Is Auburn better than Ohio State? Yes, but they still shouldn't be ranked higher
The Big Ten is garbage, they say.
Ohio State hasn't beaten anyone, they say.
There are 4-5 teams in the SEC that would wipe the floor with Ohio State, they say.
To be fair, all three of those statements are probably true. However, that doesn't mean Ohio State doesn't deserve a chance to play in the BCS Championship game if they beat Michigan State in their conference championship game.
We already know that the BCS system is broken. Even the BCS folks know that, as evidenced by the fact that we'll see a 4-team playoff next year. But the broken system doesn't mean we need to feed into it by ignoring wins and losses.
Would Auburn or Alabama (or even Missouri, South Carolina, LSU, Georgia and Texas A&M) beat Ohio State if they played on a neutral field? Honestly, I think they would. But it doesn't matter.
Ohio State won all of their games. Florida State won all of their games. Alabama didn't. Neither did Auburn, Missouri, or any of the other teams lobbying for a spot in the championship game.
Most would agree that Florida State belongs in the title game, but Ohio State seems to be the sticking point. Now that Auburn got the win over Alabama, the popular choice is to leapfrog them over Ohio State, despite their loss to LSU.
Thanks to the fact that the Auburn win over Alabama is still fresh in our minds, people are ignoring that Auburn's overall resumé isn't even close to Alabama. They have a worse loss, and Alabama has better wins, even if Auburn beats Mizzou in the SEC championship.
The bottom line is that college football is the only sports league that somehow believes that it's ok to ignore wins and losses and try to use the eyeball test to determine the best team.
We've all agreed that the system is broken. But let's not break it further by snubbing a team with the longest winning streak in the country.
Ohio State belongs in the championship if they beat Michigan State next Saturday. It's that simple.