Pac-12: Larry Scott
In advance, I hope everyone has a safe and enjoyable Memorial Day weekend. Please, remember to take a moment to think about what it's all about.
And then have a great cook out.
You can follow me on Twitter.
To the notes.
Scott from Honolulu writes: My question is with rumors of Florida St. talking with the Big 12 and the new college football playoffs being put into place in the near future, do you foresee another round of conference realignment? And if so, what are possible schools could we see in this new Pac 12, 14, 16 or whatever numerically correct conference?
Ted Miller: Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott has long held that further contraction in college football is inevitable. As you know, he's the all-knowing Dr. Strange of college football. And I agree with Scott. I used to think we'd reduce the FBS field to about 60 teams, and that crew would break away from the NCAA and form its own governing body. Now I think it might end up being an even smaller number.
First, so far there's been a lot of smoke (chatter) with little fire (an actual move) as it pertains to ACC teams with wandering eyes. Further, emotionally, I don't know how I feel about the notion of college football reducing itself to four super-conferences. Part of me winces, but I'm not sure if that's just my age showing. More than a few of you think my affection for the Rose Bowl is dated. When I hear such talk, I always see the baffled reaction of another sportswriter when I say, "But I'd really rather not eat at Applebee's."
On a Machiavellian level, I think the Pac-12 presidents made a mistake when they blew off Oklahoma, Texas, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech last September. While Scott won't say this on the record, my feeling from talking to him these past three or so years is he agrees. The Pac-12 had an opportunity to become the Pac-16, the first superconference, and thereby guarantee itself the most powerful seat at the table when the new look of college football is hashed out this summer.
Said Scott at the time, while defending the decision to remain at 12: "An opportunity was turned down that could have generated more money for the schools but potentially could have torn apart the fabric of the culture of the conference."
Culture, you might have noticed, is losing its traction during college football's money grab.
That move, of course, would have torn the Big 12 asunder. By the Pac-12 not doing so, the Big 12 was allowed to regroup and now it is threatening to do that very thing to the ACC. Yeah, all is fair in love, war and conference realignment.
And where does the Pac-12 turn if the SEC and Big 12 were to split up the prime teams of the ACC? Hard to say. Texas has always been the big prize in that it offered a huge market, a stellar sports program and strong academics. But that bull has walked, so to speak, and there are few teams within, oh, 1,500 miles of Pac-12 country that make much sense for expansion. Or that aren't spoken for.
The number that makes the most sense is 16. That's why few believe the SEC will stay at 14. But which four programs could add value to the Pac-12? The pickings are slim, unless Scott tries to raid the Big 12, which at present is surging and unified, or he gets really creative, outmaneuvers the Big Ten, grabs Notre Dame and uses that coup to go national and lures three more teams from outside the West region.
As it stands, I don't see an ideal 16-team scenario for the Pac-12, though I don't have one of those all-knowing Dr. Strange brains like Scott and Chip Kelly do.
Michael from Seattle writes: Do you buy into the hype of Desmond Trufant? I've seen him in a "top 100 players headed into 2012" list and I was fairly shocked. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see him having a monster senior year. Thoughts?
Ted Miller: Trufant is an NFL prospect. He's going to be a four-year starter for Washington. He's got good measurables -- 6-0, 185, good speed -- and good bloodlines being the younger brother of NFL cornerback Marcus Trufant. He was honorable mention All-Pac-12 last year, so at least two Pac-12 coaches think he can play.
But, yes, there have been a few times when he's been notably beaten. I'm aware that some Huskies fans are doubters. I also think NFL draft projections before a player's final year are fluid and often uniformed. Guys who appear in the first round of mock drafts in the summer often disappear by the following spring. And other players on nobodies' mock draft radar soar into the early rounds.
My feeling is Trufant has plenty to prove. I also think it's hard to measure him because the Huskies have been so awful on defense. It's difficult to be a good cornerback behind a weak pass rush. Or when you're consistently left on an island because the defensive coordinator is consistently rushing six or seven because of that weak pass rush.
I think the Huskies defense will be much better under new coordinator Justin Wilcox. And that will make Trufant look more like an NFL corner.
Kym from Los Angeles writes: Which redshirt freshman will have the biggest impact this season?
Ted Miller: If he wins the starting QB job, Michael Eubank at Arizona State would be a good guess. Same with QB Brett Hundley at UCLA.
California really needs Maurice Harris to step up at receiver. Utah has a redshirt freshman No. 1 at right offensive tackle after spring practices: Daniel Nielson. USC has several redshirt freshmen on its D-line -- Antwaun Woods, Cody Temple, Christian Heyward and Greg Townsend -- who could really help if they stepped up.
This will be a better question -- or at least one that's easier to answer -- when we get a solid idea of depth charts in mid-to-late August.
Tim from Salt Lake City writes: Why is it that, though I've seen them mentioned as a possible pre-season top 25 more than once, Utah hasn't warranted so much as an honorable mention in any of the offseason lists? As you are fond of asking us, who would you exclude in their favor?
Ted Miller: Barring any major, presently unforeseen issues, Utah will be in my preseason top-25 vote for the ESPN.com.
Here's Mark Schlabach's most recent top-25. I think you could clip the team that the Utes beat in the Sun Bowl and thereby find a spot.
Michael from Stockton, Calif., writes: Will oregon really be that big of threat to the explosive and very talented USC?
Ted Miller: Yes.
Steve from Fort Myers, Fla., writes: A while back you made a list of places to eat in the Pac 12 cities, this summer I will be traveling to Seattle, Corvallis, and Eugene. I was hoping you could either email me the list, or tell me where to find it, so I can check them out?
Ted Miller: If you click here, it will magically appear.
And if you read some of the comments below, you undoubtedly will find more options.
And then have a great cook out.
You can follow me on Twitter.
To the notes.
Scott from Honolulu writes: My question is with rumors of Florida St. talking with the Big 12 and the new college football playoffs being put into place in the near future, do you foresee another round of conference realignment? And if so, what are possible schools could we see in this new Pac 12, 14, 16 or whatever numerically correct conference?
Ted Miller: Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott has long held that further contraction in college football is inevitable. As you know, he's the all-knowing Dr. Strange of college football. And I agree with Scott. I used to think we'd reduce the FBS field to about 60 teams, and that crew would break away from the NCAA and form its own governing body. Now I think it might end up being an even smaller number.
First, so far there's been a lot of smoke (chatter) with little fire (an actual move) as it pertains to ACC teams with wandering eyes. Further, emotionally, I don't know how I feel about the notion of college football reducing itself to four super-conferences. Part of me winces, but I'm not sure if that's just my age showing. More than a few of you think my affection for the Rose Bowl is dated. When I hear such talk, I always see the baffled reaction of another sportswriter when I say, "But I'd really rather not eat at Applebee's."
On a Machiavellian level, I think the Pac-12 presidents made a mistake when they blew off Oklahoma, Texas, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech last September. While Scott won't say this on the record, my feeling from talking to him these past three or so years is he agrees. The Pac-12 had an opportunity to become the Pac-16, the first superconference, and thereby guarantee itself the most powerful seat at the table when the new look of college football is hashed out this summer.
Said Scott at the time, while defending the decision to remain at 12: "An opportunity was turned down that could have generated more money for the schools but potentially could have torn apart the fabric of the culture of the conference."
Culture, you might have noticed, is losing its traction during college football's money grab.
That move, of course, would have torn the Big 12 asunder. By the Pac-12 not doing so, the Big 12 was allowed to regroup and now it is threatening to do that very thing to the ACC. Yeah, all is fair in love, war and conference realignment.
And where does the Pac-12 turn if the SEC and Big 12 were to split up the prime teams of the ACC? Hard to say. Texas has always been the big prize in that it offered a huge market, a stellar sports program and strong academics. But that bull has walked, so to speak, and there are few teams within, oh, 1,500 miles of Pac-12 country that make much sense for expansion. Or that aren't spoken for.
The number that makes the most sense is 16. That's why few believe the SEC will stay at 14. But which four programs could add value to the Pac-12? The pickings are slim, unless Scott tries to raid the Big 12, which at present is surging and unified, or he gets really creative, outmaneuvers the Big Ten, grabs Notre Dame and uses that coup to go national and lures three more teams from outside the West region.
As it stands, I don't see an ideal 16-team scenario for the Pac-12, though I don't have one of those all-knowing Dr. Strange brains like Scott and Chip Kelly do.
Michael from Seattle writes: Do you buy into the hype of Desmond Trufant? I've seen him in a "top 100 players headed into 2012" list and I was fairly shocked. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see him having a monster senior year. Thoughts?
Ted Miller: Trufant is an NFL prospect. He's going to be a four-year starter for Washington. He's got good measurables -- 6-0, 185, good speed -- and good bloodlines being the younger brother of NFL cornerback Marcus Trufant. He was honorable mention All-Pac-12 last year, so at least two Pac-12 coaches think he can play.
But, yes, there have been a few times when he's been notably beaten. I'm aware that some Huskies fans are doubters. I also think NFL draft projections before a player's final year are fluid and often uniformed. Guys who appear in the first round of mock drafts in the summer often disappear by the following spring. And other players on nobodies' mock draft radar soar into the early rounds.
My feeling is Trufant has plenty to prove. I also think it's hard to measure him because the Huskies have been so awful on defense. It's difficult to be a good cornerback behind a weak pass rush. Or when you're consistently left on an island because the defensive coordinator is consistently rushing six or seven because of that weak pass rush.
I think the Huskies defense will be much better under new coordinator Justin Wilcox. And that will make Trufant look more like an NFL corner.
Kym from Los Angeles writes: Which redshirt freshman will have the biggest impact this season?
Ted Miller: If he wins the starting QB job, Michael Eubank at Arizona State would be a good guess. Same with QB Brett Hundley at UCLA.
California really needs Maurice Harris to step up at receiver. Utah has a redshirt freshman No. 1 at right offensive tackle after spring practices: Daniel Nielson. USC has several redshirt freshmen on its D-line -- Antwaun Woods, Cody Temple, Christian Heyward and Greg Townsend -- who could really help if they stepped up.
This will be a better question -- or at least one that's easier to answer -- when we get a solid idea of depth charts in mid-to-late August.
Tim from Salt Lake City writes: Why is it that, though I've seen them mentioned as a possible pre-season top 25 more than once, Utah hasn't warranted so much as an honorable mention in any of the offseason lists? As you are fond of asking us, who would you exclude in their favor?
Ted Miller: Barring any major, presently unforeseen issues, Utah will be in my preseason top-25 vote for the ESPN.com.
Here's Mark Schlabach's most recent top-25. I think you could clip the team that the Utes beat in the Sun Bowl and thereby find a spot.
Michael from Stockton, Calif., writes: Will oregon really be that big of threat to the explosive and very talented USC?
Ted Miller: Yes.
Steve from Fort Myers, Fla., writes: A while back you made a list of places to eat in the Pac 12 cities, this summer I will be traveling to Seattle, Corvallis, and Eugene. I was hoping you could either email me the list, or tell me where to find it, so I can check them out?
Ted Miller: If you click here, it will magically appear.
And if you read some of the comments below, you undoubtedly will find more options.
Why is Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott in the money? Because just about everyone thinks he's doing a good job.
Here's more evidence: Both Scott and the Pac-12 are among the nominees for awards from Sports Business Journal.
The conference is up for "Sports League of the Year" along with Major League Baseball, the NFL, the NHL and the PGA Tour. You'll note that no other college conference is among the nominees.
The same is true in the "Sports Executive of the Year" category. Scott is nominated along with Bud Selig, David Hill, Roger Goodell and Tim Finchem.
That's some pretty impressive company. And it sort of confirms the adage, "You get what you pay for."
Here's more evidence: Both Scott and the Pac-12 are among the nominees for awards from Sports Business Journal.
The conference is up for "Sports League of the Year" along with Major League Baseball, the NFL, the NHL and the PGA Tour. You'll note that no other college conference is among the nominees.
The same is true in the "Sports Executive of the Year" category. Scott is nominated along with Bud Selig, David Hill, Roger Goodell and Tim Finchem.
That's some pretty impressive company. And it sort of confirms the adage, "You get what you pay for."
Commissioner Larry Scott has opened up a new financial frontier for the Pac-12 -- most notably a $3 billion TV deal and a new network -- but he ain't doing too badly himself.
USA Today published the 2010 salaries of college conference commissioners Wednesday, and Scott came out on top with $1.9 million in compensation.
Also on the books for Scott:
The Big Ten's Jim Delany made nearly $1.8 million, the ACC's John Swofford nearly $1.5 million and the SEC's Mike Slive just more than $1 million. Former Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe, who resigned last September, received nearly $1.7 million, according to USA Today, while outgoing Big East commissioner John Marinatto netted about $600,000.
The man Scott replaced, Tom Hansen, made $590,000 in 2008.
USA Today published the 2010 salaries of college conference commissioners Wednesday, and Scott came out on top with $1.9 million in compensation.
Also on the books for Scott:
Scott also has received a loan of nearly $1.9 million from the conference, and as of June 30, 2011, the balance due was unchanged from its original amount, according to the return the conference filed last week and provided in response to a request from USA TODAY Sports.
"The loan has to be repaid fully," Pac-12 spokesman Dave Hirsch said.
The Big Ten's Jim Delany made nearly $1.8 million, the ACC's John Swofford nearly $1.5 million and the SEC's Mike Slive just more than $1 million. Former Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe, who resigned last September, received nearly $1.7 million, according to USA Today, while outgoing Big East commissioner John Marinatto netted about $600,000.
The man Scott replaced, Tom Hansen, made $590,000 in 2008.
SEC and Big 12 folks have been tweaking the Big Ten and Pac-12's love of the Rose Bowl of late. That made me grin because the primary motivation for those tweaks was jealousy.
Don't buy that assessment? Well, then what do you make of this: The SEC and Big 12 champions, starting in 2014 after the current BCS contract expires and we presumably adopt a four-team playoff, will meet annually in a prime time New Year's Day "bowl" game.
Unless, of course, the SEC and/or Big 12 champions are selected for the four-team playoff, which one is almost certain to be and both are likely to be.
But, if one or both is selected for the playoff, then, just like the Rose Bowl, a No. 2 team from both or either conference will be selected.
So the SEC and Big 12 have adopted the Rose Bowl model in its entirety. Other than the fact that they can't play in the Rose Bowl stadium as the sun goes down over the San Gabriel Mountains.
The location has not been set. The Sugar Bowl (SEC) and Fiesta Bowl (Big 12) already have a dog in this fight, but expect bids to come from Jerry Jones and his deluxe Cowboys Stadium in Arlington, Texas, as well as a play from Atlanta.
By the way, the Rose Bowl jealousy stuff is mostly good-natured ribbing while I'm gaping at another sudden shift in college football's tectonic plates.
Folks, this stuff is amazing, and there's a stunning plot twist seemingly on a weekly basis -- Florida State to the Big 12? Notre Dame back in play?
The main take-away: This is a step closer to four power conferences, with the ACC and Big East finding their footing suddenly precarious.
And, if you want to worry, Pac-12 fans, it looks like the SEC and Big 12 are being far more aggressive -- read: expansionist -- as college football remakes itself. Keep in mind that the Pac-12 could have ended the Big 12 last September and become the first 16-team super-conference if Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech had made a jump.
Pac-12 presidents might end up regretting their decision not to expand -- and giving Oklahoma, in particular, the shaft. Newly enriched by a mega-TV deal, they might have lost track of the big picture while they were counting their money.
Commissioner Larry Scott has long held that further consolidation at the top of college football was inevitable. This is another example of him proving right, though this time without a blockbuster deal for Pac-12 folks to celebrate.
This latest news is a reason to get nervous. Or to just marvel at how quickly the game has changed.
Don't buy that assessment? Well, then what do you make of this: The SEC and Big 12 champions, starting in 2014 after the current BCS contract expires and we presumably adopt a four-team playoff, will meet annually in a prime time New Year's Day "bowl" game.
[+] Enlarge
Darrell Walker/Icon SMICommissioner Mike Slive and the SEC have a bowl agreement with the Big 12 that is nearly identical to the Rose Bowl model used by the Big Ten and Pac-12.
Darrell Walker/Icon SMICommissioner Mike Slive and the SEC have a bowl agreement with the Big 12 that is nearly identical to the Rose Bowl model used by the Big Ten and Pac-12.
But, if one or both is selected for the playoff, then, just like the Rose Bowl, a No. 2 team from both or either conference will be selected.
So the SEC and Big 12 have adopted the Rose Bowl model in its entirety. Other than the fact that they can't play in the Rose Bowl stadium as the sun goes down over the San Gabriel Mountains.
The location has not been set. The Sugar Bowl (SEC) and Fiesta Bowl (Big 12) already have a dog in this fight, but expect bids to come from Jerry Jones and his deluxe Cowboys Stadium in Arlington, Texas, as well as a play from Atlanta.
By the way, the Rose Bowl jealousy stuff is mostly good-natured ribbing while I'm gaping at another sudden shift in college football's tectonic plates.
Folks, this stuff is amazing, and there's a stunning plot twist seemingly on a weekly basis -- Florida State to the Big 12? Notre Dame back in play?
The main take-away: This is a step closer to four power conferences, with the ACC and Big East finding their footing suddenly precarious.
And, if you want to worry, Pac-12 fans, it looks like the SEC and Big 12 are being far more aggressive -- read: expansionist -- as college football remakes itself. Keep in mind that the Pac-12 could have ended the Big 12 last September and become the first 16-team super-conference if Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech had made a jump.
Pac-12 presidents might end up regretting their decision not to expand -- and giving Oklahoma, in particular, the shaft. Newly enriched by a mega-TV deal, they might have lost track of the big picture while they were counting their money.
Commissioner Larry Scott has long held that further consolidation at the top of college football was inevitable. This is another example of him proving right, though this time without a blockbuster deal for Pac-12 folks to celebrate.
This latest news is a reason to get nervous. Or to just marvel at how quickly the game has changed.
AP Photo/Terry GilliamOhio State's Gene Smith and Pac-12 members seem to agree on a criteria for future playoff teams. Adam Rittenberg over at the Big Ten blog chatted with Ohio State AD Gene Smith, who was unequivocal about his top priority:
"The conference champion piece," Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith said. "We're a collegiate environment, and we've set everything up for competition to be conference champions, and we have it in every single sport that we have. ... When you go through your conference and you win your conference championship, that's pretty strong."
Other parties at the table in this playoff debate favor a "Four best teams plan," one that would only ensure the process remain just as subjective as the present BCS standings.
The good news is there is plenty of room for compromise between the folks who are right (winning a conference championship matters) and those who are wrong (let's pretend we can rank the four best teams).
The Pac-12 blog is on record supporting the "Top-six plan": Conference champions would be required to be ranked in the top six of the final rankings in order to earn automatic berths in the four-team playoff. If four conference champions aren't ranked in the top six, then the highest ranked at-large teams would fill however many voids there are.
But there's wiggle room here:
[Nebraska athletic director Tom] Osborne told ESPN.com that there has been "a lot of discussion" this week about having the top three conference champions and the highest-ranked at-large team in the four-team playoff. This model would give access to a team like reigning national champion Alabama, which didn't win its league or its division but finished No. 2 in the final BCS standings and beat LSU for the title.
"I don't think you can say all four placements are conference champions," Smith said. "You have to leave some room for that type of scenario, that best high-ranked team that is not a conference champion has some room to get in there."
Of course, you can immediately see how this could get controversial. What happens if a fourth conference champion has the same record as a more highly rated at-large team? Further, we still don't know the rating system -- the old BCS rankings, a new ratings system, a selection committee, etc.
The good news is that the Pac-12 and Big Ten are aligned on their thinking: Any playoff format needs to give priority to teams that win their conference championship.
AP Photo/Paul BeatyBig Ten commissioner Jim Delany's playoff proposal rewards actually winning one's conference.At the Pac-12 meetings last week in Phoenix, it became clear that conference coaches and athletic directors as well as commissioner Larry Scott favor a potential four-team college football playoff including a requirement that each of the four participants wins its respective conference championship.
The reasoning for that is logical and unassailable: A national title contender should first prove it's the best team in its conference. College football folks -- coaches, administrators, etc. -- frequently talk about preserving the value of the regular season. Not requiring a playoff team to win its conference directly contravenes that.
On the other side of the playoff debate are the folks who don't want any such requirements. They say introducing one muddies things up. They say it's important to pick the "four best teams." Keep it simple and credible!
Four best teams? Er, how will we determine that? The ole BCS rankings? A selection committee?
Not acceptable.
There needs to be give and take here. If the Pac-12 and Big Ten are going to sacrifice their automatic tie-in to the Rose Bowl, that means they need to get something in return. Thankfully, Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany already has proposed an equitable plan that allows for both sides of this debate to get most of what they want.
It's the top-six plan: Conference champions would be required to be ranked in the top six of the final rankings in order to earn automatic berths in the four-team playoff. If four conference champions aren't ranked in the top six, then the highest ranked at-large teams would fill however many voids there are.
CBS Sports' Brett McMurphy went through all the scenarios. He found that, since 2004, only seven top-four teams in the final BCS standings would have missed the playoffs with this top-six plan.
Writes McMurphy:
Under this format, in the past eight years, 30 of the 32 teams in the playoff would have been conference champions. Only two teams -- No. 2 Alabama (in 2011) and No. 4 Ohio State (in 2005) -- that weren't a conference champion would have qualified for the national semifinals.
Using the conference affiliation for the schools for each season and not their future affiliation, the SEC would have had the most schools in the playoffs from 2004-11 with eight, including seven conference champions. The Pac-12 and Big 12 would have been next, each with six schools, followed by the Big Ten with five (four conference champions, one at-large), the Mountain West with four, the Big East with two and the ACC with one.
Of the Mountain West's four representatives, two were by Utah, now in the Pac-12, and two by TCU, which joins the Big 12 this fall.
That sounds about right.
The teams left out? Stanford and Texas, both twice, and Alabama, Michigan and LSU.
[+] Enlarge
Chris Graythen/Getty ImagesThe Utah team that demolished Alabama in the 2009 Sugar Bowl might have gotten to play for the national title under Jim Delany's top-six plan.
Chris Graythen/Getty ImagesThe Utah team that demolished Alabama in the 2009 Sugar Bowl might have gotten to play for the national title under Jim Delany's top-six plan.The best scenario to look at is 2008. From McMurphy's breakdown:
Top 6 ranked teams: No. 1 Oklahoma (Big 12 champ), No. 2 Florida (SEC champ), No. 3 Texas (at-large), No. 4 Alabama (at-large), No. 5 USC (Pac-10 champ), No. 6 Utah (Mountain West champ).
Conference champs in four-team playoff: No. 1 Oklahoma, No. 2 Florida, No. 5 USC, No. 6 Utah.
Non-conference champs in four-team playoff: None.
Top-6 teams left out: No. 3 Texas, No. 4 Alabama.
Revisionist history: The good news is that the top four conference champions are all ranked among the nation's top six teams. The bad news is No. 3 Texas and No. 4 Alabama, both of which didn't win their conference, would not be included in the playoff. Lower ranked, but conference champion, USC (No. 5) and Utah (No. 6) would have made the field.
In 2008, the top-six model would have created a far superior postseason. The most likely scenario would have seen USC, clearly the best team in 2008, beating Utah, which physically manhandled Alabama 31-17 in the Sugar Bowl, for the national title.
Wait ... did I just pull one of those "Just because" deals there, making assumptions about how good a team is?
Yes, I did. Most folks outside of the Southeast -- including Vegas bookies -- believed USC was the best team in 2008. It finished the regular season with the same record as Florida and Oklahoma, but its loss on the road against an Oregon State team that won nine games was deemed worse than the Gators' and Sooners' blemishes. That judgment was arbitrary and ran counter to what many folks believed: The Trojans in 2008 would have left a bootprint on the foreheads of either Florida or Oklahoma.
And, of course, when Utah held Alabama to 208 total yards -- 31 yards rushing! -- it became nearly impossible to say the Crimson Tide belonged in the same building. Oh, that's right, an Alabama team playing in its first BCS bowl game since 1999 was SO disappointed that it lost the SEC title game that it decided not to try hard in the Sugar Bowl. Please.
Of course, this analysis is bothering some folks. Good. That's how the "Just because" stuff felt for the Trojans in 2008 and for Oklahoma State last year. The most certain way to ensure the new four-team playoff will foment annual controversy is to make the "Just because" element its foundation. We'll still be debating the subjectivity -- and inherent biases -- of the system for weeks as the season winds down.
See, out here on the West Coast, the top-six plan seems simple. It seems fair. It doesn't muddy anything up. It actually provides clarity: Win your conference.
It first tries to award the highest-rated conference champions for, you know, accomplishing something during the regular season, then it makes sure that we don't end up with a three-loss team in the playoff.
It's the best and most equitable endgame in the four-team playoff scenario. And the Pac-12 and Big Ten should fight for it.
We know Oregon's De'Anthony Thomas is fast. We saw him in the Rose Bowl go all lickity split through the Wisconsin defense.
But over the weekend he got bested by a Husky and Beaver in the 100 meters in the Oregon Twilight track & field meet at Hayward Field.
And that Beaver, Oregon State's leading receiver Markus Wheaton, showed that the Ducks aren't the only Pac-12 football team with world class speed.
Wheaton finished second at 10.58 and Thomas was third at 10.65. Washington's Ryan Hamilton won at 10.51 (there was a 5.4 meter-per-second tailwind, according to Ken Goe). Beavers running back Malcolm Marable was fifth in section one at 11.12.
Oregon fans might not know this but Markus Wheaton is Kenny Wheaton's cousin. Rumor has it Kenny Wheaton once made a big play for the Ducks, but that moment has become obscure because you never get to see it replayed at Autzen Stadium.
Noted Goe on Thomas' effort: "He started well and led after 60 meters. But then Hamilton and Wheaton both passed him."
And there's this from Oregon State track coach Kelly Sullivan: “Markus did a great job in the 100-meter dash because he got second overall. There is a bit of a rivalry going on between the OSU football guys and the Oregon guys, which was good and it was a personal record for him.”
Here's what I want: Thomas, Wheaton and USC WR George Farmer -- in full pads -- racing 100 yards from goal line to goal line on the Rose Bowl field.
Maybe this can be an event for Pac-12 media day in July? Make it happen, Larry Scott!
But over the weekend he got bested by a Husky and Beaver in the 100 meters in the Oregon Twilight track & field meet at Hayward Field.
And that Beaver, Oregon State's leading receiver Markus Wheaton, showed that the Ducks aren't the only Pac-12 football team with world class speed.
Wheaton finished second at 10.58 and Thomas was third at 10.65. Washington's Ryan Hamilton won at 10.51 (there was a 5.4 meter-per-second tailwind, according to Ken Goe). Beavers running back Malcolm Marable was fifth in section one at 11.12.
Oregon fans might not know this but Markus Wheaton is Kenny Wheaton's cousin. Rumor has it Kenny Wheaton once made a big play for the Ducks, but that moment has become obscure because you never get to see it replayed at Autzen Stadium.
Noted Goe on Thomas' effort: "He started well and led after 60 meters. But then Hamilton and Wheaton both passed him."
And there's this from Oregon State track coach Kelly Sullivan: “Markus did a great job in the 100-meter dash because he got second overall. There is a bit of a rivalry going on between the OSU football guys and the Oregon guys, which was good and it was a personal record for him.”
Here's what I want: Thomas, Wheaton and USC WR George Farmer -- in full pads -- racing 100 yards from goal line to goal line on the Rose Bowl field.
Maybe this can be an event for Pac-12 media day in July? Make it happen, Larry Scott!
PHOENIX -- Pac-12 coaches and athletic directors generally expressed optimism over the expected move toward a four-team college football playoff in 2014, but there was plenty of caution as well as a smack of defiance during the conference's spring meetings at the posh Arizona Biltmore Hotel.
Some, such as Utah coach Kyle Whittingham and Washington State coach Mike Leach, don't think four teams is enough. Some worried about losing the bowl games, particularly the Pac-12's longstanding and storied connection to the Rose Bowl. And just about everyone was concerned about the selection process.
That defiance? It's rooted in the general belief that some other conferences excel at masterful scheduling (read: avoiding challenging competition) and massaging public perception (read: creating a consensus of superiority based significantly on subjective judgments).
If the Pac-12 and Big 12 play nine conference games, and the ACC, SEC and Big Ten play eight, then those conferences are playing by different standards that have myriad measurable effects. If one conference features a majority of teams playing at least one or two tough nonconference foes a year and another features a majority of teams playing four directional schools, then those conferences are playing by different standards that have myriad measurable effects.
Even if one of those conferences has won six consecutive national titles.
"You need some competitive equity within all of the conferences if you are going to do this thing," USC athletic director Pat Haden said. "But if you're going to have a conference, it seems to me you should be playing your conference opponents rather than non-conference opponents. In USC and Stanford's case we really have 10 conference games if you include Notre Dame, because we both have a long history of playing Notre Dame."
While the sentiment is strong among the coaches to reduce the Pac-12 conference schedule to eight games, sentiments mostly lean the other way among the athletic directors. The topic was discussed this week, but commissioner Larry Scott confirmed that there is no short-term plan to reduce the conference slate to eight games.
A big reason for that: There's a wait-and-see attitude on the details of the four-team playoff. While, based on media reports, there seems to be considerable momentum behind incorporating the bowls into the new system, there is little consensus on the selection process for the four participating teams.
That is where the coaches have a dog in this fight. They don't really care where they play, but they do want to know how they get there.
"I'd hate to go to just one little group or one committee that picks the teams," Arizona coach Rich Rodriguez said. "I think it's way too important. The more people you have involved, probably the better."
Oregon coach Chip Kelly pointed out that if there was a final four in place last fall, then Stanford would have been in and his Ducks would have been out, despite their decisive win in Palo Alto. The biggest reason for that? Oregon lost to LSU in the season-opener, giving it one more defeat than Stanford. If the Ducks had played San Jose State, they almost certainly would have finished fourth.
"There seems like there are a lot of questions that still need to be answered before anybody can say, 'Hey, that's a great idea,'" Kelly said.
Therein lies the caution. And the defiance. There was a clear undercurrent with Scott, the coaches and athletic directors that they didn't want to be pushed into anything, particularly when the Pac-12 (and Big Ten) are being asked to sacrifice something -- their tie to the Rose Bowl -- while other conferences aren't. There's a widespread perception that the BCS standings favored an SEC way of doing things, and played a role in that conference's recent dominance. So how does it help the Pac-12 if the new format still relies on a BCS-like evaluation?
There's a concern that if, say, Oregon and Alabama both finish 11-1 that the Crimson Tide would benefit from a "just because" edge, one based entirely on a subjective judgment of SEC superiority. Such a judgment could give the SEC a near-annual second team in a final four while knocking the Pac-12 -- and other major conferences -- out entirely.
"I think a lot of people are going to want the human element out of it, because it would be hard for humans to make those decisions and not be biased in some way," USC coach Lane Kiffin said.
Which is why some, such as Whittingham, favor an expanded playoff.
"From my perspective, you can take it out of the hands of voting and more to on-field performance," he said.
Said Leach, "I'd like to see it more than four. My suspicion is eventually there will be. Because, five years ago, if somebody had said this was going to happen, the room would have started laughing."
Meetings here were long, and there were plenty of other topics, from officiating, to bowls, to scheduling. But the back-and-forth on the potential new playoff scenarios was the centerpiece of the week, at least in terms of intrigue.
Change is coming. That's almost certain. But the process this summer of putting together a concrete plan among entities with competing agendas figures to be contentious.
Said Washington coach Steve Sarkisian, "I think there are still a lot of conversations to go."
Some, such as Utah coach Kyle Whittingham and Washington State coach Mike Leach, don't think four teams is enough. Some worried about losing the bowl games, particularly the Pac-12's longstanding and storied connection to the Rose Bowl. And just about everyone was concerned about the selection process.
[+] Enlarge
AP Photo/Mark J. TerrillUtah coach Kyle Whittingham is among those who favor a playoff with more than four teams.
AP Photo/Mark J. TerrillUtah coach Kyle Whittingham is among those who favor a playoff with more than four teams.If the Pac-12 and Big 12 play nine conference games, and the ACC, SEC and Big Ten play eight, then those conferences are playing by different standards that have myriad measurable effects. If one conference features a majority of teams playing at least one or two tough nonconference foes a year and another features a majority of teams playing four directional schools, then those conferences are playing by different standards that have myriad measurable effects.
Even if one of those conferences has won six consecutive national titles.
"You need some competitive equity within all of the conferences if you are going to do this thing," USC athletic director Pat Haden said. "But if you're going to have a conference, it seems to me you should be playing your conference opponents rather than non-conference opponents. In USC and Stanford's case we really have 10 conference games if you include Notre Dame, because we both have a long history of playing Notre Dame."
While the sentiment is strong among the coaches to reduce the Pac-12 conference schedule to eight games, sentiments mostly lean the other way among the athletic directors. The topic was discussed this week, but commissioner Larry Scott confirmed that there is no short-term plan to reduce the conference slate to eight games.
A big reason for that: There's a wait-and-see attitude on the details of the four-team playoff. While, based on media reports, there seems to be considerable momentum behind incorporating the bowls into the new system, there is little consensus on the selection process for the four participating teams.
That is where the coaches have a dog in this fight. They don't really care where they play, but they do want to know how they get there.
"I'd hate to go to just one little group or one committee that picks the teams," Arizona coach Rich Rodriguez said. "I think it's way too important. The more people you have involved, probably the better."
Oregon coach Chip Kelly pointed out that if there was a final four in place last fall, then Stanford would have been in and his Ducks would have been out, despite their decisive win in Palo Alto. The biggest reason for that? Oregon lost to LSU in the season-opener, giving it one more defeat than Stanford. If the Ducks had played San Jose State, they almost certainly would have finished fourth.
"There seems like there are a lot of questions that still need to be answered before anybody can say, 'Hey, that's a great idea,'" Kelly said.
Therein lies the caution. And the defiance. There was a clear undercurrent with Scott, the coaches and athletic directors that they didn't want to be pushed into anything, particularly when the Pac-12 (and Big Ten) are being asked to sacrifice something -- their tie to the Rose Bowl -- while other conferences aren't. There's a widespread perception that the BCS standings favored an SEC way of doing things, and played a role in that conference's recent dominance. So how does it help the Pac-12 if the new format still relies on a BCS-like evaluation?
There's a concern that if, say, Oregon and Alabama both finish 11-1 that the Crimson Tide would benefit from a "just because" edge, one based entirely on a subjective judgment of SEC superiority. Such a judgment could give the SEC a near-annual second team in a final four while knocking the Pac-12 -- and other major conferences -- out entirely.
"I think a lot of people are going to want the human element out of it, because it would be hard for humans to make those decisions and not be biased in some way," USC coach Lane Kiffin said.
Which is why some, such as Whittingham, favor an expanded playoff.
"From my perspective, you can take it out of the hands of voting and more to on-field performance," he said.
Said Leach, "I'd like to see it more than four. My suspicion is eventually there will be. Because, five years ago, if somebody had said this was going to happen, the room would have started laughing."
Meetings here were long, and there were plenty of other topics, from officiating, to bowls, to scheduling. But the back-and-forth on the potential new playoff scenarios was the centerpiece of the week, at least in terms of intrigue.
Change is coming. That's almost certain. But the process this summer of putting together a concrete plan among entities with competing agendas figures to be contentious.
Said Washington coach Steve Sarkisian, "I think there are still a lot of conversations to go."
If you believe a four-team playoff will end controversy in college football as we know it, you probably believe that our culture would heal itself if only it could be rid of the Kardashians.
That's a silly analogy, but the point is something that is merely better doesn't mean it will be perfect. Or even much more than theoretically better. (As in: Perhaps there's a family out there that would cause even worse brain rot than the Kardashians if its vacuousness were on display in a TV reality series).
During the BCS Era, the epicenter of controversy was typically at No. 3. While some years things laid out perfectly and there was a wide consensus on the two best teams, many years there was little tangible justification to see the No. 2 -- or No 1 -- team as being any better than No. 3. For example, Oklahoma State was No. 3 this past season, and many would have rather watched the Cowboys play LSU for the title than an SEC West rematch between the Tigers and Alabama.
Well, in a four-team playoff, No. 5 becomes the new No. 3 -- the last team left out. Dennis Dodd goes back and ranks the best No. 5 teams from 1998-2011, and there is plenty of Pac-12 representation. Which means there would have been plenty of Pac-12 consternation.
And, oh boy, the conference would have been in the thick of controversy if there were a four-team playoff based on last year's BCS standings. Notes Dodd: "Look at last season when Pac-12 champ Oregon – fifth in the BCS -- would have not played in a four-team playoff but a division rival it beat (Stanford) would have. The difference? Oregon scheduled tougher."
Sure Oregon fans would have taken that well.
Of course, we still don't know how the four teams will be selected for the future playoff, and it's unlikely it will be the BCS standings as they are currently configured. Know that Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott will work hard to ensure a more accurate strength of schedule component.
As for Dodd's rankings, they are interesting, though Dodd should reverse the top-two. The 2009 Florida team would have lost to the 2008 USC team by double-digits. Everybody knows that.
Besides USC at No. 2 in 2008, he's got USC in 2006 at No. 4, Oregon in 2011 at No. 6, UCLA in 1998 at No. 10, California in 2004 at No. 11 and Oregon in 2005 at No. 13.
So a lot of different Pac-12 teams would have been frustrated by a subjective system leaving them out.
Further, don't think your team doesn't have dog in this hunt. If the Pac-12 gets left out of the Final Four, all 12 members will miss out on millions. Recall that the conference has equal revenue sharing. If Oregon makes the Final Four, Oregon State still gets an equal share. And if Oregon and USC makes the Final Four, that will mean even more money. If a BCS bowl game is worth $23 million, then just imagine what a Final Four game will be worth. And how it would hurt to miss out.
And if the Pac-12 gets left out a couple of years in a row, then it could find itself at a substantial revenue disadvantage compared to other conferences.
Not to be a party pooper, but there are tangible concerns going forward. Don't pack up your frustration with the system just yet.
That's a silly analogy, but the point is something that is merely better doesn't mean it will be perfect. Or even much more than theoretically better. (As in: Perhaps there's a family out there that would cause even worse brain rot than the Kardashians if its vacuousness were on display in a TV reality series).
During the BCS Era, the epicenter of controversy was typically at No. 3. While some years things laid out perfectly and there was a wide consensus on the two best teams, many years there was little tangible justification to see the No. 2 -- or No 1 -- team as being any better than No. 3. For example, Oklahoma State was No. 3 this past season, and many would have rather watched the Cowboys play LSU for the title than an SEC West rematch between the Tigers and Alabama.
Well, in a four-team playoff, No. 5 becomes the new No. 3 -- the last team left out. Dennis Dodd goes back and ranks the best No. 5 teams from 1998-2011, and there is plenty of Pac-12 representation. Which means there would have been plenty of Pac-12 consternation.
And, oh boy, the conference would have been in the thick of controversy if there were a four-team playoff based on last year's BCS standings. Notes Dodd: "Look at last season when Pac-12 champ Oregon – fifth in the BCS -- would have not played in a four-team playoff but a division rival it beat (Stanford) would have. The difference? Oregon scheduled tougher."
Sure Oregon fans would have taken that well.
Of course, we still don't know how the four teams will be selected for the future playoff, and it's unlikely it will be the BCS standings as they are currently configured. Know that Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott will work hard to ensure a more accurate strength of schedule component.
As for Dodd's rankings, they are interesting, though Dodd should reverse the top-two. The 2009 Florida team would have lost to the 2008 USC team by double-digits. Everybody knows that.
Besides USC at No. 2 in 2008, he's got USC in 2006 at No. 4, Oregon in 2011 at No. 6, UCLA in 1998 at No. 10, California in 2004 at No. 11 and Oregon in 2005 at No. 13.
So a lot of different Pac-12 teams would have been frustrated by a subjective system leaving them out.
Further, don't think your team doesn't have dog in this hunt. If the Pac-12 gets left out of the Final Four, all 12 members will miss out on millions. Recall that the conference has equal revenue sharing. If Oregon makes the Final Four, Oregon State still gets an equal share. And if Oregon and USC makes the Final Four, that will mean even more money. If a BCS bowl game is worth $23 million, then just imagine what a Final Four game will be worth. And how it would hurt to miss out.
And if the Pac-12 gets left out a couple of years in a row, then it could find itself at a substantial revenue disadvantage compared to other conferences.
Not to be a party pooper, but there are tangible concerns going forward. Don't pack up your frustration with the system just yet.
Welcome to the mailbag.
Follow me on Twitter.
To the notes!
Mitchell from Boston writes: The first round of the NFL draft should answer you pac fans about which conference is the best. But here's my question. What do you mean with this "Wimpy scheduling needs to be addressed, including finding ways to circumvent misleading measures of "strength of schedule." There is nothing "wimpy" about playing in the SEC. It's big-boy football. The SEC doesn't need to play a tough schedule because it already plays an SEC schedule.
Ted Miller: Glad to explain, Mitchell, because it's important to understand what I am saying and what I am not saying.
The SEC is the nation's best football conference. Six consecutive national titles leave little doubt, particularly with five different teams claiming at least one in the BCS era. And the draft numbers for Thursday were impressive. There is a gap between the SEC and every other conference, and my belief is that gap has widened over the past 10 years -- from being mostly perception to become (self-fulfilling?) reality.
So what am I saying about scheduling? Well, dagnabit, I'm going to pick on Mississippi State again. Apologies in advance, lovely Starkville.
Last year, the Bulldogs' nonconference schedule featured Memphis, Louisiana Tech, UAB and Tennessee-Martin. This is hard to believe, but the 2012 slate is even more embarrassing: Jackson State, Troy, South Alabama and Middle Tennessee.
Our new system for determining a four-team playoff needs to make it nearly impossible to play for the national title with a nonconference record like that, even if lightning struck and the Bulldogs went undefeated. There needs to be an evaluative component that specifically analyzes nonconference competition separate from conference competition, one that gives a team points for aggressively scheduling and deducts points for hiding like a quaking kitten from a challenge.
Further, the new system needs to find a way to spread this deduction throughout a conference. Why? Because Mississippi State starts the 2012 season 4-0. You can't say that about any Pac-12 team. Or Big 12 team, for that matter, because the Big 12 also plays a nine-game conference schedule.
Look at it this way. The worst record imaginable for the Bulldogs in 2012 is 4-8. There is only one sure-thing on Oregon State's schedule -- Nicholls State (I won't mention the Sacramento State debacle in 2011). The Beavers play Wisconsin and at BYU in their other two nonconference games. The Beavers conceivably could end up 1-11 and still be significantly better than Mississippi State. But that wouldn't show up in a typical strength of schedule measure.
Then there is that nine- vs. eight-game conference schedule issue. That almost automatically decreases the strength of schedule ranking for the Pac-12 because it guarantees six more losses annually in the conference. Further, there's this: Guess which three teams Georgia didn't play in the 2011 regular season? Alabama, LSU and Arkansas.
When you have three conference misses a year, it can skew things more than if you have two.
While we can certainly acknowledge the SEC has taken the lead in college football, the SEC can't expect a "just because" perception to be superimposed on the future. It can't be allowed to insist that just because it plays an SEC schedule that it doesn't have to play quality nonconference games -- and on the road, too.
Now let's give credit where credit is due. LSU posted perhaps the most impressive regular season in college football history last year, in large part due to nonconference wins over Oregon and West Virginia, which both ended up winning BCS bowl games. And Alabama deserves credit for playing Virginia Tech and Penn State in recent years and opening against Michigan in 2012. So, Alabama and LSU fans can take a bow and know we're not writing about you. Not directly.
There is no way to completely remove a substantial subjective element from determining a four-team playoff in college football. But if we're going to create a four-team playoff with mega-millions as the reward for earning a berth -- and a major revenue downer for not -- then we need to insist that our process of evaluation requires in advance certain standards for every conference.
Bob from Raleigh, N.C., writes: If the Pac decides to join the rest of CFB and go to 8 conference games, will they still have the provision of the Bay Schools playing SoCal schools every year? I realize sometimes to get a deal, some schools have to be bought (see Staples Center in basketball), but to be more equatable, they would have to break that up, right?
Ted Miller: If we do, indeed, end up with a four-team playoff in 2014, then the Pac-12 needs to end the nine-game conference schedule if the Big Ten and SEC are still playing an eight-game schedule. To not do so would simply be negligent. Too much money will be at stake to give those other conference an annual head start in the rankings.
And, if the Pac-12 goes to eight conference games, it almost certainly would end the guaranteed annual meetings between the Bay Area vs. Southern California schools.
Some fans would huff and puff, but the longterm benefit to the conference as a whole is too valuable. And, by the way, neither Bay Area coach would frown at such a change.
Miller from Aloha, Ore., writes: I do wonder what the rest of the country thinks/feels about Larry Scott. I'm obviously a huge fan due to what he has done for the Pac-12, but I think that many in the country might not like him because he has been too successful too quickly. And is there a chance this might make the other 11 Conference Commissioners (and the Domer representative) ignore his input due to jealousy, etc?
Ted Miller: Larry Scott is a likable guy. He's gracious and accessible. And he's the least imperious of the major conference commissioners, at least since Dan Beebe was forced out of the Big 12.
If anyone dislikes Scott, it's because he's smart and effective and ambitious. And, yes, I get the feeling that some commissioners don't count themselves as fans because of that. This a competitive business, and Scott has been winning too much for some folks liking. It's easier to like a competitor who is easy pickings.
But there also are no stupid men in the room. "Like" isn't as important as "respect," in any event. They all know that Scott, perhaps more than any other commissioner, knows how to grow revenue in our present age of advancing technology. Within a few months of his hiring, his consistent theme was how undervalued not only the then-Pac-10 was but also how undervalued college football was. His vision is big-picture. And it's clear he sees more of the field than many of the folks yammering in Florida this week.
So, no, they won't ignore Scott. He knows where the money is hiding.
Tim from Winston-Salem, N.C., writes: So far through the spring practices, Washington's defense seems to consistently be getting the better of the offense, with the secondary earning seemingly endless praise from the coaching staff. While I understand that the O-line is in shambles right now, do you think that the defense really is making big strides under Wilcox, or is it just the offense getting use to new looks from the D?
Ted Miller: First, I think Justin Wilcox is pretty much a sure-thing. He will make the Huskies defense better because he's never failed as a defensive coordinator. The biggest concern for Husky fans should be how long before he leaves to become a head coach.
That said: Spring practices won't reveal much of anything about the Huskies defense, particularly with them working against a patchwork offensive line. It muddies things further that the the Huskies are replacing their top skill guys, too.
But there are things you can notice. You bring up the secondary. How many times over the past three years did you go: How did he get so open? Where the heck is the safety? If you watched the Huskies scrimmage this spring, and you saw few if any clearly broken coverages, that suggests that guys understand where they are supposed to be. Being in the right place, properly in position to complete an assignment, is step two for a defense. It's one-third the battle. It's the difference between being sound and unsound, and the Huskies were too often unsound under Nick Holt.
What's the first step? Well, that's something else you can get a feel for after watching a few practices. The first step is playing hard every play. If you watch enough football -- and enough different teams -- you can start to see a difference in how teams play and practice. Is everybody running to the ball? Is there constant chatter and enthusiasm? Are pads popping all over the field? Way back when Chip Kelly used to let reporters watch practice, you could see that Oregon practiced hard. That might be a part of their recent success.
The third step? Being good enough to make the play when you're doing your best and know your assignment. That could be the area where Wilcox is most challenged this year. The Huskies still aren't where they need to be in terms of talent and depth on all three levels.
Ryan from Salt Lake City writes: So what is one supposed to do to pass the time until fall camp? Other than read the PAC 12 blog religiously.
Ted Miller: Well, you certainly hit the chief pass time. The Pac-12 blog NEVER GOES AWAY... even if college football does for a few months.
Other choices?
Read a book. Talk to your wife or kids. Perhaps both.
Watch the all five seasons of "The Wire." Go to the beach. Fix up your back yard. Fix up my backyard. Read -- or re-read -- two literary classics. Learn to cook a heavenly spaghetti carbonara. Train for a triathlon. Develop your own cocktail. Actually become informed on political issues instead of only blathering boilerplate ideological rants. Decide to definitively find out which restaurant makes the best hamburger within 20 miles of your home. Watch baseball. Volunteer with Habitat for Humanity. Expand your musical horizons.
Sleep.
Any other suggestions?
Follow me on Twitter.
To the notes!
Mitchell from Boston writes: The first round of the NFL draft should answer you pac fans about which conference is the best. But here's my question. What do you mean with this "Wimpy scheduling needs to be addressed, including finding ways to circumvent misleading measures of "strength of schedule." There is nothing "wimpy" about playing in the SEC. It's big-boy football. The SEC doesn't need to play a tough schedule because it already plays an SEC schedule.
Ted Miller: Glad to explain, Mitchell, because it's important to understand what I am saying and what I am not saying.
The SEC is the nation's best football conference. Six consecutive national titles leave little doubt, particularly with five different teams claiming at least one in the BCS era. And the draft numbers for Thursday were impressive. There is a gap between the SEC and every other conference, and my belief is that gap has widened over the past 10 years -- from being mostly perception to become (self-fulfilling?) reality.
So what am I saying about scheduling? Well, dagnabit, I'm going to pick on Mississippi State again. Apologies in advance, lovely Starkville.
Last year, the Bulldogs' nonconference schedule featured Memphis, Louisiana Tech, UAB and Tennessee-Martin. This is hard to believe, but the 2012 slate is even more embarrassing: Jackson State, Troy, South Alabama and Middle Tennessee.
Our new system for determining a four-team playoff needs to make it nearly impossible to play for the national title with a nonconference record like that, even if lightning struck and the Bulldogs went undefeated. There needs to be an evaluative component that specifically analyzes nonconference competition separate from conference competition, one that gives a team points for aggressively scheduling and deducts points for hiding like a quaking kitten from a challenge.
Further, the new system needs to find a way to spread this deduction throughout a conference. Why? Because Mississippi State starts the 2012 season 4-0. You can't say that about any Pac-12 team. Or Big 12 team, for that matter, because the Big 12 also plays a nine-game conference schedule.
Look at it this way. The worst record imaginable for the Bulldogs in 2012 is 4-8. There is only one sure-thing on Oregon State's schedule -- Nicholls State (I won't mention the Sacramento State debacle in 2011). The Beavers play Wisconsin and at BYU in their other two nonconference games. The Beavers conceivably could end up 1-11 and still be significantly better than Mississippi State. But that wouldn't show up in a typical strength of schedule measure.
Then there is that nine- vs. eight-game conference schedule issue. That almost automatically decreases the strength of schedule ranking for the Pac-12 because it guarantees six more losses annually in the conference. Further, there's this: Guess which three teams Georgia didn't play in the 2011 regular season? Alabama, LSU and Arkansas.
When you have three conference misses a year, it can skew things more than if you have two.
While we can certainly acknowledge the SEC has taken the lead in college football, the SEC can't expect a "just because" perception to be superimposed on the future. It can't be allowed to insist that just because it plays an SEC schedule that it doesn't have to play quality nonconference games -- and on the road, too.
Now let's give credit where credit is due. LSU posted perhaps the most impressive regular season in college football history last year, in large part due to nonconference wins over Oregon and West Virginia, which both ended up winning BCS bowl games. And Alabama deserves credit for playing Virginia Tech and Penn State in recent years and opening against Michigan in 2012. So, Alabama and LSU fans can take a bow and know we're not writing about you. Not directly.
There is no way to completely remove a substantial subjective element from determining a four-team playoff in college football. But if we're going to create a four-team playoff with mega-millions as the reward for earning a berth -- and a major revenue downer for not -- then we need to insist that our process of evaluation requires in advance certain standards for every conference.
Bob from Raleigh, N.C., writes: If the Pac decides to join the rest of CFB and go to 8 conference games, will they still have the provision of the Bay Schools playing SoCal schools every year? I realize sometimes to get a deal, some schools have to be bought (see Staples Center in basketball), but to be more equatable, they would have to break that up, right?
Ted Miller: If we do, indeed, end up with a four-team playoff in 2014, then the Pac-12 needs to end the nine-game conference schedule if the Big Ten and SEC are still playing an eight-game schedule. To not do so would simply be negligent. Too much money will be at stake to give those other conference an annual head start in the rankings.
And, if the Pac-12 goes to eight conference games, it almost certainly would end the guaranteed annual meetings between the Bay Area vs. Southern California schools.
Some fans would huff and puff, but the longterm benefit to the conference as a whole is too valuable. And, by the way, neither Bay Area coach would frown at such a change.
Miller from Aloha, Ore., writes: I do wonder what the rest of the country thinks/feels about Larry Scott. I'm obviously a huge fan due to what he has done for the Pac-12, but I think that many in the country might not like him because he has been too successful too quickly. And is there a chance this might make the other 11 Conference Commissioners (and the Domer representative) ignore his input due to jealousy, etc?
Ted Miller: Larry Scott is a likable guy. He's gracious and accessible. And he's the least imperious of the major conference commissioners, at least since Dan Beebe was forced out of the Big 12.
If anyone dislikes Scott, it's because he's smart and effective and ambitious. And, yes, I get the feeling that some commissioners don't count themselves as fans because of that. This a competitive business, and Scott has been winning too much for some folks liking. It's easier to like a competitor who is easy pickings.
But there also are no stupid men in the room. "Like" isn't as important as "respect," in any event. They all know that Scott, perhaps more than any other commissioner, knows how to grow revenue in our present age of advancing technology. Within a few months of his hiring, his consistent theme was how undervalued not only the then-Pac-10 was but also how undervalued college football was. His vision is big-picture. And it's clear he sees more of the field than many of the folks yammering in Florida this week.
So, no, they won't ignore Scott. He knows where the money is hiding.
Tim from Winston-Salem, N.C., writes: So far through the spring practices, Washington's defense seems to consistently be getting the better of the offense, with the secondary earning seemingly endless praise from the coaching staff. While I understand that the O-line is in shambles right now, do you think that the defense really is making big strides under Wilcox, or is it just the offense getting use to new looks from the D?
Ted Miller: First, I think Justin Wilcox is pretty much a sure-thing. He will make the Huskies defense better because he's never failed as a defensive coordinator. The biggest concern for Husky fans should be how long before he leaves to become a head coach.
That said: Spring practices won't reveal much of anything about the Huskies defense, particularly with them working against a patchwork offensive line. It muddies things further that the the Huskies are replacing their top skill guys, too.
But there are things you can notice. You bring up the secondary. How many times over the past three years did you go: How did he get so open? Where the heck is the safety? If you watched the Huskies scrimmage this spring, and you saw few if any clearly broken coverages, that suggests that guys understand where they are supposed to be. Being in the right place, properly in position to complete an assignment, is step two for a defense. It's one-third the battle. It's the difference between being sound and unsound, and the Huskies were too often unsound under Nick Holt.
What's the first step? Well, that's something else you can get a feel for after watching a few practices. The first step is playing hard every play. If you watch enough football -- and enough different teams -- you can start to see a difference in how teams play and practice. Is everybody running to the ball? Is there constant chatter and enthusiasm? Are pads popping all over the field? Way back when Chip Kelly used to let reporters watch practice, you could see that Oregon practiced hard. That might be a part of their recent success.
The third step? Being good enough to make the play when you're doing your best and know your assignment. That could be the area where Wilcox is most challenged this year. The Huskies still aren't where they need to be in terms of talent and depth on all three levels.
Ryan from Salt Lake City writes: So what is one supposed to do to pass the time until fall camp? Other than read the PAC 12 blog religiously.
Ted Miller: Well, you certainly hit the chief pass time. The Pac-12 blog NEVER GOES AWAY... even if college football does for a few months.
Other choices?
Read a book. Talk to your wife or kids. Perhaps both.
Watch the all five seasons of "The Wire." Go to the beach. Fix up your back yard. Fix up my backyard. Read -- or re-read -- two literary classics. Learn to cook a heavenly spaghetti carbonara. Train for a triathlon. Develop your own cocktail. Actually become informed on political issues instead of only blathering boilerplate ideological rants. Decide to definitively find out which restaurant makes the best hamburger within 20 miles of your home. Watch baseball. Volunteer with Habitat for Humanity. Expand your musical horizons.
Sleep.
Any other suggestions?
- Andy Staples breaks things down.
- In some ways, writes Pat Forde, this is a victory -- again -- for the SEC and Slive.
- It would seem the Rose Bowl is on board with change, mostly because there's really no choice. But it is a divisive issue.
- Roadblocks still remain.
In 2014, we will crown a college football national champion in a different way for the first time since 1997. How we might do that -- and how college football divides the substantial spoils -- remains a matter of intense, amorphous speculation.
But BCS executive director Bill Hancock laid down the biggest revelation coming out of the BCS meetings in Hollywood, Fla., on Wednesday: "I can officially say that the status quo is off the table."
So the pure BCS rankings model is dead. Long live... what?
[+] Enlarge
Chris Williams/Icon SMIPac-12 commissioner Larry Scott has a lot to consider when discussing a new postseason plan.
Chris Williams/Icon SMIPac-12 commissioner Larry Scott has a lot to consider when discussing a new postseason plan.The consensus among reporters with "sources" rates a four-team playoff with semifinals at neutral sites, perhaps even the existing BCS bowls, as the leading plan. The national title game then could be put out for bid. And it would be very valuable.
But even that seemingly simple plan is fraught with issues. Chief among them for the Pac-12 and Big Ten: What about the Rose Bowl?
Beyond that: How do you select the teams? Will the BCS standings be tweaked -- again -- and used? Or what about a selection committee? What about bias issues? Will only conference champions be eligible? After you select the teams, how do you seed them? And then how do you decide who plays where?
And, when all of that heavy lifting is complete, how do you divide the billions? Do the Conferences Formerly Known as the AQ Conferences keep a lion's share of the loot? Or should there be more equity?
Know that the conference commissioners are not all on the same page. CBS Sports' Brett McMurphy does a good job of showing how Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott and SEC commissioner Mike Slive agree on very little. For example:
Scott said if a four-team playoff is chosen, the selection of the four teams needs to be "more credible, a more objective, fair system that balances strength of schedule.
"We don't all play over the same course," Scott said. "We play a different caliber ... some play nine conference games, some eight. Some play stronger out-of-conference competition, some tend to not. They just want to get home games."
Scott didn't say which conference he was referring to, but he didn't have to -- their initials are S-E-C.
What's important for the commissioners not named Slive is to not allow the SEC to dictate terms, particularly to introduce a system that will cultivate a "just because" feeling that the SEC should always will be in the Final Four -- often with two teams.
Wimpy scheduling needs to be addressed, including finding ways to circumvent misleading measures of "strength of schedule." And, yes, Scott is well aware that a significant part of the SEC's rise is PR and fan passion, not just quality play. He knows that would be in play with a selection committee.
Just imagine how contentious and controversial this could be.
Imagine, for one, if Oregon were ranked No. 4 in the AP poll and by the vast majority of other polls -- coaches, Sagarin, computer, etc. -- but was bypassed by a selection committee for a second SEC team. My feeling, and I could be wrong, is that would bother some folks in Eugene. And the Pac-12 offices.
What if Boise State is the only unbeaten team but many think four one-loss teams from major conferences are much better? Or what if there are four unbeaten teams but an 11-1 team played a much tougher schedule? And will a selection committee worry about which teams would generate better ratings -- say Ohio State over Oklahoma State -- and therefore better revenue.
All these potentially contentious scenarios, of course, mean a HUGE political element will exist if there is some sort of committee. Conference offices will be forced to mobilize on talking points supporting their lead team. As a writer covering college football, it seems like potentially great fun but not necessarily like a system fans won't immediately start lambasting.
You know: Like they do the BCS.
Any committee -- or selection process -- will have to explain itself fully and how it made distinctions: "Yes, everyone else ranked Oregon No. 4, but we think Arkansas is better!"
Good luck with that.
When will we have an endgame? Not this week. The goal this week is to come up with two or three legitimate plans. Those will be put before the NCAA Presidential Oversight Committee. A decision should then be announced in early July.
More reading on this;
College football playoff at neutral sites?
April, 24, 2012
Apr 24
7:40
PM ET
By
Ted Miller | ESPN.com
Changes are coming to the college football postseason, and it appears that the most likely scenario is to play the semifinals and national championship game at neutral sites, a source familiar with the negotiations told ESPN.com on Tuesday.
This part likely will be interesting to Pac-12 fans:
No offense to the source, but Oregon could produce plenty of hotel rooms within an hour's drive, probably more than most AQ conference teams. Just saying.
If the semifinals and finals were to be played in existing BCS bowls, the games could rotate in some fashion. What would that mean for the Rose Bowl? Well, that remains to be seen.
The elimination of the semifinal games being played at the higher seeds' home stadiums is good news for the BCS bowls, at least other than the Rose Bowl. It presents a scenario where they can still exist in a high-profile way, one that really doesn't dramatically change much for them.
Other, perhaps, than conference affiliation.
Stay tuned.
This part likely will be interesting to Pac-12 fans:
A proposal to play the semifinal games at the home stadiums of the higher-seeded teams is all but dead, according to the source. The semifinal games will either be hosted by the existing BCS bowl games or opened for bidding. The source said it seemed almost certain that the national championship game will be opened to bidding by the existing BCS bowl sites and other cities such as Atlanta, Dallas and Indianapolis.
The conference commissioners have reached a conclusion that some FBS schools' stadiums aren't large enough to host a national semifinal game and that many college towns don't have enough hotel rooms to accommodate bigger crowds.
"What happens if TCU finishes No. 2 in the country and hosts a semifinal game?" the source said. "TCU finished No. 3 two years ago. Are they really hosting No. 3 Ohio State in a 45,000-seat stadium? Where are people going to stay if Oregon hosts a semifinal game? In Portland? As much as it would be great for the sport to see a game played in Ann Arbor, Mich., Tuscaloosa, Ala., or Lincoln, Neb., some of the logistical issues are just too severe. I think that idea has come home to roost as far as these guys are concerned."
No offense to the source, but Oregon could produce plenty of hotel rooms within an hour's drive, probably more than most AQ conference teams. Just saying.
If the semifinals and finals were to be played in existing BCS bowls, the games could rotate in some fashion. What would that mean for the Rose Bowl? Well, that remains to be seen.
Conference commissioners are still debating about what to do with the Rose Bowl as well, according to the source. Rose Bowl officials have repeatedly said they prefer to keep their traditional matchup between Big Ten and Pac-12 teams; Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany and Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott also favor keeping the traditional tie-in intact. But if the Rose Bowl isn't willing to give up its affiliations with those conferences, it might fall out of a potential national semifinals rotation. However, the Rose Bowl would still be eligible to bid for a national championship game.
The elimination of the semifinal games being played at the higher seeds' home stadiums is good news for the BCS bowls, at least other than the Rose Bowl. It presents a scenario where they can still exist in a high-profile way, one that really doesn't dramatically change much for them.
Other, perhaps, than conference affiliation.
Stay tuned.
The Pac-12 blog's official stance on the Rose Bowl: It's awesome. Has been since 1902. If you've ever been to one, you are nodding.
If you are not nodding, you are either ignorant of the Rose Bowl experience or are untroubled by being wrong. And I mean that in the nicest possible way.
Our position on this is unambiguous. When the BCS power brokers meet in Hollywood, Fla., this week with the intention of transforming the college football postseason, the Rose Bowl must be given special status. Why? If you were to request a list from the sports' cognoscenti on the greatest traditions in college football, most would rate the Rose Bowl No. 1.
Some ACC, Big 12 and SEC fans might be shrugging. Their conferences don't play in the Rose Bowl, other than in a couple of BCS-mandated exceptional cases. Why should they care?
Well, I don't live in Egypt, but I care about the pyramids. We're talking about history, folks, about tradition, about maintaining a connection to the past. If our postseason endgame somehow ends the Rose Bowl, it would be like knocking down the Washington Monument because we feel like we can build a bigger and better pointy thing in our nation's capital.
We know that one of the four options that will be discussed -- as first reported by USA Today -- is the "Four Teams Plus" plan. It would make the Rose Bowl an automatic part of a "playoff" that would determine the national champion.
This plan has been widely ridiculed, and for good reason. It's ridiculous. It continues to add subjectivity to the process instead of having more decided on the field of play. That's what we are trying to get rid of.
As I've said before, it doesn't seem that complicated to have a four-team playoff set, then let the Rose Bowl choose next, likely the best available teams from the Pac-12 and Big Ten.
Why should the Rose Bowl get priority? Because it's the Rose Bowl.
Should there be flexibility to the Big Ten-Pac-12 matchup? Perhaps. It's already happened without great loss of life (though there has been a bit of wincing, particularly one year in Berkeley). It might be unavoidable. The game itself, however, is the most sacred relic.
The hope here is this won't end up being only a Jim Delany and Larry Scott crusade. The Big Ten and Pac-12 commissioners obviously have the most at stake among all the pooh-bahs in Florida, but there's no reason for SEC don Mike Slive et al to go all Sun Tzu on the Rose Bowl just to score an Art of War point.
It would be great if Slive et al would take the high-grounded position and recognize the Rose Bowl's special status in college football.
There will be a lot of smart folks in Florida. Let's hope they are smart enough not to drive a carelessly placed wingtip into the game they are charged with protecting.
If you are not nodding, you are either ignorant of the Rose Bowl experience or are untroubled by being wrong. And I mean that in the nicest possible way.
Our position on this is unambiguous. When the BCS power brokers meet in Hollywood, Fla., this week with the intention of transforming the college football postseason, the Rose Bowl must be given special status. Why? If you were to request a list from the sports' cognoscenti on the greatest traditions in college football, most would rate the Rose Bowl No. 1.
Some ACC, Big 12 and SEC fans might be shrugging. Their conferences don't play in the Rose Bowl, other than in a couple of BCS-mandated exceptional cases. Why should they care?
Well, I don't live in Egypt, but I care about the pyramids. We're talking about history, folks, about tradition, about maintaining a connection to the past. If our postseason endgame somehow ends the Rose Bowl, it would be like knocking down the Washington Monument because we feel like we can build a bigger and better pointy thing in our nation's capital.
We know that one of the four options that will be discussed -- as first reported by USA Today -- is the "Four Teams Plus" plan. It would make the Rose Bowl an automatic part of a "playoff" that would determine the national champion.
The four highest-ranked teams at the end of the regular season would meet in semifinals unless the Big Ten or Pac-12 champion, or both, were among the top four. Those leagues' teams still would meet in the Rose, and the next highest-ranked team or teams would slide into the semis. The national championship finalists would be selected after those three games.
This plan has been widely ridiculed, and for good reason. It's ridiculous. It continues to add subjectivity to the process instead of having more decided on the field of play. That's what we are trying to get rid of.
As I've said before, it doesn't seem that complicated to have a four-team playoff set, then let the Rose Bowl choose next, likely the best available teams from the Pac-12 and Big Ten.
Why should the Rose Bowl get priority? Because it's the Rose Bowl.
Should there be flexibility to the Big Ten-Pac-12 matchup? Perhaps. It's already happened without great loss of life (though there has been a bit of wincing, particularly one year in Berkeley). It might be unavoidable. The game itself, however, is the most sacred relic.
The hope here is this won't end up being only a Jim Delany and Larry Scott crusade. The Big Ten and Pac-12 commissioners obviously have the most at stake among all the pooh-bahs in Florida, but there's no reason for SEC don Mike Slive et al to go all Sun Tzu on the Rose Bowl just to score an Art of War point.
It would be great if Slive et al would take the high-grounded position and recognize the Rose Bowl's special status in college football.
There will be a lot of smart folks in Florida. Let's hope they are smart enough not to drive a carelessly placed wingtip into the game they are charged with protecting.
There are two priorities above all others as college football pooh-bahs try to restructure the college football postseason: 1. Create a better system -- read: quasi-playoff -- to select a national champion; 2. Preserve the Rose Bowl.
No. 2 is controversial.
Why? Because the Pac-12 and Big Ten play in the Rose Bowl. The other BCS conferences' champions are connected to great-but-less-great BCS bowls. So guess who wants to preserve the greatest event and asset in college football history? And who doesn't?
One of the four options that will be discussed -- as first reported by USA Today -- during the BCS meetings on April 24-26 in Hollywood, Fla., is the "Four Teams Plus" plan. It makes the Rose Bowl an automatic part of a "playoff" that would determine the national champion.
This week SEC commissioner Mike Slive volunteered that this plan, "is not one of my favorites." A completely understandable position, too.
The biggest reason for this is simple: The SEC doesn't have a contract with the Rose Bowl. You'd guess the ACC and Big 12 have similar feelings. Meanwhile, folks over in Big Ten and Pac-12 country feel differently.
My incredibly bright, prolific and downright lovable colleagues, Adam Rittenberg in the Big Ten blog and Chris "I can't see you from behind the SEC's six crystal footballs stacked in front of me" Low of the SEC, both opined this week that this "Four Teams Plus" plan is unworkable, agreeing with Slive. You can read Rittenberg here and Low here.
I mostly agree, in large part because the "Four Teams Plus" plan, when you get down to it, is ridiculous. What it does is -- again -- set up a plan where an ultimate judgment on the two teams playing for the national title won't be decided on the field. You would have two so-called semifinal winners and a Rose Bowl winner and then you'd need a subjective system to pick two of the three.
Anyone think that might get controversial?
That said: Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott and Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany need to make something clear in Florida: The Rose Bowl must endure. Period. Then we talk playoff. Or we walk.
That might ruffle some custom-tailored pinstripe suits, but it rests on a great truth that everyone in the room needs to acknowledge: The Rose Bowl is special. No other bowl matches it in terms of history or pageantry. It is the greatest tradition in all of college football. End of story. To not admit this truth is to be ignorant or disingenuous.
How this gets done, I'll mostly leave it up to the Big Brains meeting in Florida. To me, it doesn't seem that complicated to have a four-team playoff set, then let the Rose Bowl choose next, likely the best available teams from the Pac-12 and Big Ten.
It seems very likely the college football postseason will be different in 2014. And it's likely the adopted changes will -- again -- be controversial. A perfect system doesn't exist.
But Scott and Delany should not back down on the Rose Bowl. That's what's best for college football.
No. 2 is controversial.
Why? Because the Pac-12 and Big Ten play in the Rose Bowl. The other BCS conferences' champions are connected to great-but-less-great BCS bowls. So guess who wants to preserve the greatest event and asset in college football history? And who doesn't?
One of the four options that will be discussed -- as first reported by USA Today -- during the BCS meetings on April 24-26 in Hollywood, Fla., is the "Four Teams Plus" plan. It makes the Rose Bowl an automatic part of a "playoff" that would determine the national champion.
The four highest-ranked teams at the end of the regular season would meet in semifinals unless the Big Ten or Pac-12 champion, or both, were among the top four. Those leagues' teams still would meet in the Rose, and the next highest-ranked team or teams would slide into the semis. The national championship finalists would be selected after those three games.
This week SEC commissioner Mike Slive volunteered that this plan, "is not one of my favorites." A completely understandable position, too.
The biggest reason for this is simple: The SEC doesn't have a contract with the Rose Bowl. You'd guess the ACC and Big 12 have similar feelings. Meanwhile, folks over in Big Ten and Pac-12 country feel differently.
My incredibly bright, prolific and downright lovable colleagues, Adam Rittenberg in the Big Ten blog and Chris "I can't see you from behind the SEC's six crystal footballs stacked in front of me" Low of the SEC, both opined this week that this "Four Teams Plus" plan is unworkable, agreeing with Slive. You can read Rittenberg here and Low here.
I mostly agree, in large part because the "Four Teams Plus" plan, when you get down to it, is ridiculous. What it does is -- again -- set up a plan where an ultimate judgment on the two teams playing for the national title won't be decided on the field. You would have two so-called semifinal winners and a Rose Bowl winner and then you'd need a subjective system to pick two of the three.
Anyone think that might get controversial?
That said: Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott and Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany need to make something clear in Florida: The Rose Bowl must endure. Period. Then we talk playoff. Or we walk.
That might ruffle some custom-tailored pinstripe suits, but it rests on a great truth that everyone in the room needs to acknowledge: The Rose Bowl is special. No other bowl matches it in terms of history or pageantry. It is the greatest tradition in all of college football. End of story. To not admit this truth is to be ignorant or disingenuous.
How this gets done, I'll mostly leave it up to the Big Brains meeting in Florida. To me, it doesn't seem that complicated to have a four-team playoff set, then let the Rose Bowl choose next, likely the best available teams from the Pac-12 and Big Ten.
It seems very likely the college football postseason will be different in 2014. And it's likely the adopted changes will -- again -- be controversial. A perfect system doesn't exist.
But Scott and Delany should not back down on the Rose Bowl. That's what's best for college football.
Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott talks about potential changes in the BCS and the college football postseason.
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
