Kansas' place in BCS title game conversation; more

Kansas is 10-0 for the first time since 1899, but will going unbeaten secure the Jayhawks a spot in the title game? AP

MAILBAG Submit a question or an opinion to Stewart. Your name: Your e-mail address: Your home town: Enter your question:

I wish someone had tapped me on the shoulder back in early August when I was churning out all that season preview material and informed me that come mid-November, I would be leading the Mailbag with a debate over Kansas' place in the BCS pecking order.

"Well," I would have responded, "I guess you don't need me then -- because clearly all these predictions we're making are completely futile. If you need me, I'll be on the golf course."

Oh well. What's done is done. On with the debate ...

If Kansas wins out, I think it would be a travesty for the Jayhawks to be left out of the BCS Championship in favor of a one-loss Oregon or LSU team. What are your thoughts on a possible snub?
--Shawn Bailey, Denver, Colo.

That's a valid point.

The media cannot have it both ways. You cannot on the one hand disparage teams for scheduling creampuffs and then allow Kansas into the national-title game. The effect of rewarding Kansas entry into the national championship game would be to further dilute non-conference schedules.
--Joe, Portland, Ore.

That's also a valid point.

Here's the deal. If undefeated Kansas were to finish behind one-loss LSU and one-loss Oregon on Dec. 2, it would because of the following three reasons: 1) Kansas started the season lower than the other two. That, obviously, is a crummy reason. 2) Kansas doesn't have the same history or reputation as the other two. Also, a crummy reason. 3) Because the voters feel the Jayhawks' resume, even at 13-0, is still significantly less impressive than those of the Tigers or Ducks.

If true, I have no problem with reason No. 3 -- but it would have to be unmistakably clear that Kansas' credentials were weaker than the other two to justify excluding an undefeated champion from one of the most respected conferences in the country in favor of two one-loss teams from other, comparable leagues.

In anticipation of such a decision, perhaps we should examine each of the three teams' cases now and see if such a discrepancy would in fact exist.

The two criteria I heard cited most often last December in weighing the Florida-Michigan comparison were: 1) the number of bowl teams each one beat; and 2) the number of ranked opponents (in the final poll) each beat. Hypothetically, here's how those lists will look for LSU, Oregon and Kansas if all win out (using current division leaders Tennessee and Oklahoma as the conference title-game opponents):

Bowl-eligible teams defeated:

LSU (eight): Mississippi State, Virginia Tech, South Carolina, Florida, Auburn, Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee (SEC title-game opponent)

Oregon (six): Houston, Michigan, Fresno State, USC, Arizona State, Oregon State

Kansas (seven): Central Michigan, Kansas State, Colorado-Nebraska winner, Texas A&M, Oklahoma State, Missouri, Oklahoma (Big 12 title-game opponent)

Ranked teams defeated:

LSU (four): Virginia Tech, Florida, Alabama-Auburn winner, Tennessee (SEC title-game opponent)

Oregon (two or three): Michigan (if it beats Ohio State), USC, Arizona State

Kansas (two): Missouri, Oklahoma (Big 12 title-game opponent)

LSU comes out on top in both categories, but personally, I see no huge discrepancy between Oregon's and Kansas' resumes. The Ducks played more quality non-conference opponents but are hurt by the lack of bowl teams in the Pac-10. And while the Jayhawks have thus far missed playing the three other ranked teams from their conference, they will have to beat two top-10 foes (Missouri and Oklahoma) before the season's over.

Furthermore, even if you were to replace one of the weaker Big 12 opponents on Kansas' schedule (let's say Baylor) with someone significantly better (let's say Texas), and even if the Jayhawks were to lose that game ... nothing above would change. They'd still reach the title game by beating Missouri, where they could still beat Oklahoma, and they'd still have the same number of quality wins.

I don't want to jump to any conclusions with so much football still to be played, but to me, this seems like a no-brainer: If Kansas wins out, it has to go to the title game.

The far more daunting decision will come if Oklahoma or Missouri win out. Now, you're talking about comparing teams with the same number of losses. The Sooners would be hurt by their own, weak non-conference schedule (though it's not their fault Miami turned out to be a dud) and don't have as clear a reason to "jump" LSU or Oregon.

The potential profiles of the Ducks and Missouri, on the other hand, are so similar it's eerie. They both beat a current 8-3 Big Ten team (Oregon's at Michigan, Missouri's against Illinois). They would both have three wins over ranked opponents (if we count Michigan), with the Tigers having to beat Kansas and Oklahoma in the coming weeks. And as if that's not enough, they both run the same exact offense with the same exact style of quarterback.

Ladies and gentlemen, may I present the newest wrinkle to the BCS selection procedures: A coin toss.

Has there ever been a more unlikely, legit national title contender than Kansas? I know Mark Mangino has done a good job building the program, but they've really only been to a couple lower-tier bowls and were only 6-6 last year. The only team I can think of like this was Oklahoma in 2000, but at least they had some history as a program. Where did this Kansas team come from?
--Craig, Portland, Ore.

That 2000 Oklahoma team is the closest comparison you're going to find in the BCS era, and even that's a bit of a stretch considering those Sooners started the season ranked (18th) and solidified their credibility much earlier with three straight October wins over top-10 teams. However, in terms of the teams themselves -- the personnel, their philosophy, etc. -- this Kansas team seems almost a mirror image to that one, right down to Todd Reesing playing Josh Heupel's role as the star-quarterback-from-out-of-nowhere. The similarities shouldn't be too surprising, Mark Mangino and Bob Stoops both came from the Bill Snyder school of program-building, not to mention Mangino was Stoops' offensive coordinator on that 2000 team.

In terms of a national title contender that came in with such little history, I think you'd have to go back to Miami's first title team in 1983. The program Howard Schellenberger took over four years earlier was in much the same depths as Kansas was pre-Mangino. In terms of such little prior warning, a more apt comparison might be Georgia Tech's 1990 title team. Though the Jackets had much more history and tradition than Kansas, they essentially came out of nowhere, having gone 12-21 in coach Bobby Ross' first three seasons.

All of that said ... Kansas is still a long ways from actually winning a national title. They could still wind up being the "team that won a lot of games against a relatively light schedule, entered the BCS discussion ... then flamed out once they played somebody good." See: 2000 Clemson (started 8-0; finished 9-3), 2004 Wisconsin (started 9-0; finished 9-3) and 2005 Alabama (started 9-0; finished 10-2).

1 of 4