College Football Week 5 Discussion

[Tigercat]

Not to mention that no non-BCS school has ever come close to having the same talent as the big BCS schools. You can argue that is a result of the unfair system, and that is fine, but I can guarantee you that if Utah or Boise St. ever had the talent of a big BCS school (or a team full of Tebows) that the talking heads would take notice and remind us of that reality.

Hell, 2004 Utah had pretty good talent, but is an example of a great non-BCS conference team having it's talent overrated.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

By a "Tebow" I just meant a superstar at the position. If Tim Tebow himself played for Boise, he wouldn't be a Heisman candidate and not many people would know or care about him.

I don't think this is true either. Boise St. has had 7 players drafted since 2003 compared to 21 for a school like Wisconsin or 33 for a Miami. 1 of those (Legadu Naanee) was at a skill position. Kellen Moore gets as much talk as any comparable QB.

I guess that's what I'm trying to get at. The system is setup so that the big conferences get all the TV time, all the publicity, and all the fame. That even if Boise State had an amazing team, the media wouldn't really cover it the same way they'll cover a .500 Notre Dame squad. So it doesn't matter what they do, a 10-2 Ohio State squad will always have more prestige than a 12-0 Boise State squad (even if they beat every team by 50).

The media loves the underdog story - it keeps viewers tuning in and sells papers. Boise St. has at least 4 more primetime games on ESPN or ESPN2 in addition to the Oregon and Fresno St. games that have occurred and may get 1-2 more added. They're not underexposed by any means.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

That simply isn't true. We had basically this same discussion a couple weeks ago and I pointed out that teams like TCU, BYU and Fresno State have no problem scheduling multiple BCS schools, even if it means going on the road more often than not. We simply haven't seen a team run through multiple good BCS teams OOC and avoid stumbling in conference afterwards. The closest is Utah, but in 2008 they were hanging their hat on a 2-pt win @ 3-9 Michigan and a 3-pt home win over 8-4 Oregon St. In 2004 they beat 3 BCS schools, but they were 7-4 Texas A&M, 6-5 UNC and @ 3-8 Arizona. In both of Boise's previous unbeaten seasons, their only BCS win was at home vs. Oregon St. If a team like BYU this year had beaten Florida State, or 2001 Fresno St. hadn't lost in conference (twice), they'd be in the discussion for the title.

Boise St. appears to be happy dominating their conference, playing one of the Oregon teams every year, and being in the BCS conversation. If they want to, they can be considered for the BCS title discussion, but it involves taking the Pat Hill/Fresno St. approach to scheduling and putting more games like @Georgia on the schedule.

Since 2004, Fresno State has played 2 ranked out of conference opponents (Wisconsin and Cincinnati). The Wisconsin game actually received a lot of media attention as it was so odd for a BCS school to play a team like Fresno in a home and home. They do schedule tough, but lets not pretend like they're heading into the Swamp every season.

I think Boise State would love to get some home and home series with teams like Georgia. If you look at Georgia's schedule over the years though, they aren't too keen on playing high level mid-majors like Boise State. They stick to BCS schools or cupcakes.

And your dissection of Utah's schedule last year is the reason the system is a fraud. Utah has to hope that the teams they play have good seasons. It wasn't about how good their team is, it's about how good the teams they played are. Not only do they have to win out, they have to pray teams like Michigan have great seasons. It's not a legitimate system where the only way you can play for a title is by hoping the teams on your schedule end up being good that year.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I don't think this is true either. Boise St. has had 7 players drafted since 2003 compared to 21 for a school like Wisconsin or 33 for a Miami. 1 of those (Legadu Naanee) was at a skill position. Kellen Moore gets as much talk as any comparable QB.

Not sure what you're getting at with this. It was a hypothetical, not a declaration that Boise State had more NFL prospects.

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

The media loves the underdog story - it keeps viewers tuning in and sells papers. Boise St. has at least 4 more primetime games on ESPN or ESPN2 in addition to the Oregon and Fresno St. games that have occurred and may get 1-2 more added. They're not underexposed by any means.

Who gets more attention on ESPN these days? An undefeated TCU squad or Notre Dame? A mediocre Michigan squad will get more attention and air time than the entire Mountain West Conference combined. You honestly telling me that last year's Utah squad received tons of attention throughout the season? A few Thursday and Friday night games don't equate to playing weekly on one of the Big 3 networks and leading off every SportsCenter.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The system is setup so that the big conferences get all the TV time, all the publicity, and all the fame.

That's not "the system", that's "the public" or "the college football fanbase" or "the TV viewing public".

That even if Boise State had an amazing team, the media wouldn't really cover it the same way they'll cover a .500 Notre Dame squad.

Because more people give a damn about a .500 Notre Dame team than a 1.000 Boise State team. Truth is, even putting Boise in a national championship game wouldn't elevate Boise as much as it would diminish the national championship game.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

Not to mention that no non-BCS school has ever come close to having the same talent as the big BCS schools. You can argue that is a result of the unfair system, and that is fine, but I can guarantee you that if Utah or Boise St. ever had the talent of a big BCS school (or a team full of Tebows) that the talking heads would take notice and remind us of that reality.

Hell, 2004 Utah had pretty good talent, but is an example of a great non-BCS conference team having it's talent overrated.

Utah beat the shit out of the team that was ranked #1 in the country going into the final week of the regular season. The non-BCS schools have a better winning percentage in BCS games than any major conference.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

That's not "the system", that's "the public" or "the college football fanbase" or "the TV viewing public".

Because more people give a damn about a .500 Notre Dame team than a 1.000 Boise State team. Truth is, even putting Boise in a national championship game wouldn't elevate Boise as much as it would diminish the national championship game.

And that's fine. But a system that determines champions and such by fanbase and viewing public is as legit as the WWE. We don't sit down at the end of the baseball season and say the Yankees, Red Sox, and Cubs are in the playoffs because they have strong bases. Oh and the Dodgers get an exemption in because they won a certain number of games that we predetermined before the season would get them in regardless of who's ahead of them.

I like college football a lot. I love the rivalries and the intensity. But their supposed championship is a fraud.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The non-BCS schools have a better winning percentage in BCS games than any major conference.

They've also been a part of several of the least watched BCS games in history (along with teams from the Big East & several BCS teams without much tradition of football success).

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

They've also been a part of several of the least watched BCS games in history (along with teams from the Big East & several BCS teams without much tradition of football success).

Meh...if I wanted ratings to determine a sport's champion, I would just give the baseball trophy every year to the Yanks at the start, and we can all do other things in the spring and summer.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

They've also been a part of several of the least watched BCS games in history (along with teams from the Big East & several BCS teams without much tradition of football success).

Ratings for Bret Hart title runs were down too. It is a good thing they ended up putting the championship on guys like Stone Cold that could raise the ratings.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Meh...if I wanted ratings to determine a sport's champion, I would just give the baseball trophy every year to the Yanks at the start, and we can all do other things in the spring and summer.

Honestly, I'd prefer that to having to watch a team like Boise that I don't give a flying fuck about remove any meaning at all from the (mythical) national championship. I felt the same way about BYU back when, and I'm not the least bit apologetic about it either. I've been an advocate of reducing D1 football teams as part of a complete overhaul of how it's structured. I think it'd be an improvement all the way around. Knock about 30-40 teams off the top group, put them & some of the better I-AA programs in a new tier, hell I'd even go for some sort of relegation system if there was a practical way to make it work.

[Radii]

For Noop:

Chair of board of trustees calls for Bobby Bowden's head at Florida State - ESPN

On Sunday, Jim Smith, the chair of the university's Board of Trustees, told the Tallahassee Democrat it's time for a change.

"My hope is frankly that we'll go ahead, and if we have to, let the world know that this year will be the end of the Bowden era," said Smith, according to the newspaper. "... I do appreciate what he's done for us, what he's done for the program, what he's done really for the state of Florida.

"But I think the record will show that the Seminole Nation has been more than patient. We have been in a decline not for a year or two or three but I think we're coming up on seven or eight. I think enough is enough."

[Radii]

Overrated Nebraska, in need of a perfectly played game to beat the mighty Missouri Tigers, opens as a 2 1/2 point favorite on multiple online wagering sites (pinnacle and thegreek, the two main sites I use for lines).

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Radii

Overrated Nebraska, in need of a perfectly played game to beat the mighty Missouri Tigers, opens as a 2 1/2 point favorite on multiple online wagering sites (pinnacle and thegreek, the two main sites I use for lines).

Saw that. Easy money. I put the money that I won on the easy win with that terrible Nevada game spread and put it on this game. Mizzou fans who want to bet on their own team should thank the national media for the overinflated line.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Since 2004, Fresno State has played 2 ranked out of conference opponents (Wisconsin and Cincinnati). The Wisconsin game actually received a lot of media attention as it was so odd for a BCS school to play a team like Fresno in a home and home. They do schedule tough, but lets not pretend like they're heading into the Swamp every season.

I think Boise State would love to get some home and home series with teams like Georgia. If you look at Georgia's schedule over the years though, they aren't too keen on playing high level mid-majors like Boise State. They stick to BCS schools or cupcakes.

Fresno has played 6 ranked OOC opponents by my count in the 5 years - 2009 Wisconsin and Cincinnati, 2007 Oregon, 2006 LSU, 2005 USC and Oregon. They've had Oregon and Kansas St. visit in the last 4 years in addition to Wisconsin, and have Cincinnati, Illinois (both 2010), Mississippi (2011) Colorado (2012) Rutgers (2013) and Nebraska (2014) lined up to visit Fresno. Most of those are 2 for 1 deals, which major conference teams are clearly willing to schedule.

Boise St. meanwhile has somewhat acquiesced, as they have basically @VT next year (technically neutral site in MD) a 2010/2012 home and home with Oregon St, and home and homes starting 2011 with Utah and 2012 with BYU.

And your dissection of Utah's schedule last year is the reason the system is a fraud. Utah has to hope that the teams they play have good seasons. It wasn't about how good their team is, it's about how good the teams they played are. Not only do they have to win out, they have to pray teams like Michigan have great seasons. It's not a legitimate system where the only way you can play for a title is by hoping the teams on your schedule end up being good that year.

It's the same thing for teams in the Big East or even occasionally the power conferences. Like Auburn missing the title game in 2004, 2007 when an OOC win over VT by 2-loss LSU was enough to put it in the title game over a 2-loss Georgia that beat OK St and a 2-loss Oklahoma that beat Miami. Or even last year when 1-loss Florida (Miami/FSU) and Oklahoma (Cincinnati, TCU) made it over 1-loss team Texas (Arkansas? and cupcakes) because they scheduled weakly and USC and Alabama because marquee OOC opponents of theirs Notre Dame and Clemson had disappointing finishes.

Not sure what you're getting at with this. It was a hypothetical, not a declaration that Boise State had more NFL prospects.

But you're stating the hypothetical as fact when Boise St. has never had a skill position player that good. Ty Detmer and Andre Ware won Heismans 20 years ago from BYU and Houston. David Carr was on the cover of SI after beating 3 straight ranked teams, ended up being drafted #1 overall just like Alex Smith from Utah and Colt Brennan certainly didn't lack hype. I haven't seen anything to suggest Kellen Moore is on the level of these players, but if Boise St. does get a QB that good, trust me he'll be noticed.

Who gets more attention on ESPN these days? An undefeated TCU squad or Notre Dame? A mediocre Michigan squad will get more attention and air time than the entire Mountain West Conference combined. You honestly telling me that last year's Utah squad received tons of attention throughout the season? A few Thursday and Friday night games don't equate to playing weekly on one of the Big 3 networks and leading off every SportsCenter.

Maybe it's just that I never bother watching ESPN anymore unless I can fast forward to the highlights, but Boise St. is ranked 6th in both polls, TCU 9/10 while both Notre Dame and Michigan are unranked - it doesn't seem to correlate too well. Plus sometimes no publicity is a good thing - you think people would be singing ND's praises and keeping them at #6 if they were beating an FCS team 27-16 for most of the 4th quarter last week like Boise?

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

Sorry, didn't mean to take this long to answer this but I dont really study the section on replay since D3 doesn't have it . But below is a link to the 2009-10 Rule book and if you check out Rule 12 Article 1, it talks about the plays that are allowed to be reviewed.

http://www.oficiales.org/A_2009/ncaa...ule%20Book.pdf

Thanks for the link to the rulebook, but that wasn't quite what I was asking. I don't understand why certain things are reviewable (possession vs. hitting the ground) but not others (possession vs. a defender). Or why you can review whether a player touched the ball or the sideline, but not another player before the ball. Especially when technical things like WR's covering up TE's or ineligible man downfield apparently aren't reviewable. Or you get plays like these

Originally Posted by rulebook

III. Team A kicks off and the ball apparently goes out of bounds at
the Team B 1-yard line. Officials rule touchback. RULING: Not
reviewable. However, the play would be reviewable regarding
whether the ball possibly hit the pylon, and if it did, the ruling from
the replay official would be a touchback.
...
IX. During Team A’s punt, B45 clearly signals for a fair catch. The ball
hits the ground and bounces to B45, who returns it for an apparent
touchdown. The officials on the field do not declare the ball dead
when B45 recovers it. RULING: Not reviewable. However, the
replay official may correct an egregious error.

I mean, that's a joke, right? Either a play's reviewable or not, and "egregious" errors should be corrected during any play - or not.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Utah beat the shit out of the team that was ranked #1 in the country going into the final week of the regular season. The non-BCS schools have a better winning percentage in BCS games than any major conference.

Doesn't change my point that the non-BCS conference great teams are never as talented as major programs are in any given year, and if they ever were they would probably get credit for being so. That was the point being made, but as far as your point:

Those teams are usually very cohesive teams with decent talent, thats why they go undefeated or finish with one loss. And they are usually stuck against a major power that is less cohesive and that has little to no extra motivation to play better than their "small" conference opponent. It shouldn't be much of a surprise when a complete Boise St or Utah team wins against a major power in a consolation BCS game. (But its understandable how a UGA team could expose a team like Hawaii that isn't a complete team.)

Now you put Utah or Boise St against a cohesive super talented Florida team playing with the motivation of a national title? Its hard to objectively come up with a reasonable scenario where those teams beat Florida.

[cartman]

The SEC admits the excessive celebration penalty on Georgia shouldn't have been called.

SEC supervisor: Penalty on UGA's Green shouldn't have been called - NCAA Football - CBSSports.com

[Tigercat]

So wait, they can admit they were wrong on the one against UGA, but the one against LSU where Scott just pointed to the sky and was flagged was ok according to the SEC office? Typical.

[RomaGoth]

In their defense, Boise State really shouldn't be considered a "mid-major" program at this point, should they? I heard someone on the radio say that they are college football's Gonzaga, a major program in a mid-major conference. I agree with that assessment. I think they would do fine in a conference like the Pac-10, potentially finishing in the top 5 every year, maybe even the top-3 (USC is in a class by themselves, and Oregon and UCLA are probably close behind as far as talent and recruiting go).

I realize that BSU will never achieve that level of recruiting, but I do think they would be very successful in a BCS conference.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

they are college football's Gonzaga

Gonzaga hasn't won shit either

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

In their defense, Boise State really shouldn't be considered a "mid-major" program at this point, should they? I heard someone on the radio say that they are college football's Gonzaga, a major program in a mid-major conference. I agree with that assessment. I think they would do fine in a conference like the Pac-10, potentially finishing in the top 5 every year, maybe even the top-3 (USC is in a class by themselves, and Oregon and UCLA are probably close behind as far as talent and recruiting go).

I realize that BSU will never achieve that level of recruiting, but I do think they would be very successful in a BCS conference.

We'll likely never know, but I have my doubts. I think Boise State would struggle more often than succeed in the Pac-10. Consider how the Boise State coaches in their recent run of success have fared when moving on to BCS conference schools - Dirk Koetter was mediocre at ASU, a school with far more resources than Boise State. Dan Hawkins is likely going to get fired this season from Colorado.

Maybe Peterson is better than Koetter and Hawkins, but I don't see much reason to think Boise State would be better than a mediocre Pac-10 team. And as much as I think the Pac-10 is a great conference, I think we can all agree a mediocre Pac-10 team doesn't belong anywhere near the BCS title game discussion.

[Karlifornia]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

We'll likely never know, but I have my doubts. I think Boise State would struggle more often than succeed in the Pac-10. Consider how the Boise State coaches in their recent run of success have fared when moving on to BCS conference schools - Dirk Koetter was mediocre at ASU, a school with far more resources than Boise State. Dan Hawkins is likely going to get fired this season from Colorado.

Maybe Peterson is better than Koetter and Hawkins, but I don't see much reason to think Boise State would be better than a mediocre Pac-10 team. And as much as I think the Pac-10 is a great conference, I think we can all agree a mediocre Pac-10 team doesn't belong anywhere near the BCS title game discussion.

I don't know if you can write Boise State off as a "mediocre Pac-10 team" this season. Oregon has looked like the world beaters we expected them to be since getting a pretty solid beat down at Boise. I know their home field advantage is huge, but I think they're at least top-third of the Pac this season. Let's just see an 8-team playoff, then Boise State could decide their own fate.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Radii

Gonzaga hasn't won shit either

True, but there are a ton of major programs that can say the same thing. Since when does not winning a championship mean you aren't qualified to be a major program? If that were the case, we could make some significant changes in college football.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

We'll likely never know, but I have my doubts. I think Boise State would struggle more often than succeed in the Pac-10. Consider how the Boise State coaches in their recent run of success have fared when moving on to BCS conference schools - Dirk Koetter was mediocre at ASU, a school with far more resources than Boise State. Dan Hawkins is likely going to get fired this season from Colorado.

Maybe Peterson is better than Koetter and Hawkins, but I don't see much reason to think Boise State would be better than a mediocre Pac-10 team. And as much as I think the Pac-10 is a great conference, I think we can all agree a mediocre Pac-10 team doesn't belong anywhere near the BCS title game discussion.

I don't think you can compare the program to the coach. While Hawkins gets credit for building the current BSU program up (and Koetter to a lesser extent), Peterson is a fantastic coach, especially in big games. The only disadvantage BSU would really have, regardless of what conference they are in, is in recruiting. That could be somewhat rectified in the Pac-10 and with continued positive exposure.

I stand by my opinion that BSU could very easily be a top 3-5 Pac-10 team.

[cartman]

I'd like to see the Pac 10 pick up Boise State and Utah and become the Pac 12.

[mh2365]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

They do schedule tough, but lets not pretend like they're heading into the Swamp every season.

Yeah unfortunately most of those dates are filled by D1AA teams ... Florida has one of the weakest schedules in the country this year ... they play LSU and nothing else

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And for those not watching, the receivers are at least as bad as Crompton tonight, leading to a lambasting (not shown) by the position coach & at least one player having to be separated from the coach while giving it back to him according to the announcers.

And the other shoe drops ...
Tennessee Volunteers boot Brandon Warren after fight with coach - ESPN

Tennessee receiver Brandon Warren has been booted from the team following a heated outburst on the sideline with receivers coach Frank Wilson last Saturday during the Vols' 26-22 loss to Auburn.

Warren, who transferred to Tennessee after being named to the ACC's All-Freshman team as a tight end at Florida State, was seen throwing his helmet after the outburst. There had been several other issues with Warren dating back to the spring, leading Tennessee coach Lane Kiffin to pull the plug on Warren's career with the Vols.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by cartman

I'd like to see the Pac 10 pick up Boise State and Utah and become the Pac 12.

Wouldn't they almost have to take BYU? I have no evidence to back this up, but I would imagine BYU would deliver the most travelling fans and provide a lot of TV viewing compared to most anyone else out there.

[Dr. Sak]

I really think Boise State will move to the Mountain West in the next few years.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Wouldn't they almost have to take BYU? I have no evidence to back this up, but I would imagine BYU would deliver the most travelling fans and provide a lot of TV viewing compared to most anyone else out there.

One issue I've heard about BYU possibly joining in the past was mainly related to sports other than football, because BYU doesn't play on Sundays.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by cartman

I'd like to see the Pac 10 pick up Boise State and Utah and become the Pac 12.

The problem is, and I think Pac 10 fans have said this before, is that the Pac 10 wants teams that can compete in all sports, not just football. And there are academic standards, etc.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The problem is, and I think Pac 10 fans have said this before, is that the Pac 10 wants teams that can compete in all sports, not just football. And there are academic standards, etc.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

Doesn't change my point that the non-BCS conference great teams are never as talented as major programs are in any given year, and if they ever were they would probably get credit for being so. That was the point being made, but as far as your point:

Those teams are usually very cohesive teams with decent talent, thats why they go undefeated or finish with one loss. And they are usually stuck against a major power that is less cohesive and that has little to no extra motivation to play better than their "small" conference opponent. It shouldn't be much of a surprise when a complete Boise St or Utah team wins against a major power in a consolation BCS game. (But its understandable how a UGA team could expose a team like Hawaii that isn't a complete team.)

Now you put Utah or Boise St against a cohesive super talented Florida team playing with the motivation of a national title? Its hard to objectively come up with a reasonable scenario where those teams beat Florida.

Except that scenario happened last year. Utah was hardly talked about and was widely considered to be an inferior team. They beat the shit out of an Alabama team that was #1 ranked for a portion of the season and a half away from playing for the National Championship.

I know it's an easy out to say that these schools can't compete with the big boys, but the results on the field in these BCS games shows otherwise. Non-BCS schools are 3-1, better percentage than any major conference.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Boise St. meanwhile has somewhat acquiesced, as they have basically @VT next year (technically neutral site in MD) a 2010/2012 home and home with Oregon St, and home and homes starting 2011 with Utah and 2012 with BYU.It's the same thing for teams in the Big East or even occasionally the power conferences. Like Auburn missing the title game in 2004, 2007 when an OOC win over VT by 2-loss LSU was enough to put it in the title game over a 2-loss Georgia that beat OK St and a 2-loss Oklahoma that beat Miami. Or even last year when 1-loss Florida (Miami/FSU) and Oklahoma (Cincinnati, TCU) made it over 1-loss team Texas (Arkansas? and cupcakes) because they scheduled weakly and USC and Alabama because marquee OOC opponents of theirs Notre Dame and Clemson had disappointing finishes.

The primary difference in the schedule issue is that those BCS schools who missed out all had losses. While the system is flawed, they at least had the ability to win every game and win the championship. There is absolutely nothing a non-BCS school can do to win a title. They simply are not eligible. FBS is the only sport in the world that you can win every single game and not win a championship.

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

But you're stating the hypothetical as fact when Boise St. has never had a skill position player that good. Ty Detmer and Andre Ware won Heismans 20 years ago from BYU and Houston. David Carr was on the cover of SI after beating 3 straight ranked teams, ended up being drafted #1 overall just like Alex Smith from Utah and Colt Brennan certainly didn't lack hype. I haven't seen anything to suggest Kellen Moore is on the level of these players, but if Boise St. does get a QB that good, trust me he'll be noticed.

You are naming a handful of players over the last 25 years. Take a look at NFL rosters and tell me how much attention the stars who went to non-BCS schools got. Guys like Big Ben for instance.

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Maybe it's just that I never bother watching ESPN anymore unless I can fast forward to the highlights, but Boise St. is ranked 6th in both polls, TCU 9/10 while both Notre Dame and Michigan are unranked - it doesn't seem to correlate too well. Plus sometimes no publicity is a good thing - you think people would be singing ND's praises and keeping them at #6 if they were beating an FCS team 27-16 for most of the 4th quarter last week like Boise?

The problem is that the champions are decided by the media. So if you do "fly under the radar", you lose.

Iowa is 12th and took a last second field goal to beat Northern Iowa. Ohio State is 9th and barely survived Navy at home.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

In their defense, Boise State really shouldn't be considered a "mid-major" program at this point, should they? I heard someone on the radio say that they are college football's Gonzaga, a major program in a mid-major conference. I agree with that assessment. I think they would do fine in a conference like the Pac-10, potentially finishing in the top 5 every year, maybe even the top-3 (USC is in a class by themselves, and Oregon and UCLA are probably close behind as far as talent and recruiting go).

I realize that BSU will never achieve that level of recruiting, but I do think they would be very successful in a BCS conference.

I think the difference is that these days Gonzaga basketball talent could compete well on paper with the talent in Pac-10 basketball. Boise State, while they could possibly be competitive year in and year out on the field with many Pac-10 football teams, don't have the influx of talent of even also rans like Oregon State, Washington, and Stanford.

Where that talent disparity comes into play against their great coaching would be Boise State's inability to beat a team like Florida or USC when they are cohesive at the end of the season and motivated to play for a national title.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Except that scenario happened last year. Utah was hardly talked about and was widely considered to be an inferior team. They beat the shit out of an Alabama team that was #1 ranked for a portion of the season and a half away from playing for the National Championship.

That is the point, Alabama was the #1 team. They had the possibility of playing for a national title. Instead they play a team that still has limited national prestige, that these kids grew up knowing nothing about. They were told they were supposed to destroy them. Where would be the motivation? Now if Alabama was riding an undefeated season, and playing Utah for the national title, there would be plenty more motivation.

All of these BCS games against mid major teams have been a no win proposition for the major conference teams. Although this year should be different if its Boise State, everyone, including opposing players, should have a full amount of respect for that program now.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

I think the difference is that these days Gonzaga basketball talent could compete well on paper with the talent in Pac-10 basketball. Boise State, while they could possibly be competitive year in and year out on the field with many Pac-10 football teams, don't have the influx of talent of even also rans like Oregon State, Washington, and Stanford.

Where that talent disparity comes into play against their great coaching would be Boise State's inability to beat a team like Florida or USC when they are cohesive at the end of the season and motivated to play for a national title.

Except for the part where Boise State beat arguably the best team in the Pac-10 a few weeks ago.

Originally Posted by Tigercat

That is the point, Alabama was the #1 team. They had the possibility of playing for a national title. Instead they play a team that still has limited national prestige, that these kids grew up knowing nothing about. They were told they were supposed to destroy them. Where would be the motivation? Now if Alabama was riding an undefeated season, and playing Utah for the national title, there would be plenty more motivation.

All of these BCS games against mid major teams have been a no win proposition for the major conference teams. Although this year should be different if its Boise State, everyone, including opposing players, should have a full amount of respect for that program now.

So it's all a mental thing now? The results on the field don't matter if you can conjur up some pseudo-psychology to prove that Alabama was a better team but they just didn't really try hard.

This year's TCU and Boise teams would finish in the top half of any BCS conference, and would have a shot at winning the Big 10, ACC, and Big East.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

I think the difference is that these days Gonzaga basketball talent could compete well on paper with the talent in Pac-10 basketball. Boise State, while they could possibly be competitive year in and year out on the field with many Pac-10 football teams, don't have the influx of talent of even also rans like Oregon State, Washington, and Stanford.

Where that talent disparity comes into play against their great coaching would be Boise State's inability to beat a team like Florida or USC when they are cohesive at the end of the season and motivated to play for a national title.

How do we know that there is this huge disparity in talent? It is very noticeable between teams like Florida and UAB, but not so much between a Boise State and Oregon. I think the biggest difference here is the depth. Look at USC. Their 4th string running back would probably be a starter on Boise State's team. But does this mean that he is better than the starter at BSU? I am not so sure.

A team like Boise State and TCU wouldn't continue to win every year if they had subpar talent.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

I think the difference is that these days Gonzaga basketball talent could compete well on paper with the talent in Pac-10 basketball. Boise State, while they could possibly be competitive year in and year out on the field with many Pac-10 football teams, don't have the influx of talent of even also rans like Oregon State, Washington, and Stanford.

Where that talent disparity comes into play against their great coaching would be Boise State's inability to beat a team like Florida or USC when they are cohesive at the end of the season and motivated to play for a national title.

We've had this dicussion and I thought we had agreed that nearly everyone can field a comparable top 22 (they don't all, but it's very reasonable these days to expect this), and the real talent discrepancies come on the depth chart when injuries start taking their toll. Especially with guys wanting to start more these days to showcase for NFL scouts, there is a lot of talent going to lower-tier teams.

[Swaggs]

I think teams like Utah and Boise State could compete for the conference championship in every BCS conference other than the SEC (and maybe the B12), but I also think they lose 2-3 (or more) games per year in those conferences.

TCU, provided that Patterson sticks around, could probably compete for national championships (on occasion) within a few years of joining a BCS conference. I think Boise St. and Utah have inherent disadvantages (how many FCS calibre players per year do Idaho and Utah produce -- and how many want to play if BYU, when there are any?) that kind of put a cap on their ceilings.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

I think teams like Utah and Boise State could compete for the conference championship in every BCS conference other than the SEC (and maybe the B12), but I also think they lose 2-3 (or more) games per year in those conferences.

TCU, provided that Patterson sticks around, could probably compete for national championships (on occasion) within a few years of joining a BCS conference. I think Boise St. and Utah have inherent disadvantages (how many FCS calibre players per year do Idaho and Utah produce -- and how many want to play if BYU, when there are any?) that kind of put a cap on their ceilings.

It's hard to tell what they lose though. As a BCS school, they'd be able to recruit much better as well as actually play some quality opponents at home.

[Tigercat]

Re: Talent Disparity between Boise St and sub par Pac-10 football teams like Oregon State and Washington State.

Players in the NFL:
BSU - 9
Oregon State - 18
Washington State 15

And current players in the NFL are representative of a period of time when Boise State was much better in the win/loss column than those two teams.
Boise State doesn't exactly burn up the recruiting trail either. They are just an awesome program that makes lemonade out of acorns.

[DeToxRox]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

Re: Talent Disparity between Boise St and sub par Pac-10 football teams like Oregon State and Washington State.

Players in the NFL:
BSU - 9
Oregon State - 18
Washington State 15

And current players in the NFL are representative of a period of time when Boise State was much better in the win/loss column than those two teams.
Boise State doesn't exactly burn up the recruiting trail either. They are just an awesome program that makes lemonade out of acorns.

Boise could not compete week in and week out with Pac 10 teams as they currently are. That said, Boise's recruiting would immediately become better because they'd be a Pac 10 team and it'd bring a lot of 3 and 4* type kids to Boise who otherwise might go out East or somewhere else if the big Western programs didn't offer them.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

Re: Talent Disparity between Boise St and sub par Pac-10 football teams like Oregon State and Washington State.

Players in the NFL:
BSU - 9
Oregon State - 18
Washington State 15

And current players in the NFL are representative of a period of time when Boise State was much better in the win/loss column than those two teams.
Boise State doesn't exactly burn up the recruiting trail either. They are just an awesome program that makes lemonade out of acorns.

The NFL difference can be attributed to physical attributes. Simply put, size matters much more in the NFL. A BCS school is going to have the first crack at the biggest high school athletes on prestige and reputation alone. So while Boise State would have slaughtered the schools you mentioned over the last 10 years, they still don't have guys with the physical attributes to play in the NFL.

But my argument from the start hasn't been about talent, it's been about who has the best team. I believe that should be decided on the field while others think it should be decided by Jay Mariotti and company.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The primary difference in the schedule issue is that those BCS schools who missed out all had losses. While the system is flawed, they at least had the ability to win every game and win the championship. There is absolutely nothing a non-BCS school can do to win a title.

Yes, there is. Schedule multiple games at high-profile BCS opponents, go undefeated, hope the teams they scheduled are good and the higher profile teams don't win out as well. The last 3 sound hard, but they're exactly what every 2nd-tier BCS school also has to do - the only added difference is scheduling hard out of conference to make up for the cupcakes of in conference scheduling. I mean, people (including me) mock Florida's OOC schedule and say things like this

Originally Posted by mh2365

Florida has one of the weakest schedules in the country this year ... they play LSU and nothing else

when they've got the best Sun Belt team and a team (FSU) that just annihilated BYU at BYU. It's considered a joke by us, but it's on par with any 4 game stretch on Boise's schedule. People mock Notre Dame's schedule, but the worst team on it (Nevada) is Boise's 3rd or 4th toughest game.

You are naming a handful of players over the last 25 years. Take a look at NFL rosters and tell me how much attention the stars who went to non-BCS schools got. Guys like Big Ben for instance.

Roethlisberger finished 9th in the Heisman, his team finished ranked 10th despite losing 21-3 to Iowa and he was picked #11 overall. Clearly someone was paying attention.

The problem is that the champions are decided by the media. So if you do "fly under the radar", you lose.

Iowa is 12th and took a last second field goal to beat Northern Iowa. Ohio State is 9th and barely survived Navy at home.

Iowa is an undefeated BCS team that just beat up Penn State on national television - and they're 6 spots below Boise St, along with 6 other undefeated BCS schools - I don't see what the problem is.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Except for the part where Boise State beat arguably the best team in the Pac-10 a few weeks ago.

This year's TCU and Boise teams would finish in the top half of any BCS conference, and would have a shot at winning the Big 10, ACC, and Big East.

So you're saying they wouldn't have a shot at beating Florida/Alabama or Texas? Then why should we care about them being in the national title discussion?

Originally Posted by Radii

Gonzaga hasn't won shit either

That's probably the best analogy. Gonzaga made their underdog run to the Elite 8 in 1999 (similar to Boise's cinderella win over Oklahoma) and has made the NCAA tournament every year since (ie gotten the chance to play for the title on even footing). So far they haven't gotten past the Sweet 16.

[molson]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Yes, there is. Schedule multiple games at high-profile BCS opponents, go undefeated, hope the teams they scheduled are good and the higher profile teams don't win out as well. The last 3 sound hard, but they're exactly what every 2nd-tier BCS school also has to do - the only added difference is scheduling hard out of conference to make up for the cupcakes of in conference scheduling.

It's tough to ask a school to decide, 3-4 years ahead of time, that they're going to go all out for a national championship, and that all secondary goals are meaningless. Especially when, as you said, they still don't even control their own destiny.

BSU would surely love to play in BCS title game, but they have a football program to run too. And they've done a damn good job of it. I'm glad that the fanbase seems to have resisted the "you have to win a championship or you're a loser" mindset that has polluted the rest of college football. They're going to have a plan, and they're going to do their thing. Maybe an all-out assault on the BCS "championship" isn't the best plan. They have a real independent/Notre Dame type feel out here, because they're so much bigger than the WAC.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

So you're saying they wouldn't have a shot at beating Florida/Alabama or Texas? Then why should we care about them being in the national title discussion?

Because in sports, we typically determine our champions based on what the teams actually do. Whether they beat one another.

I'm not saying they are better than Florida, I'm saying that we'll never know. And a system that doesn't give all the teams a shot at a Championship isn't real. It's the WWE and a form of sports entertainment, not an actual sport.

This is akin to saying the AFC and NFC West can never participate in the playoffs or Super Bowl before the season starts. That teams like the Giants and Patriots don't have to do as well as teams from smaller markets like Carolina and Indianapolis to make the playoffs. We certainly wouldn't view the NFL as crowning a true champion.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

It's tough to ask a school to decide, 3-4 years ahead of time, that they're going to go all out for a national championship, and that all secondary goals are meaningless. Especially when, as you said, they still don't even control their own destiny.

BSU would surely love to play in BCS title game, but they have a football program to run too. And they've done a damn good job of it. I'm glad that the fanbase seems to have resisted the "you have to win a championship or you're a loser" mindset that has polluted the rest of college football. They're going to have a plan, and they're going to do their thing. Maybe an all-out assault on the BCS "championship" isn't the best plan. They have a real independent/Notre Dame type feel out here, because they're so much bigger than the WAC.

Not to mention, they simply can't find enough good teams to come to Boise. I highly doubt Urban Meyer and Pete Carroll are looking to fly up there to play. This notion that teams like Boise can treat scheduling like a video game where every team is available is just silly.

The other issue too is that you have to schedule based on what you think a team will be in 3-4 years. How could Utah have known that Michigan would completely crap on itself? Shoudl these small school help the teams on their schedule recruit since they have to have those schools win a lot of game for them to even be considered for a title game.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

This is akin to saying the AFC and NFC West can never participate in the playoffs or Super Bowl before the season starts. That teams like the Giants and Patriots don't have to do as well as teams from smaller markets like Carolina and Indianapolis to make the playoffs. We certainly wouldn't view the NFL as crowning a true champion.

This is pretty much the argument. Either let the teams compete in an open system or don't, but this whole sham we have now doesn't quite cut it. But I think everyone agrees on that, they just don't want to open it up to the smaller schools en masse. Which makes sense on some level, providing there's a way for those teams to "play their way into" the upper division.

But it's not likely to happen, anytime soon.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

This is pretty much the argument. Either let the teams compete in an open system or don't, but this whole sham we have now doesn't quite cut it. But I think everyone agrees on that, they just don't want to open it up to the smaller schools en masse. Which makes sense on some level, providing there's a way for those teams to "play their way into" the upper division.

But it's not likely to happen, anytime soon.

Ya, I think everyone could deal with the situation better if the BCS schools just became Division I-A, and everybody else (and maybe some of the stronger FCS conferences) became 1-AA. Then everyone is kind of playing by the same rules. You'd still have a lot of inter-division play, but things would just be a lot more organized. I could see Division I-A suddenly wanting some form of a playoff in that scenario, since they no longer have to worry about sharing money with smaller schools.

College football is a throwback to different time. Today, sports fans want predictable structure and fairness.