[BostonCard]

The singling out of scores is based on a presumption of likely talent imbalance and expectation.  E.g. I would expect U$C to have a better than average chance of stopping a WMU drive and then scoring thereafter, so a pick-six would not necessarily be out of the ordinary in terms of scoring (it'd definitely cause the total scoring output for both teams to rise).  If I assume WMU will not score many points against U$C, then it is definitely unexpected for WMU to crank out a kickoff return for TD.

But I think maybe I'm not contextualizing my primary point, which is that the scoring output alone for both teams is not indicative of their performance.  That's all.  And I've always though U$C was dangerous; their WMU game might lead casual fans to think that U$C had a serious stumble--but that game has little relevance now for U$C's chances vs. Stanford.

With Mick's permission, I will accuse you of "begging the question" by assuming your conclusion.  You start with the assumption that USC is a stronger team than WMU (and a stronger team than it appeared in the game against WMU) and use that to argue that the expected result of any given drive is a higher likelihood of a touchdown for USC and a lower likelihood of a touchdown for WMU.  From that, it follows that a pick six or other "sudden score" would result in a more unexpected outcome in WMU's case than in USC's case, and use that to discount WMU's scores more than USC's.  Ergo, USC is a stronger team than it showed against WMU.

Mick, how'd I do?

I would take a more Bayesian approach here.  My priors are that USC is a very good to excellent team and that WMU is an ok to good team.  Based on that, I would have expected that USC would beat WMU easily.  The actual outcome was closer than I would have expected, but this is only one game with some caveats, so my posteriors are that USC is still a very good team, but perhaps not as strong as I had expected, who underperformed somewhat against WMU, and WMU is probably a better team than my priors dictated who overperformed a bit against USC.

BC

[BostonCard]

The singling out of scores is based on a presumption of likely talent imbalance and expectation.  E.g. I would expect U$C to have a better than average chance of stopping a WMU drive and then scoring thereafter, so a pick-six would not necessarily be out of the ordinary in terms of scoring (it'd definitely cause the total scoring output for both teams to rise).  If I assume WMU will not score many points against U$C, then it is definitely unexpected for WMU to crank out a kickoff return for TD.

But I think maybe I'm not contextualizing my primary point, which is that the scoring output alone for both teams is not indicative of their performance.  That's all.  And I've always though U$C was dangerous; their WMU game might lead casual fans to think that U$C had a serious stumble--but that game has little relevance now for U$C's chances vs. Stanford.

With Mick's permission, I will accuse you of "begging the question" by assuming your conclusion.  You start with the assumption that USC is a stronger team than WMU (and a stronger team than it appeared in the game against WMU) and use that to argue that the expected result of any given drive is a higher likelihood of a touchdown for USC and a lower likelihood of a touchdown for WMU.  From that, it follows that a pick six or other "sudden score" would result in a more unexpected outcome in WMU's case than in USC's case, and use that to discount WMU's scores more than USC's.  Ergo, USC is a stronger team than it showed against WMU.

Mick, how'd I do?

I would take a more Bayesian approach here.  My priors are that USC is a very good to excellent team and that WMU is an ok to good team.  Based on that, I would have expected that USC would beat WMU easily.  The actual outcome was closer than I would have expected, but this is only one game with some caveats, so my posteriors are that USC is still a very good team, but perhaps not as strong as I had expected, who underperformed somewhat against WMU, and WMU is probably a better team than my priors dictated who overperformed a bit against USC.

BC