ESPN College Football

The Heisman Pundit has released its official 2012 Heisman Trophy Watch List, and as you’d expect, it’s the usual suspects from the Pac-12 on the list.

Though in alphabetical order, it’s widely assumed that USC quarterback Matt Barkley is the front-runner with all others playing catch-up before the first snap has been taken. Here’s the list.

• Tavon Austin, Sr., AP, West Virginia
• Montee Ball, Sr., RB, Wisconsin
• Matt Barkley, Sr., QB, USC
• Tajh Boyd, Jr., QB, Clemson
• Tyler Bray, Jr., QB, Tennessee
• Knile Davis, Jr., RB, Arkansas
• James Franklin, Jr., QB, Missouri
• Landry Jones, Sr., QB, Oklahoma
• Collin Klein, Sr., QB, Kansas State
• Marcus Lattimore, Jr., RB, South Carolina
• Aaron Murray, Jr., QB, Georgia
• Keith Price, Jr., QB, Washington
• Denard Robinson, Sr., QB, Michigan
• Geno Smith, Sr., QB, West Virginia
• De’Anthony Thomas, So., RB, Oregon
• Sammy Watkins, So, WR, Clemson
• Tyler Wilson, Sr., QB, Arkansas
• Cierre Wood, Sr., RB, Notre Dame

The Pac-12 blog entertained which player from the conference we thought would emerge as the Heisman winner in a Take 2 back in March. Watch lists are always subject to change, and until we actually see some games, it’s only fun speculation at this point.

No question that Barkley is the early leader in the minds of many. Given his statistics last season, the receivers he has around him and the lofty preseason ranking the Trojans are expected to enjoy, he’s looking down on the pack – at least for now.

Thomas is going to have big play after big play this season, which makes him a very strong Heisman candidate. His exploits can be packaged into an explosive highlight reel that is easily digestible for East Coast voters. No one ever gets tired of seeing 85-yard touchdown runs (unless you're safeties chasing Thomas).

Price lacks the national brand at this point, but that could all change in Week 2 in Baton Rouge. A strong showing against LSU is certain to boost his exposure and could catapult him from dark horse contender to major candidate. And then he's got Stanford, Oregon and USC all in the first six games. He could be the leader at the turn ... or slip out of the running all together.

Too early for bowl projections? Maybe? Probably? Nah.

Jerry Palm of CBSSports.com doesn't think so and he's released his bowl projections for all 35 games next season.

Of the 12 teams in the conference, he has eight of them heading to the postseason -- most notably -- USC playing in the national championship game against LSU. And according to Palm, Oregon also makes another appearance in the Rose Bowl.

The four teams on the outside looking in are Colorado, UCLA, Washington State and Oregon State.

Here's a look at the bowl games he's projecting that include Pac-12 teams:

• BCS National Championship game (Jan. 7 in Miami): USC vs. LSU
• Rose Bowl (Jan. 2 in Pasadena, Calif.): Oregon vs. Michigan
• Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl: Arizona State vs. Navy
• Sun Bowl: Washington vs. North Carolina State
• Alamo Bowl: Utah vs. Kansas State
• Holiday Bowl: Stanford vs. Baylor (would have loved to see that matchup in 2011)
• Maaco Bowl: Cal vs. Boise State
• New Mexico Bowl: Arizona vs. Air Force

Happy Friday.

Follow me on Twitter. But only if awesomeness doesn't frighten you.

To the notes.

Shad from Eugene, Ore., writes: I'm a Duck fan. I loved watching Peter Sirmon and Justin Wilcox play here and I think they've both turned into great coaches. Now they work for dogs though, what should I do?! I'm having a hard time hating them as much as I ought to, even though their talents will make an already very scary Husky team that much better. What is the appropriate etiquette when a respected former player starts coaching for hated rivals?

Ted Miller: I had two reactions when the hiring became official. 1. Great hires by Huskies coach Steve Sarkisian; 2. Wow. Both are Ducks. And I'm guessing lots of serious Pac-12 fans -- not just Oregon and Washington fans -- thought the same thing.

You've got to admit it's amusing. Wilcox's brother, Josh, was at the Rose Bowl working for Comcast SportsNet -- some of you might recall him catching 11 passes for 135 yards and a TD in the Ducks’ 38-20 loss to Penn State in the 1995 Rose Bowl -- and he was able to laugh when I asked him if he would feel conflicted or start wearing purple. My guess is Wilcox will continue to love his brother, only without wearing purple. And he'll hope the Ducks beat the Huskies 3-0 every year.

But once we get past the amusement -- and there will be plenty of moments, at least this first year, when Wilcox and Sirmon quietly will crack wise with each other about being inside Husky Stadium with the home team -- it gets down to this: This is a business. It's a high-stakes game of winning and losing, and that sort of pressure quickly wears away emotional biases for jersey colors.

If the Huskies defense improves under Wilcox -- and there is every reason to believe it will -- Wilcox probably won't last more than two or three years before getting significant looks for head coaching jobs. Wilcox is a West Coast guy, so a move back to the West suggests that's where he wants to end up. Joining the Huskies was a business decision, and both parties benefit only if Wilcox does well.

Same for Sirmon. He's an up-and-comer. His next step is running a defense. If the Huskies defense improves, and the LB play is notably good, Sirmon will raise eyebrows as a potential coordinator, the next step for him up the coaching staircase. And if, say, Oregon State offered up a defense, he'd jump at the chance, even if that meant standing on the opposite sideline during the Civil War.

My take for Oregon fans: Wilcox and Sirmon are great Ducks and always will be, but that doesn't mean you should dislike Washington any less. Or want the Ducks offense to take it easy on the Huskies defense. When Wilcox and Sirmon don the purple shirts, they become Huskies. And that means they are only slightly more likable than Mephistopheles.

And, likewise for Washington fans: Once in purple, Wilcox and Sirmon are your guys -- yes, Huskies -- particularly if the defense starts forcing three-and-outs.

Still, I dug this up from The Oregonian in 2009. It's an article about the Huskies-Ducks rivalry. It made me smile.

First-year [Oregon] graduate assistant Peter Sirmon said he had "a little passion for Washington" while growing up in Walla Walla, Wash. But that quickly went away as soon as he suited up against them as a standout Ducks linebacker from 1996-99.

"Once you've played in the Oregon-Washington game, you realize that no other game shares the same intensity," Sirmon said. "When you're at Husky Stadium or you see those purple jerseys running out of the Autzen tunnels, you can tell that it's not just a regular game."

Sirmon kept that rivalry going when he played for the NFL's Tennessee Titans, making friendly bets with Tennessee teammate Benji Olson. The former Washington offensive lineman will be honored at the game Saturday and Sirmon looks forward to exchanging more friendly rivalry talk with his friend.

"For years and years and years, they dominated the Northwest," Sirmon said. "In fact, they dominated the West Coast. It was a big step for this Oregon program when we started beating them consistently."

Now Wilcox's and Sirmon's job is to reverse that trend, an embarrassing one for Washington. You should expect them to pour every ounce of passion into it, wanting to beat Oregon perhaps even worse than any other team because losing to family is almost as bad as losing to an enemy.

---

Sean from Portland writes: What's your sense as to how much people are looking forward to this Championship game? To me it seems like people aren't caring nearly as much as they have in years past. this could easily be because I am living in Pac-12 country, but I'd like to hear your take on this.

Ted Miller: I've noticed some SEC/rematch exhaustion in the comments section. Some have said they won't watch the game.

I think that's crazy talk, though, of course, I respect everyone's right to talk crazy.

If LSU beats Alabama, it will have posted perhaps the most distinguished season in college football history. It will have beaten nine teams -- counting the Crimson Tide twice -- that were ranked when the Tigers played them. It will have beaten six teams ranked in the final BCS standings, including three in the top six. It will have beaten two BCS bowl game winners (Oregon and West Virginia).

And it will have done so without great play at quarterback, which I find very NFL-ish.

Will the game be as much fun as the Rose Bowl or Fiesta Bowl? Maybe not. As much as everyone touted the great defense in the first game, it was as much about terrible -- and terribly cautious -- offensive play.

Still, these are two epically good defenses. Count on me watching. And I'm guessing more than a few folks who claim they are boycotting the game will, too.

---

Jake from Boise, Idaho writes: You question the non-conference schedule for the Ducks next year but as you may recall, Oregon had a home-and-home series scheduled with Kansas State that was cancelled by the Wildcats. Also consider that last year, Oregon got hammered in the polls for shooting itself in the foot in a virtual road game against LSU. It's a subject you've mentioned at times in the past year: is it really worth playing a difficult non-conference schedule when the risk-reward can be so high?

Ted Miller: It is true that Kansas State backed out of a home-and-home series with the Ducks, and New Mexico backed out of a repeat game this year in order to get a bigger -- and less humiliating -- payday at Texas.

And your point about the overreaction in the polls to the LSU loss is valid, though it's notable that the Ducks moved back up fairly quickly with wins as well as a realization that LSU was really, really good.

I love tough nonconference games. I see them as true measuring sticks for the national pecking order. It certainly helped LSU gain respect on the West Coast. I'd hate for Cowardly Lion scheduling practices to take over in the Pac-12. The alliance with the Big Ten will make that difficult.

If Oregon had won that game, however, and ended up 12-1 after losing to USC, my guess is the Ducks would have finished No. 1 or No. 2 in the BCS standings -- with all other games across the nation remaining the same -- and played for the national title. So there was a potentially high reward.

Yes, there also was a high risk. But Oregon's season turned out OK, right?

And let's remember: This is supposed to be about competition. Avoiding it is lame, even if some schools artificially elevate their standing by doing just that.

---

Matt from Chicago writes: Watching OSU's offense dismantle Stanford's D made me wonder how things might have been different had Shayne Skov been healthy. Dude was a beast the few times I saw him play in 2010. Any insight as to his progress, and whether he'll back in a Cardinal uni next season? This Trojan wouldn't mind seeing him in the NFL!

Ted Miller: Not sure Oklahoma State "dismantled" Stanford's defense. The Cowboys rushed for 13 yards, so it certainly wasn't a linebacker issue.

As for Skov, he's a beast, but this was a serious knee injury, requiring two separate surgical procedures to repair his ACL and MCL. He won't be available for spring practices, but the prognosis is good for a full recovery by preseason camp.

And my guess is he's got a nice future playing on Sundays.

---

Every VT Fan and any self respecting Michigan Fan from Blacksburg, Va., writes: How was Danny Coale's catch not a catch? I asked you about Coale's catch because the officials were from the pac-12.

Ted Miller: This note refers to the officials' decision to overturn a diving TD catch by Virginia Tech's Danny Coale in overtime of the Sugar Bowl against Michigan. The official explanation was Coale briefly -- really, really briefly -- lost possession of the ball as he hit the ground, negating the touchdown.

My feeling -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- is that Virginia Tech fans, with all due respect, disagree with the call? That's it, right? I'm on the right track, right?

I thought it was a catch, but this picture does give you pause. Just a little. I still think it was a catch. But I'm just a lowly Pac-12 blogger.

And, as our your Pac-12 fans will tell you, we are shocked -- SHOCKED! -- that Pac-12 officiating left you wanting.

Please, tell our visitors from Virginia Tech how much you like Pac-12 officiating.

Your team wins a lot. Your team spends a lot. But which team, Forbes asks, is the "Best College Football Teams for the Money"?

So it put together a top-10 list that ranks teams that spent the least per win this season. Its final tally includes two Pac-12 teams: Stanford at No. 4 and Utah at No. 9.

The methodology:

We used the teams' total expenses in 2010, as reported to the Department of Education, to calculate their spending per game won this year. Average spending for the top ten teams was $1.5 million per game, even though total seasonal spending for teams on our list ranged from $9 million (Wake Forest) to $21 million (LSU). Every team on our list had a winning record in 2011 except for Wake Forest, which went 6-6 but was one of only two schools from an AQ conference to limit football expenses to under $10 million.

Here's the information on Stanford and Utah.

Stanford: Cost Per Win: $1,444,370
Football Expenses: $16 million
Conference: Pac-12
2011 Record: 11-1

Utah: Cost Per Win: $1,632,326
Football Expenses: $11 million
Conference: Pac-12
2011 Record: 7-5

And Kansas State was No. 1.

Kansas State: Cost Per Win: $1,086,705
Football Expenses: $11 million
Conference: Big 12
2011 Record: 10-2

Stanford's number is particularly impressive because Palo Alto is one of the pricest areas of the country. Certainly more expensive than Manhattan, Kan., proud home of Kansas State.

Stanford's Fiesta Bowl opponent, Oklahoma State, by the way, was No. 3.

But a bowl victory over the Cowboys would change that pecking order!

To remind us that the expansion game -- it is such a fun game, isn't it -- is all about surprises, the ACC decided to be the conference that crossed the Rubicon as we head toward a superconference future.

Syracuse and Pittsburgh are bolting the Big East for the ACC. It's a done deal, unlike the just-about-done deal for Texas A&M to the SEC, which is only being held up by Texas folks who hate free markets and love frivolous lawsuits when their self-interests are involved.

So, at this moment, the ACC is at 14 and the SEC is just about 13. That means the days of 12 are numbered, not unlike the precarious existence of the Big 12 and Big East.

Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott has repeated the same series of phrases -- politely and with an admirable energy that almost makes his message seem fresh -- over and over. He likes the Pac-12. He's perfectly happy staying at 12. Heck, the Pac-12 is the world's richest college sports conference! But the conference won't be left behind. If others start the superconference trend, the Pac-12 will then play its strong hand and add teams.

And so we have Texas' and Oklahoma's boards of regents meeting Monday. Here's a guess that the subject of expansion is going to come up, though the regents won't specifically vote to jump conferences or not, but only to tell their president to do what he thinks is best for the institution.

First, no one knows the endgame. Did you read anything about imminent moves to the ACC from Syracuse and Pittsburgh before this weekend?

But the general feeling is Oklahoma is tired of Big 12 instability and wants to join the Pac-12 and that Oklahoma State would follow. So that's 14, which for a variety of reasons isn't a good number for a conference (which is why we should assume the ACC and SEC aren't done).

What about Texas? The smart move for Texas, as it was when it was first approached by Scott during the previous round of expansion madness, is to join the Pac-Whatever.

I do not know how the parties compromise on the Longhorn Network. I only know smart people know how to reach compromises in business deals that enrich themselves.

And if Texas wants to go its own way, then Scott will look elsewhere, perhaps Kansas and Kansas State.

Or is the ACC about to pull the big whammy and get Texas and Kansas, too (and allow Texas to keep the LHN)?

Or does the Big 12 stage a miraculous 11th-hour rally and save itself?

As Scott told me at the USC-Utah game, no one knows the endgame, even him. There's too much "need-to-know-basis" information out there, with insiders owning disparate bits and pieces they can't put together any better than reporters, as well as plenty of misinformation and gamesmanship.

But it feels like each week the plot thickens. Which typically means in a thriller that we're getting closer to a dramatic climax.

Or an unsatisfying one.

Ohio State just suffered through the worst Memorial Day in program history. You can read about the details here -- coach Jim Tressel resigning and further grounds for major NCAA sanctions -- but that's not our focus on the Pac-12 blog.

Our focus, of course, is what it means for the Pac-12. And that is two things.

First, briefly, it's a good bet the conference champion will not be facing Ohio State in the Rose Bowl. The loss of Tressel and a handful of player suspensions almost certainly will be too much to overcome to win the Big Ten.

Second, Colorado's visit to Columbus on Sept. 24, which once looked like a get-paid-for-a-pounding matchup, now looks winnable.

The Buckeyes, who will be led by interim coach Luke Fickell, at the very least will not have quarterback Terrelle Pryor, leading rusher Daniel "Boom" Herron, No. 2 wide receiver DeVier Posey, All-Big Ten offensive tackle Mike Adams and backup defensive end Solomon Thomas

The Buckeyes already were replacing several key players on defense: end Cameron Heyward, linebackers Ross Homan and Brian Rolle and cornerback Chimdi Chekwa. Still, the general feeling was the depth was there to keep winning.

But the plot might thicken, according to a Sports Illustrated report that alleges at least 28 players traded memorabilia or autographs for money and tattoos since 2002. Nine are on the current roster, including two returning starters on the defensive line, tackle John Simon and end Nathan Williams, as well as other players in the mix on the depth chart.

If these players are found to also have violated rules against receiving extra benefits, it's likely they, too, won't play against Colorado. Ohio State probably won't wait for the NCAA to hand out suspensions. It will try to be proactive, falling on its sword with hopes that will soften the eventual penalties.

There's depth, and then there's playing what amounts to a second unit against the Buffaloes, who welcome back 14 starters from a team that went 5-7 and was good enough to beat Georgia and Kansas State.

Colorado's first five games go like this: Hawaii, California, Colorado State, Ohio State and Washington State.

We are not ready to term this a prediction, Buffaloes fans, but it no longer is completely absurd to dream of heading to Stanford on Oct. 8 with a 5-0 record.

Every team has hope heading into the offseason. And every team has concerns.

Ergo, we're going to run through the conference and look at the chief matters -- on the up and downside -- for each Pac-12 team.

Next up:

Colorado

Biggest reason for hope: Plenty of guys back from a team that just missed bowl eligibility.

Why exactly are so many folks so sure that the Buffaloes are going to get pushed around in the Pac-12 next year? Sure, they got pummelled at California, 52-7, but use schizophrenic California as a measuring stick at your own risk. Colorado also beat some good teams -- Hawaii, Georgia and Kansas State -- and finished one win short of bowl eligibility. Two losses were by a total of nine points, and, of course, there was that epic collapse against Kansas. So things could have been different in 2010, a season that cost Dan Hawkins his job. The Buffaloes have 14 starters back in 2011, including a veteran QB (Tyler Hansen) and a 1,000-yard rusher (Rodney Stewart). They also have an impressive young receiver (Paul Richardson), an NFL prospect on an experienced offensive line (guard Ryan Miller) and a key starter returning from injury (linebacker Jon Major). Further, they figure to be highly motivated for three reasons: 1. They will seethe over a lack of respect; 2. They will be energized by new coach Jon Embree; 3. They will be fired up for playing in the new Pac-12.

Biggest reason for concern: The secondary looks shaky.

Colorado started two cornerbacks last fall, Jimmy Smith and Jalil Brown, who were NFL draft picks, yet they somehow were terrible against the pass. They ranked 112th in the nation in pass-efficiency defense, with opponents throwing 27 TD passes, which would have ranked ninth in the Pac-10 in 2010. Even more stunning: Opponents completed 68 percent of their passes against Colorado. That would have ranked last in the conference. Injuries were an issue, but that doesn't obscure the fact that Smith and Brown are now gone and it's unclear who will replace them. Two players listed No. 1 on the post-spring depth chart, cornerback Parker Orms -- a safety last year before blowing out his knee -- and strong safety Anthony Perkins, missed spring with knee injuries. Toss in the quality of quarterbacks in the Pac-12, and questions in the secondary are grounds for concern.

Seems like every year a conference team is a surprise contender.

Few saw Stanford coming in 2010, at least not like it did: A 12-1 record with a top-five finish. And Oregon State didn't look like a Rose Bowl contender in 2009 when it started 2-2.

It's almost certain one Pac-12 team will be picked much worse than it finishes. But who?

Will it be one of the new teams: Utah or Colorado? While Utah has won 33 games over the past three seasons, it has some apparent holes, most notably its secondary. The general feeling is the higher level of the competition in the conference will run the Utes down.

Few have high expectations for Colorado, but the Buffaloes have 14 players back from a team that went 5-7 and beat quality teams such as Georgia, Hawaii and Kansas State.

Or what about one of the teams likely to be picked at or near the bottom: UCLA or Washington State? Might the Bruins or Cougars not only climb out of the cellar but climb toward the top of their respective divisions? UCLA has a solid defense, while WSU has a passing attack that will scare most teams.

Another possibility: California. The Bears have been hard to predict in recent years, but Jeff Tedford has collected some intriguing talent over the past couple of recruiting seasons. If Cal gets solid play at quarterback, it could end up a contender.

So what do you think?

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.

• 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.

Colorado is new to the Pac-12 but old to the Big 12, so it makes sense to check in with Big 12 blogger David Ubben to get his take on the state of the Buffaloes as they welcome new coach Jon Embree.

Just who are these Buffaloes? What are their strengths and weaknesses and how will they fit into the Pac-12, specifically the Pac-12 South?

We went looking for insights and Ubben obliged.

Ted Miller: Well, David you -- and the Big 12 -- have to say goodbye to Colorado, with the Buffaloes looking to their future out West in the Pac-12. First of all, give Pac-12 fans a CliffsNotes description of the state of the program. Things haven’t gone so well in Boulder lately. Why?

David Ubben: Colorado is certainly in rebuilding mode as they kick off a new start under coach Jon Embree after firing Dan Hawkins in the middle of the 2010 season. They bring back two stars in quarterback Tyler Hansen and running back Rodney Stewart. But fitting those guys into Embree's new system and greatly improving from their 5-7 record seems like asking a lot.

Hawkins came to Boulder promising big things but never delivered. As for why it didn't go well? Any number of reasons. One that angered fans is Hawkins' tendency to play less talented players who knew the system well over more talented players that maybe didn't have as solid of a grasp of what they wanted to do on the field. Embree has said he'll do essentially the opposite, so I guess that's a start in the eyes of fans.

TM: OK, let’s look forward then. Tell Pac-12 folks about Embree, his new staff and the talent the Buffaloes have returning. What are strengths and what are question marks heading into the 2011 season?

DU: He's stocked his coaching staff with quite a few Buffaloes, but most of the names would be more recognizable as players. The biggest name is his offensive coordinator, former Buffs great Eric Bieniemy, who spent the past few years coaching Adrian Peterson as the running backs coach at the Minnesota Vikings. They also swiped Bobby Kennedy, a Boulder native, from Texas to coach receivers.

Last year, they ran the ball pretty well, and Stewart is back. He's a small, shifty back that seems way, way underrated. He rushed for more than 1,300 yards last year, and the only Big 12 backs who had more were Daniel Thomas and Kendall Hunter, who should be drafted this year. They lose tackle Nate Solder, another first-round pick, but Ryan Miller is back, and he's an all-conference level guard.

The big question for them next season will be if their defense can stop the pass -- which my sources tell me, is pretty important in the Pac-12. Maybe not as important as in the Big 12, but still necessary for big success. Both corners from last year, Jalil Brown and Jimmy Smith, should be drafted. They weren't great at stopping the pass last year (9th in the Big 12) so it's hard to see them being better at it next year.

TM: OK. Good stuff. Let’s wind it up. How would you have projected them in the Big 12 next fall? And do you have any feeling for how they might do in the new Pac-12 South?

DU: They definitely looked like a team in the bottom third of the Big 12 next year, and it seems like it'll be tough for them to finish in the top half of the Pac-12 South in 2011.

Right now, it's just about being competitive and maybe stealing a game or two that people didn't think they'd win. If that happens enough, a bowl game isn't out of the question. We don't have any idea what to expect out of an Embree-coached team, and that could be a good or a bad thing. We won't know for sure until next year, but if Embree can bottle up whatever Colorado had inside of them the way they played down the stretch last season after Hawkins was fired, it could be a real surprise 2011 for the Buffs.

Every preseason we take a look at potential best-case and worst-case scenarios for every Pac-10 team. While these are often tongue-in-cheek, they nonetheless represent the top and bottom we see for each team.

So it might be worthwhile to revisit each.

Next up is UCLA, which finished 4-8.

Best case: 9-4 with a final No. 14 ranking after Holiday Bowl win against Missouri.

What was right: Not much, even the games we predicted the Bruins losing. Wins against Houston and Washington State were correct. Losses to California and Oregon were correct. That's about it.

What was wrong: Just about everything. Wrong on wins against Kansas State, Stanford, Arizona, Washington, Arizona State and USC. Wrong on losses to Texas and Oregon State. Wrong about the bowl game. Wrong about USC being unbeaten heading into UCLA game. Wrong about recruiting success after the season. Still unsure of the fate of USC's appeal to the NCAA.

Worst case: 4-8.

What was right: Nailed the final record, but the game picks weren't right on. Correct on losses to Stanford, Cal, Oregon, Arizona and USC. Correct on wins against Houston and Washington State. The offense was rotten and quarterback issues were at the center of that. The quote -- "The offensive struggles aren't Kevin [Prince's] fault," [coach Rick] Neuheisel says. "But we need something to change. We want to see what Richard can do" -- seems like something that might have actually been said by Neuheisel.

What was wrong: The Bruins lost at Kansas State and beat Texas, a twist that few saw coming. Their second Pac-10 victory -- other than Washington State -- was Oregon State, not Arizona State. There was little glorious about USC's season. There's no mention of bad things that happened since the end of the regular season: coaching turmoil -- both coordinators were dispatched -- and a disappointing recruiting class.

Conclusions: Obviously, the worst case here is nearly spot-on in terms of general feel, though the details are not. While USC didn't have a great season on the field, it did surge into the top-five in recruiting while the Bruins struggled. If the NCAA gives the Trojans anything back when it rules on the USC appeal, then the worst case will be even more accurate.

Arizona kicks off the Pac-10 bowl season on Wednesday with a big test against Oklahoma State in the Valero Alamo Bowl.

The Wildcats are underdogs against a Cowboys team that was hoping for a BCS bowl berth until it lost its season finale against rival Oklahoma 47-41. The Cowboys own one of the most potent offenses in the nation. They have really only been slowed down once this year: during a visit to Kansas State when the Cowboys played was without the services of Justin Blackmon, who is only the nation's best receiver.

But let's ask this question: Who might dramatically change this game if he -- or they -- stepped up with a marquee performance?

Running backs Keola Antolin, Nic Grigsby and Greg Nwoko: This is fairly simple. What if Arizona can consistently run the ball against the Cowboys? Well, that would be a game-changer for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that it would shorten the game and help play keep-away from the potent Oklahoma State offense. Further, if the Cowboys are forced to commit more bodies to stopping the run, it also would open things up downfield for quarterback Nick Foles. The reason three guys are listed here is all three will get carries, and each brings something different to the attack. Antolin is the starter and the most consistent. Nwoko brings a power element. Grigsby is a home run threat who's struggled with injuries. Of course, these guys need the Wildcats to win battles on the line of scrimmage, but it's up to the backs to turn those creases into big plays. If this troika manages to combine for around 180 or 200 yards -- significantly more than the season average of of 135 -- then expect Arizona to be in pretty darn good shape.

In 2009, coach Rick Neuheisel's second season, UCLA won a bowl game and finished 7-6. That represented clear improvement from the Bruins' 4-8 finish the season before.

So that was progress.

But UCLA faceplanted in 2010, returning to its 4-8 record of two years before. Neuheisel entered the season talking about a wide-open Pac-10 and bowl hopes. At the end of the season, more than a few fans were grumbling about regression and wondering if Neuheisel was the right guy for the job.

ESPN.com is taking a look today at teams that didn't earn bowl berths in 2010, breaking down how the hopes of August were dashed by December.

What went wrong? Lots of things went wrong, but if you want to name a starting point it was quarterback Kevin Prince's inability to stay healthy -- and we're not just talking about the knee injury that ended his season. During the Bruins' 0-2 start, back and shoulder injuries prevented Prince from practicing. In fact, Prince essentially missed all of preseason camp, so he had little to no preparation going into those games in the new pistol offense. And when he did practice? UCLA looked impressive in wins over Houston and Texas, scoring 65 points in the process. But he first hurt his knee at Texas, and his return for the visit to California on Oct. 2 was a disaster. Are we saying the season would have been different had Prince been healthy for 12 games? Yes. But we're not going to re-engage in the whole Prince vs. Richard Brehaut debate, because there were plenty of other issues this season, including Neuheisel's obvious frustration with both coordinators -- Norm Chow on offense and Chuck Bullough on defense. And for good reason: The Bruins were sloppy -- their 29 turnovers were six more than any other Pac-10 team -- and statistically terrible. They ranked ninth in the Pac-10 in scoring offense, total defense and run defense. They ranked 10th in passing offense and total offense. But it didn't really become a lost season until a feeble effort at Washington on Nov. 18 became defeat No. 6. That was a team the Bruins beat last year, but the Huskies seemed more hungry to get bowl eligible after falling short in 2009. So the teams went off in different directions.

How can it be fixed? First, Neuheisel has to be confident in his coaches. And his coaches need to be confident in -- and loyal to -- him. He'd take a PR hit for dumping Chow, who's darn near an offensive coaching legend, but it's his team and it might be the right call, particularly if he wants to stick with the pistol. Question is: Can he get an A-list replacement(s)? Once the coaching staff is squared away, Neuheisel needs to turn his attention to quarterback. Is it time to move on from Prince? Just like passing accuracy, durability is a requisite quality -- in fact, one of the most important -- for a football player. But if Prince is put on the backburner, can Brehaut get his mental game together? Or is it time to just hand the keys to incoming freshman Brett Hundley this fall? Oh, and by the way, the offensive line must be rebuilt. There's some young talent on defense, but the consistency will need to take about four steps forward.

Bowling again in 2011? Just like this year, the Bruins likely will be picked in the bottom half of the conference during the 2011 preseason. The nonconference schedule includes a road opener at Houston and a visit from a Texas team that will surely be hungry for revenge. The good news on the schedule? No Oregon. If you squint hard enough at the schedule, you can see six wins. Maybe seven. More than that seems unlikely. Six might be enough for a bowl berth. And Neuheisel may need at least six wins in order to survive into season five.

The Rick Neuheisel Era at UCLA -- after just three years -- is at a crossroads. No matter how bad the injuries were, a second 4-8 finish leading the Bruins has put Neuheisel squarely on the hot seat heading into season four. His new pistol offense sputtered much of the year. His defense was weak. Both coordinators -- yes, even Norm Chow -- might not be back next year.

The Bruins started terribly, then seemed to find their stride. Then, they lost starting quarterback Kevin Prince -- who was struggling mightily in the passing game -- to a knee injury, and things mostly stunk thereafter.

The start couldn't have been worse. The Bruins lost to a mediocre Kansas State team they had whipped the year before, and then Stanford humiliated them at home 35-0. But just when they were about to be written off, they beat Houston and Texas -- before either of those teams seasons went south. A win over Washington State put the Bruins at 3-2. Then they dropped three in a row and lost Prince. He was replaced by Richard Brehaut, who could look great one moment, horrible the next.

Still, a 17-14 win over Oregon State set up a simple task for the final three games: Win two out of three over Washington, Arizona State and USC, and UCLA would go bowling. The Bruins lost all three badly.

So, for the second time in three seasons under Neuheisel, the Bruins are staying home for the bowl season, which isn't going to charm many folks in Westwood.

Offensive MVP: Running back Johnathan Franklin rushed for 1,127 yards and eight touchdowns, averaging 5.3 yards per carry. He seemed to respond well to the Bruins new pistol offense. On the downside, he continues to struggle with ball security issues.

Defensive MVP: Junior linebacker Akeem Ayers started brilliantly but fell off late. Still, he's one of the nation's most talented defenders and a likely early-round -- perhaps first round -- NFL draft pick if, as expected, he opts to bolt a year early. He had 10 tackles for a loss, four sacks, two interceptions, two fumble recoveries and two forced fumbles.

Turning point: The Texas win was supposed to be the turning point -- in a good way. But the 35-7 loss at California on Oct. 9 was the first of six losses in seven games, so the prevailing turning point was a downturn. Prince had originally hurt his knee at Texas but had tried to play through the pain. The California game is where his season ended; he played poorly and it was revealed afterward he needed knee surgery.

What’s next: There is a lot on Neuheisel's plate. Is he going to bring Chow and defensive coordinator Chuck Bullough back? What about other coaching changes? Are the Bruins going to stick with the pistol offense? Who's the quarterback going forward -- and can Prince, who may not be ready for spring practices, stay healthy? Neuheisel has recruited well, but he will lose a number of key players -- juniors Ayers and safety Rahim Moore are expected to enter the draft -- so it's hard to say how things will go in 2011 in the new Pac-12 South.

We have just gutted the 2010 USC-UCLA game. Its entrails lay before us on a sacred stone where teams have revealed their greatness in days of yore, as well as in recent years. We -- you and the Pac-10 blog, of course -- are haruspices attempting to divine meaning from the state of the two programs and what their rivalry game on Saturday means.

In truth, it's just a wet, sticky, yucky pile. But things were pretty gross even before we made a bloody mess that reveals little.

"Steak tartare?" I say. "Sushi?" you say.

The battle for LA bragging rights ain't much to look at. USC is 7-5 and has lost two in a row. UCLA is 4-7 and has lost five of six. It's the most combined defeats for the two teams entering the game since 1999.

What is fair to say: The loser will be really, really miserable this offseason. The winner? It gets to not be the loser.

That said, the most accurate grade for both this season might be an incomplete, for it is difficult to get an accurate, big-picture measure of the state of either program.

For one, both programs had some impressive highs this season.

USC has been in and out of the rankings throughout the year, but it appeared to be there to stay after an impressive win at Arizona on Nov. 13. At that point, it was fair to predict a 10-3 finish, a strong first season for new coach Lane Kiffin by any measure, considering the circumstances.

At that point, some prematurely pinned a rose on Kiffin's nose. But then USC got blown out at Oregon State 36-7 and lost to Notre Dame 20-16 at home, thereby ending a record eight-game winning streak in the storied series.

The Trojans will lose a number of quality seniors heading into 2011 (WR Ronald Johnson, C Kristofer O'Dowd, FB Stanley Havili, CB Shareece Wright), and a couple more could enter the NFL draft a year early (OT Tyron Smith, DT Jurrell Casey).

Considering how young and thin the Trojans were this season, it's hard not to see them trending down after Kiffin's first season.

As for UCLA, the Bruins looked awful in their first two games -- a loss at Kansas State and a 35-0 drubbing at home against Stanford. But a three-game winning streak followed, topped by wins over Houston and Texas, a pair of nationally ranked teams. The defense stepped up and the pistol offense appeared to be breaking through with quarterback Kevin Prince.

Then: Splat. Prince, who was struggling in the passing game, was lost for the season to a knee injury, and the Bruins lost three in a row. They briefly seemed to recover with a win over Oregon State, which reignited bowl hopes, but they then lost by 17 at Washington and 21 at Arizona State.

The defense has been bad, but the offense has been awful. The Bruins rank 116th in the nation in passing and 103rd in scoring, and that has created a offensive coordinator controversy with Norm Chow, who is highly respected -- and highly paid -- but hasn't lived up to his reputation in Westwood.

It's hard not to see the Bruins trending down after Rick Neuheisel's third season.

So there is the suggestion of a downward trend for both, but there are variables beyond wins and losses in 2010.

USC still awaits a ruling from the NCAA Appeals Committee on severe sanctions, which included a two-year bowl ban and a docking of 30 scholarships over three years. In light of recent reports and ensuing investigations launched across the Eastern Seaboard for far worse offenses involving agents and pay-for-play schemes than what the NCAA turned up after investigating the Trojans football program for four years, it seems reasonable for the Committee to give USC a break.

Don't hold your breath, Trojans fans. But if penalties were reduced, that would provide a significant jolt of positive momentum, particularly if scholarships are restored.

With USC getting trampled by the NCAA, UCLA was supposed to take advantage, particularly in recruiting. At present, however, the Trojans rank 13th in the nation in recruiting, while the Bruins are not ranked in the top-25. USC has 16 commitments with four from the ESPNU 150. UCLA nine commitments with just one from the ESPNU 150.

But it's premature to measure recruiting classes before national signing day on Feb. 2. Recall that Neuheisel has made impressive late runs the past two years.

So, again, rain clouds hang over both programs in sunny Southern California. Neither is happy with this season. And both really, really would like to walk away from 2010 by putting a footprint on the other's forehead.

As for the big-picture trends in the rivalry? Who the heck knows?