PAC 10 Bowl Previews

MAACO Las Vegas Bowl

BYU (10-2) Breakdown

Category	National Rank	Actual	National Leader	Actual	Conf Rank	Mountain West Conference Leader	Actual
Rushing Offense	60	148.17	Nevada	362.25	4	Air Force	273.58
Passing Offense	12	288.92	Houston	450.00	1	BYU	288.92
Total Offense	18	437.08	Houston	581.23	2	TCU	469.08
Scoring Offense	12	34.75	Boise St.	44.15	2	TCU	40.67
Rushing Defense	23	112.00	Texas	62.15	2	TCU	80.50
Pass Efficiency Defense	47	122.12	Alabama	88.81	4	TCU	90.28
Total Defense	35	331.08	TCU	233.25	4	TCU	233.25
Scoring Defense	34	21.67	Alabama	11.00	4	TCU	12.42
Net Punting	38	36.97	Georgia	42.84	6	Air Force	39.40
Punt Returns	93	6.44	LSU	18.64	7	Wyoming	13.88
Kickoff Returns	T-46	22.55	TCU	30.62	4	TCU	30.62
Turnover Margin	66	-.08	Rutgers	1.67	6	Air Force	1.42
Pass Defense	65	219.08	Air Force	148.67	5	Air Force	148.67
Passing Efficiency	4	161.57	Cincinnati	166.19	2	TCU	162.16
Sacks	T-53	2.00	Pittsburgh	3.75	3	TCU	2.67
Tackles For Loss	102	4.67	Middle Tenn.	8.83	8	Utah	7.00
Sacks Allowed	T-54	1.75	Boise St.	.38	6	TCU	.83

Oregon State (8-4) Breakdown

Category	National Rank	Actual	National Leader	Actual	Conf Rank	Pacific-10 Conference Leader	Actual
Rushing Offense	64	144.17	Nevada	362.25	6	Oregon	236.08
Passing Offense	21	275.25	Houston	450.00	1	Oregon St.	275.25
Total Offense	28	419.42	Houston	581.23	3	Stanford	441.42
Scoring Offense	22	32.42	Boise St.	44.15	3	Oregon	37.67
Rushing Defense	25	114.25	Texas	62.15	3	Arizona St.	108.58
Pass Efficiency Defense	60	128.75	Alabama	88.81	6	Southern California	106.25
Total Defense	50	352.92	TCU	233.25	6	Arizona St.	297.58
Scoring Defense	51	23.42	Alabama	11.00	5	Southern California	20.42
Net Punting	37	36.98	Georgia	42.84	5	UCLA	37.76
Punt Returns	72	8.09	LSU	18.64	8	Arizona	16.40
Kickoff Returns	38	23.08	TCU	30.62	5	Stanford	28.69
Turnover Margin	T-27	.50	Rutgers	1.67	1	Oregon St.	.50
Pass Defense	87	238.67	Air Force	148.67	6	Arizona St.	189.00
Passing Efficiency	15	147.33	Cincinnati	166.19	1	Oregon St.	147.33
Sacks	106	1.25	Pittsburgh	3.75	9	Arizona	2.83
Tackles For Loss	73	5.42	Middle Tenn.	8.83	8	UCLA	7.83
Sacks Allowed	88	2.42	Boise St.	.38	9	Stanford	.50

Preview by CoachDuncan

The 2009 Las Vegas Bowl features two things it has never had before, two ranked teams to play; it is the 10-2, #14 (highest ranking) ranked BYU Cougars and the # 16 (highest ranking) Oregon State Beavers. And on top of that, BYU is the highest ranked team to even play in this bowl game as the Cougars come here for the 5th straight time.

This game also carries a cursory interest for BYU coach Bronco Mendenhall as he played safety/linebacker for Oregon State the last time these two teams met in 1986. Oregon State won that ball game 10-7 in Provo, Utah.

On offense BYU is led by all-conference QB Max Hall, who has passed for more yards in his career then anyone in school history save for 1991 Heisman winner Ty Detmer. He is also the winningest QB in school history at 31 wins. He has 3368 yards, 30 touchdowns, and 14 interceptions. Harvey Unga leads at RB as the #1 rusher in school history with yet another 1000 yard season; currently at 1016 yards with 10 touchdowns. Dennis Pitta, the All-American tight end rounds out this potent offensive attack as the teams leading receiver with 57 catches, 784 yards, and 7 touchdowns. He is also the NCAA record holder for career receiving yards by a tight end with 2856.

The defense is led by defensive lineman Jan Jorgensen, safety Scott Johnson, and linebackers Matt Ah You, Terrance Hooks, and Jordan Pendleton. This defense has gelled well this season with Johnson leading the way.

Oregon State is led by second team All-American RB Jacquizz Rodgers who had 1377 yards and 20 touchdowns this season. QB Sean Canfield has a 70% completion rate this year as he has thrown for 3103 yards, 21 touchdowns, and 6 interceptions. WR James Rodgers could be the key as BYU tries to shut down the run. This season the Oregon State school record holder for all-purpose yards (2213) also set a single game school record for the most all-purpose yards (303). He has 54 catches, 1004 yards, and 9 touchdowns on the year.

They are led defensively by defensive tackle and 1st team all-Pac 10 Stephen Paea from Timpview High in Provo, Utah and Snow College in Ephraim, Utah. Expect him to have a big game and get to Hall a few times. CB Brandon Hardin is also going to be key for the Beavers. This sophomore will be playing a lot due to several injuries in the secondary and the team will need him to step up and have a great game for them to win.

BYU is 2-5 in bowl games since 1998 and only 2-2 under Coach Mendenhall, but this game could be one of their better chances to win a bowl. I expect both teams to come out playing hard as they are both fired up to prove that this years success was merely continuing a tradition of winning rather than a fluke. I expect to see Oregon State win a close game in the end by less then seven points.

Oregon State 24

BYU 20

San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl

Utah (9-3) Breakdown

Category	National Rank	Actual	National Leader	Actual	Conf Rank	Mountain West Conference Leader	Actual
Rushing Offense	45	169.42	Nevada	362.25	3	Air Force	273.58
Passing Offense	55	220.17	Houston	450.00	4	BYU	288.92
Total Offense	54	389.58	Houston	581.23	3	TCU	469.08
Scoring Offense	47	29.25	Boise St.	44.15	3	TCU	40.67
Rushing Defense	57	141.33	Texas	62.15	4	TCU	80.50
Pass Efficiency Defense	9	100.10	Alabama	88.81	2	TCU	90.28
Total Defense	20	314.17	TCU	233.25	3	TCU	233.25
Scoring Defense	19	19.67	Alabama	11.00	3	TCU	12.42
Net Punting	34	37.08	Georgia	42.84	5	Air Force	39.40
Punt Returns	60	8.77	LSU	18.64	4	Wyoming	13.88
Kickoff Returns	59	21.98	TCU	30.62	7	TCU	30.62
Turnover Margin	46	.25	Rutgers	1.67	4	Air Force	1.42
Pass Defense	14	172.83	Air Force	148.67	3	Air Force	148.67
Passing Efficiency	57	129.81	Cincinnati	166.19	3	TCU	162.16
Sacks	46	2.17	Pittsburgh	3.75	2	TCU	2.67
Tackles For Loss	19	7.00	Middle Tenn.	8.83	1	Utah	7.00
Sacks Allowed	34	1.42	Boise St.	.38	5	TCU	.83

California (8-4) Breakdown

Category	National Rank	Actual	National Leader	Actual	Conf Rank	Pacific-10 Conference Leader	Actual
Rushing Offense	37	175.58	Nevada	362.25	3	Oregon	236.08
Passing Offense	50	223.42	Houston	450.00	4	Oregon St.	275.25
Total Offense	46	399.00	Houston	581.23	5	Stanford	441.42
Scoring Offense	47	29.25	Boise St.	44.15	5	Oregon	37.67
Rushing Defense	27	117.08	Texas	62.15	4	Arizona St.	108.58
Pass Efficiency Defense	82	134.83	Alabama	88.81	7	Southern California	106.25
Total Defense	70	378.00	TCU	233.25	7	Arizona St.	297.58
Scoring Defense	54	24.50	Alabama	11.00	7	Southern California	20.42
Net Punting	26	37.51	Georgia	42.84	2	UCLA	37.76
Punt Returns	25	12.35	LSU	18.64	3	Arizona	16.40
Kickoff Returns	91	20.34	TCU	30.62	7	Stanford	28.69
Turnover Margin	T-27	.50	Rutgers	1.67	1	Oregon St.	.50
Pass Defense	108	260.92	Air Force	148.67	9	Arizona St.	189.00
Passing Efficiency	58	129.74	Cincinnati	166.19	5	Oregon St.	147.33
Sacks	36	2.33	Pittsburgh	3.75	4	Arizona	2.83
Tackles For Loss	41	6.25	Middle Tenn.	8.83	5	UCLA	7.83
Sacks Allowed	T-73	2.25	Boise St.	.38	5	Stanford	.50

Preview by CoachDuncan

The #23 ranked (highest ranking) 9-3 Utes return to the Poinsettia Bowl for the first time since 2007 (when they beat Navy 35-32) to try and extend the nations leading bowl game winning streak from eight to nine games when they play the 8-4 California Bears.

The Bears, who have never played in the Poinsettia Bowl, are led offensively by QB Kevin Riley who threw for 2636 yards, 17 touchdowns, and 6 interceptions this season His only weakness is that he has been sacked 26 times this year, so the Utes should be coming after him. He has played well this year and has taken on a little bit more with the loss of Jahvid Best for the last three games. Best will not play again this game after his season ending concussion in the game against Oregon State. However, their running game has been far from dead as RB Shane Vereen has come on strong with 830 yards and 10 touchdowns to pick up the slack. WR Marvin Jones, Riley's favorite receiver, leads the receivers with 38 catches, 607 yards, and 6 touchdowns.

Defensively they are led by LB Mike Mohamed, the Pac 10 leader in tackles and All-American candidate CB Syd'Quan Thompson; expect to see Thompson spending a lot of time covering David Reed, Utah's 1000 receiver.

A big advantage for Cal will be head coach Jeff Tedford's addition of offensive coordinator Andy Ludwig who spent a few seasons in the same post at Utah. Expect the Bears to know a lot about what Utah is going to be running.

For the Utes, they have never lost a game after a bye week or a bowl game under coach Kyle Wittingham. In fact, Utah has not lost a bowl game since the formation of the MWC; however, this will be a great test for them, so expect the Utes to be prepared. They are going to have to be because they are 2-4 all-time against Cal and 2-2 in bowl games against the Pac 10. The Utes won the last meeting between the two teams 31-24 in 2003.

On offense the Utes are led by true freshman QB Jordan Wynn who has 991 yards, 5 touchdowns, and 3 interceptions after becoming the starter with 4 games left in the season. He is helped by the 1000 yard combination of RB Eddie Wide, who became the starter when Matt Asiata went down, and WR David Reed. Wide has 1032 yards and 5 touchdowns on the season while Reed has 1085 yards and 5 touchdowns. Reed also needs only 61 yards and 6 catches to become the school record holder for yards and catches in a single season. Also, look for All-American Zane Beadles to lead the offensive line to a big game.

Look for LB Stevenson Sylvester, S Robert Johnson, DE Koa Misi, LB Mike Wright, and DT Kanape Eliapo, who is back from injury, to make an impact on the defensive side of the ball. Utah will need a big game from it's defense in containing the rushing attack if it hopes to win the game.

Expect this game to be a tough, hard fought contest that should come down to a game winning drive by whoever gets the ball last. They seem evenly matched and it should be a great game. I am giving Utah, with its hometown QB, the nod in this close matchup,

Utah 28

California 21

Emerald Bowl

Boston College (8-4) Breakdown

Category	National Rank	Actual	National Leader	Actual	Conf Rank	Atlantic Coast Conference Leader	Actual
Rushing Offense	70	140.50	Nevada	362.25	6	Georgia Tech	307.15
Passing Offense	94	184.42	Houston	450.00	8	Duke	305.00
Total Offense	97	324.92	Houston	581.23	9	Georgia Tech	442.69
Scoring Offense	71	25.75	Boise St.	44.15	8	Georgia Tech	35.31
Rushing Defense	15	104.42	Texas	62.15	2	North Carolina	92.83
Pass Efficiency Defense	31	114.99	Alabama	88.81	5	Virginia Tech	96.19
Total Defense	23	318.42	TCU	233.25	4	North Carolina	267.75
Scoring Defense	18	19.42	Alabama	11.00	3	Virginia Tech	15.75
Net Punting	33	37.10	Georgia	42.84	2	Virginia Tech	37.37
Punt Returns	28	12.21	LSU	18.64	5	Florida St.	16.81
Kickoff Returns	77	21.02	TCU	30.62	8	Virginia Tech	24.03
Turnover Margin	75	-.25	Rutgers	1.67	9	Virginia Tech	.67
Pass Defense	55	214.00	Air Force	148.67	7	Virginia Tech	161.42
Passing Efficiency	90	119.82	Cincinnati	166.19	9	Georgia Tech	157.43
Sacks	99	1.42	Pittsburgh	3.75	12	Clemson	2.62
Tackles For Loss	42	6.17	Middle Tenn.	8.83	5	North Carolina	8.42
Sacks Allowed	39	1.50	Boise St.	.38	3	Georgia Tech	.69

Southern California (8-4) Breakdown

Category	National Rank	Actual	National Leader	Actual	Conf Rank	Pacific-10 Conference Leader	Actual
Rushing Offense	39	173.33	Nevada	362.25	4	Oregon	236.08
Passing Offense	68	211.67	Houston	450.00	8	Oregon St.	275.25
Total Offense	58	385.00	Houston	581.23	6	Stanford	441.42
Scoring Offense	64	26.67	Boise St.	44.15	6	Oregon	37.67
Rushing Defense	42	131.00	Texas	62.15	6	Arizona St.	108.58
Pass Efficiency Defense	16	106.25	Alabama	88.81	1	Southern California	106.25
Total Defense	43	342.83	TCU	233.25	5	Arizona St.	297.58
Scoring Defense	22	20.42	Alabama	11.00	1	Southern California	20.42
Net Punting	34	37.08	Georgia	42.84	4	UCLA	37.76
Punt Returns	7	14.62	LSU	18.64	2	Arizona	16.40
Kickoff Returns	110	18.86	TCU	30.62	8	Stanford	28.69
Turnover Margin	T-59	.00	Rutgers	1.67	6	Oregon St.	.50
Pass Defense	53	211.83	Air Force	148.67	5	Arizona St.	189.00
Passing Efficiency	69	127.09	Cincinnati	166.19	7	Oregon St.	147.33
Sacks	17	2.75	Pittsburgh	3.75	2	Arizona	2.83
Tackles For Loss	16	7.08	Middle Tenn.	8.83	2	UCLA	7.83
Sacks Allowed	34	1.42	Boise St.	.38	4	Stanford	.50

Eagle Bank Bowl

UCLA (6-6) Breakdown

Category	National Rank	Actual	National Leader	Actual	Conf Rank	Pacific-10 Conference Leader	Actual
Rushing Offense	98	116.42	Nevada	362.25	9	Oregon	236.08
Passing Offense	52	222.92	Houston	450.00	5	Oregon St.	275.25
Total Offense	88	339.33	Houston	581.23	8	Stanford	441.42
Scoring Offense	99	21.33	Boise St.	44.15	9	Oregon	37.67
Rushing Defense	60	144.42	Texas	62.15	7	Arizona St.	108.58
Pass Efficiency Defense	41	119.45	Alabama	88.81	5	Southern California	106.25
Total Defense	39	338.33	TCU	233.25	4	Arizona St.	297.58
Scoring Defense	32	21.25	Alabama	11.00	3	Southern California	20.42
Net Punting	20	37.76	Georgia	42.84	1	UCLA	37.76
Punt Returns	66	8.40	LSU	18.64	7	Arizona	16.40
Kickoff Returns	14	24.60	TCU	30.62	3	Stanford	28.69
Turnover Margin	31	.42	Rutgers	1.67	3	Oregon St.	.50
Pass Defense	30	193.92	Air Force	148.67	2	Arizona St.	189.00
Passing Efficiency	102	112.87	Cincinnati	166.19	9	Oregon St.	147.33
Sacks	T-65	1.83	Pittsburgh	3.75	7	Arizona	2.83
Tackles For Loss	8	7.83	Middle Tenn.	8.83	1	UCLA	7.83
Sacks Allowed	T-82	2.33	Boise St.	.38	7	Stanford	.50

Temple (9-3) Breakdown

Category	National Rank	Actual	National Leader	Actual	Conf Rank	Mid-American Conference Leader	Actual
Rushing Offense	23	192.33	Nevada	362.25	2	Northern Ill.	202.42
Passing Offense	112	145.42	Houston	450.00	12	Bowling Green	310.17
Total Offense	89	337.75	Houston	581.23	8	Toledo	438.25
Scoring Offense	35	30.25	Boise St.	44.15	3	Central Mich.	33.15
Rushing Defense	19	108.83	Texas	62.15	1	Temple	108.83
Pass Efficiency Defense	55	127.19	Alabama	88.81	6	Ohio	107.90
Total Defense	37	335.67	TCU	233.25	3	Northern Ill.	324.00
Scoring Defense	34	21.67	Alabama	11.00	4	Central Mich.	17.23
Net Punting	102	33.40	Georgia	42.84	7	Ball St.	35.93
Punt Returns	26	12.33	LSU	18.64	2	Central Mich.	13.50
Kickoff Returns	22	23.90	TCU	30.62	1	Temple	23.90
Turnover Margin	T-31	.42	Rutgers	1.67	3	Ohio	1.08
Pass Defense	74	226.83	Air Force	148.67	10	Eastern Mich.	150.50
Passing Efficiency	106	109.81	Cincinnati	166.19	11	Central Mich.	150.47
Sacks	T-17	2.75	Pittsburgh	3.75	1	Temple	2.75
Tackles For Loss	55	5.75	Middle Tenn.	8.83	4	Kent St.	8.42
Sacks Allowed	T-39	1.50	Boise St.	.38	3	Central Mich.	1.15

Pacific Life Holiday Bowl

Arizona (8-4) Breakdown

Category	National Rank	Actual	National Leader	Actual	Conf Rank	Pacific-10 Conference Leader	Actual
Rushing Offense	47	167.42	Nevada	362.25	5	Oregon	236.08
Passing Offense	39	240.08	Houston	450.00	2	Oregon St.	275.25
Total Offense	40	407.50	Houston	581.23	4	Stanford	441.42
Scoring Offense	41	29.67	Boise St.	44.15	4	Oregon	37.67
Rushing Defense	22	111.92	Texas	62.15	2	Arizona St.	108.58
Pass Efficiency Defense	38	117.95	Alabama	88.81	4	Southern California	106.25
Total Defense	21	315.83	TCU	233.25	2	Arizona St.	297.58
Scoring Defense	46	23.17	Alabama	11.00	4	Southern California	20.42
Net Punting	77	34.79	Georgia	42.84	10	UCLA	37.76
Punt Returns	4	16.40	LSU	18.64	1	Arizona	16.40
Kickoff Returns	11	25.48	TCU	30.62	2	Stanford	28.69
Turnover Margin	T-59	.00	Rutgers	1.67	6	Oregon St.	.50
Pass Defense	43	203.92	Air Force	148.67	4	Arizona St.	189.00
Passing Efficiency	67	127.34	Cincinnati	166.19	6	Oregon St.	147.33
Sacks	12	2.83	Pittsburgh	3.75	1	Arizona	2.83
Tackles For Loss	55	5.75	Middle Tenn.	8.83	7	UCLA	7.83
Sacks Allowed	10	.92	Boise St.	.38	2	Stanford	.50

Nebraska (9-4) Breakdown

Category	National Rank	Actual	National Leader	Actual	Conf Rank	Big 12 Conference Leader	Actual
Rushing Offense	68	141.23	Nevada	362.25	6	Oklahoma St.	191.75
Passing Offense	101	175.92	Houston	450.00	11	Texas Tech	380.67
Total Offense	102	317.15	Houston	581.23	11	Texas A&M	465.33
Scoring Offense	80	24.54	Boise St.	44.15	8	Texas	40.69
Rushing Defense	11	95.46	Texas	62.15	4	Texas	62.15
Pass Efficiency Defense	3	90.54	Alabama	88.81	1	Nebraska	90.54
Total Defense	9	284.54	TCU	233.25	3	Texas	251.08
Scoring Defense	2	11.23	Alabama	11.00	1	Nebraska	11.23
Net Punting	74	34.88	Georgia	42.84	8	Oklahoma	40.86
Punt Returns	34	11.34	LSU	18.64	4	Oklahoma	16.72
Kickoff Returns	34	23.31	TCU	30.62	5	Texas	27.38
Turnover Margin	45	.31	Rutgers	1.67	6	Texas	.92
Pass Defense	25	189.08	Air Force	148.67	3	Oklahoma	184.92
Passing Efficiency	81	122.29	Cincinnati	166.19	8	Texas	143.70
Sacks	3	3.23	Pittsburgh	3.75	2	Texas Tech	3.25
Tackles For Loss	25	6.85	Middle Tenn.	8.83	3	Texas	8.08
Sacks Allowed	37	1.46	Boise St.	.38	5	Oklahoma St.	.83

Brut Sun Bowl

Stanford (8-4) Breakdown

Category	National Rank	Actual	National Leader	Actual	Conf Rank	Pacific-10 Conference Leader	Actual
Rushing Offense	11	224.33	Nevada	362.25	2	Oregon	236.08
Passing Offense	59	217.08	Houston	450.00	6	Oregon St.	275.25
Total Offense	13	441.42	Houston	581.23	1	Stanford	441.42
Scoring Offense	10	36.17	Boise St.	44.15	2	Oregon	37.67
Rushing Defense	61	144.50	Texas	62.15	8	Arizona St.	108.58
Pass Efficiency Defense	95	139.15	Alabama	88.81	8	Southern California	106.25
Total Defense	85	396.50	TCU	233.25	9	Arizona St.	297.58
Scoring Defense	65	26.17	Alabama	11.00	8	Southern California	20.42
Net Punting	30	37.34	Georgia	42.84	3	UCLA	37.76
Punt Returns	74	7.89	LSU	18.64	9	Arizona	16.40
Kickoff Returns	3	28.69	TCU	30.62	1	Stanford	28.69
Turnover Margin	T-59	.00	Rutgers	1.67	6	Oregon St.	.50
Pass Defense	105	252.00	Air Force	148.67	8	Arizona St.	189.00
Passing Efficiency	22	143.92	Cincinnati	166.19	2	Oregon St.	147.33
Sacks	T-65	1.83	Pittsburgh	3.75	7	Arizona	2.83
Tackles For Loss	110	4.33	Middle Tenn.	8.83	10	UCLA	7.83
Sacks Allowed	2	.50	Boise St.	.38	1	Stanford	.50

Oklahoma (7-5) Breakdown

Category	National Rank	Actual	National Leader	Actual	Conf Rank	Big 12 Conference Leader	Actual
Rushing Offense	69	140.92	Nevada	362.25	7	Oklahoma St.	191.75
Passing Offense	17	278.50	Houston	450.00	5	Texas Tech	380.67
Total Offense	28	419.42	Houston	581.23	5	Texas A&M	465.33
Scoring Offense	30	31.08	Boise St.	44.15	4	Texas	40.69
Rushing Defense	7	88.58	Texas	62.15	3	Texas	62.15
Pass Efficiency Defense	10	100.15	Alabama	88.81	2	Nebraska	90.54
Total Defense	7	273.50	TCU	233.25	2	Texas	251.08
Scoring Defense	7	13.50	Alabama	11.00	2	Nebraska	11.23
Net Punting	4	40.86	Georgia	42.84	1	Oklahoma	40.86
Punt Returns	3	16.72	LSU	18.64	1	Oklahoma	16.72
Kickoff Returns	72	21.24	TCU	30.62	10	Texas	27.38
Turnover Margin	41	.33	Rutgers	1.67	5	Texas	.92
Pass Defense	22	184.92	Air Force	148.67	1	Oklahoma	184.92
Passing Efficiency	60	129.33	Cincinnati	166.19	7	Texas	143.70
Sacks	5	3.08	Pittsburgh	3.75	3	Texas Tech	3.25
Tackles For Loss	8	7.83	Middle Tenn.	8.83	2	Texas	8.08
Sacks Allowed	24	1.25	Boise St.	.38	3	Oklahoma St.	.83

The Rose Bowl Presented By Citi

Oregon (10-2) Breakdown

Category	National Rank	Actual	National Leader	Actual	Conf Rank	Pacific-10 Conference Leader	Actual
Rushing Offense	6	236.08	Nevada	362.25	1	Oregon	236.08
Passing Offense	91	188.58	Houston	450.00	9	Oregon St.	275.25
Total Offense	25	424.67	Houston	581.23	2	Stanford	441.42
Scoring Offense	7	37.67	Boise St.	44.15	1	Oregon	37.67
Rushing Defense	39	126.67	Texas	62.15	5	Arizona St.	108.58
Pass Efficiency Defense	22	110.60	Alabama	88.81	3	Southern California	106.25
Total Defense	32	329.42	TCU	233.25	3	Arizona St.	297.58
Scoring Defense	52	23.58	Alabama	11.00	6	Southern California	20.42
Net Punting	61	35.76	Georgia	42.84	9	UCLA	37.76
Punt Returns	32	11.41	LSU	18.64	4	Arizona	16.40
Kickoff Returns	17	24.48	TCU	30.62	4	Stanford	28.69
Turnover Margin	46	.25	Rutgers	1.67	5	Oregon St.	.50
Pass Defense	37	202.75	Air Force	148.67	3	Arizona St.	189.00
Passing Efficiency	53	131.71	Cincinnati	166.19	3	Oregon St.	147.33
Sacks	21	2.67	Pittsburgh	3.75	3	Arizona	2.83
Tackles For Loss	48	6.00	Middle Tenn.	8.83	6	UCLA	7.83
Sacks Allowed	12	1.00	Boise St.	.38	3	Stanford	.50

Ohio State (10-2) Breakdown

Category	National Rank	Actual	National Leader	Actual	Conf Rank	Big Ten Conference Leader	Actual
Rushing Offense	19	198.92	Nevada	362.25	3	Wisconsin	206.67
Passing Offense	106	165.92	Houston	450.00	11	Michigan St.	271.17
Total Offense	71	364.83	Houston	581.23	9	Wisconsin	415.83
Scoring Offense	47	29.25	Boise St.	44.15	5	Wisconsin	32.75
Rushing Defense	5	83.42	Texas	62.15	1	Ohio St.	83.42
Pass Efficiency Defense	7	96.90	Alabama	88.81	2	Iowa	91.93
Total Defense	5	262.50	TCU	233.25	1	Ohio St.	262.50
Scoring Defense	5	12.17	Alabama	11.00	2	Penn St.	11.83
Net Punting	39	36.93	Georgia	42.84	4	Michigan	40.93
Punt Returns	67	8.39	LSU	18.64	4	Minnesota	14.67
Kickoff Returns	35	23.26	TCU	30.62	4	Michigan St.	26.66
Turnover Margin	4	1.33	Rutgers	1.67	1	Ohio St.	1.33
Pass Defense	17	179.08	Air Force	148.67	2	Iowa	164.67
Passing Efficiency	66	127.45	Cincinnati	166.19	6	Michigan St.	146.09
Sacks	31	2.42	Pittsburgh	3.75	5	Penn St.	2.92
Tackles For Loss	42	6.17	Middle Tenn.	8.83	5	Penn St.	8.25
Sacks Allowed	T-48	1.67	Boise St.	.38	4	Michigan St.	1.08

Preview by: El Ducko

In the granddaddy of them all it’s the classic, irresistible force against the immovable object when the high powered Ducks offense goes against the dominating Buckeyes defense. It’s the first time the Buckeyes have played in the Rose Bowl since 1997 and for the Ducks since 1995. Jim Tressel has the edge in experience over Chip Kelly, but lately the Buckeyes haven’t had much luck in Bowls, and Kelly hasn’t missed a beat since the season opening debacle at Boise State.

The Ducks will look to strike fast in this game, both with the individual speed of the players and the up tempo pace of the plays, the Ducks will come close to running plays twice as fast as the Buckeyes defense is used to. The Buckeyes have a lot of talented d line players and the lack of time between plays will not only test the conditioning of the Buckeyes, but also disrupt their substituting patterns.

Ohio State will look to run a power game against the Ducks, looking at Stanford’s success as a model. The problem with that strategy is that neither Brandon Saine or Dan Herron are Toby Gerhart, and the play-action that worked so well with Luck at quarterback, is not going to be nearly as effective with Pryor’s passing. Ohio State resembles the Washington Huskies much more offensively with Pryor and Locker both physically gifted quarterbacks who are still developing their passing proficiencies. The Ducks will situate their defense to stop the run, and force Pryor to beat them with his arm, testing him particularly in 3^rd downs and in the red zone.

The Ducks will need to find holes in the Buckeyes defense that has been very stingy this season. Ohio State has a distinct advantage over other defenses the Ducks have gone against in that they do not have to blitz. If they can continue to have success with their front seven staying in place it will slow down the Ducks. The running game, with LaMichael James and Jeremiah Masoli, makes the Ducks go, but their passing game has become more potent as the season has gone on. The Ducks rely on mid-range routes, over the middle of the field to their wide receivers, namely Jeff Maehl and the tight end, Ed Dickson, and rarely run long routes down the sidelines.

Both teams want to win this one; there won’t be an issue of either of them not wanting to be here. Oregon benefited late in the year by being tested and having to come from behind at the end of games. Ohio State won its biggest games, over Penn State and Iowa, late in the season. Turnovers or big special team’s plays could be big parts of this contest.

El Ducko’s call: Oregon 34 Ohio State 24

Preview by BTB07

The two teams couldn’t be more different. One team is from the big slow Midwest, a traditional power, and conservative. The other is from the Wild West, a new kid, and more innovative with their uniforms than Elton John.

Oregon runs their spread offense with a tough as nails QB in Masoli. His ability to run and pass, and create extra time by avoiding a pass rush makes their offense incredibly difficult to stop. Along with the freshman James who is incredibly fast, but also sneaky strong. He is a great running back for the offense that they run in Oregon. Another major strength of the Ducks is Maehl at WR. He runs very good routes, and always seems to be the guy they go to in the tough situations. Dickson at TE is more of a WR/TE hybrid that is a matchup nightmare. Oregon averages almost 38 points a game and will be a great challenge for the Buckeye defense.

The Buckeyes strength is their defense. They have one of the top DL’s in the country led by Cameron Heyward. That unit will need to perform extremely well so the Buckeyes don’t have to blitz to get pressure, and the rest of the back 7 will be able to control the Oregon defense. The Buckeyes zone defense cannot afford breakdowns by the DB’s who have done that from time to time. Expect to see Coleman around the line of scrimmage to stop the run first. The Buckeyes offense has been much maligned even though they average nearly 30 points per game. Pryor has played much better of late, and he will have to be very good against a quick Oregon defense. Pryor leads the team in both passing and rushing, but will need a good deal of help from Saine running ball. Saine will also be used more in the passing game with Small and Carter out of the game for disciplinary reasons. The offense for the Buckeyes will have to score because the defense is not going to be able to hold Oregon under 24 points.

This should be a great game with two contrasting styles. The Buckeyes look to break their recent BCS troubles with a win against a very good Oregon team. This game will be one of the best of the bowl season.

Prediction: Oregon 24

Ohio State 28

Interact

The Polls

Awards

Pick 'Ems

About Us