With the 2008 season in the books, I thought it would be a fun debate to rate the coaches in the Pac-10.

My criteria is as follows: I'm looking at the coach's entire career, weighted most towards recent years, and accounting for the degree of difficulty at each location (i.e. it's harder to win at WSU than it is USC).

With that in place, here's how I'd rate them (in alphabetical order of school):

Mike Stoops (Arizona): D+

Stoops has done only slightly above the bare minimum to keep his job at Arizona.  Yes, he inherited a messy situation from Mackovic, and Tuscon isn't quite as attractive to recruit to as Tempe, but good coaches can do well there (Larry Smith, Dick Tomey).  Adding Sonny Dykes was a smart move by Stoops, but I think he's not really out of the woods yet - losing Tuitama, Thomas and 3 OL will be tough, and the Wildcats could struggle next year.

Dennis Erickson (Arizona State): B+

This was a tough one to rate; love him or hate him, Erickson is one of the best college coaches of his generation when you look at his entire career, with the National Championships at Miami and the major revival he did at Oregon State (building off what Riley started).  But the disappointing season the Sun Devils just concluded clouds things a bit.  Still, I'd bet on it being a temporary lull, with improvement next season and the Sun Devils being legit conference contenders in 2-3 years.  It's possible though that Erickson is slipping some from his glory days.

Jeff Tedford (Cal): B

A few years ago Tedford would've rated an "A", but he seems to have plateaued.  And while nobody should undersell the remarkable turnaround he's engineered at Cal, inheriting an awful program and immediately turning them into an annual bowl team, it appears he missed his window of opportunity to snatch a conference title away from USC.  Cal fans are starting to get jaded, which is too bad given the history of the program prior to Tedford, but it's also true that Cal seems less certain every year to be a serious challenger to USC's supremacy.  Maybe this has just been a short lull and Tedford can get Cal to elite status; certainly, it will help his efforts when Cal's athletic facilities finally get a long-overdue upgrade.

Mike Bellotti (Oregon): B

I'm sure some would argue this is too low, but given all the advantages that Phil Knight's money has bought, I think Bellotti has done a good, but not outstanding job.  His conference record (77-47) is less impressive than his overall record, reflective of some of the patsies the Ducks have scheduled over the years.  I'll give him credit for hiring innovative offensive minds; if he'd shown the same flair for defensive coaches, he'd rank higher, and he might have more Pac-10 titles.  Was this year his swan-song?  Can Chip Kelly maintain the success Bellotti has had?

Mike Riley (Oregon State): A-

I struggled with this grade as well, i.e. how much extra credit to give Riley for winning in Corvallis.  Quite a bit I decided - this is probably the 2nd toughest place to recruit to in the Pac-10 behind Pullman.  What Riley has built there is remarkable, with 3 consecutive 9+ win seasons.  The Beavers are consistently one of the toughest, hardest-hitting teams in the conference, and in a lot of ways they resemble what the Huskies used to be under Don James.  While the choke job against the Ducks this year will haunt them, they have proven to be a major thorn in the side of the Trojans and I wouldn't rule out a Rose Bowl for the Beavers under Riley.

Jim Harbaugh (Stanford): B-

Harbaugh inherited a bad program and has quickly given them respectability, famously upsetting USC last year and turning the Cardinal into a tough, physical team.  Still, we're only 2 years into Harbaugh, and it's a bit early to get a really good feel for how he's building the program.  Next year will tell us a lot - can he get the Cardinal beyond just respectability and actually get a bowl berth and start challenging for the upper half of the conference?  Despite what some might have you think, recruiting to Stanford isn't an overly difficult task; while at a disadvantage due to academic requirements, they also fare far better in landing the guys on their list precisely because of their academics.

Rick Neuheisel (UCLA): C+

I'm sure some will say this is sour grapes as a Husky fan.  And while I thought he did a great job taking over Lambo's kids and winning the Rose Bowl after the 2000 season, there remain huge question marks over his ability to build a program long-term.  I'm actually willing to give him a mulligan for this past season given the horrible injury issues the Bruins suffered, but I'm not convinced yet that Neuheisel knows how to build a upper-echelon program.  He got very lucky in inheriting DeWayne Walker and having the opportunity to get Norm Chow; we'll see who he can get to replace Walker, and whether he and Chow can co-exist for long.

Pete Carroll (USC): A

Yes, USC is the easiest place in the conference to recruit to, but you have to go back to 1924 to find a coach at USC that has a higher winning percentage.  The run the Trojans have been on since 2002 is the greatest run of domination in the last 50 years of the conference, surpassing anything John McKay or John Robinson did.  Carroll is the real deal, a perfect fit for USC.  But he'd win at any university with his positive personality and obsession with the spirit of competition.  The only thing keeping him from an "A+" grade are his slip-ups the last 3 years that have kept the Trojans out of the BCS Championship game.

Steve Sarkisian (UW): N/A

Can't rate a guy that has never before been a head coach.  Let's revisit him in a couple years.

Paul Wulff (WSU): Incomplete

Last season was an absolute disaster for the Cougs, but Wulff inherited a bad team with major academic and behavior issues.  I think it's too soon to give him a grade; I want to see what happens next year.  He does seem to be doing a pretty good job of recruiting given the circumstances, but I'm also not convinced he and his coaches are up to Pac-10 standards - I doubt Dennis Erickson would've struggled as much with this team as Wulff did.

Thoughts?  I'm sure there will be a variety of differing opinions, especially from non Husky fans...