The Final Analysis: The quality opponent (QOF-factor) rankings!

Crunching the Numbers:

This past August, when even Notre Dame, Alabama and Texas A&M were dreaming of BCS bowl itineraries, I stumbled upon a unique grading component which I believe gives us a pretty accurate analysis of the successfulness of the regular season, called the Quality Opponent Factor (QOF-Rating). The only draw back is we have to wait until the end of the season, and by then, even before the final BCS bowl games commence, much of the nation has already turned their attention to the pre-season poll for 2008 and national signing day coming in February.

When calling the QOF-Rating elements into play, where we analyze how a given team has performed against the elite this past season (defining elite as those teams who have gone on to win at least 9 games in a given season), you can quickly begin to recognize the cream rising to the top, which often flies in the face of the much publicized AP and Coaches Poll or the conference superiority ratings which have been popularized over at Sports Illustrated (Bill Trocchii), CBS Sports (Clay Travis) or ESPN (Ivan Maisel and Pat Forde).

So without further ado, I give you the BCS Busters take on the national rankings and the elite oligarchy of college football.


2007 Final Quality Opponent Rating - TOP 25
Note: Record next to team name is against 9-win programs this past season.

#1: LSU (5-0)
Season Record: 12-2

Virginia Tech (11 - 3) 48 - 7
Florida (9 - 4) 28 - 24
Auburn (9 - 4) 30 - 24
Tennessee (10 - 4) 21 - 14
Virginia Tech (11-3) 48 - 7

Lost to two (8-5) programs: Arkansas (50-48) and Kentucky (43-37); 8 points from a perfect season.

If you take the programs with .500 or losing records out of the equation: Record is 7-2.

Few people, including even the most competent college football analysts, would truly question the validity of placing LSU in the national title contest. While I agree, on paper, the Tigers had one of the better seasons compared to many others, you cannot ignore the fact that they lost to two teams who didnt crack the final Top-25, albeit, in overtime.

Although I think the importance of their pre-season ranking, and their auspicious rise from number seven to number two in the final week of the regular season, as well as the importance of placing LSU Nation at home in the comfy confines of the financially distressed New Orleans community, which looks grossly suspicious - I will grant you that LSU should have been one of the final participants in the BCS Championship game, given, not only the current parameters of the BCS criteria, but my final analysis within the QOF-Rating scale.

Even though I dont think the Tigers would have played their way into the BCS Championship game if they had to fight their way through Georgia, West Virginia and Oklahoma as I predicted within my BCSBusters Playoff Model, I will concede that they had the number one ranking in the country this year according to the QOF-Rating scale I have put together.

The only other team who counters their (5-0) QOF-Rating, as well as their 7-2 record against teams with winning records (Note: winning record equals above the .500 mark) is Oregon (5-1 QOF-Rating and 6-1 overall), who many people predicted would have played LSU in the title game if Dennis Dixon hadnt gone down in Week #9.


#2: Georgia (3-1)
Season Record: 11-2

Tennessee (10 - 4) 14 - 35
Florida (9 - 4) 42 - 30
Auburn (9 - 4) 45 - 20
Hawaii (12 - 1) 41 - 10

Lost to (6-6) South Carolina (16-12) and (10-4) Tennessee (14-35); 25 points from a perfect season.

If you take the programs with .500 or losing records out of the equation: Record is 8-1.

Although Georgia had the same QOF-Rating record (3-1) as West Virginia, BYU, USC, Boston College, Cincinnati and Texas, and yet - at the same time - had an inferior QOF-Rating record compared to Oregon, you cannot ignore that Georgia had the best record (8-1) against teams with winning records above .500 than any team in America this past season.

I wont argue that Georgia returns a wealth of talent next season as they will certainly be a team to contend for, not only the SEC conference crown, but possibly the mythical championship next season...but... if every game is supposedly so critical in determining the path to the championship, why are we placing Georgia at the head of the table next season, when Ohio State, Florida, USC, Missouri, Kansas, Cincinnati and West Virginia return the wealth of their star power as well?

If I am over-exaggerating the connection between the BCS and the former alliance called the College Football Association, especially in relation to the continual hype machine supporting the CFA communities of the Big-12 and SEC as the trumped up nations best, why is there such a rush to predict the Top-25 for next season, especially considering the 2007 BCS Championship game hadnt even been played?

The BCS ship is largely steered before the ships (themselves) are even launched in the water, and since the national media cannot objectively evaluate the talent level on the field, because they are burdened with the task of satisfying the hungry mouths of corporate advertising and selling bogus newsprint, you can clearly see where these political smear campaigns, which target conference superiority, arise from... the almighty dollar!

The BCS is a race often determined by history and tradition (before a single game is played), which define and uphold the programs already in place, who largely formed and supported the College Football Association movement.

If you question this hierarchy, which monopolizes the entire BCS platform, when talking to any knowledgeable and prudent SEC, Big-12 or ACC football fan, they will quickly tell you that you should stick to NFL Football, for you dont understand anything about college football, which in their mind is defined by history and tradition itself.

This circular argument gives the schools of the CFA consortium a perpetual advantage because even if they lose on the playing field, how can you question the total resume, when it consists of many of the star-studded programs who developed their televised identity nearly 30 years ago. The star-studded schools of the CFA will always have the advantage given this system and when you challenge this mindset, the fans of this region will simply tell you to either jump on board the tradition laced and bowl infested Yacht Club, or get the hell off and go to the NFL platform where nothing matters in their mind, especially the regular season.

In a decade full of ironies within the BCS era, I find it particularly ODD, that Georgia (a University in full cahoots with the College Football Association as former athletic director Vince Dooley and former CFA chief Chuck Neinas have worked together on many issues relative to money, power and prestige via trumped up assessments that only television can provide) is the next traditional power to be at the head of the line before a single game is played.

Why do I find that ODD? Because I predicted three seasons ago to my fellow comrades, in both professional and college baseball who follow the sport with a passion equal to my own, that the natural progression would be Texas, LSU, Georgia and look for Virginia Tech to be at the head of the line in the coming seasons since the conference commissioner responsible for coordinating the BCS passes from Mike Slive and the SEC to John Swofford and the ACC.

In case you havent already noticed, the conference baton for commissioning the BCS has only been passed to the conferences who were behind the College Football Association movement.

Gee, isnt that ODD, given all the controversy of the BCS era and its interconnection to the primary issues that have raged for decades between the unionized alliances of the CFA (Big-12, ACC, SEC and Big-East) and the unionized alliances between Walter Byers and the NCAA (Big-10 and PAC-10)?

For those of you scoring at home, in 1984, during the same year that Chuck Neinas and Vince Dooley were tackling Walter Byers and the NCAA in the infamous Antitrust battle over television revenue, Swofford was named chairman of the NCAA Football Television Committee and was also a chairman of the NCAA Communications and NCAA Special Events/Post-Season Bowl Committees.

As you may already know, it was Swofford and Assistant ACC Conference Commissioner Tom Mickle, who formed the frame work for the Bowl Coalition platform back in 1992, which quickly evolved into the Bowl Alliance, Super Alliance, and now the BCS.

The late Tom Mickle would later come to despise the BCS due to the gross unfairness which evolved via the unintended consequences of manipulation, slander and profiteering at the expense of the student-athlete, while Swofford continues to exploit, manipulate and profit from its very existence as this past year the ACC received a record 8 bowl bids, in spite of the fact that the conference went 2-6 during bowl season, and 13-14 against its equally greedy BCS brethren throughout the 07 campaign.

The ACC was also (7-0) against Division I-AA opponents and (22-4) against the worst of the non-BCS conferences inflating their precious bowl and poll egos in the process.

The same group of administrative Godfathers have formed and controlled each platform (CFA and BCS), with some alarming regularities, for example, given below:

Conference Commissioners who Coordinated the BCS:

1998 - 1999: SEC Conference (Roy Kramer)
2000 - 2001: ACC Conference (John Swofford)
2002 - 2003: Big East Conference (Mike Tranghese)
2004 - 2005: Big-12 Conference (Kevin Wieberg)
2006 - 2007: SEC Conference (Mike Slive)
2008 - 2009: ACC Conference (John Swofford)

Do you think that it is an odd coincidence that the Big-10 and PAC-10 have never been granted an opportunity to coordinate the BCS given the 40 year feud between the two alliances?

Is it a far-fetched coincidence that Florida State edged (Big-East) Miami and (PAC-10) the northwest schools, Washington and Oregon State, for a spot in the national championship game in 20001, especially coming on the heels of the Florida State versus Virginia Tech final in 2000? (Hint: Look at which conference moderated the BCS in those years and which conference was next in line to moderate the BCS)

Is it a far-fetched coincidence that in 2002, Oregon and the PAC-10 was once again passed over for a Miami - Nebraska match-up, or that Miami and Ohio State played in the 2003 Championship? Although the Big-10 and PAC-10 have always been on opposing sides of the CFA alliance, the Big-10 carries nearly 40% of the television market and some of the top advertising (automobile and iron products) partners around the country.

Is it a far-fetched coincidence that USC and the PAC-10 Conference, who have never seen eye-to-eye with the CFA agenda of grossly counter-balancing the commercial aspects of intercollegiate competition for their own benefit, had to win 31 out of 33 games with a controversial AP national championship in 2004 before even being granted an invitation to the BCS title game, especially considering that Washington was hosed in 2001, Oregon was hosed in 2002 and USC was considered to be the best team on the field in both 2003 and 2004, not to mention actually winning the BCS Championship in 2005?

The difference between USC and Oregon you ask? Obviously history and tradition enters the fray, but USC supported many of the CFA issues during the critical civil war which brewed over the Georgia-Oklahoma Board of Regents Antitrust battle over television revenue between 1976 - 1984, plus the fact that they are large market program with a national following, while Oregon is a small market program, with a minimal presence or acceptance in the south.

Is it a far-fetched coincidence that the conference superiority ratings determined by the media have always mysteriously sided with the conference commissioner who is currently coordinating the BCS for the given seasons in question?

Especially considering it is a known fact that the primary role and objective for a conference commissioner is to place as many teams as possible into the higher paying bowl games, not to mention getting their teams into one of the two at-large BCS bowl venues?

The last four years have been a prime example of this as the Big-12 was touted as the absolute authority in college football from 2003 through 2005, while the SEC has suddenly taken over, incredibly, the very moment when Mike Slive began his term at the helm of the BCS ship. But stay tuned, the ACC bandwagon will soon rev its over-rated engine!

Is there method to this madness via clever manipulation or is it a mere coincidence that ALWAYS seems to occur?

In an article published on November 25, 1999 in the Kansas City Star, former Big-12 Commissioner Kevin Weiberg verbalized that daily personal contact with the bowl and television officials is the best way to sell conference teams into the big money bowl games.

Here is a snippet from the Knight Commission Report, 10 years later:

With the money comes manipulation. Schools and conferences prostrate themselves to win and get on television. There is a rush now to approve cable and television requests for football and basketball games on weekday evenings, on Sundays, in the morning, and late at night. So much for classroom commitments. On the field, the essential rhythms of the games are sacrificed as play is routinely interrupted for television commercials, including those pushing the alcoholic beverages that contribute to the binge drinking that mars campus life.

Furthermore:

The winners are primarily those institutions that belong to the founding conferences in the Bowl Championship Series (BCS), namely, the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC), the Big East, the Big Ten, the Big 12, the Pacific-10, and the Southeastern Conference (SEC).

The BCS is a consortium originally designed and instituted in the early 1990s by conference commissioners to control Division I-A post-season football. The NCAA has no role in the BCS, and even presidents of BCS member institutions are marginalized: for negotiation of BCS television contracts, for example, only conference commissioners and representatives of the television network are at the table, with bowl representatives brought in for the revenue distribution discussions that follow.

A small group of conference commissioners controls distribution of all Division I-A post-season football revenues. Conference commissioners are rewarded for successfully generating post-season revenues and so have little incentive to consider other priorities. In allowing commercial interests to prevail over academic concerns and traditions, presidents have abdicated their responsibilities. - here is the LINK for the entire Knight Report if you would like to dive deeper into this issue.

And low and behold, look at which conferences control the television and bowl revenue monopoly in college football - The same conferences and conference administrators who formed and framed the College Football Association movement - the same conferences who are constantly touted as the best in college football - the same people who support and profit from the most self-serving and controversial system in all of sports.

The University of Georgia is and always has been at the heart of this very issue and it was only a matter of time before they got their turn at the head of the line.

Isnt it ODD that President Adams has begun to howl at the unfairness of the BCS system, calling for the need of a playoff system, when Georgia arguably created this mess in the first place, albeit due to the unintended consequences resulting from the race for elite power and prestige, with the CFA /Board of Regents movement, which ultimately spawned the BCS?

Conference Bowl Pay-outs: 2007

CONFERENCE BOWL PAYOUT BOWL RECORD VS BCS
SEC $51,700,000 7 - 2 12 - 9
Big-10 $46,850,000 3 - 5 11 - 10
Big-12 $46,050,000 5 - 3 10 - 9
ACC $25,750,000 2 - 6 13 - 14
PAC-10 $23,600,000 4 - 2 9 - 6
Big-East $20,700,000 3 - 2 8 - 9
WAC $18,500,000 1 - 3 3 - 16
C-USA $4,375,000 1 - 4 2 - 25
Mountain West $3,750,000 4 - 1 9 - 10
MAC $2,250,000 0 - 2 5 - 37
SUN Belt $375,000 1 - 0 3 - 21




#3: West Virginia (3 - 1)
Season Record: 11-2

South Florida (9 - 4) 13 - 21
Cincinnati (10 - 3) 28 - 23
UConn (9 - 4) 66 - 21
Oklahoma (11 - 3) 48 - 28

Lost to (5 - 7) Pittsburgh (13-9) and (9-4) South Florida (21-13).

If you take the programs with .500 or losing records out of the equation: Record is 6 - 1 .

In my pre-season report this year, I boldly predicted that USC and West Virginia would meet for the BCS National Championship in 2007. LSU finished its season a mere 8 points from a perfect season. USC finished its seasons 8 points away as well. Ohio State was 7 points, Oklahoma was 10 and West Virginia was 13 points from perfection.

Both USC and West Virginia played every team in their conference, tying for the conference crown, yet winning out-right via the head-to-head tie-breaker. LSU and Oklahoma won their titles, yet both missed arguably two of the better teams, not only within their respective conferences, but the nation as well considering both Georgia and Kansas were missing from the schedule, and equally important and significant to the argument, Oregon and Cincinnati were ranked well ahead of the majority of the other members of the SEC and Big-12 Conferences within the BCSBusters QOF-Ratings scale.

Both LSU and Georgia benefit from not playing each other as did the triangulated relationship between Texas, Kansas and Missouri. I find it ODD that Bill Trochii of Sports Illustrated, who ranked both the SEC and Big-12 one and two in respective order in his season-ending conference breakdown report, failed to mention this to the rest of the nation.

Would you agree it is easy to identify who is onboard the BCS/CFA Yacht Club?

If the tables had been reversed and West Virginia had lost in week #11, while LSU had lost the SEC championship game to Tennessee in the final week (#12), do you think West Virginia would have earned the trip to the title game? Do you think it would have been any different between Ohio State and West Virginia given the same criteria?

Both Oregon and West Virginia would not only have to be perfect, but commandingly perfect to get into the BCS title game, because as former SEC Commissioner Roy Kramer stated to the House Judiciary in 2003, when Nebraska overcame Oregon for the final championship slot to face Miami, If you put them in the same conference as the PAC-10 or something like that theyre co-champions at worst. The fact that conference (Big-12) has a championship game, youve got to put it in perspective. If they were in the same identical situation in the PAC-10, Big Ten, ACC...theyd be at least co-champions.

Of course Nebraska was beaten 62-36 by Colorado and Oregon ripped Colorado 38-16. All things being equal, Kramers comments were grossly off-target then, but the same pattern of behavior continues to exert itself now. Wieberg and the Big-12 were running the BCS then and the SEC was the next conference in charge on the horizon.

Of course if you followed this blog all season, you would have already quickly recognized that I ranked both the Big-East and PAC-10 ahead of the Big-12 all season. Look for an SEC/ACC BCS National championship coming soon to a home theatre near you.


#4: Oregon (5 - 1)
Season Record: 9-4

Michigan (9 - 4) 39 - 7
Fresno State (9 - 4) 52 - 21
USC (11 - 2) 24 - 17
Arizona State (10 - 3) 35 - 23
Oregon State (9 - 4) 38 - 31
South Florida (9 - 4) 56 - 21

Lost to (7-6) California (17-24), (5-7) Arizona (24-34), (6-7) UCLA (0-16), and (9-4) Oregon State (31-38).

If you take the programs with .500 or losing records out of the equation: Record is 6 - 1.

If the AP Poll voters can incredibly rank (9-4) Michigan ahead of the (9-4) Ducks after Gang-Green beat the Wolverines and all their royalty by an overwhelming 32 points in September, I think it is only fair that we can rank the Ducks in the Top-5 based on their (5-1) record against the elite, in January.

It is true that Oregon went into a tailspin late in the year, but in spite of losing 4 games and finishing 38 points from a perfect season, they played 7 teams who finished above .500, winning 6 of those contests.

Not only that, but they played every team in their own conference, defeating both co-champions of their own conference, and they played Fresno State, Houston and Michigan in their non-conference games, while LSU played Middle Tennessee State, Tulane and Louisiana Tech and Georgia played Western Carolina and Troy.

Yes, LSU did play Virginia Tech and Georgia did play both Oklahoma State and Georgia Tech. However, Oregon blew out a Fresno team that beat the same Yellow-jacket team handily, and Troy blew out Oklahoma State, especially telling since Georgia struggled before pulling away late to beat Troy, Oklahoma State and Georgia Tech. Not to mention the fact that I felt Virginia Tech (11-3), Georgia Tech (7-6) and Oklahoma State (7-6) were vastly over-rated throughout most of the season.

Was there an easy patsy victim on Oregons schedule in 2007? I believe there were three on the LSU and Georgia schedules in 2007, which translates into staying healthy late in the season, while the Ducks fall apart, losing 13 of the original 22 starters by the end of the season, and finishing the season with their 5th string quarterback at the helm, who demolished a South Florida team who beat Auburn on the road.

But then again, all we should really pay attention to when ranking the teams is history and tradition and the pretty records that go along with scheduling patsies at critical junctures of the season, and since we dont know enough about college football we should just settle for the NFL.

By the way, someone please tell me how the New York Giants season is cheapened when they went on the road and won a record 10 road games in a row this season, and beat Division leaders Dallas and Green Bay (in minus 23 degree weather by the way) to get to the Super Bowl, while LSU avoided division leaders USC, Oklahoma and West Virginia who are obviously superior to Ohio State and Virginia Tech this season, both on the field and when ranking resumes.

Maybe we should call the Manning family and inform them that Brett Farve and Green Bay are headed to Glendale in their place because their total resume ranking is superior and it cheapens the game to have the true and battle tested team (Giants) involved in the Super Bowl, when it should go to a team with a greater lineage in the game, like Dallas or Green Bay.


#5: Cincinnati (3 - 1)
Season Record: 10-3

Oregon State 9 - 4) 34 - 3
South Florida (9 - 4) 38 - 33
UConn (9 - 4) 27 - 3
West Virginia (11 - 2) 23 - 28

Lost to (6-6) Louisville (24-28), (5-7) PITT (17-24), and (11-2) West Virginia (23-28), a mere 16 points from a perfect season.

If you take the programs with .500 or losing records out of the equation: Record is 5 - 1.

Do you think the boys from the CFA will ever recognize that both Oregon and Cincinnati should be ranked ahead of both Ohio State and Michigan, based on the results on the field, or will they simply ignore the results and continue to rank on the merits of history and tradition alone? Someone please explain the rationale behind the Coaches Poll ranking Michigan ahead of both Cincinnati and Oregon.


#6: Oklahoma (4 - 2)
Season Record: 11-3

Tulsa (10 - 4) 62 - 21
Texas (10 - 3) 28 - 21
Missouri (12 - 2) 41 - 31
Texas Tech (9 - 4) 27 - 34
Missouri (12 - 2) 38 - 17
West Virginia (11 - 2) 28 - 48

Lost to (6 - 7) Colorado (24-27), (9 - 4) Texas Tech (27-34), and (11-2) West Virginia (28-48); Prior to their melt-down in Glendale, the Sooners were 10 points from a perfect season.

If you take the programs with .500 or losing records out of the equation: Record is 6 - 2 .

It is hard to question the history and tradition of Oklahoma, not to mention the coaching of Bob Stoops and his heavy hitting defenses that truly define what aggressive defense should look like.

But then again, someone tell that to Boise State and West Virginia, who have both shredded the Sooner D with over 1200 yards of total offense combined in the last two BCS Fiesta Bowls.

Defeating Missouri twice is the most impressive thing on the Sooner Resume in 2007. Even Tulsa and Texas give Boomer credibility, but losing to a Texas Tech team who finished a mere three and three against teams with winning records on their resume and won four games over programs (Rice, SMU, UTEP and Iowa State) who went a combined 11-37 on the season, and earned an even cheaper win versus Division I-AA Northwestern State is totally unacceptable.

Why this loss to the Red Raiders fails to raise the same amount of eyebrows as the Trojan loss to the Cardinal is beyond me, but Ive got more on this angle coming later in the show?

Equally suspicious is the fact that Texas Tech narrowly defeated a Virginia team (in a major and well paid New Years Day Bowl Venue mind you) who was blown out by Wyoming (23-3) on opening weekend.

Why didnt Craig James discuss the woeful loss to the Cowboys like he did in 2004 amid the CAL-Texas BCS debate when he rebuked the PAC-10 when UCLA narrowly lost to Wyoming on a last second field goal as time expired? Why didnt he mention that the PAC-10 was a blocked field goal away from going 5-1 during this years bowl campaign?

Because the CFA/BCS alliances will only grant PAC-10 powers USC and UCLA any credit when they face the absolute reality of obvious hypocrisy and bias as well as mounting public criticism within their own BCS largess (kind of like USC winning 31 of 33 games before being granted access the the BCS Championship), and they will shred the integrity of the conference when given even the slightest opportunity.

Picking between Oklahoma and USC for the sixth and seven slots is like picking birds of a feather. Nice birds with plenty of meat, tradition and medals on their wings, but (6-2) against programs with winning records trumps (4-1) in my book, although when you begin to realize how Oklahoma State and Texas Tech achieve their pretty records, it brings you back to square one.

Even though I ranked Oklahoma ahead of USC, I would still pick the Trojans to win on the field in the head to head match-up, but is that due to clear and present superiority or my own personal bias and allegiance to the PAC-10?



#7: USC (3-1)
Season Record: 11-2

Oregon (9 - 4) 17 - 24
Oregon State (9 - 4) 24 - 3
Arizona State (10 - 3) 44 - 24
Illinois (9 - 4) 49 - 17

Lost to (4-8) Stanford (23 - 24) and (9-4) Oregon (17 - 24).

If you take the programs with .500 or losing records out of the equation: Record is 4 - 1 .

I dont think there is any team in American who had a more disappointing season and did more with less than the Trojans did in 2007. Yet, how many of us would vote against USC actually winning on the field at the end of the 07 campaign? Vegas surely wouldnt!

I know James Carrville wouldnt pick the Trojans over Georgia, but Ive got my own theory, backed by plenty of facts that would lift the scales of balance in, not only the Trojans favor, but the PAC-10 Conference as well.

It is a well known secret that schools who dominate the high paying bowl venues schedule easy prey. Bill Trocchi of Sports Illustrated, ran an article at the end of the regular season with a scathing evaluation of the PAC-10. Here was his assessment:

I have warned my inbox to prepare for a mountain of West Coast emails. Facts are facts, however. The Pac-10 has the fewest Top 25 teams at season's end (demonstrating a lack of power teams) and the fewest percentage of bowl teams (demonstrating an abundance of sub-.500 teams).

The Pac-10 also has the worst non-conference winning percentage. Cal's landmark win over Tennessee seems like decades ago (Kind of like Last years Tennessee win in BCS Busters Mind - Do you see an irony here). Oregon and Cal had late-season collapses and Arizona State, the league's No. 2 team, beat one team with a winning record all season. It appeared the rest of the league had caught up to USC, but now that the season has played out, it is clear it is still "the Trojans and Everyone Else" ... and Everyone Else isn't very good.

Im not sure where Bill spends his time during the day at SI headquarters, but it certainly isnt devoted to evaluating college football. He omitted a ton of eye-popping and reality based facts.

Both the Big-12 and the SEC (the two conferences in total cahoots with Chuck Neinass CFA empire) played 18 games against Division I-AA foes (8 by the Big-12 and 10 by the SEC, they went 17-1 in those contests combined). The PAC-10 played 2 all season (Oregon State vs Idaho State and Arizona vs N. Arizona) and of course went 2-0 in those contests.

But it doesnt end here! The picture will become crystal clear in a moment.

There were four non-BCS Conferences this year that were scathingly bad, and the Big-12 and SEC not only couldnt get enough of their Division I-AA fodder, but they feasted on the WAC, C-USA, MAC and Sun Belt Conferences as well.

Here are the numbers against the BCS Conferences for the worst of the non-BCS Conferences last season:

WAC 3 - 16
C-USA 2 - 25
MAC 5 - 37
Sun Belt 3 - 21
Total Record 13 - 99

Now, here is how the numbers breakdown for the BCS Conferences including the Mountain West against, not only Division I-AA opponents and the other members of the BCS, but against the four (worst) non-BCS Conferences listed above. I didnt include the Mountain West into the list of non-BCS Conferences because it is my belief, and it has been my belief for a long time, that this conference should be a BCS Conference and the following numbers will demonstrate my point!

Conference vs D1-AA vs Worst of the Non-BCS vs BCS
SEC 10 - 0 35 - 1 (36) 12 - 9
Big-12 7 - 1 29 - 5 (34) 10 - 9
Big-10 6 - 2 24 - 5 (29) 11 - 10
ACC 7 - 0 22 - 4 (26) 13 - 14
Big-East 6 - 0 24 - 1 (25) 8 - 9
Mountain West 4 - 0 14 - 7 (21) 9 - 10
PAC-10 2 - 0 10 - 1 (11) 9 - 6

Your are absolutely right, Bill, facts are facts, just not the bullshit facts your are trying to sell us on. The SEC was 45-1 this year against the non-BCS (and DI-AA teams), yet were a marginal 12-9 versus the BCS, and even more importantly were (2-5) against teams ranked in the Top-35 of the national polls. This statistic gets worse when including the BCS Busters QOF-Rating as the SEC only has four teams ranked in the Top-20 of the QOF-Rating analysis.

The reason the PAC-10 has the worst non-conference record is because we dont schedule pussy-patsy wins out on the west coast. We played the majority of our non-conference games against the Mountain West, who more than held their own against the BCS Conferences (9-10) and had the second best bowl record this season (4-1).

Ranking the PAC-10 dead last has more to do with the rift between the unionized alliances of the College Football Association and those who supported the NCAA, and the rankings are yet another in a long line of examples regarding this political game of hard ball being played out in the national media.

Ive got another theory regarding the media being in cahoots with this CFA alliance and I will be coming out with it shortly.

In the final analysis, due to the fact that the PAC-10 doesnt schedule easy prey and they play every member of their conference, while scheduling the tougher non-BCS Conferences as well, which is the main reason why the West Coast schools do not have the shiny records needed to impress the pollsters by the end of the season. To be rebuked and absolutely abused by the national media, who is most certainly on board with CFA alliance, is gross error of lazy journalism and an absolute atrocity.

The ability to stay healthy throughout the course of the season by scheduling ridiculously easy opponents is THE main reason why the Big-12, SEC and Big-10 were able to profit from this fraud-based BCS system in 2007.

Everyone rebukes USC for losing to Stanford, but Stanford didnt play Louisiana-Monroe, Youngstown State, Wofford or 17 other MAC schools, or even C-USA, who combined with the MAC to record a (7-62) spot against the BCS. In case you missed it Bill, the SEC, Big-12 and Big-10 went a combined 39-4 against these two non-BCS Conferences, while the PAC-10 went 1-0.

If Stanford had utilized Pillow Scheduling like the mighty SEC, Big-12 or Big-10 Conferences had, they would have likely been bowl eligible, along with the other members of the ENTIRE conference, since they defeated both USC and California and were leading Oregon by 10 at the half. No disrespect to those non-BCS teams, but like Bill Trocchi said: Facts are Facts!

And no disrespect to SEC or Big-12 programs, but Stanford vs USC is an in-state rivalry, every bit as much as South Carolina vs Clemson, Alabama vs Auburn, or Texas and Texas A&M. Why is it that Texas is not harmed for not only losing to Texas A&M and Kansas State (two teams that Fresno State arguably should have swept), but playing grossly under their own potential, while South Carolina is not rebuked for losing to Clemson, when they flopped at the end of the season much like California did out west?

Im not even going to mention Alabama, since they lost to Auburn for the 7th straight season (Hint: for it to be considered a rivalry game, you actually have to win once in awhile), and were beaten by Louisiana-Monroe, not to mention the fact that they didnt play Kentucky or Florida this season. They barely beat an Arkansas team that skipped Georgia and Florida on their road-kill docket, which included five wins over Mississippi, Troy, North Texas, Florida International and Tennessee-Chattanooga. Without these pussy-pillow wins, explain to me the difference between Arkansas, Alabama, Texas A&M, Kansas State and Stanford this season?

Finally, since 85 percent of the voting coaches and Harris Poll members have direct ties to the CFA organization, which has now evolved into the BCS, I think you can begin to understand why these political smear campaigns come out of the woodwork, and why programs like Michigan, Virginia Tech, Texas and Georgia begin their meteoric climbs in the last 3 weeks of the season, just like I predicted as fall turned to November and early winter.

In case you missed it, its called added pressure on Tom Hansen to open the Rose Bowl up for the greedy appetite of the CFA alliance, who cant wait to get their hands on a dozen roses and squeeze the PAC-10 further into oblivion.

LSU and USC were both 8 points from a perfect season. Why the discrepancy in the polls? It is spelled C-F-A!


#8: Boston College (3 - 1)
Season Record: 11-3

Wake Forest (9 - 4) 35 - 28
Virginia Tech (11 - 3) 14 - 10
Clemson (9 - 4) 20 - 17
Virginia Tech (11 - 3) 16 - 30

Lost to (6-7) Maryland (35-42), (7-6) Florida State (17-27), and (11-3) Virginia Tech (16-30).

If you take the programs with .500 or losing records out of the equation: Record is 6-2 .

The SEC hype machine isnt centered specifically on the great American Bowl and Poll shuffle either. Only in the SEC, can a quarterback who lost four games on the schedule earn the Heisman over a player who will likely play 10 years longer in the NFL than Tim Tebow will ever dream of playing.

I dont see too many Spread Quarterbacks excelling in the NFL (HINT: the linebackers and defensive ends are faster than the QBs). Tim Tebow couldnt hold Vince Young, Dennis Dixon or Matt Ryans jock. Just another example of being a part of the CFA as compared to a small market team with zero Chuck Neinas influence or connection. Boston College was 31 points from a perfect season. Compare their strength of schedule with Florida. Boston College finishes 6-2 against teams with winning records and more importantly, 3-1 against the elite, while Florida finishes 1-4 against the elite and 6-4 against teams with winning records.

#9: Missouri (3-2)
Season Record: 12-2

Illinois (9 - 4) 40 - 34
Oklahoma (11 - 3) 31 - 41
Texas Tech (9 - 4) 41 - 10
Kansas (12 - 1) 36 - 28
Oklahoma (11 - 3) 17 - 38

Lost to (11 - 3) Oklahoma twice by a combined score of 79 - 48.

If you take the programs with .500 or losing records out of the equation: Record is 5 - 2 .

Missouris only crime this past season was losing to a very good Oklahoma team on two separate occasions. However, turnovers were the culprit in the first game, since Missouris performance was certainly better than Boston Colleges victory in game number one against Virginia Tech. If BCS Buster Bracketology had been in place, Missouri would have likely played Georgia in the Fiesta Bowl after defeating Texas, Tulsa and Illinois, while losing to Oklahoma in the Big-12 Championship game to finish 3-1 in the BCS Bracket.

On the field they earn a BCS berth, off the field, within the current BCS arrangement, they better get on the Chuck Neinas trail in a hurry, for a little administrative schmoozing is needed with the television networks, bowl administrators and Harris Poll voters.


#10: Texas (3 - 1)
Season Record: 10-3

Central Florida (10 - 4) 35 - 32
Oklahoma (11 - 3) 21 - 28
Texas Tech (9 - 4) 59 - 43
Arizona State (10 - 3) 52 - 34

Lost to (5-7) Kansas State (21-41), (11-3) Oklahoma (21-28), and (7-6) Texas A&M (38-30).

If you take the programs with .500 or losing records out of the equation: Record is 4-2 .

Texas is one of those founding father programs that have major connections to Chuck Neinas and the CFA, since Dee Loss Dodds worked closely with Neinas on CFA led issues back in the day, and Mack Brown and Neinas vacation together at least once a year . They are heavily protected in the poll system as evidenced this past season when they lost to second tier programs Kansas State and Texas A&M and didnt hardly budge in the Polls. Compare this with Michigans drop after losing to Oregon and Appalachian State, two teams that would likely kick the holy crap out of both Texas A&M and Kansas State this past season.

The fact that Texas can under achieve most of the year and lose ugly, playing far below capability, while Oregon, Cincinnati and Central Florida are largely held below their market value in the Polls is yet another example of CFA Royalty.

Not to mention the fact that fellow conference coaches have raised yet another question regarding the protection Texas receives from Big-12 officiating crews when aligned with in-state rivals, and the calls that go against Oklahoma when playing in the State of Texas. There is more here to this story and the Big-12 will never get this out in the open.



#11: BYU (3 - 1)
Season Record: 10-2

Tulsa (10 - 4) 47 - 55
Air Force (9 - 4) 31 - 6
New Mexico (9 - 4) 31 - 24
Utah (9 - 4) 17 - 10

Lost to (6-7) UCLA (17-27) and (10-4) Tulsa (47-55).

If you take the programs with .500 or losing records out of the equation: Record is 4-1 .

Head Coach Bronco Mendenhall is a close friend of mine as we attended Oregon State University together back in the late 1980s, since we shared the same Major and many classes together.

One memory sums up the tenacity in which Bronco goes about his business. We shared a Motor Learning class with an infamously tough Australian Professor, who was adequately nick-named Rose Monster.

She was not only the brightest mind in our department, she was an incredibly tough minded teacher. If you were 5 seconds late, you missed class as she would not tolerate any disruptions. The class was a discussion oriented class, not a lecture. You had to be actively involved and you had to know your shit or she would absolutely abuse you in class in front of your peers. You had to be ahead of her itinerary.

Well, to make a long story longer, one day, Bronco was about 5 minutes late to class, as he stayed after the bell to get some extra help on some anatomy issues from his previous 8 AM class.

While we were scrambling to keep up with Dr. Rose Monster, Bronco was climbing up the railing to the balcony as our classroom had an old balcony located at the east end of the room. I was sitting with my future wife, right in front of the doors to the balcony. In blundered Bronco, touching off one of the most hilarious shouting matches I have ever witnessed.

Dr. Rose Monster was all of about 5 foot two, barely over 100 pounds...she was in phenomenal shape, but was borderline anorexic. She was right under Broncos chin giving him the business, but Bronco never backed down, claiming that her inflexibility was not going to prevent him from a proper education, and if he needed help he was most certainly entitled to stay after class to achieve it, and the next professor should respect his dedication to get proper instruction and much needed assistance.

Finally, after about 5 minutes, he challenged if you would like to discuss this with Dr. Wood (the Dean of the department) he would lead the discussion.

From that day forward I knew Bronco would be a good coach, he is tough enough, yet flexible enough to get the very best from his players. UCLA missed a great opportunity to get a coach who isnt out to make a big splash like Slick Rick, and the PAC-10 continues to miss an opportunity to add Utah and BYU to the conference.

The Cougars not only deserve the BCS name tag, but they should be members of the PAC-10 Conferences since they have a greater tradition than half the schools in the PAC-10 and have only suffered from the recruiting stigma of being outside the BCS, since the BCS inception itself, in 1998. Here is a link to La Vell Edwards speech before the House Judiciary in 2003 to give you some background into this issue.


#12: Kansas (1 - 1)
Season Record: 12-1

Missouri (12 - 2) 28 - 36
Virginia Tech (11 - 3) 24 - 21

Lost to (12 - 2) Missouri (28-36), 8 points from a perfect season.

If you take the programs with .500 or losing records out of the equation: Record is 4 - 1 .

It is hard to give Kansas too much credit this season since they only played 5 teams with winning records in 2007 and they were a marginal 1-1 against the elite as well, and the lone victory was over a Virginia Tech team that was vastly over-rated and over-ranked, but since the CFA alliances of the Coaches and Harris Poll (which is, again, two-thirds of the BCS equation) had to rank the Maroon and Orange high enough to get LSU to New Orleans, you can begin to see the trees through the forest. More on this later.

The bottom line for me is Kansas was damn good in 2007, irregardless of what the SEC fan base or the blog-poll says.


#13: Ohio State (3 - 2)
Season Record: 11-2

Penn State (9 - 4) 37 - 17
Wisconsin (9 - 4) 38 - 17
Illinois (9 - 4) 21 - 28
Michigan (9 - 4) 14 - 3
LSU (12 - 2) 24 - 38

Lost to (9 - 4) Illinois (28-21) and (12-2) LSU (24 - 38).

If you take the programs with .500 or losing records out of the equation: Record is 5 - 2 .

Two seasons ago, when everyone was slobbering over Ohio State and Michigans impending Game of the Century, I cautioned that things really may not be what they seem.

Like Tennessee, Texas and Alabama, the boys from Ann Arbor and Columbus, who together make a Big-2 out of the Big-Televin, define what CFA Royalty truly embodies.

Several weeks prior to their season ending rivalry game, in which legendary coach Bo Schembeggler would pass on the eve of, some interesting things occurred.

College football has never gotten the cross-pollination that is needed to get an elite crop of bowl games. If you remember, 2004 was the first season in history that Michigan and Texas had ever bothered to arrange a football game between the two. How sad is that?

In the three weeks prior to the bus trip to Columbus, the Maize and Blue struggled to beat Northwestern (17-3), Ball State (34-26) and Iowa (20-6). Their non-conference slate that season did include (4-8) Vanderbilt (24-7) and a vastly over-rated (10-3) Notre Dame (47-21) team who still hasnt won a bowl game in over a decade.

Ohio State on the other hand didnt exactly impress in the non-conference as well, defeating (7-6) Northern Illinois 35-12, (10-3) Texas 24-7, (8-5) Cincinnati 37-7, (4-8) Bowling Green 35-7 before defeating (11-0) Michigan 42-39.

My point is how do we know how strong these teams truly are when they dont play anyone of substance. Texas and Notre Dame are powers in the name brand world, but other than the national title in 2005 won by Burnt Orange Nation, havent these two programs failed to meet the overzealous expectations of their fan base?

The sad fact of the matter is that Ohio State may have their best team in a decade next season, but will the voters really want the Buffalo Bills -Part Three in the BCS Championship in 2009?

I thought Florida vs Louisville in 2007, and LSU and either USC or West Virginia would have been a more appropriate title game in 2008. But hey, royalty is royalty in college football.


#14: Virginia Tech (3 - 3)
Season Record: 11-3

LSU (12 - 2) 7 - 48
Clemson (9 - 4) 41 - 23
Boston College (11 - 3) 10 - 14
Virginia (9 - 4) 33 - 21
Boston College (11 - 3) 30 - 16
Kansas (12 - 1) 21 - 24

Lost to (12-2) LSU (7-48), (11-3) Boston College (10-14), and (12-1) Kansas (21-24).

If you take the programs with .500 or losing records out of the equation: Record is 6 - 3 .

For reasons I have yet to figure out, ESPN has a major (Man Crush) love connection with Virginia Tech. Game Day is a two-to-three visit per season regular in Blacksberg and no one seems to mind that the Hokies are on the Stay-Puff Marsh-mellow scheduling circuit every season, as they feast on Division I-AA and the weaker sisters of the non-BCS, not to mention Duke, UNC and NC-State to the tune of, at least, 8-guaranteed victories every season.

Three seasons ago, in 2005, when USC, Texas and Virginia Tech were all undefeated late in the year, I bought into the hype hook-line-and-sinker.

Not so fast anymore my friends! Play someone and actually beat someone of significance on a regular basis for the ACC is vastly over-rated, even in spite of Miami, Virginia Tech and Boston College defecting the Big-East for CFA led handshakes and an easier bowl navigation (manipulation is a better word) process.

8 Bowl eligible teams is a travesty when you go 2-6 in the process, while Fresno State, BYU and Central Florida are left outside of the BCS looking in!




#15: Michigan (3 - 4)

Oregon (9 - 4) 7 - 39
Penn State (9 - 4) 14 - 9
Illinois (9 - 4) 27 - 17
Wisconsin (9 - 4) 21 - 37
Florida (9 - 4) 41 - 35
Ohio State (11 - 2) 3 - 14
Appalachian St. (9 - 4) 32 - 34

Lost to (9-4) Oregon (7-39), (9-4) Wisconsin (21-37), (11-2) Ohio State (3-14), and Division I-AA National Champion Appalachian State (32-34).

If you take the programs with .500 or losing records out of the equation: Record is 5 - 4.

How jaded is our current system, in which everyone claims the regular season is so critically important? Both Oregon and Wisconsin defeated Michigan handily, by a combined total of 76-28, and yet Michigan is ranked 5 and 6 spots ahead of both the Ducks and Badgers.

Penn State, another Big-10 team who had the same record as Michigan and a team the Wolverines barely beat (14-9) is unranked, which in reality is where Michigan should stand at the end of the season!

This is a gross atrocity and essentially sums up the whole system we have in place, which favors the schools who formed and supported the CFA. When you hear the word Royalty in college football, this is what the term embodies.



#16: Auburn (2 - 3)

South Florida (9 - 4) 23 - 26
Florida (9 - 4) 20 - 17
LSU (12 - 2) 24 - 30
Georgia (11 - 2) 20 - 45
Clemson (9 - 4) 23 - 20

Lost to (8-5) Mississippi State (14-19), (9-4) South Florida (23-26), (12-2) LSU (24-30), (11-2) Georgia (20-45) and were outscored 118 - 110.

If you take the programs with .500 or losing records out of the equation: Record is 4-4 .

College football is all about name brand tradition. Considering that Auburn, Illinois, Florida and Tennessee are a combined 21-15 against the programs that finished over .500 in 2007, and a combined 9-12 against the teams that earned the nine-win benchmark, I think Bill Trocchi is a bit off-target dont you think?


#17: Illinois (3 - 3)

Missouri (12 - 2) 34 - 40
Penn State (9 - 4) 27 - 20
Wisconsin (9 - 4) 31 - 26
Michigan (9 - 4) 17 - 27
Ohio State (11 - 2) 28 - 21
USC (11 - 2) 17 - 49

Lost to (12-2) Missouri (34-40), (6-6) Iowa (6-10), (9-4) Michigan (17-27), and (11-2) USC (17-49).

If you take the programs with .500 or losing records out of the equation: Record is 5 - 3.


#18: Florida (1 - 4)

Tennessee (10 - 4) 59 - 20
Auburn (9 - 4) 17 - 20
LSU (12 - 2) 24 - 28
Georgia (11 - 2) 30 - 42
Michigan (9 - 4) 35 - 41

Lost to (9-4) Auburn (17-20), (12-2) LSU (24-28), (11-2) Georgia (30-42) and (9-4) Michigan (35-41).

If you take the programs with .500 or losing records out of the equation: Record is 6-4 .


#19: Tennessee (2 - 2)

Florida (9 - 4) 20 - 59
Georgia (11 - 2) 35 - 14
LSU (12 - 2) 14 - 21
Wisconsin (9 - 4) 21 - 17

Lost to (7-6) California (31-45), (9-4) Florida (20-59), (7-6)Alabama (17-41) and (12-2) LSU (14-21).

If you take the programs with .500 or losing records out of the equation: Record is 6-4 .


#20: Arizona State (1 - 3)
Season Record: 10-3

Oregon State 9 - 4) 44 - 32
Oregon (9 - 4) 23 - 35
USC (11 - 2) 24 - 44
Texas (10 - 3) 34 - 52

Lost to (9-4) Oregon (23-35), (11-2) USC (24-44), (10-3) Texas (34-52), and were outscored 131 - 81 in the process.

If you take the programs with .500 or losing records out of the equation: Record is 2-3 .


#21: South Florida (3-3)
Season Record: 9-4

Auburn (9 - 4) 26 - 23
West Virginia (11 - 2) 21 - 13
C. Florida (10 - 3) 64 - 12
UConn (9 - 4) 15 - 22
Cincinnati (10-3) 33 - 38
Oregon (9-4) 21 - 56

Lost to two (9-4) programs: UConn (15-22) and Oregon (21-56), (10-3) Cincinnati (33-38) and (8-5) Rutgers 27-30; a mere 15 points from a one loss season and BCS berth.

If you take the programs with .500 or losing records out of the equation: Record is 4-4.


#22: Oregon State (2 - 3)
Season Record: 9-4

Utah (9 - 4) 24 - 7
Cincinnati (10 - 3) 3 - 34
Arizona State (10 - 3) 32 - 44
USC (11- 2) 3 - 24
Oregon (9 - 4) 38 - 31

Lost to (6 - 7) UCLA (14-40), (10 - 3) Cincinnati (3-34), (10-3) Arizona State (32-44) and (11-2) USC (3-24).

If you take the programs with .500 or losing records out of the equation: Record is 3 - 3 .



#23: Penn State (1-3)
Season Record: 9-4

Michigan (9 - 4) 9 - 14
Illinois (9 - 4) 20 - 27
Wisconsin (9 - 4) 38 - 7
Ohio State (11 - 2) 17 - 38
Virginia Tech (11-3) 48 - 7

Lost to two (9-4) programs: Illinois (20-27) and Michigan (9-14), (11-2) Ohio State (17-37) and (7-6) Michigan State (31-35).

If you take the programs with .500 or losing records out of the equation: Record is 4-4.


#24: LSU (1-4)
Season Record: 9-4

Illinois (9 - 4) 26 - 31
Penn State (9 - 4) 7 - 38
Ohio State (11 - 2) 17 - 38
Michigan (9 - 4) 37 - 21
Tennessee (10-4) 17 - 21

Lost to two (9-4) programs: Illinoise (26-31) and Penn State(7-38), (11-2) Ohio State (17-38) and SEC Runner up (10-4) Tennessee (17-21).

If you take the programs with .500 or losing records out of the equation: Record is 3-4.


#25: Texas Tech (2-2)
Season Record: 9-4

Missouri (12 - 2) 10 - 41
Texas (10 - 3) 43 - 59
Oklahoma (11 - 3) 34 - 27
Virginia (9 - 4) 31 - 28

Lost to (6-7) Colorado (26-31), (7-6) Oklahoma State (45-49), (10-3) Texas (43-59) and (12-2) Missouri (10-41).

If you take the programs with .500 or losing records out of the equation: Record is 3-3.


#26: Mississippi State (2-3)
Season Record: 8-5

LSU (12 - 2) 0 - 45
Auburn (9 - 4) 19 - 14
Tennessee (10 - 4) 21 - 33
West Virginia (11 - 2) 13 - 38
C. Florida (10-3) 10 - 3

Lost to (6-6) S. Carolina (21-38), (8-5) Arkansas (31-45), (10-4) Tennessee (21-33), (11-2) West Virginia (13-38) and (12-2) LSU (0-45).

If you take the programs with .500 or losing records out of the equation: Record is 4-4.


#27: C. Florida (UCF) (2-2)
Season Record: 10-3

Texas (10 - 3) 32 - 35
S. Florida (9 - 4) 12 - 64
Tulsa (10 - 4) 44 - 23
Tulsa (10 - 4) 44 - 25

Lost to (8-5) E. Carolina (38-52), (9-4) South Florida (12-64) and (10-3) Texas (32-35).

If you take the programs with .500 or losing records out of the equation: Record is 4-4.


#28: Kentucky (1-3)
Season Record: 8-5

Louisiana State (12 - 2) 43 - 37
Florida (9 - 4) 37 - 45
Georgia (11 - 2) 13 - 24
Tennessee (10 - 4) 50 - 52

Lost to (6-6) S. Carolina (23-38), (8-5) Mississippi State (14-31) as well.

If you take the programs with .500 or losing records out of the equation: Record is 4-4.


#29: Clemson (1-3)
Season Record: 9-4

Virginia Tech (11 - 3) 23 - 41
Wake Forest (9 - 4) 44 - 10
Boston College (11 - 3) 17 - 20
Auburn (9 - 4) 20 - 23

Lost to (7-6) Georgia Tech (3-13) as well, finishing 34 points from a perfect season.

If you take the programs with .500 or losing records out of the equation: Record is 3-4.


#30: Virginia (2-2)
Season Record: 9-4

UConn (9 - 4) 17 - 16
Wake Forest (9 - 4) 17 - 16
Virginia Tech (11 - 3) 23 - 31
Texas Tech (9 - 4) 28 - 31

Lost to (5-7) Wyoming (3-23) and (5-7) NC State (24-29) as well.

If you take the programs with .500 or losing records out of the equation: Record is 3-2.

#30: Hawaii (2 - 1)

Fresno State (9 - 4) 37 - 30
Boise State (10 - 3) 39 - 27
Georgia (11 - 2) 10 - 41

Lost to (11-2) Georgia (41-10).

If you take the programs with .500 or losing records out of the equation: Record is 2 - 1.

But here is the final thing to consider. While I agree that this year, considering the WAC Conference won three games all year against the BCS Conference confederacy, why is it that Ohio State can get blasted 41-14 last year against Florida, with a slew of first round draft picks and the Heisman Trophy winner and no one has a problem with their blowout, and yet Hawaii gets blasted in the court of public opinion that they do not belong in the BCS society after being blown out by four points less than Ohio State in their BCS Bowl venue this year?

I DO NOT think that Hawaii deserved one of the elite bowl venues this season, although I do believe that Utah, Louisville and Boise State did deserve such a game in the past, but to say they dont belong on the same field with Georgia when the Bulldogs were blown out by Tennessee (a team that California beat, which is a team that Hawaii likely could beat as well, and when considering this same Volunteer team was blown out by Alabama, a team who lost to Louisiana-Monroe?) doesnt hold a lot of water for me.

If no one has a problem with Tennessee playing in the SEC Championship game after being blown out by Florida (59-20), Alabama (41-17) and California (45-31), then we shouldnt have a problem with Hawaii playing in the Sugar Bowl, especially considering that this same Georgia team was blown out by Tennessee. Do you see the double standard here? If you cant, you need to look a little harder because college football is full of them!

Until next year, when another BCS Controversy comes racing towards your city!