BOISE STATE: 3 Years Straight Years Starting tough against Ranked Teams, Winning anyway

[OFFNY]

.
For the 3rd straight season, the Boise State Broncos took on a ranked team to open their season ...... and won the game. Unlike last season's opening-game nail biter against Virginia Tech, the Broncos dominated the Bulldogs after an early 80-yard touchdown run by Georgia's Brandon Boykin 8 and-a-half minutes into the first quarter.

Also, it was the second consecutive season that the Broncos traveled across the country and went into their opponents' back yard to win. Last season, they beat 10th ranked Virginia Tech in Landover, Maryland to open the season. This year, they beat the #19 Georgie Bulldogs in Atlanta's Georgia Dome to start their 2011 campaign. Chris Petersen and company certainly haven't been shying away from challenges.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/2011/09/04/1785531/dawgs-pounded.html

[waroriole]

.
For the 3rd straight season, the Boise State Broncos took on a ranked team to open their season ...... and won the game. Unlike last season's opening-game nail biter against Virginia Tech, the Broncos dominated the Bulldogs after an early 80-yard touchdown run by Georgia's Brandon Boykin 8 and-a-half minutes into the first quarter.

Also, it was the second consecutive season that the Broncos traveled across the country and went into their opponents' back yard to win. Last season, they beat 10th ranked Virginia Tech in Landover, Maryland to open the season. This year, they beat the #19 Georgie Bulldogs in Atlanta's Georgia Dome to start their 2011 campaign. Chris Petersen and company certainly haven't been shying away from challenges.http://www.idahostatesman.com/2011/09/04/1785531/dawgs-pounded.html

I don't think I'd say that: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/329732-nebraska-offers-boise-state-2-for-1-deal-why-wont-bsu-accept

Also, I don't think it's anything to applaud them on. They play nobody in conference (except TCU this year) so if they want to be taken seriously they should have at least 3 of these games on their schedule.

That said, they're definitely a good team. They dominated UGA last night. Moore is a very good QB.

[OFFNY]

I don't think I'd say that: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/329732-nebraska-offers-boise-state-2-for-1-deal-why-wont-bsu-accept

Also, I don't think it's anything to applaud them on. They play nobody in conference (except TCU this year) so if they want to be taken seriously they should have at least 3 of these games on their schedule.

That said, they're definitely a good team. They dominated UGA last night. Moore is a very good QB.

I would say that. While most ranked teams start the season with cupcakes, Boise State has come right out of the gate against a ranked team, 3 years running, twice on the road.

Also, that's the Bleacher report that you are referring to, which is not to be taken seriously at all. I'm not saying that the information is necessarily incorrect, but you should have a better reference than the Bleacher Report.

[waroriole]

I would say that. While most ranked teams start the season with cupcakes, Boise State has come right out of the gate against a ranked team, 3 years running, twice on the road.

LSU came out with Oregon in their opener. Oregon is way better than UGA. LSU will also play WV. Then they go and play in the SEC. Boise doesn't even play as good of a non conference schedule as LSU. Alabama plays Penn State. Auburn plays Clemson. Florida plays FSU.

All these teams play at least one good non conference game, which is nothing less than what Boise does. The difference is, they don't need to use the non conference schedule to make up for playing a weak conference schedule.

[OFFNY]

LSU came out with Oregon in their opener. Oregon is way better than UGA. LSU will also play WV. Then they go and play in the SEC. Boise doesn't even play as good of a non conference schedule as LSU. Alabama plays Penn State. Auburn plays Clemson. Florida plays FSU.

All these teams play at least one good non conference game, which is nothing less than what Boise does. The difference is, they don't need to use the non conference schedule to make up for playing a weak conference schedule.

I said most ranked teams, not all. Far more than half of the top 25 teams will open their season against considerably lower-regarded opponents. Boise State has gone right into it without a "warm-up game" 3 years running. Also, this is from the same Bleacher Report that you used as a reference:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/310720-why-wont-nebraska-play-boise-state-in-2011

[waroriole]

I said most ranked teams, not all. Far more than half of the top 25 teams will open their season against considerably lower-regarded opponents. Boise State has gone right into it without a "warm-up game" 3 years running. Also, this is from the same Bleacher Report that you used as a reference:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/310720-why-wont-nebraska-play-boise-state-in-2011

Who cares if you open with a tough team. As long as you play a tough schedule over all, why should it matter who you open with? Why laud BSU for playing one tough game and then overlook the fact that they don't play anyone else out of conference?

That article you cited is before the one I cited. Apparently, Nebraska was willing to play Boise, even willing to go to Boise, but BSU never called back. IMO, it's b/c they want to play the "we can only play who is on our schedule" card, hoping that it gets them enough sympathy to get in the NCG one year. It's a shame, b/c I'd like to see what they could do with a tough schedule. They need to adopt the Florida State motto of the late 70's early 80's: anyone, anytime, any place. AND they need to actually mean it.

[OFFNY]

Who cares if you open with a tough team. As long as you play a tough schedule over all, why should it matter who you open with? Why laud BSU for playing one tough game and then overlook the fact that they don't play anyone else out of conference?

That article you cited is before the one I cited. Apparently, Nebraska was willing to play Boise, even willing to go to Boise, but BSU never called back. IMO, it's b/c they want to play the "we can only play who is on our schedule" card, hoping that it gets them enough sympathy to get in the NCG one year. It's a shame, b/c I'd like to see what they could do with a tough schedule. They need to adopt the Florida State motto of the late 70's early 80's: anyone, anytime, any place. AND they need to actually mean it.

In college football, it means A LOT to open against a tough teams. You're starting right out of the gate with no "practice games", and going right into the fire. And if you lose, you are more than likely immediately eliminated from the national championship picture, so the risk is high and great. Of course, in any other sport on the planet (from Little League baseball on up to all of the major professional sports) it wouldn't mean much, because they have a playoff system to determine their champions.

[waroriole]

In college football, it means A LOT to open against a tough teams. You're starting right out of the gate with no "practice games", and going right into the fire. And if you lose, you are more than likely immediately eliminated from the national championship picture, so the risk is high and great. Of course, in any other sport on the planet (from Little League baseball on up to all of the major professional sports) it wouldn't mean much, because they have a playoff system to determine their champions.

If you lose, that means you have the whole season to get back in the race. It's much better to lose early, than lose late. Who you play first is completely irrelevant.

[OFFNY]

Who cares if you open with a tough team. As long as you play a tough schedule over all, why should it matter who you open with? Why laud BSU for playing one tough game and then overlook the fact that they don't play anyone else out of conference?

That article you cited is before the one I cited. Apparently, Nebraska was willing to play Boise, even willing to go to Boise, but BSU never called back. IMO, it's b/c they want to play the "we can only play who is on our schedule" card, hoping that it gets them enough sympathy to get in the NCG one year. It's a shame, b/c I'd like to see what they could do with a tough schedule. They need to adopt the Florida State motto of the late 70's early 80's: anyone, anytime, any place. AND they need to actually mean it.

Both articles are from the Bleacher Report. Do you have a serious reference for either of the claims by either team ? Also, there is a lot of money and other circumstances involved, so if one team makes an offer, the other team is not necessarily "afraid" to play them if they don't accept.

[OFFNY]

If you lose, that means you have the whole season to get back in the race.

It's much better to lose early, than lose late.

Who you play first is completely irrelevant.

Bull and bull in both cases. Last year, 3 major teams went undefeated, and only 2 of them got to play for the national title. Plus, there were several other 1-loss teams that were shut out of any title hopes whatsoever. Off the top of my head, that also happened in 2004, when Auburn went 13-0 and was shut out of the national title game. You can go undefeated and not get a shot at the title, let alone lose your opening game.

[waroriole]

I said most ranked teams, not all. Far more than half of the top 25 teams will open their season against considerably lower-regarded opponents. Boise State has gone right into it without a "warm-up game" 3 years running. Also, this is from the same Bleacher Report that you used as a reference:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/310720-why-wont-nebraska-play-boise-state-in-2011

These are the ranked teams who play a non conference game as tough or tougher than Boise:

Texas A&M (Arkansas)
Arkansas (A&M)
West Virginia (LSU)
Michigan State (Notre Dame)
Notre Dame (MSU, USC, Stanford)
Oklahoma (Florida State)
Florida State (OK)
Oregon (LSU)
LSU (Oregon)
Alabama (Penn State)
Penn State (ALA)
Auburn (Clemson)
Georgia (Boise)
Stanford (ND)
South Carolina (Clemson)
Ohio State (Miami)
USC (Notre Dame)
Missouri (Arizona State)

That's 18. Also, Wisconsin plays Oregon St and Nebraska plays Washington (2 BCS schools).

Boise has no leg to stand on when it comes to schedule. They need to be willing to travel and build up a reputation like FSU did when Bowden got there.

EDIT: Looks like it's 19. I left off Florida, who plays Florida State.

[waroriole]

Bull and bull in both cases. Last year, 3 major teams went undefeated, and only 2 of them got to play for the national title. Plus, there were sevral other 1-loss teams that were shut out of any title hopes whatsoever. Off the top of my head, that also happened in 2004, when Auburn went 13-0 and was shut out of the national title game. You can go undefeated and not get a shot at the title, let alone lose your opening game.

What does a playoff have to do with Boise's schedule? Why are you changing subjects?

There have been instances where it doesn't happen, but it's pretty obvious it's better to lose early than late. I don't see how you can dispute that.

[OFFNY]

These are the ranked teams who play a non conference game as tough or tougher than Boise:


I stated that I knew that they played other ranked teams in their non-conference schedule. My point was specifically about the opening game of the season, when you haven't had a chance to get your team any momentum and also run the risk of immediately ending your national title hopes by losing said game. Why do you keep bringing this up ?

[OFFNY]

What does a playoff have to do with Boise's schedule? Why are you changing subjects?

There have been instances where it doesn't happen, but it's pretty obvious it's better to lose early than late. I don't see how you can dispute that.

I'm not changing ANY subject. This is the same subject about national ranking, the national title, and the opening game. You made a statement that was completely wrong, This is what you said, which is flat-out incorrect.


If you lose, that means you have the whole season to get back in the race. It's much better to lose early, than lose late. Who you play first is completely irrelevant.

Teams that go undefeated sometimes don't have a chance to play for the title, let alone a team that loses its opening game. Boise State and any other team that starts out immediately against another ranked team is puttingt their season on the line immediately.

[waroriole]

I stated that I knew that they played other ranked teams in their non-conference schedule. My point was specifically about the opening game of the season, when you haven't had a chance to get your team any momentum and also run the risk of immediately ending your national title hopes by losing said game. Why do you keep bringing this up ?

Because it's irrelevant to only talk about who you play first. We might as well talk about who you play first, when you have to travel from Idaho b/c you keep trying to whittle the criteria down to where only Boise can qualify. I'd much rather play a tough opener, and then have 10 cakewalks through the rest of the season (with one potentially tough game) than play a schedule like Alabama or Oklahoma(where you play a cupcake opener then play 8-9 tough games). The team you're playing is in the same boat. It's not like UGA played 5 games and were in mid season form when they played Boise.

[OFFNY]

Because it's irrelevant to only talk about who you play first. We might as well talk about who you play first, when you have to travel from Idaho b/c you keep trying to whittle the criteria down to where only Boise can qualify. I'd much rather play a tough opener, and then have 10 cakewalks through the rest of the season (with one potentially tough game) than play a schedule like Alabama or Oklahoma(where you play a cupcake opener then play 8-9 tough games). The team you're playing is in the same boat. It's not like UGA played 5 games and were in mid season form when they played Boise.

Maybe you're right.

[waroriole]

Teams that go undefeated sometimes don't have a chance to play for the title, let alone a team that loses its opening game. Boise State and any other team that starts out immediately against another ranked team is puttingt their season on the line immediately.

I'm just going to say this, and stop arguing with you. If Boise wants respect from the voters then they need to do ALOT more than open with UGA. If they have aspirations of playing for a title, they sure don't show it. Otherwise, they would be trying to get any big team to play them. They would go on the road and play tough games with ALL of their non conference games. When they start taking the FSU approach, then I'll respect their willingness to compete. It's a shame too, b/c they might be able to pull it off.

[BaltimoreTerp]

This whole argument is one of the man things that is wrong with this sport.

[waroriole]

This whole argument is one of the man things that is wrong with this sport.

For the most part I agree. However, is it better for a team that was about the 25th best team to get hot at the right time and win a title, or is it better to potentially exclude someone based on things that are out of their control (at least from the player's prospective). Both systems have their drawbacks.

[BaltimoreTerp]

For the most part I agree. However, is it better for a team that was about the 25th best team to get hot at the right time and win a title, or is it better to potentially exclude someone based on things that are out of their control (at least from the player's prospective). Both systems have their drawbacks.

The former is far preferable, because everyone is given an opportunity.

If Boise State was winning the WAC or MWC every year but getting blown out by an SEC or Big Ten team in the first round of a playoff, there wouldn't be the obsession with the Broncos that will exist as long as there is the appearance of unfairness within the college system. So even if you are right that they could be and should be playing a tougher non-conference schedule* that will get lost in the debate. And honestly, when it comes to the gravity of the postseason debate within the sport of college football, it is only a minor detail.

*I also want to point out how absurd it is that a top-20 team should be even the slightest bit vilified for turning down 2-1 series with equal or lesser programs. There is a time to earn respect, but there is also a time where you should not have to accept disrespect from peers.

[waroriole]

The former is far preferable, because everyone is given an opportunity.

If Boise State was winning the WAC or MWC every year but getting blown out by an SEC or Big Ten team in the first round of a playoff, there wouldn't be the obsession with the Broncos that will exist as long as there is the appearance of unfairness within the college system. So even if you are right that they could be and should be playing a tougher non-conference schedule* that will get lost in the debate. And honestly, when it comes to the gravity of the postseason debate within the sport of college football, it is only a minor detail.

*I also want to point out how absurd it is that a top-20 team should be even the slightest bit vilified for turning down 2-1 series with equal or lesser programs. There is a time to earn respect, but there is also a time where you should not have to accept disrespect from peers.

I've seen this argument before, but let me ask why Nebraska, or any other big time team, should take a home and home with Boise? They won't make anything from going to Boise b/c Boise has a tiny stadium. So, why should Nebraska put itself in that position? They aren't the ones who need to build their program up.

It seems to me that Boise wants to have their cake and eat it too. They cry about teams not playing them, but they don't take the opportunities presented to them. It's hard to have sympathy for them if they're not willing to go the extra mile to earn that credibility.

Finally, everyone is going to act like this was some groundbreaking win for Boise, but the fact is they beat a Georgia team that went 6-7 last year and has been struggling for a few years now. It's not quite the same as beating VaTech last year.

[BaltimoreTerp]

I've seen this argument before, but let me ask why Nebraska, or any other big time team, should take a home and home with Boise? They won't make anything from going to Boise b/c Boise has a tiny stadium. So, why should Nebraska put itself in that position? They aren't the ones who need to build their program up.

Neither is Boise. Their program is built.


It seems to me that Boise wants to have their cake and eat it too. They cry about teams not playing them, but they don't take the opportunities presented to them. It's hard to have sympathy for them if they're not willing to go the extra mile to earn that credibility.

That's like saying somebody shouldn't be crying about not being able to afford a nicer house when they can get a mortgage, but the rates are far too high because despite that person's best efforts they are still young and their credit rating is still growing.


Finally, everyone is going to act like this was some groundbreaking win for Boise, but the fact is they beat a Georgia team that went 6-7 last year and has been struggling for a few years now. It's not quite the same as beating VaTech last year.

Well then the voters are a bunch of idiots for making Georgia #19. Yet they are the ones trusted to controls the system.

[Birds of B'more]

Well then the voters are a bunch of idiots for making Georgia #19. Yet they are the ones trusted to controls the system.

Which is why preseason polls need to go away, or if they won't go away they need to be completely ignored. Because these voters clearly are idiots.

My personal hatred for Notre Dame aside, once again we had to listen all offseason about their "return to glory", how they were a shoe-in for a BCS game, and were gifted a #16 ranking. How'd that work out?

[Birds of B'more]

.
For the 3rd straight season, the Boise State Broncos took on a ranked team to open their season ...... and won the game. Unlike last season's opening-game nail biter against Virginia Tech, the Broncos dominated the Bulldogs after an early 80-yard touchdown run by Georgia's Brandon Boykin 8 and-a-half minutes into the first quarter.

Also, it was the second consecutive season that the Broncos traveled across the country and went into their opponents' back yard to win. Last season, they beat 10th ranked Virginia Tech in Landover, Maryland to open the season. This year, they beat the #19 Georgie Bulldogs in Atlanta's Georgia Dome to start their 2011 campaign. Chris Petersen and company certainly haven't been shying away from challenges.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/2011/09/04/1785531/dawgs-pounded.html

And in all 3 of those games, Boise St entered as the higher-ranked team.

[waroriole]

Neither is Boise. Their program is built.



That's like saying somebody shouldn't be crying about not being able to afford a nicer house when they can get a mortgage, but the rates are far too high because despite that person's best efforts they are still young and their credit rating is still growing.



Well then the voters are a bunch of idiots for making Georgia #19. Yet they are the ones trusted to controls the system.

I wouldn't say Boise's program is built. They play in a tiny stadium. I'm sure they want to expand that.

As far as the idiocy of pre-season polls, you will get no argument from me.

By this point, Boise knows the requirements to play for a title (from their perspective) and they have chosen not to follow them. They seem to be hoping they can back into the title game. I just don't understand why Boise can't go on the road and build up their credibility. You haven't told me once why they can't do that. I think they owe it to everyone else who plays a much tougher schedule to at least try to make the playing field level if they want a legit shot at a title.

[OFFNY]

And in all 3 of those games, Boise St entered as the higher-ranked team.

And that is a testament to Chris Petersen and Boise State. They are in a non-BCS conference, yet they are competitive enough to be regarded (and ranked) in the Top Ten 3 years straight from the beginning of the season to the end. A playoff system (like there is in every other sport on every level) would end all disputes.

[BaltimoreTerp]

By this point, Boise knows the requirements to play for a title (from their perspective) and they have chosen not to follow them. They seem to be hoping they can back into the title game. I just don't understand why Boise can't go on the road and build up their credibility. You haven't told me once why they can't do that. I think they owe it to everyone else who plays a much tougher schedule to at least try to make the playing field level if they want a legit shot at a title.

Why can't they do it?

Because they've spent fifteen years doing it. I guarantee if you go back and look at the games they were playing back then, they were playing 2-1s. That is what you do when you are building a program.

You haven't told me once why they should have to do it now. Why should they allow other teams to force them into unfair deals when they are higher-ranked than most of them?

The stadium is small, sure (although, since I looked it up there IS one BcS-conference team with a smaller stadium; any guesses without peeking?), and the payday wouldn't be as big as it would be in most places. But so what?

Your argument keeps swerving back-and-forth between a respect issue (Boise State should take the chance to play these other schools, 2-1 or not) and a money issue (other schools offer 2-1s because of the less money taken to play in Boise). And that's the whole problem with the sport: instead of having tradition and respect and ranking on one side and money on the other, they become so intermixed that you can't argue one without the other even in debates where they should be two separate issues.

It should be either a respect issue--Boise wants to play 1-1 at a BcS school but are turned down because the other school feels it deserves a 2-1--or a money issue--Boise wants the same chance at a payday but the other school doesn't think it is worth going to Boise--not both.

[Birds of B'more]

Why can't they do it?

Because they've spent fifteen years doing it. I guarantee if you go back and look at the games they were playing back then, they were playing 2-1s. That is what you do when you are building a program.

You haven't told me once why they should have to do it now. Why should they allow other teams to force them into unfair deals when they are higher-ranked than most of them?

The stadium is small, sure (although, since I looked it up there IS one BcS-conference team with a smaller stadium; any guesses without peeking?), and the payday wouldn't be as big as it would be in most places. But so what?

Your argument keeps swerving back-and-forth between a respect issue (Boise State should take the chance to play these other schools, 2-1 or not) and a money issue (other schools offer 2-1s because of the less money taken to play in Boise). And that's the whole problem with the sport: instead of having tradition and respect and ranking on one side and money on the other, they become so intermixed that you can't argue one without the other even in debates where they should be two separate issues.

It should be either a respect issue--Boise wants to play 1-1 at a BcS school but are turned down because the other school feels it deserves a 2-1--or a money issue--Boise wants the same chance at a payday but the other school doesn't think it is worth going to Boise--not both.

I didn't peek, and I'll guess Wazzou.

[BaltimoreTerp]

I didn't peek, and I'll guess Wazzou.

Its close, but Boise is smaller.

[waroriole]

Why can't they do it?

Because they've spent fifteen years doing it. I guarantee if you go back and look at the games they were playing back then, they were playing 2-1s. That is what you do when you are building a program.

You haven't told me once why they should have to do it now. Why should they allow other teams to force them into unfair deals when they are higher-ranked than most of them?

The stadium is small, sure (although, since I looked it up there IS one BcS-conference team with a smaller stadium; any guesses without peeking?), and the payday wouldn't be as big as it would be in most places. But so what?

Your argument keeps swerving back-and-forth between a respect issue (Boise State should take the chance to play these other schools, 2-1 or not) and a money issue (other schools offer 2-1s because of the less money taken to play in Boise). And that's the whole problem with the sport: instead of having tradition and respect and ranking on one side and money on the other, they become so intermixed that you can't argue one without the other even in debates where they should be two separate issues.

It should be either a respect issue--Boise wants to play 1-1 at a BcS school but are turned down because the other school feels it deserves a 2-1--or a money issue--Boise wants the same chance at a payday but the other school doesn't think it is worth going to Boise--not both.

Maybe I'm just not explaining my position well enough, so let me break it down.

1. They operate in a system that requires them to be judged as one of the top 2 teams in order to play for a NC. Whether that is fair or not is a completely different discussion.

2. The people who judge this take into account, quite heavily, the degree of difficulty involved in the games they play.

3. They are aware of the system they are in.

4. The schedule that they play is woefully inadequate when compared to the rest of the teams that compete for a NC.

5. Their conference schedule doesn't allow for them to get the same kind of tough games that other teams will get.

6. They are able to choose which non conference games they play.

7. Therefore, if they want to close the gap on the overall strength of their schedule they must play tough non conference games.

8. If these teams, who are in a position of negotiating power, tell them they must go on the road for 2 games in exchange for 1 at home they have man up and do it. Or, they can continue to get passed over in the BCS rankings.

9. If they choose the path that they are on, I feel no sympathy for them because they are aware of what is required of them and they choose not to do it.

Tell me how it's fair to say that they deserve a shot to play for a NC when they can go through a season and only be tested twice, while the teams they are competing against for a NC are tested 5, 6, 7, 8 times a season.

Now, if you want to talk about whether it's fair for them to be put in that situation, then we are having a different discussion. My point is, they know what they need to do and they have refused to do it.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Maybe I'm just not explaining my position well enough, so let me break it down.

1. They operate in a system that requires them to be judged as one of the top 2 teams in order to play for a NC. Whether that is fair or not is a completely different discussion.

2. The people who judge this take into account, quite heavily, the degree of difficulty involved in the games they play.

3. They are aware of the system they are in.

4. The schedule that they play is woefully inadequate when compared to the rest of the teams that compete for a NC.

5. Their conference schedule doesn't allow for them to get the same kind of tough games that other teams will get.

6. They are able to choose which non conference games they play.

7. Therefore, if they want to close the gap on the overall strength of their schedule they must play tough non conference games.

8. If these teams, who are in a position of negotiating power, tell them they must go on the road for 2 games in exchange for 1 at home they have man up and do it. Or, they can continue to get passed over in the BCS rankings.

9. If they choose the path that they are on, I feel no sympathy for them because they are aware of what is required of them and they choose not to do it.

Tell me how it's fair to say that they deserve a shot to play for a NC when they can go through a season and only be tested twice, while the teams they are competing against for a NC are tested 5, 6, 7, 8 times a season.

Now, if you want to talk about whether it's fair for them to be put in that situation, then we are having a different discussion. My point is, they know what they need to do and they have refused to do it.

You said fair was a different discussion...twice ;)

I see exactly what you are saying, I really do; I'm not being purposely obtuse. I just cannot reconcile that argument being correct, and if I tried it just might snuff out my dimming enjoyment of college football for good. The entire sport disgusts me, and even my life-long attachment to the Terps or my enjoyment of the sport of football in general might not be enough to keep me caring for much longer.

The scary part is, I fear that there are far more people like me out out in the country than those who run the sport want to admit. And something like Boise losing out again simply because the system is so rigged that a few extra bucks was what stood between them playing games with better opponents might be the drop of rain that hits the ground and starts the avalanche.

[The Rick]

This whole argument is one of the man things that is wrong with this sport.

Agreed.

I love watching Boise St though, they are very well coached and very underrated.

[waroriole]

Agreed.

I love watching Boise St though, they are very well coached and very underrated.

How are they underrated? They are likely to be #4 this week. How high do you think they should go? They certainly weren't more impressive than LSU this week. Boise is consistently given good pre season rankings now. I just don't get the underrated comments.

[The Rick]

How are they underrated? They are likely to be #4 this week. How high do you think they should go? They certainly weren't more impressive than LSU this week. Boise is consistently given good pre season rankings now. I just don't get the underrated comments.

They're underrated because most don't think they deserve to be in the same breath as the BCS schools. I think that's crap. I'm not talking about rankings here.

[waroriole]

They're underrated because most don't think they are good enough to have the opportunity to compete for a championship.

That's not true. Almost everyone thinks they are good enough. The gripe is that they are not more deserving b/c the schedule they play is a joke. They only have themselves to blame for that.

[The Rick]

That's not true. Almost everyone thinks they are good enough. The gripe is that they are not more deserving b/c the schedule they play is a joke. They only have themselves to blame for that.

Well I must be watching different college football shows then you I suppose. I hear people all the time say how good they are, but then in the same breath they say they don't deserve a shot because they're not a BCS school.

[waroriole]

Well I must be watching different college football shows then you I suppose. I hear people all the time say how good they are, but then in the same breath they say they don't deserve a shot because they're not a BCS school.

I don't think anyone says they don't deserve a shot b/c they're not a BCS school. They say they don't deserve a shot over X team b/c X team plays a much tougher schedule and has proven on the field over the course of the season that they deserve it more. Boise needs to man up and go on the road and play some big boys, just like Florida State did when they were establishing themselves as a national power.

The Boise players are the ones getting screwed in all of this, and I feel bad for them. However, they need to look at their administration and ask why they wouldn't take a 2 for 1 against Nebraska. They know that their current schedule isn't likely going to be good enough to get them into the NCG, yet they don't take the initiative to pack the non conference schedule with heavyweights. Playing one tough non conference game a year isn't enough. Hell, it's not even better than LSU's non conference and LSU plays in the SEC.

[The Rick]

I don't think anyone says they don't deserve a shot b/c they're not a BCS school. They say they don't deserve a shot over X team b/c X team plays a much tougher schedule and has proven on the field over the course of the season that they deserve it more. Boise needs to man up and go on the road and play some big boys, just like Florida State did when they were establishing themselves as a national power.

The Boise players are the ones getting screwed in all of this, and I feel bad for them. However, they need to look at their administration and ask why they wouldn't take a 2 for 1 against Nebraska. They know that their current schedule isn't likely going to be good enough to get them into the NCG, yet they don't take the initiative to pack the non conference schedule with heavyweights. Playing one tough non conference game a year isn't enough. Hell, it's not even better than LSU's non conference and LSU plays in the SEC.

I get your overall point, and agree with it. But I've heard plenty of morons on the radio and on TV say that they don't' deserve it because they're not a BCS school. I guess I should just let it go though, because most analysts who are intelligent sum it up as you have. I agree they should schedule more games, but I get frustrated because they've proven they can beat quality teams - just because they haven't played more tough games, doesn't mean they couldn't beat Oregon or Auburn in the title game.

[Birds of B'more]

I don't think anyone says they don't deserve a shot b/c they're not a BCS school. They say they don't deserve a shot over X team b/c X team plays a much tougher schedule and has proven on the field over the course of the season that they deserve it more. Boise needs to man up and go on the road and play some big boys, just like Florida State did when they were establishing themselves as a national power.

The Boise players are the ones getting screwed in all of this, and I feel bad for them. However, they need to look at their administration and ask why they wouldn't take a 2 for 1 against Nebraska. They know that their current schedule isn't likely going to be good enough to get them into the NCG, yet they don't take the initiative to pack the non conference schedule with heavyweights. Playing one tough non conference game a year isn't enough. Hell, it's not even better than LSU's non conference and LSU plays in the SEC.

I don't disagree with your point, RE: teams with tougher schedules. But I don't think you can use the Florida State comparison as a model for what Boise should do. FSU built their program in the late 70s-early 80s, and college football was a much different game then. For one, FSU was an independent and was not tied to the schedule of a weak conference (and don't reply with "Boise should just join a better conference", you know they would in a heartbeat if they could). Also, there were many more independents for FSU to play back then too that were not tied to conference schedules. And it was even easier then to get a game against the powerhouse schools in conferences, because the conferences were smaller and so those schools had to schedule more OOC games each season....and the practice of scheduling guaranteed wins against 1-AA schools hadn't spawned yet. And finally, FSU had their built-in rivalries with Florida and Miami to boost their schedule strength....Boise has no such rivalries that guarantee a quality opponent every season.

[waroriole]

I don't disagree with your point, RE: teams with tougher schedules. But I don't think you can use the Florida State comparison as a model for what Boise should do. FSU built their program in the late 70s-early 80s, and college football was a much different game then. For one, FSU was an independent and was not tied to the schedule of a weak conference (and don't reply with "Boise should just join a better conference", you know they would in a heartbeat if they could). Also, there were many more independents for FSU to play back then too that were not tied to conference schedules. And it was even easier then to get a game against the powerhouse schools in conferences, because the conferences were smaller and so those schools had to schedule more OOC games each season....and the practice of scheduling guaranteed wins against 1-AA schools hadn't spawned yet. And finally, FSU had their built-in rivalries with Florida and Miami to boost their schedule strength....Boise has no such rivalries that guarantee a quality opponent every season.

Good points. It would be tougher for Boise to do it, but they had a golden opportunity and passed. They could have had Nebraska come to their house for 1 game and they could have played 2 in Lincoln. There are certainly enough teams that will play them, they just have to go on the road and do it. They only have to worry about finding 3-4 games. They should be able to do that.

[Birds of B'more]

Good points. It would be tougher for Boise to do it, but they had a golden opportunity and passed. They could have had Nebraska come to their house for 1 game and they could have played 2 in Lincoln. There are certainly enough teams that will play them, they just have to go on the road and do it. They only have to worry about finding 3-4 games. They should be able to do that.

I also wouldn't rule out the financial implications either. I don't know what kind of donors Boise State has in their pocket, but I'm sure there are balance sheet considerations when scheduling opponents. As much as they might prefer to do a 2-for-1 with a school like Nebraska (or a one-time road game if the paycheck isn't big enough) to enhance their reputation and possibly their BCS ranking, such arrangements may not produce enough revenues to allow for them to do that. While not as attractive to voters and computers, a home-and-home with non-AQ schools (which means more home games year over year) may be necessary for the program's viability. Not saying they should get a free pass for that in the BCS standings, they shouldn't....but it's something to consider when critiquing their OOC schedule. Big time college football is an expensive game these days.

[ShaneDawg85]

I don't disagree with your point, RE: teams with tougher schedules. But I don't think you can use the Florida State comparison as a model for what Boise should do. FSU built their program in the late 70s-early 80s, and college football was a much different game then. For one, FSU was an independent and was not tied to the schedule of a weak conference (and don't reply with "Boise should just join a better conference", you know they would in a heartbeat if they could). Also, there were many more independents for FSU to play back then too that were not tied to conference schedules. And it was even easier then to get a game against the powerhouse schools in conferences, because the conferences were smaller and so those schools had to schedule more OOC games each season....and the practice of scheduling guaranteed wins against 1-AA schools hadn't spawned yet. And finally, FSU had their built-in rivalries with Florida and Miami to boost their schedule strength....Boise has no such rivalries that guarantee a quality opponent every season.

Well up until TCU announced they were leaving for the Big East they did. Now they're just going from the WAC into a maybe somewhat stronger version of the WAC.

[Birds of B'more]

Well up until TCU announced they were leaving for the Big East they did. Now they're just going from the WAC into a maybe somewhat stronger version of the WAC.

BYU hadn't announced their intentions to leave yet either when Boise accepted the MWC's invite. My point was that Boise St can't just say "To have a shot at a championship we need to play in a better conference. Hey, Big Ten, here we are!"

[hoosiers]

4. The schedule that they play is woefully inadequate when compared to the rest of the teams that compete for a NC.


I applaud Boise State for trying to schedule a couple games against top teams - and on the road. Boise State only has to wake up for two or three games a year - the rest is a cakewalk.

Obviously, I am a big conference guy and there is something to be said not just for the multiple top games in conference and a conference championship, but also for the week-in/week-out conference grind. There is seldom a week off in the better conferences. If you are bring your "B" or "C" game to Minnesota or Illinois in the B10, you will lose.

Boise State's overall schedule stinks and they should not be considered among the top 8-10 teams in the country until they play multiple top 15 teams along with multiple top 25 and multiple top 50 teams in a season.

[CrimsonTribe]

Why can't they do it?

Because they've spent fifteen years doing it. I guarantee if you go back and look at the games they were playing back then, they were playing 2-1s. That is what you do when you are building a program.

You haven't told me once why they should have to do it now. Why should they allow other teams to force them into unfair deals when they are higher-ranked than most of them?

The stadium is small, sure (although, since I looked it up there IS one BcS-conference team with a smaller stadium; any guesses without peeking?), and the payday wouldn't be as big as it would be in most places. But so what?

Your argument keeps swerving back-and-forth between a respect issue (Boise State should take the chance to play these other schools, 2-1 or not) and a money issue (other schools offer 2-1s because of the less money taken to play in Boise). And that's the whole problem with the sport: instead of having tradition and respect and ranking on one side and money on the other, they become so intermixed that you can't argue one without the other even in debates where they should be two separate issues.

It should be either a respect issue--Boise wants to play 1-1 at a BcS school but are turned down because the other school feels it deserves a 2-1--or a money issue--Boise wants the same chance at a payday but the other school doesn't think it is worth going to Boise--not both.

They have to do it now because their stadium is too small. There's not enough money in it for the big schools to play in Boise when they can schedule another home game. That's why Boise has to do a 2-for-1, an away game, or a neutral site game. They can cry about it all they want, but that's how it works.

[BaltimoreTerp]

They have to do it now because their stadium is too small. There's not enough money in it for the big schools to play in Boise when they can schedule another home game. That's why Boise has to do a 2-for-1, an away game, or a neutral site game. They can cry about it all they want, but that's how it works.

I don't want to hear "that's how it works". That's the key sign of a broken system.

[CrimsonTribe]

I don't want to hear "that's how it works". That's the key sign of a broken system.

I don't care what you want to hear. That's how the system works, as "broken" as it is. College football isn't pure, it isn't a charity, and money is a significant factor. If you believe it has ever been otherwise, you're crazy. You can sit there and wax poetic about how unfair the system is, but until a suitable solution is found, presented, and enacted Boise has to work within the confines of the system as it is. And under the current confines of the system, Boise is not doing everything it can to build up a suitable NC resume. Anyone saying otherwise is just kidding themselves.

Don't get me wrong, Boise has a solid football team, but this year they play an annually disappointing Georgia team coming off a sub-.500 year, TCU (who already lost to Baylor), and a bunch of mediocre-at-best teams. If that earns them a shot at the NC over a team that has played 7-8 actual tough games (including multiple tough games in a row), then how would that be any better?

My main problem with Boise is that they make these ridiculous home-and-home offers to schools that they know are never going to accept due to monetary reasons and then they act like the school is chicken for turning them down. That's just disingenuous. It's unfortunate that they are at such a disadvantage because they play in a crappy conference and have a tiny stadium, but it is THEIR responsibility to make up for that disadvantage. The big schools don't need Boise, don't care about Boise, and have no responsibility to help Boise out. There are of plenty of other teams out there to play and plenty of other matchups that can be just as beneficial competitively while being suitable monetarily.

In sum, if Boise wants big teams to make monetary sacrifices in terms of "competitive fairness," then it best be willing to make competitive sacrifices in terms of monetary fairness. And if Boise doesn't like it, they can (a) cry, pout and never get a shot at a NC or (b) come up with a new system that addresses everyone's concerns (competitive, monetary, etc.).

[OFFNY]

You can sit there and wax poetic about how unfair the system is, but until a suitable solution is found,

A solution was found over 100 years ago. A playoff. Unfortunately, Division I-A college football doesn't agree with the 32,596 other sports that do agree with it ........ including every other division of college football, Little League baseball, and teen-aged thumb wrestling.

[CrimsonTribe]

A solution was found over 100 years ago. A playoff. Unfortunately, Division I-A college football doesn't agree with the 32,596 other sports that do agree with it ........ including every other division of college football, Little League baseball, and teen-aged thumb wrestling.

I'd love it if there was a playoff. I think there should be one. Doesn't change the fact that Boise doesn't do enough under the current system.

[OFFNY]

I'd love it if there was a playoff. I think there should be one. Doesn't change the fact that Boise doesn't do enough under the current system.

First of all, Boise State has done plenty under this completely irrational, incorrigible system. Secondly and more importantly, that issue is a raindrop in a storm. Boise State not playing a harder schedule is about as significant as air conditioners in winter when compared to the fact that the NCAA is as backward an organization as there is ....... particularly when it comes to not having a playoff system for its most prolific show (Division I-A football). A playoff would eliminate all disputes. The NCAA has ignored this necessity for decades, and is showing no signs of amending it.

[Birds of B'more]

I'd love it if there was a playoff. I think there should be one. Doesn't change the fact that Boise doesn't do enough under the current system.

I think they do the best they possibly can. You mention the big schools needing their revenues as a reason not to schedule home-and-homes with Boise State. Well, Boise State can't operate their athletic department without revenues either. A 2-for-1 or 1-time road game for a couple hundred thousand can't generate the revenues that a full home stadium (even at a capacity of 33,000) can. Again, I'm not suggesting the rest of college football take pity on them for that and make exceptions only for them. But at the same time to point at them and say "you aren't doing all you can" is not accurate.