Must. Beat. UCLA.

With one game to go, the UCLA Bruins could still go to the Rose Bowl -- or no bowl at all. It's up to the USC Trojans to make sure it's the latter. Stewart Mandel explains:

Of all the strange postseason scenarios still floating around, I don't think you possibly find one any more bizarre than the fact that the Bruins, who just reached bowl eligibility this weekend, are still technically alive for the Rose Bowl.

Here's the deal: USC (9-2, 6-2 Pac-10) and Arizona State (9-2, 6-2) are currently tied for first in the Pac-10 standings, with the Trojans holding the tiebreaker following last Thursday's win. Oregon (8-3, 5-3) and UCLA (6-5, 5-3) sit a game behind following the Bruins' 16-0 win over the quarterback-depleted Ducks. If surging Arizona (5-6) upends the Sun Devils (not implausible) and Karl Dorrell's Bruins pull another crosstown upset of the Trojans (highly unlikely), it would create either a three-way tie for first between USC, ASU and UCLA, all of which went 1-1 against each other, or a four-way tie with Oregon. In either case, the Bruins win the tiebreaker due to their victory over the Ducks. (If you dare to figure out how that is, read this).

The craziest part of all is, just as easily as the 6-5 Bruins could go to the Rose Bowl, they could also go to no bowl at all if they lose. If Arizona does beat ASU, it would give the Pac-10 seven bowl-eligible teams for six spots and almost assuredly restrict them to one BCS berth. Guess which would be the odd team out in that scenario? Yep -- the same team that's playing for a Rose Bowl berth next week.

USC needs to beat UCLA not just on general principle, not just for pride, not just for revenge, not just for the Roses, not just so I can win another bet against Mike Tran, but for the good of the whole conference. If the Bruins, who lost to Notre Dame and Utah, and who have done nothing in conference play to merit any sort of respect (no, shutting out an Oregon team playing its 26th-string quarterback doesn't count), go to the Rose Bowl, the Pac-10 will be the laughingstock of the country.

So Trojans, for the love of God, beat the Bruins.

P.S. A minor correction to Mandel's analysis after the jump.

Mandel says that wins by UCLA and Arizona would create "either a three-way tie for first between USC, ASU and UCLA ... or a four-way tie with Oregon." Technically, that's not quite right. It would be a four-way tie no matter what, it's just a question of whether the fourth team is Oregon or Oregon State. The outcome of the Civil War would determine that.

But it amounts to the same thing, because the Beavers went 0-3 against ASU, USC and UCLA, so that four-way tie would quickly become, effectively, a three-way tie.

Anyway, the point is, this must not happen.

Comments

[David K.]

Mandel is wrong, only the scenario where UCLA beats USC, Arizona beats ASU and Oregon beats OSU would give UCLA a spot in the Rose Bowl.

If its a four way tie with OSU and not Oregon, it first becomes a three way tie between UCLA, USC, and ASU (OSU lost to all three) who all beat one and lost one to the other two. The next rule in the tie-breaker is to look at the record against the next highest placed team in the conference. Oregon and Arizona would both have 5-4 records so to determine which of THEM would be higher in the rankings you look at their record against each other and Arizona just beat Oregon.

USC beat Arizona, UCLA lost to Arizona and ASU would have lost to Arizona. USC is conference champion.

This is in fact improves things because OSU is likely to beat quarterback depleted Oregon next weekend.

[Wobbly H]

Davie,
Were you in attendance at the Apple Cup? Quite a game--I caught it on the tube where, unfortunately, I had to listen to that mongoloid Petros Popodokos the whole game. What are your thoughts on the coaches of the two teams returning next year?

[Brendan]

David, are you sure that it's correct to break the tie between Arizona and Oregon? I know in basketball, when using that particular Pac-10 tiebreaker, teams tied in the standings remain tied for purposes of calculating the tiebreaker, and you compare the teams in question based on their respective records against the two tied teams combined. So in this case, we'd be comparing how Arizona State, USC and UCLA each did against both Arizona and Oregon. USC went 1-1 (beating Arizona, losing to Oregon) and UCLA also went 1-1 (losing to Arizona, beating Oregon), while Arizona went 0-2. So that narrows it to USC vs. UCLA, and then the head-to-head tiebreaker would give it to the Bruins.

I think that's the correct way to break the tie, and I'm bolstered in my belief because Mandel isn't the only one reporting what he's reporting -- I've seen it elsewhere too, and I suspect the Pac-10 office is probably putting out this information to reporters. And like I said, it would be consistent with what they do for basketball. I don't remember how I know that, but I remember learning it a couple of years ago... I think I may have actually called the Pac-10 office and asked, believe it or not. :)

[Brendan]

P.S. As an aside, it's debatable whether that tiebreaker is rational. Essentially, it rewards losing to weak teams instead of losing to good teams. It's a given that, if the tiebreaker is an issue, the two teams in question have the same number of losses. So the only question is, who did they lose to? And the team that prevails in the tiebreaker is always going to be the one that lost to someone ranked lower in the standings, since by definition, the team that did better against higher-ranked teams must have done worse against lower-ranked teams, since they have the same record.

If UCLA ends up prevailing because of this tiebreaker, the Pac-10 is going to end up wishing it used the tiebreaker that the SEC and Big East use, where, in a multi-team tie that can't be broken by head-to-head results, the team ranked highest in the BCS standings is the champion. That may not be philosophically just, but it prevents a doomsday scenario for the conference like 7-5 UCLA going to the Rose Bowl despite losses to Notre Dame and Utah.

[Wobbly H]

They lost to Washington State, too--don't forget them.

[Brendan]

Well, yes. But I was talking about ignominious out-of-conference losses. In terms of in-conference play, it goes without saying that UCLA has lost to some crappy teams; otherwise they wouldn't win the tiebreaker in question, which, as I noted in my previous comment, directly and inherently favors teams who have lost to bad teams.

[David K.]

It appears you are right Brendan:

"When arriving at another group of tied teams while comparing records, each team's collective record against the tied teams as a group shall be used."

Scary

[David K.]

I didn't go to the game Wobbly, watched in on tv. It was a very very good game, I felt like it was the opposite of last year. I think the Cougars were the better team last year but made some mistakes that let UW stay in the game on some big plays. This year I think the UW was clearly the better team overall, but made enough mistakes that the Cougars were able to take advantage of to make big plays of their own. I think it has to do with the maturity of Alex Brink as a QB and the lack of maturity in our secondary in particular, but over all it was an exciting game to watch.

I think both coaches will be back next year personally and would be sorry to see the Cougars fire Doba, he may not be having as much success as some would hope, but he's building a solid program. I think the best things the Cougars could do though would be to bring back Mike Price as head coach, he's better at recruiting, and keep Doba as a DC. I do give Doba a little more time though because he was dealing with the loss of his wife last year during recruiting season, which probably hampered their efforts that year. I still think Ty has the Huskies moving in the right direction, we were just hampered by youth and the West Coast Quarterback Bug these past two years.

[Wobbly H]

I have to disagree. We're not going to get into it about Ty, but with respect to Doba--what exactly is he "building?" Did he take over a program in disrepair, or a team that had just gone to the Rose Bowl? His team's been backsliding ever since his first season, with considerable talent making it inexcusable. For example, how don't you make it to a bowl game with a 2000 yard rusher? How don't you make it to a bowl game in the years that you have a QB who set all your school's records?

Everyone knows he's a nice guy, and it's very sad that his wife passed away, but eventually winning and bowl appearances need to come into play. He has signed one recruit this year, making Ty look like a hard worker in comparison. I think WSU wants Price back, and I'm getting the idea that he's be amenable to the idea, but that seems like a difficult thing to do considering the friendship between the two coaches and the fact that Doba wants to return.

[Andrew]

Wobbly, I think you're deflating Doba's accomplishments by comparing him to a past that never existed. When Mike Price was the coach, the conference would spend a couple years in the cellar, surface at the top for a year, then go back to the bottom. Doba has been similarly inconsistent, although less wildly. The culprit is decent talent across the team but with little quality depth, which means the team's fortunes largely rest on how well they avoid the injury bug. You can fire Doba and bring in just about anybody, and you're going to get very similar results.

[Andrew]

I should add that when Price was at WSU, he didn't have to deal with a dominant USC; the Pac-10 was wide open almost every year.

[Brian Foster]

"If the Bruins . . . go to the Rose Bowl, the Pac-10 will be the laughingstock of the country"

Isn't the Pac-10 *already* the laughingstock of the country? After all, the conference has identical losing 1-2 records against the allegedly horrifically bad Big 10 *and* the indisputably horrifically bad Notre Dame. Doesn't get much laughingstockier than that.

:)

[Brendan Loy]

Yeah, well, let's talk after USC kicks the Big Ten champion's ass, AGAIN, in the Rose Bowl. :)

[Brendan Loy]

P.S. But yeah, another reason why USC must beat UCLA is because, if we lose to both of the Pac-10 teams that Notre Dame beat, that will just be pathetic.

So, UCLA's win against Oregon doesn't count because Oregon's quarterback was injured, yet you still hold on to UCLA's loss to Notre Dame even though UCLA's quarterback in that game was a walk on true freshman? It goes both ways. Part of being a good team is having a deep bench - so both games count. Otherwise, USC can hold on to Booty's injured finger as an excuse for the humiliating loss to Stanford.

[David K.]

Who said UCLA's win against Oregon doesn't count?

[Scientizzle]

Yeah, but anon, all of fucla's QBs suck.

Dixon was a Heisman front-runner, and the loss of him (plus the 2nd through 4th string QBs, effectively playing the last guy on the end of the bench for half the game) is greater than losing underachievers Ben Olson, Rey Maualuga tackling dummy Patrick Cowan, or the world's least threatening dual-threat QB Osaar Rasshan.

David,

I believe anon 11:39's point is that Brendan did, here:

"the Bruins, who lost to Notre Dame and Utah, and who have done nothing in conference play to merit any sort of respect (no, shutting out an Oregon team playing its 26th-string quarterback doesn't count)" (emphasis added)

[Brendan Loy]

Part of being a good team is having a deep bench - so both games count.

Your analysis would make sense if I was using Oregon's injuries to excuse Oregon's loss. But that's not what I'm doing. I'm looking at it from UCLA's perspective, not Oregon's. I'm using Oregon's injuries to diminish the significance of UCLA's win, not to soften the blow of Oregon's loss. There's a huge difference, and I can prove it with your own words.

The truism "part of being a good team is having a deep bench" only speaks to Oregon's weakness, not to UCLA's strength. In other words, if Oregon's lack of depth means they are weak (a point I'll concede for the sake of argument), that doesn't change the fact that by beating a depleted Oregon squad, UCLA was beating a weak team. And beating a weak team, as I said, doesn't count as a quality win.

Meanwhile, the fact that UCLA lost to Notre Dame when they (the Bruins) suffered injuries means, according to you (and again I'll concede the point arguendo), that the Bruins (like the Ducks) are a weak team, because you have to be deep to be a strong team. So: when UCLA beat Oregon, they beat only a weak team; and when UCLA lost to ND, they proved that they themselves are a weak team. How, again, does this prove that I'm wrong?

The same thing that I'm saying about UCLA-Oregon would indeed apply to the ND-UCLA game and the Stanford-USC game... if we were looking at them from ND's perspective and from Stanford's perspective. Playing a backup QB is no excuse for UCLA losing to ND, but it is a pertinent fact which diminishes the significance of ND's win over the Bruins. Likewise, playing an injured QB is no excuse for USC losing to Stanford (for the love of Poodle Pete, nothing can excuse that), but it is a pertinent fact which diminishes the significance of Stanford's win.

And given how weak Notre Dame and Stanford have proven to be in their subsequent games, this line of reasoning is not only logical, it's also supported by the evidence. ND beat a weakened UCLA squad, and Stanford beat a weakened USC squad; they proceeded to revert to their losing ways once they weren't playing injury-riddled opponents. Meanwhile, the Bruins and Trojans cannot use their injuries as an excuse for those awful losses, because depth matters. But that doesn't render the injuries irrelevant to an analysis of the Irish and Cardinal victories. See the difference?

So, yes, "both games count" -- but they mean different things, depending on whose perspective you're looking at them from. And in the case of the UCLA-ND and UCLA-Oregon games, the Bruins look bad in both cases. By your own analysis, they look bad for losing to the Irish because their own lack of depth means they're weak, and they don't look all that good for beating Oregon because Oregon's lack of depth renders Oregon weak -- which means UCLA beat only a weak Oregon team, not a strong one.

So, thanks for proving my point. I hadn't even thought it through that far, but you did an excellent job of fleshing out why I'm right. :)

[Sandy Underpants]

IF! UCLA wins the Pac-10 and goes to the Rose Bowl, lets pray that Hawaii gets the at-large for the Rose Bowl and not Georgia, because even after the Big-10 teams treat their SEC bowl counterparts like hookers in a Saigon cathouse during Nam, again, the only thing we'll ever hear about is how the SEC stomped the Pac-10 champ.