's likely the adopted changes will -- again -- be controversial. A perfect system doesn't exist.
But Scott and Delany should not back down on the Rose Bowl. That's what's best for college football.
Welcome to the mailbag.
Follow me on Twitter. Doing so is more fun than a barrel of monkeys. Promise.
To the notes.
Richard from Aspen, Colo., writes: With the BCS announcing their thoughts on the future of the post season, there seems to be a lot of talk about trying to preserve the tradition of the Rose Bowl in the new format. Having talked with a number of my Pac-12 friends, their seems to be a common sentiment of "What tradition? The BCS has already ruined the Rose Bowl. Why save it now?" It's hard to argue that point with teams like TCU, Texas and Oklahoma playing in the game, over the last decade, not to mention all the runners up who've played in substitution of a conference champion playing in the national title game. So what's the point? Why should we save the Rose Bowl when the other conferences are willing to throw away their high dollar bowls in favor of a playoff? And why should the other 9 FBS conferences bend over backwards to appease the B1G and Pac-12 when AQ status appears to be going away?
Ted Miller: Oregon's game with Wisconsin seemed plenty Rose Bowl-y to me.
I may be the wrong one to comment on this because, having covered every BCS bowl game multiple times, my conclusion is none even approaches the atmosphere of the Rose Bowl. I love Miami, Phoenix and New Orleans as destination cities. But when the game itself is played, the Rose Bowl is like nothing else in American sport.
This isn't just a West Coast bias, by the way. Repeated confirmation on this has come from fans and media from outside the Pac-12 and Big Ten who have witnessed a "Rose Bowl." To get the Rose Bowl, you have to attend one. And you almost never hear an "overrated" from anyone who has (though a losing team's fans don't seem as nostalgic).
That, in itself, reflects some of my, perhaps personal, perspective here. To me, the Rose Bowl is more about pageantry, date and venue than the teams playing in it. While a, say, Texas-Michigan Rose Bowl gives everyone a jolt -- most notably California fans (all together now, "GRRRRRRRR!") -- I'm not sure many walked away from that 38-37 thriller in 2005 going, "Neh."
But this isn't just about romance, either. It's about money. The Rose Bowl is the most valuable of all the bowl games, and the Big Ten and Pac-12 know this. They want to protect it as an asset, despite compromises to make the present form of the BCS happen that ended the purity of the matchup.
The ideal scenario for the Pac-12 and Big Ten is some sort of playoff that allows the Pac-12 to make more money AND continue its special relationships with the Rose Bowl. Will that happen? I wouldn't, at present, bet against it.
As to why the other conferences would bend over backward for the Big Ten and Pac-12: Well, because they want to get a deal done and the Pac-12 and Big Ten hold a lot of power in getting one done.
Kyle from Bellevue, Wash., writes: What do you think of Husky fans pulling out the old "WDWHA" (we didn't want him anyway) with Max Browne? I feel like it's a pretty big deal that Washington has lost out on the state's top prospect for two years in a row now, but many seem to brush it off as inconsequential, pointing out the fact that there are already a few highly touted QBs on the roster. Through the abysmal and embarrassing decade of football that preceded the Sark hire, Dawg fans obviously are gasping for any type of positivity. However, do you think Husky fans have become too complacent with mediocrity and too apathetic regarding the shortcomings of the program?
Ted Miller: Ah, it appears someone noted my Twitter exchange with some Huskies fans.
Couple of points here: A team always wants to sign the best in-state guys. Period. That's why the "build a wall around the state" recruiting cliché began.
In the glory days of Don James, Washington typically signed most of the best in-state players. Washington State got some, too. And a couple bolted. But the Huskies were, in most cases, the first choice of top athletes who prepped in the Seattle-Tacoma area, where most of the state's population is based.
Washington going forward as a top-25 program under Steve Sarkisian will sign a majority of the top players in the state. Sarkisian did just that in 2011, but he fell short in 2012. And the residue of that affects the perception of Max Browne picking USC over the Huskies.
Browne is not only the best prospect in the state of Washington, he also may be the best QB in the nation. How many times does the state of Washington produce the No. 1 QB in the nation anyway? Getting him would have made a statement for Washington, not to mention provided recruiting momentum -- as in, "Hey, Mr. Top-Rated receiver. Do you see who just committed to us? Better get on-board the Max Browne Express!"
Not getting him also makes a statement, but it's not one we should overblow. Just note. It's clearly something, but not everything. That statement? That's obvious. The Huskies haven't yet locked the borders of the state under Sarkisian.
Not overblowing things? Well, this is hardly grounds for Huskies fans to jump into their beds and wail into their pillows about the unfairness of things -- "Max Browne! WAAAAAAAAAA!"
For one, the last time a so-called elite QB from Skyline High School (Sammamish, Wash.) bolted the state, things didn't go so badly. Jake Heaps struggled at BYU, got benched and now he's transferring to Kansas. And Washington ended up with a guy named Keith Price, who's turned out OK. The Huskies also signed two highly rated QBs in February, one from out of state (Cyler Miles) and one in-state (Jeff Lindquist).
Further, some general perspective: You can't get everybody. I remember talking to an elite player from the Seattle area who told me, "I was so sick of the rain, they had no chance with me." Some guys purely want to get away from home, for whatever reason.
I was a piddling high school player in Atlanta whose specialty was provoking unsportsmanlike conduct penalties from opposing players by being really -- really -- annoying, but if I had been good enough to have my pick of colleges I would have left the Southeast. Why? Adventure, academics and a need to get away from fried food.
Ultimately, if Sarkisian keeps signing top-25 classes that produce wins on the field, it's really not that big of a deal where the players are from. But Huskies fans have a right to be demanding of their program, and Browne opting to sign with USC is one of those moments to file away in a folder titled, "Potential Red Flags."
By the way, Sark and his highly paid staff are big boys. They know all this.
Aaron from Pullman, Wash., writes: So I've noticed you've made a lot of mentions about Oregon, Stanford, and UW being the top 3 of the Pac12 North. You even have OSU as a "surprise team". Just out of curiosity with an amazing new coach (Mike Leach), a returning Veteran QB (Jeff Tuel), and an amazing group of receivers which includes Marquess Wilson; what would convince you that WSU can crack the top 3 in the North? Let alone be the "surprise team" that can join the PAC 12 bowl hunts!
Ted Miller: I do think the top of the Pac-12 North Division pecking order goes Oregon, Stanford and Washington. I think California is a dark horse to break into that troika. And I think Oregon State is a team that could dramatically improve, which means to me going from 3-9 to 6-6.
Washington State? It went 4-8 last year and I'd rate it's over-under on wins at six. It helps not to play USC. It hurts to play at BYU and UNLV in the nonconference slate. Road games are never easy, even if the Rebels aren't supposed to be good.
I was higher on the Cougars before two likely starting linebackers got the boot. When you're switching to a 3-4 defense, and you are replacing the three starters from last year's 4-3, well, do the math. Further, there are questions on both lines. And you never know how quickly the adjustment will be with a new coach and new systems.
So there are questions. But if you are looking for reasons for optimism, you hit on a few: Leach is a maestro of the passing game and Tuel has a good receiving corps with which to work.
I've sort of got a wait-and-see attitude here. That could change quick with a season-opening win at BYU.
Let's put it this way: I don't see the Cougars breaking into the top three of the North. But I'd certainly not be surprised if they get to a bowl game.
AJ from Los Angeles writes: CAN THE USC BE A LEGITIMATE NATIONAL TITLE CONTENDER CONSIDERING THE "D" IS MEDIOCRE?
Ted Miller: YES.
And if the Trojans stay healthy on their defensive front, the defense will be better than mediocre. Perhaps much better than mediocre.
Follow me on Twitter. Doing so is more fun than a barrel of monkeys. Promise.
To the notes.
Richard from Aspen, Colo., writes: With the BCS announcing their thoughts on the future of the post season, there seems to be a lot of talk about trying to preserve the tradition of the Rose Bowl in the new format. Having talked with a number of my Pac-12 friends, their seems to be a common sentiment of "What tradition? The BCS has already ruined the Rose Bowl. Why save it now?" It's hard to argue that point with teams like TCU, Texas and Oklahoma playing in the game, over the last decade, not to mention all the runners up who've played in substitution of a conference champion playing in the national title game. So what's the point? Why should we save the Rose Bowl when the other conferences are willing to throw away their high dollar bowls in favor of a playoff? And why should the other 9 FBS conferences bend over backwards to appease the B1G and Pac-12 when AQ status appears to be going away?
Ted Miller: Oregon's game with Wisconsin seemed plenty Rose Bowl-y to me.
I may be the wrong one to comment on this because, having covered every BCS bowl game multiple times, my conclusion is none even approaches the atmosphere of the Rose Bowl. I love Miami, Phoenix and New Orleans as destination cities. But when the game itself is played, the Rose Bowl is like nothing else in American sport.
This isn't just a West Coast bias, by the way. Repeated confirmation on this has come from fans and media from outside the Pac-12 and Big Ten who have witnessed a "Rose Bowl." To get the Rose Bowl, you have to attend one. And you almost never hear an "overrated" from anyone who has (though a losing team's fans don't seem as nostalgic).
That, in itself, reflects some of my, perhaps personal, perspective here. To me, the Rose Bowl is more about pageantry, date and venue than the teams playing in it. While a, say, Texas-Michigan Rose Bowl gives everyone a jolt -- most notably California fans (all together now, "GRRRRRRRR!") -- I'm not sure many walked away from that 38-37 thriller in 2005 going, "Neh."
But this isn't just about romance, either. It's about money. The Rose Bowl is the most valuable of all the bowl games, and the Big Ten and Pac-12 know this. They want to protect it as an asset, despite compromises to make the present form of the BCS happen that ended the purity of the matchup.
The ideal scenario for the Pac-12 and Big Ten is some sort of playoff that allows the Pac-12 to make more money AND continue its special relationships with the Rose Bowl. Will that happen? I wouldn't, at present, bet against it.
As to why the other conferences would bend over backward for the Big Ten and Pac-12: Well, because they want to get a deal done and the Pac-12 and Big Ten hold a lot of power in getting one done.
Kyle from Bellevue, Wash., writes: What do you think of Husky fans pulling out the old "WDWHA" (we didn't want him anyway) with Max Browne? I feel like it's a pretty big deal that Washington has lost out on the state's top prospect for two years in a row now, but many seem to brush it off as inconsequential, pointing out the fact that there are already a few highly touted QBs on the roster. Through the abysmal and embarrassing decade of football that preceded the Sark hire, Dawg fans obviously are gasping for any type of positivity. However, do you think Husky fans have become too complacent with mediocrity and too apathetic regarding the shortcomings of the program?
Ted Miller: Ah, it appears someone noted my Twitter exchange with some Huskies fans.
Couple of points here: A team always wants to sign the best in-state guys. Period. That's why the "build a wall around the state" recruiting cliché began.
In the glory days of Don James, Washington typically signed most of the best in-state players. Washington State got some, too. And a couple bolted. But the Huskies were, in most cases, the first choice of top athletes who prepped in the Seattle-Tacoma area, where most of the state's population is based.
Washington going forward as a top-25 program under Steve Sarkisian will sign a majority of the top players in the state. Sarkisian did just that in 2011, but he fell short in 2012. And the residue of that affects the perception of Max Browne picking USC over the Huskies.
Browne is not only the best prospect in the state of Washington, he also may be the best QB in the nation. How many times does the state of Washington produce the No. 1 QB in the nation anyway? Getting him would have made a statement for Washington, not to mention provided recruiting momentum -- as in, "Hey, Mr. Top-Rated receiver. Do you see who just committed to us? Better get on-board the Max Browne Express!"
Not getting him also makes a statement, but it's not one we should overblow. Just note. It's clearly something, but not everything. That statement? That's obvious. The Huskies haven't yet locked the borders of the state under Sarkisian.
Not overblowing things? Well, this is hardly grounds for Huskies fans to jump into their beds and wail into their pillows about the unfairness of things -- "Max Browne! WAAAAAAAAAA!"
For one, the last time a so-called elite QB from Skyline High School (Sammamish, Wash.) bolted the state, things didn't go so badly. Jake Heaps struggled at BYU, got benched and now he's transferring to Kansas. And Washington ended up with a guy named Keith Price, who's turned out OK. The Huskies also signed two highly rated QBs in February, one from out of state (Cyler Miles) and one in-state (Jeff Lindquist).
Further, some general perspective: You can't get everybody. I remember talking to an elite player from the Seattle area who told me, "I was so sick of the rain, they had no chance with me." Some guys purely want to get away from home, for whatever reason.
I was a piddling high school player in Atlanta whose specialty was provoking unsportsmanlike conduct penalties from opposing players by being really -- really -- annoying, but if I had been good enough to have my pick of colleges I would have left the Southeast. Why? Adventure, academics and a need to get away from fried food.
Ultimately, if Sarkisian keeps signing top-25 classes that produce wins on the field, it's really not that big of a deal where the players are from. But Huskies fans have a right to be demanding of their program, and Browne opting to sign with USC is one of those moments to file away in a folder titled, "Potential Red Flags."
By the way, Sark and his highly paid staff are big boys. They know all this.
Aaron from Pullman, Wash., writes: So I've noticed you've made a lot of mentions about Oregon, Stanford, and UW being the top 3 of the Pac12 North. You even have OSU as a "surprise team". Just out of curiosity with an amazing new coach (Mike Leach), a returning Veteran QB (Jeff Tuel), and an amazing group of receivers which includes Marquess Wilson; what would convince you that WSU can crack the top 3 in the North? Let alone be the "surprise team" that can join the PAC 12 bowl hunts!
Ted Miller: I do think the top of the Pac-12 North Division pecking order goes Oregon, Stanford and Washington. I think California is a dark horse to break into that troika. And I think Oregon State is a team that could dramatically improve, which means to me going from 3-9 to 6-6.
Washington State? It went 4-8 last year and I'd rate it's over-under on wins at six. It helps not to play USC. It hurts to play at BYU and UNLV in the nonconference slate. Road games are never easy, even if the Rebels aren't supposed to be good.
I was higher on the Cougars before two likely starting linebackers got the boot. When you're switching to a 3-4 defense, and you are replacing the three starters from last year's 4-3, well, do the math. Further, there are questions on both lines. And you never know how quickly the adjustment will be with a new coach and new systems.
So there are questions. But if you are looking for reasons for optimism, you hit on a few: Leach is a maestro of the passing game and Tuel has a good receiving corps with which to work.
I've sort of got a wait-and-see attitude here. That could change quick with a season-opening win at BYU.
Let's put it this way: I don't see the Cougars breaking into the top three of the North. But I'd certainly not be surprised if they get to a bowl game.
AJ from Los Angeles writes: CAN THE USC BE A LEGITIMATE NATIONAL TITLE CONTENDER CONSIDERING THE "D" IS MEDIOCRE?
Ted Miller: YES.
And if the Trojans stay healthy on their defensive front, the defense will be better than mediocre. Perhaps much better than mediocre.
Mailbag: No. 2 coaches; loads of disrespect
March, 30, 2012
Mar 30
6:00
PM ET
By
Ted Miller | ESPN.com
Happy Friday.
Follow me on Twitter, which is the zany new computer thing!
To the notes!
Sam from Eugene, Ore., writes: I'm a Duck and have always been a Duck but how can you not have Mike Riley on the poll for 2nd best Pac 12 coach?
Ted Miller: More than a few of you -- unhappy Oregon State fans mostly -- have called me a Mike Riley apologist, speculating that I don't criticize the Beavers' coach as much as a should because I like him.
Maybe. I do like him. Don't know anyone who doesn't, other than a former San Diego Chargers quarterback who will not be named in order to spare me a Cougars backlash.
But the reason Riley wasn't included in our poll asking who the No. 2 coach is in the Pac-12 (behind the obvious No. 1, Oregon's Chip Kelly) is that Riley has coached consecutive losing seasons -- 8-16 record, in fact. It would appear he enters the season on the hot seat.
I think Riley is a good coach. I think the Beavers have a solid shot of turning things around this fall. So he could end up on a postseason list asking who the No. 2 coach is.
But in a fluid ranking of coaches, Riley wouldn't be many folks' choice for No.2 in March of 2012.
Phillip from West Lafayette, Ind., writes: Why no Sark in your second best coach of the Pac-12 poll? If Leach, who hasn't coached in a couple of years and hasn't coached in a conference with defenses is on the list (which I have no problem with) why can't Sark be on the list? He inherited a disaster and has one of the best Offenses in the country. He fired a close friend, pillaged other schools defensive and recruiting minds and seems to have addressed the Defensive issues fairly well. If UW had a Top 75 D last year they are a Top 25 team. So, again, why no Sark?
Ted Miller: I think Steve Sarkisian is a talented coach who did a great job rebuilding a team that went 0-12 in 2008 to competitive almost immediately. He's upgraded the talent in Seattle with good recruiting, and he upgraded his staff this offseason, particularly with the hiring of defensive coordinator Justin Wilcox.
But he's only been a head coach three years, and he's gone 19-19. The Huskies lost five of their final seven games last season.
Mike Leach went 84-43 at Texas Tech, and was the 2008 Big 12 Coach of the Year. He's also is considered one of the great offensive innovators in college football.
Waiting for November from Eastern Daylight Time writes: two part question re: UO/USC:1) IF both teams are undefeated heading into the showdown in LA, what do you think a victory would mean for either team in the larger picture/narrative (BCS implications aside)? Return to elite status for USC? Confirmed elite status for Ducks?? Or neither? Seems to be the first year in many where bos and conference teams who have dominated conference in last decade will have serious talent, no sanctions, and conf. leadership on the line all at once. 2) You seem to have alluded to UO's strength of schedule and its implications for BCS standings when comparing UO/USC. Weak schedules have not hurt other teams rankings previously, as you have touched on before. Do the Ducks face a different narrative vis a vis strength of schedule TODAY because USC is the (for many) assumed favorite in the PAC-12?
Ted Miller: 1. If USC and Oregon are undefeated when they play on Nov. 3, I think the winner will end up ranked, at worst, No. 2. 2. USC returned to elite status with a final top-five ranking last season. Oregon became elite with its third consecutive Pac-10/12 title and its Rose Bowl victory.
As for Oregon's schedule: I've only questioned the nonconference slate, which is decidedly weak (and, yes, I know Kansas State finked out of a game). If the Pac-12 produces a handful of ranked teams, other than the Ducks and Trojans, the schedule toughness will take care of itself, particularly if other conference teams the Ducks are beating win big nonconference games.
Also, the Ducks and Trojans will start high enough in the national rankings that a weak schedule won't be a big deal. That wouldn't be true if they started ranked, say, 21st.
Mike from Palo Alto writes: Why do people continue to ignore and overlook Stanford in conversations about Pac-12 contenders (or even dark horses) next year? Sure they're losing the best QB in a generation, but they've got a hefty portion of returning starters, and the QBs competing to replace luck are a couple of 4-stars who've spent a few years learning under Luck, Harbaugh and Shaw.
Ted Miller: First, I don't think anyone is overlooking Stanford. The Cardinal is likely to be the third Pac-12 team -- after USC and Oregon -- ranked in the preseason top-25. Stanford could be a factor in the North race, though road games at Oregon, California and Washington won't help. And playing USC in Week 3, though at home, isn't ideal with a new quarterback.
But, just as I often pointed out that Stanford in 2011 wasn't just Andrew Luck, the voids in 2012 aren't just about Luck either.
Start with two offensive linemen who likely will be first round NFL draft picks. Yes, the Cardinal replaced three offensive linemen in 2011 and did fine, but the reason many thought the line would be fine last fall was the fact that the two coming back, David DeCastro and Jonathan Martin were, yes, future first-round NFL draft picks.
Then there's the losses of the top three receivers, including tight end Coby Fleener (another potential first-round pick), a pair of multi-year starters at safety, and underrated defensive end Matt Masifilo.
Does this mean Stanford won't play in a third-consecutive BCS bowl game? No. But these are big enough losses that it's reasonable to be skeptical. That's why I'd set the Cardinal's over-under with wins at eight.
And it's meaningful that doing so will ruffle some feathers -- among fans and inside the locker room. That shows how far the program has come.
Sean from Berkeley, Calif., writes: Looking at Oregon's schedule. Easiest 8-0 start ever? Guaranteed 10 win season? Only teams that will challenge will be @USC and @Cal? Washington or Stanford can't beat the Ducks in Eugene.
Ted Miller: If I were predicting, I would predict an 8-0 start for the Ducks.
But, man, such giddy confidence -- overconfidence? -- strikes me as a dangerous thing. Ever heard of karma?
You might need to make a sacrifice at the altar of the College Football Gods for that one.
Matt from Cupertino, Calif., writes: Ted, how likely is it that Cal goes into The Shoe on September 15th and pulls out a victory against Urban's Buckeyes? Curious to see how you think each team matches up, even this far away from the game.
Ted Miller: My initial feeling: Not likely.
Cal isn't typically good on the road, particularly when it goes east. Then you've got the Horseshoe and new coach Urban Meyer, two college football landmarks. Further, I think there should be a strong "buy" rating on Ohio State quarterback Braxton Miller, who did an admirable job in a bad situation as a freshman in 2011.
That said, there are a couple of things in Cal's favor, not the least of which is the Buckeyes playing with a postseason ban due to NCAA sanctions.
First, the Bears should have a big athletic advantage with their young-but-talented defense against what is a highly questionable Buckeyes offensive line, one that welcomes back just two starters from a unit that yielded 46 sacks. Second, the Buckeyes' defense should be good, but still doesn't look like one of the dominant units of the Jim Tressel era.
After a tumultuous offseason, Ohio State went 6-7 last season and lost its last four games. I'll likely pick the Buckeyes to beat the Bears -- in large part because I never pick Cal games right anyway -- but this is far from a mismatch.
Nate from Houston writes: First of all, I refuse to vote in your 2nd best coach poll because the USC staff is #1. Not #2, #1. Second, what do you think the odds are that Marquis Lee has a better year than Robert Woods? Lee is really blossoming with a season under him and his track participation is a giant help in conditioning, conditioning that Woods is missing out on due to his ankle....
Ted Miller: This shows how good the Trojans are at receiver. It's legit to ask if Lee might be better than Woods, who was an All-American in 2011.
I think Lee is very good. I think both will be early round NFL draft picks. But let's not forget how good Woods is when he's healthy, which he wasn't much late in the season.
If I were projecting, I'd still guess that Woods ends up with more yards and TDs than Lee. But it should be close enough that both are in the All-American conversation.
uc2k3 from Huskyville, Wash., writes: I came across an interesting suggestion by Dabo Swinney and one I've been thinking of and meaning to ask you for some time now. It's in regards to setting up scrimmages with other schools in the offseason. Just one scrimmage vs a nearby school. I've always thought that this would make the spring more interesting for players and fans and also give coaches a better assessment tool when trying to evaluate different position groups. Your thoughts?
Ted Miller: Well, uc2k3 -- are you buddies with R2D2? -- you won't ever hear me say (or write): "We need less college football."
So count me in. Just imagine what fun a scrimmage between state rivals might be. Heck, you could give half the gate away to charity, and we'd all feel good about ourselves.
The downside? Well, injuries for one. And what's the set-up? Do you keep score? Does that force you to care about winning? And what worries are there about giving away info -- about players, about schemes -- that could be used against you, by future regular-season opponents, as well as the team you scrimmage.
Still, if, say, Arizona and Arizona State sent me an email announcing a scrimmage, I'd show up with a big grin (and then both sets of fans would say I favor the other).
SEC fan from Fayetteville, Ark., writes: I know you grew up in SEC country and followed it for a while before moving off west, but why do you constantly write trash trying to make other conferences than the PAC10+2 hate on your articles? You constantly talk crap, mainly on the SEC but the BIG 10 and BIG 12-2 too? Your articles sound like everything happening back in the PAC is doing everything right while everyone else is doing everything wrong! I know your writing for a fan base that wants you to take their side and I honestly have no idea what your true point of view on college football is but how about trying to write how everyone wants a playoff in football but the PAC commish is keeping it from that? Start writing truth instead of trying to rowdy up the fan base your writing for and maybe honest people like me would take your writing seriously.
Ted Miller: Hmm.
One of the realities of my business is there is often a curiously wide distance between an accusation from a reader and what you actually have written. Or at least tried to write. When you work in the media, folks often insist, "You wrote this!" when you didn't, "You're biased!" when you work hard not to be, and "You don't know what you're talking about!" when you're actually parroting exactly what either a coach or player told you.
In this instance, let's start with this: "how about trying to write how everyone wants a playoff in football but the PAC commish is keeping it from that."
If I wrote that, it would be not only untrue, it would be the 180 degree opposite of true. The disconnect here is perhaps "SEC Fan" forgetting that Tom Hansen is no longer the Pac-10 commissioner. Larry Scott started talking about postseason models almost as soon as he was hired.
Then there's this: "why do you constantly write trash trying to make other conferences than the PAC10+2 hate on your articles? You constantly talk crap, mainly on the SEC but the BIG 10 and BIG 12-2 too? Your articles sound like everything happening back in the PAC is doing everything right while everyone else is doing everything wrong!"
Er, some examples? I get more blowback from Pac-12 fans who insist I coddle the SEC.
If this is just about my debate with SEC blogger Chris Low, well, the nature of that assignment -- "How would USC QB Matt Barkley do in the SEC?" -- was, in part, to trash talk each other.
Of course, I did write this: "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."
Just don't start taking my writing too seriously. That would make me cry.
Sniffle.
Follow me on Twitter, which is the zany new computer thing!
To the notes!
Sam from Eugene, Ore., writes: I'm a Duck and have always been a Duck but how can you not have Mike Riley on the poll for 2nd best Pac 12 coach?
Ted Miller: More than a few of you -- unhappy Oregon State fans mostly -- have called me a Mike Riley apologist, speculating that I don't criticize the Beavers' coach as much as a should because I like him.
Maybe. I do like him. Don't know anyone who doesn't, other than a former San Diego Chargers quarterback who will not be named in order to spare me a Cougars backlash.
But the reason Riley wasn't included in our poll asking who the No. 2 coach is in the Pac-12 (behind the obvious No. 1, Oregon's Chip Kelly) is that Riley has coached consecutive losing seasons -- 8-16 record, in fact. It would appear he enters the season on the hot seat.
I think Riley is a good coach. I think the Beavers have a solid shot of turning things around this fall. So he could end up on a postseason list asking who the No. 2 coach is.
But in a fluid ranking of coaches, Riley wouldn't be many folks' choice for No.2 in March of 2012.
Phillip from West Lafayette, Ind., writes: Why no Sark in your second best coach of the Pac-12 poll? If Leach, who hasn't coached in a couple of years and hasn't coached in a conference with defenses is on the list (which I have no problem with) why can't Sark be on the list? He inherited a disaster and has one of the best Offenses in the country. He fired a close friend, pillaged other schools defensive and recruiting minds and seems to have addressed the Defensive issues fairly well. If UW had a Top 75 D last year they are a Top 25 team. So, again, why no Sark?
Ted Miller: I think Steve Sarkisian is a talented coach who did a great job rebuilding a team that went 0-12 in 2008 to competitive almost immediately. He's upgraded the talent in Seattle with good recruiting, and he upgraded his staff this offseason, particularly with the hiring of defensive coordinator Justin Wilcox.
But he's only been a head coach three years, and he's gone 19-19. The Huskies lost five of their final seven games last season.
Mike Leach went 84-43 at Texas Tech, and was the 2008 Big 12 Coach of the Year. He's also is considered one of the great offensive innovators in college football.
Waiting for November from Eastern Daylight Time writes: two part question re: UO/USC:1) IF both teams are undefeated heading into the showdown in LA, what do you think a victory would mean for either team in the larger picture/narrative (BCS implications aside)? Return to elite status for USC? Confirmed elite status for Ducks?? Or neither? Seems to be the first year in many where bos and conference teams who have dominated conference in last decade will have serious talent, no sanctions, and conf. leadership on the line all at once. 2) You seem to have alluded to UO's strength of schedule and its implications for BCS standings when comparing UO/USC. Weak schedules have not hurt other teams rankings previously, as you have touched on before. Do the Ducks face a different narrative vis a vis strength of schedule TODAY because USC is the (for many) assumed favorite in the PAC-12?
Ted Miller: 1. If USC and Oregon are undefeated when they play on Nov. 3, I think the winner will end up ranked, at worst, No. 2. 2. USC returned to elite status with a final top-five ranking last season. Oregon became elite with its third consecutive Pac-10/12 title and its Rose Bowl victory.
As for Oregon's schedule: I've only questioned the nonconference slate, which is decidedly weak (and, yes, I know Kansas State finked out of a game). If the Pac-12 produces a handful of ranked teams, other than the Ducks and Trojans, the schedule toughness will take care of itself, particularly if other conference teams the Ducks are beating win big nonconference games.
Also, the Ducks and Trojans will start high enough in the national rankings that a weak schedule won't be a big deal. That wouldn't be true if they started ranked, say, 21st.
Mike from Palo Alto writes: Why do people continue to ignore and overlook Stanford in conversations about Pac-12 contenders (or even dark horses) next year? Sure they're losing the best QB in a generation, but they've got a hefty portion of returning starters, and the QBs competing to replace luck are a couple of 4-stars who've spent a few years learning under Luck, Harbaugh and Shaw.
Ted Miller: First, I don't think anyone is overlooking Stanford. The Cardinal is likely to be the third Pac-12 team -- after USC and Oregon -- ranked in the preseason top-25. Stanford could be a factor in the North race, though road games at Oregon, California and Washington won't help. And playing USC in Week 3, though at home, isn't ideal with a new quarterback.
But, just as I often pointed out that Stanford in 2011 wasn't just Andrew Luck, the voids in 2012 aren't just about Luck either.
Start with two offensive linemen who likely will be first round NFL draft picks. Yes, the Cardinal replaced three offensive linemen in 2011 and did fine, but the reason many thought the line would be fine last fall was the fact that the two coming back, David DeCastro and Jonathan Martin were, yes, future first-round NFL draft picks.
Then there's the losses of the top three receivers, including tight end Coby Fleener (another potential first-round pick), a pair of multi-year starters at safety, and underrated defensive end Matt Masifilo.
Does this mean Stanford won't play in a third-consecutive BCS bowl game? No. But these are big enough losses that it's reasonable to be skeptical. That's why I'd set the Cardinal's over-under with wins at eight.
And it's meaningful that doing so will ruffle some feathers -- among fans and inside the locker room. That shows how far the program has come.
Sean from Berkeley, Calif., writes: Looking at Oregon's schedule. Easiest 8-0 start ever? Guaranteed 10 win season? Only teams that will challenge will be @USC and @Cal? Washington or Stanford can't beat the Ducks in Eugene.
Ted Miller: If I were predicting, I would predict an 8-0 start for the Ducks.
But, man, such giddy confidence -- overconfidence? -- strikes me as a dangerous thing. Ever heard of karma?
You might need to make a sacrifice at the altar of the College Football Gods for that one.
Matt from Cupertino, Calif., writes: Ted, how likely is it that Cal goes into The Shoe on September 15th and pulls out a victory against Urban's Buckeyes? Curious to see how you think each team matches up, even this far away from the game.
Ted Miller: My initial feeling: Not likely.
Cal isn't typically good on the road, particularly when it goes east. Then you've got the Horseshoe and new coach Urban Meyer, two college football landmarks. Further, I think there should be a strong "buy" rating on Ohio State quarterback Braxton Miller, who did an admirable job in a bad situation as a freshman in 2011.
That said, there are a couple of things in Cal's favor, not the least of which is the Buckeyes playing with a postseason ban due to NCAA sanctions.
First, the Bears should have a big athletic advantage with their young-but-talented defense against what is a highly questionable Buckeyes offensive line, one that welcomes back just two starters from a unit that yielded 46 sacks. Second, the Buckeyes' defense should be good, but still doesn't look like one of the dominant units of the Jim Tressel era.
After a tumultuous offseason, Ohio State went 6-7 last season and lost its last four games. I'll likely pick the Buckeyes to beat the Bears -- in large part because I never pick Cal games right anyway -- but this is far from a mismatch.
Nate from Houston writes: First of all, I refuse to vote in your 2nd best coach poll because the USC staff is #1. Not #2, #1. Second, what do you think the odds are that Marquis Lee has a better year than Robert Woods? Lee is really blossoming with a season under him and his track participation is a giant help in conditioning, conditioning that Woods is missing out on due to his ankle....
Ted Miller: This shows how good the Trojans are at receiver. It's legit to ask if Lee might be better than Woods, who was an All-American in 2011.
I think Lee is very good. I think both will be early round NFL draft picks. But let's not forget how good Woods is when he's healthy, which he wasn't much late in the season.
If I were projecting, I'd still guess that Woods ends up with more yards and TDs than Lee. But it should be close enough that both are in the All-American conversation.
uc2k3 from Huskyville, Wash., writes: I came across an interesting suggestion by Dabo Swinney and one I've been thinking of and meaning to ask you for some time now. It's in regards to setting up scrimmages with other schools in the offseason. Just one scrimmage vs a nearby school. I've always thought that this would make the spring more interesting for players and fans and also give coaches a better assessment tool when trying to evaluate different position groups. Your thoughts?
Ted Miller: Well, uc2k3 -- are you buddies with R2D2? -- you won't ever hear me say (or write): "We need less college football."
So count me in. Just imagine what fun a scrimmage between state rivals might be. Heck, you could give half the gate away to charity, and we'd all feel good about ourselves.
The downside? Well, injuries for one. And what's the set-up? Do you keep score? Does that force you to care about winning? And what worries are there about giving away info -- about players, about schemes -- that could be used against you, by future regular-season opponents, as well as the team you scrimmage.
Still, if, say, Arizona and Arizona State sent me an email announcing a scrimmage, I'd show up with a big grin (and then both sets of fans would say I favor the other).
SEC fan from Fayetteville, Ark., writes: I know you grew up in SEC country and followed it for a while before moving off west, but why do you constantly write trash trying to make other conferences than the PAC10+2 hate on your articles? You constantly talk crap, mainly on the SEC but the BIG 10 and BIG 12-2 too? Your articles sound like everything happening back in the PAC is doing everything right while everyone else is doing everything wrong! I know your writing for a fan base that wants you to take their side and I honestly have no idea what your true point of view on college football is but how about trying to write how everyone wants a playoff in football but the PAC commish is keeping it from that? Start writing truth instead of trying to rowdy up the fan base your writing for and maybe honest people like me would take your writing seriously.
Ted Miller: Hmm.
One of the realities of my business is there is often a curiously wide distance between an accusation from a reader and what you actually have written. Or at least tried to write. When you work in the media, folks often insist, "You wrote this!" when you didn't, "You're biased!" when you work hard not to be, and "You don't know what you're talking about!" when you're actually parroting exactly what either a coach or player told you.
In this instance, let's start with this: "how about trying to write how everyone wants a playoff in football but the PAC commish is keeping it from that."
If I wrote that, it would be not only untrue, it would be the 180 degree opposite of true. The disconnect here is perhaps "SEC Fan" forgetting that Tom Hansen is no longer the Pac-10 commissioner. Larry Scott started talking about postseason models almost as soon as he was hired.
Then there's this: "why do you constantly write trash trying to make other conferences than the PAC10+2 hate on your articles? You constantly talk crap, mainly on the SEC but the BIG 10 and BIG 12-2 too? Your articles sound like everything happening back in the PAC is doing everything right while everyone else is doing everything wrong!"
Er, some examples? I get more blowback from Pac-12 fans who insist I coddle the SEC.
If this is just about my debate with SEC blogger Chris Low, well, the nature of that assignment -- "How would USC QB Matt Barkley do in the SEC?" -- was, in part, to trash talk each other.
Of course, I did write this: "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."
Just don't start taking my writing too seriously. That would make me cry.
Sniffle.
If you needed any more proof that earnest efforts to change and improve the college football postseason -- read: install a playoff system -- continue to gain momentum, consider this news release:
Statement by the eleven BCS Commissioners and the Notre Dame Athletics Director:
So the specific details are being talked about. That's a good thing for you playoff proponents, BCS haters.
While there are no guarantees we'll have some sort of playoff after the latest BCS contract expires in 2014, the good money is on us heading toward some sort of Final Four in college football.
By the way, if you are interested in participating in a survey on the BCS, go here.
Statement by the eleven BCS Commissioners and the Notre Dame Athletics Director:
As part of our continuing discussions about how to decide college football's national champion while maintaining the best regular season in sports, we met today in Dallas. The meeting was constructive and highly detailed.
While no decisions have been made about the overall structure, our talks have entered the "brass tacks" level. For every concept that enjoys broad support, there are a host of intricate details that we're talking through.
For example, if we change the current format, would we play some games on campus or all games on neutral sites? If some games are on campus, is that too much of a competitive advantage? If all games are at neutral sites, would fans be able to travel to two games in a row? How would teams be selected? By a committee, by the current ranking formula, or by a different formula? When exactly would games be scheduled, considering finals, holidays and our desire to avoid mid-January games?
As we discuss the upsides and downsides of our decisions, we are united in our desire to protect our great regular season and honor the bowl tradition, while maintaining the collegiate nature of our sport.
We're making good progress toward our self-imposed goal of making a final recommendation this summer to our governing bodies.
So the specific details are being talked about. That's a good thing for you playoff proponents, BCS haters.
While there are no guarantees we'll have some sort of playoff after the latest BCS contract expires in 2014, the good money is on us heading toward some sort of Final Four in college football.
By the way, if you are interested in participating in a survey on the BCS, go here.
Take 2: Pac-12's second-best coach?
March, 23, 2012
Mar 23
12:00
PM ET
By
Ted Miller and
Kevin Gemmell | ESPN.com
Folks like rankings, which is why a lot of you had opinions on both Athlon Sports and our rankings of Pac-12 coaches this week.
There are very few naysayers to the idea that Oregon's Chip Kelly is an obvious No. 1. In fact, I'm not even sure how you gainsay that.
But who's No. 2?
That's the question before your faithful Pac-12 bloggers.
Kevin Gemmell: Since you went first last week, and I used it as an opportunity to take a shot at you about Darron/De'Anthony Thomas Top 25 incident, I'll take the lead this week and suffer whatever ribbing comes from it.
To be honest, I was pretty torn when trying to figure out who I would put at No. 2 in the conference. I think you can easily make an argument for three or four different guys. But I've also seen what Kyle Whittingham has done at Utah from the very beginning when I used to cover the Mountain West Conference.
His résumé is stellar, and his credentials are without question. He has an undefeated season to his credit and two BCS bowl game victories (I believe the NCAA credits him and Urban Meyer both for the Fiesta Bowl win). If I'm wrong on that, he still has a BCS bowl victory at a then mid-major program.
He's 7-1 all-time in bowl games. That means he's a closer. The only bowl loss was in 2010 to Boise State -- the Broncos' second football game following the Nevada field goal debacle. There weren't many that thought Boise would lose that one.
What I think is the most impressive thing about Whittingham, though, is that he's proven to be his own man. He easily could have fallen into the trap that David Shaw now finds himself in at Stanford. Critics will constantly question Shaw about if he can do it outside of Jim Harbaugh's shadow and without Andrew Luck on the roster. Whittingham faced similar charges in the face of Meyer's departure.
In that time, he's gone 66-25 and stewarded the program into the Pac-12, where the Utes went 8-5 last season, including a come-from-behind win over Georgia Tech in the Sun Bowl. Sustained success means several things. He can recruit. He can reinvent himself and the team with each new generation of players. And he makes good hires.
We all know one bad recruiting class can set a program back several years. Bad hires can have an even longer impact. Whittingham is not afraid to take gambles -- and the latest one is naming former quarterback-turned quarterbacks coach Brian Johnson his offensive coordinator. At least some see it as a gamble. But Whittingham has given us no reason over his career to think it's not going to be a great hire.
The fact is, Whittingham wins year after year. Can't ask for much more out of your coach.
Ted Miller: I deserved the snark over the twin No. 12s. That was a moment of clumsy compensation for a boneheaded oversight on my part. Of course, you did steal my No. 2 coach, which I will write off to your savvy and your foreknowledge you got to go first this week.
And it gives me a chance to tout a guy who might shortly challenge for the top-spot on this list: Arizona's Rich Rodriguez. In fact, if we could make Rodriguez's ill-fated, three-year tenure at Michigan magically disappear, and then view Rodriguez as arriving in Tucson after a brilliant run at West Virginia, you would be able to make a case for him against even Kelly.
Before the disaster in Ann Arbor, Rodriguez was widely viewed as among the nation's best coaches. He'd been successful everywhere he went, and was considered one of the nation's truly great offensive minds -- not unlike Kelly. He went 60-26 at West Virginia and, after going 3-8 his first year, never won fewer than eight games. He also won a Sugar Bowl over Georgia, and his team won the Fiesta Bowl over Oklahoma after he bolted for Michigan. The Mountaineers won 33 games his final three seasons. According to this high-powered calculator, that's an average of 11 wins per season.
But what about Michigan? Well, as we've said before and surely will say again, his failure at Michigan was more about Michigan than Rich Rodriguez. It was a bad fit from the get-go in terms of his personality versus the "Michigan way"; Rodriguez wasn't able to hire his defensive coordinator, as he has done at Arizona with Jeff Casteel; he was shamefully betrayed and undermined by a Machiavellian Lloyd Carr; and it's not unreasonable to question the agendas of some of the media coverage he received.
Some Michigan fans take issue with that perspective on Rodriguez's Michigan tenure, much of which is detailed in John Bacon's book "Three and Out." But only because they love the Wolverines more than the truth, at least in this instance.
Rodriguez repeatedly has said he's not a quick-fix guy -- he, by the way, told the folks hiring him at Michigan exactly that -- and that it will take three years for his systems and recruiting to truly take hold. I doubt Wildcats fans are exciting about waiting that long, but the smart money is on Rodriguez finding a way to get it done in Tucson.
And, yeah, that means it's legitimate to dream about a first Rose Bowl within five years.
Wouldn't it be fun if it were against the Wolverines?
There are very few naysayers to the idea that Oregon's Chip Kelly is an obvious No. 1. In fact, I'm not even sure how you gainsay that.
[+] Enlarge
AP Photo/Mark J. TerrillKyle Whittingham is 7-1 in bowl games, including a BCS victory.
AP Photo/Mark J. TerrillKyle Whittingham is 7-1 in bowl games, including a BCS victory.That's the question before your faithful Pac-12 bloggers.
Kevin Gemmell: Since you went first last week, and I used it as an opportunity to take a shot at you about Darron/De'Anthony Thomas Top 25 incident, I'll take the lead this week and suffer whatever ribbing comes from it.
To be honest, I was pretty torn when trying to figure out who I would put at No. 2 in the conference. I think you can easily make an argument for three or four different guys. But I've also seen what Kyle Whittingham has done at Utah from the very beginning when I used to cover the Mountain West Conference.
His résumé is stellar, and his credentials are without question. He has an undefeated season to his credit and two BCS bowl game victories (I believe the NCAA credits him and Urban Meyer both for the Fiesta Bowl win). If I'm wrong on that, he still has a BCS bowl victory at a then mid-major program.
He's 7-1 all-time in bowl games. That means he's a closer. The only bowl loss was in 2010 to Boise State -- the Broncos' second football game following the Nevada field goal debacle. There weren't many that thought Boise would lose that one.
What I think is the most impressive thing about Whittingham, though, is that he's proven to be his own man. He easily could have fallen into the trap that David Shaw now finds himself in at Stanford. Critics will constantly question Shaw about if he can do it outside of Jim Harbaugh's shadow and without Andrew Luck on the roster. Whittingham faced similar charges in the face of Meyer's departure.
In that time, he's gone 66-25 and stewarded the program into the Pac-12, where the Utes went 8-5 last season, including a come-from-behind win over Georgia Tech in the Sun Bowl. Sustained success means several things. He can recruit. He can reinvent himself and the team with each new generation of players. And he makes good hires.
We all know one bad recruiting class can set a program back several years. Bad hires can have an even longer impact. Whittingham is not afraid to take gambles -- and the latest one is naming former quarterback-turned quarterbacks coach Brian Johnson his offensive coordinator. At least some see it as a gamble. But Whittingham has given us no reason over his career to think it's not going to be a great hire.
The fact is, Whittingham wins year after year. Can't ask for much more out of your coach.
Ted Miller: I deserved the snark over the twin No. 12s. That was a moment of clumsy compensation for a boneheaded oversight on my part. Of course, you did steal my No. 2 coach, which I will write off to your savvy and your foreknowledge you got to go first this week.
[+] Enlarge
Courtesy of J&L PhotoRich Rodriguez led West Virginia to two BCS games, but struggled considerably at Michigan.
Courtesy of J&L PhotoRich Rodriguez led West Virginia to two BCS games, but struggled considerably at Michigan.Before the disaster in Ann Arbor, Rodriguez was widely viewed as among the nation's best coaches. He'd been successful everywhere he went, and was considered one of the nation's truly great offensive minds -- not unlike Kelly. He went 60-26 at West Virginia and, after going 3-8 his first year, never won fewer than eight games. He also won a Sugar Bowl over Georgia, and his team won the Fiesta Bowl over Oklahoma after he bolted for Michigan. The Mountaineers won 33 games his final three seasons. According to this high-powered calculator, that's an average of 11 wins per season.
But what about Michigan? Well, as we've said before and surely will say again, his failure at Michigan was more about Michigan than Rich Rodriguez. It was a bad fit from the get-go in terms of his personality versus the "Michigan way"; Rodriguez wasn't able to hire his defensive coordinator, as he has done at Arizona with Jeff Casteel; he was shamefully betrayed and undermined by a Machiavellian Lloyd Carr; and it's not unreasonable to question the agendas of some of the media coverage he received.
Some Michigan fans take issue with that perspective on Rodriguez's Michigan tenure, much of which is detailed in John Bacon's book "Three and Out." But only because they love the Wolverines more than the truth, at least in this instance.
Rodriguez repeatedly has said he's not a quick-fix guy -- he, by the way, told the folks hiring him at Michigan exactly that -- and that it will take three years for his systems and recruiting to truly take hold. I doubt Wildcats fans are exciting about waiting that long, but the smart money is on Rodriguez finding a way to get it done in Tucson.
And, yeah, that means it's legitimate to dream about a first Rose Bowl within five years.
Wouldn't it be fun if it were against the Wolverines?
EUGENE, Ore. -- John Boyett is still smiling. Everything seems fine. Up to the halfway point in a 15-minute interview, Oregon's free safety has been insightful and pleasant, even when a certain sportswriter started blathering about this or that.
But that smile hints at something else. It's a happy smile, yes, but happy in the way a lion looks just before he takes a huge chomp out of a gazelle.
Me: I just made a list of the top-25 of players in the Pac-12.
Boyett: [Big laugh] I heard.
Me: You were left off.
Boyett: [More laughing] I heard.
Me: [Nervous laugh] Are you competitive with the other guys?
Boyett: Very competitive.
If you've watched Boyett play, that shouldn't be a surprise. A soon-to-be four-year starter for the Ducks, the 5-foot-10, 202-pound senior from Napa, Calif., is child of a football family, and he's obsessed with the game, whether that's about conditioning or watching film or playing with an intensity that easily endures the filtering presentation of a TV camera.
"Football is in my blood," he said.
How competitive is he? Competitive enough to be, yes, just a bit irked not only at that ole top-25 list but also that he ended up second-team All-Pac-12.
"I'm not just going to say I feel like I'm the best safety because it's me. I'm a realist," he said. "But I really do feel I'm the best safety in the country. I probably wouldn't believe that if [secondary coach John Neal and defensive coordinator Nick Aliotti] hadn't told me the same thing."
But Boyett, who's led the Ducks in tackles two of the past three season and finished second in 2010, didn't come to this discussion unarmed. He's completely aware of whom his rival is for best safety in the Pac-12: USC's T.J. McDonald. McDonald was first-team All-Pac-12, first-team All-American with The Sporting News, ended up ranked 19th on the top-25 list and is widely considered the best senior safety in college football.
"I know T.J. McDonald's stats," Boyett said. "I know all the safeties I am competing with in the draft. I know all their stuff. But I'm not stupid competitive. I don't get into all the politics. I'm here to help my team win. If we get into another BCS championship game, I don't care if you give me first team or 20th team, I just want to help the team win."
But...
Boyett continues, "But it is crazy when you look at it. I look at my stats compared to everyone else. And I'm not a big stats guy, I just want to win games."
But...
"But of course you've got to look at it every once and a while. I've got 276 tackles, nine picks and like 29 pass breakups. And the other guy's [McDonald] got like [163] tackles, six picks and nine pass breakups. I've got him by [113] tackles, three picks and 20 pass breakups! And they are still getting...
But...
"That's why I don't get caught up in all that stuff."
Not completely, at least.
What Boyett really does get caught up in is winning. Oregon has done that during his career like it never has before with a 34-6 record over the past three seasons. He was recruited to a 2007 team that fell out of the national title hunt when quarterback Dennis Dixon blew out his knee. In 2008, his redshirt season, the Ducks went 10-3 and won the Holiday Bowl. Yet those were the down years. He became a starter in 2009 when T.J. Ward got hurt, and since then the Ducks have won three consecutive Pac-12 titles and played in two Rose Bowls -- winning one -- as well as the national title game after the 2010 season.
Boyett believes the Ducks will again be in the hunt in 2012. And he believes this defense might be the best unit with which he's played.
"We lose three or four guys, but all the guys coming in for them are just as good as them," he said. "[Aliotti] asks me how the defense is doing, and I seriously tell him, 'This defense is going to be the best since I've been here.'"
Boyett is part of an impressive recent legacy of Oregon defensive backs. When he arrived, the Ducks' secondary included Ward, Jairus Byrd, Patrick Chung and Walter Thurmond. The first three were second-round NFL draft picks, while Thurmond went in Round 4.
Those are the guys who first taught him how to play, but they aren't exempt from Boyett's competitive streak either. He's got big plans for this year, and part of that plan is leaving no doubt in the eyes of NFL scouts.
Said Boyett, "Coach Neal says if I have another great year I'm going to get drafted as high if not higher than them."
But that smile hints at something else. It's a happy smile, yes, but happy in the way a lion looks just before he takes a huge chomp out of a gazelle.
Me: I just made a list of the top-25 of players in the Pac-12.
Boyett: [Big laugh] I heard.
Me: You were left off.
Boyett: [More laughing] I heard.
Me: [Nervous laugh] Are you competitive with the other guys?
Boyett: Very competitive.
If you've watched Boyett play, that shouldn't be a surprise. A soon-to-be four-year starter for the Ducks, the 5-foot-10, 202-pound senior from Napa, Calif., is child of a football family, and he's obsessed with the game, whether that's about conditioning or watching film or playing with an intensity that easily endures the filtering presentation of a TV camera.
[+] Enlarge
Jim Z. Rider/US PresswireJohn Boyett could be the best in a recent line of successful Oregon defensive backs.
Jim Z. Rider/US PresswireJohn Boyett could be the best in a recent line of successful Oregon defensive backs.How competitive is he? Competitive enough to be, yes, just a bit irked not only at that ole top-25 list but also that he ended up second-team All-Pac-12.
"I'm not just going to say I feel like I'm the best safety because it's me. I'm a realist," he said. "But I really do feel I'm the best safety in the country. I probably wouldn't believe that if [secondary coach John Neal and defensive coordinator Nick Aliotti] hadn't told me the same thing."
But Boyett, who's led the Ducks in tackles two of the past three season and finished second in 2010, didn't come to this discussion unarmed. He's completely aware of whom his rival is for best safety in the Pac-12: USC's T.J. McDonald. McDonald was first-team All-Pac-12, first-team All-American with The Sporting News, ended up ranked 19th on the top-25 list and is widely considered the best senior safety in college football.
"I know T.J. McDonald's stats," Boyett said. "I know all the safeties I am competing with in the draft. I know all their stuff. But I'm not stupid competitive. I don't get into all the politics. I'm here to help my team win. If we get into another BCS championship game, I don't care if you give me first team or 20th team, I just want to help the team win."
But...
Boyett continues, "But it is crazy when you look at it. I look at my stats compared to everyone else. And I'm not a big stats guy, I just want to win games."
But...
"But of course you've got to look at it every once and a while. I've got 276 tackles, nine picks and like 29 pass breakups. And the other guy's [McDonald] got like [163] tackles, six picks and nine pass breakups. I've got him by [113] tackles, three picks and 20 pass breakups! And they are still getting...
But...
"That's why I don't get caught up in all that stuff."
Not completely, at least.
What Boyett really does get caught up in is winning. Oregon has done that during his career like it never has before with a 34-6 record over the past three seasons. He was recruited to a 2007 team that fell out of the national title hunt when quarterback Dennis Dixon blew out his knee. In 2008, his redshirt season, the Ducks went 10-3 and won the Holiday Bowl. Yet those were the down years. He became a starter in 2009 when T.J. Ward got hurt, and since then the Ducks have won three consecutive Pac-12 titles and played in two Rose Bowls -- winning one -- as well as the national title game after the 2010 season.
Boyett believes the Ducks will again be in the hunt in 2012. And he believes this defense might be the best unit with which he's played.
"We lose three or four guys, but all the guys coming in for them are just as good as them," he said. "[Aliotti] asks me how the defense is doing, and I seriously tell him, 'This defense is going to be the best since I've been here.'"
Boyett is part of an impressive recent legacy of Oregon defensive backs. When he arrived, the Ducks' secondary included Ward, Jairus Byrd, Patrick Chung and Walter Thurmond. The first three were second-round NFL draft picks, while Thurmond went in Round 4.
Those are the guys who first taught him how to play, but they aren't exempt from Boyett's competitive streak either. He's got big plans for this year, and part of that plan is leaving no doubt in the eyes of NFL scouts.
Said Boyett, "Coach Neal says if I have another great year I'm going to get drafted as high if not higher than them."
ABOUT THIS BLOG
Ted Miller
Miller has been covering college football since 1997, starting with Auburn and then heading West to Washington and the Pac-12. His columns for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer won first place in the 2007 APSE Best Writing contest. The Atlanta native and University of Richmond graduate presently lives with his wife in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Kevin Gemmell
Gemmell covered San Diego State and the Mountain West Conference for three years before joining ESPN.com. As a Santa Clara graduate, his hope is that the Broncos will one day re-institute football. Until then, he lives vicariously through his readers. Gemmell lives in California with his wife and son.
PAC-12 TEAM COVERAGE
RECRUITING NATION
USC: We Are SC
Follow everything USC at We Are USC: USC Trojans football, basketball, news, recruiting and more.
• We Are SC | Blog | RecruitingNation
