Boise State 17, TCU 10 (final) Fiesta Bowl

[sepia5]

Not to divert the discussion, but is this girl really blind. If so, then I think my post and a few others are in pretty bad taste.

Too late to take it back. Straight to hell with you.

 

[3074326]

Not to divert the discussion, but is this girl really blind. If so, then I think my post and a few others are in pretty bad taste.

Indeed. Myself included. But the situation was still pretty hilarious. Unfortunate, yes...

 

[Fungo Squiggly]

Not to divert the discussion, but is this girl really blind. If so, then I think my post and a few others are in pretty bad taste.

Indeed. Myself included. But the situation was still pretty hilarious. Unfortunate, yes...

Last I checked...bad taste makes things even funnier.

 

[Dryden]

Blind or not, one should still be fucking AMPED UP to be playing the cowbell at the Fiesta Bowl.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

My wife has a relative that starts on Boise States D and so I've seen them play quite a bit. I agree with Mili that they are a legit top 10 team. Methinks that the final top 5 will be: (At least these would be my picks)

1) Winner of the Bama/Texas game
2) Boise State
3) Florida
4) Loser of the Bama/Texas game
5) Ohio State

:osu:

The Ohio State Buckeyes - 2010 Rose Bowl Champs

If Texas were to win - it might be tough to have Florida ranked higher than Bama given the SEC championship game result?

Gotta go with BigWoof here. Also, I disagree with the notion of automatically dropping the loser of the NC game below BSU just because BSU is undefeated and the NC game loser now has a loss (even if it's a blowout). And I think Florida is better than BSU despite losing to Alabama. My top five is:

1. NC game winner
2. NC game loser
3. Florida
4. Boise State
5. Ohio State

Now, if Texas loses to Alabama by a bigger margin than Florida did, then I'd have Florida at #2 with Texas #3 and BSU still at #4.

 

[LordJeffBuck]

Man, nothing like arguing a point I never tried to make.

Look, Boise has a very good mid-major team, but that's what they are. Do I think they'd do much better than .500 playing nobody but Michigan State every week? Not really, especially if their blue unis - blue turf advantage were outlawed as it should be. Nobody else in college football plays in camouflage, so I think Boise should be prevented from doing so.

Yes, Boise beat a couple of good teams, after which they played a bunch of stiffs. It's easier to get up for two games a season than it is for 11. I think that's evident.

Here's Wisconsin's schedule for 2009:

Northern Illinois
Fresno State
Wofford
Michigan State
Minnesota
Ohio State
Iowa
Purdue
Indiana
Michigan
Northwestern
Hawaii
Miami of Florida

That looks like two or three tough games to me, not eleven, with the majority of the schedule being "a bunch of stiffs", to use your term ... with two of those stiffs being Fresno State and Hawaii, whom Boise State also played ... and a third being Wofford, which is an FCS school just like Cal-Davis (and Youngstown State, for that matter). Outside of Ohio State and Iowa, who exactly qualifies as a "tough game" on Wisconsin's schedule? To imply that a typical Big Ten schedule is some sort of meat grinder is absolutely laughable - maybe in the 1950's, but certainly not today.

By the way, Wisconsin went 10-3 against that schedule, with losses to Ohio State, Iowa, and Northwestern. Do you really think that Boise State would not have equalled, perhaps exceded, Wisconsin's performance?

Do you seriously believe that Boise has sufficient team speed to compete for league champion in a BCS conference?

As far as "team speed" goes, it is a stupid argument when used against Ohio State, and it is an equally stupid argument when used against Boise State. "Team speed" is largely irrelevant on the football field anyway, but if Boise State has enough team speed to beat the fastest team in the history of college football (that would be the 2009 Oregon Ducks, if I read all of those pre-Rose Bowl articles correctly), then yeah, I guess that they have enough team speed to compete for a league championship in a BCS conference. Would Boise State go 14-0 playing in a BCS conference? No, probably not, as I already stated in a previous post ... but they would probably have won 9 or 10 games, which would have put them in contention for the Big Ten and Pac 10 titles.

There are plenty of truly pathetic programs in the BCS - Indiana, Minnesota, Illinois, Syracuse, Vanderbilt, Mississippi State, Baylor, Iowa State, Wake Forest, Duke, Washington State, to name a few - and a couple of dozen more that are mediocre at best. Calling Boise State "a very good mid-major team" isn't so much a case of giving Boise State too little credit, but of giving the BCS teams too much. Outside of a handful of top-flight programs - Ohio State, Florida, Alabama, LSU, Texas, Oklahoma, Southern Cal, Virginia Tech - which BCS teams have consistently played at a level higher than "very good mid-major" over the last decade?

I don't know, it's not like I'm a Boise State fan or anything, but it just seems like a lot of the arguments trashing Boise State are the same ones that the uninformed fans and media members use to trash Ohio State - "no team speed" ... "they play a crappy schedule" ... "Florida would run them out of the stadium" ... Boise State won a huge game - just like we did - so why not give them a little credit, just like we expect to get from others?

 

[Fungo Squiggly]

Here's Wisconsin's schedule for 2009:

Northern Illinois
Fresno State
Wofford
Michigan State
Minnesota
Ohio State
Iowa
Purdue
Indiana
Michigan
Northwestern
Hawaii
Miami of Florida

That looks like two or three tough games to me, not eleven, with the majority of the schedule being "a bunch of stiffs", to use your term ... with two of those stiffs being Fresno State and Hawaii, whom Boise State also played ... and a third being Wofford, which is an FCS school just like Cal-Davis (and Youngstown State, for that matter). Outside of Ohio State and Iowa, who exactly qualifies as a "tough game" on Wisconsin's schedule? To imply that a typical Big Ten schedule is some sort of meat grinder is absolutely laughable - maybe in the 1950's, but certainly not today.

By the way, Wisconsin went 10-3 against that schedule, with losses to Ohio State, Iowa, and Northwestern. Do you really think that Boise State would not have equalled, perhaps exceded, Wisconsin's performance?


As far as "team speed" goes, it is a stupid argument when used against Ohio State, and it is an equally stupid argument when used against Boise State. "Team speed" is largely irrelevant on the football field anyway, but if Boise State has enough team speed to beat the fastest team in the history of college football (that would be the 2009 Oregon Ducks, if I read all of those pre-Rose Bowl articles correctly), then yeah, I guess that they have enough team speed to compete for a league championship in a BCS conference. Would Boise State go 14-0 playing in a BCS conference? No, probably not, as I already stated in a previous post ... but they would probably have won 9 or 10 games, which would have put them in contention for the Big Ten and Pac 10 titles.

There are plenty of truly pathetic programs in the BCS - Indiana, Minnesota, Illinois, Syracuse, Vanderbilt, Mississippi State, Baylor, Iowa State, Wake Forest, Duke, Washington State, to name a few - and a couple of dozen more that are mediocre at best. Calling Boise State "a very good mid-major team" isn't so much a case of giving Boise State too little credit, but of giving the BCS teams too much. Outside of a handful of top-flight programs - Ohio State, Florida, Alabama, LSU, Texas, Oklahoma, Southern Cal, Virginia Tech - which BCS teams have consistently played at a level higher than "very good mid-major" over the last decade?

I don't know, it's not like I'm a Boise State fan or anything, but it just seems like a lot of the arguments trashing Boise State are the same ones that the uninformed fans and media members use to trash Ohio State - "no team speed" ... "they play a crappy schedule" ... "Florida would run them out of the stadium" ... Boise State won a huge game - just like we did - so why not give them a little credit, just like we expect to get from others?

Much like all the "issues" with Tebow, the over-saturation by the media is what I find particularly tiresome....as well as the fact that, as Jake has pointed out numerous times, the oft-cited Fiesta Bowl victory over Oklahoma was their only bowl victory over the past 5 years prior to last night.

Over the last 7 seasons....read into what you will.

2003 (13-1):
Games against BCS teams:
@Oregon State (8-5) - L 24-26
Bowl Game:
TCU (11-2) - W 34-31

2004 (11-1):
Games against BCS teams:
vs. Oregon State (7-5) - W 53-34
Bowl Game:
vs. Louisville (11-1) - L 40-44

2005 (9-4):
Games against BCS teams:
@Georgia (10-3) - L 13-48
@ Oregon State (5-6) - L 27-30
Bowl Game:
vs. Boston College (9-3) L 21-27

2006 (13-0):
Games against BCS teams:
vs. Oregon State (10-4) - W 42-14
Bowl Game:
vs. Oklahoma (11-3) - W 43-42

2007 (10-3):
Games against BCS teams:
@ Washington (4-9) - L 10-24
Bowl Game:
vs. East Carolina (8-5) - L 38-41

2008 (12-1):
Games against BCS teams:
@ Oregon (10-3) - W 37-32
Bowl Game:
vs. TCU (11-2) - L 16-17

2009 (14-0):
Games against BCS teams:
vs. Oregon (10-3) - W 19-8
Bowl Game:
vs. TCU (12-1) - 17-10

TOTAL:
Games against BCS teams (including bowls):
5-6
Bowl Games:
3-4

They definitely have some impressive wins and have proven that they will show up for a big game...but I just can't get past the brutally awful schedule they play in conference. In 2005, they lost all 3 games against BCS teams and still went 7-1 in conference. In 2007, they lost to 4-9 UW and also went 7-1 in conference.

 

[Fungo Squiggly]

Reading back a bit, I guess I'm not really disagreeing too much with you, LJB. I agree with you that they would win somewhere between 9-11 games in most BCS conferences and deserve to be considered a "very good" team....not on the elite level with USC, UT, OSU, UF, etc....but well above an Indiana, Purdue, NW tier.

If the media would tone it all down a bit....I can't imagine I would even be participating in this discussion. :)

 

[fourteenandoh]

Neither team was crisp last night. Boise was getting some decent pressure, but TCU's quarterback was all over the map. I wasn't impressed with either team. I know TCU is way better than they played last night.

 

[Gatorubet]

Not to divert the discussion, but is this girl really blind. If so, then I think my post and a few others are in pretty bad taste.

STOP THE PRESSES!!!!! There may be a smidgen of bad taste on BP!

 

[Gatorubet]

I guess I'm not gonna post my "Would I have sex with you if I hadn't given you this perfectly flawless three carat color D diamond engagement ring...here, feel!" joke.

 

[BuckeyePride]

Neither team was crisp last night. Boise was getting some decent pressure, but TCU's quarterback was all over the map. I wasn't impressed with either team. I know TCU is way better than they played last night.

Atleast BCS was right not putting TCU, Boise, or Cincy in the title game.

 

[Gatorubet]

Atleast BCS was right not putting TCU, Boise, or Cincy in the title game.

Yeah. But denying them the right to play and beat a BCS power deprived them of the opportunity to step up and get the recognition they may - or may not - deserve.

Now all they have is a good game and people who say "Yeah - but look at Cincinnati. Those two don't belong either" without letting them play. Hell, if Boise punks Florida in the Sugar or you in the Rose they would finally get the respect they desire, and end the question of "can they beat a BCS team in a big game - uh - consistently?" They beat Stoops. Beating us or someone like us would solidify their place in the pecking order. They would belong.

I feel sorry for them. Utah and Boise are knocking at the door. And because they are, people want to see how good they are against the big boys, not each other.

 

[BuckeyePride]

Yeah. But denying them the right to play and beat a BCS power deprived them of the opportunity to step up and get the recognition they may - or may not - deserve.

Now all they have is a good game and people who say "Yeah - but look at Cincinnati. Those two don't belong either" without letting them play. Hell, if Boise punks Florida in the Sugar or you in the Rose they would finally get the respect they desire, and end the question of "can they beat a BCS team in a big game - uh - consistently?" They beat Stoops. Beating us or someone like us would solidify their place in the pecking order. They would belong.

I feel sorry for them. Utah and Boise are knocking at the door. And because they are, people want to see how good they are against the big boys, not each other.

Thank you for the speech. I've heard that on the TV too every now and then. I was just talking about this year and the title game. I have seen cincy play few times this year as well as Boise and TCU.

As far as denying them right to play goes... Welcome to college football. Penn State (90s), Auburn (90s), and few others had undefeated seasons in past. They were denied too. Those teams are from big conferences. This is not the first time and may not be the last.

It was Fiesta Bowl's best case scenerio to select TCU n Boise. They picked the #4 and #6 ranked teams. Picking another team or teams would have been unfair. I believe statement like "people want to see how good they are against the big boys, not each other" is saying that they are not big boys. Each team, each season is different. 2009 Boise was a good football team. They have 21 of 22 returning next year. They might get their shot.

 

[Buckeye86]

I feel sorry for them. Utah and Boise are knocking at the door. And because they are, people want to see how good they are against the big boys, not each other.

I want to see how good they are against the big boys in conference play, when you have a week to prepare for teams, and may have to face a good team in back to back weeks

playing the big boys once a year in a bowl game when you have four weeks to put in as much bullshit plays as you possibly can is not a measure of a team as far as I'm concerned