If the NCAA ran our presidential elections

Computer rankings: The equivalent of the "computer rankings" for the purpose of this exercise is the combination of the rating systems based on various intangible factors used by news organizations like ours, National Journal's (via the Insiders' poll), washingtonpost.com's (with Chris Cillizza) and ABC News' "The Note." Although all four outlets haven't dished out their White House rankings in some time, the consensus is that Clinton and McCain are the institutional front-runners, and Romney and Edwards fill the second slots. Of late, Obama's surge is likely to be shown in these rankings and will slowly chip away at Edwards' perceived lead in the anti-Clinton Democratic sweepstakes.

Recruiting: It's amazing how many top-tier college football programs get the benefit of the doubt in preseason polls simply because of how many four- or five-star recruits they sign. Well, the equivalent of this phenomenon in the presidential primaries is the signing of key state strategists (from Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, etc.) or the securing of influential endorsers (be it key interest groups on either side of the aisle or influential officeholders).

On this front, the Republican candidates are much further ahead than are Democrats. Already, it seems the field of key state-based strategists is shrinking by the day for the Republicans, now that McCain and Romney seem to be splitting the four- and five-star talent. In fact, one of the reasons many folks like us doubt Giuliani's ability to pull off a campaign is that too many important players in states like Iowa, South Carolina and Michigan have already signed letters of intent with the two big programs: McCain and Romney. Of course, there's a reason I used the phrase "letter of intent" -- they can easily be broken. McCain gets the early nod on recruiting, but Romney's got an impressive class of recruits. On the Democratic side, none of the big three -- Clinton, Obama or Edwards -- have cornered the market on top talent. There's at least one five-star strategist or endorser with just about every major first- and second-tier Democrat.

Historical stature/pedigree: Ever wondered why it is so hard for the Rutgers, Boise State and Utah programs to break through and put themselves in a position to play for a national title? It's because these programs have either bad history (Rutgers) or no history (Boise State and Utah). And although the BCS has devised a system that at least allows them to be seen on national TV sometime around New Year's, there's little chance they'll ever be allowed to play in the big game.

Small-state governors and members of the House comprise the presidential political equivalent. Though potential national political players, they rarely are able to play with the big stars without a series of lucky breaks (see former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (D) or West Virginia, circa 1988). And to make matters even tougher, if a surprising candidate or team does crash the party, they have to be near perfect in order to stay in the top tier. A one-loss Louisville team doesn't get near the same love as a two-loss Notre Dame team.

So if pedigree is what matters most, the candidates in each party scoring the highest in this category would be Clinton and McCain. Being the spouse of a former president or the runner-up in a previous race allows each of them to survive stumbles. Both Clinton and McCain could lose a primary or two (or lose a debate or two) and be given the chance to come back. The same can't be said for a Romney, Obama or even an Edwards.

MORE FROM NATIONAL JOURNAL

National Journal Section Front

Walter: GOP can break negative cycle Mercurio: Gunning for a new RNC Cook: How will Democrats govern? Brownstein: The GOP's dangerous imbalance Blumenthal: Pollsters pretty accurate National Journal Section Front