Mack Brown used to be criticized every year for his inability to win a big game, particularly any game involving Bob Stoops and Oklahoma. Brown couldn't beat Oklahoma, and he couldn't win a conference championship. Brown put both of those arguments to rest in the 2005 season, with a win over Oklahoma, a Big 12 Championship, and a national championship. The new criticism for Mack after the 2005 national championship was more of a question, whether he could win a big game or a championship without Vince Young. Such a question can be put to rest this year, when texas won the Big 12 with Colt McCoy at quarterback. Even more importantly, during the 2008 season, texas beat an Oklahoma team that was ranked higher than they were, a feat they had never before accomplished under Brown. Looking at this season, though, a new question looms: Can texas win a conference title in a good year for the conference, and a good year for college football?

I've argued consistently with wishiwasalonghorn that texas' national title in 2005 is somewhat tainted by the fact that '05 was a down year for college football, that texas and USC spent virtually the whole season ranked #1 and #2, and no one really stepped up to challenge them for those top spots. If 2005 was a down year, though, 2009 was the year college football fell off the cliff that was 2005 and fell into the canyon below. This season, texas advanced to the national title game not because they are a great team, but because no else came forward to challenge them for #3 spot in the rankings. Unlike the 2005 season, texas didn't ascend to the #2 spot in the rankings and just take on all comers and stay there for a duration of the season; this year, they simply had to be the third-best team in the nation, because the top two best teams in the nation were Alabama and Florida, and they were going to play each other in the SEC Championship Game. texas merely needed to wait patiently, win all their games against a watered down and average Big 12 this year, and they would play in the national championship game. Well, mission accomplished, texas is in the national championship game after Florida lost to Alabama in the SEC Championship Game. With Oklahoma down this year, Oklahoma State still a fraud as a national contender, Texas A&M still rebuilding from the Fran Error, and the Big 12 North still not strong enough to take on the top teams in the Big 12 South, texas had a sometimes bumpy but relatively clear trip to the national championship game. Essentially, texas went undefeated in Big 12 play in a down year for the Big 12, and because of that, they are going to the national championship game. Similar to the 2005 season, Oklahoma was down, so typically texas' strongest opponent wasn't a roadblock for them this season.

The new question then becomes, Can texas win the Big 12 and advance to the national championship game in a strong year for the Big 12? Looking at the 2008 season, when Oklahoma and Texas Tech both spent time ranked in the top 5 and the Big 12 South was the toughest division in college football, the answer to that question is apparently 'no'.

The 2009 season looks to have only two or three elite teams in Alabama, Florida, and texas (if you consider a texas team with a questionable running game 'elite'); Boise State and TCU showed in the Fiesta Bowl that they aren't ready for the big time. A season where you only have two or three elite teams is really a down year for college football. We don't have any truly great teams this year, teams who are complete. There isn't a single team with a great offense, great defense, and great special teams this season. A year without greatness means a down year for college football will end tonight.