Started this at California Golden Blogs, figured it has crossover appeal everywhere.

Obviously there have been calls everywhere for a system that determines a true national champion, and for what appears to be the sixth or seventh time in nine tries the current system has not produced a satisfactory result. So I've decided to break down the options and let you guys decide on what system you like best.

Current system--BCS #1 vs #2 for the national championship

Pros: Gives you a clearcut title game with the teams that pollsters and computers generally agree are the top two teams in the nation. Sometimes provides a compelling matchup like this season.

Cons: If there are a bunch of teams with the same record, how would you figure out who the best team was? 45-35? Didn't Auburn go 13-0? Nebraska lost their Big 12 title; why are they playing Miami for all the marbles? How is USC's loss to Oregon State worse than Oklahoma's or Florida's losses? How does Ohio State keep getting back in here (and in the BCS)?

And the questions go on, and on...

Who likes this system: Jim Tressel, Rose Bowl fanboys, Monopoly Man, General Grievous, Amitab Bachchan

Old system--whoever's ranked #1  by the pollsters/computers at the end of the bowl season gets the #1 seed.

Pros: Restores the traditional tie-ins. Big 12 champ goes to Cotton, SEC goes to Sugar, Pac-10/Big 10 in the Rose again. Creates classic clashes and revives local hatred, provides continuity to past rivalries and keeps the sports entirely regional. Makes things easier for fans, and puts a lot of their faith in the computers.

Cons: The computers decide the national champion. I'm sure people will be comfortable with this approximately never. Plus the midmajors get excluded. Plus certain conference just will never get the chance to face off against each other. There is no national championship and college football goes back to being a regionalistic sport that no one on the East Coast cares about.

(Of course you could argue for a +1 adaptation, where the top two teams after the bowls gets to go to a MNC, but that'd cause just as much problems, no?)

Who likes this system: Tom Hansen, Wilford Brimley, Yosemite Sam, Ayn Rand, whales, British character actors.

+1 system--a four team playoff, where #1 goes against #4 in some BCS bowl and #2 goes against #3 in some BCS bowl and meet for the title game x weeks later. The additional bowls could be kept for the regular conference champs who don't get in.

Continued after the break...

Continue reading this post »

As racsan points out, we get some recognition from the coaches, but just not enough from the AP.

AP poll

1 Florida (48) 13-1 1606 1
2 Utah (16) 13-0 1519 7
3 Southern Cal (1) 12-1 1481 5
4 Texas 12-1 1478 3
5 Oklahoma 12-2 1391 2
6 Alabama 12-2 1264 4
7 TCU 11-2 1193 11
8 Penn St. 11-2 1153 6
9 Ohio St. 10-3 1013 10
10 Oregon 10-3 997 15
11 Boise St. 12-1 938 9
12 Texas Tech 11-2 916 8
13 Georgia 10-3 903 16
14 Mississippi 9-4 857 20
15 Virginia Tech 10-4 713 21
16 Oklahoma St. 9-4 534 13
17 Cincinnati 11-3 506 12
18 Oregon St. 9-4 467 24
19 Missouri 10-4 435 25
20 Iowa 9-4 317 NR
21 Florida St. 9-4 246 NR
22 Georgia Tech 9-4 223 14
23 West Virginia 9-4 144 NR
24 Michigan St. 9-4 138 19
25 BYU 10-3 137 17
Others receiving votes: California 128, Pittsburgh 106, LSU 95, Nebraska 64, Tulsa 61, Northwestern 53, Ball St. 13, Boston College 11, Rutgers 11, Rice 8, Arizona 4, Kansas 2.

Coaches poll

1. Florida (13-1) 1524
2. Southern California (12-1)1393
3. Texas (12-1) 1389
4. Utah (13-0) 1375
5. Oklahoma (12-2) 1333
6. Alabama (12-2) 1157
7. TCU (11-2) 1114
8. Penn State (11-2) 1091
9. Oregon (10-3) 1011
10. Georgia (10-3) 904
11. Ohio State (10-3) 874
12. Texas Tech (11-2) 867
13. Boise State (12-1) 809
14. Virginia Tech (10-4) 740
15. Mississippi (9-4) 620
16. Missouri (10-4) 549
17. Cincinnati (11-3) 493
18. Oklahoma State (9-4) 480
19. Oregon State (9-4) 407
20. Iowa (9-4) 250
21. Brigham Young (10-3) 248
22. Georgia Tech (9-4) 219
23. Florida State (9-4) 217
24. Michigan State (9-4) 179
25. California (9-4) 116

You might like Sagarin more; it places Cal 16th and has 5 Pac-10 teams in its top 25.

Well, the CGB blogpoll might have to extend some bias for the Golden Bears in comparison to the coaches and the mainstream media. Carp will certainly be outraged considering where he placed them.

Does Cal's ranking look good to you in either poll? Will it have any bearing on our regular season ranking next year?

In general, which poll do you prefer, AP, Coaches or Sagarin? Any other wrinkles stick out of the polls (Utah got SIXTEEN 1st place VOTES?) that you take umbrage with?

I'm sure Twist has some important things to talk about the shocking Gossip Girl revelations. But he can talk about it elsewhere. Today we must mourn the end of another college football season. One game is left, the biggest one of them all, or whatever.

We've already talked about BCS/playoffs this week; if you want a nuanced article on the issue, check out Smart Football's take. If you want a strong and reasonable refutation of the BCS, check out sabermetric Bill James and his thoughts about the irrational calcuation of the computers as to who should be national champion. What we can debate is who you really believe deserves the national championship.

The winner of Florida/Oklahoma: It's the BCS championship, and the winner deserves it, no matter if it ends in a 7-3 slopfest or not. That's what everyone agreed upon, right? Both teams are 1 loss and probably deserving, but are they more deserving than everyone else? Do you believe the winner of this game can essentially beat the other three on a neutral site?

Texas: If Oklahoma wins, some AP voters might consider ranking them #1 since they beat Oklahoma head-to-head. None of those votes will come from the Bay Area. If they do, those journalists should be fired and deported to Somalia. They beat Missouri, Okie State and Texas Tech, but those wins are looking less impressive by the week. So they'll have to pin their hopes on the Red River Shootout being all that was needed to qualify them.

Utah: Undefeated, so they're Rick Reilly's champion, which means so much since he knows nothing about college football. They waxed Alabama from the mighty SEC in what was essentially a home game for them, so that's mighty impressive. They beat TCU, BYU, Air Force, Michigan and Oregon State, and you get the feeling they'd have the ability to compete against Florida or Oklahoma.

USC: Crushed Ohio State, a team that Texas barely scraped by. Beat up an Oregon team that will finish close to the top 10 if not in it. Lost to Oregon State, a team who had three losses to potentially three teams that'll finish in the top 10. They looked the fiercest of all the three contenders in their bowl matchup, eviscerating Penn State for one half and then providing them pity points for the final half when it was clear the Lions weren't playing to win. More importantly, there's a good chance if Florida or Oklahoma played USC, USC would be favored in both matchups.

Who do you think deserves the national championship the most and why? If you believe it should be split, who should get the pieces of the champion pie?

PS: One piece of good news for Hydro; the BCS will be around until at least 2013.

Brown, who has worked at ESPN for 21 of the network's 29 years, is not only the king of the mid-week college football game but also one of the driving forces behind games like the preseason Chick-fil-A College Kickoff game that pitted Alabama and Clemson last year and will match the Crimson Tide against ACC champion Virginia Tech on Sept. 5 to open the 2009 season.

He's also the person to talk to if you want to know if there will ever be a playoff in major college football. The answer, at least for the four-year duration of ESPN's recent agreement to broadcast the BCS bowl games, is a definite no.

"The next four-year cycle is done, so a playoff is not a consideration at this point," Brown said. "I wouldn't want to see the bowls changed because I don't want to create meaningless games during the regular season. I don't think that would be good for college football."

Started this at California Golden Blogs, figured it has crossover appeal everywhere.

Obviously there have been calls everywhere for a system that determines a true national champion, and for what appears to be the sixth or seventh time in nine tries the current system has not produced a satisfactory result. So I've decided to break down the options and let you guys decide on what system you like best.

Current system--BCS #1 vs #2 for the national championship

Pros: Gives you a clearcut title game with the teams that pollsters and computers generally agree are the top two teams in the nation. Sometimes provides a compelling matchup like this season.

Cons: If there are a bunch of teams with the same record, how would you figure out who the best team was? 45-35? Didn't Auburn go 13-0? Nebraska lost their Big 12 title; why are they playing Miami for all the marbles? How is USC's loss to Oregon State worse than Oklahoma's or Florida's losses? How does Ohio State keep getting back in here (and in the BCS)?

And the questions go on, and on...

Who likes this system: Jim Tressel, Rose Bowl fanboys, Monopoly Man, General Grievous, Amitab Bachchan

Old system--whoever's ranked #1  by the pollsters/computers at the end of the bowl season gets the #1 seed.

Pros: Restores the traditional tie-ins. Big 12 champ goes to Cotton, SEC goes to Sugar, Pac-10/Big 10 in the Rose again. Creates classic clashes and revives local hatred, provides continuity to past rivalries and keeps the sports entirely regional. Makes things easier for fans, and puts a lot of their faith in the computers.

Cons: The computers decide the national champion. I'm sure people will be comfortable with this approximately never. Plus the midmajors get excluded. Plus certain conference just will never get the chance to face off against each other. There is no national championship and college football goes back to being a regionalistic sport that no one on the East Coast cares about.

(Of course you could argue for a +1 adaptation, where the top two teams after the bowls gets to go to a MNC, but that'd cause just as much problems, no?)

Who likes this system: Tom Hansen, Wilford Brimley, Yosemite Sam, Ayn Rand, whales, British character actors.

+1 system--a four team playoff, where #1 goes against #4 in some BCS bowl and #2 goes against #3 in some BCS bowl and meet for the title game x weeks later. The additional bowls could be kept for the regular conference champs who don't get in.

Pros:  Would end much of the painful lobbying that seems to follow the last two weeks of the season, since most of the grousers would get their chance (i.e. Texas and USC this year, Georgia and USC last year, Michigan the year before, Auburn two years before that, etc.). Would allow for two more compelling matchups of the top 4 teams and would definitely generate high ratings.

Also, the Big 10 commish hates it, so it must be good.

Cons: Great for the teams, but will the fans travel around to TWO sites in two weeks? Even if it was at one site how would they stay occupied for the time they were there? The only other option seems to be that #1 and #2 get a home game and they play it a week after the conclusion of the reg, but you'd have to think that's comically unfair to #3 and #4. Plus some big conferences would protest not being included (hint hint ACC/Big East) because their teams always blow.

Other issues; midmajors would still be excluded from this formula under most circumstances since their SOS barely cracks the Top 12. They would still be left out of the mix even if they ran the table, barring dramatic circumstances. The Utahs and Boise States of the world would be out of the party and calling for their own piece of the pie.

Who likes this system: Pete Carroll, Mack Brown, Bob Stoops--essentially, everyone who's won a BCS title already.

6-8 team tournament--Top teams from each conference compete against each other (plus two at-largers), probably first round would give the higher ranked team home field; maybe an option for top 2 teams to get a first round bye. Basically a +2 format.

Pros: Would allow every conference to get a representative, no one would feel excluded, so every conference would have its strength gauged against every other conference in that certain year;

Cons: OH NO KIDS GOTTA TAKE FINALS OH NO THEY'LL NEVER FIND A WAY TO TAKE THEM OH NO WHAT DO WE DO????

Well, more importantly, the more games you add on, the less likely fans will travel along; and because it's a college event, it's not likely to attract the huge sponsors and $10,000 boosters that will put their fannies in the seats like the Super Bowl does. In other words, the National Championship could take place in a half-empty stadium.

Who likes this system: Italian Spiderman, Cesar Milan, Mark Wahlberg, postmodernists, and the Geico Gecko.

Crazy ideas: Anything above 8 teams in a tournament. The Pirate suggested that the team with the best academic GPA should win tiebreakers (something that'd favor Texas Tech in the Big 12), which would be great because a Harvard-Yale title game would enthrall everyone at MENSA. Phil Steele wants a 64 team playoff, which I'm sure will be approved by the year 2509. The college football season would probably end around February 28.

My personal preference in terms of the 'looney train' is to have a playoff system implemented overseas in Europe. BCS winners get a free study abroad program in Europe in the springtime, and they could play football games every week with random soccer stadiums. They could fill the stadium with rabid English soccer hooligans and studying abroad college students. Whenever they throw an incompletion fans could start throwing flares on the field, and then Rey Maulauga would run into the stands and start breaking them with his bare hands.

Pete Carroll would totally set up a pad in Amsterdam and start wearing a beret, Tim Tebow and the Pope could have a 'philosophical' discussion, Mack Brown and Bob Stoops could start learning how to lobby for votes in different tongues, and ABC could dedicate plenty of reality show time to it to encourage Americans to travel overseas. I believe Barack Obama should approve this plan immediately.

Who likes crazy ideas: Phil Steele, Mike Leach, Stephen Colbert, the cast of Monty Python, and Charles Bronson.

If you have alternatives, provide your proposals. And vote and debate--which system do you like best?

Not much introduction needed here. With Utah's destruction of 'Bama in the Sugar Bowl, this issue is at hand. Let's get to the nitty-gritty.

Current system--BCS #1 vs #2 for the national championship

Pros: Gives you a clearcut title game with the teams that pollsters and computers generally agree are the top two teams in the nation. Sometimes provides a compelling matchup like this season.

Cons: If there are a bunch of teams with the same record, how would you figure out who the best team was? 45-35? Didn't Auburn go 13-0? Nebraska lost their Big 12 title; why are they playing Miami for all the marbles? How is USC's loss to Oregon State worse than Oklahoma's or Florida's losses? How does Ohio State keep getting back in here (and in the BCS)?

And the questions go on, and on...

Who likes this system: Jim Tressel, Rose Bowl fanboys, Hydrotech (who I'm sure will argue his case willingly), General Grievous, Amitab Bachchan

Old system--whoever's ranked #1  by the pollsters/computers at the end of the bowl season gets the #1 seed.

Pros: Restores the traditional tie-ins. Big 12 champ goes to Cotton, SEC goes to Sugar, Pac-10/Big 10 in the Rose again. Creates classic clashes and revives local hatred, provides continuity to past rivalries and keeps the sports entirely regional.

Cons: The computers decide the national champion. That won't cause any conflict at all. Plus the midmajors get excluded. No one will object to this except everyone but carp.

(Of course you could argue for a +1 adaptation, where the top two teams after the bowls gets to go to a MNC, but that'd cause just as much problems, no?)

Who likes this system: Tom Hansen, Wilford Brimley, Ayn Rand, whales, British character actors.

+1 system--a four team playoff, where #1 goes against #4 in some BCS bowl and #2 goes against #3 in some BCS bowl and meet for the title game x weeks later. The additional bowls could be kept for the regular conference champs who don't get in.

Pros:  Would end much of the painful lobbying that seems to follow the last two weeks of the season, since most of the grousers would get their chance (i.e. Texas and USC this year, Georgia and USC last year, Michigan the year before, Auburn two years before that, etc.). Would allow for two more compelling matchups of the top 4 teams and would definitely generate high ratings.

Also, the Big 10 commish hates it, so it must be good.

Cons: Great for the teams, but will the fans travel around to TWO sites in two weeks? Even if it was at one site how would they stay occupied for the time they were there? The only other option seems to be that #1 and #2 get a home game and they play it a week after the conclusion of the reg, but you'd have to think that's comically unfair to #3 and #4. Plus some big conferences would protest not being included (hint hint ACC/Big East) because their teams always blow.

Other issues; midmajors would still be excluded from this formula under most circumstances since their SOS barely cracks the Top 12. They would still be left out of the mix even if they ran the table, barring dramatic circumstances. The Utahs and Boise States of the world would be out of the party and calling for their own piece of the pie.

Who likes this system: Pete Carroll, Mack Brown, Bob Stoops--essentially, everyone who's won a BCS title already.

6-8 team tournament--Top teams from each conference compete against each other (plus two at-largers), probably first round would give the higher ranked team home field; maybe an option for top 2 teams to get a first round bye. Basically a +2 format.

Pros: Would allow every conference to get a representative, no one would feel excluded, so every conference would have its strength gauged against every other conference in that certain year;

Cons: OH NO KIDS GOTTA TAKE FINALS OH NO THEY'LL NEVER FIND A WAY TO TAKE THEM OH NO WHAT DO WE DO????

Well, more importantly, the more games you add on, the less likely fans will travel along; and because it's a college event, it's not likely to attract the huge sponsors and $10,000 boosters that will put their fannies in the seats like the Super Bowl does. In other words, the National Championship could take place in a half-empty stadium.

Who likes this system: Italian Spiderman, Cesar Milan, Mark Wahlberg, postmodernists, and the Geico Gecko.

Crazy ideas: Anything above 8 teams in a tournament. The Pirate suggested that the team with the best academic GPA should win tiebreakers (something that'd favor Texas Tech in the Big 12), which would be great because a Harvard-Yale title game would enthrall everyone at MENSA. Phil Steele wants a 64 team playoff, which I'm sure will be approved by the year 2509. The college football season would probably end around February 28.

My personal preference is to have a playoff system implemented overseas in Europe. BCS winners get a free study abroad program in Europe in the springtime, and they could play football games every week with random soccer stadiums. They could fill the stadium with rabid English soccer hooligans and studying abroad college students. Whenever they throw an incompletion fans could start throwing flares on the field, and then Rey Maulauga would run into the stands and start breaking them with his bare hands.

Pete Carroll would totally set up a pad in Amsterdam and start wearing a beret, Tim Tebow and the Pope could have a 'philosophical' discussion about Jesus, and ABC could dedicate plenty of reality show time to it to encourage Americans to travel overseas. I believe Barack Obama should approve this plan immediately. Me and carp would be all over that.

Who likes crazy ideas: Phil Steele, Mike Leach, Stephen Colbert, the cast of Monty Python, and Charles Bronson.

If you have alternatives, provide your proposals. And vote--which system do you like best?

On right now: Cotton Bowl, Texas Tech vs. Ole Miss
5 ET/2 PT: Liberty Bowl, East Carolina vs Kentucky
8 ET/5 PT: Sugar Bowl, Alabama vs Utah

Image via i9.photobucket.com

Continue reading this post »

There is an incredible amount of rationalization going on here. Although I don't disagree with all of this, some of the comments are pretty bad. You don't have to guess twice as to where the sources are.

"I booed...

Aside from the 74 yarder to Tucker in the 1st quarter....Nate the great had 47 passing yds. the rest of the game. Are you kidding me? A senior quarterback, who supposedly had the best 2 weeks of practice of his career, gave one of the most atrocious performances in recent memory on national TV. Longshore sucked and deserved the booing. Good riddance he's gone."

"Nate is a big boy, a 5th year senior in his twenties, who is getting a free ride to one of the best universities in the world. I'm sure he can handle it."

"get over [the booing]. it happens in every college stadium in this country. let's stop acting like we are so superior to everyone else."

"People pay a lot of money to watch the game, drink a lot, and are bound to express their opinions because of it. Longshore was playing like garbage and I think more people were booing Tedford for leaving him in than booing Lonsghore himself. Even if they were directing their jeers at Longshore, can we stop the false pretense that these are impressionable kids? I'm not a "college kid" anymore but am still younger than Longshore, and people in their late teens and early twenties can deal with a little booing without melting down. A lot of guys in the NFL are younger than Longshore. I don't get why would you be against booing just on the college level. These aren't "kids" in my opinion."

"Longshore ranks right up there in the annals of Ca's terrible QBs (remember Jay Torchio???). Thank God both of them are gone! Hopefully we'll have a reprieve until the next awful QB comes on board.

But one thing's for sure.... the Offensive Coordinator needs to go! How many more games of the run Best, run Best, run Best, do we have to take before Best gets hurt or before the OC can be CANNED!?!!"

 

"Tedford should go spend some time at Oklahoma to find out how to develop a QB and a passing game. He has by any measure, completely lost it as a "QB guru" and "offensive genius.""
"This isn't DIII or JC football.
JT needs to do as he professes: put the team in a position to win.
Playing NL because of some imagined "moral obligation" is derelict.

A bowl game WIN is a great catalyst for next season and recruiting.

Thank GAWD for Zack.  Thank GAWD NL actually advanced the ball TWO YARDS for the winning TD (and didn't throw a pick-6 instead).

GO BEARS"

"There are 18 year olds getting shot at in the military and you are complaining about a college QB getting boed?  Is that correct?"

"The fans were booing Longshore and the incredibly poor decision to start him in this game.  Fans have 2 options to show displeasure.  One is boo the choice and the second is to stay away.  The fans chose to boo.  While I can understand the handwringing around booing a college player lets make no mistake that this is a business and a very big one.  JT is paid millions to coach, the players choose to play and get notoriety and praise when things go well.  It seems harsh to boo perhaps, well then do not charge what you charge to go to the games and lets pay the coach something more in line with what a coach should earn for coaching football.  I love Cal football and am so pleased that they are playing in bowl games etc.  Booing is an unfortunate bi product of being a part of a big public business.  Nate Longshore got a grand stage to show his wares to prospective NFL suitors and received a great education at the best public university in the nation and 1 of the very best period (public or private).  He chose to accept the scholarship and all the benefits it brings.  Sorry Nate, but booing goes along with the gig.  I understand the paying public wants a way to display displeasure.  Booing may be harsh, but the alternative would be to stay away.  With money comes scrutiny.  Very simple really."

You sound like all those soccer moms who have never played a team sport but act like they know everything abou the game. If you are over 35 years old, you know the booing comes with the territory-no matter what level of play. We have become of society of overpanderers. The fact that they are in college and getting paid (oops, I mean getting a scholarship) gives us as ticket payers, the right to voice our joy or displeasure on the performance. Remember this is entertainment, not REAL LIFE.

Hmm... maybe I was wrong about Longshore not being the most hated cal player ever.

Dump away. Or respond to the angry Cal fans.

via www.tombraider4u.com

I love how 1 picture=1000 words. If only SB Nation would pick up on that theme, I wouldn't have to put in actual thought. Onto the links!

Four big questions right now, so give some thought about it in the comments.

The Bear Will Not Quit has an optimistic spin on Coach M's departure. Do you guys concur?

However, despite him being a huge part of what Tedford has built at Cal, I confess I am not as upset as some about this (though I do think he's an excellent coach). First off, if there's ever a time to lose an assistant, it is when you have a good young group of linemen, which Cal does. Its RS freshman and sophomores are very talented and ready to turn the corner. That way if the recruiting stumbles a bit, you don't fall behind in your pipeline.

Second, though they have been injured a bit, I must say I think Cal's o-line has underachieved to a degree in 2006, 2007 and this year. Mack has been great, and Gibson had 1 good season. Otherwise, I think they've been good not great. His best years production-wise were 2004 and 2005. Doesn't mean he won't be missed, but I am not sure another coach won't do just as well.

Third, aside from some gems here and there, Michalczik hasn't exactly cleaned up as a recruiter. Finally, Tedford has mostly chosen great assistants, and I suspect this will be no different. More on possible replacements later.

Continue reading this post »

With Graham Harrell getting snubbed by the committee, this is pretty much a three way race. Nevertheless you could make an argument for all four and I'd say these are the four deserving candidates by a good margin. 

Sam Bradford

Pros: Probably the frontrunner unless the vote gets split between Big 12 voters. Most touchdowns in the country,  and hence highest passer rating in the country. Crushed teams after the Red River Shootout, throwing 25 TDs and 1 pick (his masterpiece coming against the Red Raiders). 7th in completion percentage, 3rd in yards per attempt.

Cons: Doesn't really have a signature win. Oklahoma's closest game was by 10 points this season, the loss to Texas. In every other game the Sooners were frontrunners and Bradford never really had to feel the pinch of leading his team from behind. So he has that on his resume. Also might feel the wrath of some voters who think OU ran up the score on lesser teams.

Graham Harrell

Pros: Knocked Texas out of the national championship game with a big game winning drive. Second in passing yards/game, 9th in passer rating, tied for 4th in Tds, 3rd in completion percentage at 71.5% (yeah, 71.5% is only 3rd. Comical). And of course this offense is dependent on him more than any other, and he was excellent in getting the Red Raiders to 10-0.

Cons: We already know he lost, since he was not invited to New York. Way to show you're not elitist Heisman voters. That being said there's a good case you canmake against him--Harrell's numbers slid in the final two games of the season, and he was at best average against the Sooners (and turned the ball over on some crucial possesions). And you could argue his yardage stats were the nature of the beast that is the Airraid.

Colt McCoy

Pros: Unprecedented 77.6 completion percentage. Passer rating of 179.2, 3rd in the country behind Bradford and Johnson. Of the three Big 12 quarterbacks, he has the best mobility, averaging a pretty decent 4.5 yards per carry when he needed to take off and go. And also showed comeback abilities in bringing Texas back against Oklahoma and Texas Tech.

Cons: He's not playing in the title game? The only thing I can think of is that he struggled to find his footing in the first half against the Red Raiders and that he was shut down by the Red Raider defense on the ground too.

This is really a tough situation for McCoy, who is every bit as deserving as Bradford and BEAT Bradford in Dallas, but since Bradford is in Miami you'll probably see the Sooner QB get more votes.

Tim Tebow 

Pros: In almost any other year he'd win the Heisman hands down. If you were giving this to the best college athlete, Tebow landslides the competition. It kind of reminds me when Michael Jordan was the greatest player alive for 10 years, but they handed off the MVP to someone else because they had a stellar season. And then he torched them in the Finals.

His resume is pretty impressive. Finally showing he can come back in a big game by beating Alabama. Fifth in passer rating, 4th in passing yards per attempt (albiet a slight step down from last season because of the Big 12 QBs). He only threw two interceptions. TWO.

Drawback: If you use the same criteria from last season (amazing statistics), Tebow just doesn't compare to the Big 12 quarterbacks. His rushing stats are way down (he only averaged 3.66 yards per carry and 12 TDs), although you could argue Florida didn't have to rely on him as heavily this season with the Gators blowing opponents out.

Who ya got? And feel free to submit a dark horse candidate, just be prepared to back it up.

(Stats from cfbstats.com)