Just how close did Southern California come to making the Sugar Bowl and playing in the Bowl Championship Series title game?
Any number of things last weekend could have propelled the Trojans into one of the top two spots in the BCS standings, but it didn’t happen.
Reality bytes
We know top-ranked USC lost a shot at playing in the Sugar Bowl because it finished 0.16 behind Louisiana State in the BCS rankings. Close, right? Actually, it was closer than anyone could have imagined.
A review of final BCS calculations reveals that had the order been flipped in only one of the four BCS computers that had LSU ranked No. 2 ahead of No. 3 USC, the Trojans would have advanced to the Sugar Bowl and LSU fans would have been crying foul. And had that one computer favored USC, the Trojans would have nipped the Tigers by the margin of 0.01.
“The margin’s so slim, USC could play Army next week and move ahead of LSU,” BCS computer analyst Jerry Palm said. “They could play Arizona again and pass LSU.”
Strong where it counts
Palm said Southern Cal’s undoing was strength of schedule. USC led LSU by 17 spots before the weekend but trailed by eight spots Sunday.
“LSU saw a jump based solely on beating Georgia,” he said. “The biggest thing that mattered is Georgia.”
But USC still would have trumped LSU if one of two things had happened:
If Hawaii had defeated Boise State, USC would be in the Sugar Bowl.
“USC finished .16 points behind LSU in the final standings,” Palm said. “A Hawaii win would have been worth .2 points. It’s pretty easy math.”
If Notre Dame had defeated Syracuse, USC would have cruised into the Sugar Bowl because the Trojans would have won at least one more computer poll.
From various hard drives
What the computers said . . .
The New York Times’ computer puts more weight on end-of-season games. That’s why Oklahoma is fifth in its rankings.
Oklahoma remained No. 1 in five computer rankings. LSU was first in one and USC first in one. Oklahoma was second in one and fifth in the other (the Times’).
How about this? USC was fourth in the Sagarin ratings–one spot behind Miami of Ohio. Miami was ranked fourth by two computers but also was 22nd in one (again, the Times’).
LSU and USC had two of the three weakest schedules among teams in the final BCS standings. LSU was 29th, USC 37th. The easiest in the top 10 was Tennessee at 46th. The other seven schools had schedules ranked 20th or higher.
A different view
Drew Sharp, a columnist from the Detroit Free Press, applauds the result. Writes Sharp:
The indignant are wailing about the devaluation of the human element. . . . Despite the protests, the complicated BCS formula put the right teams in the championship game. Oklahoma and LSU are the most deserving one-loss teams because they were the two most successful for the entire season.
During the three-month regular season, the timing of a loss isn’t as important as the quality of a loss. The Sooners’ and Tigers’ losses came against a far higher level of competition than USC’s single loss–in triple overtime at lightly regarded California more than two months ago.
Oklahoma lost to Kansas State in the Big 12 championship game; LSU lost to Florida. Both are ranked. But USC was voted No. 1 in the polls. Since when did sportswriters, broadcasters and athletic department lackeys, who usually vote for the coaches in the ESPN/USA Today poll, have a monopoly on wisdom?
The BCS system is about balance. The polls, computers, strength of schedule and number of losses are worth 25 percent apiece. The calculations of the computers counter the emotion of the polls, while strength of schedule serves as a counterbalance to the number of losses a team has. The Trojans beat only one team, Washington State, that finished in the Top 25.
Even with its numerous and sometimes confusing factors, the BCS system is more capable than the polls of determining the most deserving matchup in a championship game.
