BSU as a Model

Imagine if Ohio State played against VaTech last night and then played an entire WAC schedule. How pissed would everybody be when Ohio State would (inevitably) be undefeated every year? That's the exact same scenario people are defending Boise for.
GREAT point! But no one ever looks at it that way.
Also, how would everybody feel if Nebraska had one loss this year (let's say to Texas A&M) but won the Big 12 title. Would people be O.K. with an undefeated Boise State jumping us to play in the MNC game?

 
A weak schedule may explain why BSU has the most wins in the NCAA since 2000 --- and it may explain the best winning percentage since 2000 --- BUT... does it really logically explain away the reality that BSU is 4-1 v. AP TOP TEN TEAMS since 2000 and all were on the road/neutral sites, none on the Smurf Field? That .800 winning percentage against top 10 teams is also the nations best.

You my friend are simply, it would seem, unwilling to give props were props are due. Why? I have no idea. But BSU has earned its stripes and everyone's respect. They have a great program. I love NU and love our program --- but am willing to concede that the BSU program is outstanding and worthy of respect.
First and foremost, I like Boise State. So let's get that out of the way first.

Second, consider this situation. Let's say it was Ohio State that played Virginia Tech last night and won. They then went on to play a WAC schedule and got an invite to the BCS title game over a one loss Nebraska team that won the Big 12 championship game. Is that fair to you?

The point of the whole scenario is this: they play a weak schedule and thus are mentally and physically prepared for the one/two good teams they play every year. If you put them in the SEC or Big 12 and forced them compete and scheme against the best minds in the business, they would tire out just like everybody else. You put them in the SEC or Big 12 over the last decade, they plain and simply do not win as many games as they have. They're a good program, but they play in a conference barely worthy of a division one ranking. Throw a team like Missouri in for Boise State in the WAC and they probably go 49-4 under a coach too.
I see your point and there is some validity to it... but consider... you posit that "a team like Missouri in.. the WAC and they probably go 49-4 under a coach too" --- but would Missouri win 80% of it's games against Top 10 competition and 2 BCS games as well? I think not. BSU's program is well, well, well above the level of the Missouri's of the world.

It is tough to admit it but they are good. And for the record... I do not like BSU at all (I live in Idaho and the fans there think that BSU could be the Saints) so... I wanted them to lose last night (even though my daughter goes to school there) --- just to shut up their fans.

I see it this way... BSU is not as good as their fans think they are and are much better than the rest of the nation thinks. Anyway... my point in all this was not the level of their program but the simple fact that they win when they should not --- and they win on grit and toughness and preparation which gives any "lesser" team hope against a "greater" team. Ans should give greater times pause for thought before they overlook a lesser team.

 
A weak schedule may explain why BSU has the most wins in the NCAA since 2000 --- and it may explain the best winning percentage since 2000 --- BUT... does it really logically explain away the reality that BSU is 4-1 v. AP TOP TEN TEAMS since 2000 and all were on the road/neutral sites, none on the Smurf Field? That .800 winning percentage against top 10 teams is also the nations best.

You my friend are simply, it would seem, unwilling to give props were props are due. Why? I have no idea. But BSU has earned its stripes and everyone's respect. They have a great program. I love NU and love our program --- but am willing to concede that the BSU program is outstanding and worthy of respect.
You cannot discount the advantage of that weak schedule. For 80% of the nation's top teams, the season is a marathon, not a sprint. Boise has the luxury of gearing up for - MAX - one or two games per year. They can easily sleepwalk through the rest and not concern themselves with a loss, or (for the most part) with the loss of stamina or players due to injury. Non-AQ football is a very different animal than AQ football, as we see with our weak non-con opponents.

 
A weak schedule may explain why BSU has the most wins in the NCAA since 2000 --- and it may explain the best winning percentage since 2000 --- BUT... does it really logically explain away the reality that BSU is 4-1 v. AP TOP TEN TEAMS since 2000 and all were on the road/neutral sites, none on the Smurf Field? That .800 winning percentage against top 10 teams is also the nations best.

You my friend are simply, it would seem, unwilling to give props were props are due. Why? I have no idea. But BSU has earned its stripes and everyone's respect. They have a great program. I love NU and love our program --- but am willing to concede that the BSU program is outstanding and worthy of respect.
First and foremost, I like Boise State. So let's get that out of the way first.

Second, consider this situation. Let's say it was Ohio State that played Virginia Tech last night and won. They then went on to play a WAC schedule and got an invite to the BCS title game over a one loss Nebraska team that won the Big 12 championship game. Is that fair to you?

The point of the whole scenario is this: they play a weak schedule and thus are mentally and physically prepared for the one/two good teams they play every year. If you put them in the SEC or Big 12 and forced them compete and scheme against the best minds in the business, they would tire out just like everybody else. You put them in the SEC or Big 12 over the last decade, they plain and simply do not win as many games as they have. They're a good program, but they play in a conference barely worthy of a division one ranking. Throw a team like Missouri in for Boise State in the WAC and they probably go 49-4 under a coach too.
I see your point and there is some validity to it... but consider... you posit that "a team like Missouri in.. the WAC and they probably go 49-4 under a coach too" --- but would Missouri win 80% of it's games against Top 10 competition and 2 BCS games as well? I think not. BSU's program is well, well, well above the level of the Missouri's of the world.

It is tough to admit it but they are good. And for the record... I do not like BSU at all (I live in Idaho and the fans there think that BSU could be the Saints) so... I wanted them to lose last night (even though my daughter goes to school there) --- just to shut up their fans.

I see it this way... BSU is not as good as their fans think they are and are much better than the rest of the nation thinks. Anyway... my point in all this was not the level of their program but the simple fact that they win when they should not --- and they win on grit and toughness and preparation which gives any "lesser" team hope against a "greater" team. Ans should give greater times pause for thought before they overlook a lesser team.
I understand where you are coming from as well, but it is my honest opinion that Boise State wins most of it's big games because they do not face the schedule the rest of the nation does. They allow themselves to gear up for big games by pretty much practicing against the rest of their conference. You throw them into a power conference and they lose at bare minimum 1-2 games a year and do not beat all the top tier competition they have.

 
A weak schedule may explain why BSU has the most wins in the NCAA since 2000 --- and it may explain the best winning percentage since 2000 --- BUT... does it really logically explain away the reality that BSU is 4-1 v. AP TOP TEN TEAMS since 2000 and all were on the road/neutral sites, none on the Smurf Field? That .800 winning percentage against top 10 teams is also the nations best.

You my friend are simply, it would seem, unwilling to give props were props are due. Why? I have no idea. But BSU has earned its stripes and everyone's respect. They have a great program. I love NU and love our program --- but am willing to concede that the BSU program is outstanding and worthy of respect.
You cannot discount the advantage of that weak schedule. For 80% of the nation's top teams, the season is a marathon, not a sprint. Boise has the luxury of gearing up for - MAX - one or two games per year. They can easily sleepwalk through the rest and not concern themselves with a loss, or (for the most part) with the loss of stamina or players due to injury. Non-AQ football is a very different animal than AQ football, as we see with our weak non-con opponents.
Sure... schedule is a factor in enabling a team prep for the one or two games. Sure. You stay healthier, are better able to focus. Agreed. But not the magnitude of schedule outside of the big games is not as big a factor as you ascribe it to be --- BSU still had to strap it up to beat 4 of the five top ten teams they beat. And beat them they did. Give them their due. They have been, and continue to be, impressive.

 
Imagine if Ohio State played against VaTech last night and then played an entire WAC schedule. How pissed would everybody be when Ohio State would (inevitably) be undefeated every year? That's the exact same scenario people are defending Boise for.
GREAT point! But no one ever looks at it that way.
Also, how would everybody feel if Nebraska had one loss this year (let's say to Texas A&M) but won the Big 12 title. Would people be O.K. with an undefeated Boise State jumping us to play in the MNC game?
For all the people defending Boise State....I'd like you all to look at the bold statement above and then answer.

Try this scenerio. How about Ohio State is undefeated and Alabama loses one game in the regular season but wins the SEC Championship against a Florida team thats ranked in the top 10 but Boise State is undefeated.

Who should play Ohio State in the MNC game?

 
Imagine if Ohio State played against VaTech last night and then played an entire WAC schedule. How pissed would everybody be when Ohio State would (inevitably) be undefeated every year? That's the exact same scenario people are defending Boise for.
GREAT point! But no one ever looks at it that way.
Also, how would everybody feel if Nebraska had one loss this year (let's say to Texas A&M) but won the Big 12 title. Would people be O.K. with an undefeated Boise State jumping us to play in the MNC game?
For all the people defending Boise State....I'd like you all to look at the bold statement above and then answer.

Try this scenerio. How about Ohio State is undefeated and Alabama loses one game in the regular season but wins the SEC Championship against a Florida team thats ranked in the top 10 but Boise State is undefeated.

Who should play Ohio State in the MNC game?
I know I can answer that in a heartbeat: Alabama deserves it.

 
Sure... schedule is a factor in enabling a team prep for the one or two games. Sure. You stay healthier, are better able to focus. Agreed. But not the magnitude of schedule outside of the big games is not as big a factor as you ascribe it to be --- BSU still had to strap it up to beat 4 of the five top ten teams they beat. And beat them they did. Give them their due. They have been, and continue to be, impressive.
I said in my first response that they're "very good." I'm not arguing that they're good/not good - they are a good team. All I'm saying is that being a good team isn't good enough when you play top-quality opposition week in and week out.

 
Sure... schedule is a factor in enabling a team prep for the one or two games. Sure. You stay healthier, are better able to focus. Agreed. But not the magnitude of schedule outside of the big games is not as big a factor as you ascribe it to be --- BSU still had to strap it up to beat 4 of the five top ten teams they beat. And beat them they did. Give them their due. They have been, and continue to be, impressive.
I said in my first response that they're "very good." I'm not arguing that they're good/not good - they are a good team. All I'm saying is that being a good team isn't good enough when you play top-quality opposition week in and week out.
i agree they are a good team. and i like what huskerjock said. not only do i not think boise st. is not a good enough team to play in the MNC (they are not a top 10 team, neither was va. tech), but they do not deserve to play in the MNC. even if they were the best team, you have to earn a chance to play in the MNC, at least with the way the BCS is set-up. it is a two tiered league and it should be. even though the big 12 is not the strongest league, what makes it hard is that week-in and week-out you are being challenged. you earn a spot in the MNC through your body of work throughout the season, not one or two games.

i guess NU should have kept scheduling a home and home with va. tech and joined the sun belt.

that is something else to think about, bsu is in a league where all the teams are schedule as non-conf. cupcakes. their whole existence is predicated on being so bad that good teams like to use them for practice. not even iowa st. is at that level.

finally, what if va. tech is in the bottom half of the acc? now is bsu's one win still good enough? whatever, i do not think they will get past oregon st. and if they do, hopefully they will get upset their last game. and if not, hopefully we meet them in the MNC and win, and if not, hopefully they get destroyed by tOSU or whoever and we never hear about them again.

 
Last I checked the Big 12 had a couple of openings. Problem solved, they want it they can come and get it. Also I thought we were in talks to play them, got into a sticking point of games, TO wanted a two and one, and BSU wanted a 1-1, is that out?

 
I noticed last night that it seemed like Boise State kept running the exact same handoff play to the left side late in the game and followed it up with a play-action to the end zone. They scored with it twice. I wouldn't have thought a Bud Foster-coached defense would have gotten beaten by those same two plays over and over. Makes me wonder whether a Pelini-coached defense would fall for it. I don't think Boise State versus Pelini would have had as much success moving the ball later in the game the way they did.

Something else to think about: Boise State got three early/easy scores off of VaTech blunders. Take away a few of these 17 points that BSU didn't even have to work for and it's a different game.

 
I am of the opinion that Boise St. should not be in the Title game if they go undefeated. With that said however, this argument that they can gear up and focus on only one game and not come in battle weary does not hold water. These teams that they have beaten were on their schedules early on. Not at the end. So, the BCS schools are indeed fresh and should be just as focused.

Now on the flip side, Boise St.'s 1st team in most of their conference games won't see the field beyond half-time. I would agree with most here that by the time they get to a BCS bowl, their players have half the season's wear on their bodies as opposed to their BCS opponents who've gone thru a heck of a schedule and played one extra game in a conference title game. The odds of Boise's 1st team players playing in a BCS game is a lot higher than a BCS school who may be down to their 2nd or 3rd team player in some positions on the field.

But still, Boise St. is a heck of a team. They are coached extremely well, have humongous heart, and plays with attitude. I think they have gotten the respect due to them. I know they earned my respect. But that respect doesn't mean they deserve a title shot over another undefeated BCS team either.

 
Also remember that VA Tech was not playing with their 2009 defense. They lost seven starters from the defense we played last year, while Boise St. returned nearly everyone on offense. It's a huge advantage to play a team in rebuilding mode when you return the opposing unit nearly intact.

 
Kudos to Boise State for developing themselves into a big fish in a little pond. Chris Petersen is a heck of a coach and I've long stated Colorado should have gone after him instead of Hawkins.

 
Back
Top