OT: ACK! Tulsa Blew it!

Submitted by MCalibur on October 14th, 2009 at 11:31 PM

Eerily similar to D-Robs INT. Boise St. has to drop. They did not beat Tulsa like a number 5 team should have. Oklahoma SMASHED Tulsa; Boise St was on the ropes. They made absolutely no plays to salt that game away and ended up getting in under thrown ball gift to win. When you have a chump schedule you need to handle your bidness. I've had my reservations but I'm officially writing them off.

Comments

MCalibur

October 14th, 2009 at 11:51 PM ^

I'm not talking about being a good team. I'm talking about being a championship game contender. I don't see how Boise can make a case without dominating their weak schedule.

Also, 2008 TCU is a MUCH better opponent than 2009 Tulsa is. The only other loss TCU had last year [email protected] Oklahoma.

Sorry, Boise's out in my book unless there are no 1 loss teams from the SEC , Big 12, USC, VaTech, Notre Dame, Miami (FL), OREGON, available. Not necessarily in that order.

jaggs

October 15th, 2009 at 12:26 AM ^

Speaking of looking like shit...to only win by 2 or 3 against a 3-9 team is not good either...

Looking back, keeping the #2 team in the country within a field goal was quite an accomplishment for last years team...

PurpleStuff

October 14th, 2009 at 11:47 PM ^

What do you mean when you say you are writing them off? As national title contenders? If so you should never have considered them at that level in the first place. They just don't have the horses to compete with the big boys on a consistent basis, as evidenced by the beatdown they took at Georgia a few years ago. Still, they are a pretty solid team and have an amazingly well run program. If they go undefeated, they deserve a shot in a BCS game, whether or not they win like they did against OU and like Utah did this past season or if they get pasted like Hawaii did. To me, an undefeated season is really damn hard no matter who you play and should at least be rewarded with a big game.

The bigger question to me revolves around the MWC getting an automatic bid or some other consideration. Seems unfair to require those teams to go 12-0 to get a shot at a big game when they have played so well in them in the past.

MCalibur

October 14th, 2009 at 11:56 PM ^

Nah, if they had trucked the rest of their schedule I'd have let 'em in. If you're in the SEC or Big 12, just win baby. Outside of that you need style points in my book. And make no mistake, my book is SUPER important.

PurpleStuff

October 15th, 2009 at 12:07 AM ^

Noting the importance of your book, the people at FOX are thrilled that you have finally seen the light on this BSU team.

Personally I would never give BSU a sniff of the title game at the moment, considering that they have recruited zero 4-star players (by Rivals) in the last 4 years and have more 2-stars than 3-stars. I also cringed throughout that game against Georgia thinking a Bronco player could get killed on every play. At the same time, I think any undefeated team deserves a shot at some BCS game and was worried you were being unfair if you were dismissing them from that. Since that is not the case (assuming your book will still allow them to be pummeled by USC in the Rose Bowl), I'm totally on board.

dakotapalm

October 15th, 2009 at 5:05 AM ^

Did you cringe when Georgia played Georgia Southern? I'm fairly certain GSU had fewer 2 or 3 stars than the Broncos...

I'm just surprised that no Boise players were killed against Oklahoma in that beatdown.

(Oh, what? Boise won that game?)

MI Expat NY

October 15th, 2009 at 12:42 AM ^

To be fair, that Georgia beatdown was probably against the worst Boise St. team of the last 8 years (and Georgia went on to win the SEC). They finished that season 9-4, while they've only lost more than once one other season during that span. Using that one game as evidence that during their best seasons they couldn't win game in and game out seems to be a little harsh. One could just as easily claim that their victory over Oklahoma, a game they dominated until they choked it away, is proof that they would be a favorite in any conference in any year.

Boise St.'s best teams have been darn good football teams and would be in the top two or three of any conference. Just because they looked bad today against a decent Tulsa team doesn't mean they are necessarily bad, or wouldn't be competing this year for a BCS conference title if they could magically be transplanted into one. Unfortunately, we won't know what type of a team they really are until their bowl matchup.

PurpleStuff

October 15th, 2009 at 2:31 AM ^

BSU has lost 4 of their last 5 bowl games with probably the best teams in school history (the miracle against OU is the only win in Hawkins' last two years or Petersen's first three) with losses to East Carolina, BC, TCU, and Louisville. Hardly the big boys of the BCS conferences. The Georgia game was important because it was obvious to anyone watching that BSU's athletes were completely inferior to those of an elite national program. BSU has earned a lot of street cred for beating OU in a game where they had to throw out everything in the playbook to eek out a win (against a team that has been terrible in bowl games lately and that probably had little pregame motivation). Other than that, though, they have basically done nothing nationally and continue to recruit lower level talent. They are extremely well coached and are an outstanding football program that deserves to be praised for their recent run of success and deserves a BCS bowl bid if they go undefeated. To say they deserve a shot at the national title is silly and to say they'd finish in the top 2 or 3 of any BCS conference is equally asinine. That would mean they have a better program than UM, Penn State, and OSU, not to mention every other team in the Big10 despite raking in a recruiting class chalked full of 2-star talent every year. You can do the same comparison in any other league and it is equally ridiculous.

MI Expat NY

October 15th, 2009 at 11:10 AM ^

Did you even watch that Fiesta Bowl? Or did you only catch the craziness of the last minute and overtime? BSU absolutely dominated that game until they choked it away and the commentators kept talking about how they physically manhandled OU and weren't relying on trick plays.

You bring up their bowl losses. The ECU and BC bowl losses came in their two worst seasons in the last 8 years (again, the only two with more than one loss) while Louisville and TCU finished 11-1 and 11-2 respectively. If you go back another year, they beat another very good TCU team.

I could use your exact same reasoning and say that Michigan clearly doesn't have the athletes to compete in the Pac 10, I mean Oregon physically manhandled them and they have always struggled to win Rose Bowl games. So, geez, they wouldn't stand a chance in the mighty Pac 10.

Lets be honest, it's hard to know on a given year what kind of a team BSU really has. They are unable to schedule to prove it. They have only gotten two BCS teams to trave to Boise in the last 8 seasons (both victories) and they clearly don't want to spend the early part of the season working out the kinks against a gauntlet of tough road games. Boise State doesn't have the horses to reload like the powers in other conferences, thus their record is bloated since they are still able to win in the WAC. This allows people to dismiss their best teams because they perceive their record as similarly bloated.

All I know is that they were pretty good in 2006 when they beat the Big 12 champion, they were pretty good last year when they beat the Pac 10 runner up and they seem to be pretty good this year when they beat the current Pac 10 leader. I don't think it's a huge stretch to claim that BSU, with their best teams, could compete for most BCS league titles.

PurpleStuff

October 15th, 2009 at 2:01 PM ^

Being able to occasionally win a game against a big time team, and being able to consistently compete for a league title are two very different things. OU has lost to TCU, Ok. St. (couple of times), BYU, and probably a handful of other teams in recent years that still had no chance to win a BCS conference title or seriously contend for one. Beating one good team doesn't make a conference champion, you have to beat all of the good teams.

Any school in the top half (if not deeper) of a BCS league gets 9 out of 10 players (if not more) in a hypothetical recruiting battle with BSU. To say they could consistently compete for league titles (which you now seem to have backtracked on to only include "years they are really good") is insane. In the Big Ten they would need to go better than .500 against Michigan, Penn State, Ohio State, MSU, Wisconsin, and Iowa, then go out and beat everyone else just to be looking at a New Year's Day Bowl. They would have to beat them all or all but one to win the league. In the SEC those top teams are Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, Auburn, and LSU. Where would BSU fall in that pecking order? Somewhere between Ole Miss and Miss. St. (if that seems harsh, note that Ole Miss beat Florida last year, just like BSU beat OU once upon a time). The wins over Oregon have been impressive the last two years, but it isn't hard to get motivated when the Ducks are your Super Bowl. I don't think they could come out the next week and travel to Washington, then play USC, ASU, UCLA, Or. St., etc. and come out unscathed. The bowl record shows that they have been a below .500 team against squads with any kind of pulse over the last five years. That doesn't cut it if you want to win a BCS conference. If the coach at Michigan, ND, USC, Florida or any other big time program went 1-4 against OU, ECU, TCU, BC, and Louisville, he would get fired.

BSU is a great story and an extremely well run program, but the talent gap between their teams and the top of the BCS conferences is extreme. Pulling one upset doesn't change that just because it happened in their lone shot on the big stage. Also, to say they dominated that game against OU goes against the facts since they were outgained. You can't say BSU was dominating when OU was throwing pick sixes in the first 2.5 quarters but that OU got lucky when BSU started throwing them back late in the game.

Lastly, everyone beats OU in bowl games these days (5 in a row), and no, UM could not have competed for the Pac10 title in recent years because USC has been far and away the best team in college football over that span. Throw in a probable loss to a team like Oregon or Cal and we'd have been looking at 3-4th place finishes at best most years (still better than BSU would have done, though).

MI Expat NY

October 15th, 2009 at 3:23 PM ^

Speaking of apples and oranges, you seem to feel that I said BSU would be a top two or three PROGRAM in any bcs conference (they might be in the ACC or Big East). I said in my first post that their "best teams" would be competitive, which means, that I think say their 2006 team was legitimately a top 10 type team. I never claimed based on one victory over a Big 12 champion, they'd compete year in and year out (by the way, they also rocked the third place team in the Pac 10 that year), in fact I specifically said they can't reload like the top tier programs. In my mind, if I had to rank them as a program, they would fall on a yearly basis as middle of the pack BCS conference teams, but middle of the pack BCS teams can compete for league championships every few years. I think BSU's best teams could have the same type of years that the best teams from Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa or Arkansas have had.

Second, you can't claim they would be out recruited in a BCS conference because right now they don't have the advantage of playing in a BCS conference. Recruiting now as a WAC member would not be the same as recruiting as say a member of the PAC 10, and if you don't think it makes a difference, go ask South Florida or Cincinnati.

WoodleyIsBeast

October 15th, 2009 at 1:16 AM ^

was unreal. They get flagged because the coach bumped into the ref while calling a timeout!? Thank god that didn't effect the outcome of the game, I was livid and I don't give a crap about Tulsa football. I think Boise drops 6 or so places. Pretty good game to watch on a wednesday night though.

Tacopants

October 15th, 2009 at 1:25 AM ^

Boise will never be a serious NT contender until they load their OOC schedule with mediocre to good BCS teams to make up for their crap conference.

I just don't see how they would get in over a 1 loss conference champion from a BCS conference not named the Big East. Their only shot with their current schedule is to hope for some apacalypic event that caused every Big 6 conference champion to lose at least 2 games, and for them to stay undefeated.

I dunno, I don't see undefeated Boise leapfrogging a 1 loss conference champ from the ACC/Big Ten/Big 12/SEC/Pac-10, unless that 1 team was Oregon.

jamiemac

October 15th, 2009 at 8:31 AM ^

And yet, there are probably plenty of people on this Blog who feel 2006 Michigan deserved a Title shot despite beating a lowly Ball State by 5 at home as one of their last games of the season.

Not that I disagree with what you're saying. This needed to be a uber blowout by Boise to put them in the title discussion. They're still a legit top-15 program and top-10 team this season.

They will prove their worth by playing well in a BCS Bowl.

Hannibal.

October 15th, 2009 at 9:11 AM ^

The Ball State near-fiasco is more forgiveable, because Michigan played at least a few teams who were good or at least solid. They also whipped a 10-win Notre Dame team on the road by 26 points. If, on the other hand, Michigan's schedule consisted of one good team at home followed by eleven Nevadas, Tulsas, or Hawaiis, I would expect them to pay a penalty for that unimpressive victory.

jamiemac

October 15th, 2009 at 8:25 AM ^

They never were in contention for the BCS Title game anyway.

One look at poll shows just how close the next 4-6 teams are behind them and all those temas have big time showdowns yet to come. Enough teams were going to pass them. So, this is a non issue to me.

The reason Boise does not play anyone is becuase nobody wants to play them. Bigtime KUDOS go to Oregon and Oregon State over the years for scheduleing home and homes with them and a DOUBLE KUDOS to Va Tech for giving them a game to open next season.

Boise cant wake up one day, snap their fingers and schedule seven teams in a pre season poll. They are a legit top-15 program, regardless.

If they make a BCS Bowl, they will more than hold their own, if not win outright.

Hannibal.

October 15th, 2009 at 9:12 AM ^

I can accept that their extremely easy schedule isn't necessarily their fault, but if their schedule is a joke, they should at least prove their legitimacy by winning convincingly each week against teams like Tulsa. Teams like Boise State are always complaining that the system screws them, but the reality is that Boise State would lose a minimum -- absolute minimum -- of two games in the SEC, Big 12, Big 10, or PAC 10, and probably at least three or four. The system helps them a lot more than it hurts them. The teams that really get screwed are the one and two-loss teams that miss out on the BCS, like Texas Tech last year or California in 2004.

Anonymosity

October 15th, 2009 at 8:44 AM ^

I want BSU and TCU to stay undefeated solely for the purpose of reducing the likelihood of two Big Ten teams making it into BCS games this year. I know this is a terrible attitude as it means Michigan would slide down a slot into a lesser bowl game (assuming 6+ wins!!), but watching the #5 or 6 Big Ten teams get pummeled by the #3 or 4 teams from other conferences gets old. Let's see some more even matchups.

jamiemac

October 15th, 2009 at 8:48 AM ^

I'd love to see Boise and TCU play each other in a bowl game. I thought their Poinsetta Bowl game last year was a great game, even if it was a little too defensive minded.

Let's get a rematch....can they put two mid-majors in a BCS Bowl game? It would make for a good Fiesta Bowl. Regardless, I'd like to see them play again based on last year's game.

RagingBean

October 15th, 2009 at 9:20 AM ^

Two non-BCS schools can make it into the BCS bowls, but that will happen about 1 year sooner than a non-BCS making the MNC game. Non-BCS schools (presumably) don't travel as well as their bigger cousins, so they'll never invite more than 1 to play. Just ask Boise in 2004 or 2008.

If Boise goes unscathed I think they make it in, even if there are other non-BCS teams waiting in the wings.

Number 7

October 15th, 2009 at 3:04 PM ^

They should do something akin to that thing that the mid-majors in basketball do in mid-February: have all the teams in the MWC, WAC, MAC, and Conf. USA hold the Saturday after Thanksgiving open. In early November, set up cross sectional matchups pitting the (at the time) top 2, next 2, next 2 after that (etc.) against one another, deviating only to make sure that every matchup was intersectional. That way a, say, Boise team that had already beaten two BCS schools and the rest of its conference would also get a crack at, say, TCU. Then it would have a better claim at BCS or NCG bid, just like a 25-4 Butler team improves its NCAA Tourney seeding case by having beaten a Gonzaga or a Davidson.

Needs

October 15th, 2009 at 8:49 AM ^

Boise really needs to figure a way to get into the MWC. TCU, Boise, Utah, BYU would be a conference very much on par with the Big East, and deserving of an auto BCS bid.

jamiemac

October 15th, 2009 at 9:11 AM ^

Not to mention, programs like Colorado State and Air Force are generally solid and would make a strong 'middle class' of the league.

You're looking at five bowl teams during your regular season slate, all of whom challenge themselves by stepping up in class during OOC play.

I always wonder who the Pac 10 grabs if they expand to 12, but I like this idea better. Maybe snag Fresno State as well?

Needs

October 15th, 2009 at 9:20 AM ^

I really don't think Pac 10's interested in expanding, but if they did, BYU and Utah would be the logical candidates. That allows them to keep their pairings for basketball road trips. 2 schools from each of Arizona, SoCal, Bay Area, Oregon, Washington, and Utah would work.

Tater

October 15th, 2009 at 9:11 AM ^

I've seen this twice in one week. "Eek" is onomatopoeia; to "eke" is "to supplement with great effort," or "to get with great effort or strain," and is usually used with "out."

In other words, one would "eke out" a game, not "eek" it out.

Engin77

October 15th, 2009 at 12:32 PM ^

that big, bad, undefeated, #5 Boise State should have nothing to fear from a Tulsa team which was crushed at #12 Oklahoma 45-0, much as a full size human should have nothing to fear from a mouse, the substitution of "eek" for its homonym "eke" could be construed as a pun. No?

StevieY19

October 15th, 2009 at 11:42 AM ^

I'm to the point where I am ready to see a team like Boise State in the championship game. Here's why:

1) Boise St. over Oklahoma and Utah all over Alabama showed they can compete with top-five type teams.

2) They're trying to play top teams and no one wants to play them, as was mentioned above. It's really not their fault if no one wants to schedule them. If they go unbeaten, they at least deserve a look, not just a "you're Boise State, you're not allowed."

3) So what if they play some close games against weak teams. Everyone does.

4) I think this is what brings me to the point where I want to see Boise in the title game the most: it's all a pretty big farce anyway, so why not give them a shot one year? The championship game rarely features two teams that most people think are the best two. Last year, to me, Texas absolutely deserved to be in over Oklahoma, and other years there have been similar curious choices. If the glory of the current system is supposed to be that every week is like a playoff--lose and you're out--scenario, why not make that true? No more one or two loss teams get a pass over the Boise States of the world.

JME

PurpleStuff

October 15th, 2009 at 2:05 PM ^

The WAC Commissioner was interviewed during last night's game and with a wink and a nod referred to BSU's "strategic scheduling." Basically alluding to the fact that they like to play one BCS team they think they have a shot at so as to establish a reputation and then roll through the cupcakes the rest of the way. Definitely didn't sound like the Broncos were going out of their way to schedule heavy hitters who then ducked the challenge.