Potential sleepers and busts, the view on Bradford and more (cont.)

How will Oklahoma QB Sam Bradford follow up his spectacular freshman campaign? John W. McDonough/SI Stewart Mandel's Mailbag Submit a question or an opinion to Stewart. Name: Email: Hometown: Question: SEND Follow Stewart Mandel on Twitter

Why is Oklahoma's Sam Bradford not considered an All-America-caliber quarterback? He set an NCAA freshman record with 36 touchdown passes and also led the nation in pass efficiency, even higher than Heisman winner Tim Tebow. If you can find any logical explanation, tell me. P.S.: Kaitlin Olson was by far a remarkable choice.
-- Zack Spain, Tulsa, Okla.

That's a good question, because you're right, his statistics last year were incredible. For one thing, I think Bradford gets overshadowed a little bit in his own conference by the likes of Chase Daniel, Colt McCoy (even though he had a fairly medicore sophomore season) and Graham Harrell. Secondly, in this day and age, quarterbacks' reputations start getting built up before they ever step foot on campus. On the surface, it's pretty ridiculous that Georgia's Matthew Stafford, the nation's 56th-rated passer last season, gets far more pub than Bradford, but the reality is Stafford has been billed as the second coming since his high school days in Dallas, while Bradford seemed to sneak up on everyone last season.

Most of all -- and by no means do I consider this a "logical" explanation -- Bradford may be an unwitting victim of his predecessors' success. The fact is, Oklahoma seems to win no matter who it lines up at quarterback. While Heisman-types Josh Heupel and Jason White put up similarly big numbers, the Sooners also won Big 12 titles with the likes of Nate Hybl and Paul Thompson. On an almost subconscious level, I feel like Oklahoma's quarterbacks are starting to develop much the same "system" label as a team like Texas Tech, even though the Sooners have no discernible offensive "system" other than to play the best guys. Like I said: Not logical.

Stewart: What is the worst matchup between schools from differing BCS conferences? Mississippi State vs. Georgia Tech is about as interesting as watching paint dry. The Grass Grow Matchup for 2008 within the same conference is Baylor vs. Iowa State.
-- Roger "The Cock" Moore, Patrick, S.C.

I know this much: Roger's self-professed nickname is far more interesting than either of those games. While I can't see clearing my calendar on Sept. 20 to watch Mississippi State-Georgia Tech, either, the fact is both participants played in bowl games last season. A week earlier, however, Washington State, which fired coach Bill Doba following last year's 5-7 season, visits the aforementioned Baylor Bears, they of the 3-9 record a year ago that got Guy Morriss fired. The sad thing is, whichever team's first-year coach wins (Wazzu's Paul Wulff or Baylor's Art Briles) will undoubtedly point to the victory as a "building block" toward the future.

Mr. Mandel: In 2001, the "computers" sent Nebraska to the Rose Bowl to play Miami for the national championship. For the most part, the media was outraged by the egregious miscalculation and demanded the computers be reduced in importance or eliminated altogether. Eventually, the BCS listened. So, here we are several years later and how has the media responded to their newly acquired relevance? By choosing Ohio State not once but two years in a row to go get spanked in the championship game. It was clear, even up here in Alaska, that Ohio State was just as outmatched in the last two championships as Nebraska was in 2001. So where is the outrage?
-- Mike, Juneau, Alaska

You know, it recently occurred to me that I could probably include an Ohio State backlash-related query in every single Mailbag, were I so inclined. In fact, I could probably run an entire Mailbag devoted exclusively to the topic, that's how many of these type of e-mails I receive.

A point-by-point rebuttal to Mike's e-mail:

1) In both the Nebraska season you're referring to, as well as with Oklahoma two years later, the computers elevated a team to the BCS title game that had been both destroyed in its final regular-season game (Nebraska 62-36 to Colorado, Oklahoma 35-7 to Kansas State) and failed to win its own conference's title. Hence, the uproar over the computers.

2) Two years ago, when Ohio State got clobbered by Florida, the Buckeyes had gone 12-0 in the regular season. They had beaten the defending national champion (Texas) on the road and beaten an 11-0 opponent (Michigan) in their final game. While it's easy to look back now and claim that the Buckeyes were an "unworthy" choice, a) I don't agree, and b) I don't remember hearing even the slightest peep along those lines prior to the game.

3) While there's certainly a better case to be made that Ohio State was not a deserving participant last year, I fail to see how its 38-24 loss to LSU was anywhere remotely as galling as that Miami-Nebraska game, in which the Huskers trailed 34-0 at halftime. The 2000 Oklahoma-Florida State game, in which the Seminoles' only points came on a safety, was far more one-sided as well. Want to take a guess how FSU got into that one?

4) Finally, if we had in fact gone with the computers' top two teams last season, do you know what the national-title matchup would have been? LSU vs. Virginia Tech. That's right -- a rematch of a regular-season game in which the score was 48-7. Given the choice, I think I'll take the Ohio State backlash over what that one would have caused.

Stewart, as you know, the almighty dollar speaks loud and clear. For the second year in a row, Alabama will play a marquee, non-conference game at a neutral site with a huge payday (almost $2 million from the Clemson game in Atlanta). How could any athletic director ignore those kinds of numbers? Could these types of games become the next trend in college football?
- Ken, Birmingham, Ala.

I have to say, it definitely snuck up on me, but yes, I can see where such events might soon become more common. Not only are Alabama and Clemson playing in Atlanta, but the game now has an official name (the Chick-fil-A Kickoff Classic), and plans are already in the works for another one next year (Virginia Tech has signed on as one participant; Alabama may be the other). You can just see organizers in places like Jacksonville (which staged last year's Alabama-FSU game), San Antonio, etc., eventually staging similar, opening-weekend events. Basically, they're taking regular-season games and using them to create much the same buzz as the now-defunct Kickoff Classic/Pigskin Classic preseason events.

However, the finances aren't as simple as you make it sound. While $2 million certainly sounds like a big number, I can assure you Alabama makes far more than that for one of its home games, where the stadium is larger (92,138, versus 71,250 for the Georgia Dome) and it doesn't have to split the gate revenue with its opponent. That amount is also peanuts compared to the staggering $5 million guarantee Arkansas and Texas A&M are expected to receive for their series at the new Cowboys Stadium that begins next season (thanks, Jerry Jones).

And that's why there's still a holdup over whether the Crimson Tide will participate in next year's event. As Saban recently told the Atlanta Journal Constitution, the school would need to work out a deal with Tulane to push back its scheduled 2009 game there, or it would be left with just six home games. Major programs like 'Bama are dependent on having no fewer than seven home games to balance their monstrous athletic-department budgets, not to mention appease their season-ticket holders and the local businesses that benefit from football weekends.

While Saban undoubtedly realizes the benefits of such a match-up (national exposure, an early test for his team, etc.), hence why he gave his blessing to this year's Clemson game, he and his counterparts at similar schools are also constrained by a general lack of scheduling flexibility.