December 2, 2004
Convention Wisdom: Week 15
Week 15Date: 12/2/2004
| ||
| BCS CHAMPS EDITION | ||
| Michael Hickerson | USC | Unless they stumble next week over UCLA, the USC Trojans will win the national title. The methodically take apart teams and will take apart Oklahoma in the national title game. The only team out there that could challenge them is Auburn and the Tigers are going to miss their chance in the final polls. |
| Mike | OU | I think Oklahoma wins because their offensive line is big and strong enough to deal with any of the defenses they may have to face. Jason White and Mark Clayton would shred the USC secondary and Peterson could flatten Carlos Rogers from Auburn. |
| Kevin Donahue | OU | Oklahoma will win the BCS title. The Sooner defense continues to improve from its already impressive shutdown of Texas Tech and shutout of Texas. The OU offense is really clicking and present an exceptionally balanced attack. OU has great depth in the backfield, helping to ensure that they don't become one-dimensional with an unexpected RB injury. Oklahoma will be ready for anyone that comes their way. |
| Dave Frey | USC | USC will win the BCS title, because they will play Oklahoma and not Auburn. |
| Robert Knodell | USC | All three of the national title contenders have top-shelf NFL-quality talent in key positions, great coaching, and can show tremendous balance within their respective attacks. Southern Cal will emerge as the BCS champion. Why? The Trojans have gotten it done all season long with the #1 ranking and the bulls-eye on their chests. |
| Aaron | Auburn | Auburn will win the BCS trophy. When Auburn dominates a good Tennessee team in the SEC Championship, they will leap Oklahoma. USC may have speed and talent, but Auburn is battle-tested and will be able to handle everything they can bring, as well as able to score on them. |
| Ben Prather | USC | USC beats Auburn in the Orange Bowl. The season long #1 team will be motivated by the 7 point Auburn line and the disrepect of the media to prove that they are truely the top team in the nation. |
| Matt Shobe | USC | USC wins, no matter how big the stage or how well the Big 12 title game dress rehearsal goes for Oklahoma. They've got all the motivation you could ask for as a wire-to-wire #1 and the talent they need to back it up. Oklahoma is probably deeper, but starters vs. starters, this one goes to USC. |
| Pete Holiday | OU | In what will prove to be one of the best National Title games in recent memory, Oklahoma will take home the BCS Title. They’ve been a bit of a high-profile sleeper all season, just waiting to be unleashed on a National Champion caliber team. |
Fanblogs' Conventional Wisdom column is the opinion of the author and not necessarily those of Newsweek or MSNBC. The content of this page has not been reviewed or approved by Newsweek or MSNBC and the author is solely responsible for its content.
Comments:
posted on December 3, 2004 12:47 PM — 209.16.242.81 — link — abuse?Pete Holiday said:
Valid point, though I will disagree that Auburn has been disrespected by anyone. 70+ teams play more difficult schedules than they do -- they've earned their top 5 spot, but they're not playing the same kind of competition as the OU's, the Cal's, and the USC's...
Some of that can be attributed to the amount of Beating up on itself that the SEC does, but Auburn's non-conference games have been absurd for a team looking for a national title.
Brett said:
posted on December 24, 2004 9:39 AM — 24.236.96.169 — link — abuse?
Pete, you obviously haven't looked at Auburn's schedulue or considered the level of competition in the SEC. If USC or Oklahoma had played Auburn's shchedule, they'd both be 9-2 or 8-3 and the Orange Bowl would be WAY out of their picture. As it stands, Auburn almost singlehandedly shaped the entire BCS Bowl picture, because Georgia, Tennessee, and LSU would ALL have records worthy of a BCS Bowl if Auburn hadn't knocked them all off. I watched Oklahoma and Auburn play all year, and Auburn would beat Oklahoma by three touchdowns if they played each other. USC could beat Auburn if and only if USC had a very good day. Auburn played three legitimate top 5 contenders this year and beat them all badly, and beat one of them TWICE. Please name ONE of the 70+ teams you mentioned that can say that.
posted on December 24, 2004 11:14 AM — link — abuse?
Yeah, Pete. Do you even know what the SEC is?
posted on December 24, 2004 1:30 PM — 68.62.114.241 — link — abuse?
What does the Securities and Exchange Commission have to do with Auburn?
But seriously...
Brett: Please. Tennessee was probably the most over-rated team in college football this year. I have no idea WHY they got the respect that they did, but they had no business being anywhere near the top 10. They were most certainly not a "top 5 contender".
Auburn's defense was highly suspect this year and I'm not sure who you think Auburn played that could compete with Cal, but they're just not out there.
Also, you might be interested to have a look at Jeff Saragin's rankings. Here's a sneak preview:
Auburn's Schedule: 61st in the nation. 0 games against the top 10, only 4 against the top 30.
USC's Schedule: 10th in the nation. 2 games against the top 10, 5 against the top 30.
OU's Schedule: 24th in the nation. 1 game against the top 10, 4 against the top 30.
Also have a look at those "Elo Chess" and "Predictor" ratings... for the three teams. Bottom line: Auburn's the third best team in the nation this year.
You might want to just take what you can get until you've caught up to Georgia Tech's number of SEC Championships or BYU's national championships.Brett said:
posted on December 26, 2004 3:56 PM — 24.236.96.169 — link — abuse?
Pete. Pete, Pete, Pete, Pete---Tennessee wasn't overrated this year, they were just UNLUCKY to have to play the best team in the nation TWICE. If Auburn wasn't in the fray, Tennessee would be a one-loss team. You should also pay some attention to the 10+ key players Tennessee had out with injuries the last half of the regular season before you judge them too harshly.
Instead of using Saragan's rankings as a litmus test, how about using some common sense as follows: If USC or Oklahoma were to play Auburn's schedule, would they still be undefeated, and if Auburn had played either of their schedules would Auburn still be undefeated? When you take USC and Oklahoma's close margin of victory against several of their non-top 20 oppponents and compare them to Auburn's large margains of victory in runaway contests in which they actually TOOK IT EASY at the end of the game against top ten opponents like GA and TN, there is no question that Auburn could have cut through USC or Oklahoma's schedule like a hot knife through butter, while Oklohoma or USC woould have been beaten AT LEAST twice if they had played Auburn, LSU, Tennessee and Georgia---in fact, after the way Oklahoma choked in their league championship game AND their national championship game last year, I'm not sure they wouldn't have lost to ALL FOUR of those teams this year. It is plainly Oklahoma, not Tennessee, that is the most overrated team in the country. And I'd LOVE to see Auburn play the teams that played Oklahoma close games!! Could you IMAGAINE how bad Auburn would have crushed Texas Tech, A&M, Texas, Kansas State or Oklahoma State?!!!
You obviously know college football Pete, so put your loyalties aside for a moment and admit the fact that if a team makes it through an SEC season undefeated, that team IS the national champion no matter what the polls say. If Oklahoma or USC played Auburn's level of competition, they would not be undefeated and they would not be playing in the Orange Bowl---that fact is simply undeniable. Plus we've seen what Oklahoma can do when given a chance to play for the top spot. They had their chance to prove they could beat an SEC team LAST YEAR and they BLEW IT. Why give them another chance to stink it up in the big show?
posted on December 26, 2004 4:15 PM — 68.62.114.241 — link — abuse?
A few points...
1. You're suggesting that we ignore a VERY accurate statistical measure and go with speculation? Isn't that why Auburn's on the outside looking in? Because they didn't have a chance to earn it on the field thanks to their weak schedule, so people speculated that they're only #3? You know, as opposed to doing something like a playoff? I take statistically accurate measures over a fan's speculation any day of the week.
2. You'd like to believe that UT wasn't overrated, but they were. That's the bottom line. Saragin places them currently at 21st. Their only impressive win of the season was against Georgia, and UGA looked flat from kick-off until the final whistle. Their other games included a 4-point win over 'Bama... at home. A 4-point loss to a struggling Notre Dame squad... at home. A 5-point win at Vandy. And a 6-point win against Kentucky... at home. Tennessee, though you might want to believe otherwise, is not a top 10 football team, and not once this season played like a top 10 footbal team.
3. Auburn should've lost to LSU -- had the call gone the right way, Auburn would be sitting with one loss right now. Neither USC or OU have such an affliction on their schedule.
4. Cal. Auburn would've had a VERY tough time with Cal. They don't match up well, and if you played the game 50 times, I bet Cal would win it 20-25 of them.
5. Who on Auburn's schedule would've beaten OU? Who would've beaten USC? LSU and Georgia are the only plausible options, and both USC and OU have beaten teams this year who are playing better football than LSU and Georgia.
6. OU's performance last year is completely irrelevant. By your logic, we should just let LSU play USC... since those were the two teams that didn't "blow it" last year. Do I need to remind you of last year's Georgia Tech game? Or Ole Miss? Or Georgia? Let's keep the discussions firmly planted in THIS SEASON, since that's really the only thing that matters.
7. You keep talking about Auburn's "level of competition"... completely ignoring that only one team in the top 5 had a worse SOS... UTAH.
Auburn's a good team this year... no doubt about it, but they haven't proven that they're in the Top 2, and there's really not any evidence to suggest it.
So if someone in this discussion needs to check bias at the door, Brett... who should it be? The guy who's using numbers and statistics, or the guy who REALLY BELIEVES that his team is #1?
Thought so.
Brett said:
posted on December 26, 2004 6:14 PM — 24.236.96.169 — link — abuse?
I must say that I like your spunk, Pete. And it is a shame that Auburn won't have a chance to play USC or Oklahoma so that you can see just how wrong you are, but still, I admire your conviction. I'll answer your seven points one at at time:
1. The BCS standings that you describe as a VERY accurate statistical measure is so INACCUARATE that the best sports writers in the country recently decided they wanted no part of it. One reason for that is the fact that the new BCS computer polls do not take margin of victory or wins against top 10 teams into consideration. It is a flawed system and the flaws screwed Auburn. That is a fact that really can't be argued.
2. First of all, I am no TN fan---far from it. But once again I must insist that you have not looked at TN's injury situtation---that's what caused the close games against Vandy, Kentucky and the loss against Notre Dame---and a close game against Alabama is always expected---that's how strong the SEC is. SEC games cause injuries, because SEC games are so much tougher than the games played in other leagues. Once TN got healthy, they made a strong showing in the SEC championship against the best team in the country. They deserve a LOT of credit for the way they overcame adversity. How would Oklahoma have fared this season if their first string quarterback had been injured?
3. You must not have watched the Auburn/LSU game. The score was far from indicative of the way the game went. Auburn made it inside the LSU 35 yard line MUTIPLE times but didn't score due to penalties, turnovers and mishaps. Auburn should have won that game 34-9, but instead they played their WORST GAME of the season and were still good enough to beat a top five team and the defending National Champion. That game should therefore be a credit to Auburn, not a minus. And HOW in the WORLD can you say that USC and Oklahoma don't have "afflictions" as you called them on their schedules? Please consider these SERIOUS ailments against teams that were certainly not ranked #4 in the nation as LSU was when Auburn beat them:
USC 31 - STANFORD 28 (Stanford!!! PLEASE, Pete!)
USC 28 - Oregon State 20 (Oregon St. was WINNING at the half)
USC 29 - UCLA 24 (at least UCLA beat Stanford by three touchdowns!)
Oklahoma 28 - TX Tech 13
Oklahoma 31 - Kansas St. 21
Oklahoma 38 - OK State 35
Oklahoma 42 - TX A&M 35 (A&M ranked #23-no big deal!)How's that for AFFLICTIONS?!!!!
4. You and I AGREE Pete!! Cal would give Auburn a GREAT game. But Cal would BEAT USC or Oklahoma hands down if they played them right now. Auburn vs. Cal in the Orange Bowl would have been a very appropriate matchup.5. You have to give USC credit for the victories over Cal and Virginia Tech---but they were early in the season. I'm very anxious to see how bad Auburn beats Virgina Tech in the Sugar Bowl after the USC could only eek out a 24-13 victory when they played VT---Oklahoma on the other hand didn't play a single team that would have beaten Auburn, LSU, Georgia, or a healthy Tennessee team.
6. While it's hard to overlook the fact that Oklahoma choked and lost it's two most important games last year (which is the sign of a loser, NOT a champion), I'd be happy to look at THIS season. How many top ten teams did Oklahoma play this year? Auburn played THREE and beat them all convincingly, and beat one of them TWICE. Oklahoma struggled against A&M, Texas Tech, Texas, Kansas State AND Oklahoma State---WHAT a bunch of punks!
7. The problem with strength of schedule rating as it is currently calculated is it takes ALL games in a team's season to consideration, even the ones that didn't really count, instead of concentrating on wins against TOP 10 teams. Consider only wins against TOP 10 teams and Auburn's SOS is the BY FAR the highest in the nation.
The SEC has now unquestionably been the strongest conference in college football for over two decades. That's why teams like Miami and Florida State don't want to be in the SEC, because it's so tough to endure an SEC schedule and win a national championship. I am indeed biased toward Auburn because I haved watched Auburn and Oklahoma play all year, so I can confidently say that Oklahoma couldn't beat Auburn on their best day---the numbers and statistics you spoke of plainly show that, as does common sense.And once again, you and I agree on something, Pete---we agree on the fact that I REALLY BELEIVE that Auburn is number one---I'm not so sure you're really convinced who number one should be. And your arguments seem to be based on a review of some very misleading stats---If you'd watched Oklahoma and Auburn play all year, I am confident that your football insight would lead you to the same conclusion I have reached---Auburn would beat Oklahoma by three touchdowns---of course if that happened, Stoops would probably hold a press conference and WHINE like a baby about how a clandestine SEC/ESPN conspiracy cost him two national championships.
posted on December 26, 2004 6:43 PM — 68.62.114.241 — link — abuse?
When I finished laughing at your comment I thought that I ought to respond. Here goes.
1. I'm not talking about the BCS, I'm talking about Saragin. (Who happens to do stat rankings for a lot of major sports, and they're all quite good) Anyone can take shots at the BCS, but diverting attention from the point by talking about the BCS isn't going to work. Let's get back on topic, okay?
2. "Injuries, injuries!" BFD. It doesn't matter that they were injured for half of the season. It just doesn't. "If they hadn't been injured..." is a silly thing to base opinions about the real world on. "If Alabama hadn't been playing with a third-string backfield all season..." -- "If UT hadn't had a few starters out..." -- if if if. Fact is, that they didn't get the job done. Top 10 teams get the job done. UT doesn't have the record or the performance to make the claim that they're top ten, which is why they're not.
3. I did watch the game, actually. Woulda, shoulda, coulda... Auburn DIDN'T dominate LSU, and if the call at the end of the game had gone the correct way, Auburn would have a loss. Period. You can thank the officials for that one. Might want to cut them a check for the UT game while you're at it.
As for those games you held up as proof -- they were all won by the players on the field... not by officials. Also, Auburn only beat Alabama by 8 points... and 'Bama was winning at the half. See, it can even happen to the "best team in the nation"... that's how college football goes.
4. Auburn and Cal in the orange bowl would not be an appropriate matchup. Cal has a loss and Auburn has a bottom-half strength of schedule... and there are two teams with no losses and top-25 schedules. Cal would probably not have any better luck now against USC than they did that day. USC didn't really play all that well... it's not as though it took everything USC had to be a struggling Cal team.
5. "You have to give Auburn credit for their one-point win over LSU... but it was early in the season..." -- it was early in the season for BOTH TEAMS, Brett... both have gotten better.
6. Auburn played three teams who were in the top 10 when they played them... two of whom are currently not. OU and USC both have wins against CURRENT top 5 teams. The best Auburn can boast is Georgia's 7th. Auburn played (and beat) more ranked teams... but that's not really a choice that USC or OU have... their conferences did as much beating up on each other as the SEC did... but they did play more challenging out of conference schedules than Auburn did.
7. "If you only consider the hardest games, Auburn has a very hard schedule!" Yeah, no kidding. Of course, if you only consider the hardest game on the schedule, OU's and USC's are still better. You've gotta count them all for one very important reason:
The whole reason why good conferences like the Big 10, Big 12, and SEC create a lot of "upsets" in conference games is because the rigor of the schedule will wear teams down. When you play three cupcake games, it reduces that wear and tear... it has a cumulative effect throughout the whole season and that's why playing real opponents in those games that "don't matter" make the schedule more difficult.
Face it, Auburn got it done on the field, but the AD didn't give them a chance to play for the title because they had a cupcake out of conference schedule.
Yes, it sucks... yes, I'd prefer a play-off... but the bottom line is that Auburn hasn't earned a chance to play in the NC game, so they're not going to.
Brett said:
posted on December 26, 2004 7:13 PM — 24.236.96.169 — link — abuse?
At least you're unbiased enough to admit it sucks Pete. But while I don't want you and I to spend the entire weekend rebutting each other, I do want to point out the serious error in one of your last statements---The Auburn AD had NOTHING to do with costing Auburn the chance to play for the National Championship. At the last minute, Bowling Green cowered away from their scheduled matchup with Auburn forcing Auburn to scramble to find a replacement game---Temple was the only team they could find to fill the gap, which is what made the ever-so-slight difference in the BCS polls. Once again, it sucks, but it certainly wasn't Auburn's fault. Since the polls are currently in an uproar, I figure Auburn should just do what the University of Alabama used to do years ago---simply DECLARE themselves the National Champions!
posted on December 26, 2004 7:29 PM — link — abuse?
Brett - Auburn didn't play Temple. If they had, it might have improved their SOS. Instead, the AD (as Pete pointed out) torpedoed Auburn's strength of schedule in the computers by giving the Tigers games with "mighty, mighty" Louisiana-Monroe and "always tough" Citadel.
There is nothing -- nothing -- that Auburn can do to win the National Championship now. *NOW* is not the time to win a NC. The time to when one was a) during scheduling, and b) when they had national TV spotlights but didn't knock out LSU or (for that matter) Alabama.
posted on December 26, 2004 8:48 PM — link — abuse?
Brett,
A I-A pickup game with Temple is a lot different than going down to I-AA to play the Citadel in a game that couldn't count every year for bowl eligibility if they needed it.
posted on December 26, 2004 10:42 PM — 68.62.114.241 — link — abuse?
Of course it sucks, Brett -- I don't think AU is the best team in the nation... I don't think Utah is the best team in the nation... and I don't think that Louisville is the best team in the nation, but I'd love to see it decided on the field.
Right now AD's have the difficult task of trying to decide if they should schedule some cupcakes and guarantee a bowl berth or the tougher ones to make a run at the NC... and they have to do this years in advance. Auburn's AD guessed wrong. Last year was a disappointing year, and I'd guess that they were expecting Campbell to mature a little quicker than he did. Last year AU had the schedule to win the NC... but they didn't have the wins.
This year they have the wins but not the schedule.
Coincidence? (Yes, probably, but I couldn't help but take the cheap shot)
posted on December 26, 2004 11:39 PM — link — abuse?
If Auburn hadn't dropped Clemson they'd be playing for the National Championship.
Please note that all comments are subject to the Fanblogs Comment Policy.
Gaffney said:
posted on December 3, 2004 12:27 PM — 141.156.168.235 — link — abuse?With all due respect, how exactly can the team, which the media proclaimed as the best team in the nation before one minute of football was even played this season and which has, by virtue of this accolade, remained in the #1 slot for the entire season, be considered to have been 'disrespected' by the media? Because some have questioned their schedule strength? Because some have made arguments about other teams' cases for the top position?
USC at its lowest point this season had 41 of the 65 first place votes, at its height 56. Is it disrespectful that the entire media establishment has not come out and proclaimed, in unanimity, that USC is the number one team in the land, and that none should dare to question their supremacy? Part of the media's job is to look at teams' stengths and weaknesses, and to question the prevading beliefs about the current state of college football. All things considered, I would suggest that Oklahoma and Auburn each have far better claims to the title of 'disrespected team'.