OT: the final word on the Boise St debate
This was a topic of some debate here after the first week, so I thought that readers would be interested in Dr Saturday's take on the whole Boise St debate (i.e., should they be in the natl championship conversation), which to me should be the final word until things change:
The real debate should be about why college football has a championship structure that forces us into the unnecessary debate over the merits of a wildly successful upstart at all, when every question could be settled beyond a doubt with actual football instead of conjuring up make-beieve scenarios. As usual, the final answer is: The BCS sucks.
September 28th, 2010 at 9:14 PM ^
disappointed when Boise st. played TCU last year, as opposed to each playing a BCS conference team. We didn't really learn much about either one
September 28th, 2010 at 9:52 PM ^
Definitely, it really seemed like a cop out. They probably would have had much better ratings if they had done what you suggested anyways. The allure of two "upstart" programs duking it out with the big boys will bring me in everytime.
September 28th, 2010 at 11:58 PM ^
The great Kid's Table Bowl. What a joke.
September 29th, 2010 at 1:58 PM ^
IME by putting BSU in it. The real joke is that people think a team that goes undefeated playing in a conference that is inferior to the MAC--yes, true-deserves to get a MNC shot.
September 28th, 2010 at 9:23 PM ^
Yeah well, that's the system in place. Pointing out that the system sucks resolves absolutely nothing when it comes to whether or not BSU should be in the championship game.
September 28th, 2010 at 9:38 PM ^
would have 3 losses or more every year on a Big Ten, Pac Ten or SEC schedule.
Playing 1 or 2 bowl caliber teams a year does not cut it.
Teams in the other conferences play 5 or more bowl teams a year.
September 28th, 2010 at 9:55 PM ^
brown eyes.They are having these conversations about Boise St., because of their win loss record over (SEVERAL) years. Just because you were born in A2 doesn't mean that you have the power of reason.
September 28th, 2010 at 9:59 PM ^
What you're saying is pure speculation. I'm not saying you're wrong, but we will never know. Remember that Boise has a damn good winning percentage against the 'big bad' BCS teams. They have proven they can beat down on top calibur teams in bowl games, so I'm not sure why we can't give them a shot. If they get blown to bits, then the argument is over, but I think they should get a shot. They've been putting together ridiculous season for quite a number of years now. This isn't something out of the blue.
September 28th, 2010 at 11:15 PM ^
It will always be pure speculation, until Boise State joins a real conference. And I think that's just the way Boise likes it - they get way more attention this way than they would as the 7th best team in the Pac 10 or Big 12. I didn't see them really clamoring to join a big conference in the big shuffle this summer, so will they ever do that?
They say, "well, no one will schedule us" and that's somewhat true - there's no upside to playing Boise. If you beat them, you're supposed to and you gain nothing, and if you don't, you've killed your NC chances in a way a loss to a big name auto-qualifier would not, even if Boise is ranked #3. And you definitely get less money than you would for playing someone like Alabama or Miami. Yes, Boise has done well in big games over multiple seasons, but so what? They basically get to focus all of their attention on a couple games a year and sleepwalk through the rest of their schedule. I wager we would have a better record against OSU if all the rest of our games were against the MAC.
Even if we had a playoff system, Boise would still be essentially exploiting it, because they can play their B game all year and still go 11-1 and make the playoffs.
September 29th, 2010 at 2:03 AM ^
It is not like we are talking about Notre Dame turning down the Big 10 again and again. Nobody is beating down BSU's door to get them into their conference. Their stadium only seats about 35K, their appeal is largely regional (if not local), and they have proven that they can beat just about anybody on any given day. The BCS conferences are not looking to add a team that will not bring in a ton of revenue while also adding a potential loss to the big boys in the conference.
With the BCS conferences not willing to take them in, they decided to move to the MWC. Starting in 2011 the MWC will have BSU (#3 AP), TCU (#5 AP), Utah (#13 AP) and Nevada (#25 AP), as well as BYU and Air Force teams that appear in the polls from time to time. They are doing the best that they can with the options that they have.
What BSU has proven is that they will play anybody at any time, and that they can beat quality teams. Look at the record of some of the major conference teams against ranked teams and it doesn't stack up to BSU's record against ranked teams in recent years. People seem to be saying that even if BSU may be one of the top teams in the country that they should not be treated as such because they don't have the resume of a BCS team. Essentially the one thing that people are asking from BSU is the one thing over which they have zero control at this point - who is on their schedule. Tthey can only play the teams that are willing to schedule them, and few BCS teams are willing to do so. Nobody is claiming that the WAC is a power conference, but BSU's past success combined with their huge number of returning players should earn them some consideration.
September 29th, 2010 at 7:42 AM ^
I agree with pretty much everything you said. But, even when they join a better conference, Utah and BYU leave. Utah I believe is going to the PAC-10 and BYU is going independent.
September 29th, 2010 at 1:11 PM ^
True. I was referring mostly to the assertion that they don't want to be in a better conference. It is hard to fault them for others leaving after they decided to join.
September 29th, 2010 at 12:35 PM ^
While Boise doesn't have a huge following or anything, you could argue that they have about the same amount of fans as a bottom tier major conference team.
The issue with them joining a Big Boy conference is that Boise St. is a terrible school. They don't offer PhD programs and would be considered a net drain on the academics of whatever conference admitted them. From an athletics standpoint, they compete in relatively few sports, they only field something like 14 total teams. Nobody wants to have a school that only competes in football...
September 29th, 2010 at 7:21 AM ^
Obviously Boise St. doesn't play the same caliber teams week in/week out that SEC or B10 teams play. While I don't concede they would lose three B10, P10, or SEC games every year, they would rarely, if ever, go undefeated. .
When I watch them play though, I see a team that can step on the field and play with anybody. They have a great coach, system, and players. Indeed it is a shame they ended up playing TCU last year, 'cuz it was a missed opportunity to see a higher profile matchup.
Boise has to be very disappointed in Va Tech after a nice road win. Not saying they should play for the NC, but I think they are a very good team. Fun to watch, too.
September 29th, 2010 at 4:27 PM ^
certain that you as well as other pundits have underanalyzed the talent pool and the coaching abilities that BSU enjoys. they may not go undefeated every year in the big ten. also i can see one or two bowl game flukes where a team underestimates them, but they are shanking teams left and right in bowl games. and they have increased their OOC games to amp up the level of play. why would a michigan man be hatein on them anyway? GO BLUE!
September 29th, 2010 at 4:35 PM ^
they may not go undefeated every year in the big ten.
Going out on a very precarious limb, are we?
Here's the thing. Week in and week out, Boise plays absolutely horrible opposition. They basically play nine or ten scrimmages a year and two or three actually loseable games. It's not hard to win those 2-3 games when the rest of the schedule is a joke. They hardly have to prep for the other teams they play. They can sit guys out if they're a little nicked up. They just have to get up for those 2-3 tough games and can sleepwalk their way to 12-0.
Is it Boise's fault that no good conference wants them? No. But hey, life isn't fair. As long as they play in that horrible conference, they don't belong in the BCS picture. If they really care about winning a national title, they should go independent.
September 28th, 2010 at 9:48 PM ^
September 28th, 2010 at 9:48 PM ^
The biggest problem with the current structure is the ranking of teams before every game is played. Texas was ranked #7 when they lost to UCLA, who is currently unranked. So, if Texas drops to #21, does that mean that UCLA beat the #7 team in the country, or the #21 team in the country? No one can honestly assess any college football team until after their last game has been played. To do otherwise unfairly handicaps teams competing for the championship game. If, as the experts say, the polls are fluid week to week, doesn't that mean that the last week is the only one that truly matters because it puts the entire season into perspective?
As far as a "playoff" being the answer because "they actually decide it on the field"...um, no they don't. Every team in college football has their own schedule, which does not include every other team in their conference, let alone every other team in the FBS. If college basketball has taught us anything, it's that a playoff doesn't crown the best team of the college season, they crown a tournament champion, which is hardly the same year after year, comparatively. It has also taught us that, apparently, 64 teams weren't enough for a tournament. Imagine the outrage by teams ranked 1 or 2 spots below the cut line for the college football tournament.
I love the bowls because it puts teams against one another who may never play each other again in a city the kids may never travel to again. It's a year-end gift for a season's test. I wouldn't want to trade that experience for a glass football voted on by people who see maybe 10% of the teams that they are voting for.
/rant
/fin
September 28th, 2010 at 10:02 PM ^
September 28th, 2010 at 11:03 PM ^
you're forgeting that the champion isn't, nor does it need to be, the best team, it goes to the last team standing....with the BCS you dont always get a "true" champion, but in many cases the "most popular kid in the class" gets it in the end. A playoff might not solve all the problems....but sure would answer more than the BCS does.
Furthermore, since there would most likely be a limited number of teams in the playoff, it's not unreasonable to assume that the bowls sytem could remain in place for the remaining teams. a 6-8 team playoff (perhaps decided with the BCS points system) with the BCS sites hosting the play off games would still allow fro the same number of bowls we currentlly have and even get a few extra bowl eligable schools from MAC type conferances into the post season.
September 28th, 2010 at 11:17 PM ^
My only concern is that if you have a 6-team playoff, then teams ranked 7-9 may have an argument that they belong. This is the College Basketball paradox. 64 teams are invited, and immediately there are arguments for 5-10 teams that were "left out". I would love a system where a computer gives a score for strength of schedule based on some sort of crazy algorithm where the ideological and emotional biases or humans are totally tossed out. Right now, we have emotionally charged "writers" who want to lift up and bring down the big guys and consistently promote the little guy.
Muck Urban Freyer as well my friend.
Go Blue!!
September 29th, 2010 at 12:08 AM ^
September 29th, 2010 at 12:19 AM ^
I think the 1st year was Computer+Writers' Poll+Coaches Poll. Now it is Computer+Coaches Poll. The coaches will NEVER convince me that they watch all of the games, and so their opinion is just as comforting as the writers' opinions used to be. In other words...not very. I want just Computer. No votes. No emotion. Just Computer. Somebody please embed a picture of Trapper Keeper from South Park
September 29th, 2010 at 8:43 AM ^
Great post earlier, but I was looking forward to the explanation of the mechanics of a 100+
round-robin.
September 29th, 2010 at 12:42 PM ^
when i said BCS point system...i mean the current system they use...sorry for the confussion guys
September 28th, 2010 at 10:32 PM ^
Oh the BCS sucks huh? That's an original thought.
September 28th, 2010 at 10:59 PM ^
This appeared on Portland, Oregon's local ESPN radio show.
If Boise played its current schedule twice (meaning they played the Virginia Tech Hokies twice in Landover, Oregon State twice, etc.), they'd have a 27 percent chance of going 24-0. That would still be better than the chances of Oregon, Ohio State, Alabama and Texas to go undefeated. If the Broncos played their schedule three times -- if they had to go 36-0, basically -- the likelihood of them running the table would be 14 percent.
So, the chances of Oregon going 12-0 in one season are roughly equivalent to the chances of Boise going 36-0 against its 2010 slate. That's how big the schedule gap is.
The actual article is for ESPN insiders only but here is the link:
http://insider.espn.go.com/ncf/insider/news/story?id=5604602
September 29th, 2010 at 2:14 AM ^
True, Oregon was really good last year and seems to be this year as well. Of course, BSU beat Oregon last year, and BSU returns nearly everybody this year. BSU would be less likely to go undefeated in the Big Ten or the SEC, but that doesn't mean that it would be impossible for them. People need to determine whether they think BSU is a better team than others based on watching them play, since their schedule prevents us from applying a pure resume approach. You can believe that their resume is lacking and still believe that they are a better team than a one or two loss BCS conference team.
September 28th, 2010 at 11:02 PM ^
Fair point and all that, BCS is an ugly system. Myself, I hate rationalism in college football with the burning passion of a thousand suns, and want to go back to the old system that Bo stood behind - win your games, beat your rivals, win your conference, go to the Rose Bowl (or other thing if you're in another conference), and call it a good season.
However, as regards BSU, etc., while yes, the BCS system keeps them down, blah blah blah, can I propose that announcers have a moratorium on discussing this during BSU games? I watch the BSU/OU game on ESPN Classic the other day, and could not believe how much time the announcers spent talking about how BSU would like a shot at other teams, etc. etc., and it really cheapened their accomplishment in that game.
September 29th, 2010 at 12:04 AM ^
September 29th, 2010 at 2:19 AM ^
It is kind of funny that all of the Floridas and Alabamas of the world refuse to play BSU, and then complain that BSU has no right to play for the title because their resume is lacking.
September 29th, 2010 at 7:40 AM ^
September 29th, 2010 at 1:17 PM ^
I completely agree that you cannot blame people for not playing them. We never should have played App. St. Unfortunately, BSU gets the blame for the lack of resume strength, when they are the ones trying to improve that resume to no avail. At the very least, when BSU earns a BCS bid they should play a BCS conference team, so that they are at least allowed to prove their worth.
September 28th, 2010 at 11:36 PM ^
It's clearly not going to be the last word on this BSU debate....
September 29th, 2010 at 1:10 AM ^
Normally, I would agree that September is a little early for the "last word" on anything concerning college football. But "the BCS sucks" is a pretty compelling "argument."
September 28th, 2010 at 11:50 PM ^
Ok, if they go undefeated and there is only 1 other undefeated team (if that) then don't they have the right to be in there? They would have the freakin' credentials to get to the Championship Game.
Everytime Boise State answers the critics, new questions arise. I just don't get it. It's almost as though no one wants Boise State in the Championship Game. Why not? If they go undefeated, they deserve to be in it.
It would be ridiculous to have a team who had 1 loss from a major conference in the game over a potentially undefeated Boise State team.
September 29th, 2010 at 12:05 AM ^
At all. So if Michigan loses 1 game to let's say Iowa but runs the table else you'd think that bsu has a better resume than Michigan?
<br>
<br>I want what you're smoking
September 29th, 2010 at 2:28 AM ^
If Michigan was to win their remaining games by two points each, and BSU was to dominate their remaining opponents by 50 each, then the voters would have to consider which they thought was a better team. Granted, it is not an apples to apples comparison, but it is all we can do, especially when the bowl games cop out and pit TCU and BSU against one another rather than give the public better data points from which to compare the BCS-busters to the BCS conference teams.
September 29th, 2010 at 12:24 AM ^
If Central Michigan had managed to beat Arizona and Boston College in addition to Sparty in 2009, would they have deserved to be in the national championship game? Because frankly Boise State's schedule was easier than Central Michigan's last year.
September 29th, 2010 at 1:37 AM ^
I don't think there is going to be an answer with Division 1A (I refuse to call it the FBS because that sounds like something else) because I think there is too much disparity in the current structure. When you are talking the traditional football powers, there isn't much disparity between the conferences (no matter what Bobby Bowden's retarded son wants to tell you about the SEC) and a playoff amongst them would be fair. If you throw the other conferences in the mix, you start losing some of that fairness. I think limiting the number of scholarships has helped improve the parity in Division IA but there is still the other intangibles. I mean you're a football talent, would you rather play at the Big House in front of over 100,000 people or Rynearson where you might get to play in front of maybe 10,000 (and I'm being generous there). So I think if there were going to be a playoff, there would have to be a greater shakeup in the conference system.
I think the other thing that Division IA has going against it is that there are too many teams. I forget what it is this days but it is definitely over 100. I think that is too many because you probably could have a good argument that there isn't much difference between the top 10 teams but there is definately a difference between the top 10 teams and the bottom 10 teams. And despite all the efforts for parity, I don't think the bottom teams have much of a chance to catch up to the top 10 teams.
Personally, I would prefer a return to the old bowl alignments and forget the notion of crowning a "legitimate champion". Admittedly, that would shut out the likes of Boise State from the bowl picture but oh well. The whole point of the BCS system was to have a clear 1 vs a clear 2. When USC won the AP Championship a few years ago, that invalidated that theory because a split championship was probably the final straw for the Big 10 and Pac 10 to join the little bowl club.
September 29th, 2010 at 1:44 AM ^
I would have to say that it was the game at EMU where they clinched the Cal Bowl berth. That was my freshman year in college and that season was my first experience with college football in person.
For pro-sports, a game where my dad and I went to see the Yankees Vs. the Angels at Yankees stadium. The Yankees lost but it was my first trip to the House that Ruth Built.
September 29th, 2010 at 1:56 AM ^
LOL bro you totally posted in the wrong thread.
September 29th, 2010 at 2:09 AM ^
That's what I get for not paying attention....
Ah well...It's late....
September 29th, 2010 at 2:37 AM ^
because we will always have to have these ridiculous statistical debates instead of settling the football on the field. It would definitely piss me off to see Boise in the national title game over a one loss SEC/Big Ten/Big 12 program who had to fight through a very tough regular season.
September 29th, 2010 at 3:31 AM ^
Boise has proven they can win a bowl game with weeks or preparation of beat an AQ conference team if they're surrounded by patsies on the schedule. But can they play ranked teams in consecutive weeks consistently and win at the same rate? Or even play top 50 teams back to back. Not likely without depth throughout the entire roster.
September 29th, 2010 at 7:20 AM ^
1. Why didn't the Big12 not get BSU and TCU for replacements for Colorado and Nebraska? I'm sure both would make some kind of agreements to upgrade in the future if that’s what's holding them back.
2. If the season stays on current course, what a shit show it would be if OSU and Alabama lost to UM and Auburn on the last weekend and TCU and BSU were still undefeated and at the no3 & 4 spots. I would love to see the chaos.
September 29th, 2010 at 3:31 PM ^
I don't know much about TCU, but Boise is not much of a school academically. It's like Ferris or Lake Superior State, but with a big-time football program.
September 29th, 2010 at 8:16 AM ^
I'm just interested in what the OP was thinking by creating the title of such finality, then offering no opinion or insight at all, but just copying what someone else wrote. And frankly, Dr. Saturday didn't even turn in a very creative or informative article, pretty much just referencing an article by SI then closing with, "only a playoff could truly end speculation"
wow, that was great, truly brilliant and original thinking there, and thanks for posting that.
The interesting thing to me is that this debate about a playoff will never be over. From the more interesting posts where Brian has started with his rather complex round robin/Euro soccer/hockey playoff schemes as a straw man for debate, it's clear there are almost as many opinions as their are posters. And while the majority do not like the present system, no one has a majority on the solution.
Even though I didn't believe your title at all and was prepared for a range of, strong opinion posted versus sarcasm, your copying with no input of a somewhat lame article referencing another article then concluding something that's obvious caught me off guard,
so in a way, bravo for that, you exceeded my expectations.