College Football Week 10 discussion

[cartman]

Great game going on right now between Bowling Green and Buffalo.

On Thursday, Virginia Tech tries to right the ship against East Carolina, and on Friday Boise State travels to play Louisiana Tech.

The big games on Saturday will be:

LSU at Alabama
Ohio State at Penn State

The weekend will wrap up on Sunday with Nevada playing San Jose State.

[JS19]

I've never really gotten into college football, pretty much just watch the big games. For all you college football gurus, is there any kind of scoop of Buffalo's TE, J. Rack? Anyone heard of him? Has potential? Decent player but doesn't have a shot beyond college?

[Passacaglia]

So we're in Week 10 now? I figured a Tuesday game would still be part of Week 9.

Anyway, I'm a little behind in the BGSU-Buffalo game -- I just wanted to comment on how the announcers made jokes about increasing their cholesterol count at a pizzeria while coming out of two different commercial breaks -- then after another commercial break, give a little memorial about how one of their crew passed away last week after being taken to the hospital with...wait for it...chest pains.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by cartman

LSU at Alabama
Ohio State at Penn State

As long as McElroy shows up, 'Bama will be fine. Not exactly a PSU backer, but it's OSU, so I'm all for OSU going down.

I'll add Michigan vs. Purdue. Why? RR said it would be an embarrassment if Michigan didn't make a bowl game. If they don't beat Purdue, Michigan is looking for a win @Wisconsin(who has to be looking for payback), or against OSU to be bowl eligible. 5-2 to missing out on a bowl, which you publicly stated would be an embarrassment, and having the NCAA look at you. Have fun with that off season. Michigan beats Purdue and suddenly things get easier for RR.

[clemsonfan]

I'm hoping my Tigers will look great for the Prime Time game against FSU. The Tigers hold their own destiny now.

[cartman]

Interesting read for those saying all Boise State has to do is schedule BCS teams:

No incentive for BCS conference teams to play Boise State | Voices.IdahoStatesman.com

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by cartman

Interesting read for those saying all Boise State has to do is schedule BCS teams:

No incentive for BCS conference teams to play Boise State | Voices.IdahoStatesman.com

I have been saying exactly this for a couple of years now. Nobody wants to schedule an OOC potential loss like Boise State when they can schedule teams like Troy and Delaware State.

The BCS is such a sham, it has really lessened my interest in college football.

[molson]

While I'm sure its difficult, I don't buy at all that it's impossible. If scheduling BCS opponents is the goal of Boise St (which I'm skeptical about), then they need to get other people in there that can accomplish that.

Utah and BYU manage to schedule 2 BCS opponents most years.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

I have been saying exactly this for a couple of years now. Nobody wants to schedule an OOC potential loss like Boise State when they can schedule teams like Troy and Delaware State.

The BCS is such a sham, it has really lessened my interest in college football.

While this is true, it was just as true before the BCS was around.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

The BCS is such a sham, it has really lessened my interest in college football.

I actually don't feel like the BCS-system has negatively affected my enjoyment of bowl games or college football in the slightest.

I guess under the old system, there was a chance that two, maybe three, bowl games had national title implications (as opposed to really just one now), but that doesn't really bother me. Unless Michigan is fighting for a national championship (not going to happen for a while), I just want to watch interesting match-ups and entertaining games. For example, I really don't think I would have enjoyed that Oklahoma-Boise State game from a few years back any more under the old system as I did under the current one, just as I don't think I would have cared any more/less about last year's Texas/OSU game under the old system.

If anything, the one year it really would have mattered to me, 1997, I would have much preferred the BCS system so Michigan and Nebraska could have gone head-to-head for the national championship.

I like how the current system (or older system) generates all the debate about which conference is stronger, who should be playing in what bowl game, all those interesting talking points that bsak referenced above. That's a huge part of college football.

Unless Michigan is playing for the national championship (which, again, is really not something I have even considered in a while), I could care less who was crowned "National Champion".

[Butter]

Who is Missouri playing this week? How can we have gotten this far in the thread without this vital piece of information??????

They're still ranked in the top 60 in most ranking systems.

[Karlifornia]

I'm thinking about going to Stanford/Oregon, to see what should be a shootout. The Ducks are going to score on Stanford's D. Can Stanford keep up? Can they catch a few breaks and manage a W, making them bowl eligible for the first time since 2001?

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I actually don't feel like the BCS-system has negatively affected my enjoyment of bowl games or college football in the slightest.

I guess under the old system, there was a chance that two, maybe three, bowl games had national title implications (as opposed to really just one now), but that doesn't really bother me. Unless Michigan is fighting for a national championship (not going to happen for a while), I just want to watch interesting match-ups and entertaining games. For example, I really don't think I would have enjoyed that Oklahoma-Boise State game from a few years back any more under the old system as I did under the current one, just as I don't think I would have cared any more/less about last year's Texas/OSU game under the old system.

If anything, the one year it really would have mattered to me, 1997, I would have much preferred the BCS system so Michigan and Nebraska could have gone head-to-head for the national championship.

I like how the current system (or older system) generates all the debate about which conference is stronger, who should be playing in what bowl game, all those interesting talking points that bsak referenced above. That's a huge part of college football.

Unless Michigan is playing for the national championship (which, again, is really not something I have even considered in a while), I could care less who was crowned "National Champion".

I understand where you are coming from. I would rather have the old system of bowl games, with any one of 3 of them potentially deciding the champion, rather than what we have now, which is a mockery of rational thought at best and downright atrocious at worst. I still don't think that BSU should play for a title game in this format, but at least a playoff would give them the opportunity to prove themselves. From what I have seen of the system this year, it is a forgone conclusion that the winner of Florida/Alabama will play Texas for the title. Assuming BSU, TCU, and Cincinnati all end up undefeated, the system has proven itself inadequate to perform what it was intended to do, which is determine a true national champion. Because of all this, I don't find the drama behind the games to be all that interesting at this point.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I actually don't feel like the BCS-system has negatively affected my enjoyment of bowl games or college football in the slightest.

I guess under the old system, there was a chance that two, maybe three, bowl games had national title implications (as opposed to really just one now), but that doesn't really bother me. Unless Michigan is fighting for a national championship (not going to happen for a while), I just want to watch interesting match-ups and entertaining games. For example, I really don't think I would have enjoyed that Oklahoma-Boise State game from a few years back any more under the old system as I did under the current one, just as I don't think I would have cared any more/less about last year's Texas/OSU game under the old system.

If anything, the one year it really would have mattered to me, 1997, I would have much preferred the BCS system so Michigan and Nebraska could have gone head-to-head for the national championship.

I like how the current system (or older system) generates all the debate about which conference is stronger, who should be playing in what bowl game, all those interesting talking points that bsak referenced above. That's a huge part of college football.

Unless Michigan is playing for the national championship (which, again, is really not something I have even considered in a while), I could care less who was crowned "National Champion".

Agreed.

People are fixated on the national championship and I always watch (and can usually find a reason to root for one team or the other), but I am infinitely more interested in my team's bowl game than the national championship. There are a number of different levels of success for a college football team and its players to accomplish in any given season, so the bowl system is just fine for me. If anything, I wish there were fewer ties to the bowl games, as it seems like the Big East's are always against the ACC and a lot of the SEC's are against the Big 10 -- I'd like to se more variation on the matchups.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

I'm thinking about going to Stanford/Oregon, to see what should be a shootout. The Ducks are going to score on Stanford's D. Can Stanford keep up? Can they catch a few breaks and manage a W, making them bowl eligible for the first time since 2001?

Oregon should win this one going away. I see them as a top-3 team right now.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

I understand where you are coming from. I would rather have the old system of bowl games, with any one of 3 of them potentially deciding the champion, rather than what we have now, which is a mockery of rational thought at best and downright atrocious at worst. I still don't think that BSU should play for a title game in this format, but at least a playoff would give them the opportunity to prove themselves. From what I have seen of the system this year, it is a forgone conclusion that the winner of Florida/Alabama will play Texas for the title. Assuming BSU, TCU, and Cincinnati all end up undefeated, the system has proven itself inadequate to perform what it was intended to do, which is determine a true national champion. Because of all this, I don't find the drama behind the games to be all that interesting at this point.

The system was designed to get the top 2 teams to play each other, which it does. And really, at a micro level, to get the Big 10 and Pac 10 involved beyond their relationship with the Rose Bowl.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Agreed.

People are fixated on the national championship and I always watch (and can usually find a reason to root for one team or the other), but I am infinitely more interested in my team's bowl game than the national championship. There are a number of different levels of success for a college football team and its players to accomplish in any given season, so the bowl system is just fine for me. If anything, I wish there were fewer ties to the bowl games, as it seems like the Big East's are always against the ACC and a lot of the SEC's are against the Big 10 -- I'd like to se more variation on the matchups.

I suppose I didn't really think about it this way. Maybe I am getting caught up in the media hype as well.

[I. J. Reilly]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

I'm thinking about going to Stanford/Oregon, to see what should be a shootout. The Ducks are going to score on Stanford's D. Can Stanford keep up? Can they catch a few breaks and manage a W, making them bowl eligible for the first time since 2001?

You should go to Berkley instead, should be a much better game. And be sure to cheer for the Beavs, I think we’re going to need all the help we can get.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

The system was designed to get the top 2 teams to play each other, which it does. And really, at a micro level, to get the Big 10 and Pac 10 involved beyond their relationship with the Rose Bowl.

Without getting into a BCS debate, I will just add that the problem is how do we know if the top two teams are actually playing each other? At least in a playoff system, teams have the chance to prove it on the field, rather than by clueless voters and a computer.

[Karlifornia]

Originally Posted by I. J. Reilly

You should go to Berkley instead, should be a much better game. And be sure to cheer for the Beavs, I think we’re going to need all the help we can get.

Sorry, I like watching student/athletes..not pro teams.

[Karlifornia]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

Oregon should win this one going away. I see them as a top-3 team right now.

The bandwagon is standing room only right now for the Ducks, as it should be. Road conference games are still no gimme, especially against a solid team. Just ask the previous incarnations of USC.

[I. J. Reilly]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

Sorry, I like watching student/athletes..not pro teams.

Is that a shot at Cal or OSU? I don't really follow either way.

[Karlifornia]

Originally Posted by I. J. Reilly

Is that a shot at Cal or OSU? I don't really follow either way.

Whoever's willing to take the bait. It's how we Stanford fans barb fans of superior teams.

[I. J. Reilly]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

Whoever's willing to take the bait. It's how we Stanford fans barb fans of superior teams.

Ah. Cal fans, are you going to let him get away with that

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

Without getting into a BCS debate, I will just add that the problem is how do we know if the top two teams are actually playing each other? At least in a playoff system, teams have the chance to prove it on the field, rather than by clueless voters and a computer.

I understand, but the problem with college football is that there are 120 teams and each of them only play 12 or 13 opponents a year (and some of those are subdivision teams). All the teams cannot play one another and you are still going to have the same problems in selecting playoff teams that you do in selecting the top two teams -- it will just be more dilluted and take several more weeks.

For example, under your scenario of Florida/Texas/Cincy/TCU/Boise St. all going undefeated, if we picked the top 4 teams, who do you leave out and why? If you take the top 8 teams, based on today's rankings/standings, do you take Georgia Tech (ranked 10th in the BCS, but the top ranked ACC team -- and the ACC has largely been ranked ahead of the B10 and B12 this season) and cut one of the other top 8 teams? Do you cut the loser of the Alabama/Florida game to get the best 8 teams?

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

I understand, but the problem with college football is that there are 120 teams and each of them only play 12 or 13 opponents a year (and some of those are subdivision teams). All the teams cannot play one another and you are still going to have the same problems in selecting playoff teams that you do in selecting the top two teams -- it will just be more dilluted and take several more weeks.

For example, under your scenario of Florida/Texas/Cincy/TCU/Boise St. all going undefeated, if we picked the top 4 teams, who do you leave out and why? If you take the top 8 teams, based on today's rankings/standings, do you take Georgia Tech (ranked 10th in the BCS, but the top ranked ACC team -- and the ACC has largely been ranked ahead of the B10 and B12 this season) and cut one of the other top 8 teams? Do you cut the loser of the Alabama/Florida game to get the best 8 teams?

How about a 16 team playoff? Or even a 25 team playoff? We are at the point now where we have college football games on television on any given night of the week and on Saturday. Hell, last week we had a game on Sunday night.

So we have the top 25 teams playing each other in a playoff, with one of them being a play in (due to the odd number of teams, or we have the #1 team get a bye the first week).

How this is all done is not within my realm of understanding, although I do have ideas about it, I doubt my thoughts really matter in any case.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

I understand, but the problem with college football is that there are 120 teams and each of them only play 12 or 13 opponents a year (and some of those are subdivision teams). All the teams cannot play one another and you are still going to have the same problems in selecting playoff teams that you do in selecting the top two teams -- it will just be more dilluted and take several more weeks.

For example, under your scenario of Florida/Texas/Cincy/TCU/Boise St. all going undefeated, if we picked the top 4 teams, who do you leave out and why? If you take the top 8 teams, based on today's rankings/standings, do you take Georgia Tech (ranked 10th in the BCS, but the top ranked ACC team -- and the ACC has largely been ranked ahead of the B10 and B12 this season) and cut one of the other top 8 teams? Do you cut the loser of the Alabama/Florida game to get the best 8 teams?

I would rather screw the 5th, 9th, or 17th place team than the 3rd place team.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I would rather screw the 5th, 9th, or 17th place team than the 3rd place team.

At the end of the day, what's the difference, though?

It really doesn't matter much to me either way, but if Alabama/Florida, Texas, Cincy, Boise St., Iowa, and TCU are all undefeated (and they should all be favored the rest of the way, w/ the exception of possibly Iowa) at the end of the season and you screw the 5th and/or 6th place team, won't they have a beef for being shut out?

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

At the end of the day, what's the difference, though?

It's a huge difference. You can leave out legitimate title contenders that can do nothing more than they have done when you only have 2 teams. When you have 16, that is FAR less likely.

[RainMaker]

With a 16 team playoff, the 17th team can complain, but they don't have much of a case. Kind of like the 66th team in the NCAA tournament. They had their opportunities to make it during the season.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

I have been saying exactly this for a couple of years now. Nobody wants to schedule an OOC potential loss like Boise State when they can schedule teams like Troy and Delaware State.

And every time you say it it's pointed out that other WAC and MWC and C-USA teams have no problem scheduling multiple BCS schools. With many of these BCS schools traveling to their "lesser" counterparts.

Originally Posted by Swaggs

The system was designed to get the top 2 teams to play each other, which it does. And really, at a micro level, to get the Big 10 and Pac 10 involved beyond their relationship with the Rose Bowl.

With the exception of pairing the #1 and #2 ranked teams, particularly when there are 2 major conference unbeatens, instead of "the top 2 teams", +infinity. People hate the BCS because it's not a playoff (and I'm on record as supporting a playoff), but would you rather have split titles like 1994 and 1997 or the Miami-Ohio St and USC-Texas classics we've had the last few years? There's still arguments when a 3rd team is undefeated (2004, 2008) or when multiple 1 or even 2-loss teams are fighting for a place (2003, 2006, 2007, 2008), but the BCS was never designed to solve those - it was created, and then expanded with the Rose/Big10/Pac10 to ensure that if 2 major conference teams end up undefeated, they face each other, and as far as that's concerned, it's done it's job.

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

How about a 16 team playoff? Or even a 25 team playoff?

Because once you get beyond 8 it eliminates the importance of regular season games and conference championships, actually reduces the incentive to schedule high-profile OOC games, and leads to less football since the regular season would be cut to 11 games.

If a perfect storm plays out this year (Texas losing or Bama/FLA losing before the SECCG then winning that, the other 4 staying undefeated, then whichever one is picked, let's say Iowa, beating the SEC champion in an ugly low-scoring game while a the #3 team, say Cincinnati, blows out their opponent and gets a lot of AP voters to proclaim it national champion) I wouldn't be surprised to see the BCS expand into a plus-1, or essentially 4-team playoff format. The BCS has added a bowl game, and the extra revenue stream, every 4-5 years since it started.

[BishopMVP]

Also, while it won't help the defense stick to its assignments or tackle, WR Michael Floyd returns vs. Navy after the broken collarbone suffered vs. Michigan. Turns a dangerous offense back into one of the best in the country.

Some bad injury news for 2010 though, as backup QB Dayne Crist tore an ACL vs. Washington State and is out 4-6 months. It won't be much of a problem this year as ND has a senior backup in Sharpley, but if Clausen leaves after this year ND won't even have a scholarship QB for spring football, which will really hamper the development of the passing game. (Side question - if they needed him and he wanted to, would the current senior backup QB be allowed to practice with ND in the spring, even though he's not coming back next fall? Or is that against NCAA rules?)

[tarcone]

Im out of town this weekend. Not sure if Im taking the computer or not. So if Iowa loses and Im not around thats why. Not that Im ducking the bashing I will take.

Big game. NW always plays us tough.

GO HAWKS!

[hoopsguy]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Big game. NW always plays us tough.

On the one hand, they are all big games this time of year when you are undefeated. Plus there is the look-ahead aspect of Ohio State. On some level, I get it.

On the other hand, you do not see Florida fans posting "Big game. Vandy always plays us tough and we'll be done our best defensive player for a half." If Iowa is really elite then Northwestern is not a big game. Of course, Indiana should not be tugging on Superman's (er, Iowa's) cape either ...

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

And every time you say it it's pointed out that other WAC and MWC and C-USA teams have no problem scheduling multiple BCS schools. With many of these BCS schools traveling to their "lesser" counterparts.

Did you read the article that Cartman posted? Of course C-USA, other WAC schools, and most of the MWC schools have no problem scheduling multiple BCS schools. They don't pose a serious threat to an undefeated season like a Boise State would. The toughest OOC game for TCU so far has been Clemson. They have the benefit of being in a better conference than Boise State so they play teams like BYU (who has been proven to be rather fraudulent), and Utah.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

People hate the BCS because it's not a playoff (and I'm on record as supporting a playoff), but would you rather have split titles like 1994 and 1997 or the Miami-Ohio St and USC-Texas classics we've had the last few years? .

There should've been a split title in 1994 but there wasn't

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Also, while it won't help the defense stick to its assignments or tackle, WR Michael Floyd returns vs. Navy after the broken collarbone suffered vs. Michigan State.

He cut his knee against Michigan when he fell on the track near the field. He left the game to get stitches and didn't come back (because he's not a hockey player). Notre Dame's offense was very different without Floyd on the field. He's a great player. I hope the collarbone has sufficiently healed and it's not a Charles Rogers type thing that re-breaks immediately.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

Did you read the article that Cartman posted? Of course C-USA, other WAC schools, and most of the MWC schools have no problem scheduling multiple BCS schools. They don't pose a serious threat to an undefeated season like a Boise State would. The toughest OOC game for TCU so far has been Clemson. They have the benefit of being in a better conference than Boise State so they play teams like BYU (who has been proven to be rather fraudulent), and Utah.

How has BYU been provent to be fraudulent? Their losses are to TCU and Florida State. They beat Oklahoma on a neutral site. Not a top team but still a real solid one.

The Clemson and Virginia games came on the road for TCU. In fact, all their big wins did. The top teams in the MWC are better than the top teams in all but a couple major conferences in this country (I'd say everyone but Pac-10 and SEC). Not sure if you're trying to denegrate their schedule but TCU has shown over the years that they are not afraid to schedule tough.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

How has BYU been provent to be fraudulent? Their losses are to TCU and Florida State. They beat Oklahoma on a neutral site. Not a top team but still a real solid one.

The Clemson and Virginia games came on the road for TCU. In fact, all their big wins did. The top teams in the MWC are better than the top teams in all but a couple major conferences in this country (I'd say everyone but Pac-10 and SEC). Not sure if you're trying to denegrate their schedule but TCU has shown over the years that they are not afraid to schedule tough.

I have no problems with TCU at all, they are a top team for sure. My issue with BYU is that both of their losses were at home and were complete blowouts. A top team doesn't get blown out at home. If you think that getting destroyed at home to a subpar Florida State team makes BYU a real solid team, more power to you.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

On the one hand, they are all big games this time of year when you are undefeated. Plus there is the look-ahead aspect of Ohio State. On some level, I get it.

On the other hand, you do not see Florida fans posting "Big game. Vandy always plays us tough and we'll be done our best defensive player for a half." If Iowa is really elite then Northwestern is not a big game. Of course, Indiana should not be tugging on Superman's (er, Iowa's) cape either ...

I would compare it to Florida getting beat by Mississippi last season. Not Vandy.
But in a rivalry sense, closer to Georgia/Florida.

But no Florida fans wont post that because they are in running for a national championship every season and are loaded with 5 star type players that out talent most teams. Iowa doesnt have that luxury, so yes, the Kitties worry me.

[RedKingGold]

Excited for PSU-OSU. So long as PSU wins out, we should at least be in-line for a BCS bid (hopefully an Orange Bowl matchup with either Miami or Pitt).

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Excited for PSU-OSU. So long as PSU wins out, we should at least be in-line for a BCS bid (hopefully an Orange Bowl matchup with either Miami or Pitt).

Orange Bowl will almost certainly have the ACC Champs (unless GT somehow climbs to the top 2 in the BCS, which would be near impossible) -- so you are probably looking at Georgia Tech, Boston College, or Clemson as one team.

[Swaggs]

Dola. Guess I should mention that Duke, technically, controls its own fate in the ACC, as well. If they can win out (@UNC, GT, @Miami, Wake Forest, and then the ACC championship game) -- they would be the ACC champs, as hard as that is to believe.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

Did you read the article that Cartman posted? Of course C-USA, other WAC schools, and most of the MWC schools have no problem scheduling multiple BCS schools. They don't pose a serious threat to an undefeated season like a Boise State would. The toughest OOC game for TCU so far has been Clemson. They have the benefit of being in a better conference than Boise State so they play teams like BYU (who has been proven to be rather fraudulent), and Utah.

Yes, I read the article and the one it was taken from, and it sounds like the commisioner has little idea what he's talking about. "WAC commissioner Karl Benson isn't sure of the exact number of schools that have said no, but figures it is close to 10." Considering it's for 2011, when many teams are already filled out, and Boise is trying to work it around their other 12 already scheduled games, I'm betting it comes down more to logistics than being scared of Boise as the commissioner and Bruce Feldman want you to believe.

I'd go through the named "elite" teams in the article allegedly ducking Boise and see their 2011 OOC's, but the author loses all credibility when he lists Arizona, Texas A&M and Oklahoma St as elite programs, so let's look at the prominent BCS-busters. The most consistently tough non-BCS schools the past decade have been BYU, Utah, TCU, Fresno and Boise. (I'm leaving Hawaii out because of the odd benefits of scheduling them, but they've also played multiple BCS schools every year.) We can go through one by one and see all the teams they've played or scheduled.

Boise St: (2005-Georgia, Oregon St) (2006-Oregon St) (2007-Washington) (2008-Oregon) (2009-Oregon) (2010-VT, Oregon St.) (2011-None) (2012-Oregon St.)
BYU: (2005-BC, ND) (2006-Arizona, BC) (2007-Arizona, UCLA) (2008-Washington, UCLA) (2009-Oklahoma, FSU) (2010-Washington, FSU) (2011-Arizona St) (2012-)
Utah: (2005-Arizona, UNC) (2006-UCLA) (2007-Oregon St, UCLA, Louisville) (2008-Michigan, Oregon St) (2009-Oregon, Louisville) (2010-Pitt, Iowa St, Notre Dame) (2011-Pitt, Iowa St, Oregon St.) (2012-Washington St, Colorado)
TCU: (2005-Oklahoma) (2006-Baylor, Texas Tech) (2007-Baylor, Texas) (2008-Oklahoma, Stanford) (2009-Virginia, Clemson) (2010-Baylor, Texas Tech) (2011-Texas Tech, Baylor) (2012-Oklahoma, Virginia)
Fresno St: (2005-Oregon, USC) (2006-Oregon, Washington, LSU) (2007-Texas A&M, Oregon, KSU) (2008-Rutgers, Wisconsin, UCLA) (2009-Wisconsin, Cincinnati) (2010-Cincy, Ole Miss, Illinois) (2011-Ole Miss, Nebraska, Colorado) (2012-Colorado)

Out of the 40 seasons there, 30 involve playing multiple BCS schools. There are 2 times (2005 TCU, 2006 Utah) a non-Boise team only plays 1 BCS team, 2 (Fresno 2012, BYU 2012) with unfinished schedules, and then a whopping 6 of 8 years from Boise where they've played/scheduled 1 or 0 BCS opponents. Now, you can argue that after seeing Georgia annihilate Boise 48-13 to open 2005, BCS AD's suddenly got more scared of Boise than the other non-BCS schools, or you can add up the hints (other teams have scheduled these games, ESPN is pushing behind the scenes) and see that Boise isn't actually offering to play any good BCS school with no conditions attached.

EDIT - I also think it's hilarious you call BYU - who beat national title hopeful and currently ranked Oklahoma - fraudulent, and mention TCU's win at Clemson - a preseason BCS darkhorse, and currently just outside the top 25 - and somehow think this helps your case that good teams won't schedule teams like Boise for fear of ruining their seasons.

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

He cut his knee against Michigan when he fell on the track near the field. He left the game to get stitches and didn't come back (because he's not a hockey player). Notre Dame's offense was very different without Floyd on the field. He's a great player. I hope the collarbone has sufficiently healed and it's not a Charles Rogers type thing that re-breaks immediately.

My bad. I do think the hockey player analogy is pushing it a little, because as badass as it is to come back with stitches on your face, you don't use your face to run/skate.

Definitely agreed on the last sentence, because while he'll allegedly be "eased back in", a broken collarbone really isn't a pulled muscle or bruised whatever that can be managed and aggravated by too much contact - the collarbone is either healed and can withstand a blow, or it's not and it's going to re-break.

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Dola. Guess I should mention that Duke, technically, controls its own fate in the ACC, as well. If they can win out (@UNC, GT, @Miami, Wake Forest, and then the ACC championship game) -- they would be the ACC champs, as hard as that is to believe.

It's been awhile since I said David Cutcliffe was a phenomenal coach, and it's absurd Ole Miss ran him out of town because all the seniors (including Eli) graduated after their 9-3 year, and he was running out the youngest team in the SEC the next.

[Dr. Sak]

Don't look now but the Temple Owls are 7-2!

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

Don't look now but the Temple Owls are 7-2!

I didn't think basketball season had started yet!

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

Don't look now but the Temple Owls are 7-2!

....with one of their losses to Villanova.

[molson]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Boise St: (2005-Georgia, Oregon St) (2006-Oregon St) (2007-Washington) (2008-Oregon) (2009-Oregon) (2010-VT, Oregon St.) (2011-None) (2012-Oregon St.)
BYU: (2005-BC, ND) (2006-Arizona, BC) (2007-Arizona, UCLA) (2008-Washington, UCLA) (2009-Oklahoma, FSU) (2010-Washington, FSU) (2011-Arizona St) (2012-)
Utah: (2005-Arizona, UNC) (2006-UCLA) (2007-Oregon St, UCLA, Louisville) (2008-Michigan, Oregon St) (2009-Oregon, Louisville) (2010-Pitt, Iowa St, Notre Dame) (2011-Pitt, Iowa St, Oregon St.) (2012-Washington St, Colorado)
TCU: (2005-Oklahoma) (2006-Baylor, Texas Tech) (2007-Baylor, Texas) (2008-Oklahoma, Stanford) (2009-Virginia, Clemson) (2010-Baylor, Texas Tech) (2011-Texas Tech, Baylor) (2012-Oklahoma, Virginia)
Fresno St: (2005-Oregon, USC) (2006-Oregon, Washington, LSU) (2007-Texas A&M, Oregon, KSU) (2008-Rutgers, Wisconsin, UCLA) (2009-Wisconsin, Cincinnati) (2010-Cincy, Ole Miss, Illinois) (2011-Ole Miss, Nebraska, Colorado) (2012-Colorado)

Out of the 40 seasons there, 30 involve playing multiple BCS schools. There are 2 times (2005 TCU, 2006 Utah) a non-Boise team only plays 1 BCS team, 2 (Fresno 2012, BYU 2012) with unfinished schedules, and then a whopping 6 of 8 years from Boise where they've played/scheduled 1 or 0 BCS opponents. Now, you can argue that after seeing Georgia annihilate Boise 48-13 to open 2005, BCS AD's suddenly got more scared of Boise than the other non-BCS schools, or you can add up the hints (other teams have scheduled these games, ESPN is pushing behind the scenes) and see that Boise isn't actually offering to play any good BCS school with no conditions attached.

That's a very telling summary.

They seem to know what they're doing, but they're definitely risking falling into that Atlanta Braves-mindset with the fanbase. It's a very boring team to follow. You can take for granted a certain amount of success, but there's very little drama outside of the 1, or or occasionaly now 0, BCS opponents. The only interesting thing that could happen is BSU losing a WAC game.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by cartman

Interesting read for those saying all Boise State has to do is schedule BCS teams:

No incentive for BCS conference teams to play Boise State | Voices.IdahoStatesman.com

Considering the WAC hired a PR firm at the start of the season to try to help push Boise into a BCS bowl I think I'll take anything said by conference officials with a grain of salt.

[DeToxRox]

Just reading on some Rivals boards, people on an OSU site are hearing the Big 10 has approached Rutgers about joining the Big 10. Take it FWIW but it wouldn't shock me.