How does USC finish ahead of OU?
- Thread starter zayzayandpooh
- Start date
From 9 to 3 for a last second win in your own backyard is rather fishy...
http://collegefootball.ap.org/poll
Ya they were talking about this over on the pay board. That's great they beat Penn State in their bowl game, but that doesn't even come close to justifying putting them at #3. Oh well.
I was just wondering the same thing. 3 loss team jumps ahead of several 2 loss teams.
I don't think Washington should be ranked as high as they are given the beating that they took. They looked pretty pathetic to me.
I don't think Washington should be ranked as high as they are given the beating that they took. They looked pretty pathetic to me.
It looks like the 'b1g' got spanked hard which is fine by me. Us at # 5 seems right. $c jumping Wash, with 3 losses is unbelievable
As far as I can tell, USC is the first team with 3 losses to finish in the top 3 of the final AP poll. I only went back to 1976, but I'm assuming that the likelihood of a 3 loss team finishing in the top 3 decreases the farther back you go. At least in the last 40 years, the best finish for a 3 loss team is #6.
Let's also remember that USC didn't win it's conference, or even its division. Frankly, they were fortunate that the Rose Bowl committee (rightly) assumed that USC would be a better draw that Colorado. I just don't understand why the media is so ready to gleefully absolve USC of its losses when it won't do the same thing for other teams.
Let's also remember that USC didn't win it's conference, or even its division. Frankly, they were fortunate that the Rose Bowl committee (rightly) assumed that USC would be a better draw that Colorado. I just don't understand why the media is so ready to gleefully absolve USC of its losses when it won't do the same thing for other teams.
Simple ... who did OU beat exactly? Not just OU. This year, the Big 12 was horrible out of conference. And no, the Sugar Bowl victory over an 8-5 Auburn whose QB broke his arm during the game isn't an answer to "who did you beat." The Big 12 - which incidentally hasn't won a national title since 2004 - is about as weak as the ACC was about 10 years ago before Jimbo and Dabo got things figured out and Beamer had lost everything he knew. It wasn't that long ago when glorified mid-major TCU and Baylor were battling out for conference supremacy.
Also, OU got killed in their last 3 straight big OOC games: Clemson, Houston and Ohio State. They weren't even that competitive. And even worse, Houston and Ohio State turned out to be not great. Houston lost a bunch of games last year, and you saw what Clemson did to the Buckeyes. Beating up on 8-5 Auburn doesn't make anyone think that Oklahoma or anyone else in the Big 12 can get anything done in any place outside the Big 12. Because ... no Big 12 team has won a game that matters against a contender from another conference in A LONG time, OU included.
Everyone knows the reasons for this also. Nearly everyone in the Big 12 except maybe KSU is still running those Mike Leach-derived offenses. Which were bold and innovative back when Stoops used it to win a national title in 2000. But that was going on 20 years ago. Now folks have moved on, either back to a more pro-style look on offense, or a spread offense with a real threat as a runner under center (which Baker Mayfield is not ... recall OU fans claiming that Mayfield was just as good a dual threat QB as Watson last year, until the playoff game exposed otherwise ... Mayfield is just good at exploiting gaps in defenses that are on their heels defending the better athletes at WR and RB that Oklahoma has, not a threat to dominate a game as a runner with his own ability like a Tebow, Newton or Watson).
Dump the Mike Leach type offenses, start winning games that matter against top programs OOC and earn respect from the polls. Otherwise, no one has any reason to believe that OU can actually beat the likes of USC, PSU, FSU, Ohio State etc. on the field because OU and the Big 12 haven't won games like that in a long time. Baylor won the Big 12 one year and actually lost to UCF in the BCS bowl game. The next year, they won the Big 12, blew a huge lead against Michigan State because they had absolutely no defense. You think that anyone is going to believe that OU is any better than those Baylor teams simply because the sticker on the helmet is different? Not until it is proven on the field by winning games.
Yeah, like folks were going to put OU in the top 5 based on running through the worst Big 12 in years (Texas, Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech all down, Kansas State and West Virginia middling) and then beating 8-5 Auburn in the Sugar Bowl. Yes, USC went 10-3, but does anyone think that OU would have done better against their schedule, which included Alabama, Stanford, Colorado, Penn State and Washington (5 teams who won 10 games) plus 9-4 Utah? Or would they have done worse? What do you honestly think?
Also, OU got killed in their last 3 straight big OOC games: Clemson, Houston and Ohio State. They weren't even that competitive. And even worse, Houston and Ohio State turned out to be not great. Houston lost a bunch of games last year, and you saw what Clemson did to the Buckeyes. Beating up on 8-5 Auburn doesn't make anyone think that Oklahoma or anyone else in the Big 12 can get anything done in any place outside the Big 12. Because ... no Big 12 team has won a game that matters against a contender from another conference in A LONG time, OU included.
Everyone knows the reasons for this also. Nearly everyone in the Big 12 except maybe KSU is still running those Mike Leach-derived offenses. Which were bold and innovative back when Stoops used it to win a national title in 2000. But that was going on 20 years ago. Now folks have moved on, either back to a more pro-style look on offense, or a spread offense with a real threat as a runner under center (which Baker Mayfield is not ... recall OU fans claiming that Mayfield was just as good a dual threat QB as Watson last year, until the playoff game exposed otherwise ... Mayfield is just good at exploiting gaps in defenses that are on their heels defending the better athletes at WR and RB that Oklahoma has, not a threat to dominate a game as a runner with his own ability like a Tebow, Newton or Watson).
Dump the Mike Leach type offenses, start winning games that matter against top programs OOC and earn respect from the polls. Otherwise, no one has any reason to believe that OU can actually beat the likes of USC, PSU, FSU, Ohio State etc. on the field because OU and the Big 12 haven't won games like that in a long time. Baylor won the Big 12 one year and actually lost to UCF in the BCS bowl game. The next year, they won the Big 12, blew a huge lead against Michigan State because they had absolutely no defense. You think that anyone is going to believe that OU is any better than those Baylor teams simply because the sticker on the helmet is different? Not until it is proven on the field by winning games.
Yeah, like folks were going to put OU in the top 5 based on running through the worst Big 12 in years (Texas, Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech all down, Kansas State and West Virginia middling) and then beating 8-5 Auburn in the Sugar Bowl. Yes, USC went 10-3, but does anyone think that OU would have done better against their schedule, which included Alabama, Stanford, Colorado, Penn State and Washington (5 teams who won 10 games) plus 9-4 Utah? Or would they have done worse? What do you honestly think?
Marshal I get what you are trying to say but who did USC beat OC? Don't forget that got spanked by 50 points against Bama.
My thoughts... it's brand postioning for next season, this and the panel of experts are just simply wrong. I have a feeling there are a few peeps on that panel that want USC identified and branded as, "They're back!"
The playoff games are to determine the #1 & #2 teams. All else is strictly opinions be it the Coaches Poll, AP Poll, and/or the Panel of Experts Poll. It's all bullshit until we get a head to head playoff system that has some iron in it.
The playoff games are to determine the #1 & #2 teams. All else is strictly opinions be it the Coaches Poll, AP Poll, and/or the Panel of Experts Poll. It's all bullshit until we get a head to head playoff system that has some iron in it.
Well, apparently the people who vote in the coaches poll "honestly" think that OU was the #3 team given that's where they ranked them.
But to me, this is less about OU vs. USC than it is about the unnecessary hype heaped on a 3 loss team. They went from #9 to #3 on the steam of a win over a good (not great) Penn State team in a shoot out with a last second FG. I'm just not sure that justifies such a historic leap and the first ever #3 ranking for a 3 loss team. I also take issue with how easily the media dismisses USC's losses, but they don't for example, dismiss Oklahoma State's loss that the officials said should not have counted. They don't treat OSU like a 1 loss team. Yet they're perfectly willing to discount USC's 50 point drubbing that would have been a blowout no matter who played QB for USC because it fits their narrative and sells papers.
If you're not number 1 in the final poll, then quibbling about three or four seems pretty hollow.
Ohio State folks are asking how we are ahead of them.
Ohio State folks are asking how we are ahead of them.
100% agree. I definitely think Ohio State should be ahead of OU. I was in the building for that.
I just think the USC hype is unwarranted.
Because at the end of the season OU was playing good football, and tOSU wasn't.
Nice post Marshall. Very well thought out and informative. The only problem I have with your theory is the spread concept with a run first QB can be problematic. Like last night. Clemson pretty much dared Hurts to beat them with his arm and he couldn't do it. Alabama nearly won the game, but it sure wasn't on Hurts passing. Same thing the previous game against Barrett. Barrett was exposed as a sub par passer. QBs like Watson who can do both extremely well are few and far between. Me, I'd rather have a slinger like Baker or Sammy. But if you can get a guy that does both, then you really have something.
Yep. All the bowls proved that... texASS won it all in 2005...
I'd add the argument about the Big 12 getting no respect because of their title drought is a little misplaced especially in light of the fact that we are talking about a team (USC) that comes from the only conference with a longer title drought than the Big 12.
I blame Boren for getting us stuck w/ the texsa albatross AND the failure to strike when we had the chance to better our conference alignment. We do need someone who kisses as much ass as the folks in the vastly over-rated "b1g" that get about 6 or more auto-bids for their "pro-style" boring attempts @ modern football
yeah it does but its just the amount of tails you look up at....would rather be 2 than 25 lol
the only difference is 24 more tails you are following and they all stink....
Yep. Holding the #1 offense to ZERO points had nothing to do with it. OU scored a whopping 15 points that day, 2 of them went to Felony State.
Your analogies are very poorly studied. Perhaps you should study some facts and stats before putting up your blowhard b.s. you read off the walls of your colon...
Ok, then go look at the coaches poll. There's only two big brown eyes in front of us in that one.
Gotta agree with Plaino here. It's really irrelevant when it's all said and done. You are either the national champion, or you are "all the others".
Medic007
Sooner starter
It's simple. It's the AP poll, which stands for Always Phony because well, it's the media. Nobody cares about the AP poll except the media.
In my opinion, the 4 teams that made the playoffs should be ranked 1-4. 1 and 2 are obvious, then rank 3 and 4 based on the margin of their loss. The rest (anything outside of 1 really) is meaningless.
I have trouble deciding what poll is better. AP or coaches. AP poll is the media but they get to watch all the games. The coaches can make a better judgement but do they really watch all the games and teams in the season? I mostly think the AP may be better though they can be biased. Pick your poison.
Nope. 11-2 and a conference championship is not 5-7 and no bowl. Top 5 finishes are better than being #11 as well.
Coaches poll is way better. There arent more than 5-10 truly knowledgeable voters in the AP regarding college football.
All the others? Might as well drop the football program...
Nah...nearly year the team that finishes #1, drops back down to the "all others" pack with everyone else. OU will be back on top of the heap again eventually.
Is it? I remember reading once that some coaches have a designated person to more or less make the picks for the coach, then the coach just signs off on it. I've always wondered too how much time during the season do the coaches REALLY spend watching all other games to make a truly knowledgeable decision?? Coaches have a full plate during the season, and hard to think they sit around watching dozens of games to really make a legit Top 25 each week.
Whatever time most coaches spend watching other games, is a lot more than 99.9% of the hacks in the AP poll. I know many coaches and many AP voters and there is no comparison in most cases. The AP voters who know their stuff are few and far between.
You must be a USC fan? Have you even paid any attention to the scores of the games in the PAC this year or past years. The PAC is full of the same type of offenses as we have in the B12 and also cery little defense. Yet you want to bag on our conference.
Penn St doesnt even have an offense that compares to OUs and yet they put up 49 on USC. Frankly PSU blew that game more than USC winning it.
You PAC fans are FOS if you dont think OU couldnt beat USC or any other PAC team but you also have no clue about OU not winning any meaniful games since 2004. You might just want to go look at OUs schedule over that period of time.
Something tells me though you wont be back because you know your FOS.
Oh I have no doubt that AP voters aren't even close to coaches in terms of being knowledgeable. I'm just curious as to whether coaches even take the time to watch games to even make a knowledgeable choice?? Or are they just looking at scores each week and making picks based solely on that.
full disclosure:
I believe 'marshall dill...' is a hawkeye troll; most likely my fault for calling them doormats after we secured the Sugar when they got blown out by florida...
I believe 'marshall dill...' is a hawkeye troll; most likely my fault for calling them doormats after we secured the Sugar when they got blown out by florida...
At the end, only Clemson and Bama were playing better than OU. We blew it early this season with vanilla schemes against Houston and soft play versus Ohio State.
Sneak us into the playoffs and we roll Washington and THE. Give Clemson and Bama real shots, possibly win.
Sneak us into the playoffs and we roll Washington and THE. Give Clemson and Bama real shots, possibly win.
The Pac 12 doesn't deserve to have a team in the top 5. Washington got killed by Bama. Colorado got killed by Okie Lite. USC was not impressive at all this year as well. Beating an overrated Penn State team should not elevate you to the #3 ranking.
