Nevada @ Boise Open Thread

Submitted by formerlyanonymous on November 27th, 2009 at 10:33 PM

Had to start this just because Nevada's HB blew up a linebacker on that play. Hit of the game so far.



November 27th, 2009 at 10:46 PM ^

I am watching this game and had a random thought that I'll share.

Boise has blue turf. They have jerseys that match their turf. The score tons of points all the time, but are especially dominant at home.

Oregon has green multicolor turf. They wear green multicolor jerseys that match the grass more than any other teams who wear green. The almost always score tons of points, but are especially dominant at home.

Is it possible that the matching turf/jerseys throws teams off?

I realize that this post is completely ridiculous, but this is a Boise-Nevada thread so ridiculous seems fitting.


November 27th, 2009 at 11:00 PM ^

It's worth a discussion, in this thread only, and not to ever be repeated anywhere else. I mean, who else stays up to watch Boise and Nevada play?

A couple of forseeable problems:

1. Might the Maize and Blue turf come off as exceedingly tacky? Kind of like how the Blue turf comes off as exceedingly tacky?

2. Could another RR era change even further inflame the anti-RR movement? I mean, I'm all for shaking things up but since everyone and their mother is convinced he's getting canned this just might be the straw that breaks Sue Coleman's back.

3. Fuck point 2, the dudes and dudettes that hate RR will hate him regardless.

4. Disregard these comments, we're watching Boise play Nevada.


November 27th, 2009 at 11:03 PM ^

I don't think it is that ridiculous. Their jerseys match the field. If you don't play on that field all that often, I'm guessing you probably have a harder time seeing their DBs/LBs.

I know Boise State has been given the go-ahead by the NCAA, but come on guys, standardize the fields. You don't need to standardize the stadium, but when teams are able to intentionally gain an advantage by changing the field color/the length of the grass on the field/any number of other factors, something has to give.


November 27th, 2009 at 11:39 PM ^

I'm in complete agreement in terms of standardization.

I'll go a step further and say that the NCAA needs to step in an attempt to standardize team's schedules to some extent.

I understand and appreciate that the current free-for-all allows college football to be played basically from mid-August to mid-December for the regular season, but it just seems to create an unfair advantage for certain teams and conferences in terms of bowl selection and performance, rankings, and award selection.

Hell, I would even be alright with the NCAA putting more restrictions on teams' non-conference schedules. Something along the lines of you can only play a FCS team once every five years, you have to play a non-conference BCS team every other year (if you are in a BCS conference of course), and other things like that.

I think by implementing more control, the NCAA would create better overall match-ups throughout the season and would eliminate some of the debate about SoS and other factors.

Wow, I am really putting a lot into this thread. I'm out.


November 27th, 2009 at 11:41 PM ^

I wish this too, but only because it would hopefully trickle down to the Olympic sports. The baseball committee is made up of a majority of northern schools, the D1 level has more teams in the North/Northeast than anywhere else, but the southern schools have such a built in advantage to start dates, recruiting, home games, and several other less big factors. If football, the money sport, could enforce some major changes to equalize the scheduling factors, I could only hope it would eventually mean the same thing for all NCAA sports.

Unlikely, but I can still wish.


November 27th, 2009 at 11:05 PM ^

Nevada keeps running up toward the player getting the flare/short curl and stopping about 4 yards short, allowing the Bronco WR to get a chance to make a move and pass the defender. I've seen it at least 5 times. Just run up and hit him.


November 28th, 2009 at 2:23 AM ^

Can't help but feel that this Boise team would be in real trouble if they ran into a team with a killer defense that can also score a ton. Aka texas, Florida, etc. They don't seem as physical as the team that beat Oklahoma.

That being said, in a one game situation anything is possible, and with trick plays and such I don't see any reason this team or a tcu couldn't win a national title.

To me though that just reinforces the fact that we need a playoff. Anyone can win one game on a given day when things go right. But the best team IMO is the one that can go through the guantlet of the regular season and win three or four games at the end with it all on the line.

Bcs supporters try to say that the regular season is a playoff, but that's the biggest bs I've ever heard. If the regular season was a playoff than everyone would have almost an equal shot and their schedules would be almost identical in difficulty. But clearly that's not the case. Teams like Boise and tcu have a much easier road to going undefeated, but at the same time they can win out and not be given a chance at the championship.

I know this is all old news, but when it's so logical it just stuns me how were not ever close to making it a reality. The influence of money in college football makes me sick, especially when the NCAA tries to claim it's not about money at all.

That's my rant. Goodnight.


November 28th, 2009 at 2:34 AM ^

The same Nevada team that got destroyed by ND gave Boise all it could handle..

Boise is going to get destroyed if they get to a BCS game..