ESPN College Football

Last week we gave you our thoughts on Pac-12 games we can't wait to see. Obviously, the much-anticipated Nov. 3 Oregon-USC matchup (assuming both teams do what they are supposed to do) is the one that will have all Pac-12 fans drooling. But there are plenty of other potential matchups with major conference implications along the way (or after).

Ted Miller went with Stanford's Sept. 27 trek to Washington in a showdown of second-tier North Division teams. Recent history is on the side of the Cardinal, but Washington is hoping to turn the tide with a revamped defense.

Kevin Gemmell went with the USC's trip to Utah on Oct. 4 -- a pivotal game in the South Division. You've got an A-list offense in USC going against one of the top defensive fronts on the West Coast.

Are those the top two games? Or are there better ones on the horizon you're waiting for?

Washington's trip to Baton Rouge to face LSU on Sept. 8 seems like a pretty good one. You have a Heisman hopeful quarterback against probably the best defense in the country.

How about Stanford's trip to Oregon on Nov. 17? The Cardinal will try to play spoiler while the Ducks will likely be in pursuit of a BCS bowl game.

Then there is Cal's trip to Ohio State on Sept. 15. The Bears haven't had a lot of success when they travel East and Miller tabbed it Cal's most important game of the season.

What's the game you can't wait to see?

Mark Schlabach has published another iteration of his way-too-early power rankings, that now no longer seem that way too early.

You can see them here.

LSU is No. 1, which makes perfect sense to me. USC is No. 2. Ditto on that. Oregon is No. 4. Alabama is No. 3. That means we could end up with the SEC and Pac-12 giving us a pair of national semifinals in the BCS's penultimate season.

Schlabach on the Trojans:

With 19 starters coming back from a 10-2 team in 2011, including star quarterback Matt Barkley, USC seems armed to return to national prominence. But the Trojans' schedule seems much more difficult than LSU's this coming season. The Trojans play Pac-12 road games at Stanford on Sept. 15 and at Washington on Oct. 13, along with a Nov. 3 home game against Oregon and Nov. 24 home finale against Notre Dame. Still, if the Trojans can solidify their defensive line they'll be right in the mix for a BCS national championship. Opponents will have a difficult time slowing down Barkley and receivers Marqise Lee and Robert Woods.

And his take on the Ducks, who moved up two spots:

After losing All-America tailback LaMichael James, it's hard to believe the Ducks might be even faster on offense in 2012. But with tailbacks Kenjon Barner and De'Anthony Thomas taking over, Oregon has two sprinters in its backfield. The quarterback battle between Bryan Bennett and Marcus Mariota might not be settled until preseason camp, but both players seem more than capable of running coach Chip Kelly's fast-paced offense. Oregon's defense must replace two starting linebackers and two defensive backs. The Ducks play five of their first six games at home and their nonconference schedule is much easier with home games against Arkansas State, Fresno State and FCS-foe Tennessee Tech. Road games at Southern Cal and California and a home game against Stanford might loom large in November.

He has Stanford 12th, which damages the Cardinal's "no respect" angle a bit:

A lot of people expected Stanford to slip after coach Jim Harbaugh left for the San Francisco 49ers after the 2010 season. But first-year coach David Shaw guided the Cardinal to an 11-2 record and a spot in the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl last season. Now the Cardinal have to survive without All-America quarterback Andrew Luck and many other star players. Luck was the No. 1 pick in the NFL draft, and guard David DeCastro, tight end Coby Fleener and tackle Jonathan Martin were selected in the first two rounds. Sophomore Brett Nottingham looks like the heir apparent at quarterback, but Stanford figures to be a ground-oriented team with tailback Stepfan Taylor coming back. Stanford plays USC at home on Sept. 15 and at Oregon on Nov. 17.

Washington is 21st:

About the only defense that looked worse than Washington's during bowl season was Clemson's. The Huskies were ripped for 777 yards, including 482 rushing, in a 67-56 loss to Baylor in the Valero Alamo Bowl. As a result, Huskies coach Steve Sarkisian revamped his coaching staff, bringing in five new assistants, including former Boise State and Tennessee defensive coordinator Justin Wilcox. The Huskies bring back quarterback Keith Price, who threw for 3,063 yards and 33 touchdowns last season. But they'll have to replace tailback Chris Polk, who ran for 1,488 yards and 12 touchdowns. Perhaps no team faces a more difficult start to the season; UW plays LSU (road), Stanford (home), Oregon (road) and USC (home) in its first six games.

Who's missing in my mind? Utah. I'd rate it 73 percent change the Utes end up in the top-25.

In case you haven't noticed, we've got a bit of a theme going on this week -- important games in the Pac-12. Obviously, everyone is circling the Nov. 3 showdown between USC and Oregon in Los Angeles. But there are other games to enjoy along the way. So this week we're looking at games we're most excited about.

Ted Miller: I like measuring-stick games, games that perhaps reveal the talent and heart of a team, as well as, of course, where they rank in the Pac-12 pecking order. We have a perfect example Sept. 27 (a Thursday) in Seattle: Stanford's visit to Washington, which will be played in CenturyLink Field, the Seahawks' stadium.

The obvious measure of this game's importance is this: The winner steps up in the Pac-12 North Division pecking order, the loser steps back. The winner can imagine challenging Oregon for the division title, while the loser's attention likely turns to more attainable quarry. But it's more than that. For one, it's likely both teams already will have suffered a defeat. The Huskies visit LSU on Sept. 8, while Stanford hosts USC on Sept. 15. Those opponents likely will rank Nos. 1 and 2 in the nation. This game, therefore, can serve to redirect one team's early-season trajectory. It's much better to head into October with one loss than with two.

For Stanford, this is about announcing the program's health in the post-Andrew Luck Era. Beating the Huskies on the road likely would re-establish the Cardinal as a top-25 team, where, based on the schedule, they could remain all season.

But, really, the weight falls more heavily on Washington. Why? For one, Stanford has beaten the Huskies four games in a row. But that's not the biggest issue. It's not even that the three most recent games have been blowouts. It's the nature of those blowouts. Stanford has unmanned Washington during that winning streak. Huskies fans, cover your eyes. You don't want to read this. Stanford has averaged 322 yards rushing in those four victories. 322! Last year, the Cardinal set a school record with 446 yards rushing in a 65-21 victory. The Cardinal only had 278 in 2010, but, of course, the final count was 41-zip. At Husky Stadium!

It hurts to lose no matter what. And it hurts to get blown out. But for a football team to get physically manhandled ... that's humiliation. It's hard to describe the recent turn in this series any other way. The Huskies' pride is on the line. New defensive coordinator Justin Wilcox was brought in to make sure no opponent rushes for 322 yards against Washington. It will be interesting to see if he can deliver in this early conference test. Or if post-Luck Stanford keeps churning along, winning with character and cruelty.

Kevin Gemmell: I too enjoy a good measuring-stick game -- and I don't think there is a bigger one early in the season than USC's trip to Utah on Oct. 4. First, it's a Thursday night game, which means a national TV audience. It's at Rice-Eccles Stadium -- one of my favorite venues -- and the place should be going crazy.

For the sake of argument, I'm going to work off the assumption that both USC and Utah are 4-0 heading into this game. If any Hawaii, Syracuse, Stanford, Cal, Northern Colorado, Utah State, Brigham Young or Arizona State fans take exception to that argument, I know Ted would love to hear about it in his mailbag.

In terms of measuring-stick games, there is none bigger on the 2012 schedule than this one for Utah -- which is desperate to find its way into the conversation as one of the Pac-12's elite. A victory over the Trojans -- who presumably will be one of the top-ranked teams in the country (if not No. 1) on Oct. 4 -- would go a long way toward achieving that.

Both teams will be coming off a bye week, so there is a good chance they will be rested and healthy. But the Trojans have the tougher road through the first four weeks. USC will have been put through the meat grinder against two top-rated defenses in Stanford and Cal before their bye. Then they come to Salt Lake City against -- arguably -- the best defensive front in the conference.

That makes this a pretty significant measuring-stick game for the Trojans, too. Three consecutive wins over three of the top front-sevens in the Pac-12 will likely answer any questions about the Trojans' toughness. By the way, they're on the road again the following week at Washington. This is just step three in an awfully difficult four-game stretch.

USC has the stronger offense -- even Utah fans won't dispute what the Trojans bring to the table with Matt Barkley and Co.-- but Utah's defensive line is as good as it gets. And one cannot throw the ball if one's face is buried in the turf.

This projects to be a brutal, physical game with the winner taking decisive command of the Pac-12 South.

A victory for Utah would catapult the Utes into conference legitimacy and mark that they have arrived. A USC victory re-affirms its status as the team to beat in the South and will likely leave the rest of us licking our chops for Nov. 3.

Every game counts. But some games count more. Or tell us more.

We're going through the Pac-12 and picking out one game that seems most important -- or potentially most revealing -- for each team from our vantage point today.

We're going in alphabetical order.

California

Most important game: at Ohio State, Sept. 15

Why it's important: While a midseason Big Game against Bay Area rival Stanford would be the obvious choice -- particularly one in newly remodeled Memorial Stadium -- we're going to be contrarian. Our starting point is this: When was the last time the Bears won an, er, big game on the road? You could say perhaps the win at Stanford in 2009 counts, but driving an hour or so south hardly qualifies as a road trip. By our calculations, it was 2007, when the Bears nipped Oregon 31-24 in an Autzen Stadium thriller (a really, really entertaining game). That was back when everyone thought Jeff Tedford was one of the nation's best coaches and Nate Longshore was a sure-thing NFL prospect. Do Cal fans recall what happened next? I'm a little fuzzy. Ranked No. 2, about to jump to No. 1 after LSU lost. Oregon State in Strawberry Canyon. Kevin Riley's scramble. Tedford's infuriated stomp! OK, no need to go on (losing six of seven!). You could make the case that victory in Eugene hardly served a positive purpose, seeing what happened thereafter, but sometimes big wins are springboards into someplace other than the abyss. You know: Like a good season. Winning at the Horseshoe, one of the toughest places to play in the nation, would make a significant statement, nationally as well as within the Pac-12. If the Bears are able to beat a vulnerable but likely nationally ranked Ohio State squad, they almost certainly would take a 3-0 record and their own national ranking to USC the next weekend. The Bears would start the Pac-12 schedule with confidence. Quarterback Zach Maynard would have a marquee road win under his belt. The fanbase would stop wringing its hands over Tedford's hotseat and start imagining the program getting back on track. Even if the Bears lost to the Trojans, three winnable conference games follow before Stanford comes to town. Facing the Cardinal at 6-1 would make the Big Game worthy of its name. But a loss at Ohio State, particularly a lopsided one -- think horrible trips east against Tennessee and Maryland -- would add pressure to the visit to the Coliseum, where good things have not happened for the Bears of late. At 2-2, the leading topic among Bears fans would be Tedford's future. That would not be the case at 3-1 with a win over Urban Meyer.

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.

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?

Matt Hays of The Sporting News, presently known as Urban Meyer's BFF, has published his post-spring ranking of the top 25 players in college football. He writes: "These rankings are based on a combination of on-field performance and next level potential."

The list includes seven Pac-12 players. The SEC leads all conferences with nine (Washington fans: You might take note that practically the entire LSU defense made the cut).

Particularly interesting is the comment from an NFL scout on each player.

Here are the Pac-12 players on the list with comment.

1. Matt Barkley, QB, USC
NFL scout says: “He would have been a top-5 pick this year. He’ll probably be No.1 overall next year.”


2. Marqise Lee, WR, USC
NFL scout says: “These are the guys where you wish we had the one-and-done rule of the NBA.”


9. Robert Woods, WR, USC
NFL scout says: “He’s going to play a long time in this league. He has position smarts; he knows the game and is loaded with ability.”


14. De'Anthony Thomas, WR-RB, Oregon
NFL scout says: “He’s a fun guy to watch -- but he’s 160 pounds. How many guys in this league are 160 pounds?”


17. Shayne Skov, LB, Stanford
NFL scout says: “A classic middle linebacker. Hopefully he’s the same player after the injury. He’s one of those guys where you say, that kid’s a football player.”


19. Keith Price, QB, Washington
NFL scout says: “I don’t know if he plays quarterback at this level, but he has one big thing going for him: he has Sark [Washington coach Steve Sarkisian] coaching him. If anyone can get him ready to play at this level, Sark can.”


22. Keenan Allen, WR, California
NFL scout says: “He’s not a name the average college football fan would know, but he’ll be a name you’ll know in the NFL in no time.”

Ohio State is becoming... Oregon Midwest?

That's what Big Ten blogger Adam Rittenberg noted on Wednesday, getting such analysis straight from the new mouth of the Horseshoe, Urban Meyer.

"All you've got to do is look at Oregon," Meyer told Rittenberg. "We're committed to it. We're still going to pop a huddle once in a while, but we're committed to it."

That sounds like bad news for the rest of the Big Ten, but perhaps not for one of the Buckeyes nonconference foes in 2012: California.

While no defense has had consistent success stopping Oregon -- LSU even had its moments of failure in the 2011 opener -- the Bears have produced more stops against the Ducks than most, most notably the 2010 nailbiter that Oregon won just 15-13.

That's Chip Kelly's fourth-lowest point total since he's been in Eugene, including his two years as offensive coordinator (and that includes the shutout the Ducks suffered at UCLA the week after QB Dennis Dixon blew out his knee in 2007). The Ducks also scored only 16 points at Cal in 2008, but that predates coordinator Clancy Pendergast and the Bears' 3-4 look.

Last year, Cal led the Ducks 15-14 at halftime, shutting Oregon out in the second quarter. What happened after the break doesn't support our point, so we will ignore it.

Here's something Cal fans might not be entertaining but perhaps should: Cal can win in Columbus on Sept. 15.

Seriously.

Yes, the Bears tend to go rear-end-over-tea-kettle on the road, particularly when they travel east.

Yes, the Horseshoe is a brutal venue in which to play, one of the nation's toughest.

Yes, Ohio State is still Ohio State, one of the nation's elite programs.

And, yes, Meyer is a feared strategist.

But there's no escaping this: California will go to Ohio State with perhaps the biggest and most athletic front seven the Buckeyes will face in 2012. And the Bears line up against a highly questionable offensive line, one that welcomes back just two starters from a unit that yielded 46 sacks -- 118th in the nation -- on just 245 pass attempts.

For comparison: Arizona, with four new starters on its offensive line in 2011, gave up 23 sacks on 577 passes. Washington State gave up 40 on 492 passes.

The Ohio State offense in 2011 was QB Braxton Miller, who led the Buckeyes in rushing (715 yards with seven touchdowns) and passing (1,159 yards with 13 touchdowns) as a freshman. He's a major talent, but he certainly won't be the first dual-option QB the Bears defense has seen.

I know Cal fans don't want to hear any optimism from the Pac-12 blog because they well know that is typically the program's ineluctable KISS OF DEATH.

So I won't mention the plausibility of the Bears visiting USC on Sept. 22 at 3-0 and nationally ranked.

The Pac-12 is the conference of quarterbacks. The SEC is all about defense.

Oh, and winning national championships.

But as good as the defenses are in the SEC, what role does poor-to-middling offense play in that perception? As in, what would happen if those defenses played against a series of future NFL quarterbacks, as Pac-12 (and Big 12) defenses do?

The question before us is this: How would USC quarterback Matt Barkley do against those rough-tough SEC defenses?

Ted Miller: It’s sort of a chicken and the egg question. Are SEC defenses so good because they rarely play against A-list quarterbacks? Or do Pac-12 quarterbacks pile up eye-popping numbers because they don’t play against SEC defenses?

Is it more notable that four of the top 11 quarterbacks in the nation in terms of passing efficiency in 2011 were from the Pac-12, compared to none in the top 20 from the SEC? Or is it more important that six SEC defenses ranked in the top 17 in pass efficiency defense compared to zero for the Pac-12?

It’s hard to say. It’s likely a person’s home -- Los Angeles or Baton Rouge -- has a large influence on his or her opinion.

Pac-12 fans would be prone to point out: In 2005, LSU ranked No. 3 in the nation in passing efficiency defense. But in the Tigers' trip to Tempe that season, Arizona State’s Sam Keller completed 35 of 56 passes for 461 yards with four touchdowns and no interceptions in a 35-31 defeat.

Or this: LSU’s defense did a nice job against Oregon’s offense in the 2011 season opener. Of course, the Ducks scored more points on LSU than ANY OF THE OTHER 13 TEAMS LSU PLAYED.

Apologies for the caps lock. Reckless typing.

While we can all acknowledge the SEC -- at least the elite teams -- play better defense than the rest of the nation, it is also worth noting that when future first-round NFL draft picks played quarterback in the SEC, they put up good numbers, whether we’re talking about the Manning brothers, Matt Stafford or Cam Newton. And I’m sure, one day in the future --perhaps this decade! -- we’ll be able to add a name to that list.

There are some nice quartebacks in the SEC: Tyler Wilson, AJ McCarron and Aaron Murray. All three seem like they’d have a good chance of winning the backup job at USC. Maybe.

Chris Low: No way am I going to argue that Barkley wouldn't have success in the SEC.

He's a future pro and probably the front-runner to win the Heisman Trophy in 2012.

The question is: How much success would he have, and would he hit the proverbial wall going against SEC defenses on a weekly basis?

My feeling is that all quarterbacks hit that wall. Any coach will tell you (ask your buddy Lane Kiffin) that what separates SEC defenses is the speed in the front seven, particularly in the defensive line. There are fast players all over the country in college football, but the SEC has cornered the market on fast, explosive defensive linemen and pass-rushers who also have the size and strength to overpower people.

That's the difference, and that's where Barkley would notice the greatest difference.

It wasn't a banner year for quarterbacks in the SEC last season. And, yes, I realize that's an understatement. But it was a banner year for premier defensive players. That's why the first round of the NFL draft next month is going to look like an SEC who's who. As many as 10 SEC defensive players could go in the first round.

Don't sleep on the SEC's quarterback class this coming season, either. Wilson may be a future first-rounder. Murray has thrown nearly 60 touchdown passes in his first two seasons, and we all saw what McCarron did in the BCS title game against an LSU defense that was outstanding.

Barkley's a big-time talent, no question. But it's a different game when you're trying to throw from your back.

And in this league, ALL QUARTERBACKS (sorry, my caps tend to lock up, too) encounter that problem.

Ted Miller: Truth is, Wilson, Murray and McCarron are good quarterbacks who look like guys with NFL futures. Loved how McCarron handled the pressure of the title game, and Murray has Pac-12-type talent.

We're trash talking here, but if you can't acknowledge what is real, well, then it's just noise.

And the reality of this debate is this: Barkley would be more challenged on a weekly basis by SEC defenses than by Pac-12 defenses -- which I believe are underrated but still a step behind the SEC for the reasons the Inimitable Low mentioned above. If Barkley played at Vanderbilt, Mississippi State or Kentucky, he'd just be the best quarterback in the history of those programs while leading those teams to "historic" seasons. Like a third-place finish in their divisions.

Yet what makes Barkley, Barkley is not just Barkley. It's USC. It's his supporting cast. It's receivers Robert Woods and Marqise Lee, who will both have NFL careers. And two tight ends who will also. And a good offensive line, and a 1,000-yard rusher who averaged 6.9 yards per carry in 2011 (Curtis McNeal).

By the way, if you wonder where USC's true potential Achilles heel is this year, it's the defensive line. The Trojans have three A-listers -- guys who would be touted in the SEC -- but are thin thereafter. That's a problem for a team that views itself as a national title contender.

That's ultimately the rub here, too. If all goes according to plan, Barkley and USC should be in position to play for the national title. It's hard to imagine that wouldn't be against another SEC team.

Now, Chris, wouldn't it be fun if it were USC and LSU? Recall that in 2003, LSU won 1/16 of the national title when no one in the entire world thought LSU was better than USC, other than computers obviously loaded with all sorts of viruses.

Or USC-Alabama? Great history, and Saban versus Barkley & Co. would certainly attract plenty of eyeballs.

Chris Low: One of the most compelling things that could happen to college football next season would be for USC and Barkley to take their shot at an SEC defense in the money game.

Then, we could quit debating and let it play out on the field. As much as I knew that Alabama and LSU were the two best teams in the country last season, there was a part of me that wanted to see Oklahoma State against either the Alabama or LSU defense in the BCS title game.

It's the matchup we all want to see: A high-powered offense versus a suffocating defense.

Maybe that's what we'll be treated to this fall.

Of course, I go back to the 2010 national title game, and Oregon had been short-circuiting scoreboards all season long. The Ducks go up against an Auburn defense that had been opportunistic, but wasn't one of the best in the SEC that season statistically. But in that game, Auburn put the clamps on Oregon and won 22-19.

The Tigers won because the Ducks couldn't block Nick Fairley.

And that's what the Trojans would run into if they find themselves up against an SEC team next January in Miami.

It won't come down to Barkley. Sure, he'll make a few plays. He's legit. But what it will come down to is the group of guys blocking for Barkley, and that's where it always gets ugly against SEC defenses.

In the meantime, just make sure the Trojans get there. They've been known to stumble along the way, and what we're left with is a bunch of hollow chatter about what they would have done (or could have done) had they made it to the party.

We'll check the guest list in December and chat again then.

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 here.

To the notes.

Derek from Pullman writes: I was just offered a fellowship at the U of Utah for graduate school. I also wanted to buy into the Coug Athletic Fund after I graduate from WSU. The problem is that I feel like I'm stealing from one girlfriend to help out my other girlfriend. Even worse, they live on the same block and see each other several times a year at various sporting events. What is the proper etiquette in this situation?

Ted Miller: I'm viewing this question as one about potentially divided loyalties: What are the rules for having an undergraduate degree from one Pac-12 school and a graduate degree from another?

My position goes like this: 1. Your No. 1 school is the one you grew up rooting for; 2. But if you grew up, say, a UCLA fan yet then got your undergraduate degree at USC, you have a one-time right to declare a change; 3. If you try to change more than once -- say rooting for the team that is doing better at the moment -- you are committing a breach of etiquette; 4. The same goes for undergrad and graduate schools, though most would say the undergrad should hold precedent. You have a one-time right to change your allegiances.

The undergrad-graduate dilemma doesn't have to be horrifying, though. It does, in the mind of the Pac-12 blog, give you a justification for something that makes many uncomfortable: You have a right to claim a second favorite team, though sports philosophers and theologians have been debating sports polygamy for millennia. Socrates believed a person could root for two teams, as did Kierkegaard. Descartes -- best known for stating, "I read the Pac-12 blog, therefore I am" -- said otherwise, as did Nietzsche, who scholars only recently discovered was an obsessive troll on many sports message boards.

In other words, Derek, you can go to Utah games and even cheer, though preferably without much gusto. There, rightly, should be a bit of an existential crisis over wearing the colors. And when the Utes and Cougs play, you don the Crimson & Gray "In Leach We Trust!" shirt and proudly walk into Rice-Eccles Stadium. Though you might want to steer clear of the MUSS on such occasions.

Or you can decided to dump your Cougs in favor of the Utes, a divorce that can happen but once in your lifetime.

JJ from Tumalo, Ore., writes: Ted, does Les Miles have nasty pictures of you? Les is a magnificent recruiter with a major recruiting pool to draw from. But as a game planner and manager he is suspect at best. Did LSU win at Bama last season or did the Tide lose the game? The BCSCG result seems to confirm that Bama choked at home.Why do you think LSU's passing game will be much better next season? if [QB Zach Mettenberger] was all that he'd still be at UGA, no? Is there a coach on the LSU staff who can coach a top drawer pass offense? The was much disharmony coming from the LSU team during and after the BCSCG. This was a poorly as coached a team as I have seen since TOSU was blown out by Florida. What do you think a guy like Riley could do with Les' talent?

Ted Miller: Les Miles is 75-18 at LSU. Before he arrived in Baton Rouge, he rebuilt Oklahoma State into a winner from nothing. He's won a national title. This past season, LSU put together the most impressive regular season that I can remember -- perhaps of the modern era. And, by the way, he did that with mediocre-to-poor QB play, which is astounding.

Yes, the Tigers laid an egg in the national title game. Yes, Miles has produced some lunkheaded in-game moments. But college football coaching is the total package: Recruiting, building chemistry, Xs and Os, leadership, etc. Where Miles might fall short in one area, he excels in others. The proof is the win-loss record. He's clearly on the short list of the nation's best coaches.

I dare you to try and not like him after reading this story.

And, as of today, LSU will be atop my preseason top-25.

Geoff from Coos Bay, Ore., writes: How can you possibly rank Darron Thomas 12th? 12th is reasonable for De'Anthony Thomas. I think he should be higher but he was a freshman. But Darron Thomas was the QB of a Rose Bowl winning team.

Paul from Eugene, Ore., writes: You think 12 is about right for De'Anthony Thomas? I would have been disappointed if he wasn't in the top 5.

Brett from Claremont, Calif., writes: I know there was a bit of a snafu with the D. Thomases' rankings, so Darron Thomas' true location on your list would be a bit fuzzy, but how much do you think he really regressed this season vs. not improving beyond 2010 in the way some expected? You're not the only one I've read who he made similar assessments, and I'm not asking about his ranking but in the qualitative assessment of his performance. He threw roughly the same number of yards (80 less seems like statistical noise to me), while missing almost two games, ahd threw three extra touchdowns and two fewer interceptions, all without his two leading receivers from the previous year. I definitely didn't feel like he was playing as well in 2010, but I'm not sure that isn't based on my own inflated expectations for him.If Oregon had pulled out a win in the USC game and somehow ended up back in the national championship game, do you think people would still be saying he didn't play as well as in 2010?

Ted Miller: Obviously, if I hadn't screwed up and forgotten one of the Thomases -- Oregon QB Darron Thomas or Oregon RB De'Anthony Thomas -- in the original list, one of them would have been ranked something other than 12th. When I recognized I'd blown it, it seemed to make sense to pair the two Ducks together.

I certainly think you can make a compelling argument for either in the top-10, but I'm also not having major second thoughts about ranking both 12th.

It was interesting that the mailbag was mostly split on who got screwed more. With De'Anthony, I think some of you are projecting ahead. With Darron, I think there was a bit of him being the QB of record during the best back-to-back seasons in Oregon history.

De'Anthony -- Mr. Versatility -- produced 1,200 total yards from scrimmage and 18 TDs. Very good numbers but not mind-blowing. He ranked fourth in the Pac-12 in scoring. The No. 2 guy, Arizona State runnning back Cameron Marshall, didn't make the list. De'Anthony had a handful of quiet games. And there were a couple of fumbles you might recall.

By the way, De'Anthony is certain to be top-five in our preseason list, which projects ahead.

Darron was hurt by this: He was a productive and accomplished college QB leading perhaps the most productive and accomplished offensive system in college football. But how elite of a QB is he? Some of his poor-to-middling NFL evaluations did trickle into this. As perhaps did the not-too-quiet carping of a loud minority of Ducks fans who seemed to believe the offense would be better with backup Bryan Bennett, a position I didn't share.

And, by the way, this top-25 list is just the opinion of the Pac-12 blog. If you gathered 100 sportswriters in a room, everyone's top-25 list would be different. And you'd have a very smelly room.

Robert from Amarillo, Texas, writes: i have a feeling UCLA will be the surprise of the PAC-12 i like the attitude of jim mora. could it happen?

Ted Miller: Yes.

UCLA has 16 returning starters from a team that won six games. The Bruins could improve that number in 2012.

Do I think UCLA -- or any other South Division team -- is going to eclipse USC?

No.

My list of teams that might surprise folks in 2012? UCLA, Oregon State, California and Arizona. That list, of course, is fluid. Heck, we haven't even had spring practices yet.

John from Spokane writes: Check out this video on former Coug great Steve Gleason. One of the best players that I have ever seen and truly an inspiration.

Ted Miller: Definitely worth a look. Gleason was a heck of a guy well before he got sick, but he's an inspiration now, no doubt.

Happy Friday!

You can follow me on Twitter here.

Jeff from Austin, Texas, writes: Part of me (or rather, most of me) is wondering how much of the USC hype is coming from them being named "USC." Yes, they ended the season strong, but they only had a win over one ranked team all season (Oregon) which they nearly choked away in the fourth quarter. Sure they're good, but preseason #1 or 2?

Ted Miller: USC isn't a perfect team, as noted here. Part of the reason the Trojans are being talked about as preseason No. 1 is the lack of an obvious No. 1 (though, to me, LSU should start at No. 1, based on what the Tigers have coming back from a pretty darn good 2011 team).

But USC's résumé is pretty impressive. Let's start with last season. The Trojans were sort of "neh" through a 4-1 start. But they were outstanding over the second half of the season.

• They won at Oregon, which won the Pac-12, won the Rose Bowl over a good Wisconsin team and ended up ranked No. 4. Say what you want about how it went down, but the Trojans ended the Ducks 21-game home winning streak.
• Their other five wins over the second half of the season came by at least 14 points. They posted dominant wins over California, Notre Dame and Washington and concluded the season with a 50-0 stomping of rival UCLA.
• The lone loss was in triple-overtime to Stanford, which ended up ranked seventh and would have beaten No. 3 Oklahoma State in the Fiesta Bowl if it could kick a field goal.

That leads into what's coming back from that 10-2 team that finished ranked No. 5: 19 starters, including QB Matt Barkley, a sure top-10 NFL draft pick if he'd opted to leave, the best receiving tandem in the nation -- Robert Woods and Marqise Lee -- a 1,000-yard rusher in Curtis McNeal and their entire defensive back seven. Heck, it's worth noting that both specialists also are back, including first-team All-Pac-12 kicker Andre Heidari.

The issues are obvious: Questions on the defensive line and overall depth issues. (Man, could the Trojans use a couple of LSU's surfeit of future NFL D-linemen).

To me the top-two heading to 2012 are fairly obvious: 1. LSU; 2. USC.

And that would be a heck of a final game, if it held.

LSU would get a chance for revenge over the fact that no one really thinks of it as the true 2003 national champion.

Brian from Liberty Lake, Wash., writes: My question is have we seen the last of [Kevin] Prince as UCLA's QB? I think I speak for most UCLA fans when I say I hope so. Prince is a good guy but not the answer UCLA needs at QB.

Ted Miller: If I were a betting man -- giggle, giggle -- I'd lay my money on redshirt freshman Brett Hundley. He's a true dual-threat QB with tons of upside. And he is the future (though the Bruins signed two very good QBs in this recruiting class).

That said, the situation is as simple as this: Whoever plays the best in spring practice and fall camp is going to win the job. Jim Mora doesn't strike me as a guy who coaches by hypotheticals. He wants to win now, and if Kevin Prince makes it clear in advance of the season that he's the best guy to run the Bruins offense, then Prince will start at Rice on Sept. 1.

I also like that you pointed out that Prince is a "good guy." He is. And he's been a stand-up guy under difficult circumstances, whether you are talking about injuries or changing offensive coordinators on a near-annual basis -- Noel Mazzone will be his third. He's run a pro-style offense, a pistol and now will (probably) be asked to run a spread, mostly out of a traditional shotgun formation.

By the way, just because I'm a lean for Hundley doesn't mean I see it as anything close to a done deal. He clearly wasn't ready to start last spring when he looked overwhelmed, and he's yet to see action when the lights are on. Meanwhile, Prince has 26 career starts and is among the top-10 in Bruins history in passing yards and total offense.

Nik from Portland writes: With the new rules about kick offs, that are suppose to help protect players by having more touchbacks, do you feel that the some of the games excitement is going to be lost? as in less 40+ kick returns or even a repeat something like THE PLAY (Cal Vs Stanford). Or do you think more of them will happen?

Ted Miller: The new rule is this: Kickoffs will be moved up from the 30 to the 35-yard line next season. Players will also be limited to a 5-yard running head start. The reason? Fewer kickoff returns mean fewer injuries. At least, that's the -- reasonable -- theory. (The NFL moved up kickoffs up 5 yards this past season and touchbacks increased dramatically, according to the AP story).

Will excitement be lost? Sure. If there are more touchbacks, there will then be fewer exciting kickoff returns. Taking the ball away from guys like De'Anthony Thomas, Jamal Miles or Robert Woods means fewer oh-no-he-didn't! moments.

But you'd assume this wasn't a half-cocked decision: There is evidence that this new rule will yield fewer injuries, particularly concussions. So you want hear me whine about that.

It also will create a bit of new strategy. If you have a big-footed kicker, do you always want him to blast it into the endzone? Or might you try to get more hangtime and see if your kick team can pin your opponent inside the 20? Might we see a few more on-side kicks? And, if kickoff returns decrease in importance, will player like Thomas, Miles or Woods become less likely to be used for them?

This is a move that chips away at some excitement but with the intention of improving player safety. Hard to get too bent about that.

Pittsburgh from Pittsburgh writes: Not cool to denigrate places where people live. When you put something out there like that, life has a funny way of humbling you.

Ted Miller: I agree it's not cool to denigrate places where people live. And also that life has a way of humbling you. Try writing a high volume of stories for public consumption for a living.

But I don't think I denigrated any place where people live when I wrote about new Arizona State coach Todd Graham this week.

I wrote:

Graham took a lot of heat from a pandering, sanctimonious media and a whiny Pittsburgh fan base for how he left the Panthers. "He didn't even say goodbye," they collectively sobbed. "Waaah." Of course, Graham does have an unfortunate habit of describing every job as his "dream job." All that stuff is mostly hogwash, though. What matters is winning, and if Graham does that, the media will all come down en masse to Tempe pretending they didn't trash Graham's character for taking a better job, in a better conference, in a better place to live while making his family happy in the process.

Am I making fun of the reaction to Graham leaving Pittsburgh for Arizona State? Absolutely. I think it was ridiculous. Predictable, but nonetheless overblown.

Did I say anything bad about the city of Pittsburgh? No, I called Tempe "a better place to live." Obviously, that pure opinion. But Graham made that a centerpiece of why he bolted, and I'd wager that if you polled 100 random people across the country, more would choose to live in the Phoenix area rather than Pittsburgh.

People vacation here. People retire here. Spring training will shortly start. There's a reason for all that. It was chilly and rainy today in Pittsburgh. Over here in Scottsdale, I'll be grilling tonight in my bare feet.

By the way, I've been to Pittsburgh a few times. I like Pittsburgh. I'm, in fact, on record lauding it -- see this travel piece I did before the 2006 Super Bowl. (And, yes, I felt bad I left out Primanti Brothers).

By the way II, not to pander to Panthers fans, but you might find this interesting: It seems I'm a big fan of your new head coach.

We're looking at the top individual performances in the Pac-12 in 2011.

Up next: Rebounding Duck.

Who & against whom: Oregon quarterback Darron Thomas leads a 0-1, 13th-ranked Oregon team to a 69-20 blowout win over Nevada.

The numbers: Thomas threw for 295 yards and six touchdowns on 13 of 19 passing.

A closer look: After an error-plagued season opener against LSU, Thomas and the Ducks went wolf hunting and found themselves with a 41-7 lead before the bands even came out for the halftime show. Thomas threw five of his six touchdowns in the first half -- to five different receivers. He added his second of the game to De'Anthony Thomas (also his longest, 69 yards) midway through the third quarter before being spelled by Bryan Bennett. Consider Thomas' numbers from the week before: 31-of-54 for 240 yards and one touchdown. In this instance, Thomas definitely proved that less is more. The win launched a nine-game win streak and was the 17th straight victory at Autzen. The five first-half touchdowns were a school record and the six matched a school record for total touchdowns, which had been done three times (the last by Joey Harrington in 2001).

Happy Friday.

Anyone miss me? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

I appreciate the notes of support in the mailbag. Blog Baby 2 and Blog Mother 1 are doing well. Blog 3-Year-Old and Blog Baby 2 have already engaged in a heated "Pac-12!" versus "SEC!" debate, with one of them punctuating his point with a "Roll Tide!" I blame his Alabama-born mother for that.

But enough about me. What about the mail?

Oh, and you can follow me on Twitter here, where I figure to be far more active next week.

To the notes!

Tyler from Minnesota writes: What elite defenses did Luck ever play against? I'm probably the only non believer when it comes the Luck hype. The % of QB's the NFL misses on is staggering. Why believe the talking heads?

Ted Miller: Luck played against -- and mostly lit up -- nine top-50 defenses over the past two seasons. He's played against many very good defenses and a lots of NFL draft choices -- past, present and future. Further, the reason many of the defenses he's played against don't rate as "elite" with some folks is because those defenses faced a horribly unfair burden.

They played against Luck and other Pac-12 offenses.

Why the hype for Luck? Well, he's got a good arm. He's extremely athletic at 6-foot-4, 237 pounds. He's accurate. He's bright. He's a humble team guy but is also highly competitive. He's a good leader. He's had no off-field issues. And no QB since Peyton Manning has entered the NFL draft with as high a football IQ.

In fact, if you wanted to make a good comparison, I'd call Luck pretty much Peyton Manning, only with much better mobility.

Of course, there are no guarantees with QBs. For one, being the No. 1 overall draft pick typically means you're going to be immediately starting for a terrible team.

But if I were a betting man, I'd set the over-under on his Pro Bowl selections at 10.

Dan from Irvine, Calif., writes: Do you think Rich Rod can actually deliver what has eluded my Wildcats ever since they entered the Pac back in 1978; a Pac-12 championship? Also, will my kitties make it to a bowl game with Mr. Matt Scott at the helm next year? My heart tells me "yes" for both but my head says probably not.

Ted Miller: Rich Rodriguez has been successful everywhere he has coached. He was a dynamic offensive innovator at Glenville State, Tulane and Clemson. He led West Virginia to a 60-26 record in seven years, including a pair of BCS bowls.

Michigan? Well, if you read the book, "Three and Out," by John Bacon -- and I'd recommend it -- you learn that Rodriguez was pretty much doomed from the start. He was left with a lousy team, a dysfunctional athletic department and a bitter former coach in Lloyd Carr, who was anything but supportive of Rodriguez, despite playing a key role in his getting the job instead of LSU's Les Miles. Further, Bacon's book does a convincing job of deconstructing Rodriguez's treatment by the Detroit media and mostly discredits the news story that provoked the NCAA investigation into practice time rules violations.

And Rodriguez's players looked pretty good this past season, going 11-2 and winning the Sugar Bowl.

So, yes, based on his pedigree, I think Rodriguez can deliver a first Rose Bowl to Arizona.

As for this year, the pieces seem to be in place for a fairly strong turnaround, though one of Rodriguez's refrains in "Three and Out" is how it takes a few years of teaching and recruiting for his systems to take hold. If Scott gets hurt, the Wildcats complete void behind him at QB will be a huge issue, so that fact likely will limit how much Scott will be asked to run the football in Rodriguez's spread-option.

So, sticking with a theme of over-under, I'd rate Arizona's at six wins in 2012.

Greg from Philo, Calif., writes: Lane Kiffin's picks for db, lb and wr coaches were totally out of the box. Genius or incompetence?

Ted Miller: I don't call coaches geniuses. Beethoven was a genius. Einstein was a genius. Louis C.K. is a genius. But I like these hires.

Marvin Sanders, who will coach the secondary, has a strong reputation, though his sudden departure from Nebraska a year ago was a bit strange -- the official explanation was "for personal and family reasons."

By the way, this came in the mailbag from Pete from Omaha:

As a Nebraska fan, USC fans should be absolutely thrilled about the Marvin Sanders hire. He coached arguably the best secondary in the nation two years in a row in 2009 and 2010 and in that time frame produced four NFL draft picks, including first rounder Prince Amukamara. Not to mention, he is also the guy who brought Alfonso Dennard to Nebraska and coached him up, another future first or second rounder. His secondaries embarrassed QB's like Colt McCoy, Jake Locker, and Blaine Gabbert (ALL were NFL starters this year). Gice credit to Bo and Carl for those defenses too, but Marvin is arguably the best secondary coach in college football. USC fans should be ecstatic. Nobody will be able to throw on USC once Marvin gets it going.

The one you might consider "outside the box" is Scottie Hazelton, who was hired a LBs coach after building a defensive power at North Dakota State, which won the FCS national championship this year. To that I say: "Chip Kelly." And then there should be silence (Kelly was New Hampshire's offensive coordinator before taking over the Oregon offense in 2007). This, in fact, feels like an inspired hire by Kiffin, one in which he clearly did a bit of homework.

Consider this from the FCS title game story on the Bison whipping top-seeded Sam Houston, 17-6:

Sam Houston (14-1) had its lowest-scoring game of the season, 33 points below its FCS-best average, and was denied an undefeated season and its first Football Championship Subdivision title. The Bearkats had only 210 total yards.

That should raise your eyebrows.

As for Martin, he talked to Kelly about a job at Oregon in 2009. Kelly and I actually chatted about Martin because I used to cover him back when he was the quarterback of Williamson High School in Mobile, Ala. He led Tennessee to the 1998 national championship the year after Peyton Manning left for the NFL. My sense is he's an up-and-coming coach with good recruiting skills, one who knows that coaching or playing under the warm and salubrious glow of the Pac-12 blog is a feeling like no other.

Dan from San Francisco writes: I'll risk a [Willie] Lyles question given that it's a downtime in the football calendar. In my understanding, the Lyles scandal has the potential to hurt Oregon the most in recruiting, both in terms of lost scholarships and in scaring players away. But given that USC has managed to do great in recruiting and on the field despite looming and already in effect sanctions, to what extent can Oregon coaches use USC as a blueprint to follow and as an example to show recruits should Oregon be hit by sanctions? In other words, to what extent could Chip Kelly tell recruits that sanctions aren't such a big deal, because "look at USC, they got hit and they're doing fine"? I realize that USC has much more going for it in recruiting than Oregon does, but I'm guessing that might be offset somewhat by more lenient sanctions for Oregon.

Ted Miller: I continue to believe that Oregon won't face severe sanctions for Le Affair de Willie Lyles. Oregon ranked 18th in the nation in recruiting this year, so it doesn't seem like recruits are terribly worried, either.

It's never good to lose scholarships as it reduces a program's margin for error in recruiting. Based on simple math, it's easier to be good with 85 scholarship players than with 75 scholarship players. But the Ducks aren't likely to lose 30 scholarships -- 10 out of three recruiting classes -- like USC.

Whatever the endgame is with Oregon and the NCAA on this, I don't anticipate the Ducks getting smacked in a way that substantially hurts their standing in the Pac-12 pecking order.

But the USC comparison doesn't work here for me. For one, this was USC's first of three recruiting classes under scholarship limitations, so the impact of those won't really hit until a year or two from now. We don't know how the Trojans will weather the restrictions, even if it does seem that Lane Kiffin has a vision of how to do it with minimal damage.

Further, as you note Dan, Oregon doesn't work from the same recruiting point A, both in terms of geography and tradition. So if Oregon did get hit hard -- even if it were just half as hard as what USC is presently dealing with -- the damage likely would be worse. A star player in recruiting-rich Southern California might go to USC just so his parents can see him play, and that would outweigh, say, a bowl ban. There are very few A-list recruits around Eugene, and said star from Southern California is less likely to head North to Oregon -- the rain! the chill! -- if the Ducks have NCAA issues.

Even though he'd still experience the warm and salubrious glow of the Pac-12 blog.

Early today we looked at some of the early Heisman odds. Now we're looking at the BCS title odds.

ESPN's Will Harris took the odds of a top British sports book and broke down the favorites, the contenders and the long shots.

As you'd expect, USC and Oregon are toward the top of the odds, with the Trojans coming in at 8-1 and Oregon at 10-1.

Harris on USC:

USC isn't a top-three pick, either. Matt Barkley is back, the bowl ban is over and the Trojans are feeling good. But this is still a young team with overall depth issues and an inexperienced coach. Lane Kiffin has flashed an intriguing skill set, but we need to be holding more proven coaching to bite at 8 to 1.

LSU comes in as the favorite at 4.5 to 1. Though they aren't a heavy favorite, with Alabama close behind at 5 to 1. USC and Oregon come in at Nos. 3 and 4 respectively, followed by Oklahoma, Florida State and Georgia all at 12 to 1.