One response to “12-26-09: USC”

1. 

   troker

   December 27, 2009 at 8:46 am

   Sadly, it was not a no-brainer.

   This year was a serious disappointment for most of us. Many of us were no doubt upset b/c our armchair could have done better than some of the folks in charge.

   In a nutshell, it comes down to simple arithmetic. If the variance (i.e. volatility) in your passing and running game is high, you are psyched if you are the weaker team b/c it means that you always have a fighting chance until you don’t. However, if you are the massive favorite stacked with better athletes, it’s a waste of resources.

   In USC’s case, they not only went with a freshman QB which creates a ton of volatility in the passing game, but they did the same thing with the running game. McKnight should have never been their every down back. He’s obviously a serious athlete, but when it comes right down to it, when he wasn’t breaking one, he was standing still or losing a yard, whereas Bradford almost never fails to pick up 2-3 yards. Someone needs to calculate not only the yards per carry but the variance of each of the runners and decide the pecking order accordingly. Bradford’s big runs weren’t as big or as spectacular, but he could be counted on to move the chains.

   Carroll and Co. went with McKnight even when they shouldn’t have. Now it will be no doubt be the nail in their coffin. The worst would be if Carroll flees USC after sticking us with sanctions, adding a new meaning to his phrase “always compete.”

   Reply