What is the rule exactly? If you're not tackled and your knee hits the ground, can you get up? Or, do the rules say any time your knee touches the ground you are down?
Are we facing the worst of the unbeatens?
- Thread starter JTrain
- Start date
MUTigerFan
Special Teams Player
I'm pretty sure you have to be the ball carrier and attempting to advance the ball. If that's the case then you're 'down' and you can't get up, unlike in the NFL where if you trip, you can still advance the ball until and opposing player touches you while you're down.
Nebula
Starter
I would have loved to have seen that too, mostly because I guess Boise State is kind of an enigma to me. I can't deny that they beat Oregon fairly soundly last year. The VT game was basically an away game for them and they won that convincingly, too. There are worse teams than Oregon State out there, so that is a quality win. I am reluctant to embrace Boise State, and I guess that pretty much all stems from disdain for their conference slate. (Of course, we have been located in the B12 North for 16 years now...) :lol:
knapplc
International Man of Mystery
I am reluctant to embrace Boise, too, but the bottom line is, they're damned good at what they do. They've long since erased the stigma of being a "gimmick" or a lucky team. I forget what their record against top 25 and top 10 teams is over the last decade, but it's pretty good.
The main caveat I give to Boise is that because they play such a weak schedule they have the luxury of planning for one team for weeks at a time. They have their base offense that NOBODY in the WAC can stop, so they don't have to do any game-planning for those opponents. They can spend all of Fall camp focusing on VA Tech, or several weeks in the regular season focusing on Nevada, and when the bowl game rolls around they are fresh and unburdened with injuries because they haven't played a rugged conference schedule like the rest of the good teams.
It is not Boise's fault, but it is unfair to put them in the same plane as Alabama or Oklahoma or Ohio St. or Oregon. Bottom line is, not one of those teams would have a different record than Boise's had they played Boise's schedule. On the flip side of that, there's no way that Boise goes undefeated last year playing Alabama's schedule, or Ohio State's. Through sheer attrition, injuries, whatever, they would have dents in their armor that good teams could exploit.
This is why a playoff is a better answer to the National Championship question than a bowl system. With a playoff, no matter how creampuff Boise's schedule is, they're going to have to earn the title in at least two tough games.
The main caveat I give to Boise is that because they play such a weak schedule they have the luxury of planning for one team for weeks at a time. They have their base offense that NOBODY in the WAC can stop, so they don't have to do any game-planning for those opponents. They can spend all of Fall camp focusing on VA Tech, or several weeks in the regular season focusing on Nevada, and when the bowl game rolls around they are fresh and unburdened with injuries because they haven't played a rugged conference schedule like the rest of the good teams.
It is not Boise's fault, but it is unfair to put them in the same plane as Alabama or Oklahoma or Ohio St. or Oregon. Bottom line is, not one of those teams would have a different record than Boise's had they played Boise's schedule. On the flip side of that, there's no way that Boise goes undefeated last year playing Alabama's schedule, or Ohio State's. Through sheer attrition, injuries, whatever, they would have dents in their armor that good teams could exploit.
This is why a playoff is a better answer to the National Championship question than a bowl system. With a playoff, no matter how creampuff Boise's schedule is, they're going to have to earn the title in at least two tough games.
Nebula
Starter
Well put. Upon further reflection, one might be inclined to conclude that it would be insane to put Boise at #7 :lol:
Being able to steamroll through your conference schedule using just a basic offensive set still agitates me, though. And the field. I don't like the blue field. Even though there is no question that the blue field has been of great benefit to them, it is the lone lingering aspect of Boise that can be legitimately pointed to as gimmicky in nature.
Being able to steamroll through your conference schedule using just a basic offensive set still agitates me, though. And the field. I don't like the blue field. Even though there is no question that the blue field has been of great benefit to them, it is the lone lingering aspect of Boise that can be legitimately pointed to as gimmicky in nature.
knapplc
International Man of Mystery
Perhaps to that point, Sagarin has us ranked ahead of Sparty (might as well get used that term
). We're 9th to their 13th, and we've played the 41st SOS to their 65th. Clearly Sagarin's computer is unimpressed with Sparty's wins.
Last edited by a moderator:
This is how I feel about Boise State as well.
I actually had a couple of people try to convince me a few weeks ago that the attrition argument doesn't matter for Boise State. They then tried to compare Nebraska's and Boise State's schedule saying Nebraska's was just as weak because of the subconference they play in, not even including the southern opponents in the argument nor the fact that there is a championship game in the Big 12 and not in the WAC.
I thought it a poor argument, to say the least.
The fact of the matter is this: Boise State doesn't have leaps and bounds better talent than the rest of the WAC (their team is littered with mostly 2 and 3 star talent), but their coaching staff and players are now just that much better than the rest of the WAC. The teams they play aren't near as physical, don't have near the coaching talent, nor near the player talent of any of the power conferences as a collective whole. Boise State is a one-two loss team minimum in the Big 12 and probably a two-three loss team in the SEC after running through a gauntlet of a schedule like Alabama's.
Last edited by a moderator:
papersun87
All-American
To all of you ranking TCU low on the list . . . would you want us to go against their D that's only allowed one touchdown this MONTH?
It'sNotAFakeID
All-American
1) Oregon
2) Auburn
3) TCU
4) Missouri
5) Michigan State
6) Boise State
7) Utah
2) Auburn
3) TCU
4) Missouri
5) Michigan State
6) Boise State
7) Utah
JOEY
Special Teams Player
I have absolutely no respect for Boise state. They have all year to prepare for the 2 decent teams that they play and all they have to do is showup to beat these horrible opponents,they don't have to change their gameplan or anything when it comes to playing crap teams week after week like sanjosestate and Louisiana Tech.I'm not going to give them an ounce of respect till they get into a better conference.They would have 2-3 losses a year just from the wear and tear if they played in the pac-10,Big-12,Sec,Big-10.I like how they can't evan get a 40,000 seat stadium filled up there wasn't evan 32,000 people at that game last night.
EbylHusker
Banned
MSU looks to be the worst of the unbeatens to me.
JTrain
All-Conference
Yeah I've seen more MSU games than any of those other teams. And I rated them right in front of Utah. A fake FG (with play clock expired) in overtime to beat a bad Notre Dame team, plus a fake punt and a tipped ball TD catch to beat an average Northwestern team.
JTrain
All-Conference
So you rank Boise last because of their 69th ranked schedule (Sagarin) but no mention of Utah's 113th ranked schedule? What about Michigan State's schedule, which is almost identical (65th)? Or Oregon's (59th)? Oregon has only played one team that's worth a damn.
Last edited by a moderator: