I write “overrated” because for “most outstanding player,” it almost always goes to a player on the top couple of teams.  Certainly those players are “outstanding,” but “outstanding” is conflated with “best team” and there are plenty of players who are outstanding, but on weak teams.  It is through no fault of their own that they are on poor teams.

Furthermore, players on good teams are often overlooked as well.  While Mark Ingram was certainly deserving of his Heisman trophy, one has to wonder if Stanford being 8-4 hurt Toby Gerhart’s chances.

Nevertheless, this year the debate seems to be between Trent Richardson and Robert Griffin III.  Like in 2009, Richardson’s Alabama team is headed to the BCS Game, while RG3 is on a team that has multiple losses (three).  And yet, from the pundits, it appears that the talented Baylor quarterback is going to win the trophy.

That stated, those supporting Richardson openly question the level of competition that Griffin III has faced this season.  And at the surface, that is a worthwhile question.  Here is a table comparing four offensive finalists and the level of competition in terms of total yards allowed.

And here is a look at the defenses faced and their ranked relative to the position of the Heisman candidate (passing defense for Griffin III and Luck; rushing defense for Ball and Richardson).

[NOTE: Montee Ball faced Michigan State twice, but I only listed it once in the above tables.]

Now…that nice.  But, it does not tell you that much.  Why?  Because just like a winning percentage can lie because of a soft (or difficult) schedule, so too can offensive and defensive yards.  For example, are the defenses in the Big 12 giving up a lot of yards because they are poor…or because those D’s face high-octane offenses?  Subsequently, are SEC defenses really that good, or are those teams facing anemic offenses?

Thus, it is best to see how each of the players fare relative to how other teams have fared against the same defenses.  In other words, how does Richardson’s stats measure up to how other teams performed against Alabama’s opponents; and how does Griffin stack up against the other teams that played Baylor’s opponents.

In order to do this properly, I looked at how each player fared in stats relative to their position.  For the quarterbacks, I looked at passer efficiency ratings while with the running backs I looked at rushing yards gained.  With the latter, to account for rushing yards gained by other players on the team, I took the players percentage of rushing yards gained in a given game and multiplied it the average a defense allows.  In other words, Richardson gained only 47 percent of Alabama’s 389 rushing yards against Mississippi.  So, I multiplied 47 by the Rebels’ average rushing yards allowed (224.9) in order to get a more comparable number (105.7).

To make more sense of the numbers, a ratio was used comparing yards earned to yards given up.  Any number over 1 means the player (or team) outgained the average, while a number less than 1 means the player (or team) underachieved.  Finally, I compared that number with a similar ratio looking at how likely an opponent was to over/underachieve against a given defense.  In other words, were teams more likely to have bigger-than-normal games against Indiana?

So, here we go…in alphabetical order.

MONTEE BALL (RB-Wisconsin)

ROBERT GRIFFIN III (QB-Baylor)

ANDREW LUCK (QB-Stanford)

TRENT RICHARDSON (RB-Alabama)

What do you see?  I see a player being overlooked — Montee Ball!  He scored the highest (average of the “score”) and had the highest ratio (yards to defensive yards allowed).  However, the latter may be a bit biased towards running backs as there is not a lot of potential for large deviations in passer efficiency ratings.  In other words, while a running back can double up the yards a defense normally allows, it is unlikely that a quarterback can double up the passer efficiency defended.

It should be noted that when looking at passing yards compared to defenses, Griffin III has the highest ratio among the four offensive finalist.  What does that mean?  It means that RG3′s passing numbers are better than what his opponents’ defenses allow; much better.  Thus, even if he is facing porous pass defenses, he is shredding them much more than those defenses allow on average.

However, what offsets that is the ratio, where it appears that many teams overachieve against those same defenses.  And certainly there is some bias in the ratio as teams may stop throwing late, as well as there may be game plans that favor exploiting an opponent’s run defense (see Stanford v. Washington).

One final note, if we take into account Griffin’s rushing numbers, then he likely moves up ahead of Ball.  However, it would also be necessary to look at Ball’s receiving numbers, which while low would still need to be examined in context.

Nevertheless, if we are going to talk about stats and teams faced, then Montee Ball should be your Heisman winner.  He is not flashy, which is what unfortunately will doom him this evening, but he has over 1750 rushing yards (over 2000 total yards) and 38 TDs.

Coming into this, I thought that RG3 should win it.  However, after doing this, I now believe that Montee Ball should win it.  However, it is almost a given that Ball will not win it.  Shame.

Of course, this should have been known long ago.  The BCS is almost predicated on controversy.  And yet, every time it happens, so many people act surprised.

Let’s first clear up something.  I do not care what people try to tell you…no one wants to see Oklahoma State face LSU.  No one!  Maybe some Oklahoma State fans, but that is it.  No one in the United States wants to see a one-loss Cowboys team — a team that lost to friggin’ Iowa State — face the undefeated Tigers.

Just like no one wants to see Alabama faces LSU for a second time.  What people want to see is a more legitimate way to determine a champion at college football’s highest tier.  And yet, what we are left with is an illogical system that does nothing but cause problems.

I have laid it out before that I think that — based on its system — that the BCS got it right in terms of the two teams.  And I have already laid it why I think that is the case.  But, just to revisit it (in case you are too damn lazy to click on a link)…

Oklahoma State beat some quality opponents.  But no Cowboys advocate wants to talk about quality losses, which head-to-head Iowa State is a far worse loss than Alabama losing to LSU.  And while people want to argue that Alabama lost at home as a (slight) favorite, it is not as though Ames is known as a tough place to play…especially when your are nearly a four-touchdown favorite!!!

Additionally, Oklahoma State was buoyed by two teams that were scheduled for an easy “W” — UL-Lafayette and Tulsa.  While Tulsa does put out good teams,  the Ragin’ Cajun were expected to finish at the bottom of the Sun Belt (arguably the worst conference in the FBS).  That UL-Lafayette and Tulsa finished with 8-4 records likely inflated Oklahoma State’s strength of schedule.  (The opposite could be argued for Alabama, as Florida finished far worse than anyone expected, though OK-State can also point to Texas and Texas A&M).

And finally, the Oklahoma victory gave Oklahoma State a last-ditch emotional push.  But, like the Iowa State game, the timing is the problem here.  What if the Iron Bowl, which could not be played on the same day, were also played at the same time?  I think there would have been a clearer juxtaposition between the two teams — Alabama dominating an Auburn team that likely overachieved, and Oklahoma State destroying a depleted Sooners teams.

But do not blame Alabama for the rematch.  Blame the system.  The BCS did exactly what it was supposed to do and yet everyone is trying to misplace the blame.

Do not blame the SEC, as Mark Bradley of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution attempt to do.  Here is a cat who tries to make it out like the SEC has some monopoly over the BCS, all the while ignoring the travesty of the Big East still carrying an automatic bid to the BCS.  Of course, as Dan Wetzel notes, it was the SEC and the ACC that tried to correct the illegitimacy of the BCS by offering a “plus one” model; guess which conference (among many) shot it down?  Now Mark…why would a conference that allegedly has its claws deep into the BCS want to change the BCS?

Of course, Bradley is the same guy who spends parts of his article taking potshots at Nick Saban while somehow being surprised that brand matters.  Hello!?  Why else has Boise State and TCU been ignored for so long?  The entire bowl system is all about money and Bradley is somehow shocked that it is the same for the BCS!?

Bradley also seems to believe that a team not winning its on division playing for the BCS title is something new.  Not so (see 2002 Rose Bowl).  Guess why that was the case…the BCS!!!!!!!!!!!  Not the SEC cartel, or more appropriately in this case the Big 12 cartel.  The BCS was the reason Nebraska went to the Rose Bowl to play against (and lose to) Miami.

And one final point, on this notion that the #2 team must be a conference champion.  I laid out the potential for a situation where the highest ranked conference champ may not even be in the top five.  But, are people like Bradley suggesting that Arkansas State is better than Alabama simply because they won their conference?  Good god, imagine if California-Los Angeles had won the Pac-12 title!!!!  Would the Bruins be considered better than Alabama?

Winning the conference — or even the division — is not a prerequisite to being number two in the BCS.  Again, blame the system; not the SEC or Alabama.

Next, we have people who want to blame Troy Calhoun, head coach of the Air Force Academy.  Why?  Because Calhoun, who has a vote in the Coaches’ Poll, voted Oklahoma State fifth!  But Calhoun’s ballot needs to be taken into context.

Following the loss to Iowa State, Calhoun dropped the Cowboys down to ninth! While it is not clear how all other pollsters voted, it is obvious that the Falcons’ head coach rightly punished the Cowboys for that loss to the Cyclones.  I would hope that the same would have occurred had Alabama lost to Vanderbilt (the Cyclones and Commodores are comparable).  Since then, Oklahoma State climbed in Calhoun’s ballot up to fifth.

But Calhoun is not to blame here, but the system is.  The entire polling process is arbitrary and fueled by perception.  Plus, as noted in a previous article, the instructions to pollsters is simply to rank the teams 1-25 based on performance.  The rules are so ambiguous that each voter is left to form their own rubric.

So, for Calhoun, maybe he viewed the ISU loss much more harshly, as he did the Boise State loss to TCU.  He moved the Cowboys up one spot coming off of a bye week, and then three spots after their win over Oklahoma.

But look across the board and you will see more puzzling ballots.  Todd Berry (Boise State 13th)?  Pat Hill (Boise State fourth; TCU ninth)!?  Les Miles (TCU 21st)!?!  Sonny Dykes (Houston ninth)!?!?  Friggin’ Tom O’brien (Georgia ninth)!?!?!?!?!

But, it is not just the Coaches’ Poll.  Have you seen the Harris Poll?  Brentson Buckner has Baylor eighth and did not even rank Nebraska.  Tony Jones has Arkansas ranked 19th, right behind Southern Mississippi; but at least ahead of Texas (23rd).  Derrick Mayes has Clemson eighth, Georgia unranked, and Oklahoma State sixth!!  Jim Walden has Alabama fourth (behind Oklahoma State and Stanford), Houston eighth and Penn State 13th!!!  And, the most egregious of all the ballots, George Wine has Oklahoma State SIXTH behind Alabama, Stanford, Boise State and……HOUSTON!!!!!!!!  Who the fuck are these people and what are they watching!?  It is NOT the Houston Texans!

But, again, it is not the pollsters themselves but the nature of the polls.  Ambiguously regulated and arbitrarily determined, when the rubric is left up to the individual pollsters, this is what you get.  So, do not blame Troy Calhoun or even George Wine; blame the system.

Lastly, there are some sour grapes.  Berry Tramel decided to publish perhaps the most embarrassing response one can make to the BCS travesty — you [Oklahoma State] do not want to go New Orleans, anyway.  Instead, go enjoy suburban Phoenix!

Yeah…that’s mature.  In his sad article, Tramel decides to resort to stereotypes, hanging on to vestiges of Dixie and harping on the SEC cartel.  And while some LSU fans are rude, it is not as though there are not similar fans for all other universities.  Stanford’s civilized fans?  Have you seen the Stanford band (which I love, by the way)!?

But the sour grapes from Tramel is just more whining and blaming of others.  It must be Saban, or “Dixie,” or ESPN, or Iowa State.  Oops, wait a minute.  Tramel is right about that one…at least he is willing to admit that Oklahoma State also blew there chance.  After all, every game counts!

And that is the thing.  Every game did count.  All of Alabama’s games and all of Oklahoma State’s games counted.  And when it came down to it one counted more than the other — a loss to a 6-6 team.  It is why even though they have the same number of wins over BCS ranked teams (one), Stanford is in a BCS game over Boise State…the Broncos’ loss to TCU “counted” more than Stanford’s loss to Oregon.

[Side note: Stanford did beat a very good Southern California team that, due to penalties, cannot be ranked in the BCS].

But if every game truly counted, then LSU should already be crowned the “national” champion.  They are the only unbeaten team.  Tramel wants to punish Alabama because their loss should be “counted,” then the same should apply to Oklahoma State, Stanford and Boise State.  They all lost.  If, say, Oklahoma State were to have been given the slot in the BCS Game and then beat LSU, what happens next?  Should Stanford get a shot at Oklahoma State since they now all have one loss?  This is not boxing or mixed martial arts!

Nevertheless, perhaps Mike Gundy said it best when he said that “we believe in the system.”  And therein lies the issue for it does not matter how much Tramel and Bradley blame Nick Saban or the SEC or ESPN, the system is to blame.  It is the system that is giving us Alabama v. LSU.  If it were Oklahoma State to have been selected, it would have been the same exact system.

The game everyone wants to see is NOT Alabama v. LSU, nor is it Oklahoma State v. LSU.  At the very least, it is Alabama v. Oklahoma State…and maybe LSU v. Stanford with the two winners meeting for a legitimate national title.

But that is not what we have; we have a system to which all the big boys agreed would decide the “national” champion at college football’s highest level.  There is no conspiracy, T. Boone!  If you want to investigate, you should have been doing it when your school’s conference was benefiting from it in 2001 and 2003.

The BCS is what we thought it was!  And we continue to let it off of the hook!

Wait a minute!  What happened to Weeks 12 and 13!?  Tis what happens when one becomes busy.  But that is okay.  We are still here.

After stating that I would not make any more changes, I made one more — conference titles.  Since the BCS is worthless because of the arbitrary nature of it, I do not care about BCS titles.  But, I decided to add in conference titles.  And, in doing so, a team like Oregon benefited, moving up to number 2 (over LSU).  Adding conference titles also benefits teams like TCU and Boise State.

Biggest winner in the new variable is Florida, moving up 11 spot to number 12.  But, that will come off of the board next season.  Outside of the Top 23, Troy’s three Sun Belt titles catapulted them up 16 spots to number 69.  Biggest loser is Illinois, which fell 19 spots to number 71.

On a side note, the 2011 component of the Uncle Popov Top 23 has Alabama number one, LSU second, and Oklahoma State fifth.  The best explanation that I can provide for that is strength of competition (how a team fares statistically versus its opponents) heavily favors Alabama’s defense; Oklahoma State has a solid offense, but the defenses are not stout enough to tilt the Cowboys way.

WEEK 14!!!

• Drop Outs: Florida State (last poll 21th; this week 24th)
• Newbies: Auburn (last poll 24th; this week 19th)
• In the Basement (Bottom Five): New Mexico; Tulane; Akron; Army; Indiana

But, this is not an ideal world but the surreal world of the BCS.  And since there must be an arbitrary choice made, it is worth while looking at both teams and how each measures up.

First, I am not interested in arguing the merits of the “rematch.”  By this, I mean that I am not concerned with the “Alabama had their shot” argument.  The BCS has never been about avoiding rematches, but matching up the two best teams regardless of if it creates a rematch or a game with a team that did not win its conference.  For all of the arguments that Alabama had their shot, I’d counter that they had no choice; it actually seems that Alabama is being punished for playing in the SEC (and having to play LSU).

So, the “we don’t need a rematch” should be a moot argument.

Now, before I delve into this, I should explain some of the numbers.  Strength of schedule is takes into account winning percentage, opponents’ winning percentage, and opponents’ opponents’ winning percentage; it also removes the impact of the teams wins (and loss) on their opponent.  Offensive Ratio looks at the team’s offensive average versus the opponents’ average defense; Defensive Ratio looks at the team’s defensive average versus the opponents’ average offense.  Points For Ratio and Points Against Ratio are similar to the Offensive and Defensive Ratios.  Ranked Teams At Time are the number of ranked teams each faced at the time of the game; Ranked Teams Current are the number of teams each faced based on the current Coaches’ Poll.

Alabama Crimson Tide

• Record: 11-1 (0.917)
• Conference Record: 7-1 (0.875)
• Conference Rank: 2nd
• Preseason Rank: 2nd
• Strength of Schedule: 9th
• Offense Ratio: 1.27 (6th)
• Defensive Ratio: 1.8 (1st)
• Points For Ratio: 1.52 (6th)
• Points Against Ratio: 3.0 (1st)
• Teams Ranked At Time: Five (4-1)
• Teams Ranked Current: three (2-1)
• Winning Percentage of Defeated Teams: 61-59 (.517)
• Best Win: Arkansas (38-14)
• Winning Percentage of LSU: 12-0 (1.000)

Oklahoma State Cowboys

• Record: 11-1 (0.917)
• Conference Record: 8-1 (0.889)
• Conference Rank: 1st
• Preseason Rank: 8th
• Strength of Schedule: 11th
• Offense Ratio: 1.29 (5th)
• Defensive Ratio: 0.976 (80th)
• Points For Ratio: 1.46 (9th)
• Points Against Ratio: 1.25 (28th)
• Teams Ranked At Time: four (4-0)
• Teams Ranked Current: three (3-0)
• Winning Percentage of Defeated Teams: 75-57 (.568)
• Best Win: Kansas State (52-45)
• Winning Percentage of Iowa State: 6-6 (.500)

No it has not!  If Alabama plays LSU for the BCS title, it will not be the first rematch in a bowl game (or “national championship” game) ever…see Florida v. Florida State in 1996, for example.  In that rematch, Florida avenged an earlier loss to the Seminoles to win the AP and Coaches’ national championship.

Also, if Alabama plays LSU again, it will not even be the first rematch between two teams from the same conference…even in the Sugar Bowl!  In the 1960 Sugar Bowl, Mississippi avenged an earlier loss to LSU by winning the bowl game 21-0 and splitting the national title (with Syracuse).

Even if LSU loses and still plays in the BCS game it will not be the first time (e.g. Oklahoma in 2003).  And if Alabama does play in the BCS game despite not playing in the SEC championship game, it would not be the first time (e.g. Nebraska in 2001).  Nor would Oklahoma State jumping an idle Alabama to play be a first (Florida jumping Michigan in 2006).

So none of those scenarios would create chaos.

You want chaos?  Here is what needs to happen.

• Houston loses to Southern Miss in the Conference USA championship game.  This removes the Cougars as the BCS Buster and an undefeated claim.
• Georgia beats LSU.  Like Houston, a loss by the Tigers removes the last undefeated team from the FBS.
• Boise State beats New Mexico.  Should not be difficult, but for chaos we need the Broncos to remain a one-loss team.
• Clemson to knock off Virginia Tech.  It is just better this way…trust me!
• Wisconsin to win the rematch against Michigan State.  Michigan State is ranked higher anyway, but the Badgers winning the rematch will demonstrate that a rematch can go the other way and still legitimate the champion (of the conference, at least).
• Oklahoma wins the Bedlam Series against Oklahoma State.  Gotta take the Cowboys out of the picture…and OU has owned this series.
• Hawai’i knocks off BYU.  Not because it will matter in our chaos, but because I want it to happen.

So, do you see the picture that has been painted?  The two undefeated teams fall and every conference winner will have at least two (overall) losses.  It would have been nice had UCLA somehow upset Oregon, but I want the Bruins to end up 6-8 after their bowl game.

Now, with that mess, which teams go to the BCS title game?  The highest ranked conference champ would likely be Oklahoma…with two losses!  Alabama and Stanford would not have lost, but did not even win their division.  Boise State would have only one-loss, but does not automatically qualify because they did not win their conference; they’d have to go as an at-large…IF chosen at all.

In other words, the BCS game would have no other choice but have two teams that did not win their conference.  It would also destroy any argument that the BCS should only have conference champions because which teams are you going to take — two-loss Oregon and two-loss Oklahoma!?

You want chaos?  Pray for the scenario above to play out!

Let me clear up front: I am an Alabama fan, but I also do not like the concept of a rematch.  But also, if you have read anything that I have written on this or other websites then you will know that I am very anti-bowl and anti-BCS.

Nevertheless, given the system that is in play at the top tier of college football, if a rematch were to occur then I would at least “accept” it because that is the system that we are left with due to greed and ignorance in the sport.  Because, as the BCS attempted to promote via The State, the BCS works “most of the time.”  However, many are bitching about the BCS being “unfair” and how the system is flawed because of what appears to be the inevitable rematch between two SEC teams.  But, the system is “working” the way it is supposed to work — matching the two best teams.

Let’s keep in mind the following — the BCS did not suddenly become broken once it became evident that the SEC would hold a monopoly on the BCS game.  Remember the snubbing of Miami and Washington in 2000; Nebraska getting into the BCS game in 2001 despite not winning the Big 12 (and snubbing of Oregon); Oklahoma in the BCS game as loser of the Big 12 in 2003; undefeated Auburn left out in 2004; Boise State in 2006 and the avoidance of a Michigan rematch with Ohio State; undefeated Utah in 2008 being ignored; and undefeated TCU in 2010 not even being considered.  If none of those have pissed you off, then why is this potential all-SEC final now reason for anger?

Well, along comes some cat named Rick Reilly, who attempts to dismiss the potential rematch with a very poorly argue diatribe against Alabama and the SEC.  In full disclosure, I have never knowingly read anything by Reilly and do not really know who this person is (the name sounds familiar, but I cannot place).  But, for someone who writes for ESPN.com, I would expect better output.

In an article titled “Been There, Done That,” Reilly attempts to deconstruct the rematch while also taking potshots at the SEC.  For someone who is a national sports writer, this piece should be an embarrassment for its asinine and illogical arguments.  That, or he is attempting to piss people off simply for the hits (desperation?).

Let’s start with the assertion that the rematch would be boring.  I have already admitted that the November game was not exciting and that the hype — driven by Reilly’s employer more than Alabama or LSU — was overblown.  But, to suggest that the rematch would boring is ignorant.  Recall that the 2010 BCS game (Alabama v. Texas) was supposed to be low scoring  (37-21) and the 2011 BCS game (Auburn v. Oregon) was supposed to be a shootout (22-19).

There seems to be a lack of appreciation of defensive football.  That is evident in the groaning over a potential rematch.  But, “boring” defensive football does not mean there should not be a rematch (and to Reilly’s credit he does not claim that there should not be a rematch because of boredom).  However, it is interesting that Reilly references boring games when he apparently follows golf, an incredibly boring game to watch.

Anyway, Reilly next delves into his diatribe, railing against the motto of the BCS — “every game counts” (more on this below) — before ripping the rematch.  He brings up the fair question about what to call Alabama if they do win the rematch, despite being 1-1 against LSU and not winning their division.

Well, how about call Alabama “BCS Champion”?  Is Reilly so clueless about the BCS process that he does not recognize that the winner of the BCS game is the BCS champion?  It does not matter what happened in the regular season, but what happens in the post-season.  It is why no one questions sixth-seeded Green Bay’s Super Bowl title last season or the St. Louis Cardinals winning the World Series as the wild card.  Yes, those are playoffs but that is also the system that the NFL and Major League Baseball have chosen in order to determine its champion.  The top tier of college football has chosen to use the BCS — this is what we have to deal with.  If Reilly is really upset at the fact that a team that did not win its conference could play in the BCS game, then he should have been upset when Nebraska and Oklahoma were pulling this crap.  The anger should have existed before this current situation.

And yes, Rick Perry can withdraw from the Republican nomination for presidency and still end up running against President Obama.  See Charlie Crist v. Marco Rubio in Florida for one of the state’s Senate seats as an example.  It is always possible, Reilly.

Anyway, the point is that the BCS game is what decides the BCS champion and not a game in early November.  Regardless of Alabama being 1-1 against LSU, Alabama would have won the game that matter.  I mean, did the Washington Capitals argue that they should have advance to the Eastern Conference finals rather than the Tampa Bay Lightning because the Caps won the regular season series (4-2)?  Exactly!

The winner of the BCS game is the BCS champion, regardless of if it is from a rematch or not.  If Oklahoma State were to beat LSU, the Cowboys are the BCS champion even though LSU would have a better winning percentage.

Next, Reilly lays out other potential BCS match-ups that he rather see, stating that he’d prefer “any team that has not already blown its chance.”  Really?  Oklahoma State was in prime position to play for the BCS title and blew their chance by falling to a near-four touchdown underdog in Iowa State!  The Cyclones, for god’s sake!!!!  That the Cowboys only fell two spots after losing to ISU should be questioned just as much as Alabama only falling one spot following the LSU loss…but at least Alabama’s loss was to the top-ranked team in the FBS!

Stanford?  Blew their chance by losing their only true test of the season versus Oregon.  Same for Boise State as the Broncos blew their only late season test against TCU.  Virginia Tech was blown out by Clemson.  Like Alabama, all three of these teams lost at home.

So, if we are going to talk about teams that have not blown their chance, then the discussion should be on Houston.  Where is Reilly’s argument for the Cougars?  Nowhere!

Anyway, let’s dig deeper in the teams that allegedly have not blown their chances.

Oklahoma State.  While I have already hit OK-State, it is worth revisiting quickly as I find Reilly’s reason behind the Cowboys’ loss to be laughable.  He wrote that Oklahoma State’s

only loss was in double overtime to Iowa State the same week an OSU school plane crashed, killing two women’s basketball coaches

Really?  He is going to “blame” the Cowboys’ loss on that tragic accident while also ignoring the tragedy that Alabama and the city of Tuscaloosa faced in April?!  The Cowboys did not lose because of that accident —  the offense played very well — but because their defense gave up nearly 600 yards!  That’s been the story of the season and it caught up to OK-State.  End of story!

Reilly’s argument that the Cowboys have beaten more BCS Top 25 teams than Alabama is a sound one (Reilly claims four to two, but technically four to three since Alabama beat Auburn knocking them out of the Top 25…however, if the Cowboys defeat Oklahoma then it would be five to three).

However, it is more about the loss rather than the wins.  Alabama lost to LSU; Oklahoma State lost to Iowa State.  Talk BCS Top 25 all you want, but losing to Iowa State is not the same as losing to LSU and thus cannot simply be dismissed.  If we are going to discuss the strength of wins, then we should also discuss the strength of losses.

Stanford.  Really?  How illogical can Reilly be to offer up Stanford as a better choice than Alabama!?  Reilly argued that Alabama does not deserve a rematch because they would not “even have won their SEC division, much less their conference.”   Um, hello!?  Stanford would also not “even have won their … division, much less their conference.”  How can the argument work against Alabama, but not even be used against Stanford?

In the same paragraph, Reilly anoints Stanford QB Andrew Luck the “shoo-in Heisman winner.”  Really?  The same Luck who played his worst game of the season in his biggest game of the season?  That Luck struggled against the Oregon defense makes Reilly’s suggestion that the Cardinal’s QB would have a field day against LSU laughable.

The counter to the Stanford suggestion (not a conference winner) can be applied to Boise State.  Although, it is funny that Reilly mentions the Broncos’ victory over Georgia while ignoring the weakness of the Bulldogs’ SEC schedule.

Virginia Tech.  So, a rematch is “bonkers” in part because if the loser of the first game wins the rematch, then questions abound concerning the legitimate winner, yeah?  Well, what about Virginia Tech, which is facing Clemson in a rematch in the ACC Championship game?  In fact, there are two rematches in conference title games (Michigan State v. Wisconsin in the Big Ten title game; a rematch of the earlier thriller won by MSU).

If Virginia Tech wins the ACC championship game, then is Reilly going to question the legitimacy of that title?  Of course not because that would destroy his argument.  Nevertheless, Reilly is arguing for the winner of a rematch to play in the BCS title game to avoid a rematch.  Huh!?

The only team that Reilly does not promote is Houston.  If any team has a legitimate argument, it should be Kevin Sumlin’s Cougars.  They have not blown their chance.  Remember that Reilly ridiculed the BCS and its “Every Game Counts” motto.  And yet, if that is the case, then the only team that should face LSU (assuming the Tigers take care of Georgia) is Houston.

But not a peep about it!  Why?  Well, because it would not support Reilly’s argument about strength of scheduling that he uses with Oklahoma State.  Now, I am not claiming that Houston should be in the BCS game, but if Reilly wants to discuss what is “fair” and giving other teams a shot, then Houston is perhaps more deserving than any other team.

And this gets to Reilly’s last point — “fair.”  He closes his article with the following:

Two-thirds of the rankings are based on humans. Voters, be fair.

Be fair?  Hmm, that is interesting because now Reilly is politicking for pollsters to go against their job.

I contact USA Today about how pollsters are supposed to approach filling out their ballots.  This was their response:

Voters are instructed to vote for the best 25 teams in order, based on their performance

So, the best teams “based on performance.”  That is what the pollsters are tasked to do.  Ergo, if pollsters feel that LSU is number one and Alabama is number two based on “performance,” then why does Reilly have a problem with it?

Instead of accepting the results and the work of the pollsters, Reilly is using his platform to lobby these pollsters to alter their task and rank not the best 25 teams in order, but rank them so that Alabama is not number two!  How is that “fair”?

Reilly’s anger is misplaced.  It is not the fault of Alabama or the SEC that the system is set up to allow for a rematch.  It is also not the Tide’s fault that Oklahoma State cannot beat a 6-5 Iowa State team.  Maybe Reilly is afraid to criticize the BCS since he works for ESPN, but he’d be much better served focusing his anger at that broken system rather than an Alabama team that is one of the two best teams in the country.

I’ve noted before that no matter how broken the BCS is, it does what it sets out to do — place the top two teams in their poll in the BCS game.  So what if it turns out to be a rematch?

For an “11-time National Sportswriter of the Year,” I am surprised at the illogical arguments that Reilly lays out.  If the goal of the BCS is to pit the two best teams against one another, it should not matter if it is a rematch.

But, at least Reilly and I can agree on one thing: perhaps a rematch will finally bring much needed reform to the BCS.

The big thing is that many teams made moves.  Alabama is STILL number one (consistent success), but LSU is now number two and closing in on Alabama.  Georgia jumps up because of recent success, while Florida is punished for recent “failure.”  The biggest total mover is Arkansas State (up 32 spots to #59), while Fresno State takes the greatest fall (down 23 to #78).

WEEK 11!!!

• Drop Outs: Auburn (last week 10th; this week 24th); Utah (last week 11th; this week 25th)
• Newbies: Clemson (last week 32nd; this week 22nd); Florida State (last week 27th; this week 21st)
• In the Basement (Bottom Five): New Mexico; Tulane; Akron; Memphis; Indiana

WEEK 9!!!

POWER RANKING

2011 RANKING

This week, recruiting numbers were updated and it gave an added boost to some teams.

WEEK 10!!!

• Drop Outs: none
• Newbies: none
• In the Basement (Bottom Five): New Mexico; Akron; Eastern Michigan; Western Kentucky^; Washington State^

–Neither team looked impressive, let alone “BCS worthy”.  The game was over-hyped, klutzy and, frankly, boring.  Please, stop the spin…..

–I was only able to catch the overtime but any game that contains no touchdowns and a fistload of missed field goals is no “game of the century”. Of course the SEC fanatics will spew out canards about the “great defense”

–Anyone who thinks either Alabama or LSU have a “college level QB” is just dumb!  This game was a bore because they neither have good teams, just mediocre teams with patsy schedules.

–Horrible, boring game. A bunch of big, fast jocks who can’t play as a team. No passing or kicking games.

–SEC football is considered “superior” not because the play on the field is great but because 100,000 screamin’, frenzied, liquored-up southerners on their way to the Piggly-Wiggly make it seem that way.  Seriously.  9-6 ?! Doesn’t even qualify as “Game of The Day.”

–Number one and numnber two—Balony! Real  number one and number two find ways to put up 7 points on the board at some point in the game. LSU and Alabama should not even be in the top ten.

And each complaint about that game missed the point.  It was not about style points, or being exciting, or 52-45 scores or shredding defenses.  It was about defenses shredding the offenses.

If you bought into the “Game of the Century” hype and came away from the Alabama/LSU game disappointed, then you are a fucking moron!  The hype was way overdone and should have been ignored from the beginning.  However, this game was between the two top teams in the country and these were teams built on defense!  And if you watched and became disappointed because there was very little scoring, then again you are an idiot because apparently you have never watched SEC football before in your life!

Let’s start with those defenses.  Going into the game, these were two of the top defenses in the country.  Alabama came in ranked number one in scoring defense, rushing defense, and scoring defense, as well as second in pass defense.  LSU was number two in scoring defense, top five in rushing and total defense, and top ten in passing defense.  The success of these two teams has been predicated on their defense, not their offense.  So, you knew that these defenses would be front and center in this game.

So, why would anyone expect a high-scoring game?  Ask nearly any college football analyst and they will tell you that these are STILL the top two defenses in the country.  To complain about the score and lack of trips into the end zone is to miss what makes these two teams great.

This is why the incompetent Chris Dufresne meanders through an argument that lacks any real value.  At one point he credits the defenses with being stellar, but then follows it up with questions about quarterback play.  Really?  You do recognize that in the case of Alabama, their offense is built around running the ball, yeah?  You do recognize that when Alabama won titles in 1992 and 2009 that it was NOT on the arm of the quarterback…but by putting quarterbacks on their backs!  Stick with what you know, which apparently is NOT SEC football!

And before I move on, Dufresne also thinks that it is reasonable to suggest that Andrew Luck would be able to pick a few holes in the defenses of LSU and Alabama.  Perhaps, as Luck is perhaps the best QB this season.  BUT, do not forget that Luck has faced some of the worst defenses in the country.  Let’s not pull a literally Suck for Luck just yet, Mr. Dufresne.

Nevertheless, you knew that defenses would be the star of the Alabama-LSU game; not offenses.  So stop bitching about the lack of scoring.  What made it even more humorous was these same people were praising the scoring-frenzy that was Oklahoma State v. Kansas State.  No complaints about the lack of defense?  Really?  If you were looking for offense, you should have been watching that track meet and not Alabama/LSU.  You knew what you were getting from the beginning.  Even if you bought into the pre-game hype, you knew that all of the hype was on the defense and NOT the offense!!!

Get over the defensive battle and lack of scoring.  That is what good defensive teams do; shut down offenses.  Pay attention to these things and you will learn not to be disappointed.

[QUICK SIDE NOTE: I do find it humorous that many of the same people who love a 9-6 defensive battle are many of the same people who hate soccer for its lack of scoring].

But what of those offenses?  Not great, to be sure.  But Alabama did come into the game with the 22nd ranked offense in the country.  That was better than nine of the twelve teams of the Pac-12; it was only middle of the pack in the Big 12.  Keep in mind that on average, Alabama did that against statistically better defenses.  Thus, the offense of Alabama was pretty respectable.  The same could not be said of LSU (81st going into the game).

Still, LSU held Alabama to a season-low 295 yards, over 162 yards below their season average.  That eclipsed the previous low by Alabama set in the Penn State game (359 total yards).  Alabama’s rushing total — the strength of the Crimson Tide — was the lowest on the season, while the passing numbers fell in the middle.  From LSU’s side, the 295 was the third-highest allowed by the Tigers; West Virginia (533) was by far the most, followed by Oregon (335).  Notice the opponents here — Alabama’s previous low was against a statistically high-ranking defense (Penn State at 8th), and LSU’s two highest yards allowed were against two high-octane offenses.  Alabama performed well against a top flight defense that has only yielded big yards against top offenses.

As for the LSU offense, their 239 was their lowest output of the season, beating out the 273 they put up against Oregon.  For Alabama’s offense, it was the second-most yards allowed after the 251 given up to Penn State.  LSU ran for 148 yards, the most given up by Alabama.  While it does not resonate as much as the examination of Alabama’s offense versus LSU’s defense, the fact remains that LSU found a way to move the ball against a defense that shut down teams all season.

Where was the offense, critics complain?  It was there moving the ball against the top two defenses in the country.  But when it came to scoring, those defenses tightened up.  One would expect a team like Stanford or Oklahoma State to be able to move the ball and score points when they get the chance.  Why not also expect Alabama or LSU to kill scoring chances whey they get the chance?

Now, I am by no means attempting to claim that Alabama and LSU are Houston and Oklahoma State.  And yes, I get that yards do not equal points, which were lacking.  And yes, Jarrett Lee, Jordan Jefferson and A.J. McCarron are NOT Case Keenam, Nick Foles or Bryant Moniz.

But, McCarron’s 199 yards passing were more than Texas Tech’s Seth Doege put up against Iowa State, one of the worst defenses in the country, and only seven yards less than Andrew Luck put up against Oregon State, another poor defense.  Just saying.

Was this the “Game of the Century”?  Of course not!  Anyone who thought so going into the game was foolish.

But the same can be said about those who expected lots of points and offense.  How foolish can one be to have watched the LSU-Alabama game expecting 52-45!  Was it boring?  Yes.  But that is because “average” viewer has ADD and expects lots of action.  People love the big plays and high-scoring offenses.  So, it was “boring” in terms of action, but excellent in terms of defenses and strategy (even if some of it was questionable).

Recall the scene from Natural Born Killers where the old Native American is telling the story of the snake.  You turned on the game knowing what it was going to be.  Don’t be surprised that you got a defensive battle!

Or, to paraphrase the old man…”Look bitches!  You knew this was going to be a defensive game!”