Pac-12: Florida Gators
AP Photo/Paul BeatyBig Ten commissioner Jim Delany's playoff proposal rewards actually winning one's conference.At the Pac-12 meetings last week in Phoenix, it became clear that conference coaches and athletic directors as well as commissioner Larry Scott favor a potential four-team college football playoff including a requirement that each of the four participants wins its respective conference championship.
The reasoning for that is logical and unassailable: A national title contender should first prove it's the best team in its conference. College football folks -- coaches, administrators, etc. -- frequently talk about preserving the value of the regular season. Not requiring a playoff team to win its conference directly contravenes that.
On the other side of the playoff debate are the folks who don't want any such requirements. They say introducing one muddies things up. They say it's important to pick the "four best teams." Keep it simple and credible!
Four best teams? Er, how will we determine that? The ole BCS rankings? A selection committee?
Not acceptable.
There needs to be give and take here. If the Pac-12 and Big Ten are going to sacrifice their automatic tie-in to the Rose Bowl, that means they need to get something in return. Thankfully, Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany already has proposed an equitable plan that allows for both sides of this debate to get most of what they want.
It's the top-six plan: Conference champions would be required to be ranked in the top six of the final rankings in order to earn automatic berths in the four-team playoff. If four conference champions aren't ranked in the top six, then the highest ranked at-large teams would fill however many voids there are.
CBS Sports' Brett McMurphy went through all the scenarios. He found that, since 2004, only seven top-four teams in the final BCS standings would have missed the playoffs with this top-six plan.
Writes McMurphy:
Under this format, in the past eight years, 30 of the 32 teams in the playoff would have been conference champions. Only two teams -- No. 2 Alabama (in 2011) and No. 4 Ohio State (in 2005) -- that weren't a conference champion would have qualified for the national semifinals.
Using the conference affiliation for the schools for each season and not their future affiliation, the SEC would have had the most schools in the playoffs from 2004-11 with eight, including seven conference champions. The Pac-12 and Big 12 would have been next, each with six schools, followed by the Big Ten with five (four conference champions, one at-large), the Mountain West with four, the Big East with two and the ACC with one.
Of the Mountain West's four representatives, two were by Utah, now in the Pac-12, and two by TCU, which joins the Big 12 this fall.
That sounds about right.
The teams left out? Stanford and Texas, both twice, and Alabama, Michigan and LSU.
[+] Enlarge
Chris Graythen/Getty ImagesThe Utah team that demolished Alabama in the 2009 Sugar Bowl might have gotten to play for the national title under Jim Delany's top-six plan.
Chris Graythen/Getty ImagesThe Utah team that demolished Alabama in the 2009 Sugar Bowl might have gotten to play for the national title under Jim Delany's top-six plan.The best scenario to look at is 2008. From McMurphy's breakdown:
Top 6 ranked teams: No. 1 Oklahoma (Big 12 champ), No. 2 Florida (SEC champ), No. 3 Texas (at-large), No. 4 Alabama (at-large), No. 5 USC (Pac-10 champ), No. 6 Utah (Mountain West champ).
Conference champs in four-team playoff: No. 1 Oklahoma, No. 2 Florida, No. 5 USC, No. 6 Utah.
Non-conference champs in four-team playoff: None.
Top-6 teams left out: No. 3 Texas, No. 4 Alabama.
Revisionist history: The good news is that the top four conference champions are all ranked among the nation's top six teams. The bad news is No. 3 Texas and No. 4 Alabama, both of which didn't win their conference, would not be included in the playoff. Lower ranked, but conference champion, USC (No. 5) and Utah (No. 6) would have made the field.
In 2008, the top-six model would have created a far superior postseason. The most likely scenario would have seen USC, clearly the best team in 2008, beating Utah, which physically manhandled Alabama 31-17 in the Sugar Bowl, for the national title.
Wait ... did I just pull one of those "Just because" deals there, making assumptions about how good a team is?
Yes, I did. Most folks outside of the Southeast -- including Vegas bookies -- believed USC was the best team in 2008. It finished the regular season with the same record as Florida and Oklahoma, but its loss on the road against an Oregon State team that won nine games was deemed worse than the Gators' and Sooners' blemishes. That judgment was arbitrary and ran counter to what many folks believed: The Trojans in 2008 would have left a bootprint on the foreheads of either Florida or Oklahoma.
And, of course, when Utah held Alabama to 208 total yards -- 31 yards rushing! -- it became nearly impossible to say the Crimson Tide belonged in the same building. Oh, that's right, an Alabama team playing in its first BCS bowl game since 1999 was SO disappointed that it lost the SEC title game that it decided not to try hard in the Sugar Bowl. Please.
Of course, this analysis is bothering some folks. Good. That's how the "Just because" stuff felt for the Trojans in 2008 and for Oklahoma State last year. The most certain way to ensure the new four-team playoff will foment annual controversy is to make the "Just because" element its foundation. We'll still be debating the subjectivity -- and inherent biases -- of the system for weeks as the season winds down.
See, out here on the West Coast, the top-six plan seems simple. It seems fair. It doesn't muddy anything up. It actually provides clarity: Win your conference.
It first tries to award the highest-rated conference champions for, you know, accomplishing something during the regular season, then it makes sure that we don't end up with a three-loss team in the playoff.
It's the best and most equitable endgame in the four-team playoff scenario. And the Pac-12 and Big Ten should fight for it.
If you believe a four-team playoff will end controversy in college football as we know it, you probably believe that our culture would heal itself if only it could be rid of the Kardashians.
That's a silly analogy, but the point is something that is merely better doesn't mean it will be perfect. Or even much more than theoretically better. (As in: Perhaps there's a family out there that would cause even worse brain rot than the Kardashians if its vacuousness were on display in a TV reality series).
During the BCS Era, the epicenter of controversy was typically at No. 3. While some years things laid out perfectly and there was a wide consensus on the two best teams, many years there was little tangible justification to see the No. 2 -- or No 1 -- team as being any better than No. 3. For example, Oklahoma State was No. 3 this past season, and many would have rather watched the Cowboys play LSU for the title than an SEC West rematch between the Tigers and Alabama.
Well, in a four-team playoff, No. 5 becomes the new No. 3 -- the last team left out. Dennis Dodd goes back and ranks the best No. 5 teams from 1998-2011, and there is plenty of Pac-12 representation. Which means there would have been plenty of Pac-12 consternation.
And, oh boy, the conference would have been in the thick of controversy if there were a four-team playoff based on last year's BCS standings. Notes Dodd: "Look at last season when Pac-12 champ Oregon – fifth in the BCS -- would have not played in a four-team playoff but a division rival it beat (Stanford) would have. The difference? Oregon scheduled tougher."
Sure Oregon fans would have taken that well.
Of course, we still don't know how the four teams will be selected for the future playoff, and it's unlikely it will be the BCS standings as they are currently configured. Know that Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott will work hard to ensure a more accurate strength of schedule component.
As for Dodd's rankings, they are interesting, though Dodd should reverse the top-two. The 2009 Florida team would have lost to the 2008 USC team by double-digits. Everybody knows that.
Besides USC at No. 2 in 2008, he's got USC in 2006 at No. 4, Oregon in 2011 at No. 6, UCLA in 1998 at No. 10, California in 2004 at No. 11 and Oregon in 2005 at No. 13.
So a lot of different Pac-12 teams would have been frustrated by a subjective system leaving them out.
Further, don't think your team doesn't have dog in this hunt. If the Pac-12 gets left out of the Final Four, all 12 members will miss out on millions. Recall that the conference has equal revenue sharing. If Oregon makes the Final Four, Oregon State still gets an equal share. And if Oregon and USC makes the Final Four, that will mean even more money. If a BCS bowl game is worth $23 million, then just imagine what a Final Four game will be worth. And how it would hurt to miss out.
And if the Pac-12 gets left out a couple of years in a row, then it could find itself at a substantial revenue disadvantage compared to other conferences.
Not to be a party pooper, but there are tangible concerns going forward. Don't pack up your frustration with the system just yet.
That's a silly analogy, but the point is something that is merely better doesn't mean it will be perfect. Or even much more than theoretically better. (As in: Perhaps there's a family out there that would cause even worse brain rot than the Kardashians if its vacuousness were on display in a TV reality series).
During the BCS Era, the epicenter of controversy was typically at No. 3. While some years things laid out perfectly and there was a wide consensus on the two best teams, many years there was little tangible justification to see the No. 2 -- or No 1 -- team as being any better than No. 3. For example, Oklahoma State was No. 3 this past season, and many would have rather watched the Cowboys play LSU for the title than an SEC West rematch between the Tigers and Alabama.
Well, in a four-team playoff, No. 5 becomes the new No. 3 -- the last team left out. Dennis Dodd goes back and ranks the best No. 5 teams from 1998-2011, and there is plenty of Pac-12 representation. Which means there would have been plenty of Pac-12 consternation.
And, oh boy, the conference would have been in the thick of controversy if there were a four-team playoff based on last year's BCS standings. Notes Dodd: "Look at last season when Pac-12 champ Oregon – fifth in the BCS -- would have not played in a four-team playoff but a division rival it beat (Stanford) would have. The difference? Oregon scheduled tougher."
Sure Oregon fans would have taken that well.
Of course, we still don't know how the four teams will be selected for the future playoff, and it's unlikely it will be the BCS standings as they are currently configured. Know that Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott will work hard to ensure a more accurate strength of schedule component.
As for Dodd's rankings, they are interesting, though Dodd should reverse the top-two. The 2009 Florida team would have lost to the 2008 USC team by double-digits. Everybody knows that.
Besides USC at No. 2 in 2008, he's got USC in 2006 at No. 4, Oregon in 2011 at No. 6, UCLA in 1998 at No. 10, California in 2004 at No. 11 and Oregon in 2005 at No. 13.
So a lot of different Pac-12 teams would have been frustrated by a subjective system leaving them out.
Further, don't think your team doesn't have dog in this hunt. If the Pac-12 gets left out of the Final Four, all 12 members will miss out on millions. Recall that the conference has equal revenue sharing. If Oregon makes the Final Four, Oregon State still gets an equal share. And if Oregon and USC makes the Final Four, that will mean even more money. If a BCS bowl game is worth $23 million, then just imagine what a Final Four game will be worth. And how it would hurt to miss out.
And if the Pac-12 gets left out a couple of years in a row, then it could find itself at a substantial revenue disadvantage compared to other conferences.
Not to be a party pooper, but there are tangible concerns going forward. Don't pack up your frustration with the system just yet.
Welcome to the mailbag.
Follow me on Twitter here.
We have a note from a not-so-special guest this week to lead off.
Ted Miller from Scottsdale, Ariz., writes: Hey, Ted! You and Kevin do a great job. Is it true that the Surgeon General found that reading the Pac-12 blog makes you smarter? Doesn't surprise me a bit!
Anyway. My question: What do you think about word that some Pac-12 schools are dragging their feet on scheduling games with Big Ten foes, per the Big Ten-Pac-12 alliance?
Ted Miller: You have reached a new low, Self, with this juvenile artifice. So apologies to all. (I just wanted to address this).
Are some Pac-12 teams not thrilled with the Big Ten-Pac-12 partnership? Maybe.
It was announced in December that the Rose Bowl partners and academically elite conferences would, starting in 2017, play an annual football series involving all 12 schools in both leagues. But Wisconsin athletic director Barry Alvarez told Big Ten blogger Brian Bennett on Thursday that the partnership in football had not been finalized because "there are a couple of teams in the Pac-12 that are dragging their feet a little bit."
Both conference offices denied there were major issues. A Pac-12 spokesman emailed this statement: "Our schools are excited about the collaboration with the Big Ten, and we are continuing to work on sports scheduling details."
But the truth is, yes, some schools aren't thrilled, which goes along with scheduling issues that the Pac-12 blog has frequently -- redundantly? -- noted through the years.
Let's say you're Stanford.
That means Stanford could play 11 tough games every year against top AQ foes.
Here's Mark Schlabach's Way Too Early Top-25. Let's say the Cardinal next fall drew Michigan State as its Big Ten foe. That means Stanford would play: No. 2 USC, No. 4 Oregon, No. 9 Michigan State and No. 23 Notre Dame in 2012. Great fun. You could compute Cal's schedule much the same way.
The Pac-12 blog has some solutions. These solutions will be: 1. Best for the Pac-12; 2. Best for Cal and Stanford; 3. Controversial.
First, the Pac-12 needs to end the nine-game conference schedule. It might make athletic directors' lives easier in terms of scheduling and filling a stadium, but it hurts their teams and the conference as a whole. That's not an opinion. It's a mathematical fact.
Kill it. Please.
Second, Stanford and Cal need to end this silly "We must play USC and UCLA every year!" deal. Hey, I get it. Some fans enjoy the weekender. But -- come closer, because I want to whisper to you an embarrassing truth -- IT"S STUPID TO INSIST ON PLAYING USC EVERY YEAR! (Whoops... did I just yell that?) And, heck, UCLA should eventually get back into the top-25.
Insisting on playing USC every year is no different than if the ADs at Cal and Stanford said, "Hey, let's play Alabama... EVERY YEAR!"
Here is the realpolitik of college football: You can schedule success.
The Pac-12, instead, is scheduling failure. Its scheduling practices create a perception that makes the conference seem worse than it is, just as the SEC's scheduling practices accomplish the opposite.
I will not quote Cal coach Jeff Tedford and Stanford coach David Shaw on this matter. Both these guys are competitors who fear no team.
But neither one of them will hate me after reading this.
Nor will any other Pac-12 coach.
Big Ten-Pac-12 alliance? Great. Love big nonconference games. Second best thing in college football behind rivalry games.
But, first, kill the nine-game conference schedule. Then end the "designated games" between the California teams. Set up a pure rotating schedule between the North and South Divisions that will ensure the best scheduling equity possible.
Emtee Dubyew from Keizer, Ore., writes: I recently read an article on ESPN that Ohio State is installing a "Oregon style" no-huddle rapid paced offense. I seem to remember a segment Urban Meyer did when he worked for ESPN, he talked to Chip Kelly about Oregon's offense and practice methods. I mean with the PAC-12/Big10 relationship Oregon and Ohio State could do battle in the future. So would this lead to coaches being less willing to share their secrets and methods with the rest of us?
Ted Miller: Hmm... that name. You Ducks and Huskies never stop, do you? You mean this video, of course. Good stuff with Chip & Urban.
Less willing to do cool videos like this? I doubt it, and let's hope not.
First of all, coaches visit other teams all the time, though reasonably they don't allow visitors from teams they are scheduled to play. And more than a few times, it becomes a joke at a bowl game that one set of coaches met with the other set the previous spring. Still, the exchange of ideas doesn't yield details of a specific game plan. While Kelly and Meyer offer some nice insights during their chat, it's mostly superficial stuff that can be easily digested by a general audience.
Further, Meyer is an offensive innovator much like Kelly, with both on the front lines of spread-option concepts. That Meyer is planning to adopt an up-tempo, no-huddle offense is no surprise.
David from San Diego writes: So the big word post-spring practice is that USC's secondary is for real this year. Now I'm a die heard USC fan, but how can this assessment be made when everyone and their mama knows that USC's offense consisted mainly of 2 young, backup QB's, a thin RB corp, the best WR in the PAC-12 or possibly the nation out of action, not too mention all of our TE's have been hurt and not practicing either. Would you agree that all the hoopla on the secondary is a tad bit premature?
Ted Miller: All hoopla in April is a tad premature, just as the hoopla over a recruiting class is premature. We in the sportswriting business spend a lot of time giving you premature judgments, just as fans on message boards do the same -- "No worries! We have a JC transfer coming in who will solve all our problems!"
Why are folks high on USC's secondary?
Well, for one, it welcomes back all four starters from a unit that yielded the fewest TD passes (17) in the Pac-12 last season. The Trojans ranked fourth in the Pac-12 in pass efficiency defense. Not only that, just about every guy on the two-deep is back. Oh, and Florida transfer Josh Shaw is eligible to play in 2012.
Cornerback Nickell Robey and safety T.J. McDonald were both first-team All-Pac-12. McDonald is an almost certain preseason All-American. He could be the first safety picked in the 2013 NFL draft.
And there's a hunch, and it's not unreasonable, that Year 3 under coordinator Monte Kiffin could yield strong improvement, just as it did in 2011 compared to 2010.
So, best I can tell, the hoopla is based on good players coming back from a good secondary that seems likely to be better in 2012.
Or, perhaps, the hoopla comes entirely from a counter-intelligence operation run by a cabal of Freemason USC boosters connected to the Trilateral Commission.
Don from Portland writes: While I agree with you that pot in Oregon is seen as a non issue, it seems that the Ducks willingness to speak candidly about smoking to a reporter bespeaks a complete disregard for the feelings of their coaches, fans, and those players who do not use drugs. Shouldn't Chip Kelley be more concerned about his players apparent lack of loyalty?
Ted Miller: Yes, based on the ESPN Magazine article, it's clear at least one Duck broke the locker room Omertà. Yes, that should annoy Kelly and other players. I doubt it will keep anybody up at night, but it's a concern.
But that also answers some of you who feel Oregon was singled out or targeted. Typically how it works for a reporter working a story is he gets a tip or a lead, then he has to get a source talking. That's what happened here. And let's be real. If we were ranking Pac-12 towns for a laissez-faire attitude toward marijuana smoking, it likely would go: 1. Eugene; 2. Berkeley; 3. Boulder; 4. Seattle; 5. LA. As the article noted, "... The Princeton Review and High Times both have ranked the University of Oregon among the most pot-friendly schools."
You probably have just as many, er, "enthusiasts" here in Arizona among the Wildcats and Sun Devils. But I would suggest that the political-legal attitudes here are a bit different, not to mention rules about random testing.
Also, I do want to point out to Ducks fans, Oregon wasn't really singled out that much. For one, there was also a general story on pot smoking in college football, the gist of which is "wow... just about everybody is doing it."
Also, from the article:
And this: "One senior NFL executive who interviewed players at the combine says about 70 percent confessed to smoking pot, likely on the advice of their agents."
There was no implication in any part of the story that Oregon is unique. It just ended up being the "case study," in large part because someone on the team was willing to be a source.
There also was this about Kelly: "The Oregon regime is also cracking down. Anecdotal evidence suggests that Kelly has taken a hard stance in his three seasons as head coach. "I've heard weed was bigger before I got there," says one Kelly-era Duck, "but Chip cracked down on that. He'll actually attend classes with guys. If you miss a study hall, he'll drug-test you."
I got a lot of mail about this series. Most of you noted that the under-25 demographic has a much different vision about marijuana usage than the 50-and-overs. No doubt about that. Some of you were mad at ESPN, citing our desire to crush a West Coast power that threatens the SEC. Lots of folks communicated a general, "Neh." Some of you appeared to be partaking while typing.
My feeling, as I previously wrote, is this: Fret about this for 20 minutes. But that was on Wednesday, so it's time to move on. This article is unlikely to do any real harm to the university or the football program.
Ryan from Fairfield, Conn., writes: I am a former collegiate football player, and now I am inspiring to be a Director/ Producer. One of my best friends and myself created this mini-documentary, it is an emotional conversation with football players. Here is the Youtube link, check it out tell me what you think.
Ted Miller: I think it's pretty cool.
Follow me on Twitter here.
We have a note from a not-so-special guest this week to lead off.
Ted Miller from Scottsdale, Ariz., writes: Hey, Ted! You and Kevin do a great job. Is it true that the Surgeon General found that reading the Pac-12 blog makes you smarter? Doesn't surprise me a bit!
Anyway. My question: What do you think about word that some Pac-12 schools are dragging their feet on scheduling games with Big Ten foes, per the Big Ten-Pac-12 alliance?
Ted Miller: You have reached a new low, Self, with this juvenile artifice. So apologies to all. (I just wanted to address this).
Are some Pac-12 teams not thrilled with the Big Ten-Pac-12 partnership? Maybe.
It was announced in December that the Rose Bowl partners and academically elite conferences would, starting in 2017, play an annual football series involving all 12 schools in both leagues. But Wisconsin athletic director Barry Alvarez told Big Ten blogger Brian Bennett on Thursday that the partnership in football had not been finalized because "there are a couple of teams in the Pac-12 that are dragging their feet a little bit."
Both conference offices denied there were major issues. A Pac-12 spokesman emailed this statement: "Our schools are excited about the collaboration with the Big Ten, and we are continuing to work on sports scheduling details."
But the truth is, yes, some schools aren't thrilled, which goes along with scheduling issues that the Pac-12 blog has frequently -- redundantly? -- noted through the years.
Let's say you're Stanford.
- You start with a nine-game Pac-12 schedule. The ACC, SEC and Big Ten play an eight-game conference schedule, which allows for four nonconference foes -- read: typically at least three scheduled patsies.
- Then you add Stanford's (and California's) insistence on playing USC and UCLA every year. Hey, tradition!
- Then you add Oregon's rise in the North Division as a national power.
- Then you add an annual series with Notre Dame.
- Then you add an annual game with the Big Ten.
That means Stanford could play 11 tough games every year against top AQ foes.
Here's Mark Schlabach's Way Too Early Top-25. Let's say the Cardinal next fall drew Michigan State as its Big Ten foe. That means Stanford would play: No. 2 USC, No. 4 Oregon, No. 9 Michigan State and No. 23 Notre Dame in 2012. Great fun. You could compute Cal's schedule much the same way.
The Pac-12 blog has some solutions. These solutions will be: 1. Best for the Pac-12; 2. Best for Cal and Stanford; 3. Controversial.
First, the Pac-12 needs to end the nine-game conference schedule. It might make athletic directors' lives easier in terms of scheduling and filling a stadium, but it hurts their teams and the conference as a whole. That's not an opinion. It's a mathematical fact.
Kill it. Please.
Second, Stanford and Cal need to end this silly "We must play USC and UCLA every year!" deal. Hey, I get it. Some fans enjoy the weekender. But -- come closer, because I want to whisper to you an embarrassing truth -- IT"S STUPID TO INSIST ON PLAYING USC EVERY YEAR! (Whoops... did I just yell that?) And, heck, UCLA should eventually get back into the top-25.
Insisting on playing USC every year is no different than if the ADs at Cal and Stanford said, "Hey, let's play Alabama... EVERY YEAR!"
Here is the realpolitik of college football: You can schedule success.
The Pac-12, instead, is scheduling failure. Its scheduling practices create a perception that makes the conference seem worse than it is, just as the SEC's scheduling practices accomplish the opposite.
I will not quote Cal coach Jeff Tedford and Stanford coach David Shaw on this matter. Both these guys are competitors who fear no team.
But neither one of them will hate me after reading this.
Nor will any other Pac-12 coach.
Big Ten-Pac-12 alliance? Great. Love big nonconference games. Second best thing in college football behind rivalry games.
But, first, kill the nine-game conference schedule. Then end the "designated games" between the California teams. Set up a pure rotating schedule between the North and South Divisions that will ensure the best scheduling equity possible.
Emtee Dubyew from Keizer, Ore., writes: I recently read an article on ESPN that Ohio State is installing a "Oregon style" no-huddle rapid paced offense. I seem to remember a segment Urban Meyer did when he worked for ESPN, he talked to Chip Kelly about Oregon's offense and practice methods. I mean with the PAC-12/Big10 relationship Oregon and Ohio State could do battle in the future. So would this lead to coaches being less willing to share their secrets and methods with the rest of us?
Ted Miller: Hmm... that name. You Ducks and Huskies never stop, do you? You mean this video, of course. Good stuff with Chip & Urban.
Less willing to do cool videos like this? I doubt it, and let's hope not.
First of all, coaches visit other teams all the time, though reasonably they don't allow visitors from teams they are scheduled to play. And more than a few times, it becomes a joke at a bowl game that one set of coaches met with the other set the previous spring. Still, the exchange of ideas doesn't yield details of a specific game plan. While Kelly and Meyer offer some nice insights during their chat, it's mostly superficial stuff that can be easily digested by a general audience.
Further, Meyer is an offensive innovator much like Kelly, with both on the front lines of spread-option concepts. That Meyer is planning to adopt an up-tempo, no-huddle offense is no surprise.
David from San Diego writes: So the big word post-spring practice is that USC's secondary is for real this year. Now I'm a die heard USC fan, but how can this assessment be made when everyone and their mama knows that USC's offense consisted mainly of 2 young, backup QB's, a thin RB corp, the best WR in the PAC-12 or possibly the nation out of action, not too mention all of our TE's have been hurt and not practicing either. Would you agree that all the hoopla on the secondary is a tad bit premature?
Ted Miller: All hoopla in April is a tad premature, just as the hoopla over a recruiting class is premature. We in the sportswriting business spend a lot of time giving you premature judgments, just as fans on message boards do the same -- "No worries! We have a JC transfer coming in who will solve all our problems!"
Why are folks high on USC's secondary?
Well, for one, it welcomes back all four starters from a unit that yielded the fewest TD passes (17) in the Pac-12 last season. The Trojans ranked fourth in the Pac-12 in pass efficiency defense. Not only that, just about every guy on the two-deep is back. Oh, and Florida transfer Josh Shaw is eligible to play in 2012.
Cornerback Nickell Robey and safety T.J. McDonald were both first-team All-Pac-12. McDonald is an almost certain preseason All-American. He could be the first safety picked in the 2013 NFL draft.
And there's a hunch, and it's not unreasonable, that Year 3 under coordinator Monte Kiffin could yield strong improvement, just as it did in 2011 compared to 2010.
So, best I can tell, the hoopla is based on good players coming back from a good secondary that seems likely to be better in 2012.
Or, perhaps, the hoopla comes entirely from a counter-intelligence operation run by a cabal of Freemason USC boosters connected to the Trilateral Commission.
Don from Portland writes: While I agree with you that pot in Oregon is seen as a non issue, it seems that the Ducks willingness to speak candidly about smoking to a reporter bespeaks a complete disregard for the feelings of their coaches, fans, and those players who do not use drugs. Shouldn't Chip Kelley be more concerned about his players apparent lack of loyalty?
Ted Miller: Yes, based on the ESPN Magazine article, it's clear at least one Duck broke the locker room Omertà. Yes, that should annoy Kelly and other players. I doubt it will keep anybody up at night, but it's a concern.
But that also answers some of you who feel Oregon was singled out or targeted. Typically how it works for a reporter working a story is he gets a tip or a lead, then he has to get a source talking. That's what happened here. And let's be real. If we were ranking Pac-12 towns for a laissez-faire attitude toward marijuana smoking, it likely would go: 1. Eugene; 2. Berkeley; 3. Boulder; 4. Seattle; 5. LA. As the article noted, "... The Princeton Review and High Times both have ranked the University of Oregon among the most pot-friendly schools."
You probably have just as many, er, "enthusiasts" here in Arizona among the Wildcats and Sun Devils. But I would suggest that the political-legal attitudes here are a bit different, not to mention rules about random testing.
Also, I do want to point out to Ducks fans, Oregon wasn't really singled out that much. For one, there was also a general story on pot smoking in college football, the gist of which is "wow... just about everybody is doing it."
Also, from the article:
NEWS FLASH: COLLEGE kids smoke weed. That includes, according to an NCAA study released in January, 22.6 percent of athletes -- up 1.4 percentage points from the previous study in 2005. College football players (26.7 percent) ranked the highest among major sports. And the Oregon football program provides an interesting case study on the impact -- or lack thereof -- of marijuana use among players.
And this: "One senior NFL executive who interviewed players at the combine says about 70 percent confessed to smoking pot, likely on the advice of their agents."
There was no implication in any part of the story that Oregon is unique. It just ended up being the "case study," in large part because someone on the team was willing to be a source.
There also was this about Kelly: "The Oregon regime is also cracking down. Anecdotal evidence suggests that Kelly has taken a hard stance in his three seasons as head coach. "I've heard weed was bigger before I got there," says one Kelly-era Duck, "but Chip cracked down on that. He'll actually attend classes with guys. If you miss a study hall, he'll drug-test you."
I got a lot of mail about this series. Most of you noted that the under-25 demographic has a much different vision about marijuana usage than the 50-and-overs. No doubt about that. Some of you were mad at ESPN, citing our desire to crush a West Coast power that threatens the SEC. Lots of folks communicated a general, "Neh." Some of you appeared to be partaking while typing.
My feeling, as I previously wrote, is this: Fret about this for 20 minutes. But that was on Wednesday, so it's time to move on. This article is unlikely to do any real harm to the university or the football program.
Ryan from Fairfield, Conn., writes: I am a former collegiate football player, and now I am inspiring to be a Director/ Producer. One of my best friends and myself created this mini-documentary, it is an emotional conversation with football players. Here is the Youtube link, check it out tell me what you think.
Ted Miller: I think it's pretty cool.
ESPN The Magazine and RecruitingNation compiled the past five years (2007-11) of ESPNU 150 rankings and then crowned college football's top 10 recruiting programs.
Here's how they did it:
Here's the top-10.
1. Florida
2. Texas
3. USC
4. Alabama
5. Florida State
6. Notre Dame
T-7. Georgia
t-7: LSU
9. Miami
T-10. Ohio State
T-10. Oklahoma
Here's what it says about USC:
(USC actually signed three out-of-state recruits, including receiver Nelson Agholor and DT Leonard Williams, who are both from Florida).
What's clear from this list: Sometimes teams with lots of ESPNU 150 players produce on the field (Alabama, LSU, Oklahoma, Ohio State) and sometimes they do not (Florida, Texas, Florida State, Notre Dame and Miami).
Florida is 15-11 over the past two seasons, when these highly rated classes should have been peaking. Texas is 13-12 over the same span. Miami has lost fewer than six games just once since 2007. Notre Dame's best years came the past two seasons -- both 8-5. Florida State has averaged 4.8 losses since 2007. Georgia was 10-4 this season, but it was a combined 14-12 in 2009 and 2010. Ohio State probably can be forgiven its 6-7 finish this year, based on the NCAA issues and firing of coach Jim Tressel. Oklahoma's lone blip was an 8-5 campaign in 2009. USC's "downturn" came in 2009 and 2010 when the Trojans went 17-9.
Conclusions?
Well, it's possible that Florida recruiting -- as good as it is -- is overrated. Perhaps the same can be said for Texas. Or at least these four programs -- Florida, Florida State, Miami and Texas -- aren't doing the best job of evaluating their wealth of in-state talent.
Here's how they did it:
Our methodology was simple: We re-tallied the scores following signing day and ranked the schools based on total number of ESPNU 150 recruits (there have been 900) hauled in over the last six years. Of course, like success on the field, recruiting is cyclical -- and fans of programs both on and off this list might look back on Feb. 1, 2012 as the day their team began its rise (or fall) on the trail.
Here's the top-10.
1. Florida
2. Texas
3. USC
4. Alabama
5. Florida State
6. Notre Dame
T-7. Georgia
t-7: LSU
9. Miami
T-10. Ohio State
T-10. Oklahoma
Here's what it says about USC:
Top states: California (36), Florida (six), Arizona (four)
Surprise state: Georgia (three)
Sure, the Trojans have California locked up. But USC has also signed four of Arizona's 12 ESPNU 150 prospects and Georgia's second-best preps in 2008 (WR Brice Butler of Norcross) and 2010 (WR Markeith Ambles of McDonough). In 2012, USC signed seven ESPNU 150 commits -- OT Zach Banner (Lakewood, Wash.) was the lone out-of-state recruit.
(USC actually signed three out-of-state recruits, including receiver Nelson Agholor and DT Leonard Williams, who are both from Florida).
What's clear from this list: Sometimes teams with lots of ESPNU 150 players produce on the field (Alabama, LSU, Oklahoma, Ohio State) and sometimes they do not (Florida, Texas, Florida State, Notre Dame and Miami).
Florida is 15-11 over the past two seasons, when these highly rated classes should have been peaking. Texas is 13-12 over the same span. Miami has lost fewer than six games just once since 2007. Notre Dame's best years came the past two seasons -- both 8-5. Florida State has averaged 4.8 losses since 2007. Georgia was 10-4 this season, but it was a combined 14-12 in 2009 and 2010. Ohio State probably can be forgiven its 6-7 finish this year, based on the NCAA issues and firing of coach Jim Tressel. Oklahoma's lone blip was an 8-5 campaign in 2009. USC's "downturn" came in 2009 and 2010 when the Trojans went 17-9.
Conclusions?
Well, it's possible that Florida recruiting -- as good as it is -- is overrated. Perhaps the same can be said for Texas. Or at least these four programs -- Florida, Florida State, Miami and Texas -- aren't doing the best job of evaluating their wealth of in-state talent.
Receiver Nelson Agholor (Berkley Prep, Tampa, Fla.) has announced he will sign with USC.
Agholor, 6-foot-1, 180 pounds, the nation's No. 6 receiver and No. 47 overall on the ESPNU 150, picked the Trojans over Florida, Florida State, Oklahoma and Notre Dame.
Opening the mailbag: Griping about grades
January, 27, 2012
Jan 27
5:00
PM ET
By
Ted Miller | ESPN.com
Happy Friday.
Follow me on Twitter.
To the notes!
Kohler from Boise writes: I'm a bit confused about your end of season rankings. A 7-6 Washington, that finished #3 in the Pac-12 is given a final grade of a C. Meanwhile, a 4-8 WSU is ALSO given a final grade of a C? The Huskies Defense was horrible in 2011, but they still managed to overcome that and rise to the top of the league. I'd throw in some comment about how you must hate the Huskies, but I'm not one of those Duck haters who just looks for a reason to complain about your writing.
Ted Miller: A fair question.
Let's start with this (and assuming you are a Washington fan). Remember your August of 2011 self. Strapping. Confident. Trash talking. What record would you have projected for Washington? And for Washington State. My guess is most Huskies fans thought an eight-win regular season perfectly reasonable. And my guess is your Cougars brethren were hoping for six but foresaw something closer to 5-7. Each team had a different set of reasonable expectations. And both teams fell short of expectations. So both teams get docked.
In the same vein, if Oregon had finished, say, 9-3 and not won the North Division it likely would have been in the Cs. And at 8-4 with a loss to Washington, it might have been a D, though injuries and circumstances also play a role in the final grade.
Different teams, different sorts of expectations. So, yes, these grades are on a certain curve. All seasons don't start from the same place.
Further, there are variables. The Cougars received a benefit of the doubt because they lost their starting QB to injury for essentially the entire season. While the Huskies could counter that QB Keith Price was an unknown as a first-year starter, the complete collapse of the defense earned a major demerit because there were high preseason expectations that the unit would be vastly better than recent vintages. It wasn't. Meanwhile, the Cougars dramatically improved their numbers on both sides of the ball from 2010 to 2011. Washington, perhaps surprisingly, was much better on offense but much worse on defense.
Further, the Huskies get docked because of their downward trajectory at season's end. This 7-6 finish was not nearly the match of last year's 7-6 finish. They started 5-1 this fall, earned a national ranking, but then got exposed when the schedule toughened up. Losing four of the final five is a worse path to 7-6 than winning four in a row to end the season in 2010 was.
As far as their place in the Pac-12, it makes sense to rate the Huskies fourth (did you forget USC?), a decisive head-to-head win at Utah giving them an edge over the 8-5 Utes, who got a B for their strong showing in their first year of Pac-12 play. But that's largely a function of the competition for that spot. California, which got a C also? Or Arizona State, which got a D? Or UCLA, which got a D+?
To me, the Huskies and Cougars seasons seem very similar in terms of generating fan satisfaction. Neither team failed, but neither walked away happy. And both teams made major staff changes as a result -- changes both sets of fans, by the way, are thrilled about.
Patrick from Las Vegas writes: During the Pete Carroll years, we all wanted a USC vs SEC BCS title game. Isn't it kind of fitting that it USC has the best chance of all other contenders to end the SEC's run?
Ted Miller: Well, let's not count Trojans before they hatch. Keep in mind that the reason USC didn't win more national titles under Pete Carroll was its predilection to throw up on itself against a middling foe at least once a year. And, based on the totality of the 2011 season, they didn't completely kick that habit -- see the loss at Arizona State that, obviously, looks much worse now than it did at the time.
To play for the 2012 national title, the Trojans likely will need to go undefeated. They have a favorable schedule, but if they take a foe lightly, they will face plant. Paging leadership from Matt Barkley.
As for past misses between USC and the SEC: In 2003 and 2008, I would have been extremely confident picking USC over LSU and Florida, respectively. I'd rate 2006 a toss-up between USC and Florida.
But, as of today, I'd like LSU's chances against USC.
Brian from Syracuse, NY writes: One of the big unwritten rules in recruiting is that when a coach changes schools, he should cease recruitment of the kids he had been recruiting for his old school. Thus it is surprising how unapologetically Tosh Lupoi has continued to recruit since going to UW. How sacred are the unwritten rules among the coaching fraternity? Is the wrath of other coaches any real deterrent.
Ted Miller: Unwritten rules in recruiting?
There are written rules -- the NCAA's -- that get bent, twisted and broken all the time. As for unwritten rules, it's mostly about every man for himself.
Yes, as some of you have observed, I did write this on on Jan. 17:
Now, there is a difference between recruiting players committed to Cal, and recruiting players who are still uncommitted that he was recruiting for Cal. But, of course, Lupoi has been actively pursuing touted safety Shaq Thompson and athlete Cedric Dozier, who are both committed to Cal. Yes, that looks yucky.
My guess is Lupoi has lost some sleep on this and, yes, probably feels a little sleazy. But this is the business. It's sleazy. He was hired by Steve Sarkisian to kick butt and sign names, not win a Nobel Peace Prize.
I also think it might be helpful to imagine a workable recruiting pitch for Lupoi at present. It probably goes something like this, "Look, I'm not going to say anything bad about Cal and Jeff Tedford. Great school, great program. But let me tell you about Washington and Coach Sarkisian." And then Lupoi hopes his personality and ability to connect (or re-connect) with young men takes over. I can't believe Lupoi would badmouth Cal, because any athlete with a lick of sense would see right through that.
As for long-term relationships among the coaches, they tend to work themselves out. Sarkisian and Tedford are pros. They know the business. I'm sure Tedford isn't happy about things, and as a competitor he'd probably like to stick it to Sark in some way. But there will be no "wrath" between the two. That's a waste of energy.
Nick from Conway, Ark., writes: You're already writing off the Red Wolves in their opener against Oregon? We all saw what Mike Dyer did against them a couple of years ago. True, Oregon will likely win this game, but if the Ducks have the same mindset as you, this game can get interesting.
Ted Miller: Yes, Nick, I am writing off Arkansas State against Oregon on Sept. 1. If the Red Wolves are within 30, I'd be shocked.
As for Dyer's transfer from Auburn, that makes things worse for the Red Wolves. Chip Kelly will be able to play that excruciating video over and over again, so Ducks defenders should be plenty motivated to stick it to Dyer. And make sure he's down.
Of course, Dyer should feel fortunate that safety Eddie Pleasant is now off the to NFL. He's surely the one who'd most like another shot at Dyer.
Follow me on Twitter.
To the notes!
Kohler from Boise writes: I'm a bit confused about your end of season rankings. A 7-6 Washington, that finished #3 in the Pac-12 is given a final grade of a C. Meanwhile, a 4-8 WSU is ALSO given a final grade of a C? The Huskies Defense was horrible in 2011, but they still managed to overcome that and rise to the top of the league. I'd throw in some comment about how you must hate the Huskies, but I'm not one of those Duck haters who just looks for a reason to complain about your writing.
Ted Miller: A fair question.
Let's start with this (and assuming you are a Washington fan). Remember your August of 2011 self. Strapping. Confident. Trash talking. What record would you have projected for Washington? And for Washington State. My guess is most Huskies fans thought an eight-win regular season perfectly reasonable. And my guess is your Cougars brethren were hoping for six but foresaw something closer to 5-7. Each team had a different set of reasonable expectations. And both teams fell short of expectations. So both teams get docked.
In the same vein, if Oregon had finished, say, 9-3 and not won the North Division it likely would have been in the Cs. And at 8-4 with a loss to Washington, it might have been a D, though injuries and circumstances also play a role in the final grade.
Different teams, different sorts of expectations. So, yes, these grades are on a certain curve. All seasons don't start from the same place.
Further, there are variables. The Cougars received a benefit of the doubt because they lost their starting QB to injury for essentially the entire season. While the Huskies could counter that QB Keith Price was an unknown as a first-year starter, the complete collapse of the defense earned a major demerit because there were high preseason expectations that the unit would be vastly better than recent vintages. It wasn't. Meanwhile, the Cougars dramatically improved their numbers on both sides of the ball from 2010 to 2011. Washington, perhaps surprisingly, was much better on offense but much worse on defense.
Further, the Huskies get docked because of their downward trajectory at season's end. This 7-6 finish was not nearly the match of last year's 7-6 finish. They started 5-1 this fall, earned a national ranking, but then got exposed when the schedule toughened up. Losing four of the final five is a worse path to 7-6 than winning four in a row to end the season in 2010 was.
As far as their place in the Pac-12, it makes sense to rate the Huskies fourth (did you forget USC?), a decisive head-to-head win at Utah giving them an edge over the 8-5 Utes, who got a B for their strong showing in their first year of Pac-12 play. But that's largely a function of the competition for that spot. California, which got a C also? Or Arizona State, which got a D? Or UCLA, which got a D+?
To me, the Huskies and Cougars seasons seem very similar in terms of generating fan satisfaction. Neither team failed, but neither walked away happy. And both teams made major staff changes as a result -- changes both sets of fans, by the way, are thrilled about.
Patrick from Las Vegas writes: During the Pete Carroll years, we all wanted a USC vs SEC BCS title game. Isn't it kind of fitting that it USC has the best chance of all other contenders to end the SEC's run?
Ted Miller: Well, let's not count Trojans before they hatch. Keep in mind that the reason USC didn't win more national titles under Pete Carroll was its predilection to throw up on itself against a middling foe at least once a year. And, based on the totality of the 2011 season, they didn't completely kick that habit -- see the loss at Arizona State that, obviously, looks much worse now than it did at the time.
To play for the 2012 national title, the Trojans likely will need to go undefeated. They have a favorable schedule, but if they take a foe lightly, they will face plant. Paging leadership from Matt Barkley.
As for past misses between USC and the SEC: In 2003 and 2008, I would have been extremely confident picking USC over LSU and Florida, respectively. I'd rate 2006 a toss-up between USC and Florida.
But, as of today, I'd like LSU's chances against USC.
Brian from Syracuse, NY writes: One of the big unwritten rules in recruiting is that when a coach changes schools, he should cease recruitment of the kids he had been recruiting for his old school. Thus it is surprising how unapologetically Tosh Lupoi has continued to recruit since going to UW. How sacred are the unwritten rules among the coaching fraternity? Is the wrath of other coaches any real deterrent.
Ted Miller: Unwritten rules in recruiting?
There are written rules -- the NCAA's -- that get bent, twisted and broken all the time. As for unwritten rules, it's mostly about every man for himself.
Yes, as some of you have observed, I did write this on on Jan. 17:
If Lupoi aggressively tries to flip a handful of players committed to Cal -- something we honestly doubt he will do -- then, well, we'd hope that would cause him to lose some sleep. While all is fair in love, war and recruiting, that would be a bit sleazy. Of course, effective sleazy that is within NCAA rules often falls under this category: good recruiting.
Now, there is a difference between recruiting players committed to Cal, and recruiting players who are still uncommitted that he was recruiting for Cal. But, of course, Lupoi has been actively pursuing touted safety Shaq Thompson and athlete Cedric Dozier, who are both committed to Cal. Yes, that looks yucky.
My guess is Lupoi has lost some sleep on this and, yes, probably feels a little sleazy. But this is the business. It's sleazy. He was hired by Steve Sarkisian to kick butt and sign names, not win a Nobel Peace Prize.
I also think it might be helpful to imagine a workable recruiting pitch for Lupoi at present. It probably goes something like this, "Look, I'm not going to say anything bad about Cal and Jeff Tedford. Great school, great program. But let me tell you about Washington and Coach Sarkisian." And then Lupoi hopes his personality and ability to connect (or re-connect) with young men takes over. I can't believe Lupoi would badmouth Cal, because any athlete with a lick of sense would see right through that.
As for long-term relationships among the coaches, they tend to work themselves out. Sarkisian and Tedford are pros. They know the business. I'm sure Tedford isn't happy about things, and as a competitor he'd probably like to stick it to Sark in some way. But there will be no "wrath" between the two. That's a waste of energy.
Nick from Conway, Ark., writes: You're already writing off the Red Wolves in their opener against Oregon? We all saw what Mike Dyer did against them a couple of years ago. True, Oregon will likely win this game, but if the Ducks have the same mindset as you, this game can get interesting.
Ted Miller: Yes, Nick, I am writing off Arkansas State against Oregon on Sept. 1. If the Red Wolves are within 30, I'd be shocked.
As for Dyer's transfer from Auburn, that makes things worse for the Red Wolves. Chip Kelly will be able to play that excruciating video over and over again, so Ducks defenders should be plenty motivated to stick it to Dyer. And make sure he's down.
Of course, Dyer should feel fortunate that safety Eddie Pleasant is now off the to NFL. He's surely the one who'd most like another shot at Dyer.
Florida safety Josh Shaw has transferred to USC for the 2012 spring semester, USC announced Wednesday.
The 6-2, 195-pound Shaw appeared in 10 games for the Gators in 2011 as a redshirt freshman and started once. He had 22 tackles, including one for a loss, and had a deflection in 2011. He made six tackles against Auburn while starting and four tackles each versus Kentucky and LSU.
Shaw played in one game as a true freshman early in the 2010 season, but did not make a tackle. He was allowed to redshirt the season because of a knee injury.
A 2009 Parade All-American, he played cornerback, quarterback, running back and wide receiver at Palmdale (Calif.) High
USCFootball.com reported that Shaw would apply to the NCAA for a hardship waiver because the transfer was based on family issues. If granted, he could be eligible to play next year. If not, he'd have to sit out in 2012 and would have two seasons of eligibility remaining in 2013.
The 6-2, 195-pound Shaw appeared in 10 games for the Gators in 2011 as a redshirt freshman and started once. He had 22 tackles, including one for a loss, and had a deflection in 2011. He made six tackles against Auburn while starting and four tackles each versus Kentucky and LSU.
Shaw played in one game as a true freshman early in the 2010 season, but did not make a tackle. He was allowed to redshirt the season because of a knee injury.
A 2009 Parade All-American, he played cornerback, quarterback, running back and wide receiver at Palmdale (Calif.) High
USCFootball.com reported that Shaw would apply to the NCAA for a hardship waiver because the transfer was based on family issues. If granted, he could be eligible to play next year. If not, he'd have to sit out in 2012 and would have two seasons of eligibility remaining in 2013.
Oregon believes Kelly is a long-term Duck
December, 31, 2011
12/31/11
11:00
AM ET
By
Ted Miller | ESPN.com
The ink was barely dry on Rob Mullens' new contract to become Oregon's athletic director when he faced what perhaps will be considered the most important task of his tenure, even a decade down the road: Make football coach Chip Kelly happy.
It was the summer of 2010, and there was a general feeling among the pooh-bahs of Oregon sports -- most notably Nike founder Phil Knight and millionaire former AD Pat Kilkenny -- that Kelly sticking around for the long term in Eugene was the best chance for the football program to experience long-term success, a condition that keeps a department with an $80 million budget afloat.
So within 48 hours of his hiring, Mullens -- who was hired away from Kentucky in large part because of his skills with dollars and sense (no cents involved here) -- was on the phone with Kelly's agent working on a new contract.
The endgame was a six-year deal worth $20.5 million. Kelly made $2.4 million last year. He's making $2.8 million this year and will make $3.5 million the next. In 2014 and 2015, he'll pocket $4 million, which is roughly what the nation's highest-paid coaches made this year.
"People can look at the numbers and say it's high, but it fits within the marketplace," Mullens said. "It fits with the results. We have the person we want at the helm of our football program."
No other team in the nation is riding a streak of three consecutive BCS bowl games. That's a big reason Oregon merchandising sales went up from $1.5 million in 2007 -- the year Kelly left New Hampshire to become the Ducks' offensive coordinator -- to $2.25 million in 2010.
While it's difficult to quantify the entire picture financially, Mullens points out that the unprecedented success Kelly has produced over the past three years has more than paid for his big-dollar contract, mostly notably in exposure and increased donations. That revenue flow has been particularly important in a tough economy that has many athletic programs struggling, including many in the Pac-12.
Or at least it did. When the conference signed a $3 billion, 12-year TV contract with ESPN and Fox, athletic directors across the Pac-12 leaped into the air and clicked their heels. They also started to spend that money. Some on new coaches.
Sure, Kelly will make $3.5 million next year. But new UCLA coach Jim Mora, with no college coaching experience, will pocket $2.4 million. Washington State will pay Mike Leach $2.25 million.
In a lot of ways, Kelly's compensation pencils out pretty well for Oregon on the cash-for-accomplishment curve.
"It pays [for Oregon] because, one, he's a great coach," Mullens said. "Two, he's a perfect fit. That combination, you can never guarantee that. He has delivered the results."
In addition, Oregon is paying extra for stability. When the school committed to Kelly with SEC-like money, Kelly also committed to Oregon. His buyout dropped from $4 million last year to $3.75 million this year, but that number is almost prohibitive for even the richest athletic departments. In 2015-16, it will be $2 million, which is still pretty large by industry standards.
What does that buyout mean? Well, it means Kelly doesn't have wandering eyeballs. Further, it mutes all but the most uninformed rumor mills: Despite chatter to the contrary, Mullens said he has not been contacted this year by any college or NFL team that wanted to talk to Kelly about a job.
Further -- as Ken Goe of The Oregonian pointed out when there were rumors in December 2010 that Florida might come after Kelly after Urban Meyer resigned -- Kelly's contract has clauses that will make it a pain in the rear for a team to pursue him.
The sum total of all this suggests that Kelly wants to remain in Eugene, and Oregon wants him to stick around. There are no guarantees, of course, but the feeling at the administrative level -- and among key boosters -- is that Kelly is the right guy at the nexus of an athletic department that has ambitious, expansionist visions for itself.
No FBS athletic program thrives without football success, and Kelly's presence provides a sense of security for Oregon's cash cow. And as of today, it appears the marriage remains strong.
It was the summer of 2010, and there was a general feeling among the pooh-bahs of Oregon sports -- most notably Nike founder Phil Knight and millionaire former AD Pat Kilkenny -- that Kelly sticking around for the long term in Eugene was the best chance for the football program to experience long-term success, a condition that keeps a department with an $80 million budget afloat.
[+] Enlarge
AP Photo/Tony GutierrezOregon doesn't want coach Chip Kelly -- who is in the midst of a 6-year, $20.5 million deal -- going anywhere.
AP Photo/Tony GutierrezOregon doesn't want coach Chip Kelly -- who is in the midst of a 6-year, $20.5 million deal -- going anywhere.The endgame was a six-year deal worth $20.5 million. Kelly made $2.4 million last year. He's making $2.8 million this year and will make $3.5 million the next. In 2014 and 2015, he'll pocket $4 million, which is roughly what the nation's highest-paid coaches made this year.
"People can look at the numbers and say it's high, but it fits within the marketplace," Mullens said. "It fits with the results. We have the person we want at the helm of our football program."
No other team in the nation is riding a streak of three consecutive BCS bowl games. That's a big reason Oregon merchandising sales went up from $1.5 million in 2007 -- the year Kelly left New Hampshire to become the Ducks' offensive coordinator -- to $2.25 million in 2010.
While it's difficult to quantify the entire picture financially, Mullens points out that the unprecedented success Kelly has produced over the past three years has more than paid for his big-dollar contract, mostly notably in exposure and increased donations. That revenue flow has been particularly important in a tough economy that has many athletic programs struggling, including many in the Pac-12.
Or at least it did. When the conference signed a $3 billion, 12-year TV contract with ESPN and Fox, athletic directors across the Pac-12 leaped into the air and clicked their heels. They also started to spend that money. Some on new coaches.
Sure, Kelly will make $3.5 million next year. But new UCLA coach Jim Mora, with no college coaching experience, will pocket $2.4 million. Washington State will pay Mike Leach $2.25 million.
In a lot of ways, Kelly's compensation pencils out pretty well for Oregon on the cash-for-accomplishment curve.
"It pays [for Oregon] because, one, he's a great coach," Mullens said. "Two, he's a perfect fit. That combination, you can never guarantee that. He has delivered the results."
More on the Rose Bowl
For full coverage of the Wisconsin-Oregon matchup in the Rose Bowl Game presented by Vizio, check out the Rose Bowl home page.
More:
• Rose Bowl blog coverage
• Big Ten blog | Pac-12 blog
What does that buyout mean? Well, it means Kelly doesn't have wandering eyeballs. Further, it mutes all but the most uninformed rumor mills: Despite chatter to the contrary, Mullens said he has not been contacted this year by any college or NFL team that wanted to talk to Kelly about a job.
Further -- as Ken Goe of The Oregonian pointed out when there were rumors in December 2010 that Florida might come after Kelly after Urban Meyer resigned -- Kelly's contract has clauses that will make it a pain in the rear for a team to pursue him.
And a clause in the contract stipulates that Kelly must give Oregon 15 days' written notice before leaving, and further stipulates that he cannot leave during the regular season or before a postseason bowl game in which Oregon is a participant.
The sum total of all this suggests that Kelly wants to remain in Eugene, and Oregon wants him to stick around. There are no guarantees, of course, but the feeling at the administrative level -- and among key boosters -- is that Kelly is the right guy at the nexus of an athletic department that has ambitious, expansionist visions for itself.
No FBS athletic program thrives without football success, and Kelly's presence provides a sense of security for Oregon's cash cow. And as of today, it appears the marriage remains strong.
A guy from my high school played for both Gerry Faust and Lou Holtz at Notre Dame, and the story he told of the transition always stuck with me.
Faust was a really, really nice guy. And his teams ranged from mediocre to bad. Holtz? He walked into his first meeting with his new players and immediately started yelling at them. Told them to sit up straight, take their hats off and put their feet on the floor.
Three years later the Fighting Irish won the national championship.
So how do you think Holtz would have handled the grand UCLA tradition of quitting practice?
If you've ever been part of a team that you cared about, one that you sacrificed for, this is an abomination. The very idea that this is sold as a tradition is an insult to an outstanding university. It's not unlike saying player arrests were a tradition for Florida during the Urban Meyer Era. Some Bruins fans -- the younger ones -- might conclude that losing to USC is also a tradition.
Just because something bad happens over and over again doesn't mean it's a "tradition." A more accurate term might be "addiction." Such as, Bruins, to mediocrity. Or indifference.
Scott Reid of the Orange County Register nails it here. As does Peter Yoon of ESPN LA. They are tough on the Bruins, but it's certainly not gratuitous. New coach Jim Mora should read both columns. They will prepare him for what he's up against. And he needs to think deeply about how he will change the culture of this football program.
You don't always need to scream and yell. The old-school stuff Holtz used doesn't connect with some young people today, and might be a tougher sell in Southern California where there's a bit more "question authority" hardwired into the culture.
Still, Mora can tell his team in calm, firm tones that things will be different going forward. He needs to set down a clear, short list of expectations. He needs to tell players that if they don't like the new expectations, he will be glad to sign their transfer papers. And then he needs to say that if they ever go "over the wall" again, he will run them into the ground the next day.
While he's at it, he also can tell them that if they ever take team business to Twitter -- any team business -- they will be suspended.
There are obvious things Mora must do to transform the Bruins back into a winning program. Recruiting better players being priority one.
But programs that win consistently are more than great players. Oregon would be the best example of a positive culture at present in the Pac-12, though I know it will annoy some to read that. Chip Kelly's "Win the day" mantra has suffused a team that has won three consecutive conference titles, and it's done so with numerous off-field distractions.
Based on what happened Tuesday, Mora inherits something that falls a bit short of what they do in Eugene.
Quit the day.
Faust was a really, really nice guy. And his teams ranged from mediocre to bad. Holtz? He walked into his first meeting with his new players and immediately started yelling at them. Told them to sit up straight, take their hats off and put their feet on the floor.
Three years later the Fighting Irish won the national championship.
So how do you think Holtz would have handled the grand UCLA tradition of quitting practice?
If you've ever been part of a team that you cared about, one that you sacrificed for, this is an abomination. The very idea that this is sold as a tradition is an insult to an outstanding university. It's not unlike saying player arrests were a tradition for Florida during the Urban Meyer Era. Some Bruins fans -- the younger ones -- might conclude that losing to USC is also a tradition.
Just because something bad happens over and over again doesn't mean it's a "tradition." A more accurate term might be "addiction." Such as, Bruins, to mediocrity. Or indifference.
Scott Reid of the Orange County Register nails it here. As does Peter Yoon of ESPN LA. They are tough on the Bruins, but it's certainly not gratuitous. New coach Jim Mora should read both columns. They will prepare him for what he's up against. And he needs to think deeply about how he will change the culture of this football program.
You don't always need to scream and yell. The old-school stuff Holtz used doesn't connect with some young people today, and might be a tougher sell in Southern California where there's a bit more "question authority" hardwired into the culture.
Still, Mora can tell his team in calm, firm tones that things will be different going forward. He needs to set down a clear, short list of expectations. He needs to tell players that if they don't like the new expectations, he will be glad to sign their transfer papers. And then he needs to say that if they ever go "over the wall" again, he will run them into the ground the next day.
While he's at it, he also can tell them that if they ever take team business to Twitter -- any team business -- they will be suspended.
There are obvious things Mora must do to transform the Bruins back into a winning program. Recruiting better players being priority one.
But programs that win consistently are more than great players. Oregon would be the best example of a positive culture at present in the Pac-12, though I know it will annoy some to read that. Chip Kelly's "Win the day" mantra has suffused a team that has won three consecutive conference titles, and it's done so with numerous off-field distractions.
Based on what happened Tuesday, Mora inherits something that falls a bit short of what they do in Eugene.
Quit the day.
ESPN.com senior national columnist Gene Wojciechowski asks a question many athletic directors -- and fans -- have been asking themselves over the past few weeks: What is a perfect coach?
Woj tries to come up with some ideas, and what he found is that many coaches have important elements of a perfect coach.
Here are five observations from the Pac-12:
All that said, Woj concludes: "The perfect coach … doesn't exist. And never will."
True. But the process of finding one has always fascinated me. If I had been an athletic director looking for a "perfect" coach, here's what I would have been asking, first and foremost.
What will his staff look like? This is the most underrated question of a coaching search. No head coach, no matter how good, does well with a mediocre or bad staff. And plenty of mediocre-to-bad head coaches do well with good staffs. It also says something important about a head coach if great assistants want to work for him. Smart assistants don't want to work for bad head coaches and they know through their networks who the good head coaches are. They want to go places where they sense success is coming in order to boost their own careers.
What's his recruiting aptitude? Not just in terms of recruiting rankings but in terms of backend -- read: NFL -- production? There are two stages to recruiting. One, can a coach bring in A-list recruiting talent? That's all those four- and five-star guys. It's nice to have a coach who can get lots of those. But there also this: How well does he evaluate? And how well does he develop talent? If a guy who regularly ranks 26-45 in the recruiting rankings rates 15-25 in terms of producing NFL draft picks, he's a better recruiter than the guy who regularly ranks in the top 10 in recruiting but falls short turning those guys into NFL players.
Is he organized? Just about every good head coach is organized. That sounds simple, eh? It's not. Some of the hot, young assistant coaches you always hear about are not organized. They are explosions of energy and charisma and can charm anyone, but they are not detail-oriented, linear thinkers. This is something I noticed about Kelly immediately at Oregon. He plans out his entire year. If you asked Kelly what he's doing on April 3, 2012, he can tell you.
How good are his social skills? There are plenty of good coaches who don't have good social skills. But it helps a lot to have them. It's a major benefit to have a coach who can talk to the media, to boosters and to administrators without building up ill will.
How does he react to failure? How does he react to success? Everyone loves the meteoric rise, but coaches who have been tested by adversity are more complete. And predictable. Further, there's something to be said for coaches of whom it can be said, "He's exactly the same guy," after a conference or national championship is won.
Does he fit here? Different schools have different cultures. Rich Rodriguez was not a good fit at Michigan. Jim Tressel would fail at USC. Kelly would be a much better fit at Florida than Auburn. I think the reason Chris Petersen keeps saying no to suitors is because he knows he's a great fit at Boise State and, so far, he hasn't felt he would be a good fit at places that pursued him.
What is his ultimate goal? This is a dangerous question because the goal is winning ASAP, not fretting about the long-term future. There are only 10 or so destination jobs in college football -- places where there really isn't a move up. If your school isn't one of them, you need to entertain potential reactions to best-case scenarios: What if this guy is gangbusters? Will he stay? Or does he bolt? There needs to be some forward thinking and a plan B. That involves lining up money to pay a guy who succeeds, as well as starting to visit the idea of who's next should he leave. That could specifically involve watching both coordinators very closely.
Woj tries to come up with some ideas, and what he found is that many coaches have important elements of a perfect coach.
Here are five observations from the Pac-12:
- The perfect coach is as good-natured as Oregon State's Mike Riley, who refuses to let the often cynical and harsh nature of his profession keep him from being -- and staying -- a genuinely nice guy.
- The perfect coach has a sense of place -- like David Shaw, who finished high school near Palo Alto, played for Stanford, earned his degree from Stanford, was an offensive coordinator at Stanford (his dad was a former defensive coordinator on The Farm) and just completed an 11-1 regular season in his first season as Stanford's head coach.
- The perfect coach is an innovator, such as Oregon's Chip Kelly, who won't be satisfied until the Ducks cause the play clock to explode.
- The perfect coach can turn around a program like Jeff Tedford did at Cal (a .246 winning percentage in the previous five seasons before his arrival; a .627 winning percentage since) and Bob Stoops did at OU (Before: .410 winning percentage; after: .803).
- The perfect coach learns from his mistakes, as USC's Lane Kiffin has.
All that said, Woj concludes: "The perfect coach … doesn't exist. And never will."
True. But the process of finding one has always fascinated me. If I had been an athletic director looking for a "perfect" coach, here's what I would have been asking, first and foremost.
What will his staff look like? This is the most underrated question of a coaching search. No head coach, no matter how good, does well with a mediocre or bad staff. And plenty of mediocre-to-bad head coaches do well with good staffs. It also says something important about a head coach if great assistants want to work for him. Smart assistants don't want to work for bad head coaches and they know through their networks who the good head coaches are. They want to go places where they sense success is coming in order to boost their own careers.
What's his recruiting aptitude? Not just in terms of recruiting rankings but in terms of backend -- read: NFL -- production? There are two stages to recruiting. One, can a coach bring in A-list recruiting talent? That's all those four- and five-star guys. It's nice to have a coach who can get lots of those. But there also this: How well does he evaluate? And how well does he develop talent? If a guy who regularly ranks 26-45 in the recruiting rankings rates 15-25 in terms of producing NFL draft picks, he's a better recruiter than the guy who regularly ranks in the top 10 in recruiting but falls short turning those guys into NFL players.
Is he organized? Just about every good head coach is organized. That sounds simple, eh? It's not. Some of the hot, young assistant coaches you always hear about are not organized. They are explosions of energy and charisma and can charm anyone, but they are not detail-oriented, linear thinkers. This is something I noticed about Kelly immediately at Oregon. He plans out his entire year. If you asked Kelly what he's doing on April 3, 2012, he can tell you.
How good are his social skills? There are plenty of good coaches who don't have good social skills. But it helps a lot to have them. It's a major benefit to have a coach who can talk to the media, to boosters and to administrators without building up ill will.
How does he react to failure? How does he react to success? Everyone loves the meteoric rise, but coaches who have been tested by adversity are more complete. And predictable. Further, there's something to be said for coaches of whom it can be said, "He's exactly the same guy," after a conference or national championship is won.
Does he fit here? Different schools have different cultures. Rich Rodriguez was not a good fit at Michigan. Jim Tressel would fail at USC. Kelly would be a much better fit at Florida than Auburn. I think the reason Chris Petersen keeps saying no to suitors is because he knows he's a great fit at Boise State and, so far, he hasn't felt he would be a good fit at places that pursued him.
What is his ultimate goal? This is a dangerous question because the goal is winning ASAP, not fretting about the long-term future. There are only 10 or so destination jobs in college football -- places where there really isn't a move up. If your school isn't one of them, you need to entertain potential reactions to best-case scenarios: What if this guy is gangbusters? Will he stay? Or does he bolt? There needs to be some forward thinking and a plan B. That involves lining up money to pay a guy who succeeds, as well as starting to visit the idea of who's next should he leave. That could specifically involve watching both coordinators very closely.
Arizona athletic director Greg Byrne said Tuesday he talked to a lot of people about the Wildcats' coaching vacancy, and the name that came up the most -- and, presumably, the best -- was Rich Rodriguez.
Byrne highlighted three people he chatted with during a news conference introducing Rodriguez: former Florida coach Urban Meyer, current Arizona basketball coach Sean Miller and Charlie Ragle, a high school coach in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Ragle, coach at state power Chaparral High, had two players sign at Michigan, offensive lineman Taylor Lewan and defensive end Craig Roh, when Rodriguez was the Wolverines' coach. Ragle later asked if he and his staff could come up and visit and see how the Wolverines did things.
"He said, 'I've never dealt with a major college coach that had devoted so much time and interest in our program,'" Byrne said of the conversation. "Coach Ragle told me that he'd never been more impressed in dealing with a coaching staff."
Byrne then talked to Meyer.
"He said, 'Greg, if you hire Rich Rodriguez, you're getting one of the five greatest minds in college football,'" Byrne said.
Then he talked to Miller on a flight to New York, where he would meet with Rodriguez for a second time.
"He said, 'Greg, I'd think about a couple of things. Who is the most hungry guy out there? And the second thing is who do the coaches in the Pac-12 not want to have show up in Tucson, Ariz.?'" Byrne said. "He said, 'My opinion is it's Rich Rodriguez.'"
Byrne also will get Rodriguez at a discount.
Rodriguez, 48, signed a six-year, $15 million contract with Michigan in 2007, an average of $2.5 million a year. His Arizona contract will pay him an average of $1.91 million over five years. He will make $1.45 million in his first year, $1.5 million in his second, $1.6 million his third, $1.7 million his fourth and $1.8 million his fifth. He also will receive $300,000 annually from Nike and IMG.
Rodriguez surely endeared himself to Arizona fans when he took to the podium and immediately started talking about Rose Bowls and national championships.
"Why not us?" he said. "Why can't we win it all?"
He also tried to allay fears that this was a stepping stone to getting back to a big-money program to prove his critics wrong.
"This is my final coaching stop," he said. "I hope to be able to do this another 12 or 15 years."
How much did he want Wildcats fans to embrace him? Apparently a lot.
Said Rodriguez, "I will not just coach Arizona football. I will live it."
That might sound like the hyperbole of a man desperate to ingratiate himself. And Rodriguez did sound like that at times. But he also knows he's no longer the hot coaching prospect he once was. There are questions about him. He's the rising star who fell.
He admitted that he has reverted back to his attitude from West Virginia, where he had his major success. He's got the chip back on his shoulder.
"I've got something to prove," he said.
Other notable points from Rodriguez.
And when he concluded, he said, "Bear down."
Byrne highlighted three people he chatted with during a news conference introducing Rodriguez: former Florida coach Urban Meyer, current Arizona basketball coach Sean Miller and Charlie Ragle, a high school coach in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Ragle, coach at state power Chaparral High, had two players sign at Michigan, offensive lineman Taylor Lewan and defensive end Craig Roh, when Rodriguez was the Wolverines' coach. Ragle later asked if he and his staff could come up and visit and see how the Wolverines did things.
"He said, 'I've never dealt with a major college coach that had devoted so much time and interest in our program,'" Byrne said of the conversation. "Coach Ragle told me that he'd never been more impressed in dealing with a coaching staff."
Byrne then talked to Meyer.
"He said, 'Greg, if you hire Rich Rodriguez, you're getting one of the five greatest minds in college football,'" Byrne said.
Then he talked to Miller on a flight to New York, where he would meet with Rodriguez for a second time.
"He said, 'Greg, I'd think about a couple of things. Who is the most hungry guy out there? And the second thing is who do the coaches in the Pac-12 not want to have show up in Tucson, Ariz.?'" Byrne said. "He said, 'My opinion is it's Rich Rodriguez.'"
Byrne also will get Rodriguez at a discount.
Rodriguez, 48, signed a six-year, $15 million contract with Michigan in 2007, an average of $2.5 million a year. His Arizona contract will pay him an average of $1.91 million over five years. He will make $1.45 million in his first year, $1.5 million in his second, $1.6 million his third, $1.7 million his fourth and $1.8 million his fifth. He also will receive $300,000 annually from Nike and IMG.
Rodriguez surely endeared himself to Arizona fans when he took to the podium and immediately started talking about Rose Bowls and national championships.
"Why not us?" he said. "Why can't we win it all?"
He also tried to allay fears that this was a stepping stone to getting back to a big-money program to prove his critics wrong.
"This is my final coaching stop," he said. "I hope to be able to do this another 12 or 15 years."
How much did he want Wildcats fans to embrace him? Apparently a lot.
Said Rodriguez, "I will not just coach Arizona football. I will live it."
That might sound like the hyperbole of a man desperate to ingratiate himself. And Rodriguez did sound like that at times. But he also knows he's no longer the hot coaching prospect he once was. There are questions about him. He's the rising star who fell.
He admitted that he has reverted back to his attitude from West Virginia, where he had his major success. He's got the chip back on his shoulder.
"I've got something to prove," he said.
Other notable points from Rodriguez.
- He said that Byrne asked him a lot of questions about the NCAA issues he had at Michigan. "There were issues," he said. "The issues were fixed, cleaned up. And I assure you -- I assured him -- that there would never be one again in the future."
- He said he'd hire some staff members quickly -- over the next two weeks -- but he wanted the entire staff filled out before Christmas. He said he wanted a mix of guys he's coached with and guys who know the West Coast.
- He said he would consider coaches on the present staff, but he also said he's not too worried about coaches who lack Pac-12 experience: "The best coaches can recruit anywhere."
- Rodriguez said he first met with Byrne in Michigan "a couple of weeks ago" and met with him two subsequent times, in New York -- the Wildcats were playing basketball there on Nov. 17 and 18 -- and El Paso, Texas, where Rodriguez was calling the UTEP-Tulsa game on Nov. 19.
- As for Michigan, Rodriguez was asked what he'd learned from the experience. He didn't really answer: "It's frustrating to watch them because they are doing so well. Those are all of my guys. But I'm proud of them because they are doing so well."
- He tipped his cap to former coach Mike Stoops: "Mike Stoops did some great things here. There are some good players here ... Mike Stoops is a good football coach."
- He tipped his cap to interim coach Tim Kish: "I think what he's done in a difficult situation has been absolutely remarkable."
- He said he spent last spring hanging out with friend and California coach Jeff Tedford: "He might be regretting that now."
- Expect the Arizona offense to look a lot like Oregon's offense: "We do like to play fast. I think the huddle is the biggest waste of time in football."
- He hit lots of talking points: the rivalry with Arizona State, the 'Zona Zoo, the Tucson community, how former players are welcome around the program and how much he and his family looked forward to warm weather.
And when he concluded, he said, "Bear down."
Football and men's basketball are the revenue-generating sports that keep athletic departments afloat. So which departments have enjoyed the most combined success in football and men's basketball since the 1998-99 school year, the first year of the BCS?
Here's one attempt to measure it.
Florida is No. 1 for obvious reasons: "Florida has two national football titles (2006 and '08) and two basketball crowns (2006 and '07) during the BCS era. No other school has won championships in both sports during that span."
Here are the Pac-12 teams in the standings.
5. USC
10. UCLA
11. Oregon
14. Arizona
20. Utah
23. Stanford
24. Washington
And for football only.
1. USC (tied with Ohio State)
14. Oregon
23. Utah
Here's one attempt to measure it.
Florida is No. 1 for obvious reasons: "Florida has two national football titles (2006 and '08) and two basketball crowns (2006 and '07) during the BCS era. No other school has won championships in both sports during that span."
Here are the Pac-12 teams in the standings.
5. USC
10. UCLA
11. Oregon
14. Arizona
20. Utah
23. Stanford
24. Washington
And for football only.
1. USC (tied with Ohio State)
14. Oregon
23. Utah
Arizona State has added a 19th player to its 2011 recruiting class: defensive end Davon Coleman of Fort Scott (Kan.) Community College.
Coleman, 6-foot-3, 250-pound native of Cleveland, will arrive this summer and have three years of eligibility.
Coleman, who redshirted in 2009, totaled 65 tackles, 8.5 tackles-for-loss, 2.5 sacks, two forced fumbles two pass breakups and one interception this season.
The ASU release said the Sun Devils beat out Florida, Nebraska and Ohio State for Coleman and included this quote from his coach at Fort Scott, Jeff Sims: "Davon is a freak athlete who is just as fast as he was strong. He can jam the tight end, rush the passer, he can cover...people don't realize what a coup this was for Arizona State (to sign Coleman)."
Coleman, 6-foot-3, 250-pound native of Cleveland, will arrive this summer and have three years of eligibility.
Coleman, who redshirted in 2009, totaled 65 tackles, 8.5 tackles-for-loss, 2.5 sacks, two forced fumbles two pass breakups and one interception this season.
The ASU release said the Sun Devils beat out Florida, Nebraska and Ohio State for Coleman and included this quote from his coach at Fort Scott, Jeff Sims: "Davon is a freak athlete who is just as fast as he was strong. He can jam the tight end, rush the passer, he can cover...people don't realize what a coup this was for Arizona State (to sign Coleman)."
Who gets and stops explosive passing?
February, 25, 2011
2/25/11
4:43
PM ET
By
Ted Miller | ESPN.com
Coaches love talking about explosion plays. You want to get a lot of them and give up very few.
We looked at offensive explosion plays -- plays of 20 or more yards -- on Tuesday and defenses that prevented explosion plays on Wednesday. Thursday we looked at explosion plays in terms of rushing offense and rushing defense. Today, we'll look at explosion plays in terms of passing numbers.
So here's how the Pac-12 stacked up in 2010 (again, thanks to ESPN Stats & Information). The number to the left is national rank. The number to the right is the total number of explosion plays in the passing game in 2010.
14. Stanford... 48
18. Arizona... 46
37. Oregon... 43
40. Arizona State... 42
40. Utah... 42
54. Oregon State... 38
61. Washington State... 37
65. USC... 36
80. Colorado... 32
91. Washington... 30
100. California... 28
120. UCLA... 11
No surprise Stanford is on top with quarterback Andrew Luck, but Arizona at No. 2 proves that Nick Foles isn't just a dink-and-dunk passer. Some might use this as further evidence that USC's Matt Barkley and Washington's Jake Locker were "overrated."
Oh my, UCLA. Very, very bad.
Some other thoughts.
But does piling up explosion plays in the passing game correlate to winning? Short answer: Yes. Here's the top 10 in 2010 with the team's record in parentheses to the right.
1. Hawaii... 80 (10-4)
2. Boise State... 63 (12-1)
3. Arkansas... 62 (10-3)
4. San Diego State... 60 (9-4)
5. Oklahoma... 59 (12-2)
5. Oklahoma State... 59 (11-2)
7. Tulsa... 57 (10-3)
8. Tennessee... 54 (6-7)
9. UAB... 53 (4-8)
10. North Carolina State... 52 (9-4)
That's two losing teams -- though Tennessee was a bowl team -- and eight with at least nine wins and five with 10 or more. Nice mix of AQ and non-AQ teams, too.
Now on to defense, starting with the Pac-12.
The number to the left is national rank. The number to the right is the total number of passing explosion plays yielded in 2010.
6. California... 25
16. Stanford... 29
23. Washington... 31
27. Arizona... 32
27. Colorado... 32
27. Arizona State... 32
41. Oregon...33
41. Washington State... 33
58. UCLA... 36
91. Oregon State... 41
96. Utah... 42
102. USC... 44
Well, USC gave up 30 TD passes, most in the conference by five, so the Trojans in the cellar shouldn't be a surprise. Utah is completely rebuilding its secondary heading into 2011 -- so does that many Utes fans feel better or worse about their standing here? A little surprised Washington did well in this measure. And this is another reason for Cal fans to feel good about defensive coordinator Clancy Pendergast.
Some other thoughts:
But does limiting passing explosion plays on defense correlate to winning? Short answer: Pretty much. Here's the top 10 in 2010 with the team's record in parentheses to the right.
1. Pittsburgh... 20 (8-5)
2. LSU.. 21 (11-2)
3. TCU... 22 (13-0)
4. Kent State... 23 (5-7)
5. West Virginia... 24 (9-4)
5. Texas... 24 (5-7)
6. Florida... 25 (8-5)
6. California... 25 (5-7)
6. Nebraska... 25 (10-4)
6. Temple... 25 (8-4)
6. Syracuse... 25 (8-5)
6. Boise State... 25 (13-1)
Only three of these 12 teams posted losing records, and they each went 5-7. That said, four won just eight games, so success in this stat doesn't correlate to elite status. Auburn gave up 44 explosion plays in the pass game and it went 14-0 and won the national championship. Virginia Tech gave up 45 and won the ACC.
Still, here's a guess that most defensive coordinators would rather rank at the top of this list than at the bottom.
We looked at offensive explosion plays -- plays of 20 or more yards -- on Tuesday and defenses that prevented explosion plays on Wednesday. Thursday we looked at explosion plays in terms of rushing offense and rushing defense. Today, we'll look at explosion plays in terms of passing numbers.
So here's how the Pac-12 stacked up in 2010 (again, thanks to ESPN Stats & Information). The number to the left is national rank. The number to the right is the total number of explosion plays in the passing game in 2010.
14. Stanford... 48
18. Arizona... 46
37. Oregon... 43
40. Arizona State... 42
40. Utah... 42
54. Oregon State... 38
61. Washington State... 37
65. USC... 36
80. Colorado... 32
91. Washington... 30
100. California... 28
120. UCLA... 11
No surprise Stanford is on top with quarterback Andrew Luck, but Arizona at No. 2 proves that Nick Foles isn't just a dink-and-dunk passer. Some might use this as further evidence that USC's Matt Barkley and Washington's Jake Locker were "overrated."
Oh my, UCLA. Very, very bad.
Some other thoughts.
- UCLA was dead last in the country, and only Army in 2008 -- six! -- produced fewer explosion plays in the passing game over the past three seasons.
- To put the awfulness of the Bruins' downfield passing game into perspective: Every conference team more than doubled the number of passing explosion plays the Bruins produced, and Colorado was one play short of having NINE teams at least triple the Bruins.
- And the blame shouldn't fall on Kevin Prince: In 2009, the Bruins produced 35 explosion plays in the passing game with him as the starter for much of the year.
- Keep in mind that Oregon got 43 passing plays of 20 or more yards with a first-year starter at quarterback. Even though the Ducks lose their top two receivers, don't be surprised if that number goes up in 2011 in Darron Thomas' junior season.
- Oh, and anyone remember Jeremiah Masoli? Last year, the Ducks ranked 67th with 36 explosion plays in the passing game.
- Downfield passing was a clear area of improvement for Foles in 2010. The year before, the Wildcats connected on just 31 passing plays of 20 or more yards.
- In 2009, California had 48 explosion plays in the passing game, which ranked 18th in the nation and No. 1 in the Pac-10. Discuss, Cal fans.
- In 2008, with Luck redshirting behind Tavita Pritchard, the Cardinal had only 18 explosion plays in the passing game, which ranked 113th in the nation. In Luck's first year as the starter, 2009, that number perked up to 47, which ranked 25th in the nation.
- Arkansas quarterback Ryan Mallett has his critics, but over the past two years the Razorbacks produced 123 explosion plays in the passing game. In 2008, they had 45.
- In 2008, Tulsa had 82 pass plays of 20 or more yards, most over the past three years. In its 14-game schedule, that means the Golden Hurricane averaged just under six such plays per game. Tulsa is also the only program to rank in the top 10 each of the past three years.
But does piling up explosion plays in the passing game correlate to winning? Short answer: Yes. Here's the top 10 in 2010 with the team's record in parentheses to the right.
1. Hawaii... 80 (10-4)
2. Boise State... 63 (12-1)
3. Arkansas... 62 (10-3)
4. San Diego State... 60 (9-4)
5. Oklahoma... 59 (12-2)
5. Oklahoma State... 59 (11-2)
7. Tulsa... 57 (10-3)
8. Tennessee... 54 (6-7)
9. UAB... 53 (4-8)
10. North Carolina State... 52 (9-4)
That's two losing teams -- though Tennessee was a bowl team -- and eight with at least nine wins and five with 10 or more. Nice mix of AQ and non-AQ teams, too.
Now on to defense, starting with the Pac-12.
The number to the left is national rank. The number to the right is the total number of passing explosion plays yielded in 2010.
6. California... 25
16. Stanford... 29
23. Washington... 31
27. Arizona... 32
27. Colorado... 32
27. Arizona State... 32
41. Oregon...33
41. Washington State... 33
58. UCLA... 36
91. Oregon State... 41
96. Utah... 42
102. USC... 44
Well, USC gave up 30 TD passes, most in the conference by five, so the Trojans in the cellar shouldn't be a surprise. Utah is completely rebuilding its secondary heading into 2011 -- so does that many Utes fans feel better or worse about their standing here? A little surprised Washington did well in this measure. And this is another reason for Cal fans to feel good about defensive coordinator Clancy Pendergast.
Some other thoughts:
- First of all, the difference between No. 23 and No. 41 is two plays, so there should be a little bit of skepticism about writing too much into these numbers.
- Obviously, the Trojans' young secondary didn't do well digesting Monte Kiffin's Tampa-2 scheme in Year 1.
- USC gave up 30 explosion passing plays in 2009 and just 14 in 2008, which is the lowest total over the past three years by six.
- Stanford's pass defense was a big question heading into 2010. Why? In 2009, it gave up 44 passing plays of 20 or more yards. So the improvement this past season was dramatic, and probably one of the big reasons the Cardinal defense took a huge step forward.
- Tip of the cap to Washington State: In 2009, it gave up 47 explosion plays in the passing game, which ranked 110th in the nation. So the improvement in 2010 was dramatic. Of course, the Cougars did give up 29 explosion plays in the running game, which ranked 117th in the nation.
- Utah gave up 28 explosion passing plays in 2009, so there was fairly significant regression in 2010.
- No team ranked in the top 10 three consecutive years, though TCU, Florida and Ohio State consistently ranked highly.
- In 2008, Nevada gave up 70 explosion plays in the passing game. That's 11 more than the second worst total over the past three years. That means Wolf Pack fans had to endure 5.4 big passing plays per game thrown against their defense. Still, Nevada did finish 7-6.
But does limiting passing explosion plays on defense correlate to winning? Short answer: Pretty much. Here's the top 10 in 2010 with the team's record in parentheses to the right.
1. Pittsburgh... 20 (8-5)
2. LSU.. 21 (11-2)
3. TCU... 22 (13-0)
4. Kent State... 23 (5-7)
5. West Virginia... 24 (9-4)
5. Texas... 24 (5-7)
6. Florida... 25 (8-5)
6. California... 25 (5-7)
6. Nebraska... 25 (10-4)
6. Temple... 25 (8-4)
6. Syracuse... 25 (8-5)
6. Boise State... 25 (13-1)
Only three of these 12 teams posted losing records, and they each went 5-7. That said, four won just eight games, so success in this stat doesn't correlate to elite status. Auburn gave up 44 explosion plays in the pass game and it went 14-0 and won the national championship. Virginia Tech gave up 45 and won the ACC.
Still, here's a guess that most defensive coordinators would rather rank at the top of this list than at the bottom.
Who gets and stops explosive rushing?
February, 24, 2011
2/24/11
4:00
PM ET
By
Ted Miller | ESPN.com
Coaches love talking about explosion plays. You want to get a lot of them and give up very few.
We looked at offensive explosion plays -- plays of 20 or more yards -- on Tuesday and defenses that prevented explosion plays on Wednesday. Today we look at explosion plays in terms of rushing offense and rushing defense. On Friday, we'll look at explosion plays in terms of passing numbers.
So here's how the Pac-12 stacked up in 2010 (again, thanks to ESPN Stats & Information). The number to the left in national rank. The number to the right is the total number of explosion plays in the running game in 2010.
4. Oregon... 39
25. Stanford... 21
29. Washington... 20
29. UCLA... 20
49. USC... 16
49. Utah... 16
66. Arizona... 14
66. Arizona State... 14
83. Oregon State... 12
91. California... 11
91. Colorado... 11
99. Washington State... 10
Not many surprises here, though Oregon State's and California's totals might seem low, considering the quality of their tailbacks: Jacquizz Rodgers and Shane Vereen.
Some other thoughts.
But do piling up explosion plays in the run game correlate to winning? Short answer: More often than not, though a lot has to do with scheme (Georgia Tech and Navy, for example, run triple-options and don't pass much). Here's the top 10 in 2010 with the team's record in parentheses to the right.
1. Georgia Tech... 45 (6-7)
2. Northern Illinois... 42 (11-3)
3. Auburn... 41 (14-0)
4. Oregon... 39 (12-1)
5. Nevada... 38 (13-1)
6. Nebraska... 36 (10-4)
7. North Texas... 32 (3-9)
8. Mississippi... 31 (4-8)
9. Baylor... 30 (7-6)
10. Tulsa... 28 (10-3)
10. Navy... 28 (9-4)
Three teams -- including No. 1 -- posted losing records. On the other hand, seven won nine or more games and six won 10 or more.
Now, on to defense, starting with the Pac-12.
The number to the left in national rank. The number to the right is the total number of rushing explosion plays yielded in 2010.
2. Arizona State... 6
13. Arizona... 9
13. Utah... 9
13. California... 9
37. Oregon State... 12
45. Stanford... 14
59. Oregon... 16
82. Colorado... 18
90. USC... 19
98. Washington... 22
103. UCLA... 23
117. Washington State... 29
Arizona is a bit surprising because the Wildcats struggled against the run this season, particularly over the second half of 2010. Stanford is a little low because it gave up four runs of 20-plus yards in its loss to Oregon.
Some other thoughts.
But do limiting rushing explosion plays on defense correlate to winning? Short answer: Not as much as you'd think, at least this past season. Here's the top 10 in 2010 with the team's record in parentheses to the right.
1. Iowa... 5 (8-5)
2. Arizona State... 6 (6-6)
2. Boston College... 6 (7-6)
4. Purdue... 7 (4-8)
4. Iowa State... 7 (5-7)
4. SMU... 7 (7-7)
4. Florida... 7 (8-5)
4. Ohio State... 7 (12-1)
9. Temple... 8 (8-4)
9. Michigan State... 8 (11-2)
9. Buffalo... 8 (2-10)
9. Wyoming... 8 (3-9)
That's six teams (out of 12) at .500 or below, including two teams who combined for 19 losses. Just two teams -- Ohio State and Michigan State -- won double-digit games. Oklahoma went 12-2 despite giving up 25 rushing explosion plays, which ranked 109th in the nation. Heck, Kansas State finished 7-6 despite giving up 31 such plays, worst in the nation.
That said: Seven of the 12 teams that gave up 25 or more explosion plays finished with losing records, and four won three or fewer games.
We looked at offensive explosion plays -- plays of 20 or more yards -- on Tuesday and defenses that prevented explosion plays on Wednesday. Today we look at explosion plays in terms of rushing offense and rushing defense. On Friday, we'll look at explosion plays in terms of passing numbers.
So here's how the Pac-12 stacked up in 2010 (again, thanks to ESPN Stats & Information). The number to the left in national rank. The number to the right is the total number of explosion plays in the running game in 2010.
4. Oregon... 39
25. Stanford... 21
29. Washington... 20
29. UCLA... 20
49. USC... 16
49. Utah... 16
66. Arizona... 14
66. Arizona State... 14
83. Oregon State... 12
91. California... 11
91. Colorado... 11
99. Washington State... 10
Not many surprises here, though Oregon State's and California's totals might seem low, considering the quality of their tailbacks: Jacquizz Rodgers and Shane Vereen.
Some other thoughts.
- Oregon ranked second in 2009 (39) and third in 2008 (37). The Ducks, Nevada and Georgia Tech each ranked in the top five the past three seasons.
- California ranked 18th in 2009 with 24 runs of 20 or more yards, and eighth in 2008 with 30, so its drop-off in 2010 was substantial.
- With Toby Gerhart, the 2009 Heisman Trophy runner-up, Stanford had 20 runs of 20 or more yards. Without him in 2010, it had 21. That said: In 2008, when the Cardinal went 5-7 and Tavita Pritchard was the starting QB, it produced 25 such runs, which ranked 12th in the country.
- In 2008, UCLA and Washington State tied for 109th in the nation with just six explosion runs. In 2009, Washington State had 10 and UCLA nine, thereby ranking 95th and 98th, respectively. While the Bruins new pistol offense didn't help the passing game, it certainly helped produce explosion plays in the running game, more than tripling the 2008 output and more than doubling what was produced in 2009.
- Buffalo ranked last in the nation with just two runs of over 20 yards, the worst total over the past three seasons. Nothing to do with the Pac-10, but that's really, really pathetic.
But do piling up explosion plays in the run game correlate to winning? Short answer: More often than not, though a lot has to do with scheme (Georgia Tech and Navy, for example, run triple-options and don't pass much). Here's the top 10 in 2010 with the team's record in parentheses to the right.
1. Georgia Tech... 45 (6-7)
2. Northern Illinois... 42 (11-3)
3. Auburn... 41 (14-0)
4. Oregon... 39 (12-1)
5. Nevada... 38 (13-1)
6. Nebraska... 36 (10-4)
7. North Texas... 32 (3-9)
8. Mississippi... 31 (4-8)
9. Baylor... 30 (7-6)
10. Tulsa... 28 (10-3)
10. Navy... 28 (9-4)
Three teams -- including No. 1 -- posted losing records. On the other hand, seven won nine or more games and six won 10 or more.
Now, on to defense, starting with the Pac-12.
The number to the left in national rank. The number to the right is the total number of rushing explosion plays yielded in 2010.
2. Arizona State... 6
13. Arizona... 9
13. Utah... 9
13. California... 9
37. Oregon State... 12
45. Stanford... 14
59. Oregon... 16
82. Colorado... 18
90. USC... 19
98. Washington... 22
103. UCLA... 23
117. Washington State... 29
Arizona is a bit surprising because the Wildcats struggled against the run this season, particularly over the second half of 2010. Stanford is a little low because it gave up four runs of 20-plus yards in its loss to Oregon.
Some other thoughts.
- Oregon State's number isn't bad, but in 2009 it was tied for fourth in the nation -- and No. 1 in the Pac-10 -- after yielding just six explosion rushing plays.
- Oregon had better defensive numbers this season than in the previous two, but the Ducks gave up only nine explosion rushing plays in 2008 and 2009.
- This is clearly an area where Washington struggles. In 2009, it gave up 21 explosion rushing plays (102nd in nation) and 22 in 2008 (102nd in nation).
- Washington State yielded 22 rushing explosion plays in 2009 (106th in nation) and 34 in 2008 (worst in the nation) Cougars: You need to get better here.
- In 2008, Tennessee gave up just one run of 20 or more yards. No other team over the past three seasons has yielded fewer than three. In 2009, under new defensive coordinator Monte Kiffin, it gave up 21, which ranked 102nd in the nation. This past season, while Kiffin was in his first season at USC, the Vols yielded 16, which ranked 59th, tied with USC. In 2009, the year before Kiffin arrived at USC, the Trojans yielded 13, which ranked 42nd. Just saying.
- While a number of teams are consistently good in this area -- Ohio State, Florida and South Florida, to name a few -- only Iowa ranked in the top 10 the past three seasons.
But do limiting rushing explosion plays on defense correlate to winning? Short answer: Not as much as you'd think, at least this past season. Here's the top 10 in 2010 with the team's record in parentheses to the right.
1. Iowa... 5 (8-5)
2. Arizona State... 6 (6-6)
2. Boston College... 6 (7-6)
4. Purdue... 7 (4-8)
4. Iowa State... 7 (5-7)
4. SMU... 7 (7-7)
4. Florida... 7 (8-5)
4. Ohio State... 7 (12-1)
9. Temple... 8 (8-4)
9. Michigan State... 8 (11-2)
9. Buffalo... 8 (2-10)
9. Wyoming... 8 (3-9)
That's six teams (out of 12) at .500 or below, including two teams who combined for 19 losses. Just two teams -- Ohio State and Michigan State -- won double-digit games. Oklahoma went 12-2 despite giving up 25 rushing explosion plays, which ranked 109th in the nation. Heck, Kansas State finished 7-6 despite giving up 31 such plays, worst in the nation.
That said: Seven of the 12 teams that gave up 25 or more explosion plays finished with losing records, and four won three or fewer games.
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
