ESPN Pac-10 Blog

Posted by ESPN.com's Ted Miller

Feel like I'm leaving a lot of questions and comments out each week... thinking about adding a Mailbag II on Thursday or Friday.

Aaron from Chicago writes: Ted, Please explain to me why Michigan State is ranked ahead of Cal in all of the polls? Did nobody watch the game in week 1 where the Bears owned the Spartans? State lost to the only 2 good teams that it has faced this year (Cal, OSU) other than that they have beaten 8 cupcakes (the woeful big 10, Eastern Michigan, FAU, and overrated Notre Dame). By the same token Cal lost at Maryland but they are ranked ahead of the Terps. All 3 teams have 2 losses each, this makes no sense. Do the pollsters watch the head to head football games anymore or do they just vote based on rosters and who is getting more press?

Ted Miller: A seven-point, Aug. 30 victory at home doesn't earn Cal the right to be ahead of Michigan State in the polls the entire season, nor does Maryland get a season's pass over the Bears for its eight-point win at home. Pollsters take into account what happens throughout a season. A good win, such as Cal over Oregon, gets a team a poll boost, just as a loss -- say getting thumped at Arizona -- can be a downer. And you can't be serious asserting that MSU's schedule, which it is 8-2 against, is less impressive than 6-2 Cal's. The Spartans' slate is ranked 36th by Jeff Sagarin, while the Bears is 53rd.

That said, I had Cal 17th and MSU 18th in my vote for the ESPN.com power rankings. Why? I think Cal is better than Michigan State.

And, trust me, if the Bears upset USC on Saturday, you won't have to worry any more.

Aaron from Roseburg, Ore., writes: Can you please, for all of us hoping there is still hope, explain how a 2-team and multi-team tiebreakers work in the Pac-10.

Ted Miller: You can read the complete explanation here.

The short version:

1. Two team tie: head to head.

2. Multi-team tie: a. did one team beat each of the others? b. did one (or more) of the teams have a superior record vs. the other tied teams? c. if those two steps eliminate one or more teams, then repeat step 1 and 2.

If these steps don't produce a winner, then the process continues in esoteric ways that I refused to paraphrase. So hit the link.

Drew from Seattle writes: Could we see Phillip Fulmer's name pop on on UW's radar?

Ted Miller: I like this question way better than the one on Pac-10 tiebreaking.

Answer: No.

Logan from Tucson writes: Hey Ted, So me and my friends are taking the trip from Tucson to Oregon to watch our Wildcats play @ "The House of Loud" So I was just curious, are there any must eat at restaurants in Eugene?

Ted Miller: Glad you asked.

Upscale: Adam's Place. Great bar, too. Just down E. Broadway is Ambrosia.

But the classic place among many Oregon fans is Beppe & Gianni's. Traditional Italian. Great atmosphere. Outstanding hostess. Ate there before the UW-Oregon game.

Darn. Hungry now.

Then, if you are a young buck looking for the crowd, go to Taylor's.

Michael in San Jose writes: Ted, Question for you. How is the category "wins over top 25 teams" defined? Does UCLA get credit for a win over "top 20 Tennessee"? Does Alabama get credit for a win over "top 10 Clemson"? Does anybody get credit for a win over "top 25 Auburn"? Which is the best way to define "wins over top 25 teams: Whether the team was ranked at the time you played them, or whether they are currently ranked in the top 25?

Ted Miller: It can go both ways, but it obviously carries more weight for a team to own a win over a foe that is presently ranked.

As regular readers know, I am a fanatic about nonconference scheduling. So I also give credit to teams for scheduling intentions -- seeking out competition -- and the gravity a game possessed on the day it was played. I give Alabama credit for a quality win over Clemson, even though the Tigers went belly-up thereafter. I suspect that Clemson's season -- and Tommy Bowden's job status -- would be very different if it, not the Crimson Tide, had delivered a dominant, physical performance.

Of course, that component is one of those "human" elements that factor into the national polls. Computers don't think that way.

David from Sacramento writes: Ted, why isn't cal ranked number 2 in your pac-10 power rankings? they took down the former #2 pac 10 team and are 6-2, second best record in the conference overall and you put oregon state before them? other than usc, they havent looked that impressive. i could understand why arizona is ranked above cal but come on! build up the drama for the sc game!

Ted Miller: Why desire No. 2? Why not just beat USC and take the whole enchilada?

Why? Oregon State has won five of six, including a win over USC. The lone loss came on the road against an unbeaten, top-10 team in Utah.

Three weeks ago, Cal was outscored 28-3 in the second half in a 42-27 loss at Arizona.

Scott from Portland writes: Why are the Beavers not back in the top 25, Oregon was in there last week at 24 with two losses and this week there is Cal with 2 losses. The beavers have two losses both to teams ranked in the top 10 and we've beaten the #7 ranked team, what gives? Last time I checked Cal had lost to Maryland and U of A not nearly the same caliber as #3 Penn State and #8(10) Utah (which but for the worst clock management ever we would have won).

Ted Miller: You make a reasonable point. But you leave out the main reason why the Beavers aren't ranked: a third loss to Stanford. Sure, it was the season-opener, but consider how many other three-loss teams are ranked. I'll help: Zero.

If it makes you feel better, though, I ranked the Beavs 25th in my vote for the ESPN.com power rankings.

Pete from Denver writes: This week UA should (will) get win number 6. That will make them bowl eligible, but if I remember correctly UA won 6 games in 2006 finishing 6-6 and did not go to a bowl. If UA finishes up with a 1-3 record, which could happen do they still go to a bowl at 6-6?

Ted Miller: This is a good column on this very topic.

The short answer is the six wins and the Cats are in. With Pac-10 contracts with seven bowls, and the unlikelihood of seven bowl-eligible teams, Arizona won't need to worry.

David from Portland writes: Ted, every week, as I sit and watch games from all over the country and every major conference, a Pac-10 officiating crew asserts its awfulness. The group calling the Oregon State - Arizona State game Saturday was just the latest example of how bad the situation is. Do you think this is a Tom Hansen problem that we can expect to get better with Hansen's departure?

Ted Miller: It does seem like Pac-10 games have more than their share of bad calls, and it's earned the conference a bad national reputation. My guess is this will be one of the issues on the desk of the new commissioner. Having covered the conference for nearly a decade, it does seem, however, as though this is a recent phenomenon. But it's dangerous for there to be a perception of poor officiating, even if it is exaggerated based on a few high-profile gaffes.

M.R. Parson's from West Palm Beach, Fla., writes: YOU mean, Miller, the nation's most over rated team! Most feared team??? My God you're part of the incredible media problem! Most feared team because they hang 60 on one of the 10 worst teams in the nation and 56 on the other worst team in the nation...because they shut them out? To place Texas below SC, is horrible! 4 top 10 teams for Texas and who for SC? Arizona and Oregon St.???? Miller,SC is not the most feared, it's mindless homers that give college football a black eye....save the bias for politics, where you would fit right in.

Ted Miller: Howdy M.R.

I'll put it to you this way: You're in Las Vegas. USC is playing [FILL IN THE BLANK] on Saturday on a neutral field. The line? Pick 'em.

(That would never happen because USC would always be favored. But this is pretend).

Now, you and I both know what you'd do. And we know what a LONG, LONG line of folks rushing the sports book would do.

There is a right answer. And a wrong answer. And the wrong answer is [FILL IN THE BLANK].

Know what the coach at [FILL IN THE BLANK] is saying about potential matchups in the BCS title game? "Golly, I sure hope we don't play USC!"

I'm not saying one-loss USC should advance over one-loss Texas or one-loss Florida or no-loss Penn State. In fact, the Trojans shouldn't be based on how the schedule worked out this year.

But if all the teams in the hunt listed the one team they DON'T want to play for the title, each would write down USC.

And, of course, you know that as well as I.