but I would hasten to point out that a win over Baylor is historically a win over a BCS conference opponent in only the most technical sense. Year in and year out, Baylor is putrid and a decisive win over them merely means that you’re average.

And Ole Miss was a cellar-dweller in the SEC breaking in a new coach and quarterback. Wake needed a last minute field goal to beat them at home.. That’s just flat unimpressive to me. Now Tech’s win over Boston College was something different. It was ugly, to be sure, but it was a win against a favored team while breaking in a new offense. I don’t often say this, but right now Georgia Tech may be a more impressive football team than Wake Forest, if we’re resume ranking (which I don’t. I just have my capuchin monkey Jimbo Joker Paterno throw darts at a board.)

I figured that was you, Elmo Scotty.

Joe Cox kept playing on Saturday. So did Richard Samuel. Lots and lots of Georgia freshmen played against Georgia Southern.

I don’t quarrel with a coach like Steve Spurrier running it up, as much as I disliked it when he did it to my team. Coach Spurrier was man enough to take it when what went around came around; he asked for no quarter from Nebraska when the ’Huskers laid a 62-24 whipping on him in the national championship game. (If memory serves, the Evil Genius was even seen pinwheeling his arm, Pete Townshend-style, to signal to Tom Osborne that he did not expect, or even want, Dr. Tom to let up on him.)

Urban Meyer wants it both ways, though. He wants to be able to whine about last year’s end zone celebration—-to the point of writing a book in which he complains about it—-even though Georgia suffered the requisite penalty for its unsportsmanlike act (twice, as there were two flags for 30 yards).

However, he also wants to have his star quarterback on the field in the final minutes of the game, flinging it downfield in an effort to embarrass an opponent and cover the point spread. For this, there is no immediate retribution.

I’m sorry, but it’s one or the other. Coach Meyer doesn’t get to complain about an end zone celebration for which the ’Dawgs were penalized immediately and appropriately if he refuses to hear complaining for his unsportsmanlike acts for which there are no short-term consequences.

I personally don’t think anyone ought to be either a bully or a crybaby, but, if a fellow has decided to be one, he ought to give up the right to be the other. Coach Meyer wants to be both, which is uncool, uncouth, and deserving of scorn. I have enough respect for you, Year2, to believe that, if we were talking about any coach other than your own, you’d agree with me. Steve Spurrier has earned my grudging respect; Urban Meyer is a hypocrite who deserves every criticism he gets. If he can’t stand the heat, he can go back to the M.A.C.

The bottom line is that, whenever you can kneel it out, you should kneel it out, and, if you don’t, you ought to be willing to accept the fact that some fans are going to voice legitimate complaints that you should have. If you’re not willing to accept that, you at least ought to quit whining about it when you’re on the receiving end of it.

Urban Crier wants to make sure the only one allowed to whine or to gloat is him. He wants to be able to dish it out without having to take it. I have no patience with people like that.

If you want to keep running your regular offense with second and third stringers in the game in order to get them reps, I have no problem with that. In fact, I was overjoyed to see UGA employ that strategy on Saturday, as opposed to bringing in backups to run directly in to eight man fronts. If the defense is still unable to stop a team in that situation, they have nobody to blame. However, UF did not have getting backups some work in mind. Whether they were trying to cover the spread, puff up Tebow’s stats, or simply embarrass the Canes, Urban Meyer’s heart (an organ whose existence I am beginning to question) was not in the right place. For comparison, you did not see Coach Richt trotting in Knowshon late in the game when UGA had the ball at the five yard line in order to get him one more touchdown. That would have been rubbing it in, poor sportsmanship of the worst order. Instead, UGA called a play they typically would in that situation, while still using only backups, and Richard Samuel was rewarded with a touchdown. You will not see UGA keeping their starters in during a game in which they lead by 20 with minutes to play and throwing a 50 yard bomb to the endzone, just for the sake of adding one more touchdown to Matthew Stafford’s stat sheet. Obviously, that is a place where UGA and UF differ.

… that I missed most of this, so my comment will likely be like the proverbial sound a tree makes when it falls and there is nobody to hear it. But here is my take.

Meyer was wrong. Why? Because he made a deliberate decision to try to increase the score using most of his starters when the game was no longer in doubt. Is Urban Meyer a bad guy for doing that? Nope. Just wrong in the instant case.

Here is the rationale. When you have your foot on the neck of your opponent, you don’t grind in your heel. Nor do you console, aid or abed him in any way. All of those things are unsportsmanlike. When the game was no longer in doubt, Meyer should have pulled his starters and run full-speed, hard plays with the bench with two caveats: a) no passing plays except on third or forth down and designed to pick up more than a first down (if they do, fine, that’s just the breaks) and no field goal attempts — it’s a touchdown or nothing. Here are the benefits of such a strategy:

• It permits the opponent to lose respectfully;
• It prevents a coach from looking like a hypocrite;
• It reduces the possibility of an opponent believing you are trying to break it off in their team and performing an unsportsmanlike act, which could lead to repercussions or violence for both teams;
• It is true to the spirit of the game;
• If another score is posted, it is. Anyone who believes bench players are running up the score is a fool;
• It gets bench players valuable reps;
• It precludes the possibility of injury to valuable players.

I could go on. There was no justification for Meyer’s actions which pass the smell test — in my opinion, he did it just to twist the blade in Miami’s vitals. I don’t think Miami’s coach should have mentioned it to the press, taking note of an opponent’s misbehavior is unworthy. Just shut up and use it to motivate your team — take it like a man, so to speak. Let the press, fans and bloggers defend you, because they will.

. . . but I think I’ve said as much on more than one occasion, dating back to my initial stab at a preseason ballot back in July or thereabouts.

I believe in resume ranking, but I made the decision to phase it in gradually this year, for three reasons:

1. I was tired of getting berated publicly by Brian Cook. O.K., just kidding. Only not really.

2. Early-season resume ranking merely shifts the questionable assumptions. Take Wake Forest . . . if, rather than make an assumption about the Demon Deacons themselves, I try to rank based on their resume after just two weeks, I’m making assumptions about Baylor and Ole Miss. Neither of those assumptions would be favorable to Wake Forest, but both of those assumptions would be based on old data of questionable current relevance. In other words, the virtue of resume ranking is its basis in at least somewhat quantifiable data. At this point, we don’t have enough information on anyone to gauge effectively how good they are or how good the teams they’ve faced are, so we’ll do just as well to start with reasonable assumptions and go by performance in the early going.

3. Early-season resume ranking produces some weird results. For instance, resume ranking at this point would put East Carolina, U.C.L.A., and Wake Forest all in the top ten. I applaud Matt Hinton for having the courage of his convictions to do such things, but I’m not that bold, at least not any more. (See reason no. 1.)

By next weekend, everyone will have at least two games under their belts and most teams will have three. At that point, I plan to start over from square one and try to evaluate things anew. I’ll look at Baylor’s and Mississippi’s other two games, and Wake Forest’s third game, and that team’s other two games, and make a determination.

Right now, you’re right: I think the A.C.C. stinks and that is working to the disadvantage of the entire conference for the benefit of unproven commodities in which I place some belief, such as Boise State and Nebraska. Next week, that will start to shift. By the end of September, the resumes will dictate all.

As for the points made in your first paragraph, I’m not sure how they square with one another. If “there are 11 men on the field that are supposed to keep that from happening,” and they clearly cannot live up to that obligation, what business do they have being “offended by a team letting up” just because “[i]t essentially says, ‘You have not proven yourself good enough for our best effort.’” Well, at that point, isn’t that true?

Are coaches obligated to risk season-ending injuries to star players in blowout games for the sole purpose of avoiding offending an overmatched opponent by telling them the truth? That’s not only tactically unwise, it’s flat-out lying. If “anyone with a truly competitive spirit” would be offended by an opponent letting up on the gas, well, aren’t there “11 men on the field that are supposed to keep that from happening”?

. . . although a lot of that has to do with the fact that the ‘Noles play the Gators every year and, for much of the period you describe, the ’Canes were a non-conference game, as well. Also, let’s admit it . . . when F.S.U. opted for the A.C.C. at a time when the S.E.C. was expanding, Florida State made the decision to pad its schedule with conference games! :)

All right, I kid; you’re right that F.S.U. has not been a major offender where scheduling Division I-AA opponents is concerned. It’s only eye-catching this year because of the open date and the two gimmes straight out of the gate.