ESPN College Football

SEC and Big 12 folks have been tweaking the Big Ten and Pac-12's love of the Rose Bowl of late. That made me grin because the primary motivation for those tweaks was jealousy.

Don't buy that assessment? Well, then what do you make of this: The SEC and Big 12 champions, starting in 2014 after the current BCS contract expires and we presumably adopt a four-team playoff, will meet annually in a prime time New Year's Day "bowl" game.

Unless, of course, the SEC and/or Big 12 champions are selected for the four-team playoff, which one is almost certain to be and both are likely to be.

But, if one or both is selected for the playoff, then, just like the Rose Bowl, a No. 2 team from both or either conference will be selected.

So the SEC and Big 12 have adopted the Rose Bowl model in its entirety. Other than the fact that they can't play in the Rose Bowl stadium as the sun goes down over the San Gabriel Mountains.

The location has not been set. The Sugar Bowl (SEC) and Fiesta Bowl (Big 12) already have a dog in this fight, but expect bids to come from Jerry Jones and his deluxe Cowboys Stadium in Arlington, Texas, as well as a play from Atlanta.

By the way, the Rose Bowl jealousy stuff is mostly good-natured ribbing while I'm gaping at another sudden shift in college football's tectonic plates.

Folks, this stuff is amazing, and there's a stunning plot twist seemingly on a weekly basis -- Florida State to the Big 12? Notre Dame back in play?

The main take-away: This is a step closer to four power conferences, with the ACC and Big East finding their footing suddenly precarious.

And, if you want to worry, Pac-12 fans, it looks like the SEC and Big 12 are being far more aggressive -- read: expansionist -- as college football remakes itself. Keep in mind that the Pac-12 could have ended the Big 12 last September and become the first 16-team super-conference if Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech had made a jump.

Pac-12 presidents might end up regretting their decision not to expand -- and giving Oklahoma, in particular, the shaft. Newly enriched by a mega-TV deal, they might have lost track of the big picture while they were counting their money.

Commissioner Larry Scott has long held that further consolidation at the top of college football was inevitable. This is another example of him proving right, though this time without a blockbuster deal for Pac-12 folks to celebrate.

This latest news is a reason to get nervous. Or to just marvel at how quickly the game has changed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sometimes football players come from unexpected places.

Washington State's Andrei Lintz grew up frolicking outside his mom's office: The Catherine Palace, the Rococo summer residence of the tsars just outside of St. Petersburg -- yes, the Russian one, not the one in Florida.

"I remember walking around there. That was my place to hang out," Lintz said. "It was a cool backyard compared to Pullman, where you've got hills and five minutes out of town and you're in the middle of nowhere."

Lintz moved to the U.S. when he was 6. He grew up playing soccer and didn't play football until his freshman year of high school. But he did enough at Meridian High in Bellingham, Wash., to earn a scholarship to Washington State, where he was part of former coach Paul Wulff's first recruiting class.

The next four years weren't much fun. Though the Cougars steadily, if slowly, improved, Wulff was fired last winter after going 9-40 overall and 4-32 in conference play.

"It was heartbreaking from a personal standpoint -- these were the coaches who believed in you, trusted in you," Lintz said. "It is a business and that's the ultimate reality. If you don't win at the Division I level, you're going to get fired."

Then athletic director Bill Moos tapped former Texas Tech coach Mike Leach as Wulff's replacement, which generated plenty of positive buzz in Pullman.

Unless you played tight end, as Lintz did. His initial thought was he might disappear as a fifth-year senior in a spread offense. Heck, Leach didn't even have a tight ends coach.

"I had no idea what was in store for me," Lintz said. "I was pretty worried. I watched [Texas Tech] highlights and they very rarely had a tight end on the field. It was all four-wides and the receivers were small, quick guys."

Ah, but sometimes football players come from unexpected places. Or 6-foot-5, 252-pound tight ends become inside receivers.

Some might see the move as a gimmick. Clearly talented sophomore tight end Aaron Dunn wasn't impressed with his prospects. He quickly transferred after Leach's hire.

But Lintz was a revelation this spring, arguably the Cougs' most consistent receiver. In the final two scrimmages, he caught 12 passes for 145 yards and two touchdowns. Leach's "Air Raid" offense neglect a guy with a tight end's body? Well, last year as the No. 1 tight end, Lintz made just seven catches for 96 yards and one touchdown -- all season.

If you are looking for a breakout player next fall, a guy who could give opposing defenses fits and make them think they are trying to cover the second-coming of former Stanford tight end -- and potential first-round NFL draft pick -- Coby Fleener, look no further than Lintz. He's not as fast as Fleener -- not nearly so -- but he's plenty athletic. And he's capable of playing a jack-of-all-trades role -- receiver, tight end and H-back.

In other words, he's another guy who can help force a defense to do what Leach wants to force it to do: account for the entire field.

But will that be enough to get the Cougs to the postseason for the first time since 2003? Lintz said what has distinguished Leach's first spring, which ends with Saturday's spring game, was a sense of urgency.

"It's almost cutthroat," he said. "It's all go, go, go, now, now, now. We can't be the welcome mat of the Pac-12 anymore."

Lintz likely meant "doormat," but his point is clear. He might hail from Russia, but he's fully aware that the Cougars head into 2012 with an eight-year bowl drought, longest in the Pac-12.

Mike Leach is not afraid of the weather in Pullman, Wash., which could be a bit nippy -- and perhaps snowy -- for the first day of Washington State's spring practices on Thursday.

Heck, it's not like his first spring practice leading the Cougars could be more inclement than his first leading Texas Tech in 2000.

Cold? Snow? Not as bad as hail.

"It's flying off their helmets like popcorn," Leach said recalling his first practice in Lubbock.

Or do you know what happens when a hard rain meets a dust storm?

"A couple of times a year there, it rains mud," he said.

Leach the raconteur took control of his chat with reporters Wednesday afternoon and was, as usual, highly entertaining. But getting specifics from him about what he sees with his personnel wasn't part of the plan, and it led to briefer answers. Of course, that makes sense because Leach isn't sure what he's got as he installs his "Air Raid" offense and a 3-4 defense.

Evaluation is obviously a top priority, but Leach used the terms "precise" and "efficient" repeatedly.

Or, as he said, "Getting as good as we possibly can at practicing."

The first order of business is finding a quarterback. Leach said reps will be split 50-50, at least during the early-going, between Jeff Tuel and Connor Halliday. When asked if Halliday, who suffered a lacerated liver against Utah on Nov. 19, was ready to practice full-go, Leach said, "I assume."

Leach said the top two priorities for his QBs will be decision-making and accuracy. "Those two you really can't compromise on," he said. Quick feet also help, particularly for a team that has some questions on the offensive line.

Leach pointed out that he didn't pursue a JC QB because he's pretty satisfied with what he's seen on tape of Tuel and Halliday. "It's not like you're starting from zero," he said.

He seemed intrigued by his talent at receiver, noting that the crew was taller than what he typically had at Texas Tech. And, yes, he's been impressed by Marquess Wilson.

"What I like about him is he always wants the ball," he said.

On the other side of the ball, it will be interesting to see how things develop, particularly if the Cougars want to make new coordinator's Mike Breske’s 3-4 alignment their base scheme. After dismissing both C.J. Mizell and Sekope Kaufusi from the team -- both returning starters -- there's a decided lack of depth at linebacker. Count on there being some position shuffling, both from the backhalf and the line. Leach, in particular, seemed intrigued with Travis Long, who has started the previous three years at end. The 6-foot-4, 256-pound senior might be athletic enough to play an outside linebacker spot.

"He can do a lot of things," Leach said. "Moving him around as a player is pretty tempting."

It's obvious there will be a lot going on this spring in Pullman, so the often-challenging weather is not a chief concern. Getting guys into the right spot is.

Said Leach, "There isn't anybody who's not being evaluated."

It's a rare moment when Mike Leach is asked a question about quarterbacking and he doesn't know the answer.

Ask him who was the best he ever worked with and he'll rattle off four or five names. Ask him about the origins of his philosophy and he'll go into detail about the wishbone roots and his days as a student at BYU. Ask him what he looks for in a quarterback and he'll hammer on how accuracy and decision-making are the primary characteristics.

But ask him about the current quarterback competition at Washington State, and suddenly he's grasping for a response.

"I wish I could answer that," Leach said. "I know that question might be rolling around some other people's heads. But trust me, it's not rolling around in their head as much as it's been mine ... I'll be able to answer that better after about three days out there."

As the Cougars head into spring football next month with their new head coach, all eyes will be on the competition between veteran Jeff Tuel and upstart Connor Halliday. The winner of the job is destined for big numbers and a sore arm. No quarterback in the history of NCAA football attempted more passes in a season than B.J. Symons when Leach was his coach at Texas Tech. No player threw more times over a two- and three-year period than Graham Harrell when he played for Leach. Look at the NCAA record book for passing and it's littered with Texas Tech quarterbacks from their time with Leach.

Now Leach is bringing his style to Washington State -- a team that ranked ninth nationally in passing offense last season. Tuel and Halliday each enter the spring coming off of significant injuries. Tuel suffered a broken clavicle in the season opener last year and saw action in just two other games. Halliday appeared in four games before suffering a lacerated liver in a gutty loss to Utah.

"We'll split the reps with both of them," said Leach, whose job title also includes offensive coordinator and quarterbacks coach. "They both throw pretty good balls. Connor is pretty accurate. Jeff has real good feet and Connor's aren't bad. They are both tall guys. I'm excited to work with both of them."

And if you are a quarterback, it's hard not to be excited about the prospect of learning from Leach. It might come as a surprise to hear that Leach's offense grew out of the run-oriented wishbone. But when he breaks it down to the simplest form, it makes perfect sense.

"I know it sounds strange that it came from the wishbone and everybody says we're different because they run and we throw," Leach said. "Well, we're not that different. Both of our offenses value, first and foremost, distribution. Making sure all of our skill positions touch the ball. You want to attack space. The wishbone does a pretty good job at that."

And so do Leach's offenses -- which more often than not ranked first nationally in the pass during his time at Texas Tech. You need guys to haul it in, but it all starts with the quarterback.

"When I evaluate a quarterback, I look at if he makes good decisions and if he's accurate," Leach said. "And I don't compromise those two things, no matter what. I won't recruit a guy unless he can do those two things. That's the very minimum. And I think too often people do compromise those.

"I think it's very difficult-to-impossible to take a guy that is not accurate and make him accurate. You can improve accuracy, but you can't take a guy -- at least that I've seen -- take a guy who is not accurate and make him accurate. People say 'this guy is big and fast and all you have to do is work on his accuracy.' I say 'good luck,' because I don't see that happening."

While the schematic concepts of Leach's style derive from the wishbone, his philosophical approach to the game was borne out of his time as a student at BYU -- an era he calls the Golden Age of BYU football under LaVell Edwards' pass-happy offense.

"That was the single biggest influence," Leach said. " ... It was a great time to be there and it had a big influence on me. I've always credited LaVell and his group for having a major impact on me. He's what inspires a lot of us to coach and you hope you can stack up on some level with him when you finish your body of work. Very few people ever have. He's one of the bench marks and role models for all coaches."

Oregon coach Chip Kelly was baffled in a phone interview before the Rose Bowl. How the heck could little-old-him be important to a reporter?

"The big story," he said conspiratorially,"is all these new coaches."

Well, it's the big story now as the Pac-12 turns its attention away from the 2011 season and toward 2012 spring practices. And, of course, Kelly is part of a reason there are four new coaches in the conference. Mike Stoops, Dennis Erickson, Rick Neuheisel and Paul Wulff -- fired at Arizona, Arizona State, UCLA and Washington State, respectively -- never beat Kelly and, in fact, came within double digits of his Ducks only once (Arizona, with a 44-41 loss in 2009).

But the story isn't just four new coaches. It's four new coaches whom folks have heard of, each of whom is getting a big-boy salary that would fit in among the SEC or Big Ten. Big salaries are the new normal in the Pac-12 after the conference signed a $3 billion TV deal with ESPN and Fox.

So out goes Stoops and his $1,456,000 salary, and in comes Rich Rodriguez and his $1,910,000 paycheck. Out goes Erickson and his $1,503,000 salary, and in comes Todd Graham and his $2 million tab. Out goes Neuheisel and his $1,285,000 salary, and in comes Jim Mora and his $2.4 million annual take. Out goes Wulff and his $600,000 salary, and in comes Mike Leach and his $2,250,000 price tag.

The chief idea is obvious: Pac-12 schools are paying for an upgrade in coaching talent, and there are high expectations for getting their money's worth. And, by the way, there's an added bonus for each hire: Each new coach has a chip on his shoulder and something to prove.

• In 2010, Rodriguez was ingloriously dispatched at Michigan after three tumultuous and unsuccessful years. Athletic director Greg Byrne is betting that Rodriguez is far closer to the highly successful coach he was at West Virginia than the one who got run out of Ann Arbor, and Rodriguez surely wants that impression to be his legacy. It helps that he got his man, Jeff Casteel, to run the Wildcats' defense, which he failed to do at Michigan.
• Graham took a lot of heat from a pandering, sanctimonious media and a whiny Pittsburgh fan base for how he left the Panthers. "He didn't even say goodbye," they collectively sobbed. "Waaah." Of course, Graham does have an unfortunate habit of describing every job as his "dream job." All that stuff is mostly hogwash, though. What matters is winning, and if Graham does that, the media will all come down en masse to Tempe pretending they didn't trash Graham's character for taking a better job, in a better conference, in a better place to live while making his family happy in the process.
• Mora was fired in 2009 after only one season with the Seattle Seahawks, and he's bided his time looking for another head-coaching job. Seeing that he was two or three names down UCLA athletic director Dan Guerrero's coaching list -- Chris Petersen! Kevin Sumlin! -- some Bruins fans reacted with disappointed smirks to Mora's hiring. Then Mora hired an outstanding staff. Then he reeled in an outstanding recruiting class. Some of those frowns are turning upside down.
• Leach was fired at Texas Tech in 2009. He's one of the best offensive minds in the nation, and the almost universal reaction is athletic director Bill Moos hit a home run with this big-name hire. The Pirate Captain looks like the perfect match for Pullman and the Cougs, and he'll be plenty motivated to prove his critics wrong and erase the bad ending in Lubbock.

It's fair to say these four hirings have generated positive momentum for these programs, though, of course, to varying degrees. There's a hope among the fan bases that these four can create quick turnarounds.

And that also leads into another major coaching story entering the spring: The Pac-12's most senior coaches, California's Jeff Tedford and Oregon State's Mike Riley, sit on the hottest seats.

Tedford enters his 11th season in Berkeley having followed up his first losing campaign -- 5-7 in 2010 -- with a middling 7-6 finish in 2011. Riley, the man deserving the most credit for making one of the worst programs in college football respectable, enters his 12th year in Corvallis -- two tenures wrapped around an ill-fated stint with the San Diego Chargers -- burdened by consecutive losing seasons, including a 3-9 finish that felt so 1987.

Spring practices for Tedford and Riley will be about setting up turnaround season that give their frustrated fan bases hope -- and keep their athletic directors from issuing dreaded votes of confidence while checking their coaching Rolodexes.

Meanwhile, Kelly and USC's Lane Kiffin, still relative coaching newbies in the conference, enter spring likely trying to tone down the positive hype. Both will begin the 2012 season ranked in the top 10. USC could be preseason No. 1. Both are overwhelming favorites in the North and South Divisions. And their meeting on Nov. 3 in L.A. could have national title implications.

But that's looking ahead.

The big story this spring in the Pac-12 is newness and rebirth. One-third of the conference's teams hope that newness at the top of their programs will create a rebirth in the Pac-12 standings.

Washington State coach Mike Leach has his first disciplinary issue, as starting sophomore linebacker C.J. Mizell was arrested after being involved in a weekend fight at a fraternity house party.

Mizell, a native of Tallahassee, Fla., was arrested on misdemeanor charges of assault and trespassing.

From the Spokesman Review:

Pullman Police Sergeant Dan Dornes said police were called at approximately 12:24 a.m. Sunday after Mizell allegedly tried to enter a party at the Delta Tau Delta fraternity house. When Mizell was denied entry, he allegedly “punched one of the guys several times,” Dornes said.

Mizell fled the scene but was arrested Sunday, cited, booked and released. Fourth-degree assault and second-degree criminal trespassing are both misdemeanors. A WSU spokesman said coaches are aware of the arrest and are still gathering facts.

First off: I hope it's not going to be one of those offseasons,with Stanford LB Shayne Skov getting arrested for DUI this past weekend and now Mizell.

Leach, while known for a quirky personality, isn't slack on discipline. A portion of his book "Swing Your Sword" includes his reaction to a fight involving multiple Texas Tech players as well as his list of team rules, which included "no fighting":

There's a different standard for you. I don't care if it's fair. I don't care what he said. I don't care what kind of names he called you or what he might have said about your family. It doesn't matter. You leave ... I warned them about fighting. It was one of the first things I'd talk about every year when I first addressed the team.

Of course, Mizell should have left. But fights at fraternity houses often have two sides to the story. Mizell has struggled at times with his discipline, and fell afoul of former coach Paul Wulff's staff several times, but he took some steps up the maturity ladder this past season. Leach has said players will get a clean slate with him, but this also gives Leach a chance to send a message to his team.

Also from his book: Leach is creative with punishments. He had the players involved in the brawl at Texas Tech go through a rigorous boxing conditioning session — "Fight Club" he called it.

Mizell should expect to invest some sweat equity for this one.

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?

A mind not to be changed by place or time.
The mind is its own place, and in itself
Can make a heav'n of hell, a hell of heav'n.

• The Arizona coaching staff is now complete.
• Checking in with Arizona State's new co-offensive coordinator Mike Norvell. The Sun Devils are eyeballing future in-state talent.
• No, California QB Zach Maynard isn't ineligible.
• Breaking down Colorado's interior defensive line.
• Looking back and looking forward at Oregon's running backs.
• Former Oregon State QB Ryan Katz appears headed to San Diego State.
• Considering the good and bad of Stanford's 2011 season. Best & worst from the Fiesta Bowl.
• Some former UCLA players will play in all-star games. The Bruins offensive line will be better because of this guy.
• It appears that Katz will have a former USC WR as a top target. Transfers will test USC's depth.
• Is Utah a potential top-25 team?
• What does the Washington defense need to do? Former coordinator Jim Lambright has some ideas, which he gives to Washington Sportswriter of the Year, Jerry Brewer.
• It appears Washington State coach Mike Leach is trying to settle with his former school, Texas Tech. Where might longtime Cougs assistant Mike Levenseller end up? Maybe with an old buddy?

Paul Wulff almost turned Washington State around. Just like he almost kept his job.

But the Cougars going 4-8 this year after winning just five games the previous three years wasn't, in the end, enough to convince athletic director Bill Moos to retain Wulff for the final year of his contract.

“Paul and I met at length Sunday, and then spoke again this morning, after which I determined the best path for Cougar football moving forward is to have a change of leadership,” Moos said in a statement. “I appreciate all that Paul has done for Washington State football. He was hired with the objective of rebuilding this program and establishing a solid foundation. For that I thank him.”

Whoever replaces Wulff has a good chance to push the needle forward substantially next fall, starting with there being two talented quarterbacks on the roster in junior Jeff Tuel, the promising 2009 and 2010 starter who was hurt this year, and redshirt freshman Connor Halliday, who put up big numbers late in the season before getting hurt himself.

The Seattle Times reported over the weekend that Wulff would be fired and that former Texas Tech coach Mike Leach was the top target. The first part of that has come true. The question now is the second. Leach's name has been attached to a number of jobs, but he would seem to be a good fit for Washington State, even with his well-known baggage.

For one, he'd have two good options to get his high-flying passing attack off the ground. Second, he'd be working for a strong athletic director who wouldn't get nervous over a controversial comment or two. (Moos, in fact, is the sort to recognize the publicity might be more of a good thing than a bad thing.) And Pullman is the Pac-12's Lubbock, only with better bars.

Of course, to hire Leach or any other name candidate, the Cougars are going to have to pay more than the $600,000 Wulff was making (and will be paid for the last year remaining on his contract).

In fact, you might have noticed that the four Pac-12 coaches who have been fired this season rank from the middle down in annual salary in the conference, which means they were paid below market rate for AQ conferences. Wulff was the conference's lowest-paid coach.

It's hard to imagine Leach not expecting at least $1.5-$2 million. Leach's last contract with Texas Tech was a five-year, $12.7 million deal.

As for Wulff, he paid for the deliberateness of the program's progress under his watch. He went 3-22 his first two seasons with one Pac-10 victory -- over winless Washington in 2008 -- and coached what might have been the worst AQ conference team both years.

In 2010, the Cougars were far more competitive but finished only 2-10, with a lone conference win at Oregon State. This year, they started 3-1, lost five in a row, posted a shocking upset of Arizona State, then saw their bowl hopes end in overtime against Utah. A 17-point loss to Washington in the Apple Cup, however, likely sealed Wulff's fate.

There were a lot of what-ifs, and Wulff fought passionately for another year throughout the season, sometimes even bothering Coug fans with the frequency with which he called the program he inherited the "worst in BCS football." Wulff was probably right, but fans get tired of hearing that, both from an emotional perspective and from the perspective of it sounding like an excuse after four years.

Wulff didn't immediately return a message requesting comment.

This is an emotional day, and not just for him. While Cougars fans were mostly split on Wulff, few view his falling short with any bitterness. He was a former Coug player. It was clear he always got what Washington State football is about. If he had succeeded, he didn't seem like the sort who would have quickly bolted for a bigger paycheck and a bigger spotlight.

That was part of the appeal when he was hired. It just didn't produce enough winning.

One of Wulff's problems was loyalty. He brought most of his staff over from Eastern Washington when he could have used more coaches with Pac-12 experience. He made numerous changes over the past two years, bringing in veteran coaches, and that paid off on the field. Just, again, not enough.

It will be interesting to see where Wulff lands. He seems like a guy who might have learned some hard lessons he might apply when he gets his next gig.

As for the Cougars, the program has won before and will win again. While some folks with short memories try to cast it aside as an AQ backwater, Washington State has played in two Rose Bowls since 1997. It beat Texas in the 2003 Holiday Bowl. It won 30 games and finished ranked in the final top 10 three consecutive seasons from 2001-2003. A good coach who knows how to evaluate and develop talent can win there.

And the cupboard Wulff leaves behind is hardly bare. It's not farfetched to imagine a bowl game in 2012. For real.

But to get the right coach, Moos is going to have to do one of two things: 1. Get some money to pay a guy like Leach; 2. Have a really good eye for an up-and-comer who might not create much buzz but can coach like heck.

Of course, that's what Moos and others thought Wulff was in 2008.

In the Hemingway novel, "The Sun Also Rises," a character is asked how he went bankrupt. He replies, "Two ways ... gradually and then suddenly."

And so we have the firing of Arizona coach Mike Stoops midway through his eighth season Monday.

On Oct. 30 of last year, Arizona won at UCLA and improved to 7-1 overall. The Wildcats, then ranked 13th in the AP poll, were headed to Stanford for a marquee showdown. The program's first-ever Rose Bowl was in play. Stoops was coming off consecutive eight-win seasons. He appeared to be on the cusp of becoming a hot coaching prospect.

But the Wildcats were slammed 42-17. It would be the first of 10 consecutive losses to FBS teams. As the losses piled up, "hot" became the way to describe Stoops' seat instead of his prospects.

Stoops, 49, inherited a program in the absolute dregs in 2004. The Wildcats hadn't posted a winning season since 1998. After a slow start, he led Arizona to three consecutive bowl games.

But the wheels came off badly this season. After opening with a victory over Northern Arizona, the Wildcats were blown out in four consecutive games. The schedule was brutal. The losing streak included two losses each to Oregon, Stanford, Oklahoma State and USC. But it also included one to archrival Arizona State to end the 2010 regular season. Then on Saturday, the Wildcats lost to then 0-4 Oregon State.

When the Wildcats lost to the beleaguered Beavers, the universal reaction was Stoops was in trouble. But few figured it would end so quickly.

Stoops was told Monday afternoon by athletic director Greg Byrne of the decision to fire him. Defensive coordinator Tim Kish will serve as interim coach.

“It just ended," Stoops said. "That’s his decision as the leader of the program. It is what it is.”

Byrne and school president Eugene Sander told reporters at a news conference announcing the decision that the speculation on Stoops' future was becoming a distraction.

Stoops will get a $1.4 million buyout. When I talked to him Monday, he was more gracious than grim. It's possible that the losing and frustration were wearing him down as much as they were fans and administrators.

Stoops, who leaves Tucson with a 41-50 overall record and a 27-38 mark in conference games, was heavily criticized for his animated sideline persona. He was not a guy who tried to hide his frustrations -- at officials, players or other coaches -- during games. When he won, it was tolerated, even amusing. When he lost, it was seen as a significant negative.

And little went right this year, starting in spring practices, when injuries to several key starters -- most notably safety Adam Hall and linebacker Jake Fischer -- started a downward spiral.

Two other issues hounded Stoops: (1) He had the best quarterback in program history in Nick Foles (the Wildcats haven't had a quarterback who even approximates Foles); (2) the defense, Stoops' bailiwick, is terrible.

Don't cry too hard for Stoops, though. He'll land on his feet. He's respected and well-connected as a coach -- his brother is Oklahoma coach Bob Stoops and he's good friends with Nebraska coach Bo Pelini. He'll get job offers, most likely in the short term as a defensive coordinator. And he's probably learned plenty of lessons during his first tour as a head coach that might help him get a second chance.

So what next for Arizona?

The first question: How much is Arizona willing to pay? Stoops' $1.4 million annual salary sounds great for most of us, but is fairly middling among marquee coaches. And beyond Stoops' replacement, you have to pay a coaching staff. Salaries for assistant coaches have gone way up, well beyond what Stoops' staff was paid.

Top name you will hear: Boise State's Chris Petersen. Three words: Huge long shot.

Second name: Mississippi State coach Dan Mullen. Three words: Huge long shot.

Just because Byrne knows Petersen and Mullen doesn't mean either is eager to bolt to an uncertain situation.

Other names: Former Oregon coach Mike Bellotti, former Texas Tech coach Mike Leach and former All-American Ricky Hunley.

All three of those guys would raise enthusiastic eyebrows. Each has plenty to offer.

The Wildcats are off until playing host to UCLA on Oct. 20, a Thursday night game. It will be interesting to see how the players react. Part of the reasoning to dump Stoops now was to make it easier for players to focus.

If the Wildcats were to end their losing streak, that reasoning would make sense.

And, of course, Arizona fans can always start thinking about basketball season.

A day after conference expansion Armageddon was avoided with the Pac-12 taking a pass on Oklahoma and Texas, commissioner Larry Scott was in good cheer. And why not? Scott's conference still has the richest TV deal and is the most unified and stable in the nation.

"We could have expanded, but the deal didn't make any sense at the end of the day for us, especially given the position that we are in," Scott said. "There is a very high bar. It's hard to imagine very many scenarios for our conference to expand because the bar is so high."

And Oklahoma, Texas, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech, were not able to clear that bar, a determination Scott made over the weekend, which he recommended to the Pac-12 presidents on Monday and Tuesday. Thus the statement from Scott's office Tuesday night that the conference would remain at 12 teams.

The decision to not expand was greeted favorably from all corners of the conference.

Said Washington State athletic director Bill Moos, "I like the way the conference is now and I'm pleased the decision was made to keep it at 12 members."

Said USC athletic director Pat Haden, "I don't think there is any rush for us to get to 16."

On Wednesday, a source told The Oklahoman that Oklahoma was using the Pac-12 for leverage to get some concessions from the Big 12:

“But frankly, we wanted the impression out there that we might go to the Pac-12 because that gave us some leverage,” the source said. “We were using that as leverage to say, ‘Hey, you want us to stay? Let's have some of these reforms.'”

That would seem to imply that Oklahoma wanted to make it public that it was negotiating in bad faith with the Pac-12, but Scott had no issue with this strategy.

"I have nothing but respect for the leadership of the University of Oklahoma," he said. "I don't want to contradict anything that they feel they need to say as part of the process they are in."

The Big 12 has yet to announce reforms.

While a second negotiation within just over a year to create a Pac-16 didn't end with an agreement, Scott said he doesn't feel that relationships have been damaged.

"I can only speak from my own experience and say not at all," he said. "Not in terms of the folks I've dealt with. I have had very enjoyable dealings with everyone I've dealt with."

Scott, Moos and Haden each said they don't expect expansion talk to end across the nation, including with the Pac-12.

"I don't see any of our schools wanting to leave," Moos said. "We've established the Pac-12 as a destination. I would guess there will be overtures down the road of institutions inquiring about membership."

But the Pac-12's condition for membership will be non-negotiable, Scott said: equal revenue sharing. Even if that means leaving money on the table.

Said Scott, "An opportunity was turned down that could have generated more money for the schools but potentially could have torn apart the fabric of the culture of the conference."

The big question, however, is the future: How long before expansion chatter again engulfs the conference? Is the Pac-12 merely playing a game of chicken with other programs?

Scott doesn't see it that way, but he also maintains -- as he has since the first wave of expansion in 2010 -- that consolidation isn't going away in big-time college football.

"I absolutely expect we will stay 12 teams for a long while," he said. "But after what I've seen happen in the last year, I don't think anyone could stick their neck out and make any definitive predictions."

Oklahoma's and Texas' board of regents granted their school presidents the authority to take action regarding conference realignment on Monday, but that doesn't necessarily mean immediate moves are imminent.

Maybe we get a moment to breathe here. Maybe that's a good thing.

There are plenty of folks who remain uncertain about expansion, including Pac-12 administrators. UCLA athletic director Dan Guerrero released a statement Monday on potential Pac-12 expansion:

Expansion just for the sake of expansion is rarely a good thing. Dr. Martin Luther King once said, "We may all have come in different ships, but we are all in the same boat now." Those of us in the same boat, the existing Pac-12 members, need to think long and hard as to the relevancy and value of bringing new members into the boat. Issues of academic compatibility, student-athlete welfare, competitive and financial implications all need to be thought out carefully by the various stakeholders. If further expansion is the right thing to do, then it makes sense to proceed.

The chief question: Is the conference's long-term future best served by being a 12-team league or by adding Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech and becoming a 16-team league? That means Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott needs to paint a picture for the Pac-12 presidents about what might happen if other leagues expand and the Pac-12 doesn't.

One thing to understand: Just about everything here is about self-interest. Treat everything you read -- from named and unnamed sources -- as working an angle and you'll be better off.

Texas coach Mack Brown's speech on the Big 12 conference call? ("As much as we talk about money," Brown said, "as much as we talk about college football, as much as we talk about realignment, as much as we talk about great games, playoffs and all that stuff, we better go back and make sure that we're taking care of the players and that the players and the high school coaches are always considered in the equation.")

Right. Texas wants the Big 12 to survive because it's the Texas League, where it gets to do anything it wants. (And what do high school coaches have to do with this?)

Baylor's polling of Big 12 fans about conference expansion? Right. The poll wouldn't exist if Baylor were part of the foursome talking to the Pac-12. Or it might have emerged from Lubbock if Texas Tech were left out.

Even Guerrero, packing a Martin Luther King reference, is working an angle. His chief worry is UCLA falling further down the conference pecking order.

So don't listen to any of these guys. They all have agendas.

But you, the college football fan, do not get enriched by any of this, expansion or no expansion. In fact, you're the one who pay all the bills. You buy tickets. You watch TV. Your passion has created this multi-billion-dollar market that is driving these decisions. Your agenda is the game you love and your willingness to spend money -- and time -- on it.

I wonder if you're being taken for granted. No, wait. I don't wonder. I know. And I hear your massive skepticism.

Still, I am cautiously optimistic a Pac-16 would work and even work well, that it could be organized in a way that satisfies most fans interests. And as a college football entity -- heck, college sports entity -- it would be a powerhouse.

To me the larger issue is reaching an endgame where we can find long-term stability. How much of a guarantee would we have that four or so 16-team super-conferences will settle in for the next decade or so? Not much, I suspect.

That ultimately becomes an issue for the guys on the revenue end to consider: If upheaval becomes the standard, that eventually could significantly erode fan interest.

And then the next set of TV contracts might not end up leaving the schools so fat and happy.

Jon Wilner of the San Jose Mercury News reminds us that with expansion news, things change quickly but final deals don't always get done quickly. There are a lot of moving parts.

And count him among the folks who don't see this getting done within 24 hours. Or even a week.

My position from going through this whole Pac-16-with-Texas thing twice is the same as it was in 2010: The best deal for the old Pac-10 (now Pac-12) and for Texas is the Pac-16. Commissioner Larry Scott knows that. He did the homework. Texas, however, thought it could outsmart the market because it's, well, Texas. It couldn't. So here we are again with Scott still being right and Texas perhaps coming around.

We'll see if accord is reached. There are more momentum shifts in expansion coverage than most football games.

But let's imagine the Pac-16 getting done. Wilner and the Austin American-Statesman both write about a potential solution to what worries many Pac-12 fans, most particularly those from Arizona, Arizona State, Utah and Colorado, who aren't thrilled with the idea of being in an East Division with the old Big 12 teams.

What about pods? From the Austin newspaper:

If the four schools and the Pac-12 come to an agreement, a football conference could be aligned in four four-team pods, with Texas joined by Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. Texas would play those schools every year to preserve rivalries.

How would the overall playing schedule work out for football? As of right now, the conference is discussing an alignment where teams would play nine conference games. Teams would play every other team in their pod each season, along with two teams from each of the other three pods.

It is believed the championship game would be decided by overall conference record, meaning any two teams could play in the championship game on a given year.

"I don't know what kind of blunt instrument, like east and west, north and south, would make sense," Scott said. "We've got a lot of flexibility and a lot of creativity we could bring to alignment issues. "

By the way, good job by the Statesman in getting Scott to entertain a hypothetical. It's a rare moment when Scott shows that, yes, there's been some deep thinking about a Pac-16 world, though, of course, that happened back in 2010, too.

Wilner goes into more detail:

Here’s my educated guess as to how the conference would handle the situation. Call it the pod rotation system:

1. Divide the 16 teams into pods of four: the Northwest schools, the California schools, the Mountain schools and the Texas/Oklahoma schools (or the Kansas/Oklahoma schools).

You’d play the three teams in your pod every year and two teams from each of the other three pods to form the nine-game league schedule.

2. Pair two sets of pods to create one eight-team division and two sets of pods to create another eight-team division.

3. Keep the pods together for two years to provide home-and-home scheduling, and then switch the pod pairings.

In other words, the California schools could be paired with the Mountain schools in a division for two years, and then the California schools could be paired with the Northwest schools in a division for two years … and so on.

No alignment will make everybody completely happy. That's what compromise is. But it's clear that the goal is to retain as much of the tradition as is possible while creating something so new it was hard to imagine just a few years ago.

Of course, to analyze as Yogi Berra might, "It ain't a done deal until it's a done deal."

Happy Friday.

If you follow me on Twitter, you will help bring sexy back. Again.

To the notes:

Kaleb from Afghanistan writes: Ted, I am a beaver faithful and i always listen to Coach Riley's decisions with no questions, but this QB controversy is not what we need before a trip to Wisconsin, i mean even Peyton Manning has a bad game every now and then.

Ted Miller: First of all, thanks for your service. And stay safe.

I hear you. If you had said Ryan Katz's starting job would be at-risk before the Beavers went to Wisconsin in the preseason, I would have been my most smugly dismissive, which is really, really smugly dismissive.

I think this article lays things out pretty well.

1. Yes, Katz is shocked and unhappy that he will share the ball in Madison with redshirt freshman Sean Mannion.

2. But the foundation for coach Mike Riley's decision is simple: competition. Mannion has been playing better than Katz on a consistent basis.

This isn't about Riley scapegoating Katz or being disloyal. This is about him watching practices, noticing a pattern and concluding that it's possible the offense will be better off with Mannion.

Am I surprised by that? Yes. But I haven't watched a bunch of Beavers practices. This quote from Riley, speaking to his beat writers -- who have watched practices -- is telling.

"You guys saw it. You saw what was going on," Riley said.

That reads a bit like an appeal from Riley to his beat reporters to get the message out: This isn't personal. It's a business decision for the sake of the program.

Does this have the potential to blow up? Absolutely. Is it possible Mannion's alluring upside won't actually match Katz's experience when the screws tighten? Absolutely.

But this isn't Riley's first square dance. And just because he's a nice guy doesn't mean he can't make tough decisions.

Katz needs to win back his job at Wisconsin. And if Mannion outplays him, the Beavers might make a permanent switch.

---

Ken from Berkeley writes: Isn't Lou Holtz correct that a conference with 16 teams is just two 8-team conferences? With 7 division games, do you play a random and unbalanced 2 or 3 teams from the other division or play 4 of the other 8 and one warm-up game against Div. I-AA? Do division games only count towards division champ?

Ted Miller: Yes, a 16-team league will feel less like a conference and more like an alliance. The leading theory of how it would come together for the Pac-16 -- with a West Division old Pac-8 and an East Division Big 12 plus Utah, Colorado, Arizona and Arizona State -- would create divisions that were distinctly different in geography and culture -- academic and otherwise.

As to how things would play out with scheduling, I don't know. First you get the teams, then you start that debate, which is what happened when the conference added Utah and Colorado -- recall the geography versus zipper debate, which geography (North-South) won.

It would seem that in a 16-team league, particularly if there is widespread, national consolidation and multiple 16-team leagues appear, that the conference schedule could be expanded. You could play a 10- or 11-game conference schedule -- seven divisional games and three or four cross-over games -- which would make scheduling easier for athletic directors. It's also possible that with a confederation of 16-team leagues, the regular season schedule could be increased to 13 games, though expanding the length of the season was always one of the reasons (excuses?) that playoffs got the kibosh from school presidents.

We don't know how the landscape would change if, say, we ended up with four 16-team leagues. It would seem the distance between the haves and have-nots would grow larger. What that might mean for nonconference scheduling is unclear. There are always unintended and unexpected consequences after major changes in previously stable systems.

And, while we're telling you we have no idea what's next, we might as well add that the BCS system doesn't seem workable with four 16-team leagues. To me, such a dramatic landscape change would almost inevitably lead to a playoff.

---

Rob from Phoenix writes: So I would like to know how the potential expansion would play out from a divisional standpoint. I cannot see the Arizona schools, Colorado, and Utah going along with expansion if it means that they would have to play away from their alumni bases and, with the exception of Texas, paired with schools that are academically and culturally a very bad fit.

Ted Miller: The Arizona schools, Colorado and Utah are likely the least excited folks about a potential Pac-16. But if Texas and Oklahoma opt to join the Pac-12, and Texas Tech and Oklahoma State come along to make 16, it's 100 percent going to happen, no matter the objections.

Why? Well, for one, it will further enrich the conference. I'm not sure how many more million per team, but it will be a few.

Second, it likely will be a necessity. If the conference expands to 16, it will be because the national landscape is dramatically shifting again and the conference will be making -- forced to make, in fact -- strategic moves that benefit it long-term.

We can all agree Larry Scott is smart, right? He thinks this is the inevitable future. He didn't come to that decision on a whim. He studied a lot of data, talked to a lot of experts and used his Harvard-educated brain to make an informed deduction.

And my feeling is the conference presidents will still say: "In Larry, we trust."

---

John from Maui writes: Regarding the Oregon vs. LSU game, where LSU fielded a more experienced & bigger team compared to Oregon, which is rebuilding in many of its key positions. The game showed that currently Oregon is not a top-5. However, Oregon may find themselves at year end in a similar situation as UCLA did in 1975 when they lost to Ohio State (under Woody Hayes) early in the season, 41-20. At year end, UCLA won the 1976 Rose Bowl against undefeated and No. 1 ranked Ohio State, 23-10 (which featured 2X Heisman winner Archie Griffin). Great game for Bruin fans! It took a whole season for UCLA to develop into a top-5 team (I believe they finished No. 3). Same could happen to Oregon, they could improve into a top-5 team.

Ted Miller: That is certainly a scenario that would be appealing to the Ducks. And not completely ridiculous.

Of course, UCLA's then-coach Dick Vermeil bolted after that season for the Philadelphia Eagles. So I'm sure there are certain parallels Ducks fans would want to avoid.

---

Micah from Berkeley writes: A lot has been made of the new conference members, especially Utah, "validating" themselves as quality teams. My question is, what would be both Utah and Colorado's ideal conference records (who they would beat/lose to and by how much) so that the Utes and Buffs look like quality additions to the conference without making the "old" Pac-10 look weak?

Ted Miller: Not sure there is a correct answer to this. Or if it really matters that much, long term.

While Utah and Colorado fans would love to win double-digit games, if one or both did so this fall, it would inspire some derisive talk about the old Pac-10.

And if Utah and/or Colorado were to lose double-digit games, it might make the old Pac-10 look strong, but it would inspire derisive talk about the conference adding a couple of weaklings.

But, really, one season won't tell the story on the addition of Colorado and Utah. Both these programs have won before -- the Utes recently; Colorado in the not-to-distant past -- and will again. If one -- or both -- are giving the Pac-12 a second BCS bowl berth over the next five years, it will be a win for that team and a win for the conference. Shortly, we will all be one big, happy family with no looking back to old affiliations.

---

Jacob from Vancouver, Wash., writes: What do you think are the chances of Oregon and Maryland opening next season with a neutral site game in Milan, with the winner being declared fabulous for the rest of the season?

Ted Miller: Ladies and gentlemen, Jacob wins note of the week.