The whole debate over how would they do in the SEC or Big Ten is irrelevant. That is not their responsibility. As the SI article points out, if they start the season near the top and win out they put themselves in a position to win it all. That is the angle they have to play and they are doing it well. The argument about how they would do in the SEC is as relevant as Red Sox fans arguing that they should be in the playoffs because they are a better team than the Rangers and if the Sox played in the West division they would be in first place. Doesn't matter.
I have no doubt that given the opportunity to play in th Big 12 or Big Ten or PAC 10 year over year, Boise and Petersen would recruit a deeper team and continually compete for conference and national titles. I also have no doubt that if for some unbelievable reason Ohio State was dropped out of the Big Ten and had to compete in the MAC, overtime, their recruiting would suffer and they would lose to the Purdues in their money game.
The system is in place. They have their way in and they are in a position to pull it off. What is so horrifying about them getting in to a title game? They have yet to embarrass themselves in anyway in a game. OSU, ALA , Texas know what they have to do to get to the title game - win all their games and win their conference. Do it and you are in. Lose a game and you lose control of your destiny. That is one of the main reasons the BCS conference teams limit their risk in OOC. Boise has now put themselves in the same position. It took 3 to 4 years of stumble free ball, but they are there for now. In doing so, they are a threat to OSU, ALA, etc. only if those teams lose and therefore lose control of their own destiny.
You might be right, you might be wrong. I guess we'll never know. Let me ask you this though:
Isn't it unfair to a BCS team who runs the table and gets shut out by Boise?
I believe it is. Even further, I think its unfair that a one-loss team in the SEC or Big Ten gets shut out. Let's say Alabama, Nebraska, Iowa, Boise State, TCU, and Oregon all go undefeated. Highly unlikely, but it could happen. One of those teams can't jump Boise even when playing a tougher schedule? That's unfair.
However, it's also unfair to Boise State that no one will schedule games with them. But the voters can't get caught up in the fact that they dont get scheduled by bigger teams. You have to judge on what is real, on paper, and on film. And the fact is that Boise gets 8-10 layups every year compared to an Alabama, Ohio State, or Florida's 4-6. You can't deny that.
Boise State is a great team there is no doubt of that. But why are they more deserving than anyone else? Because they beat a lackluster Oklahoma team on gutsy trick plays late in the game? (My favorite game of all time by the way) Because they needed a fake punt to beat another non-BCS qualifier in a BCS bowl? Because they beat Virginia Tech in a neutral site game? (That's what it was, dont give me this Landover, MD home-field advantage bull. In Lane Stadium only 5,000 Boise fans get seats, maybe not even that much.)
So basically, the argument goes back to the beginning of the season before the Virginia Tech game even kicked off. Did Boise State, given the history, schedule, players returning, coaches, etc. deservce to be placed #3 in the preseason polls? I still say no.