When the Crimson Tide and the Bayou Bengals squared off on Nov. 5, it was tabbed as the "game of the century." The Crimson Tide was five-point favorites going into the game in part because the game was played in Tuscaloosa.

Everything was in place for a Crimson Tide victory. A win would all but guarantee an n SEC West championship because they had already defeated Arkansas.

With 90,000 people behind them, the Tide should have had no problem defeating the Tigers, right? Wrong. LSU went on to win the game in overtime and finish the rest of their season undefeated.

Alabama had their shot, now it is time for someone else to get a turn. The Tide could have argued a mulligan if they had lost the game at LSU. However, it was at home in a perfect situation, and they were defeated.

Since that time, what have they done to show they deserve a rematch? Have their special teams gotten better? Has their quarterback improved? Did they get a star player back from injury? Have their receivers become playmakers?

The answer to all of these questions is no. They’re still bad on special teams. Their quarterback is still mediocre. They had no star players out of that game, and their receivers are still average at best.

Alabama lost this game and have given no evidence they deserve a rematch.

College football does not have an official playoff system in place. They most certainly do not have a playoff series in place. Alabama had their shot against LSU, and they were defeated.

What if Alabama is selected to go to the BCS championship and wins? Where will Game 3 be played? Does LSU get Game 3 at home since games one and two were played away from Death Valley?

Alabama would only need to defeat LSU once. LSU would need to defeat the Tide twice? How is that a fair and equal system?

There seems to be a general understanding that Alabama is the second best team in the nation. However, I am not convinced that this is true or false.

The whole basis of the idea that Alabama is the second best team in the nation is based off of how they have a better loss. Really? A respectable loss is better than an overall resume?

Alabama has only beat four FBS schools with a winning record. If Oklahoma State beats Oklahoma, they will have beaten seven FBS schools with a winning record.

With almost half as many wins versus teams with a winning record, what gives Alabama the better resume? Quality wins should not have less credence than quality losses. This idea is absurd.

The truth is Alabama has only beaten one team currently ranked in the Top 20. A win over Oklahoma would give the Cowboys three wins versus teams currently ranked in the Top 20.

How does a quality loss overcome that many more quality wins? Alabama might very well be the second best team in the nation. However, there is no concrete way of knowing.

Put yourself in the shoes of LSU coaches and players. They went into Tuscaloosa and defeated Alabama in overtime. Their reward is an extra game to risk more fatigue and injury. It is not like their offense is going against Ole Miss. They will be facing the No. 4 defense in the nation in the Georgia Bulldogs.

Alabama, on the other hand, got defeated in their own house, and they would receive a bye week as a reward.

The voters should not be able to punish LSU for fighting through perhaps the most brutal schedule in the nation and reward Alabama for not getting the job done. This should not be a situation where the voters give Alabama the benefit of the doubt. This should be a situation where they reward the team who has proven themselves. This would be a punishment.

LSU has not only taken on their SEC schedule, but Oregon as well. They should be commended for their labors, not punished.