[guy Fawkes]

I had a discussion with a friend recently over a couple of beers about sports. The old adage of "Defense wins Championships" came up. My friend vehemently defended it, while I had some qualms with respect to NCAA football. I'm sure we've all heard it and many of us have probably defended/argued it ad nauseum.

Now, every example of one can be countered by the other. For instance, last week I could say Alabama won the game because of their last second drive on offense and LSU lost because they couldn't drive the ball in the final minute. Another perspective would say LSU lost because their defense let Alabama drive against them and Alabama won because their defense held firm against LSU's last gasp drive.

The only point outside of reversal I would make is that a terrible defense can get an occasional (accidental) stop, but I've never seen a team accidentally score on offense. For what it's worth, my friend countered this argument that over the course of a season a terrible defense can't get enough accidental stops against good opponents and thus can't win a championship.

In the end we agreed that good offenses were more likely to win games, while good defenses were necessary to win championships.

I'm curious what you all think. Of course if we could, we'd all love to coach a team with Oregon's offense and Alabama's defense, but if you had to choose one or the other, what would you be more apt to take to try to win an individual game or for a championship season? As handicappers (professional or amateur), I think we are smart enough and well-informed enough to discuss this better than the ESPN talking heads.

cheers for indulging me.

[rm18]

I thought it was "offense sell tickets. defense wins championships"

Also I would take ALabama's offense over Oregon's

[Ernie Mccracken]

This argument should be based on statistics, not football religion.

[k13]

SEC wins Championships.

[Sam Odom]

It aint 'pretty' to most but...

Defense & run offense = Championships