2009 National Title Game and the Asterisk Argument

Last night's game was awesome. It was a game that featured big plays, big injuries, and a big win for a coach who has big contract over a big coach that has an even bigger contract.

It's time to celebrate Alabama and Nick Saban's 3 year turnaround of a perennial power that had been dormant for a decade? A starting QB that hasn't lost a game since middle school? A running back that became the first player since Matt Leinhart to win the Heisman and National Title in the same season?

Nope.

No, we have to have the "asterisk" argument. Why? Because of articles like these. And these. And these.

So, allow me to respond to the following points. Before I begin, let me say this: my heart goes out to Texas fans. As a Cleveland fan, I have always been amazed that my teams find new, interesting, and increasingly unpredictable and inexplicable to lose big games. Watch the Shot, the Drive, the Fumble, the Stop, the 9th, etc. It is frustrating. It makes you want to cry. It makes you break beer bottles, windows, and car windshields. I have done two of those, and seen one. It's horrible.

It doesn't change the fact that you lost, fair and square.

Point 1: With Colt in, clearly Texas would have run away with that game. After all, they only lost by 16 with a true freshmen!

False. I'm certainly not going to argue that Colt playing wouldn't have been better for Texas. He's a great player. But to say definitively that he would make a 16 point difference is ridiculous. If he was in the game, might they have scored a TD on that second possession? Yes, it's possible. But, equally possible, is that Alabama could have still held them to a field goal and actually gotten a bigger momentum swing from holding Texas to a FG. Or, since they never would have ran the ball inside the 5 with Colt, there is also a possibility that Alabama could have intercepted McCoy, who knows, maybe even could have ran it back for a TD. What would have happened for the rest of the game if Alabama actually went up 7-3? To say if we changed the past in this one way, this exact result would have happened, is ridiculous and faulty. Could Texas have won with Colt in the game? Yes. Could Colt have also played so bad, that he was yanked and Gilbert would have ended up playing anyway.

The other problem is that we have no idea what the coaches would have done had McCoy stayed in the game. Obviously, Texas would have been much more aggressive, that's a given. Alabama probably would have also responded by blitzing more, but bringing up a safety to bracket Shipley rather than playing cover 2 to avoid the big play. Who would've won that battle-- we'll never know. Likewise, would McElroy had only thrown the ball 11 times all game had McCoy stayed in the game? Probably not, and probably would have gotten the ball to Julio Jones more than once. Texas' D looked great in the second half, but it is also easy to look good when every sequence is "run, run, play action pass on 3rd and long."

Point 2: Ok, but you have to admit, with Colt playing the game, Texas never would have looked that sloppy

Sorry, but they would. The sloppiness argument really does not hold weight. It's a bowl game. The BCS Bowls always have this problem-- it's a natural consequence of not playing a game for over a month. When you don't play, you get rusty. No amount of practice, scrimmaging, or drills can prevent it. Think back to week one, and how bad and out or sorts good teams looked. That was after 5 weeks of practice, but it wasn't enough. The same thing happens with bowl games. Rust leads to miscommunication, dropped passes, blown coverages, blown protections-- all the stuff we saw last night. One player getting injured isn't what caused this problem. The problem is the bowl games in general. We saw it in the Rose Bowl, Orange, and Sugar. I mean, look back to last year's National Title Game. Florida was stagnant on offense, Bradford looked completely out of sync with his receivers, and it was sloppy. Second half-- a little better by both teams. This year's game, more or less the exact same formula. It was foolish to expect this year's game to be any different on either side.

Point 3: Whatever, dick. Alabama may have won, but it was without Colt. Therefore, it's not a real win. It's an asterisk

You have got to be kidding me. Injuries happen. They are part of the game. If you are a good team, you rebound and recover. If not, you struggle. Was Colt's injure at an ideal moment? Nope, it came at a horrible time, but that's the game sometimes. This is not the first time it has happened.

What about Ohio State in 2006? They go down 7-0, Ted Ginn, Jr. then returns the kick off 100 yards to tie the game, showing he's by far the fastest and arguably most athletic player on the field that game. When he teammates jump on him, they accidently break his foot. Without him, Ohio State no longer has any deep threat to challenge a weak Florida secondary, which allows Florida to rely on single coverage on the WRs, bring a safety up to stop the run, and blitz with impunity to prevent Troy Smith from ever setting his feet. Did Ginn make a big difference? Huge, I know because even though he didn't have many big catches against Michigan that year, he attracted so much attention it left huge wholes in Michigan's defense for other receivers to get open and the running game to attack. Let's put an asterisk next to Florida, since Ginn was actually a better player arguably than McCoy, since he was a Top 10 pick that year and now McCoy has a 2nd round grade from some people. I've never heard anyone argue this, other than idiot rednecks in Gnaddenhutten, OH (real place, google earth it).

Or what about last year? I don't see anyone giving Utah an asterisk for their Sugar Bowl win last year after Andre Smith was suspended the week of the game, giving him replacement virtually no time to prepare and the offensive line even less to gel? Cohesion is essential to any offensive line, and no matter how good your QB or running back may be, without the big uglies helping them out up front they aren't going anywhere. Left tackle anchors any offensive line, which means as much as any other player on an offense, so asterisk? Why don't we take that win away from the Mountain West, or try to discredit or discount it?

Or, even better, let's look at Texas' own experience this season. I don't remember hearing any Oklahoma fans say at the start of the Red River Shoot Out, "You know, if Bradford gets hurt in the first drive of this game, that would actually help open up our game plan." Oklahoma lost 16-13 that game. Is Sam Bradford 3 points better than Landry Jones? Probably. Would Texas have made it to the National Title game without that win? Probably not. Either undefeated TCU or Cincinnati would have made it, or even a 1 loss Florida would have gone in. After all, Oklahoma was still one of Texas' better wins this year, and losing that game would really have hurt their BCS rankings.

The same thing is true with the title game. Alabama is a team built on its front 7, so just imagine how good they would have been had starting LB Dont'a Hightower not been lost for the year in September. Would Texas have been able to score even 21 points with that full defense on the field?

I can't say it enough: injuries happen. They suck, it is frustrating and infuriating when it happens to your team, but they are part of the game. To discount your opponent's victory in a title game is weak. Be upset, be frustrated, but at the end of the day admit the truth.