ccrunner609;1004926 wrote:You do realize they are 2-0 in BCS bowl games........7-4 since 1999 with their 4 losses that total only 13 points.

WebFire;1004987 wrote:BSU's schedule is ****.

0311sdp;1004999 wrote:Who did Michigan play and beat that is any better than Georgia and Virginia Tech? Boise got hosed, they are 11-1 and have proved for years that they can play with anyone.

ccrunner609;1005018 wrote:\
Only crushed the SEC east champs........but hey who is counting.

Fly4Fun;1005025 wrote:Because the SEC East is a powerhouse this year... oh wait.

ytownfootball;1004937 wrote:I'll concede that Boise is more deserving of a pre-Christmas Bowl game, but I guess that makes up for the past few years when they didn't actually earn the right to play in a BCS game anyway.

sleeper;1004596 wrote:I feel for Boise as well. I still think OK ST got the royal screw job.

Skyhook79;1005047 wrote:S.Carolina finished in the top 10 of the BCS and Georgia beat them and Boise St beat Georgia by 2 Td's in Atlanta.

Skyhook79;1005049 wrote:Are you talking about the year they beat Oklahoma or the year they beat undefeated TCU?

WebFire;1005007 wrote:Looking at Sagarin, Boise's SOS is 69th best. Michigan is 42.

WebFire;1004987 wrote:BSU's schedule is shit.

queencitybuckeye;1005167 wrote:Not completely by their choice.

0311sdp;1005105 wrote:That's not what I asked you, who has Michigan beaten that's better than those two teams? and Boise is ranked much higher. (I know why Michigan was chosen ahead of Boise but it still is not right) It would have been the same result if it had been Ohio State at 10-2 instead of Michigan, I understand all that. If you're a Bowl you want teams like Michigan who will put butts in the seats.

Skyhook79;1004797 wrote:Yeah your right #7 team gets the Las Vegas Bowl

0311sdp;1004999 wrote:Who did Michigan play and beat that is any better than Georgia and Virginia Tech? Boise got hosed, they are 11-1 and have proved for years that they can play with anyone.

ccrunner609;1004926 wrote:You do realize they are 2-0 in BCS bowl games........7-4 since 1999 with their 4 losses that total only 13 points.

ytownfootball;1005169 wrote:Just because no one feels the need to appear on that ridiculous blue turf or pay them a cool mil to play away, doesn't mean that it's not completely their choice. In fact, it is completely their choice.

queencitybuckeye;1005374 wrote:So if they want to play the big boys, they should have to accept any ridiculously bad contract they're offered? Stupid opinion of the week.

enigmaax;1005377 wrote:No, they should play at a rate commensurate with what other "big boys" pay each other to play at each other's places. Not, "we want a home and home and a million dollars". They wanted the best of both worlds, then whined about being avoided.

queencitybuckeye;1005404 wrote:An anecdotal example aside, they have had several offers from major programs that no sane people running a program would accept.

enigmaax;1005418 wrote:Unless you are the one who is trying to prove yourself. It happens all the time in life - you have to sacrifice some things to get where you want to go.

Boise wanted to be treated equally when it came to say, home games, but wanted to be treated like welfare cases when it came to the money. Fresno State, San Jose State, a lot of Sun Belt teams - just a few examples off the top of my head - play much tougher OOC schedules and either travel to do it or accept what is necessary to get the games/money (2-for-1s as an example).

queencitybuckeye;1005426 wrote:How many teams do you believe should even approach Boise with anything other than a home and home? IMO, that number is less than 10, but teams well down the pecking order from that level have made single game or 2 for 1 or even 3 for 1 offers. Insanity.

Boise is at least a level above the programs you mentioned, probably more. The real problem is that the teams hiding behind the "they have to earn it" nonsense are being disingenuous, the real reason is that they have a pretty good idea what may happen on-field.