Boise State being snubbed by BCS

[Derek]

I believe Lane Kiffin will do an alright job, but he's not a guy that will take the Vols to the next level. You can expect plenty of Music City Bowls and Outback Bowls, and I don't know that will be taken in Knoxville

No it will not. After 2 years, if Tenn is not in the SEC Championship game again, there will be talk of him "leaving". Tenn fans, my brother is one of em, are just like that.

[WoVeU]

I believe Lane Kiffin will do an alright job, but he's not a guy that will take the Vols to the next level. You can expect plenty of Music City Bowls and Outback Bowls, and I don't know that will be taken in Knoxville

No it will not. After 2 years, if Tenn is not in the SEC Championship game again, there will be talk of him "leaving". Tenn fans, my brother is one of em, are just like that.

Rather ungrounded people with high expectations and short on patience! I know the type...around home we call them Mountaineer Fans!

[winter_kills_stuff]

But...I will be first to state that the ACC has not been competitive in the BCS bowls (if that is what you mean....you weren't very specific)...they won a national championship in '99 and took Penn State to triple OT in '05...and those are the high spots.

I'm not suggesting the ACC isn't competitive. They clearly are.
You suggested that a .75 winning % OOC, against non-BCS teams made all non-BCS teams uncompetitive, which in my mind, it doesn't. It suggests, fairly definitively the ACC is superior to most non-BCS teams, 75% anyway. But simply because the numbers favor the ACC doesn't mean that every team is going to lose, in fact, 25% won't, on average.

[billybud]

NO...winning at a 25% rate doesn't mean that every team is going to lose...just that three out of four teams did..and in most folks' books losing three of every four games just isn't being competitive.

The Non BCS teams beat BCS teams at about the same rate that FCS teams beat IA non BCS teams...actually, the FCS is slightly more competitive with non BCS IA teams than the non BCS teams have been with BCS conference teams.

[RazorHawk]

NO...winning at a 25% rate doesn't mean that every team is going to lose...just that three out of four teams did..and in most folks' books losing three of every four games just isn't being competitive.

The Non BCS teams beat BCS teams at about the same rate that FCS teams beat IA non BCS teams...actually, the FCS is slightly more competitive with non BCS IA teams than the non BCS teams have been with BCS conference teams.

Wait a minute. So what you are trying to say is that winning 3 games out of 4, is better than winning 1 game out of 4? I need to think about that.

[Spence]

NO...winning at a 25% rate doesn't mean that every team is going to lose...just that three out of four teams did..and in most folks' books losing three of every four games just isn't being competitive.

The Non BCS teams beat BCS teams at about the same rate that FCS teams beat IA non BCS teams...actually, the FCS is slightly more competitive with non BCS IA teams than the non BCS teams have been with BCS conference teams.

Wait a minute. So what you are trying to say is that winning 3 games out of 4, is better than winning 1 game out of 4? I need to think about that.

It isn't true anyway. Ohio State won 11 out of 12 and 12 out of 12 the year before, then lost the two bowl games and they are bottom feeders on the national scene. No one talks about the four or five teams that choked down the stretch last year to put Ohio State in that game.

[billybud]

Wait a minute. So what you are trying to say is that winning 3 games out of 4, is better than winning 1 game out of 4? I need to think about that.

No where did I say that. I hope that I wouldn't pen anything so obviously wrong...Read the sentence again..slowly.

[winter_kills_stuff]

NO...winning at a 25% rate doesn't mean that every team is going to lose...just that three out of four teams did..and in most folks' books losing three of every four games just isn't being competitive.

The Non BCS teams beat BCS teams at about the same rate that FCS teams beat IA non BCS teams...actually, the FCS is slightly more competitive with non BCS IA teams than the non BCS teams have been with BCS conference teams.

\

Obviously not every team will lose if the odds are 25%. Better than most lottery tickets.
I don't think it helps to bring the FCS into the discussion, myself. They are in an entirely different division, and really have no bearing on this, unless the point you are making is that the FCS is comparable to the non-BCS? That's very doubtful, IMO.

[RazorHawk]

Wait a minute. So what you are trying to say is that winning 3 games out of 4, is better than winning 1 game out of 4? I need to think about that.

No where did I say that. I hope that I wouldn't pen anything so obviously wrong...Read the sentence again..slowly.

I was trying to agree with your statement that winning 3 of 4 games was better than losing 3 of 4 games. I guess my sarcasm was missed. Not sure why you don't think that 3 of 4 is better than 1 of 4.?

[WoVeU]

NO...winning at a 25% rate doesn't mean that every team is going to lose...just that three out of four teams did..and in most folks' books losing three of every four games just isn't being competitive.

The Non BCS teams beat BCS teams at about the same rate that FCS teams beat IA non BCS teams...actually, the FCS is slightly more competitive with non BCS IA teams than the non BCS teams have been with BCS conference teams.

\

Obviously not every team will lose if the odds are 25%. Better than most lottery tickets.
I don't think it helps to bring the FCS into the discussion, myself. They are in an entirely different division, and really have no bearing on this, unless the point you are making is that the FCS is comparable to the non-BCS? That's very doubtful, IMO.

Depends on where you draw the line?

Look at the bottom 10 to 12 FBS teams (say CBS 120 poll) then compare those to the Top 10 to 12 FCS teams. I'd think you are looking at close to even teams.
Bottom 8 against Top 8, where you are talking about teams like Richmond, App St., Villanova, James Madison, Montana, and New Hampshire...I think would win at least 80% against the bottom 8 FBS teams. This year's teams like W. Kentucky, N. Texas, Miami (OH), Tulane, San Diego St., and SMU would struggle against these guys. I'll grant you that some of the advantage for the FCS teams in this would be learning how to win and having confidence.

But I'd say you get to about 16 teams before you are drawing 50% in the match-ups. All opinion of course...but if this is very far from true at all then App. St. doesn't beat Michigan. A team like Marshall doesn't jump and compete in 2 years and ranked in 4 or 5 years.

But what you got here...is 2 very intelligent men arguing from 2 sides of rather accurate view points. Some people know the little guys get too many unfair shakes in all too many cases. Others understand that a few good teams deserving attention can send the people and the media looking to make more Cinderellas than we have shoes for!

You and Billybud are both right, at least you are getting typing practice. Plus Billybud needs the exercise and the finger strength to keep that golf ball in the light rough!

[winter_kills_stuff]

Depends on where you draw the line?

Look at the bottom 10 to 12 FBS teams (say CBS 120 poll) then compare those to the Top 10 to 12 FCS teams. I'd think you are looking at close to even teams.

I can't say I agree with you. You can maybe make a case for the top-10, but in my mind, the FBS is vastly superior to the FCS. I'm sure there are exceptions (as there almost always are). But, in general, we are comparing apples to oranges.

Bottom 8 against Top 8, where you are talking about teams like Richmond, App St., Villanova, James Madison, Montana, and New Hampshire...I think would win at least 80% against the bottom 8 FBS teams. This year's teams like W. Kentucky, N. Texas, Miami (OH), Tulane, San Diego St., and SMU would struggle against these guys. I'll grant you that some of the advantage for the FCS teams in this would be learning how to win and having confidence.

Cal-Poly beat SDSU, to open their season, took Wisconsin to OT, to close out their season. So, there is some merit in what you are saying, but we are talking about one team, out of 117. I'm not sure it's fair to use W. Kentucky as an FBS team, since they haven't formally been introduced into FBS, but even they are likely much better, on average, than most FCS.

But I'd say you get to about 16 teams before you are drawing 50% in the match-ups. All opinion of course...but if this is very far from true at all then App. St. doesn't beat Michigan. A team like Marshall doesn't jump and compete in 2 years and ranked in 4 or 5 years.

Again, I'm not sure I follow you. Yes, Marshall is a competitive team, but they were competitive before they were in FBS.
Appalacian St, similarly. At the very top of the ladder, there likely is some degree of parity, but we're talking FCS NC teams.

But what you got here...is 2 very intelligent men arguing from 2 sides of rather accurate view points. Some people know the little guys get too many unfair shakes in all too many cases. Others understand that a few good teams deserving attention can send the people and the media looking to make more Cinderellas than we have shoes for!

You and Billybud are both right, at least you are getting typing practice. Plus Billybud needs the exercise and the finger strength to keep that golf ball in the light rough!

If I thought Billybud was right, I wouldn't bother correcting him. But he is entitled to his opinion. As we all are.

[..fanatic]

It is difficult to buy an assertion that any number of FCS teams would do well against number of FBS teams when the FCS' record against the FBS is 37-375 (9 percent) since 2003, and was just 2-85 this year (2.3 percent).

[RazorHawk]

Not sure what relevance, that maybe the very top of the FCS, is comparable to the very bottom of the FBS. Same point could be made that the top non BCS FBS teams are comparable to the bottom BCS teams. In my mind, neither really means anything.

[billybud]

LOL..Winter Kills doesn't, and hasn't ever, made much sense. He assumes to "correct me" when he spews his inane nonsense....

We all know that IA non BCS conferences, as a whole, don't compete with BCS conferences...the record proves that. We all know that occasionally a Non BCS team will beat a BCS team...the record reflects that.

It is pretty much a moot point though. As Ktffan compiled, FCS teams beat IA non BCS teams at a little higher rate than the IA non BCS teams beat a BCS team...in other words, the FCS schools are more "competitive" with the IA Non BCS schools than the IA non BCS programs are with BCS programs.

[donovan]

Not such a hot second quarter for BSU....they need to do what got them here. Too many missed assignments and how many time can you run that option to the right sideline....apparently a lot.

How can there be any bad calls when the Refs name is Bible.....who would dare challenge.

BSU is going to have to step it up....a lot.