Is Boise State a top football program

[redblooded]

While I agree that they don't face much competition, they can only win the games that they're scheduled to play. And they don't shy away from non-con games. Virginia Tech also went on to win how many games after that FCS loss? If we're going to write off 5 conferences from the get go, then they shouldn't even be part of the FBS, because they truly have no shot at a title. Now if they're having games like we had against Iowa State last year, then that's one thing, but if they're thoroughly dominating every game, then I say why not. Now I'm not saying put them in over an undefeated SEC team or anything, but if there's two undefeated teams at the end of the year, and Boise happens to be one of them, hell let 'em play. What's the worst that'll happen? They'll prove everyone right that they didn't belong? Maybe they win the MNC? Can't say it's because the other team didn't get up for that game. If a team with a loss has a beef with them being left out in favor of Boise, tough, you should've won all your games. Much like I believe you have no argument to be in the MNC if you didn't win your conference, you have a significantly weaker argument to be in it if you lost a game. Hell, everyone thinks that Oregon should've been in the MNC in 2001, they lost to an unranked team for crying out loud.

 

They shied away from playing Nebraska. Follow the link

 

My link

 

I meant they don't shy away from scheduling BCS schools. Plus, I'd say they shied away from not having their way about home and home, or getting paid or whatever, not exactly from playing us, because it's not like they then didn't schedule a top team, they still did, they just didn't want to meet our offer.

 

No they didn't... After they were calling Nebraska out trying to goad us into the game in the press then behind the scenes asking for an absurd amount of money for it, they then backed out of ever playing a non-conference schedule once they figured out Nebraska was on the upswing. Simple economics and stadium size prevents big time schools from doing strait up Home and Homes with them. They know that and used it as a way to get out of scheduling NU when they realized we wouldn't pay them more money they any other schedule filler to come play a game that was basically solely for their own benefit.

 

Instead they scheduled a bad VT team last year at a neutral site. A VT team that knew they were bad and came out doing bizarre out of character trick plays that backfired. Then VT proceeded to lose to a 1AA team the next week showing just how good they were last year. This year they've found the down-in-the-dumps Georgia team to try and ride for an entire season. People saying they don't shy away from non-conference are nuts, you're falling for exactly what their whole gimmick is. Schedule a mediocre BCS team early, then try and ride the one actual non-highschool team they play into a BCS run.

 

You could drop the any team from the big 12 north into their conference and they'd have the same record at the end of the year 90% of the time.

[husker_99]

While I agree that they don't face much competition, they can only win the games that they're scheduled to play. And they don't shy away from non-con games. Virginia Tech also went on to win how many games after that FCS loss? If we're going to write off 5 conferences from the get go, then they shouldn't even be part of the FBS, because they truly have no shot at a title. Now if they're having games like we had against Iowa State last year, then that's one thing, but if they're thoroughly dominating every game, then I say why not. Now I'm not saying put them in over an undefeated SEC team or anything, but if there's two undefeated teams at the end of the year, and Boise happens to be one of them, hell let 'em play. What's the worst that'll happen? They'll prove everyone right that they didn't belong? Maybe they win the MNC? Can't say it's because the other team didn't get up for that game. If a team with a loss has a beef with them being left out in favor of Boise, tough, you should've won all your games. Much like I believe you have no argument to be in the MNC if you didn't win your conference, you have a significantly weaker argument to be in it if you lost a game. Hell, everyone thinks that Oregon should've been in the MNC in 2001, they lost to an unranked team for crying out loud.

 

They shied away from playing Nebraska. Follow the link

 

My link

 

I meant they don't shy away from scheduling BCS schools. Plus, I'd say they shied away from not having their way about home and home, or getting paid or whatever, not exactly from playing us, because it's not like they then didn't schedule a top team, they still did, they just didn't want to meet our offer.

 

Instead they scheduled a bad VT team last year at a neutral site. A VT team that knew they were bad and came out doing bizarre out of character trick plays that backfired. Then VT proceeded to lose to a 1AA team the next week showing just how good they were last year. This year they've found the down-in-the-dumps Georgia team to try and ride for an entire season. People saying they don't shy away from non-conference are nuts, you're falling for exactly what their whole gimmick is. Schedule a mediocre BCS team early, then try and ride the one actual non-highschool team they play into a BCS run.

 

You could drop the any team from the big 12 north into their conference and they'd have the same record at the end of the year 90% of the time.

 

Yeah Virginia Tech won the ACC last year. So no VT wasn't bad.

[Husker_x]

While I agree that they don't face much competition, they can only win the games that they're scheduled to play. And they don't shy away from non-con games. Virginia Tech also went on to win how many games after that FCS loss? If we're going to write off 5 conferences from the get go, then they shouldn't even be part of the FBS, because they truly have no shot at a title. Now if they're having games like we had against Iowa State last year, then that's one thing, but if they're thoroughly dominating every game, then I say why not. Now I'm not saying put them in over an undefeated SEC team or anything, but if there's two undefeated teams at the end of the year, and Boise happens to be one of them, hell let 'em play. What's the worst that'll happen? They'll prove everyone right that they didn't belong? Maybe they win the MNC? Can't say it's because the other team didn't get up for that game. If a team with a loss has a beef with them being left out in favor of Boise, tough, you should've won all your games. Much like I believe you have no argument to be in the MNC if you didn't win your conference, you have a significantly weaker argument to be in it if you lost a game. Hell, everyone thinks that Oregon should've been in the MNC in 2001, they lost to an unranked team for crying out loud.

 

Ridiculous.

 

You're telling me that if the end of the 2011 season comes down to an undefeated SEC team and a 1-loss Nebraska team or an undefeated Boise State, you would think it's fair to put the team who played no one in the national title game? What's the worst that could happen? That IS the worst thing that could happen, wasting an entire season of college football so a team from a joke of a league could have a shot at a title they had no business playing for. By this logic any undefeated team from any conference should supersede any 1 or 2-loss team from the best conferences.

 

You're right about this, tough: the structure of D1 football needs serious reexamination. There is simply no way to ever determine a real national champion when you are picking from a pool of 119 teams. In a superconference scenario with a plus 1 playoff, this would be resolved. The fact that a team like Boise can eek into BCS games playing the (currently) #14 and #19 teams as cherries on a cupcake schedule and be seriously considered for the BCS is absurd.

 

It wouldn't be the team that played no one. They schedule a top team every year, and if they WIN EVERY GAME THAT'S SCHEDULED, what more could you ask of them? You want them to just mosey into Pasadena and be like "hey, Bruins, sit this one out, we'll play USC for ya"?

 

So you're saying that we should never let anyone outside of a BCS conference ever have a shot at a national championship? What's the point of them playing? The whole football season wouldn't be a waste because, hey, in that football season, they won all their games. That's not wasting anything. How many times have we seen a team from a BCS conference end up getting spanked in a national championship game? You don't know until you play the game. That's why making comparisons between teams with zero losses and one loss is ridiculous. Why not go with the team that has proved themselves up to every challenge that has been placed in front of them?

 

Hell by your reasoning, the Big East shouldn't get into the MNC either (not that they do), and they're a BCS conference.

 

It would be like having two heavyweight boxers vying for one shot against the reigning champion. One guy has fifty fights and two losses. The other guy has fifty fights and fifty wins. The only difference? The guy who's undefeated fought forty-nine kindergardeners and one decent opponent, while the guy with two losses fought all heavyweights in his class.

 

But hey, he's undefeated. Give him a shot. He met every challenge placed in front of him. He beat the hell out of those kiddies. He ain't afraid of no kindergardeners, that's for sure.

[redblooded]

While I agree that they don't face much competition, they can only win the games that they're scheduled to play. And they don't shy away from non-con games. Virginia Tech also went on to win how many games after that FCS loss? If we're going to write off 5 conferences from the get go, then they shouldn't even be part of the FBS, because they truly have no shot at a title. Now if they're having games like we had against Iowa State last year, then that's one thing, but if they're thoroughly dominating every game, then I say why not. Now I'm not saying put them in over an undefeated SEC team or anything, but if there's two undefeated teams at the end of the year, and Boise happens to be one of them, hell let 'em play. What's the worst that'll happen? They'll prove everyone right that they didn't belong? Maybe they win the MNC? Can't say it's because the other team didn't get up for that game. If a team with a loss has a beef with them being left out in favor of Boise, tough, you should've won all your games. Much like I believe you have no argument to be in the MNC if you didn't win your conference, you have a significantly weaker argument to be in it if you lost a game. Hell, everyone thinks that Oregon should've been in the MNC in 2001, they lost to an unranked team for crying out loud.

 

They shied away from playing Nebraska. Follow the link

 

My link

 

I meant they don't shy away from scheduling BCS schools. Plus, I'd say they shied away from not having their way about home and home, or getting paid or whatever, not exactly from playing us, because it's not like they then didn't schedule a top team, they still did, they just didn't want to meet our offer.

 

Instead they scheduled a bad VT team last year at a neutral site. A VT team that knew they were bad and came out doing bizarre out of character trick plays that backfired. Then VT proceeded to lose to a 1AA team the next week showing just how good they were last year. This year they've found the down-in-the-dumps Georgia team to try and ride for an entire season. People saying they don't shy away from non-conference are nuts, you're falling for exactly what their whole gimmick is. Schedule a mediocre BCS team early, then try and ride the one actual non-highschool team they play into a BCS run.

 

You could drop the any team from the big 12 north into their conference and they'd have the same record at the end of the year 90% of the time.

 

Yeah Virginia Tech won the ACC last year. So no VT wasn't bad.

 

That says more about the ACC last year then it does about VT.

[husker_99]

LOL. That is what is so funny when people diss the conferences Boise St. plays in and forgets from 2000-2010 we basically played in a WAC, MWC division. The only teams we really had to worry about was Texas and Oklahoma. All the rest of the teams were flash in pan types and never really sustained success. Was there any doubt last season who would win the North Division? I didn't have any. Anyone who calls Iowa St, Kansas, Kansas St, Colorado, and Missouri a tough schedule is high. All those teams are on par with WAC and MWC teams. Face it we were the North when we were good. When we weren't the North sucked really bad. We did have a sweet deal in the Big 12, just kick the sh#t out of the teams we had for decades and play for the Big 12 Championship and a BCS game. Now we actually have 3 legit teams in our division that are capable of giving us a good game plus Penn St.

Sorry, but even Colorado, Kansas, and Iowa State recruit better talent than San Jose State, New Mexico State, Idaho, Utah State, Lousiana Tech, ect.

 

Let's not kid ourselves here. What you're saying is just blatantly not true.

 

You also picked the bottom feeders from the WAC too. Try comparing them to Utah, TCU, BYU, Boise St, Fresno St, Nevada. Let's not kid ourselves what i am saying is blatantly true.

Well, Boise State won't have to play Utah, BYU, or suprise, suprise Boise State. And they'll only have to play TCU once, at home. That leaves Fresno State and Nevada. Those are the top schools they've had to play. Nebrasa had to play the likes of Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M, Missouri.... you're really grasping at straws if you're honestly trying to say Boise State's conference schedule is anywhere close to what Nebraska faced in the Big XII. Stop that.

 

And yes, I did compare the bottom feeders to the bottom feeders, and the top dogs to the top dogs. It's the only comparison that makes sense.

 

Yes the WAC is weaker than the Big 12, i don't know about the MWC i would say they are better or on par with the Big East. Oklahoma St is sketchy cause sometimes they don't show up, A&M is as good as they think they are, Missouri loses big games. Look we had all the North's team number for decades until this decade. Texas was the only hump we couldn't get over.

 

Let's not forget that though Boise St, Utah, TCU show up for the BCS bowl games. Now Utah and soon TCU will be in a BCS conference. I know that the WAC bottom feeders aren't as good as the bottom feeders in the Big 6 conferences. But to say that Boise St. couldn't join a Big 6 conference and win just hesitant to say that.

[walksalone]

I can't believe this has turned into a long winded dissertation involving a team that's in a 2nd tier conference, only plays quality opponents during it's non-conference schedule, and will be passed over for one loss team when it counts, even if they're undefeated.

 

It's like they're the Gonzaga of football...

[The Dude]

Let the record show that husker_99 conceded that what he said is, in fact, blatantly not true.

[cb1954]

Well at least this topic made people think.

 

I guess some people believe that if Boise State goes 12-0 with a couple wins over teams ranked say from 11-25 in the final regular season poll, and Nebraska or who ever wins the Big 10 goes 12-1, with maybe a couple wins vs top 10 teams and a loss vs a top 10 team, and maybe a couple wins vs other teams in top 25, that Boise State is more deserving to be in the BCS game because they have a better record..

 

Its just a difference of opion.

[VA Husker Fan]

While I agree that they don't face much competition, they can only win the games that they're scheduled to play. And they don't shy away from non-con games. Virginia Tech also went on to win how many games after that FCS loss? If we're going to write off 5 conferences from the get go, then they shouldn't even be part of the FBS, because they truly have no shot at a title. Now if they're having games like we had against Iowa State last year, then that's one thing, but if they're thoroughly dominating every game, then I say why not. Now I'm not saying put them in over an undefeated SEC team or anything, but if there's two undefeated teams at the end of the year, and Boise happens to be one of them, hell let 'em play. What's the worst that'll happen? They'll prove everyone right that they didn't belong? Maybe they win the MNC? Can't say it's because the other team didn't get up for that game. If a team with a loss has a beef with them being left out in favor of Boise, tough, you should've won all your games. Much like I believe you have no argument to be in the MNC if you didn't win your conference, you have a significantly weaker argument to be in it if you lost a game. Hell, everyone thinks that Oregon should've been in the MNC in 2001, they lost to an unranked team for crying out loud.

 

They shied away from playing Nebraska. Follow the link

 

My link

 

I meant they don't shy away from scheduling BCS schools. Plus, I'd say they shied away from not having their way about home and home, or getting paid or whatever, not exactly from playing us, because it's not like they then didn't schedule a top team, they still did, they just didn't want to meet our offer.

 

Instead they scheduled a bad VT team last year at a neutral site. A VT team that knew they were bad and came out doing bizarre out of character trick plays that backfired. Then VT proceeded to lose to a 1AA team the next week showing just how good they were last year. This year they've found the down-in-the-dumps Georgia team to try and ride for an entire season. People saying they don't shy away from non-conference are nuts, you're falling for exactly what their whole gimmick is. Schedule a mediocre BCS team early, then try and ride the one actual non-highschool team they play into a BCS run.

 

You could drop the any team from the big 12 north into their conference and they'd have the same record at the end of the year 90% of the time.

 

Yeah Virginia Tech won the ACC last year. So no VT wasn't bad.

Maybe he meant that Boise St knew that Virginia Tech would be bad their first 2 games of the season before they got good again. They are just that smart and sneaky, doncha know!

[redblooded]

While I agree that they don't face much competition, they can only win the games that they're scheduled to play. And they don't shy away from non-con games. Virginia Tech also went on to win how many games after that FCS loss? If we're going to write off 5 conferences from the get go, then they shouldn't even be part of the FBS, because they truly have no shot at a title. Now if they're having games like we had against Iowa State last year, then that's one thing, but if they're thoroughly dominating every game, then I say why not. Now I'm not saying put them in over an undefeated SEC team or anything, but if there's two undefeated teams at the end of the year, and Boise happens to be one of them, hell let 'em play. What's the worst that'll happen? They'll prove everyone right that they didn't belong? Maybe they win the MNC? Can't say it's because the other team didn't get up for that game. If a team with a loss has a beef with them being left out in favor of Boise, tough, you should've won all your games. Much like I believe you have no argument to be in the MNC if you didn't win your conference, you have a significantly weaker argument to be in it if you lost a game. Hell, everyone thinks that Oregon should've been in the MNC in 2001, they lost to an unranked team for crying out loud.

 

They shied away from playing Nebraska. Follow the link

 

My link

 

I meant they don't shy away from scheduling BCS schools. Plus, I'd say they shied away from not having their way about home and home, or getting paid or whatever, not exactly from playing us, because it's not like they then didn't schedule a top team, they still did, they just didn't want to meet our offer.

 

Instead they scheduled a bad VT team last year at a neutral site. A VT team that knew they were bad and came out doing bizarre out of character trick plays that backfired. Then VT proceeded to lose to a 1AA team the next week showing just how good they were last year. This year they've found the down-in-the-dumps Georgia team to try and ride for an entire season. People saying they don't shy away from non-conference are nuts, you're falling for exactly what their whole gimmick is. Schedule a mediocre BCS team early, then try and ride the one actual non-highschool team they play into a BCS run.

 

You could drop the any team from the big 12 north into their conference and they'd have the same record at the end of the year 90% of the time.

 

Yeah Virginia Tech won the ACC last year. So no VT wasn't bad.

Maybe he meant that Boise St knew that Virginia Tech would be bad their first 2 games of the season before they got good again. They are just that smart and sneaky, doncha know!

 

I absolutely did. It's not hard to see what teams are a bit overrated. The ACC isn't exactly a powerhouse of a conference with Miami sucking (even before the scandal) and Florida State being down during Bowden's final years and VT coming off the realization that Tyrod Taylor wasn't the second coming of Micheal Vick.

 

Here's a very bold prediction: Georgia isn't going to be very good in the SEC this year.

[husker_99]

While I agree that they don't face much competition, they can only win the games that they're scheduled to play. And they don't shy away from non-con games. Virginia Tech also went on to win how many games after that FCS loss? If we're going to write off 5 conferences from the get go, then they shouldn't even be part of the FBS, because they truly have no shot at a title. Now if they're having games like we had against Iowa State last year, then that's one thing, but if they're thoroughly dominating every game, then I say why not. Now I'm not saying put them in over an undefeated SEC team or anything, but if there's two undefeated teams at the end of the year, and Boise happens to be one of them, hell let 'em play. What's the worst that'll happen? They'll prove everyone right that they didn't belong? Maybe they win the MNC? Can't say it's because the other team didn't get up for that game. If a team with a loss has a beef with them being left out in favor of Boise, tough, you should've won all your games. Much like I believe you have no argument to be in the MNC if you didn't win your conference, you have a significantly weaker argument to be in it if you lost a game. Hell, everyone thinks that Oregon should've been in the MNC in 2001, they lost to an unranked team for crying out loud.

 

They shied away from playing Nebraska. Follow the link

 

My link

 

I meant they don't shy away from scheduling BCS schools. Plus, I'd say they shied away from not having their way about home and home, or getting paid or whatever, not exactly from playing us, because it's not like they then didn't schedule a top team, they still did, they just didn't want to meet our offer.

 

Instead they scheduled a bad VT team last year at a neutral site. A VT team that knew they were bad and came out doing bizarre out of character trick plays that backfired. Then VT proceeded to lose to a 1AA team the next week showing just how good they were last year. This year they've found the down-in-the-dumps Georgia team to try and ride for an entire season. People saying they don't shy away from non-conference are nuts, you're falling for exactly what their whole gimmick is. Schedule a mediocre BCS team early, then try and ride the one actual non-highschool team they play into a BCS run.

 

You could drop the any team from the big 12 north into their conference and they'd have the same record at the end of the year 90% of the time.

 

Yeah Virginia Tech won the ACC last year. So no VT wasn't bad.

Maybe he meant that Boise St knew that Virginia Tech would be bad their first 2 games of the season before they got good again. They are just that smart and sneaky, doncha know!

 

I absolutely did. It's not hard to see what teams are a bit overrated. The ACC isn't exactly a powerhouse of a conference with Miami sucking (even before the scandal) and Florida State being down during Bowden's final years and VT coming off the realization that Tyrod Taylor wasn't the second coming of Micheal Vick.

 

Here's a very bold prediction: Georgia isn't going to be very good in the SEC this year.

 

You do know Florida St. made it to the ACC Championship game right? Like us the last two years. Unless you are saying we are still down?

[redblooded]

 

You do know Florida St. made it to the ACC Championship game right? Like us the last two years. Unless you are saying we are still down?

 

We are still trying to get over the hump, yeah we were still down the last two years. I don't see how anyone would think we weren't... did you see the offensive strategy of "try and get Henery in range to punt, maybe get lucky to get in range for a field goal, and get the defense back on the field with as much room as possible without screwing anything up for them" the team had 2 years ago for most the season (after the Iowa State debacle) and last year after Martinez's injury? The truth is, while the team has been getting better, Nebraska hasn't won anything notable yet and the offense is still a HUGE question mark until it proves it can play in big games.

 

On the scale of good BCS conferences to meh, ACC ranks 5th, slightly ahead of the Big East. All the historically good ACC teams have been down recently.

[husker_99]

 

You do know Florida St. made it to the ACC Championship game right? Like us the last two years. Unless you are saying we are still down?

 

We are still trying to get over the hump, yeah we were still down the last two years. I don't see how anyone would think we weren't... did you see the offensive strategy of "try and get Henery in range to punt, maybe get lucky to get in range for a field goal, and get the defense back on the field with as much room as possible without screwing anything up for them" the team had 2 years ago for most the season (after the Iowa State debacle) and last year after Martinez's injury? The truth is, while the team has been getting better, Nebraska hasn't won anything notable yet and the offense is still a HUGE question mark until it proves it can play in big games.

 

On the scale of good BCS conferences to meh, ACC ranks 5th, slightly ahead of the Big East. All the historically good ACC teams have been down recently.

 

I think we are over the hump. We competed very strongly in both games and barely lost. Bo has gotten us there but we had to cut out the cancer(Shawn Watson). All of our losses last year can easily be blamed on him. While we haven't won Conference Championships we are now considered highly dangerous now than when we had Callahan here.

[NUance]

 

You do know Florida St. made it to the ACC Championship game right? Like us the last two years. Unless you are saying we are still down?

 

We are still trying to get over the hump, yeah we were still down the last two years. I don't see how anyone would think we weren't... did you see the offensive strategy of "try and get Henery in range to punt, maybe get lucky to get in range for a field goal, and get the defense back on the field with as much room as possible without screwing anything up for them" the team had 2 years ago for most the season (after the Iowa State debacle) and last year after Martinez's injury? The truth is, while the team has been getting better, Nebraska hasn't won anything notable yet and the offense is still a HUGE question mark until it proves it can play in big games.

 

On the scale of good BCS conferences to meh, ACC ranks 5th, slightly ahead of the Big East. All the historically good ACC teams have been down recently.

 

I think we are over the hump. We competed very strongly in both games and barely lost. Bo has gotten us there but we had to cut out the cancer(Shawn Watson). All of our losses last year can easily be blamed on him. While we haven't won Conference Championships we are now considered highly dangerous now than when we had Callahan here.

We've passed through the dark time. We're definitely over the hump. Bo fixed the defense in his first couple of years, which was really our problem during the tenure of he-who-shall-not-be-named. Now we're going to overhaul the offense. Once we get traction on offense--WATCH OUT!

[redblooded]

I guess for me, my brain views over the hump as having won a conference championship and having a more consistent offense that isn't a stress causing liability for half the season when they take the field and a relief when they get back off without a string of drive and field position killing penalties or a turnover and the defense can come back on. Guess that's just me.