LSU OR USC Inside

[Cajun-Sports]

Picked this up for those who havent seen it yet:




Notre Dame's second-year coach hasn't been close in his nine years as a head coach at Stanford and South Bend. But it looks like the Notre Dame game against Syracuse on Saturday at the Carrier Dome will have a huge say in who plays Oklahoma in the Sugar Bowl.

Southern California will stay at No. 2 and Louisiana State at No. 3 this week but things could become considerably tighter this weekend. Strength of schedule might be the determining factor between the two programs.

LSU plays in the SEC Championship Game against Georgia. USC plays host to Oregon State but the Notre Dame-Stanford game will impact the Trojans strength of schedule that stood at 39 coming into Saturday. LSU was at 61, or .88 behind USC.

Coming into Saturday, LSU trailed USC by 2.15 points overall for the No. 2 spot.

A Notre Dame victory boosts USC's strength of schedule. A Syracuse victory hurts it. That's assuming LSU wins, getting strength of schedule boost itself for beating Georgia.

"If Syracuse wins, USC needs a lot of help," BCS expert Jerry Palm said Sunday morning. "It's too early to say they need a miracle."

BCS projection (week of Nov. 30)
1. Oklahoma
2. USC
3. LSU
4. Michigan
While the numbers might fluctuate before the official BCS rankings come out Monday evening, it's clear that the Tigers aren't out of it.

The other key component seems to be the computers. Palm is projecting that if Notre Dame wins, USC will stay ahead of LSU in the Colley Matrix. If not, LSU tops USC in the Colley. It could be the difference in the Tigers playing for the national championship.

"If Notre Dame wins, LSU will have to lead in six computers and get a quality win bonus," Palm said. "If Syracuse wins, LSU may not need the quality win bonus at all."

But the Tigers will have to win, regardless.

LSU already is getting .04 credit for beating Georgia earlier this season. Per BCS rules, a team cannot get a double quality win bonus for beating a team twice in a season. That means LSU is in the weird situation of possibly hurting itself with a blowout of Georgia.

For Sugar Bowl purposes, it wants to win but in a close game so that Georgia remains in the final top 10 of the BCS rankings. A similar situation played out two years ago when TCU beat Southern Miss allowing Nebraska to hold onto the No. 2 BCS spot by .05 of a point and play for the national championship despite not even winning the Big 12 North Division.

Of course, all that is out the window if:


Oklahoma loses to Kansas State in the Big 12 championship. There is the possibility that Oklahoma could remain in the top two and still play for the national championship. If not, then LSU and USC, if both win Saturday, could move into the 1-2 slots.

If Oklahoma and USC win and LSU loses to Georgia, then it's for sure Oklahoma-USC.

If Oklahoma wins and both LSU and USC lose, then it's most likely Michigan getting into the Sugar Bowl against the Sooners.

If Oklahoma, LSU and USC lose, Oklahoma is still No. 1 in the BCS. Then you're back to fight for No. 2 between Michigan and Georgia.
But right now, the hottest topic of BCS conversation is the LSU-USC situation. It isn't going away until Saturday night.

 

[Cie]

GEAUX Orangemen!?!

 

[Cajun-Sports]

Yep we need the Orangemen to show up. ND just suxs and I think LSU controls their own faith.

 

[z2000]

Can we just have a playoff already?

This system is just ridiculous.:cursin:

I'm starting to think they are just trying to boost the ratings for the ND-Syracuse game to get more ad revenue.

 

[Scott4USC]

I agree with z2000 and also think they are trying to boost the ratings of the ND/SY game. You can practically put a fork in LSU chances in playing in the Sugar Bowl because they are playing Georgia in SEC CHAMP and lose out on QW pts. LSU is in no win situation playing UGA. Only hope for LSU is USC loses or pass USC in human polls. Both unlikely to happen.

FIGHT ON!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Mr Hockey]

Can we just have a playoff already?

This system is just ridiculous.:cursin:

I'm starting to think they are just trying to boost the ratings for the ND-Syracuse game to get more ad revenue.

Yes, we need one badly! It is a shame how other college sports settle things on the field or surface of play even 1-AA football which has the time for a playoff system yet 1-A can't. It is such bullshit!


We shouldn't even have to discuss who should play Oklahoma in the Sugar Bowl because teams like USC, LSU, Georgia, Florida State, Ohio State, Michigan, etc deserve a shot in a playoff system. Actually let me correct myself, ANY team who earns their way in should have a shot. Lets give those mid majors a fair shot too!!!!

 

[Mr Hockey]

I agree with z2000 and also think they are trying to boost the ratings of the ND/SY game. You can practically put a fork in LSU chances in playing in the Sugar Bowl because they are playing Georgia in SEC CHAMP and lose out on QW pts. LSU is in no win situation playing UGA. Only hope for LSU is USC loses or pass USC in human polls. Both unlikely to happen.

FIGHT ON!!!!!!!!!!!

How can you put a fork in them when a BCS expert is saying they still have a shot even with both winning out? This system is the dumbest thing I've ever come across.

We should have a playoff bracket system with playoff games in regionals & the winners eventually meet 1 on 1 in a true 1 vs 2 game because they earned that ranking, not because stupid math formulas got a team there.

 

[Rebel21]

A playoff system would be great, i would really like to see one. But...does anyone honestly ever see the powers-that-be in ncaa football implementing one? I dont...and if they did, how many teams? where do they play? what about the league championship games? what about the bowls? what about lost money from those events? Too many problems and broken traditions to ever go to a playoff system i'm afraid to say.

 

[ctownguy]

I also believe they should have some kind of playoff system. With that being said until they do all we have is the present system which is not perfect but better than what was in place before the BCS was started.

I know one thing, for Scott's sake, I hope USC makes it or we'll have to put him on suicide watch

 

[Mr Hockey]

I don't know if this system is better then what we had before. They claim they fairly put 1 vs 2 for the title but since its inception, this system has screwed up the 1 vs 2 matchup. There will be no winner here as yet again another school will get screwed. We can't forget how Miami got robbed a few years ago, we then followed that up with Oregon getting the shaft. You know your system is seriously flawed when a Notre Dame vs Syracuse matchup might be the key to who makes it!

 

[CWood97]

The biggest factor (other than Cuse-ND) will be how far UGA falls in the human polls if LSU wins. Those QW points will be the difference maker. Don't be surprised if southern coaches/writers push them up high in order to help LSU out........

 

[Scott4USC]

LSU cannot recieve pts for beating a same team twice, and no way GEORGIA stays in the top 10 BCS with 3 losses. Not gonna happen.

Why wouldn't the west coast voters do the same thing with Washington St. and give USC the QW pts? You actually could make a stronger case for doing that with WSU because they lost to their rival with their starting QB out and playing a freshman QB.

FIGHT ON!!!!!!!!

 

[Cie]

Get off it, Scott. WSU does not belong on the same field as LSU, UGA or USC. Furthermore, 3 losses with 2 coming at the hands of the #3 team in the nation could easily land you in the top 10. Please quit being such a shmuck.

 

[bbk]

scott

you have no clue what the **** you are talking about did you read brad edwards chat on the bcs; he said there is a chance they stay in the top 10 with a loss he also said a win against a top 10 team would far outweigh the loss of .40 in qw; so get your facts straight before you start opening your stupid homer mouth
you dont have a freakin clue and everyone in this forum knows it

 

[Rebel21]

Scott...the Pac-10 is a joke compared to the SEC. USC is a very good team I'll give you that, as good as the top SEC teamSSSSSS...I love how you attempted to compare a WSU to GA...thats a laugher...you can't even compare them to the rest of our league...Tenn, Fla, even UM...get off your high-horse and really look objectively at your sorry azz league compared to a SEC, Big Ten, or Big 12....its no comparison...

also, this is a no win year for the BCS...you can't say that any other system, besides a playoff, would give us a true Natl Championship game. Any way you cut it its either LSU or USC...so there is no way for the natl championship to be non disputable...

as for the people who have problems with nd/syr actually coming into play, why shouldnt it? using numbers such as strength of schedule is very impt. If usc gets credit for beating Nd, then it turns out nd is garbage, usc should be penalized...they shouldnt be touted highly for beating sorry teams. USC beat auburn, great job...they are like the 6th to 7th best team in the SEC...the bcs is always gonna catch flack, but as far as im concerned its the best we can ask for from the ncaa right now...

 

[Skipper]

Let's take a look at USC's schedule shall we? I will rate them as good, solid, fair, and terrible. This is because they play no one really good.

Auburn - good team, maybe solid
BYU - fair at best
Hawaii - fair
Cal - fair
Az. State - fair, almost terrible
Stanford - terrible
Notre Dame - solid
Washington - fair
Wash. St. - good - the only one
Arizona - come on!!
UCLA - terrible
Oregon St. - solid

You have beaten one good team all year!!!!!!!!! You lost to a team that is average at best!!!!!!!! You talk about LSU's non conference schedule, but let's look at their conference schedule.

They have 3 good wins
Arkansas - remember they beat Texas at Texas
Georgia
Ole Miss - on the road

Bottom line is if they win, they deserve it, because they earned it. USC hasn't earned Sh*t and you know it. Will they beat Georgia, I wouldn't put any money on it, because you don't know, but if they do, they have earned everything they got and if it is taken away from them, this system is a FAWKING JOKE!!

 

[Scott4USC]

Pac-10 vs. SEC past four years

Went back over the records of the two conferences and how they fared against BCS conference and Notre Dame over the past four years (since 2000). Here is what I found.

Pac-10 was 34-34 vs. BCS competition. SEC was 32-35. Of the 67 games against BCS conference competition, 23 were played because they were bowl games, and another 15 were played because of rivalry games (Georgia vs. Georgia Tech [ACC], Florida vs Miami and FSU [Big East, ACC] and South Carolina vs. Clemson [ACC]). That means the 12 teams of the SEC scheduled 29 games against BCS competition in four years, or a little more than one game every other year per team. The Pac-10 played 15 of its 68 games against BCS competition because of bowl games, and another four were from a rivalry game (USC vs. Notre Dame). That means the ten teams of the Pac-10 scheduled 49 games over four years, a one and a quarter games a year per team.
The SEC was 1-0 vs. Notre Dame, 16-11 vs. the ACC, 8-4 vs. the Big Ten, 4-8 vs. the Big East, 3-6 vs. Big XII and 1-6 vs. the Pac-10. That's right, the SEC's worst record against any one conference over the last four years comes against the Pac-10. Only LSU's victory against one of the worst Pac-10 teams in recent memory, this year's Arizona team, puts a W in the victory column against the Pac-10. Other losses were Auburn to USC (twice), Alabama to UCLA (twice) and Mississippi St. to Oregon (twice).

The Pac-10 was 12-12 vs. the Big Ten, 9-10 vs. the Big XII, 4-4 vs. Notre Dame, 3-4 vs. the Big East, 0-3 vs. the ACC and 6-1 vs. the SEC.

And the quality of teams the Pac-10 played was much better than the quality of teams that the SEC played. In the Big Ten, the Pac-10 played Michigan, Ohio St., Purdue and Wisconsin four times, Illinois three times, Iowa twice, and Penn St., Michigan St. and Indiana once. Only five of those games were because they met in bowl games The SEC played Michigan three times, Ohio St. twice, Penn St., Illinois and Minnesota once and Indiana four times. Eight of those games were played in bowl games. The only games scheduled against Big Ten competitition were the four times that Mississippi played Indiana, a time that Indiana went 12-34.

In the Big XII, the Pac-10 played Colorado six times, Kansas St. four times, Texas three times, Oklahoma twice, Nebraska, Oklahoma St., Baylor and Kansas once. Only five of those 19 games were the result of bowl games. The SEC played Oklahoma three times and Kansas St., Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Nebraska and Iowa St. once. Six of those nine games were bowl games.

The only BCS conference that the SEC routinely scheduled for games out of conference was against the ACC, and again, 12 of those games were rivalry games against members of that conference (South Carolina/Clemson, UGA/GTech, Florida/FSU). Throw in another six that were bowl games, and the SEC played only nine games against the ACC that weren't rivalry or bowl games.

Still, the record pretty much speaks for itself: the SEC's worst winning percentage against BCS conferences comes against the weak Pac-10. Try and spin that one away. When it comes right down to it, the Pac-10 will go out and play tough
competition, and holds its own-- even its lesser teams. Arkansas has played only two BCS conference teams in the past four years, and those were both in bowl games. Mississippi St. has played only three, one of them being a victory over Texas A&M in a bowl game, and the other two losses to Oregon (Pac-10). Mississippi has also played only three BCS conference teams in the past four years, and two of those were in bowl games. Kentucky scheduled four games against Indiana, and that's the only OOC BCS teams they've played. Bama has played five OOC BCS games and is 1-4 (the victory was in a bowl game, the losses were scheduled OOC games).

In the Pac-10, Arizona (worst team in the Pac-10 the past four years) has played four OOC BCS teams, none in bowl games (Ohio St., Wisconsin, LSU and Purdue). Cal has played Illinois (twice), Rutgers, Baylor, Michigan St. and Kansas St. (no bowl games). Stanford has played Texas, Boston College (twice), Notre Dame three times and Georgia Tech (bowl game). Only Oregon St. has done what the SEC routinely does, and that is avoid BCS conference teams except in bowl games.

The fact that the Pac-10 is .500 in its out of conference BCS conference games is quite remarkable, considering that most of the games were not in bowl games. What is truly pathetic is how the SEC keeps claiming how superior they are, but against BCS conference competition, they have a losing record over the past four years. It's obvious that the conference inflates its importance by beating up on patsy OOC opponents and racking up victories that are then used to bolster its superiority claims. If every team has at least eight wins, it has to be a good conference, right? Uh-huh. Sure. The bowl record says they are 12-12, while the Pac-10 turned out to be 8-9. Obviously superior conference. Obviously. :nono:

FIGHT ON!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[z2000]

Jack-

Can you move this to a rivals board?

This started out as a good discussion about the crappy BCS & it is yet again hi-jacked into a PAC 10 vs SEC / USC vs LSU thread.

 

[bbk]

you have way too much time on your hands scott/homer; get a life; weren't usc 2 losses against kstate the last 2 years; niiiiiiiiiiice:moon:

 

[MadJack]

come on, SCOTT! you're pissing people off. that's enough!

jack@madjacksports.com