Boise St/Georgia

• pmoney25

  

  The point is all this conference talk is stupid. Boise is a good program. The fact they can compete with the big boys is a testament considering the disadvantages they have (money,location etc.) Don't blame boise, blame the ncaa and the bcs for the stupid system they have in place. I love osu but I don't pretend they play a tough schedule at all.
• enigmaax

  Mulva;884149 wrote: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.

  So one game makes that much difference? For example, in 2009 when Boise State went unbeaten they beat a really good Oregon team and then a big healthy serving of 1-11 Miami (OH), 5-7 Tulsa, and UC-Davis. Plus the WAC....you know, the rest of the conference that went 1-12 against BCS teams (but that one win over 1-11 definitely shows the conference depth). Also the conference in which half of the members were below .500 overall. That is the history on which Boise State has built this proof of deserving title shots?
  

  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.

  I just find this to be complete nonsense. Without a win in one (or both) of Boise's big games, they don't have a leg to stand on which is exactly why that single win (or occasional year when they beat two BCS conference teams - neither of which actually has to be great) isn't enough to put them in the title game as it is.
• trep14

  This gets debated every year and the points are exactly the same. I'll just say this: it is disappointing to me that in a great sport like college football, instead of lining up Boise against LSU or OSU or OU or whoever U in a playoff to get to the national championship game we are stuck arguing about who is worse between Idaho and Minnesota.
• ytownfootball

  

  trep14;884469 wrote:This gets debated every year and the points are exactly the same. I'll just say this: it is disappointing to me that in a great sport like college football, instead of lining up Boise against LSU or OSU or OU or whoever U in a playoff to get to the national championship game we are stuck arguing about who is worse between Idaho and Minnesota.

  The argument will just be turned to who deserved the play-off spots, don't see any change in that regard.
• jordo212000

  

  ytownfootball;884504 wrote:The argument will just be turned to who deserved the play-off spots, don't see any change in that regard.

  
  Isn't that 100x better than just guessing who the 2 best teams are?
• ytownfootball

  

  jordo212000;884543 wrote:Isn't that 100x better than just guessing who the 2 best teams are?

  *yawn*
  
  sorry man, don't see the point in arguing it any further. How's that Mark Cuban push for a play-off moving along?
• trep14

  At the end of the day, arguing about who is better between Indiana and Idaho is very important in determining who the best team in college football is.
• jordo212000

  

  If a BCS-like system is the best way to crown a champion, how come other sports aren't doing it?
  
  If a BCS-like system was the best way for a sport to maximize profits during its postseason more sports would be doing it.
• jordo212000

  

  ytownfootball;884547 wrote:*yawn*
  
  sorry man, don't see the point in arguing it any further. How's that Mark Cuban push for a play-off moving along?

  
  I have no idea. I haven't heard Bill Hancock awkwardly explaining why the BCS is good for college football recently, so I'm guessing the answer is "not well"?
  
  Generally any time the BCS feels threatened they send Hancock on a barnstorming tour
• sleeper

  

  I'd love to see Boise play Ohio State. Hope this helps.
• Mulva

  

  ytownfootball;884504 wrote:The argument will just be turned to who deserved the play-off spots, don't see any change in that regard.

  Instead of the undefeated team that finished #3 getting left out, the 2-loss team that finished #7 might.
  
  Seems like a pretty significant change to me. But the playoff argument is another fight for another day.
• Sykotyk

  

  Boise State-Nebraska was to be a one-off deal. Nebraska cuts the check, Boise State doesn't get a home game. This is how _all_ one-game contracts work. What Boise State objected to was that Nebraska wanted to pay them the going rate of about $600k. Which is 'whipping boy' money. The same amount approximately OSU paid YSU for their automatic victory. Boise State knew Nebraska would make a ton of money off the game selling the rights to ESPN, etc and wanted a higher guarantee. Nebraska didn't want to, because they were looking for a sucker, not for an equitable deal. So, they scrapped Boise State's deal and got Idaho for $600k as a 'whipping boy'.
  
  As for the Boise State-Georgia and Boise State-Virginia games. They were helped scheduled by ESPN since ESPN wants these big games scheduled for Boise State because they're some good early season gossip fodder. But, Boise State can't just make teams schedule them. They have to want to. And it's a lose-lose for 'insert big name here'. So, ESPN guarantees a big profit for the big name school.
  
  As for Boise State compared to Miami of the mid-80s. A little history lesson. There was no Big East, and a lot of teams were independents. A lot easier to find a game to schedule. Plus, there were a lot of historical rivalries that acted as de facto conference games for teams. A lot of those became Big East teams. Penn State went to the Big Ten, etc. Also, Bowl games were as far as you went, it was all about impressing the voters. And most bowls weren't tied to particular conferences and it was a free-for-all. The reason independent teams had reasonable chances of great bowl games. Today, an independent is going to have huge problems.
  
  The problem I have with all of this:
  
  The argument isn't whether or not Boise State is any good. It's whether or not they're in 'the club' of elite teams to therefore deserve a title. Which doesn't decide whether _THIS YEAR_ they are the _BEST_ team in the nation. You're all arguing what they did LAST year or what history tends to dictate in previous situations...
  
  The truth is. We don't know. We won't know. Not because they're being held out of some egalitarian system devised to settle such issues but because those with money don't want to lose out on making even more money.
  
  Get a playoff, get every conference champ in it, and there is no arguments. Winner-take-all. You lose, you lose, you win, you win.
  
  Simple, concise... yet somehow major college football is the only sport where 'fair' is a four-letter word.
• LJ

  

  Sykotyk;884627 wrote:Boise State-Nebraska was to be a one-off deal. Nebraska cuts the check, Boise State doesn't get a home game. This is how _all_ one-game contracts work. What Boise State objected to was that Nebraska wanted to pay them the going rate of about $600k. Which is 'whipping boy' money. The same amount approximately OSU paid YSU for their automatic victory. Boise State knew Nebraska would make a ton of money off the game selling the rights to ESPN, etc and wanted a higher guarantee. Nebraska didn't want to, because they were looking for a sucker, not for an equitable deal. So, they scrapped Boise State's deal and got Idaho for $600k as a 'whipping boy'.
  

  Boise State vs Nebraska was not going to be a one off deal. The deal was 2 games in Nebraska and 1 in Boise sandwiched in the middle. Boise wanted $1 million for each time they came to Lincoln.
• Sykotyk

  

  LJ;884687 wrote:Boise State vs Nebraska was not going to be a one off deal. The deal was 2 games in Nebraska and 1 in Boise sandwiched in the middle. Boise wanted $1 million for each time they came to Lincoln.

  When I first heard about BSU getting Nebraska, it was as a one-off deal. I saw the articles about Nebraska balking at the $1.2 million price tag for a home game when they turned around and paid Idaho $900k. It seems Nebraska (with Fresno State and Wyoming contracts) are in the habit of strong-arming teams into a forced 2-for-1 deal. Nebraska gets two, Boise State would get one at home. For a 35k seat stadium, that's a bad trade-off. They'd be better off with a one-off of compensation for the lost 2nd road game. Which is the sticking point.
  
  http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/12690/nebraska-not-likely-to-add-boise-state-in-2011
  
  This is one I found that mentions this as a one-off affair for $1 million guaranteed. If they do a home-and-home they'd be fine. One road trip for one home game. How most 'big boys' schedule. Nebraska is trying to schedule them like they're small time. Offering a 2-for-1.
  
  If Nebraska can pay out around $700k for an automatic victory against Florida Atlantic and Louisiana-Lafayette, they could've afforded $1-$1.2 million for a prime-time plastered all over ESPN game.
  
  But, they didn't want to and tried to make BSU out to be the bad guys for not taking the one-sided contract.
  
  Sykotyk
• karen lotz

  

  Stop making sense Sykotyk.
• LJ

  

  Sykotyk;884940 wrote:When I first heard about BSU getting Nebraska, it was as a one-off deal. I saw the articles about Nebraska balking at the $1.2 million price tag for a home game when they turned around and paid Idaho $900k. It seems Nebraska (with Fresno State and Wyoming contracts) are in the habit of strong-arming teams into a forced 2-for-1 deal. Nebraska gets two, Boise State would get one at home. For a 35k seat stadium, that's a bad trade-off. They'd be better off with a one-off of compensation for the lost 2nd road game. Which is the sticking point.
  
  http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/12690/nebraska-not-likely-to-add-boise-state-in-2011
  
  This is one I found that mentions this as a one-off affair for $1 million guaranteed. If they do a home-and-home they'd be fine. One road trip for one home game. How most 'big boys' schedule. Nebraska is trying to schedule them like they're small time. Offering a 2-for-1.
  
  If Nebraska can pay out around $700k for an automatic victory against Florida Atlantic and Louisiana-Lafayette, they could've afforded $1-$1.2 million for a prime-time plastered all over ESPN game.
  
  But, they didn't want to and tried to make BSU out to be the bad guys for not taking the one-sided contract.
  
  Sykotyk

  So, is Boise more worried about "anytime anywhere" or is it "anytime, anywhere, as long as it is the right price"? Their AD's words. Not mine. Apparently, he forgot to add "as long as you pay us".
  
  (Which was my whole point to begin with)
• enigmaax

  Sykotyk;884940 wrote:Nebraska is trying to schedule them like they're small time.
  
  If Nebraska can pay out around $700k for an automatic victory against Florida Atlantic and Louisiana-Lafayette, they could've afforded $1-$1.2 million for a prime-time plastered all over ESPN game.

  I just fail to see where Boise State thinks it can command more money. The onus is on them to establish themselves, not everyone else in the country. It isn't a matter of whether or not Nebraska could afford a million, it is why would Nebraska care to pay Boise that much when they can fill a schedule otherwise. Boise talking about "fair market value" is ridiculous when they are the ones who need the games to be legitimized.
  
  Anyone know how much Boise brings in for a typical home game? From Boise's standpoint, if they can make a ton more money by playing Nebraska on the road than they'll make by picking up their own scrub team at home, it is win-win for them. They need money to grow and major opponents to prove themselves. That one Nebraska game, even at "below market value" (still laughing) would've served both purposes for them.
• enigmaax

  LJ;884960 wrote:So, is Boise more worried about "anytime anywhere" or is it "anytime, anywhere, as long as it is the right price"? Their AD's words. Not mine. Apparently, he forgot to add "as long as you pay us".
  
  (Which was my whole point to begin with)

  Oh, and, your answer is:
  

  "We'll play anybody in the country home and home," Bleymaier told ESPN.

  http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/27965/boise-state-wants-home-and-home-games
  
  Article mentions that Mississippi is paying Boise for a one-off at $900K. To get back to "fair market value", this is probably a good game for Mississippi that will generate some interest. Boise State isn't going to do anything to enhance Nebraska's earning power, so the market is completely different from their standpoint.
• queencitybuckeye

  Al Bundy;884056 wrote:They turned down an offer to play Nebraska.

  They turned down an offer from Nebraska loaded with ego that the Bugeaters are what they used to be. They aren't at a level to command the deal they offered.
• Al Bundy

  queencitybuckeye;885002 wrote:They turned down an offer from Nebraska loaded with ego that the Bugeaters are what they used to be. They aren't at a level to command the deal they offered.

  Boise has every right to schedule who they want. Just don't cry about being left out of the championship game when they duck quality competition.
• dlazz

  Al Bundy;885050 wrote:Just don't cry about being left out of the championship game when they duck quality competition.

  Oh good, we've worked our way back to that busted argument.
• queencitybuckeye

  Al Bundy;885050 wrote:Boise has every right to schedule who they want. Just don't cry about being left out of the championship game when they duck quality competition.

  The deal offered by Nebraska makes sense to an opponent only if one considers Nebraska a top-tier program. They are not, and have not been one for quite some time. If one of the top programs would offer Boise that deal, they would likely take it.
  
  The idea that if Boise wants to play with the big boys, they have to accept a shit contract from any big hat little cattle program is laughable. The Cornholers are actually doing the ducking by offering a deal that they know anyone with any sense would decline.
• enigmaax

  queencitybuckeye;885084 wrote:The deal offered by Nebraska makes sense to an opponent only if one considers Nebraska a top-tier program. They are not, and have not been one for quite some time. If one of the top programs would offer Boise that deal, they would likely take it.
  
  The idea that if Boise wants to play with the big boys, they have to accept a **** contract from any big hat little cattle program is laughable. The Cornholers are actually doing the ducking by offering a deal that they know anyone with any sense would decline.

  Results-wise, Nebraska isn't an elite program at the moment. But they certainly don't need to overpay Boise and take all the risk with nothing really to gain. Nebraska has sold out every game for what, 40-plus years? They just enhanced their financial opportunities by joining the B1G - they aren't hurting for exposure. Why would they pay way above their own going rate just so Boise can try and earn a spot at the table? Or, what added value does Boise bring to Nebraska's schedule that Nebraska needs?
• LJ

  

  queencitybuckeye;885084 wrote:The deal offered by Nebraska makes sense to an opponent only if one considers Nebraska a top-tier program. They are not, and have not been one for quite some time. If one of the top programs would offer Boise that deal, they would likely take it.
  
  The idea that if Boise wants to play with the big boys, they have to accept a shit contract from any big hat little cattle program is laughable. The Cornholers are actually doing the ducking by offering a deal that they know anyone with any sense would decline.

  If Boise would have accepted the deal, this past saturday they would have played the #10 ranked team who is top 5 in all time wins, on the road. GTFO
• enigmaax

  Found what Nebraska pays/gets for OOC games:
  
  http://dataomaha.com/documents/2011-nonconference-football-game-contracts-tennesseee-chattanooga-and-fresno-state
  

  Nebraska will pay opponents a combined $1.075 million for its three home nonconference games this fall, and Nebraska will receive $300,000 for its trip to Wyoming, according to contracts acquired by The World-Herald in an open records request. NU will pay Tennessee-Chattanooga $475,000 for its visit to Lincoln on Saturday, and Fresno State and Washington will each receive $300,000.