They beat an Oregon team that has not lost to anyone else and an Oregon team that is thrashing USC right now.

Boise State is an elite third tier team.....

How's that for an answer...

We'll never know until there is a playoff system in place. I think teams like Boise State have a large advantage during the season. They typically only have to get up for 1-2 tough games during the season and then their bowl game. However, teams in major conferences have to get up for several games each season. Texas, Florida, USC, Alabama, etc have to be ready for a number of rivalry games against top opponents. These teams become more prone to upset because it is tougher to get up week after and week. If Florida had Boise State's schedule, everyone would be expecting them to go undefeated and complaining what a cake schedule it is. Hell, this season, Florida's schedule lined up nicely for them but they still have to play LSU away, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, S. Carolina, FSU, and the SEC Championship game. I wonder if Boise State might pick up a loss or two with this schedule.

And there, my friends, is the problem.

ETA: And, oh by the way, Boise completely manhandled Oregon in that game. The apologists can say what they will about first game of the year and all that but that game wasn't even close.

Exactly. However, if there was a playoff system in place, Boise State would likely be included and have to win 3 quality games to claim the NC. If they did so, then they would be the NC--no argument (at least from me).

I appreciate you agreeing with me but after "Exactly" you're still wondering.
Not only would Boise State have to win 3 "quality" games but so would anyone else to win the whole thing. Just because a fairly large group of folks feels that winning in the SEC involves winning several "quality" games does not mean that they have necessarily played the best teams in the country. Maybe the SEC, or any other conference for that matter, is no better than anyone else and they just do an outstanding job, lately, of getting prepared for the big game in January.

I think your missing my point. My only comment was that generally speaking, Boise State currently has an easier time of it during the regular season. I was responding to the original question about how good Boise St is. We can't know because their schedule is typically easier than other top teams. When it comes to bowl season, for them it's usually a great chance to prove that they really belong whereas for the team they are playing, it's a bit of a let down.

The only solution is a playoff system.

In spite of the rhetoric and semantics let's just agree to agree.

Either that, or we could get married.

Don't say it unless you mean it

Even with the short hair?

Since there is no playoffs this is why Oregon should not get a shot at the BCS NC. Losing to Little Boise State in that fashion is hard to overcome.

Pretty much the same thing I suppose.

Now is Boise State 3A or 4A?

OU has lost once to a team ranked in the top 10. What were Kentucky and Arkansas ranked (the two teams LSU lost to but still got to play for it all) ranked by season's end in 2007? I'll make it easy for you, the better of the two was listed in "also receiving votes".

You missed the point. Little Boise gets in before Oregon. That same year you mentioned Virginia Tech was correctly left out of the BCS NC when it came to BCS discussions due to the way they lost to LSU early in the season.

Oh, and Brian Little Boise State is a 3A team.

Answer this. In the present system if it comes down to an undefeated Iowa team or an undefeated Boise State team which one do you think deserves to play for the BCS NC? I can tell you right now that IF LSU were to run the table from this point on and avenge their only loss of the season I'm not going to defend Boise State because they beat a pretty good Oregon team.

Maybe I missed the point that you thought BSU should get in ahead of OU (which, btw, I agree with and frankly think this is a moot point because there are far too many teams that would have to lose for OU to even get a sniff) because you referred to them as "little BSU".

Going undefeated in the Big Ten in any year should trump a mid major going undefeated, the same way an undefeated SEC squad, Big 12, Pac 10, you name it. Iowa's resume is actually pretty solid, the only exception being close wins over teams they should blow out. They've played the best the Big Ten can possibly offer on the road, winning at Happy Valley, Madison, and East Lansing already (only been done once before, Michigan in 1997), and still have the Buckeyes in Columbus. If Iowa runs the table, they will have earned it, in any Big Ten year, down or not. I don't pretend to say they deserve it anymore than Texas, Florida, or Alabama should they run the table, but I believe the #4 ranking is warranted. Boise state may have (may) the best win of the two. But overall Iowa has more quality wins thus far in the season, and if you add Ohio State to that mix, it's hard to argue against that.

Shhh...I call them Little Boise State just in case Sarge is peeking in.

Brian I've been posting on this site since 2006 and I have to say we have not always agreed, but I do respect your opinion more than most on this site. Might be because your team hasn't exactly been a threat, but I'm happy to see your Iowa team smack in the middle of the BCS NC discussion. Hopefully both our teams can keep winning so that we can have some lively debate on which teams should play for the BCS NC. If LSU stumbles which it looks like they should this weekend being a 9 point road underdog to Bama I might just be forced to jump the SEC ship and root for your Hawkeyes.

Maybe if you are lucky enough to see your team go all the way this season you might just sort of appreciate the thrill of BCS system. Watching your team and other contending teams play these last few games (regardless of the level of competition) with so much on the line without a safety net. Granted LSU survived the late loss one year, but if you recall it took a few minor miracles to let them back in.

I don't think anyone will deny that watching the BCS polls unfold over the final weeks of the college season is not exciting. That's not why people have issues with the system. The issue I have (and I think others do as well) is that the BCS says it crowns a "National Champion" essentially a "Best Team in the Country" utilizing a system that relies on human opinion to pick the 2 opponents who get to play for said title. AND it leaves out undefeated teams. I don't see how you can argue that any undefeated division 1 team should be left out of the discussion. Period. That team, no matter who they are has done everything the BCS has asked of them, yet they still get overlooked because based on human opinion another team played a stronger schedule and are more deserving. We are always left with a "what if" question. A playoff will ALWAYS answer those "what if" questions. And to those who worry that a playoff would somehow make regular season games meaningless, I just don't understand that argument. At most 2 possibly 3 teams from any given conference would make an 8-12 team playoff. You still have to win your conference to get a guaranteed spot. EVERY game is still critical since a 2 loss team will most likely not get in. The BCS poll is a great way to select those playoff teams, but as long as it continues to leave out undefeated teams, as far as determining a "National Champion", it is broken beyond repair.

Look I'm not trying to defend the BCS vs. a playoff in this thread. I'm given an opinion on who I think should play under the current system in place.

Rocker, as you've seen from me, I've defended LSU many times when I felt it warranted. In 2007, I thought of the 2 loss teams, they were most deserving and laid out the case for them. And I wouldn't mind seeing another classic Iowa-LSU bowl game. The last one was about as good as it gets (maybe not for Tiger fans, but I got my Warren Holloway picture framed) . But I think you'll see that regardless of what happens with Iowa this year, I am still firmly in favor of a true playoff vs the BCS. I will not change my stance on it, even if Iowa benefits from the BCS system this season. Long way to go though, I'm worried about Northwestern, as they have had the Hawkeyes number in recent years, last year being a very big downer. Just one of those teams that always gives Iowa fits. Ohio State in 2 weeks is gonna be what it's gonna be. Where Ohio State has a problem mentally against the SEC and USC (pretty much in my lifetime) Iowa has that with Ohio State. Michigan has our number too, but Michigan and Iowa have always played pretty close games, with a couple exceptions. Ohio State just flat out has thumped us. I think Iowa has won at Columbus maybe twice in my lifetime. But there are no excuses, 1 loss won't get the job done in terms of the BCS NC for Iowa. It's undefeated or bust. I still think even if Iowa loses once, that we'll at least be heading to Pasadena for the Rose Bowl. Ohio State at Penn State is gonna be tough for the Buckeyes, and I wouldn't sleep on Michigan either for them.

P.S. I will root for LSU against Alabama every single time. Alabama is probably my least favorite program in the country.

No doubt in my mind that Little Boise State would beat your Tigers by 10+ points










at your place

Little Boise set a New stadium record for attendance 34,127

That's all the place holds.

Plans are in place to move the seating capacity up to 40,000 in a few years.

Is anyone else out there hoping that somehow little BSU and LSU meet up in January?

I would love that but unfortunately LSU won't have the resume to be able to play the mighty Bronco's

I was actually thinking of how it might happen. LSU needs to beat Bama this week to get one of the two SEC BCS bids. Then, they'd likely have to lose to FL in the SEC title game. Otherwise, there's a pretty good chance they play in the BCS title game. Then, of course, BSU needs to earn an at large which may not even require finishing ahead of TCU since only the SEC is a shoe in to send two teams. Certainly the Big 12, Big East, ACC, are only getting 1. It's highly unlikely the Big 10 gets 2. It wouldn't be a shocker if the USC and OU get one but hardly a shoe-in. So that opens up the door for both.

Then, of course, the Sugar Bowl needs to be willing to risk having an SEC team lose to a small school yet again.

not that good- still an impressive W over Oregon but these kids change and improve so much from the start of the season.

Oregon beats them easily now- and so do the FLA,Bama, Texas, Cincy, TCU, GTech, USC, etc of the world.

great program but I really wasn't impressed with what I saw last night on a national-level

I disagree that Oregon would beat Boise St easily now. It's difficult to maintain the level of intensity week after week especially going against lower tier teams. I think Boise St. would beat Oregon at a neutral site. Hell, look at what Stanford is doing to them today. Just shows all of us again what a great conference the Pac-10 is. Let's not forget that Boise St controlled that game in Boise this year and absolutely crushed Oregon in Eugene last year.

that is fine- I don't think there is any question Oregon (even while losing to Stanford) looks like a much better team at this point in the season - but it doesn't necessarily matter what we think.

I just watched the LA Tech game last night and Boise St. looked like a solid mid-major and nothing more, certainly not a top 10 team. Stanford is a solid ballclub, and there is a ton of time left and it is only a 10 point game..........

xactly

Everyone has a bad night, and if your bad night results in a 10 pt win, then I think you get a pass. Now, if Boise was just eking by mediocre team after mediocre team, then you have to start questioning them. Additionally, (given, I didn't see the game and only checked the box score) but it does look like BSU got out to a nice half time lead and then sort of went to sleep. So maybe it's actually just a bad half. Again, that's just coming from the box score.

I did watch the game and am still wondering why with under 10 mins in the game after a TD to go up 8, BSU went for 2 to go up 10 vs. 9, kicking the PAT puts it at a 2 score game, but they risked a 2-pt conversion to go up 10???

The number of times guys go for 2 continues to baffle me. Unless 1) you're completely desperate or 2) you are literally at a stage of the game where there may be one or two more possessions remaining, it almost never makes sense.

Guess we'll find out this upcoming weekend if LSU can hang with Boise since the Tigers will be playing the only common opponent LA Tech on Saturday. Didn't watch the Boise vs Tech game, but based on the final score LSU better quickly get over their lost vs the Tide.

I would want no part of Boise State. Its a no win situation. If you destroy them its because they're Little Boise State. If you loose you become OU from a couple of years ago. No thanks.

That's why, with a few exceptions, the big boys either take on the big boys, or creampuffs. Just look at Texas and Florida's non-conference slate this year, as evidence of that.

Yea, Florida's out of conference sux. However, there was no way to know that FSU would be so down.

Very true, and there is zero excuse for Texas. They don't even have another BCS school on their schedule this year.

I think that notion has gone the way of Gonzaga being little Gonzaga in hoops. BSU has been goon long enough now that I don't think it's such a no-win situation for teams any more.

In a game that really meant something, i.e. National Championship game... Boise State would get beat by 2 or 3 TDs to the elite in the SEC or Big 12.

I know, I know... Boise State surpised OU in a bowl game a few years ago and there are those who will point to Utah's thrashing of Alabama in the Sugar Bowl last year as proof the lower tiered conferences can stand up to the big boys. But neither of those games meant anything to OU or Bama.

Let's think about that Sugar Bowl game logically. In its previous game (SEC Championship), Bama was leading Florida (the eventual national champ) in the 4th quarter, but ending up losing. Of course Alabama was down after that. The Sugar Bowl meant nothing to them. Was it right for them to feel that way? Of course not.... it was a game they should have put their all into. On the other hand, those bowl games meant everything to Boise and Utah as it was their chance to show what they had on the national stage.

Only an Alabama or Oklahoma fan would feel that way though, and it's convenient to say after the fact. If that can make Tide and Sooner fans feel better about the result at night, then more power to them. Very convenient indeed.

Edit to add: If the result went the other way, Alabama fans would be hooting and hollering like nobodies business, hell they would probably claim another national title for the win.

To a degree, I agree with Bigrocks. I feel certain that going to the Sugar Bowl was not what Alabama wanted last year. However, making it to the Sugar Bowl was HUGH for Utah. I think underestimating the motivation of the players concerned, particularly at the college level, is an error. It does not excuse Alabama's loss, but I certainly believe that in part, it explains it.

I wonder what the outcome might have been if the Sugar Bowl match up was a first round playoff game.

Perhaps this is why the Sugar Bowl does not normally take the SEC Championship Game LOSER.

I understand this point but also don't like to discount the fact that this is a serious indictment of the character of the team. The same was said about Michigan after they lost to OSU (and thus lost out on their chance to play in the NC game) as to one of the reasons they got pounded by USC in the Rose Bowl. Is the fact that you couldn't get up for the Sugar/Fiesta/Rose Bowl an excuse as to why you lost or simply something that exposed a serious flaw in your team. ie: heart.

I don't buy the notion at all that Boise State beat Oklahoma and Utah dominated Alabama because the two so called "elite" teams didn't care. I can guarantee that every player on Oklahoma and Alabama were motivated to win these games, especially given the fact that there was so much buildup to the game and they were played on a national stage.

And Boise St. losing to the Big 12 or SEC elite by 2-3 TD's obviously someone has not been paying attention. I'd put Boise State up against any team in the nation in a BIG game. I have watched Peterson out scheme the opposing coach time after time and my $$$ would be on the Bronco's.

I guess that's why Alabama's best offensive lineman and Outland Trophy winner basically decided his college career was at an end and contacted an agent prior to the Sugar Bowl -- resulting in his suspension from the team.

Listen, I am not defending Alabama coming out completely flat and unmotivated. I hated to see that displayed in the Sugar Bowl.... but the facts are simple: the Tide played Florida to a virtual standstill for 3+ quarters in the SEC Championship, then came out the next game and got waxed by a MAC team.

So, I guess Utah would have beaten Florida and Oklahoma too had they played.

See this is why a playoff wouldn't be any better. Fans and especially Bama fans would still make excuses even when they get soundly defeated.