Texas Bowl
VS

Navy (9-4) Breakdown

Category	National Rank	Actual	National Leader	Actual	Conf Rank	FBS Independent Conference Leader	Actual
Rushing Offense	4	272.46	Nevada	362.25	1	Navy	272.46
Passing Offense	120	71.38	Houston	450.00	3	Notre Dame	323.50
Total Offense	84	343.85	Houston	581.23	2	Notre Dame	451.75
Scoring Offense	60	27.46	Boise St.	44.15	2	Notre Dame	30.08
Rushing Defense	38	126.54	Texas	62.15	1	Navy	126.54
Pass Efficiency Defense	52	123.89	Alabama	88.81	2	Army	122.12
Total Defense	36	333.62	TCU	233.25	2	Army	304.67
Scoring Defense	20	19.92	Alabama	11.00	1	Navy	19.92
Net Punting	15	38.17	Georgia	42.84	1	Navy	38.17
Punt Returns	88	6.81	LSU	18.64	2	Notre Dame	12.89
Kickoff Returns	118	17.86	TCU	30.62	3	Notre Dame	21.70
Turnover Margin	19	.62	Rutgers	1.67	1	Navy	.62
Pass Defense	48	207.08	Air Force	148.67	2	Army	152.83
Passing Efficiency	30	141.05	Cincinnati	166.19	2	Notre Dame	160.16
Sacks	103	1.38	Pittsburgh	3.75	3	Army	1.92
Tackles For Loss	120	3.54	Middle Tenn.	8.83	3	Notre Dame	6.00
Sacks Allowed	47	1.62	Boise St.	.38	2	Army	.83

Missouri (8-4) Breakdown

Category	National Rank	Actual	National Leader	Actual	Conf Rank	Big 12 Conference Leader	Actual
Rushing Offense	81	132.17	Nevada	362.25	8	Oklahoma St.	191.75
Passing Offense	13	285.00	Houston	450.00	3	Texas Tech	380.67
Total Offense	32	417.17	Houston	581.23	6	Texas A&M	465.33
Scoring Offense	33	30.33	Boise St.	44.15	5	Texas	40.69
Rushing Defense	12	96.42	Texas	62.15	5	Texas	62.15
Pass Efficiency Defense	T-71	131.53	Alabama	88.81	8	Nebraska	90.54
Total Defense	55	358.00	TCU	233.25	7	Texas	251.08
Scoring Defense	56	24.58	Alabama	11.00	8	Nebraska	11.23
Net Punting	5	40.29	Georgia	42.84	2	Oklahoma	40.86
Punt Returns	T-49	9.79	LSU	18.64	7	Oklahoma	16.72
Kickoff Returns	89	20.40	TCU	30.62	11	Texas	27.38
Turnover Margin	31	.42	Rutgers	1.67	4	Texas	.92
Pass Defense	109	261.58	Air Force	148.67	11	Oklahoma	184.92
Passing Efficiency	35	140.08	Cincinnati	166.19	4	Texas	143.70
Sacks	31	2.42	Pittsburgh	3.75	7	Texas Tech	3.25
Tackles For Loss	T-32	6.50	Middle Tenn.	8.83	5	Texas	8.08
Sacks Allowed	27	1.33	Boise St.	.38	4	Oklahoma St.	.83

---

Pacific Life Holiday Bowl
VS

Arizona (8-4) Breakdown

Category	National Rank	Actual	National Leader	Actual	Conf Rank	Pacific-10 Conference Leader	Actual
Rushing Offense	47	167.42	Nevada	362.25	5	Oregon	236.08
Passing Offense	39	240.08	Houston	450.00	2	Oregon St.	275.25
Total Offense	40	407.50	Houston	581.23	4	Stanford	441.42
Scoring Offense	41	29.67	Boise St.	44.15	4	Oregon	37.67
Rushing Defense	22	111.92	Texas	62.15	2	Arizona St.	108.58
Pass Efficiency Defense	38	117.95	Alabama	88.81	4	Southern California	106.25
Total Defense	21	315.83	TCU	233.25	2	Arizona St.	297.58
Scoring Defense	46	23.17	Alabama	11.00	4	Southern California	20.42
Net Punting	77	34.79	Georgia	42.84	10	UCLA	37.76
Punt Returns	4	16.40	LSU	18.64	1	Arizona	16.40
Kickoff Returns	11	25.48	TCU	30.62	2	Stanford	28.69
Turnover Margin	T-59	.00	Rutgers	1.67	6	Oregon St.	.50
Pass Defense	43	203.92	Air Force	148.67	4	Arizona St.	189.00
Passing Efficiency	67	127.34	Cincinnati	166.19	6	Oregon St.	147.33
Sacks	12	2.83	Pittsburgh	3.75	1	Arizona	2.83
Tackles For Loss	55	5.75	Middle Tenn.	8.83	7	UCLA	7.83
Sacks Allowed	10	.92	Boise St.	.38	2	Stanford	.50

Nebraska (9-4) Breakdown

Category	National Rank	Actual	National Leader	Actual	Conf Rank	Big 12 Conference Leader	Actual
Rushing Offense	68	141.23	Nevada	362.25	6	Oklahoma St.	191.75
Passing Offense	101	175.92	Houston	450.00	11	Texas Tech	380.67
Total Offense	102	317.15	Houston	581.23	11	Texas A&M	465.33
Scoring Offense	80	24.54	Boise St.	44.15	8	Texas	40.69
Rushing Defense	11	95.46	Texas	62.15	4	Texas	62.15
Pass Efficiency Defense	3	90.54	Alabama	88.81	1	Nebraska	90.54
Total Defense	9	284.54	TCU	233.25	3	Texas	251.08
Scoring Defense	2	11.23	Alabama	11.00	1	Nebraska	11.23
Net Punting	74	34.88	Georgia	42.84	8	Oklahoma	40.86
Punt Returns	34	11.34	LSU	18.64	4	Oklahoma	16.72
Kickoff Returns	34	23.31	TCU	30.62	5	Texas	27.38
Turnover Margin	45	.31	Rutgers	1.67	6	Texas	.92
Pass Defense	25	189.08	Air Force	148.67	3	Oklahoma	184.92
Passing Efficiency	81	122.29	Cincinnati	166.19	8	Texas	143.70
Sacks	3	3.23	Pittsburgh	3.75	2	Texas Tech	3.25
Tackles For Loss	25	6.85	Middle Tenn.	8.83	3	Texas	8.08
Sacks Allowed	37	1.46	Boise St.	.38	5	Oklahoma St.	.83

---

Brut Sun Bowl
VS

Stanford (8-4) Breakdown

Category	National Rank	Actual	National Leader	Actual	Conf Rank	Pacific-10 Conference Leader	Actual
Rushing Offense	11	224.33	Nevada	362.25	2	Oregon	236.08
Passing Offense	59	217.08	Houston	450.00	6	Oregon St.	275.25
Total Offense	13	441.42	Houston	581.23	1	Stanford	441.42
Scoring Offense	10	36.17	Boise St.	44.15	2	Oregon	37.67
Rushing Defense	61	144.50	Texas	62.15	8	Arizona St.	108.58
Pass Efficiency Defense	95	139.15	Alabama	88.81	8	Southern California	106.25
Total Defense	85	396.50	TCU	233.25	9	Arizona St.	297.58
Scoring Defense	65	26.17	Alabama	11.00	8	Southern California	20.42
Net Punting	30	37.34	Georgia	42.84	3	UCLA	37.76
Punt Returns	74	7.89	LSU	18.64	9	Arizona	16.40
Kickoff Returns	3	28.69	TCU	30.62	1	Stanford	28.69
Turnover Margin	T-59	.00	Rutgers	1.67	6	Oregon St.	.50
Pass Defense	105	252.00	Air Force	148.67	8	Arizona St.	189.00
Passing Efficiency	22	143.92	Cincinnati	166.19	2	Oregon St.	147.33
Sacks	T-65	1.83	Pittsburgh	3.75	7	Arizona	2.83
Tackles For Loss	110	4.33	Middle Tenn.	8.83	10	UCLA	7.83
Sacks Allowed	2	.50	Boise St.	.38	1	Stanford	.50

Oklahoma (7-5) Breakdown

Category	National Rank	Actual	National Leader	Actual	Conf Rank	Big 12 Conference Leader	Actual
Rushing Offense	69	140.92	Nevada	362.25	7	Oklahoma St.	191.75
Passing Offense	17	278.50	Houston	450.00	5	Texas Tech	380.67
Total Offense	28	419.42	Houston	581.23	5	Texas A&M	465.33
Scoring Offense	30	31.08	Boise St.	44.15	4	Texas	40.69
Rushing Defense	7	88.58	Texas	62.15	3	Texas	62.15
Pass Efficiency Defense	10	100.15	Alabama	88.81	2	Nebraska	90.54
Total Defense	7	273.50	TCU	233.25	2	Texas	251.08
Scoring Defense	7	13.50	Alabama	11.00	2	Nebraska	11.23
Net Punting	4	40.86	Georgia	42.84	1	Oklahoma	40.86
Punt Returns	3	16.72	LSU	18.64	1	Oklahoma	16.72
Kickoff Returns	72	21.24	TCU	30.62	10	Texas	27.38
Turnover Margin	41	.33	Rutgers	1.67	5	Texas	.92
Pass Defense	22	184.92	Air Force	148.67	1	Oklahoma	184.92
Passing Efficiency	60	129.33	Cincinnati	166.19	7	Texas	143.70
Sacks	5	3.08	Pittsburgh	3.75	3	Texas Tech	3.25
Tackles For Loss	8	7.83	Middle Tenn.	8.83	2	Texas	8.08
Sacks Allowed	24	1.25	Boise St.	.38	3	Oklahoma St.	.83

---

Insight Bowl
VS

Minnesota (6-6) Breakdown

Category	National Rank	Actual	National Leader	Actual	Conf Rank	Big Ten Conference Leader	Actual
Rushing Offense	112	97.58	Nevada	362.25	11	Wisconsin	206.67
Passing Offense	82	198.25	Houston	450.00	9	Michigan St.	271.17
Total Offense	113	295.83	Houston	581.23	11	Wisconsin	415.83
Scoring Offense	98	21.58	Boise St.	44.15	11	Wisconsin	32.75
Rushing Defense	64	146.67	Texas	62.15	7	Ohio St.	83.42
Pass Efficiency Defense	49	122.57	Alabama	88.81	5	Iowa	91.93
Total Defense	61	364.25	TCU	233.25	6	Ohio St.	262.50
Scoring Defense	56	24.58	Alabama	11.00	6	Penn St.	11.83
Net Punting	12	38.42	Georgia	42.84	2	Michigan	40.93
Punt Returns	6	14.67	LSU	18.64	1	Minnesota	14.67
Kickoff Returns	40	22.98	TCU	30.62	6	Michigan St.	26.66
Turnover Margin	75	-.25	Rutgers	1.67	7	Ohio St.	1.33
Pass Defense	60	217.58	Air Force	148.67	5	Iowa	164.67
Passing Efficiency	103	112.82	Cincinnati	166.19	11	Michigan St.	146.09
Sacks	78	1.67	Pittsburgh	3.75	10	Penn St.	2.92
Tackles For Loss	T-60	5.67	Middle Tenn.	8.83	7	Penn St.	8.25
Sacks Allowed	112	3.25	Boise St.	.38	11	Michigan St.	1.08

Iowa State (6-6) Breakdown

Category	National Rank	Actual	National Leader	Actual	Conf Rank	Big 12 Conference Leader	Actual
Rushing Offense	36	177.33	Nevada	362.25	4	Oklahoma St.	191.75
Passing Offense	97	182.08	Houston	450.00	10	Texas Tech	380.67
Total Offense	75	359.42	Houston	581.23	8	Texas A&M	465.33
Scoring Offense	102	21.08	Boise St.	44.15	11	Texas	40.69
Rushing Defense	89	169.33	Texas	62.15	11	Texas	62.15
Pass Efficiency Defense	83	135.47	Alabama	88.81	11	Nebraska	90.54
Total Defense	99	414.33	TCU	233.25	11	Texas	251.08
Scoring Defense	43	22.58	Alabama	11.00	6	Nebraska	11.23
Net Punting	18	38.02	Georgia	42.84	3	Oklahoma	40.86
Punt Returns	104	5.42	LSU	18.64	11	Oklahoma	16.72
Kickoff Returns	69	21.42	TCU	30.62	9	Texas	27.38
Turnover Margin	27	.50	Rutgers	1.67	3	Texas	.92
Pass Defense	T-95	245.00	Air Force	148.67	9	Oklahoma	184.92
Passing Efficiency	99	114.16	Cincinnati	166.19	11	Texas	143.70
Sacks	112	1.17	Pittsburgh	3.75	12	Texas Tech	3.25
Tackles For Loss	94	4.92	Middle Tenn.	8.83	11	Texas	8.08
Sacks Allowed	21	1.17	Boise St.	.38	2	Oklahoma St.	.83

---

AT&T Cotton Bowl
VS

Oklahoma State (9-3) Breakdown

Category	National Rank	Actual	National Leader	Actual	Conf Rank	Big 12 Conference Leader	Actual
Rushing Offense	24	191.75	Nevada	362.25	1	Oklahoma St.	191.75
Passing Offense	93	184.50	Houston	450.00	9	Texas Tech	380.67
Total Offense	62	376.25	Houston	581.23	7	Texas A&M	465.33
Scoring Offense	37	30.17	Boise St.	44.15	6	Texas	40.69
Rushing Defense	6	87.67	Texas	62.15	2	Texas	62.15
Pass Efficiency Defense	28	113.75	Alabama	88.81	4	Nebraska	90.54
Total Defense	33	329.92	TCU	233.25	4	Texas	251.08
Scoring Defense	T-36	21.75	Alabama	11.00	4	Nebraska	11.23
Net Punting	58	35.83	Georgia	42.84	5	Oklahoma	40.86
Punt Returns	17	13.08	LSU	18.64	3	Oklahoma	16.72
Kickoff Returns	116	18.42	TCU	30.62	12	Texas	27.38
Turnover Margin	54	.17	Rutgers	1.67	7	Texas	.92
Pass Defense	93	242.25	Air Force	148.67	8	Oklahoma	184.92
Passing Efficiency	42	135.12	Cincinnati	166.19	6	Texas	143.70
Sacks	48	2.08	Pittsburgh	3.75	9	Texas Tech	3.25
Tackles For Loss	51	5.83	Middle Tenn.	8.83	8	Texas	8.08
Sacks Allowed	5	.83	Boise St.	.38	1	Oklahoma St.	.83

Ole Miss (8-4) Breakdown

Category	National Rank	Actual	National Leader	Actual	Conf Rank	Southeastern Conference Leader	Actual
Rushing Offense	33	182.83	Nevada	362.25	6	Mississippi St.	227.58
Passing Offense	53	222.75	Houston	450.00	4	Arkansas	303.33
Total Offense	42	405.58	Houston	581.23	5	Florida	442.38
Scoring Offense	35	30.25	Boise St.	44.15	6	Arkansas	37.33
Rushing Defense	55	140.33	Texas	62.15	6	Alabama	77.92
Pass Efficiency Defense	15	105.10	Alabama	88.81	4	Alabama	88.81
Total Defense	24	319.33	TCU	233.25	5	Alabama	241.69
Scoring Defense	17	18.58	Alabama	11.00	4	Alabama	11.00
Net Punting	52	36.06	Georgia	42.84	5	Georgia	42.84
Punt Returns	76	7.75	LSU	18.64	9	LSU	18.64
Kickoff Returns	29	23.64	TCU	30.62	7	Florida	26.08
Turnover Margin	105	-.75	Rutgers	1.67	11	Alabama	1.23
Pass Defense	16	179.00	Air Force	148.67	6	Florida	151.46
Passing Efficiency	54	130.63	Cincinnati	166.19	8	Florida	160.90
Sacks	12	2.83	Pittsburgh	3.75	1	Mississippi	2.83
Tackles For Loss	10	7.67	Middle Tenn.	8.83	1	Mississippi	7.67
Sacks Allowed	21	1.17	Boise St.	.38	4	Georgia	1.00

Preview by RaleighRebel

I am still not over the Egg Bowl.  I keep thinking about disowning the Rebels in football...but dammit, I just can't do it.  In a season that started off with such high expectations, I tried to remain realistic.  However, 8 wins is less than I expected.  Oh well, 2 straight New Years Day bowls is not something that has been the norm in Oxford since the days of Johnny Vaught, so on to the preview...

 

This is a rematch of the 2003 Cotton Bowl, Eli Manning's last game in an Ole Miss uniform.  The Rebels prevailed that day, 31-28.  Will history repeat itself?

 

Ole Miss has played great and they have played awful, I am not sure which team is the real one.  Against Ark, UT, and LSU, they looked like the team that could challenge for the SEC West.  Against USCe, TSWNSNBS, Bama, and AU, they looked like a joke.  Snead has been so hit and miss.  The defense has been outstanding aside from 2 games.  McCluster and Hodge have been spectacular and consistent all season.  Which parts will come together on January 2^nd is yet to be seen.  Quick trivia for you: Who had better stats their JR year, Eli Manning or Snead?  Go look it up, you will be surprised...

 

Oklahoma State came into this season with the same lofty expectations as Ole Miss...they too crashed and burned.  Losing star WR Dez Bryant certainly did not help.  The Cowboys still had BCS hopes however, until they were dismantled by rival OU...without Sam Bradford.  OSU is stout against the run, and good against the pass as well.  They can run the football, and get it done through the air also when Robinson is on.  What was thought to be a weakness, OSU defense, turned out to be pretty good.  Sound familiar?  These 2 teams are nearly mirror images of one another.

 

This is a game of two teams with similar seasons, that had similar regular season endings.  At the end of the day, I think the Rebels are too disappointed to give it their best in this game.  The Seniors will be fine, but Snead will crack and the Defense will have too many holes in the ground game.

 

Oklahoma State – 34

---

Valero Alamo Bowl
VS

Michigan State (6-6) Breakdown

Category	National Rank	Actual	National Leader	Actual	Conf Rank	Big Ten Conference Leader	Actual
Rushing Offense	79	135.92	Nevada	362.25	7	Wisconsin	206.67
Passing Offense	26	271.17	Houston	450.00	1	Michigan St.	271.17
Total Offense	41	407.08	Houston	581.23	3	Wisconsin	415.83
Scoring Offense	44	29.58	Boise St.	44.15	3	Wisconsin	32.75
Rushing Defense	24	112.75	Texas	62.15	4	Ohio St.	83.42
Pass Efficiency Defense	96	139.16	Alabama	88.81	10	Iowa	91.93
Total Defense	62	364.33	TCU	233.25	7	Ohio St.	262.50
Scoring Defense	61	25.08	Alabama	11.00	7	Penn St.	11.83
Net Punting	47	36.42	Georgia	42.84	5	Michigan	40.93
Punt Returns	68	8.35	LSU	18.64	5	Minnesota	14.67
Kickoff Returns	6	26.66	TCU	30.62	1	Michigan St.	26.66
Turnover Margin	94	-.50	Rutgers	1.67	10	Ohio St.	1.33
Pass Defense	103	251.58	Air Force	148.67	11	Iowa	164.67
Passing Efficiency	17	146.09	Cincinnati	166.19	1	Michigan St.	146.09
Sacks	12	2.83	Pittsburgh	3.75	2	Penn St.	2.92
Tackles For Loss	69	5.50	Middle Tenn.	8.83	9	Penn St.	8.25
Sacks Allowed	16	1.08	Boise St.	.38	1	Michigan St.	1.08

Texas Tech (8-4) Breakdown

Category	National Rank	Actual	National Leader	Actual	Conf Rank	Big 12 Conference Leader	Actual
Rushing Offense	115	81.08	Nevada	362.25	12	Oklahoma St.	191.75
Passing Offense	2	380.67	Houston	450.00	1	Texas Tech	380.67
Total Offense	7	461.75	Houston	581.23	2	Texas A&M	465.33
Scoring Offense	9	36.67	Boise St.	44.15	2	Texas	40.69
Rushing Defense	37	125.00	Texas	62.15	7	Texas	62.15
Pass Efficiency Defense	34	116.43	Alabama	88.81	5	Nebraska	90.54
Total Defense	47	348.75	TCU	233.25	6	Texas	251.08
Scoring Defense	T-36	21.75	Alabama	11.00	4	Nebraska	11.23
Net Punting	73	34.98	Georgia	42.84	7	Oklahoma	40.86
Punt Returns	T-49	9.79	LSU	18.64	7	Oklahoma	16.72
Kickoff Returns	17	24.48	TCU	30.62	3	Texas	27.38
Turnover Margin	T-94	-.50	Rutgers	1.67	11	Texas	.92
Pass Defense	72	223.75	Air Force	148.67	5	Oklahoma	184.92
Passing Efficiency	25	142.67	Cincinnati	166.19	2	Texas	143.70
Sacks	2	3.25	Pittsburgh	3.75	1	Texas Tech	3.25
Tackles For Loss	30	6.58	Middle Tenn.	8.83	4	Texas	8.08
Sacks Allowed	92	2.50	Boise St.	.38	9	Oklahoma St.	.83

---

Citi BCS National Title Game
VS

Alabama (13-0) Breakdown

Category	National Rank	Actual	National Leader	Actual	Conf Rank	Southeastern Conference Leader	Actual
Rushing Offense	12	215.85	Nevada	362.25	3	Mississippi St.	227.58
Passing Offense	84	197.92	Houston	450.00	8	Arkansas	303.33
Total Offense	35	413.77	Houston	581.23	4	Florida	442.38
Scoring Offense	26	31.69	Boise St.	44.15	4	Arkansas	37.33
Rushing Defense	2	77.92	Texas	62.15	1	Alabama	77.92
Pass Efficiency Defense	1	88.81	Alabama	88.81	1	Alabama	88.81
Total Defense	2	241.69	TCU	233.25	1	Alabama	241.69
Scoring Defense	1	11.00	Alabama	11.00	1	Alabama	11.00
Net Punting	80	34.71	Georgia	42.84	8	Georgia	42.84
Punt Returns	5	15.78	LSU	18.64	2	LSU	18.64
Kickoff Returns	12	24.97	TCU	30.62	2	Florida	26.08
Turnover Margin	5	1.23	Rutgers	1.67	1	Alabama	1.23
Pass Defense	7	163.77	Air Force	148.67	2	Florida	151.46
Passing Efficiency	31	140.81	Cincinnati	166.19	4	Florida	160.90
Sacks	35	2.38	Pittsburgh	3.75	3	Mississippi	2.83
Tackles For Loss	19	7.00	Middle Tenn.	8.83	3	Mississippi	7.67
Sacks Allowed	19	1.15	Boise St.	.38	3	Georgia	1.00

Texas (13-0) Breakdown

Category	National Rank	Actual	National Leader	Actual	Conf Rank	Big 12 Conference Leader	Actual
Rushing Offense	55	152.69	Nevada	362.25	5	Oklahoma St.	191.75
Passing Offense	14	279.69	Houston	450.00	4	Texas Tech	380.67
Total Offense	20	432.38	Houston	581.23	3	Texas A&M	465.33
Scoring Offense	3	40.69	Boise St.	44.15	1	Texas	40.69
Rushing Defense	1	62.15	Texas	62.15	1	Texas	62.15
Pass Efficiency Defense	11	101.25	Alabama	88.81	3	Nebraska	90.54
Total Defense	3	251.08	TCU	233.25	1	Texas	251.08
Scoring Defense	8	15.15	Alabama	11.00	3	Nebraska	11.23
Net Punting	97	33.70	Georgia	42.84	11	Oklahoma	40.86
Punt Returns	15	13.17	LSU	18.64	2	Oklahoma	16.72
Kickoff Returns	4	27.38	TCU	30.62	1	Texas	27.38
Turnover Margin	9	.92	Rutgers	1.67	1	Texas	.92
Pass Defense	23	188.92	Air Force	148.67	2	Oklahoma	184.92
Passing Efficiency	23	143.70	Cincinnati	166.19	1	Texas	143.70
Sacks	7	3.00	Pittsburgh	3.75	4	Texas Tech	3.25
Tackles For Loss	7	8.08	Middle Tenn.	8.83	1	Texas	8.08
Sacks Allowed	81	2.31	Boise St.	.38	8	Oklahoma St.	.83

It’s finally here, the National Championship Game at the Rose Bowl.  This is a clash of traditional powerhouses.  This is a game with two of the best coaches in college football will meet.  This is a game with a Heisman winner, and a two time Heisman finalist. This is a game with 9 All-Americans. This is what college football should be. The #1 Alabama Crimson Tide will square off with the #2 Texas Longhorns on Thursday, and you should be ready for a hell of a game.

Texas Offense vs. Alabama Defense

The two teams that gave Texas and QB Colt McCoy the most trouble were Nebraska and Oklahoma. One of the ways they accomplished this was with a lot of matchup-zone coverage, which disrupted much of Texas’ dink-and-dunk passing game.  Expect to see Kirby Smart call many of the same coverages, trying to take away the short-intermediate zones, where McCoy has been most effective.  By limiting the Texas wide receivers ability to get separation, the Tide will attempt to take McCoy out of his comfort zone as one of the most effective passers in college football history.

Expect Rolando McClain of the Tide to play a huge role in coverage, as he has all year. The Butkus Award winner is one of the best coverage linebackers in the country, and plays a dual role on pass defense. His first responsibility is the underneath middle in zone coverage.  Then, if the pocket begins collapsing, he turns up the heat in a delayed spy role, looking for any running creases that might open up and attacking the quarterback when he looks to run with the ball. He excelled in these roles against Virginia Tech’s Tyrod Taylor and Florida’s Tim Tebow earlier in the year, and will attempt to do the same against McCoy

The most effective way for Texas to slow down Alabama’s aggressive scheme is to attack early on trying to burn the Tide deep.  Texas wide receiver  Jordan Shipley is the Longhorns’ most versatile threat, but expect Texas to try to work their other wide receivers Malcolm Williams, James Kirkendoll, Maquise Goodwin, and Dan Buckner deep as well.  Williams has proven to be the most consistent deep threat for Texas, and may be able to stretch the field if Alabama gets greedy.

Alabama Offense vs. Texas Offense

Texas Defensive Coordinator Will Muschamp is a Saban disciple, and does a great job disguising fronts, coverages, and blitzes.  This could prove tricking for the Alabama offensive line and quarterback Greg McElroy. The flexibility of two Texas defenders, defensive end Sergio Kindle and safety Earl Thomas, will allow Texas to switch formations easily without making personnel changes. Kindle is a natural end, but is also adept at linebacker when called upon, while Thomas has shown that he is just as effective in deep middle zone coverage as he is working man-to-man with slot receivers, as well as being able to sneak into the box to support the run defense. It could be difficult for the Tide early in the game to really know what to expect from the Longhorns.

Alabama running back Mark Ingram will get most of his touches on the ground, but may also be more involved than usual in the passing game. He is extremely effective on screens (see the 69 yard gain against Florida), but can also be used on flare and angle routes out of the backfield.   If the Longhorns get overly aggressive, these routes could prove useful in burning them, especially on third and long situations.  Backup running back Trent Richardson could very well be just as good as Ingram, and expect him to get plenty of carries as well.

Although when people think about the Alabama wide receivers, the first name that comes to mind is wide receiver Julio Jones, it’s actually wide receiver Marquis Maze that Texas should be most worried about.  While opponents have been cheating safeties up into the box to try to limit the rushing attack, or rolling a safety over top to limit the big play to Jones, Maze is often left in single coverage.   Expect Maze to get the ball on bubble screens, as well as coming out of the slot on the same side of the field with Jones.  He’ll also get quick slants and outs on the opposite side of the field as Jones, and possibly the occasional deep post or out and up.

Final Thought

There really isn’t much of a talent gap between these teams.  Both have been very effective using their style of play, which are pretty different styles.  Alabama’s offense is run first, while Texas uses the passing game more, and that has worked for both teams this season.  In the end, it may be Texas’ less than stellar rushing attack and predictability on offense that will hurt them.  Against the best defenses they faced in Oklahoma and Nebraska, they were challenged to win by using the vertical passing game, and the Longhorns struggled to do so, putting up 16 and 13 points respectively.   Saban and Smart have had over a month to game plan on defense, and this will be the best unit that Texas has faced all season.   In the second half, expect Alabama’s powerful rushing attack to take over the game and earn the Crimson Tide their first BCS National Championship.

Prediction

Alabama 27  Texas 17