BCS about more than just conference

As we turn the page and begin yet another season of college football, I suppose it's inevitable that the usual number of Boise State lobbyists will start their shouting once more.

These critics of the system have continually complained about an unfair bias toward certain conferences. But does it?

If that was the case, don't you think that last year, an undefeated Big 10 team (our Spartans!) would have been rewarded with a higher rank than those of the lesser, weaker conferences (Boise and TCU)? Yet for the many weeks that Michigan State remained undefeated, they remained constantly behind them.

...Hey, that's funny.

The reasoning behind such an absurdity is fairly simple: the screaming supporters of lower conferences have been looking at this system in the wrong way entirely. Sure, playing in a bigger conference will always boost your credibility, but there's another factor, perhaps equally big, that they are overlooking. And it's a much sillier one.

Reputation.

Before you roll your eyes, and try to tell me that "they're not THAT stupid", stop and think for a minute. If Ohio State had been without a loss last year for as long as MSU, do you really think that they would have been trailing behind small-conference Boise State and TCU? Of course not. An undefeated Buckeyes team would be a shoo-in for the top 3, at least. But the Spartans? Those bums in Michigan who have spent years being the "little brother" in the inter-state rivalry?

Why is it that so many times we see teams like Ohio St., Florida, Alabama, LSU, and etc. easily work their way back into the top 10 not too long after their first, second, and sometimes even third losses?

And make no mistake, the reputation factor doesn't exactly hurt Boise St. or TCU either. Everyone's always complaining that these guys never get a fair shake. But why is it that nobody ever points out that these two teams receive top 10, often top 5, rankings despite playing a garbage schedule?

On Friday we saw TCU fall to Baylor, an underling of the Big 12. Some are labeling it an "off-game" for the Horned Frogs, while others claim that Baylor can now be considered a dangerous team. But off-games are unacceptable when you have a 12-game season, and is anyone really afraid of Baylor?

Of course, I'll be accused of "hating on small conferences", but shouldn't that game say something about the difference between conferences in college football? Unless Baylor goes on to win the Big 12, I don't see how people can continue to claim that the likes of TCU would be equally successful in record should they transfer to a bigger conference.

At least letting conference affect rankings is legitimate. Reputation is pure junk.