43 replies to this topic

[AssKickingBoots]

Alright, here is a topic that was debated heavily in the preseason and will be debated ad naseum through the end of the year... Should Boise State be in the national title game, assuming they're undefeated?

I've got a different though related question for you. Would it be fair?

Most of Boise's supporters will go on about how Boise would beat most, it not any of the big schools. I don't even disagree with that necessarily. I've got a different issue. Do they deserve it?

Pretend for a moment that a national championship should be something earned by merit. In the process of beating a 2 loss (so far) Virginia Tech team that suffered an embarrassing loss to James Madison and a 3 loss (so far) Oregon State team, did they really face enough adversity to warrant this national title talk?

I say no. Flat out, no. Again, I don't want to hear about how good are they, do they deserve it?

[Austin Bronco]

AssKickingBoots, on 17 October 2010 - 07:44 PM, said:

Alright, here is a topic that was debated heavily in the preseason and will be debated ad naseum through the end of the year... Should Boise State be in the national title game, assuming they're undefeated?

I've got a different though related question for you. Would it be fair?

Most of Boise's supporters will go on about how Boise would beat most, it not any of the big schools. I don't even disagree with that necessarily. I've got a different issue. Do they deserve it?

Pretend for a moment that a national championship should be something earned by merit. In the process of beating a 2 loss (so far) Virginia Tech team that suffered an embarrassing loss to James Madison and a 3 loss (so far) Oregon State team, did they really face enough adversity to warrant this national title talk?

I say no. Flat out, no. Again, I don't want to hear about how good are they, do they deserve it?

Boise State is a good team and a strong program. They are 2-0 in BCS bowls. And the past several years they played their bowl games tough. So, yes, if they go undefeated, they deserve it, especially if you consider some of the questionable decisions the BCS has made to fill their bowl games in the past.

Sad part is, they won't get enough BCS respect to make it, unless the top 2 teams continue to drop. They already got leap-frogged in the rankings twice. I'm convinced they will need to be the only undefeated team left to have a chance. Even then don't be surprised if the BCS finds a way to screw them over.

And, really, "merit" and "BCS" can't be used in the same sentence. The system was built specifically to favor the allied conferences. So, that argument just doesn't qualify in my book.

[Dom]

Yes, they deserve it. I don't care about merit, I want to watch the top 2 teams. Boise is one of those

[D.V.T. 3:16]

There will be tons of arguments for and against Boise St. being in the National Title game and all, but I for one do not think that they deserve to go to the title game.

Frist and foremst their schedule stinks like Jason Whitlock. Yes I'm biased because of the Hawaii factor, but they really don't have the strength of schedule argument. The WAC or what's left of it really sucks, Virginia Tech losing to James Madison didn't help at all, and they can't get any big name schools to come play on the "Smurf Turf".

Second, Hawaii has already beaten the other two schools who want to leave the WAC for the Mountain West (Fresno State and Nevada) in successive weeks so that factor doesn't help their case either.

Finally the BCS just won't allow it to happen no matter how good they look going undefeated. Hawaii did the same thing in 2007, and we all know how Hawaii stunk up the joint that day.... They could very well pull another upset like they did with Oklahoma, but it really doen't matter because we all know the powers that be would NEVER let a Boise State even think of playing for a national title.

[warthog]

I'm for anything that makes the BCS look bad, so whatever the worst possible scenario is, we need to let it happen. BLOW UP THE BCS AND PLAY THE DAMN PLAYOFFS!

[AssKickingBoots]

Austin Bronco, on 17 October 2010 - 09:19 PM, said:

Boise State is a good team and a strong program. They are 2-0 in BCS bowls. And the past several years they played their bowl games tough. So, yes, if they go undefeated, they deserve it, especially if you consider some of the questionable decisions the BCS has made to fill their bowl games in the past.

Sad part is, they won't get enough BCS respect to make it, unless the top 2 teams continue to drop. They already got leap-frogged in the rankings twice. I'm convinced they will need to be the only undefeated team left to have a chance. Even then don't be surprised if the BCS finds a way to screw them over.

And, really, "merit" and "BCS" can't be used in the same sentence. The system was built specifically to favor the allied conferences. So, that argument just doesn't qualify in my book.

I said "pretend" it was merit based. I have no illusions of the BCS being perfect or even good. I want a playoff system as bad as anyone, but part of that is going to be 4 mega conferences with 16 teams (or something similar), so a team like Boise would have to face some real competition. We can't just call it unfair and throw our hands up without at least discussing what really would be fair. Now that we pointed out the elephant in the room, let's move on.

It would be insulting to college football fans to have a potential national title given to a team that might have one top 25 team on their schedule by year's end (that being the team they face in the national championship). Insulting.

Here's a fact for you. Boise State wouldn't have their record in a major BCS conference. Fact. If they were in the PAC 10 (12) life would be alot different. Suddenly people wouldn't congratulate them for facing an overrated Oregon State team, it'd be just one of many games on their schedule. It wouldn't be one of a couple stepping stones to a national title, it'd solely be an opportunity for a letdown. If you disagree with that statement, then you haven't really paid any attention to the WAC.

There are 4 decent teams in the WAC. Boise, Hawaii, Fresno State, and Nevada. Everyone else doesn't matter, and honestly sometimes even they don't matter. Ignore any "close games" a team like Utah State gave Oklahoma, that was their best shot versus Oklahoma's worst, and honestly the Sooners have an awfully young team. They aren't what they were two years ago, even with them being rated #1. Still, a loss is a loss. Utah State didn't beat them. They don't get 1/2 a win for keeping it close.

Facing 3 decent teams in conference (that is, 3 teams at least worthy of a BCS conference) isn't enough to convince me. Their non-con in retrospect was weak, though I thought it even at the time. I knew going into that game the VT's defense isn't what it was a few years ago when they had Macho Harris and Brandon Flowers and Worilds and so on. I think Oregon State was pumped up for the slaughter on the basis that they were willing to schedule Boise and TCU, and many saw that as one of the few games they could lose.

In the end, I haven't seen any real evidence that this year's Boise State team deserves it. Hell, if you could prove to me that they're better than TCU I'd be impressed.

Dom, on 17 October 2010 - 09:40 PM, said:

Yes, they deserve it. I don't care about merit, I want to watch the top 2 teams. Boise is one of those

Are they really one of the top two teams? Are they better undeniably than all of the traditional powers like a one loss Alabama? A one loss Oklahoma should they lose? Ohio State? Even a non traditional power with one loss like an Oregon or a Missouri? Hell, if they're that damn good, why should Boise or TCU even have to go undefeated?

The "want to see the two best teams" argument isn't an argument that favors Boise. It's far more often used in reverse. I don't see how that argument even points to them deserving it.

D.V.T. 3:16, on 19 October 2010 - 10:47 PM, said:

There will be tons of arguments for and against Boise St. being in the National Title game and all, but I for one do not think that they deserve to go to the title game.

Frist and foremst their schedule stinks like Jason Whitlock. Yes I'm biased because of the Hawaii factor, but they really don't have the strength of schedule argument. The WAC or what's left of it really sucks, Virginia Tech losing to James Madison didn't help at all, and they can't get any big name schools to come play on the "Smurf Turf".

Second, Hawaii has already beaten the other two schools who want to leave the WAC for the Mountain West (Fresno State and Nevada) in successive weeks so that factor doesn't help their case either.

Finally the BCS just won't allow it to happen no matter how good they look going undefeated. Hawaii did the same thing in 2007, and we all know how Hawaii stunk up the joint that day.... They could very well pull another upset like they did with Oklahoma, but it really doen't matter because we all know the powers that be would NEVER let a Boise State even think of playing for a national title.

I figured if anything you'd be for it on the basis of it helping your squad's chances, but you're absolutely right. I think the "Smurf Turf" is an unfair advantage, and so does the NCAA because they've outlawed any new odd colored turfs.

I worry that this year, since the talk was there from the beginning of the season and since there will be a big stink about it all the way up to it, it'll happen. I'm hoping Nevada will knock them out, making the whole discussion academic. Nevada is nothing that special though. Therein lies part of my beef with Boise's schedule.

The reason a team like Hawaii got blown out is the exact opposite of why teams like Boise and them get so many upsets. The game means more to the smaller team. That's not a compliment, it's a statement that a team like an Oklahoma has nothing to gain by beating out Boise. On the other hand, people still talk about that game as if it has any bearing on this year's squads. Whenever it's a national title game though, then that game does matter just as much. That's what happened to Hawaii, and it has as much bearing on this conversation as anything Boise has done in the past.

[Dom]

AssKickingBoots, on 20 October 2010 - 06:53 AM, said:

Are they really one of the top two teams? Are they better undeniably than all of the traditional powers like a one loss Alabama? A one loss Oklahoma should they lose? Ohio State? Even a non traditional power with one loss like an Oregon or a Missouri? Hell, if they're that damn good, why should Boise or TCU even have to go undefeated?

The "want to see the two best teams" argument isn't an argument that favors Boise. It's far more often used in reverse. I don't see how that argument even points to them deserving it.

What does traditional powers have to do with this individual season? I'm pretty confident that Boise State would play a better game than any school from the Big 10 could (a power conference). There hasn't been one team in a power conference that has looked absolutely dominating all year. Bama and Oklahoma are good, but not as good as they are most years. Oregon will eventually lose a game, Missouri could likely lose 1 or 2 of there next couple of games and the SEC will not have an undefeated team.

and outside of Boise playing in a shitty conference why couldn't they be one of the top 2 teams? I didn't know you had to have 10 championships in your schools history to warrant being one of the best teams in a given year.

I understand the whole "Media chalk" thing, I go to a "mid major" school, small schools always get over looked because they don't have a "legacy". I know it will be almost impossible for the Broncos to get in, but in the off chance they do? They have just as much of a chance to win the game as the opponent.

[chiefsfaninky]

Dom, on 20 October 2010 - 03:09 PM, said:

What does traditional powers have to do with this individual season? I'm pretty confident that Boise State would play a better game than any school from the Big 10 could (a power conference). There hasn't been one team in a power conference that has looked absolutely dominating all year. Bama and Oklahoma are good, but not as good as they are most years. Oregon will eventually lose a game, Missouri could likely lose 1 or 2 of there next couple of games and the SEC will not have an undefeated team.

and outside of Boise playing in a shitty conference why couldn't they be one of the top 2 teams? I didn't know you had to have 10 championships in your schools history to warrant being one of the best teams in a given year.

I understand the whole "Media chalk" thing, I go to a "mid major" school, small schools always get over looked because they don't have a "legacy". I know it will be almost impossible for the Broncos to get in, but in the off chance they do? They have just as much of a chance to win the game as the opponent.

Boise, better than any Big 10 school? I'd say they are possibly more exciting to watch, but don't know if their D would hold up,against the power of a Big 10 offense. Could they hang? Well yeah. Win? To an extent , yes, BUT, they more than likely, don't win them all...........LIKE they do now! IMO, they could compete in any conference.......BUT, they'd have atleast a 2-3 loss season.......in a good year. Granted, IF they make it to a 'power' conference, they will start getting better recruits, and could be able to make a better case for themselves.
Depending on how things fall, it is still a little early, but is this any different than when BYU won the National Title in the '80's? I don't think they even played in a 'major' bowl.

[Austin Bronco]

Boise St. already showed it could beat TCU last season What makes you believe they can't repeat that feat?

I agree, the WAC is a lousy conference, that's about to sink even lower. But that makes it even harder to judge how good BSU is. If they do the same thing to the WAC teams that an Oklahoma or an Alabama team would do, how can you say one team is better than the other? All they can do is beat the teams they are served.

BSU also proved in previous seasons that they CAN compete against the bigger schools. I'd even give them a decent shot at an undefeated season if they were a PAC-10 team. And take a look at some of those other "Power Conferences" that are part of the BCS. The ACC and the Big East lost a LOT as conferences in recent years. Cincy went undefeated in the Big East, and was blown out by Florida. Neither conference spawned a Championship contender, but they still fed from the BCS trough. The system expects teams to have a strong schedule to compete for the championship, yet that same system prevents Boise State's schedule from becoming stronger. No one wants to play BSU because of fear they could lose. Well, if all those teams are afraid of BSU, they must warrant some respect. That's reason enough to allow BSU the chance to prove on the field they are the best.

Here's another reason to take BSU seriously. They finished 14-0 last season. Do a search on how many other schools accomplished the same thing, and you'll not find many "Power Schools" that have that same bragging right.

If BSU is the only undefeated team left, or one of two undefeated teams, they should go to the Championship game.

This BCS needs to be dumped. If basketball had this system, Butler would never have come one shot from winning a National Championship.

As for different color turf, not sure what you read, but Eastern Washington just installed for this season a red-turf field. Maybe that outlaw is just for 1-A schools? Anyway, that crap makes the Smurf Turf look good

[Dom]

Austin Bronco, on 20 October 2010 - 09:45 PM, said:

This BCS needs to be dumped. If basketball had this system, Butler would never have come one shot from winning a National Championship.

Butler sucks because they don't have "North Carolina" on the front of their jersey

[Austin Bronco]

Well, now folks are projecting Auburn to jump from #4 to #1 in the BCS. How does this happen, when only one team ahead of them lost (Oklahoma)?

As I said earlier, the system is rigged to favor the allied conferences. They get the rankings and the money associated with the bowl games. It's no coincidence the head of the BCS is also the head of one of the favored conferences. He probably had a hand in programming the computer rankings used. No wonder the AP left the system.

Oh, and to all those Virginia Tech naysayers: They could end the season as the ACC champs, and BSU beat them

[AssKickingBoots]

Austin Bronco, on 24 October 2010 - 09:55 AM, said:

Well, now folks are projecting Auburn to jump from #4 to #1 in the BCS. How does this happen, when only one team ahead of them lost (Oklahoma)?

Wow, that's a loaded question. I'm sure you intended it rhetorically, but the answer is obvious to anyone without tunnel vision. They beat an undefeated #6 ranked team, clearing a major hurdle on their schedule. If there is any injustice, it's that they passed up Oregon.

But maybe you're right. Miraculously defeating that vicious San Jose State team should have proved the BS doubters wrong. In beating the Spartans, with their vaunted 120th ranked scoring offense and stonewall 104th ranked scoring defense, Boise State truly showed they had the wherewithal and fortitude to handle such a herculean task. If that isn't good enough to put them on top, what is?!

Austin Bronco, on 24 October 2010 - 09:55 AM, said:

As I said earlier, the system is rigged to favor the allied conferences. They get the rankings and the money associated with the bowl games. It's no coincidence the head of the BCS is also the head of one of the favored conferences. He probably had a hand in programming the computer rankings used. No wonder the AP left the system.

Really? It's a conspiracy?! OH NOES!!!

Look, the BCS formula favors major conferences because of strength of schedule. The major conferences are better. Arrogance may back that up, but so do statistics. They beat the mid-majors way more often than not. That is a fact. That's the majority of the games Boise plays, so yes, that does matter. It's easier to rise up to the occasion a couple times a year than it is to be expected to perform week-in and week-out. That's how upsets happen in the first place. Boise, regardless of how good they are have it easier. I want you to simply admit that.

The computers, I'm fine with. The human element on the other hand is sensationalistic.

Austin Bronco, on 24 October 2010 - 09:55 AM, said:

Oh, and to all those Virginia Tech naysayers: They could end the season as the ACC champs, and BSU beat them

The ACC is the 2nd worst AQ conference after the Big East, who probably shouldn't even be a BCS conference. VT is probably the 3rd best team in the ACC this year. Miami is better, so is Florida State, IMO. Do you really want to hang your hat on that one victory whenever that sort of game happens several times every week in the big boy conferences? Beating VT isn't beating the world to anyone but Boise State and James Madison.

[Austin Bronco]

AssKickingBoots, on 24 October 2010 - 09:44 PM, said:

The ACC is the 2nd worst AQ conference after the Big East, who probably shouldn't even be a BCS conference. VT is probably the 3rd best team in the ACC this year. Miami is better, so is Florida State, IMO. Do you really want to hang your hat on that one victory whenever that sort of game happens several times every week in the big boy conferences? Beating VT isn't beating the world to anyone but Boise State and James Madison.

BSU has taken down bigger opponents than VT in their past. So I seriously doubt they felt like they "Beat the World" in that game.


But VT is ranked again. #23 in the nation even though they are playing and winning in a lousy conference. But it's perceived as being a power conference, so they get a boost there in the "Strength of Schedule" argument.

I'd probably buy into Auburn's jump had they destroyed LSU. As it is, all Auburn did was outscore the 100th ranked offense in the NCAA by a mere touchdown. Sure, LSU's defense is good, but was it REALLY good enough to grant them their gaudy ranking before Saturday? I'm not as impressed with the win as everyone else seems to be. How impressive will that win be if LSU loses next week to Alabama? What about later on against Arkansas? What about the fact LSU barely squeaked by Tennessee, a 2-5 team? Looking at the SEC right now, I'm not fully convinced that conference is as strong this season as it has been. South Carolina is on top of the East division. Florida is sporting a pedestrian 4-3 record. But it's perception that continues to prop up this conference's strength of schedule.

Did Auburn deserve to improve their ranking? Yes. Does their leap all the way to #1 show merit? I'm not as convinced. Meanwhile, I still believe the top ranked defense in the nation and the 4th ranked offense is getting screwed in the process.

[AssKickingBoots]

Austin Bronco, on 25 October 2010 - 09:27 AM, said:

BSU has taken down bigger opponents than VT in their past. So I seriously doubt they felt like they "Beat the World" in that game.

THE PAST!!! Not this year. Are you seriously going to argue that beating a #8 ranked Oklahoma a few years ago has any bearing now? More so than maybe a team like Missouri beating a #1 ranked Oklahoma this weekend?

That is the toughest looking game on the entire Boise schedule. That was their supposed single hurdle to a national championship. Now all they have to do is not trip themselves up? BS. That isn't fair, and you know it.

Austin Bronco, on 25 October 2010 - 09:27 AM, said:

But VT is ranked again. #23 in the nation even though they are playing and winning in a lousy conference. But it's perceived as being a power conference, so they get a boost there in the "Strength of Schedule" argument.

VT shouldn't be ranked IMO. They haven't faced any of the tougher competition in their conference yet anyway. Seriously, look at their upcoming schedule.

Prove to me through any statistical measure that the Strength of Schedule throughout the entire season is as tough or tougher for Boise. Not a "but X team almost beat Y team" argument, but an "X team DID beat Y team" argument. Not a, "but Boise is .500 in bowl games the last 4 years" argument. A real argument.

Austin Bronco, on 25 October 2010 - 09:27 AM, said:

I'd probably buy into Auburn's jump had they destroyed LSU. As it is, all Auburn did was outscore the 100th ranked offense in the NCAA by a mere touchdown. Sure, LSU's defense is good, but was it REALLY good enough to grant them their gaudy ranking before Saturday? I'm not as impressed with the win as everyone else seems to be. How impressive will that win be if LSU loses next week to Alabama? What about later on against Arkansas? What about the fact LSU barely squeaked by Tennessee, a 2-5 team? Looking at the SEC right now, I'm not fully convinced that conference is as strong this season as it has been. South Carolina is on top of the East division. Florida is sporting a pedestrian 4-3 record. But it's perception that continues to prop up this conference's strength of schedule.

Did Auburn deserve to improve their ranking? Yes. Does their leap all the way to #1 show merit? I'm not as convinced. Meanwhile, I still believe the top ranked defense in the nation and the 4th ranked offense is getting screwed in the process.

You're hailing a less impressive 3 point victory by Boise State as evidence of National Title worthiness, but Auburn's win (against an undefeated, #6 ranked team midway through the season) is dogshit... gotcha!!!

[Austin Bronco]

AssKickingBoots, on 25 October 2010 - 11:23 AM, said:

You're hailing a less impressive 3 point victory by Boise State as evidence of National Title worthiness, but Auburn's win (against an undefeated, #6 ranked team midway through the season) is dogshit... gotcha!!!

Nope. I'm just using VT to shoot holes through the "strength of schedule" argument as being objective when in reality it's highly dependent on perception. VT shouldn't be ranked, but is. That's the same flawed system that figured LSU was worthy of the #6 spot. Do you REALLY believe that LSU was the 6th best team in the country going into this week with the 100th ranked offense? Seriously? Utah is also undefeated, has a much higher ranked offense and a higher ranked defense than LSU, yet was ranked LOWER before Saturday's games. The system as a whole is BS. Therefore you can't use any part of it to argue against BSU.

I'm not hanging on that single game as evidence why BSU should be considered a National champonship contender. I'm looking at the entire picture. I'm looking at a team that has dominated it's conference the past few years. A team that historically is 2-0 in BCS bowl games. You want merit? How about this:

1) BSU has already earned respect of ALL the rest of the NCAA teams. That's why they don't want to include Boise St. on their schedules. They're afraid to lose. If BSU isn't worthy of their ranking, why be so afraid? The so-called "power teams" should beat them easily, right? Just like Alabama should have beaten Utah easily a few years ago.

2) BSU last season went 14-0. The only other teams to accomplish that feat in the modern era were Ohio St. in 2002, and Alabama last season. And Boise St. is still undefeated. Tell me. How many other teams can currently say they won their last 20 games in a row?

3) BSU has the top ranked defense in the NCAA's and the 4th ranked offense. In comparison, the "supposedly" best team in the nation right now is ranked 10th in offense, and 49th in defense.

4) BSU this past Saturday did exactly what it was expected to do against a team sporting rankings for offense and defense in the 100's. Demolished them.

Why do I include BSU's history in my argument? Because history is also used to rank every other college team out there. LSU was ranked #6 in the polls not because it was playing well enough to earn it, but because history says the SEC is the strongest conference in America, and because historically LSU is a ranked team. They certainly didn't earn the #6 ranking with their offensive play.

If BSU loses between now and the end of the season, then so be it. The point becomes moot. But if they go undefeated again, I think they are very worthy of a National Championship game berth.

[Dom]

Yeah LSU was no way the 6th best team in the country last week, I would have put Michigan State, Mizzou and Utah ahead of them.... that being BEFORE Mizzou beat OU. Not impressed with how LSU has won this year at all. Auburn will lose soon enough and then another team will jump to #1. Oregon and Boise State or the miraculous Mizzou vs Boise State is what i want to see. I'd still probably take Boise State against either.

EDIT

And it still kinda sucks for Boise and TCU this year because they will both be jumped every week up until the end of the year, but there is no way they can both play each other again in the BCS games. Meaning the power conferences will finally have to step up or shut up. I'll take TCU and Boise State to win against BCS schools in their BCS bowl games.

[AssKickingBoots]

I think it's pretty clear you misunderstand what I mean by Strength of Schedule, Austin Bronco. It's not just about perceptions or top 25 rankings. It's easier to quantify than you realize, and not through meaningless offensive and defensive rankings stacked up against lesser competition.

Since you think Boise State going undefeated in the WAC last year matters so much, let's see how OOC (Out of Conference) BCS opponents fared against the WAC:

WAC vs. the BCS 2009
Big XII 0-2
SEC 0-2
Big Ten 1-3
Big East 0-1
Pac 10 2-3
The WAC did not play the ACC last year.

Overall WAC vs. BCS 3-11 (21% win percentage)

In fact, the only conference the WAC had a winning record against last year was the mighty MAC. So yeah, the WAC sucks. While winning 20 games in a row is impressive, it loses its luster against that competition. In all fairness, they're doing slightly better this year (4-9 thus far). If you factor out Boise (since BSU doesn't face BSU) the rest of the conference is 2-9 this year and 2-11 last year for a combined 4-20 (16.67%). That's the level of competition they're facing week in week out.

The best teams they faced all year in 2009 were a #14 ranked (at the time) Oregon and TCU in a bowl game. This year they've only got 2 ranked teams currently on their schedule, a #23 ranked VT (who won't be ranked by the end of the year) and a #24 ranked Nevada (ditto, unless they beat Boise). That, coupled with an utterly anemic conference, even by mid-major standards? Am I really supposed to be impressed?!

The WAC statistically is similar to how the lower third of the BCS conferences fare against OOC BCS opponents. The bottom third of the Big XII year by year (2004-2009) won 24% of their OOC BCS games. So yeah, the WAC on average, even including Boise State, isn't as good on average as the bottom of the BCS barrel. Playing the WAC is like an off week in the Big XII. The upper third of the Big XII won over 80% of their OOC BCS games. It wouldn't be difficult to say that makes it roughly 4 or 5 times harder to beat an Oklahoma or Texas or Nebraska or Missouri as opposed to the WAC. So, yeah, the upper echelon programs might just have an argument about facing stiffer competition.

Part of the reason I don't tear into TCU as bad as Boise for facing a light schedule is because the Mountain West is at least comparable to a BCS conference. As a conference they win 44.7% of their games vs. BCS opponents (again, 2004-2009). Now, that might be slanted by the fact that many of those matchups are lower end bowl games where you're getting their better teams vs. the barely bowl eligible, middle to lower tier teams of BCS conferences. Still, it's more than twice as successful as the WAC is against the BCS.

The future addition of Boise, Fresno State, and Nevada to the MWC however, are offset by the loss of BYU and Utah, two of the better current MWC teams. I still don't know that they're a BCS automatic qualifier after that, but it's at least worth considering. I'd rather just blow the BCS up than argue about that.

[Austin Bronco]

AssKickingBoots, on 27 October 2010 - 10:04 PM, said:

I think it's pretty clear you misunderstand what I mean by Strength of Schedule, Austin Bronco. It's not just about perceptions or top 25 rankings. It's easier to quantify than you realize, and not through meaningless offensive and defensive rankings stacked up against lesser competition.

Since you think Boise State going undefeated in the WAC last year matters so much, let's see how OOC (Out of Conference) BCS opponents fared against the WAC:

WAC vs. the BCS 2009
Big XII 0-2
SEC 0-2
Big Ten 1-3
Big East 0-1
Pac 10 2-3
The WAC did not play the ACC last year.

Overall WAC vs. BCS 3-11 (21% win percentage)

In fact, the only conference the WAC had a winning record against last year was the mighty MAC. So yeah, the WAC sucks. While winning 20 games in a row is impressive, it loses its luster against that competition. In all fairness, they're doing slightly better this year (4-9 thus far). If you factor out Boise (since BSU doesn't face BSU) the rest of the conference is 2-9 this year and 2-11 last year for a combined 4-20 (16.67%). That's the level of competition they're facing week in week out.

The best teams they faced all year in 2009 were a #14 ranked (at the time) Oregon and TCU in a bowl game. This year they've only got 2 ranked teams currently on their schedule, a #23 ranked VT (who won't be ranked by the end of the year) and a #24 ranked Nevada (ditto, unless they beat Boise). That, coupled with an utterly anemic conference, even by mid-major standards? Am I really supposed to be impressed?!

The WAC statistically is similar to how the lower third of the BCS conferences fare against OOC BCS opponents. The bottom third of the Big XII year by year (2004-2009) won 24% of their OOC BCS games. So yeah, the WAC on average, even including Boise State, isn't as good on average as the bottom of the BCS barrel. Playing the WAC is like an off week in the Big XII. The upper third of the Big XII won over 80% of their OOC BCS games. It wouldn't be difficult to say that makes it roughly 4 or 5 times harder to beat an Oklahoma or Texas or Nebraska or Missouri as opposed to the WAC. So, yeah, the upper echelon programs might just have an argument about facing stiffer competition.

Part of the reason I don't tear into TCU as bad as Boise for facing a light schedule is because the Mountain West is at least comparable to a BCS conference. As a conference they win 44.7% of their games vs. BCS opponents (again, 2004-2009). Now, that might be slanted by the fact that many of those matchups are lower end bowl games where you're getting their better teams vs. the barely bowl eligible, middle to lower tier teams of BCS conferences. Still, it's more than twice as successful as the WAC is against the BCS.

The future addition of Boise, Fresno State, and Nevada to the MWC however, are offset by the loss of BYU and Utah, two of the better current MWC teams. I still don't know that they're a BCS automatic qualifier after that, but it's at least worth considering. I'd rather just blow the BCS up than argue about that.

That's a nice analysis of a fact we both agree on: the WAC is a lousy conference. But what does it really say about Boise St. as a team? Basically, what BSU did to the conference is the same as what another high-level team would do. Oklahoma, Alabama, Michigan St. all could probably go in and sweep the WAC as easily as BSU did last season. But it doesn't prove that BSU couldn't go into, say the Pac-10 or the Big-12 and play just as well. You can THINK they wouldn't, based on their present competition, but it's really not possible to know for certain.

14-0 is still impressive, no matter where you play. It's very rare indeed for ANY team to win 14 games, let alone go 14-0. A lot of that is scheduling, but it's still a difficult feat for even the best of teams. And BSU is the only team to win 14 games and NOT take home a national championship. There are quite a few champions that finished 13-1 though. Now, if BSU goes undefeated again, that will put their present record at 12-0, and combined they would be 26-0. I believe a team that goes two full seasons without a loss merits a championship bid.


The Loss of Utah for the MWC is the bigger one than BYU. The Cougars are slipping as a program lately, and will find being independent with a weak schedule will lead to nowhere. If Utah stays, then the MWC would be a lock to become a BCS conference. With the Utes now in the twelve-Pac, the MWC will suffer. I think BSU would be better served going to the PAC instead. It's unfortunate they committed to the MWC before Utah and BYU did the same.

Looks like we won't agree, which is just fine by me. I enjoyed the spirited debate, and you're cool by my book.

[AssKickingBoots]

Austin Bronco, on 28 October 2010 - 04:25 PM, said:

That's a nice analysis of a fact we both agree on: the WAC is a lousy conference. But what does it really say about Boise St. as a team? Basically, what BSU did to the conference is the same as what another high-level team would do. Oklahoma, Alabama, Michigan St. all could probably go in and sweep the WAC as easily as BSU did last season. But it doesn't prove that BSU couldn't go into, say the Pac-10 or the Big-12 and play just as well. You can THINK they wouldn't, based on their present competition, but it's really not possible to know for certain.

14-0 is still impressive, no matter where you play. It's very rare indeed for ANY team to win 14 games, let alone go 14-0. A lot of that is scheduling, but it's still a difficult feat for even the best of teams. And BSU is the only team to win 14 games and NOT take home a national championship. There are quite a few champions that finished 13-1 though. Now, if BSU goes undefeated again, that will put their present record at 12-0, and combined they would be 26-0. I believe a team that goes two full seasons without a loss merits a championship bid.


The Loss of Utah for the MWC is the bigger one than BYU. The Cougars are slipping as a program lately, and will find being independent with a weak schedule will lead to nowhere. If Utah stays, then the MWC would be a lock to become a BCS conference. With the Utes now in the twelve-Pac, the MWC will suffer. I think BSU would be better served going to the PAC instead. It's unfortunate they committed to the MWC before Utah and BYU did the same.

Looks like we won't agree, which is just fine by me. I enjoyed the spirited debate, and you're cool by my book.

Hey, I've enjoyed this too. I'm sure we'll never agree on this particular issue, but that's no reason to put it to bed. I'm not someone dead set against small schools, but until there is a tournament like there is in basketball, it's a huge risk to have these types of teams in the national championship. If it were a matter of inviting Boise and TCU to a 16 team tournament, I'd absolutely agree they need in.

One small thing, why do you keep pushing the fact that they were 14-0 last year like it's a rarity? There have been alot of undefeated teams in recent memory. 2009 Alabama (14-0), 2008 Utah (13-0), 2005 Texas (13-0), 2004 USC (before having their championship vacated), 2002 Ohio State (14-0), 2001 Miami (12-0), 2000 Oklahoma (13-0). Is it supposed to be because they scheduled one more doormat than most? There have been 9 undefeated teams in the last decade. Still impressive, not rare.

I don't think BSU with their academics are a realistic option to join a major conference right now though. I just have my doubts that a school with a $53 million dollar endowment can fit in a place where the next smallest school (Oregon State) would be over six times that at $329.1 million. That's why Utah and Colorado fit, they both have a $500+ million endowment. Reality is Wyoming or Idaho would be a more natural fit in the Pac 10 than Boise. We sports fans often forget these are academic institutions first and foremost.

I admit Boise State is good. How good? I'm not entirely sure. They haven't faced tough enough competition to really show their strength. They might be the best team in the country. They might be the 20th. Odds are they are somewhere in between. Even assuming they were the best in the country, it still goes back to my original question at the start of this debate. It's not how good are they, it's do they deserve it. Have they earned it? In the process of beating a few good teams, zero great teams (maybe TCU last year, if last year matters at all this year), and a bunch of turds, I still say 'no'.

[Austin Bronco]

AssKickingBoots, on 28 October 2010 - 08:33 PM, said:

Hey, I've enjoyed this too. I'm sure we'll never agree on this particular issue, but that's no reason to put it to bed. I'm not someone dead set against small schools, but until there is a tournament like there is in basketball, it's a huge risk to have these types of teams in the national championship. If it were a matter of inviting Boise and TCU to a 16 team tournament, I'd absolutely agree they need in.

One small thing, why do you keep pushing the fact that they were 14-0 last year like it's a rarity? There have been alot of undefeated teams in recent memory. 2009 Alabama (14-0), 2008 Utah (13-0), 2005 Texas (13-0), 2004 USC (before having their championship vacated), 2002 Ohio State (14-0), 2001 Miami (12-0), 2000 Oklahoma (13-0). Is it supposed to be because they scheduled one more doormat than most? There have been 9 undefeated teams in the last decade. Still impressive, not rare.

I don't think BSU with their academics are a realistic option to join a major conference right now though. I just have my doubts that a school with a $53 million dollar endowment can fit in a place where the next smallest school (Oregon State) would be over six times that at $329.1 million. That's why Utah and Colorado fit, they both have a $500+ million endowment. Reality is Wyoming or Idaho would be a more natural fit in the Pac 10 than Boise. We sports fans often forget these are academic institutions first and foremost.

I admit Boise State is good. How good? I'm not entirely sure. They haven't faced tough enough competition to really show their strength. They might be the best team in the country. They might be the 20th. Odds are they are somewhere in between. Even assuming they were the best in the country, it still goes back to my original question at the start of this debate. It's not how good are they, it's do they deserve it. Have they earned it? In the process of beating a few good teams, zero great teams (maybe TCU last year, if last year matters at all this year), and a bunch of turds, I still say 'no'.

A 14-0 record IS a rarity. Pure and simple. You can't just lump all undefeated teams together. The more wins, the more difficult the achievement.

Anyway, here's the final schedule and results for another past National Champion:


Sept. 1 at No.3 Pitt--20-14 (Pitt finished the season unranked)
Sept. 8 Baylor--14-13
Sept. 15 Tulsa 38-15
Sept. 22 at Hawaii 18-13
Oct. 6 at Colorado State 52-9
Oct. 13 Wyoming 41-38
Oct. 20 at Air Force 30-25
Oct. 25 at New Mexico 48-0
Nov. 3 UTEP 42-9
Nov. 10 San Diego State 34-3
Nov. 17 at Utah 24-14
Nov. 24 Utah State 38-13
Dec. 21 Michigan 24-17

Read more:http://sportsillustr...l#ixzz13iXlEHsb



Admittedly, this was before the BCS, but the precedent is still set. The above schedule belongs to the undefeated BYU Cougars of 1984. They finished the season with the consensus vote. BYU the previous season went 11-1, with the loss being an early one. So they were also riding a long winning streak.

BSU's schedule looks quite similar, but they are dominating the WAC more thoroughly than BYU did.

It's unfortunate BSU's endowment isn't larger. But that simply adds to the slight they get. They are in a Lose-Lose situation. They can't move into a "power conference" because the school is too small. But they get criticized for playing in a weak conference. They are seen as "too dangerous" a team for the other top ranked teams to put them on their schedules, yet they are criticized for not scheduling tougher opponents. It is not within me to just accept their fate is sealed with no chance to change it. It is an un-just situation they are placed in, by a system that designed to do just that; keep them down. You say they haven't "earned" the right to play for the national championship. But in reality, they are stuck in a system that makes it impossible for them to do that. I cannot accept such a situation. If BSU finishes a combined 26-0 (for 2009 and 2010), I think that should merit a shot at the title. To not grant such a team the chance in my mind is cowardly.

To quote you, Boise St. "might be the best team in the country". But, since it is impossible for them to ever meet your requirements, you would never truly see the answer to that question. Perhaps it takes a BSU to win the national championship, even with the rest of the BCS working against them, to finally usher in a playoff system that is fair to ALL teams.