Why Stanford over OSU is stupid and 'the bet'

Ok everyone. Let's take a deep breath.  We saw Stanford dominate Oregon for 50 minutes (and almost gag away a 26 point lead in 10 minutes...) and everyone in the media wants to jump them over OSU and Baylor.  In fact, a friend of mine (let's call him G. Pyle to protect his identity) texted me that he'd 'bet his testicles' that Stanford would jump OSU in the BCS this week because 'the media hates us'.  This may not be absolute nonsense as shown by Jesse Palmer's incessant need to "not discount the Utah loss...but they didn't play Stanford football!', but the thought of Stanford jumping is ludicrous.

Why? Let's take an objective view.

OSU is an undefeated team in a BCS conference.  Yes, the B1G is down, but the facts speak for themselves. Also, the Buckeyes were ranked preseason number two.  As stated in a recent College Football News column, this is the first time a team who started number two dropped to four without losing.  Why, you ask, doesn't this permit Stanford to jump the Bucks? Let's compare resumes.

Stanford wins (in order of significance--subjective): Oregon, UCLA, ASU, Washington, Oregon State, WSU, Army, SJSU

OSU wins (in order of significance--subjective): Wisconsin, Iowa, Northwestern, Buffalo, Penn State, SDSU, Cal, Purdue, FAMU

Oregon vs. Wisconsin--What has Oregon done this year? The win over UCLA was nice, but other than that, the stupid 'eye test' is what helps the Ducks.  Wisconsin should be 8-1 but the dumb Pac 12 refs messed it up.  Either way, edge: Stanford (but it's closer than you think).

UCLA vs. Iowa--UCLA seems to be falling after a hot start, but their best win is over failing Nebraska (win % of teams UCLA beat=0.379--25-41) .  They've lost their only 2 'tough' games.  Iowa is 6-4 but the losses are to teams with a combined 3 losses (and one of those losses is the disputed Wisc. ASU game). Granted, Iowa's wins were against bad teams as well -- except Minn--but are these teams that  different? Edge: Stanford

NW vs. Wash--I skipped to Washington because these teams match so well.  Both NW and Wash were ranked 16 and 15 respectively when OSU and Stanford beat them and 'ended' their seasons.  NW hasn't won since (losing on a Hail Mary--but all losses came to teams with winning records) and Washington followed the loss to Stanford with blowout losses to Oregon and ASU before beating Pac 12 bottom feeders.  I still believe NW is a decent team, but the loss in their biggest home game EVER killed their hopes.  I say this is a push

ASU vs. Buffalo--Take the jersey names away.  ASU's has 'wins' over Wisc (disputed) and USC--causing Kiffin's canning.  Buffalo has 2 losses...to undefeated teams.  Yeah, their wins don't wow anyone, but they're trouncing every in their path (except Stony Brook).  Neither has really proven anything, but the 'win' over Wisc is better than Buffalo's impressive record.  Slight Edge: Stanford

OregState vs. Penn State: PSU's losses came to 2 BCS front runners and another division contender.  Oregon State lost to Eastern Washington....yeah. Both teams have equivalent 'bad' wins, but the loss to EWU kills the Beaver's argument.  Slight Edge: OSU

The rest--The other teams don't matter.  Push

OK.  So it appears that Stanford has the clear edge in win quality over OSU when all is said and done.  Now to add in the last component: Losses

Stanford (key losses)--Utah
OSU (key losses)--none found

Herein lies the rub.  Stanford lost to Utah.  People may 'forget' it now and try to ignore it, but those that matter, cannot.  This blemish ends all argument.  Yes, they have (slightly) better wins, but it just doesn't come close to outweighing a bad loss (or any loss).  I don't care if they weren't 'playing Stanford football' that day.  They lost.  It counts.  Are they better than OSU? Maybe, but that's not the issue.  The goal of the BCS should be (and more or less, is) who is the most deserving?  The best team in ANY playoff scenario doesn't always win...and the BCS is a two-team playoff.  Any playoff scenario should try to match the top deserving teams--of which, Stanford is not.

On any given Saturday, anyone of the following: Bama, FSU, OSU, Baylor, Stanford, Clemson, Oregon, and Auburn), could be the best team in the country, but it doesn't matter.  Two get a shot and Stanford, Clemson, Oregon, and Auburn have already blown their chance to be considered at this time.  If the argument devolves to choosing among 1 loss teams, then the conversation changes.

Note: What about Northern Illinois and Fresno State? Yes, they are undefeated, but this is the 'Boise State' scenario.  When you have no wins of any note (and yes, wins over Wisconsin--Bucks, Oregon--Stanford, UCLA--Oregon, Clemson--FSU, LSU--Bama, UGA--Clemson, Oklahoma--Baylor are 'wins of note'), this disqualifies you from an 'undefeated argument'.  If, however, there was only 1 undefeated team (or none) from power conferences, NIU and Fresno State must be discussed (probably won't win, but deserve to be in the conversation).

Right now: it's FSU and Bama.  Their resumes clearly beat all other contenders.  If one loses, there will be an argument between OSU and Baylor.  If another spot opens...get ready for a wild ride--exactly what is expected and what makes college football so fun.  Let the system work itself out, but don't let one game overwhelm the body of work from a season.

That being said, anyone that wants to collect on the 'bet' with Mr. Pyle is welcome to have at it.