Early Rankings are Rank

Michigan State is two plays away from being 3-0. Instead, the Spartans are 1-2.

Notre Dame is one play away from being 1-2. Or 3-0. Instead, the Irish are a fair, you-win-some-you-lose-some 2-1.

Miami, everyone's darling as the autumnal equinox arrives, is one dropped pass by a Florida State tight end away from being 1-1. That record would put the Hurricanes on worse footing than such early season disappointments as Ohio State, Oklahoma, and USC. Instead, scribes from coast to coast are anointing quarterback Jacory Harris and the Canes as being "back."

Me, I'm just waiting to see Miami play its first game on a Saturday.

It's early. We are still at the stage where just one play is the difference between being ranked No. 18 (Florida State) and No. 9 (the Hurricanes). Between being unranked (the Irish) and being ranked at least in the top 15 (the Irish). The rankings do not matter yet-or at least they shouldn't -- and at least the BCS shows prudence by not introducing their rankings until October.

Not to slight Miami. The road win in Tallahassee was Harris' coming-out party and last Thursday night's victory against another above-average ACC foe, Georgia Tech, at MoreCowbell Stadium, or whatever they're calling it these days, was even more impressive. Miami travels to Blacksburg, Va., this weekend and then hosts Oklahoma October 3. If the Hurricanes are 4-0 on Columbus Day, they deserve to be ranked No. 1. Nobody will have played a more difficult schedule through four games.

So can we at least acknowledge the utter futility -- and pointlessness -- of Web sites providing us weekly BCS bowl pairing prognostications and Heisman Watch updates in the season's opening month? At the two sites I know of that do this -- SI.com and College Football News --Florida and Texas are slated to meet in the BCS Championship game as of today.

Fine. They have to pick somebody.

But what happens if, in two weeks, Miami is 4-0. Who would have a more impressive resume through four games than the Canes? Would they not be slotted ahead of either of these two preseason favorites simply because nobody foresaw this in August?

< And as for the Heisman Watch ... It's like picking the American League MVP by Cinco de Mayo, no? Jimmy Clausen was not on SI.com's Heisman Watch top-10 list a week ago, and now he's No. 4? After having, from a strictly statistical standpoint, the weakest outing of his three games thus far on Saturday? How goes that? (Credit the writer, my man Gene Menez, with admitting that last week's omission was "a mistake").

The problem is that such sites and such opinions do influence voters, be it in the polls or in the Heisman ballots. They shouldn't, but they do. And this is nothing new. In 1964 Notre Dame quarterback John Huarte won the Heisman primarily because the Irish, after a 15-season fallow period, experienced a stunning resurgence (first-year head coach Ara Parseghian made the cover of Time magazine). Huarte's numbers were terrific, but it was also a year in which Gale Sayers led the nation in rushing and all-timer defensive studs such as Dick Butkus and Tommy Nobis were forging their legends.

Dan Jenkins, who covered college football for Sports Illustrated then and was recently asked about Huarte's Heisman, wrote in response (to author Jim Dent), "What sane person actually thought John Huarte was a greater football player than Gale Sayers, Joe Namath, Tucker Frederickson, Dick Butkus, Tommy Nobis? Stop me before I kill more."

Exactly.

The point is, I don't want to hear someone proclaim authoritatively on TV, as I heard someone do on Sunday, that "Tim Tebow is going to win a second Heisman" as if the race is over. Not in September. I don't want to be force-fed that the Gators and Longhorns are the A-list teams when a pair of C-named programs, Cal and Cincinnati, have been more outstanding thus far.

Why not? Because the mindless repetition becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy in voters' minds. Rankings becomes a matter of reputation as opposed to performance. Consider: how many other schools besides Penn State could find themselves ranked No. 5 after a September slate of home games versus Akron, Syracuse and Temple? Whereas Cincinnati, which has an identical record and has already taken down a pair of '08 bowl teams on the road (one of them, Rutgers, emphatically), is only 14th?

Here's the dirty little secret about adults, particularly those who opine for a living: They hate to admit when they're wrong (we're all a little bit Fonzie). Hence, if you have Florida-Texas-USC 1-2-3 in your preseason poll, only a loss by one of that trio will upset your paradigm.

Factor that into the reality that at this point in the season one or two plays can be the difference between undefeated and under-.500 and it is like calling the race after the Iowa caucus (which, sadly, is becoming more and more the case).



Michigan State is 1-2 and if not for an offsides penalty on an opponent's errant field-goal attempt and an overthrown pass to a wide open receiver in the end zone, could well be 3-0 (I must take into account the fallacy of the predetermined outcome, i.e., it is impossible to assume that the Notre Dame game would have played out the same way had the Spartans come into South Bend 2-0 instead of 1-1). Florida State is 2-1, but the Seminoles would be 3-0 had their tight end held on to Christian Ponder's admittedly low pass attempt on the final play of the season-opener with Miami. And does anyone have a more impressive road win thus far than FSU's in Provo, Utah last Saturday?

It's early. We are at a point in the calendar in which any player who has incurred an injury thus far can used a medical redshirt and be granted an additional season. It's the NCAA's way of saying, "Not enough has happened yet for us to dock you a full year." So, too, should it be with rankings. Any proclamations about a program being on the rise (Miami) or on the decline (USC) are suspect.

Except for Washington.