Wisconsin shafted, as we all knew we would be

Ok, I've refrained from discussing Wisconsin's place in the polls and a lack of BCS bid, because, for the most part, I understand. And I'm actually not too bitter. We weren't expecting anything out of this season, so really, anything after 3 wins was a bonus.

But I do think that we got held back by a really punitive rule. I'm not sure what purpose the rule preventing more than 2 teams per conference is meant to accomplish in terms of making the BCS seem valid.

Yes, some years the SEC or the Big Ten or the Big 12 might be holding half the spots in the BCS, but if the BCS is touted as having the best teams in the land, I'm not sure how you can validate holding teams out.

How does it make sense to punish a team who's conference is exceptionally talented that year? I'm actually quite surprised that this rule hasn't become an issue before.

For that matter, if the BCS is as exhalted as they'd like us to believe, I'm unsure how there can ever be a question. Shouldn't we have 1 v. 2, 3 v. 4, 5 v. 6 and 7 v. 8? Done and done?

I'm sure this sounds like sour grapes, but really, I guess I just don't understand the point of all the voting, calculating, etc... if in the end, the final rankings do not matter.

Is Wisconsin a better team then Notre Dame? I honestly don't know. I know that they're a two loss team, including a big loss (20+ point) at home to Michigan and that near implosion at Michigan State (Michigan State!?!?)

I guess in the end I'm just disappointed because a final ranking of #7 isn't run-of-the-mill for Wisconsin. A final ranking that high should be reason to celebrate. Instead, we're heading to the ho-hum Capital One Bowl (again).

And I'm not the only one who thinks we got a little screwed on details. This Fox Sports columnist thinks so too, though he's not so articulate about it.