Boise State? Fuck That! Stanford Is Going To Win BCS TItle

[Grizalltheway]

Boise is the best team and it isn't even close. They will 2 hole any team they play, much like Utah did Alabama 2 years ago.

Boise State would never beat Ohio State or Alabama.

You probably thought the same thing before they beat Oklahoma.

[clenz]

Boise State would never beat Ohio State or Alabama.

You probably thought the same thing before they beat Oklahoma.

Boise State has proven they can beat any team in the nation with a month and a half to draw up a new scheme for the game (BSU's coaches are AMAZING at that), and that they can beat anyone with an entire off season to prepare.

I want it to be proven they can compete on that level every single week.

[DJH]

Boise is the best team and it isn't even close. They will 2 hole any team they play, much like Utah did Alabama 2 years ago.

Boise State would never beat Ohio State or Alabama.

What a stupid thing to say.

When's the last time Boise lost a big game?

[Grizalltheway]

You probably thought the same thing before they beat Oklahoma.

Boise State has proven they can beat any team in the nation with a month and a half to draw up a new scheme for the game (BSU's coaches are AMAZING at that), and that they can beat anyone with an entire off season to prepare.

I want it to be proven they can compete on that level every single week.

[SuperHornet]

I want it to be proven they can compete on that level every single week.

You're dipping into the B(C)$ elitists' bag of tricks there, clenzy.

They're in a weak conference, so they're told they have to schedule up in OOC. But nobody accepts their offer. Yet that is held against them. The one time a near-elite-level team gives them a shot, the elitists try to take it away because that team "just happened" to go into free-fall.

They're trying, clenzy. The elitists are trying to have their cake and eat it, too, and all the while you're enabling them.

[BlueHen86]

I want it to be proven they can compete on that level every single week.

You're dipping into the B(C)$ elitists' bag of tricks there, clenzy.

They're in a weak conference, so they're told they have to schedule up in OOC. But nobody accepts their offer. Yet that is held against them. The one time a near-elite-level team gives them a shot, the elitists try to take it away because that team "just happened" to go into free-fall.

They're trying, clenzy. The elitists are trying to have their cake and eat it, too, and all the while you're enabling them.

Exactly. The system is rigged against teams like Boise and TCU. Either have a playoff or hold Boise to the same standard that you hold everyone else. SEC, Big 10 and Big 12 schools rarely fall in the polls after a win, that isn't the case with Boise.

[clenz]

They fell in the polls to an Orgeon team that beat a top 10 Stanford team and kicked their ass doing it.

[DJH]

Oh yeah, I remember Oregon. Boise kicked their ass last year. And the year before that.

[BlueHen86]

Oh yeah, I remember Oregon. Boise kicked their ass last year. And the year before that.

According to clenz that doesn't count. Boise needs to beat Stanford if they want to get recognized in the polls.

[JALMOND]

Oh yeah, I remember Oregon. Boise kicked their ass last year. And the year before that.

According to clenz that doesn't count. Boise needs to beat Stanford if they want to get recognized in the polls.

That won't count either. In the eyes of Duck fans, that would just show how overrated Stanford was.

I've been rehashing this topic (Oregon leapfrogging Boise in the polls) all week with Duck fans (I am currently not too popular with them). My main take on this is twofold; one, no team should lose a spot in any poll by winning on the road 59-0. And two, no FBS team with New Mexico and Portland State on the schedule should use the fallacy of "Well, they don't play anyone" as an excuse.

Some other things I've heard...

"We're better than Boise because we just beat what was the #9 team in the nation"---Virginia Tech was #9 when Boise beat them.

"If Boise was truly a top 5 team, they would have scored 60 last week. Oregon has scored over 60 in two games. How many times has Boise scored 60 this year?"

"If Boise wants to play with the big boys, let them join the Pac-10"---From a conference that took Colorado (and almost took Texas), Boise will never get an invitation from the Pac-10.

And from last year...

"Head to head doesn't matter. Right now we are so much better than Boise because we are undefeated in the Pac-10 and we could beat Boise if we played right now"---Huh ?

Montana fans, why do you want to join this fiasco? Substitute "Boise" with "Montana" and you'll have the same thing because the Pac-10 will not be banging down your door to play you any time soon. They would rather play New Mexico and Portland State and say how YOU don't play anyone.

[Wedgebuster]

They will throw Boise and TCU together in a meaningless bowell again, but in a different city. It will be touted as a "Great And Exciting Rematch" of last years Bowell. Meanwhile, other teams will be paired with BCS conference opponents, including the "BCS Championship Game"

Saves the BCS the potential embarassment of losing two BCS Bowell games to non-BCS teams.

You heard it here first..

[clenz]

Oh yeah, I remember Oregon. Boise kicked their ass last year. And the year before that.

According to clenz that doesn't count. Boise needs to beat Stanford if they want to get recognized in the polls.

Wrong.

I think Boise is a great team, I've given there staff all the credit in the world for the schemes they come up with. I have a hard time giving them as much credit as they may deserve because of the WAC. I know they can't help who they play, and they have tried to play bigger name teams. I get all of that. I would like to see them prove they can bring the energy they bring to the bowl games, or the season opening games against the big conference teams, every week playing a top 10 or 20 team almost every week or every other week.

[BlueHen86]

According to clenz that doesn't count. Boise needs to beat Stanford if they want to get recognized in the polls.

Wrong.

I think Boise is a great team, I've given there staff all the credit in the world for the schemes they come up with. I have a hard time giving them as much credit as they may deserve because of the WAC. I know they can't help who they play, and they have tried to play bigger name teams. I get all of that. I would like to see them prove they can bring the energy they bring to the bowl games, or the season opening games against the big conference teams, every week playing a top 10 or 20 team almost every week or every other week.

I understand what you are saying, but I refuse to put the onus on Boise St. Boise is a victim of a system where the "haves" try to oppress the "have nots". The fairest solution is a playoff where every conference is guaranteed an AQ. In the mean time we are stuck with the BCS and I'd love to see Boise stick it to the BCS teams.

[SuperHornet]

I, too, don't understand how you can hold Boise responsible for the scaredy-cat-ness of those in the $$.

It's not bloody fair. In fact, the latest SI cited a lawsuit in the works over this.

[Shellin]

The article that this comes from is ESPN Insider but Ted Miller does a good job posting the summary of the findings http://espn.go.com/blog/pac10/post/_/id ... undefeated in his Pac-10 blog. I do take any mathematical description of sports with a grain of salt, but it still is a very interesting conclusion, that it would be equally as difficult for Boise to go 36-0 as it would be for Oregon to go 12-0.

Oregon should have jumped Boise, since at this point of this season they look more impressive. If Oregon continues to dominate everyone in their path, then they should jump Ohio State and maybe Alabama as well (though I think Bama will continue to look impressive enough to hold onto #1). Polls in the early season are often about what a team did the previous year, but as the season progresses they should be entirely about this season, and the fact remains that up to this point, no team has looked as impressive as Oregon other than Alabama.

It sucks for Boise, but if there are multiple undefeated teams at the end of the season, BSU should (and will) be left out of the championship game. The other teams would have proven more in 2010 than the Broncos did, especially if those undefeated teams are some combination of Ohio State, Alabama and Oregon (I think even the likes of Arizona or Oklahoma would be more deserving of the title shot, based entirely upon the 2010 season, than Boise if either of them managed to run the table, though I doubt that will happen).

[clenz]

Let's not forget, BSU's big win of the season isn't looking all that impressive anymore. The more VaTech struggles, the more it hurts BSU

[BlueHen86]

Let's not forget, BSU's big win of the season isn't looking all that impressive anymore. The more VaTech struggles, the more it hurts BSU

Va Tech isn't exactly struggling right now, they have won 3 in a row.

[JALMOND]

John Lund on his show today on 95.5 The Game in Portland made an interesting point, one that really riled up the Duck fans. He pointed out that, while it is pretty much a given that Oregon would have passed Boise later, that right now was not the time. He said that wins over Virginia Tech and Oregon State are better than wins over New Mexico and Portland State and added to it was the idea that Boise has a road win to the tune of 59-0 last week, while Oregon did struggle at home. Duck fans bombarded the show with all the usual crap of Boise couldn't go undefeated in the Pac-10, yet Lund said that may be the case, but right now, Boise State has played a tougher schedule than Oregon and, with both undefeated, Oregon should not have jumped over Boise this week, but that it is a given that Oregon would have jumped Boise sometime. Reluctantly, I have to agree with this logic.

[Screamin_Eagle174]

Wish I had seen this thread last week. Nice fail Travis.

I would love to see BSU and Oregon this year. Oregon looks like a real title contender, so does Boise.

[nwFL Griz]

They will throw Boise and TCU together in a meaningless bowell again, but in a different city. It will be touted as a "Great And Exciting Rematch" of last years Bowell. Meanwhile, other teams will be paired with BCS conference opponents, including the "BCS Championship Game"

Saves the BCS the potential embarassment of losing two BCS Bowell games to non-BCS teams.

You heard it here first..

Not necessarily. A new provision in the BCS rules is that if in the same year (starting this year thru 2014), there is a non-AQ that earns an auto bid, and the Rose Bowl loses either the Big10 or Pac10 to the BCS Champ, they must select the non-AQ. Meaning, if either Oregon or Ohio St make the title game, the Rose must select Boise St (or TCU, or Utah...whichever is the auto non-AQ).

[JALMOND]

They will throw Boise and TCU together in a meaningless bowell again, but in a different city. It will be touted as a "Great And Exciting Rematch" of last years Bowell. Meanwhile, other teams will be paired with BCS conference opponents, including the "BCS Championship Game"

Saves the BCS the potential embarassment of losing two BCS Bowell games to non-BCS teams.

You heard it here first..

Not necessarily. A new provision in the BCS rules is that if in the same year (starting this year thru 2014), there is a non-AQ that earns an auto bid, and the Rose Bowl loses either the Big10 or Pac10 to the BCS Champ, they must select the non-AQ. Meaning, if either Oregon or Ohio St make the title game, the Rose must select Boise St (or TCU, or Utah...whichever is the auto non-AQ).

The Rose Bowl has always had that provision. The thing is the non-AQ they would select would usually be the second team from one of the BCS conferences, thus excluding Boise, TCU and Utah from the Rose Bowl. The Rose Bowl demanded this when the BCS was first formed, saying they wanted to preserve their Big 10/Pac-10 matchup. If they lose the conference champ to the title game, they then look to see if there is a second team from the Pac-10 or the Big 10 that gets the non-AQ. If there is none, then they look at the others, usually taking the second team from the Big 12 or the SEC over a team from the non-BCS. I'll have to do some research to see if that has changed. Is there a link?

[GrizFanStuckInUtah]

Montana fans, why do you want to join this fiasco? Substitute "Boise" with "Montana" and you'll have the same thing because the Pac-10 will not be banging down your door to play you any time soon. They would rather play New Mexico and Portland State and say how YOU don't play anyone.

The more I think about it and the longer it drags on, the more I don't think we want to be part of it. I am afraid it is going to happen but I sure hope it doesn't. I will still be a Griz fan but don't want to be part of the WAC mess.

[nwFL Griz]

Not necessarily. A new provision in the BCS rules is that if in the same year (starting this year thru 2014), there is a non-AQ that earns an auto bid, and the Rose Bowl loses either the Big10 or Pac10 to the BCS Champ, they must select the non-AQ. Meaning, if either Oregon or Ohio St make the title game, the Rose must select Boise St (or TCU, or Utah...whichever is the auto non-AQ).

The Rose Bowl has always had that provision. The thing is the non-AQ they would select would usually be the second team from one of the BCS conferences, thus excluding Boise, TCU and Utah from the Rose Bowl. The Rose Bowl demanded this when the BCS was first formed, saying they wanted to preserve their Big 10/Pac-10 matchup. If they lose the conference champ to the title game, they then look to see if there is a second team from the Pac-10 or the Big 10 that gets the non-AQ. If there is none, then they look at the others, usually taking the second team from the Big 12 or the SEC over a team from the non-BCS. I'll have to do some research to see if that has changed. Is there a link?

No, you are confusing two issues. The provision starting this year, is about teams from non-AQ conferences that gain an Auto bid. Here's the wording from the BCS rules:

"For the games of January 2011 through 2014, the first year the Rose Bowl loses a team to the NCG and a team from the non-AQ group is an automatic qualifier, that non-AQ team will play in the Rose Bowl."

The non-AQ group includes: champion of Conference USA, the Mid-American Conference, the Mountain West Conference, the Sun Belt Conference, or the Western Athletic Conference.

Full story: http://www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=4819597