Who you taking tonight, Boise State or TCU?
- Thread starter EddieISU
- Start date
And many people would consider the Mountain West not that much different than the Missouri Valley...
Let "many people" do what they want. I will list a few of facts (I know, crazy).
Mountain West - FBS
Missouri Valley - FCS
Boise State is not in the MWC, but are in the WAC
Western Atlantic - also FBS
Last edited:
22 you hit the nail on the head. Selecting TCU and BSU to play each other was a total BCS cop out and as a result we will never know for sure how good either one of these teams are. But it was safe for the BCS. If either one of these teams would have got paired up with someone like Florida or Cincy and pulled off the win, it would make it that much harder to keep them out of the title talk in the future. I don't think the BCS bowls like having these mid-major teams to begin with, but having one make the title game would be even worse.
You never know what you are going to get with these teams because of the competition they play during the season. They could come out and compete: BSU or Utah. Or they could come out and look completely overmatched: Hawaii. It is one thing if that happens in some random BCS game, it is another if it happens in the title game.
Say Texas lost to Nebby and TCU goes to the title game only to get blown out by Bama. Then you have all these other top tier teams like Cincy, Texas, Florida, sitting out there undefeated or with one loss. There would just be too many questions around it.
The only way to get around this issue while giving the mid-majors a fair shake is a playoff. Give us an 8 team playoff or something. If they get blown out in their first game, you don't lose much. If they actually make it to the title game, chances are they belong and they can have their shot at the title without the controversy we get from the current system. Everybody not in that playoff can go to the bowls to take their trip somewhere warm and squeeze a couple more weeks out of football season.
Your last paragraph is pretty much right on, but the 8 team format would create even more controversy over who did or did not get in. I mean look at the NCAA tourny in bball, they take 65 teams and someone is always whining that they got snubbed. The mid majors would be lucky to 1 team in a year. Heck if not for the new BCS format of playing the NC game as an extra game there would not chance to get 2 like this year. People are giving the BCS too much credit if they really believe anyone in charge wanted TCU and Boise to both make it to a BCS game. there were simply no other options.
People. It is simple. I believe what Eddie and Bobber are trying to say is that although Boise and TCU are very good teams, they will never deserve a chance at BCS championship until the strength of their conference greatly improves. It is not a debate about how good Boise and TCU are, but rather about fairness.
Should they only have to worry about getting that one non-conference signature win, while the rest of the BCS schools have to worry about their eight conference games? How is that fair to BCS schools? It's not.
Hell, Texas should join the MWC and then they could play for the national championship every single year. But, there is no way TCU or Boise would be playing for a national championship if they played any BCSconference.
And if you disagree, I call your college football fan-dom into question.
But seriously.
Should they only have to worry about getting that one non-conference signature win, while the rest of the BCS schools have to worry about their eight conference games? How is that fair to BCS schools? It's not.
Hell, Texas should join the MWC and then they could play for the national championship every single year. But, there is no way TCU or Boise would be playing for a national championship if they played any BCSconference.
And if you disagree, I call your college football fan-dom into question.
But seriously.
And how does a playoff solve the problem? Boise and TCU would still be basically given spots yearly, as long as they run through their conferences. Which seems to become more likely as they they seem to be seperating themselves from the pack more and more every year.
Would they be very good? Yes. Does that mean they would be one of the top 8 teams in the country? No. Would they probably earn a spot anyways based on their weak conferences? Yes.
Once again, how is that fair?
Would they be very good? Yes. Does that mean they would be one of the top 8 teams in the country? No. Would they probably earn a spot anyways based on their weak conferences? Yes.
Once again, how is that fair?
I didn't read what Eddie said, but I do think you guys are taking whatever was said a little too personally
I'm not taking it personally at all, but as a pure sports fan it does bother when people refuse to give credit when and where credit is due, and I will engage that argument.
And many people would consider the Mountain West not that much different than the Missouri Valley...
I'm sorry, but this is just a silly, silly statement to make. The Missouri Valley, sorry to say, isn't even one of the best FCS conferences out there. In 2008, when UNI, with a really good FCS team, played at BYU to open the season, they got blasted.
Should they only have to worry about getting that one non-conference signature win, while the rest of the BCS schools have to worry about their eight conference games? How is that fair to BCS schools? It's not.
Come on now, do you really feel that if either TCU or Boise State had even lost one non-conference game that they would have played in that bowl last night? H*ll no...they needed to run the table through both the non-conference and conference seasons. Iowa and Georgia Tech both lost games at home and still make the BCS bowl system. TCU and Boise State would not have been given that opportunity at all. And, sorry, but to argue that the current system is unfair to BCS schools is another silly thing to say.
Look, would Boise State or TCU beat Texas or Alabama? I don't know if they would, but you don't know if they would lose either, so until there is a playoff of some kind nobody will ever know what could happen on the field.
Seasons like this are why their needs to be a playoff, IMO.
I'm not taking it personally at all, but as a pure sports fan it does bother when people refuse to give credit when and where credit is due, and I will engage that argument.
And many people would consider the Mountain West not that much different than the Missouri Valley...
I'm sorry, but this is just a silly, silly statement to make. The Missouri Valley, sorry to say, isn't even one of the best FCS conferences out there. In 2008, when UNI, with a really good FCS team, played at BYU to open the season, they got blasted.
Should they only have to worry about getting that one non-conference signature win, while the rest of the BCS schools have to worry about their eight conference games? How is that fair to BCS schools? It's not.
Come on now, do you really feel that if either TCU or Boise State had even lost one non-conference game that they would have played in that bowl last night? H*ll no...they needed to run the table through both the non-conference and conference seasons. Iowa and Georgia Tech both lost games at home and still make the BCS bowl system. TCU and Boise State would not have been given that opportunity at all. And, sorry, but to argue that the current system is unfair to BCS schools is another silly thing to say.
Look, would Boise State or TCU beat Texas or Alabama? I don't know if they would, but you don't know if they would lose either, so until there is a playoff of some kind nobody will ever know what could happen on the field.
Seasons like this are why their needs to be a playoff, IMO.
You better not knock SMU too much...they will be banging on the BCS door soon. If June Jones can take Hawaii to the BCS he sure as hell will be taking SMU to the BCS...book it.
Ok questions. I'll pose these, as I did in another thread
Schedule, schedule, schedule. Boise just wins.
They also have a bowl win over OU. In addition, they won another BCS bowl game last night. The defeated a current BCS bowl team (Oregon) handily. Basically, Boise defeats whoever is put in front of them.
Could they do the same with Alabama or Texas? Don't know. But there is nothing that says they can't. Nothing. Fact.
The schedule argument is quite old too...IMO. And again, the items below are my opinion.
Who would be almost for sure to beat Boise in the Big 12? In the North, the only team with a shot is Nebraska. IMO, it would be a competitive game based on watching both teams. Texas barely beat Nebraska. In the South, I don't see a team there other than Texas that I'd favor to beat Boise. And I'd have Texas favored to win by about 7...just like TCU was favored to win by 7 and lost (or any of the other bowl favorites that lost).
While Texas had a tougher SOS, I think it's a fairly accurate statement to say Boise could defeat most, if not all, of the teams on the Longhorn schedule.
I have to agree with this. Everything is better at SMU for football. If they give him the tools (so far they have), he'll do quite well there. Great story.
I would not and am not arguing that Boise is not a very good team. They are. There is plenty of evidence.
But, you've failed to answer my question. Boise's schedule is weak. Fact. Is that fair to other teams competing for a national championship? That is for you to decide.
And as to how Boise would fair in the Big 12. Did you watch them play last night? They showed me nothing that would evidence they could compete in the Big 12 week in and week out. Would they be favored in most games? Probably. But how many times did the "favorite" win the game this year in our league? Not often. Ask Nebraska about that. And Texas almost lost to Colorado for Pete's sake! Every week would be a challenge for them, something Boise has not experienced lately. Thinking Boise could run the table in the Big 12 is absurd.
I guess your argument is on schedule alone. I would think then you would like a rematch between Florida and Alabama because Florida schedule was tougher and their loss was to the number one team. All a team can do is win games. You have to look at teams and try to decide who is better by how they played, not by who they played. I think TCU was the #1 defense and they were also in the top 10 in offense. Even if those are inflated a little that is still pretty good. Boise beat that team. Utah crushed Bama last year a month after they may have been the best team in the Nation. Boise beat OK a few years ago. I think if Boise plays our schedule they run the table. They may lose to Texas but I actually think I would take Boise in that game. You people that will not allow TCU and Boise to get their credit refuse to look at any fact except "they have a weak schedule." TCU ran through a conference that is 6-1 in bowl games and is winning them by 24. How is that a weak conference. Iowa almost lost to UNI and they are in. How would that be fair to Boise? TCU beat the PAC 10 Champion who beat the Big Ten Champion. I don't care how good their conferences are. I think they are decent, but that doesn't matter. You have to look at the team. All they can do is play their schedule. None of the "big" school will schedule them so they are at a huge disadvantage.
Watched the entire game. What part of the game proved to you they could not handle the Big 12? Especially when Boise has multiple wins over Big 12 teams in recent history.
Why is it absurd to think Boise could run the table in the Big 12? You just noted yourself any given week anything can happen. Boise could upset Texas, OU, etc - and have a much easier time of doing it than a lowly CU team.
The schedule argument against the playoff just doesn't hold up. The schedule would be factored into who gets selected for the playoff. That is how it works in the bball tourney, and we don't have issues there. The fact is, a team like Boise would have to run the table to get in while a team like Florida or Iowa could come out of a power conference with 1 or 2 losses and still make it. Who you beat and who you lose to and when it happens all matters to where you are in the polls, and the polls determine who is in and out of the current BCS.
My gripe is this: TCU and BSU did everything they could. They beat everyone they played, and usually in convincing fasion. However, in the current system, they would need absolutely everything to go there way in regards to the other teams to even get a shot at the title. In a playoff, all they have to do is get in. If they really are good enough, they will have a chance to prove it on the field. At least we will know. Right now nobody has any idea.
Sure, neither team looked amazing last night, but it could very well be that what we saw was an even matchup of two teams that would go out there and hang right with Bama or Texas. The bottom line is until they have a chance to play one of the big boys in the post season, we will never know. And the post season is the only place it will ever happen, none of the big time programs are going to step up and schedule them in the regular season.
My gripe is this: TCU and BSU did everything they could. They beat everyone they played, and usually in convincing fasion. However, in the current system, they would need absolutely everything to go there way in regards to the other teams to even get a shot at the title. In a playoff, all they have to do is get in. If they really are good enough, they will have a chance to prove it on the field. At least we will know. Right now nobody has any idea.
Sure, neither team looked amazing last night, but it could very well be that what we saw was an even matchup of two teams that would go out there and hang right with Bama or Texas. The bottom line is until they have a chance to play one of the big boys in the post season, we will never know. And the post season is the only place it will ever happen, none of the big time programs are going to step up and schedule them in the regular season.
First off, I'm not sure whether it's more funny or more pathetic that Eddie is still addressing posts to me when he knows he's on my ignore list. EddieISU, the reason I put you on ignore isn't because of your opinion. Everyone is entitled to one. The reason I put you on ignore is because of your fact-less assertion. You state your opinion and then demand that everyone beleive it without regards to bringing any sort of rationality or fact to it. That's what gets me, and you're not the only one. I apologize for calling you a moron, I had a strong reaction to what you wrote and it came out in my response. I do try and be better than that and occasionally I fail.
Sure, neither team looked amazing last night, but it could very well be that what we saw was an even matchup of two teams that would go out there and hang right with Bama or Texas.
And the thing that bugs me about that is that if Texas and Alabama score 27 combined points in a couple of nights it will be regarded by all the "experts" and talking heads as a classic defensive struggle, but since it was Boise State and TCU all of a sudden it becomes a boring, poorly-played game. I don't like that media-created double standard.
Sure, neither team looked amazing last night, but it could very well be that what we saw was an even matchup of two teams that would go out there and hang right with Bama or Texas.
And the thing that bugs me about that is that if Texas and Alabama score 27 combined points in a couple of nights it will be regarded by all the "experts" and talking heads as a classic defensive struggle, but since it was Boise State and TCU all of a sudden it becomes a boring, poorly-played game. I don't like that media-created double standard.
Exactly. That was my point with this matchup. Any result is counter productive. If one blasts the other, the loser will never be looked at the same. Since it was a close game apparently neither team is any good. Heaven forbid they both can play defense.
