Place to read, comment about Boise St.

[silverfox]

If Boise State is in the NCG, I wouldn't have a problem with that. I don't want Boise State and TCU - we have seen that game and it doesn't prove anything. Boise State and Oklahoma, Oregon, Iowa, or Alabama would all be alright with me. I am interested in a Boise State matchup with the top major whoever it is.

agreed

That would surely please Boise State. Oklahoma would be a bit uncertain (wounds of the gadget play in the Fiesta) -- regardless of how anybody might think concerning how BSU beat them. If you study the stats of that game you see that Boise state pummeled the Oklahoma Defense. Everybody expected Oklahoma to pile up points against Boise State but nobody - especially Oklahoma - expected to see Boise State pile up points against Oklahoma. In the end the highest score won. I still believe this is the reason for the TCU vs. Boise State match-up by the BCS last season -- because they didn't want to be possibly embarrassed by the unknown. Every knows everybody else in the power conferences but Boise State is an unknown to them and they can't figure out the BSU coaching system. Better to keep BSU unknown than give them any credibility by allowing them to possibly embarrass another power conference team. A return match-up with Oklahoma would be very interesting, indeed.

Boise State's team this year is better than that year and arguably so is Oklahoma so it would be a good game. A game against Oregon would be catastrophic for the Ducks as they are still recovering from last year's beating by Boise State and Boise State has largely the exact same team that will be two season's more experie3nced than the team that beat them up last year. Iowa is up in the air -- but the best game of all would be a match up with Alabama. The only point of comparison is actually playing San Jose State this year and the edge goes to Boise State -- so it would be a dream come true match-up.

[Derek]

I think it's a self-perpetuating cycle anyway. Boise State can't really recruit against the likes of UCLA, USC, and Texas because of their non-BCS status and then they get criticized for not having the roster capable of "lasting" in a BCS conference. If they played in a BCS conference they would probably be better off. Or better yet, eradicate the artificial barriers to entry of being in a "BCS conference."

I agree 100%....but they won't play in a BCS conference...and if they did, they would not be undefeated. I just wish someone would finally admit that.

They do NOT play the level of competition like the SEC does on 8 out of 11 weeks each team plays.

[Eric]

I think it's a self-perpetuating cycle anyway. Boise State can't really recruit against the likes of UCLA, USC, and Texas because of their non-BCS status and then they get criticized for not having the roster capable of "lasting" in a BCS conference. If they played in a BCS conference they would probably be better off. Or better yet, eradicate the artificial barriers to entry of being in a "BCS conference."

I agree 100%....but they won't play in a BCS conference...and if they did, they would not be undefeated. I just wish someone would finally admit that.

They do NOT play the level of competition like the SEC does on 8 out of 11 weeks each team plays.

Sure. That is speculation, but even granting them that, the way the system is set up to funnel recruits to power programs makes it so that the odds are stacked against them. If that's the case, then it's absolutely unfair to ask of Boise State to "get through" a BCS conference. The BCS defenders say, "okay so Boise can't play with the 'big boys' [hypothetically], so therefore they can't play for all the marbles ever." That's just propagating the reason why they "can't" play with the big boys in the first place.

My prime examples of how this BCS conference system operates is UConn, USF, and Cincinnati. UConn was transitioning from the 1-AA level. They had been an independent for a few years and with Dan Orlovsky, they had a superstar to build around (but they were still playing at the level of a non-BCS team). The Big East comes calling and all of a sudden they have much more access to recruits. USF had always been a middling C-USA team that was never in bowl contention. Now they can compete somewhat with the likes of Miami and Florida State (at least in the last few years). Cincinnati again had only been to one bowl game over the span of a few years in C-USA, Brian Kelly takes over what Dantonio built upon, and then they wind up in two straight BCS games. Had Cincinnati remained in C-USA with Dantonio and Kelly coaching in the span of a few years, you can't tell me with a straight face that they would be competing at a BCS level.

[Spence]

That is exactly right Eric. I also don't here lots of people from Boise State claiming they could go undefeated in a BCS conference currently. My contention, though, is that they have the program in place right now to adapt pretty quickly. Yes, they go undefeated because the play competition that isn't as good as they are on a consistent basis. If they were in a BCS conference they would not win every year, but based on the program in place, they would still win.

[billybud]

Nobody is talking about the value of wins.....

BCS...non BCS,,,it's winning against GOOD competition.

Sure, FSU wasn't in a power conference...finally won a NC in 1993, their second year in the ACC. I don't have much sympathy for the whiners playing a weak, weak schedule and crying "we deserve to play because we are undefeated."

You know..if FSU hadn't scheduled Florida and Miami in OOC every year and had scheduled fluff in their place...FSU would have been undefeated in these years where the only loss was to one of these teams...

1987...1988...1991...1992...1994...1996...1997...2000

Being undefeated is just judicious scheduling.

[Eric]

Nobody is talking about the value of wins.....

BCS...non BCS,,,it's winning against GOOD competition.

Sure, FSU wasn't in a power conference...finally won a NC in 1993, their second year in the ACC. I don't have much sympathy for the whiners playing a weak, weak schedule and crying "we deserve to play because we are undefeated."

You know..if FSU hadn't scheduled Florida and Miami in OOC every year and had scheduled fluff in their place...FSU would have been undefeated in these years where the only loss was to one of these teams...

1987...1988...1991...1992...1994...1996...1997...2000

Being undefeated is just judicious scheduling.

Of course the nature of the game has changed. The BCS has enacted a "barrier to entry" of sorts that artificially separates power conferences from non-power conferences. Being and independent in the 70's and 80's is different than it is today. Penn State was an independent as well. Same for Miami, South Carolina, Virginia Tech, etc. I don't know, why is it that Kent State and UL Lafayette can't grow in football power in the state of the sport today? Just not trying hard enough?

I'm not saying that all these schools would instantly compete. There is an obvious money and funding factor to take into account. But virtually all of the BCS conference teams in today's landscape are competitive on a national scale. Even the worst teams such as Duke, Kansas, Vanderbilt, and Washington State would compete for bowl spots in non-BCS conferences. Whereas in the non-BCS conferences, only a handful of teams could compete, even mildly compete, in BCS conferences (probably limited to Boise State, Utah, TCU, Air Force, Nevada, Hawaii, Navy, Temple, Troy, Northern Illinois, ECU, Southern Miss, a healthy Houston, and Fresno State and this is out of a group of about 60 teams).

If a program like Boise entered into a deal with the Pac-10, their prestige as a university and recruiting base would expand and excel. Without the artificial barrier of having the label of "BCS conference" slapped onto a selective group of teams, you would see more Florida States and Miamis rise out of the dust and ashes. It would be a more fair system, anyway, than a group of school presidents and NCAA bureaucrats determining which schools are going to wind up with preferential treatment.

[Eric]

Point is, Billybud, you're describing the symptoms and not addressing the syndrome. If you continue to do that, the cycle will continue and Boise State probably doesn't have a chance at advancing beyond this ceiling until they start hauling in 5 star recruits, or at least have access to 5 star recruits via national perception.

[RazorHawk]

What everyone seems to forget, when complaining about the unfairness of the BCS, is that prior to the BCS and in the old bowl format, Boise St or any mid major could go 12-0 every year and the best bowl they were going to get was on the blue turf in the Humanitarian Bowl. Most every major bowl had two tie-ins with the major conferences.

[Eric]

What everyone seems to forget, when complaining about the unfairness of the BCS, is that prior to the BCS and in the old bowl format, Boise St or any mid major could go 12-0 every year and the best bowl they were going to get was on the blue turf in the Humanitarian Bowl. Most every major bowl had two tie-ins with the major conferences.

I agree with that. I think it suffers from the same problem as the BCS. You still had your designated power conferences. But the influence that being a BCS conference wields would probably change the way the game is played today. If you made it so that the Mountain West would become a BCS conference tomorrow, I would bet the farm that TCU would, talent-wise and respect-wise, rise to the level of a Texas in a matter of time. Instead, they are treated in-state like the little brother and have to compete for 3-star scraps.

If you wanted to retain the BCS system, I think I'd just eradicate the automatic bids. You could still have rules about not having more than two teams per conference I think. But the criticisms that Donovan has leveled over the years are very valid. Half of the FBS is pretty much excluded from the dance and has slim to nada chance of ever getting to a level where they can be fed the scraps of getting a solitary BCS bid and nothing more.

[silverfox]

Just a note, Billybud, it is not the team "whining" as you would put it. Fans yes, but i actually see far more fans from the power conferences whining about Boise State while playing the "What If" game, than I see Boise State fans whining.

Actually it is more the media hype than anything.

The coaches and players are focused on one week at a time. One opponent at a time and they choose to stay with that strategy until Dec. 6.

Fact is because of that strategy is why Boise State does well. If they are Playing San Jose they organize and practice just for San Jose. They don't care4 about anyone else other than San Jose. But -- if they are playing Oklahoma then they focus only on Oklahoma and not anyone else. In other words they understand each level of competition whether they are a bottom dweller or a Top Feeder.

But never call the program itself a "whiner" -- because, it makes you look like you are whining, yourself, just because the rules might actually let them (remote as it really is) get a shot. You just want to prosecute your case before the evidence is in.

[Spence]

I have never heard Boise State coaches whine about their position in the system. I have heard considerable whining from lots of BCS conference schools about not making the championship game.

[Cane from the Bend]

My prime examples of how this BCS conference system operates is UConn, USF, and Cincinnati. UConn was transitioning from the 1-AA level. They had been an independent for a few years and with Dan Orlovsky, they had a superstar to build around (but they were still playing at the level of a non-BCS team). The Big East comes calling and all of a sudden they have much more access to recruits. USF had always been a middling C-USA team that was never in bowl contention. Now they can compete somewhat with the likes of Miami and Florida State (at least in the last few years). Cincinnati again had only been to one bowl game over the span of a few years in C-USA, Brian Kelly takes over what Dantonio built upon, and then they wind up in two straight BCS games. Had Cincinnati remained in C-USA with Dantonio and Kelly coaching in the span of a few years, you can't tell me with a straight face that they would be competing at a BCS level.

USF , UConn & Cincinnati built up alright... just like Louisville did.

All of them joined the Big East with momentum coming in.
All of them did well after joining.

However, none of them are much to talk about, now that they have been in the Big East for a sufficient amount of time.

UConn, can't get out of the starters on a weekly basis.

So Fla is dwindling over a cliff. They pulled a tight win off over fsu last year during a seminoles down/restructuring year, but got trounced by Miami. They lost to the gators this year... they haven't proven their worth in their own conference, let alone the state of Florida.

Louisville, who was supposed to legitimize the Big East when joining, now is struggling to get back to average... It's as Spence said, back when the Cardinals joined the Big East; "Louisville is one of those teams who will come up and make a lot of noise for a year or two, and then go back to being what they are."... he posted that, the off season before Louisville joined the Big East ... he was dead on.

And, Cincinnati, who ran the Conference over the last two seasons, is trying to maintain a .500 year, just hoping they'll be able to make a post season appearance.

Yea, I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you here.

Those above mentioned programs have all peaked, and faded with an automatic qualifier conference status.

Eric, you so often put heavy emphasis on that auto bid. It was your contention as to why the Big East would build itself back up; and its new members would be national contenders.

Instead, they all have been disappointing... they've not lived up to the hype.

If the prestige of being in an automatic qualifying league was the end all, be all of college football; then the Big East would have had another horse to help tow the reins , right along side of West Virginia by now.

Cinci was close, but are dangling over the abyss... ready to drop to where Louisville fell to,if they don't get it together.

Baylor, Duke, Indiana, and Washington St all play in the confines of and auto bid conference, yet, they would all get housed on a yearly basis verses Boise St.

Temple had the luxury of a BCS qualifying conference, but got dumped, because they couldn't compete in either game time performance, or in the recruiting field.

It takes more than just being in a BCS conference to make your team relevant enough to compete for the best potential players.

.

.

.

[Spence]

I agree cane. It takes a plan. A school can't just build a team, they have to build a program.

[Cane from the Bend]

Yep;

Consistency, is one of the biggest draws.

Unless you can sell that to a recruit, you've got nothing.

.

.

.

[Eric]

Cane, that misses the point of what I was saying. Sure the Big East is down as a conference right now. But the point is that all of those teams miraculously got good upon entering the Big East? Cincy, USF, and Uconn did nothing worth noting prior to joining and then all of a sudden USF can go into Auburn and win and beat Florida State in Doak Campbell? Cincinnati can run the gauntlet? Please don't tell me that they could accomplish this while playing in C-USA.

Louisville's issue was Kragthorpe. I agree with Spence that it isn't an issue of "end-all-be-all", but it is a very important factor. Had Petrino stayed, he probably could have morphed Louisville into a national title contender while being in the Big East. I doubt he would have had that luxury in C-USA as well. Very few teams have been able to do this the hard way, Boise State, Utah, and TCU being the only ones that come to mind out of a pool of 60 teams.

Again, it goes back to my question to Billybud. What is it? Is it that UConn, Cincy, and USF weren't trying hard enough when they members of inferior conferences? You talk about Baylor and Wazzu getting smashed by Boise State, and that is very true. They probably would. But you're picking the best representative of the 60 non-AQ's and using that to prove your point about all AQ's having equal access to talent and notoriety. Washington State beat SMU, who was a bowl team last season, and almost beat SMU this year and we all realize how horrible Wazzu is relative to the rest of the Pac-10. On a national scale, very few non-BCS schools are as good as Duke and Vanderbilt.