07-04-2013, 11:03 AM
The author says that in 2004, a "single unlucky loss to U.S.C." kept Ca.l out of the BCS title game.
Was the loss "unlucky"? Well, Ca.l outgained U.S.C. by a lot -- 424 yards to 205 yards. So you could say Ca.l outplayed U.S.C. But I'm not sure the loss was "unlucky." Much of the damage was self-inflicted. On each of its first two offensive possessions, Ca.l went for it on 4th-and-1, once from its own 43 yard line and once from the U.S.C. 36 yard line. Both times, Ca.l fumbled and lost yardage. Both times, U.S.C. took advantage of the field position and scored. Overall, Ca.l went 0-for-3 on 4th down conversions, lost 3 fumbles, and missed a field goal. Is that unlucky? I'm not so sure.
Did the loss keep Ca.l out of the BCS title game? The teams that made the BCS title game that year were U.S.C. (12-0) and Oklahoma (12-0). Next in line was Auburn (12-0). With a win over U.S.C., would an 11-0 Ca.l team have made the championship game? Would the coaches have voted Ca.l above Auburn? I don't know, but I rather suspect not. Ca.l would, however, have made the Rose Bowl if not the championship game.
P.S. I noticed that the article said Ca.l had a record of 3-9 last year, but an "adjusted" record of 7-5. The idea of an "adjusted" record seems pretty silly to me. If there's one bottom-line statistic that really means something, it's the W/L record. The idea that Ca.l was bowl-eligible on an "adjusted" basis won't bring much consolation to the fans or to the ex-coach, I'm sure.
Was the loss "unlucky"? Well, Ca.l outgained U.S.C. by a lot -- 424 yards to 205 yards. So you could say Ca.l outplayed U.S.C. But I'm not sure the loss was "unlucky." Much of the damage was self-inflicted. On each of its first two offensive possessions, Ca.l went for it on 4th-and-1, once from its own 43 yard line and once from the U.S.C. 36 yard line. Both times, Ca.l fumbled and lost yardage. Both times, U.S.C. took advantage of the field position and scored. Overall, Ca.l went 0-for-3 on 4th down conversions, lost 3 fumbles, and missed a field goal. Is that unlucky? I'm not so sure.
Did the loss keep Ca.l out of the BCS title game? The teams that made the BCS title game that year were U.S.C. (12-0) and Oklahoma (12-0). Next in line was Auburn (12-0). With a win over U.S.C., would an 11-0 Ca.l team have made the championship game? Would the coaches have voted Ca.l above Auburn? I don't know, but I rather suspect not. Ca.l would, however, have made the Rose Bowl if not the championship game.
P.S. I noticed that the article said Ca.l had a record of 3-9 last year, but an "adjusted" record of 7-5. The idea of an "adjusted" record seems pretty silly to me. If there's one bottom-line statistic that really means something, it's the W/L record. The idea that Ca.l was bowl-eligible on an "adjusted" basis won't bring much consolation to the fans or to the ex-coach, I'm sure.