BCS Talk: Voters won't allow Boise State in the BCS title game

I think where a lot of people have the problem with the Boise States of the world is that they may be a pretty good or even a really good team, but how can we be sure if they play in a very weak conference?

The flip side of that is, lets say for the sake of argument that they are the best team in the country by far. If they play nobodies because that's all that they have in their conference, they are going to be punished for it in the polls.

As far as scheduling weak out of conference, there are lots of great teams that do that. Our Tigers have been as guilty as anybody.

 

Cincinnati is a BCS school...kind of.

 

I'm not sure why some people just don't get it, but I'll try to explain it one more time. It's one thing to play in a weak conference and schedule non conference patsies and another thing altogether when you play in a tough conference and do the same. Yes sometimes LSU's non conference schedule looks much like Boisie State's. However BS's conference schedule doesn't include Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Auburn and Ole Miss or any teams that even closely resemble them. There is a huge difference between schedules that contain cream puffs from top to bottom and a schedule that has non conference cream puffs sprinkled in around a full season of top notch opponents. Anyone that doesn't understand that should stop watching football and start watching bowling.:dis::dis::dis:

 

That's the bottom line. Even in a weak conference they can upgrade by playing some OOC power...on the road. Win those and you'll get respect. Teams in the SEC, Big12 and the like have at least 3-4 conference teams on their schedule that are tough. The non BCS schools (and the PAC10 ) have one (themselves) and the rest.

 

the only problem with this is that most of the BCS conference won't schedule them. What does an SEC school get by playing a home and home with Boise State? They get a game against a really good team that will never be reflected that way in public opinion. If they win, congradulations, they beat a WAC (or is it Mountain West?) team. If they lose, then they get crucified like OU a couple years ago and Oregon earlier this year. There is nothing to be gained by playing Boise State.

 

It is the Mountain West that has Utah, TCU, and BYU, and sometimes, a team like Colorado State or Air Force will make a run at the top 25. Boise St. is in the WAC, which to me, is a lesser conference than the Mountain West.

What is interesting about this situation, is not only has the BCS buster conversation not gone away, it has developed a head of steam. No longer are we talking about 1 or 2 of these teams every year, but instead 3-4. Right now, Houston and Utah are on the outside looking in, but not by far. Those two teams keep winning, and they will be back in, giving us the possibility of 5 ranked mid-majors.

I somewhat liken this to the chicken or the egg argument. Are we lending these teams credence by talking about them so much? Or are we talking about them so much because they really are quality football teams? If the number of mid-major programs in the BCS buster conversation continue to rise, do these conferences start garnering legitimate respect? After all, no longer will they be playing conference patsies, but instead conference opponents ranked in the top 25, much like the BCS conferences.

I think they feed off each other. The publicity these conferences are starting to receive can only be good for recruiting. They may actually start getting better athletes and *gasp* be able to compete with the big boys.