How did you guys lose to USC?

[UpNorthBuckeye]

equal parts of
- TP got better since then
- game plan was too tight
- everybody thought USC was supposed to be really really good.

I think our coaching staff has three focuses:

1. Beat tsun
2. win Big Eleven
3. win bowl game

The USC game was none of these. In hindsight, we missed an opportunity to have a really special season.

But... the rose Bowl was sweet, good segue into next year.

 

[cincibuck]

I think it may have been a case of a size 18 collar on a size 19 neck. After the previous year's ass kicking, a game in which USC could have named the score, everyone connected to the Buckeyes seemed to conclude that the most we could hope for was to keep it close. The Navy game did nothing to turn that around. National sports commentators and Herbie all noted that it was the most pessimistic they'd ever seen the OSU fan base and I certainly count myself in that pessimism.

At the end of the game, realizing that they'd won everything but the score, I think the Bucks knew they had a good team, one that was capable of playing with the best teams in the nation. Phoenix from the ashes. With the totally inexplicable showing in Lafayette excepted, the Bucks played with confidence w/wo a healthy TP.

 

[Bleed S & G]

With the totally inexplicable showing in Lafayette excepted, the Bucks played with confidence w/wo a healthy TP.

Best thing that happened to our young QB so far, IMHO. Well.. on second thought, second to the Rose Bowl win.

 

[Mrstickball]

Everyone has already stated the obvious, but I'll go at it from a B-10 standpoint:

If you paid attention to Ohio State after the USC loss, and especially the Purdue upset, you find a much different team.

Between the USC and Purdue losses, you found a team that was really struggling for an identity. OSU was a hack-of-all-trades team with two running backs (IMO) that weren't doing that great, a buttoned up Pryor that wasn't running the offense well, and a defense that was pretty consistent the entire year.

After Purdue, Ohio State got better. A lot better. That cannot be under-stated. If you didn't watch the Big-10, then you didn't watch the progression of how much different the Buckeyes O was after Purdue.

Here are a few stats for pre-Purdue and post-Purdue. Mind you, the schedule was a bit better after Purdue as OSU played 3 (of 5 total games) against bowl-bound teams (1 was BCS bound), versus 3 bowl-bound teams (of 7 total games) with 0 BCS-bound teams:

Terrelle Pryor:
Navy-Purdue Stats -
89/156 Passing for 1169 yds, 10TDs, 8 INTs
86 Rushes, 367yds, 4 TDs

Minnesota-Michigan Stats -
55/99 Passing for 659 yds, 6 TDs, 2 INTs
56 Rushes, 340yds, 3 TDs

Notes:
His passing was down a bit, but we all knew he threw a lot less in the last 2 wins against Iowa and especially Michigan. The big notes are the fact that he threw 6 less INTs, and had 1.8 more yards per carry...Major improvement vs. better competition.


Brandon Saine:

Navy-Purdue Stats -
70 Rushes, 381 Yards, 0TD

Minnesota-Michigan Stats -
61 Rushes, 313 Yards, 4TD

Notes:
Slightly less YPC, but he was getting a bit more time due to Herron going down. He had 10 carries per game between Navy-Purdue on average and about 12 post-Purdue. Not to mention, there were more powderpuffs like Illinois, Indiana and Toledo where he was able to get some decent yards.


Daniel Herron:

Navy-Purdue Stats -
66 Rushes, 241 Yards, 5TD

Minnesota-Michigan Stats -
73 Rushes, 317 Yards, 2TD

Notes:
Herron didn't play in 3 games - 2 between Navy-Purdue and 1 after Purdue (Minnesota). In this comparison, his YPC increased from 3.6 to 4.3 after Purdue....A decent increase.


At any rate, if you look at the stats, you see that the running game got better. A lot better, IMO, even against better competition. That, combined with the fact that Pryor stopped turning the ball over as much, and you simply had a better team on offense.

Defensively, they were always good, and certainly got better as the year went on. The only hiccups were against USC and Iowa, and even then, they did quite well against both.

I think the biggest thing that changed was that the O-line really improved. It was the best O-line, after Purdue, that Ohio State has had for quite a few years. That meant less sacks, and a Pryor that had time to throw. So against a team like Oregon...Who trained for the run...Meant bad things would happen.

So USC was a perfect storm against Ohio State, and Oregon was a pretty good storm for Ohio State. Remember, OSU finished the season beating two great bowl winners in Iowa (who manhandled Georgia Tech) and Penn State who beat a pretty decent LSU.

 

[martinss01]

With the totally inexplicable showing in Lafayette excepted, the Bucks played with confidence w/wo a healthy TP.

i still think the team was still struggling with the flu. especially the oline, they didn't play like themselves that day.

mrstickball - good post, but i think thats only part of the story. we started the year with 1 olineman who was playing the same position he played the year prior. that being a true sophomore in brewster. everyone else had either moved positions or didn't start the year before. we had a different starting front 5 in the first 5 games. as you noted, starting tb 1A (herron) missed several games because of an ankle injury and 1B (saine) had a concussion during that span which put us in a position where we were starting a true freshman. our starting fb was a true freshman. not to mention starting a true sophomore qb with an extremely green wr core. imo its a tribute to the players talent/mental toughness and the coaches that we had the year we did.

 

[cincibuck]

i still think the team was still struggling with the flu. especially the oline, they didn't play like themselves that day.

mrstickball - good post, but i think thats only part of the story. we started the year with 1 olineman who was playing the same position he played the year prior. that being a true sophomore in brewster. everyone else had either moved positions or didn't start the year before. we had a different starting front 5 in the first 5 games. as you noted, starting tb 1A (herron) missed several games because of an ankle injury and 1B (saine) had a concussion during that span which put us in a position where we were starting a true freshman. our starting fb was a true freshman. not to mention starting a true sophomore qb with an extremely green wr core. imo its a tribute to the players talent/mental toughness and the coaches that we had the year we did.

Amen... And to get to the beginning question; how did you guys lose to Boise State? Same reasons perhaps.

 

[kippy1040]

I generally agree with this, but it raises the question in my mind, why did USC become so much weaker over the course of the season? The answer a few have given, that OSU just physically beat that much stuffing out of them seems unsatisfactory. It was a hard fought game, but nothing that should have derailed any team's entire season. And I don't doubt that USC struggled with injuries later in the season, but they went from a team that looked reasonably solid in September, to a team that looked barely mediocre later in the season. That seems unusual, particularly for a team like USC that has very strong breadth and depth of talent. Did OSU play down to a weak USC team in September, as LJB suggested, or did a reasonably solid September USC team turn into a paper tiger November USC team, as DBB suggested? Probably a bit of both, as both LJB and DBB concluded, but to the extent that USC crumbled, why did they?

The PAC Ten and the The BIG Ten have been going at each other in the opening games in early fall for many years as i can remember. Maybe other institutions don't have an OOC schedule like this one. So/Cal came away with a win in the "Shoe" but maybe they paid the price for it. Did they rest on thier laurels after that game or were they really banged up after the OHio State game. But i am convinced that USC came away with alot of confidence in thier QB after that game. Maybe they thought that would be the key to thier offense. Who Knows. Thats why i raised the question in my earlier posts. What would Ohio States season been like if they had gone on to beat USC? Would they have played in the Rose Bowl against USC again?

 

[Coqui]

The PAC Ten and the The BIG Ten have been going at each other in the opening games in early fall for many years as i can remember. Maybe other institutions don't have an OOC schedule like this one. So/Cal came away with a win in the "Shoe" but maybe they paid the price for it. Did they rest on thier laurels after that game or were they really banged up after the OHio State game. But i am convinced that USC came away with alot of confidence in thier QB after that game. Maybe they thought that would be the key to thier offense. Who Knows. Thats why i raised the question in my earlier posts. What would Ohio States season been like if they had gone on to beat USC? Would they have played in the Rose Bowl against USC again?

I'm going with banged up. I've posted this in other forums......might as well post it here: (Added the 2009 season)

How Teams fared after playing Ohio State
2009 Season:
Navy beat Louisiana Tech 32-14
USC lost 16-13 to Washington
Toledo beat FIU 41-31
Illinois lost 35-17 to Penn State
Indiana lost to Virginia 47-7
Wisconsin lost 20-10 Iowa
Purdue beat Illinois 24-14
Minnesota beat Michigan State 42-34
New Mexico State lost 24-6 to Hawaii
Penn State beat Indiana 31-20
Iowa beat Minnesota 12-0

Teams were 6-6 after playing Ohio State. 4 of those victories were against severely sub par teams.

2008 Season:
Youngstown St. Lost 40-7 to South Dakota State.
Ohio University lost 31-28 to Central Michigan
USC lost 27-21 to Oregon State
Troy lost 55-24 to Oklahoma State
Minnesota beat Indiana 16-7 (This was also their first game scoring less than 30 points)
Wisconsin lost 48-7 to Penn St.
Purdue lost 48-26 to Northwestern
Michigan St. beat Michigan 35-21
Penn St. lost 24-23 to Iowa
Northwestern beat Michigan 21-14
Illinois lost 27-10 to Northwestern

so teams the week after were 3-8. The common factor? 1 team got lucky playing a sub par team, and Michigan was in shambles that year so just about anyone could beat them

 

[zincfinger]

I'm going with banged up. I've posted this in other forums......might as well post it here: (Added the 2009 season)

How Teams fared after playing Ohio State
2009 Season:
Navy beat Louisiana Tech 32-14
USC lost 16-13 to Washington
Toledo beat FIU 41-31
Illinois lost 35-17 to Penn State
Indiana lost to Virginia 47-7
Wisconsin lost 20-10 Iowa
Purdue beat Illinois 24-14
Minnesota beat Michigan State 42-34
New Mexico State lost 24-6 to Hawaii
Penn State beat Indiana 31-20
Iowa beat Minnesota 12-0

Teams were 6-6 after playing Ohio State. 4 of those victories were against severely sub par teams.

2008 Season:
Youngstown St. Lost 40-7 to South Dakota State.
Ohio University lost 31-28 to Central Michigan
USC lost 27-21 to Oregon State
Troy lost 55-24 to Oklahoma State
Minnesota beat Indiana 16-7 (This was also their first game scoring less than 30 points)
Wisconsin lost 48-7 to Penn St.
Purdue lost 48-26 to Northwestern
Michigan St. beat Michigan 35-21
Penn St. lost 24-23 to Iowa
Northwestern beat Michigan 21-14
Illinois lost 27-10 to Northwestern

so teams the week after were 3-8. The common factor? 1 team got lucky playing a sub par team, and Michigan was in shambles that year so just about anyone could beat them

USC was so physically spent after the OSU game that they struggled in their next game? OK, that's a cause-and-effect that at least sounds plausible. They were so physically spent by the OSU game that 2 months later they were giving up 55 points to Stanford? I'd think you'd have a hard time selling anyone on that cause-and-effect.

 

[Coqui]

USC was so physically spent after the OSU game that they struggled in their next game? OK, that's a cause-and-effect that at least sounds plausible. They were so physically spent by the OSU game that 2 months later they were giving up 55 points to Stanford? I'd think you'd have a hard time selling anyone on that cause-and-effect.

Stanford had Gerhart. Either way, there's a precedence for teams struggling the week after we played them. That's all I meant.

I picked them losing to Washington prior to the game for that very reason.

 

[zincfinger]

Stanford had Gerhart. Either way, there's a precedence for teams struggling the week after we played them. That's all I meant.

I picked them losing to Washington prior to the game for that very reason.

And as I said, I think that relatively narrow point is plausible. If USC had played San Diego State, rather than Ohio State, on September 12th, maybe they would have beaten Washington on September 19th. But I think the point of this thread was that the USC team Oregon saw on October 31st (or that the Pac-10 generally saw over the latter half of the season) was very mediocre. And I don't think a hangover from the USC/OSU game can explain that.

Stated alternatively, if USC had only lost to Washington, and had beaten (and in most cases, steamrolled) everyone else they played, no one would be asking, "How did OSU lose to those guys?" That would, in fact, have been a typical USC season under Carroll. This wasn't a typical Carroll-led USC season. They lost 4 times, twice very badly, and rarely looked like a good team.

 

[DaddyBigBucks]

Several times during the season I referred to the fact that "the wheels had come off of USC". I thought everyone would know what that meant. That was a poor assumption on my part.

Tressel probably doesn't know what it's like to lose a team, but I do. Anyone with less leadership ability than JT who has coached a team knows what it's like to "lose" them. "Losing a team" happens when a coach no longer has any meaningful influence over a team's actions. Sure, they run the plays he calls; but they aren't taking coaching... from any of the staff. It is an attitude thing. It can go week-to-week; or you can lose them for the season; or you can lose them for a few games and get them back if you can learn from your mistakes on the fly. Either way, JT probably doesn't even know what losing a team looks like.

Pete Carroll knows all about this concept though. It happened to him this year.

USC was an up and down team during the PC era. They would get up for the big games; then they would tank against lesser opponents, sometimes the very next week as they did in '08 and '09 after playing Ohio State. IMHO, it was after the down performance against UW that Petey lost that team.

There are two ways of reacting to a loss that unexpected (unexpected to the loser anyway): You can come together and rally around your leaders or you can go through the motions for several games if not the entire season. The latter is what happens when a coach loses a team after a Seattlesque performance.

I guess the people in Seattle didn't think it was all that bad...

 

[jlb1705]

And crowd noise - I saw too many people sitting down and not yelling. Yes this was the loudest Ohio Stadium had been in a long time. Now imagine what would have happened had everyone participated in it.

Really? What section were you in? I can assure you there was nothing like that going on anywhere near where I was.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Really? What section were you in? I can assure you there was nothing like that going on anywhere near where I was.

Agree. It was loud from the opening kick to the final play... really, really loud. Bucky Katt relayed a story that he had some SC fan near him comment to him that they'd gladly trade our environment for their coach.

 

[Fungo Squiggly]

Agree. It was loud from the opening kick to the final play... really, really loud. Bucky Katt relayed a story that he had some SC fan near him comment to him that they'd gladly trade our environment for their coach.

Heh. BK's probably doubly glad he passed on that offer.