Pac-12: Wisconsin Badgers
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.
Oregon State
Most important game: Oct. 6 versus Washington State
Why it's important: Oct. 6 could be the turning point for Oregon State's entire season -- mostly because there are any number of scenarios that could happen to the Beavers leading up to that game. Assuming they get past Nicholls State in the opener (if they lose to an FCS team in back-to-back years, well, that's an entirely different story) and chances are they'll be heavy underdogs at home to Wisconsin. That likely takes them into a bye week at 1-1 before back-to-back road games at UCLA and Arizona. They could return home with a record of 1-3, 2-2 or 3-1.
So lets's look at each scenario. If they are 1-3, this will be the game that could sink or salvage the season. Staring up at 1-4 makes it awfully difficult to achieve a bowl game. But 2-3 seems a lot more manageable -- at least psychologically.
If they are 2-2 heading into WSU, a win puts them halfway toward a bowl game and matches last season's win total. Achieving that by the fifth game of the season would be a major confidence boost looking to the second part of the schedule.
And if they are 3-1 and pull off the victory, four wins in five games will go a long way because the Beavers have a difficult stretch closing out the season. They finish out at Stanford and then are home to Cal and Oregon -- three very difficult games. That leaves at BYU, home to Utah, at Washington and home to ASU sandwiched in between to find one or two more wins.
If the Beavers are going to wrap up a postseason spot, they are going to have to pick up the wins -- and some confidence -- early in the year. The Washington State game could be the tipping point in either direction.
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.
Oregon State
Most important game: Oct. 6 versus Washington State
Why it's important: Oct. 6 could be the turning point for Oregon State's entire season -- mostly because there are any number of scenarios that could happen to the Beavers leading up to that game. Assuming they get past Nicholls State in the opener (if they lose to an FCS team in back-to-back years, well, that's an entirely different story) and chances are they'll be heavy underdogs at home to Wisconsin. That likely takes them into a bye week at 1-1 before back-to-back road games at UCLA and Arizona. They could return home with a record of 1-3, 2-2 or 3-1.
So lets's look at each scenario. If they are 1-3, this will be the game that could sink or salvage the season. Staring up at 1-4 makes it awfully difficult to achieve a bowl game. But 2-3 seems a lot more manageable -- at least psychologically.
If they are 2-2 heading into WSU, a win puts them halfway toward a bowl game and matches last season's win total. Achieving that by the fifth game of the season would be a major confidence boost looking to the second part of the schedule.
And if they are 3-1 and pull off the victory, four wins in five games will go a long way because the Beavers have a difficult stretch closing out the season. They finish out at Stanford and then are home to Cal and Oregon -- three very difficult games. That leaves at BYU, home to Utah, at Washington and home to ASU sandwiched in between to find one or two more wins.
If the Beavers are going to wrap up a postseason spot, they are going to have to pick up the wins -- and some confidence -- early in the year. The Washington State game could be the tipping point in either direction.
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.
We know Oregon's De'Anthony Thomas is fast. We saw him in the Rose Bowl go all lickity split through the Wisconsin defense.
But over the weekend he got bested by a Husky and Beaver in the 100 meters in the Oregon Twilight track & field meet at Hayward Field.
And that Beaver, Oregon State's leading receiver Markus Wheaton, showed that the Ducks aren't the only Pac-12 football team with world class speed.
Wheaton finished second at 10.58 and Thomas was third at 10.65. Washington's Ryan Hamilton won at 10.51 (there was a 5.4 meter-per-second tailwind, according to Ken Goe). Beavers running back Malcolm Marable was fifth in section one at 11.12.
Oregon fans might not know this but Markus Wheaton is Kenny Wheaton's cousin. Rumor has it Kenny Wheaton once made a big play for the Ducks, but that moment has become obscure because you never get to see it replayed at Autzen Stadium.
Noted Goe on Thomas' effort: "He started well and led after 60 meters. But then Hamilton and Wheaton both passed him."
And there's this from Oregon State track coach Kelly Sullivan: “Markus did a great job in the 100-meter dash because he got second overall. There is a bit of a rivalry going on between the OSU football guys and the Oregon guys, which was good and it was a personal record for him.”
Here's what I want: Thomas, Wheaton and USC WR George Farmer -- in full pads -- racing 100 yards from goal line to goal line on the Rose Bowl field.
Maybe this can be an event for Pac-12 media day in July? Make it happen, Larry Scott!
But over the weekend he got bested by a Husky and Beaver in the 100 meters in the Oregon Twilight track & field meet at Hayward Field.
And that Beaver, Oregon State's leading receiver Markus Wheaton, showed that the Ducks aren't the only Pac-12 football team with world class speed.
Wheaton finished second at 10.58 and Thomas was third at 10.65. Washington's Ryan Hamilton won at 10.51 (there was a 5.4 meter-per-second tailwind, according to Ken Goe). Beavers running back Malcolm Marable was fifth in section one at 11.12.
Oregon fans might not know this but Markus Wheaton is Kenny Wheaton's cousin. Rumor has it Kenny Wheaton once made a big play for the Ducks, but that moment has become obscure because you never get to see it replayed at Autzen Stadium.
Noted Goe on Thomas' effort: "He started well and led after 60 meters. But then Hamilton and Wheaton both passed him."
And there's this from Oregon State track coach Kelly Sullivan: “Markus did a great job in the 100-meter dash because he got second overall. There is a bit of a rivalry going on between the OSU football guys and the Oregon guys, which was good and it was a personal record for him.”
Here's what I want: Thomas, Wheaton and USC WR George Farmer -- in full pads -- racing 100 yards from goal line to goal line on the Rose Bowl field.
Maybe this can be an event for Pac-12 media day in July? Make it happen, Larry Scott!
PHOENIX -- The first reaction was shock: Junior Seau dead at just 43, his death ruled a suicide. Quickly came grief: An all-time USC and NFL great, a good guy known for his accessibility and philanthropy away from the field who didn't want to live anymore.
Then shortly thereafter: Anger. Another football player dead before his time. Surely head injuries -- concussions -- were to blame. Surely the game is to blame. These three stages have been repeated too often of late, and their repetition threatens our love affair with a sport that obsesses our country like no other.
We can't make you feel any better about Seau. That's a still-resonating tragedy. We can only note it's premature to arrive at any overriding conclusions as to why he did the unthinkable.
But we might be able to make you feel a little bit better about football.
The takeaway from a timely Fiesta Bowl Summit panel Thursday, "Sports-Related Concussions: Facts, Fallacies and New Frontiers," was twofold: 1. The NCAA and NFL, after the media forced them to pay attention, have been working hard to get their arms around the issue; 2. It's not unreasonable to believe they can.
Of course, there always will be head injuries in contact sports, and repeated head trauma can lead to long-term health problems. This knowledge isn't new. Doctors were aware of boxers becoming punch drunk -- dementia pugilistica -- in the 1920s.
Understanding concussions and how best to prevent and then treat them, however, isn't easy. As Dr. Margot Putukian, one of four panelists at the Arizona Biltmore, said, concussions are "a moving target." Each one is different, and each person is different. They are not anything like a torn ACL.
Yet there has been recent research progress that is particularly meaningful for football. Said Dr. Michael McCrea, "The news is promising."
McCrea's research found that 28 percent of athletes suffering a concussion no longer show symptoms from their injury after 24 hours. Sixty percent are asymptomatic after a week to 10 days. So nearly 90 percent of athletes passed tests that showed their symptoms were gone inside of 10 days. But that's not the good news. Passing tests that show symptoms are gone doesn't mean the brain has fully healed -- achieved full clinical recovery.
The good news is this: Those numbers, it turns out, do indeed run roughly parallel to a full clinical recovery. Using a multi-dimensional approach -- symptoms tests as well as MRI -- for assessing the recovery process can, McCrea said, "take the guesswork out of concussion management."
These numbers should make it easier to convince athletes who are eager to get back on the field and coaches who want them there to be patient. Simply, coming back too early greatly increases the risk of another concussion, and a second concussion almost always requires a far longer recovery time. Waiting the full seven to 10 days -- and missing a game -- greatly reduces the risk of re-injury, McCrea said. Ergo, there are now specific numbers that show it's better for athlete and team not to rush things.
But the issues with concussions extend beyond understanding them, treating them and even preventing them. Every institution needs well-drilled standards and procedures for dealing with them: A concussion management plan. And coaches and training staff need to know them and know them well. Putukian asked a rhetorical question that all parents of athletes should be asking coaches (non-rhetorically): "What medical personnel do you have there, and what do you do in case of emergency?"
How many layers of procedure are involved here? Lots. Here's one you probably didn't think of: Academic accommodation. A player who suffered a concussion on Saturday might have issues taking a test the following Wednesday.
There was a consensus among the four doctors about how the NFL and NCAA can continue to improve their approach to concussions.
Coaches seem to be taking this issue seriously. Among those who attended the concussion summit, which was presided over by NCAA president Mark Emmert, were Stanford's David Shaw, Wisconsin's Brett Bielema and Texas Tech's Tommy Tuberville. When it was over, UTEP coach Mike Price stood up to say it was the best talk on the subject he'd heard.
This was a sad week for football. A few folks are seriously raising the question of whether college football should be banned. Seau's death made it less easy to scoff derisively at such talk.
Concussions are a serious problem in football. The first step toward solving a problem is recognizing it. The concussion panel this week suggested that football now might be taking a second and perhaps third step.
Then shortly thereafter: Anger. Another football player dead before his time. Surely head injuries -- concussions -- were to blame. Surely the game is to blame. These three stages have been repeated too often of late, and their repetition threatens our love affair with a sport that obsesses our country like no other.
We can't make you feel any better about Seau. That's a still-resonating tragedy. We can only note it's premature to arrive at any overriding conclusions as to why he did the unthinkable.
[+] Enlarge
Greg M. Cooper/US PresswireSpecialists are trying to determine whether Junior Seau's suicide could be related to the growing link between football and concussions.
Greg M. Cooper/US PresswireSpecialists are trying to determine whether Junior Seau's suicide could be related to the growing link between football and concussions.The takeaway from a timely Fiesta Bowl Summit panel Thursday, "Sports-Related Concussions: Facts, Fallacies and New Frontiers," was twofold: 1. The NCAA and NFL, after the media forced them to pay attention, have been working hard to get their arms around the issue; 2. It's not unreasonable to believe they can.
Of course, there always will be head injuries in contact sports, and repeated head trauma can lead to long-term health problems. This knowledge isn't new. Doctors were aware of boxers becoming punch drunk -- dementia pugilistica -- in the 1920s.
Understanding concussions and how best to prevent and then treat them, however, isn't easy. As Dr. Margot Putukian, one of four panelists at the Arizona Biltmore, said, concussions are "a moving target." Each one is different, and each person is different. They are not anything like a torn ACL.
Yet there has been recent research progress that is particularly meaningful for football. Said Dr. Michael McCrea, "The news is promising."
McCrea's research found that 28 percent of athletes suffering a concussion no longer show symptoms from their injury after 24 hours. Sixty percent are asymptomatic after a week to 10 days. So nearly 90 percent of athletes passed tests that showed their symptoms were gone inside of 10 days. But that's not the good news. Passing tests that show symptoms are gone doesn't mean the brain has fully healed -- achieved full clinical recovery.
The good news is this: Those numbers, it turns out, do indeed run roughly parallel to a full clinical recovery. Using a multi-dimensional approach -- symptoms tests as well as MRI -- for assessing the recovery process can, McCrea said, "take the guesswork out of concussion management."
These numbers should make it easier to convince athletes who are eager to get back on the field and coaches who want them there to be patient. Simply, coming back too early greatly increases the risk of another concussion, and a second concussion almost always requires a far longer recovery time. Waiting the full seven to 10 days -- and missing a game -- greatly reduces the risk of re-injury, McCrea said. Ergo, there are now specific numbers that show it's better for athlete and team not to rush things.
But the issues with concussions extend beyond understanding them, treating them and even preventing them. Every institution needs well-drilled standards and procedures for dealing with them: A concussion management plan. And coaches and training staff need to know them and know them well. Putukian asked a rhetorical question that all parents of athletes should be asking coaches (non-rhetorically): "What medical personnel do you have there, and what do you do in case of emergency?"
How many layers of procedure are involved here? Lots. Here's one you probably didn't think of: Academic accommodation. A player who suffered a concussion on Saturday might have issues taking a test the following Wednesday.
There was a consensus among the four doctors about how the NFL and NCAA can continue to improve their approach to concussions.
- Education: Players and coaches need to understand how serious head injuries are, and the potentially harmful long-term consequences for returning to play too soon. This could include, for example, coaches deciding to limit contact during practices.
- Equipment: There are no helmets that prevent concussions, and there won't ever be. That doesn't mean some helmets aren't better than others. Virginia Tech has devised a respected helmet ratings system, and the Riddell 360, Rawlings Quantum Plus and Riddell Revolution Speed all achieved five-star ratings.
- Rules changes: Obviously, an emphasis on stopping head-to-head collisions has been front-and-center. A lot of attention also is being paid to when concussions are most likely to happen in a football game -- on special teams, in the open field and for specific positions.
- Culture change: This might be one of the most difficult to enact -- see the bounty scandal involving the New Orleans Saints. Football is a physical game. That's why it's fun to play and to watch. But there needs to be a recognition that brutality for brutality's sake, a zeal for hurting opponents, can have horrific ramifications after the cartoonish strut and taunt end.
Coaches seem to be taking this issue seriously. Among those who attended the concussion summit, which was presided over by NCAA president Mark Emmert, were Stanford's David Shaw, Wisconsin's Brett Bielema and Texas Tech's Tommy Tuberville. When it was over, UTEP coach Mike Price stood up to say it was the best talk on the subject he'd heard.
This was a sad week for football. A few folks are seriously raising the question of whether college football should be banned. Seau's death made it less easy to scoff derisively at such talk.
Concussions are a serious problem in football. The first step toward solving a problem is recognizing it. The concussion panel this week suggested that football now might be taking a second and perhaps third step.
Our topic is new looks to old rivalries. Other ESPN.com writers are looking at Ohio State-Michigan (Urban Meyer vs. Brady Hoke), Oklahoma State flipping the script on Oklahoma and the new feel of Clemson-South Carolina.
So why am I tossing Oregon-Washington into that pool?
Well, there's this conversation that has taken place between trash-talking Ducks and Huskies fans for years.
Fast-forward.
So why am I tossing Oregon-Washington into that pool?
Well, there's this conversation that has taken place between trash-talking Ducks and Huskies fans for years.
Ducks in 2004: We beat you 31-6.
Huskies in 2004: But when did you last win a Rose Bowl!
Ducks in 2005: We beat you 45-21.
Huskies in 2005: But when did you last win a Rose Bowl!
Fast-forward.
Ducks in 2012: We've beaten you eight consecutive years by an average margin of 25 points and never by fewer than 17 points.
Huskies in 2012: But when did you last win a Rose Bowl!
Ducks in 2012: Ha!
Huskies in 2012: Drat.
When Oregon outlasted Wisconsin 45-38 in January, it won its first Rose Bowl in 95 years. We know this because immediately after the game, coach Chip Kelly -- who often tells reporters he doesn't care about such things -- hollered to the crowd, "It's been 95 years since you could say: Oregon Ducks, Rose Bowl champions!"
I have long been an accidental tourist with this rivalry. I covered Washington's seventh -- and last -- Rose Bowl victory after the 2000 season. I've also covered a bunch of Ducks-Huskies games. I've been accused by each set of fans of being a homer for the other at least once a week since the Pac-12 blog crawled out of the Mother Ship in 2008 and went, "Ooooooo, a mailbag! This is where I'll get compliments from everyone!"
When I first arrived in Seattle in 1999, having no idea these programs hated each other, the Huskies were still the Big Brother in the Northwest. They mostly owned Oregon, Oregon State and Washington State. Now the Ducks are the top, er, Ducks. Not only have they beaten Washington eight consecutive times, they also haven't lost to Washington State since 2006 or Oregon State since 2007.
The Ducks' dominance of Washington -- winning and winning big -- has been mostly stunning. Still, the Huskies had some grounds for rebuttal. The program had been a national power and certainly would be again. And its trophy case contained seven Rose Bowl trophies. Oregon fans could -- fairly -- accuse the Huskies of living in the past, but the Rose Bowl tweak scored a point. And any honest Oregon fan will tell you it smarted.
Or it did smart. It's no longer valid. That page has turned, thereby redefining the rivalry in a measurable way.
Of course, Huskies fans can still hoist a national title into the air. Oregon still doesn't have one of those.
Yet.
The Heisman Pundit has released its official 2012 Heisman Trophy Watch List, and as you’d expect, it’s the usual suspects from the Pac-12 on the list.
Though in alphabetical order, it’s widely assumed that USC quarterback Matt Barkley is the front-runner with all others playing catch-up before the first snap has been taken. Here’s the list.
The Pac-12 blog entertained which player from the conference we thought would emerge as the Heisman winner in a Take 2 back in March. Watch lists are always subject to change, and until we actually see some games, it’s only fun speculation at this point.
No question that Barkley is the early leader in the minds of many. Given his statistics last season, the receivers he has around him and the lofty preseason ranking the Trojans are expected to enjoy, he’s looking down on the pack – at least for now.
Thomas is going to have big play after big play this season, which makes him a very strong Heisman candidate. His exploits can be packaged into an explosive highlight reel that is easily digestible for East Coast voters. No one ever gets tired of seeing 85-yard touchdown runs (unless you're safeties chasing Thomas).
Price lacks the national brand at this point, but that could all change in Week 2 in Baton Rouge. A strong showing against LSU is certain to boost his exposure and could catapult him from dark horse contender to major candidate. And then he's got Stanford, Oregon and USC all in the first six games. He could be the leader at the turn ... or slip out of the running all together.
Though in alphabetical order, it’s widely assumed that USC quarterback Matt Barkley is the front-runner with all others playing catch-up before the first snap has been taken. Here’s the list.
- Tavon Austin, Sr., AP, West Virginia
- Montee Ball, Sr., RB, Wisconsin
- Matt Barkley, Sr., QB, USC
- Tajh Boyd, Jr., QB, Clemson
- Tyler Bray, Jr., QB, Tennessee
- Knile Davis, Jr., RB, Arkansas
- James Franklin, Jr., QB, Missouri
- Landry Jones, Sr., QB, Oklahoma
- Collin Klein, Sr., QB, Kansas State
- Marcus Lattimore, Jr., RB, South Carolina
- Aaron Murray, Jr., QB, Georgia
- Keith Price, Jr., QB, Washington
- Denard Robinson, Sr., QB, Michigan
- Geno Smith, Sr., QB, West Virginia
- De’Anthony Thomas, So., RB, Oregon
- Sammy Watkins, So, WR, Clemson
- Tyler Wilson, Sr., QB, Arkansas
- Cierre Wood, Sr., RB, Notre Dame
The Pac-12 blog entertained which player from the conference we thought would emerge as the Heisman winner in a Take 2 back in March. Watch lists are always subject to change, and until we actually see some games, it’s only fun speculation at this point.
No question that Barkley is the early leader in the minds of many. Given his statistics last season, the receivers he has around him and the lofty preseason ranking the Trojans are expected to enjoy, he’s looking down on the pack – at least for now.
Thomas is going to have big play after big play this season, which makes him a very strong Heisman candidate. His exploits can be packaged into an explosive highlight reel that is easily digestible for East Coast voters. No one ever gets tired of seeing 85-yard touchdown runs (unless you're safeties chasing Thomas).
Price lacks the national brand at this point, but that could all change in Week 2 in Baton Rouge. A strong showing against LSU is certain to boost his exposure and could catapult him from dark horse contender to major candidate. And then he's got Stanford, Oregon and USC all in the first six games. He could be the leader at the turn ... or slip out of the running all together.
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.
The Eugene chapter of Habitat for Humanity is $500 richer because of Oregon's Rose Bowl victory.
That's because Eugene mayor Kitty Piercy prevailed in her bet with Madison mayor Paul Soglin when the Ducks beat Wisconsin 45-38.
In a departure from the usual wagers of local products, the two mayors bet $500 to be used for tools for the Habitat for Humanity organization in the prevailing city. They agreed to raise the money privately and that no city funds would be involved.
Piercy will present the winnings to Don Griffin, executive director of the Springfield-Eugene Habitat for Humanity. The Oregon Duck -- call him "Puddles" -- and some Ducks players will participate in the ceremony Friday at 1:45 p.m. PT at Oregon's Jaqua Academic Center.
That's because Eugene mayor Kitty Piercy prevailed in her bet with Madison mayor Paul Soglin when the Ducks beat Wisconsin 45-38.
In a departure from the usual wagers of local products, the two mayors bet $500 to be used for tools for the Habitat for Humanity organization in the prevailing city. They agreed to raise the money privately and that no city funds would be involved.
Piercy will present the winnings to Don Griffin, executive director of the Springfield-Eugene Habitat for Humanity. The Oregon Duck -- call him "Puddles" -- and some Ducks players will participate in the ceremony Friday at 1:45 p.m. PT at Oregon's Jaqua Academic Center.
Our countdown of the Pac-12's top 25 players continues.
You can see Ted Miller's preseason top 25 here.
No. 12 (tie). Darron Thomas, QB & De'Anthony Thomas, WR-RB, Oregon
2011 numbers: Darron Thomas completed 62 percent of his passes for 2,761 yards with 33 TDs and seven interceptions. He also rushed for 206 yards and three scores. De'Anthony Thomas rushed for 595 yards and seven TDs, averaging 10.8 yards per carry. He caught 46 passes for 605 yards and nine TDs. He averaged 27.3 yards per kick return with two TDs.
Preseason ranking: Darron Thomas was No. 3. De'Anthony Thomas was unranked.
Making the case for the Thomases: No doubting these Thomases! (Yes, this was a screw-up. Yes, one of these guys was inadvertently -- stupidly -- left off of the master top-25 list when the countdown began. So this is the best way to make sure they both get included. The good news is this is about where both would rank). Darron Thomas had a good season but fell a bit in our overall estimation -- he threw and ran for fewer yards than in 2010 -- while De'Anthony Thomas will be the highest rated true freshman. Darron Thomas, despite surprising many with his decision to enter the NFL draft a year early, ranks first in career touchdown passes (66) for Oregon, seventh in passing yards (5,910) and sixth in total offense (6,633). He is the third player in Pac-12 history (USC’s Matt Leinart 2003-04, Stanford’s Andrew Luck 2010-11) with consecutive seasons with 30 or more touchdown passes. And he was outstanding in the Rose Bowl, completing 17 of 23 for 268 yards with three touchdown’s and one interception in the win over Wisconsin.
De'Anthony Thomas was even more outstanding in the Rose Bowl, with a team-high 314 all-purpose yards, carrying the ball twice for 155 yards and two TDs, including a stunningly explosive 91 yard bolt. He also caught four passes for 34 yards. De'Anthony Thomas was the Pac-12 co-offensive freshman of the year and earned first team All-Conference honors as a kick returner. He was the only player in the nation with at least 400 yards rushing, receiving and kick returning. He ranked 11th nationally in all-purpose yards with 147.8 ypg. He earned numerous freshman All-American honors and is already being mentioned as a leading 2012 Heisman Trophy candidate.
13. Marquess Wilson, WR, Washington State
14. David DeCastro, OL, Stanford
15. Keenan Allen, WR, California
16. Marqise Lee, WR, USC
17. Nick Perry, DE, USC
18. Nick Foles, QB, Arizona
19. T.J. McDonald, S, USC
20. Dion Jordan, DE, Oregon
21. John White IV, RB, Utah
22. Coby Fleener, TE, Stanford
23. Nickell Robey, CB, USC
24. Stepfan Taylor, RB, Stanford
25. David Paulson, TE, Oregon
You can see Ted Miller's preseason top 25 here.
No. 12 (tie). Darron Thomas, QB & De'Anthony Thomas, WR-RB, Oregon
2011 numbers: Darron Thomas completed 62 percent of his passes for 2,761 yards with 33 TDs and seven interceptions. He also rushed for 206 yards and three scores. De'Anthony Thomas rushed for 595 yards and seven TDs, averaging 10.8 yards per carry. He caught 46 passes for 605 yards and nine TDs. He averaged 27.3 yards per kick return with two TDs.
Preseason ranking: Darron Thomas was No. 3. De'Anthony Thomas was unranked.
Making the case for the Thomases: No doubting these Thomases! (Yes, this was a screw-up. Yes, one of these guys was inadvertently -- stupidly -- left off of the master top-25 list when the countdown began. So this is the best way to make sure they both get included. The good news is this is about where both would rank). Darron Thomas had a good season but fell a bit in our overall estimation -- he threw and ran for fewer yards than in 2010 -- while De'Anthony Thomas will be the highest rated true freshman. Darron Thomas, despite surprising many with his decision to enter the NFL draft a year early, ranks first in career touchdown passes (66) for Oregon, seventh in passing yards (5,910) and sixth in total offense (6,633). He is the third player in Pac-12 history (USC’s Matt Leinart 2003-04, Stanford’s Andrew Luck 2010-11) with consecutive seasons with 30 or more touchdown passes. And he was outstanding in the Rose Bowl, completing 17 of 23 for 268 yards with three touchdown’s and one interception in the win over Wisconsin.
De'Anthony Thomas was even more outstanding in the Rose Bowl, with a team-high 314 all-purpose yards, carrying the ball twice for 155 yards and two TDs, including a stunningly explosive 91 yard bolt. He also caught four passes for 34 yards. De'Anthony Thomas was the Pac-12 co-offensive freshman of the year and earned first team All-Conference honors as a kick returner. He was the only player in the nation with at least 400 yards rushing, receiving and kick returning. He ranked 11th nationally in all-purpose yards with 147.8 ypg. He earned numerous freshman All-American honors and is already being mentioned as a leading 2012 Heisman Trophy candidate.
13. Marquess Wilson, WR, Washington State
14. David DeCastro, OL, Stanford
15. Keenan Allen, WR, California
16. Marqise Lee, WR, USC
17. Nick Perry, DE, USC
18. Nick Foles, QB, Arizona
19. T.J. McDonald, S, USC
20. Dion Jordan, DE, Oregon
21. John White IV, RB, Utah
22. Coby Fleener, TE, Stanford
23. Nickell Robey, CB, USC
24. Stepfan Taylor, RB, Stanford
25. David Paulson, TE, Oregon
Opening the mailbag: USC is overrated!
February, 24, 2012
Feb 24
6:30
PM ET
By
Ted Miller | ESPN.com
Happy Friday!
You can follow me on Twitter here.
Jeff from Austin, Texas, writes: Part of me (or rather, most of me) is wondering how much of the USC hype is coming from them being named "USC." Yes, they ended the season strong, but they only had a win over one ranked team all season (Oregon) which they nearly choked away in the fourth quarter. Sure they're good, but preseason #1 or 2?
Ted Miller: USC isn't a perfect team, as noted here. Part of the reason the Trojans are being talked about as preseason No. 1 is the lack of an obvious No. 1 (though, to me, LSU should start at No. 1, based on what the Tigers have coming back from a pretty darn good 2011 team).
But USC's résumé is pretty impressive. Let's start with last season. The Trojans were sort of "neh" through a 4-1 start. But they were outstanding over the second half of the season.
That leads into what's coming back from that 10-2 team that finished ranked No. 5: 19 starters, including QB Matt Barkley, a sure top-10 NFL draft pick if he'd opted to leave, the best receiving tandem in the nation -- Robert Woods and Marqise Lee -- a 1,000-yard rusher in Curtis McNeal and their entire defensive back seven. Heck, it's worth noting that both specialists also are back, including first-team All-Pac-12 kicker Andre Heidari.
The issues are obvious: Questions on the defensive line and overall depth issues. (Man, could the Trojans use a couple of LSU's surfeit of future NFL D-linemen).
To me the top-two heading to 2012 are fairly obvious: 1. LSU; 2. USC.
And that would be a heck of a final game, if it held.
LSU would get a chance for revenge over the fact that no one really thinks of it as the true 2003 national champion.
Brian from Liberty Lake, Wash., writes: My question is have we seen the last of [Kevin] Prince as UCLA's QB? I think I speak for most UCLA fans when I say I hope so. Prince is a good guy but not the answer UCLA needs at QB.
Ted Miller: If I were a betting man -- giggle, giggle -- I'd lay my money on redshirt freshman Brett Hundley. He's a true dual-threat QB with tons of upside. And he is the future (though the Bruins signed two very good QBs in this recruiting class).
That said, the situation is as simple as this: Whoever plays the best in spring practice and fall camp is going to win the job. Jim Mora doesn't strike me as a guy who coaches by hypotheticals. He wants to win now, and if Kevin Prince makes it clear in advance of the season that he's the best guy to run the Bruins offense, then Prince will start at Rice on Sept. 1.
I also like that you pointed out that Prince is a "good guy." He is. And he's been a stand-up guy under difficult circumstances, whether you are talking about injuries or changing offensive coordinators on a near-annual basis -- Noel Mazzone will be his third. He's run a pro-style offense, a pistol and now will (probably) be asked to run a spread, mostly out of a traditional shotgun formation.
By the way, just because I'm a lean for Hundley doesn't mean I see it as anything close to a done deal. He clearly wasn't ready to start last spring when he looked overwhelmed, and he's yet to see action when the lights are on. Meanwhile, Prince has 26 career starts and is among the top-10 in Bruins history in passing yards and total offense.
Nik from Portland writes: With the new rules about kick offs, that are suppose to help protect players by having more touchbacks, do you feel that the some of the games excitement is going to be lost? as in less 40+ kick returns or even a repeat something like THE PLAY (Cal Vs Stanford). Or do you think more of them will happen?
Ted Miller: The new rule is this: Kickoffs will be moved up from the 30 to the 35-yard line next season. Players will also be limited to a 5-yard running head start. The reason? Fewer kickoff returns mean fewer injuries. At least, that's the -- reasonable -- theory. (The NFL moved up kickoffs up 5 yards this past season and touchbacks increased dramatically, according to the AP story).
Will excitement be lost? Sure. If there are more touchbacks, there will then be fewer exciting kickoff returns. Taking the ball away from guys like De'Anthony Thomas, Jamal Miles or Robert Woods means fewer oh-no-he-didn't! moments.
But you'd assume this wasn't a half-cocked decision: There is evidence that this new rule will yield fewer injuries, particularly concussions. So you want hear me whine about that.
It also will create a bit of new strategy. If you have a big-footed kicker, do you always want him to blast it into the endzone? Or might you try to get more hangtime and see if your kick team can pin your opponent inside the 20? Might we see a few more on-side kicks? And, if kickoff returns decrease in importance, will player like Thomas, Miles or Woods become less likely to be used for them?
This is a move that chips away at some excitement but with the intention of improving player safety. Hard to get too bent about that.
Pittsburgh from Pittsburgh writes: Not cool to denigrate places where people live. When you put something out there like that, life has a funny way of humbling you.
Ted Miller: I agree it's not cool to denigrate places where people live. And also that life has a way of humbling you. Try writing a high volume of stories for public consumption for a living.
But I don't think I denigrated any place where people live when I wrote about new Arizona State coach Todd Graham this week.
I wrote:
Am I making fun of the reaction to Graham leaving Pittsburgh for Arizona State? Absolutely. I think it was ridiculous. Predictable, but nonetheless overblown.
Did I say anything bad about the city of Pittsburgh? No, I called Tempe "a better place to live." Obviously, that pure opinion. But Graham made that a centerpiece of why he bolted, and I'd wager that if you polled 100 random people across the country, more would choose to live in the Phoenix area rather than Pittsburgh.
People vacation here. People retire here. Spring training will shortly start. There's a reason for all that. It was chilly and rainy today in Pittsburgh. Over here in Scottsdale, I'll be grilling tonight in my bare feet.
By the way, I've been to Pittsburgh a few times. I like Pittsburgh. I'm, in fact, on record lauding it -- see this travel piece I did before the 2006 Super Bowl. (And, yes, I felt bad I left out Primanti Brothers).
By the way II, not to pander to Panthers fans, but you might find this interesting: It seems I'm a big fan of your new head coach.
You can follow me on Twitter here.
Jeff from Austin, Texas, writes: Part of me (or rather, most of me) is wondering how much of the USC hype is coming from them being named "USC." Yes, they ended the season strong, but they only had a win over one ranked team all season (Oregon) which they nearly choked away in the fourth quarter. Sure they're good, but preseason #1 or 2?
Ted Miller: USC isn't a perfect team, as noted here. Part of the reason the Trojans are being talked about as preseason No. 1 is the lack of an obvious No. 1 (though, to me, LSU should start at No. 1, based on what the Tigers have coming back from a pretty darn good 2011 team).
But USC's résumé is pretty impressive. Let's start with last season. The Trojans were sort of "neh" through a 4-1 start. But they were outstanding over the second half of the season.
- They won at Oregon, which won the Pac-12, won the Rose Bowl over a good Wisconsin team and ended up ranked No. 4. Say what you want about how it went down, but the Trojans ended the Ducks 21-game home winning streak.
- Their other five wins over the second half of the season came by at least 14 points. They posted dominant wins over California, Notre Dame and Washington and concluded the season with a 50-0 stomping of rival UCLA.
- The lone loss was in triple-overtime to Stanford, which ended up ranked seventh and would have beaten No. 3 Oklahoma State in the Fiesta Bowl if it could kick a field goal.
That leads into what's coming back from that 10-2 team that finished ranked No. 5: 19 starters, including QB Matt Barkley, a sure top-10 NFL draft pick if he'd opted to leave, the best receiving tandem in the nation -- Robert Woods and Marqise Lee -- a 1,000-yard rusher in Curtis McNeal and their entire defensive back seven. Heck, it's worth noting that both specialists also are back, including first-team All-Pac-12 kicker Andre Heidari.
The issues are obvious: Questions on the defensive line and overall depth issues. (Man, could the Trojans use a couple of LSU's surfeit of future NFL D-linemen).
To me the top-two heading to 2012 are fairly obvious: 1. LSU; 2. USC.
And that would be a heck of a final game, if it held.
LSU would get a chance for revenge over the fact that no one really thinks of it as the true 2003 national champion.
Brian from Liberty Lake, Wash., writes: My question is have we seen the last of [Kevin] Prince as UCLA's QB? I think I speak for most UCLA fans when I say I hope so. Prince is a good guy but not the answer UCLA needs at QB.
Ted Miller: If I were a betting man -- giggle, giggle -- I'd lay my money on redshirt freshman Brett Hundley. He's a true dual-threat QB with tons of upside. And he is the future (though the Bruins signed two very good QBs in this recruiting class).
That said, the situation is as simple as this: Whoever plays the best in spring practice and fall camp is going to win the job. Jim Mora doesn't strike me as a guy who coaches by hypotheticals. He wants to win now, and if Kevin Prince makes it clear in advance of the season that he's the best guy to run the Bruins offense, then Prince will start at Rice on Sept. 1.
I also like that you pointed out that Prince is a "good guy." He is. And he's been a stand-up guy under difficult circumstances, whether you are talking about injuries or changing offensive coordinators on a near-annual basis -- Noel Mazzone will be his third. He's run a pro-style offense, a pistol and now will (probably) be asked to run a spread, mostly out of a traditional shotgun formation.
By the way, just because I'm a lean for Hundley doesn't mean I see it as anything close to a done deal. He clearly wasn't ready to start last spring when he looked overwhelmed, and he's yet to see action when the lights are on. Meanwhile, Prince has 26 career starts and is among the top-10 in Bruins history in passing yards and total offense.
Nik from Portland writes: With the new rules about kick offs, that are suppose to help protect players by having more touchbacks, do you feel that the some of the games excitement is going to be lost? as in less 40+ kick returns or even a repeat something like THE PLAY (Cal Vs Stanford). Or do you think more of them will happen?
Ted Miller: The new rule is this: Kickoffs will be moved up from the 30 to the 35-yard line next season. Players will also be limited to a 5-yard running head start. The reason? Fewer kickoff returns mean fewer injuries. At least, that's the -- reasonable -- theory. (The NFL moved up kickoffs up 5 yards this past season and touchbacks increased dramatically, according to the AP story).
Will excitement be lost? Sure. If there are more touchbacks, there will then be fewer exciting kickoff returns. Taking the ball away from guys like De'Anthony Thomas, Jamal Miles or Robert Woods means fewer oh-no-he-didn't! moments.
But you'd assume this wasn't a half-cocked decision: There is evidence that this new rule will yield fewer injuries, particularly concussions. So you want hear me whine about that.
It also will create a bit of new strategy. If you have a big-footed kicker, do you always want him to blast it into the endzone? Or might you try to get more hangtime and see if your kick team can pin your opponent inside the 20? Might we see a few more on-side kicks? And, if kickoff returns decrease in importance, will player like Thomas, Miles or Woods become less likely to be used for them?
This is a move that chips away at some excitement but with the intention of improving player safety. Hard to get too bent about that.
Pittsburgh from Pittsburgh writes: Not cool to denigrate places where people live. When you put something out there like that, life has a funny way of humbling you.
Ted Miller: I agree it's not cool to denigrate places where people live. And also that life has a way of humbling you. Try writing a high volume of stories for public consumption for a living.
But I don't think I denigrated any place where people live when I wrote about new Arizona State coach Todd Graham this week.
I wrote:
Graham took a lot of heat from a pandering, sanctimonious media and a whiny Pittsburgh fan base for how he left the Panthers. "He didn't even say goodbye," they collectively sobbed. "Waaah." Of course, Graham does have an unfortunate habit of describing every job as his "dream job." All that stuff is mostly hogwash, though. What matters is winning, and if Graham does that, the media will all come down en masse to Tempe pretending they didn't trash Graham's character for taking a better job, in a better conference, in a better place to live while making his family happy in the process.
Am I making fun of the reaction to Graham leaving Pittsburgh for Arizona State? Absolutely. I think it was ridiculous. Predictable, but nonetheless overblown.
Did I say anything bad about the city of Pittsburgh? No, I called Tempe "a better place to live." Obviously, that pure opinion. But Graham made that a centerpiece of why he bolted, and I'd wager that if you polled 100 random people across the country, more would choose to live in the Phoenix area rather than Pittsburgh.
People vacation here. People retire here. Spring training will shortly start. There's a reason for all that. It was chilly and rainy today in Pittsburgh. Over here in Scottsdale, I'll be grilling tonight in my bare feet.
By the way, I've been to Pittsburgh a few times. I like Pittsburgh. I'm, in fact, on record lauding it -- see this travel piece I did before the 2006 Super Bowl. (And, yes, I felt bad I left out Primanti Brothers).
By the way II, not to pander to Panthers fans, but you might find this interesting: It seems I'm a big fan of your new head coach.
It was about this time last year that people started predicting that Stanford quarterback Andrew Luck would hoist the Heisman Trophy. How'd that work out, by the way? Still, it's not too soon to start looking at some odds.
Odds maker Danny Sheridan -- as originally reported with Alabama flavor by Izzy Gould of al.com -- released his 2012 Heisman odds Tuesday and his list includes three Pac-12 candidates in total and one obvious front-runner.
At first glance, Barkley is the obvious choice. He has a very good offensive line protecting him -- including the nation's top center in Khaled Holmes (just once, I'd love to see a center get Heisman love). The running game will come together, but until it does, you might see Barkley pass a little more. And why not? With his receivers he should put up crazy good numbers. A little surprised not to see Robert Woods on this list.
Thomas is going to do what Thomas does -- run really, really fast and score a lot of touchdowns. His chances might be hampered a bit by splitting carries with Kenjon Barner (by the way, shouldn't he be on this list also?). But with the amount of plays Oregon runs per game, that shouldn't be too much of a concern. Because Thomas is a speed guy, he's also going to have to get over the national stigma that he can't run between tackles. LaMichael James had the same label, but was quite good this past season at going up the middle.
Price is the wild card of this bunch. Last year, he spent the season with a lot of nagging injuries that forced him to be a better pocket passer. But when healthy -- as we saw in the Alamo Bowl with his three rushing touchdowns -- he can be just as explosive with his legs. Next season he should be a true dual threat and a player that should warrant serious consideration.
Other players picked by Sheridan include:
But as we've seen in recent years, there is always an out-of-nowhere candidate that was off the radar. Just looking at this awfully impressive lineup, however, it seems like it's going to be tough for an unknown to wiggle his way in.
Odds maker Danny Sheridan -- as originally reported with Alabama flavor by Izzy Gould of al.com -- released his 2012 Heisman odds Tuesday and his list includes three Pac-12 candidates in total and one obvious front-runner.
- USC quarterback Matt Barkley tops the list at 5-1 odds.
- Oregon running back De'Anthony Thomas checks in at 25-1 odds.
- Washington quarterback Keith Price is the darkhorse at 40-1.
At first glance, Barkley is the obvious choice. He has a very good offensive line protecting him -- including the nation's top center in Khaled Holmes (just once, I'd love to see a center get Heisman love). The running game will come together, but until it does, you might see Barkley pass a little more. And why not? With his receivers he should put up crazy good numbers. A little surprised not to see Robert Woods on this list.
Thomas is going to do what Thomas does -- run really, really fast and score a lot of touchdowns. His chances might be hampered a bit by splitting carries with Kenjon Barner (by the way, shouldn't he be on this list also?). But with the amount of plays Oregon runs per game, that shouldn't be too much of a concern. Because Thomas is a speed guy, he's also going to have to get over the national stigma that he can't run between tackles. LaMichael James had the same label, but was quite good this past season at going up the middle.
Price is the wild card of this bunch. Last year, he spent the season with a lot of nagging injuries that forced him to be a better pocket passer. But when healthy -- as we saw in the Alamo Bowl with his three rushing touchdowns -- he can be just as explosive with his legs. Next season he should be a true dual threat and a player that should warrant serious consideration.
Other players picked by Sheridan include:
- Wisconsin running back Montee Ball: 6-1
- Oklahoma quarterback Landry Jones: 7-1
- Michigan quarterback Denard Robinson: 7-1
- West Virginia quarterback Geno Smith: 10-1
- Georgia quarterback Aaron Murray: 12-1
- Arkansas quarterback Tyler Wilson: 15-1
- Kansas quarterback Dayne Crist: 25-1
- Nebraska running back Rex Burkhead: 25-1
- Clemson wide receiver Sammy Watkins: 25-1
- Alabama quarterback AJ McCarron: 30-1
But as we've seen in recent years, there is always an out-of-nowhere candidate that was off the radar. Just looking at this awfully impressive lineup, however, it seems like it's going to be tough for an unknown to wiggle his way in.
Foles, Pac-12 receivers shine in Senior Bowl
January, 30, 2012
Jan 30
9:30
AM ET
By
Ted Miller | ESPN.com
Pac-12 receivers caught three touchdown passes in the Senior Bowl on Saturday, a 23-13 North victory at Ladd-Peebles Stadium (40,646) in Mobile, Ala.
California's Marvin Jones caught an 8-yard scoring toss from Wisconsin's Russell Wilson in the second quarter. Arizona State's Gerell Robinson hauled in a 41-yard touchdown from Michigan State's Kirk Cousins, which gave the North a 20-6 lead. The South got an answer with Arizona quarterback Nick Foles’ 20-yard touchdown toss to his former teammate in Tucson, Juron Criner.
Foles, after a middling week of practice, had a strong showing in the game, completing 11 of 15 passes for 136 yards. Criner caught six for 77 yards. He and Boise State's Kellen Moore were the only two of the six quarterbacks in the game who didn't throw interceptions.
Robinson caught two passes for 64 yards. Washington had two players in the game. Running back Chris Polk had six carries for 19 yards, while defensive tackle Alameda Ta'amu had two tackles for a loss.
Cal's Mitchell Schwartz started at right tackle for the North.
California's Marvin Jones caught an 8-yard scoring toss from Wisconsin's Russell Wilson in the second quarter. Arizona State's Gerell Robinson hauled in a 41-yard touchdown from Michigan State's Kirk Cousins, which gave the North a 20-6 lead. The South got an answer with Arizona quarterback Nick Foles’ 20-yard touchdown toss to his former teammate in Tucson, Juron Criner.
Foles, after a middling week of practice, had a strong showing in the game, completing 11 of 15 passes for 136 yards. Criner caught six for 77 yards. He and Boise State's Kellen Moore were the only two of the six quarterbacks in the game who didn't throw interceptions.
Robinson caught two passes for 64 yards. Washington had two players in the game. Running back Chris Polk had six carries for 19 yards, while defensive tackle Alameda Ta'amu had two tackles for a loss.
Cal's Mitchell Schwartz started at right tackle for the North.
The 2011 season is over. That means report cards are due.
And our last grade: Pac-12
Offense: The Pac-12 is known for offense and QBs, and 2011 was no different. Stanford's Andrew Luck and USC's Matt Barkley were among the best in the nation, but Oregon again was the conference's top offense in total offense, scoring and rushing. Eight Pac-12 teams ranked in the top 45 in the nation in total offense, including five in the top 25. Seven ranked in the top 45 in scoring, including four in the top 25. Seven ranked in the top 38 in passing efficiency, including four in the top 12. While the conference is known for passing, offenses also typically run well. The results there were mixed in 2011. Oregon and Stanford were both elite running teams, but six teams ranked 80th or worse in rushing. Protecting the QB was a good projector of success in the conference. USC, Stanford and Oregon did it very well. Washington State, Washington, Utah, Colorado, Oregon State and California did not. When you look at the conference's offensive numbers, Oregon, Stanford and USC were good in just about every meaningful category. That should come as no surprise. And the only team that had any success with consistently bad offensive numbers was Utah, which obviously relied on its defense. As far as star quality, the Pac-12 produced All-Americans at every position -- QB, RB, TE, WR and O-line.
Grade: B+
Defense: It was not a great year on defense in the conference. No team produced an elite defense. Utah ranked 19th in the nation in scoring defense (without playing Oregon or Stanford), and California ranked 25th in total defense. It's fair to say that five teams were good to solid on defense: Utah, Cal, Stanford, Oregon and USC. And the other seven were middling-to-poor. Perhaps the most telling number: Colorado, Oregon State, UCLA and Washington ranked from 102nd to 110th in third-down conversion defense. Not getting off the field is bad. Seven teams ranked 74th or below in the nation in scoring defense. Seven teams ranked 82nd or below in total defense. Eight teams ranked 75th or below in pass efficiency defense. The numbers against the run were better -- eight teams ranked from No. 4 to No. 67 in run defense -- but that could be attributed to a conference full of pass-first offenses. The A-list offensive talent always needs to be held into account when assessing Pac-12 defenses. Just as good defenses play great in the SEC because of bad offenses, good-to-middling defenses look middling-to-bad in the Pac-12 because of great offenses. In terms of star power, the conference didn't produce many All-Americans, though some recognition was landed by USC safety T.J. McDonald and Stanford OLB Chase Thomas. The two biggest names entering the season -- Arizona State LB Vontaze Burfict and Oregon CB Cliff Harris -- flopped, with Harris getting kicked off the team.
Grade: C-
Overall: The inaugural year of the Pac-12 produced three elite teams: Oregon, USC and Stanford. All three finished ranked in the top 7. The conference went 1-1 in BCS bowl games, with Oregon winning the Rose Bowl and Stanford falling a late field goal short of beating No. 3 Oklahoma State in the Fiesta Bowl. No season that produces two BCS bowl teams is a failure because that puts extra cash in every team's pocket. And the conference produced a glittering array of offensive talent that should light up NFL draft boards this spring. That's the good news. The bad news is a wide chasm between the three elite teams and everyone else: Eight teams won seven or fewer games. Further, the conference went 2-5 in bowl games and was a middling 7-7 against AQ nonconference foes in the regular season. The Pac-12's only victory over a nonconference foe that ended up ranked was Oregon's win over Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl, though Utah did whip BYU, which finished 25th in the coaches poll. A few years ago, the main gripe centered on the conference producing depth but a lack of multiple elite teams -- a legit alternative to USC under Pete Carroll. Now the conference is producing multiple elite teams without the depth. The ideal scenario is at least two teams in the national picture along with multiple teams with eight or nine wins and seven or eight bowl-eligible teams. Ultimately, the Pac-12 probably rated as the nation's No. 3 conference in 2011, behind the SEC and Big 12. That's not bad. But it could be better.
Grade: C
And our last grade: Pac-12
Offense: The Pac-12 is known for offense and QBs, and 2011 was no different. Stanford's Andrew Luck and USC's Matt Barkley were among the best in the nation, but Oregon again was the conference's top offense in total offense, scoring and rushing. Eight Pac-12 teams ranked in the top 45 in the nation in total offense, including five in the top 25. Seven ranked in the top 45 in scoring, including four in the top 25. Seven ranked in the top 38 in passing efficiency, including four in the top 12. While the conference is known for passing, offenses also typically run well. The results there were mixed in 2011. Oregon and Stanford were both elite running teams, but six teams ranked 80th or worse in rushing. Protecting the QB was a good projector of success in the conference. USC, Stanford and Oregon did it very well. Washington State, Washington, Utah, Colorado, Oregon State and California did not. When you look at the conference's offensive numbers, Oregon, Stanford and USC were good in just about every meaningful category. That should come as no surprise. And the only team that had any success with consistently bad offensive numbers was Utah, which obviously relied on its defense. As far as star quality, the Pac-12 produced All-Americans at every position -- QB, RB, TE, WR and O-line.
Grade: B+
Defense: It was not a great year on defense in the conference. No team produced an elite defense. Utah ranked 19th in the nation in scoring defense (without playing Oregon or Stanford), and California ranked 25th in total defense. It's fair to say that five teams were good to solid on defense: Utah, Cal, Stanford, Oregon and USC. And the other seven were middling-to-poor. Perhaps the most telling number: Colorado, Oregon State, UCLA and Washington ranked from 102nd to 110th in third-down conversion defense. Not getting off the field is bad. Seven teams ranked 74th or below in the nation in scoring defense. Seven teams ranked 82nd or below in total defense. Eight teams ranked 75th or below in pass efficiency defense. The numbers against the run were better -- eight teams ranked from No. 4 to No. 67 in run defense -- but that could be attributed to a conference full of pass-first offenses. The A-list offensive talent always needs to be held into account when assessing Pac-12 defenses. Just as good defenses play great in the SEC because of bad offenses, good-to-middling defenses look middling-to-bad in the Pac-12 because of great offenses. In terms of star power, the conference didn't produce many All-Americans, though some recognition was landed by USC safety T.J. McDonald and Stanford OLB Chase Thomas. The two biggest names entering the season -- Arizona State LB Vontaze Burfict and Oregon CB Cliff Harris -- flopped, with Harris getting kicked off the team.
Grade: C-
Overall: The inaugural year of the Pac-12 produced three elite teams: Oregon, USC and Stanford. All three finished ranked in the top 7. The conference went 1-1 in BCS bowl games, with Oregon winning the Rose Bowl and Stanford falling a late field goal short of beating No. 3 Oklahoma State in the Fiesta Bowl. No season that produces two BCS bowl teams is a failure because that puts extra cash in every team's pocket. And the conference produced a glittering array of offensive talent that should light up NFL draft boards this spring. That's the good news. The bad news is a wide chasm between the three elite teams and everyone else: Eight teams won seven or fewer games. Further, the conference went 2-5 in bowl games and was a middling 7-7 against AQ nonconference foes in the regular season. The Pac-12's only victory over a nonconference foe that ended up ranked was Oregon's win over Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl, though Utah did whip BYU, which finished 25th in the coaches poll. A few years ago, the main gripe centered on the conference producing depth but a lack of multiple elite teams -- a legit alternative to USC under Pete Carroll. Now the conference is producing multiple elite teams without the depth. The ideal scenario is at least two teams in the national picture along with multiple teams with eight or nine wins and seven or eight bowl-eligible teams. Ultimately, the Pac-12 probably rated as the nation's No. 3 conference in 2011, behind the SEC and Big 12. That's not bad. But it could be better.
Grade: C
It is Friday. Can we get some emergency college football tomorrow? How about a USC-Alabama scrimmage? Anyone? Anyone?
No. Drat.
Follow me on Twitter.
To the notes!
Shawn from Albany, Ore., writes: You recently stated, "USC just became the strong front-runner in the Pac-12."... Why? You can't tell me you really think that just because Thomas is bolting for the NFL, that its going to make the Ducks any less competitive in the PAC-12 next year... Apparently you didn't pay much attention when True Freshman Bryan Bennett played this last year... Yes it will be his first year as our starter, but if you recall, Thomas took us to the National Championship game his FIRST year as starter... And if you ask me, Bennett's not only faster than Thomas, but has a better arm... That kid can sling a pigskin! Anyway... I'd be careful about stating anything that has to do with USC being somehow more dominant than us based simply on the fact we'll no longer have Thomas at the helm... It's time for a new era of Oregon Football... The Bennett Era!
Ted Miller: Well, I had USC as a slight front-runner in the Pac-12 in any event based largely on the fact that Oregon must play at USC on Nov. 3 and not vice versa. The Ducks' loss of Thomas just makes the Trojans front-runner status clearer.
With or without Thomas, Oregon is the clear front-runner in the North Division. I will be shocked if the Ducks don't play in the 2012 Pac-12 championship game. And I'd be more than a little surprised if they have more than two losses when they do so.
And yet the loss of Thomas does change things, whether Oregon fans want to admit it or not. Thomas is a given. You know what you will get from him. And, more important, so does Chip Kelly. When a coach really knows his quarterback, particularly a Dr. Strange offensive savant like Chip Kelly, it helps him engineer the offense to suit him in every detail. Kelly knows what Thomas likes and dislikes. He knows how he will react to just about every situation. He won't know that about Bryan Bennett.
Heck, we don't even know that Bennett will be the starter, though I feel strongly he will be. It seems some are intrigued by redshirt freshman Marcus Mariota.
Bennett played well coming off the bench when Thomas got hurt against Arizona State. And he did a good job in his start at Colorado. But, well, the Buffs' defense wasn't exactly LSU.
How will Bennett -- or whoever starts -- react to adversity? Or prosperity even? Will he be durable? Will he protect the football? Will he be able to make consistent reads? Will he get overwhelmed by the spotlight? Can he digest the entire offense? Will be be able to counterpunch on his own when defensive coordinators start to get a feel for him?
How will be react to 94,000 fans at the Coliseum on Nov. 3?
These are questions Thomas already answered. Sure, he wasn't the perfect quarterback. But he was 23-3 as a starter, including 1-1 in BCS bowl games. If he started in the Coliseum on Nov. 3, he'd be smirking and eyeballing Matt Barkley thinking, "I'm better than him."
It's perfectly reasonable to have high expectations for Bennett. My hunch is he'll play well, perhaps even match or exceed Thomas' numbers. He, particularly, looks like a better runner.
Still, when you remove a starter who was 23-3, you insert unknowns. There's no way around that.
To Chip Kelly this: Bennett is a hypothetical. And we don't do hypotheticals.
Ken from Portland writes: Ted First off, I think Mike Leach is going to be a fantastic coach in Pullman. I think he is just what the Cougs need, and I don't really look forward to playing them in the future. My question though is this: Pullman does not have all that different of weather than the Midwest. Every analyst and their mom, it seems like, always points to the "weather" as the reason a pass heavy offense wouldn't work in the Big10 (and Big 10 fan's #1 excuse for losing to teams from the South, "well hey buddy, come try that offense in Ohio in November!") But everyone loves the Leach hire in Pullman? Would they be saying the same thing if he were hired at say, Indiana?
Ted Miller: Pullman's weather has never stopped the Cougars from being pass-heavy before, why would it be different for Leach's offense? The Cougars, with a long tradition of elite quarterbacks who fling the ball all over the place, ranked ninth in the nation in passing last season. If you look at this list of top passing offenses, you'll see plenty of teams that play in the snow and cold.
There are two reasons the Big Ten hasn't become more pass-heavy through the years. The first does involve geography: It seems like there are more big-time athletes -- offensive playmakers -- in the Southeast, Southwest and West Coast than in the Midwest. Recruiting lists tend to bear that out.
But, just as important: A deeply ingrained Midwest football culture. Michigan and Ohio State, the two flagships of the Big Ten, have long traditions of playing great defense and running the ball. You could say the same for their "new" flagships, Penn State and Nebraska. And that was Barry Alvarez's blueprint for building Wisconsin into a Big Ten power.
By the way, it's also notable that when Wisconsin signed up quarterback Russell Wilson, a highly capable passer transferring from N.C. State, it became a very good passing team, which helped it become an even better running team.
That deeply ingrained culture was a big reason Rich Rodriguez failed at Michigan. Many Michigan insiders -- most specifically former coach Lloyd Carr -- couldn't stand Rodriguez's spread offense, and that motivated them to undermine him at every turn.
Think about the Northwest: Rain, not cold, is the most difficult condition for passing the football. But Northwest teams have strong traditions of throwing the football. The culture of West Coast football wins out over the weather.
I'm not sure if anyone can build a consistent winner at Indiana. But if Mike Leach were hired at Michigan State -- or Penn State or Michigan -- and fans and administrators were 100 percent supportive, he'd build a highly successful passing offense. For better or worse, the Big Ten continues to play old-school, run-first offense mostly by choice.
Will from Novato, Calif., writes: I just saw the video you posted on Tosh's departure from Cal. You nailed it on the head. You will probably be lambasted on our fan boards, but oh well. You state it correctly when you say that it is a business. It's deeply painful for Cal fans. We haven't gone to the Rose Bowl for what now seems like forever and a day. What's more, these past few seasons have, well, been less than hopeful. Whatever hope we had when Tedford first came on the scene has started to dissipate, and fast. With Chip Kelly and Oregon on the rise; with USC seemingly always having our number, and with Stanfurd suddenly looking rock solid, the hope is diminishing. EXCEPT, we had Tosh. With Tosh, we felt that we were finally going to get the kind of recruiting studs that would help propel us forward. With a front four of Moala, Jalil, Armstead and McCarthy, I don't think opposing OL's would know what to do. So hope emerged...and then was squashed. You've followed the sport longer than I, but yes, all of the rancor that's out there is perhaps explained though this. Anyway, thought compelled to shoot you this comment. Thanks for laying things out with a unbiased view. I'm sure you get enough hate mail from angry fans, perhaps a "good job" email would be nice evey so often.
Bret from Washington D.C., writes: If Cal's recruiting class falls apart due to Lupoi's departure, how much blame does Jeff Tedford shoulder? Shouldn't the recruits want to play for him, not the D-Line coach? After all he is the head coach and is responsible for the health of his program. I wonder how Cal fans will treat him if we turn in another sporadic 7-5 season and a disgraceful bowl performance on National TV. I was a freshman for the 1-10 Holmoe season, and sat through every blow out. But I have to admit I'm starting to turn on Tedford, who can't seem to take the team to the next level
Ted Miller: Cal fans, meet Chicken Little.
First off, as of today, Cal is still ranked No. 1 in the Pac-12 in recruiting, and the only recruit who decommitted after Lupoi left said his decision had nothing to do with Lupoi. We might want to hold off on the mass harakiri until, you know, signing day on Feb. 1.
Further, Tedford has long felt the intense celebration of Lupoi as a recruiter was overblown. That might explain that ridiculously low -- by industry standards -- $164,000 salary. Now that will be tested. If the Bears finish strong and maintain a top-20 class, you'd have to give credit to Tedford and his staff. Of course, next year will probably be a bigger measure of the Lupoi Effect.
As for the big picture with Cal, as we've previously stated, this is a big season for Tedford. Scattered pockets of impatience the past few years have solidified. He's officially on the hot seat. And losing two coaches to Washington, including one who fans celebrate -- rightly or wrongly -- such as Lupoi, doesn't help the mood around the program.
Erick from Seattle writes: I recall hearing a few months ago that the UW game at LSU was going to be a night game in Death Valley. Any truth to this? I can't find anything online about the game time being announced.
Ted Miller: While it's still a "TBA," my guess is it will be a night game. Night games in Tiger Stadium are fun for two reasons: 1. Incredible, intense atmosphere; 2. That incredible, intense atmosphere is brought on by perhaps the nation's best tailgate.
Yes, there's a good deal of lubrication, but the food at an LSU tailgate rates as good as any in the nation.
Here's one for any LSU fans reading this: The last game I covered in Tiger Stadium was the Cecil "The Diesel" Collins vs. Dameyune Craig showdown. Great game.
Champ from California writes: Your hatred and prejudice of Stanford is not hidden in your writing. Typical jealous sportswriter... hates people with the courage to have brains.
Ted Miller: I just included this because, with this note, I have now received hate mail from all 12 Pac-12 teams.
Of course, Champ, if you are referring to this, then I might be taking credit for something from my colleague, Kevin Gemmell.
No. Drat.
Follow me on Twitter.
To the notes!
Shawn from Albany, Ore., writes: You recently stated, "USC just became the strong front-runner in the Pac-12."... Why? You can't tell me you really think that just because Thomas is bolting for the NFL, that its going to make the Ducks any less competitive in the PAC-12 next year... Apparently you didn't pay much attention when True Freshman Bryan Bennett played this last year... Yes it will be his first year as our starter, but if you recall, Thomas took us to the National Championship game his FIRST year as starter... And if you ask me, Bennett's not only faster than Thomas, but has a better arm... That kid can sling a pigskin! Anyway... I'd be careful about stating anything that has to do with USC being somehow more dominant than us based simply on the fact we'll no longer have Thomas at the helm... It's time for a new era of Oregon Football... The Bennett Era!
Ted Miller: Well, I had USC as a slight front-runner in the Pac-12 in any event based largely on the fact that Oregon must play at USC on Nov. 3 and not vice versa. The Ducks' loss of Thomas just makes the Trojans front-runner status clearer.
With or without Thomas, Oregon is the clear front-runner in the North Division. I will be shocked if the Ducks don't play in the 2012 Pac-12 championship game. And I'd be more than a little surprised if they have more than two losses when they do so.
And yet the loss of Thomas does change things, whether Oregon fans want to admit it or not. Thomas is a given. You know what you will get from him. And, more important, so does Chip Kelly. When a coach really knows his quarterback, particularly a Dr. Strange offensive savant like Chip Kelly, it helps him engineer the offense to suit him in every detail. Kelly knows what Thomas likes and dislikes. He knows how he will react to just about every situation. He won't know that about Bryan Bennett.
Heck, we don't even know that Bennett will be the starter, though I feel strongly he will be. It seems some are intrigued by redshirt freshman Marcus Mariota.
Bennett played well coming off the bench when Thomas got hurt against Arizona State. And he did a good job in his start at Colorado. But, well, the Buffs' defense wasn't exactly LSU.
How will Bennett -- or whoever starts -- react to adversity? Or prosperity even? Will he be durable? Will he protect the football? Will he be able to make consistent reads? Will he get overwhelmed by the spotlight? Can he digest the entire offense? Will be be able to counterpunch on his own when defensive coordinators start to get a feel for him?
How will be react to 94,000 fans at the Coliseum on Nov. 3?
These are questions Thomas already answered. Sure, he wasn't the perfect quarterback. But he was 23-3 as a starter, including 1-1 in BCS bowl games. If he started in the Coliseum on Nov. 3, he'd be smirking and eyeballing Matt Barkley thinking, "I'm better than him."
It's perfectly reasonable to have high expectations for Bennett. My hunch is he'll play well, perhaps even match or exceed Thomas' numbers. He, particularly, looks like a better runner.
Still, when you remove a starter who was 23-3, you insert unknowns. There's no way around that.
To Chip Kelly this: Bennett is a hypothetical. And we don't do hypotheticals.
Ken from Portland writes: Ted First off, I think Mike Leach is going to be a fantastic coach in Pullman. I think he is just what the Cougs need, and I don't really look forward to playing them in the future. My question though is this: Pullman does not have all that different of weather than the Midwest. Every analyst and their mom, it seems like, always points to the "weather" as the reason a pass heavy offense wouldn't work in the Big10 (and Big 10 fan's #1 excuse for losing to teams from the South, "well hey buddy, come try that offense in Ohio in November!") But everyone loves the Leach hire in Pullman? Would they be saying the same thing if he were hired at say, Indiana?
Ted Miller: Pullman's weather has never stopped the Cougars from being pass-heavy before, why would it be different for Leach's offense? The Cougars, with a long tradition of elite quarterbacks who fling the ball all over the place, ranked ninth in the nation in passing last season. If you look at this list of top passing offenses, you'll see plenty of teams that play in the snow and cold.
There are two reasons the Big Ten hasn't become more pass-heavy through the years. The first does involve geography: It seems like there are more big-time athletes -- offensive playmakers -- in the Southeast, Southwest and West Coast than in the Midwest. Recruiting lists tend to bear that out.
But, just as important: A deeply ingrained Midwest football culture. Michigan and Ohio State, the two flagships of the Big Ten, have long traditions of playing great defense and running the ball. You could say the same for their "new" flagships, Penn State and Nebraska. And that was Barry Alvarez's blueprint for building Wisconsin into a Big Ten power.
By the way, it's also notable that when Wisconsin signed up quarterback Russell Wilson, a highly capable passer transferring from N.C. State, it became a very good passing team, which helped it become an even better running team.
That deeply ingrained culture was a big reason Rich Rodriguez failed at Michigan. Many Michigan insiders -- most specifically former coach Lloyd Carr -- couldn't stand Rodriguez's spread offense, and that motivated them to undermine him at every turn.
Think about the Northwest: Rain, not cold, is the most difficult condition for passing the football. But Northwest teams have strong traditions of throwing the football. The culture of West Coast football wins out over the weather.
I'm not sure if anyone can build a consistent winner at Indiana. But if Mike Leach were hired at Michigan State -- or Penn State or Michigan -- and fans and administrators were 100 percent supportive, he'd build a highly successful passing offense. For better or worse, the Big Ten continues to play old-school, run-first offense mostly by choice.
Will from Novato, Calif., writes: I just saw the video you posted on Tosh's departure from Cal. You nailed it on the head. You will probably be lambasted on our fan boards, but oh well. You state it correctly when you say that it is a business. It's deeply painful for Cal fans. We haven't gone to the Rose Bowl for what now seems like forever and a day. What's more, these past few seasons have, well, been less than hopeful. Whatever hope we had when Tedford first came on the scene has started to dissipate, and fast. With Chip Kelly and Oregon on the rise; with USC seemingly always having our number, and with Stanfurd suddenly looking rock solid, the hope is diminishing. EXCEPT, we had Tosh. With Tosh, we felt that we were finally going to get the kind of recruiting studs that would help propel us forward. With a front four of Moala, Jalil, Armstead and McCarthy, I don't think opposing OL's would know what to do. So hope emerged...and then was squashed. You've followed the sport longer than I, but yes, all of the rancor that's out there is perhaps explained though this. Anyway, thought compelled to shoot you this comment. Thanks for laying things out with a unbiased view. I'm sure you get enough hate mail from angry fans, perhaps a "good job" email would be nice evey so often.
Bret from Washington D.C., writes: If Cal's recruiting class falls apart due to Lupoi's departure, how much blame does Jeff Tedford shoulder? Shouldn't the recruits want to play for him, not the D-Line coach? After all he is the head coach and is responsible for the health of his program. I wonder how Cal fans will treat him if we turn in another sporadic 7-5 season and a disgraceful bowl performance on National TV. I was a freshman for the 1-10 Holmoe season, and sat through every blow out. But I have to admit I'm starting to turn on Tedford, who can't seem to take the team to the next level
Ted Miller: Cal fans, meet Chicken Little.
Chicken Little: The sky is falling.
Cal fan: I know. Tosh just left for Washington. WAAAAAAA!
Chicken Little: Are you going to eat that seed?
Cal fan: Only if it's a Prozac. We're DOOOOOOOOMED.
Chicken Little: I think you might be overreacting.
First off, as of today, Cal is still ranked No. 1 in the Pac-12 in recruiting, and the only recruit who decommitted after Lupoi left said his decision had nothing to do with Lupoi. We might want to hold off on the mass harakiri until, you know, signing day on Feb. 1.
Further, Tedford has long felt the intense celebration of Lupoi as a recruiter was overblown. That might explain that ridiculously low -- by industry standards -- $164,000 salary. Now that will be tested. If the Bears finish strong and maintain a top-20 class, you'd have to give credit to Tedford and his staff. Of course, next year will probably be a bigger measure of the Lupoi Effect.
As for the big picture with Cal, as we've previously stated, this is a big season for Tedford. Scattered pockets of impatience the past few years have solidified. He's officially on the hot seat. And losing two coaches to Washington, including one who fans celebrate -- rightly or wrongly -- such as Lupoi, doesn't help the mood around the program.
Erick from Seattle writes: I recall hearing a few months ago that the UW game at LSU was going to be a night game in Death Valley. Any truth to this? I can't find anything online about the game time being announced.
Ted Miller: While it's still a "TBA," my guess is it will be a night game. Night games in Tiger Stadium are fun for two reasons: 1. Incredible, intense atmosphere; 2. That incredible, intense atmosphere is brought on by perhaps the nation's best tailgate.
Yes, there's a good deal of lubrication, but the food at an LSU tailgate rates as good as any in the nation.
Here's one for any LSU fans reading this: The last game I covered in Tiger Stadium was the Cecil "The Diesel" Collins vs. Dameyune Craig showdown. Great game.
Champ from California writes: Your hatred and prejudice of Stanford is not hidden in your writing. Typical jealous sportswriter... hates people with the courage to have brains.
Ted Miller: I just included this because, with this note, I have now received hate mail from all 12 Pac-12 teams.
Of course, Champ, if you are referring to this, then I might be taking credit for something from my colleague, Kevin Gemmell.
I get paid to go to football games. It beats digging ditches for a living.
Some games, however, are better than others, mostly because of the location and magnitude of the game. So here are my top-six game-day environments from 2011.
1. Rose Bowl: Oregon vs. Wisconsin: Not much to say here. It's the Rose Bowl. All the other ESPN.com bloggers are doing lists, but they are playing for No. 2 because the Rose Bowl is the most righteous sports atmosphere in all the world. Other than the World Cup final.
2. Stanford at USC, Oct. 29: An instant classic. Two high-quality teams with super-elite quarterbacks going blow for for blow until it was decided in Stanford's favor in triple-overtime. And with 93,607 on hand, it was an old-school crowd at the Coliseum.
3. Oregon vs. LSU, Cowboys Stadium: Cowboys Stadium is the ultimate statement of sporting excess, which is to say it's awesome. And this was a rare season-opener matching top-five teams from the two best conferences over the past decade or so. And it would have been a good game if we could have made the third quarter disappear, eh Ducks?
4. Arizona State at Oregon, Oct. 15: Went to Autzen Stadium three times this season, and this was the best atmosphere. Crowd of 60,055 was a stadium record, and they were thrilled when backup quarterback Bryan Bennett came off the bench for an injured Darron Thomas to lead the Ducks to 17 unanswered points in a come-from-behind 41-27 win.
5. Oregon at Stanford, Nov. 11: I did not attend this game, but here's what Stanford blogger Kevin Gemmel had to say: "The Cardinal faithful packed Stanford Stadium for arguably the biggest game in school history that ultimately ended with a resounding thud. The pregame atmosphere was phenomenal. But as it became more apparent the Cardinal were not going to win, the once excitable, sellout crowd became placid and subdued. Great atmosphere, but only for about a quarter and change."
6. Missouri at Arizona State, Sept. 9: Many have forgotten how well the Sun Devils started the season. This 37-30 overtime win on ESPN was played in front of a packed house at Sun Devil Stadium -- 70,236 -- and just about everyone was wearing black for a "blackout." Might have been quarterback Brock Osweiler's best game.
Some games, however, are better than others, mostly because of the location and magnitude of the game. So here are my top-six game-day environments from 2011.
1. Rose Bowl: Oregon vs. Wisconsin: Not much to say here. It's the Rose Bowl. All the other ESPN.com bloggers are doing lists, but they are playing for No. 2 because the Rose Bowl is the most righteous sports atmosphere in all the world. Other than the World Cup final.
2. Stanford at USC, Oct. 29: An instant classic. Two high-quality teams with super-elite quarterbacks going blow for for blow until it was decided in Stanford's favor in triple-overtime. And with 93,607 on hand, it was an old-school crowd at the Coliseum.
3. Oregon vs. LSU, Cowboys Stadium: Cowboys Stadium is the ultimate statement of sporting excess, which is to say it's awesome. And this was a rare season-opener matching top-five teams from the two best conferences over the past decade or so. And it would have been a good game if we could have made the third quarter disappear, eh Ducks?
4. Arizona State at Oregon, Oct. 15: Went to Autzen Stadium three times this season, and this was the best atmosphere. Crowd of 60,055 was a stadium record, and they were thrilled when backup quarterback Bryan Bennett came off the bench for an injured Darron Thomas to lead the Ducks to 17 unanswered points in a come-from-behind 41-27 win.
5. Oregon at Stanford, Nov. 11: I did not attend this game, but here's what Stanford blogger Kevin Gemmel had to say: "The Cardinal faithful packed Stanford Stadium for arguably the biggest game in school history that ultimately ended with a resounding thud. The pregame atmosphere was phenomenal. But as it became more apparent the Cardinal were not going to win, the once excitable, sellout crowd became placid and subdued. Great atmosphere, but only for about a quarter and change."
6. Missouri at Arizona State, Sept. 9: Many have forgotten how well the Sun Devils started the season. This 37-30 overtime win on ESPN was played in front of a packed house at Sun Devil Stadium -- 70,236 -- and just about everyone was wearing black for a "blackout." Might have been quarterback Brock Osweiler's best game.
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
