Blog on vacation (sort of)

No, I haven't been avoiding posting because of the Cougs' loss to Arizona -- things just have been exceedingly busy at work. The kids went to newspaper deadline last week, and I'm leaving tomorrow with 17 of them for a scholastic journalism convention in Nashville, Tenn.

Needless to say, there hasn't been a lot of time to write.

I'll try and check in when I return, probably Monday or Tuesday. I've got some topics I'm mulling over in my head already; it's just going to be finding the time to try and do them justice.

What's left to say? Seahawks' pitiful D leaves me at a loss

Truth be told, I had a lot of things I wanted to say about the Seahawks' horrific performance yesterday. Most of them centered around the defense's abysmal performance. But I need to be honest -- there's not a whole lot that can be said that hasn't been said better by guys who actually get paid to do this stuff.

So, I figured I'd just link to some of the stories I found that sum it up best. Happy reading. Maybe I'll figure out something unique to say as we lead up to Monday Night Football. Maybe something along the lines of, "Boy, those people who thought the offense could be just as good without Shaun Alexander the past couple of years sure look stupid now!"

But right now, I'm just not in the mood.

• "There's no defense for Hawks' futility in stopping Chiefs" by Dave Boling, The (Tacoma) News Tribune
• "Breaking down the breakdowns" by Mike Sando, The (Tacoma) News Tribune -- Seahawks Insider
• "Foul odor is coming from Seahawks defense" by Steve Kelley, The Seattle Times
• "Defense sinks to the occasion" by Ted Miller, The Seattle Post-Intelligencer
  

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.

Third and Long + Inexperienced QB = Offensive Troubles Sunday

Not to state the completely obvious, but Seahawks fans can agree on this much as the team prepares to take on the Chiefs this weekend: Life gets harder for the offense with Matt Hasselbeck out.

Up for debate, however, is just how much harder it gets with Seneca Wallace at the helm of the offense.

Although Wallace has just 52 regular season passes to his credit -- by contrast, Hasselbeck has 74 career starts -- there are those who believe he possesses the skills and knowledge to hold down the fort until the three-time Pro Bowler returns from his knee injury.

I'm here to tell you that if everyone else on the offense doesn't step up their game, Wallace doesn't stand a chance of leading this team to victory against what has turned out to be an underrated Kansas City defense.

The woes of the team's running attack are well documented, as the Seahawks are averaging just 3.5 yards per carry this season, 26th in the NFL. What's not as well documented is the effect that this has on the offense, and just how much having an All-Pro-caliber quarterback running the offense has helped to cover up the unit's many deficiencies.

The inability to run the ball on first and second down has led to the Seahawks needing to convert a disproportionate amount of third-and-long attempts. You can put the third down attempts into three categories: Third-and-short (1-3 yards), third-and-medium (4-6 yards) and third-and-long (7 yards or more). Check out the breakdown of attempts by third down category: (Special thanks to Seahawks Insider Mike Sando, who compiled the stats, which can be found here.)

• Third-and-short: 14 attempts
• Third-and-medium: 18 attempts
• Third-and-long: 57 attempts! (Of those, 32 are from third-and-10 or longer.)

The striking thing is that this has not had a significant impact on the team's ability to convert on third down. Overall, the team is converting 41.6 percent of its third down attempts, good for ninth in the NFL. In fact, the Seahawks are converting 38.6 percent of those third-and-longs -- better than the overall conversion rates of 18 NFL teams (including such solid offenses as St. Louis, Chicago, Jacksonville and Cinicinnati).

At first blush, these numbers just don't seem to jive. Normally, poor performance on first and second down -- typically rushing downs -- leads to poor performance on third down. Of the six teams below the Seahawks in rushing yards per attempt, only two teams are even ranked in the top half of the league in third down conversion rate (Kansas City, 12th, and Houston, 14th). Yet, the Seahawks have been able to survive and even be productive on offense despite the improbability of the situations they put themselves in.

The only viable explanation? Hasselbeck.

All you need to know is this: On third-and-long situations where the Seahawks have passed, Hasselbeck has been responsible for converting of 17 of 29 attempts -- an astounding 58.6 percent.

In light of that, let me ask you this question: Is it reasonable to expect Seneca Wallace to produce similar numbers? If not, how can this team expect to be successful in Hasselbeck's absence?

The answer, of course, is that it can't ... unless it starts to run the ball significantly more effectively on first and second down.

The bottom line is that this team must put Wallace in manageable down and distance all afternoon if the Seahawks are to have a chance to score some points. For all of Wallace's athleticism, he's not likely to convert a lot of those long third down chances like Hasselbeck did -- he just doesn't possess the moxie, and it's a bit too much to expect him to consistently scramble for upwards of 10 yards.

Give him third-and-medium or third-and-short, however, and that will allow the coaches to put Wallace's full repertoire to use and give him a shot to lead the staggering Hawks to a much-needed win on the road.

Lost season? Hardly -- let's all try to keep just a little perspective

I've often wondered what it is about the NFL that arouses such passion in its fans, what it is that has allowed it to become the dominant sport in America over the past decade.

Personally, I think it's the festival-type atmosphere that surrounds every game. After all, unlike the NBA or Major League Baseball, a football game is special, a once-a-week occurrence. There are six days of build up, six days of hype ... six days of guys like me trying to figure out just what's going to happen on Sunday.

And while this is what makes football so special, it's also why it is so darn difficult for fans to maintain perspective after just one poor game: Six days of questioning, six days of trying to figure out just what went wrong and how the team will fix it.

As you know, one of my favorite sites on the Internet is Mike Sando's Seahawks Insider blog. If you needed evidence as to just how reactionary fans can be in the face of a colossal meltdown, here is just a sampling of some of the comments left in the wake of the loss ot the Vikings:

• "Kiss the home field advantage goodbye."
• "Season over. "
• "This season is probably over. Seattle is, in effect, playing with a second team offense. Matt at best will probably be out 2-3 weeks. Based on the depth of NFC east and NFC South (and with the Rams and Saints playing well) - it'll likely be enough to keep Seattle out of a wildcard. Hope Branch was worth what is now looking like a top 15 pick."
• "I have ABSOLUTELY had it with Holmgren's inability to flex within a game. For goodness sake, why does he insist on sticking with 'the game plan' when NOTHING in the real life game is as it was when he planned the stupid game? Other coaches in the league make significant adjustments...as should Holmgren, when things change on you dramatically. ... I think Holmgren is the one holding this team back today....this one he needs to step up and take credit for."
• "I think it is time we all come to the realization that this is just not going to be the Hawks year. You can just tell when things aren't going to go your way. "

Conversely, here's what was being said the week before after the comback win against the Rams:

• "What an incredible win. Maybe a season-saver."
• "OK, I'm impressed! We finally looked like last year's Seahawks! We overcame injuries, the dreaded 10am road game, the post bye week sindrome, and even the down too far too early trap. Thanks coach for not giving up on the running game. This was a statement game! This could begin a long winning streak just like last year's game. What a game!!!"

Now, I'll be the first to tell you the Seahawks stunk, and that there are problems. But a season does not go from back on track to go to the Super Bowl to the toilet in one week, with or without your Pro Bowl quarterback.

But that's the nature of the beast when there are a full six days' hype in building up to a game. When it lives up to your expectations, it's the greatest feeling in the world. When it doesn't, nothing makes you feel quite as low. That's where Seahawks fans find themselves today.

It doesn't help that in today's snap-decision, instant information media climate, everyone wants everything right now -- including some sort of meaningful analysis from some talking head who has 60 seconds to fill on SportsCenter. As I'm writing this, the teaser for the show's next segment is, "With Matt Hasselbeck out and Shaun Alexander still on the sidelines, has the Seahawks' run as NFC champs come to an end?" It's enough to make me want to find the nearest garbage can and vomit.

Unfortunately, it's simply not "controversial" enough for Mark Schlereth or Sean Salisbury, in their role as quasi-journalists, to says, "Hey, it's one game. Let's see how it plays out." Apparently, ESPN thinks their viewers want analysts to either confirm their greatest dreams or worst nightmares on a weekly basis with no room for moderation, which, it appears, doesn't sell advertising.

While there is clearly cause for concern, let's put this in perspecive. Bad loss? Sure. But the team still is in first place, still holds the tiebreaker against the Rams, and has one of the weakest schedules in the NFL coming up. Matt Hasselbeck did not rip up his knee (a la Carson Palmer) -- he'll be back in a few weeks, and Shaun Alexander will be back before then.

In other words, if this team can figure out a way to survive the next month, going at least 2-2 against Kansas City, Oakland, San Francisco and Green Bay, Seattle should be able to get healthy and cohesive enough to make a push to just get into the playoffs, where clearly anything can happen.

And while not having home field advantage won't help this team get to the Super Bowl -- let's face it, earning the best record in the NFC looks like a grim proposition at this point -- there's a team in Pittsburgh that won a championship last year without the benefit of even one home game in the playoffs.

Remember, the Steelers lost three consecutive games last season without Ben Roethlisberger to slip to 7-5, and, if memory serves, most every "expert" wrote the Steelers off at that point. He came back, Pittsburgh won four consecutive games to finish out the regular season, and the rest, as they say, was history.

The kind of history the Seahawks clearly still have the opportunity to make.

What to expect this week

I'm hoping to be on and writing a bunch this week, and this is what you (tentatively) have to look forward to:

• Wednesday: What the statistics say about why the Seahawks might really be in trouble without Matt Hasselbeck -- unless Seneca Wallace gets some serious help on offense.
• Thursday: The key to the Cougars' chances of winning their last four games and booking a trip to the Holiday Bowl.
• Friday: What the Seahawks need to do defensively to win, both before and after Hasselbeck comes back.
• Saturday: Game previews for the both WSU and UW.
• Sunday: Game preview for the Seahawks.

If I get a chance, I'll throw in some World Series analysis, too. For the record, I think Rogers cheated.

Ah, those mighty Cougs! Right where I hoped they'd be right now

The groudwork has been laid. Now all that remains is for the Cougars to finish the job.

Three weeks ago, after WSU nearly knocked off No. 3 USC, this is what I said in this spot:

"Now, they've got to go out this weekend and beat a not very good Oregon State team on the road. If they can do that, they've really got something going. Splitting the next two home games against Cal and Oregon after that is not an unreasonable proposition, leaving WSU 5-3, 3-2 in the Pac-10, and squarely established in the second tier of teams heading into a favorable final month."

Well, now they've got something going. After playing pretty well against Cal but having little to show for it in the scoring department, No. 16 Oregon came into Martin Stadium in what the Cougs had to look at as the defining game of their season.

WSU seized the opportunity, ambushing the Ducks in a game that wasn't as close as the 34-23 final margin.

The defense continues to prove it's one of the best in the conference after completely shutting down the potent Ducks. At first blush, the score doesn't knock your socks off, but only one of Oregon's touchdowns was of the legitimate offensive variety. One of the TDs came off a fumble return, and the other on a long bomb very late in the fourth quarter when the game was already well out of reach.

Before giving up a Brady Leaf touchdown pass midway through the fourth quarter -- yes, it's his younger brother -- WSU had not allowed an offensive touchdown since the second quarter against Cal. That's five quarters of no touchdowns against the No. 1 and No. 2 offenses in the conference.

The most striking statistic? Oregon came into the game rushing for more than 200 yards a game, and things didn't look good for the Cougs when defensive tackle Aaron Johnson went out early in the game with an injury, leaving the already banged up line without its top three interior linemen. Yet, WSU held Oregon to just 104 total rushing yards with that patchwork line.

And I know what the defense will smile most about: Super soph Jonathan Stewart -- a one-time blue chip recruit who chose Oregon over WSU late in the recruiting process -- was held to just 28 yards rushing on 11 carries, a paltry 2.5-yard average. You think the defense didn't want to send a message to the kid? In the least malicious way possible, I'm sure they enjoyed sending him back to Eugene with a resounding loss ... and in fourth place in the Pac-10.

Indeed, the unit that kept this team from realizing its potential a year ago is the biggest reason the Cougs have their eye on the Holiday Bowl if both USC and Cal can figure out a way to get into the BCS. The final four games of the season are imminently winnable for this team -- at UCLA, vs. Arizona, at Arizona State, and vs. Washington -- and we Cougs can't help but catch ourselves California dreamin'.

If that happens, maybe I can convince my wife that we should travel to San Diego for the second time in our marriage; after all, it was in 2003 that the Cougs last went to the Pac-10's No. 2 bowl game, beating Texas.

I was there.

On my honeymoon.

I still think the Huskies suck, but ...

As a die-hard Coug, nothing irritates me more than when Husky fans say, "I love the Huskies, but I root for Washington State to do well whenever they're not playing the UW!"

My usual response?

"Oh, that's nice. Personally, I hope the University of Washington loses every game in every sport for the rest of eternity."

However, just because I don't like them doesn't mean I can't respect them, and I'm finding with each passing week that I respect Tyrone Willingham and his overachieving group more and more. That was never more evident than Saturday, when the Huskies -- 23.5-point underdogs on the road -- nearly pulled off the upset of the weekend against mighty Cal.

In my mind, Isaiah Stanback was virtually the only reason the Huskies were playing as well as they were up until this point in the season. With the news that he was going to miss the rest of the season, I figured they were sunk for sure.

After all, their starting quarterback is Carl Bonnell, who left Washington State because he was never, ever, ever going to see the field for the Cougs. And their backup quarterback is Johnny Durocher, who left Oregon because he was never, ever, ever, EVER going to see the field there. And while their third string quarterback is Jake Locker, the greatest quarterback in the history of Washington football -- just ask most of the fans -- the coaches are desperate to not burn his redshirt.

I'm still baffled as to how they're doing it, as no logical explanation makes sense. This is basically the same bunch of guys who stunk the last three years. Yet, their guts -- dare I say heart? -- really defy explanation. How do you rationalize Carl Bonnell throwing four interceptions, yet the Huskies still holding a lead late against the Bears? How do you explain a receiver who had caught just one pass in his UW career reeling in the game winner on a miraculous Hail Mary pass?

Here's how: Tyrone Willingham is a great coach with a great coaching staff.

The guy has the goods. He's been successful everywhere he's been, and the only reason he lost his job at Notre Dame is because most of the powerful people in that program never wanted him there in the first place. He expects excellence, and somehow, some way, he gets his players to expect it, too.

See, a lot of coaches miss the fact that the key to developing a successful program that can be competitive year in and year out is developing strong young men who have the heart, maturity and talent -- in that order -- to succeed. (Larry Coker, take note.) Willingham has started to do that, and while I initially resisted the assessment about four games ago that the Washington program had turned the corner, I'm now as convinced of that as I ever will be.

Tyrone Willingham is a great coach, and the Huskies would do well to lock him up for a very long time.

Does that scare me as a Coug fan? Nah ... until the Huskies actually pull of a big win -- something similar to the beatdown the Cougs put on No. 16 Oregon in Pullman -- or figure out a way to win an Apple Cup, I'll still revel in our superiority.

Besides, it'll mean a lot more to beat a decent team in the Apple Cup for once!

Seahawks rediscover their mojo, showing us all they still have 'it'

I can only speculate as to what was going through the Seahawks' minds when they were down 21-7 midway through the second quarter, but I know what was going through mine.

Like a lot of Seahawks fans, last year's improbable run and this year's 3-0 start had me feeling a little bulletproof. I began to wonder if this team was ever going to lose a game, feeling like no matter what they did, they were always going to find a way to win.

The loss two weeks ago to the Bears didn't just dent that feeling of invincibility -- it evaporated it. And as if to prove that we fans weren't the only ones feeling that way, the Rams came out and smacked the Seahawks so hard in the mouth, it's hard to imagine they didn't feel that way, too.

Seattle suddenly was mortal.

Which is what makes today's comeback that much more impressive, the kind of win that can define a season. In a game which many wondered whether the Rams could seize this opportunity, it turned out the Seahawks were the ones who did the taking.

I have to admit -- down by two touchdowns, on the road -- I wondered if this wasn't the team I thought it was. After Tory Holt made one of the most spectacular catches of the season, I wondered even more if this team still had it.

Not just it ... but it. It makes sure that you remain composed in the face of great adversity. It is what you have when you win 14 of 15 games on your way to the Super Bowl. It is what champions are made of.

When Josh Brown's 54-yard field goal split the upright, the Seahawks proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that they most definitely still have it.

(Although, Mo Morris might want to put a little more it on his hands in the fourth quarter. So might Michael Boulware ...)

To me, the defining moment of it in this game really came about midway through the third quarter. The Rams had been all over Matt Hasselbeck in the first half, continuing a trend that has become disturbing in its frequency this season. But, all of sudden, it seemed like something clicked.

The line started blocking better, and Hasselbeck started getting more time. And when he gets time, he's the most dangerous quarterback in football not named Peyton Manning. It allowed him to find open receivers. It allowed him to find guys that weren't open, but draw pass interference penalties anyway.

Additionally, this pretty much coincided with the defense figuring out how to get some pressure on Marc Bulger and start to shut down the Rams offense. The most stunning aspect of this was the way Bryce Fisher absolutely dominated Orlando Pace, beating the All-Pro tackle three different times to force sacks, and a number of the other times to hurry passes. The biggest, of course, was the sack to end the first half that took the driving Rams right out of field goal range. Think he didn't want to show the old hometown fans what they're missing?

The bottom line is this: Faced with adversity on the road, this team had the option to fold the way it did against Chicago. It didn't. Instead, the Seahakws did what they had to do -- not once, but twice -- to beat a quality division opponent in their house. That's huge.

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 ...