Big wins by Oregon, Texas demonstrate how USC, Oklahoma State were overrated

Here's the conventional wisdom after Saturday's big games: Texas "proved" themselves by whipping a tough Oklahoma State team 41-14, and Oregon shocked the world by destroying #4 USC 47-20.

Here's my take: Oklahoma State and USC were both exposed by blowout losses. Oklahoma State as a team who'd been having success despite not being of top 25 quality, and USC because they were staggeringly overrated at #4 by whatever measure you use.

USC: The Trojans were overrated

They struggled to beat marginal top 25 teams Ohio State and Notre Dame. Yet they were placed ahead of several undefeated teams.That USC was #4 in the AP poll shows ridiculous favoritism to the Trojans based on what they've done in past years, not for this year's play. They had a loss to Washington, a tough team but one with a losing record, and commentators decried the BCS system that dared to have them lower.

The pro-USC contingent went as far as to prop of Matt Barkley, a decent quarterback but certainly nothing special, for the Heisman Trophy. True, he's doing fantastic for a true freshman, and the Heisman race is wide open. But for commentators after the Oregon State game try to sell him as a true candidate—when he was 15 of 25 for 202 yards, 2 TDs and 2 interceptions—was laughable. Do these guys even look at the stats? He wasn't even in the top 50 in pass efficiency.

This phenomenon happens with USC every year. They win a few big games, are declared the best team in the country (perhaps best college football team of all time), then they lose a game. After a few weeks of "what's wrong with the Trojans?" articles, they blow out a few more opponents and again are called the best team despite having a loss on their record. The BCS system is blamed again for the fact that the Trojans aren't number one on the list.

What's different this year is that USC wasn't close to being the best team, and they ran into a better team on Saturday. By any measure, Oregon should have been ranked ahead of USC going into the game. The Ducks' only loss was to an undefeated team, not 3-5 Washington, whom they destroyed the previous week. They beat Cal just as bad as USC did, and held a win over ranked Utah. So in an AP-style poll, the Ducks deserved to be in front. What about true strength? In a basic score-margin-based power rating, the Ducks were slightly ahead, ranking 8th to USC's 11th. And as the BCS computer rankings demonstrate, Oregon had accomplished more in their season than USC so far, averaging 6th to USC's 9th. It was only the biased human observers who had USC ahead.

The USC mystique is pervasive; I even picked the Trojans to win the game despite it being at Oregon. USC has consistently done well against ranked opponents and I figured they'd win again. But seeing Oregon win didn't shock me, though the 27 -point margin was unexpected.

Oregon: Soon to be overrated themselves at Boise State's expense

Now the commentators are falling over themselves about Oregon. After all, if they beat the great Trojans, they must be incredible! Talking heads are putting the Ducks ahead of Boise State, who beat them fair and square. The excuses for not counting this game include: it was the first game of the season, it was in Boise, that was before Oregon "hit their stride." How about the real excuse: we don't think of Boise State as a real team, but USC is a real team. Tell me, if they'd lost the first game to USC under the same circumstances, who would disregard that game? No one.

One commentator (Craig James?) said he was moving the Ducks ahead of Boise, "not to take anything away from Boise State." Well, you are taking something away from Boise State. It's ridiculous and inexcusable to move a 7-1 team ahead of the 8-0 team that beat them, and it should never be done. Since we don't have a playoff, every game of the season has to be counted. Boise State 19, Oregon 8 was their playoff, and the Ducks lost. I guess losing a 1,000 yard rusher was a boon for the Ducks?

Oklahoma State: Exposed

The Oklahoma State Cowboys should have been a great team this year. And if you just look at wins and losses, they were doing pretty well. Fairly high in the Success rankings (#16) and the BCS computer rankings (average #17), they'd lost only to 7-1 Houston. But dig a little deeper and they weren't doing that well at all, ranking just 40th in Strength. They weren't winning convincingly, and it showed up in power ratings. And with Dez Bryant out for the year, the test they were able to give Texas was minimal, even though this game was supposed to tell us a lot about the Longhorns.

Now, after winning 41-17, instead of questioning whether Oklahoma State is even a top 25 quality team, everyone is talking about how Texas is finally playing good football.

Texas: They were already playing fantastic football

I'm not sure why Texas was getting so little respect all year. Most of it probably had to do with Colt McCoy's occasional interception, and not having as spectacular a year as last season. Some of it had to do with Texas' easy schedule. But the complaints peaked after they beat Oklahoma 16-13.

Think of how ludicrous that is: Texas wasn't a good team because they only beat Oklahoma by 3 points. Of course, the Sooners could easily have come into that game undefeated. While Oklahoma had two losses, they were still one of the best teams in the country, at least the equal of USC. And 16 points was the most they'd allowed except for Miami's 21. The game was played on a neutral field. If anything, Texas was a bit sloppy in that game, and they'd played sloppy football before. But the end result was always impressive.

Texas has consistently been in the top three in the Strength power rating and even before the Oklahoma State game they were #1 in both versions (I-A only, and the 726-team all-division version). It's strange that with Florida and Alabama struggling it was Texas who caught the most flak. The last few weeks (road wins over Missouri and Oklahoma State) should help nudge perception of Texas back into reality: they are—at least—the equal of Florida and Alabama at this point.

Comments

[MrPokerface]

OK, I agree that USC was overrated at #4, but let's not get carried away in bashing them. You mention that they won on the road against two top 25 teams (Ohio State & Notre Dame) as if that's a bad thing, and then basically discount wins at Cal and over Oregon State as though they were nothing. I mean, but for a late comeback, the ND game was looking like a rout, and I for one am not so sure that a win in Columbus is such a pedestrian feat, the Buckeyes have one of the best defenses in the country.

Also, if there's any "USC phenomenon" going on, it's not them being overrated, it's their weakness in road games in Oregon. From 2006 through today, USC has gone 28-1 (Stanford '07) in games in the state of California (including Rose Bowls), 12-1 in games in the other 48 states (Washington '09), and 0-4 in the state of Oregon.

I agree that USC this year is a good, not great, team, but let's not try to use their performance this season, with a freshman QB, w/o most of their starters from last year, w/o most of their coaches from last year, to try to tarnish their legacy. The fact is that from 2002-2008 USC has been THE preeminent college football program in America, moreso than Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, LSU, Alabama or whomever. They were 82-8 in that timespan, against a tough schedule that featured no cupcake opponents, but rather nonconference games against Notre Dame each year, plus the likes of Ohio State, Nebraska, Arkansas, Auburn, BYU, Fresno State and VirginiaTech. After two early losses in 2003 (to top 10 teams), they won 51 of the next 53 games with the only two losses being an upset at Cal and Vince Young's magical night in the '06 Rose Bowl.
Simply put, Southern Cal has been the gold standard for college football. So even if they struggle a bit this year, I wouldn't quite put the nail in the coffin. I mean, a record of say 10-3 is still pretty good for a "rebuilding year".

[SportsRatings]

MPF-

That's exactly what I'm saying: USC has been so dominant over the last several years that pollsters are ignoring any deficiencies. My main complaint is with some of the TV commentators who were lamenting that USC was stuck at #8 in the BCS, when even that was generous considering 7 teams were undefeated.

I don't deny that USC's been great, obviously :) But every time they win several games in a row some sportswriter will call them the "best team of all time." Not every year is 2004, but they treat it like it is, even when USC loses.

[MrPokerface]

Welp, after today's game, I think it's pretty safe to say the Trojans are toast. Either that or both Stanford AND Oregon (and Boise State?) are world-beaters.
atBoise State 19, Oregon 8
atOregon 47, USC 20
atStanford 51, Oregon 42
Stanford 55, atUSC 21