Pac-12: Penn State Nittany Lions
Happy Friday.
This is where you follow me on Twitter.
To the notes.
Dave from Birmingham writes: Not sure I get you. Why would you not want the four best teams to play in a playoff? That's what a playoff is about. I know there's a subjective part to this but that's inevitable. Is everyone that afraid of a consensus favoring the SEC because the SEC is the best conference?
Ted Miller: In a word, yes. And no matter how you frame it, that so-called consensus remains subjective. And I know this from experience.
In 1996, I worked at the Mobile Register and I was arguing with Mike Griffith, who then covered Alabama for the Register and voted in the AP poll. Now, everybody argues with Mike, but I thought he was being particularly obtuse this particular afternoon because he was touting Arizona State. I was blathering that Arizona State would have four losses if it played in the SEC.
Yes, I once was one of them. Why? Because that was the way I was raised. Football in the south, as writer Rick Bragg once ostentatiously pandered, is like a "knife fight in a ditch"! That's a bunch of silliness, but such sentiments nonetheless are inculcated into fans and they seep into the media coverage -- in the Southeast as well as other parts of the country where fetishizing the peculiarity of the South is embraced. So I understand the roots of the "just because" reaction of so many SEC fans. And I experienced its power as a sportswriter.
When I moved out to Seattle to cover Washington, I still had a "just because" feeling about West Coast vs. Southeast football. When Miami came to Husky Stadium in 2000, I thought the Hurricanes would blast the Huskies. Ergo, my initial transformative moment was watching Washington physically manhandle the Hurricanes. Don't be fooled by the final score: The Huskies owned Miami that day.
My point: Regional biases are strong and they cloud thinking, even when they feel rational. That's why there needs to be a safeguard in our new four-team playoff system for some degree of objectivity, which prioritizing conference champions provides.
I know any questions about SEC super-awesomeness make SEC folks angry. I know: Six crystal footballs. No one is doubting the SEC's ability to dominate the BCS system. And I have no doubt that dominance of a subjective system -- a beauty contest, really -- has helped push the SEC closer to something that can be judged as a more objective superiority (read: self-fulfilling prophecy).
But if we're going to have a national college football playoff, we need to create a selection process that doesn't leave open the possibility of a tag always going to a runner from a certain conference, just because.
Edward from Atlanta writes: Do you think USC coach Lane Kiffin and his staff are better at recruiting than Pete Carroll and his staff? I look at the fact that Lane Kiffin is only working with 15 scholarships and he is still bringing in top recruits after everything that has taking placed. Just imagine if he did had all his scholarships he would probably have a top 3 or top 5 recruiting class every year.
Ted Miller: No.
Kiffin and his staff are recruiting very well, but they can't do much better than Pete Carroll and his staff did from 2002-2009. You say top-three to -five each year? Carroll landed the No. 1 class multiple times. Any rare rating outside the top five was deemed an off-year. Carroll's recruiting run rates among the best run a program has produced -- think Bobby Bowden in the glory years at Florida State.
It's also worth noting that Carroll and Kiffin share two ace recruiters: Kiffin and Ed Orgeron.
Jeff from Tempe, Ariz., writes: Who do you think is going to be the starting quarterback for ASU to begin the season?
Ted Miller: That's a tough one. When I watched practice, I thought Mike Bercovici was so much better as a passer that he should be the guy. But then you have to realize that new coach Todd Graham wants to run some spread option, and that requires the quarterback to be a running threat. Bercovici is no running threat, while 6-foot-5, 242-pound Michael Eubank is. And Eubank has potential as a passer, though at present he's raw.
The easy answer is start Bercovici but use some packages with Eubank. But that's sort of a fan answer. Most coaches don't like playing two quarterbacks. They'll tell you if you play two, it means you don't have any. And QBs are not big fans of sharing the job.
I used to be a Bercovici lean, but now I'm leaning toward Eubank. Here's why: This team is much better at running back than at receiver. Even with Bercovici's live arm, this probably is going to be a run-first offense, and it makes things much more difficult for a defense if it must account for the QB as a runner. Eubank can become at least an adequate passer. Bercovici is unlikely to do the same as a runner.
Mark from Garden Grove, Calif., writes: If you could play matchmaker, which Big Ten/Pac-12 schools would you pair for the 2017 season -- and why?
Ted Miller: OK, I'll bite, basing things on where the college football world is today.
Rapsai from Eugene, Ore., writes: Ted, with Oregon's lack of depth at RB, do you see Josh Huff maybe sliding into the backfield to play some RB for the Ducks next season?
Ted Miller: A perfectly reasonable solution if there are injury issues in the backfield.
Does it make me a bad person that I don't think the Ducks are going to hurting at running back? I just think with Chip Kelly's emphasis on speed in recruiting that the Ducks will pretty much have an answer at RB, no matter how many guys get hurt. Recall that Kenjon Barner started out as a defensive back.
John from Los Angeles writes: I guess this falls into my "you know your old when you have a story for everything" file. In reading the post about Jonathan Ogden going into the HOF, I noticed your comment on his massive size. My buddies and I take a football road trip every year. We used to include the Baltimore Ravens in the trip because Will Demps (former Ravens safety) played at the high school where my buddy is the AD and he would get us tickets. Anyway, after a game against the Bengals at Cincinnati we are standing next to the Ravens team bus talking to Demps, Ogden and his people come up next to us - and he literally blocks out the sun!! You truly cannot appreciate how BIG the guy is until you stand right next to him. My buddy is wearing his USC cap (he is a big fan), so to amuse myself I keep whispering "Jack, show Ogden your hat." My friend kept his back to Ogden the entire time.
Ted Miller: I remember covering the 1996 Citrus Bowl between Ohio State and Tennessee -- which was cool because both were ranked No. 4 entering the game -- and walking up to the Ohio State bus. I saw No. 75 horsing around around this itty-bitty guy with a bald head who was No. 27.
The itty bitty guy was 6-foot-3, 240-pound, Heisman Trophy-winning running back Eddie George, and No. 75 was 6-foot-7, 325-pound Orlando Pace, who at that moment was the biggest dude I'd ever seen.
And Ogden -- at 6-foot-9, 345 -- darn near dwarfs Pace.
Only guy who ever impressed me as more spectacularly large was Shaquille O'Neal.
This is where you follow me on Twitter.
To the notes.
Dave from Birmingham writes: Not sure I get you. Why would you not want the four best teams to play in a playoff? That's what a playoff is about. I know there's a subjective part to this but that's inevitable. Is everyone that afraid of a consensus favoring the SEC because the SEC is the best conference?
Ted Miller: In a word, yes. And no matter how you frame it, that so-called consensus remains subjective. And I know this from experience.
In 1996, I worked at the Mobile Register and I was arguing with Mike Griffith, who then covered Alabama for the Register and voted in the AP poll. Now, everybody argues with Mike, but I thought he was being particularly obtuse this particular afternoon because he was touting Arizona State. I was blathering that Arizona State would have four losses if it played in the SEC.
Yes, I once was one of them. Why? Because that was the way I was raised. Football in the south, as writer Rick Bragg once ostentatiously pandered, is like a "knife fight in a ditch"! That's a bunch of silliness, but such sentiments nonetheless are inculcated into fans and they seep into the media coverage -- in the Southeast as well as other parts of the country where fetishizing the peculiarity of the South is embraced. So I understand the roots of the "just because" reaction of so many SEC fans. And I experienced its power as a sportswriter.
When I moved out to Seattle to cover Washington, I still had a "just because" feeling about West Coast vs. Southeast football. When Miami came to Husky Stadium in 2000, I thought the Hurricanes would blast the Huskies. Ergo, my initial transformative moment was watching Washington physically manhandle the Hurricanes. Don't be fooled by the final score: The Huskies owned Miami that day.
My point: Regional biases are strong and they cloud thinking, even when they feel rational. That's why there needs to be a safeguard in our new four-team playoff system for some degree of objectivity, which prioritizing conference champions provides.
I know any questions about SEC super-awesomeness make SEC folks angry. I know: Six crystal footballs. No one is doubting the SEC's ability to dominate the BCS system. And I have no doubt that dominance of a subjective system -- a beauty contest, really -- has helped push the SEC closer to something that can be judged as a more objective superiority (read: self-fulfilling prophecy).
But if we're going to have a national college football playoff, we need to create a selection process that doesn't leave open the possibility of a tag always going to a runner from a certain conference, just because.
Edward from Atlanta writes: Do you think USC coach Lane Kiffin and his staff are better at recruiting than Pete Carroll and his staff? I look at the fact that Lane Kiffin is only working with 15 scholarships and he is still bringing in top recruits after everything that has taking placed. Just imagine if he did had all his scholarships he would probably have a top 3 or top 5 recruiting class every year.
Ted Miller: No.
Kiffin and his staff are recruiting very well, but they can't do much better than Pete Carroll and his staff did from 2002-2009. You say top-three to -five each year? Carroll landed the No. 1 class multiple times. Any rare rating outside the top five was deemed an off-year. Carroll's recruiting run rates among the best run a program has produced -- think Bobby Bowden in the glory years at Florida State.
It's also worth noting that Carroll and Kiffin share two ace recruiters: Kiffin and Ed Orgeron.
Jeff from Tempe, Ariz., writes: Who do you think is going to be the starting quarterback for ASU to begin the season?
Ted Miller: That's a tough one. When I watched practice, I thought Mike Bercovici was so much better as a passer that he should be the guy. But then you have to realize that new coach Todd Graham wants to run some spread option, and that requires the quarterback to be a running threat. Bercovici is no running threat, while 6-foot-5, 242-pound Michael Eubank is. And Eubank has potential as a passer, though at present he's raw.
The easy answer is start Bercovici but use some packages with Eubank. But that's sort of a fan answer. Most coaches don't like playing two quarterbacks. They'll tell you if you play two, it means you don't have any. And QBs are not big fans of sharing the job.
I used to be a Bercovici lean, but now I'm leaning toward Eubank. Here's why: This team is much better at running back than at receiver. Even with Bercovici's live arm, this probably is going to be a run-first offense, and it makes things much more difficult for a defense if it must account for the QB as a runner. Eubank can become at least an adequate passer. Bercovici is unlikely to do the same as a runner.
Mark from Garden Grove, Calif., writes: If you could play matchmaker, which Big Ten/Pac-12 schools would you pair for the 2017 season -- and why?
Ted Miller: OK, I'll bite, basing things on where the college football world is today.
- Oregon-Ohio State: Urban Meyer vs. Chip Kelly. 'Nuff said.
- Arizona-Michigan: The Rich Rodriguez Bowl.
- Stanford-Wisconsin: Two really good schools that play smashmouth football.
- Oregon State-Michigan State: All that green would have the Beavers feeling like they're play Oregon.
- USC-Penn State: Two old-school powers whose uniforms are among the most recognizable.
- Nebraska-Arizona State: Any Sun Devils recall 1996?
- Northwestern-California: Two elite academic universities.
- Washington-Iowa: A rematch of the 1982, 1991 Rose Bowls, both won by the Huskies.
- Colorado-Purdue: Two great mascots. (Colorado would have been a good one for Nebraska, too.)
- Utah-Illinois: Utes vs. Fighting Illini.
- Washington State-Minnesota: The Cold Bowl.
- UCLA-Indiana: Two old-school basketball powers playing football.
Rapsai from Eugene, Ore., writes: Ted, with Oregon's lack of depth at RB, do you see Josh Huff maybe sliding into the backfield to play some RB for the Ducks next season?
Ted Miller: A perfectly reasonable solution if there are injury issues in the backfield.
Does it make me a bad person that I don't think the Ducks are going to hurting at running back? I just think with Chip Kelly's emphasis on speed in recruiting that the Ducks will pretty much have an answer at RB, no matter how many guys get hurt. Recall that Kenjon Barner started out as a defensive back.
John from Los Angeles writes: I guess this falls into my "you know your old when you have a story for everything" file. In reading the post about Jonathan Ogden going into the HOF, I noticed your comment on his massive size. My buddies and I take a football road trip every year. We used to include the Baltimore Ravens in the trip because Will Demps (former Ravens safety) played at the high school where my buddy is the AD and he would get us tickets. Anyway, after a game against the Bengals at Cincinnati we are standing next to the Ravens team bus talking to Demps, Ogden and his people come up next to us - and he literally blocks out the sun!! You truly cannot appreciate how BIG the guy is until you stand right next to him. My buddy is wearing his USC cap (he is a big fan), so to amuse myself I keep whispering "Jack, show Ogden your hat." My friend kept his back to Ogden the entire time.
Ted Miller: I remember covering the 1996 Citrus Bowl between Ohio State and Tennessee -- which was cool because both were ranked No. 4 entering the game -- and walking up to the Ohio State bus. I saw No. 75 horsing around around this itty-bitty guy with a bald head who was No. 27.
The itty bitty guy was 6-foot-3, 240-pound, Heisman Trophy-winning running back Eddie George, and No. 75 was 6-foot-7, 325-pound Orlando Pace, who at that moment was the biggest dude I'd ever seen.
And Ogden -- at 6-foot-9, 345 -- darn near dwarfs Pace.
Only guy who ever impressed me as more spectacularly large was Shaquille O'Neal.
Chip Kelly is staying at Oregon.
Oregon fans ... you can now breathe. By holding your breath, you turned purple and, well, you know that's not what you want to do.
This has been confirmed by the general manager of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, who were deep in the process of trying to lure Kelly out of Eugene and into the NFL this past weekend.
"His heart is with college football and Oregon and he's no longer being considered," Mark Dominik said Monday, according to the Tampa Bay Times.
A handful of news outlets had reported that Kelly was leaving Oregon. George Schroeder of the Eugene Register-Guard, however, was the first to report Kelly's change of heart.
This hullabaloo leads to two questions: 1. How long will Kelly stay at Oregon, as it is now evident the NFL intrigues him -- an idea that was just a theory before? 2. Does this provide the Ducks a boost of momentum -- he's staying because we are awesome! -- or is there some damage control to undertake?
Oregon fans got to experience what it would feel like to lose Kelly, who is 33-6 at the Ducks' helm after winning three consecutive conference titles. Some panicked. Some said, "We'll be OK." Some felt a little of both.
The first reaction of many will be that it's now clear that Kelly will eventually leave. That's not necessarily true. A flirtation that doesn't lead to a divorce can often lead to a renewed loyalty and sense of purpose. Recall that Joe Paterno was, in 1972, out the door at Penn State to coach the New England Patriots.
But Kelly is incredibly competitive, so the juice of competing at the highest level might eventually overcome him. And the non-coaching aspects of leading a major college football program also might wear him down.
Just not yet.
The immediate reaction among the Ducks' rivals was that perhaps some of Kelly's top recruits might waiver. And Oregon did lose a committed player over the weekend. Kelly reportedly missed a recruiting trip to Sacramento during his chats with the Bucs. The guess here is he'll be making a few phone calls today.
Are bridges rebuilt immediately, only with stronger materials? "He loves us, he really loves us!"
Or are questions going to linger? "He flirted once, which means his eyeballs are prone to wander."
The answer -- in some ways unsatisfying -- is "both."
Ah, but too much introspection and navel gazing won't lead to any permanent insight, though Oregon athletic director Rob Mullens now knows that his "Plan B" file needs to be kept updated.
The Pac-12 blog's advice to Oregon fans is to live in and enjoy the present, perhaps with even more appreciation for this golden age of Ducks football. Kelly isn't leaving. His 2012 team is loaded. His focus is back on winning a fourth consecutive conference title.
There will be plenty of time to fret about 2013 and beyond.
It is Friday. Can we get some emergency college football tomorrow? How about a USC-Alabama scrimmage? Anyone? Anyone?
No. Drat.
Follow me on Twitter.
To the notes!
Shawn from Albany, Ore., writes: You recently stated, "USC just became the strong front-runner in the Pac-12."... Why? You can't tell me you really think that just because Thomas is bolting for the NFL, that its going to make the Ducks any less competitive in the PAC-12 next year... Apparently you didn't pay much attention when True Freshman Bryan Bennett played this last year... Yes it will be his first year as our starter, but if you recall, Thomas took us to the National Championship game his FIRST year as starter... And if you ask me, Bennett's not only faster than Thomas, but has a better arm... That kid can sling a pigskin! Anyway... I'd be careful about stating anything that has to do with USC being somehow more dominant than us based simply on the fact we'll no longer have Thomas at the helm... It's time for a new era of Oregon Football... The Bennett Era!
Ted Miller: Well, I had USC as a slight front-runner in the Pac-12 in any event based largely on the fact that Oregon must play at USC on Nov. 3 and not vice versa. The Ducks' loss of Thomas just makes the Trojans front-runner status clearer.
With or without Thomas, Oregon is the clear front-runner in the North Division. I will be shocked if the Ducks don't play in the 2012 Pac-12 championship game. And I'd be more than a little surprised if they have more than two losses when they do so.
And yet the loss of Thomas does change things, whether Oregon fans want to admit it or not. Thomas is a given. You know what you will get from him. And, more important, so does Chip Kelly. When a coach really knows his quarterback, particularly a Dr. Strange offensive savant like Chip Kelly, it helps him engineer the offense to suit him in every detail. Kelly knows what Thomas likes and dislikes. He knows how he will react to just about every situation. He won't know that about Bryan Bennett.
Heck, we don't even know that Bennett will be the starter, though I feel strongly he will be. It seems some are intrigued by redshirt freshman Marcus Mariota.
Bennett played well coming off the bench when Thomas got hurt against Arizona State. And he did a good job in his start at Colorado. But, well, the Buffs' defense wasn't exactly LSU.
How will Bennett -- or whoever starts -- react to adversity? Or prosperity even? Will he be durable? Will he protect the football? Will he be able to make consistent reads? Will he get overwhelmed by the spotlight? Can he digest the entire offense? Will be be able to counterpunch on his own when defensive coordinators start to get a feel for him?
How will be react to 94,000 fans at the Coliseum on Nov. 3?
These are questions Thomas already answered. Sure, he wasn't the perfect quarterback. But he was 23-3 as a starter, including 1-1 in BCS bowl games. If he started in the Coliseum on Nov. 3, he'd be smirking and eyeballing Matt Barkley thinking, "I'm better than him."
It's perfectly reasonable to have high expectations for Bennett. My hunch is he'll play well, perhaps even match or exceed Thomas' numbers. He, particularly, looks like a better runner.
Still, when you remove a starter who was 23-3, you insert unknowns. There's no way around that.
To Chip Kelly this: Bennett is a hypothetical. And we don't do hypotheticals.
Ken from Portland writes: Ted First off, I think Mike Leach is going to be a fantastic coach in Pullman. I think he is just what the Cougs need, and I don't really look forward to playing them in the future. My question though is this: Pullman does not have all that different of weather than the Midwest. Every analyst and their mom, it seems like, always points to the "weather" as the reason a pass heavy offense wouldn't work in the Big10 (and Big 10 fan's #1 excuse for losing to teams from the South, "well hey buddy, come try that offense in Ohio in November!") But everyone loves the Leach hire in Pullman? Would they be saying the same thing if he were hired at say, Indiana?
Ted Miller: Pullman's weather has never stopped the Cougars from being pass-heavy before, why would it be different for Leach's offense? The Cougars, with a long tradition of elite quarterbacks who fling the ball all over the place, ranked ninth in the nation in passing last season. If you look at this list of top passing offenses, you'll see plenty of teams that play in the snow and cold.
There are two reasons the Big Ten hasn't become more pass-heavy through the years. The first does involve geography: It seems like there are more big-time athletes -- offensive playmakers -- in the Southeast, Southwest and West Coast than in the Midwest. Recruiting lists tend to bear that out.
But, just as important: A deeply ingrained Midwest football culture. Michigan and Ohio State, the two flagships of the Big Ten, have long traditions of playing great defense and running the ball. You could say the same for their "new" flagships, Penn State and Nebraska. And that was Barry Alvarez's blueprint for building Wisconsin into a Big Ten power.
By the way, it's also notable that when Wisconsin signed up quarterback Russell Wilson, a highly capable passer transferring from N.C. State, it became a very good passing team, which helped it become an even better running team.
That deeply ingrained culture was a big reason Rich Rodriguez failed at Michigan. Many Michigan insiders -- most specifically former coach Lloyd Carr -- couldn't stand Rodriguez's spread offense, and that motivated them to undermine him at every turn.
Think about the Northwest: Rain, not cold, is the most difficult condition for passing the football. But Northwest teams have strong traditions of throwing the football. The culture of West Coast football wins out over the weather.
I'm not sure if anyone can build a consistent winner at Indiana. But if Mike Leach were hired at Michigan State -- or Penn State or Michigan -- and fans and administrators were 100 percent supportive, he'd build a highly successful passing offense. For better or worse, the Big Ten continues to play old-school, run-first offense mostly by choice.
Will from Novato, Calif., writes: I just saw the video you posted on Tosh's departure from Cal. You nailed it on the head. You will probably be lambasted on our fan boards, but oh well. You state it correctly when you say that it is a business. It's deeply painful for Cal fans. We haven't gone to the Rose Bowl for what now seems like forever and a day. What's more, these past few seasons have, well, been less than hopeful. Whatever hope we had when Tedford first came on the scene has started to dissipate, and fast. With Chip Kelly and Oregon on the rise; with USC seemingly always having our number, and with Stanfurd suddenly looking rock solid, the hope is diminishing. EXCEPT, we had Tosh. With Tosh, we felt that we were finally going to get the kind of recruiting studs that would help propel us forward. With a front four of Moala, Jalil, Armstead and McCarthy, I don't think opposing OL's would know what to do. So hope emerged...and then was squashed. You've followed the sport longer than I, but yes, all of the rancor that's out there is perhaps explained though this. Anyway, thought compelled to shoot you this comment. Thanks for laying things out with a unbiased view. I'm sure you get enough hate mail from angry fans, perhaps a "good job" email would be nice evey so often.
Bret from Washington D.C., writes: If Cal's recruiting class falls apart due to Lupoi's departure, how much blame does Jeff Tedford shoulder? Shouldn't the recruits want to play for him, not the D-Line coach? After all he is the head coach and is responsible for the health of his program. I wonder how Cal fans will treat him if we turn in another sporadic 7-5 season and a disgraceful bowl performance on National TV. I was a freshman for the 1-10 Holmoe season, and sat through every blow out. But I have to admit I'm starting to turn on Tedford, who can't seem to take the team to the next level
Ted Miller: Cal fans, meet Chicken Little.
First off, as of today, Cal is still ranked No. 1 in the Pac-12 in recruiting, and the only recruit who decommitted after Lupoi left said his decision had nothing to do with Lupoi. We might want to hold off on the mass harakiri until, you know, signing day on Feb. 1.
Further, Tedford has long felt the intense celebration of Lupoi as a recruiter was overblown. That might explain that ridiculously low -- by industry standards -- $164,000 salary. Now that will be tested. If the Bears finish strong and maintain a top-20 class, you'd have to give credit to Tedford and his staff. Of course, next year will probably be a bigger measure of the Lupoi Effect.
As for the big picture with Cal, as we've previously stated, this is a big season for Tedford. Scattered pockets of impatience the past few years have solidified. He's officially on the hot seat. And losing two coaches to Washington, including one who fans celebrate -- rightly or wrongly -- such as Lupoi, doesn't help the mood around the program.
Erick from Seattle writes: I recall hearing a few months ago that the UW game at LSU was going to be a night game in Death Valley. Any truth to this? I can't find anything online about the game time being announced.
Ted Miller: While it's still a "TBA," my guess is it will be a night game. Night games in Tiger Stadium are fun for two reasons: 1. Incredible, intense atmosphere; 2. That incredible, intense atmosphere is brought on by perhaps the nation's best tailgate.
Yes, there's a good deal of lubrication, but the food at an LSU tailgate rates as good as any in the nation.
Here's one for any LSU fans reading this: The last game I covered in Tiger Stadium was the Cecil "The Diesel" Collins vs. Dameyune Craig showdown. Great game.
Champ from California writes: Your hatred and prejudice of Stanford is not hidden in your writing. Typical jealous sportswriter... hates people with the courage to have brains.
Ted Miller: I just included this because, with this note, I have now received hate mail from all 12 Pac-12 teams.
Of course, Champ, if you are referring to this, then I might be taking credit for something from my colleague, Kevin Gemmell.
No. Drat.
Follow me on Twitter.
To the notes!
Shawn from Albany, Ore., writes: You recently stated, "USC just became the strong front-runner in the Pac-12."... Why? You can't tell me you really think that just because Thomas is bolting for the NFL, that its going to make the Ducks any less competitive in the PAC-12 next year... Apparently you didn't pay much attention when True Freshman Bryan Bennett played this last year... Yes it will be his first year as our starter, but if you recall, Thomas took us to the National Championship game his FIRST year as starter... And if you ask me, Bennett's not only faster than Thomas, but has a better arm... That kid can sling a pigskin! Anyway... I'd be careful about stating anything that has to do with USC being somehow more dominant than us based simply on the fact we'll no longer have Thomas at the helm... It's time for a new era of Oregon Football... The Bennett Era!
Ted Miller: Well, I had USC as a slight front-runner in the Pac-12 in any event based largely on the fact that Oregon must play at USC on Nov. 3 and not vice versa. The Ducks' loss of Thomas just makes the Trojans front-runner status clearer.
With or without Thomas, Oregon is the clear front-runner in the North Division. I will be shocked if the Ducks don't play in the 2012 Pac-12 championship game. And I'd be more than a little surprised if they have more than two losses when they do so.
And yet the loss of Thomas does change things, whether Oregon fans want to admit it or not. Thomas is a given. You know what you will get from him. And, more important, so does Chip Kelly. When a coach really knows his quarterback, particularly a Dr. Strange offensive savant like Chip Kelly, it helps him engineer the offense to suit him in every detail. Kelly knows what Thomas likes and dislikes. He knows how he will react to just about every situation. He won't know that about Bryan Bennett.
Heck, we don't even know that Bennett will be the starter, though I feel strongly he will be. It seems some are intrigued by redshirt freshman Marcus Mariota.
Bennett played well coming off the bench when Thomas got hurt against Arizona State. And he did a good job in his start at Colorado. But, well, the Buffs' defense wasn't exactly LSU.
How will Bennett -- or whoever starts -- react to adversity? Or prosperity even? Will he be durable? Will he protect the football? Will he be able to make consistent reads? Will he get overwhelmed by the spotlight? Can he digest the entire offense? Will be be able to counterpunch on his own when defensive coordinators start to get a feel for him?
How will be react to 94,000 fans at the Coliseum on Nov. 3?
These are questions Thomas already answered. Sure, he wasn't the perfect quarterback. But he was 23-3 as a starter, including 1-1 in BCS bowl games. If he started in the Coliseum on Nov. 3, he'd be smirking and eyeballing Matt Barkley thinking, "I'm better than him."
It's perfectly reasonable to have high expectations for Bennett. My hunch is he'll play well, perhaps even match or exceed Thomas' numbers. He, particularly, looks like a better runner.
Still, when you remove a starter who was 23-3, you insert unknowns. There's no way around that.
To Chip Kelly this: Bennett is a hypothetical. And we don't do hypotheticals.
Ken from Portland writes: Ted First off, I think Mike Leach is going to be a fantastic coach in Pullman. I think he is just what the Cougs need, and I don't really look forward to playing them in the future. My question though is this: Pullman does not have all that different of weather than the Midwest. Every analyst and their mom, it seems like, always points to the "weather" as the reason a pass heavy offense wouldn't work in the Big10 (and Big 10 fan's #1 excuse for losing to teams from the South, "well hey buddy, come try that offense in Ohio in November!") But everyone loves the Leach hire in Pullman? Would they be saying the same thing if he were hired at say, Indiana?
Ted Miller: Pullman's weather has never stopped the Cougars from being pass-heavy before, why would it be different for Leach's offense? The Cougars, with a long tradition of elite quarterbacks who fling the ball all over the place, ranked ninth in the nation in passing last season. If you look at this list of top passing offenses, you'll see plenty of teams that play in the snow and cold.
There are two reasons the Big Ten hasn't become more pass-heavy through the years. The first does involve geography: It seems like there are more big-time athletes -- offensive playmakers -- in the Southeast, Southwest and West Coast than in the Midwest. Recruiting lists tend to bear that out.
But, just as important: A deeply ingrained Midwest football culture. Michigan and Ohio State, the two flagships of the Big Ten, have long traditions of playing great defense and running the ball. You could say the same for their "new" flagships, Penn State and Nebraska. And that was Barry Alvarez's blueprint for building Wisconsin into a Big Ten power.
By the way, it's also notable that when Wisconsin signed up quarterback Russell Wilson, a highly capable passer transferring from N.C. State, it became a very good passing team, which helped it become an even better running team.
That deeply ingrained culture was a big reason Rich Rodriguez failed at Michigan. Many Michigan insiders -- most specifically former coach Lloyd Carr -- couldn't stand Rodriguez's spread offense, and that motivated them to undermine him at every turn.
Think about the Northwest: Rain, not cold, is the most difficult condition for passing the football. But Northwest teams have strong traditions of throwing the football. The culture of West Coast football wins out over the weather.
I'm not sure if anyone can build a consistent winner at Indiana. But if Mike Leach were hired at Michigan State -- or Penn State or Michigan -- and fans and administrators were 100 percent supportive, he'd build a highly successful passing offense. For better or worse, the Big Ten continues to play old-school, run-first offense mostly by choice.
Will from Novato, Calif., writes: I just saw the video you posted on Tosh's departure from Cal. You nailed it on the head. You will probably be lambasted on our fan boards, but oh well. You state it correctly when you say that it is a business. It's deeply painful for Cal fans. We haven't gone to the Rose Bowl for what now seems like forever and a day. What's more, these past few seasons have, well, been less than hopeful. Whatever hope we had when Tedford first came on the scene has started to dissipate, and fast. With Chip Kelly and Oregon on the rise; with USC seemingly always having our number, and with Stanfurd suddenly looking rock solid, the hope is diminishing. EXCEPT, we had Tosh. With Tosh, we felt that we were finally going to get the kind of recruiting studs that would help propel us forward. With a front four of Moala, Jalil, Armstead and McCarthy, I don't think opposing OL's would know what to do. So hope emerged...and then was squashed. You've followed the sport longer than I, but yes, all of the rancor that's out there is perhaps explained though this. Anyway, thought compelled to shoot you this comment. Thanks for laying things out with a unbiased view. I'm sure you get enough hate mail from angry fans, perhaps a "good job" email would be nice evey so often.
Bret from Washington D.C., writes: If Cal's recruiting class falls apart due to Lupoi's departure, how much blame does Jeff Tedford shoulder? Shouldn't the recruits want to play for him, not the D-Line coach? After all he is the head coach and is responsible for the health of his program. I wonder how Cal fans will treat him if we turn in another sporadic 7-5 season and a disgraceful bowl performance on National TV. I was a freshman for the 1-10 Holmoe season, and sat through every blow out. But I have to admit I'm starting to turn on Tedford, who can't seem to take the team to the next level
Ted Miller: Cal fans, meet Chicken Little.
Chicken Little: The sky is falling.
Cal fan: I know. Tosh just left for Washington. WAAAAAAA!
Chicken Little: Are you going to eat that seed?
Cal fan: Only if it's a Prozac. We're DOOOOOOOOMED.
Chicken Little: I think you might be overreacting.
First off, as of today, Cal is still ranked No. 1 in the Pac-12 in recruiting, and the only recruit who decommitted after Lupoi left said his decision had nothing to do with Lupoi. We might want to hold off on the mass harakiri until, you know, signing day on Feb. 1.
Further, Tedford has long felt the intense celebration of Lupoi as a recruiter was overblown. That might explain that ridiculously low -- by industry standards -- $164,000 salary. Now that will be tested. If the Bears finish strong and maintain a top-20 class, you'd have to give credit to Tedford and his staff. Of course, next year will probably be a bigger measure of the Lupoi Effect.
As for the big picture with Cal, as we've previously stated, this is a big season for Tedford. Scattered pockets of impatience the past few years have solidified. He's officially on the hot seat. And losing two coaches to Washington, including one who fans celebrate -- rightly or wrongly -- such as Lupoi, doesn't help the mood around the program.
Erick from Seattle writes: I recall hearing a few months ago that the UW game at LSU was going to be a night game in Death Valley. Any truth to this? I can't find anything online about the game time being announced.
Ted Miller: While it's still a "TBA," my guess is it will be a night game. Night games in Tiger Stadium are fun for two reasons: 1. Incredible, intense atmosphere; 2. That incredible, intense atmosphere is brought on by perhaps the nation's best tailgate.
Yes, there's a good deal of lubrication, but the food at an LSU tailgate rates as good as any in the nation.
Here's one for any LSU fans reading this: The last game I covered in Tiger Stadium was the Cecil "The Diesel" Collins vs. Dameyune Craig showdown. Great game.
Champ from California writes: Your hatred and prejudice of Stanford is not hidden in your writing. Typical jealous sportswriter... hates people with the courage to have brains.
Ted Miller: I just included this because, with this note, I have now received hate mail from all 12 Pac-12 teams.
Of course, Champ, if you are referring to this, then I might be taking credit for something from my colleague, Kevin Gemmell.
Arizona gets LB help; what about Casteel?
January, 9, 2012
Jan 9
10:08
AM ET
By
Ted Miller | ESPN.com
With the transfer of the nation's second leading tackler, Arizona's glaring need at linebacker just got a boost.
Akron linebacker Brian Wagner will enroll at Arizona this week and will be immediately eligible due to an NCAA rule that allows athletes pursuing graduate degrees not offered at the former school to play right away.
Wagner, 22, averaged 13.36 tackles per game in 2011, and considering top tackler Luke Kuechly of Boston College is off to the NFL, Wagner will be the top returning tackler in FBS football.
Wagner, who earned first-team All-MAC honors, is taking advantage of the same transfer rule that was used by Wisconsin quarterback Russell Wilson.
Why is this a big get for Arizona? Because its top two tacklers, Derek Earls and Paul Vassallo, are graduating, and the Wildcats' top two returning linebackers -- sophomores Hank Hobson and Rob Hankins -- combined for four starts and 18 tackles last season, in large part due to the Wildcats using a base nickel formation much of the season. But when you toss in 2010 starter Jake Fischer, who is coming back from an ACL injury, you have four experienced guys for three spots.
And, yes, you can essentially pencil Wagner, 6-foot, 235 pounds, into the starting lineup.
From the Tucson Citizen:
As for that defensive coordinator, nothing yet -- I found this to be an interesting narrative on back-and-forth with West Virginia DC Jeff Casteel. Speculation that Penn State also might be a player with Casteel raised one of my eyebrows, though Casteel's 3-3-5 doesn't sound like a Penn State defense.
Akron linebacker Brian Wagner will enroll at Arizona this week and will be immediately eligible due to an NCAA rule that allows athletes pursuing graduate degrees not offered at the former school to play right away.
Wagner, 22, averaged 13.36 tackles per game in 2011, and considering top tackler Luke Kuechly of Boston College is off to the NFL, Wagner will be the top returning tackler in FBS football.
Wagner, who earned first-team All-MAC honors, is taking advantage of the same transfer rule that was used by Wisconsin quarterback Russell Wilson.
Why is this a big get for Arizona? Because its top two tacklers, Derek Earls and Paul Vassallo, are graduating, and the Wildcats' top two returning linebackers -- sophomores Hank Hobson and Rob Hankins -- combined for four starts and 18 tackles last season, in large part due to the Wildcats using a base nickel formation much of the season. But when you toss in 2010 starter Jake Fischer, who is coming back from an ACL injury, you have four experienced guys for three spots.
And, yes, you can essentially pencil Wagner, 6-foot, 235 pounds, into the starting lineup.
From the Tucson Citizen:
He played middle linebacker in a 4-3 scheme at Akron. Exactly where he fits into Arizona’s scheme is to be determined, Wagner said, with the Cats presumably running a 3-3-5, no matter who coach Rich Rodriguez eventually brings in as defensive coordinator.
As for that defensive coordinator, nothing yet -- I found this to be an interesting narrative on back-and-forth with West Virginia DC Jeff Casteel. Speculation that Penn State also might be a player with Casteel raised one of my eyebrows, though Casteel's 3-3-5 doesn't sound like a Penn State defense.
Happy Friday.
Follow me on Twitter. But only if awesomeness doesn't frighten you.
To the notes.
Shad from Eugene, Ore., writes: I'm a Duck fan. I loved watching Peter Sirmon and Justin Wilcox play here and I think they've both turned into great coaches. Now they work for dogs though, what should I do?! I'm having a hard time hating them as much as I ought to, even though their talents will make an already very scary Husky team that much better. What is the appropriate etiquette when a respected former player starts coaching for hated rivals?
Ted Miller: I had two reactions when the hiring became official. 1. Great hires by Huskies coach Steve Sarkisian; 2. Wow. Both are Ducks. And I'm guessing lots of serious Pac-12 fans -- not just Oregon and Washington fans -- thought the same thing.
You've got to admit it's amusing. Wilcox's brother, Josh, was at the Rose Bowl working for Comcast SportsNet -- some of you might recall him catching 11 passes for 135 yards and a TD in the Ducks’ 38-20 loss to Penn State in the 1995 Rose Bowl -- and he was able to laugh when I asked him if he would feel conflicted or start wearing purple. My guess is Wilcox will continue to love his brother, only without wearing purple. And he'll hope the Ducks beat the Huskies 3-0 every year.
But once we get past the amusement -- and there will be plenty of moments, at least this first year, when Wilcox and Sirmon quietly will crack wise with each other about being inside Husky Stadium with the home team -- it gets down to this: This is a business. It's a high-stakes game of winning and losing, and that sort of pressure quickly wears away emotional biases for jersey colors.
If the Huskies defense improves under Wilcox -- and there is every reason to believe it will -- Wilcox probably won't last more than two or three years before getting significant looks for head coaching jobs. Wilcox is a West Coast guy, so a move back to the West suggests that's where he wants to end up. Joining the Huskies was a business decision, and both parties benefit only if Wilcox does well.
Same for Sirmon. He's an up-and-comer. His next step is running a defense. If the Huskies defense improves, and the LB play is notably good, Sirmon will raise eyebrows as a potential coordinator, the next step for him up the coaching staircase. And if, say, Oregon State offered up a defense, he'd jump at the chance, even if that meant standing on the opposite sideline during the Civil War.
My take for Oregon fans: Wilcox and Sirmon are great Ducks and always will be, but that doesn't mean you should dislike Washington any less. Or want the Ducks offense to take it easy on the Huskies defense. When Wilcox and Sirmon don the purple shirts, they become Huskies. And that means they are only slightly more likable than Mephistopheles.
And, likewise for Washington fans: Once in purple, Wilcox and Sirmon are your guys -- yes, Huskies -- particularly if the defense starts forcing three-and-outs.
Still, I dug this up from The Oregonian in 2009. It's an article about the Huskies-Ducks rivalry. It made me smile.
Now Wilcox's and Sirmon's job is to reverse that trend, an embarrassing one for Washington. You should expect them to pour every ounce of passion into it, wanting to beat Oregon perhaps even worse than any other team because losing to family is almost as bad as losing to an enemy.
Sean from Portland writes: What's your sense as to how much people are looking forward to this Championship game? To me it seems like people aren't caring nearly as much as they have in years past. this could easily be because I am living in Pac-12 country, but I'd like to hear your take on this.
Ted Miller: I've noticed some SEC/rematch exhaustion in the comments section. Some have said they won't watch the game.
I think that's crazy talk, though, of course, I respect everyone's right to talk crazy.
If LSU beats Alabama, it will have posted perhaps the most distinguished season in college football history. It will have beaten nine teams -- counting the Crimson Tide twice -- that were ranked when the Tigers played them. It will have beaten six teams ranked in the final BCS standings, including three in the top six. It will have beaten two BCS bowl game winners (Oregon and West Virginia).
And it will have done so without great play at quarterback, which I find very NFL-ish.
Will the game be as much fun as the Rose Bowl or Fiesta Bowl? Maybe not. As much as everyone touted the great defense in the first game, it was as much about terrible -- and terribly cautious -- offensive play.
Still, these are two epically good defenses. Count on me watching. And I'm guessing more than a few folks who claim they are boycotting the game will, too.
Jake from Boise, Idaho writes: You question the non-conference schedule for the Ducks next year but as you may recall, Oregon had a home-and-home series scheduled with Kansas State that was cancelled by the Wildcats. Also consider that last year, Oregon got hammered in the polls for shooting itself in the foot in a virtual road game against LSU. It's a subject you've mentioned at times in the past year: is it really worth playing a difficult non-conference schedule when the risk-reward can be so high?
Ted Miller: It is true that Kansas State backed out of a home-and-home series with the Ducks, and New Mexico backed out of a repeat game this year in order to get a bigger -- and less humiliating -- payday at Texas.
And your point about the overreaction in the polls to the LSU loss is valid, though it's notable that the Ducks moved back up fairly quickly with wins as well as a realization that LSU was really, really good.
I love tough nonconference games. I see them as true measuring sticks for the national pecking order. It certainly helped LSU gain respect on the West Coast. I'd hate for Cowardly Lion scheduling practices to take over in the Pac-12. The alliance with the Big Ten will make that difficult.
If Oregon had won that game, however, and ended up 12-1 after losing to USC, my guess is the Ducks would have finished No. 1 or No. 2 in the BCS standings -- with all other games across the nation remaining the same -- and played for the national title. So there was a potentially high reward.
Yes, there also was a high risk. But Oregon's season turned out OK, right?
And let's remember: This is supposed to be about competition. Avoiding it is lame, even if some schools artificially elevate their standing by doing just that.
Matt from Chicago writes: Watching OSU's offense dismantle Stanford's D made me wonder how things might have been different had Shayne Skov been healthy. Dude was a beast the few times I saw him play in 2010. Any insight as to his progress, and whether he'll back in a Cardinal uni next season? This Trojan wouldn't mind seeing him in the NFL!
Ted Miller: Not sure Oklahoma State "dismantled" Stanford's defense. The Cowboys rushed for 13 yards, so it certainly wasn't a linebacker issue.
As for Skov, he's a beast, but this was a serious knee injury, requiring two separate surgical procedures to repair his ACL and MCL. He won't be available for spring practices, but the prognosis is good for a full recovery by preseason camp.
And my guess is he's got a nice future playing on Sundays.
Every VT Fan and any self respecting Michigan Fan from Blacksburg, Va., writes: How was Danny Coale's catch not a catch? I asked you about Coale's catch because the officials were from the pac-12.
Ted Miller: This note refers to the officials' decision to overturn a diving TD catch by Virginia Tech's Danny Coale in overtime of the Sugar Bowl against Michigan. The official explanation was Coale briefly -- really, really briefly -- lost possession of the ball as he hit the ground, negating the touchdown.
My feeling -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- is that Virginia Tech fans, with all due respect, disagree with the call? That's it, right? I'm on the right track, right?
I thought it was a catch, but this picture does give you pause. Just a little. I still think it was a catch. But I'm just a lowly Pac-12 blogger.
And, as our your Pac-12 fans will tell you, we are shocked -- SHOCKED! -- that Pac-12 officiating left you wanting.
Please, tell our visitors from Virginia Tech how much you like Pac-12 officiating.
Follow me on Twitter. But only if awesomeness doesn't frighten you.
To the notes.
Shad from Eugene, Ore., writes: I'm a Duck fan. I loved watching Peter Sirmon and Justin Wilcox play here and I think they've both turned into great coaches. Now they work for dogs though, what should I do?! I'm having a hard time hating them as much as I ought to, even though their talents will make an already very scary Husky team that much better. What is the appropriate etiquette when a respected former player starts coaching for hated rivals?
Ted Miller: I had two reactions when the hiring became official. 1. Great hires by Huskies coach Steve Sarkisian; 2. Wow. Both are Ducks. And I'm guessing lots of serious Pac-12 fans -- not just Oregon and Washington fans -- thought the same thing.
You've got to admit it's amusing. Wilcox's brother, Josh, was at the Rose Bowl working for Comcast SportsNet -- some of you might recall him catching 11 passes for 135 yards and a TD in the Ducks’ 38-20 loss to Penn State in the 1995 Rose Bowl -- and he was able to laugh when I asked him if he would feel conflicted or start wearing purple. My guess is Wilcox will continue to love his brother, only without wearing purple. And he'll hope the Ducks beat the Huskies 3-0 every year.
But once we get past the amusement -- and there will be plenty of moments, at least this first year, when Wilcox and Sirmon quietly will crack wise with each other about being inside Husky Stadium with the home team -- it gets down to this: This is a business. It's a high-stakes game of winning and losing, and that sort of pressure quickly wears away emotional biases for jersey colors.
If the Huskies defense improves under Wilcox -- and there is every reason to believe it will -- Wilcox probably won't last more than two or three years before getting significant looks for head coaching jobs. Wilcox is a West Coast guy, so a move back to the West suggests that's where he wants to end up. Joining the Huskies was a business decision, and both parties benefit only if Wilcox does well.
Same for Sirmon. He's an up-and-comer. His next step is running a defense. If the Huskies defense improves, and the LB play is notably good, Sirmon will raise eyebrows as a potential coordinator, the next step for him up the coaching staircase. And if, say, Oregon State offered up a defense, he'd jump at the chance, even if that meant standing on the opposite sideline during the Civil War.
My take for Oregon fans: Wilcox and Sirmon are great Ducks and always will be, but that doesn't mean you should dislike Washington any less. Or want the Ducks offense to take it easy on the Huskies defense. When Wilcox and Sirmon don the purple shirts, they become Huskies. And that means they are only slightly more likable than Mephistopheles.
And, likewise for Washington fans: Once in purple, Wilcox and Sirmon are your guys -- yes, Huskies -- particularly if the defense starts forcing three-and-outs.
Still, I dug this up from The Oregonian in 2009. It's an article about the Huskies-Ducks rivalry. It made me smile.
First-year [Oregon] graduate assistant Peter Sirmon said he had "a little passion for Washington" while growing up in Walla Walla, Wash. But that quickly went away as soon as he suited up against them as a standout Ducks linebacker from 1996-99.
"Once you've played in the Oregon-Washington game, you realize that no other game shares the same intensity," Sirmon said. "When you're at Husky Stadium or you see those purple jerseys running out of the Autzen tunnels, you can tell that it's not just a regular game."
Sirmon kept that rivalry going when he played for the NFL's Tennessee Titans, making friendly bets with Tennessee teammate Benji Olson. The former Washington offensive lineman will be honored at the game Saturday and Sirmon looks forward to exchanging more friendly rivalry talk with his friend.
"For years and years and years, they dominated the Northwest," Sirmon said. "In fact, they dominated the West Coast. It was a big step for this Oregon program when we started beating them consistently."
Now Wilcox's and Sirmon's job is to reverse that trend, an embarrassing one for Washington. You should expect them to pour every ounce of passion into it, wanting to beat Oregon perhaps even worse than any other team because losing to family is almost as bad as losing to an enemy.
Sean from Portland writes: What's your sense as to how much people are looking forward to this Championship game? To me it seems like people aren't caring nearly as much as they have in years past. this could easily be because I am living in Pac-12 country, but I'd like to hear your take on this.
Ted Miller: I've noticed some SEC/rematch exhaustion in the comments section. Some have said they won't watch the game.
I think that's crazy talk, though, of course, I respect everyone's right to talk crazy.
If LSU beats Alabama, it will have posted perhaps the most distinguished season in college football history. It will have beaten nine teams -- counting the Crimson Tide twice -- that were ranked when the Tigers played them. It will have beaten six teams ranked in the final BCS standings, including three in the top six. It will have beaten two BCS bowl game winners (Oregon and West Virginia).
And it will have done so without great play at quarterback, which I find very NFL-ish.
Will the game be as much fun as the Rose Bowl or Fiesta Bowl? Maybe not. As much as everyone touted the great defense in the first game, it was as much about terrible -- and terribly cautious -- offensive play.
Still, these are two epically good defenses. Count on me watching. And I'm guessing more than a few folks who claim they are boycotting the game will, too.
Jake from Boise, Idaho writes: You question the non-conference schedule for the Ducks next year but as you may recall, Oregon had a home-and-home series scheduled with Kansas State that was cancelled by the Wildcats. Also consider that last year, Oregon got hammered in the polls for shooting itself in the foot in a virtual road game against LSU. It's a subject you've mentioned at times in the past year: is it really worth playing a difficult non-conference schedule when the risk-reward can be so high?
Ted Miller: It is true that Kansas State backed out of a home-and-home series with the Ducks, and New Mexico backed out of a repeat game this year in order to get a bigger -- and less humiliating -- payday at Texas.
And your point about the overreaction in the polls to the LSU loss is valid, though it's notable that the Ducks moved back up fairly quickly with wins as well as a realization that LSU was really, really good.
I love tough nonconference games. I see them as true measuring sticks for the national pecking order. It certainly helped LSU gain respect on the West Coast. I'd hate for Cowardly Lion scheduling practices to take over in the Pac-12. The alliance with the Big Ten will make that difficult.
If Oregon had won that game, however, and ended up 12-1 after losing to USC, my guess is the Ducks would have finished No. 1 or No. 2 in the BCS standings -- with all other games across the nation remaining the same -- and played for the national title. So there was a potentially high reward.
Yes, there also was a high risk. But Oregon's season turned out OK, right?
And let's remember: This is supposed to be about competition. Avoiding it is lame, even if some schools artificially elevate their standing by doing just that.
Matt from Chicago writes: Watching OSU's offense dismantle Stanford's D made me wonder how things might have been different had Shayne Skov been healthy. Dude was a beast the few times I saw him play in 2010. Any insight as to his progress, and whether he'll back in a Cardinal uni next season? This Trojan wouldn't mind seeing him in the NFL!
Ted Miller: Not sure Oklahoma State "dismantled" Stanford's defense. The Cowboys rushed for 13 yards, so it certainly wasn't a linebacker issue.
As for Skov, he's a beast, but this was a serious knee injury, requiring two separate surgical procedures to repair his ACL and MCL. He won't be available for spring practices, but the prognosis is good for a full recovery by preseason camp.
And my guess is he's got a nice future playing on Sundays.
Every VT Fan and any self respecting Michigan Fan from Blacksburg, Va., writes: How was Danny Coale's catch not a catch? I asked you about Coale's catch because the officials were from the pac-12.
Ted Miller: This note refers to the officials' decision to overturn a diving TD catch by Virginia Tech's Danny Coale in overtime of the Sugar Bowl against Michigan. The official explanation was Coale briefly -- really, really briefly -- lost possession of the ball as he hit the ground, negating the touchdown.
My feeling -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- is that Virginia Tech fans, with all due respect, disagree with the call? That's it, right? I'm on the right track, right?
I thought it was a catch, but this picture does give you pause. Just a little. I still think it was a catch. But I'm just a lowly Pac-12 blogger.
And, as our your Pac-12 fans will tell you, we are shocked -- SHOCKED! -- that Pac-12 officiating left you wanting.
Please, tell our visitors from Virginia Tech how much you like Pac-12 officiating.
The real work starts for Todd Graham
December, 15, 2011
12/15/11
10:52
AM ET
By
Ted Miller | ESPN.com
There's the real world. There's the theoretical world. And there's the world of spin.
The real world: Todd Graham left Pittsburgh for Arizona State and didn't even get a notable raise on his $2 million salary because he'd rather be the head coach at Arizona State than Pittsburgh. His reasons? Really, it doesn't matter in Tempe. That's a question Pittsburgh should ask of itself, not Graham. It could be revealing.
The theoretical world: Todd Graham should have stayed at Pittsburgh because he said it was his dream job and he talked to his players about commitment and told boosters about his commitment to the future and because a high-character person would honor commitment above all else. And he certainly wouldn't announce a breakup with a text message.
The world of spin: Todd Graham was Arizona State's first choice and everyone is thrilled. Graham feels horrible about the way he left Pittsburgh because he loves and respects everyone there. It just couldn't be helped.
You want absolutes of honor, character and integrity in college football? Two names: Joe Paterno and Jim Tressel. How are your absolutes doing now?
You believe in absolute honesty? When you last broke up with a girlfriend/boyfriend did you say: 1. It's not you, it's me; or, 2. You've gained 10 pounds since we started dating and your laugh drives me crazy. And I hate your friends. Except for the one I might ask out.
What did Todd Graham have to say about how he left Pittsburgh during his introductory news conference at Arizona State?
You can believe it or not.
If Graham loved his Panthers and was proud of them, why did he not insist on delivering the news of his exit personally?
In other words, Graham put what he termed "a gut-wrenching experience" in his left hand and the opportunity with Arizona State in his right and decided to endure the one because of the appeal of the other. He made a tough decision that many people make in the job market, only the news media wasn't Tweeting about it all day Wednesday. And there are, whether folks back East are willing to admit it or not, real world reasons why Arizona State held such great appeal to Graham.
ASU athletic director Lisa Love admitted she was aware of Graham's now even more justifiable reputation as a mercenary climber who constantly eyeballs better jobs.
Said Love: "I love the fact that [Graham's wife] Penny's parents are sitting right here and they drove up the road. I love the fact that Todd has family here. I love the fact that Desert Mountain was a place where they were investing and prepared to invest in property and believed him. I believed him. I can tell you that I saw that on job movement, but I believed him."
Trust. It's dangerous. But Love needed a coach after a muddled 17-day search that Wednesday's spin couldn't smooth over, and there was Graham -- eager, affordable and with a fairly solid resume. Ergo, leap of faith.
Of course, track records don't disappear. What if Georgia or Ohio State comes calling with $4 million a year? Why should Arizona State fans believe this is a better dream job than his last dream job, a phrase that the effervescent Graham throws around a lot.
Right. Actions, ultimately, are real world tangible. Words are for worlds of theory and spin.
But words are all there are at present, and many of the words are going to be negative about Graham, and not completely without justification. Graham's perfect grasp of massaging talking points Wednesday evening often strained credulity. For example, he celebrated former Sun Devils greats Pat Tillman and Terrell Suggs. Suggs took a shot at him on Twitter, and Tillman, an absolutist on integrity in both word and deed, would not likely have been at the presser clapping for Graham had he not given his life for his country.
Graham also seemed to be unaware of the term "irony."
He's — officially — referring to the theoretical world. But he's — in reality — speaking of relationships of convenience. You do your best to get along with folks at your office whom you might not like. You talk as pleasantly as possible to annoying neighbors because, well, it seems smarter than telling them they are annoying gasbags. You nurture your world and love your family and friends.
A football coach enters relationships of convenience with a football program. He's got his AD. He's got his school president. He's got boosters who want to play golf with him. He's got to shake hands with lawyers who will offer unsolicited advice on using the tight end more and being more "attacking" on defense. He's got 85 scholarship players who need to be pushed, prodded and coddled in ways unique to their individuality. There is lots of talk of family but it ultimately is a business based on what the scoreboard says.
The real world will be more difficult for Graham because of his present standing in the theoretical world, and no spin can change that. He doesn't have a clean slate. Some will resist giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Relationships? What about those guys at Pitt?
But if Graham is who Love and school president Michael Crow say he is, "just being here" is a reasonable point A for hope. Point B be will be maintaining a recruiting class that seemed headed for a top-25 national ranking before Dennis Erickson was fired.
And the endgame? That's where the real world intrudes over all else: Winning, winning, winning.
The real world: Todd Graham left Pittsburgh for Arizona State and didn't even get a notable raise on his $2 million salary because he'd rather be the head coach at Arizona State than Pittsburgh. His reasons? Really, it doesn't matter in Tempe. That's a question Pittsburgh should ask of itself, not Graham. It could be revealing.
[+] Enlarge
Garry Jones/AP PhotoFollowing one season at Pittsburgh, Todd Graham is now Arizona State's new football coach.
Garry Jones/AP PhotoFollowing one season at Pittsburgh, Todd Graham is now Arizona State's new football coach.The world of spin: Todd Graham was Arizona State's first choice and everyone is thrilled. Graham feels horrible about the way he left Pittsburgh because he loves and respects everyone there. It just couldn't be helped.
You want absolutes of honor, character and integrity in college football? Two names: Joe Paterno and Jim Tressel. How are your absolutes doing now?
You believe in absolute honesty? When you last broke up with a girlfriend/boyfriend did you say: 1. It's not you, it's me; or, 2. You've gained 10 pounds since we started dating and your laugh drives me crazy. And I hate your friends. Except for the one I might ask out.
What did Todd Graham have to say about how he left Pittsburgh during his introductory news conference at Arizona State?
I want to first start and talk about my players from Pitt. The last few hours have been extremely gut wrenching for me, obviously for my family. I love those guys. I'm very proud of the growth that they had this year, both on the field, off the field, in the classroom and in the community. I'm very proud of them. You never want to leave a program, and I never dreamed that I would have to leave a program under these circumstances.
The timing of these processes are extremely rapid, and it did not allow for me to address the team, and that is very hurtful. I've never had to endure that, and I really regret that. I really regret that I didn't have the opportunity to do that. I reached out to them in the only way that I knew how, the only means that I had at my disposal because I absolutely did not want them to hear about this on the news. I wanted them to know first. The only other alternative I had was not to communicate at all, and that was just unacceptable to me.
I plan on my return to Pittsburgh to reach out to them and to communicate to them. Obviously my staff that's there has communicated, as well, and those young men, I just want them to know that I love them. Coaching and teaching is a passion to me, and that's something that's very, very important before I talk about anything else, that I want my players from Pitt to know that I love them and I'm proud of them.
You can believe it or not.
If Graham loved his Panthers and was proud of them, why did he not insist on delivering the news of his exit personally?
Well, obviously this transpired this morning in a rapid pace, and it was last night and this morning, and there wasn't an opportunity to have a team meeting and be able to meet with them.
Now, these processes move very quickly and very rapidly, and that's the tough thing about this business and about coaching. I've had experience with that before, and if there was anyway possible, again, that's — I never want to do that, and that's the greatest regret you can have, and it's the most horrible feeling that you have. But again, I reached out in the only way that I knew how because I absolutely was not going to just have them see this on the news.
In other words, Graham put what he termed "a gut-wrenching experience" in his left hand and the opportunity with Arizona State in his right and decided to endure the one because of the appeal of the other. He made a tough decision that many people make in the job market, only the news media wasn't Tweeting about it all day Wednesday. And there are, whether folks back East are willing to admit it or not, real world reasons why Arizona State held such great appeal to Graham.
ASU athletic director Lisa Love admitted she was aware of Graham's now even more justifiable reputation as a mercenary climber who constantly eyeballs better jobs.
Said Love: "I love the fact that [Graham's wife] Penny's parents are sitting right here and they drove up the road. I love the fact that Todd has family here. I love the fact that Desert Mountain was a place where they were investing and prepared to invest in property and believed him. I believed him. I can tell you that I saw that on job movement, but I believed him."
Trust. It's dangerous. But Love needed a coach after a muddled 17-day search that Wednesday's spin couldn't smooth over, and there was Graham -- eager, affordable and with a fairly solid resume. Ergo, leap of faith.
Of course, track records don't disappear. What if Georgia or Ohio State comes calling with $4 million a year? Why should Arizona State fans believe this is a better dream job than his last dream job, a phrase that the effervescent Graham throws around a lot.
Question: Because of your track record, how do you convince Sun Devil Nation, future recruits, the football team, everyone affiliated with ASU that you're here for the long haul?
COACH GRAHAM: I think the only way to respond to that is just being here. Obviously it was, like I said earlier in the remarks, that this is a dream opportunity for our family. It's obviously the first decision I've ever made that has actually benefited my wife and benefited our family. You know, I think that the only way you can do it is, like I said, I'm going to work hard to earn their trust, and I think trust is earned, so that's all I can do.
Right. Actions, ultimately, are real world tangible. Words are for worlds of theory and spin.
But words are all there are at present, and many of the words are going to be negative about Graham, and not completely without justification. Graham's perfect grasp of massaging talking points Wednesday evening often strained credulity. For example, he celebrated former Sun Devils greats Pat Tillman and Terrell Suggs. Suggs took a shot at him on Twitter, and Tillman, an absolutist on integrity in both word and deed, would not likely have been at the presser clapping for Graham had he not given his life for his country.
Graham also seemed to be unaware of the term "irony."
Question: When you get settled in, what's the first thing you do to get this program going in the Todd Graham way?
COACH GRAHAM: One word: Relationships. Start building relationships. That's a key component.
He's — officially — referring to the theoretical world. But he's — in reality — speaking of relationships of convenience. You do your best to get along with folks at your office whom you might not like. You talk as pleasantly as possible to annoying neighbors because, well, it seems smarter than telling them they are annoying gasbags. You nurture your world and love your family and friends.
A football coach enters relationships of convenience with a football program. He's got his AD. He's got his school president. He's got boosters who want to play golf with him. He's got to shake hands with lawyers who will offer unsolicited advice on using the tight end more and being more "attacking" on defense. He's got 85 scholarship players who need to be pushed, prodded and coddled in ways unique to their individuality. There is lots of talk of family but it ultimately is a business based on what the scoreboard says.
The real world will be more difficult for Graham because of his present standing in the theoretical world, and no spin can change that. He doesn't have a clean slate. Some will resist giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Relationships? What about those guys at Pitt?
But if Graham is who Love and school president Michael Crow say he is, "just being here" is a reasonable point A for hope. Point B be will be maintaining a recruiting class that seemed headed for a top-25 national ranking before Dennis Erickson was fired.
And the endgame? That's where the real world intrudes over all else: Winning, winning, winning.
Mailbag: Duck, Cardinal consternation!
November, 11, 2011
11/11/11
6:13
PM ET
By
Ted Miller | ESPN.com
Happy Friday.
Follow me on Twitter.
To the notes!
Robert from Portland writes: There is always talk about who's the best player or qb or running back every year. Then at the end of the year there is the talk about who is more likely to do it the next year. More often than not players don't repeat performances. This brings me to my question, who was the last running back to lead the nation in running one year and then come back and do it again? LaMichael James is doing it so far this year yet doesn't seem to get any recognition. All while missing TWO games.
Ted Miller: If James leads the nation in rushing for a second consecutive year, he will be in super-elite company. The last guy to do that turned out OK: LaDainian Tomlinson at TCU in 1999 and 2000.
As far as not getting recognition, you mean other than 1. Winning the Doak Walker Award last year as the nation's top running back; 2. Being a Heisman Trophy finalist; 3. Earning unanimous 2011 preseason All-American honors?
James dropped off the Heisman Trophy radar this season for three reasons: 1. He didn't play well against LSU in the opener; 2. He hasn't played many marquee opponents since then; 3. As you noted, he missed some action.
And if he has a lights-out game against Stanford in a victory -- think his 2010 performance -- then he'll again be on a shortlist of Heisman candidates.
Derrick from Omaha writes: One thing I have not heard mentioned regarding the Oregon-Stanford game is prep-time. Chip has only lost 5 games, 4 of those were to teams who had a month or more to get ready. The fifth was to Stanford who was coming off a bye week.Chip's Ducks have never lost to a team that played a game the previous week.Is this a real factor? Do you think this impacts this week's game?
Ted Miller: Yes, it's a factor and yes I think it impacts this week's game.
I will quibble with your saying this doesn't get mentioned. And I'd bet Chip Kelly would, too.
It's an unbelievable number, really, when used positively: It's darn near impossible to beat a Kelly offense with just one week to prepare.
On the other hand, it's more often been used in the negative: An elite defense with extra time to prepare can control Kelly's offense. Kelly, fairly, has repeatedly countered that the defenses that had extra time to prepare -- other than Stanford in 2009 -- were pretty elite.
As for this week, it's all about Stanford's defensive players not getting fooled by misdirection, maintaining their gap responsibilities, executing their assignments and tackling well. Oregon makes it hard to do all that, and it seems it's even more difficult without extra time to practice and train players' eyes.
But it is pretty interesting: If Stanford beats Chip Kelly's Ducks, it will be the first team to do so with just one week to prepare.
Pedro from Eugene, Ore. writes: Why do you have Stanford atop your most recent Pac-12 rankings but pick Oregon to beat them in Palo Alto? The rankings are your opinion, so wouldn't you rank the team to win a head-to-head matchup higher? Or has your Magic 8 Ball predicted a fluke upset?
Aaron from Seattle writes: Gotta wonder about you picking Oregon over Stanford, but having Stanford to the National Championship and Oregon to the Rose Bowl.... wanna show your math on that one?
Ted Miller: Can't a girl change her mind?
With the bowl projections, I hadn't really started thinking about the Oregon-Stanford game. Just like the power rankings on Monday, those projections were based on what happened in the previous 10 weeks.
But when I really started thinking about the game, this is what exploded out of my head, not unlike Athena bursting from Zeus' noggin!
Of course -- as noted -- I may have just had a bad burrito for lunch.
And there was just a little bit of not wanting to spoil my super-shocking prediction.
Alex from Las Vegas writes: Regarding the UCLA/Texas game at Cowboy Stadium, why do Pac-12 teams agree to play games at "neutral sites" that are anything but neutral. Why couldn't Oregon fly the extra 1/2 hour to Baton Rouge or UCLA just go to Austin? At least then they get whatever love that is associated with playing tough road games. Given the windfall of cash that the conference is about to get, can't they drive a harder bargain when it comes to schedules?
Ted Miller: I hear you. LSU-Oregon didn't feel like a neutral site game, and UCLA-Texas certainly won't.
So why can't Oregon play LSU in Phoenix or UCLA play Texas in Lambeau Field? My best answer is no one is trying to set up those games, while Jery Jones is doing so in Cowboys Stadium. And he's paying program's big bucks to come visit.
And, by the way, Cowboys Stadium is really impressive. I'm certain that the players will be goosed about the game, even if their fans are in a big minority.
Chance from Portland writes: What do the computers base there rankings on in the bcs poll?
Ted Miller: Most of the computer polls don't reveal their formulas because, of course, those formulas are so super-secret-awesome.
I can tell you that they don't include margin of victory, which was mistakenly removed after the 2004 season because -- waaaa! -- coaches were worried about running up the score.
Here's a hand-dandy guide to the computer polls.
Kyle from Jerusalem writes: Ted, I'm confused. Alabama lost to LSU at HOME last weekend and didn't even score a touchdown, and the ducks lost to them on a neutral field at the very beginning of the season. I know the SEC has a stronger conference, and how the computers would favor them. But how do the human polls explain putting Alabama at #3 and not at least behind the ducks and the other undefeated teams? And, if the remaining one loss teams fall, does Alabama really deserve to play in the "Game of the Century, Part II" when the ducks have shown they have matured as a team since the beginning of the year?
Ted Miller: The human polls have Alabama at No. 4. The BCS standings rank Alabama No. 3, but the Crimson Tide has only a very small edge over No. 4 Stanford due to the computers, which will disappear -- and not reappear -- if the Cardinal beats Oregon on Saturday and then wins out.
But, yes, one of the travesties this season was Oregon getting dumped from No. 3 to No. 13 and No. 14 in the AP and coaches polls, respectively, after it lost a glorified road game to LSU. It was as though a false narrative -- LSU dominated Oregon -- got started and the public never allowed the facts of the game to change a good, SEC story.
Further, to me, pollsters should have given Oregon credit for having the courage to schedule the game. I know if LSU had lost, I certainly wouldn't have dumped the Tigers 10 spots in my power ranking vote for ESPN.com.
In many ways, you can, in fact, argue Oregon's performance against LSU approximated Alabama's. The Ducks produced three long TD drives: 19 plays, 79 yards; 13 plays 68 yards; 10 plays 70 yards. Alabama produced no TD drives, though it did have 62-yard and 79-yard drives, which netted three points. And we've noted before the statistical similarities on both sides of the football.
Other than the Ducks losing the turnover battle 4-1.
All that said, I voted Alabama fourth and Oregon sixth, just like most everyone else. Why? Alabama has a better resume at present, see wins over Penn State and Arkansas. And, to be honest, I think Alabama would beat Oregon.
That said: I'd much rather see a rematch with Oregon and LSU than Alabama and LSU. Just in terms of pure entertainment purposes. Oh, and I'd go to the game if Oregon was in it.
Isaac from San Francisco writes: Well you blew it. While we educated folks like all the big words and cultural references and your funny little comments which aren't always that funny really, you still don't know anything about football. Stanford is going to crush Oregon. And you picked Oregon. What will that make you, smart guy?
Ted Miller: Well, by my best estimation, if Stanford beats Oregon that would make my prediction of Oregon beating Stanford incorrect.
But thanks for calling me smart.
Follow me on Twitter.
To the notes!
Robert from Portland writes: There is always talk about who's the best player or qb or running back every year. Then at the end of the year there is the talk about who is more likely to do it the next year. More often than not players don't repeat performances. This brings me to my question, who was the last running back to lead the nation in running one year and then come back and do it again? LaMichael James is doing it so far this year yet doesn't seem to get any recognition. All while missing TWO games.
Ted Miller: If James leads the nation in rushing for a second consecutive year, he will be in super-elite company. The last guy to do that turned out OK: LaDainian Tomlinson at TCU in 1999 and 2000.
As far as not getting recognition, you mean other than 1. Winning the Doak Walker Award last year as the nation's top running back; 2. Being a Heisman Trophy finalist; 3. Earning unanimous 2011 preseason All-American honors?
James dropped off the Heisman Trophy radar this season for three reasons: 1. He didn't play well against LSU in the opener; 2. He hasn't played many marquee opponents since then; 3. As you noted, he missed some action.
And if he has a lights-out game against Stanford in a victory -- think his 2010 performance -- then he'll again be on a shortlist of Heisman candidates.
Derrick from Omaha writes: One thing I have not heard mentioned regarding the Oregon-Stanford game is prep-time. Chip has only lost 5 games, 4 of those were to teams who had a month or more to get ready. The fifth was to Stanford who was coming off a bye week.Chip's Ducks have never lost to a team that played a game the previous week.Is this a real factor? Do you think this impacts this week's game?
Ted Miller: Yes, it's a factor and yes I think it impacts this week's game.
I will quibble with your saying this doesn't get mentioned. And I'd bet Chip Kelly would, too.
It's an unbelievable number, really, when used positively: It's darn near impossible to beat a Kelly offense with just one week to prepare.
On the other hand, it's more often been used in the negative: An elite defense with extra time to prepare can control Kelly's offense. Kelly, fairly, has repeatedly countered that the defenses that had extra time to prepare -- other than Stanford in 2009 -- were pretty elite.
As for this week, it's all about Stanford's defensive players not getting fooled by misdirection, maintaining their gap responsibilities, executing their assignments and tackling well. Oregon makes it hard to do all that, and it seems it's even more difficult without extra time to practice and train players' eyes.
But it is pretty interesting: If Stanford beats Chip Kelly's Ducks, it will be the first team to do so with just one week to prepare.
Pedro from Eugene, Ore. writes: Why do you have Stanford atop your most recent Pac-12 rankings but pick Oregon to beat them in Palo Alto? The rankings are your opinion, so wouldn't you rank the team to win a head-to-head matchup higher? Or has your Magic 8 Ball predicted a fluke upset?
Aaron from Seattle writes: Gotta wonder about you picking Oregon over Stanford, but having Stanford to the National Championship and Oregon to the Rose Bowl.... wanna show your math on that one?
Ted Miller: Can't a girl change her mind?
With the bowl projections, I hadn't really started thinking about the Oregon-Stanford game. Just like the power rankings on Monday, those projections were based on what happened in the previous 10 weeks.
But when I really started thinking about the game, this is what exploded out of my head, not unlike Athena bursting from Zeus' noggin!
Of course -- as noted -- I may have just had a bad burrito for lunch.
And there was just a little bit of not wanting to spoil my super-shocking prediction.
Alex from Las Vegas writes: Regarding the UCLA/Texas game at Cowboy Stadium, why do Pac-12 teams agree to play games at "neutral sites" that are anything but neutral. Why couldn't Oregon fly the extra 1/2 hour to Baton Rouge or UCLA just go to Austin? At least then they get whatever love that is associated with playing tough road games. Given the windfall of cash that the conference is about to get, can't they drive a harder bargain when it comes to schedules?
Ted Miller: I hear you. LSU-Oregon didn't feel like a neutral site game, and UCLA-Texas certainly won't.
So why can't Oregon play LSU in Phoenix or UCLA play Texas in Lambeau Field? My best answer is no one is trying to set up those games, while Jery Jones is doing so in Cowboys Stadium. And he's paying program's big bucks to come visit.
And, by the way, Cowboys Stadium is really impressive. I'm certain that the players will be goosed about the game, even if their fans are in a big minority.
Chance from Portland writes: What do the computers base there rankings on in the bcs poll?
Ted Miller: Most of the computer polls don't reveal their formulas because, of course, those formulas are so super-secret-awesome.
I can tell you that they don't include margin of victory, which was mistakenly removed after the 2004 season because -- waaaa! -- coaches were worried about running up the score.
Here's a hand-dandy guide to the computer polls.
Kyle from Jerusalem writes: Ted, I'm confused. Alabama lost to LSU at HOME last weekend and didn't even score a touchdown, and the ducks lost to them on a neutral field at the very beginning of the season. I know the SEC has a stronger conference, and how the computers would favor them. But how do the human polls explain putting Alabama at #3 and not at least behind the ducks and the other undefeated teams? And, if the remaining one loss teams fall, does Alabama really deserve to play in the "Game of the Century, Part II" when the ducks have shown they have matured as a team since the beginning of the year?
Ted Miller: The human polls have Alabama at No. 4. The BCS standings rank Alabama No. 3, but the Crimson Tide has only a very small edge over No. 4 Stanford due to the computers, which will disappear -- and not reappear -- if the Cardinal beats Oregon on Saturday and then wins out.
But, yes, one of the travesties this season was Oregon getting dumped from No. 3 to No. 13 and No. 14 in the AP and coaches polls, respectively, after it lost a glorified road game to LSU. It was as though a false narrative -- LSU dominated Oregon -- got started and the public never allowed the facts of the game to change a good, SEC story.
Further, to me, pollsters should have given Oregon credit for having the courage to schedule the game. I know if LSU had lost, I certainly wouldn't have dumped the Tigers 10 spots in my power ranking vote for ESPN.com.
In many ways, you can, in fact, argue Oregon's performance against LSU approximated Alabama's. The Ducks produced three long TD drives: 19 plays, 79 yards; 13 plays 68 yards; 10 plays 70 yards. Alabama produced no TD drives, though it did have 62-yard and 79-yard drives, which netted three points. And we've noted before the statistical similarities on both sides of the football.
Other than the Ducks losing the turnover battle 4-1.
All that said, I voted Alabama fourth and Oregon sixth, just like most everyone else. Why? Alabama has a better resume at present, see wins over Penn State and Arkansas. And, to be honest, I think Alabama would beat Oregon.
That said: I'd much rather see a rematch with Oregon and LSU than Alabama and LSU. Just in terms of pure entertainment purposes. Oh, and I'd go to the game if Oregon was in it.
Isaac from San Francisco writes: Well you blew it. While we educated folks like all the big words and cultural references and your funny little comments which aren't always that funny really, you still don't know anything about football. Stanford is going to crush Oregon. And you picked Oregon. What will that make you, smart guy?
Ted Miller: Well, by my best estimation, if Stanford beats Oregon that would make my prediction of Oregon beating Stanford incorrect.
But thanks for calling me smart.
The conventional wisdom is Oregon State's already formidable trip to Wisconsin on Sept. 10 became even more daunting Monday with the Badgers' addition of quarterback Russell Wilson, a transfer from NC State who passed for 8,545 yards and 76 touchdowns in his career with the Wolfpack.
Maybe. Makes sense. Wilson, who has one year of eligibility remaining and can play right away because he has already graduated, is a dual-threat quarterback who also has, by the way, played baseball in the Colorado Rockies' minor league system after being a fourth-round pick last year.
Further, the Badgers' play at quarterback was mediocre to bad this spring, with no one stepping to the fore to replace Scott Tolzien. Wilson, it would seem, is an instant upgrade, even over Tolzien. Wilson completed 58.4 percent of his passes for 3,563 yards with 28 touchdowns and 14 interceptions and rushed for 435 yards and nine touchdowns last season. Tolzien's 2010 numbers, though good enough to get the Badgers to the Rose Bowl, don't even compare.
The general feeling is this makes Wisconsin the Big Ten favorite. Which makes the Beavers look like road kill, right?
Again, maybe. But we live in a world of unintended consequences. There are no sure things, and the unexpected often happens.
For one, Wilson will be learning a new offense with new teammates with only a month or so this summer and fall practices to prepare. That's not easy. Sure, he's a veteran college QB. But he'll still be the new guy -- not unlike incoming freshmen.
His first order of business? Decisively beating out Jon Budmayr, Joe Brennan and Joel Stave. If Wilson is only marginally better, or if there's doubt within the team that he earned the starting job, then things could get prickly in the locker room.
The ideal situation for Oregon State would be for Wilson to not get a warm-up game before the Beavers come to town. That's not the case. Not only does Wisconsin open against UNLV, it also has a couple of extra days between that Thursday, Sept. 1 opener to iron out the kinks and get ready for the Beavers.
Oregon State opens its season against Sacramento State, giving it a preseason game in which to get in rhythm without revealing a lot. The Beavers certainly should be able to get more from the Badgers-Rebels game film than Wisconsin will from the Sac State film.
Wilson should make the Badgers better, but it's reasonable to believe he will be better as the season matures than he is early-on, when he's still figuring out the offense and his teammates. So Oregon State has that going for it.
With or without Wilson starting, the Badgers will be heavy favorites when Oregon State visits. The Beavers are coming off a 5-7 season with lots of questions and they do not own a distinguished record for starting fast. They've, in particular, suffered a few bad nonconference whippings on the road in the early-going -- see ill-fated trips to Louisville, Boise State, Cincinnati and Penn State.
The conventional wisdom will write this one into the Oregon State loss column before it's played, and the Badgers' addition of Wilson makes it less risky to do so in pen rather than pencil.
Right? Well, maybe. Let's just say lots more folks figure to tune into the Wisconsin-UNLV opener than before.
Maybe. Makes sense. Wilson, who has one year of eligibility remaining and can play right away because he has already graduated, is a dual-threat quarterback who also has, by the way, played baseball in the Colorado Rockies' minor league system after being a fourth-round pick last year.
[+] Enlarge
Scott A. Miller/US PresswireDoes the addition of Russell Wilson give Wisconsin a bigger advantage over Oregon State?
Scott A. Miller/US PresswireDoes the addition of Russell Wilson give Wisconsin a bigger advantage over Oregon State?The general feeling is this makes Wisconsin the Big Ten favorite. Which makes the Beavers look like road kill, right?
Again, maybe. But we live in a world of unintended consequences. There are no sure things, and the unexpected often happens.
For one, Wilson will be learning a new offense with new teammates with only a month or so this summer and fall practices to prepare. That's not easy. Sure, he's a veteran college QB. But he'll still be the new guy -- not unlike incoming freshmen.
His first order of business? Decisively beating out Jon Budmayr, Joe Brennan and Joel Stave. If Wilson is only marginally better, or if there's doubt within the team that he earned the starting job, then things could get prickly in the locker room.
The ideal situation for Oregon State would be for Wilson to not get a warm-up game before the Beavers come to town. That's not the case. Not only does Wisconsin open against UNLV, it also has a couple of extra days between that Thursday, Sept. 1 opener to iron out the kinks and get ready for the Beavers.
Oregon State opens its season against Sacramento State, giving it a preseason game in which to get in rhythm without revealing a lot. The Beavers certainly should be able to get more from the Badgers-Rebels game film than Wisconsin will from the Sac State film.
Wilson should make the Badgers better, but it's reasonable to believe he will be better as the season matures than he is early-on, when he's still figuring out the offense and his teammates. So Oregon State has that going for it.
With or without Wilson starting, the Badgers will be heavy favorites when Oregon State visits. The Beavers are coming off a 5-7 season with lots of questions and they do not own a distinguished record for starting fast. They've, in particular, suffered a few bad nonconference whippings on the road in the early-going -- see ill-fated trips to Louisville, Boise State, Cincinnati and Penn State.
The conventional wisdom will write this one into the Oregon State loss column before it's played, and the Badgers' addition of Wilson makes it less risky to do so in pen rather than pencil.
Right? Well, maybe. Let's just say lots more folks figure to tune into the Wisconsin-UNLV opener than before.
Welcome to the last thing you must do before your weekend begins in earnest: Read the mailbag.
This is your brain. This is your brain if you follow me on Twitter. This is your brain if you don't.
To the notes.
Corey from San Francisco writes: So I watched the video about overtaking the SEC, and I find it sort of silly. Do you really think any conference will overtake the SEC any time soon? Will you at least admit the SEC is the best conference? And if so, I'd be curious about your explanation why.
Ted Miller: The SEC is the best conference during the BCS era. There is no way to argue the point: Five consecutive national championships and six different teams with BCS titles. No other conference boasts more than two.
Overtake the SEC? Hard to say. My first response is not anytime soon, at least not as college football is configured at present. If Larry Scott's grand vision of the Pac-16 had gone through, with Texas and Oklahoma among the Big 12 teams defecting to the Pac-10, things might feel very different today.
But this annual debate is a little redundant. So, Corey, I want to focus on the final part of your note: why?
I think it's about more than talent, fan frenzy and money. It's about culture. It's about the total buy-in at places where football is more important -- for better or worse -- than anything else.
There are a lot of good football teams out there as we head into 2011. Plenty of them are capable of winning every game. But the most challenging opponent for many top teams isn't the one on the opposite sideline. It's themselves. It's getting up for every game with maximum focus and preparation and not blowing one or two (or more) games to inferior foes.
My hypothesis is the football culture that surrounds SEC football, that most of the SEC players were raised in, provides that little extra bit of focus and dedication that helps a team avoid the Saturday brain cramp that turns a potential 12-0 team into an 11-1 team. Or a potential 11-1 team into a 9-3 team. Or worse.
The most obvious example in the Pac-10 would be the most successful program of the past decade: USC. The Trojans should have won more than its two national titles under Pete Carroll. In fact, the only defeat USC suffered from 2002-2008 in which you could say the Trojans weren't significant favorites was to Texas in the national title game after the 2005 season. And they were favored in that game. Go through the schedules yourself.
Further, I've also had numerous conversations with Pac-10 players through the years when they've talked about their team losing focus, taking a season for granted, partying too much, a locker room fracturing, etc. Those sorts of things happen everywhere in team sports, I just think they happen more in big city football out West than in the more insular enclaves in the Southeast. And I've lived long periods of time in both places, so I'm not just throwing mud at the wall here and hoping it becomes art.
Yet this cultural challenge -- some might offer that it's actually a healthy perspective -- is not insurmountable. Good coaches can create winning cultures. Let's start with something that might make you cynics roll your eyes: slogans and gimmicks.
The most important thing Chip Kelly brought to Oregon was not its up-tempo, spread option offense. It was this: "Win the day." Or, as the denizens of Autzen Stadium now know it, WTD.
And how many hokey things did Jim Harbaugh do and say at Stanford? "Enthusiasm unknown to mankind!" Gas station work shirts to demonstrate a blue collar attitude. Winning with "character and cruelty."
Even Carroll's "Win forever," was the endlessly repeated mantra of the USC dynasty.
That's why Cal fans may not want to mock coach Jeff Tedford's "Team matters" T-shirts this spring. It may prove to be a stroke of inspiration -- in multiple senses of the term.
You -- or players -- can be cynical about these sorts of things, or about an all-encompassing football culture, but how often does cynicism get cited as a foundational value of a successful venture? Other than a stand-up comedy.
The SEC has great talent, great coaches, big stadiums and lots of money. But its passionate football culture has played a role in the conference's rise.
Can the Pac-12 duplicate that? Probably not, top to bottom. But a program -- or programs -- can. They've just got to create their own obsessive, winning-is-the-only-thing-or-I-will-die, culture.
Ken from Bothell, Wash., writes: With the Pac 12 beginning to digest its new teams, what would be the next logical move for expansion? Obviously, a lot is likely to happen prior to the conference making a move, but do you see Mr. Scott trying to get into the Texas market again?
Ted Miller: Digest! Buffalo sounds tasty, but I'm not sure about Ute.
Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott believes there will be further conference expansion in the future, and his huge brain seems to be three steps ahead of everyone else, so I'm going to go ahead and agree with him.
In fact, he recently told John Henderson of the Denver Post this:
Texas continues to be the big fish, but the Longhorns new network complicates its potential membership in the Pac-12. Still, the marketplace changes quickly. Who knows what the landscape will look like in 2020?
Tyrell from Salt Lake City writes: You were incorrect in regards to football profits last year for Utah. Utah was just shy of $5 million in profit (you can find the numbers from the same Sportsbiz website). That would have put them in ahead of a couple of PAC-10 schools, and considering they were receiving less than $2 million per year from the MTN West -- somewhat impressive. All that said, the new PAC-12 deal can't get here soon enough!
Ted Miller: Yeah, I messed that up -- didn't realize the list was only AQ schools and that's why Utah's numbers from the Mountain West were not included.
Sort of embarrassing because if I had considered it for a moment, there was no way that the Utes were running a $2 million-plus deficit in football. Dumb.
A number of notes on that oversight. Apologies.
Roger from The Woodlands, Texas writes: This was in Wednesday's lunch link regarding a [Publication name withheld] article: "Since the shakeout of last summer with Colorado and Nebraska's decisions to leave the Big 12 Conference, and subsequent frenzy that ultimately ended with only Utah joining CU in the Pac-10, word from several athletics administrators is that CU is having serious buyer's remorse. The splitting of divisions and even the playing of a league championship on home sites has been openly ridiculed within the new Pac-12. The conference in-fighting CU thinks it is leaving in the Big 12 has already ramped up at the Buffs' new home." Have you been hearing any of this? Are you holding out on us?
Ted Miller: It's notable that article is no longer posted. And didn't include a writer's name on it.
Have I heard anything like that? Nothing. Zero. Such sentiments do not exist.
If there is a person out there associated with Colorado experiencing buyers' remorse, please email me.
The only possible explanation would be that Colorado has to buy a new bank vault because its Big 12 version isn't big enough to store the soon-to-be incoming revenue from the RICHEST TV DEAL IN COLLEGE SPORTS HISTORY.
Or perhaps some are broken up about road trips to Seattle, San Francisco, Portland, Phoenix, Tucson and Los Angeles instead of Lubbock, Waco, Norman, Manhattan and Ames?
L Wallace from Yuma, Ariz., writes: That stat about Wazzu being ranked ahead of 5 teams Utah played last yr was striking. I say the most underrated challenge for Utah will be the upgrade in Coaching. I think [Utah coach Kyle] Whittingham is the 3rd best Coach in the P12. However, he and [TCU coach Gary[ Patterson and [Boise State coach Chris] Petersen enjoy such a huge advantage over their peers in the MWC & WAC. In the P12 Utah will face OC's and DC's that are future HC's. They will face dozens of coaches with varying degrees of NFL and bigtime BCS experience. They will face programs that enjoy more resources, video, computer, scouting technology and tools. The "Schematic Advantage" that Whittingham enjoyed in the MWC will be severely tested in the P12.
Ted Miller: Interesting theory.
You would think that the richer programs in the Pac-12, which have more resources for preparation, including coaches who command better salaries, will present a more consistent strategic challenge on a week-to-week basis.
We shall shortly see, eh?
David from Beaverton, Ore., writes: Is it just me or do you notice college football fans start to emulate the characteristics of their team's coach over time? As a Beaver, I noticed Beav fans had a bit of a swagger when Erickson was our coach and for the most part, the fans are more even keeled with Mike Riley. At Oregon, Bellotti and Kelly can and have appeared, how should I put this "a little arrogant" at times and there is a large group of their fans that more than fall into that camp. Trojan fans seemed to have a confident swagger with Carroll, that previously was a quieter confidence in the McKay/Robinson eras.
Ted Miller: Hmm. My first reaction: What might have happened if Jim Harbaugh stuck around Stanford for another five years?
Maybe. But I don't know if I'm really feeling your theory. For one, I've never felt that Mike Bellotti seemed "arrogant." Not any more than any other successful coach.
Do a lot of Penn State fans look and act like Joe Paterno? Bobby Bowden was one of the true gentlemen in coaching; not sure if the Seminole fan base is known for the same. Just as Ohio State fans aren't really known for their senatorial bearing, like the coach formerly known as Jim Tressel was.
Are Arizona fans wound as tightly as Mike Stoops? Will Washington fans shortly adopt the California cool of Steve Sarkisian? How are Cal fans like Jeff Teford?
Or did you just want to drop in a tweak of Chip Kelly?
This is your brain. This is your brain if you follow me on Twitter. This is your brain if you don't.
To the notes.
Corey from San Francisco writes: So I watched the video about overtaking the SEC, and I find it sort of silly. Do you really think any conference will overtake the SEC any time soon? Will you at least admit the SEC is the best conference? And if so, I'd be curious about your explanation why.
Ted Miller: The SEC is the best conference during the BCS era. There is no way to argue the point: Five consecutive national championships and six different teams with BCS titles. No other conference boasts more than two.
Overtake the SEC? Hard to say. My first response is not anytime soon, at least not as college football is configured at present. If Larry Scott's grand vision of the Pac-16 had gone through, with Texas and Oklahoma among the Big 12 teams defecting to the Pac-10, things might feel very different today.
But this annual debate is a little redundant. So, Corey, I want to focus on the final part of your note: why?
I think it's about more than talent, fan frenzy and money. It's about culture. It's about the total buy-in at places where football is more important -- for better or worse -- than anything else.
There are a lot of good football teams out there as we head into 2011. Plenty of them are capable of winning every game. But the most challenging opponent for many top teams isn't the one on the opposite sideline. It's themselves. It's getting up for every game with maximum focus and preparation and not blowing one or two (or more) games to inferior foes.
My hypothesis is the football culture that surrounds SEC football, that most of the SEC players were raised in, provides that little extra bit of focus and dedication that helps a team avoid the Saturday brain cramp that turns a potential 12-0 team into an 11-1 team. Or a potential 11-1 team into a 9-3 team. Or worse.
The most obvious example in the Pac-10 would be the most successful program of the past decade: USC. The Trojans should have won more than its two national titles under Pete Carroll. In fact, the only defeat USC suffered from 2002-2008 in which you could say the Trojans weren't significant favorites was to Texas in the national title game after the 2005 season. And they were favored in that game. Go through the schedules yourself.
Further, I've also had numerous conversations with Pac-10 players through the years when they've talked about their team losing focus, taking a season for granted, partying too much, a locker room fracturing, etc. Those sorts of things happen everywhere in team sports, I just think they happen more in big city football out West than in the more insular enclaves in the Southeast. And I've lived long periods of time in both places, so I'm not just throwing mud at the wall here and hoping it becomes art.
Yet this cultural challenge -- some might offer that it's actually a healthy perspective -- is not insurmountable. Good coaches can create winning cultures. Let's start with something that might make you cynics roll your eyes: slogans and gimmicks.
The most important thing Chip Kelly brought to Oregon was not its up-tempo, spread option offense. It was this: "Win the day." Or, as the denizens of Autzen Stadium now know it, WTD.
And how many hokey things did Jim Harbaugh do and say at Stanford? "Enthusiasm unknown to mankind!" Gas station work shirts to demonstrate a blue collar attitude. Winning with "character and cruelty."
Even Carroll's "Win forever," was the endlessly repeated mantra of the USC dynasty.
That's why Cal fans may not want to mock coach Jeff Tedford's "Team matters" T-shirts this spring. It may prove to be a stroke of inspiration -- in multiple senses of the term.
You -- or players -- can be cynical about these sorts of things, or about an all-encompassing football culture, but how often does cynicism get cited as a foundational value of a successful venture? Other than a stand-up comedy.
The SEC has great talent, great coaches, big stadiums and lots of money. But its passionate football culture has played a role in the conference's rise.
Can the Pac-12 duplicate that? Probably not, top to bottom. But a program -- or programs -- can. They've just got to create their own obsessive, winning-is-the-only-thing-or-I-will-die, culture.
Ken from Bothell, Wash., writes: With the Pac 12 beginning to digest its new teams, what would be the next logical move for expansion? Obviously, a lot is likely to happen prior to the conference making a move, but do you see Mr. Scott trying to get into the Texas market again?
Ted Miller: Digest! Buffalo sounds tasty, but I'm not sure about Ute.
Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott believes there will be further conference expansion in the future, and his huge brain seems to be three steps ahead of everyone else, so I'm going to go ahead and agree with him.
In fact, he recently told John Henderson of the Denver Post this:
Do you see future expansion? “Long term I do. What I found in the process we went through, there were a lot more value for the schools that would be unlocked long term if there were further consolidation. I don’t think we’ll see anything in the next two years.”
Texas continues to be the big fish, but the Longhorns new network complicates its potential membership in the Pac-12. Still, the marketplace changes quickly. Who knows what the landscape will look like in 2020?
Tyrell from Salt Lake City writes: You were incorrect in regards to football profits last year for Utah. Utah was just shy of $5 million in profit (you can find the numbers from the same Sportsbiz website). That would have put them in ahead of a couple of PAC-10 schools, and considering they were receiving less than $2 million per year from the MTN West -- somewhat impressive. All that said, the new PAC-12 deal can't get here soon enough!
Ted Miller: Yeah, I messed that up -- didn't realize the list was only AQ schools and that's why Utah's numbers from the Mountain West were not included.
Sort of embarrassing because if I had considered it for a moment, there was no way that the Utes were running a $2 million-plus deficit in football. Dumb.
A number of notes on that oversight. Apologies.
Roger from The Woodlands, Texas writes: This was in Wednesday's lunch link regarding a [Publication name withheld] article: "Since the shakeout of last summer with Colorado and Nebraska's decisions to leave the Big 12 Conference, and subsequent frenzy that ultimately ended with only Utah joining CU in the Pac-10, word from several athletics administrators is that CU is having serious buyer's remorse. The splitting of divisions and even the playing of a league championship on home sites has been openly ridiculed within the new Pac-12. The conference in-fighting CU thinks it is leaving in the Big 12 has already ramped up at the Buffs' new home." Have you been hearing any of this? Are you holding out on us?
Ted Miller: It's notable that article is no longer posted. And didn't include a writer's name on it.
Have I heard anything like that? Nothing. Zero. Such sentiments do not exist.
If there is a person out there associated with Colorado experiencing buyers' remorse, please email me.
The only possible explanation would be that Colorado has to buy a new bank vault because its Big 12 version isn't big enough to store the soon-to-be incoming revenue from the RICHEST TV DEAL IN COLLEGE SPORTS HISTORY.
Or perhaps some are broken up about road trips to Seattle, San Francisco, Portland, Phoenix, Tucson and Los Angeles instead of Lubbock, Waco, Norman, Manhattan and Ames?
L Wallace from Yuma, Ariz., writes: That stat about Wazzu being ranked ahead of 5 teams Utah played last yr was striking. I say the most underrated challenge for Utah will be the upgrade in Coaching. I think [Utah coach Kyle] Whittingham is the 3rd best Coach in the P12. However, he and [TCU coach Gary[ Patterson and [Boise State coach Chris] Petersen enjoy such a huge advantage over their peers in the MWC & WAC. In the P12 Utah will face OC's and DC's that are future HC's. They will face dozens of coaches with varying degrees of NFL and bigtime BCS experience. They will face programs that enjoy more resources, video, computer, scouting technology and tools. The "Schematic Advantage" that Whittingham enjoyed in the MWC will be severely tested in the P12.
Ted Miller: Interesting theory.
You would think that the richer programs in the Pac-12, which have more resources for preparation, including coaches who command better salaries, will present a more consistent strategic challenge on a week-to-week basis.
We shall shortly see, eh?
David from Beaverton, Ore., writes: Is it just me or do you notice college football fans start to emulate the characteristics of their team's coach over time? As a Beaver, I noticed Beav fans had a bit of a swagger when Erickson was our coach and for the most part, the fans are more even keeled with Mike Riley. At Oregon, Bellotti and Kelly can and have appeared, how should I put this "a little arrogant" at times and there is a large group of their fans that more than fall into that camp. Trojan fans seemed to have a confident swagger with Carroll, that previously was a quieter confidence in the McKay/Robinson eras.
Ted Miller: Hmm. My first reaction: What might have happened if Jim Harbaugh stuck around Stanford for another five years?
Maybe. But I don't know if I'm really feeling your theory. For one, I've never felt that Mike Bellotti seemed "arrogant." Not any more than any other successful coach.
Do a lot of Penn State fans look and act like Joe Paterno? Bobby Bowden was one of the true gentlemen in coaching; not sure if the Seminole fan base is known for the same. Just as Ohio State fans aren't really known for their senatorial bearing, like the coach formerly known as Jim Tressel was.
Are Arizona fans wound as tightly as Mike Stoops? Will Washington fans shortly adopt the California cool of Steve Sarkisian? How are Cal fans like Jeff Teford?
Or did you just want to drop in a tweak of Chip Kelly?
Penn State assistant coach Jay Paterno, son of Joe, eyeballs a nasty, 90 mph slider and blasts it out of the park in this column.
His topic? Paying college athletes, a idea that has developed plenty of momentum of late. His position? Athletes already have a pretty good deal.
Proposals to pay college athletes are not fresh topics for the nattering nabobs. It's a near-annual summer column for sportswriters who mostly focus on pro sports. It typically includes this grandiose assertion: "The coaches make millions and the universities make tens of millions but the athletes, who do all the work, don't get squat."
And our current state of affairs -- hello, Columbus -- certainly has ripened this topic.
Yet, there really isn't even a need to reason with these folks. You just say -- or type -- "Title IX," and the debate ends. Everything else is hot air.
You can't pay just revenue-generating football and men's basketball players. Gender equity is the law of the land. So, end of story.
Paterno also points out that students-athletes have plenty of ways to get more, need-based money:
Further, Paterno touches on the foundation of this entire debate: The odd cynicism we have about education.
Lots of folks out there think everything is a hustle. That college sports is awash in corruption and hypocrisy. And, sure, there's a lot of that. But the fact that many so easily wipe away the value of a free college education speaks more about their dubious values than of the imperfect system of college sports.
His topic? Paying college athletes, a idea that has developed plenty of momentum of late. His position? Athletes already have a pretty good deal.
Paterno: Let me start the argument by making a proposal to parents and students alike. I am going to ask you to work no more than 20 hours a week for 21 weeks – with at least one mandatory day off every week. For another 23 weeks you'll work no more than eight hours a week. You'll get eight weeks off. (These are all NCAA-mandated time limits).
You will receive fall, spring and both summer sessions of education, plus room, board and all fees paid. For the 604 hours you put in, you'll get an education valued at $33,976 in state and $50,286 out of state (using last year's numbers from Penn State, the latest available). Keep in mind that number does not include several hundred dollars per semester for books and supplies, which are covered under the NCAA scholarship.
At those rates, the student-athlete on full scholarship to Penn State will earn $56.25 per hour if he is an in-state student and $83.25 per hour if he is an out-of-state student.
Proposals to pay college athletes are not fresh topics for the nattering nabobs. It's a near-annual summer column for sportswriters who mostly focus on pro sports. It typically includes this grandiose assertion: "The coaches make millions and the universities make tens of millions but the athletes, who do all the work, don't get squat."
And our current state of affairs -- hello, Columbus -- certainly has ripened this topic.
Yet, there really isn't even a need to reason with these folks. You just say -- or type -- "Title IX," and the debate ends. Everything else is hot air.
You can't pay just revenue-generating football and men's basketball players. Gender equity is the law of the land. So, end of story.
Paterno also points out that students-athletes have plenty of ways to get more, need-based money:
Paterno: If you and your family have financial difficulties, this scholarship also allows you to receive any Pell Grant money you are qualified for up to the federal maximum of $5,550 per year. There's also a needy student fund allowing for several hundred dollars a year to buy clothes.
Further, Paterno touches on the foundation of this entire debate: The odd cynicism we have about education.
Paterno: But forget the NFL or NBA for a moment. If I offered that deal to every parent in this country, how many would grumble and say that it isn't enough? But no one discusses this side of the argument. Even members of the media will say this whole thing isn't really about education.
There is the rub. There is the problem.
Lots of folks out there think everything is a hustle. That college sports is awash in corruption and hypocrisy. And, sure, there's a lot of that. But the fact that many so easily wipe away the value of a free college education speaks more about their dubious values than of the imperfect system of college sports.
Black is the new, well, everything. Even USC apparently is getting into the "Go black!" action, at least according to the L.A. Daily News.
Not sure what I think of the look.
There was this update from Scott Wolf:
Not sure what I think of the look.
There was this update from Scott Wolf:
A USC official finally confirmed to me that several alternate uniforms are being considered for the UCLA game. The issue is under consideration but no decisions have been made yet, the official said.
Several uniforms are being considered, including the cardinal jersey, cardinal pants, black helmet version I mentioned this morning. Another version features white pants with cardinal stripes. Public reaction to the potential new uniforms was overwhelming negative today at Heritage Hall.
Some response from Conquest Chronicles. And more reaction here.
Next up: Penn State, Alabama and Notre Dame?
The NFL draft starts on April 28th, and ESPN Magazine compiled a list of NFL players by conference: So how does the Pac-12 rate?
The Pac-10 presently has 215 NFL players. The top producers of NFL talent, at present, are:
USC ... 39
California ... 33
Oregon ... 25
Oregon State ... 22
Arizona State ... 21
UCLA ... 19
USC finished fifth overall, with Miami No. 1 with 45 players, LSU second with 44 and Texas and Ohio State tied with 42.
This might be a surprise: Cal has more NFL players than Auburn (27), Alabama (26), Florida State (31), Penn State (29), Oklahoma (30) and Notre Dame (27).
So how do the new members, Colorado and Utah rate?
Utah ... 21
Colorado ... 16
The SEC led all conferences with 308 players. If you added in Utah and Colorado to the old Pac-10, the Pac-12 would rate third overall with 252 players. The Big Ten has 285 (with Nebraska) and the ACC has 278.
The Pac-10 presently has 215 NFL players. The top producers of NFL talent, at present, are:
USC ... 39
California ... 33
Oregon ... 25
Oregon State ... 22
Arizona State ... 21
UCLA ... 19
USC finished fifth overall, with Miami No. 1 with 45 players, LSU second with 44 and Texas and Ohio State tied with 42.
This might be a surprise: Cal has more NFL players than Auburn (27), Alabama (26), Florida State (31), Penn State (29), Oklahoma (30) and Notre Dame (27).
So how do the new members, Colorado and Utah rate?
Utah ... 21
Colorado ... 16
The SEC led all conferences with 308 players. If you added in Utah and Colorado to the old Pac-10, the Pac-12 would rate third overall with 252 players. The Big Ten has 285 (with Nebraska) and the ACC has 278.
Did your team mute explosive offenses?
February, 23, 2011
2/23/11
4:01
PM ET
By
Ted Miller | ESPN.com
Coaches love talking about explosion plays. You want to get a lot of them and give up very few.
On Tuesday, we looked at offensive explosion plays -- plays of 20 or more yards -- which you can see here. Tomorrow, we'll look at explosion plays in terms of rushing offense and rushing defense. On Friday, we'll look at explosion plays in terms of passing numbers.
So here's how the Pac-12 stacked up in 2010 (again, thanks to ESPN Stats & Information). The number to the left in national rank. The number to the right is the total number of explosion plays in 2010.
7. California... 34
13. Arizona State... 38
21. Arizona... 41
28. Stanford... 43
49. Oregon... 49
52. Colorado... 50
60. Utah... 52
63. Oregon State... 53
63. Washington... 53
84. UCLA... 59
95. Washington State...62
99. USC... 63
It's interesting that the defensive numbers are better than the offensive: average rank of 53 on defense versus 65 on offense. Isn't the Pac-12 supposed to be flashy on O and soft on D? The SEC's average rank on defense was 54, even with two top-10 teams (No. 2 Florida & No. 9 LSU).
Of course, Utah and Colorado weren't in the Pac-10 last year (average rank of Pac-10 was 52).
Wow. USC. That's terrible.
Some other thoughts.
But do limiting explosion plays on defense equate to winning? Short answer: Mostly, but not as much as the offensive numbers, at least this past season. Here's the top-10 in 2010 with the team's record in parenthesis to the right.
1. Pittsburgh... 30 (8-5)
2. Florida... 32 (8-5)
2. TCU... 32 (13-0)
4. West Virginia... 33 (9-4)
4. Iowa... 33 (8-5)
4. Temple... 33 (8-4)
7. Kent State... 34 (5-7)
7. California... 34 (5-7)
9. LSU... 36 (11-2)
10. Boston College.. 37 (7-6)
10. Ohio State... 37 (12-1)
Two teams have losing records, but three won 11 or more games. Still, it's a bit surprising that eight of 11 lost four or more games.
As for a correlation to defensive success: Every team here ranked in the top-42 in the nation in scoring defense and eight were ranked in the top-20. TCU, West Virginia, Ohio State, Iowa and LSU ranked in the top-11 in scoring defense.
On Tuesday, we looked at offensive explosion plays -- plays of 20 or more yards -- which you can see here. Tomorrow, we'll look at explosion plays in terms of rushing offense and rushing defense. On Friday, we'll look at explosion plays in terms of passing numbers.
So here's how the Pac-12 stacked up in 2010 (again, thanks to ESPN Stats & Information). The number to the left in national rank. The number to the right is the total number of explosion plays in 2010.
7. California... 34
13. Arizona State... 38
21. Arizona... 41
28. Stanford... 43
49. Oregon... 49
52. Colorado... 50
60. Utah... 52
63. Oregon State... 53
63. Washington... 53
84. UCLA... 59
95. Washington State...62
99. USC... 63
It's interesting that the defensive numbers are better than the offensive: average rank of 53 on defense versus 65 on offense. Isn't the Pac-12 supposed to be flashy on O and soft on D? The SEC's average rank on defense was 54, even with two top-10 teams (No. 2 Florida & No. 9 LSU).
Of course, Utah and Colorado weren't in the Pac-10 last year (average rank of Pac-10 was 52).
Wow. USC. That's terrible.
Some other thoughts.
- In 2009, Oregon was No. 1 in the Pac-10 and tied for 18th in the nation with 41 explosion plays yielded. Oregon State was second with 43 (25th in nation).
- Don't be too surprised by Oregon's middling number in 2010: The Ducks play an aggressive, attacking scheme that sometimes leaves them vulnerable. And they also see a lot of plays, which means more opportunities for an offense to break one.
- USC tanked in 2010. It ranked second in the nation in 2008 with 22 and 28th in the nation in 2009 with 43. So in the first season under touted coordinator Monte Kiffin, the Trojans nearly tripled the number of explosion plays they surrendered in 2008.
- Washington State ranked 95th in 2010 (62), 113th in 2009 (69) and 116th (75) in 2008. So that's improvement. Slow improvement.
- Remember how it seemed like former Cal defensive coordinator Bob Gregory's defense was conservative, which would suggest not yielding a lot of explosion plays? Well, in 2009 the Bears ranked 89th (58), so that's significant improvement in year one under Clancy Pendergast. Of course, in 2008, the Bears ranked 14th (38).
- Teams that ranked in the top-10 the past three years: Florida, TCU and Iowa. Ohio State and Penn State were also notably consistent.
But do limiting explosion plays on defense equate to winning? Short answer: Mostly, but not as much as the offensive numbers, at least this past season. Here's the top-10 in 2010 with the team's record in parenthesis to the right.
1. Pittsburgh... 30 (8-5)
2. Florida... 32 (8-5)
2. TCU... 32 (13-0)
4. West Virginia... 33 (9-4)
4. Iowa... 33 (8-5)
4. Temple... 33 (8-4)
7. Kent State... 34 (5-7)
7. California... 34 (5-7)
9. LSU... 36 (11-2)
10. Boston College.. 37 (7-6)
10. Ohio State... 37 (12-1)
Two teams have losing records, but three won 11 or more games. Still, it's a bit surprising that eight of 11 lost four or more games.
As for a correlation to defensive success: Every team here ranked in the top-42 in the nation in scoring defense and eight were ranked in the top-20. TCU, West Virginia, Ohio State, Iowa and LSU ranked in the top-11 in scoring defense.
How do you best measure fan passion? Attendance? Or is it more about playing in front of a full house?
Well, if it's the latter, that Utah and Colorado are bringing plenty of passion to the Pac-12.
Let's look at some numbers. First, attendance. Here's how the Pac-12 ranked. The number to the left is the national ranking. (You, too, can review the NCAA's final attendance figures for the 2010 season).
15. USC, 79,907
23. Washington, 66,264
28. UCLA, 60,376
29. Oregon, 59,398
31. California, 57,873
36. Arizona, 55,408
47. Arizona, St. 47,943
49. Colorado, 46,864
51. Oregon State, 45,509
52. Utah, 45,459
62. Stanford, 40,042
83. Washington State, 24,532
Obviously, the Pac-12 doesn't rank among the nation's elite in terms of attendance. The Pac-10 ranked fourth among the FBS conferences, with an average of 53,819, which was down 367 from 2009. The Pac-10 was the only FBS conference whose average attendance was down this season. Michigan topped FBS teams with an average of 111,825. Ohio State (105,278) and Penn State (104,234) were second and third, while the SEC claimed six of the remaining seven spots in the top-10.
But that's not our issue here.
One of the complaints about adding Colorado and Utah to then make the Pac-12 was they didn't bring big stadiums with them. Colorado boasting the Denver market? Well, a 54,000-seat stadium says not really.
Still, if one way to assess fan passion is a lack of empty seats on Saturday in a home stadium, both Utah and Colorado rank in the top-half of the new conference. In fact, Utah joins Oregon as the only Pac-12 program that's over 100 percent capacity.
The number in parenthesis is the percent of capacity represented by the average attendance.
1. Oregon (110)
2. Utah (100.98)
3. Oregon State (99.64)
4. Arizona (95.86)
5. Washington (91.4)
6. Colorado (87.41)
7. USC (85.36)
8. California (80.6)
9. Stanford (80.08)
10. UCLA (66.25)
11. Washington State (65.25)
12. Arizona State (65.09)
How 'bout them Utes? Expect Rice-Eccles Stadium to be a place where an opponent is not going to hear a snap count. And considering Colorado has been struggling of late and fired its coach, Dan Hawkins, 87 percent of capacity seems fairly respectable.
Now, obviously, these numbers aren't perfect. Arizona State's home schedule was pretty terrible last year -- it played two FCS teams at home and was at Wisconsin, Washington, USC and Arizona.
Still, in terms of considering the Pac-12's new members for a potential road trip, you might want to prepare for an environment that equates more to Autzen and Husky Stadiums than for a more subdued venue.
Well, if it's the latter, that Utah and Colorado are bringing plenty of passion to the Pac-12.
Let's look at some numbers. First, attendance. Here's how the Pac-12 ranked. The number to the left is the national ranking. (You, too, can review the NCAA's final attendance figures for the 2010 season).
15. USC, 79,907
23. Washington, 66,264
28. UCLA, 60,376
29. Oregon, 59,398
31. California, 57,873
36. Arizona, 55,408
47. Arizona, St. 47,943
49. Colorado, 46,864
51. Oregon State, 45,509
52. Utah, 45,459
62. Stanford, 40,042
83. Washington State, 24,532
Obviously, the Pac-12 doesn't rank among the nation's elite in terms of attendance. The Pac-10 ranked fourth among the FBS conferences, with an average of 53,819, which was down 367 from 2009. The Pac-10 was the only FBS conference whose average attendance was down this season. Michigan topped FBS teams with an average of 111,825. Ohio State (105,278) and Penn State (104,234) were second and third, while the SEC claimed six of the remaining seven spots in the top-10.
But that's not our issue here.
One of the complaints about adding Colorado and Utah to then make the Pac-12 was they didn't bring big stadiums with them. Colorado boasting the Denver market? Well, a 54,000-seat stadium says not really.
Still, if one way to assess fan passion is a lack of empty seats on Saturday in a home stadium, both Utah and Colorado rank in the top-half of the new conference. In fact, Utah joins Oregon as the only Pac-12 program that's over 100 percent capacity.
The number in parenthesis is the percent of capacity represented by the average attendance.
1. Oregon (110)
2. Utah (100.98)
3. Oregon State (99.64)
4. Arizona (95.86)
5. Washington (91.4)
6. Colorado (87.41)
7. USC (85.36)
8. California (80.6)
9. Stanford (80.08)
10. UCLA (66.25)
11. Washington State (65.25)
12. Arizona State (65.09)
How 'bout them Utes? Expect Rice-Eccles Stadium to be a place where an opponent is not going to hear a snap count. And considering Colorado has been struggling of late and fired its coach, Dan Hawkins, 87 percent of capacity seems fairly respectable.
Now, obviously, these numbers aren't perfect. Arizona State's home schedule was pretty terrible last year -- it played two FCS teams at home and was at Wisconsin, Washington, USC and Arizona.
Still, in terms of considering the Pac-12's new members for a potential road trip, you might want to prepare for an environment that equates more to Autzen and Husky Stadiums than for a more subdued venue.
Opening the mailbag: In Oregon's defense
October, 7, 2010
10/07/10
8:11
PM ET
By
Ted Miller | ESPN.com
Not sure if you guys have joined this club, but it's what all the cool kids are doing.
To the notes.
Jason from Columbus writes: Defense wins championships. Oregon's defense stinks. Do the Buckeyes have to kill them again to prove this?
Ted Miller: First of all, I'm curious: Do Ohio State fans really view the Buckeyes 26-17 Rose Bowl victory as a "kill"? Or is this just a fringe interpretation or a bit of trash talk? In terms of being an actual assessment, it's ridiculous.
Anyway. Oregon may not have a great defense but it has a good defense. It's hard to explain this to people because, well, it requires explaining.
Most folks look at the 339 yards per game the Ducks have surrendered and say, "Neh!"
The first approach for the defense (ha!) is to point out that Oregon's fast-paced offense -- the nation's No. 1 offense in total yards and scoring -- ranks 98th in time of possession and therefore forces its defense to see a lot of plays. That's when a Ducks defender points to yards per play. Oregon gives up 4.58 yards per play, which is better than Penn State, Alabama and Florida, which are each top-20 defenses. But that number isn't really exceptional.
But this number is: 370. That's how many plays the Ducks defense has faced this year. Know how many defenses have faced more? Seven. And all of them rank 82nd or below in total defense, and five are in the 100s. Oregon ranks 52nd in total defense.
So what? It's the Ducks own fault for seeing so many plays. Just make a stop and they wouldn't see 370 plays, right?
Eureka! The Ducks do get stops. They rank ninth in the country in third-down defense. Ohio State, by the way, is 16th.
Oh, and by the way, Oregon's scoring defense ranks 15th in the nation (15 ppg). Keeping teams from scoring is good, right?
Qualifier: All these statistics -- good and bad -- are skewed. We are only five games into the season. And Oregon's defense dominated some terrible teams and hasn't looked great against Pac-10 offenses (557.5 yards per game in two games, including 6.3 yards per play).
Still, the fact that those two Pac-10 foes -- Arizona State and Stanford -- who rank in the top-17 in the nation in total offense could only score one total TD in the second half between them is pretty exceptional.
Arne from A_fop writes: According to the same logic that west coast fans and and the national media used against LSU and Auburn in 03 and 04 (which successfully deprived LSU of the AP title and kept Auburn out of the title picture altogether), Oregon, who played FCS Sacramento State, winless New Mexico, and a lousy Tennessee team, should be excluded from the national title picture because of their terrible nonconference schedule. It isn't their fault that Tennessee has fallen on hard times? Well, the same was true of LSU and Arizona in 03. And if playing an FCS team was supposed to be this horror for a national title contender when it was Auburn in 04, well UO knew that they were going to be very good this year and kept Sacramento State on their schedule anyway. And don't peddle the "UO plays 9 conference games" line. USC only played 8 conference games in 03 and 04, where Auburn and LSU played 9 thanks to the SEC title game. In order to be consistent and not hypocritical, you should take the position that Ohio State is more deserving of the national title game than is Oregon because of the Buckeyes' much tougher OOC slate. And yes, I recall your column from back in the day when you stated that Utah was more deserving of the national title than Auburn in 04 because of their tougher OOC schedule, so the hypocrite would be you personally.
Ted Miller: Wow, there's a lot here. Many tangled strands of argumentation that seemed to be strongly against the Pac-10 blog! What fun. Arne, as many of you know, is a frequent contributor to the comments section. He's not much of a Pac-10 fan, but we welcome all opinions to the Pac-10 blog. And he's clearly a bright, knowledgeable guy.
First of all, Oregon played Portland State, not Sacramento State.
Second, there are two layers to nonconference scheduling: Reality and intention. The reality is scheduling Tennessee or Georgia this year means you got an easy win if you're a decent team. Only no team that scheduled the Volunteers or Bulldogs thought that would be the case. The intention when the game was scheduled was to play a challenging foe. That should be rewarded, just as cowardly scheduling should be penalized. And, by the way, the Vols certainly didn't look lousy at LSU.
In 2003, Auburn was ranked sixth in the preseason poll. Many thought it would be a national title contender, starting with The Sporting News. USC, with quarterback making his first career start, went into frenzied Jordan-Hare Stadium and whipped the Tigers 23-zip. Auburn's SEC offense had 164 yards playing a Pac-10 defense, by the way. The next weekend, the Tigers lost at Georgia Tech. An exposed team thereafter played inconsistently throughout the rest of the season.
In 2004, Auburn tried a different approach to its nonconference scheduling. It played Louisiana-Monroe, The Citadel and Louisiana Tech. That worked wonders. With a clear intention of avoiding tough nonconference foes, Auburn went undefeated.
Connect the dots. It's not difficult. Lots of teams in the SEC, Big 12 and Big Ten have done so and adopted what we should all starting calling the "Auburn in 2004 -- certainly not 2003! -- Approach to Nonconference Scheduling."
Oregon's intentions this year were far different than Auburn's in 2004. Further, Arne, you need to incorporate location into your analysis. The Ducks traveled across the country to a 100,000-plus seat stadium to win at Tennessee. Auburn played all of its nonconference games in 2004 safely at home.
In other words, it's disingenuous to compare the two schedules. Heck, New Mexico went 9-4 in 2007. The Ducks didn't know the Lobos would become an FBS bottom-feeder when the schedule was made.
You compare LSU's trip to Arizona in 2003 to Oregon's trip to Tennessee. Really, Arne? Tennessee won the SEC East in 2007. It went to a bowl game last year. In 2003, the Wildcats were five years removed from their last winning season. They'd won six Pac-10 games over the previous three seasons.
Further, you write: "And don't peddle the 'UO plays 9 conference games' line. USC only played 8 conference games in 03 and 04, where Auburn and LSU played 9 thanks to the SEC title game. In order to be consistent and not hypocritical, you should take the position that Ohio State is more deserving of the national title game than is Oregon because of the Buckeyes' much tougher OOC slate."
I don't get the logic here. Oregon's nine conference games this year shouldn't count in comparison to Ohio State's eight this year because USC played eight conference games in 2003 and 2004? Why would I not peddle that? It's an incredibly strong fact in the Ducks favor, one that the computers in the BCS rankings will certainly recognize.
Despite all this, the Ducks don't automatically jump the Buckeyes in my or any other final poll. If Miami, Iowa, Michigan and Wisconsin are all highly ranked at season's end, despite losses to Ohio State, and the Pac-10 ends up with just a couple of ranked teams, then that will be a huge factor in making a distinction between the potentially unbeaten Buckeyes and Ducks. And the computers also will take note in the BCS standings.
One final question: Please e-mail me the column where I wrote, "Utah was more deserving of the national title than Auburn in 04 because of their tougher OOC schedule." Not sure I understand what you're saying I wrote.
Chuck from Clayton, Calif., writes: Saturday is homecoming for Cal. To Cal fans it's the Joe Roth game. Please mention the website: joeroth12.com. It has everything one would need to know about Joe Roth & why Cal honors him every year. Go Bears!
Ted Miller: Worth a look, whether you are a Cal fan or not. Roth was an exceptional person. It's a sad story that is also inspiring.
Chris from Oregon writes: Every time I open your predictions and see that you've picked the Beavers to upset yet another highly ranked team, my heart sinks. I immediately get out my pool of games for the week and mark the Beavers opposition to win. So far this year I'm 2 for 2. So please Ted, for the sake of all Beaver fans, I beg of you to stop. I don't know how much more our hearts can withstand.
Trevor from Salem, Ore, writes: Ted, can you make me a promise? If UA beats OSU this weekend will you please NEVER pick the Beavs to win a game again? Thanks.
Mike from Milwaukie, Ore., writes: As an Oregon State fan, I am BEGGING you reconsider your picking us over Arizona.BEGGING.PLEADING.It's not too late to say it was a typo and your editor screwed up.
Ted Miller: I remember in 2008 when I darn near got the Beavers to the Rose Bowl by picking against them (almost) every week. But so many Oregon State fans got on my case, I was forced to explain my mystical ways.
Of course, some caught on. But it was too late. The karmic forces rebelled.
I picked Oregon State to beat TCU. Wrong. Boise State. Wrong.
But I got a good feeling this week about the Beavers in Tucson!
So relax.
E-dogg from Bend, Ore., writes: Yo Ted! Good times talking shop with you out in Eugene last Friday night. You made about 10 obsessed college football fans nights..... Most famous celebrity I have seen since I bagged Drew Bledsoe's groceries back in 2005. Oh yea, Go Beavs.....I see you picked them to win again......Thanks a lot for the jinx bro.
Ted Miller: I showed this note to my wife, using my finger to underline "most famous celebrity."
She told me to take out the garbage.
To the notes.
Jason from Columbus writes: Defense wins championships. Oregon's defense stinks. Do the Buckeyes have to kill them again to prove this?
Ted Miller: First of all, I'm curious: Do Ohio State fans really view the Buckeyes 26-17 Rose Bowl victory as a "kill"? Or is this just a fringe interpretation or a bit of trash talk? In terms of being an actual assessment, it's ridiculous.
Anyway. Oregon may not have a great defense but it has a good defense. It's hard to explain this to people because, well, it requires explaining.
Most folks look at the 339 yards per game the Ducks have surrendered and say, "Neh!"
The first approach for the defense (ha!) is to point out that Oregon's fast-paced offense -- the nation's No. 1 offense in total yards and scoring -- ranks 98th in time of possession and therefore forces its defense to see a lot of plays. That's when a Ducks defender points to yards per play. Oregon gives up 4.58 yards per play, which is better than Penn State, Alabama and Florida, which are each top-20 defenses. But that number isn't really exceptional.
But this number is: 370. That's how many plays the Ducks defense has faced this year. Know how many defenses have faced more? Seven. And all of them rank 82nd or below in total defense, and five are in the 100s. Oregon ranks 52nd in total defense.
So what? It's the Ducks own fault for seeing so many plays. Just make a stop and they wouldn't see 370 plays, right?
Eureka! The Ducks do get stops. They rank ninth in the country in third-down defense. Ohio State, by the way, is 16th.
Oh, and by the way, Oregon's scoring defense ranks 15th in the nation (15 ppg). Keeping teams from scoring is good, right?
Qualifier: All these statistics -- good and bad -- are skewed. We are only five games into the season. And Oregon's defense dominated some terrible teams and hasn't looked great against Pac-10 offenses (557.5 yards per game in two games, including 6.3 yards per play).
Still, the fact that those two Pac-10 foes -- Arizona State and Stanford -- who rank in the top-17 in the nation in total offense could only score one total TD in the second half between them is pretty exceptional.
Arne from A_fop writes: According to the same logic that west coast fans and and the national media used against LSU and Auburn in 03 and 04 (which successfully deprived LSU of the AP title and kept Auburn out of the title picture altogether), Oregon, who played FCS Sacramento State, winless New Mexico, and a lousy Tennessee team, should be excluded from the national title picture because of their terrible nonconference schedule. It isn't their fault that Tennessee has fallen on hard times? Well, the same was true of LSU and Arizona in 03. And if playing an FCS team was supposed to be this horror for a national title contender when it was Auburn in 04, well UO knew that they were going to be very good this year and kept Sacramento State on their schedule anyway. And don't peddle the "UO plays 9 conference games" line. USC only played 8 conference games in 03 and 04, where Auburn and LSU played 9 thanks to the SEC title game. In order to be consistent and not hypocritical, you should take the position that Ohio State is more deserving of the national title game than is Oregon because of the Buckeyes' much tougher OOC slate. And yes, I recall your column from back in the day when you stated that Utah was more deserving of the national title than Auburn in 04 because of their tougher OOC schedule, so the hypocrite would be you personally.
Ted Miller: Wow, there's a lot here. Many tangled strands of argumentation that seemed to be strongly against the Pac-10 blog! What fun. Arne, as many of you know, is a frequent contributor to the comments section. He's not much of a Pac-10 fan, but we welcome all opinions to the Pac-10 blog. And he's clearly a bright, knowledgeable guy.
First of all, Oregon played Portland State, not Sacramento State.
Second, there are two layers to nonconference scheduling: Reality and intention. The reality is scheduling Tennessee or Georgia this year means you got an easy win if you're a decent team. Only no team that scheduled the Volunteers or Bulldogs thought that would be the case. The intention when the game was scheduled was to play a challenging foe. That should be rewarded, just as cowardly scheduling should be penalized. And, by the way, the Vols certainly didn't look lousy at LSU.
In 2003, Auburn was ranked sixth in the preseason poll. Many thought it would be a national title contender, starting with The Sporting News. USC, with quarterback making his first career start, went into frenzied Jordan-Hare Stadium and whipped the Tigers 23-zip. Auburn's SEC offense had 164 yards playing a Pac-10 defense, by the way. The next weekend, the Tigers lost at Georgia Tech. An exposed team thereafter played inconsistently throughout the rest of the season.
In 2004, Auburn tried a different approach to its nonconference scheduling. It played Louisiana-Monroe, The Citadel and Louisiana Tech. That worked wonders. With a clear intention of avoiding tough nonconference foes, Auburn went undefeated.
Connect the dots. It's not difficult. Lots of teams in the SEC, Big 12 and Big Ten have done so and adopted what we should all starting calling the "Auburn in 2004 -- certainly not 2003! -- Approach to Nonconference Scheduling."
Oregon's intentions this year were far different than Auburn's in 2004. Further, Arne, you need to incorporate location into your analysis. The Ducks traveled across the country to a 100,000-plus seat stadium to win at Tennessee. Auburn played all of its nonconference games in 2004 safely at home.
In other words, it's disingenuous to compare the two schedules. Heck, New Mexico went 9-4 in 2007. The Ducks didn't know the Lobos would become an FBS bottom-feeder when the schedule was made.
You compare LSU's trip to Arizona in 2003 to Oregon's trip to Tennessee. Really, Arne? Tennessee won the SEC East in 2007. It went to a bowl game last year. In 2003, the Wildcats were five years removed from their last winning season. They'd won six Pac-10 games over the previous three seasons.
Further, you write: "And don't peddle the 'UO plays 9 conference games' line. USC only played 8 conference games in 03 and 04, where Auburn and LSU played 9 thanks to the SEC title game. In order to be consistent and not hypocritical, you should take the position that Ohio State is more deserving of the national title game than is Oregon because of the Buckeyes' much tougher OOC slate."
I don't get the logic here. Oregon's nine conference games this year shouldn't count in comparison to Ohio State's eight this year because USC played eight conference games in 2003 and 2004? Why would I not peddle that? It's an incredibly strong fact in the Ducks favor, one that the computers in the BCS rankings will certainly recognize.
Despite all this, the Ducks don't automatically jump the Buckeyes in my or any other final poll. If Miami, Iowa, Michigan and Wisconsin are all highly ranked at season's end, despite losses to Ohio State, and the Pac-10 ends up with just a couple of ranked teams, then that will be a huge factor in making a distinction between the potentially unbeaten Buckeyes and Ducks. And the computers also will take note in the BCS standings.
One final question: Please e-mail me the column where I wrote, "Utah was more deserving of the national title than Auburn in 04 because of their tougher OOC schedule." Not sure I understand what you're saying I wrote.
Chuck from Clayton, Calif., writes: Saturday is homecoming for Cal. To Cal fans it's the Joe Roth game. Please mention the website: joeroth12.com. It has everything one would need to know about Joe Roth & why Cal honors him every year. Go Bears!
Ted Miller: Worth a look, whether you are a Cal fan or not. Roth was an exceptional person. It's a sad story that is also inspiring.
Chris from Oregon writes: Every time I open your predictions and see that you've picked the Beavers to upset yet another highly ranked team, my heart sinks. I immediately get out my pool of games for the week and mark the Beavers opposition to win. So far this year I'm 2 for 2. So please Ted, for the sake of all Beaver fans, I beg of you to stop. I don't know how much more our hearts can withstand.
Trevor from Salem, Ore, writes: Ted, can you make me a promise? If UA beats OSU this weekend will you please NEVER pick the Beavs to win a game again? Thanks.
Mike from Milwaukie, Ore., writes: As an Oregon State fan, I am BEGGING you reconsider your picking us over Arizona.BEGGING.PLEADING.It's not too late to say it was a typo and your editor screwed up.
Ted Miller: I remember in 2008 when I darn near got the Beavers to the Rose Bowl by picking against them (almost) every week. But so many Oregon State fans got on my case, I was forced to explain my mystical ways.
Of course, some caught on. But it was too late. The karmic forces rebelled.
I picked Oregon State to beat TCU. Wrong. Boise State. Wrong.
But I got a good feeling this week about the Beavers in Tucson!
So relax.
E-dogg from Bend, Ore., writes: Yo Ted! Good times talking shop with you out in Eugene last Friday night. You made about 10 obsessed college football fans nights..... Most famous celebrity I have seen since I bagged Drew Bledsoe's groceries back in 2005. Oh yea, Go Beavs.....I see you picked them to win again......Thanks a lot for the jinx bro.
Ted Miller: I showed this note to my wife, using my finger to underline "most famous celebrity."
She told me to take out the garbage.
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
