BIG PICTURE: SPECULATION AND DEMISE AT USC

by SMQ on Oct 10, 2007 8:54 PM EDT in News Comment 14 comments

A disclaimer is probably in order: I thought USC would win the mythical championship at the start of the season, and think I was right to think so. I should say now that I saw it coming when I called the Trojans vulnerable, warned against "unbeatable!" hyperbole and questioned the lack of a go-to workhorse in the backfield, young receivers and a tendency to lose focus. But that’s not true: I compared doubting USC’s superior odds of winning the mythical championship to doubting the obvious greatness and influence of The Beatles, as self-congratulatory contrarianism with no basis in reality.

Again, I don’t think I was wrong to write any of that in August, and it won’t serve me any better to overreact now to that prediction’s untimely demise at the hands of an outfit I gave a zero percent chance of winning in Los Angeles and said was "not worth a second thought until it makes some kind of positive move on the field" after one of the worst seasons by any team in Pac 10 history. But this isn’t about one bad loss – it’s about recognizing a trend we’ve seen before, may be seeing again and acknowledging the reasons everyone missed it.

*Miami 2000-05*

	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005
Preseason Rank	5	2	3	3	5	10

Record	11-1	12-0	12-1	11-2	9-3	9-3
Avg. MOV	27.2	31.8	21.5	12.7	13.7	12.7

Bowl Game	W Sugar	W Rose (C)	L Fiesta (C)	W Orange	W Peach	L Peach
Post-bowl Rank	2	1	2	5	11	17

*USC 2002-06*

	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
Preseason Rank	18	11	1	1	5

Record	11-2	12-1	13-0	12-1	11-2
Avg. MOV	15.3	22.7	25.2	26.2	15.3

Bowl Game	W Orange	W Rose	W Orange (C)	L Rose (C)	W Rose
Post-bowl Rank	4	1/2	1	2	4

Miami is not the only comparison – think of the rapid descents of Nebraska, which played for four mythical titles in five years from 1993-97, winning three, and played for another in 2001, and Florida State, which also played in four championship games in five years from 1996-2000 – but the Hurricanes are the most apt: a historically dominant team fallen on hard times, rebuilt by an NFL refugee, burst back into the national consciousness with one dominant breakout season, bestrode the country over the next two/three seasons with seemingly monolithic championship talent, began playing closer games and taking scattered losses that were mostly ignored in public perception...and that’s where the big picture comparisons end, for now.

USC’s "descent," as it were, exactly mirrors Miami’s. Miami came storming back into the national picture in 2000 with a young team, like USC in 2003, that lost once and controversially finished outside the BCS championship game; in Miami’s case, the ‘Canes beat Florida State and finished the regular season second in both human polls, but lost its championship spot to FSU based on computers, where USC finished 2003 number one in both human polls but lost its chance at the Sugar Bowl to freshly-trounced Oklahoma. Off those respective disappointments, more seasoned teams thoroughly dominated in undefeated title runs (in 2001 for Miami, 2004 for USC) that ended in lopsided blowouts in the mythical championship game and no questions (sorry Auburn) about the national overlord at the end of the season. As heavy, undefeated favorites in 2002 and 2005, respectively, both programs were shocked in epic championship finishes, and bid adieu to the stars that had taken them there.

The end of the world as we knew it? Before we knew it?
- - -

You can start looking for hints of decay in those final championship seasons – Miami had to come from behind and watch a field goal sail wide to win at Florida State in 2002, USC had to rally from an 18-point halftime deficit at Arizona State in 2005 – but it gets really interesting when you begin to think of John David Booty as Brock Berlin, especially as they left the same high school as the top-rated quarterback in the country two years apart, waited their turn behind a championship-winning all-American, and inherited a balanced system seemingly stocked with top shelf talent and primed for instant success. In 2003, Berlin’s first season as a starter, Miami wasn’t exactly cruising with disturbingly close wins over Florida, West Virginia and Florida State, but it was ranked second and on track for another title shot when it was ambushed in a turnover-heavy upset at Virginia Tech. The ‘Canes later lost another shocker by four as a double digit favorite at Tennessee. In 2006, Booty’s first season as a starter, USC wasn’t exactly cruising with disturbingly close wins over Washington State, Washington and Arizona State, but it was ranked third and on track for another title shot when it was ambushed in a turnover-heavy upset at Oregon State. The Trojans later lost another shocker by four as a double-digit favorite at UCLA.

It seems obvious now Miami was on its way to ruin, but it didn’t then: the ‘Canes beat Florida State in the Orange Bowl and began 2004 an absurdly talented team still ranked in the top five. It remained there until a stunning loss at North Carolina in October as a 22-point favorite. If there’s a doppelganger to USC’s loss to Stanford, there it is – on the Miami curve, SC is in 2004 and another year and a half or so from true collapse.

In Miami’s case, hindsight again tells us the loss to UNC didn’t happen in a vacuum, but was rather an early sign of serious cracks in Miami’s facade. We know the story from there: the ‘Canes rode talent and pride as far as it would last, which was roughly through the 2005 regular season, one that featured a tough early loss (at Florida State), an affirming win (27-7 at Virginia Tech), a truly deflating loss (at home to Georgia Tech) and a de-mythifier against a revved-up equal to close the year (40-3 to LSU in the Peach). UM began 2006 ranked 11th, but the kill shot was there in Atlanta, just as Nebraska’s had been in the 62-24 humiliation in Boulder the year before the Huskers fell off the map to 7-7 in ‘02 and Florida State’s had come in a shutout (yeah yeah, safety...the offense was shut out) against Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl to close 2000. All of those deflated teams suffered massive personnel departures, especially at quarterback, and have yet to recover.

One mre parallel: coaching departures. Miami lost Butch Davis, survived among the elite for a while, then eventually fell flat and had to jettison in-house successor Larry Coker amidst relative ruin. Nebraska lost Tom Osborne, survived among the elite for a while, then eventually fell flat and had to jettison in-house successor Frank Solich amidst relative ruin. Relative ruin came much more quickly for Florida State, which fell flat the first year after losing longtime assistants Mark Richt and Chuck Amato and eventually had to jettison in-house offensive successor Jeff Bowden. USC’s staff below Pete Carroll has changed dramatically: Norm Chow and Lane Kiffin have moved on to the NFL (for...wait for it...in-house successor Steve Sarkisian) and Carroll himself gave up coordinating responsibilities before 2006 for ex-Idaho coach Nick Holt.

We don’t know the story for USC, and, the way recruiting has gone there, it might be a totally different arc. Three stunning losses in a year and a half might be as random and untelling of doom as each would seem to be when taken by itself. Matt Sanchez and/or Aaron Corp and/or Mitch Mustain might be the towering pocket god top-rated Kyle Wright has never been. I don’t mean to suggest USC is not still very, very good. In old coaching culinary parlance, certainly Carroll still has the chickens.

I only mean to say that our perceptions are shaped by the recent past more than the present, and we typically hold on to them far too long in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary, until something truly drastic happens to change them. Miami was a top ten team in the popular mind for at least a year after it had ceased to be so in reality, until it started last year 1-2 and was convincingly crushed by Louisville. After Nebraska lost two straight games by almost 50 points and its H*i*m*n-winning quarterback to end 2001, it still began the next season in the top ten, where it remained until back-to-back shellackings at Penn State and Iowa State.

Stanford may or may not seem that drastic to you – as of now, USC is still in the top ten of both mainstream polls and 13th in the BlogPoll, so very few observers are seeing impending crisis. Either way, it might be time to put the idea of goliath, dynastic USC out of mind in favor of merely good USC until we see some definitive reason for the former’s reinstatement.

0 recs | Comment 14 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

One more freakish coincidence

Both Brock Berlin and JD Booty were very highly rated QB prospects from Evangel High School in Shreveport,LA.

by AP on Oct 10, 2007 11:19 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Yeesh

You're not helping me sleep at nights - between the insistence of using "facts" to support an opinion, and acknowledging the risks of reason by analogy, the case for the prosecution is well made. I can't speak for the Trojans en masse, but as the week goes on, there's a building enthusiasm for Mark "Dirty" Sanchez to get the start. That is one little piece of the puzzle marked "players" that may hint, like the tea-leaves, about the future.

by DC Trojan on Oct 11, 2007 12:15 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Definitely some precursors of a fall here

Prior to this loss to Stanford, USC had lost relatively few games in the Carroll era, and all were (1) on the road and (2) against pretty strong teams: K-State and WSU in '02, Cal in '03 (one year before the Bears' Top 10 resurgence), Oregon State and UCLA in '06. And of course the Championship Game loss to Texas.

Now, losing to a mediocre UCLA team with a NCG berth on the line last year was fairly unusual for the Trojans, though at least that Bruin team had a winning record. But none of these are anywhere close to losing at home to what, by most other measures, looks like a pretty bad Stanford team. There's definitely a different odor to this most recent loss, not as easily written off like USC's other scattered losses under Carroll. I think you're right on the money in saying that we're seeing a new, "merely good" USC team right now.

by sycasey on Oct 11, 2007 12:23 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

oh balls

First things first: this is terrifying.

My own moral victory comes from getting to point out a flaw from the generally flawless: following the 2002 season, SC played in the 2003 Orange Bowl against Iowa, not the Rose. The Cougs went to the Rose Bowl that year, owning the tie-breaking win over USC while "sharing" the Pac 10 title with them, and were thoroughly destroyed by Oklahoma.

by Captain Awesome on Oct 11, 2007 12:31 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Right, Captain

Don't know what I was thinking there. Fixed.

by SMQ on Oct 11, 2007 2:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Decent trend

There is no excuse for losing to Stanford at home. That much is true. But it's also worth pointing out that while USC has largely been "unimpressive," from down-to-down they've still been one of the best teams in the country. They rank 19th nationally in total offense, and 10th in total defense. Compare that to LSU and Ohio State, national title contenders who rank 1-2 in the nation in total defense but are 33rd and 46th, respectively, in total offense. And the loss to Stanford, as you pointed out in Life on the Margins, was pretty clearly a fluke; if USC doesn't turn the ball over five times, it wins in a walk. It was the same story in the Washington game, which USC dominated from down-to-down, but the final score was close because of turnovers and penalties. The flipside is the Washington State game, which shows what USC can do when it doesn't turn the ball over.

In other words, the problem is not that USC has morphed into a merely above average team. The team sleepwalked through its first few games this season, thinking it could get by on rep alone, but now that this team's lost to Stanford, I think they'll be a lot more focused and blow through the rest of their schedule. Or it could just be John David Booty. You forget that during their respective downfalls, Miami and Florida State were still extremely talented everywhere else; the problems were, as they may be, Brock Berlin and Chris Rix, respectively. It's still a stretch to put Booty in that class, but there's really nobody else to blame for the Stanford loss, as outside of Booty's four picks USC dominated Stanford.

by Tom on Oct 11, 2007 3:29 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Talent

'You forget that during their respective downfalls, Miami and Florida State were still extremely talented everywhere else...'

No, Tom, I didn't forget that at all. That's the point.

by SMQ on Oct 11, 2007 9:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Very interesting thread.

I started similar discussion on wearesc.com, but some blind homers refused to see the similarities.

You may want to read my posts and further strenghten your argument

http://wearesc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13350

http://wearesc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13612

Both posts have some insights on parallels between USC and Miami, Booty and Berlin

by moreNCsarecoming on Oct 11, 2007 9:24 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

This is great, great stuff, SMQ

Thanks for the hard work.

by Oops Pow Surprise on Oct 11, 2007 9:51 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Variables

Powerfull brief counselor. There are some caveats to consider, though.

1) Recruiting.

You note this and suggest that the qulity may result in a different arc. It would be interesting to compare the quantity of 5 and 4 stars on Miami and USC rosters. Obviously 8 or 9 or 23 Parade All-America running backs don't translate into 600 yard rushing or whatever. Somewhere in there, however, there must be a back or two capable of rushing for 1200 to 1600 yards and an effective back up or two. Turner, Hazelton and Asburry may not all become consensus first team All-Americas, but at rankings of 1, 1 and 6 at their position in their classes surely there must/may be some 2nd team All Pac-10 season in there at least. An on through the roster. Most importantly, of course at QB where possibilities seem to abound going forward. Stephon Johnson seemed to be developing into that kind of back. Who knows about Gable. Both have been injured. McKnight. Injury problems as well. Which leads to the scond concern.

2)Injuries

An inescapable part of football to be sure, but USC seems to have had a particularly bad run. No matter how much talent you have there has to be some element of coherence and timing. Particularly in the O-line and developing timing with running back but really all over the field. Specifically, Booty's injury would seem to have led quite directly to the loss to Stanford. Perhaps he should have been taken out and perhaps the Trojans should have been able to physically dominate Stanford to the point of being able to secure a two TD victory, but as a general matter the injury problems the last two years have been particularly eggrigious.

3)Coaching

Perhaps most important. Pete Carroll is still there and he is almost twenty years younger than Bobby Bowden was at the time that the Florida State descent began - specifically 2 years younger than Bowden was when FSU began their monster run of 10 victory seasons and top 5 rankings in 1987. He is certainly young and energetic enough to take charge and turn things aroung. Co-oridnators can be replace. Whatever else USC's problems may have been complacency and lack of focus have to be considred at a fundamental element of their relative but significant demise over the last two seasons. It is not beyond the realm of imagination that Carrol may be able to remedy this.

The Court will decide going forward. The case is submitted.

by marcillac on Oct 11, 2007 11:46 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

intersecting paths

It'll be most interesting to see which parallel holds. Is USC like Miami circa 2002, or FSU early in it's run of the 80's and 90's?

If it turns out to be the former, it would have to bee QB play that takes them there, combined with loss of key staffers.

If the latter, it will be that spectacular concentration of talent that pushes them through.

From the perspective of an OSU fan, I see an intriguing intersection of our two programs in the next couple years. I've always been someone who counseled caution and tamped down expectations among our fans, who start talking of national titles after a nice win or two. But I've become a true believer in the OSU defense -- a young crew that is currently playing lights out. My guess is that they're roughly the equal of the 2002 squad that won the national title. And, as I mentioned, they're young. They're gonna be around for a while.

It's still iffy whether OSU will make it through the toughest run in the schedule in the last half of this season -- Penn State, Wisconsin, a resurgent Illinois, and Michigan back-to-back. It's a lot less likely than most of our fans think, and sports show commentators are discounting it too.

But they have at least the chance to step up and challenge the top tier of college football. And OSU just happens to go into the Coliseum to play USC early next year ... and then again at home in 2009.

Whatever trajectory the USC program takes, it may be a couple clashes with OSU that help define that curve.

by TallBill on Oct 11, 2007 4:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Ugh.

You make me want to cry tears of sad, sad sorrow. Luckily, you were wrong about USC winning the mythical national championship, calling into question your accuracy about USC-as-Miami. So take that, SMQ! The Trojans loss to Stanford totally deflated you and makes your prediction of their downfall circumspect.

by jonathantu on Oct 11, 2007 7:32 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs