BCS Busted if Boise State isn't a Buster

First off I appreciate all the support from my first post, I didn't expect this blog to get the response it did so quickly but it's greatly appreciated. Hopefully as I continue writing I'll get a little better and this can become more of an interactive experience where people's voices are heard. I love talking about sports and appreciate comments from other people who share my passion. I wanted to post something about the talent rich area of Seattle basketball, but I'm still waiting to hear back from a 206 Baller I reached out to. We'll see if I get lucky and hear from him soon, in between time I have to get this BCS stuff off my chest!

It's that time of year again, not just the holidays, but the time where everyone gets to complain about how bad the BCS is. Generally, I try to stay out of this debate because largely I think the BCS gets the two best teams in the National Championship. And there is an outside chance they could still get it right this year, but I'm not banking on it. I believe this year is potentially the most egregious case for the BCS system being fundamentally broken and exclusionary. You can make a case for Auburn back in 2004 being a debacle, but realistically things just didn't fall their way as Oklahoma and USC were ranked higher in the pre-season poll and went undefeated. Maybe that's what we'll end up saying about Boise State if they are denied an opportunity to play in the BCS Championship after this season; but in my opinion it's slightly different story. It's different because Boise State was ranked higher in the Pre-Season polls than all three of the teams presently in front of them in the BCS standings. So in this post I'm going to make a case for why Boise State proves the BCS is fundamentally broken.

Boise State has been the modicum of success for the last 5 years with the exception of a "down" year in which they only won 10 games. Over the last 2 1/2 seasons (including this year) they are 34-1. They were undefeated last year in a season where they played both TCU and Oregon (2 of the 3 teams currently ranked higher than them), and they returned 21 of the 22 starters from that team. It's true that while last years victories don't necessarily reflect the current talent level at either TCU or U of O it is notable when you consider the volume of players who returned for Boise State. In addition to that, TCU is largely the same team on offense as they have returned their QB Andy Dalton, WR's Jeremy Kerley and Jimmy Young, RB's Ed Wesley and Matthew Tucker. Additionally their Offensive Line has stayed primarily the same, but you return your leading passer, top 2 WR's, 3 of your 4 rushing leaders. The difference between the leading rusher who did not return and the second leading rusher is a mere 70 yards and the largest gap between the leading rusher and the fourth leading rusher was only 150 yards. Their defense has largely stayed the same as well with the exception of losing two elite LB's to the NFL, which is why some analysts like Mel Kiper contend their defense is worse this year. They both had victories over Oregon State and a team on the road who was ranked #5 at the time they played. So there is minimal differences between these two teams resume's, yet TCU jumped Boise State in the rankings. You can tell me you think TCU beat the #5 team they played more convincingly and you're right, but it was also an in-conference rival who was largely overrated as they hadn't played any real talent all year. While Virginia Tech may have stumbled after their loss to BSU they have since rebounded and are looking at winning their conference and are back in the top 20 in the nation so that's a wash to me if not a point in BSU's favor. So how is Boise State currently on the outside looking in? If the season ended today, the team with the longest current undefeated streak in FBS who beat 2 of the 3 teams ranked above them during that streak would not play in a National Championship game let alone a BCS game. This is ludicrous to me and I believe shows a fundamental flaw in the system. It shows there is literally nothing certain schools can do to be taken serious in College Football. At the beginning of the season when they beat Virginia Tech, the #5 team, analysts refused to take BSU serious. Dismissing them regardless of what they did for the remainder of the season; they said there was nothing BSU could do to merit being in the National Championship because of the conference they played in. Whether you think BSU is good enough to play in the National Championship or not this should bother you. Because you can debate their talent level against that of the SEC or the strength of schedule all day, and you can make some valid points against Boise State. What bothers me is there isn't an opportunity regardless of a team's resume for a non BCS Conference school to get to the National Championship.

This was an interesting article for me to write, because in general I would consider myself an elitist in regards to college football. I think the talent in the big conferences is superior to that of the smaller conferences, but what bothers me is there isn't an opportunity for these small conferences to be represented at the highest level. I don't know what the exact solution should be, there are all kinds of issues with doing a playoff system. Some potential solutions could be modifying the regular season schedule to allow for one game around this time (Game 7,8, or 9) where the current leader in a BCS conference has to compete against an elite team from a second tier conference like the WAC or MWC. Here's an example of what I'm saying to make it a little more clear as this idea is kind of obscure. Pair a BCS conference with a non-BCS conference, for this example let's say the Pac-10 and the WAC. You set a specific game towards the end of the regular season where each team in the Pac-10 will play a respective team in the WAC. So the #1 team in both conferences would meet each other (maybe at a neutral field) and we could get a good measure of how these elite second tier teams match up against the best conferences in the country. You might be thinking that's the point of playing strong non-conference games at the beginning of the year. I would contend that these games aren't as beneficial as they appear to be. First, they are at the beginning of the season which puts them far out of the minds of voters. Second, we really don't know who's going to be good at that point. Boise State beat Virginia Tech who was ranked #5 in the country in the first week of the season. It was a huge victory for them, but then it got negated in a lot of ways the following week when Virginia Tech lost to an FCS school. Fortunately for BSU, Virginia Tech has largely bounced back and are showing that they are a good team. But this isn't always the case, and if the big non-conference game was towards the end of the season we would have a better measure of who the elite teams in each conference are. The logistics would be a little annoying as you have to figure out travel and a location to play the games, but I believe the benefits of equality in college football outweigh the challenges. We've seen several great stories in college basketball because there are opportunities for the small schools to make it. Just as recently as last year Butler made it to the National Championship game and was just a half court shot away from being one of the greatest Cinderella stories of all time. All I want is for people to have an opportunity if they've earned it. If you like my idea or have a better idea sound off in the comments section and get the ideas going. That's all from me for now, thanks for checking out the blog.

Breezy