USC No. 1 -- and plans to stay that way

NCAA lug heads ^ | 12-7-03 | By Ivan Maisel

[bonesmccoy]

Yes, and I like it the old way.

The reality is that OK or LSU should come to Pasadena to play USC here.

But, Sugar Bowl should have LSU because it's a La. school.

USC should be playing in Pasadena because it's a so. Calif. school.

[bonesmccoy]

"USC played a relatively weak schedule and that should be considered"


HUH?

Auburn, Notre Dame, Hawaii are a weak schedule?

Compared to LSU playing a Division 1A team?????

It's not the USC team that scheduled a weak team... playing DIV 1A teams should dq the team from AFCA Nat'l Championship.

[DugwayDuke]

It's not just my opinion that USC played a relatively weak schedule. Read any of the reports on the BCS, USC lost ground relative to LSU because of "schedule weakness".

Take for example this quote from Yahoo Sports:

"The Trojans got 79 of the 128 first-place votes in the polls but finished third in five computers because of a weak Pac-10 schedule."

"LSU was second in the polls and six computers and edged out USC based on a tougher schedule. LSU and USC were each picked first in one computer."

Or this one is particularly telling since you seem to think Hawaii was a plus for USC:

"The Tigers' spot in the title game wasn't assured until Boise State beat Hawaii at 3 a.m. EST Sunday. USC beat Hawaii in September and needed the Warriors to win to boost its strength of schedule."

If you're going to claim a team as an example of a team's strenght of schedule, they shouldn't lose to Boise State, should they?

Here's the link:

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news;_ylc=X3oDMTBpNWZic251BF9TAzI1NjY0ODI1BHNlYwN0aA--?slug=ap-bcsrdp&prov=ap&type=lgns

BTW, how many qualify of wins adjustment points did USC, LSU, and OU recieve repectively?

[Dog Gone]

You seem to ignore the fact that a poll was taken of the coaches in the country, and they think the best team in the land is USC.

Then they took a poll of all the sportswriters, and they think so, too.

So, I fail to see why you defend the BCS as the best tool available. It's clearly flawed unless you think the opinions of the coaches and people paid to cover the game are wrong.

I hope we have a split champion this year. It will prove my point. The BCS is the worst tool available.

It hasn't ended the controversy. It's just made it more ridiculous.

LSU needed Boise State to beat Hawaii in order to beat out the #1 team in the nation. Go figure.

[DugwayDuke]

You seem to put a lot of stock in the writes and coaches polls. Both have been shown to have their biases.

I saw an article in Sports Illustrated (I think, it's been several years) where the writers poll is dominated by sports writers from the major metropolitan areas. These guys vote local and favor the teams from the East and West Coasts and from the mid-west (close to chicago). This article had a map of where these voters were. Looked a lot like where Gore won his votes too. (Ever wonder why there's so much stink about USC getting screwed. Check out the by-lines of the reports writing the articles. Where are they from? Doesn't the fact that a lot are from LA make you go hmmm?)

The coaches poll is also biased. I remember reading several years ago that some coaches had been using their votes to pump up the rating of teams they would face later or who they had already beaten.

The reason I defend the BCS is that no one has come up with a better way. Rely upon the Writers and Coaches? They're biased and besides, we've done that. Didn't work to well did it?

No, the BCS is probably the best way to rank teams considering all the factors. The problem is the BCS tries to pick the two best teams. Simply impossible, some one worthy is always left out. Personnally, I'd take the top eight from the BCS and let them play a real tournament, head to head, let one team win. If we did that, then this tempest would never happen, don't you think?

[okkev68]

You don't think there is bias in the coaches and writers polls. Just look at the whole Lupica vs Stoops situation. And I gurantee any Auburn coach ever voting Alabama #1 would be immediately fired and vice versa.

PLAYOFF. I'm a OU fan but Kstate deserves a chance to show whether Saturday was a fluke or if they are playing the best (which I think they are) right now.

[oust the louse]

I'm a huge Buckeye fan and what they did last year by going UNDEFEATED shows just how hard something like that is to do...that being said,i will be a huge(gulp)Michigan fan when they kick the crap out of USC.I think Michigan is not getting credit for what they have on the field. If Lloyd Carr let's his boys play like he did against the Buckeyes,USC won't know what hit them.
After a walloping,it won't much matter where USC was in the polls.

[PBRSTREETGANG]

PLAYOFF. I'm a OU fan but Kstate deserves a chance to show whether Saturday was a fluke or if they are playing the best (which I think they are) right now.

Wait a minute. Kansas State has three losses and is ranked #10 in the BCS. So you're advocating a 16 team playoff?

[squidly]

This year is kind of like the old days, as if the BCS never happened, although back then Oklahoma would have gone to the Orange Bowl while LSU went to the Sugar. So we have a split title if USC wins, so what, there have been many of those over the years. Arguing about championships is one of the great college football traditions.

[Tall_Texan]

I don't see it that way at all. The BCS has only been around for less than a decade, not the 200+ years of the Electoral College. Meanwhile, the AP and Coaches polls have been around for over 50 years, five times that of the BCS, so I think you have your analogy bass-ackward.

Your analogy is like the Florida Supreme Court which decides that any logic works as long as it gets them what they want. If USC is #3, how come both the sportswriters and the coaches gave them more first place votes than anyone else?

[Tall_Texan]

I enjoyed watching Colgate win in that heavy snowstorm. Congrats to your alma mater. But let's not get carried away - a one-point come-from-behind win at home doesn't put you in the same orb as LSU which just crushed a Top Ten Georgia team for the second time this year on Georgia ersatz soil.

[Tall_Texan]

A computer weights all factors, exactly as it is told and gives the answer, based only upon those pre-programmed parameters - no favorites, no emotions, no fading memory - just pure facts.

"pre-programmed" is the key word. The computers are only as good as what they've been programmed to spit out. If they were so infallible, why do they not spit out the exact same results? Why do they need six different computer polls that are all at odds with each other?

Before the Nebraska debacle (they were pummeled like Saddam Hussein 62-? by Colorado and still played for the title) a few years ago, there were eight computers and, in mid-September, they all had different #1 teams. The computer based in Gainesville, FL had Florida #1, the computer based in Seattle had Washington #1, the computer based in Oklahoma had Oklahoma #1, the computer based in Southern California had UCLA #1. No favorites??? Hardly.

Question the wisdom of pollsters, sure but also question what spits out of a computer. I know because it's part of my job to question what spits out.

[RabidBartender]

I don't think anyone's posted this yet, but I thought it would be relevant (though it will be wholly disregarded by USC fans) to determining the best team in college football this year:

Offensive Averages (per game)
OU 45.2 points, 461.4 yards
USC 42.2 points, 450.7 yards
LSU 34.9 points, 426.5 yards

Defensive Averages (per game allowed)
LSU 10.8 points, 259.5 yards
OU 14.8 points, 255.6 yards
USC 18.8 points, 337.8 yards

Of course, LSU plays in the arguably the toughest conference in the country, and OU played games conservatively once they had 35-40 point leads (77-0 after 3 qtrs vs. A & M).

[Dog Gone]

A playoff system is the only way that we can ensure that the best teams get a chance to prove it. USC is neither a better nor a worse team than it is, whether Notre Dame or Hawaii won their last game or not.

Yet that is exactly what the BCS computers decided. There's a logic disconnect there, yet BCS supporters won't admit it.

Perhaps if the BCS scoring system were able to factor in the strength of the opponents at the time the two teams met and lock it in for the rest of the season, that might make some sense. But to punish a team because an earlier opponent has a late season collapse ignores any reason for that collapse and makes silly games like Boise St/Hawaii critical to the national championship.

[DugwayDuke]

"Your analogy is like the Florida Supreme Court which decides that any logic works as long as it gets them what they want. If USC is #3, how come both the sportswriters and the coaches gave them more first place votes than anyone else?"

I guess it depends on your perspective. One could say those supporting USC are like the FSC. It all depends.

Sports writers and coaches are just as biased as any one else. I think I mentioned up thread a couple of articles pointing out those biases. But, laying that aside, I don't think it is humanly possible to pick just two teams worthy of competing for the championship regardless of the system used. Some deserving team will always be left out and you'll have arguments like these. The problem with the BCS is it attempts to do too much, to pick just two. I think you'd agree, the system would work much better if we took the top four or eight and let them play in a real play off.

[dfwgator]

Let's see. LSU lost to **whom**? Top-10 ranked team, true?

Uhh Florida is ranked 17th.

[dfwgator]

But we're Number 1 in basketball :) Of course they do have playoffs to determine their champion, what a concept!!!

[Snuffington]

An interesting factor is that the Big 12 and SEC conferences have a championship game, and the PAC 10 does not. Has anyone figured out if USC would have made it to number 2 in the BCS had they played (and won) an extra conference championship game against the number 2 team in the PAC 10? It would have improved both their record and strength of schedule.

[DugwayDuke]

There's no logical disconnect. You see, each of those games provided additional information to be factored into the relative strengths. Sure, you've got to factor in relevent information but you can't lock in relative strengths.

Why look at KSU. Prior to the Marshall game they were a top five team. Locking in strenghts would mean that those teams playing KSU before Marshall would be treated differently than those after. Does that seem right?

Suppose OU won it's game against KSU but it's star Heisman trophy winner went down for the season. Should that be factored into the ratings? I'd dare say that without White, OU is not a top ten team, certainly not good enought to play for a championship. I, for one, would not vote for them to play in the championship game without White even if they were 12-0. I'd pass them by for some other team even if they'd lost a game or two.

And, BTW, I'm not sure that KSU doesn't have a better claim to play in the Sugar than either of the three we're talking about.

[dfwgator]

Furthermore, USC is the only team in the nation not to lose a game in regulation.