Do You Like the Blue One Or the Red One?
Wednesday, February 22, 2006 at 02:31PM Matt at Statistically Speaking has invited me to respond to his blog entry comparing the USC and Miami "mini-dynasties" titled "LA or South Beach"?
Personally, I love both. Matt provides a brief introduction, letting us know he'll compare Miami's run from 2000 to 2002 with USC's from 2003 to 2005. He then breaks down each season by win/loss record, points scored and allowed, opponents' record, record against winning teams, road record and record in close games. Those are solid criteria, and just about the only way to keep the discussion at any kind of mathmatical, fact-based level. It's a sane but shortsighted approach.
First off, we have to keep in mind that USC is still playing at a very competitive level. Miami took a modest dive after their 2002 season, enough to provide the opening for USC's emergence. USC has yet to take a similar dive and I'm hesitant to give summary to a yet-completed run.
Second, any conclusion I could make on these two would have to incorporate analysis of their schemes and coaching and approach and more in depth analysis of particular games within the schedule. One distinction not factored into this so far has been a descriptive one; I think USC is Miami with sophistication, and I think Miami is USC with swagger. How we interpret that aspect of each team goes a long way in determining what conclusions we draw about both of their runs and who was "better" within that run.
You know I'm a scheme guy, and would give the edge to USC---at first glance. But many many many people think football's all about emotions and toughness, and would have little issue saying Miami's better. See my point?
I don't know how Matt considers those properties (and others left unstated for now), but he did draw a reasonable conclusion from his data:
I am inclined to say Miami’s 3-year run was more impressive. They had a better point differential against a more difficult schedule. They beat more winning teams. They played fewer close games, indicating they were more dominant. Miami’s 2 losses came to teams with a combined 25-1 record. Washington was 11-1 and Ohio St. was 14-0. USC’s 2 losses came to teams with a combined record of 21-6. Cal was only 8-6 and Texas was 13-0. In the end, the ‘bad’ loss to Cal probably seals the deal in Miami’s favor. Just because USC won 2 titles compared o Miami’s one shouldn’t automatically clinch it for them. When a 1-loss team wins the title, a lot of things have to happen. These things are not necessarily an indication this 1-loss team is better than other 1-loss teams from past years. The right teams have to lose. When Miami had 1 loss in 2000, they had a great argument to play for the national title instead of Florida St. (of course, Washington did too). Only Oklahoma was undefeated in 2000. USC was fortunate that every team had at least 1 loss in 2003. This enabled them to win a share of the national title. Miami was not so fortunate in 2000, and should not be penalized for that.
I'd quibble with his conclusion that Miami had a more difficult schedule (Big East?), and I have a different theory than his about close games that will hopefully be introduced on here soon.
Also, as I've argued on here before, I'm not very comfortable with bestowing titles upon teams with the best records given that scheduling is so uneven throughout college football and so few games are played. So his interpretation of USC being lucky that other teams also had one loss is a bit disconcerting. This is where my issue with polling comes to life, when we get to the situation in 2000 with Miami, Florida State and Oklahoma, as well as 2003 with USC, LSU and Oklahoma.
I agree that Miami shouldn't be penalized for the 2000 mess, but it sounds as if Matt is making a case against USC for basically the same thing happening to them. We need to remember that USC was No. 1 in the final polls, and Miami wasn't. That's not getting lucky, that's convincing voters you had the best team.
Finally, little credit is given to USC for losing a very close, well-played game against Texas. Both USC and Texas 2005 will probably go in the record books as top 15 all-time teams-if not much higher. The same cannot be said for Ohio State 2002 that Miami lost to.
Now, where heavy credit needs to be given to Miami is the thorough destructive power teams during that run had. They thoroughly whipped opponents on both sides of the ball. That was particularly surprising given Miami's fairly average offensive lines and quarterback's limited physical talent. The 'Canes sent an unprecedented number of first round picks into the NFL draft and managed to hold their team afloat for a 3-year window of historic success.
I'll conclude by noting that both of these runs should be savored by college football fans, because they are two of the best in recent memory, and may not be matched for a few more years. We have yet to see what will happen to USC, whether they stumble or just keep on winning. I also hope that Miami finds its former glory as soon as possible---the Hurricanes continue to be a revolutionary program unfettered by the demagoguery of conference identity and partisanship.
Reader Comments (3)
He should include Miami's 11-2 season in 2003 to balance the comparison to four-year runs.
Second, I think Texas was a far better team than that Ohio State team that beat Miami.
Finally, I think USC's run trumps Miami in several areas: USC beat more ranked teams, held the No. 1 spot longer (which makes for greater degree of difficulty in winning), beat more Top 10 teams and managed to throw in three Heismans to boot.
Also, let's not forget that included in Miami's schedule from 2000-2002 was McNeese State (2000), Rutgers (three times), Temple (three times), Florida A&M, Connecticut, Louisiana Tech and Troy State.
So about 33 per cent of Miami's wins came against teams that are either barely 1-AA or in the nether regions of Div. I.
I think that right there, that disqualifies them from this argument.
Since that WSU OT loss USC has lost just twice, once in 3 OT to Cal on the road and the other to Texas, holding a lead until the final 0:19. Amazing.
BTW notice the late BS calls that worked against Miami and USC in their losses: that pass interference on the final play against Ohio State, and for USC Jamaal Charles' obvious fumble that the review guys couldn't figure out?
Now the real test: seeing if one Evangel QB (Booty) can can keep a run going whereas his predecessor (Berlin) watched the whole thing go downhill.
This is a heck of a comparasion. First, you're both right...USC started in 2002 while Statistically Speaking was looking at just the three year spans for both clubs. If you include 2002 USC, 2003 Miami needs to be included...keeps the records the same over a four year span. The advantage that USC has is that the "mini-dynasty" is still going.
Quick question: I know that there are no definitions of a "dynasty" (leaving out the discussion of whether either case is a "true" dynasty, for the sake of argument), but can there be two overlapping dynasties in the same sport? You've got 2003-current USC and 2000-2002 Miami, but its probably most accurate to say that USC should include 2002. That means that 2002 is an overlap...and there's more of an overlap if you include 2003 in the discussion.
Anyway, I think HP and RA are a bit too quick to discount the Miami schedule. Granted, a third of the wins came against Temple, Rutgers, and a couple of other non-conference bottom-feeders, but the overall winning percentages of Miami's opponents was still higher than USC's, which is a hard statistic that is difficult to argue against. For the three year span, its a full five percent better. Arguing any further about the schedules really comes down to PAC-10 vs Big East qualitative opinions. I would imagine that most west coast would say that the PAC-10 was the tougher conference while east coast college football fans would argue that the Big East was the tougher conference. Regardless, the numbers favor Miami and Miami still beat their opponents by an average of two more points per a game than USC.
As far as who lost to who...in the three year span, USC lost to a great Texas and a mediocre (8-4) California team. The Cal game went to three overtimes and the Texas game was a score with 19 seconds on the clock. Miami's losses came to a 14-0 national champion Ohio State in overtime and an 11-1 Washington. Both teams had there losses on the road...so, maybe 2005 Texas would have beaten 2002 Ohio State, but I would argue that 2000 Washington would have crushed 2003 Califonia.
I don't hold much weight to the fact that USC was ranked #1 (in the AP) for longer. It might put a larger proverbial target on their back, but I don't see how it makes winning more difficult. The game is still 4 fifteen minute quarters with the team with teh most points winning, regardless of the rankings. Both programs are name brand programs that were getting the best efforts out of each of their opponents.
And if Heisman trophy winners are part of the discussion, then other player measurements need to be mentioned. Miami had 19 players selected in the first round (35 overall) of the NFL draft between the 2001 and 2004 drafts. Its too early to do the same determination for the USC teams (so far 3 first rounders and 9 overall in 2004 and 2005 drafts) with the next couple of NFL drafts to go, but the Miami showing is an incredible number that gives an indication of the overall talent level of those teams.
Finally, my opinion is that for the three year span that Statistically Speaking was looking at, Miami gets the edge on the basis of their domination in 2001. Looking at the four year span, I would give USC the slight edge due to the brutal 2002 schedule, with bonus points for having leaving the streak open ended as it is.