I am going to try something here. It probably won’t convince the partisan haters. And I am almost certain it is unprecedented in the world of BCS sports writing. Still, someone needs to attempt this: I am going to try my hand at using pure logic – Socrates Style – to prove there is no rational way Boise State can be denied from the National Championship game. I know, a crazy departure from my norm, right?

First, let us start with the obvious. The way the BCS selects its champions is subjective. Despite the use of a mathematical formula on an old Soviet Super Computer that had simply been collecting dust in Urkistan since 1982, the majority of the BCS process has no objective basis. It is 2/3 human polls. And alas, we humans are subject to such whimsical notions as emotion and bias, and in the case of anyone from the SEC, pure, unadulterated stupidity. Now, because the BCS is subjective, there is no limit to the evidence that can support one team’s selection over another. There is no mathematical formula that says the two national title contenders will equal “best record times strength of schedule times booster-to-star-ratio.” No, everything must be considered. Obviously some reasons are more valid than others – just hating Nick Saban’s lying face isn’t the best criteria for selecting a team – but as long as a rational argument can be presented, there isn’t any information that can be ruled out. Otherwise, you are just creating arbitrary cutoffs to a subjective conclusion, and that doesn’t make much sense, does it?

Remember, we are trying to predict an impossible task; who the top two teams are in the country when they haven’t played against each other. So doesn’t it make sense to use as much information as possible to come up with the lowest margin of error? With that in mind we get to the crux of the matter. Boise State beat Oregon and TCU last season. And that absolutely, 100 percent, definitely matters. The arguments against looking at last year’s performance are simplistic at best and contain about as much depth as a Lou Holtz diatribe. The most common response, even by some pro-Boise State backers, is simply ending the discussion by saying some version of “that was last year and this is a different season.” Which doesn’t actually mean anything; it is just another arbitrary cut-off. It’s not like we are dealing with a normal playoff system as it is. Unusual circumstances – you know, like not having any type of playoff system – call for unusual analysis to determine the top two teams in the land.

And it isn’t all that hard to connect last season’s performance to this year. The Broncos returned 20-of-22 starters. They are performing the same way they have the past five years, humiliating conference opponents and putting together convincing victories over AQ-opponents. The 17-10 victory over TCU in the Fiesta Bowl wasn’t a fluke. If anything, seeing as Boise State lost less to graduation and the NFL than TCU, it is pretty convincing evidence the result would be the same this season. Same with Oregon. Boise State took down the Ducks 19-8, stifling the offensive extraordinaire with a stingy WAC defense.

This isn’t an extraordinary claim. Think about it. By having only two teams get a shot at the championship, voters are predicting that all other teams would lose to the top two. And we have hard evidence that Boise State would beat TCU and Oregon. Have either of those two teams really become that much better in one season than a Broncos team returning every essential piece? Trying to infuse rationality into a system as flawed as the BCS is like trying to have a reasonable conversation with Glenn Beck. Still, in this mess of a post-season, two teams must compete for the “undisputed” national championship. It may as well be the logical choice.

Michael is a senior majoring in journalism, the co-author of Paulbunyansaxe.com, can be followed on Twitter @michaelbleach and can be reached at [email protected]. Think there was a flaw in his argument? You are wrong. E-mail him and let him explain why you are wrong.