ESPN's Schlabach ranks the BCS National Champions

Except I said "fairly well", not "very well".

Texas held USC to 5.1 ypc on the ground, which is considerably below what USC averaged in '05. 5.1 ypc is still good, but Texas did a "fair" job of containing USC's rushing attack, holding them below their average, and assuring that USC would have to win the game through the air.

While USC's rushing offense only gained only gained 5.1 yards per attempt, their passing offense gained 8.9 yards per attempt - better than their season average.

Meanwhile, USC gave up 8 yards per attempt rushing, and 6.7 yards per attempt passing. The Texas offense found USC easier to run on then their average opponent, but harder to pass on.

USC at 5.1 ypc could not hang with Texas at 8 ypc in a rushing contest. So they had to pass to stay in the game. And they did. And they were able to pass effectively enough to move the chains with ease.

The lack of run defense of '05 USC was a crushing weakness against Texas. The '04 defense was stellar in this regard - far superior to '05. This has a huge impact on the matchup.

Rushing offense was not a strength of USC vs Texas. Their passing offense was the strength, and they had to rely on the pass because they couldn't hang with Texas running the ball.

For USC in that game, they do better if they sacrifice rushing effectiveness for superior rushing defense. This shores up their big defensive deficiency, without sacrificing their primary offensive weapon.
 
something people in all these threads forget is variance. As a poker player, you realize that certain outcomes, although the most likely, are NOT guaranteed.

If Josh Heupel doesn't injure his bursa sac, maybe 2000 OU is mentioned as #1. Then again, if Torrance Marshall doesn't house an interception (thanks Mark Farris), OU doesn't even win the title. 2005 UT probably loses the game at tOSU 35% of the time or so. They probably lose to USC 45-50% of the time. That said, they were a GREAT team. My rankings would be:

1. 2001 Miami
2. 2005 Texas
3. 2004 USC
4. 2000 Oklahoma
5. 1999 FSU
6. 2003 LSU
7. 2002 OSU
8. 2006 UF
9. 2007 LSU
10. 1998 UT

That said, if 1998 UT played 2001 UM 100 times, it would not be 100-0 Miami. I do also think there is a pretty big dropoff from 2004 USC to 2000 OU.
 
There is definitely variance. In fact, the computer ratings systems are based on the concept. Given two teams' ratings, I can give you the ratings' opinion on the probability that one team beats the other.

For example, in my ratings, the output indicates that 2005 Texas would beat 2001 Miami 56.4% of the time. This is how small the difference is between these teams. The biggest gap in BCS champions in my system, 2005 Texas and 2007 LSU, results in an 80.3% probable Texas win.

So never fear, EV-calculating friend. There is a beacon of light in the conversation that understands the concept of probabilities versus absolutes and variance in outcomes.
 
LOL thank God! Gets old always reading "would beat team x guaranteed" or "no way team y wins".

Granted, I am an OU supporter, but the 2004 Orange Bowl is a great example. OU had 4 unforced turnovers in 15 minutes. That is a very high rate for a poor team, much less one that was surely one of the 3 best in the country. 55-19 was clearly way to one end of the spectrum of games that were possible for those two teams to play against each other. It doesn't prove that Auburn should have been there (nor does it prove that Auburn shouldn't if OU had won the game). It proves that when a great team is on, and their opponent self-destructs (then admittedly quits), there will be an asskicking. Duh.
 
Even including the 55-19 result as the only direct point of comparison, 2004 USC over 2004 Oklahoma is merely a 70.0% probable outcome.

Yea, nerdy computer ratings!
 
Didn't Texas lose a rematch in 2001 to a Colorado team it had drubbed 41-7?

And yes, early turnovers played a factor in the second result.
 
This is what I like and dislike about these subjective threads everybody has an opinion and every opinion is valid, (even the BYU folk).

What is UNacceptable is that this same discussion is rehashed between teams IN THE SAME SEASON each and every year. Playoffs would eliminate the subjectivity and create an objective standard (he who deserves it more wins, no he who is best which is unknowable).

Again here is mine:

That 71 season is highly ranked based on 3 teams that played each other, the Big 8 could have been average and the rest of the leagues deplorable for all we know.

In 04 our Offense was nowhere near what it was in 05 (or even late 04 for that matter) the Mizzu game was the lowest of the low (game following Oklahoma) but after that the real offense opened up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top