What's Your Beef With Boise State?
by Peter Bean on Sep 6, 2010 11:39 PM CDT
in Texas Longhorns Football
Email
PrintHopkins Horn sort of introduced the topic yesterday, but if you waded into the game thread(s!) for any period of time tonight, you're aware that more than a few Texas fans were NOT HAPPY about the prospect of Boise State winning that football game.
And I can't say that I really get it.
A good bit of the animosity seems to be rooted in the perception that if Boise beat Virginia Tech, the odds suddenly look pretty good that the Broncos could win out and secure a spot in the national title game. Taken in isolation, there's something to this: Boise State could secure one of two all-precious positions in the national title game despite playing in an indisputably weak conference.
But there's a lot more to this story, isn't there? Let's walk through this.
There's more than a little irony in fans of a monster program calling out an upstart for not playing a tough enough schedule. To begin with, non-conference scheduling amongst the big boys often borders on pitiful. But more importantly, Boise State has adopted an "Anyone, anywhere, any time" approach to their own scheduling. They're trying their damndest (including, of course, trying to upgrade their home conference itself), and to their credit managed to land Virginia Tech and Oregon State on the 2010 schedule. Still, their phone calls largely go unaswered, and we all know the reason why.
Moreover, its not as though Boise State has arrived out of nowhere. The system isn't exactly set up to allow non-BCS teams to swoop in and steal national title game bids on the heels of an early season upset and a clean run through the WAC. The Broncos have gone undefeated twice three times and been shut out of the national title game. Hawaii did it another time, and every bit of evidence we have is that the only shot a team like Boise State really has at cracking the BCS Title Game is a perfect storm. In fact, it's absolutely possible that they could run the table this year and get shut out again.
The anti-Boise chorus then pipes up to complain that now we're all going to be subjected to insufferable levels of ESPN bloviating about their title prospects. This, of course, is the most amusing of all complaints, as though a Boise loss tonight would have spared us a barrage of insufferable college football coverage. This message is sponsored by Tim Tebow and the 2005 USC Trojans.
Seriously, if that's your gripe, it's time to revise your expectations.
The bottom line is that Boise State might be the team that benefits from the borderline ad hoc nature of our system of crowning a champion. Every year two teams benefit from the inanity, and if you're lining up to oppose Boise State as a beneficiary, your guns are pointed in the wrong direction. Hate the game, not the player, etc.
May I humbly suggest that if you're upset about the possibility of Boise State playing for the national title this year, you instead direct your animosity towards the BCS system and just clamor for a playoff.
But even more than that, may I suggest that unless we're forced to revisit this in November because our beloved Longhorns are competing directly with Boise State for one of those two precious spots, you get behind the idea. Are they the "best" team in college football? Their personnel weaknesses were exposed tonight -- especially on defense, where Kyle Wilson is dearly missed -- and they are, in fact, going to benefit greatly from not being challenged on a weekly basis. And truth be told, based only on what I saw tonight I can't say I'd be likely to pick them through a playoff bracket.
But that, of course, is irrelevant. What we know is that they are an undefeated, highly-ranked team, and if they finish the season that way they'll be considered for one of the top two spots. They still might not get it, which is reason enough not to be hysterical so soon, but even if they do, it sure seems to me that if you're vehemently going to oppose the inclusion of Boise State, you'd might as well asterisk the whole system and declare your indifference to the formal crowning of a champ, as presently executed.
(Which is perfectly fine, by the way; it is, in fact, a silly mess. But if you want the glory for Texas, it seems to me you have to accept the possibility of Boise State.)
All this strikes me as good for college football. Boise State has done everything they possibly can, and though I'd reject Hopkins Horn's characterization of Boise State as a "plucky underdog" and suggest that -- given the underlying motivation -- it's counterproductive, I don't see any problem with wondering whether Boise State is the best team in the country this year and just wondering whether it's Their Year.
That's how it works, right?
214 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
+ infinity
I’ll be chiming in with more later, but one minor correction: BSU has actually gone undefeated three times in the regular season over the past six seasons. Don’t forget that 2004 team which never came within even sniffing distance of the BCS itself, let alone the championship game.
Hungry Hippos, baby! It's on!
Except for the rejecting me part, of course
Bastard.
Hungry Hippos, baby! It's on!
by Hopkins Horn on Sep 6, 2010 11:46 PM CDT up reply actions
Actually, 4 times
if we’re talking regular season: 2004, 2006, 2008, 2009
in ‘04 and ’08, however, BSU lost its bowl game (’04 Liberty Bowl vs Louisville, ’08 Poinsettia Bowl vs TCU).
So, 4 undefeated regular seasons, 2 complete undefeated seasons.
Great article, BTW.
Insert clever signature here.
Nicely done PB
I think my discomfort with Boise State has to do with two primary issues
1) The false dichotomy that seems to be arising that Boise State is either a hollow pretender or belongs in the BCS championship game.
2) The possibility that Texas could seek to emulate Boise’s successes in a relatively pitiful conference when the new Big 12 begins.
I don’t disdain Boise per se (I don’t really care for them either), but I am concerned about what they could represent.
And yes, I’ve been on the playoff bandwagon for a while now.
proud to swim home
Point #2 . . .
. . . is on my To-Do list to address in a post in the very near future. In sum, Don’t Believe The Hype. I’ll elaborate more, but, in short, losing two teams which have been a combined several games under .500 in conference play for the last eight seasons does not a pitiful conference make by any stretch of the imagination.
There are many valid criticisms of the way realignment worked out, but claiming that we created a weak conference which will ease our path to the BCS Championship Game is most definitely not one of them.
Hungry Hippos, baby! It's on!
by Hopkins Horn on Sep 6, 2010 11:56 PM CDT up reply actions
I think weak by relative comparison
The PAC 10, if anything, became stronger with Utah, and the Big 10 added some depth with Nebraska above the Purdue/Indiana/Minnesota waterline.
And to flesh out my concern – if Boise can parlay a simple Va. Tech./Oregon State/WAC schedule into an MNC, why should Texas continue with recent OOC scheduling when its schedule is almost indisputably stronger even in the lesser Big 12.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on Sep 7, 2010 12:00 AM CDT up reply actions
Also, random thought while my tinfoil hat is on
If voters keep their trend of carrying over last years champion as number 1 the following season until a loss, and Boise is only threatened twice in any given season (3 times with a bowl), does one MNC appearance not give them very strong odds of another?
proud to swim home
by learned hand on Sep 7, 2010 12:03 AM CDT up reply actions
This is an important point
Should Boise gain enough success to become a destination for recruits, then we could see a snowball growing, as they bring in top-tier talent and top assistant coaches to game-plan for two opponents per season. It may be a metaphorically unstoppable system compared to what coaches deal with at more traditional powers, and it could be setting a dangerous precedent, of which up-and-coming coaches will almost certainly take note.
Not that its entirely likely (nor out of the realm of possibility), but should Boise ever perfect such a system and win several NC’s in a span of a few years, I can’t imagine the backlash they’d be facing; they would be, in that scenario, the villains of college football.
I suppose I’m trying to obviate that backlash by getting people to look at what it means in the long run to support Boise today. The underdog angle is enticing to some now, but what will those people think about Boise’s built-in advantages after they win 3 titles? I suspect they won’t be quite as cavalier about giving the Broncos the benefit of the doubt. In fact, I dare say a lot of them will grow to resent Boise quite deeply, as they will have put together a dynasty by way of some unique advantages.
The support for Boise right now seems contextual (mainly because, for the moment, they are still the “little guy”), and I find contextual reasoning to be flawed. Imagine a town that knows a certain traffic intersection is a risk. It remains a risk for years, until finally an accident happens and a new law is passed. The intersection is no more of a risk today than it was yesterday, but today there is a law. The accident, not logic, was the catalyst for the law. That kind of thing bothers me, and I suspect that when the context changes, and Boise St. is no longer the plucky underdog, a lot of people are going to change their minds about whether a Mountain West schedule really merits a place in the National Title Game. Of course, by then the precedent will have been set, and we’ll be stuck with it.
I suspect that a lot of the pro-BSU rhetoric is timely, and bursting with the frustration of living in the BCS era, which is to say that I think supporting Boise St. is more of an emotional maneuver.
But when that emotion (whether its the hatred of the BCS or a fondness of the “little guy”) dissipates, and it certainly will dissipate, everyone will be stuck with the precedents and policies of this era.
This argument is so overblown
The idea that Boise State is going to swoop in and re-order the rules of the game is incredibly naive. Consider what it’s taken just for them to get their first bite at the apple, which, again, they still might not even get if two big boys go undefeated. The deck is stacked entirely against them, and to complain that they might be the beneficiaries this year, or to believe that if they crack it this year that they’re destined to be benficiaries every year, strikes me as wrongheaded.
If anything, Boise State cracking through is likely to foster improvement in the system. The idea that the big boys will stand idly by and let Boise State run to the title game through the WAC and two non-con games is as unlikely as anything I can imagine. Moreover, if Boise State were to get there and lose, which everyone seems to think they would, they — and every other non-BCS team in the future — would forever be denied access, deserving or not.
You ain't hurt...
by Peter Bean on Sep 7, 2010 7:10 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
I don't know
for some weird reason, I respect TCU more than Boise State and would rather see them head to the MNC than Boise. Something just irks me about the smurfs, their blue turf, and Kellen Moore. I agree that a BCS buster would help us get to a playoff, but I don’t think Boise State can beat Ohio State or Alabama and that’s going to hurt everybody.
Although I'm not a Jets fan, and most certainly not a USC fan, I'll root for any team that Mark Sanchez plays for. Mark Sanchez for Superbowl MVP and President 2012. The change that only I can believe in.
With all due respect...
People on this blog seem somewhat blind folded. Your worried that Boise State’s recent success will support better recruiting and better assistant coaches? Therefor leading the effort to downplay the power of the BCS?
Are you kidding me? If the current coaches can do what they have done with 2 and 3 star talent, why would we be looking for ANY replacement coaches. The coaches are in place. What BSU really lacks is revenue. That’s all that stands between us and Texas, Florida, Alabama, etc. That revenue is controlled by the BCS. So it’s been simple in years past to keep the little guys down. The fact that BSU may be powerful enough to persuade voters is what scaring most haters.
Consider the logistics
You’re the coach of Georgia. You have to spend the offseason scouting Florida, Alabama, Tennessee, LSU, Georgia Tech, etc. You have to memorize their trends and patterns, teach them to your kids, and make sure they don’t confuse one team for another, and you have to consider, carefully, how to devise a season-long plan. You have to keep your kids’ morale high for 14 weeks, navigating injuries, exhaustion, media pressure, job-stability, etc.
Now you’re the coach of Boise St., after they’ve won a National Title. You bring in the same recruits now that Georgia does (at a minimum), you’re increasing your departments revenue streams rapidly, all of the advantages of being one of college football’s big boys are arriving swiftly. But you inherit none of the disadvantages the traditional powers deal with. You get to spend the offseason scouting one or two teams, you don’t have half the conference or media pressures, you don’t need to be nearly as good of a motivator, nor does your team need to be as well conditioned (nor your roster as deep). You essentially need to ensure your team doesn’t screw up week to week.
These two paths are incomparable, yet now you’re asking me to believe the rewards should be equal. So few people seem to grasp that the immensely complex system of standards in college football’s awarding of a national championship are not arbitrary, but the product of a meaningful evolution. That evolution gave us the major conference system in which teams made a tacit agreement in that they will receive a place at the table in exchange for a slew of potentially debilitating challenges (look at A&M’s desire to get into the SEC). We then look at those who’ve taken on these challenges and we admire the team that comes through all of it unscathed. To allow Boise a place at the table without first accepting the many traditional hardships of big-time college football gives them a competitive advantage, not to mention it discards our entire evolution of standards.
The issue here isn’t about whether Boise St. and Alabama are equally talented on day one of the season. I’m pretty sure they’re close. The issue here is what will we see each team DO over the next few months. Its easy to discuss this in terms of resume ranking (of which I recall you’re a big advocate) in which case its difficulty ever to imagine ranking Boise #1 on resume, but I suggest exploring the further nuances of mental and physical endurance, roster-depth (which reflects a skill in recruiting) and character. These are the things, in sum, that we celebrate in a champion. How could Boise ever achieve any of that realistically? My contention is that, under the current system, they can’t. And if we’re going to hand out titles based on the most talented roster (and Boise might be that), and not based on what the team actually does, then why not give out the title September 1st? I reiterate that supporting Boise for a place in the national title seems more emotional than anything, and less based on legitimized standards.
I suspect the real divide here, as always, is that people simply want a playoff, and they’re willing to break with our historically validated standards and show a bit of hypocrisy if it means the system is destroyed. Your solution to this would be a playoff system, while mine would be a system of relegation/promotion. If we had such a system in place, Boise would have been given a legitimate spot (in, say, the Pac10, probably dropping Washington St. down) several years ago, and would now incur the difficulties that legitimate title-contenders face, and I would then have no difficulties supporting the Broncos for a spot in the title game. But to destroy our long-standing tradition of standards (which I’m sure most of you support in nearly every other situation) simply because you want the BCS blown up strikes me as agenda-laden and slightly disingenuous.
Finally, in what way is my argument naive? You may find the scenario unlikely, but that says nothing of the principles.
by BrooklynHorn on Sep 7, 2010 2:23 PM CDT up reply actions 8 recs
Rec'd
I don’t agree with all of this, but very well put nonetheless.
by Infield Elephant on Sep 7, 2010 3:24 PM CDT up reply actions
Yes yes yes
The issue here isn’t about whether Boise St. and Alabama are equally talented on day one of the season. I’m pretty sure they’re close. The issue here is what will we see each team DO over the next few months. Its easy to discuss this in terms of resume ranking (of which I recall you’re a big advocate) in which case its difficulty ever to imagine ranking Boise #1 on resume, but I suggest exploring the further nuances of mental and physical endurance, roster-depth (which reflects a skill in recruiting) and character.
This sums up my stance, but in far more eloquent and efficient manner than I could write it. I have no problem admitting that Boise State is one of the most talented teams in the country; they proved that last night. It’s just very difficult for me to imagine a scenario where the Broncos will be one of the two teams who accomplished the most come early December.
The only resentment I hold towards Boise (or any other “BCS Buster”; TCU, BYU, Utah, etc.) is that they are held to a lower standard by the media and football fans in general. “Give them a shot at the National Title!!!!” Why? Because they did what any 9-3 ACC team could do? I don’t buy that “nobody will schedule them” either. I actually agree with Beergut here, if all four of their non-con opponents are from BCS schools, then they can say that they’ve done everything they can do. De facto road game against Virginia Tech and home against Oregon State are great, but Wyoming and Toledo could be replaced with, say, Michigan State and Tennessee.
by Sweed4Heisman on Sep 7, 2010 3:27 PM CDT up reply actions
If Boise wins the national championship game
They will have beaten the team that the voters and computers deem as the otherwise best team in America. There should be no problem with them if they are consistently winning in that game. The issue is whether or not they even deserve a shot to begin with.
still be better than Ohio St
That would still be better than Ohio St 2007 –
Florida 41, Ohio St 14
And only slightly worse than Ohio St 2008
LSU 38, Ohio St 24.
Did Ohio St. really “belong” in the NC game either year? Just a thought.
Should we break up the NCAA?
a lot of people are going to change their minds about whether a Mountain West schedule really merits a place in the National Title Game
I think it’s dangerous when you write off an entire conference before the season is played. If that’s the case, why should anyone not in a AQ conference be in the FBS?
Yes, we need a new system
Precisely because this system isn’t about football (I’d say it’s more about money and politics). If it was, then Boise and TCU would be in a BCS conference and would have the opportunity to prove themselves on similar footing without any wildly speculative arguments. And to your point, I have no idea why 120ish teams are in FBS when the pool for a champion is so much smaller.
I’m all for promotion/relegation if what we’re doing is really about finding a champion.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on Sep 7, 2010 12:13 PM CDT up reply actions
Promotion and relegation
The best solution based on my point of view is to have six 12-team conferences (72 teams) that play for the national title. Anyone who goes through this undefeated will have a great chance at a title.
Underneath, you’d have 6 minor conferences (10-12 teams, depending on how many 1AA teams you might want to include). Each major conference has a corresponding, underlying minor conference. Each season, you take the two lowest-finishing teams from the major conference (in our case that would have been Baylor and Kansas) and drop them to the minor conference, while taking the top two finishers in the minor conference (teams like TCU and Houston) and promote them to the major conference.
This filters out the garbage, but also creates more excitement and incentive toward the end of the season, as Baylor still has something to play for in November. Plus, it promotes fluidity and fairness, the very ideas for which Boise-supporters seem to be clamoring.
In such a system, an aspiring team like Boise St. is only a few good seasons from contending for a legitimate national title, but they will have to take on the traditional responsibilities of a title-contender, and not have a circumstantially obstacle-free path to the title game. So Boise-proponents get their upward mobility, and Boise-opponents get to keep their standards in-tact.
by BrooklynHorn on Sep 7, 2010 3:21 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
In this scenario
would you maintain a #1 vs. #2 national championship?
by Infield Elephant on Sep 7, 2010 3:28 PM CDT up reply actions
Personally,
I would retain the BCS (which I understand is not popular). The relegation system would get rid of part of the BCS’s shortcomings (particularly, the disparity between AQ’s and non-AQ’s, which we’re discussing here), but would not get rid of the problem of a given season ending with potentially 3 undefeated teams.
That can be solved with a playoff, but the playoff argument generally centers around the cost/benefit of a “legitimate” champion as opposed to a more weighted regular season. Although I am famously not a playoff proponent, I’ve always maintained that a perfect system would be a four-team playoff, however, I fear that play-off expansion is inevitable. Part of that inevitability was based on the premise that more teams are joining Division 1A (or whatever the hell its called now), and so the ratio was becoming more discriminating, thus we’d see 16-team and eventually 32-team playoffs, at which point I’d see the regular season as dead. But if the pool of contenders was reduced to 72, I’d be more inclined to support a playoff.
by BrooklynHorn on Sep 7, 2010 3:40 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
I'm intrigued
This is the first I’ve heard someone try to adapt the European soccer format to college football. I like it.
I actually proposed this back during the realignment talks in June
I’m a fan of the idea of creating four 16-team superconferences, so there is a top tier of 64 teams that can compete for the national title. I suggested making the demarcation point at athletic budgets, because I am tired of lower budget schools trying to tell larger budget schools how to run their athletic departments, all in the name of ‘fairness’.
Wholeheartedly agree with you on the false dichotomy.
Everyone wants BSU to “represent” something about college football. They’re the anti-establishment! They’re BCS Busters! They’re complete pretenders who are the lucky beneficiaries of a terrible schedule and would lose 4 games in a BCS conference so don’t deserve a shot at a national title game!
Why don’t we just take them for what they are: a football team that plays 12 games in a regular season? Why don’t we, instead of making a black and white determination right now about whether they deserve to go to the national title game, just wait until they play all of those games? Why don’t we just settle the hell down and compare everyone’s seasons at the end of the year and then determine whether we think they should be in the national championship game?
Rather than treating them as an intangible idea of a football team, why don’t we treat them as an actual football team? It’s all they’ve ever asked for. If at the end of the year, two teams have better resumes, then so be it. But to say out of hand, right now, no matter what else happens the rest of the year, they shouldn’t make the national championship game, well pardon me, but that’s just stupid.
Because..
when we get into arguments about playoffs, and the BCS, and the validity of National Champions, and the like, one of the primary points of contention is what standards, precisely, are we using to determine the nation’s best team. If anyone is to make a stand in that argument, then it is not prudent to treat the underlying factors in Boise St.’s very eligibility for such accolades.as a non-issue.
Facts are the issues, not suppositions.
After the regular season, look at what happened, taking into account every fact you want to (including the fact that the week-by-week schedule just isn’t as rough as another team’s, even if the overall SoS is similar), and then make a determination.
Obviously, general ideas about how to weight certain facts in your ranking of teams are things that should be discussed on an ongoing basis. But stamping a specific team (in this case, Boise St.) with a Scarlet Letter as representative of everything that you don’t think should be weighted very much in determining your rankings before that team has played more than one game in a year is ridiculous and not fair. Let the team play, then apply your general ideas to them, rather than forcing that team to be stuck to whatever pre-conceived notions you have about “teams like that.” It’s the equivalent of pollster inertia and just as bad for college football.
Couldn't possibly disagree more.
Not only is it not ridiculous, it is categorically necessary. A commonly addressed issue in these debates is the issue of a hypothetical team knowing the standards of success before the season begins. One thing upon which I agree with playoff proponents is that the standards for success can’t be changed midseason.
But consistency on such a stance is going to require conceding some [seemingly] strange qualifiers, such as the notion that, based on the proposed standards for success, Boise St. may be disqualified for a National Title before the season even begins. See my response to Peter above for a more extensive explanation as to why.
This
I think that people feel uncomfortable with the idea that under NO circumstances should BSU play for a national title, and idea that I’m fully behind. If the WAC as a whole came out and exhibited a wholesale improvement in talent level (via OOC performance), then we could start having a discussion about the possibility of playing through that conference being enough of a challenge that the reward should be one of the two spots in the NCG. Alas…
2009 WAC OOC: 21-22 (15-22 w/o BSU)
2009 XII OOC: 29-17
If you're so sure of what it ain't, how about telling us what it am!
no sense.
This comparison means absolutely nothing and I will tell you why. Because of their conference schedule and to get a payday, the lower level teams in the WAC and other non-aq conference usually end up playing the upper level aq-conference teams. With pairings like Oklahoma/Utah St., Alabama/San Jose St, etc, there’s no way the WAC will do as well OOC. It’s apples and oranges. But hey, if it makes you feel better about yourself… tear it up! At the end of the day isn’t the object ot figure out who the best team is?
There's a constant debate about whether the object is to determine the best team or the team that had the best season.
I do not believe that has been or ever will be completely settled.
wait
so your arguement is “of course the ooc record is worse, they have to play teams better than them!”
THAT’S THE WHOLE DAMN POINT!
If we remove every single assumption about every team in college football and just look at records, WAC teams went out, played teams in other conferences, and lost a lot. A lot. Yeah, they play better teams, but again, that is the point. There is a pecking order, and sorry boise, you are a good team, but you are still down a few rungs because your conference isn’t worth shit.
If you're so sure of what it ain't, how about telling us what it am!
What if Boise went undefeated in 2007 when no other team has fewer than 2 losses?
What if every team in the country other than an undefeated BSU has 3 losses? 4? 5? At what point are you willing to concede that Boise State deserves a shot at the national championship? If your answer is “never” then I applaud your ideological consistency and call you crazy. But if there is some point at which BSU should be considered for the national championship game, then you’re doing exactly what I’m doing, which is looking at actual results and making a subjective determination of who has had the best season based on those results. If you subjectively believe that BSU didn’t have the best season, then that’s great. But you can’t tell me that I can’t subjectively believe that they did. I don’t have to weigh various factors the same way that you do. If I had to do that, then why vote at all? Let’s just make an incredibly arcane set of rules for determining who is #1 and methodically apply those every year.
If you want there to be some objective rule for determining the champion (or who plays in the championship game), then you have to get rid of the subjective nature of voting altogether, which I would venture to guess you are averse to doing (knowing your stance on a playoff and everything).
I've actually thought a lot about this
And I think I would set what we could call the “WAC line” at 2.5 losses, going up or down .5 of a loss depending on the relative strength of the conference. Perfect example in ‘07: The SEC was strong enough that a perfect record in the WAC (Hawaii) still wasn’t worth a 2-loss run through the SEC. A 2-loss run through the BE would be debatable.
If you're so sure of what it ain't, how about telling us what it am!
This season
If Boise runs the table, I think their two “quality” wins over VT and OSU shifts their WAC line to 1.5. A 1-loss XII, SEC, or B10 school should probably still go ahead (and 2 losses in those conferences would be a genuine debate), but a loss in the PAC, BE or ACC (maybe) this year should drop you below the WAC line.
If you're so sure of what it ain't, how about telling us what it am!
You're really arguing past me more than at me
Of course the individual votes of the Harris poll participants are subjective. You’re ticked off because you think I’m trying to tell you how to vote. But that isn’t the issue. The issue here is having a reasonable set of standards. Should you think such a pursuit is too subjective and therefore asinine, consider that if a voter publically admits he votes a team higher if he prefers the color of the uniform, or the first name of the coach, then you are likely to deem that voter unreasonable and want him excluded from future polls (unless, of course, I need to applaud your ideological consistency, as well).
I’m arguing that, within what I consider reasonable standards, no, Boise St. cannot challenge for a National Championship, and I’m completely within my domain to question anyone who says otherwise to produce substantive reasoning, and not simply hide behind the shield of subjectivity.
If all of the nation’s major schools had two losses, then, for reasons stated above, I still think its clear that a team that goes 10-2 in the SEC has accomplished more on the field and off than an undefeated Boise St. If every team had three or four losses? Now you’re going beyond the realm of rational possibility. It would be like someone attacking your flex system by asking what happens when we have 19 undefeated teams.
by BrooklynHorn on Sep 8, 2010 12:02 AM CDT up reply actions
Further
my problem with this isn’t really the general subjectivity, so much as the implicit notion that teams who are placed on completely different competitive paths can play for the same accolades.
Boise St. is in a lower tier of competition. Keeping with the soccer analogy, Boise St. playing for a national title would be akin to taking the winner of the second division in England, and pitting them against the winner of the Premier League, and saying,whoever wins this one game is the champion. It isn’t likely that the former will beat the latter, but why should they be given the chance? On any given day they could pull the upset, and they’ve done little to earn being there in the first place, as the EPL winner has gone through a season that is arduous as hell, riddled with injuries, player meltdowns, media scandals, and locker-room drama. By comparison, the winner of the second division has had a walk in the park.
Its entirely valid to exclude Boise St., categorically, from consideration for college football’s highest honor, if it can be assessed that they can’t possibly accomplish enough throughout the season ever to merit it.
One final thing. That voters have traditionally kept lower tier schools out of the discussion for the National Title indicates that either they fear change and conspire against the little guy (entirely possible), or that they have some understanding of what it is I’m trying to convey here. Obviously I believe it to be the latter. But reality has a habit of casting diminishing returns, as something that was true 5 years ago about Boise’s competitive advantages is still true today, but as clear as it was 5 years ago that they should not be given consideration for the BCS title, it seems less clear today in the minds of voters. This could be that some think that BSU has earned a spot with consistent play, but I tend to think its more that an idea, however truthful it may be, loses impact within the mind, much the same way something that’s funny the first time we hear it is theoretically as funny the 50th time, yet upon hearing it for the 50th time, we generally don’t laugh. The truth about the circumstances of Boise’s position in the college football world was obvious to the majority when they first went undefeated in 2004, and nothing about those circumstances has really changed, but the idea has lost its impact. So now voters are ready to give them a shot…which really just sucks balls.
by BrooklynHorn on Sep 8, 2010 12:34 PM CDT up reply actions
To be more precise...
Keeping with the soccer analogy, Boise St. playing for a national title would be akin to taking the winner of the second division in England, and pitting them against the winner of the Premier League, and saying,whoever wins this one game is the champion.
If you’re going to use this analogy, wouldn’t it be fair to point out that PU has won the second division several years in a row, but promotion hasn’t been available, so PU has remain stuck in the second division while the old money clubs slowly debate whether PU is worthy of a long-term promotion?
Hungry Hippos, baby! It's on!
I'm shallow.
I HATE the blue field. HATE IT.
Big Bill "You never lose a game if the opponent doesn't score." Darell K. Royal
I've always thought it's like camouflage
Boise can unfairly hide a safety somewhere between the 30 and 35 yard line. It’s like a game of Where’s Waldo with 11 Waldos.
Although Baylor's green does not often match up exactly with the field color.
And they don’t often wear all green uniforms.
by Texas Wahoo on Sep 7, 2010 7:11 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
I'm already growing tired
Of people worrying so much about us missing out on the MNCG because Boise goes undefeated. Let’s beat Oklahoma, Nebraska and A&M before we start worrying about a team from the WAC going undefeated and taking our place.
That's one reason I could root for Boise with a pretty clear mind tonight
I just don’t see us going undefeated so i don’t think we’ll be impacted at the end of the day.
Hungry Hippos, baby! It's on!
by Hopkins Horn on Sep 6, 2010 11:57 PM CDT up reply actions
It will still impact us
If we have only one loss as well.
by TheElusiveShadow on Sep 6, 2010 11:58 PM CDT up reply actions
I don't think this season
I think an undefeated Boise will be comfortably ahead in the BCS rankings of any one loss team this season.
Hungry Hippos, baby! It's on!
by Hopkins Horn on Sep 7, 2010 12:03 AM CDT up reply actions
That's the whole issue, though
A great many people will question if that makes any sense.
by TheElusiveShadow on Sep 7, 2010 12:06 AM CDT up reply actions
Yes, that's my main gripe
I think a one loss team from the Big 12/Pac 10/Big 10/SEC would have more of a right to a title spot than Boise.
If you’re starting to look at TWO-loss teams for the NC, then I would start the discussion about bringing Boise in.
Right this second
I am way more focused on the four game stretch of TT, UCLA, OU and NU. If we are 5-1 after that stretch then I think relative SOS needs to be addressed and the penalty for lack of scheduling should be signifcant. One solid win does not a solid season make. In other words if we’re 5-1 and Boise St is 6-0 then we can start to rationalize ranking us higher for BCS purposes. Until then there is no argument.
I will say however that Kellen Moore is the best QB in the country.
"You've got to think lucky. If you fall into a mudhole, check your back pocket - you might have caught a fish" -- Darrell Royal
by SpiritOfTheFedora on Sep 7, 2010 12:38 PM CDT up reply actions
Sense? Maybe not.
But a media lovefest (great story, vocal fans, etc) could put the human factor over the hump. I don’t think any computer rankings would yield a BSU NC game, but I suspect it is very possible, despite not making a ton of sense.
by Infield Elephant on Sep 7, 2010 3:36 PM CDT up reply actions
My instincts
I could be completely wrong here in making this assumption, but I’ve tended to notice over the years that the computers tend to value being undefeated more than human voters do.
This wouldn’t make a difference if there were three or more undefeateds, but my instincts are that, if we’re talking about an undefeated Boise versus a one-loss SEC/Big 12 champion for the second spot, I wouldn’t count on the computers doing the dirty work of keeping Boise out if the human element sided with Boise.
Hungry Hippos, baby! It's on!
BSU could benefit us too
I totally agree we are getting way ahead of ourselves. Imagine at the end of the season BSU is taking the National Championship spot from a 1 loss OU. That would be awesome. I am on board with any chance to screw OU. I will get worked up about BSU once we beat OU and Nebraska.
by Boise Longhorn on Sep 7, 2010 1:07 PM CDT up reply actions
agree
If Texas beats ou and Nebraska then it will be much greater than Boise beating VT. A&M will actually help Texas this year when they beat them.
Bcs computers
Assuming Boise and us go undefeated, won’t we get more love from the computers because strength of schedule?
Also I think oregon st. losing to tcu really hurt boise more than we know since that is their only quality opponent yet.
by jtdiddy on Sep 7, 2010 12:02 AM CDT via mobile reply actions
I posted it in Longhorn_Dan’s fanpost, but it’s a combination of watching TCU beat this team down in San Diego 2 years ago (close score but TCU was way more talented) and their fans at that game.
People need to remember they have played exactly FOUR important games. And it seems like in each that the other team decides they will pick that game to litter with unforced errors.
Tonight for instance — if Va Tech either doesn’t fumbe the snap or the outside guy on the punt realizes THERE IS A DEFENDER TO HIS RIGHT AND NO ONE TO PICK HIM UP!!! Va Tech wins. Period. SOme credit goes to Boise St there, but, wow, do they seem to catch some lucky gaffes by the other team.
I don’t care about them beating us to the BCS. They won’t if we win all of our games (cough, cough). I just don’t think they are that good.
I posted on another board that I still don’t think they are a top 10 team, from a power rankings view, and got called out. But seriously - give me pick ‘em odds, and I’d take ’Bama, Florida, Texas, OU, Ohio St, Iowa, Nebraska, Oregon, USC, and maybe LSU, Georgia, Penn St and Iowa to win the game. Seriously.
Part of me wants to see Boise make the national championship game so that they lose 56 -3 so we can shut up about them. I usually love the underdog, but something about Boise just irks me. I am stil pissed off TCU handed them the Fiesta Bowl last year by deciding they could be tricky too.
Uh, OK but...
I know you can’t blame Boise St. for playing in such a weak conference, per se, but how can you make an argument that a team like Boise St. potentially deserves to be in the National Championship game when they play: Wyoming, NM St., Toledo, San Jose St., Louisiana Tech, Hawaii, Idaho, Fresno St., Nevada and Utah St. I know they just beat VT and I know they play Oregon State. But, I think we’ll see as the season unwinds that both Oregon State and VT are underachievers and that beating either of those two teams isn’t all that impressive.
The system is broken no doubt (no playoff) but I just can’t see any validity in an argument that has an undefeated Boise St. or TCU playing in a National Championship game over an undefeated (or even a 1 loss team) from one of the major BCS conferences. Their weakness of schedule/conference is just too much to overcome for me.
Sorry, just the way I see it.
by Top Jimmy on Sep 7, 2010 12:04 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Part of the reason Boise State has a hard time finding games
Is because of the system itself. Let’s say Boise State beats you the first game of the season, like Oregon last year. All of a sudden Boise State represented a sort of “glass ceiling” for Oregon, no matter how much Oregon improved throughout the year. There is, typically, a big discrepancy between how much Boise stands to gain vs the BCS team they are playing. For most teams, they don’t think it’s worth it. If Texas loses to Ohio State early in the season, it is deemed a “respectable” loss and the theory goes that both teams have a BCS schedule to go through to sort things out. Boise State does not offer that. That’s not necessarily their fault, but that’s why a lot of teams don’t really want to schedule them. What is there to gain?
The way I look at it is this: We have a silly system of plucking two teams out of 120 to play for a national title game. As dumb as that often is, since that’s what we’re stuck with, we should do our best to make sure the two most deserving teams make it the title game. That means looking seriously at a team’s “resume” and making informed votes and decisions based on that. If you look at the totality of Boise State’s body of work, it just pales in comparison to teams that have to go through schedules several times tougher than theirs. Is that their fault? Maybe not. That’s not the issue. The issue is whether or not being undefeated with their schedule is more impressive than a 1-loss team from the Big 12, Big 10, SEC, or Pac-10. The answer to that, for me, is no.
What annoys me, then, is not Boise State itself, but how ignorant and sensationalist the voters tend to be. In that regard, I agree with you PB; the problem is the game and not the player. That being said, that will also cause me to be against Boise being selected for the NC game over a 1-loss team from the SEC or something, because that is just another screw up of the system that I don’t want to see.
by TheElusiveShadow on Sep 7, 2010 12:05 AM CDT reply actions
Playing devil's advocate here . . .
What if we go 13-0, Boise goes 12-0, Florida/Alabama finishes 12-1, Ohio State 11-1?
We’re in. Who would you rather we play in the MNC?
From a selfish, "I want to win" perspective
Boise State, because I would view them as the weakest of those. From a college football fan standpoint, probably Alabama or Ohio State, because they would be more deserving to go.
by TheElusiveShadow on Sep 7, 2010 12:43 PM CDT up reply actions
I've elaborated elsewhere
but I think that Texas would most likely lose to BSU, due to the mentality of “we’re Texas, we should win walking away”, which would put us in an early hole. We wouldn’t have any problem showing up for a game against ’bama, osu, etc.
If you're so sure of what it ain't, how about telling us what it am!
If you don't like the system, support BSU to get a change
Ahh, here you miss the opportunity to change the system. If BSU makes the national championship game, all the arguments against the BCS in congress and the courts go out the window. But those are long shots to begin with. If BSU plays in the national championship over a 1 loss school from the Big 10, Pac-10 or Big 12, those conferences will be outraged. I believe they will be so outraged that they would change the system to a plus 1 in the future, requiring the small school to play another game and give the big boys one more shot at them. If BSU makes the NC game, and especially if they win, we will be that much closer to a playoff.
by Boise Longhorn on Sep 7, 2010 6:41 PM CDT up reply actions
I think your hopes are way too high here
First of all, I don’t think Boise St. making the BCS title game will force a change. That might even just give the BCS more ammunition to NOT do anything, because they’ll just say, “See? The ‘little guy’ can make the title game!” We’ve had many BCS catastrophes in the past; what makes you think one involving Boise State will make them do anything?
Secondly, I think that’s a poor reason to support Boise State anyway. What I’m concerned with is, given our current system, what’s the most rational choice for the top two teams in the country. That has little to do with changing the system itself, which I would like to do, but certainly won’t happen in a knee-jerk fashion (and shouldn’t happen in a knee-jerk fashion; I wouldn’t put it past the idiots who run the BCS to create a bad version of playoffs). Again, the question is this: If Boise State runs the table, is the a more impressive season than a school from the Big 12 or SEC losing only one game? The answer to that is most likely no. The question is not: Will Boise State’s inclusion into the title game make the BCS institute changes? I think that’s a stretch, nor is it a good reason to put Boise State ahead of a team with a better resume.
by TheElusiveShadow on Sep 7, 2010 8:23 PM CDT up reply actions
none, zero, zilch, nada
they win the games they play
and end up where they deserve to win
anyone mad at boise state is fighting windmills
they train hard just like all of the other football playing schools
and when they get on the field they play hard
what more can you ask for from them?
to play decent teams every week
It may out of their control, but who’s fault is that? If teams play VT and better caliber teams every week, they deserve it more.
Does anyone else
Think that Boise State is actually a very good team? Not only talent wise, but the entire team was very composed, from start to finish, including that last drive.
they are good
but won’t deserve it more than a 11-1 team from the SEC, Big 12 or Big 10.
by Longhorns84 on Sep 7, 2010 3:47 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
First off...
I do not hate Boise State, but rather I hate the coined term, “BCS Buster”, especially when it is used to define a team like Boise State. I therefore, fall into the category of rejecting the aristocratic BCS system and wishing for a playoff system. Also, I was rooting for VT tonight, because I feel it opens things up for other teams, such as Texas to move forward in the rankings. My worries based on this game are:
1.) Boise State won, but the missed calls by the refs during the last drive really put a bad taste in my mouth. I’m not saying BSU didn’t deserve all of the credit in the world for coming back, because they do, but it still leaves me unfulfilled. I’m a fan…what can I say.
2.) Take this scenario: BSU goes undefeated, as does Texas and Alabama. Who gets snuffed out? Even if we have a team like we did in 2005 and we destroy our schedule, there is STILL a chance we get snubbed out because of the Narrative of a Non-BCS team making the dance, which will be amplified by the media. I understand that there are worse things the media can harp on, such as Tebow, USC, Matt Barkley, and Da U is back…ect. I also understand that the likelihood of us going undefeated is slim; however, it is not gone. As a fan, I will not lose my optimism, yet that optimism will be kept in check by the undefeated Broncos, looming to take our spot in Glendale.
3.) With #2 in mind, do you honestly think BSU would beat us by the end of the year? I know its impossible to predict the future, but I believe that they will not. I’m just not impressed by their secondary, nor their defensive line. I feel that their offense is good, possibly great, but nothing that we’re not going to see from OU, TAMU, TTU…etc. If I feel that they would not win in a head to head matchup with us, then I have a hard time rooting for them when they could easily affect our MNC hopes.
I do agree with ya that we need to hate the game, not the player, PB. I just was rooting for Va Tech because it paved the clearest path for Texas to play leapfrog over them, should the opportunity present itself. Nothing else. I’m a Kellen Moore fan. I like the blue turf, and the trick plays. I think that most of the animosity was stemmed from only a few things, not the player itself, such as…
-Betting on the game.
-Worried about the possible BCS implications.
-A BON poster, who is famous for his hyperbole, was stirring the pot .
Stumpy: It's called the '80s. Ford was president, Nixon was in the White House, and FDR was running this country into the ground. I was bummin' in a hole-in-the-wall town in what is now called "Utah".
Try infamous.
I agree with Kriess.
I don’t hate Boise. And anyone with any intelligence gives them credit for their ooc scheduling philosophy and understands why they only get a couple of those teams to say yes every year. It’s not their fault. I don’t blame them. But until the 2 players of a college football National Championship game are determined by anything other than a beauty contest throughout the year, strength of schedule matters – No matter whose fault it is.
"A lot of people look for the easy way to do anything, in swimming there is no easy way." - Eddie Reese
Thanks Frank Beamer...
If you would have run the ball on 3rd down, you would have kept peace among the BCS big boys. Instead, you tried to catch the trickster of all tricksters cheating to stuff the run. Damn you.
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." ~ Will Muschamp
"I always felt like, and I paid a price for it, that it didn't seem right for one guy to bring me down." ~ The Tyler Rose
"I'm Colt McCoy and I Am Second." ~ Colt McCoy
But I thought you'd enjoy chaos, being a playoff booster and all
Hungry Hippos, baby! It's on!
by Hopkins Horn on Sep 7, 2010 12:27 AM CDT up reply actions
I do not like the constant white knight to slay the dragon suff
To me they just seem like a media created team that yes can win games but do not look as great as they want you to think. Boise as well as TCU come off as a white knight that ESPN, BCS Haters etc want to cling to because they want this mighty underdog to slay those evil UT, USC, OU, OSU, Bama’s of the world. But if they were in say a PAC, XII or SEC they would not get the same love that they do. They would just be another face in the crowed. When an outsider can come along people seem to flock to them and praise them.
Give me an Iowa State, NorthWestern, Satanford or Vandy if for an internal underdog to uproot things. Not a media appointed BCS buster.
It's an interesting conundrum...
On the one hand, if they beat the schedule put in front of them, especially considering that Boise trys it’s damdest to schedule tough OOC games, then shouldn’t Boise be given a chance to go to the MNC and try to prove it’s a national title contender?
But on the other hand, their schedule is still a weak schedule, and should they go undefeated, but two BCS conference teams also go undefeated, they probably should still be the odd team out.
Personally, I like the idea of a non-BCS team fighting its way into the MNC game, if only to prove it can be done. And I have always liked that Boise State is willing to take on anyone during the regular season…which is such a drastic change over what many of the big BCS schools are willing to do.
In the end, if an undefeated Texas, with their schedule, is knocked out of the MNC by an undefeated Boise St., with their schedule, I’ll be irritated. But should Boise be the last undefeated team left standing, or one of two…then I fully believe they have every right to be in the MNC over a 1-loss BCS conference team. You win the games put in front of you. If the BCS schools don’t like it, then schedule Boise St. during the regular season, and knock them out of title contention yourselves!
"If you can accept losing, you can't win." ~Vince Lombardi
Tweet Tweet.
Last year Montana went undefeated in the regular season
and they didn’t even make a BCS game! They played the games on their schedule, what else could they do?
If you're so sure of what it ain't, how about telling us what it am!
I'm tired of all this even-handed reasoning, PB
Let us rage on with impunity!
Damnit PB! There you go again requiring logic on this blog....
Can I not just like them b/c they play on blue turf, used to be a juco and one other thing?…..Oh yeah, their kicker has a tribal band tattoo around his bicept?…
Wow the hypocrisy runs deep!!!!!!!!
If you Big 12(or is it the big 10 now) fans are so scared of little Boise State, why not schedule them? You would rather whine about Boise than settle it where it should be on the field. After we beat your conference champion OU in the 2007 Fiesta Bowl . I really did not see any team from your conference run to schedule us and defend your own honor, especially all of the schools from the mighty state of Texas! However, you will play BYU like five straight times (because they are such a quality program LOL). If you hate us that bad and do not want us to rain on party, PLAY US! Put your money where your mouth is… and if you do not. Realize we are here to be a pain in the backside of all you elitist bastards and to make you sweat every year. I hope you like the current temperature. I can only imagine how hot it will get if VT (ACC) and Oregon State (PAC 10) wins their conferences! Then what will you whine about??
by Utah_Born_Bronco on Sep 7, 2010 1:36 AM CDT reply actions
why?
because Boise won’t help the rankings because Boise isn’t a BCS team. It would only benefit Boise. What’s the point?
Why don't y'all put your money where your mouth is?
Oh wait, y’all don’t have any money….sucks to be you
by SneezyBeltran on Sep 7, 2010 9:31 AM CDT up reply actions
Holy crap, Boise beat OU four years ago!
Not only did Texas beat Oklahoma the same year Boise did, Texas has won four of five since 2005. In that time, Boise has managed to go a less-than-stellar 4-4 against BCS teams. Boise is absolutely able to put on some great games and has the potential to beat any team, but it also has the potential to lose to as many as it beats. This places them alongside football luminaries such as Kansas (.488 against BCS schools in that time) and Oklahoma State (.489) and well behind perennial also-rans Texas Tech (.644) and Missouri (.627).
If the past is any indication (as it appears to be to you, given your eager to discuss four year old games), Boise would absolutely be able to hold its own in a BCS conference, but it would rarely threaten to win the conference, let alone the national championship.
The French haven't the nature for war. Their Gallic laziness combines with their Latinate voluptuousness with the result that they would rather eat and make love with their faces than fight.
by LongCat on Sep 7, 2010 11:52 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Looking around BSU boards
I almost feel sorry for them. They immediately have to start hyping up every team they beat as soon as the game is over. I’m glad that, after we beat an opponent, we can point and laugh while walking away, wanting nothing more to do with them.
If you're so sure of what it ain't, how about telling us what it am!
My beef with Boise is..
they play 1 tough game a year and think they deserve to play for a national championship while teams in the Big 12, SEC and the Big 10 play good team every week. It’s much easier for teams to show up once a year than every week prepared.
VT is always overrated and will lose 2 or 3 more games. Boise needs A LOT of help still. TCU has a better chance than Boise becasue they play BYU and Utah.
This raises an interesting point
Army, Navy, and Notre Dame are most certainly not BCS schools. And yet no one complains about having them on a schedule or the potential of breaking the BCS. The only logical reason I can see for this, is that their SOS is much higher than Boise State, well ND at least.
Although I'm not a Jets fan, and most certainly not a USC fan, I'll root for any team that Mark Sanchez plays for. Mark Sanchez for Superbowl MVP and President 2012. The change that only I can believe in.
ND is a BCS school
http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/bcs_explained.html
4. Notre Dame will have an automatic berth if it is in the top eight of the final BCS Standings.
Never ask a man if he's from Texas. If he is, he'll tell you soon enough. If he's not, don't embarrass him.
Not really true.
If ND is a BCS school, then every school is a BCS school because any mid-major that wins its conference and finishes in the top 12 automatically gets a berth. You either have to say that every school is a BCS school or you have to lump ND in with the other non-AQ’s.
I might disagree with both
ND is not a BCS school, but it is also different than any other non-AQ if the BCS has a clause just for Notre Dame.
"A lot of people look for the easy way to do anything, in swimming there is no easy way." - Eddie Reese
All programs have to start out somewhere
Having lived in Wyoming for 10 years I’m well aware of Boise State. The popularity of the team is growing like crazy out West.
The only thing we can’t change is change in sports. I think a new team mixing it up with the big boys is good for college sports.
They deserve a shot at the title this year based on the talent of their team alone this season.
Is there a club you have to belong to…to play for the national title? Isn’t it based on the best teams each year? Not how good the history of your program is? Another reason we need a playoff.
by Dawnpatrol on Sep 7, 2010 7:47 AM CDT via mobile reply actions
Before, I start running off my mouth I want to ask.
Have either Boise State or TCU made moves to join one of the Big 5 conferences? Utah just got itself into the Pac-10. Have the other two even made phone calls? If they have, then I will take back most of my hate. If not then I’ll just accuse them of taking advantage of a weak SOS. Unfair, but it’s what I’ll do.
Although I'm not a Jets fan, and most certainly not a USC fan, I'll root for any team that Mark Sanchez plays for. Mark Sanchez for Superbowl MVP and President 2012. The change that only I can believe in.
I don't have direct knowledge of what specific phone calls mades by BSU's and TCU's AD...
…but I think one would have assume, without any hesitancy whatsoever, that either school would jump to join a BCS conference. The problem is that no major conference wants either. One can conceivably see TCU winding up in the Big 12 or perhaps even the Big East in the next few years, but it is a very reasonable inference to make that the Frogs’ not being in a major conference today means that they haven’t been invited.
BSU is more problematic. It’s not the greatest academic institution in the world, and the only geographically logical conference for the school, the Pac Whatever, will never admit a school of its academic profile. Put BSU in central Florida and they’d probably be in the Big East already, but that’s not an option.
Though sympathetic to Boise, I recognize that there are valid criticisms against their “right,” for lack of a better word to play for the championship. Claiming that they simply don’t want to be in a “major” conference in order to protect a weaker schedule is not one of them.
Hungry Hippos, baby! It's on!
Let me try to rephrase what I'm saying
It is obvious that both schools, deserve to be in a BCS conference, based upon skill alone. Their stadium sizes, and recruiting are obviously limited. However, I see growing in prominence as a progression over time rather than a quick jump up from 5 years ago. Yes Boise State is getting better, but until they can draw a bigger crowd teams won’t want to schedule home and homes and their SOS will be limited. Is it fair? Not mine to judge, but the fact is they don’t have the revenues or the stadium sizes to be considered for a bigger conference, and in my opinion a NC.
Although I'm not a Jets fan, and most certainly not a USC fan, I'll root for any team that Mark Sanchez plays for. Mark Sanchez for Superbowl MVP and President 2012. The change that only I can believe in.
Wait a second...
…if a school’s stadium isn’t big enough, it shouldn’t be eligible to play for a championship? Am I understanding you correctly?
But for one second, a school with a very small stadium (Cincy or TCU) would have played for a championship last year.
Hungry Hippos, baby! It's on!
by Hopkins Horn on Sep 7, 2010 10:51 AM CDT up reply actions
Umm...
it’s the fan base and the level of competition. They’re not bringing in the revenue.I’m not even sure why this is that big a deal to comprehend. College Football is at it’s heart about money, and no schools want to play with it at home, because there isn’t enough revenue being produced. As such Boise State doesn’t have the funding or the fans to become a reliable revenue for a BCS conference. Sure people would watch it this year, but that’s because they are, like you, rooting for the plucky underdog. Once Cinderella’s turned back into a normal maid that’s gonna plummet.
Although I'm not a Jets fan, and most certainly not a USC fan, I'll root for any team that Mark Sanchez plays for. Mark Sanchez for Superbowl MVP and President 2012. The change that only I can believe in.
Revenue is the issue.
If you want to talk about a crapy little school that does not deserve the BCS conference money, look up I-35 at Baylor. If you gave BSU the TV and bowl money Baylor gets every year, they would have a huge stadium, high paid coaches and all the luxuries that BCS conference affiliation brings. Your argument is dumb in that you claim we should never play a school that is not rich and has a big stadium. But some schools get lots of revenue for doing nothing while other struggle to survive on shoestring budgets. What is the difference between Baylor and BSU? One is rich and one is good. Why should Baylor get all the money for being piece of crap year after year? BSU deserves the shot simple because they start at such a disadvantage in my opinion. To tell them to get in a better conference is stupid. They moved to the black hole of the Mountain West just to be in a better conference. If they had the money Baylor gets, they would be true power. I hate that money dictates who matters. Texas should play a school because they are good, not because their stadium is big.
by Boise Longhorn on Sep 7, 2010 7:08 PM CDT up reply actions
I don't think Boise would have been able to make the climb they have in the Big Twelve South.
They might have done better than Baylor the past 10 years, but Idont think they would have been able to compete. Their rise was helped by their ability to beat up on crappy teams and gain notoriety.
by Texas Wahoo on Sep 7, 2010 7:21 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Harder, but not impossible
I think it is more their willingness to play on Thursday night on ESPN. Exposure and good coaching goes along way. If you gave them money too, it would be a dangerous combination.
by Boise Longhorn on Sep 7, 2010 7:24 PM CDT up reply actions
Not hate but disrespect
I wonder if this is a generational divide.I am mid 50’s and see Boise St. another in a long line of pretenders such as BYU/Houston Cougs/SMU.At least TCU and Rice have been national champs.Having remembered the bad old days of the 70’s and 80’s I am suspicious of small under achieving programs suddenly in the top 5.Peter – have you ever been to Boise Id.?
I can't speak for Peter...
…but I have a few times. Went by the stadium and all — more impressive in person that one would expect. The field is at grade level, so the entire structure is above grade, which probably makes it more impressive than it otherwise would be. Any Boise-specific questions?
Hungry Hippos, baby! It's on!
No hate at all!
I love the small time underdog rising up against the big boys and causing havoc – in many ways a micro analysis of watching an individual fight against a big company or against the political establishment. In no way can I hate the BSU program and the tenacity and fight they have them and it shows on the field. I do hate the BCS establishment and what it has created with the current system.
Also, I refuse to focus on all the other college teams this year and not on my Longhorns. The constant “what if” scenarios will drive you crazy.
Hate the system,
as most of us do. Now given current system, not all teams are judged the same way.
Most teams from BCS conferences who are title contenders must overcome three to four tough game during the regular season and then, for some, an additional test in a conference championship game. Think Texas or Bama or Ohio State.
Boise is different though. They play one quality opponent this season, two if you include Oregon State. That’s fine. That’s their schedule. However, I’m not sure that we should reward even an undefeated season with a shot at the national championship.
Of course all teams play schedules with varying levels of strength. But the difference in schedule strength between two BCS teams is not all that great. The difference between one of those teams’ strength of schedle and what Boise’s will end up is huge.
My problem is definitely with the system. Given a playoff, if Boise won four games in Dec/January against top tier teams, then I’d have no problem with them. I do, however, have a problem with them given our current system and them only being challenged once or twice a season.
--AW--
Well put.
I think this is the argument that Kriess and I were trying to articulate above.
And I think we would hold this opinion regardless of the team that we root for. If I were an LSU or Oregon fan, I would feel the same way. So it is not even about our situation specifically. Although that is certainly why we are talking about it.
"A lot of people look for the easy way to do anything, in swimming there is no easy way." - Eddie Reese
Beauty contest
The BCS system sucks because teams cannot control their own destiny. If Texas could win the championship just by winning all its games, you probably wouldn’t see so many people rooting against BSU last night.
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. If they get mad, you're a mile away AND you have their shoes.
My beef is with the possibility of Boise going to the title game...
on the back of wins over an 8-4 VaTech and a 7-5 Oregon State.
And I only buy the “no one will play us” to a limited extent. One of the reasons that Fresno get get games and Boise can’t is because Fresno doesn’t demand millions for a single away game.
Love it!
Only week one and college football is in overdrive! Man, do i miss this during the long off season.
Don't want to call anyone out here
but I just want to note that if you think Boise deserves a title shot after last night then you are in the same corner as one Thayer Evans. Proceed with caution…
by Magnificent Bastard on Sep 7, 2010 9:41 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
lol
Will you say the same thing after 1 or 2 games vs the WAC where they win by the skin of their teeth.
I do love their Uniforms, especially their helmet with the blown up Bronco logo with the glowing orange eye. V Tech’s uniforms were pretty sharp also.
by Ryan2907 on Sep 7, 2010 11:23 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Conference
Boise State is a good team. They can beat any team given the have time to prepare. If they played a Big 12 conference schedule or a SEC conference schedule, we could see how good they really are. To beat up on the WAC and stay healthy and give them a month to prepare for a bowl game, they can beat anyone.
by Ryan2907 on Sep 7, 2010 10:16 AM CDT via mobile reply actions
If Boise wants respect
let them play four BCS teams in non-conference every year. I don’t respect what Boise does because they get their “big” win in the first game of the year, which is the easiest time to upset someone. If their “big” win over a conference contender (which Oregon was last year as they finished as conference champs, and Va Tech has won some ACC championships) was in game 2 or game 3 of the season, I’d respect them more, because you have a little more experience under your belt by that time, and the teams are better.
Random stat: Boise is 2-6 when playing a BCS team in game 2 of the season since 2000, and the two wins are both over Oregon State (’04, ’06).
Given that Boise’s conference schedule consists of teams that BCS teams fill their non-conference schedule with for guaranteed wins, you can’t respect who they schedule and play in conference. Since Boise is in the position of needing to overcome their own conference schedule, they should go ahead and schedule four BCA teams for all of their non-conference games. I don’t care what their record is or if they are up or down as a program, if you play Michigan, Alabama, USC, and Nebraska as your non-conference schedule, and go undefeated against those programs, you will gain the respect you so desire.
My other issue is that despite the claims of an “anyone, anywhere, anytime” philosophy, y’all don’t ever really play anyone. I don’t see you taking on the Alabamas, Floridas, Nebraskas, I see you playing Oregon State, Virginia Tech, Oregon, Washington, etc. Y’all claim you will play “anyone”, but seem to limit yourself to only Pac-10 and ACC opponents. The one time you played an SEC opponent (Georgia, 2005), you got whipped like a redheaded stepchild, 48-13. I think Boise has crafted this idea that they’re competitive with the top BCS programs without actually really playing them. Bronco fans can point to the 2007 win over OU in the bowl game, but we all know that was a down year for the conference (all the quarterbacks who blew up in 2008 were freshmen and sophomore starters in 2006, and OU’s Paul Thompson was a converted WR ), and OU was a 2-loss team heading into that bowl game.
by Beergut on Sep 7, 2010 10:50 AM CDT reply actions 2 recs
You can go conference by conference and pick out who BSU's "big game" opponents would be
XII: TTU, OSU, MU, a&m
PAC: OSU, UO, UCLA, either Arizona
SEC: ole miss, USC, Tenn
ACC: VT, Clemson, Boston College
B10: MSU, Minn, Wisconsin
BE: this year, probably anybody (god the big east is awful)
If you're so sure of what it ain't, how about telling us what it am!
Why not?
It’s very simple why BSU doesn’t play 4 BCS teams a year. They can’t get 4 BCS teams to play them every year. I don’t know who your are a fan of but please do all BSU fans a favor and get whoever it is, if there a BCS team, to play Boise. It’s interesting to me that most of the people that are on the internet complaining about BSU’s schedule go to schools that won’t play them. Hypocrite comes to mind. There’s an old saying Nut Up or Shut Up. Until your team steps up and play BSU you got no room to talk. You want BSU to shut up, JUST BEAT ‘EM, that’s all it will take.
I bet more teams would play Boise in a one-off home game with a 500k pay-off
Boise won’t agree to that though.
We made over $4 million last Saturday on tickets sold alone
Will Boise agree to play us in College Station, without a return trip, because we see no point in traveling to a 30k seat stadium in Idaho when we can make more playing SFA at home? Playing Boise makes little financial sense for the BCS teams who can make a financial windfall playing local non-AQ teams in non-conference play, so where is the incentive for us to schedule Boise?
Sure, why not
This logic then dictates that Boise State play all four (sometimes 5 when travleing to Hawaii teams get an extra game) non-conference games on the road (as no one is begging to come to Boise to play), leaving the team with only four home games a year (conference games). No one would do that.
Even if this was done, the additional requirement that you imply is that they have to play title contenders from the BCS conferences. Who else does this?
You complain about Boise fans pointing to a 2007 game against OU, but then use a 2005 game agains Georgia to prove your point. Can’t have it both ways. And please note, Boise has played in the SEC more than at Georgia – against South Carolina, and Arkansas twice.
This all seems absurd. Lets blow up the BCS system and get a playoff. The same arguements that you use against Boise, will be used ( and have been used) against Texas if the Big 12 has a down year – “are the Longhorns worthy of playing in the NC, no way. First they play in the Big 12 and then schedule creampuffs in their out of conference games. Case closed.”
Boise fans seem convinced
that they shouldn’t have to play a tough non-conference schedule because “no one else does that”. Well, the problem is, y’all want Boise, a non-BCS school in a non-AQ conference, to play in the BCS championship game. Instead of saying, “No one else does that”, realize that in order to take a different path to get to the BCS championship game, which is what y’all are trying to do by playing in a non-BCS conference, you’re going to actually have to walk down that path (play a tougher non-conference schedule) in order to get to your destination.
There is also the fact that those Bronco fans asking, “Who else does that?” are contradicting the “anyone, anytime, anywhere” image the Bose football program is trying to cultivate.
The reason for using a 2005 game to prove my point is because y’all don’t play any other SEC teams, which IS the point. Y’all claim a tough non-conference schedule without actually playing a tough non-conference schedule.
What would the 2011 schedule look like?
By some crazy miracle, Beergut, is now the AD at Boise State. He is set to unveil the 2011 football schedule that legitimates the Broncos as a NC contender. He has kept in mind a few things while building this road to the title – the new 7 game Mountain West schedule (unevenly split between home and away matchups), a historic rivalry with the University of Idaho, good business sense to allow for season ticket sales/sponsorships/luxury box leases to fill the stadium with a minimum of 6 home games, and tough non-conference games to make up for the weak Mtn West slate (a non-BCS conference) that must include an SEC team. By going undefeated with this schedule in 2011, this will silence all critics.
So, Beergut, what is this schedule?
I'm torn
I can admit that I have wavered a good bit on how I feel about Boise St. since the ‘07 Fiesta Bowl. Initially, I was captivated with 1) a cute little underdog story, and 2) the possibility of a team like this being a catalyst to bust the BCS. I still share much of that same sentiment, but I am getting mixed feelings as it goes along. The biggest issue, of course, is the SOS, and I’m not particularly sold on the “not their fault” bit.
The worst-case scenario to me would be: BSU goes undefeated as expected and jumps over a 1-loss or maybe undefeated BCS team due to the national love affair with the concept that is Boise State (I most certainly see this as possible). Then they lose. That’s not because I am necessarily pulling for them (indifferent, really) but because it will hinder the prospect of a system change – not ruin it, but perhaps put the issue on the back burner with the media in which they say, “Oh, I guess that didn’t work after all. Maybe the system is okay.” Not that simple, nor are all people that dumb, but I can hear it now. If they win the MNC, however, I am still not going to be completely sold on Boise State being the best team because 1) as with any team in this system, the championship is indeed mythical, and 2) just like the VT win, their entire season revolves on one game, whereas they coast in the WAC the remainder of the schedule. I can give them respect as the national champion, but “best team” is still hard for me, and yes, there is a difference.
Also, Kellen Moore is on pace to break Colt’s win record by week 7 of 2011 in the MFing WAC. Personal perhaps, but I’m not wild about it.
by Infield Elephant on Sep 7, 2010 10:55 AM CDT reply actions
Couple of reasons
1) Moore is going to break Colt’s record. (mentioned in previous post). That’s not a huge deal, but I root against it.
2) I think they’re gift-wrapping a 5th consecutive BCS Championship for the SEC. As I see it, a one loss SEC team and Boise are the two most likely title game contenders right now. I don’t think that Boise can match up with a top tier SEC team, and as such we’ll have to hear hear how superior the SEC is for another @#&*ing year.
If we're lucky
Maybe if BSU is lucky and makes it to a NC game against a SEC opponent, they won’t lose any worse that Ohio St. lmfao.
SEC funs suck
I could not bear another year of listening to that stupid S-E-C chant. One of my complaints about this whole discussion is that we sound like SEC fan when we say some one is not good because they don’t play in our ultra cool conference.
by Boise Longhorn on Sep 7, 2010 7:28 PM CDT up reply actions
Went to the Game
And was impressed enough by BSU to consider them a legitimate title contender, regardless of their schedule. Until we have a playoff, it is what it is, as the saying goes.
My two cents is that the only likely unbeaten conference champs this year are Ohio State, TCU and BSU. At least two of the SEC, Pac 10, Big 12 and ACC champs will have two losses. The best in those conferences seem down this year. So I’d have no argument putting an unbeaten BSU in the title game.
(I thought I’d root against BSU last night because they’re ranked higher than Texas, but Virginia Tech fans reminded me too much of Aggies, what with that purple and all. Their idea of creativity is to pull out their car keys and shake them anytime the Hokie D has a third down — because it’s a “key play”, get it? Also, on the walk out of the stadium I heard two different “fans” running down their team after the loss: “That’s why they call us the ‘Chokies’.” and “They (BSU) aren’t very good. They beat us and we’re not very good.” In fact Virginia Tech’s pretty decent and may still win the ACC.)
Cheers
I think their coaching is of such quality that they can beat any team given two weeks to prepare. Pretty much assures that they win most of their bowl games. I am still shocked at how some can see how physical a brand of football they play (in addition to all the fake punts and zaniness they normally employ) and not give them credit.
One could make the same argument against Boise State that they made against Miami in the early part of the decade when they would run roughshod through the Big East on the way to a title. No one complained too much, b/c Miami is a name team.
If Boise State runs the table this year, they deserve their shot. I do not think they will go undefeated b/c I think it is too tough of a task to win 27 games in a row. However, if they do they earned their shot.
My Beef? They Don't Deserve the Attention, That's Why
I’ve seen almost all of their games on TV for the last 3-4 years, and they just, simply put, don’t deserve all the “root for the plucky underog” nonsense that they get from Hopkins and the media.
Here’s how you know that a conference sucks: the only time in the last 3-4 years I’ve ever seen them come CLOSE to losing to one of their WAC foes is when they’re up by ONLY a touchdown or two. That’s when everyone gets excited, because, FINALLY, someone has the opportunity to beat them. Of course, it doesn’t happen.
They put up videogame numbers against absolutely atrocious opponents year in and year out and when faced with their one tough opponent a year (in a bowl or OOC), they STRUGGLE, but does manage to win by the skin of their nose. (Last night? VT lost that game to atrocious coaching. Why was Beamer letting a scrambler throw downfield on every play again? No idea. Coaching brain fart right there.)
BTW PB are you ever going to fix the PIck’em spread for the Mizzou-Illinois game or what? Illinois is the DOG, not the FAVORITE. I want my extra win, dammit!
In-VINCE-able.
But it's all Academic because ....
As much fun and feel good it is to root for boise now, at the beginning of the year, when Boise goes undefeated (a 100% given at this point) and voters are forced to choose between them and a 1-loss SEC team or a 1-loss Big 12 team to play in the CG against whoever, they will always go with the SEC/Big 12 team. It’s all happy happy now to root for the underdog, but when you start rolling out the SOS and a Big 12 team pulls out a win in the champ again, likewise with the SEC, no one is going to look over at Big Bad WAC Champ Boise and go, “Oh yeah, they definitely deserve it, having beaten, er, Nevada by 30?” etc.
Plus, SEC and Big 12 loyalties abound in the media. The establishment always eventually wins out when the chips are down. They willingly voted Boise in NOW, but conference/regional loyalty will eventually surface at the end.
So, whatever they door, cry for Boise. (And of course, bet on them if you go tthe money. :D)
In-VINCE-able.
*slow clap*
Excellent post, PB. Excellent. I can’t go through the rest of the comments right now, but I really do agree.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
One of the smartest articles I've read....
This is one of the few “smart” articles I’ve read after the BSU win over VT.
…Ironically, this win is now downplayed by the same people that predicted VT would stomp on BSU (especially since it was in VT’s backyard). Anyway…
Boise State has little control over the conference they are in (they accepted the Mountain West offer immediately). BSU has continuously tried to improve their schedule and consistently get turned down (over 20 “powerhouse” denies in 2 years).
The powerhouse schools/conference keep making excuses why they can’t/won’t schedule BSU. Well fine, but then don’t @itch about their schedule then. You can’t have it both ways.
If you don’t think BSU should be in the top 3, come play them. BSU has asked for a home-home situation (which frankly is what most teams ask for) or market value (BSU got 1.25 mil for the VT game and VT got 2.35) for an away game.
Stop making excuses; If you don’t like where BSU is ranked … stop talking hypothetical conference changes, etc. and come play them!
Most teams won't play them because they're demands are too high.
Lower the demands and they will get more takers.
LOL...
Sooo…in addition to not playing a home-home situation, they should accept even less money than the powerhouse schools pay their current schedule fodder? LOL. Makes total sense. Always expect smaller teams with limited resources to do MORE than your team is willing to do….and if they aren’t….then diss ’em.
We aren't the ones starving for quality opponents
we have them because we play in a legit conference. If Boise wants to compete at the national level, they either need to change conferences, or accept that their conference schedule is their biggest enemy, suck it up, and go on the road to play the powerhouses. If the powerhouse schools don’t want to go to Boise, then that sucks for Boise, the big schools aren’t losing anything by ignoring them. Deal with it.
If you're so sure of what it ain't, how about telling us what it am!
Boise's big problem is academics
Were their academics better, they would have been considered for Pac10 expansion instead of Utah. Utah’s priorities toward academics, as well as their larger media market, got them the nod instead.
Under the current system, Boise St. needs to improve their University’s ranking, and not just their media profile, if they ever want a shot at a major conference.
Or relocate to the southeast
I doubt Boise’s academics would have kept them out of the SEC or the Big East were the school located in a more desirous geographic location
Hungry Hippos, baby! It's on!
Dammit Hopkins
Why do you make me defend the SEC’s honor?
Boise fans, I’m not trying to take a shot at your university (seriously, I’m not, if I was I would be much more caustic) but a 5.3% four year graduation rate for the general student body as of 2008 isn’t getting it done. The six year rate of 26.3% is less than half of anything in the SEC.
At various times around here we may have overblown the importance of academics to the various conferences, but Boise State still has a long way to go, even for the SEC. Keeping athletes qualified is not a competitive advantage they’ll cede lightly.
proud to swim home
Because sadly...
BSU is not a traditional school and has lots of non-degree seeking students. It has lots of soccer mom’s etc. which you carefully omitted from your comparison. Kudos to you. Soccer moms don’t deserve an education anyway.
Regardless, I’m not going to get into a very subjective discussion about academics. Partially cause I have a few credits from the SEC, and this is really a talk about football. ;-) Yes, I know academics figure into conference membership, etc….but as we all know there are certain programs that go outside conference membership for a variety of reasons….and there is 0 reason why the SEC couldn’t schedule BSU. They’ve just chosen not to…repeatedly.
I didn't carefully omit anything.
For some reason, educational databases don’t keep track of statistics like “didn’t graduate because of little league practice”.
I’m not trying to be cruel to Boise, it has come a long way from a junior college with relatively little support. I’m just saying it still has a lot of room for improvement, and I’ve said the same thing about Texas on this blog.
proud to swim home
Well....
it just seems a very silly statistic for this forum, and really shouldn’t be used as a metric for conference qualifications anymore considering how many non-traditional & non-degree seeking students enroll today.
Hey,
I’m on record above as saying this isn’t about football. If it were Boise would be in a BCS conference and we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
At the same time highlighting Boise’s status as a non-traditional institution, you’re inadvertently highlighting the political and monetary reasons a bunch of big time academics may be loath to let you play their reindeer games.
proud to swim home
go look at the score of the 2005 Georgia game
Boise probably wants more money than the Louisiana-Lafayettes and Alabama-Birminghams of the world, so since the SEC most likely considers Boise on par with those scgedule fodder teams, I don’t blame them for passing on you and scheduling someone cheaper.
You need to realize something: BCS schools LOSE money by agreeing to a home-and-home with Boise, so there is no incentive to schedule you.
Ummmmm.....
Ummmmm….You have followed college football before, right?
BSU has to get accepted to a conference (and conferences generally are quite protective of their own). BSU finally got an offer to the Mountain West, which they accepted. If you have the ability to extend an offer from the Big 12, PAC-10, etc. please do so. :-)
This "Deal with it" attitude is why we are in the situation we are today. "It’s not our fault…we don’t need to play BSU." Guess what…everyone says it (especially the SEC conference). You limit conference membership, you limit BSU’s schedule, and then you *itch about it. The reason BSU has the schedule it does today is probably because of your favorite team/conference.
What you truly are proposing is that BSU do MORE than your team is willing to do. That’s not a level playing field. So, if your team misses out on a big bowl game or a national championship because of one loss….well I’ll use your expression "deal with it". Your type of attitude is what created this mess in the first place.
CU is willing to play at tOSU without any return trip.
And they play in a conference with good teams in it.
For 1.4 million
LOL. For 1.4 million.
For the record, BSU accepts 1 mil for that same setup. They took 1.25 for the VT game…which really was bogus cause VT got 2.35.
Regardless, the exact scenario you proposed is already on the books as being accepted by BSU (unfortunately declined by 20+ powerhouse teams and counting)….
Boise has to take less because they have no leverage.
CU gets a higher payout because they don’t need the game as much.
LOL
I notice that on ESPN and in the press release “CU gets higher payout because they don’t need the game as much”. That totally makes sense.
We can go back and forth on this but the bottom line is that BSU is a ranked team, CU is not. CU still got 1.4 million.
BSU just got 1.25 million for the VT game, but you think 1 million is too high? That doesn’t make sense. Teams (especially in the SEC) are paying more than that for their fodder, so your logic escapes me.
Heck lets destroy any chance BSU has of building up their program. BSU should now play on the road for free (obviously at a loss after travel expenses). ;-)
did you see the crowd at the game?
Va Tech packed that place, they deserved to get more than Boise, because they were the ones buying the tickets.
If your fanbase traveled better and could fill a stadium larger than the 30000 seat stadium you call home, you’d have reason to complain, but they don’t and you don’t.
I'm not suggesting BSU do more
There is no way that boise CAN do more than what Texas does. We have to play Neb, OU, Tech, a&m, KSU, and hopefully, another game against a divisional winner. Boise couldn’t hope to do that much. I’m saying that boise needs to finally accept that, and sacrifice in order to get their football program to the next level. Demanding either neutral sites, payoffs, or home-and-homes isn’t what they need to be doing, because there is no freaking reason for a big program to give that kind of leverage.
If you're so sure of what it ain't, how about telling us what it am!
Ummm...
That’s exactly what you are suggesting.
You are saying BSU should do things with their out of conference games that Texas (not to mention most schools) would not do.
I give props to VT for playing BSU. Granted they got 2.35 million, but still…they did it..
Yes, that is exactly what I'm suggesting
where I take offense is the notion that because bsu needs to get a better ooc schedule, they are doing “more” than the big time programs. The fact that we are trying to hold every team to the same standard is the reason that boise needs to work harder at scheduling tougher opponents.
If you're so sure of what it ain't, how about telling us what it am!
But....
If you read/listen to anything regarding BSU scheduling, you’ll realize they ARE doing more than most “big time” programs. They have to beg to get anyone play them…that’s why their are numerous articles regarding BSU OOC scheduling difficulties.
Most schools just work the same type of deal BSU did with Oregon. Home and Home and a transfer of 6 figures of cash. What you are saying is that same process is not adequate for BSU. They should have to do more and accept less.
That is not a level playing field. It makes NCAA basketball playoffs look far more equitable.
Yes
They should have to do more, because they clearly have much more to gain than the bigger programs they are going up against. Oregon or Virginia Tech has nothing to gain and everything to lose by deciding to play Boise State. If you are asking a program to put their season on the line for no reason, then you should be prepared to come out on the losing end of the negotiations.
Basically, this is a very unenviable situation for boise (except for the free ride conference). They are a top-tier program that is completely capable of playing with the some of the best, given some time and health. But their conference is so bad that it is single handedly keeping them from playing in the bowls that they really deserve to play in, based on talent level alone.
And yes, ncaa basketball playoffs are much more equitable. That is the fallacy of the whole bowl system; hardly any of these 120 teams play each other, so cherry picking them for certain games is in no way the correct way to fairly determine how much credit they should be given in the postseason.
If you're so sure of what it ain't, how about telling us what it am!
I disagree...
VT had everything to gain last night. They knock BSU off and they jump in the rankings and BSU probably falls out of the Top 25.
What you want is to not play BSU and then complain about their conference/schedule (because that’s exactly what is happening). You’d rather put up the exact same money for camp fodder (which frankly would cost you your NC hopes too) and then complain about their schedule.
It’s a win-win situation. Boycott BSU from a scheduling (and conference) standpoint, spend the exact same money/resources on camp fodder and then complain about the WAC/scheduling issues you’ve put BSU in.
It’s genius. Heck, you can successfully blackball almost every successful small school in the country. Genius!
What did VT have to gain?
If they scheduled directional state, they would still be a top-10 team right now. Sure, it would have been nice to knock off a team that is similarly ranked high and thus competing for the same bowl slots, but there is no reason to seek out those matchups. The ACC is going to be tough enough this year that VT gains nothing tangible from a bsu win.
If you're so sure of what it ain't, how about telling us what it am!
What did VT have to gain?
Again….a ranking above #10/#6 by beating a #3/#5 team. That’s kinda how the whole college football thing works. ;-)
You keep justifying these crappy schedules as political/financial decisions that really don’t hold water; Regardless, as a football fan (because believe it or not I’m not a BSU fanboy), I want to see the best teams play one another. Stop turning BSU down and making excuses. It’s the exact same money you are paying other teams, so play them.
Turning BSU down for scheduling and then whining about their schedule just looks hypocritical.
I didn't say Texas turned down Boise....
My comment about stop turning BSU down for scheduling wasn’t directed at your team…it was a general comment. Based on ESPN radio, no one has turned down BSU more than the SEC.
It isn't MY responsibility to help out bsu
so there isn’t anything hypocritical about it. I’m whining about the fact that bsu is being touted as a national championship caliber team when they are being spoon-fed 10 wins a season. The proper response doesn’t need to be “well nobody in their conference can beat them, so we’ll just have to beat them ourselves”. The response is to point out that they hardly have any actual competition during the season, so the high profile bowl games should be played by teams that actually have to put in hard work week in and week out.
If you're so sure of what it ain't, how about telling us what it am!
LOL. It's completely hypocritical
Everyone says it’s not *their" responsibility to help BSU so the bottom line is they can’t improve their schedule (despite a few peeps in here trying to make excuses why they turn them down), and then you complain about their schedule/conference.
Clearly what BSU, TCU, etc need to do is start scheduling teams from Mars then, right? I mean if no one is willing to play them…and it’s not your responsibility to play them. LOL.
Again, I'm not complaining about your damn schedule
merely it’s relationship with how the program is being touted on a national level. I don’t care that you have an easy schedule. Just don’t start stomping around like you deserve to hang with the big boys when bowl season rolls around and things will be fine.
If you're so sure of what it ain't, how about telling us what it am!
LOL
Sooooo….your indirectly complaining about the schedule…mostly you are just penalizing BSU for it because you aren’t giving them a chance to improve their schedule or “hang with the big boys.” Much better…LOL
T-minus 1 post from aneurism
I’m not taking away any chances for BSU to improve their schedule, but I’m sure as hell not obliged to help them out, nor is any other big program that already has their plate full with a real conference. This is where the sacrifice on your part comes in. Go play ’bama or tOSU in their stadium without demanding huge chunks of money or return trips to boise. Improve your university so that you can join more legitimate conferences (already happening, if the MWC has any good teams left by the time you get there).
Just stop trying to play the martyr by claiming that there is a giant conspiracy to keep bsu down by penalizing them for their crappy conference and then refusing to play them.
If you're so sure of what it ain't, how about telling us what it am!
Bring on the aneurism.
I totally understand your point. I just think you are full of it.
If everyone keeps playing the “it’s not my responsibility to play BSU” card (which they are), it is impossible for them to improve their schedule. That’s the bottom line and you can keep making excuses, but that’s what is currently happening today…and it’s bad for college football.
You say BSU should sacrifice. Did they not sacrifice for VT? I mean neutral field…come on! They took less money than VT. 1.25 vs 2.35 million. What you want is your cake and to eat it too. You’d rather pay CU 1.4 million than BSU because BSU is a threat, but then you want to bitch and moan about their schedule.
I mean seriously. It’s the definition of hypocritical.
not complaining about schedule
complaining about boise having national championship aspirations with the schedule they have. Don’t know how many times I can say that.
And again, I get the fact that it is unfair (if the goal is a national championship for boise’s program). It really is. The BCS is horrible. But if the BCS elevates boise to the point that they play in a national championship this year, then it will be unfair to all of the other teams that had to play through legitimate schedules.
It would by hypocritical if the system in place would allow you to play in a national championship game, if only the big schools would play you, but that isn’t the case. Boise could spend the first four weeks of the season beating the top 4 teams in the country on the road and I still would keep them below an undefeated team from a real conference.
Blame the system, not the programs that won’t play you.
If you're so sure of what it ain't, how about telling us what it am!
Semantics and bias.
You say you aren’t complaining about the schedule you just don’t think they should have national championship aspirations with their current schedule. …it’s just semantics. The bottom line is you are penalizing them for the schedule you are forcing them to play (and then making excuses why not to play them). Hypocrisy.
“Boise could spend the first four weeks of the season beating the top 4 teams in the country on the road and I still would keep them below an undefeated team from a real conference.” This really does show your bias. For a real football fan they just want to see every program have a chance at a national championship. You have such conference bias in your system…that would never happen.
“Blame the system, not the programs that won’t play you.” Semantics. The big schools protect the system. If big schools did the right thing by playing competitive teams outside the AQ conference, the system might just work.
Mark my words someday it will be a level playing field and every program will have a chance at the national championship…and that will be good for college football.
why doesn't Boise play all the top non-BCS schools then?
Where have the yearly TCU/BYU/Utah/ECU games been?
by Texas Wahoo on Sep 7, 2010 7:27 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
They have played all of them recently
Had home and homes with BYU and Utah a couple years ago. Played TCU in bowls the last two years. Played ECU in a bowl a before the TCU games. They lost 2 of the 7.
by Boise Longhorn on Sep 7, 2010 7:31 PM CDT up reply actions
But if Boise claims they cannot get the good BCS teams to play them.
They should be playing all of their nonconference games against good non-BCS teams. Not every couple of years.
Duh, there is a conspiracy. It is called the BCS.
Maybe it a big school cartel. Either way, it is designed to keep the little guy down.
by Boise Longhorn on Sep 7, 2010 7:16 PM CDT up reply actions
You keep bringing up the money
But never responded to an earlier poster that brought up the point that Boise brought less fans, less merchandise sales, etc..
Why clamor for equal payout in the game when you didn’t bring equal liquidity?
Just noting for the record
Three separate posts related to Boise State in the last 36 hours have generated 250 comments. This doesn’t count the 1200+ comments on the Boise game threads from last night, a tally only very slightly less than the number of comments from our own game threads on Saturday.
Boise State seems to be BON’s own version of Shark Week — a sure-fire ratings hit!
Hungry Hippos, baby! It's on!
Protector of All Things Plucky Underdog
I will not let peter get away with calling my characterization of the Plucky Underdog as a mischaracterization. Henceforth, I will only refer to the team that plays on the blue turf as the Plucky Underdog. Or PU for short.
Hungry Hippos, baby! It's on!
@JustRebs
to continue from above (things are looking way too thin), I think we’ve landed on a mutual point: the system needs to change. It is unfair, biased towards big programs, and we both know it. Unfortunately for boise fans, the system works against them, and fortunately for me, it works towards Texas. I really wish boise did have a shot to compete for a national title, but I really don’t think that they do have that opportunity in this system. There are a thousand different opinions on how the system should work (mine: 12 team playoff, 6 BCS conference winners + 6 at large, top 4 get a bye, games at home stadiums except semifinal/final in bowls), but we all agree that the current one is screwed up. If you are saying that the big schools are keeping the little ones down because they are keeping the current system intact, then you are probably right, although I don’t think that is their motivation (what is? $$$$$$$).
If you're so sure of what it ain't, how about telling us what it am!
Question for Brooklyn, circa and the other PU-haters
I ask this question sincerely.
Many of you who dislike the idea of PU playing for the championship seem to embrace the idea that PU should be disqualified from consideration, even before the season begins, regardless of how well they might play over the course of the season, due to their weaker schedule, etc. Please correct me if I am interpreting your views incorrectly, but that is how I am reading what you advocate.
Since #1 and #2 are seemingly out of the question, what is your ceiling as to how high you could conceive ranking PU at the end of the regular season? #3? #5? #11? For if you’re arbitrarily creating a ceiling as to how high you’d allow PU to climb, there’s gotta be a level at 3 or lower at which it would be legitimate, in your eyes, to rank PU.
Hungry Hippos, baby! It's on!
What type of ranking are we talking?
The coaches, or AP, or whoever, can feel free to rank bsu as high as they like. If you want to ignore the body of work and rank the teams in a purely “power poll” format, then so be it. If we are talking bcs ranking, then again, I’m in no position to criticize their selection process, but I would hope that the computers would penalize them enough for their abysmal schedule that even a perfect human vote would still be unable to bring their overall bcs ranking up to the top two. If they crack the top two, then so be it, but then I would start rallying for Texas to go independent so we could stop wasting our time and energy playing good teams every year.
If you're so sure of what it ain't, how about telling us what it am!
Somehow I don't think the moniker "PU-hater"
reflects well upon me :)
As stated before, I’d prefer not to have non-AQ involved at all. They’ve moved up over the years (many from lower divisions) trying to get in on the financial pie, which is fine, but most have never really improved. 120 teams is just too many for one division, and it seems the source of so many of college football’s problems. Obviously a relegation system is not likely, but, again, if I were in power, that’s what I’d do. To me it solves so many problems with the only downside being it will piss off a lot of lower-tier schools who’ve been coat-tailing for several decades (See Baylor..May 2010).
As it stands, I’m ok with what Boise has done lately. Finish undefeated, earn a lucrative bowl payout, earn more money through merchandising, etc., help fund the program and the University. But don’t put them in the National Title game. To me its still the greatest championship game we have left.
by BrooklynHorn on Sep 8, 2010 12:13 AM CDT up reply actions
Hahah
So you are in favor of like a European soccer league deal huh?
Many leagues, consistently losing teams/bottom of the ‘top’ league can switch with ‘top teams’ from lower leagues? Would be interesting to watch a team that knows if they lose todays game they drop leagues and vice versa, that’s for sure!
more than a few Texas fans were NOT HAPPY about the prospect of Boise State winning that football game.
And I can’t say that I really get it.
It’s not that hard. One of the major reasons people including myself were rooting against Boise St. is because they are currently ranked above Texas. Isn’t that enough of a reason? It’s logic I always use when rooting for teams – if you’re ranked ahead of my team, I hope you lose!
If Va Tech was the team ranked #3 and Boise St. was ranked #10, how many people here would still be rooting against Boise? Not me, that’s for sure.
by goingforthecorner on Sep 8, 2010 1:51 AM CDT reply actions
I love it...
…when a representative of a non-elite school comes over here and starts crapping all over this thread, pretending that his school is somehow still considered elite.
Hungry Hippos, baby! It's on!
This is true
but would only be the case through consistent down seasons for the worse half of the rivalry, at which time said rivalry will have lost its luster. Ex: If Michigan were dropped for a couple years and not playing tOSU, it would not be a complete exclusion from their respective schedules. It would be expected that Michigan would regain momentum, earn a promotion and play the Buckeyes again in what would be very anticipated and renewed.
by Infield Elephant on Sep 8, 2010 10:43 AM CDT up reply actions
I'm not a fan.
No Michigan-tOSU for a couple of years because Michigan was going through a down period? No Tennesee-Florida/Alabama? No Washington-Oregon? No Border War?
A few thoughts
First, the team would have to be at the very bottom of the league, likely for multiple seasons – think Indiana, not Michigan and Mississippi State or Vandy rather than Tennessee.
Second, there wouldn’t be a preclusion against keeping the rivalry games in non-con, though it might add complexity.
Third, I very sincerely doubt that schools with resources like Michigan or Alabama would be any more likely to face relegation than Mann U or Chelsea in the EPL – they may be a little more conservative in their hiring/firing decisions, but they won’t let the wheels come off in any situation short of sanctions.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on Sep 8, 2010 11:27 AM CDT up reply actions
So you would base it off a 5 year average winning percentage? How many teams would be relegated? Just the worst in each conference and the best in each conference?
Would it just be conference games? Or would non-conference games count?
My thoughts before a quick lunch
Conference play, rolling average over two seasons, bottom team relegated. I’m sure the various European leagues have come up with a better solution, but that’s what I’ve got before my sandwich.
Because of certain institutional factors, I don’t see the schools having the same ability to move up as if they were run by private owners so I don’t know that it would justify downward pressure by relegating two or the upward pressure of a multitude of more deserving schools. This would be a proposal to account for the various Boise/TCU/Utah (pre Pac 10) of the world, as well as the Baylors/Iowa state that either lack the institutional will or wherewithal to continuously compete.
proud to swim home
by learned hand on Sep 8, 2010 12:41 PM CDT up reply actions
if a team is bottom 2 in its league,
then they’re really down. Not down like A&M and Notre Dame right now, but 2-12 down. How often has that ever happened to college football’s most relevant programs? The relegated teams would nearly always be smaller schools like Baylor, or whomever had been recently promoted. Some of the most successful clubs in Europe have never once been relegated in their entire 100+ year histories. You need only check how many 2-10 seasons teams like Texas (or even A&M) have had to grasp the likelihood of it happening. Although I do think the system would make competition a little more aggressive, as teams couldn’t coast on the assumption that division 1a money will always be there regardless of how they perform.
But again, as Infield Elephant said, if a team like Oklahoma really has sunk so low that they’re going 2-10, then the RRR would be an abysmal, irrelevant game regardless. I’m not sure postponing it a year or two at that point would make any difference.
by BrooklynHorn on Sep 8, 2010 11:57 AM CDT up reply actions
If you're using total records (and not just conference records), you are going to have a lot more cupcakes being scheduled.
Michigan had the worst record in the Big Ten last year, but they won all four of their nonconference games. I’m betting Illinois would think a lot harder about scheduling Mizzou and Cincinnati if they new it would get them relegated to the MAC.
Well
If you were required to play teams in your own division, then everyone you schedule would be a top-72 team. Sure, we might find ourselves scheduling Indiana and Washington St., but that would be as bad as it gets. And again, as those teams would be replaced by hungrier, recently promoted teams, it wouldn’t even be as bad as that. Goodbye ULL and UNT.
Plus, not everyone can schedule Indiana, so you’d have some good teams having to schedule other good teams by default. The disparity in non-conference scheduling, however, would probably require that relegation be based on conference record.
Also, Illinois probably would have been relegated years ago, regardless.
by BrooklynHorn on Sep 8, 2010 12:44 PM CDT up reply actions
If you're relegating teams yearly, and you can only play teams in your level, I assume schedules will be made up in the offseason for the next season?
There would be no way to schedule in advance because you couldn’t know who might get relegated.
Yes
But an “open market” of scheduling, so to speak, may end up being too chaotic (or who knows, maybe it would be a fascinating mad scramble). The system would either have to be regulated, or we’d have to do something similar to what the NFL does, and have one conference play another for non-con games in some sort of rotation system One year, for instance, the Pac10 is paired with the Big12, and perhaps the #1 from each conference plays the #12 from the other, the #2 plays the #11, and so forth.
But it could be mixed. So if the Big12 and Pac10 have an inverse scheduling relationship, maybe the same season the Big12 and the Big10 have a direct scheduling relationship, with the #1’s playing each other, and #12’s playing each other, and so forth.
This way, you’d get a cupcake, and a marquee match-up, and as the conferences rotate, and the winners of each conference change on a yearly basis, you wouldn’t know who you were going to play more than a year in advance. Interestingly, this would be a more stable system with greater amounts of certainty than we have now. As of today, scheduling USC for 2018 is pretty vague; will they be highly ranked, or a push-over? But under this system, you know that you’re going to play one cupcake and one ranked opponent, you just don’t know which teams exactly. I like this idea because its reasonably fair, and it takes the scheduling powers away from cowardly athletic directors.
But it would add extra intrigue to the season. If you knew which conferences you were paired with in 2011, as the 2010 season unfolds, so would next season’s schedule.
A&M facing life in the Sun Belt...
Hungry Hippos, baby! It's on!
by Hopkins Horn on Sep 8, 2010 10:54 AM CDT up reply actions
BCS Coolaid!
Boise is a tired feel good story of a year ago. Lets face it… beating a very disorganized and undisciplined VT by 3 points and letting them score 30 on you does not make you a BCS contender. Only the extremely weak schedule allows for Bronco Survival. If an SEC power had played the VT that showed up last Saturday, it would have been UGLY!
The end
I think that’s enough for this post. No mas por favor.
by aaronlybrand on Sep 8, 2010 1:11 PM CDT via mobile reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Burnt Orange Nation
Related FanShots on Burnt Orange Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
