Pete Carroll Is Glad for UCLA

From Ted Miller:

We hear a lot of stuff from the SEC -- I think that's a great statement that UCLA was able to knock those guys off," Carroll said. "I don't know what they'll say from the other side, but you can't make a stronger statement. One of their stronger teams got beaten by a first opportunity for a new coach in a new program. It was a great win for UCLA and I think it does make a big statement. I'm glad it happened.

And why not? It reflects well on the Pac-10, and I don't think for one minute anything UCLA does across town influences Carroll's philosophy about running a football program. Sure, he's competitive, but his focus won't turn to UCLA until November 30, the Sunday before the regular season finale against UCLA. Therein lies the primary difference between USC football and UCLA football: USC measures success by conference titles, BCS bowl victories, and national championships; UCLA measures success by its status in relation to USC.

Previous musings on this topic here.

I Love This Shit

All is right and good in the Pac-10 when the media is writing stuff like this:

Nine tenths of the Pac-10 feels no hope.

This group, from Tucson to Seattle to Eugene to Berkeley to Westwood, looks up and sees USC's Men of Troy standing above, smirking in their Cardinal & Gold Armani armor, which sports six gaudy, sequential badges of Pac-10 supremacy.

Watching the historical dominance of the Pac-10 by the Trojans be reflected in the present day, but to a greater degree, is extremely satisfying to one brought into the fold during the 1990s.

Roses!

Forget all the BCS rankings nonsense. You can't control that shit. The Trojans, however, took care of everything in their control and clinched the Pac-10 title. In doing so, they became the first team in the Pac-10 to win five straight conference championships, and I couldn't be happier. Congratulations!

Michigan is still second in the BCS rankings after losing to Ohio State yesterday. Big deal. I don't think it'll stay that way if USC beats Notre Dame and UCLA. Michigan has finished their regular season. USC has two games left and their computer rankings will only improve if they keep winning. Of course, it would definitely help matters if Arkansas and Nebraska win their conference championships. Like I said above, none of that is worth worrying about. It's out of our control. In the meantime, we'll enjoy our record-setting championship and kick some ass in the Rose Bowl if it comes down to that.

One thing I will guarantee is that you won't see Pete Carroll whining to the media and campaigning to the pollsters à la Mack Brown, Tommy Tuberville, or Charlie Weis.

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.

BCS Bowl-Bound

USC apparently clinched its fourth consecutive BCS bowl berth when Oregon beat Oregon State yesterday, even if USC loses to UCLA. Of course, a loss to UCLA would knock them out of the Rose Bowl and end their hopes of winning a third consecutive national championship.

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.

Bad Analysis

I came across an example of exceptionally bad analysis in Matthew Zemek's "Weekly Affirmation" at College Football News.com:

When Cal lost to Oregon in a sloppy football game, USC’s strength of schedule dipped appreciably. A team that had been 5-0 and leading UCLA by 12 points with nine minutes left in regulation had suddenly spiraled to 6-3 before the showdown with the Trojans next weekend. When the Canes and Hokies kicked it off in Blacksburg, I was thinking to myself, “If USC doesn’t blast Cal out of the water—really crush them—on Nov. 12, one has no choice to dock the Trojans for their strength of schedule, just as I docked Texas for its strength of schedule.” I didn’t expect Cal to take this kind of a nosedive, but it happened, and that’s part of the larger body of evidence I have to deal with. My mind has to remain open when new evidence presents itself.

He continues:

Later in the day, the landscape changed even more against USC. When UCLA—a team supposedly worthy of contending for the Pac-10 title as USC’s final regular-season opponent—lost so decisively and pathetically to Arizona, I had no choice but to internally downgrade USC’s schedule strength still more.

Huh?

Objectively speaking, these two games have absolutely no net effect on USC's strength of schedule because USC plays all four teams. The loss by Cal, USC's Nov. 12 opponent, was a win for Oregon, USC's Sept. 24 opponent; just as UCLA's loss was a win for Arizona, who USC beat on Oct. 8. Therefore, the results of these two games for these four teams cancel each other out in USC's final schedule strength.

Subjectively speaking, the results of these two games should also be a wash. Whereas presumed USC victories over Cal and UCLA will now be less impressive, the past victories over 8-1 Oregon (in Eugene) and Arizona should now appear more impressive. If anything, the results of these two games bolster the evidence supporting USC's current reputation because USC has already beaten the victors of the Cal-Oregon and Arizona-UCLA games, but has not yet played the losers of those two contests.

In addition to Zemek's poor interpretation of the results of those games, he also makes the erroneous assumption that a team's strength is partly determined by its strength of schedule. I'm not saying that strength of schedule is not a legitimate factor of a team's BCS ranking (I'm not saying it is, either, but that's a separate issue). However, for those who believe the Pac-10 is a weak conference (myself not included), one only has to look at USC's non-conference performance over the past 3 years for proof that this assumption about schedule strength is suspect.

Zemek prides himself on his sound analysis of college football. Elsewhere in this piece, he writes, "good college football journalism concerns the process of making sense of events after they happen," and, "it’s making sense of events as they occur, and especially after they occur, that counts." I couldn't resist calling him out.