Sorry USC, You Have No Case!

USC Trojans quite naturally are of the general opinion that they deserve a shot at the national title, and are being unfairly denied because of bias against western football.

Curious that this bias did not prevent USC from splitting the AP title with an LSU team with a better record in 2003, or gaining a unanimous title over an Auburn team with a better record in 2004, but USC fans only seem to remember the times when the system did not give them what they wanted.

In any event, let us attend to USC's case for the title point by point.

1. USC has the No. 1 defense.

It is great that USC is using this argument this season, because if it works for them, they can give back their 2003 and 2004 AP titles. Why? Because LSU and Auburn were either No. 1 or No. 2 in defense in 2003 and 2004, and while USC's defense was good both years, they were not as close to the top as the defenses for Florida, Alabama, and Penn State are this year.

No, in 2003 and 2004, the USC argument was how they were piling on the points so fast that the SEC teams couldn't keep up. Now that it is Florida, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech, and Penn State with the "we had our starters on the bench by midway through the third quarter!" offenses, now USC wants to use the "defense wins championships" argument? Obviously hypocrisy runs deep in college football.

But wait, you say, USC's defense is not only No. 1, but one of the greatest in history, probably the best ever!

Pardon me, but we have heard "best ever" superlatives about USC before, such as how the 2005 team was "the best ever" and how Reggie Bush, who has 1440 NFL career rushing yards at 3.6 per carry on a team with a great passing game and offensive line in three NFL seasons, was "the best college tailback since Gale Sayers."

Well, let us apply another argument from the USC 2003 - 2004 years to the current USC team: USC's defenses look great because they are playing bad offenses. The 11 teams that USC have played this year contained only ONE 2500 yard OR 20 TD passer, ND's Jimmy Clausen.

It contained only one rusher to surpass 1200 yards in a 12 game season (Jacquizz Rodgers, who torched USC for nearly 200 yards). And it did not contain a single 1,000-yard WR.

So, USC's historic defensive season came with QB Jimmy Clausen, RB Jacquizz Rodgers, RB Jahvid Best, RB Toby Gerhart (Stanford, who scored 23 points on USC in what was supposed to be a "revenge game" by the way, with Gerhart rushing for 100 yards), RB Jeremiah Johnson, and WR Sammie Stroughter being the only players that can be accused of being above average.

And some of these, particularly Clausen, would be exonerated of that accusation upon actually seeing him play against good teams.

Let us compare this with, say, the Big 12.

They have NINE passers with more than 2500 yards, including six with more than 3000 yards, and please consider Josh Freeman's 2,945 yards and Jerrod Johnson's 2435. I will grant you that there are only four above average rushers in the Big 12 (Tom Osborne, Bill McCartney, Darrell Royal, and Barry Switzer cannot be pleased), but Oklahoma has two of them.

Oklahoma's No. 1 tailback would be No. 5 in the Pac 10 in rushing, and their No. 2 tailback would be No. 6! (And that is with Sam Bradford having 4000 passing yards and 46 TDs.)

And where the Pac-10 has one WR with more than 750 yards and ZERO with more than 1000, the Big 12 has 14 and five such WRs, respectively.

So, is it great USC defense or bad offenses of USC opponents? Well, when you consider that Penn State held an Ohio State team that actually had Chris Wells at RB and Terrelle Pryor at QB to six points, I will let you answer that question.

(USC fans still feel free to claim Ohio State as their only victory against the top 15 knowing full well that the Todd Boeckman-Noah Herron offense that they played would have struggled to achieve seven wins.)

USC fans can counter with the meager SEC offensive statistics. That is fine. I am only pointing out that USC's longtime argument against the SEC should be applied to itself. And since the SEC is a national best by far 11-4 in BCS games, including a perfect record in BCS title games (where USC is batting .500 in title games), it has been demonstrated that its mediocre offenses are no impediment.

But that is the SEC's argument, not USC's. USC needs to stick with their own longtime argument and declare Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Florida to be more worthy based on it.

2. Record/strength of schedule.

Alabama is undefeated. I will accept anyone's argument that a one-loss team should be preferred to an undefeated major college team when they are willing to apply it to their own team. "We had the best record but you know, we are just not that good, so we will just play for No. 2 this year and be happy." Any takers? USC fans? Anyone? Didn't think so.

Oklahoma - Texas - Texas Tech: All of those teams have played three opponents in the BCS top 15, with two of them in the BCS top seven. Texas played four of the BCS top 20. So, what is the argument of USC, whose single game against the BCS top 20 came against a team that was playing backups at QB and RB at the time (not to mention the fact that at WR backups is all Ohio State has)?

USC will say, "But they played a weak non-conference schedule!" All right, so let's say that 5-7 Virginia and 6-6 ND override having to play all those 11-1 and 10-2 teams whose only losses were to each other. Against Oklahoma, who played No. 11 TCU and No. 13 Cincinnati out of conference, to go along with the Pac 10's own Washington, your case is ridiculous.

Florida: So they played the Citadel. Tell you what...Let's exclude them. Result: If Florida wins the SEC championship game, then you will be able to match their 12 games against I-A competition against USC's. Result: A clear advantage for Florida.

Ten bowl eligible teams versus seven, and even that assumes that Arizona State beats Arizona and gets Mike Stoops fired this weekend. Oh yes, and even in that scenario, both Arizona schools will need to use victories over I-AA teams to be eligible.

So not only will USC only have seven bowl-eligible opponents at best, but three of them (Arizona, Arizona State, Notre Dame) will qualify at 6-6. I also like the fact that Arizona and Arizona State would not only use victories over I-AA teams, but victories over Washington and Washington State, teams that have combined for a single victory against I-A...the overtime game where they played each other!

So yes, go ahead and complain about Alabama opponents Western Kentucky and Arkansas State. As both of those are I-A teams, there is no guarantee that UW or WSU would beat either of them, especially Arkansas State, who is actually bowl eligible.

That's right...USC fans who bash Alabama's weak schedule ignore that Alabama will have actually played the more bowl eligible teams: eight.

Florida also has quality in addition to quantity. One opponent in the BCS top five to ZERO (Alabama), three opponents in the BCS top 25 to two (Alabama, Georgia, Florida State to Oregon and Ohio State, and again we all know that the Ohio State team that USC faced would have struggled to finish 7 - 5).

The best part: USC's season-long line about how Oregon State was "a better loss" than Ole Miss is now gone. First off, neither team is in the BCS top 25. Second, Ole Miss is ranked above Oregon State in the AP and Harris Poll and is only one vote behind Oregon State in USA Today (they are 28 votes ahead in Harris).

It is more than just records, by the way. Where Oregon State suffered a 30-point loss, a 27-point loss, and worst of all an eight-point loss to a losing team, Ole Miss A) saw all their losses to bowl eligible teams and B) did not have a single loss by more than seven points.

Also, where USC represented Oregon State's only strong performance against a top team (unless you think that there is some merit to losing by only three to a mid-major!), Ole Miss also nearly beat Alabama.

So, Oregon State's performance against USC was a fluke that can only be held against USC, especially after OSU gave up 65 points to Oregon on the very same Corvallis field that USC fans have spent months claiming is oh so tough to play. By contrast, Ole Miss was literally three plays from being 11-1 and headed to the SEC title game for a rematch against Florida and a shot at the national title.

You can blame Ole Miss for being 2-4 in close games, but chalk that up to a team that did not have a single player that had ever so much as played a bowl game learning how to win.

So what's Oregon State's excuse? That they just aren't that good. That is why they are claiming that having a 5'6" 170lb. true freshman tailback would have somehow kept them from getting run off their own home field in the program's biggest game in nearly 50 years. Ole Miss is a very talented team that Ed Orgeron had no clue how to coach.

Penn State: That's right, Penn State. Penn State has the same record as USC. Penn State is a talented team with a great offense and strong defense. It is true that USC has played a tougher schedule. It is equally true, however, that in matchups against common opponents, USC is 1-1 where Penn State is 2-0.

And yes, Penn State actually played the Ohio State team that is worthy of their top 10 BCS ranking...the one with Chris Wells and Terrelle Pryor in the starting lineup. USC played the Ohio State team that would have lost to Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan State and may have even had trouble with Northwestern and Illinois.

So the actual common opponents record is 1-0 against 0-1, with Penn State blowing out by 30 the only team to beat USC. And they say that there is a bias against western teams? Well, apparently Penn State must be based in Hawai'i, because there is no justification for USC to be ranked over PSU.

And USC fans: Don't root for Oklahoma to lose to Missouri. Because if it happens, Texas will go to the title game, not you. But Texas isn't the Big 12 champs you say? Texas will say that it isn't their fault. They beat both participants of the Big 12 title game, and were one big play at the end of the game from being undefeated.

Also, USC fans negated that argument by rooting for Oregon State to win the Pac-10 so you could escape the Big 10 matchup in the Rose Bowl and claim to deserve the AP title for blowing out Texas in case Oklahoma beat Florida.

I am not making this up, Ted Miller, the longtime West Coast media guy who does the Pac 10 blog for ESPN was promoting just such a scenario, and he was far from the first USC partisan advocating this idea. So all that outrage that West Coast fans generated over Oklahoma and Nebraska getting to play for the national title despite winning their conference?

Out the window.

You can't turn around and reject an argument that you were going to use yourself, especially since that argument represented a reversal of your prior position. But then again, the "defense wins championships" argument is a reversal of the USC 2003-2004 position against LSU and Auburn, so who cares right? As long as it benefits our team!

So, USC fans, you are right where you should be at No. 5. No, actually, you should be No. 6 behind Penn State, and possibly even be No. 7 behind Texas Tech. Tech played two I-AA teams, but you guys played UW and WSU, so let's call it even and give Tech the clear advantage in the portions of each of your schedules that had a pulse!

Now, I will not insult USC by claiming that they should be No. 8 behind undefeated Utah. But that is more consideration than many USC and West Coast fans gave Auburn in 2004 when lots of them, including this same Ted Miller, stated that Auburn's case for a split title was no better than Utah's, and that Utah would probably take Auburn on a neutral field.

Bottom Line

USC is not the best of the six one-loss teams but is actually the least accomplished and the least deserving. Instead of being a victim of bias, USC is actually overvalued by virtue of being ranked over Texas Tech and Penn State, and certainly by virtue of still having media members at this very second plotting for ways for USC to get into the title game, and would certainly be plotting a way to get them the AP title (their only loss was on the road to the Pac-10 champs!) had Oregon simply complied.