Wednesday, October 13, 2010

BSU football

I know, BSU football doesn't seem like an appropriate topic for a political blog, but 1) I don't care, and 2) BSU standings in the BCS race is all about politics.

The Automatic BCS Qualifying conferences don't want to see BSU (or TCU) get a shot at a national title, and the damn sure don't want either team to play and beat an undefeated team from one of the AQ conferences. One thing you'll hear, over and over, if you pay attention to the debate is, "If BSU had to play in an AQ conference every week, they wouldn't be undefeated."

Well, 1) who's to say, really? and 2), using similar (flawed) logic, if BSU had to play in an AQ conference, it'd have AQ money and AQ recruits. The entire argument is specious, and I'm weary of hearing it.

When I was in Reno in July, I put $5 on Boise to win the national title, at 10 to 1 odds. If they do, I get my $5 back, plus another $50. As it stands now, the biggest obstacle to my winning isn't BSU's performance, it's the politics of football.

Oh, and one more thing. To say that BSU isn't worthy because of strength of schedule is also specious. AT THIS POINT IN THE SEASON, Boise has played tougher teams than #1 Ohio State. In other words, if strength of schedule is key, Boise should currently be ranked above Ohio State.


Clint said...

Okay, Alan - it's probably a party foul to mention politics in re: to a football blurb, but...I wanted to invite you to Tom Sullivan's telephone town hall tonight, where you can dial in and ask questions while thousands of Idahoans are listening. I'm Clint, Tom's Communications Director and I love your blog. Please email me at and I can get you the info - if you can't make it tonight, we do them all the time. Sorry I didn't see a "contact" link on your page - thanks, and happy blogging!

Diana Rowe said...

If Joe Scarborough can rant about BSU on Morning Joe, then there is nothing wrong with you bringing it up on your blog!