Why all the Boise St. Hate?

[SoCalhusker88]

I will preface this by saying i am completely biased because I played football with Austin Pettis in High School and grew up watching several of the boise st players in high school......but i have noticed there is a ton of hate for Boise on these boards and I know we had that issue about trying to play them for a home & home and what not but to be honest i'm not sure why you all are hating the Bronco Blue so much

 

[Landlord]

I like Boise. I think, everything else being equal, they could go up against anyone in the country on any given night, but don't believe they deserve to be rewarded handsomly for going through their schedule. If they beat an elite team in a bowl game it might be because they are that good, or it might be because they went on auto-pilot through the season whereas their opponent faced a nasty grind of turbulence. Who knows.

Kellen Moore is incredible though.

 

[sodakhusker36]

Might be some of the hate due to the fact that they play maybe 2 or 3 "tough" games a year. They played Virginia Tech, Nevada, and Oregon State that could be qualified as "tough" games. We saw how they did tonight. My point is the same as everyone else's, 2 or 3 "challenges" a year should not warrant a team to be considered for the national title game every year. This happens ivery year. They are making a step up by moving to the MWC.

 

[Nhusker23]

I don't like them because they feel like they deserve more attention and recognition for what they do and deserve to go to better bowls. But yet they're in the WAC conference, playing joke teams every week. If everyone had Boise State's schedule, I think there'd be at least 10 undefeated teams a season. You don't deserve to get recognition when you don't play anyone noteworthy.

 

[Nexus]

Might be some of the hate due to the fact that they play maybe 2 or 3 "tough" games a year. They played Virginia Tech, Nevada, and Oregon State that could be qualified as "tough" games. We saw how they did tonight. My point is the same as everyone else's, 2 or 3 "challenges" a year should not warrant a team to be considered for the national title game every year. This happens ivery year. They are making a step up by moving to the MWC.

I think it's a lateral move since Utah is Pac-12 bound while BYU is headed for independence. Had those 2 teams stayed, then the MWC would get a serious look for AQ status by the BCS.

 

[Hujan]

For me personally, it's a little frustrating to see my teams have to grind through a tough schedule while Boise State seems to take the shortcut to the top of the rankings by smothering some pathetic teams. I mean, when USC hangs half a hundred on San Jose State, USC fans go, "Yeah we looked good against SJSU, but what about ___________ . . . ." When Boise State does it, that's a big conference win.

The response to the above is, "Boise tries to schedule big-time programs, but they won't commit. Don't punish Boise because other schools won't play them." But considering there are only two spots available in the MNC game, you could take this one step further and ask, Why punish Auburn/Oregon/schools that do play a tough schedule because other schools won't schedule Boise and therefore Boise plays a soft schedule? It's certainly not Oregon's fault that Boise can't play anyone good. So if I have to choose between an undefeated Oregon and an undefeated Boise, I am going to pick Oregon every time.

I take some glee in seeing Boise lose because I get tired of jackholes like Pat Forde telling us how Boise is perfect. Yeah? Well they couldn't even get through their WAC schedule unscathed, let alone an AQ schedule. Bus.

 

[husker_hurdler]

wrong forum

 

[cHUSKERis]

I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that their fans think that their team is the next best thing. A few years ago when they first came to the scene people liked them because they were the underdogs and beat several very big teams. Then though came the holier then thou attitude of their fans, thinking they are the greatest team in the country and that they DESERVE a BCS bid because they always win out.

They win out against fluffball opponents, and their schedule, like the above poster said, are usually filled with only 2-3 true tests a year. They can take it easy the rest of the time, whereas their opponents from tougher conferences have to slog it out each week. The announcers of the game even said that Boise State typically didn't face tests like it did tonight against Nevada, both physically (their defense was "gassed"), emotionally, and mentally.

 

[SoCalhusker88]

For me personally, it's a little frustrating to see my teams have to grind through a tough schedule while Boise State seems to take the shortcut to the top of the rankings by smothering some pathetic teams. I mean, when USC hangs half a hundred on San Jose State, USC fans go, "Yeah we looked good against SJSU, but what about ___________ . . . ." When Boise State does it, that's a big conference win.

The response to the above is, "Boise tries to schedule big-time programs, but they won't commit. Don't punish Boise because other schools won't play them." But considering there are only two spots available in the MNC game, you could take this one step further and ask, Why punish Auburn/Oregon/schools that do play a tough schedule because other schools won't schedule Boise and therefore Boise plays a soft schedule? It's certainly not Oregon's fault that Boise can't play anyone good. So if I have to choose between an undefeated Oregon and an undefeated Boise, I am going to pick Oregon every time.

I take some glee in seeing Boise lose because I get tired of jackholes like Pat Forde telling us how Boise is perfect. Yeah? Well they couldn't even get through their WAC schedule unscathed, let alone an AQ schedule. Bus.

I feel like Nevada is a good team the absolutely killed Cal who gave Oregon their toughest game....not to mention they should have won if their kicker doesnt self distruct

 

[mnhusker]

I try to like them but as the season goes on and all tough conferences start to grind out a tough schedule against top teams and long time rivals and then I see that for Boise they play Utah State, Idaho, Hawaii, I start to grumble. When the season starts it all seems fine but when you watch as teams enter the grind it is hard to project what a Boise win in Idaho would mean against ...... Wisconsin, Ohio, Iowa, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Auburn, ect., still the way this is set up undefeated is undefeated so they will always get shot.

 

[irieboy8]

im from hawaii and i have every right to hate them......

:horns2

 

[Hujan]

Might be some of the hate due to the fact that they play maybe 2 or 3 "tough" games a year. They played Virginia Tech, Nevada, and Oregon State that could be qualified as "tough" games. We saw how they did tonight. My point is the same as everyone else's, 2 or 3 "challenges" a year should not warrant a team to be considered for the national title game every year. This happens ivery year. They are making a step up by moving to the MWC.

I think it's a lateral move since Utah is Pac-12 bound while BYU is headed for independence. Had those 2 teams stayed, then the MWC would get a serious look for AQ status by the BCS.

Agreed, though having TCU, Boise State, Fresno State, and Nevada in the same conference is no joke. They certainly deserve more recognition than the Big East. If one of those teams can go undefeated in the new MWC, I will be impressed. Having Utah and BYU in there would have easily made them one of the top 5 conferences.

 

[bshirt]

Because they were trying to say they "deserve" playing in the NC game for playing a bunch of high school teams in their conference.

It's a joke and so are they.

 

[krill]

I'm really impressed with the Boise program considering the location and that they were a I-AA program until 96. The scheduling has been terrible though. Nothing they can do about the quality of the WAC but being paid $1.25 million to play Va Tech on a neutral field in Maryland was a joke and wanting to be paid $1 million to play us for a home-home was an even bigger joke. But, they join the MWC next year and Nevada and Fresno join the year after. If TCU stays that is going to be a good football conference where they don't have to worry so much about the non-conference schedule strength.

Going to be interesting to see how empty Boise's cupboard is after this year too, so many seniors.

 

[Hujan]

For me personally, it's a little frustrating to see my teams have to grind through a tough schedule while Boise State seems to take the shortcut to the top of the rankings by smothering some pathetic teams. I mean, when USC hangs half a hundred on San Jose State, USC fans go, "Yeah we looked good against SJSU, but what about ___________ . . . ." When Boise State does it, that's a big conference win.

The response to the above is, "Boise tries to schedule big-time programs, but they won't commit. Don't punish Boise because other schools won't play them." But considering there are only two spots available in the MNC game, you could take this one step further and ask, Why punish Auburn/Oregon/schools that do play a tough schedule because other schools won't schedule Boise and therefore Boise plays a soft schedule? It's certainly not Oregon's fault that Boise can't play anyone good. So if I have to choose between an undefeated Oregon and an undefeated Boise, I am going to pick Oregon every time.

I take some glee in seeing Boise lose because I get tired of jackholes like Pat Forde telling us how Boise is perfect. Yeah? Well they couldn't even get through their WAC schedule unscathed, let alone an AQ schedule. Bus.

I feel like Nevada is a good team the absolutely killed Cal who gave Oregon their toughest game....not to mention they should have won if their kicker doesnt self distruct

Agreed, but Boise deserves blame for letting Nevada hang around too long. How they let Nevada back in that game is beyond me. Regarding Cal, the transitive property does not work in college football. I mean, USC absolutely destroyed Cal and got steamrolled by Oregon. We (NU) killed K State who beat Texas, yet we lost to Texas, etc.