LSU at Alabama Demonstrates Everything That's Wrong with College Football

LSU at Alabama today isn't just the best game of the season, it's the best regular season game in a decade and possibly the most anticipated college football game period since USC and Texas met in the Rose Bowl for the national championship five years ago. 

These are two of the better, and arguably the two best teams of the 11-year-old century. Both defenses are historically good. Both teams take care of the ball on offense and take it away on defense. Both teams have dominant offensive lines. 

Neither team has a Heisman-level quarterback but they have plenty of NFL talent on offense. The Crimson Tide have Trent Richardson, arguably the nation's top running back. The Tigers feature Reuben Randle, arguably the best playmaker on either team. 

At this point in the season either team would probably be at least a touchdown favorite over any other team in the country on a neutral field. That's how good they are. They aren't just the ranked No. 1 and No. 2. They are the best two teams in the country. 

Yet, there are other teams who are undefeated and these two teams play one another, and that's where the real dilemma is. It's almost as though one team is on a collision course with "unfair." 

On the one hand you have four other teams that realistically could run the table, Oklahoma State, Boise State, Stanford and Houston. Two of those teams are in BCS conferences and one of them, Boise State, has been a consistent BCS bowl team over the last few years. 

Is it fair to put a one loss team over an undefeated team into a bowl game? To a point it depends on the undefeated team and the schedule they play. It would certainly be hard to justify putting a one loss LSU team over an undefeated Stanford or Oklahoma State. 

If you're being "fair" you are, to a point, only able to play the games on your schedule. If you are a BCS Conference team and win those games, you have a valid claim to the National Championship Game. 

On the other hand if you are a team like LSU, who has a schedule that is other-worldly, it seems unfair that they would be punished for playing a harder schedule. The Alabama game will mark their third ranked opponent away from home, and their second against a top three team. 

Furthermore, it will be their sixth game overall against a ranked team. They still have another game against a top 10 opponent left as they play No. 8 Arkansas to end the season. By comparison Oklahoma State has not beaten a team who is currently in the AP Top 25. 

Is it fair that LSU has to play what is essentially their national championship game on the road while Oklahoma State's toughest road game this year will be Tulsa, all of 75 miles away?

Therein lies the problem. Either way you go, someone is gong to get jobbed. Either Oklahoma State or Stanford gets punished because scheduled out-of-conference opponents like Arizona State or Notre Dame aren't as good as expected, or LSU gets punished because they play a tougher schedule. 

If Stanford and/or Oklahoma State goes undefeated they deserve a shot at the national championship game but that doesn't mean they are better than LSU or Alabama. 'Bama beating LSU doesn't prove that OSU or Stanford are better than LSU. It just means they have a better record. 

This then, is what it comes down to. The National Championship is not about the two best teams in the country, it's about the two most deserving, and that's why things are messed up. 

In every other level of football and in every other sport, it comes down to a competition between two teams who have won their way to the 'ship. In college football it's decided by polls and who "should" be where. 

Additionally you have a scenario where there could be as many as five teams that finish the season undefeated. What happens if Houston is the only undefeated team? Or Boise State? Or, for that matter, what if both are undefeated?

Does the rhetoric about undefeated change in that scenario? I can almost assure you there is a sub zero possibility that the Cougars and Broncos face off for all the marbles, but if they are both undefeated, why shouldn't they have the chance?

You'll never have a Butler Bulldogs story. You'll never have a St. Louis Cardinals story. You'll never have a Green Bay Packers story. You'll never have a great story about a team that overcame adversity to win it all. 

For all the talk about the greatness of having the regular season meaning something, there's always more to be said about a playoff system. Would today's game be rendered meaningless by a payoff? Absolutely not! 

First, it's about the game itself. If you're a fan of football, it's not just about who wins or loses, it's about watching great football being played. Second, there would still be seeding on the line. The regular season is not going to die if there is a playoffs.

There would be more intrigue as it wouldn't just be about the top two spots. Who is sixth or seventh becomes meaningful if you have a system where the top eight teams make a playoff. Arkansas vs. South Carolina becomes just as meaningful a game as LSU and Alabama. 

More than that though, you have a system where teams, not schedules determine destinies.