I am not an SEC basher by any means. LSU and Alabama deserve to be ranked No. 1 and No. 2. There's no denying that.
But someone is going down on November 5. When that happens, someone is going to step into that No. 2 spot and control their own destiny to the National Championship Game. As of right now, that team would be Oklahoma State, followed by Boise State, then Clemson.
Something about that order doesn't seem quite right.
I know that Oklahoma State and Boise State are each undefeated. All you can really ask a team to do is win their games. When they do, they can't really be punished.
But Clemson has won all of their games, too. They have gone through an incredibly tough schedule, loaded with potential pitfalls. They have handled all of those pitfalls. With very few exceptions, they have been flat out dominant in that run.
So, why are they below Oklahoma State and Boise State?
A case could be made that Oklahoma State belongs ahead of them. The Cowboys have also been quite dominant through a competitive schedule. They had a very nice second half comeback against a good Texas A&M team, and deserve to be commended for that.
But Boise State?
As much as I don't like this argument, what exactly have the Broncos done to prove that they are better than Clemson?
I will grant that their win against Georgia is impressive. But is it any less impressive than Clemson's wins against ranked (at the time) Auburn, Florida State, and Virginia Tech teams?
Are Boise's dominant wins any better than the ones that Clemson has?
Clemson's problem is that they don't face a ranked opponent until the final game of the regular season until the finale against South Carolina. With South Carolina's issues, that win may not even be especially impressive by game day.
But Clemson's early season shows that they are worthy of being at least No. 4, if not No. 3. The help that they will need is possible, even likely. But given what they have done thus far, Clemson is far too low in the rankings.