I found this article in a SF Bay area newspaper as I was browsing around the locals for some info on today's scrimmages. At first glance, the order of finish here seems reasonable. But the more I read, the more I realized that this guy really has his head up his ass. I hardly agree with anything he says. Maybe he does a better job writing WAC stuff. Have a good laugh. I did.
Pac-10 football: Predicted order of finish (updated version)
Posted by
Jon Wilner on August 19th, 2008 at 11:08 am
As with my Western Athletic Conference projections, this is all about getting on the record — about calling my shot now, before the first kickoff. If I’m wrong, I look silly (no problem there: it happens plenty over the seven months of the football/basketball season). And if I’m right, then I’ve got some credibility behind future comments. Both possibilities are better than the alternative: Not getting on the record before the season, then second guessing/taking pot-shots afterwards. That’s the worst.
The truth is, the Pac-10 seems more wide open than it has in years, partly because USC looks a bit vulnerable (relative to previous Trojan teams) and partly because there’s no clear-cut No. 2 or No. 3, in my mind. I could see any of four teams finishing second, including USC. This also seems like a year for a four-way tie for fourth, or something funky like that.
1. USC: The injury to Mark Sanchez doesn’t strike me as a major development, for two reasons: 1) the Trojans are well-stocked everywhere else, and 2) we don’t know how good he is. But it comes down to this: You have to keep picking the Trojans to win the Pac-10 until they don’t.
2. Oregon: I like the defense, I like the skill-position talent and the offensive line … I like everything about the Ducks except the quarterback, but Mike Bellotti and staff won’t put the QBs in high-risk situations. Could the go-go Ducks actually win games 17-13?
3. Arizona State: Everything indicates the Devils will have another good season and possibly challenge USC for the title/win the title. That’s similar to the outlook for ASU basketball, but something doesn’t feel right (on either front) — like the forecast is just a bit too sunny.
4. Cal: The chemistry should be better than last season, the defense should be better than last season, the quarterback play should be better than last season (the second half of last season, anyhow). And the schedule is favorable, with ASU, UCLA and Oregon visiting Berkeley. The Bears are much better off with low/mild expectations, and that’s what they have in ‘08.
5. Oregon State: A default selection. Thought about UCLA but the schedule and Ben Olson’s health … Thought about Arizona, but I’d like to see proof the Cats can win before I pick them to win … The Beavers could have QB issues, but Mike Riley and Mark Banker deserve the benefit of the doubt based on recent performance.
6. Arizona: Veteran quarterback with a slew of receivers to run the spread offense, but there are questions/holes throughout the defense. (I can’t believe Mike Stoops is back for another year. If he doesn’t win this season, look for the rudderless Cats to sign him to a five-year extension.)
7. UCLA: As mentioned briefly above … Tough schedule, rebuilt defense, injured quarterback, new coach, new playbook — that’s a lot to overcome, especially with modest talent. But the Bruins do have two of the best coordinators in the business.
8. Stanford: Improving on the four wins of ‘07 will be difficult unless one of the quarterbacks emerges as a consistent playmaker. The defense will keep the Cardinal in mny games, but not all of them.
9. Washington: The guess here is that, because of another brutal schedule, the Huskies start slowly, then fade under the intense speculation about Tyrone Willingham’s future … and crumble when it becomes obvious that Willingham’s done. (Then again, he has dodged doom before: Stanford in ‘99, after the Texas blowout.)
10. Washington State: New coach, new quarterback, questionable recruiting during the Doba years — a steady decline from the Price years — make this a fairly easy call. (Which means it’ll turn out to be wrong.)