Boise State being snubbed by BCS

[winter_kills_stuff]

tell ya what "winter"...How many games did WAC teams play against teams ranked in the final BCS Top 25?

ACC teams played 31 games against teams who ended up being final ranked in the BCS Top 25...and that is the difference in SOS..

And what was their winning % against those teams? That's the point I'm making, which apparently isn't sinking in. At, or very near 50%, if you're lucky. I can use the same argument, you are making, in fact, I already have. How many ACC teams are ranked? Two? How many WAC teams are ranked? One, to my knowledge. Boise St. How does the WAC compare to the ACC. No direct comparison I'm aware of, which is why Donovan took the approach he did. All I did was take the next step, and all you did was call me a liar, which I'm not.
Just how good is your ACC? They don't impress me all that much. Use Georgia Tech as your crutch, they don't impress me that much, either. They are using an antiquated offense (one that even Air Force junked). And won a lot of games.
Impressive. Most impressive.

Boise State won all their games.

Can't do much better than that.

On the Boise Rivals Board...there are currently, 6:00pm EST, nine separate threads re BCS and being left out...I'd say that the fans are griping.

I would be upset too, if I was passed over by a mediocre VT team.

[Spence]

Boise State won all their games.

Can't do much better than that.

On the Boise Rivals Board...there are currently, 6:00pm EST, nine separate threads re BCS and being left out...I'd say that the fans are griping.

I would be upset too, if I was passed over by a mediocre VT team.

You really have to do better then "they won all their games to make an argument, because Billybuds SOS arguement is valid. My point is that Ohio State gets more props then it deserves for losing to Penn State and USC. I don't think losing to a good team - what ever the spread - proves anything. Like win Notre Dame lost to SC by a point a few years ago - it didn't prove anything. You have to look at the overall body of work and the strengths and weaknesses on a team. Not just the SOS although it is crazy to suggest that playing tough teams doesn't matter because it does.

Ohio State just plain didn't deserve the Fiesta Bowl bid. The sole reason they were chosen was that Ohio State brings television ratings and people - lots of people to the bowl games. I don't see much of a difference between Ohio State and Boise State as far as team strengths are concerned, Boise may have an edge because they are better in the trenches. In the case where two teams are relatively equal, I think the one with the better record should go. It is a matter of fairness. I have seen Ohio State play every game this year. I know that team as well as I know any other team in CFB. It is a team with a ton of lineman - both offense and defense - who just haven't developed in the last 3 to 4 years. If I thought they were a better team then Boise State I would support them being selected to the Fiesta despite the 2 losses, but they just aren't any better. They are, at best, equal. That is why I think Boise State should have gotten the bid.

Boise State didn't get passed over by Virginia Tech. The ACC has an automatic bid and Virginia Tech was the ACC champ. They were going no matter what. The teams selected to keep Boise State out were Utah, Alabama, Texas, and Ohio State. Of those teams the only one that didn't deserve their bid was Ohio State. The rest got the bid they deserved - except maybe Texas who has a legit argument for the NCG, but that is water under the bridge at this point because of the B-12 tie breaking rules clearly gave Oklahoma the nod.

[billybud]

Winter Boy.....you do not have a CLUE.

And what was their winning % against those teams? That's the point I'm making, which apparently isn't sinking in. At, or very near 50%,

No...that it isn't the point sinking in....it is that you haven't a clue. Like you probably don't know that beating an end ranked Top 25 team is a 20% chance on average (about the same as for a midmajor beating a major). Or that the entire WAC conference, over the last ten seasons, has played only three teams who were in a BCS conference and final ranked. THREE TEAMS IN TEN YEARS FOR A WHOLE CONFERENCE...

That's the bloody problem. We pretend that the WAC and the BCS conferences are playing the same football...they just aren't.

Ohio State played tougher teams..with only losses to end ranked top 5 teams...Boise would have lost those games and more.

[Jason G]

[quote="billybud"]. Like you probably don't know that beating an end ranked Top 25 team is a 20% chance on average (about the same as for a midmajor beating a major). Or that the entire WAC conference, over the last ten seasons, has played only three teams who were in a BCS conference and final ranked. THREE TEAMS IN TEN YEARS FOR A WHOLE CONFERENCE...
[quote]

Why do you specify BCS teams that were end ranked and not all teams that were ranked?

I am with Spence on this one. Ohio State and Boise State are pretty close. Even the BCS school-biased end rankings you speak so highly of say so. OSU's biggest win was Michigan State. BSU's was Oregon State. Who has the edge there? I don't know but either way it is very close. Who has the worst loss of the two? Well, since the Broncos are undefeated I guess Ohio State would have to. In my opinion, the fact that Boise State didn't play any top teams may indicate that they should get the chance over Ohio State. Ohio State had chances against two top teams and failed on both occasions, we don't know how Boise would fare. I agree that they may very well not even be as competitive as the Buckeyes were against a top level team but at least with them we don't have any proof that will happen, we've already seen it with Ohio State. I'd rather take the unknown than a negative known.

To me, given they are very close in most ranking systems, it should be about opportunity. Ohio State has had theirs and Boise hasn't. I agree that the OSUs and BSUs of the world aren't playing the same level of competition on a weekly basis (I could go on forever about why that is and what could be done but this is not the subject at hand), but, as I have pointed out many times before, there is no hard and fast rule that says because a team plays in a "not so great" conference that they can't be a very good, or even a top level, team.

Just to be clear...I wouldn't favor Boise State over a team like Texas Tech if they were the other side of the argument because they had one loss to a top team on the road and also defeated a top team along the way. With, Ohio State though it is a different story.

As far as VT getting in over Boise State...I like VT and I understand that the BCS conference champs get in automatically but I still don't necessarily understand why. If the BCS compiles rankings and they give out six auto-bids to conference champions, why don't they have a system where they go to the six highest ranked conference champs instead of the winners of six pre-designated conferences? They could then let teams from whatever conferences are left out compete for spots the way the non-BCS schools do now.

[Spence]

As far as VT getting in over Boise State...I like VT and I understand that the BCS conference champs get in automatically but I still don't necessarily understand why. If the BCS compiles rankings and they give out six auto-bids to conference champions, why don't they have a system where they go to the six highest ranked conference champs instead of the winners of six pre-designated conferences? They could then let teams from whatever conferences are left out compete for spots the way the non-BCS schools do now.

The six conferences (ACC,B-East, B-12, B-10, SEC, PAC-10) are the teams who made the BCS. They are the teams who the networks pay the big money that make the bowls work. That is why they receive automatic bids. These teams from the six major conferences already had the network deals and bowl bids sown up when the BCS was formed and without their cooperation the mid major and at large major conference teams would not even be a part of this system at all. The six conference tie ins with the major conference team are the glue that makes the system work. That is why they are automatic bids. The automatic bids are in place to make sure the money keeps flowing because these are the conferences who draw the best. It has nothing to do with strength of the conference, strength of the schedules, or anything else. If these relationships with the six major conferences dissolve then the whole bowl system dissolves. So there will always be the conference tie ins and they will probably never be the six best teams in the country.

[winter_kills_stuff]

Winter Boy.....you do not have a CLUE.

Don't patronize me. I don't like being talked down to.

And what was their winning % against those teams? That's the point I'm making, which apparently isn't sinking in. At, or very near 50%,

No...that it isn't the point sinking in....it is that you haven't a clue. Like you probably don't know that beating an end ranked Top 25 team is a 20% chance on average (about the same as for a midmajor beating a major). Or that the entire WAC conference, over the last ten seasons, has played only three teams who were in a BCS conference and final ranked. THREE TEAMS IN TEN YEARS FOR A WHOLE CONFERENCE...

I trust my facts a lot more than I trust yours, and for good reason. "end-ranked" By whom? Ranking is subjective.
Part of why WAC schools don't play BCS schools is they aren't represented by BCS bowls. Bowls, such as the Poinsettia Bowl were created, in part, so that the MWC & WAC would be represented, but this year, it serves as evidence of how unfair the whole selection process is, in my opinion.

21 Century:
ACC vs. non-BCS, in bowls: 4-4-1. That's 50%. In other words, when an ACC team plays a non-BCS school, it's a draw.

That's the bloody problem. We pretend that the WAC and the BCS conferences are playing the same football...they just aren't.

You know, for once we agree, if you are using the BCS as a model, which I assume you are, they (MWC, WAC) are playing better than the ACC. But then again, so is everyone else, so it's really nothing to brag about, 21 Century.
ACC in BCS games: 1-7 = .13
MWC/WAC in BCS: 2-1 = .67

Ohio State played tougher teams..with only losses to end ranked top 5 teams...Boise would have lost those games and more.

TCU played a comparable schedule to Ohio St. Lost by comparable margins, in key games, to good (outstanding?) teams.
I think the Poinsettia Bowl will be a fair comparision between those programs, myself. (Ohio St & Boise St). So do you.

[Spence]

Lets tone down the conversation. Tone down the attitudes. I won't make another warning on this.

[billybud]

Winter...your posts aren't sensical..your stats are wrong..I won't get trapped again into talking with someone with no clue...it, like it was with your other persona, is a fruitless task. Like trying to explain wave theory to a two year old. I will try to make an ignore button...and we'll both feel better.



Talon...history tells us that the best non BCS teams aren't competitive with the best BCS teams...

Why do you specify BCS teams that were end ranked and not all teams that were ranked?

This has been discussed ad nauseum on this board and is the subject of our longest running thread (actuallynit moves in and out of all of our threads to some extent).

But...this is the gist of it...from that thread..

Data compiled by ktffan...this is the definitive post It was current through the 2005 season, I believe.

"There's little to suggest that even the best mid-majors can compete with teams from the major conferences. While some mid-majors run through a weak schedule undefeated, they generally get left out of the BCS and justifiably so. Here are a few facts to indicate this:

Since the BCS started in 1998, mid-majors have won less then 20% of the games they've played overall when playing major conference teams.

Even at home, these mid-majors have won less then 1 in three of games played against major teams, but on the road have won less than 1 in 7.

Even the better mid-majors, ones with a winning conference record don't win a majority of the games in which the play the weaker majors, ones with a losing conference record and teams that have won mid-major championships win barely 1 in 3 games in which they play major teams.

Mid-majors that finished undefeated in their conference lost a majority of the games they played against major conference teams. These teams, in fact, lost over 1 in 3 games they played against major conference teams that finished with a .333 or less conference record.

Mid-majors that have finished ranked in the AP poll have even lost over 1/3 of their games against major teams that finished unranked or lower ranked then them. Also, mid-majors that finished ranked have only won 1 in 3 games they played against majors that finished ranked, indicating that mid-majors tend to have to do less to get ranked. "

[billybud]

But to get higher viewership, the bowl would select the team who is going to bring the most viewers, and they decided that would be VT.

Well Nope...VT is the ACC conference Champ and thus the Host in the Orange Bowl (the designated bowl for the ACC conference Champ). Doesn't matter if they bring a few or a bunch, that's where they will play until the contract with the ACC terminates.

[Spence]

To go back with what Spence is saying in a previous post, the BCS games unfortunatley are not about placing the best vs the best, except the assumption that the Title game is 1 vs 2.

Instead of comparing records, we should be looking at what the average attendence for Boise State was vs Virginia Tech, when they traveled how many fans traveled to the game, etc. From the bowl's perspective, VT will sell more seats. People who are avid VT fans will watch the game, probably a higher # than Boise State fans who will watch the game, etc.

I realize a lot of us who love college football in general would love to watch Boise State again, I caught the Oklahoma game by accident and enjoyed it, it was a great moment in college football history, one of the best bowl games i've seen. But to get higher viewership, the bowl would select the team who is going to bring the most viewers, and they decided that would be VT.

There is lots of truth in your post. It isn't so much about who would draw better - Boise State or Va Tech - It is the overall who draws better the ACC or the WAC. That is the reason all these bowl tie in deals were made in the first place. And it predates the BCS. About twelve years ago the SEC commish and the B-12 commish got together to try and create a #1 vs. #2 championship game, something that would rarely occur in the old system. The B-East and the ACC jumped on the idea quickly, but because the Rose Bowl was such a lucrative deal for the B-10 and PAC-10 they were late to join the party. Both wanted to make sure it was in their best interests. So for a couple of years we had a pre BCS system (I can't remember the name, but I'm sure someone here knows it) then when the B-10 and PAC- 10 joined it was called the Bowl Championship Series or BCS. For all of these six conferences to agree to be in it, they needed automatic bids to be sure their schools #1 tie in would always be theirs - thus assuring the one big payout to their conference. Without this assurance these schools would not be a part of the system, they would make their own deals, and they have the pull to get that done. So the BCS function was to bring together #1 and #2 without leaving any of the six BCS conferences out of the big payday. The BCS wasn't set up with the midmajor teams in mind at all. They only recently have secured at large positions if they meet certain standards - standards the major conference teams do not have to meet. The BCS was not set up with fairness to all in mind. It was set up as a way to maximize the payout to the six major conferences and create a championship game to create an even bigger money game. Much the same way that some conferences have done with their championship game.

I do believe that with the adding of two more at large teams that the BCS should pick from the two remaining spots the most deserving teams instead of the most lucrative match ups. The BCS has a chance to find out if the mid major teams can play with their peers in the major conferences. (as much as any of us think we know the answer to that question we simply do not) Texas-Boise State may not pull the overall ratings that Texas and Ohio State pull, but it is the only game on that night so it couldn't draw much worse. All the tickets would be sold out in either game, so why not let Boise State in if they are the most deserving or even equally deserving? If Boise State and Utah compete well in those games (win or lose) then we would have reason to look at them more closely when handing out championship bids. As it stands now we have no desire to see if they are as good. We look at Hawaii -Georgia last year instead of Oklahoma-Boise St. or Utah - Pitt as proof that the middies can compete. We would rather keep the pile of money instead of find out. We should invite them to the party, see what happens. Then make adjustments accordingly. Not keep the door closed and act like we have any clue as to who can compete and who cannot.

[billybud]

Yeah Spence..but maybe you don't just pick one good year...

Sure I remember Boise and Oklahoma in 2006...But also Boise losing to East Carolina in the bowl last year as well. And losing to Boston College in the bowl in 2005, and losing to Louisville in the bowl the year before that.

Utah has had an amazing bowl record..and I think that this year, they deserved to go...they played a tougher schedule than Boise, were undefeated...and, they have won their last SEVEN bowl games. Utah has a tough match...but I am glad that they have the shot ton strut their stuff this year...

Between Boise and Utah...I'd take Utah to go to the big game. Not because they are a better team than Boise, but because they give us more to make that decision.

[Spence]

But the question isn't whether Utah or Boise State should go, it is whether Utah and Boise State should go.

I understand your point completely, my point is that a mid major team - any mid major team - isn't going to have a run of years where they are going to compete with a major program #1 team. They may have a single year. It was obvious that Hawaii wasn't that good last year, just by watching them play and I'm not for putting a team like that in just because they won all their games. That would be silly, just as silly as looking at a team who mostly dominated their competition this year and saying they don't have a shot.

Ktfan's facts are good. He is usually dead on with his comparisions and far be it for me to dispute them. What his facts didn't tell us was how many mid major #1's played major #1's and how they did. That is the equation that is missing, largely because the major #1's do not want games with mid major #1's that early in the season because they could be upset and because most mid major #1's (at least their AD's) are afraid that their bubble bursts if they can't compete. We need to get these people playing each other in the regular season and all that unfairness goes away.

[billybud]

If you don't play good teams, you will have a better record (and Boise schedules to have a gaudy win record). Heck, TCU is more deserving than Boise, in my mind, since they only lost two games, to #1 Oklahoma and #8 Utah.

Explain me this Spence...Why should Texas Tech at 11-1 and #7 in the BCS (only loss to #1 Oklahoma) not go to a BCS Bowl while Boise does?

Texas Tech is going to the Texas Bowl...and they won almost as many games as Boise, are ranked in the BCS higher than Boise, played three teams in the final BCS Top 15 and only lost to Oklahoma.

Boise has decided that if they can maximize their schedule so that they can have a reasonable chance to run the table, than they have good odds to get to a BCS bowl. Not a bad strategy, if Utah had lost a game, it would have worked for them this year. Utah also ran the table and had a toughere schedule, so they ended up higher in the rankings and got the bowl.

[RazorHawk]

If you don't play good teams, you will have a better record (and Boise schedules to have a gaudy win record). Heck, TCU is more deserving than Boise, in my mind, since they only lost two games, to #1 Oklahoma and #8 Utah.

Explain me this Spence...Why should Texas Tech at 11-1 and #7 in the BCS (only loss to #1 Oklahoma) not go to a BCS Bowl while Boise does?

Texas Tech is going to the Texas Bowl...and they won almost as many games as Boise, are ranked in the BCS higher than Boise, played three teams in the final BCS Top 15 and only lost to Oklahoma.

Boise has decided that if they can maximize their schedule so that they can have a reasonable chance to run the table, than they have good odds to get to a BCS bowl. Not a bad strategy, if Utah had lost a game, it would have worked for them this year. Utah also ran the table and had a toughere schedule, so they ended up higher in the rankings and got the bowl.

That makes perfect sense to me.

[Spence]

If you don't play good teams, you will have a better record (and Boise schedules to have a gaudy win record). Heck, TCU is more deserving than Boise, in my mind, since they only lost two games, to #1 Oklahoma and #8 Utah.

Explain me this Spence...Why should Texas Tech at 11-1 and #7 in the BCS (only loss to #1 Oklahoma) not go to a BCS Bowl while Boise does?

Texas Tech is going to the Texas Bowl...and they won almost as many games as Boise, are ranked in the BCS higher than Boise, played three teams in the final BCS Top 15 and only lost to Oklahoma.

Boise has decided that if they can maximize their schedule so that they can have a reasonable chance to run the table, than they have good odds to get to a BCS bowl. Not a bad strategy, if Utah had lost a game, it would have worked for them this year. Utah also ran the table and had a toughere schedule, so they ended up higher in the rankings and got the bowl.

Why should Texas Tech ranked #7 not make it? For the same reason any BCS team that won their conference, but it ranked lower then others will make it. The rules state that you can't have three teams in the BCS in any single year. That makes perfect sense to me, because how do we know that the B-12 is better then the ACC? We don't so the ACC should get their conference champ in to represent. What if every team in the B-12 isn't as good as their record made them look this year? That is just as possible as the ACC being a bunch of middling teams or that they are a bunch of good teams in a very deep conference. We won't know until the bowls are played and compare the competition. My point is the same as with Boise State. You don't know if they are good enough to beat Texas or Oklahoma or Florida or Alabama and I don't either. Historical arguments only take you so far. Compare Ohio State's overall winning record and their winning percentage against Florida State's and history would tell you that Florida State probably doesn't beat Ohio State. Compare head to head and history will tell you something different. Compare this year and ..........well we really can't compare this year now can we. We can try after the bowl game with Wisconsin, but win or lose, that won't tell us anything either because the match ups would be completely different. Wisconsin is built very different then Ohio State.

I agree that teams should have to prove themselves. I just don't think the powers that be want to let it happen. I don't know why we hold that against Boise State, but give Ohio State the benefit of the doubt when it comes to schedule. Ohio State's overall wins aren't much better then Boise State's. You can bring up Northwestern and Michigan State if you want, but they aren't as good as most think. Michigan State is much improved the last couple of years, but they aren't a good team yet. They have a spotty offensive line and a QB who isn't very good. Their defense is very spotty and can't stop a QB who has any mobility at all. Give them two options on play action and they will pick the wrong one every time.

Northwestern isn't good at all. Period