I love to educate, debate, analyze, problem solve, and reason when it comes to football in general. When it comes to college football, there are sometimes far too many variables to consider when you look at what is a great team much less a great conference. The myth that I do hate the most is the whole greatest conference foolishness. When Boise State made the Fiesta Bowl twice and Hawaii made the Sugar Bowl, I've heard, like many, from all these ESPN analysts and such, that these teams from the WAC can't compete with the likes of Georgia, Oklahoma, or TCU.
The reason for why they argue the WAC is a weak conference is because they don't play good competition. What that sounds like, in my interpretation, is if you're not in the BCS conferences, your conference is weak. That is the dumbest argument for some of these suppose "expert analysts" to come up with. Does the BCS sign their paycheck? C'mon now.
So the theory for Hawaii being undefeated in the WAC because of weak competition combined with a loss to Georgia, because they were superior, is valid. But what do they say of Boise State's win against Oklahoma?
If analysts want to argue that these teams have better recruits, who's to say that they'll end up any better than the recruits from "lesser conferences". Last year BCS National Champion Alabama had an 11th ranked 2006 recruiting class by Rivals.com and yet won the big game over 10 other teams with better recruits. Undefeated Boise State was ranked 70th in recruiting according to Rivals.com in 2006 and yet they beat up on BCS teams just fine. There are a bunch of examples like this.
I find it utterly funny that these BCS conferences are the very ones trying to recruit teams from lesser conferences. If the BCS wasn't running the show, conferences like the WAC would have been a stronger conference than the Pac-10. People forget that the WAC had Arizona, Arizona State, BYU, Utah, Colorado State, and Air Force Academy amongst many other teams. That's a pretty strong conference if you add in recent departing teams from the WAC like Boise State, Fresno State, and Nevada.
The only reason why these teams even consider leaving the WAC isn't because of the competition, but the money. The BCS hogs all the cash and if you're one of the teams in the BCS and any team in your BCS conference goes to the major bowl games, your team and conference get loads of money. You can have a terrible team in the BCS like Vanderbilt and Duke but if any other team gets to the bowl game, even the losing teams in the conference gets money. Money in turns can help the Universities improve not only their sports, but also their academics to make their school more attractive to potential future students. If the BCS wasn't here, conferences like the WAC would still be strong as we know it.
Getting away from the point, a good team is a good team regardless of what division they play in. Boise State can hang with any team in the BCS conferences. Fresno State would provide the ACC with more competition than half of the teams in that conference. Hawaii would give the Big East teams as hard a time, as not many of them face a pass happy team like the Warriors. Nevada would give teams in the Big Ten some tough competition.
For all you analysts that say that teams from the WAC can't compete with suppose "stronger" conferences need to stop drinking that BCS kool-aid. Give the conference some credit instead of bashing them because they don't have the historical football significance of the SEC or the ACC in the BCS. History have no bearing on who's on the field and the WAC have proven more than enough times in the past that they can hang with the best of them.
Like the new article format? Send us feedback!