Clemson's lofty expectations, Cal's QB controversy and more (cont.)

Stewart Mandel's Mailbag Submit a question or an opinion to Stewart. Name: Email: Hometown: Question: SEND

Do you think we've reached a point where we need to realize a playoff system is not going to happen (for some time at least) and we need to accept it rather than continue to complain?
-- Sam Perley, Charlotte

From the bottom of my heart, Sam, thank you, thank you, a thousand times, thank you. Now, if you can please convey this reality to several million of your closest friends, the world will be a much happier place.

After reading your article on Myron Rolle, I was really surprised that such students still exist. Do you think in this day and age that any program which emphasizes academics over the sport can become successful at the national level? I understand most schools just want to achieve the minimum stipulated academic requirements, but is it possible to do both equally?
-- Arnav, Piscataway, N.J.

While Myron's story is certainly remarkable, by no means is he the only major football player in the country with ambitious academic aspirations. There are no shortage of athletes on nearly every roster in the country who realize there's life after football and are putting their free education to good use. They're the ones who show up on the various All-Academic teams that get announced each season, though, not surprisingly, you don't generally see much coverage of those accolades.

But it would also be highly naïve to think any major football program emphasizes academics to the same degree as athletics. Coaches may say they do publicly, but the reality is, their jobs are dependent first and foremost on winning games. They therefore need their players to spend as much time as humanly possible on football-related activities, be it practice, conditioning or film study. Athletes are afforded all sorts of resources to help keep up in the classroom -- most athletic departments have their own dedicated academic support staff -- but we hear stories all the time about athletes being gently nudged toward easier majors or particular courses. Ultimately, their primary goal is to keep the players eligible, not make sure they go on to become doctors.

It would certainly be admirable if a major program attempted what Arnav describes, and to that end, I give Georgia AD Damon Evans tremendous credit for his controversial policy of instituting fines and suspensions for even the slightest academic missteps. But the reality is, if any football powerhouse truly placed equal emphasis on both aspects -- such as trying to field an entire team of solely B-students or better, or tying playing time into class performance -- that team would fall drastically behind its competitors, the fans would go ballistic and everyone behind said policy would be fired. Cynical, but 100-percent true.

In your list of program-changing losses, how could you forget the game that sent the most dominating program of the 1990s spinning down the toilet? Nebraska's undefeated 2001 regular season culminated in a 62-36 whupping by Colorado, followed by another blowout in the national championship game by Miami, and you know the rest of the story ... totally destroyed one of the greatest dynasties in college football history.
-- Bret, Omaha, Neb.

I agree to an extent, but let's not kid ourselves. The Huskers rebounded to post a 10-win season just two years later.

Colorado and Miami did not destroy the Nebraska dynasty. Bill Callahan destroyed the Nebraska dynasty.

Which Division I-A team or teams do you think would have the toughest time getting into the top 25 even with an undefeated season? Or do you think it is not possible for a team to go undefeated and not be ranked in the top 25 at the end of the season?
-- Matt, Mansfield, Ohio

I cannot envision any scenario in which a team would go undefeated and not reach the top 25 sometime during the regular season. Remember, whatever lower-level teams you might be thinking of from the Sun Belt, MAC, Conference USA, etc., usually play at least one BCS-conference foe at the start of the season. To go undefeated would mean winning at least one of those games, which puts a team on the map and provides some legitimacy when the voters eventually notice said team is 7-0.

Here's the bigger question: Is it still possible for a non-BCS team to go undefeated but not rise high enough to earn a BCS at-large berth? Remember, this happened to Tulane in 1998, Marshall in '99 and Boise State in 2004 back when the qualifying threshold was top-six rather than top 12. At this point, it appears the Mountain West (which sent Utah in '04) and WAC (Boise State in '06 and Hawaii in '07) have attained enough credibility to avoid any such snub. I also tend to believe a team like Tulsa or Central Michigan -- which have already enjoyed some measure of recent success -- would move into the polls fairly quickly and therefore have time to climb.

But what if, hypothetically speaking, a team like Kent State came out of nowhere and went 12-0? What if said team beat a couple of BCS-conference foes early in the season, but they were of the Baylor/Duke/Syracuse variety? My guess is it would be late in the season before the Golden Flashes even entered the rankings. As was the case with Hawaii last year, this team would slowly inch upward due to teams ahead of it losing, but would it be enough to reach the top 12? And more important, would they deserve to?

There would likely be a certain segment of the public that feels they should be rewarded, regardless of their level of competition, but there would be others that believe they're not remotely one of the 12 best teams in the country and shouldn't be able to take away a bid from a more deserving team. I'm just not sure which sentiment would be more popular.

If you could choose, would you rather be a five-star stud QB, win a couple of Heismans, get drafted No. 1 in the draft but never win a championship ... or be a solid kicker that kicks the game-winning kick to clinch two national championships and gets drafted in the fourth or fifth round.
-- Ben Williams, Florence, Ala.

I've got to give you credit, Ben. You've taken what may seem to the casual reader to be a simple, football-related quandary and turned it into a larger parable about personal values in a modern society. It strikes straight at the heart of a question we all inevitably face at some point in our lives. Which is ultimately more satisfying: Personal gain, or contribution to a greater cause?

When faced with such a vexing life decision, a man must search deep within himself and figure out what is most important to him. Which is why, upon considerable reflection, I'm going to have to go with the quarterback. It's not about the championships. It's not about the draft status. It's about the girls.