USC has leapfrogged Florida and Michigan to claim the #2 spot in the coaches’ poll, which makes up one-third of the BCS formula. But it’s very close between #2 USC, #3 Michigan and #4 Florida. In fact, all three teams’ point totals are below what a unanimous #3 team would get, so that gives you an idea that the voters are all over the place.
Ohio State is, of course, the unanimous #1 choice, with 1,575 votes (63 voters x 25 points per first-place vote = 1,575). A hypothetical unanimous #2 choice would have 1,512 points (63 x 24); a hypothetical unanimous #3 choice would have 1,449 points (63 x 23). USC has 1,444 points, Michigan has 1,428 and Florida has 1,407. And remember, the BCS now uses the point totals, not the absolute rankings, so the Trojans will have only a slight edge over the Wolverines in that portion of the BCS formula.
If you add their totals together, the Trojans, Wolverines and Gators are 68 points short of where they’d be if they were getting all the second-, third- and fourth-place votes, so that tells you that some voters are slotting Arkansas or Notre Dame up there. But the Razorbacks (1,302 points) and Irish (1,285) are well behind. Of course, Notre Dame plays USC next week, and Arkansas plays Florida the week after, so things remain quite volatile.
Anyway, I haven’t crunched the BCS numbers, but commenter Ken has, and he writes:
I’ve taken a look at the computer polls and the Coaches poll which is already out and has USC barely ahead of Michigan in the #2 spot. It looks like this week Michigan may edge out USC for the #2 position in the BCS…though it should be very close. However, if USC wins out I think it extremely likely that it will be USC, not Michigan playing tOSU in January.
Michigan will probably remain above USC in nearly all of the Computer polls this week. However, they are topped out. They have played all their games and thus can not move up in the Computers from this point. USC, however, has played 2 fewer games than Michigan, and virtually every computer poll shows USC with a stronger SOS than Michigan. Consequently, if USC wins its final two games its SOS coupled with the the two extra games will almost assuredly move USC above Michigan in virtually every computer poll. So unless the Coaches change their mind and somehow decide to vote Michigan over USC over the next two weeks….(or if the Harris Poll shows a markedly different vote total between the 2 teams), USC should get the nod IF (and that still remains a big IF) they beat Notre Dame and UCLA.
Of course, there’s a difference between asking what will happen and asking what should happen. As I wrote yesterday, in response to an anonymous comment that “Michigan would torch USC. They should be #2 even if USC wins out”:
[W]hether USC should get the #2 spot ahead of Michigan, if the Trojans win out, depends largely — as I said earlier — on which you think is more important, quality wins or quality losses. USC clearly would have more quality wins (Big 12 North champ Nebraska, SEC West champ Arkansas, BCS team Notre Dame, quality Pac-10 rival Cal) than Michigan (Notre Dame and Wisconsin), but obviously USC’s loss (Oregon State) is much worse than Michigan’s (Ohio State).
Whether it’s about quality wins or quality losses, certainly the selection process should not be about anyone’s subjective opinion/prediction of who would “torch” who. If that were the criterion, most experts would have agreed that Carson Palmer’s two-loss USC Trojans belonged in the title game in 2002-03. Of course, that would have been ridiculous, because there we two undefeated big-conference teams that year, Ohio State and Miami, and they deservedly played for the title (and OSU won, even though most people believed Miami would “torch” them). But it’s difficult to deny that USC was playing the best football by the end of the season (their two losses were in September), and would likely have “torched” anyone they played, Miami and Ohio State included. Hence the Trojans being an extremely popular pick in the “hypothetical playoffs” that various columnists wrote about. (Two-loss Oklahoma was also a popular pick. Those two teams were probably the country’s best football teams by the end of the season. But they also had two losses.) The Trojans’ prowess, and the experts’ opinions of it, doesn’t mean USC belonged in the title game — clearly they didn’t. They didn’t earn it. They lost twice. Other big-conference teams went undefeated. End of discussion.
My point is, picking a team for the title game isn’t about subjective judgments of who is likely to win the game. It’s about subjective judgments, hopefully based on at least some objective criteria, of who “deserves” it more. There’s a subtle but very important difference. You think Michigan would torch USC; I think it would be a good, close game, assuming USC showed up to play for four quarters. But that’s not what the argument should be about. It should be about who beat whom (and how), who lost to whom (and how), who played what schedule, who proved what in playing that schedule, etc. In other words, who had a better season, not necessarily who is the better team. Because if it’s about who is the better team, it becomes possible to argue that a 2- or 3-loss team deserves it over a 0- or 1-loss team (not necessarily this year, but hypothetically, e.g. in the 2002-03 example I cited), and yet we all would agree, I think, that that’s absurd.
Stewart Mandel sounds the same theme:
Going into the game, I was pretty adamantly opposed to the idea of an Ohio State-Michigan national championship rematch. Needless to say, I’m softening to it. If you know of another team out there that would have played the Buckeyes any tougher than the Wolverines did today, please, I’m all ears. While I will certainly go into the final two weeks of the season with an open mind, at this point, I still believe they’re the two best teams.
USC and/or SEC backers will undoubtedly try to deride Michigan’s defense, but to me that’s ridiculous. If the Wolverines truly had even a mediocre defense, it would have been exposed before its 12th game. While the Wolverines’ D certainly could have played better, the Buckeyes’ high score and yardage was much more a byproduct of Troy Smith and the rest of OSU’s offensive weapons than any defensive inadequacies by Michigan.
Now, does that mean Michigan should go to Glendale? That’s a different issue altogether. As I said in the Power Rankings last week, the team I think is the best (or in this case second-best) and the team who’s most deserving aren’t necessarily the same. While I do think OSU and Michigan are Nos. 1 and 2, the fact is this: if USC finishes the season 11-1 with wins over SEC West champion Arkansas, Big 12 North champion Nebraska, 10-1 Notre Dame and 8-3 Cal, the Trojans would be more deserving of the title spot than Michigan, which beat Notre Dame, Wisconsin and …. You could make a similarly reasonable case for either Florida or Arkansas if they were to finish 12-1. …
My point all along – and it didn’t change with Saturday’s outcome – 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. Get ready for a long two weeks of debate.
It’s refreshing to hear a pundit admit that “we don’t really know Ohio State and Michigan are the two best teams. It’s just an opinion.” Notre Dame blog Rakes of Mallow notes that some pundits aren’t so candid, echoing what I said last week about conventional wisdom and how often it’s wrong:
It’s quite possible that Michigan and Ohio State are the two best teams in the country, but I about threw something at the television with Kirk telling me that Michigan would soundly beat Florida or Arkansas if they played next weekend. Really, Kirk? Yeah, I’m pretty sure they’d win, too, but here are just a couple of examples that jump into my mind of the pundits being really, really sure about something:
Ohio State vs. Miami (FL)
Southern “Best Team In History” Cal vs.Texas
West “No Chance in Hell” Virginia vs. GeorgiaAt the point in time the pundits are always right, then we can disregard resumes and just go by who we think would win on a neutral field. Until then, how about accomplishments?
Couldn’t agree more. Amen, amen, amen.
So, that said, how about a poll?
(I added Boise State in deference to Brian’s comment.)
One final thought. Remember how, in 2003-04, LSU and USC were so close in the final BCS standings that USC would have finished #2 instead of #3 if a single additional “strength of schedule” game — e.g., Boise State vs. Hawaii — had gone their way? Well, imagine if USC and Michigan end up that close this year, with the Trojans finishing just barely ahead of the Wolverines on the strength of Oregon’s “win” over Oklahoma back in September. Heh. Wouldn’t that be something?
|
Categories: USC, College Football
|
November 19th, 2006 at 2:55:06 pm
Speaking of how close it is at the moment, Rich Tellshow has his projections up (using actual figures for several computer polls and the Coaches polls and his estimates for the Harris poll and the other computer polls.) I just ran some figures though and IF he is accurate about the Harris poll…(not likely since it depends on the exact vote and no one yet knows the exact totals)…but is off on just one computer poll (which frankly I think he may be with respect to the Seattle Times poll where I think USC may edge out Michigan for #2) then the BCS standings this week would have USC at #2 with a ranking of .9197 and Michigan at #3 with a ranking of .9190!!!
In any event, unless the Harris poll comes out with a strong lead for Michigan over USC, I continue to believe that USC will make it by the end of the season IF they win out.
November 19th, 2006 at 4:12:26 pm
[…] ght, the National Championship Game will be an anticlimax. Brendan Loy has a great post about the latest polls and what might happen in the BC […]
November 19th, 2006 at 4:47:12 pm
BCS is out:
1. tOSU
2. Michigan
3. USC
4. Florida
5. Notre Dame
I think for all intents and purposes, Notre Dame is effectively out of the national title game hunt. Even if ND beats USC, I don’t see a scenario that would justify ND pushing UM out of the title game when UM beat ND by so much at home earlier in the season. The OSU-UM game was as bad as it could have possibly been for Notre Dame’s title hopes and Brady’s Heisman chances. Not only did UM lose a close one (thereby foreclosing the chance that they drop below us before the season’s end), Troy Smith also three for over 300 yards and 4 TD’s (thereby locking up the heisman race). My guess is that ND ends up in a BCS bowl regardless of what happens this weekend, so USC fans have a lot more riding on this weekend’s game than ND does.
November 19th, 2006 at 5:07:04 pm
In terms of comparing conferences, I happened to be looking at Sagarin’s rankings of SOS and was startled to see that Pac-10 teams had the #1 through #8 top SOS in the country..in this order (Stanford, Cal, USC, Arizona, Washington, UCLA, Wash. St., and Oregon)…with AZ State at #10 and the EASIEST Pac 10 schedule belonging to Oregaon State at #15.
Compare that to the Big 10 where Minnesota is #9, MICHIGAN #12, Indiana #16, Northwestern #17, Illinois #18, Penn St. #19, Mich St. #20, Iowa #23, OHIO STATE #27, Purdue #63 and Wisconsin #75.
In the SEC its Tenn #11, Miss. St. #21, South Car. #26, Miss. #28, Auburn # 32, Vanderbilt #33, FLORIDA #36, LSU #37, Georgia #40, Alabama #41, Kentucky #45, and ARKANSAS #73.
Maybe that helps to explain why so many SEC teams seem to have great records compared to the number of Pac-10 teams. It is not so hard to do if you play weak schedules.
November 19th, 2006 at 5:11:49 pm
Anonymous…I think I agree with you about ND’s chances. Even with a win over USC, they will definitely remain below Michigan in the human polls, and they also have no chance to move above Michigan in the computers, consequently, no matter what happens this Saturday, ND will not be in the NC game. However, they can certainly spoil USC’s chances with a win.
November 19th, 2006 at 5:31:20 pm
Ohio State and Michigan are clearly the two best teams. If USC beats out Michigan, it will be an injustice. Michigan barely lost to Ohio State. USC barely lost to Oregon State. Ohio State is undefeated and ranked #1 in the country. Oregon State blows. If Michigan wins out, they deserve the trip. I say this as someone who HATES Michigan.
Notre Dame has no business even entering the discussion at this point.
November 19th, 2006 at 5:54:15 pm
Doesn’t really matter where USC is ranked. After the Irish spank them on Saturday, they’ll be lucky to even be in the BCS picture (much less a decent bowl game).
November 19th, 2006 at 6:06:52 pm
Uh Joey…Win or Lose…USC has already clinched the Pac-10 Championship thus guaranteeing them a spot in the Rose Bowl…even if they lose not only to ND but also to UCLA.
November 19th, 2006 at 6:09:30 pm
+1 point for Patrick admitting that Notre Dames lose to Michigan pretty much negates them from consideration
-1 point for Patrick claiming that USC has no buisness going ahead of Michigan if they win out.
As Brendan has pointed out above, if USC wins out they will have beaten a large swath of incredibly good teams. Michigan trounced ND, and beat Wisconsin, but other than that? And while Oregon State (OSU) is not nearly as good is Ohio State (tOSU) they aren’t utter crap either. With a win over Oregon next weekend (which is looking very likely) they claim 3rd in the Pac-10 (ranked by some as the toughest conference this season). Not to mention the fact that Michigan had its shot. They gave Ohio State their best shot, and yes, came close, but in the end they still lost. Using only the comparison of their two losses without comparing other factors such as wins, is frankly patrick, pretty intellecutally dishonest.
I wouldn’t be bothered if you argued that you think between the two close contenders for the number 2 spot (assuming of course that SC wins out) that Michigan should get the nod, but to claim that SC has NO buisness and that it would be an injustice? I’m sorry but your bias against USC is so strong that your bias against Michigan isn’t even coming into play here.
I think a 1 loss USC has the best claim right now on the 2 spot. I think if SC goes down, if either Florida or Arkansas win out they have a better claim at the spot than Michigan. Barely, and only because i’d rather see someone else get the chance who is an equal with Michigan (as equal as teams can be) than see michigan get a second shot.
November 19th, 2006 at 6:10:15 pm
Michigan HAS won out, Patch. That was their last game.
November 19th, 2006 at 6:20:00 pm
Patrick…First Michigan has already completed its regular season, so there are no more games for them to “win out.” Certainly if the ONLY criteria were which team had the worst loss, then Michigan would presumably win the right to go to the NC game over USC. And frankly, that is certainly one way to decide. However, it is not the only way…and it is not the system that has been developed (like it or not) for choosing who goes to the game. Most importantly the system also recognizes the values of wins…not just losses. Looking at the Colley system for example, they now have USC over Michigan because while USC gets punished more for losing to Oregon State, that loss is outweighed by the USC WINS over more high quality opponents (as measured by Colley) than Michigan has…and the margin will only increase IF USC wins its next two games.
You may disagree with the Colley analysis, but it is Colley’s system (and the other computers) that make the determination not you.
I think, though that if any other team wins out but not USC…i.e ND, Florida or Arkansas, the overall quality of their wins will NOT get them into the Championship game, particularly since Michigan is above all those teams in the human polls too. tOSU will have either Michigan or USC as its opponent in January.
November 19th, 2006 at 6:24:16 pm
David…while if USC loses, I too might prefer to see Arkansas or Florida rather than Michigan…I doubt that will happen given the state of the computers and the human polls at this point.
November 19th, 2006 at 7:00:38 pm
Ken, agreed, i don’t think its as likely to happen, just that it would be my preference.
November 19th, 2006 at 7:25:59 pm
Patrick, I won’t speculate about your motives as David did… I don’t know whether it’s your “bias” talking, or something else… but your comment is very disappointing. It reads like something that you fired off with very little thought, without even reading or fully considering the post that you were commenting on. Nothing frustrates me more than comments that make a point that’s already been made and rebutted, without addressing the rebuttals and without acknowledging that the point has already been made. Your argument is “Michigan deserves it more than USC because they have a better loss.” That’s a fair point, but I already discussed that argument in detail and also outlined the counterargument in detail. Why did you bother to re-raise the point if you weren’t even going to mention my treatment of it, including especially the counterargument? And, as David said, it’s especially galling that you say Michigan is “clearly” more deserving, thus dismissing the counterarguments out of hand — without even acknowledging that they exist!
On a related note, you know what else is disappointing? The fact that Notre Dame is a close second to USC in the voting on my poll. I realize this is the Irish Trojan’s blog, and thus I have a lot of Notre Dame readers (as well as USC readers), but I wish people were more able to separate their biases from the facts. How does anyone justify saying that Notre Dame deserves to be ranked ahead of Michigan if they win out, but Florida and Arkansas don’t? Objectively, it seems to me that, thanks to its lopsided home loss to Michigan, Notre Dame is obviously the LEAST deserving team on this list, outside of Boise State anyway. If someone is dead set against a rematch, believing that Michigan simply doesn’t deserve a second shot because “they’ve already had their chance,” then it makes perfect sense to vote for USC, Notre Dame, Florida AND Arkansas. But I just can’t see an argument for voting for just Notre Dame, or just ND and USC.
Anyway… in terms of whether Florida or Arkansas gets in ahead of Michigan… while I don’t doubt the analyses posted above are accurate “given the state of the computers and the human polls at this point,” I think those last three words — “at this point” — are crucial. Florida and Arkansas both have two games left, and the pollsters have two weeks to reconsider their opinions. If USC loses to Notre Dame next week, Florida will rise to #3 in the polls and Arkansas will be either #4 or #5, and ALL EYES will be on the SEC title game, which would then be the only game with potential title implications the following week. If the winner of that game wins impressively, I think it’s entirely possible that a whole lot of voters will decide, “You know what, I don’t want to see a rematch. I want to see that team play Ohio State.” Now, the computers will presumably continue to rank Michigan ahead of any SEC team, so they’ll need a decent margin in the polls, which probably won’t happen. But I think it’s at least possible, once the psychology of the poll voters is taken into account.
Point being, unless Notre Dame beats USC, Florida State beats Florida and LSU beats Arkansas next week, this debate is far from over.
November 20th, 2006 at 2:22:24 am
“Notre Dame has no business even entering the discussion at this point.”
ND has one win over a top 25 team..
Michigan and Ohio State are by far the best two teams in the country. If they are in seperate bowls, they will hammer whoever they play.
November 20th, 2006 at 4:10:48 am
Sly:
I say you’re wrong. If USC goes to the BCS game, I say they have at least a 40% chance of beating Ohio State, especially since they will have a chance to let some of their numerous injuries heal up. This would then leave the prospect of Cal playing Michigan in the Rose Bowl. Cal can definitely beat Michigan, I’d call it no worse than 50-50.
If USC ends up in the Rose Bowl against Michigan, I’d say they would have to be the favorite.
November 20th, 2006 at 4:40:13 am
*sigh*
Cal is NOT going to play in the Rose Bowl. As much as I’d love to see a Big-10/Pac-10 Rose Bowl its not going to happen. There are 10 teams who will qualify for BCS Bowls. Many of the conference champions have tie ins to certain bowls. When any of those bowls loses their automatic team to the national championship game, then that bowl gets first choice of the remaining teams. If USC wins out, it goes to the national championship game against Ohio State. The Rose Bowl then gets to make the next two choices of the teams that don’t have Bowl tie ins. ACC champ goes to the Orange Bowl, Big 12 champ goes to the Fiesta Bowl, and the SEC champ goes to the Sugar Bowl. The Big East champ and the four at large teams then get chosen in order with the rose bowl picking the first two, and the other three bowls choosing from the remaining.
So who are the 4 at large teams at this point? Michigan, Boise State, Notre Dame, and someone. In order for the Rose Bowl to be a Cal-Michigan game, Cal in the next two-three weeks of the Season would have to move up to at minimum number 14 in the BCS standings to be eligible and that is still no gaurentee of a pic. Given that they are going up against Stanford in their final game, even a big win will likely not be impressive enough at this point to earn them consideration. Just not going to happen.
November 20th, 2006 at 6:20:41 am
Michigan and Ohio State are by far the best two teams in the country. If they are in seperate bowls, they will hammer whoever they play.
*sigh*
I (again) quote Rakes of Mallow:
Michigan’s accomplishments? Crushing Notre Dame at ND, beating Wisconsin at the Big House, and losing a close one to Ohio State in Columbus (if a close loss can be called an “accomplishment”… and we ND fans certainly argue last year that it can, so I’ll grant it).
Those are three pretty good accomplishments; they make up a pretty good resume. But every other one-loss team has some pretty good accomplishments too, so to clailm that Michigan is “by far” more deserving is nonsense.
Of course, you didn’t say they’re “more deserving,” you said they’re “better,” which is, as I’ve already explained in detail — and no one has bothered to rebut (it seems this is becoming a theme) — not really relevant. It’s not about who’s “better,” it’s about who’s “more deserving.” As I said, if it were about who’s “better,” Carson Palmer’s two-loss Trojans, widely acknowledged by pundits as being the “best” team by the end of the season, would have played for the title in 2002-03 against Miami, instead of the undefeated Hurricanes playing undefeated Ohio State. Er, except OSU actually beat Miami in the actual title game, so maybe Miami wasn’t really “better” than OSU like everyone thought. Yet another reason why we don’t pick teams for the title game on the basis of subjective judgments of who’s “better.”
Debate the teams’ accomplishments and resumes, or stay out of the debate. Because that’s what the debate is about, and if all you’ve got to offer is “so-and-so is BETTER because I said so,” you’re not contributing anything valuable.
November 20th, 2006 at 6:48:45 am
For you fans that voted ND you should have your voter rights for real elections revoked….ND will be crushed in any bowl game against these top 5 opponents. mark it
November 20th, 2006 at 4:27:03 pm
Nebraska, you’re a moron. Did you read the thread in which speaking about CFB in absolute terms was explained to be ridiculously stupid? Remember Herbstreit saying that Arizona had a “zero percent chanve of winning” two weeks ago? How big of a spread did KState overcome by beating UT? Did you notice that Cincinatti handed the Scarlet Knights their ass plates?
Dont count the Irish out. ND wasnt supposed to give USC a game last year, but the result was the greatest game ever and the poodle couting his blessings.