#1, But Not the Best

Our football team won again yesterday, against the Oregon State Beavers, in Corvallis. It was our 18th straight win, the second-longest streak in the country right now, and one of our best starts in nearly as many years. We've been the number one team in the country since last year and are projected to play for a second National Championship come January 4th. Impressive, to be sure, but recently, I've begun to wonder if we have the ranking because people think we're that good or simply because we haven't lost. Granted, there are other teams that haven't lost, but none of them won a National Championship last year or had a pre-season ranking of #1 like we did.

Now, before everyone gets all bent out of shape and starts flaming my comments box, let me explain. I understand that it's fun to talk about who the best teams in the country might be during the off-season, but I don't think it's fair to assign a number to said predictions. Simply put, many teams don't turn out to be nearly as good as their pre-ranking suggests. Things do sift out when the overrated teams eventually lose, but for undefeated teams, the preseason favorites tend to keep their top ranking even though other, lower-ranked preseason teams may be playing better football. A team should have to earn its ranking, not simply be crowned champion from the beginning, knowing that it can simply win out in order to maintain. Sometimes I even wonder if it's fair to only award the top ranking to an undefeated but unimpressive team instead of a team who lost early in the year, only to play the best football of all teams come the end the season. It happened to us two years ago, when it was agreed upon by many that we were playing the best football of any team in the country, yet we didn't get a chance to prove it simply because of two close games we lost early in the season.

USC is a perfect example of this preseason hype machine. Ranked #1 going into the season, we haven't lost, but have had to claw our way back from halftime four times this season, including this weekend against an Oregon State team that's tied for 5th in the Pac-10. Granted, we've always been a second-half ball club, but according to our ranking, we're supposed to be the best team in the country! We've simply rode our preseason coattails because nobody has the balls to drop us a couple spots after a mediocre win. This goes for all other teams too, by the way.

Ivan Maisel, sports writer for ESPN.com, says it best when he defines what a great team is: "A great team controls the line of scrimmage, and the game, whether on offense, defense or special teams, from start to finish. A great team doesn't have to turn it on when it needs to, because a great team never turns it off. A great team moves the ball through the air and on the ground, and stops its opponent from doing the same." In my opinion, USC is not a great team. Oklahoma is not a great team. Utah and Auburn are great teams.

Look at how they won their games. They did everything a great team should do: score a lot of points, hold the other team to just a few, and control the outcome of the game. The argument exists that they've played easier teams than USC or Oklahoma has had to play this year, but I disagree. Utah beat Texas A&M 42-21, the same team Oklahoma struggled against this weekend, when it won by a single touchdown. Auburn has beaten Tennessee and last year's BCS National Champion, LSU.

This same pre-season hype machine problem goes for Heisman trophy candidates. I'll be the first to say it, Matt Leinert is overrated. He's a good player (2,068 yds, 20 TD's, 5 Ints - 3 rushing TD's), but he just isn't playing like the best player in the country. Reggie Bush could be the best player in the nation, but doesn't touch the ball enough on offense (928 yds, 11 TD's) to prove it. Their number just don't compare to players like Adrian Peterson for Oklahoma (nearly 1400 rushing yards and 9 TD's) or last year's Heisman winner, Jason White (2,130 yds, 25 TD's, 4 Int.) Peterson, however, isn't even the best back in the country, that distinction goes to Cedric Benson of Texas (1439 yds, 17 TD's.) The main reason Peterson is getting so much attention is because he's earned those numbers during his first year of college ball.

However impressive White and Benson may seem, they just don't compare to the man you've never heard of, Alex Smith. You've probably never heard of him because he plays for plays for Utah, part of the Mountain West, a division not included in college football's most elite farce, the BCS. However, his number don't lie (2,196 yds, 24 TD's, 2 Int. and 439 yds, 8 TD's rushing), he's more consistent than both Leinert and White, and has, unlike them, been the driving force behind the offense of his undefeated team. Call me a fool, but I think leadership counts when deciding who the best player in the nation is. It's one of the reasons Carson Palmer won the award two years ago.

In summary, I just don't feel that our current ranking system works. Pre-season favorites win close games that should have never happened and are praised for their "character," while other teams demolish everyone they face and are ridiculed for playing soft schedules beyond their control. Players on these teams are either foolishly praised or receive little attention (respectively) as a result, and after a while, objective fans lose faith in one of the few untarnished sports still in existence. I'm still going to root for my Trojans, but I'm not going to blindly worship them when I don't feel they're worthy of it. I've got more faith in teams like Utah and Auburn, who actually deserve it.