Boise St/Georgia
-
Al Bundy
If you want to be considered one of the big boys, losing to Nevada is a terrible loss. If OSU, Alabama, Oklahoma, etc. lost to Nevada, it would be considered a horrible loss.karen lotz;886182 wrote:Oh, well you said they need to win 1 game so I wasn't sure. Losing on the road on a missed FG in OT to a team that finished 13-1 and 15th in the country is a bad loss? I see. -
krambman
So there have been nearly 100 posts since I was last on this thread, so I'm not going to take the time to read and respond to all of them. I'm only going to respond to this post because it was written directly in response to one of my posts.
Okay, this makes sense now and I'll give you that one. You stated it much more clearly than S&L did. However, I would also argue that not just any team can get up to compete against a top level opponent once or twice a year and win consistently, you still have to be pretty darn good to have the record they have against those teams over the past few years.enigmaax;882860 wrote:Not at all. When you only have to be at opitmal operating level twice a year - once at the beginning and once at the end - you're going to be healthier, more focused, and have more to play for in those particular games.
Let's take a look at a few numbers here.enigmaax;882860 wrote:Utah found a conference. TCU found a conference. BYU went independent. As someone already said, at the least, Boise better schedule four top notch games OOC instead of one. No whining about where you have to play - every single big conference school in the country plays at least four conference games on the road against BCS competition....and Boise tries to say they aren't being treated fairly by not getting those home games. Don't say they have done "almost everything" when they have done basically nothing.
Boise State
Boise, ID - City of 200,000 people in a metro area of around 600,000 in a state with 1.5 million people (about the same as the Columbus metro area) even though it is the 14th largest state by area.
Boise State University - 20,000 total students
Bronco Stadium - 33,500 seats
Utah
Salt Lake City - Population of 185,000 people, metro area of 1.1 million and an urban area of 2.2 million in a state with a population of 2.8 million.
University of Utah - 30,000 students
Rice-Eccles Stadium - 45,000 seats
TCU
Fort Worth - Populations of 740,000 in the DFW metro area of 6.4 million people.
Texas Christian University - 10,000 students
Amon G. Carter Stadium - 50,000 seats
BYU
Provo - Population of 112,000 in a metro area of 500,000
Brigham Young University - 34,000 students
LaVell Edwards Stadium - 64,000 seats
So, Utah is a larger university, with more students, in a more populated area, with a much larger stadium. TCU is a smaller school in a very large metro area with a much larger stadium (and a National Championship in their history). BYU is a larger school with a stadium almost twice the size of Boise State's, and a National Championship in their history, They also have the backing of the LDS church (28,000 congregations and 14 million members) which allowed them to get their own TV network.
Boise State would like to expand their stadium but can only do so through private donations because the state doesn't have the money in their budget to expand, so they don't have the facility to accomidate a move to a major conference. They are also in a small state in terms of population, so they don't bring in a ton of viewership revenue for a conference. Unfortunately for them, the monetary side of joining a conference isn't appealing to any major conference out there, unlike the schools you mentioned.
Boise ca't just go out and play four AQ schools out of conference every year. It doesn't make sense financially. Because of their smaller stadium, it's unlikely that they could get many major programs to travel to Boise for a home-and-home. Because of that Boise would be traveling for most, if not all, of their non-conference games every year. This means a loss in revenue from a lack of home games and large travel costs. Playing that many away games doesn't make sense financially. That is why they need home-and-home series, or they at least need one home game out of a series if there isn't a neutral site game (where each team gets a big paycheck for playing). I'm sorry but the football team can't just go out and schedule whoever they want, they have to think about financially and make sure that it won't cost the university money.
Clearly you ignored the later part of my post where I addressed this and said that the strength of a team's schedule can be used as a tool when evaluating multiple teams with the same record, but it shouldn't be the only tool and no team should simply be written off because of their schedule. If Boise goes undefeated but struggles in many of their games, then that should be considered if comparing them to an undefeated Oklahoma, Alabama, or Wisconsin. Like I said, it should be a consideration, not the consideration.enigmaax;882860 wrote:Not when you are talking about such an extremely selective reward. There are two spots open for the title game. It is about the resume. You can say, they could compete with anyone, but if they aren't willing to prove it they don't just get shit handed to them.
Okay, I'll answer it. It depends. Yes, if you go undefeated in any conference you should receive some consideration towards playing in the national championship game. I never said being undefeated automatically qualifies you, but being the only, or one of only two undefeated teams in the country certainly helps your chances. Again, there are many factors to consider, and this is why you have to judge a team based on their own merits. This inculdes looking at who they are as a team and how they have done. If LSU joined the Sunbelt and went undefeated every year that doesn't mean that they aren't possibly the best team in the country. They very well still might be. However, if there are two other undefeated teams from AQ conferences, only two of the three undefeated teams can make it, so at that point looking at who they played and how they played would help determine who is the best and most worthy to play for the title. Believe it or not, it's possible that the best team in the country plays in a crappy conference against a crappy schedule. Unlike the NCAA basketball tournament which is about crowning a champion, the BCS is about crowning the best team as the champion.enigmaax;882860 wrote:No one ever answers this question. What would your opinion be if LSU left the SEC for the Sun Belt - would they deserve to be in the national title game every year after they run that gauntlet or would you be bitching about how they just dumbed down their schedule and shouldn't get shit? What if Vanderbilt did it? Would you suddenly consider them a powerhouse? -
enigmaax
Consider that Boise State is 4-2 in regular season games against ranked opponents over the last five seasons (including the one game this year). LSU was 4-2 in last year's regular season against ranked opponents. Boise is 7-3 overall against ranked teams in five plus full seasons, including bowls. Auburn and Alabama each beat 6 ranked teams in one season on their way to a title the last two years. Heck, people complain about LSU playing for a title with 2-losses, but they were 7-1 that season against ranked teams.However, I would also argue that not just any team can get up to compete against a top level opponent once or twice a year and win consistently, you still have to be pretty darn good to have the record they have against those teams over the past few years.
Boise has a few good wins, but you have to stretch across multiple seasons to build a resume for them...and it ends up being a resume that isn't anything spectacular (good, but not earth-shattering).
Sorry to say, but that is life. If you are born into poverty, go to community college, and manage a McDonalds, nobody suddenly hands you a CEO position because you couldn't afford to do the things you needed to do and you happened to handle one busy day really, really well. Sometimes you have to sacrifice to get where you want to be.So, Utah is a larger university, with more students, in a more populated area, with a much larger stadium. TCU is a smaller school in a very large metro area with a much larger stadium (and a National Championship in their history). BYU is a larger school with a stadium almost twice the size of Boise State's, and a National Championship in their history, They also have the backing of the LDS church (28,000 congregations and 14 million members) which allowed them to get their own TV network.
Boise State would like to expand their stadium but can only do so through private donations because the state doesn't have the money in their budget to expand, so they don't have the facility to accomidate a move to a major conference. They are also in a small state in terms of population, so they don't bring in a ton of viewership revenue for a conference.
But why is it the responsibility of everyone else to compensate them for that? Why should everyone else say, "well we think you'd do fine in that situation so we'll just give you a free pass"?Boise ca't just go out and play four AQ schools out of conference every year.
Let's just start with 3 road games then. How can Troy afford to schedule 5 home games in a season and play at Oklahoma State and South Carolina in the same year? How can San Jose State get by with 5 home games and play at Alabama, Wisconsin, and Utah (all ranked in or near the top 10) in the same year? Fresno State didn't seem to have a problem getting three BCS teams onto their schedule and they even played two of those at home last year (that was after two straight seasons of 3 road OOC games).
Four away games might be a little aggressive, but to say Boise can't do any more (I know you didn't say that right here) is a silly argument when other teams DO.
I capitalized the key part of your statement. If they aren't playing equal competition, they shouldn't have to have the same record. The schedules aren't equal, the records don't have to be either.Clearly you ignored the later part of my post where I addressed this and said that the strength of a team's schedule can be used as a tool when evaluating multiple teams WITH THE SAME RECORD, but it shouldn't be the only tool and no team should simply be written off because of their schedule. If Boise goes undefeated but struggles in many of their games, then that should be considered if comparing them to an undefeated Oklahoma, Alabama, or Wisconsin. Like I said, it should be a consideration, not the consideration.
I absolutely agree with the part I bolded. But that still doesn't mean you have to cater to a team that is unwilling to earn its keep. That possible best team in a crappy conference doesn't take the same risks of upsets as a similar team in a better conference. There's a certain risk/reward that has to be a part of the equation when there is such a clear line of competition levels.If LSU joined the Sunbelt and went undefeated every year that doesn't mean that they aren't possibly the best team in the country. They very well still might be. However, if there are two other undefeated teams from AQ conferences, only two of the three undefeated teams can make it, so at that point looking at who they played and how they played would help determine who is the best and most worthy to play for the title. Believe it or not, it's possible that the best team in the country plays in a crappy conference against a crappy schedule. Unlike the NCAA basketball tournament which is about crowning a champion, the BCS is about crowning the best team as the champion. -
Sykotyk
Troy, Fresno State, etc can do it because they got paid an appearance fee for playing the game.
Every contract between two teams has some stipulation for pay out. A home-and-home is the most equitable. You take your home revenue, we take ours. When you start doing 2-for-1 or a one-off contract, you have to compensate for the privilege of the extra home game. -
Al Bundy
Boise was offered an appearance fee and still turned down the deal.Sykotyk;886434 wrote:Troy, Fresno State, etc can do it because they got paid an appearance fee for playing the game.
Every contract between two teams has some stipulation for pay out. A home-and-home is the most equitable. You take your home revenue, we take ours. When you start doing 2-for-1 or a one-off contract, you have to compensate for the privilege of the extra home game. -
enigmaax
Boise gets paid appearnce fees, as well. I am interested in the answer because I am not familiar enough with the numbers, but does Boise make more money off of a football game against some crappy team (think they played UC Davis within the last couple years) at home or by taking 700K to play Nebraska on the road (would there be any other revenue streams from a game with that type of exposure, even if it were away)? I read that they got $1.4 mil to play Georgia at a neutral site (Chic-fil-a sponsored it and Georgia got like $1.7 mil). I just don't understand why a struggling athletic department like San Jose State can afford to do three games for about 300K a shot and Boise couldn't do three games for the 700-900K (Ole Miss was going to pay 900K this year) and make it work.Sykotyk;886434 wrote:Troy, Fresno State, etc can do it because they got paid an appearance fee for playing the game.
Every contract between two teams has some stipulation for pay out. A home-and-home is the most equitable. You take your home revenue, we take ours. When you start doing 2-for-1 or a one-off contract, you have to compensate for the privilege of the extra home game.
Back to krambman's point about Boise wanting to expand their stadium, its capacity is listed at 33,500 on their athletic site. According to their attendance figures they've had over 34K attend a couple of games. So even if the capacity is only 33,500 then they've only sold out 5 games in their history. What good would expansion of the stadium really do? -
dlazz
Or maybe they've expanded the stadium numerous times already...?enigmaax;886485 wrote: So even if the capacity is only 33,500 then they've only sold out 5 games in their history. What good would expansion of the stadium really do?
33,500 (2009–
resent)
32,000 (2008)
30,000 (1997–2007)
20,000 (1975–1996)
14,500 (1970–1974) -
enigmaax
Good info. So they've sold out 5 of 13 home games since their last stadium expansion. Have they hit the ceiling on home attendance? And do they make more money for 32K to watch them play UC Davis than they would to take 700K and travel to Nebraska? (Honest questions.)dlazz;886557 wrote:Or maybe they've expanded the stadium numerous times already...?
33,500 (2009–resent)
32,000 (2008)
30,000 (1997–2007)
20,000 (1975–1996)
14,500 (1970–1974)
To be clear, I understand the stance that they'd make more if Nebraska would play them home-and-home. But if they aren't going to get those the games, the options are to either take a paycheck and travel to a big name or bring in their own beatdown fodder (I imagine they pay something out for that) and take what they get for that gate.
The other thing to consider is, if they are what they say they are and they go on the road a few times in one season, they could earn that national title game shot. The financial difference there would make up for whatever gate revenue they might have lost. It is really easy now that they've got a foot in the door to the BCS to keep the schedule at one big OOC game, earn a BCS paycheck, and paint themselves as the poor picked-on little school who can't get into the national title game. Because if they did take the chance on three away OOC games and lost, they'd lose out on that BCS money all together. In that regard, it is still Boise who is unwilling to take the risk that can reap the rewards. -
dwccrew
The last 2 decades? Really? That is what you are using as an argument saying Georgia is vastly better than Nebraska? How many national titles did Georgia win in those 2 decades? Because Nebraska won 3. Where the hell have you been?queencitybuckeye;885114 wrote:Over the last two decades or so, the opponent they dominated this week has been vastly better than Nebraska. Vastly. Pre-season rankings are a joke, and that the 'holers were good a thousand years ago, so the all-time thing is pretty much meaningless as well. You GTFO.