Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2009/10 College Football Thread
- Thread starter echeck
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
TCU looked very Jekyll-and-Hyde tonight. When they were good, they were very good; when they were bad, they were awful. The quarterback was very inconsistent and made a lot of bad throws (tipped/batted away, etc.). Boise's defense looked good most of the night.
Agreed. Both defenses played very well with the exception of a handful of plays, but Dalton didn't not do well in the face of pressure. His last two interceptions were very, very poorly thrown balls.
I am, once again, incredibly impressed by Chris Peterson. What a great big game coach. He must really love Boise because you know he's gotten more than a few good offers from bigger programs. I wonder what it would take to wrestle him away.
I think my Utes' longest bowl win streak in the nation (9 and counting) will disagree with you.
And for Boise State, my hat goes off to you. You guys showed up to play. The fake punt was gutsy and it had TCU absolutely fooled. You kept great pressure on Andy Dalton and had him rattled from the first snap. Your offensive line stepped up big preventing Jerry "Sack Machine" Hughes from getting to your quarterback.
TCU's defense had some fine moments as well. All around a great game, but I have to give Boise State the nod for coming so prepared.
P-Worm
I am guessing that he see's Boise State as his personal 'project' that will leave his mark in history. If that's what he wants, no amount of money is going to take him away from that.
P-Worm
Their (both teams) players can't catch. They don't have freakishly talented athletes. I just don't see how they're considered that good. I really think teams like Alabama and Florida would just kill them this year. Of course, I'd rather have a playoff and have an undisputed national champion.
Not much needs to be said. I'm also not going to ruin this thread like last year's was by the Utah garbage. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but we just beat what many considered to be a team that deserved to be in the BCS Title Game.
No one, and I mean NO ONE gave us a snowball's chance! But from the beginning I thought we matched up really well against TCU this year. I've been catching crap for the last three weeks because I've been telling everyone that we were going to win. I LOVE it!
But what a game. I stayed home because of some health issues with my wife, but even so I still almost lost my voice!
Kyle Brotzman is going to be the death of me. The guy misses (I think) three field goals in last year's game, and then comes out and misses his first one AGAIN! I was about to jump through the TV and strangle him. And then he goes and puts up another (did it earlier in the year in Boise) perfect pass to Efaw for a 29 yard gainer on 4th and 9 on like the 25 yard line! If that fails it's almost a guaranteed 7 points for TCU. And talk about a momentum shift. Yikes!
It was just a great game. I had complete confidence in our O-Line to keep Hughes out of the game, and they did. Our pressure on Dalton was a nice surprise, because that's something that we have lacked most of the season.
Our boys came through, even though our QB had a bit of an off night. It's a little frustrating that so many people are already discounting the win, but that's just part of being Boise State. Everyone and their dogs (not you guys in here) will say that TCU had an "off night" or whatever, but the fact remains that we are the better team. Even though I'll probably hear more idiots like Mark May say that Boise would lose 9 out of 10 times to Oregon, even though we beat them TWICE in consecutive meetings!
I doubt we'll finish #2, but definitely #3. I'm sure the love affair with Florida will keep them ahead of us, and I'm okay with that. What I'm really looking forward to is our pre-season rank next year. Not that the pre-season rank means anything, but the higher we start the better chance we have at making it to the Championship Game. That's gonna be awesome.
Oh, and Badandy, you're obviously entitled to your opinion, but for the record I COMPLETELY disagree with you! It's unfortunate that our star receiver was basically out for the game (Austin Pettis), because had he not broken his ankle on Dec. 5th you would have seen a great receiver. Pettis and Young are considered by many (outside of Boise) to be the second best receiver tandem in college football behind Tate and Floyd. I have a buddy who's brother plays for TCU's baseball team, and he was saying that some of the guys were really happy Pettis was out because he was a big size mismatch for TCU. He's been Moore's favorite target too, so him being out really upset our passing game.
Anyway...
Great game. Great night.
evilgEEk, I have some crow to eat. I thought that last night's game only had two outcomes: a narrow TCU victory or a TCU blowout. You've had some ugly games this past season, but last night your defense was the real deal. You had Andy Dalton completely shaken up starting with that pick 6. And as I mentioned before, your offensive line worked miracles against Jerry Hughes. Congrats man, your team was underrated.
There have been rumors flying about bringing BSU into the MWC and I think if that were to happen, it would be downright criminal not to make it an AQ conference.
P-Worm
There have been rumors flying about bringing BSU into the MWC and I think if that were to happen, it would be downright criminal not to make it an AQ conference.
P-Worm
Lame excuse. Yeah there were some dropped balls (mostly by TCU), but that stuff happens all the time, even at the NFL level.
That doesn't always matter. In college football, scheme and coaching is just as important as "freakish" talent. Patterson took a high school running back that no one wanted and turned him into one of the most dominant players in college football. Peterson keeps getting players that fit and excel in his system. They may not be freakish, but they're fast and strong and play the game exceedingly well.
USC has freakish talent and they finished 5th in their conference this year. OU has freakish talent and they finished 4th in their division. USC got hammered by Stanford and an Oregon team that got whipped by Boise. OU got pounded by a Nebraska team that couldn't score against anyone...except an Arizona team that handled USC's freakish athletes. TCU beat a Clemson team that features quite possibly the most freakishly good athlete in the country.
Like I said before, it's more than possible that Texas or Alabama would take it to either of the Fiesta Bowl participants, but we'll never know because people like you buy into the idea that you have to have been good in the 70s to be good now.
Not much needs to be said. I'm also not going to ruin this thread like last year's was by the Utah garbage. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but we just beat what many considered to be a team that deserved to be in the BCS Title Game.
Not going to ruin the thread like last year? What was said last year needed to be said, and it needs to be said again this year. No Utah crap ruined the thread last year, it was the BC$ snobs who wouldn't acknowledge what my team did last year that ruined the thread.
Why is it that you are so willing to take the crap that the BC$ gives you? Why are you so willing to admit that your team shouldn't be #1? Don't you wonder what they could do if given a shot at the title? I know I did with my school last year, and I do with your school this year; and I'm still pissed that the BC$ still won't let that happen.
Until people like you stop bending over for the BC$ cartel, your team and my team can only hope for a half share of BC$ money and no shot at the title (as mythical as that title might be). If you and your team are happy with being thought of as mediocre, and happy to take whatever scraps the BC$ decides they're comfortable with throwing to you then I certainly don't want your team in my conference, we're not going to back down until we are recognized for what we are, a conference that can compete with any other.
I thought it was pathetic last night when the coaching staff and players wouldn't admit that they should be given a shot at the title. They dodged the question like they had some sort of hush order placed on them. At least the Utes last year had the guts to tell it like it is, and if we have to do it alone then so be it. Most of the country (fans not schools) are behind us in pressing for a playoff, and we have no problem being the team that's credited for forcing it to happen.
Your team beat the team that many were claiming should have been in the BC$ title game. They beat a team that won the Pac 10 (and dominated USC's "freakishly good athletes") and played in the Rose Bowl. And they won 14 games and lost none. If they were called Oklahoma or Florida or Texas or USC, they'd be #1 right now and nobody would question it.
If only you were the lone unbeaten like the Utes were last year, then maybe that would be the point that would finally make you see.
Good luck with your #3 or 4 ranking after the title game is played tomorrow.
SLC
Agreed on all accounts. I can't believe that Petterson just bent over backwards and played right into the hands of the BCS. This is Boise State's turn to be vouching for a playoff. They earned that right last night.
P-Worm
The game it self was, what I thought kind of sloppy on both sides. However that being said congratulations to Boise!
Sounds like you might.
Seriously, it's been an entire year and you STILL haven't moved on? Next up we'll have Texas fans in here whining about how they got screwed out of the NC game last year.
Come on, it was an entire season ago! Let it go, already!
Now wait a minute - not once have I complained about last season!
If we wanted the title game, we should have beaten Tech. Simple as that.
I will not let it go, nor should I. When my team is given an equal chance at playing for a national championship as any other team, then I will let it go.
Do you really think that what we have is fair?
Utah has a much stronger argument than Texas did last year, we were the only unbeaten team in FBS last year, both the teams that played for the title had worse records than we did.
No I think you should just put your lame excuses and justifications for the BC$ cartel away for a while.
SLC
Now wait a minute - not once have I complained about last season!
And that's the argument. Right now, Boise is undefeated. There is no way to legitimately say they aren't the best. I think this would be the perfect year to have Boise State play the winner of the Alabama Texas matchup to decide the true champion.
P-Worm
Well said and I agree completely. If you are not in a BCS conference, you have a better chance of seeing God than getting a shot at the National Championship. It is a total farce.
I make no excuses for the BCS. These are the facts:
For decades, the bowls had conference tie-ins. The National Championship was voted upon by the AP and UPI before the bowl games. People accepted this.
Then it was decided that bowl games should count in the voters' minds, and the final polls were taken after the bowl games. People saw this as an improvement.
Fast-forward many years. The Bowl Coalition was formed as an effort to provide a one-game playoff between the top two teams. It was formed from six bowl games (Orange, Sugar, Gator, Cotton, Fiesta, John Hancock/Sun) and the conferences tied to those games. People saw this as an improvement.
Three years later, the SWC (which was tied to the Cotton Bowl, a Coalition member) was disbanded, and the Bowl Coalition became the Bowl Alliance. Three bowl games were dropped, as were the conference tie-ins (to this day a tragic mistake, IMO). People saw this as an improvement.
Three years later, the Rose Bowl finally caved and allowed the Big 10 and the PAC-10 to join the party, and the BCS was born. And whether you like to believe it or not, people saw even this as an improvement.
This system was not born out of "powerful conferences" trying to keep the money to themselves; it was born from a system where the bowls banded together in selecting their teams; a system which has always been in place. Prior to the BCS, we didn't have all the bellyaching about how a WAC team never got to play in the Rose Bowl - it was accepted that the Rose Bowl could invite whatever teams they damn well pleased, and they chose the champions of the Big 10 and PAC-10. Same with the other bowl games. The only difference is that there is now a one-game playoff for the National Championship, where before there was only a vote.
None of this is "lame excuses and justification," it's just facts.
What's to stop a team like Boise St. from going Independent? By now I would think they wouldn't need the conference tie in for financial reasons - in fact, a stunt like going Independent might drum up television interest. Then schedule hard. BSU probably won't get the SEC powers to accept, but there are plenty of other schools that aren't afraid of scheduling tough teams (USC comes immediately to mind).
The problem now is that you're not going to beat the perception problem with one win against a team like Oregon. You need a string of wins against solid opposition, with some of those wins late in the season so they'll be fresh in voters' minds. Without a playoff (or joining a BCS conference), going Independent would be one way to accomplish it.
The problem now is that you're not going to beat the perception problem with one win against a team like Oregon. You need a string of wins against solid opposition, with some of those wins late in the season so they'll be fresh in voters' minds. Without a playoff (or joining a BCS conference), going Independent would be one way to accomplish it.
I don't care what the source of the current system is if it means that non-AQ's have a shot at the title when pig's fly. All you've convinced me of was that the system was broken from the start.
P-Worm
Not a bad idea. I'm not sure if Boise State could manage as an independent (Notre Dame has enough trouble with that and they're freaking Notre Dame), but I like the idea.
P-Worm
You've entirely missed my point:
- that the system as it existed from the start was accepted for the most part, and it has only been improved since then;
- that prior to the Bowl Coalition, there was never any type of playoff or on-field event designed to pit the best teams against each other, like we have now;
- that the bowl system never was designed to be a playoff system prior to the Bowl Coalition;
- that even though it's only one game and two teams, the BCS is a playoff;
- and that the only restriction on being in the title game is being ranked #2 or higher. There's no provision for which conference those teams represent.
You and SLC and others seem to be under some delusion that the AQ conferences are involved in some sort of conspiracy to keep the mid-majors out of the championship game. The truth is that (1) there's no restriction on which teams can be ranked #1 or #2, and (2) neither the bowls nor the conferences select who is #1 or #2. That's done by people and computers - hey, it's just like the basketball tournament, or the D-1AA tournament, or whatever!!
I disagree, because it just turned this thread in to a giant pissing match that made it so unbearable to participate in that nearly everyone left.
THAT is why it doesn't need to be said.
It's so nice that you immediately attack me because I don't feel like turning this thread in to a whine-fest.
No, I do NOT like the BCS, but it's the system we have and it's not going to change just by me whining about it in a thread on a computer forum.
And as far as not having a chance to reach the National Championship game, I believe that theory will be tested next season. If we run the table next season I truly believe we might find ourselves back in Glendale, but this time NOT for the Fiesta Bowl.
And as far as not having a chance to reach the National Championship game, I believe that theory will be tested next season. If we run the table next season I truly believe we might find ourselves back in Glendale, but this time NOT for the Fiesta Bowl.
The win last night over TCU was a major statement, bigger (in my mind) than the win over Oregon. A lot of people are going to remember it next year.
BSU's non-conference schedule is a mixed bag for next year (Toledo, Wyoming, Oregon State, and Virginia Tech), but still better than this year's.
It's certainly not out of the question, I agree with you there.
Going independent wouldn't necessarily work because you have to find 12 teams willing to play you, and to make any money and keep your fans happy you have to find at least 6 to come to you.
There was a thing on ESPN or Fox yesterday where they said Boise is starting to have problems scheduling because none of the big boys are willing to come play on the blue turf (for a home-and-home) and now a lot of them won't even schedule the Broncos for a money game at home.
Their best bet is to try to jump to the MWC and hope the grouping of Utah, BYU, TCU and Boise, along with decent teams like Air Force and Colorado State is enough to get an auto-bid. It's unlikely to happen, but popular support would definitely be on the side of the MWC if they were to expand.
A lot of media types are thinking Boise and Va Tech will both be top ten to start the 2010 season, and now it looks like the game (which will be played at FedEx Field) will be moved to Labor Day night to maximize exposure. Win that game and BSU could very well be sitting inside the top five after their first game, which would go a long way toward helping them get to the big one if they win out (again).