Overrated

I'm not unhappy about where USC is ranked this week, but this . . .

USC #7 Coaches' Poll
USC #10 AP Poll

is wrong. I expected the Trojans to land somewhere between #10 and #15, but a ranking as low as #20 would not have upset me.

Like I said below,

The fact is there is no objective evidence this year’s team is any better than average, even though they have more talent than any other team in the country. USC has beaten four teams with a combined record of 9-14 (Idaho is 1-5; Nebraska is 4-2, barely beat Ball St., and got blown out by Missouri; Washington St. is 2-4; and Washington is 2-3) and lost to Stanford with its 2-3 record.

USC will have plenty of opportunities to prove themselves, with games against Oregon, Cal, and Arizona St. on the schedule. I hope they live up to their still-lofty ranking.

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!

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.

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.

Poll Fiction

Freedom Dip takes exception to USC’s claim to a 2003 national championship in football (hat tip: Burnt Orange Nation):

Let's get something straight with USC and the rest of the college football world.

USC is NOT going for a 3-peat!!! Period.

Who won the national title in 2003? Wasn't it LSU?

If fans say, "Well, USC should have been in the title game." Then I say tough. The BCS is the system agreed upon by the coaches, and the coaches voted the Tigers No. 1 after the Sugar Bowl that year. Ap's vote doesn't even count anymore. BCS is the accepted system for now.

If USC claims half the title in 2003, then Auburn should claim half of the 2004 title.
End of story.

Well, allow me to retort.

Does Tommy Trojan look like a bitch?

I said, DOES TOMMY TROJAN LOOK LIKE A BITCH?

No? Then why are you trying to f*** him like a bitch, Freedom Dip?

Seriously, this is a tired argument and the only people trying to make it are LSU fans and other Trojan-haters. USC’s claim is that it is defending two consecutive AP national titles. Yes, there is a distinction. No, USC does not deny that LSU was a co-national champion in 2003 (I seem to remember some kind of ceremony on the south lawn of the White House with both teams present). Why are some LSU fans so determined to reject USC’s equally legitimate claim?

The NCAA does not recognize an official national champion in Division I-A football. Even the BCS itself concedes that there was a split national title in 2003: “For the only time since the BCS was formed, there is a split national champion.”

SI.com’s Stewart Mandel lays it out in his May 17, 2005 College Football Mailbag:

I'm getting sick and tired of all of you people saying that USC is going for a three-peat. Just being No. 1 in the AP poll does not mean you won the national title. Some people may think this is just an (even after five months) angry Sooners fan ranting, but it's crazy to say the Trojans are going for a three-peat.
--Seth Points, Haskell, Okla.

Tell you what, Seth: We'll stop referring to USC as two-time defending national champion just as soon as Oklahoma renounces its 1950, '55, '56, '74, '75 and '85 national championships. This may come as a shock to you (and to everyone else who has written in with the same complaint), but the Sooners won those titles the same way USC won its 2003 crown: By finishing No. 1 in the AP poll.

You may also be unaware that the crystal trophy handed out at the end of each year's BCS title game is not technically bestowed for winning the game but rather for finishing No. 1 in the coaches' poll (which, conveniently, is required to vote the winner of the game No. 1). So, unless for some reason you think the coaches' poll is somehow more legitimate than the AP poll -- and, as far as I know, they've been considered pretty much equals for about 70 years -- then there's really nothing "crazy" about it.

Let’s not forget that the AP poll was legitimate enough in the eyes of the BCS people that they completely revamped their ranking system after the 2003 season to preclude the recurrence of a unanimous #1-ranked team being excluded from their title game.

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.

Longhorn Fans' Rooting Guide

Is this serious? Do Longhorns fans really need to be told which teams to root for? They even advocate rooting for the Sooners and the Aggies because it will improve Texas' schedule strength. That's just sad.

As long as polls play a role in determining the national champion of Div. 1 college football, no team is in complete control of its destiny. What's the use in getting worked up over the results of games across the country over which your team has absolutely no influence. It's simple for USC fans; we root for the Trojans . . . and whoever is playing UCLA.

Update: I guess this is a weekly thing.

Further update: It looks like All Things Longhorn took offense to this post. ; )

Overzealous Longhorns

I came across the All Things Longhorn blog a week or two ago and have been irregularly browsing the site since. As a USC fan, I find many of the posts quite amusing. Expectedly (but not necessarily justifiably), the Longhorns' jump past USC in the BCS ranking generated significant euphoria. The prevailing theme of the blog seems to be that Texas, enjoying a once-in-a-generation season (it's a little sad, really, that they expect success on this level so infrequently), clearly has the nation's best college football team even though all the major human polls indicate otherwise. For All Things Longhorn, the latest BCS ranking validates this belief. I found the following statement interesting and decided to record it so I wouldn't forget it later:

USC can talk 29 consecutive wins and all that jazz, but for the 2005 season alone, the Texas Longhorns have been the best team in all the land, as the current BCS ranking reflects [italics mine].

Considering the slim nature of Texas' lead in the ranking and the relative strengths of the remainders of the Trojans' and the Longhorns' schedules, I hope All Things Longhorn doesn't change it's tune when USC regains the #1 spot in the BCS ranking in the coming weeks.