First, let me say this. I think you speak from a slight position of ignorance, so while I am going to dispute some of your points, I just don't think you've really spent that much time looking into these issues. That's nothing against you, you hold some common beliefs. Also, I do, without question believe a healthy Alabama team beats a healthy Ohio State team last year. Having said that, no I wouldn't distill what happened in that particular scenario to not enough rest, but the team was beat up, plain and simple. They say playing in a football game is like a car crash, so playing in a SEC football game much be like a car crash on the interstate.
I won't really dispute your last point, but no it's not merely great depth. It's better coaching, better players, etc... so why did Boise State perform as well as they were able to? I've made that exact point on this forum and it's funny you bring it up!
It was because they were so well rested and focused! Let's say you are a general, and you are leading your men into battle. If you have only two tough battles for the entire year, do you think you and your men will be able to better prepare than if you have say ten tough battles in a year? Perhaps the occasional skirmish will sharpen your army a bit, but tough, weary battles only wear you down. People don't draw the correlation to football for some reason.
You see, what Boise St. did was play very well a couple times a year. But, that's so much easier to do when it's only a couple times a year! It's so much easier for Ohio State as well by the same comparison. If Alabama had more cupcakes on their schedule, they'd have more games to rest up, and more games in which they could afford to plan ahead. Alabama simply did not have that luxury, almost every team on Alabama's schedule was capable of beating a top 10 team. There were virtually no breathers, no easy games, no games in which Alabama could relax or shift their focus. Boise State thrived on that, they had so many easy games, and basically they could put all their energy and focus on those couple big games a year. That worked, there's no question that works, so it's funny that you brought that up as a counter point because it's actually part of the basis for my opinion on the matter.
First, I think you are still missing the core point. CrimSonami alluded to it though. It's actually hurt Alabama in the draft a little bit, year after year we've found out that Alabama players who were playing were in fact injured, and required lengthy recoveries. Now, you are trying to paint football games are being equal, but they simply are not. Playing an SEC game is not like playing Boise State's schedule, it's just not. Boise State played games that were less physically and mentally demanding. And yes, playing in the Big 10 is less demanding as well, not by as much, but come on. We saw the cakewalk Ohio State had the past few seasons, just like FSU. Anyway, Alabama players, the ones that seem healthy are in fact often walking wounded, on a level that's not on par with most other schools. That's just how it is, because Alabama plays against tougher competition and is also afforded less rest playing better competition.
Now, I don't know what the team of chimps are up to at the esteemed "teamrankings.com", but I've seen plenty of bogus SoS and they obviously got their formula wrong. They put Oregon at #3 as well, which is also a joke but I believe I know what they did so I'll explain. You see, like RPI, SoS actually needs to be neutral towards the number of games played. It skews it in a way, yes, but it skews it more to take that extra game anything other than averaged with the rest of the games. So, Ohio State and Oregon by the merit of playing in the additional game got bumped all the way to #2 and #3. Even if you agree with that, the fact is Alabama played Ohio State prior to that game, so that bump doesn't factor in.
I use Sagarin, well respected, who uses you know, like real math and stuff, and was part of the BCS formula. He's too much of a professional to let his numbers get skewed that easily:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/2015/team/
As you can see, Alabama is #2, Ohio State is #29, Oregon is #20 and Auburn is #1 in SoS.
I do not disagree with you. My point, really is far beyond that game. Alabama fans have developed unrealistic expectations which include expecting superhuman efforts from players. For instance, Alabama had the #2 SoS in 2009 as well. GMac played the BCSCG game broken ribs. A: He broke those ribs against Florida is a very tough SECCG, B: Alabama would have almost certainly lost in a playoff. Would that team have been any worse of a team had they lost a playoff? No, they wouldn't have, they simply would have been pushed beyond their limits, and that is exactly my point. Sometimes that happens, it doesn't mean the team did anything wrong really.