While I'm forced to agree with much of what Mr. Moneypenny writes in the article above, I'm afraid he has taken the chain of thought just a little too far. Here's what I do agree with: Yes, it was the votes, pollsters and coaches who #### Boise State, not the system itself. The preseason polls and early season polls that prohibit mid-major powers like Boise State from moving up to what appears to be their rightful place among college footballs elite did some damage as well.
However, I completely disagree with the notion that this one win on this one night over a major conference power qualifies Boise State for the national championship game. The thinking and logic used by Moneypenny to prove this point is very shaky at best. Let's start with the TV argument since that's the one that makes the most sense. Yes, indeed, coaches and voters see less Boise State games than any of the other teams that finished in the top ten during the course of a typical season. But he doesn't stop and ask why they don't, and the why is important. Please note, that last season when Boise State played Georgia, it was on national TV. This season, when they played Oregon State, it was on National TV. The only other games that might get a sniff from the major networks are the few decent mid-major teams (yes, bowl teams, but not major bowl teams...we'll get to this too) that they play, and yes, typically blow out. Boise State, knowing that they are in a less respected conference, should be scheduling major conference opponents for all four of their non-cons if possible, certainly for as many as they can. I understand that there are scheduling issues, and that a lot of the elite teams from the big conferences don't want to play Boise State, but I believe there are enough "middle of the road" major conference teams (the South Floridas, Alabamas, Oregon States, Minnesotas, Missouris) out there that they could schedule more if they wanted to. Don't forget that the reason that the elite teams don't want to schedule Boise State is that their schedule is hard enough to manuever and get through without adding such a dangerous oppenent, but the door swings both ways. Perhaps we don't see Boise State playing more than one solid to good major conference team per year because it jeopardizes their chance of going undefeated. Just play one, keep the schedule easy and we can get the wins....sounds like a good strategy. Heck, why do you think the big schools schedule an easy out of conference schedule? Same philosphy. Just a thought...
Secondly, "the facts," as he calls them. The average margin of victory over bowl oppenents (20.4 ppg) as well as the bowl oppenents' record of 4-1 in their bowls (only loss belonging to Nevada, by one vs Miami). If this isn't selective reasoning, I don't know what is. Of all the stats that could be pulled to make this case, Moneypenney has picked some nice ones. My first problem with these stats, is that we fail to mention that Florida has played 10 bowl teams this season, and Boise State five. High averages like that are harder to maintain through more games. Also, Oklahoma is a bowl team, right? Did Boise State beat them by 20? Perhaps averages don't mean everything. Finally, yes, Boise State did play five bowl teams in the regular season, and beat them all, but these aren't exactly major bowl teams, playing and beating other top teams in their bowl games. San Jose St beat New Mexico and Utah beat Tulsa. I will give credit to Hawaii and Oregan State for beating some very good teams in Arizona State and Missouri, respectively. Bowl games aren't exactly the best stat to use, despite the popular belief that you can use them to determine who the stronger conferences and who the better teams are. Outside of the major games (BCS games) it is difficult to get both teams at their peak levels. Sometimes certain teams a pump up for a bowl game, sometimes the opposite is true and they come out flat, not showing alot of emotion. Case in point, Florida State vs UCLA. Congrats to the Seminoles for getting off the proverbial schnide, but lets face it, this bowl game meant a lot more to a struggling Florida State team that was looking for something to validate their season as well as build momentum for next year, then it did for UCLA. The Bruins capped off their 2006 campaign with that stunning victory over their cross town rivals. After that joyous occasion an Emerald Bowl victory over the 7th or 8th best ACC team just didn't seem quite as golden. Does that mean they didn't show up at all? Of course not, but I believe it does show that bowl results can be a little skewed (see BYU vs Oregon for another example).
Next, I believe a brief arguement was made concerning conference strength. The argument seemed to be that even though Boise State plays in a "weak" conference its okay because there are a few weak teams in every conference. Something along the lines of the Mississippi State, Vanderbilt and Ole Miss (he apparently had to leave out Kentucky after their impressive win over Clemson....another example for the previous paragraph, btw) didn't exactly put the power in the term Power conference. This is obviously another poke at the Florida Gators...he of course fails to mention that the Gators only played one team from his list (Vandy) and the other seven conference opponents they played were all bowl teams (Five of them New Years Day or later bowl teams). The obvious counter-argument to this is that the "power" conferences have other "power" teams that you must play (unless you're Ohio State and get to slip by without a game against Wisconsin...not that they would lose, but it would be fun to watch, especially if it was at Wisconsin). Boise State has no other challengers.
Which leads me to my final point. The win over Oklahoma was fantastic. What a great game. The playcalling was phenominal, and not just at the end of the game, throughout the whole thing. Oklahoma played a great game (through the last three quarters and OT anyway). A great victory for a great program that does, indeed, deserve a lot more respect than they've received thus far this season. They have mine, that's for sure. But the failing occurs when we go too far, and try to say that they deserved a shot at the national title game over a team like Florida or even Michigan (I know, they lost, but no one knew that when the matchup was decided....though I did think it was going to happen=P). It was one game. That's all. Look at a team like Florida, though, who played at least five games like that, going 4-1(Tenn, LSU, Aub, UGA, Ark), or Michigan who played three games like that and went 2-1 (ND, Wisc, Ohio St). Specifically speaking about Florida, its a lot different to do it week in and week out. And you don't always get to play games like that at a neutral site, where half of your fans are sold tickets. Sometimes you have to go to Rocky Top and rub elbows with 105,000 screaming #### in orange shirts, or go to the Horseshoe, or a number of other hostile environments. I think this is the biggest flaw in the thinking of Moneypenny's article. One game that you can gameplay for a month for, get pumped up for, play the super-underdog role for is one thing, but being the team with the bulls-eye on your back, having a week to prepare, going to the other team's stadium and then having to do it all over again the very next week, and the next week is completely different.
Once again, hats off the Boise State. What a great game and a great win. I think we need more inclusiveness of the "mid-majors" into the BCS process so that we can see more games like the Fiesta bowl, and if they prove throughout the course of the entire season that they are worthy of the opportunity, the National Championship game. But lets just leave it at that.
