Al Bundy wrote:

trep14 wrote: I think this is the article jordo is referring to:

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-boise110709&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

How many teams even have an opening on that date in 2011? Most football schedules are filled many more than 2 years in advance.

Says right at the bottom of the article that Nebraska has an opening that date, but hasn't responded to Boise's open invitation to play. So basically the guy that justified why Utah shouldn't have played in the NC game last year (Harvey Perlman, Nebraska Chancellor) by saying Utah "could have played Nebraska's schedule" to improve their credibility, is too much of a pussy to schedule Boise State. Boise State's offense would EMBARRASS Nebraska.

People like Perlman are the problem with college football. It's the same old shit every year. The same teams are always ranked in the top 10, the same 15-20 teams have a realistic shot to play in the BCS, and the same 10 teams play for the NC every year, and nobody else does. Their reasons for this are that they don't play enough tough teams. Well if nobody will play you, how are you supposed to do that???

I also think it's hilarious how several posters have made references to Indiana and Vandy on this thread, and about how bad they are...yet they play in BCS conferences that are apparently so much tougher than non-bcs conferences. If they're so terrible, explain to me how that makes bcs conference so much better than a non-bcs conference? And then of course, the biggest excuse is that Texas, OSU, USC, Florida, Oklahoma, etc. have the "name power"....therefore, they get to be automatically ranked in the top 10 preseason, and all they have to do is NOT LOSE, and they will move up. Therefore, they schedule all easy teams, that almost ensure they won't lose. Meanwhile, teams like Boise are forced, apparently, to have to schedule all tough teams and win all of those games to even be considered for the top 10. If that isn't hypocrisy, I don't know what is. The kicker is that all the "big" teams say, well why don't you play somebody like we do...and they try to, and those same teams won't play them. Wonder why that might be??

The BCS system is completely set up to benefit the BCS conference teams, and is designed in every way to keep non-bcs conference teams out, in as many ways as possible. As I've said on other threads, all 119 teams in D.I are supposedly playing under the same rules, restrictions, scholarship limitations, and rules of conduct, but all those teams do NOT receive the same treatment from their governing body (NCAA), let alone the BCS. I've wished for the last several years, that non-BCS schools would just refuse to play any BCS teams for a few years. Make all the Penn State's, Florida's, LSU's, etc of the world play THEIR OOC schedules against all BCS teams, and not play games where they're favored by 63 points, and see how many of them go undefeated. Instead of Charleston Southern, have Florida playing Clemson or something like that. Then we'd see how good these supposedly "dominant, big name teams that don't need to schedule tough games" really are.

And Al, if you really believe that the top team of any BCS conference has to show up every week, you need your head examined. You act like it's so much different for Boise State to play a team like New Mexico, that it is for Florida to play Vandy. It's the same thing. Florida could play their second team and win. There are 2 good SEC teams this year. Florida has to show up against Alabama, and they had to be conscious to beat Georgia and LSU. The rest, they SHOULD have been able to sleepwalk against and win. If anything, there is less separation between the talent level of Boise State and the bottom team of the WAC, than there is between Florida and Vandy, or Alabama and Miss. State.

Stanford would have the exact same record as Boise State this season playing their schedule. Would Stanford deserve a BCS title shot for beating Oregon and 11 cupcakes? Instead they play in a real conference and have 4 losses. Where is the outcry that Stanford deserves to be in a BCS bowl game?

If anything, there is less separation between the talent level of Boise State and the bottom team of the WAC, than there is between Florida and Vandy, or Alabama and Miss. State.

There is also a disparity in talent between the bottom BCS teams and the bottom mid major teams. New Mexico is awful. Mississippi State would be playing the backups the whole second half and beat them by 30 or 40.

And while Florida's schedule is weak this year, it's not Boise State weak. If you think they could sleepwalk and beat a team with NFL players like Tennessee or Mississippi, then you are delusional. Every BCS conference team has NFL players on it, and if you don't prepare at all, you will lose. Please find me the NFL caliber players on New Mexico or New Mexico State or Idaho.

Indiana and Vanderbilt would both finish in the top half of the WAC in most seasons. Boise's program has come a long way since the 90's when they were a very good 1aa team. The WAC just isn't the same level of football as the BCS conferences. Of course the BCS system benefits the BCS conferences, but all of the other school make money from it too. When the WAC schools play the PAC 10 schools and take the huge paycheck, where do you think that money is coming from?

I am in favor of a playoff, and I really hate to see Congress get involved in any level. The colleges make a choice to join the NCAA or not join it. They could join NAIA (or start their own organization) if they are unhappy. However, we all know that they want the money that big school generate, so they won't leave. If you are going to take the money generated by the big schools, don't cry when the big schools are in the games that generate the money that filters down to all the other smaller schools through the non-conference part of the schedule.

Cleveland Buck wrote: Stanford would have the exact same record as Boise State this season playing their schedule. Would Stanford deserve a BCS title shot for beating Oregon and 11 cupcakes? Instead they play in a real conference and have 4 losses. Where is the outcry that Stanford deserves to be in a BCS bowl game?

You answered your own question. Stanford has four losses....including a loss to a low tier ACC team. When has a four loss team ever been deserving a BCS bid (unless they win their conference, ala FSU in 2005)? In fact, it is possible that Boise State would have a better record than Stanford if they played Stanford's schedule and would be right at the top of the Pac 10. I think Boise has more than proven that they are capable of competing with the big boys, they are what, 4 and 1 against BCS conference teams in the past four years? And that 4 and 1 record hasn't come against cupcakes. They have beaten some darn good teams. Boise has three wins (Oregon x2, Oklahoma) in that time period that are better than any wins a lot of teams have had that have played in BCS games during that time period.

Indiana and Vanderbilt would both finish in the top half of the WAC in most seasons.

No, every single season. Every few years they would be asking if Indiana or Vanderbilt deserve a shot at the national title because they went unbeaten through the WAC gauntlet.

trep14 wrote:

Cleveland Buck wrote: Stanford would have the exact same record as Boise State this season playing their schedule. Would Stanford deserve a BCS title shot for beating Oregon and 11 cupcakes? Instead they play in a real conference and have 4 losses. Where is the outcry that Stanford deserves to be in a BCS bowl game?

You answered your own question. Stanford has four losses....including a loss to a low tier ACC team. When has a four loss team ever been deserving a BCS bid (unless they win their conference, ala FSU in 2005)? In fact, it is possible that Boise State would have a better record than Stanford if they played Stanford's schedule and would be right at the top of the Pac 10. I think Boise has more than proven that they are capable of competing with the big boys, they are what, 4 and 1 against BCS conference teams in the past four years? And that 4 and 1 record hasn't come against cupcakes. They have beaten some darn good teams. Boise has three wins (Oregon x2, Oklahoma) in that time period that are better than any wins a lot of teams have had that have played in BCS games during that time period.

We don't know anything about where Boise would finish with Stanford's schedule, but we know that Stanford handled Oregon, and no one else Boise played would come within 30 points of Stanford. So if they would have the same record if they played the same schedule, why isn't Stanford as deserving as Boise State?

Cleveland Buck wrote:

Indiana and Vanderbilt would both finish in the top half of the WAC in most seasons.

No, every single season. Every few years they would be asking if Indiana or Vanderbilt deserve a shot at the national title because they went unbeaten through the WAC gauntlet.

LOLOLOL what are you basing this on???

Indiana beat Eastern Kentucky, a 5-6 OVC team, 19-13 at home this season.

They followed that by beating a 5 and 6 Western Michigan MAC team 23-19 at home.

Hell they were in a dogfight with a 2-9 Akron team in the third quarter.

They are awful, they would be a middle to lower tier team in the WAC.

Cleveland Buck wrote:

trep14 wrote:

Cleveland Buck wrote: Stanford would have the exact same record as Boise State this season playing their schedule. Would Stanford deserve a BCS title shot for beating Oregon and 11 cupcakes? Instead they play in a real conference and have 4 losses. Where is the outcry that Stanford deserves to be in a BCS bowl game?

You answered your own question. Stanford has four losses....including a loss to a low tier ACC team. When has a four loss team ever been deserving a BCS bid (unless they win their conference, ala FSU in 2005)? In fact, it is possible that Boise State would have a better record than Stanford if they played Stanford's schedule and would be right at the top of the Pac 10. I think Boise has more than proven that they are capable of competing with the big boys, they are what, 4 and 1 against BCS conference teams in the past four years? And that 4 and 1 record hasn't come against cupcakes. They have beaten some darn good teams. Boise has three wins (Oregon x2, Oklahoma) in that time period that are better than any wins a lot of teams have had that have played in BCS games during that time period.

We don't know anything about where Boise would finish with Stanford's schedule, but we know that Stanford handled Oregon, and no one else Boise played would come within 30 points of Stanford. So if they would have the same record if they played the same schedule, why isn't Stanford as deserving as Boise State?

Oh, I get it, you can make hypothetical assumptions, but I can't. If I'm not allowed to make hypothetical assumptions, I guess I can't answer your hypothetical question. What a joke. Just keep ignoring what happens on the field and continue to overrate teams that are in BCS conferences simply because they have "PAC 10" or "Big 10" next to their names.

I'll bet you cried yourself to sleep the night that Boise beat Oregon because you so badly wanted to prove how much "better" BCS conference teams are than those terrible WAC teams.

trep14 wrote:

Cleveland Buck wrote:

Indiana and Vanderbilt would both finish in the top half of the WAC in most seasons.

No, every single season. Every few years they would be asking if Indiana or Vanderbilt deserve a shot at the national title because they went unbeaten through the WAC gauntlet.

LOLOLOL what are you basing this on???

Indiana beat Eastern Kentucky, a 5-6 OVC team, 19-13 at home this season.

They followed that by beating a 5 and 6 Western Michigan MAC team 23-19 at home.

Hell they were in a dogfight with a 2-9 Akron team in the third quarter.

They are awful, they would be a middle to lower tier team in the WAC.

They won those games. And they beat better teams than those as well. And only 4 WAC teams are better than 5-6 right now anyway, so the win over Western Michigan is just like beating a middle tier WAC team.

Oh, I get it, you can make hypothetical assumptions, but I can't. If I'm not allowed to make hypothetical assumptions, I guess I can't answer your hypothetical question. What a joke. Just keep ignoring what happens on the field and continue to overrate teams that are in BCS conferences simply because they have "PAC 10" or "Big 10" next to their names.

What team that Boise State has played would compete with Stanford?

Cleveland Buck wrote:

What team that Boise State has played would compete with Stanford?

Who cares whether any of those teams could compete with Stanford. Boise State could, and Boise State has proven time and time again that they can play with anybody, and that they can actually win BCS games.

jordo212000 wrote:

Cleveland Buck wrote:

What team that Boise State has played would compete with Stanford?

Who cares whether any of those teams could compete with Stanford. Boise State could, and Boise State has proven time and time again that they can play with anybody, and that they can actually win BCS games.

You mean they have proven they can play with Oregon and Oklahoma a few years ago, and that they can win a BCS game.

Cleveland Buck wrote:

jordo212000 wrote:

Cleveland Buck wrote:

What team that Boise State has played would compete with Stanford?

Who cares whether any of those teams could compete with Stanford. Boise State could, and Boise State has proven time and time again that they can play with anybody, and that they can actually win BCS games.

You mean they have proven they can play with Oregon and Oklahoma a few years ago, and that they can win a BCS game.

Yeah, kind of like Big Ten teams have proven that they have no business whatsoever playing in BCS games.

Cleveland Buck wrote:

trep14 wrote:

Cleveland Buck wrote:

Indiana and Vanderbilt would both finish in the top half of the WAC in most seasons.

No, every single season. Every few years they would be asking if Indiana or Vanderbilt deserve a shot at the national title because they went unbeaten through the WAC gauntlet.

LOLOLOL what are you basing this on???

Indiana beat Eastern Kentucky, a 5-6 OVC team, 19-13 at home this season.

They followed that by beating a 5 and 6 Western Michigan MAC team 23-19 at home.

Hell they were in a dogfight with a 2-9 Akron team in the third quarter.

They are awful, they would be a middle to lower tier team in the WAC.

They won those games. And they beat better teams than those as well. And only 4 WAC teams are better than 5-6 right now anyway, so the win over Western Michigan is just like beating a middle tier WAC team.

Exactly my point. Indiana won but they certainly didn't dominate, so I'm not sure why you would consider them to be a lock to finish in the upper half of the conference. They would be a middle to lower tier team in the WAC. Heck, I don't think there is a big ten team not named Ohio State, Penn State, or Wisky that wouldn't finish in the middle of the pack in the WAC. (I would say Iowa, seeing as they gave OSU a good game and had good wins over Penn State and Arizona, but struggled mightily against Northern Iowa, a game they should have lost, and almost lost to Arkansas State as well, so they are certainly not exempt from this conversation).

Cleveland Buck wrote:

jordo212000 wrote:

Cleveland Buck wrote:

What team that Boise State has played would compete with Stanford?

Who cares whether any of those teams could compete with Stanford. Boise State could, and Boise State has proven time and time again that they can play with anybody, and that they can actually win BCS games.

You mean they have proven they can play with Oregon and Oklahoma a few years ago, and that they can win a BCS game.

Yeah? That would be my point. What has Penn State proven in BCS games?

Are you going to come back with a schedule breakdown of who Penn State plays and then some how claim that the performances of who they played against this season (even though they lost to the two good teams on their schedule) justify their position over Boise?

jordo212000 wrote:

Cleveland Buck wrote:

jordo212000 wrote:

Cleveland Buck wrote:

What team that Boise State has played would compete with Stanford?

Who cares whether any of those teams could compete with Stanford. Boise State could, and Boise State has proven time and time again that they can play with anybody, and that they can actually win BCS games.

You mean they have proven they can play with Oregon and Oklahoma a few years ago, and that they can win a BCS game.

Yeah? That would be my point. What has Penn State proven in BCS games?

Are you going to come back with a schedule breakdown of who Penn State plays and then some how claim that the performances of who they played against this season (even though they lost to the two good teams on their schedule) justify their position over Boise?

LOL. But they beat an 8-5 FSU team in the Orange Bowl in 2005!!!! (in overtime. by three points. in an absolutely terrible football game)

Yeah, watching that pillow fight was certainly more thrilling than watching Boise State and Oklahoma. But there is no way Boise could compete with the those big conference schools like Indiana because they play in the wac.

Yeah, kind of like Big Ten teams have proven that they have no business whatsoever playing in BCS games.

Yes they have, by winning more BCS games than any conference except the SEC and Pac-10.

Cleveland Buck wrote:

Yeah, kind of like Big Ten teams have proven that they have no business whatsoever playing in BCS games.

Yes they have, by winning more BCS games than any conference except the SEC and Pac-10.

How many BCS games that the big ten has been involved in have you been able to watch from start to finish since 2006? I count one; OSU-Texas. Which OSU still didn't win.

Seriously, the corporation that is in charge of advertising at the Rose Bowl should refund the money to any company that paid for a commercial to be aired during the fourth quarter of the past three rose bowls because the showing that Michigan, Illinois, and Penn State put forth was so pathetic that no one was even watching anymore.

Yeah? That would be my point. What has Penn State proven in BCS games?

Are you going to come back with a schedule breakdown of who Penn State plays and then some how claim that the performances of who they played against this season (even though they lost to the two good teams on their schedule) justify their position over Boise?

They have proven as much as Boise State has. They have each won one BCS bowl. They've proven to bring higher TV ratings and more fans to BCS bowls, which is how they determine who they will select. As far as their schedule, Boise has the best win of the two, then Penn State has the next 6 or so best wins between the two, then you can jumble up Penn State's cupcakes and Boise' 11 cupcakes at the bottom.

Recent Big 10 BCS "sucKcess"
2009 (0-2) Ohio State against Texas, PSU against USC
2008 (0-2) Ohio State vs. LSU, USC vs Illinois
2007 (0-2) Ohio State vs. Florida , Michigan vs. USC

How many BCS games that the big ten has been involved in have you been able to watch from start to finish since 2006? I count one; OSU-Texas. Which OSU still didn't win.

How many BCS bowls has Boise State won since 2008? Anyone can pick a random year to make a point.

Like I said earlier.

When OSU wins on January 1st, they will have more BCS wins and appearances over 90+% of the BCS eligible schools.

Complain all you want but one win will push OSU right back into the top heading into next season.

devil1197 wrote: Like I said earlier.

When OSU wins on January 1st, they will have more BCS wins and appearances over 90+% of the BCS eligible schools.

Complain all you want but one win will push OSU right back into the top heading into next season.

Ummm, this argument has nothing to do with Ohio State per se haha. It is in regards to the utter garbage that is the Big 10 conference. The real argument is that some feel that putting 2 loss Penn State (who didn't beat anybody of relevance) would be a better move to make than putting Boise State in the BCS game

Cleveland Buck wrote:

How many BCS games that the big ten has been involved in have you been able to watch from start to finish since 2006? I count one; OSU-Texas. Which OSU still didn't win.

How many BCS bowls has Boise State won since 2008? Anyone can pick a random year to make a point.

I pick 2006 because it seems to be the most indicative of the Big Tens current trend in bowl games, which if you are ignoring that trend (which it seems you are), you are the biggest Big Ten homer in the world.

Seriously, Penn State should be docked their win over FSU (Seriously, to this day I have no idea how that terrible FSU team beat Va. Tech in the ACC championship game, I guess it shows you the downside of having a CCG) for their absolutely putrid showing against USC last year. And the sad part is, that wasn't the only time a big ten team absolutely crapped the bed when they were put on the field against that big, bad USC team. Ohio State, the big tens other conference champion, collectively peed down their legs at USC that year.

Seriously, do you work for Jim Delaney? Does he rule your life so hard that you have to come on to random message boards to spread more big ten propaganda?