Earlier this summer the BCS brought the pain when it punished the University of Southern California for its lack of institutional control. As a result of a four year investigation into inappropriate benefits received by USC players, the BCS stripped the school of several scholarships, demanded forfeiture of previous wins, and, among other things, banned the university’s football program from BCS bowls for two years. The punishments doled out as a result of this process got us here at The Sports Debates thinking – “If the Trojans are banned from a BCS bowl game, then should the team not also be banned from the rankings?”
As of this weekend the Trojans were ranked in the top twenty teams, but the question at hand is, “Should USC be ranked at all?” It is not a matter of whether the Trojans are one of the most competitive programs in the nation, but whether they still warrant a ranking because of their bowl ban. No matter how well USC performs or who they beat, they will still not participate in a BCS – or any other – bowl at season’s end.
Which leads us to today’s debate: Should a ban from bowls include a ban from the rankings?
Loyal Homer believes it should. Obviously there is logic supporting this argument, but to win this debate he will have to prove that the team deserves a ranking ban.
Bleacher Fan, on the other hand, believes a bowl ban is not a good idea. He believes that although bowl bans are a punishment it does not actually change how well a team is playing.
Whoever wins this debate will be number one in my book, but their poll ranking may be a different story.