2009/10 College Football Thread

[echeck]

The Oregon game was ugly because Boise's offense crapped away numerous chances to put the game away and let the Ducks hang around. BSU's defense was awesome.

That was my bad. I jumped to conclusions on what you meant. I've just heard so much about how Oregon only lost because they weren't clicking on their offense that I just assumed that's what you were referring to.

I completely agree with you about our offense. Stupid snapping issues (which seems to still be lingering..ugh) kept that game from getting out of hand.

And I agree that the TCU win over UVA was so-so (and said as much), but Clemson is a good team (maybe you didn't hear, but they beat Miami in Miami yesterday) and it was on the road. If Boise had beaten Oregon in Eugene the argument would be different.

I just think that, right now, TCU's ROAD wins over BYU, Clemson, Virginia and Air Force are more impressive than Boise's HOME win over Oregon and ROAD win over Fresno.

Yeah, I agree with you that TCU's road wins are more impressive. Road wins always are. But I just can't give TCU a bunch of credit for beating a 4-3 Clemson team. Simply because they beat Miami doesn't mean anything to me. Washington also beat USC.

Who else has Boise played?

No one. Stupid WAC. Too bad it took Nevada three games to finally find themselves. They would be ranked right now had they played like they are now at the beginning of the season.

It just further proves that our non-conference scheduling needs to step up since we so desperately need something to counter our weak conference.

Our non-conference competition is stepping it up soon though. Va. Tech and Oregon State next year, '11-'12 not so much, but then our agreements with Utah and BYU start up. Hopefully we all continue having strong teams so those games actually mean something. Heh.

 

[IgnatiusTheKing]

What are the odds of Boise getting an invite to the Mountain West at some point? That would seem to be beneficial for everyone (except the WAC, of course).

How are Boise's other sports? TCU has a good baseball program, and BYU and Utah both have good basketball programs. Does Boise bring anything to the table other than football?

 

[GfPQqmcRKUvP]

I feel like we should have BCS+ rankings. It will take into account the BCS rank of the school + the academic ranking. We'll average the two.


On topic though, yes, I see all of you referring to USC's loss to Washington. Guess what? We had our backup QB in who was awful. He's now our third stringer and is probably going to need to transfer. Anyone who thinks that game was indicative of how good of a team we are is fooling themselves. We weren't that impressive against Oregon State this weekend (although they're traditionally very good against us even in our very successful years) but our offense is starting to roll. We got our deep-ball threat back (Ronald Johnson) and Allan Bradford and Joe McKnight are looking unstoppable running the ball.

Just wait until next year. We have the top two WR's in the nation coming. Combine that with a more mature Matt Barkley and our usual stable of RB's...

 

[dmr727]

I feel like we should have BCS+ rankings. It will take into account the BCS rank of the school + the academic ranking. We'll average the two.

You've mentioned that before. Yeah, that makes sense. Let's average in the ranking of water polo and the percentage of left handed students while we're at it. I guess you're right - it couldn't make the BCS ranking be any more worthless.

 

[Maccin475]

What are the odds of Boise getting an invite to the Mountain West at some point? That would seem to be beneficial for everyone (except the WAC, of course).

How are Boise's other sports? TCU has a good baseball program, and BYU and Utah both have good basketball programs. Does Boise bring anything to the table other than football?

The smurf turf.

 

[Maccin475]

I feel like we should have BCS+ rankings. It will take into account the BCS rank of the school + the academic ranking. We'll average the two.


On topic though, yes, I see all of you referring to USC's loss to Washington. Guess what? We had our backup QB in who was awful. He's now our third stringer and is probably going to need to transfer. Anyone who thinks that game was indicative of how good of a team we are is fooling themselves. We weren't that impressive against Oregon State this weekend (although they're traditionally very good against us even in our very successful years) but our offense is starting to roll. We got our deep-ball threat back (Ronald Johnson) and Allan Bradford and Joe McKnight are looking unstoppable running the ball.

Just wait until next year. We have the top two WR's in the nation coming. Combine that with a more mature Matt Barkley and our usual stable of RB's...

Why wait until next year when SC still has an outside chance of getting into the BCS game this year? SC needs to win the rest of their games (Along with the Domers, Ohio State, Cal and Oregon). I'm expecting Iowa drop one against the Buckeyes and Texas faltering along the way. The SEC championship game should knock out either Florida or Alabama and this will allow SC to leapfrog into the #2 spot, behind Florida or Alabama. Highly unlikely but one can always hope.

 

[P-Worm]

On topic though, yes, I see all of you referring to USC's loss to Washington. Guess what? We had our backup QB in who was awful. He's now our third stringer and is probably going to need to transfer. Anyone who thinks that game was indicative of how good of a team we are is fooling themselves.

I can't stand making excuses for losses because of injured players. That's part of the job of the recruiting and coaching staff - make sure your team can still win even when injuries come your way (they always do).

P-Worm

 

[IgnatiusTheKing]

The smurf turf.

That actually harms (significantly) the argument for inclusion in a better conference.

 

[Maccin475]

Can someone logically explain why #4 USC (6-1; loss to 3-5 Washington) is ranked ahead of ALL OF the following:

• Boise State (7-0)
• TCU (7-0)
• Cincinnati (7-0)
• Iowa (8-0)
• LSU (6-1; loss to #1 Florida)
• Oregon (6-1; loss to #5 Boise St.)
• Georgia Tech (7-1; loss to #18 Miami)
• Penn State (7-1; loss to #7 Iowa)
• Oklahoma State (6-1; loss to #16 Houston)
• Utah (6-1; loss to #12 Oregon)

Now if you want to bring up strength of schedule, here are the current rankings as of today (based on opponents played):

• Iowa (#6)
• Oregon (#21)
• TCU (#28)
• Georgia Tech (#32)
• LSU (#44)
• Penn State (#47)
• USC (#56)
• Oklahoma State (#64)
• Boise State (#79)
• Cincinnati (#89)
• Utah (#106)

I'd say that Iowa, Oregon, TCU, Georgia Tech, LSU, and Penn State have good arguments.

I'd also say that Boise State, Cincinnati, & Utah haven't helped themselves so far when it comes to favor at the end of the year when BCS talks begin.

The current SOS is not a good indicator because Notre Dame, Cal and Ohio were ranked much higher when SC beat those teams. + USC is #4 in both the human polls and #9 in the computer polls. Oregon will probably be Boise's only quality win this season, Iowa hasn't beaten a quality team thus far and the Big East is not exactly an elite conference outside of Cincy.

 

[Maccin475]

That actually harms (significantly) the argument for inclusion in a better conference.

True. Boise has a really good football program and that's pretty much it.

 

[dmr727]

Oregon will probably be Boise's only quality win this season, Iowa hasn't beaten a quality team thus far

Oregon is a quality team, but Penn State is not? And who cares what a team is ranked when you beat them? Texas' worst team since I've been a Longhorn was 1997, when we won 4 games. When UCLA beat us that season, we were ranked 10th in the country. They should get credit for beating a #10 when in fact we were probably the 80th best team that year?

 

[Maccin475]

Oregon is a quality team, but Penn State is not?

I'm not saying that, Penn is good team, but looking at Boise's schedule, Oregon is highest ranked team that they would've played/beaten this season.

Whereas, Penn is yet play Ohio State. Michigan would've been a quality win for them, too bad Michigan wasn't ranked when Penn beat them last week.

 

[Maccin475]

Oregon is a quality team, but Penn State is not? And who cares what a team is ranked when you beat them? Texas' worst team since I've been a Longhorn was 1997, when we won 4 games. When UCLA beat us that season, we were ranked 10th in the country. They should get credit for beating a #10 when in fact we were probably the 80th best team that year?

Yeah, unfortunately rankings count in the BCS. We can all cry and shout, but it is what it is. + There was no BCS in the 90's.

 

[dmr727]

We can all cry and shout, but it is what it is.

So true. But there wouldn't be much point in message boarding if we didn't have something to cry and moan about.

 

[rhett7660]

I'm not saying that, Penn is good team, but looking at Boise's schedule, Oregon is highest ranked team that they would've played/beaten this season.

Whereas, Penn is yet play Ohio State. Michigan would've been a quality win for them, too bad Michigan wasn't ranked when Penn beat them last week.

Hey we were ranked... just not in the top 25!!

 

[Maccin475]

So true. But there wouldn't be much point in message boarding if we didn't have something to cry and moan about.

Yeah, tell me about it. I absolutely hate the current system. At the end of the season any team in the top 10 or top 20 can make a good argument to be in the BCS title game, so who decided which program is #1 in the nation. Same s**t, different year.

 

[Maccin475]

Hey we were ranked... just not in the top 25!!

Haha, I'm glad you guys are back to your old winning ways. It would give me immense pleasure to see Michigan knock the shyte out of Ohio State. By the way any word on Forcier? is he playing this week?

 

[Tomorrow]

Yeah, unfortunately rankings count in the BCS. We can all cry and shout, but it is what it is. + There was no BCS in the 90's.

Actually, the BCS came into being in 1998, and it was born out of a system that began in 1992. The BCS was considered an improvement on that system.

 

[IgnatiusTheKing]

The current SOS is not a good indicator because Notre Dame, Cal and Ohio were ranked much higher when SC beat those teams. + USC is #4 in both the human polls and #9 in the computer polls. Oregon will probably be Boise's only quality win this season, Iowa hasn't beaten a quality team thus far and the Big East is not exactly an elite conference outside of Cincy.

I believe SOS is calculated using opponents' record, and your opponents' opponents' record? I don't think where a team was ranked when you played them goes into it at all...does it?

Edit: Found this link and it looks like I was right (though this isn't "official" I believe it uses the BCS's math).

 

[P-Worm]

I believe SOS is calculated using opponents' record, and your opponents' opponents' record? I don't think where a team was ranked when you played them goes into it at all...does it?

Edit: Found this link and it looks like I was right (though this isn't "official" I believe it uses the BCS's math).

I'm not sure if anyone really knows. From what I understand, the actual algorithm used in the computer rankings is under lock-and-key.

P-Worm

 

[echeck]

What are the odds of Boise getting an invite to the Mountain West at some point? That would seem to be beneficial for everyone (except the WAC, of course).

We have definitely expressed interest in joining the MWC, and there have been talks between the MWC commissioner and Boise State's president, as well as talks between schools. Apparently when BSU and BYU struck up their four-year football schedule there was a lot of talk about requirements to join the MWC.

I was actually talking to our AD about five weeks ago and I asked him about jumping ship from the WAC. Of course he was very sheepish about it and basically just said what was common knowledge.

Then I asked him about the MWC's TV contract (or lack thereof) and asked if that would play in to the decision. He said, "Absolutely. We've worked very hard to get the television exposure that we currently have with ESPN, and we certainly don't want to jeopardize that hard work."

With that I don't think Boise State will join the MWC until they get a national TV contract.

How are Boise's other sports? TCU has a good baseball program, and BYU and Utah both have good basketball programs. Does Boise bring anything to the table other than football?

We don't have a baseball team (which is really unfortunate because I love baseball), but we do have all the other major sports. Our men's and women's basketball teams always seem to be on the upper end of the WAC with a few championships here and there. Volleyball is so-so, track and field seem to be decent. Wrestling is pretty good, but we compete in the PAC-10 with that. Football is definitely the only sport that we dominate, but we're competitive in most of the other sports.

Bottom line is I don't think anything will happen for at least two years, but probably longer.

 

[Cave Man]

Is this thread going again? I thought people had better things to do with their lives.

Has anyone mentioned yet how full of ***** the BCS is? If not, it's full of *****.

 

[GfPQqmcRKUvP]

I can't stand making excuses for losses because of injured players. That's part of the job of the recruiting and coaching staff - make sure your team can still win even when injuries come your way (they always do).

P-Worm

When both human polls have you at #4 and the computers put you at #11 (last week), they obviously didn't take into account the fact that we had our third-string QB playing. We obviously lost the game and should have won, but pretending the team we have out there now with our starting QB is the same as the one that lost to Washington is ridiculous.

Simply put, teams do worse when their impact players are out. That impacts their immediate performance, but, unless it's a lingering injury, they get back to their previous form pretty soon after the return.

Argue for body of work all you want, but the national championship should put the two best teams at the end of the season against each other taking account both body of work (including injuries) and current performance.

dmr: I only mentioned that, again, because it's pumping up my school. It's great being able to go to football games on Saturdays and knowing that it's a great education during the week. I of course wasn't suggesting that to supplant or augment the current system.

 

[mscriv]

When both human polls have you at #4 and the computers put you at #11 (last week), they obviously didn't take into account the fact that we had our third-string QB playing. We obviously lost the game and should have won, but pretending the team we have out there now with our starting QB is the same as the one that lost to Washington is ridiculous. Simply put, teams do worse when their impact players are out. That impacts their immediate performance, but, unless it's a lingering injury, they get back to their previous form pretty soon after the return. Argue for body of work all you want, but the national championship should put the two best teams at the end of the season against each other taking account both body of work (including injuries) and current performance.

Your argument here is exactly why college football and the BCS will always be suspect until there is a playoff system. There is simply no way for a computer or human poll to account for all possible factors. Settling it on the field is the only way to know for sure.

Take the Superbowl two years ago as the perfect example. There is no question that the undefeated Patriots were the best team in football and would have been #1 on any and every pole taken. But when given the chance to settle it on the field, the Giants won the game.

I don't know if it will ever happen, but I would love to see some kind of playoff system.

 

[Tomorrow]

I don't know if it will ever happen, but I would love to see some kind of playoff system.

Your wish is my command!

I present to you...The BCS!

Yes, it's a real playoff, where a "committee" of people and computerized rankings select the teams, who settle the issue of "Who's No. 1?" on the field in a one-round, two-team playoff!

And no, I'm not joking. The procedure is exactly the same as the other NCAA sports, except for the size of the bracket. And frankly, I'll take a one-round playoff any day over the possibility of having a #8 team winning the National Championship.

You can discuss/flame/argue with me all you like (I don't just mean you, mscriv), but the fact is, the BCS is a playoff.