- Ted Miller, College Football
- 0 Shares
Welcome to the Friday mailbag. At the very least, reading it informs you which day of the week it is.
If you click follow, you can give your team an imaginary national title, just like Auburn wants to do.
To the notes!
Todd Graham's Nephew from Phoenix writes: Ted, In your article about the [Todd]Graham/[Rich] Rodriguez extensions, you stated that Rodriguez had "a lot less talent" than Graham over the past two years. You've stated this before in other articles. I'm curious what you're basing that on.
Ted Miller: Coach Graham's nephew wrote a much longer note with supporting points, but we cut those out due to a severe case of cherry picking.
You could, however, make a case that the talent at Arizona and Arizona State was at least comparable in 2012. Arizona had Matt Scott at quarterback and Taylor Kelly was a complete unknown. Heading into the season, we didn't know that DT Will Sutton was going to become a monster. It's also accurate to view the 2012 Territorial Cup as a huge collapse for Arizona in the fourth quarter -- at home, no less -- and that certainly wasn't a shining moment for Rodriguez and his staff.
Still, the Sun Devils ended up with four All-Pac-12 performers in 2012 compared to three for the Wildcats. Further, what Arizona State had coming back in 2013 was decisively superior to the Wildcats, which is why Kevin and I both picked the Sun Devils to win the Pac-12 South before the season and ranked them third in the preseason power rankings compared to eighth for the Wildcats.
As for more talent this past fall, the Sun Devils finished with -- cough, cough -- 13 first- or second-team All-Pac-12 players. Arizona? One -- RB Ka'Deem Carey.
To me, the biggest difference between the talent Rich Rodriguez inherited compared to Todd Graham was on defense, particularly on the front seven. The unit that played against the Sun Devils in the 2012 Territorial Cup was pretty much a slight blip above FCS-level talent.
As for the recruiting rankings that preceded Graham and Rodriguez, Arizona State ranked ahead of Arizona in 2009, 2010 and 2012 (year of both's hiring), while the vote was split in 2011.
Victor from Eugene, Ore., writes: I was thinking about the Oregon-Stanford rivalry that has emerged in the last few years and one game particularly came to mind, the 2010 edition. It was the fifth game of the season for both teams in early October, and I wonder why the conference does not keep it scheduled like that? It is generally accepted that these teams are top of the conference, and if they keep playing late November games, that can potentially knock out one of these teams from a more prestigious bowl game (or even now a second spot in playoffs). I understand high records going in to the game make it easier to build up for TV, but this is a marquee matchup no matter when (it's) played during the season, so people are going to watch. If anything, they play early and both teams go on to keep winning, so the conference could possibly have two playoff contenders and 13-0 and 11-1. The selection committee could look past one team's loss if against a strong opponent regardless of when played, but I think a loss has less of a decisive impact if it was from an early season game.
Ted Miller: You do know, Victor, that Oregon and Stanford were not always atop the Pac-12, right? Stanford, in fact, had a losing record way, way back in 2008. And there was this team called "USC" that had a pretty good run for a bit.
Scheduling, I am told, is more complicated than you think. Heck, witness the struggle to keep rivalry games set for the final weekend of the season. Schedule rotations, TV as well as each university's own quirks make it challenging to organize the conference slate. Further, showing favoritism for a certain budding rivalry probably wouldn't roll well in 10 other athletic departments.
While I understand -- and often espouse -- the realpolitik of your thinking, I also sort of like having an A-list Pac-12 game with national implications in November. It attracts a lot of eyeballs.
As coaches say, "The games you remember are played in November."
Tom from Portland writes: In your Pac-12 power rankings blog you imply that the return of Cyler Miles is a big boost to UW. Why is that? Keith Price was the starter for the last three years, so what do you see in Miles, who has not been a starter and I don't recall him even playing very much last year?
Miles came off the bench against UCLA and acquitted himself well, then led the Huskies to a win at Oregon State in his lone career start. In total, he appeared in eight games, completing 61 percent of his throws for 418 yards with four touchdowns and two interceptions. He also ran for 200 yards on 23 carries. His passer rating would have ranked 61st in the nation.
Further, the scuttlebutt on his playing abilities and upside has been almost entirely positive. Of course, then there's our next question.
Rob from Seattle writes: Ted -- I'm struggling to reconcile Chris Petersen's reputation of integrity with the decision to reinstate Cyler Miles. Granted -- he knows more than me as a fan and has done his own investigation. Here's what I do know: the police report said he and [Damore'ea] Stringfellow were involved in beating up a woman during a Super Bowl celebration. Am I wrong in thinking Petersen should explain this to us, why Miles deserves to be the leader of our football team after being involved in an attack on a defenseless woman?
Ted Miller: First off, I'm not one of those guys who dons shining armor to act like I'm a paragon of virtue as I differentiate between a man and a "defenseless woman." I know plenty of women who can play defense. And offense. I think acting as though women are made out of porcelain does them a disservice.
What I do abhor is someone bullying anyone. I equate that to attacking an innocent, non-aggressive, typically smaller person, be it a man or woman. This case allegedly fell within those criteria. It was both reprehensible and shockingly stupid.
As repeatedly noted, I'm a big second-chance guy. Not a big fan of zero-tolerance policies in most cases.
Further, Miles wasn't charged with a crime. Receiver Damore'ea Stringfellow, another likely starter, was charged with two counts of fourth-degree assault and one count of malicious mischief and he has opted to transfer, which I assume he was encouraged to do.
Petersen's chief task is winning football games. Educating and building the character of young men is part of the job, but it is secondary, despite what some might disingenuously claim. Petersen does, by the way, have a better chance of teaching Miles life lessons with him on the team than off it. I think the idea of "making an example out of someone" mostly works in organizations like the Mafia, where nuanced thinking isn't part of the culture.
But I do agree with something you wrote: "Am I wrong in thinking Petersen should explain this to us why Miles deserves to be the leader of our football team...?"
No, you are not. And this willful silence on the matter is the unfortunate course Washington appears to be taking, at least at present, as neither Petersen nor Miles have talked to reporters since making a brief statement on May 14. The correct course would have been to hold a news conference -- I'd have suggested Friday, May 16 at 4 p.m. -- just after the announcement of Miles' reinstatement.
Over-managing the response to an off-field incident like this is typically a mistake. Over-managing acts as a preservative instead of a neutralizer. It, in fact, makes things seem worse, as if there is something to hide about the process. The lead story for the 2014 Huskies should be the nationally esteemed Petersen beginning his first year at Washington, not what Miles did and how Petersen handled the incident.
Washington's goal should be to have the Miles incident watered down enough over the coming weeks that it is not the lead question for Petersen at Pac-12 media days in July. As it stands now, it will be. And if Petersen is standoffish, he will be peppered with questions, and then words like "bristled" and "evasive" will describe him in subsequent stories.
Just about every off-field incident in college football is a story with chapters -- incident, arrests or not, charges or not, punishment, aftermath and redemption or not. At present, Petersen and Washington are creating a limbo between punishment and aftermath that is unnecessary.
Rajesh K from San Carlos, Calif., writes: I think you should make custom 12-sided dice with each Pac-12 team on it for internal use at ESPN.
Ted Miller: We already have one. We roll it twice each day to see: 1. Which Pac-12 team we will be biased for that day; 2. Which Pac-12 team we will be biased against that day.
Welcome to the Friday mailbag. At the very least, reading it informs you which day of the week it is.You can follow the Pac-12 blog on Twitter.And you can follow my personal Twitter account, which is updated when I'm procrastinating -- which is, like, constantly -- by clicking here.