Pac-12: Notre Dame Fighting Irish
In advance, I hope everyone has a safe and enjoyable Memorial Day weekend. Please, remember to take a moment to think about what it's all about.
And then have a great cook out.
You can follow me on Twitter.
To the notes.
Scott from Honolulu writes: My question is with rumors of Florida St. talking with the Big 12 and the new college football playoffs being put into place in the near future, do you foresee another round of conference realignment? And if so, what are possible schools could we see in this new Pac 12, 14, 16 or whatever numerically correct conference?
Ted Miller: Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott has long held that further contraction in college football is inevitable. As you know, he's the all-knowing Dr. Strange of college football. And I agree with Scott. I used to think we'd reduce the FBS field to about 60 teams, and that crew would break away from the NCAA and form its own governing body. Now I think it might end up being an even smaller number.
First, so far there's been a lot of smoke (chatter) with little fire (an actual move) as it pertains to ACC teams with wandering eyes. Further, emotionally, I don't know how I feel about the notion of college football reducing itself to four super-conferences. Part of me winces, but I'm not sure if that's just my age showing. More than a few of you think my affection for the Rose Bowl is dated. When I hear such talk, I always see the baffled reaction of another sportswriter when I say, "But I'd really rather not eat at Applebee's."
On a Machiavellian level, I think the Pac-12 presidents made a mistake when they blew off Oklahoma, Texas, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech last September. While Scott won't say this on the record, my feeling from talking to him these past three or so years is he agrees. The Pac-12 had an opportunity to become the Pac-16, the first superconference, and thereby guarantee itself the most powerful seat at the table when the new look of college football is hashed out this summer.
Said Scott at the time, while defending the decision to remain at 12: "An opportunity was turned down that could have generated more money for the schools but potentially could have torn apart the fabric of the culture of the conference."
Culture, you might have noticed, is losing its traction during college football's money grab.
That move, of course, would have torn the Big 12 asunder. By the Pac-12 not doing so, the Big 12 was allowed to regroup and now it is threatening to do that very thing to the ACC. Yeah, all is fair in love, war and conference realignment.
And where does the Pac-12 turn if the SEC and Big 12 were to split up the prime teams of the ACC? Hard to say. Texas has always been the big prize in that it offered a huge market, a stellar sports program and strong academics. But that bull has walked, so to speak, and there are few teams within, oh, 1,500 miles of Pac-12 country that make much sense for expansion. Or that aren't spoken for.
The number that makes the most sense is 16. That's why few believe the SEC will stay at 14. But which four programs could add value to the Pac-12? The pickings are slim, unless Scott tries to raid the Big 12, which at present is surging and unified, or he gets really creative, outmaneuvers the Big Ten, grabs Notre Dame and uses that coup to go national and lures three more teams from outside the West region.
As it stands, I don't see an ideal 16-team scenario for the Pac-12, though I don't have one of those all-knowing Dr. Strange brains like Scott and Chip Kelly do.
Michael from Seattle writes: Do you buy into the hype of Desmond Trufant? I've seen him in a "top 100 players headed into 2012" list and I was fairly shocked. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see him having a monster senior year. Thoughts?
Ted Miller: Trufant is an NFL prospect. He's going to be a four-year starter for Washington. He's got good measurables -- 6-0, 185, good speed -- and good bloodlines being the younger brother of NFL cornerback Marcus Trufant. He was honorable mention All-Pac-12 last year, so at least two Pac-12 coaches think he can play.
But, yes, there have been a few times when he's been notably beaten. I'm aware that some Huskies fans are doubters. I also think NFL draft projections before a player's final year are fluid and often uniformed. Guys who appear in the first round of mock drafts in the summer often disappear by the following spring. And other players on nobodies' mock draft radar soar into the early rounds.
My feeling is Trufant has plenty to prove. I also think it's hard to measure him because the Huskies have been so awful on defense. It's difficult to be a good cornerback behind a weak pass rush. Or when you're consistently left on an island because the defensive coordinator is consistently rushing six or seven because of that weak pass rush.
I think the Huskies defense will be much better under new coordinator Justin Wilcox. And that will make Trufant look more like an NFL corner.
Kym from Los Angeles writes: Which redshirt freshman will have the biggest impact this season?
Ted Miller: If he wins the starting QB job, Michael Eubank at Arizona State would be a good guess. Same with QB Brett Hundley at UCLA.
California really needs Maurice Harris to step up at receiver. Utah has a redshirt freshman No. 1 at right offensive tackle after spring practices: Daniel Nielson. USC has several redshirt freshmen on its D-line -- Antwaun Woods, Cody Temple, Christian Heyward and Greg Townsend -- who could really help if they stepped up.
This will be a better question -- or at least one that's easier to answer -- when we get a solid idea of depth charts in mid-to-late August.
Tim from Salt Lake City writes: Why is it that, though I've seen them mentioned as a possible pre-season top 25 more than once, Utah hasn't warranted so much as an honorable mention in any of the offseason lists? As you are fond of asking us, who would you exclude in their favor?
Ted Miller: Barring any major, presently unforeseen issues, Utah will be in my preseason top-25 vote for the ESPN.com.
Here's Mark Schlabach's most recent top-25. I think you could clip the team that the Utes beat in the Sun Bowl and thereby find a spot.
Michael from Stockton, Calif., writes: Will oregon really be that big of threat to the explosive and very talented USC?
Ted Miller: Yes.
Steve from Fort Myers, Fla., writes: A while back you made a list of places to eat in the Pac 12 cities, this summer I will be traveling to Seattle, Corvallis, and Eugene. I was hoping you could either email me the list, or tell me where to find it, so I can check them out?
Ted Miller: If you click here, it will magically appear.
And if you read some of the comments below, you undoubtedly will find more options.
And then have a great cook out.
You can follow me on Twitter.
To the notes.
Scott from Honolulu writes: My question is with rumors of Florida St. talking with the Big 12 and the new college football playoffs being put into place in the near future, do you foresee another round of conference realignment? And if so, what are possible schools could we see in this new Pac 12, 14, 16 or whatever numerically correct conference?
Ted Miller: Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott has long held that further contraction in college football is inevitable. As you know, he's the all-knowing Dr. Strange of college football. And I agree with Scott. I used to think we'd reduce the FBS field to about 60 teams, and that crew would break away from the NCAA and form its own governing body. Now I think it might end up being an even smaller number.
First, so far there's been a lot of smoke (chatter) with little fire (an actual move) as it pertains to ACC teams with wandering eyes. Further, emotionally, I don't know how I feel about the notion of college football reducing itself to four super-conferences. Part of me winces, but I'm not sure if that's just my age showing. More than a few of you think my affection for the Rose Bowl is dated. When I hear such talk, I always see the baffled reaction of another sportswriter when I say, "But I'd really rather not eat at Applebee's."
On a Machiavellian level, I think the Pac-12 presidents made a mistake when they blew off Oklahoma, Texas, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech last September. While Scott won't say this on the record, my feeling from talking to him these past three or so years is he agrees. The Pac-12 had an opportunity to become the Pac-16, the first superconference, and thereby guarantee itself the most powerful seat at the table when the new look of college football is hashed out this summer.
Said Scott at the time, while defending the decision to remain at 12: "An opportunity was turned down that could have generated more money for the schools but potentially could have torn apart the fabric of the culture of the conference."
Culture, you might have noticed, is losing its traction during college football's money grab.
That move, of course, would have torn the Big 12 asunder. By the Pac-12 not doing so, the Big 12 was allowed to regroup and now it is threatening to do that very thing to the ACC. Yeah, all is fair in love, war and conference realignment.
And where does the Pac-12 turn if the SEC and Big 12 were to split up the prime teams of the ACC? Hard to say. Texas has always been the big prize in that it offered a huge market, a stellar sports program and strong academics. But that bull has walked, so to speak, and there are few teams within, oh, 1,500 miles of Pac-12 country that make much sense for expansion. Or that aren't spoken for.
The number that makes the most sense is 16. That's why few believe the SEC will stay at 14. But which four programs could add value to the Pac-12? The pickings are slim, unless Scott tries to raid the Big 12, which at present is surging and unified, or he gets really creative, outmaneuvers the Big Ten, grabs Notre Dame and uses that coup to go national and lures three more teams from outside the West region.
As it stands, I don't see an ideal 16-team scenario for the Pac-12, though I don't have one of those all-knowing Dr. Strange brains like Scott and Chip Kelly do.
Michael from Seattle writes: Do you buy into the hype of Desmond Trufant? I've seen him in a "top 100 players headed into 2012" list and I was fairly shocked. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see him having a monster senior year. Thoughts?
Ted Miller: Trufant is an NFL prospect. He's going to be a four-year starter for Washington. He's got good measurables -- 6-0, 185, good speed -- and good bloodlines being the younger brother of NFL cornerback Marcus Trufant. He was honorable mention All-Pac-12 last year, so at least two Pac-12 coaches think he can play.
But, yes, there have been a few times when he's been notably beaten. I'm aware that some Huskies fans are doubters. I also think NFL draft projections before a player's final year are fluid and often uniformed. Guys who appear in the first round of mock drafts in the summer often disappear by the following spring. And other players on nobodies' mock draft radar soar into the early rounds.
My feeling is Trufant has plenty to prove. I also think it's hard to measure him because the Huskies have been so awful on defense. It's difficult to be a good cornerback behind a weak pass rush. Or when you're consistently left on an island because the defensive coordinator is consistently rushing six or seven because of that weak pass rush.
I think the Huskies defense will be much better under new coordinator Justin Wilcox. And that will make Trufant look more like an NFL corner.
Kym from Los Angeles writes: Which redshirt freshman will have the biggest impact this season?
Ted Miller: If he wins the starting QB job, Michael Eubank at Arizona State would be a good guess. Same with QB Brett Hundley at UCLA.
California really needs Maurice Harris to step up at receiver. Utah has a redshirt freshman No. 1 at right offensive tackle after spring practices: Daniel Nielson. USC has several redshirt freshmen on its D-line -- Antwaun Woods, Cody Temple, Christian Heyward and Greg Townsend -- who could really help if they stepped up.
This will be a better question -- or at least one that's easier to answer -- when we get a solid idea of depth charts in mid-to-late August.
Tim from Salt Lake City writes: Why is it that, though I've seen them mentioned as a possible pre-season top 25 more than once, Utah hasn't warranted so much as an honorable mention in any of the offseason lists? As you are fond of asking us, who would you exclude in their favor?
Ted Miller: Barring any major, presently unforeseen issues, Utah will be in my preseason top-25 vote for the ESPN.com.
Here's Mark Schlabach's most recent top-25. I think you could clip the team that the Utes beat in the Sun Bowl and thereby find a spot.
Michael from Stockton, Calif., writes: Will oregon really be that big of threat to the explosive and very talented USC?
Ted Miller: Yes.
Steve from Fort Myers, Fla., writes: A while back you made a list of places to eat in the Pac 12 cities, this summer I will be traveling to Seattle, Corvallis, and Eugene. I was hoping you could either email me the list, or tell me where to find it, so I can check them out?
Ted Miller: If you click here, it will magically appear.
And if you read some of the comments below, you undoubtedly will find more options.
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.
USC
Most important game: at UCLA, Nov. 17
Why it's important: One of the problems of this series running into a national title contender, such as USC, is that the Trojans' schedule has been pretty well picked over by the Pac-12 Blog. For one, everyone knows what happens on Nov. 3. (Dolph Lundgren turns 55? No, Oregon visits USC!). And Kevin this morning wrote about USC's visit to Stanford after writing about USC's visit to Utah a week ago. While this series has a name that leaves little leeway -- "Most important" -- there's also something to be said for not repeating ourselves.
To me, two games of note are left to consider: The two rivalry games, UCLA and Notre Dame. Both will be big, in large part because they always are. Further, based on the Trojans' high expectations, a loss in either could ruin a national championship run.
But we're tagging UCLA as bigger for three reasons, even if it would be better for our purposes if the Bruins hosted the Trojans on the season's final weekend.
For one, this road has been crossed before. Some of you Bruins and Trojans might recall the 2006 showdown, a 13-9 UCLA victory that knocked USC out of the national title game. That probably was the high point of the Karl Dorrell Era. And it was the Bruins' only win in the series since 1998.
Second, if new UCLA coach Jim Mora bested Lane Kiffin in his first year that would send shockwaves throughout Southern California. And, oh by the way, those shockwaves could potentially reverberate in recruiting while the Bruins have 25 scholarships to give the next two years and the Trojans have just 15 (Trojans, I know backwards math gives you 18 this year, but we're trying to keep this simple).
Third, and perhaps most important, this is a conference game, unlike Notre Dame. What if USC suffers a conference loss before playing UCLA, and Utah's lone blemish is against the Trojans? That means the Utes play for the Pac-12 title with a shot at the Rose Bowl, and USC could find itself headed to the Alamo Bowl.
And that disappointment then feeds into the post-Matt Barkley, scholarship reduction era, when maintaining super-elite status won't be easy.
The fact is when your team has its sights set on the top prize in college football, as USC does in 2012, every game is important. The Trojans' margin for error is, at best, one loss. If the Bruins were to provide No. 2 -- or No. 1 for that matter -- it would be a day of celebration in Westwood and a low moment in Heritage Hall.
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.
USC
Most important game: at UCLA, Nov. 17
Why it's important: One of the problems of this series running into a national title contender, such as USC, is that the Trojans' schedule has been pretty well picked over by the Pac-12 Blog. For one, everyone knows what happens on Nov. 3. (Dolph Lundgren turns 55? No, Oregon visits USC!). And Kevin this morning wrote about USC's visit to Stanford after writing about USC's visit to Utah a week ago. While this series has a name that leaves little leeway -- "Most important" -- there's also something to be said for not repeating ourselves.
To me, two games of note are left to consider: The two rivalry games, UCLA and Notre Dame. Both will be big, in large part because they always are. Further, based on the Trojans' high expectations, a loss in either could ruin a national championship run.
But we're tagging UCLA as bigger for three reasons, even if it would be better for our purposes if the Bruins hosted the Trojans on the season's final weekend.
For one, this road has been crossed before. Some of you Bruins and Trojans might recall the 2006 showdown, a 13-9 UCLA victory that knocked USC out of the national title game. That probably was the high point of the Karl Dorrell Era. And it was the Bruins' only win in the series since 1998.
Second, if new UCLA coach Jim Mora bested Lane Kiffin in his first year that would send shockwaves throughout Southern California. And, oh by the way, those shockwaves could potentially reverberate in recruiting while the Bruins have 25 scholarships to give the next two years and the Trojans have just 15 (Trojans, I know backwards math gives you 18 this year, but we're trying to keep this simple).
Third, and perhaps most important, this is a conference game, unlike Notre Dame. What if USC suffers a conference loss before playing UCLA, and Utah's lone blemish is against the Trojans? That means the Utes play for the Pac-12 title with a shot at the Rose Bowl, and USC could find itself headed to the Alamo Bowl.
And that disappointment then feeds into the post-Matt Barkley, scholarship reduction era, when maintaining super-elite status won't be easy.
The fact is when your team has its sights set on the top prize in college football, as USC does in 2012, every game is important. The Trojans' margin for error is, at best, one loss. If the Bruins were to provide No. 2 -- or No. 1 for that matter -- it would be a day of celebration in Westwood and a low moment in Heritage Hall.
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.
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.
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.
- 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.[+] Enlarge
AP Photo/Don RyanPete Carroll stunned USC fans when he left after the 2009 season to coach the Seattle Seahawks. - 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.
Running back Ty Isaac (Joliet, Ill./Joliet Catholic) has committed to USC, picking the Trojans over numerous offers from across the country, including Georgia, Michigan, Ohio State, Oklahoma and Notre Dame.
Isaac is ranked 68th on the ESPN Recruiting top 150. Rivals rates Issac as the No. 18 player in the nation and Scout has him ranked 12th.
Isaac, who could also play linebacker, is a power back at 6-foot-2, 215 pounds, but he also has good speed and elusiveness, according to his ESPN evaluation. Last winter, Isaac rushed for 516 yards and six touchdowns in the state championship game. As a junior, he rushed for 2,114 yards -- 11.9 yards per carry -- and scored 45 touchdowns.
Isaac is the Trojans' sixth commitment. They can only sign 15 players due to NCAA sanctions.
PHOENIX -- Pac-12 coaches and athletic directors generally expressed optimism over the expected move toward a four-team college football playoff in 2014, but there was plenty of caution as well as a smack of defiance during the conference's spring meetings at the posh Arizona Biltmore Hotel.
Some, such as Utah coach Kyle Whittingham and Washington State coach Mike Leach, don't think four teams is enough. Some worried about losing the bowl games, particularly the Pac-12's longstanding and storied connection to the Rose Bowl. And just about everyone was concerned about the selection process.
That defiance? It's rooted in the general belief that some other conferences excel at masterful scheduling (read: avoiding challenging competition) and massaging public perception (read: creating a consensus of superiority based significantly on subjective judgments).
If the Pac-12 and Big 12 play nine conference games, and the ACC, SEC and Big Ten play eight, then those conferences are playing by different standards that have myriad measurable effects. If one conference features a majority of teams playing at least one or two tough nonconference foes a year and another features a majority of teams playing four directional schools, then those conferences are playing by different standards that have myriad measurable effects.
Even if one of those conferences has won six consecutive national titles.
"You need some competitive equity within all of the conferences if you are going to do this thing," USC athletic director Pat Haden said. "But if you're going to have a conference, it seems to me you should be playing your conference opponents rather than non-conference opponents. In USC and Stanford's case we really have 10 conference games if you include Notre Dame, because we both have a long history of playing Notre Dame."
While the sentiment is strong among the coaches to reduce the Pac-12 conference schedule to eight games, sentiments mostly lean the other way among the athletic directors. The topic was discussed this week, but commissioner Larry Scott confirmed that there is no short-term plan to reduce the conference slate to eight games.
A big reason for that: There's a wait-and-see attitude on the details of the four-team playoff. While, based on media reports, there seems to be considerable momentum behind incorporating the bowls into the new system, there is little consensus on the selection process for the four participating teams.
That is where the coaches have a dog in this fight. They don't really care where they play, but they do want to know how they get there.
"I'd hate to go to just one little group or one committee that picks the teams," Arizona coach Rich Rodriguez said. "I think it's way too important. The more people you have involved, probably the better."
Oregon coach Chip Kelly pointed out that if there was a final four in place last fall, then Stanford would have been in and his Ducks would have been out, despite their decisive win in Palo Alto. The biggest reason for that? Oregon lost to LSU in the season-opener, giving it one more defeat than Stanford. If the Ducks had played San Jose State, they almost certainly would have finished fourth.
"There seems like there are a lot of questions that still need to be answered before anybody can say, 'Hey, that's a great idea,'" Kelly said.
Therein lies the caution. And the defiance. There was a clear undercurrent with Scott, the coaches and athletic directors that they didn't want to be pushed into anything, particularly when the Pac-12 (and Big Ten) are being asked to sacrifice something -- their tie to the Rose Bowl -- while other conferences aren't. There's a widespread perception that the BCS standings favored an SEC way of doing things, and played a role in that conference's recent dominance. So how does it help the Pac-12 if the new format still relies on a BCS-like evaluation?
There's a concern that if, say, Oregon and Alabama both finish 11-1 that the Crimson Tide would benefit from a "just because" edge, one based entirely on a subjective judgment of SEC superiority. Such a judgment could give the SEC a near-annual second team in a final four while knocking the Pac-12 -- and other major conferences -- out entirely.
"I think a lot of people are going to want the human element out of it, because it would be hard for humans to make those decisions and not be biased in some way," USC coach Lane Kiffin said.
Which is why some, such as Whittingham, favor an expanded playoff.
"From my perspective, you can take it out of the hands of voting and more to on-field performance," he said.
Said Leach, "I'd like to see it more than four. My suspicion is eventually there will be. Because, five years ago, if somebody had said this was going to happen, the room would have started laughing."
Meetings here were long, and there were plenty of other topics, from officiating, to bowls, to scheduling. But the back-and-forth on the potential new playoff scenarios was the centerpiece of the week, at least in terms of intrigue.
Change is coming. That's almost certain. But the process this summer of putting together a concrete plan among entities with competing agendas figures to be contentious.
Said Washington coach Steve Sarkisian, "I think there are still a lot of conversations to go."
Some, such as Utah coach Kyle Whittingham and Washington State coach Mike Leach, don't think four teams is enough. Some worried about losing the bowl games, particularly the Pac-12's longstanding and storied connection to the Rose Bowl. And just about everyone was concerned about the selection process.
[+] Enlarge
AP Photo/Mark J. TerrillUtah coach Kyle Whittingham is among those who favor a playoff with more than four teams.
AP Photo/Mark J. TerrillUtah coach Kyle Whittingham is among those who favor a playoff with more than four teams.If the Pac-12 and Big 12 play nine conference games, and the ACC, SEC and Big Ten play eight, then those conferences are playing by different standards that have myriad measurable effects. If one conference features a majority of teams playing at least one or two tough nonconference foes a year and another features a majority of teams playing four directional schools, then those conferences are playing by different standards that have myriad measurable effects.
Even if one of those conferences has won six consecutive national titles.
"You need some competitive equity within all of the conferences if you are going to do this thing," USC athletic director Pat Haden said. "But if you're going to have a conference, it seems to me you should be playing your conference opponents rather than non-conference opponents. In USC and Stanford's case we really have 10 conference games if you include Notre Dame, because we both have a long history of playing Notre Dame."
While the sentiment is strong among the coaches to reduce the Pac-12 conference schedule to eight games, sentiments mostly lean the other way among the athletic directors. The topic was discussed this week, but commissioner Larry Scott confirmed that there is no short-term plan to reduce the conference slate to eight games.
A big reason for that: There's a wait-and-see attitude on the details of the four-team playoff. While, based on media reports, there seems to be considerable momentum behind incorporating the bowls into the new system, there is little consensus on the selection process for the four participating teams.
That is where the coaches have a dog in this fight. They don't really care where they play, but they do want to know how they get there.
"I'd hate to go to just one little group or one committee that picks the teams," Arizona coach Rich Rodriguez said. "I think it's way too important. The more people you have involved, probably the better."
Oregon coach Chip Kelly pointed out that if there was a final four in place last fall, then Stanford would have been in and his Ducks would have been out, despite their decisive win in Palo Alto. The biggest reason for that? Oregon lost to LSU in the season-opener, giving it one more defeat than Stanford. If the Ducks had played San Jose State, they almost certainly would have finished fourth.
"There seems like there are a lot of questions that still need to be answered before anybody can say, 'Hey, that's a great idea,'" Kelly said.
Therein lies the caution. And the defiance. There was a clear undercurrent with Scott, the coaches and athletic directors that they didn't want to be pushed into anything, particularly when the Pac-12 (and Big Ten) are being asked to sacrifice something -- their tie to the Rose Bowl -- while other conferences aren't. There's a widespread perception that the BCS standings favored an SEC way of doing things, and played a role in that conference's recent dominance. So how does it help the Pac-12 if the new format still relies on a BCS-like evaluation?
There's a concern that if, say, Oregon and Alabama both finish 11-1 that the Crimson Tide would benefit from a "just because" edge, one based entirely on a subjective judgment of SEC superiority. Such a judgment could give the SEC a near-annual second team in a final four while knocking the Pac-12 -- and other major conferences -- out entirely.
"I think a lot of people are going to want the human element out of it, because it would be hard for humans to make those decisions and not be biased in some way," USC coach Lane Kiffin said.
Which is why some, such as Whittingham, favor an expanded playoff.
"From my perspective, you can take it out of the hands of voting and more to on-field performance," he said.
Said Leach, "I'd like to see it more than four. My suspicion is eventually there will be. Because, five years ago, if somebody had said this was going to happen, the room would have started laughing."
Meetings here were long, and there were plenty of other topics, from officiating, to bowls, to scheduling. But the back-and-forth on the potential new playoff scenarios was the centerpiece of the week, at least in terms of intrigue.
Change is coming. That's almost certain. But the process this summer of putting together a concrete plan among entities with competing agendas figures to be contentious.
Said Washington coach Steve Sarkisian, "I think there are still a lot of conversations to go."
The Heisman Pundit has released its official 2012 Heisman Trophy Watch List, and as you’d expect, it’s the usual suspects from the Pac-12 on the list.
Though in alphabetical order, it’s widely assumed that USC quarterback Matt Barkley is the front-runner with all others playing catch-up before the first snap has been taken. Here’s the list.
The Pac-12 blog entertained which player from the conference we thought would emerge as the Heisman winner in a Take 2 back in March. Watch lists are always subject to change, and until we actually see some games, it’s only fun speculation at this point.
No question that Barkley is the early leader in the minds of many. Given his statistics last season, the receivers he has around him and the lofty preseason ranking the Trojans are expected to enjoy, he’s looking down on the pack – at least for now.
Thomas is going to have big play after big play this season, which makes him a very strong Heisman candidate. His exploits can be packaged into an explosive highlight reel that is easily digestible for East Coast voters. No one ever gets tired of seeing 85-yard touchdown runs (unless you're safeties chasing Thomas).
Price lacks the national brand at this point, but that could all change in Week 2 in Baton Rouge. A strong showing against LSU is certain to boost his exposure and could catapult him from dark horse contender to major candidate. And then he's got Stanford, Oregon and USC all in the first six games. He could be the leader at the turn ... or slip out of the running all together.
Though in alphabetical order, it’s widely assumed that USC quarterback Matt Barkley is the front-runner with all others playing catch-up before the first snap has been taken. Here’s the list.
- Tavon Austin, Sr., AP, West Virginia
- Montee Ball, Sr., RB, Wisconsin
- Matt Barkley, Sr., QB, USC
- Tajh Boyd, Jr., QB, Clemson
- Tyler Bray, Jr., QB, Tennessee
- Knile Davis, Jr., RB, Arkansas
- James Franklin, Jr., QB, Missouri
- Landry Jones, Sr., QB, Oklahoma
- Collin Klein, Sr., QB, Kansas State
- Marcus Lattimore, Jr., RB, South Carolina
- Aaron Murray, Jr., QB, Georgia
- Keith Price, Jr., QB, Washington
- Denard Robinson, Sr., QB, Michigan
- Geno Smith, Sr., QB, West Virginia
- De’Anthony Thomas, So., RB, Oregon
- Sammy Watkins, So, WR, Clemson
- Tyler Wilson, Sr., QB, Arkansas
- Cierre Wood, Sr., RB, Notre Dame
The Pac-12 blog entertained which player from the conference we thought would emerge as the Heisman winner in a Take 2 back in March. Watch lists are always subject to change, and until we actually see some games, it’s only fun speculation at this point.
No question that Barkley is the early leader in the minds of many. Given his statistics last season, the receivers he has around him and the lofty preseason ranking the Trojans are expected to enjoy, he’s looking down on the pack – at least for now.
Thomas is going to have big play after big play this season, which makes him a very strong Heisman candidate. His exploits can be packaged into an explosive highlight reel that is easily digestible for East Coast voters. No one ever gets tired of seeing 85-yard touchdown runs (unless you're safeties chasing Thomas).
Price lacks the national brand at this point, but that could all change in Week 2 in Baton Rouge. A strong showing against LSU is certain to boost his exposure and could catapult him from dark horse contender to major candidate. And then he's got Stanford, Oregon and USC all in the first six games. He could be the leader at the turn ... or slip out of the running all together.
Welcome to the mailbag.
Follow me on Twitter.
To the notes!
Mitchell from Boston writes: The first round of the NFL draft should answer you pac fans about which conference is the best. But here's my question. What do you mean with this "Wimpy scheduling needs to be addressed, including finding ways to circumvent misleading measures of "strength of schedule." There is nothing "wimpy" about playing in the SEC. It's big-boy football. The SEC doesn't need to play a tough schedule because it already plays an SEC schedule.
Ted Miller: Glad to explain, Mitchell, because it's important to understand what I am saying and what I am not saying.
The SEC is the nation's best football conference. Six consecutive national titles leave little doubt, particularly with five different teams claiming at least one in the BCS era. And the draft numbers for Thursday were impressive. There is a gap between the SEC and every other conference, and my belief is that gap has widened over the past 10 years -- from being mostly perception to become (self-fulfilling?) reality.
So what am I saying about scheduling? Well, dagnabit, I'm going to pick on Mississippi State again. Apologies in advance, lovely Starkville.
Last year, the Bulldogs' nonconference schedule featured Memphis, Louisiana Tech, UAB and Tennessee-Martin. This is hard to believe, but the 2012 slate is even more embarrassing: Jackson State, Troy, South Alabama and Middle Tennessee.
Our new system for determining a four-team playoff needs to make it nearly impossible to play for the national title with a nonconference record like that, even if lightning struck and the Bulldogs went undefeated. There needs to be an evaluative component that specifically analyzes nonconference competition separate from conference competition, one that gives a team points for aggressively scheduling and deducts points for hiding like a quaking kitten from a challenge.
Further, the new system needs to find a way to spread this deduction throughout a conference. Why? Because Mississippi State starts the 2012 season 4-0. You can't say that about any Pac-12 team. Or Big 12 team, for that matter, because the Big 12 also plays a nine-game conference schedule.
Look at it this way. The worst record imaginable for the Bulldogs in 2012 is 4-8. There is only one sure-thing on Oregon State's schedule -- Nicholls State (I won't mention the Sacramento State debacle in 2011). The Beavers play Wisconsin and at BYU in their other two nonconference games. The Beavers conceivably could end up 1-11 and still be significantly better than Mississippi State. But that wouldn't show up in a typical strength of schedule measure.
Then there is that nine- vs. eight-game conference schedule issue. That almost automatically decreases the strength of schedule ranking for the Pac-12 because it guarantees six more losses annually in the conference. Further, there's this: Guess which three teams Georgia didn't play in the 2011 regular season? Alabama, LSU and Arkansas.
When you have three conference misses a year, it can skew things more than if you have two.
While we can certainly acknowledge the SEC has taken the lead in college football, the SEC can't expect a "just because" perception to be superimposed on the future. It can't be allowed to insist that just because it plays an SEC schedule that it doesn't have to play quality nonconference games -- and on the road, too.
Now let's give credit where credit is due. LSU posted perhaps the most impressive regular season in college football history last year, in large part due to nonconference wins over Oregon and West Virginia, which both ended up winning BCS bowl games. And Alabama deserves credit for playing Virginia Tech and Penn State in recent years and opening against Michigan in 2012. So, Alabama and LSU fans can take a bow and know we're not writing about you. Not directly.
There is no way to completely remove a substantial subjective element from determining a four-team playoff in college football. But if we're going to create a four-team playoff with mega-millions as the reward for earning a berth -- and a major revenue downer for not -- then we need to insist that our process of evaluation requires in advance certain standards for every conference.
Bob from Raleigh, N.C., writes: If the Pac decides to join the rest of CFB and go to 8 conference games, will they still have the provision of the Bay Schools playing SoCal schools every year? I realize sometimes to get a deal, some schools have to be bought (see Staples Center in basketball), but to be more equatable, they would have to break that up, right?
Ted Miller: If we do, indeed, end up with a four-team playoff in 2014, then the Pac-12 needs to end the nine-game conference schedule if the Big Ten and SEC are still playing an eight-game schedule. To not do so would simply be negligent. Too much money will be at stake to give those other conference an annual head start in the rankings.
And, if the Pac-12 goes to eight conference games, it almost certainly would end the guaranteed annual meetings between the Bay Area vs. Southern California schools.
Some fans would huff and puff, but the longterm benefit to the conference as a whole is too valuable. And, by the way, neither Bay Area coach would frown at such a change.
Miller from Aloha, Ore., writes: I do wonder what the rest of the country thinks/feels about Larry Scott. I'm obviously a huge fan due to what he has done for the Pac-12, but I think that many in the country might not like him because he has been too successful too quickly. And is there a chance this might make the other 11 Conference Commissioners (and the Domer representative) ignore his input due to jealousy, etc?
Ted Miller: Larry Scott is a likable guy. He's gracious and accessible. And he's the least imperious of the major conference commissioners, at least since Dan Beebe was forced out of the Big 12.
If anyone dislikes Scott, it's because he's smart and effective and ambitious. And, yes, I get the feeling that some commissioners don't count themselves as fans because of that. This a competitive business, and Scott has been winning too much for some folks liking. It's easier to like a competitor who is easy pickings.
But there also are no stupid men in the room. "Like" isn't as important as "respect," in any event. They all know that Scott, perhaps more than any other commissioner, knows how to grow revenue in our present age of advancing technology. Within a few months of his hiring, his consistent theme was how undervalued not only the then-Pac-10 was but also how undervalued college football was. His vision is big-picture. And it's clear he sees more of the field than many of the folks yammering in Florida this week.
So, no, they won't ignore Scott. He knows where the money is hiding.
Tim from Winston-Salem, N.C., writes: So far through the spring practices, Washington's defense seems to consistently be getting the better of the offense, with the secondary earning seemingly endless praise from the coaching staff. While I understand that the O-line is in shambles right now, do you think that the defense really is making big strides under Wilcox, or is it just the offense getting use to new looks from the D?
Ted Miller: First, I think Justin Wilcox is pretty much a sure-thing. He will make the Huskies defense better because he's never failed as a defensive coordinator. The biggest concern for Husky fans should be how long before he leaves to become a head coach.
That said: Spring practices won't reveal much of anything about the Huskies defense, particularly with them working against a patchwork offensive line. It muddies things further that the the Huskies are replacing their top skill guys, too.
But there are things you can notice. You bring up the secondary. How many times over the past three years did you go: How did he get so open? Where the heck is the safety? If you watched the Huskies scrimmage this spring, and you saw few if any clearly broken coverages, that suggests that guys understand where they are supposed to be. Being in the right place, properly in position to complete an assignment, is step two for a defense. It's one-third the battle. It's the difference between being sound and unsound, and the Huskies were too often unsound under Nick Holt.
What's the first step? Well, that's something else you can get a feel for after watching a few practices. The first step is playing hard every play. If you watch enough football -- and enough different teams -- you can start to see a difference in how teams play and practice. Is everybody running to the ball? Is there constant chatter and enthusiasm? Are pads popping all over the field? Way back when Chip Kelly used to let reporters watch practice, you could see that Oregon practiced hard. That might be a part of their recent success.
The third step? Being good enough to make the play when you're doing your best and know your assignment. That could be the area where Wilcox is most challenged this year. The Huskies still aren't where they need to be in terms of talent and depth on all three levels.
Ryan from Salt Lake City writes: So what is one supposed to do to pass the time until fall camp? Other than read the PAC 12 blog religiously.
Ted Miller: Well, you certainly hit the chief pass time. The Pac-12 blog NEVER GOES AWAY... even if college football does for a few months.
Other choices?
Read a book. Talk to your wife or kids. Perhaps both.
Watch the all five seasons of "The Wire." Go to the beach. Fix up your back yard. Fix up my backyard. Read -- or re-read -- two literary classics. Learn to cook a heavenly spaghetti carbonara. Train for a triathlon. Develop your own cocktail. Actually become informed on political issues instead of only blathering boilerplate ideological rants. Decide to definitively find out which restaurant makes the best hamburger within 20 miles of your home. Watch baseball. Volunteer with Habitat for Humanity. Expand your musical horizons.
Sleep.
Any other suggestions?
Follow me on Twitter.
To the notes!
Mitchell from Boston writes: The first round of the NFL draft should answer you pac fans about which conference is the best. But here's my question. What do you mean with this "Wimpy scheduling needs to be addressed, including finding ways to circumvent misleading measures of "strength of schedule." There is nothing "wimpy" about playing in the SEC. It's big-boy football. The SEC doesn't need to play a tough schedule because it already plays an SEC schedule.
Ted Miller: Glad to explain, Mitchell, because it's important to understand what I am saying and what I am not saying.
The SEC is the nation's best football conference. Six consecutive national titles leave little doubt, particularly with five different teams claiming at least one in the BCS era. And the draft numbers for Thursday were impressive. There is a gap between the SEC and every other conference, and my belief is that gap has widened over the past 10 years -- from being mostly perception to become (self-fulfilling?) reality.
So what am I saying about scheduling? Well, dagnabit, I'm going to pick on Mississippi State again. Apologies in advance, lovely Starkville.
Last year, the Bulldogs' nonconference schedule featured Memphis, Louisiana Tech, UAB and Tennessee-Martin. This is hard to believe, but the 2012 slate is even more embarrassing: Jackson State, Troy, South Alabama and Middle Tennessee.
Our new system for determining a four-team playoff needs to make it nearly impossible to play for the national title with a nonconference record like that, even if lightning struck and the Bulldogs went undefeated. There needs to be an evaluative component that specifically analyzes nonconference competition separate from conference competition, one that gives a team points for aggressively scheduling and deducts points for hiding like a quaking kitten from a challenge.
Further, the new system needs to find a way to spread this deduction throughout a conference. Why? Because Mississippi State starts the 2012 season 4-0. You can't say that about any Pac-12 team. Or Big 12 team, for that matter, because the Big 12 also plays a nine-game conference schedule.
Look at it this way. The worst record imaginable for the Bulldogs in 2012 is 4-8. There is only one sure-thing on Oregon State's schedule -- Nicholls State (I won't mention the Sacramento State debacle in 2011). The Beavers play Wisconsin and at BYU in their other two nonconference games. The Beavers conceivably could end up 1-11 and still be significantly better than Mississippi State. But that wouldn't show up in a typical strength of schedule measure.
Then there is that nine- vs. eight-game conference schedule issue. That almost automatically decreases the strength of schedule ranking for the Pac-12 because it guarantees six more losses annually in the conference. Further, there's this: Guess which three teams Georgia didn't play in the 2011 regular season? Alabama, LSU and Arkansas.
When you have three conference misses a year, it can skew things more than if you have two.
While we can certainly acknowledge the SEC has taken the lead in college football, the SEC can't expect a "just because" perception to be superimposed on the future. It can't be allowed to insist that just because it plays an SEC schedule that it doesn't have to play quality nonconference games -- and on the road, too.
Now let's give credit where credit is due. LSU posted perhaps the most impressive regular season in college football history last year, in large part due to nonconference wins over Oregon and West Virginia, which both ended up winning BCS bowl games. And Alabama deserves credit for playing Virginia Tech and Penn State in recent years and opening against Michigan in 2012. So, Alabama and LSU fans can take a bow and know we're not writing about you. Not directly.
There is no way to completely remove a substantial subjective element from determining a four-team playoff in college football. But if we're going to create a four-team playoff with mega-millions as the reward for earning a berth -- and a major revenue downer for not -- then we need to insist that our process of evaluation requires in advance certain standards for every conference.
Bob from Raleigh, N.C., writes: If the Pac decides to join the rest of CFB and go to 8 conference games, will they still have the provision of the Bay Schools playing SoCal schools every year? I realize sometimes to get a deal, some schools have to be bought (see Staples Center in basketball), but to be more equatable, they would have to break that up, right?
Ted Miller: If we do, indeed, end up with a four-team playoff in 2014, then the Pac-12 needs to end the nine-game conference schedule if the Big Ten and SEC are still playing an eight-game schedule. To not do so would simply be negligent. Too much money will be at stake to give those other conference an annual head start in the rankings.
And, if the Pac-12 goes to eight conference games, it almost certainly would end the guaranteed annual meetings between the Bay Area vs. Southern California schools.
Some fans would huff and puff, but the longterm benefit to the conference as a whole is too valuable. And, by the way, neither Bay Area coach would frown at such a change.
Miller from Aloha, Ore., writes: I do wonder what the rest of the country thinks/feels about Larry Scott. I'm obviously a huge fan due to what he has done for the Pac-12, but I think that many in the country might not like him because he has been too successful too quickly. And is there a chance this might make the other 11 Conference Commissioners (and the Domer representative) ignore his input due to jealousy, etc?
Ted Miller: Larry Scott is a likable guy. He's gracious and accessible. And he's the least imperious of the major conference commissioners, at least since Dan Beebe was forced out of the Big 12.
If anyone dislikes Scott, it's because he's smart and effective and ambitious. And, yes, I get the feeling that some commissioners don't count themselves as fans because of that. This a competitive business, and Scott has been winning too much for some folks liking. It's easier to like a competitor who is easy pickings.
But there also are no stupid men in the room. "Like" isn't as important as "respect," in any event. They all know that Scott, perhaps more than any other commissioner, knows how to grow revenue in our present age of advancing technology. Within a few months of his hiring, his consistent theme was how undervalued not only the then-Pac-10 was but also how undervalued college football was. His vision is big-picture. And it's clear he sees more of the field than many of the folks yammering in Florida this week.
So, no, they won't ignore Scott. He knows where the money is hiding.
Tim from Winston-Salem, N.C., writes: So far through the spring practices, Washington's defense seems to consistently be getting the better of the offense, with the secondary earning seemingly endless praise from the coaching staff. While I understand that the O-line is in shambles right now, do you think that the defense really is making big strides under Wilcox, or is it just the offense getting use to new looks from the D?
Ted Miller: First, I think Justin Wilcox is pretty much a sure-thing. He will make the Huskies defense better because he's never failed as a defensive coordinator. The biggest concern for Husky fans should be how long before he leaves to become a head coach.
That said: Spring practices won't reveal much of anything about the Huskies defense, particularly with them working against a patchwork offensive line. It muddies things further that the the Huskies are replacing their top skill guys, too.
But there are things you can notice. You bring up the secondary. How many times over the past three years did you go: How did he get so open? Where the heck is the safety? If you watched the Huskies scrimmage this spring, and you saw few if any clearly broken coverages, that suggests that guys understand where they are supposed to be. Being in the right place, properly in position to complete an assignment, is step two for a defense. It's one-third the battle. It's the difference between being sound and unsound, and the Huskies were too often unsound under Nick Holt.
What's the first step? Well, that's something else you can get a feel for after watching a few practices. The first step is playing hard every play. If you watch enough football -- and enough different teams -- you can start to see a difference in how teams play and practice. Is everybody running to the ball? Is there constant chatter and enthusiasm? Are pads popping all over the field? Way back when Chip Kelly used to let reporters watch practice, you could see that Oregon practiced hard. That might be a part of their recent success.
The third step? Being good enough to make the play when you're doing your best and know your assignment. That could be the area where Wilcox is most challenged this year. The Huskies still aren't where they need to be in terms of talent and depth on all three levels.
Ryan from Salt Lake City writes: So what is one supposed to do to pass the time until fall camp? Other than read the PAC 12 blog religiously.
Ted Miller: Well, you certainly hit the chief pass time. The Pac-12 blog NEVER GOES AWAY... even if college football does for a few months.
Other choices?
Read a book. Talk to your wife or kids. Perhaps both.
Watch the all five seasons of "The Wire." Go to the beach. Fix up your back yard. Fix up my backyard. Read -- or re-read -- two literary classics. Learn to cook a heavenly spaghetti carbonara. Train for a triathlon. Develop your own cocktail. Actually become informed on political issues instead of only blathering boilerplate ideological rants. Decide to definitively find out which restaurant makes the best hamburger within 20 miles of your home. Watch baseball. Volunteer with Habitat for Humanity. Expand your musical horizons.
Sleep.
Any other suggestions?
Welcome to the mailbag.
Follow me on Twitter here.
We have a note from a not-so-special guest this week to lead off.
Ted Miller from Scottsdale, Ariz., writes: Hey, Ted! You and Kevin do a great job. Is it true that the Surgeon General found that reading the Pac-12 blog makes you smarter? Doesn't surprise me a bit!
Anyway. My question: What do you think about word that some Pac-12 schools are dragging their feet on scheduling games with Big Ten foes, per the Big Ten-Pac-12 alliance?
Ted Miller: You have reached a new low, Self, with this juvenile artifice. So apologies to all. (I just wanted to address this).
Are some Pac-12 teams not thrilled with the Big Ten-Pac-12 partnership? Maybe.
It was announced in December that the Rose Bowl partners and academically elite conferences would, starting in 2017, play an annual football series involving all 12 schools in both leagues. But Wisconsin athletic director Barry Alvarez told Big Ten blogger Brian Bennett on Thursday that the partnership in football had not been finalized because "there are a couple of teams in the Pac-12 that are dragging their feet a little bit."
Both conference offices denied there were major issues. A Pac-12 spokesman emailed this statement: "Our schools are excited about the collaboration with the Big Ten, and we are continuing to work on sports scheduling details."
But the truth is, yes, some schools aren't thrilled, which goes along with scheduling issues that the Pac-12 blog has frequently -- redundantly? -- noted through the years.
Let's say you're Stanford.
That means Stanford could play 11 tough games every year against top AQ foes.
Here's Mark Schlabach's Way Too Early Top-25. Let's say the Cardinal next fall drew Michigan State as its Big Ten foe. That means Stanford would play: No. 2 USC, No. 4 Oregon, No. 9 Michigan State and No. 23 Notre Dame in 2012. Great fun. You could compute Cal's schedule much the same way.
The Pac-12 blog has some solutions. These solutions will be: 1. Best for the Pac-12; 2. Best for Cal and Stanford; 3. Controversial.
First, the Pac-12 needs to end the nine-game conference schedule. It might make athletic directors' lives easier in terms of scheduling and filling a stadium, but it hurts their teams and the conference as a whole. That's not an opinion. It's a mathematical fact.
Kill it. Please.
Second, Stanford and Cal need to end this silly "We must play USC and UCLA every year!" deal. Hey, I get it. Some fans enjoy the weekender. But -- come closer, because I want to whisper to you an embarrassing truth -- IT"S STUPID TO INSIST ON PLAYING USC EVERY YEAR! (Whoops... did I just yell that?) And, heck, UCLA should eventually get back into the top-25.
Insisting on playing USC every year is no different than if the ADs at Cal and Stanford said, "Hey, let's play Alabama... EVERY YEAR!"
Here is the realpolitik of college football: You can schedule success.
The Pac-12, instead, is scheduling failure. Its scheduling practices create a perception that makes the conference seem worse than it is, just as the SEC's scheduling practices accomplish the opposite.
I will not quote Cal coach Jeff Tedford and Stanford coach David Shaw on this matter. Both these guys are competitors who fear no team.
But neither one of them will hate me after reading this.
Nor will any other Pac-12 coach.
Big Ten-Pac-12 alliance? Great. Love big nonconference games. Second best thing in college football behind rivalry games.
But, first, kill the nine-game conference schedule. Then end the "designated games" between the California teams. Set up a pure rotating schedule between the North and South Divisions that will ensure the best scheduling equity possible.
Emtee Dubyew from Keizer, Ore., writes: I recently read an article on ESPN that Ohio State is installing a "Oregon style" no-huddle rapid paced offense. I seem to remember a segment Urban Meyer did when he worked for ESPN, he talked to Chip Kelly about Oregon's offense and practice methods. I mean with the PAC-12/Big10 relationship Oregon and Ohio State could do battle in the future. So would this lead to coaches being less willing to share their secrets and methods with the rest of us?
Ted Miller: Hmm... that name. You Ducks and Huskies never stop, do you? You mean this video, of course. Good stuff with Chip & Urban.
Less willing to do cool videos like this? I doubt it, and let's hope not.
First of all, coaches visit other teams all the time, though reasonably they don't allow visitors from teams they are scheduled to play. And more than a few times, it becomes a joke at a bowl game that one set of coaches met with the other set the previous spring. Still, the exchange of ideas doesn't yield details of a specific game plan. While Kelly and Meyer offer some nice insights during their chat, it's mostly superficial stuff that can be easily digested by a general audience.
Further, Meyer is an offensive innovator much like Kelly, with both on the front lines of spread-option concepts. That Meyer is planning to adopt an up-tempo, no-huddle offense is no surprise.
David from San Diego writes: So the big word post-spring practice is that USC's secondary is for real this year. Now I'm a die heard USC fan, but how can this assessment be made when everyone and their mama knows that USC's offense consisted mainly of 2 young, backup QB's, a thin RB corp, the best WR in the PAC-12 or possibly the nation out of action, not too mention all of our TE's have been hurt and not practicing either. Would you agree that all the hoopla on the secondary is a tad bit premature?
Ted Miller: All hoopla in April is a tad premature, just as the hoopla over a recruiting class is premature. We in the sportswriting business spend a lot of time giving you premature judgments, just as fans on message boards do the same -- "No worries! We have a JC transfer coming in who will solve all our problems!"
Why are folks high on USC's secondary?
Well, for one, it welcomes back all four starters from a unit that yielded the fewest TD passes (17) in the Pac-12 last season. The Trojans ranked fourth in the Pac-12 in pass efficiency defense. Not only that, just about every guy on the two-deep is back. Oh, and Florida transfer Josh Shaw is eligible to play in 2012.
Cornerback Nickell Robey and safety T.J. McDonald were both first-team All-Pac-12. McDonald is an almost certain preseason All-American. He could be the first safety picked in the 2013 NFL draft.
And there's a hunch, and it's not unreasonable, that Year 3 under coordinator Monte Kiffin could yield strong improvement, just as it did in 2011 compared to 2010.
So, best I can tell, the hoopla is based on good players coming back from a good secondary that seems likely to be better in 2012.
Or, perhaps, the hoopla comes entirely from a counter-intelligence operation run by a cabal of Freemason USC boosters connected to the Trilateral Commission.
Don from Portland writes: While I agree with you that pot in Oregon is seen as a non issue, it seems that the Ducks willingness to speak candidly about smoking to a reporter bespeaks a complete disregard for the feelings of their coaches, fans, and those players who do not use drugs. Shouldn't Chip Kelley be more concerned about his players apparent lack of loyalty?
Ted Miller: Yes, based on the ESPN Magazine article, it's clear at least one Duck broke the locker room Omertà. Yes, that should annoy Kelly and other players. I doubt it will keep anybody up at night, but it's a concern.
But that also answers some of you who feel Oregon was singled out or targeted. Typically how it works for a reporter working a story is he gets a tip or a lead, then he has to get a source talking. That's what happened here. And let's be real. If we were ranking Pac-12 towns for a laissez-faire attitude toward marijuana smoking, it likely would go: 1. Eugene; 2. Berkeley; 3. Boulder; 4. Seattle; 5. LA. As the article noted, "... The Princeton Review and High Times both have ranked the University of Oregon among the most pot-friendly schools."
You probably have just as many, er, "enthusiasts" here in Arizona among the Wildcats and Sun Devils. But I would suggest that the political-legal attitudes here are a bit different, not to mention rules about random testing.
Also, I do want to point out to Ducks fans, Oregon wasn't really singled out that much. For one, there was also a general story on pot smoking in college football, the gist of which is "wow... just about everybody is doing it."
Also, from the article:
And this: "One senior NFL executive who interviewed players at the combine says about 70 percent confessed to smoking pot, likely on the advice of their agents."
There was no implication in any part of the story that Oregon is unique. It just ended up being the "case study," in large part because someone on the team was willing to be a source.
There also was this about Kelly: "The Oregon regime is also cracking down. Anecdotal evidence suggests that Kelly has taken a hard stance in his three seasons as head coach. "I've heard weed was bigger before I got there," says one Kelly-era Duck, "but Chip cracked down on that. He'll actually attend classes with guys. If you miss a study hall, he'll drug-test you."
I got a lot of mail about this series. Most of you noted that the under-25 demographic has a much different vision about marijuana usage than the 50-and-overs. No doubt about that. Some of you were mad at ESPN, citing our desire to crush a West Coast power that threatens the SEC. Lots of folks communicated a general, "Neh." Some of you appeared to be partaking while typing.
My feeling, as I previously wrote, is this: Fret about this for 20 minutes. But that was on Wednesday, so it's time to move on. This article is unlikely to do any real harm to the university or the football program.
Ryan from Fairfield, Conn., writes: I am a former collegiate football player, and now I am inspiring to be a Director/ Producer. One of my best friends and myself created this mini-documentary, it is an emotional conversation with football players. Here is the Youtube link, check it out tell me what you think.
Ted Miller: I think it's pretty cool.
Follow me on Twitter here.
We have a note from a not-so-special guest this week to lead off.
Ted Miller from Scottsdale, Ariz., writes: Hey, Ted! You and Kevin do a great job. Is it true that the Surgeon General found that reading the Pac-12 blog makes you smarter? Doesn't surprise me a bit!
Anyway. My question: What do you think about word that some Pac-12 schools are dragging their feet on scheduling games with Big Ten foes, per the Big Ten-Pac-12 alliance?
Ted Miller: You have reached a new low, Self, with this juvenile artifice. So apologies to all. (I just wanted to address this).
Are some Pac-12 teams not thrilled with the Big Ten-Pac-12 partnership? Maybe.
It was announced in December that the Rose Bowl partners and academically elite conferences would, starting in 2017, play an annual football series involving all 12 schools in both leagues. But Wisconsin athletic director Barry Alvarez told Big Ten blogger Brian Bennett on Thursday that the partnership in football had not been finalized because "there are a couple of teams in the Pac-12 that are dragging their feet a little bit."
Both conference offices denied there were major issues. A Pac-12 spokesman emailed this statement: "Our schools are excited about the collaboration with the Big Ten, and we are continuing to work on sports scheduling details."
But the truth is, yes, some schools aren't thrilled, which goes along with scheduling issues that the Pac-12 blog has frequently -- redundantly? -- noted through the years.
Let's say you're Stanford.
- You start with a nine-game Pac-12 schedule. The ACC, SEC and Big Ten play an eight-game conference schedule, which allows for four nonconference foes -- read: typically at least three scheduled patsies.
- Then you add Stanford's (and California's) insistence on playing USC and UCLA every year. Hey, tradition!
- Then you add Oregon's rise in the North Division as a national power.
- Then you add an annual series with Notre Dame.
- Then you add an annual game with the Big Ten.
That means Stanford could play 11 tough games every year against top AQ foes.
Here's Mark Schlabach's Way Too Early Top-25. Let's say the Cardinal next fall drew Michigan State as its Big Ten foe. That means Stanford would play: No. 2 USC, No. 4 Oregon, No. 9 Michigan State and No. 23 Notre Dame in 2012. Great fun. You could compute Cal's schedule much the same way.
The Pac-12 blog has some solutions. These solutions will be: 1. Best for the Pac-12; 2. Best for Cal and Stanford; 3. Controversial.
First, the Pac-12 needs to end the nine-game conference schedule. It might make athletic directors' lives easier in terms of scheduling and filling a stadium, but it hurts their teams and the conference as a whole. That's not an opinion. It's a mathematical fact.
Kill it. Please.
Second, Stanford and Cal need to end this silly "We must play USC and UCLA every year!" deal. Hey, I get it. Some fans enjoy the weekender. But -- come closer, because I want to whisper to you an embarrassing truth -- IT"S STUPID TO INSIST ON PLAYING USC EVERY YEAR! (Whoops... did I just yell that?) And, heck, UCLA should eventually get back into the top-25.
Insisting on playing USC every year is no different than if the ADs at Cal and Stanford said, "Hey, let's play Alabama... EVERY YEAR!"
Here is the realpolitik of college football: You can schedule success.
The Pac-12, instead, is scheduling failure. Its scheduling practices create a perception that makes the conference seem worse than it is, just as the SEC's scheduling practices accomplish the opposite.
I will not quote Cal coach Jeff Tedford and Stanford coach David Shaw on this matter. Both these guys are competitors who fear no team.
But neither one of them will hate me after reading this.
Nor will any other Pac-12 coach.
Big Ten-Pac-12 alliance? Great. Love big nonconference games. Second best thing in college football behind rivalry games.
But, first, kill the nine-game conference schedule. Then end the "designated games" between the California teams. Set up a pure rotating schedule between the North and South Divisions that will ensure the best scheduling equity possible.
Emtee Dubyew from Keizer, Ore., writes: I recently read an article on ESPN that Ohio State is installing a "Oregon style" no-huddle rapid paced offense. I seem to remember a segment Urban Meyer did when he worked for ESPN, he talked to Chip Kelly about Oregon's offense and practice methods. I mean with the PAC-12/Big10 relationship Oregon and Ohio State could do battle in the future. So would this lead to coaches being less willing to share their secrets and methods with the rest of us?
Ted Miller: Hmm... that name. You Ducks and Huskies never stop, do you? You mean this video, of course. Good stuff with Chip & Urban.
Less willing to do cool videos like this? I doubt it, and let's hope not.
First of all, coaches visit other teams all the time, though reasonably they don't allow visitors from teams they are scheduled to play. And more than a few times, it becomes a joke at a bowl game that one set of coaches met with the other set the previous spring. Still, the exchange of ideas doesn't yield details of a specific game plan. While Kelly and Meyer offer some nice insights during their chat, it's mostly superficial stuff that can be easily digested by a general audience.
Further, Meyer is an offensive innovator much like Kelly, with both on the front lines of spread-option concepts. That Meyer is planning to adopt an up-tempo, no-huddle offense is no surprise.
David from San Diego writes: So the big word post-spring practice is that USC's secondary is for real this year. Now I'm a die heard USC fan, but how can this assessment be made when everyone and their mama knows that USC's offense consisted mainly of 2 young, backup QB's, a thin RB corp, the best WR in the PAC-12 or possibly the nation out of action, not too mention all of our TE's have been hurt and not practicing either. Would you agree that all the hoopla on the secondary is a tad bit premature?
Ted Miller: All hoopla in April is a tad premature, just as the hoopla over a recruiting class is premature. We in the sportswriting business spend a lot of time giving you premature judgments, just as fans on message boards do the same -- "No worries! We have a JC transfer coming in who will solve all our problems!"
Why are folks high on USC's secondary?
Well, for one, it welcomes back all four starters from a unit that yielded the fewest TD passes (17) in the Pac-12 last season. The Trojans ranked fourth in the Pac-12 in pass efficiency defense. Not only that, just about every guy on the two-deep is back. Oh, and Florida transfer Josh Shaw is eligible to play in 2012.
Cornerback Nickell Robey and safety T.J. McDonald were both first-team All-Pac-12. McDonald is an almost certain preseason All-American. He could be the first safety picked in the 2013 NFL draft.
And there's a hunch, and it's not unreasonable, that Year 3 under coordinator Monte Kiffin could yield strong improvement, just as it did in 2011 compared to 2010.
So, best I can tell, the hoopla is based on good players coming back from a good secondary that seems likely to be better in 2012.
Or, perhaps, the hoopla comes entirely from a counter-intelligence operation run by a cabal of Freemason USC boosters connected to the Trilateral Commission.
Don from Portland writes: While I agree with you that pot in Oregon is seen as a non issue, it seems that the Ducks willingness to speak candidly about smoking to a reporter bespeaks a complete disregard for the feelings of their coaches, fans, and those players who do not use drugs. Shouldn't Chip Kelley be more concerned about his players apparent lack of loyalty?
Ted Miller: Yes, based on the ESPN Magazine article, it's clear at least one Duck broke the locker room Omertà. Yes, that should annoy Kelly and other players. I doubt it will keep anybody up at night, but it's a concern.
But that also answers some of you who feel Oregon was singled out or targeted. Typically how it works for a reporter working a story is he gets a tip or a lead, then he has to get a source talking. That's what happened here. And let's be real. If we were ranking Pac-12 towns for a laissez-faire attitude toward marijuana smoking, it likely would go: 1. Eugene; 2. Berkeley; 3. Boulder; 4. Seattle; 5. LA. As the article noted, "... The Princeton Review and High Times both have ranked the University of Oregon among the most pot-friendly schools."
You probably have just as many, er, "enthusiasts" here in Arizona among the Wildcats and Sun Devils. But I would suggest that the political-legal attitudes here are a bit different, not to mention rules about random testing.
Also, I do want to point out to Ducks fans, Oregon wasn't really singled out that much. For one, there was also a general story on pot smoking in college football, the gist of which is "wow... just about everybody is doing it."
Also, from the article:
NEWS FLASH: COLLEGE kids smoke weed. That includes, according to an NCAA study released in January, 22.6 percent of athletes -- up 1.4 percentage points from the previous study in 2005. College football players (26.7 percent) ranked the highest among major sports. And the Oregon football program provides an interesting case study on the impact -- or lack thereof -- of marijuana use among players.
And this: "One senior NFL executive who interviewed players at the combine says about 70 percent confessed to smoking pot, likely on the advice of their agents."
There was no implication in any part of the story that Oregon is unique. It just ended up being the "case study," in large part because someone on the team was willing to be a source.
There also was this about Kelly: "The Oregon regime is also cracking down. Anecdotal evidence suggests that Kelly has taken a hard stance in his three seasons as head coach. "I've heard weed was bigger before I got there," says one Kelly-era Duck, "but Chip cracked down on that. He'll actually attend classes with guys. If you miss a study hall, he'll drug-test you."
I got a lot of mail about this series. Most of you noted that the under-25 demographic has a much different vision about marijuana usage than the 50-and-overs. No doubt about that. Some of you were mad at ESPN, citing our desire to crush a West Coast power that threatens the SEC. Lots of folks communicated a general, "Neh." Some of you appeared to be partaking while typing.
My feeling, as I previously wrote, is this: Fret about this for 20 minutes. But that was on Wednesday, so it's time to move on. This article is unlikely to do any real harm to the university or the football program.
Ryan from Fairfield, Conn., writes: I am a former collegiate football player, and now I am inspiring to be a Director/ Producer. One of my best friends and myself created this mini-documentary, it is an emotional conversation with football players. Here is the Youtube link, check it out tell me what you think.
Ted Miller: I think it's pretty cool.
USC finished spring practices on Saturday and released a depth chart Monday. Here are some notes on that and some comments from coach Lane Kiffin.
By the way, Kiffin led off his remarks by discounting what this depth chart actually means. He noted a number of injured players, as well as incoming freshmen and transfers, will be in the mix in the fall.
By the way, Kiffin led off his remarks by discounting what this depth chart actually means. He noted a number of injured players, as well as incoming freshmen and transfers, will be in the mix in the fall.
- While QB Matt Barkley rates well down the list of USC concerns, it's also been well-documented that he had an uneven spring, throwing a notable number of interceptions. When asked to give Barkley a letter grade for his performance, Kiffin opted to go with an, er, "incomplete." Said Kiffin: "I don't know that I could do that just because of the variables around him." Part of that was Barkley being a side story for the backup battle. Another is injuries to skill players, such as All-American WR Robert Woods.
- As for the backup QB battle, it gets a "to be continued." While Max Wittek was listed before Cody Kessler on the depth chart, there was an "OR" between them and Kiffin said the order is irrelevant.
- Kiffin wasn't terribly encouraging about the status of former backup QB Jesse Scroggins, who has academic issues. Said Kiffin, "He's got to dig himself out of a hole."
- Kiffin said the two biggest concerns heading toward the fall are depth at defensive tackle and running back. Kiffin seemed most excited by the improvement of the "back seven" -- the secondary and linebackers. "The play of our back seven, I know it's just spring, but it's by far the best since we've been here."
- It appears that Andrey Walker has won the job at left offensive tackle over Kevin Graff. Said Kiffin, "It makes too much sense to leave Kevin where he's got 12 games under his belt (right tackle)." As for Walker, "He's got a very high ceiling."
- Starting jobs with "ORs": tight end (Randall Telfer/Xavier Grimble); strong safety (Jawanza Starling/Demetrius Wright); cornerback (Isiah Wiley/Brian Baucham/Torin Harris); P Kyle Negrete/Kyle Albarado).
- As for punter, Kiffin said it's possible Negrete, the 2011 starter, could take on "tight" punting -- placement kicks -- while Albarado could do long punts.
- Touted incoming freshman Nelson Agholor is listed at both tailback and receiver. Kiffin noted that Agholor is "very, very mature for his age, much like Robert (Woods) was." Kiffin also said two depth chart spots wouldn't have happened without the season-ending knee injury to RB Tre Madden. "We need to find some yardage in the passing game out of the running back position," Kiffin said.
- As for the high expectations surrounding the Trojans as they head into the off-season, Kiffin appreciated "the national respect," but insisted "there are a lot of question marks."
- ESPN Radio and USC announced a multi-year agreement in which the network will have exclusive national broadcast rights for all home Trojans football games. This is ESPN Radio's first nationally exclusive broadcasting agreement with a college football program and only the second such agreement in the industry (Notre Dame and IMG Sports).
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.
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.
We've given you our thoughts recently on which Pac-12 player has the best shot at winning the Heisman. You've given your thoughts (an extremely tight poll) and now the folks at HeismanPundit.com have offered up their darkhorse candidates for 2012.
They looked at 12 not-as-mainstream candidates who could contend for the Heisman Trophy, and four of them are from the Pac-12.
First, the list:
Their thoughts on each of the Pac-12 players:
Fun list. With frontrunner Matt Barkley out there, along with Washington quarterback Keith Price, a couple of USC wide receivers and A-list running backs like John White IV and Stepfan Taylor, there is certainly no wanting for offensive talent in the conference. Per usual.
Which players emerge will definitely be one of the more fascinating stories to follow in 2012.
They looked at 12 not-as-mainstream candidates who could contend for the Heisman Trophy, and four of them are from the Pac-12.
First, the list:
- Eddie Lacy, Alabama
- Curtis McNeal, USC
- Fitzgerald Toussaint, Michigan
- Kenjon Barner, Oregon
- James Franklin, Missouri
- Braxton Miller, Ohio State
- Kiehl Frazier, Auburn
- Le'Veon Bell, Michigan State
- Cierre Wood, Notre Dame
- Christine Michael, Texas A&M
- Jesse Callier, Washington
- De'Anthony Thomas, Oregon
Their thoughts on each of the Pac-12 players:
On McNeal: A total of 150 carries have departed the program and there is little depth behind the senior, who will benefit from defenses focusing on USC’s strong passing attack. Give McNeal at least half of those departed carries and you are looking at a possible 1,500 yard season, if not more.
On Barner: There were times the rest of the year when he looked as good as, if not better than, James. This year, the Ducks lose not only James’ 247 carries, but also the 45 of freshman Tra Carson and the 56 of quarterback Darron Thomas, for a total of 347 carries to be redistributed.
On Callier: I actually think there is a good chance that Washington experiences no dropoff at this position and that Callier establishes himself as one of the top backs in the Pac-12 with a season exceeding 1,300 yards on the ground.
On Thomas: Thomas is obviously an interesting case since he is such an all-around dynamo. Last year, he had just 140 touches, with 39 of them coming in the return game. This was a wise move by Oregon, as keeping the rather slight Thomas fresh and healthy is the key to his effectiveness. It worked, as he had 18 touchdowns and 2,235 total yards. In that vein, Oregon might be tempted to put a huge workload on him in 2012, but I don’t foresee it unless there is a desperate need.
Fun list. With frontrunner Matt Barkley out there, along with Washington quarterback Keith Price, a couple of USC wide receivers and A-list running backs like John White IV and Stepfan Taylor, there is certainly no wanting for offensive talent in the conference. Per usual.
Which players emerge will definitely be one of the more fascinating stories to follow in 2012.
Opening the mailbag: USC is overrated!
February, 24, 2012
Feb 24
6:30
PM ET
By
Ted Miller | ESPN.com
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.
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:
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.
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.
Success at sports is the province of the almost empty head.
- Some thoughts from an Arizona perspective on Davonte' Neal odd recruiting journey, which ended at Notre Dame. More details here.
- Former Arizona State CB Omar Bolden has a lot to prove at the NFL combine.
- Here are the Bay Area players headed to the NFL combine, and a quick preview of them here.
- Former Colorado QB Tyler Hansen has been working out with Tim Tebow and Brady Quinn, and he senses no tension between the two.
- What are the odds Oregon wins the national title?
- Oregon State might undergo a recruiting realignment with its coaches.
- Former Stanford QB Andrew Luck is working out with a QB guru before he heads to the NFL combine.
- Former UCLA defensive coordinator Joe Tresey found another job. A review of the Bruins highly rated recruiting class.
- How do things stack up at QB for USC behind Matt Barkley?
- A shot at casting a movie about Washington State football.
The Davonte Neal drama is over.
Neal (Scottsdale, Ariz./Chaparral) finally showed up Tuesday, and Notre Dame is glad he did. Neal, the nation's No. 8 overall prospect, picked Notre Dame over Arizona after standing up a gathering of 600 students at Kyrene de la Esperanza Elementary earlier in the morning.
Neal, who could play receiver or defensive back, gives the Fighting Irish a needed boost of athleticism.
While new Wildcats coach Rich Rodriguez missed out on an A-list recruit, the embarrassing way this day played out for Neal and his family probably introduced a modicum of relief to the rejection.
Here's the Arizona Star on Neal's decision.
And the Tucson Citizen.
Neal (Scottsdale, Ariz./Chaparral) finally showed up Tuesday, and Notre Dame is glad he did. Neal, the nation's No. 8 overall prospect, picked Notre Dame over Arizona after standing up a gathering of 600 students at Kyrene de la Esperanza Elementary earlier in the morning.
Neal, who could play receiver or defensive back, gives the Fighting Irish a needed boost of athleticism.
While new Wildcats coach Rich Rodriguez missed out on an A-list recruit, the embarrassing way this day played out for Neal and his family probably introduced a modicum of relief to the rejection.
Here's the Arizona Star on Neal's decision.
And the Tucson Citizen.
Neal a no-show at his own news conference
February, 21, 2012
Feb 21
12:35
PM ET
By
Ted Miller | ESPN.com
Davonte' Neal didn't show up for his own news conference Tuesday to announce his decision between Arizona, Notre Dame, Arkansas and North Carolina.
The nation's eighth-ranked player from Chaparral High in Scottsdale, Ariz., left 600 at Kyrene de la Esperanza Elementary -- his old school -- in the lurch.
And, by the way, national signing day was three weeks ago. Yes, each year the excesses of recruiting and the behavior the hype inspires hit us squarely between the eyes.
There's this from the Arizona Daily Star:
The solution here is simple. Someone should ask Neal where he wants to go to school. Then Neal should send his letter of intent there. End of story.
This is Neal's decision. Why? He's the only one who's going to college. He's the only one living with the decision.
And, by the way, he's the one who earned the free ride.
The nation's eighth-ranked player from Chaparral High in Scottsdale, Ariz., left 600 at Kyrene de la Esperanza Elementary -- his old school -- in the lurch.
And, by the way, national signing day was three weeks ago. Yes, each year the excesses of recruiting and the behavior the hype inspires hit us squarely between the eyes.
There's this from the Arizona Daily Star:
The issue, apparently, is a power struggle between Neal and his father, Luke. Luke Neal has been pro-Notre Dame in recent weeks, while Davonte has been leaning toward the UA.
Wildcats coach Rich Rodriguez made recruiting Neal a priority shortly after he was hired Nov. 21 as Mike Stoops' permanent replacement. Rodriguez hired Charlie Ragle, Neal's coach at Chaparral, as Arizona's new liaison to in-state high schools. The Wildcats then signed two Chaparral players, linebacker Cody Ippolito and defensive end Dylan Cozens, with hopes Neal would follow.
The solution here is simple. Someone should ask Neal where he wants to go to school. Then Neal should send his letter of intent there. End of story.
This is Neal's decision. Why? He's the only one who's going to college. He's the only one living with the decision.
And, by the way, he's the one who earned the free ride.
ABOUT THIS BLOG
Ted Miller
Miller has been covering college football since 1997, starting with Auburn and then heading West to Washington and the Pac-12. His columns for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer won first place in the 2007 APSE Best Writing contest. The Atlanta native and University of Richmond graduate presently lives with his wife in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Kevin Gemmell
Gemmell covered San Diego State and the Mountain West Conference for three years before joining ESPN.com. As a Santa Clara graduate, his hope is that the Broncos will one day re-institute football. Until then, he lives vicariously through his readers. Gemmell lives in California with his wife and son.
PAC-12 TEAM COVERAGE
RECRUITING NATION
USC: We Are SC
Follow everything USC at We Are USC: USC Trojans football, basketball, news, recruiting and more.
• We Are SC | Blog | RecruitingNation
