ESPN College Football

Our theme today, as part of our "Love to hate" week at ESPN.com, is "Left in the lurch." This is about coaches who bailed out on a Pac-12 program at an unexpected or awkward time. We're not including Urban Meyer leaving Utah for Florida or Jim Harbaugh leaving Stanford for the San Francisco 49ers because their departures were not unexpected and came only after unprecedented success.

Of course, these situations vary greatly in terms of circumstances and reaction. There aren't many college football jobs out there considered better than one in the Pac-12, so most of the coaches who bailed out on their programs left for the NFL.

But here is a sampling from the Pac-12. Feel free to provide your own thoughts below.

• [+] Enlarge
  AP Photo/Don RyanPete Carroll stunned USC fans when he left after the 2009 season to coach the Seattle Seahawks.
  California got dogged twice. First, after going 10-2 in 1991, Bruce Snyder bailed on the Golden Bears for Arizona State. It's rare for a coach to jump from one conference program to another, and it certainly hurts more. Then, in 1996, Steve Mariucci lasted just one year in Berkeley before jumping aboard with the San Francisco 49ers.
• Dennis Erickson twice left Pac-12 teams for sunnier pastures (at least in theory). After two years at Washington State, Erickson bolted for Miami after the 1988 season. Then, after a strong run at Oregon State from 1999-2002, Erickson left Corvallis for the San Francisco 49ers. He has repeatedly said that was the worst move of his career.
• Dick Vermeil lasted two seasons at UCLA. After going 9-2-1 in 1975 and upsetting No. 1 Ohio State in the Rose Bowl, he left for the Philadelphia Eagles.
• Rick Neuheisel shocked many when he left Colorado for Washington before the 1999 season for a million-dollar contract, which was at the time considered exorbitant. He left behind NCAA sanctions for the Buffaloes and immediately got into trouble with the Huskies. It didn't make folks in Boulder feel any better when the Huskies and Neuheisel swept a home-and-home series over the next two years.

But two departures really stand out.

Don James is on the short list of greatest college football coaches of all time. In 18 seasons at Washington, from 1975 to 1992, he won a national title and four Rose Bowls. He went 153-57-2 (.726) and set a then-record of 98 conference victories. From 1990-92, the Huskies won 22 consecutive games.

He is the Dawgfather.

And that's why many Huskies fans will tell you the lowest moment in program history is when he resigned in protest of NCAA and Pac-12 sanctions on Aug. 22, 1993. (James really, really didn't like Washington president William Gerberding and athletic director Barbara Hedges, either).

His resignation just before the season forced Washington to promote defensive coordinator Jim Lambright, a good man and a good defensive coordinator but not an ideal fit as head coach. Other than a Rose Bowl victory after the 2000 season under Rick Neuheisel, things have never been the same in Husky Stadium. Not yet, at least.

A more recent shocker: Pete Carroll bolting USC after the 2009 season for the Seattle Seahawks.

Carroll's hiring in 2001 was widely panned, but all he did thereafter was build a college football dynasty, winning national championships in 2003 and 2004 and falling just short of a third consecutive title in 2005 in a thrilling loss to Texas. He went 97-19 (.836) in nine seasons (11-2 versus rivals Notre Dame and UCLA), won six BCS bowl games and finished ranked in the AP top-four seven times. He won 34 consecutive games from 2003-05 and coached three Heisman Trophy winners and 25 first-team All-Americans.

So, yeah, he accomplished a lot. And many thought he would coach USC for life, though many others also suspected the lure of the NFL would prove too much.

It was the timing of his sudden, stunning departure that frustrated many Trojans fans. While Carroll has repeatedly denied oncoming NCAA sanctions had anything to do with his decision to leave, that's a hard line to buy. He skipped town after a 9-4 season that featured blowout losses to Stanford and Oregon and left behind a team with a two-year bowl ban and deficit of 30 scholarships over three seasons.

Still, not unlike how James is viewed by Huskies fans, Carroll is mostly spared the wrath of Trojans fans because of what he accomplished.

There's no question, however, that both programs were left in the lurch.

PHOENIX -- The first reaction was shock: Junior Seau dead at just 43, his death ruled a suicide. Quickly came grief: An all-time USC and NFL great, a good guy known for his accessibility and philanthropy away from the field who didn't want to live anymore.

Then shortly thereafter: Anger. Another football player dead before his time. Surely head injuries -- concussions -- were to blame. Surely the game is to blame. These three stages have been repeated too often of late, and their repetition threatens our love affair with a sport that obsesses our country like no other.

We can't make you feel any better about Seau. That's a still-resonating tragedy. We can only note it's premature to arrive at any overriding conclusions as to why he did the unthinkable.

But we might be able to make you feel a little bit better about football.

The takeaway from a timely Fiesta Bowl Summit panel Thursday, "Sports-Related Concussions: Facts, Fallacies and New Frontiers," was twofold: 1. The NCAA and NFL, after the media forced them to pay attention, have been working hard to get their arms around the issue; 2. It's not unreasonable to believe they can.

Of course, there always will be head injuries in contact sports, and repeated head trauma can lead to long-term health problems. This knowledge isn't new. Doctors were aware of boxers becoming punch drunk -- dementia pugilistica -- in the 1920s.

Understanding concussions and how best to prevent and then treat them, however, isn't easy. As Dr. Margot Putukian, one of four panelists at the Arizona Biltmore, said, concussions are "a moving target." Each one is different, and each person is different. They are not anything like a torn ACL.

Yet there has been recent research progress that is particularly meaningful for football. Said Dr. Michael McCrea, "The news is promising."

McCrea's research found that 28 percent of athletes suffering a concussion no longer show symptoms from their injury after 24 hours. Sixty percent are asymptomatic after a week to 10 days. So nearly 90 percent of athletes passed tests that showed their symptoms were gone inside of 10 days. But that's not the good news. Passing tests that show symptoms are gone doesn't mean the brain has fully healed -- achieved full clinical recovery.

The good news is this: Those numbers, it turns out, do indeed run roughly parallel to a full clinical recovery. Using a multi-dimensional approach -- symptoms tests as well as MRI -- for assessing the recovery process can, McCrea said, "take the guesswork out of concussion management."

These numbers should make it easier to convince athletes who are eager to get back on the field and coaches who want them there to be patient. Simply, coming back too early greatly increases the risk of another concussion, and a second concussion almost always requires a far longer recovery time. Waiting the full seven to 10 days -- and missing a game -- greatly reduces the risk of re-injury, McCrea said. Ergo, there are now specific numbers that show it's better for athlete and team not to rush things.

But the issues with concussions extend beyond understanding them, treating them and even preventing them. Every institution needs well-drilled standards and procedures for dealing with them: A concussion management plan. And coaches and training staff need to know them and know them well. Putukian asked a rhetorical question that all parents of athletes should be asking coaches (non-rhetorically): "What medical personnel do you have there, and what do you do in case of emergency?"

How many layers of procedure are involved here? Lots. Here's one you probably didn't think of: Academic accommodation. A player who suffered a concussion on Saturday might have issues taking a test the following Wednesday.

There was a consensus among the four doctors about how the NFL and NCAA can continue to improve their approach to concussions.

• Education: Players and coaches need to understand how serious head injuries are, and the potentially harmful long-term consequences for returning to play too soon. This could include, for example, coaches deciding to limit contact during practices.
• Equipment: There are no helmets that prevent concussions, and there won't ever be. That doesn't mean some helmets aren't better than others. Virginia Tech has devised a respected helmet ratings system, and the Riddell 360, Rawlings Quantum Plus and Riddell Revolution Speed all achieved five-star ratings.
• Rules changes: Obviously, an emphasis on stopping head-to-head collisions has been front-and-center. A lot of attention also is being paid to when concussions are most likely to happen in a football game -- on special teams, in the open field and for specific positions.
• Culture change: This might be one of the most difficult to enact -- see the bounty scandal involving the New Orleans Saints. Football is a physical game. That's why it's fun to play and to watch. But there needs to be a recognition that brutality for brutality's sake, a zeal for hurting opponents, can have horrific ramifications after the cartoonish strut and taunt end.

Coaches seem to be taking this issue seriously. Among those who attended the concussion summit, which was presided over by NCAA president Mark Emmert, were Stanford's David Shaw, Wisconsin's Brett Bielema and Texas Tech's Tommy Tuberville. When it was over, UTEP coach Mike Price stood up to say it was the best talk on the subject he'd heard.

This was a sad week for football. A few folks are seriously raising the question of whether college football should be banned. Seau's death made it less easy to scoff derisively at such talk.

Concussions are a serious problem in football. The first step toward solving a problem is recognizing it. The concussion panel this week suggested that football now might be taking a second and perhaps third step.

Welcome to this week's mailbag. I'm assuming you know everybody here.

For those of you who do not follow me on Twitter, you can correct that horrible injustice by going here.

To the notes!

Stefan from Honolulu writes: I'm a huge duck fan, always have been always will be. But I started to think about Oregon's recent success and have a few questions. 1)Is it possible that other defenses will soon 'figure out' Chips spread offense? ... as defenses seem to evolve quickly these days ... 2) Is it possible that Oregon's recent success and PAC dominance is due to USC and other traditional PAC powerhouses having down years over the past three seasons?

Ted Miller: It became clear last year that defensive coaches had figured Chip Kelly out. After ranking No. 1 in the nation in 2011 in both scoring and total offense, the Ducks tumbled all the way to No. 4 in total offense and No. 3 in scoring.

Yes, we are being droll!

In 2007, Kelly's first year out of New Hampshire as the Ducks' offensive coordinator, the Ducks ranked 12th in the nation in scoring. That's their worst ranking in either scoring or total offense since he arrived.

So, the short answer to your first question is, "No." Good defenses and good coaching will sometimes outflank Kelly -- no coach wins every game -- but I see no reason to believe Kelly will be consistently outsmarted in the near-future.

Defensive coaches might figure out what Kelly did a year ago, but just as defenses change and catch up, so does Kelly adjust. Kelly has said repeatedly -- to me and other reporters, including Urban Meyer when he worked for ESPN -- that he's not married to one scheme. The Ducks last season were less a spread option team than they'd been under Kelly. He constantly tweaks and adds and subtracts based on his personnel. I suspect we'll see more quarterback running in 2012, but who knows?

As to your second question: Maybe.

Oregon has been very good under Kelly, regardless of what was going on at other programs. But, of course, USC, after a dynastic run from 2002-2008, took a fall in 2009 and 2010 while dealing with the departure of Pete Carroll and NCAA sanctions. Meanwhile, Washington, once the Northwest powerhouse, gradually and then suddenly collapsed after a Rose Bowl win in 2000.

USC looks to be back in the Rose Bowl and national title mix in 2012, and the Trojans-Ducks meeting in LA on Nov. 3 is one of the likely annual Games of the Century this fall. So, we'll see what happens.

Washington? I'd say its best chance to challenge the Ducks atop the conference might be 2013, but we'll see.

And keep in mind that USC will be more affected by NCAA scholarship reductions over the next three to five years than at present. The Trojans could be the program struggling to keep up a consistently high level of play.

So I don't see an Oregon fall as long as Kelly is in Eugene anytime soon. The Ducks aren't going to win the Pac-12 every season, but they look like they have staying power in the conference and national picture.

Barring, of course, the NCAA brutalizing Oregon with sanctions, something I don't think will happen.

---

David from San Diego writes: Did I read this right?...Lane Kiffin is taking tackling out of USC's practice again? I understand they are light in terms of numbers, but we've already seen what happens when you take tackling out of practices (Hellooo 2010 season). Has there been any word on if this was just an end of spring practice thing or is this going to continue into and through the fall?

Ted Miller: Sounds like Kiffin wants to do everything he can to limit injuries, so it could extend into the fall. His explanation, which is reasonable, is the Trojans' defense will be far more veteran in 2012 compared to 2010. It also will be more familiar with Monte Kiffin's defensive scheme.

Coaches walk a fine line here. Physical spring practices are beneficial. They toughen a team up, and give coaches a better feel for a depth chart pecking order. Full-go blocking and tackling make players better blockers and tacklers. But full-go practices also tend to produce more injuries (Though it does seem like a lot of injuries come in non-contact situations, too). While coaches typically act philosophical about injuries in their public comments -- "It's just a part of football" -- I've had enough off-the-record conversations with coaches to see the full agony of losing a key player.

Injuries can end a national title run (see Dixon, Dennis, 2007). Injuries can can get a coach fired. Kiffin is well-aware that his team's potential Achilles' heel is depth.

So, I hear you: The Trojans were poor tacklers in 2010, and that was widely attributable to a lack of full-go contact in spring and fall camp. It's a dice roll for Kiffin to limit contact, but it appears it's one he's willing to take to keep his team healthy.

---

Peter from Boulder, Colo., writes: Regarding Paul Richardson, as a Buff fan it is always disappointing to see a player go down. But we knew that this season was going to be tough one way or another with a new QB, RB, TE, WR, etc. If there were ever a scenario of turning lemons into lemonade I would say this is it. 2012 should provide good experience to all the players who step into these roles, and when 2013 rolls around, those players will be one year better, one year more familiar with the scheme of Embree, and will be getting the dynamic Richardson back. I think 2013 could be a bowl year for Colorado.

Ted Miller: It's good to encounter some measured, philosophical optimism. And I mostly agree.

Colorado has a lot of questions heading into 2012. It won't have as many heading into 2013. Richardson has a redshirt year available, so he'll get his junior year back.

We'll see how things play out in 2012. While it might be a struggle, Buff fans have a right to expect the team to show improvement from Game 1 to Game 12.

Bowl team in 2013? Makes sense to me.

---

Brett from Seoul, Korea writes: Fans of schools like Washington and Notre Dame claim they are 'elite' programs. They claim to have the history and tradition to back it up. The problem is they haven't won anything in almost a decade. How long can a program be down before they lose their elite status?

Ted Miller: Not sure if there is an official-unofficial rule here.

Good programs experience downturns. Sometimes extended downturns. Some, such as Minnesota, which won six national titles from 1934-1960, never climb back into the fray.

Oklahoma went belly-up for a while. Alabama and USC have suffered through plenty of lean years. Hire the right coach, and things perk up.

For one, Notre Dame and Washington aren't on the same level of "elite." Notre Dame is a legendary program with 13 national titles. Washington claims two, but is mostly recognized for just one.

My feeling is both programs are pointed in the right direction under Brian Kelly and Steve Sarkisian, respectively. Are they headed again toward national title contention? It doesn't feel that way in the short term.

You can't erase history. Both programs' past success props up the idea that it can happen again.

But, yes, when a program hasn't won a major bowl game in 10 years, it leaves a layer of dust on trash talking options.

---

Sam from Birmingham writes: TED I thought it was impossible for the Pac-12 coaching slate to get any more interesting, but lo and behold... Bobby Petrino needs a job! How awesome would it be to watch Petrino take over at Colorado and play the likes of Kiffin, Rich Rod and Mike Leach! The Pac-12 Network could EASILY make a reality show out of it. Please pull some strings and make this happen!!!

Ted Miller: No.

One thousand times no.

The Pac-12 is better without Bobby Petrino.

---

Andy from Lake Lagunita writes: Would you ever throw the Venus on Spider 3 Y Banana?

Ted Miller: Depends on the coverage. Safe bet is to dump it to the fullback.

Happy Friday.

Follow me on Twitter, which is the zany new computer thing!

To the notes!

Sam from Eugene, Ore., writes: I'm a Duck and have always been a Duck but how can you not have Mike Riley on the poll for 2nd best Pac 12 coach?

Ted Miller: More than a few of you -- unhappy Oregon State fans mostly -- have called me a Mike Riley apologist, speculating that I don't criticize the Beavers' coach as much as a should because I like him.

Maybe. I do like him. Don't know anyone who doesn't, other than a former San Diego Chargers quarterback who will not be named in order to spare me a Cougars backlash.

But the reason Riley wasn't included in our poll asking who the No. 2 coach is in the Pac-12 (behind the obvious No. 1, Oregon's Chip Kelly) is that Riley has coached consecutive losing seasons -- 8-16 record, in fact. It would appear he enters the season on the hot seat.

I think Riley is a good coach. I think the Beavers have a solid shot of turning things around this fall. So he could end up on a postseason list asking who the No. 2 coach is.

But in a fluid ranking of coaches, Riley wouldn't be many folks' choice for No.2 in March of 2012.

---

Phillip from West Lafayette, Ind., writes: Why no Sark in your second best coach of the Pac-12 poll? If Leach, who hasn't coached in a couple of years and hasn't coached in a conference with defenses is on the list (which I have no problem with) why can't Sark be on the list? He inherited a disaster and has one of the best Offenses in the country. He fired a close friend, pillaged other schools defensive and recruiting minds and seems to have addressed the Defensive issues fairly well. If UW had a Top 75 D last year they are a Top 25 team. So, again, why no Sark?

Ted Miller: I think Steve Sarkisian is a talented coach who did a great job rebuilding a team that went 0-12 in 2008 to competitive almost immediately. He's upgraded the talent in Seattle with good recruiting, and he upgraded his staff this offseason, particularly with the hiring of defensive coordinator Justin Wilcox.

But he's only been a head coach three years, and he's gone 19-19. The Huskies lost five of their final seven games last season.

Mike Leach went 84-43 at Texas Tech, and was the 2008 Big 12 Coach of the Year. He's also is considered one of the great offensive innovators in college football.

---

Waiting for November from Eastern Daylight Time writes: two part question re: UO/USC:1) IF both teams are undefeated heading into the showdown in LA, what do you think a victory would mean for either team in the larger picture/narrative (BCS implications aside)? Return to elite status for USC? Confirmed elite status for Ducks?? Or neither? Seems to be the first year in many where bos and conference teams who have dominated conference in last decade will have serious talent, no sanctions, and conf. leadership on the line all at once. 2) You seem to have alluded to UO's strength of schedule and its implications for BCS standings when comparing UO/USC. Weak schedules have not hurt other teams rankings previously, as you have touched on before. Do the Ducks face a different narrative vis a vis strength of schedule TODAY because USC is the (for many) assumed favorite in the PAC-12?

Ted Miller: 1. If USC and Oregon are undefeated when they play on Nov. 3, I think the winner will end up ranked, at worst, No. 2. 2. USC returned to elite status with a final top-five ranking last season. Oregon became elite with its third consecutive Pac-10/12 title and its Rose Bowl victory.

As for Oregon's schedule: I've only questioned the nonconference slate, which is decidedly weak (and, yes, I know Kansas State finked out of a game). If the Pac-12 produces a handful of ranked teams, other than the Ducks and Trojans, the schedule toughness will take care of itself, particularly if other conference teams the Ducks are beating win big nonconference games.

Also, the Ducks and Trojans will start high enough in the national rankings that a weak schedule won't be a big deal. That wouldn't be true if they started ranked, say, 21st.

---

Mike from Palo Alto writes: Why do people continue to ignore and overlook Stanford in conversations about Pac-12 contenders (or even dark horses) next year? Sure they're losing the best QB in a generation, but they've got a hefty portion of returning starters, and the QBs competing to replace luck are a couple of 4-stars who've spent a few years learning under Luck, Harbaugh and Shaw.

Ted Miller: First, I don't think anyone is overlooking Stanford. The Cardinal is likely to be the third Pac-12 team -- after USC and Oregon -- ranked in the preseason top-25. Stanford could be a factor in the North race, though road games at Oregon, California and Washington won't help. And playing USC in Week 3, though at home, isn't ideal with a new quarterback.

But, just as I often pointed out that Stanford in 2011 wasn't just Andrew Luck, the voids in 2012 aren't just about Luck either.

Start with two offensive linemen who likely will be first round NFL draft picks. Yes, the Cardinal replaced three offensive linemen in 2011 and did fine, but the reason many thought the line would be fine last fall was the fact that the two coming back, David DeCastro and Jonathan Martin were, yes, future first-round NFL draft picks.

Then there's the losses of the top three receivers, including tight end Coby Fleener (another potential first-round pick), a pair of multi-year starters at safety, and underrated defensive end Matt Masifilo.

Does this mean Stanford won't play in a third-consecutive BCS bowl game? No. But these are big enough losses that it's reasonable to be skeptical. That's why I'd set the Cardinal's over-under with wins at eight.

And it's meaningful that doing so will ruffle some feathers -- among fans and inside the locker room. That shows how far the program has come.

---

Sean from Berkeley, Calif., writes: Looking at Oregon's schedule. Easiest 8-0 start ever? Guaranteed 10 win season? Only teams that will challenge will be @USC and @Cal? Washington or Stanford can't beat the Ducks in Eugene.

Ted Miller: If I were predicting, I would predict an 8-0 start for the Ducks.

But, man, such giddy confidence -- overconfidence? -- strikes me as a dangerous thing. Ever heard of karma?

You might need to make a sacrifice at the altar of the College Football Gods for that one.

---

Matt from Cupertino, Calif., writes: Ted, how likely is it that Cal goes into The Shoe on September 15th and pulls out a victory against Urban's Buckeyes? Curious to see how you think each team matches up, even this far away from the game.

Ted Miller: My initial feeling: Not likely.

Cal isn't typically good on the road, particularly when it goes east. Then you've got the Horseshoe and new coach Urban Meyer, two college football landmarks. Further, I think there should be a strong "buy" rating on Ohio State quarterback Braxton Miller, who did an admirable job in a bad situation as a freshman in 2011.

That said, there are a couple of things in Cal's favor, not the least of which is the Buckeyes playing with a postseason ban due to NCAA sanctions.

First, the Bears should have a big athletic advantage with their young-but-talented defense against what is a highly questionable Buckeyes offensive line, one that welcomes back just two starters from a unit that yielded 46 sacks. Second, the Buckeyes' defense should be good, but still doesn't look like one of the dominant units of the Jim Tressel era.

After a tumultuous offseason, Ohio State went 6-7 last season and lost its last four games. I'll likely pick the Buckeyes to beat the Bears -- in large part because I never pick Cal games right anyway -- but this is far from a mismatch.

---

Nate from Houston writes: First of all, I refuse to vote in your 2nd best coach poll because the USC staff is #1. Not #2, #1. Second, what do you think the odds are that Marquis Lee has a better year than Robert Woods? Lee is really blossoming with a season under him and his track participation is a giant help in conditioning, conditioning that Woods is missing out on due to his ankle....

Ted Miller: This shows how good the Trojans are at receiver. It's legit to ask if Lee might be better than Woods, who was an All-American in 2011.

I think Lee is very good. I think both will be early round NFL draft picks. But let's not forget how good Woods is when he's healthy, which he wasn't much late in the season.

If I were projecting, I'd still guess that Woods ends up with more yards and TDs than Lee. But it should be close enough that both are in the All-American conversation.

---

uc2k3 from Huskyville, Wash., writes: I came across an interesting suggestion by Dabo Swinney and one I've been thinking of and meaning to ask you for some time now. It's in regards to setting up scrimmages with other schools in the offseason. Just one scrimmage vs a nearby school. I've always thought that this would make the spring more interesting for players and fans and also give coaches a better assessment tool when trying to evaluate different position groups. Your thoughts?

Ted Miller: Well, uc2k3 -- are you buddies with R2D2? -- you won't ever hear me say (or write): "We need less college football."

So count me in. Just imagine what fun a scrimmage between state rivals might be. Heck, you could give half the gate away to charity, and we'd all feel good about ourselves.

The downside? Well, injuries for one. And what's the set-up? Do you keep score? Does that force you to care about winning? And what worries are there about giving away info -- about players, about schemes -- that could be used against you, by future regular-season opponents, as well as the team you scrimmage.

Still, if, say, Arizona and Arizona State sent me an email announcing a scrimmage, I'd show up with a big grin (and then both sets of fans would say I favor the other).

---

SEC fan from Fayetteville, Ark., writes: I know you grew up in SEC country and followed it for a while before moving off west, but why do you constantly write trash trying to make other conferences than the PAC10+2 hate on your articles? You constantly talk crap, mainly on the SEC but the BIG 10 and BIG 12-2 too? Your articles sound like everything happening back in the PAC is doing everything right while everyone else is doing everything wrong! I know your writing for a fan base that wants you to take their side and I honestly have no idea what your true point of view on college football is but how about trying to write how everyone wants a playoff in football but the PAC commish is keeping it from that? Start writing truth instead of trying to rowdy up the fan base your writing for and maybe honest people like me would take your writing seriously.

Ted Miller: Hmm.

One of the realities of my business is there is often a curiously wide distance between an accusation from a reader and what you actually have written. Or at least tried to write. When you work in the media, folks often insist, "You wrote this!" when you didn't, "You're biased!" when you work hard not to be, and "You don't know what you're talking about!" when you're actually parroting exactly what either a coach or player told you.

In this instance, let's start with this: "how about trying to write how everyone wants a playoff in football but the PAC commish is keeping it from that."

If I wrote that, it would be not only untrue, it would be the 180 degree opposite of true. The disconnect here is perhaps "SEC Fan" forgetting that Tom Hansen is no longer the Pac-10 commissioner. Larry Scott started talking about postseason models almost as soon as he was hired.

Then there's this: "why do you constantly write trash trying to make other conferences than the PAC10+2 hate on your articles? You constantly talk crap, mainly on the SEC but the BIG 10 and BIG 12-2 too? Your articles sound like everything happening back in the PAC is doing everything right while everyone else is doing everything wrong!"

Er, some examples? I get more blowback from Pac-12 fans who insist I coddle the SEC.

If this is just about my debate with SEC blogger Chris Low, well, the nature of that assignment -- "How would USC QB Matt Barkley do in the SEC?" -- was, in part, to trash talk each other.

Of course, I did write this: "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."

Just don't start taking my writing too seriously. That would make me cry.

Sniffle.

Athletic directors don't last long when football and men's basketball struggle, and that appears to be what has happened to Lisa Love at Arizona State.

Love will be replaced as the Sun Devils athletic director by Steve Patterson, the school announced Wednesday. Patterson was hired in July as the athletic department's chief operating officer and managing director of the Sun Devil Sports Group.

The school's official release says Love "is leaving ASU to pursue other career opportunities." The Arizona Republic, however, reported that she was fired after meeting with school president Michael Crow on Tuesday.

Love was hired in April of 2005. While many of the the Sun Devils' nonrevenue sports have thrived, Love's big-name hires haven't, including Dennis Erickson for football and Herb Sendek for men's basketball. Love also had a contentious relationship with successful baseball coach Pat Murphy, who was fired in November of 2009 during an NCAA investigation. Further, the search for a replacement for Erickson, which eventually ended with Todd Graham's hiring away from Pittsburgh, was far from smooth.

Patterson's background is mostly in pro sports. He spent nearly a quarter of a century as an executive in the NFL with the Houston Texans, in the NBA with the Houston Rockets and Portland Trail Blazers, and in professional hockey with the Houston Aeros. Prior to joining ASU in July 2011, he was the president of Pro Sports Consulting.

Quotes from the press release:

"In his time at ASU Steve Patterson has shown a level of sports management expertise rarely seen at the college and university level," said President Michael M. Crow. "He is the ideal person to build on the foundation Lisa built and to take Sun Devil sports to the next level - to the highest level.

"I wish to thank Lisa for seven years of excellent service. During her tenure here ASU won seven national championships and the academic performance and graduation rates of our student-athletes improved dramatically."

"I'm excited that Dr. Crow gave me the opportunity to oversee Sun Devil Athletics," said Patterson. "We expect to have a program that consistently competes for Pac-12 championships, with athletes that graduate, connect and serve our community, and operate with integrity, discipline and respect. It's time for our men's basketball and football programs to compete for championships and perform at the same level as our successful spring sports."

More Patterson background from the release:

Steve Patterson has built championship professional teams and designed, financed, built and run stadiums and arenas. As General Manager of the Houston Rockets he built the 1994 NBA Championship team. Later, he successfully led the effort to bring the Houston Texans NFL team and Super Bowl XXXVIII to Houston, Texas. As President of the Portland Trail Blazers, The Rose Garden and Rose City Radio, Patterson refined his skills as a turnaround specialist, while garnering national recognition for his player acquisition skills player acquisition skills when he took over as the team's General Manager.

Patterson also served as the President, General Manager and Governor of the Houston Aeros hockey team. For his efforts he was named the 1995 winner of the Andy Mulligan Trophy as the IHL's Executive of the Year.

In addition to his roles with the Aeros, Patterson also acquired and served as President and Partner in Arena Operating Company, which managed and operated Compaq Center, Houston's home of the Rockets, Aeros and Comets.

Born and raised in Beaver Dam, WI. Patterson attended the University of Texas, graduating with honors earning a Bachelor's Degree in Business Administration in 1980. He graduated from UT's Law School in 1984.

Oregon and Oregon State fans may not provide glowing recommendations for Patterson, whose tenure with the Portland Trail Blazers was stormy on multiple levels.

Folks like rankings, which is why a lot of you had opinions on both Athlon Sports and our rankings of Pac-12 coaches this week.

There are very few naysayers to the idea that Oregon's Chip Kelly is an obvious No. 1. In fact, I'm not even sure how you gainsay that.

But who's No. 2?

That's the question before your faithful Pac-12 bloggers.

Kevin Gemmell: Since you went first last week, and I used it as an opportunity to take a shot at you about Darron/De'Anthony Thomas Top 25 incident, I'll take the lead this week and suffer whatever ribbing comes from it.

To be honest, I was pretty torn when trying to figure out who I would put at No. 2 in the conference. I think you can easily make an argument for three or four different guys. But I've also seen what Kyle Whittingham has done at Utah from the very beginning when I used to cover the Mountain West Conference.

His résumé is stellar, and his credentials are without question. He has an undefeated season to his credit and two BCS bowl game victories (I believe the NCAA credits him and Urban Meyer both for the Fiesta Bowl win). If I'm wrong on that, he still has a BCS bowl victory at a then mid-major program.

He's 7-1 all-time in bowl games. That means he's a closer. The only bowl loss was in 2010 to Boise State -- the Broncos' second football game following the Nevada field goal debacle. There weren't many that thought Boise would lose that one.

What I think is the most impressive thing about Whittingham, though, is that he's proven to be his own man. He easily could have fallen into the trap that David Shaw now finds himself in at Stanford. Critics will constantly question Shaw about if he can do it outside of Jim Harbaugh's shadow and without Andrew Luck on the roster. Whittingham faced similar charges in the face of Meyer's departure.

In that time, he's gone 66-25 and stewarded the program into the Pac-12, where the Utes went 8-5 last season, including a come-from-behind win over Georgia Tech in the Sun Bowl. Sustained success means several things. He can recruit. He can reinvent himself and the team with each new generation of players. And he makes good hires.

We all know one bad recruiting class can set a program back several years. Bad hires can have an even longer impact. Whittingham is not afraid to take gambles -- and the latest one is naming former quarterback-turned quarterbacks coach Brian Johnson his offensive coordinator. At least some see it as a gamble. But Whittingham has given us no reason over his career to think it's not going to be a great hire.

The fact is, Whittingham wins year after year. Can't ask for much more out of your coach.

Ted Miller: I deserved the snark over the twin No. 12s. That was a moment of clumsy compensation for a boneheaded oversight on my part. Of course, you did steal my No. 2 coach, which I will write off to your savvy and your foreknowledge you got to go first this week.

And it gives me a chance to tout a guy who might shortly challenge for the top-spot on this list: Arizona's Rich Rodriguez. In fact, if we could make Rodriguez's ill-fated, three-year tenure at Michigan magically disappear, and then view Rodriguez as arriving in Tucson after a brilliant run at West Virginia, you would be able to make a case for him against even Kelly.

Before the disaster in Ann Arbor, Rodriguez was widely viewed as among the nation's best coaches. He'd been successful everywhere he went, and was considered one of the nation's truly great offensive minds -- not unlike Kelly. He went 60-26 at West Virginia and, after going 3-8 his first year, never won fewer than eight games. He also won a Sugar Bowl over Georgia, and his team won the Fiesta Bowl over Oklahoma after he bolted for Michigan. The Mountaineers won 33 games his final three seasons. According to this high-powered calculator, that's an average of 11 wins per season.

But what about Michigan? Well, as we've said before and surely will say again, his failure at Michigan was more about Michigan than Rich Rodriguez. It was a bad fit from the get-go in terms of his personality versus the "Michigan way"; Rodriguez wasn't able to hire his defensive coordinator, as he has done at Arizona with Jeff Casteel; he was shamefully betrayed and undermined by a Machiavellian Lloyd Carr; and it's not unreasonable to question the agendas of some of the media coverage he received.

Some Michigan fans take issue with that perspective on Rodriguez's Michigan tenure, much of which is detailed in John Bacon's book "Three and Out." But only because they love the Wolverines more than the truth, at least in this instance.

Rodriguez repeatedly has said he's not a quick-fix guy -- he, by the way, told the folks hiring him at Michigan exactly that -- and that it will take three years for his systems and recruiting to truly take hold. I doubt Wildcats fans are exciting about waiting that long, but the smart money is on Rodriguez finding a way to get it done in Tucson.

And, yeah, that means it's legitimate to dream about a first Rose Bowl within five years.

Wouldn't it be fun if it were against the Wolverines?

The surest route for just about any investigation? Follow the money. When money started flowing in and out of prep 7-on-7 football tournaments, the NCAA raised an eyebrow.

Yet once the NCAA and universities recognized that 7-on-7 tournaments were quickly becoming the football equivalent of the sleaze of AAU basketball, the question became what would everyone do. It hasn't been easy finding answers. For one, these enterprises mostly operate off campuses and away from NCAA jurisdiction.

"It's a pretty complex topic," said Mark Jackson, USC's senior associate athletic director, and one of the hosts of the summit called, "The Impact Of 7-On-7 Organizations On College Football Recruiting" on Tuesday at the Galen Center.

First of all, 7-on-7 football isn't some type of satanic cult. There are positives.

• It gives players more exposure, which increases scholarship opportunities.
• If a player's high school team is mostly run-based, it gives quarterbacks and wide receivers a chance to shine in pass-first games.
• Players who are competing in 7-on-7 football aren't doing other things where they might get in trouble.
• Many of the coaches and organizers are in it for the right reasons: To help young people.
• 7-on-7 football is fun.

Of course, the negatives are why athletic directors; compliance officers and head football coaches from the Pac-12 and Big Ten; NCAA enforcement staff; representatives from the Pac-12, SEC, Big 12 and Big Ten conference offices; operators of 7-on-7 organizations; and high school coaches gathered for an invitation-only event at USC.

• 7-on-7 football can marginalize high school coaches.
• It allows for the insinuation of third parties -- read: "street agents" -- to work themselves into a young athlete's recruiting process.
• It's become a big-money operation, which creates plenty of opportunities for NCAA rules to be bent, twisted and broken.

"The conversations got heated and spirited but it was good to understand the landscape," Jackson said.

So what ideas came up during this "heated and spirited" discussion? More than a few.

For one, there needs to be communication between the high school coaches and the 7-on-7 coaches. One major problem when a young man becomes a recruit is it seems two separate coaches now speak for the player. Often these coaches are at odds. A 7-on-7 coach might tell a player that he should change high schools. Or a 7-on-7 coach might tell a college team that he represents a young man, not the high school coach.

Further, things get complicated when young men on tour with 7-on-7 teams show up for unofficial visits on campuses. Who pays for these visits? Perhaps it might help to make changes to the official recruiting calendar so these visits fall more under the NCAA rules umbrella.

Finally, as 7-on-7 tournaments get bigger -- and richer -- it makes sense for them to get more organized and standardized. And supervised. Wouldn't it make sense for the NFL to get involved? After all, it is the chief steward of the game.

When it started, 7-on-7 football was small and all the money was coming from grassroots fundraising. Now it's a big business, with companies like Under Armour and IMG involved. Pining for simpler times isn't going to help. So universities and the NCAA are trying to find common ground with organizers, creating rules and oversight that might prevent 7-on-7 football from tumbling into the corrupt morass of AAU basketball.

"These things are not going away," Jackson said. "This is free enterprise."

Free enterprise operating parallel to the complicated and controversial "amateurism" of college sports' cash cow, but that's a topic for another day.

Tyler gets me a job as a waiter, after that Tyler's pushing a gun in my mouth and saying, the first step to eternal life is you have to die. For a long time though, Tyler and I were best friends. People are always asking, did I know about Tyler Durden.

• A look at former Arizona CB Trevin Wade at the NFL combine.
• At this point, new Arizona State coach Todd Graham can only talk a good game, and he's doing that.
• A couple of former Colorado Buffaloes are up for the Hall of Fame.
• Racing a drag for former Oregon CB Cliff Harris at NFL combine. More on the possibility of Oregon and the NCAA reaching a summary disposition.
• Oregon State sets its spring practice dates.
• Rumor has it that Stanford is looking for a new QB.
• Checking in with new UCLA receivers coach Eric Yarber, who's well-known around the Pac-12.
• Yarber will be squaring off with new USC defensive backs coach Marvin Sanders.
• How did former Utah players do at the NFL combine.
• Former Washington RB Greg Lewis is a candidate for the Hall of Fame.
• Who are some potential breakout players for Washington State this spring?
• By the way, the usual Pac-12 chat on Thursday will be today at 3 p.m. ET or noon PDT because I'll be in Tucson on Thursday.

Oregon released Friday to the media a "proposed findings of violations" from the NCAA, which says the Ducks' football program broke NCAA rules through its use of three recruiting scouting services and by exceeding the permissible number of coaches participating in recruiting at any one time.

Further, the NCAA is proposing that Oregon agree that from 2008 through 2011 "the athletic department failed to establish policies and procedures to monitor the football program's use of recruiting or scouting services."

This is not a formal Notice of Allegations from the NCAA -- the investigation remains ongoing for both Oregon and the NCAA -- and four of the document's seven sections are redacted. So drawing specific conclusions as to what this means for Oregon's football program is impossible.

You can read the document here (what's not redacted by Oregon). And here is a note to Oregon fans from athletic director Rob Mullens on the document's release. Here's a story from the Eugene Register-Guard. And one from The Oregonian, which noted: "Until [the] internal inquiry concludes, UO general counsel Randy Geller said, 'the university is not necessarily agreeing with the findings.'"

What does this mean?

Here's an educated guess: Oregon will not get a wrist slap from the NCAA. And it won't get horribly bombed.

Yeah, I know, thanks a lot.

Oregon fans looking for good news should note that a "failure to monitor" charge, while it can carry burdensome sanctions, is not the dreaded "lack of institutional control."

Still, predictions at this point as to what the NCAA eventually will do remain pure guesswork. For one, there's a lot of stuff Oregon won't let us see. For another, as pointed out by CBS Sports' astute Bryan Fischer in a Tweet, "Reading Oregon/NCAA docs, never been a major infractions case involving 13.14.3 (recruiting/scouting services). So definitely new ground."

This is unexplored territory for an organization that often seems to make completely random, arbitrary rulings. Predict outcomes at your peril.

Many of the NCAA's specific allegations focus on the Ducks getting "oral reports" from scouting services. That's a no-no.

What about Willie Lyles? Nothing earth-shattering. From the document: "In 2010, the football program paid $25,000 for a subscription to Complete Scouting Services (CSS) and received oral reports from CSS representative Lyles. Additionally, the football program failed to gather recruiting or scouting information from CSS at least four times per calendar year, as required by NCAA recruiting or scouting legislation."

As for the failure to monitor:

Regarding the recruiting or scouting services, the athletic department failed to establish policies and procedures to monitor the football program's use of recruiting or scouting services. Additionally, athletics administrators with responsibilities in the football program failed to monitor the information provided by recruiting or scouting services to ensure compliance with recruiting or scouting service legislation. This collective failure partly resulted in the violations outlined in Finding 2.

Recall how all of us media sorts have kept bringing up the loopholes and gray areas that are in play here? It's meaningful, again, that NCAA investigators/infractions folks have little experience with cases like this. Alleged "street agents" in football, while long an issue in basketball, are a mostly new thing. And a new area of emphasis for the NCAA.

My general impression here is that Oregon, from the beginning, has tried to work with the NCAA instead of quibble over details. It lawyered up with attorney Michael Glazier, a partner in the firm Bond, Schoeneck & King, the go-to guys for NCAA investigations, in order to best present its position, yes, but also to make sure it didn't violate the NCAA's sense of etiquette in these matters. While it's often incorrectly stated or written that USC didn't cooperate with the NCAA during the Reggie Bush case, there's no question that USC aggressively fought the allegations against it. It appears that Oregon isn't doing that, that it's trying to reach accord with the NCAA.

George Schroeder of the Register-Guard speculated on Twitter -- insightfully, I think -- that Oregon might hope for a "summary disposition" that would allow it to avoid an infractions committee hearing altogether. A plea bargain, so to speak.

That said, don't expect this case to be quickly wrapped up in a few weeks. The wheels of NCAA justice almost always move slowly, and, again, the Notice of Allegations has yet to arrive.

But the Oregon case is moving forward, providing grounds for hope to parties on both sides of the aisle.

Those who want Oregon to get hit hard -- despite no "lack of institutional control" -- probably feel like there's a chance that still happens. And Ducks fans can reasonably cross their fingers that eventual sanctions won't be severe enough to put an ax wound in the middle of a budding Pac-12 superpower.

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.

Lane Kiffin is aware of the hype that is building around USC. He knows some folks believe the Trojans are again -- after a three-season layoff -- back in the national title discussion. He knows it's possible his team will enter the 2012 season ranked No. 1.

And he has one thing to say about that hype. Well, two things. First off, thanks.

"We're appreciative of the national respect coming our way with the preseason No. 1 or No. 2 conversations," he said. "That does kind of give you a kind of state of your program right now. To know what was handed down a little over a year and a half ago [NCAA sanctions], what most people considered a death penalty and the end of 'SC for years and years, and then to be sitting where we are now, we're appreciative of that. Obviously, that excites our fan base, who have had so much taken away from them. And it excites future recruits."

The other thing he has to say about said hype? It amounts to a "whatever."

"We don't talk about that at all within our team," Kiffin said. "Like we said again and again last year, the game is about the preparation, it's not about the hype."

That attitude earned the Trojans a 10-2 finish, including a win at Oregon, and final No. 6 ranking. The program's positive momentum hasn't let up either in the offseason. First, quarterback Matt Barkley opted to return for his senior year, when he'll be one of 18 returning starters. Then Kiffin signed a highly rated recruiting class. Not including early enrollees, the Trojans signed 12 that count for the 2012 class.

The Trojans could have signed more players, but they need to be at or under 75 scholarships over the next three years per NCAA sanctions. That's 10 less than everyone else. While that can't help but have some impact, Kiffin and his staff have been dealing with fewer than 85 scholarship players and a lack of depth since he arrived in 2010. They've put together a plan that they believe will pencil out and maximize what they are allowed to have.

"We've charted out five or six years from now, how our numbers will look," Kiffin said. "We project who's going to redshirt, how long they will stay with guys who leave early. We've had a very specific plan in place. Obviously, you see some of that in place as far as guys counting backwards and signing 30 guys [last year] and having appealed scholarship reductions so we could do that."

But Kiffin still knows the sanctions will make life harder for the Trojans in the Pac-12, no matter how perfectly their plan works. It's not only about subtraction from the USC roster, after all.

"It's not just that it's 10 less that we are getting, it's 10 we're handing to our opponents that would be coming to USC," he said.

Kiffin's best recruiting job, however, was creating an atmosphere that made Barkley want to return to complete "unfinished business." With Barkley, a three-year starter, back, the USC offense could put up huge numbers. Consider the pass catching talent around him: All-American receiver Robert Woods, second-team All-Pac-12 receiver Marqise Lee, athletic tight ends Xavier Grimble and Randall Telfer as well as up-and-coming receivers George Farmer and Victor Blackwell.

After throwing a Pac-12 record 39 touchdown passes in 2011 and ranking eighth in the nation in passing efficiency, there isn't much left for Barkley to master. Last year, it was a case of getting his young supporting cast to mesh, which they did late in the season. This year? It's about becoming special on offense.

Of course, a player can always improve. Barkley won't get to chill out with a lemonade and a good book on a Barcalounger during spring practices.

"We're really challenging him to add things to his game," Kiffin said. "That's about putting stuff around him, doing different things with him, keeping him motivated, keeping him challenged, making it competitive every day in practice with our defense."

And, not unlike Andrew Luck this past year at Stanford, Barkley may get more opportunities to make play-calling decisions at the line of scrimmage.

"He already does more than he gets credit for," said Kiffin, who calls the Trojans' offensive plays. "Matt's capable of doing all that stuff. The only difference was early on that Matt had so much youth and inexperience around him on offense [last year]."

So what is USC focused on between now and spring practices? Well, Kiffin hopes to fill three coaching vacancies -- LBs, WRs and DBs -- before the end of next week.

Then Kiffin must figure out who will protect Barkley's blindside at left tackle -- likely Kevin Graf or Aundrey Walker, who's lost 30 of his 375 pounds from his freshman year. He's got to sort things out on the D-line. And he's got to ponder the curious lack of depth at running back.

There should be enough there to keep the focus on the field and not on the gathering hype.

We like doing Power Rankings at ESPN.com. These are the post-signing day Power Rankings.

If you want to see where your team stood on Jan. 10, go here.

The schedule does not factor into these. This is a projected pecking order based on where a team stands right now.

And if you don't like where your team is in the post-signing day Power Rankings, then I'd suggest whining about it until your team plays better.

1. USC: The Trojans ranked 13th in the final recruiting rankings with just 12 signees. They will be ranked in the preseason top 5, perhaps even No. 1. If things go according to plan, USC will blow a big raspberry at Paul Dee next January.

2. Oregon: The Ducks surprisingly lost QB Darron Thomas to the NFL, but the far more important news is not losing coach Chip Kelly to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. A strong recruiting class and another likely top-5 preseason rankings sets the Ducks up nicely to enter the national title chase.

3. Stanford: Stanford signed the best recruiting class in the Pac-12. It was ranked 12th by ESPN Recruiting and much higher by just about every other recruiting service. While the Cardinal have big holes to fill -- most notably behind center -- a glance through the roster suggests those rooting for the program to topple after a grand rise are going to be disappointed.

4. Washington: Much of the recruiting season had been disappointing for the Huskies, particularly losing almost all of the top in-state prospects, including a pair of A-list linemen who would have addressed major needs. But Steve Sarkisian made a series of aggressive moves rebuilding his coaching staff, most notably with the hiring of defensive coordinator Justin Wilcox and ace recruiter Tosh Lupoi. That supplies much of the positive momentum here.

5. Utah: The Utes signed a strong recruiting class and welcome back a wealth of starters from a team that won eight games without much production at QB. The promotion of 24-year-old Brian Johnson to offensive coordinator was a surprising move, particularly with fans rooting for a "celebrity" hire. It could prove to be a stroke of genius, but the onus is now on Johnson to make it become so.

6. UCLA: The Bruins are the big climbers from our Jan. 10 power rankings -- moving up from No. 10 -- but that's what happens when new coach Jim Mora punches back at skepticism with an outstanding recruiting class. A team that looked like a "neh" is moving closer to a "maybe."

7. California: Despite all the hand-wringing over the loss of Lupoi and receivers coach Eric Kiesau to Washington, the Bears still signed a top-25 recruiting class that addresses needs. Still, perception matters, and at present, Bears fans seem more worried than optimistic. Nothing, of course, a few wins in a shiny remodeled stadium can't change.

8. Arizona: Rich Rodriguez's recruiting class finished at or near the bottom of the Pac-12, according to most rankings. That said, Rodriguez got his man at defensive coordinator, Jeff Casteel, which is significant because most trace the problems at Michigan to his failure to do so for the Wolverines.

9. Washington State: The Cougars didn't soar in the recruiting rankings just because of the hiring of coach Mike Leach. Still, that doesn't appear to be dampening the enthusiasm in Pullman.

10. Arizona State: New coach Todd Graham did a solid job salvaging the Sun Devils' recruiting class. But the loss of QB Brock Osweiler to the NFL and the NCAA's rejection of receiver T.J. Simpson's bid for a sixth year of eligibility leave the program with plenty of questions on offense. And just as many on defense.

11. Oregon State: The Beavers were victimized by a handful of late recruiting flips that put dents in what was shaping up to be a strong class. And the loss of secondary coach Keith Heyward to Washington also was a blow. On the plus side, the Beavers will see 17 returning starters during spring practices.

12. Colorado: The Buffaloes remain at the bottom because the bottom line is this: They welcome back 13 starters from a team that went 3-10 and ranked last in both scoring offense and scoring defense. Still, coach Jon Embree put together a solid recruiting class, one that could become the foundation of his substantial rebuilding project.

Happy Friday. Welcome to the post-signing day mailbag.

I arranged these questions in front of me like hats, then picked them.

If you wish to follow me on Twitter, which you most certainly should, then go here and follow the directions.

To the notes.

Pheezie from Nor Cal writes: Reflecting on the moves and news of the last few weeks in the conference, [Washington coach Steve Sarkisian] program raids now seem to smack loudly of desperation. While you could view them as savvy, it seems to put the impetus on winning, like now. I don't think you can count on raiding other schools' top recruiters every single year and hoping they flip enough guys -- especially at the prices they're paying. At what point does Udub admin sour on Sark's antics? I know a lot depends on wins, but, is Sark on the #1 P12 hot seat heading into the 2012 season? And what is his magic win number to beat the heat?

Ted Miller: Sarkisian is not only not on the Pac-12's hottest seat, his seat isn't even warm.

It's fair to say, however, that Sarkisian made a mistake when he hired Nick Holt, his good friend and former colleague at USC, as his defensive coordinator. At the time, Sarkisian sold it as a home run hire, which was justification for the Holt's exorbitant $650,000 salary.

It wasn't. So that is on Sark.

But there is nothing desperate about hiring Tosh Lupoi and Eric Kiesau away from California, or Justin Wilcox and Peter Sirmon away from Tennessee, or Keith Heyward away from Oregon State. I call that savvy without reservation. Those are good coaches and good recruiters. Further, beyond the respect all those guys command, Sarkisian immediately generated some positive momentum for his program after a lackluster finish to the season.

As for winning "like now," well, welcome to the world of big-time college coaching. Every AQ program needs to win "like now." You mention a hot seat. Sarkisian isn't on one, but if the Huskies post a losing season in 2012, his seat would certainly warm up in 2013. That's the nature of the business. But I don't think that's going to happen. I see a program with a clear upward trajectory.

Wilcox is one of the bright young coordinators in the country, a guy who is headed for an A-list head coaching job, perhaps within the next five years. Lupoi is widely regarded as one of the nation's best recruiters. Those hires are about right now but they are more about rebuilding Washington into an elite, top-25 program.

Wilcox should yield immediate help on defense. I'd be shocked if the Huskies give up 33.3 points and 426.3 yards per game next fall. And while Lupoi perked up recruiting this go-around -- hello Shaq Thompson! -- he should be an even greater asset in 2012.

But, of course, my typing it doesn't make it so. Sarkisian, just like any other coach, needs to produce. What I am merely saying is the Pac-12 blog is still putting a "buy rating" on the Huskies.

Will from Norfolk, Va., writes: What do you think about Rich Rodriguez's unimpressive recruiting class for Arizona? Do you think it'll get better next year?

Ted Miller: I think: 1. It's probably better than it's being rated; 2. Absolutely, things will get better. And, by the way, if Arizona inks Davonte Neal that one signature would make Rodriguez's first class a success. He's a guy who could provide immediate help on either side of the ball.

One thing that might have hurt Arizona's short-term recruiting success is Rodriguez hired a staff with very little West Coast recruiting experience (other than retaining respected O-line coach Robert Anae). Don't take that wrong: As you know, the Pac-12 blog has repeatedly said that new coaches need to hire their guys -- guys they know and trust. Rodriguez learned that at Michigan when he couldn't lure defensive coordinator Jeff Casteel away from West Virginia, as he did for Arizona.

It's best to view this class as a "getting-to-know-you" effort. Sure, Wildcats fans would have loved if Rodriguez reeled in some big names based on his big name. But his recruiting track record is strong. Just look how successful Michigan was this season with his recruits.

Of course, Wildcats fans also have a right to expect Rodriguez and his staff to land a higher rated class in 2013.

Brent from Salt Lake City writes: A little shocked by the Brian Johnson hire at the U. Can you make me feel better about the prospect of a 25 year old OC?

Ted Miller: Of course, it's a risk. Johnson, who doesn't turn 25 until Feb. 16, has only been a full-time assistant coach -- quarterbacks -- since 2010. When you see a want ad, just about every one requires a certain amount of experience. Why? Because it means you'll know the ins and outs of said job. You'll have already seen -- and overcome -- the myriad challenges a job presents. There is no way around it: Johnson lacks experience. He hasn't seen a lot as a coach. Further, you could argue that Utah hasn't exactly been lights out at quarterback since he took over the position.

Again, a risk.

That said: What successful person doesn't take risks? As they say: High risk, high reward. That's what Johnson represents.

You need reassurance, Brent? Let me introduce you to someone. His name is Kyle Whittingham. He's your highly successful coach. He made a former BYU fullback your defensive coordinator in 2009. What do you think about Kalani Sitake now?

The obvious read on this is Whittingham sees something in Johnson. When he interviewed Johnson about the job, Johnson wowed him. Whittingham's spidey senses started to tingle. My guess is Whittingham is a believer in his instincts. And he went with his instincts.

Understand: This is not a move that would be made by a coach with questionable job security. If the Utes offense falters next fall -- it wasn't exactly the cat's meow in 2011 under the venerable Norm Chow, by the way -- Whittingham won't get fired over it. He can afford to take a big risk and hope for a big reward down the road.

Shane from Fort Lewis, Wash., writes: How is Washington State truly going to do next year? Is Mike Leach the real answer to get us back in the top 10? Last question; when will WSU be back in a RoseBCS bowl game?

Ted Miller: Shane wants answers!

1. Washington State is going to go 7-5 next year; 2. Yes; 3. The Cougars will play in the 2016 Rose Bowl.

I think Leach will produce immediate results. I think the Cougars will be a bowl team in 2012. How much of a "bowl" team depends on the defense stepping up.

As for the Rose Bowl and top-10, that could take some time. And some savvy recruiting. But Washington State has been to two Rose Bowls since 1997, and Leach produced top-10 teams at a Washington State-like program (Texas Tech). It's entirely reasonable to believe the marriage will yield success.

I'm in the process or reading Leach's book, "Swing Your Sword." Here's something of note. Leach, who never played college football and went to law school before he swerved into coaching, had to work his way up through the coaching ranks, starting at the very bottom of the bottom. Here is Leach recalling his time with Hal Mumme at Iowa Wesleyan.

In these sorts of situations, it's easy to fixate on how the other team has better resources than you do. But it's more important to concentrate on maximizing your own resources instead of worrying about things you can't control. It's a challenge, obviously, because the stronger and faster the other team is, the better they can minimize damage and the better their chances of popping open a big play. Regardless, you just can't spend a lot of time dwelling on what you don't have. Instead, you think about the areas you need to fortify and find your opponent's weaknesses so you can direct your attack.

Leach's coaching strength is doing more with less, with outsmarting more talented foes. That means Cougars teams with five-win talent, win six or seven games. And Cougars with seven-win talent win nine or 10.

Alex from Las Vegas writes: So USC was limited to 15 signings but only got 12. What happens to the balance? Does USC lose them or do theyet to apply those 3 next year?

Ted Miller: I could answer this, but Michael Lev of the Orange County Register did such a good job today that, well, I'm going to steal from him.

The short answer: Signing 12 works in USC's favor. The Trojans are presently at 77 scholarships, according to Lev, which means two players will need to be shaved in order to be in line with NCAA sanctions, which mandate that USC can't have more than 75 scholarship players over each of the next three seasons. That will be easy to hit with natural attrition.

Further, Lev points this out:

As things stand now, Kiffin and his staff can bring in three midyear enrollees next winter. Add those to the 15 signees allowed next February, and you’ve got a total of 18.

That’s a meaningful number.

According to the USCFootball.com’s database, USC signed an average of 18 players from 2007-10, with a high of 19 (2008) and a low of 17 (2010). So this year’s total of 17 and next year’s projected total of 18 are hardly out of the ordinary.

What we're starting to see is that coach Lane Kiffin has a plan to manage the scholarship reductions, and it just might work out. There's no way around being down 10 scholarships each year. It limits options and makes a team more vulnerable to injuries due to depth issues. But if the Trojans stay healthy, and touted recruits pan out, they might just be able to weather the next three years pretty well, despite sanctions.

Mister Kilmister from Front Range, Colo., writes: Ted. You seem like a nice guy. You've done well trying to include CU and Utah into the mix. We're trying out best to fit in with our new conference. We want things to go well. But if you ever call us part of the West Coast again I swear to God I will put a cutout of Ubben's head on a stick and wave it in front of you anytime you set foot in our state. I hope we don't have to go over this again.

Ted Miller: You mean you'll make me younger and better looking?

As new members of the Pac-12, and as a school with a lot of students from California, you guys are a little West Coast-y, aren't you? I'm in landlocked Arizona -- no coast to be seen -- and I'm West Coast-y.

Or do you Utah and Colorado folks insist on being mountain folk even as you settle into the Pac-12?

D from Oakland writes: Got to tell you Ted. I frequent your blog less and less these day. Primarily because the discussion has been overrun by [people D doesn't like in the comments sections]. I know its not your fault and there may be no way to reign in these losers but it makes for a [not fun] lunchtime read. I now go elsewhere for my college football lunchtime fix.

Ted Miller: D, you do realize you can read my wonderful posts -- each and every one, over and over and over -- without reading the comments section? There is no rule that you have to trade barbs in the dark netherworld of the blog comments section.

Jeffrey from Flagstaff, Ariz., writes: For the sake of offseason humor, can you please refer to the upcoming Cal-UW match as the "Raise Bowl."

Ted Miller: "Raise Bowl" is good. We definitely have to figure out a good, snarky name for Washington's visit to California on Nov. 2.

Tosh-o-palooza?

The Welcome Back &%$##@ Bowl!

Thoughts?

Want to give the NCAA a piece of your mind?

Well, you can today at 4 p.m. ET, when NCAA president Mark Emmert does a chat on ESPN.com.

Emmert, who has recently been talking up a playoff, will be available to answer even the sticky questions.

Should be worth checking out.

Happy Friday.

Follow me on Twitter.

To the notes!

Kohler from Boise writes: I'm a bit confused about your end of season rankings. A 7-6 Washington, that finished #3 in the Pac-12 is given a final grade of a C. Meanwhile, a 4-8 WSU is ALSO given a final grade of a C? The Huskies Defense was horrible in 2011, but they still managed to overcome that and rise to the top of the league. I'd throw in some comment about how you must hate the Huskies, but I'm not one of those Duck haters who just looks for a reason to complain about your writing.

Ted Miller: A fair question.

Let's start with this (and assuming you are a Washington fan). Remember your August of 2011 self. Strapping. Confident. Trash talking. What record would you have projected for Washington? And for Washington State. My guess is most Huskies fans thought an eight-win regular season perfectly reasonable. And my guess is your Cougars brethren were hoping for six but foresaw something closer to 5-7. Each team had a different set of reasonable expectations. And both teams fell short of expectations. So both teams get docked.

In the same vein, if Oregon had finished, say, 9-3 and not won the North Division it likely would have been in the Cs. And at 8-4 with a loss to Washington, it might have been a D, though injuries and circumstances also play a role in the final grade.

Different teams, different sorts of expectations. So, yes, these grades are on a certain curve. All seasons don't start from the same place.

Further, there are variables. The Cougars received a benefit of the doubt because they lost their starting QB to injury for essentially the entire season. While the Huskies could counter that QB Keith Price was an unknown as a first-year starter, the complete collapse of the defense earned a major demerit because there were high preseason expectations that the unit would be vastly better than recent vintages. It wasn't. Meanwhile, the Cougars dramatically improved their numbers on both sides of the ball from 2010 to 2011. Washington, perhaps surprisingly, was much better on offense but much worse on defense.

Further, the Huskies get docked because of their downward trajectory at season's end. This 7-6 finish was not nearly the match of last year's 7-6 finish. They started 5-1 this fall, earned a national ranking, but then got exposed when the schedule toughened up. Losing four of the final five is a worse path to 7-6 than winning four in a row to end the season in 2010 was.

As far as their place in the Pac-12, it makes sense to rate the Huskies fourth (did you forget USC?), a decisive head-to-head win at Utah giving them an edge over the 8-5 Utes, who got a B for their strong showing in their first year of Pac-12 play. But that's largely a function of the competition for that spot. California, which got a C also? Or Arizona State, which got a D? Or UCLA, which got a D+?

To me, the Huskies and Cougars seasons seem very similar in terms of generating fan satisfaction. Neither team failed, but neither walked away happy. And both teams made major staff changes as a result -- changes both sets of fans, by the way, are thrilled about.

---

Patrick from Las Vegas writes: During the Pete Carroll years, we all wanted a USC vs SEC BCS title game. Isn't it kind of fitting that it USC has the best chance of all other contenders to end the SEC's run?

Ted Miller: Well, let's not count Trojans before they hatch. Keep in mind that the reason USC didn't win more national titles under Pete Carroll was its predilection to throw up on itself against a middling foe at least once a year. And, based on the totality of the 2011 season, they didn't completely kick that habit -- see the loss at Arizona State that, obviously, looks much worse now than it did at the time.

To play for the 2012 national title, the Trojans likely will need to go undefeated. They have a favorable schedule, but if they take a foe lightly, they will face plant. Paging leadership from Matt Barkley.

As for past misses between USC and the SEC: In 2003 and 2008, I would have been extremely confident picking USC over LSU and Florida, respectively. I'd rate 2006 a toss-up between USC and Florida.

But, as of today, I'd like LSU's chances against USC.

---

Brian from Syracuse, NY writes: One of the big unwritten rules in recruiting is that when a coach changes schools, he should cease recruitment of the kids he had been recruiting for his old school. Thus it is surprising how unapologetically Tosh Lupoi has continued to recruit since going to UW. How sacred are the unwritten rules among the coaching fraternity? Is the wrath of other coaches any real deterrent.

Ted Miller: Unwritten rules in recruiting?

There are written rules -- the NCAA's -- that get bent, twisted and broken all the time. As for unwritten rules, it's mostly about every man for himself.

Yes, as some of you have observed, I did write this on on Jan. 17:

If Lupoi aggressively tries to flip a handful of players committed to Cal -- something we honestly doubt he will do -- then, well, we'd hope that would cause him to lose some sleep. While all is fair in love, war and recruiting, that would be a bit sleazy. Of course, effective sleazy that is within NCAA rules often falls under this category: good recruiting.

Now, there is a difference between recruiting players committed to Cal, and recruiting players who are still uncommitted that he was recruiting for Cal. But, of course, Lupoi has been actively pursuing touted safety Shaq Thompson and athlete Cedric Dozier, who are both committed to Cal. Yes, that looks yucky.

My guess is Lupoi has lost some sleep on this and, yes, probably feels a little sleazy. But this is the business. It's sleazy. He was hired by Steve Sarkisian to kick butt and sign names, not win a Nobel Peace Prize.

I also think it might be helpful to imagine a workable recruiting pitch for Lupoi at present. It probably goes something like this, "Look, I'm not going to say anything bad about Cal and Jeff Tedford. Great school, great program. But let me tell you about Washington and Coach Sarkisian." And then Lupoi hopes his personality and ability to connect (or re-connect) with young men takes over. I can't believe Lupoi would badmouth Cal, because any athlete with a lick of sense would see right through that.

As for long-term relationships among the coaches, they tend to work themselves out. Sarkisian and Tedford are pros. They know the business. I'm sure Tedford isn't happy about things, and as a competitor he'd probably like to stick it to Sark in some way. But there will be no "wrath" between the two. That's a waste of energy.

---

Nick from Conway, Ark., writes: You're already writing off the Red Wolves in their opener against Oregon? We all saw what Mike Dyer did against them a couple of years ago. True, Oregon will likely win this game, but if the Ducks have the same mindset as you, this game can get interesting.

Ted Miller: Yes, Nick, I am writing off Arkansas State against Oregon on Sept. 1. If the Red Wolves are within 30, I'd be shocked.

As for Dyer's transfer from Auburn, that makes things worse for the Red Wolves. Chip Kelly will be able to play that excruciating video over and over again, so Ducks defenders should be plenty motivated to stick it to Dyer. And make sure he's down.

Of course, Dyer should feel fortunate that safety Eddie Pleasant is now off the to NFL. He's surely the one who'd most like another shot at Dyer.