With Utah's upset of Alabama, bias will become even more obvious
You know what "they" will say...
"Utah is undefeated... Alabama played a tough overall schedule... It was really just one quarter that made a difference..."All excuses, excuses for why it was ok for Alabama to lose the Sugar Bowl to Utah. No, I correct myself... why it was ok for Alabama to get crushed in the Sugar Bowl. This wasn't a case of superior talent or a superior coaching job. Utah jumped on Bama, and blew them away from the start. This wasn't like Penn State hanging tough for the first part of the game, then suffering one bad quarter in the middle, only to come back strong at the end. Alabama didn't even show up for kickoff.
Bowl Stat: First quarter scores - PSU 7, USC 7; Utah 21, Bama 0.
But none of that matters. "They" still believe that it's just fine, even good for college football that Utah beat Bama. You see, that's called a hypocrisy, my friends. And not only does this fully define that word, it proves my point (and a few other somewhat-respected sports writers') that Alabama could have lost to Utah by 30, but it's ok. It's ok that Texas Tech was embarrassed by Ole Miss. But it's definitely not ok that Penn State lost to USC.
Penn State will most likely be dropped from the top 10, when the final polls come out. Alabama will probably stay in the top 10, along with the winner of the Mythical National Championship, regardless of the margin of defeat. That's right, I'll call it right now. If Florida beats Oklahoma by 50, or vice versa, the loser will stay in the top-10, just because of the fact that "perception is reality" this season in college football. Unfortunately, that perception is that Penn State was just another weak Big Ten team trying to "play with the big boys," while the MNC loser merely "lost to the best team in the nation."
Bowl Stat: Total offense - PSU, 410; Bama, 208
And that leads me to my next point, and another hypocrisy. Following the Rose Bowl, we heard hours and hours of analysis, calling USC a team that "should have been in the BCS Championship Game," and "should be in the running for the AP title." If USC is supposed to be the best team in the nation, or at least the No. 1-A with the BCSCG winner, is Penn State truly worthy of the royal media beat down it's receiving?
I won't get into why the Rose Bowl was tougher for USC than the final score appeared (like, say, the "greatest all-time defense" of USC giving up 24 points, and almost blowing it in the fourth quarter), but "they" can't seriously, with a straight face, tell us that Alabama and Texas Tech belong ranked ahead of Penn State, after losing to supposedly "inferior" opponents, Utah and Ole Miss.
Bowl Stat: Offensive points - PSU, 24; Bama, 10
"They" bash the BCS, pretty much on a daily basis, yet don't seem to realize the true problem with college football, the human polls. In a system like we have now, it's not the computers which are at fault for the kooky rankings or the bowl pairings. But we're led to believe that it's the CPU-controlled votes which are the culprit of these faulty championships each season. Who tells us that the computers are wrong? The human pollsters. Yeah, I see a slight conflict of interest, too.
You cannot have a true polling system, yet lock everyone into the winner of one game. If this were the days before the BCS, and even before the old Bowl Alliance, a team like Utah would have a real chance at the national title, even if it is a mythical one. USC would be a serious contender after dismantling Penn State. Texas would get a shot, granted the Longhorns whip the Buckeyes. But because of the BCS, none of that matters.
Bowl Stat: Yards per rush, PSU, 4.7; Bama, 0.9
That's where the Alabama loss comes back in, along with the Penn State loss. If Penn State and Alabama knew their games could have given them part or all of a national title, would the outcomes have been different? Probably not, but because of this system, where these games have no affect on the championship whatsoever, "they" have to attach some sort of meaning or significance to them. You can bet that there were a few more folks watching the Rose Bowl, just to see "if the Big Ten can hack it this year." Note, I didn't say "if Penn State would beat USC." That's because this year's Rose Bowl wasn't Penn State vs. USC. It was The Big Ten vs. USC.
Bowl Stat: Distance traveled - PSU, 2,568 mi.; Bama, 293 mi.
Penn State will fall below Alabama, not because they're a lesser team. But rather because it won't be Penn State at all that's voted lower than the Crimson Tide. The Big Ten Conference will be what's voted below Alabama... and Texas Tech... and the loser of a blowout BCSCG.
Why? I don't think we'll ever really know. But we'll get a whole lot of excuses, and a whole lot of ass-covering from "them," and ranking Alabama ahead of Penn State will be just a part of it.
But what if Ohio State comes close against Texas, finishing above Penn State in the polls? Well... we'll deal with that when the time comes, and I assure you, we will deal with it thoroughly. And what if Penn State does finish (oddly enough) above Alabama?
Then there's some hope, after all.
Final Bowl Stat: Margin of defeat - PSU, 14; Bama, 14.
More below the fold...
