ESPN College Football

Posted by ESPN.com's Ted Miller

The mailbag likes diversity, but there wasn't much this week.

Lots of California. Lots of Washington got screwed. Lots of LeGarrette Blount.

California fans were shaking their fist at the heavens. And some folks were eager to tell me how stupid I was for overrating the Bears. Not sure how I can respond other than, "Yep."

As for the Huskies gripes with the officials: Mostly valid. But the territory feels sort of stale. Look forward, Huskies! Arizona's visit is a critical game in the Pac-10 pecking order.

Took one Blount question.

And away we go.

Jeff from Dallas writes: Theoretically speaking, if the Ducks win out, would they have a chance at breaking into the top 5? If so, would we jump Boise State? I know I'm getting way ahead of myself here but as a loyal Duck fan, I cant help but set myself up for heartache.

Ted Miller: Yes and yes.

At 11-1, with a win over USC, the Ducks likely would be top-five. Now, would Oregon jump Boise State if the Broncos remained unbeaten?

I think so. Why? Because Oregon's schedule is exponentially tougher -- none of Boise State's other 12 foes would finish in the top-half of the Pac-10. More than a few are among the worst FBS teams.

Moreover, season-openers are often treated differently than games in the middle or end of the season, and not just because of rankings momentum. The Ducks are clearly a better team today than they were in the season-opener.

I know that won't go over with Broncos fans but there is a solution: Schedule a BCS foe early and late -- even if they won't do a home-and-home series.

If Boise State played, say, Kansas -- I pick Kansas because the Jayhawks would hide behind the sofa if Boise called for a game -- on Dec. 5 instead of New Mexico State, thereby bookending their season with legitimate BCS foes, it would make up for the perception that the Broncos poured their hearts into one season-opening game and then coasted through a milquetoast schedule.

---

Mike from Berkeley writes: As a Cal fan I have nothing but respect for what Coach Tedford has achieved. He took over a program that was a perennial doormat in the Pac-10 and made it relevant. That said 2007 was a major disappointment, and while Cal will probably finish with 9 or 10 wins this season that is a major disappointment given the talent level. So do you think Tedford can ever lead the bears to the Rose Bowl? If not do you think another coach could, or will Cal just never have the recruiting power to reach that level?

Ted Miller: Remember when Nebraska fans use to say that about Tom Osborne?

Bobby Bowden went 10-2 in 1977, his second year at Florida State. Before he won his first national title in 1993, his team rolled through six consecutive "disappointing" seasons of 10 or more wins.

Mack Brown just couldn't win the big won. Then he did.

Is Jeff Tedford the coaching "genius" he was touted as in 2004? Probably not. Is it fair to question how he coaches and who he hires and other aspects of his job? Sure. He makes a lot of money and that comes with the territory.

The quarterback magic has worn off. The "failing to live up to high expectations" issue feels more legitimate today than it ever has.

But to your question as to whether Tedford can lead the Bears to the Rose Bowl: Absolutely.

If Tedford remains the Bears coach for another decade, I guarantee the Bears will go to the Granddaddy during that span. [Cut that out and we'll meet back here in 2019].

And to your final question: Yes, another coach probably could do better.

Urban Meyer could. Pete Carroll probably could. Nick Saban maybe (he'd be out of his element on the West Coast). Bill Belichick is another possibility. Maybe Tony Dungy would come out of retirement.

But if Cal doesn't feel its chances are good to hire one of those guys, my advice would be to stick with the coach who got the long-suffering program consistently inside the velvet ropes.

---

Spencer from LA writes: It turns out LeGarrette Blount lawyered up. And what about that fake apology? The real story isn't that Chip Kelly changed his mind, it's that he was forced to by the fear of a lawsuit.

Ted Miller: You refer to this story.

That was a valid story, reported straight by Mark Fainaru-Wada, one half of the combination that broke open the story of steroids in sports and wrote the landmark book, "Game of Shadows."

But this is a prime example of the need to read between the lines.

First, let's say a lawyer was brought in to force Oregon to reconsider Blount's season-long suspension. What was that lawyer going to do? Where was his traction? What was the legal argument?

The only thing I can think of would be the different treatment given Oregon point guard Aaron Brooks when he clubbed Washington's Ryan Appleby during a game.

You'll also note that the actual lawyer, Rob Carey, had no comment.

Who did comment? A guy named Chris Horn, whose apparent motive for talking is a desire for publicity for his "newly formed nonprofit designed to advocate for student-athletes."

He's a -- to use his phrase -- "quiet voices in the background" guy. Only he's shouting "look at me!"

Maybe Horn did help Blount (that's not my take, but let's give him the benefit of the doubt). The problem is Horn's subsequent publicity-seeking is a disservice to Blount.

The story before Horn went public was that Blount had earned the opportunity to possibly play again this season because of how he had behaved after his meltdown at Boise State. How he responded to his worst moment had won over coach Chip Kelly and Oregon administrators.

It's a redemption story.

Horn, instead, wants the story to be that he and Blount's parents pressured Oregon into changing their position. He wants everyone to know that.

It's about lawyers and potential lawsuits.

So which story helps Blount get to the NFL?

If Kelly and Oregon feel like they were pressured, or are embarrassed by Horn going public with his account, do you think they are going to support Blount's cause when NFL GMs call?

And I know Kelly well enough to know that if he feels lawyered up and pushed around, Blount won't see significant action even if he manages to get reinstated.

By the way, no one at Oregon backs up Horn's account. An anonymous source in Fainaru-Wade's story is quoted as saying that Blount "met with Harry Edwards for 10 minutes." Edwards said he talked to Blount for six hours.

And if this is mostly about the Ducks wanting to get back a star player who can help them win, why will they wait until Nov. 7 -- after the USC game -- to allow his earliest possible reinstatement? Heck, if the program had the threat of a lawsuit as potential cover, why not bring him back for the Oct. 24 date at Washington? A five-game suspension is a nice number, and that would give Blount a warmup game before the Trojans come to town.

As for Blount's letter of apology, yes, it doesn't read like he wrote it.

I respect how Oregon has handed this process, both in the early going and during the redirection. I'm rooting for LeGarrette Blount to get his life back in order.

I'm not sure this third-party advocacy has much merit.

---

(Read full post)