ESPN College Football

We asked which coach you hated most in the Pac-12. You have spoken with much bile. Congrats.

It was sometimes hard to figure out exactly which coach you hated the most in your notes, as many of you listed several coaches. Some of you listed several coaches and provided many details on the sources of your hate.

In total, you named more than 20 different coaches. Even Oregon State's Mike Riley got a vote. So did legendary coach Bill Walsh (Huskies!).

The only sitting Pac-12 coaches to not get a vote? Utah's Kyle Whittingham and Colorado's Jon Embree. Guess you guys don't know them well enough to hate them. Yet.

The race for most hated was far closer than I thought it would be. (And this was hardly scientific because I only used votes that were specific and unambiguous. And I may have skipped over some of the 1,500-word essays).

Your most hated coach? Here's the nip and tuck final tally from the mailbag.

Chip Kelly: 29

Lane Kiffin: 30

Third place went to Rick Neuheisel with 19, though that's misleading because he was mentioned by many of you in some fashion, mostly in the line of, "I used to hate Neuheisel the most but now I hate..."

I was surprised that Washington's Steve Sarkisian got 11 votes, but I guess I shouldn't be because some Cal fans aren't happy with him (Tosh Lupoi, now at Washington after bolting Berkeley, got a bunch of votes but he didn't count because he's an assistant coach).

New Arizona State coach Todd Graham got five votes. New Arizona coach Rich Rodriguez got two. New Washington State coach Mike Leach got three. New UCLA coach Jim Mora got two.

For those who chose to look back, former USC coach Pete Carroll got 10 votes and plenty of mentions. Former Washington coach Tyrone Willingham got two. Former USC coach John McKay and former Washington coach Don James also got a handful of votes.

The most surprising vote -- other than Riley -- was one for former UCLA coach Bob Toledo.

Here are some comments. Obviously, some comments aren't appropriate for a family Pac-12 blog.

Steve from Seattle writes: By far the most hated coach is Chip Kelley. He certainly personifies the Oregon Fans with his snide comments to the media and better than everyone else attitude. Would love to see hard sanction get put on him and his institution!

Jack from Oakton, Va., writes: I cannot stand Chip Kelly. That smug grin he carries around as if he's the smartest guy in the world just makes me want to smack him.

Glenn from Renton, Wash., writes: Most Hated Coaches in the Pac-12: Chip Kelly. He's a smug jerk, but if I was an AD I would hire him in a New York minute.

Doug from Salt Lake City writes: The coach I hate the most is undoubtedly Oregon's Chip Kelly.Yes, he's a fantastic coach among the nation's elite. But he's a total jerk.The last straw for me came last season when, on live TV, he took time out from his postgame interview to scream at his own fans, "shut the hell up!"

Adam from San Francisco writes: Why is this even a question? Lane Kiffin.As for his new recent strides toward "maturity" - if I were a betting man, I'd bet a large portion of my heart, soul, and life savings that we all end up laughing at those statements by the time his tenure at Southern Cal is all said and done

Kent from Davis, Calif., writes: Coaches We Love to Hate: Lane Kiffin. The guy has less credibility and integrity than John Edwards. He's the only person in the world who could have made the late Al Davis look like upright and ethical. How this arrogant, imperious guy keeps getting plum jobs is beyond me but clearly you don't have to produce results on the field but simply keep wearing the "up and coming innovative offensive genius" tag to make it work.

Paul from San Francisco writes: No Pac-12 coach makes my blood boil more than Lane Kiffin. But it's not just his cavalier attitude and inexplicable career climb that drive me over the edge. It's his history against my Ducks. If you include his stint as USC's offensive coordinator from 2005 and 2006, Kiffin is 3-1 against Oregon, including last year's untimely win at Autzen that ended the longest home winning streak in the country. Needless to say, Nov. 3, 2012 has been circled on my calendar ever since

Kevin from San Francisco writes: Pete Carroll. I hate Pete Carroll. Everyone outside of USC hates Pete Carroll. He was classy in interviews, gave the other teams in the Pac 10 respect; in fact called the Pac 10 conference games the toughest part of his schedule. The reason why he is hated is because he was the leader of the most arrogant, abrasive group of fans and players to grace the Pac 10 in the last decade. Everybody is glad we no longer have to listen to Matt Leinart tell us that he doesn't think he's a celebrity, just everyone else in the world does. After every USC game we had to listen to the fans explain that "of course we knew we were going to win, just we thought it be over by the first quarter." And probably the part that irritates me and my Cal brethren the most is that despite a campus culture of a lot of drinking and little studying, students we met from USC always attempted to equate the academics to Cal. They aren't the worst school, but Cal is in another league.

Chris from Othello, Wash., writes: for us Oregon fans (And fans elsewhere in the conference), Rick Newheisel will always be a historical coach to hate. Growing up in the early 90's, I was consistently reminded about how that "New - weasel" in Seattle had consistently and infamously harmed our program throughout his various coaching positions. Even if he tried to turn a leaf while in UCLA, his history was never forgotten in Eugene.

Dee Dee from Portland writes: There is no possible way any coach in the Pac is hated more than Rick Neuheisel. The Weasel is universally abhorred by no fewer than THREE Pac12 fanbases. I don't even think UCLA fans like him that much any longer, and he's an alum. As a matter of fact, opinion on Slick Rick is the ONLY thing that Oregon and Washington fans have in common

Evan from Seattle writes: I must say, Steve Sarkisian is the lowest of low, slimiest of slime. Other than the obvious manner in which he talks, like a fake politician, he has a long list of shameless acts.

Dan from Spokane writes: I hate Steve Sarkisian more than any other Pac-12 coach and it's not just because of his ridiculous adherence to wearing a visor in the rainy northwest. His twitter account is insufferable. "Woof" every time a new recruit commits? Give me a break! He should tweet "whimper" every time the dawgs opponent hangs more than 50 points on them.Go Cougs!

Pete from Missoula, Mont., writes: When Utah first entered the Pac12, I instantly did not like Lane Kiffin. However, when I saw the class of not only him but the USC fans when my beloved Utes played them last year, my hatred shifted a bit. I decided that I need to stick with the hate that I already know. Hating Coach Sark from the Washington Poodles. You see Ted, it is easy to hate something you have hated before. I remember the years of hating Sark as the Team Down South, byWHO quarterback. I will always love to HATE byWHO, even if we do not play them anytime soon after this year. So Ted, this is the reason I hate Sark. It comes very naturally

Tana Vea from Sandy, Utah writes: Most hated coach in the Pac-12. Todd Graham hasn't coached a game yet but I already hate his guts. But I use to hate Chip Kelly, not as much anymore.

Henry from slymar, Calif., writes: Why limit your hating coaches column to head coaches? What about assistant coaches? I hate Tosh Lupoi mainly because he betrayed his alma mater for a boat.

Tim from Austin, Texas writes: Nobody outside of Tucson likes Richy Rod!

Sar from Tacoma, Wash., writes: regarding your request for all-time most hated coach. As a washington fan the answer is easy : 1992 Stanford Cardinal coach Bill Walsh. His well-timed (for him) block to the back of the Huskies football program is what I hold responsible for Don James' departure and a downward spiral to an eventual 0-12 season for the Huskies.

David from Tucson writes: In order to answer which coach I hate the most I have to exclude any and all ASU coaches because, in my humble opinion, that football program is the worst thing to happen to college sports since...ever. So, that being said I'd have to say that I hate Jim Mora the most, and for a purely trivial reason: his smile makes me want to punch babies.

David from Calgary writes: I hate Coach Mike Riley. Only because I was raised a Duck, and he's really like-able. So I hate that I can't hate him.

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

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

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

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

But two departures really stand out.

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

He is the Dawgfather.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

• 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.

---

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

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

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

To the notes.

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

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

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

It wasn't. So that is on Sark.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, a risk.

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

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

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

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

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

Ted Miller: Shane wants answers!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further, Lev points this out:

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

That’s a meaningful number.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tosh-o-palooza?

The Welcome Back &%$##@ Bowl!

Thoughts?

Happy Friday.

Follow me on Twitter.

To the notes!

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

Ted Miller: A fair question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Ted Miller: Unwritten rules in recruiting?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Oregon coach Chip Kelly told Eugene sports radio talk show host Steve Tannen Thursday that he never flip-flopped from the Ducks to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and back again last weekend, as reported in both Tampa and Oregon.

"The only decision I ever made was to not accept the job," Kelly said. "I never changed my mind. I never committed to the job and then flip-flopped."

You can listen to the full interview here.

First, response: Interesting, but it doesn't matter. He's still the Ducks' coach. End of story.

But as far as reading the entrails on this, there are four options you can choose from: 1) Kelly is telling the truth; 2) Kelly is lying; 3) Kelly is splitting hairs; 4) Kelly is shortly going to improve to 35-6 at Oregon and not 1-0 at Tampa Bay -- again, end of story.

Whatever Kelly said on the radio, lots of people believed Sunday night that he was headed to Tampa. It's possible -- and perhaps likely in some way -- that Kelly gave a strong indication to principals on both ends that he was leaning toward Tampa and away from Eugene, but when it came time to put pen to paper he got cold feet, likely considering the spiraling void of darkness that would ensue without regular chats with the Pac-12 blog. "Eeek," he said. "Can't do it."

Yes, no one can prove that Kelly didn't return to Oregon because the Pac-12 blog has very little interaction with the coach of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.

Just as no one can prove that Kelly said "yes" to Tampa before he said "no."

Why is it important whether Kelly flip-flopped or not? In either scenario, he turned down a hefty raise to remain at Oregon. So this flirtation wasn't about contract leverage, and it's reasonable to conclude that money isn't solely driving him. An interesting tidbit from the Eugene Register-Guard:

Kelly pointed out that his decision "obviously wasn't financial, because I turned it down and it was more than I got paid." The Register-Guard has reported that Kelly received a contract extension but that his deal with the Ducks wasn't otherwise dramatically overhauled.

Further, Kelly got to cite a heart-warming reason for returning: "... the relationships I have with the current coaches on our staff and the players was the underlying reason why I came back."

Oregon fans can look at this any way they like, but I'd rate it a win-win for Kelly and Oregon.

The football nation -- NFL and college -- got to see how highly Kelly is held in esteem. Multiple NFL pundits, including former Indianapolis Colts coach Tony Dungy, have said of late that Kelly would be a good NFL coach. Kelly's star, which is already high, just climbed a bit higher. That's good for him, of course, but it's also good for Oregon as long as Kelly is in Eugene.

Some have said Kelly's flirtation would hurt recruiting. They are not only wrong; the opposite is true.

Players respect superstar coaches. Recall that, in his heyday, Florida State's Bobby Bowden used to crush it the final week of recruiting with that last in-home visit. So did Pete Carroll. So does Nick Saban, etc. Oregon fans, not satisfied with winning three consecutive conference titles, want to move up the recruiting rankings. Lots of five-star guys -- in 2012-13 and beyond -- just learned a little bit more about Kelly.

The NFL banging on Kelly's door makes him more of a star, and that will play well in living rooms, much more so than the idea that Kelly might leave for an NFL job at some point.

Further, some have tried to diminish Kelly as a "system" coach. In recruiting, some coaches say that Oregon is a great program but it's not an NFL feeder with pro-style schemes. Well, now there's clear evidence the NFL thinks highly of Kelly and his systems.

The key thing on the Oregon end of things: It will be a huge mistake if the Ducks' top boosters -- Phil Knight, et al. -- want to get grumpy over this. Creating friction to make a point about loyalty or acting wounded will only hasten Kelly's exit. And hurt the program.

The most interesting aspect coming out of this was detailed in this column from George Schroeder: Oregon's potential succession plan would have made offensive coordinator Mark Helfrich the head coach.

Helfrich is highly respected, but I'd always thought he'd have to leave for another job -- and call his own plays -- to escape Kelly's considerable shadow and land a head-coaching gig. Schroeder's column shows that the same folks who quickly and accurately identified Kelly's rising star believe Helfrich is made of the same coaching stuff.

So just as Kelly's star rose this week, and Oregon fans got a huge relief after it stayed in the Eugene sky, so did Helfrich's. Know that more than a few ADs at some AQ schools added his name to their list of coaches to watch.

ESPN's Adam Schefter is reporting the Tampa Bay Buccaneers "have identified Oregon head coach Chip Kelly as the main target of its search for a new head coach and the two sides are involved in active contract discussions."

Schefter reported Kelly "interviewed with the Buccaneers last week and the two sides are aiming to work out a deal within the next 48 hours."

So not a done deal, but obviously this would feel fairly cataclysmic for Ducks fans. The Pac-12 blog was of the mind at the Rose Bowl that Kelly was in for the long term with Oregon.

Couple of quick thoughts.

• Tampa Bay must really want Kelly. Unless there's a negotiated settlement, Kelly's buyout is $3.75 million and he's scheduled to make $3.5 million next year. So we're talking -- conservatively -- $8 million just to get started. Of course, top NFL salaries are $7 million.
• Would Kelly bring a spread-option to the NFL (even though he ran less spread-option last year than ever)? Maybe. It seems the NFL, long staid about what offenses should look like, has become more open-minded of late.
• Some will immediately think Kelly is getting out ahead of NCAA sanctions, see Pete Carroll at USC. That's not my take. The recent scuttlebutt has hinted that the sanctions won't be severe.
• That said: Kelly is a football savant who loves coaching and watching film -- and watching film and coaching. College coaching includes a lot of non-coaching responsibilities, including the NCAA, recruiting and boosters, etc. That has never been Kelly's cup of Joe.

If this happens and Kelly leaves, the name you would hear immediately would be Boise State's Chris Petersen. While his name comes up with just about every major opening, he has strong ties to Oregon. He coached there from 1995-2000. When people talked about jobs that might lure Petersen away from his comfort zone in Boise, Oregon often topped the list.

The Ducks could double his $2 million salary -- and give his assistant coaches huge raises, too.

So stay tuned. As stories go in the Pac-12, this could become a biggie.

The Oregonian reacts here.

And the Eugene Register-Guard.

Other than USC fans celebrating the return of Matt Barkley, there was a lot of sourness in the pre-Christmas mailbag.

You can follow me on Twitter here.

To the notes!

Mark Twinbridges, Mont., writes: Have you read the full NCAA report on the two schools [USC and Ohio State]? I cannot believe you would write such an inane piece if you had read the reports. Comparing the OSU situation to the USC violations is like comparing a dog to a rabid wolf. USC used impermissible benefits to recruit, that strikes at the very heart of NCAA rules. Then the university hindered the investigation at every turn.

Ted Miller: Yes, I have read both reports.

You wrote: "USC used impermissible benefits to recruit." Wrong.

You wrote: "Then the university hindered the investigation at every turn." Wrong.

You made two points. Both were wrong. And if you had read the USC report, or really any news stories about USC's NCAA violations, you would know that.

But I am sorry that you found my story "inane."

Interlude... (insert sigh).

Yes, the mailbag was inundated with angry rants from Ohio State fans this week. It was frustrating. Not because I was repeatedly called names. I've grown to enjoy that part of this job for some perhaps masochistic reason. No, it was because the amount of factually incorrect assertions was mind-numbing. Sure, a lot of it was Buckeyes fans who are of the "my school, wrong or right, I don't care about the truth, I just attack, attack, attack anyone who doesn't subscribe to my worldview" sort of fans. Every team has those, and they are part of the wonderful tapestry of college football.

But what bothered me was the number of seemingly intelligent folks who just don't know what they are talking about. Many of you may recall that some weeks ago, I wrote I was done dealing with the amount of ignorance surrounding USC's case with the NCAA. It was time to move on. I am so sick of writing about USC's NCAA case. I really, really wanted to move on. But, alas, I can not.

---

Jay from San Diego writes: At first I thought your article was meant in a joking manner. Then I realized you were actually being serious. I'm sure some of the people who follow you will eat your "piece" up but it appears blatantly misinformed & devoid of intelligence. The above link regards your article.

Ted Miller: First off, I like Eleven Warriors. Probably one of the best fan blogs out there. I even appreciate a mostly gentle touch while they ripped apart my article.

But here's the problem: The very first line of critique is factually incorrect. "A player getting over $X00,000 in impermissible benefits." No USC player got that. Reggie Bush's parents lived for free in a fancypants house in San Diego provided by would-be agents, but it's a matter of record that extra benefits provided to Bush didn't approach $100,000. A minor distinction? Well, the distinction between player and parent certainly worked out for Auburn and Cam Newton in 2010.

It is correct that I often used "patronizing closed door language." That is because the door is closed. When I wrote "everybody in college sports knows" USC was treated unfairly, it was an overstatement to make a clear point that just about everybody knows this. I've talked to many, many people who have a professional awareness of USC's case. I've talked to people who sat in the room with the NCAA's Committee on Infractions hearing with USC. Everybody thinks USC got screwed, not just USC folks. And, when I've talked to folks who might say differently, I've always been able to easily win the ensuing argument by stating the facts.

I don't intend that to sound arrogant. It's not brilliant rhetorical ability. It's the facts. Let me show you an example of facts.

Eleven Warriors includes this link, which is a comparison done by another Ohio State fan site of Ohio State's case with USC's and others before the NCAA.

Eleven Warriors writes this: "And 'impossible not to conclude Ohio State case was far more severe.'? USC's took four years to complete, largely in part because USC stifled the investigation. Ohio State's was done in under a year."

The link provided by Eleven Warriors, however, includes this: "While the mainstream media has been trying hard to push the 'USC fought the NCAA' meme, it's absolutely not true. USC’s former student athletes, and the agents and representatives therein, may not have worked with the NCAA, but the University absolutely did. That is even expressed (apparently) in the Notice of Allegations, where the NCAA thanked USC for their help and support. In fact, pages 56 and 57 of the NCAA Public Infractions Report."

So ... facts, you know?

How did the "USC didn't cooperate" storyline begin? Well, it likely emerged from a perception of USC's self-defense. USC administrators found it difficult to stomach the idea that they were supposed to know what was going on in San Diego with a player's parents and men who were: 1) unaffiliated with the school; 2) not even actual agents who might be known in the industry.

Yes, USC was not obsequious. Yes, USC, in fact, aggressively defended itself. Yes, USC, in fact, probably hurt it self by actually WINNING THE ARGUMENT.

From the link and written by an Ohio State fan: "For the most part, USC makes a fantastic case regarding the issues that it denied wrong doing..." and, "It is easy to believe that USC got hammered beyond what they deserved."

I'm not going to spend 1,500 words debating the particulars of the Ohio State case. After coach Jim Tressel was sacked, it seemed the sanctions the Buckeyes received were not unreasonable. My point was merely they made the ruling against USC even more unreasonable. And, yes, I think the Ohio State case was worse than USC's, and if you cleared a room of Buckeyes and Trojans fans and asked folks to make a ruling, I suspect they'd agree.

Let me share a story that will annoy USC fans but many will find interesting. During a flight delay last year, I was cornered at an airport by an administrator from a major program outside the Pac-12. He made fun of me as a "USC fanboy" because of my rants against the NCAA ruling against the Trojans. But we started talking. Turned out he agreed with just about all my points. (He just didn't like USC.)

He told me, after some small talk and off-the-record, that "everybody" thought USC got screwed. He said that he thought the NCAA was trying to scare everyone with the ruling, but subsequent major violations cases put it in a pickle.

Then he told me that USC was punished for its "USC-ness," that while many teams had closed down access -- to media, to fans, etc. -- USC under Pete Carroll was completely open, and that was widely resented. There was a widespread belief the national media fawned on USC because of this. Further, more than a few schools thought that the presence of big-time celebrities, such as Snoop Dogg and Will Ferrell, at practices and at games constituted an unfair recruiting advantage for the Trojans.

It wasn't against the rules, but everyone hated it. This, as he assessed his own smell test, was a subtext of the so-called atmosphere of noncompliance that the NCAA referred to -- an atmosphere that oddly yielded very few instances of noncompliance around the football program even after a four-year NCAA investigation.

But you'll note that Snoop and Will are no longer hanging around USC, which now has strict access guidelines.

Another point people keeping making to me: USC's case involved three sports and involved a lack of institutional control. That is not an invalid point, but this is the Pac-12 football blog. It doesn't cover basketball or tennis. And the violations connected to the basketball recruitment of O.J. Mayo shouldn't have, say, cost USC an extra 15 football scholarships. That's not how the process works, based on NCAA policy.

Anyway. The pointlessness of debating moot points was supposed to be the gist of my original column. What's done is done; all this is academic. Some Ohio State fans will read this and go, "Oh, interesting." But many others will simply go, "Idiot." And that's fine.

But, Buckeyes fans, would it help if I just wished you a Merry Christmas?

---

Josh from Fairbury, Neb., writes: Hey Ted, big news for USC with Matt Barkley returning for his senior season. It's a little early, but how do you see the Heisman award situation panning out next year in the Pac-12? I've personally always considered Barkley to as good (if not better) than Andrew Luck. Who else from the Pac-12 conference might be a Heisman hopeful for 2012?

Ted Miller: Barkley is No. 1. If I were to crown a No. 2, it would be Oregon's do-everything offensive weapon De'Anthony Thomas.

It's entirely possible the player who wins the Trojans-Ducks matchup next fall will be headed to New York as a result.

---

Brian from Kent, Wash., writes: I am trying to find the Pac-12 record book for all passing stats and seeing how close Matt Barkley is to shattering all of them, can you help me out?

Ted Miller: Barkley set the Pac-12 single-season record for TD passes this year with 39, breaking Matt Leinart's mark of 38 set for USC in 2003.

Barkley has 80 career TD passes. He needs 20 in 2012 to break Leinart's conference record of 99 -- which is 14 more than anyone else before him.

Barkley has 9,054 career passing yards. He needs to throw for 2,765 yards to eclipse Carson Palmer's conference record of 11,818.

In other words, unless Barkley gets hurt, he's going to own just about every major career conference passing record by season's end.

---

Darryl from Oakland writes: I understand the "rah rah" aspect of the SEC, but in reality, shouldn't the USC Trojans be considered the #1 team in the country in the preseason polls for 2012?

Ted Miller: USC likely will get some No. 1 votes but my guess is LSU will be the preseason No. 1. The Tigers' defense has a chance to be even better in 2012 than this year.

And, yes, though it's preposterously early to project, an LSU-USC matchup would be great fun on many levels, including the "rivalry" that was based on LSU finishing No. 2 behind USC in 2003.

Ha! I know at least one head just exploded in Baton Rouge. Some might say that was a split national title.

---

Garen from Los Angeles writes: Dear Mr. Miller, For the last several years I have dealt with very difficult times in both my professional and personal life. Its hard to find the words to describe how much your blog has meant to me during these times, but it has become much more than just news and entertainment. Day after day, year after year, your blog has provided me with a constant source of escape and relief, and I cant begin to thank you enough for that. I look forward to reading your blog on a daily basis. Than you again for the wonderful job that you do. Happy Holidays and Go Bears!

Ted Miller: Thanks, Garen. You made my day.

The mailbag often highlights people who call the Pac-12 blog names, notes that typically are countered with snarky replies.

But with Christmas coming up this weekend, why not have a nice note to wind things up?

USC, which finished this season 10-2 and ranked No. 5, will have 19 starters returning in 2012 including both specialists and a guy by the name of Matt Barkley.

The Trojans welcome back their top rusher, top three receivers, four starting offensive lineman and a guy by the name of Matt Barkley.

Also back in 2012: The Trojans' top four tacklers. And five of their top six. And a first-team All-Pac-12 kicker. And a guy by the name of Matt Barkley.

The Trojans looked like a preseason top-10 team a month ago. They looked like the preseason Pac-12 South Division favorites. But when Barkley announced Thursday, "I have not yet finished my journey as a Trojan football player," it sent a shockwave across the college football landscape.

Remember that little girl staring at the TV snow in "Poltergeist"? All together now: "They're baaaaack!"

Barkley makes USC a national title contender. Barkley makes things around Heritage Hall feel like it's 2002-2008 all over again. Barkley means Trojans fans can stop thinking about the injustice it suffered when the NCAA whacked it with severe sanctions and start dreaming of BCS bowls again.

Just FYI: Miami on Jan. 7, 2013. What happened the last time the Trojans played in South Florida with big stakes?

Ah, the Oregon fans have just arrived. To borrow a phrase: Not so fast, my friend.

The Ducks are the three-time defending Pac-12 champions. They've got a whole bunch of key guys coming back in 2012, too. They, too, are a certain top-10 team, perhaps top-five. They will be the overwhelming favorites to win the North Division.

Both have highly favorable schedules. USC's nonconference schedule: Hawaii (with head coach Norm Chow!), at Syracuse and Notre Dame. Oregon's is, well, pitiful: Arkansas State, Fresno State and Tennessee Tech.

Oh, then there is this little date for both in LA next year. The Pac-12 schedules aren't official yet, but the conference confirmed to the Pac-12 blog that USC and Oregon will play in the Coliseum next fall. That regular-season game, not hard to project as a matchup of top-five teams, very likely could lead to a rematch in the Pac-12 title game, which could be a gateway to the national title game for the winner.

Ducks and Trojans: Feel free to talk amongst yourselves.

Meanwhile, Barkley, by passing up a chance to be a top-10 NFL draft pick as Matt Leinart and Andrew Luck did before him, immediately established himself as the leading 2012 Heisman Trophy candidate. His status as front-runner is only slightly less firm than Luck's was last year when he announced a shocking return.

And that point -- thump -- should provide a speed bump of moderation for our foray into admittedly hysterical hyperbole about Barkley and USC. Just about every time you try to write a college football season's story before it plays out, you end up being wrong.

Preseason predictions can be completely off: Oklahoma was the consensus preseason No. 1 this year. Or they can be slightly off: Luck and the overwhelming Heisman favorite in August. Or they can fall just short in the end: USC as the best team in college football history in 2005.

Or, then again, sometimes they are spot-on: USC in 2004 was preseason No. 1 as well as the postseason national champion.

Still, while grand scenarios are merely reasonably conceived potential endings for something that is a year away and laden with unforeseen variables, there is no downside on this day for USC. In fact, it spiderwebs positives throughout the program, from making the future at QB more secure, to bolstering the present recruiting effort, to getting USC fans excited and reinvested again, ready to fill up the Coliseum next fall.

By the way, USC folks aren't the only ones smiling. Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott is grinning ear-to-ear. He sees another bright, articulate Heisman Trophy candidate who conducts himself with class acting as the face of the conference, as Luck did this past fall. He sees two big ticket national title contenders in 2012, just as the conference's new TV contract kicks in. He's got broadcast partners -- ESPN and Fox -- as well as a new Pac-12 Network that are going to be thrilled that the conference's ratings-driving bell cow is back under the klieg lights in LA.

Toss in four new, high-profile coaches, and there are plenty of sexy story lines for the Pac-12 in 2012.

The week started with USC fans slapping their foreheads over Ohio State's middling NCAA sanctions for severe infractions. It was a frustrating reminder of the seeming cosmic forces that conspired to end the USC dynasty, including Pete Carroll skipping town back to the NFL.

But the week ends with an early Christmas gift for USC. Matt Barkley telling it, "I am staying because I want to finish what I started."

Yes, college football fans across the country pricked up their ears Thursday and thought, "Drat. I hear those darn "Tribute To Troy" drums again."

It's long been one of the difficult questions college football fans ask: Why won't anyone give Norm Chow a chance to run a program?

Chow, widely considered one of the best offensive minds in college football history, got plenty of interviews, most notably of late at Stanford in 2005, and made plenty of "candidates" lists during the annual coaching carousel. He also turned down the head coaching job at Kentucky in 2002 to remain at USC. But, in reputation and reality, he was the perennial bridesmaid.

You'd hear things, of course. All the why-nots. He wasn't terribly good at interviews. He was an Xs-and-Os guy who didn't have people or management skills. Most schools wanted a dashing, young, charismatic guy who could slap backs, enticing a flood of elite recruits and booster checks. Chow was never reputed to be much of a recruiter, something he doesn't particularly enjoy.

Chow, 65, is professorial. His personality isn't "big." He's not a commanding presence. He also is stubborn, territorial and not terribly good at coaching politics. He holds grudges — just ask Washington coach Steve Sarkisian and USC coach Lane Kiffin, whom Chow -- not unfairly -- believes pulled the carpet out from under him at USC with head coach Pete Carroll. (Carroll's almost childish jealousy of the credit given Chow during USC's glory days is another story entirely).

It also was perfectly fair to wonder if Chow's being Asian-American had anything to do with the critiques and whispers. His hiring at Hawaii, after all, makes him the first Asian-American head coach of a major football program.

First. That's pretty big, folks, even if most FBS rosters have little to no Asian presence, though if you go with that old standard "Asian/Pacific Islander" category, things change dramatically there.

Not only is Chow, after 39 years as an assistant coach, finally getting his shot as a head coach, he's going home to do it. He was born in Honolulu and is a Punahou School alum. He began his coaching career as head coach at Waialua High School on the North Shore of Oahu from 1970-72. This seems like a good fit, though coaching at Hawaii has built-in challenges, starting with geography.

Chow will serve as Utah's offensive coordinator in the Hyundai Sun Bowl against Georgia Tech on Dec. 31 before officially taking over the Warriors. For the Utes, it's a blow, but not a crippling one. Coach Kyle Whittingham brought Chow aboard to install a pro-style offense with a downhill running game, replacing the spread the Utes had long used. After quarterback Jordan Wynn went down in the fourth game against Washington with another shoulder injury, Chow's chief task was managing an extremely conservative, almost run-exclusive offense that didn't mess things up for a very good defense.

Chow did a good job of making running back John White into an effective weapon even when everyone knew he and his 24 carries a game were coming. But the Utes never got the full Chow offense. The expectation here is that Whittingham will look for a guy who believes in the same pro-style, run-first concepts. The Utes don't figure to go back to a spread, though that does seem to be the thing in the Pac-12 after the hiring of four new coaches who all run a version of it.

Utes fans should be more concerned about who's going to play quarterback in 2012. Whittingham is going to make a good hire at OC.

And this day is about Chow.

He's a three-time national assistant coach of the year. He's served as offensive coordinator for three national championship teams (Brigham Young, 1984; USC, 2003 and 2004). He has tutored three Heisman Trophy winners (Ty Detmer, BYU; Carson Palmer, USC; Matt Leinart, USC) and six NFL first-round draft picks.

His resume has always been impressive. Just not impressive enough to overcome the things whispered about him.

Over the past decade, he's been portrayed as a bit of a nomadic mercenary, but keep in mind he was a bastion of stability most of his career, coaching at BYU for 27 years before things turned sour and he bolted to N.C. State in 2000, the first of five jobs he'd hold over the next 11 seasons before landing at Hawaii.

Chow is coming home to get his big chance. No matter what happens at Hawaii, his coaching legacy is secure. But, let's face it, if he retires a big winner in 10 years, he'll surely enjoy at least thinking "I told you so" through a big grin.

Jim L. Mora, a two-time NFL head coach with almost no college experience, is UCLA's new football coach, according to ESPNLosAngeles.com.

And UCLA made the official announcement a short time later.

Mora, 50, is currently an analyst for the NFL Network. He was fired from his last coaching job -- a single season with the Seattle Seahawks in 2009 -- after going 5-11. His only college coaching experience? He was a graduate assistant in 1984 at Washington, where he played from 1980-83.

Are Bruins fans going to immediately embrace this hire with buzzing enthusiasm? Probably not, particularly after Arizona and Washington State made splashier hires with Rich Rodriguez and Mike Leach.

I like how ESPN LA's Peter Yoon describes things here:

True, Mora isn’t exactly the splashy, big-name hire many UCLA fans were hoping to land, but there are reasons to believe his hire makes a lot of sense.

First, he has no UCLA ties in his past. Second, he is a defensive-minded coach. Third, he has no noteworthy experience as a college coach.

That bucks the trend of the past three UCLA coaches who are seen as the holy triumvirate of mediocrity. Bob Toledo, Karl Dorrell and Neuheisel were all Bruins assistants at some point before they became head coach; Dorrell and Neuheisel were UCLA players.

Before joining Seattle, Mora served as head coach of the Atlanta Falcons from 2004-2006. In his first season with Atlanta, the Falcons went 11-5 and made it to the NFC championship game. His teams went 8-8 and 7-9 the next two seasons and he was fired. But keep in mind, he was dealing with QB Michael Vick -- a stellar talent with a terrible work ethic and attitude at that time, something Vick has owned up to after he got out of jail.

A former Washington Husky reserve who played for Don James, Mora is a defensive guy with a strong resume working with secondaries.

That last part should be encouraging for Bruins fans. His area of specialization is stopping the pass. There, you might have heard, is a lot of throwing in these parts.

Mora also has the potential to be a charismatic recruiter. The parallel UCLA folks are surely thinking of -- whether they want to or not -- is USC's hire of Pete Carroll in 2001. Carroll had little college experience and was generally thought of as a mediocre-to-bad NFL head coach. Just about everyone panned his hire and mocked then-athletic director Mike Garrett's bumbling coaching search (which was a true comedy of errors and sloppiness).

Trojans fans eventually changed their feelings. There's a possibility that Mora will do the same.

"As someone who has been around the game of football my entire life, I have always held the UCLA job in the highest esteem," Mora said in a statement. "Given its location and its tradition, UCLA is truly a sleeping giant and I realize that an opportunity of this magnitude doesn't present itself more than once in a career, so I jumped at the chance to be a Bruin."

It's fair to say Mora was the Bruins' third choice. Boise State's Chris Petersen and Miami coach Al Golden both rejected previous entreaties.

I know UCLA fans don't always appreciate using USC as a measuring stick, but, again, Carroll was the Trojans fourth choice after an 18-day search. He was widely seen as a lightweight.

So this is an outside-of-the-box hire. At the very least, skeptical Bruins fans can grab hold of that.

Further, it's worth noting that a massively negative reaction would serve no useful purpose for the program. In fact, 11 other Pac-12 programs are likely poised to print out such reactions and use them against the Bruins in recruiting.

Meanwhile, the Bruins will play Illinois in the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl on Dec. 31 with interim coach Mike Johnson, who took over after Rick Neuheisel was fired two weeks ago.

Here's the LA Times on the Mora hiring.

The LA Daily News.

And the Orange County Register.

While the bowl games were big news over the weekend, UCLA and Arizona State continue to look for new head coaches.

Here's some skinny.

At UCLA, ESPN LA's Peter Yoon reported that interim head coach Mike Johnson would like to be considered for the job. Here's his update on other candidates:

UCLA has been turned down by Boise State coach Chris Petersen, according to a source with knowledge of the discussions, and eliminated Houston coach Kevin Sumlin as a candidate after meeting with him on Saturday, according to a source. Al Golden of Miami is considered the next top target, though Golden recently signed a four-year contract extension at Miami.

There's some chatter out there about former Atlanta Falcons and Seattle Seahawks coach Jim Mora, Jr. My take: That would be a good hire. While things went badly for Mora in Seattle, let's recall that he was the first choice to replace Tyrone Willingham at Washington. He's a charismatic guy with an NFL sensibility that would translate well at UCLA. Recall that the last time a team in LA hired a charismatic guy with an NFL sensibility who had folks scratching their heads turned out OK.

Here's Jon Gold's take in the LA Daily News.

Sources have said that UCLA athletic director Dan Guerrero, who met with Sumlin in Houston on Saturday, is essentially rebooting the search and at this point, there are no clear-cut favorites. Miami head coach Al Golden, whom Guerrero interviewed for the job during the post-Karl Dorrell vacancy, is among the candidates, along with SMU head coach June Jones. Sources indicated on Saturday that there was minimal interest in former Oregon head coach Mike Bellotti.

UCLA has been the sort of job that more than a few folks thought might lure Bellotti back into coaching. But it doesn't seem, at least at this point, that he's high on the Bruins' list.

Meanwhile, at Arizona State, it appears that Sumlin might not be completely out of the picture, but that SMU coach June Jones' name is front-and-center at present. Still, there are plenty of other names in the rumor swirl. Writes Doug Haller:

Arizona State officials on Saturday met with SMU coach June Jones for more than three hours in Texas.

A report surfaced Sunday that ASU was in position to announce Jones' hire shortly after the university learned of its bowl destination. That wasn't true. According to a source, the Jones push slowed Sunday night. That doesn't mean it's over, but it could be an indication that ASU is having second thoughts.

Sources confirmed Sunday that Southern Miss coach Larry Fedora is still in the mix. Baylor coach Art Briles has emerged as a candidate.

I continue to hear ASU likes Oregon offensive coordinator Mark Helfrich.

Also, despite reports that ASU has backed off Sumlin, he still could be in play, especially if Texas A&M goes another direction in its quest to replace fired coach Mike Sherman.

In other words, neither coach search has moved -- at least according to reports -- decisively in one direction.

So stay tuned.

The 2011 season was much like Dennis Erickson's tenure at Arizona State: fast start, then mediocrity and disappointment.

Erickson went 10-3 in his first season, but even that was a mirage of sorts, a product of a forgiving schedule. Some forget that the Sun Devils lost three of their final five games by an average of 16.7 points.

The Sun Devils started this season 6-2, posting quality wins over Missouri and USC. They were nationally ranked and 10 wins seemed likely with a forgiving schedule ahead. They seemed certain to win the Pac-12 South Division title.

But then the wheels came off. They lost their last four games, and now Erickson is out of a job.

Erickson's final record at Arizona State, which is 31-30 at present, will be determined after the Sun Devils' bowl game. Erickson, 64, opted to bow out gracefully, coaching the team he put together one last time.

"I will always cherish my memories here," he said in statement.

There was some conjecture that this would become a retirement instead of a termination for Erickson. Reached by phone Monday, Erickson said he has no plans to retire.

"Yeah, I'd like to coach again," he said. "I'm not done coaching. You know that. I'd certainly like to. It's just a matter of opportunity, of course."

Erickson also said there were no hard feelings between him and Arizona State administrators. He said he had "great respect" for athletic director Lisa Love and school president Michael Crow.

"We talked about it and they made the decision," Erickson said. "That's kind of how it is. The last part of the season didn't help us."

Of course, he doesn't walk away empty-handed. Under contract for another year, he will receive half of his $1.5 million annual salary.

What went wrong this year? The easy answer is defense. During the four-game losing streak, the Sun Devils yielded 37 points per game. During the 6-2 start, they gave up 21.5 ppg.

But it has to be more than that. Arizona State started the season riddled with injuries, but it won despite them. The team that started losing was healthier than the team that started fast. Of the final four losses, only California comes close to having the athletic talent the Sun Devils have. Something went wrong in the team's collective head. Something yielded. The chemistry and unity that were cited as hallmarks of the Sun Devils' senior-heavy locker room during the successful early going somehow cracked.

Defensive tackle Bo Moos told the Arizona Republic's Doug Haller this after the Arizona loss. "We have a group of 30 seniors. You should expect it to be there, but something within the chemistry hasn't been right for the past month and I really cannot put my finger on what it is."

While Arizona State will play in its first bowl game since 2007, the Sun Devils need to win to eclipse .500 for the first time since that season. That's not what folks expected when Erickson was hired. Say what you want about his nomadic ways, he was a guy with a proven track record of winning at the college level. While Erickson's NFL coaching career was a wash, he was successful at every college stop. This is the first time he's been fired from a college job.

Erickson won a national title with Miami in 1989, a Fiesta Bowl at Oregon State in 2000 and was 148-65-1 (.695) in 18 seasons before arriving in Tempe. He posted nine-win seasons at five different schools. He is one of only three people (USC's Pete Carroll and Washington's Don James) to win Pac-10 coach of the year three times.

Erickson's legacy is on solid ground no matter what he does next. While he has a roguish reputation with some folks, he's been an open, accessible guy who almost always went for optimism and rarely dumped on his players, even when they probably deserved it.

As for what's next for Arizona State, it's definitely going to be a competitive market to find a new coach, with firings across the country dotting the blotter. It's unlikely the Sun Devils will secure a sexy prospect for what Erickson was making, and the school is notorious for paying assistant coaches poorly. Further, Sun Devils fans will at least want to match the positive buzz generated by hated rival Arizona, which hired Rich Rodriguez to replace Mike Stoops.

The first name everyone is saying: Houston's Kevin Sumlin. Two problems with that: 1. get in line; 2. the Cougars are likely going to a BCS bowl game, which means Sumlin won't be available until after Jan. 1. That could put a strong recruiting haul assembled by Erickson at risk.

The Pac-12 blog will throw out a name that's also been buzzing a lot of places: former Texas Tech coach Mike Leach. His pass-happy, spread offense is nearly identical to what the Sun Devils have been running the past two years under offensive coordinator Noel Mazzone.

Leach comes with baggage, but Arizona State is a big-city program that must compete with pro sports for attention. So Leach's attention-grabbing ways probably would be more of a positive than a headache.

Whoever gets the job will inherit a solid core of talent, including a promising quarterback in Brock Osweiler. The next coach also might give serious consideration to retaining Mazzone, who's done a fantastic job transforming an anemic offense in two years.

It's been a schizophrenic season in Tempe. Erickson started the year on the hot seat, but with a team that looked like the South Division favorites. Through eight games, they played like it.

Then things went splat.

Talk to 10 people and you'll get 10 different explanations on why things never worked out under Erickson, this season or the three after the promising debut in 2007.

But as far as divorces go, this certainly isn't the worst. Erickson doesn't walk away significantly diminished. And the next Sun Devils coach has a chance to win immediately.

Of course, Arizona State has been called a sleeping giant for years. Will the next guy finally wake Sparky up?

If Lane Kiffin keeps this up, he's in danger of becoming "coach Lane Kiffin," not "Lane @#%$@ Kiffin" or "%&@# Kiffin" or just "@#$%@," for short.

You say "Lane Kiffin" to a college football fan -- a football fan, really -- and you get many reactions. Most of the bad. Dude has some baggage. He's best known for off-field controversies in large part because he's not done much -- good or even bad -- on the field.

Off the field? Well, take your pick of controversies. Kiffin was involved in a coup at USC that led to legendary offensive coordinator Norm Chow getting pushed aside. Kiffin fell afoul of team owner Al Davis as the Oakland Raiders coach and was fired after 20 games. At Tennessee, he trashed talked most of the league, infuriating commissioner Mike Slive, got in trouble with the NCAA and bolted after just a single season for USC.

This is old news, of course. And Kiffin has mostly behaved and avoided controversy at USC.

But we were left with an important question: Can he coach?

An 8-5 finish in 2010 didn't reveal much. It was adequate but hardly impressive. A 7-3 start was greeted by mostly positive reviews, then he lost consecutive games to Notre Dame and Oregon State.

So that was the question in 2011. Hate Kiffin. Love Kiffin. But, again, can he coach?

The 38-35 win at Oregon on Saturday hinted that, yes, he can. That he might be growing into the job. That he's matured as a leader and motivator. At 9-2 and ranked 10th in the AP Poll as well as the ESPN.com Power Rankings, he's a win over rival UCLA away from what would unquestionably be considered a successful season: a "true" South Division championship, 10 wins, a top-10 ranking, a win over top-five team (Oregon) and wins over rivals Notre Dame and UCLA.

There's always been some substance to the Kiffin dislike, even beyond the off-field issues. For one, more than a few folks saw him as born with a silver coaching spoon in his mouth, a guy had successfully conned his way into big-time jobs before he deserved them or was ready.

When he got hired at USC in 2001, three years after graduating Fresno State, he'd never been a position coach -- anywhere. He got the job because his dad, Monte Kiffin, was Pete Carroll's defensive mentor. Four years after arriving, Chow was pushed aside for him -- just in time for Kiffin to coach the 2005 Trojans, one of the most talented offenses in college football history. After two seasons, at age 31, he was hired by the Raiders.

When that didn't work out he immediately got hired by Tennessee, an SEC power. One year later, he took over USC, among the top-five programs in the nation. All that after going 5-15 (Raiders) and 7-6 (Tennessee).

The point is there wasn't much you could finger to justify why so many seemingly smart people kept hiring Kiffin.

Until Saturday in Eugene, though the performance at Notre Dame in a 31-17 win was pretty darn good, too.

The Trojans had effective plans on both sides of the ball against the Ducks, which got them a 38-14 lead. Sure, Oregon stormed back but Oregon does that. And, sure, if that 37-yard field goal to tie the game on the final play of regulation had been good, most money would have been on the Ducks in overtime.

Details and what might have beens. The W is what matters.

With no hope for a conference or national title or even the postseason, Kiffin has the Trojans playing their best football. They started slowly against a weak schedule but have steadily improved. He's kept the team motivated and focused, even though he's got plenty of underclassmen eyeballing the NFL.

Now, of course, comes the tough part: Losing 30 scholarships over three years will challenge the Trojans as they try to remain competitive at the top of the conference. We'll see how Kiffin and USC weather circumstances that would try Bear Bryant.

Still, Kiffin has started to push back against his critics with evidence of his skill. All the snarking about his past is backgrounded by his present, by what he created last weekend and this season.

But, Lane, make sure you take care of UCLA on Saturday. Don't make me come back next week with a "Never Mind."

In 2006, Stanford was irrelevant in college football. When it lost 42-0 to USC on Nov. 4, the only angle of interest was the Trojans bouncing back after a 32-game regular-season winning streak ended at Oregon State the week before.

The Cardinal would finish 1-11, and coach Walt Harris got the boot. Enter Jim Harbaugh.

Suffice it to say that the USC-Stanford rivalry, which the Trojans had dominated under Pete Carroll, last losing in 2001, would ramp up in intensity. Roles shortly would reverse. And, best of all, it also would get a heck of a lot more colorful.

In 2007, USC was ranked No. 2 in the nation when Stanford came to the Coliseum, where the Trojans had won 35 consecutive games. They were a 41-point favorite against the lowly Cardinal, which was forced to start backup quarterback Tavita Pritchard because starter T.C. Ostrander had suffered a seizure in a restaurant just days before.

But Pritchard threw a 10-yard touchdown pass on fourth-and-goal with 49 seconds remaining, giving Stanford a 24-23 victory, one of the monumental upsets in college football history.

The Trojans again rolled over Stanford in 2008, 45-23. They went on to win the Rose Bowl -- again -- and Stanford finished with a losing record for a seventh consecutive season. The planets had realigned, right?

Ah, but that wasn't the deal, was it? Harbaugh's Cardinal transformed in 2009, with Toby Gerhart and a power running attack and a young quarterback by the name of Andrew Luck. That team went to the Coliseum and scored 27 fourth-quarter points, transforming a seven-point game into a 55-21 blowout. And with 6:47 left and the Cardinal up 17, Harbaugh elected to go for two. Why?

"I just honestly thought there was an opportunity coming off the ball, the way our backs were running and the way we were playing," Harbaugh said after the game.

In other words: Because we could.

That reality is what Lane Kiffin inherited when he replaced Carroll. It wasn't the same as from 2001 to 2006, when he was a Trojans assistant and Stanford was a foe that offered little resistance.

"It obviously has changed a lot and balanced back out, which was very different from when we were here a year before," Kiffin said.

Before last year's game, the way Stanford had won -- running up the score -- was a big issue. Kiffin saw it on film, for one. And, yes, everyone asked about it, reminding him of the testy handshake between Carroll and Harbaugh that's best remembered for Carroll asking Harbaugh, "What's your deal?" But that celebrated exchange mostly falls on Carroll's being disgruntled. What's not often noted is how before meeting Carroll at midfield, Harbaugh pointedly made fun of the Trojans as they quickly scampered up the Coliseum tunnel. "Look at them all running in! Look at them all running in!" he said to himself -- and to a large TV camera just in front of him.

New Stanford coach David Shaw was the Cardinal's offensive coordinator for that game. He's previously cited that game as his favorite example of his program's physical style. And there is plenty of insider scuttlebutt that Shaw, although far more polished than the rough-around-the-edges Harbaugh, enjoys pounding opponents as much as Harbaugh did. Still, Shaw waves away an opportunity to recall the fourth-quarter thinking in 2009.

"That was a long time ago. That was what it was," he said. "We've all moved on since then. We had a heck of a game last year that was nip-and-tuck."

That's true. Last year's game was a back-and-forth thriller. USC took a one-point lead with 1:08 left on a 3-yard TD run from Allen Bradford, but Luck and the Cardinal drove for the winning 30-yard field goal on the game's last play for a 37-35 win. Luck and USC QB Matt Barkley each threw three TD passes with no interceptions, while Trojans receiver Robert Woods stole top billing with 12 receptions for 224 yards and two scores.

That well-played game sets the stage for Saturday, when the unbeaten, sixth-ranked Cardinal try to keep their national title hopes alive against the 6-1 Trojans, who are ranked 20th in the Associated Press poll. Other than Harbaugh, all the actors who played starring roles are back.

Of course, the role reversal is unmistakable. USC used to be the team hunting conference and national championships as well as Heisman trophies. Now the Trojans can only be spoilers -- they are ineligible for the postseason because of NCAA sanctions -- and Stanford is the team producing Heisman Trophy candidates. USC's motivation won't be the same as Stanford's.

"It is different from everyone we're playing, having their hopes and dreams taken away from them," Kiffin said of his players' motivations.

Stanford's fifth-year seniors were around for the 2007 game, and their fourth-year players went 5-7 in 2008. They also all know what it's like not to play in the postseason. They've also watched as USC has gone from the nation's most feared program to one they've eclipsed, winning three of the past four in the series.

Is there special emotion this week? Has this rivalry heated up?

"I don't know if it's become a heated rivalry more than any other," Shaw said.

Maybe. But Stanford has high hopes and national title dreams. Those used to dance in the Trojans' heads.

Here's a guess that Kiffin and USC would relish an opportunity to deal those a crushing blow and then to watch the Cardinal scamper up the Coliseum tunnel with their heads down.