An old debate reborn

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?columnist=schlabach_mark&id=3406050&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab3pos1

Check the link. Usually, May is a bit early to be getting fired up about some national media's obsession with USC and their illustrious college football program, but I simply can't resist this time.

In essence, the article ranks the 10 BCS champions that have been crowned under college football's decade old system. Debates continue to rage on whether the BCS belongs on the landscape of the game (I, for one, love it) - but those debates can wait for another day. I'd like to debate the location of the USC Trojans of 2004.

In his little researched article, Mark Schlabeth crowns Miami of 2001 as the greatest of the 10 BCS champs. No problem - that team could whip many of today's NFL franchises with relative ease. Next up, he crowns the 2004 USC Trojans as the runner up. Here is my problem. Two spots below are the 2005 Texas Longhorns. If my memory serves me, those are the same Longhorns that beat USC for the national title.

In essence, Texas beat the same USC team that had been crowned champs in '04. USC brought back 14 starters, including 2 Heismann trophey winners.

See the problem? If you are going to bother doing some rankings, you might want to make sure you don't rank a team behind another team if the team you picked lower actually beat the other guys. It doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense. So, Stink Schlabeth, while the 2005 Texas beat the vast majority of players from the 2004 USC team in a game, "played on the field" (as playoff pundits like Schlabeth like to say), you still think USC deserves to be ranked higher in your standings? Sounds like you've got a case of Matt Leinertness - you'll recall after getting defeated at the hands of Texas, Mr. California was quoted as saying, "I still think we're the better team." Funny - I thought that's why they played the game. But, according to ESPN, maybe not.