The Truth About BSU's Schedule: Everything You Thought You Knew But Don't

(I wrote in my weekly "Five Strikes" piece about Boise State's case for getting people off their back about their easy schedule. This is the truth about why Boise schedules the way they do, why they can't schedule who you want them to, and why they will continue to tick us both off.

I thought it was an interesting argument to get out there, and something I feel people should be informed about, especially the common sense idea that BSU doesn't have the option like Florida does to call up any school and say "hey, let's get together," and the idea that this is a new issue involving the Broncos.

So, here it is, reprinted in single article form. Enjoy and feel free to debate me on this or leave me any of your comments.)

OK, time to tackle this whole schedule issue.

Boise State has been getting serious grief for the past few seasons about their soft schedule, filled with an easy conference slate that they can sleep-walk through, and cupcake non-conference games. The talk has intensified now that they are a top five ranked team, and will continue to heat up as teams ahead of Boise continue to lose, leaving Boise State in a national championship game up for debate.

First, a disclaimer. All of you who think Boise State gives two hoots what you think about who they do or don't schedule, wisen up. They've gotten to where they are very carefully. They've scheduled teams who are willing to play them (they can't force UF to schedule them), and take chances when they are presented with them (2005 at Georgia). Most important, they are still an up and coming program (a member of Division I-A for only 13 years), and it wouldn't be wise (for ANY program) to give an arm and a leg to schedule a three-game set all AT Texas.

Now, let's move on.

The simple truth about why Boise State plays WAC teams is because they play in the WAC. They can't help that. They joined the conference from the Big West in 2001 as a five-year-old program, after winning consecutive Big West titles.

Most important, Boise State was invited and ACCEPTED an invitation to join the WAC. They didn't get an invite to join the PAC 10 (although their wrestling team is a member), the Big 12, or even the MWC. They'll likely continue to play in the WAC until they get INVITED to another, hopefully a bigger name, conference.

Second, Boise State can't help the fact that the WAC has traditionally been as bad as it has been. They can't help the New Mexico States or Idahos of the world. But, actually, they can. They can bring valuable BCS money to the conference by making it to a BCS game each year. But, besides that, they can't help that Utah State and Louisiana Tech aren't equals to Texas and USC. Just as BYU and TCU can't help that Colorado State and San Diego State are awful.

Conference matters aside, the only REAL games Boise State has any control over are non-con games. Yes, Boise State plays Miami of Ohio and Bowling Green. And yes, the year before they played Southern Miss and Bowling Green again. And the year before that it was Wyoming and Southern Miss.

But, did you know that in their first year as a member of the WAC (2001), they played Washington State and South Carolina? Lost both games. In 2002, they traveled to Arkansas. Lost. In 2003 they no longer had SEC or PAC 10 teams on their schedule.

What happened between 2001 and 2003? Why did teams stop scheduling the Broncos? I’ll tell you. Boise State said the hell with being a cupcake, blowout victory and started beating teams that they weren't supposed to beat.

It started with a 35-30 victory over nationally ranked Fresno State in 2001, and ended with big league (SEC, PAC 10, Big 12) teams not wanting to play a dangerous team from Idaho. Heck, even Utah, which agreed to a home and home series with BSU, ditched on their return trip to Boise, breaking their contract, after being beat down 36-3 in 2006.

In 2004, Boise State managed to hammer out a deal to play at Georgia, a game many thought would either raise BSU to national prominence or shut them up for good. In 2005, they made the visit and were trampled 48-13.

Yet, everyone knew Boise State didn't play up to their abilities, and as such, no other teams stepped up to put Boise State on their schedule. Especially after they rebounded the next year to go 13-0, with non-con victories over Oregon State (42-14), Wyoming (17-10), Utah (36-3), and Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl.

So who's to blame for Boise State's "easy" schedule? I know a lot of you say the Broncos are to blame, and while, yes, they are in charge of putting together the yearly slate, they, as a successful mid-major, have a problem getting teams to agree to contracts that are fair (granted most college football fans don't care about fair).

The contracts the Broncos athletic director gets are mostly "two here and one there" deals, or even extreme cases, where big name teams want Boise to travel thousands of miles across the country to play three consecutive away games in three years under the guise of "gaining notoriety."

If you really want Boise to schedule Texas Tech or Alabama or even Ole Miss, write your school's athletic director and see how responsive he is to making a trip to Boise, or even hosting the Broncos themselves. Yeah, the Broncos might not win two out of three at Alabama, but as they have proven, they can win one game against anyone on any given Saturday.

I guarantee you the prospect of getting shown up on their home field isn't something that makes Nick Saban all warm and fuzzy. So he passes, and so does Mike Leach and Urban Meyer, and Pete Carroll and Mack Brown. 

Every so often Boise State gets the chance to play a fair series of games. The Oregon home and home series was a great example. What happened in that series, though? Boise State went up to Eugene and dominated the Ducks, and then beat them down in Boise this season. You seriously think that Oregon is going to schedule Boise again anytime soon? Hell NO!

Oregon State tried the home and home a few years ago. The two teams split the four-game series, and Boise outscored the Beavers 146-104. More importantly, the teams played hard fought games and developed a sort of rivalry. Yet it wasn't a sure thing that Oregon State was going to renew the contract for a few more games.

I read another article on Bleacher Report about why Boise State doesn't deserve a shot at the national title, written by the talented Ken ND (nice article, Ken). Developing a rivalry with Washington or Washington State is fantastic advice...except that even though both teams combined to go 4-0 against the Broncos over the past ten years, neither has any interest in scheduling them, and I'll tell you, it ISN'T because they know it's a guaranteed victory. For that they schedule Idaho and Southern Methodist.

Coming from UW or WSU's vantage, it would seem to me that a win over BSU would be more impressive than Idaho or SMU. So go ahead and give Boise a call, I'm sure they won't turn you away.

In the end, I'm not arguing that Boise State doesn't play a soft schedule, and while a fan, I'm not a proponent of them playing in the national championship game (and I don't think BYU should count from 1984 either). I would much rather see Alabama play UF or Texas take on the Gators. I think it would be a much better game, and in the end, I think it would provide us with a definite national champion.

My point is that you should quite blaming Boise State for who they do play, who they don't play, and start looking at the other side. They can only play who's on their schedule and can only make deals with teams willing to deal.