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

[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' date=' Boise St entered as the higher-ranked team.[/quote']

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' date=' and I'll guess Wazzou.[/quote']

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.