I'm not saying forget them, but it is absolutely ludicrous to throw out the conference that the team plays in when determining who deserves a shot at the national title. I'm sorry, but the idea that the strength of the teams they play has no place in the discussion nothing short of absurd. If the Jets go 6-0 in their division, is that more impressive than the 49ers or Cardinals going 6-0 against the NFC West? Absolutely. If the teams need to make a little noise to be recognized, then they should. Boise's always the first team to say that no one wants to play them, but they never come out and say that they want to join up with a big conference, even if it's just a football move. TCU made a bad move not electing to join a bigger conference just for football, which would have been a bit of an inconvenience, but also their best shot at legitimacy.
You can't compare the NFL to the NCAA though because the NFL uses playoffs to determine a champion. Most of the perception on who is the best in college football is based on tradition. The NFL unlike the NCAA determines a schedule years in advance and it's not like the Pats can elect to play the 49ers and Seahawks to build up wins. Alabama and Ohio St can schedule whomever they want out of conference and elect to not give Boise or Temple a fair shot. I'm not complaining about it not being fair because that's not the issue but TCU shouldn't be ignored because of what conference they play in when based on recent history the Mountain West has shown that their best teams can hang with anybody in the nation even in BCS Bowls. Again Boise can kick and scream all they want but it's not like they have a say in the invite. It doesn't work like them saying we want to join the Big 12 and it happens. In most cases these confernces want to keep schools like Boise out. The only reason Utah was invited was because the Pac 10 had no choice after Texas and the 4 dwarves declined the invite.
Forget all that RM, all I asked was what team would be more impressive, the Jets for going 6-0 in the AFC East or the Cardinals for going 6-0 in the NFC West? I don't care about the other games they'd play, I don't care about how much they win the games by, which 6-0 is better? They won't have a say, but they need to at least show that it's something they wanted to have happen. Come out and challenge the conferences, say that they were looking to make a move to a BCS conference but none of them were having it. They go out of their way every year to complain that no one will play them, why not say the conferences are locking them out too? To me, the lack of any fire in that respect says that it isn't something they're very anxious to have happen. At the same rate (like you already said), the Pac Ten isn't exactly aching to have them join up either. If it wasn't for Boise not making the title game, it's a perfect situation for everyone. BSU gets BCS money for playing one tough game a season, and the Pac Ten teams don't have to worry about playing them and still make the Rose Bowl/Title Game.
I know what your asking but the point is even though it may be more impressive that the Jets beat the Pats and Phins but just like SEC and ACC are hampered by Vanderbilt and Duke the AFCE is anchored down by the Bills. That wouldn't answer the debate on who is a better team. Just because the SEC is a better conference then the Mountain West that doesn't mean that the best team in the SEC is better then that of the MWC when their is recent history to suggest it's not as easy as saying the SEC team is better. Based on that argument the Yankees deserved to be in the World Series more then the Rangers because they play in a better division but we all saw how Texas dominated the Yankees with an inferior resume. But Boise did make a move, they joined a conference that was on a clear path to gaining AQ status. It wasn't until Boise joined the MWC that the wheels came off. A MWC with BYU, Utah, TCU and Boise blows the ACC and BE out of the water. It's not their fault Utah and BYU bolted.
Rich, I think the point we're missing each other on is that the question of what team is "better" is a much different one than who deserves a chance at the title game. Playing in the SEC doesn't make Auburn a better football team than TCU, just like playing in the AFCE doesn't make the Jets better than the Cards or the Yankees in the AL East better than the Rangers. However, when you're looking at a system that doesn't allow teams to prove who the best is in direct competition, you need to find ways of separating teams. The easiest way to distinguish one 12-0 team from another 12-0 team is by looking at which of those two teams played tougher teams. Maybe TCU could have stepped onto the field and whipped each SEC team by 50, but they didn't. The Rangers proved they were better than the Yankees by beating them, but if it was the old no playoff system, they would have never had that chance. It would have been Phillies vs. Rays, and both the Giants and Rays would have been sitting at home. The system as it stands isn't entirely fair, but we have to abide by it until it's gone. Because the only way to determine what team is BETTER is for them to actually play the game, we can't use it as a way of figuring the BCS out. The Mega MWC would have been a pretty good conference, but I think Utah's decision to head for the Pac Ten shows how the prestige still sits in that group. And I'm not sure that it would exactly "blow away" the ACC. In my mind, if Boise played an entire ACC sched they'd have had at least one loss (simply because they would have probably run into one of the up nd down ACC teams on the wrong day). TCU probably could have run the table, though, thanks to a smart QB and great Defense.
