Boise St/Georgia

• enigmaax

  jordo212000;883856 wrote: The system is a joke. All of this bickering would be avoided if we settled it out on the field where things are supposed to be decided.

  Which would start with Boise State scheduling 4 BCS conference opponents on the road, which is what every single BCS conference team does by default with a conference schedule.
  

  They want Boise and mid majors to have big boy credentials, but the big boys determine who actually gets big boy credentials (AQ conference bids).

  I would say that Boise is a mid major who wants to have big boy credentials for "looking good" instead of going out and playing as many big boys as possible.
  
  Regarding Indiana - the Hoosiers are 11-2 against non-BCS FBS schools since 2006. Doesn't that mean they could compete for a mid-major title every single year and should be a top 25 team?
  

  Mulva;883845 wrote:It would depend on their overall resume, just like anyone else. Nobody would argue that the Hawaii team that went unbeaten should have been in the title game

  Hawaii ran through the WAC, just like Boise State in any given year. I asked a yes or no question. If Boise was the only one loss team (no undefeated teams) in the country this year with that loss coming to Georgia, would they deserve to be in the title game? You know who they play, what is the simple answer?
• enigmaax

  Terry_Tate;883960 wrote:The thought I have on all of this is pretty simple. Boise State has elite talent. Kellen Moore is as good of a QB as there is in the country, with the only exception possible being Andrew Luck, but when you only play twice a year against a team that is decent enough to beat you, I'm not sure you deserve to play in the championship game going undefeated over someone who plays 5-6 teams that could beat them and stumbles once. I can understand both sides of the argument, but anyone who thinks Boise really plays a schedule that is almost on par with any Big Ten, Big 12, or SEC team is fooling themselves.

  Yes, great concise explanation. It is about "losable" games. If you plug every elite team (Boise included) into the schedules of every other elite team, the number of losable games isn't even close. Great teams are prone to upsets. If any team that is considered a BCS conference elite tried to skate through a season with a Boise-type schedule, the country would raise hell about how they played nobody. Boise supporters want to say that schedule contains those same losable games, but that is only the case if you say Boise is NOT as talented as the "real" elite. If they ARE an elite team, the reasonable competition on the schedule started and ended with Georgia for Boise.
• lhslep134

  

  enigmaax;883972 wrote: If they ARE an elite team, the reasonable competition on the schedule started and ended with Georgia for Boise.

  And TCU this year.
• dlazz

  I see this thread went nowhere. still comparing # of NFL draftees to compare quality of teams is laughable at best.
• Al Bundy

  dlazz;883999 wrote:I see this thread went nowhere. still comparing # of NFL draftees to compare quality of teams is laughable at best.

  The quality of the schedules isn't even close. Every major conference has several teams that would go undefeated if they played Boise's schedule.
  
  Boise has a sweet deal now (win 1 game a year and get a huge paycheck from BCS bowl). Boise doesn't want to put that money at risk, and that is why they refuse to play Nebraska. They refuse to put together a big-boy schedule by either going independent or creating a great non-conference schedule.
• dlazz

  They refuse to play Nebraska because Nebraska wants nothing to do with them. The big boys stand nothing to gain from beating Boise, and everything to lose.
  
  I'm surprised they were able to schedule Georgia.
• Al Bundy

  dlazz;884053 wrote:They refuse to play Nebraska because Nebraska wants nothing to do with them. The big boys stand nothing to gain from beating Boise, and everything to lose.
  
  I'm surprised they were able to schedule Georgia.

  They turned down an offer to play Nebraska.
• LJ

  

  dlazz;884053 wrote:They refuse to play Nebraska because Nebraska wants nothing to do with them. The big boys stand nothing to gain from beating Boise, and everything to lose.
  
  I'm surprised they were able to schedule Georgia.

  huh? Boise State and Nebraska never met up because Boise wanted Nebraska to pay them $1 million
• jordo212000

  

  ytownfootball;883937 wrote:Playing Ohio State, Penn State, Nebraska and Michigan isn't a gauntlet...? Now you just look like an idiot.

  The gauntlet portion of the Big 10 really only consists of Ohio State and Nebraska at this point.
  
  Michigan is 13-13 since 2009. They are hardly a juggernaut.
  
  Penn St wins games, but they struggle mightily any time they aren't playing a Big 10 school or D-IAA school. They lost by an average of 16 points against Florida, USC, and Alabama.
  
  Again, let's not pretend that the Big 10 is God's gift to college football conferences. It's just simply not as strong as it used to be.
• enigmaax

  jordo212000;884068 wrote:It's just simply not as strong as it used to be.

  Yet still distinctly better than the WAC or MWC-lite.
• jordo212000

  

  Here are some old comments about Boise asking for $1 mill from Nebraska:
  
  Stewart Mandel (SI Columnist): "Boise in tough spot. It wants better games, but its still got an athletic dept to fund, and relies on those checks if giving up home game. … I don't blame Boise for asking $1M from Nebraska, nor NU for saying no. NU can sked someone weaker, cheaper and still fill stadium."[LEFT]
  [/LEFT]
  Chad Cripe (Idaho Statesman Columnist): "Boise State — and all WAC teams — count on that money to help offset the huge funding gap that exists between BCS-conference schools and non-BCS schools. The Broncos, in particular, are chasing big-money games to pay the rising costs of funding a Top 25 program while playing in a 33,500-seat stadium."
  
  http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2010/09/10/ccripe/nebraska_says_it_didnt_want_pay_boise_states_price_duke_coach_sa
• lhslep134

  

  enigmaax;884078 wrote:Yet still distinctly better than the WAC or MWC-lite.

  Major emphasis on the distinctly better.
• jordo212000

  

  enigmaax;884078 wrote:Yet still distinctly better than the WAC or MWC-lite.

  WAC is bad no argument there.
  
  The Mtn West is the one that is better than what uneducated people think.
• lhslep134

  

  jordo212000;884082 wrote:
  The Mtn West is the one that is better than what uneducated people think.

  You're making a blanket statement. Better than any of the BCS conferences? No. Maybe the Big East, but with TCU leaving MWC for the Big East, not anymore.
  
  Better than any of the other non-bcs conferences? Yes, but still not near the level of the BCS conferences.
• enigmaax

  jordo212000;884080 wrote:Here are some old comments about Boise asking for $1 mill from Nebraska:
  
  Stewart Mandel (SI Columnist): "Boise in tough spot. It wants better games, but its still got an athletic dept to fund, and relies on those checks if giving up home game. … I don't blame Boise for asking $1M from Nebraska, nor NU for saying no. NU can sked someone weaker, cheaper and still fill stadium."[LEFT]
  [/LEFT]
  
  Chad Cripe (Idaho Statesman Columnist): "Boise State — and all WAC teams — count on that money to help offset the huge funding gap that exists between BCS-conference schools and non-BCS schools. The Broncos, in particular, are chasing big-money games to pay the rising costs of funding a Top 25 program while playing in a 33,500-seat stadium."
  
  http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2010/09/10/ccripe/nebraska_says_it_didnt_want_pay_boise_states_price_duke_coach_sa

  Honest question, didn't Boise want a home-and-home AND the $1 mil? I seem to remember discussing how they want the best of every world. I could be wrong, though.
• LJ

  

  jordo212000;884080 wrote:Here are some old comments about Boise asking for $1 mill from Nebraska:
  
  Stewart Mandel (SI Columnist): "Boise in tough spot. It wants better games, but its still got an athletic dept to fund, and relies on those checks if giving up home game. … I don't blame Boise for asking $1M from Nebraska, nor NU for saying no. NU can sked someone weaker, cheaper and still fill stadium."[LEFT]
  [/LEFT]
  
  Chad Cripe (Idaho Statesman Columnist): "Boise State — and all WAC teams — count on that money to help offset the huge funding gap that exists between BCS-conference schools and non-BCS schools. The Broncos, in particular, are chasing big-money games to pay the rising costs of funding a Top 25 program while playing in a 33,500-seat stadium."
  
  http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2010/09/10/ccripe/nebraska_says_it_didnt_want_pay_boise_states_price_duke_coach_sa

  So the question is, do they want a legit schedule or a payday? They have no room to complain about no one wanting to schedule them when they want $1 million in return. You don't pay a top 10 school $1 million for the "honor" of playing them. To me it is total bullshit. If that is the game they are going to play, they are only going to keep getting neutral site or "classic" games with the big time schools, where revenue is just shared.
• Terry_Tate

  

  The whole thing with Nebraska and Boise State is don't go out there and spout off about "anytime, anywhere" when that is very clearly not the case. Same thing TCU did when they turned down Ohio State, though theirs was a little more understandable because they already had a game scheduled that week.
• pmoney25

  

  Same thing happens when comparing osu to sec schools. If osu had played in sec the last ten years, they would not have been successful as they have been.
• karen lotz

  

  pmoney25;884119 wrote:Same thing happens when comparing osu to sec schools. If osu had played in sec the last ten years, they would not have been successful as they have been.

  
  You better duck...
• cats gone wild

  karen lotz;884121 wrote:You better duck...

  He has a valid point even though it doesnt belong in this thread. They wouldnt win conference championships every year, probably not even half of them. They would of been a Georgia caliber team in the 2000's.
• karen lotz

  

  Didn't say it wasn't valid. Just saying it probably won't be received too well here.
• cats gone wild

  karen lotz;884141 wrote:Didn't say it wasn't valid. Just saying it probably won't be received too well here.

  Yeah, but who cares what those guys think. I dont.
• Mulva

  

  enigmaax;883964 wrote:Hawaii ran through the WAC, just like Boise State in any given year. I asked a yes or no question. If Boise was the only one loss team (no undefeated teams) in the country this year with that loss coming to Georgia, would they deserve to be in the title game? You know who they play, what is the simple answer?

  Hawaii also played two 1-AA opponents, 2-10 UNLV, and 4-9 Washington out of conference. That is 1/3 of the entire schedule and it's asinine to disregard it. 2007 was also probably the worst the WAC has been in a decade. Hawaii only beat 2 teams with winning records. Not comparable to the resumes Boise State has put up.
  
  You want me to give a simple answer to a pretty much impossible question. How badly did they lose to Georgia? Who did the 2-loss teams beat and lose to? If Boise State only lost to Georgia, that means they beat TCU. What was TCU's final record? Was the Baylor game a fluke and they finish 10-2, or are they "down" this year and only go 7-5? How many overall teams did Boise State beat with winning records?
  
  There is no definitive yes or no without knowing what each team has done. They would almost definitely have an argument to get in though. If every team played exactly up to preseason expectations, then I would say they deserve to get in over 2-loss teams, yes.
• Terry_Tate

  

  pmoney25;884119 wrote:Same thing happens when comparing osu to sec schools. If osu had played in sec the last ten years, they would not have been successful as they have been.

  
  I don't think that really applies to the Boise State argument, but of course that's right. Same with USC, or Oklahoma, or Texas, etc. Obviously none of them would be winning conference championships every year in the SEC.
• dwccrew

  

  karen lotz;883955 wrote:Well yeah obviously the Big Ten is a stronger conference than the WAC. That doesn't mean Boise should get credit for what they are doing.

  Boise does get credit. They play in BCS bowls and receive top rankings, but until they play games in which the spread is not always 30+ points in their favor, they will continue to not play in the title games.
  

  enigmaax;883972 wrote:Yes, great concise explanation. It is about "losable" games. If you plug every elite team (Boise included) into the schedules of every other elite team, the number of losable games isn't even close. Great teams are prone to upsets. If any team that is considered a BCS conference elite tried to skate through a season with a Boise-type schedule, the country would raise hell about how they played nobody. Boise supporters want to say that schedule contains those same losable games, but that is only the case if you say Boise is NOT as talented as the "real" elite. If they ARE an elite team, the reasonable competition on the schedule started and ended with Georgia for Boise.

  Great post. It is about "losable" games. Boise is a heavy favorite in almost every game they play save one game. This is why they don't yet deserve to be in the national title talk. They are a great team, but they have a less than average schedule. Not sure what is so hard to understand about that. They play teams that are no match for them. Yes, other schools do too, however, they then play at least 3 or 4 schools that are not 40 point dogs in the game.
  

  jordo212000;884068 wrote:The gauntlet portion of the Big 10 really only consists of Ohio State and Nebraska at this point.
  

  Completely false. Wisconsin and Penn State have been very good teams over the last 5 years as has Iowa (winning a BCS bowl 2 years ago). Michigan State is not a world beater, but they could beat almost all teams in the MWC outside of BSU and TCU and would crush the WAC.