The Battle Between the SEC and the Pac-10: Part 2

Here's the update on this article 3 months later to show some post season statistical information for those who like to base their opinions and knowledge on cold hard facts, like myself. So, with the Heisman Trophy handed out now in the closest race for the huge statue ever. It went to a sophomore running back named Mark Ingram from Alabama. This makes the 3rd consecutive sophomore to receive the award and the very first Heisman to go to an Alabama player. Toby Gerhart was a very close runner-up from Stanford as a senior. First, I want to congratulate Mr. Ingram for his outstanding year. Just keeping his starting spot was amazing because the true freshman, Trent Richardson, is a superstar in the making, but Mark was able to prove each week that he deserved to be on the field (with exception to the Auburn game). Mark rushed for an SEC high 1542 yards in 13 games. Wow! I also want to give serious props to Toby Gerhart for his amazing achievements. Toby rushed for 1736 yards in just 12 games. Honestly, in terms of the Heisman, I picked him to win it because first, he's a senior (and Mark has at least two more years to prove himself), and second, he rushed for almost 200 more yards with one less game than Mark Ingram. Plus, I felt that the SEC had a down year and the Pac-10 had an above par year with a very solid conference with exception to only Washington State.

Next, the head-to-head match-ups between the two conferences will end at 1-2 with the Pac-10's only win being UCLA beating Tennessee. There will be no "redemption" or "prove it" games in the post season due to the SEC/Pac-10 not playing each other at all. So, this will give the Pac-10 an 11-9 lead since 1998 over the SEC. I must mention, however, that this season is skewed significantly in the favor of the SEC. Let me explain: The three SEC schools to play Pac-10 teams ended up being #2 in their particular divisions (LSU 2nd to #1 Alabama and Tennessee and Georgia tied for 2nd under Florida), meaning that they are all bowl eligible. Now their 3 opponents from the Pac-10 had much different outcomes throughout their seasons and made those two wins look pretty miserable for the SEC "powerhouses". Those three Pac-10 schools are all 6-6 or worse. UCLA who got the win over Tennessee is the only team bowl eligible of the 3 teams. Funny how UCLA was able to beat an SEC team and then struggled so much against opponents within their own conference. Are you thinking what I'm thinking? Maybe. Let me elaborate, in case you're lost right now. UCLA is #6 or #7 in the Pac-10 and yet played an away game in a very loud and hostile environment in the SEC and brought back a win. The team they beat is from "the best conference in the nation" (according to many major media writers and SEC homers) who ended up being #2 in their division, or #4 overall in the "mighty" conference of "dominating defenses" (like the LSU defense that couldn't keep a win less Washington team under 450 total yards by the #3 team in the SEC). Mathematically, this doesn't add up to "the SEC is a better conference" this year. This is why the numbers are skewed. Now if the #3, #4, or #5 team of the SEC would actually play the #3, #4, or #5 team of the Pac-10, this would give the 11-9 Pac-10 record against the SEC more accuracy and meaning - but it doesn't and it helps all those major media writers and SEC homers dreaming of their mansions in the sky next to Alabama, Florida, LSU, Tennessee, Auburn, Ole Miss, etc.

Ivan Maisel and his buddy, Mark, from ESPN posted their rankings of the conferences after the season ended. They both, shockingly, agreed that the best conferences were the Pac-10 and SEC, respectively. They actually put the Pac-10 at the top! What?! Have they been reading this blog or something? Very cool! Even though the whole SEC is bowl-bound (except Vandy and Miss State), doesn't equate to a more solid and competitive conference. I think Ivan and Mark both looked at the whole picture, including strength of schedule, the final BCS top 25, and overall competitiveness in the Pac-10 vs. the SEC, to determine who had the better conference. They went out on a limb (to many writers) and I believe they got it right!

So, maybe in the coming years, the most dominating teams in the SEC will actually play the upper half of the Pac-10 teams. Will the coaches read and accept my challenges to prove themselves on the field and not just on paper? We'll see.

What Does the BCS Poll Really Mean?

I'm not any expert at love, by any means, and I never claim to think that I have any pertinent advice to give anyone who is searching for love; however, there are certain things about finding a potential significant other that clearly needs to be defined. Each person has their own rating system or way to determine if someone is "hot or not" to find that immediate attraction that everyone desires in a relationship. The rating system I use, or suggest others to use, is the 5-D test. It used to be 3-D, but I've gotten wiser with years. Heck, maybe some of you would have a 9-D or more. Let me explain the 5-D's: each "D" represents something that would interfere with your judgement of beauty and the more "D's" you have in your situation, the more confident I am that you should stop what you are doing before you get morning regrets (unless you are out to have a "no pride night" but that's an entirely different article). So, obviously, the first "D" represents Drunkeness. When alcohol is consumed, impairment of judgement is increased and inhabitions are lost. The second "D" represents Darkness. The dimmer the lighting, the less features you see clearly on someone's face, which may hide a thing or two. The third "D" is Distance. The further away someone is from you, you lose proportions and clarity of features in their face (and body). The fourth "D" is Driving. Someone in a car can always look better because you can't see everything they are wearing (including the not-so-obvious pear-shape they may be sporting), they may have a tinted sun roof to make them look tan, and sunglasses hides whether their eyes are worth gazing into or not. The fifth "D" represents Desperation. If you are desperate to go out and gotta have someone tonight, then you tend to "settle" on whoever gives you a second glance and shows a little interest (this may lead into the saying where she is a "2 at 10 and a 10 at 2" - meaning, at 10pm you see her as a 2 on a scale of 1-10, but Desperation comes into full effect when it is 2am and still girl-less and you find that 2 again, but looking like a 10 now). These 5 "D's" are the premiere "D's" to look out for. As you mold your own system, you may want to add others like; Dating (if you are currently dating someone, others suddenly find you attractive), or Distractions (if you are at a carnival or huge gathering of people around you, the distractions may confuse you and make you lose focus on your ideals of beauty), or Disabilities (hopefully these come much later in life for you, but this does not mean you need to "settle"), or Drugs (depending on the drug, this could seriously impair judgement for beauty - and everything else for that matters), or for those more focused on things like hair - Dryness (sometimes you gotta get the hair wet to see how nice it really is without all the gels, sprays, and mousses). So, remember, the more "D's" you have in your situation, you really need to think about what you really want because most likely you will not find anything meaningful in a relationship when it is in 5-D. You must eliminate as many of those "D's" as possible to assure yourself better odds at making a love connection worth while.

I realize that this is a weird way to start out a college football blog, but in thought of what the BCS poll is trying to say to the nation makes me think of what is defined by the BCS poll and what we're suppose to get out of it - like love, how do you judge it and how do you define it. Like love, the BCS has different meanings to different people; so I'll quit talking about that crap and get into some football rants. This is the light I see in the BCS eyes: Pac-10 conference is clearly the best conference from top to bottom in the country and the BCS Poll put out before the bowl games begin December 19, 2009, is there to prove it in black and white. Now you have to realize that I see polls as lovers of the SEC, ACC, and the Big XII because they have lots of great teams, they each have 12 schools, and they have a championship game each season. The polls love them so much that the voters are willing to place as many of the schools represented by each of those 3 conferences in the preseason top 25 as possible. For example, in the preseason AP poll this year there were 5 SEC schools in the top 25 - I'm a little disappointed because I usually will see 6 SEC teams there. Same with the Big XII - at least 5 for good measure. The Big East, Big Ten, and Pac-10, on the other hand, will find much fewer schools amongst those elite powerhouses of the SEC and Big XII conferences (some slight sarcasm).

Now, I'm not going to get on my Pac-10 high horse just yet because there are other conferences out there that can complain as much and have legitimate arguements. I would like to speak to those Big East lovers. I feel for you. Looking at the preseason AP poll of 2009, I don't see a single Big East team in the top 25! In fact, the highest ranked team was Pitt at 28. Does the media want to hate the Big East or what?! Now let's look at the pre-bowl BCS top 25 standings. I see an undefeated Cincinnati playing in a BCS bowl playing against arguably the #2 team in the nation, Florida Gators. I also see two more teams from the Big East. There are only 8 teams in the Big East. (Time to get out your calculators.) I calculate that as about 37% of the conference. That's pretty dang good, if you ask me - especially, considering the top 3 power conferences with 12 teams each. The ACC, Big XII, and the SEC each have 3 teams finding their way in the BCS top 25 at the end of the regular season. Just as many as the Big East, but (calculators please) only a mere 25% of their conferences. Does that say that the SEC is the strongest from top to bottom? I don't see it that way. Another conference that has 3 teams in the BCS top 25 on December 6th is the Mountain West Conference. Wow! Shocker, I know! Just because not everyone in the nation is versed with MWC statistics, there is one that I DO know - it is a conference made up of 9 teams. That's 3 less than the SEC. My calculator tells me that 33% of the MWC is in the BCS top 25. Last I checked, 33% is better than 25%, right? So, if a conference is going to go on and boldly claim its superiority to the nation, then why doesn't it show up in the polls that generally favor them to begin with? Does this mean that the MWC is equal to or better than the SEC? No, of course not. That's not what I'm saying at all. However, the MWC has at least 3 really good teams this year - the same amount as the SEC and Big XII who are representing this year's national title game in the BCS National Championship game in Pasadena - and yet, the MWC remains to be a conference without an automatic bid into a BCS bowl game. Essentially, to get the big bucks from the big bowls, the MWC teams need to go undefeated the whole year (which they've had a team do 3 of the last 6 years). Now, you know I have to do this; the Pac-10, obviously with 10 teams that make up the conference, have a whopping 5 teams ranked in the BCS top 25! Can you believe that!? Hopefully you're smart enough to know what percentage 5 of 10 is and I don't have to spell it out to you. I will anyway - 50% of the Pac-10 is in the top 25 of the BCS poll before going into the 2009 bowl season? Are you kidding me? This is the same conference that had only 3 teams in the AP preseason poll top 25 in August! Incredible! Are they all over rated or does the conference just have a lot of depth? Just to feed the fire a little, the two Pac-10 teams that played and lost close ones to SEC teams are not even bowl eligible; and the team that traveled to the east and beat an SEC team is merely 6-6 (which should not be bowl eligible in my eyes - .500 record does not mean a successful season that needs to be rewarded with post season play). All those SEC schools that played the Pac-10? They are all eligible for bowl games. How could the SEC use this same information as a bragging point? They can't because it would just mean that they do, in fact, play some of the weakest schedules in the country - especially their 4 non-conference match-ups. In fact, all but two teams (Vanderbilt and Mississippi State) are not bowl eligible. Does this say something about their scheduling? If you say you are the best, then it wouldn't be asking much to go out seeking the best of other parts of the country to play them, right?

Enough of that. I want to rant a little more about the bowls and their affiliations. I can't stand having the second best team from the Pac-10 conference playing on December 30th each year! Is that really an award? I think there are too many bowls these days, to begin with. I feel, also, that the best bowls that mean the most should be played on January 1st and after. Everything else before that is just an appetizer. Of the six major conferences, only one is treated as well as the C-USA and MAC conferences by allowing only one team to play in the month of January: that's the Pac-10. Lucky for them, they get an automatic BCS bowl bid, or else... who knows? The ACC gets two of their 3 BCS ranked teams in the new year, but the Pac-10 gets only 1 of their 5 BCS ranked teams playing in the first month of 2010. Wow! Now the SEC takes its 25% and plays that and then some into January to play in a bowl game. Actually, the tally is 7 teams from the SEC will play after the beginning of the year this season. Well, the Big Ten gets 5 teams into January! Now this is where the Big East gets its love back by having 4, or half their conference, into the lights of January bowls. Crazy! Where is the new Pac-10 commissioner on this? This is an outrage and must change immediately! Why do all the January bowls affiliate with the SEC? Why can't one or two of them go to the Pac-10? They've won a championship or two in the last decade, right? Who makes these decisions? So, the conference that puts in 50% of its teams into the top 25 BCS poll will reward only one team?! Where is the logic in that? Am I the only one who seriously thinks this is an issue with regretable terms of why the Pacific 10 conference is looked upon with eyes of inferiority? I think the Pac-10 needs to shed some of these "5-D's" so it can be seen for what it really is - the conference of champions.

Top Conference: The SEC?

I recall my rugby days at Southern Oregon University (formerly known as Southern Oregon State College, when I attended), when I felt that our little club of about 20 men could take on or compete with anybody. The games we played at home were dominated by us with our massive Samoans in the scrum and our head-strong white guys flanking out as the backs who could run north/south pretty well. My first game, our coaches words echoing in my head "follow the ball", helped me communicate to a co-captain who was ahead of everyone but the three defenders who he was dragging with him to toss the ball to the outside, so when he turned to back his way into the defenders, I was right there for relief and snagging the perfect toss, I ran the remaining 15 yards or so to score my first "try". Yes, I "Zulued" that day. What an awesome feeling! One game, I actually scored twice, the first was on a 70 yard bolt down the sideline - and I was the rookie. We traveled to Eugene, Oregon to play their 'A' squad, for they had three separate squads at the University of Oregon. The 'B' and 'C' squads were equivalent to JV and freshman squads, I suppose. We barely lost to the Ducks by 3 points. We were just a little club, they were a huge program with 3 squads! We nearly took them with a limited traveling team that had to fork over money from their own pockets for the trip. We had the best team around. We beat Bend and OIT, Reed College and many others. As rugby goes, there is always the celebrations afterward that last late into the night that includes both teams. The sportsmanship between the two teams was like it is when I see two men bow at and hug each other after a brutal MMA match. There is respect and love of the sport that binds the two teams or individuals together. I love rugby! The Southern Oregon Fighting Cocks were the toughest team to beat with the reputation to prove it.

My feelings about my old rugby team in the early '90's reminds me of a recent article written in the October 19, 2009, issue of Sports Illustrated, by John Ed Bradley, speaking of his team that he played for in the late '70's and the conference that it participates in now. Mr. Bradley celebrates the recent accomplishments of his alma mater, LSU, and looks back at his playing days with tender fondness. He is definitely proud to be a Bengal Tiger who currently resides in Louisiana to this day. He's still tucked into the heart of the SEC, who Mr. Bradley boldly claims to be the best conference top to bottom with depth all over. That's great and gives me some warm fuzzies and all; however, I don't see any respect of other teams portrayed in this article that would show any sportsmanship and admit to the love of the game; even as the SI cover suggests, "SEC Football: Nobody Does It Better, The Nation's Toughest Conference". So, when my buddy, Shannon, handed me this Tim Tebow clad SI, he knew from his Florida State devotion that this would cause a rise in my Pac-10-minded ideals. He was absolutely correct in his assumptions and caused me to write this blog the very next day.

I think the mentality of the SEC and its players and its fans is all summed up by the words of Roy Kramer, who was the SEC commissioner for 12 years before retiring in 2002, when he was quoted in this article, "... SEC schools have had an 'us against the nation' attitude since 1926". This shows a huge flaw in the SEC who claims to love football more than anything else in life, growing up knowing the head coaches of the universities better than the political leaders of their particular states. They seem to be saying that it is the SEC way or no way at all. The fans and media have a tendency to slip into that skid and can't find their way out of the irrational thinking of pure dominance of the "best" conference in the nation. I think that true fans of the game would show respect toward other programs that may settle in different parts of the country, including teams on the west side of the Mississippi River. Yes, there is life existing and going on in these parts of the woods. To show true sportsmanship you must be able to see the big picture and not have your face in the magnifying lens all year long.

I would agree that there are a lot of athletes that come out of the state of Florida, when Mississippi head coach speaks of the 335 average amount of young men signing on to Division I schools. I also think there are a lot of talented young men coming from the state of Texas, as well. I have heard from one of the coaches at UTEP when he went on the recruiting trail that there was so much talent in particular areas of Texas that it was difficult to focus in on just individual players. He told me that the speed on the East side of the state; however, really had top notch speed in comparison to the West side of the state. With all the talent in Texas, it would seem easy to get a decent team built up, but for teams like UTEP, it is actually very difficult with so many other bigger schools vying for the same kids. Texas is the hot bed of talent snatchers that gets more early commitments than any other program out there. Then you have other schools like Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Houston, Rice, and then UTEP. This doesn't include the talons that swoop in from Oklahoma and Louisiana State. Another state that has a decent talent pool is California. There are only 4 major colleges in the state to choose from with all that talent, so many of them are swept away to distant schools.

A couple years ago, I calculated the amount of all the 3, 4, and 5-star athletes, according to Scouts.com, and put them with their perspective conferences. It showed that the SEC, as a whole, dominates the recruiting of prep super stars every year. The next best conference was around half of the amount of highly touted talent that fed into the SEC. That is incredible! The SEC does an amazing job at recruiting, as a conference whole. With that said, I would like to see the SEC schools prove their talent level with other teams than just their own. How selfish to play 4 games that you know don't have a chance at scoring against your first team defense, let alone winning the game (with few exceptions a year)! I would love to see Houston Nutt do exactly what he was quoted in this article by saying, "I watch the other conferences all the time and I think, Boy, I'd like to play them." Perfect! Schedule a game with Oklahoma or Texas or Texas Tech. Travel up north, for once, and play in the cold against Penn State or Michigan or Ohio State. Visit the Pacific Ocean side of the country, for once, and play Oregon or Oregon State or USC or California or even a Boise State or Utah. I challenge you, Coach Nutt, to make it happen. Show off your coaching skills and trickery skills and huge talent-laden team that draws from the "best" conference in the nation. Prove it to America! Put your money where your mouth is! I guarantee, that if you feel a little frightened of flying such a distance, that ANY Pac-10 team would be delighted to travel to Oxford to play the Rebels there first - even the basement-ridden Washington State - that should be an easy win for you. Wait! Don't let me limit my challenge to Coach Nutt, but to the rest of the coaches in the SEC. I tip my hat to Georgia for taking on a Pac-10 foe. I tip my hat to Tennessee, too. Even though those two games were at home for the SEC, the Pac-10 did come off with one win, and nearly a second. I even tip my hat, slightly, to LSU for actually making the trip to the Pacific Northwest to play the Pac-10 team with the longest losing streak of 14 games. I'm sure that when the game was actually scheduled, Washington was still winning 3-5 games a season, so good job LSU (slight sarcasm there). Les Miles seems to avoid the better teams of the other conferences for some reason. I'm confused how that consistently happens. Weird! With all the talent that LSU and Florida and Alabama and Auburn and Tennessee and Georgia bring in each year, there should be no fear whatsoever playing elite teams of other conferences. Those teams should be so bold to the nation and deliberately play tough games each and every week. Why not? They have the talent. They have the depth. They have the money. They have the stadium capacity. They have everything. Do it! Or are there underlying issues to suggest that maybe the "best" conference is just hype to justify the over-rated rankings each week. Which is it? Don't just make claims without actually backing it up on the field. When the naive tight end for LSU, Richard Dickson, says, "Your USCs, your Ohio States, sure, they're all great teams, but as far as a league, I don't think you can compete with the guys we have to go against each week." Really? Does he know anything about USC? What is said from LSU Belles? "The Pac-10? Isn't that a convenience store out on Highland Road?" When was the last time you, Mr. Dickson, have played "your USCs? Or an actual legitimate team from another conference since your win over Ohio State? Hmm. You may be thinking hard for a long time, buddy. It just doesn't happen. Play USC someday! I know Pete Carroll would love it! USC doesn't back down from heavy competition. Look at their opponents over the last 10 years. Notre Dame every year is a far cry from the annual Tulane hiccup you have each year. LSU doesn't even play the whole conference every year like USC does. Sure, USC gets its conference "bye" week by playing WSU, but LSU gets theirs with Vanderbilt who went to their first bowl game last year since 1982. At least WSU had 3 consecutive 10 win seasons within the last decade or so. When has Vandy ever done that? Or Kentucky? Or Mississippi State? Or Ole Miss? Don't just talk about it! I want to see it on the field! You can make all the claims in the world you want, but until I see you SEC coaches going after the big teams of other conferences and dominating them, I'm not going to be a believer - especially when the Pac-10 has a winning record over the SEC since the year 2000. These games are NOT against the easy shoe-ins for a win against opponents like Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Mississippi State, etc. The most recent wins are against Arkansas, Tennessee, and Auburn. I understand that maybe a hand full of people will actually read this, but I stand by my challenge to all the SEC coaches to step up and show off all their talent pool of young, strong, fast football players. Oregon would be a great team to go up against now with their very average 3-star athletes that have no speed like that of any SEC school, who took it to USC recently (sorry, some more sarcasm - I can't help it).

There is one thing I'm trying to figure out this season. There is this game in Knoxville that was played earlier in the season against UCLA. Well, UCLA started off with a easy opponent in San Diego State and then traveled to Knoxville to beat Tennessee two years straight and then played Kansas State (who is now atop the Big XII North). Since those three (actually two) impressive wins, UCLA has yet to win a Pac-10 game and hasn't even played USC yet. What's that say about the Pac-10? Well, let's look at the other side. Tennessee started off with a scrimmage against Western Kentucky and then lost to UCLA by 4, then a week later, lost by 10 to the #1 team in the nation, Florida. Beat an Ohio team, then lost to Auburn (shouldn't have) by 4. Then the Vols beat up Georgia by a whole bunch and lost by 2 to the #2 team in the nation, Alabama (only because the last minute field goal attempt was blocked by Alabama). Their Halloween showdown proved a dominant performance over the #22 ranked South Carolina. What's that say about the SEC? Let me think aloud for a moment when I say that UCLA was starting a freshman QB for his second game as a starter in Knoxville, who seats over 100,000 people and came off a win over an SEC school that started a veteran senior QB... hmmm... now I'm thinking to myself - maybe you might put the same 2+2 together. The answer I get is maybe John Ed Bradley of the LSU squad of several years ago may be off a bit in his assumption that the SEC is the "nation's toughest conference" by seeing how the season is getting played out. So, the question remains, which conference has more quality teams from top to bottom? Of the six major conferences, there are points to make with each conference; however, the major media will always say that the SEC is the best, but I think the facts and head-to-head statistics should have a lot more to say about it - especially when the SEC has a winning record against all the major conferences since 2000 except for the Pac-10. I feel that this is the most impressive fact that people like, Mr. Bradley will not fess up to and show good sportsmanship to recongnize all the facts before stating how inferior all other conferences are.

So, I enjoyed the article in Sports Illustrated by Mr. Bradley, but I don't think he loves the game outside of Louisiana. True fans follow more than one team or one conference because they respect the other programs and they just love the game. This is what I want to hear from someone devoted to the Southeast.

Harris Poll Bias

When I was a young lad in high school, there were few words that really stood out as I studied English to increase my vocabulary; however, one of those words sticks with me still to this day - "superfluous", meaning: extra, not needed or necessary. There are some things in life that can be described by this word - yes, even in college football, which I would have thought to be impossible until I ponder on the following thoughts on the subject of polls. I thought the whole idea of a poll, starting after the college football season has began to pan out with most non-conference play in the past and some conference games under way, were to reduce any pre-season hype/expectations and other poll influences that are not involved in the BCS. Looking at this week's Harris Poll has achieved nothing more than an additional look of the AP and Coaches' polls. There are so few differences between the Harris Poll and the AP, Coaches', and even the Legends' polls that it makes me wonder if the AP and Coaches' polls are so influential and dictate the state and direction of college football rankings, that the voters for the Harris and Legends polls are too scared to vote completely different from the grand-daddies of polls.

Now, I love the idea of the Legends Poll and think that they would have a better grasp of who should be ranked or not; however, they have no say in the ultimate outcome of the development of all the BCS bowl games like the Harris Poll does. The Harris Poll has all this power over the schools' football programs and I feel like they are not taking it seriously enough to show the proper respect that some schools deserve and freely giving respect to certain squads that don't necessarily deserve the respect that they are getting right now. In the BCS, it is all about the "right now" in performance of all the teams across the nation. What's your record right now? Did you win right now, or did you lose? How tough is your schedule right now? How tight did you play your most difficult games so far, or did you struggle against the weakest opponents? The Harris Poll was set up, in my kindergarten understanding of the poll, to help even out who has demonstrated quality football and to reward the teams that have done so and point out those teams who may seem over-rated in the other polls that have not demonstrated a justifiable higher ranking.

There are a couple "red flags" that make me question the integrity and validity of the Harris Poll, and we are a mere five weeks into the season. The first one I see is a 2-2 team at #20. Does it really matter what team it is? I don't think so. If you are a .500 team, do you really feel like you should be ranked in the top 25? This is so absurd! There are teams that are in the six major conferences that are 5-0 and 4-0 that are ranked lower that the 2-2 team. Is this for real? Does this really demonstrate an un-biased look at the top teams in the nation? Anyone who knows what a statistic is when they see it, knows that a 2-2 team has NOT demonstrated themselves better than a 5-0 team. Obviously, the voters in the Harris Poll have yet to see a statistic, which is very frightening for those teams that had to go 5-0 to get a glimpse into the top 25's elite status because it is apparent that it's not what you've done on the field, but who you are and what you've done in the past and what is expected from you by your alumni. Now, if this particular 2-2 team went on to win the rest of their games to finish 11-2, then I can see a top 20 showcase, but this early on, I have to suspect some foul play going on. Either that, or the voters for this very powerful Harris Poll are just not paying attention to college football and the games that were played the week prior because it just doesn't make sense.

Another "red flag" of inadequacy of voters who supposedly are not biased, is the fact that Florida is #1 with the schedule they have played so far. Really?!? Two conference games, yes, but against unranked teams (one had just lost to a Pac-10 team the week before (gasp!)). The other two wins were against Troy (no, not the USC Trojans - just Troy Trojans) and the well-known (sarcasm) Charleston Southern! Is that so impressive to put a team at #1? I'm confused. Why wouldn't an Alabama team be #1 instead? They have actually played teams that are significant this year, and won those games. Even the undefeated Iowa squad has played a more difficult schedule than the Gators, but they find themselves at #11. Is it really so hard to look at things at an unbiased view to get it correct "right now"? Of course the rankings will change as the teams' records change with some ranked teams losing and some teams improving throughout the year. I can't stress the "right now" enough. My Harris Poll would look completely weird compared to the AP and Coaches' polls, especially knowing that I had all that power over the outcome of the fate of so many teams in the nation. I would take it totally serious and think things through and take everything into account before I followed the previous week's AP Poll standings. Until the Harris Poll voters get it right to correct the BCS just a little bit of the flawd system, then the Harris Poll will be nothing but superfluous!

NCAA Football: ESPN Writer Is Right On

NCAA Football: ESPN Writer Is Right On and http://myespn.go.com/blogs/pac10/0-10-113/Pac-10-----Maybe-it-s-No--1-.html

Where's The Southern Love?

I have to admit, I'm a little shocked with the latest polls of week 4 of this 2009 college football season. There was a little bit of some shaking up in the top 10 from the week before, and I was expecting some teams to enter into the top 25 this week that never ended up happening. We had the #4 team in the nation, Ole Miss, losing to a 3-1 South Carolina, whose only loss was to Georgia. Now, Georgia, who has the same record as the Gamecocks, are ranked in the top 20 playing a difficult non-conference schedule (especially for an SEC team). They traveled to Oklahoma State and gave up their only loss, and they played a tight one at home against Arizona State; nevertheless, they still have Georgia Tech to play for a non-conference game. Similarly, South Carolina has chosen to play another BCS school besides their annual match-up against Clemson, by starting the season against North Carolina State. Of their four games, half of them were ranked. They lost to Georgia, but beat Mississippi. I figured, unless your record is below .500, you should be put in the top 25 after beating the #4 team in the nation. This brings up some questions about the voters. Did they realize that Ole Miss was extremely over-rated, or do they still really like Ole Miss that much better than South Carolina (even though the Rebels have played such a horrible schedule so far)? The Rebels are still ranked in the top 20, yet South Carolina is not yet ranked and not considered a better team than that one they just beat a week ago on a Thursday night with the same amount of losses. Am I the only person scracthing their head after these facts have pooled around for a while?

On another note, a 4-0 Auburn team isn't ranked either. What if Auburn goes 13-0 this season, along with Texas and a 12-0 Michigan team? Will Auburn re-live their last undefeated season and not get a chance to play in the national title game because they were so far back in the rankings that they couldn't catch up to the other undefeated teams? Of course, right now, it doesn't seem possible; however, it IS college football.

Another Southern team that isn't getting any love right now, who I feel deserves a little, is the South Florida Bulls. They came into Florida State after their huge win over then ranked #7 BYU, and stunned the Seminoles 17-7 without their starting quarterback who has been the starter for what seems like 6 years now. With Matt Grothe on the bench, the back-up, B.J. Daniels comes in and makes Bulls' fans forget about the injury to Grothe. That shows great depth and coaching! I don't know how voters can overlook that. I'm just blown away.

It seems that Oregon has gotten the better end of the deal than South Carolina. Two very similar situations with each having one loss to a ranked team coming into week 4 as an unranked team, then beating a top 10 team; however, that's where the similarities end. Oregon is now in the top 20 and the Gamecocks are not ranked at all. This just seems really backwards to me. I'm not sure if it's because Oregon beat the crap out of Cal and South Carolina squeaked one out or what, but it sure seems that by history's sake, the rankings of the two teams would have been flipped. Trust me, I love how it looks now, but I have my suspicions about the voters. Are they really paying attention to the whole nation? So, the love that I'm familiar with that hovers over the Southeastern part of the nation is eluded for a week and it has me freaking out a bit. How is the Pac-10 suppose to "earn" its way into the rankings if the South isn't getting that love? Well, I don't have to look far - I just think about a good friend's alma mater, UCLA, who is 3-0 and traveled a long ways to play an SEC team to beat them. They have yet to be ranked. Oh well, not all can be perfect in a week with West Coast love.

Ole Miss Pulls a So Cal

I just have one question: "Was Ole Miss really a #4 team?" I can't believe they started out at #10! Really?! I suspect that it's because they are a part of the SEC and the media wants so badly to have all twelve teams "appear" to be so great, that they can finally determine that the SEC is finally the clear top conference in the world... oops, I mean, nation. Well, from my standpoint, there will always be an arguement with that.

The Rebels played a good bowl game to end their season last year under first-year coach Houston Nutt; however, does that really warrant a #10 pre-season ranking? Hmmm. That's also like my question whether a top 5 pre-season ranking was way too high for a USC team that brought back only 3 starters on defense and a brand new quarterback. Top 20? Yes. Top 5? What are you talking about? Even the hard core Trojans fan that I am, I knew that it was way too generous; as well as the Rebels squad. At least USC was able to knock out another ranked opponent in Columbus, OH, before they lost a conference matchup against nearly a third of their old coaches up in Seattle, WA. Ole Miss, on the other hand, handed Memphis a whoopin' to move up a bit, then a bye week to hang tight for a week, and then an onslaught of points against the super power (sarcasm intended here) of Southeastern Louisiana. Back to my initial question, whether that is enough to warrant a #4 ranking in the entire United States of America. I have to be concerned about the welfare of division I football with the current voters that I have to suffer with. In the last couple years, the media has tried so hard to find the next great SEC team to raise them up high in the air and show the country how awesome they are (until they actually play a real team or two or six). First it was Vanderbilt getting all the way to #13 or something. They weren't even bowl eligible yet and a team that hasn't gone anywhere in the post season since 1982, had a ranking in the top 15. Really? Who are they playing in their first five games? Well, we know that they are desperate for wins (you would be too with the accrual of losses they get each year), so they are definitely going to use those four non-conference matchups as "gimmes". Any smart AD at Vanderbilt would. So, they look sharp against these four "gimmes" and then play inspired ball against another lowly team from the SEC and actually start 5-0. With a #13 pinned on their shoulder pads, they must have been put on the cover of SI or something because they lost to the other bottom feeder of the SEC, Mississippi State, the very next week (which I predicted, by the way). Anyone with any history of college football in their back pocket would have seen that a mile away. Just like the loss that Ole Miss suffered tonight in the hands of South Carolina, who played horribly on offense in the 4th quarter.

So, the Rebels lost the first conference game they played as a #4 team. Now, I'm sure the South Eastern fans will look at this like the conference is so packed with nutty goodness that the loss proves how deep of a conference it is, because Ole Miss will dominate all of their non-conference opponents. A warning right now to those two other football powers, UAB and Northern Arizona; the Rebels will treat you like a red-headed step-child (oh, sarcasm about the "football powers" was again intended). How far will Ole Miss fall? Will they fall like USC did with a drop of nine spots, or will they go the BYU route and drop closer to twelve? No one can be certain. A little will be determined by how many other top 20 teams lose over the weekend, but I suspect that there were high hopes from the beginning and they are in the SEC and lost to another SEC opponent that they will drop only 7 or 8 spots. Who knows? I guess we'll see in a few days when the voters have filled out their ballots Sunday night. I hope they actually watch some football this weekend and get some accurate information before they vote this weekend. I'm getting really concerned with things look based on these votes getting through each week. I would really like to see the proper teams in the top 15 spots in the AP poll.

The Battle Between the SEC and the Pac-10

At the beginning of the 2009 season, the Washington Huskies' football team was riding a 14 game losing streak. They were winless in the 2008 season. Their daunting task was to start the '09 season against an SEC power, LSU Tigers, who won the national title as recently as 2007. Wow! How could a winless Washington team, with a brand new head coach (3rd youngest in major football), compete at all against the #11 team in the nation with so much talent just in the last two years of recruiting that would put the whole Pac-10 conference (with exception to USC) to shame? Robert Smith is quoted by saying, "Washington doesn't have a chance!" With LSU being from the SEC and the conference that is known for its defense and running the ball, there would be no way a no-talent program like Washington, who was compared by Robert Smith to the Detroit Lions in similar lack of talent, to even be in the game at all. LSU would be flying home with their 10th consecutive 'W' against a Pac-10 team by inserting their 3rd-stringers into the game mid-way through the 2nd quarter. It will be that ugly for the Huskies.

Okay, so I like to lay it on a little thick. However, I would like to ask those SEC fans how they explain the lack-luster play of their precious LSU squad. Maybe they can tell me how the greatest defensive conference could give up 478 yards and 36:52 in time of possession. That doesn't sound like a superior team ranked at #11 playing stellar defense against a 14-game losing streaked team with a brand new head coach, coaching his debut game. How can any ESPN writer say that the game ball should go to Jordan Jefferson who passed for only 172 yards and 3 TD's? Jake Locker, who is NOT known for his passing abilities, passed for 321 yards and 2 TD's (plus another TD, only the other team caught it and returned it for a TD). That is an amazing stat, there. Locker "only" rushed for 51 yards on 12 carries. Maybe Washington didn't have the 11 penalties for 83 yards, and didn't give up a pick-six, and didn't let Terrance Toliver catch two TD's for 45 and 39 yards, respectively. Would there have been a different outcome - possibly; but there is no way you can take huge plays away from a game - that's what they are all about.

Les Miles has a great record against Pac-10 schools since his arrival to LSU. He traveled to Arizona State to play the 15th ranked Sun Devils as the #5 team in the nation and beat them 35-31. Seems a little too close, but not as close as the year before when the Nick Saban-led Tigers played a home game as the #4 team in the nation taking on the unranked Oregon State Beavers and "pounding on them" by coming from behind to put it into OT and finally winning it in OT 22-21 because the true freshman kicker, Alexis Serna missed the PAT (and a field goal try a time or two earlier). In 2006, LSU played another home game against an miserable Arizona squad as the #8 team in the nation. I sense that LSU does not like to travel much to the West and they like to pick on the lesser Pac-10 schools. The ranked ASU team in 2005 ended the season 7-5 while LSU ended up 11-2. ASU didn't meet up to the expectations of the AP or Coaches' Polls. Why doesn't LSU schedule a game with USC or Oregon? Those are the two most consistant schools in the conference these days. Why not? Are they afraid of losing? I'm shocked that LSU hasn't tried to get a game with Washington State. LSU gets pretty easy schedules, besides, Les Miles said that the Pac-10 is the "Big Easy" for conference competition anyway. So, you would think that LSU would stop scheduling Louisiana-Lafayette, Appalachian State, Troy, North Texas, Middle Tennessee State, and Arkansas State. Shoot for some Pac-10 blood, Miles! I dare you!

So, in other news, it was great to see UCLA travel to Knoxville and pull out a win over an SEC school. I know SEC fans will say "But, Tennessee is far from the class of the SEC..." as it was, say, when it won the national championship. Duh! However, the SEC fans will turn it around in their favor when talking about the difficulty of conference scheduling and say that a particular team has to play Tennessee - which, in my opinion, is still a tough match-up. It's not like having Vanderbilt on your schedule!

Oregon Road

The other day when I was traveling out of town for my job, I passed the tiny town of Elk, WA, and saw a road sign about a mile north of the single intersection of town that read, "Oregon Rd.". Of course, in my mindset, I immediately began thinking of college football and the Oregon Ducks and their "road" to get some respect and success in their 2009 season. How exciting it was for me to see QB Jeremiah Masoli and center Jordan Holmes on the front cover of Sports Illustrated! Then I thought again. "Oh no! Oregon on the front cover of SI!?" You guessed it, the SI curse. The last time the Ducks were beheld on the cover of SI was probably after they had beaten the #4 Michigan squad a few years back. Then, after beating the #4 team in the nation, they go and lose, what, the next four games in a row. The curse is horrible! I wanted to write this much earlier in the year, so, obviously, it's after week 1 of college football play and we already know what happened to the Ducks. I give props to Boise State for being effective most of the game offensively for being able to move the ball. Kellen Moore is a definite talent and is very accurate. The running combination of Jeremy Avery and D.J. Harper made me forget about Ian Johnson - especially in the 2nd half of the game. Before I continue, I just have to mention how impressed I am with the Oregon defense! Returning only 5 starters from last season; losing Patrick Chung, Nick Reed, and Jairus Byrd; and being on the field nearly the entire game, the defense gave up only 19 points when it could have easily been 40-50 some points. The Oregon offense did not help the defense by not getting a single first down the whole first half, and one series, it was only one play from their 5-yard line that resulted in a safety. So, huge props go out to the Oregon defense who, in my opinion, played better than the Boise defense.

I am hearing it in my head now, "You just said that Boise didn't allow a first down in the whole first half, allowing only 14 yards of offense," yadda, yadda, yadda. I know what I said and saw. I'm not belittling the Boise defense and what they accomplished (besides the ignorance of DE, Mr. Byron Hout, who should know better than to touch (let alone smack someone's shoulder pads) an opponent after a very emotional game). I'm just stating, based on offensive production and the results, thereof. The Broncos were affective offensively with some really good play calling and execution; however, they still only managed 17 points (the other 2 belong to the defense). Boise should have scored in the 40's, at least. It could have been really ugly for the Oregon faithful, but the defense stepped up when it was necessary. They were dog tired and must have substituted some stellar players to give the starters a breather occasionally. That's a good sign for depth. The Boise defense never had a chance to get tired - they were always fresh. I can't completely give credit to the Bronco defense for staying off the field all day, I have to give most of the credit to offensive coordinator and first year head coach Chip Kelly. I felt that the play calling was absurd! I felt like Coach Kelly was trying too hard to keep the Boise defense guessing, that he forgot to actually use plays that worked that helped them gain those 484.9 yards per game a season ago. What was he thinking? Besides one series in the 2nd half, Jeremiah Masoli was ineffective. His passes were way off, his runs were choppy and sporatic, and a few times he appeared robotic (I described it to my friends like I was the one actually controling Masoli with my Xbox 360 controller that I don't have - I suck it up by hiking the ball for a pass and stop paying attention to my QB because I'm waiting for a WR to get open and then throw, but I forgot about the defense coming at me and it's too late - interception). Why wasn't Darron Thomas put into the game again? He rallied against Boise last year with 3 fourth quarter touchdowns and barely lost. This time, they didn't need 3 touchdowns due to the defense playing like they were inspired by the angelic-looking wings on their shoulder pads. Oregon needed someone to manage the ball, offensively. Thomas would have brought that, as he proved so last year.

Okay, I have to talk about this, I can't hold back any more. I felt frustration before the end of the first half for LeGarrette Blount. Here you have a 1,000 yard rusher as a back up in 2008, and the nation, including myself, was wondering how many yards he would be capable of as the premier back. Well, with 8 total carries in the game, I felt like that punch should have landed on Chip Kelly's jaw. What's the deal? You have a bruising beast of a back that drags defenders as he gains a couple extra yards and you don't exploit that? The call: oooh, the call, that call that makes me cringe every time I see the "low"lights - when Boise State punter pinned Oregon down on their own 5 yard line, and Coach Kelly wants to use his big back to... smash mouth right into... uh... to the... sideline? What? What kind of call is that? Of course they expect Blount to run it up the gut. The 230 pounder is suppose to do that! Sure, he's fast, but to race along the endzone toward the sideline is asking for a safety. Was Coach Kelly setting Blount up for failure? As Napleon Dynamite would say, "I was T.O.'d." I became numb by the waning minutes of the 2nd quarter. I think Darron Thomas would have given the Ducks the spark they so badly needed. The robotic QB needed to sit on the bench and let his batteries recharge so the offense could be used effectively like Oregon fans are used to. As we see it now, Oregon will lose to Purdue who showed that they have an offense in the first week; and another loss to Utah, who always gives Pac-10 teams fits. Starting 0-3 before conference games will not bode well on the first year coach. Mike Belotti knew before halftime that Oregon needed to run the ball more and should keep a close eye on the coach. Coach Kelly had better realize his mistakes and fix things in a real hurry, which may be a little more difficult losing his most experienced back that was about to put up about 1,600 yards this season! This "road" that Oregon has traveled on so far is not quite the direction the nation anticipated it would go - I want Sports Illustrated to leave Oregon alone in the future.

ESPN Writer Is Right On

I was sent an article recently from a good friend who knows how much I love the Pac-10 and knew how much of a kick I would get out of it. It was and article written by Ted Miller, a Pac-10 representative for ESPN. He dug up some stats (that I love) and applied them accurately to how the 2009 conference predictions should appear. http://myespn.go.com/blogs/pac10/0-10-113/Pac-10-----Maybe-it-s-No--1-.html

I know that if the SEC had information that was this good, it would be smeared throughout any media guide, preseason annual, and given out freely among all college football analysts of every sports network. Most of the information is stuff I check each year to figure out why the SEC continues to "dominate" the strength of schedule each year, so I check the schedules of most teams in the SEC, Big XII, ACC, Big Ten, and Big East, while checking ALL of the Pac-10 teams to make sure they are not selling out. I understand some of the struggling schools in any conference may tend to invite "patsies" to come and play and get paid; although, when I see the "powerhouses" of the conferences schedule weak opponents, it becomes frustrating to me. I will continue to mention the fact that the Pac-10 has only 3 nonconference games a year with the "big boys" of the conference may have only one non-BCS team to play shows a much tougher strength of schedule than, say, an SEC power with their 4 nonconference games a year and you'd be pressed to find more than 1 BCS team of those 4 they have to play (if there is one at all). Sure, I hear it now - "the SEC has the championship game..." blah, blah, blah. Yes it does, and that IS a fact. It is also a fact that of the 12 teams in that conference, only two will play in that match-up. So, c'mon.

Mr. Miller has also provided me with information regarding the new Pac-10 commissioner, Larry Scott, who originally came from the SEC area and knew how good the SEC is. Mr. Scott, then learned the "real" statistics that prove which conference should be considered the best and realized that the information is not getting out there and the Pac-10 conference hasn't been aggressive enough to push it out to the media and the fans. I am enjoying Mr. Scott already after the Pac-10 media days. Clearly, Mr. Scott has met with all the coaches and "coached" them into saying how tough the conference is from each coach. Even Coach Carroll mentioned how many more losses they've had compared to the nonconference losses in recent years. It's true! Wasn't the Vince Young-led Longhorns the only non-Pac-10 team to beat USC since the 3rd game of Coach Carroll's second year with the Trojans; a game at Kansas State (11-2) in 2002 and lost by 7 points. So, yes, I'm telling you that there has been only one team to beat Pete Carroll's team since that K-State loss in 2002 that was not in the Pac-10. If Washington State (2002) can beat USC, or California (2003) can beat USC, or Oregon State (2006, 2008) can beat the Trojans, or UCLA (2006) can take them, or Stanford (2007) can squeak by them, or even Oregon (2007) can top them; what is wrong with the rest of the nation? Only the national championship team can come from behind and win a game against USC? I'm sure USC would like to fill it's scheduling holes by other teams besides the occasional San Jose State, San Diego State, Idaho, or Fresno State; but USC gets to travel a bit since Coach Carroll took over with the likes of Kansas State, Colorado, Auburn, BYU, Hawaii, Virginia Tech, Colorado State, Arkansas, Nebraska, Virginia, Ohio State, and a date with Notre Dame every year (like Florida's annual party with Florida State - which may as well be a conference game with them being such rivals and all). The bowl games have gone against Utah, Iowa, Michigan, Oklahoma, Texas, Michigan, Illinois, and Penn State - with losses to only Utah and Texas. This is just merely an example. I used USC because they are most recognized nationally, but I could reference several Pac-10 teams and who they've played year in and year out; like Oregon, Washington, California, Arizona State, and even Stanford and Washington State get some better games occasionally.

So, Ted Miller has become the Pac-10 voice in the media; and the new commissioner, Larry Scott, has become the new face and marketing component to the new and improved Pac-10 who won't need to base their talent merely on the field, but will receive help off the field now to show the other conferences why they weren't called "the conference of champions".

Pac-10 Gets the Shaft

I was contemplating, as I do so often, about how the Pac-10 football teams get the shaft since the beginning of the BCS. I have been doing some studying and researching the facts that help prove my opinion of "shaftness". So, since the inception of the BCS in 1998, there have been only three years where there was a clear #1 and #2 teams that were undefeated and earned their poll rankings; and after the national title game, there wasn't any doubt who the number one team in the nation was. Those were the years 1999, 2002, and 2005. In 2005, USC was one of those teams and USC played for the championship in one other year. Those are the only two years that a Pac-10 team was represented in the BCS national championship game. The other eight years of BCS have put more confusion and conflict into the order of finish of college football. There seems to be arguements derived from this flawed system. At the end of regular seasons of those three "good" years mentioned earlier, even I could have chose the two teams who should play for it all and get it right. Beyond that, it's just speculation, and I claim bias into the system (I will address the bias in other posts).

I have many statistics at my fingertips after the purchase of the wonderful "ESPN College Football Encyclopedia". In it, I have the AP Poll progression throughout each season for every year starting in 1936 all the way to 2004. In 1950, the United Press (UP) poll began and lasted until the end of 1992. In 1993, the UP became better known as the USA Today/CNN (coaches) poll until ESPN replaced the CNN title in 1995. ESPN began to include their own rankings at that time and have included all these polls in this wonderful library of college football information. I have gone through some of those progressions in the BCS years and was struck with horror all over again when I saw how some teams have gotten the shaft. Let's just kick it off with 1998 (why not?). The shaft could have gone to many teams that year because the 11-1 Florida State team was #2 in the polls at the end of the season but left out other 1-loss teams that had legitimate arguements to take FSU's place in playing the undefeated Tennessee team for the national title. Ohio State had lost by 4 to an unranked Michigan State team in week 10. Kansas State's only loss came by way of the Big XII championship game to lose by 3 against the #10 Texas A&M squad. Wisconsin never played Ohio State that year but lost to #15 Michigan in week 11. Tulane went undefeated and ended the year ranked #7. Air Force lost to unranked TCU in week 4. Then, UCLA lost it's last game against Miami, who kept them from going undefeated; however, UCLA was ranked #3 in week 6 when they gave Arizona their only loss. So, because UCLA won the Pac-10 and lost their final regular season game, Arizona wasn't ranked high enough to get the nod to play for the national title. At the time, this made some sense, but later on you'll see why this is lame and the BCS shafted Arizona (not that anybody would have beaten Tennessee, but it would be nice to have had Pac-10 representation in the championship game).

The 1999 season was pretty clear cut and straight forward lending Marshall the only argumental rights ending the year 13-0. Now the 2000 season proved to be a very good one for the Pac-10 regarding the top teams. Of course, Oklahoma's undefeated season left them at #1 - uncontested. The 2nd place finisher in the polls may have been accurate, but still had some serious questions to who it may have been in place of Miami. There were seven 1-loss teams to choose from: Toledo at #25 and TCU at #13 weren't even in consideration when the other 5 teams had much stronger strengths of schedule and in BCS conferences. Let's just say that the #3 Florida State was chosen over the other 4 teams and this is where it gets jumbled up. Why was the #3 team chosen over the team that was the only team to beat them and stood at #2? Miami not only beat FSU, but was #6 Virginia Tech's only loss as well. Miami had a legitimate arguement and I remember Coach Butch Davis making a huge fuss over it (I don't blame him); however, when Coach Davis was asked about the team with the same record as his who beat the Hurricanes, he replied something to the effect that it was an early game in the season, and that team doesn't matter because it plays in the Pac-10. Well, by season's end, the Pac-10 had three teams in the top eight in the AP poll. Sounds like a tough conference to me; although, when it comes to playing for the national title, a Florida State team that played in the two previous national championship games seemed to "fit" better. Plus, Miami wasn't in the ACC then, but was part of making the Big East look good (along with Virginia Tech). So, the Bowden, I mean Bowl Championship Series continued without looking at a Pac-10 team; even with Washington being the only team to beat both #2 Miami, and #5 Oregon State. The only team to beat Washington was the #8 Oregon team that ended the season 10-2 beating #12 Texas in their bowl game. So, I want to recognize Miami getting the shaft by being #2 and getting skipped over by the #3 team. With that said, if Miami was shafted, so was Washington by not getting ranked properly by being the only team to have beaten the #2 team with the same record - plus, having a better win over #5 Oregon State versus the #6 Virginia Tech that Miami beat. In reality, Washington should have been the #2 team in the polls and therefore getting the biggest shaft.

After the 2000 season, the BCS went back to the drawing board to revamp how the teams should be chosen. In my opinion, they did a horrible job. Now, I should say that a true championship team should meet certain criteria: 1) the team should be the champ of their conference, 2) the team should never have more than 1 loss, and 3) the team should never be chosen based on fan-base ideas or because they travel well. This leads me up to the 2001 season that urks me to this day, which becomes one of the Big XII fiascos that gives cause to the stretch of 6 title games that include a Big XII team 5 of the 6 times where I heard referenced as the Big XII Championship Series. The BCS transforms from Bowden to Big XII. So, the 2001 season would prove to be the first time that bias may come into play without much argument, unless you happen to be a Big XII fan. Here is how it laid out at the end of the season. Miami was the clear, undefeated #1 team, but who they were going to play was the question. The options were two possibly under-rated teams of Illinois who lost to Michigan (8-3) and Maryland who lost to Florida State (7-4). Well, to be honest, I'd have to say that if Michigan or Florida State happened to be 10-1 like Illinois and Maryland were, then those respective conferences would probably look much better, but Illinois was not Michigan and Maryland was not Florida State. Other options included the winner of the Pac-10, #2 Oregon (10-1); the winner of the SEC, #12 LSU (8-3); the winner of the BigXII, #3 Colorado (10-2) - arguably the hottest team in the nation after beating #2 Nebraska and #3 Texas to ends its season; and #4 Nebraska (11-1). So, just to rewind a bit to my criteria for a qualified national title contender, 1) the team should be the champ of its conference, which would leave Nebraska out, and 2) the team should not have more than 1 loss, which would leave out Colorado and LSU. That leaves the #2 team, Oregon to play Miami for the national title game, right? Wrong! Way wrong, in fact. The #4 Nebraska squad was chosen over the #2 and #3 teams to play for the national championship when they didn't even qualify to play for their conference championship. How the heck did that work? Of course, Miami won and Oregon ended up playing the hottest team in the nation and demoralized Colorado 38-16. The Oregon QB, Joey Harrington, played inspired ball that day and it left me and possibly thousands wondering how Miami's defense would have stopped Harrington that day. We will never know because the BCS messed it up and didn't play the #1 and #2 teams together on the same field. Oregon got the shaft like no other, thus far.

The 2002 season was beautiful and I could have chosen the top two teams without voters or computers. It was clear that the only two undefeated teams of Miami and Ohio State were going to play. The only question was who was #1 going into it - well, Miami started the season at #1 and never lost a game along the way, so, should remain so at the end. Now, the 2003 season began after some more tweaking of the BCS - like they do every off season. Did it help much? Nope. It made things worse, and who got the shaft at year's end? Yep, you guessed it, a Pac-10 team. 2001 was bad enough, but this season topped it. I didn't think it possible, but here is how it played out. Oklahoma was #1 from week 1 until they lost in the BigXII championship game, which allowed a 1-loss USC to sneak to the #1 spot. So, #1 USC (11-1) won its conference and #2 LSU (12-1) beat Georgia in the SEC championship game to win its conference. Then, #4 Michigan (10-2) and #8 Kansas State (11-3) each won their respective conferences, while FSU and Miami stood at (10-2) at #9 and #10 respectively. Going back to my criteria, USC and LSU were #1 and #2 and each had 1-loss and both won their conferences; however, #3 Oklahoma, who didn't even win its conference was considered for the national title game instead of #1 USC. So, not only did #2 LSU surpass the #1 Trojans, but the #3 Sooners that couldn't win its conference surpassed the astonished men of Troy to play for the national title. This was a horrible mockery of the Pac-10! How could you not play the #1 team against the #2 team based on my criteria that should be required to be worthy to step to the national title spotlight? The honor came when USC was still voted #1 by the AP poll, while the coaches were "obligated" by their contracts with the BCS to vote for the winner of the LSU/Oklahoma game. Clearly, Oklahoma was NOT the worthy opponent for LSU and I'm certain that LSU fans seemed robbed of the unanimous championship crown. USC got shafted!

Another off season for the BCS and more tweaks in the system to try to get it right. Well, 2004 was not the season to help the BCS seem like it was getting things right. College football went from all 1-loss teams in 2003 to undefeated teams in 2004. There were five undefeated teams, to be exact. The top two started as the top two and remained so because they never dropped a game along the way. After #1 USC and #2 Oklahoma, there was #3 Auburn, #5 Utah, and #10 Boise State. The latter two were out of contention due to playing in non BCS conferences. It was the top 3 that made all the SEC fans throw huge fits over what happened. Auburn happened to draw the short end of the stick when week 1 they were ranked a mere #17. They flew in under the radar. I don't think anyone was going to beat USC that year in January, so the BCS finally got that right. The argument lies with which team was USC going to beat. Oklahoma was ranked #2 all season and never lost, so it never made sense to dethrone them for Auburn - besides, USC had just shutout that same offensive group the year before so it was just a wash and I'll accept the 55-19 pounding of the Sooners. The huge BCS mistake came with the remaining BCS games. With 5 undefeated teams, it was necessary to get that number down to at least 3 by playing the undefeated teams against each other. USC and Oklahoma solved half of that puzzle, but when the BCS didn't match #3 Auburn up against #5 Utah, there was a huge loss there. Those two teams had a chance to really prove something (especially Utah). I think Utah had a legitimate chance at beating Auburn base on how they outclassed Pittsburgh that year. I know that SEC fans are screaming that Auburn got shafted that year, but based on the previous years, are they really sure? Shafted because they didn't get to play Utah, win, and then play a plus one, yes; but to expect to be ranked over the two teams that remained #1 and #2 all year long would be a huge mistake.

The 2005 season was amazing! Everyone wanted to see USC play the winner of the Texas/Ohio State game from before the season started. Texas beat Ohio State and the anticipation grew immensely from week to week until they were finally the only two standing as the undefeated giants ready to play in the Rose Bowl. What a great game! Yes, my beloved Trojans lost that day, but any true fan of college football recognized this game as an instant legend. The superstars that clashed together on the field in Pasadena marveled games of yesteryear.

I will do some more reading and research to cover the remaining years, but I'm certain there is more "shaft" going on that the BCS needs to recognize and correct as necessary.

Current BCS System

Why is it that every year after all the bowl games are done, college football and the BCS become a topic of debate and distinguished controversy? Why can't the BCS ever accomplish what it was created to do by getting the top two teams in the nation to play for one national title? Why is there seem to be at least one team left out and wondering whether they could have beaten the winner of the national championship game? I know that people who love SEC football don't have many recent complaints, but can recite how horrible it was for Auburn to go undefeated in the regular season and win the conference title and not get invited to play for the national title. That is the only time that SEC fans can fall back on because the media and voters and computers love the SEC and have given it everything else since its inception in 1998. It's the Pac-10 that gets left out over and over again. The Big East may have some complaints, but it is the Pac-10 that has fallen out of the voters' heads and missed the chance to play for all the marbles more often than any other BCS conference in the nation. The BCS changes, as it seems, yearly to make it "more fair". For whom, I ask. It seems to make it easier and easier for an SEC team to get in there, even if you have two losses to your name. The BCS needs to make changes for sure. Maybe it could become extinct or maybe acquire some kind of playoff-type system to get the best teams to play their way to the championship game to actually achieve exactly what the BCS claims it is there for. The fans would love it and yes, it would produce a little revenue for those certain lovers of money.