I have noted before, in this space but more often in person, that sportswriters have an unexplainable thing for Florida State football coach Bobby Bowden. Yes, he's good; yes, he's one of the best of all time. But he's not infallible, and yet sportswriters continue to believe he must be, somehow.

When FSU went 7-4 one season, they were still ranked #15, ahead of several two-loss and three-loss teams, because the sportswriters and coaches would not believe that Bobby Bowden's team was really that bad. Admittedly, sometimes FSU does really well: in 2003, the team was 10-2 and finished ranked #7 in the BCS, although the 16-14 loss to Miami in the Orange Bowl (sponsored by "Hey, we don't need tourists here after all") that year was a bit of a downer.

But 2002 proves instructive. FSU, without a lot of experienced players or really much reason to believe in the team that year, started out as #5 in the pre-season polls. After winning games against Iowa State, Virginia, Maryland, and Duke, FSU was up to #4 i the polls (averaging the two together - sorry, that's all the data I have, so it's possible they were #3 in one poll and #5 in the other).

Then FSU lost to Louisville in overtime, and fell to #11, as any team would. The next week, FSU beat BCS #40 Clemson (48-31) and rose one notch in one poll. The following week, they lost to Miami by one point and fell to a consensus #13. Two weeks later, after a bye week, FSU lost at home to Notre Dame, 24-34, and fell to #19.

Three more wins over #55 Wake Forest, #42 Georgia Tech, and #70 North Carolina edged FSU back up to #14 in the polls, until a 17-7 loss on the road to #19 North Carolina State dropped the Seminoles to 8-4 (one win for every two losses) and a split between #21 and #22 in the polls.

The following week's win over #17 Florida, a big FSU rivalry, boosted FSU by four spots in the poll, ending at #17. A loss above them in the final week of the season, after FSU was done, let the team finish at #16 in the polls, and #14 in the BCS because the computer ranking was the equivalent of "#13.83" in a consensus computer ranking. The nine wins made FSU BCS-eligible, and they went to the Sugar Bowl, where they lost 26-13 to Georgia, finishing the season at 9-5.

Only one four-loss team was ahead of FSU: Colorado, partly because Colorado had beaten KSU early in the season, and KSU finished #8 in the BCS, having lost only to CU and Texas (KSU did not play OU that year, in case you're wondering). Colorado lost its first came to Colorado State, to eventual Pac 10 champs USC, and to Oklahoma twice, which the BCS formula at the time treated specially. Colorado lost the Big 12 title game to Oklahoma that year 29-7, but the loss only cost them one spot in the BCS rankings.

All the other southern 8-4 teams of that year did much worse despite schedules similar to FSU's: Auburn (8-4, finished #20 in the BCS), Arkansas (9-4, #21), Virginia Tech (9-4, #22), Tennessee (8-4, #25), LSU (8-4 just one year before winning the BCS championship, #27), and even Oklahoma State (8-5, #34). The best four-loss team other than CU and FSU was Florida, at 8-4 and finishing #17. South Florida was 9-2 and finished #23 - not because the computers didn't like USF (they got about a #20 rating from the computers) but because the polls put them at about #30.

Had FSU not started the year at #5, the team would likely not have been BCS-eligible at all. Yet they started at #5 even though they finished the previous season in 2001 at 8-4 also! The season before that, in 2000, lest we forget, was when FSU was so massively overranked that going into the BCS championship game against OU, the sportscasters couldn't even imagine FSU losing. The only discussion was whether or not Miami, the only team to beat FSU that year, should get a share of the national championship once FSU won the Orange Bowl. (OU won 13-2, and the 2 points came with 6 minutes left when the punter kicked a bad snap out of the back of his own end zone. FSU's Heisman-winning offense never scored.)

Sportswriters and other football deciders look at Bobby Bowden and see "success," both when he earns it and when he does not. His first one or two losses each season are mulligans - they just don't wind up counting against his team.

This is why it does not surprise me in the least to learn that the College Football Hall of Fame, stymied in its attempts to honor both Bowden and Joe Paterno because the rules only allow them to induct retired coaches, simply changed the rules to let them in. From now on, any active coach age 75 or older is also eligible. Bowden is 76; Paterno is 80. I don't think any other active Division I-A coaches are over 75.

Don't get me wrong - Bobby Bowden is very very good. Apparently, however, he's so good that even when he's not that good, no one seems to notice.