I'm getting over the fact that UT and OU are going to Bcs bowls, while Tech is being left out in the cold.  If Tech had the opportunity of losing earlier in the year and beating UT and OSU at the very end of the season, we might be singing a different tune.  Who knows?  But that doesn't matter and the season cannot be changed.  What does bother me is something that can be changed, and is restricted by a bunch of administrators, businessmen, and t.v. networks.  Oh, and money.

The fact that Tech cannot go to a Bcs bowl is ridiculous.  Or any team in the top 10 for that matter.  The Bcs has their own ranking system, so they should use it.  The top 5 bowls should feature the top 10 teams.  Since college football is unexplicably against a playoff system and letting teams prove their worth on the field, at least letting the top 10 teams play each other would be the next closest and best thing.  But I guess the Bcs has never really pursued credibility.

One common argument is that College Football uses the regular season as a playoffs.  If that is the case, the teams in the top 10 should at least get the courtesy to play each other.   The system is so adamant about pairing #1 vs. #2, why not extend that to all the teams involved in the top 10?  At least that would provide some semi-closure to the season instead of leaving so many questions unanswered.

Penalizing a conference for being too good makes no sense at all, while rewarding sub-par conferences promotes mediocrity.  There needs to be a provision in the rules that says conference champs must be in the top 10 or even 15, otherwise they lose their guaranteed place and allow bowls to pick top 10 at-large teams.  All the current system has done is turn the Orange Bowl into a glorified second-tier game with big money and overhype featuring 2 teams that nobody outside of those conferences really cares about.  Two teams at #13 (Cincinnati) and #18 (Boston College) playing in one of the top 5 bowls in the country?  I'm not a mathematician, but that does not add up.  So much for the spriit of truly fair competition. 

The only people that should have any beef with this are those that get the most benefit for being the least deserving, i.e. the Big East and ACC conferences this year.  Besides the money and contractual issues, do they really have a good logical argument?  Any rational person in the country would agree that a #7 (or 8-12 for that matter) team clearly deserves to go to a better bowl than the #13 or #18 teams.  This also leads to the rich getting richer while those trying to break out get held down.  And I don't remember ever reading anywhere that the Big East, ACC, or any conference for that matter would definitely feature one of the top teams in the country.  If they were making that assumption when they wrote the Bcs rules, I can comfortably say they were wrong.

Meanwhile, the #7 team in the country at 11-1 (and co-champion of the toughest division in the country) will be left out to play in the Cotton Bowl against an unranked 8-4 Ole' Miss team.  I know conferences have tie-ins to certain bowls, but it diminishes their importance and intrigue when these restrictions create obvious mis-matchups.  I'm not saying Ole Miss is not good, but their record does not compare to Tech's record.  Tech deserves to prove themselves to another team that has proven itself with a great record this year, at least someone like Ohio State, TCU, or even Boise State.

There is controversy every year regarding this, yet the Bcs ignores it and even continues to extend contracts and force us rational folk to endure their screwy system year in and out.  There just seems to be at least 1 or 2 teams every year that face this same situation.

My point is that the BCS needs to its name to what it really is...BSC (Bull Schnit via Contracts).