Root for Boise St. and Kellen Moore

[HUSKER 37]

Have you tried keeping track of BSU's receivers against that smurf turf on tv?

I doubt it's as hard at field level, but you never know.

It shames me as a longtime Husker fan to hear other Husker fans justify Boise slamming just because of their conference foes..Are you too young to remember the "Big 2 and Little 6"?

I think BSU could've beaten us Saturday..But I'm also confident we can get the holes in our secondary coverage ironed out soon and be able to beat them if we get the chance in a bowl.

 

[HUSKER 37]

And they also b!^@h and moan about not being able to wear blue jerseys on their blue field. That's bush league stuff.

Why should they not be able to wear all blue at home? That ruling was a farse by the Mountain West.

This is kind of my point on Boise State. If they want to be taken seriously as a program, get rid of the gimmick field. I don't really buy that the blue jerseys were a huge advantage considering that plenty of football teams play on green fields with green jerseys, but the truth is that it is jarring. It would be like a baseball team having a bright pink baseball mound. Certain batters are going lose focus as a result, and for the home team, that wouldn't be an issue because those players would be acclimated to the oddity. You are accustomed to the game being played in a certain environment, and for some people, having that environment altered can have a detrimental effect on their game. I think Boise benefits unduly from that, and thus I fully agreed with the moratorium on blue uni's.

But yeah, I was wrong on their skill position players. I thought they lost a pretty good RB too, but they only had the two WR's drafted.

Boise's smurfy blue field is the only thing keeping us from having the ugliest turf in Div.1

 

[PaulCrewe]

This is kind of my point on Boise State. If they want to be taken seriously as a program, get rid of the gimmick field. I don't really buy that the blue jerseys were a huge advantage considering that plenty of football teams play on green fields with green jerseys, but the truth is that it is jarring. It would be like a baseball team having a bright pink baseball mound. Certain batters are going lose focus as a result, and for the home team, that wouldn't be an issue because those players would be acclimated to the oddity. You are accustomed to the game being played in a certain environment, and for some people, having that environment altered can have a detrimental effect on their game. I think Boise benefits unduly from that, and thus I fully agreed with the moratorium on blue uni's.

But yeah, I was wrong on their skill position players. I thought they lost a pretty good RB too, but they only had the two WR's drafted.

So has this been an issue for you since 1986 when the turf was installed? Teams weren't having trouble beating them on thesmurf turf back then. Yes, the uni's weren't completely all blue then, but c'mon.

Using the colors of a teams uniforms and the color of their field as excuses for a teams performance is one huge joke. Honestly I am pretty sre I couldn't go on as a fan the day I uttered the words,"the color of their unis and field cost my team the game". That is weak. THis is like saying the NCAA needs to limit all teams to three uniform combinations, because Oregon(and now others) have so many combinations that it makes opposing teams A. nauseous and B. at an unfair recruiting disadvantage.

Maybe it is more the fact that Boise's staff has developed under appreciated talent and turned them into a machine where parts are just replaced and they continue to roll.

 

[Lil' Red]

I don't know about Georgia but they did have a lot of close losses last year and return a lot of starters so I'd say they have a pretty decent chance of finishing in the top 25.

If Boise could join a top conference they would but that's not there call. They've won enough high profile games over the years to prove that they can compete with the top teams though.

It's not about having a few high profile wins over a number of years...that's simply not enough. The meat of a schedule, the brutal slog, as it were, is in your conference. Many teams schedule one decent noncon knowing that their real tests will come once the conference slate begins. Boise plays one non-con a season knowing that the rest of the schedule is going to be a cakewalk for the most part. If an undefeated Boise team leapfrogged a one loss B1G team or SEC team or Pac-12 team it would be ridiculously unjustifiable.

They just don't play enough good teams. That's the bottom line. That's not their fault, but it isn't ours either.

Oregon only played one good team last year and they made it to the championship. Same with Texas in 09.

 

[Nebula]

I don't know about Georgia but they did have a lot of close losses last year and return a lot of starters so I'd say they have a pretty decent chance of finishing in the top 25.

If Boise could join a top conference they would but that's not there call. They've won enough high profile games over the years to prove that they can compete with the top teams though.

It's not about having a few high profile wins over a number of years...that's simply not enough. The meat of a schedule, the brutal slog, as it were, is in your conference. Many teams schedule one decent noncon knowing that their real tests will come once the conference slate begins. Boise plays one non-con a season knowing that the rest of the schedule is going to be a cakewalk for the most part. If an undefeated Boise team leapfrogged a one loss B1G team or SEC team or Pac-12 team it would be ridiculously unjustifiable.

They just don't play enough good teams. That's the bottom line. That's not their fault, but it isn't ours either.

Oregon only played one good team last year and they made it to the championship. Same with Texas in 09.

The cumulative quality of opponents isn't even close. Not...even...close. From top to bottom, Boise State plays a vastly easier schedule than the two teams you referenced. Look up Oregon's schedule from 2010 and Texas schedule from '09, cross check that with Boise from those two years, and tell me the talent level is comparable.

Better yet, look week by week at opponents faced and ask yourself, "who would I rather play?"

 

[Nebula]

1.So has this been an issue for you since 1986 when the turf was installed? Teams weren't having trouble beating them on thesmurf turf back then. Yes, the uni's weren't completely all blue then, but c'mon.

Using the colors of a teams uniforms and the color of their field as excuses for a teams performance is one huge joke. Honestly I am pretty sre I couldn't go on as a fan the day I uttered the words,"the color of their unis and field cost my team the game".

2.)That is weak. THis is like saying the NCAA needs to limit all teams to three uniform combinations, because Oregon(and now others) have so many combinations that it makes opposing teams A. nauseous and B. at an unfair recruiting disadvantage.

3.)Maybe it is more the fact that Boise's staff has developed under appreciated talent and turned them into a machine where parts are just replaced and they continue to roll.

1.) Yes. I don't like the blue field, and I never have. I don't know why...it's gimmicky. But as I clearly stated, I'm don't buy the idea that it has some catastrophic effect on the focus of every opposing team that steps onto their field. Refer to the green team green field statement I made as a tangible example.

2.) I'm looking at what Maryland is wearing tonight, and I'm thinking limiting color combinations on uniforms might not be a terrible idea.

3.) No. I think that Boise State is the perfect example of why I want a playoff in college football. I would absolutely LOVE to see Boise play USC in a playoff semifinal, or Alabama or Ohio State. If this existed, and Kellen Moore did in fact step on the field and shred the bejesus out of Wisconsin in a playoff game, I'd be the first to say, "Paul, you were totally right man! Boise is for real!"

But that isn't going to happen. And honestly, at the end of the day, I just don't think Boise State is as good as they appear. I don't think they walk out of B1G conference play with less than three losses. It's just my opinion. But Georgia seems like a perennial disappoint to me at this point, Virginia Tech lost to James Madison after playing Boise, and Oklahoma had title hopes that year and went into that game with a degree of disappointment whereas Boise was headed TO THE BIGGEST GAME OF THEIR LIVES. I respect you guys in your fervor defending Boise, and I don't discount that they have had some big moments in the last five years, but until they either join a major conference or a playoff finally (mercifully) comes into existence, I don't think they're worthy.

 

[Blaze1up]

I'm rooting for 6 or 7 teams all with one loss except us of course.

 

[Lil' Red]

I don't know about Georgia but they did have a lot of close losses last year and return a lot of starters so I'd say they have a pretty decent chance of finishing in the top 25.

If Boise could join a top conference they would but that's not there call. They've won enough high profile games over the years to prove that they can compete with the top teams though.

It's not about having a few high profile wins over a number of years...that's simply not enough. The meat of a schedule, the brutal slog, as it were, is in your conference. Many teams schedule one decent noncon knowing that their real tests will come once the conference slate begins. Boise plays one non-con a season knowing that the rest of the schedule is going to be a cakewalk for the most part. If an undefeated Boise team leapfrogged a one loss B1G team or SEC team or Pac-12 team it would be ridiculously unjustifiable.

They just don't play enough good teams. That's the bottom line. That's not their fault, but it isn't ours either.

Oregon only played one good team last year and they made it to the championship. Same with Texas in 09.

The cumulative quality of opponents isn't even close. Not...even...close. From top to bottom, Boise State plays a vastly easier schedule than the two teams you referenced. Look up Oregon's schedule from 2010 and Texas schedule from '09, cross check that with Boise from those two years, and tell me the talent level is comparable.

Better yet, look week by week at opponents faced and ask yourself, "who would I rather play?"

I understand that but the fact of the matter is Stanford was the only good team Oregon played and Nebraska was the only good team Texas played. I have no doubt that Boise would have beat everyone else on their schedules with the exception of those teams. Also Boise played 3 teams that finished in the top 25 last year while Oregon played just one.