I think he is giving Cincy credit for being in a "BCS conference" -- despite the fact it was by far the weakest of the BCS conferences, and by most metrics behind the MWC in strength. His logic appears to be that since Cincy was able to be "good" in a BCS conference they can be good in the Big 12.

Of course, the crazier bit to me is that he thinks UConn has better potential than CSU. Not sure what he is basing that on, other than once a bad UConn team got a BCS bid by "winning" (four way tie?) a BCS conference title -- again, despite not being ranked and being much weaker than both the MWC and even the WAC champions.

I suspect we are seeing this writers biases, that he either wants the East Coast teams or is biased against BYU.