[mulletman]

Originally Posted by S.B.Nichols

I'd just be happy if they played anyone of note. As far as I can tell, the only reason they're in it at all is because the voters want to stick it to the whole system.

Right. And the fact that they've beaten everyone they can get their hands on for a while now means absolutely nothing...

Virginia Tech is noteworthy. Oregon State was noteworthy. Last year's bowl game was noteworthy. The BCS game with Oklahoma was noteworthy. They've played more than one noteworthy game..... They are consistently a strong team, that has had to earn their recognition by performing at a high level for several consecutive years.




In any case, simply the sheer fact that as you say 'the voters want to stick it to the whole system,' means that the system sucks badly enough to be completely dysfunctional. It was a poor idea, worse in execution, and is now worsening as people try to defeat it somehow.

[S.B.Nichols]

Originally Posted by The Phantom Mullet

The BCS game with Oklahoma was noteworthy.

It's been...what, three seasons...four? Its not even the same team.

Virginia Tech is noteworthy.

Not in the least. Beating an impostor is no claim to fame.

Oregon State was noteworthy.

barely. I'd say this is the most noteworthy team they've beat this year, and it certainly doesn't justify the high ranking they've got. They've beat Oregon a few times in the last few years...that's about the best case I can say for them even being ranked higher than 20.

This is all just my opinion. I'm sure I'm not swaying anyone's mind. I'm also fairly certain that my old high school football team could etch out a winning record against Boise's remaining opponents.

Can I just say, before anyone gets the impression I'm an SEC snob or something, that I would really like a reason to believe in Boise, or TCU, or the like. For me, it comes down to opponents. Boise needs to find some competition, even if they have to play as a visitor.

In any case, simply the sheer fact that as you say 'the voters want to stick it to the whole system,' means that the system sucks badly enough to be completely dysfunctional.

agreed.

[thesteve]

Well this should all get settled at the beginning of next season. I just looked up Boise State's 2011 schedule. BSU will open the 2011 season at Ole Miss. In 2012 they will have to play against Utah.

So it may suck again for BSU in 2010, but at least they will get to play some bigger schools over the next couple seasons.

[S.B.Nichols]

Originally Posted by thesteve

Well this should all get settled at the beginning of next season. I just looked up Boise State's 2011 schedule. BSU will open the 2011 season at Ole Miss. In 2012 they will have to play against Utah.

So it may suck again for BSU in 2010, but at least they will get to play some bigger schools over the next couple seasons.

It occurred to me last night, that if they also win out the rest of the year (which I'm almost certain they will given the schedule), they're going to get to play someone in a bowl game. Unless they're unluckly enough to get TCU again.

[bowstaff981]

I had actually heard that Boise State said they would play anyone on the road and that nobody would accept.

Time to investigate...

[mulletman]

Well, if you're a big name school from a big name conference, why would you schedule someone who actually thinks they can beat you as one of your non-conference games?

[thesteve]

Originally Posted by bowstaff981

I had actually heard that Boise State said they would play anyone on the road and that nobody would accept.

Time to investigate...

I wrote about this last night. In the next two years they play two big schools. Ole Miss is part of the SEC and hosts BSU in the 2011 opener. BSU travels to Utah (currently ranked 9th) in 2012.

[Art]

Originally Posted by thesteve

I wrote about this last night. In the next two years they play two big schools. Ole Miss is part of the SEC and hosts BSU in the 2011 opener. BSU travels to Utah (currently ranked 9th) in 2012.

I believe that Utah pulled out of the 2012 game, and the two games after that in which they were supposed to play Boise State.

[thesteve]

Originally Posted by Art

I believe that Utah pulled out of the 2012 game, and the two games after that in which they were supposed to play Boise State.

Ah...gotcha. Well BSU at least has the Ole Miss game next year. Hopefully they'll pick up a strong replacement for Utah.

Honestly, if I was a SEC/Big 10/whatever major fan I'd be pushing my coach to host BSU just to shut them up. Can you imagine how much hype a BSU at OSU/Bama/Auburn/FL/LSU/whatever game would get?

[Gwenny]

Originally Posted by thesteve

Ah...gotcha. Well BSU at least has the Ole Miss game next year. Hopefully they'll pick up a strong replacement for Utah.

Honestly, if I was a SEC/Big 10/whatever major fan I'd be pushing my coach to host BSU just to shut them up. Can you imagine how much hype a BSU at OSU/Bama/Auburn/FL/LSU/whatever game would get?

When is the last time Ole Miss was good? Once again, the go for a middle of the pack team in the SEC. I'd gladly watch them play Ohio State/Alabama/Florida/Oklahoma/Texas just to see if they really are that good or just play cupcake teams and beat them up and expect voters to place them in BCS game over more deserving teams who have one loss against teams that are actually worthwhile.

If I were a voter I would never place Boise State over a team like Alabama who has a loss, considering the schedule they have to play in the SEC. And apparently history agrees with me. Voters are far more likely to base merit on strength of schedule rather than record. And if you get a powerhouse team who plays in a tough conference that goes undefeated they will basically be guaranteed a spot over Boise State, who has the same record, but a pitiful schedule. Granted, it's not fair, but as a lover of college football and as someone who wants to see big teams in the bowl games, I don't care. I'd gladly sit and watch Michigan play in the National Championship over Boise State, TCU, Utah, or any other team that has a crappy schedule.

[jthomas1600]

Originally Posted by thesteve

I wrote about this last night. In the next two years they play two big schools. Ole Miss is part of the SEC and hosts BSU in the 2011 opener. BSU travels to Utah (currently ranked 9th) in 2012.

By the end of the year
LSU will have played 5 ranked opponants,
Auburn will have played 4,
Oklahoma will have played 3,
Michigan State will have played 3,
TCU will have played 2,
Boise will have played 2,
and Oregon will have played 2.

All that said to just sort of put some perspective on things depending on which of these teams end the season undefeated. And of course Boise's two ranked opponents were a #10 team who in hindsight was ranked to high and a #24.

[thesteve]

Originally Posted by luvinjesus

When is the last time Ole Miss was good? Once again, the go for a middle of the pack team in the SEC. I'd gladly watch them play Ohio State/Alabama/Florida/Oklahoma/Texas just to see if they really are that good or just play cupcake teams and beat them up and expect voters to place them in BCS game over more deserving teams who have one loss against teams that are actually worthwhile.

If I were a voter I would never place Boise State over a team like Alabama who has a loss, considering the schedule they have to play in the SEC. And apparently history agrees with me. Voters are far more likely to base merit on strength of schedule rather than record. And if you get a powerhouse team who plays in a tough conference that goes undefeated they will basically be guaranteed a spot over Boise State, who has the same record, but a pitiful schedule. Granted, it's not fair, but as a lover of college football and as someone who wants to see big teams in the bowl games, I don't care. I'd gladly sit and watch Michigan play in the National Championship over Boise State, TCU, Utah, or any other team that has a crappy schedule.

Moving goalpost? You said in your last post that you wanted to see BSU play an SEC team. I said they are playing an SEC team in 2011 and you respond with this idea that it doesn't count since Ole Miss is just mediocre.

Like I said, BSU has put out the challenge and thus far none of the traditional powerhouses have accepted the challenge. They are trying, from what I've gathered, to stack their non-conference schedule with ranked opponents, and OSU/LSU/FL/Bama/etc. don't have the courage to take the game on.

Ultimately what I think this all boils down to is a true need for a collegiate playoff for entrance into a national championship game.

[Gwenny]

Originally Posted by thesteve

Ultimately what I think this all boils down to is a true need for a collegiate playoff for entrance into a national championship game.

I agree. I've been saying that for years. I'm tired of the bcs system. It screws over the teams who lose late in the season, as compared to mediocre teams who lost once or twice in the beginning and then move their way back up, after they play the rest of their schedule which is a cupcake schedule. Teams like LSU, Bama, Florida, Georgia who may be ranked high, can lose to another highly ranked and equally good SEC team but get punished for losing toward the end of the season? Are they worse than the team who lost early in the season? Nope, but the lesser team gets to play in the national championship. I am willing to admit that the 2008 NC between LSU and Ohio State was a perfect example of this, and Ohio State did not deserve to be in the NC. Yes. I just said that.

I'm for a fair way to determine the national championship and the BCS system is not it.

[thesteve]

Originally Posted by luvinjesus

I agree. I've been saying that for years. I'm tired of the bcs system. It screws over the teams who lose late in the season, as compared to mediocre teams who lost once or twice in the beginning and then move their way back up, after they play the rest of their schedule which is a cupcake schedule. Teams like LSU, Bama, Florida, Georgia who may be ranked high, can lose to another highly ranked and equally good SEC team but get punished for losing toward the end of the season? Are they worse than the team who lost early in the season? Nope, but the lesser team gets to play in the national championship. I am willing to admit that the 2008 NC between LSU and Ohio State was a perfect example of this, and Ohio State did not deserve to be in the NC. Yes. I just said that.

I'm for a fair way to determine the national championship and the BCS system is not it.

From what I've seen, and granted I haven't done a ton of research into it, I feel like the most obvious way to do it is to come up with a set number of conferences and have the conference champions and a few wild cards perhaps into a national champion playoff pool. This can then be either divided into regions or something of the sorts with the PAC-10, MWC, and WAC all putting out teams into a Western Region. CUSA, SEC and the ACC could comprise a Southern Region, etc.

I really don't know why there is so much resistance to this sort of setup. Also, wasn't one of Obama's campaign promises to institute a NCAAF playoff system?

But in seriousness, how does Div 1-AA determine a national champion?

EDIT: I'm not sure how this is determined, but I thought it was interesting to see this Strength of Schedule breakdown:
http://collegefootball.rivals.com/co...sp?CID=1140576. Has anyone seen a full breakdown of this? I found it interesting that LSU (SEC) and Stanford (PAC-10?) are the two highest on the list.

[thesteve]

Originally Posted by S.B.Nichols

It occurred to me last night, that if they also win out the rest of the year (which I'm almost certain they will given the schedule), they're going to get to play someone in a bowl game. Unless they're unluckly enough to get TCU again.

And because it's so entertaining, apparently if the BCS bowls were determined today, BSU and TCU would be pitted against each other again.