PDA

View Full Version : Boise State deserve a shot for the National Title?



RBA
01-02-2007, 12:58 AM
Yes or No?

kaldaniels
01-02-2007, 12:59 AM
Nope.

MWM
01-02-2007, 01:02 AM
Depends. They deserve a chance in a broader sense, but not in the BCS format. There's just no way you could have had OSU-Boise state playing for the National Title.

guttle11
01-02-2007, 01:04 AM
It was a great night and one of the best games I'll ever see, but no. You can't compare their schedule to OSU and Florida's.

Jpup
01-02-2007, 01:04 AM
They played who was on the their schedule, they beat all of them. There are 2 undefeated teams, they should be playing for the championship.

Caveat Emperor
01-02-2007, 01:14 AM
You can't compare their schedule to OSU and Florida's.

It's an argument that Boise State can really never win -- their schedule is always going to be crap because their conference is crap.

What do you tell Boise State to do to fix this? They either have to beg and plead their way into a BCS conference or beg and plead their way into getting big-time opponents to schedule them non-conference.

It's part of what irks me about BCS/non-BCS -- the BCS conferences are like private country clubs, selectively admitting schools they want while excluding schools they find undesireable. They hold all the keys, and then tell the outside schools they can't play too.

guttle11
01-02-2007, 01:17 AM
It's an argument that Boise State can really never win -- their schedule is always going to be crap because their conference is crap.

What do you tell Boise State to do to fix this? They either have to beg and plead their way into a BCS conference or beg and plead their way into getting big-time opponents to schedule them non-conference.

The only way is to have their whole conference improve and go undefeated again.

reds44
01-02-2007, 01:27 AM
It was a great night and one of the best games I'll ever see, but no. You can't compare their schedule to OSU and Florida's.
They have 0 losses, Florida has 1.

Use common sense. Boise State deserves a shot.

Razor Shines
01-02-2007, 01:37 AM
In college football the way it is set up you just have to consider strength of schedule. It sucks for BSU, but until the NCAA goes to a tournament I think Florida has to be the team to face OSU. I'd love to see a team like Bosie State get their chance in a tourney but that's probably not going to happen any time soon

jmcclain19
01-02-2007, 01:46 AM
The canyon of talent is so narrow now that I could definitely see a Boise, a Utah from 2005 or a TCU from 2000 winning at least one, if not two or all three games in an 8 team college football playofff.

Tonight's game was just one more check mark in a long list of reasons why a playoff is needed.

Non-BCS schools are now 2-0 in BCS games.

RedsBaron
01-02-2007, 07:02 AM
It's an argument that Boise State can really never win -- their schedule is always going to be crap because their conference is crap.

What do you tell Boise State to do to fix this? They either have to beg and plead their way into a BCS conference or beg and plead their way into getting big-time opponents to schedule them non-conference.

It's part of what irks me about BCS/non-BCS -- the BCS conferences are like private country clubs, selectively admitting schools they want while excluding schools they find undesireable. They hold all the keys, and then tell the outside schools they can't play too.

Yep. And if the BCS schools do agree to play non-BCS teams, it usually is on the basis of only if the non-BCS team goes on the road.

cincinnati chili
01-02-2007, 07:48 AM
It's one of the reasons I pity those of you who have a passion for I-A college football.

It's not a "national championship." It's a best-of-four-conferences-plus-Notre-Dame title.

Even if Rutgers had run the table (a Big East team), I'm not 100% sure that they would have made it into the championship game.

I rarely get to watch college football with law school and all. Yesterday was a great day of football.

Heath
01-02-2007, 08:26 AM
Non-BCS schools are now 2-0 in BCS games.

And that's the exact reason why some still ignore the little ones.

Bring on the Broncos.

GIK
01-02-2007, 09:03 AM
Yes.

That was probably the best college football game I've ever watched.

NJReds
01-02-2007, 09:07 AM
No. When you play a weak conference schedule, you have to schedule better out-of-conference opponents then Sacramento State, Oregon St. and Wyoming.

But that was a great game and it shows they can play with anyone. Now they just have to schedule some tougher opponents.

bucksfan
01-02-2007, 09:54 AM
I agree that in the broad sense they certainly do deserve a shot. Obviously the way the BCS is set up, it is nearly impossible for a team like them to get the title shot. As most others. I still find great flaws in marking the winner of just one certain game the national champion. Granted there are some years that 2 teams can be rather clearly selected for that one game, but in general I'd rather see the old bowl system and just have those debates rather than the current system.

It would be fun (and somewhat scary!) to play Boise St. That said, I think the Florida game will be a good one also.

paintmered
01-02-2007, 10:51 AM
They played who was on the their schedule, they beat all of them. There are 2 undefeated teams, they should be playing for the championship.

That argument makes sense but only if both teams are in BCS conferences. Boise State is not.

It might be in their best interest to try and switch into a BCS conference. Otherwise they will never sniff a national championship.

HotCorner
01-02-2007, 10:55 AM
No. When you play a weak conference schedule, you have to schedule better out-of-conference opponents then Sacramento State, Oregon St. and Wyoming.

But that was a great game and it shows they can play with anyone. Now they just have to schedule some tougher opponents.

But when the big boys won't play you, how can you improve your out of conference schedule?

traderumor
01-02-2007, 11:07 AM
They played who was on the their schedule, they beat all of them. There are 2 undefeated teams, they should be playing for the championship.A schedule they made, a conference affiliation they chose.

traderumor
01-02-2007, 11:10 AM
I would note that BYU won a NC out of the WAC. It was not under the BCS system, but that made it even more improbable since they had to woo voters even more. It isn't impossible.

NJReds
01-02-2007, 11:18 AM
But when the big boys won't play you, how can you improve your out of conference schedule?


Fresno State played Oregon, LSU and Washington...
Louisiana Tech played Nebraska, Texas A&M and Clemson...

It's not impossible.

guttle11
01-02-2007, 11:29 AM
They have 0 losses, Florida has 1.

Use common sense. Boise State deserves a shot.

That's not using common sense at all. Common sense would tell you that Boise State plays a weak schedule and beat a boarderline top 12 team in the Fiesta Bowl.

Florida beat the #4 BCS team, won at Tennessee, and beat Arkansas, Kentucky, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida State...all bowl teams.

Under the current system, there's no argument. They do not have the resume. Now, you can say that this shows a new system is needed, but that's a different discussion.

5DOLLAR-BLEACHERBUM
01-02-2007, 11:30 AM
It's one of the reasons I pity those of you who have a passion for I-A college football.

It's not a "national championship." It's a best-of-four-conferences-plus-Notre-Dame title.

Even if Rutgers had run the table (a Big East team), I'm not 100% sure that they would have made it into the championship game.

I rarely get to watch college football with law school and all. Yesterday was a great day of football.

It doesn't take a six figure education to see that Rutgers would get railed by almost all of the teams at the top of those four best conferences, not trying to take shots at you or anything but I had to say something, your "law school and all" comment reminded me of the guy Will schooled at the Harvard bar in Good Will Hunting. Bonus points if anybody knows that guys name without a search.

Chip R
01-02-2007, 11:30 AM
A schedule they made, a conference affiliation they chose.


Well, I'm sure if they asked nicely, they would be able to get into the Big 10 or ACC or Pac 10 or even the Big 12.

paintmered
01-02-2007, 11:32 AM
It doesn't take a six figure education to see that Rutgers would get railed by almost all of the teams at the top of those four best conferences, not trying to take shots at you or anything but I had to say something, your "law school and all" comment reminded me of the guy Will schooled at the Harvard bar in Good Will Hunting. Bonus points if anybody knows that guys name without a search.

Well, there's also the fact that Rutgers plays in a BCS conference. Under the current system, it would have been a total sham if they got left out with an undefeated record.

Yachtzee
01-02-2007, 11:36 AM
I think that teams like Boise State and conferences like the WAC, or even the Mountain West and the MAC, should get a shot at the National Championship if they can show consistency in winning the bowls they get. Boise State's win was a huge step toward getting them a shot in future years. I love Boise State's win because it increases the likelihood down the road that a Toledo, Miami, Akron, or OU gets a shot with a top notch season. But this season, it's hard to say that Boise State deserves the shot more than a 1-loss Florida when they just got by a 7th-ranked Oklahoma with two prior losses.

Overall, it looks like the WAC and Mountain West seem to be doing pretty well in their bowl games. The MAC is 1-1 with the International Bowl and the GMAC Bowl yet to be played.

Hoosier Red
01-02-2007, 11:43 AM
Well, I'm sure if they asked nicely, they would be able to get into the Big 10 or ACC or Pac 10 or even the Big 12.

Heck no, the Big Ten already has one too many.
Hit the road Minnesota, and stop embarrasing the conference in bowl games.

paintmered
01-02-2007, 11:46 AM
Heck no, the Big Ten already has one too many.
Hit the road Minnesota, and stop embarrasing the conference in bowl games.

Geographically, their choices are pretty much limited to either the PAC-10 or the Big 12.

Roy Tucker
01-02-2007, 11:55 AM
As an Ohio State fan, I think Boise St. deserves a shot at the National Title. But then, I also think Florida, Michigan, USC, and the rest of the top 8 do as well. I've been in favor of a playoff for a long time.

But under the current BCS stupidity, I can't see them getting into the BCS title game any time soon. There is too much poll predjudice and big BCS conferences just have too much political clout for a non-BCS team to get in.

But from what I saw last night, they have as much right to being in the BCS title game as any non-OSU team. Oklahoma had superior athletic talent, but Boise had great football players and are about as well-coached as I've ever seen a team.

registerthis
01-02-2007, 01:05 PM
They finish the regular season undefeated, then defeat a major power in a BCS New Year's Day bowl to finish 13-0.

Soft schedule or not, I can't see a logical reason why the Broncos should be denied a shot at the Title. After seeing them last night, I'm convinced they'd at least give OSU a tough game, if not an outright defeat.

But, like others have said, BCS stupidity will continue to prevent it. I don't know why Division 1-A even exists as it's currently set up. More than half of the teams playing in it do not have a realistic shot at the National Championship, regardless of what they do. So Boise St. plays in a crap conference? They can either try to beg and plead their way into a BCS conference (which is not likely) or they have to play a nightmarish non-conference schedule every year and travel to top BCS schools 3-4 times, which places them at a distinct disadvantage.

I'll certainly behappy if OSU defeats Florida next week, but I'd love to see the Bucks play BSU.

Caveat Emperor
01-02-2007, 01:07 PM
Geographically, their choices are pretty much limited to either the PAC-10 or the Big 12.

You've got it backwards -- THEY (Boise State) have no choice in the matter, it all rests in the hands of the PAC-10 or the Big 12. They can petition to join, but ultimately its the conferences and member schools that hold the cards and makes the decision regarding membership.

Part of what makes the BCS a total fraud -- schools that WANT to raise their level of play and genuinely want to field a top-flight program every year can be denied the opportunity to compete in a top-flight conference and have no recourse if denied by the conference heads.

paintmered
01-02-2007, 01:19 PM
You've got it backwards -- THEY (Boise State) have no choice in the matter, it all rests in the hands of the PAC-10 or the Big 12. They can petition to join, but ultimately its the conferences and member schools that hold the cards and makes the decision regarding membership.

Part of what makes the BCS a total fraud -- schools that WANT to raise their level of play and genuinely want to field a top-flight program every year can be denied the opportunity to compete in a top-flight conference and have no recourse if denied by the conference heads.

I know I wrote it the other way, but we are in agreement here. The conferences absolutely determine which schools are worthy to grace their presence. No way the PAC-10 lets them join. The Big 12 might be a little more receptive though as it is a fairly new conference.

No way it will ever happen but if the BCS is to ever be fair, then they need to do away with all human polls and conference tie-ins. Pre-season polls prevented Boise State (and Rutgers for that matter) the chance to play in the title game. But at least Rutgers had an automatic bid if they went undefeated. The fact that Boise State is in the WAC and that prevented them to have a shot at the title is unfortunate, but that's the world of college football right now.

Either the BCS changes or Boise State needs to get in a power conference. I think both hovers somewhere below "slim to none" in chances of actually happening.

Chip R
01-02-2007, 01:20 PM
They can either try to beg and plead their way into a BCS conference (which is not likely) or they have to play a nightmarish non-conference schedule every year and travel to top BCS schools 3-4 times, which places them at a distinct disadvantage.



Even the latter option isn't a sure thing. I'm guessing a lot of BCS schools don't want to play BSU even if it's a home game because they might get beat like Oklahoma did.

registerthis
01-02-2007, 01:23 PM
Even the latter option isn't a sure thing. I'm guessing a lot of BCS schools don't want to play BSU even if it's a home game because they might get beat like Oklahoma did.

Indeed. A home loss to BSU would not sit well with the all-powerful BCS computers.

Roy Tucker
01-02-2007, 01:25 PM
I believe Boise St. shold be eliminated from all national title conversation until they stop playing on a blue field.

Caveat Emperor
01-02-2007, 01:39 PM
Even the latter option isn't a sure thing. I'm guessing a lot of BCS schools don't want to play BSU even if it's a home game because they might get beat like Oklahoma did.

It's a lose-lose scheduling option for the big boys -- BSU isn't respected enough nationally to make it a "good win" if the BCS team wins, they're good enough to beat most BCS teams on any given evenning, and a loss to BSU would probably result in a bigger drop in the polls because human voters (a lot of whom couldn't point to Boise on a map) think its a worse loss than a loss to a traditional powerhouse program.

They really need to blow the college system up and start over again. I'm in favor of forced re-districting by the NCAA. BCS conferences don't want to let other teams to the dance? Tough crap -- we'll tell you who plays in your conference and/or who you're scheduling out of conference on a yearly basis.

Chip R
01-02-2007, 01:56 PM
It's a lose-lose scheduling option for the big boys -- BSU isn't respected enough nationally to make it a "good win" if the BCS team wins, they're good enough to beat most BCS teams on any given evenning, and a loss to BSU would probably result in a bigger drop in the polls because human voters (a lot of whom couldn't point to Boise on a map) think its a worse loss than a loss to a traditional powerhouse program.

Exactly. Plus these schedules are made several years in advance. 5-6 years ago, Oregon St. beat the hell out of Notre Dame in a bowl game. Is it BSU's fault Oregon St. isn't as good as they were then?


They really need to blow the college system up and start over again. I'm in favor of forced re-districting by the NCAA. BCS conferences don't want to let other teams to the dance? Tough crap -- we'll tell you who plays in your conference and/or who you're scheduling out of conference on a yearly basis.

Yeah, I'm not so sure about that. Say what you will about Ohio St. but they play at least one in state school every season. They played UC this year and even though UC got beat, that might have helped them later in the year. And that's not to mention the payday UC got out of that. Making them play a Boise St. may knock that in-state game off their schedule. I'm not sure what incentive you could give a BCS school to play a school like BSU but mandating it may not be the way to go.

Danny Serafini
01-02-2007, 01:57 PM
They really need to blow the college system up and start over again. I'm in favor of forced re-districting by the NCAA. BCS conferences don't want to let other teams to the dance? Tough crap -- we'll tell you who plays in your conference and/or who you're scheduling out of conference on a yearly basis.

If the NCAA even tried that they be banished into irrelevance, because most of the top schools would simply leave and form their own organization. The NCAA needs the schools much more than the schools need the NCAA. Think the public in general would care about a BYU/Marshall Fiesta Bowl every year, or a Final Four with St. Joseph's, Butler, Pepperdine and W. Kentucky? The NCAA is smart enough not to kill off their golden goose.

traderumor
01-02-2007, 02:12 PM
They finish the regular season undefeated, then defeat a major power in a BCS New Year's Day bowl to finish 13-0.

Soft schedule or not, I can't see a logical reason why the Broncos should be denied a shot at the Title. After seeing them last night, I'm convinced they'd at least give OSU a tough game, if not an outright defeat.

But, like others have said, BCS stupidity will continue to prevent it. I don't know why Division 1-A even exists as it's currently set up. More than half of the teams playing in it do not have a realistic shot at the National Championship, regardless of what they do. So Boise St. plays in a crap conference? They can either try to beg and plead their way into a BCS conference (which is not likely) or they have to play a nightmarish non-conference schedule every year and travel to top BCS schools 3-4 times, which places them at a distinct disadvantage.

I'll certainly behappy if OSU defeats Florida next week, but I'd love to see the Bucks play BSU.Boise State was ranked ahead of Oklahoma, so the game wasn't even technically an upset. Oklahoma is a traditional power, but I think that it is making too much of that to put last night's win in perspective.

As far as getting respect, why would they need to play 3-4 top BCS schools a year? Look at all the attention they got for beating one on a neutral field.

registerthis
01-02-2007, 02:17 PM
As far as getting respect, why would they need to play 3-4 top BCS schools a year? Look at all the attention they got for beating one on a neutral field.

I'm sure they'd appreciate an honest-to-goodness shot at the National Title more than simply some "attention." I find the notion that smaller schools should simply be happy with "attention" or the "privelege" to play in a bowl game disingenuous at best.

RBA
01-02-2007, 02:26 PM
Population in the US will continue to shift towards the west. And the schools there will grow with them.

Caveat Emperor
01-02-2007, 03:07 PM
If the NCAA even tried that they be banished into irrelevance, because most of the top schools would simply leave and form their own organization. The NCAA needs the schools much more than the schools need the NCAA. Think the public in general would care about a BYU/Marshall Fiesta Bowl every year, or a Final Four with St. Joseph's, Butler, Pepperdine and W. Kentucky? The NCAA is smart enough not to kill off their golden goose.

Because of NCAA management and the judicious work of the tournament selection committee in basketball, the public in general cares about whatever 65 schools they're told to care about every March.

There's an appropriate balance to be struck between the traditional powerhouse programs and the upstart programs. My point is simply that if the BCS schools want to work together to exclude everyone else from having a seat at the table, at some point there has to be someone that steps in and gives everyone, at minimum, a shot. Whether that's in the form of the NCAA stepping in and requiring conferences to take on willing competitors or setting up a scheduling committee that ensures non-BCS schools can get matchups (and maybe, *gasp*, the occasional home-home schedule agreement) with BCS schools, something should and must be done.

If that's too much to ask from schools like OSU, Michigan, Texas and Florida, and if they really want to go form their own elitist organization, then it'll just confirm what everyone already thinks -- they're in all of this for the money and nothing else.

jmcclain19
01-02-2007, 03:33 PM
Just as an addendum.

The Pac-10 will not be expanding. And they certainly won't be adding Boise State anytime soon.

Couple of reasons.

No 1 - No one is willing to be placed in a division that doesn't include USC and UCLA - ie - rich recruiting market of Southern California.
No 2 - Any expansion talk would have to include two teams, and any talk of Boise State will have to include Fresno State, as there is no other natural team outside of BYU/Utah that would fit, and those two are matched pairs that would come in as a pair. And there is no way on earth that Stanford, Cal & UCLA would ever let a Cal-State school be considered their equal. Without any partner, Boise is SOL.

gonelong
01-02-2007, 03:34 PM
Hypothetically ... could the Non-BCS schools set up their own play-offs, excluding the BCS schools?

GL

westofyou
01-02-2007, 03:47 PM
http://www.deadballart.com/redszone/jim.gif

westofyou
01-02-2007, 03:48 PM
And there is no way on earth that Stanford, Cal & UCLA would ever let a Cal-State school be considered their equal.

Yep, never in a million years

Danny Serafini
01-02-2007, 03:49 PM
Because of NCAA management and the judicious work of the tournament selection committee in basketball, the public in general cares about whatever 65 schools they're told to care about every March.

A handful of George Masons makes things interesting. 65 George Masons is ratings death. Take the big boys out and interest dies. People want to see David beat Goliath, not David beat David.


There's an appropriate balance to be struck between the traditional powerhouse programs and the upstart programs. My point is simply that if the BCS schools want to work together to exclude everyone else from having a seat at the table, at some point there has to be someone that steps in and gives everyone, at minimum, a shot. Whether that's in the form of the NCAA stepping in and requiring conferences to take on willing competitors or setting up a scheduling committee that ensures non-BCS schools can get matchups (and maybe, *gasp*, the occasional home-home schedule agreement) with BCS schools, something should and must be done.

It's not the NCAA's place to tell schools who they will and won't play. Besides, games are set up years in advance. If the NCAA forces, say LSU to play Boise St., who's to say Boise St. doesn't stink five years from now. I'm sure LSU would be thrilled to have that NCAA-mandated clunker on its schedule, especially if that strength of schedule hit knocked them out of a BCS game. Imagine the mess the NCAA would have to deal with then. I realize LSU could also be the team that stinks in five years, but there's a lot more year-to-year volatility with the small programs than the large ones, so LSU is the safer bet.

Plus it will throw the financial structure out of whack. The small schools get a nice chunk of change to visit the large ones. More random names thrown out, Louisiana-Monroe would get paid a few hundred thousand by Texas to come play a game there. If the NCAA mandates a Texas/Louisiana-Monroe series, why would Texas give ULM a penny when they don't have to? Sure ULM gets a home game in return, but selling out a small 25 or 30 thousand seat stadium won't offset what they made before, and puts a dent in the entire athletic department's budget. You can't completely toss the system just to account for an anomaly like Boise St.

I agree with a lot of your underlying premise. I want to see a playoff, with all of the conferences invited like in basketball, and I'd like to see the smaller schools get a more fair shot at good regular season matchups. But the NCAA forcing it isn't the way to go. The schools themselves are going to have to be the ones to do it.

Yachtzee
01-02-2007, 04:06 PM
Because of NCAA management and the judicious work of the tournament selection committee in basketball, the public in general cares about whatever 65 schools they're told to care about every March.

There's an appropriate balance to be struck between the traditional powerhouse programs and the upstart programs. My point is simply that if the BCS schools want to work together to exclude everyone else from having a seat at the table, at some point there has to be someone that steps in and gives everyone, at minimum, a shot. Whether that's in the form of the NCAA stepping in and requiring conferences to take on willing competitors or setting up a scheduling committee that ensures non-BCS schools can get matchups (and maybe, *gasp*, the occasional home-home schedule agreement) with BCS schools, something should and must be done.

If that's too much to ask from schools like OSU, Michigan, Texas and Florida, and if they really want to go form their own elitist organization, then it'll just confirm what everyone already thinks -- they're in all of this for the money and nothing else.

I think that, at least with the Big Ten, they do a pretty good job of scheduling regional non-conference schools. This season, OSU played Northern Illinois (MAC), Cincinnati (Big East), and BGSU (MAC) in 3 of its for non-conference games. Minnesota travelled to Kent this year. Next season Ohio State plays Akron, Kent and Youngstown State, and will play Toledo on "neutral" turf in Cleveland in 2009. I find it silly that people criticize Ohio State for not scheduling enough in-state games, but then when they do, they get criticized for playing a cream puff non-conference schedule. The reality is that playing an Ohio State, even if it is in Columbus, helps raise the profile of these programs, brings in much needed revenue, and helps these programs build for the future.

I can only speak of my experience following the MAC. At least as far as the MAC goes, I like that the teams have been able to upgrade the quality of their non-conference opponents. Once some of the better teams start winning those non-conference matchups more consistently and teams that make bowls put up winning records, it will make a stronger argument for some sort of playoff system.

The hard part will be trying to decide who gets in between mid-major conference winners and big conference also-rans, because it's unlikely such a playoff could go larger than 16 teams. Do you take the top 16 ranked teams, or do you give automatic bids to conference champs? If you give automatic bids to conference champs, which conferences get automatic bids? Do the power conferences get 2 automatic bids?

Another question...does a playoff system help or hurt the mid-major conferences? Under the current system, the number of bowls have expanded to the point where conferences like the WAC, MWC, MAC, and Conference USA get multiple teams into post-season play, many of these games against big conference opponents. This in turn brings money, prestige, and experience to these programs they wouldn't have gotten back in the days when only the top MAC team might get an invite to the Las Vegas Bowl or the Motor City Bowl and that's it. If you institute a playoff, will that kill off the lesser bowls that provide a venue to 2-4th place teams of the mid-majors? While some people may not have interest, I actually enjoy watching some of those games when I'm not bogged down with school work. For me, the more post-season football, the better!

I like the idea of Boise States, Toledos, Marshalls, etc. getting a title shot and I like the idea of a playoff, but I hope that however they do it, they do it in a way that helps the mid-major conferences without ticking off the big boys and killing post-season opportunities for the conference runners up.

Yachtzee
01-02-2007, 04:12 PM
Population in the US will continue to shift towards the west. And the schools there will grow with them.

That doesn't necessarily mean they'll play better football though. Kent State is actually a pretty big school, student-body wise, including a sizable on-campus population, but has had a traditionally terrible football program.

Chip R
01-02-2007, 04:13 PM
As far as getting respect, why would they need to play 3-4 top BCS schools a year? Look at all the attention they got for beating one on a neutral field.

To paraphrase the old Avis commercial, they are #2 so they have to work harder. If they play - and beat - 1 BCS power a year, people will say it's a fluke. It's harder to say it's a fluke if they beat 2-3 BCS powerhouses a year. As long as they play in the WAC and can't schedule BCS powerhouses, they will be criticized because of their strenght of schedule - or lack thereof.

Yachtzee
01-02-2007, 04:15 PM
Just as an addendum.

The Pac-10 will not be expanding. And they certainly won't be adding Boise State anytime soon.

Couple of reasons.

No 1 - No one is willing to be placed in a division that doesn't include USC and UCLA - ie - rich recruiting market of Southern California.
No 2 - Any expansion talk would have to include two teams, and any talk of Boise State will have to include Fresno State, as there is no other natural team outside of BYU/Utah that would fit, and those two are matched pairs that would come in as a pair. And there is no way on earth that Stanford, Cal & UCLA would ever let a Cal-State school be considered their equal. Without any partner, Boise is SOL.

I think the Boise States should stay put. It gives college football a much greater diversity to have good teams spread over a larger number of conferences.

Yachtzee
01-02-2007, 04:34 PM
To paraphrase the old Avis commercial, they are #2 so they have to work harder. If they play - and beat - 1 BCS power a year, people will say it's a fluke. It's harder to say it's a fluke if they beat 2-3 BCS powerhouses a year. As long as they play in the WAC and can't schedule BCS powerhouses, they will be criticized because of their strenght of schedule - or lack thereof.

I don't think it's that hard to get BCS conference schools on the schedule anymore. MAC Champs Central Michigan scheduled Boston College (ACC), Michigan (Big 10), and Kentucky (SEC) this season. Runner-up Ohio played Rutgers (Big East), Missouri (Big 12), and actually beat Illinois (Big 10). The MAC has been trying hard to build a relationship with bigger conferences and has actually started to get games where big conference teams have been more willing to return the favor and play games on the road in MAC stadiums. If Boise State is having problems getting teams from BCS conferences to put them on the schedule, they need to push the WAC to work harder to build relationships with other conferences or they need to do it on their own. Either way, getting BCS conference schools on the schedule doesn't seem to be an issue for other schools.

Caveat Emperor
01-02-2007, 04:36 PM
A handful of George Masons makes things interesting. 65 George Masons is ratings death. Take the big boys out and interest dies. People want to see David beat Goliath, not David beat David.

Which is why I feel there needs to be balance. Big time programs are good for the sport -- it's just that the balance of power is being artificially held in place right now in the far favor of the big time programs.


It's not the NCAA's place to tell schools who they will and won't play. Besides, games are set up years in advance. If the NCAA forces, say LSU to play Boise St., who's to say Boise St. doesn't stink five years from now. I'm sure LSU would be thrilled to have that NCAA-mandated clunker on its schedule, especially if that strength of schedule hit knocked them out of a BCS game. Imagine the mess the NCAA would have to deal with then. I realize LSU could also be the team that stinks in five years, but there's a lot more year-to-year volatility with the small programs than the large ones, so LSU is the safer bet.

Why isn't it the NCAA's place to tell schools who they will and won't play? The NCAA is the sanctioning committee for college athletics. The NCAA sets rules on who is allowed to play college football, when practices can be held, how many scholarships can be given and how many games can be played -- is it THAT much of a logical leap to say that the NCAA should have at least some say-so in how schedules are made?

Just as a thought experiment, imagine the NCAA promulgated a rule that created a scheduling committee and required each school turn over 2 dates on it's schedule to the committee. Those two dates would be set by the NCAA in the spring preceeding the upcoming season. Schools could submit suggested opponent lists and have input on the process. But, ultimately, the NCAA committee would select one home opponent and one away opponent for each D1 school. They would be free to schedule rematches of previously played bowl/playoff games, pit conference champions against one another, or give an up-and-coming program like Rutgers a shot at an established program like USC.

The benefit of scheduling like this is that it reduces the amount of prognostication required to get a good matchup. The committee could look at returning players, previous season results etc. and ensure that non-BCS v. BCS games were compelling, and not a "well, they were good back when Gradkowski was there" matchup like an OSU/Toledo matchup would be today.


Plus it will throw the financial structure out of whack. The small schools get a nice chunk of change to visit the large ones. More random names thrown out, Louisiana-Monroe would get paid a few hundred thousand by Texas to come play a game there. If the NCAA mandates a Texas/Louisiana-Monroe series, why would Texas give ULM a penny when they don't have to? Sure ULM gets a home game in return, but selling out a small 25 or 30 thousand seat stadium won't offset what they made before, and puts a dent in the entire athletic department's budget. You can't completely toss the system just to account for an anomaly like Boise St.

No offense, but it's a financial structure that needs changing. I don't have an answer for it, but there's something fundamentally wrong with a school playing jobber on homecoming in order to make a payday.

And, I'd argue that Boise St. isn't so much the anamoly as they are the next evolution in college football -- albeit an evolution that is being stagnated by a system that is outdated and designed to inhibit it. It's a trend that has been building for years, with reduced scholarships at major programs and increased TV exposure for smaller conferences. There are schools out there that want to be competitive and want to take things to the next level -- the major impediment is money (being excluded from BCS conferences and big-payday bowls) and historical tradition. Both of those factors can be normalized to at least bring a little more balance to the playing field.


But the NCAA forcing it isn't the way to go. The schools themselves are going to have to be the ones to do it.

There is no incentive for the schools in charge to change the status quo. They're holding all the cards and making all the money by being in charge of the conferences and the big-payout bowls. The only way change will come is when it is forced upon them.

Chip R
01-02-2007, 04:46 PM
I don't think it's that hard to get BCS conference schools on the schedule anymore. MAC Champs Central Michigan scheduled Boston College (ACC), Michigan (Big 10), and Kentucky (SEC) this season. Runner-up Ohio played Rutgers (Big East), Missouri (Big 12), and actually beat Illinois (Big 10). The MAC has been trying hard to build a relationship with bigger conferences and has actually started to get games where big conference teams have been more willing to return the favor and play games on the road in MAC stadiums. If Boise State is having problems getting teams from BCS conferences to put them on the schedule, they need to push the WAC to work harder to build relationships with other conferences or they need to do it on their own. Either way, getting BCS conference schools on the schedule doesn't seem to be an issue for other schools.


The problem is that they can't just play BCS schools. Otherwise they could schedule Duke, Vanderbilt and Kansas. Yeah, they are scheduling BCS schools but they aren't probably going to be schools who are very good. But you may get lucky and schedule a Rutgers or a Wake Forest and catch them in a year they are good. But they have to beat them too or else they can wave their BCS hopes bye bye.

Hap
01-02-2007, 04:58 PM
I voted no.

They would not beat Ohio State, Florida, Michigan, USC, LSU, or Wisconsin.

However, they would beat Louisville, Rutgers, West Virginia, Wake Forest, Auburn, Nebraska, or Notre Dame.

These, of course, are strictly my opinions based on games I have simmed inside my head.

M2
01-02-2007, 05:08 PM
Population in the US will continue to shift towards the west. And the schools there will grow with them.

Yeah, but they'll all be soccer fans.

As for Boise St. in the championship, I can see where a compelling David vs. Goliath story would turn off the average American who doesn't have a rooting interest in the game. People hate that sort of thing.

Yachtzee
01-02-2007, 05:18 PM
The problem is that they can't just play BCS schools. Otherwise they could schedule Duke, Vanderbilt and Kansas. Yeah, they are scheduling BCS schools but they aren't probably going to be schools who are very good. But you may get lucky and schedule a Rutgers or a Wake Forest and catch them in a year they are good. But they have to beat them too or else they can wave their BCS hopes bye bye.

Not necessarily true. Big 10 teams regularly play MAC teams and I believe the teams they play rotate from year to year. So this year Northern Illinois and BGSU got to play Ohio State. Central Michigan and Ball State got a chance to play put Michigan on the schedule. Next season Akron and Kent get a shot at Ohio State.

Lately they've been able to upgrade against other conferences too. Kent got #20 Va. Tech on the schedule. Ohio had Rutgers on its schedule. Western Michigan had Virginia. It's not like these schools are perennial doormats. Of course when they make the schedule far enough in advance so that its tough to tell who will be top-ranked team in some of these conferences. But at least they are putting 2 or 3 BCS conference teams on the schedule so that they have a better shot that one of them will be a top-ranked team when they play them.

IslandRed
01-02-2007, 05:45 PM
Good thread. A few comments:

* The NCAA is not a governmental entity. The schools ARE the NCAA. A thing like NCAA-run scheduling is not going to happen because the schools want to do it themselves and thus won't vote for such a thing. Every now and then, the central office gets too big for its britches, but eventually order is restored.

It's also true that the BCS-conference schools are a slim majority of Division 1-A and a minority in all of Division 1. Technically, the smaller schools could push through legislation that harms the big schools, and occasionally they get their way with the smaller things. But if they ever tried to take control of the big stuff, the power conferences would walk and form their own organization. It almost came to that in the early '80s when some schools -- Georgia and Oklahoma led the charge, if I remember right -- challenged the NCAA's control of television rights.

* I don't think Boise State is the best team, or particularly close to it, but they were fun to watch.

* I love college football. But the system does suck sometimes. I know that the George Masons of the world don't end up winning the basketball tournament, but I like knowing that they could. In football, there's just not enough flexibility in the system -- or in the voters -- for a non-BCS-league team to come out of nowhere and win it all. Next year, if some team from nowhere in particular somehow came into a roster that could spot the New England Patriots seven points a half, they probably couldn't win the national championship. They can't do anything about their conference, and they can't add quality opponents on that short of notice. (By "quality," I mean Top-15 or so, good enough that such a win can't be dismissed when debating their worthiness.) They'd have to hope that the season was such a parity-filled farce that people couldn't find two BCS-league schools that really deserved to be there.

registerthis
01-02-2007, 05:46 PM
It's nice that the OSU's of the world are willing to schedule home games with the Northern Illinois's, but let's be honest: pretty much everyone knows going in to those games that OSU is going to roll. There's really not much question about that. Sure, every once in awhile a San Diego St. or Cincinnati will play them closely, but OSU typically ends up winning anyway.

After all, they're expected to.

The problem schools such as Boise St. and TCU face is that they can legitimately play with--and defeat--many of the most popular programs in the country, yet lack the marquee name or tradition to provide the opposing team with the corresponding boost in ratings should they win. In other words, teams like Boise are better than they are given credit for being. That's a poison pill for a marquee program like and OSU or USC. Not only do they not want to play a Boise St., they CERTAINLY don't want to play a Boise St. in Boise.

So Boise is left scheduling the occasional fringe school from a BCS conference (Oregon St., Wyoming) and hoping that their romp through their own conference schedule will be enough to sway the pollsters and the computers.

The true crime of the BCS is that we have no idea how good Boise St. legitimately is. We're never given an opportunity to find out, as the deck is heavily stacked against competitive mid-major Division 1-A programs.

Chip R
01-02-2007, 06:08 PM
Not necessarily true. Big 10 teams regularly play MAC teams and I believe the teams they play rotate from year to year. So this year Northern Illinois and BGSU got to play Ohio State. Central Michigan and Ball State got a chance to play put Michigan on the schedule. Next season Akron and Kent get a shot at Ohio State.

Lately they've been able to upgrade against other conferences too. Kent got #20 Va. Tech on the schedule. Ohio had Rutgers on its schedule. Western Michigan had Virginia. It's not like these schools are perennial doormats. Of course when they make the schedule far enough in advance so that its tough to tell who will be top-ranked team in some of these conferences. But at least they are putting 2 or 3 BCS conference teams on the schedule so that they have a better shot that one of them will be a top-ranked team when they play them.


The common thread in this is that the MAC teams, by and large, are close to the Big 10 schools they play. If Kent and Akron play OSU, all they need to do is take the bus down to Columbus and suit up. No need to get the plane and no need to miss a day of class. Plus they get a huge payday which stays in the state and OSU gets a 99% chance of a victory. It's a win-win situation. Same for Central Michigan and Michigan. And sometimes, the stars are in the right place like when Miami played Iowa a few years ago and barely lost to them. Turned out that was the only regular season loss for Miami and Iowa only lost once themselves (I believe to Iowa State) but didn't win the Big 10 cause that was when OSU won it all. But the problem was that Miami lost that game.

If a team like BSU schedued 3 BCS powerhouses, say OSU, LSU and Florida St. they would have to play all those games on the road. That would only leave them with a few conference games that they would play at home. Home games are very important for all schools because they bring in money. Plus they would have to fly in a day before and the kids would have to miss some classes. And that in itself is not that big of a deal but it's not as convenient as if they were in the same state as one of those schools.

Perhaps they should bring back those Kickoff Classics they used to have at the beginning of the year in New Jersey and elsewhere. I remember a few years ago Iowa St. went to Kansas City to play Florida St. in one of those games and darn near beat them. That's about the only way you are going to get a really good BCS school to play someone like Boise St.

NDRed
01-02-2007, 06:16 PM
yes, they deserve a shot.

OnBaseMachine
01-02-2007, 06:19 PM
I'll keep it short and sweet: yes.

I wouldn't mind seeing the Pac-10 expand and add two of three following: Boise State, BYU, or Hawaii, but I just don't see it happening due to facilities, travel time to Hawaii for road games, among other things.

Cyclone792
01-02-2007, 06:32 PM
* I love college football. But the system does suck sometimes. I know that the George Masons of the world don't end up winning the basketball tournament, but I like knowing that they could. In football, there's just not enough flexibility in the system -- or in the voters -- for a non-BCS-league team to come out of nowhere and win it all. Next year, if some team from nowhere in particular somehow came into a roster that could spot the New England Patriots seven points a half, they probably couldn't win the national championship. They can't do anything about their conference, and they can't add quality opponents on that short of notice. (By "quality," I mean Top-15 or so, good enough that such a win can't be dismissed when debating their worthiness.) They'd have to hope that the season was such a parity-filled farce that people couldn't find two BCS-league schools that really deserved to be there.

You've just outlined why the system in college hoops is significantly better than the system in college football. As you said, teams like a George Mason are very unlikely going to win the whole thing, but it's nice to know that they've got a shot since they control their own destiny to an extent. It takes six wins to win the NCAA Tournament (well, seven for the two play-in teams), and all George Mason did was go out and win four games. They had a chance, and they did everything they could to grab it.

Also, the early season tournaments in college hoops - and there's several of them - go a very long way toward providing big name opponents for mid-major teams.

This season's prime example is Butler out of the Horizon League. They played in the early season NIT with 15 other teams, and there were some pretty good or great programs in there such as North Carolina, Gonzaga, Notre Dame, Tenneseee, and Indiana. Butler just goes out and beats Notre Dame, Indiana, Tennesee, and Gonzaga to win the NIT Tournament. Butler is currently 4th in the nation in RPI, and their SOS is 17th. The SOS will drop a bit once conference play gets rolling, but as long as Butler doesn't fall on their face in their own conference, they should be a lock for the NCAA Tournament. In fact, if they dominate their conference and/or win their conference tournament, they'll probably get a very nice seed in the NCAA Tournament. I don't expect Butler to win the Men's Hoops national championship, but it's nice to know they'll most likely have a shot to win it just like over 60 other teams.

Mid-majors have a chance in college hoops not only with the NCAA Tournament, but also the early season tournaments to help beef up their non-conference schedule. Unfortunately, none of that applies in college football, and that's a shame.

IslandRed
01-02-2007, 07:28 PM
Mid-majors have a chance in college hoops not only with the NCAA Tournament, but also the early season tournaments to help beef up their non-conference schedule. Unfortunately, none of that applies in college football, and that's a shame.

It cuts both ways, and there's something to be said for each. In basketball, you can schedule marquee games, even seek them out, and not pay the price. That's great to watch. And it's nice to know that if you have a key injury or a rough stretch, your season's not over. There's still something to play for. Regroup, get hot, who knows?

The tradeoff is that those games are entertaining but they don't matter in the way a key regular-season college football game matters. The stakes are simply higher in football. You get emotion and buildup throughout the fall that, in hoops, you have to wait until March to get. Now, sometimes a team can recover from a loss and still play for the title, but it's one of the good things about the sport that every team plays every game believing that it must win in order to get a shot. While I'm sort of in favor of a playoff, I'd want it to be highly selective so that every-week urgency isn't lost.

RedsManRick
01-02-2007, 07:29 PM
This really highlights something that is a problem in all sports. There is a different between the best team and the champion. These often are not the same thing. In most sports, the purpose of the regular season is to ensure that the best teams get a chance at being the champion.

The problem, in my eyes, is that in some sports, the championship is more luck than skill. In both baseball and football, the championship determines the champion of a tournament, but doesn't always say who the best team is. As fans, particularly us analytical types, we tend to think in terms of who's the best. But sports, in a pure sense, aren't about who is best given some platonic perfect universe of absolute truth. They're about winning.

I like the basketball system because the games are less chance driven than football and baseball's playoff system is simply disproportionate to the regular season. In college football, I like the idea of a playoff system, but only if it's based on the conference system where each conference gets a representative. The conferences can get ranks which determine playoff seeding. Even then, while a playoff would determine a "champion", it would remove the question of who the best team was. You'll never answer that question, so the bottom line is, what do you need to do name a "champion". At the end of the day, it's arbitrary.

Mutaman
01-02-2007, 08:04 PM
I voted yes just to piss off Florida and the rest of the SEC apologists. What I love is even if the Gators beat OSU, there will now be plenty of people who will say undefeated Boise should be number 1.

Yachtzee
01-02-2007, 08:13 PM
The common thread in this is that the MAC teams, by and large, are close to the Big 10 schools they play. If Kent and Akron play OSU, all they need to do is take the bus down to Columbus and suit up. No need to get the plane and no need to miss a day of class. Plus they get a huge payday which stays in the state and OSU gets a 99% chance of a victory. It's a win-win situation. Same for Central Michigan and Michigan. And sometimes, the stars are in the right place like when Miami played Iowa a few years ago and barely lost to them. Turned out that was the only regular season loss for Miami and Iowa only lost once themselves (I believe to Iowa State) but didn't win the Big 10 cause that was when OSU won it all. But the problem was that Miami lost that game.

If a team like BSU schedued 3 BCS powerhouses, say OSU, LSU and Florida St. they would have to play all those games on the road. That would only leave them with a few conference games that they would play at home. Home games are very important for all schools because they bring in money. Plus they would have to fly in a day before and the kids would have to miss some classes. And that in itself is not that big of a deal but it's not as convenient as if they were in the same state as one of those schools.

Perhaps they should bring back those Kickoff Classics they used to have at the beginning of the year in New Jersey and elsewhere. I remember a few years ago Iowa St. went to Kansas City to play Florida St. in one of those games and darn near beat them. That's about the only way you are going to get a really good BCS school to play someone like Boise St.

Boise St could regularly play teams from the Pac 10 and Big 12 as part of its non-conference schedule. They aren't that far from Washington, Washington St., Oregon, and Oregon St. I don't know, maybe there's something like this already in place, but I think it behooves conferences like the WAC to build a relationship with the PAC-10 and Big 12 so that the teams in those conferences schedule at least 1 game against a WAC team as part of their regular non-conference schedule.

OnBaseMachine
01-02-2007, 09:25 PM
Boise St could regularly play teams from the Pac 10 and Big 12 as part of its non-conference schedule. They aren't that far from Washington, Washington St., Oregon, and Oregon St. I don't know, maybe there's something like this already in place, but I think it behooves conferences like the WAC to build a relationship with the PAC-10 and Big 12 so that the teams in those conferences schedule at least 1 game against a WAC team as part of their regular non-conference schedule.

Oregon State and Boise have played four consecutive years (each team has won two games) and I believe they are working on scheduling another home and home next year. Also, Boise is scheduled to play at Washington in 2007 and 2008, plus they have a home and home with Oregon in '08 and '09.

kaldaniels
01-02-2007, 10:24 PM
It's an argument that Boise State can really never win -- their schedule is always going to be crap because their conference is crap.

What do you tell Boise State to do to fix this? They either have to beg and plead their way into a BCS conference or beg and plead their way into getting big-time opponents to schedule them non-conference.

It's part of what irks me about BCS/non-BCS -- the BCS conferences are like private country clubs, selectively admitting schools they want while excluding schools they find undesireable. They hold all the keys, and then tell the outside schools they can't play too.


It is an argument BSU can win...if they build a good/popular program, the big dog conferences will come knocking...all about the Benjamins my friend.

MWM
01-03-2007, 03:03 AM
I would love to see Boise State get a chance to play in a playoff. And I think they'd fare well against most teams this year. But I don't think the basketball comparison is the best as far as the ability of the smaller conference teams to compete with the powerhouse conference teams.

Basketball consists of 7-9 players playing in a game on both sides of the court. Only 5 players are on the floor at any given time. One great player, or even one player having a great game, can go a long ways towards overcoming the talent differential. In football that's not the case. And the three point line plays a big role as well in basketball. If you take the three point line away, I think you see a lot less upsets because many of these big upsets occur because these smaller conference programs can product shooters as easily as the Duke's or UCLA's of the world and they'll have a hot shooter in the tourney. But one great player in footbll can't make near the impact that they make in basketball.

And while size is important in basketball, you don't usually see significant differences across the board with size in the mid-majors and powerhouse conferences. ACC schools can't just go out and push around teams from the MAC. And physicality isn't as critical a determining factor in basketball. I'm not saying it's not important, but nowhere near as important as it is in football. Jockeying for position for a rebound is a lot different than 5 300 pound lineman just using their body mass to shove guys out of the way to open up a running hole. The O-Lines from most Big Ten or SEC schools are going to be able to push around the MAC or WAC programs. And the same goes for the D-Lines. In basketball, players from Butler can be just as physical as players from Michigan State. In football, for the most part, the guys from Michigan State are going to be a lot bigger. This is the biggest reason why you almost never see upsets of MAC teams over the good Big Ten teams.

My point is that Boise State is an anomaly. Sometimes a school comes along from one of these non-BCS schools that can play with the big boys. But it's rare. And I fully believe they deserve a shot a playing for it all. But there's never goiig to be the parity in college football that we see in basketball. The deck is too far stacked against the smaller programs to overcome. Football requires 22 starters where size and strength are incredibly important. It requires players of all different sizes and specialties. Basketball requires 5 starters where size is much less important and there's enough players with size that most schools can at least have big players. The technical nature of football is so much more complicated as well. To score, you have to put together a drive as opposed to taking a shot. And to sustain a drive it requires several different funtions such as blocking, running, throwing, receiving. It's much harder to build something that can do that many things well enough to compensate for the disparity in size and ability. Basketball is much mor simple in nature.

I'm still a big proponent of a playoff and allowing teams like Boise State to play for a shot at the title, but I don't think we would see anywhere near the same level of upsets as we see in basketball. There's a reason why we don't see it very often during the regular season in football. The Boise State story is great, but they're an exception unlike basketball where we see it a lot.