(09-07-2010 11:11 AM)Cajunman02 Wrote:  Ok, so maybe Boise would be a middle of the pack team in a BC$ conference every year, but we are talking about THIS year. It only applies to THIS year. If they run the table, they should have a chance to play for a mythical national championship because the system is set up to allow teams that start the season ranked high and run the table to walk into playing for a mythical national championship.

Teams are not judged by the BC$ based on where they would be if they played year in and year out in a BC$ conference. They are judged by their play THIS year.

And the "they don't play in a big boy conference" is a crap argument. Have one of the big boy conferences invite the Broncos into their conference and let's see. Until that happens, those conferences are scared of what Boise would to do the teams already in the conference.

I support a playoff, but I don't think Boise would be more deserving than undefeated teams in the ACC, Big 10, Big 12, SEC ... or even Pac-10.

(09-07-2010 11:20 AM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(09-07-2010 09:32 AM)techfan4 Wrote:  Boise's marquee wins in recent years: Oklahoma, TCU, and VT. Two were neutral, one essentially an away game.

Don't forget they beat Oregon last year. I do beleive that Oregon went on to win the PAC 10.

I hate Boise as much as anyone. Frankly anybody that uses smurf turf should be given the death penalty, but they deserve BCS credentials as much as anyone. Utah, Boise, & TCU all deserve their cut of the BCS pie.

Pac-10 was the weakest of the BCS conferences last year. They stunk it up. Massively. Even USC was only above average.

Notable wins by Boise St in 2008 and 2009 prior to the bowl game -- the schedule that would give them a legit shot at the BCS

2008
Oregon (10-3) #17

2009
Oregon (10-3, Pac 10 champ) #16
Fresno St. (8-5) NR

*BGSU doesn't belong on either year -- they beat ONE team with a winning record each year, and finished 7-6 and 6-6.

In comparison, Georgia Tech's top 3 notable wins of 2008 and 2009 REGULAR SEASONS (prior to bowl game). The top 25 numbers are the rankings the team had when GT played them:

2008
Florida St. (9-4) #16
Miami (7-6) #23
UGA (10-3) #13

2009
Clemson (9-5) NR, NR
North Carolina (8-5) #18
Virginia Tech (10-3) #4

Also, despite FSU's 09 record, no one wanted to play them the week that Bowden was being pressured out in Tallahassee for a night game on ESPN. Likewise, in 08, no one would want to play at Clemson just 5 days after Tommy Bowden was ousted. There are no story lines of the such for Boise St. in either year.

So basically, if we didn't have to play UGA or Miami in 09 and instead had the Idaho's or Utah State's of the world, we would deserve a shot at the MNC?

(09-07-2010 05:07 PM)techfan4 Wrote:  So basically, if we didn't have to play UGA or Miami in 09 and instead had the Idaho's or Utah State's of the world, we would deserve a shot at the MNC?

Yes. If you win all the games put in front of you, you deserve a chance. There's nothing more that could have been done.

They're willing to play anyone who will come to Boise and play them too. Few have taken them up on that. They're all scared. Boise had to fly to D.C. to play in VT's backyard.

Why should they have to do that? The FB team shouldn't be punished because some administrators, before the players were born, put conferences together and excluded their school. And they can't undo the total bias that is inherent in the BCS system. What makes Baylor and Vanderbilt more deserving than Boise? Why is Utah more deserving next season than they are this season? A patch on their jersey?

Quote:If you have a problem with the quality of Boise State's schedule, write your favorite school's athletic director and tell him to schedule the Broncos so your team can prove its superiority. Boise State's Gene Bleymaier anxiously awaits your AD's call. If your school doesn't have the guts to schedule Boise State, kindly be quiet.

Remember, Boise State is only exploiting the idiotic system currently in place to choose the two teams that play for the national title. Boise State found the loophole in a system designed to keep the little guys out of the national title game. The loophole is this: If a team starts the season ranked high enough, that team stands an excellent chance of reaching the BCS title game as long as it goes undefeated -- regardless of the quality of its schedule -- and has at least one touchstone win.

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/wr...z0ytQy9UvX

(09-07-2010 05:07 PM)techfan4 Wrote:  Notable wins by Boise St in 2008 and 2009 prior to the bowl game -- the schedule that would give them a legit shot at the BCS

2008
Oregon (10-3) #17

2009
Oregon (10-3, Pac 10 champ) #16
Fresno St. (8-5) NR

*BGSU doesn't belong on either year -- they beat ONE team with a winning record each year, and finished 7-6 and 6-6.

In comparison, Georgia Tech's top 3 notable wins of 2008 and 2009 REGULAR SEASONS (prior to bowl game). The top 25 numbers are the rankings the team had when GT played them:

2008
Florida St. (9-4) #16
Miami (7-6) #23
UGA (10-3) #13

2009
Clemson (9-5) NR, NR
North Carolina (8-5) #18
Virginia Tech (10-3) #4

Also, despite FSU's 09 record, no one wanted to play them the week that Bowden was being pressured out in Tallahassee for a night game on ESPN. Likewise, in 08, no one would want to play at Clemson just 5 days after Tommy Bowden was ousted. There are no story lines of the such for Boise St. in either year.

So basically, if we didn't have to play UGA or Miami in 09 and instead had the Idaho's or Utah State's of the world, we would deserve a shot at the MNC?

I think you may have forgotten some things....

1. BSU beat a highly ranked TCU in 2009
2. In 2008, GT lost to VT and UNC.
3. In 2009, GT lost to Miami, Georgia and Iowa.
4. Putting the ranking when GT played opponents is a bit misleading. There is no way that the (7-6) Miami team was Top 25. Could also make the case that Clemson and UNC wins in 2009 weren't that great.
5. During the same time frame, Boise has the best record in Football and has only lost to TCU.
6. If GT gets points for quality wins, shouldn't they also be penalized for losses?

(09-07-2010 07:36 PM)blah Wrote:  

(09-07-2010 05:07 PM)techfan4 Wrote:  Notable wins by Boise St in 2008 and 2009 prior to the bowl game -- the schedule that would give them a legit shot at the BCS

2008
Oregon (10-3) #17

2009
Oregon (10-3, Pac 10 champ) #16
Fresno St. (8-5) NR

*BGSU doesn't belong on either year -- they beat ONE team with a winning record each year, and finished 7-6 and 6-6.

In comparison, Georgia Tech's top 3 notable wins of 2008 and 2009 REGULAR SEASONS (prior to bowl game). The top 25 numbers are the rankings the team had when GT played them:

2008
Florida St. (9-4) #16
Miami (7-6) #23
UGA (10-3) #13

2009
Clemson (9-5) NR, NR
North Carolina (8-5) #18
Virginia Tech (10-3) #4

Also, despite FSU's 09 record, no one wanted to play them the week that Bowden was being pressured out in Tallahassee for a night game on ESPN. Likewise, in 08, no one would want to play at Clemson just 5 days after Tommy Bowden was ousted. There are no story lines of the such for Boise St. in either year.

So basically, if we didn't have to play UGA or Miami in 09 and instead had the Idaho's or Utah State's of the world, we would deserve a shot at the MNC?

I think you may have forgotten some things....

1. BSU beat a highly ranked TCU in 2009
2. In 2008, GT lost to VT and UNC.
3. In 2009, GT lost to Miami, Georgia and Iowa.
4. Putting the ranking when GT played opponents is a bit misleading. There is no way that the (7-6) Miami team was Top 25. Could also make the case that Clemson and UNC wins in 2009 weren't that great.
5. During the same time frame, Boise has the best record in Football and has only lost to TCU.
6. If GT gets points for quality wins, shouldn't they also be penalized for losses?

1. I was looking at the criteria that would get you into the bowl game, ala the BCS MNC. That's why TCU wasn't included.
2 and 3. Yes, I know that. My point was that if Tech did not play those teams, but instead played an Idaho or someone, that our schedule would not be legitimate with those three wins, although our three wins at the time of each win, look better than Boise's.
4. Clemson was 9-3 when they didn't play us.
5. Fair enough, but my counter to that is if Tech played that schedule, they would have the best record in football. Give Paul Johnson a schedule full of Bowling Green's and Nevada's and see what he would do.
6. You're missing the point. I'm saying that if you took the losses we had and replaced them with a San Diego State and a Utah State, that I personally don't believe we should have a shot at the MNC.

(09-07-2010 07:47 PM)techfan4 Wrote:  

(09-07-2010 07:36 PM)blah Wrote:  

(09-07-2010 05:07 PM)techfan4 Wrote:  Notable wins by Boise St in 2008 and 2009 prior to the bowl game -- the schedule that would give them a legit shot at the BCS

2008
Oregon (10-3) #17

2009
Oregon (10-3, Pac 10 champ) #16
Fresno St. (8-5) NR

*BGSU doesn't belong on either year -- they beat ONE team with a winning record each year, and finished 7-6 and 6-6.

In comparison, Georgia Tech's top 3 notable wins of 2008 and 2009 REGULAR SEASONS (prior to bowl game). The top 25 numbers are the rankings the team had when GT played them:

2008
Florida St. (9-4) #16
Miami (7-6) #23
UGA (10-3) #13

2009
Clemson (9-5) NR, NR
North Carolina (8-5) #18
Virginia Tech (10-3) #4

Also, despite FSU's 09 record, no one wanted to play them the week that Bowden was being pressured out in Tallahassee for a night game on ESPN. Likewise, in 08, no one would want to play at Clemson just 5 days after Tommy Bowden was ousted. There are no story lines of the such for Boise St. in either year.

So basically, if we didn't have to play UGA or Miami in 09 and instead had the Idaho's or Utah State's of the world, we would deserve a shot at the MNC?

I think you may have forgotten some things....

1. BSU beat a highly ranked TCU in 2009
2. In 2008, GT lost to VT and UNC.
3. In 2009, GT lost to Miami, Georgia and Iowa.
4. Putting the ranking when GT played opponents is a bit misleading. There is no way that the (7-6) Miami team was Top 25. Could also make the case that Clemson and UNC wins in 2009 weren't that great.
5. During the same time frame, Boise has the best record in Football and has only lost to TCU.
6. If GT gets points for quality wins, shouldn't they also be penalized for losses?

1. I was looking at the criteria that would get you into the bowl game, ala the BCS MNC. That's why TCU wasn't included.
2 and 3. Yes, I know that. My point was that if Tech did not play those teams, but instead played an Idaho or someone, that our schedule would not be legitimate with those three wins, although our three wins at the time of each win, look better than Boise's.
4. Clemson was 9-3 when they didn't play us.
5. Fair enough, but my counter to that is if Tech played that schedule, they would have the best record in football. Give Paul Johnson a schedule full of Bowling Green's and Nevada's and see what he would do.
6. You're missing the point. I'm saying that if you took the losses we had and replaced them with a San Diego State and a Utah State, that I personally don't believe we should have a shot at the MNC.

GT could get that schedule. All they have to do is go independent.....

You may want to ask Oklahoma how playing Utah St. is.....

Allow me to simplify:

Boise State plays 2, sometimes 3 games a year against Top 50 competition.
Georgia Tech plays 3 games a year against Top 50 competition IN ITS SUBDIVISION (VT, Miami, UNC). Then it plays UGA and Clemson every year. FSU rotates in. +/- 5 years from today it also has/will play OOC Auburn, Alabama, UCONN, Notre Dame, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, and Kansas. And sure, you may rightly laugh at Kansas and Ole Miss this year, but in an average year all those teams listed would do NO WORSE than 3 losses in the WAC, most only 1 or 2.

Usually respectable: Fresno St.
Sometimes respectable: Hawaii, Nevada
Just plain bad: Idaho, Louisiana Tech, New Mexico St., San Jose St., Utah St.

The records bear that out. The ACC is 21-5-1 against the WAC. Two of the WAC's wins are (literally!) Fresno State over Chan-tastic GT teams which needed miracles to reach .500 in the ACC. Two more are La Tech over FSU in the 50's.

I keep going back to what is IMO the best non-bias metric: Sagarin. Just look at the Boise strength of schedule. And the Sagarin drops them appropriately for it: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt09.htm

(09-07-2010 09:27 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Allow me to simplify:

Boise State plays 2, sometimes 3 games a year against Top 50 competition.
Georgia Tech plays 3 games a year against Top 50 competition IN ITS SUBDIVISION (VT, Miami, UNC). Then it plays UGA and Clemson every year. FSU rotates in. +/- 5 years from today it also has/will play OOC Auburn, Alabama, UCONN, Notre Dame, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, and Kansas. And sure, you may rightly laugh at Kansas and Ole Miss this year, but in an average year all those teams listed would do NO WORSE than 3 losses in the WAC, most only 1 or 2.

Usually respectable: Fresno St.
Sometimes respectable: Hawaii, Nevada
Just plain bad: Idaho, Louisiana Tech, New Mexico St., San Jose St., Utah St.

The records bear that out. The ACC is 21-5-1 against the WAC. Two of the WAC's wins are (literally!) Fresno State over Chan-tastic GT teams which needed miracles to reach .500 in the ACC. Two more are La Tech over FSU in the 50's.

I keep going back to what is IMO the best non-bias metric: Sagarin. Just look at the Boise strength of schedule. And the Sagarin drops them appropriately for it: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt09.htm

So? (that's a reply to everything)

You care to look at the non-biased metric for this season "so far" (you know, the season that matters this season)? http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt10.htm

Your Boise bums are #1 according to his formula (I know its early).

I find it hard to lend credibility to a system that ranks teams in a different classification, and even places them above FBS teams. I'll use your own argument against his rankings to point out the lack of credibility: If Montana, NDSU, etc. were to play the "juggernaut" schedule of a MAC or SBC team week-in and week-out, they wouldn't fare as well, and shouldn't be ranked higher than these FBS teams.

When this season is over, I'd bet that Boise's SOS will be about the same. Maybe a little better, because they will have played the national champion.

(09-06-2010 10:02 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Boise needs to play in a big boy conference to take it to the next level ... there's only so much you can do playing the likes of Idaho and San Jose State every week. To be the best you have to play the best ... and more than once a year.

Just out of curiosity, how do you propose Boise State do that? What can they do, that they haven't already done, to make them worthy of a seat at a BCS conference? It's obvious that developing a top tier football team isn't enough. Niether Boise nor Idaho are suddenly going to get big enough to generate enough TV revenue to justify their inclusion, which is all that conferences seem to care about now (and probably was all they ever did). They tried to upgrade their conference by moving to the MWC (which would have deserved a seat at the table), but the Pac-10 poached one of the top teams and another left to make more money as an independent. Seriously, what else are they supposed to do?

Division IA college football is probably the most cynical and unfair sporting league in existence. The AQ schools have given themselves every advantage imaginable, even schools which have never done a single thing to justify their inclusion. To then hear them whining when a non-AQ school kicks the door down and demands admittance is laughable at best.

(09-07-2010 11:46 PM)jh Wrote:  Just out of curiosity, how do you propose Boise State do that? What can they do, that they haven't already done, to make them worthy of a seat at a BCS conference? It's obvious that developing a top tier football team isn't enough. Niether Boise nor Idaho are suddenly going to get big enough to generate enough TV revenue to justify their inclusion, which is all that conferences seem to care about now (and probably was all they ever did). They tried to upgrade their conference by moving to the MWC (which would have deserved a seat at the table), but the Pac-10 poached one of the top teams and another left to make more money as an independent. Seriously, what else are they supposed to do?

Division IA college football is probably the most cynical and unfair sporting league in existence. The AQ schools have given themselves every advantage imaginable, even schools which have never done a single thing to justify their inclusion. To then hear them whining when a non-AQ school kicks the door down and demands admittance is laughable at best.

Disclaimer: I support a 16-team playoff first.

I think if the Pac-16 or ACC-16 happens, they won't have to worry about it as they'll be snatched up as the dominoes fall. You can thank the former SEC commish for the BCS. Smart move on his part though. The SEC would be the biggest loser in a world of 6 or so 16-team super conferences where everybody has their own TV channel.

(09-07-2010 11:12 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  You care to look at the non-biased metric for this season "so far" (you know, the season that matters this season)? http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt10.htm

Your Boise bums are #1 according to his formula (I know its early).

I find it hard to lend credibility to a system that ranks teams in a different classification, and even places them above FBS teams. I'll use your own argument against his rankings to point out the lack of credibility: If Montana, NDSU, etc. were to play the "juggernaut" schedule of a MAC or SBC team week-in and week-out, they wouldn't fare as well, and shouldn't be ranked higher than these FBS teams.

I think it's credible. There are some FCS teams that are better than FBS teams. Winless Western Kentucky would do quite poorly in the SoCon.

It won't take but one game against San Jose State or Idaho to kill that S.O.S. Every week we play the Sagarin becomes more accurate.

(09-07-2010 11:46 PM)jh Wrote:  

(09-06-2010 10:02 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Boise needs to play in a big boy conference to take it to the next level ... there's only so much you can do playing the likes of Idaho and San Jose State every week. To be the best you have to play the best ... and more than once a year.

Just out of curiosity, how do you propose Boise State do that? What can they do, that they haven't already done, to make them worthy of a seat at a BCS conference? It's obvious that developing a top tier football team isn't enough. Niether Boise nor Idaho are suddenly going to get big enough to generate enough TV revenue to justify their inclusion, which is all that conferences seem to care about now (and probably was all they ever did). They tried to upgrade their conference by moving to the MWC (which would have deserved a seat at the table), but the Pac-10 poached one of the top teams and another left to make more money as an independent. Seriously, what else are they supposed to do?

Division IA college football is probably the most cynical and unfair sporting league in existence. The AQ schools have given themselves every advantage imaginable, even schools which have never done a single thing to justify their inclusion. To then hear them whining when a non-AQ school kicks the door down and demands admittance is laughable at best.

I agree that we need a playoff. I also agree there is no way that Boise can prove themselves.

They won't be able to prove themselves until they play ranked teams back to back weeks, or play 4 ranked teams in a season. Until they have three days to prepare for a ranked team like the big boys do, I can't view them as the top team in the nation. This is a major part of "big boy" football. I wish Tech could go super vanilla and prepare for UNC for two weeks, but they can't. VaTech put in extra time on stopping GT's offense this offseason (Foster even said they did). I guarantee Boise didn't spend a week this offseason preparing for Idaho or whoever they play next week. I'd bet that Boise started formulating their game plan 3 weeks ago for VaTech.

Put them in a playoff against three conference champions in a span of three weeks and there is NO chance they survive.

Hey GTS. We should ask Ole Miss fans about the strength of some of these FCS schools...

(09-08-2010 09:29 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Hey GTS. We should ask Ole Miss fans about the strength of some of these FCS schools...

Even a liberal is right every once and a while.

(09-08-2010 10:57 AM)Rebel Wrote:  Even a liberal is right every once and a while.

Good one!

But for real.. Jacksonville State was a worthy opponent, but Ole Miss is better than that. They got a 20 point lead and slacked off. Doesn't mean that FCS schools can't battle sometimes, but 95% of the time they don't beat the BCS teams. Tech destroyed JSU the past two years in their first two games. I don't think Tech and Ole Miss are that far separated in talent. And hell, JSU had Perriloux last year.

(09-08-2010 11:07 AM)techfan4 Wrote:  

(09-08-2010 10:57 AM)Rebel Wrote:  Even a liberal is right every once and a while.

Good one!

But for real.. Jacksonville State was a worthy opponent, but Ole Miss is better than that. They got a 20 point lead and slacked off. Doesn't mean that FCS schools can't battle sometimes, but 95% of the time they don't beat the BCS teams. Tech destroyed JSU the past two years in their first two games. I don't think Tech and Ole Miss are that far separated in talent. And hell, JSU had Perriloux last year.

I've been told that JSU has a lot of SEC rejects who were bad seeds or couldn't make the grade. My buddy said they almost beat his team last year (the Florida State Bowdens).

...but yeah, there is no excuse. It's not like it was a tough game the entire time like UM-Appy State. Ole Miss owned that game until the 4th quarter. I don't know what the hell they were thinking.

Who deserves BCS $$$ and inclusion more, Duke, NCSU, Maryland, UNC, Clemson, Boston College, Virginia, or Boise?