There's really only one relevant issue to discuss as my final article of the semester. While all of us are collectively sipping our Red Bulls as we begin to conquer finals, the single most important characteristic of the semester was just decided last Sunday: and it came in the form of a Holiday Bowl.
What absolutely desolate and distraught anguish did so many of us feel upon hearing this information? What disappointment to the fans chanting "BCS" after rushing the field against UA was no doubt experienced after countless Sun Devil fans searched for their receipts so that they could return their Tostitos lime flavored chips?
Let me state as clearly as the black ink used to print these words can the certain absolute truth: this is what we deserve and this was the right decision.
The most important thing that we have to consider is the most noticeable surface issue: ASU didn't beat a legitimate, quality opponent. Should we consider California at this point, which I assure you the computers and the voters are smart enough not to, then we must consider that ASU won one out of their 10 wins against ranked opponents, 1-2 overall.
Second is the manner in which ASU won, and at least equally important, lost.
ASU played Oregon competitively, a polite way of saying that we kept it close but never really had a chance, as the entire game was played at Oregon's pace and in Oregon style.
Of course the dagger was undoubtedly USC. Our chance at it all was there that fateful Thanksgiving Thursday, however the only thing ASU was having that day was turkey as the Sun Devils and their fans were ran out of their own stadium on the national spotlight.
The wins by themselves aren't convincing either. There's a very fine line between being a team in which your style is to always come back and simply being a team that always has to come back. Colorado, Oregon State, Washington State, Washington, Cal, and UCLA all led ASU. And consider the one game ASU not only needed to lead but win by a blowout, the 5-6 Wildcats, the Devils only ended up winning by 3. Rivalry be damned, we needed to prove we weren't a team that just kept games close or comes back, we needed to implement our style and our football, something we've had trouble doing the whole season, even in victory. What brand of football was left for the voters to see after the Arizona game? A BCS brand?
What of this, taken as a whole, is a committee consisting of 40- to 70-year-old men supposed to consider?
The one comparison of BCS quality to the Devils didn't help the case either (USC). That might also be why second place Big XII Missouri was omitted over third place Kansas, as Missouri had already lost to Fiesta-bound Oklahoma. If you're going to lose to a team that is considered BCS worthy, you had better do it with class lest you be considered undeserving.
There is only one thing. Illinois. As a sports fan and a writer it is literally comical to consider that when Illinois beat Ohio State last Nov. 10 that it'd mean Roses. Ill-a-freakin'-nois! Last went to a bowl game in 2001!
Perhaps passing on Illinois could have meant a spot for ASU in that another team from a different BCS game would have been moved to Pasadena, say Kansas or West Virginia, opening up a spot for the Devils elsewhere.
But consider two things both related to one another. First is Michigan. Michigan is tied with Illinois in the Big 10 and was one game away from going themselves.
Secondly consider that very conference, the Big-10. The Rose Bowl is the only Bowl in which the Pac-10 almost always plays the Big-10. Why should a committee representing a tradition that began in 1902 stray away from this? After all, it isn't the Big 10's fault that their first place team is going to the National Championship. The Rose Bowl took the longest to decide of all BCS games, but in the end, what out there was available to convince these 40- to 70-year-old hardliners of football that they should drift away from tradition?
You know they say in college basketball if you're a bubble team and you're upset that you didn't get selected, then you simply shouldn't have allowed yourselves to be a bubble team in the first place.
ASU was a bubble team with no key wins and only key losses. I mean hell; at least Illinois beat a BCS team.
However I would like my final words of the semester not to focus on whether we got snubbed or not, I'd like them instead to emphasize the beauty of the experience and the undoubted success of it all. To all those that say a Holiday Bowl means nothing, clearly you must know nothing. Very rarely do teams go to the BCS, and if that's the standard then you should expect a lot of disappointing seasons. I'll tell you what the Holiday is. It's a game against a three-loss Texas team, a game for the Co-Champions of the Pac-10, a bowl game worthy of excitement and pride.
I'd like to think the results speak for themselves. I will remember this season for looking forward to Saturday nights like never before. I'll remember it for giving us all something to think about and believe in. I will remember this season for a big thumb and a resilient group. For rushed fields and long-awaited, long deserved celebrations.
If we admit as we have done collectively for years now that the BCS and the system itself is flawed, that the criteria used to determine the worth of a team is slanted, then why can we not collectively be proud of a season worthy of pride instead of insulted at a committee that might not know any better?
Why can't we be proud of being a win away from playing for the National Championship, of buying roses, chips, paint and beer? It may not be a BCS, but it's a holiday from a decade of hyped up disappointments.
So much is put into the ends in college football. Fact is we went 10-2, finished as Co-Champions in the Pac-10, and haven't had a better season is ten years. Quite frankly, there hasn't been a better time in a generation to be an Arizona State Sun Devil.
Good job ASU, we toast to you, thanks for giving us all something to talk about.
Reach the reporter at: joshua.spivack@asu.edu.
