ccrunner609;882836 wrote:STFU...player resumes? Really? So now the recruiting offices in all these colleges that rate a guy has somethig to do with this?

No. The amount of players the conference sends to the NFL have something to do with it smartass.

http://forums.nationalchamps.net/boards/showthread.php?t=5229

That's just from last year. 19.7 NFL players (average) per team in the Big 10, 6 for the WAC (where Boise played last year).

It's the quality of the players on the opposing team, not their record.

lhslep134;882800 wrote:Look at the quality of players on middling teams in BCS conferences versus the players on middling teams in Boise's conference. It's not even close. You want to compare records? IMO it's irrelevant because a 4-8 Utah State team is significantly worse than a 4-8 Purdue team. Why? Because Purdue's players are a lot better than Utah State's. It's not about the record of your opponents, it's about the skill level of your opponents. And anyone who thinks Boise plays a conference schedule with the same quality of players as a BCS conference is out of their f**king minds. Just my 2 cents.

lhslep134;882868 wrote:No. The amount of players the conference sends to the NFL have something to do with it smartass.

http://forums.nationalchamps.net/boards/showthread.php?t=5229

That's just from last year. 19.7 NFL players (average) per team in the Big 10, 6 for the WAC (where Boise played last year).

It's the quality of the players on the opposing team, not their record.

Thank you.

CC, just be quiet..what does going to the pros have to do with it? How about our entire argument we are making??? The tougher the teams you play in a week in, week out basis..the harder it is to go undefeated and the easier it is and the more rested you are to play your 1 tough game at the end of the year.

enigmaax;882860 wrote:Not at all. When you only have to be at opitmal operating level twice a year - once at the beginning and once at the end - you're going to be healthier, more focused, and have more to play for in those particular games.



Utah found a conference. TCU found a conference. BYU went independent. As someone already said, at the least, Boise better schedule four top notch games OOC instead of one. No whining about where you have to play - every single big conference school in the country plays at least four conference games on the road against BCS competition....and Boise tries to say they aren't being treated fairly by not getting those home games. Don't say they have done "almost everything" when they have done basically nothing.



Not when you are talking about such an extremely selective reward. There are two spots open for the title game. It is about the resume. You can say, they could compete with anyone, but if they aren't willing to prove it they don't just get **** handed to them.



No one ever answers this question. What would your opinion be if LSU left the SEC for the Sun Belt - would they deserve to be in the national title game every year after they run that gauntlet or would you be bitching about how they just dumbed down their schedule and shouldn't get ****? What if Vanderbilt did it? Would you suddenly consider them a powerhouse?

Boise has far and away outgrown a schedule full of New Mexico States. But until they actually ditch that schedule, they continue to be treated appropriately - get some respect, but don't think you're close to deserving a title game shot.

+2 trillion

REPS

This

Amen (for our religious).

FOUL. Not allowed to compare college to NFL. Makes you look like a smartass idiotic absurd delusional out of your f**king mind troll.

lhslep134;882868 wrote:No. The amount of players the conference sends to the NFL have something to do with it smartass.

http://forums.nationalchamps.net/boards/showthread.php?t=5229

That's just from last year. 19.7 NFL players (average) per team in the Big 10, 6 for the WAC (where Boise played last year).

It's the quality of the players on the opposing team, not their record.

boise needs to go independent to be taken seriously. the bcs doesn't care how many points you can put on new mexico and wyoming

I think the better question is where will Georgia be ranked?

Case in point:

In 2009 Ohio State lost to a much worse Purdue team. One of the main reasons? 2011 1st Round Pick Ryan Kerrigan had 9 tackles, 2 FF, and 3 sacks. He single-handedly made Pryor's day miserable.

Who the hell does Boise play like that in the WAC? The Big 10 had 4 defenders taken in the 1st round of this year's draft. The WAC? 0 1st round picks.

"Going to the pros has nothing to do with this" --CCRunner

Except it has EVERYTHING to do with this. The quality of the players on the middling teams makes an upset possible every week in BCS conferences. Sorry to burst your delusional bubble, but that simply doesn't happen in Boise's conference. END. OF. STORY.

sleeper;882953 wrote:I think the better question is where will Georgia be ranked?

Next week or at the end of the year? Next week they won't be.

The quality of players makes up a team and is ONE of the key components of a team, so yes it has everything to do with this.

lhslep134;882979 wrote:Case in point:

In 2009 Ohio State lost to a much worse Purdue team. One of the main reasons? 2011 1st Round Pick Ryan Kerrigan had 9 tackles, 2 FF, and 3 sacks. He single-handedly made Pryor's day miserable.

Who the hell does Boise play like that in the WAC?

And in 2009 Purdue went 1-3 outside of the Big 10, and 4-4 in conference play. They lost to Northern Illinois, and gave up almost 500 yards to Toledo and were out-possessed by 7 minutes (although they won that game).

Not the best point with the whole "a 4-8 Big 10 team is better than a 4-8 WAC team" argument, considering a team that went 4-4 in the Big 10 two years ago wasn't any better than a pair of MAC teams that went a combined 12-13 on the season. Bad teams are bad teams, and elite teams (which Boise State is) will beat them almost 100% of the time.

If you really think a team like Ohio State has to gear up every week to beat Indiana, Minnesota, or Illinois by 20+ points you're crazy.

Mulva;883072 wrote:
If you really think a team like Ohio State has to gear up every week to beat Indiana, Minnesota, or Illinois by 20+ points you're crazy.

So Ohio State losing at home while ranked #1 to Illinois was an anomaly that's never happened in the history of big time college football?

So I guess the proven upset history of big time programs by middling teams in BCS conferences over time means everyone who thinks rationally is crazy? You make a compelling argument there chief....

Mulva;883072 wrote:And in 2009 Purdue went 1-3 outside of the Big 10, and 4-4 in conference play. They lost to Northern Illinois, and gave up almost 500 yards to Toledo and were out-possessed by 7 minutes (although they won that game).

Not the best point with the whole "a 4-8 Big 10 team is better than a 4-8 WAC team" argument, considering a team that went 4-4 in the Big 10 two years ago wasn't any better than a pair of MAC teams that went a combined 12-13 on the season. Bad teams are bad teams, and elite teams (which Boise State is) will beat them almost 100% of the time.

If you really think a team like Ohio State has to gear up every week to beat Indiana, Minnesota, or Illinois by 20+ points you're crazy.

Lol that's one of the worst posts I've ever seen

SportsAndLady;883094 wrote:Lol that's one of the worst posts I've ever seen

And I guess when Florida lost to Ole Miss the year they won the title it was just an anomaly then too right? According to Mulva, we're crazy for thinking rationally...

uggh I see that the Boise discussion has already kicked off. My head hurts after reading some of the nonsense on here.

lhslep134;882979 wrote:Case in point:

In 2009 Ohio State lost to a much worse Purdue team. One of the main reasons? 2011 1st Round Pick Ryan Kerrigan had 9 tackles, 2 FF, and 3 sacks. He single-handedly made Pryor's day miserable.

Who the hell does Boise play like that in the WAC? The Big 10 had 4 defenders taken in the 1st round of this year's draft. The WAC? 0 1st round picks.

"Going to the pros has nothing to do with this" --CCRunner

Except it has EVERYTHING to do with this. The quality of the players on the middling teams makes an upset possible every week in BCS conferences. Sorry to burst your delusional bubble, but that simply doesn't happen in Boise's conference. END. OF. STORY.

You're arguing with a guy that thinks cross country is actually a sport.

Mulva;883072 wrote:If you really think a team like Ohio State has to gear up every week to beat Indiana, Minnesota, or Illinois by 20+ points you're crazy.

LOL. You just proved LHS' theory correct. No, Ohio State doesn't HAVE to gear up every week to beat Ind, Minn or Ill. However, they don't play teams like that every week. They also pplay teams like Iowa, Wisconsin, MSU, Miami, USC, Penn St., etc. These teams are also in their schedule.

Boise St. plays one tough team a season (if you want to call Georgia tough this season, they were 6-7 last year). Then the rest of their season is teams that are at the level of Ind, Minn, Ill.......or worse.

dwccrew;883115 wrote: LOL. You just proved LHS' theory correct.

Dammit Dwccrew, I was going to wait and see if he realized that himself...

ccrunner609;882923 wrote:Ok now you are reaching.......going to the pros doesnt and shouldnt have anything to do with this.

Um why wouldn't it? The number of players being sent to the NFL, the highlest level of football in the world, is one of the main barometers when it comes to determining player depth and quality for a team and conference. For example, since 2006, the SEC has sent the most players to the NFL. It's also been the best conference in NCAA football over that span.

Boise State is a really good program. However, the argument against them will always be the conference they play in. As lep pointed out, the WAC hasn't sent near the amount of players to the NFL that any of the BCS conferences have. Playing in the WAC, Boise doesn't have that weekly grind like in other conferences. They can afford to not be sharp and still win handedly vs Wyoming, New Mexico, etc. Teams in the BCS conferences don't have that luxury week in and week out.

charliehustle14;883138 wrote:Um why wouldn't it? The number of players being sent to the NFL, the highlest level of football in the world, is one of the main barometers when it comes to determining player depth and quality for a team and conference. For example, since 2006, the SEC has sent the most players to the NFL. It's also been the best conference in NCAA football over that span.

Boise State is a really good program. However, the argument against them will always be the conference they play in. As lep pointed out, the WAC hasn't sent near the amount of players to the NFL that any of the BCS conferences have. Playing in the WAC, Boise doesn't have that weekly grind like in other conferences. They can afford to not be sharp and still win handedly vs Wyoming, New Mexico, etc. Teams in the BCS conferences don't have that luxury week in and week out.

Spot on, don't know how anyone could argue this.

Those UGA uniforms were abominations. Yikes.

robj55;883144 wrote:Spot on, don't know how anyone could argue this.

So, using his logic, UConn and Butler had the most NBA draftee's in this years NBA Draft?

I mean, they made it to the national championship so they're the best teams with the best players.

Right?

The number of NFL players from a team/conference is a fucking stupid logic. What about coaching? Better game preparation?

dlazz;883308 wrote:So, using his logic, UConn and Butler had the most NBA draftee's in this years NBA Draft?

I mean, they made it to the national championship so they're the best teams with the best players.

Right?

The number of NFL players from a team/conference is a ****ing stupid logic. What about coaching? Better game preparation?

Comparing basketball to football?

Wow LOL

dlazz;883308 wrote:What about coaching? Better game preparation?

You mean the fact that the best coaches (from head coaches to assistants) are found in BCS conferences?

Or do you mean that basketball is the same as football?

Clearly you're making some strong arguments here....

dwccrew;883115 wrote:Then the rest of their season is teams that are at the level of Ind, Minn, Ill.......or worse.

That is 100% not true, especially this season. In the WAC it's arguable, but the MWC, even losing BYU and Utah, is much better overall. The worst teams in the MWC are obviously worse than the worst teams in the Big 10, but every team they play the rest of their season? Give me a break. There are probably 5-6 teams on Boise State's schedule that are better than any one of those 3 teams this year.

And when it gets beyond that point in a conference, my point was it doesn't matter at all. Why should a team get more credit for beating a 4-8 Big 10 team than a 4-8 MWC team? They both suck, and any legit team would beat either of them (which is why they go 4-8).

If you think you could stick Indiana, Minnesota, Purdue, or (possibly) Illinois in the MWC and have them fare better than middle of the pack (above the worst few teams but below everyone else) then I completely disagree and there really isn't any argument left to have.

lhslep134;883091 wrote:So Ohio State losing at home while ranked #1 to Illinois was an anomaly that's never happened in the history of big time college football?

How did I suggest that in any way? Did my use of "almost 100%" confuse you into "never happened in history"? I used Indiana, Minnesota, and Illinois as 3 examples for THIS YEAR because I expect all 3 of them to be bad teams THIS YEAR. 2007 Illinois won 9 games and made the fucking Rose Bowl. Obviously Ohio State had to be ready to play them that year. That isn't comparable to this season.

My point was that arguing that Ohio State works harder going through 4-win Big 10 teams during a season than Boise State does going through 4-win WAC/MWC teams is irrelevant, because each team will be favored (and in most cases win by) 20+ points in those games.

I guess in my opinion playing 2 legitimate teams and 5 pretty good ones and going 7-0 is more deserving than playing 5 legitimate teams and 2 pretty good ones and going 6-1.

If you don't agree then fine, but let's not act like a team like Ohio State has to run such a gauntlet that it's a minor miracle if they can make it through with 1 loss.

Mulva - If OSU plays its worst game of the year against a 4-win Big Ten team, there is a risk of losing. If OSU plays its worst game of the year against a 4-win MWC team, what is going to happen? They only win by a couple TDs?

I guess in my opinion playing 2 legitimate teams and 5 pretty good ones and going 7-0 is more deserving than playing 5 legitimate teams and 2 pretty good ones and going 6-1.

Even if one were to accept this, where are these 5 "pretty good" teams on Boise's schedule?

Indiana lost to Ball State and Purdue escaped with a win against Mid Tennessee St. Monsters of the Midway I tell you!