Southern Cal will not run the table. But if hypothetically it does, it should not play for the national title.
Not under any condition. Not even if it’s the only unbeaten team in the country.
At the midway point of the 2006 season, USC could easily be 3-3, and it still hasn’t played anyone good. And even in the most recent of USC’s three decided wins, the program struggled, pulling away from mediocre Arizona only after three quarters when the Trojans’ superiority in numbers came through.Not that Washington State, Washington, or Arizona State, the three teams USC “nailbit” through, are that much better than Arizona.
Alright, Arkansas destroyed Auburn and USC destroyed Arkansas, but both games definitely were anomalies. USC isn’t that good and Auburn definitely wasn’t that bad.
Yet, USC is in prime position to play for the title if it runs the table, regardless how Louisville and West Virginia (and Rutgers) do in the Big East, regardless who wins the Big Ten, regardless if Auburn or Florida run the table from here on out in the SEC, regardless if Texas runs the table in the Big XII, which it should. And it’s a joke.
And now I see everyone else’s point: college football needs a playoff system.
This year, the SEC could be the toughest conference ever. Auburn, Florida, Tennessee, and Louisiana State are easily four of the ten best teams in the country, yet each team had at least one loss in the first half of the season. And Michigan and Ohio State could be the two best teams in the country, but Michigan will not get to play for the title, at least not officially, as its season finale against Ohio State will eliminate the Wolverines from any chance.
All six of those schools all can stake a claim to be one of the two best teams in the country, yet only one will likely play for it all, if even that.
Instead, USC or West Virginia or Louisville (or god forbid Rutgers) will get to, undeserving as it may sound.
Luckily, USC will lose, first to Oregon State, then to California, then to Notre Dame, and finally to UCLA. But just the sheer thought of them playing for the title when if they were in the SEC, they possibly wouldn’t be bowl eligible, is just pure nauseating.
Now, I’m not saying it is logical for there to be a playoff: I still believe that the financial drawbacks outweigh any advantage it brings and thus the NCAA won’t do it, but now I do believe that it would be a good idea in theory.
If only for this year, college football needs a tournament. Invite Auburn, Florida, LSU, and Tennessee from the SEC; invite Ohio State and Michigan from the Big Ten; take Texas from the Big XII; accept Louisville and West Virginia from the Big East, (unless Rutgers somehow wins…., let’s not even talk about that); placate Notre Dame by giving them a spot; then allow entry to whatever mediocrity wins the PAC-10 and ACC, and while we’re at it, allow the MWC and C-USA champ in as well, since those conferences are decidedly better than the ACC anyway.
That gives us 14 teams, which would allow for Ohio State and Auburn to get first round byes, since, when you think of it, those two should play for the title anyway, but they won’t, because Auburn is in a good conference.
And the tournament will take place and so on.
But it won’t happen. And so long as we have the BCS, which we will for a long time, a team as mediocre as USC in 2006, Oklahoma in 2003, or Nebraska in 2001 can and will play for the title. It’s sad, but it’s true.
Yes, Auburn is to blame, laying an egg against Arkansas in one of the biggest upsets in the history of college football, but it has still done more to prove themselves than USC could possibly do.
USC will lose, but it doesn’t matter. The thought of them playing Ohio State for all the marbles should be enough for the NCAA to reconsider the BCS.
It’s not, but it should.
5 replies on “The Last Man Falls”
two thumbs up That was a good article and I agree with your views. I think that in the end USC will lose at least twice, while Louisville and Rutgers both fall. Then the controversy will be whether West Virginia or Auburn/Florida will play for the national title, but I don’t think that should be a controversy. Let the SEC team in.
Hmm Just out of curiosity, what will you say if USC does in fact run the table, and then wins the national title?
hahahahahaha That was a funny comment you just made.
But seriously, I’ve been wrong before; I know I’ve been wrong. I don’t claim that I’m always right. I’m just arguing here that we need a playoff, even if USC doesn’t run the table.
I don’t think USC can run it either… but they do have all their big games (except UCLA–but it’s close enough) at home, so it is possible…
I said this before, but a one-loss Notre Dame, AUburn or Texas may still trump an unbeaten WVU or Louisville (the Big East is “wicked awful” as Boston-Mac might say) and end up in the title game. I’m just going to leave it at the Michigan-Ohio State game being for the National championship (if they’re 1 & 2)then ignore the rest of the results…I’ll save myself a lot of time come late December-January.
Good article and I’m not religious or anything but I hold rosaries in my hand in hopes for a goddam playoff.
prove it on the field — You are very quick to dismiss USC’s destruction of Arkansas, in Arkansas (after that, I’m baffled by your assumption USC would be at the bottom of the SEC), and do not even mention their dominating victory over Nebraska, which was only a late fumble away from putting away Texas. Knowing that the Pac-10 is perceived as a weaker conference, the Trojans actually schedule tough out of conference foes. Top Arkansas, Nebraska, and Notre Dame as out of conference opponents. No payday patsies there, unlike the SEC which loves to include such giants as Memphis, Arkansas State, and Western Carolina.
It’s true USC has had some close games, but all your SEC teams have as well, and let’s not forget Ohio State actually needed several last second plays throughout the year to stay unbeaten when they won their title in ’02.
USC may not run the table, but to say they don’t deserve to play for the title if they go undefeated ignores recent history and just reinforces conference-preference stereotypes without any supporting evidence.