The definitive Boise hating post: Now with more facts!
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 10, 2010 9:10 PM CDT
Email
PrintToo many off-field things lately. So, let's actually talk football, and have some substantive non-SEC discussion. Specifically, the fraud known as the Boise State Broncos.
Some of us have suspended their credulousness, and do not give the Broncos the benefit of the doubt to get it done week in and week out. Some outright hate Boise, and don't believe that their home dominance is a product of fair play. Others are bullish on BSU (perhaps we can turn these folks around) . Others (like me) remain dubious that the Broncos can get it done in an honest to god, regular season game --and preferably against a team outside the PAC 10.
This Labor Day, those in the 'nay' camp regarding BSU will likely prevail if history is any indicator, as BSU is likely going to get speed-bagged by the Virginia Tech Hokies. Let's go to the numbers shall we?
More after the jump
In the past decade, the decade of dominance in the WAC and Big West, Boise State has had some marquee wins; notably last year's home win in the Falcon Punch game over the #16 Oregon Ducks, the 2007 Fiesta Bowl overtime win over the #7 Oklahoma Sooners, and last year's 17-10 triumph in the "BCS Buster game that no one wanted to see" over the #3 ranked TCU Horned Frogs.
But, what comes up must go down, and the downs have been significant, particularly on the road, and especially against most teams from AQ conferences.
Chew on this, In the past decade, Boise has won exactly one game in nine tries on the road against BCS teams: 1 and 8. Those results would indicated that BSU played some tough squads right? Crappy luck of the draw against good teams in payday games? However, the numbers do not bear those assumptions out. Let's take these losses in turn shall we; let's delve in the Broncos shall we?
In 2000, the eventual Big West champs went 10-2. The two losses? The only two games played against BCS conference opponents: at Arkansas (38-31), and at Washington State (42-34). That seems respectable right? Arkansas is an SEC team, and Washington State had some success under Mike Price. Not really. Arkansas went 6-6 that year, and Wazzou was a pitiful 4-7. Neither were ranked at any point in the year, and neither finished ranked. These were the only BCS AQ teams the Broncos played.
In 2001, the Broncos went 8-4: There were some hiccups to be expected; Dirk Koetter had just left for the ASU Sun Devils and Dan Hawkins took over. Additionally, BSU was leaving the Big West for the larger, sorta' big league WAC conference. First game, season opener, on the road against #23 South Carolina. South Carolina ran roughshod over the Broncos to the tune of 32-13 (So. Car ended the season at 9-3 and ranked #13). Boise went back home to face the Washington State Cougars, this time on the Smurf Turf. The result? The same as 2000, as Washington State rang up a three touchdown beating of Boise 41-20 (WSU finished 10-2 that year, ranked #10). Respectable losses for Hawk's first year. But, losses nevertheless, and these were the only BCS AQ teams Boise played.
The 2002 Boise State Broncos got on the map in a big way, going 12-1, and finished ranked #15: But, there was, as expected, a blemish. The solitary loss was on the road, again to the Razorbacks. This time, however, it wasn't even close, as Arkansas annihilated Hawkins' Broncos 41-14. This was not a world-beating Arkansas team either; the Hogs finished unranked at 9-5. It was the only BCS AQ squad BSU faced. (See the trend here?)
Boise is humming along now, on the national radar and they do not disappoint, going 13-1 and finishing #16. Another loss? Again?Was it a team that spit vinegar and pissed flames? Not really. It was a 2 point loss to an 8-5 Oregon State Beaver team...that finished, predictably, unranked. (Sound familiar? See also 2000, 2001, 2002).
Boise, the WAC machine, again coasts through the regular season, ending at 12-0. Yea! Perfect season finally for the Broncos. This time, the first in five years, the Broncos beat an AQ team, with a three point home win, return trip by the Oregon State Beavers. (Finished 7-5, unranked). But, perfection was not to be attained, as the first ranked team BSU played, #7 Louisville, they lose (44-41), and finish ranked #12.
Boise finally has the AQ monkey off its back and enters 2005 with big expectations: Meet Georgia. And what an ass-kicking it was. On the road, two teams ranked in the teens, and BSU gets plastered 48-13...and it wasn't that close. Boise would go on play two more BCS AQ teams that year...and lose both. First to an unranked 7-5 Oregon State team on the road, and, at home, against an unranked 7-5 Boston College teams. Three AQs faces, lost to all three. The pattern continues, and BSU with four losses finishes unranked
Boise State's best team to date, the 13-0 2006 team: No losses here; Oklahoma, with two disappointing losses in the regular season, have no chance at the National Title. Up by two tds in the waning moments, the turn off the gas. And, to Boise's credit, the Broncos pull out the Auburn, highschool playbook stops and win one of the more exciting bowl games of the decade, culminating in a hook and lateral, statue of liberty and marriage proposal. One AQ faced, one win, one marriage, and a final rank of #9.
2007 arrives and BSU is on top of the world. So, let's just play one BCS AQ: On the road, against Washington. The result? A two touchdown loss....and it wasn't to a great PAC 10 squad either. The Huskies won just 4 games that year, finishing 4-9. And, BSU is again exposed as not-ready-for-prime time. BSU would go on to lose to Hawaii and to East Carolina, finishing 10-3 and deservedly unranked.
2008, let's try this again. Off a disappointing season (and a decade of futility against AQ teams), BSU goes on the road and, surprise!, beats a ranked team...from an AQ conference, defeating Oregon 37-32. That would be the only AQ team the Broncos faced all year and the Broncos would finish 9th in the country at 12-1. Oregon wouldn't fare so well....that ranking would prove to be illusory as the Ducks would lose 4 games and finish unranked.
2009, you may have heard about. The Ducks...again. This time on the Smurf Turf. In one of the ugliest games (and after game incidents) of the year, BSU slogs out a 14-9 home win against then-#16 Oregon. BSU would face no other AQ team the rest of the year; they would defeat a grand total of two ranked squads (including another mid major) and yet would finish the season ranked 4th, behind only Alabama, Florida and Texas.
Which brings us to this year, the silly season wherein nearly everyone, including the venerable Phil Steele (#2!!!), predicts that BSU is a MNC contender. But history does not bear that out. What Boise's decade of dominance has shown is exactly what skeptical perception would reflect. Namely: The Broncos destroy cupcakes; the Broncos win about 30% of the time against above-average to very bad PAC 10 teams. But, if we're talking the regular season, and if we're talking a true road game, then Boise aren't broncos at all; they are paper tigers. More importantly, against physical squads (e.g., the SEC) the Broncos are a perfect 0-fer.
This Labor Day, nothing will happen to change the skeptic's view of the Broncos. So, hate on, brothers and sisters. Hate on.
FanPosts are just that; posts created by the fans. They are in no way indicative of the opinions of SBN and the authors of Roll Bama Roll.
330 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I do hate Boise.
I especially hate their field.
To begin with it is stupid to color what is supposed to be artifical grass blue.
More than that, I can not watch a game on that field on TV—it gives me a headache.
But, the biggest problem I have with the field is that I am convinced it actually is an unfair advantage for Boise. I think it is difficult for the other team to find the Boise receivers and backs on that turf—they blend it.
If Boise wants to be taken seriously they need to replace that turf with something that looks like a football field.
As much as I hate Auburn I hate Tenn. that much more.
It absolutely is
But, the biggest problem I have with the field is that I am convinced it actually is an unfair advantage for Boise. I think it is difficult for the other team to find the Boise receivers and backs on that turf—they blend it.
In a sport where hundreths of a second decide a defender’s read, or different between a pick and a TD, it is a huge deal to have this camouflaging, and is especially advantageous on defense where it completely fucks a visiting QBs read of the field and motion perception.
It’s not coincidence that Boise finishes near the top in interceptions each year. It’s not just coaching that’s doing it, that’s for damned sure (which is why I suspect Tennessee just got sold a bill of goods.
"Orators are most vehement when their cause is weak" Marcus Tullius Cicero
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 10, 2010 9:31 PM CDT up reply actions
Tulane, UAB have the same home field advantage.
by bamabrian on Jul 11, 2010 7:35 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
BamaBrian i think
Considering the fact that the opposition is used to playing on a green field the two situations are not exactly the same.
by RedTideRising on Jul 11, 2010 7:54 PM CDT up reply actions
but, in both cases, the unis are ugly?
"Orators are most vehement when their cause is weak" Marcus Tullius Cicero
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 11, 2010 8:28 PM CDT up reply actions
UAB HAS A DRAGON ON THEIR HELMET!
DRAGONS ARE BAD ASS SO FUCK Y’ALL WITH FIRE!
With that out of the way, UAB and Tulane have zero competitive advantage because they are Tulane and UAB. Same can be said for Baylor and Colorado State.
Roll Bama Roll - The Champagne of Bama Blogs.
Marshall can at least parlay the whole "American Bison" schtick
into some Appy lady companionship…
"Orators are most vehement when their cause is weak" Marcus Tullius Cicero
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 11, 2010 9:24 PM CDT up reply actions
the Luck Dragon is more menacing than Blaze...
Neil Callaway delivering the UAB halftime pep talk
"Orators are most vehement when their cause is weak" Marcus Tullius Cicero
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 11, 2010 9:21 PM CDT up reply actions
SO FUCK Y’ALL WITH FIRE!
Your job title should be:
Architect of Creative Swearing™
RollBamaRoll.com - Also check out my music blog: Hear the World, which is exploring the music of BULGARIA in July 2010.
What angle are you looking at?
Do the players look down at the field or in front of them? Because I don’t know why the players would have trouble seeing the other players because of the color of the ground. You might have trouble seeing the players watching on TV from the cameras pointed down toward the filed, but there’s a difference between you being able to see the players and the other team playing being able to see them.
Boi Blue
Notice that there’s about a third of the width of the field behind him and the blue turf still stretches behind him up to about his waist. Turn that around and point it down-field, and make him run at full speed with 20 other guys, 10 of them wearing the same turf-colored clothing, and you have a bit of a problem.
I'm wrong all the time.
by PeteHoliday on Jul 16, 2010 8:52 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Again.
Find one player that has ever admitted/complained about this. With 0 confirmation out of 100+ teams, you have an urban legend on your hands.
"Everyone counted us out. I don't know why they keep doing that." -- Kyle Wilson
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, friend.
Or, put another way, find a player who as admitted that it’s not true.
I'm wrong all the time.
by PeteHoliday on Jul 16, 2010 10:23 AM CDT up reply actions
However.
You (and everyone else) is living on a myth. We are only defeating said myth. An absence of evidence hurts your claim, not our defense to your claim.
"Everyone counted us out. I don't know why they keep doing that." -- Kyle Wilson
I agree...
The burden of proof is on the accusers, not the accusees…
by crimsontsunami on Jul 16, 2010 10:30 AM CDT up reply actions
To be fair, I did see an article where former BYU coach and...
…current LSU OC Gary Crowton mentioned it briefly back in 2004. He didn’t make a big deal out of it, though. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/wac/2004-09-24-boise-state_x.htm
by crimsontsunami on Jul 16, 2010 10:51 AM CDT up reply actions
Heh. Nice.
Game, set, match:
“If it were green turf, it wouldn’t offer any challenges, but the blue turf really gets you,” BYU coach Gary Crowton says
I'm wrong all the time.
by PeteHoliday on Jul 16, 2010 10:53 AM CDT up reply actions
Game. Set. Assumption.
He said, “it really gets you,” not “they play like ninjas.”
"Everyone counted us out. I don't know why they keep doing that." -- Kyle Wilson
Find one player that has ever admitted/complained about this.
I'm wrong all the time.
by PeteHoliday on Jul 16, 2010 11:01 AM CDT up reply actions
Find one player that has ever admitted/complained about this.
"Everyone counted us out. I don't know why they keep doing that." -- Kyle Wilson
Moving the goalposts is cute, but the fact remains that you wanted someone to find someone who had complained about it, and we found a head coach of a team that has played BSU a few times not just complaining about it, but complaining about it in a newspaper.
That doesn’t make you wrong, of course, but it does do away with the “nobody has ever complained” argument.
I'm wrong all the time.
by PeteHoliday on Jul 16, 2010 11:06 AM CDT up reply actions
Perhaps you should read more.
Gary Crowton’s comments were supposition based on what he heard from a Boise coach .. (get this) … BEFORE THEY PLAYED THE GAME IN BOISE!
I’m only refuting your comments because they’re based only in your baised opinion. Were you to stop attmepting to state it as “fact,” we wouldn’t be continuing on this path, would we?
"Everyone counted us out. I don't know why they keep doing that." -- Kyle Wilson
Actually...
I think he may have coached against them there already. Also, it was based on an unnamed coach from another team (not Boise) that told him it was difficult after playing on the turf. But then again, I don’t want to add fuel to this fire. Haha.
by crimsontsunami on Jul 16, 2010 11:18 AM CDT up reply actions
No fire.
We live in defense of the Blue. As ugly as it is to everyone else, it’s beautiful to us because it’s put us on the map. That, and beating up Directional University for Women and Children every year.
I’m just saying, this was before the game was played .. much like what fans of teams that have never played in Boise say every year. The Blue field is intimidating because that of our near perfect record on it recently and how the crowd feels poured over the stadium (similar to one of Alabama’s intimidated end zone bleachers are set up). Boise does not blend into the field. You never will hear an athlete comment on this because 1) it’s not true, I have season tickets and 2) that’s an awful excuse to use when you just didn’t beat our team.
"Everyone counted us out. I don't know why they keep doing that." -- Kyle Wilson
The fact that you have season tickets makes the field not an advantage?
wtf?
I'm wrong all the time.
by PeteHoliday on Jul 16, 2010 11:29 AM CDT up reply actions
Sorry.
Didn’t explain well (that’s common). I have season tickets so I see the games being played and can see the players fine, even though I’m about 14’ above field level.
Again, my apologies.
"Everyone counted us out. I don't know why they keep doing that." -- Kyle Wilson
Nobody has argued that the fans can’t see the players, but it’s a whole lot different on the field.
For starters, things are hurt by the angle. It’s easy to see from your angle, but quarterbacks don’t get to sit at your angle.
Second, we’re talking about having to make split-second decisions, based on reads of what 21 other folks are doing, if it’s even a TINY BIT harder to accurately place the opposing team, it can have disastrous results.
I'm wrong all the time.
by PeteHoliday on Jul 16, 2010 11:45 AM CDT up reply actions
Shouldn't it be harder for fans?
A QB’s angle on the field is MUCH better than any fans! Geometry.
Also, the QB is not an issue with turf.. If they don’t know the plays and routes their receives are running, or where to look and how to execute, then they’re not going to win anyway.
I can see your argument on a more defensive stand point, but it still doesn’t play out. They see their man, they know the zone coverage, they can tell where the football is going. This isn’t even intermediate science.
Right now, Pete, you’re giving me generalizations on how split second reaction will cause a big disparity and cause a team to lose a play and then a game. But if you’ve played football and know the sport, how could you let that ruin you? Name a play or a situation where a QB, OLB does not know where their opponent is, even on the blue turf.
"Everyone counted us out. I don't know why they keep doing that." -- Kyle Wilson
Sure, sure. Let’s talk geometry.
When you look at the field from the stadium, you get an isometric view of it. You can see the whole thing. In order for a player to obstruct your view of another player, one has to be laying on top of the other.
First person, it’s really, really easy for players to be wholly or partially obstructed, especially if you’ve got a 300lb lineman or ten in front of you.
If you think that the quarterback has, in his head at all times, the precise location of every player on the field, you’ve lost your mind. They know what they can see, and that’s it.
I'm wrong all the time.
by PeteHoliday on Jul 16, 2010 12:04 PM CDT up reply actions
McElroy would disagree.
So would any smart conditioned QB. This isn’t backyard football where you’re drawing out plays on your hand with someone in the back jumping up and screaming “I’m open! I’m open!” This is college football, one of the best strategically coached games in the world. If you’re in trouble and your play has been broken, you have more options that to just chuck the ball up to a receiver. Again, this is the WAC condition, not a playing surface.
If you need it, here’s first hand on the field perspective:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2QcJTgcAr4
Please pay attention (perhaps pause) toward the end of the video where myson “gets tackled” where the camera is not pointed towards 3’ high children. By the way, if you watch carefully, you can see two kids there. One is really hard to see because she blends in with the turf.
"Everyone counted us out. I don't know why they keep doing that." -- Kyle Wilson
The QB might know where all of his receivers are,
but he’s not going to know where all of the DBs are except by looking for them. That’s the argument, that it’s much easier for an opposing QB to not see one of your DBs when they’re camouflaged by the turf. And the argument is backed up by your secondary’s improved play at home vs on the road. (Have we actually seen INT numbers at home vs on the road? I think that would be the most interesting stat.)
As for Pete’s argument that it’s easier for a fan than for a player, I don’t see that. The camo effect should be worse for a fan, where the entire background is that color. For a player, it’s only the part below the horizon, though I still think it could be significant when looking for players far downfield.
Lemme see what I could dig up.
If I find it, what teams should I compare it with.. just Boise, or Alabama and another good defensive secondary unit?
"Everyone counted us out. I don't know why they keep doing that." -- Kyle Wilson
Here we go:
http://www.cfbstats.com/2009/team/66/interception/split.html
2009 Boise INT: home 12, road 9
2008 Boise INT: home 12, road 8
2007 Boise INT: home 4, road 10
2006 Boise INT: home 7, road 10
Total: home 35, road 37
2009 Alabama INT: home 8, road 11
2008 Alabama INT: home 5, road 9
2007 Alabama INT: home 10, road 6
2006 Alabama INT: home 9, road 6
Total: home 32, road 32
Seems about even.
"Everyone counted us out. I don't know why they keep doing that." -- Kyle Wilson
Interesting. I must have gotten some bad info on that, or it came with qualifications I don’t recall. Unless those are interceptions thrown?
I guess I’ll have to go back and recompute the actual HFA, since now I wonder if I got that info the same place.
Still, I do agree that in your conference slate, the turf is not what’s keeping those teams from winning . . . but I’m not sure that’s really a bragging point.
I'm wrong all the time.
You're awful little to be here
arguing with all the grownups. But it’s nice of your dad to take you to the games and all.
j/k
I'm trying!
He even spent money on a hat for me that day!
lol, awesome, Carrot.
"Everyone counted us out. I don't know why they keep doing that." -- Kyle Wilson
You do realize that coaches talk to each other, right? They share notes.
If he had heard from coaches who had played there “Nah, makes no difference” he’d have responded far differently.
I'm wrong all the time.
by PeteHoliday on Jul 16, 2010 11:18 AM CDT up reply actions
Come visit, Pete!
I think you’d like a game here. And you can see for yourself what Boise looks like on the field.
"Everyone counted us out. I don't know why they keep doing that." -- Kyle Wilson
That last picture is a great example:
Nobody is saying the players are invisible. The fact is, though, that football requires split-second decisions, good use of peripheral vision and the ability to absorb and process a huge amount of information in a really short amount of time.
People have evolved to be pattern matching machines. That’s what we do. Color contrast speeds pattern recognition. Lowering the contrast between the field and your team’s players is going to slow pattern recognition on the field, especially for players who are not accustomed to it.
You can argue that the difference is too small to be relevant, but the disparity between Boise’s home record and their away record and the spike of interceptions thrown on Boise’s turf versus other places suggest there might be something to that.
I'm wrong all the time.
by PeteHoliday on Jul 16, 2010 11:35 AM CDT up reply actions
I don't know...
What if we put in the visiting teams locker room, “Watch for moving turf.”
I honestly and truly think that it is the same difference between the U of Miami all green uni’s (when they use them) and the Tulane green wave. It’s a difference that is not important in the outcome of the game. Ever. Especially because it’s mostly WAC teams playing on it.
If it is an advantage, like you are claiming, I can guarantee you it is not an unfair one. You just can’t stretch that far.
"Everyone counted us out. I don't know why they keep doing that." -- Kyle Wilson
I’m not much for guarantees.
Teams throw more interceptions at Boise than they do other places. Boise gets more INTs at home than they get on the road.
How do you explain that if not for the turf?
I'm wrong all the time.
by PeteHoliday on Jul 16, 2010 11:54 AM CDT up reply actions
Well, for one thing, the ball is on the air, not on the ground. If a QB doesn’t see the secondary, that’s his fault, not the playing surfaces.
For another thing (as you have attested to already today), we play against the WAC. This is probably the biggest reason. Nathan Enderle, Colin Kaepernick, _ Funake, Taylor Bennett. Not a lot of recognizable names, and even when you do recognize them, they’re awful passers.
Teams probably also throw more interception in Bryant-Denny Stadium against Alabama/Florida because it’s a home game with tough defenses. Surely this is also a common stat.
"Everyone counted us out. I don't know why they keep doing that." -- Kyle Wilson
Well, for one thing, the ball is on the air, not on the ground. If a QB doesn’t see the secondary, that’s his fault, not the playing surfaces.
That’s the whole point of the argument is that it makes it harder to place the players. If you’re just going to say “oh, well, it doesn’t matter” then what’s the point?
The Boise INT stats are indicative of a problem. There’s actually not a huge difference between Alabama’s INTs at home and on the road.
I'm wrong all the time.
by PeteHoliday on Jul 16, 2010 12:08 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
rec'd, my friend.
It’s all too sad.
"Everyone counted us out. I don't know why they keep doing that." -- Kyle Wilson
Evidence presented in favor: Photo, BSU’s disparate home record.
Evidence presented against: none.
Next?
I'm wrong all the time.
by PeteHoliday on Jul 16, 2010 10:33 AM CDT up reply actions
It's a good thing we don't wear white at our home game.
It would create an unfair advantage whenever our players get around the hash marks.
"Everyone counted us out. I don't know why they keep doing that." -- Kyle Wilson
Who are you talking about?
Is there someone in that picture??
by CarrotTop4 on Jul 16, 2010 10:11 AM CDT up reply actions 3 recs
i like your avatar pic.
i know some bro dog tool bag who got that exact album inster art as a tatoo…. (jk, he’s not that big of a tool bag. he’s my actual bro, lbdasdog)
The beauty of The Process is that you have never arrived, so you get to continue being perpetually awesome... -Espyonage
by tempebamafan on Jul 16, 2010 10:26 PM CDT up reply actions
I don't hate...
…BSU, and I wouldn’t be completely shocked if they found their way into the BCSCG (I mean, hell, Les Miles did it with two friggin losses)…but I would be shocked to see them win it all. They could lose to Oregon State, they should lose to VT…but even if they clear those hurdles and coast thru their conference slate, they would face a vastly more talented team, one with the motivation to win that OU lacked in 2006-07. As a Tide fan who wants his potential one- or two-loss team to have a shot at the title, I’m wanting BSU to go down before the big game, but it wouldn’t be the worst thing for college football for Boise to make the BCSNCG…and get destroyed.
"High standards come from passion within...." --Coach Nick Saban
by NiceLittleSaturday on Jul 11, 2010 8:33 AM CDT reply actions
I don't get the Boise hate....
…I agree that they would have a much tougher road playing a BCS schedule, but I have to show them some respect for taking the steps necessary to build a solid football program. They’ll play anybody anywhere, they’ve put the money into building top notch facilities, they just moved to the MWC to up their profile, and they’ve made sure to hold on to Chris Petersen even though his name comes up in every coaching search. At least to me they’re doing things to the right way, so no hate here.
Roll Bama Roll - The Champagne of Bama Blogs.
by Todd on Jul 11, 2010 9:17 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Shouldn’t a team beat more than 4 ranked opponents — over a decade — to even be in this discussion?
"Orators are most vehement when their cause is weak" Marcus Tullius Cicero
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 11, 2010 9:18 AM CDT up reply actions
They’ll play anybody anywhere
and lose to 4-win Pac 10 teams and .500 SEC squads
"Orators are most vehement when their cause is weak" Marcus Tullius Cicero
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 11, 2010 9:20 AM CDT up reply actions
I'm not saying...
…that Boise is an elite football program by any stretch, I’m just saying why hate on a program that’s doing what it takes to get to that level?
Roll Bama Roll - The Champagne of Bama Blogs.
by Todd on Jul 11, 2010 12:24 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think the biggest knock against them (i.e. reason to hate)
is the blue turf thing giving them an unfair advantage. Of course, it’s not against the rules. But it’s also not against the rules for me to hate them for it.
I don't hate them...
They are pretty entertaining to watch, so is Nevada for that matter, and Hawaii, Middle Tennessee, and Troy. Really, what I was lamenting is that there is no reason for them to be in this discussion at all. It takes a helluva lot more than beating four ranked teams over a 10 year span to be in this discussion. A BCS-quality team (not even MNC squad), frequently plays (and defeats) that many ranked foes in a single season.
And, the second part of this was to dispel this notion that Boise are somehow giant killers who the system has shafted. Facts are: 1). 1 and 8 on the road against regular season AQ teams. 2). about 30% success at home and on neutral fields against AQ teams. 3). Defeated 4 ranked foes…period. 4) have achieved high rankings in several years without beating a single ranked team or AQ team.
"Orators are most vehement when their cause is weak" Marcus Tullius Cicero
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 11, 2010 1:01 PM CDT up reply actions
and the Blue turf is a competitive disadvantage
Do you think it’s a coincidence that they go and the road and the secondary gets lit up? See in the past two years Fresno, Hawaii, Tulsa, Louisiana Tech, etc.
"Orators are most vehement when their cause is weak" Marcus Tullius Cicero
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 11, 2010 1:03 PM CDT up reply actions
Uh...
Hawaii? Check that please.
"Everyone counted us out. I don't know why they keep doing that." -- Kyle Wilson
Last game under June Jones in 07
Colt Brennan 40 of 53, 495 yards
"Orators are most vehement when their cause is weak" Marcus Tullius Cicero
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 15, 2010 2:22 PM CDT up reply actions
See in the past two years
That would be ’08 and ’09
point taken nonetheless.
Boise State - The best in all the land (The "land" being Idaho, and large parts of California, Oregon, and Nevada.) Now also including Fort Worth, TX and coming soon this fall, Washington D.C.!
I did not mean to include the
new version of UH…This year might be a turn around though…The Warriors seem to have a little more talent. But look to 2005’s box scores as well; 426 YDS, 4 TD; or 2003 305 yds, 3 TD (3 INT, though).
"Orators are most vehement when their cause is weak" Marcus Tullius Cicero
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 15, 2010 2:28 PM CDT up reply actions
The "giant killers"
Debunking is, for me, the most useful fact here re: media love for BSU. Thanks for the facts.
XBL Rep: 96% avoided you.
by Hillbilly Lawya on Jul 12, 2010 4:03 PM CDT up reply actions
Overall Boise State is not a "giant killer" per se.
But since Chris Petersen took over in 2006 they are 4-1 against BCS teams. Three of which, were ranked at the time. Yes the lone loss is to Washington, aka The Game We Do Not Speak Of. It also came in a transition year between two great undefeated squads.
I can buy a lot of the reasoning here. But being a Boise native, and Boise State fan, I’m proud of how they’ve built their program into what it is becoming. They’ve been a DIA team since 1996 (14 years). They have won a National Title at the NJCAA (1958) ranks and DIAA (1980), as well as two BCS Bowl wins. That’s two more BCS wins than Notre Dame, Michigan, & Penn State… combined. Their all-time winning percentage is .710 (354-144-2) good enough for 6th all-time. They have only FIVE losing seasons in 42 years of being a four-year school. You get the idea.
Every Bronco fan is well aware that Boise State has been head and shoulders above their conference counterparts for most of the last decade. But conference hopping isn’t that easy, and going Independent requires money from within the organization, that quite frankly state universities from Idaho don’t possess. Playing in the WAC, and on ESPN on weekdays has immensely helped Boise State build their program. Oh, and winning all thoses games had some effect too.
The move to the MWC will provide some much needed competition, as well as the opportunity to face two regularly ranked opponents (BYU, TCU) in conference. The SOS arguments should fade away in the next year or two. Everyone outside of Boise, ID is expecting the Broncos to become a 10-2 team once they are MWC affiliated. Boise State is 13-1 against MWC teams.
I think the media love is a product of the fact that simply nobody is doing what Boise State has done the last ten years. Cupcake and doormat arguments aside, winning impressively and consistently against anybody gets you noticed because it doesn’t happen as often as you think;
The Blue Turf is simply a matter of opinion. You either love it or hate it. For Boiseans, it’s their teams trademark, and an excellent marketing idea, because let’s face it, when you hear “Boise State” you think “Smurf Turf”. They’re synonymous. People know it. I live in SEC country and SEC fans know who Boise State is because of that turf.
It’s no more of an advantage than teams with green uniforms playing on green turf. If you ever have the chance and are in Boise for any reason, attend a home game. It will be one of the loudest and rowdiest groups of 34,000 people you will have ever heard. Nobody wants to play Boise on The Blue.
The simple fact is Boise State and their fans don’t expect the respect from old money programs that have built their reputations over a century of football. They’ll earn that over time. And in the process, become a contemporary.
I, myself, would love to see Boise State and Alabama in the 2011 BCSNCG.
Win or lose, I’d be proud of my team.
Boise State - The best in all the land (The "land" being Idaho, and large parts of California, Oregon, and Nevada.) Now also including Fort Worth, TX and coming soon this fall, Washington D.C.!
by Mikrino on Jul 15, 2010 10:51 AM CDT up reply actions 5 recs
Just to compare apples to apples here: Alabama has an undefeated record over the past 40 years over the scout team.
I'm wrong all the time.
Better then Boise, then.
Our 1st team offense rarely (if ever) beats our 1st team defense. Thankfully, that’s a good thing.
"Everyone counted us out. I don't know why they keep doing that." -- Kyle Wilson
Things I didn’t know: at Boise, the 1st team defense is the scout team.
I'm wrong all the time.
by PeteHoliday on Jul 16, 2010 10:24 AM CDT up reply actions
They get respect from me when they stop playing on the camo turf, and not a minute sooner. That’s bush-league.
I'm wrong all the time.
by PeteHoliday on Jul 11, 2010 1:39 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
it wouldn’t be the worst thing for college football for Boise to make the BCSNCG…and get destroyed.
Wouldn’t said destruction just about close the door on future non-AQ teams being in the discussion in which case it might be bad? Think Utah in 2004 or 2008.
The problem I have here is a decade of below average returns against some average to bad AQ teams.
"Orators are most vehement when their cause is weak" Marcus Tullius Cicero
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 11, 2010 9:18 AM CDT reply actions
oops, in reply to NLS
"Orators are most vehement when their cause is weak" Marcus Tullius Cicero
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 11, 2010 9:19 AM CDT up reply actions
Utah 2004/2008...
…are you saying that one of those teams should have been in the BCSNCG?
I do recognize BSU’s overall lack of success against quality opponents.
I also think that the year is coming soon when Boise or some other NAQ team makes it to the show. It may be this year if the Broncos can beat the Hokies (and not pull a USC the rest of the way). Either way, the BCS has actually served these schools better than any previous method of choosing Bowl and/or NCG participants. The last time Tulane went undefeated, few people argued they should be playing for all the marbles. If Boise goes undefeated this year, look out. They could get left out if, say, OSU is also undefeated and there’s a one-loss SEC school around at the end. Otherwise, they’ll likely get their chance to prove the world wrong. We’ve certainly seen worse scenarios played out than a 2010 undefeated Boise State team in the BCSNCG.
"High standards come from passion within...." --Coach Nick Saban
by NiceLittleSaturday on Jul 11, 2010 1:27 PM CDT up reply actions
You are correct.
The BCS has made BSU relevant. Without the BCS they would have nothing to complain about and I can assure you they would not be getting enough votes in the AP poll to be invited to be #1 vs. #2. When evereything was strictly the polls there were always teams like BSU going undefeated in some far off place. The only one that ever got anything was BYU and that was from a lot of crying too. Wow BYU barely beat a 6-5 Michigan team in the Holiday Bowl the year they were the mythical NC.
As much as I hate Auburn I hate Tenn. that much more.
are you saying that one of those teams should have been in the BCSNCG
Nope, but part of the discussion. There are quality non-AQ teams that are legitimate MNC contenders. My point was the Boise isn’t one of them; not that I was advocating for Utah, per se….just an example.
"Orators are most vehement when their cause is weak" Marcus Tullius Cicero
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 11, 2010 1:55 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm not sure...
…that I agree. I do agree that for the past decade Boise wasn’t one of them. However, it’s not that hard to see how this year’s Boise team could be a legitimate MNC contender. If they lose a game, they’re done. But if they don’t, and everyone else has a 2007-type record, then, yes, they belong.
"High standards come from passion within...." --Coach Nick Saban
by NiceLittleSaturday on Jul 11, 2010 2:10 PM CDT up reply actions
Ok, if EVERY OTHER
legitimate team, that plays a real schedule, in a real conference, loses two+ games, then Boise might have a claim (assuming Va. Tech is as good as we think they will be this year).
BUT, if the two AQ clubs BSU plays finish around 8-4 or 7-5, and the conference slate is weak as usual, does your analysis still hold up?
"Orators are most vehement when their cause is weak" Marcus Tullius Cicero
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 11, 2010 2:19 PM CDT up reply actions
If they're undefeated...
…and all others have 2+ wins, yes….
"High standards come from passion within...." --Coach Nick Saban
by NiceLittleSaturday on Jul 11, 2010 8:53 PM CDT up reply actions
Standard rationale?
You can only beat who’s one the schedule?
"Orators are most vehement when their cause is weak" Marcus Tullius Cicero
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 11, 2010 9:22 PM CDT up reply actions
They control their non conference schedule
and they control the color of their field.
And, the truth is, they could go independent and schedule a whole bunch of quality teams each year.
As much as I hate Auburn I hate Tenn. that much more.
This I don’t really believe. It’s true in theory, but I guarantee you that, in practice, they’d have a difficult time getting high-quality opponents to play them at all, let alone going TO Boise, and you can’t run a football program in the black without home games.
A great example of why this is the case was when UGA hosted BSU a few years back. Despite the fact that everyone was talking about how Boise was going to beat Georgia, a few weeks after Georgia won, the game was not a feather in their cap — it was an after-thought. They didn’t get “credit” for destroying Boise, but they’d have been taken to the woodshed in the polls if they had lost.
The cost/benefit is all wrong for these schools.
I'm wrong all the time.
There is no motivation
to play BSU on the road. Absolutely none. Nothing is gained in recruiting or exposure for a visiting AQ team. If you win, well, you should. If you lose, you take a beating in the polls and the enabling-BSU hype machine has more fodder…without so much as a discussion about the serious competitive advantage that the blue turf poses.
"Orators are most vehement when their cause is weak" Marcus Tullius Cicero
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 12, 2010 8:18 AM CDT up reply actions
You are right
who would want to go Idaho and play on the blue turf.
Boise does control where it plays on the road, but again they do need to play home games to pay the bills. FSU was once next to nothing and not in a conference, But by playing everyone on the road they were able to build up their program. I think BSU can gain respectability when they start playing that kind of schedule and winning. Not sure they have done that yet.
As much as I hate Auburn I hate Tenn. that much more.
Boise does control where it plays on the road, but again they do need to play home games to pay the bills.
But they don’t really. They still have to find a team willing to play them. Just as there’s no motivation to play them on the road, there’s no motivation to play them at home.
They have relatively little money...
probably only a few three star recruits—if any—each year and are in an area that is not fertile recruiting ground; play in a 30,000 seat stadium and have been division 1-A for only twenty years. They are doing what anyone in their position should do; guerrilla warfare: fight battles you can win and gain any advantage you can (blue field—it is not illegal) and if you cannot avoid playing superior opponents, play these games at the beginning—anything can happen in the first game—of the year or at the end—in the bowls, they can catch an umotivated, dissappointed team like Oklahoma was. What they are doing is working; I do agree if they do end up in NC game or run into a motivated team like 07 Georgia, a “beat down” is most likely coming.
You'd think....
That if Boise was as much of a paper tiger as you guys suggest the motivation would be an easy win over a highly ranked team in their own house. If they were to somehow beat you, you could dismiss it as a fluke and blog about how it’s the exception that proves the rule, but when you “likely” roll us you will get credit for beating a team that started in the top five and all you really need to overcome us is depth perception, right? You’d put the BSU hype machine to rest, erase some of the memory of the shellacking you got from Utah, and even get to see a mountain or two while you were out here. The above blog would be an excellent arguement, if Jered Zabransky was still lining up with Ian Johnson, but they’re long gone. The only games that are really relevant to this discussion are the wins over Oregon and the split series with TCU. Georgia is over-we don’t even have the same coach anymore. Hell, the Oklahoma victory is long gone, outside of Boise Wal-Marts, anyway. It was a great moment in the history of our program, comprable I’m sure to something Alabama did in the 30’s, but it’s just a memory. Those players are gone too, now that Kyle Wilson has moved on to the Jets. The only place Fiesta Bowl #1 is still relevant is in the improvement we’ve seen in recruiting. This team isn’t those teams because of the foundation they’ve laid, and the types of kids who want to come here are still hard working, still not the players Alabama is recruiting, but they’re getting bigger. Choosing us over Notre Dame or the Pac-10. With solid, established coaching-I understand that it’s easy to look down on a team who is still gushing about winning awards named after YOUR coach, but Chris Petersen is one of the best minds in all of college football, and this is probably the best team we’ve ever fielded. I don’t know that Boise could beat Alabama, you are the defending National Champs and look dominant, but I think that if the players feel the way the people in this thread seem to, we would. The Broncos may or may not be one of the elite teams this year, only the season can tell how we’ll stack up against the comptetion, but we’re not johnny come latelys anymore, not Cinderellas but just another team that’s there for the dance, and it would behoove the ‘Tide not to fall to the sins of the Sooners and think that all this mid-major, blue field, strength-of-schedule talk means these guys can’t play football. You may be bigger and stronger, faster, but few teams are better prepared.
Good luck Tide and Go Broncos,
May your team get the chance to back up your talk, and mine get the chance to prove you all wrong.
by Cougarflounder on Jul 16, 2010 11:03 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Not even close
Georgia georgia georgia georgia georgia.
Georgia.
Two highly ranked schools, BSU at UGA. UGA wins convincingly and gets no credit for it. Had BSU won, it would’ve been heralded in every newspaper everywhere.
Boise gets talked up when they’re winning. The minute they lose they lose all luster with the media, so the benefit to playing them for major schools is greatly diminished.
Should it be that way? Hell, no. But that’s how the media works.
I'm wrong all the time.
by PeteHoliday on Jul 16, 2010 11:08 AM CDT up reply actions
I'm with Cougar here.
Utah Utah Utah Utah Utah Utah.
Utah.
Luckily, this comparison has more meat than your 5 years ago comparison. Even your Alabama team was nothing 5 years ago. For an Alabama to go from nothing to title winner is not a mystery, but to see a Boise team go from kinda-not-great-but-ok to Fiesta x2 champs and potential contender is a pretty big accomplishment.
"Everyone counted us out. I don't know why they keep doing that." -- Kyle Wilson
What does Utah have to do with anything?
Do you have examples of an AQ team beating a team like boise and that being a feather in their cap rather than being seen as “exposing” Boise?
If you look at it rationally rather than just blindly defending your team against everything you perceive as a slight, you’d see that this problem is largely caused by how the media serves up our CFB news.
Boise wins a bunch of games, they’re treated like a would-be-Cinderella, then they play a team that is seen as a known quantity, and there are only two options to result: they justify their position as a Cinderella, or they’re labelled as frauds. That’s not fair to Boise and it’s not fair to the team they’re playing.
Part of it is the lack of overlap in scheduling in D-I, so it’s really tough to accurately gauge teams. Part of it is the fact that there’s an absolute chasm between the best 5 teams and the worst 5. Part of it is sensationalism in the sports media.
None of it is even remotely fair, but it is what it is, and other teams have no incentive to help BSU fight The Man. That sucks, I know, but that’s just how it is with a system like the BCS.
I'm wrong all the time.
by PeteHoliday on Jul 16, 2010 11:25 AM CDT up reply actions
Don't read, because I'm not supposed to be here.
Damn this college football addiction…
You’re not the only one hating the hype. I almost believe that all this media hype is to annoy fans and bring in more controversy and ratings. I am on record saying Boise will not play in the title game.
What I do mean to say is that we can all be exposed. This article originally said, “Meet Georgia. And what an ass-kicking it was. On the road, two teams ranked in the teens, and BSU gets plastered 48-13…and it wasn’t that close.” We were exposed. It was a mediocre team that just wasn’t ready. However, I still contend that Boise wasn’t as awful as Zabransky made that game out to be. I feel our offensive lines did pretty well and the defense did ok. It’s not an excuse, but it makes me sleep better at night saying that.
With that said, the SEC has lacked in offensive production, mainly in part to the strong and fast defenses in the conference as a whole. But despite Alabama’s success the 2008 season, from a neutral eye (at the time), you could see their pending destruction. I knew Florida would do it.. but I didn’t think Utah would. Alabama did come to play because you know your team would not want to give lackluster effort. Sadly, they were exposed that year.
But that’s what college football is about. It’s about exposed the frauds, faming the weak, and living each week in potential upset. Boise State is not fraudulent. maybe Va Tech beats us, maybe we win. But the program has done enough to be where it is, even with annoying media projections and hype.
"Everyone counted us out. I don't know why they keep doing that." -- Kyle Wilson
Alabama did come to play because you know your team would not want to give lackluster effort. Sadly, they were exposed that year.
You lost me there. What Alabama gave that day was absolutely a lackluster effort. It was slow and flat and uninspired. Credit to Utah for coming out ready to play, Alabama’s unwillingness to prepare for them properly doesn’t diminish their win, but you’d be hard pressed to find a reasonable fan who thinks the game would have played out the same way if it had been after an Alabama win and for the national title game.
I'm wrong all the time.
by PeteHoliday on Jul 16, 2010 11:42 AM CDT up reply actions
Then the joke is on you.
And the athletic department. And Nick Saban. And your athletes. Either way, you lose. Either way, you’ve been exposed one way or another.
I was a reasonable fan who tought the game would have been played differently. But it wasn’t and the more deserving team won. If Alabama is not going to play hard on big stages, then i would argue they should be given the opportunity to play for titles. That would be fair.
"Everyone counted us out. I don't know why they keep doing that." -- Kyle Wilson
You’re about 20 months too late for this party, and it’s already been hashed out.
Nobody is saying Utah didn’t deserve to win. Not a single person. Nobody is saying Utah is a crappy team who got lucky.
Saying that game “exposed” the team, though, is silly. They lost a game. One that they should have cared more about than they did. Maybe they’d have lost even if they had cared, I don’t know. Yeah, it sucked. Trust me, I know that better than you do.
But that’s a different situation.
I'm wrong all the time.
by PeteHoliday on Jul 16, 2010 11:59 AM CDT up reply actions
I don't think so.
I saw the Georgia game that year. I saw a lot of offense and a very little defense. It felt more like an ACC game than an SEC game. Given that many of your games that season went untested, Alabama was a bomb waiting to explode.
I don’t mean to have you feel belittled because of this. That’s just what I saw as an observing college football fan. It probably pains you as much as us at the Georgia which we claim never happened.
But then again, I’m not paid for my observations, so take for what it’s worth.
"Everyone counted us out. I don't know why they keep doing that." -- Kyle Wilson
If you thought Alabama wasn’t tested that year, I’m sorry, but you don’t know football like you think you do.
Three top 10 teams, plus LSU and a full SEC slate.
Alabama was a team that was about one quarter of depth from beating Florida and going on to the title game. They weren’t the best team in the country, but calling them a bomb waiting to explode is just silly.
I'm wrong all the time.
by PeteHoliday on Jul 16, 2010 12:11 PM CDT up reply actions
3 top 10 teams...
..at the time you played them. We all know LSU as especially Clemson wasn’t ending the season ranked. Don’t try to put the wool over my eyes. Alabama was ranked 89th in the sagarin ratings that year, 97th by ELO_CHESS (opponents wins/losses).
I expect you to see differently, and ‘Bama wasn’t exactly a paper tiger, so to speak.. but they weren’t the team they were last year. Nick Saban also wasn’t the coach that year as he was last year.
"Everyone counted us out. I don't know why they keep doing that." -- Kyle Wilson
The perception that The SEC...
is both the strongest and the most competitive conference exist, but it is based on real numbers: SEC recruiting dominance; For example, going by ESPN 150 numbers, adding the 2011 verbals to date and then back to the 2006 signed recruits:
1)(SEC) Fl.=64, Ga.=45, LSU=39, Ala.=35, Aub.=21, Tenn.=20, SC=19, Miss=10, Ark=8, Miss St.=6, Kent=4, Vand=1;
2)(Big-12) Tex=57, Okl.=33, A&M=10, Okl. St.= 8, Neb.=5, Col.=5, Miss.=3, Baylor=3, K St.=1, 0 for Tex Tech, Iowa St., and Kansas;
3)(Pac-10) SC=46, UCLA=17, Ore=9, Cal=7, Stand=7, Ariz=4, Ariz St.=3, Wash=4, Ore St.=0, Wash St=0;
4)(Big-10) Ohio St.=32, Mich=22, Penn St.=17, Illin.=8, Wisc=6, Iowa=5, Mich St.=5, Minn=3, 0 for Ind., Purdue, and NU;
5)(ACC) Mia=35, Fl. St.=32, Clem=28, NC=17, Maryland=7, Vir Tech=6, GT=3, Vir=3, NC St.=3, WF=1, BC=0, Duke=0
The SEC goes six deep for teams with at least 20 and the bottom half of the conference is competitive if not equal to the top half of the other respective conferences—of course taking out teams at the top (Tex, Okl, SC, Ohio St., Mia, Fl. St., and Clemson) that are so far ahead of the rest; the ACC and Big 10 are more balanced at the top but fall far behind in the bottom half. The Pac-10 and Big-12 numbers are eye opening in showing the gap between the two top teams and the rest of the conference. Bama has to play has to play everyone in SEC except Kent. and Vand. plus Penn. St.—really deserve any cupcake they can get after looking at it through this perspective. Any team in The SEC is tested every year—LSU has NC games against N Car and W. Vir. to go with SEC schedule this year.
I will not argue that.
And I’m not saying that. Never going to. I love SEC games because I love defense. There is no question they are dominant.
But we’re talking about Alabama that specific year, not about the whole conference.
PS. I also love Boise state because they have the same thing, with smaller athletes, lower rated recruits, and big hearts.
"Everyone counted us out. I don't know why they keep doing that." -- Kyle Wilson
My point is because...
of recruiting numbers, every year every SEC team is tested just by conference play; I see this SOS argument from fans of all conferences respectively a lot and recruiting numbers rarely come up—it is usually head to head match-ups (SEC vs Pac-10 or SEC vs Big12) over so many years, head to head bowl match-ups, gut feelings, ect. Texas’ schedule for example is ridiculous in respect to the amount of top recruits on their opposing teams— Rice, Fl. Atlantic, and Wyoming plus their conference schedule—UCLA does help a little. Not a lot of ESPN 150 players on the opposing teams—not even close to any SEC team’s schedule. If they don’t go undefeated, it certainly has to be a disappointment; if they lose two, then people should be very angry.
Dude… those are BASKETBALL rankings.
I'm wrong all the time.
by PeteHoliday on Jul 16, 2010 1:07 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Haha
But we will admit, our basketball SOS wasn’t that great.
by crimsontsunami on Jul 16, 2010 1:14 PM CDT up reply actions
I find this mistake pretty telling, though.
98th out of 120. Even if you thought top 5 was overrated for Alabama, any reasonable fan who watched more of Alabama that season than the Utah game would be immediately suspect of any ranking that showed alabama as one of the 25 worst teams in the country.
Hell, considering the regular season record, you’d need to believe that the SEC had nearly half of the bottom 25 teams.
It’s so preposterous as to be completely unbelievable, but it fit so nicely with his preconceived notion that he saw the number and didn’t even read what it was about — just ran with it.
There’s no way to get to reasonable, objective, and knowledgeable after a mistake like that.
I'm wrong all the time.
Hmm.
I watched ’Bama vs. Clemson, Georgia, LSU.. and of course Florida and Utah.
As I said, it’s how I viewed Alabama as a team entity and how they played. Maybe there was bias in there, but I’m not sure why. I never had bias until Saban opened his big mouth pre- and post-game.
"Everyone counted us out. I don't know why they keep doing that." -- Kyle Wilson
Indeed...
It’s very clear when you open the link that it’s referring to basketball. But at least he gave us the link, so we could confirm that it was in fact a big bowl of wrong.
by crimsontsunami on Jul 16, 2010 4:34 PM CDT up reply actions
Bowl of Wrong
Yum! I eat it often, with a slice of humility.
"Everyone counted us out. I don't know why they keep doing that." -- Kyle Wilson
AHAHAHA
I was wondering was was wrong with them!
"Everyone counted us out. I don't know why they keep doing that." -- Kyle Wilson
You suspected there was something wrong with them but still used them to try to prove your point?
You’re either lying about thinking something was wrong with them or intellectually dishonest to try and pass them off as legit.
I'm wrong all the time.
Or...
I was looking something up to prove what I saw on the field of play. I looked up the wrong thing, so sue me. But it doesn’t change how suspect your team was to me that year.
Can you change my opinion of what I saw? Nope. Same goes with you. It’s just my opinion. So, I’ll lay off.
"Everyone counted us out. I don't know why they keep doing that." -- Kyle Wilson
I was looking something up to prove what I saw on the field of play.
You were trying to find numbers to justify an opinion that had been called into question and didn’t care whether they were legit or not.
Biased (and that’s being generous) for thinking Alabama was one of the 25 worst teams in the country, intellectually dishonest for knowingly attempting to pass off bad data as good data.
I'm wrong all the time.
That’s why they call me a fan of college football.
Anyway, it’s not my place to be here to say that year wasn’t what it was for you or your conference. You can honestly rake me over the coals for it, and you’d be perfectly in the right. I was just stating my opinion how I saw it.
It was all-together a mediocre year for football that year. Even for the Utah team that beat you. Even for a Boise State squad with a bend-don’t-break defense. It was nice to see Alabama step up this year and put some domination back in the sport.
"Everyone counted us out. I don't know why they keep doing that." -- Kyle Wilson
I always find Sagarin ratings to be really interesting, especially the disparity between their ELO-CHESS and predictive rankings.
Utah was #1 in the former, but only #10 in the latter. Not sure what this means, but Alabama was #6 in both, with a top 25 SOS (although I don’t know if the SOS is based off of ELO-CHESS or the predictive).
The benefit is that the computers look at the body of work without emotional bias.
As for your Saban grudge, you probably just mistook him, or bought into the victim-card-playing that Utah did. Saban is a no-nonsense kinda guy. He’s not going to give you some BS about it, he came out and said that Alabama wasn’t ready for Utah. he didn’t say they didn’t deserve to win, he didn’t say that Utah wasn’t any good, he said what he figured everyone could already have figured out: the ‘Bama players just didn’t work like they should have.
A certain sect of people just LOVES to jump on him all the time, about everything he says, but if you try to listen to him as a neutral third party, you’ll find that 99% of the time, he’s dead on, even if he’s not the most P.C. about it.
I'm wrong all the time.
Not many teams (possibly none)...
…were ever as good as we were last year. The 2008 team was a very good team that lost a tough game to Florida, and put up a shameful performance against a great Utah team.
As for the Georgia game, we were up 31-0 at halftime. I’ve gotta say, that’s good defense. It was an awful second half, but by that time we had already won the game. When we needed to, we put them away.
There is no way we got “exposed” at the Florida game, except as being not as good as Florida. I was there. We could’ve won that game. We were up 20-17 in the fourth quarter against the best team in the country, and we just didn’t finish. That’s the main motivation behind our bludgeoning of Florida this year: We wanted to play Alabama football for 60 minutes, not 45. And we did. That’s what happens when we do that.
Utah exposed our pass defense, though. I’ll grant you that. We looked awful, though we very nearly came back in that one, too.
2008’s team was no fraud. They were a solid team that formed the foundation and motivation for 2009.
by crimsontsunami on Jul 16, 2010 1:07 PM CDT up reply actions
I agree.
I don’t think Florida exposed Alabama. I’ll never take a gimmicky Florida offense over that of a Pro style ‘Bama offense. And that’s why I thought the SEC played like the ACC that year. It was more flash and band than rough and tough.
"Everyone counted us out. I don't know why they keep doing that." -- Kyle Wilson
Though I don't necessarily agree...
…that the SEC played like the ACC that year (particularly Alabama), I will also say that if we did, we played it about a 1,000,000 times better than the ACC played their own “style.”
by crimsontsunami on Jul 16, 2010 4:30 PM CDT up reply actions
Completely unrelated
but my typing has gotten plain shitty lately.
"Orators are most vehement when their cause is weak" Marcus Tullius Cicero
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 11, 2010 9:37 PM CDT up reply actions
And this is dead-on
Either way, the BCS has actually served these schools better than any previous method of choosing Bowl and/or NCG participants.
Yes, it has. The TCUs and Boises of the world now have access to money, publicity, etc.
"Orators are most vehement when their cause is weak" Marcus Tullius Cicero
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 11, 2010 1:56 PM CDT up reply actions
I don't hate BSU
like I hate UT…and they are really too far away to have that much hate anyway.
But, when they start crying because of the BCS, and then they get the US Congress in on the deal about how unfair everything is etc., it makes me want to form a league of 64 teams and leave them out. Even Auburn didn’t make as much noise as BSU when they got left out and to be honest Auburn actually had a point.
I hope they get totally planted by VT. Their great OU victory to me was smoke and mirrors against an OU team that really didn’t care. It reminds me of what happened to us against Utah, although Utah of 08 would have beat BSU of 09. A victory over TCU is not impressive to me. Now if they had played UF in the Sugar and won I’d give them some credit. If they played in the SEC they would be behind Bama, UF, UGA, LSU, Arky, and yes even Auburn. But they would be ahead of Ole Miss.
By the way…forget BSU, we need to schedule Utah right now.
As much as I hate Auburn I hate Tenn. that much more.
The "victories" haven't been that impressive either
7 points over TCU; 2 pts over an unmotivated OU team (that was still up by 2 TDs late in the 4th), 5 points over Oregon, 5 points over Oregon.
Whooptie do.
"Orators are most vehement when their cause is weak" Marcus Tullius Cicero
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 11, 2010 1:59 PM CDT up reply actions
We had...
…a few ‘unimpressive’ wins last year. Jes sayin’.
And honestly, this may not be your point at all, but I enjoyed the hell out of watching Boise pull out all the stops to beat OU. Served their Stoopid coach right, and their players, for letting their guard down…and not finishing.
"High standards come from passion within...." --Coach Nick Saban
by NiceLittleSaturday on Jul 11, 2010 2:13 PM CDT up reply actions
It does serve them right...
Just like the 1st half ass beating Utah served us was deserved by those with their head in the clouds. (However, JPW did nothing to deserve the 8-sack mauling he got).
"Orators are most vehement when their cause is weak" Marcus Tullius Cicero
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 11, 2010 2:20 PM CDT up reply actions
With both of those games
Boise St. and Utah had so much time to prepare; For Bama, the air was let out of the balloon after losing to Florida; even with Coach Saban’s great ability to motivate, the players had to be very disappointed to get that close to perfection and then be playing in a game with the number 3 ranking at stake. Virginia Tech had better be ready because it is the first game, Boise St. has 21 starters back and a very good passing QB. Tech lost two years ago to ECU to start the season.
Virginia Tech had better be ready because it is the first game, Boise St. has 21 starters back and a very good passing QB
And they won’t be on the blue turf either…that blue and orange will be on a green field against a very quality BCS-level team: The defenders can’t hide, and the offense doesn’t have the benefit of running timing routes on a camouflaged turf. This will be VT lining up and seeing if Boise can stop a physical team. History suggests that they cannot.
"Orators are most vehement when their cause is weak" Marcus Tullius Cicero
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 11, 2010 3:40 PM CDT up reply actions
There’s a big difference between having a few “unimpressive” wins (although I’m not sure I remember many of those) amongst a slate of championship performances against top-caliber talent and having a few unimpressive wins as the mantle-piece of your title claim.
I'm wrong all the time.
Ya think?
"High standards come from passion within...." --Coach Nick Saban
by NiceLittleSaturday on Jul 11, 2010 8:54 PM CDT up reply actions
Last year's win was...
…19-8, so that’s 11 points over Oregon, the eventual PAC-10 Champion who ended the season ranked #7 in the country, and who the Broncos dominated for the entire game (they were up 19-0 in the third). To me, that’s at least as impressive as our win against Virginia Tech. This information might not bode well for the Hokies this year (though this is a totally different season): I predict Boise State, with 21 starters returning from an undefeated team, is going to put a 2+ TD whooping on them.
And lack of motivation for OU is no excuse. “The same things win that always won. And we just have a bunch of different excuses if we lose.”
As for the overall argument, we lost to ULM three years ago, and that’s about as unimpressive as you can get. But here we are now—the best team on Earth. So if anyone’s going to judge Boise State as a program on how they played a decade ago or even one or two years ago, then they’d better think about how Alabama looked before we began dominating again. And remember that Boise State was at an unfair disadvantage compared to us in 2000-2005, being a relative unknown. Their best years are probably just getting started now since they’re more established.
If they go undefeated for the second year in a row, they will truly deserve to get a shot at us in the title game this year. Barring another major conference team going undefeated, I’m betting we will see them in Glendale.
by crimsontsunami on Jul 12, 2010 1:32 PM CDT up reply actions 3 recs
I agree...
…with most of what you said…except for their home win vs. an Oregon team under a new coach being as impressive as our neutral field win vs. Va. Tech under Frank Beamer….
"High standards come from passion within...." --Coach Nick Saban
by NiceLittleSaturday on Jul 12, 2010 3:17 PM CDT up reply actions
This was an historical piece
taking the long view, and forecasting. Everyone can pick out one or two games to make their case (Phil Fulmer lost to Memphis; Saban lost to UAB and ULM; etc.).
And, there is no way that a home win, on the Camo-Turf, with a HC in his first game, at night, trumps a season opener on a truly nuetral field against a top 10 team.
"Orators are most vehement when their cause is weak" Marcus Tullius Cicero
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 12, 2010 4:09 PM CDT up reply actions
on a truly nuetral field
You really think that field will be neutral? In DC? That’s roughly 2000 miles closer to Blacksburg than Boise. And I don’t think the long road trip will be helping BSU either. No way you can compare that to a home game on the blue turf.
I think...
…he was referring to Alabama’s win over VT last year….
"High standards come from passion within...." --Coach Nick Saban
by NiceLittleSaturday on Jul 12, 2010 10:58 PM CDT up reply actions
Oh, I guess you're right.
I had it on my mind because I had the same question for crimsontsunami, how can he think the results of a home game last year apply to a “neutral site” game this year that is 2500 miles from Boise?
I don't actually think that...
…and not just because it’s at a neutral site, but because almost everything is different in a new season. I just thought a reference to the Bama-VT game was a good lead-in to a prediction about the Boise-VT game.
by crimsontsunami on Jul 13, 2010 9:30 AM CDT up reply actions
yeppers.
"Orators are most vehement when their cause is weak" Marcus Tullius Cicero
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 13, 2010 8:27 AM CDT up reply actions
I don't know...
It seems pretty even to me. Alabama and Boise both dominated their opponents, albeit sloppily. #10 VT and #11 PAC-10 Champion Oregon both finished 10-3. The only objective difference is a neutral site game in Atlanta vs. a home game for Boise State (the new coach won the PAC-10 in his first year, so I don’t count that as a major factor). So, slightly less impressive, but it’s very close. They both won, and that’s all you can do, whether the situation is favorable or not.
There’s some good info in your post, and I appreciate that, by the way. I definitely wouldn’t consider them “giant killers” (yet), but to be fair, nobody called them giant killers until they actually killed a “giant.” If they get more opportunities in what I think are their peak years, they might earn their nickname or even become giants themselves.
by crimsontsunami on Jul 13, 2010 10:30 AM CDT up reply actions
If you condense the season to one game, yeah, they’re pretty even . . . but only if you compare the toughest game Boise played to the 4th or 5th toughest one Alabama played.
There’s really no comparison here. Boise beat competition vastly inferior to the teams Alabama played.
I'm wrong all the time.
Yes, we are in full agreement.
See above for what I was comparing. NLS and SITP both said the BSU-Oregon victory was not as impressive as ours against VT. I wasn’t making any season-wide comparisons. I never claimed that BSU’s schedule was comparable to ours overall. It’s not even close.
by crimsontsunami on Jul 14, 2010 8:27 AM CDT up reply actions
If there's one thing I hate
It’s sloppy domination.
Since joining the Big Ten, Penn State has a record of 103-2 in games where they score 30 points or more. Of course, which college football team doesn't have a similar record.
If there's one thing I hate
its slapping a bunch of kids on a short bus, then putting on a championship belt…and having ESPN say “why, yes, you’re right…you are a bad ass”.
"Orators are most vehement when their cause is weak" Marcus Tullius Cicero
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 14, 2010 1:44 PM CDT up reply actions
totally...
…what she said
by Queen of the Universe on Jul 16, 2010 3:59 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
That's awesome...
As Sis notes…you just won this thread.
"Orators are most vehement when their cause is weak" Marcus Tullius Cicero
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 16, 2010 5:51 PM CDT up reply actions
and you get a rec
"Orators are most vehement when their cause is weak" Marcus Tullius Cicero
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 16, 2010 5:51 PM CDT up reply actions
While the Georgia and Oklahoma games were played with different players,
Most of the people on this team were also on the team that played at Autzen, when Kellen Moore was just a freshman. While the score in that game was also close, Boise dominated for three quarters before Oregon’s third string qb came in and led an inspired rally. Our running is better now, as we have three backs who were all running better than Ian Johnson his Senior year-he really left it all out on the field as a sophmore. Much better recievers. A defense. (Which is a new addition to Boise State as of last year). Kellen Moore threw three interceptions all last season. Three! To 39 touchdowns. Don’t get me wrong…I think this stadium will be crazier than Autzen. It will definitely be more hostile than Glendale, where Bronco fans outnumbered TCU’s by more than 2-1. But if we get beat it’ll be because Virginia Tech is the better team and not because a Chris Petersen team wilted under pressure.
by Cougarflounder on Jul 16, 2010 11:18 AM CDT up reply actions
thanks to you and your homies
for stopping by and offering such well reasoned and spirited debate. for what its worth, i root for you guys to do well. BSU reminds me of what Bama had to do 80 years ago. I meet some of the players in the airport before the 06 fiesta bowl. I said “you guys should be the George Mason of College Football” and the dudes were very modest and respectful, saying things like “thanks for the support. Go Broncos!” and “we came to play, thats for sure.”….
anyway. i will be pissed off if Bama drops 1 game and BSU gets into the BCSCG while Bama has to sit it out, but if we win out we’ll be fine, and i feel like you guys have finally earned that same right too. well, you earned it if you beat VT and because you return 21 starters from a very solid team…..
The beauty of The Process is that you have never arrived, so you get to continue being perpetually awesome... -Espyonage
by tempebamafan on Jul 16, 2010 11:08 PM CDT up reply actions
I promise you.
anyway. i will be pissed off if Bama drops 1 game and BSU gets into the BCSCG while Bama has to sit it out
That will not happen. They’re returning national champs, you can’t do that to them!
"Everyone counted us out. I don't know why they keep doing that." -- Kyle Wilson
And I agree
"The same things win that always won. And we just have a bunch of different excuses if we lose."
Here, it was not giving a damn for 60 minutes. A team up by 2 TDs with about 4 minutes left let off the gas and got burned. Happens to the best of ’em…even if your team is (for about 50 minutes) 14 points better.
"Orators are most vehement when their cause is weak" Marcus Tullius Cicero
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 12, 2010 4:14 PM CDT up reply actions
OU was lucky to get the lead back in that 4th quarter
zabransky threw a pick 6 to give OU the lead back. that was part of what was so great about that game, BSU outplayed OU the first 3 quarters, then let it slip away, then fought and got it back…
The beauty of The Process is that you have never arrived, so you get to continue being perpetually awesome... -Espyonage
by tempebamafan on Jul 12, 2010 9:31 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Well..
Boise’s never lost a bowl game by more than 6 points either. Besides, I thought a win was a win. If you would like, you can watch that 07 Fiesta Bowl again and see how a punt that bounced backwards and hit a Boise blocker in the back of the leg set Oklahoma up for an 18 point, last minute comeback in which they needed three tries to get the two point conversion. Any story can be twisted in two different directions.
Boi Blue
Let's explore those claims;
2 pts over an unmotivated OU team (that was still up by 2 TDs late in the 4th), 5 points over Oregon, 5 points over Oregon.
I think you’ll find that Boise State led against Oklahoma until the 1:26 mark of the 4th quarter, when OU tied the game on a 2pt conversion that took three tries to get. At the 1:02 mark is when they finally took the lead on a pick-six. Up to then, they had never led, and were down 18 points early in the third. The definitive part of the game came afterward anyway, so who was up but how much is a moot point once OT started.
Here you’ll find that Boise State beat Oregon at home by 11 points because the actual final score was 19-8. You can also see that Boise State led 19-0 to the 10:39 mark of the third quarter because their defense did not allow a first down (or Oregon past the 50-yard line) until that drive which ended on a 5 yard QB sneak, and the subsequent 2-point conversion. Oregon racked up a total of 152 yards on offense, 6 first downs and 8 points (their lowest point and yards totals of the season) We’re talking about the PAC10 champion here. A team that would end the season as the 8th ranked scoring offense.
If you had watched the game (judging by your inability to correctly recall the score or use a Google search, I’m assuming you didn’t) you’d know that the score could have (and should have) been 40-8. Boise State’s offense was horribly sloppy ( I recall 4 fumbled snaps, 2 in the redzone, and all were drive killers resulting in FG’s or punts). The Broncos defense won that game. Was it an SEC caliber peformance? Well, that depends on who you ask, but the consensus is probably, no. I know I watched the soon-to-be PAC10 champions get man-handled by a team they (and their fans) dismissed all summer long. LaGarrette Blount was quoted during last summer saying they “owed the Broncos an ass-whupping.” After the game, Boise State linebacker, Byron Hout tapped Blount on the shoulder and told him “Now you owe us two ass-whuppings!”
What ensued has been replayed ad nauseum since then. And in the wake of that, the actual game long domination of Boise State gets ignored.
Let’s hope for the sake of Hokie fans everywhere their team chooses not to repeat that, and underestimate a team with such weak past performances.
Boise State - The best in all the land (The "land" being Idaho, and large parts of California, Oregon, and Nevada.) Now also including Fort Worth, TX and coming soon this fall, Washington D.C.!
by Mikrino on Jul 15, 2010 2:15 PM CDT up reply actions 3 recs
But, when they start crying because of the BCS, and then they get the US Congress in on the deal about how unfair everything is etc., it makes me want to form a league of 64 teams and leave them out. Even Auburn didn’t make as much noise as BSU when they got left out and to be honest Auburn actually had a point.
IIRC, BSU wasn’t involved in any of this. Joe Barton (R-TX), and presunably a TCU fan, tried to get Congress to pass a law forbiding the NCAA from having a “national championship game” unless it was a result of a playoff system. That was just silly and wouldn’t have worked even if it did pass. All the BCS would have had to do is stop purporting to crown the national champion and crown the BCS Champion. It wouldn’t have really changed anything. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), though a BYU grad, started looking into potential antitrust matters with the BCS after Utah was excluded (twice). This is a little better argument and may actually havve some merit to it. But, even if it did, it likely wouldn’t help out BSU or any other fly in the ointment. The quickest antitrust fix would be to get rid of the AQ teams and limits on how many schools from one conference can be in a BCS bowl. Niether fix would really help BSU or any other non-AQ.
In an event, while BSU has pitched several fits about not getting a fair shake, I don’t really see how it’s fair to blame them for getting Congress or DOJ invovled.
Joe Barton
is certifiably, sack full of weasels, nuts.
"Orators are most vehement when their cause is weak" Marcus Tullius Cicero
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 13, 2010 8:26 AM CDT up reply actions
I thought some Western
people/congressmen were in on it like Sen. Hatch. If not I apologize.
As much as I hate Auburn I hate Tenn. that much more.
Hatch has been in on in it...
"Orators are most vehement when their cause is weak" Marcus Tullius Cicero
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 14, 2010 8:19 AM CDT up reply actions
Give it to them.
Gene Bleymeyer & Bob Kustra is more eloquently spoken about the BCS problem than Craig Thompson or Senator Hatch. They brings facts and patience, not passion and heated argument. They’re the best anti-BCS proponents we (the whole college football world) has.
"Everyone counted us out. I don't know why they keep doing that." -- Kyle Wilson
Impressive research on Boise
When they played TCU last year, I could not decide who I wanted to win. Both of those fan bases need to shut their pie-holes, your article spells it out.
Bama's Pluck and Grit have Writ Her Name in Crimson Flame
by TideFanAtlanta on Jul 11, 2010 10:51 PM CDT reply actions
I love
the HATE….
"You stay bought into it when you see your opponent sucking air and physically failing and you're still fit and ready and you know you own his ass."- Corey Reamer speaking about Coach Cochran
I beg to differ
Re: “BCS Buster game that no one wanted to see”
Since joining the Big Ten, Penn State has a record of 103-2 in games where they score 30 points or more. Of course, which college football team doesn't have a similar record.
Didn't the girl second from the right...
…sleep with McLovin?
"High standards come from passion within...." --Coach Nick Saban
by NiceLittleSaturday on Jul 12, 2010 3:19 PM CDT up reply actions
Looks like her...
"Orators are most vehement when their cause is weak" Marcus Tullius Cicero
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 12, 2010 8:52 PM CDT up reply actions
Hell, the
"Orators are most vehement when their cause is weak" Marcus Tullius Cicero
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 12, 2010 4:09 PM CDT up reply actions
what the?
Anyway, they’re not even the hottest in DFW metroplex (much less Austin)
"Orators are most vehement when their cause is weak" Marcus Tullius Cicero
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 12, 2010 4:11 PM CDT up reply actions
way to not let those pesky restraining orders stand in your way
hat tip to you, sir
"Yeah, it's Tennessee, that's the way it is sometimes." - Corey Zickefoose, Pulitzer Prize winner and robbery victim
"This is not the end. This is the beginning." - The Great and Powerful Saban
by Thomas Walker Esq on Jul 12, 2010 5:38 PM CDT up reply actions
Restraining orders
can’t combat high speed, digital photography
"Orators are most vehement when their cause is weak" Marcus Tullius Cicero
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 12, 2010 8:52 PM CDT up reply actions
Erin Andrews concurs
too soon?
"Yeah, it's Tennessee, that's the way it is sometimes." - Corey Zickefoose, Pulitzer Prize winner and robbery victim
"This is not the end. This is the beginning." - The Great and Powerful Saban
by Thomas Walker Esq on Jul 12, 2010 11:18 PM CDT up reply actions
Don't like blondes
bimbos or waifs, so Erin’s good.
"Orators are most vehement when their cause is weak" Marcus Tullius Cicero
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 13, 2010 8:25 AM CDT up reply actions
so what does that leave?
skanks, hoes, and sluts?
"You stay bought into it when you see your opponent sucking air and physically failing and you're still fit and ready and you know you own his ass."- Corey Reamer speaking about Coach Cochran
tramps, floozies, and harlots?...
The beauty of The Process is that you have never arrived, so you get to continue being perpetually awesome... -Espyonage
by tempebamafan on Jul 14, 2010 11:29 AM CDT up reply actions
What happened to
elegant intelligence with some nice curves?
Failing that, I’m cool with harlots
"Orators are most vehement when their cause is weak" Marcus Tullius Cicero
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 14, 2010 1:24 PM CDT up reply actions
Cuz really,
my schedule is too busy for courting, dinner, movies, long strolls on the beach, etc. However, I can work in some wolfish looks over a beer.
"Orators are most vehement when their cause is weak" Marcus Tullius Cicero
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 14, 2010 1:25 PM CDT up reply actions
i pegged you for a jagerbomb type of fella
"Yeah, it's Tennessee, that's the way it is sometimes." - Corey Zickefoose, Pulitzer Prize winner and robbery victim
"This is not the end. This is the beginning." - The Great and Powerful Saban
by Thomas Walker Esq on Jul 14, 2010 6:40 PM CDT up reply actions
and i prefer jezebels
"Yeah, it's Tennessee, that's the way it is sometimes." - Corey Zickefoose, Pulitzer Prize winner and robbery victim
"This is not the end. This is the beginning." - The Great and Powerful Saban
by Thomas Walker Esq on Jul 14, 2010 6:41 PM CDT up reply actions
oh snap
i think Stuck was just talking about a jezebell of an ex GF who used be a gymnast…
The beauty of The Process is that you have never arrived, so you get to continue being perpetually awesome... -Espyonage
by tempebamafan on Jul 14, 2010 11:48 PM CDT up reply actions
well i got
more action by looking at the pic then i did by watching the game…
"You stay bought into it when you see your opponent sucking air and physically failing and you're still fit and ready and you know you own his ass."- Corey Reamer speaking about Coach Cochran
Fun fact.
Coach of the year award: Coach Petersen (2) > Nick Saban (1)
Blue turf not unfair advantage. Out of the 100+ teams who have played Boise since installing blue turf, I dare anyone to find an athlete that says they “blend in” with the field.
Bottom line, if you think Boise can’t play up to the big boys (I’m assuming you mean ’Bama), then put an invite in your mouth is. Come here or pay $1 mil to be beat in the South. Or, post laughable blogs and selective stats to make you feel better when an upstart program threatens your dominance. It seems you chose the latter. Thank you.
"Everyone counted us out. I don't know why they keep doing that." -- Kyle Wilson
More fun.
I’m glad you have the Georgia game in your pocket.
Boise State (possible NC contender) 2010 team, 5 years ago lost in Georgia, ends 9-5
Alabama 2009 NC team, 5 years ago goes 3-9
Your best bet to have Boise State be shut up is to want them in the "NC’ game. No more “we didn’t want to play them” opponents (OU ‘07, ’Bama ’08). No more “nobody cares” matchups (Fiesta ’10). You get Boise State vs. SEC in the Title game, we lose and it’s not close, you can be happy with your elitism. We play a close loss or win, then you’ve got a problem on your hands. So, do you want to put your fandom where your mouth is?
"Everyone counted us out. I don't know why they keep doing that." -- Kyle Wilson
by Loque on Jul 15, 2010 10:10 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
I'd love to for Bama to play you guys in the NC or the regular season...
…Just prepare to be out-coached. Your point about our respective records from five years ago (actually, Bama’s 4-9 was in 2003) is basically the point I made above about how you can’t judge a team this year based on what happened in previous years, especially 2-10 years ago. Boise State has been improving in depth and talent all this time since 2000. This season, with 21 starters returning, is their best opportunity so far to be great. Hope to see you in Glendale. Even if you were to get slaughtered by Alabama, it wouldn’t necessarily mean anything. OU got destroyed by USC 55-19, yet nobody questions the legitimacy of the BIG XII (or X now), nor should they.
by crimsontsunami on Jul 15, 2010 10:51 AM CDT up reply actions
I'll tell you this.
I like ’Bama. I hated Saban downplaying Utah before and after the Sugar Bowl, but when you see talent, you gotta respect the team. Florida was smoke and mirrors and I was very happy you put them in your place, just like you should the rest of this 2010 season.
And although I would like to see Boise in a BCS title game, I know it won’t happen. We hate this pre-season hype as much as everyone else does. ESPN et all isn’t doing it for the small Boise fan base, they’re doing it for the million other fans who hate them. Come mid-November, we’ll be poll hopped again. It’s just the way it works with the BCS. Even if we do it by the voters, those computer polls will have us out of the to 5. My only solace at not getting a chance to play on the biggest stage was a Rose Bowl with USC. But now that’s gone, too. Eh, maybe a re-match with Oregon State won’t be so bad…
Good luck to the Tide this season! Don’t let LSU pull one away from you (yeah, that was humour). And be nice to the new DC at Tennessee. We want him back in one piece.
"Everyone counted us out. I don't know why they keep doing that." -- Kyle Wilson
I know it's a whole can of worms to get into but
personally I trust the computer polls more than the voters. They (the computers) are objective, and they don’t care that the name on your jersey is that of a small media market in Idaho. If you get jumped in the computer polls, its strictly because you haven’t proven yourselves as much as the team that jumped you.
You guys need to focus on Va Tech for now though, rather than getting concerned already about hypothetical end-of-season poll positions. But if you get past them, then I do think that you’ll get to the BCS CG if there’s not more than one other undefeated out there (even though I hate such a one-game season).
Computer polls are largely based on the information they receive from human polls.
Either way, I agree Va. Tech should be the focus right now. Damn ESPN for all this “can they do it” talk.
Boise State - The best in all the land (The "land" being Idaho, and large parts of California, Oregon, and Nevada.) Now also including Fort Worth, TX and coming soon this fall, Washington D.C.!
What information do the computer polls get from the human polls??
One of the six computer polls uses some type of pre-season ranking as a seed for its algorithm. But as far as I know, none of the others use any info from the human polls.
Do we even know
how the computer polls work? Has any of them ever relesaed their methodology?
BCS polls have not released their methodology
But the Colley – Matrix and Anderson ranking I believe post theirs on the sites. I could be totally wrong here, so feel free to come back and bust my balls when you find out.
Boise State - The best in all the land (The "land" being Idaho, and large parts of California, Oregon, and Nevada.) Now also including Fort Worth, TX and coming soon this fall, Washington D.C.!
I'm pretty sure all of them..?
I’m not going to look it up so you’ll just have to do it yourself.
But nearly all employ rankings from ESPN, USA Today, AP, or the Harris Poll. All of which have a human element.
Like I say, don’t quote me, because I’m going off of my own memory. And therefore, not responsible if I’m wrong.
Boise State - The best in all the land (The "land" being Idaho, and large parts of California, Oregon, and Nevada.) Now also including Fort Worth, TX and coming soon this fall, Washington D.C.!
I'm pretty sure you're wrong.
None of them use rankings from ESPN, USA Today, AP, or the Harris Poll.
http://www.collegebcs.com/bcsfaq.html#Know
What do you know about the different computer rankings?
Not a whole lot. Most of the formulas are proprietary. Some are more forthcoming about what goes in than others. All of the systems use the same basic set of data (except where noted): Date of game, location of game, who played and who won. What distinguishes them is what they do with the data, how much they weigh certain factors, and what set of teams they rank.
It doesn’t say anything in there about them considering human polls. Because they don’t.
There’s also this: http://collegefootball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=864127
That has a fuller description of each poll, and also contains this tidbit:
The Billingsley Report is one of three computer polls that give teams a starting position. Rather than preseason rankings, teams start where they finished the previous season.
I think that means where they finished the previous season in that computer poll’s ranking. I could be wrong about that, but regardless that is the only way any of them would use human polls.
I’ll stand by that unless you can show me any info anywhere that says that any one of them uses human rankings in any way.
But your link says that we don’t know “a whole lot” about the computer, nothing there says that they don’t consider the human polls at all. For all we know, they could use the human polls for 90% of their calculation.
Seriously?
Well it also says:
All of the systems use the same basic set of data (except where noted): Date of game, location of game, who played and who won.
It gives you the inputs, and it does NOT say that human polls are among those inputs. If you want to disregard that, then you could claim that they use trained otters to make their selections and I couldn’t disprove you.
I’ve tried to find any evidence that they use human polls, and everything I’ve read indicates that they don’t. And it really doesn’t make any sense to me to think that they would. The whole point of the computer rankings is to create unbiased, objective rankings.
Also, empirically, the evidence suggests that they don’t. After all, isn’t that what people get so upset about, that the computer’s DON’T agree with the polls?
If you want to believe they use human polls, with no evidence to back you up, be my guest. But it doesn’t make any sense to me.
Does it say that those are the only inputs? My only point is that you have just as much evidence (maybe slightly more) that they don’t use the human polls as Mikrino has to show that they do.
My point is that saying all of the polls have the same basic inputs, is not the same as saying that none of them use any other different inputs. What you are saying is that no cars have moonroofs because I told you that all cars have four wheels, doors, and a steering wheel. It just does not follow.
Futile argument.
We won’t have perfect computer polls until SkyNet is born.. which has supposed to already have happened. And even when that happens, the TX-401 conference will probably be stronger than the SEC.
"Everyone counted us out. I don't know why they keep doing that." -- Kyle Wilson
As an SEC homer,
I maintain that while a team full of Terminators could possibly beat one of the top SEC teams in a one game bowl situation, even they would get worn down if they had to play an SEC schedule week in and week out. I predict four to five losses for them in that scenario! ;)
by CarrotTop4 on Jul 15, 2010 10:14 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
In that case,
Kentucky, Vanderbilt, and MissState are not fielding SEC teams.
Boise State - The best in all the land (The "land" being Idaho, and large parts of California, Oregon, and Nevada.) Now also including Fort Worth, TX and coming soon this fall, Washington D.C.!
Skynet is already with us, my friend...
"Orators are most vehement when their cause is weak" Marcus Tullius Cicero
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 16, 2010 2:58 AM CDT up reply actions
Ironically.
I do too. It’s hard being a Boise State fan and also an engineer. Facts come first, but the reality opposing Broncos sure do get my passion going.
I don’t think we need to do more than get 2 AQ teams on our OOC schedule each year. It eventually all comes down to the WAC playing up with Boise. Every team in the conference plays up to Boise, but they never play consistently against their opponents outside of the WAC. It’s very depressing and makes this whole MWC seem a little bit better than a lateral move. But then, they also have their dregs, too.
"Everyone counted us out. I don't know why they keep doing that." -- Kyle Wilson
Engineer here too,
so admittedly I’m not unbiased in my preference for computers. :)
I’m sure it is frustrating for the average BSU fan though to see every year that your computer rankings slip late in the season as your SOS starts to go down when you hit your conference games and the SOS of the AQ teams goes up at that same time.
The MWC will be a big improvement for you guys. But you still won’t be able to lose a game and hope to get into the BCS CG.
Considering the WAC gave you zero quality opponents,
And now you have TCU and BYU to get through, I’d say it’s better than a lateral move
"Yeah, it's Tennessee, that's the way it is sometimes." - Corey Zickefoose, Pulitzer Prize winner and robbery victim
"This is not the end. This is the beginning." - The Great and Powerful Saban
by Thomas Walker Esq on Jul 15, 2010 12:57 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Much, much better
TCU and BYU are a damned sight better than what? Nevada? Hawaii? Fresno?
"Orators are most vehement when their cause is weak" Marcus Tullius Cicero
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 15, 2010 3:30 PM CDT up reply actions
Maybe your fact checker was down to the waffle house...
picking up sweet tea and fried mayonnaise balls…
Boise State’s best team to date, the 13-0 2006 team: No losses here; Oklahoma, with two disappointing losses in the regular season, have no chance at the National Title. Up by two tds in the waning moments, the turn off the gas. And, to Boise’s credit, the Broncos pull out the Auburn, highschool playbook stops and win one of the more exciting bowl games of the decade, culminating in a hook and lateral, statue of liberty and marriage proposal. One AQ faced, one win, one marriage, and a final rank of #9.
Someone forgot to mention the dismantling of Oregon State, 42-14, the same Oregon State who beat Rose Bowl champs USC that year…
BSU slogs out a 14-9 home win against then-#16 Oregon
Score was 19-8.. Nitpicky? Yes. But I figure that’s in line with the style of the article…
by Polynikes on Jul 15, 2010 6:46 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Except for the past two seasons Alabama has been completely irrelevant the past 15 years
Alabama brought in the ringer Nick "take the money and run" Satan, and paid him an obscene amount of money that Alabama desperately needed to salvage it’s horrific southern bumpkin academic reputation.
2000 – (3-8) Nuff Said!
2001 – (7-5) Independence Bowl win, which became Alabama’s first bowl win after five seasons.
2002 – (10-3) Lost to every ranked opponent…barely escaped Hawaii with a come from behind victory. Due to NCAA sanctions the 2002 team was ineligible for postseason games, including the SEC Championship Game. The NCAA sanctions, which included a two-year bowl ban, the loss of 21 scholarships over three years, and five years probation. Franchione did not return to Alabama, instead informing his players of his decision to accept the job at Texas A&M via video teleconference.
Via video teleconference?…Now that is hilarous and traditional Alabama style!!! Wait until you have another crap season and Nick Satan breaks up with you in a similar manner.
2003 – (4-9) Lost to Northern Illinois and Hawaii, and everyone that matters!!
2004 – (6-6) Marque victories over Utah State, Western Carolina, and Southern Miss
2005 – (10-2)
2006 – (6-7) Wins over Hawaii, Louisiana–Monroe, FIU, and Duke
2007 – (7-6) Lost to Louisiana-Monroe… need I say more?
2008 – (12-2) Good season, but ultimately you finished the season by getting humiliated up and down the field by the MWC’s superior Utah. Alabama’s excuse: "We didn’t know that we needed to try hard"…Pathetic
2009 – Undefeated and the BCS God’s awarded you their hack of a BCS National Chump award…guess who else went undefeated in 2009 and were not given a shot at the title?
In the past 10 years Boise State has…
Posted a 112-16 record and won more BCS games than Alabama…Nuff Said!!
by csf68 on Jul 15, 2010 7:52 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
at least we can say 'we're back'
rather than ‘sure hope we get there’
"You have to create 6 seconds of hell each play..."
Coach Nick Saban
by LittleSis on Jul 15, 2010 8:21 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
Exactly
Not only do we get to crow ab being champions for another 6 months, I’ve got championship Coca-cola bottles older than the BSU program. Children shouldn’t be allowed to speak at the adult table.
"Yeah, it's Tennessee, that's the way it is sometimes." - Corey Zickefoose, Pulitzer Prize winner and robbery victim
"This is not the end. This is the beginning." - The Great and Powerful Saban
by Thomas Walker Esq on Jul 15, 2010 9:07 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Ahem...
"High standards come from passion within...." --Coach Nick Saban
by NiceLittleSaturday on Jul 15, 2010 9:15 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
I pray that we get the opportunity to slap that BS Championship taste out of your mouths and wipe the toothless grins off your inbred faces...just like the Utes did.
by csf68 on Jul 15, 2010 9:24 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
There we go!
If you win, we give you 101 potato recipes…
Geez, i’m an idiot.
"Everyone counted us out. I don't know why they keep doing that." -- Kyle Wilson
Once more, with feeling...
"High standards come from passion within...." --Coach Nick Saban
by NiceLittleSaturday on Jul 15, 2010 10:29 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Can we say that...
…if we play in Glendale? It’s practically Bronco Stadium-South.
Let’s make a bet when we play each other. ’Bama wins we get Oatmeal cookies. Boise wins you get brain tumors in your children.
If we don’t meet up then, will you please schedule us? A measly mil isn’t that much, is it?
"Everyone counted us out. I don't know why they keep doing that." -- Kyle Wilson
So this has come up a few times now. How can you, on one hand, claim to have arrived — to be a BCS-caliber school — and on the other hand, demand payment to play?
You’re either a cupcake that gets paid to take a beating, or you’re a real team that can pay their own way.
I'm wrong all the time.
Uh.. duh!?
Were you just born backwards or did you seriously ask one of the dumbest questions we commonly hear?
- Do you need me to compare Boise State’s and Alabama’s athletic budget and spending? BCS-caliber? Nope. But we play that way. If we were to compare a teams competitiveness related to their funding, Boise State would be national champions 3 of the last 5 years.
- We don’t need to be paid that much.. just do a home and home. Oh, no?! But why not? Because Alabama wants money, too. They don’t get much cash out of a trip to Boise.
- Explain to me why a cupcake deserves 1 mil (San Jose State vs. Alabama) and not a same conference, same payout Boise State? Go ahead. … waiting.
So what’s the big deal comparing our request for a payout compared to BCS teams (mostly Florida) never leaving the South? Your argument is very selective. “You’re not a big team unless you have your own money!” Well thank you for the news flash. But… this is about student athletes competing on a national stage, is it not? Isn’t the BCS made for mathcing up 1 vs. 2 when we know if hasn’t been doing that even for BCS-calibur teams?
Please.
Ok, back to replying to the nice ’Bama fans.
"Everyone counted us out. I don't know why they keep doing that." -- Kyle Wilson
Just to warn you: you won't "win" an argument with Pete. LOL
The system isn’t fair. I think we all know that. Just don’t expect us (the U of A) to willingly do anything that isn’t in our best interest. As has been said many times, the risk vs benefit in playing BSU generally doesn’t make it worth it. But from a fans perspective (i.e. my perspective), sure I’d MUCH rather see Bama vs BSU than vs SJSU.
I really think that is part of the problem. Sure I think that Bama would beat up BSU, however, I don’t think you can blame BSU not scheduling tougher teams if the tougher teams aren’t willing to play them. I think that is why BSU fans are getting all pissy. They don’t deserve to play in the national championship games until they schedulae and beat tougher teams but the tougher teams refuse to play them so they will never desrve to play in the national championship game. That kinda is the point that the antitrust argument makers are trying to make, the BCS is attempting to monopolize the opportunity to play in the national championship game.
by Bumpjon on Jul 16, 2010 10:26 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Agreed.
Chicken and egg, or something of the sort. Can’t get a job without experience and can’t get experience without a job, etc.
Agreed completely
I’m not saying it’s BSU’s fault — there’s no motivation for big teams to play Boise, really.
But that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have to prove that they’re #1 or #2 to play in the title game.
I'm wrong all the time.
by PeteHoliday on Jul 16, 2010 10:35 AM CDT up reply actions
Doesn’t the best record in the past 10 years (even if it is against chumps) and an unblemished BCS record show that they got the chops? I would think that if they went undefeated again, unless there are 2 other undefeated teams, they deserve to go to the championship game. I would even say that they would be more desreving than a 1-loss Alabama (unless of course, that was a close loss to another undefated team going into the SECCG, i.e. Florida or PSU, and they have a strong performance against a very high ranked team in the SECG).
Doesn’t the best record in the past 10 years (even if it is against chumps) and an unblemished BCS record show that they got the chops?
It absolutely does not.
First of all: My high school team could have beaten the Jr. High team every year for 10 years. That doesn’t mean they deserve to play in the Superbowl.
Second: those are past years. They don’t matter. They don’t impact this season’s team at all.
Finally: thinking that a team being undefeated automatically makes them more deserving than a one-loss team is pretty goofy when you’re talking about the magnitude of scheduling disparities.
I'm wrong all the time.
by PeteHoliday on Jul 16, 2010 10:45 AM CDT up reply actions
No idea who you’re talking about or how that random statistic is even remotely relevant.
I'm wrong all the time.
by PeteHoliday on Jul 16, 2010 10:50 AM CDT up reply actions
If you are arguing that because they beat up on losers they should not get respect for there record over the past ten years. I am suggesting that if we compared there record against non-AQ teams to our record against non-AQ team (you know apples to apples), that they would have a better (if not far better record) against those teams than we do. If we can play against “jr. high” teams and lose but still “deserve” to go to the championship game, why does there far superior record against “jr. high” teams disqualify them? I am not suggesting that alone is sufficient, but ii is one thing that you would look to.
by Bumpjon on Jul 16, 2010 10:57 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Past. Years. Don’t. Matter.
I'm wrong all the time.
by PeteHoliday on Jul 16, 2010 10:59 AM CDT up reply actions
If past years don’t matter than why are you busting their balls for playing creampuffs in the past? They are trying everything they can to play tougher schedules but the tougher school want nothing to do with them.
by Bumpjon on Jul 16, 2010 11:01 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Their schedule is crap every year.
If their schedule wasn’t crap this year, and they won all of their games, I’d be all for them being in the title game. Fact is, though, they want to be there without playing quality teams.
Past years are relevant to past years, present year to present year.
I'm wrong all the time.
by PeteHoliday on Jul 16, 2010 11:05 AM CDT up reply actions
Aye.
Have they played their schedule? Has their opponents played their schedule?
I can totally see New Mexico State getting into the Sugar Bowl!
"Everyone counted us out. I don't know why they keep doing that." -- Kyle Wilson
esp if BamaGrad
is heading their dynasty. i think he fired dwayne what his face and hired Lionel Ritchie as head coach. not kidding, he posted an amazing season recap in these here FanPosts…..
The beauty of The Process is that you have never arrived, so you get to continue being perpetually awesome... -Espyonage
by tempebamafan on Jul 16, 2010 11:29 PM CDT up reply actions
He’s feeling easy like a Sunday morning.
"Everyone counted us out. I don't know why they keep doing that." -- Kyle Wilson
because he's paid his dues to make it
"You have to create 6 seconds of hell each play..."
Coach Nick Saban
I’m basing it on their schedule.
Yes, yes, it’s true, the WAC could be this year’s SEC. Sure. Anything could happen.
And if that happens, and they win the conference convincingly, I’ll be the first one to advocate them for the title game.
But what are the odds that they end up with more than two quality wins on that schedule if they win out?
I'm wrong all the time.
by PeteHoliday on Jul 16, 2010 11:11 AM CDT up reply actions
Of course.
Past years’ schedules are relevant to figure out if Boise was deserving of inclusion in that year’s title game.
They are completely irrelevant to this year.
I'm wrong all the time.
by PeteHoliday on Jul 16, 2010 11:28 AM CDT up reply actions
But you just said that this year’s schedule is crap. How do you think this year’s schedule is crap? Are you looking at their opponents past performance?
Oh, I see, you’re being intentionally dense.
I think you’re missing the difference between prospective and retrospective use of past years.
All we have to go on so far is talent, coaching, and experience. If you really want to, you can use past performance to model probabilities for future performance, but that’s all prospective.
There’s a vast difference between saying “The teams they play this year were such shit last year that there’s almost no way they could be quality” and, at the end of the season, saying that they deserve to play in the title game because they’ve won 10+ games for 10 years.
I'm wrong all the time.
by PeteHoliday on Jul 16, 2010 11:39 AM CDT up reply actions
"Oh, I see, you’re being intentionally dense."
actually i think the boys on the street call it a “snap” he just “busted” a “snap” on you. SNAP!
you cannot make a projection on any teams SOS for a season that hasn’t yet been played, unless you rely on past seasons for data to project for future results.
well i suppose you could just arbitraily do it, assign each team a number, write the number on ping pong balls, and have a sort of lottery to determin who you think will be good or not. but that would be sily.
The beauty of The Process is that you have never arrived, so you get to continue being perpetually awesome... -Espyonage
by tempebamafan on Jul 16, 2010 11:33 PM CDT up reply actions
Or you could do it based on talent of the recruits, how long they’ve been in the program, and whatever else.
But, again, the problem is not with trying to predict based on past data (prospectively), but trying to claim that past performance has earned anything this season to which the team is entitled, when that pretty clearly doesn’t actually work.
I'm wrong all the time.
by PeteHoliday on Jul 16, 2010 11:56 PM CDT up reply actions
In addition to what Tempebamafan said, my point was that #1 they have earned their current ranking in part by their past record (most preseason polls have them in the 3-5 range) and if they win out, they should at least deserve serious consideration for the national championship game.
And #2 lets assume two non-AQ teams. Team A has a .300 record over the past 10 years. Team B has a .900 record over the past 10 years, are 2-0 in BCS bowls, and finished the previous year undefeated. Both have relatively weak schedules but they each play 2 ranked BCS schools. They both go undefeated, their performance on the field is almost identical. Their strength of schedule is almost identical. The computers rank them the same. It is undisputed that these are the 2nd and 3rd best teams in the country. You are assigned the task of picking a team to play in the BCS national championship game, i.e., you are either a Harris Poll or a Coaches Poll voter. Based on just that information, are you going to tell me that when you sit down to rank those two teams, you wouldn’t give any consideration to team B’s decade of dominance?
I don’t know how many times I can say this: the quality of a team does not change what a team does on the field a year later. It’s not complicated, nuanced, or subjective: a team winning eleventy billion games over the past decade should not provide them a bonus in future years. You can pose all of the hypotheticals you want, that’s going to remain the same.
They both go undefeated, their performance on the field is almost identical. Their strength of schedule is almost identical. The computers rank them the same. It is undisputed that these are the 2nd and 3rd best teams in the country.
I would chose the team with the better performance, regardless of their previous year’s record.
I'm wrong all the time.
Pete doesn't' get anyone's point.
Unless he’s looking in the mirror.
"Everyone counted us out. I don't know why they keep doing that." -- Kyle Wilson
by Loque on Jul 16, 2010 11:02 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Listen, I get that you’re new and trolling and pissed off that your also-ran of a team gets beat up on for playing nobodies, but you really need to work on making real arguments and defending them rather than just tossing around insults.
Or, alternately, make them more clever or funny.
Nobody’s impressed.
I'm wrong all the time.
by PeteHoliday on Jul 16, 2010 11:04 AM CDT up reply actions
Oh.
I was going to post a cute little YouTube video. Would that help?
I’m not trying to troll this website, just you. You see, I’m just bored on a Friday morning. I live in Idaho and it’s not potato season, you see. And they just gave us the Internet here. It’s all really fascinating and I just can’t seem to get enough of it.
Are you with me!?
"Everyone counted us out. I don't know why they keep doing that." -- Kyle Wilson
if this is "trolling"
then the term troll has zero utility in the english language.
expressing a contrarian viewpoint =! trolling
The beauty of The Process is that you have never arrived, so you get to continue being perpetually awesome... -Espyonage
by tempebamafan on Jul 16, 2010 11:35 PM CDT up reply actions
Color me shocked, tempe sided with the person I’m debating.
In other news: sun to come up in east tomorrow, LSU fans to smell like corndogs.
You’re getting awfully predictable.
But, uh, yeah: “I’m not trying to troll this website, just you”. So it sounds like he and I are on the same page, and while I agree that expressing a contrary viewpoint isn’t defacto trolling, “Pete doesn’t get anyone’s point unless he’s looking in the mirror” isn’t “defending points in good spirit” nor is it “expressing a contrary viewpoint”. It’s “trying to distract from substantive argument with insult”.
I'm wrong all the time.
by PeteHoliday on Jul 17, 2010 12:01 AM CDT up reply actions
i've been making a point to defend people who express a different opinion than you
for a while now. yep.
you dont need my or anyone else’s help to make your points, and it seems to me that quite often you rub people’s noses in just how much better you are at shit talking on the teh interwebs. you can make some really solid points, you’re clearly a very insightful person. but you also dont engender much, if any sympathy, unlike the people you typically trounce.
then, add in some of the sycophantic parroting some of our bretheren engage in whenever you take a stance for or against something, and damnit if you haven’t become the 2008 new england patriots of this board (meaning easy to root against).
lastly, as i’ve stated, on this topic i kinda like BSU. and i think the blue field complaint is hah! laughable dios mio man…
although for what its worth i didn’t see the part where ol boy had tried to pass off bad stats… now i’m not sure how i feel about it, only thing i am certain of is i dont care anymore.
The beauty of The Process is that you have never arrived, so you get to continue being perpetually awesome... -Espyonage
by tempebamafan on Jul 17, 2010 1:50 AM CDT up reply actions
Well, at least now I know why I’ve had a hard time taking anything you say seriously.
Especially after the “sycophantic parroting” bit — since I don’t think there’s a regular on the board I haven’t gotten into it with. Sounds more like you’re assigning motives to folks who just happen to agree with me on a particular point to make yourself feel more justified in following me around the site to disagree with me.
Which is flattering, don’t get me wrong, but would be more interesting to me (and probably everyone else) if you worked on engaging in debate rather than throwing rocks.
I'm wrong all the time.
i dont follow you around this site bro
in fact i’m pretty sure i’ve been here since before you. so dont flatter yourself. (also, this is a Fanpost created by Stuck in case you were wondering…)
The beauty of The Process is that you have never arrived, so you get to continue being perpetually awesome... -Espyonage
by tempebamafan on Jul 18, 2010 7:04 PM CDT up reply actions
Congratulations, you were here one day before me. May 15 – May 16.
I guess that makes you . . . something?
Regardless, I’d still prefer to see you using a bit of reason in stead of just running around behind me screaming “NUH UH!” which is about what it starts to look like after 20 or 30 threads of you being contrary (and, often, horribly wrong).
I'm wrong all the time.
also who throwing rocks
i coulda swore this about someone getting butt hurt because not every single person happens to agree with them…
The beauty of The Process is that you have never arrived, so you get to continue being perpetually awesome... -Espyonage
by tempebamafan on Jul 18, 2010 7:14 PM CDT up reply actions
also i am impressed
Pete, you’re pretty much the rhetoric heavyweight champ around these parts. and frankly, it’s looking to this biased (towards you) observer like the champ is down….
hats off to loque for not being a douche like one of the other folks up there, and for having the gumption to defend your points in good spirit. i’ve spent the last 70 minutes reading this thread and it’s helping me forget about my hell of a week at work…. i dare say this loque fellow is as welcome here as MeanBobMean in my book (another person people here labled a troll, simply because he’s a Ute’s fan.. he’s the furthest thing from a troll i’ve ever encountered on the internet….)
The beauty of The Process is that you have never arrived, so you get to continue being perpetually awesome... -Espyonage
by tempebamafan on Jul 16, 2010 11:38 PM CDT up reply actions
If I had a dollar for every time you thought I had lost an argument, I’d be a rich man. Luckily for me, nobody has elected you arbiter of winning or grand high wizard of teh intartubes.
I'm wrong all the time.
by PeteHoliday on Jul 17, 2010 12:02 AM CDT up reply actions
Oh, wise Pete
Please define “deserving.” Tell me how my team can get into a Div 1A title game by playing Div 1A opponents? Oh, they have to be certain opponents? Damn!
"Everyone counted us out. I don't know why they keep doing that." -- Kyle Wilson
So, in other words, they can never play in the title game...
…since big teams will never play them. I’m going to quote myself from a while back when we had a similar discussion where I was arguing in favor of playing Boise State (I’m too lazy to rephrase):
COMMENT 1
Do we have to have a recruiting reason to schedule what could be an awesome game? BSU would benefit if they were to win, and they might even benefit from exposure long-term in a loss. But who cares? Like many have commented, we don’t compete with Boise State for recruits or really anything. If Boise State benefits, it has no effect on us. Like with any other game, the only thing that would matter is whether we win or not. And this game would be exciting. Also, it would give Boise State an opportunity to prove themselves. This is a good thing in my view. It gives them a fairer shot at reaching a national championship, because they’d actually have to earn it. It wouldn’t help us as much as, say, Notre Dame, who are almost always overrated, but it would help us enough (beating a highly ranked opponent/getting credit for having the guts to schedule them), and I don’t believe it would cause any harm.
COMMENT 2
There was a time when Alabama and southern football in general were deemed inferior, and they wouldn’t allow us to play in the Rose Bowl. Finally, in the ‘20s, they did. We were ridiculed before the game by practically everybody, but what was the result? Our first of twelve national championships. The beginning of our great tradition. When Notre Dame played for the tie against Michigan State in ’66, and thus stole what should’ve been our third consecutive title, Bear Bryant offered to play Notre Dame and Michigan State after the season to settle the debate as to who was really the best. Nobody thought they would take him up on it, of course, and they didn’t. But what if they had? Notre Dame fans would’ve been proud of their team’s courage, and I personally would respect them infinitely today, regardless of the outcome. But it didn’t benefit them, so they didn’t do it. So my question is: Do we want to be like the establishment of the early 1900s who held us down, assuming us to be inferior? Do we want to be like Notre Dame? I understand we’re not obligated to do it, but scheduling Boise State would be like passing the torch. We’d give them a shot to prove themselves, which is not much to ask. When somebody challenges us, we should answer—maybe not in 2011 when the schedule is already difficult, but soon in the future. We have the opportunity to be champions of the underdog, which we once were until we finally got our shot. And finally, despite what anyone says, this would help recruiting. It’s a marquee game—as long as we win during primetime, we’ll win some recruits over.
by crimsontsunami on Jul 16, 2010 11:08 AM CDT up reply actions
I’m not ready to say “never”. This is their last season in the WAC. The Mountain West is poised to take the Big East’s BCS bid if things keep going the way they’re going.
Or, who knows, getting bumped into the Big 12.
Of course, what I really want is a play-off so that they (and everyone else) can win it or lose it on the field, rather than in the polls.
I'm wrong all the time.
by PeteHoliday on Jul 16, 2010 11:14 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Fair enough...
…although I personally would put a 13-0 Boise, a previously 14-0 team with 21 returning starters, into the national championship over an undefeated Big Ten team this year. I wouldn’t put them over an undefeated Big XII or one-loss SEC team, though. But that’s just my opinion, really. It would be hard to watch a team go undefeated twice in a row, and then not even get a chance to play for the title in both seasons.
by crimsontsunami on Jul 16, 2010 11:27 AM CDT up reply actions
UPDATE:
“…but what was the result? Our first of twelve national championships [and finally, in 2009, our first BCS National ‘Chumpionship.’”
by crimsontsunami on Jul 16, 2010 12:38 PM CDT up reply actions
Exactly.
I’m fine with that. But let’s just leave it how it is, not try to downplay someone for their monetary need… despite the system which has given us some, but not more. I don’t care if I win the argument, but i will defend baseless claims.
The BCS is better than before (well, maybe… we probably would have gotten a title playing 6-6 Michigan in ‘06), but it’s still not there. It’s not about athletics or ability, it’s about TV market and attraction. Boise does not have that (and never will).
"Everyone counted us out. I don't know why they keep doing that." -- Kyle Wilson
Around here we typically prefer sound arguments to insults, but I guess if you’re out of the former, we’ll have to accept the latter.
But, since you seem eager to learn, let me explain how economics works:
In an exchange, the goal is for each party to end up better off than they were before, if only marginally so. Each party should benefit.
If San Jose doesn’t get paid, they gain nothing from the exchange because a) they’re likely going to get demolished and b) they have no prayer of going to a BCS bowl game.
Boise’s benefit would be having the opportunity to make a case for inclusion in a BCS bowl game, something their typical schedule does not afford them.
Alabama doesn’t benefit at all from playing Boise at home or on the road. Why? Look no farther than Georgia.
There was near-infinite Boise hype coming into that game. Georgia obliterated Boise. Did they get credit for beating Boise? No, Boise was called a fraud. Had Georgia lost, though, that’d have been a death knell for their season. Win or lose, they’re screwed. No point in playing a game like that, ever.
I'm wrong all the time.
by PeteHoliday on Jul 16, 2010 10:30 AM CDT up reply actions
That really doesn’t explain the discrepancy with money, especially considered that scheduling for Boise comes 4-5 years in advance of the game actually being played, and 6-10 years in advance for a team like Nebraska or Alabama.
Are you going to be that good then? Are we? is San Jose State? We can all guess, but that’s not going to say anything. You get the on-and-done payout games w/n 1-2 years. This the type of game that Alabama and others would like to schedule. It’s no secret that your buying a gauranteed game. The fact that Boise’s success on the field makes them “unbuyable” does not mean that we don’t need the money.
Even if we do get an SEC OOC game for under 500k, play on the road and win, it does not mean that we’re in the title race. It also does not change the fact that if we lose one game to anyone, the athletic department loses money by going to the Human or Hawaii Bowl.
If it your problem? No. We abuse the system as much as you do. But if you’re going to call us out for it, be prepared to take some of your own medicine.
"Everyone counted us out. I don't know why they keep doing that." -- Kyle Wilson
Frankly, I don’t care about BSU’s financial issues. They’re not our problem.
The bottom line is that you can’t claim to be a BCS-caliber team simultaneously demand payment for games because teams simply don’t pay BCS caliber teams to come to town. That’s unfortunate for you, but that’s the way it is.
BSU demanding payment to play a BCS team is like a 30 year old still taking an allowance from his parents.
I'm wrong all the time.
by PeteHoliday on Jul 16, 2010 10:43 AM CDT up reply actions
Weren't we just talking about lack of evidence?
The bottom line is that you can’t claim to be a BCS-caliber team simultaneously demand payment for games because teams simply don’t pay BCS caliber teams to come to town. That’s unfortunate for you, but that’s the way it is.
Is this in the “Pete has spoken: let is be written, let is be so” rulebook? I think I’m beginning to understand you. You must also frequent the ESPN message boards. All of this is sounding a little too familiar…
"Everyone counted us out. I don't know why they keep doing that." -- Kyle Wilson
I assumed that I didn’t have to repeat every argument in every post, I guess I was mistaken.
So let’s do this:
In an exchange, the goal is for each party to end up better off than they were before, if only marginally so. Each party should benefit.
If San Jose doesn’t get paid, they gain nothing from the exchange because a) they’re likely going to get demolished and b) they have no prayer of going to a BCS bowl game.
Boise’s benefit would be having the opportunity to make a case for inclusion in a BCS bowl game, something their typical schedule does not afford them.
Alabama doesn’t benefit at all from playing Boise at home or on the road.
I'm wrong all the time.
by PeteHoliday on Jul 16, 2010 10:52 AM CDT up reply actions
Be careful
The Fail Police are watching you.
Not because it’s all I got. It’s just all you’re worth.
"Everyone counted us out. I don't know why they keep doing that." -- Kyle Wilson
The SEC has equal-revenue,
pal…simply because, in a nationally televised game, people would rather watch two evenly-matched SEC teams than BSU playing the Vandals of Idaho St.
"...because you've got your mind right, and that's the way we like it." Nick Saban
Oh, forgot one:
You’re either a cupcake that gets paid to take a beating…
Thank you for admitting that Boise State would get a beating playing in Alabama.
"Everyone counted us out. I don't know why they keep doing that." -- Kyle Wilson
whoops!
would not get a beating…
"Everyone counted us out. I don't know why they keep doing that." -- Kyle Wilson
You were right the first time.
I'm wrong all the time.
by PeteHoliday on Jul 16, 2010 10:25 AM CDT up reply actions
Q: What do a divorce in Alabama, a tornado in Kansas, and a hurricane in Florida have in common?
A: Somebody’s fixin’ to lose them a trailer.
Q: What's the difference between a University of Alabama sorority sister and a scarecrow?
A: One lives in a field and is stuffed with hay. The other frightens birds and small animals.
The intense, hate-filled, Tide vs. Bronco which may never really happen rivalry is born!
At least for csf68
Well, I would say the author of this FanPost started it...
after all, it is titled “The definitive Boise hating post: Now with more facts!”
If you read the actual comments, I say
“I don’t hate them…They are pretty entertaining to watch, so is Nevada for that matter, and Hawaii, Middle Tennessee, and Troy.”
We discuss all football here, and obviously a mid-major checking in as a preseason top 3-4 is big news in the BCS era. However, I question whether such accolades are warranted based on A) conference and B) a decade of little scheduling (and less success) against AQ teams.
As for A, you have now moved up. Good job. You are guaranteed to play at least two decent teams (occasionally 3) every year in conference. Let’s see if you get it done on the road at BYU and TCU every other year. My guess is that, like Utah, it will be alternating league champs…No one’s going to run the table. As for B, there is little success for true regular season road games. And, especially heading East. You’ve never won one against an AQ. So, there is definitely history going against you here.
But, you know what, even after Va. Tech plays you, they will still face another 1-3 top 10 team and 2-3 top 25s…that’s what BCS level squads do. And, honestly, to be in the MNC discussion, that’s what I believe BSU has to produce…not a Super Bowl, one-game, season. Again, though, that ties into A), and an undefeated season will likely gain much more credibility. Not just from pollsters, but those of us with eye-balls that can see what BSU did against Oregon versus what an Ohio State did; what an Alabama does to Va. Tech vs. what Nebraska did. And, if we’re going to look at history, and what each squad is fielding, I really like the Hokies to open the season in the oppressive late-Summer heat of the Atlantic Coast, against a team that — frankly — doesn’t see the speed and strength of BCS-calibre opponents very often.
"Orators are most vehement when their cause is weak" Marcus Tullius Cicero
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 16, 2010 3:16 AM CDT up reply actions
I did read your comment later...
but all they were seeing was “definitive hate post”. Some BSU fans did try simply to argue against your points at the beginning, but the end comments had nothing to do with arguing against or for what you had brought up and was getting ridiculous for fans of teams that will most likely never play each other.
OTS, Todd, Nico
You can thank me later for all of the page views: I accept unmarked bills, designer drugs, and soiled women’s underclothing.
Also, if interested, I can always write some haterade for Texas…they love to post as well…
"Orators are most vehement when their cause is weak" Marcus Tullius Cicero
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 16, 2010 3:00 AM CDT reply actions
We got the same thing from Wyoming fans. Apparently, we are elite because we look down on them and “potential” this season.
"Everyone counted us out. I don't know why they keep doing that." -- Kyle Wilson
Are they little brother?
I thought Idaho was…
"Orators are most vehement when their cause is weak" Marcus Tullius Cicero
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 16, 2010 10:54 AM CDT up reply actions
Not Enough
And this is dead-on
Either way, the BCS has actually served these schools better than any previous method of choosing Bowl and/or NCG participants.
Yes, it has. The TCUs and Boises of the world now have access to money, publicity, etc.
Have you seen the numbers money-wise on what BSU makes for participation in a BCS game compared to BCS schools? It’s ridiculous. Sure the BCS has given, but it takes much more. I’d rather see BSU lose a playoff game every year than have the BCS. Nobody was saying Butler’s name during NCAABB talks, look what a tourney does. The whole country knows Davidson because of their tourney run. Publicity wouldn’t be hard to achieve under a playoff.
Last thing: Does this make sense?- Utah beats Bama in the sugar bowl, Bama makes more money and gets off the hook because they “weren’t motivated”. A team like Boise State beats Oklahoma, makes less, is given little credit due to “trick” plays. Nobody can tell me that College football is fair as of now.
R.I.P. John Wooden, Wizard of Westwood
College football has never been fair
and, in many respects, works like our congress was designed to: Slow, incremental change, vested interests hold sway, and new adoptions take a while to see the light of day, much less be uniformly adopted. But, incremental change does occur, and you are the primary beneficiaries of it.
10 years ago, for instance, what did a 12-1 season get you? A bowl game at your own stadium with about a $230K payout. What do you have now? A million dollar payout to go to Tempe.
There is not, and will not, be a playoff. Sorry. But it’s not happening for at least another decade. The upside is that you at least can face 2 decent (probably ranked) in-conference teams, as well as a good OOC. That strength of schedule is at least as good as most years for USC or the Big East champs, for instance. Get it done then, and the playing field opens up for MWC teams as well…
"Orators are most vehement when their cause is weak" Marcus Tullius Cicero
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 16, 2010 9:02 AM CDT up reply actions
Yeah but you're arguing something different than what was said.
You’re arguing whether or not the BCS treats you as an equal to BCS teams. It does not.
The original statement, which you quoted right there, says that the BCS treats you better THAN THE PREVIOUS SYSTEM DID. That is undeniably true. In the pre-BCS era, teams such as yours would never have been in the Fiesta or Sugar Bowl. They would have been in the Emerald Bowl or Holiday Bowl, and making MUCH less money.
Sure the system could be improved, but it is still better than what used to be.
I never said
that I disagree. I’m just saying that it still isn’t enough. It sounded like credit for the BCS. And the BCS is “good” for every team if we are going by $. I don’t know about you, but I would take a national title and 250k over a 1 mil payout and not having a chance. I was just trying to put it out there that this clearly isn’t the best system. Things improve in time, college football is moving rather slowly with the BCS
R.I.P. John Wooden, Wizard of Westwood
Take care, Pete!
I’m off for this morning. But don’t you think I won’t be back.. This has been rather fun for me today. I hope it has been for you, too!
Roll Tide! Go Broncos!
"Everyone counted us out. I don't know why they keep doing that." -- Kyle Wilson
Thanks to the Broncos for dropping by
and, for the very large majority, bringing some verve and humor and facts.
I am now taking suggestions for whom to piss off this week. I am tempted to poop in the Tarheels’ friut loops, since they are already angry that OTS mentioned the NCAA is snooping around.
Any other suggestions?
"Orators are most vehement when their cause is weak" Marcus Tullius Cicero
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 17, 2010 8:23 AM CDT reply actions
Fruit Loops (tm)
"Orators are most vehement when their cause is weak" Marcus Tullius Cicero
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 17, 2010 8:23 AM CDT up reply actions
UNC it is...
"Orators are most vehement when their cause is weak" Marcus Tullius Cicero
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 17, 2010 8:51 AM CDT up reply actions
Are there still Notre Dame fans...
…young enough to know about teh interwebz?
"High standards come from passion within...." --Coach Nick Saban
by NiceLittleSaturday on Jul 17, 2010 9:22 AM CDT up reply actions
ND is a good call...
Michigan would work too…
"Orators are most vehement when their cause is weak" Marcus Tullius Cicero
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 17, 2010 9:47 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
You're welcome!
Let us know if we can be anymore annoying! You know, how little brothers should be.
"Everyone counted us out. I don't know why they keep doing that." -- Kyle Wilson
could you follow up with
A) moral victory threads and/or
B) the outcome woulda’ been different if X didn’t get hurt/suspended/arrested/garroted.
We love those.
"Orators are most vehement when their cause is weak" Marcus Tullius Cicero
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 17, 2010 7:03 PM CDT up reply actions
Don't get cocky
You’ve got to work hard to be Alabama’s little brother. There are a half dozen schools that have been practicing for that role for decades. You can’t just wake up one morning and decide it’s going to be you.
I'm wrong all the time.
But...
…if you work really hard, you could be that new kid who just moved into the neighborhood and talked so much smack that he had to take a beat down to learn his place.
"High standards come from passion within...." --Coach Nick Saban
by NiceLittleSaturday on Jul 18, 2010 10:45 PM CDT up reply actions
For this season...
…you guys are my super-astronomically-distant second favorite team, mostly because I predicted you would get a 2+TD win against Virginia Tech. I’m pretty hyped to watch that game now. Hope Boise proves me right.
by crimsontsunami on Jul 19, 2010 10:24 AM CDT up reply actions
Your original idea of Texas should set off fireworks...
if you can get 300 comments about Boise post, then Texas post should at least double this.
Already working on Notre Dame...
I wonder if they give a shit anymore?
"Orators are most vehement when their cause is weak" Marcus Tullius Cicero
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 17, 2010 8:31 PM CDT up reply actions
Joe Montana's got other stuff to worry about....
"High standards come from passion within...." --Coach Nick Saban
by NiceLittleSaturday on Jul 18, 2010 10:45 PM CDT up reply actions
little did we know that charles from reeltown had a passel of cousins in idaho.
http://www.obnug.com/2010/7/15/1570970/more-blog-fodder-for-mikrino-to
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
I view this the same as people screaming about
“media bias” in the news. It’s not that the news is biased against a particular ideoloagy…it’s that the facts are.
And, I fully admit that there were one or two infelicities of style, but really, just one error: forgetting the final score of the OU-BSU game last year.
Fine. But that hardly makes the whole thing, in toto, error-filled, and in no way changes the analysis.
"Orators are most vehement when their cause is weak" Marcus Tullius Cicero
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 18, 2010 10:29 AM CDT up reply actions
And, I fully admit that there were one or two infelicities of style, but really, just one error: forgetting the final score of the OU-BSU game last year.
Fine. But that hardly makes the whole thing, in toto, error-filled, and in no way changes the analysis.
It definitely lends to whether or not its (a) worth giving your agrument the time of day,(b) is worth while, © is based in biased subjectivity, and therefore moot. And subjects it, in toto, to more investigation;
Like conveniently leaving out Boise State’s monumental upset of #8 Fresno State, on the road, in 2001. I realize you’re only looking at their performances against AQ squads, but that win was the one that put their name into conversations initally. Against the 8th ranked team in the country no less.
Or ignoring the valiant performances they put on as a newly added DIA team. Like in 1997, in Madison, WI., a close 28-24 loss for the Broncos that came down the end of the game. Their first year in Division I.
You’re sure to mention the Broncos 41-14 loss to Arkansas in 2002, but subtly leave out the 38-31 game in 2000, in which the Razorbacks narrowly escaped the upset.
Boise State’s best team to date, the 13-0 2006 team: No losses here; Oklahoma, with two disappointing losses in the regular season, have no chance at the National Title. Up by two tds in the waning moments, the(y) turn off the gas.
The problem with this one is the last sentence; it’s completely lacking a rudimentary sense of fact-checking. At no point did Oklahoma lead by two TD’s. In fact they only led by 7 for a total of 55 seconds of regulation.
And if by my mistake you mean Boise State was up by two TD’s and “let off” the gas, you ought to make it clearer. But even then it becomes apparent how little you actually remember about the game of which you speak.
From ESPN; Boise State leads 28-10 at this point.
4th and 5 at BSU 46 Michael Cohen punt for 31 yards, returned by Aiona Key for no gain to the BoiSt 11, fumbled at the BoiSt 11, recovered by Marcus Walker.
The ball actually touched Aiona Key on the foot as he blocked for the punt returner. The ensuing scuffle led to OU with the ball on BSU’s 11. They scored two plays later making it 28-17. If not for that one freak play, nobody would ever even see Boise State run three trick plays in the waning moments of regulation and OT to win that game because it wouldn’t have been necessary. Instead of calling it a “fluke” win with “schoolyard” tricks. It would have been a beatdown of a perennial powerhouse, akin to what Alabama experienced in 2008.
Statistics are funny bastards. You can make them say virtually anything you want by simply moving the points of reference. Or you can simply leave out the ones that don’t help the argument you intend to make.
Either way I suppose this piece serves it purpose; tufting the padded egos of Bama fans and their SEC counterparts.
Which I’ll admit is fair game since we do the same at OBNUG. Carry on…
Boise State - The best in all the land (The "land" being Idaho, and large parts of California, Oregon, and Nevada.) Now also including Fort Worth, TX and coming soon this fall, Washington D.C.!
FWIW...
…My ego is not affected by anything Boise State does (or doesn’t do) at all…good luck to you….
"High standards come from passion within...." --Coach Nick Saban
by NiceLittleSaturday on Jul 22, 2010 8:38 PM CDT up reply actions
Nor should it be...
But you can’t deny that the only reason Boise State’s accomplishments are minimized on this thread is based largely upon comparison to the behemoth that is Alabama/SEC/BCS football.
The boys over at GobblerCountry have exhibited a much more contrite and humble approach, acknowledging that the could actually lose to the Broncos. Something rarely admitting by BCS fans. But what do I know, my team has claimed any National Titles that haven’t taken place.
Boise State - The best in all the land (The "land" being Idaho, and large parts of California, Oregon, and Nevada.) Now also including Fort Worth, TX and coming soon this fall, Washington D.C.!
I thought...
…your team had only claimed a National Title that hasn’t taken place for 2009. Which other titles that haven’t taken place does Boise State claim?
And I won’t affirm or deny what others have said, but I’m not sure how much I’ve minimized Boise State’s accomplishments. I’ve spent at least as much time supporting/defending BSU as dismissing anything they’ve accomplished.
But since you’ve mentioned the behemoth that is Alabama/SEC football, as well as GobblerCountry, I’d like to point out to you what has already been mentioned here at least once. No team faces as difficult a conference schedule as an SEC team. You may or may not admit it, but unless your head is in the sand, you know it. That may explain the difference in GC’s contrite approach.
"High standards come from passion within...." --Coach Nick Saban
by NiceLittleSaturday on Jul 24, 2010 11:27 AM CDT up reply actions
Ok, I can agree with some of that... somewhat.
It is widely believed that the SEC is the most formidable DIA conference, there is no doubt about that. I would be in part of that group. At any given time there is 6-8 SEC teams ranked in the top 25. Which is why the average OOC schedule also includes the likes of Citadel or Georgia Southern or an FCS opponent of similar ilk. It is also why on the regular, SEC teams rarely , if ever, play OOC on the road or out of state. Florida, for example, hasn’t played an OOC game out of the state of Florida since 1981. So, while there may be 6-8 tough opponents, the other 4-6 are relative pushovers.
Boise State - The best in all the land (The "land" being Idaho, and large parts of California, Oregon, and Nevada.) Now also including Fort Worth, TX and coming soon this fall, Washington D.C.!
but the "pushovers" are kentucky and mississppi state
who, if they were in it, would take 2nd in the WAC to BSU this year.
also, Bama fans’ egos dont need padding. the OP was indeed factually incorrect in his assessment of the OU fiesta bowl. it was likely more due to oversight and perhaps some of memory confirmation bias but not so we bama fans can feel good about ourselves. we have 13 MNC’s for that.
for what its worth i’m in your corner, unless you cost us a slot in the BCS title game. until then, go broncos.
The beauty of The Process is that you have never arrived, so you get to continue being perpetually awesome... -Espyonage
by tempebamafan on Jul 26, 2010 12:35 PM CDT up reply actions
You won't...
…catch me defending Florida’s refusal to play OOC games out of state, but I would like to remind you that last year one of our OOC pushovers was Virginia Tech (the key to your 2010 BCS hopes), and this year we start a home-and-home with Penn State.
We also played 10 (not 6 or 8) bowl teams last year, beating teams ranked #1 and #2 when we played them and still in the top five after we administered our a$$-whoopin’s upon them.
UGA, UT, SC, Kentucky, LSU, MSU, Ole Miss, and even Auburn have played OOC games on the road and out of state in the past decade alone, so your ‘rarely, if ever’ is ill-informed at best.
Again, though, I won’t defend UF atall. Feel free to hammer them all you want.
"High standards come from passion within...." --Coach Nick Saban
by NiceLittleSaturday on Jul 28, 2010 3:32 PM CDT up reply actions
You know, when I saw this post last week
I almost wrote: ‘uh-oh: you’re about to get obnug’d’ but stupidly held it in.
I got obnug’d once…but I was in college, and I was really drunk.
"Orators are most vehement when their cause is weak" Marcus Tullius Cicero
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 19, 2010 8:07 PM CDT up reply actions
as though I had any to begin with
Being raised in an Appalachian brothel will do that.
Of course, being from Penn State, you probably already understand my lament.
/zzzzzzzing.
"Orators are most vehement when their cause is weak" Marcus Tullius Cicero
by Stuck in the Plains on Jul 20, 2010 5:09 PM CDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
