Underachievers

[ANGCatFan]

Top 5 underachieving football schools ranked by Stewart Mandel.

1) UCLA. One of the most recognizable brands in higher education, much less college athletics, in the second-largest city in the country, has won exactly one national title (in 1954) and has not won a Rose Bowl -- you know, that game played in its home stadium -- since 1986. Think about how improbable it would have seemed not long ago that Oregon would become a preeminent West Coast powerhouse before UCLA.

4) Arizona State. I've never understood why the Sun Devils can't sustain success. First of all, you can get pretty much anyone into school there. It's easy access to talent in Los Angeles. It's a warm-weather school with beautiful, um, scenery. But the apathetic fan base doesn't help.

[MrBug708]

I dont disagree. Being cheap will get you that.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Top 5 underachieving football schools ranked by Stewart Mandel.

1) UCLA. One of the most recognizable brands in higher education, much less college athletics, in the second-largest city in the country, has won exactly one national title (in 1954) and has not won a Rose Bowl -- you know, that game played in its home stadium -- since 1986. Think about how improbable it would have seemed not long ago that Oregon would become a preeminent West Coast powerhouse before UCLA.

4) Arizona State. I've never understood why the Sun Devils can't sustain success. First of all, you can get pretty much anyone into school there. It's easy access to talent in Los Angeles. It's a warm-weather school with beautiful, um, scenery. But the apathetic fan base doesn't help.

The only one on that list I'd quibble with is Ole Miss. Everyone else deserves it. UCLA's lack of facilities and interest pretty much mark their cards. ASU is a sleeping giant that's been awake one of the last 30 years.

[UAEebs86]

[KillerKlown]

Err...so, they're overachievers?

Sparky rage is...

[Spaceman Spiff]

Err...so, they're overachievers?

Sparky rage is...

The trash talking of Northwestern is my favorite part. I like the part about Graham jumping ship at Pitt and forgetting that wasn't exactly his first time. Cool that they're either 3rd or 4th in APR and have better records than unnamed Big 10 schools, too.

[ANGCatFan]

One of the analytics guys at SB Nation looks at 3 overrated teams this year. We play one of them.

USC

Last season seemed like a disaster for USC in Steve Sarkisian's first season as head coach.

They lost early at Boston College, as the Trojans couldn't stop the running game despite the presence of DE Leonard Williams, the third pick in the 2015 NFL draft. They also lost by 18 to rival UCLA and had an uninspiring 9-4 record.

Despite these poor performances, USC ended the season 19th in my team rankings that take margin of victory and adjust for strength of schedule. It was similar to their 20th ranking in 2013 and 19th in 2012.

Since my model considers a four year window, it's not surprising that USC starts 2015 at 19th.

2015 is a key year for Sarkisian. If he has another 9-4 year with the elite talent on the USC roster, then he might last a few more years before USC moves on.

On the other hand, if USC wins the Pac-12 South and looks like the 10th team as predicted by the Coaches Poll, then Sarkisian might remind Trojan fans more of Pete Carroll than Lane Kiffin. With QB Cody Kessler and wealth of five star recruits on the roster, this jump is certainly possible.

My model has USC 19th and predicts 7.6 wins, quite a bit less than the 9 set by the markets. Still, it's hard to find 4 losses on USC's schedule. The highest likelihood is at Oregon (19% win probability). After that, they have Notre Dame (35%), Arizona State (41%), UCLA (49%) and Stanford (54%) as toss up games.

If USC splits the toss up games, then they need to lose one more game to go under 9 wins. If USC plays above their 19th preseason ranking, this seems improbable.

Beat ucla, hold serve, and it sets up a big game with the Trojans.

[azgreg]

I think U$C is back regardless of who's coaching them.