ESPN's Brad Edwards projects Boise State will be No. 1 in the BCS next week

The "Illinois Rule"?

 

Well, then Boise needs to play four good non-conference games.

In the meantime - are you going to say with a straight face that if Alabama with one loss - on the road to a top 25 team -- runs the table and then beats a two-loss Florida team who is ranked in the top ten in the SEC title game that somehow that is not more impressive than what Boise has done?

Nobody told Boise to play Wyoming and Toledo

 

At the same time, nobody can tell Ohio State to play Boise. This is the problem Boise State has. Who's going to take the chance of being beaten by them? If I was a coach at a BCS power, there's no way in hell you could make me play Boise State. Let me take that safe game over Central Michigan any day.

I'm sure when Boise applied for the MWC, one of the things they were expecting was to have games every year with Utah and TCU. Then Utah went to the Pac 10 and ruined that part of the plan. Nevada and Fresno State coming over to the MWC later doesn't make up for the loss of an annual game with Utah.

 

Not to mention that BYU, which is usually a strong opponent, is bailing, too.

 

I'm sure Boise, if it really wanted to, could do the same thing Florida State did in the late 70's and then into the 80's when they were trying to gain national respect -- agree to play anybody, anywhere and not demand a return game.

Look at how many times FSU played at Michigan, Ohio State, Nebraska, LSU -- and did it with no return games. And they became a power because they started winning them.

 

It could do that ... if it wanted to hamstring the one program that's making money for the entire athletic department. Non-AQ teams need home games to pay the bills, too, and national street cred doesn't get the volleyball team to San Jose.

Fiscal responsibility or pleasing the punditry. Decisions, decisions....

 

I'd imagine that Boise could get as much for a TV game at a place like Alabama that it is playing Toledo and/or Wyoming at home.

 

Boise State had four undefeated regular seasons (2004, 2006, 2008, 2009) that did not result in a championship-game berth. And when invited it has certainly held its own in BCS bowls.

And in one of Auburn's undefeated seasons, it was on probation for serial cheating and was ineligible.

The wild card is, what happens to Nevada if it whips Boise State and stays undefeated? It certainly would have a claim to a BCS bowl.

 

That's what Boise State's done. See, VaTech. Problem is, Nebraska in the past year literally took Boise State at its word and offered a two-for-one or a one-time deal, but balked at the $1 million the Broncos wanted to play in Lincoln.

Teams like Alabama ad Nebraska, they will pay San Jose State $1 million to take a beatdown with no hesitation. But they won't pay Boise State $1 million for a game that might break their chances at a BCS bowl or championship, and that's the dilemma Boise State faces.

Do you take half of what San Jose State makes to play anyone, anywhere, anytime? Boise State has earned enough respect that it ought to be able to insist on making the same money as a Division I lightweight. But no BCS power will treat Boise State as an equal and agree to a true home-and-home with standard money. That's not an easy gray area to figure out.

 

I don't know much, but here's what I know ...

1. Alabama won't be in the SEC title game. I think Auburn will win the Iron Bowl. This ain't the 2009 Tide.
2. The SEC East winner will have at least two losses.
3. The SEC isn't as big and bad as it was in recent years.
4. I think Oregon can win the title.
5. I really don't care who wins the title as long as it's not Boise State or Auburn.

 

If schools are willing to pay guaranteed losers a bigger guarantee than they would give Boise for a competitive game, I'd say there's a lawsuit in there somewhere.

 

In more ways than one . . . 29-point dogs to TCU.