2011 McMNC: Oklahoma State University

AP Top 10: Final Record -- Key Bowl Results

1. Alabama (12-1): Won BCS Bowl, 21-0
2. LSU (13-1): Lost BCS Bowl, 0-21
3. Oklahoma State (12-1): Won Fiesta Bowl, 41-38
4. Oregon (12-2): Won Rose Bowl, 45-38
5. Arkansas (11-2): Won Cotton Bowl, 29-16
6. USC (10-2): No bowl
7. Stanford (11-2): Lost Fiesta Bowl, 38-41
8. Boise State (12-1): Won Las Vegas Bowl, 56-24
9. South Carolina (11-2): Won CapitalOne Bowl, 30-13
10. Wisconsin (11-3): Lost Rose Bowl, 38-45

Two of the steadfast rules I've always used in this analysis are basic: you have to win your conference, and you have to win your bowl game. In reviewing all MNCs since 1936 via analyzing the Associated Press poll, this has never changed. And this sixth laughable year in a row of BCS garbage has made my 2011 pick very easy.

Alabama didn't win its conference. LSU didn't win its bowl game.

See ya later, poseurs.

Oklahoma State did both, and the BCS shot itself in the foot as it continued to reveal its ineptitude and silliness in failing to determine a legitimate champion for the 11th time in 14 years. Why people claim with a straight face that "it's the best system we have" is a mystery only to those who live six feet under.

So the list of TUCs for the McMNC in 2011 is a very short one:

• Oklahoma State
• TCU
• Oregon
• West Virginia

Start from the bottom of this list -- West Virginia had a fine season, but its three losses put it beyond the reach of catching Oklahoma State in terms of a potential SOS boost. One of my other steadfast rules has been that an SOS rating edge of 10%+ can compensate for an extra loss, and there's no way anyone has a 20% SOS rating edge on the Cowboys -- who probably played the toughest schedule in the country on their way to winning the toughest conference in the country this year. So the Mountaineers are out, even though that 37-point win over ACC champion Clemson in the Orange Bowl will always be something to hang a hat on with posterity.

Oregon won its first Rose Bowl since 1917 -- yes, shocking to know the Ducks even made the Rose Bowl in the early days, huh? -- but losing to LSU on the road and USC at home hurt it overall. If the Ducks had beaten USC, they were the team that probably deserved more of a rematch with LSU than Alabama did, but that's irrelevant. The Ducks beat a lot of bowl teams in 2011, including BCS qualifiers Stanford and Wisconsin. But they had two losses, which they can't escape in the end. The McMNC has only ever gone to two teams with two losses (1965 UCLA, 2007 West Virginia), and those were extreme circumstances. No such circumstances exist in 2011, thanks to the Fiesta Bowl result.

TCU -- the defending McMNC, I might add -- also had two losses. The Horned Frogs lost to Baylor and SMU by October 1, but they rebounded to win the Mountain West and the Poinsettia Bowl. Overall, their schedule was very weak in comparison to Oregon's schedule strength, however -- beating Louisiana Tech in a bowl game doesn't rate beating Wisconsin in a bowl game, of course. While Oregon beat two BCS teams, the best win TCU posted was over Boise State. So in the comparison of two-loss teams, Oregon has the edge on TCU.

Oklahoma State finished with one loss -- the road OT defeat to Iowa State that cost the Cowboys a spot in the alleged title game -- while beating six bowl teams in its own conference, including the Heisman Trophy winner (by 35 points, no less). According to Jeff Sagarin's pre-bowl rankings, they beat eight teams ranked in the Top 30 this year. No other team in the country -- including "mighty" LSU or "historic" Alabama -- beat more than six. Arguably, they played the toughest schedule in the country, while also winning their conference AND their bowl game (an OT win over Stanford in the Fiesta Bowl -- which really was the saving grace for this whole post ...).

Oregon's schedule can't even come close to surpassing Oklahoma State's schedule, and thus, this decision was a very easy one.

McMNC Revision:

1. Oklahoma State
2. Oregon
3. TCU
4. West Virginia
5. (tie) LSU, Alabama

RUNNING SCORECARD:
Penn State: +1977, +1981, =1982, =1986, +1994
USC: -1962, =1967, +1969, =1972, +1978, +1979, =2003, =2004
Tennessee: +1938, +1942, +1950, -1951, =1998
Washington: +1960, +1991
Georgia Tech: +1952, +1990
Pittsburgh: +1936, -1937, =1976, +1980
Oklahoma State: +2011
Utah: +2008
West Virginia: +2007
Boise State: +2006
UCLA: +1965
Arkansas: +1964
Mississippi: +1962
Iowa: +1956
Illinois: +1951
Purdue: +1943
Stanford: +1940
California: +1937
TCU: -1938, +2010
BYU: =1984
Syracuse: =1959
Texas A&M: =1939
Georgia: +1946, -1980
Michigan State: -1952, +1953
Michigan: +1947, =1948, -1997
Ohio State: -1942, +1944, =1954, =1968, =2002
Nebraska: =1970, =1971, -1994, =1995, +1997
Oklahoma: +1949, -1950, =1955, -1956, +1957, =1975, =1986, =2000
Auburn: -1957, +1983, -2010
Maryland: -1953
Clemson: -1981
Colorado: -1990
Florida State: -1993, =1999
Texas: =1963, -1969, =2005
Army: -1944, -1945
LSU: =1958, -2003, -2007
Florida: =1996, -2006, -2008
Miami-FL: -1983, =1987, =1989, -1991, =2001
Minnesota: -1936, -1940, =1941, -1960
Alabama: +1945, =1961, -1964, -1965, -1978, -1979, =1992, =2009, -2011
Notre Dame: -1943, -1946, -1947, -1949, =1966, =1973, -1977, =1988, +1993

2010 McMNC: Texas Christian University

AP Top 11: Final Record -- Key Bowl Results

1. Auburn (14-0): Won BCS Bowl, 22-19
2. TCU (13-0): Won Rose Bowl, 21-19
3. Oregon (12-1): Lost BCS Bowl, 19-22
4. Stanford (12-1): Won Orange Bowl, 40-12
5. Ohio State (12-1): Won Sugar Bowl, 31-26
6. Oklahoma (12-2): Won Fiesta Bowl, 48-20
7. Wisconsin (11-2): Lost Rose Bowl, 19-21
8. LSU (11-2): Won Cotton Bowl, 41-24
9. Boise State (12-1): Won Las Vegas Bowl, 26-3
10. Alabama (10-3): Won Capital One Bowl, 49-7
11. Nevada (13-1): Won Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl, 20-13

Two points need to be made here before I proceed:

1) I'm an attorney. I have lived my adult life based on firm structure: the law. It is not negotiable; it is not flexible. It is firm, and it does not waver. I have passed bar exams in three different states; I make almost $500k a year; I am damn good at practicing law. And the law does not bend. In direct opposition to everything I represent at my core is the NCAA: it "convicts" without sufficient evidence using a threshold that doesn't hold up under scrutiny from third-party assessment, and it exonerates when hard evidence is present (and confirmed by independent law-enforcement entities). It has no conscience, no rigidity and no structure. It is a lie. For the past 12-18 months or so, we've seen the real NCAA start losing control of big-time college football, and that process is now complete. There is NO WAY any student-athlete -- whether s/he knows of it or not -- can be shopped around in the recruiting process and maintain their eligible for college athletics. That violates the very core of what the NCAA was created for. To wit, the NCAA's mission statement: "Our purpose is to govern competition in a fair, safe, equitable and sportsmanlike manner, and to integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education so that the educational experience of the student-athlete is paramount." The NCAA has failed this mission when it comes to Division I-A football, but I will not fail in my purpose here;

2) I know some of you reading this won't like it, and I don't give a shit. Because I'm right, you're wrong, and time will prove this. So get over it, enjoy being part of the problem that is killing something with great potential, and live with yourself in shame. It's your right.

Based on these two statements, there is no way I am considering Auburn (or Ohio State, for that matter, as they used FIVE ineligible players all season long) for the 2010 McMNC. They used an ineligible player in all 14 of their games, and they are ineligible for my selection process. I noticed that Auburn didn't win either poll unanimously, which means there are other people out there who feel the same way I do. That's enough justification for me, even if the masses are morons, lemmings and ignorant fools. There's a reason my email handle is what it is, you know -- because most people are ridiculous, stupid and a waste of space.

If you don't like it, I don't care. Post your own rankings and express your own worthless opinion. If you can't even do that, you're proving you're a waste of space.

So, on with the show ...

Teams under consideration in 2010 must have won their conference (or at least a share of it) and won their bowl game. This leaves us with TCU, Boise State, Nevada and ... Oregon (because Auburn isn't eligible to win their bowl game with an ineligible player). The Ducks get screwed in all of this, of course, but we'll deal with that in a moment. They did lose the game, so it's a loss in their W-L record -- but for this TUC discussion, they didn't lose their bowl game.

TCU: The Horned Frogs have a big edge as the only team that finished undefeated in 2010. Their SOS was rated at 48%, which isn't good. But they did beat seven bowl teams by an average of 22.6 points a game -- so when they played the better teams, they beat those teams badly. They beat Baylor by 35, SMU by 17, BYU by 28, Air Force by 31 and Utah by 40. Yes, they squeaked by SDSU by five and Wisconsin by two, as well. In essence, for a one-loss team to jump TCU, they better have played a ridiculously hard schedule.

Boise State: Their one loss was on the road to fellow TUC Nevada, so that actually eliminates the Broncos from contention here. Their SOS is irrelevant, as they lose a H2H tiebreak.

Nevada: Their one loss was on the road to Hawaii, which won ten games this year. Not a bad loss, and it came early which always helps in the rankings. Although that's irrelevant here. Their SOS comes out at 47%, so they can't pass TCU with their one loss. But Nevada had a nice year: they beat FCS champ Eastern Washington by 25, they beat BYU by 14, they beat Fresno State by one, they beat Boise State by three, and they beat Boston College by seven. Not the best slate, but 13-1 is pretty good, period.

Oregon: The one loss to Auburn hurts, but the Ducks also had a great year. They have an SOS rating of 49%. So they can't overcome the loss in the title game to Auburn (thereby getting screwed royally by the NCAA; watch Phil Knight have his fun with the organization in the next few years ...). The Ducks beat four bowl teams in 2010, and they also beat two other teams that could have played in bowls if the NCAA had a backbone. But it's not enough.

In the end, TCU wins this easily. They were the best team in 2010, in terms of fielding an eligible team and adhering to NCAA rules and bylaws.

McMNC Revision:

1. TCU
2. Oregon
3. Nevada
4. Boise State
5. Stanford

RUNNING SCORECARD:
Penn State: +1977, +1981, =1982, =1986, +1994
USC: -1962, =1967, +1969, =1972, +1978, +1979, =2003, =2004
Tennessee: +1938, +1942, +1950, -1951, =1998
Washington: +1960, +1991
Georgia Tech: +1952, +1990
Pittsburgh: +1936, -1937, =1976, +1980
Utah: +2008
West Virginia: +2007
Boise State: +2006
UCLA: +1965
Arkansas: +1964
Mississippi: +1962
Iowa: +1956
Illinois: +1951
Purdue: +1943
Stanford: +1940
California: +1937
TCU: -1938, +2010
BYU: =1984
Syracuse: =1959
Texas A&M: =1939
Georgia: +1946, -1980
Michigan State: -1952, +1953
Michigan: +1947, =1948, -1997
Ohio State: -1942, +1944, =1954, =1968, =2002
Nebraska: =1970, =1971, -1994, =1995, +1997
Oklahoma: +1949, -1950, =1955, -1956, +1957, =1975, =1986, =2000
Auburn: -1957, +1983, -2010
Maryland: -1953
Clemson: -1981
Colorado: -1990
Florida State: -1993, =1999
Texas: =1963, -1969, =2005
Army: -1944, -1945
LSU: =1958, -2003, -2007
Florida: =1996, -2006, -2008
Miami-FL: -1983, =1987, =1989, -1991, =2001
Minnesota: -1936, -1940, =1941, -1960
Alabama: +1945, =1961, -1964, -1965, -1978, -1979, =1992, =2009
Notre Dame: -1943, -1946, -1947, -1949, =1966, =1973, -1977, =1988, +1993

2009 McMNC: Alabama Crimson Tide

AP Top 10: Final Record -- Key Bowl Results

1. Alabama (14-0); Won BCS Bowl, 37-21
2. Texas (13-1); Lost BCS Bowl, 21-37
3. Florida (13-1); Won Sugar Bowl, 51-24
4. Boise State (14-0); Won Fiesta Bowl, 17-10
5. Ohio State (11-2); Won Rose Bowl, 27-16
6. TCU (12-1); Lose Fiesta Bowl, 10-17
7. Iowa (11-2); Won Orange Bowl, 24-14
8. Cincinnati (12-1); Lost Sugar Bowl, 24-51
9. Penn State (11-2); Won Citrus Bowl, 19-17
10. Virginia Tech (10-3); Won Peach Bowl, 37-14

The BCS did a snow job this year on the American public, eliminating as many claims to the throne as they could -- and sadly, it worked. With five undefeated teams at the end of the regular season, denying any of their resumes for the "title" game constituted fraud.

But Cincinnati, TCU and Texas all lost their perfect seasons with no-shows in their bowl game. The Bearcats coach disappeared for greener pastures, and when Cincinnati's second-in-command also bolted for another job before the Sugar Bowl, they were cooked. TCU had the best claim to the title game gone unheard, but by losing to Boise State and its lesser claim, the Horned Frogs helped the BCS. Texas lost its quarterback and its chances early in the Second Rose Bowl, making Alabama's claim rather dubious. After all, beating Texas is easier when they're missing the winningest QB in NCAA history.

Yet Texas still did a better job against The Tide than Florida did, despite having a freshman QB playing for 58+ minutes.

So it does come down to Alabama and Boise State. Both teams ran the table; both teams beat undefeated rivals in a BCS bowl game. Both teams claim wins over other BCS conference champions.

How to separate the two? BCS apologists will claim The Tide played a better schedule. They did, but Boise beat six bowl teams in 2009. Their schedule didn't "suck". Alabama beat ten bowl teams, which is more impressive, although considering six SEC teams wouldn't have qualified for bowls without their patsy OOC schedules (see below), that claim is somewhat hollow.

South Carolina (7-6, lost bowl game): Florida Atlantic and South Carolina State
Kentucky (7-6, lost bowl game): Miami-OH, Louisiana-Monroe, and Eastern Kentucky
Arkansas (8-5, won bowl game because ECU couldn't kick a FG): Missouri State, Eastern Michigan and Troy
Mississippi (9-4, won bowl game because Oklahoma State couldn't hold on to the ball): Memphis, Southeastern Louisiana, UAB and Northern Arizona
Auburn (8-5, won bowl game because Northwestern couldn't kick a FG): Louisiana Tech, Ball State and Furman
Tennessee (7-6, lost bowl game): Western Kentucky, Ohio and Memphis

So Alabama played a marginally better schedule, but it did beat better teams by bigger margins. And that is what stands out most.

Yet it's a unique situation for the McMNC, where you have two undefeated teams with impressive bowl wins over undefeated conference champs, etc. When was the last time that happened? It's so rare you get even two undefeated teams into a potential MNC game, let alone two potential MNC games.

Has it ever happened before? The last time there were four undefeated teams at the end of the regular season was 2004, and the BCS shunted Utah to the Fiesta Bowl instead of letting them play Auburn in the Sugar Bowl. Before that, the last time there were four undefeated teams at the end of the regular season was ... 1992 (sort of). Alabama and Miami-FL played a MNC game, but Texas A&M was contractually obligated to the Cotton Bowl and Michigan (with its three ties) was obligated to the Rose Bowl.

Not quite the same.

Thirty years ago (1979), four unbeatens remained: #2 Alabama, #3 USC (albeit with a tie), #1 Ohio State and #4 Florida State. The Rose Bowl gave us a great matchup, but the Tide played #6 Arkansas in the Sugar instead of FSU, and the Seminoles played in the Orange Bowl. Not sure what the politics were there, but it was a golden opportunity missed.

In 1973, there were SEVEN unbeaten teams at the end of the regular season. The Sugar Bowl had Notre Dame and Alabama, which was good. But Ohio State (with its tie) had to play in the Rose Bowl, while Oklahoma was on probation and ineligible for a bowl. Penn State played in the Orange Bowl, but not against Miami-OH or Michigan (with a tie).

Anyway, you get the point. This 2009 was VERY unique, and it SCREAMED for a plus-one format. And of course, we don't get it.

Looking back at these years above, what did I do with the McMNCs? Went by schedule strength and bowl-win power to determine the tiebreak. Nothing different this year, which is no knock on Boise State. They were one of the best programs of the 2000s, and they already have an McMNC this decade (2006).

Overall, there isn't much to say here; this isn't 2006, where the Broncos were the only undefeated team in the country after winning the Fiesta Bowl. While I would have no qualm with Boise State claiming a piece of the MNC, I do think Alabama was the best team in college football this year by objective standards consistently used here.

Congratulations to the Crimson Tide on their first McMNC since 1992.

McMNC Revisions:

1. Alabama
2. Boise State
3. TCU
4. Texas
5. Florida


RUNNING SCORECARD:
Penn State: +1977, +1981, =1982, =1986, +1994
USC: -1962, =1967, +1969, =1972, +1978, +1979, =2003, =2004
Tennessee: +1938, +1942, +1950, -1951, =1998
Washington: +1960, +1991
Georgia Tech: +1952, +1990
Pittsburgh: +1936, -1937, =1976, +1980
Utah: +2008
West Virginia: +2007
Boise State: +2006
UCLA: +1965
Arkansas: +1964
Mississippi: +1962
Iowa: +1956
Illinois: +1951
Purdue: +1943
Stanford: +1940
California: +1937
BYU: =1984
Syracuse: =1959
Texas A&M: =1939
Auburn: -1957, +1983
Georgia: +1946, -1980
Michigan State: -1952, +1953
Michigan: +1947, =1948, -1997
Ohio State: -1942, +1944, =1954, =1968, =2002
Nebraska: =1970, =1971, -1994, =1995, +1997
Oklahoma: +1949, -1950, =1955, -1956, +1957, =1975, =1986, =2000
TCU: -1938
Maryland: -1953
Clemson: -1981
Colorado: -1990
Florida State: -1993, =1999
Texas: =1963, -1969, =2005
Army: -1944, -1945
LSU: =1958, -2003, -2007
Florida: =1996, -2006, -2008
Miami-FL: -1983, =1987, =1989, -1991, =2001
Minnesota: -1936, -1940, =1941, -1960
Alabama: +1945, =1961, -1964, -1965, -1978, -1979, =1992, =2009
Notre Dame: -1943, -1946, -1947, -1949, =1966, =1973, -1977, =1988, +1993

2008 McMNC: Utah Utes

AP Top 10: Final Record -- Key Bowl Results

1. Florida: 13-1 -- W, BCS, 24-14
2. Utah: 13-0 -- W, Sugar, 31-17
3. USC: 12-1 -- W, Rose, 38-24
4. Texas: 12-1 -- W, Fiesta, 24-21
5. Oklahoma: 12-2 -- L, BCS, 14-24
6. Alabama: 12-2 -- L, Sugar, 17-31
7. TCU: 11-2 -- W, Poinsetta, 17-16
8. Penn State: 11-2 -- L, Rose, 24-38
9. Ohio State: 10-3 -- L, Fiesta, 21-24
10. Oregon: 10-3 -- W, Holiday, 42-31

So, this was yet another year of the BCS ridiculousness. After USC's road loss to Oregon State in their third game, the Trojans were summarily dismissed as contenders for the BCS title game. Meanwhile, the same week, Florida lost at home to Mississippi and was NOT summarily dismissed from the title game discussion.

Therein lies the problem. Both Oregon State and Mississippi finished 9-4, so there was no shame in either loss. But the powers-that-be arbitrarily decided that USC's ROAD loss eliminated the Trojans, while the Gators' HOME loss did not eliminate Florida. Go figure.

In the end, there were nine teams with no losses or one loss at the end of the regular season, and why the BCS arbitrarily chose Oklahoma and Florida to play for the "title" was just as contrived as the above "evaluation" of USC and Florida after their early losses.

Even more befuddling was the Big XII South this year, which left us with 11-1 teams Texas, Oklahoma and Texas Tech in a roundabout tie. Texas beat Oklahoma by ten points on a neutral field, Texas Tech beat Oklahoma by five points at home on a last-second TD, and Oklahoma annihilated Texas Tech by 40+ points at home. The tiebreak? The BCS formula. Voters screwed that one up, too, ignoring the Longhorns' neutral site victory and awarding the Sooners for running up the score at home.

The BCS doesn't use computer formulas that use "margin of victory", though. Uh huh.

In the end, however, we were left with some interesting bowl matchups which would eliminate some of the TUCs for 2008: USC vs. Penn State, Florida vs. Oklahoma, Alabama vs. Utah. That would reduce six TUCs to just three. Other games featuring TUCs were TCU vs. Boise State, Mississippi vs. Texas Tech and Texas vs. Ohio State.

After the bowl games, we were really left with only four legitimate teams as potential McMNCs: 13-0 Utah, 13-1 Florida, 12-1 USC and 12-1 Texas. That takes care of the bowl-game criterion: you must win the bowl game.

Check.

Now, you must also win your conference. That's been a staple here since 1936. But did Texas win their conference? In essence, yes, they did. They finished in a tie that could not be broken, due to the roundabout trio of H2H results noted above. Since the tiebreak that was used had nothing to do with on-the-field results, Oklahoma was chosen as the "Big XII South Champion". The Sooners proceeded to beat Missouri in the Big XII title game. Texas also beat Missouri during the regular season (56-31), so the Longhorns get the nod there, too. And, they beat the Sooners, 45-35, at a neutral site during the regular season. So for all intents and purposes, the Longhorns were virtual Big XII champions.

So, how to split hairs between Utah, Florida, USC and Texas?

First, anyone who tries to claim that one team is definitively better than the others is idiotic. Without H2H results, we know nothing. All we can do is speculate according to our biases. Smarter people try to remove their biases as best possible, but even in the choice of the "objective", we are being subjective. Therefore, all anyone can do is present what they think, support it and leave it to the audience to decide on their own.

The BCS, however, is a joke. This has been clear for three years now, if not longer. But these past three seasons represent a nadir in the BCS's integrity, as we've seen ridiculous lobbying, media interference and corrupt financial influence deciding matters that can only be decided on the field. If anyone really thinks the BCS "works", then they're living in a world no one else inhabits except those at Jonestown.

Let's look at the TUCs, however:

1) Utah -- The only undefeated team in the FBS this year, the Utes played a schedule with a base SOS of 52%. That's on the good side, of course, and well in-line with past schedules of McMNC winners. They 8-5 Air Force on the road by seven points, they beat 9-4 Weber State at home by 16 points, they beat 9-4 Oregon State at home by three points, they beat 7-6 Colorado State by 33 points at home, they beat 11-2 TCU at home by three points, they beat 10-3 BYU at home by 24 points, and they beat 12-2 Alabama on the road in the Sugar Bowl by 14 points.

The Utes can't help the conference they're in -- that cannot be a requisite for winning a title. The OOC slate for Utah included 3-9 Michigan, 3-9 Utah State (a regional "rival"), 9-4 Weber State (another regional "rival"), and 9-4 Oregon State. Utah split its four OOC games between BCS big boys and regional punching bags. No one knew Michigan would be 3-9 when the season began, so that opening win over the Wolverines was huge. And no one knew Michigan would 3-9 when that game was scheduled years ago. Utah did enough to satiate its schedule strength.

Plus, they beat Alabama in the Sugar Bowl. Convincingly. In fact, of the four TUCs, Utah had the second-best bowl win: they beat a 12-1 team in its own backyard handily, jumping out to a 21-point lead in the first quarter, never surrendering the lead and never giving The Tide a chance to even tie the game after midway through the first quarter. They dominated Alabama like no other team had all year, including Florida.

Utah is for real. They went undefeated. They won a road bowl game, basically, and they did it with ease. They beat six bowl teams, and they beat seven teams with winning records. There was nothing "easy" about Utah's schedule.

2) Florida -- The Gators won the SEC, and their SOS was 59%. At first glance, that's certainly not enough to overcome the loss as traditionally measured in these McMNC analyses. Plus, if you remove the conference title game, it falls to 56%. The conference title games, like the schedules, are not within the players' control, and to continue to use them as examples of superiority is pure circular logic. In any case, Florida played ten winnings teams in 2008 (although four of them were merely 7-6, thanks to favorable OOC scheduling). Impressive, to be sure, but not as much as the experts would have you believe.

Florida's bowl win, a 24-14 win over 12-2 Oklahoma, was tied at 14 in the middle of the fourth quarter. That's certainly not a dominating win. A clutch win, but not dominating. Florida's one loss came at home to 9-4 Mississippi in the Gators' fourth game of the season.

The Gators' OOC slate? 7-7 Hawai'i, 7-6 Miami, 4-8 The Citadel, and 9-4 Florida State. Making the Rainbow Warriors travel east isn't impressive; it's easy pickings. Scheduling The Citadel is just inexcusable. Miami-FL and FSU are regional rivals, so like Utah, Florida split its OOC slate with the good and the bad.

3) USC -- The Trojans went 12-1 while winning the Pac-10 for the seventh straight season. This was also USC's seventh-straight season with at least 11 wins. They played in their seventh-straight BCS bowl game. No other program in the country can even come close to matching that current streak of dominance.

But this is about 2008 alone. The Trojans went 12-1 against an SOS of 52%. Soft schedule? I don't think so. Also, if you remove doormats Washington and Washington State, teams USC had to play in their full conference round-robin schedule, that SOS rises to 56%.

USC had the most impressive bowl win of the season, too: a 38-24 thrashing of 11-2 Penn State, where it was 31-7 at halftime. Pete Carroll doesn't run up the score; he put his team on cruise control in the second half. No other TUC had a more impressive 30 minutes of bowl domination than USC, making the other 30 minutes irrelevant.

The Trojans' OOC slate? 5-7 Virginia, 10-3 Ohio State, 7-6 Notre Dame. All FBS teams. Easily, they have the best OOC scheduling -- the part the school DOES control -- of any TUC. In this decade, Virginia has had five winning seasons, by the way. Ohio State and Notre Dame are perennial contenders, if not outright powerhouses. There were no creampuffs on this schedule, and the Trojans can't help it if two league teams had their worst seasons in years this time around.

Even with those duds on the schedule, USC played seven winning teams in 2008.

4) Texas -- The Longhorns were defacto Big XII champs, as noted above. Their SOS rating? 60&, by far the best of the one-loss teams, and without a conference title game to artificially inflate the SOS rating. Their one loss? On the road to 11-2 Texas Tech, by far the best loss of the one-loss bunch. However, Texas also had the weakest bowl win of the bunch, scrapping out a 24-21 win over 10-3 Ohio State.

The OOC slate for Texas? 7-6 Florida Atlantic, 5-7 UTEP (a regional "rival"), 10-3 Rice (another regional "rival"), and 5-7 Arkansas (a third regional "rival"). Interesting mix, as three teams are traditional foes and one was a random. Rice had a good season, and Arkansas is an FBS team -- as is FAU. Not great, but an average OOC slate.

So that's the skinny on the four teams. First task is to identify the best one-loss team of the bunch to face the Utes, because no one has the SOS rating to overcome the Utes' perfect season.

Hence, Florida vs. USC vs. Texas: Texas has the best schedule (60%-59% over Florida). USC has the best bowl win (easily, since the other two had to fight in the fourth quarter to win). USC has the best OOC slate (duh). Texas has the best wins (four wins over 10-win teams). Florida has the worst loss (the only road loss).

Florida is out, simply because they didn't win any categories, and they lost one, to boot.

So we're left with USC and Texas. The Longhorns have the SOS edge, USC has the better bowl win. USC has the better OOC slate, Texas has the best wins. USC has the worst loss.

Which means Texas is really the best of the one-loss teams.

So it comes down to Texas vs. Utah for the 2008 McMNC:

Utah didn't lose; Texas did. The Longhorns' SOS rating is eight points higher than Utah's, but we've seen similar gaps in the past. The Longhorns' edge in SOS can't overcome the one loss: the last-second TD from Graham Harrell to Michael Crabtree truly doomed Texas in 2008.

Not much else to say, but perfect records will almost always defeat blemished records. That's why they play the games, historically and traditionally.

McMNC Revisions
1. Utah
2. Texas
3. USC
4. Florida

RUNNING SCORECARD:
Penn State: +1977, +1981, =1982, =1986, +1994
USC: -1962, =1967, +1969, =1972, +1978, +1979, =2003, =2004
Tennessee: +1938, +1942, +1950, -1951, =1998
Washington: +1960, +1991
Georgia Tech: +1952, +1990
Pittsburgh: +1936, -1937, =1976, +1980
Utah: +2008
West Virginia: +2007
Boise State: +2006
UCLA: +1965
Arkansas: +1964
Mississippi: +1962
Iowa: +1956
Illinois: +1951
Purdue: +1943
Stanford: +1940
California: +1937
BYU: =1984
Syracuse: =1959
Texas A&M: =1939
Auburn: -1957, +1983
Georgia: +1946, -1980
Michigan State: -1952, +1953
Michigan: +1947, =1948, -1997
Ohio State: -1942, +1944, =1954, =1968, =2002
Nebraska: =1970, =1971, -1994, =1995, +1997
Oklahoma: +1949, -1950, =1955, -1956, +1957, =1975, =1986, =2000
TCU: -1938
Maryland: -1953
Clemson: -1981
Colorado: -1990
Florida State: -1993, =1999
Texas: =1963, -1969, =2005
Army: -1944, -1945
LSU: =1958, -2003, -2007
Florida: =1996, -2006, -2008
Miami-FL: -1983, =1987, =1989, -1991, =2001
Minnesota: -1936, -1940, =1941, -1960
Alabama: +1945, =1961, -1964, -1965, -1978, -1979, =1992
Notre Dame: -1943, -1946, -1947, -1949, =1966, =1973, -1977, =1988, +1993

Overall McMNC Analysis: Part Three & Conclusion

The BCS Years are a mess, of course.

In 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004 and 2005, I agreed with the BCS determination of the MNC. However, I did so grudgingly in 1999, 2000 and 2001 when the BCS screwed up the choice of the #2 team for the "title" game.

Interesting years? In 1998, Sagarin chose Ohio State as his #1 (they were my No. 2). In 2002, Dunkel, Matthews and Sagarin chose USC as their #1 (they were my No. 4).

The years I chose a different champion than the BCS did were 2003, 2006 and 2007. In the first of those years (2003), the AP, Eck, Matthews and the NY Times also picked USC -- so I certainly wasn't alone. But it surprises me so many of the other selectors chose LSU: they had a worse loss, a worse bowl win and lesser results against common opponents. I see this as the distinct beginning of the "SEC bias" mentality that is now dominating the college football scene, for better or for worse.

However, it is also interesting to note that USC was the unanimous champion in 2004 over Auburn, for at least two of the same reasons noted above.

In 2006, I stood alone, of course, in selecting Boise State. The BCS had a clusterfuck to separate for the #2 title slot, and Florida got the opportunity to take down a flawed Ohio State squad when four other teams probably could have done the same. Why choose Florida over those four other teams? Boise State may be my most radical McMNC call of the whole analysis, but oh well. They went undefeated, they beat a BCS big boy in the bowl game, and they deserved it in my mind.

Finally, 2007 was a disgrace to the entire college football scene. In choosing West Virginia over USC and LSU, I am bucking conventional wisdom, for sure. But I really couldn't understand why LSU was chosen as #2 over Kansas, USC and WVU in the first place, although I am sure the preseason expectations had a lot to do with it. LSU shot itself in the foot twice against unranked teams (while KU only lost to #4) but survived simply because people believed the SEC was "so good" -- although a closer look at SEC OOC schedules really shows most SEC teams to be around .500 against quality competition. I know this is a point of contention on RSFC, and it will be for a long time. But potential and expectation didn't sway my viewpoints, as it did so many "voters" in the laughable BCS polls -- which we have seen to be easily manipulated on multiple occasions by coaches' pleas, conference commissioners and bowl representatives.

Either way, I stood alone again in 2007. So I stood alone twice in the ten years of the BCS. Overall, I picked eight champions that no one else did in 73 seasons -- agreeing with "experts" 89% of the time. Most of my McMNCs went to worthy teams in the estimation of others, while 11% of my picks strayed from mainstream thought/analysis.

That's not a high percentage, and it's one I can live with and sleep soundly upon, for we all know RSFCkers are smr4t3r than the mediots, anyway.

One idea that was floated on RSFC was that of "chance" opening the door for both Florida in 2006 and LSU in 2007. Say USC hadn't lost to UCLA at the end of 2006, for example. Do the one-loss Trojans beat Ohio State in the Fiesta Bowl? Probably. Does Florida win their bowl game? Probably. So why would anyone pick USC over Florida for the AP title if Florida was so good? This is the issue with the BCS is most years: it is a flawed system that leaves the selection of the top two teams to chance and the easily-manipulated polls. It's a flawed system, and therefore, no BCS champion can really be considered "real" or "absolute" or "concrete". Likewise, if West Virginia beats Pitt in 2007, LSU can't sniff the BCS title game. But wouldn't they still be considered "better" than either Ohio State or the Mountaineers, if what the mediots and/or RSFCkers would have us believe?

Problems left, problems right. The BCS sucks.

Anyway, that's that. The 2008 season starts tomorrow, and it will bring more controversy and confusion to our fingertips, no doubt. I hope you have enjoyed the experience this off-season, and thanks to interesting information I came across in these studies, I have already decided what to do for Offseason 2009 ...

But you'll have to wait until the second week of January to find out what it is.

Overall McMNC Analysis: Part Two

How off in left field was I on some of these picks? Well, using this list (http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/ia_football_past_champs.html) we can analyze in context, somewhat.

Up to the BCS Years, I stood alone in my picks six times in 62 seasons: 1942, 1943, 1953, 1965, 1969, 1977. Overall, that's not too bad. Agreeing with the "experts" 90% of the time demonstrates I'm not crazy, that's for sure.

See below for a year-by-year account:

1936: I picked Pittsburgh over Minnesota. While Minnesota was a consensus champ, Boand, Football Research, and Houlgate agreed with me. Williamson chose LSU, my No. 6 pick.

1937: I picked California over Pittsburgh. While Pitt was the consensus champ, Dunkel and Helms agreed with me.

1938: I picked Tennessee over TCU. Both schools were named by a lot of selectors, and Billingsley, Boand, Dunkel, Football Research, Houlgate, Litkenhous, Poling, and Sagarin agreed with my pick. Also, Dickinson picked Notre Dame -- which I left out of my Top 5.

1939: I confirmed Texas A&M, the consensus champion. However, Dickinson selected USC (my #2), while Billingsley and Litkenhous chose Cornell (not in my analysis).

1940: I picked Stanford over Minnesota, the consensus champ. Helms and Poling agreed with me, while Dunkel and Williamson went for Tennessee, my No. 6 team.

1941: I confirmed Minnesota, the consensus champion. But Berryman and Williamson went for Texas (unranked by me) and Houlgate chose Alabama (also unranked by me).

1942: This was the first major deviation year, as the majority of selectors picked between Georgia (my #2) and Ohio State (my #4). Helms chose Wisconsin (my #3). By picking Tennessee, I was standing alone here, but I felt Tennessee should have been a co-champion in the SEC due to the uneven scheduling.

1943: I stand alone again in 1943, as every selector chose 9-1 Notre Dame as their national champion despite the fact Purdue was undefeated and had beaten the team that beat the Irish. I don't think this was a reach, although the SOS was certainly in Notre Dame's favor this season. I had them No. 2 in my analysis.

1944: I picked Ohio State over Army, the consensus champion. However, I do not stand alone as the National Championship Foundation split its selection between Army and Ohio State this year. I didn't rank military academies around war periods, as noted.

1945: I picked Alabama over Army, the consensus champion. However, I do not stand alone as the National Championship Foundation split its selection between Army and Alabama this year. I didn't rank military academies around war periods, as noted.

1946: I picked Georgia over Notre Dame, the consensus champion. However, Boand, Football Research, Helms, Houlgate, and Poling all picked Army in one form or another. I do not stand alone, either, as Williamson picked the Bulldogs as well. I placed Notre Dame No. 2, of course.

1947: I confirmed Michigan as the consensus champion this year, although AP, Helms (split selection) and Williamson all selected Notre Dame. I again placed the Irish No. 2 in my final rankings.

1948: I confirmed Michigan as the unanimous champion this year.

1949: I picked Oklahoma over Notre Dame, the consensus champion. I do not stand alone, however, as Football Research also selected the Sooners. Notre Dame won its usual No. 2 spot in my final analysis.

1950: This was another split year, as selectors chose from four schools. I picked Tennessee, along with Billingsley, DeVold, Dunkel, Football Research and the National Championship Foundation. AP, Berryman, Helms, Litkenhous, UPI and Williamson all chose Oklahoma (my #4). Sagarin selected Kentucky (my #2), while Boand and Poling chose Princeton (not in my rankings).

1951: Five different teams were selected as MNCs in 1951, and by picking Illinois, I joined Boand (split selection) in that camp. Berryman and Boand (split) chose Georgia Tech (my #3). DeVold, Dunkel, Football Research, National Championship Foundation and Sagarin chose Maryland (my #2). Billingsley, Helms and Poling selected Michigan State (my #4), and AP, Litkenhous, UPI and Williamson picked Tennessee (my #5). Quite a season, for sure.

1952: I picked Georgia Tech over Michigan State, the consensus champion. But Berryman, INS and Poling agreed with my analysis.

1953: I stood alone in picking Michigan State. AP, INS and UPI chose Maryland (my #5), while Billingsley, Boand, DeVold, Dunkel, Helms, Litkenhous, National Championship Foundation, Poling, Sagarin and Williamson chose Notre Dame (my #2). Berryman and Football Research even picked Oklahoma (my #3). This was a year where the bowl games mattered in my mind, since Maryland lost theirs and Notre Dame didn't play in one.

1954: Two teams were picked by all the selectors, UCLA and Ohio State. I picked the Buckeyes over UCLA, based simply on the bowl game Ohio State played that UCLA did not.

1955: I confirmed Oklahoma as the consensus champion, although Boand chosen Michigan State (my #2). The Sooners' SOS was very poor, but the Spartans didn't win the Big Ten. Otherwise, they would have been my pick, too.

1956: I chose Iowa over Oklahoma, the consensus champion. But I wasn't alone in ditching the Sooners: Football Research agreed with my Hawkeyes pick, while Berryman chose Georgia Tech (my #4) and Sagarin selected Tennessee (my #3). The Sooners' truly laughable SOS sunk them: one victory over a winning team and no bowl game.

1957: I chose Oklahoma in a year where three teams garnered a lot of support and a fourth team was also selected. Despite being on probation, Auburn was selected by AP, Football Research, Helms, National Championship Foundation, Poling and Williamson. Michigan State (my #4 because they didn't win the Big Ten) won accolades from Billingsley, Dunkel and Sagarin. Ohio State (my #3) topped the lists of Boand, DeVold, FW, INS, Litkenhous and UPI. Only Berryman chose Oklahoma with me. No selector chose my #2, Mississippi.

1958: I confirmed LSU as the consensus champion, while only FW chose Iowa (my #2).

1959: I confirmed Syracuse as the consensus champion, although Berryman, Billingsley, Dunkel and Sagarin selected Mississippi (my #4).

1960: Five teams were selected in 1960 as MNCs, but only one selector (Helms) agreed with my pick of Washington. Berryman, Boand, Litkenhous and Sagarin selected Iowa (my #4), while AP, FB News, NFF and UPI chose Minnesota (my #5). Billingsley, DeVold, Dunkel, Football Research, FW, National Championship Foundation and Williamson all liked Mississippi (my #2), and Poling chose Missouri (my #3). Another crazy year, indeed.

1961: I confirmed Alabama as the consensus champion, while FW and Poling chose Ohio State (my #3).

1962: I chose Mississippi over consensus champion USC, and Litkenhous agreed with me. Billingsley went for Alabama (my #3), while Berryman gave LSU (my #4) a split with USC.

1963: I confirmed Texas as the unanimous champion.

1964: Three teams won at least four selectors this year, but I chose Arkansas in agreement with Billingsley, Football Research, FW, Helms, National Championship Foundation and Poling. My #2 (Michigan) was chosen by Dunkel, while my #3 (Notre Dame) was selected by DeVold, FB News, NFF and Sagarin. Alabama (my #4) was the champion for AP, Berryman, Litkenhous and UPI.

1965: Alabama and Michigan State split all the selectors this year, but I stood alone in gifting the McMNC to UCLA. The Tide was my #2 team, and Michigan State was my #4 team.

1966: I confirmed Notre Dame as the consensus champion, although Alabama (my #2) was chosen by Berryman. Michigan State (my #4) also got some MNC love from Football Research, Helms (split with ND), NFF (split) and Poling (split).

1967: I confirmed USC as the consensus champion. By the way, Dunkel picked Notre Dame, (out of my Top 5, since they lost to the Trojans), Poling picked Oklahoma (my #2), and Litkenhous selected Tennessee (my #3).

1968: I confirmed Ohio State as the consensus champion, although Georgia (Litkenhous) and Texas (DeVold, Matthews, Sagarin) also won some MNC love. I didn't rank Georgia, and I had Texas at No. 3 for the year.

1969: I stood alone in picking USC in 1969 over consensus champion Texas. Penn State (my #2) was selected by FACT in a split with Texas, while Matthews chose Ohio State (my #4).

1970: I confirmed Nebraska as the consensus champion, although four other teams also got MNC affection this year. Poling chose Arizona State (my #3), while Berryman, FACT (split), Litkenhous, NFF (split), Sagarin and UPI all chose Texas (my #4). FACT (split) and Matthews chose Notre Dame (my #2), while NFF (split) chose Ohio State (my #5). Another ridiculous year, clearly.

1971: I confirmed Nebraska as the unanimous champion.

1972: I confirmed USC as the unanimous champion.

1973: Five different teams earned MNC selections in this year, but I chose Notre Dame -- along with AP, FB News, FW, Helms, National Championship Foundation (split) and NFF. Alabama (my #5) was chosen by Berryman and UPI; Michigan (my #4) was selected by National Championship Foundation (split) and Poling (split); Ohio State (my #3) was chosen by FACT, National Championship Foundation (split) and Poling (split). Finally, despite being on probation, Oklahoma was selected by Billingsley, DeVold, Dunkel, Football Research and Sagarin. Sadly enough, 12-0 Penn State didn't get a single selector despite finishing #2 in my rankings. Another clusterfuck season, to be sure.

1974: I chose USC over on-probation/consensus champion Oklahoma. Choosing the Trojans with me were FW, Helms, National Championship Foundation, NFF and UPI. Ohio State (not in my Top 5) was chosen by Matthews.

1975: I confirmed Oklahoma as the consensus champion. However, three other teams also got attention from selectors. Ohio State (my #4) was chosen by Berryman, FACT (split), Helms (split), Matthews (split) and Poling. Arizona State (my #2) was selected by National Championship Foundation* and The Sporting News. Also, Alabama (my #3) got a split from Matthews to claim a sliver this year.

1976: I confirmed consensus champion Pittsburgh, also USC (my #2) got selected by Berryman, Billingsley, DeVold, Dunkel, Football Research and Matthews.

1977: I chose Penn State over consensus champion Notre Dame (my #3). Four teams were honored this year, but Penn State was not one of them so I stand alone here. Texas (my #5) was selected by Berryman and FACT (split), while Arkansas (my #4) and Alabama (my #2) each got split titles (FACT and Football Research, respectively).

1978: Three teams split all the selectors this year, and I chose USC -- along with Berryman, FACT (split), FB News, Helms (split), National Championship Foundation (split), Sporting News and UPI. Oklahoma (my #4) was supported by Billingsley, DeVold, Dunkel, FACT (split), Helms (split), Litkenhous, Matthews, Poling and Sagarin; Alabama (my #2) was the third team, with AP, FACT (split), Football Research, FW, Helms (split), National Championship Foundation (split) and NFF titles. Messy season, for sure.

1979: I selected USC over consensus champion Alabama. And I was not alone, as Football Research agreed with me.

1980: Five different teams won MNCs in this year, although Georgia won the most. However, I picked Pittsburgh over Georgia -- and I wasn't alone. DeVold, FACT (split), Football Research and the NY Times also picked the Panthers. Interestingly enough, Billingsley, Dunkel and Matthews chose Oklahoma (not in my Top 5). FACT (split) and Sagarin chose Nebraska (not in my Top 5), while FACT (split) also chose Florida State (not in my Top 5).

1981: Six different team were selected in this season, although Clemson was the consensus champion. But they were not mine. I agreed with Dunkel in choosing Penn State. The National Championship Foundation made a mockery of their title by splitting it five ways: Clemson (my #2), Nebraska, Pittsburgh (my #3), Texas (my #4) and SMU all got a slice. Whatever!

1982: I confirmed Penn State as the consensus champion, although Berryman chose Nebraska (my #3) and Helms chose SMU (my #5).

1983: Along with FACT (split), Football Research and the NY Times, I chose Auburn over consensus champion Miami-FL. Also, Berryman, DeVold, FACT (split), Litkenhous, Matthews, Poling and Sagarin selected Nebraska (my #3).

1984: I chose Brigham Young this year, like AP, Football Research, FW, National Championship Foundation (split), NFF, Poling, UPI and USA/CNN. However, three other teams got nods, too, from selectors. Florida (not in my rankings) was pegged by Billingsley, DeVold, Dunkel, FACT, Matthews, NY Times, Sagarin, and The Sporting News. Litkenhous chose Nebraska (my #4), while Berryman, FB News, and the National Championship Foundation (split) selected Washington (my #2).

1985: I confirmed Oklahoma as the consensus champion, while Matthews and Sagarin selected Michigan (my #3).

1986: I confirmed Penn State as the consensus champion, although Berryman, DeVold, Dunkel, Football Research, NY Times and Sagarin selected Oklahoma (my #3). Miami-FL was chosen by FACT (split).

1987: I confirmed Miami-FL as the consensus champion, although Berryman and Sagarin chose Florida State (my #3).

1988: I confirmed Notre Dame as the consensus champion, although Berryman selected Miami-FL (my #2).

1989: I confirmed Miami-FL as the consensus champion, although Berryman, Eck, FACT (split) and Sagarin selected Notre Dame (my #3).

1990: I chose Georgia Tech over consensus champion Colorado, along with selectors Dunkel, FACT (split), National Championship Foundation (split) and UPI. But Miami-FL (my #3) was chosen by Billingsley, Eck, FACT (split), NY Times and Sagarin, while FACT (split) also nabbed Washington (my #4).

1991: I chose Washington over Miami-FL in this split consensus season.

1992: I confirmed Alabama as the consensus champion. Only Sagarin went astray this year, giving Florida State (my #3) the nod.

1993: I chose Notre Dame over Florida State, the consensus champion. Agreeing with me were Matthews and National Championship Foundation (split). Auburn (not in my rankings) and Nebraska (my #3) also got split nods from NCF.

1994: I selected Penn State over Nebraska in a year of split consensus. Agreeing with me were selectors DeVold, Eck, FACT (split), Matthews, National Championship Foundation (split), NY Times and Sagarin. Surprisingly, Dunkel chose Florida State (my #5).

1995: I confirmed the unanimous champion, Nebraska.

1996: I confirmed the consensus champion, Florida. Although Alderson did select Florida State (my #5).

1997: I selected Nebraska over Michigan in a year of splits, as most selectors went with the Cornhuskers, too. Choosing the Wolverines were AP, FB News, FW, National Championship Foundation (split), NFF, and The Sporting News.

Overall McMNC Analysis: Part One

The big winners in my analysis? Penn State, USC, Washington, Georgia Tech and Tennessee. The Nittany Lions netted three MNCs, while the Trojans, the Huskies, the Yellowjackets and the Vols each netted two MNCs.

Ten schools netted one MNC, while ten schools maintained their MNC totals (albeit some losing one while gaining another). Eight schools lost an MNC from their previous total.

The big losers were Notre Dame, Alabama, Minnesota, Miami-FL, LSU and Army. The Irish lost four MNCs overall, while the Tide and the Gophers each lost three MNCs from their tally. The 'Canes, Tigers and the Cadets each lost two MNCs.

Conference-wise, the breakdown was as follows: current Pac-10 members gained seven MNCs, while current Big Ten members gained three MNCs. Current Big XII members lost two MNCs, while current Big East members gained one MNC. Finally, current ACC members lost three MNCs, while current SEC members also lost two MNCs. Non-BCS schools gained an MNC. Of course, I am sure someone will scream, "Pac-10 Bias!", failing to realize the inherent East Coast media bias that already existed in the AP poll since its creation.

Overall, the teams with the most McMNCS, period, were USC (7), Oklahoma (6), Penn State (5), Tennessee (4), Nebraska (4), Ohio State (4), Notre Dame (4), Alabama (3), Pittsburgh (3) and Miami-FL (3). You know, the usual suspects. Other teams with multiple McMNCs (two, in this case) were Washington, Georgia Tech, Michigan, and Texas. Nineteen schools won a single McMNC apiece.

Overall, there wasn't a lot of dramatic shifting of titles here. Notre Dame and Alabama got the worst of it, and I suspect it's probably because a lot of voters merely saw the grandeur in certain years and ignored some straight-forward facts. Of course, I know this is a matter of opinion, but without "markee valyoo", you just have some numbers on a piece of paper -- and the Irish and Tide suffered for that legendary status in my analysis, while another legend (Joe Paterno) demonstrated he's quite underrated in his time.

Schools that were stripped of MNCs they probably never should have won in the first place? TCU, Maryland, Clemson and Colorado. Yes, I'm leaving Army off this "stripped" list, for reasons explained previously: it's not disrespect, but it is more realistic. Did you know, for example, that a keystone of the 1944-46 Army teams -- Doc Blanchard -- was drafted after his first year at North Carolina and sent to West Point to play football? Also, players who had used up their eligibility at other schools could still play for the military academies/bases. That just isn't right or fair when determining an MNC for the war years.

More to come ...