So, in about an hour, I’ll be calling in to VolNation’s internet radio show, where I’ll be previewing our Bears for them.  Check it out if you can, and if you miss it, the show will remain archived on the site as a podcast.

Also, I got a chance to watch a bit of Friday’s practice, which was very cool.  For those interested, I should let you know that they have security patrolling inside the stadium, and they’re watching Tightwad Hill as well, where if you’re watching, you’ll be asked to leave.  Myself, I got to see the last hour and a half or so.  Most of the time was spent in 11-on-11 drills, in full pads no less, although they did break down into positional drills for a while.

Some thoughts:

- I’ve heard that, early on, the defense is usually ahead of the offense, and while the offense was out of sync occasionally, I thought they generally were pretty effective against the defense.  Is this because our offense is returning a lot of veteran playmakers, and so is a lot more advanced than they normally are, or because the defense has yet to adequately replace all that it lost to the NFL?  I couldn’t say.

- Longshore generally looked sharp and in command, although there were definitely errant passes in there, and I don’t think I saw a single deep ball completed in bounds.  Some of that was good defense, but some of it was not.

- The backup quarterback competition hardly looks settled.  From my amateur perspective, Kevin Riley looked slightly ahead of Kyle Reed, but neither of them looked like they would challenge Longshore for a starting spot.  Cal fans need to hope Longshore doesn’t get injured, and Tedford would be wise to run whoever wins the QB competition out during the second half of blowouts; we need to develop depth.

- DeSean Jackson looked spectacular, as usual.  If Longshore can get a deep pass to him, no one out there is going to catch him.  He was less successful in trying to reverse his field on a shorter pass, however.

- We’ve seen what Forsett can do before, but as of now, I am in no way concerned about him being our starting tailback.

- Tedford absolutely has to find a way to get Jahvid Best on the field.  This guy is special; I think he is faster than DJax.  Now, we’ve all heard reports about this guy, but I tend not to really buy into those things — I want to see the guy out on the field.  Now that I have, I’m totally a fan.  I remember the first time that I saw Marshawn make a big run, and thinking, this guy’s in the NFL after his junior year, no question.  Best isn’t the same type of back, but he’s got the same type of top flight physical talent.

- Brandon Hampton looked at least capable at the other corner spot opposite Syd’Quan Thompson.  He slides over from safety with a ton of experience, and I think it will serve him well.  Still, cornerback’s a tough, lonely job, and I won’t be completely sold on him until I see him do it in a game.

- During kickoff practice, not a single kickoff reached the end zone, and with the defense being 5 yards further back, there could be some big returns this year.  Again, it’s early, but I think the new kickoff rules could have a bigger effect than we imagine, and no one will know which teams will benefit until the beginning of the season.

Now, I wasn’t taking copious notes, and I did miss a good bit of practice, so these are just my impressions of what I did see.  Still, it was a lot of fun, and I am totally fired up about football season being only 3 weeks away.  Go Bears!!

Earlier this week, HydroTech discussed a radio interview between Pac-10 commissioner Tom Hansen and ESPN Radio’s Colin Cowherd.  Now, while HydroTech made some good points, it’s important to realize that all of us here are individual bloggers, and we don’t always agree.  With that in mind, I thought I’d offer my take on the interview, which takes a somewhat more sympathetic view of Hansen and the job he’s done.

I was going to begin this post by going over Cowherd’s interview and pointing out some of the more less accurate charges he levies against the Pac-10, but the guys at firejoemorgan.com have already done a fine job in breaking down the sort of brain-dead reasoning, circuitous logic, and wild speculation that is The Herd’s stock-in-trade, so I don’t feel the need to bother.  I’m sure most of you are familiar with shrill, argumentative format of AM Sports Talk Radio, so pointing of Cowherd’s inaccuracies isn’t something that really needs to be done.  I will say, however, that when two people are debating issues, whatever they may be, and one party (Commissioner Hansen) knows he will be held accountable for the accuracy of his statements, while the other party (Cowherd) knows that he won’t, well, the one held accountable is at a distinct disadvantage.  Given that, I thought Hansen came out of the interview OK.

It’s true, Tom Hansen has been around a long time, and yes, he loves the Rose Bowl, but there’s more to love about the Rose Bowl than nostalgia.  It’s still a premier bowl game, with its own massive broadcasting contract with ABC, and it’s situated smack in the middle of Pac-10 territory.  Yes, Hansen loves the tradition, but more than that, he knows that if a Pac-10 team were seeded by the BCS into an east coast bowl, the team more than likely wouldn’t travel as well.  Furthermore, when the Pac-10 and Big 10 agreed to enter into the BCS, they successfully held onto their special relationship with the Rose Bowl; Hansen can only assume that should the BCS move towards a plus-one model, he will be able to preserve that relationship a second time.

Certainly, Hansen’s most outrageous comment was the idea that, should the BCS move towards a seeded plus-one model, the Pac-10 (along with, presumably, the Big 10 and the Rose Bowl) would withdraw from the BCS.  Others may wonder if Tom Hansen isn’t perhaps off his rocker to suggest such a self-immolating plan.  I, however, would argue that it’s merely a bluff, an empty threat, a negotiating tactic.  Hansen knows that if it came down to it, the Pac-10 could be outvoted, so he resorts to the same tactics as a kid on the playground who doesn’t like the proposed new kickball rules:  he threatens to take his ball and go home.  Now, he doesn’t really want to go home.  The other kids changed the rules in the first place so he would play.  They don’t want to use the crappy orange ball they’ve got, so they don’t really want him to go home either.  It’s a classic standoff, and the loser will be the first one to blink.

One thing that has to be understood about the Pac-10 leaving the BCS is that the league wouldn’t immediately fall into irrelevance.  The west coast will continue to produce quality football players who will continue to attend quality west coast institutions of higher learning, and Pac-10 schools will continue to play football at a high level.  Yes, the left coast would lose out on BCS championship opportunities and paydays, but the rest of the college football membership would suffer as well.  Just because USC doesn’t play in a BCS game doesn’t mean it no longer has a claim on the top spot in the polls.  And as long as schools outside of the BCS purview have a legitimate claim to be called ‘national champions,’ the total value of the BCS, measured in the amount of money broadcasters are willing to pay for the rights to the games, is considerably less.  It’s not a crippling blow, no, but the BCS is worth the most money if everyone is under one umbrella.  So, you can see how the other BCS conferences are not exactly anxious to see the Pac-10 leave.

Furthermore, implementation of a plus-one model will do nothing to eliminate controversy from the national championship race.  What if there are more than two worthy contenders at the end of the bowls?  Who gets chosen?  What if there’s a clear, consensus national champion?  Why do they have to defend their title in another bowl game?  Controversy is not eliminated, it is merely shifted to later in the year.  And if we’re not going to improve the system, are we messing with it just to mess with it?  Hansen’s not giving up the Rose Bowl for that.

Cowherd also brings up the tired point of Pac-10 expansion.  Other conferences point out how it’s not fair that the Pac-10 champion doesn’t have to play in a conference championship game, and that the conference is missing out on the revenue that such a game would generate.  Nuts to that, I say.  The Pac-10 champion will play 9 conference games, the same number as the SEC, ACC, or Big XII champ, and because of the round-robin schedule, there will be no doubt as to who is the Pac-10 champion.

Now, I’m not totally against expansion, as long as the move makes sense.  What fans (and, evidently, the ACC) seem to forget is that conferences are not associations built entirely around football.  The Pac-10 fields a couple dozen other sports; would a prospective new school be a good fit in most of those sports as well?  Would the school fit the academic profile of Pac-10 schools?  Would the school be difficult to travel to, incurring large travel costs, not only for football, but for a bunch of non-revenue sports as well?

In the interview, Hansen tells us that the Pac-10 office has considered expansion a number of times, but has never found a pair of schools that would be a good fit.  I, for one, am glad that his office is doing due diligence, and tend to agree with his conclusions.  People say that perhaps Boise State should join the Pac-10, and I wonder, is Boise competitive in any other sports?  Would Boise’s basketball teams get murdered every single night out?  Do they even have a basketball team?  During basketball season, people bring up the possibility of Gonzaga joining the Pac-10, which makes no sense at all:  they’re a tiny private school that doesn’t even HAVE a football team.  Of all the expansion proposals that I’ve seen, the only one that seems plausible is the Pac-10 adding Utah and BYU, which would also have the added benefit of preserving the Pac-10’s ‘pod’ scheduling system, where each geographic location contains two schools.  However, any expansion effort would destroy not only the Pac-10’s football round-robin, but its basketball round-robin as well.

From there, Cowherd goes on to disparage the Pac-10 on a number of other topics.  We’ll run them down quickly:

- After USC, there’s no other great teams in the Pac-10.
Specifically, he says that the Pac has no other top-15 teams, which is not true.  Cal finished last year ranked 14th, and begins this year ranked 12th.  Also, he states that the Pac is the only major conference without two teams in the top 15, which isn’t true either.  After Virginia Tech, the ACC has no other teams in the top 20.  Finally, Cowherd claims that the Big East has 4 legitimate top 20 teams.  Is he really claiming that South Florida is a top 20 team?  Why does the Pac have to be in the top 15, but the Big East gets top 20?

- The Pac-10’s bowls suck.
Well, kinda, yeah, but I’ve already gone over the reasons for this, and Hansen brings up the same points.  Cowherd can bag on the Holiday and Sun bowls all he wants, but he has the luxury of not having to propose a solution to the problem that doesn’t involve moving California closer to Florida.  If you’ve got a real solution to this problem, I’d love to hear it.

- The Pac-10’s TV contracts suck.
Well, again, I see his point, but I’m not sitting in on negotiations between the Pac-10 and ESPN.  I don’t know what was offered by ESPN, so I can’t say that the FOX contract isn’t the best out there.  But I can say that, given the Pac’s performance in both football and basketball, the conference does present an attractive product to TV networks, and so should be able to get programming slots commensurate with that.  I can also say that the Big East’s willingness to play football on Thursday nights has gained it attention it otherwise wouldn’t have gotten, and I’m glad to see the Pac-10 playing on a couple Thursday nights this season.  Finally, I can say that if you want to see out-of-market sporting events and you can’t figure out how to operate your satellite TV remote, well, sir, I don’t know how to help you; you’re on your own with this one.

I can’t blindly defend Tom Hansen; to do that would be to avoid acknowledging reality.  However, I think he does a much better job promoting his conference than many people give him credit for.  Perhaps I’m the only one; what do you think?