Did you see the Nebraska game against Wyoming last weekend where Wyoming was beaten at home 38-14? Did you notice I said Wyoming was at home, in their 30,000-fan War Memorial Stadium? Wyoming will travel to Nebraska in 2013 and then 2016 to complete the two-for-one deal between the Huskers and the Cowboys. Wyoming made a cool $600,000 in the deal. In 2009 and 2010, Wyoming played Texas in a home-home deal, also.
So why does Wyoming or Fresno State (with it's 40,000-fan Bulldog Stadium) get these home-home or two-for-one deals with money deals and Boise State is relegated to so-called "neutral sites" like FedEx Field against Virginia Tech and the Georgia Dome against Georgia?
I can tell you this much: It's not that the BCS team will lose money or lack in viewership. In 2009 Boise State brought in $22 million, trailing Wyoming by less than $2 million and that was when Boise State was in the WAC so they didn't get any help from other teams winning bowls like Wyoming did. Boise State vs. Virginia Tech last year had the third-highest single-game viewership rating behind the Iron Bowl and the BCS National Championship bringing in almost 10 million viewers. At that time, it was the most viewed college football game in ESPN history.
When a BCS team plays Boise State, 99 percent of the time the game will be on ESPN and money will be made. Every single game Boise State has played against a BCS team in the last six seasons was featured on ESPN. Not even Wyoming and Fresno State can claim that.
This year Fresno State plays Ole Miss and Nebraska. Ole Miss is going to California after Fresno went to Mississippi last year. That seems like a home/home deal to me. The same goes for when Fresno State had a home/home deal with Wisconsin in 2008 and 2009.
Does Boise State deserve a home/home series or $1 million for a one and done against a BCS team?
Nebraska gave $700,000 to Louisiana-Laffayette for a one-and-done in Lincoln. The Broncos wanted just $200,000 more, saying $900,000 to $1 million would be fair.
Why? Because Boise State is not equal to LA-Laffayette. Boise State wanted $200,000 more and they deserve it. Nebraska vs. LA-Laffayette equals a yawn on Versus or Fox Sports Midwest. Nebraska vs. Boise State equals ESPN prime-time coverage, single-game merchandising and money. Nebraska would have easily made up the $200,000 and much more.
They just low-balled knowing that Boise State wouldn't bite. Nebraska then offered a two-for-one deal with two games in Lincoln and one in Boise—which is still unfair—and Nebraska knew BSU wouldn't take the deal.
Look, Boise State will get to a BCS bowl without these big schools and they know it, but that doesn't mean the Broncos don't want to play them. They just want the same fair shake like these teams give Fresno State or Wyoming—a home-home or enough compensation that is due a team that is consistently in the Top 10.
It doesn't matter though, because we all know the real reason why Nebraska, Ole Miss, Wisconsin, etc. won't play Boise State: They saw what happened to 2009 Pac-10 champ Oregon, 2010 ACC champ Virginia Tech, Georgia, Oregon State, Oklahoma, etc.
When a BCS team plays Boise State, there is a real chance they are going to lose and say goodbye to any chance of the national championship and possibly even a BCS bowl. The Broncos have won seven of their last eight matches against BCS teams since Chris Petersen took over.
So, this week Boise State gets the joy of hosting Nevada while Idaho goes to Virginia to play a game for online viewers of ESPN3 and Fresno hosts Ole Miss in a 9:15 PM ET game on ESPN2. Talk about stepping up to the plate, BCS. But, like I said, the BCS is not interested in money when it comes to the Broncos. They just simply realize that BSU probably would win the game and continue to crumble their precious system.