College Football 2010

[LonghornDub]

The biggest argument against Boise (I'm not saying I agree) is this: they wouldn't be in national championship contention if they played in a major conference, because they lack the depth to compete for 8-9 weeks against major-conference teams and would end up losing a handful of games, simply by virtue of injury, fatigue, etc. Right now, if they have some guys who are nicked up or whatever in Week 7, they can put in subs who aren't that great because the opponent isn't that great either. But you can't do that against an Alabama, Florida, Ohio State, Texas, OU, or whoever. And those injuries or fatigue are inevitable over the course of a long season. Meanwhile, the teams I listed are stacked with NFL talent up and down their roster and are better equipped to make it through a long season despite those issues.

All that said, Boise is legitimately good and could beat anybody in a given game. I'd like to see them get a chance if they go undefeated.

[Kirobaito]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

The biggest argument against Boise (I'm not saying I agree) is this: they wouldn't be in national championship contention if they played in a major conference, because they lack the depth to compete for 8-9 weeks against major-conference teams and would end up losing a handful of games, simply by virtue of injury, fatigue, etc. Right now, if they have some guys who are nicked up or whatever in Week 7, they can put in subs who aren't that great because the opponent isn't that great either. But you can't do that against an Alabama, Florida, Ohio State, Texas, OU, or whoever. And those injuries or fatigue are inevitable over the course of a long season. Meanwhile, the teams I listed are stacked with NFL talent up and down their roster and are better equipped to make it through a long season despite those issues.

All that said, Boise is legitimately good and could beat anybody in a given game. I'd like to see them get a chance if they go undefeated.

I know that's the argument, but I have to wonder how they know that Boise couldn't compete in a major conference. It's one thing to use strength of schedule or conference in comparing 1-loss or 2-loss teams. To be undefeated, IMO, is to be undefeated. They don't magically lose the virtue of perfection when being compared to teams that have proven they can lose games (which didn't happen last year, but happened to Auburn in '04ish when they had Campbell, Brown, and Williams and Boise in '06).

I wonder, though - would it long-term be a good thing if the BCS system as it works now had BSU (or, say, TCU, or Utah) in a national championship game? the argument could perhaps then be made (not by me), that the system didn't discriminate, and that a playoff is no longer needed.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by Kirobaito

I know that's the argument, but I have to wonder how they know that Boise couldn't compete in a major conference. It's one thing to use strength of schedule or conference in comparing 1-loss or 2-loss teams. To be undefeated, IMO, is to be undefeated. They don't magically lose the virtue of perfection when being compared to teams that have proven they can lose games (which didn't happen last year, but happened to Auburn in '04ish when they had Campbell, Brown, and Williams and Boise in '06).

I'm not sure what you mean by wondering how they "know." Of course they don't know--it's obviously hypothetical and speculative when someone says that Boise could or couldn't do X in a different conference. I doubt anyone has ever claimed they knew what would happen in an absolute sense.

And I just explained the argument against the idea that undefeated is undefeated. You may not agree, but that's the argument, and even though I think Boise is legit and could beat anyone, it's certainly a strong argument. I'm not so sure they'd be undefeated--or even a 1 or 2 loss team--if they had their non-NFL depth tested weekly in the SEC.