OT: Auburn/Alabama show that Boise/TCU MNC claims ludicrous
There is simply, objectively, no comparison between what Auburn has had to do to to advance to the SEC title game and what Boise/TCU have to do to go undefeated. Playing at Bama, getting through the SEC schedule, and now having an SEC title game is playing football on another planet than Boise. Boise, who's "Big Tests" were Oregon State--yes Oregon State, Va Tech and now, the latest "test," a Nevada team they have beaten ten years in a row. I have no issue with Boise or TCU in a BCS game, but even if Auburn loses in the SEC championship game, they will be FAR more worthy of a BCS MNC game than either of Boise or TCU. So would LSU.
November 26th, 2010 at 6:30 PM ^
President Gee? Is that you?
November 26th, 2010 at 7:15 PM ^
I thought it might be Gary "WHAT A CONFERENCE!" Danielson
November 27th, 2010 at 11:21 AM ^
I threw up in my mouth a little when I heard him say that yesterday.
November 26th, 2010 at 6:31 PM ^
Here Is My Opinion On Sports, Now I'm Going To Start A Thread
November 26th, 2010 at 6:34 PM ^
If not, then what else?
November 26th, 2010 at 6:42 PM ^
Info.
November 26th, 2010 at 6:49 PM ^
Blogs and message boards are for opinions first. That is why they were made. If you want just info I suggest ESPN, Rivals, Scout, and etc.
November 26th, 2010 at 6:59 PM ^
The info here about Michigan sports is more consolidated than ESPN. Also, Scout has about 97% opinions and 3% info.
November 26th, 2010 at 6:59 PM ^
I like how many facts (who am I kidding, I love it) there are on the mgoblog. But look at the last part: blog. Blog means people can say there sports opinions freely for the most part.
November 26th, 2010 at 7:00 PM ^
Message boards which purport to consolidate "M" information are pretty much breeding grounds for rumors and not much else. An intelligent (mostly?) space for exchange of opinions and analysis of the team seems like exactly what a board should be. How is what you're suggesting not redundant with other sources?
November 26th, 2010 at 7:07 PM ^
"How is what you're suggesting not redundant with other sources?"
I don't understand the question. What am I suggesting? And when did I say that it (whatever I am suggesting) is not redundant with other sources?
November 26th, 2010 at 6:52 PM ^
So what you're saying is that the only people allowed to make contributions on an internet message board are people who provide indisputable facts? If thats the case, I completely disagree. Part of the beauty about this place is that fans have an avenue to discuss their opinions about the sport. Yes, it is very annoying when people have misinformed opinions and fail to back them up, but I don't think this is the case here.
November 26th, 2010 at 6:58 PM ^
Is that even close to what I said?
The post asked why message boards exists other than for people to post their opinions; my response was info.
I never said anyting about undisputable facts. Information and undisputable facts are two different things. An additional reason for message boards to exist is also completely different than the only reason for message boards to exists. You're attacking a straw man.
November 26th, 2010 at 11:09 PM ^
what a douche. don't click on the link then you clown
November 26th, 2010 at 6:31 PM ^
People will argue that this is unfair to Boise and TCU. My response is that I completely agree. But having Boise and/or TCU in the championship is unfair to the rest of us and college football itself. The system right now is flawed, no question. But unless Boise and TCU can somehow beef up their schedule (I understand that many top teams don't want to schedule them), they don't deserve to be in the Natty race.
With the recent conference realignments, I don't understand why Boise and TCU didn't join the same conference. I know Boise moved, and TCU too? I know the Big East is considering TCU for its conference. But if Boise, TCU, Nevada, BYU, etc. joined into a super sub-level conference, maybe they would have a better argument.
November 26th, 2010 at 6:34 PM ^
please, keeping Boise State is unfair to the rest of us because we would be denied on seeing the best two possible teams square off against each other instead of wondering what if.
November 26th, 2010 at 6:37 PM ^
Boise is one of the best 2 teams in the nation?
Now.. forget the whole "BCS sucks" revenge argument (I want Boise in the natty to break up the BCS). Do you honestly believe Boise could be one of the top 2 best teams in the nation and deserves a shot to play for the championship given their resume?
November 26th, 2010 at 6:40 PM ^
Yes I do believe that Boise State is right up there as the top 2 team in the country and deserve a shot to play in the national title given their resume in which they have absolutely dominated in every which ways possible. They beat a top 10-15 team in VT. Took down an healthy Oregon State(before James Rodgers was hurt and Jacquizz was also hurt too). They pretty much pasted everybody in their schedule which is something that a top 2 team should do given their schedule.
November 26th, 2010 at 6:41 PM ^
in the Natty last year? They were undefeated and beat an Oregon team that went to the Rose Bowl.
November 26th, 2010 at 6:45 PM ^
They deserve a shot to play in the national championship game or at least have a shot at playing against at BCS team, but the BCS went to a coward's route by matching up TCU with Boise State.
November 26th, 2010 at 6:49 PM ^
Alabama or Texas in the championship game?
I think we can agree to disagree on our positions. I understand your arguments, but just disagree that they deserve to play for the championship given their lack of a consistent schedule.
The real victim of the BCS is obviously fans who now resort to using massive blog space to discuss an endless hole.
November 26th, 2010 at 6:50 PM ^
as someone pointed out below, Boise IS joining TCU's conference. I'm an idiot. (But I'm still right...)
November 26th, 2010 at 7:17 PM ^
No, should not have replaced Alabama or Texas.
This is where the big conference teams get a huge advantage- if an SEC team goes undefeated (strange 2005 excepted), they're in the championship game. A WAC or MWC team needs a lot of help from a lot of other teams to get there.
November 26th, 2010 at 7:27 PM ^
anyone that thinks Boise is a top 2 team, meaning one of the top two best teams in the country knowing that we don't have a playoff system, is, well, good luck to you.
November 26th, 2010 at 6:45 PM ^
It's not so much the wins and the losses, it's how they have won. I think Boise could be one of the top 2 teams. I don't have any way of knowing though. I do know that they have come and played in every opportunity they have had and that's a ll I can ask. No one will give them a one and one. They will only let them come there. Is that fair to them? Everyone says they are at an advantage because they don't play in a BCS conference. Well, they have been at a huge disadvatage for the past few years the way it looks to me. I think it's about time, if there aren't 2 undefeated BCS teams, that we give them a shot to set a precedent. Besides that, I'm not all that convinced the SEC is that good this year. Bama isn't the same, FL is mediocre. South Carolina is decent but it just doesn't seem like they are what they were from top to bottom anymore. I don't think they are much, if any, better than the Big Ten.
November 26th, 2010 at 7:00 PM ^
that type of scheduling should really be a non-issue. major conf teams typically play 2-3 tough road games per year.
November 26th, 2010 at 7:28 PM ^
but they would best Boise IMO by two touchdowns
November 26th, 2010 at 8:41 PM ^
was a two score favorite to beat Utah in the 09 Sugar Bowl. They got beat by two touchdowns.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but you can't assume Boise State or TCU would get beat when history has suggested it's not as likely as people think. TCU and Boise State very well could beat Auburn or Oregon. However, neither team is very worthy to play in the title game based on their awful schedules. That's why I don't want them in the title game and that is why I agree with you, not because I think either team would lose to the supposed "big boys."
November 26th, 2010 at 9:05 PM ^
But IMO another terrible thing about the BCS is that it devalues the other BCS bowl games that are not the MNC. And as such, when Bama is disappointed to be playing in that game and not the MNC, and Utah is ecstatic, with tons to prove against the big boys, and Bama (taking my view) thinks, "Oh Utah"--that is a game rife for an upset, which is what happened there and with Boise. Even Boise's coach, Chris Peterson, said this year that OK took them lightly that year. Upsets are upsets for a reason--they don't usually happen. That's why IMO its pretty safe to say that Bama would beat them by two TD's now that Boise has some respect around the country.
November 27th, 2010 at 5:36 AM ^
You're calling out people for thinking that Boise COULD be one of the top two teams in the country. The point is, we have no way of knowing, and we're just assuming that these other teams are, because they always have been and they always will be, etc.
But then, when we have an actual example, like Utah vs. Alabama, you just say "that doesn't count." That's not really fair. That does count, cause that happened. Utah killed Alabama. Boise beat Oklahoma. These games happened, and you're telling us definitively that they'd be different now, because they have more respect? Once again, the point is that we simply don't know. Making definitive statements on either side is impossible. The only thing that can happen is for them to play, and to keep them out based on arguments like "don't even try telling me that they would win, other teams OBVIOUSLY have to try harder/do better/run faster/jump higher" is not really honest. No one knows. Might as well have them try.
For the record, I have no idea if either of those teams would beat Auburn or Oregon or even Alabama. I'm living abroad right now, so the only games I've been able to watch are Michigan games, and it's not like my analyzing powers are superb, anyway. For all I know, TCU/Boise could get destroyed if they were to play in the National Championship. But, hey, Oklahoma lost 55-18 in the National Championship game in the last five years or so. I guess that Oklahoma team didn't deserve to be there, either?
EDIT: Also, obviously, Boise doesn't factor in this post anymore, since they just lost.
November 26th, 2010 at 10:09 PM ^
Dropped passes, stupid penalties (3 penalties in the 12th game of the year for illegal substitution?!?). That's not about the quality of the team they're playing, forcing them to make mistakes; that's just a team that is good but not great. Even more, Auburn spotted them 24 points by deciding not to play until the 2nd half. The only reason a 3-loss Alabama will stay in the top 20 is that it started #1. Michigan is more likely to beat Alabama than Alabama is to beat BSU.
November 26th, 2010 at 10:15 PM ^
Did you watch the Bama v Auburn game? Both of those teams are extremely solid all-round.
November 26th, 2010 at 6:46 PM ^
You ask two different questions here.
First does one think that Boise is one of the two best teams in the nation? Personally I think yes, this is the same team that has won 23 straight games or something, including ones over Oregon and TCU. They have offensive talent that most schools would envy and an athletic attacking defense that is also very good.
Now based on their body of work do they deserve to jump Auburn/Oregon into the MNC? Absolutely not. Going undefeated in a major conference(although the Pac-10 is pretty bad this year) is more impressive than their run through the WAC.
November 26th, 2010 at 7:29 PM ^
losing one game in the SEC is way more impressive than being unbeaten in the WAC
November 26th, 2010 at 7:44 PM ^
Except those one loss SEC teams still wouldn't have won their conferences and frankly, neither appears to be all that dominant in the way the have gone through their seasons. Now in Auburn's case, that doesn't matter because they're unbeaten and style points aren't important if you run the table. However, if you want to have an argument as a 1-loss team, you better be pretty dominant and have a close/fluky loss.
November 26th, 2010 at 11:36 PM ^
I mean, the one upside is that if they make it, the game itself will likely settle the question for the next couple of years. BSU wins, they finally get their (cough) legitimacy, they lose anything less then a down-to-the-wire race and the human poll voters are going to punish them for years. Besides, if thet play Auburn and lose the game, it won't count in the history books anyway.
November 26th, 2010 at 6:41 PM ^
Uhh... TCU and Boise State WILL be in the same conference next season. They both are legitimate teams and deserve to have a chance at the national title.
It seems to be a common theme to me that people that bitch about non-BCS teams are closed-minded and usually just say it to go with the tide, refusing to notice that they've competed against and beaten top tier teams before. A team's schedule, in my opinion, should prepare them for the championship game, bowl game or playoffs. Yes, it should matter to get to these places, but playing top tier teams every week shouldn't matter if they lose the championship game against a team who plays losers every week. This is the reason I want a playoff.
November 26th, 2010 at 6:53 PM ^
my mistake on that point regarding conference realignment. i stand by my position that neither should play for a title this year. but things could change in the future given the creation of a tougher conference. although losing Utah will hurt some.
EDIT: Also, lets be intellectually honest right now. If Michigan were #5 in the BCS with 1 loss (or even #9), we'd be saying exactly what these other top 10 BCS teams are saying.
November 26th, 2010 at 6:58 PM ^
O of course I'd make the argument for Michigan. I don't know whether I'd believe it myself at that point though or if I knew to myself I was lying (really believing BSU/TCU deserve it but I'd argue otherwise). Never really thought of it, but I agree we'd all be arguing for Michigan.
Sorry if I seemed rude by the way in my post above. I re-read it and it seems kinda mean :(
November 26th, 2010 at 7:00 PM ^
I would be saying that Boise State or TCU deserves to play in the national title over Michigan because they have done their part by going undefeated.
November 26th, 2010 at 7:03 PM ^
the problem with that is, there's about 30 other teams that would have the same record as Boise if they played their schedule.
November 26th, 2010 at 7:05 PM ^
So you're obviously don't think Va Tech is any good.
November 26th, 2010 at 7:08 PM ^
an assumption and opinion, not a fact. You don't know if they can beat VT at VT(I know it's neutral but it's basically a home game for VT) or an healthy Oregon State. They may get upset by overlooking a certain team like say Hawaii or Fresno State.
November 26th, 2010 at 6:32 PM ^
But but but but Boise will finish up against Utah State! Surely that counts for something, amirite?
November 26th, 2010 at 6:50 PM ^
Virginia Tech gets into a BCS bowl and lost to James Madison.
November 26th, 2010 at 6:35 PM ^
Hey! Everyone knows that the road to the national championship runs through Nevada.
November 26th, 2010 at 6:41 PM ^
Boise is willing to take on all-takers (albeit they'd like to be paid if they're not going to get a home-and-home, which no big-time program would guarantee).
Who has stepped up to plate? You whine about how they don't play good teams, but as I recall, they've thrashed VT this year, beat Oregon last year, won their bowl game against TCU last year, and oh yes, gave OU (featuring a RB, Adrian Peterson, you may have heard of him) all they could handle when they were finally able to bust into the BCS a few years back (with everyone wailing they were unworthy and couldn't handle a B12 schedule).
That is, of course, not equivalent to playing an OSU/Iowa/Wisconsin gauntlet, or an Alabama/LSU/Florida stretch. That being said, they are not a member of these conferences, thoughlet me assure you Boise would join the SEC/B10 in a heartbeat if offered.
So instead of swearing at Boise for not being a financiall viable candidate (off the field) to join a major conference, why not sit back and let them have a shot to be rewarded for their play on the field they've been given?
After all, here's some food for thought: When was the last time they were embarrased by a big boy conference team?
HINT: Much further back in time than the last time OSU was.
November 26th, 2010 at 6:44 PM ^
Georgia absolutely thrashed them in 2005 (48-13), and Washington beat them by two TDs with a team that finished at 4-9 in 2007.
The Fiesta Bowl really did college football an injustice by not selecting a team like Iowa or Florida last year instead of both Boise State and TCU. I hope their ticket sales and TV ratings flopped due to that decision.
November 26th, 2010 at 6:52 PM ^
That 2005 game was indeed decisive.
Since then:
2006 NC, Florida FLATTENS OSU 41-14
2007 NC, LSU embarasses OSU 38-24 (the score wasn't that close)
2008-2009: USC confidently dispatches OSU two years running
(and this isn't including LOSSES, like inexplicable ones to Illinois, Purdue, etc. over that time: case in point that given even mediocre competition, it's damn hard to go undefeated for extended periods of time)
That 2007 team was indeed facing a down year after graduating the heart of its 06 Fiesta Bowl winning team, and wasn't in contention for much. Unlike this year. Or last year. When it's pretty much beaten all comers.
...all I'm saying is, every team loses occassionally, but you have to really reach back in time to find an example of an overrated Boise team unable to handle its business. OSU? Not so much.
November 26th, 2010 at 6:37 PM ^
OSU's president is on this site now?
Tell your football team to worry about their own BCS Championship stinkbombs before you throw stones.