LSU - USC comparison

[JW]

Seems like LSU may well be the odd man out in the BCS ranking. Even if LSU wins out, which won't be easy, it appears the national championship game will likely be OU-USC, though of course they also have games remaining. Most people seem to think USC is a better team than LSU. Now I'm not going to argue here that LSU is better than USC, but I do think LSU can make its own claim to the #2 spot, a claim at least as legit as USC's claim. Here is some data to support that, some direct LSU-USC comparisons. Most of it is gleaned from discussions on LSU football boards; some is my own work. Anyway, here it is, the case for LSU in the Sugar Bowl. It may surprise some of you.

LSU has played more ranked opponents.
1.BCS pollonly ranks top 25-LSU has played the #7,#11,#18 and will play the #24 Friday. USC has played the #15, and no one else.
2.ESPN/Coaches Poll(only ranks top 43-LSU has played #5,#11,#19, and will play #29 Friday. USC has played #14, and no one else in top 43!
3. AP poll(ranks top 37)-LSU has played #5,#11,#17, and will play #26 Friday. USC played #16, and no one else in their poll.

LSU ranks better in defensive stats.
TEAM......Tot Yds.....TD.....FG.....YPG.....Pts
LSU............2824.........13......5.......256.......103
USC............3510.........24......10......319......197
Diff..............686..........11........5........63........94
Analysis to rate the Total Offenses that both schools played against: Based on the current NCAA offensive rankings USC opponents range (Tot Off) from #4 Hawaii thru #113 Stanford for an avg of #71. LSU's opponents offenses range from #22 Ole Miss thru #109 Arizona for an avg offense of #65.
LSU has two opponents in the hundreds range with #100 ULM & #109 Arizona. USC has faced 4 in the hundreds with #102 BYU, #107 UCLA, #109 Arizona & #113 Stanford. BTW you can throw in #97 Notre Dame in the mix also.

Common opponents: LSU beats Arizona 59-13 and Auburn 31-7. USC beats Arizona 45-0 and Auburn 23-0. LSU has a greater point differential in games versus common opponents.
LSU lost to ranked Florida 19-0. USC lost to unranked California 34-31.

LSU's one loss, 19-0, was to highly ranked Florida. USC's one loss, 34-31, was to unranked Cal.

LSU’s biggest problem in the BCS ranking is its weak OOC schedule, notably the game against Western Illinois as well as the game against UL-Monroe. LSU can’t change that but it should be noted for those who think LSU scheduled those games deliberately that those games were originally to be against BYU and Marshall, teams with somewhat better reps than ULM and W. Ill. I forget why BYU backed out, but Marshall backed out late to take a Thursday night TV game against Toledo. Marshall was replaced with Troy State who also backed out at the last minute, leaving LSU to scramble at the last minute to find a game, W.Ill. Note that Va. Tech. has recently backed out of a 2004 game at LSU (delaying that game to 2007, after LSU played at VaTech in 2002) and Bowling Green, a team doing quite well this season, backed out of a game at LSU last season. Seems some folks don’t wanna play in Tiger Stadium.

BTW, in the arcane world of the BCS, it is still possible for LSU to leapfrog over USC, but only if things fall just right for LSU. This is why we need a playoff.

[cthomer5000]

They won't win out, so you won't need to worry about the championship game.

[clintl]

We need a playoff because having a bunch of coaches, reporters, and computers decide which two teams play for the national championship makes no sense under any circumstances.

[Noop]

LSU is a good team and I feel they can give Oklahoma a good game. But Southern Cal is the only team that can actually beat Oklahoma. LSU has a defense that can rattle White but can they score on Oklahoma? Clayton is very underrated but he needs a QB to throw to him and Mauck will be getting hit all game.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Why do I have a feeling that there will end up being more posts that complained about TCU getting in a game that doesn't matter than whether LSU or USC should play in the national championship game if both win out.

It's pretty sad that LSU has to root for Georgia not to get in the SEC championship game because if they beat them they end up getting no quality win bonus for beating Georgia twice, despite them being ranked in the top 10 both times.

[detroit_fan]

USC or LSU hang with OU? You must be watching a different college season then I am.

[JW]

Originally posted by HornedFrog Purple
Why do I have a feeling that there will end up being more posts that complained about TCU getting in a game that doesn't matter than whether LSU or USC should play in the national championship game if both win out.

It's pretty sad that LSU has to root for Georgia not to get in the SEC championship game because if they beat them they end up getting no quality win bonus for beating Georgia twice, despite them being ranked in the top 10 both times.

Yep, the BCS system was hyped as taking the guesswork out of the mythical national championship and presenting the nation with a true national championship game. But we know that isn't so. Just it was sometimes clear under the old who the best team was, and sometimes not clear at all, so to the BCS system does not always determine a true national champion. An 8 or 16-team playoff would do a much better job, though we of course would argue over who got left out of the playoff.

Let us assume for a second that LSU leapfrogs USC, gets to play OU, and beats them, while USC convincingly wins its bowl game (assume the Rose Bowl, vs. Michigan). USC would still have a convincing argument that it was the best team in the country.

Now if this is interesting, imagine the argument that would ensue if both LSU and USC end up with two losses, which is also possible. Who goes up against OU? Michigan? Georgia? As interesting as things are now, they could end up being even more interesting.

[sooner333]

I don't know, but if all the teams had two losses, and Oklahoma had none, then would a playoff or even a BCS championship game be necessary at that point to determine a champion?

Even if there is only one undefeated team who has proven to play a tough enough schedule...is there really a need?

The only way I see a need a playoff is if there are three or more such teams. Or there were no such teams. That has not happened yet because the regular season is like a big playoff. The BCS takes a human element, an unbiased computer element, a hardness of schedule element, and good win element, and a simple loss element and pits the two best teams against eachother. Why is that such a travesty? If LSU is deemed better because their opponents had better seasons than LSU's, then so be it. The only bad thing about the BCS is if you beat the same team twice, you lose quality win points. That and margin of victory was taken out.

[clintl]

I understand the desire to keep the tradition of the Bowl system, but I don't understand why you can't have a playoff AND the bowls. Have a 16-team playoff, with all 11 conference champions and the top 5 ranked non-champions. The final two end up in a championship game that is also one of the major bowls, and you can still have the rest of the traditional bowl games with the teams that didn't make it to the championship game.

Every other division in NCAA football has a playoff to determine the championship, and it's a disgrace that the NCAA refuses to do it at its top level.

[Craptacular]

If LSU wins out (which I personally don't think they will), they still have a VERY good shot at passing USC, even if they have to lose QW points by beating Georgia again.

Assume the polls end up with USC #2 and LSU #3. 1 point advantage for USC.

Arkansas is 8-3, and Georgia is effectively 10-1, since the SOS calculations should not include the first LSU-Georgia game (someone correct me if I'm wrong). USC faces Oregon St, who is 7-4, and has played a weaker schedule than either Georgia or Arkansas (when it could be close, you need to worry about opponents' opponents). USC's SOS went from 37th to 39th after facing 6-5 UCLA, while LSU's went from 72nd to 61st after facing 8-2 Mississippi. It's tough to predict, especially because you don't know how their opponents will do, but most experts seem to think LSU's SOS will end up higher than USC's. It's 0.04 points for every spot.

Now, let's look at the computers. Again, it's not a certainty, but you would think LSU would gain on USC in all of them if they each win out, based on the schedule strength.
Anderson-Hester: LSU 2, USC 3
Billingsley: USC 2, LSU 3, and the gap between the two is as big as the gap between LSU and #9 Georgia ... could be tough for LSU to move ahead, but not impossible
Colley's: USC 2, LSU 4 (OSU is #3); again, the gap is significant, but not unattainable
Massey: LSU 2, USC 3
New York Times: USC 3, LSU 9 (Texas #2); Einstein can't figure this one out, but you have to figure LSU would move way up; if not, it get's tossed anyway. The NYT ranking seems to have the heaviest reliance on SOS (it is also the worst ranking for TCU, Boise St, Miami(OH), Bowling Green; highest ranking for Texas and Florida), so LSU should get a big boost.
Sagarin: USC 2, LSU 3; it's almost a tie right now, so LSU should be expected to pass USC
Wolfe: USC 2, LSU 4 (Michigan 3): similar to Colley's in that the gap is significant, but not unattainable

If both teams win out, worst case for LSU should be that they're ahead in 3 or 4 out of 7, but they could very easily be ahead in 5 or 6 (maybe even all 7). Assuming both teams are #2-3 in each one, LSU would gain .17 by being ahead in 4, .5 by being ahead in 5, .83 for 6, and 1.0 for all 7.

Finally, we have quality win points. USC ain't gonna get any, thanks to Wazzu's loss in the Apple Cup. Even if LSU has to beat Georgia, I still think Georgia ends up in the top 10 in the BCS rankings, giving LSU at least 0.1 points. Iowa is the current #12, and I think Georgia would stay ahead of them unless the pollsters really killed 'em. Florida is #11 and FSU is #9. The winner of that game would likely pass Georgia, but certainly not the loser. Miami is #10, and if they lose to Pitt, they wouldn't pass Georgia. #10 or better looks fairly safe to me. That 0.1 points for LSU could be huge.

SO...
Polls: USC by 1
Computers: USC by 0.17, LSU by 0.17, 0.50 (my best guess), 0.83, or 1
QW points: at least 0.1 for LSU, none for USC
SOS: 0.04 for every spot ... best guess is LSU by single digits (0.04 to 0.36 points advantage)

Result: I don't know, but I wasted a lot of time doing this. I love it though.

[tucker342]

Originally posted by clintl
I understand the desire to keep the tradition of the Bowl system, but I don't understand why you can't have a playoff AND the bowls. Have a 16-team playoff, with all 11 conference champions and the top 5 ranked non-champions. The final two end up in a championship game that is also one of the major bowls, and you can still have the rest of the traditional bowl games with the teams that didn't make it to the championship game.

Every other division in NCAA football has a playoff to determine the championship, and it's a disgrace that the NCAA refuses to do it at its top level.

EXACTLY. Or you could give the teams that didn't make the playoffs a chance at postseason play with a bowl game. It would make things so much easier

[JW]

Originally posted by Craptacular
If LSU wins out (which I personally don't think they will), they still have a VERY good shot at passing USC, even if they have to lose QW points by beating Georgia again.

Result: I don't know, but I wasted a lot of time doing this. I love it though.

Thanks for the data, which is similar to data being done on the LSU board I frequent. As for the "don't think they will," it will indeed be difficult. The game Friday against a good Arkansas team comes after a short week following an emotional game; we fans are just telling each other we have to provide the lift for the Tigers in Death Valley. Then the SECCG will be a war no matter who the Tigers play. LSU has obviously a harder road than USC. They will have to beat two highly ranked teams in two weeks to even have a chance to reach the mountaintop.

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by JW
Thanks for the data, which is similar to data being done on the LSU board I frequent. As for the "don't think they will," it will indeed be difficult. The game Friday against a good Arkansas team comes after a short week following an emotional game; we fans are just telling each other we have to provide the lift for the Tigers in Death Valley. Then the SECCG will be a war no matter who the Tigers play. LSU has obviously a harder road than USC. They will have to beat two highly ranked teams in two weeks to even have a chance to reach the mountaintop.

you really need to root for every team you've played this year to win as well. Particularly Ole Miss.

[OldGiants]

Originally posted by sooner333
I don't know, but if all the teams had two losses, and Oklahoma had none, then would a playoff or even a BCS championship game be necessary at that point to determine a champion?

That's the real relevant question.

And what happens if a 2-loss team plays and beats the Okies, then what? Are they the national champs? I doubt it.

As to SoCal and LSU, no one has bothered to mention that they have the weakest schedules, by far, of any top ten BCS teams. You have to drop down to MIami of O to find worse, and to #15 Wash St to find equally weak schedle. Check the BCS rankiongs for yourself

I think that's their secret--don't play anybody.

Here's what should happen and quite possibly will in the future.

Four 16 team 'super' conferences, like what the ACC is becoming. Each of these has two divisions and a playoff.

Right now there are 62-63 BCS teams, so getting 64 is easy. Say the ACC adds the rest of the Big East, Pitt, W Va, Syracuse Rutgers. The Big 12 splits in three with Colorado, Kansas, Kstate and Nebraska going to the Pac 10 along with BYU and one other team. the Texas teams go to the SEC, and the remaining four go to the Big11 along with Notre Dame.

Eight teams, the division champs, play in mid-December to come up with the four conference champs. On Jan1, the four winners play each other and a week later those two winners play for the title. the four confence champion losers also meet in two bowls on Jan 1. So the top five bowls remain premiere and rotate the schedules.

Simple.

Would work.

[judicial clerk]

great post clintl.

[JW]

Originally posted by cthomer5000
you really need to root for every team you've played this year to win as well. Particularly Ole Miss.

Interestingly, that is very true, because of all the BCS permutations.

As for OldGiants comments about not playing anyone, LSU's weak OOC schedule has been mentioned by just about everyone, repeatedly. But assuming LSU beats ARkansas and gets to the SECCG, LSU will have played five ranked opponents (including its SECCG foe), which stacks up well against anyone. LSU admittedly has played some weak teams, and that has hurt LSU in the BCS rankings, but...let me repeat that LSU originally had Marshall and Brigham Young scheduled instead of ULM and W. Ill., and when it scheduled Arizona we didn't think Arizona would be as weak as it was. So LSU didn't set out to create the weakest possible OOC schedule. It just happened that way. But the weak OOC schedule is indeed a legitimate point of contention against LSU.

[ISiddiqui]

And what happens if a 2-loss team plays and beats the Okies, then what? Are they the national champs? I doubt it.

Dammit, why couldn't you have had this discussion in the thread I started about it .

[Craptacular]

Originally posted by OldGiants

As to SoCal and LSU, no one has bothered to mention that they have the weakest schedules, by far, of any top ten BCS teams. You have to drop down to MIami of O to find worse, and to #15 Wash St to find equally weak schedle. Check the BCS rankiongs for yourself

I think that's their secret--don't play anybody.

Here's what should happen and quite possibly will in the future.

Four 16 team 'super' conferences, like what the ACC is becoming. Each of these has two divisions and a playoff.

In two weeks, they will probably both have better a SOS than Tennessee. Yeah, it will still be less than many of the others in the top 10, but to say LSU won't have played anyone is laughable. As others have pointed out, LSU did not try to put together a typical Kansas St OOC schedule.

As for conference alignment, I'd like you to look at this thread I started in the College Football forum and tell me what you think. You could use 10 conferences of 12 teams and have some sort of a playoff system.

[Craptacular]

Dola, remember that the AP poll does not have to vote the Sugar Bowl winner as the champion. So, if Oklahoma lost in the Sugar Bowl, especially to a 2-loss team, it is possible that they would still get a split of the title.

[Airhog]

Right now, it doesnt really matter who OU plays, its just going to be another notch on their belt.

[rexallllsc]

My idea is to keep all of the traditional bowls, then AFTER those games, use the BCS to take the top two teams and have a National Championship game, the weekend before the Super Bowl (they still take a weekend off, right?). That way, the traditional bowls still mean something (the Big Ten or Pac-10 champs can still win the Rose Bowl, and have something that has a real meaning, as opposed to going to the Sugar Bowl and losing a bowl w/ no tradition for the conferences, etc.).

[Samdari]

Originally posted by JW
Common opponents: LSU beats Arizona 59-13 and Auburn 31-7. USC beats Arizona 45-0 and Auburn 23-0. LSU has a greater point differential in games versus common opponents.
LSU lost to ranked Florida 19-0. USC lost to unranked California 34-31.

You seriously cannot be arguing that LSU's beating of two common opponents by one more point each than USC should have any bearing on this argument. They played two common opponents, both teams beat both opponents handily. No distinction gained, move on to the next criterion. Using this in fact hurts your argument because it damages your credibility by making it seem you are reaching for reasons to favor LSU.

I am also not sure I buy the argument that LSU's loss was that much better than USC's. Florida is indeed a better team than Cal, but USC got nipped on the road, while LSU got waxed at home.

clintl - you claim its a disgrace that the NCAA refuses to have a championship in I-A football. I am not sure this is the case. I am pretty sure that it is the football schools themselves who want to keep control of the postseason money. They see what happens with the NCAA tourney money, where 3000 schools have a say in money generated by essentially the same 100 schools or so every year. I personally believe a playoff would generate more total revenue than the current bowl system (but its unlikey 54 teams would play in it). But right now, the money paid out is not touched by the NCAA, the conferences and schools control its distribution, and the conferences and schools making big football bucks want to keep it that way.

[JW]

Originally posted by Airhog
Right now, it doesnt really matter who OU plays, its just going to be another notch on their belt.

I like that kind of talk from the favorite and hope the team goes into the Sugar Bowl with the same attitude.

[JW]

Originally posted by Samdari
You seriously cannot be arguing that LSU's beating of two common opponents by one more point each than USC should have any bearing on this argument. They played two common opponents, both teams beat both opponents handily. No distinction gained, move on to the next criterion. Using this in fact hurts your argument because it damages your credibility by making it seem you are reaching for reasons to favor LSU.

I am also not sure I buy the argument that LSU's loss was that much better than USC's. Florida is indeed a better team than Cal, but USC got nipped on the road, while LSU got waxed at home.

.

Let us assume I agree on both your arguments. That's fine. My point was not that LSU is discernably better than USC but the opposite, that USC is not discernably better than LSU, that LSU is just as deserving of a shot at Oklahoma as USC is. And I wasn't reaching for arguments. Someone might well have asked about common opponents, which is frequently used to compare teams, and, surprisingly, there were two of them. As for losses, one could indeed argue it either way or perhaps see it as a wash. My entire point is that an argument can be made for LSU to play OU. It might surprise you, but my personal view is that USC is probably a better team than LSU, based primarily on offensive consistency, but I would say that is a close call, too. In the end the BCS system will decide, and LSU now appears to have an edge if it wins out by having to defeat two ranked opponents in a row, including a highly ranked opponent it will face in the SECCG, assuming LSU beats Arkansas. LSU has a far tougher road left than USC, and that will tell, if....

[Airhog]

Originally posted by JW
I like that kind of talk from the favorite and hope the team goes into the Sugar Bowl with the same attitude.

Us fans may think that, but Im sure that stoops wont let the sooners get big headed. They will show up to play. I think stoops bowl record speaks for itself.

[vex]

Originally posted by JW
I like that kind of talk from the favorite and hope the team goes into the Sugar Bowl with the same attitude.

Yeah, I'm sure they'll just overlook their opponent in the NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP.

[Samdari]

Originally posted by JW
Let us assume I agree on both your arguments. That's fine. My point was not that LSU is discernably better than USC but the opposite, that USC is not discernably better than LSU, that LSU is just as deserving of a shot at Oklahoma as USC is. And I wasn't reaching for arguments. Someone might well have asked about common opponents, which is frequently used to compare teams, and, surprisingly, there were two of them. As for losses, one could indeed argue it either way or perhaps see it as a wash. My entire point is that an argument can be made for LSU to play OU. It might surprise you, but my personal view is that USC is probably a better team than LSU, based primarily on offensive consistency, but I would say that is a close call, too. In the end the BCS system will decide, and LSU now appears to have an edge if it wins out by having to defeat two ranked opponents in a row, including a highly ranked opponent it will face in the SECCG, assuming LSU beats Arkansas. LSU has a far tougher road left than USC, and that will tell, if....

I did not mean to seem like I was attacking you. I agree with the point that the two teams are not discernible. More disturbing to me is the fact that most of USC's lead is due to them being perceived as strong in the preseason polls (and thus being ahead of them now). I was just pointing out that the common opponents comparison does nothing to separate them, and in my opinion, making the statement "LSU has a greater point differential in games versus common opponents." makes it sound like you are putting this as a point in LSU's favor, when really, their results against common opponents are startlingly close. A look at results of common opponents certainly merits a look, but in this case, the conclusion should be that they are even, where on that point, you appear to conclude that LSU did better. I merely disagree with that point.

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah, I'm sure they'll just overlook their opponent in the NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP.

Why not? Miami did last year.

[OldGiants]

Originally posted by Craptacular
In two weeks, they will probably both have better a SOS than Tennessee. Yeah, it will still be less than many of the others in the top 10, but to say LSU won't have played anyone is laughable. As others have pointed out, LSU did not try to put together a typical Kansas St OOC schedule.

As for conference alignment, I'd like you to look at this thread I started in the College Football forum and tell me what you think. You could use 10 conferences of 12 teams and have some sort of a playoff system.

The problem with this 120 team system is MONEY.

There are 60+ BCS teams today and they control the bucks. Sharing that isn't in the cards today. That's why I think my four super conferences is the only do-able alternative in today's reality.

[vex]

Originally posted by ISiddiqui
Why not? Miami did last year.

Because they ARE Miami.

[ISiddiqui]

I don't recall insinuating that. I just wonder why it is far fetched for a team to overlook their opponent in the national championship game when it has been done before.

[JW]

Originally posted by Samdari
I did not mean to seem like I was attacking you.

No problem. I didn't think that at all. We should hug now. I do agree it would have been better to say that there is nothing in comparison of games vs. common opponents to show that USC is superior to LSU or vice versa.

As to airhog and vexroid, I have the greatest respect for OU and think they are indeed the best team in the country. However, you might be surprised at the capacity of college kids to get to believing the headlines and all the fans fawning on them, no matter what the coach does. I've seen it too many times, from too many teams, over too many years. Football is a very funny game, and I have seen many times when "no way" became "I'll be damned."

The bigger problem for a favorite in a big game, in a national championship game, is that breaks, turnovers, one or two big plays, key injuries, can have a huge impact on the game.