Is Boise State a top football program

[cb1954]

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.

They have played 16 BCS teams in 12 seasons. If they want to be taken seriously they should play several a year. They have 5 ooc games this year and play 1 BCS team - Georgia. What if Notre Dame joined the MAC and played one BCS team a year, should they be taken seriously then?

 

[fro daddy]

Its diffent when you have 1, maybe 2 big games a year to get up for then when you have to play tough teams back to back to back and so on. It gives you no time to recover from injuries, your taking a physical beating from teams that are as good or better than you. It takes a toll on the players over time.

Forget the fact that VT is an ACC team and the two top ACC clearly had issues in some games last year. (VT losing to boise, 1AA james madison and losing 12-40 to Stanford. FSU losing 17-47 to OU) Look at these stretches and decied who has it easier. Boise St or BCS teams?

Boise - VT, @Wyoming, Oregon St (5-7), @New Mexico St, Toledo, @San Jose St & Louisana Tech

MU- Cu, @ATM, OU, @NU, @TT, KSU & @ISU

NU-@KSU, TX, @OSU, MU, @ISU, KU & @ATM

Its more of a challenge in a bigger conference. NE had an emotional game against TX than followed that with a road game to a top team at OSU, then back home for another big game vs MU. MU @ATM, then homecoming against OU, then to emotional NU. Its no wonder that injuries and fatigue(both mental and physical) can cause teams to slip.

If Mu had 7 weeks to get healthy again against cannon fodder after ATM and OU, instead of going to a hostile and talented NE for their 3rd tough game in a row, maybe they just roll on through the year unbeaten. Instead, they played a 3rd tough opponent in 3 weeks with 3 major injuries and were emotionally and physically beaten in the first quarter. If only we could have played a schedule full of teams that most BCS teams play and beat to death in the first weeks of the season we could have been just like Boise

 

[broganreynik]

Look, I'm not saying I think Boise is better than a one loss or two loss SEC team or whatever. If a spot in the MNC comes down to an undefeated Boise vs. a one loss Nebraska, I will fight to the death that Nebraska deserves the spot. But with the system we have in place, I don't feel like it is fair to a team, any team, to be looked over for a spot in the game because of a preconceived notion that they are not as good. Take the boxer example, sure the one guy may have beaten 50 kids, but that doesn't mean he's not good. The other guy would have beat the 50 kids too, so using his opponents as a reference has it's limitations. Take a look at last year. TCU went undefeated, beating Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl. Now, give Auburn that same schedule. Most likely, they would've gone undefeated as well. If Auburn goes undefeated with that shedule does that mean they're suddenly a worse team? No, it just means they played lesser competition. So until you have separate the BCS conferences from the mid-majors, or have every team play eachother, there is literally no way to objectively say one team is better than another unless they played head-to-head. Sure, Boise could schedule 4 top 10 teams in non-conference every year, but they don't. It would be insane to do so. I stick to my claim that if you're a one-loss team, and you don't get in, tough. You should have won all your games. Now like I said before, if Boise wins all their games, but they're all close games, then obviously you can say "there's no way they would have won in a tougher conference", and put in a one loss team over them. Just like everyone else thinks. My argument is that if Boise wins every game convincigly, then in my opinion they should be in over a one loss team.

 

[broganreynik]

Hell, they could schedule 4 top 10 teams, and what are the odds those 4 teams will still be top 10 teams when they get to that season? Not good. Some of you are acting like they get to the off-season and just analyze, ok who's the top 25 team this season that is going to underperform, yep, ok, got 'em. Call 'em up. Scheduling is more than just that. I'm not sure when the games were finalized, but I'd venture to say both Virginia Tech and Georgia were top 10 teams, or at least top 15, when they lined up the games.

 

[HuskerFanChuck]

Exactly, br. And again, I'll make the claim that a playoff would take care of this issue. You have a sixteen team playoff, autoqualifiers from every conference, and five at-large spots, determined by the BCS formula, or whatever formula you use. At that point, you would have no one left outside that would then have a legitimate claim to the title. You've given every no-loss and one-loss team an entry, if recent history is any indication. You prove on the field who's the best, no ifs, ands or buts. They have to go through the playoff to get the title. I'll go a step beyond, and say that yes, if you go undefeated and you're one of two or the only undefeated team in the nation, you deserve to be playing for the national championship.

I still remember Tom Osborne saying, when BYU won the title after going undefeated, who else were you going to vote for? I think the same should apply here. Unfortunately, we have moved to an area that is dictated more by the six BCS conferences more than what's fair in collegiate athletics. I'm really surprised that more people don't have a problem with the auto-elimination of teams from 5 of 11 conferences before the season even begins. This plays even more true for those that want to hold onto the bowl system, for some sense of tradition. Tradition would indicate, no matter who you are, that you should be able to play for the national championship. Somehow, in college football, that's been taken away. I find it hilarious that people want to take it away from Boise State or TCU or Utah (though those last two have made the moves to get to a BCS conference, though the argument with TCU being in the Big East will come up again in terms of strength of schedule and getting into the BCS championship game) when places like Clemson and Miami, FL had that opportunity when they were basically on the same level as what a Boise State or TCU is now. How much different is Boise State from Miami of '84? Actually, I take that back... Boise State has proven a lot more than Miami had at that point. Boise State has had a run of several seasons with success, and is still taking criticism. Miami had barely even started their rise. Florida State in the late 70's and early 80's is another great example. Granted, Bowden didn't win his until '93, but even so, the opportunities were better. I just find it amazing that teams that happened to be there or happened to draw into a conference that got included when the BCS mess was formed all of a sudden have this miraculous 'in' to a system, and we're willing to exclude teams that happened to be on the wrong side of the fence for one reason or another when the deal was made. I think you'd have a tough argument to make that the Big East is currently a stronger football conference than the Mountain West, though that could change with TCU changing conferences and BYU leaving.

Anyhow... another day, another book. Just my thoughts.

As an aside, I found it slightly hilarious that the basketball selection committee was split up according to what division schools play in for football. Just seemed ironic to me.

 

[NUance]

By the Numbers: The Century's Best So FarMike Huguenin Rivals.com College Football Editor August 31, 2011

1. Boise State 124-18 .873 Buzz: The Broncos have had seven seasons this century with one or fewer losses.

2. Oklahoma 122-26 .824 Buzz: Almost 20 percent of the losses came in 2009, when OU finished 8-5.

3. Texas 115-26 .816 Buzz: The Longhorns lost seven times last season, their first losing season since 1997.

4. Ohio State 114-26 .814 Buzz: As with Oklahoma, almost 20 percent of the losses came in one season, when the Buckeyes lost five times in 2001.

5. TCU 108-29 .788 Buzz: The Horned Frogs lost six games in both 2001 and 2004.

6. USC 110-31 .780 Buzz: The Trojans won at least 11 games every season from 2002 through 2008.

7. LSU 110-33 .769 Buzz: The Tigers have lost at least twice every season this century except 2003, when they went 13-1 - and lost to Florida team.

8. Virginia Tech 110-35 .759 Buzz: The Hokies have a streak of seven consecutive 10-win seasons.

9. Florida 108-35 .755 Buzz: The Gators lost five times last season; they had lost 10 total games in the previous five seasons.

10. Georgia 104-38 .732 Buzz: The Bulldogs were 6-7 last season, their first losing record since 1996 and the first time this century they hadn't won at least eight games.

LINK

Here it is in black-and-white from Rivals. Boise State isn't just a top program--they are THE top program. The debate is over.

 

[redblooded]

Wow you mean they can win loads of conference games against teams that real teams pay for one and done wins in the non-conference.

Color me impressed, you're right, debate over.

 

[irafreak]

Lock er up.

 

[Fuzzy]

Tell ya what, let Boise st. and TCU play in the MNC, lose and people will finally stfu.

 

[Husker_x]

Yes, Nuance, slicing your way through a horde of pay-to-slay teams finishes the conversation.

:facepalm:

and

:facepalm:

 

[NUance]

:lol:

:moreinteresting

 

[okaive]

If Boise wants to be taken cereal ( S. Park ref), then why aren't they fighting to try to go to a bcs conference? Hell, one is needing a team as we speak.

Until then, they get what crumbs we give them.

 

[husker_99]

By the Numbers: The Century's Best So FarMike Huguenin Rivals.com College Football Editor August 31, 2011

1. Boise State 124-18 .873 Buzz: The Broncos have had seven seasons this century with one or fewer losses.

2. Oklahoma 122-26 .824 Buzz: Almost 20 percent of the losses came in 2009, when OU finished 8-5.

3. Texas 115-26 .816 Buzz: The Longhorns lost seven times last season, their first losing season since 1997.

4. Ohio State 114-26 .814 Buzz: As with Oklahoma, almost 20 percent of the losses came in one season, when the Buckeyes lost five times in 2001.

5. TCU 108-29 .788 Buzz: The Horned Frogs lost six games in both 2001 and 2004.

6. USC 110-31 .780 Buzz: The Trojans won at least 11 games every season from 2002 through 2008.

7. LSU 110-33 .769 Buzz: The Tigers have lost at least twice every season this century except 2003, when they went 13-1 - and lost to Florida team.

8. Virginia Tech 110-35 .759 Buzz: The Hokies have a streak of seven consecutive 10-win seasons.

9. Florida 108-35 .755 Buzz: The Gators lost five times last season; they had lost 10 total games in the previous five seasons.

10. Georgia 104-38 .732 Buzz: The Bulldogs were 6-7 last season, their first losing record since 1996 and the first time this century they hadn't won at least eight games.

LINK

Here it is in black-and-white from Rivals. Boise State isn't just a top program--they are THE top program. The debate is over.

No the debate isn't over. This century is only heading into it's 10th season. So these stats are only good for 9. Was OU a top program in the 90's? Hell no! and neither was USC. Boise St. was 1-AA. They just moved up to the big leagues. TCU wasn't any good. It's easy to cherry pick 9 seasons but much harder when it inlcudes 20 or more seasons. Let's see some consistency over a long time before we start saying that so and so school is the best.

 

[HuskerFanChuck]

If Boise wants to be taken cereal ( S. Park ref), then why aren't they fighting to try to go to a bcs conference? Hell, one is needing a team as we speak.

Until then, they get what crumbs we give them.

First of all, when the PAC-12 was expanding last year, there were many rumblings about them trying to do just that. Obviously, that didn't pan out, and probably won't. But you're really going to insinuate that they should try and place themselves in the Big XII? Not to mention the absolute lack of stability there is in the conference right now, the massive amount of extra dollars beyond the MWC they'd need to put in for all their road trips? Not just one trip per year, but several, all to the same place. Not really sure that's what I'd be doing. But I'm not sure it matters anyway, considering there have been practically ZERO rumors coming out of the majority of Big XII discussions with their name on it. Obviously not counting the same old thread on several sites saying 'What teams could the Big XII bring in?'

I'll say this: If someone can prove me wrong on the $$ for games to the two conferences, I'd gladly eat my hat (figuratively) on it. But I don't see it possibly being less expensive travel wise. And yes, I know TCU went with the Big East. I also think that's going to be a nightmare for them, and I have an inkling that the Big East may have more expansion ideas in this part of the country than just that as well, especially if/when the Big XII implodes.

My 2 cents... probably 1 cent now from inflation.

 

[papersun87]

By the Numbers: The Century's Best So FarMike Huguenin Rivals.com College Football Editor August 31, 2011

1. Boise State 124-18 .873 Buzz: The Broncos have had seven seasons this century with one or fewer losses.

2. Oklahoma 122-26 .824 Buzz: Almost 20 percent of the losses came in 2009, when OU finished 8-5.

3. Texas 115-26 .816 Buzz: The Longhorns lost seven times last season, their first losing season since 1997.

4. Ohio State 114-26 .814 Buzz: As with Oklahoma, almost 20 percent of the losses came in one season, when the Buckeyes lost five times in 2001.

5. TCU 108-29 .788 Buzz: The Horned Frogs lost six games in both 2001 and 2004.

6. USC 110-31 .780 Buzz: The Trojans won at least 11 games every season from 2002 through 2008.

7. LSU 110-33 .769 Buzz: The Tigers have lost at least twice every season this century except 2003, when they went 13-1 - and lost to Florida team.

8. Virginia Tech 110-35 .759 Buzz: The Hokies have a streak of seven consecutive 10-win seasons.

9. Florida 108-35 .755 Buzz: The Gators lost five times last season; they had lost 10 total games in the previous five seasons.

10. Georgia 104-38 .732 Buzz: The Bulldogs were 6-7 last season, their first losing record since 1996 and the first time this century they hadn't won at least eight games.

LINK

Here it is in black-and-white from Rivals. Boise State isn't just a top program--they are THE top program. The debate is over.

Not sure if serious . . .