http://www.2theadvocate.com/stories/121 ... s001.shtml
For those who don't wanna click the link.
Dubois: It's LSU vs. OU as it should be
By CARL DUBOIS
cdubois@theadvocate.com
Advocate sportswriter
Since the announcement of LSU vs. Oklahoma in the Sugar Bowl, for a national championship sanctioned by six BCS conferences and the American Football Coaches Association, righteous indignation has been trendy.
This is not the finest hour for some highly esteemed commentators, columnists and coaches. It's as if they had no idea the BCS was designed to offset human bias and inject objectivity into deciding who plays for a national title.
Those who seem to have known all along seem to be in denial over the outcome.
Surely they saw what BCS experts wrote before the last weekend of games. If so, why the moral outrage? We all knew, thanks to the likes of Jerry Palm and ESPN's Brad Edwards, two intriguing things could happen:
LSU, because of a bump in schedule strength, could move ahead of USC in the BCS standings (That possibility caused no revolt).
Oklahoma, with a vise grip on first place because of season-long dominance, could afford to lose to Kansas State and still finish No. 1 in the BCS (nobody batted an eyelash at that one either).
But nobody counted on both happening.
By itself, each scenario seemed plausible. Neither evoked a national outcry. When each happened on the same day, with the combined effect of keeping USC out of the Sugar Bowl, some heavy hitters in sports commentary took offense, ranting as if fighting the discomfort of an atomic wedgie.
The Louisiana Superdome, we're told, will be the site of "CSI: New Orleans" on Jan. 4 as the nation comes to the scene of the crime to investigate how a worthy No. 1 such as USC can miss college football's Mardi Gras.
We're hoping to see consistency and credibility in the arguments.
Late in the season it became increasingly obvious this could come down to the teams' opponents. LSU was dismissed as having played too soft a schedule.
As LSU continued playing in the SEC, which has five teams in the top 20 of each poll -- more than any other conference -- its schedule strength received a bump. When the Tigers began consistently closing the gap on USC in the polls, the argument du jour was that USC's superior margin of victory proved it better.
When the season ended and the BCS computers overwhelmingly rated LSU's schedule as tougher than USC's, the argument then turned to intent: At least USC tried to play a tough schedule. It's not USC's fault Auburn, Notre Dame, Hawaii and BYU weren't as good as expected.
When LSU fans countered by saying Arizona was a top-10 team when LSU put it on the schedule -- and that LSU booked its two weakest opponents only after two stronger teams canceled -- the argument logically followed that you can only judge a team on the games it played, not the games it might have played.
So when that put the focus back on an LSU schedule that, from top to bottom, was stronger than that of USC, the issue changed to why Oklahoma is in the Sugar Bowl instead of USC.
Or it became: "The matchup everyone wants to see is USC-Oklahoma."
Or, after everything else failed, "I just think USC is the best team."
Come on. Not even Jimmy Ott will let you place a bet on Lock-of-the-Week Friday without an argument substantiating your pick.
The teams with the most victories? LSU (12-1) and Oklahoma (12-1). Is that unfair to USC (11-1) because the Pac-10 doesn't have a championship game?
Maybe. But this is about the schedule you played, not the schedule you might have played.
As for the vaunted USC margin of victory, consider that LSU outscored its opponents by 314 points. USC outscored its opponents by 281.
Still, let's take another view. The BCS exists, in part, to take out such subjective considerations as when a team loses and how that influences poll voters. Years of observation tell us that a team losing early in the season also gets back in line earlier to climb the ladder again.
With everything else being equal, let's talk more about timing.
USC lost Sept. 27 to Cal, 34-31 in three overtimes. Had USC lost that game on Dec. 6, would the Trojans be ranked No. 1 in both polls? Of course not.
Oklahoma won 12 straight games before losing 35-7 to Kansas State on Dec. 6. If the Sooners lost that game on Sept. 27 and still finished 12-1, would they be ranked No. 3 in both polls? Of course not.
LSU lost Oct. 11 to Florida, 19-7 in Tiger Stadium. If LSU had lost that game Sept. 27 and finished 12-1, would anyone be ranked ahead of the Tigers? No.
It's human nature to drop a team when it loses. It's not human nature, at the end of the season, to objectively vote a Top 25 based on the body of work of a full season. How often, in December, do you see a team climb over another team in the polls if both teams win?
The message from most voters is that it matters when you lose a game.
Or maybe it's that if No. 1 loses, No. 2 becomes No. 1. If No. 12 loses, No. 13 becomes No. 12. It's easier that way. Requires far less effort.
The BCS formula treats the season as a whole. That's why Louisiana Tech's last-minute victory over Michigan State in September and Nevada's surprising victory over Washington helped LSU and hurt USC on strength-of-schedule issues as much as anything that happened last weekend.
The failed squeeze bunt with a runner on third base in the second inning is as costly as the strikeout in the bottom of the ninth, but which do we say was the difference in the game?
Yes, but Oklahoma lost by 28 points. You don't deserve to play for a national championship if you lose to anybody by four touchdowns.
By popular demand, margin of victory was eliminated from the BCS formula two years ago. Why is margin of defeat now an issue?
We know who played the toughest schedules (Oklahoma and LSU). We know who won the most games (Oklahoma and LSU). Who had the worst loss?
Oklahoma lost to Kansas State 35-7 on a neutral field. Kansas State, playing a schedule rated No. 10 in the country, finished 11-3, 10th in the BCS and in the top 10 of each poll.
LSU lost at home to Florida 19-7. Florida, against the fifth-toughest schedule in the country, finished 8-4, 15th in the BCS and No. 17 in each poll.
USC lost at Cal 34-31 in three overtimes. Cal, against a weaker schedule than Kansas State or Florida played, finished 7-6 and unranked.
If you say Oklahoma's loss is the worst, it's because of the timing and the margin. Voters attach varying and subjective importance to each of those. The BCS formula is designed to compensate for that. I thought everyone knew that.
And how many points would the Sooners have needed in that game for that loss to be more acceptable than USC's loss to Cal? Fourteen? Twenty-one? Thirty?
Every coach who breaks the AFCA's agreement to vote the Sugar Bowl winner No. 1 needs to answer that question -- in public -- if OU wins. If LSU wins, a coach that reneges on the AFCA's promise hasn't been paying attention.
LSU played four games against teams in January bowls. Oklahoma played two.
USC played none.
The Sugar Bowl is for the national championship.
They had only lost three games when they beat USC, true, but you can't just ignore the fact that they lost three more after that. =p