Conan: I know where you are coming from. I can tell you that everyone in Oklahoma was ready to see Chuck Long go. Good ridance and that proved out when he got the west coast job. It is kind of like Venables now. He has done nothing but ride Bob Stoops coat tails all this time.
However, as far as Mike Stoops go the defense at OU has not been the same since he left. My point is that he does not have to worry about the offense anymore. It is in capable hands and if the personnel prove out they can score with anyone in the league. I feel like this leaves Stoops more time to work with the defense, something that can separate a team in the Pac 10. More defense, less offense can still mean more wins. Granted he has less to work with then he did at OU. He is quoted as saying at spring practice that this years defense has a chance to be special. Now don't take offense when I say this, but the Pac 10 may have become a little inbred as far as offense is concerned. The Big 12 is the same way. Neither league has a quality stop unit other than USC who is heads and shoulders above the rest. I see Stoops trying to break the mold and if his defense is something special I see enough weapons to score some points on anyone in the Pac 10 including USC. USC lost some coaches and a vested QB along with a lot of defensive players. I know they reload and they have lots of talent (like Florida) but this may be their most vulnerable season in a while. Arizona is a very competitive team and lost 5 ball games by a total of 34 points and their biggest loss was by 10 in a game they made a hell of a come back in. I can't ignore the numbers and I can't ignore all of the factors involved. It may be because I am on the outside looking in and I have seen Mike Stoops get it done. I know he bought time LY by getting to a bowl but don't count him out yet.
Russ, maybe it's a chemistry thing that's particular to a school or a conference which explains why guys like Stoops can succeed one place but not another. I can't say. I see that you are still pretty high on Stoops based on his history with the Sooners. OK, I can understand that. And no, I have not written them off. I'm just thinking that they are close to being about as high as he can take them.
As I was saying, here it's different type of football culture where offensive innovation and QB development have been the keys to winning. The old saying that defense wins championships isn't as true as it may have been at one time. Just look at Florida's offense since Meyer got there.... USC made it to the NC vs Texas with 7 of their starters on defense sitting out most of the season. That's how good their offense was that year. I feel like a rare one when I say it's both offense and defense, but scoring enough points can get it done just as easily as denying one's opponents points on the scoreboard. An offense (or special teams) can have just as much of an impact on field position as a defense can.
But I understand what you are saying. When a team can match the kind of offense I'm speaking about with the kind of defense you have seen from Stoops at Oklahoma, they become dominant.
Cal might fit that mold this season with their defense. Even though Oregon St. lost 8 starters, you can't count them out any more than you could have last season when they lost 7 starters from the year before. Mark Banker is probably one of the sharpest defensive minds in the country. Their notable success defensively has been primarily due to their DC and his system of rotating his 2's and 3's.
However, I realize that it has been a general rule here that WC defenses are not given the same level of focus and attention that the offense gets. That was more prevalent 5 years ago than it has been lately. But all along, where a team's defense has been good along with a good offense, the team finishes high.
But this is 2009, not 2006. I think it would be a mistake to take defense on the west coast and make general assumptions about them, LATELY. About the time these views and buzzwords make it to the forefront is about the time things have taken an opposite direction. That lag in perception helps the books but it is terrible for gamblers.
So here is a pretty accurate appraisal of where things stand today....
You've already got teams with good or better than average defenses in Cal, Oregon St., USC and now apparently both Zona teams. UCLA's defense has been so good they finally lost their DC who received a HC offer from NM St. That could cost them dearly but we'll just have to wait and see.
IMHO, ASU will have a very good defense this season. You have no idea how strange a development I find it that both Zonas are expected to play good defense this season. Arizona seemed to regain some of their defensive prowess that it lacked up until just last season. It is normally the Sun Devils that have had defensive problems, especially this decade. But it seems that's no longer the case since Dennis Erickson took over for Dirk Koetter.
So basically it's the 2 Washington teams, Oregon and Stanford that remain with bigger defensive issues to resolve.... and that's about it. But even Oregon has produced some better defenses recently which is a bit unexpected. (I am not a big fan of Nick Alliotti, their DC.)
Considering that both Oregon and OK St.'s offenses were among the elite in CFB last year, Oregon won the Holiday Bowl because their defense was superior to OSU's defense. That's one recent example. And as I pointed out, I can't include the Ducks among the better defenses in the conference.
So to conclude, I wouldn't characterize defense on the WC today as poorly as it has been done for most of this decade. That would be making a square judgment because it's behind the times. It would be better (for gambling sake) to evaluate Pac-10's defenses on a team by team basis. Also remember that these teams often go up against the better offensive schemes in CFB, so don't let national rankings alone get the better of you. It's all relative to their level of opposition on the other side of the line of scrimmage.
On the whole, the best way to gauge any conference offensively and defensively is on a case per case basis and especially by inter-conference play. But even then, the time of the year and scheduling can skew the numbers and give you a false picture if you are not careful to read between the lines.
Just don't let yourself fall for the "party line" from the writers who don't even cover the conferences that they are attempting to judge and do try to ignore all the cliches. You can be like most people and speak the opinions of many of the writers and the common folk. Aside from finding a few friends and some support in this forum, it will get you nowhere.
Numbers may give you an unbiased way of rating teams, and for that reason they can be very useful. Numbers may provide you with a general idea but they are not conclusive for some of the reasons I pointed out above. Nothing beats following and watching the same teams play year in and year out to get a good feel for how well they are playing their game.
