Happy Friday. Welcome to the mailbag.Follow me on Twitter. Or check out my Facebook page. You also can do old-school email at TedMillerESPN@gmail.com.

To the questions!

Kevin writes: There's an old joke about a man who takes a new job as the boss of a company. The old boss left three envelopes in a drawer for him. The outside of the first envelope says "open immediately" and inside is a note written "blame the old boss." The outside of the second envelope says "open after first incident" and inside it says "declare the company needs to reorganize." The outside of the third envelope says "open after second incident" and on the inside it says "make three envelopes." Reading Chantel's story about Brady Hoke reminded me of this. By now, the 3-4 vs. 4-3 debate has gone on for long enough without consensus that I doubt there is a "right" answer. More likely, the best defense for a team depends on the strengths of its players. All else equal, staying with the same scheme likely helps cohesiveness. So when I see Hoke coming in saying a scheme change is "needed" because a 4-3 will work better (i.e. 4-3 is what Hoke knows how to coach), it feels to me like blame-hedging. Should Oregon fans be worried about such a dogmatic approach? I'm not knowledgeable enough to judge which scheme is better based on their personnel, but my gut tells me that even if Hoke is making the right call, it's for the wrong reasons.

Ted Miller: There are three secrets to playing great defense: 1. Great players; 2. Great effort; 3. Great scheme.

No. 3 is least important. There have been some great defenses through the years that basically lined up with each player having simple responsibilities and assignments. If defenders wins one-on-one battles and read their basic keys well, that defense is going to be successful.

No. 1 is most important. Last year, Oregon had some very good players on defense, but nearly all of them played on the D-line. To oversimplify things, the Ducks were playing a 3-4 scheme, and they were mediocre at linebacker and in the secondary.

Not good.

Brady Hoke's ability to get the best out of his players is more important than what scheme Oregon's defense plays. Eric Evans/University of Oregon

Mark Helfrich hired Brady Hoke not because he ran a specific scheme, but because Helfrich has confidence in Hoke's ability to teach No. 3, create an atmosphere that demands No. 2 and to help cover up where there might be a lack of No. 1.

The 4-3 and 3-4 debate is pretty academic, particularly with many teams running what amounts to a base nickel and throwing all sorts of different looks at an offense. My thinking is if you can recruit a bunch of big, fast defensive lineman -- like say, Alabama or USC back in the day -- you should get as many on the field as possible.

As for Hoke and preseason stories coming out of closed practices, well, that's pretty darn irrelevant. He's mad? He's happy? Whatever. Can the Ducks stop the run on Sept. 17 at Nebraska? I have no idea.

The simple fact is the depth chart Hoke inherited is questionable. Ducks fans need to understand that he's not going to wave a magic wand and suddenly the Ducks are going to yield 4.2 yards per play and 17 points per game.

Oregon fans should just hope for improvement. That could start, for example, by not giving up so many big plays. The Ducks yielded 227 plays of 10 or more yards last year, which ranked 124th in the nation, and their 79 plays of 20-plus yards ranked 117th.

Brett writes: With the Holy War next week, I am nervous for a few reasons. 1. I love [new BYU coach Kalani] Sitake and seeing him in blue is hard. I wish him success, but I don't want to see BYU turn into my Utes and succeed. 2. What do we need to do to fix our O-line? Everyone built them up over the offseason and we did not look good last night. Your thoughts?

Ted Miller: My thoughts are this: Utah fans should run screaming into the streets.

Then, when that gets old or people start to stare, they should go to The Pie and bring me a medium barbecue chicken cilantro because I am starving! First one here gets a slice.

Utah fans, I want you guys to hang out with Cal fans. The meshing of neuroses would be fun to watch. (Cal fans: "That might be fun but ... red ... hmmm. I don't know. Let me meditate on it. But only after Math Time.")

At the top of the Utah checklist, quarterback Troy Williams looked good Thursday night. Pretty much the only reason I watched was to get some data on that. But I also noticed: 1. Williams has a solid No. 1 option in receiver Tim Patrick; 2. Troy McCormick looked like more than a backup running back.

Defense? It pitched a shutout. Nothing more needs to be said.

As for the leaky offensive line, well, that was a bit of a surprise, but I suspect a lot of that was due to a syndrome known as "we're playing an FCS team in Week 1."

I will be truly surprised if Utah's season doesn't live up to expectations because of its O-line.

G Jallar writes: There is a narrative that an outstanding, undefeated team from a lesser conference would be a mediocre team with a 7-5 record in a Power 5 league. The narrative says the outstanding, undefeated team could never withstand the week-in, week-out grind of a big conference. But when I see games between Podunk University and the supposed betters contested closely or providing an upset -- and we see them every year; Appalachian State vs. Tennessee was only the second kickoff of the 2016 season -- it makes me wonder if that 7-5 Power 5 team plugged into Conference Little Sisters of the Poor would endure the grind of every Podunk's best shot week in, week out to remain undefeated. If the mighty, vaunted and much-hyped team from Rocky Top can't get by a recent FCS team without requiring overtime, I think the answer is a resounding no.

Ted Miller: Perhaps it would be fun to test that narrative with some sort of lend-lease program. As in Boise State plays in the Pac-12 for a season, while Oregon tries out life in the Mountain West.

Perhaps something surprising would happen. But I doubt it.

The Power 5 leagues are just better. Better players, better resources and, for the most part, better coaches. It's not just a question of better starting 22s. It's about depth, something that tends to reveal itself in the fourth quarter of a game -- or in Week 9 of the season.

Further, we've actually tested this theory with TCU and Utah moving up from the Mountain West to the Big 12 and Pac-12, respectively. Utah, which went 33-6 in its last three seasons in the MWC, went 9-18 in its first three years of Pac-12 play. TCU went 6-12 its first two seasons against Big 12 teams. Both bottomed out at 2-7 in 2013 conference play.

Both struggled early in a Power 5 conference, but both programs -- notably led by outstanding head coaches -- put it together and are now thriving in the so-called big leagues.

While Tennessee struggled Thursday night, I don't think it's indicative of who the Volunteers are. You'll get a much better picture of that when they play Virginia Tech next weekend at Bristol Motor Speedway in Bristol, Tennessee.

Part of the charm of these Power 5 vs. Group of 5 games is that sometimes the planets align and we get Michigan-Appalachian State in 2007, or Boise State beating Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl. It, however, is their rarity that makes what happened Thursday night so compelling -- must-see TV emerging from a game many didn't even know was happening.

You are correct that it's difficult to win every game on a 12-game schedule against FBS foes, no matter which conference we're talking about. But it's unquestionably more difficult to do so in Power 5 conference, no matter the charms of a major upset here or a surprisingly close game there.