I know, I know, I'm sick of talking about the BCS system as much as you are.
However, for some reason, I think that for every column I write pointing out how idiotic the rankings are—let alone the concept of determining a national championship by rankings in the first place—I am performing a service in the interest of a nation sorely in need of shedding a black mark on its sporting landscape.
Let me preface this discussion by reminding everyone that last Saturday's final score at Camp Randall was 83-20. This was a conference game against an Indiana team that, by all estimates, should have been coming off a last minute victory over a top-20 team in Iowa. It wasn't a non-conference farce against Austin Peay, Chattanooga or some other FCS team paid to come up and perform the role of sacrificial lamb for a crowd of 80,000 plus red-clad fans.
This was a conference game. Despite winning by 63 points and tying the Big Ten record for points in the modern era, none of this mattered. While Wisconsin stayed put at No. 7 in the BCS, it somehow moved further away from No. 6 Stanford and is now just a measly .0055 points ahead of No. 8 Nebraska.
Eighty-three points. Against a conference opponent. Did I mention Stanford squeaked out a 17-13 fourth quarter win over Arizona State—a 4-6 team just like Indiana?
Here's my question: What exactly does the BCS want the Badgers to do in order to prove they are worthy of inching up the computer rankings? Is 100 points enough?
Obviously, the answer is that nothing will ever be enough when the national media, or whoever retains control over the BCS (it isn't really clear anymore) sees Indiana as another sacrificial lamb that just happens to belong to the Big Ten. The Iowa game? Fluke. Michigan? Lucky. Northwestern? Doesn't count.
There is a clear double-standard being set here. No. 5 LSU had a non-conference cupcake on their schedule with Louisiana-Monroe (4-6 also) and kept its first-string players in the entirety of a 51-0 blowout.
Somehow this isn't considered running up the score and Wisconsin's win, despite taking the first-string out midway through the third quarter and finishing off the game with Nate Tice and the third-string offense, is unwarranted BCS pandering.
Should head coach Bret Bielema have called for a punt every time Indiana gave up the ball? The score may have been lopsided, but this was nowhere near the threshold for criticism. The second and third string doesn't get the opportunity to play every week and we cannot expect them to roll over so as to not hurt the Hoosiers' feelings. This is their one chance and they should be given every opportunity to succeed out there just as the first team would in a tie game late in the fourth quarter.
I have already voiced my concerns about the ignorant acceptance of the SEC being the premier conference in college football, but I am starting to think the attraction with this group of schools is getting to be over the top.
It is enough that we criticize Big Ten teams for ""cupcakes"" like Arizona State (Pac-10, ever heard of it?) while allowing the likes of LSU and Auburn to schedule Chattanooga and Louisiana-Monroe without objection. But the double standard in terms of defining what constitutes running up the score is unacceptable. What one conference does to prove its prowess cannot be accepted as unsportsmanlike when done by a team in another, let alone when done in a conference game.
On the surface, Wisconsin moved further back because ASU and Kansas are slightly better opponents than Indiana and the BCS no longer allows the computers to account for score spread.
Still, when I hear people accuse this Badger program of running up the score, I can't help but think that there is a deeper level of disrespect—not only for Wisconsin—but for the Big Ten in general, that is truly keeping the Badgers outside the top-five.
With BCS rankings being the tiebreaker should OSU, MSU, and Wisconsin all win out, I am sure that the controversy is only beginning.
In the meantime, at least basketball is back.
Sick of the BCS? Sick of hearing about it? E-mail Max at max.sternberg@yahoo.com.
