In-conference face-plants and "accountability" for USC
by DC Trojan on Sep 21, 2009 1:22 PM PDT
in USC Football
Email
PrintIn the immediate wake of Saturday night's loss to Washington, Doc Saturday posted a brief article about USC's well documented habit of dropping games to unranked opponents, wondering what it would take for SC to be held "accountable" for shitting their pants in the fashion that Ohio State is hammered for losing games:
USC, though, USC is the Same Old Trojans: Win the big one, gaffe away the little one. Four straight years and counting. Again, I'll repeat myself from last September's loss in Corvallis: If Ohio State deserves to be ridiculed and scorned and run out the mythical championship picture on a rail for its primetime, big game failures, when are we going to hold USC accountable for repeatedly losing the little one?
While I take the good Doc's point about USC getting a pass for dropping games because hey, it's SC, I'm not sure what he means by "accountable."
It seems to me that when SC loses, in season, to an unranked conference opponents, the corresponding drop in the rankings is a pretty immediate result. And the result is the same: pick a season with a faceplant, any season will do, and spot the conspicuous absence of USC in the national championship. Ridicule comes with the territory, but being left out of championship games: is there a type of accountability that matters more?
Is the issue that SC isn't dropping enough because it's a recurring event? If so, what's the statute of limitations on being punished for previous seasons? Ohio State would tell you that it's a cumulative effect. The collective narrative on Ohio State is that they choke on the big stage, that they are big game bottlers. And while that's been true several times, how much are they supposed to suffer for that?
Apparently the answer is "a lot," and in large part I suspect that the reason Ohio State gets pilloried is because of the bowl losses where they can't get the immediate feedback of a ratings drop. Instead, the reputation of being unreliable in big games becomes almost like a mnemonic to remind people to rank them lower at the start of the following season - which is often expressed in statements about whether or not Ohio State is deserving.
An earlier version of this post included a couple of hundred words of frothing about the whole concept of "deserving" as a strand of the beauty pageant that is college football rankings, but fortunately for you, dear reader, Doc Saturday didn't go there. In the meantime, Spencer Hall aka Orson of EDSBS had a perfectly reasonable response about what people should be struggling to remember when they get around to filling in their pre-season polls:
The adjustment should be a slight one, yes: from an instant two spot to five, perhaps, especially based on their current qb woes. Maybe it’s best summarized in saying that instead of being assumed to be immortal, USC will now be considered "slightly killable." Whatever your terminology, the market correction stands, and will likely affect USC’s chances if a BCS logjam piles up at the end of the year. This is not 2004 USC, and for the first time in a long time, a plurality of writers and voters will tighten up their credit lines when evaluating the Trojans.
That's fairer than the treatment meted out to Ohio State. But again, if by some freak chance USC is in the aforementioned hypothetical BCS logjam, and somehow squeaked through to the championship game, it would be the first time that they've overcome the seasonal in-conference face-plant. Only then would there be a question about whether SC was accountable for a stupid in-conference loss.
The question of whether this was more than just a one-off face plant, that's something that can be chewed on right this minute.
28 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Of course we will be "accountable"
Last year Florida, Texas and Oklahoma had the same records as USC, and lost later in the season, at the end of the year, it was one of those teams that was going to go to the NC game.
Year before, same records as LSU, they get the nod.
Year before, same record as Florida. Guess who goes.
Let’s face it, they way the system is set up, if there is a tie between any Pac or Big 10 team, and any SEC or Big 12 team, the SEC or Big 12 team goes because of conference perception and the conference championship game.
What the Doc is saying is just confirming what has been suspected: USC has to go undefeated if it wants to go to the BCS game.
right.
every year USC loses a Pac-10 game it’s dead as far as MNC chances go because of the way the conference schedule is. Personally, I would take the Pac-10’s “play every other team” every year rather than try and find two more members and milk a conference championship game. It sucks that this is not only hurting USC — but effectively the conference, because it’ll never get a second BCS bid.
by Signal to Noise on Sep 21, 2009 3:54 PM PDT up reply actions
I think what he's getting at is
how long until we stop getting the benefit of the doubt? How long until we stop getting picked as a potential MNC team each year only to squander it with a random road loss.
But I mean OSU keeps finding a way in to the top 10 so I don’t even know if they’re really being held that accountable. If they win out the rest of the regular season does anyone doubt that OSU finishes in the top 10 regardless of the outcome of our season?
[DELETED ZOMG NO POLITICS]
it might be better that we don't get NC recognition and move on up, then people will not be gunning for us so much
Paul D. Kelley
It's not about doing your job, But can you do it with a TENNIS BALL in your throat!
by so.cal.native1952 on Sep 21, 2009 4:57 PM PDT up reply actions
Also
haven’t we averaged about 9 spots downward in the polls when we lost to the random conference opponent? How much more do they want us to fall?
It sucks that we lost this weekend because Florida and Texas both looked mediocre. Had we dominated the Huskies I think we could’ve made a case for #1. While I’m convinced that we’d struggle to beat both Florida and Texas if the game was played this weekend I am also not convinced that they are the two best teams in the country.
[DELETED ZOMG NO POLITICS]
All right
last year we dropped 8 spots in the AP after losing to Oregon.
In 2007 we dropped 8 spots after losing to Stanford. We also fell 3 spots in the rankings a couple of weeks later even though we were winning. LSU only lost 4 spots in the polls for their first loss this season.
In 2006 we dropped 6 spots after losing to Oregon St and 6 spots again after losing to fucla.
In 2003 we dropped 7 spots after losing to Cal (on the road in OT no less!)
I haven’t gone through every week yet but our single biggest gain in the polls in one week was 4 spots. On average we moved up about 1-2 spots a week except in 2007 and 2008 where we fell a few times despite winning or where we staid at the same spot for a few weeks in a row while other teams leapfrogged us.
My honest opinion? Even if everything breaks our way I can’t see us finishing the regular season higher than #3 as long as the Big 12 champion has 0 or 1 losses. The media just won’t let us back in it.
[DELETED ZOMG NO POLITICS]
A note
the other point I was trying to make is that the AP at least has gotten stricter on us each season when we lose. Isn’t that what being held accountable is? Every time we lose they seem to write us off more so than the last, only for us to come back strong and make them rethink their positions.
[DELETED ZOMG NO POLITICS]
Well
Not really sure how USC has gotten a pass. They’ve won the Pac 10 (or the tiebreaker in shared years) to get to the Rose Bowl each of the last four years and aside from late 2006 they have not been in any national title conversation since each loss despite having the same number of losses as each of the last three national champions.
I generally like Matt Hinton’s aka SMQ’s aka Doctor Saturday’s, but when has USC been given a pass or not held accountable for their losses?
Doc Saturday MUST be a Trojan fan!
Okay, I’m operating on very little sleep- catching an early morning flight out of Dallas and getting into LAX was a thrill ride, so I must be hopped up on the adrenaline of it all still but. . . . after reading the linked article I can halfway surmise that ol’ Doc is just as pissed off about this most recent loss as much as any one of us. I mean, how else to explain the disappointment: almost angry tone (he’s quite consistent with humorous phrasing and inciteful wit), an almost frantic search for answers (he usually answers his own questions, but not this time), odd sense of bewilderment (he usually pokes fun at those people, and normally points right to their apparently ironic reason(s) for circumstance(s), afflicted with a slight case of self-flagellation (BINGO, this is where “accountability” lies). So, if you ask me- Doc actually likes us (or rather, doesn’t hate us or hate on us as is his perogative being a CFB blogger AND Southern Miss ties).
What certainly is missing from his disappointment in USC’s loss is: as it applies to “accountability”, he offers no points nor statistical data to lay the foundation of USC “getting a pass” or obtaining anything remotely “preferential” as a result of the previous stated losses to an in-conference unranked Pac 10 foe from 2006 – last weekend. If, by getting a pass or being treated preferentially he means that we were crowned champions or co-champions during this reign of “not winning the little one”, then to that I say, “It’s a West Coast bias” or “Hey, what can I say? The media just love to hug our nuts!” Or, if he means USC “gets to be part of the end of year top college football team in the college football BCS polemic and really they shouldn’t be”, then to that I say, “Don’t hate the ‘playa’, hate the rules of engagement. When FL beat tOSU in 2007 for the title, they barely beat Arky in the SEC championship game to make it into the BCS title game. In the 2008 title game, LSU swarmed an evenly matched tOSU team and rightfully claimed the trophy- problem is, was either team really that much better than the 2007 Trojan team which lost to Oregon/Dixon and choked to Stanford much earlier in their season? As it applies to last year, both FL and OK deserved their shot to play each other. . . .just to see who would be worthy of playing USC in the real championship game. Boring title game, to the point where I’m actually impressed at how inept Bob Stoops is at ‘winning the big one’.”
You see, there isn’t a standard which Doc Saturday could have utilized to impress upon his reader any information which might support the notion that USC “hasn’t been held accountable” for their unseemly losses.
We’ve been “86-ed” from playing in the BCS championship title game!!!! What more, and to what degree SHOULD we have been punished?
"As for being a Raiders fan, I wouldn't wish that fucking shit on anybody." [the venerable OTS at Roll Bama Roll}
by BixBeiderbecke on Sep 22, 2009 10:08 AM PDT reply actions
No pass here
SC will be held accountable, just like every year. At least this year, it won’t hurt as much because we will likely lose another 2 or 3 games.
Then, the Barkley championship era can begin!
Pollyanna here!
At least this year, it won’t hurt as much because we will likely lose another 2 or 3 games.
Or we just go out and win the rest of them! Don’t you just love Kool-Aid?
FIGHT ON!
by Locoweed 1.1 on Sep 22, 2009 3:13 PM PDT up reply actions
My tempered expectations are....
Lose no more than 2 games the rest of the season. Finish 9-3 and play TCU in the Fiesta Bowl. Losses at Cal and Notre Dame. Solid win at Oregon with good home wins over Fu¢la and Stanford.
I would obviously hate losing at ND, but we need to keep it to 2 losses or less for a 2nd place Pac-10 finish and a shot at a BCS at-large. So, perhaps a loss at ND is better than a loss at Oregon. Realistically, we may be looking at the Holiday.
I hope you are right, Loco, but I think there are too many issues to overcome this season. Inexperienced assistant coaches/loss of coordinators, coaching game mgmt (how are PC/Morton/Bates managing the gameplan, why didn’t we take a TO to ice the UW kicker, why did we run on 3rd down at the end of the 1st half, why did we run on 3rd inside the 10 in the 4th), and young QBs.
Next season the Barkley era begins.
The forensics on that dumpster fire of a game will yield a lot of valuable information. I think they can learn a lot more than they would have from a close win and continued #3 ranking in the polls. Maybe it was a blessing in disguise.
by Locoweed 1.1 on Sep 22, 2009 4:16 PM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
