Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

So let me see if I understand this correctly


GWPFFL BrianW
 Share

Recommended Posts

In 7 weeks? No more or less than a bunch of other teams at the top have done. I mean, what has Oregon or OU done? Maybe a bit more, but not a ton. What had OSU done to deserve the #2 spot they held before last weekend? So, now you're forced to just decide who you think is best. And when you do that, it's hard to ignore the fact that the team returns basically all it's starters from an undefeated team last year.

 

Again, it's not up to me to prove they deserve the top 3 ranking, it's up to those who insist they don't to prove that. All I'm saying is that they have as much right to it as anyone else and that they pass the eyeball test. If others with tougher games ahead survive those games, I'll be hard pressed to keep that opinion. But, for now, I have a hard time ignoring that they've passed every test put before them. This year and in recent years.

You're right... Like I said, nobody has proven anything, yet. I guess if it were up to me, though, I'd lean towards the teams that play the tougher schedules, when deciding between teams that are undefeated so far. Mostly, I'm just playing devil's advocate, and the bottom line is that still, nobody can answer my question with anything of merit. Sure, anybody can say that nobody has has done more than BSU has, but technically, that's not exactly true. I already pointed to five undefeated teams who HAVE done more (even though it might only be SLIGHTLY more). That's all I'm saying. The only response I've gotten to that is that the Big 10 is overrated, with nothing concrete to really back that up (other than WC saying he's not impressed). So what... I "watch a lot of football" as well, and trust me, the Pac-10 hasn't exactly been impressive either. But, since we're not factoring in past performance, I'm going to forget about their pathetic showing in last year's bowl series, and give them a clean slate. :wacko:

 

This has nothing to do with Michigan State or the Big 10. My argument has just as much to do with the other undefeated teams that I mentioned... probably even moreso (since my gut feeling is that MSU is probably one of the weaker undefeated teams). You guys are right, though... If those undefeated teams continue to win out, they should pass Boise. So, in that sense, this week's rankings don't mean a whole lot... it's the rankings in 5-6 weeks that really matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 88
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

:tup: So tired of hearing about the Big 10, and how they haven't proven anything. How does that make them any different than anybody else, six weeks into the season? Nobody has proven anything, at this point. This isn't about the Big 10, it's about teams being ranked based on what they've done to earn that ranking.

 

well, let's take a look at some numbers shall we???? used Pac 10 as a gauge.......

 

Currently Ranked BCS non conference games this year

 

Big 10 - 3 ..............extra credit to Minny for playing USC :wacko:

 

Pac 10 - 8

 

so, somehow with 1 less team, and playing 1 MORE conference game the Pac 10 more than doubled the Big 10 in quality non conference games - it is effing pathetic is what is - and you guys get all bent out of shape bc I pick on the Big 10 - well, there ya go.

 

The big bad Big 10's signature non conference W is unranked Miami

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, let's take a look at some numbers shall we???? used Pac 10 as a gauge.......

 

Currently Ranked BCS non conference games this year

 

Big 10 - 3 ..............extra credit to Minny for playing USC :wacko:

 

Pac 10 - 8

 

so, somehow with 1 less team, and playing 1 MORE conference game the Pac 10 more than doubled the Big 10 in quality non conference games - it is effing pathetic is what is - and you guys get all bent out of shape bc I pick on the Big 10 - well, there ya go.

 

The big bad Big 10's signature non conference W is unranked Miami

:tup: You attack the Big 10 in threads that have very little to do with the Big 10, ad nauseam, and I'm "bent out of shape"? I'm just tired of hearing about it. Nobody cares (except you, apparently). I have not seen the Pac-10 win a bowl game that matters (really, they're the only ones that matter) in recent memory... other than USC, back when their payroll was comparable to that of the Buffalo Bills. Yet, I (and nobody else, for that matter) don't go around bashing the Pac-10 on an almost daily basis. I don't care about the Pac-10 enough to rip on them constantly, even though if anybody should, it would be me. After all, I live in the middle of Pac-10 country, and can say with absolute certainty that I have never met more delusional fans than those on the left coast. I just don't really understand what it is that gets you so riled up about the Big 10. It's like an inferiority complex, almost. I'm not saying the Pac 10 is or isn't inferior... I just honestly don't understand how the Big 10 gets your goat so badly.

 

That's all I'm saying... If you're going to "contribute" to the board, then do so. Conference bashing (Big 10 or otherwise) is lame. I used to think that maybe it was because Arizona sucked, so you had nothing better to talk about, and therefore stroked the Pac-10, while bashing the conference that the Pac-10 strives to be. But, Arizona has improved, and you still continue to do so, so that theory goes out the window. Plus, if a team's "suckiness" determined how much someone talked about the conference vs. conference debate, I would be the one hanging on my conference's nuts all day, not you (since my team is literally in the bottom five of the entire BCS ranking).

 

There's something to hang your hat on... The worst team in the Big 10, and arguably the worst major-conference team in the entire country (Minnesota), gave USC (a middle-of-the-pack Pac 10 team) all they could handle this year. In fact, I didn't say anything at the time, but after watching that game, I can honestly say that USC (who I would imagine you agree is in the top five of the Pac 10) would lose to at least half the teams in the Big 10, if not more. Going into that game, I thought USC would absolutely trounce my Gophers. Not only did they not do so, the Trojans were fortunate to come out of Minnesota with a win at all. In fact, USC was no more dominant against Minnesota than the likes of South Dakota, Northern Illinois, and Purdue. So, let's wait until the season plays out before we call anybody overrated, shall we?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gopher- u miss the point entirely....... do you honestly think I have some sort of personal vendetta against the Big 10?? I mean, seriously?

 

just using them to illustrate a point, that has actually been all to common of a theme in the Big 10 recent years - beat up on cupcakes, beef up your record and when all is said and done teams come out of a down conference (which, again using the Big 10 bc they have been down)

 

so maybe Boise is ranke too high, who knows. How about teams like MSU, OSU, Wisky, etc that play nobody non conference.

 

sorry but in this format, analyzing conferences carries major weight in the BCS argument....when the Big 10 plays an embarassing non conference slate - what else do we have??? I mean, let's get real here.

 

we can argue about Boise playing in the WAC and how bad it is etc. but now I am a Big 10 basher??? sorry- the numbers don't lie

 

how about they effing go play someone and I will be the first to give them props.

 

you don't like me pointing out major flaws in the Big 10 - then go somewhere else. I happen to love college football, not hate the Big 10, jeezus

Edited by wildcat2334
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wisconsin is a lot better than VT and Oregon State. And Michigan and Illinois would have punchers chances against both of them. Denard Robinson would run circles around that soft Oregon State d. Illinois actually has a pretty decent defense, and would do well against either of them. Boise never beat Alabama. Utah did. VT still lost to FCS East and being ranked tells me the voters are trying desperately to justify having Boise where they are. Conference Games are more important than Non-Conference games, simply because you play more of them. You have 8 straight weeks in most cases of grinding it out, and even when the Big Ten is down (It's not but you "watch a lot of football" so whatever) it's still tougher than a WAC slate. It just is. Wisconsin beat Arizona State. Win is a win. There are no excuses. If there were, then lets talk about the 21 gifts that Iowa handed Arizona in the 1st half of the game in Tuscon. Doesn't change the facts. Arizona beat Iowa. Nothing I can do about it, just like there was nothing Arizona couldn't do last year when Iowa beat them. Win is a win, loss is a loss.

 

Boise is a mid-major who plays a mid-major schedule. Plain and simple. Great, you playd Va Tech on a neutral field, and you played Oregon State in the trash can. Fantastic. Sandwiched in between is Wyoming. After that you have 8 bye weeks, while teams from BCS Conference have no such luxury. Sorry, but under the current BCS system where 2 teams make it, that means you don't deserve anything, but the BCS Bowl consolation prize which Boise State and their fans should be MORE than happy with. Get the big pay out, get to play on the big stage. That's great. Just don't try and tell me that they deserve to be considered to play for the MNC.

 

Once again it's the question of Do they deserve to be there or not. And the answer is no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gopher- u miss the point entirely....... do you honestly think I have some sort of personal vendetta against the Big 10?? I mean, seriously?

 

just using them to illustrate a point, that has actually been all to common of a theme in the Big 10 recent years - beat up on cupcakes, beef up your record and when all is said and done teams come out of a down conference (which, again using the Big 10 bc they have been down)

 

so maybe Boise is ranke too high, who knows. How about teams like MSU, OSU, Wisky, etc that play nobody non conference.

 

sorry but in this format, analyzing conferences carries major weight in the BCS argument....when the Big 10 plays an embarassing non conference slate - what else do we have??? I mean, let's get real here.

 

we can argue about Boise playing in the WAC and how bad it is etc. but now I am a Big 10 basher??? sorry- the numbers don't lie

 

how about they effing go play someone and I will be the first to give them props.

 

you don't like me pointing out major flaws in the Big 10 - then go somewhere else. I happen to love college football, not hate the Big 10, jeezus

I completely agree that it would be nice to see the better teams in the Big 10 play tougher competition in their non-conference schedule. My point is this... when you talk about the top teams from major conferences, I am a firm believer than anbody can beat anybody, on any given Saturday. The exceptions to that general rule, over the years, have been few and far between. In other words, teams that were head and shoulders above everyone else in the country, over the past 20 years, I can count on one hand. There is too much parity in college football for that to be the case (where one team is that much better than the rest) very often.

 

The bottom line, when it comes to conferences, is this... Nobody outside of the SEC should be saying anything about anybody else. They are 6-0 in BCS championship games. The next "best" conference record is the Big 12 at 2-5. Nobody else has won more than one BCS title game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I completely agree that it would be nice to see the better teams in the Big 10 play tougher competition in their non-conference schedule. My point is this... when you talk about the top teams from major conferences, I am a firm believer than anbody can beat anybody, on any given Saturday. The exceptions to that general rule, over the years, have been few and far between. In other words, teams that were head and shoulders above everyone else in the country, over the past 20 years, I can count on one hand. There is too much parity in college football for that to be the case (where one team is that much better than the rest) very often.

 

The bottom line, when it comes to conferences, is this... Nobody outside of the SEC should be saying anything about anybody else. They are 6-0 in BCS championship games. The next "best" conference record is the Big 12 at 2-5. Nobody else has won more than one BCS title game.

 

You're absolutely right. There have been only a handful of truly "great" teams in the last 20 years. 95 Nebraska, 99 Florida State, 01 Miami, 04 USC, and 05 Texas. There are a few in that 2nd tier, but those teams are the only ones that I would label is "great."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wisconsin is a lot better than VT and Oregon State. And Michigan and Illinois would have punchers chances against both of them. Denard Robinson would run circles around that soft Oregon State d. Illinois actually has a pretty decent defense, and would do well against either of them. Boise never beat Alabama. Utah did. VT still lost to FCS East and being ranked tells me the voters are trying desperately to justify having Boise where they are. Conference Games are more important than Non-Conference games, simply because you play more of them. You have 8 straight weeks in most cases of grinding it out, and even when the Big Ten is down (It's not but you "watch a lot of football" so whatever) it's still tougher than a WAC slate. It just is. Wisconsin beat Arizona State. Win is a win. There are no excuses. If there were, then lets talk about the 21 gifts that Iowa handed Arizona in the 1st half of the game in Tuscon. Doesn't change the facts. Arizona beat Iowa. Nothing I can do about it, just like there was nothing Arizona couldn't do last year when Iowa beat them. Win is a win, loss is a loss.

 

Boise is a mid-major who plays a mid-major schedule. Plain and simple. Great, you playd Va Tech on a neutral field, and you played Oregon State in the trash can. Fantastic. Sandwiched in between is Wyoming. After that you have 8 bye weeks, while teams from BCS Conference have no such luxury. Sorry, but under the current BCS system where 2 teams make it, that means you don't deserve anything, but the BCS Bowl consolation prize which Boise State and their fans should be MORE than happy with. Get the big pay out, get to play on the big stage. That's great. Just don't try and tell me that they deserve to be considered to play for the MNC.

 

Once again it's the question of Do they deserve to be there or not. And the answer is no.

 

ugh-I expected a better response out of you - I give you solid facts and you give me "wisky is better than VT and OSU" seriously?? and gift points Iowa handed UA - get outta here with this nonsense - damn.

 

The Big 10's big non conference W is Miami FLA. period. end of story. Waat is your response to the Big 10 having 3 quality non conference opponents? it really is indefensible - and it isn't about Boise or the Pac 10 vs the Big 10 - it is the whole picture, and sorry the Big 10 non conference tests leave us knowing absolutely nothing, yet again.

 

It is mind boggling that you really think the entire country is drinking Boise St. blue kool aid , and that returning 19 starters from a damn good 14-0 team has no business being in contention for the national title game

 

Sorry to disagree with you, I happen to think Wisky would be a middle-tier team in the Pac 10 this year - behind Oregon, Stan, UA at best

Edited by wildcat2334
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boise is a mid-major who plays a mid-major schedule. Plain and simple. Great, you playd Va Tech on a neutral field, and you played Oregon State in the trash can. Fantastic. Sandwiched in between is Wyoming. After that you have 8 bye weeks, while teams from BCS Conference have no such luxury. Sorry, but under the current BCS system where 2 teams make it, that means you don't deserve anything, but the BCS Bowl consolation prize which Boise State and their fans should be MORE than happy with. Get the big pay out, get to play on the big stage. That's great. Just don't try and tell me that they deserve to be considered to play for the MNC.

 

Once again it's the question of Do they deserve to be there or not. And the answer is no.

Of course Boise doesn't deserve to be there. I mean come on. :wacko: Who the frick do they play?

 

Oh yeah every year they play a decent BCS team or two, but who do they play the rest of the season? Sorry but Little Boise does not DESERVE to play for a National Championship over ANY one loss team coming out of the major conferences. Understand I'm not saying they arn't good enough just not deserving.

 

And for those who try to defend Little Boise by saying no one will schedule them?? Let's look at the hard facts.

 

Why would a team like LSU, OK, Ohio State gain by playing a home and home series with Little Boise? Nothing ranking rise and certainly not financially. I know Wildcat will come a calling saying Oregon played them on the Blue turf. Well maybe that has to do with the fact that a very successful shoe company (crappy shoes from spammers) owns the Ducks and $$ talks and apparently that company (crappy shoes from spammers) convinced Oregon they would make up the financial loss. Facts are the historically top teams in the SEC sellout 90,000 plus stadiums that generate millions of revenue. So why would any SEC team of any worth agree to a home and home series to go play in front of 35,000 instead of 90,000. It just doesn't make sense.

 

Plus those teams in the SEC normally play at least 2 super tough conference road games each season while Little Boise has to travel places like Ruston, LA, Las Cruces, NM , San Jose, CA, Moscow, ID, and Reno, NV .

 

Sorry if Boise wants the voters to say they DESERVE it, then at least schedule a SEC type road conference schedule with your OCC schedule to make up for your weak a$$ conference schedule without demanding a return home game. I'm sure all the top SEC teams and the OK's, TX's, Ohio State's, USC's would agree to play. :tup:

Edited by Rockerbraves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rocker, the last time Boise went to SEC country, it was uuuuuuuugly. They have only 1 significant road win on a BCS Teams home field in the last 5 years, and that was Oregon in 2008. Every other time they've lost (mostly against Pac 10 teams, including really lousy ones like Washington in 2007)

 

Those are facts wildcat. And wildcat, your "facts" have nothing to do with my argument at all. The only thing you've said against my argument is "you watch a lot of football." As if I'm supposed to just bow down to the all knowing wildcat because he says he watches a lot of football. You just dog on the Big Ten every year. You woulda thought after Big Ten #1 dominated Pac 10 #1 in the Rose Bowl last year that you would've cooled it a bit, but apparently nothing changes. You're hanging your hat on Arizona State LOSING to Wisconsin as some sort of final verdict on an entire conference as we're barely halfway through the year. Boise hung their hat on wins over VT and OSU, and they aren't even 4 weeks in. Now they get 8 bye weeks. Those are facts. No BCS team gets 8 bye weeks. Once again, Boise is good. And in a playoff I would give them a chip and a chair. But there is no playoff. They will have proven absolutely nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rocker, the last time Boise went to SEC country, it was uuuuuuuugly. They have only 1 significant road win on a BCS Teams home field in the last 5 years, and that was Oregon in 2008. Every other time they've lost (mostly against Pac 10 teams, including really lousy ones like Washington in 2007)

 

Those are facts wildcat. And wildcat, your "facts" have nothing to do with my argument at all. The only thing you've said against my argument is "you watch a lot of football." As if I'm supposed to just bow down to the all knowing wildcat because he says he watches a lot of football. You just dog on the Big Ten every year. You woulda thought after Big Ten #1 dominated Pac 10 #1 in the Rose Bowl last year that you would've cooled it a bit, but apparently nothing changes. You're hanging your hat on Arizona State LOSING to Wisconsin as some sort of final verdict on an entire conference as we're barely halfway through the year. Boise hung their hat on wins over VT and OSU, and they aren't even 4 weeks in. Now they get 8 bye weeks. Those are facts. No BCS team gets 8 bye weeks. Once again, Boise is good. And in a playoff I would give them a chip and a chair. But there is no playoff. They will have proven absolutely nothing.

That's his thing... talk about how much football he watches, and that so-and-so passes his "eye test." Like that matters to anyone. And, I'm pretty sure we all watch a lot of football, so the fact that he does is absolutely meaningless. He just happens to be the only one who mentions it... over, and over, and over. :tup:

 

Lots of opinions thrown around here... very few actual substantial facts. I'm still trying to figure out how the better teams in the Big 10 would be middle-of-the-road in the Pac 10, yet a middle-of-the-road Pac 10 team had trouble beating what is clearly THE WORST Big 10 team this year, and arguably one of the worst five teams in all of Division 1. :tup:

 

Going back to the topic at hand... Boise State just reminds me an awful lot of Gonzaga in hoops. Sure, they can play with (and beat) the best teams in the nation. They've proven it time and time again, out of conference. But, the simple truth is that a non-conference game or two just isn't the same as an 8-game conference schedule, where you could lose any given game within that stretch. More importantly, the games that were supposedly going to be such tough games for Boise have turned out to be somewhat fraudulent. VTech simply isn't as good as people originally thought, and Oregon State is a fraud as well, basically.

 

So, all of that said, what's left... Boise is a top three team because they are returning 19 starters? :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rocker, the last time Boise went to SEC country, it was uuuuuuuugly. They have only 1 significant road win on a BCS Teams home field in the last 5 years, and that was Oregon in 2008. Every other time they've lost (mostly against Pac 10 teams, including really lousy ones like Washington in 2007)

 

Those are facts wildcat. And wildcat, your "facts" have nothing to do with my argument at all. The only thing you've said against my argument is "you watch a lot of football." As if I'm supposed to just bow down to the all knowing wildcat because he says he watches a lot of football. You just dog on the Big Ten every year. You woulda thought after Big Ten #1 dominated Pac 10 #1 in the Rose Bowl last year that you would've cooled it a bit, but apparently nothing changes. You're hanging your hat on Arizona State LOSING to Wisconsin as some sort of final verdict on an entire conference as we're barely halfway through the year. Boise hung their hat on wins over VT and OSU, and they aren't even 4 weeks in. Now they get 8 bye weeks. Those are facts. No BCS team gets 8 bye weeks. Once again, Boise is good. And in a playoff I would give them a chip and a chair. But there is no playoff. They will have proven absolutely nothing.

 

fwiw - I think Boise will eventually fall a few spots in the BCS - talk about proving nothing- look no further than Mich State - a Win over Wisky is all they have proven - and they sit at #7? ridiculous - I can agree Oregon as good as they look hasn't proven anything yet either.....

 

hanging my hat on ASU and Wisky?? what in the world are you talking about... let's just stick with Wins and facts for now, shall we? I think a pretty good barometer on the strength of a conference is when one of your weaker teams goes into Austin and dominates Texas- fact. OR UA slapping Iowa around - fact.....who may end up being the best team in the Big 10.......

 

Big 10 has ZERO non conference wins vs top 25 BCS teams - ZERO. 0-3, thanks for playing fellas. The 8 WAC bye weeks is off-base as well homie - Nevada, Fresno and Hawaii are not bad squads.

 

I guess I don't balme the Big 10 for not scheduling anyone legit since they usually get beatdown when they venture out of the rust belt. I highly doubt Iowa will be heading out west anytime soon.

 

this is funny to me, like I am completely coming out of left field thinking Boise State is one of the best teams in the country...... face it, watching teams play and ranking them accordingly is how it is these days - and Boise is as good as anyone in the country

Edited by wildcat2334
Link to comment
Share on other sites

fwiw - I think Boise will eventually fall a few spots in the BCS - talk about proving nothing- look no further than Mich State - a Win over Wisky is all they have proven - and they sit at #7? ridiculous - I can agree Oregon as good as they look hasn't proven anything yet either.....

 

hanging my hat on ASU and Wisky?? what in the world are you talking about... let's just stick with Wins and facts for now, shall we? I think a pretty good barometer on the strength of a conference is when one of your weaker teams goes into Austin and dominates Texas- fact. OR UA slapping Iowa around - fact.....who may end up being the best team in the Big 10.......

 

Big 10 has ZERO non conference wins vs top 25 BCS teams - ZERO. 0-3, thanks for playing fellas. The 8 WAC bye weeks is off-base as well homie - Nevada, Fresno and Hawaii are not bad squads.

 

I guess I don't balme the Big 10 for not scheduling anyone legit since they usually get beatdown when they venture out of the rust belt. I highly doubt Iowa will be heading out west anytime soon.

this is funny to me, like I am completely coming out of left field thinking Boise State is one of the best teams in the country...... face it, watching teams play and ranking them accordingly is how it is these days - and Boise is as good as anyone in the country

That's what amazes me. This whole thread was started by someone making an absolute statement about who does and doesn't belong at the top and uses some rather context dependent arguments to back it up. All you and I are saying is, "Hey, they look as good as anyone else." And now we're a bunch of know-it-alls who hate the Big 10.

 

Brian, your whole argument is based on the assumption that the Big 10 is a strong enough conference to assume MSU should be above BSU. The problem is, there's actually a paucity of real data to support this. That doesn't make it untrue, but rather, subject to the same eyeball test you seem to be condemning me and Wildcat for using to support our argument that BSU belongs where they are. Well, either the eyeball test or tradition, which means we're not just looking at this year, which is also something that doesn't seem to be allowed in the case of BSU.

 

That's the thing. At this point in the season, there is simply not enough data to separate any of the unbeatens from the pack (either ahead of or behind). So it is not up to me and wildcat to prove BSU belongs where they are. It's up to you to prove they don't. And the only thing you have is "Wisc, Mich, Ill is a tougher 3 game stretch..." Says who? Has either Michigan or Illinois beaten anyone good? Wouldn't they have to in order to be considered a tough out? So, again, it comes back to a non-evidence based argument, "Because they're in the Big 10".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again this argument didn't start out as exclusive to Michigan State, but I used that as an example. And wildcat, you were the one talking about Arizona States loss to Wisconsin is somehow something great for the Pac 10 to hang their hat on. They lost. You don't get credit for losses. If you did then what about the 2nd worst team in the Big Ten last year ALMOST beat Pac 10 #1 in Autzen stadium, and lost in double OT. Did that prove anything for the Big Ten? No, so stop pointing to Pac 10 losses. No one cares that the Pac 10 plays more tougher teams, if they lost. UCLA winning at Texas is great. Arizona beating Iowa is great. USC struggling to Win at Big Ten #11. GREAT! I find it ironic that the Pac 10's BEST win was over an overrated Big Ten team at home. And I doubt that will shy Iowa away from signing home and homes with Pac 10 teams. By that logic, Arizona wants nothing to do with playing a morning game at Iowa City, when Iowa dominated Arizona last year. Iowa has had home and homes with Pac 10 teams over the past 14 years. Thats 6 games. Twice with Arizona (96 98, 09, and 10) and once with Arizona State (03 and 04). Home teams have held serve in all 6 games. So if the money is there, I'm pretty sure both Iowa and a Pac 10 team would have no problem signing more home and homes with each other. Iowa's biggest problem with non-conference scheduling is having the ugly little step brother Iowa State as a rival. My hope is the Big ten goes to a 9 game conference schedule, and Iowa's insistence on having 7 home games, will say cya to Iowa State, leaving a bigger opening to sign more quality teams. I got news for ya though wildcat, the big boys aren't lining up to mix it up with Iowa to begin with. The big boys either want to play each other for big money games, or they don't want to mix it up with anyone in that next tier.

 

One final thought on Boise State. I brought this up before. If they want respect, then they should adopt the Fresno State way of scheduling, which is "they'll play anyone anywhere." Fresno State DOES schedule tough teams. The differences are staggering. Boise doesn't want to do that, because they have a lousy record. I pointed it out in a previous thread. They simply don't win against BCS Conference teams on the road. 1 marquee road win in 5 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that anybody is questioning whether or not Boise State is really, really good. The question is whether or not they deserve to play in the national title game. Absolutely not!! There are at least 35 teams in the country that could go undefeated with their schedule. For most teams and conferences, the regular season will determine all by itself who the best teams in the country are. With Boise State, you have no choice but to guess. I'm not going to give somebody a chance to play for the national championship because we are guessing they are pretty good. Boise State, if you want to be taken seriously and have a chance for a national title, stop playing in the Middle-aged Women's Conference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that anybody is questioning whether or not Boise State is really, really good. The question is whether or not they deserve to play in the national title game. Absolutely not!! There are at least 35 teams in the country that could go undefeated with their schedule. For most teams and conferences, the regular season will determine all by itself who the best teams in the country are. With Boise State, you have no choice but to guess. I'm not going to give somebody a chance to play for the national championship because we are guessing they are pretty good. Boise State, if you want to be taken seriously and have a chance for a national title, stop playing in the Middle-aged Women's Conference.

 

Thank you! Perfectly said. FWIW, I would LOVE to see Boise in a playoff 1 and done scenario vs anyone. It would be a great football team. But that isn't the system we have. We have a very exclusive system unfortunately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that anybody is questioning whether or not Boise State is really, really good. The question is whether or not they deserve to play in the national title game. Absolutely not!! There are at least 35 teams in the country that could go undefeated with their schedule. For most teams and conferences, the regular season will determine all by itself who the best teams in the country are. With Boise State, you have no choice but to guess. I'm not going to give somebody a chance to play for the national championship because we are guessing they are pretty good. Boise State, if you want to be taken seriously and have a chance for a national title, stop playing in the Middle-aged Women's Conference.

 

one of the most idiotic statements I have seen in a while- and that is saying something.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that anybody is questioning whether or not Boise State is really, really good. The question is whether or not they deserve to play in the national title game. Absolutely not!! There are at least 35 teams in the country that could go undefeated with their schedule. For most teams and conferences, the regular season will determine all by itself who the best teams in the country are. With Boise State, you have no choice but to guess. I'm not going to give somebody a chance to play for the national championship because we are guessing they are pretty good. Boise State, if you want to be taken seriously and have a chance for a national title, stop playing in the Middle-aged Women's Conference.

As opposed to the ACC or Big East? Or the Big 12 when OU had to get up for exactly one game each year and was still a TD+ favorite in that game? Exactly what is the difference besides the fact that we recognize the team names? For the most part, all these conferences play in a vacuum and cherry pick low hanging fruit from the others, so we actually have no idea at all whether or not the BCS conferences are, in fact, any better than the MWC on any given year. And, guess what, it doesn't matter anyway because we're only discussing one team from that conference anyway.

 

Everyone is drunk on tradition and assumes that teams we recognize are better than those we don't. People still call App State's victory over Michigan the biggest upset of all time. Why? Because it was Michigan and they were given a pre-season top 5 ranking. Nobody cares that they ended up not really being all that good that year. It was Michigan and that's all that matters. Would it have been as big a deal if Ariz St. or BYU or Cinci or Boston College lost to them? Not at all, but all four of those teams ended up ranked ahead of Michigan by the end of that season.

 

Listen, if the season ended today, BSU would be on the outside looking in. Further, plenty of teams behind them have chances to leap-frog them in the coming weeks. However, if they're one of two undefeated teams left standing at the end? You simply have to give it to them because we've done it before with teams that have skated through down versions of more "prestigious" conferences. Cinci was sitting in the exact same spot going into the bowls as BSU is sitting right now. That means if Colt throws that ball out of bounds one second later, they would have been playing for it all. Cinci, from the powerful Big East that is part of the "exclusive club" that Brian seems to covet.

 

And, besides, it's completely fair to the big boys. What BSU has going for them is that they, quite likely, have an easier path to going undefeated than most teams. What they have going against them is the fact that they'll likely be passed over regardless like they have in the past few years. So what is the big outrage? The same thing will happen this year unless enough teams lose. The only thing that won't happen this year is that BSU won't get passed over for 1-loss teams like they have in the past. How will that taint the precious BCS?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

one of the most idiotic statements I have seen in a while- and that is saying something.........

You honestly don't think there are 35 teams that could beat Virginia Tech and Oregon State? 35 was being quite conservative IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You honestly don't think there are 35 teams that could beat Virginia Tech and Oregon State? 35 was being quite conservative IMO.

 

 

ur smarter than this...things happen, Fresno, Hawaii, Nevada are pretty solid squads..

 

it is incredibly difficult to go thru an entire season undefeated- I don't care if it is the SEC or the WAC -

 

no, I think you are way off the mark here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As opposed to the ACC or Big East? Or the Big 12 when OU had to get up for exactly one game each year and was still a TD+ favorite in that game? Exactly what is the difference besides the fact that we recognize the team names? For the most part, all these conferences play in a vacuum and cherry pick low hanging fruit from the others, so we actually have no idea at all whether or not the BCS conferences are, in fact, any better than the MWC on any given year. And, guess what, it doesn't matter anyway because we're only discussing one team from that conference anyway.

 

Everyone is drunk on tradition and assumes that teams we recognize are better than those we don't. People still call App State's victory over Michigan the biggest upset of all time. Why? Because it was Michigan and they were given a pre-season top 5 ranking. Nobody cares that they ended up not really being all that good that year. It was Michigan and that's all that matters. Would it have been as big a deal if Ariz St. or BYU or Cinci or Boston College lost to them? Not at all, but all four of those teams ended up ranked ahead of Michigan by the end of that season.

 

Listen, if the season ended today, BSU would be on the outside looking in. Further, plenty of teams behind them have chances to leap-frog them in the coming weeks. However, if they're one of two undefeated teams left standing at the end? You simply have to give it to them because we've done it before with teams that have skated through down versions of more "prestigious" conferences. Cinci was sitting in the exact same spot going into the bowls as BSU is sitting right now. That means if Colt throws that ball out of bounds one second later, they would have been playing for it all. Cinci, from the powerful Big East that is part of the "exclusive club" that Brian seems to covet.

 

And, besides, it's completely fair to the big boys. What BSU has going for them is that they, quite likely, have an easier path to going undefeated than most teams. What they have going against them is the fact that they'll likely be passed over regardless like they have in the past few years. So what is the big outrage? The same thing will happen this year unless enough teams lose. The only thing that won't happen this year is that BSU won't get passed over for 1-loss teams like they have in the past. How will that taint the precious BCS?

The Big East and ACC are drastically better and deeper than the MWC. Even still, if Cinci would have made the game, it wouldn't have been right. They would have been blown out and everybody would be kicking themselves for allowing a team like that to play with the big boys. I'm not saying it won't happen, I'm simply saying it shouldn't. We think Boise State is pretty good, but again, I don't want to watch a championship game where a team is there based on a hunch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Big East and ACC are drastically better and deeper than the MWC. Even still, if Cinci would have made the game, it wouldn't have been right. They would have been blown out and everybody would be kicking themselves for allowing a team like that to play with the big boys. I'm not saying it won't happen, I'm simply saying it shouldn't. We think Boise State is pretty good, but again, I don't want to watch a championship game where a team is there based on a hunch.

Unfortunately, I live in ACC country and "get" to watch plenty. It's a horrid conference. Trust me on that one. V Tech will win the ACC.

 

As for the Cinci deal last year. If we would have been kicking ourselves over letting them in, who would be the alternative? Surely you're not implying that we should have just replayed the SEC Championship or forgive UT's loss. Well, guess who else was right there? BSU and TCU.

 

So, basically, what you're saying is that we throw out the computers and just pick two teams that are the sorts of teams that people have come to expect ought to be playing for it all.

 

Regardless, the way you guys are arguing, you'd think the way they pick the teams for the BCS Championship is something good that shouldn't be messed with. That game has been horrible as often as it's been good. You don't want teams in there based on a hunch? Welcome to D1 college ball my friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, I live in ACC country and "get" to watch plenty. It's a horrid conference. Trust me on that one. V Tech will win the ACC.

 

As for the Cinci deal last year. If we would have been kicking ourselves over letting them in, who would be the alternative? Surely you're not implying that we should have just replayed the SEC Championship or forgive UT's loss. Well, guess who else was right there? BSU and TCU.

 

So, basically, what you're saying is that we throw out the computers and just pick two teams that are the sorts of teams that people have come to expect ought to be playing for it all.

 

Regardless, the way you guys are arguing, you'd think the way they pick the teams for the BCS Championship is something good that shouldn't be messed with. That game has been horrible as often as it's been good. You don't want teams in there based on a hunch? Welcome to D1 college ball my friend.

Florida and Ohio State were the next BEST teams, regardless of record, agree? I want to see the best teams. The championship game should be the tool to determine who is the best team, not a game between teams that "deserve" to be there based on their record. If the final four was based on regular season records regardless of conference, Gonzaga would have a half-dozen final four appearances over the past dozen years, but in reality, they have clearly shown that they are not worthy of being at that elite level. The TCU/BSU game was a tragedy, but don't you think Florida would have steamrolled either one of them realistically?

 

The ACC is not particularly good, but compared to the MWC? Come on. Look at that conference. The top-tier of the conference is good, as with almost any conference, but the mid and lower tier teams are absolutely horrific. Every conference has a few bottom-feeders, but the MWC has at least a handful, if not more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Florida and Ohio State were the next BEST teams, regardless of record, agree? I want to see the best teams. The championship game should be the tool to determine who is the best team, not a game between teams that "deserve" to be there based on their record. If the final four was based on regular season records regardless of conference, Gonzaga would have a half-dozen final four appearances over the past dozen years, but in reality, they have clearly shown that they are not worthy of being at that elite level. The TCU/BSU game was a tragedy, but don't you think Florida would have steamrolled either one of them realistically?

 

The ACC is not particularly good, but compared to the MWC? Come on. Look at that conference. The top-tier of the conference is good, as with almost any conference, but the mid and lower tier teams are absolutely horrific. Every conference has a few bottom-feeders, but the MWC has at least a handful, if not more.

No, I don't agree and that's the point. I think schools from smaller conferences have done enough to prove that they're more than capable of competing against schools from larger conferences. Enough so that I think it is folly to assume that they're not as good. So, no, I don't think it would be safe to say that FLA or OSU were the next BEST teams.

 

And no, the ACC is simply not stronger. Mind you, I don't know the MWC, but they'd have to be an absolute disgrace for them to be any worse than the ACC. The bottom is putrid. Duke and Wake are getting waxed by anyone who doesn't also suck. Army beat Duke and badly (it was 35-7 going into the 4th) Wake has played stronger teams but is just getting pummeled by all of them. BC and UVA are also a mess this year(which btw, is quite an indictment on FSU beating them by less than a TD this week). In the local paper, they did a mid-season prediction of how the teams would finish and actually put Duke ahead of UVA. So, there's your "handful". A third of the conference that are absolutely easy outs. There is no team at the top that has proven itself as a consistently good team and the middle teams are fine enough but certainly capable of laying a major egg against anyone. Sure UNC could have been great this year had they not screwed up and lost all that talent to suspensions but...

 

More importantly,, there are too few games available, so why waste any of them confirming what we already know? In the case of last year, since Bama had just beaten FLA by 20 pts on a neutral field, then it didn't matter if they might be the next best team in the country because it was certainly clear enough they weren't the best. How many years in the NFL has one conference been clearly better than the other and either the AFC or NFC Championship pitted the two best teams in football? Do we just ignore the champ from the other conference and let those two play again, just because it seems like those are the two best teams? Certainly not.

 

So, it seems like you're the one who wants to play the hunch. Because you seem to be prepared to let a team that has done enough to prove that it most certainly is not the best team in football have another crack at the championship because you think they might be the second best. Meanwhile, there's been a team that has beaten everyone in front of them so, while we don't know if they're the best, we certainly don't know they're not. But you want to pass them over. Despite the fact that the program has shown in recent years that it is not a fluke. And before you play the "it only matters what happens this year" card. Realize that, by assuming traditionally elite schools are better, you are absolutely taking years other than this one into account.

 

Because you know and I know that if Boise finally got a crack and played a great game against whatever big conference team they play in the final, that they either won the thing or lost a close and well-played game, it would change the argument for years to come. Which, btw, is likely why the BCS put TCU vs BSU last year, because they don't want to open that can of worms at all. If they honestly felt that BSU couldn't compete, they'd give 'em a shot against a truly elite team, just once, watch them get their asses kicked and then not have to worry about them ever again.

Edited by detlef
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information