Is Boise State a top football program

broganreynik said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

 
broganreynik said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yet they stuck us in there after we lost to an unranked team...at least oregon won their conference...

 
irafreak said:
broganreynik said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yet they stuck us in there after we lost to an unranked team...at least oregon won their conference...
Click to expand...
??

Colorado was ranked.

 
I am a fan of Boise State and I think that take a lot of crap for nothing, but I will admit to something.......

This morning I was watching a panel on ESPN that had Urban Meyer, Bob Stoops and Nick Saban. The panel talked about playoffs. Meyer made a comment about his Utah team a few years back and how he felt that any given Saturday that could beat anyone....Especially at the end of the year. He indicated that it wasn't the same with his Florida teams. After the SEC schedule is was more like trying to make it to the end.

I have always looked over the Boise State Conference schedule. Yeah, I've seen people bring it up before, but I did ignore it.

I just like underdogs and Boise always seems ready to play. One of the reasons I'm excited for Fresno State vs the Huskers. They've had a few off years, but you better be ready to play.

 
It's amazing what they do with the talent they get. I consider them a top tier school they deserve a better conference, was hoping the pac 12 would take them.

 
I agree with a few things... it's tough to make a comparison based on the competition they do face. But that said, they do play some BCS teams, and they do the best they can with what they're given. They tried to improve themselves conference wise. Heck, when the expansion talk was going on, they tried to position themselves for a Pac-10/12 invite. So they can only do so much in that respect. And sorry, but they shouldn't have to schedule a literal death match gauntlet of a non-conference schedule just to be in the discussion for a BCS game... not the championship, but just a game.

I think a 16-team playoff solves this, rather easily, because then you're talking about the champ of each FBS conference, plus 5 at-large. You then give every team in the division an actual shot to prove on the field they're national champs.

Until that comes about, if you run the table undefeated, you deserve a shot at the national championship in my mind. No ifs, ands, or buts, if you're undefeated, and another team has a loss, you should be in. Personal feeling about the whole shebang. Again, the best would be to have a playoff, and have it all taken out of the hands of people to decide who should play for the national championship, at least in the sense of the 5 non-BCS auto qualifier conferences.

 
broganreynik said:
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.
Click to expand...
They shied away from playing Nebraska. Follow the link

My link

 
How the hell was colorado ranked 14th! I don't remember that at all. They lost to Fresno State and 41-7 to Texas. I must be getting old... :facepalm:

 
Boise is not a top team because they don't win consistently week to week in a competitive conference. We've all see appalachian st beat Michigan ....anyone can beat anyone once when they can practice for a year for one team. When you play the big dogs week after week it changes the landscape. Put boise in the sec...big 12 or big 10...even pac 12 and they are .500 at best.

 
Husker_x said:
broganreynik said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
cb1954 said:
broganreynik said:
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.
Click to expand...
They shied away from playing Nebraska. Follow the link

My link
Click to expand...
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.

 
They're an above average football team that plays a tough non-conference schedule but their conference is softer than Abe Simpson

 
Give a 3rd or 4th place team in a BCS conference Boise's schedule and there is probably a 90% chance that they go undefeated. No way in hell you can convince me that the 3rd or 4th place team in a BCS conference deserves to play in the title game.

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

Funny you should mention that since in 2009, Cincy went undefeated and didn't get to play for the title because their conference sucked. Then there was 2007 where a 1 loss Kansas was passed over for a 2 loss LSU because of strength of schedule. Pretty much any year the Big East ends up having a team with a record that makes it to the title game, the Big East team isn't even in the conversation. Strength of schedule matters even within the BCS conferences so why should Boise get a pass?

 
Caven said:
Give a 3rd or 4th place team in a BCS conference Boise's schedule and there is probably a 90% chance that they go undefeated. No way in hell you can convince me that the 3rd or 4th place team in a BCS conference deserves to play in the title game.

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

Funny you should mention that since in 2009, Cincy went undefeated and didn't get to play for the title because their conference sucked. Then there was 2007 where a 1 loss Kansas was passed over for a 2 loss LSU because of strength of schedule. Pretty much any year the Big East ends up having a team with a record that makes it to the title game, the Big East team isn't even in the conversation. Strength of schedule matters even within the BCS conferences so why should Boise get a pass?
Click to expand...
They don't get a pass. And neither do Big East teams. That was my whole point. It's not exactly an easy thing to up and join a conference to up you strength of schedule. The fact of the matter is, do you know for a fact that Boise is worse than say Auburn? No. You can make objective decisions, but you can't prove it without them playing.

Nobody has come out and said it yet, but are we all just saying no non-BCS school can play for the championship no matter what? That's the entire basis of the anti-trust lawsuit, and the attitude that you guys have, is the attitude that fuels that lawsuit. I ask yet again:

WHAT MORE CAN THEY DO?

All a team can do is beat every obstacle in their way. If you're eliminating them before the season even starts, then THAT means the season is a waste.

Also, in 2009, it wasn't like Cincy was passed over by a one loss team. I believe there were five no loss teams heading into the bowl games. If you give me just 3 undefeated teams and two are from BCS conferences, I'll side with them over Boise State.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top