The new polls and BCS rankings are out, and USC is just ahead of Notre Dame — by a measly 19 points in the coaches poll, 22 points in the AP poll (with Cal in between them), 24 points in the Harris poll, and .009 points in the BCS. That’s just what I predicted yesterday at CJ’s, when I said the Trojans would finish barely ahead of the Irish in an extremely close USC-ND-Cal trio. But then I got pessimistic and ended up guessing on the blog that the Trojans would be at the bottom of that trio, ranked #11. I should have stuck by my guns. Oh, well.
Anyway, the Trojans are #9 in the polls and #8 in the BCS. The Irish are #11 in the AP poll, #10 in the coaches and Harris polls, and #9 in the BCS. (The higher BCS rankings are because the computers love USC and ND, and don’t much care for Tennessee, ranked #8 in all the polls.) Of course, it’s all really immaterial anyway, and frankly not worth arguing about, since USC plays both Cal and Notre Dame next month. If anyone has a beef, it’s teams like Rutgers and Arkansas, who arguably have more impressive resumes than either the Trojans or the Irish, yet are ranked behind both of ‘em. (Granted, Arkansas lost at home to USC, so that makes their argument a bit problematic — but at the same time, it’s abundantly clear that they’re a very different team now.)
It will be very interesting to see how this all plays out, especially if either USC or ND win out. If Rutgers goes undefeated, beating both West Virginia and Louisville, I don’t think I’ll be able to root in good conscience for either the Trojans or the Irish to finish ahead of them in BCS. Frankly, that would be an injustice, especially given how well the Big East has performed in out-of-conference competition this season. We might all subjectively suspect that an undefeated Rutgers team would have less of a chance than a one-loss SEC team, or USC or ND, would of hanging with Ohio State or Michigan — but that doesn’t mean they don’t deserve a chance to prove us wrong. (We were wrong about Ohio State’s chances against Miami in ‘02, weren’t we? And about Oklahoma’s chances against USC in ‘04? And about West Virginia’s chances against Georgia last year? College-football conventional wisdom is often wrong. Hell, at least 75% of what I write in this post will probably look completely idiotic a month from now, much like my Sept. 24 guarantee of a USC win over Notre Dame — “Fact is, USC is good… very good” — presently looks rather foolish.)
On a related note, let’s all just stop for a moment, take a deep breath, and marvel at the fact that we’re talking about the proper relative BCS rankings of USC and… Rutgers. Heh.
Anyway, getting back to yesterday’s game debacle against Oregon State, via Conquest Chronicles comes this picture from the L.A. Times of the Trojans looking shell-shocked in Corvallis:
And, from the Oregonian, a great picture of two OSU players celebrating:
Bah. Humbug.
My brother-in-law Casey, insightful as always, says: “The typical game plan of smoking weed for the first 3 quarters and then having a cup of coffee at the start of the 4th finally seemed to flounder.” Heh. He adds: “Watching USC this year, you knew this would happen. We’re just not that good of a team. Still, I expected losses to Cal or Notre Dame; not to Oregon State. They’re not even the best football team in Oregon.”
The Times’s J.A. Adande sounds a similar theme, saying the Trojans were unmasked:
It’s probably better that it ended this way, on a tipped two-point conversion pass with seven seconds remaining. There was no valid reason to extend this game into overtime, just as there was no reason to continue the charade that USC is one of the top teams in the country.
The Trojans did not play well enough to win at Oregon State on Saturday. Truthfully, they haven’t played well enough this season to be included in the national championship spotlight.
As long as they kept winning and the computers kept loving their numbers, the Trojans held an inside lane in the race to the Bowl Championship Series title game. To anyone watching carefully, however, the Trojans’ No. 3 ranking looked phony, like a big studio movie topping the weekend box office numbers when it opened against a couple of artsy independent films.
Even the final score of Oregon State’s 33-31 victory was deceptive, masking how badly USC was outplayed for three-fourths of the game.
Yes, the Trojans showed heart in fighting back from a 23-point deficit to make it a one-play game, and quarterback John David Booty showed moxie in leading USC to a touchdown in the final minute. But that doesn’t mask the soft coverages, weak pass rush and four turnovers that gave Oregon State a 33-10 lead in the first place.
And it doesn’t show just how fortunate the Trojans were  thanks to a blocked field goal here, a bungled play there  that the Beavers didn’t blow them out in the first half.
“I love the comeback and all that kind of stuff,” USC Coach Pete Carroll said. “Right now we aren’t patting ourselves on the back about that.”
It’s a time for self-flagellation, not adulation. It’s time for the players to wonder why they aren’t performing at their peak, time for the coaches to ask themselves why they’re not reaching this group and getting improved results.
“We’ve been working our butts off trying to get where we’re at,” USC linebacker Rey Maualuga said. “Come game time, people are, I don’t want to say underestimating our opponent, but we’re just not playing to where we’re supposed to be playing at. People are not playing to the best of their ability. Toward the end, you saw us get deep down and [come] back. I guess we waited until something happened in order to strike back.
“We’re not at the best yet. After this loss, hopefully everyone will realize that.”
Hopefully, indeed. I do think there is some reason to hope things will change after this loss, particularly given the way the offense played in mounting their late comeback — notwithstanding that it’s pathetic we needed a comeback against Oregon State in the first place. That’s a given. But as I wrote earlier, during that comeback the Trojans looked better than they have pretty much all season, like they were finally “clicking.” In comments on that thread, Becky wrote:
I think that the OSU game may serve as a benchmark in USC’s season, an ugly crucible that served to catalyze the offense. From the depths of a dark, hideous loss to a less-than-stellar opponent, I think the thunderous rumblings of true champions were sounding beneath the surface of this offense. I have more hope for the rest of the season now than I did before they lost.
I don’t know if I’m quite as optimistic as Becky is, but I do think it’s possible this loss will end up galvanizing the Trojans to a better finish than most people are currently imagining. Adande’s column represents the conventional widsom among the college-football punditry: that USC was overrated all along, and now they’ve finally been unmasked as a team with no business thinking about a national championship. This is leading to comments like “They could easily end up with 4 losses” and “I wouldn’t be surprised at a 1 and 5 remainder of the season for SC.” This gives Pete Carroll a rare opportunity to use every coach’s favorite motivational gimmick, the “nobody respects us” meme, to get his players back on track, really working their asses off and focusing on each game like it’s for the national championship.
The best thing going for USC in this regard is that they’ve got Stanford up next. The godawful Cardinal are the ideal whipping boys for a good team coming off a terrible loss. If the Trojans had escaped Corvallis with a win, a lackluster performance against Stanford — obviously not a loss, but an umimpressive win along the lines of Notre Dame’s — might have been expected. But now, if these Trojans have a whiff of pride, I fully expect them to come out and hang 50 on Stanford by the end of the third quarter, while holding the Cardinal to 10 points or less (not counting garbage time). And if they can put on a performance like that, it should give them some confidence heading into the brutal home stretch against Oregon, Cal, Notre Dame and UCLA.
The bottom line is this: if this team plays the way it did in the first 40 minutes against Oregon State, they’ll finish the regular season 9-3 or 8-4 or even 7-5. But if they play like they did in the last 20 minutes, they’ll surprise everybody and finish 11-1, earning at least a Rose Bowl bid, and perhaps even a trip to Glendale. It all depends on how this team responds emotionally to the loss. Will they respond like Spartans, or like champions? We haven’t seen these Trojans go through the crucible of true adversity yet; now we will. Let’s see what happens.
October 29th, 2006 at 10:32:03 pm
Brendan, Can you explain to me in detail how Notre Dame can be ranked behind Southern Cal when Notre Dame lost to the second ranked team in the country and SC lost to a average Oregon State team??? I know Michigan was not ranked #2 at the time but they are clearly the only team in the country that has a chance to beat Ohio State. Michigan defense is suffocating to say the least and can easily shut down Troy Smith and the Buckeyes. I completely disagree that SC should be ranked higher than the Irish.
October 29th, 2006 at 10:42:26 pm
Randy, I didn’t say anything in this post about who “should” be ranked higher or lower. I was talking only about predictions, not normative judgments.
I did, however, address the “should” issue an earlier post:
I added that I would probably rank USC higher “by a whisker,” but conceded, “admittedly that may be my bias talking.” Really, I think the two teams are roughly equivalent, pretty much tied, as the above analysis indicates. (And, hey, that’s what the rankings indicate, too. USC’s margin over Notre Dame in all of the polls is very, very small. And Notre Dame leads in the computers, barely.)
You’re focusing on only one part of the picture when you talk about losing to Michigan vs. losing to Oregon State. The flip side is, the Michigan loss was a humiliating blowout at home; the Oregon State loss was a close game in a hostile environment. I think those factors roughly balance out the “which opponent is better” factor, but I think reasonable people can disagree on that point. (I’d better, since my wife disagrees with me!)
So basically, if you think Notre Dame should be ranked higher than USC, I think that’s perfectly reasonable. If you “completely disagree” with USC’s higher ranking to the point that you’re convinced that everyone should obviously, self-evidently agree with you, and anyone who argues otherwise is an idiot, I think you’re deluding yourself. It’s a close question about which reasonable people can disagree. Neither team has looked impressive this season, and if anything, I think the debate should be about whether both should be ranked lower.
Let me ask you a question, though: Why do you care? Notre Dame and USC play each other on November 25. If they both win out until that game, I assure you the winner of the game will be ranked higher than the loser. Which team is ranked higher now matters about as much as which team is ranked higher between Ohio State and Michigan, or between Louisville and West Virginia. It’s a pointless exercise to argue about this. Unlike many college-football arguments, this one will be settled on the field.
October 29th, 2006 at 11:01:46 pm
Brendan, I really could care less because you know as well as I do the rankings are basically pointless unless you get the job done on the field. This is exactly what is going to happen in a few weeks. You are completely correct in pretty much everything you said. It’s just annoying for an Irish fan (such as yourself) to see the Irish get little respect because of the ND name. Rankings are meaningless and the BCS is not a great indicator of who should be where they are. You know as well as I do that a playoff structure of some kind is the best solution to the who is best and worst of college football. Every college football division in America uses a tournament format. Except D-I. Even the NAIA uses a ranking system and from that has an end of the year tournament where a national champion is decided. I know it will never come to that in D-I but I think that schools such as Rutgers, Boise St, and schools from the mid-major conferences will never have a true shot at playing in the National Championship game. Too much money is at stake for the big schools and major conferences. Basically, I wasn’t attacking SC I was just saying that any of the rankings are not really a plausible indicator of who should be #1. It is however all that we have.
October 30th, 2006 at 12:56:12 am
Here’s hoping the Trojans respond half as well as Cal has to their loss…
October 30th, 2006 at 12:59:01 am
Fair enough, Randy. I certainly agree that a playoff is the only fair way to determine a champion, especially for schools like Boise and Rutgers, as you say. I only have one beef with your comment: although I am indeed an Irish fan (except for one game a year), I don’t agree that “the Irish get little respect because of the ND name.” On the contrary, I believe the Irish often get extra respect because of the ND name. However, this in turn produces a hefty backlash, and thus, there are some pundits (cough cough, Mark May) who go too far in the other direction and give the Irish too little respect. The same goes for a certain segment of the fan base that just hates the Irish no matter what. Basically, whereas your average team might get a range of anywhere between 90% and 110% of the respect they actually deserve, Notre Dame’s range is more like 50% to 150% — if that makes any sense. It’s a bias and a counterbias, and both are problematic.
Plus, because Notre Dame is the most scrutinized team in college football, their highs are higher and their lows are lower. When a normal team looks good, the reaction is, “Wow, they looked good.” When Notre Dame looks good, the reaction is “OMG OMG CHARLIE WEIS IS A GENIUS, WAKE UP THE ECHOES, SHAKE DOWN THE THUNDER, THEY’RE GOING TO WIN THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP!!!” When a normal team looks bad, the reaction is, “Wow, they looked bad.” When Notre Dame looks bad, the reaction is, “OMG OMG I CAN’T BELIEVE WE DRANK THE KOOL-AID AGAIN, CHARLIE WEIS SUCKS, NOTRE DAME’S GLORY DAYS ARE OVER, THEY’LL NEVER WIN AGAIN!!!” It goes both ways.
October 30th, 2006 at 1:43:56 am
Haha, outstanding Brendan.
October 30th, 2006 at 2:28:51 am
On that note, you might consider linking to the 60 Minutes piece on Weis that was on this evening. A very good piece, although I must admit it is a little unnerving seeing our coach telling one of his assistants to “get the f*** off the field.”
http://60minutes.yahoo.com/segment/13/charlie_weis
Clear about a half hour from your schedule to watch these. Happy Birthday! Oh, and don’t forget my hat tip.
October 30th, 2006 at 10:45:02 pm
It’s important to realize a few things about this game:
1. Oregon State is not that bad of a team. Their defense is solid, and when Matt Moore isn’t throwing INTs, he’s a very good senior QB. Their losses came in a tough battle with Cal, Boise State early in the season, and Washington State (which just pasted that same ‘ruin team in LA that Notre Dame struggled with in South Bend). WSU’s losses are to USC, Auburn, and Cal. Given that Oregon must play at Oregon State and that it’s a rivalry game, it’s far too early to call that game a win for Oregon. The remainder of Oregon State’s schedule is very winnable, with games against Stanford, ASU, fUTLA, Oregon, and Hawaii. 9-3 or 8-4 is not out of the question.
2. USC’s turnover margin this game was -4, and they gave up a punt return TD, and they threw an endzone INT that was inches away from being a Trojan TD… and they ended up losing by a margin of a two-point conversion. If we have a single game from here on out where our turnover margin is -1 or worse, I will be shocked. Simply put, -4 is an extreme aberration for the Trojans, and the last time we had anything like that kind of turnoveritis was against Cal in 2003 (which led to the same result: a nailbiting close road loss).
3. This game was a textbook example of how hostile crowds can be great equalizers. OSU’s stadium is not particularly large, although it’s grown quite a bit since Mike Riley was last coaching there in the mid-1990s. But it is a fairly loud stadium (louder than the Rose Bowl or LA Coliseum, for example), and OSU fans are among the most obnoxious in the Pac-10. Finally, consider the underappreciated swings of emotion and momentum in any game involving student athletes, swings which can be heavily exacerbated by a raucous home crowd. If you don’t think hostile crowds matter, just ask Texas, which nearly crumbled at Nebraska and Texas Tech; or Clemson, which clearly couldn’t handle an amped Hokies crowd in Blacksburg. As for USC, their remaining road games are @ Stanford (hardly something to worry about) and @ fUTLA in the Rose Bowl, where 40% to 50% of the fans will be cheering for USC. Cal, Oregon, and Notre Dame will not have the luxury of a 12th man helping keep USC’s momentum in check and/or reversing it against the Trojans.
All that said, this USC defense and special teams need to play with more fire. A good defense does not let Matt Moore march up and down the field almost at will with no Yvenson Bernard to hand the ball to. USC’s offense finally found its rhythm, albeit too late, and its four turnovers are the main culprit for the loss, but from here on out, I have far more confidence in the Trojans’ offense as a result of their inspiring and dominating 4th quarter effort than I do in the very young, tentative defense.
Whether Notre Dame is ranked higher or lower than USC at this point doesn’t matter to me. USC will have five games in which to shove itself back into the national spotlight, and if we finally start playing to our potential, only an undefeated Big East team will likely keep us from sniffing the two spot again. Fact is, I think the computers will like us more than a one-loss Texas, Auburn, Tennessee, or Florida, but we’ll need some help from the Big East teams losing to each other (most likely: WVU loses to Louisville, which loses to Rutgers, which loses to WVU). Also, we need Arkansas to beat Tennessee, South Carolina, lose to LSU, but then beat Florida in the SEC championship game (alternatively, we need Florida State to upset Florida). A one-loss Tennessee or Florida team might probably get the two spot ahead of a one-loss Trojan team, but not Auburn (**cough**Buffalo**cough**ArkansasState**cough**Tulane**cough**) if they get left out of the SEC title game, or Arkansas. A one-loss Michigan or Ohio State might also be tough to leap-frog.
Okay, so the odds are too far-fetched, but we’re not totally down for the count, and anyone who predicts this stumble at Corvallis means we’re no longer a national championship-caliber team simply doesn’t know college football.
October 31st, 2006 at 1:33:34 pm
Notre Dame can be ranked behind USC because USC has beat 3 ranked teams and Notre Dame has beat none. USC lost on the last play of the game by 2 points on the road and Notre Dame lost by about 30 at home.
October 31st, 2006 at 7:26:52 pm
I am not a game, I am not a world, I am WOW
game
October 31st, 2006 at 9:31:29 pm
Sandy Vagina, Georgia Tech is ranked. Furthermore, I notice you forgot to mention that Notre Dame lost to the #2 team in the country and USC lost to an unranked team. But I don’t want to address the merits of this because it will work itself out in the head-to-head matchup, I just wanted to point out your errors and omissions.
November 1st, 2006 at 2:08:47 am
Yes it will work itself out, but Georgia Tech is one team and Arkansas, Nebraska and Washington St. are three teams. Yes Michigan is the #2 team and they absolutely humiliated Notre Dame with a 30 point blow out at home and Oregon St. is an unranked team that USC lost to on the last play of the game by 2 points on the road. Now that you have all the facts, is there a reason Notre Dame should be ranked ahead of USC?
Maybe because Charlie Weis is the leading candidate for arrogant ass of the year award after his performance on 60 minutes sunday night. Imagine if Notre Dame ever beats a team that doesn’t suck…. or wins a bowl game. That guy will make watching college football unbearable.