Worth a Thousand Words

USC decapitates Ohio State 35-3, September 13, 2008, Los Angeles.

Warp Speed, Scotty!

I’m already sick of hearing how the SEC is light-years (as in the top speed of SEC defensive linemen) better than the Big Ten because Florida beat Ohio State in the BCS Championship. The only thing that game proves is that Florida was better than Ohio State on January 8, 2007.

If people are going to point to the results of bowl games as an indicator of the relative strength of conferences, shouldn’t they include all the bowl games played between the two conferences? Including Florida’s victory, the SEC was 1-2 versus the Big 10. Yeah, they’re definitely a better conference.

It seems like the mainstream media would have us believe that kids in the South are genetically programmed to grow up faster than kids in the Midwest, and kids in the Midwest are genetically programmed to grow up bigger and stronger than kids in the South. Yes, I know that programs recruit countrywide, but these maps (HT: The Wizard of Odds) show that Florida and Ohio State, at least, get most of their talent regionally, just like the Trojans, who enroll a handful of recruits every year from across the country, but fill the vast majority of their roster with players from California and other western states. Maybe Urban Meyer is recruiting players from Alpha Centauri.

I am no partisan of either the Big 10 or the SEC. It just annoys me when the media delivers shoddy analysis and expects their audience to accept it without question.

I'm Ready

After watching last night’s BCS “national championship” game, and feeling very little surprise at the outcome, I’m finally ready for a playoff in NCAA Division 1-A college football.

Until now, I have not been in favor of a playoff. If I had my way, we would throw out the BCS and all related formats and return to the pre-Bowl Coalition/Alliance days. Bowls could invite whichever teams they wanted and form any deals that suited their interests with the conferences. I would be satisfied if the Trojans’ annual goal was simply to win the Pac-10 and go pummel some unlucky Big Ten team in the Rose Bowl on New Year’s Day (that’s all the Trojans have control over now anyway). Of course, that would require acknowledging that the Div. 1 national championship is truly “mythical”, something that the vast majority of college football fans seem unwilling to do. Since the likelihood of this scenario occurring is extremely low, having a playoff is a much better alternative than the ridiculous BCS.

Before bowl season started, I was relatively confident (25 of 32 confidence points, if you're interested) that Ohio State would beat Florida handily. That changed when I watched the Rose Bowl. The beat-down suffered by Michigan at the hands of USC led me to question the strength of the upper echelon of the Big 10, and therefore the superiority of Ohio State, a notion the mainstream media had presented as canon for almost the entire season. Time and again the bowls have demonstrated that a team’s performance in its conference is not predictive of its performance against teams from other conferences in bowl games. The underdog has won four of the last five BCS championship games. Hence my underwhelming surprise at Florida’s victory last night. Only a playoff system guaranteeing match-ups between different conference champions would provide a true national champion.

Limit playoff participants to the six major conference champions plus two at-large teams. Have a committee select the at-large teams and seed all eight teams using a BCS-like formula as a guide or something simpler like the college basketball ratings percentage index (RPI).

I guess you could say this change in attitude was partly provoked by selfishness. After watching how USC played against Michigan and Florida played against Ohio State, I would have loved to see USC take on Florida. The Trojans would have been tough to beat. But who knows; maybe LSU would have taken the title this year. Or Boise State. Obviously, you’d have to say Florida would be the favorites after last night.

I figure if a playoff had been in place for the last five years, the Trojans could have two more national championships. Over the past five years, USC under Pete Carroll has demonstrated a talent for performing very well in big games, especially against teams from other conferences. Aside from this year, USC was playing at the highest level in the country when they beat Iowa in the 2003 Orange Bowl. They would have made a playoff that year as an at-large team.

By the way, no way is the team that got its ass handed to it last night in the desert anywhere close to the second-best team in the country.

Congratulations Gators!

Consensus

Somewhat of a consensus has emerged among the fans (or bloggers, at least) of the three teams in contention to face Ohio State in the BCS Championship game: Florida, Michigan, and USC.

Orson at EDSBS, which is always an entertaining read, does not concede that USC deserves the spot over Florida, but acknowledges that Florida fans don't have a leg to stand on if they complain about USC getting the nod:

"This is something Florida fans cannot do, since in the anarchic world of college football, the team with the biggest heads on their pikes wins. At the moment, an unbelievably tough Florida team loses this comparison with USC, who laughs at the lolling tongues of the midget skulls of UCF and Western Carolina we’re carrying around in our schedule. If you don’t care about the national picture, fine; yet if the sports bar discussion turns to a Gator claim on a title shot, take the stool you sit on and saw one of the legs off before you begin, since you might as well begin where Jeremy Foley’s [Florida AD] put us schedule-wise."

Brian at mgoblog actually conducts a side-by-side analysis of the three teams' resumes [entire schedules] and argues that USC deserves to make the BCS Championship game over Florida and Michigan:

"Michigan has a narrow advantage in "best win" but after that it's all Trojans until you get to the loss category. They clearly lost to the least intimidating opponent, but unlike their competition they battled back and had a chance to tie at the death. Also, OSU benefited from a panoply of freak plays: a punt return touchdown, USC turnovers, etc. I think the most astounding thing about USC is this: they played one team worse than 5-7. When they rolled on to the field this year, all but one of their opponents was capable of beating them.

"If you really think that Michigan's Notre Dame win was superlative enough to override USC's season of wins against solid opposition and that their Oregon State loss was an unforgivable sin, you can make a case for Michigan. But let's give it up, guys. USC's tiebreaker is Arkansas and Nebraska versus our Vanderbilt, Central Michigan, and Ball State. They took on two above-average BCS teams. We took on the worst team in the SEC and two MAC teams, though one of them happens to be okay this year. Set aside the Michigan fandom and look at the big picture: if USC has this season and does not make the NC game, no one will ever schedule anyone again. It's time to take the bullet."

This all presumes USC will beat UCLA tomorrow, so you can be assured everyone in both fan bases will be pulling hard for UCLA.

GO 'SC! BEAT THE BRUINS!

Exactly Right

Stewart Mandel expresses simply and concisely the best argument against an Ohio State-Michigan rematch:

My point all along . . . is that we don’t really know Ohio State and Michigan are the two best teams. It’s just an opinion. The only way to find out for sure would be to let someone else take a shot at the Buckeyes.

That's right; we already know that Ohio State is better than Michigan. They proved it on the field. It doesn't make sense to make them prove it again. Give the champion of another conference the opportunity in the BCS Championship to prove on the field that Ohio State isn't the best team in the country. At this point, in most deserving order, those teams are as follows:

1. USC (Pac-10 champ), if they beat Notre Dame and UCLA;
2. Arkansas/Florida winner (SEC champ), if that team wins its last regular season game;
3. Louisville (Big East champ), if they win their two remaining games; and
4. West Virginia (Big East champ), if they win their two remaining games (with Rutger's loss, Louisville now holds the tie-breaker for conference champion if both Louisville and West Virginia win out).

Only if none of those teams take care of business should Michigan be sent to the BCS Championship. Sorry, Notre Dame, but if Michigan and ND end up being the two top-ranked one-loss teams, Michigan gets the nod. You can't erase Michigan 47, Notre Dame 21.

The Round Robin Rocks

I want to go on record as being very excited about the Pac-10's new conference scheduling format starting next year. The Pac-10 almost immediately approved a full round robin format after the 12-game football season was made permanent by the NCAA. For some reason, I don't think the average non-Pac-10 fan is aware of the change, as demonstrated in this letter: "I say the Big XII, SEC, and now the ACC are determining conference champions the right way. On the field. The PAC 10, and Big 10 +1 need to take notice." To credit Pete Fiutak, in his response to the letter he states he supports the Pac-10 plan. It’s not the Pac-10 that needs to take notice, but rather the 12-team mega-conferences and especially the Big 10.

In the Pac-10, there will never again be conference co-champions that did not play each other, such as Big-10 champs Iowa and Ohio State in 2002, necessitating the existence of convoluted rules to determine the conference's Rose Bowl/BCS representative. Also, the Pac-10 will have no need for a conference championship game. Every team will play nine conference games and there is no risk of crowning a team with a lesser conference record the conference champion based on one very good or bad game, á la Big 12 champs Kansas State in 2003 or ACC champs Florida State this year.

The system is good for USC because it allows the Trojans to continue their annual contest with Notre Dame, play another big-name school in non-conference play (Nebraska in 2006 and 2007, Ohio State in 2008 and 2009), and play one other relatively easier non-conference game, in addition to their nine game conference schedule.

USC-Fresno State

USC didn't even have to play this game!

With the Pac-10 schedule moving from eight to nine games starting in 2006, the annual match with Notre Dame, and the likes of Nebraska (2006, 2007) and Ohio State (2008, 2009) on the schedule in the coming years, I think it will be a while before we see Fresno State on the Trojans' schedule again.

Update: I haven't been impressed with Matthew Zemak's analyses this year, but I liked his Instant Analysis of last night's USC-Fresno State game. His thoughts about the nature of this comeback victory as compared to other USC comebacks in 2005, the role of place-kicker Mario Danelo, Reggie Bush's clutch impact, and the potential impact of the game on pollsters' and college football experts' opinions of the Pac-10 in general and Oregon in particular were interesting.