USC Got Screwed

[Sgt. Ryan]

Or ask USC how many of their championships are split Championships currently. And Michigans in 97 was a split as well with Nebraska.

 

The BCS got the #1 team right, but the #2 team should have been USC. After OU whips LSU, whos is going to say they belonged then. There will be a cry why wasnt USC playing OU.

[Chavez]

I think the point isn't that the old system was "great" - it definitely had its flaws, but it never claimed to be perfect.

 

The BCS, on the other hand, is supposed to eliminate controversy, but look at the sh*tstorms it's caused in 2 of the past 3 years. First Neb loses the Big 8 title game in '01 but goes over the Buffs and gets killed; now there's the LSU/OU/USC controversy.

 

It's NOT a good system, and it's a f'n joke. Although, to be fair, I DO agree that as a way of ranking teams for seeding in a playoff system, the BCS formula is pretty comprehensive.

[Chavez]

xMRogers

How can a team go into a saturday needing a win to get to the national title game, win convincingly, and then because the team they were supposed to play in that game lost, end up not going to the game....or, put another way, how the he!! does Oklahoma losing mean LSU passes USC, which is what the end result of this was.

 

Actually, I think Oklahoma's loss had little to nothing to do with LSU leapfrogging USC - that would have happened no matter the result of the Big 8 title game.

[xMRogers]

Chavez:

 

xMRogers

How can a team go into a saturday needing a win to get to the national title game, win convincingly, and then because the team they were supposed to play in that game lost, end up not going to the game....or, put another way, how the he!! does Oklahoma losing mean LSU passes USC, which is what the end result of this was.

 

Actually, I think Oklahoma's loss had little to nothing to do with LSU leapfrogging USC - that would have happened no matter the result of the Big 8 title game. My understanding (and I haven't paid that much attention) is that somehow, LSU moving up in the polls to 2 helped them leapfrog in a strange way...really don't know.

[Clubfoothead]

I think it was a combination of the Notre Dame and Hawaii losses Saturday, but I'm no expert.

[The Meathead]

If OU can bet LSU - preferably convicingly - a lot of the "controversy" will quickly become a vague memory. Yeah, there will still be the USC whiners saying they should have had their chance (that is, assuming USC can win convincingly in its consolation bowl). But the real controversy will arise if OU loses to LS-who. In that case, LS-who will be the champeen - and not split with anyone either - but, again, assuming a USC win, the arguments as to why OU didn't belong will look a lot more meritorious than perhaps now. Of course, if USC loses to Michigan, then I don't think anyone can maintain they belonged in the Sugar Bowl.

 

While I would not have placed OU in the Sugar Bowl based on a poor game against K-State, I don't consider the BCS a complete failure for having placed them in the Sugar Bowl. There is something to be said for strength of schedule and "quality" wins. And, let's face it, USC has had a much easier ride than OU (or Michigan, and slightly easier than LSU) has had. So I'll be able to sit back and enjoy the New Years' bowl games and see how it all unravels. Then, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, I'll join everyone here in griping about how it should have unfolded.

 

Congrats to OU and to LSU for making it to the Sugar Bowl.

[Coffeeman]

Well I AM an expert in the BCS, so listen up, this is the way it is...just kidding! Who knows? What I do know is that it is a SHAME that the stinking BCS has caused any of the big 4 bowls, with all of their history and (former) national title implications, to be considered "consolation prizes". That sucks, and all of these teams should be proud of what they have worked so hard to accomplish together, and they and all their fans should enjoy their bowls!

 

This was not the case before and will not be the case in the future, if and when we get a playoff. IF somehow the controversy was avoided by playing just 1 or 3 extra games, then the BCS would be a very useful tool in the whole process and could be considered a success, but not now.

 

As a Trojan fan, I will try take it like the team's players and coaches have done, with class. We will treat the Rose like a national championship game, as it was in the past, because this year it IS again. Last year the BCS got lucky with 2 undefeated teams and a (relatively) "undisputed" champ in OSU, but with OU's loss it is again a co-champ kind of year, and that is OK with plenty of fans like me.

 

Now my big problem is getting tix to the game that is just a couple miles from my house, because the USC website says only big donors and season tix holders get a shot. (They don't use the word "big", they just say "donor", but apparently my $100 or so every year to the B-school doesn't cut it.) And THAT is the real travesty around here right now....

[xMRogers]

I still think that the reason LSU jumped USC wasn't cause they won or the other games, but because they jumped Oklahoma, and moving 3 to 2 helped them mover than USC moving 2 to 1 - don't ask why it did, just believe that to be the case.

 

In comment on the "a playoff can't help cause then the 5th team or 9th team would complain" - I agree that the 5th team can complain vs. the 4th team, but the farther down you go, the less the complaint holds water (meaning the 5th place team has much less a "gripe" than the 3rd, and the 9th place much less than the 5th) when it comes to who actually ends up national champ. Sure, they can say "I should have been 3rd instead of 5th" but the fact is that if you are 5th or 9th, you don't really have a legit statement of "I'm the best team if I could only prove it"

 

I will state that an 8 team will do it fine, and a 16 team would be great - 15 games, 4 weeks - finish 2nd week of Jan

[KevinL]

xMRogers:

I still think that the reason LSU jumped USC wasn't cause they won or the other games, but because they jumped Oklahoma, and moving 3 to 2 helped them mover than USC moving 2 to 1 - don't ask why it did, just believe that to be the case.

 

Actually you are correct, but not in the way you think.

 

The BCS is a mathematical formula, where a low score is better (like golf).

 

USC got 1 point from the poll average component, LSU got 2. The prior week USC had 2 and LSU had 3. That is a 1 point difference and whether the points are 1 & 2 or 2 & 3 has no effect.

 

However, looking at the computer rankings, LSU got 1.83 and USC got 2.67. Oklahoma's loss has no effect if Oklahoma is ahead of both or behind both in a computer rank.

 

But the Kenneth Massey poll put Oklahoma in between, with LSU at 1 & USC at 3. Had Oklahoma won and stayed ahead of LSU, that is a 0.17 point difference.

 

LSU's BCS Score was 5.99 and USC's was 6.15, a difference of 0.16 !

[davearm]

Sgt. Ryan:

Actually you are incorrect Dave.  The BCS throws out the lowest score by the computers.

 

Yeah I knew that.

 

Sgt. Ryan:

USC had not shot at this game unless LSU lost.  OU gave them at least hope for half a title. 

I think you're right about this Ryan. I crunched the numbers, and here is what I expect would have happened with the BCS had the Sooners won:

 

Polls

OU: #1 in both; 1 BCS pt

USC: #2 in both; 2 BCS pts

LSU: #3 in both; 3 BCS pts

 

Computers

OU: #1 in all; 1 BCS pt

USC: #3 in 5 polls, #2 in NYT, and #4 in JS (dropped); 2.83 BCS pts

LSU: #2 in 6 polls, #3 or more in NYT (dropped); 2 BCS pts

 

SOS

Here I'm assuming the SOS #s would not be impacted had OU beaten KState.

OU: #11; 0.44 BCS pts

USC: #37; 1.48 BCS pts

LSU: #29; 1.16 BCS pts

 

Losses

OU: 0

USC: 1

LSU: 1

 

QW

OU: -0.5

USC: 0

LSU: 0

 

Total

OU: 1.94

USC: 7.31

LSU: 7.16

 

In retrospect, LSU's ascent in the Computer and SOS elements would have been enough to overtake USC, despite LSU losing its QW points. Ironically enough, the spread is almost the same at 0.15!

 

That said, I still maintain (as I wrote in the other thread) that had OU remained ahead of LSU in the Kenneth Massey poll, despite losing to KState, then USC would have squeaked in ahead of LSU by 0.01 point, since (as Kevin points out) such a shift would have increased LSU's Computer score by 0.17.