Dispatches: Talking Football With SMQ

by Peter Bean on Nov 27, 2006 6:59 PM CST in Football Comment 7 comments

The following is the first in what will be a series of back-and-forth dispatches between the venerable Sunday Morning Quarterback and I. The dispatches will be a running conversation that you're encouraged to participate in. Your comments, to be read diligently by each of us, promise to be an integral part of the conversation.

Let's just skip the coddled eggs tipped with black-truffle purée and the shrimp ceviche with carrot, orange and fennel that we were going to sit down for and get right into it, SMQ.

Here's what I want to start with: Michigan v. Florida v. USC. First, how should this properly be sorted out? The obvious answer is, "Duh, playoff!", but let's remain within the confines of the current system. How should a voter evaluate these teams against one another?

Second, why did all these voters who had Rematch Fever (Michigan-Ohio State strain) a week ago switch to USC all of the sudden? The Trojans re-exposed Notre Dame in Los Angeles, but that's the thing - they just did what Michigan did... in South Bend.

I'm not personally for a rematch, but if you were for one a week ago, it's hard to imagine why USC's game Saturday night would suddenly dissuade you. What's going on here?

--PB--

0 recs | Comment 7 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

next week

if nebraska and arkansas win, usc goes in a no-brainer.

probably won't, though, so you'll have to think of another way to sort it out.

by Vice President Coco on Nov 27, 2006 7:12 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

michigan has a less impressive resume

Assuming USC beats UCLA, USC has had the more impressive season:

USC is the conference champion; Michigan is not
USC crushed ND, as did UM: the difference is that it is UM's best win
USC thrashed teams in the SEC and Big 12 championship
USC had the more difficult schedule.

USC may not beat UM should they play, but USC has the better resume.

by Allaha on Nov 27, 2006 9:40 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

agreed...in part

USC does have a better resume than Michigan. fine.

but USC is essentially being awarded for losing early in the year. Say USC was undefeated right now. They're clearly no. 2 and have been for a while in this hypothetical.

but then USC is upset by UCLA and the late-season loss would move them from the title game, and likely place the 3rd-place team -- probably michigan -- in the championship game.

i could be wrong on this, but i think that usc losing when it did, albeit to an average team, is going to be the difference in all of this.

Zach
The Dish

by zachls5 on Nov 27, 2006 10:07 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

it goes both ways

For EXAMPLE, Texas was in line to play Ohio State for the championship while USC still had one loss. And assuming both win out, USC would have had the better resume. However, because Texas lost to OSU the second week of the season and USC lost on Halloween weekend, Texas would have likely had the nod over USC. Every d-1 school knows losing early on is better than losing late. Why do you think Texas scheduled the OSU game the 2nd week in September? Again, just an example (Texas is FAR from BCS discussion)

Don't say that an early loss is the only reason USC is going to the title game. USC is being rewarded for playing good football, having a tough non-conference schedule,winning big games, and everyone knows winning national championships requires a little luck along the way. But RESPECT the fact that SC is a powerhouse and knows that the quality of the Pac-10 can't be controlled, but OOC games can. Like my friend said the other night, "The only thing bigger than Charlie Weis is Pete Carrol's balls" Big Balls Pete, remember the name.

by joey on Nov 28, 2006 12:04 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm pretty sure we scheduled tOSU early...

because we had conference games to play later in the season. It would've worked out well for us, but I wouldn't say that's why it was scheduled that way. the OU game, on the other hand, is definitely well-scheduled.

by aorist9 on Nov 28, 2006 12:07 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

both are good arguments

I think Joey's comments are correct.

However, Zach raises a good point: it is illegitimate to disproportionately punish late season losses. My view is that in the hypothetical where an undefeated USC loses in its last game to UCLA (meaning their loss is worse than UM's to tOSU) but has the more impressive resume, USC should nonetheless get the MNC bid. . . . Whether it would have worked out this way, of course is questionable. . . . Let's hope for a playoff, in which case the debate would be over seeding rather than who deserves the two slots -- particularly in years such as this one where there may be three roughly equal one loss teams.

by Allaha on Nov 28, 2006 12:14 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

don't forget though...

UM was ranked STILL #2 in the AP poll after their late-season loss to Ohio State, and was basically tied with USC in the Coaches and Harris polls after that week.

I tend to think that, in this case, voters didn't penalize UM for the fact that its loss was so late in the season compared to USC's. They were looking at some combination of three things: 1) best win, 2) best/worst loss, and 3) overall schedule strength.

I think that voters often get in the habit of looking only at the first 2 and thus sometimes overrate a team that plays only one good team per year and loses to them. And I think that's what happened to Michigan this year. Played Ohio State, and lost by 3 points (though the game was dominated by tOSU), and then beat the crap out of a decent Notre Dame team. That's about it.

USC's loss is not as good as UM's (though Oregon State isn't terrible - texas is a terrance nunn fumble away from having the same record as them). and they also destroyed ND (albeit at home rather than in South Bend). So it might look to some voters like UM has the better resume, but you HAVE to look at the entire schedule.

I'm willing to write off games against the Northwesterns of the world as long as they're wins. Good teams sometimes are uninterested in playing their best against bad teams, and to a certain extent I'm okay with that as long as they win. But against good teams, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Cal, SC dominated. Michigan......played Wisconsin.

As much as it pains me to say, USC deserves the spot over UM.

by billyzane on Nov 28, 2006 8:03 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs