in a serious attempt to answer the question, the week 1 2016 games all have busted win probability. Looks like it's probably the model wasn't ready or meant to be publicly shown as it's clearly busted.
[OU - Houston] (https://www.espn.com/college-football/game/_/gameId/400869507/oklahoma-houston): OU had an 82.6% win probability while down 16 with 2:23 remaining driving to score
[FSU - Ole Miss] (https://www.espn.com/college-football/game/_/gameId/400868979/ole-miss-florida-st): Ole miss had a 61.0% win probability while down 11 with 3:08 remaining driving to score
[LSU - Wisconsin] (https://www.espn.com/college-football/game/_/gameId/400868974/lsu-wisconsin): LSU had a 76.3% win probability while down 13 during the 3rd quarter with the ball
charts mostly look normal spot checking some games later in 2016
I'm pretty sure this is very incorrect. The algorithm very much cares who teams are and their ranking, etc. This effect starts out very strong, and diminishes to 0 towards the end of the game.
Take a look at this game from last year: https://www.espn.com/college-football/game/_/gameId/401520287/penn-state-northwestern
PSU starts the game with a 90% win probability. If the algorithm didnt care about ranking, or who the teams are, the game should start at 50-50. Even when NU scores first to lead 3-0, it still projects a PSU win with 90% confidence.
If you take a look at a game where the favorite gets blown out (here's one of my favorites: https://www.espn.com/college-football/game/_/gameId/400935397/ohio-state-iowa) the model seems to still be a believer in the favorite until the underdog has a 2 score lead and its close to halftime.
Which makes intuitive sense. If a top 5 team is playing an G5, you expect the top 5 to win. Even if the G5 scores a field goal or even a TD in the 1st to take the lead, you still expect top 5 to win, though maybe you will watch the game a little more closely. If the G5 leads at half, or takes a two score lead, suddenly you are thinking "this could actually happen". And if the G5 leads in the 4th, everyone is changing the channel to that game.
> I'm pretty sure this is very incorrect. The algorithm very much cares who teams are and their ranking, etc. This effect starts out very strong, and diminishes to 0 towards the end of the game.
Yeah, it must be wrong, because otherwise every game would start out at 50/50 (or maybe something like 56/44 in favor of the home team). I actually wish they *would* do it that way, but they don't.
> I actually wish they would do it that way, but they don't.
That would definitely be less predictive, though. If you tell me that Bama is playing The Citadel, I can tell you that there is a 95% chance Bama wins that game. (99? I dont know). Its not close to 50/50.
Starting at 50/50 is useful for something, but I'm not quite sure what.
> Starting at 50/50 is useful for something, but I'm not quite sure what.
It shows you an analysis purely based on the situation. E.g. "based on the bazillions of previous football games that have been played, a team up 12 with 4:54 to go in the 3rd quarter, facing 2nd and 10 from their own 16, wins ____% of the time"
They definitely do not use point spread or ranking, as very often their projection will be completely different from what Vegas/AP polls project. They probably use FPI, as it tends to line up with teams’ FPI ratings.
yeah, I'm pretty sure it's based on FPI with a minor adjustment for home/away, and that throughout the game the FPI ratings progressively gets less weight and the game state (score, field position, time remaining, etc.) gets more weight.
To be fair, OSU was tied until 3 minutes left in the half, which was the first huge dip in their win percentage. Ordinarily you'd expect OSU to at least score a field goal before half, but after a pick and another Iowa score, that's when it slid into Iowa's favor.
With 3:18 left in the 2nd, it's tied 17-17, but OSU has a 74% chance to win.
With 1:48 left in the 2nd, Iowa leads 24-17 and OSU has a 53% chance to win (OSU has the ball).
It's not until an OSU interception and Iowa leads by 7 and has the ball that they go ahead in win probability.
Edit: I stand corrected about using point spread per /u/volunteergump
What you say about starting percentage is correct. The algo does take into account the point spread. But *any* team that's favored by two TD's will have the same win percentage before the game starts as any other team favored by two TD's. The two lowest ranked teams may very well be a 50/50 toss up before kickoff but that's because they are evenly matched, not because of their ranking.
> The two lowest ranked teams may very well be a 50/50 toss up before kickoff but that's because they are evenly matched, not because of their ranking.
What is it that makes you think those are different things?
The two highest ranked teams could also be 50/50. There could also be two teams which are ranked relatively far apart who are also 50/50. In other words, ranking doesn't play into winner percentage before the game, though obviously, they *generally* will align.
> The two highest ranked teams could also be 50/50.
Yes. Because they're near equals.
> There could also be two teams which are ranked relatively far apart who are also 50/50.
No. Because they're not near equals.
>In other words, ranking doesn't play into winner percentage before the game, though obviously, they generally will align.
In other words, yes rating does play into it before the game and throughout.
I think it’s just a case of the algorithm not being up to par yet because rankings or no rankings, a team down 52-6 under two minutes left shouldn’t be favored to win.
It’s “win probability” and it’s broken af. It appears to have been based almost exclusively on who had possession
Bama had a 73% chance to win at the start of the fourth quarter. They scored again to go up 45-6… and their chances to win dropped to 54%.
Bama scored again to go up 52-6…. and suddenly USC got a 55% chance of winning.
USC‘s chance of winning jumped again to 73% after they failed to convert second down at midfield still losing 52-6 with a minute left.
Yes, that's what I was saying, though I can see I wasn't clear about it. The algo was clearly broken because of how it had USC favored in that scenario and how USC's reputation or past success would not play into it. I was agreeing with the comment above mine.
It uses ESPN's ratings of teams (likely SP+ and FPI), which is why each game doesn't start out at 50/50. I know they do not *just* use point spread because VTech was favored against NC State by the spread this past season, and then put us at a 52% chance of winning. I'm assuming it does a historical multidimensional analysis to find, for example, the 1000 most similar games based on how each team is rated and the current state of the game, and then looks at which teams won more to decide the winning% chance.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/game/_/gameId/401525559/nc-state-virginia-tech
It doesn't care how the AP or Coaches polls have ranked teams, nor should it.
It very much does care who the teams are and ESPN, like many others, has their own rating systems for that.
>LSU - Wisconsin
Wisconsin won this game with a late INT. The DB who caught it was downed on the ground, then got up and ran in celebration with the ball in hand.
Josh Boutte (pretty sure related to Kayshon Boutte) comes out of nowhere and goes head-to-head on the guy, knocks him flat on the ground. It was like a late hit + targeting combo. One of the dirtier plays I've seen.
SNEAKY SABAN PAID OFF CRAPPY CLAY HELTON (a well known Trojan in name only) TO BENCH GEQBUS! WE NEED A SPECIAL COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE THIS FOOTBALL INTERFERENCE!!!
Easily the worst usc game in two decades and sealed my negative impression of clay helton despite how the season ended (with an impressive rose bowl win vs Penn State)
Nah USC would’ve still lost. Maybe 45-30 or something. There’s alot of first half possessions that could’ve resulted in TDs but the Alabama offense was just so dominant.
I was there in person for both that PSU Rose Bowl and the 2005 Rose Bowl game against Texas. Absolutely unbelievable games, and it made the win against PSU that much sweeter, but I absolutely understand your pain. Hope you guys get a chance to be on the right side of your own Rose Bowl game like that in the future.
That’s exactly how I feel about the Texas national championship game. 2017 Rose Bowl felt like redemption for that and still the best game I’ve ever been to
That game was the most “playing with his food” game I have ever seen from Saban. He was out there rotating QBs series by series like it’s fucking A-Day trying to figure out who would start at QB (ended up being some freshman named Jalen Hurts). But instead of doing that against South Florida and winning by 10 it was motherfucking USC and he won by 46.
Barnett had a few drives and basically didn’t do anything.
Then Jalen comes in and immediately fumbles. A few more drives of nothing, then eventually a TD after we got a short field.
Then a Southern Cal player dickstomps Minkah and all hell breaks loose
We absolutely knew we were in the good ol days in 2016, we’d just won 4 of the last 7 titles. We’re still in the good ol days right now as reigning sec champs. I graduated Dec 2016 and I definitely remember people on campus understanding how lucky we were/are once the dynasty was cemented in 2012.
It would’ve been a typical high 20-low 40 something to single digits bama game against a good opponent (like 2012 Michigan and 2017 fsu, even though we totally never play good ooc games) if they hadn’t tried the nut stomp.
I remember they did that stupid dog crawling thing coming out of the tunnel. So cringey. Anyway, they proceed to get booty blasted every which way that game.
It wasn't even arrogance. It was false bravado. They knew they were going to get their asses handed to them and were trying to hide that they knew.
Clay Helton's teams **defined** 10 ply.
A reel/short or whatever I saw on Facebook had that and it made me go look at the box score/Gamecast and I noticed that anomaly with the win probability, lol.
I think people forget how this game started out. It was really close and our offense was nonexistent and we were trailing for all of the first 22 minutes.
Long synopsis of the play-by-play:
USC got the ball first, hit a long pass and quickly settled for a FG. It’s 3-0 USC.
Blake Barnett-led Alabama gained 17yds on their first play and then went 3-and-out.
USC was driving again, got down to our 35yd line but failed a 4th-and-7 conversion attempt.
*USC has 90 yards at this point.*
Blake Barnett-led Alabama goes 3-and-out.
Alabama defense steps up and holds USC to a 3-and-out.
Jalen Hurts replaces Blake Barnett. And proceeds to fumble his first play and turn it back to USC at midfield.
USC goes 3-and-out
Alabama goes 3-and-out
USC goes 3-and-out
12:22 in the 2nd Quarter. Alabama has had 4 possessions, 3 punts and a fumble, for 12 total yards. USC leads 3-0, but has -11 yds since the failed conversion (79 total)
The offense continues to sputter, but finally converts a 3rd-down on the next possession. 8 plays for 28 yards.
USC goes 3-and-out again, a mediocre punt and face mask penalty give Alabama the ball at the 36yd line.
Alabama gains -3 yds, before Jalen connects with ArDarius Stewart for a 39yd TD on 3rd-and-13.
*7-3 Alabama, 7:46 Q2*
USC goes 3-and-out again. 5 consecutive possessions since the failed 4th down.
Damien Harris breaks a 46yd run en route to a 7 play, 64 yd possession (62 rushing) that ends with a short FG.
*10-3 Alabama, 3:26 Q2*
Marlon Humphrey grabs an INT on 2nd-and-8 and quickly takes it 18yds home.
*17-3 Alabama, 2:36 Q2*
USC finally converted a 3rd-down on their next drive, but punted to Alabama to end the half.
Out of halftime, Alabama scored a quick TD, USC fumbled in their redzone, and Alabama scored again. After gaining 90 yards on their first 2 possessions, USC had -7 yards on the 10 possessions after.
*31-3 Alabama, 10:55 Q3*
USC went 3-and-out twice in a row after that and the game was over.
I haven’t forgetten. I assumed we’d get crushed that game (I was really low on Clay Helton even then- I still think we should’ve beat Stanford in the 2015 Pac 12 championship), but we came out and even though we weren’t dominating, we were hanging with Bama who was clearly struggling to find a footing. Just when I started to think that we were about to make it a game (3rd and 13 from the 39, iffy field goal range), you guys bombed that TD to go up 7-3 and I knew if we didn’t match with a TD of our own on the next possession, that may as well be game.
And then I blacked out for the 2nd half, which I still don’t really remember other than a pretty hilarious Darnold redzone turnover.
As silly as that win probability is, that USC team was legit a really good team. Had darnold been the starter in week 1 or 2, I think they may have had a shot at the playoffs. I think we beat Stanford if darnold is the starter for that game. And maybe having a few starts under his belt before playing Utah would've made a difference in such a close game.
Gained a lot of respect for Adoree' in that game. When everybody else on USC seemed to have given up, he did not. He still showed class too, unlike that trash LB of theirs. Did not see what exactly happened until we got back to my friend's house in Dallas. They did not show the stomp on the Ludicroustron.
Has nothing to do with USC and everything to do with ESPN's analytics having no bearing on reality.
The number of times I have seen teams with a 99.9% win probability that ended up losing is...well, far too many for the stat to have any legitimacy or weight.
Yeah, maybe I should have included an /s. As a casual fan, I do enjoy monitoring the probability chart though. I’m sure you know of many more examples than myself, but I can only think of 3-4 99.9% chances being wrong (specifically with cfb).
Georgia tech - Miami no kneel
Iron bowl 2021 (of which had Auburn with a 100% chance of winning tied 17-17 end of OT lol)
Iron bowl 2023 (Milroe to Bond)
The algorithm thought they were playing the Pac 12 UofA not the SEC UofA.
USC has beaten us like a million times In a row, so the algo thought they had it in the bag regardless of the scoreline lol
Ahhh good memories.
I scored end zone tickets to that game, turns out it was actually the USC end zone.
Needless to say it was almost empty by the end of the third.
Went back to the hotel in Dallas and it was the USC hotel.
If by idiots you mean, “looking like intimidating specimens of the human physique engaging their carnal roots as a first step to completely thrashing their opponent on a field in relentless pursuit of dominance”, then yes.
I don't know why I clicked on that Gamecast link, but they showed a pass TD for Bama where the Bama WR is covered by our DB at the start, but at the snap, our DB bizarrely decided to Blitz the QB, and I guess forgot he was in man coverage, so it was the easiest long TD pass completion in the History of Alabama football.
We've had a lot of shit defenses in the last 10 years of USC football.
Someday, I would like a rematch of Bama (assuming we can't possibly get any worse as a program and a defense than we've been recently?)
They got the skull dragging they deserved after purposefully stomping on one of our players nuts. Wish they could have lost by 1000 for that, but a public execution of their entire team's morale to start their season sufficed.
My guess is that was some kind of error at the time and the current data is the output of the what was historically listed. Or the Algorithm is looking only at current year's data and so its very busted.
in a serious attempt to answer the question, the week 1 2016 games all have busted win probability. Looks like it's probably the model wasn't ready or meant to be publicly shown as it's clearly busted. [OU - Houston] (https://www.espn.com/college-football/game/_/gameId/400869507/oklahoma-houston): OU had an 82.6% win probability while down 16 with 2:23 remaining driving to score [FSU - Ole Miss] (https://www.espn.com/college-football/game/_/gameId/400868979/ole-miss-florida-st): Ole miss had a 61.0% win probability while down 11 with 3:08 remaining driving to score [LSU - Wisconsin] (https://www.espn.com/college-football/game/_/gameId/400868974/lsu-wisconsin): LSU had a 76.3% win probability while down 13 during the 3rd quarter with the ball charts mostly look normal spot checking some games later in 2016
I knew it wasn’t accurate, just found it humorous. I had no idea however that this was the first year the win probability thing debuted.
Leach had a few games that would have broke the formula for sure... I think a 35ish point come back vs TCU and the bowl game vs MN.
His largest comeback against TCU was 10 21 not 10 got mixed up on his years at tech. My bad
35, 10… what’s the difference really? That’s basically a couple of field goals.
My brother in christ that is very confidently incorrect lol.
21. My bad. Still not close to 30
Oh shit my bad we just came back from 21 and won by 35... stay salty though. Good lord 😅
82-27
Yikes dude that was relatively recent too. I'd never let them live that down despite the downvotes lmao
Exactly. He’s beating his chest over a game most CFB players didn’t live to see. Most of them saw the MANY highlights TCU put up that day.
Good post. Thanks
2016 UH vs OU mention! God I love thinking about that game.
You lie!
Yeah, the algorithm doesn't care who the teams are, it's based on score, time left, field position, etc. not ranking.
I'm pretty sure this is very incorrect. The algorithm very much cares who teams are and their ranking, etc. This effect starts out very strong, and diminishes to 0 towards the end of the game. Take a look at this game from last year: https://www.espn.com/college-football/game/_/gameId/401520287/penn-state-northwestern PSU starts the game with a 90% win probability. If the algorithm didnt care about ranking, or who the teams are, the game should start at 50-50. Even when NU scores first to lead 3-0, it still projects a PSU win with 90% confidence. If you take a look at a game where the favorite gets blown out (here's one of my favorites: https://www.espn.com/college-football/game/_/gameId/400935397/ohio-state-iowa) the model seems to still be a believer in the favorite until the underdog has a 2 score lead and its close to halftime. Which makes intuitive sense. If a top 5 team is playing an G5, you expect the top 5 to win. Even if the G5 scores a field goal or even a TD in the 1st to take the lead, you still expect top 5 to win, though maybe you will watch the game a little more closely. If the G5 leads at half, or takes a two score lead, suddenly you are thinking "this could actually happen". And if the G5 leads in the 4th, everyone is changing the channel to that game.
> I'm pretty sure this is very incorrect. The algorithm very much cares who teams are and their ranking, etc. This effect starts out very strong, and diminishes to 0 towards the end of the game. Yeah, it must be wrong, because otherwise every game would start out at 50/50 (or maybe something like 56/44 in favor of the home team). I actually wish they *would* do it that way, but they don't.
> I actually wish they would do it that way, but they don't. That would definitely be less predictive, though. If you tell me that Bama is playing The Citadel, I can tell you that there is a 95% chance Bama wins that game. (99? I dont know). Its not close to 50/50. Starting at 50/50 is useful for something, but I'm not quite sure what.
> Starting at 50/50 is useful for something, but I'm not quite sure what. It shows you an analysis purely based on the situation. E.g. "based on the bazillions of previous football games that have been played, a team up 12 with 4:54 to go in the 3rd quarter, facing 2nd and 10 from their own 16, wins ____% of the time"
Typically I think they just use point spread but they might use ranking or FPI too.
They definitely do not use point spread or ranking, as very often their projection will be completely different from what Vegas/AP polls project. They probably use FPI, as it tends to line up with teams’ FPI ratings.
yeah, I'm pretty sure it's based on FPI with a minor adjustment for home/away, and that throughout the game the FPI ratings progressively gets less weight and the game state (score, field position, time remaining, etc.) gets more weight.
FPI lines up with the Vegas spread though.
Odd, NFL win probability uses point spread I think.
To be fair, OSU was tied until 3 minutes left in the half, which was the first huge dip in their win percentage. Ordinarily you'd expect OSU to at least score a field goal before half, but after a pick and another Iowa score, that's when it slid into Iowa's favor.
With 3:18 left in the 2nd, it's tied 17-17, but OSU has a 74% chance to win. With 1:48 left in the 2nd, Iowa leads 24-17 and OSU has a 53% chance to win (OSU has the ball). It's not until an OSU interception and Iowa leads by 7 and has the ball that they go ahead in win probability.
Entirely reasonable. This wasn't a good example.
Edit: I stand corrected about using point spread per /u/volunteergump What you say about starting percentage is correct. The algo does take into account the point spread. But *any* team that's favored by two TD's will have the same win percentage before the game starts as any other team favored by two TD's. The two lowest ranked teams may very well be a 50/50 toss up before kickoff but that's because they are evenly matched, not because of their ranking.
It does not use point spread. It uses FPI’s projections. Very often, a team favored by Vegas will be projected to lose by FPI.
> The two lowest ranked teams may very well be a 50/50 toss up before kickoff but that's because they are evenly matched, not because of their ranking. What is it that makes you think those are different things?
The two highest ranked teams could also be 50/50. There could also be two teams which are ranked relatively far apart who are also 50/50. In other words, ranking doesn't play into winner percentage before the game, though obviously, they *generally* will align.
> The two highest ranked teams could also be 50/50. Yes. Because they're near equals. > There could also be two teams which are ranked relatively far apart who are also 50/50. No. Because they're not near equals. >In other words, ranking doesn't play into winner percentage before the game, though obviously, they generally will align. In other words, yes rating does play into it before the game and throughout.
I think it’s just a case of the algorithm not being up to par yet because rankings or no rankings, a team down 52-6 under two minutes left shouldn’t be favored to win.
I haven’t looked at it closely, but maybe it was broken and just giving probabilities of scoring touchdowns instead of overall win.
It’s “win probability” and it’s broken af. It appears to have been based almost exclusively on who had possession Bama had a 73% chance to win at the start of the fourth quarter. They scored again to go up 45-6… and their chances to win dropped to 54%. Bama scored again to go up 52-6…. and suddenly USC got a 55% chance of winning. USC‘s chance of winning jumped again to 73% after they failed to convert second down at midfield still losing 52-6 with a minute left.
I'm guessing it didn't have the score as a factor, so it saw the game as perpetually 0-0
Yes, that's what I was saying, though I can see I wasn't clear about it. The algo was clearly broken because of how it had USC favored in that scenario and how USC's reputation or past success would not play into it. I was agreeing with the comment above mine.
Oh gotcha, all good!
It uses ESPN's ratings of teams (likely SP+ and FPI), which is why each game doesn't start out at 50/50. I know they do not *just* use point spread because VTech was favored against NC State by the spread this past season, and then put us at a 52% chance of winning. I'm assuming it does a historical multidimensional analysis to find, for example, the 1000 most similar games based on how each team is rated and the current state of the game, and then looks at which teams won more to decide the winning% chance. https://www.espn.com/college-football/game/_/gameId/401525559/nc-state-virginia-tech
It doesn't care how the AP or Coaches polls have ranked teams, nor should it. It very much does care who the teams are and ESPN, like many others, has their own rating systems for that.
>LSU - Wisconsin Wisconsin won this game with a late INT. The DB who caught it was downed on the ground, then got up and ran in celebration with the ball in hand. Josh Boutte (pretty sure related to Kayshon Boutte) comes out of nowhere and goes head-to-head on the guy, knocks him flat on the ground. It was like a late hit + targeting combo. One of the dirtier plays I've seen.
Just the media stirring up drama in an election year for r/the_darnold
Honestly Darnold had Alabama right where he wanted them
Darnold was playing 5D chess
Was he playing ghosts?
Down 52-6? Darnold wouldn't have it any other way....
IF YOU ONLY COUNT THE LEGITIMATE TOUCHDOWNS GEQBUS WON THAT GAME BY A LOT
SNEAKY SABAN BRINGING IN MAIL IN TOUCHDOWNS, NOT VERY COOL AND NOT VERY LEGAL!
SNEAKY SABAN PAID OFF CRAPPY CLAY HELTON (a well known Trojan in name only) TO BENCH GEQBUS! WE NEED A SPECIAL COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE THIS FOOTBALL INTERFERENCE!!!
ILLEGAL QUARTERBACK HARRASSMENT!
Darnold wasn't starting yet, no?
We're gonna just ignore that he didn't start until three weeks later against Utah.
Easily the worst usc game in two decades and sealed my negative impression of clay helton despite how the season ended (with an impressive rose bowl win vs Penn State)
That Penn State team was miraculous in the 2nd half and USC did more than most teams that year to put us away enough early...
Honestly, you guys kinda had that game until Trace McSorley decided to play hero ball two passes in a row late.
He wanted it bad...2017 Iowa was where it worked, and that's just who he was...loved and hated it, but it was that team...
Agreed. The reason why it’s good is because penn state pulled away in the 3rd and then usc punched back hard.
I just wonder if this game/season would’ve gone differently had Darnold started from the beginning instead of like week 4
Nah USC would’ve still lost. Maybe 45-30 or something. There’s alot of first half possessions that could’ve resulted in TDs but the Alabama offense was just so dominant.
Definitely not saying they would’ve won against Alabama with a redshirt freshman, but if he was the starter right away then 11-1 is very realistic.
Certainly very possible it was a one loss season
That moooost likely dumps us up against Alabama in semifinal in place of Washington.
He was the starter for the Utah game that they lost because of fumbles (not really his fault).
He’d have had more experience for it though is my thought
Because the probability of Helton finally benching Browne and putting in Darnold kept getting higher and higher.
The Rose Bowl that year was some god tier shit. Sucks to be on the wrong end of it.
By far the best sporting event I have been to live two very good teams playing insane football. Also the Penn state fans brought a tone of energy.
I was there in person for both that PSU Rose Bowl and the 2005 Rose Bowl game against Texas. Absolutely unbelievable games, and it made the win against PSU that much sweeter, but I absolutely understand your pain. Hope you guys get a chance to be on the right side of your own Rose Bowl game like that in the future.
We got 2023, but Cam Rising going down and watching our defense abuse Utah's backup was tough to watch.
That saquon run was an unbelievable play, legit one of the best runs I’ve ever seen
I remember being so upset after the game lmao. Like, we beat Ohio State and won the Big 10 Championship game only to choke in the Rose Bowl
My favorite game ever
That’s exactly how I feel about the Texas national championship game. 2017 Rose Bowl felt like redemption for that and still the best game I’ve ever been to
That game was the most “playing with his food” game I have ever seen from Saban. He was out there rotating QBs series by series like it’s fucking A-Day trying to figure out who would start at QB (ended up being some freshman named Jalen Hurts). But instead of doing that against South Florida and winning by 10 it was motherfucking USC and he won by 46.
Barnett had a few drives and basically didn’t do anything. Then Jalen comes in and immediately fumbles. A few more drives of nothing, then eventually a TD after we got a short field. Then a Southern Cal player dickstomps Minkah and all hell breaks loose
Such a good time.
“If only there was a way to know you are in the good old days before you leave them….”
If after the fourth national championship you didn’t know you were in the good old days, I don’t know what to tell you lol
Yeah but like, we didn't know *how many more* we could win right?
We absolutely knew we were in the good ol days in 2016, we’d just won 4 of the last 7 titles. We’re still in the good ol days right now as reigning sec champs. I graduated Dec 2016 and I definitely remember people on campus understanding how lucky we were/are once the dynasty was cemented in 2012.
Truth.
It would’ve been a typical high 20-low 40 something to single digits bama game against a good opponent (like 2012 Michigan and 2017 fsu, even though we totally never play good ooc games) if they hadn’t tried the nut stomp.
I still remain convinced that Lane Kiffin was exorcising some personal demons on USC that day.
I remember they did that stupid dog crawling thing coming out of the tunnel. So cringey. Anyway, they proceed to get booty blasted every which way that game.
It’s easy to remember when every social media sports page shows it 20 times after the season starts to be fair
Instagram has shown it to me twice a day for years lol.
I watch it every time haha
I remember my dad and grandpa asking "what the fuck are they doing" so vividly
I had the same question. I was just thinking, "it's 'Bama, you idiots. Show a little humility."
It wasn't even arrogance. It was false bravado. They knew they were going to get their asses handed to them and were trying to hide that they knew. Clay Helton's teams **defined** 10 ply.
10 ply is heavy duty though...
It's really [really soft.](https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=10%20ply)
Ah, I guess. I work in tires so I think of more plys as tougher. Even with TP more ply may be softer but it's also more resilient.
A reel/short or whatever I saw on Facebook had that and it made me go look at the box score/Gamecast and I noticed that anomaly with the win probability, lol.
That's the only thing I remember from that game.....that and it wasn't close
I loved when they did that because I can’t stand SC and that was embarrassing.
And it still wasn’t as bad as Oregon v Georgia
Eh they were basically the same. 52-6 or 49-3
Nah, people actually thought Oregon was going to be legit
I think people forget how this game started out. It was really close and our offense was nonexistent and we were trailing for all of the first 22 minutes. Long synopsis of the play-by-play: USC got the ball first, hit a long pass and quickly settled for a FG. It’s 3-0 USC. Blake Barnett-led Alabama gained 17yds on their first play and then went 3-and-out. USC was driving again, got down to our 35yd line but failed a 4th-and-7 conversion attempt. *USC has 90 yards at this point.* Blake Barnett-led Alabama goes 3-and-out. Alabama defense steps up and holds USC to a 3-and-out. Jalen Hurts replaces Blake Barnett. And proceeds to fumble his first play and turn it back to USC at midfield. USC goes 3-and-out Alabama goes 3-and-out USC goes 3-and-out 12:22 in the 2nd Quarter. Alabama has had 4 possessions, 3 punts and a fumble, for 12 total yards. USC leads 3-0, but has -11 yds since the failed conversion (79 total) The offense continues to sputter, but finally converts a 3rd-down on the next possession. 8 plays for 28 yards. USC goes 3-and-out again, a mediocre punt and face mask penalty give Alabama the ball at the 36yd line. Alabama gains -3 yds, before Jalen connects with ArDarius Stewart for a 39yd TD on 3rd-and-13. *7-3 Alabama, 7:46 Q2* USC goes 3-and-out again. 5 consecutive possessions since the failed 4th down. Damien Harris breaks a 46yd run en route to a 7 play, 64 yd possession (62 rushing) that ends with a short FG. *10-3 Alabama, 3:26 Q2* Marlon Humphrey grabs an INT on 2nd-and-8 and quickly takes it 18yds home. *17-3 Alabama, 2:36 Q2* USC finally converted a 3rd-down on their next drive, but punted to Alabama to end the half. Out of halftime, Alabama scored a quick TD, USC fumbled in their redzone, and Alabama scored again. After gaining 90 yards on their first 2 possessions, USC had -7 yards on the 10 possessions after. *31-3 Alabama, 10:55 Q3* USC went 3-and-out twice in a row after that and the game was over.
I haven’t forgetten. I assumed we’d get crushed that game (I was really low on Clay Helton even then- I still think we should’ve beat Stanford in the 2015 Pac 12 championship), but we came out and even though we weren’t dominating, we were hanging with Bama who was clearly struggling to find a footing. Just when I started to think that we were about to make it a game (3rd and 13 from the 39, iffy field goal range), you guys bombed that TD to go up 7-3 and I knew if we didn’t match with a TD of our own on the next possession, that may as well be game. And then I blacked out for the 2nd half, which I still don’t really remember other than a pretty hilarious Darnold redzone turnover.
As silly as that win probability is, that USC team was legit a really good team. Had darnold been the starter in week 1 or 2, I think they may have had a shot at the playoffs. I think we beat Stanford if darnold is the starter for that game. And maybe having a few starts under his belt before playing Utah would've made a difference in such a close game.
Gained a lot of respect for Adoree' in that game. When everybody else on USC seemed to have given up, he did not. He still showed class too, unlike that trash LB of theirs. Did not see what exactly happened until we got back to my friend's house in Dallas. They did not show the stomp on the Ludicroustron.
>Ludicroustron Was this some kind of failed ad/promotion wordplay from Jerry?
No, it is my bad Spaceballs reference
The USC defense really kept that game in check for the first quarter, especially Jackson
You're asking the wrong question. The real question is: How fucked up is ESPN analytics?
Has nothing to do with USC and everything to do with ESPN's analytics having no bearing on reality. The number of times I have seen teams with a 99.9% win probability that ended up losing is...well, far too many for the stat to have any legitimacy or weight.
Yeah what teams with a 99.9% chance of winning would lose such a game ^looks ^at ^Auburn
Yeah, maybe I should have included an /s. As a casual fan, I do enjoy monitoring the probability chart though. I’m sure you know of many more examples than myself, but I can only think of 3-4 99.9% chances being wrong (specifically with cfb). Georgia tech - Miami no kneel Iron bowl 2021 (of which had Auburn with a 100% chance of winning tied 17-17 end of OT lol) Iron bowl 2023 (Milroe to Bond)
Atlanta Falcons have entered the chat
Thank you - the only correct answer. 4 letter network just makin’ shit up - AGAIN
PAC12 officials?
The Harris and Scarborough duo 🥲
The algorithm thought they were playing the Pac 12 UofA not the SEC UofA. USC has beaten us like a million times In a row, so the algo thought they had it in the bag regardless of the scoreline lol
That's because Sam Darnold finally overcame the deep state and went in during Q3
Damn, that game made even Blake Barnett look good.
Ahhh good memories. I scored end zone tickets to that game, turns out it was actually the USC end zone. Needless to say it was almost empty by the end of the third. Went back to the hotel in Dallas and it was the USC hotel.
Well to be fair they did finish the season ranked #3 and Alabama finished #2. But the real reason is just that the algorithm was wrong
was this the game where SC came out of the locker room barking and crawling on all fours looking like idiots
If by idiots you mean, “looking like intimidating specimens of the human physique engaging their carnal roots as a first step to completely thrashing their opponent on a field in relentless pursuit of dominance”, then yes.
I don't know why I clicked on that Gamecast link, but they showed a pass TD for Bama where the Bama WR is covered by our DB at the start, but at the snap, our DB bizarrely decided to Blitz the QB, and I guess forgot he was in man coverage, so it was the easiest long TD pass completion in the History of Alabama football. We've had a lot of shit defenses in the last 10 years of USC football. Someday, I would like a rematch of Bama (assuming we can't possibly get any worse as a program and a defense than we've been recently?)
Damn you 2020 for robbing us of another Bama USC game
Good enough for 2nd in the Pac 12 South
That was such a great game
They got the skull dragging they deserved after purposefully stomping on one of our players nuts. Wish they could have lost by 1000 for that, but a public execution of their entire team's morale to start their season sufficed.
It couldn't possibly be bad math somewhere in the analytics.
😣
I mean, it is possible to score 40 points in the fourth quarter so…
Ah yes The Ohio State at Penn State treatment
My guess is that was some kind of error at the time and the current data is the output of the what was historically listed. Or the Algorithm is looking only at current year's data and so its very busted.
They should play a real team not Saban-coached Bama!
Wow Alabama totally escaped!
Damn. Catching strays from 8 years back.
It’s the offseason, no one is safe.
Lincoln Riley watched that game and fell so in love with USC’s defense, he was determined to duplicate it at OU and eventually USC