Three Game Series with Boise State

[knapplc]

Why is everyone picking on Boise? I personally think their program is awesome. Sure they're schedule strength is weak, and they would lose 2-3 more games a year if they played in a major conference, but who cares?

 

Just about nobody would have an issue with BS if they would stop pretending they deserve to be recognized on a national level. They've been successful in what they do for a while, and a LOT of their fans act as if they are on the same level as any AQ school.

 

The fact that their schedule is weak is entirely the point. Those 2-3 more losses per year if they played in a better conference are what the problem is all about. I posted this earlier in this thread, but it bears repeating: Boise's average strength of schedule over the last decade is 98.9. That's horrible!

 

Don't stand up and demand respect when you've done something that's not respectable. Had their SOS been even remotely respectable they'd be getting a lot more props from people.

[dizzturbedNUfan]

This isn't the biggest problem of the above post, but what polls have Nebraska #1 in the country next year? I haven't even seen them in the top 5.

 

The Super Duper El knappo Poll of Wonder and Delight, of course.

Great poll name! Especially like the "El"

[Igetbored216]

Why is everyone picking on Boise? I personally think their program is awesome. Sure they're schedule strength is weak, and they would lose 2-3 more games a year if they played in a major conference, but who cares? They've done an amazing job of catering to their specific situation and building something special. You know there are 60 other FBS teams that aren't in non-BCS conferences and you don't see any of them with anywhere near Boise's winning percentage. And this year, Boise beat a TCU team that many felt should have played for a national title before the bowls were played.

 

They're blue field may be an eyesore, but it's one of many things that makes college football so special. Different playing surfaces (and colors!), indoor and outdoor, small and large (and huge: Michigan, Tennessee, etc.). Tons of variety and tradition. Remember, Nebraska uses a Chartreuse-type yellowish green color on its field, with fairly stark-contrast alternating every five yards (inspired by Oregon's field). I think Boise's fans are awesome and the color coordinated efforts against Oregon were incredible.

 

I hope this deal gets accepted. I really wish it would start in 2011. Nebraska vs. Boise would be an incredible draw on a national level. And it would be fun to watch, which is what really matters.

 

Not necessarily picking on them, but when they whine that no one will play them, and then Nebraska makes them an offer to play them AND THEY DON'T EVEN RESPOND, it's rather hypocritical. Either play BCS teams and strengthen your schedule or don't play BCS teams and stop saying that there is "nothing more we could have done because no one will play us". It's a load of crap.

[JTrain]

Just about nobody would have an issue with BS if they would stop pretending they deserve to be recognized on a national level. They've been successful in what they do for a while, and a LOT of their fans act as if they are on the same level as any AQ school.

 

The fact that their schedule is weak is entirely the point. Those 2-3 more losses per year if they played in a better conference are what the problem is all about. I posted this earlier in this thread, but it bears repeating: Boise's average strength of schedule over the last decade is 98.9. That's horrible!

 

Don't stand up and demand respect when you've done something that's not respectable. Had their SOS been even remotely respectable they'd be getting a lot more props from people.

 

But they still managed to beat two top 10 teams this year (more than 90% of all FBS programs, including Nebraska) and finish in the top five. That is with scheduling strength included in the minds of the voters. So there is every reason to consider them a legitimate program. The idea that you could put any AQ team in the WAC (with OOC games against Oregon and TCU) and they would breeze their way to 14-0, is silly. This isn't the '80s, where there were 30-40 good teams and all the rest were just there to hang 70 on. In this age of parity, 14-0 in any FBS conference is nothing to scoff at.

 

 

Not necessarily picking on them, but when they whine that no one will play them, and then Nebraska makes them an offer to play them AND THEY DON'T EVEN RESPOND, it's rather hypocritical. Either play BCS teams and strengthen your schedule or don't play BCS teams and stop saying that there is "nothing more we could have done because no one will play us". It's a load of crap.

 

I really believe there is a ton going on behind the scenes that we aren't aware of (mostly involving money). You can just as easily ask the question: Why did we turn down their simple offer for a single game in Lincoln in 2011? The answer Sipple came up with is that our OOC schedule in '11 was already hard enough, but that answer doesn't fly. Because our OOC slate in 2015 and 2016 is just as hard, and yet we are offering Boise for those years. So it looks like this is probably a money issue... it isn't a matter of anyone being scared to play anyone else.

[knapplc]

But they still managed to beat two top 10 teams this year (more than 90% of all FBS programs, including Nebraska) and finish in the top five. That is with scheduling strength included in the minds of the voters. So there is every reason to consider them a legitimate program. The idea that you could put any AQ team in the WAC (with OOC games against Oregon and TCU) and they would breeze their way to 14-0, is silly. This isn't the '80s, where there were 30-40 good teams and all the rest were just there to hang 70 on. In this age of parity, 14-0 in any FBS conference is nothing to scoff at.

 

Again, nobody is scoffing at Boise. What people are on about is that their accomplishments are not equal to those of other teams. It's great that they play a couple of decent teams a year, but two teams out of 14 that are rated in the top 25 isn't too impressive. And this isn't an aberration in their SOS - it's been like this for the last ten years. Over the past decade their best SOS was 78th in the nation. Our worst was 58th, and people were ripping on us. This year our SOS was 52 and we took no end of grief for our weak non-con schedule. Our weak non-con schedule is Boise's typical schedule. These are not equal.

 

Further, the injuries teams in AQ schools incur every year by pounding on the biggest and best across the country plays a role in their success. Boise is routinely playing against teams whose players would be greatly undersized in an AQ conference (which is why they're in a non-AQ conference, of course). That lack of attrition through injury is a huge advantage for Boise.

 

It's just not a level playing field comparing what Boise has done to what AQ schools have done. It's still impressive. It's still a fun team to watch (on the road), but let's not go crazy giving them respect when they haven't earned it the same as everyone else.

 

Imagine you and I are running a marathon on different courses. Mine is flat and shady and has plenty of water stations. Yours is mostly uphill, no shade, and fewer water stations. Who ran a better race if we both finish at the same time?

[JTrain]

Look guys, if you do a 2 for 1, you have to pay money. Against anyone, BCS conference or not. I don't know the full deal, but none of the articles mention any payout to Boise. So we stand to gain close to $10M in the deal, and apparently not give them anything? Again I'm not sure what the deal is, but no money exchange was mentioned, which is odd for an unbalanced deal. There was no way Boise would accept no money. This is what I'm hearing from the BSU fans, and it makes enough sense.

 

The question is really, why didn't we accept to play them in 2011? Again, strength of opponents is not an excuse because we have the same type schedule in 2016 (and a tough one in 2015 as well). Money shouldn't be a big deal, because we make close to $5M with a home game, and Boise is only asking $900K-1M. That's not much more than we paid NMSU a couple years back ($825K). So that appears to be the biggest mystery here... why did we avoid the game Boise really needed in 2011?

[carlfense]

***snip***

Money shouldn't be a big deal, because we make close to $5M with a home game, and Boise is only asking $900K-1M.

***snip***

Where do you get that Boise is only asking $900k-1M? I remember reading that they ask $1.5M+ for a one and done. Wish I could remember where I read that . . .

[knapplc]

The question is really, why didn't we accept to play them in 2011? Again, strength of opponents is not an excuse because we have the same type schedule in 2016 (and a tough one in 2015 as well). Money shouldn't be a big deal, because we make close to $5M with a home game, and Boise is only asking $900K-1M. That's not much more than we paid NMSU a couple years back ($825K). So that appears to be the biggest mystery here... why did we avoid the game Boise really needed in 2011?

 

I'm guessing it has a lot to do with not wanting to get beat by them. Bo is still installing his team, and may not have it fully going by 2011, while BSU already has theirs up and running full steam.

 

Another issue could be the presumption that Boise will lose Chris Petersen to another school between now and 2015, making that game a LOT easier.

 

I hate to infer that we're afraid, but I wouldn't be surprised if that didn't play a role.

[RunTheBall]

..... The fact that their schedule is weak is entirely the point. .....

 

Perfect. And they don't seem to get it. If you're a WAC team with national aspirations you simply can't schedule Cal State at Davis. I think Boise is trying to get over on the college football world, and it seems to be working. I believe they had a chance a couple of years ago to be considered for the MWC, but weren't interested. They are content to be a big fish in a tiny pond, but they want to be treated like a shark anyway.

 

If they want national respect, they can't play FCS teams, and they can't turn down 2 for 1 offers from traditional powers. Yet that is exactly what they do. To be repetitive, screw 'em.

[JTrain]

But they still managed to beat two top 10 teams this year (more than 90% of all FBS programs, including Nebraska) and finish in the top five. That is with scheduling strength included in the minds of the voters. So there is every reason to consider them a legitimate program. The idea that you could put any AQ team in the WAC (with OOC games against Oregon and TCU) and they would breeze their way to 14-0, is silly. This isn't the '80s, where there were 30-40 good teams and all the rest were just there to hang 70 on. In this age of parity, 14-0 in any FBS conference is nothing to scoff at.

 

Again, nobody is scoffing at Boise. What people are on about is that their accomplishments are not equal to those of other teams. It's great that they play a couple of decent teams a year, but two teams out of 14 that are rated in the top 25 isn't too impressive. And this isn't an aberration in their SOS - it's been like this for the last ten years. Over the past decade their best SOS was 78th in the nation. Our worst was 58th, and people were ripping on us. This year our SOS was 52 and we took no end of grief for our weak non-con schedule. Our weak non-con schedule is Boise's typical schedule. These are not equal.

 

Further, the injuries teams in AQ schools incur every year by pounding on the biggest and best across the country plays a role in their success. Boise is routinely playing against teams whose players would be greatly undersized in an AQ conference (which is why they're in a non-AQ conference, of course). That lack of attrition through injury is a huge advantage for Boise.

 

It's just not a level playing field comparing what Boise has done to what AQ schools have done. It's still impressive. It's still a fun team to watch (on the road), but let's not go crazy giving them respect when they haven't earned it the same as everyone else.

 

Imagine you and I are running a marathon on different courses. Mine is flat and shady and has plenty of water stations. Yours is mostly uphill, no shade, and fewer water stations. Who ran a better race if we both finish at the same time?

 

But we're not finishing at the same time. I (the uphill runner) am finishing behind you by some amount (say my time is equivalent to a 9-4 or 10-3 record). You are finishing ahead of me by some amount(14-0). So the only way you can tell whose run was more impressive is to consult the computer rankings and pollsters, who both take the marathon course difficulty (SOS) into consideration. This year, the pollsters and computers generally agreed that you ran the 4th best marathon in the country, which is impressive. And again, they took course difficulty into consideration when deciding this. Therefore, we have every good reason to believe that Boise St. (the flat, shady course runner in the marathon analogy) is legitimately a top five team, all things considered.

[ESPY]

But they still managed to beat two top 10 teams this year (more than 90% of all FBS programs, including Nebraska) and finish in the top five. That is with scheduling strength included in the minds of the voters. So there is every reason to consider them a legitimate program. The idea that you could put any AQ team in the WAC (with OOC games against Oregon and TCU) and they would breeze their way to 14-0, is silly. This isn't the '80s, where there were 30-40 good teams and all the rest were just there to hang 70 on. In this age of parity, 14-0 in any FBS conference is nothing to scoff at.

 

Again, nobody is scoffing at Boise. What people are on about is that their accomplishments are not equal to those of other teams. It's great that they play a couple of decent teams a year, but two teams out of 14 that are rated in the top 25 isn't too impressive. And this isn't an aberration in their SOS - it's been like this for the last ten years. Over the past decade their best SOS was 78th in the nation. Our worst was 58th, and people were ripping on us. This year our SOS was 52 and we took no end of grief for our weak non-con schedule. Our weak non-con schedule is Boise's typical schedule. These are not equal.

 

Further, the injuries teams in AQ schools incur every year by pounding on the biggest and best across the country plays a role in their success. Boise is routinely playing against teams whose players would be greatly undersized in an AQ conference (which is why they're in a non-AQ conference, of course). That lack of attrition through injury is a huge advantage for Boise.

 

It's just not a level playing field comparing what Boise has done to what AQ schools have done. It's still impressive. It's still a fun team to watch (on the road), but let's not go crazy giving them respect when they haven't earned it the same as everyone else.

 

Imagine you and I are running a marathon on different courses. Mine is flat and shady and has plenty of water stations. Yours is mostly uphill, no shade, and fewer water stations. Who ran a better race if we both finish at the same time?

 

Such wisdom you grace us with today.

 

All this kinda makes you wonder if we've had scheduling snafoos like this in the past. I'm guessing we have, and I'm guessing the ADs for both schools know exactly what they're doing.

[JTrain]

***snip***

Money shouldn't be a big deal, because we make close to $5M with a home game, and Boise is only asking $900K-1M.

***snip***

Where do you get that Boise is only asking $900k-1M? I remember reading that they ask $1.5M+ for a one and done. Wish I could remember where I read that . . .

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/12690/nebraska-not-likely-to-add-boise-state-in-2011

[carlfense]

***snip***

Money shouldn't be a big deal, because we make close to $5M with a home game, and Boise is only asking $900K-1M.

***snip***

Where do you get that Boise is only asking $900k-1M? I remember reading that they ask $1.5M+ for a one and done. Wish I could remember where I read that . . .

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/12690/nebraska-not-likely-to-add-boise-state-in-2011

 

I stand corrected. Thanks.

 

Edit: Boise is getting paid $1.25 million by VaTech. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/311968-how-much-do-teams-receive-in-financial-guarantees-for-away-games

[JTrain]

The question is really, why didn't we accept to play them in 2011? Again, strength of opponents is not an excuse because we have the same type schedule in 2016 (and a tough one in 2015 as well). Money shouldn't be a big deal, because we make close to $5M with a home game, and Boise is only asking $900K-1M. That's not much more than we paid NMSU a couple years back ($825K). So that appears to be the biggest mystery here... why did we avoid the game Boise really needed in 2011?

 

I'm guessing it has a lot to do with not wanting to get beat by them. Bo is still installing his team, and may not have it fully going by 2011, while BSU already has theirs up and running full steam.

 

Another issue could be the presumption that Boise will lose Chris Petersen to another school between now and 2015, making that game a LOT easier.

 

I hate to infer that we're afraid, but I wouldn't be surprised if that didn't play a role.

 

I have to say I completely agree (from the evidence revealed thus far). I'm glad you came out and said it, because I hadn't quite built up the courage to do so yet Considering Kellen Moore will be a senior in 2011, and our offensive situation for then is still murky, we apparently would just rather not. Which sucks, because the crowd would be electric, Gameday would probably show up (apparently ESPN wanted to get involved when this deal was first proposed) and I think we'd have a great chance to win.

[knapplc]

But we're not finishing at the same time. I (the uphill runner) am finishing behind you by some amount (say my time is equivalent to a 9-4 or 10-3 record). You are finishing ahead of me by some amount(14-0). So the only way you can tell whose run was more impressive is to consult the computer rankings and pollsters, who both take the marathon course difficulty (SOS) into consideration. This year, the pollsters and computers generally agreed that you ran the 4th best marathon in the country, which is impressive. And again, they took course difficulty into consideration when deciding this. Therefore, we have every good reason to believe that Boise St. (the flat, shady course runner in the marathon analogy) is legitimately a top five team, all things considered.

 

It's easier to compare them to Alabama than us. Both finished 14-0, but 'Bama played a far more difficult schedule and was given a shot at the title, while Boise running their shady course got the also-ran bowl. Then all of your analogy extension fits, and meshes nicely with my analogy. We're analogous!