Originally posted by myteamtrulystinks
I don't think anyone is saying Boise doesn't have any good players. Many BCS teams have great backs. Peterson (oklahoma) is probbaly the best back. Michigan has a great back. So does USC. But are people really arguing that having a good back = deserves a chance to play for national title.
The #2, #3 and #4 teams in the polls have tons of pro ar down.
It seems to that direct arguments are far more convincing than indirect arguments
The thickness of people's heads in this thread is utterly amazing. Of course I didn't make the ridiculous argument that just because Boise State had a good back they should play for the national championship! I mentioned that I (unlike most people in this thread apparently) had actually watched Boise State play and that they have various first class players. No one else seems to even consider this.
Michigan played one good out of conference team and some weak ones, including Ball State. Only if you assume that the Big Ten is way stronger than the WAC do you come to the conclusion that Boise's schedule is "weak" compared to Michigan - Boise smashed Oregon State, a strong Pac-10 team. The Big Ten has no quality out of conference wins outside of OSU and Michigan and lost 2 out of 3 to the WAC - including Purdue, the #4 team in the Big Ten, losing to Hawaii who Boise beat.
Heck, OSU would be a heavy favorite over Boise but they'll probably be a 10 point favorite over USC. If Boise beats a Southwest team in the Fiesta, they'll wind up in the top 5, unbeaten but without a chance to play for the title. That seems unfair to me.
EDIT: OK Nevada beat Northwestern by 10; superpower Michigan beat NW by 14.