Place to read, comment about Boise St.

[Derek]

Not fair to use 2005 Boise...even Boston College beat those boys that year. Boise is 0-3 against the SEC since 2000.

Since 2000, the WAC is 2-27 against the SEC. The two wins were La Tech beating 4-8 Mississippi State and Hawaii beating 4-9 Alabama.

No WAC team, in that period, has beaten a SEC team that has had five wins.

Very good info! And point taken on 2005 Boise.

[WoVeU]

Georgia 2-0

2005: 1-0 (Boise State 48-13)
2007: 1-0 (Hawaii 40-10)

The ESPN drivel fest continues.

http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/26135/why-boise-state-10-is-not-boise-state-05

Yes, Georgia is one of the few...that 2005 game, of course, was in Georgia. The other game wasn't even with BSU...that was a forced match-up in a bowl game...not OOC regular season...so, whatever point you're making it's very weak. Add to that BSU didn't even beat Oklahoma until 1-2 years later, 2007 Fiesta...and, that schedule was made at least a year before, probably a few years before the game...so, Georgia was scheduling a minnow from the west to stomp on at home, in about 2002-2004...exactly how San Jose St. went to Alabama this season...

No it's not weak...It's exactly what's been said on this thread. That 2007 Sugar bowl pre-game was a worship fest for Colt Brennan...everyone just KNEW that being undefeated in the WAC/MAC etc was just as good as losing a game, or two, in the SEC. They were so wrong it's embarrassing.

It was not fair to build them up like that...only to put them against a team much larger and stronger than them. When the QB is on the sidelines crying, you have a problem.

That was not fair to Hawaii....they, nor Boise, belonged in either of those games.

And with the exception of Utah beating Alabama, to my knowledge, no MAC/WAC team has beaten an SEC team. If that's not true, please give me some stats.

I'm with the Dawg on this one. If your QB is crying on the sideline, and his mother isn't dead in the stands and all of his limbs are still attached, at least mostly. Then he should be banned for life from football! And the uh-hemmmm 'Warriors" should be on a10 year probation!

You guys know I will defend the under celebrated, but I was with Derek and BB all the way on that game...I knew the creamed corn was coming!

[Spence]

I didn't defend Hawaii in that game either. It was obvious to anyone that paid attention that Hawaii wasn't going to do well against Georgia. I don't think that same logic applies to Boise State. They are a much better football team. I don't think the comparision is close. I think Boise State can play anyone in the country this year. Are they the best team? - I have no idea, but I would like to see them and Auburn or Michigan State.

[WoVeU]

I didn't defend Hawaii in that game either. It was obvious to anyone that paid attention that Hawaii wasn't going to do well against Georgia. I don't think that same logic applies to Boise State. They are a much better football team. I don't think the comparision is close. I think Boise State can play anyone in the country this year. Are they the best team? - I have no idea, but I would like to see them and Auburn or Michigan State.

Yes I recalled your take as well. But BB and Derek almost had Vietnamese Triplets!

And yes, Boise State's is world's apart from that Hawaii team!

[Spence]

That is my point in this. I'm not sure anyone except maybe Jesse Palmer thought Hawaii was going to win that game. I don't think June Jones thought he was gonig to win. Hawaii struggled in several games and had to come back time after time. They didn't have any spot of defense that could buoy them in a game with another team that could play defense. It isn't fair to compare this Boise State team with that Hawaii team. There isn't much at all that makes them similar except they play in the same conference. Hawaii's team was completely dependent on what Brennan did. They counted on him to make up for the team's defensive shortcomings. Boise State is built on both an offense and a defense. They have a more complete team then lots of teams in the top ten.

[Eric]

That is my point in this. I'm not sure anyone except maybe Jesse Palmer thought Hawaii was going to win that game. I don't think June Jones thought he was gonig to win. Hawaii struggled in several games and had to come back time after time. They didn't have any spot of defense that could buoy them in a game with another team that could play defense. It isn't fair to compare this Boise State team with that Hawaii team. There isn't much at all that makes them similar except they play in the same conference. Hawaii's team was completely dependent on what Brennan did. They counted on him to make up for the team's defensive shortcomings. Boise State is built on both an offense and a defense. They have a more complete team then lots of teams in the top ten.

And that was a team that almost lost to mediocre Washington at home in the final week of the season. Hawaii also needed everything they had to get past teams like San Jose State and Louisiana Tech. Boise State is not seeming to have similar struggles at this point.

I think 2007 Hawaii could have been a lower-tier top 25 team with a bad showing in the Sugar Bowl, even though they got physically whipped. But I think that game did prove they were not a BCS worthy team, by a longshot.

[billybud]

But...and this was important, an undefeated Hawaii was ranked AP and BCS #10. And ranked so based on a fairly meaningless win-loss record.

[silverfox]

And this is important too.

That Hawaii team is not this BSU team. Thats like saying Bama is ... is... is...

Well read this:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=5725597

[Spence]

But...and this was important, an undefeated Hawaii was ranked AP and BCS #10. And ranked so based on a fairly meaningless win-loss record.

They were, but I think most people new it wasn't a good ranking. No matter who someone plays, you can get a fairly good sense of whether or not they are good. It is hard to tell exactly how good - and that is where schedule strength can help - but you can tell if they are solid or not. To me that Hawaii team wasn't a top 10-15 team. Boise State is a top 10 team. I believe even top 5. Where they fit in that top five - I don't know - but my point is that if you get a top 5 team and they are undefeated - they haven't struggled or looked bad at all, why not let them in? Most years there isn't lots of difference between the #2 and #5 teams.

[billybud]

Why? It would be OK. But not just to say..."oh, let's let these folks play for it even if they play a crappy schedule. It would make a nice story and they are good."

If another team has won as many games, beating tougher teams, I can't see why you would jump a worthier team. I believe in merit.

Boise may be good (they looked about like VT)...but if they end up playing a bunch of floozies and have an SOS of 80+ and another team wins with an SOS in the Top 25, the merit belongs to the team who had more value to its wins.

Boise may be good. That isn't the issue. Just "letting them play" in an affirmative action kind of thought while other teams have played hard and won against tough schedules is a diservice to the game.

The season will work itself out but I tire of Boise's strategy of beating a bunch of Palooka's and waiting for the BCS teams to give each other losses. Since so many of the top BCS teams do play each other weekly...there is a guarantee that one of the teams will take a loss.

While there are tough games being played every week, that is not so on Boise's schedule.

I might have more sympathy if the Broncos hadn't refused Nebraska's offer to play them. It was a two for one deal, but heck, FSU wenty to Lincoln in a two for none deal. If Boise had the Huskers on the sched this year, what a difference.

[silverfox]

It certainly is a polarized debate with not much flexibility, right.

I say... since they can't win on the field even when they do win then take em to court and shake the tree till it falls. There seems to be a lot of lemon in that thar tree. The hell with the politics lets get back to the law of the land in front of a judge and jury and lets fix this thing since it it obvious it already has fixed results.

[billybud]

I agree with you Silverfox...I think that the courts would find that merit does have a place. When affirmative action was tested in the courts...a black candidate for med school was accepted over a white contestant with higher grades, the court found that, based on merit, the white candidate should have been accepted and was thus injured in the action.

We may disagree on "merit". But I can not see a team playing 10 pansies (that if any top BCS school scheduled four of them in OOC, the media would howl) and one end ranked team getting in on merit. Not while other teams are playing four and five end ranked teams and schedules many times more difficult.

There has to be some definition of "value" to wins. Beating San Jose State, New Mexico State, Idaho, Wyoming, Toledo, La Tech, Fresno State, Nevada, and Utah State....is different than beating Mississippi State, Clemson, South Carolina, Kentucky, Arkansas, LSU, Ole Miss, Georgia, and Alabama.

[billybud]

Please Silverfox...explain it to me.

What is your reasoning that Boise, right now, should be ranked over Auburn? Or over even Missouri? Or TCU?

Auburn is undefeated, has played twice as many currently ranked teams, and has a much tougher strength of schedule...Missouri is undefeated, has more wins over currently ranked teams, and has a tougher strength of schedule.....TCU is undefeated, has one more good win than Boise, and has a comparable SOS>

[donovan]

1. Should this year's rankings be based on only games and schedules played this year? I answer yes, but that is not what happens.

2. Should Boise be penalized because they are aligned in a weak conference, weak schedule, even though the rules of the BCS rankings put them where they are. NO. If what Mr. Billybud says is correct...and I have always found it difficult to argue with his defense of schedule...then fix the system, do not penalize teams that obey the rules of the system until you repair the wrongs.

3. On the converse of this, do not reward teams that play a tough schedule and lose games. Fix the system.

4. Can the system be fixed. NO, it can not. When the foundation of something is faulty, you will never make it stable. Start over, decide what you want...if it is a National Champion...get the teams allowed to enter the "holier than thou" arena and figure out a bunch of round robin conferences, heck with geographical alignment, play the games and have some play off system of the conference winners that will have to compete with the close of the school year. Use the NFL model and have about twenty five teams competing....then Boise will not have to go to Nebraska...and why didn't they go...well...have you ever been to Nebraska..one of the states that makes Idaho look good.

[Spence]

Why? It would be OK. But not just to say..."oh, let's let these folks play for it even if they play a crappy schedule. It would make a nice story and they are good."

If another team has won as many games, beating tougher teams, I can't see why you would jump a worthier team. I believe in merit.

Boise may be good (they looked about like VT)...but if they end up playing a bunch of floozies and have an SOS of 80+ and another team wins with an SOS in the Top 25, the merit belongs to the team who had more value to its wins.

Boise may be good. That isn't the issue. Just "letting them play" in an affirmative action kind of thought while other teams have played hard and won against tough schedules is a diservice to the game.

The season will work itself out but I tire of Boise's strategy of beating a bunch of Palooka's and waiting for the BCS teams to give each other losses. Since so many of the top BCS teams do play each other weekly...there is a guarantee that one of the teams will take a loss.

While there are tough games being played every week, that is not so on Boise's schedule.

I might have more sympathy if the Broncos hadn't refused Nebraska's offer to play them. It was a two for one deal, but heck, FSU wenty to Lincoln in a two for none deal. If Boise had the Huskers on the sched this year, what a difference.

Honestly, not many that are eligible have played a much better schedule. Not Oregon. Not TCU. Only Auburn and the jury is still out on how good the SEC is this year. Is Tennessee getting better or is the SEC not as good as usual? The problem with rating schedule strength is that is also isn't an exact science. It is based on certain historical truths and where someone is ranked, whether or not they are ranked correctly. You really don't know the actual schedule strength untill all the games and bowl games are played. Then no one cares to see how right they were.