It’s November. The leaves are changing, fall is in the air, baseball is over. this can all mean only one thing: time to engage in angry debates about the BCS. To kick things off we have Oregon against Boise State. The Ducks have a better computer average (No. 7) than the Broncos (No. 8), despite the fact Boise State already bear Oregon earlier this year (see also: LeGarrette Blount punch). So why is this? SB Nation’s One Bronco Nation Under God offers some answers and analysis, taking a look at the most common arguments thrown about, including:the game meant more to Boise State; it was first game of the season; Oregon has improved since then; and, of course, strength of schedule.
Your Guide To The Oregon-Boise State Debate
↵↵But here’s the thing, strength of schedule should be used as a measuring stick when nothing else is available. Since when has it turned into a sense of entitlement? Have rankings turned into the top 25 most deserving teams or the top 25 best teams in college football. [...]
↵I have a much harder time with the argument that Oregon deserves to be ranked higher than Boise State based on their schedule. To throw out the most objective measure between two teams, on-field results, seems like an egregious misstep to me.
↵↵A common argument against the BCS in years past has been focused on how the best teams never get a chance to play each other. Now this year, two of the top schools have played, and it’s still not enough. What more can Boise State do? As OBNUG writes: “It’s a shame when a team actually does prove it [on the field] and the result gets discredited.”
↵
↵↵↵↵↵↵↵↵
↵
↵
↵↵
↵
↵
↵
↵
↵
↵
↵
↵
↵↵↵↵↵↵↵↵
↵
↵
↵
↵
↵
See More:
