Originally Posted by dabvu2498
I would agree with your conclusion, but I disagree that it's not a valid comparison. They both compete in the FBS, right?
But yeah, both great programs. If they were stocks, I'd be a "buy" on both of them.
I had an issue with the idea that Boise hasn't been as "successful" over the last 10 years as WVU.
12-1 (and so on) is more successful than 10-3 (and so on). Finishing higher in the polls and computer rankings is more successful. A quick wiki search shows 16 former Broncos and 13 former Mountaineers on current NFL rosters. That's more successful. The difference in their level of play, strength of schedule, etc., isn't that great.
If Boise had a stronger schedule, that would probably come through a stronger conference. A stronger conference means a better TV deal. A better TV deal means better exposure for recruiting. Better recruiting means more wins????
If West Virginia played in a lesser conference, their schedule wouldn't be as tough. If their schedule wasn't as tough, they'd have more wins. If they had more wins, they'd be ranked higher. Without AQ status they make ??? BCS games.
Of course, everything I said above is just mere speculation and conjecture. Not all programs and not all conferences are created equal in college football. Given that reality, I just don't agree that it's an apples to apples comparison.