Three Game Series with Boise State

GSG5545 said:
Boise is trying to play both sides of the fence here. First, they want only a home and home because they think they are a big boy program and deserve a home game without having a 2 for 1 deal. Then, they want a huge payout because they are still a little school and historically the big schools pay big money for a guaranteed win against a small school. They need to realize that's not going to fly with everyone. If they want to be a big school, then a home and home with no payout. If they want to be a little school, then a 2 for 1 with some monetary incentive. I honestly wouldn't mind playing them, except all the games would probably have to be on Thursday night.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I was trying to say. You made the argument far easier to understand than I did. Thanks.

 
great reading in this thread about the series, including fans from other schools perspectives. Boise State is going to look foolish nationwide if they dont accept this offer.

Rivals Main Board (no registration required)

response from a Bama fan to an idiot Iowa poster I found amusing...

Originally posted by IowaHawkeyeFBnBB4Life: Boise is more of a power currently than Nebraska is....it's embarrassing they would try to offer that. As a matter of fact if I recall, they offered Iowa a 2-1 earlier in the 2000's....

You picked on the wrong big dog! You'd be better off hating on SC or UF or even Bama.laugh

 

N has a top notch tradition and one of the best fan bases in all of sports! You should be happy N is recognizing your existence!
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Washusker said:
I'm sure Boise has said no because they don't want to come to Lincoln twice. Don't blame them, either. Boise is a big-time program.
Click to expand...
No, Boise wants to be a big time program-and they will never be considered one until they get rid of the retardoturf and join a real conference.

Until then, they are a joke.

 
Washusker said:
Boise is a big-time program.
Click to expand...
They are?

Boise State's Decade

Year - W/L (SOS)

2000 - 10/2 (107)

2001 - 8/4 (98)

2002 - 12/1 (112)

2003 - 13/1 (103)

2004 - 11/1 (78)

2005 - 9/4 (98)

2006 - 13/0 (90)

2007 - 10/3 (113)

2008 - 12/1 (94)

2009 - 14/0 (96)

Total: 112/17 (98.9)

Nebraska's Decade

Year - W/L (SOS)

2000 - 10/2 (20)

2001 - 11/2 (29)

2002 - 7/7 (28)

2003 - 10/3 (58)

2004 - 5/6 (55)

2005 - 8/4 (36)

2006 - 9/5 (51)

2007 - 5/7 (4)

2008 - 9/4 (38)

2009 - 10/4 (52)

Total: 84/44 (37.1)

I suppose on paper that 112/17 win/loss record looks pretty good compared to Nebraska's, and I'll give BSU props in that they've beaten a few teams here and there, but the crucial thing to look at is the strength of schedule. In the past ten years, our most embarrassingly weak schedule is still 20 points higher than BSU's most difficult schedule.

In Nebraska's worst decade in 40 years, we've been comparable to BSU's best decade in team history. Put Boise St. in a conference like the Big XII where they're getting pounded on by guys half again the size of the people they play every week and through sheer attrition they're going to lose more games. It's a lot easier to stay healthy when you're playing opponents week in and week out the caliber of the Sun Belt. Hell, we killed our three Sun Belt opponents this year - imagine what our record would look like if we played teams like that every week, and one Texas per year? Nobody hurt except in freak accidents, fresh legs all year long, plenty of time to put in any play imaginable for your bowl game because you could do bowl game prep every week of the season - the teams you're playing are so weak, you could run your base offense all year and score 45 points, no problem.

Boise State has had some nice seasons. They've beaten Oklahoma and Oregon recently. I'm happy for them, and I'm willing to respect those wins. But let's not lose our minds and claim they're anything more than a very good team in a very weak conference.

And another thing that separates us from Boise State - our fans know what our team was like 12 years ago. Our loyalty doesn't stem from just the last ten years. This bandwagon movement surrounding BSU is swell and all, but let's not ever claim they're in our league when it comes to fan loyalty or putting butts in seats. That's just silly.

 
And another thing, while I'm on the subject. Bronco Stadium's capacity is 33,500. That's like every seat in the South Stadium at Memorial Field. We're not going to see enough money out of a trip to Boise to cover expenses for the band, so what's our motivation to play on that god-awful blue turf up there?

 
Have you noticed ESPN does a great job of not showing how small that stadium really is during broadcasts? I dont believe Ive ever seen a full on shot of the stands.

 
mmmtodd said:
Have you noticed ESPN does a great job of not showing how small that stadium really is during broadcasts? I dont believe Ive ever seen a full on shot of the stands.
Click to expand...
No, but only because I typically avoid watching their home games. I get a headache from that blue field.

EDIT - I believe you, though. Look at the crowd shots they showed for Baylor (whomever did the broadcast). TV people typically don't like to show empty seats. I guess showing dense crowd shots makes the game more exciting?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It just reminds me of how you never saw one single anti-Craig James Sign, or Pro-Mike Leach sign during Texas Techs bowl game. And multiple reports stated that both were proliferate. They couldnt hide the sounds of boo's as lil James walked off at halftime with his armed escort though. I found that pretty funny. :espnsucks:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
knapplc said:
And another thing, while I'm on the subject. Bronco Stadium's capacity is 33,500. That's like every seat in the South Stadium at Memorial Field. We're not going to see enough money out of a trip to Boise to cover expenses for the band, so what's our motivation to play on that god-awful blue turf up there?
Click to expand...

Gives us a great excuse to paint our turf red when they come here. :woo

 
Last edited by a moderator:
:LOLtartar

here's to hoping that the Great State of Nebraska does not rely on our very own knapplc for cases involving numbers. ;)

 
It took me a second, but I figured out what you did. You figured winning percentage. If you read my post you'd see that the number in parentheses is the Strength of Schedule, and the bottom number is the average SOS.

I'll be the first to admit I'm not very good at math, but I'm not that bad. :laughpound

 
The simple fact is, Nebraska needs a minimum of seven home games to cover expenses incurred during the season by the athletic dept. If it was just a matter of covering only football costs, then it wouldn't be a problem scheduling home/home with big name programs.

Football covers 80 percent of all the other programs the athletic department provides, including a chancellor's discretionary fund totaling $2 million/year.

 
knapplc said:
It took me a second, but I figured out what you did. You figured winning percentage. If you read my post you'd see that the number in parentheses is the Strength of Schedule, and the bottom number is the average SOS.

I'll be the first to admit I'm not very good at math, but I'm not that bad. :laughpound
Click to expand...
Yeah..

I re-read your post and edited mine to acknowledge my mistake (I didn't innitially see where you meant to put strength of schedule rank in the ()'s..)...I thought they were total winning percentage.

Then, I noticed no one had responded yet, and tried to cover my tracks by deleting it..Thanks for digging it back up! :LOLtartar

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top