Thursday January 1st: Rose Bowl in Pasadena, CA 5:00 pm eastern
#8 Penn State Nittany Lions (11-1) vs. #7 Southern Cal Trojans (11-1)
What a great Rose Bowl. The Grandaddy of Them All dodged a bullet when Oregon State lost to Oregon, and instead ended up with a great game.
Vegas line: Southern Cal by 9.
USC's history of winning big games helps make them a sizeable favorite, not to mention the near-home field advantage.
Strength Power Rating: Southern Cal 29 Penn State 20
The Strength Power Rating agrees with the oddsmakers. The teams are almost even in scoring offense, with Penn State 9th and USC 10th, but the Trojan defense is #1 in the country allowing less than a touchdown a game when adjusted for competition. The Nittany Lion defense is no slouch, either, ranking 5th in the country, making this a matchup of teams with both top ten offenses and defenses.
Yardage analysis: Southern Cal 34 Penn State 13
The yardage projection comes up with a USC blowout. Southern Cal's stats don't vary much from the scoring data; they rank 10th on offense, 2nd on defense. But Penn State's yardage stats are lower than their scoring stats, ranking them 22nd on offense and 15th on defense in terms of yardage gained and yielded. How do they make up the difference in points? Offensively, they rank in the top ten in red zone percentage and fewest turnovers, so they rarely gain meaningless yards. The defensive discrepancy is more of a mystery; they're not exceptionally good at red zone defense, forcing turnovers, or blocking kicks. The Lions are very good, though, at stopping 3rd down conversions, which can make a huge difference in preventing opponents from turning yardage into points.
When Southern Cal has the ball
Southern Cal rushing offense: #21 Penn State rushing defense: #10
Southern Cal passing offense: #23 Penn State passing defense: #54
USC has a very balanced attack. They're not great at either the running or passing game, just very solid in both. Using their patented stable of running backs and quarterback Mark Sanchez, the offense has seemed to alternately stall flourish at various times. When they're on, they're unstoppable, but when Sanchez is having a bad game and no back is stepping it up, they look somewhat average on O. Penn State is stingy against the run but allows a lot of passing yards, so if Sanchez is having one of his "good" days this would be their best route. But despite the yardage the Lions have allowed, they've only given up six touchdowns through the air this year compared to 16 interceptions, so the #54 ranking is misleading.
When Penn State has the ball
Penn State rushing offense: #22 Southern Cal rushing defense: #6
Penn State passing offense: #56 Southern Cal passing defense: #1
Penn State is more of a running team despite their spread offense, and led by Evan Royster they put up adjusted rushing yardage comparable to USC's. Their passing game is less productive, though the #56 ranking, like the Lions' pass defense ranking, is misleading: they have 22 TD passes to only 4 interceptions this year. Their passing game is very efficient when used. Daryll Clark is a decent running threat as well as a good passer. They'll be up against the toughest pass defense in the country in USC in terms of yardage (not) allowed; the Trojans also rank in the top 10 in stopping the run. Penn State's offense has their work cut out for them, as does any team that faces the Trojans.
Game-comparison win %
Penn State 69%
Southern Cal 31%
With home field advantage added in, USC's game performances outshine those of Penn State. Aside from a few lesser games, the Trojans have consistenly played exceptional football. Penn State isn't that far behind but has been less consistently stellar, making USC an over 2-to-1 favorite.
Southern Cal's key games
Wins over bowl teams (5)
- #10 Ohio State 35-3 (2nd game of season)
- #18 Oregon 44-10 (4th)
- @ Arizona 17-10 (7th)
- California 17-3 (9th)
- Notre Dame 38-3 (11th)
Losses (1):
The chart says it all. USC has basically played three types of games: great, good, and Oregon State. The great wins include: at Virginia 52-7 (game 1), Ohio State 35-3, Oregon 44-10, and at Washington State 69-0 (game 6). The home wins over Washington (56-0, game 8) and Notre Dame are close to great. The merely "good" wins include beating ASU 28-0 (game 5), at Arizona 17-10 (game 7), the Cal win, and beating Stanford 45-23 on the road. The closing game at UCLA was above average at best.
Then there was the game at Oregon State, the one that haunted them all season. It was really just a bad half of football, as they almost came back to win, but it was enough to blemish their record and keep them out of the national title game. You can argue that it happened early in the season, but then again, so did all four of USC's best-played games. Since the back-to-back shutouts of ASU and Washington State, USC hasn't quite been as dominant. That may be from a bit of boredom, as they faced only two teams with winning records down the stretch (3 if you count Notre Dame). They should be "up" for Penn State, can they recapture their best form?
Penn State' key games
Wins over bowl teams (4):
- #23 Oregon State 45-14 (2nd game of season)
- @ Wisconsin 48-7 (7th)
- @ #10 Ohio State (9th)
- #19 Michigan State 49-18
Losses (4):
It's a little surprising that these teams have so few wins over bowl opponents. The Nittany Lions have only four bowl team victories, in part because they chose to play Coastal Carolina, Syracuse, and Temple as pre-conference opponents. They did, however, play Oregon State, the team that beat USC, and thrash them convincingly. In conference play, they crushed Wisconsin and Michigan State, and held off Ohio State, another team that USC played (and beat much more easily than the Lions). So while their résumé of wins isn't extensive, they did beat three top 25 foes and beat three bowl teams with ease.
As Oregon State is to USC, Iowa is to Penn State: the team that prevented the national title run. Iowa's defense bottled up the Lions just enough, and the Hawkeye offense had just enough success to be in position to win it on a field goal. The game that followed, a 34-7 home win against lowly Indiana, was a worse performance despite the victory; they led just 10-7 at the half. However, that was just a case of letdown from the loss, as they snapped back big the next game against Michigan State.
Psychology
How can either team not be fired up for a classic contest like this? Both teams have equal disappointment at not making the national title game, but they have to know it was their fault and move on. Instead, they're both in the Rose Bowl, and facing arguably as good of an opponent as they'd have faced in a title game anyway. A touchdown here and there and both of these teams would be undefeated and playing each other in Miami on the 8th.
USC has all the talent in the world and good coaching. Their only pitfall the last couple of years has been overconfidence. That probably showed up for the Oregon State game, but the loss gave them a kick in the head. They've been less focused, too, in the 2nd half of the season, but facing Penn State will shake them out of that.
Penn State has had spottier success in recent years than USC, with 9 wins the last two years and 11 the year before. In fact, this season went a lot like the 2005 year for the Lions, with one last-second loss on the road blemishing their record. Facing USC essentially on the road is a daunting task, but they have something to prove. Hopefully they'll come in more fired up than intimidated.
Final analysis
Both teams have solid defenses. USC has given up a max of 27, Penn State has yielded 24 twice. Penn State has held teams to single digits five times; the Trojans? Eight times.
Both offenses have struggled some games and been bailed out by their defense. From this I would expect a lower-scoring game. Though each team can be explosive when they hit their strides offensively, they'll each be facing a shut-down defense.
Expanding on the game-comparison system, which I don't often go into depth with, but seems relevant here. Each team played 12 games, with their performances varying as you can see in the charts. All 12 of USC's games are compared to all 12 of Penn State's, yielding 144 matchup results. Most games, USC wins the matchup, including all 36 comparisons with USC's games against Virginia, Ohio State, and Oregon. Some they lose: USC's performance against Oregon State is judged to be 34 points worse than Penn State's win at Wisconsin.
In total, though, USC rates far higher. 71 of the 144 comparisons have USC over 9 points better, giving them a roughly 50% chance to beat the spread. 24 game-comparisons have them 28 points better. The Lions win only 44 of the matchups, about 30%, and only two comparisons show a 28 point margin. Split into quartiles:
- 25% of the results point to a USC win margin ranging from 21 to 42 points
- 25% of the results, USC wins by a range of 9 to 20 points
- 25% range from a USC win by 8 (19%) to a Penn State win by 3 (6%)
- 25% of the results, Penn State wins by 3 to 21 points (23%) or 22-34 points (2%)
But what if USC's first six games aren't used? That gets rid of their loss to Oregon State, but also makes their best performances go away. The (tenuous) theory is that USC started the year fully formed, while other squads needed time to develop, and have caught up ever-so-slightly. This result takes away the highs and lows, or in this case, the one low, showing what the team's been doing recently. Using these comparisons, Penn State actually wins more than the Trojans, 56% to 44%, even with home field advantage factored in.
So that's Penn State's hope: that USC's offense stalls as it has in the past, and the Lions themselves play one of their best games of the year. With USC's rise-to-the-occasion habit, it's not likely the Trojans will play less than their best. According to my numbers, a 2 point Penn State win is equally likely as a 19-point USC win, so my alternate prediction is USC 33, Penn State 14. But because it's more fun to go with the big upset than the safe pick, my prediction is:
Prediction: Penn State 23 Southern Cal 21
Syracuse—not Auburn—should get flack for not hiring Gill
There's been a lot a whining about Auburn not hiring Turner Gill, the ex-Nebraska star and coach that turned around the Buffalo program in a few short years. But those complainers are wrong; Auburn had no obligation to hire Gill rather than Gene Chizik, who coached Auburn's staunch defense of years past. Instead, it's Syracuse that missed the boat and should be receiving the criticism.
Charles Barkley started the shouting, saying that "race was the number one factor" in Chizik's hiring. He then went on to say that—get this—Gill should have been hired because of his race. "Clearly, if we’d hired a black coach, it would have created a buzz," he is quoted as saying in the Rivals article.
We can pardon Charles for his loud mouth, as it's par for the course for him. But why does Rivals' Dan Wetzel have to wholeheartedly agree with him? His arguments against Chizik are moronic, much like his infantile and constant grousing about not having a playoff system. He points out that Chizik hasn't done well at Iowa State, ignoring the fact that he's had success everywhere else he has been. At various jobs at Middle Tennessee, Stephen F. Austin State, and Central Florida, he helped raise middling and fledgling programs up, before going to Auburn in 2002.
At Auburn, he was defensive coordinator during one of the Tigers' best seasons ever, when they went 13-0 largely due to tough D. The next year he was defensive coordinator for the national champion Texas Longhorns. This is a record to be mocked? Just for the purpose of propping up Gill and shouting about injustice?
Chizik's record at Iowa State was terrible. Being a poor team in the best conference in the country this year was no easy task. The team floundered the last few years largely this was due to recruiting, which we can assume won't be a problem at Auburn. If it is, he'll be gone soon enough. But clearly he proved himself to the people at Auburn when he coached their team's defense which led directly to a #2 finish.
So complaining about Auburn hiring Chizik over anyone else is stupid. They know him, they like what they saw, and they believe the Iowa State record is irrelevant. They weren't looking for "any white guy" they were looking for "their guy" and their guy is Gene Chizik.
Instead, were they supposed to hire Gill, a man with no connections to Auburn or the SEC? Sure, Gill worked a miracle at Buffalo, and for that alone would have made a good hire for anyone, but Auburn clearly wanted Chizik, and not because he was white. That theory is ridiculous.
Now the team that should be taking the heat is Syracuse. The Orange play in the same state as Buffalo, so he knows the area. If Gill can recruit decently to Buffalo, imagine what he could have done in Syracuse. Unlike Auburn, Syracuse really did need to "make a splash" as Barkley said. Dismal for the last half-decade, they needed to make a bold move, and the answer was right in their backyard. Instead they hired Doug Marrone, an alum who has no head coaching experience. For a program in such dire straits, hiring one of their own is not the way to go. And as a move for Gill, going to a major conference but not to a mammoth hot-seat like Auburn would be a good move, his last stepping stone before going to one of the big programs (for example...Nebraska?).
So why are people all over Auburn's case and not Syracuse's, when the Syracuse job really was the perfect fit for Gill? I don't know. Maybe they assume that Syracuse is completely incompetent and therefore excused, while Auburn is in the south and is therefore suspect when it comes to race issues. Gill himself said he though the fact that he has a white wife is what made the difference.
People in situations like that always see their unique circumstance as the determining factor. I really doubt Auburn would have hired him but thought, "wait, remember, he has a white woman for a wife." What they did say was "we have to interview some other people before we give our good friend Gene the job" and Gill was one of those interviewed. He had an uphill climb because he was up against a good friend of the people making the decision. It happens a lot in job searches, when the people doing the hiring want to hire a specific person but have to do a "search." If Gill had been the defensive coordinator at Auburn from 2002-2004, they would be hiring him right now, even if he'd struggled at Iowa State for a couple of seasons, while Chizik brought Buffalo to life.
So lay off Auburn. The real thing people should be mad at them for is giving Tuberville the $5.1 million firing bonus that he forfeited by quitting. And put the heat on Syracuse, they are the ones that deserve it for passing over Gill.
Meanwhile, poor Iowa State wanted Gill, and he didn't want them. Can't blame him, it's a tough job right now, pretty much a dead end...unless you have friends in high places elsewhere.
December 18, 2008 at 06:41 PM in commentary | Permalink | Comments (0)
Digg This | Save to del.icio.us