Where Should Boise State Finish in the National Rankings

[Jumpin Johnies]

Just throwing the question out there.

[Rockerbraves]

Just throwing the question out there.

 

 

It obviously depends on the remaining BCS games considering most the teams ahead of them have yet to play. Certainly won't see me screaming for a split NC since it took them OT to beat the 10th ranked team, but they certainly earned some respect for that twice dead in the water comeback.

[detlef]

It obviously depends on the remaining BCS games considering most the teams ahead of them have yet to play. Certainly won't see me screaming for a split NC since it took them OT to beat the 10th ranked team, but they certainly earned some respect for that twice dead in the water comeback.

 

What he said.

 

Gotta put them behind USC who has had, thus far, the most impressive Bowl victory of the season. LSU stays above them if they win big, maybe not if they win ugly. Same with Louisville. The loser next Monday if the game is both good and close perhaps and Wisconson has a fair claim to a top 5 spot as well.

[KICK A$$ BLASTER]

Now I am a bit biased, but I think Boise State should be ranked third or fourth in the final poll...

[Rockerbraves]

Now I am a bit biased, but I think Boise State should be ranked third or fourth in the final poll...

 

 

Join the biased club. From what I saw (not to take away from your Huge Win) this bowl season the Big 12 was down this year, but you won't get to much of an argument from me considering this has to go down as THE biggest win for your Boise State program.

[theeohiostate]

With the teams that have already fininshed their bowl games.

 

i'd go

 

1. USC

2. Wisconsin

3. Michigan

4. Boise St.

 

 

LSU win would move them to 2 , a Louisville win move then to 3 and everyone else back a notch

 

a Florida or OSU win , puts them at one of course and moves everyone down.

 

 

Regardless of what happens the remainder of the bowl season, USC will stay #2 , with 3 Big Ten teams all finishing at worst in the Top 6 final poll. Great year for the Big 10, to have 3 of the best 6 in the country at years in

[justin]

I don't think any team with 2 losses should be ahead of Boise St. (including USC and Michigan).

 

Still games to be played, so it's hard to give final rankings.

[detlef]

With the teams that have already fininshed their bowl games.

 

i'd go

 

1. USC

2. Wisconsin

3. Michigan

4. Boise St.

LSU win would move them to 2 , a Louisville win move then to 3 and everyone else back a notch

 

a Florida or OSU win , puts them at one of course and moves everyone down.

Regardless of what happens the remainder of the bowl season, USC will stay #2 , with 3 Big Ten teams all finishing at worst in the Top 6 final poll. Great year for the Big 10, to have 3 of the best 6 in the country at years in

 

Michigan got completely outclassed and should not IMO be in the top 5 or 6 at years end. You can't finish the season with back to back losses and stick that high.

[isleseeya]

Top 5 ....teams with 2 loses should definitely not be ahead of them

[Rockerbraves]

I don't think any team with 2 losses should be ahead of Boise St. (including USC and Michigan).

 

Still games to be played, so it's hard to give final rankings.

 

 

Like I said before if the voters want to reward Boise State for their courageous come from behind win that's fine with me. It obviously would be much more appreciated up there in Boise for years and years to come. Heck we might even see a movie one day titled "Remember the Broncos"

[Coffeeman]

I don't think any team with 2 losses should be ahead of Boise St. (including USC and Michigan).

 

Still games to be played, so it's hard to give final rankings.

 

 

Fantastic win for a good program on the rise, and a lot of fun to watch. But sorry, but this idea completely ignores strength of schedule. If going unbeaten was all that mattered, why do USC, TX, Ohio State, etc. schedule any tough non-conf teams? Because it matters, thats why. And the SEC teams all have to play tough road games in conf. all year long.

 

Depending on where and how they lost, I will typically place a 1 or even 2 loss team from the SEC, Big 10, Big 12 and Pac10 above an undefeated non-BCS conf. unbeaten UNTIL they beat some big boys during the season. (Notice I didn't say ACC or Big East, since I'm placing them in the pack with the non-BCS conf's until they step it up on a sustained basis.)

 

Unless the NC game is a big blowout, those 2 should finish 1-2 with USC at 3 or 4, depending on what LSU does to ND. The Broncos should be happy with a #5 final ranking, and with some better scheduling, could do even better in the future.

 

Even if USC had beaten UCLA and gotten in vs. OSU, only the Gators would've had a legit beef, not Michigan. The Wolverines got embarassed in the 2nd half yesterday. My seats were in the middle of a sea of blue, and they were eerily quiet for most of the game. Me and my buddy, on the other hand, had a great time...

[Rockerbraves]

Fantastic win for a good program on the rise, and a lot of fun to watch. But sorry, but this idea completely ignores strength of schedule. If going unbeaten was all that mattered, why do USC, TX, Ohio State, etc. schedule any tough non-conf teams? Because it matters, thats why. And the SEC teams all have to play tough road games in conf. all year long.

 

Depending on where and how they lost, I will typically place a 1 or even 2 loss team from the SEC, Big 10, Big 12 and Pac10 above an undefeated non-BCS conf. unbeaten UNTIL they beat some big boys during the season. (Notice I didn't say ACC or Big East, since I'm placing them in the pack with the non-BCS conf's until they step it up on a sustained basis.)

 

Unless the NC game is a big blowout, those 2 should finish 1-2 with USC at 3 or 4, depending on what LSU does to ND. The Broncos should be happy with a #5 final ranking, and with some better scheduling, could do even better in the future.

 

Even if USC had beaten UCLA and gotten in vs. OSU, only the Gators would've had a legit beef, not Michigan. The Wolverines got embarassed in the 2nd half yesterday. My seats were in the middle of a sea of blue, and they were eerily quiet for most of the game. Me and my buddy, on the other hand, had a great time...

 

 

Not as convinced as you that the loser of the NC will be the #2 rank team. To me it will likely fallout much like it does every year for the loser of the SEC Championship game who typically gets booted out of a major bowl. Fair or not it seems that's the price you pay for getting to the BIG game. Some team will lose in Glendale and if I'm correct the voters will look at that team in a totally different way then they do now. Not sure about you but I certainly don't look at the losers of yesterday's game with as much respect as I did a month ago. Also got to think that Michigan's huge lost yesterday will also come into play should the Gators win.

[Sgt. Ryan]

OSU obviously #1 if they win, Id put Boise at #2 in the final Poll, and probably SC #3. FLA would be 4th if they lose, and Michigan at #5.

[davearm]

Boise will finish on one side or the other of Wisconsin, with 3-5 teams ahead of both, depending on the outcomes of the remaining games.

[theeohiostate]

Also got to think that Michigan's huge lost yesterday will also come into play should the Gators win.

 

 

 

I look at it completely different, as Wisconsin over west division winner Arkansas together with a OSU win over East division winner, Florida, will really put into perspective alot about the media's insistent with the SEC being so strong.

[Rockerbraves]

I look at it completely different, as Wisconsin over west division winner Arkansas together with a OSU win over East division winner, Florida, will really put into perspective alot about the media's insistent with the SEC being so strong.

 

 

Come on pleeze get over yesterday and get back to some serious discussion. As much as you think the SEC was great the fact remains the pollsters didn't as evidence they had your step-son Wisconsin team ranked 6th while the Hogs were ranked #12. Actually since the game was a toss up Wisconsin has a slight chance of actually losing ground to a team behind them. Don't think it will happen, but that's what can happen when a much higher ranked team slides by a lower ranked team.

[Rockerbraves]

Florida, will really put into perspective alot about the media's insistent with the SEC being so strong.

 

 

[Bushey]

Who Oprahing cares about the stupid polls? They're not real. Boise State fans have their championship, just as Florida does. I really don't care about the opinions of newspaper people or coaches that haven't seen all the teams play. Anyone who says that Florida football team won "THE" championship is a pawn. The Florida basketball team won a real championship. That's why it doesn't matter what the polls say after March Madness is over. Sorry. End of story.

Edited January 10, 2007 by Bushey

[Sgt. Ryan]

Who Oprahing cares about the stupid polls? They're not real. Boise State fans have their championship, just as Florida does. I really don't care about the opinions of newspaper people or coaches that haven't seen all the teams play. Anyone who says that Florida football team won "THE" championship is a pawn. The Florida basketball team won a real championship. That's why it doesn't matter what the polls say after March Madness is over. Sorry. End of story.

 

 

 

[detlef]

Who Oprahing cares about the stupid polls? They're not real. Boise State fans have their championship, just as Florida does. I really don't care about the opinions of newspaper people or coaches that haven't seen all the teams play. Anyone who says that Florida football team won "THE" championship is a pawn. The Florida basketball team won a real championship. That's why it doesn't matter what the polls say after March Madness is over. Sorry. End of story.

 

Honestly, I think both the way they do it in football and hoops is flawed in terms of determining a true champion for the exact opposite reasons. Football, obviously because they don't include enough teams in the tourney, hoops because they include too many. Not that I don't think March Madness isn't great just no better at determining a champ. There is no reason why someone who barely broke .500 and ended up the 6th best team in a conference needs to have a shot at getting hot and winning it all. More importantly the dillution of the field makes the teams that did prove themselves over the course of 4 months jump through that many more hoops. Every time you step out on the court, there's a chance that some dude could just go crazy and not miss all night. If that guy happens to play for a legit team that belongs in the champtionship conversation, that's fine. But if not, what have they done to deserve the right to upset a real contender. That might pave the way for someone who may have barely belonged in the conversation to sneak through the draw without having to play a top seed.

 

Just because you are capable of beating one of the best teams doesn't mean you've earned the right to have a chance to with the title on the line.

 

Both are flawed, and both are the way they are to make more money. It just happens that hoops decides it in a much more exciting way.

[Rockerbraves]

Just found out that Boise State the team that beat the Sooners actually attempted to compete against a SEC team last season. Think they came in a 7 point underdog.

 

Welcome to the SEC...Georgia 48 Boise State 13

Edited January 16, 2007 by Rockerbraves

[GWPFFL BrianW]

Honestly, I think both the way they do it in football and hoops is flawed in terms of determining a true champion for the exact opposite reasons. Football, obviously because they don't include enough teams in the tourney, hoops because they include too many. Not that I don't think March Madness isn't great just no better at determining a champ. There is no reason why someone who barely broke .500 and ended up the 6th best team in a conference needs to have a shot at getting hot and winning it all. More importantly the dillution of the field makes the teams that did prove themselves over the course of 4 months jump through that many more hoops. Every time you step out on the court, there's a chance that some dude could just go crazy and not miss all night. If that guy happens to play for a legit team that belongs in the champtionship conversation, that's fine. But if not, what have they done to deserve the right to upset a real contender. That might pave the way for someone who may have barely belonged in the conversation to sneak through the draw without having to play a top seed.

 

Just because you are capable of beating one of the best teams doesn't mean you've earned the right to have a chance to with the title on the line.

 

Both are flawed, and both are the way they are to make more money. It just happens that hoops decides it in a much more exciting way.

 

 

I don't know, it's pretty rare that the winner of the NCAA tournament isn't the best team. Look at our past champions.

 

Florida, won the SEC Tournament, Certainly playing better than anyone, no doubt in my mind they were the best, particularly after blowing out a very good Villanova team in the Minneapolis Regional Final.

 

North Carolina, best team, and certianly the most talented.

 

Connecticut, best team, had the best player, was pretty much everyones favorite to win.

 

Syracuse, had a nice 6 game run, maybe not the best team, but they certainly had the best player.

 

Maryland, best team, and again pretty much everyones favorites to win.

 

Duke, ditto

 

Michigan State, ditto

 

 

 

Can go back further, but I think the point is made.

 

 

So bascially in this decade, while you may not agree with all 64/65 teams that get in, there is no arguing, that the winner of the tournament is the best team. Yeah, sometimes you'll get Kansas in 1988, Villanova of 1985, or NC State of 1983... but most of the time the cream rises to the top.

[Akfatha]

I don't know, it's pretty rare that the winner of the NCAA tournament isn't the best team. Look at our past champions.

 

Florida, won the SEC Tournament, Certainly playing better than anyone, no doubt in my mind they were the best, particularly after blowing out a very good Villanova team in the Minneapolis Regional Final.

 

North Carolina, best team, and certianly the most talented.

 

Connecticut, best team, had the best player, was pretty much everyones favorite to win.

 

Syracuse, had a nice 6 game run, maybe not the best team, but they certainly had the best player.

 

Maryland, best team, and again pretty much everyones favorites to win.

 

Duke, ditto

 

Michigan State, ditto

Can go back further, but I think the point is made.

So bascially in this decade, while you may not agree with all 64/65 teams that get in, there is no arguing, that the winner of the tournament is the best team. Yeah, sometimes you'll get Kansas in 1988, Villanova of 1985, or NC State of 1983... but most of the time the cream rises to the top.

 

 

thing is, even if its NOT everyones favorite that wins it, isnt that the point of HAVING the tournament and playing the games? if we went by who looks best on paper, all the time, sports would be boring as hell. if #1 seed won every single year no matter what, if final four was top seeds all around EVERY year, that would be so boring. No George Mason's like last year? What's the point of even playing the games? No cinderellas? whats the point? I like tourney a lot. I love that teams like Creighton can get hot, win the MVC tournament, and get into the ncaa tourney for a shot to win a game or two.

[Sox]

Honestly, I think both the way they do it in football and hoops is flawed in terms of determining a true champion for the exact opposite reasons. Football, obviously because they don't include enough teams in the tourney, hoops because they include too many. Not that I don't think March Madness isn't great just no better at determining a champ. There is no reason why someone who barely broke .500 and ended up the 6th best team in a conference needs to have a shot at getting hot and winning it all. More importantly the dillution of the field makes the teams that did prove themselves over the course of 4 months jump through that many more hoops. Every time you step out on the court, there's a chance that some dude could just go crazy and not miss all night. If that guy happens to play for a legit team that belongs in the champtionship conversation, that's fine. But if not, what have they done to deserve the right to upset a real contender. That might pave the way for someone who may have barely belonged in the conversation to sneak through the draw without having to play a top seed.

 

Just because you are capable of beating one of the best teams doesn't mean you've earned the right to have a chance to with the title on the line.

 

Both are flawed, and both are the way they are to make more money. It just happens that hoops decides it in a much more exciting way.

 

 

 

I disagree.

 

In hoops,it's settled on the field,or court in this case.

 

You get beat,you're out.You win,you advance.

 

It doesn't get any fairer than that.

[GWPFFL BrianW]

thing is, even if its NOT everyones favorite that wins it, isnt that the point of HAVING the tournament and playing the games? if we went by who looks best on paper, all the time, sports would be boring as hell. if #1 seed won every single year no matter what, if final four was top seeds all around EVERY year, that would be so boring. No George Mason's like last year? What's the point of even playing the games? No cinderellas? whats the point? I like tourney a lot. I love that teams like Creighton can get hot, win the MVC tournament, and get into the ncaa tourney for a shot to win a game or two.

 

 

 

Exactly with march madness u get the best of both worlds. The best teams usually do rise to the top, but along the way you get those thrilling upsets, and the cinderellas like George Mason who make it all the way to the final four. Also... if your team gets knocked out by a cinderella, your team didn't deserve to win it all anyway. My Hawkeyes got upset by Northwestern State last year, 14th seed beating a 3 seed... doesn't necesarily mean NW State was better overall than Iowa, but it does mean that Iowa certainly didn't deserve to win it all either.