Are the Spartans Getting Shafted?

Photo Credit: zimbo.com

With the new BCS standings out, we have learned that Michigan State is behind Wisconsin and Ohio State in the rankings. Which means Wisconsin will be going to the Rose Bowl, and if there's a Big Ten at largre taken, which there will be, it will most likely, but not for sure, be Ohio State.

Bummer right? I know the feeling up here in Sparty Land is "Oh we're getting screwed! Hating on the new team on the block! We beat Wisconsin, how can they be higher than us?"

But let me give the Bearded take on this folks. I may be a Sparty, but by being raised a Wolverine, I feel like I now have an unbiased perspective on both squads. Michigan sucks right now... see, unbiased. But anyways, I'm here to tell you why Michigan State is not being screwed over.

First of all, on why Wisconsin is going to the Rose Bowl. They beat Iowa, beat Ohio State, and there one loss was a ten point loss to a good team on the road. They won in convincing fashion against Northwestern, Indiana, and Michigan. Yes, bad teams, but they won impressively. They didn't need to rally against a bad team (see MSU vs Purdue.) Wisconsin is the clear easy choice for the Big Ten representative for the Rose Bowl.

But now the question is Ohio State over Michigan State. The teams didn't play each other, Ohio State loss to Wisconsin, who we beat, why pick Ohio State over Michigan State? Is it purely reputation based?

Well let's get all the factors out there. FIrst, when did OSU lose compared to MSU losing? Yes folks, part of college football isn't how you lose, but when you lose. Michigan State was the last of these three teams to lose, Wisconsin the first. Wisconsin is first in the standings and we are last. Funny how that works... It's no secret, if you lose late in the season you're screwed out of so many things, including a chance at a BCS bowl. It's better to lose sooner rather than later.

But let's also look at the two losses. Ohio State lost 31-18 on the road against Wisconsin. Not pretty, but not as bad as MSU's 37-6 loss on the road against Iowa, never impressive. But Ohio State kinda sorta showed up and it was interesting for awhile. Michigan State never showed up. It was there one big game on the schedule, and they did not show up. On the road against a very good Iowa team, and they were exposed. If MSU would have lost a closer game, maybe they go over Ohio State, but MSU got their ass kicked.

But is that enough to put OSU over MSU? For a computer, probably, but the human vote still... kinda sorta?... matters. Why would the coaches and the writers put OSU over MSU? It's hard to say who's better in this kind of situation when the teams don't play each other... Thank God Nebraska is going to prevent that from ever happening again. But I digress...

If Michigan State were to play the Buckeyes, The Bearded One would have to take Ohio State, and here's the key, no matter where they play. If it's in Columbus, I would expect a double-digit defeat for the Spartans. If it's in East Lansing, it would be a close affair, but my edge would still go to Ohio State. If the Buckeyes have a big game, I will take them nine times out of ten, no matter the opponent. Jim Tressel is a fantastic coach, and wouldn't allow his boys not to be ready. Nothing against Dantonio, he's done an excellent job turning the program around, but MSU escaped vs Notre Dame, escaped vs Northwestern, escaped against Purdue, and lost in their one big road game, by a lot.

So considering that only two Big Ten teams can go to a BCS bowl, would I like it to be the Spartans? Yes. Should it be? Considering all the factors, no. If there could be more than two Big Ten teams in BCS games, then yes they do deserve it, but they don't deserve a bid over Wisconsin, who of the three has the most impressive wins, nor do they deserve a bid over Ohio State, who frankly is the better team if you stopped, and unbiasedly looked at the two teams.

You can say 11-1 and no BCS bowl is a crime, especially when a Big East team has to get a bid. I get it, and I agree with you. But they have a contract agreement that makes them a BCS conference, so nothing we can do about it. And the BCS has the rule of no more than two representatives per conference is in place to keep some parity.

My one question is why is there a rule for the bowl games to take one non-BCS conference team every four years? The BCS bowl game itself, like the Rose Bowl, is required to have at least one non-BCS conference team in it every four years. Isn't apart of them being non-BCS mean they don't get an automatic bid? This is pretty much an automatic bid. What if a bowl needs to fill the requirement and they take, oh let's say a Boise, over a team that's more deserving just to meet the requirement. If they're good take em, if not, then don't force the bowls to take one. That doesn't make sense... But that's another story for another time.

Spartan fans, don't be angry at the system, or at the circumstances. This was an amazing, unexpected season. No one saw 11-1 and a share of the Big Ten title going into this year. Yes, we'd love some Rose Bowl action, but it wasn't meant to be. But we've had one magically season, and Spartan fans should enjoy whatever bowl we go to and whichever opponent is sent our way.

And who knows... maybe the Spartans will get taken over Ohio State... you never know...