Posted by ESPN.com's Ted Miller

A quick review before getting on my flight...

Zach from Tempe, Ariz., writes: You mentioned something about how Arizona State could be USC toughest challenge in the PAC, but do the Sun Devils really have a shot? And what are ASU's chances to defeat Georgia? I only ask because I haven't seen ASU win a really big regular season game since they upset Iowa four years ago.

Ted Miller: Not exactly what I said -- I think Oregon's got the best chance of eclipsing USC this year, and I rate the Ducks shot fairly remote. What I did say is that Dennis Erickson and good cash flow in the athletic department suggest to me that a sleeping giant is (finally) waking up. I think the Sun Devils will consistently challenge USC over the coming years, though not likely this year. As for Georgia, I'm just like everyone else: I look at UGA's roster and go, "Wow." I suspect the Bulldogs will win fairly easily, based in large part on my skepticism about the ASU offensive line.

Joel from Albany, Ore., writes: Can you explain to me why a secondary that was ranked 7th in the PAC 10 last year is now "full of playmakers"? Patrick Chung is pounding his chest, but it is nothing but bravado. The Ducks, and especially their secondary, are overrated and have as many question marks on their team as anyone in the PAC 10. Personally, I would put both Cal and ASU above them.

Ted Miller: A reasonable question. You are correct: The Ducks pass defense ranked seventh in the Pac-10 -- 249.2 yards per game. Couple of explanations: 1. The Ducks defense emphasizes stopping the run, first (much like Oregon State, which despite also having a strong secondary, ranked sixth). 2. Oregon led a lot of games in 2007, and its explosive offense forced a lot of desperate throwing (487 attempts vs. Ducks, tied for second most in conference). Yet, within those numbers is this: a 53 percent completion rated (No. 2 in conference) and 20 interceptions (No. 2 in the conference). With three of those guys back -- and CBs Jairus Byrd and Walter Thurmond III and ROV Patrick Chung -- the Ducks secondary looks pretty salty to me.

Dennis from Parts Unknown, Texas writes: I am likely guilty of drinking grape Kool-Aid, but that's what this time of season is for. Looking at UDub's chances this year, I can stuck on two things. First, if the UW defense can improve from horrible to mediocre, that could make the difference in a winning season. Secondly, I think the Pac 10 is slightly down compared to this time last year. You could go around the conference and most teams are not as highy thought of as they were last year. And as bad as the record was, UW was in almost every game last year. Put in a slightly weaker Pac 10 with a hopefully improved Dawg Defense and I'm keeping my fingers crossed for a winning record. So the question is this: Can the Huskies really make it to a bowl game this year, or am I just Whistling Dixie?

Ted Miller: The short answer is you are probably Whistling Dixie, which is great because too few Washington fans do that. What you put forward is not implausible -- the defense could improve from bad to mediocre and, with a down Pac-10 this season, there could be space to move up. However, you're expecting a lot from young players along the defensive front seven -- particularly without veteran LB E.J. Savannah -- as well as all of the offensive skill positions, other than QB Jake Locker. The bottom line is that the young WRs, RBs and DL have done little to nothing in real-live Division I-A football games. Fans should cross their fingers and hope for the best. But as an observer trying to be objective, I have to take the Missouri Approach: You've got to show me.

Brian from Washington DC writes: Just wondering what your thoughts are on Sports Illustrated's college football rankings ... Oregon State at #18, really?

Ted Miller: I suspect the Beaver Nation likes SI better than those of us who picked the Beavers sixth in the Pac-10. But BN know this: I'll be there for you at the end, at No. 18 or No. 118. SI will abandon you at the first sign of trouble.

Scott from Seattle writes: You really think Stanford is one of the top bands in the Pac-10 let alone the nation?!?!?! This is the same band that burned down their band building in hopes of forcing the administration to build them a new one. As a member of another Pac-10 marching band I know that most bands in the Pac-10 think that Stanford's band is a really sad joke. It's easy to be funny when you are a humiliation to your school and your conference. I would even put Oregon's and and SC's bands ahead of Stanford. SC ranks so low due to the fact that they play pretty much one song, you know which one I'm talking about. I think it's obvious that we have different views of what makes a marching band good.

Ted Miller: There may be other ways to rate bands but mine is this: Do they entertain me? Just because a band has four thousand members and does a great version of Kool & the Gang's "Celebration," doesn't mean much to me. When the Stanford bad is on hand, everyone sticks around to watch. Maybe the tuba player is better at other schools, but I stand firmly by my vote. And the Tree! How can you not love him? Remember: It's only one person's opinion.

Dylan from Berkeley, Calif., writes: Not sure if you've heard, but we're trying to gold out Memorial Stadium for the opener against MSU and thought you might be able to plug it for us. Thanks.

Ted Miller: No, I haven't heard that. The plug will cost you $0.50 and I don't take personal checks.