ESPN College Football

After a year's hiatus, the Rose Bowl is back to its traditional self: A Pac-12-Big Ten matchup.

And it looks like a good matchup of good teams with contrasting styles.

Sounds like a good time for a blog debate!

Ted Miller: Well, Brian, we’re back to a traditional Pac-12-Big Ten Granddaddy and it looks like a good one: Midwest power versus West Coast flash. I’m a little surprised that Oregon is favored against Montee Ball, Russell Wilson and that mammoth group of biscuit and gravy eaters you call an offensive line. Give me an idea of what the Ducks are up against with the Badgers' offense. Is it all power football, or is it more sophisticated than that?

Brian Bennett: You'd better believe the Badgers have the baddest bunch of big uglies in college football, with an offensive line that outweighs many NFL units. Add in a couple of good tight ends, a senior fullback and Wisconsin's dedication to the ground game and you can see why the program has been one of the best running teams in the country for several years now. But it's not just all brute. The thing that makes these linemen stand out is that they are nimble and can really move, and I think many defenses are shocked by that combination of strength and athleticism early in games. Wilson has also given this team an entirely new dimension with his ability to make plays on the move and his outstanding accuracy. Opponents have no choice but to respect the run when playing Wisconsin, and that makes this offense the most dangerous play-action team in America. You'll see receivers getting huge cushions in the passing game, and Ball can break tackles even when the box is loaded.

That's why the Badgers average 44.6 points per game, just a tick below Oregon's 46.2 average. My question for you is, can the Ducks' defense handle this kind of offensive power, especially in a 3-4 scheme?

Ted Miller: Oooooo. I’m telling Chip Kelly that you said the Ducks run a 3-4! He hates that. No idea why. Coordinator Nick Aliotti will tell you that the Ducks throw a lot of stunts and looks -- 3-4, 4-3, 2-5, etc -- and crazy stuff at you. They are fast, underrated and bigger than many think. Their top four defensive tackles, who are in a regular rotation, weigh 321, 300, 283 and 286 pounds.

Oregon has faced big, powerful teams before. Stanford and USC the past two years, in conference, and Auburn and LSU out of conference. Forgotten in the talk about how Auburn and LSU slowed down the Ducks' offense is how the Ducks' defense slowed down both sets of Tigers. Oregon outgained LSU 372-273 but was done in by four horrible turnovers. The Ducks held Auburn and Cam Newton to 22 points, its second-lowest total of the season.

Sure, Oregon’s defense ranks 59th in the nation in total yards while Wisconsin ranks eighth. But they yield similar numbers on yards per play: Oregon 4.93, Wisconsin 4.85. And the Ducks are slightly better on third down. Oregon’s defense’s biggest problem is its offense, which scores a lot of points despite ranking LAST in the nation in time of possession. The Badgers' defense, with an offense that ranks 22nd in time of possession, only faced 786 plays this year. Oregon faced 1,005. That skews numbers.

Wait. Did I get all stats-y there? Sorry. My answer to the size question is what Oregon will say leading up to the Rose Bowl. It’s nothing new for them. They play their game, run their stunts, use their speed and see what happens. Stanford, which has two first-round NFL draft choices on its O-line, would be the most natural comparison with the Badgers. And for two years in a row, no team has played good enough defense to beat the Cardinal and Andrew Luck other than Oregon.

While Badgers fans expect Whisky to run over the Ducks with size -- Big Ten thinking! -- Ducks fans believe they can exploit the Badgers' defense with speed and misdirection -- Pac-12 thinking! What about some Brian Bennett thinking: Do the Badgers have the speed on defense to keep up with the Ducks? Is Bret Bielema going to use past blueprints to thwart Kelly?

(Read full post)

While many eyes will be on the national championship game -- the LSU-Alabama rematch -- it's possible the Pac-12 will produce two more entertaining bowl games.

Here's how we rank the Pac-12 bowl games.

1. Tostitos Fiesta Bowl (Jan. 2): Oklahoma State (11-1) vs. Stanford (11-1). If you gave LSU or Alabama one of these two QBs, the national title game would no longer only be about defense. This will be college football's goodbye to Andrew Luck, while Oklahoma State and Brandon Weeden will want to make a simple statement: We should have played for the national title. This feels like a game that is certain to go into the fourth quarter.

2. Rose Bowl Game (Jan. 2): Oregon (11-2) vs. Wisconsin (11-2). Two high-powered offenses. One that spreads you out and overcomes you with tempo and speed. One that lines up and plays smashmouth football, at least until flashy QB Russell Wilson arrived in Madison. Oregon has lost two BCS bowl games in a row, so the Ducks need to win to make a firm claim to a spot in the nation's elite. Wisconsin sort of feels the same way -- the Badgers lost here last year to TCU, if you recall.

3. Valero Alamo (Dec. 29): Baylor (9-3) vs. Washington (7-5). It appears Baylor will feature the Heisman Trophy winner: QB Robert Griffin III. Or RG3, for short. Both teams have plenty of offense and neither will scare you on defense. If there are fewer than 75 points on the board, we'll be surprised.

4.Bridgepoint Education Holiday (Dec. 28): Cal (7-5) vs. Texas (7-5). How can a matchup of 7-5 teams be a good one? Well, there's a rivalry angle here for Cal fans who have tenaciously remembered that Texas coach Mack Brown lobbied in 2004 for a Rose Bowl berth at the Bears' expense. For the Old Blues this is a chance at vindication. And both of these teams could use some positive offseason momentum.

5. Hyundai Sun (Dec. 31): Georgia Tech (8-4) vs. Utah (7-5). It will be interesting to see how Georgia Tech's option attack does against a tough Utah defense.

6. MAACO Las Vegas (Dec. 22): Boise State (11-1) vs. Arizona State (6-6). This is a sad way to end the career of Boise State QB Kellen Moore. One of the great QBs in college football history is going out, not in the BCS bowl he deserved, but in the Las Vegas Bowl against a team that collapsed and fired its coach. I'd rate the Sun Devils' chances here only slightly above zero.

7. Kraft Fight Hunger (Dec. 31): Illinois (6-6) vs. UCLA (6-7). You have two interim coaches because both teams fired their head coach. You have a certainty that one team will end the season with a losing record. You have one team riding a six-game losing streak. You have another that lost its final regular season game 50-zip to its archrival and needed a waiver from the NCAA to even be here. If you are watching this game on New Year's Eve, you are in need of some fairly strong New Year's resolutions about, you know, getting a life.

We'll find out bowl matchups for sure later today, but ESPN.com's Mark Schlabach and Brad Edwards have posted their final bowl projections.

Here's how they see the Pac-12 ending up.

Rose Bowl Game presented by Vizio: Both have Oregon and Wisconsin because that's the game.
Tostitos Fiesta Bowl: Both have Oklahoma State and Stanford
Valero Alamo: Both have Washington playing Oklahoma.
Bridgepoint Education Holiday: Both have California playing Texas.
Hyundai Sun: Both have Utah playing Georgia Tech.
MAACO Las Vegas: Schlabach has Arizona State playing Boise State. Edwards has the Sun Devils playing TCU.
Kraft Fight Hunger: Schlabach has UCLA playing Illinois. Edwards has the Bruins playing Iowa State

Cal fans: Any comments on playing Texas? Any feelings about Longhorns coach Mack Brown you want to express? Refresh our memory of 2004.

There's also an obvious angle for UCLA vs. Illinois.

What we now know: Oregon will play Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl.

I love that matchup, by the way. Two teams that were just outside the national title discussion with tons of offensive star power who do things differently.

Then what?

Stanford is likely headed to the Fiesta Bowl. But who will it play? It looked like the winner of the Oklahoma-Oklahoma State game until the Cowboys opened up a can of whup-butt in a 44-10 beatdown of their rival Sooners.

Now Alabama adherents are scurrying around telling folks not to do what their eyes and brains are saying to do: Put Oklahoma State opposite LSU, the most dominant No. 1 team of the BCS area, in the national title game and see what happens.

But that's another fight (and, yeah, if I were a coach, I'd rather play the Cowboys than the Crimson Tide).

The Pac-12 issue is if the Cowboys get promoted, who might play opposite Stanford? Likely the No. 2 team in the Big 12: Kansas State.

But there is a potential fly in the ointment, well-described here by Jon Wilner.

However, there is a remote chance that Stanford could get knocked out of the BCS. As the No. 4 team in the BCS standings, the Cardinal would be guaranteed a berth in all scenarios except one — the one that could become reality Sunday.

If Oklahoma State jumps Alabama, then the Crimson Tide would fall into the No. 3 spot and receive BCS protection as an at-large team.

In that case, Stanford would not be guaranteed a berth, and the Fiesta, under the letter of the BCS law, could invite someone else (best bet: Michigan). But would it? It seems highly unlikely that the Fiesta would pass on the No. 4 team in order to take a team ranked 8-10 spots lower. Never in the 13-year history of the BCS has the No. 4 team been left out.

Wilner also points out that the Fiesta Bowl's new executive director, Robert Shelton, is a Stanford graduate.

So let's assume a bowl that needs to do the right thing does so -- prioritizing merit -- and picks Stanford. Then with those two spots secure -- and the extra $6 million-plus it means for the conference -- there's the trickle down.

Washington is likely headed to the Alamo Bowl against an uncertain Big 12 opponent. First, we need to know what happens with Oklahoma State. Potential foes include Oklahoma, Baylor or Kansas State.

Then our guess is California goes to the Holiday Bowl (selected over Utah because they have the same conference record and Cal beat the Utes head-to-head). The Bears could face Baylor, Oklahoma or even Missouri or Iowa State.

Utah heads to the Sun Bowl (vs. Georgia Tech?), Arizona State goes to Las Vegas for Dennis Erickson's last game (TCU if it doesn't get a bounced into a BCS at-large berth, or Boise State if it does), and UCLA -- armed with its NCAA bowl waiver for a 6-7 record -- gets an invite to the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl against ... hmm... Illinois? Wyoming?

There would be an obvious angle, of course, for a UCLA-Illinois matchup.

We'll, of course, have more later on the bowls. I assume you knew that, though.

It now appears that the Pac-12 will produce two BCS bowl teams and two empty bowl contracts.

I don't expect UCLA to ask the Pac-12 to apply for a bowl waiver if the Bruins finish 6-7 after a loss Friday at Oregon in the Pac-12 title game. The Bruins are almost certain to be looking for a new coach. It would be extremely awkward to deal with that during bowl preparations. Further, a likely trip to the Bay Area for the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl would be expensive. Probably not worth the, er, glory.

And I'm not sure the waiver would get rubber stamped, anyway. There will be more deserving teams available for the Kraft and New Mexico bowls. Heck, 10 Big Ten teams are bowl eligible.

By the way, expect some tough matchups. If Oklahoma loses to Oklahoma State this weekend, the Sooners are a likely foe for Washington in the Alamo Bowl. Arizona State, with or without Dennis Erickson, probably would get TCU in Las Vegas.

Rose Bowl Game: Oregon vs. Big Ten
Tostitos Fiesta Bowl: Stanford vs. Big 12
Valero Alamo: Washington vs. Big 12
Bridgepoint Education Holiday: California vs. Big 12
Hyundai Sun: Utah vs. ACC
MAACO Las Vegas: Arizona State vs. Mountain West
Kraft Fight Hunger: No team vs. ACC or Army
Gildan New Mexico: No team vs. Mountain West

Dr. Saturday takes a look at Oregon's 53-30 win against Stanford, and makes a great point about how good the Ducks' defense was against Andrew Luck and the Cardinal, even though it gave up 30 points.

Writes Matt Hinton:

It wasn't just Stanford's worst offensive effort of the season: It was arguably the worst in nearly three full seasons with Andrew Luck as starting quarterback. Thirty points points marked the Cardinal's lowest-scoring game in two years; their output in terms of total yards (372), rushing yards (133) and yards per play (4.9) marked new lows in any game Luck has started in his career. The best-protected quarterback in America was sacked three times, a career high, hit a dozen more and forced into three turnovers — yes, another career high.

In other words, Oregon did what SEC folks believe an "SEC defense" would do to Luck and the Cardinal.

Because folks almost always think offense when the Ducks come up -- and not unreasonably -- and then promptly talk about that offense getting contained by elite foes with extra time to prepare, it's notable that the Ducks' defense has distinguished itself on those same big stages when the offense has been deemed to have fallen short. Consider:

• In last season's national title game, the Ducks held Auburn to 22 points, the Tigers lowest total since the second game of the season. Lower than the Tigers scored against Alabama and LSU, by the way.
• While LSU's 40 points suggests offensive success in this year's opener, the Tigers only gained 273 yards against the Ducks.
• Remember how bad the Ducks' offense looked in a 19-8 loss at Boise State to open the 2009 season? Well, guess how many times Boise State has scored just 19 points at home since then? That would be zero times. In fact, the Broncos' only point total lower than 19 since then came in the Fiesta Bowl that season -- a 17-10 win against TCU and its widely celebrated defense.
• The Ducks' defense could be termed middling in the 26-17 Rose Bowl loss to Ohio State after the 2009 season, but let's keep in mind that was the best game mercurial Buckeyes quarterback Terrelle Pryor played in his career. And, you might recall, some of his big plays were, er, a bit fortunate.

The point is this. Oregon plays good defense and has for a while.

That said, Ducks fans must know that their program won't get its due credit until Chip Kelly and company win a BCS bowl game. That's just how things go.

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.

Happy Friday.

Anyone else eager to end the worst offseason in the history of college football and start talking about games again?

Thought so.

Follow me on Twitter.

To the notes.

Roger from Oregon writes: I am a high school student in Oregon. It has really been bothering me how many columnists are calling out Darron Thomas and his leadership. I know that he has been in the car on three separate occasions were citations, as well as marijuana were involved. How does this make him a bad leader? At my school, a high school not a university, smoking weed is commonplace. While I don't smoke, most of my friends and about 75% of male athletes do, yet they are still able to be leaders on the football field, basketball court, etc. Maybe weed is taboo for all these old journalists, but in my opinion Darron Thomas is a leader (have you seen him stay in the pocket and take a big hit). His toughness and incredible play make him a leader on the field, I honestly don't care how he spends his time off the field (as long as nobody gets hurt).

Ted Miller: Here's the chief problem with marijuana and high-profile people smoking it: It's against the law, so getting caught with it brings bad publicity.

For a sports team, that could mean said team loses a player to suspension, which would make the team worse than before the player passed the dutchie on the left hand side. So players on a team that smoke the wacky weed, put their team at risk of being less good. Some, including me, would call that selfish.

Does it makes sense that one can legally purchase grain alcohol but not marijuana? Do people lose arguments when they are asked to explain why marijuana is illegal? These are questions the Pac-12 blog will not answer because they lead us on tangents away from the football field.

But I will write on leadership. It's more than taking charge of the huddle. It's more than showing infectious poise when the pressure is on. Or popping up with a confident smirk after a hard hit. We've seen all that from Thomas and we surely will see more of it.

But let's imagine a couple of scenarios.

We are in a car with Thomas and safety Eddie Pleasant in 2008. Pleasant decides to race his car with someone. Instead of what actually happened, this happens.

Thomas: Slow down. This is stupid.

Pleasant: Don't be lame!

Thomas: Being lame is us getting arrested and letting our teammates, coaches and fans down. And racing a car on public roads is a stupid thing immature people do. It's low-rent. So cut the crap before I whup you.

Now we are watching Thomas as he's about to get into a car with cornerback Cliff Harris in June.

Thomas: Cliff. Cliff, look at me.

Harris: Whaaa?

Thomas: Cliff, you do a lot of stupid things. When I am with you, you will not do stupid things. I am not demented enough to think of all the potential stupid things you might do on our drive back to Eugene. But my singular task at this moment in time is to make sure you don't get us in trouble. That means: No speeding. That means: No substances that could get us in trouble will pass within 25 feet of this car.

Harris: Whaaa?

Thomas: Cliff. Cliff, look at me. I am not asking you. I am not presenting an opinion. I am telling you how this ride will be. Nothing means more to me than beating LSU and making Coach Kelly and the Duck nation proud. I particularly want to do more interviews with the Pac-12 blog.

Harris: Yeah, he's cool!

Thomas: Yes, he is. But focus Cliff. Focus. Do you hear me? Speed limit, no illicit substances. Right?

Harris: Gosh, good idea. I can't wait to pick off Jordan Jefferson.

Thomas: Yes, I can't believe Les Miles thought he would be a great quarterback but saw me as just an athlete. Going make that fool eat grass.

Harris: Yeah! By the way, I just finished "Gravity's Rainbow." You were right. It was Pynchon's densest novel, but very rewarding to a patient read.

Now, if Thomas, however he might have accomplished it, had convinced Harris not to drive 118 mph nor allowed anyone to smoke weed in that car, would Ducks fans be celebrating his leadership?

No, because they wouldn't know about it. This embarrassing story wouldn't exist.

And Oregon's chances of beating LSU and winning a national title would be better.

---

Nick from San Luis Obispo, Calif., writes: Whats your take on the whole players being paid idea? All the ex coaches were on today saying how its a wonderful idea to give players a cost of living expense of $3,000 to $4,000 depending on the school. They also said that this should only be for sports that bring in the money. (men's football and basketball)My reaction is how is this far? Not all schools can afford to give scholarship athletes extra $ giving the ones who can an unfair advantage in recruiting. Also what about all the other sports? Isn't the whole idea of giving extra money to a athlete is so they can live comfortably? (extra spending money for clothes and other food then the cafe) Why is it that only football and basketball players need extra money?

Ted Miller: I agree with a lot of athletic directors: Scholarships should cover full cost of attendance. And I also believe they should be given to every scholarship athlete. Why? Because you can't do it any other way and still be in compliance with Title IX.

You are correct, though. Most schools outside of AQ conferences would be hard-pressed to pay that added expense. That's an issue.

As for why football and men's basketball players believe they should be paid and other college athletes should not? Well, that reasoning is simple. Football and men's basketball make millions every year. And every other sport runs a deficit, many substantial deficits.

---

Pat from So. Cal writes: In my effort to get any type of response Teddy I've decided to ask you one question everyday until I make the mailbag. For my SECOND question, on this inaugural day of questioning: do you think the university presidents at the largest, most influential schools, across conferences, will get together at some point and begin the process of detaching themselves from the NCAA??? The system doesn't work and we can all yell until we're red in the face but the simple fact remains, there needs to be some sort of governance going on in college REVENUE PRODUCING SPORTS, and it's clear the NCAA has failed its member institutions and that they aren't the right organization.

Ted Miller: There is an undercurrent of feeling that the big football conferences might break away from the NCAA, particularly when we get further consolidation in "super-conferences," which seems inevitable.

That's one reason the NCAA is talking massive reform. We shall see.

What should the NCAA do? Here are a few ideas:

• Full cost of attendance scholarships.
• Assigning an NCAA staffer -- not a university employee -- to each school to act as a head of compliance. If something happens that doesn't cross his desk, it's a major violation.
• A rule that the NCAA's marketing budget shall not exceed what it spends on enforcement. More investigators with good salaries, fewer "We're the NCAA and we're awesome!" commercials.
• An outside team of legal experts -- unaffiliated with universities -- to man an Infractions Committee.
• A streamlining of rules, eliminating many of the piddly, secondary violations.
• An outline of specific consequences for breaking specific rules.
• An understanding that relying on precedent is critical to fairness (that you can't just randomly, say, hammer USC because you're tired of reading about how dominant it is).

---

Ben from Salt Lake City writes: Can we think about a possible future for a minute? Let's pretend that Utah somehow goes undefeated this year and wins the BCS National Championship game. Then let's assume that next year, both Utah and TCU go undefeated and play each other in the BCS National Championship game. If that ridiculously crazy scenario were to happen, do you think that the media that clings to the idea that the "week in and week out of Non-AQ's is too weak to get them to the NC Game" would go out the window? Do you think it would validate other top Non-AQ teams that have proven themselves like Boise State or BYU? Or do you think that the 100+ year old bias of college football is protected no matter what happens?

Ted Miller: Are you asking if a pattern is established of non-AQ teams going undefeated and winning national championships, will that win over the media?

Yes.

That said: This is Boise State's schedule. This is LSU's schedule.

Anyone saying that an unbeaten Boise State team in 2011 should play for the national championship over a once-beaten LSU team would -- and should -- get laughed out of the room.

Let's not give Boise State or TCU a free pass, either. Both programs are outstanding and worthy of elite rankings, but they also both work the angles to manufacture great records. Neither has adopted the old Bobby Bowden at Florida State "anywhere, anytime" scheduling philosophy.

If either said "we'll go anywhere to play and won't insist on a home-and-home series," we'd see them be able to schedule two or three high-quality games with AQ conferences foes every year.

And, I suspect, we'd see fewer undefeated seasons.

By the way, Utah is now a member of the Pac-12 family. It's in the club, drinking single malt in the beach-front penthouse with UCLA Oregon, Stanford and the rest of the gang.

---

Rob from San Jose writes: I am wondering how I missed your Post-spring Power Rankings. I thought for sure Cal would be ahead of UCLA; Cal beat UCLA in 2010 and it was not close. Cal has a proven defense (even with three good starters gone), but you think UCLA's defense "will arrive". Could you do a pre-season opener power rankings to see what has changed. ASU has had some bad luck with injuries and some schools have had academic ineligibility concerns. Since Cal's Maynard is QB, Sofele and Deboskie-Johnson have established 1-2 at RB; I am wondering where Cal would rank now?

Ted Miller: And UCLA beat Oregon State, which beat Cal 35-7. Those same Beavers also beat USC 36-7 and USC beat Cal 48-14.

So Cal gets crushed by UCLA if you selectively use the transitive property.

I got to watch UCLA practice this spring and came away impressed, at least with the defense. Cal had closed practices, so I didn't get to see the Bears. Further, most of what I read wasn't terribly good about the Bears in the spring -- injuries and poor execution.

You do make a good point: Cal fans should feel better today about quarterback and running back.

Still, I sort of have a hunch about the Bruins -- one that, if they lose at Houston to open the season, I will quickly disavow.

---

Peter from Salt Lake City writes: A little disappointed in your all pro pac-12 team to see an exclusion of Utes other than Jordan Gross. Steve Smith, Paul Soliai(franchise tag), Sean Smith, Eric Weddle(highest paid safety in the league), and Sione Pouha certainly could have been considered. However, Weddle and Soliai definitely should have been on the list.

Ted Miller: Peter, my honest answer is that I am not as familiar with Utah's past players as I am with the old Pac-10 guys.

Further, as I wrote: "... I racked my brain for exactly 17 minutes and came up with an All-Pac-12 NFL team (Pac-12 fans, I did this quickly, so feel free to chime in your opinions)."

I was being slack and didn't want to spend hours researching the "perfect" guy at every position. But you are correct: Weddle and Soliai would have been good names on the list.

---

Ben from Centerville, Utah writes: As a lifelong fan of the Utes, I have greatly enjoyed your blog and anticipate reading it from here on out. Question for you: I can't take the suspense. I anticipate that no Utes will make the top 25 list. Is that right? Are there REALLY no Utes in the top 25? I find it difficult to believe.

Ted Miller: No, no player from Utah nor Oregon State made the top-25. From Utah, I considered offensive tackle Tony Bergstrom, quarterback Jordan Wynn and linebacker Chaz Walker.

With 12 teams, a 25-player list is pretty select. My typical reply to a query like this -- and there are lots of them -- is not to ask who from Utah you believe should be on the list but who you would knock off.

And, yes, there probably is some bias against Utah due to playing a Mountain West schedule last season. Wynn's numbers are comparable to Washington State quarterback Jeff Tuel, but Tuel put up his numbers against a far tougher schedule (nonconference game with Oklahoma State, too). And the 6-foot-3, 220-pound Tuel is probably a better NFL prospect due to superior arm strength.

Put it this way: Pac-10 defensive freshman of the year Junior Onyeali is not on the list. Two players who had five interceptions last season, safeties Nate Fellner of Washington and John Boyett of Oregon, are not on the list. Colorado guard Ryan Miller, a potential first-round NFL draft pick, is not on the list.

A lot of really good players are not on the list. Just the way one person's opinion worked out.

And, by the way, the list almost certainly will be much different when we re-do it after the season.

---

Huy Tran from Eugene writes: If you ever compile a list of your favorite "pump-up" videos throughout the Pac-12 this season, please consider ours. I know there's a million out there, but we've worked long and tirelessly and thought you'd might enjoy it (from an unbiased view, of course).

Ted Miller: Does anyone at Oregon not make football videos?

No team has more questions in the Pac-12 than Oregon State. But an answer could be found on Oct. 9.

That's when quarterback Ryan Katz threw for 393 yards and two touchdowns and ran for another score as the Beavers upset then-No. 9 Arizona 29-27 in Tucson. It was one of the best performances by a Pac-10 quarterback all season.

It also was the Beavers second consecutive victory as they swept the Arizona schools. Know which other teams in the Pac-10 beat both Arizona and Arizona State? Oregon, Stanford and USC. And the Beavers beat USC, too.

There was a lot of hope for the 2010 season then, even though the Beavers had dropped competitive games to TCU and Boise State. But there was also this: James Rodgers watching the final two quarters on crutches on the sidelines.

Before he blew out his knee, Rodgers had caught seven passes for 102 yards with a 33-yard touchdown. He and Katz were playing beautiful music together. But without Rodgers, the Beavers never were consistent again, stumbling to a 2-5 finish and 5-7 final mark, which included oddly impressive wins over California and USC by a combined count of 71-14.

While Beavers have big questions on both lines, injuries are the most nagging issue, chief among them being Rodgers and tight end/half back Joe Halahuni (shoulder).

What Katz knows -- or thinks he knows -- about the 2011 Beavers is this: If the wounds heal, a lot of questions will be answered.

"That's the big thing, getting all those guys on the field at the same time," he said.

Katz, a 6-foot-1, 214-pound junior with perhaps the strongest arm in a conference of strong arms, himself missed spring practice with a wrist injury. But he said he is "100 percent, no problems. It's felt good for three months."

Rodgers has been "running well" -- said Katz -- but there's still no firm timeline on when he could return to full-go action. Halahuni figures to miss the first two weeks of the season, including a trip to Wisconsin.

Further, camp hasn't been good to the injury list, with defensive tackle Kevin Frahm suffering a knee sprain that will sideline him at least a couple of weeks and impressive true freshman receiver Brandin Cooks spraining his ankle. Linebacker Cameron Collins is still recovering from abdominal surgery and has yet to practice.

All these questions have engendered lower expectations than usual in Corvallis -- at least from fans and media. Katz is aware of this but unfazed by it.

"A lot of people have their opinion about us and whether we are ranked, but we have our own opinion on this team," he said.

Katz noted four returning starters, including three seniors, on the offensive line, a maligned unit he said he thinks is "getting the message." He noted that receiver Markus Wheaton and Jordan Bishop are looking good.

Questions, sure. Katz -- just like coach Mike Riley -- acknowledges they are there. But he sees potential answers, too. What if the Beavers can rediscover that team from Oct. 9 in Tucson?

Said Katz, "Guys know what we can do if we are all healthy and all clicking."

The big story in college football heading into this season is change. The conferences are dramatically different heading into 2011 than they were just a year ago.

Of course, we're talking about expansion -- and contraction in some cases -- which the Pac-12 was on the forefront of because, well, the conference was the Pac-10 last year and thereby changed more than anyone else.

The Big Ten, which was once 11 teams, is now a 12-team league with the addition of Nebraska. And still it's called the Big Ten.

The Big 12, which was once a 12 teams, is now a 10-team league with the subtraction of Nebraska and Colorado. And is still called the Big 12.

This, of course, is bat-pooh stupid, but perhaps counting is an overrated skill.

The Mountain West now features Boise State, late of the WAC. BYU, spurned by the expanding Pac-10, took its football and bolted the Mountain West to become an Independent. TCU will bolt the Mountain West for the Big East next fall.

The Pac-12 -- new owner of 12 teams; thus the new moniker -- added Colorado of the Big 12 and Utah of the Mountain West and then signed the biggest TV contract in the history of the universe. The college football universe, at least.

But you know all of this. The question going forward is how expansion makes the Pac-12 better, other than revenue.

And by better we mean on the field. We mean winning national titles, which the conference hasn't done since USC won two in a row from 2003-04.

Do all these changes -- within the conference and, tangentially, outside the conference -- bring the Pac-12 close to hoisting the crystal football, the BCS championship trophy?

The short answer is maybe.

Because it is now a 12-team league, the conference has split into North and South Divisions and will play a championship game. Nine of 13 BCS titles have been won by 12-team leagues that played a championship game.

Of course, seven of those are from the SEC and none from the ACC in its 12-team configuration (Florida State won in 1999 when the ACC had nine teams; Miami won in 2001 as a member of the Big East).

So 12 teams has been dandy for the SEC. Not so much for the ACC, an academically elite conference that better compares to the Pac-12.

What a 12-team league with a title game does do is present an extra opportunity for a team to distinguish itself. If the nation is comparing unbeaten or 1-loss teams for one of the top-2 spots in the BCS standings, a victory in the title game over a highly rated conference foe from the opposite division could bolster a Pac-12 team's chances.

Or, an unbeaten or 1-loss Pac-12 team could faceplant in the title game and end up not playing in any BCS bowl at all, as a, say, 3- or 4-loss Pac-12 team goes to the Rose Bowl as a upset winner.

Further, the Pac-12 is continuing to play a nine-game conference schedule even though that no longer provides a true round-robin format. That ensures the conference will hand deliver itself an extra six losses every season, losses the SEC, ACC and Big Ten (until 2017), which play eight-game conference schedules, will not be burdened with.

The nine-game conference schedule not only severely damages the Pac-12's national title hopes, it also lowers the annual number of bowl-eligible teams.

On the other hand, if the Pac-12 features a number of ranked teams -- say five or six -- and a champion emerges unbeaten or with one defeat, it should stand in good stead in the BCS standings.

So, again, the answer is maybe.

The newly expanded Pac-12 might have a better shot at winning a national title than the old Pac-10 did. And it also might not.

But you know what the real secret will be?

Recruiting good players and coaching 'em up. That would really help the Pac-12's chances.

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:

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?

Every team has hope heading into the offseason. And every team has concerns.

Ergo, we're going to run through the conference and look at the chief matters -- on the up and downside -- for each Pac-12 team.

Next up:

Utah

Biggest reason for hope: The program knows how to win.

The biggest preseason story for Utah's first go-round in the Pac-12 won't be about individual players or player groups. It will be about how well the Utes will do in their first experience competing in an AQ conference, where the depth of talent should be superior to the Mountain West. So forget about Utah's overall talent and positions of strength and concern for a moment, though the Utes' 31 NFL draft picks since 2000 speak for themselves. Utah is a well-coached team that has won 33 games over the past three years as well as two BCS bowl games since 2004. How many teams can match that? This is a confident program that won't be awed by Pac-12 membership. And for good reason: The Utes own bowl victories against Georgia Tech, Alabama, California and Pittsburgh in recent years. In the regular season, they've bounced Michigan, Oregon State, UCLA, Louisville, Arizona, Oregon and Texas A&M. My impression of the Utes during a spring visit is they mostly are amused by the notion they'll get humbled in Pac-12 play. They seemed genuinely baffled by the idea. That confidence borne of having done it before matters.

Biggest reason for concern: Is the secondary ready for a steady diet of NFL quarterbacks?

Utah faced some good quarterbacks last season: TCU's Andy Dalton, San Diego State's Ryan Lindley and Boise State's Kellen Moore. But that troika doesn't match the overall talent and sophistication the Utes will face in 2011, even though their schedule includes misses of Stanford and quarterback Andrew Luck and Oregon and quarterback Darron Thomas (at least, until a potential date in the Pac-12 title game). Toss in receivers such as Arizona's Juron Criner, USC's Robert Woods, Washington State's Marquess Wilson, Washington's Jermaine Kearse, California's Keenan Allen and Oregon State's James Rodgers (cross your fingers, Beavers fans), and the Utes' pass defense will be stressed this fall far beyond what it faced in 2010. Further, Utah is replacing all four starters from a secondary that ranked 88th in the nation in pass efficiency defense -- or ninth in the Pac-10. (Lindley completed 36 of 54 passes for a career-high 528 yards and four touchdowns in a 38-34 defeat to the Utes; Dalton completed 21 of 26 for 355 yards and three TDs in a 47-7 win; Moore was 28 of 38 for 339 yards and two TDs in a 26-3 win). The preliminary returns on the secondary from spring practices were hopeful: There's nice young talent across the board. But if you're looking for an area where the Utes will most feel an uptick in competition in the Pac-12, it's defending sophisticated passing games led by future NFL quarterbacks on a week-to-week basis.

It's been a year of big stories in the Pac-12, starting with expansion and continuing with Oregon falling just short of the program's first national title.

The biggest story this spring? Again, it didn't happen on the field. It happened in the boardroom: It was announced on Wednesday that the conference had signed the richest TV contract in college sports history, one that will pay the conference an average of $250 million annually over the next 12 years.

That monumental announcement came after all the spring games had been played. But what happened on the field?

" Three schools entered spring practices with intrigue at quarterback, and only one emerged with few answers: UCLA, where a battle remains among Kevin Prince, who missed spring practice with a knee injury, Richard Brehaut and true freshman Brett Hundley.

There's no such indecision at Washington, which went so far as to announce Keith Price as its No. 1 quarterback over Nick Montana. California provided no such announcement, but Zach Maynard emerged as a clear leader over Brock Mansion and Allan Bridgford.

Oregon and Stanford have no such quarterback issues, and they began spring practices as the clear leaders in the conference based on what they did last season and what they have coming back. Both figure to be ranked in the national preseason top 10, perhaps in the top five. Both will play next fall in the conference's North Division, which means at least one can't play for the Pac-12 championship.

"Everybody on the West Coast knows that you have to beat Oregon if you want to do anything out here," Stanford quarterback Andrew Luck said.

" Big questions for Oregon and Stanford: The Ducks have issues on their offensive line, the Cardinal on their defensive line.

" Luck is playing for the only new coach in the old Pac-10. David Shaw replaces Jim Harbaugh, who bolted for the San Francisco 49ers. One session of spring practices won't be enough to reveal the big-picture meaning of that transition, particularly with Shaw continuing to hold closed practices.

"There will be subtle differences," Shaw said. "But the biggest thing is the mentality is not going to change. We played with an attitude, a mentality, a certain amount of toughness and physicality. That's not going to change. Coach Harbaugh and I are different personalities. But when it comes down to it, we are ball coaches who believe in tough, hard-nosed, physical football. We believe that's what's going to win and what Stanford football should be known for."

" As for the two new teams, Colorado and Utah, the Buffaloes fired Dan Hawkins and hired Jon Embree, who led a physically demanding spring session intended to show his players that a new sheriff was in town. But the transition from the Big 12 to the Pac-12 doesn't figure to be too dramatic, other than giving fans much better road trips. Over in Salt Lake City, Utes coach Kyle Whittingham considered the transition from the non-automatic-qualifying Mountain West Conference to the Pac-12, which will be an interesting measuring stick in the fall.

"The week-in and week-out level of competition is ratcheted up," Whittingham said. "There are some excellent football teams in the Mountain West Conference -- TCU last year. Not to downplay or disrespect anything that's going on in the Mountain West, but we're convinced the weekly challenges will be much more difficult than they have been in years past for us."

" A big change at Utah? The arrival of offensive coordinator Norm Chow after he fell out of favor at UCLA. But that didn't yield much fruit for the Utes this spring, in large part because quarterback Jordan Wynn was sidelined with a shoulder injury.

" Injuries were an issue on many campuses. USC, for one, was missing 12 players from its two-deep depth chart for all or some of the spring. Still, the Trojans might have lucked out. Arizona, Arizona State, Oregon State and UCLA saw injuries to their potential starting players that will jeopardize all or at least a portion of their 2011 seasons. The Beavers, for example, don't know whether receiver James Rodgers will be able to play after a serious knee injury last fall.

" On the noninjury, off-the-field side: Oregon's potential starting middle linebacker, Kiko Alonso, who was projected to replace Casey Matthews, was suspended indefinitely after he was arrested the day after the spring game. It's his second suspension in as many seasons.

Ultimately, every team heads into the offseason with the same hopeful mindset.

Said Luck, "The mindset is still very, very hungry. The price never decreases in football."

SALT LAKE CITY -- Ohio State-Michigan? Whatever. Auburn-Alabama? That's a quaint bit of hate. Oregon-Washington? The ranting and raving from the rain-soaked adherents in green and purple fleece just doesn't compare.

To what, you ask? Well, the hottest rivalry in college football, of course.

Utah-Colorado! (Cue "Psycho" shower scene music).

Doesn't do it for ya does it?

Think about your college football conference. Every game matters, but some matter just a bit more. Those are your rivals. You don't like them; they don't like you. It's a beautiful thing.

Now consider Utah and Colorado fans. The Utes, who are leaving the Mountain West for the Pac-12, are still under contract with arch-rival BYU for the next two seasons, but there are no guarantees that game will continue to be played annually (though the good money says it will). The Buffaloes, who are leaving the Big 12 for the Pac-12, no longer will play arch-rival Nebraska, which is skipping off to the Big Ten.

Their new schedules include nine conference games with teams that, well, they just don't have any strong feelings about.

"I'm sure we can conjure up some kind of hate for [Colorado]," Utah's colorful offensive tackle Tony Bergstrom said. "Tell us they're Communists or something."

Tony, they are Communists.

Expansion isn't a regular thing. Oh, the Southwest Conference got picked apart in 1996, and the ACC raided the Big East in 2004-05, but when teams jump from conference to conference -- particularly when automatic qualifying conferences are involved -- it sends strange ripples across sport's space-time continuum. The Buffaloes and Utes in the Pac-12 is a new thing in a sport that leans hard on its history to fuel the emotions of obsessive fandom.

You can't force the Utes and Buffaloes to hate each other. That's not how it's done. Confessed Utah linebacker Brian Blechen, "I don't have anything against Colorado."

So what must be done? Obviously, some Pac-12 team must commit a grave offense against Utah or Colorado. This, of course, will be mostly imagined, thereby making it easier to attribute it mythic status over the coming years.

"Invariably, something is going to happen in those games, and School X is going to be the school that you point to," Colorado coach Jon Embree said.

Embree also has been selling to his players that they are a part of program history because they, in fact, are making program history.

"Coach Embree said in the locker room that we get to start new traditions, we get to start new rivalries," Buffaloes quarterback Tyler Hansen said. "That's something to look forward to. Ten years from now, if the Colorado-Utah game is a big rivalry, we can say, 'Hey, we were the first game. We started that rivalry.' That could be something special."

There are potential angles for Utah-Colorado hate. Nebraska was all about red. Colorado fans therefore are not big fans of red. Utah is all about red, too. And everyone knows that Utah fans are jealous of the vastly superior skiing in Colorado. Or is it vice versa?

On perhaps a more substantive level, Colorado is entering the Pac-12 as an equal member -- in 2012, per the original agreement -- while Utah will get no payout from the conference in 2011 (other than an equal share of revenue from the Pac-12 championship game), and partial shares for the two years after that (50 percent in 2012 and 75 percent in 2013). There is some "all are equal but some are more equal than others" at play here.

While the Buffaloes have been a mediocre team of late in the Big 12, and the Utes are a national power coming out of the MWC, there's still a bias that favors the AQ team. When Utah -- or TCU or Boise State, for that matter -- was making one of its undefeated runs over the past few seasons, some dismissed it with a, "They wouldn't be able to do that in the SEC/Pac-10/Big Ten/Big 12."

"Coming from the Mountain West, I think a lot of people are going to be look at how we transition into that," Blechen said. "Kind of like a statement on whether we can hang or not in the Pac-12. I think we'll be ready."

Of course, Utah's most recent game with a Pac-12 team was a win over California in the 2009 Poinsettia Bowl. Colorado visited California last fall. That trip went badly.

"A lot of bad," Hansen said with a pained look. "I'm looking forward to playing those guys. That's a big game for me personally because I didn't play well last year."

So there you have it: Colorado has a history with a Pac-12 foe.

Of course, not everyone fuels up on emotion.

"I've been playing different teams my whole life," Colorado running back Rodney Stewart said. "I don't care who I'm playing against. I just try to do my job. It's just football."

It is just football, but that's the good news for we lovers of rivalries. Football is too emotional and physical of a game for teams that regularly play to remain neutral about each other.

No hate between Utah and Colorado and other Pac-12 teams? Just give it time.

Coaches love talking about explosion plays. You want to get a lot of them and give up very few.

We looked at offensive explosion plays -- plays of 20 or more yards -- on Tuesday and defenses that prevented explosion plays on Wednesday. Thursday we looked at explosion plays in terms of rushing offense and rushing defense. Today, 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 is national rank. The number to the right is the total number of explosion plays in the passing game in 2010.

14. Stanford... 48
18. Arizona... 46
37. Oregon... 43
40. Arizona State... 42
40. Utah... 42
54. Oregon State... 38
61. Washington State... 37
65. USC... 36
80. Colorado... 32
91. Washington... 30
100. California... 28
120. UCLA... 11

No surprise Stanford is on top with quarterback Andrew Luck, but Arizona at No. 2 proves that Nick Foles isn't just a dink-and-dunk passer. Some might use this as further evidence that USC's Matt Barkley and Washington's Jake Locker were "overrated."

Oh my, UCLA. Very, very bad.

Some other thoughts.

• UCLA was dead last in the country, and only Army in 2008 -- six! -- produced fewer explosion plays in the passing game over the past three seasons.
• To put the awfulness of the Bruins' downfield passing game into perspective: Every conference team more than doubled the number of passing explosion plays the Bruins produced, and Colorado was one play short of having NINE teams at least triple the Bruins.
• And the blame shouldn't fall on Kevin Prince: In 2009, the Bruins produced 35 explosion plays in the passing game with him as the starter for much of the year.
• Keep in mind that Oregon got 43 passing plays of 20 or more yards with a first-year starter at quarterback. Even though the Ducks lose their top two receivers, don't be surprised if that number goes up in 2011 in Darron Thomas' junior season.
• Oh, and anyone remember Jeremiah Masoli? Last year, the Ducks ranked 67th with 36 explosion plays in the passing game.
• Downfield passing was a clear area of improvement for Foles in 2010. The year before, the Wildcats connected on just 31 passing plays of 20 or more yards.
• In 2009, California had 48 explosion plays in the passing game, which ranked 18th in the nation and No. 1 in the Pac-10. Discuss, Cal fans.
• In 2008, with Luck redshirting behind Tavita Pritchard, the Cardinal had only 18 explosion plays in the passing game, which ranked 113th in the nation. In Luck's first year as the starter, 2009, that number perked up to 47, which ranked 25th in the nation.
• Arkansas quarterback Ryan Mallett has his critics, but over the past two years the Razorbacks produced 123 explosion plays in the passing game. In 2008, they had 45.
• In 2008, Tulsa had 82 pass plays of 20 or more yards, most over the past three years. In its 14-game schedule, that means the Golden Hurricane averaged just under six such plays per game. Tulsa is also the only program to rank in the top 10 each of the past three years.

But does piling up explosion plays in the passing game correlate to winning? Short answer: Yes. Here's the top 10 in 2010 with the team's record in parentheses to the right.

1. Hawaii... 80 (10-4)
2. Boise State... 63 (12-1)
3. Arkansas... 62 (10-3)
4. San Diego State... 60 (9-4)
5. Oklahoma... 59 (12-2)
5. Oklahoma State... 59 (11-2)
7. Tulsa... 57 (10-3)
8. Tennessee... 54 (6-7)
9. UAB... 53 (4-8)
10. North Carolina State... 52 (9-4)

That's two losing teams -- though Tennessee was a bowl team -- and eight with at least nine wins and five with 10 or more. Nice mix of AQ and non-AQ teams, too.

Now on to defense, starting with the Pac-12.

The number to the left is national rank. The number to the right is the total number of passing explosion plays yielded in 2010.

6. California... 25
16. Stanford... 29
23. Washington... 31
27. Arizona... 32
27. Colorado... 32
27. Arizona State... 32
41. Oregon...33
41. Washington State... 33
58. UCLA... 36
91. Oregon State... 41
96. Utah... 42
102. USC... 44

Well, USC gave up 30 TD passes, most in the conference by five, so the Trojans in the cellar shouldn't be a surprise. Utah is completely rebuilding its secondary heading into 2011 -- so does that many Utes fans feel better or worse about their standing here? A little surprised Washington did well in this measure. And this is another reason for Cal fans to feel good about defensive coordinator Clancy Pendergast.

Some other thoughts:

• First of all, the difference between No. 23 and No. 41 is two plays, so there should be a little bit of skepticism about writing too much into these numbers.
• Obviously, the Trojans' young secondary didn't do well digesting Monte Kiffin's Tampa-2 scheme in Year 1.
• USC gave up 30 explosion passing plays in 2009 and just 14 in 2008, which is the lowest total over the past three years by six.
• Stanford's pass defense was a big question heading into 2010. Why? In 2009, it gave up 44 passing plays of 20 or more yards. So the improvement this past season was dramatic, and probably one of the big reasons the Cardinal defense took a huge step forward.
• Tip of the cap to Washington State: In 2009, it gave up 47 explosion plays in the passing game, which ranked 110th in the nation. So the improvement in 2010 was dramatic. Of course, the Cougars did give up 29 explosion plays in the running game, which ranked 117th in the nation.
• Utah gave up 28 explosion passing plays in 2009, so there was fairly significant regression in 2010.
• No team ranked in the top 10 three consecutive years, though TCU, Florida and Ohio State consistently ranked highly.
• In 2008, Nevada gave up 70 explosion plays in the passing game. That's 11 more than the second worst total over the past three years. That means Wolf Pack fans had to endure 5.4 big passing plays per game thrown against their defense. Still, Nevada did finish 7-6.

But does limiting passing explosion plays on defense correlate to winning? Short answer: Pretty much. Here's the top 10 in 2010 with the team's record in parentheses to the right.

1. Pittsburgh... 20 (8-5)
2. LSU.. 21 (11-2)
3. TCU... 22 (13-0)
4. Kent State... 23 (5-7)
5. West Virginia... 24 (9-4)
5. Texas... 24 (5-7)
6. Florida... 25 (8-5)
6. California... 25 (5-7)
6. Nebraska... 25 (10-4)
6. Temple... 25 (8-4)
6. Syracuse... 25 (8-5)
6. Boise State... 25 (13-1)

Only three of these 12 teams posted losing records, and they each went 5-7. That said, four won just eight games, so success in this stat doesn't correlate to elite status. Auburn gave up 44 explosion plays in the pass game and it went 14-0 and won the national championship. Virginia Tech gave up 45 and won the ACC.

Still, here's a guess that most defensive coordinators would rather rank at the top of this list than at the bottom.