Pac-12: Urban Meyer
Our theme today, as part of our "Love to hate" week at ESPN.com, is "Left in the lurch." This is about coaches who bailed out on a Pac-12 program at an unexpected or awkward time. We're not including Urban Meyer leaving Utah for Florida or Jim Harbaugh leaving Stanford for the San Francisco 49ers because their departures were not unexpected and came only after unprecedented success.
Of course, these situations vary greatly in terms of circumstances and reaction. There aren't many college football jobs out there considered better than one in the Pac-12, so most of the coaches who bailed out on their programs left for the NFL.
But here is a sampling from the Pac-12. Feel free to provide your own thoughts below.
But two departures really stand out.
Don James is on the short list of greatest college football coaches of all time. In 18 seasons at Washington, from 1975 to 1992, he won a national title and four Rose Bowls. He went 153-57-2 (.726) and set a then-record of 98 conference victories. From 1990-92, the Huskies won 22 consecutive games.
He is the Dawgfather.
And that's why many Huskies fans will tell you the lowest moment in program history is when he resigned in protest of NCAA and Pac-12 sanctions on Aug. 22, 1993. (James really, really didn't like Washington president William Gerberding and athletic director Barbara Hedges, either).
His resignation just before the season forced Washington to promote defensive coordinator Jim Lambright, a good man and a good defensive coordinator but not an ideal fit as head coach. Other than a Rose Bowl victory after the 2000 season under Rick Neuheisel, things have never been the same in Husky Stadium. Not yet, at least.
A more recent shocker: Pete Carroll bolting USC after the 2009 season for the Seattle Seahawks.
Carroll's hiring in 2001 was widely panned, but all he did thereafter was build a college football dynasty, winning national championships in 2003 and 2004 and falling just short of a third consecutive title in 2005 in a thrilling loss to Texas. He went 97-19 (.836) in nine seasons (11-2 versus rivals Notre Dame and UCLA), won six BCS bowl games and finished ranked in the AP top-four seven times. He won 34 consecutive games from 2003-05 and coached three Heisman Trophy winners and 25 first-team All-Americans.
So, yeah, he accomplished a lot. And many thought he would coach USC for life, though many others also suspected the lure of the NFL would prove too much.
It was the timing of his sudden, stunning departure that frustrated many Trojans fans. While Carroll has repeatedly denied oncoming NCAA sanctions had anything to do with his decision to leave, that's a hard line to buy. He skipped town after a 9-4 season that featured blowout losses to Stanford and Oregon and left behind a team with a two-year bowl ban and deficit of 30 scholarships over three seasons.
Still, not unlike how James is viewed by Huskies fans, Carroll is mostly spared the wrath of Trojans fans because of what he accomplished.
There's no question, however, that both programs were left in the lurch.
Of course, these situations vary greatly in terms of circumstances and reaction. There aren't many college football jobs out there considered better than one in the Pac-12, so most of the coaches who bailed out on their programs left for the NFL.
But here is a sampling from the Pac-12. Feel free to provide your own thoughts below.
- California got dogged twice. First, after going 10-2 in 1991, Bruce Snyder bailed on the Golden Bears for Arizona State. It's rare for a coach to jump from one conference program to another, and it certainly hurts more. Then, in 1996, Steve Mariucci lasted just one year in Berkeley before jumping aboard with the San Francisco 49ers.[+] Enlarge
AP Photo/Don RyanPete Carroll stunned USC fans when he left after the 2009 season to coach the Seattle Seahawks. - Dennis Erickson twice left Pac-12 teams for sunnier pastures (at least in theory). After two years at Washington State, Erickson bolted for Miami after the 1988 season. Then, after a strong run at Oregon State from 1999-2002, Erickson left Corvallis for the San Francisco 49ers. He has repeatedly said that was the worst move of his career.
- Dick Vermeil lasted two seasons at UCLA. After going 9-2-1 in 1975 and upsetting No. 1 Ohio State in the Rose Bowl, he left for the Philadelphia Eagles.
- Rick Neuheisel shocked many when he left Colorado for Washington before the 1999 season for a million-dollar contract, which was at the time considered exorbitant. He left behind NCAA sanctions for the Buffaloes and immediately got into trouble with the Huskies. It didn't make folks in Boulder feel any better when the Huskies and Neuheisel swept a home-and-home series over the next two years.
But two departures really stand out.
Don James is on the short list of greatest college football coaches of all time. In 18 seasons at Washington, from 1975 to 1992, he won a national title and four Rose Bowls. He went 153-57-2 (.726) and set a then-record of 98 conference victories. From 1990-92, the Huskies won 22 consecutive games.
He is the Dawgfather.
And that's why many Huskies fans will tell you the lowest moment in program history is when he resigned in protest of NCAA and Pac-12 sanctions on Aug. 22, 1993. (James really, really didn't like Washington president William Gerberding and athletic director Barbara Hedges, either).
His resignation just before the season forced Washington to promote defensive coordinator Jim Lambright, a good man and a good defensive coordinator but not an ideal fit as head coach. Other than a Rose Bowl victory after the 2000 season under Rick Neuheisel, things have never been the same in Husky Stadium. Not yet, at least.
A more recent shocker: Pete Carroll bolting USC after the 2009 season for the Seattle Seahawks.
Carroll's hiring in 2001 was widely panned, but all he did thereafter was build a college football dynasty, winning national championships in 2003 and 2004 and falling just short of a third consecutive title in 2005 in a thrilling loss to Texas. He went 97-19 (.836) in nine seasons (11-2 versus rivals Notre Dame and UCLA), won six BCS bowl games and finished ranked in the AP top-four seven times. He won 34 consecutive games from 2003-05 and coached three Heisman Trophy winners and 25 first-team All-Americans.
So, yeah, he accomplished a lot. And many thought he would coach USC for life, though many others also suspected the lure of the NFL would prove too much.
It was the timing of his sudden, stunning departure that frustrated many Trojans fans. While Carroll has repeatedly denied oncoming NCAA sanctions had anything to do with his decision to leave, that's a hard line to buy. He skipped town after a 9-4 season that featured blowout losses to Stanford and Oregon and left behind a team with a two-year bowl ban and deficit of 30 scholarships over three seasons.
Still, not unlike how James is viewed by Huskies fans, Carroll is mostly spared the wrath of Trojans fans because of what he accomplished.
There's no question, however, that both programs were left in the lurch.
Happy Friday.
This is where you follow me on Twitter.
To the notes.
Dave from Birmingham writes: Not sure I get you. Why would you not want the four best teams to play in a playoff? That's what a playoff is about. I know there's a subjective part to this but that's inevitable. Is everyone that afraid of a consensus favoring the SEC because the SEC is the best conference?
Ted Miller: In a word, yes. And no matter how you frame it, that so-called consensus remains subjective. And I know this from experience.
In 1996, I worked at the Mobile Register and I was arguing with Mike Griffith, who then covered Alabama for the Register and voted in the AP poll. Now, everybody argues with Mike, but I thought he was being particularly obtuse this particular afternoon because he was touting Arizona State. I was blathering that Arizona State would have four losses if it played in the SEC.
Yes, I once was one of them. Why? Because that was the way I was raised. Football in the south, as writer Rick Bragg once ostentatiously pandered, is like a "knife fight in a ditch"! That's a bunch of silliness, but such sentiments nonetheless are inculcated into fans and they seep into the media coverage -- in the Southeast as well as other parts of the country where fetishizing the peculiarity of the South is embraced. So I understand the roots of the "just because" reaction of so many SEC fans. And I experienced its power as a sportswriter.
When I moved out to Seattle to cover Washington, I still had a "just because" feeling about West Coast vs. Southeast football. When Miami came to Husky Stadium in 2000, I thought the Hurricanes would blast the Huskies. Ergo, my initial transformative moment was watching Washington physically manhandle the Hurricanes. Don't be fooled by the final score: The Huskies owned Miami that day.
My point: Regional biases are strong and they cloud thinking, even when they feel rational. That's why there needs to be a safeguard in our new four-team playoff system for some degree of objectivity, which prioritizing conference champions provides.
I know any questions about SEC super-awesomeness make SEC folks angry. I know: Six crystal footballs. No one is doubting the SEC's ability to dominate the BCS system. And I have no doubt that dominance of a subjective system -- a beauty contest, really -- has helped push the SEC closer to something that can be judged as a more objective superiority (read: self-fulfilling prophecy).
But if we're going to have a national college football playoff, we need to create a selection process that doesn't leave open the possibility of a tag always going to a runner from a certain conference, just because.
Edward from Atlanta writes: Do you think USC coach Lane Kiffin and his staff are better at recruiting than Pete Carroll and his staff? I look at the fact that Lane Kiffin is only working with 15 scholarships and he is still bringing in top recruits after everything that has taking placed. Just imagine if he did had all his scholarships he would probably have a top 3 or top 5 recruiting class every year.
Ted Miller: No.
Kiffin and his staff are recruiting very well, but they can't do much better than Pete Carroll and his staff did from 2002-2009. You say top-three to -five each year? Carroll landed the No. 1 class multiple times. Any rare rating outside the top five was deemed an off-year. Carroll's recruiting run rates among the best run a program has produced -- think Bobby Bowden in the glory years at Florida State.
It's also worth noting that Carroll and Kiffin share two ace recruiters: Kiffin and Ed Orgeron.
Jeff from Tempe, Ariz., writes: Who do you think is going to be the starting quarterback for ASU to begin the season?
Ted Miller: That's a tough one. When I watched practice, I thought Mike Bercovici was so much better as a passer that he should be the guy. But then you have to realize that new coach Todd Graham wants to run some spread option, and that requires the quarterback to be a running threat. Bercovici is no running threat, while 6-foot-5, 242-pound Michael Eubank is. And Eubank has potential as a passer, though at present he's raw.
The easy answer is start Bercovici but use some packages with Eubank. But that's sort of a fan answer. Most coaches don't like playing two quarterbacks. They'll tell you if you play two, it means you don't have any. And QBs are not big fans of sharing the job.
I used to be a Bercovici lean, but now I'm leaning toward Eubank. Here's why: This team is much better at running back than at receiver. Even with Bercovici's live arm, this probably is going to be a run-first offense, and it makes things much more difficult for a defense if it must account for the QB as a runner. Eubank can become at least an adequate passer. Bercovici is unlikely to do the same as a runner.
Mark from Garden Grove, Calif., writes: If you could play matchmaker, which Big Ten/Pac-12 schools would you pair for the 2017 season -- and why?
Ted Miller: OK, I'll bite, basing things on where the college football world is today.
Rapsai from Eugene, Ore., writes: Ted, with Oregon's lack of depth at RB, do you see Josh Huff maybe sliding into the backfield to play some RB for the Ducks next season?
Ted Miller: A perfectly reasonable solution if there are injury issues in the backfield.
Does it make me a bad person that I don't think the Ducks are going to hurting at running back? I just think with Chip Kelly's emphasis on speed in recruiting that the Ducks will pretty much have an answer at RB, no matter how many guys get hurt. Recall that Kenjon Barner started out as a defensive back.
John from Los Angeles writes: I guess this falls into my "you know your old when you have a story for everything" file. In reading the post about Jonathan Ogden going into the HOF, I noticed your comment on his massive size. My buddies and I take a football road trip every year. We used to include the Baltimore Ravens in the trip because Will Demps (former Ravens safety) played at the high school where my buddy is the AD and he would get us tickets. Anyway, after a game against the Bengals at Cincinnati we are standing next to the Ravens team bus talking to Demps, Ogden and his people come up next to us - and he literally blocks out the sun!! You truly cannot appreciate how BIG the guy is until you stand right next to him. My buddy is wearing his USC cap (he is a big fan), so to amuse myself I keep whispering "Jack, show Ogden your hat." My friend kept his back to Ogden the entire time.
Ted Miller: I remember covering the 1996 Citrus Bowl between Ohio State and Tennessee -- which was cool because both were ranked No. 4 entering the game -- and walking up to the Ohio State bus. I saw No. 75 horsing around around this itty-bitty guy with a bald head who was No. 27.
The itty bitty guy was 6-foot-3, 240-pound, Heisman Trophy-winning running back Eddie George, and No. 75 was 6-foot-7, 325-pound Orlando Pace, who at that moment was the biggest dude I'd ever seen.
And Ogden -- at 6-foot-9, 345 -- darn near dwarfs Pace.
Only guy who ever impressed me as more spectacularly large was Shaquille O'Neal.
This is where you follow me on Twitter.
To the notes.
Dave from Birmingham writes: Not sure I get you. Why would you not want the four best teams to play in a playoff? That's what a playoff is about. I know there's a subjective part to this but that's inevitable. Is everyone that afraid of a consensus favoring the SEC because the SEC is the best conference?
Ted Miller: In a word, yes. And no matter how you frame it, that so-called consensus remains subjective. And I know this from experience.
In 1996, I worked at the Mobile Register and I was arguing with Mike Griffith, who then covered Alabama for the Register and voted in the AP poll. Now, everybody argues with Mike, but I thought he was being particularly obtuse this particular afternoon because he was touting Arizona State. I was blathering that Arizona State would have four losses if it played in the SEC.
Yes, I once was one of them. Why? Because that was the way I was raised. Football in the south, as writer Rick Bragg once ostentatiously pandered, is like a "knife fight in a ditch"! That's a bunch of silliness, but such sentiments nonetheless are inculcated into fans and they seep into the media coverage -- in the Southeast as well as other parts of the country where fetishizing the peculiarity of the South is embraced. So I understand the roots of the "just because" reaction of so many SEC fans. And I experienced its power as a sportswriter.
When I moved out to Seattle to cover Washington, I still had a "just because" feeling about West Coast vs. Southeast football. When Miami came to Husky Stadium in 2000, I thought the Hurricanes would blast the Huskies. Ergo, my initial transformative moment was watching Washington physically manhandle the Hurricanes. Don't be fooled by the final score: The Huskies owned Miami that day.
My point: Regional biases are strong and they cloud thinking, even when they feel rational. That's why there needs to be a safeguard in our new four-team playoff system for some degree of objectivity, which prioritizing conference champions provides.
I know any questions about SEC super-awesomeness make SEC folks angry. I know: Six crystal footballs. No one is doubting the SEC's ability to dominate the BCS system. And I have no doubt that dominance of a subjective system -- a beauty contest, really -- has helped push the SEC closer to something that can be judged as a more objective superiority (read: self-fulfilling prophecy).
But if we're going to have a national college football playoff, we need to create a selection process that doesn't leave open the possibility of a tag always going to a runner from a certain conference, just because.
Edward from Atlanta writes: Do you think USC coach Lane Kiffin and his staff are better at recruiting than Pete Carroll and his staff? I look at the fact that Lane Kiffin is only working with 15 scholarships and he is still bringing in top recruits after everything that has taking placed. Just imagine if he did had all his scholarships he would probably have a top 3 or top 5 recruiting class every year.
Ted Miller: No.
Kiffin and his staff are recruiting very well, but they can't do much better than Pete Carroll and his staff did from 2002-2009. You say top-three to -five each year? Carroll landed the No. 1 class multiple times. Any rare rating outside the top five was deemed an off-year. Carroll's recruiting run rates among the best run a program has produced -- think Bobby Bowden in the glory years at Florida State.
It's also worth noting that Carroll and Kiffin share two ace recruiters: Kiffin and Ed Orgeron.
Jeff from Tempe, Ariz., writes: Who do you think is going to be the starting quarterback for ASU to begin the season?
Ted Miller: That's a tough one. When I watched practice, I thought Mike Bercovici was so much better as a passer that he should be the guy. But then you have to realize that new coach Todd Graham wants to run some spread option, and that requires the quarterback to be a running threat. Bercovici is no running threat, while 6-foot-5, 242-pound Michael Eubank is. And Eubank has potential as a passer, though at present he's raw.
The easy answer is start Bercovici but use some packages with Eubank. But that's sort of a fan answer. Most coaches don't like playing two quarterbacks. They'll tell you if you play two, it means you don't have any. And QBs are not big fans of sharing the job.
I used to be a Bercovici lean, but now I'm leaning toward Eubank. Here's why: This team is much better at running back than at receiver. Even with Bercovici's live arm, this probably is going to be a run-first offense, and it makes things much more difficult for a defense if it must account for the QB as a runner. Eubank can become at least an adequate passer. Bercovici is unlikely to do the same as a runner.
Mark from Garden Grove, Calif., writes: If you could play matchmaker, which Big Ten/Pac-12 schools would you pair for the 2017 season -- and why?
Ted Miller: OK, I'll bite, basing things on where the college football world is today.
- Oregon-Ohio State: Urban Meyer vs. Chip Kelly. 'Nuff said.
- Arizona-Michigan: The Rich Rodriguez Bowl.
- Stanford-Wisconsin: Two really good schools that play smashmouth football.
- Oregon State-Michigan State: All that green would have the Beavers feeling like they're play Oregon.
- USC-Penn State: Two old-school powers whose uniforms are among the most recognizable.
- Nebraska-Arizona State: Any Sun Devils recall 1996?
- Northwestern-California: Two elite academic universities.
- Washington-Iowa: A rematch of the 1982, 1991 Rose Bowls, both won by the Huskies.
- Colorado-Purdue: Two great mascots. (Colorado would have been a good one for Nebraska, too.)
- Utah-Illinois: Utes vs. Fighting Illini.
- Washington State-Minnesota: The Cold Bowl.
- UCLA-Indiana: Two old-school basketball powers playing football.
Rapsai from Eugene, Ore., writes: Ted, with Oregon's lack of depth at RB, do you see Josh Huff maybe sliding into the backfield to play some RB for the Ducks next season?
Ted Miller: A perfectly reasonable solution if there are injury issues in the backfield.
Does it make me a bad person that I don't think the Ducks are going to hurting at running back? I just think with Chip Kelly's emphasis on speed in recruiting that the Ducks will pretty much have an answer at RB, no matter how many guys get hurt. Recall that Kenjon Barner started out as a defensive back.
John from Los Angeles writes: I guess this falls into my "you know your old when you have a story for everything" file. In reading the post about Jonathan Ogden going into the HOF, I noticed your comment on his massive size. My buddies and I take a football road trip every year. We used to include the Baltimore Ravens in the trip because Will Demps (former Ravens safety) played at the high school where my buddy is the AD and he would get us tickets. Anyway, after a game against the Bengals at Cincinnati we are standing next to the Ravens team bus talking to Demps, Ogden and his people come up next to us - and he literally blocks out the sun!! You truly cannot appreciate how BIG the guy is until you stand right next to him. My buddy is wearing his USC cap (he is a big fan), so to amuse myself I keep whispering "Jack, show Ogden your hat." My friend kept his back to Ogden the entire time.
Ted Miller: I remember covering the 1996 Citrus Bowl between Ohio State and Tennessee -- which was cool because both were ranked No. 4 entering the game -- and walking up to the Ohio State bus. I saw No. 75 horsing around around this itty-bitty guy with a bald head who was No. 27.
The itty bitty guy was 6-foot-3, 240-pound, Heisman Trophy-winning running back Eddie George, and No. 75 was 6-foot-7, 325-pound Orlando Pace, who at that moment was the biggest dude I'd ever seen.
And Ogden -- at 6-foot-9, 345 -- darn near dwarfs Pace.
Only guy who ever impressed me as more spectacularly large was Shaquille O'Neal.
Every game counts. But some games count more. Or tell us more.
We're going through the Pac-12 and picking out one game that seems most important -- or potentially most revealing -- for each team from our vantage point today.
We're going in alphabetical order.
California
Most important game: at Ohio State, Sept. 15
Why it's important: While a midseason Big Game against Bay Area rival Stanford would be the obvious choice -- particularly one in newly remodeled Memorial Stadium -- we're going to be contrarian. Our starting point is this: When was the last time the Bears won an, er, big game on the road? You could say perhaps the win at Stanford in 2009 counts, but driving an hour or so south hardly qualifies as a road trip. By our calculations, it was 2007, when the Bears nipped Oregon 31-24 in an Autzen Stadium thriller (a really, really entertaining game). That was back when everyone thought Jeff Tedford was one of the nation's best coaches and Nate Longshore was a sure-thing NFL prospect. Do Cal fans recall what happened next? I'm a little fuzzy. Ranked No. 2, about to jump to No. 1 after LSU lost. Oregon State in Strawberry Canyon. Kevin Riley's scramble. Tedford's infuriated stomp! OK, no need to go on (losing six of seven!). You could make the case that victory in Eugene hardly served a positive purpose, seeing what happened thereafter, but sometimes big wins are springboards into someplace other than the abyss. You know: Like a good season. Winning at the Horseshoe, one of the toughest places to play in the nation, would make a significant statement, nationally as well as within the Pac-12. If the Bears are able to beat a vulnerable but likely nationally ranked Ohio State squad, they almost certainly would take a 3-0 record and their own national ranking to USC the next weekend. The Bears would start the Pac-12 schedule with confidence. Quarterback Zach Maynard would have a marquee road win under his belt. The fanbase would stop wringing its hands over Tedford's hotseat and start imagining the program getting back on track. Even if the Bears lost to the Trojans, three winnable conference games follow before Stanford comes to town. Facing the Cardinal at 6-1 would make the Big Game worthy of its name. But a loss at Ohio State, particularly a lopsided one -- think horrible trips east against Tennessee and Maryland -- would add pressure to the visit to the Coliseum, where good things have not happened for the Bears of late. At 2-2, the leading topic among Bears fans would be Tedford's future. That would not be the case at 3-1 with a win over Urban Meyer.
We're going through the Pac-12 and picking out one game that seems most important -- or potentially most revealing -- for each team from our vantage point today.
We're going in alphabetical order.
California
Most important game: at Ohio State, Sept. 15
Why it's important: While a midseason Big Game against Bay Area rival Stanford would be the obvious choice -- particularly one in newly remodeled Memorial Stadium -- we're going to be contrarian. Our starting point is this: When was the last time the Bears won an, er, big game on the road? You could say perhaps the win at Stanford in 2009 counts, but driving an hour or so south hardly qualifies as a road trip. By our calculations, it was 2007, when the Bears nipped Oregon 31-24 in an Autzen Stadium thriller (a really, really entertaining game). That was back when everyone thought Jeff Tedford was one of the nation's best coaches and Nate Longshore was a sure-thing NFL prospect. Do Cal fans recall what happened next? I'm a little fuzzy. Ranked No. 2, about to jump to No. 1 after LSU lost. Oregon State in Strawberry Canyon. Kevin Riley's scramble. Tedford's infuriated stomp! OK, no need to go on (losing six of seven!). You could make the case that victory in Eugene hardly served a positive purpose, seeing what happened thereafter, but sometimes big wins are springboards into someplace other than the abyss. You know: Like a good season. Winning at the Horseshoe, one of the toughest places to play in the nation, would make a significant statement, nationally as well as within the Pac-12. If the Bears are able to beat a vulnerable but likely nationally ranked Ohio State squad, they almost certainly would take a 3-0 record and their own national ranking to USC the next weekend. The Bears would start the Pac-12 schedule with confidence. Quarterback Zach Maynard would have a marquee road win under his belt. The fanbase would stop wringing its hands over Tedford's hotseat and start imagining the program getting back on track. Even if the Bears lost to the Trojans, three winnable conference games follow before Stanford comes to town. Facing the Cardinal at 6-1 would make the Big Game worthy of its name. But a loss at Ohio State, particularly a lopsided one -- think horrible trips east against Tennessee and Maryland -- would add pressure to the visit to the Coliseum, where good things have not happened for the Bears of late. At 2-2, the leading topic among Bears fans would be Tedford's future. That would not be the case at 3-1 with a win over Urban Meyer.
Matt Hays of The Sporting News, presently known as Urban Meyer's BFF, has published his post-spring ranking of the top 25 players in college football. He writes: "These rankings are based on a combination of on-field performance and next level potential."
The list includes seven Pac-12 players. The SEC leads all conferences with nine (Washington fans: You might take note that practically the entire LSU defense made the cut).
Particularly interesting is the comment from an NFL scout on each player.
Here are the Pac-12 players on the list with comment.
1. Matt Barkley, QB, USC
NFL scout says: “He would have been a top-5 pick this year. He’ll probably be No.1 overall next year.”
2. Marqise Lee, WR, USC
NFL scout says: “These are the guys where you wish we had the one-and-done rule of the NBA.”
9. Robert Woods, WR, USC
NFL scout says: “He’s going to play a long time in this league. He has position smarts; he knows the game and is loaded with ability.”
14. De'Anthony Thomas, WR-RB, Oregon
NFL scout says: “He’s a fun guy to watch -- but he’s 160 pounds. How many guys in this league are 160 pounds?”
17. Shayne Skov, LB, Stanford
NFL scout says: “A classic middle linebacker. Hopefully he’s the same player after the injury. He’s one of those guys where you say, that kid’s a football player.”
19. Keith Price, QB, Washington
NFL scout says: “I don’t know if he plays quarterback at this level, but he has one big thing going for him: he has Sark [Washington coach Steve Sarkisian] coaching him. If anyone can get him ready to play at this level, Sark can.”
22. Keenan Allen, WR, California
NFL scout says: “He’s not a name the average college football fan would know, but he’ll be a name you’ll know in the NFL in no time.”
The list includes seven Pac-12 players. The SEC leads all conferences with nine (Washington fans: You might take note that practically the entire LSU defense made the cut).
Particularly interesting is the comment from an NFL scout on each player.
Here are the Pac-12 players on the list with comment.
1. Matt Barkley, QB, USC
NFL scout says: “He would have been a top-5 pick this year. He’ll probably be No.1 overall next year.”
2. Marqise Lee, WR, USC
NFL scout says: “These are the guys where you wish we had the one-and-done rule of the NBA.”
9. Robert Woods, WR, USC
NFL scout says: “He’s going to play a long time in this league. He has position smarts; he knows the game and is loaded with ability.”
14. De'Anthony Thomas, WR-RB, Oregon
NFL scout says: “He’s a fun guy to watch -- but he’s 160 pounds. How many guys in this league are 160 pounds?”
17. Shayne Skov, LB, Stanford
NFL scout says: “A classic middle linebacker. Hopefully he’s the same player after the injury. He’s one of those guys where you say, that kid’s a football player.”
19. Keith Price, QB, Washington
NFL scout says: “I don’t know if he plays quarterback at this level, but he has one big thing going for him: he has Sark [Washington coach Steve Sarkisian] coaching him. If anyone can get him ready to play at this level, Sark can.”
22. Keenan Allen, WR, California
NFL scout says: “He’s not a name the average college football fan would know, but he’ll be a name you’ll know in the NFL in no time.”
Welcome to the mailbag.
Follow me on Twitter here.
We have a note from a not-so-special guest this week to lead off.
Ted Miller from Scottsdale, Ariz., writes: Hey, Ted! You and Kevin do a great job. Is it true that the Surgeon General found that reading the Pac-12 blog makes you smarter? Doesn't surprise me a bit!
Anyway. My question: What do you think about word that some Pac-12 schools are dragging their feet on scheduling games with Big Ten foes, per the Big Ten-Pac-12 alliance?
Ted Miller: You have reached a new low, Self, with this juvenile artifice. So apologies to all. (I just wanted to address this).
Are some Pac-12 teams not thrilled with the Big Ten-Pac-12 partnership? Maybe.
It was announced in December that the Rose Bowl partners and academically elite conferences would, starting in 2017, play an annual football series involving all 12 schools in both leagues. But Wisconsin athletic director Barry Alvarez told Big Ten blogger Brian Bennett on Thursday that the partnership in football had not been finalized because "there are a couple of teams in the Pac-12 that are dragging their feet a little bit."
Both conference offices denied there were major issues. A Pac-12 spokesman emailed this statement: "Our schools are excited about the collaboration with the Big Ten, and we are continuing to work on sports scheduling details."
But the truth is, yes, some schools aren't thrilled, which goes along with scheduling issues that the Pac-12 blog has frequently -- redundantly? -- noted through the years.
Let's say you're Stanford.
That means Stanford could play 11 tough games every year against top AQ foes.
Here's Mark Schlabach's Way Too Early Top-25. Let's say the Cardinal next fall drew Michigan State as its Big Ten foe. That means Stanford would play: No. 2 USC, No. 4 Oregon, No. 9 Michigan State and No. 23 Notre Dame in 2012. Great fun. You could compute Cal's schedule much the same way.
The Pac-12 blog has some solutions. These solutions will be: 1. Best for the Pac-12; 2. Best for Cal and Stanford; 3. Controversial.
First, the Pac-12 needs to end the nine-game conference schedule. It might make athletic directors' lives easier in terms of scheduling and filling a stadium, but it hurts their teams and the conference as a whole. That's not an opinion. It's a mathematical fact.
Kill it. Please.
Second, Stanford and Cal need to end this silly "We must play USC and UCLA every year!" deal. Hey, I get it. Some fans enjoy the weekender. But -- come closer, because I want to whisper to you an embarrassing truth -- IT"S STUPID TO INSIST ON PLAYING USC EVERY YEAR! (Whoops... did I just yell that?) And, heck, UCLA should eventually get back into the top-25.
Insisting on playing USC every year is no different than if the ADs at Cal and Stanford said, "Hey, let's play Alabama... EVERY YEAR!"
Here is the realpolitik of college football: You can schedule success.
The Pac-12, instead, is scheduling failure. Its scheduling practices create a perception that makes the conference seem worse than it is, just as the SEC's scheduling practices accomplish the opposite.
I will not quote Cal coach Jeff Tedford and Stanford coach David Shaw on this matter. Both these guys are competitors who fear no team.
But neither one of them will hate me after reading this.
Nor will any other Pac-12 coach.
Big Ten-Pac-12 alliance? Great. Love big nonconference games. Second best thing in college football behind rivalry games.
But, first, kill the nine-game conference schedule. Then end the "designated games" between the California teams. Set up a pure rotating schedule between the North and South Divisions that will ensure the best scheduling equity possible.
Emtee Dubyew from Keizer, Ore., writes: I recently read an article on ESPN that Ohio State is installing a "Oregon style" no-huddle rapid paced offense. I seem to remember a segment Urban Meyer did when he worked for ESPN, he talked to Chip Kelly about Oregon's offense and practice methods. I mean with the PAC-12/Big10 relationship Oregon and Ohio State could do battle in the future. So would this lead to coaches being less willing to share their secrets and methods with the rest of us?
Ted Miller: Hmm... that name. You Ducks and Huskies never stop, do you? You mean this video, of course. Good stuff with Chip & Urban.
Less willing to do cool videos like this? I doubt it, and let's hope not.
First of all, coaches visit other teams all the time, though reasonably they don't allow visitors from teams they are scheduled to play. And more than a few times, it becomes a joke at a bowl game that one set of coaches met with the other set the previous spring. Still, the exchange of ideas doesn't yield details of a specific game plan. While Kelly and Meyer offer some nice insights during their chat, it's mostly superficial stuff that can be easily digested by a general audience.
Further, Meyer is an offensive innovator much like Kelly, with both on the front lines of spread-option concepts. That Meyer is planning to adopt an up-tempo, no-huddle offense is no surprise.
David from San Diego writes: So the big word post-spring practice is that USC's secondary is for real this year. Now I'm a die heard USC fan, but how can this assessment be made when everyone and their mama knows that USC's offense consisted mainly of 2 young, backup QB's, a thin RB corp, the best WR in the PAC-12 or possibly the nation out of action, not too mention all of our TE's have been hurt and not practicing either. Would you agree that all the hoopla on the secondary is a tad bit premature?
Ted Miller: All hoopla in April is a tad premature, just as the hoopla over a recruiting class is premature. We in the sportswriting business spend a lot of time giving you premature judgments, just as fans on message boards do the same -- "No worries! We have a JC transfer coming in who will solve all our problems!"
Why are folks high on USC's secondary?
Well, for one, it welcomes back all four starters from a unit that yielded the fewest TD passes (17) in the Pac-12 last season. The Trojans ranked fourth in the Pac-12 in pass efficiency defense. Not only that, just about every guy on the two-deep is back. Oh, and Florida transfer Josh Shaw is eligible to play in 2012.
Cornerback Nickell Robey and safety T.J. McDonald were both first-team All-Pac-12. McDonald is an almost certain preseason All-American. He could be the first safety picked in the 2013 NFL draft.
And there's a hunch, and it's not unreasonable, that Year 3 under coordinator Monte Kiffin could yield strong improvement, just as it did in 2011 compared to 2010.
So, best I can tell, the hoopla is based on good players coming back from a good secondary that seems likely to be better in 2012.
Or, perhaps, the hoopla comes entirely from a counter-intelligence operation run by a cabal of Freemason USC boosters connected to the Trilateral Commission.
Don from Portland writes: While I agree with you that pot in Oregon is seen as a non issue, it seems that the Ducks willingness to speak candidly about smoking to a reporter bespeaks a complete disregard for the feelings of their coaches, fans, and those players who do not use drugs. Shouldn't Chip Kelley be more concerned about his players apparent lack of loyalty?
Ted Miller: Yes, based on the ESPN Magazine article, it's clear at least one Duck broke the locker room Omertà. Yes, that should annoy Kelly and other players. I doubt it will keep anybody up at night, but it's a concern.
But that also answers some of you who feel Oregon was singled out or targeted. Typically how it works for a reporter working a story is he gets a tip or a lead, then he has to get a source talking. That's what happened here. And let's be real. If we were ranking Pac-12 towns for a laissez-faire attitude toward marijuana smoking, it likely would go: 1. Eugene; 2. Berkeley; 3. Boulder; 4. Seattle; 5. LA. As the article noted, "... The Princeton Review and High Times both have ranked the University of Oregon among the most pot-friendly schools."
You probably have just as many, er, "enthusiasts" here in Arizona among the Wildcats and Sun Devils. But I would suggest that the political-legal attitudes here are a bit different, not to mention rules about random testing.
Also, I do want to point out to Ducks fans, Oregon wasn't really singled out that much. For one, there was also a general story on pot smoking in college football, the gist of which is "wow... just about everybody is doing it."
Also, from the article:
And this: "One senior NFL executive who interviewed players at the combine says about 70 percent confessed to smoking pot, likely on the advice of their agents."
There was no implication in any part of the story that Oregon is unique. It just ended up being the "case study," in large part because someone on the team was willing to be a source.
There also was this about Kelly: "The Oregon regime is also cracking down. Anecdotal evidence suggests that Kelly has taken a hard stance in his three seasons as head coach. "I've heard weed was bigger before I got there," says one Kelly-era Duck, "but Chip cracked down on that. He'll actually attend classes with guys. If you miss a study hall, he'll drug-test you."
I got a lot of mail about this series. Most of you noted that the under-25 demographic has a much different vision about marijuana usage than the 50-and-overs. No doubt about that. Some of you were mad at ESPN, citing our desire to crush a West Coast power that threatens the SEC. Lots of folks communicated a general, "Neh." Some of you appeared to be partaking while typing.
My feeling, as I previously wrote, is this: Fret about this for 20 minutes. But that was on Wednesday, so it's time to move on. This article is unlikely to do any real harm to the university or the football program.
Ryan from Fairfield, Conn., writes: I am a former collegiate football player, and now I am inspiring to be a Director/ Producer. One of my best friends and myself created this mini-documentary, it is an emotional conversation with football players. Here is the Youtube link, check it out tell me what you think.
Ted Miller: I think it's pretty cool.
Follow me on Twitter here.
We have a note from a not-so-special guest this week to lead off.
Ted Miller from Scottsdale, Ariz., writes: Hey, Ted! You and Kevin do a great job. Is it true that the Surgeon General found that reading the Pac-12 blog makes you smarter? Doesn't surprise me a bit!
Anyway. My question: What do you think about word that some Pac-12 schools are dragging their feet on scheduling games with Big Ten foes, per the Big Ten-Pac-12 alliance?
Ted Miller: You have reached a new low, Self, with this juvenile artifice. So apologies to all. (I just wanted to address this).
Are some Pac-12 teams not thrilled with the Big Ten-Pac-12 partnership? Maybe.
It was announced in December that the Rose Bowl partners and academically elite conferences would, starting in 2017, play an annual football series involving all 12 schools in both leagues. But Wisconsin athletic director Barry Alvarez told Big Ten blogger Brian Bennett on Thursday that the partnership in football had not been finalized because "there are a couple of teams in the Pac-12 that are dragging their feet a little bit."
Both conference offices denied there were major issues. A Pac-12 spokesman emailed this statement: "Our schools are excited about the collaboration with the Big Ten, and we are continuing to work on sports scheduling details."
But the truth is, yes, some schools aren't thrilled, which goes along with scheduling issues that the Pac-12 blog has frequently -- redundantly? -- noted through the years.
Let's say you're Stanford.
- You start with a nine-game Pac-12 schedule. The ACC, SEC and Big Ten play an eight-game conference schedule, which allows for four nonconference foes -- read: typically at least three scheduled patsies.
- Then you add Stanford's (and California's) insistence on playing USC and UCLA every year. Hey, tradition!
- Then you add Oregon's rise in the North Division as a national power.
- Then you add an annual series with Notre Dame.
- Then you add an annual game with the Big Ten.
That means Stanford could play 11 tough games every year against top AQ foes.
Here's Mark Schlabach's Way Too Early Top-25. Let's say the Cardinal next fall drew Michigan State as its Big Ten foe. That means Stanford would play: No. 2 USC, No. 4 Oregon, No. 9 Michigan State and No. 23 Notre Dame in 2012. Great fun. You could compute Cal's schedule much the same way.
The Pac-12 blog has some solutions. These solutions will be: 1. Best for the Pac-12; 2. Best for Cal and Stanford; 3. Controversial.
First, the Pac-12 needs to end the nine-game conference schedule. It might make athletic directors' lives easier in terms of scheduling and filling a stadium, but it hurts their teams and the conference as a whole. That's not an opinion. It's a mathematical fact.
Kill it. Please.
Second, Stanford and Cal need to end this silly "We must play USC and UCLA every year!" deal. Hey, I get it. Some fans enjoy the weekender. But -- come closer, because I want to whisper to you an embarrassing truth -- IT"S STUPID TO INSIST ON PLAYING USC EVERY YEAR! (Whoops... did I just yell that?) And, heck, UCLA should eventually get back into the top-25.
Insisting on playing USC every year is no different than if the ADs at Cal and Stanford said, "Hey, let's play Alabama... EVERY YEAR!"
Here is the realpolitik of college football: You can schedule success.
The Pac-12, instead, is scheduling failure. Its scheduling practices create a perception that makes the conference seem worse than it is, just as the SEC's scheduling practices accomplish the opposite.
I will not quote Cal coach Jeff Tedford and Stanford coach David Shaw on this matter. Both these guys are competitors who fear no team.
But neither one of them will hate me after reading this.
Nor will any other Pac-12 coach.
Big Ten-Pac-12 alliance? Great. Love big nonconference games. Second best thing in college football behind rivalry games.
But, first, kill the nine-game conference schedule. Then end the "designated games" between the California teams. Set up a pure rotating schedule between the North and South Divisions that will ensure the best scheduling equity possible.
Emtee Dubyew from Keizer, Ore., writes: I recently read an article on ESPN that Ohio State is installing a "Oregon style" no-huddle rapid paced offense. I seem to remember a segment Urban Meyer did when he worked for ESPN, he talked to Chip Kelly about Oregon's offense and practice methods. I mean with the PAC-12/Big10 relationship Oregon and Ohio State could do battle in the future. So would this lead to coaches being less willing to share their secrets and methods with the rest of us?
Ted Miller: Hmm... that name. You Ducks and Huskies never stop, do you? You mean this video, of course. Good stuff with Chip & Urban.
Less willing to do cool videos like this? I doubt it, and let's hope not.
First of all, coaches visit other teams all the time, though reasonably they don't allow visitors from teams they are scheduled to play. And more than a few times, it becomes a joke at a bowl game that one set of coaches met with the other set the previous spring. Still, the exchange of ideas doesn't yield details of a specific game plan. While Kelly and Meyer offer some nice insights during their chat, it's mostly superficial stuff that can be easily digested by a general audience.
Further, Meyer is an offensive innovator much like Kelly, with both on the front lines of spread-option concepts. That Meyer is planning to adopt an up-tempo, no-huddle offense is no surprise.
David from San Diego writes: So the big word post-spring practice is that USC's secondary is for real this year. Now I'm a die heard USC fan, but how can this assessment be made when everyone and their mama knows that USC's offense consisted mainly of 2 young, backup QB's, a thin RB corp, the best WR in the PAC-12 or possibly the nation out of action, not too mention all of our TE's have been hurt and not practicing either. Would you agree that all the hoopla on the secondary is a tad bit premature?
Ted Miller: All hoopla in April is a tad premature, just as the hoopla over a recruiting class is premature. We in the sportswriting business spend a lot of time giving you premature judgments, just as fans on message boards do the same -- "No worries! We have a JC transfer coming in who will solve all our problems!"
Why are folks high on USC's secondary?
Well, for one, it welcomes back all four starters from a unit that yielded the fewest TD passes (17) in the Pac-12 last season. The Trojans ranked fourth in the Pac-12 in pass efficiency defense. Not only that, just about every guy on the two-deep is back. Oh, and Florida transfer Josh Shaw is eligible to play in 2012.
Cornerback Nickell Robey and safety T.J. McDonald were both first-team All-Pac-12. McDonald is an almost certain preseason All-American. He could be the first safety picked in the 2013 NFL draft.
And there's a hunch, and it's not unreasonable, that Year 3 under coordinator Monte Kiffin could yield strong improvement, just as it did in 2011 compared to 2010.
So, best I can tell, the hoopla is based on good players coming back from a good secondary that seems likely to be better in 2012.
Or, perhaps, the hoopla comes entirely from a counter-intelligence operation run by a cabal of Freemason USC boosters connected to the Trilateral Commission.
Don from Portland writes: While I agree with you that pot in Oregon is seen as a non issue, it seems that the Ducks willingness to speak candidly about smoking to a reporter bespeaks a complete disregard for the feelings of their coaches, fans, and those players who do not use drugs. Shouldn't Chip Kelley be more concerned about his players apparent lack of loyalty?
Ted Miller: Yes, based on the ESPN Magazine article, it's clear at least one Duck broke the locker room Omertà. Yes, that should annoy Kelly and other players. I doubt it will keep anybody up at night, but it's a concern.
But that also answers some of you who feel Oregon was singled out or targeted. Typically how it works for a reporter working a story is he gets a tip or a lead, then he has to get a source talking. That's what happened here. And let's be real. If we were ranking Pac-12 towns for a laissez-faire attitude toward marijuana smoking, it likely would go: 1. Eugene; 2. Berkeley; 3. Boulder; 4. Seattle; 5. LA. As the article noted, "... The Princeton Review and High Times both have ranked the University of Oregon among the most pot-friendly schools."
You probably have just as many, er, "enthusiasts" here in Arizona among the Wildcats and Sun Devils. But I would suggest that the political-legal attitudes here are a bit different, not to mention rules about random testing.
Also, I do want to point out to Ducks fans, Oregon wasn't really singled out that much. For one, there was also a general story on pot smoking in college football, the gist of which is "wow... just about everybody is doing it."
Also, from the article:
NEWS FLASH: COLLEGE kids smoke weed. That includes, according to an NCAA study released in January, 22.6 percent of athletes -- up 1.4 percentage points from the previous study in 2005. College football players (26.7 percent) ranked the highest among major sports. And the Oregon football program provides an interesting case study on the impact -- or lack thereof -- of marijuana use among players.
And this: "One senior NFL executive who interviewed players at the combine says about 70 percent confessed to smoking pot, likely on the advice of their agents."
There was no implication in any part of the story that Oregon is unique. It just ended up being the "case study," in large part because someone on the team was willing to be a source.
There also was this about Kelly: "The Oregon regime is also cracking down. Anecdotal evidence suggests that Kelly has taken a hard stance in his three seasons as head coach. "I've heard weed was bigger before I got there," says one Kelly-era Duck, "but Chip cracked down on that. He'll actually attend classes with guys. If you miss a study hall, he'll drug-test you."
I got a lot of mail about this series. Most of you noted that the under-25 demographic has a much different vision about marijuana usage than the 50-and-overs. No doubt about that. Some of you were mad at ESPN, citing our desire to crush a West Coast power that threatens the SEC. Lots of folks communicated a general, "Neh." Some of you appeared to be partaking while typing.
My feeling, as I previously wrote, is this: Fret about this for 20 minutes. But that was on Wednesday, so it's time to move on. This article is unlikely to do any real harm to the university or the football program.
Ryan from Fairfield, Conn., writes: I am a former collegiate football player, and now I am inspiring to be a Director/ Producer. One of my best friends and myself created this mini-documentary, it is an emotional conversation with football players. Here is the Youtube link, check it out tell me what you think.
Ted Miller: I think it's pretty cool.
Ohio State is becoming... Oregon Midwest?
That's what Big Ten blogger Adam Rittenberg noted on Wednesday, getting such analysis straight from the new mouth of the Horseshoe, Urban Meyer.
"All you've got to do is look at Oregon," Meyer told Rittenberg. "We're committed to it. We're still going to pop a huddle once in a while, but we're committed to it."
That sounds like bad news for the rest of the Big Ten, but perhaps not for one of the Buckeyes nonconference foes in 2012: California.
While no defense has had consistent success stopping Oregon -- LSU even had its moments of failure in the 2011 opener -- the Bears have produced more stops against the Ducks than most, most notably the 2010 nailbiter that Oregon won just 15-13.
That's Chip Kelly's fourth-lowest point total since he's been in Eugene, including his two years as offensive coordinator (and that includes the shutout the Ducks suffered at UCLA the week after QB Dennis Dixon blew out his knee in 2007). The Ducks also scored only 16 points at Cal in 2008, but that predates coordinator Clancy Pendergast and the Bears' 3-4 look.
Last year, Cal led the Ducks 15-14 at halftime, shutting Oregon out in the second quarter. What happened after the break doesn't support our point, so we will ignore it.
Here's something Cal fans might not be entertaining but perhaps should: Cal can win in Columbus on Sept. 15.
Seriously.
Yes, the Bears tend to go rear-end-over-tea-kettle on the road, particularly when they travel east.
Yes, the Horseshoe is a brutal venue in which to play, one of the nation's toughest.
Yes, Ohio State is still Ohio State, one of the nation's elite programs.
And, yes, Meyer is a feared strategist.
But there's no escaping this: California will go to Ohio State with perhaps the biggest and most athletic front seven the Buckeyes will face in 2012. And the Bears line up against a highly questionable offensive line, one that welcomes back just two starters from a unit that yielded 46 sacks -- 118th in the nation -- on just 245 pass attempts.
For comparison: Arizona, with four new starters on its offensive line in 2011, gave up 23 sacks on 577 passes. Washington State gave up 40 on 492 passes.
The Ohio State offense in 2011 was QB Braxton Miller, who led the Buckeyes in rushing (715 yards with seven touchdowns) and passing (1,159 yards with 13 touchdowns) as a freshman. He's a major talent, but he certainly won't be the first dual-option QB the Bears defense has seen.
I know Cal fans don't want to hear any optimism from the Pac-12 blog because they well know that is typically the program's ineluctable KISS OF DEATH.
So I won't mention the plausibility of the Bears visiting USC on Sept. 22 at 3-0 and nationally ranked.
That's what Big Ten blogger Adam Rittenberg noted on Wednesday, getting such analysis straight from the new mouth of the Horseshoe, Urban Meyer.
"All you've got to do is look at Oregon," Meyer told Rittenberg. "We're committed to it. We're still going to pop a huddle once in a while, but we're committed to it."
That sounds like bad news for the rest of the Big Ten, but perhaps not for one of the Buckeyes nonconference foes in 2012: California.
[+] Enlarge
Ezra Shaw/Getty ImagesAn imposing front seven on defense should help coach Jeff Tedford and Cal be competitive against elite teams in 2012.
Ezra Shaw/Getty ImagesAn imposing front seven on defense should help coach Jeff Tedford and Cal be competitive against elite teams in 2012.That's Chip Kelly's fourth-lowest point total since he's been in Eugene, including his two years as offensive coordinator (and that includes the shutout the Ducks suffered at UCLA the week after QB Dennis Dixon blew out his knee in 2007). The Ducks also scored only 16 points at Cal in 2008, but that predates coordinator Clancy Pendergast and the Bears' 3-4 look.
Last year, Cal led the Ducks 15-14 at halftime, shutting Oregon out in the second quarter. What happened after the break doesn't support our point, so we will ignore it.
Here's something Cal fans might not be entertaining but perhaps should: Cal can win in Columbus on Sept. 15.
Seriously.
Yes, the Bears tend to go rear-end-over-tea-kettle on the road, particularly when they travel east.
Yes, the Horseshoe is a brutal venue in which to play, one of the nation's toughest.
Yes, Ohio State is still Ohio State, one of the nation's elite programs.
And, yes, Meyer is a feared strategist.
But there's no escaping this: California will go to Ohio State with perhaps the biggest and most athletic front seven the Buckeyes will face in 2012. And the Bears line up against a highly questionable offensive line, one that welcomes back just two starters from a unit that yielded 46 sacks -- 118th in the nation -- on just 245 pass attempts.
For comparison: Arizona, with four new starters on its offensive line in 2011, gave up 23 sacks on 577 passes. Washington State gave up 40 on 492 passes.
The Ohio State offense in 2011 was QB Braxton Miller, who led the Buckeyes in rushing (715 yards with seven touchdowns) and passing (1,159 yards with 13 touchdowns) as a freshman. He's a major talent, but he certainly won't be the first dual-option QB the Bears defense has seen.
I know Cal fans don't want to hear any optimism from the Pac-12 blog because they well know that is typically the program's ineluctable KISS OF DEATH.
So I won't mention the plausibility of the Bears visiting USC on Sept. 22 at 3-0 and nationally ranked.
Welcome to this week's mailbag. I'm assuming you know everybody here.
For those of you who do not follow me on Twitter, you can correct that horrible injustice by going here.
To the notes!
Stefan from Honolulu writes: I'm a huge duck fan, always have been always will be. But I started to think about Oregon's recent success and have a few questions. 1)Is it possible that other defenses will soon 'figure out' Chips spread offense? ... as defenses seem to evolve quickly these days ... 2) Is it possible that Oregon's recent success and PAC dominance is due to USC and other traditional PAC powerhouses having down years over the past three seasons?
Ted Miller: It became clear last year that defensive coaches had figured Chip Kelly out. After ranking No. 1 in the nation in 2011 in both scoring and total offense, the Ducks tumbled all the way to No. 4 in total offense and No. 3 in scoring.
Yes, we are being droll!
In 2007, Kelly's first year out of New Hampshire as the Ducks' offensive coordinator, the Ducks ranked 12th in the nation in scoring. That's their worst ranking in either scoring or total offense since he arrived.
So, the short answer to your first question is, "No." Good defenses and good coaching will sometimes outflank Kelly -- no coach wins every game -- but I see no reason to believe Kelly will be consistently outsmarted in the near-future.
Defensive coaches might figure out what Kelly did a year ago, but just as defenses change and catch up, so does Kelly adjust. Kelly has said repeatedly -- to me and other reporters, including Urban Meyer when he worked for ESPN -- that he's not married to one scheme. The Ducks last season were less a spread option team than they'd been under Kelly. He constantly tweaks and adds and subtracts based on his personnel. I suspect we'll see more quarterback running in 2012, but who knows?
As to your second question: Maybe.
Oregon has been very good under Kelly, regardless of what was going on at other programs. But, of course, USC, after a dynastic run from 2002-2008, took a fall in 2009 and 2010 while dealing with the departure of Pete Carroll and NCAA sanctions. Meanwhile, Washington, once the Northwest powerhouse, gradually and then suddenly collapsed after a Rose Bowl win in 2000.
USC looks to be back in the Rose Bowl and national title mix in 2012, and the Trojans-Ducks meeting in LA on Nov. 3 is one of the likely annual Games of the Century this fall. So, we'll see what happens.
Washington? I'd say its best chance to challenge the Ducks atop the conference might be 2013, but we'll see.
And keep in mind that USC will be more affected by NCAA scholarship reductions over the next three to five years than at present. The Trojans could be the program struggling to keep up a consistently high level of play.
So I don't see an Oregon fall as long as Kelly is in Eugene anytime soon. The Ducks aren't going to win the Pac-12 every season, but they look like they have staying power in the conference and national picture.
Barring, of course, the NCAA brutalizing Oregon with sanctions, something I don't think will happen.
David from San Diego writes: Did I read this right?...Lane Kiffin is taking tackling out of USC's practice again? I understand they are light in terms of numbers, but we've already seen what happens when you take tackling out of practices (Hellooo 2010 season). Has there been any word on if this was just an end of spring practice thing or is this going to continue into and through the fall?
Ted Miller: Sounds like Kiffin wants to do everything he can to limit injuries, so it could extend into the fall. His explanation, which is reasonable, is the Trojans' defense will be far more veteran in 2012 compared to 2010. It also will be more familiar with Monte Kiffin's defensive scheme.
Coaches walk a fine line here. Physical spring practices are beneficial. They toughen a team up, and give coaches a better feel for a depth chart pecking order. Full-go blocking and tackling make players better blockers and tacklers. But full-go practices also tend to produce more injuries (Though it does seem like a lot of injuries come in non-contact situations, too). While coaches typically act philosophical about injuries in their public comments -- "It's just a part of football" -- I've had enough off-the-record conversations with coaches to see the full agony of losing a key player.
Injuries can end a national title run (see Dixon, Dennis, 2007). Injuries can can get a coach fired. Kiffin is well-aware that his team's potential Achilles' heel is depth.
So, I hear you: The Trojans were poor tacklers in 2010, and that was widely attributable to a lack of full-go contact in spring and fall camp. It's a dice roll for Kiffin to limit contact, but it appears it's one he's willing to take to keep his team healthy.
Peter from Boulder, Colo., writes: Regarding Paul Richardson, as a Buff fan it is always disappointing to see a player go down. But we knew that this season was going to be tough one way or another with a new QB, RB, TE, WR, etc. If there were ever a scenario of turning lemons into lemonade I would say this is it. 2012 should provide good experience to all the players who step into these roles, and when 2013 rolls around, those players will be one year better, one year more familiar with the scheme of Embree, and will be getting the dynamic Richardson back. I think 2013 could be a bowl year for Colorado.
Ted Miller: It's good to encounter some measured, philosophical optimism. And I mostly agree.
Colorado has a lot of questions heading into 2012. It won't have as many heading into 2013. Richardson has a redshirt year available, so he'll get his junior year back.
We'll see how things play out in 2012. While it might be a struggle, Buff fans have a right to expect the team to show improvement from Game 1 to Game 12.
Bowl team in 2013? Makes sense to me.
Brett from Seoul, Korea writes: Fans of schools like Washington and Notre Dame claim they are 'elite' programs. They claim to have the history and tradition to back it up. The problem is they haven't won anything in almost a decade. How long can a program be down before they lose their elite status?
Ted Miller: Not sure if there is an official-unofficial rule here.
Good programs experience downturns. Sometimes extended downturns. Some, such as Minnesota, which won six national titles from 1934-1960, never climb back into the fray.
Oklahoma went belly-up for a while. Alabama and USC have suffered through plenty of lean years. Hire the right coach, and things perk up.
For one, Notre Dame and Washington aren't on the same level of "elite." Notre Dame is a legendary program with 13 national titles. Washington claims two, but is mostly recognized for just one.
My feeling is both programs are pointed in the right direction under Brian Kelly and Steve Sarkisian, respectively. Are they headed again toward national title contention? It doesn't feel that way in the short term.
You can't erase history. Both programs' past success props up the idea that it can happen again.
But, yes, when a program hasn't won a major bowl game in 10 years, it leaves a layer of dust on trash talking options.
Sam from Birmingham writes: TED I thought it was impossible for the Pac-12 coaching slate to get any more interesting, but lo and behold... Bobby Petrino needs a job! How awesome would it be to watch Petrino take over at Colorado and play the likes of Kiffin, Rich Rod and Mike Leach! The Pac-12 Network could EASILY make a reality show out of it. Please pull some strings and make this happen!!!
Ted Miller: No.
One thousand times no.
The Pac-12 is better without Bobby Petrino.
Andy from Lake Lagunita writes: Would you ever throw the Venus on Spider 3 Y Banana?
Ted Miller: Depends on the coverage. Safe bet is to dump it to the fullback.
For those of you who do not follow me on Twitter, you can correct that horrible injustice by going here.
To the notes!
Stefan from Honolulu writes: I'm a huge duck fan, always have been always will be. But I started to think about Oregon's recent success and have a few questions. 1)Is it possible that other defenses will soon 'figure out' Chips spread offense? ... as defenses seem to evolve quickly these days ... 2) Is it possible that Oregon's recent success and PAC dominance is due to USC and other traditional PAC powerhouses having down years over the past three seasons?
Ted Miller: It became clear last year that defensive coaches had figured Chip Kelly out. After ranking No. 1 in the nation in 2011 in both scoring and total offense, the Ducks tumbled all the way to No. 4 in total offense and No. 3 in scoring.
Yes, we are being droll!
In 2007, Kelly's first year out of New Hampshire as the Ducks' offensive coordinator, the Ducks ranked 12th in the nation in scoring. That's their worst ranking in either scoring or total offense since he arrived.
So, the short answer to your first question is, "No." Good defenses and good coaching will sometimes outflank Kelly -- no coach wins every game -- but I see no reason to believe Kelly will be consistently outsmarted in the near-future.
Defensive coaches might figure out what Kelly did a year ago, but just as defenses change and catch up, so does Kelly adjust. Kelly has said repeatedly -- to me and other reporters, including Urban Meyer when he worked for ESPN -- that he's not married to one scheme. The Ducks last season were less a spread option team than they'd been under Kelly. He constantly tweaks and adds and subtracts based on his personnel. I suspect we'll see more quarterback running in 2012, but who knows?
As to your second question: Maybe.
Oregon has been very good under Kelly, regardless of what was going on at other programs. But, of course, USC, after a dynastic run from 2002-2008, took a fall in 2009 and 2010 while dealing with the departure of Pete Carroll and NCAA sanctions. Meanwhile, Washington, once the Northwest powerhouse, gradually and then suddenly collapsed after a Rose Bowl win in 2000.
USC looks to be back in the Rose Bowl and national title mix in 2012, and the Trojans-Ducks meeting in LA on Nov. 3 is one of the likely annual Games of the Century this fall. So, we'll see what happens.
Washington? I'd say its best chance to challenge the Ducks atop the conference might be 2013, but we'll see.
And keep in mind that USC will be more affected by NCAA scholarship reductions over the next three to five years than at present. The Trojans could be the program struggling to keep up a consistently high level of play.
So I don't see an Oregon fall as long as Kelly is in Eugene anytime soon. The Ducks aren't going to win the Pac-12 every season, but they look like they have staying power in the conference and national picture.
Barring, of course, the NCAA brutalizing Oregon with sanctions, something I don't think will happen.
David from San Diego writes: Did I read this right?...Lane Kiffin is taking tackling out of USC's practice again? I understand they are light in terms of numbers, but we've already seen what happens when you take tackling out of practices (Hellooo 2010 season). Has there been any word on if this was just an end of spring practice thing or is this going to continue into and through the fall?
Ted Miller: Sounds like Kiffin wants to do everything he can to limit injuries, so it could extend into the fall. His explanation, which is reasonable, is the Trojans' defense will be far more veteran in 2012 compared to 2010. It also will be more familiar with Monte Kiffin's defensive scheme.
Coaches walk a fine line here. Physical spring practices are beneficial. They toughen a team up, and give coaches a better feel for a depth chart pecking order. Full-go blocking and tackling make players better blockers and tacklers. But full-go practices also tend to produce more injuries (Though it does seem like a lot of injuries come in non-contact situations, too). While coaches typically act philosophical about injuries in their public comments -- "It's just a part of football" -- I've had enough off-the-record conversations with coaches to see the full agony of losing a key player.
Injuries can end a national title run (see Dixon, Dennis, 2007). Injuries can can get a coach fired. Kiffin is well-aware that his team's potential Achilles' heel is depth.
So, I hear you: The Trojans were poor tacklers in 2010, and that was widely attributable to a lack of full-go contact in spring and fall camp. It's a dice roll for Kiffin to limit contact, but it appears it's one he's willing to take to keep his team healthy.
Peter from Boulder, Colo., writes: Regarding Paul Richardson, as a Buff fan it is always disappointing to see a player go down. But we knew that this season was going to be tough one way or another with a new QB, RB, TE, WR, etc. If there were ever a scenario of turning lemons into lemonade I would say this is it. 2012 should provide good experience to all the players who step into these roles, and when 2013 rolls around, those players will be one year better, one year more familiar with the scheme of Embree, and will be getting the dynamic Richardson back. I think 2013 could be a bowl year for Colorado.
Ted Miller: It's good to encounter some measured, philosophical optimism. And I mostly agree.
Colorado has a lot of questions heading into 2012. It won't have as many heading into 2013. Richardson has a redshirt year available, so he'll get his junior year back.
We'll see how things play out in 2012. While it might be a struggle, Buff fans have a right to expect the team to show improvement from Game 1 to Game 12.
Bowl team in 2013? Makes sense to me.
Brett from Seoul, Korea writes: Fans of schools like Washington and Notre Dame claim they are 'elite' programs. They claim to have the history and tradition to back it up. The problem is they haven't won anything in almost a decade. How long can a program be down before they lose their elite status?
Ted Miller: Not sure if there is an official-unofficial rule here.
Good programs experience downturns. Sometimes extended downturns. Some, such as Minnesota, which won six national titles from 1934-1960, never climb back into the fray.
Oklahoma went belly-up for a while. Alabama and USC have suffered through plenty of lean years. Hire the right coach, and things perk up.
For one, Notre Dame and Washington aren't on the same level of "elite." Notre Dame is a legendary program with 13 national titles. Washington claims two, but is mostly recognized for just one.
My feeling is both programs are pointed in the right direction under Brian Kelly and Steve Sarkisian, respectively. Are they headed again toward national title contention? It doesn't feel that way in the short term.
You can't erase history. Both programs' past success props up the idea that it can happen again.
But, yes, when a program hasn't won a major bowl game in 10 years, it leaves a layer of dust on trash talking options.
Sam from Birmingham writes: TED I thought it was impossible for the Pac-12 coaching slate to get any more interesting, but lo and behold... Bobby Petrino needs a job! How awesome would it be to watch Petrino take over at Colorado and play the likes of Kiffin, Rich Rod and Mike Leach! The Pac-12 Network could EASILY make a reality show out of it. Please pull some strings and make this happen!!!
Ted Miller: No.
One thousand times no.
The Pac-12 is better without Bobby Petrino.
Andy from Lake Lagunita writes: Would you ever throw the Venus on Spider 3 Y Banana?
Ted Miller: Depends on the coverage. Safe bet is to dump it to the fullback.
Mailbag: No. 2 coaches; loads of disrespect
March, 30, 2012
Mar 30
6:00
PM ET
By
Ted Miller | ESPN.com
Happy Friday.
Follow me on Twitter, which is the zany new computer thing!
To the notes!
Sam from Eugene, Ore., writes: I'm a Duck and have always been a Duck but how can you not have Mike Riley on the poll for 2nd best Pac 12 coach?
Ted Miller: More than a few of you -- unhappy Oregon State fans mostly -- have called me a Mike Riley apologist, speculating that I don't criticize the Beavers' coach as much as a should because I like him.
Maybe. I do like him. Don't know anyone who doesn't, other than a former San Diego Chargers quarterback who will not be named in order to spare me a Cougars backlash.
But the reason Riley wasn't included in our poll asking who the No. 2 coach is in the Pac-12 (behind the obvious No. 1, Oregon's Chip Kelly) is that Riley has coached consecutive losing seasons -- 8-16 record, in fact. It would appear he enters the season on the hot seat.
I think Riley is a good coach. I think the Beavers have a solid shot of turning things around this fall. So he could end up on a postseason list asking who the No. 2 coach is.
But in a fluid ranking of coaches, Riley wouldn't be many folks' choice for No.2 in March of 2012.
Phillip from West Lafayette, Ind., writes: Why no Sark in your second best coach of the Pac-12 poll? If Leach, who hasn't coached in a couple of years and hasn't coached in a conference with defenses is on the list (which I have no problem with) why can't Sark be on the list? He inherited a disaster and has one of the best Offenses in the country. He fired a close friend, pillaged other schools defensive and recruiting minds and seems to have addressed the Defensive issues fairly well. If UW had a Top 75 D last year they are a Top 25 team. So, again, why no Sark?
Ted Miller: I think Steve Sarkisian is a talented coach who did a great job rebuilding a team that went 0-12 in 2008 to competitive almost immediately. He's upgraded the talent in Seattle with good recruiting, and he upgraded his staff this offseason, particularly with the hiring of defensive coordinator Justin Wilcox.
But he's only been a head coach three years, and he's gone 19-19. The Huskies lost five of their final seven games last season.
Mike Leach went 84-43 at Texas Tech, and was the 2008 Big 12 Coach of the Year. He's also is considered one of the great offensive innovators in college football.
Waiting for November from Eastern Daylight Time writes: two part question re: UO/USC:1) IF both teams are undefeated heading into the showdown in LA, what do you think a victory would mean for either team in the larger picture/narrative (BCS implications aside)? Return to elite status for USC? Confirmed elite status for Ducks?? Or neither? Seems to be the first year in many where bos and conference teams who have dominated conference in last decade will have serious talent, no sanctions, and conf. leadership on the line all at once. 2) You seem to have alluded to UO's strength of schedule and its implications for BCS standings when comparing UO/USC. Weak schedules have not hurt other teams rankings previously, as you have touched on before. Do the Ducks face a different narrative vis a vis strength of schedule TODAY because USC is the (for many) assumed favorite in the PAC-12?
Ted Miller: 1. If USC and Oregon are undefeated when they play on Nov. 3, I think the winner will end up ranked, at worst, No. 2. 2. USC returned to elite status with a final top-five ranking last season. Oregon became elite with its third consecutive Pac-10/12 title and its Rose Bowl victory.
As for Oregon's schedule: I've only questioned the nonconference slate, which is decidedly weak (and, yes, I know Kansas State finked out of a game). If the Pac-12 produces a handful of ranked teams, other than the Ducks and Trojans, the schedule toughness will take care of itself, particularly if other conference teams the Ducks are beating win big nonconference games.
Also, the Ducks and Trojans will start high enough in the national rankings that a weak schedule won't be a big deal. That wouldn't be true if they started ranked, say, 21st.
Mike from Palo Alto writes: Why do people continue to ignore and overlook Stanford in conversations about Pac-12 contenders (or even dark horses) next year? Sure they're losing the best QB in a generation, but they've got a hefty portion of returning starters, and the QBs competing to replace luck are a couple of 4-stars who've spent a few years learning under Luck, Harbaugh and Shaw.
Ted Miller: First, I don't think anyone is overlooking Stanford. The Cardinal is likely to be the third Pac-12 team -- after USC and Oregon -- ranked in the preseason top-25. Stanford could be a factor in the North race, though road games at Oregon, California and Washington won't help. And playing USC in Week 3, though at home, isn't ideal with a new quarterback.
But, just as I often pointed out that Stanford in 2011 wasn't just Andrew Luck, the voids in 2012 aren't just about Luck either.
Start with two offensive linemen who likely will be first round NFL draft picks. Yes, the Cardinal replaced three offensive linemen in 2011 and did fine, but the reason many thought the line would be fine last fall was the fact that the two coming back, David DeCastro and Jonathan Martin were, yes, future first-round NFL draft picks.
Then there's the losses of the top three receivers, including tight end Coby Fleener (another potential first-round pick), a pair of multi-year starters at safety, and underrated defensive end Matt Masifilo.
Does this mean Stanford won't play in a third-consecutive BCS bowl game? No. But these are big enough losses that it's reasonable to be skeptical. That's why I'd set the Cardinal's over-under with wins at eight.
And it's meaningful that doing so will ruffle some feathers -- among fans and inside the locker room. That shows how far the program has come.
Sean from Berkeley, Calif., writes: Looking at Oregon's schedule. Easiest 8-0 start ever? Guaranteed 10 win season? Only teams that will challenge will be @USC and @Cal? Washington or Stanford can't beat the Ducks in Eugene.
Ted Miller: If I were predicting, I would predict an 8-0 start for the Ducks.
But, man, such giddy confidence -- overconfidence? -- strikes me as a dangerous thing. Ever heard of karma?
You might need to make a sacrifice at the altar of the College Football Gods for that one.
Matt from Cupertino, Calif., writes: Ted, how likely is it that Cal goes into The Shoe on September 15th and pulls out a victory against Urban's Buckeyes? Curious to see how you think each team matches up, even this far away from the game.
Ted Miller: My initial feeling: Not likely.
Cal isn't typically good on the road, particularly when it goes east. Then you've got the Horseshoe and new coach Urban Meyer, two college football landmarks. Further, I think there should be a strong "buy" rating on Ohio State quarterback Braxton Miller, who did an admirable job in a bad situation as a freshman in 2011.
That said, there are a couple of things in Cal's favor, not the least of which is the Buckeyes playing with a postseason ban due to NCAA sanctions.
First, the Bears should have a big athletic advantage with their young-but-talented defense against what is a highly questionable Buckeyes offensive line, one that welcomes back just two starters from a unit that yielded 46 sacks. Second, the Buckeyes' defense should be good, but still doesn't look like one of the dominant units of the Jim Tressel era.
After a tumultuous offseason, Ohio State went 6-7 last season and lost its last four games. I'll likely pick the Buckeyes to beat the Bears -- in large part because I never pick Cal games right anyway -- but this is far from a mismatch.
Nate from Houston writes: First of all, I refuse to vote in your 2nd best coach poll because the USC staff is #1. Not #2, #1. Second, what do you think the odds are that Marquis Lee has a better year than Robert Woods? Lee is really blossoming with a season under him and his track participation is a giant help in conditioning, conditioning that Woods is missing out on due to his ankle....
Ted Miller: This shows how good the Trojans are at receiver. It's legit to ask if Lee might be better than Woods, who was an All-American in 2011.
I think Lee is very good. I think both will be early round NFL draft picks. But let's not forget how good Woods is when he's healthy, which he wasn't much late in the season.
If I were projecting, I'd still guess that Woods ends up with more yards and TDs than Lee. But it should be close enough that both are in the All-American conversation.
uc2k3 from Huskyville, Wash., writes: I came across an interesting suggestion by Dabo Swinney and one I've been thinking of and meaning to ask you for some time now. It's in regards to setting up scrimmages with other schools in the offseason. Just one scrimmage vs a nearby school. I've always thought that this would make the spring more interesting for players and fans and also give coaches a better assessment tool when trying to evaluate different position groups. Your thoughts?
Ted Miller: Well, uc2k3 -- are you buddies with R2D2? -- you won't ever hear me say (or write): "We need less college football."
So count me in. Just imagine what fun a scrimmage between state rivals might be. Heck, you could give half the gate away to charity, and we'd all feel good about ourselves.
The downside? Well, injuries for one. And what's the set-up? Do you keep score? Does that force you to care about winning? And what worries are there about giving away info -- about players, about schemes -- that could be used against you, by future regular-season opponents, as well as the team you scrimmage.
Still, if, say, Arizona and Arizona State sent me an email announcing a scrimmage, I'd show up with a big grin (and then both sets of fans would say I favor the other).
SEC fan from Fayetteville, Ark., writes: I know you grew up in SEC country and followed it for a while before moving off west, but why do you constantly write trash trying to make other conferences than the PAC10+2 hate on your articles? You constantly talk crap, mainly on the SEC but the BIG 10 and BIG 12-2 too? Your articles sound like everything happening back in the PAC is doing everything right while everyone else is doing everything wrong! I know your writing for a fan base that wants you to take their side and I honestly have no idea what your true point of view on college football is but how about trying to write how everyone wants a playoff in football but the PAC commish is keeping it from that? Start writing truth instead of trying to rowdy up the fan base your writing for and maybe honest people like me would take your writing seriously.
Ted Miller: Hmm.
One of the realities of my business is there is often a curiously wide distance between an accusation from a reader and what you actually have written. Or at least tried to write. When you work in the media, folks often insist, "You wrote this!" when you didn't, "You're biased!" when you work hard not to be, and "You don't know what you're talking about!" when you're actually parroting exactly what either a coach or player told you.
In this instance, let's start with this: "how about trying to write how everyone wants a playoff in football but the PAC commish is keeping it from that."
If I wrote that, it would be not only untrue, it would be the 180 degree opposite of true. The disconnect here is perhaps "SEC Fan" forgetting that Tom Hansen is no longer the Pac-10 commissioner. Larry Scott started talking about postseason models almost as soon as he was hired.
Then there's this: "why do you constantly write trash trying to make other conferences than the PAC10+2 hate on your articles? You constantly talk crap, mainly on the SEC but the BIG 10 and BIG 12-2 too? Your articles sound like everything happening back in the PAC is doing everything right while everyone else is doing everything wrong!"
Er, some examples? I get more blowback from Pac-12 fans who insist I coddle the SEC.
If this is just about my debate with SEC blogger Chris Low, well, the nature of that assignment -- "How would USC QB Matt Barkley do in the SEC?" -- was, in part, to trash talk each other.
Of course, I did write this: "And the reality of this debate is this: Barkley would be more challenged on a weekly basis by SEC defenses than by Pac-12 defenses -- which I believe are underrated but still a step behind the SEC for the reasons the Inimitable Low mentioned above."
Just don't start taking my writing too seriously. That would make me cry.
Sniffle.
Follow me on Twitter, which is the zany new computer thing!
To the notes!
Sam from Eugene, Ore., writes: I'm a Duck and have always been a Duck but how can you not have Mike Riley on the poll for 2nd best Pac 12 coach?
Ted Miller: More than a few of you -- unhappy Oregon State fans mostly -- have called me a Mike Riley apologist, speculating that I don't criticize the Beavers' coach as much as a should because I like him.
Maybe. I do like him. Don't know anyone who doesn't, other than a former San Diego Chargers quarterback who will not be named in order to spare me a Cougars backlash.
But the reason Riley wasn't included in our poll asking who the No. 2 coach is in the Pac-12 (behind the obvious No. 1, Oregon's Chip Kelly) is that Riley has coached consecutive losing seasons -- 8-16 record, in fact. It would appear he enters the season on the hot seat.
I think Riley is a good coach. I think the Beavers have a solid shot of turning things around this fall. So he could end up on a postseason list asking who the No. 2 coach is.
But in a fluid ranking of coaches, Riley wouldn't be many folks' choice for No.2 in March of 2012.
Phillip from West Lafayette, Ind., writes: Why no Sark in your second best coach of the Pac-12 poll? If Leach, who hasn't coached in a couple of years and hasn't coached in a conference with defenses is on the list (which I have no problem with) why can't Sark be on the list? He inherited a disaster and has one of the best Offenses in the country. He fired a close friend, pillaged other schools defensive and recruiting minds and seems to have addressed the Defensive issues fairly well. If UW had a Top 75 D last year they are a Top 25 team. So, again, why no Sark?
Ted Miller: I think Steve Sarkisian is a talented coach who did a great job rebuilding a team that went 0-12 in 2008 to competitive almost immediately. He's upgraded the talent in Seattle with good recruiting, and he upgraded his staff this offseason, particularly with the hiring of defensive coordinator Justin Wilcox.
But he's only been a head coach three years, and he's gone 19-19. The Huskies lost five of their final seven games last season.
Mike Leach went 84-43 at Texas Tech, and was the 2008 Big 12 Coach of the Year. He's also is considered one of the great offensive innovators in college football.
Waiting for November from Eastern Daylight Time writes: two part question re: UO/USC:1) IF both teams are undefeated heading into the showdown in LA, what do you think a victory would mean for either team in the larger picture/narrative (BCS implications aside)? Return to elite status for USC? Confirmed elite status for Ducks?? Or neither? Seems to be the first year in many where bos and conference teams who have dominated conference in last decade will have serious talent, no sanctions, and conf. leadership on the line all at once. 2) You seem to have alluded to UO's strength of schedule and its implications for BCS standings when comparing UO/USC. Weak schedules have not hurt other teams rankings previously, as you have touched on before. Do the Ducks face a different narrative vis a vis strength of schedule TODAY because USC is the (for many) assumed favorite in the PAC-12?
Ted Miller: 1. If USC and Oregon are undefeated when they play on Nov. 3, I think the winner will end up ranked, at worst, No. 2. 2. USC returned to elite status with a final top-five ranking last season. Oregon became elite with its third consecutive Pac-10/12 title and its Rose Bowl victory.
As for Oregon's schedule: I've only questioned the nonconference slate, which is decidedly weak (and, yes, I know Kansas State finked out of a game). If the Pac-12 produces a handful of ranked teams, other than the Ducks and Trojans, the schedule toughness will take care of itself, particularly if other conference teams the Ducks are beating win big nonconference games.
Also, the Ducks and Trojans will start high enough in the national rankings that a weak schedule won't be a big deal. That wouldn't be true if they started ranked, say, 21st.
Mike from Palo Alto writes: Why do people continue to ignore and overlook Stanford in conversations about Pac-12 contenders (or even dark horses) next year? Sure they're losing the best QB in a generation, but they've got a hefty portion of returning starters, and the QBs competing to replace luck are a couple of 4-stars who've spent a few years learning under Luck, Harbaugh and Shaw.
Ted Miller: First, I don't think anyone is overlooking Stanford. The Cardinal is likely to be the third Pac-12 team -- after USC and Oregon -- ranked in the preseason top-25. Stanford could be a factor in the North race, though road games at Oregon, California and Washington won't help. And playing USC in Week 3, though at home, isn't ideal with a new quarterback.
But, just as I often pointed out that Stanford in 2011 wasn't just Andrew Luck, the voids in 2012 aren't just about Luck either.
Start with two offensive linemen who likely will be first round NFL draft picks. Yes, the Cardinal replaced three offensive linemen in 2011 and did fine, but the reason many thought the line would be fine last fall was the fact that the two coming back, David DeCastro and Jonathan Martin were, yes, future first-round NFL draft picks.
Then there's the losses of the top three receivers, including tight end Coby Fleener (another potential first-round pick), a pair of multi-year starters at safety, and underrated defensive end Matt Masifilo.
Does this mean Stanford won't play in a third-consecutive BCS bowl game? No. But these are big enough losses that it's reasonable to be skeptical. That's why I'd set the Cardinal's over-under with wins at eight.
And it's meaningful that doing so will ruffle some feathers -- among fans and inside the locker room. That shows how far the program has come.
Sean from Berkeley, Calif., writes: Looking at Oregon's schedule. Easiest 8-0 start ever? Guaranteed 10 win season? Only teams that will challenge will be @USC and @Cal? Washington or Stanford can't beat the Ducks in Eugene.
Ted Miller: If I were predicting, I would predict an 8-0 start for the Ducks.
But, man, such giddy confidence -- overconfidence? -- strikes me as a dangerous thing. Ever heard of karma?
You might need to make a sacrifice at the altar of the College Football Gods for that one.
Matt from Cupertino, Calif., writes: Ted, how likely is it that Cal goes into The Shoe on September 15th and pulls out a victory against Urban's Buckeyes? Curious to see how you think each team matches up, even this far away from the game.
Ted Miller: My initial feeling: Not likely.
Cal isn't typically good on the road, particularly when it goes east. Then you've got the Horseshoe and new coach Urban Meyer, two college football landmarks. Further, I think there should be a strong "buy" rating on Ohio State quarterback Braxton Miller, who did an admirable job in a bad situation as a freshman in 2011.
That said, there are a couple of things in Cal's favor, not the least of which is the Buckeyes playing with a postseason ban due to NCAA sanctions.
First, the Bears should have a big athletic advantage with their young-but-talented defense against what is a highly questionable Buckeyes offensive line, one that welcomes back just two starters from a unit that yielded 46 sacks. Second, the Buckeyes' defense should be good, but still doesn't look like one of the dominant units of the Jim Tressel era.
After a tumultuous offseason, Ohio State went 6-7 last season and lost its last four games. I'll likely pick the Buckeyes to beat the Bears -- in large part because I never pick Cal games right anyway -- but this is far from a mismatch.
Nate from Houston writes: First of all, I refuse to vote in your 2nd best coach poll because the USC staff is #1. Not #2, #1. Second, what do you think the odds are that Marquis Lee has a better year than Robert Woods? Lee is really blossoming with a season under him and his track participation is a giant help in conditioning, conditioning that Woods is missing out on due to his ankle....
Ted Miller: This shows how good the Trojans are at receiver. It's legit to ask if Lee might be better than Woods, who was an All-American in 2011.
I think Lee is very good. I think both will be early round NFL draft picks. But let's not forget how good Woods is when he's healthy, which he wasn't much late in the season.
If I were projecting, I'd still guess that Woods ends up with more yards and TDs than Lee. But it should be close enough that both are in the All-American conversation.
uc2k3 from Huskyville, Wash., writes: I came across an interesting suggestion by Dabo Swinney and one I've been thinking of and meaning to ask you for some time now. It's in regards to setting up scrimmages with other schools in the offseason. Just one scrimmage vs a nearby school. I've always thought that this would make the spring more interesting for players and fans and also give coaches a better assessment tool when trying to evaluate different position groups. Your thoughts?
Ted Miller: Well, uc2k3 -- are you buddies with R2D2? -- you won't ever hear me say (or write): "We need less college football."
So count me in. Just imagine what fun a scrimmage between state rivals might be. Heck, you could give half the gate away to charity, and we'd all feel good about ourselves.
The downside? Well, injuries for one. And what's the set-up? Do you keep score? Does that force you to care about winning? And what worries are there about giving away info -- about players, about schemes -- that could be used against you, by future regular-season opponents, as well as the team you scrimmage.
Still, if, say, Arizona and Arizona State sent me an email announcing a scrimmage, I'd show up with a big grin (and then both sets of fans would say I favor the other).
SEC fan from Fayetteville, Ark., writes: I know you grew up in SEC country and followed it for a while before moving off west, but why do you constantly write trash trying to make other conferences than the PAC10+2 hate on your articles? You constantly talk crap, mainly on the SEC but the BIG 10 and BIG 12-2 too? Your articles sound like everything happening back in the PAC is doing everything right while everyone else is doing everything wrong! I know your writing for a fan base that wants you to take their side and I honestly have no idea what your true point of view on college football is but how about trying to write how everyone wants a playoff in football but the PAC commish is keeping it from that? Start writing truth instead of trying to rowdy up the fan base your writing for and maybe honest people like me would take your writing seriously.
Ted Miller: Hmm.
One of the realities of my business is there is often a curiously wide distance between an accusation from a reader and what you actually have written. Or at least tried to write. When you work in the media, folks often insist, "You wrote this!" when you didn't, "You're biased!" when you work hard not to be, and "You don't know what you're talking about!" when you're actually parroting exactly what either a coach or player told you.
In this instance, let's start with this: "how about trying to write how everyone wants a playoff in football but the PAC commish is keeping it from that."
If I wrote that, it would be not only untrue, it would be the 180 degree opposite of true. The disconnect here is perhaps "SEC Fan" forgetting that Tom Hansen is no longer the Pac-10 commissioner. Larry Scott started talking about postseason models almost as soon as he was hired.
Then there's this: "why do you constantly write trash trying to make other conferences than the PAC10+2 hate on your articles? You constantly talk crap, mainly on the SEC but the BIG 10 and BIG 12-2 too? Your articles sound like everything happening back in the PAC is doing everything right while everyone else is doing everything wrong!"
Er, some examples? I get more blowback from Pac-12 fans who insist I coddle the SEC.
If this is just about my debate with SEC blogger Chris Low, well, the nature of that assignment -- "How would USC QB Matt Barkley do in the SEC?" -- was, in part, to trash talk each other.
Of course, I did write this: "And the reality of this debate is this: Barkley would be more challenged on a weekly basis by SEC defenses than by Pac-12 defenses -- which I believe are underrated but still a step behind the SEC for the reasons the Inimitable Low mentioned above."
Just don't start taking my writing too seriously. That would make me cry.
Sniffle.
Take 2: Pac-12's second-best coach?
March, 23, 2012
Mar 23
12:00
PM ET
By
Ted Miller and
Kevin Gemmell | ESPN.com
Folks like rankings, which is why a lot of you had opinions on both Athlon Sports and our rankings of Pac-12 coaches this week.
There are very few naysayers to the idea that Oregon's Chip Kelly is an obvious No. 1. In fact, I'm not even sure how you gainsay that.
But who's No. 2?
That's the question before your faithful Pac-12 bloggers.
Kevin Gemmell: Since you went first last week, and I used it as an opportunity to take a shot at you about Darron/De'Anthony Thomas Top 25 incident, I'll take the lead this week and suffer whatever ribbing comes from it.
To be honest, I was pretty torn when trying to figure out who I would put at No. 2 in the conference. I think you can easily make an argument for three or four different guys. But I've also seen what Kyle Whittingham has done at Utah from the very beginning when I used to cover the Mountain West Conference.
His résumé is stellar, and his credentials are without question. He has an undefeated season to his credit and two BCS bowl game victories (I believe the NCAA credits him and Urban Meyer both for the Fiesta Bowl win). If I'm wrong on that, he still has a BCS bowl victory at a then mid-major program.
He's 7-1 all-time in bowl games. That means he's a closer. The only bowl loss was in 2010 to Boise State -- the Broncos' second football game following the Nevada field goal debacle. There weren't many that thought Boise would lose that one.
What I think is the most impressive thing about Whittingham, though, is that he's proven to be his own man. He easily could have fallen into the trap that David Shaw now finds himself in at Stanford. Critics will constantly question Shaw about if he can do it outside of Jim Harbaugh's shadow and without Andrew Luck on the roster. Whittingham faced similar charges in the face of Meyer's departure.
In that time, he's gone 66-25 and stewarded the program into the Pac-12, where the Utes went 8-5 last season, including a come-from-behind win over Georgia Tech in the Sun Bowl. Sustained success means several things. He can recruit. He can reinvent himself and the team with each new generation of players. And he makes good hires.
We all know one bad recruiting class can set a program back several years. Bad hires can have an even longer impact. Whittingham is not afraid to take gambles -- and the latest one is naming former quarterback-turned quarterbacks coach Brian Johnson his offensive coordinator. At least some see it as a gamble. But Whittingham has given us no reason over his career to think it's not going to be a great hire.
The fact is, Whittingham wins year after year. Can't ask for much more out of your coach.
Ted Miller: I deserved the snark over the twin No. 12s. That was a moment of clumsy compensation for a boneheaded oversight on my part. Of course, you did steal my No. 2 coach, which I will write off to your savvy and your foreknowledge you got to go first this week.
And it gives me a chance to tout a guy who might shortly challenge for the top-spot on this list: Arizona's Rich Rodriguez. In fact, if we could make Rodriguez's ill-fated, three-year tenure at Michigan magically disappear, and then view Rodriguez as arriving in Tucson after a brilliant run at West Virginia, you would be able to make a case for him against even Kelly.
Before the disaster in Ann Arbor, Rodriguez was widely viewed as among the nation's best coaches. He'd been successful everywhere he went, and was considered one of the nation's truly great offensive minds -- not unlike Kelly. He went 60-26 at West Virginia and, after going 3-8 his first year, never won fewer than eight games. He also won a Sugar Bowl over Georgia, and his team won the Fiesta Bowl over Oklahoma after he bolted for Michigan. The Mountaineers won 33 games his final three seasons. According to this high-powered calculator, that's an average of 11 wins per season.
But what about Michigan? Well, as we've said before and surely will say again, his failure at Michigan was more about Michigan than Rich Rodriguez. It was a bad fit from the get-go in terms of his personality versus the "Michigan way"; Rodriguez wasn't able to hire his defensive coordinator, as he has done at Arizona with Jeff Casteel; he was shamefully betrayed and undermined by a Machiavellian Lloyd Carr; and it's not unreasonable to question the agendas of some of the media coverage he received.
Some Michigan fans take issue with that perspective on Rodriguez's Michigan tenure, much of which is detailed in John Bacon's book "Three and Out." But only because they love the Wolverines more than the truth, at least in this instance.
Rodriguez repeatedly has said he's not a quick-fix guy -- he, by the way, told the folks hiring him at Michigan exactly that -- and that it will take three years for his systems and recruiting to truly take hold. I doubt Wildcats fans are exciting about waiting that long, but the smart money is on Rodriguez finding a way to get it done in Tucson.
And, yeah, that means it's legitimate to dream about a first Rose Bowl within five years.
Wouldn't it be fun if it were against the Wolverines?
There are very few naysayers to the idea that Oregon's Chip Kelly is an obvious No. 1. In fact, I'm not even sure how you gainsay that.
[+] Enlarge
AP Photo/Mark J. TerrillKyle Whittingham is 7-1 in bowl games, including a BCS victory.
AP Photo/Mark J. TerrillKyle Whittingham is 7-1 in bowl games, including a BCS victory.That's the question before your faithful Pac-12 bloggers.
Kevin Gemmell: Since you went first last week, and I used it as an opportunity to take a shot at you about Darron/De'Anthony Thomas Top 25 incident, I'll take the lead this week and suffer whatever ribbing comes from it.
To be honest, I was pretty torn when trying to figure out who I would put at No. 2 in the conference. I think you can easily make an argument for three or four different guys. But I've also seen what Kyle Whittingham has done at Utah from the very beginning when I used to cover the Mountain West Conference.
His résumé is stellar, and his credentials are without question. He has an undefeated season to his credit and two BCS bowl game victories (I believe the NCAA credits him and Urban Meyer both for the Fiesta Bowl win). If I'm wrong on that, he still has a BCS bowl victory at a then mid-major program.
He's 7-1 all-time in bowl games. That means he's a closer. The only bowl loss was in 2010 to Boise State -- the Broncos' second football game following the Nevada field goal debacle. There weren't many that thought Boise would lose that one.
What I think is the most impressive thing about Whittingham, though, is that he's proven to be his own man. He easily could have fallen into the trap that David Shaw now finds himself in at Stanford. Critics will constantly question Shaw about if he can do it outside of Jim Harbaugh's shadow and without Andrew Luck on the roster. Whittingham faced similar charges in the face of Meyer's departure.
In that time, he's gone 66-25 and stewarded the program into the Pac-12, where the Utes went 8-5 last season, including a come-from-behind win over Georgia Tech in the Sun Bowl. Sustained success means several things. He can recruit. He can reinvent himself and the team with each new generation of players. And he makes good hires.
We all know one bad recruiting class can set a program back several years. Bad hires can have an even longer impact. Whittingham is not afraid to take gambles -- and the latest one is naming former quarterback-turned quarterbacks coach Brian Johnson his offensive coordinator. At least some see it as a gamble. But Whittingham has given us no reason over his career to think it's not going to be a great hire.
The fact is, Whittingham wins year after year. Can't ask for much more out of your coach.
Ted Miller: I deserved the snark over the twin No. 12s. That was a moment of clumsy compensation for a boneheaded oversight on my part. Of course, you did steal my No. 2 coach, which I will write off to your savvy and your foreknowledge you got to go first this week.
[+] Enlarge
Courtesy of J&L PhotoRich Rodriguez led West Virginia to two BCS games, but struggled considerably at Michigan.
Courtesy of J&L PhotoRich Rodriguez led West Virginia to two BCS games, but struggled considerably at Michigan.Before the disaster in Ann Arbor, Rodriguez was widely viewed as among the nation's best coaches. He'd been successful everywhere he went, and was considered one of the nation's truly great offensive minds -- not unlike Kelly. He went 60-26 at West Virginia and, after going 3-8 his first year, never won fewer than eight games. He also won a Sugar Bowl over Georgia, and his team won the Fiesta Bowl over Oklahoma after he bolted for Michigan. The Mountaineers won 33 games his final three seasons. According to this high-powered calculator, that's an average of 11 wins per season.
But what about Michigan? Well, as we've said before and surely will say again, his failure at Michigan was more about Michigan than Rich Rodriguez. It was a bad fit from the get-go in terms of his personality versus the "Michigan way"; Rodriguez wasn't able to hire his defensive coordinator, as he has done at Arizona with Jeff Casteel; he was shamefully betrayed and undermined by a Machiavellian Lloyd Carr; and it's not unreasonable to question the agendas of some of the media coverage he received.
Some Michigan fans take issue with that perspective on Rodriguez's Michigan tenure, much of which is detailed in John Bacon's book "Three and Out." But only because they love the Wolverines more than the truth, at least in this instance.
Rodriguez repeatedly has said he's not a quick-fix guy -- he, by the way, told the folks hiring him at Michigan exactly that -- and that it will take three years for his systems and recruiting to truly take hold. I doubt Wildcats fans are exciting about waiting that long, but the smart money is on Rodriguez finding a way to get it done in Tucson.
And, yeah, that means it's legitimate to dream about a first Rose Bowl within five years.
Wouldn't it be fun if it were against the Wolverines?
Lunch links: Urban Meyer reflects on Utah
March, 19, 2012
Mar 19
2:30
PM ET
By
Ted Miller | ESPN.com
It takes two to make a thing go right. It takes two to make it outta sight.
- Arizona will have a scrimmage at Glendale Community College, so its Phoenix-area fans can check out the Wildcats. Practices are loud and fast.
- Chatting with the Arizona State quarterback candidates.
- Some offensive notes from California's spring practice. Taking a look at the Bears' next generation of running backs.
- Mi Kasa es su Kasa? Colorado coach Jon Embree just hopes he's got a tight end.
- Some fast Ducks are strutting their stuff for Oregon's track team.
- Brandon Hardin and James Rodgers were the stars of Oregon State's pro day.
- Stanford offensive coordinator Pep Hamilton is "on the mic."
- The key for USC this season might be finding a reasonably productive noseguard.
- Former Utah coach Urban Meyer talks about missing Utah and the Utes.
- Some Pac-12 talk at Solid Verbal.
What we learned in the Pac-12: Bowl edition
January, 11, 2012
Jan 11
9:00
AM ET
By
Ted Miller | ESPN.com
What did we learn from the Pac-12 bowl games? Glad you asked.
Oregon, it turns out, can win the big one: Some folks might not want to admit this, but it's a load off the backs of the Pac-12 as well as Oregon that the Ducks broke through with a win over a very good Wisconsin team in the Rose Bowl. The Ducks, whether you like it or not, have been carrying the conference flag for three consecutive years, and their losing consecutive BCS bowl games hurt the conference's image, just as it prevented Oregon from being perceived as a legit superpower. Now, any residual doubts -- real or merely faked to annoy Oregon fans -- have no more footing. Oregon is what it has proven on the field: An elite program with two BCS bowl victories since the 2001 season.
It would have been nice for USC to be eligible: USC fans believe if the Trojans had been bowl eligible, they would have beaten Oregon in the Pac-12 title game and then won the Rose Bowl, just as the Ducks did. The Pac-12 blog believes Oregon would have won a rematch in Autzen Stadium, but it doesn't matter from our point here. The loser of the Pac-12 title game -- USC or Oregon -- would have gone to the Alamo Bowl, at which point it would have beaten Baylor senseless, perhaps scoring 100 points in the process. Washington then would have been a much better matchup with Texas in the Holiday Bowl than California was, and so-on. In other words, the root cause of a weak 2-5 bowl record is the Trojans not being there to put things into a proper pecking order.
Bowls aren't good when you fired your coach: Arizona State and UCLA both played in bowl games after firing their coach. Both looked terrible. At some point, we'll find out if they lost money while embarrassing their programs. UCLA should not have applied for a waiver from the NCAA to play in a bowl game with a losing mark. Their final 6-8 record after getting downed by Illinois -- as best we can tell -- makes them the first 6-8 team in FBS history. Wow. That's awesome. Hang that on a banner in the Rose Bowl. No matter how the Bruins playing in the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl was framed -- a reward for the players! -- it was bad for the program. As for Arizona State, its 6-6 mark got it to a bowl game because its second-half collapse was so bad, it prevented the Sun Devils from losing the Pac-12 title game. There's just something unsavory about a team with a fired coach and a four-game losing streak playing in the postseason.
Defenses need to get better: Washington gave up 67 points. Arizona State yielded 56. Oregon won despite giving up 38. And Stanford yielded 41. California and UCLA didn't give up many points because they faced two of the worst offenses playing in bowl games. Only Utah can get a check mark for defense, and the Utes gave up 27 to Georgia Tech. We in the Pac-12 love offense. We love skilled quarterbacks and exciting running backs. But that doesn't mean the conference doesn't need to play good defense. By the way, Washington's hiring of Justin Wilcox and Arizona's expected hiring of Jeff Casteel sends the right message: We're going to pay big money to get better on defense.
Thanks, Utah: The Pac-12 has had some shaky bowl seasons. And some good ones, too. But the addition of Utah means the conference gets a team that is 7-1 in its last eight bowl games under coach Kyle Whittingham, including, by the way, the 2005 Fiesta Bowl (shared with Urban Meyer) and the 2009 Sugar Bowl. The Sun Bowl win over Georgia Tech included a 14-point fourth-quarter comeback to force overtime. This is a well-coached team that plays with a lot of poise and consistent effort. Not every Pac-12 team can say that -- you know who you are. The Utes more than proved they can handle a Pac-12 schedule this season, ending up 8-5 despite losing their starting quarterback. And Utah's ability to show up in the postseason on a consistent basis is a valuable addition to the conference.
[+] Enlarge
Harry How/Getty ImagesDarron Thomas and the Ducks won the Rose Bowl after losing many times on the big stage.
Harry How/Getty ImagesDarron Thomas and the Ducks won the Rose Bowl after losing many times on the big stage.It would have been nice for USC to be eligible: USC fans believe if the Trojans had been bowl eligible, they would have beaten Oregon in the Pac-12 title game and then won the Rose Bowl, just as the Ducks did. The Pac-12 blog believes Oregon would have won a rematch in Autzen Stadium, but it doesn't matter from our point here. The loser of the Pac-12 title game -- USC or Oregon -- would have gone to the Alamo Bowl, at which point it would have beaten Baylor senseless, perhaps scoring 100 points in the process. Washington then would have been a much better matchup with Texas in the Holiday Bowl than California was, and so-on. In other words, the root cause of a weak 2-5 bowl record is the Trojans not being there to put things into a proper pecking order.
Bowls aren't good when you fired your coach: Arizona State and UCLA both played in bowl games after firing their coach. Both looked terrible. At some point, we'll find out if they lost money while embarrassing their programs. UCLA should not have applied for a waiver from the NCAA to play in a bowl game with a losing mark. Their final 6-8 record after getting downed by Illinois -- as best we can tell -- makes them the first 6-8 team in FBS history. Wow. That's awesome. Hang that on a banner in the Rose Bowl. No matter how the Bruins playing in the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl was framed -- a reward for the players! -- it was bad for the program. As for Arizona State, its 6-6 mark got it to a bowl game because its second-half collapse was so bad, it prevented the Sun Devils from losing the Pac-12 title game. There's just something unsavory about a team with a fired coach and a four-game losing streak playing in the postseason.
Defenses need to get better: Washington gave up 67 points. Arizona State yielded 56. Oregon won despite giving up 38. And Stanford yielded 41. California and UCLA didn't give up many points because they faced two of the worst offenses playing in bowl games. Only Utah can get a check mark for defense, and the Utes gave up 27 to Georgia Tech. We in the Pac-12 love offense. We love skilled quarterbacks and exciting running backs. But that doesn't mean the conference doesn't need to play good defense. By the way, Washington's hiring of Justin Wilcox and Arizona's expected hiring of Jeff Casteel sends the right message: We're going to pay big money to get better on defense.
Thanks, Utah: The Pac-12 has had some shaky bowl seasons. And some good ones, too. But the addition of Utah means the conference gets a team that is 7-1 in its last eight bowl games under coach Kyle Whittingham, including, by the way, the 2005 Fiesta Bowl (shared with Urban Meyer) and the 2009 Sugar Bowl. The Sun Bowl win over Georgia Tech included a 14-point fourth-quarter comeback to force overtime. This is a well-coached team that plays with a lot of poise and consistent effort. Not every Pac-12 team can say that -- you know who you are. The Utes more than proved they can handle a Pac-12 schedule this season, ending up 8-5 despite losing their starting quarterback. And Utah's ability to show up in the postseason on a consistent basis is a valuable addition to the conference.
Oregon believes Kelly is a long-term Duck
December, 31, 2011
12/31/11
11:00
AM ET
By
Ted Miller | ESPN.com
The ink was barely dry on Rob Mullens' new contract to become Oregon's athletic director when he faced what perhaps will be considered the most important task of his tenure, even a decade down the road: Make football coach Chip Kelly happy.
It was the summer of 2010, and there was a general feeling among the pooh-bahs of Oregon sports -- most notably Nike founder Phil Knight and millionaire former AD Pat Kilkenny -- that Kelly sticking around for the long term in Eugene was the best chance for the football program to experience long-term success, a condition that keeps a department with an $80 million budget afloat.
So within 48 hours of his hiring, Mullens -- who was hired away from Kentucky in large part because of his skills with dollars and sense (no cents involved here) -- was on the phone with Kelly's agent working on a new contract.
The endgame was a six-year deal worth $20.5 million. Kelly made $2.4 million last year. He's making $2.8 million this year and will make $3.5 million the next. In 2014 and 2015, he'll pocket $4 million, which is roughly what the nation's highest-paid coaches made this year.
"People can look at the numbers and say it's high, but it fits within the marketplace," Mullens said. "It fits with the results. We have the person we want at the helm of our football program."
No other team in the nation is riding a streak of three consecutive BCS bowl games. That's a big reason Oregon merchandising sales went up from $1.5 million in 2007 -- the year Kelly left New Hampshire to become the Ducks' offensive coordinator -- to $2.25 million in 2010.
While it's difficult to quantify the entire picture financially, Mullens points out that the unprecedented success Kelly has produced over the past three years has more than paid for his big-dollar contract, mostly notably in exposure and increased donations. That revenue flow has been particularly important in a tough economy that has many athletic programs struggling, including many in the Pac-12.
Or at least it did. When the conference signed a $3 billion, 12-year TV contract with ESPN and Fox, athletic directors across the Pac-12 leaped into the air and clicked their heels. They also started to spend that money. Some on new coaches.
Sure, Kelly will make $3.5 million next year. But new UCLA coach Jim Mora, with no college coaching experience, will pocket $2.4 million. Washington State will pay Mike Leach $2.25 million.
In a lot of ways, Kelly's compensation pencils out pretty well for Oregon on the cash-for-accomplishment curve.
"It pays [for Oregon] because, one, he's a great coach," Mullens said. "Two, he's a perfect fit. That combination, you can never guarantee that. He has delivered the results."
In addition, Oregon is paying extra for stability. When the school committed to Kelly with SEC-like money, Kelly also committed to Oregon. His buyout dropped from $4 million last year to $3.75 million this year, but that number is almost prohibitive for even the richest athletic departments. In 2015-16, it will be $2 million, which is still pretty large by industry standards.
What does that buyout mean? Well, it means Kelly doesn't have wandering eyeballs. Further, it mutes all but the most uninformed rumor mills: Despite chatter to the contrary, Mullens said he has not been contacted this year by any college or NFL team that wanted to talk to Kelly about a job.
Further -- as Ken Goe of The Oregonian pointed out when there were rumors in December 2010 that Florida might come after Kelly after Urban Meyer resigned -- Kelly's contract has clauses that will make it a pain in the rear for a team to pursue him.
The sum total of all this suggests that Kelly wants to remain in Eugene, and Oregon wants him to stick around. There are no guarantees, of course, but the feeling at the administrative level -- and among key boosters -- is that Kelly is the right guy at the nexus of an athletic department that has ambitious, expansionist visions for itself.
No FBS athletic program thrives without football success, and Kelly's presence provides a sense of security for Oregon's cash cow. And as of today, it appears the marriage remains strong.
It was the summer of 2010, and there was a general feeling among the pooh-bahs of Oregon sports -- most notably Nike founder Phil Knight and millionaire former AD Pat Kilkenny -- that Kelly sticking around for the long term in Eugene was the best chance for the football program to experience long-term success, a condition that keeps a department with an $80 million budget afloat.
[+] Enlarge
AP Photo/Tony GutierrezOregon doesn't want coach Chip Kelly -- who is in the midst of a 6-year, $20.5 million deal -- going anywhere.
AP Photo/Tony GutierrezOregon doesn't want coach Chip Kelly -- who is in the midst of a 6-year, $20.5 million deal -- going anywhere.The endgame was a six-year deal worth $20.5 million. Kelly made $2.4 million last year. He's making $2.8 million this year and will make $3.5 million the next. In 2014 and 2015, he'll pocket $4 million, which is roughly what the nation's highest-paid coaches made this year.
"People can look at the numbers and say it's high, but it fits within the marketplace," Mullens said. "It fits with the results. We have the person we want at the helm of our football program."
No other team in the nation is riding a streak of three consecutive BCS bowl games. That's a big reason Oregon merchandising sales went up from $1.5 million in 2007 -- the year Kelly left New Hampshire to become the Ducks' offensive coordinator -- to $2.25 million in 2010.
While it's difficult to quantify the entire picture financially, Mullens points out that the unprecedented success Kelly has produced over the past three years has more than paid for his big-dollar contract, mostly notably in exposure and increased donations. That revenue flow has been particularly important in a tough economy that has many athletic programs struggling, including many in the Pac-12.
Or at least it did. When the conference signed a $3 billion, 12-year TV contract with ESPN and Fox, athletic directors across the Pac-12 leaped into the air and clicked their heels. They also started to spend that money. Some on new coaches.
Sure, Kelly will make $3.5 million next year. But new UCLA coach Jim Mora, with no college coaching experience, will pocket $2.4 million. Washington State will pay Mike Leach $2.25 million.
In a lot of ways, Kelly's compensation pencils out pretty well for Oregon on the cash-for-accomplishment curve.
"It pays [for Oregon] because, one, he's a great coach," Mullens said. "Two, he's a perfect fit. That combination, you can never guarantee that. He has delivered the results."
More on the Rose Bowl
For full coverage of the Wisconsin-Oregon matchup in the Rose Bowl Game presented by Vizio, check out the Rose Bowl home page.
More:
• Rose Bowl blog coverage
• Big Ten blog | Pac-12 blog
What does that buyout mean? Well, it means Kelly doesn't have wandering eyeballs. Further, it mutes all but the most uninformed rumor mills: Despite chatter to the contrary, Mullens said he has not been contacted this year by any college or NFL team that wanted to talk to Kelly about a job.
Further -- as Ken Goe of The Oregonian pointed out when there were rumors in December 2010 that Florida might come after Kelly after Urban Meyer resigned -- Kelly's contract has clauses that will make it a pain in the rear for a team to pursue him.
And a clause in the contract stipulates that Kelly must give Oregon 15 days' written notice before leaving, and further stipulates that he cannot leave during the regular season or before a postseason bowl game in which Oregon is a participant.
The sum total of all this suggests that Kelly wants to remain in Eugene, and Oregon wants him to stick around. There are no guarantees, of course, but the feeling at the administrative level -- and among key boosters -- is that Kelly is the right guy at the nexus of an athletic department that has ambitious, expansionist visions for itself.
No FBS athletic program thrives without football success, and Kelly's presence provides a sense of security for Oregon's cash cow. And as of today, it appears the marriage remains strong.
A guy from my high school played for both Gerry Faust and Lou Holtz at Notre Dame, and the story he told of the transition always stuck with me.
Faust was a really, really nice guy. And his teams ranged from mediocre to bad. Holtz? He walked into his first meeting with his new players and immediately started yelling at them. Told them to sit up straight, take their hats off and put their feet on the floor.
Three years later the Fighting Irish won the national championship.
So how do you think Holtz would have handled the grand UCLA tradition of quitting practice?
If you've ever been part of a team that you cared about, one that you sacrificed for, this is an abomination. The very idea that this is sold as a tradition is an insult to an outstanding university. It's not unlike saying player arrests were a tradition for Florida during the Urban Meyer Era. Some Bruins fans -- the younger ones -- might conclude that losing to USC is also a tradition.
Just because something bad happens over and over again doesn't mean it's a "tradition." A more accurate term might be "addiction." Such as, Bruins, to mediocrity. Or indifference.
Scott Reid of the Orange County Register nails it here. As does Peter Yoon of ESPN LA. They are tough on the Bruins, but it's certainly not gratuitous. New coach Jim Mora should read both columns. They will prepare him for what he's up against. And he needs to think deeply about how he will change the culture of this football program.
You don't always need to scream and yell. The old-school stuff Holtz used doesn't connect with some young people today, and might be a tougher sell in Southern California where there's a bit more "question authority" hardwired into the culture.
Still, Mora can tell his team in calm, firm tones that things will be different going forward. He needs to set down a clear, short list of expectations. He needs to tell players that if they don't like the new expectations, he will be glad to sign their transfer papers. And then he needs to say that if they ever go "over the wall" again, he will run them into the ground the next day.
While he's at it, he also can tell them that if they ever take team business to Twitter -- any team business -- they will be suspended.
There are obvious things Mora must do to transform the Bruins back into a winning program. Recruiting better players being priority one.
But programs that win consistently are more than great players. Oregon would be the best example of a positive culture at present in the Pac-12, though I know it will annoy some to read that. Chip Kelly's "Win the day" mantra has suffused a team that has won three consecutive conference titles, and it's done so with numerous off-field distractions.
Based on what happened Tuesday, Mora inherits something that falls a bit short of what they do in Eugene.
Quit the day.
Faust was a really, really nice guy. And his teams ranged from mediocre to bad. Holtz? He walked into his first meeting with his new players and immediately started yelling at them. Told them to sit up straight, take their hats off and put their feet on the floor.
Three years later the Fighting Irish won the national championship.
So how do you think Holtz would have handled the grand UCLA tradition of quitting practice?
If you've ever been part of a team that you cared about, one that you sacrificed for, this is an abomination. The very idea that this is sold as a tradition is an insult to an outstanding university. It's not unlike saying player arrests were a tradition for Florida during the Urban Meyer Era. Some Bruins fans -- the younger ones -- might conclude that losing to USC is also a tradition.
Just because something bad happens over and over again doesn't mean it's a "tradition." A more accurate term might be "addiction." Such as, Bruins, to mediocrity. Or indifference.
Scott Reid of the Orange County Register nails it here. As does Peter Yoon of ESPN LA. They are tough on the Bruins, but it's certainly not gratuitous. New coach Jim Mora should read both columns. They will prepare him for what he's up against. And he needs to think deeply about how he will change the culture of this football program.
You don't always need to scream and yell. The old-school stuff Holtz used doesn't connect with some young people today, and might be a tougher sell in Southern California where there's a bit more "question authority" hardwired into the culture.
Still, Mora can tell his team in calm, firm tones that things will be different going forward. He needs to set down a clear, short list of expectations. He needs to tell players that if they don't like the new expectations, he will be glad to sign their transfer papers. And then he needs to say that if they ever go "over the wall" again, he will run them into the ground the next day.
While he's at it, he also can tell them that if they ever take team business to Twitter -- any team business -- they will be suspended.
There are obvious things Mora must do to transform the Bruins back into a winning program. Recruiting better players being priority one.
But programs that win consistently are more than great players. Oregon would be the best example of a positive culture at present in the Pac-12, though I know it will annoy some to read that. Chip Kelly's "Win the day" mantra has suffused a team that has won three consecutive conference titles, and it's done so with numerous off-field distractions.
Based on what happened Tuesday, Mora inherits something that falls a bit short of what they do in Eugene.
Quit the day.
ESPN.com's Brock Huard takes a look at the coaching hires in college football this week, and the three in the Pac-12 run the gamut of his ratings.
His four categories: "Game-changers," "Ideal fits," "Pendulum swingers" and "Head scratchers."
Huard joins the almost unanimous chorus praising Washington State's hiring of Mike Leach, rating it a game-changer and the second-best hire behind Urban Meyer to Ohio State.
He writes:
He ranks Rich Rodriguez No. 5 and among his "ideal fits." He writes:
And he ranks Jim Mora to UCLA among the "Head scratchers." He writes:
His four categories: "Game-changers," "Ideal fits," "Pendulum swingers" and "Head scratchers."
Huard joins the almost unanimous chorus praising Washington State's hiring of Mike Leach, rating it a game-changer and the second-best hire behind Urban Meyer to Ohio State.
He writes:
Leach will have plenty of quarterback and wide receiver talent to recruit in the Pacific time zone, much like he had in the state of Texas. The locale, the recruiting demographics, and a fan base starving for success after just nine wins in four seasons is buying up season tickets and buying in to the conviction and plan of their new head coach.
He ranks Rich Rodriguez No. 5 and among his "ideal fits." He writes:
The Pac-12 South just lost half of its coaches, Colorado just finished a rocky first season under Jon Embree, and USC is beginning its first of three years of significant scholarship reductions. In other words, the opportunity is there for Rich Rod to put the Ann Arbor experience in the rear-view mirror and attempt to resurrect the speed, blur and fury he brought to Tulane, Clemson and West Virginia.
And he ranks Jim Mora to UCLA among the "Head scratchers." He writes:
Mora is wildly entertaining, incredibly motivated to re-write and redefine his career, and will bring boundless energy, a deep knowledge of the game and a tireless work ethic in his pursuits. Where Carroll had at least six years of experience in the college game before his hiring, Mora has essentially had none.
Arizona athletic director Greg Byrne said Tuesday he talked to a lot of people about the Wildcats' coaching vacancy, and the name that came up the most -- and, presumably, the best -- was Rich Rodriguez.
Byrne highlighted three people he chatted with during a news conference introducing Rodriguez: former Florida coach Urban Meyer, current Arizona basketball coach Sean Miller and Charlie Ragle, a high school coach in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Ragle, coach at state power Chaparral High, had two players sign at Michigan, offensive lineman Taylor Lewan and defensive end Craig Roh, when Rodriguez was the Wolverines' coach. Ragle later asked if he and his staff could come up and visit and see how the Wolverines did things.
"He said, 'I've never dealt with a major college coach that had devoted so much time and interest in our program,'" Byrne said of the conversation. "Coach Ragle told me that he'd never been more impressed in dealing with a coaching staff."
Byrne then talked to Meyer.
"He said, 'Greg, if you hire Rich Rodriguez, you're getting one of the five greatest minds in college football,'" Byrne said.
Then he talked to Miller on a flight to New York, where he would meet with Rodriguez for a second time.
"He said, 'Greg, I'd think about a couple of things. Who is the most hungry guy out there? And the second thing is who do the coaches in the Pac-12 not want to have show up in Tucson, Ariz.?'" Byrne said. "He said, 'My opinion is it's Rich Rodriguez.'"
Byrne also will get Rodriguez at a discount.
Rodriguez, 48, signed a six-year, $15 million contract with Michigan in 2007, an average of $2.5 million a year. His Arizona contract will pay him an average of $1.91 million over five years. He will make $1.45 million in his first year, $1.5 million in his second, $1.6 million his third, $1.7 million his fourth and $1.8 million his fifth. He also will receive $300,000 annually from Nike and IMG.
Rodriguez surely endeared himself to Arizona fans when he took to the podium and immediately started talking about Rose Bowls and national championships.
"Why not us?" he said. "Why can't we win it all?"
He also tried to allay fears that this was a stepping stone to getting back to a big-money program to prove his critics wrong.
"This is my final coaching stop," he said. "I hope to be able to do this another 12 or 15 years."
How much did he want Wildcats fans to embrace him? Apparently a lot.
Said Rodriguez, "I will not just coach Arizona football. I will live it."
That might sound like the hyperbole of a man desperate to ingratiate himself. And Rodriguez did sound like that at times. But he also knows he's no longer the hot coaching prospect he once was. There are questions about him. He's the rising star who fell.
He admitted that he has reverted back to his attitude from West Virginia, where he had his major success. He's got the chip back on his shoulder.
"I've got something to prove," he said.
Other notable points from Rodriguez.
And when he concluded, he said, "Bear down."
Byrne highlighted three people he chatted with during a news conference introducing Rodriguez: former Florida coach Urban Meyer, current Arizona basketball coach Sean Miller and Charlie Ragle, a high school coach in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Ragle, coach at state power Chaparral High, had two players sign at Michigan, offensive lineman Taylor Lewan and defensive end Craig Roh, when Rodriguez was the Wolverines' coach. Ragle later asked if he and his staff could come up and visit and see how the Wolverines did things.
"He said, 'I've never dealt with a major college coach that had devoted so much time and interest in our program,'" Byrne said of the conversation. "Coach Ragle told me that he'd never been more impressed in dealing with a coaching staff."
Byrne then talked to Meyer.
"He said, 'Greg, if you hire Rich Rodriguez, you're getting one of the five greatest minds in college football,'" Byrne said.
Then he talked to Miller on a flight to New York, where he would meet with Rodriguez for a second time.
"He said, 'Greg, I'd think about a couple of things. Who is the most hungry guy out there? And the second thing is who do the coaches in the Pac-12 not want to have show up in Tucson, Ariz.?'" Byrne said. "He said, 'My opinion is it's Rich Rodriguez.'"
Byrne also will get Rodriguez at a discount.
Rodriguez, 48, signed a six-year, $15 million contract with Michigan in 2007, an average of $2.5 million a year. His Arizona contract will pay him an average of $1.91 million over five years. He will make $1.45 million in his first year, $1.5 million in his second, $1.6 million his third, $1.7 million his fourth and $1.8 million his fifth. He also will receive $300,000 annually from Nike and IMG.
Rodriguez surely endeared himself to Arizona fans when he took to the podium and immediately started talking about Rose Bowls and national championships.
"Why not us?" he said. "Why can't we win it all?"
He also tried to allay fears that this was a stepping stone to getting back to a big-money program to prove his critics wrong.
"This is my final coaching stop," he said. "I hope to be able to do this another 12 or 15 years."
How much did he want Wildcats fans to embrace him? Apparently a lot.
Said Rodriguez, "I will not just coach Arizona football. I will live it."
That might sound like the hyperbole of a man desperate to ingratiate himself. And Rodriguez did sound like that at times. But he also knows he's no longer the hot coaching prospect he once was. There are questions about him. He's the rising star who fell.
He admitted that he has reverted back to his attitude from West Virginia, where he had his major success. He's got the chip back on his shoulder.
"I've got something to prove," he said.
Other notable points from Rodriguez.
- He said that Byrne asked him a lot of questions about the NCAA issues he had at Michigan. "There were issues," he said. "The issues were fixed, cleaned up. And I assure you -- I assured him -- that there would never be one again in the future."
- He said he'd hire some staff members quickly -- over the next two weeks -- but he wanted the entire staff filled out before Christmas. He said he wanted a mix of guys he's coached with and guys who know the West Coast.
- He said he would consider coaches on the present staff, but he also said he's not too worried about coaches who lack Pac-12 experience: "The best coaches can recruit anywhere."
- Rodriguez said he first met with Byrne in Michigan "a couple of weeks ago" and met with him two subsequent times, in New York -- the Wildcats were playing basketball there on Nov. 17 and 18 -- and El Paso, Texas, where Rodriguez was calling the UTEP-Tulsa game on Nov. 19.
- As for Michigan, Rodriguez was asked what he'd learned from the experience. He didn't really answer: "It's frustrating to watch them because they are doing so well. Those are all of my guys. But I'm proud of them because they are doing so well."
- He tipped his cap to former coach Mike Stoops: "Mike Stoops did some great things here. There are some good players here ... Mike Stoops is a good football coach."
- He tipped his cap to interim coach Tim Kish: "I think what he's done in a difficult situation has been absolutely remarkable."
- He said he spent last spring hanging out with friend and California coach Jeff Tedford: "He might be regretting that now."
- Expect the Arizona offense to look a lot like Oregon's offense: "We do like to play fast. I think the huddle is the biggest waste of time in football."
- He hit lots of talking points: the rivalry with Arizona State, the 'Zona Zoo, the Tucson community, how former players are welcome around the program and how much he and his family looked forward to warm weather.
And when he concluded, he said, "Bear down."
ABOUT THIS BLOG
Ted Miller
Miller has been covering college football since 1997, starting with Auburn and then heading West to Washington and the Pac-12. His columns for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer won first place in the 2007 APSE Best Writing contest. The Atlanta native and University of Richmond graduate presently lives with his wife in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Kevin Gemmell
Gemmell covered San Diego State and the Mountain West Conference for three years before joining ESPN.com. As a Santa Clara graduate, his hope is that the Broncos will one day re-institute football. Until then, he lives vicariously through his readers. Gemmell lives in California with his wife and son.
PAC-12 TEAM COVERAGE
RECRUITING NATION
USC: We Are SC
Follow everything USC at We Are USC: USC Trojans football, basketball, news, recruiting and more.
• We Are SC | Blog | RecruitingNation
