Nebraska and Boise

[SaturnDrew]

We want no part of BSU. It is a no win situation. Beat them and people yawn. Lose and people scoff. This is why no one wants to play them.

 

I would not be yawning if Nebraska beat Boise State in a home opener. Maybe 5 years ago we would have, but times have changed. A win over Boise State would be huge. As for a loss? Well even Oregon got back in the Top 10 after losing to them before blowing it in Mighty Duck fashion last week.

[knapplc]

We want no part of BSU. It is a no win situation. Beat them and people yawn. Lose and people scoff. This is why no one wants to play them.

 

I would not be yawning if Nebraska beat Boise State in a home opener. Maybe 5 years ago we would have, but times have changed. A win over Boise State would be huge. As for a loss? Well even Oregon got back in the Top 10 after losing to them before blowing it in Mighty Duck fashion last week.

 

OK, you and I and all the other Husker fans wouldn't yawn, but would anyone else in America really care? It's not us we have to impress to get to good bowl games, it's the pollsters.

[SaturnDrew]

Perhaps NU doesn't want to play BSU since they want a $1,000,000 payday from us?

 

I don't know how we are doing financially, but scheduling a sun belt team for cheaper sounds like a lot better deal for us, easy win + lower payout.

 

source: http://www.idahostatesman.com/boisestatefo...ory/964486.html

 

The article on Yahoo really made it sound like Boise St. was doing it for free...why else would it be news? Lower level teams sell themselves out like this all the time. Yeah, I wouldn't schedule them for a million dollars either. Would be a good match, but might as well pay for an easy win.

[knapplc]

Stewart Mandel wrote something about this in his Mailbag:

 

The WAC commissioner [Karl Benson] stated last week that Boise State, with help from ESPN, has been trying to find a high-profile BCS team to host a 2011 game with the Broncos but have been turned down by about 10 teams. Do you think Boise State can continue building its program under such conditions? BSU won't be able to meet the Pac-10 academic infrastructure requirements in the near future, and the Mountain West has stated the Broncos are not welcome. So do the Broncos go independent, or do they just stay in the WAC and waste away once Chris Peterson gives up and leaves?

-- Mike Wallis, Portage, Ind.

 

First of all, while I don't doubt Boise has trouble landing marquee opponents, I wouldn't take that Benson quote at face value. As you may have read, the WAC has gone into full-on spin mode in hopes of placing the Broncos in a BCS bowl this year. The conference has even hired a p.r. firm to help elicit sympathy. So the timing of his "turned down by 10 teams for 2011" spiel seems highly suspicious. First of all, just a few months ago, Virginia Tech agreed to face the Broncos in Washington D.C. next season, so why are they suddenly panicking about 2011? Meanwhile, Benson conveniently neglected to mention that the school is seeking a $1 million guarantee. That's a steep price to pay for an opponent that's by no means a "guarantee."

 

That said, I can imagine it's incredibly frustrating for Boise State to deal with its unwanted BCS ceiling, for all the reasons Mike mentioned. Going independent is not a viable option. Its best bet is either to hold out hope for a Mountain West invite (which may happen if the conference falls short in its current attempt to become an automatic qualifier) or, essentially, become like the Gonzaga of football. The Broncos are building a level of national respect that belies their conference affiliation. Whether or not Boise earns a BCS berth this year (and I think it's still possible), Petersen's team is going to be in an even better position next year when it returns all but two starters AND plays both Virginia Tech and Oregon State in its nonconference schedule.

 

Depending on how they finish out this season, it's not inconceivable the Broncos would enter 2009 as a preseason top five team with realistic hopes of a national-title bid. As TCU is showing right now, that last poll barrier is coming ever closer to falling.

 

LINK

[billdozer15]

I think Games like this are Good for Football.

 

With that said. Scheduling any other of the regular Top 10 Teams would have a Greater reward if you win and a lesser penalty if you lose. That is IF you could get one of them to come to Lincoln.

 

If I were A/D, I would offer $750k and make it known to the press that the offer is out there. I would also make it known that this is the Max Payout Nebraska gives to Non BCS Programs.

 

That would put the pressure on Boise. They either care about getting a Quality BCS Game or they Care more about the Money.

 

I love your idea, but i dont know if making someone look bad in public is really TO's style. This would definitely be a shot at their manhood if TO made it known we only pay 750k to NON BCS teams and if they want it to come and get it. If they backed down it would be hilarious.

[VA Husker Fan]

We want no part of BSU. It is a no win situation. Beat them and people yawn. Lose and people scoff. This is why no one wants to play them.

 

I would not be yawning if Nebraska beat Boise State in a home opener. Maybe 5 years ago we would have, but times have changed. A win over Boise State would be huge. As for a loss? Well even Oregon got back in the Top 10 after losing to them before blowing it in Mighty Duck fashion last week.

 

OK, you and I and all the other Husker fans wouldn't yawn, but would anyone else in America really care? It's not us we have to impress to get to good bowl games, it's the pollsters.

I may sound like the shamwow guy, but it's a fact that you're wrong about that. Oregon made it into the top 10 with a LOSS against Boise. What do you think a win would've got them? Things have changed a lot about the perception of the Boises, Utahs, BYUs, TCUs, etc.

 

It's tougher to find the recent effects of BEATING Boise State because so they haven't played too many BCS schools and lost, but I found Washington early in 2007. Washington went from getting 1 single point in the previous poll to 59 points in the next poll, going from #40 to #29.

 

Yet despite this evidence, a bunch of you will continue to say there's nothing to be gained by playing Boise St. One thing I've figured out from the internet is that very few people change their minds about things even when presented with facts and evidence that going against what they think.

[VA Husker Fan]

And btw, Boise State was rated #22 going into that game, so it's not at all like Washington beat a top 5 Boise team and still didn't crack the top 25. Washington beat a barely ranked Boise team and got a lot more votes for the win.

[knapplc]

And btw, Boise State was rated #22 going into that game, so it's not at all like Washington beat a top 5 Boise team and still didn't crack the top 25. Washington beat a barely ranked Boise team and got a lot more votes for the win.

 

Well, I've been wrong before and I've changed my mind before, so don't just lump me into the pot with "all those internet guys." I'm this internet guy. And I'm reasonable.

 

Anyhow, OK, you've found a situation where a team beat Boise, a rather low-ranked Boise, and got a decent bump in points from it. That's one example, in a vacuum. What about other teams that beat 22nd-ranked opponents? Is their bump higher? Lower? None at all?

 

Without context that stat doesn't tell us much.

[VA Husker Fan]

And btw, Boise State was rated #22 going into that game, so it's not at all like Washington beat a top 5 Boise team and still didn't crack the top 25. Washington beat a barely ranked Boise team and got a lot more votes for the win.

 

Well, I've been wrong before and I've changed my mind before, so don't just lump me into the pot with "all those internet guys." I'm this internet guy. And I'm reasonable.

 

Anyhow, OK, you've found a situation where a team beat Boise, a rather low-ranked Boise, and got a decent bump in points from it. That's one example, in a vacuum. What about other teams that beat 22nd-ranked opponents? Is their bump higher? Lower? None at all?

 

Without context that stat doesn't tell us much.

No thanks, I've proven my point with 2 examples (Washington and Oregon) that results against Boise St are not dismissed. Why don't you take a shot at proving otherwise, instead of making a statement with no backing? If pollsters don't think much of Boise St, why are they #6?

[clone]

Adding Boise State to the bunch would make little-to-no scheduling sense.

 

 

I don't understand that at all.

 

cuz it's a potential loss.

[HuskerGBR]

I say BRING EM ON!!! But no way would I pay the Smurfs 1 million unless it was all in pennys just to piss them off. If they want to play us then lets do it, but I don't think they should get a dime for it.

[knapplc]

And btw, Boise State was rated #22 going into that game, so it's not at all like Washington beat a top 5 Boise team and still didn't crack the top 25. Washington beat a barely ranked Boise team and got a lot more votes for the win.

 

Well, I've been wrong before and I've changed my mind before, so don't just lump me into the pot with "all those internet guys." I'm this internet guy. And I'm reasonable.

 

Anyhow, OK, you've found a situation where a team beat Boise, a rather low-ranked Boise, and got a decent bump in points from it. That's one example, in a vacuum. What about other teams that beat 22nd-ranked opponents? Is their bump higher? Lower? None at all?

 

Without context that stat doesn't tell us much.

No thanks, I've proven my point with 2 examples (Washington and Oregon) that results against Boise St are not dismissed. Why don't you take a shot at proving otherwise, instead of making a statement with no backing? If pollsters don't think much of Boise St, why are they #6?

 

OK. Your contention is that beating Boise State is impressive enough to voters that, even when BSU is ranked a lowly #22, the team that beats them gets a good bump in the ratings.

 

In Week four of this year's AP poll, North Carolina was ranked #22. They played, and lost to, Georgia Tech. Tech was listed in "others receiving votes" (unranked) with 102 total points. After beating NC, Tech bumped up to 185 points, or a rise of 83 points, and into the rankings at #25.

 

In week ten, VT was the #22 team and lost to North Carolina, who wasn't even listed in "others receiving votes." North Carolina's bump was minimal, only earning them seven points the next week.

 

So what does this tell us? Not much. It basically says that there's not much correlation between beating the #22 team and what that does for you. We have an example where a team has earned a bigger "bonus" for beating the #22 team than the one you provided, and we have an example where a team earned less.

 

So basically we can toss the argument that Boise State is regarded well based on the bump a team earns by beating them, because we've seen that these bumps vary from team to team, week to week. We would have to do a study of who else won/lost around the #22 team, what their respective records were, and about a dozen other factors before drawing any kind of conclusion from the situation. Out of that context, we cannot use simple one-game result as a benchmark. There are just too many variables to gauge.

[VA Husker Fan]

And btw, Boise State was rated #22 going into that game, so it's not at all like Washington beat a top 5 Boise team and still didn't crack the top 25. Washington beat a barely ranked Boise team and got a lot more votes for the win.

 

Well, I've been wrong before and I've changed my mind before, so don't just lump me into the pot with "all those internet guys." I'm this internet guy. And I'm reasonable.

 

Anyhow, OK, you've found a situation where a team beat Boise, a rather low-ranked Boise, and got a decent bump in points from it. That's one example, in a vacuum. What about other teams that beat 22nd-ranked opponents? Is their bump higher? Lower? None at all?

 

Without context that stat doesn't tell us much.

No thanks, I've proven my point with 2 examples (Washington and Oregon) that results against Boise St are not dismissed. Why don't you take a shot at proving otherwise, instead of making a statement with no backing? If pollsters don't think much of Boise St, why are they #6?

 

OK. Your contention is that beating Boise State is impressive enough to voters that, even when BSU is ranked a lowly #22, the team that beats them gets a good bump in the ratings.

 

In Week four of this year's AP poll, North Carolina was ranked #22. They played, and lost to, Georgia Tech. Tech was listed in "others receiving votes" (unranked) with 102 total points. After beating NC, Tech bumped up to 185 points, or a rise of 83 points, and into the rankings at #25.

 

In week ten, VT was the #22 team and lost to North Carolina, who wasn't even listed in "others receiving votes." North Carolina's bump was minimal, only earning them seven points the next week.

 

So what does this tell us? Not much. It basically says that there's not much correlation between beating the #22 team and what that does for you. We have an example where a team has earned a bigger "bonus" for beating the #22 team than the one you provided, and we have an example where a team earned less.

 

So basically we can toss the argument that Boise State is regarded well based on the bump a team earns by beating them, because we've seen that these bumps vary from team to team, week to week. We would have to do a study of who else won/lost around the #22 team, what their respective records were, and about a dozen other factors before drawing any kind of conclusion from the situation. Out of that context, we cannot use simple one-game result as a benchmark. There are just too many variables to gauge.

 

well, I don't think you can conclude that UNC's bump was minimal, because you have no gauge as to how far out of the top 25 they were, not being on anyone's ballot. But I'll give you that you can't compare different poll situations because it also depends on what happens to teams around them, and numerous other factors. There's not a huge amount of evidence to back my claim. But that's better than the zero evidence of your claim.

 

You've also not acknowledged the Oregon situation. You said that people would scoff at a loss, yet Oregon made it into the top 10, higher than before the loss to BSU. That doesn't sound like scoffing to me.

 

I'll meet you partway in agreeing that beating Boise St would probably have less impact (and losing would probably have more harm) than if we played a similarly ranked BCS school. It's just not nearly as much of a difference as it used to, and far from a no-win situation.

[HuckFoley]

I say go ahead and play em in 2011, but they would have to pay to play us at home.

 

I understand they want a stronger schedule.

 

Our schedule is strong enough that we don't need that game.

 

So if they cough up the money to play in Lincoln, why not?

 

I'm really not worried about a BS team that would be the equivalent of a middle tier school in the big 12.

[knapplc]

You've also not acknowledged the Oregon situation. You said that people would scoff at a loss, yet Oregon made it into the top 10, higher than before the loss to BSU. That doesn't sound like scoffing to me.

 

Oregon doesn't exactly bolster your stance either, though. Oregon had 587 points in the preseason, lost their first game to BSU and promptly dropped out of the rankings with 113 points, a 474 point drop.

 

Oregon later climbed back into the rankings and up to 1,130 points, only to lose to unranked Stanford, but only drops 378 points and is still ranked.

 

I don't see how that helps your argument. It seems like Oregon was penalized more heavily for their loss to Boise State, losing 100 more points/votes in the process and falling completely out of the rankings, ostensibly because they lost to a "worse" team in Boise St. than Stanford. These numbers seem to indicate that people did scoff at the loss....

 

But again, this isn't conclusive, because again, these numbers are out of context. Preseason we had nothing to go on, and after the first week (vs. Boise) Oregon looked horrible. The Blount Punch situation happened as well, and there's an argument to be made that the whole circus of events conspired to dump Oregon. The Ducks are far better than they showed against Boise, though, and the common consensus is that they simply weren't ready to play on that night, with a first-year head coach and all.

 

All this says is that this method isn't very good at determining what a loss to Boise would do for a team. Oregon survived it because, until Stanford, they were succeeding despite a very difficult schedule, so the loss didn't hurt them much. I don't see an Oregon-like schedule in 2011 for the Huskers to absorb a loss like Oregon did, which is another reason they may not be good for us to play.

 

We may have a better understanding of how people view Boise if they lose. Then maybe we can gauge the respect level by how much the team that beats them rises. But really, as goofy as the voters are, whoever beats Boise would likely remain ranked lower, because they're unranked now (BSU doesn't have a ranked opponent left on their schedule).