krambman;882649 wrote:And can't we admit that Boise might actually be deserving of playing for a national title if they finish as the only or one of only two undefeated teams this year? I think at this point they have beaten enough top-level teams on the road or at neutral sites over the past few years to prove that they are good enough to compete against and beat anyone. Boise may not have the athletes across the board compared to other top teams, but they are disciplined, well prepared, extremely well coached, they play good defense, and they can out-scheme almost anyone, which will allow them to compete with almost anyone.

Boise plays great ball, but they don't deserve a shot in the title game. They choose to play 1 or 2 good teams a year. They turned down the chance to play Nebraska because they don't really want to play many good teams. It is much easier to prepare for 1 difficult game a year than it is to play difficult games week in and week out.

The argument isn't whether they can compete with teams; it's whether they deserve to have that chance.

Playing 1-3 good teams and 8-10 bad teams a year doesn't qualify you for title game talk. Sorry.

krambman;882676 wrote:Nothing. But it speaks volume about who Boise State as a program is. Mid-majors and minors upset the big boys all the time, but they don't do it consistently. Boise State has. It shows a pattern that Boise State has played at the level of the major conference teams for an extended period of time. They are an establish program at this point, not a flash in the pan. It shows that their being good this year isn't just some fluke.

.
Consistently would be every week, not once a year or twice at most.

SportsAndLady;882677 wrote:Previous years' production means it's cool to put them in the title game? Am I reading that right?

They've looked good against top teams in bowl games in the past because of their weak schedule, that's the whole point. When they go undefeated with an AQ conference schedule, then we'll talk about title games.

The part in bold doesn't even make sense, and actually hurts your argument.

I'm so sick of the SOS argument for many reasons.

1. Boise can't help the conference they play in, and therefore, they can't help their schedule. Boise can't just go out and join the Pac-whatever because they want to, they have to be invited. In order for a conference to add a team that school needs to bring something competitively and financially. Boise does the former, but not the latter. Their stadium only holds 35,000. Idaho is a largely agrarian economy which is struggling and they have to have a balanced budget in Idaho, so unless someone pays privately to expand the stadium, the state isn't going to. They have done almost everything they can to move into a better conference and schedule better OOC opponents.

2. The strength of a team's opponents does not determine how good that team is. A team needs to be evaluated on their own merits, not on the merits of who they beat.

3. If you're the only undefeated team in the country or one of only two, your schedule shouldn't matter much because you were able to do what 115 other schools couldn't.

4. If Boise regular struggled against the teams on their schedule, then yes, the weak schedule would be worth noting. However, they dominate everyone in their conference year-in and year-out, and usually only struggle once or twice a year, and every team has an off night against a lesser team once or twice a season, especially when every opponent sees you as their biggest opponent of the year.


Now, if there are three or more undefeated teams then I think strength of schedule can and should be used as one of the tools to help compare teams that played different opponents to determine which is the better team and therefore is more deserving of playing for the championship. I don't, however, think that you can simply write a team off based solely on their schedule.

Fun fact - 2010 SOS

Auburn: 12
Boise State: 59
Wisconsin: 70
Oregon: 73

Let's not kid ourselves and pretend BCS teams get beat up on a weekly basis, because in reality very few of them do.

http://www.gberatings.com/past/2010/sos

You're missing the entire point...I don't want to get into this debate because our opinions aren't going to change.

My stance is that Boise would not put up these season records playing in an AQ conference. My opinion isn't going to change.

Not fair to the schools who play challenging schedules or teams that go out and challenge themselves consistently.

Mulva;882707 wrote:Fun fact - 2010 SOS

Auburn: 12
Boise State: 59
Wisconsin: 70
Oregon: 73

Let's not kid ourselves and pretend BCS teams get beat up on a weekly basis, because in reality very few of them do.

http://www.gberatings.com/past/2010/sos

Auburn, Oregon and Wisconsin were challenged in conference play week in week out, there is your difference.

Boise deserves respect. However, the system we have may simply never give them a shot at the big one, even if they go unbeaten.

Azubuike24;882715 wrote:Boise deserves respect. However, the system we have may simply never give them a shot at the big one, even if they go unbeaten.

They deserve respect, but they simply refuse to play a challenging schedule. They turned down a deal with Nebraska. If they want to stay in a weak conference, they have to schedule 4 major programs non-conference to have any shot.

robj55;882713 wrote:Auburn, Oregon and Wisconsin were challenged in conference play week in week out, there is your difference.

Auburn was challenged, hence the SOS of 12. Oregon and Wisconsin weren't, outside of 1-2 games (a la Boise State).

Oregon beat 2-10 Washington State, 4-8 UCLA, 5-7 Cal, 5-7 Oregon State, 6-6 Arizona State, 7-6 Washington, 7-6 Arizona, 8-5 USC, and 12-1 Stanford in conference play.

That's 2 legitimate wins AT MOST, and anyone who saw USC last year would probably agree I'm being generous with that one.

They took care of business out of conference though, beating 1-11 New Mexico, FCS Portland State, and 6-7 Tennessee. What a season long gauntlet. Yet no outrage over their appearance in the title game.

Mulva;882724 wrote:Auburn was challenged, hence the SOS of 12. Oregon and Wisconsin weren't, outside of 1-2 games (a la Boise State).

Oregon beat 2-10 Washington State, 4-8 UCLA, 5-7 Cal, 5-7 Oregon State, 6-6 Arizona State, 7-6 Washington, 7-6 Arizona, 8-5 USC, and 12-1 Stanford in conference play.

That's 2 legitimate wins AT MOST, and anyone who saw USC last year would probably agree I'm being generous with that one.

They took care of business out of conference though, beating 1-11 New Mexico, FCS Portland State, and 6-7 Tennessee. What a season long gauntlet. Yet no outrage over their appearance in the title game.

What you fail to understand is that these records are in part a reflection of those teams beating each other up because it is a TOUGH(when I say tough, I mean in comparison to the MWC) league.

Just for the record I thought there were much better teams than Oregon last year, OSU being one of them.

It's clear Georgia is not one of the best teams in the SEC. After watching this game and some of the LSU game, I wouldn't mind seeing Boise make the title game just so that LSU or Alabama can beat the shit out of them and shut up this argument for the schools that don't have legit schedules.

Boise is, and has been for real for a few years now. They manhandled a ranked SEC team, not finessed them, but straight up beat them at their own game

SportsAndLady;882709 wrote:You're missing the entire point...I don't want to get into this debate because our opinions aren't going to change.

My stance is that Boise would not put up these season records playing in an AQ conference. My opinion isn't going to change.

If we're debating opinion then please stop stating opinion as if it were fact. You believe that Boise would not put up these season records if they played in an AQ conference. The truth is that we honestly don't know. Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't. You're probably right, and I agree that they probably wouldn't, but unless a major conference invites them to join, we simply will not know.

In fact, the evidence speaks to the contrary of your opinion. Since Peterson became the coach in 2006 Boise State is 7-1 against BCS teams. The average score in those games has been 32-24. Those seven wins have included victories over the Big XII champion, Pac-10 champion, and ACC champion. They have also played 9 games against ranked opponents over the past three years (plus tonight), and have gone 7-2, with their two losses coming by a combined 4 points.

krambman;882739 wrote:If we're debating opinion then please stop stating opinion as if it were fact.

Uhhh where in the hell did I state it as a fact?!

That's my opinion..I even put in that sentence that its my stance lol

robj55;882596 wrote:This is Boise's only test of the year, be prepared for the national title talk for months to come, smh.

This. Put them in a real league with a real schedule and then we'll talk how great they are.

SportsAndLady;882747 wrote:Uhhh where in the hell did I state it as a fact?!

That's my opinion..I even put in that sentence that its my stance lol

Oh yeah. I'm an idiot and I can't read. Please forgive me.

Looks like someone (me) has much on his face.

krambman;882763 wrote:Oh yeah. I'm an idiot and I can't read. Please forgive me.

Looks like someone (me) has much on his face.

I am so incredibly confused

robj55;882686 wrote:.
Consistently would be every week, not once a year or twice at most.

Who, exactly, plays "big boys" on a weekly basis? Do Akron/Toledo/Miami/Colorado/Indiana/Illinois/Purdue count?

Tobias Fünke;882779 wrote:Who, exactly, plays "big boys" on a weekly basis? Do Akron/Toledo/Miami/Colorado/Indiana/Illinois/Purdue count?

In league play

The ignorance in this thread is overwhelming.

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.

krambman;882701 wrote: The part in bold doesn't even make sense, and actually hurts your argument.

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.

krambman;882701 wrote:1. Boise can't help the conference they play in, and therefore, they can't help their schedule. Boise can't just go out and join the Pac-whatever because they want to, they have to be invited. In order for a conference to add a team that school needs to bring something competitively and financially. Boise does the former, but not the latter. Their stadium only holds 35,000. Idaho is a largely agrarian economy which is struggling and they have to have a balanced budget in Idaho, so unless someone pays privately to expand the stadium, the state isn't going to. They have done almost everything they can to move into a better conference and schedule better OOC opponents.

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.

krambman;882701 wrote:2. The strength of a team's opponents does not determine how good that team is. A team needs to be evaluated on their own merits, not on the merits of who they beat.

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 shit handed to them.

3. If you're the only undefeated team in the country or one of only two, your schedule shouldn't matter much because you were able to do what 115 other schools couldn't.

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 shit? 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.