Was talking to an MSU fan the other night after the game and I came up with a thought. I told him that I thought teams should earn the recognition of being the reg. season champ and there should be another distinction for the championship game. I said this on a bit of a whim, but the more I thought abut it the more it made sense.
Say UCLA would have won the PAC 12 Championship game. Would they really the PAC 12 champion even though they lost more conference games than both Oregon and Stanford? In my opinion they wouldn't be, they would be the championship game champion and should be rewarded with a BCS bowl game, but if you want every game to count, you have co-PAC 12 champions in Oregon and Stanford, which makes sense to me. They earned the right over the course of the regular season to get that distinction IMO. This is similar to what happens in basketball, where you have regular season champs and tourney champs.
So I'm wondering what you all think. I'm guessing this will have a negative reaction because it would help State, but I don't really care about that. I care about what is right overall, which I think is to have seperate distictions. I don't think a pure champion should be determined by a single game in this case, the teams should be rewarded with their season. If they want to make a BCS bowl outright then win both regular season champion and championship game champion. Technically they should but it doesn't always work out that way.
By the way, this isn't a defense for MSU, they don't deserve a BCS game IMO, but I do think they deserve a regular season champion for whatever that is actually worth. Any other year in the Big Ten they would be in the Rose Bowl. Now everyone has the same rules, so the new system isn't unfair to MSU, Wisc should go to the Rose Bowl, but they were the outright regular season champ, beating Wisc. during the season (regardless of luck).