Boise State being snubbed by BCS

[WoVeU]

Overviews look the same at other games.

There is not 1 shred of evidence that says the FCS Top can't play the FBS Bottom. I will not waste any more time.

But I got to say I'm disappointed...my dad is right. BIG 10 guys give a lot of opinion...that behooves their regular season of feasting on the MAC!

[billybud]

There is overlap between the top of one division and the bottom of another...

Paul Simon said it best when he sang...."one man's ceiling is another man's floor"

[Spence]

Overviews look the same at other games.

There is not 1 shred of evidence that says the FCS Top can't play the FBS Bottom. I will not waste any more time.

But I got to say I'm disappointed...my dad is right. BIG 10 guys give a lot of opinion...that behooves their regular season of feasting on the MAC!

I don't know many big ten guys who think beating up on the MAC is any great feat. Mostly around here it is a matter of what the state reps want. They want us to play as many in state schools as possible to keep the money in state. It is really a lot of crap IMO. I don't mind playing a MAC team, they are D1A, any more then playing Troy or San Jose State. I just wish we had an Alabama to go along with the USC.

[RazorHawk]

No state meddling with Iowa playing MAC teams. I think it is for a pretty certain win and the MAC teams will usually play exclusively at your house. Iowa did have a 2 & 1 series, I believe with Miami Oh a few years back. I really don't like Iowa playing the MAC teams, as it is a no-win situation. I would much rather see them playing mid-tier BCS teams in the non-conference.

[Spence]

Even without the state legislature meddling, the MAC is always going to be at least a part of the B-10 schedule. They are too close to each other not to play one every year. I really have no problem with one. I don't see a reason to play more then that every year, though.

[WoVeU]

Even without the state legislature meddling, the MAC is always going to be at least a part of the B-10 schedule. They are too close to each other not to play one every year. I really have no problem with one. I don't see a reason to play more then that every year, though.

That would be my stance! Far too appealing not to play 1 MAC team. I think Ohio St., Penn St., Mich St., and Michigan should try to play one of the best, say top 4 teams. Hard to project I know. Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, and NW should try to shoot for the upper half of the MAC...that is not as difficult.

What I often wonder about, which team from the MAC if taken in to the BIG 10 would have the best chance of competing in 3 years? Competing as finishing ahead of 3 or maybe 4 current teams. Because I would either go to 12 teams or I'd toss Indiana!

[donovan]

There are only two teams in the country I can think could be competitive by moving into a BCS conference. Utah and BYU.

(There are many schools in BCS conferences that are not competitive...but they are family.....well in the SEC, maybe blood..

[Spence]

Even without the state legislature meddling, the MAC is always going to be at least a part of the B-10 schedule. They are too close to each other not to play one every year. I really have no problem with one. I don't see a reason to play more then that every year, though.

That would be my stance! Far too appealing not to play 1 MAC team. I think Ohio St., Penn St., Mich St., and Michigan should try to play one of the best, say top 4 teams. Hard to project I know. Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, and NW should try to shoot for the upper half of the MAC...that is not as difficult.

What I often wonder about, which team from the MAC if taken in to the BIG 10 would have the best chance of competing in 3 years? Competing as finishing ahead of 3 or maybe 4 current teams. Because I would either go to 12 teams or I'd toss Indiana!

No MAC team would be consistently competitive in the B-10. Several may be competitive in single years, but the MAC schools aren't big enough to be competitive. Except for maybe, Ohio University, none have the resources or the facilities to be competitve. Even with B-10 cash they still wouldn't have the kind of money it takes to upgrade the facilities to a major conference level and the would have to compete with Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Wisconsin, and Notre Dame in recruiting for the athletes to be able to grow to that level. That isn't going to happen for the same reason Minnesota, Indiana, and Northwestern can't compete effectively in the B-10.

[billybud]

We used to say that about USF...never be able to recruit and compete with Florida, Miami, and FSU...but they have closed the gap some...

[Spence]

We used to say that about USF...never be able to recruit and compete with Florida, Miami, and FSU...but they have closed the gap some...

The difference, though, is that Florida has more D1 talent then Ohio. The Big 10 and the MAC use Ohio as their main source of recruits. Like Florida we have schools come from all over to cherry pick us, but we have 20 schools that use this area as their main source of talent. Texas, Florida, and California are the only states who can handle that many schools. Ohio has a good talent pool, but not good enough to support that many schools and make them all competitive against major conferences. The B10 schools and Notre Dame gets most of the talent, various schools from around the country get the rest, and then guys who can't get major conference offers usually choose the MAC. That is why the MAC won't ever field teams competitive with major conference teams year after year. That isn't to say that for one year the MAC can't have a team or even a few that can compete, they can and have. But they aren't going to be anything more then they are, because there are just more teams then the region can support.

[winter_kills_stuff]

Overviews look the same at other games.

There is not 1 shred of evidence that says the FCS Top can't play the FBS Bottom. I will not waste any more time.

But I got to say I'm disappointed...my dad is right. BIG 10 guys give a lot of opinion...that behooves their regular season of feasting on the MAC!

There isn't much to suggest that the FCS is competitive against the FBS on any level, whatsoever, but I will admit the very best of the FCS is pretty good.
Richmond played Virginia early-on, and lost 16-0. Virginia isn't maybe the best example, but it is evidence of the disparity between the two divisions.

We know of two examples, only, where FCS won. New Hamshire vs. Army (28-10) and Cal-Poly vs. SDSU (29-27). Stan Brock & Chuck Long were both fired.
Cal-Poly was good enough to qualify for the FCS playoffs, but weren't good enough to win the division. That's really all you have to your side of the debate.

[billybud]

huh? More bunk...and Billybud has not said what you stated.

I have never said that the best FCS schools would dominate...

[Derek]

Overviews look the same at other games.

There is not 1 shred of evidence that says the FCS Top can't play the FBS Bottom. I will not waste any more time.

But I got to say I'm disappointed...my dad is right. BIG 10 guys give a lot of opinion...that behooves their regular season of feasting on the MAC!

Did anyone bother to read ...fanatic's post? The reason I'm asking, is simple, it sums it up, much better, I think, than anybody else's. FCS vs. BCS: 2-85. That's not exactly overwhelming evidence in favor of FCS being competitive vs. FBS.
And, those two games, weren't exactly blowouts, although I will give credit to New Hamshire, their win was convincing. But, Billybud was implying that the very best FCS schools would dominate, which they clearly didn't (unless 29-27 is dominating).
So, I think the evidence weighs, pretty convincingly in my favor. Cal Poly had a decent, if not altogether good football team. They weren't FCS championship material, but they were good enough for Army to hire their head coach. And, I think it will be a good hire for them. Stan Brock didn't take them far enough. They still need to run the option, and hopefully the success will carry through to the next level of football. FCS isn't competitive against FBS, but there are some good FCS football teams, and likely will continue to be. I personally think it's good that they play against each other. Not only does it allow for comparision, but it gives those teams (FCS) something to aspire to. Appalacian St, won, I think, because they knew they could play against the best FBS team out there (vs. Michigan). Richmond was competitive, but lost, 16-10, early.

Huh? Michigan was the best team out there??

One last time from me....."The MAC/WAC/SUN/etc is not competitive with the SEC, ACC, Big-12, Big-10, Pac-10 as a whole."

I do believe that the best teams from those conferences can pull out wins such as Boise and Oklahoma or other examples....but they will be rare. Most of the time you will have results like Georgia-Boise or Georgia-Hawaii (those are the only results that I can think of, since I am a homer)

I respect those schools and hope they do well, and I hope to get to Boise to see a game in 2009 (God Willing), but I do not believe that they would be 12-0 in any of the BCS conferences. There is NO evidence to show they would even break 7 wins.

Sorry CLF, but that's the way it is. IMO

[..fanatic]

Overviews look the same at other games.

There is not 1 shred of evidence that says the FCS Top can't play the FBS Bottom. I will not waste any more time.

But I got to say I'm disappointed...my dad is right. BIG 10 guys give a lot of opinion...that behooves their regular season of feasting on the MAC!

I applaud your work to support your theory with a lot of data that works in your favor, but....
That still doesn't change the fact that when push comes to shove, the FCS played 87 games this year against 82 FBS teams and won two. And they lost to some pretty crappy teams.

Using CCR Top 120:
#118 SMU beat a 8-5 Texas State team 47-36.
#117 Washington State beat a 4-7 Portland State team 48-9 and the Cougars couldn't claw their way out of a brown paper bag until they managed to edge an equally horrible Washington.
#116 Idaho beat an equally horrible Idaho State (1-11) 42-27
#114 San Diego State lost to a 8-3 Cal Poly team 29-27
#113 Miami (Ohio) beat a 7-5 Charleston Southern team 38-27.
#112 Iowa State beat a 7-5 So. Dakota St. 44-17.
#111 Western Kentucky lost to every FBS team it played, but won both of its games against the FCS - Eastern Kentucky (8-4) 37-13, and Murray State (5-7) 50-9.
#110 New Mexico State beat Alcorn State (2-10) 45-10.
#109 Army lost to a 10-3 New Hampshire team 28-10.
#108 Syracuse beat a 2-10 Northeastern team 30-21.
#107 Indiana beat Murray State (5-7) 45-3. (In a 5-7 season, two of Murray's losses were to FBS schools).
#106 Eastern Michigan beat Indiana State (0-12) 52-0.
#102 Wyoming beat a 6-5 No. Dakota State team 16-13.
#101 UAB beat Alabama State (3-8) 45-10.
#100 UL-Monroe beat Alabama A&M (5-7) 37-15.

That's 15 tries by the FCS against the bottom 20 FBS and they went 2-13. FCS schools with winning record went 2-5.

#1 Richmond lost to #79 Virginia 16-0.
#3 James Madison lost to #98 Duke 31-7.
#4 Northern Iowa lost to #15 BYU 41-17.
#5 Appalachian State lost to #42 LSU 41-13.
#6 Villanova lost to #26 West Va. 48-21.
#9 Weber State lost to Hawaii 36-17, and Utah 37-21.

Tired of going through the list, but #1 and #3 alone support my theory against your theory.

[WoVeU]

..fanatic,

Your only point made that was very close to what I was making a point for was Duke. Not quite Bot 12 (also in a BCS conference) and Duke was plying a bit better ball than 94th at that point.

You can't dig up match-ups that I missed for the bottom 10 to 12 FBS vs top 12 FCS, because I looked at them all. I KNOW what the general FCS -vs- FBS looks like, but that is not a finite examination. If the picture was true for hat some of you guys are trying to paint...teams could not make the jump from FCS to FBS and survive and App St. even at #1 FCS could not beat a top tier FBS school like Michigan ! That would be like winning the lottery in Ohio, Kentucky, and WV all in 1 month. I am rather comfortable in saying the top 10 FCS teams are generally far ahead of the rest...kind of like the FBS 1-6 skip to 10th or 11th and compared to the rest.

And also think about when the FCS schools play the FBS schools...early...very early...when depth of bench is huge when players are still getting their game legs. And dropping down to play the #22 FCS school (Texas State) just adds to the effect. The difference, this year, in opening against a #4 N. Iowa rather than a 22 Texas State is about the same difference as opening with Texas rather than...well...Virginia Tech. Or BC, or WMU. There are many schools that can beat these latter teams...but Texas...only a lucky few could do that!