enigmaax;883363 wrote:Even if one were to accept this, where are these 5 "pretty good" teams on Boise's schedule?

Well, first off my definition of "legitimate" would be a team that would win 8+ games in any conference, and on Boise's schedule I'd say only TCU (even with the performance against Baylor) and Georgia fit. I would say maybe 4-5 teams fit that criteria on most BCS schedules (for example: Nebraska, Wisconsin, possibly Penn State/Michigan/MSU for Ohio State).

As far as the "pretty good" teams - Air Force, SDSU, and Tulsa for sure. Those are all 8-9 win teams. I don't know how good teams like Nevada or Fresno State are supposed to be this season, but based on past results they'll probably win 8 games or so too.

Just taking 1 source, the nationalchamps.net preseason top 50 had TCU #13, Tulsa #25, Georgia #28, Air Force #38, and San Diego State #43. Who knows if any of those rankings will hold, but based on expectations I'd say those are all at least "pretty good" teams.

Nevada is tough to judge this year because Kaepernick was so important to that offense, and in the last few years Fresno State has beaten Kansas State, UCLA, Illinois (twice), Cincinnati, Rutgers, and Georgia Tech and lost to Wisconsin by 3 and to Texas A&M in OT, winning 7+ games every year, so I would say they're at least a "pretty good" team most seasons (especially at home). They lost to Cal this weekend though so who knows for this year, but they have a track record of being at least solid for several years now.

enigmaax;883363 wrote: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'd say there is a risk of losing to just about anyone if you don't play well. That said, Purdue in 2009 was the only game Ohio State has lost since 2004 against a team that didn't at least make a BCS bowl, so they've tended to take care of business against all bad teams regardless of conference affiliation. Just a few examples of mid-major games that were close in recent years:

2009: Ohio State 31 Navy 27 (I know Navy wasn't a 4 win team, but they're a good example of what I consider a "pretty good" team from your Boise State question)
2008: Ohio State 26 Ohio U 14 (included because it was 14-12 OU after 3 quarters, Bobcats went 4-8)
2004: Ohio State 24 Marshall 21 (Marshall 6-6)
2003: Ohio State 16 San Diego State 13 (SDSU 6-6)
2002: Ohio State 23 Cincinnati 19 (Bearcats went 7-7 and lost to North Texas in a bowl)

Not necessarily 4 win teams, but I think it serves the point.

Either way, Boise State is going to keep on winning and people are going to keep on hating. Then they'll probably win another BCS game this year and still get no respect when they do it all over again next season. It's a never-ending cycle, so I'm ready to just move on because this argument isn't changing anything about the BCS.

Yeah, i typically used to take part in this conversation, but it is really pointless at this point. People are locked into the 1980-1990s mindset will never take Boise State seriously and will always find new and exciting ways to discount them. Give up now. Arguing will make your head want to explode.

Mulva;883453 wrote:Nevada is tough to judge this year because Kaepernick was so important to that offense, and in the last few years Fresno State has beaten Kansas State, UCLA, Illinois (twice), Cincinnati, Rutgers, and Georgia Tech and lost to Wisconsin by 3 and to Texas A&M in OT, winning 7+ games every year, so I would say they're at least a "pretty good" team most seasons (especially at home). They lost to Cal this weekend though so who knows for this year, but they have a track record of being at least solid for several years now.

I don't know how this serves your point. Upsets happen. That is no secret. Fresno has some good wins and how many conference titles? Boise is by far a better program than Fresno, as Fresno can't follow up its big wins and take care of business against the rest of its crappy schedule. Boise has outgrown the WAC and probably the MWC. They could be competitive against legit competition, but they don't play legit competition so they don't get the spoils.

2009: Ohio State 31 Navy 27 (I know Navy wasn't a 4 win team, but they're a good example of what I consider a "pretty good" team from your Boise State question)
2008: Ohio State 26 Ohio U 14 (included because it was 14-12 OU after 3 quarters, Bobcats went 4-8)
2004: Ohio State 24 Marshall 21 (Marshall 6-6)
2003: Ohio State 16 San Diego State 13 (SDSU 6-6)
2002: Ohio State 23 Cincinnati 19 (Bearcats went 7-7 and lost to North Texas in a bowl)

Not necessarily 4 win teams, but I think it serves the point.

Um, not one of those teams are BCS/Big Ten schools. You solidified my point. OSU played horrible against those teams and still won. If they'd played any BCS school on those days you would be talking about losses.

Either way, Boise State is going to keep on winning and people are going to keep on hating. Then they'll probably win another BCS game this year and still get no respect when they do it all over again next season. It's a never-ending cycle, so I'm ready to just move on because this argument isn't changing anything about the BCS.

Don't mistake perspective for hating. You are right, the debate does get old because you guys keep trying to apply one win per year from a decade to the current season. Boise gets plenty of respect. My god, they started the season ranked, what? #5? And winning a BCS game this year won't be any different than any of their other teams who have won a couple big games and didn't play any other real competition the rest of the season.

I'm really interested in your answers to the questions I always ask. If LSU jumped to the Sun Belt and went undefeated, would you say they deserve to be in the title game (say they are the only undefeated team)? If Vandy did the same thing, would they be the new powerhouse? If Boise lost to Georgia, but ended up as the only 1-loss team in the country this year, would they belong in the title game?

jordo212000;883460 wrote:Yeah, i typically used to take part in this conversation, but it is really pointless at this point. People are locked into the 1980-1990s mindset will never take Boise State seriously and will always find new and exciting ways to discount them. Give up now. Arguing will make your head want to explode.

Any year now, Boise could play in a title game because there is enough underdog sentiment to put them over the top. They need a little luck as far as others losing, but if they end up as one of two undefeated teams any time soon, they'll play in the title game. Hell, they'll probably win the title. The very thing that has bitten them in the ass the last few years will be the thing that vaults them eventually - the human influence.

enigmaax;883504 wrote:Any year now, Boise could play in a title game because there is enough underdog sentiment to put them over the top. They need a little luck as far as others losing, but if they end up as one of two undefeated teams any time soon, they'll play in the title game. Hell, they'll probably win the title. The very thing that has bitten them in the ass the last few years will be the thing that vaults them eventually - the human influence.

Better be quick though, I see the BCS changing dramatically at the end of this coming contract as much of the conference re-alignment will be in place by then, 2014? All the re-alignment has arguably been done to accommodate the BCS and that will obviously continue. Who's going to be Boise's Nevada this year? Looking at their schedule, it's pretty evident no one.

enigmaax;883501 wrote: Um, not one of those teams are BCS/Big Ten schools. You solidified my point. OSU played horrible against those teams and still won. If they'd played any BCS school on those days you would be talking about losses.

Any BCS school? Are you sure about that?

karen lotz;883532 wrote:Any BCS school? Are you sure about that?

Okay, since the conversation is about X-number-of-win BCS schools vs. X-number-of-win non-BCS schools, there are two relevant comparisons. I would stand by "any 4-win BCS school" since that magic number was thrown out. Obviously, I would also stand by "any BCS school with the same number of wins (of the opponent referenced)."

Ah yes, I see the obligatory "Boise should toughen up their schedule or join a big boy conference" argument is in full swing.

If Boise could join an AQ conference, they 100% would. However, they have not received an invite from anybody except the Mtn West. It's actually pretty simple why they haven't. Idaho might as well be Siberia in terms of potential ratings, their stadium is pretty small, and the school doesn't have a whole lot of success in basketball / other sports. They aren't attractive to BCS schools for those reasons alone. Boise thought they might have joined a new AQ conference with the Mtn West, but BYU and TCU's exits really hurt the overall strength of the conference.

The next argument that will jump off from there is: "so go independent" Going independent is pretty challenging. Having a conference affiliation helps you set your schedule each year and it also helps you with funding (i.e. media contracts). If Boise goes indie, they will have no media funding at all. What channel is going to give Boise a Notre Dame / Texas-esque 24 hr network. Nobody. So Boise goes independent and gets no revenue from media stuff. That's moronic. Let's say they do go independent. What do they do for other sports? Do you think the Mtn West would let them compete in all other sports after screwing them over? What about the WAC? Think the WAC lets them back in to play baseball and basketball?

Finally, there is the "play a tougher schedule" argument. This is probably the most realistic solution out there. Boise has taken strides to play a tougher schedule. They do set a key matchup every year, and every year they seemingly take care of business against this big boy. However, the problem is in getting multiple big boys. Big boys are probably reluctant to play them anyways at the start of the season, but some do, and they lose. Playing Boise isn't wise when you can play Akron or Chattanooga in week 1. Playing Boise kills your chances of going undefeated.

Let's say they do find somebody to play in week 1. But what about the rest of the schedule? Who is going to play a top 10 power in the middle of a conference schedule? Or who is going to play them the week before the conference schedule picks up? You want to go in conference healthy (and/or undefeated).

Simple answer jordo...see Miami early 80's for a blueprint to credibility.

ytownfootball;883809 wrote:Simple answer jordo...see Miami early 80's for a blueprint to credibility.

Run a dirty program? I'm not sure anybody should want to imitate what Miami did back in the day.

jordo212000;883826 wrote:Run a dirty program? I'm not sure anybody should want to imitate what Miami did back in the day.

They didn't get noticed for having a blue effin' field.

Educate yourself

All joking aside, it is a different time. Being an independent is extremely difficult. You have to fill out an entire schedule (already mentioned the problems that arise from that) and you have to secure some sort of media deal to fund your program. Who the F is going to give Boise any kind of media deal?

ytownfootball;883830 wrote:They didn't get noticed for having a blue effin' field.

I hate the blue field as well. I'm not going to sit here and lie and say that I do. But you are extremely naive if you do not think that the blue field didn't help them out when they were first starting their climb towards respectability. It got them a lot of attention and notoriety that a school in Boise freaking, Idaho would not have gotten otherwise.

Now that they have reached maturity, I think it might be time for them to go-green.

jordo212000;883836 wrote:I hate the blue field as well. I'm not going to sit here and lie and say that I do. But you are extremely naive if you do not think that the blue field didn't help them out when they were first starting their climb towards respectability. It got them a lot of attention and notoriety that a school in Boise freaking, Idaho would not have gotten otherwise.

Now that they have reached maturity, I think it might be time for them to go-green.

Miami got noticed for scheduling a gauntlet, traveling everywhere and taking their beatings in the process, not some gimmick like colored turf, I'm not in the least naive about that, that was my whole purpose for posting it. Boise can schedule four OOC games, do you mean to tell me only one will take a risk on playing them year in and year out? Now who is being naive?

ytownfootball;883838 wrote:Miami got noticed for scheduling a gauntlet, traveling everywhere and taking their beatings in the process, not some gimmick like colored turf, I'm not in the least naive about that, that was my whole purpose for posting it. Boise can schedule four OOC games, do you mean to tell me only one will take a risk on playing them year in and year out? Now who is being naive?

I guess I am naive because I hardly doubt that Boise can find 3 other big-time programs to fill out their schedule. Everybody wants home games. Sure big time programs will play a key OOC game and they may even do it home and home. But they are not going to do much more than 1 a year. Making money in college football is the name of the game. Teams want home games and they want sure victories. They want their mid-major in-state brethren to come up to the big stadium and take their beating. There is no chance they'll beat you and they get to keep most of the money from the gate (excluding the mid major's payout). Plus UL Lafayette isn't going to demand a home game with you either.

You can point to the 1980s all you want, the thing is college football is much different these days. Being independent isn't all it is cracked up to be or else Texas wouldn't have bothered sticking around in the Big 12

enigmaax;883501 wrote:If they'd played any BCS school on those days you would be talking about losses.

That sentence is an absolute joke.

enigmaax;883501 wrote:I'm really interested in your answers to the questions I always ask. If LSU jumped to the Sun Belt and went undefeated, would you say they deserve to be in the title game (say they are the only undefeated team)?

It would depend on their overall resume, just like anyone else. Just going undefeated isn't grounds to make the title game and I never claimed it was. You still have to beat someone. Nobody would argue that the Hawaii team that went unbeaten should have been in the title game, or Tulane in 1998, or I'm sure several other examples, because they played nobody. Boise State doesn't play nobody. I'm not sure how much more clearly I can argue that. There are 5 teams on Boise State's schedule this year in the preseason top 50 I cited. 0 Sun Belt teams are on that list. It's not even apples to oranges. There is no comparison to be made.

Go back and read through my posts on this thread if you want. The only thing I've been arguing is that Boise State's schedule isn't NEARLY as bad, and most BCS schedules (outside of a few SEC teams) are not NEARLY as challenging as the detractors are trying to claim.

The WAC or MWC aren't the SEC or Big 12, but they aren't the MAC or Sun Belt either. The whole "they play 1 game a year" argument is just absurd. It's completely laughable that some people honestly believe that the entire conference is made up of Boise State + a bunch of teams as bad as Indiana or Minnesota.

And you can keep being naive in thinking that Boise somehow deserves credibility for winning a bunch of games against also rans on a blue playing surface when the fact is, if they want to earn credibility, the opportunity is there, it's how badly they want it, and the price they're willing to pay. This ain't a parking lot full of mini-vans and 10 year olds with ribbons.

Ytown is 100% correct. Miami didn't earn respect in the 80's by playing "home and homes", they won respect by going on the ROAD to powerhouse teams and taking their beatings before finally doing the beating.

Boise HAS opportunities to travel to big time programs, but big time programs won't travel to that stupid blue turf stadium holding ~40,000 people (or whatever small number it is).

So if Boise realllllly wants to argue they deserve credibility, then they need to man up and travel to these big time places without expecting a home game in return. It's the only realistic way to go about doing it.


And Mulva, give up the schedule argument. It's already been proven from top to bottom the reason why a BCS-conference is light years ahead of Boise's conference schedule. If you can't accept that, it's not our fault you're being naive.

Mulva;883845 wrote: Boise State doesn't play nobody. I'm not sure how much more clearly I can argue that. There are 5 teams on Boise State's schedule this year in the preseason top 50 I cited. 0 Sun Belt teams are on that list. It's not even apples to oranges. There is no comparison to be made.

Go back and read through my posts on this thread if you want. The only thing I've been arguing is that Boise State's schedule isn't NEARLY as bad, and most BCS schedules (outside of a few SEC teams) are not NEARLY as challenging as the detractors are trying to claim.

The WAC or MWC aren't the SEC or Big 12, but they aren't the MAC or Sun Belt either. The whole "they play 1 game a year" argument is just absurd. It's completely laughable that some people honestly believe that the entire conference is made up of Boise State + a bunch of teams as bad as Indiana or Minnesota.

Amen. Some people get caught up on name recognition. The funny thing is, the Boise detractors don't even watch the very teams they are dismissing as sucking. Like you said, the Mtn West isn't the SEC or Big 12, but it isn't completely terrible either.

Remember when people were blindly dismissing TCU because of their weak schedule? These are the same people who would have burnt the NCAA down if Ohio State went undefeated and didn't reach the BCS title game. The difference between their strengths of schedules was negligible.

It's like you have to have black and white footage from the glory days before certain posters will take you seriously. They want Boise and mid majors to have big boy credentials, but the big boys determine who actually gets big boy credentials (AQ conference bids).

The system is a joke. All of this bickering would be avoided if we settled it out on the field where things are supposed to be decided.

Mulva;883845 wrote: It's completely laughable that some people honestly believe that the entire conference is made up of Boise State + a bunch of teams as bad as Indiana or Minnesota.

You're right. The Indiana's and Minnesota's send more players to the NFL than any of Boise's bottom tier conference opponents, so those teams aren't as bad as Indiana or Minnesota, they're worse.

lhslep134;883854 wrote:So if Boise realllllly wants to argue they deserve credibility, then they need to man up and travel to this big time places without expecting a home game in return. It's the only realistic way to go about doing it.

Boise State is ranked #5 in the current AP poll. They are highly credible. The only people who don't think they are credible are bozos like you guys.

jordo212000;883862 wrote:Boise State is ranked #5 in the current AP poll. They are highly credible. The only people who don't think they are credible are bozos like you guys.

Credible in terms of being able to earn a trip to the national championship. Clearly they're a talented team, definitely top 10 talent. But until they play the gauntlet of a conference schedule, or schedule an OOC gauntlet, then they don't deserve to be in the national championship conversation.

lhslep134;883861 wrote:You're right. The Indiana's and Minnesota's send more players to the NFL than any of Boise's bottom tier conference opponents, so those teams aren't as bad as Indiana or Minnesota, they're worse.

ehh I don't know about that one. Indiana could have a lineman or a punter make it to the NFL and it would count towards their number and make them look much better than what they really were. How many "impact" players do Minnesota or Indiana send to the NFL each year? That would be a better comparison.

You also have to think about the other guys on the roster who don't make it to the NFL. Who is to say that the QB or RB at one Boise's rivals isn't/wasn't better than Indiana's or Minnesota's? How would we know?

Your way of thinking is very flawed IMO

Idaho has the same number of players in the NFL as Minnesota and 1 less than Indiana.

lhslep134;883867 wrote:Credible in terms of being able to earn a trip to the national championship. Clearly they're a talented team, definitely top 10 talent. But until they play the gauntlet of a conference schedule, or schedule an OOC gauntlet, then they don't deserve to be in the national championship conversation.

If they go undefeated this year I think they make it in.