Pac-12: Bobby Bowden
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.
Tampa flip? Kelly's rise good for Oregon
January, 27, 2012
Jan 27
10:52
AM ET
By
Ted Miller | ESPN.com
Oregon coach Chip Kelly told Eugene sports radio talk show host Steve Tannen Thursday that he never flip-flopped from the Ducks to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and back again last weekend, as reported in both Tampa and Oregon.
"The only decision I ever made was to not accept the job," Kelly said. "I never changed my mind. I never committed to the job and then flip-flopped."
You can listen to the full interview here.
First, response: Interesting, but it doesn't matter. He's still the Ducks' coach. End of story.
But as far as reading the entrails on this, there are four options you can choose from: 1) Kelly is telling the truth; 2) Kelly is lying; 3) Kelly is splitting hairs; 4) Kelly is shortly going to improve to 35-6 at Oregon and not 1-0 at Tampa Bay -- again, end of story.
Whatever Kelly said on the radio, lots of people believed Sunday night that he was headed to Tampa. It's possible -- and perhaps likely in some way -- that Kelly gave a strong indication to principals on both ends that he was leaning toward Tampa and away from Eugene, but when it came time to put pen to paper he got cold feet, likely considering the spiraling void of darkness that would ensue without regular chats with the Pac-12 blog. "Eeek," he said. "Can't do it."
Yes, no one can prove that Kelly didn't return to Oregon because the Pac-12 blog has very little interaction with the coach of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.
Just as no one can prove that Kelly said "yes" to Tampa before he said "no."
Why is it important whether Kelly flip-flopped or not? In either scenario, he turned down a hefty raise to remain at Oregon. So this flirtation wasn't about contract leverage, and it's reasonable to conclude that money isn't solely driving him. An interesting tidbit from the Eugene Register-Guard:
Further, Kelly got to cite a heart-warming reason for returning: "... the relationships I have with the current coaches on our staff and the players was the underlying reason why I came back."
Oregon fans can look at this any way they like, but I'd rate it a win-win for Kelly and Oregon.
The football nation -- NFL and college -- got to see how highly Kelly is held in esteem. Multiple NFL pundits, including former Indianapolis Colts coach Tony Dungy, have said of late that Kelly would be a good NFL coach. Kelly's star, which is already high, just climbed a bit higher. That's good for him, of course, but it's also good for Oregon as long as Kelly is in Eugene.
Some have said Kelly's flirtation would hurt recruiting. They are not only wrong; the opposite is true.
Players respect superstar coaches. Recall that, in his heyday, Florida State's Bobby Bowden used to crush it the final week of recruiting with that last in-home visit. So did Pete Carroll. So does Nick Saban, etc. Oregon fans, not satisfied with winning three consecutive conference titles, want to move up the recruiting rankings. Lots of five-star guys -- in 2012-13 and beyond -- just learned a little bit more about Kelly.
The NFL banging on Kelly's door makes him more of a star, and that will play well in living rooms, much more so than the idea that Kelly might leave for an NFL job at some point.
Further, some have tried to diminish Kelly as a "system" coach. In recruiting, some coaches say that Oregon is a great program but it's not an NFL feeder with pro-style schemes. Well, now there's clear evidence the NFL thinks highly of Kelly and his systems.
The key thing on the Oregon end of things: It will be a huge mistake if the Ducks' top boosters -- Phil Knight, et al. -- want to get grumpy over this. Creating friction to make a point about loyalty or acting wounded will only hasten Kelly's exit. And hurt the program.
The most interesting aspect coming out of this was detailed in this column from George Schroeder: Oregon's potential succession plan would have made offensive coordinator Mark Helfrich the head coach.
Helfrich is highly respected, but I'd always thought he'd have to leave for another job -- and call his own plays -- to escape Kelly's considerable shadow and land a head-coaching gig. Schroeder's column shows that the same folks who quickly and accurately identified Kelly's rising star believe Helfrich is made of the same coaching stuff.
So just as Kelly's star rose this week, and Oregon fans got a huge relief after it stayed in the Eugene sky, so did Helfrich's. Know that more than a few ADs at some AQ schools added his name to their list of coaches to watch.
"The only decision I ever made was to not accept the job," Kelly said. "I never changed my mind. I never committed to the job and then flip-flopped."
You can listen to the full interview here.
First, response: Interesting, but it doesn't matter. He's still the Ducks' coach. End of story.
But as far as reading the entrails on this, there are four options you can choose from: 1) Kelly is telling the truth; 2) Kelly is lying; 3) Kelly is splitting hairs; 4) Kelly is shortly going to improve to 35-6 at Oregon and not 1-0 at Tampa Bay -- again, end of story.
[+] Enlarge
AP Photo/Tony AvelarChip Kelly flirtation with the NFL was a win-win for Kelly and the Ducks.
AP Photo/Tony AvelarChip Kelly flirtation with the NFL was a win-win for Kelly and the Ducks.Yes, no one can prove that Kelly didn't return to Oregon because the Pac-12 blog has very little interaction with the coach of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.
Just as no one can prove that Kelly said "yes" to Tampa before he said "no."
Why is it important whether Kelly flip-flopped or not? In either scenario, he turned down a hefty raise to remain at Oregon. So this flirtation wasn't about contract leverage, and it's reasonable to conclude that money isn't solely driving him. An interesting tidbit from the Eugene Register-Guard:
Kelly pointed out that his decision "obviously wasn't financial, because I turned it down and it was more than I got paid." The Register-Guard has reported that Kelly received a contract extension but that his deal with the Ducks wasn't otherwise dramatically overhauled.
Further, Kelly got to cite a heart-warming reason for returning: "... the relationships I have with the current coaches on our staff and the players was the underlying reason why I came back."
Oregon fans can look at this any way they like, but I'd rate it a win-win for Kelly and Oregon.
The football nation -- NFL and college -- got to see how highly Kelly is held in esteem. Multiple NFL pundits, including former Indianapolis Colts coach Tony Dungy, have said of late that Kelly would be a good NFL coach. Kelly's star, which is already high, just climbed a bit higher. That's good for him, of course, but it's also good for Oregon as long as Kelly is in Eugene.
Some have said Kelly's flirtation would hurt recruiting. They are not only wrong; the opposite is true.
Players respect superstar coaches. Recall that, in his heyday, Florida State's Bobby Bowden used to crush it the final week of recruiting with that last in-home visit. So did Pete Carroll. So does Nick Saban, etc. Oregon fans, not satisfied with winning three consecutive conference titles, want to move up the recruiting rankings. Lots of five-star guys -- in 2012-13 and beyond -- just learned a little bit more about Kelly.
The NFL banging on Kelly's door makes him more of a star, and that will play well in living rooms, much more so than the idea that Kelly might leave for an NFL job at some point.
Further, some have tried to diminish Kelly as a "system" coach. In recruiting, some coaches say that Oregon is a great program but it's not an NFL feeder with pro-style schemes. Well, now there's clear evidence the NFL thinks highly of Kelly and his systems.
The key thing on the Oregon end of things: It will be a huge mistake if the Ducks' top boosters -- Phil Knight, et al. -- want to get grumpy over this. Creating friction to make a point about loyalty or acting wounded will only hasten Kelly's exit. And hurt the program.
The most interesting aspect coming out of this was detailed in this column from George Schroeder: Oregon's potential succession plan would have made offensive coordinator Mark Helfrich the head coach.
Helfrich is highly respected, but I'd always thought he'd have to leave for another job -- and call his own plays -- to escape Kelly's considerable shadow and land a head-coaching gig. Schroeder's column shows that the same folks who quickly and accurately identified Kelly's rising star believe Helfrich is made of the same coaching stuff.
So just as Kelly's star rose this week, and Oregon fans got a huge relief after it stayed in the Eugene sky, so did Helfrich's. Know that more than a few ADs at some AQ schools added his name to their list of coaches to watch.
Happy Friday.
Anyone else eager to end the worst offseason in the history of college football and start talking about games again?
Thought so.
Follow me on Twitter.
To the notes.
Roger from Oregon writes: I am a high school student in Oregon. It has really been bothering me how many columnists are calling out Darron Thomas and his leadership. I know that he has been in the car on three separate occasions were citations, as well as marijuana were involved. How does this make him a bad leader? At my school, a high school not a university, smoking weed is commonplace. While I don't smoke, most of my friends and about 75% of male athletes do, yet they are still able to be leaders on the football field, basketball court, etc. Maybe weed is taboo for all these old journalists, but in my opinion Darron Thomas is a leader (have you seen him stay in the pocket and take a big hit). His toughness and incredible play make him a leader on the field, I honestly don't care how he spends his time off the field (as long as nobody gets hurt).
Ted Miller: Here's the chief problem with marijuana and high-profile people smoking it: It's against the law, so getting caught with it brings bad publicity.
For a sports team, that could mean said team loses a player to suspension, which would make the team worse than before the player passed the dutchie on the left hand side. So players on a team that smoke the wacky weed, put their team at risk of being less good. Some, including me, would call that selfish.
Does it makes sense that one can legally purchase grain alcohol but not marijuana? Do people lose arguments when they are asked to explain why marijuana is illegal? These are questions the Pac-12 blog will not answer because they lead us on tangents away from the football field.
But I will write on leadership. It's more than taking charge of the huddle. It's more than showing infectious poise when the pressure is on. Or popping up with a confident smirk after a hard hit. We've seen all that from Thomas and we surely will see more of it.
But let's imagine a couple of scenarios.
We are in a car with Thomas and safety Eddie Pleasant in 2008. Pleasant decides to race his car with someone. Instead of what actually happened, this happens.
Now we are watching Thomas as he's about to get into a car with cornerback Cliff Harris in June.
Now, if Thomas, however he might have accomplished it, had convinced Harris not to drive 118 mph nor allowed anyone to smoke weed in that car, would Ducks fans be celebrating his leadership?
No, because they wouldn't know about it. This embarrassing story wouldn't exist.
And Oregon's chances of beating LSU and winning a national title would be better.
Nick from San Luis Obispo, Calif., writes: Whats your take on the whole players being paid idea? All the ex coaches were on today saying how its a wonderful idea to give players a cost of living expense of $3,000 to $4,000 depending on the school. They also said that this should only be for sports that bring in the money. (men's football and basketball)My reaction is how is this far? Not all schools can afford to give scholarship athletes extra $ giving the ones who can an unfair advantage in recruiting. Also what about all the other sports? Isn't the whole idea of giving extra money to a athlete is so they can live comfortably? (extra spending money for clothes and other food then the cafe) Why is it that only football and basketball players need extra money?
Ted Miller: I agree with a lot of athletic directors: Scholarships should cover full cost of attendance. And I also believe they should be given to every scholarship athlete. Why? Because you can't do it any other way and still be in compliance with Title IX.
You are correct, though. Most schools outside of AQ conferences would be hard-pressed to pay that added expense. That's an issue.
As for why football and men's basketball players believe they should be paid and other college athletes should not? Well, that reasoning is simple. Football and men's basketball make millions every year. And every other sport runs a deficit, many substantial deficits.
Pat from So. Cal writes: In my effort to get any type of response Teddy I've decided to ask you one question everyday until I make the mailbag. For my SECOND question, on this inaugural day of questioning: do you think the university presidents at the largest, most influential schools, across conferences, will get together at some point and begin the process of detaching themselves from the NCAA??? The system doesn't work and we can all yell until we're red in the face but the simple fact remains, there needs to be some sort of governance going on in college REVENUE PRODUCING SPORTS, and it's clear the NCAA has failed its member institutions and that they aren't the right organization.
Ted Miller: There is an undercurrent of feeling that the big football conferences might break away from the NCAA, particularly when we get further consolidation in "super-conferences," which seems inevitable.
That's one reason the NCAA is talking massive reform. We shall see.
What should the NCAA do? Here are a few ideas:
Ben from Salt Lake City writes: Can we think about a possible future for a minute? Let's pretend that Utah somehow goes undefeated this year and wins the BCS National Championship game. Then let's assume that next year, both Utah and TCU go undefeated and play each other in the BCS National Championship game. If that ridiculously crazy scenario were to happen, do you think that the media that clings to the idea that the "week in and week out of Non-AQ's is too weak to get them to the NC Game" would go out the window? Do you think it would validate other top Non-AQ teams that have proven themselves like Boise State or BYU? Or do you think that the 100+ year old bias of college football is protected no matter what happens?
Ted Miller: Are you asking if a pattern is established of non-AQ teams going undefeated and winning national championships, will that win over the media?
Yes.
That said: This is Boise State's schedule. This is LSU's schedule.
Anyone saying that an unbeaten Boise State team in 2011 should play for the national championship over a once-beaten LSU team would -- and should -- get laughed out of the room.
Let's not give Boise State or TCU a free pass, either. Both programs are outstanding and worthy of elite rankings, but they also both work the angles to manufacture great records. Neither has adopted the old Bobby Bowden at Florida State "anywhere, anytime" scheduling philosophy.
If either said "we'll go anywhere to play and won't insist on a home-and-home series," we'd see them be able to schedule two or three high-quality games with AQ conferences foes every year.
And, I suspect, we'd see fewer undefeated seasons.
By the way, Utah is now a member of the Pac-12 family. It's in the club, drinking single malt in the beach-front penthouse with UCLA Oregon, Stanford and the rest of the gang.
Rob from San Jose writes: I am wondering how I missed your Post-spring Power Rankings. I thought for sure Cal would be ahead of UCLA; Cal beat UCLA in 2010 and it was not close. Cal has a proven defense (even with three good starters gone), but you think UCLA's defense "will arrive". Could you do a pre-season opener power rankings to see what has changed. ASU has had some bad luck with injuries and some schools have had academic ineligibility concerns. Since Cal's Maynard is QB, Sofele and Deboskie-Johnson have established 1-2 at RB; I am wondering where Cal would rank now?
Ted Miller: And UCLA beat Oregon State, which beat Cal 35-7. Those same Beavers also beat USC 36-7 and USC beat Cal 48-14.
So Cal gets crushed by UCLA if you selectively use the transitive property.
I got to watch UCLA practice this spring and came away impressed, at least with the defense. Cal had closed practices, so I didn't get to see the Bears. Further, most of what I read wasn't terribly good about the Bears in the spring -- injuries and poor execution.
You do make a good point: Cal fans should feel better today about quarterback and running back.
Still, I sort of have a hunch about the Bruins -- one that, if they lose at Houston to open the season, I will quickly disavow.
Peter from Salt Lake City writes: A little disappointed in your all pro pac-12 team to see an exclusion of Utes other than Jordan Gross. Steve Smith, Paul Soliai(franchise tag), Sean Smith, Eric Weddle(highest paid safety in the league), and Sione Pouha certainly could have been considered. However, Weddle and Soliai definitely should have been on the list.
Ted Miller: Peter, my honest answer is that I am not as familiar with Utah's past players as I am with the old Pac-10 guys.
Further, as I wrote: "... I racked my brain for exactly 17 minutes and came up with an All-Pac-12 NFL team (Pac-12 fans, I did this quickly, so feel free to chime in your opinions)."
I was being slack and didn't want to spend hours researching the "perfect" guy at every position. But you are correct: Weddle and Soliai would have been good names on the list.
Ben from Centerville, Utah writes: As a lifelong fan of the Utes, I have greatly enjoyed your blog and anticipate reading it from here on out. Question for you: I can't take the suspense. I anticipate that no Utes will make the top 25 list. Is that right? Are there REALLY no Utes in the top 25? I find it difficult to believe.
Ted Miller: No, no player from Utah nor Oregon State made the top-25. From Utah, I considered offensive tackle Tony Bergstrom, quarterback Jordan Wynn and linebacker Chaz Walker.
With 12 teams, a 25-player list is pretty select. My typical reply to a query like this -- and there are lots of them -- is not to ask who from Utah you believe should be on the list but who you would knock off.
And, yes, there probably is some bias against Utah due to playing a Mountain West schedule last season. Wynn's numbers are comparable to Washington State quarterback Jeff Tuel, but Tuel put up his numbers against a far tougher schedule (nonconference game with Oklahoma State, too). And the 6-foot-3, 220-pound Tuel is probably a better NFL prospect due to superior arm strength.
Put it this way: Pac-10 defensive freshman of the year Junior Onyeali is not on the list. Two players who had five interceptions last season, safeties Nate Fellner of Washington and John Boyett of Oregon, are not on the list. Colorado guard Ryan Miller, a potential first-round NFL draft pick, is not on the list.
A lot of really good players are not on the list. Just the way one person's opinion worked out.
And, by the way, the list almost certainly will be much different when we re-do it after the season.
Huy Tran from Eugene writes: If you ever compile a list of your favorite "pump-up" videos throughout the Pac-12 this season, please consider ours. I know there's a million out there, but we've worked long and tirelessly and thought you'd might enjoy it (from an unbiased view, of course).
Ted Miller: Does anyone at Oregon not make football videos?
Anyone else eager to end the worst offseason in the history of college football and start talking about games again?
Thought so.
Follow me on Twitter.
To the notes.
Roger from Oregon writes: I am a high school student in Oregon. It has really been bothering me how many columnists are calling out Darron Thomas and his leadership. I know that he has been in the car on three separate occasions were citations, as well as marijuana were involved. How does this make him a bad leader? At my school, a high school not a university, smoking weed is commonplace. While I don't smoke, most of my friends and about 75% of male athletes do, yet they are still able to be leaders on the football field, basketball court, etc. Maybe weed is taboo for all these old journalists, but in my opinion Darron Thomas is a leader (have you seen him stay in the pocket and take a big hit). His toughness and incredible play make him a leader on the field, I honestly don't care how he spends his time off the field (as long as nobody gets hurt).
Ted Miller: Here's the chief problem with marijuana and high-profile people smoking it: It's against the law, so getting caught with it brings bad publicity.
For a sports team, that could mean said team loses a player to suspension, which would make the team worse than before the player passed the dutchie on the left hand side. So players on a team that smoke the wacky weed, put their team at risk of being less good. Some, including me, would call that selfish.
Does it makes sense that one can legally purchase grain alcohol but not marijuana? Do people lose arguments when they are asked to explain why marijuana is illegal? These are questions the Pac-12 blog will not answer because they lead us on tangents away from the football field.
But I will write on leadership. It's more than taking charge of the huddle. It's more than showing infectious poise when the pressure is on. Or popping up with a confident smirk after a hard hit. We've seen all that from Thomas and we surely will see more of it.
But let's imagine a couple of scenarios.
We are in a car with Thomas and safety Eddie Pleasant in 2008. Pleasant decides to race his car with someone. Instead of what actually happened, this happens.
Thomas: Slow down. This is stupid.
Pleasant: Don't be lame!
Thomas: Being lame is us getting arrested and letting our teammates, coaches and fans down. And racing a car on public roads is a stupid thing immature people do. It's low-rent. So cut the crap before I whup you.
Now we are watching Thomas as he's about to get into a car with cornerback Cliff Harris in June.
Thomas: Cliff. Cliff, look at me.
Harris: Whaaa?
Thomas: Cliff, you do a lot of stupid things. When I am with you, you will not do stupid things. I am not demented enough to think of all the potential stupid things you might do on our drive back to Eugene. But my singular task at this moment in time is to make sure you don't get us in trouble. That means: No speeding. That means: No substances that could get us in trouble will pass within 25 feet of this car.
Harris: Whaaa?
Thomas: Cliff. Cliff, look at me. I am not asking you. I am not presenting an opinion. I am telling you how this ride will be. Nothing means more to me than beating LSU and making Coach Kelly and the Duck nation proud. I particularly want to do more interviews with the Pac-12 blog.
Harris: Yeah, he's cool!
Thomas: Yes, he is. But focus Cliff. Focus. Do you hear me? Speed limit, no illicit substances. Right?
Harris: Gosh, good idea. I can't wait to pick off Jordan Jefferson.
Thomas: Yes, I can't believe Les Miles thought he would be a great quarterback but saw me as just an athlete. Going make that fool eat grass.
Harris: Yeah! By the way, I just finished "Gravity's Rainbow." You were right. It was Pynchon's densest novel, but very rewarding to a patient read.
Now, if Thomas, however he might have accomplished it, had convinced Harris not to drive 118 mph nor allowed anyone to smoke weed in that car, would Ducks fans be celebrating his leadership?
No, because they wouldn't know about it. This embarrassing story wouldn't exist.
And Oregon's chances of beating LSU and winning a national title would be better.
Nick from San Luis Obispo, Calif., writes: Whats your take on the whole players being paid idea? All the ex coaches were on today saying how its a wonderful idea to give players a cost of living expense of $3,000 to $4,000 depending on the school. They also said that this should only be for sports that bring in the money. (men's football and basketball)My reaction is how is this far? Not all schools can afford to give scholarship athletes extra $ giving the ones who can an unfair advantage in recruiting. Also what about all the other sports? Isn't the whole idea of giving extra money to a athlete is so they can live comfortably? (extra spending money for clothes and other food then the cafe) Why is it that only football and basketball players need extra money?
Ted Miller: I agree with a lot of athletic directors: Scholarships should cover full cost of attendance. And I also believe they should be given to every scholarship athlete. Why? Because you can't do it any other way and still be in compliance with Title IX.
You are correct, though. Most schools outside of AQ conferences would be hard-pressed to pay that added expense. That's an issue.
As for why football and men's basketball players believe they should be paid and other college athletes should not? Well, that reasoning is simple. Football and men's basketball make millions every year. And every other sport runs a deficit, many substantial deficits.
Pat from So. Cal writes: In my effort to get any type of response Teddy I've decided to ask you one question everyday until I make the mailbag. For my SECOND question, on this inaugural day of questioning: do you think the university presidents at the largest, most influential schools, across conferences, will get together at some point and begin the process of detaching themselves from the NCAA??? The system doesn't work and we can all yell until we're red in the face but the simple fact remains, there needs to be some sort of governance going on in college REVENUE PRODUCING SPORTS, and it's clear the NCAA has failed its member institutions and that they aren't the right organization.
Ted Miller: There is an undercurrent of feeling that the big football conferences might break away from the NCAA, particularly when we get further consolidation in "super-conferences," which seems inevitable.
That's one reason the NCAA is talking massive reform. We shall see.
What should the NCAA do? Here are a few ideas:
- Full cost of attendance scholarships.
- Assigning an NCAA staffer -- not a university employee -- to each school to act as a head of compliance. If something happens that doesn't cross his desk, it's a major violation.
- A rule that the NCAA's marketing budget shall not exceed what it spends on enforcement. More investigators with good salaries, fewer "We're the NCAA and we're awesome!" commercials.
- An outside team of legal experts -- unaffiliated with universities -- to man an Infractions Committee.
- A streamlining of rules, eliminating many of the piddly, secondary violations.
- An outline of specific consequences for breaking specific rules.
- An understanding that relying on precedent is critical to fairness (that you can't just randomly, say, hammer USC because you're tired of reading about how dominant it is).
Ben from Salt Lake City writes: Can we think about a possible future for a minute? Let's pretend that Utah somehow goes undefeated this year and wins the BCS National Championship game. Then let's assume that next year, both Utah and TCU go undefeated and play each other in the BCS National Championship game. If that ridiculously crazy scenario were to happen, do you think that the media that clings to the idea that the "week in and week out of Non-AQ's is too weak to get them to the NC Game" would go out the window? Do you think it would validate other top Non-AQ teams that have proven themselves like Boise State or BYU? Or do you think that the 100+ year old bias of college football is protected no matter what happens?
Ted Miller: Are you asking if a pattern is established of non-AQ teams going undefeated and winning national championships, will that win over the media?
Yes.
That said: This is Boise State's schedule. This is LSU's schedule.
Anyone saying that an unbeaten Boise State team in 2011 should play for the national championship over a once-beaten LSU team would -- and should -- get laughed out of the room.
Let's not give Boise State or TCU a free pass, either. Both programs are outstanding and worthy of elite rankings, but they also both work the angles to manufacture great records. Neither has adopted the old Bobby Bowden at Florida State "anywhere, anytime" scheduling philosophy.
If either said "we'll go anywhere to play and won't insist on a home-and-home series," we'd see them be able to schedule two or three high-quality games with AQ conferences foes every year.
And, I suspect, we'd see fewer undefeated seasons.
By the way, Utah is now a member of the Pac-12 family. It's in the club, drinking single malt in the beach-front penthouse with UCLA Oregon, Stanford and the rest of the gang.
Rob from San Jose writes: I am wondering how I missed your Post-spring Power Rankings. I thought for sure Cal would be ahead of UCLA; Cal beat UCLA in 2010 and it was not close. Cal has a proven defense (even with three good starters gone), but you think UCLA's defense "will arrive". Could you do a pre-season opener power rankings to see what has changed. ASU has had some bad luck with injuries and some schools have had academic ineligibility concerns. Since Cal's Maynard is QB, Sofele and Deboskie-Johnson have established 1-2 at RB; I am wondering where Cal would rank now?
Ted Miller: And UCLA beat Oregon State, which beat Cal 35-7. Those same Beavers also beat USC 36-7 and USC beat Cal 48-14.
So Cal gets crushed by UCLA if you selectively use the transitive property.
I got to watch UCLA practice this spring and came away impressed, at least with the defense. Cal had closed practices, so I didn't get to see the Bears. Further, most of what I read wasn't terribly good about the Bears in the spring -- injuries and poor execution.
You do make a good point: Cal fans should feel better today about quarterback and running back.
Still, I sort of have a hunch about the Bruins -- one that, if they lose at Houston to open the season, I will quickly disavow.
Peter from Salt Lake City writes: A little disappointed in your all pro pac-12 team to see an exclusion of Utes other than Jordan Gross. Steve Smith, Paul Soliai(franchise tag), Sean Smith, Eric Weddle(highest paid safety in the league), and Sione Pouha certainly could have been considered. However, Weddle and Soliai definitely should have been on the list.
Ted Miller: Peter, my honest answer is that I am not as familiar with Utah's past players as I am with the old Pac-10 guys.
Further, as I wrote: "... I racked my brain for exactly 17 minutes and came up with an All-Pac-12 NFL team (Pac-12 fans, I did this quickly, so feel free to chime in your opinions)."
I was being slack and didn't want to spend hours researching the "perfect" guy at every position. But you are correct: Weddle and Soliai would have been good names on the list.
Ben from Centerville, Utah writes: As a lifelong fan of the Utes, I have greatly enjoyed your blog and anticipate reading it from here on out. Question for you: I can't take the suspense. I anticipate that no Utes will make the top 25 list. Is that right? Are there REALLY no Utes in the top 25? I find it difficult to believe.
Ted Miller: No, no player from Utah nor Oregon State made the top-25. From Utah, I considered offensive tackle Tony Bergstrom, quarterback Jordan Wynn and linebacker Chaz Walker.
With 12 teams, a 25-player list is pretty select. My typical reply to a query like this -- and there are lots of them -- is not to ask who from Utah you believe should be on the list but who you would knock off.
And, yes, there probably is some bias against Utah due to playing a Mountain West schedule last season. Wynn's numbers are comparable to Washington State quarterback Jeff Tuel, but Tuel put up his numbers against a far tougher schedule (nonconference game with Oklahoma State, too). And the 6-foot-3, 220-pound Tuel is probably a better NFL prospect due to superior arm strength.
Put it this way: Pac-10 defensive freshman of the year Junior Onyeali is not on the list. Two players who had five interceptions last season, safeties Nate Fellner of Washington and John Boyett of Oregon, are not on the list. Colorado guard Ryan Miller, a potential first-round NFL draft pick, is not on the list.
A lot of really good players are not on the list. Just the way one person's opinion worked out.
And, by the way, the list almost certainly will be much different when we re-do it after the season.
Huy Tran from Eugene writes: If you ever compile a list of your favorite "pump-up" videos throughout the Pac-12 this season, please consider ours. I know there's a million out there, but we've worked long and tirelessly and thought you'd might enjoy it (from an unbiased view, of course).
Ted Miller: Does anyone at Oregon not make football videos?
Welcome to the last thing you must do before your weekend begins in earnest: Read the mailbag.
This is your brain. This is your brain if you follow me on Twitter. This is your brain if you don't.
To the notes.
Corey from San Francisco writes: So I watched the video about overtaking the SEC, and I find it sort of silly. Do you really think any conference will overtake the SEC any time soon? Will you at least admit the SEC is the best conference? And if so, I'd be curious about your explanation why.
Ted Miller: The SEC is the best conference during the BCS era. There is no way to argue the point: Five consecutive national championships and six different teams with BCS titles. No other conference boasts more than two.
Overtake the SEC? Hard to say. My first response is not anytime soon, at least not as college football is configured at present. If Larry Scott's grand vision of the Pac-16 had gone through, with Texas and Oklahoma among the Big 12 teams defecting to the Pac-10, things might feel very different today.
But this annual debate is a little redundant. So, Corey, I want to focus on the final part of your note: why?
I think it's about more than talent, fan frenzy and money. It's about culture. It's about the total buy-in at places where football is more important -- for better or worse -- than anything else.
There are a lot of good football teams out there as we head into 2011. Plenty of them are capable of winning every game. But the most challenging opponent for many top teams isn't the one on the opposite sideline. It's themselves. It's getting up for every game with maximum focus and preparation and not blowing one or two (or more) games to inferior foes.
My hypothesis is the football culture that surrounds SEC football, that most of the SEC players were raised in, provides that little extra bit of focus and dedication that helps a team avoid the Saturday brain cramp that turns a potential 12-0 team into an 11-1 team. Or a potential 11-1 team into a 9-3 team. Or worse.
The most obvious example in the Pac-10 would be the most successful program of the past decade: USC. The Trojans should have won more than its two national titles under Pete Carroll. In fact, the only defeat USC suffered from 2002-2008 in which you could say the Trojans weren't significant favorites was to Texas in the national title game after the 2005 season. And they were favored in that game. Go through the schedules yourself.
Further, I've also had numerous conversations with Pac-10 players through the years when they've talked about their team losing focus, taking a season for granted, partying too much, a locker room fracturing, etc. Those sorts of things happen everywhere in team sports, I just think they happen more in big city football out West than in the more insular enclaves in the Southeast. And I've lived long periods of time in both places, so I'm not just throwing mud at the wall here and hoping it becomes art.
Yet this cultural challenge -- some might offer that it's actually a healthy perspective -- is not insurmountable. Good coaches can create winning cultures. Let's start with something that might make you cynics roll your eyes: slogans and gimmicks.
The most important thing Chip Kelly brought to Oregon was not its up-tempo, spread option offense. It was this: "Win the day." Or, as the denizens of Autzen Stadium now know it, WTD.
And how many hokey things did Jim Harbaugh do and say at Stanford? "Enthusiasm unknown to mankind!" Gas station work shirts to demonstrate a blue collar attitude. Winning with "character and cruelty."
Even Carroll's "Win forever," was the endlessly repeated mantra of the USC dynasty.
That's why Cal fans may not want to mock coach Jeff Tedford's "Team matters" T-shirts this spring. It may prove to be a stroke of inspiration -- in multiple senses of the term.
You -- or players -- can be cynical about these sorts of things, or about an all-encompassing football culture, but how often does cynicism get cited as a foundational value of a successful venture? Other than a stand-up comedy.
The SEC has great talent, great coaches, big stadiums and lots of money. But its passionate football culture has played a role in the conference's rise.
Can the Pac-12 duplicate that? Probably not, top to bottom. But a program -- or programs -- can. They've just got to create their own obsessive, winning-is-the-only-thing-or-I-will-die, culture.
Ken from Bothell, Wash., writes: With the Pac 12 beginning to digest its new teams, what would be the next logical move for expansion? Obviously, a lot is likely to happen prior to the conference making a move, but do you see Mr. Scott trying to get into the Texas market again?
Ted Miller: Digest! Buffalo sounds tasty, but I'm not sure about Ute.
Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott believes there will be further conference expansion in the future, and his huge brain seems to be three steps ahead of everyone else, so I'm going to go ahead and agree with him.
In fact, he recently told John Henderson of the Denver Post this:
Texas continues to be the big fish, but the Longhorns new network complicates its potential membership in the Pac-12. Still, the marketplace changes quickly. Who knows what the landscape will look like in 2020?
Tyrell from Salt Lake City writes: You were incorrect in regards to football profits last year for Utah. Utah was just shy of $5 million in profit (you can find the numbers from the same Sportsbiz website). That would have put them in ahead of a couple of PAC-10 schools, and considering they were receiving less than $2 million per year from the MTN West -- somewhat impressive. All that said, the new PAC-12 deal can't get here soon enough!
Ted Miller: Yeah, I messed that up -- didn't realize the list was only AQ schools and that's why Utah's numbers from the Mountain West were not included.
Sort of embarrassing because if I had considered it for a moment, there was no way that the Utes were running a $2 million-plus deficit in football. Dumb.
A number of notes on that oversight. Apologies.
Roger from The Woodlands, Texas writes: This was in Wednesday's lunch link regarding a [Publication name withheld] article: "Since the shakeout of last summer with Colorado and Nebraska's decisions to leave the Big 12 Conference, and subsequent frenzy that ultimately ended with only Utah joining CU in the Pac-10, word from several athletics administrators is that CU is having serious buyer's remorse. The splitting of divisions and even the playing of a league championship on home sites has been openly ridiculed within the new Pac-12. The conference in-fighting CU thinks it is leaving in the Big 12 has already ramped up at the Buffs' new home." Have you been hearing any of this? Are you holding out on us?
Ted Miller: It's notable that article is no longer posted. And didn't include a writer's name on it.
Have I heard anything like that? Nothing. Zero. Such sentiments do not exist.
If there is a person out there associated with Colorado experiencing buyers' remorse, please email me.
The only possible explanation would be that Colorado has to buy a new bank vault because its Big 12 version isn't big enough to store the soon-to-be incoming revenue from the RICHEST TV DEAL IN COLLEGE SPORTS HISTORY.
Or perhaps some are broken up about road trips to Seattle, San Francisco, Portland, Phoenix, Tucson and Los Angeles instead of Lubbock, Waco, Norman, Manhattan and Ames?
L Wallace from Yuma, Ariz., writes: That stat about Wazzu being ranked ahead of 5 teams Utah played last yr was striking. I say the most underrated challenge for Utah will be the upgrade in Coaching. I think [Utah coach Kyle] Whittingham is the 3rd best Coach in the P12. However, he and [TCU coach Gary[ Patterson and [Boise State coach Chris] Petersen enjoy such a huge advantage over their peers in the MWC & WAC. In the P12 Utah will face OC's and DC's that are future HC's. They will face dozens of coaches with varying degrees of NFL and bigtime BCS experience. They will face programs that enjoy more resources, video, computer, scouting technology and tools. The "Schematic Advantage" that Whittingham enjoyed in the MWC will be severely tested in the P12.
Ted Miller: Interesting theory.
You would think that the richer programs in the Pac-12, which have more resources for preparation, including coaches who command better salaries, will present a more consistent strategic challenge on a week-to-week basis.
We shall shortly see, eh?
David from Beaverton, Ore., writes: Is it just me or do you notice college football fans start to emulate the characteristics of their team's coach over time? As a Beaver, I noticed Beav fans had a bit of a swagger when Erickson was our coach and for the most part, the fans are more even keeled with Mike Riley. At Oregon, Bellotti and Kelly can and have appeared, how should I put this "a little arrogant" at times and there is a large group of their fans that more than fall into that camp. Trojan fans seemed to have a confident swagger with Carroll, that previously was a quieter confidence in the McKay/Robinson eras.
Ted Miller: Hmm. My first reaction: What might have happened if Jim Harbaugh stuck around Stanford for another five years?
Maybe. But I don't know if I'm really feeling your theory. For one, I've never felt that Mike Bellotti seemed "arrogant." Not any more than any other successful coach.
Do a lot of Penn State fans look and act like Joe Paterno? Bobby Bowden was one of the true gentlemen in coaching; not sure if the Seminole fan base is known for the same. Just as Ohio State fans aren't really known for their senatorial bearing, like the coach formerly known as Jim Tressel was.
Are Arizona fans wound as tightly as Mike Stoops? Will Washington fans shortly adopt the California cool of Steve Sarkisian? How are Cal fans like Jeff Teford?
Or did you just want to drop in a tweak of Chip Kelly?
This is your brain. This is your brain if you follow me on Twitter. This is your brain if you don't.
To the notes.
Corey from San Francisco writes: So I watched the video about overtaking the SEC, and I find it sort of silly. Do you really think any conference will overtake the SEC any time soon? Will you at least admit the SEC is the best conference? And if so, I'd be curious about your explanation why.
Ted Miller: The SEC is the best conference during the BCS era. There is no way to argue the point: Five consecutive national championships and six different teams with BCS titles. No other conference boasts more than two.
Overtake the SEC? Hard to say. My first response is not anytime soon, at least not as college football is configured at present. If Larry Scott's grand vision of the Pac-16 had gone through, with Texas and Oklahoma among the Big 12 teams defecting to the Pac-10, things might feel very different today.
But this annual debate is a little redundant. So, Corey, I want to focus on the final part of your note: why?
I think it's about more than talent, fan frenzy and money. It's about culture. It's about the total buy-in at places where football is more important -- for better or worse -- than anything else.
There are a lot of good football teams out there as we head into 2011. Plenty of them are capable of winning every game. But the most challenging opponent for many top teams isn't the one on the opposite sideline. It's themselves. It's getting up for every game with maximum focus and preparation and not blowing one or two (or more) games to inferior foes.
My hypothesis is the football culture that surrounds SEC football, that most of the SEC players were raised in, provides that little extra bit of focus and dedication that helps a team avoid the Saturday brain cramp that turns a potential 12-0 team into an 11-1 team. Or a potential 11-1 team into a 9-3 team. Or worse.
The most obvious example in the Pac-10 would be the most successful program of the past decade: USC. The Trojans should have won more than its two national titles under Pete Carroll. In fact, the only defeat USC suffered from 2002-2008 in which you could say the Trojans weren't significant favorites was to Texas in the national title game after the 2005 season. And they were favored in that game. Go through the schedules yourself.
Further, I've also had numerous conversations with Pac-10 players through the years when they've talked about their team losing focus, taking a season for granted, partying too much, a locker room fracturing, etc. Those sorts of things happen everywhere in team sports, I just think they happen more in big city football out West than in the more insular enclaves in the Southeast. And I've lived long periods of time in both places, so I'm not just throwing mud at the wall here and hoping it becomes art.
Yet this cultural challenge -- some might offer that it's actually a healthy perspective -- is not insurmountable. Good coaches can create winning cultures. Let's start with something that might make you cynics roll your eyes: slogans and gimmicks.
The most important thing Chip Kelly brought to Oregon was not its up-tempo, spread option offense. It was this: "Win the day." Or, as the denizens of Autzen Stadium now know it, WTD.
And how many hokey things did Jim Harbaugh do and say at Stanford? "Enthusiasm unknown to mankind!" Gas station work shirts to demonstrate a blue collar attitude. Winning with "character and cruelty."
Even Carroll's "Win forever," was the endlessly repeated mantra of the USC dynasty.
That's why Cal fans may not want to mock coach Jeff Tedford's "Team matters" T-shirts this spring. It may prove to be a stroke of inspiration -- in multiple senses of the term.
You -- or players -- can be cynical about these sorts of things, or about an all-encompassing football culture, but how often does cynicism get cited as a foundational value of a successful venture? Other than a stand-up comedy.
The SEC has great talent, great coaches, big stadiums and lots of money. But its passionate football culture has played a role in the conference's rise.
Can the Pac-12 duplicate that? Probably not, top to bottom. But a program -- or programs -- can. They've just got to create their own obsessive, winning-is-the-only-thing-or-I-will-die, culture.
Ken from Bothell, Wash., writes: With the Pac 12 beginning to digest its new teams, what would be the next logical move for expansion? Obviously, a lot is likely to happen prior to the conference making a move, but do you see Mr. Scott trying to get into the Texas market again?
Ted Miller: Digest! Buffalo sounds tasty, but I'm not sure about Ute.
Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott believes there will be further conference expansion in the future, and his huge brain seems to be three steps ahead of everyone else, so I'm going to go ahead and agree with him.
In fact, he recently told John Henderson of the Denver Post this:
Do you see future expansion? “Long term I do. What I found in the process we went through, there were a lot more value for the schools that would be unlocked long term if there were further consolidation. I don’t think we’ll see anything in the next two years.”
Texas continues to be the big fish, but the Longhorns new network complicates its potential membership in the Pac-12. Still, the marketplace changes quickly. Who knows what the landscape will look like in 2020?
Tyrell from Salt Lake City writes: You were incorrect in regards to football profits last year for Utah. Utah was just shy of $5 million in profit (you can find the numbers from the same Sportsbiz website). That would have put them in ahead of a couple of PAC-10 schools, and considering they were receiving less than $2 million per year from the MTN West -- somewhat impressive. All that said, the new PAC-12 deal can't get here soon enough!
Ted Miller: Yeah, I messed that up -- didn't realize the list was only AQ schools and that's why Utah's numbers from the Mountain West were not included.
Sort of embarrassing because if I had considered it for a moment, there was no way that the Utes were running a $2 million-plus deficit in football. Dumb.
A number of notes on that oversight. Apologies.
Roger from The Woodlands, Texas writes: This was in Wednesday's lunch link regarding a [Publication name withheld] article: "Since the shakeout of last summer with Colorado and Nebraska's decisions to leave the Big 12 Conference, and subsequent frenzy that ultimately ended with only Utah joining CU in the Pac-10, word from several athletics administrators is that CU is having serious buyer's remorse. The splitting of divisions and even the playing of a league championship on home sites has been openly ridiculed within the new Pac-12. The conference in-fighting CU thinks it is leaving in the Big 12 has already ramped up at the Buffs' new home." Have you been hearing any of this? Are you holding out on us?
Ted Miller: It's notable that article is no longer posted. And didn't include a writer's name on it.
Have I heard anything like that? Nothing. Zero. Such sentiments do not exist.
If there is a person out there associated with Colorado experiencing buyers' remorse, please email me.
The only possible explanation would be that Colorado has to buy a new bank vault because its Big 12 version isn't big enough to store the soon-to-be incoming revenue from the RICHEST TV DEAL IN COLLEGE SPORTS HISTORY.
Or perhaps some are broken up about road trips to Seattle, San Francisco, Portland, Phoenix, Tucson and Los Angeles instead of Lubbock, Waco, Norman, Manhattan and Ames?
L Wallace from Yuma, Ariz., writes: That stat about Wazzu being ranked ahead of 5 teams Utah played last yr was striking. I say the most underrated challenge for Utah will be the upgrade in Coaching. I think [Utah coach Kyle] Whittingham is the 3rd best Coach in the P12. However, he and [TCU coach Gary[ Patterson and [Boise State coach Chris] Petersen enjoy such a huge advantage over their peers in the MWC & WAC. In the P12 Utah will face OC's and DC's that are future HC's. They will face dozens of coaches with varying degrees of NFL and bigtime BCS experience. They will face programs that enjoy more resources, video, computer, scouting technology and tools. The "Schematic Advantage" that Whittingham enjoyed in the MWC will be severely tested in the P12.
Ted Miller: Interesting theory.
You would think that the richer programs in the Pac-12, which have more resources for preparation, including coaches who command better salaries, will present a more consistent strategic challenge on a week-to-week basis.
We shall shortly see, eh?
David from Beaverton, Ore., writes: Is it just me or do you notice college football fans start to emulate the characteristics of their team's coach over time? As a Beaver, I noticed Beav fans had a bit of a swagger when Erickson was our coach and for the most part, the fans are more even keeled with Mike Riley. At Oregon, Bellotti and Kelly can and have appeared, how should I put this "a little arrogant" at times and there is a large group of their fans that more than fall into that camp. Trojan fans seemed to have a confident swagger with Carroll, that previously was a quieter confidence in the McKay/Robinson eras.
Ted Miller: Hmm. My first reaction: What might have happened if Jim Harbaugh stuck around Stanford for another five years?
Maybe. But I don't know if I'm really feeling your theory. For one, I've never felt that Mike Bellotti seemed "arrogant." Not any more than any other successful coach.
Do a lot of Penn State fans look and act like Joe Paterno? Bobby Bowden was one of the true gentlemen in coaching; not sure if the Seminole fan base is known for the same. Just as Ohio State fans aren't really known for their senatorial bearing, like the coach formerly known as Jim Tressel was.
Are Arizona fans wound as tightly as Mike Stoops? Will Washington fans shortly adopt the California cool of Steve Sarkisian? How are Cal fans like Jeff Teford?
Or did you just want to drop in a tweak of Chip Kelly?
Monte Kiffin hurting over USC's struggles
October, 8, 2010
10/08/10
11:14
AM ET
By
Ted Miller | ESPN.com
It's great when a son gets to work with his father, even if the role reversal of the son being the boss is a bit unusual.
But it's not so great when things are going badly and Dad feels like he's letting down Son, which is the situation at USC.
There's no other way to say it: Monte Kiffin's defense is playing poorly, while Lane Kiffin's offense is doing well. If the USC defense had been just solid this season -- instead of ranked 99th in the nation -- the Trojans would be 5-0 and probably ranked in or near the top 10. As it is, they are unranked in the AP poll for just the second time since the start of the 2002 season.
Nice Bill Plaschke column here on the matter.
I remember interviewing Bobby Bowden for a story I did on nepotism in college coaching a few years ago. You might recall Bowden caught some heat when he promoted his son, Jeff, to offensive coordinator when Mark Richt was hired away by Georgia. And you might recall that he caught even more heat as the Seminoles' offense started a precipitous slide.
Bowden told me he'd never fire his son. "Blood is thicker than water to me," he said. "I'll live and die with my decision."
But, of course, when things got too hot, his hand was forced -- Jeff Bowden resigned late in the 2006 season -- and Jimbo Fisher was hired away from LSU.
And we all know what happened next. Bowden was eventually pushed aside so Fisher could take over. So Bowden, figuratively, "died" by that decision.
Monte Kiffin took a huge pay cut and left the familiarity of the NFL to coach with his son at Tennessee and then USC. It should have been a neat story, but it mostly got lost in the constant flow of Lane Kiffin controversies.
But, at present, it's a painful story. Consider this from Lane Kiffin:
Two thoughts on Monte Kiffin's defense: 1) It would be a lot better right now if defensive linemen Nick Perry, Wes Horton and Armond Armstead were 100 percent; 2) Don't be surprised if things start to click as the season progresses.
But it's not so great when things are going badly and Dad feels like he's letting down Son, which is the situation at USC.
[+] Enlarge
Jeff Lewis/Icon SMIMonte Kiffin's defense is currently ranked No. 99 in the country.
Jeff Lewis/Icon SMIMonte Kiffin's defense is currently ranked No. 99 in the country.Nice Bill Plaschke column here on the matter.
I remember interviewing Bobby Bowden for a story I did on nepotism in college coaching a few years ago. You might recall Bowden caught some heat when he promoted his son, Jeff, to offensive coordinator when Mark Richt was hired away by Georgia. And you might recall that he caught even more heat as the Seminoles' offense started a precipitous slide.
Bowden told me he'd never fire his son. "Blood is thicker than water to me," he said. "I'll live and die with my decision."
But, of course, when things got too hot, his hand was forced -- Jeff Bowden resigned late in the 2006 season -- and Jimbo Fisher was hired away from LSU.
And we all know what happened next. Bowden was eventually pushed aside so Fisher could take over. So Bowden, figuratively, "died" by that decision.
Monte Kiffin took a huge pay cut and left the familiarity of the NFL to coach with his son at Tennessee and then USC. It should have been a neat story, but it mostly got lost in the constant flow of Lane Kiffin controversies.
But, at present, it's a painful story. Consider this from Lane Kiffin:
"Can you imagine leaving something you love to take care of your child, and then to feel like you've let him down?" Lane said. "I keep telling my father that it's about all of us, but he's not hearing that."
Two thoughts on Monte Kiffin's defense: 1) It would be a lot better right now if defensive linemen Nick Perry, Wes Horton and Armond Armstead were 100 percent; 2) Don't be surprised if things start to click as the season progresses.
Kelly vs. Canzano on Oregon discipline
February, 24, 2010
2/24/10
12:05
PM ET
By
Ted Miller | ESPN.com
This is great radio: Oregonian columnist John Canzano and Oregon coach Chip Kelly engage in a spirited debate over discipline within the Ducks' program.
Here's Canzano reviewing the debate a day later.
Couple of things.
Both guys score points.
Canzano makes a valid point -- Kelly admits as much -- that running back LaMichael James should be suspended after he was charged with domestic violence last week.
Canzano notes an inconsistency that backup linebacker Kiko Alonso was suspended for the 2010 season after being charged with DUI early Saturday morning.
Not sure if I agree. Alonso's and James' cases are substantially different. There's no field test for truth with James' case.
Clearly, Kelly believes that there are two sides in James' case. "I believe my player," he said. So Kelly is withholding judgment until the case goes forward in court -- a questionable but not indefensible course of action.
Canzano talks about public perception and how Kelly needs to send a message to his team.
"I don't speak for the public, but I speak for this team," Kelly replied.
That's an interesting assertion in a way that might not be immediately clear.
While Kelly's program is getting trenched by the media -- and rightfully so, by the way -- Kelly's handling of events is almost certainly playing well in the locker room.
And it will help Kelly in recruiting.
Players -- and players' families -- want a coach who's got their backs, even when they're in trouble.
Know who first told me that? Bobby Bowden, who was often accused of being lax on discipline.
Zero-tolerance discipline makes for a good sound bite. There are plenty of people who love its seeming righteousness.
It's just not the only -- or necessarily most effective -- way to manage people in the real world, particularly when many controversies have significant gray areas.
Speaking of the real world, some have pointed at a potential double standard. Kelly has suspended or booted three backups and a walk-on but no starters involved in off-field problems.
First, that's only a superficial take. When reviewed on an individual basis, Kelly's logic for handling each player is defensible. For example, dismissed backup receivers Garrett Embry and Jamere Holland are completely aware of why they are no longer with the team. I -- and other reporters -- inquired about both of their statuses in advance of their recent headline-making transgressions.
But, beyond that: Of course there's a double standard! A walk-on plays by different rules than a star quarterback. Sorry that assertion won't end up on a coaching Hallmark card, but it's true.
Where in our society aren't there double standards? You could start with economics, but let's just put it this way: Does a typical boss favor highly productive people over less productive ones?
Don't take this as a ringing endorsement of how Kelly's handled Oregon's recent off-field problems. It's only that it seems fairer to give him an "incomplete" rather than an "A" or "F" at this point.
Managing a group of people -- particularly 100-plus men ages 18 to 25 -- is complex and delicate. Things can go haywire quickly, and it never helps to operate in the media glare, particularly in our age of "citizen journalism" -- Twitter! Facebook! random blogs! -- where, er, standards of measuring rumor versus fact are a bit looser.
Things could go haywire at Oregon, a team that at present seems determined to take a hammer to high expectations for the 2010 season.
What's great is hindsight is (typically) 20-20. It's likely we will be passing ultimate judgment on recent events next December, when Kelly and his Ducks either celebrate a great season and a second consecutive Pac-10 championship -- and a locker room saturated with character! -- or mourn what-might-have-been amid a whirl of further controversies.
Here's Canzano reviewing the debate a day later.
Couple of things.
Both guys score points.
Canzano makes a valid point -- Kelly admits as much -- that running back LaMichael James should be suspended after he was charged with domestic violence last week.
Canzano notes an inconsistency that backup linebacker Kiko Alonso was suspended for the 2010 season after being charged with DUI early Saturday morning.
Not sure if I agree. Alonso's and James' cases are substantially different. There's no field test for truth with James' case.
Clearly, Kelly believes that there are two sides in James' case. "I believe my player," he said. So Kelly is withholding judgment until the case goes forward in court -- a questionable but not indefensible course of action.
Canzano talks about public perception and how Kelly needs to send a message to his team.
"I don't speak for the public, but I speak for this team," Kelly replied.
That's an interesting assertion in a way that might not be immediately clear.
While Kelly's program is getting trenched by the media -- and rightfully so, by the way -- Kelly's handling of events is almost certainly playing well in the locker room.
And it will help Kelly in recruiting.
Players -- and players' families -- want a coach who's got their backs, even when they're in trouble.
Know who first told me that? Bobby Bowden, who was often accused of being lax on discipline.
Zero-tolerance discipline makes for a good sound bite. There are plenty of people who love its seeming righteousness.
It's just not the only -- or necessarily most effective -- way to manage people in the real world, particularly when many controversies have significant gray areas.
Speaking of the real world, some have pointed at a potential double standard. Kelly has suspended or booted three backups and a walk-on but no starters involved in off-field problems.
First, that's only a superficial take. When reviewed on an individual basis, Kelly's logic for handling each player is defensible. For example, dismissed backup receivers Garrett Embry and Jamere Holland are completely aware of why they are no longer with the team. I -- and other reporters -- inquired about both of their statuses in advance of their recent headline-making transgressions.
But, beyond that: Of course there's a double standard! A walk-on plays by different rules than a star quarterback. Sorry that assertion won't end up on a coaching Hallmark card, but it's true.
Where in our society aren't there double standards? You could start with economics, but let's just put it this way: Does a typical boss favor highly productive people over less productive ones?
Don't take this as a ringing endorsement of how Kelly's handled Oregon's recent off-field problems. It's only that it seems fairer to give him an "incomplete" rather than an "A" or "F" at this point.
Managing a group of people -- particularly 100-plus men ages 18 to 25 -- is complex and delicate. Things can go haywire quickly, and it never helps to operate in the media glare, particularly in our age of "citizen journalism" -- Twitter! Facebook! random blogs! -- where, er, standards of measuring rumor versus fact are a bit looser.
Things could go haywire at Oregon, a team that at present seems determined to take a hammer to high expectations for the 2010 season.
What's great is hindsight is (typically) 20-20. It's likely we will be passing ultimate judgment on recent events next December, when Kelly and his Ducks either celebrate a great season and a second consecutive Pac-10 championship -- and a locker room saturated with character! -- or mourn what-might-have-been amid a whirl of further controversies.
Posted by ESPN.com's Ted Miller
The Sporting News asked 43 NFL players which college coach they’d most like to play for -- other than the one they did.
USC's Pete Carroll was No. 1 with 12 votes. Three other Pac-10 coaches got one vote.
Here are the results, provided by the magazine.
- 12 votes: Pete Carroll (USC)
- 8 votes: Urban Meyer (Florida)
- 3 votes: Mike Leach (Texas Tech), Randy Shannon (Miami)
- 2 votes: Frank Beamer (Virginia Tech), Lane Kiffin (Tennessee), Joe Paterno (Penn State), Nick Saban (Alabama), Steve Spurrier (South Carolina)
- 1 vote: Bobby Bowden (Florida State), Dennis Erickson (Arizona State), Chip Kelly (Oregon), Ken Niumatalolo (Navy), Bob Stoops (Oklahoma), Jeff Tedford (California), Ron Zook (Illinois)
Broncos CB Champ Bailey: “I don’t like coaches that are uptight all the time.”
Vikings DE Jared Allen: “I keep it on the West Coast because I’m a West Coast-type of guy. That’d be pretty cool. He seems like he has fun. It seems like he really enjoys coaching, and his players enjoy playing for him, with practical jokes and stuff like that. It seems like our personalities would mesh well together.”
Bills FS Donte Whitner: “It seems like the guys that come under him are ready to play in the National Football League. He runs everything. He gives his guys a lot of freedom, just as pro coaches do, so when you make that transition to the next level you are prepared and you know what to do with the free time that you have. [Ohio State’s Jim] Tressel is the same way.”
Opening the mailbag: Polls, stressed fans and LeGarrette Blount
October, 9, 2009
10/09/09
7:49
PM ET
By
Ted Miller | ESPN.com
Posted by ESPN.com's Ted Miller
The mailbag likes diversity, but there wasn't much this week.
Lots of California. Lots of Washington got screwed. Lots of LeGarrette Blount.
California fans were shaking their fist at the heavens. And some folks were eager to tell me how stupid I was for overrating the Bears. Not sure how I can respond other than, "Yep."
As for the Huskies gripes with the officials: Mostly valid. But the territory feels sort of stale. Look forward, Huskies! Arizona's visit is a critical game in the Pac-10 pecking order.
Took one Blount question.
And away we go.
Jeff from Dallas writes: Theoretically speaking, if the Ducks win out, would they have a chance at breaking into the top 5? If so, would we jump Boise State? I know I'm getting way ahead of myself here but as a loyal Duck fan, I cant help but set myself up for heartache.
Ted Miller: Yes and yes.
At 11-1, with a win over USC, the Ducks likely would be top-five. Now, would Oregon jump Boise State if the Broncos remained unbeaten?
I think so. Why? Because Oregon's schedule is exponentially tougher -- none of Boise State's other 12 foes would finish in the top-half of the Pac-10. More than a few are among the worst FBS teams.
Moreover, season-openers are often treated differently than games in the middle or end of the season, and not just because of rankings momentum. The Ducks are clearly a better team today than they were in the season-opener.
I know that won't go over with Broncos fans but there is a solution: Schedule a BCS foe early and late -- even if they won't do a home-and-home series.
If Boise State played, say, Kansas -- I pick Kansas because the Jayhawks would hide behind the sofa if Boise called for a game -- on Dec. 5 instead of New Mexico State, thereby bookending their season with legitimate BCS foes, it would make up for the perception that the Broncos poured their hearts into one season-opening game and then coasted through a milquetoast schedule.
Mike from Berkeley writes: As a Cal fan I have nothing but respect for what Coach Tedford has achieved. He took over a program that was a perennial doormat in the Pac-10 and made it relevant. That said 2007 was a major disappointment, and while Cal will probably finish with 9 or 10 wins this season that is a major disappointment given the talent level. So do you think Tedford can ever lead the bears to the Rose Bowl? If not do you think another coach could, or will Cal just never have the recruiting power to reach that level?
Ted Miller: Remember when Nebraska fans use to say that about Tom Osborne?
Bobby Bowden went 10-2 in 1977, his second year at Florida State. Before he won his first national title in 1993, his team rolled through six consecutive "disappointing" seasons of 10 or more wins.
Mack Brown just couldn't win the big won. Then he did.
Is Jeff Tedford the coaching "genius" he was touted as in 2004? Probably not. Is it fair to question how he coaches and who he hires and other aspects of his job? Sure. He makes a lot of money and that comes with the territory.
The quarterback magic has worn off. The "failing to live up to high expectations" issue feels more legitimate today than it ever has.
But to your question as to whether Tedford can lead the Bears to the Rose Bowl: Absolutely.
If Tedford remains the Bears coach for another decade, I guarantee the Bears will go to the Granddaddy during that span. [Cut that out and we'll meet back here in 2019].
And to your final question: Yes, another coach probably could do better.
Urban Meyer could. Pete Carroll probably could. Nick Saban maybe (he'd be out of his element on the West Coast). Bill Belichick is another possibility. Maybe Tony Dungy would come out of retirement.
But if Cal doesn't feel its chances are good to hire one of those guys, my advice would be to stick with the coach who got the long-suffering program consistently inside the velvet ropes.
Spencer from LA writes: It turns out LeGarrette Blount lawyered up. And what about that fake apology? The real story isn't that Chip Kelly changed his mind, it's that he was forced to by the fear of a lawsuit.
Ted Miller: You refer to this story.
That was a valid story, reported straight by Mark Fainaru-Wada, one half of the combination that broke open the story of steroids in sports and wrote the landmark book, "Game of Shadows."
But this is a prime example of the need to read between the lines.
First, let's say a lawyer was brought in to force Oregon to reconsider Blount's season-long suspension. What was that lawyer going to do? Where was his traction? What was the legal argument?
The only thing I can think of would be the different treatment given Oregon point guard Aaron Brooks when he clubbed Washington's Ryan Appleby during a game.
You'll also note that the actual lawyer, Rob Carey, had no comment.
Who did comment? A guy named Chris Horn, whose apparent motive for talking is a desire for publicity for his "newly formed nonprofit designed to advocate for student-athletes."
He's a -- to use his phrase -- "quiet voices in the background" guy. Only he's shouting "look at me!"
Maybe Horn did help Blount (that's not my take, but let's give him the benefit of the doubt). The problem is Horn's subsequent publicity-seeking is a disservice to Blount.
The story before Horn went public was that Blount had earned the opportunity to possibly play again this season because of how he had behaved after his meltdown at Boise State. How he responded to his worst moment had won over coach Chip Kelly and Oregon administrators.
It's a redemption story.
Horn, instead, wants the story to be that he and Blount's parents pressured Oregon into changing their position. He wants everyone to know that.
It's about lawyers and potential lawsuits.
So which story helps Blount get to the NFL?
If Kelly and Oregon feel like they were pressured, or are embarrassed by Horn going public with his account, do you think they are going to support Blount's cause when NFL GMs call?
And I know Kelly well enough to know that if he feels lawyered up and pushed around, Blount won't see significant action even if he manages to get reinstated.
By the way, no one at Oregon backs up Horn's account. An anonymous source in Fainaru-Wade's story is quoted as saying that Blount "met with Harry Edwards for 10 minutes." Edwards said he talked to Blount for six hours.
And if this is mostly about the Ducks wanting to get back a star player who can help them win, why will they wait until Nov. 7 -- after the USC game -- to allow his earliest possible reinstatement? Heck, if the program had the threat of a lawsuit as potential cover, why not bring him back for the Oct. 24 date at Washington? A five-game suspension is a nice number, and that would give Blount a warmup game before the Trojans come to town.
As for Blount's letter of apology, yes, it doesn't read like he wrote it.
I respect how Oregon has handed this process, both in the early going and during the redirection. I'm rooting for LeGarrette Blount to get his life back in order.
I'm not sure this third-party advocacy has much merit.
The mailbag likes diversity, but there wasn't much this week.
Lots of California. Lots of Washington got screwed. Lots of LeGarrette Blount.
California fans were shaking their fist at the heavens. And some folks were eager to tell me how stupid I was for overrating the Bears. Not sure how I can respond other than, "Yep."
As for the Huskies gripes with the officials: Mostly valid. But the territory feels sort of stale. Look forward, Huskies! Arizona's visit is a critical game in the Pac-10 pecking order.
Took one Blount question.
And away we go.
Jeff from Dallas writes: Theoretically speaking, if the Ducks win out, would they have a chance at breaking into the top 5? If so, would we jump Boise State? I know I'm getting way ahead of myself here but as a loyal Duck fan, I cant help but set myself up for heartache.
Ted Miller: Yes and yes.
At 11-1, with a win over USC, the Ducks likely would be top-five. Now, would Oregon jump Boise State if the Broncos remained unbeaten?
I think so. Why? Because Oregon's schedule is exponentially tougher -- none of Boise State's other 12 foes would finish in the top-half of the Pac-10. More than a few are among the worst FBS teams.
Moreover, season-openers are often treated differently than games in the middle or end of the season, and not just because of rankings momentum. The Ducks are clearly a better team today than they were in the season-opener.
I know that won't go over with Broncos fans but there is a solution: Schedule a BCS foe early and late -- even if they won't do a home-and-home series.
If Boise State played, say, Kansas -- I pick Kansas because the Jayhawks would hide behind the sofa if Boise called for a game -- on Dec. 5 instead of New Mexico State, thereby bookending their season with legitimate BCS foes, it would make up for the perception that the Broncos poured their hearts into one season-opening game and then coasted through a milquetoast schedule.
Mike from Berkeley writes: As a Cal fan I have nothing but respect for what Coach Tedford has achieved. He took over a program that was a perennial doormat in the Pac-10 and made it relevant. That said 2007 was a major disappointment, and while Cal will probably finish with 9 or 10 wins this season that is a major disappointment given the talent level. So do you think Tedford can ever lead the bears to the Rose Bowl? If not do you think another coach could, or will Cal just never have the recruiting power to reach that level?
Ted Miller: Remember when Nebraska fans use to say that about Tom Osborne?
Bobby Bowden went 10-2 in 1977, his second year at Florida State. Before he won his first national title in 1993, his team rolled through six consecutive "disappointing" seasons of 10 or more wins.
Mack Brown just couldn't win the big won. Then he did.
Is Jeff Tedford the coaching "genius" he was touted as in 2004? Probably not. Is it fair to question how he coaches and who he hires and other aspects of his job? Sure. He makes a lot of money and that comes with the territory.
The quarterback magic has worn off. The "failing to live up to high expectations" issue feels more legitimate today than it ever has.
But to your question as to whether Tedford can lead the Bears to the Rose Bowl: Absolutely.
If Tedford remains the Bears coach for another decade, I guarantee the Bears will go to the Granddaddy during that span. [Cut that out and we'll meet back here in 2019].
And to your final question: Yes, another coach probably could do better.
Urban Meyer could. Pete Carroll probably could. Nick Saban maybe (he'd be out of his element on the West Coast). Bill Belichick is another possibility. Maybe Tony Dungy would come out of retirement.
But if Cal doesn't feel its chances are good to hire one of those guys, my advice would be to stick with the coach who got the long-suffering program consistently inside the velvet ropes.
Spencer from LA writes: It turns out LeGarrette Blount lawyered up. And what about that fake apology? The real story isn't that Chip Kelly changed his mind, it's that he was forced to by the fear of a lawsuit.
Ted Miller: You refer to this story.
That was a valid story, reported straight by Mark Fainaru-Wada, one half of the combination that broke open the story of steroids in sports and wrote the landmark book, "Game of Shadows."
But this is a prime example of the need to read between the lines.
First, let's say a lawyer was brought in to force Oregon to reconsider Blount's season-long suspension. What was that lawyer going to do? Where was his traction? What was the legal argument?
The only thing I can think of would be the different treatment given Oregon point guard Aaron Brooks when he clubbed Washington's Ryan Appleby during a game.
You'll also note that the actual lawyer, Rob Carey, had no comment.
Who did comment? A guy named Chris Horn, whose apparent motive for talking is a desire for publicity for his "newly formed nonprofit designed to advocate for student-athletes."
He's a -- to use his phrase -- "quiet voices in the background" guy. Only he's shouting "look at me!"
Maybe Horn did help Blount (that's not my take, but let's give him the benefit of the doubt). The problem is Horn's subsequent publicity-seeking is a disservice to Blount.
The story before Horn went public was that Blount had earned the opportunity to possibly play again this season because of how he had behaved after his meltdown at Boise State. How he responded to his worst moment had won over coach Chip Kelly and Oregon administrators.
It's a redemption story.
Horn, instead, wants the story to be that he and Blount's parents pressured Oregon into changing their position. He wants everyone to know that.
It's about lawyers and potential lawsuits.
So which story helps Blount get to the NFL?
If Kelly and Oregon feel like they were pressured, or are embarrassed by Horn going public with his account, do you think they are going to support Blount's cause when NFL GMs call?
And I know Kelly well enough to know that if he feels lawyered up and pushed around, Blount won't see significant action even if he manages to get reinstated.
By the way, no one at Oregon backs up Horn's account. An anonymous source in Fainaru-Wade's story is quoted as saying that Blount "met with Harry Edwards for 10 minutes." Edwards said he talked to Blount for six hours.
And if this is mostly about the Ducks wanting to get back a star player who can help them win, why will they wait until Nov. 7 -- after the USC game -- to allow his earliest possible reinstatement? Heck, if the program had the threat of a lawsuit as potential cover, why not bring him back for the Oct. 24 date at Washington? A five-game suspension is a nice number, and that would give Blount a warmup game before the Trojans come to town.
As for Blount's letter of apology, yes, it doesn't read like he wrote it.
I respect how Oregon has handed this process, both in the early going and during the redirection. I'm rooting for LeGarrette Blount to get his life back in order.
I'm not sure this third-party advocacy has much merit.
BACK TO TOP
Page: 1
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
