 |
|||||
|
By jdrenn13, Section College
How do two teams with two losses finish ahead of Boise in the final rankings? The only logical culprits are our friends that developed the BCS several years ago.
What was Boise State penalized for this year when in spite of being the only team to finish the season undefeated after a spectacular Fiesta Bowl win over Oklahoma? Turns out they are on probation as well from a BCS system that still views being good in a major conference as being undeniably superior to being perfect but coming from a mid-major conference. Maybe all the trickery involved in the deciding plays in last week's Fiesta Bowl hurt Boise State in the end. It may have created the illusion to casual voters that their win over Oklahoma was merely a fluke. After the hook and ladder and the statue of liberty plays, it's easy to forget that Boise State held a commanding 28-10 lead late in the game before an unfortunate bounce on a punt gave a buried Oklahoma team new life. Prior to that point, Boise had dominated one of the best teams in college football in nearly every facet of the game. Not only had they proved that they belonged in a BCS game, but they were making a strong argument that they should have been playing in an even bigger game. Yet after Florida's thrashing of previously unbeaten Ohio State in the creatively titled BCS Championship Bowl a week later, Boise State found itself ranked fifth in the final AP poll. Among those teams ranked ahead of them, two of them finished with two losses. One of these teams, USC, lost both of their games to teams who were unranked when they played them. Certainly it's easy to argue that USC would outclass Boise State on the field in a head-to-head battle. Just like most people assumed they would dominate both Oregon State and UCLA before they took the field against them. Thanks to the BCS monster, all fans, alumni and even the players themselves can do is speculate as to what would have happened had Boise played any of the four teams that finished the season ranked ahead of them. Prior to the BCS system's arrival, Boise State may have had a fighting chance to top the polls at the end of the season. Back in 1984, BYU won the National Championship by going perfect in a WAC conference that is less competitive than the current WAC conference that Boise State has dominated in recent years. While Boise State had to take on top 10 power Oklahoma to complete their perfect season, all BYU needed to do was beat a 6-4 Michigan team in the Holiday Bowl. The BCS committee members claimed they did Boise State a favor by inviting them to party with the big boys this year. But isn't there something obviously wrong with a system that rewards four teams with two losses based on merit and needs to bend the rules to reward a team for an undefeated season? Shouldn't the most important factor in determining a team's merit be its win-loss record? Boise State may not be able to legally claim rights to any National Championship this year. But they can say that they were the only team that did everything within their power to earn the title. Unfortunately, a small school like Boise State doesn't have much power in the BCS-dominated landscape of college football. Teams from major conferences can start every season with the attainable dream of finishing the season saying "we're number one." But as long as the current BCS monster still exists, the most teams from mid-major conferences can realistically dream of saying is "we're number five." Story writing contestLog in or create an account to vote for this story!
All trademarks and copyrights are owned by their respective leagues and associations. The Rest © Sportscolumn.com / Cow Hollow Media, LLC. Please read our Terms of Service. Sportscolumn.com is powered by Scoop.
|
Related Links |
||||
