VaTech-Boise, and anti-Boise rant.

[A-Tex Devil]

Assume this is on topic since VaTech is in ACC.

Let me preface this by saying I am in the camp that thinks Boise St. has no business in the BCS chase. I went to the Poinsettia Bowl 2 years ago and grew to really disloike BSU and its fans. So there is that.

But VaTech... you are dead to me. You have failed college football. You have failed America. You may be stupidest team on earth (at least based on the first quarter and the last drive, questionable/horrible late hit penalty on last drive notwithstanding), and spotted this glorified junior college 10 points that cost you the victory in the end. So now we all have to hear about this Boise team that **may** be a top 10 team but certainly not top 5 ALL. YEAR. LONG. Va Tech will probably get their ish together and go 10-2 or something, but that performance screamed 8-4 to me. But Boise will get credit for beating you now, and now I have to hear about these blue-field playing jokers the rest of the year.

Chris Peterson -- you are an excellent, excellent coach. But it certainly helps when you only really have to coach up your team for the opener and the bowl game each year since you can coast the rest of the way. Maybe Oregon St. gives you a hard time but whatever. Coach week to week in a non-Big East BCS conference year in and year out where each week is a battle, and 10 wins would be a pipe dream.

Anyway, I dislike Boise St. and want them to go away. This isn't Butler. It's waaaaay different. It's Butler if Butler got a bye to the Elite 8 for winning the Horizon conference and beating MIchigan St. in the non-conference. Ugh.

[Wander]

No offense, but suggesting that Boise only "may" be a top 10 team this year is beyond dumb. Maybe Virginia Tech ends up being worse than expected, and maybe Boise gets upset by Nevada or something. But the myth that the best team in the country has to play in one of the best conferences has been disproven over and over and over and over again in every sport at every level. And even if it hadn't been, it's obviously a myth from a mathematical and logical perspective.

[A-Tex Devil]

No offense, but suggesting that Boise only "may" be a top 10 team this year is beyond dumb. Maybe Virginia Tech ends up being worse than expected, and maybe Boise gets upset by Nevada or something. But the myth that the best team in the country has to play in one of the best conferences has been disproven over and over and over and over again in every sport at every level. And even if it hadn't been, it's obviously a myth from a mathematical and logical perspective.

Give me even odds and I would happily put money on each of Alabama, Florida, Oklahaoma, Texas, Ohio St., USC, Oregoan, Iowa, Nebraska, and maybe Iowa, LSU, Georgia, Penn St. and Wisconsin. That's without looking at the current poll.

In each of BSU's 4 (and it's just 4. That's it.) big wins, they have benefited from more unforced errors than I've seen any other team stumble into. It's like they read the Secret or something.

Chris Peterson may be the BEST coach in America. I don't doubt that. But until they play and have to seriously prepare more than 2 games of consequence in any single year, as opposed to every BCS team that could potentially lose each and every week in conference play, color me skeptical.

[loran16]

Should Boise play a more challenging schedule? Well you'd hope so, by getting in a better conference.

But if you had a PLAYOFF, this wouldn't be a problem. And when they've crashed the BCS, they've managed to do pretty well (see Oklahoma and TCU for example).

That said, They attempt to play more games against tough teams..that's why VT and Oregon State are on the schedule. Is it their fault that they are in a smaller conference and that no other conference is trying to lure them elsewhere?

[AZLA]

I enjoy your candor. ESPN mentioned in a broadcast last week that Boise was the new Notre Dame -- the newly crowned most hated team. I don't get it. They were champions of one of the most incredible football games in history -- pro or college. Total underdogs who made good, capped by a good marriage proposal. The most hated team label typically goes to programs with a long established history of excellence (and championships). These guys are still new kids on the block. The BCS system can take a long walk on a short pier IMO. You make a good point about Butler basketball, but that's exactly why the BCS is so undemocratic and allows power house teams to keep the smaller programs under their heels. Virginia Tech got beat at what was practically a home field by a high-octane offense that pushes the boundaries of offensive strategy and with comparitively lesser athletes. I agree that their schedule is weak, but that's exactly why college football needs a playoff system, not a pageant contest. There needs to be more programs like Boise, TCU and Houston to throw the hammer at the establishment. I haven't experienced Boise fans, but I have run into some annoying people from Idaho (some are family), and frankly, I think Cory Blount may have had a point. Just saying...

[DevilHorns]

But the myth that the best team in the country has to play in one of the best conferences has been disproven over and over and over and over again in every sport at every level. And even if it hadn't been, it's obviously a myth from a mathematical and logical perspective.

For football, I honestly don't think this is true. There is far too much of a gap in quality of opponents for a team like Boise State vs say, Alabama. If Boise State moved to the SEC do you really think they'd do well against UF, Alabama, GA, Arkansas, and LSU year-in, year-out? Sure they may win some of them, but to play that level of competition every week is a completely different animal.

The thing is, Boise State has yet to be 'exposed.' They had their miraculous win against OU a few years back and since then have played a similar stature of team in TCU for bowl games. I would love for them to play any of the stud SEC teams.

[A-Tex Devil]

I enjoy your candor. ESPN mentioned in a broadcast last week that Boise was the new Notre Dame -- the newly crowned most hated team. I don't get it. They were champions of one of the most incredible football games in history -- pro or college. Total underdogs who made good, capped by a good marriage proposal. The most hated team label typically goes to programs with a long established history of excellence (and championships). These guys are still new kids on the block. The BCS system can take a long walk on a short pier IMO. You make a good point about Butler basketball, but that's exactly why the BCS is so undemocratic and allows power house teams to keep the smaller programs under their heels. Virginia Tech got beat at what was practically a home field by a high-octane offense that pushes the boundaries of offensive strategy and with comparitively lesser athletes. I agree that their schedule is weak, but that's exactly why college football needs a playoff system, not a pageant contest. There needs to be more programs like Boise, TCU and Houston to throw the hammer at the establishment. I haven't experienced Boise fans, but I have run into some annoying people from Idaho (some are family), and frankly, I think Cory Blount may have had a point. Just saying...

Yes, yes, yes. The BCS is awful. And a 0 or 1 loss Boise deserves a shot at an 8 or 16 team playoff. But in no world with multiple 0 and 1 loss BIg Ten, SEC, Big XII, ACC teams do they deserve a shot at the current crappy 2 team playoff we have now.

I'd be curious how they'd do against back to back decent teams. The Oregon St. game will be interesting, because I think that Katz could be a good QB and will have more games under his belt by that game. He looked good against TCU. It's probably the toughest mid-season game they've had in years. If they smoke Oreg St., that would in many ways be more impressive than tonight's game. Of course, they get 3 weeks to prepare for that game since they can sleepwalk through their next 2 opponents. See what I mean about back to back tough opponents? Something every BCS team has to deal with.

Edited to add -- I will look for the article, but Boise is charging a cool $1MM to for BCS teams to play them which is way over market. A lot of their non-conference scheduling woes are their own doing.

[loran16]

The thing is, Boise State has yet to be 'exposed.' They had their miraculous win against OU a few years back and since then have played a similar stature of team in TCU for bowl games. I would love for them to play any of the stud SEC teams.

This is the problem of the BCS. Last year, they could very easily played against Florida. Why Not? But the BCS protected its own by throwing its two interlopers against each other.

So you couldn't see whether they deserved a national title shot.

[A-Tex Devil]

This is the problem of the BCS. Last year, they could very easily played against Florida. Why Not? But the BCS protected its own by throwing its two interlopers against each other.

So you couldn't see whether they deserved a national title shot.

Actually, last year the FIesta Bowl picked Boise and TCU because they didn't want Cincinnati (no one did). THe mid-major matchup was the Fiesta Bowl's fault. Not the BCS. Cincy was the worst athlete at the pickup game (from a fanbase/TV/travel perspective) and the Sugar Bowl had last pick

[AZLA]

Edited to add -- I will look for the article, but Boise is charging a cool $1MM to for BCS teams to play them which is way over market. A lot of their non-conference scheduling woes are their own doing.

Interesting. Do you think they're maybe doing it as a premium to protect themselves from having to play a stronger schedule?

[loran16]

Actually, last year the FIesta Bowl picked Boise and TCU because they didn't want Cincinnati (no one did). THe mid-major matchup was the Fiesta Bowl's fault. Not the BCS. Cincy was the worst athlete at the pickup game (from a fanbase/TV/travel perspective) and the Sugar Bowl had last pick

Which is a function of the system. Who plays who shouldn't be based upon fanbase support.

[A-Tex Devil]

Interesting. Do you think they're maybe doing it as a premium to protect themselves from having to play a stronger schedule?

It's a lot of things, and I don't begrudge them for it.

1. They know they are a draw and in their minds deserve it.
2. THey know it puts their season at risk so the extra $$ is worth the chance they are exposed.
3. They are in a position now, with the exposure they are getting, etc. to really enhance their program. If they can retain Peterson, I believe they think they can stay in the top 10 in the polls for a while. And there is some thought that the "superconference realignment" from this past summer may actually reverse track and establish additional independents -- one of which might be Boise. May as well try to get as much money as you can while you are in the public eye.

So I get why they are doing it. But when they claim "no one will play us," well why bring in Boise for $1MM when you can get WYoming or New Mexico for a few hundred thousand.

[A-Tex Devil]

Which is a function of the system. Who plays who shouldn't be based upon fanbase support.

Well that's been a function of the Bowl system since before the BCS, but I see your point.

[rhcpflea99]

BSU still gets credit for going on the road beating a tough team. Bama won't play anybody in the top 10 away. Looking at the top 25, BSU is right were they belong 3 spot didn't see a team below them that deserve to be ahead of them.

[-bdbd]

BSU still gets credit for going on the road beating a tough team. Bama won't play anybody in the top 10 away. Looking at the top 25, BSU is right were they belong 3 spot didn't see a team below them that deserve to be ahead of them.

- They only did play this game b/c someone was willing to pay that hefty entry fee to them. I suspect a LOT of programs would happily travel across country to play a top-15 team if offered similar money!

- Bama doesn't NEED to go on the road to play tough opponents. They already play half their schedule against ranked teams - on the order of EIGHT highly ranked opponents if you count SEC championship and BCS Bowl.

- Contrast that with BS who, if they hadn't accepted the VT matchup, would only have been assured of ONE top-25 team -- and a borderline-top-25 team at that (playing in Idaho)!

- And as the point was already made, playing back-to-back challenging/physical teams has its own extra challenges.

- Finally, from a pure odds/stats perspective, the fact that 10 of the teams on BS's sked are REALLY bad should affect perspectives here. There is a huge difference in playing a sked full of top-50 type opponents (like VT and most of the ACC or SEC or Big10 does), versus the the BS method of playing just 2 (1?) competitive games a season, and then the rest all being opponents not even in the top-80. To use the two teams from tonight as the example: Sure, VT probably can beat everyone else on their sked, BUT they will be facing another 4-5 "competitive" opponents, and maybe another 4 beyond that that are good enough to beat them on a given Saturday. Play enough of those "good enough to beat them" opponents and odds are that, eventualy, one or two will rear up and bite them. No such concern for BS. Other than VT and OSU, they'll probably have an average margin of victory of 30+.

I get the "cinderella"/small school/underdog thing. And 90% of the time I too pull for the underdogs, little guys. But this field just isn't level. Most teams vying for a shot at the championship must beat 4-5-6 (or more) really challenging opponents to earn the right to get to Arizona this year. BCS just has to beat 2. And at least part of that scheduling situation is on BS's head.

:mad:

-- BD - "So mad that the crappy 4th quarter (and subsequent loss) by VT really harms the ACC's credibility yet again" -BD

[blazindw]

With the game here in DC in front of a partial VT crowd, BSU should have just played this game in Blacksburg. They would have received more computer points, IIRC, and that's what could be the difference in the end when determining who gets to dance for the crystal football.

Another reason no one wants to play BSU, whether the $1mm is true or not, is because no AQ school stands to gain anything from playing them. If they beat BSU, they were supposed to beat them...if they lose, it's an "embarrassment" for the school and their conference. Kudos to Oregon State in playing a certified road game against TCU and then traveling in a few weeks to the Blue Turf. But don't blame Boise for their schedule or their conference. In the summer of realignment, none of the big conferences considered them. It takes them sneaking into the BCS party to dance with the big boys, and despite all the naysayers around every turn, they bring it for every game and they've beaten the teams that people said would grant them respect if they played. Now that they've done that, respect is still not given. Teams like Boise and TCU are the reason we need a playoff, so every team can put up or shut up and there are no excuses for the particular result of a game against these BCS party crashers.

[weezie]

Did anybody have as bad an impression as I did about the Vtech unis?
The Halloween orange flame-y numbers were hideous.
Just a bad idea to mess up your mojo during such an important game.

[JasonEvans]

On the one hand, I think it is horrible and wrong that a team can win every game on its schedule and not be given a chance to play for the national title.

On the other hand, I think it is horribly unfair that Boise St or some other small conference team can get to the national title game playing a schedule that is laughably easy and potentially keeping a BCS-conference team that went to war every week and only has 1 loss out of the national title game.

Heck, you want a real nightmare scenario -- lets say that Alabama and Boise State both go undefeated and that Nebraska or Oregon or Miami or Pitt or Wisconsin also go undefeated. I think there is a pretty decent chance that Boise, playing just 2 meaningful games all year, would get to the national title game ahead of one of these BCS conference teams that played nothing but competitive games.

The bottom line is that the system is FUBAR until it is fixed and a 4 or 8 team playoff is put in place. Even though I am angry with Va Tech for opening the door to Boise St, I am sorta glad because Boise St is the perfect way to gum up the works this year and bring about even more BCS chaos...

...which will hopefully make a playoff even closer.

--Jason "the real nightmare is undefeated Boise vs. undefeated TCU for the national title in an ugly game that impresses no one while a 1-loss Alabama and a 1-loss Ohio State play a great game that looks like what a championship should look like" Evans

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

But VaTech... You may be stupidest team on earth (at least based on the first quarter and the last drive

The last VaTech drive was atrocious. I couldn't believe the shotgun snaps and incomplete passes under 2:30.

Like everyone else on this board, I want ACC football to at least be respectable. However, I think if VaTech had one, the general sentiment wouldn't have been "oh wow, ACC is good this year," but rather "we overrated this tiny Boise State squad - foolish us."

Having said that, because there's no playoff, I'm going to be very interested to see how BS does now. The hurdle for them has always been that the BCS is so stacked to help teams that start off highly ranked. You win, always at least stay where you are. You lose, tough tomatoes. It's difficult for even a very good team to ascend the rankings if they aren't ranked highly in the meaningless pre-season polls.

I suppose I'll be rooting for Boise now, but I was pulling for Tech last night.

[soccerstud2210]

Give me even odds and I would happily put money on each of Alabama, Florida, Oklahaoma, Texas, Ohio St., USC, Oregoan, Iowa, Nebraska, and maybe Iowa, LSU, Georgia, Penn St. and Wisconsin. That's without looking at the current poll.
.

given the way that Texas played on saturday, i'll take my bets on Boise St. and along with TExas in that pot throw Florida, Oklahoma, LSU, Penn St and WI

i understand you don't like their fans. or maybe even some of the players. but this is a GOOD team. just because they are not in a BCS conference doesnt mean they should be dis-credited. thats just ignorant. if you try to schedule better teams and they won't play you then there is nothing you can do about that.

seriously though, would mac brown want to go to Idaho to play this team? or play them on a neutral field.... i HIGHLY doubt it.

don't get me wrong. i like mac brown. and texas. but they are not stupid. that is why they played RICE with their first game. not Boise St.

all I am saying is that you can't discredit a team because of the conference they play in. just give them a chance. and last night they got that chance. and seized it. against a team that some people said themselves could be a national contender

[JasonEvans]

and last night they got that chance. and seized it.

If by "seized it" you mean -- they barely beat an opponent that played just so-so for much of the night and totally botched the end of the game, essentially giving away what should have been a victory -- then I totally agree, they seized it.

I keed.

Here is a good column (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news;_ylt=Ahj_GIZEIsI8OuB9SXDXsl8cvrYF?slug=lc-boise090710) on the thing that vexes all of us in this --


Monday was supposed to bring clarity to that dilemma, either with a definitive Boise State victory or a loss. One or the other would have said SOMETHING about the Broncos. A win meaning they are true title contenders regardless of their conference, a defeat ending all such talk for good.

And because Boise stood a Virginia Tech pass completion with just less than 2:00 left in the game from losing, nothing came clear. It is good enough to come back to beat the nation’s 10th-ranked team in what was essentially a road game, but is then going and rumbling through the WAC enough to prove it belongs in the national title game? That question wasn’t resolved.

The biggest game turned out to be an unsettling no-answer.

--Jason "frustrating, ain't it?" Evans

[soccerstud2210]

- They only did play this game b/c someone was willing to pay that hefty entry fee to them. I suspect a LOT of programs would happily travel across country to play a top-15 team if offered similar money!

- Bama doesn't NEED to go on the road to play tough opponents. They already play half their schedule against ranked teams - on the order of EIGHT highly ranked opponents if you count SEC championship and BCS Bowl.

- Contrast that with BS who, if they hadn't accepted the VT matchup, would only have been assured of ONE top-25 team -- and a borderline-top-25 team at that (playing in Idaho)!

- And as the point was already made, playing back-to-back challenging/physical teams has its own extra challenges.

- Finally, from a pure odds/stats perspective, the fact that 10 of the teams on BS's sked are REALLY bad should affect perspectives here. There is a huge difference in playing a sked full of top-50 type opponents (like VT and most of the ACC or SEC or Big10 does), versus the the BS method of playing just 2 (1?) competitive games a season, and then the rest all being opponents not even in the top-80. To use the two teams from tonight as the example: Sure, VT probably can beat everyone else on their sked, BUT they will be facing another 4-5 "competitive" opponents, and maybe another 4 beyond that that are good enough to beat them on a given Saturday. Play enough of those "good enough to beat them" opponents and odds are that, eventualy, one or two will rear up and bite them. No such concern for BS. Other than VT and OSU, they'll probably have an average margin of victory of 30+.

I get the "cinderella"/small school/underdog thing. And 90% of the time I too pull for the underdogs, little guys. But this field just isn't level. Most teams vying for a shot at the championship must beat 4-5-6 (or more) really challenging opponents to earn the right to get to Arizona this year. BCS just has to beat 2. And at least part of that scheduling situation is on BS's head.

:mad:

-- BD - "So mad that the crappy 4th quarter (and subsequent loss) by VT really harms the ACC's credibility yet again" -BD

BD,
what else do they have to do to prove to YOU that they are a decent team? they traveled 200 miles across the country to play essentially an away game, against the BEST of the ACC, a top 10 team, first game of the season, against a team that some annalysts are saying is a title contender themselves. i understand that their conference is not the best in the nation, but still. come on. you have to give them credit. that was a heck of a football game, by both teams.

[devildeac]

On the one hand, I think it is horrible and wrong that a team can win every game on its schedule and not be given a chance to play for the national title.

On the other hand, I think it is horribly unfair that Boise St or some other small conference team can get to the national title game playing a schedule that is laughably easy and potentially keeping a BCS-conference team that went to war every week and only has 1 loss out of the national title game.

Heck, you want a real nightmare scenario -- lets say that Alabama and Boise State both go undefeated and that Nebraska or Oregon or Miami or Pitt or Wisconsin also go undefeated. I think there is a pretty decent chance that Boise, playing just 2 meaningful games all year, would get to the national title game ahead of one of these BCS conference teams that played nothing but competitive games.

The bottom line is that the system is FUBAR until it is fixed and a 4 or 8 team playoff is put in place. Even though I am angry with Va Tech for opening the door to Boise St, I am sorta glad because Boise St is the perfect way to gum up the works this year and bring about even more BCS chaos...

...which will hopefully make a playoff even closer.

--Jason "the real nightmare is undefeated Boise vs. undefeated TCU for the national title in an ugly game that impresses no one while a 1-loss Alabama and a 1-loss Ohio State play a great game that looks like what a championship should look like" Evans

So, Mr. Evans, which one is it? The undefeated Alabama team from early in your post or the one loss Alabama team at the end of your post. Please post your answer before September 18, 2010. Heh-heh.;)

[kexman]

You might forgive BSU in the beginning years for having a weak schedule, but they are no cinderella at this point. They know they are a competitive team. They play in a terrible conference so they should schedule 4 competitive non conference games. They don't have to be in the top 10, but somewhere in the top 30-50 would be nice. At this point, I would not vote for them in the BCS until they start playing people. They do not control their conference, but they do the OOC schedule

Same with TCU.

[soccerstud2210]

If by "seized it" you mean -- they barely beat an opponent that played just so-so for much of the night and totally botched the end of the game, essentially giving away what should have been a victory -- then I totally agree, they seized it.

I keed.



you could say that for the flip too. boise st. had a missed field goal, missed extra point, two fumbles, and a dumb penalty on 4th down which then gave Va Tech shorter distance to then score a TD on the next play.

:)

[moonpie23]

everyone has very interesting points about this. I hardily agree with jason that the system if FUBAR....


The word "champion" to me is the team that is left standing. would any of you deny butler that title had the shot gone in? no... would any of you denied steph curry's DAVIDSON team the title had they run the table? no......they would have been "the national champs"


my point is, until an equitable playoff system is set up, there really ISN'T a "national champ" in college football......just the one the "system" puts out there as "champ"....

of course there is a high level of competition involved and all those big teams are amazing to be able to go undefeated. but, so is boise state if they do as well.....I think it's awful that one game lost at the beginning of the season can keep a team from being champs....

there's no way to say that if boise gets into the "tourny" that they wouldn't be the last team standing......cause there's no tourny...

personally, i hope bsu destroys the bcs


http://ui32.gamespot.com/479/702headbanginstick_2.gif

[A-Tex Devil]

everyone has very interesting points about this. I hardily agree with jason that the system if FUBAR....


The word "champion" to me is the team that is left standing. would any of you deny butler that title had the shot gone in? no... would any of you denied steph curry's DAVIDSON team the title had they run the table? no......they would have been "the national champs"


my point is, until an equitable playoff system is set up, there really ISN'T a "national champ" in college football......just the one the "system" puts out there as "champ"....

of course there is a high level of competition involved and all those big teams are amazing to be able to go undefeated. but, so is boise state if they do as well.....I think it's awful that one game lost at the beginning of the season can keep a team from being champs....

there's no way to say that if boise gets into the "tourny" that they wouldn't be the last team standing......cause there's no tourny...

personally, i hope bsu destroys the bcs


http://ui32.gamespot.com/479/702headbanginstick_2.gif

As I mentioned earlier though, what if Butler got a pass to the final four because they beat Michigan St. in November and went undefeated in their conference? Boise making it to the BCS championship game over most 1 loss BCS conference schools would be the same thing.

It's not fair, the BCS sucks, there should be a playoff. But in this debacle of a 2 team playoff system that we have, an undefeated Boise team should not get in over a one loss 'Bama if 'Bama happens to lose to Flordida, then beats Florida in the SECCG. Bama did more than Boise St.

[Duvall]

It's not fair, the BCS sucks, there should be a playoff. But in this debacle of a 2 team playoff system that we have, an undefeated Boise team should not get in over a one loss 'Bama if 'Bama happens to lose to Flordida, then beats Florida in the SECCG. Bama did more than Boise St.

They certainly would have done more losing.

I really don't see why we should be any more excited about an unjust system in which the Red River Shootout and SEC Championship Game act as de facto semifinals for the BCS Championship than we would about an unjust system in which Boise State earns a trip to the BCS Championship by beating all the high-level BCS teams that are willing to schedule them.

[superdave]

Maybe if Boise goes undefeated and makes it to the title game over better teams, the pwoer conferences will finally agree to an 8 team tournament. Hatred of Boise may be a unifier.

[royalblue]

14-0 last year 13-0 in 2006 50-4 over the last 5 years. Please direct your frustration at the sorry system not the Broncos. If the BCS schools wanted to protect the way it is they would get Bosie invited to a BCS conf. To anyone who likes this system imagine changing a current sport to this system. Go Broncos make the BCS sweat it out all year!!!!

[moonpie23]

as you all know, i'm prone to wild ideas. There is only ONE way to force a playoff system. it would be a national collective effort, but i think it would work.

I forget who the major bowl sponsors are, but, i would venture that if during the months of december and jan, if fans boycotted those sponsors in a major way, the system would change..

just think, you move all your financial dealings OUT of CITI and call them and tell them you want a playoff. You don't buy ONE SINGLE BAG of tostitos, you move all your shipping to UPS and tell FED X, "PLAYOFF!!"


you switch from AT&T, you DONT BUY one single nokia phone, you cancel your USF&G policy and you don't buy a sony PS2 ....(or 3). You don't buy Minolta, Masda or Toyota.

you don't eat at OUTBACK, chick Fil A and tear up your capital one card..


it's simplistic enough, it would just take a ONE MONTH NATIONAL EFFORT....people forget that they have collective effort to change things. (i picketed a car dealership for a week and they didn't sell one single car during that time - then they came to terms with me at the end of the week)


that playoff would be set up by march...


http://ui32.gamespot.com/479/702headbanginstick_2.gif

[sagegrouse]

Not to raise college football fandom to matters of high principle, but I have a few rules that help me decide who I want to win:

1. Chaos is preferable to order. In other words, I always want the big-time football powers to lose -- Bama, Oklahoma, Texas with that orange-lit tower in the center of campus, SC, Tennessee, Ohio State, etc....

2. I'll support the ACC most of the time -- even [gasp!] UNC -- in out of conference matchups. But after what Frank Beamer had his goons do to Thad Lewis, I will never, ever support Virginia Tech. [How many roughing the passer penalties did VT get before the Hokies finally gave Lewis a game-ending concussion?]

3. Naturally, I will favor all things that help Duke, but this has only become relevant in the past two years. Yea, Cut!

4. I still like Notre Dame -- thanks to the influence of my Irish-American grandmother in heaven -- but, boy, is it getting tough to find anything positive to say about the Irish.

Anyway, I have no problems with Boise State beating VT and playing for and winning the BCS championship (excuse the redundancy). It's what the major football powers and their gosh-awful fans deserve.

sagegrouse

[Udaman]

You guys now I love DBR. I come here every day. I certainly respect the opinions of everyone here, especially the regulars (such as A Texas Devil and JE).

But on this argument...you guys are smoking crack.

Boise State flies across the country, plays what is essentially a road game against a top 10 team from a major conference (ranked #6 by the coaches), and wins. And the arguments against them are

a) they didn't win impressively enough, and
b) If they now win the rest of their games, that shouldn't be enough to put them in the national championship game because they would not have played enough good teams.

Excuse me? Let me add my retort:

1) I watched the game, and thought it was a great game. Not perfect...but extremely competitive and exciting. Boise State was not a lucky team to win. They earned it. They have real talent. They beat a quality team. End of discussion.

2) So over the past three years, Boise State has finished undefeated twice, beaten several teams ranked in the top 10, and everyone says that is no big deal. Meanwhile, there have been a few years where Ohio State didn't play the tough teams in their conference, or played 1-2 ranked teams at home, and they get a shot at the national title. How is that fair?

3) Everyone admits that the BCS system is flawed. I think everyone agrees there should be a playoff. But there isn't. And what your hatred of Boise State isn't considering is that the BCS is completely biased towards the Big 6 conference...because the BCS was created by those same Big 6 conferences. The little schools had to beg and fight just to get the rules changed so they could make the top bowls (and in fact the BCS added another game just to try and make them happen). The system is geared 100% towards the BCS teams. They get automatic bids for winning their conferences, which the little guys don't. Because of this, the Big 6 get more money. Meaning they have better facilities. Also meaning they can pay their coaches more. Also meaning they are on TV more (which also brings in more money). So...they have a massive recruiting advantage.

And so Boise State goes out and plays by the rules, and because of the way the conferences and BCS are aligned, they don't get a chance to play for a national championship, even if they win all their games, beating 1-2 top 25 ranked teams along the way? That's not at all fair.

4) A Tex - you've used the basketball analogy twice now - saying that this would be like Butler getting a free ride to the Elite 8 simply because they went undefeated and beat Michigan State - the only ranked team they played. That's a flawed analogy. A better one would be saying they could play in the Elite 8 under that scenario, but have no chance of winning a national championship. Meanwhile Duke could play for a national championship by winning their conference, not having to play UNC, losing an early season game against a team now ranked 17th, and not having to play Butler at all, because...well, Butler doesn't deserve to play someone like Duke because of their schedule.

5) Boise State plays a tough schedule this year. They just played at Va Tech. They also play Oregon State. They play Fresno State who just took it to Cincinnati (a Big 6 conference team). They play Nevada - who will have 9 wins and go to a bowl game. By the end of the season, they will have a schedule just as tough as many of the top teams from other conferences. Maybe not the top 5-6 teams...but definitely some top 15 teams. But that's not enough. You want to punish them for being held to the rules of a system designed to purposely hold them down.

6) Here's a scenario for you. Virginia Tech wins its next 7 games (all played against sub par teams - all of which are worse than Nevada and probably Fresno State). Then they play Georgia Tech, who has lost twice and is ranked #23. They play them at home and win. Then they play UNC, who is no longer ranked on the road and win. Then they play Miami, Florida, at home, and beat them in a close game. That puts them in the ACC championship game where they play a two loss Florida State team that lost badly to Miami Florida, and lost the last game to Florida...but had an easy schedule in the top half of the bracket and get to the championship game.

Virginia Tech wins. They have now won 12 in a row, and only have one loss - to Boise State at home. By your own logic, Virginia Tech should be playing for the national championship over Boise State, who has gone undefeated. That....is nuts, but it is exactly the kind of logic you are embracing.

Go Boise State!

[A-Tex Devil]

I don't have a problem with Boise playing in the BCS championship game if there are no other undefeated teams. I don't think they deserve it over 1 loss teams in most major conferences simply because they had to run one, maybe 2, 1 game gauntlets. But I understand.

I just don't like Boise St. I think they have coasted off of one of the greatest performances ever in the 2007 Fiesta Bowl, but when you go back and see what they've done since, it's just not that impressive to me.

2007 - 3 losses, including to Washington, Hawaii (who got smoked in the Sugar Bowl) and East Carolina. Bringing back mostly the same team that beat OU.

2008 - 1 loss to TCU. They beat Oregon on the road who ended up 9-3 and are probably pretty equivalent to what Va Tech will be this year. Nice win. They were snubbed by the BCS and lost to TCU in San Diego in a game where they outcoached TCU, but clearly didn't have the same level of talent.

2009 - They beat a completely out of sorts Oregon team. You think Va Tech shot themselves in the foot a lot last night, go back and watch the Ducks' plethora of unforced errors and Masoli's awful game last year. Still, it's a great win at the end of the year because the Ducks righted the ship.

Then they exacted revenge against TCU in an unwatchable Fiesta Bowl, mostly because TCU thought they could out-trick the trickers and went completely away from the run game before Boise St. had a chance to even stop it.

I understand you play the schedule in front of you, etc. etc. but I DO NOTe have to accept that Boise is a top 10 team just because they won last night. Va Tech handed them 10 points, blew clock management and had a couple of close, if not bad, calls go against them on the punt and final drive. They still almost won. Boise had their share of mistakes too which either strengthens or weakens my stance depending on which side of the fence you are on.

Y'know. Let Boise in the BCS Championship game. When they get beat down like Cincinnatti, Hawaii, etc. by a 'Bama or an Ohio State, can we stop talking about them? Please?

EDITED TO ADD -- And if they win? I'll eat crow. I promise. I've seen Boise up close and in person -- basically this exact same team. They get handled by most top tier BCS teams.

[-bdbd]

BD,
what else do they have to do to prove to YOU that they are a decent team? they traveled 200 miles across the country to play essentially an away game, against the BEST of the ACC, a top 10 team, first game of the season, against a team that some annalysts are saying is a title contender themselves. i understand that their conference is not the best in the nation, but still. come on. you have to give them credit. that was a heck of a football game, by both teams.

Hey SS -
To answer your question about what BS must do to prove to ME that they are a decent team...
(1) That is the wrong question, and not the one being asked in this string. Clearly they ARE a decent team. The question we're discussing is "Do they deserve to get into the National Championship game?"
(2) The answer to THAT question (what must they do to prove they belong in AZ in January) is: Win 4-7 more games against top flight competition like everyone else with National Championship aspirations.
(3) Don't forget that they and their AD DO have the power to schedule at least 4 very challenging indy games. But they don't.

If they DO in the future set up a reasonably challenging schedule, they I will be very happy to jump on their bandwagon. But for now, they simply don't have nearly as many hurdles to get past as Bama, Ohio State, Texas, FLA, et al. (as VT may be the ONLY ranked team they end up playing this year).

And, yes, I too would love to see an 8 team BCS playoff to force everyone to have to play several quality opponents to win an NC. But alas, I don't see it happening soon.... Darn that $$$!

;)

[Duvall]

Y'know. Let Boise in the BCS Championship game. When they get beat down like Cincinnatti, Hawaii, etc. by a 'Bama or an Ohio State, can we stop talking about them? Please?

Sure, as long as we stop talking about every other team that gets beat down in the championship game by multiple touchdowns. It's only fair.

[A-Tex Devil]

Sure, as long as we stop talking about every other team that gets beat down in the championship game by multiple touchdowns. It's only fair.

I guess my point would be that those other teams got there running through gauntlets of 4-5 tough (or at least losable) games in 6 weeks. If they spit the bit in the BCS CCG (e.g. Ohio St and OU), I get it. But I had no qualms with them being there.

If Boise St. had to run those mid-season gauntlets, we'd be watching them play on December 30th every year. Of that I am as certain as I can be of a hypothetical situation :cool::p;)e.

Look -- Boise is either a victim (due to schedule and biases like mine) or a beneficiary (due to their schedule and biases of voters) of a crappy system. We'll find out in December. Put them in an 8 or even 4 team playoff playing tough games in back to back weeks and let's see what they can do. So if it takes BSU making it to the BCSCG for this all to come crashing down, I'll begrudgingly be OK with it, but I'll be rooting for a massacre in Glendale.

[NashvilleDevil]

I enjoy your candor. ESPN mentioned in a broadcast last week that Boise was the new Notre Dame -- the newly crowned most hated team. I don't get it. They were champions of one of the most incredible football games in history -- pro or college. Total underdogs who made good, capped by a good marriage proposal. The most hated team label typically goes to programs with a long established history of excellence (and championships). These guys are still new kids on the block.

They are the most hated team because every week since the Oklahoma miracle they are jammed down viewers throats as a team that always belongs in the discussion to play for the national title. The one time they played an SEC school they got smoked by Georgia.

If they are undefeated and Alabama, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Ohio St are undefeated or Penn St. only has a loss to Alabama who goes to the title game? Are you telling me viewers would want to see Boise get creamed by one of those schools or would they want to see a game between the blue bloods of college football?

We have seen over and over from these upstart programs that they get crushed when they play the semi-professional schools. Other than Utah playing a disinterested Alabama team two years ago and Boise's miracle in the desert these schools from lesser conferences never acquit themselves well in the bowl games.

[duke23]

Y'know. Let Boise in the BCS Championship game. When they get beat down like Cincinnatti, Hawaii, etc. by a 'Bama or an Ohio State, can we stop talking about them? Please?

You mean like Utah 31, Bama 17? Funny how the Hawaii game seems to be the exception rather than the rule...

[A-Tex Devil]

We have seen over and over from these upstart programs that they get crushed when they play the semi-professional schools. Other than Utah playing a disinterested Alabama team two years ago and Boise's miracle in the desert these schools from lesser conferences never acquit themselves well in the bowl games.

Careful there. You are hurting our point. ;). Non-automatic qualifiers are 4-2 in BCS games, 3-1 when not playing each other (Utah 2x, Boise 2x, Hawaii and TCU being the losers.

Boise's loss to Georgia, while VERY telling to me, was 5 or 6 years ago. The game that convinced me that Boise was not on the level was the Poinsettia Bowl 2 years ago. They completely outcoached and outplayed a TCU team (who had only lost to OU and Utah that year) and lost because they were just not as good. I grew up a TCU fan, and my family all went there. But, frankly, they are in the same boat. They held off a feisty Beaver team in their own backyard on Saturday. Do I think they could go 7-1 or 6-2 in the Big XII or SEC? No way.

I think the Oregon State game will be really interesting in a couple weeks. I would say watch Texas play Wyoming this week and then compare Boise next week for another indicator, but based on the Rice game Texas appears to be limiting its play book to 4-5 plays until it goes up to Lubbock on 9/18. So I am not sure that you will be able to compare those 2 games very well.

[A-Tex Devil]

You mean like Utah 31, Bama 17? Funny how the Hawaii game seems to be the exception rather than the rule...

No. I mean that I think Boise will lose a BCSCG where the other team has a modicum of interest. I also think that Utah team was better than this Boise team.

[blazindw]

@NashvilleDevil: Georgia beat Hawaii, not Boise. Boise is undefeated in the BCS. Same with Utah. If you want Boise out of the picture, they gotta lose. If people think that a decent BCS school would work a top-notch Boise, set up a date and time on a field and let's see it happen. Problem is, no one wants to do that because they know what could happen: they are the ones who get worked, and Boise's rep continues to grow.

[NashvilleDevil]

@NashvilleDevil: Georgia beat Hawaii, not Boise. Boise is undefeated in the BCS. Same with Utah. If you want Boise out of the picture, they gotta lose. If people think that a decent BCS school would work a top-notch Boise, set up a date and time on a field and let's see it happen. Problem is, no one wants to do that because they know what could happen: they are the ones who get worked, and Boise's rep continues to grow.

I am aware of the beating that UGA gave Hawaii but that was not the game I was referencing. The year before Boise became the darlings of college football they traveled between the hedges and got worked by Georgia in a regular season game.

And A-Tex has given a number of reasons why a school from the SEC or Big XII will not play Boise. Those schools have 6 games in conference each year that are tough so why play a top 10 school OOC when you are going to play 6 top 25 schools in conference?

[shotrocksplitter]

I only saw the last two drives, as I was on the road last night, but two huge things stuck out to me:
1 - The unbearable commentary. A hail mary broken up is not the world's greatest defense, it's routine. ESPN couldn't be more happy about this Boise team, it'll bring their first season of BCS coverage high ratings.
2 - Two horrific calls. The zebras gave BSU somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 yards on their final drive, which put VT's defense on its heels. I always hate when referees decide the game, and they certainly did last night.

BSU has played some great games. Their victory over Oklahoma is one of my favorite football games of all time. But there's no question that their opponents were guilty of underestimation. BSU was overmatched but plucky, there wasn't particular talent, domination, or skill involved in that game.

As we've been talking about playoff systems, let's return to the March Madness we love. BSU is a Gonzaga of the early 2000's, or at best 2006 George Mason. Those are teams that won a few exciting games, and made it far further than most expected. They were motivated and well-coached. However, they were never really in danger of a title. I think it'd be appropriate if BSU wasn't either.

[A-Tex Devil]

@NashvilleDevil: Georgia beat Hawaii, not Boise. Boise is undefeated in the BCS. Same with Utah. If you want Boise out of the picture, they gotta lose. If people think that a decent BCS school would work a top-notch Boise, set up a date and time on a field and let's see it happen. Problem is, no one wants to do that because they know what could happen: they are the ones who get worked, and Boise's rep continues to grow.

Georgia annihilated Boise between the hedges ~2004-2005 in the only other trip I remember Boise making east. Georgia was 3rd or 4th best team in SEC that year at best. That was a completely different Boise team, obviously, but the SEC will continually point to that game. (And as much as I am anti-Boise on this thread, even I don't think that's fair).

[rhcpflea99]

- They only did play this game b/c someone was willing to pay that hefty entry fee to them. I suspect a LOT of programs would happily travel across country to play a top-15 team if offered similar money!

:) SEC never travels to rank team house unless it is conference


- Bama doesn't NEED to go on the road to play tough opponents. They already play half their schedule against ranked teams - on the order of EIGHT highly ranked opponents if you count SEC championship and BCS Bowl.

:***There is currently only 1 SEC team in the top 10, Florida and if you watch Gators play this weekend you can tell they definitely don't belong there.

- Contrast that with BS who, if they hadn't accepted the VT matchup, would only have been assured of ONE top-25 team -- and a borderline-top-25 team at that (playing in Idaho)!
***Bama is only insured 3 of top 25 team, Florida, Penn state, SEC championship game, Arkanasas #17 LSU #21 and Auburn #22 could all be out by the time they meet.

- And as the point was already made, playing back-to-back challenging/physical teams has its own extra challenges.

***Agree, BSU coach seems to have his boys prepared every week.

- Finally, from a pure odds/stats perspective, the fact that 10 of the teams on BS's sked are REALLY bad should affect perspectives here. There is a huge difference in playing a sked full of top-50 type opponents (like VT and most of the ACC or SEC or Big10 does), versus the the BS method of playing just 2 (1?) competitive games a season, and then the rest all being opponents not even in the top-80. To use the two teams from tonight as the example: Sure, VT probably can beat everyone else on their sked, BUT they will be facing another 4-5 "competitive" opponents, and maybe another 4 beyond that that are good enough to beat them on a given Saturday. Play enough of those "good enough to beat them" opponents and odds are that, eventualy, one or two will rear up and bite them. No such concern for BS. Other than VT and OSU, they'll probably have an average margin of victory of 30+.

:) BSU will be winning games by 30+ they are the #3 team in polls they should be.

I get the "cinderella"/small school/underdog thing. And 90% of the time I too pull for the underdogs, little guys. But this field just isn't level. Most teams vying for a shot at the championship must beat 4-5-6 (or more) really challenging opponents to earn the right to get to Arizona this year. BCS just has to beat 2. And at least part of that scheduling situation is on BS's head.

:mad:

-- BD - "So mad that the crappy 4th quarter (and subsequent loss) by VT really harms the ACC's credibility yet again" -BD


:) BCS sucks IMO but every team plays by the same rules.

[NashvilleDevil]

Georgia annihilated Boise between the hedges ~2004-2005 in the only other trip I remember Boise making east. Georgia was 3rd or 4th best team in SEC that year at best. That was a completely different Boise team, obviously, but the SEC will continually point to that game. (And as much as I am anti-Boise on this thread, even I don't think that's fair).

I am no fan of the SEC (Huskers baby) but if people are going to always bring up the fluky nature of the win against Oklahoma and last year's borefest against TCU as reasons that Boise belongs I am fine bringing up the beatdown Georgia gave them

[soccerstud2210]

Hey SS -
To answer your question about what BS must do to prove to ME that they are a decent team...
(1) That is the wrong question, and not the one being asked in this string. Clearly they ARE a decent team. The question we're discussing is "Do they deserve to get into the National Championship game?"
(2) The answer to THAT question (what must they do to prove they belong in AZ in January) is: Win 4-7 more games against top flight competition like everyone else with National Championship aspirations.
(3) Don't forget that they and their AD DO have the power to schedule at least 4 very challenging indy games. But they don't.

If they DO in the future set up a reasonably challenging schedule, they I will be very happy to jump on their bandwagon. But for now, they simply don't have nearly as many hurdles to get past as Bama, Ohio State, Texas, FLA, et al. (as VT may be the ONLY ranked team they end up playing this year).

And, yes, I too would love to see an 8 team BCS playoff to force everyone to have to play several quality opponents to win an NC. But alas, I don't see it happening soon.... Darn that $$$!

;)

i was saying YOU because everyone is making their point of why THEY think Boise St shouldn't be in there

you really think they can go to any of the top 25 teams and schedule a game with them? with all do respect, you're crazy. it's a two sided agreement. a team can't just waltz into scheduling and pick any team they want to.

teams don't play or want to play Boise St because like someone mentioned earlier, its a lose-lose situation for them. if they win, heck, they were supposed to. and if they lose, then gosh, that is embarrassing and detrimental to their season

i do agree with you on the playoff though... boy oh boy would that be amazing! :)

[blazindw]

I am aware of the beating that UGA gave Hawaii but that was not the game I was referencing. The year before Boise became the darlings of college football they traveled between the hedges and got worked by Georgia in a regular season game.

And A-Tex has given a number of reasons why a school from the SEC or Big XII will not play Boise. Those schools have 6 games in conference each year that are tough so why play a top 10 school OOC when you are going to play 6 top 25 schools in conference?

Didn't realize that you were referring to the regular season game at UGA. Sorry bout that.

And I totally understand the SEC's and Big 12's reasonings behind not playing Boise. But, most BCS conferences feel that their conference schedule is loaded with quality opponents. I just get tired of SEC schools telling Boise that they should play someone from a real conference but in the same sentence say "but not us". Back in the 80s when they were independent, Miami repeatedly steamrolled schedules far harder than anything an SEC school can boast today. And they won because they developed that "I ain't never scared" attitude by playing anyone, anytime, anywhere. To play the best, you should beat the best, and that can't include SEC teams' OOC schedules filled with Directional States and 1-AA opponents. They should want to dismantle any team who may think they're on the same level as them.

[A-Tex Devil]

i was saying YOU because everyone is making their point of why THEY think Boise St shouldn't be in there

you really think they can go to any of the top 25 teams and schedule a game with them? with all do respect, you're crazy. it's a two sided agreement. a team can't just waltz into scheduling and pick any team they want to.

teams don't play or want to play Boise St because like someone mentioned earlier, its a lose-lose situation for them. if they win, heck, they were supposed to. and if they lose, then gosh, that is embarrassing and detrimental to their season

i do agree with you on the playoff though... boy oh boy would that be amazing! :)

I think Boise **COULD** schedule a Pac 10 team, a Big XII team and, one home and home east coast trip to a Big East/ACC/SEC team each year with one OOC cupcake if they wanted to.

I don't think you can fault them Oreg. St., but they have to stop scheduling teams like Wyoming and Toledo when they are getting a healthy dose of that type of talent in their own conference.

They don't need to play VaTech, Texas and Alabama each year. But it would be good to see them play 3 games against BCS teams. Let's say Kansas St., Mississippi (who they do have a home and home with) and Wisconsin, as an example, in the same year. Those types of teams would gladly schedule them, I think.

If they had a team like K-State on their schedule this year - another 8-4 caliber BCS conference team - instead of a Toledo or Wyoming, that would help tremendously.

[Nugget]

I'm fine with Boise St. or the other non-AQ leagues getting a spot in one of the BCS games if they can make it through their conferences undefeated. But, it is a whole different story to suggest that one of these teams is truly the best in the country.

No one is denying that Boise St. is a “decent” team, or even a really good team that, in a one shot deal, has a chance to beat other really good teams. But, to me that’s not the test of a national champion. It seems fairly obvious to me that there is no way they would have the depth to make it through an SEC schedule unscathed, and almost certainly couldn't do it in even the leagues a step down, which is what they’d have to do to win a national title from one of the AQ leagues.

It’s nice that, in a bowl game, with a month to prepare, a healthy team, and an opponent not real interested in the game (Oklahoma-Boise, Utah-Alabama), these teams were able to rise up and surprise the big boys.

But, does anyone really think Boise could make it through these schedule stretches that other top 10 teams face without breaking down and losing at least a game or two:

Alabama: Penn St., @ Duke, @ Arkansas, Florida, @ S. Carolina, Ole Miss, @ Tennessee, bye, @ LSU.

Ohio St.: @ Wisconsin, Purdue, @ Minnesota, bye, Penn St., @ Iowa, Michigan

Florida: @ Tennessee, Kentucky, @ Alabama, LSU, Miss St., bye, Georgia, @ Vandy, S. Carolina

Texas: @ Texas Tech, UCLA, Oklahoma, bye, @ Nebraska

Oregon:@ Tennessee, walkover, @ Arizona St., Stanford, walkover, UCLA, @ USC, Washington, @ Cal, Arizona, @ Oregon St.

Iowa: @ Arizona, Ball St., Penn St., bye, @ Michigan, Wisconsin, Michigan St., @ Indiana, @ Northwestern, Ohio St.

Nebraska: @ Washington, walkover, @ Kansas St., Texas, @ Oklahoma St., Missouri [and, later, @ Texas A&M, plus a conference title game against Texas or Oklahoma]

Wisconsin: Arizona St., walkover, @ Michigan St., Minnesota, Ohio St., @ Iowa, bye, @ Purdue, Indiana, @ Michigan, Northwestern.

If Boise really wanted to prove they could compete consistently against schedules like that then they should do what Florida St. did in the early 1980’s when Bowden was trying to prove the Noles could compete on the national stage – use their 4 non-conference games to take on the best schedule possible, and do it even if it means having to play the powers on the road without a return home game, which is apparently something Boise won’t do.

It would be much easier to take them seriously as a national title contender if their non-conference was, instead of @ Va Tech, Oregon St., @ Wyoming, Toledo, something like:

@ Va Tech, Oregon St., @ Arizona, @ Miami, or

@ Va Tech, Oregon St., @ Nebraska, @ Georgia

[calltheobvious]

Georgia annihilated Boise between the hedges ~2004-2005 in the only other trip I remember Boise making east. Georgia was 3rd or 4th best team in SEC that year at best. That was a completely different Boise team, obviously, but the SEC will continually point to that game. (And as much as I am anti-Boise on this thread, even I don't think that's fair).

Not to hurt (y)our point, but Georgia was the SEC champ in 2005.

[rhcpflea99]

If Boise state wins NC it won't count because they had an easy road to NC game ....just like Duke:rolleyes:

[1999ballboy]

Good for Boise. About time some team was capable of throwing a wrench in the BCS system. Is it going to change anytime soon? I don't know. But as long as Boise keeps creating controversy over whether or not they deserve a shot at the "title," then we may be getting closer to a change. Now I recognize I am in a different position from many here- I have never been a fan of any college football powerhouse, and therefore have never really cared who wins it all. In fact, I don't really recognize the college football "title," much like China doesn't recognize Taiwan or Liechtenstein doesn't recognize Slovakia. To me it isn't legit because there's no playoff. That simple. I do, however, enjoy college football on a game-by-game basis.

I'll also admit I'm in the camp that usually thinks Gonzaga is rated too highly in basketball. But there I have the luxury of not worrying too much about that, because I know that if they're not that good, they'll get beat down in the tournament. Right now, given that there's no playoff, I'd say Boise is still a Top 10 team, but probably rated a few spots too highly right now. But honestly it's too early to tell. Give them credit, they've done well against BCS teams when they've been given the chance and there's no reason to believe they won't continue to do so. If they do go undefeated, they should be in the conversation.

Boise State are party crashers, for sure, and that's why people dislike them. But it's a terrible party in the first place.

[blazindw]

If Boise really wanted to prove they could compete consistently against schedules like that then they should do what Florida St. did in the early 1980’s when Bowden was trying to prove the Noles could compete on the national stage – use their 4 non-conference games to take on the best schedule possible, and do it even if it means having to play the powers on the road without a return home game, which is apparently something Boise won’t do.

The rest of your point is well-taken, but have an issue with this one. Sure they can do that, but to tell a team that isn't in a BCS conference that to earn respect they must play 4 really tough teams on the road without a return game in some instances isn't right. Smaller conference teams need home games possibly even more than most AQ schools since they help the AD get into the black each year. Then, when they command a $1mm guarantee or whatever it may be, teams and fans cry foul. They're just trying to keep the lights on, and being on the road so much are home games they aren't getting.

The BCS isn't the royalty of college football but despite the huge majority of fans that hate the system and want a playoff, they will seek to defend their royalness. It's not Boise's fault they weren't in the right conference when the BCS was formed. I don't care if they play MAC teams or the like, so long as they use those teams to show their might. Other BCS teams play those very same "cupcakes" and their results are viewed much differently. Texas plays Wyoming this year as part of the return of a home-and-home series (Texas trekked to Wyoming last year). If they blast them, fine. Boise plays at Wyoming the next week...what if they beat Wyoming by more than Texas did? On the road where Texas got Wyoming in a home game? People would still complain that Boise hasn't faced anyone where in any other sport, common opponents are used as a valid point of comparison. In my mind, it's a double standard that can only be settled through a playoff.

[duke23]

I'm fine with Boise St. or the other non-AQ leagues getting a spot in one of the BCS games if they can make it through their conferences undefeated. But, it is a whole different story to suggest that one of these teams is truly the best in the country.

No one is denying that Boise St. is a “decent” team, or even a really good team that, in a one shot deal, has a chance to beat other really good teams. But, to me that’s not the test of a national champion. It seems fairly obvious to me that there is no way they would have the depth to make it through an SEC schedule unscathed, and almost certainly couldn't do it in even the leagues a step down, which is what they’d have to do to win a national title from one of the AQ leagues.

It’s nice that, in a bowl game, with a month to prepare, a healthy team, and an opponent not real interested in the game (Oklahoma-Boise, Utah-Alabama), these teams were able to rise up and surprise the big boys.

But, does anyone really think Boise could make it through these schedule stretches that other top 10 teams face without breaking down and losing at least a game or two:

Alabama: Penn St., @ Duke, @ Arkansas, Florida, @ S. Carolina, Ole Miss, @ Tennessee, bye, @ LSU.

Ohio St.: @ Wisconsin, Purdue, @ Minnesota, bye, Penn St., @ Iowa, Michigan

Florida: @ Tennessee, Kentucky, @ Alabama, LSU, Miss St., bye, Georgia, @ Vandy, S. Carolina

Texas: @ Texas Tech, UCLA, Oklahoma, bye, @ Nebraska

Oregon:@ Tennessee, walkover, @ Arizona St., Stanford, walkover, UCLA, @ USC, Washington, @ Cal, Arizona, @ Oregon St.

Iowa: @ Arizona, Ball St., Penn St., bye, @ Michigan, Wisconsin, Michigan St., @ Indiana, @ Northwestern, Ohio St.

Nebraska: @ Washington, walkover, @ Kansas St., Texas, @ Oklahoma St., Missouri [and, later, @ Texas A&M, plus a conference title game against Texas or Oklahoma]

Wisconsin: Arizona St., walkover, @ Michigan St., Minnesota, Ohio St., @ Iowa, bye, @ Purdue, Indiana, @ Michigan, Northwestern.

If Boise really wanted to prove they could compete consistently against schedules like that then they should do what Florida St. did in the early 1980’s when Bowden was trying to prove the Noles could compete on the national stage – use their 4 non-conference games to take on the best schedule possible, and do it even if it means having to play the powers on the road without a return home game, which is apparently something Boise won’t do.

It would be much easier to take them seriously as a national title contender if their non-conference was, instead of @ Va Tech, Oregon St., @ Wyoming, Toledo, something like:

@ Va Tech, Oregon St., @ Arizona, @ Miami, or

@ Va Tech, Oregon St., @ Nebraska, @ Georgia

What do you think about Utah's schedule? OOC is San Jose St and Pitt at home, ND and Iowa St on the road. If they were to go undefeated, beating both BYU and TCU at home, is that good enough? (Coincidentally, this is exactly what happened in 2008, but they beat Oregon St at home and Michigan on the road.)

[Nugget]

I think Utah's schedule is legit, especially since they would also have to win conference games against TCU and BYU to go undefeated.

And to respond to one of the points ago, I'm sensitive to Boise needing home games for $. But, if they opt to go that direction then I don't think they can complain about having a lesser shot at the national title than the larger schools do. That was kind of my point with Bowden -- he gave up the home games for the chance to play the big boys, even though it had to be on the road.

[A-Tex Devil]

I am stealing this from someone on a completely different BBS, but this is generally how I feel in less vitriolic terms. Honestly, I am more upset with Va Tech and Oregon for absolutely spitting the bit than Boise St. I will be interested to see if people think Va Tech would beat Boise at the end of this year the way people felt about Oregon vis a vis Boise at the end of last year.


I don’t think most people have a problem admitting that Boise is one of the best teams in the country. While you might get disagreement on top 5 status, most will acknowledge that Boise belongs in the top 20. I think most people’s problem (mine, anyway) is that Boise’s schedule doesn’t lend itself to the possibility of playing 3 top 10 teams in a year. Heck, their schedule is always loaded with teams that are ranked in the bottom 25 percent of college football. I always think back to that 4 game stretch in 2008 when Texas played OU, Mizzou, OSU, and Tech in consecutive games. All teams were ranked highly. In the end, that 4 game stretch resulted in the last second loss to Tech that cost Texas a shot at the title. I will grant you that was an exceptional year for the Big 12, but having to deal with something like that just isn’t possible for Boise. So, it’s (somewhat) legitimate for certain teams to say “hey, all we can do is play our schedule,” while it is never legitimate for Boise to say that. Their schedule is always horrendous, and it doesn’t lend itself to the possibility of such a brutal stretch. FWIW, that’s my thoughts.

Last year, Texas' schedule was crappy. But they had scheduled Arkansas back when Houston Nutt was doing some positive things. Same with UCLA this year which has been on the books for 6-7 years. Two years ago, OU scheduled TCU and Cincy as walkovers, and both teams ended up being top 10. But each school had its conference to fall back on -- which is stronger some years than others. Boise's is ALWAYS weak, so if they don't want the skepticism, they need to run a gauntlet like all the other BCS teams do. Alabama's this year, for instance, is absolutely brutal. 6 or 7 straight weeks playing an SEC team coming off a bye that has 2 weeks to prepare. Wow.

[Wander]

Boise State losing to Georgia six years ago is so insanely irrelevant it's not even funny, and anyone who believes that Alabama losing to Utah a few years ago proves that Alabama just didn't care enough should be banned from watching sports.

A-Tex, I know you know your football and always enjoy reading what you have to say about it, but I have no idea how you can say with a straight face that you'd put money on Florida or LSU beating Boise on a neutral site after watching each of those three teams in their first games.

About Butler - guess what? They DIDN'T beat anyone of note the entire season, except for a home game against Xavier in December. They're a shining example supporting Boise State - that just because a team doesn't play a super tough schedule, doesn't mean they aren't an elite team, maybe even the best team. IMO the value of avoiding bad losses is constantly underrated by sports fans - odd on here, because that's something that Duke basketball absolutely excels at (see: non-conference home winning streak).

I'm not promising that Boise is the best team in the country or that they won't lose a game or two - but right now, a top five ranking is 100% justified.

[AZLA]

Okay, this thread has been extremely interesting. But just to move it forward and in a light-hearted direction, what do you guys think of Nike's influence on these types of games to reveal their 'Pro Combat College Football Uniforms' ?

Especially the point where they refer to them as "pro" for NCAA eligible student athletes.

I wasn't sure what to think of Boise or VT's new uniforms.

They were interesting, but they just seem so overtly juvenile. I guess that is who is spending the dough on buying the gear.

Looks like they're "preparing" universities for "combat" on the basketball side too.

Sheeeeesh.

[BlueintheFace]

Boise St. has pretty consistently proven that they can beat the best teams in the country in the last few years. I think that eventually they have to be given a shot. It's not like they are running from big games. Nobody wants to play them because they are really stinking good.

At the end of the day, I am just rooting for mayhem. Quite simply, I am in the 98% of sports and football fans who want the BCS to die. Boise St. v TCU for the big game would be wonderful.

[blazindw]

Okay, this thread has been extremely interesting. But just to move it forward and in a light-hearted direction, what do you guys think of Nike's influence on these types of games to reveal their 'Pro Combat College Football Uniforms' ?

Especially the point where they refer to them as "pro" for NCAA eligible student athletes.

I wasn't sure what to think of Boise or VT's new uniforms.

They were interesting, but they just seem so overtly juvenile. I guess that is who is spending the dough on buying the gear.

Looks like they're "preparing" universities for "combat" on the basketball side too.

Sheeeeesh.

I like Miami's and I like the ones that Miami had last season. I hate that Ohio State insists on wearing theirs during The Game, a game where tradition is everything and even Ohio State fans wish that both teams would come out in their normal home/away jerseys.

[DU82]

Okay, this thread has been extremely interesting. But just to move it forward and in a light-hearted direction, what do you guys think of Nike's influence on these types of games to reveal their 'Pro Combat College Football Uniforms' ?

Especially the point where they refer to them as "pro" for NCAA eligible student athletes.

I wasn't sure what to think of Boise or VT's new uniforms.

They were interesting, but they just seem so overtly juvenile. I guess that is who is spending the dough on buying the gear.

Looks like they're "preparing" universities for "combat" on the basketball side too.

Sheeeeesh.

Ah, that's where they came from. Should have guessed. The VT unis were some of the worst I'd ever seen. Given I'm 10 miles from Chapel Hill, that's saying something.

[A-Tex Devil]

Boise State losing to Georgia six years ago is so insanely irrelevant it's not even funny, and anyone who believes that Alabama losing to Utah a few years ago proves that Alabama just didn't care enough should be banned from watching sports.

A-Tex, I know you know your football and always enjoy reading what you have to say about it, but I have no idea how you can say with a straight face that you'd put money on Florida or LSU beating Boise on a neutral site after watching each of those three teams in their first games.

About Butler - guess what? They DIDN'T beat anyone of note the entire season, except for a home game against Xavier in December. They're a shining example supporting Boise State - that just because a team doesn't play a super tough schedule, doesn't mean they aren't an elite team, maybe even the best team. IMO the value of avoiding bad losses is constantly underrated by sports fans - odd on here, because that's something that Duke basketball absolutely excels at (see: non-conference home winning streak).

I'm not promising that Boise is the best team in the country or that they won't lose a game or two - but right now, a top five ranking is 100% justified.

Appreciate the words. I am just impatient and easily annoyed with Boise. And I think it's simply because of the fact that the one time I watched them in person and the other time I watched them in much detail (Fiesta Bowl), they were not impressive. Last night, they needed a mini-miracle (rescinded penalty, extra weak, if by the book, late hit call) to pull out a win against a team that spotted them 17 points through pure unforced errors. Will Va Tech win out? Maybe. And if so good on BSU. But I don't see that happening. Va Tech looked like a 4 loss team last night. I can't tell whether Va Tech and Boise are any better than ECU and Tulsa (I am being hyperbolic). So yea

I just don't want to hear about them all year because the outcome is going to either be they get snubbed for a one loss team, or they make it to the BCSCG and get beat badly (imho). I was hoping to end the lovefest last night. Va Tech put on a display of football stupidity that would make Les Miles proud. Yes I am bitter. But everyone has that one team that annoys them. Let's go Beavers.

[A-Tex Devil]

Ah, that's where they came from. Should have guessed. The VT unis were some of the worst I'd ever seen. Given I'm 10 miles from Chapel Hill, that's saying something.

Boise's were worse in my opinion (surprise, surprise!). Was the bronco so big on one side of the helmet, they couldn't put one on the other?

Va Tech's Unis were what Wayne and Garth once so eloquently called a Scud (or in other slang "good from far, far from good").

When I was watching plays unfold, I liked the black on orange, but when they zoomed in at player level, Yeesh!

TCUs were interesting: "Lizard Skin on Ice"

[Devilsfan]

Too bad it's all about the money. Boise should be let into the PAC 10+. That would end all the banter. That horse on the side of their head gear might be ready for the glue factory after week 5 or 6.

[Dukeface88]

Coach Cutcliffe weighs in. (http://sports.chronicleblogs.com/2010/09/07/cutcliffe-not-impressed-with-boise-state/)


For what it's worth, I don't think it's entirely true that Boise's weak conference is the fault of outside circumstance. They could have made the move to the Mountain West sooner. An MWC with Boise, Utah, TCU, BYU and Wyoming (Boise is playing them already, but it would free up an out of conference game) wouldn't exactly be the SEC, but it would probably be more impressive than, say, the Big East. With Utah and BYU leaving, I think it turned out to be too little, too late.

[weezie]

Boise should be let into the PAC 10+. That would end all the banter. That horse on the side of their head gear might be ready for the glue factory after week 5 or 6.

Finally, some humor in the thread.
Very good, very funny. :D
Let's go Devils!

[Eternal Outlaw]

Anyway, I dislike Boise St. and want them to go away. This isn't Butler. It's waaaaay different. It's Butler if Butler got a bye to the Elite 8 for winning the Horizon conference and beating MIchigan St. in the non-conference. Ugh.

Absolutely different. Last year in the regular season, Butler played the following four teams who were ranked at the time:

#22 Minnesota Loss
#19 Clemson Loss
#15 Georgetown Loss
#13 Ohio State Win (no Evan Turner)

It's odd you are pissing on Boise who is winning their big regular season games and you seem to have respect for Butler who really didn't have much of a resume for a #12 ranked team besides the win streak.

I respect what both Butler and Boise State have done in their situations, I just am confused how one can hate Boise yet respect Butler. Out of Butler 2009-2010 and Boise State 2009, Boise State deserved to be in the title game more than Butler if you go by regular season. Good thing for Butler there is a tourney so they could step it up and kudos for them for doing so. Too bad Boise State needs to fight a snobbish system made to protect the big boys.

It's funny really. In basketball the best team doesn't get named Champion all the time because all it takes is 1 bad game or facing a super hot team in a tourney where you need to win 6 straight games. In football the best team may not even get the chance.

People want an 8 or 16 tournament for football, well if basketball took 8 or 16, Butler doesn't even get the shot last year if you go by seeding, they were a 5 which makes them somewhere between 17-20. And you know what, some people might complain but with how they did with their big games last year, they really wouldn't have had much of an argument.

I'm in the camp that right now there is no true National Champion in football, just a bunch of winners of exhibition games. I really see no reason why Boise shouldn't be in the discussion to be in the most glamourous one.

[ChrisP]

Seems like there are already a ton of doubters that BSU is for real - even after their dramatic win over VT. I like them and their quirky blue field and hope they do well, but I gotta believe that the so-called "experts" opinion of them will drop after the egg that VT just laid.

On a related note, I'm SO happy to see VT at 0-2 - I really detest that athletic program.

[CLW]

I believe that it definitely does in the CPUs (unless I am mistaken the CPUs still consider SOS).

More importantly, it will probably hurt them in the eyes of the human voters. If Va Tech just has an "average" year and struggles that win is no longer impressive.

[cspan37421]

I'm not a hater on Boise State. When I look back on how they took it to OU years ago with all that razzle dazzle, I'm still smiling. They found a way to win within the rules.

But their SOS, already quite suspect, just got amputated at the knees. Short of shutting out every remaining opponent, I don't see how they get a bid over any undefeated team from a BCS conference, NOR over most 1-loss teams from a BCS conference, provided the loss was close and to another top 10 team.

Full Disclosure: I do not like the BCS system, and want a playoff a la Div I FCS. It's really a fun, more fair system - Div I FBS should try it. If only the bowls would recognize that it would "make the pie higher" !

[COYS]

With Miami and FSu looking like they are gonna lose, today, the ACC may be hurt more than Boise State.

[SupaDave]

With Miami and FSu looking like they are gonna lose, today, the ACC may be hurt more than Boise State.

Rough day for the ACC man. ANY credibility we had was absolutely destroyed today. Duke and Wake in a score fest (meaning no D). Miami obliterated by OSU. Tech loses out west. Tech gets embarassed. FSU getting dealt with. OOWWWWW and Wooooow. Did I mention UNC agreed to violations this week? Not an auspicous start... (of course the next question is - now why did we expand again?)

[COYS]

Rough day for the ACC man. ANY credibility we had was absolutely destroyed today. Duke and Wake in a score fest (meaning no D). Miami obliterated by OSU. Tech loses out west. Tech gets embarassed. FSU getting dealt with. OOWWWWW and Wooooow. Did I mention UNC agreed to violations this week? Not an auspicous start... (of course the next question is - now why did we expand again?)

Right, but we can regain all that credibility by stunning 'Bama next week, right. :)

[hurleyfor3]

I like them and their quirky blue field

I hate their blue field. If nongreen astroturf is such a wonderful idea, why doesn't everyone do it?

I was on a IAD-DEN flight a few days back and a good quarter of the plane was full of Boise State fans coming back from the game. The particular shades of orange and blue they use as their colors are extremely unpleasant to the eye. Some teams make orange and blue work, Syracuse and Clemson for example, but BSU uses this shade that's two-thirds of the way to Day-Glo.

I still don't dislike BSU, but there are many things I'd rather stare at for three hours than one of their home games, that's for sure.

[DukieBoy]

I think it's too early too tell. This could be a hangover type of loss. If VaTech doesn't lose another game this year, then it doesn't look that bad for Boise State. If they finish around .500, it certainly hurts Boise State ALOT

[A-Tex Devil]

Absolutely different. Last year in the regular season, Butler played the following four teams who were ranked at the time:

#22 Minnesota Loss
#19 Clemson Loss
#15 Georgetown Loss
#13 Ohio State Win (no Evan Turner)

It's odd you are pissing on Boise who is winning their big regular season games and you seem to have respect for Butler who really didn't have much of a resume for a #12 ranked team besides the win streak.

I respect what both Butler and Boise State have done in their situations, I just am confused how one can hate Boise yet respect Butler. Out of Butler 2009-2010 and Boise State 2009, Boise State deserved to be in the title game more than Butler if you go by regular season. Good thing for Butler there is a tourney so they could step it up and kudos for them for doing so. Too bad Boise State needs to fight a snobbish system made to protect the big boys.

It's funny really. In basketball the best team doesn't get named Champion all the time because all it takes is 1 bad game or facing a super hot team in a tourney where you need to win 6 straight games. In football the best team may not even get the chance.

People want an 8 or 16 tournament for football, well if basketball took 8 or 16, Butler doesn't even get the shot last year if you go by seeding, they were a 5 which makes them somewhere between 17-20. And you know what, some people might complain but with how they did with their big games last year, they really wouldn't have had much of an argument.

I'm in the camp that right now there is no true National Champion in football, just a bunch of winners of exhibition games. I really see no reason why Boise shouldn't be in the discussion to be in the most glamourous one.

<cough> soitwasactuallynotsoimpressiveofawin <cough>

Something about that game last week told me I was watching 2 teams lucky to be ranked so high. I stand by my original belief. I mean one could reasonably argue that JMU was more impressive in defeating VaTech than Boise was.

[-bdbd]

It's odd you are pissing on Boise who is winning their big regular season games and you seem to have respect for Butler who really didn't have much of a resume for a #12 ranked team besides the win streak.

I respect what both Butler and Boise State have done in their situations, I just am confused how one can hate Boise yet respect Butler. Out of Butler 2009-2010 and Boise State 2009, Boise State deserved to be in the title game more than Butler if you go by regular season. Good thing for Butler there is a tourney so they could step it up and kudos for them for doing so. Too bad Boise State needs to fight a snobbish system made to protect the big boys.

It's funny really. In basketball the best team doesn't get named Champion all the time because all it takes is 1 bad game or facing a super hot team in a tourney where you need to win 6 straight games. In football the best team may not even get the chance.

People want an 8 or 16 tournament for football, well if basketball took 8 or 16, Butler doesn't even get the shot last year if you go by seeding, they were a 5 which makes them somewhere between 17-20. And you know what, some people might complain but with how they did with their big games last year, they really wouldn't have had much of an argument.

I'm in the camp that right now there is no true National Champion in football, just a bunch of winners of exhibition games. I really see no reason why Boise shouldn't be in the discussion to be in the most glamourous one.

It seems to me that generally the BS apologists here are mostly just BCS-haters, many of whom see BS as a means to an end (bringing down the BCS). But to those who are defending BS, I haven't seen anyone claim that they are challenging themselves like is being done by Bama, OSU, TX, Oregon, OKL, etc.

Let's say for argument that there's maybe 10 teams legitimately in the national champion discussion - including BS. Virtually all on the other 9 in that discussion have scheduled themselves to play multiple top-20 teams, and most of the rest of their games are against teams in the top half or so of Division-I. IOW, the majority of their opponents are teams that CAN beat them (if not even be favored to beat them, maybe in cases where playing at home). That just isn't the case for BS. Their AD has CHOSEN to play a less than stellar schedule.

Look, to some extent you are stuck with the conference you're in. I'll give you that. But if you want to be considered in the NC discussion, legitimately, and you come from a very, very weak conference, then you damn well better schedule yourself 4 legit powerhouses in those non-conference games. BS doesn't do that. They tell those top-flight opponents, "you need to pay us $1M+ if you want to play us." While I admire their hutzpa, it is obviously an indirect way of avoiding top-tier opponents. In the meantime BS plays 8-9 opponents per year that have virtually ZERO chance to beat them. That is not earning your way to the NC game. :(

So, no, I don't buy the argument that "well, they beat everyone in front of them..." Hell, probably MOST of those 10 teams we're talking about would pass the "one challenging opponent per year" Boise State test in order to reach the NC game.

So until they stop riding the "woe is me, they're picking on me b/c I'm not in the BCS" argument, and EARN it by starting to scheduling some more challenging opponents LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE IN THIS DISCUSSION, then I'll still keep rooting against them (no matter how much I hate the BCS)!


:mad:

[duke09hms]

Just curious, where does it say Boise St. is charging 1 million for other schools to play them?

Another way to look at it is that most schools are avoiding Boise St. and not the other way around. I recall reading an article a year or two ago about how only VT had the guts to schedule Boise in 2010 while all the other good programs turned them down.

Even if they were able to schedule good programs, another good questions is why would they want to? Under the current system, they have the inside track to the national champ, why risk it? What's the point?

[A-Tex Devil]

Just curious, where does it say Boise St. is charging 1 million for other schools to play them?

Another way to look at it is that most schools are avoiding Boise St. and not the other way around. I recall reading an article a year or two ago about how only VT had the guts to schedule Boise in 2010 while all the other good programs turned them down.

Even if they were able to schedule good programs, another good questions is why would they want to? Under the current system, they have the inside track to the national champ, why risk it? What's the point?

You are right. BSU is much more likely to make and potentially win national championship under current system than one where they'd have to play 2-3 back to back games to win the national championship than one. BSU needs to pray the BCS stays intact.

[nmduke2001]

Just curious, where does it say Boise St. is charging 1 million for other schools to play them?

Another way to look at it is that most schools are avoiding Boise St. and not the other way around. I recall reading an article a year or two ago about how only VT had the guts to schedule Boise in 2010 while all the other good programs turned them down.


I really like BS, but apparently they ARE asking big money to play the the BCS schools.
http://www.omaha.com/article/20100908/SPORTS/709089803/0

[duke09hms]

From reading that article, is $1 million really all that much to set up a series with Boise State? That's not that much over the standard asking amount for cupcakes. For example, that article said Nebraska was paying $800,000 for Idaho to visit and $375,000 for SDSU (San Diego St. U?) to visit.

I think the monetary amount Boise is asking is hardly high, definitely not exorbitant, and seems mostly an excuse to be used by the big programs.

[A-Tex Devil]

From reading that article, is $1 million really all that much to set up a series with Boise State? That's not that much over the standard asking amount for cupcakes. For example, that article said Nebraska was paying $800,000 for Idaho to visit and $375,000 for SDSU (San Diego St. U?) to visit.

I think the monetary amount Boise is asking is hardly high, definitely not exorbitant, and seems mostly an excuse to be used by the big programs.

This article doesn't mention it, but Boise took $900K to play Ole Miss next year and Nebraska was looking for the same deal. Boise wouldn't give it to them, so they walked. Business decision. Should Nebraska have put up the extra $100K? Maybe, probably, whatever, but why do they have to budge instead of Boise, and why do they have to pay more than Ole Miss when they are geographically closer? Boise could have had that game for $900K but wouldn't budge, so they are as much at fault.

As much as the media would have you believe BCS teams are dodging Boise, Boise isn't making it easy. And clearly, they have the high ground based on perception, so they are doing a good job of milking it.

[left_hook_lacey]

IMO, it depends on how VT plays the reminder of its schedule. And as a side note, it depends on how JMU plays the rest of its schedule. If JMU drops more than 1 maybe 2 games the rest of the year, that would look TERRIBLE on VT and BSU. That said, if VT has a good showing the rest of the year and wins the ACC or at least gets to the ACC championship game, then it remains a good win for BSU.

With all that said, I'm not sure winning the ACC even holds water after this weekends show of ACC football. I know we live in a "what have you done for me lately" world, and we as sports fans are almost always reactive to the past weekend of sports rather than what the future may hold for any given team, but going on this weekend alone it was a sad sad Saturday for ACC football. Our game against Wake even makes us look bad because while it was an exciting game, there was ZERO defense being played by either team.

[El_Diablo]

why do they have to budge instead of Boise, and why do they have to pay more than Ole Miss when they are geographically closer?

Well, here's why Nebraska should have to pay a SLIGHT increase over what Ole Miss paid.

A) Inflation. Why should BSU have to lock in the same rate year after year rather than ask for a slight increase?
B) Demand. What was BSU ranked when it negotiated the $900k deal with Ole Miss? Top ten? They're a little higher now...
C) Ticket Sales. Nebraska's seating capacity is more than 20,000 higher than Ole Miss'.

Comparisons to the Ole Miss game aside, $1 million is not unreasonable at all given the current market. Nebraska paid Idaho $800k. Arkansas State got $900k from Indiana, $900k from Iowa, and $1 million from Auburn. San Jose State got $1 to play Alabama. BSU got $1.25 million to play VPI at FedEx Field. Ohio State is paying Colorado $1.4 million for an upcoming game.

http://hawkcentral.com/2010/08/25/iowa-paying-1-2-million-in-guarantees-in-2010/
http://blog.al.com/auburnbeat/2009/03/auburn_adds_arkansas_state_to.html
http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/2010/08/31/mcmurphys-law-its-time-for-some-schools-to-enjoy-a-really-big/
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/13813385/colorado-to-take-in-14-million-for-2011-game-at-ohio-state

Moreover, BSU is wiling to forgo a huge payday in exchange for a home-and-home series:

"We hear people talk about our scheduling, and the first point I want to make is that we'll play anybody in the country home-and-home," Bleymaier said. "The second thing is we're now looking for a guarantee game. In most cases, probably once a year. We would prefer home-and-home, but in lieu of that or in addition to some home-and-home games we are in the market for a guarantee game in most years.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4642585

[blazindw]

^^^
That last stat is pretty telling: if a BCS school is getting $1.4m to play another BCS school, why shouldn't Boise get a million. Looks like even lesser schools than Boise are getting the same money.

[A-Tex Devil]

^^^
That last stat is pretty telling: if a BCS school is getting $1.4m to play another BCS school, why shouldn't Boise get a million. Looks like even lesser schools than Boise are getting the same money.

I am not going to pretend to understand the market that drives these fees. But what is clear is that how much you are able to demand for a guaranteed game (not home and home) has very little to do with your quality as a football team, and quality is possible a hindrance.

Arkansas State and San Jose State aren't pulling $1MM pay days because they are challenging. It's because they are in high demand as cupcakes - and these fees typically get paid when a big name team has to fill a schedule space at the last second. Utah backed out of playing Texas last year or the year before, so Texas had to fill that space with a cupcake, which I am sure cost UT a pretty penny.

Is this a problem with the system? Absolutely. But Boise can't do anything about it. If Boise wants to regularly improve its out of conference schedule, it will have to adjust it's market price of $1MM, which is apparently too high more often than not (and using the FedEx field game as a data point is a little misleading as VaTech didn't foot that bill). I wish teams would schedule them, but top teams don't want to waste a road game for their fans on a WAC/MWC team in Idaho. It's a crappy system, but if Boise truly wanted to upgrade its schedule it could.

[CDu]

IMO, it depends on how VT plays the reminder of its schedule. And as a side note, it depends on how JMU plays the rest of its schedule. If JMU drops more than 1 maybe 2 games the rest of the year, that would look TERRIBLE on VT and BSU. That said, if VT has a good showing the rest of the year and wins the ACC or at least gets to the ACC championship game, then it remains a good win for BSU.

With all that said, I'm not sure winning the ACC even holds water after this weekends show of ACC football. I know we live in a "what have you done for me lately" world, and we as sports fans are almost always reactive to the past weekend of sports rather than what the future may hold for any given team, but going on this weekend alone it was a sad sad Saturday for ACC football. Our game against Wake even makes us look bad because while it was an exciting game, there was ZERO defense being played by either team.

Well, I'd say it definitely hurts Boise State. The only question is how much does it hurts Boise State. VT losing to an FCS school tarnishes the BSU win both in the computer rankings and in the pollsters' eyes. If VT wins out (which is unlikely), that will help to minimize the damage. But the value of the BSU win was that it was a virtual road game against a top-10 quality opponent. The VT loss to JMU makes it a lot harder to argue that VT was really a top-10 opponent.

The win over VT will probably still be BSU's best win of the regular season (maybe a win over OSU would top it). But a win over a Top-25ish team is a lot less lustrous than a win over a top-10 team.

[nocilla]

Just curious, does anyone know who paid what for the Duke-Alabama game?

[JasonEvans]

But a win over a Top-25ish team is a lot less lustrous than a win over a top-10 team.

What makes you think VaTech is a Top 25 team? I doubt they are in the polls after this past weekend ;)

--Jason "you did say 25-ish, and I do expect them to be back in that range by season's end" Evans

[sagegrouse]

Just curious, does anyone know who paid what for the Duke-Alabama game?

Others are more knowledgeable, but I believe a home-and-home series does not usually result in fees being paid. Duke played at Bama in 2007 (14-30). I don't know the terms of the HandH series.

In any event, Alabama offered to "buy" the away game for one million bucks IIRC, and convert it to another home game, but White and Cut said "no."

sagegrouse

[A-Tex Devil]

Others are more knowledgeable, but I believe a home-and-home series does not usually result in fees being paid. Duke played at Bama in 2007 (14-30). I don't know the terms of the HandH series.

In any event, Alabama offered to "buy" the away game for one million bucks IIRC, and convert it to another home game, but White and Cut said "no."

sagegrouse

Someone will have more details, but I believe we sold our home game originally and were going to play it in Atlanta. When Cutcliffe came on board, one of the first things he did was to get that game back in Durham.

[Wander]

As someone who was, and is, pretty fiercely on the Boise State "side," I freely admit that the James Madison loss really hurts Boise - and deservedly so. It's why we always have to be careful about how much stock we put into early season games in any sport. Another good example would be the Texas-UNC basketball game last year - a game that looked like a matchup of powerhouses at the time, before both teams were later exposed. On the other side of things, in 2007 Missouri challenged for the BCS title and Illinois played in the Rose Bowl, but no one had any idea when they played each other in their first game.

A lot of the things being said here against Boise are still dead wrong (the idea that Boise has an easier time winning a title with the BCS system than with a playoff is pure silliness to me, and Cutcliffe's comments about Virginia Tech still being the better team look absolutely idiotic), and people are being a bit too quick to dismiss Oregon State, Fresno State, and Nevada, but there's no way to get around that this rightly hurts BSU.

[A-Tex Devil]

The idea that Boise has an easier time winning a title with the BCS system than with a playoff is pure silliness to me.

Really? Because I think there is still a possibility for them to make the BCS championship game this year, and they have shown to be up to snuff in preparing for a single game. As much as I bash on Boise, they are capable of beating anyone on a given Saturday, and they are much more likely to jump out and surprise a single team more than they are 2-3 good teams in consecutive weeks.

Boise is more likely to have a shot at a title in a playoff system, but they are more likely to win the whole thing in a year like this where they start in the top 5 if all the other major powers lose a game or 2.

And I agree that they have 3 games left that they could lose -- all of which would be about the 8th tougest game on Alabama's schedule.

[1999ballboy]

(the idea that Boise has an easier time winning a title with the BCS system than with a playoff is pure silliness to me.


Really? Because I think there is still a possibility for them to make the BCS championship game this year, and they have shown to be up to snuff in preparing for a single game. As much as I bash on Boise, they are capable of beating anyone on a given Saturday, and they are much more likely to jump out and surprise a single team more than they are 2-3 good teams in consecutive weeks.

Boise is more likely to have a shot at a title in a playoff system, but they are more likely to win the whole thing in a year like this where they start in the top 5 if all the other major powers lose a game or 2..
I actually think both sides of this debate are right in a way. Boise State does have a decent chance of making the championship with the BCS system because they are arguably the most likely 1-A team to finish the season undefeated. But if you're arguing what's the most likely way to make the championship on their own, through variables they can control, then it's definitely a playoff system. Now, they basically have to pray that no other teams go unbeaten.

[Wander]

Really? Because I think there is still a possibility for them to make the BCS championship game this year, and they have shown to be up to snuff in preparing for a single game.

As much as I like them, I've actually never thought there was a realistic chance that Boise makes the BCS title game. I think the current system makes it impossible for any team from a non-BCS conference to make it. Put the New England Patriots in the MAC, and they wouldn't make the championship game. So I think the chances are roughly 0% in the BCS system.

We probably agree more than it seems on the bigger picture. If, say, Boise, TCU, and Oregon go undefeated, and Texas and Alabama each have one loss, every single possible combination of two teams playing for the title would be massively unfair to the other three. I mean, I still have absolutely no idea who deserves the 2008 national title out of Florida, Utah, and Texas.

[Nugget]

I think Boise has a much better chance at the national title under the current set up than they would in a playoff.

In the BCS system, it would not take an extraordinary amount of luck for Boise to finish #2, given the schedules that the other top teams must navigate. For instance, I see this as a completely plausible way for the season to play out:

Big 10: Ohio St. goes undefeated, beating Iowa, Wisc, Penn St., and Michigan (who split the rest of their games with each other, all ending up with at least 2 losses).

SEC: Alabama loses at Arkansas and at LSU, but gets into the SEC title game because everyone in the West beats each other up, beats Florida in the regular season and then again in the conference title game -- so everyone in the SEC has at least 2 losses.

Big 12: Texas beats Oklahoma, loses at Nebraska, beats Nebraska in title game.

Oregon-loses to either Stanford, USC, Washington, Oregon St. or Cal.

I don't think it much of a stretch for undefeated Boise to go to the BCS title game over a 2 loss SEC champion or 1 loss Oregon. Does 1 loss Texas jump Boise? Maybe, but not necessarily.

If you had what people seem to think the most likely playoff, of 8 teams (the 6 AQ champions plus 2 at-larges), here's how that same kind of regular season results would translate to a playoff:

1. Ohio St.- 8. Pitt or Cincinnati
2. Boise - 7 Miami
3. Texas - 6. Oregon
4. TCU- 5. Alabama.

I just don't see Boise, in 3 or 4 weeks having the depth to win consecutive games against Miami, then Texas or Alabama, then Ohio St.

Or, if you had a 16 team playoff, it would likely look something like this:

1. Ohio St. - 16. Cincy or Pitt
2. Boise. - 15. Miami
3. Texas - 14. Utah
4. TCU - 13. Stanford
5. Alabama- 12. Arkansas
6. Oregon - 11. Wisconsni
7. Oklahoma- 10. Iowa
8. Florida-9. Nebraska

So, now Boise would have to win 4 games in a row against Miami, Oklahoma, Texas/Oregon, and Ohio St./Bama.

There's just no way that can happen in football, given the depth issues.

And I don't buy the comparison to the NCAA basketball tournament, where a Butler can happen because you only play 5 guys and there are far fewer injuries.

[DevilHorns]

Put the New England Patriots in the MAC, and they wouldn't make the championship game.

My guess is the Patriots would go undefeated, break a bunch of single season passing and receiving records, and then lose to the NY Giants in the big game. Sorry, had to do it. :)

[Kfanarmy]

For football, I honestly don't think this is true. There is far too much of a gap in quality of opponents for a team like Boise State vs say, Alabama. If Boise State moved to the SEC do you really think they'd do well against UF, Alabama, GA, Arkansas, and LSU year-in, year-out? Sure they may win some of them, but to play that level of competition every week is a completely different animal.

The thing is, Boise State has yet to be 'exposed.' They had their miraculous win against OU a few years back and since then have played a similar stature of team in TCU for bowl games. I would love for them to play any of the stud SEC teams.

Wow...did you see Utah vs Alabama in the Sugar Bowl 2 years ago? Bama lost by two touchdowns and it really wasn't that close. Yeah I don't think Bama, GA, Arkansas, LSU and UF would do quite so well if most of the bowl games weren't being played in their home territory...the myth is.

[tommy]

For football, I honestly don't think this is true. There is far too much of a gap in quality of opponents for a team like Boise State vs say, Alabama. If Boise State moved to the SEC do you really think they'd do well against UF, Alabama, GA, Arkansas, and LSU year-in, year-out? Sure they may win some of them, but to play that level of competition every week is a completely different animal.

I don't think you can really say that. If they were in the SEC, theoretically, they'd be able to recruit in a big way from those states that the SEC teams recruit in, and get a lot of what are usually thought of as SEC-quality athletes. They can't do that now. They're playing with guys rated much, much lower coming out of high school and making do quite nicely. Upgrade their ability to recruit in hotbeds like Florida and pretty much the rest of the south and there's no reason to think they wouldn't be able to compete on a regular basis with SEC teams.

[DevilHorns]

Wow...did you see Utah vs Alabama in the Sugar Bowl 2 years ago? Bama lost by two touchdowns and it really wasn't that close. Yeah I don't think Bama, GA, Arkansas, LSU and UF would do quite so well if most of the bowl games weren't being played in their home territory...the myth is.

You are right about that game. I remember Utah coming in extremely excited and prepared and throughly defeating a deflated Bama team. No doubt about it.

My argument, however, is a "week in - week out" argument. It's one thing to play one or two difficult opponents a year and then fill in the rest with cupcake teams that allow you to make mistakes and still satisfyingly win. There is literally zero chance that a team like Boise St will lose to any team on their schedule except Oregon st or Virginia tech. If you put Ole Miss or an Arkansas or a Tenn in Boise St's shoes I think they would do just as well. I honestly do. And by virtue of those virtually guaranteed cupcake games you incur less wear and tear than you would from BCS conferences.

I don't dislike Boise St. I just don't think its right for them to get this much credit for what they are doing. They beat an overrated V Tech game barely. Now as others have mentioned, they can literally walk to the BCS championship if the numbers play out right. It won't be hard on their end.

[DevilHorns]

I don't think you can really say that. If they were in the SEC, theoretically, they'd be able to recruit in a big way from those states that the SEC teams recruit in, and get a lot of what are usually thought of as SEC-quality athletes. They can't do that now. They're playing with guys rated much, much lower coming out of high school and making do quite nicely. Upgrade their ability to recruit in hotbeds like Florida and pretty much the rest of the south and there's no reason to think they wouldn't be able to compete on a regular basis with SEC teams.

Thats true in that hypothetical scenario of them joining the SEC. You are right in that the bottom-feeders in the SEC, ie your UK and your Vandy, recruit better than Boise St does.

But my point is looking at the current Boise St team, the team that is considered by some as worthy to be in the discussion for best in the nation. I honestly think that if you take this exact Boise St team and you put them in the SEC to play the middle of the road opponents in a string, ie your Ole Miss, Tenn, Arkansas, then they may drop 1. Let's look at UF's schedule (as an example):



Miami (OH)
South Florida
@Tennessee
Kentucky
@#1 Alabama
#15 LSU
Mississippi State
Georgia
@Vanderbilt
#13 South Carolina
Appalachian State
@Florida State

If Boise St this year played that schedule, they'd incur at least 3 losses IMHO, taking them out of the title race. That doesn't necessarily mean they'd lose only to the currently ranked teams like Alabama, LSU, USC... they could easily fall to UGA, FSU, Tenn, Miss St, USF. This is week-in, week-out against tough competition. If you blink, you lose to teams like these. They can't afford to put all their eggs in a basket against 1-2 opponents a year in a schedule like this.

[Wander]

If you put Ole Miss or an Arkansas or a Tenn in Boise St's shoes I think they would do just as well. I honestly do.

Well, if you honestly think this, you should really watch more football. I don't say that to be mean, but thinking a team like Ole Miss would do as well as Boise with their schedule is spectacularly uninformed. They've been vastly inferior to Boise the past five or so years. By far.

[DevilHorns]

Well, if you honestly think this, you should really watch more football. I don't say that to be mean, but thinking a team like Ole Miss would do as well as Boise with their schedule is spectacularly uninformed. They've been vastly inferior to Boise the past five or so years. By far.

No offense taken. I think ole miss would clean up boises schedule and have trouble with only Oregon st and vtech. Playing a mediocre d1 opponent on a given Saturday does not prove anything with a win. That's the fallacy here. I think duke would be above 500 in the Mac. As for Boise, I think they are a top 20 team, not top 5.

[Wander]

No offense taken. I think ole miss would clean up boises schedule and have trouble with only Oregon st and vtech. Playing a mediocre d1 opponent on a given Saturday does not prove anything with a win. That's the fallacy here. I think duke would be above 500 in the Mac. As for Boise, I think they are a top 20 team, not top 5.

Come on man. Ole Miss just lost at home to a 1-AA team. The year Boise beat Oklahoma for an undefeated season, Ole Miss went 4-8. The year after that (admittedly somewhat of a down year for Boise at 10-3 without any great wins), Ole Miss didn't win a single SEC game. There's no comparison between the two programs, even after accounting for the tougher schedule Ole Miss has.

When Ole Miss loses in a couple weeks to Fresno State (a team that Boise will play in November), I expect you to change your icon to the Boise State logo. ;)

[DevilHorns]

Come on man. Ole Miss just lost at home to a 1-AA team. The year Boise beat Oklahoma for an undefeated season, Ole Miss went 4-8. The year after that (admittedly somewhat of a down year for Boise at 10-3 without any great wins), Ole Miss didn't win a single SEC game. There's no comparison between the two programs, even after accounting for the tougher schedule Ole Miss has.

When Ole Miss loses in a couple weeks to Fresno State (a team that Boise will play in November), I expect you to change your icon to the Boise State logo. ;)

In 2008, Ole miss beat Florida and LSU away, beat up #8 Tex Tech in the Cotton bowl to finish the year ranked #14; overall 9-4 (5-3 in SEC). In 2009, Ole miss started the year ranked #8 (as high as #4 through the course of the season), had some hard SEC losses, beat #21 OK state in the Cotton bowl to end the year ranked #20; overall 9-4 (4-4 SEC).

Realize in these past 2 years they lost only 1 non-SEC game.

I'm going off the recent history of Ole miss football when I claim they are middle of the pack SEC. They surely could be headed for a down year this year, and if thats the case as bottomfeeders of the SEC, I obviously don't think they'd be able to sweep up Boise's schedule.

My general point is that a middle of the pack SEC team could sweep up the MAC. If you look at conference record of MAC vs SEC, its not pretty: 6-64.

http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/records/multi-conference.pl?start=1920&end=2009&team=BoiseState&team=FresnoState&team=Hawaii&team=Idaho&team=LouisianaTech&team=Nevada&team=NewMexicoState&team=SanJoseState&team=UtahState

[A-Tex Devil]

I don't think you can really say that. If they were in the SEC, theoretically, they'd be able to recruit in a big way from those states that the SEC teams recruit in, and get a lot of what are usually thought of as SEC-quality athletes. They can't do that now. They're playing with guys rated much, much lower coming out of high school and making do quite nicely. Upgrade their ability to recruit in hotbeds like Florida and pretty much the rest of the south and there's no reason to think they wouldn't be able to compete on a regular basis with SEC teams.

I've heard people make this argument, and it doesn't work for me. It's like saying "if the A's had the Yankees payroll flexibility, Billy Beane would win every year!" The fact is, they don't, and if they did, it completely changes the argument.

If **THIS** Boise team was in the Pac 10, SEC, Big XII, or Big Ten, I believe they'd lose 3 games. I don't think they'd get through the ACC or the Big East unscathed. Va Tech, in their infinite dumbness, and, indirectly, the whole ACC by watering down any potential Va Tech ACC championship, has made the argument pretty moot.

So long as it doesn't keep another BCS undefeated team out, part of me wanted to see Boise St. make it after they beat VaTech. Because I'm either going to be proved wrong (BSU wins or keeps it close) or right, and I can stop arguing about it (although I'm having fun in this discussion).

[throatybeard]

One thing about the yearly Boise debate is that it tells me a lot more about the people who virulently hate Boise than it does about Boise.

[jipops]

I honestly don't get the Boise hate, I guess I'm just out of touch. Doesn't everyone else get bored with the same old dominant programs filled with hired mercenaries? Is Boise St to be hated because of the conference they play in?

Here's a thought, throw the ACC's BCS bid out this season since it appears there is no current member actually worthy of it. With all their suspensions it is quite possible that UNC is actually the best team right now, how sad is that? There are some non-BCS out there far more worthy this year than what the ACC is offering (well... until the greatest upset of all-time occurs this weekend)

[sagegrouse]

I haven't studied BSU recruiting at all, but I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't have some premier talent.

Here's why: There are 70 million people in the American West (Colorado to the Pacific Coast). There are only 11 BCS teams (plus Utah in time). That's a lot of population, especially the 37 million in California, with relatively few schools in a region that is known for its year-around athletics and substantial resources. In comparison, the other 56 BCS schools are in states totalling about 230 million, but in the South and the big cities the talent may be there but the training facilities may not be comparable to the West Coast. Others may have different views.

In addition, the four major California schools -- Stanford, Cal Berkeley, UCLA, and USC -- are, at a minimum, somewhat selective in admissions. In other words, there is a surplus talent in CA unlikely to play for these four schools. Sure, the Oregon and Arizona schools take a lot of talent from CA, but there may be really good players who go to Boise State.

In fact, the current BSU roster of 111 players has only 25 Idahoans but 38 Californians.

sagegrouse
'Does anyone have recruiting rankings for BSU vs. other schools.'

[Wander]

Worth noting that Boise looked significantly better against Wyoming than Texas did. Doesn't really mean a whole lot, but again, I still see no reason to think Boise isn't a top 5 team. We'll know more after the Oregon State game next week.

And, yes, the ACC is still awful. Actually, are even sure that the ACC is better than the WAC?

[duke09hms]

I haven't studied BSU recruiting at all, but I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't have some premier talent.

Here's why: There are 70 million people in the American West (Colorado to the Pacific Coast). There are only 11 BCS teams (plus Utah in time). That's a lot of population, especially the 37 million in California, with relatively few schools in a region that is known for its year-around athletics and substantial resources. In comparison, the other 56 BCS schools are in states totalling about 230 million, but in the South and the big cities the talent may be there but the training facilities may not be comparable to the West Coast. Others may have different views.

In addition, the four major California schools -- Stanford, Cal Berkeley, UCLA, and USC -- are, at a minimum, somewhat selective in admissions. In other words, there is a surplus talent in CA unlikely to play for these four schools. Sure, the Oregon and Arizona schools take a lot of talent from CA, but there may be really good players who go to Boise State.

In fact, the current BSU roster of 111 players has only 25 Idahoans but 38 Californians.

sagegrouse
'Does anyone have recruiting rankings for BSU vs. other schools.'

Boise State's recruiting is surprisingly pedestrian when compared to its elite ranking. From this link,

http://rivals.yahoo.com/footballrecruiting/football/recruiting/commitments/2009/boisestate-112

their recruiting is about on par with Duke's right now - a mix of mostly 2 and 3-star recruits. To me, that makes what they do on the field even more admirable.

[A-Tex Devil]

Worth noting that Boise looked significantly better against Wyoming than Texas did. Doesn't really mean a whole lot, but again, I still see no reason to think Boise isn't a top 5 team. We'll know more after the Oregon State game next week.

And, yes, the ACC is still awful. Actually, are even sure that the ACC is better than the WAC?


Texas isn't a top 5 team at this point (unless their defense is just so good that the offense doesn't matter - which is possible). Duke's offensive line blocked better and created bigger holes against Alabama then Texas' did against Rice or Wyoming.

Nevada is for real, and that game should be very interesting, in addition to Oregon St. next week. That BSU-OSU game, by the way, is the prime time game next week, bumping Texas-UCLA to 2:30 and limiting my tailgating time. Boise!!!!!!!! <shaking fist and using Jerry Seinfeld "Neuman" Voice>

They just find more and more ways to make me mad.

[Wander]

You may be right. Honestly, I have no idea what to make of any of the three highly-ranked Big 12 teams at this point.

[-bdbd]

I honestly don't get the Boise hate, I guess I'm just out of touch. Doesn't everyone else get bored with the same old dominant programs filled with hired mercenaries? Is Boise St to be hated because of the conference they play in?

Here's a thought, throw the ACC's BCS bid out this season since it appears there is no current member actually worthy of it. With all their suspensions it is quite possible that UNC is actually the best team right now, how sad is that? There are some non-BCS out there far more worthy this year than what the ACC is offering (well... until the greatest upset of all-time occurs this weekend)

jipops --
How about this: I don't WANT to hate BS. I really don't. I almost universally root for the underdog or little(r) guy in most sports. I think it is part of why many of us root for Duke so fervently - a team and school that generally are "disadvantaged" against the big State-U's of the world... Many of the schools that we compete with have greater taxpayer support, much larger and local fan bases, significant media support (sound like anybody near Durham that you know of?!), easier admissions standards/expectations, and a huge advantage in facillities and resources. :(

BUT BS simply doesn't earn it. If they actually made a real attempt to play a challenging "national champ"-worthy schedule - even if just for their 4 non-conference games - then I thing you'd see a HUGE swing in support in their favor. But it just isn't right for one team to only have to play one quality opponent all season in order to attain the reward of playing in the NC game. They just simply haven't earned the right. Contrast BS's single top-25 opponent with 'Bama playing OVER HALF (!!) of their games against ranked foes. If they make it to early-January and are undefeated, then you'll KNOW that they belong there. You can't say that with Boise.

So forget the names. But put yourself on the selection committee. And come December you must choose between say three undefeated teams to play for the NC in AZ. Other things being equal, do you choose the two teams that have played 4-6 top-25 opponents, and another 4-5 opponents in the top 75... OR do you choose a team that, while undefeated, has only played one ranked team all year, and only a couple more in the top 50-75? I just think it is an easy choice.... no matter HOW much I want to root for the "little" guy! They simply haven't earned the right most years, and it is their own (and their AD's) choice. :confused:

But if they don't get selected, just wait for the howling to start again from Boise about how unfair the BCS is! (and not an ounce of self-recrimination about pathetic scheduling)

Just my $.02

[duke09hms]

jipops --
They simply haven't earned the right most years, and it is their own (and their AD's) choice. :confused:


That's not true, almost all their overtures to BCS schools have been turned down. And it's not because of the $1 million they request. $1 mill for an visitor to come play on your home field is chump change as described earlier in this thread. Idaho is getting 800k and SDSU (South Dakota St. U?) is getting 375k to play at Nebraska.

Boise St., a team whose roster is composed of 2 and 3 star talent (like Duke), is getting dodged by other schools.

[A-Tex Devil]

That's not true, almost all their overtures to BCS schools have been turned down. And it's not because of the $1 million they request. $1 mill for an visitor to come play on your home field is chump change as described earlier in this thread. Idaho is getting 800k and SDSU (South Dakota St. U?) is getting 375k to play at Nebraska.

Boise St., a team whose roster is composed of 2 and 3 star talent (like Duke), is getting dodged by other schools.

The economics of a guarantee game have nothing to do with your quality as a football team. In fact, payouts are probably hindered by quality. Boise needs to find out what TCU, BYU, Utah, Houston, East Carolina et al charge for their guarantee games and put themselves in the right market. None of those teams (save TCU, who's schedule this year isn't great) ever seem to have trouble finding games. They also don't charge a cool $1MM.

Do you want to know what drives these high prices? Last second schedule fills. When a team loses a game off of its schedule, it has to scramble to find someone to fill it. Schools new to D1-A/FBS like Idaho, Western Kentucky, et al have lots of holes in their schedule. The Sun Belt conference is small and those teams are always called in to fill a last second omission. Charging $1MM as a rule is dumb, and it gives Boise the "high ground" to say no one wants to play us.

I agree with -bdbd. I don't hate Boise, they just play by different rules, and it would take some real chaos among BCS teams in my mind for them to deserve in a 2 team playoff. No one was complaining in 2007 when a 1 loss KU team didn't get into the BCS game instead of LSU. And that was correct.

[-bdbd]

The economics of a guarantee game have nothing to do with your quality as a football team. In fact, payouts are probably hindered by quality. Boise needs to find out what TCU, BYU, Utah, Houston, East Carolina et al charge for their guarantee games and put themselves in the right market. None of those teams (save TCU, who's schedule this year isn't great) ever seem to have trouble finding games. They also don't charge a cool $1MM.

Do you want to know what drives these high prices? Last second schedule fills. When a team loses a game off of its schedule, it has to scramble to find someone to fill it. Schools new to D1-A/FBS like Idaho, Western Kentucky, et al have lots of holes in their schedule. The Sun Belt conference is small and those teams are always called in to fill a last second omission. Charging $1MM as a rule is dumb, and it gives Boise the "high ground" to say no one wants to play us.

I agree with -bdbd. I don't hate Boise, they just play by different rules, and it would take some real chaos among BCS teams in my mind for them to deserve in a 2 team playoff. No one was complaining in 2007 when a 1 loss KU team didn't get into the BCS game instead of LSU. And that was correct.

The true bottom line is that they could play a much more challenging non-conference schedule than they do -- regardless of whether you buy their "we deserve a minimum $1M per" argument. But they choose to schedule additional cream puffs instead. The argument/whine that they don't get respected or that the top-75 teams all diss them for scheduling is, simply, disengenuous at best. If they really wanted to get that schedule upgraded - if it were a priority to them - then they'd get it done.

Sorry, no sympathy here. They're just dodging real competition in the hopes of sneaking in the back door to a NC game... (and I think most of us would feel the same way if this trickery was being done by a BCS-conference team too).

:cool:

[sagegrouse]

Boise State burst on the national consciousness only four years ago with its undefeated season and the bowl win against Oklahoma. The major schools -- BCS teams with huge stadiums -- are not likely to want to schedule a team like Boise, which is really good but not a huge draw.

Roll forward a few more years: If Boise is a perennial top ten team, then it becomes a draw in terms of attendance and TV audience and one of the "best games" on any team's schedule. Then this is a different conversation. If national TV is clamoring to cover the Boise State games, then away games and even home-and-home series become a lot easier to arrange -- ya think?

You know, sorta like Notre Dame in the 1920s after Knute Rockne had been there a few years or Duke in the 1940s after Wallace Wade's teams had received national recognition. Or, maybe like Gonzaga in basketball today.

sagegrouse