Orange Redux: Welcome to the Party

by SMQ on Jan 4, 2008 12:01 PM EST in News

Two teams:


	Team A	Team B
Record	11-2	12-1

vs. >.500	4-1	4-1
Opps. Win %	.479	.488

Best Win	+20 vs. JS#11	+3 vs. JS#5
Worst Loss	-1 vs. JS#76	-8 vs. JS#9

Avg. MOV	+ 15.4	+ 28.3
Avg. MOV vs. BCS	+ 14.2	+ 16.9

Thursday’s win is the biggest in Kansas football history and immediately changes the equation of the Jayhawks’ season from one of a schedule-fueled feel-good story to one of undeniable, deserved respect. In November, when some pundits were pushing undefeated KU to the top of the polls solely on the merits of its being undefeated, I pushed back in a couple posts because Kansas then was clearly only the king of the mediocre:

Kansas has conclusively demonstrated, at best, it’s capable of beating a 5-5 team with a 3-3 record in the Big 12, which also lost to Troy, and that it can beat similarly bleh outfits on a consistent basis. We know nothing at all about the Jayhawks against actually good teams.
[...]
How far can a team’s claim as "the best" go when said team hasn’t played anything approximating the best opponents? It should be pointed out that Kansas’ schedule is not Hawaii’s...unlike the Warriors, Kansas has won its way into the discussion with respectable wins over Big 12 middle-dwellers Colorado, Kansas State, Nebraska, Oklahoma State and Texas A&M, all of them (with the exception of A&M) winners of at least one game of consequence their own selves. And the Jayhawks will have their day, against Missouri in two weeks, and if they pass that test, the Big 12 Championship the week after that. Once it gets that kind of value on its wall, KU has itself an argument.
- - -

Kansas did not get that value on its wall against the Tigers, and was unimpressive enough in that failure to be completely shut out of the mythical championship campaigning on behalf of a half dozen teams with more losses, one of them ("Team A" above) having suffered one of said losses to Stanford. Kansas was just sufficiently good enough to get its shot in the Orange Bowl, but not once – unlike Ohio State, LSU, USC or Oklahoma – demonstrably great against anyone that counted much.

Say this for Sean Glennon: he’s not afraid of facing long odds.
- - -

Not that KU was especially great Thursday, at least on offense, where it had been more impressive in its biggest games in the regular season (such as they were). The ‘Hawk offense only generated one score of its own. Virginia Tech made a mistake to let a true freshman scrambler test Kansas’ one truly outstanding, next-level athlete, who easily jumped the quick out route without so much as a single step of a backpedal in respect for the Hokies’ ability to throw deep. Generally more composed Sean Glennon, in an evening of stupefying regression after so much improvement at the end of the regular season, lobbed up two bad interceptions into double coverage, which along with Talib’s early touchdown return accounted for 17 of Kansas’ 24 points. After Tech lined up and ran straight at the Jayhawks on each of the last 12 plays of a 13-play, 67-yard touchdown drive in the second quarter – it had been operating without starting tailback Branden Ore in the first – the Hokies continued to try to establish balance despite the ongoing success of the running game (6.5 per carry by Ore and Tyrod Taylor prior to VT’s final desperation drive) and the clear, consistent failure when it tried to pass (Glennon completed just three passes in a dozen dropbacks between the Hokies’ first touchdown and their late drive for a second against a soft Kansas zone, the only first down throw in that span coming when two KU defenders somehow let their simultaneous zeal for an easy pick popped up into double coverage guide the ball into Greg Boone’s hands, and Glennon was later intercepted and sacked on consecutive attempts in the fourth quarter). Kansas never stopped the Hokies’ power running game, but because Tech was trying to pass itself out of the hole it had passed itself into, the KU defense was never forced to stop it.

But Kansas was ready with the pressure on Glennon and Taylor that it had not demonstrated against Missouri and opportunistically indulged in its fruits, and so, as Talib helpfully noted after the game, no, they (we) can’t say Kansas hasn’t beaten anyone anymore. Not when it finally has.

I’ll be running the numbers more thoroughly, but I can say pretty confidently I will not be backing Kansas for the super mythical BlogPoll championship on my ballot next week, precisely because it didn’t pass enough top tests over the entire season compared to the LSU-Ohio State winner or Georgia or, after the Cotton Bowl and the head-to-head result in November, Missouri. The theme of KU’s BCS run, though, was one of belonging, and – as hopefully demonstrated above, by putting its resumé ("Team B") against that of USC, the beneficiary of a quiet but mainstream campaign to hijack the final AP poll – the Jayhawks belong in the discussion. That wasn’t the case before, and may not be again. But we can’t deny them that inclusion now.

0 recs | Comment 7 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Well Said...

I cannot see why everyone thinks all of a sudden USC is the best team in America. They played the 77th ranked schedule and have beaten 4 bowl teams. All the media keeps mentioning how they had injuries, like no other team was beset with them too. USC lost to Oregon who was already missing 2 WRs and their back-up RB. If Dennis Dixon had stayed healthy they do not even win the PAC-10. They have beaten a couple of nice teams, but no one special. I guess it pays to be the name brand everyone knows.

by Kennybk483 on Jan 4, 2008 2:43 PM EST 0 recs

I'm not for hijacking the AP

The difference between this year and the 2003 season is that USC was the #1 team in the polls before the computers put Oklahoma in the MNC game. This year USC doesn't have any more of a claim than any other team that won a bowl, and less than some.

Re: Injuries. All teams had injuries of one sort or another. The only distinction for USC's spate of injuries was that they were at the point of putting in scout team players in some games, especially in the O-line, as well as at Running back. Losing the starting QB in the middle of the season didn't help, even though Booty's absence was cushioned by the fact that Sanchez had to play Notre Dame and Arizona as well as Oregon.

The fact that SC was shaking their way to wins in the middle of the season regardless was in some extent a function of their defense. Sure they lost to Oregon, but they were also driving late with their back-up QB having held Dixon et al (and I maintain Dixon injury and all should have won the Heisman) to fewer total yards than any other team playing a full game against Dixon.

I'd argue that what's prompting some of this is the recency affect: what people have seen lately is what the coaches were driving towards through the season but not achieving - an offense that was not flashy but was balanced and effective, and a defense that was stout and finally addressing long-standing defects. (I can't tell you how surprised I was to see Rey Maualuga spying Juice Williams for sacks as opposed to over-pursuing into the backfield and then falling over.)

As for the name-brand issue, even allowing for the fact that there was an element of luck with this year's conference win, it's not like it's just a result of ESPN's relentless knob-slobbering. Teams that have been less consistently successful over the last 6 years get the benefit of the doubt all the time. It's lazy thinking no matter when it happens.

by DC Trojan on Jan 4, 2008 3:56 PM EST 0 recs

Lost logic

I will not be backing Kansas for the super mythical BlogPoll championship on my ballot next week, precisely because it didn't pass enough top tests over the entire season compared to the LSU-Ohio State winner or Georgia or, after the Cotton Bowl and the head-to-head result in November, Missouri.

I was with you until this statement.

What are these top tests? Can Kansas study for them? Can proctors or academic advisors take these top tests instead of the athletes taking them?

You believe the entire season represents a team's credentials? This approach deviates from the bombast about how every week is a playoff that bowl supporters spew.

Based on the idea that a team's season represents its finest work, then how can you not vote for Kansas as the number one team?

KU finished with one loss, which came against a team that everyone agree is at least one of the 10 best college football teams this year. tOSU lost to a team that everyone agrees is not even one of the 30 best college football teams this year.

They both played puff out of conference schedules. The Big 12 is a better conference than the Big 11. Before any jagg off rises to defend the Big 11, the team that finished second lost to a Division I-AA team. Said team was so bad, your top bowl game chose the third place team over the second place team even though the second place team beat the stuffing out of the third place team. Did any Big 12 team lose to a Division I-AA this year? Thus, the Big 12 is a better conference than the Big 11 this year.

To recap, KU lost one game this season.

No other team from a money conference except for tOSU can make the same claim. USC lost twice, which includes a stinker to Stanford.

LSU lost twice, neither team are ranked currently nor will be ranked at the end of the season.

UGa lost twice and played a KU-esque out of conference slate. One of the teams that beat UGa failed to muster a bowl bid.

West Virginia is UGa redux replete with soft out of conference schedule. One of the teams that beat West Virginia failed to muster a bowl bid.

To recap, by your logic, the whole season represents the team's effort. LSU, USC, UGa, and West Virginia cannot even open their mouthes to claim they put forth a great season; a season so great, it is better than anyone else's season.

Even if tOSU wins a squeaker or gets blown out (we all know the Buckeyes will bend and submit), KU has to be your top team. Why?

BECAUSE THEY ONLY LOST ONE FREAKING GAME!

To argue anything else represents an argument devoid of logic.

by bevo on Jan 4, 2008 5:22 PM EST 0 recs

I presume

Hawaii will be your No. 2.

by SMQ on Jan 4, 2008 5:39 PM EST up 0 recs

Quite a rant there

And not very logical, either.

>>> Based on the idea that a team's season represents its finest work, then how can you not vote for Kansas as the number one team?

Easily. They have one win over a good team (VT). (No, Central Michigan is not a good team even though they won the MAC. They got blown out by a 1-AA team.) The next two? The sixth and seventh-best teams in the Big XII (Oklahoma State and Texas A&M). Both finished 7-6. Yippee.

>>> tOSU lost to a team that everyone agrees is not even one of the 30 best college football teams this year.

Are you nuts? Coming into the Rose Bowl, Illinois was ranked #13 - and deservedly so. They will drop, but not 17 spots.

Besides that, OSU also beat a few real opponents. Teams that, you know, actually won more than seven games, like Wisconsin, Penn State, and Michigan (all of whom have nine wins).

>>> Did any Big 12 team lose to a Division I-AA this year?

As a matter of fact, yes, they did. Iowa State lost - badly - to Northern Iowa. And while the Big XII is a better conference than the Big Ten this year, Kansas did not play three of the other four best teams. Ohio State, on the other hand, played against all of the top five (besides themselves) in the Big Ten. I would venture that Ohio State's conference schedule was harder, by a significant margin, than Kansas's. And the math agrees (Sagarin ranks OSU's schedule #62, Kansas's #88).

>>> LSU lost twice, neither team are ranked currently nor will be ranked at the end of the season.

They also delivered the single most impressive performance of the year (the annihilation of VT in Week 2), and both losses were in 3OT. That doesn't mean they aren't losses, but it does lessen the significance. And complain all you want about how neither team is that good, but both of them are 8-5 - better than Kansas's second-best win.

Kansas at least has an argument compared to WVU, Georgia, and (especially) USC. But there is no doubt in my mind that the winner of the MNC game is more deserving than Kansas.

(Aside from that, you left out Missouri, whose two losses came against the same team, beat Kansas head-to-head, and also beat one of the teams Kansas dodged from the South (Texas Tech). It's hard to make a case for a Missouri team that lost twice to a single opponent (seems that that opponent was clearly better), but it's even harder to make a case that Kansas should be ahead of a Missouri team that beat them and has several more good wins.)

by SpartanDan on Jan 4, 2008 6:37 PM EST up 0 recs

Wow....

"UGa lost twice and played a KU-esque out of conference slate. One of the teams that beat UGa failed to muster a bowl bid."

I'd like to know on which planet a non-conference slate of CMU, FIU, Toledo, and SE La equals a non-conference slate of Okla State, Ga Tech, Troy, and Western Carolina.

Because wherever it is, the Earth's normal rules of logic obviously do not apply.

by Solon on Jan 6, 2008 4:52 AM EST up 0 recs

Kansas? Seriously?

Look, nobody can deny that Kansas had a fine season, the best in its history. It should be proud of this accomplishment and deserves national recognition. Its play in Miami was disciplined, gutsy and inspiring. But to suggest it is deserving of a national championship? Are you serious?

While no single factor is determinative, surely strength of schedule and conference titles have to be considered. Let's face it, there can be little debate that Kansas' one-loss record was most likely the product of creative scheduling (non-conference patsies) and lucky scheduling (not playing the best three Big 12 South teams). It beat one team in the top 30, and had one of the worst schedule strengths in Division I football (historically bad by BCS standards). It did not win its division, much less its conference. And it played in a BCS bowl game that virtually every commentator outside of Lawrence, Kansas and the Orange Bowl Committee room felt it did not deserve.

There are at least 5 teams, including one from its own conference (Missouri), that deserve a higher final ranking than Kansas.

by dirtbag on Jan 5, 2008 4:02 PM EST 0 recs