Carolina March Hosts The College Football Playoffs

by PB @ BON on Dec 18, 2006 9:35 AM CST in Football Comment 11 comments

Carolina March is hosting a college football playoffs, since the real thing remains out of reach. Whether you agree with his particular version of the playoffs or not, the spirit's in the right place. I've been asked to help simulate the playoffs and drew (3) Southern California versus (6) Oklahoma for my first assignment. So, who wins?

(3) Southern Cal versus (6) Oklahoma

This is a pretty interesting matchup, really. Both teams play solid defense overall, but excel at rushing defense. Three important notes:

*It's hard to imagine either school earning more than 100-120 yards rushing. That means quarterback play and special teams have added emphasis.

*USC's offense has been a little bit stagnant this season, thanks in large part - if you believe the USC folks - to offensive coordinator Lane Kiffin's limitations.

*Oklahoma's two losses this season - to Oregon and Texas - were the result of allowing big plays in the passing game. That, and cheating referees.

Given that, I like USC to win this matchup. Whatever Kiffin's weaknesses, Booty to Jarett is pretty hard to screw up, and I'm not sure Oklahoma's got the secondary to keep the Trojans off the board. And I -do- think USC has the run defense to keep Oklahoma from doing what it likes to do.

Remember the last time these teams squared off? Adrian Peterson was never able to get anything going, and Jason White was flustered into bad decisions all game long. I'd expect much of the same, if not more, this time around. Paul Thompson, who's done an admirable job managing the Sooners' games this season, isn't the kind of quarterback that's likely to excel against this Trojan defense.

Add it all up, and I'd expect a low-scoring affair that USC wins 6 or 7 times out of 10. The higher seed advances. USC 20 Oklahoma 13.

--PB--

0 recs | Comment 11 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

USC 28 OU 14

AP is back, but the USC D can handle him as well as the Texas D did. And USC's offense finally seemed to be clicking, until UCLA jumped up and bit them.

Starting in January 2007, just another Limey Longhorn

by patienthornsfan on Dec 18, 2006 9:39 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

first of all...

I hate the idea inherent in this that all conference champions get in, and then somehow Boise St. and ND get in over Michigan and LSU. Wake Forest beat Duke by 1 point. At home. And they had to score a touchdown with under 2 minutes to go to even do that. DUKE! And they deserve to be in this more than Michigan and LSU?!?

That being said, I've made well known my distaste for anything bigger that a 4-team playoff (and only 4-teams when there aren't two who clearly separated themselves in the regular season - like last year). And even this year, at the most, I think OSU should get a bye to the championship game and let UF and Michigan play for the right to be in that game. But seriously, is there any way that this little bracket does NOT end up with OSU v. Florida in the final? The only way I can see it is MAYBE whoever decides this puts USC over UF.

And I guess that's my point. Everyone knows that UF (or UM, if they were part of this bracket) is the second best team in the country (at least resume-wise). So everyone knows that they should be playing in the final, based on what they did in the regular season. And maybe there's a team out there that matches up well and could beat them (USC over UF, maybe), but that would put a USC team in the championship that lost to Oregon State and UCLA. I don't care how "good" you are or how many teams you can beat, if you lose those 2 games in the regular season, you don't deserve to even be in the hunt for the national championship.

So if we're really deciding this "on the field," then what a team like USC did "on the field" in the regular season is not all that important, as long as they meet some minimum threshold, which apparently they did by ONLY losing to TWO mediocre teams. What I'm saying is that, we all know that either Florida or Michigan (based on regular season resume) deserves to be in that MNC game. And if you play the tournament and they make it, great, it all worked out. But if a team like USC or, god forbid, Notre Dame makes it instead, we're left thinking to ourselves, "In the end, did the regular season really matter?" And I think the answer is "not so much."

by billyzane on Dec 18, 2006 10:53 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Maybe with your system

we should just crown Ohio St now, as they are the only team that went undefeated, and just let Michigan and Florida play for #2.

by Wells on Dec 18, 2006 11:02 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

that's the way it used to be

and Texas won 3 national championships that way (by 1970, the AP was waiting until after the bowl games to crown the champ, but UPI was still awarding it after the regular season, hence UT's split national championship in 1970).

As for my views, I tend to think that the Bowl game should count towards determining the national champion, but I don't think that we necessarily have to have a "national championship game" with the winner declared national champion. If Ohio State loses to Florida, I think we should still take a hard look at whether OSU had the more impressive season. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. Certainly the head to head loss weighs heavily, but it shouldn't be the ONLY factor. Texas lost to A&M and both have the same record, but everyone other than Franchione regards Texas as better (and the ranking show it).

by billyzane on Dec 18, 2006 11:14 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Well

I'm inclined to believe the opposite may be true, Billy. Right now, regular season games become meaningless the moment you're out of the race to be a #1 or #2 seed in the BCS. What if you're still alive for the playoff bracket after losing one? Or two? I'd argue the games will take on added importance.

Second, this season has not been decided on the field. Florida has not beat Michigan; it's no more clear that they deserve a shot in the BCS title game than Florida does. I happen to think Michigan waxes Auburn - the team Florida lost to. Just because Michigan already lost to Ohio State (in Columbus, we note), doesn't mean Florida's more deserving of a spot in the BCS title game.

Further, by setting up the playoffs this way, you do - far more than you do now - set up things to be settled "on the field." The regular season matters - for seeding and home field advantages. The playoffs matter (obviously). And in the six team scenario I've outlined, Florid and Michigan will, if they advance, play one another for the right to advance to the finals. That's settling it on the field. Lastly, if Ohio State's your #1 team, they'll win their semifinal game in Columbus, then beat Michigan (or whomever) in the title game - played on a neutral field.

And if they don't, then it won't be the worst crime in history. Certainly no bigger a crime than we've seen in some BCS years. No?

by PB @ BON on Dec 18, 2006 11:07 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i agree

that Florida should be playing Michigan for the right to play OSU in the MNC game. I admitted as much in my post. But why do we have to go through the charade of an 8-team playoff if we all know that's the way it should be?

And I agree that a playoff would create more "important" individual games towards the end of the season because everyone is fighting for a spot in the playoffs. I wasn't arguing to the contrary. I was merely saying that the regular season RESULTS weren't as important in this system. And they're not. They're not UNimportant, as you note, it matters for seeding and home field, etc. [though, as a side note, are you really going to have home-field for this and completely abandon the bowl system altogether, as far as the top teams are concerned?]

But if you're USC, who cares if you lose to Oregon State and to UCLA in the regular season if you can still get a #3 seed in the playoffs? You know you have a team that can beat anybody, so who cares if you lose a couple of games in the regular season before the REAL season starts?

by billyzane on Dec 18, 2006 11:26 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I see what you're saying

But I hardly think it's a "who cares" situation. And so long as it doesn't diminish the importance of these games, which I don't think it does, and does it kill the excitement of regular season CFB (which it won't), then it gets the added benefit of not being the BCS. Which blows. And the playoffs would be a lot of fun. And interesting.

by PB @ BON on Dec 18, 2006 11:33 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i'll concede "more fun and interesting"

Major league baseball is my favorite sport (yes, perhaps even slightly more than college football), and the addition of the division system and then the wild card has made the regular season and the playoffs more interesting and, often, more fun. But it certainly doesn't lead to the team that has performed the best over the course of the season winning the championship very often. It's all about who does well in the playoffs.

And say what you will about the BCS (and apparently, "it blows" is what you will say), but rarely does it not crown the team that everyone agrees had the best overall season. The only season I can think of where it possibly didn't was 2003 (the LSU/USC year). The AP disagreed with the BCS. In 2004 and 2001, the controversies were basically over who won the right to get destroyed by USC and Miami, respectively.

The BCS might be boring and otherwise "blow," but it gets the champion right the vast majority of the time.

by billyzane on Dec 18, 2006 11:45 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Baseball

Glad to see another baseball enthusiast in the group. It's my favorite sport, too, along with college football.

Anyway, I know I'm being overly-dramatic about this. I just want a playoff. And there are good points on both sides. The point that I'm not hearing anyone make, that might be most germane, is that I don't trust the fools who would be in charge of creating this thing to get it right. My guess is the playoff format would have some warts as ugly as the current system.

Nonetheless, I think it's time we move to a playoff of some sort - be it a 4, 6, or 8 team format. If properly implemented, it could assuade the legitimate concerns that reasonable people like yourself are making, while adding something extra to the season.

by PB @ BON on Dec 18, 2006 12:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Don't worry about Wake Forest

They got destroyed in the first round by Ohio State.

Mike

Black Shoe Diaries

by PSUMike on Dec 18, 2006 11:47 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i know ou sucks, but...

based on how these two teams were playing at the end of the season, I dont see sc beating ou. Even in the blowout win over ND they had trouble establishing a ground game. They had zero ability to run the ball out of the I against UCLA. I jsut dont see them doing any better against a more talented ou front now playing with a lot of confidence. ANd Booty just makes too many poor decisions, something that wont be helped by having guys in his face. meanwhile, with or without AP, I believe ou would make their bones on the ground against a very fast, but small-ish and over-aggressive sc defense. Their LB's have gotten a lot of ink this year-rivers, maleuaga(sp?), et al are good but not all-world. They look to have trouble shedding bocks at the point of attack. On a related note the last time i checked the Rose BOwl was a pick 'em according to vegas. That just floors me. Maybe the line has changed now, but I dont think sc stays within 2 td's of mi.

by mento on Dec 18, 2006 12:08 PM CST reply actions 0 recs