That is a workmanlike, though conventional, way to look at the scene. One of the great things about blogs is that you get to read things that you can't find in the mainstream media. What good is a blog, especially one on college football, if all you end up with is a regurgitation of Ivan Maisel or Dennis Dodd (not Bruce Feldman, he's the bomb!)?
But to your points, many of them seemingly solid. My placement of Boise State at No. 4 has nothing do with transporting them to conferences. What's the realistic point in that? My rankings, as I stated in my first comment, are based on who would beat who in a given game. You would put Boise State in the Big 12 and go Pfft. Well, fine. So let's put Boise State in the Big 12 or SEC, as your hypothetical situation supposes. Do I then get to give that hypothetical Boise a bunch more bowl money and give them a better recruiting base? If so, do you then deny that they would be a power? In fact, you would see the same thing happen that you see happening to Louisville before our very eyes. You know, Louisville, former member of CUSA, about to become the dominant member of the Big East.
You first decry comparative scoring and then you practice it. Do I even need to go into how flawed that is? I think you already answered your own question in your post. The fact is, Boise has perhaps the most sophisticated offense in Div. 1. Pete Carroll, whose intricate defenses go up against a very sophisticated offense every day in practice, said as much when he saw them on film. And Pete Carroll's offense was lucky NOT to put up 42 on Michigan in that Rose Bowl. They may even beat Georgia at Athens, you say. Well, that begs the question, why? How many teams not among the top 5-10 in the country can do that?
The difference between Texas Tech and Boise is that Boise is a winner. Boise also isn't a one-trick pony. We'll see what happens, right? In the meantime, be BOLD my man, as bold as the blue on your site.
Commenting by HaloScan
