President Gee? Is that you?
spoiler alert: i linked this
President Gee? Is that you?
I thought it might be Gary "WHAT A CONFERENCE!" Danielson
I threw up in my mouth a little when I heard him say that yesterday.
Here Is My Opinion On Sports, Now I'm Going To Start A Thread
If not, then what else?
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.
The info here about Michigan sports is more consolidated than ESPN. Also, Scout has about 97% opinions and 3% info.
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.
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?
"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?
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.
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.
what a douche. don't click on the link then you clown
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.
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.
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?
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.
in the Natty last year? They were undefeated and beat an Oregon team that went to the Rose Bowl.
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.
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.
as someone pointed out below, Boise IS joining TCU's conference. I'm an idiot. (But I'm still right...)
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.
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.
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.
that type of scheduling should really be a non-issue. major conf teams typically play 2-3 tough road games per year.
but they would best Boise IMO by two touchdowns
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."
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.
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.
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.
Did you watch the Bama v Auburn game? Both of those teams are extremely solid all-round.
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.
losing one game in the SEC is way more impressive than being unbeaten in the WAC
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 :(
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.
the problem with that is, there's about 30 other teams that would have the same record as Boise if they played their schedule.
So you're obviously don't think Va Tech is any good.
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.
But but but but Boise will finish up against Utah State! Surely that counts for something, amirite?
Virginia Tech gets into a BCS bowl and lost to James Madison.
Hey! Everyone knows that the road to the national championship runs through Nevada.
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.
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.
That 2005 game was indeed decisive.
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.
OSU's president is on this site now?
Tell your football team to worry about their own BCS Championship stinkbombs before you throw stones.
There is no argument that Auburn and Oregon deserve to be in the MNC if they win out. Despite my personal opinion that Boise would beat both of those teams, the superiority of their schedule is undeniable. HOWEVER, if Auburn loses in the SEC title game, it in no way deserves to be in the MNC ahead of either of those two teams. It would not have won its conference(neither would LSU) and the precedent as of 2006 has been set that winning your conference is a prerequisite for playing for the MNC(which if UM fans were honest, most would agree is a fair assessment). Now if you want to go down to Wisconsin, OSU(or not since they'll have two losses), MSU, etc. we'll have a discussion. But in no way does a one loss non-champion SEC team deserve a berth over TCU or Boise for the MNC.
I love the '06 precedent application. Though what if the precedent is narrower: a team whose last game before the NC is a loss cannot play for the NC? Wouldn't matter much for Michigan or Auburn, but could mean that a team which wins its last game but doesn't win the conference still goes to the NC. At least, if that's how you read Florida v. Michigan.
is both(michigan and florida) have one loss while boise state is undefeated(theoretically).
Would anyone deny an undefeated Big 10 team in the national title game?
According to Sagarin, Strength of Schedule:
Yes, that's a difference, but not a huge difference. Especially when you compare it to Oregon's 19th and Auburn's 40th.
EDIT: Didn't mean to reply to you, oops!
sorry, there must be a flaw in any system of measurement that says playing in the WAC, a conference that is WORSE than the MAC, is almost comparable to the teams you list
The WAC is vastly superior to the MAC. I cannot come up with one method of comparing the conferences in which you could say that the MAC is even equal to the WAC. This assertion is simply ridiculous.
The WAC has sent fewer players to the NFL than the MAC two out of the last three years. I don't position that as conclusive in any way, but barring a playoff, or major head to head games, which is the only fair way of comparison, subjective measure like recruiting rankings and NFL talent are all we have to go on.
Number of ranked teams, number of bowl eligible teams, number of BCS bids/wins, respective out-of-conference records, statistical conference rankings, etc. are invalid methods of comparison? Because the WAC wins every category I just listed.
of media voting, therefore not objective. Number of out of conference wins is skewed by Boise, rankings also a function of opinion. Those measures are not objective at all. I do admit it is not an open and shit case at all, and I don;t presume it is. But take out Boise and I am confident the MAC could stand very nicely to the WAC. My opinion of course.
play each other. And Wiscy scheduled it's usual four OOC auto-wins.
Sat, Sept 4 @UNLV W41-21
Sat, Sept 11 vsSan Jose State W27-14
Sat, Sept 18 vsArizona State W20-19
Sat, Sept 25 vsAustin Peay W70-3
Sat, Sept 4 vs Western Michigan W38-14
Sat, Sept 11 vs Florida Atlantic* W30-17
Sat, Sept 18 vs Notre Dame W34-31 OT
Sat, Sept 25 vs Northern Colorado W45-7
Thu, Sept 2 vsMarshall W45-7
Sat, Sept 11 vs#12 Miami (FL) W36-24
Sat, Sept 18 vsOhio W43-7
Sat, Sept 25 vsEastern Michigan W73-20
Correct me if I am wrong but they are both among the 120 teams in division 1 football. Then why can't they play for a national title. Isn't that segregation? They need to create a nonBCS national title if they can't play in the bigger kids title game.
Boise and TCU are good teams, but there are a lot of good teams. Undefeated or one loss through an SEC/B10 schedule is another matter. As much as it's a test of play, It's a test of will and pressure that Boise and TCU just don't face.
Cam Newton is set to return. When asked why he said this "the pros' just don't pay as much as the collegiate level."
That was so funny I almost fell off my dinosaur.
Alabama's second half performance was downright shameful. I'm confident Boise or TCU would hold their own against either Bama or AU if they played like they did today.
the fact is that if Boise or TCU go to the title game, we will never see a playoff. They will say that the "system" works.
I feel like if BSU or TSU goes to the championship game, there will be a lot of complaining from a lot of politicians and administrators associated with the slew of 1-loss BCS conference teams, and that could maybe help expedite the move to a playoff.
87% of all statistics are made up on the spot..
If we played Boise's schedule, what would our record be?
Probably 8-2 or 7-3. I don't think we'd beat Virginia Tech or Hawaii(can you imagine what they would do to our secondary?) and I think Oregon State would be a tossup. At best we would probably be 9-1 with a tossup game against Nevada coming up.
for being from Atlanta/at least repping the Braves
ago? Put down the Danielson koolaid, dude. That same Alabama team just COLLAPSED and HANDED Auburn the win that'll get them through. . .
Bonus quiz: Which team had more players and coaches that belong in jail?
and neither team really impressed me. I saw a lot of dropped passes, poor tackling, missed blocks, etc. Auburn's secondary is horrific. I was hoping Alabama could pull it out to save us from a 5th straight MNC team from the SEC. Bama's QB got hurt and their backup was lost. Auburn had two DTs sit out the first half and Bama destroyed them. When those two came back in the 2nd half, it was a different story. Makes me wonder what we could have done with Warren and Woolfolk in the secondary this year.
In the SEC title game a few years ago, they played Arkansas I think. Both teams looked mediocre. Stupid penalties, dropped punts, same sort of thing. Although I remember that title game being much worse, in terms of how the teams looked. But we all remember how that turned out - everyone gave credit to Florida for winning the SEC, and OSU made the polls look brilliant in hindsight. I really wish more teams did the Alabama/Penn State thing like this year, so we could get some more data points (and I bet Penn State would win now if they played an Alabama that rolled over and played dead like tonight). I would not put much money on the SEC in the bowls this year.
Damn Auburn. I REALLY wanted Boise St. or TCU in the championship game, just for that specific reason.
They spotted them a 24 point lead. It's not their fault Alabama can't catch passes. I now despise Alabama even more than I did before.
Why do the coaches continue to rank Boise State and TCU in the top 5 if they have records inflated by their schedule? You should write them a letter about it.
but just because they do doesn't mean they are necessarily better than boise or tcu. the obvious conclusion is that we need a playoff so we don't have to argue about SOS or quality wins or whatever else
Nobody has any idea how good Boise really is unless they have to play a real schedule. They don't and they probably never will. Oh well. I don't see why we have to find a way to let everyone have an "equal chance" to play in the MNC.
No, if Auburn loses in the SECCG, they shouldn't go to the MNC, even if it means that either TCU or BoiseSt. goes instead. And No,No,No to LSU even being considered for going. If Auburn loses, both them and LSU would be one-loss SEC teams that DIDN'T win their conference. No way you send them. If you can't win your conference, you shouldn't even be considered to play in the MNC, especially if it is an SEC team(I won't ever forget Urban Meyer and his challenging of pollsters to bump UF ahead of UM in 06')
As for scheduling, Auburn only has the 40th place strength of schedule. It's not like they are playing 12 straight LSU or South Carolina type teams. They have only played 5 quality opponents so far. Their OOC schedule was atrocious with Chattanooga(a 6-5 FCS team), ArkySt. (a 4-7 Sunbelt team), Louisiana-Monroe(a 5-6 Sunbelt team), and Clemson. Auburn barely beat Clemson at home in a game that went to OT, and Clemson is 4th in their division in the ACC.
As a comparison, BoiseSt. will have played 3 quality teams. Their OOC included 2 teams expected to contend for their conference championship, one of whom will probably end with a 5-7 record, but with 4 of those losses to top ten teams. They scheduled Toledo, which, while they are a MAC school, were expected to be pretty good this year(their record is 8-4).
I don't believe that anyone can definitively state that BoiseSt. could not go through Auburn's schedule unbeaten, nor that Auburn would be unbeaten with BoiseSt.'s schedule. The other point of contention is the winning margins that BoiseSt. has put up nearly all season long. And on the flipside, Auburn has barely beat a lowertier ACC team, barely beat a lower tier SEC team, and barely beat a middling SEC team.
As to the MNC, if you feel that TCU or BoiseSt. are not worthy of the MNC, there really would only be one other choice for a team to go, and that would be either Wisky or OkSt., assuming Wisky wins this weekend and OkSt. wins out and wins the B12.
Do people assume that one/two loss teams are better than BSU/TCU? As far as I know, the two teams have a combined one loss in the last two seasons (which, uh, was one losing to the other.) Furthermore, I think their records against BCS teams recently have proven that they are no pushovers ('07 Fiesta, '09 BSU vs. UO, '09 TCU vs. Clemson, BSU vs. VaTech, both steam-rolled Oregon State)
And I really hate the argument that they try to make easy schedules. I'm sure there is no proof of that. Since 2005, TCU has scheduled 12 BCS Teams (4 at home, 7 on the road, 1 neutral site) with a 9-2 record. Since 2005, BSU has scheduled 8 BCS Teams (2 at home, 5 on the road, 1 neutrals site) with a 5-3 record (also they played and beat Utah once, a BCS caliber team.) Also keep in mind that Boise State has rivalry games with an in state that eats up one OOC game/year and their AD probably has less money than other schools, meaning they are confined to playing local schools, of which few are BCS (they have an ongoing home and home with Oregon State.)
I also remember reading that Boise tried scheduling some BCS schools a couple of years ago (USC and Michigan State included) but nobody would agree to a home and home (thus the very lopsided home-away ratio)
It's whether or not their on field accomplishments are in the Top 2 of the country in 2010.
I think LSU & Stanford have more impressive resumes. I think WIscy's got an argument.
Take LSU. Among Sagarin's Top 11-30, TCU, Boise, & LSU are each 2-0, w/ respective wins over (TCU) Oregon State & Utah, (Boise) VaTech & Oregon State, and (LSU) Florida and Mississippi State. But LSU also had two Top 10 opponents, Auburn & Alabama. Do you really think TCU or Boise would do better than LSU's 1-1 against those two? I'm thinking they both go 0-2. And up next for LSU is Sagarin's #9 Arkansas.
how to get away w/ a TD dance. (#43 who caught the last TD)
If you want to get away w/ a TD dance after a score, make it a goofy leprechaun dance. You'll never get called for it.
It's cause everybody loves leprechauns. Also, there is usually pots of gold involved.
Damn it I missed this
Hopefully someone Youtube'd it
The funny thing is Danielson said the same thing (and pretty much says the same thing every week on CBS) about the little guys not being able to compete with the big guys. During that Iron Bowl game he specifically called out TCU / Boise and said they didn't have to play Alabama so they weren't legit
Every week he goes on and says stuff like "If you want to play in the championship game, play the big fellas"
...it's all a moot point!
Nevada wins, and that's the beauty of college football: Any Given Saturday.