Husky fans rejoice -- new book about James era now shipping

Apparently, someone thought Don James and the University of Washington football program interesting enough topics to write a book about them.

Those of you who don't know me wouldn't know that I was a huge Husky fan back in the day, and remember the James era well -- I remember sitting up all night to see if they won the national championship in '91, and attended the 1993 Rose Bowl (the last of the three in a row).

However, I don't hold James in nearly as high of esteem as most Husky fans -- and it's not because I'm now a Coug through and through. Even as a teenager I considered him a quitter who bailed on his team precisely when it needed him most. Those violations happened on his watch, and whether the punishment was justified is irrelevant. He left his team high and dry, and the UW truly has never recovered.

That said, there's no denying the guy was a fabulous football coach, and the book should be an interesting read, if this interview with the author or this interview with the author are any indication.

Might make for a nice Father's Day gift if your dad's into that "wistful wishing for the glory of yesteryear" that so many Husky fans have going for themselves these days.

Signing day comes and goes, what it means ... no one knows (yet)

I love college football signing day -- it's just so darn exciting.

Although, I must admit, I'm never really sure what I'm so excited about.

Truly, there is no greater guessing game in sports than evaluating football recruiting classes. At least with college basketball recruiting, we get to see these guys play with and against each other in AAU tournaments or at all-star summer camps.

Football? Who knows what you're getting. Yes, there are more scouting combines now than there used to be, but it's still pretty much a crap shoot because so many things play into whether a football player is successful (system, position, physically maturing, etc.). Never mind the fact that the "star" ratings used by recruiting services often have more to do with who's recruiting the player -- bigger schools chasing the player equals more stars -- than actual talent, because how easy is it to judge a guy who plays week in and week out against inferior competition?

For example, there was a skinny 6-foot-6, 210-pound "two-star" quarterback who projected to be a tight end and signed with Washington State back in 2002. That guy's name? Mkristo Bruce -- the All-Pac-10 defensive end who was nearly unblockable last year until suffering a knee injury and being moved inside in a 3-4 defense.

So, while as a Coug fan I'm excited about the prospect of a guy like Terry Mixon contributing to the secondary right away, I'm also tempered by the knowledge that there are plenty of "four-star" recruits like J.T. Diederichs and Randy Estes who never pan out. (Although, to be fair, the other three WSU recruits rated "four-star" by Rivals.com the last two years turned out to be pretty good: Jerome Harrison, Michael Bumpus and Andy Roof.)

For the record, Rivals.com has ranked the Washington Huskies recruiting class as the 35th overall in the nation, fourth in the Pac-10; the Cougs are rated as the No. 62 recruiting class (right in between Baylor and San Diego State), dead last in the Pac-10.

With that, I'll leave the speculation to people who know a lot more about this than I do.

• "WSU's secondary gets primary focus," by Bud Withers, Seattle Times
• "UW welcomes class called good and deep," by Bob Condotta, Seattle Times
• "UW, WSU opt for depth, not glitz," by Don Ruiz, The News Tribune
• "WSU focuses on secondary, not rankings," by John Naito, Seattle P-I
• "Washington goes 27-for-27 on signing day," by Molly Yanity, Seattle PI
• "Lobbestael quietly becomes a Cougar," by Darren Fessenden, Seattle P-I
• "Pattern of UW wins may emerge from ink blot," by Ted Miller, Seattle P-I
• "Go 2 Guy: Cougars show recruiting cards, but really could have used a kicker," by Jim Moore, Seattle P-I
• "WSU signing day notes, quotes and facts," by JV Holland, Cougfan.com

Sizing up the Pac-10 bowl picture: Cougs headed for the Sun

And now, for the interactive portion of the blog. Thanks, Swanny, for the inspiration -- ask and ye shall receive! And sorry about the size of the graphic below, those of you over 18 years old; click on it, and it will appear full size on another page. Blogger won't do it any bigger on the main page.

The assumption by most yesterday was that Oregon State's upset over USC has thrown the Pac-10 race into disarray. This is not true. Either Cal or USC still will win the conference and go to the Rose Bowl.

The only thing it really has done is all but assured that the Pac-10 -- once again -- will not be able to figure out a way to get two teams into BCS bowl games in the same year. (It's only happened one time in eight years -- 2003, when the Cougars went to the Rose Bowl and USC went to the Orange Bowl.)

While it might not seem like that big of a deal, consider this: Each team earns anywhere between $14 million and $17 million for its conference when it appears in a BCS bowl game. In the Pac-10, that money is split evenly among conference members after the individual team's costs of going to the game are subtracted.

Forget about the other benefits of getting an extra team in the BCS -- television exposure, marketing, etc. -- you think that extra million dollars or so wouldn't help every school in the conference become even more competitive?

Since we no longer have to worry about BCS scenarios, here's my look at how the Pac-10 bowl games could shake out. One thing to remember, college football fans: The bowl system is a screwy one that ain't always fair. It's marred by back-room deals and good ol' boy networks, and is driven, most of all, by the almighty dollar, which pretty much means television contracts.

Save for the Rose Bowl, just because a team finishes ahead of a team in the standings -- for example, WSU is ahead of Oregon in the standings, thanks to the Cougs' head to head victory over the Ducks -- doesn't mean it will go to the better bowl game. "Pac-10 No. 2" means that the Holiday Bowl gets the second pick of bowl eligible Pac-10 teams, the Sun Bowl the third pick, etc. Things such as ticket sales and television ratings are more important than fairness; just keep that in mind ...

ROSE BOWL
January 1, 2007
Pac-10 Champion vs. Big Ten Champion (or BCS at-large)
The contenders: Cal (7-1 overall, 5-0 Pac-10), USC (6-1, 4-1)
The darkhorses: None.
The skinny: The reason USC's loss to Oregon State means little in terms of the Pac-10 race is because both Cal and USC still control their own destiny. Cal is undefeated in the conference, and USC has just the one loss. Assuming neither is upset in the next two weeks -- obviously not a safe assumption at this point -- their matchup on Nov. 18 likely will determine the conference champ. Cal clearly has the inside track; besides having no conference losses, the Bears' remaining schedule features UCLA, Arizona and Stanford (combined record: 3-12). Should USC figure out a way to beat the hottest -- and freshest, given the bye this week -- team in the Pac-10, it's still entirely possible that USC might lose another conference game with Oregon and rival UCLA on the dockett.
The prediction: California.


HOLIDAY BOWL
December 28, 2006
Pac-10 No. 2 vs. Big 12 No. 3
The contenders: Cal, USC
The darkhorses: Washington State (6-3, 4-2), Oregon (6-2, 3-2), Oregon State (5-3, 3-2)
The skinny: The most likely scenario here has the loser of the USC/Cal game traveling to San Diego for the Pac-10's No. 2 game. After all, Cal already has beaten both WSU and Oregon, and USC has a chance to do the same in two weeks by beating Oregon. If that happens, Oregon will be completely out of the picture, and WSU probably will be too. Oregon could find its way to the Holiday Bowl if it can beat the Trojans, get some help from Cal, and defeat suddenly resurgent Oregon State. WSU or Oregon State could get there under a scenario where it wins out, while USC beats Oregon and loses to both Cal and UCLA. Neither scenario is likely. And even if USC loses to just Cal, the Holiday Bowl poobahs will take the Trojans long before they take Oregon, WSU or Oregon State, tiebreakers be darned.
The prediction: USC.


SUN BOWL
December 29, 2006
Pac-10 No. 3 vs. Big 12 No. 4/Big East No. 4/Notre Dame
The contenders: Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State
The darkhorses: Arizona State (5-3, 2-3), UCLA (4-4, 2-3)
The skinny: This is where it gets messy. Really, really messy. There are a litany of plausible scenarios under which either WSU, Oregon or Oregon State go to this game. It probably boils down to this: The team that wins out goes. Washington State is the most likely to do that, having only three conference games left: Arizona and Washington at home, and Arizona State on the road (combined conference record: 5-11). Given that the Cougs already have beaten Oregon at home and Oregon State and UCLA on the road, I like their chances to beat three teams in the bottom half of the conference. Oregon State has a good shot to do it too, with the biggest hurdle being Oregon at home in the Civil War. If both win out, look for the Sun Bowl to take the higher ranked team, which will be the Cougs. Oregon could win out, but it's less likely; the Ducks have to travel to both USC and OSU.
The prediction: WSU.


LAS VEGAS BOWL
December 21, 2006
Pac-10 No. 4 vs. Mountain West No. 1
The contenders: Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State
The darkhorses: Arizona State, UCLA
The skinny: Still messy. Again, there still are a lot of plausible scenarios for all three teams, but it'll probably be the team that loses only one game the rest of the way. Oregon State strikes me as a team that is rolling and still getting better; I like their chances to either win out or lose only one game. If that one game is Oregon -- and the Ducks beat USC -- OSU will be headed for the No. 5 bowl, while Oregon ends up in the Sun Bowl and WSU probably ends up here. ASU or UCLA could squeeze their way in here, by winning out, but it's tough to imagine either team doing that.
The prediction: OSU.


EMERALD BOWL
December 27, 2006
Pac-10 No. 5 vs. ACC No. 5 or 6
The contenders: Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, Arizona State, UCLA
The darkhorses: None.
The skinny: Still messy. Any one of these five teams could land here. The most likely scenario is the worst finish among WSU, Oregon and OSU, but either Arizona State or UCLA still could jump up here with a strong finish. Unlikely. Oregon losing to both USC and Oregon State is most likely to me, landing the Ducks at this San Francisco bowl. It's a far cry from the season they had envisioned when they were ranked near the top 10.
The prediction: Oregon.


HAWAII BOWL
December 24, 2006
Pac-10 No. 6 vs. WAC No. 3
The contenders: Arizona State, UCLA
The darkhorses: Washington (4-5, 2-4)
The skinny: The stronger finish between ASU and UCLA likely secures this bid. Both are close to becoming bowl eligible. Arizona State clearly has the easier finish, as UCLA still must face both Cal and USC. The Huskies could find themselves here if they can figure out a way to win out, but with road games against both Oregon and WSU, that seems pretty unlikely.
The prediction: ASU.

So, there you have it. UCLA and Washington still could both find their way into a bowl at this point, but it gets tougher. With everyone in college football playing 12 games this year, there will be a lot of bowl eligible teams. The Poinsettia Bowl will take an at-large team, and any bowl that doesn't get enough bowl eligible teams from a conference -- such as the Motor City Bowl, which gets the No. 7 Big Ten team, which really becomes the eighth team because both Ohio State and Michigan will be in the BCS -- could take a Pac-10 team. But I wouldn't count on it.

I'll try to update this feature each week.

Husky fans should have seen this one coming, because I sure did

I was absolutely kicking myself on Saturday for not taking the time to write the previews for the WSU and UW games like I usually do.

I wouldn't have been on with the Cougs -- who I expected to keep the game close -- but I told more than one person on Friday that I thought the Huskies were ripe for an upset and were going to lose to Oregon State.

The Beavers played really well the week before against the Cougs, showing a good defense and a strong running game -- precisely the two things that could give Washington some trouble. Additionally, I just had a feeling that all these Huskies were getting just a little too full of themselves after really having not beat anyone.

Turns out I was right -- only there's no record to prove it, other than a pair of off-hand comments to friends.

Oh, well ... I guess I'll just have to take satisfaction enough in the Huskies losing to a team the Cougs beat (on the road).

Other things I noticed on Saturday ...

• I'm not sure whether to be encouraged or discouraged by the Cougs' loss to Cal. Yes, they matched the Bears yard-for-yard on offense, and their defense was the first team in nearly two months to hold them to under 40 points. But I can't help but feel like the game should have been a lot closer than 21-3. Turnovers, stalls in the red zone, a complete and total inability to convert on third or fourth down -- 2-for-17 between the two -- all contributed to their demise. Now, they're faced with the challenge of Oregon. Win that, and the prospect of eight or nine wins becomes a lot more reasonable. This weekend will say a lot about where this season will end up.
• Saturday merely confirmed what I suspected about Cal -- that the Bears are the best team in the Pac-10. What surprised me, however, was their defense, and I think that has become the key to their season. There's no doubt they can score points. If Cal can continue to play as good of defense as it has the past few weeks, it will run to the Pac-10 title without so much as a bump -- and that includes USC.
• Things don't get easier for the Huskies, either, after losing Isaiah Stanback to a foot injury. While the extent of the injury hasn't yet been made public, the consensus is that it's not good and that the Huskies might be without their best player for a while. If that's the case, a season that started with so much promise could spiral back into what it was supposed to be in the first place -- another rebuilding year. Stanback means that much to this team. To most UW fans, six wins seemed like a foregone conclusion. Now, those two wins seem a long way away, especially with road games against Cal, Oregon and WSU still on the docket.
• Tommy Tuberville took a lot of flak for his comments about the SEC needing a playoff to compete for a national championship, especially after his team's loss to Arkansas. Now, he's looking prescient. Florida, Auburn and LSU -- all considered national championship contenders before the season started -- each now have at least one loss, and that Auburn loss to the Razorbacks suddenly doesn't look so bad. And what about one-loss Tennessee? Anyone think USC, ranked No. 2 in the intial BCS standings, is a better team than any of those? I don't. Kudos to Tuberville for having the guts to stand up and say what we already knew: Winning all your games in a season doesn't necessarily mean you're the best team, or even the second-best team.
• Speaking of the BCS, how about no love for Cal? Three of the computer rankings have them ranked sixth, while the other three have them at eight, eight and nine. Yet the Bears are ranked 11th in every human poll, actually getting dropped a spot after beating Washington State. Their only loss is to Tennessee (who, by the way, has risen to No. 7 in the polls), and they've obliterated everyone but WSU. I know that it's only the first week, and I know that things tend to shake themselves out as the season goes along, but let's get real -- this puts the Pac-10 at a significant disadvantage in trying to get two teams into the BCS. Forget about the prestige that brings to a conference; that's $15 million out of the conference coffers. And people wonder why conspiracies continue to abound ...

Random musings on the world of sports: A's are finished

It's been a crazy busy week for me, and while I've neglected writing since Saturday, I haven't neglected watching and observing.

Has anybody else noticed that the Tigers look like a carbon copy of the 2005 Chicago White Sox?

Up 2-0 heading back home against the A's, the parallels are striking. Many people forget how the White Sox nearly collapsed last season after building a massive lead -- needing to win a few games down the stretch to hold off the surging Cleveland Indians. The Tigers' fall was even more pronounced, as a 12-16 finish resulted in them dropping to wild card status on the final day of the season.

Now, they look practically unbeatable against a team that looked unbeatable itself against the Twins.

From my perspective, the A's are finished. The Tigers are a terrible matchup for them, and here's why: If you're familiar with the concept behind "Money Ball," the basic idea is to create scoring opportunities by getting on base as often as possible -- whether that be through a hit or a walk or a hit by pitch. Consequently, the A's are great at working counts, something that's much easier to do against pitchers who don't have great stuff, pitchers who don't attack the strike zone on a consistent basis.

Good pitching beats good hitting, and the Tigers have precisely the kind of pitchers that give the A's fits. They're young, they throw heat, and they're not afraid to challenge hitters with strikes. Guys like Justin Verlander, Jeremy Bonderman, Joel Zumaya and Fernando Rodney don't afford Oakland's hitters the opportunity to wait for their pitch. The only notorious nibbler on Detroit's staff is Kenny Rogers, and he's been effective against Oakland, going 6-0 in seven starts over the last two seasons.

Combine that with Detroit's ability to beat up Oakland's two best starting pitchers -- on the road -- and it looks like the Tigers are putting together a White Sox-like run to a world championship taken against a sub-par National League team.

Other things I've noticed ...

• I was watching the St. Louis/San Diego series this past weekend, and up comes Scott Spiezio. You know, Scott Spiezio -- the guy who the Mariners gave $6 million a year to hit .200 and eventually be released? Well, he now plays for the Cardinals. As he walked to the plate with runners in scoring position, Fox announcer Thom Brenneman says, "And here comes Scott Spiezio. How many times has he been clutch this year!" What followed was a montage of his big hits throughout the course of the season. I about fell off the couch. If Scott Spiezio has become a key cog for a team heading to the World Series, I can only conclude that the National League has, indeed, become a minor league.
• As I'm watching this Stephen Jackson story develop, I actually have a little different take on it than most. Did anybody else notice the fact that ALL of the Indiana Pacers who were at the strip club were carrying guns? ALL OF THEM? Forget the fact they all were registered -- is this a problem for anyone else? Why are all of these guys packing? Are they trying to get killed? Don't they have enough money to hire some other guy to carry the gun? Maybe they thought it might scare someone off in the event that person tries to punch them and run them over. Yeah, that clearly worked ...
• How much of a piece of crap is Pac-10 commissioner Tom Hanson? The conference owns the worst television contract in the country, and that was never more evident than when only part of the country saw No. 16 Cal defeat No. 11 Oregon last weekend on ABC. If you live in a Big 12 state -- Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Kansas, parts of Iowa -- you saw No. 22 Nebraska and unranked Iowa State. It's no wonder the Pac-10 is the only conference to never get two teams into the BCS. So few people get to see the product -- compared to the other major conferences that appear regularly on the four-letter network -- that it's virtually impossible for our teams to get their due. One game not on the television dockett this weekend? Cal at WSU. A game that features what might be the best team in the conference and the dominant defensive player in the conference isn't on TV. What a joke.
• I'm tempted to try to and weigh in on who's going to win the St. Louis/New York NLCS, but I find myself wondering ... who cares? The winner is going to lose the World Series. Convincingly.

Return of the blog: What we've learned after two weeks of college football

The blog has returned! Thanks for being patient this summer as I took some time to relax, recuperate and see some of the warmer parts of Washington. Be looking tomorrow for my gameday diary during the Seahawks game. Now, on with our regularly scheduled thoughts on sports ...

Count me among those who wish the Associated Press would do away with its preseason rankings. Besides the fact that it gives such an unfair BCS advantage to teams that begin the year highly ranked, outside of the top few teams we just don't know how good teams are until they start playing some games that matter.

For example, both the Cougars and Huskies now have two games under their belts -- one home game against a patsy, one road game against one of the better teams in the country -- and I think both teams' fans ought to feel pretty encouraged by what they saw.

In a game that looked awful scary to most Coug fans, WSU obliterated an Idaho team that played pretty well on the road against Michigan State a week ago. After a bit of sputtering in the first quarter, the Cougs proceeded to make Dennis Erickson and the Vandals look like they were the I-AA incarnation he coached in Moscow 25 years ago.

The defense looked fast and stout, as it did for much of last week's game at Auburn before humidity and time of possession took its toll. The offense finally found some rhythm, rolling up more than 650 yards without its starting running back and looking like the high-powered unit everyone expected before the season started.

When you take into account Auburn's 34-0 shutout of Mississippi State on the road this week, I have come to these two conclusions: 1) Auburn is really, really good; and, 2) The Cougs probably are going to be pretty good, too, just like we thought.

As for Washington, Husky fans should be encouraged. Much like WSU against Auburn, UW was able to keep the game close for a half against Oklahoma by running the ball well, only to fold in the second half after falling behind.

The defense looked remarkably physical -- if not a bit overmatched in terms of overall talent -- and played well enough to keep the game respectable. However, when that offense is put into the position of passing the ball every down to catch up, it cannot succeed, especially against a team as talented as the Sooners.

If the Huskies are going to have any shot at being better than everyone thinks, I think the formula now becomes pretty clear: Keep it close with defense and control the clock by running the ball on offense and hope Stanback can mix in a big play or two without killing momentum with poor decisions.