OK, so maybe the RedHawks and the Owls are nothing to write home about.
But what about South Carolina and Ole Miss?
Remember how, on the eve of the South Carolina-Vanderbilt game, Lou "Doctor of Something" Holtz was talking about how the No. 25 Gamecocks had one of the best defenses in the nation?
Sure looked like it against Vanderbilt. Those guys were fast and tough, and it was a credit to the Commodore players and fans that they rang up 24 points on the ’Cocks.
But after game Holtz said he was all wrong about the Gamecocks. Seems they couldn't have a good defense if they gave up points to Vanderbilt.
But what happened the next week? South Carolina brought the same stiff defense to the Georgia game and held the No. 1 Bulldogs to 14 points (Now No. 2 Alabama yielded 30 points to the Dawgs). So because Georgia had scored 14 points against a defense that had given up 24 to Vanderbilt, the Bulldogs dropped to No. 3 after that game.
I contend the Gamecocks defense is for real and that Spurrier will be taking his team to a better bowl than the so-called experts are pegging him for.
So, Ole Miss must not be very good because they lost to Vanderbilt, right?
Anybody who saw the Commodores play in Oxford knows how talented the Rebels are.
And then they shock Florida on Saturday. Now everybody's talking about how poorly Tebow played and how the Gators underestimated the Rebels, who must not have been very good because they lost to Vanderbilt.
I contend the Rebels are for real — on offense and defense — and that Houston Nutt's Rebels will see the Top 25 before the season's over. Heck, with a narrow loss to Wake Forest and Vanderbilt, they should be in the Top 25 right now.
Why can't Vanderbilt's victories over these two teams reflect credit on the Commodores without detracting from those teams?