# Boise beats Virgina Tech.



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

Boise beat Virginia Tech 33 to 30.
Can't wait to hear the pundits on why Boise can or can not compete for the national championship.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Can't wait to here from the people that might have been watching this time delayed and why you had to put a spoiler in the title.


----------



## Sackchamp56 (Nov 10, 2006)

Yeah thanks for that. At least I dont know what the score is yet.


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

I did not realize that some people would be watching the game later. I apologize.


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

By the way how does one put a spoiler on a title thread?


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

yosoyellobo said:


> I did not realize that some people would be watching the game later. I apologize.


It's a forum full of people with DVR's.



yosoyellobo said:


> By the way how does one put a spoiler on a title thread?


You don't.

You make the title "Boise VS Virginia Tech (spoilers inside)"


----------



## cmasia (Sep 18, 2007)

yosoyellobo said:


> Can't wait to hear the pundits on why Boise can or can not compete for the national championship.


Knowing people have DVR's these days, you may want to change the "B" in your profile name to a "C".

Thanks for ruining a good Tuesday morning for me.


----------



## Go Beavs (Nov 18, 2008)

Shoot, it WAS an exciting game. Maybe you should edit the title...


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

If one of the moderator could change the title. I try but could not do it.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

yosoyellobo said:


> Can't wait to hear the pundits on why Boise can or can not compete for the national championship.


I think in a one-off game, they can play with anyone. They are very good.

But they simply lack the depth to go through an SEC/Big 10/Big 12/PAC 10 schedule. Imagine if they had to play a game like last night every week, or at least every other week. They can't do it. Their skill players are as good as anyones, but they don't have horses in the trenches to do it weekly against teams with depth.

So to the National Championship argument, is it fair to a team with one loss who played an SEC schedule to not make the game and Boise who won't have another tough game until a bowl to make it? Actually, its not fair to either team to have this antiquated system, but that is an argument for another day.


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

I'm a huge ACC guy, but lets face it, the ACC is not close overall to the SEC when it comes to football. Va Tech may or may not turn out to be good. If they end up staying in the top 10 all year and win the ACC thats one thing, but if the Hokies are say 2nd or 3rd in the ACC and that is Boise St's marquee win, it is probably not going to be enough, especially with Oregon St losing to TCU (Oregon St will probably end up being the number 2 quality win for Boise St and there is no 3rd quality win, the rest of their schedule sucks).

On the other hand, Boise St have proved in the past that they can hang and they did it last night. The game overall was very good for a week one game and the Boise QB was all over it. The look on his face compared to Tyrod Taylor in their closing drives was unbeleiveable. Confidence v uncertainty.


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

Herdfan said:


> I think in a one-off game, they can play with anyone. They are very good.
> 
> But they simply lack the depth to go through an SEC/Big 10/Big 12/PAC 10 schedule. Imagine if they had to play a game like last night every week, or at least every other week. They can't do it. Their skill players are as good as anyones, but they don't have horses in the trenches to do it weekly against teams with depth.
> 
> So to the National Championship argument, is it fair to a team with one loss who played an SEC schedule to not make the game and Boise who won't have another tough game until a bowl to make it? Actually, its not fair to either team to have this antiquated system, but that is an argument for another day.


I agree with you about Boise not having to go through an SEC/Big 10/Big 12/PAC 10 schedule and it's not fair to a team with one loss. On the other hand life is not fair and you can't fault Boise for taking advantage of an imperfect rule. If Slippery Rock when undefeated for a couple years I would not have any trouble with them playing the National Championship. Put me in the group that would have some sort of playoff system.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I honestly get tired of the whole "they can't make it in the SEC" argument.

Just this past week... I heard Alabama being taken to task for scheduling Duke on the schedule as a cupcake. BUT, if Duke were to somehow have a miracle season and NOT play Alabama they would be told they aren't any good because they didn't schedule tough.

So... Boise gets told they don't schedule tough... but all the "good" schools are told not to schedule teams like Boise because they aren't good enough.

Even the BCS folk put Boise vs TCU last year... which was good for those schools... but left out a chance to put those teams against 2 "good" teams and see how they shake out.

A graphic last night showed Boise 4-1 vs top 10 since 2000... so when Boise has been able to play a big team, they've fared as good as anyone else during that timeframe I suspect.

Rankings are an imperfect thing... and with only 12 or so games, there's no way for everyone to play everyone... and conference-associated teams only have a few out-of-conference games to schedule... which means even if you want to schedule "tough" you can't always do it.

A couple of years ago Michigan was taken to task for having App St on the schedule... but then App St smacked them around... and then instead of App St being good, by the end of the season everyone decided Michigan was bad.

Last season's 5-loss Oklahoma team has hopes for a championship this year and is ranked highly before their first game... Even Florida St is in the top 20! But what did Ok do last year to earn a high rank this year before even playing a game? Boise at least returns most of the roster of an undefeated team.

Without a playoff we'll never really know how teams stack up against each other.

I would love to see a 4-team playoff at the end of the season after all the bowl games. I would really love to see an 8-team playoff instead of the bowl games... but I know that isn't likely.

Most of the bowl games are just money grabs... with 5-6 loss teams going to bowls, they are hardly "special" or "rewards for a good season" anymore once you get out of the top tier bowls anyway.


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

You get no argument from me. An 8-team playoff would be great. Will would still get the same argument about who should be the 8th team but so what.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

yosoyellobo said:


> If Slippery Rock when undefeated for a couple years I would not have any trouble with them playing the National Championship. Put me in the group that would have some sort of playoff system.


Ummmm.......

SRU is Division II. They actually have a playoff and a real champion.



Stewart Vernon said:


> So... Boise gets told they don't schedule tough... but all the "good" schools are told not to schedule teams like Boise because they aren't good enough.
> 
> A graphic last night showed Boise 4-1 vs top 10 since 2000... so when Boise has been able to play a big team, they've fared as good as anyone else during that timeframe I suspect.


Actually, most teams don't want to schedule teams like BSU simply because they are good enough to beat them.

And yes, BSU is good enough to beat most teams. But could they play Alabama, followed by LSU, Florida, Arkansas and still be able to field the same competitive team? Or would getting a couple of players banged up mean they aren't quite as good. Take Alabama, their Heisman willing running back is going to have to split time this year because the 2nd string is just as good. Matt Cassel never started a game at USC, but was good enough to get drafted. I'm sorry, but teams like BSU just don't have that kind of depth, so they are a couple of injuries away from not being as good.


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

Herdfan said:


> Ummmm.......
> 
> SRU is Division II. They actually have a playoff and a real champion.
> 
> ...


Slippery Rock was just a joke. When I was in the Air Force back in the early sixties every Sunday morning when anybody pick up the paper the first thing everybody wanted to know was how did Slippery Rock do. How it got started no one knows.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Herdfan said:


> Actually, most teams don't want to schedule teams like BSU simply because they are good enough to beat them.


That's another part of the equation... the teams with more reputation don't want to play at Boise... but Boise would like to schedule 2-year home-and-home games I expect.

This year they do a neutral field 1-year thing with Va Tech... but would Va Tech have wanted to go play at Boise? I suspect not.

NC State years ago had a regular game with East Carolina. It was an in-state thing, but really also meant to be a cupcake... but ECU started beating NC State in those games... and NC State cancelled the series. They have played a few times since then... but basically once ECU started getting good and seeing some national recognition (finished in the top 10 one year)... people started dropping them off the schedule.



Herdfan said:


> And yes, BSU is good enough to beat most teams. But could they play Alabama, followed by LSU, Florida, Arkansas and still be able to field the same competitive team? Or would getting a couple of players banged up mean they aren't quite as good.


You can say the same thing about any team, including the SEC.

Consider... LSU barely beat a UNC team with 13+ players suspended for the game! IF UNC had all their players, LSU might lose that game... and though I'm an ACC fan, I wouldn't put UNC up there with the class of most conferences.

Also... Ole Miss was beaten by Jacksonville St... a Division II team! So... how tough is the SEC when a game that wouldn't even have counted towards bowl eligibility results in a loss? And you know Ole Miss is going to beat someone in the SEC that they shouldn't.



Herdfan said:


> Take Alabama, their Heisman willing running back is going to have to split time this year because the 2nd string is just as good. Matt Cassel never started a game at USC, but was good enough to get drafted. I'm sorry, but teams like BSU just don't have that kind of depth, so they are a couple of injuries away from not being as good.


Florida doesn't look as good this year after losing a few players... Almost any team if you take away a couple of their starters will suffer.

Alabama struggled last year with Tennessee... the same Tennessee team that wasn't all that good. Oklahoma struggled with Utah St this year.

Every year I see good teams struggle with bad teams... and some surprise upsets... but if Alabama struggles with an unranked Arkansas, people say that is the mark of a champion to win when not playing your best... but if Boise struggles, it is somehow proof they aren't good?

I'm not a hater... I think Alabama could win it again this year if things fall right... but if Boise is undefeated again at the end of the season and has only lost 4 games in 5 seasons with a couple of back-to-back undefeated ones... it would be shameful if they don't get to play Alabama at the end of the season and get to prove it on the field.

Funny... but Ohio St got blown out a couple of years in a row in major bowl games... but kept coming back the next season with a high ranking. So a team in a major conference that proved it couldn't play the big game was rewarded with more chances... but Boise, and Utah a couple of years ago, and TCU and a few others don't even get a sniff at a big game to get the same chance to fail like Ohio St.

That's what really bugs me. IF we get to the end of the season and Alabama, Boise, TCU, and Ohio St are all undefeated... I know it will result in Alabama vs Ohio St for the title... even though Ohio St has proven they can't win the big game... whereas Boise has been winning their bowl games lately.

I also feel bad for TCU in the same scenario as they get pretty much the same treatment in that scenario.

Heck, Alabama could probably lose 1 game as long as they win the SEC title game and still get in the national championship over an undefeated Boise or TCU.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> NC State years ago had a regular game with East Carolina. It was an in-state thing, but really also meant to be a cupcake


Yeah I remember NC State scheduling cupcake 1-AA Marshall. They only escaped the '91 when they were in the Top 10 when a flag was thrown after Marshall had stopped NCSU on a 4th down. They won the game on that second chance. I saw the replays, the MU player was NOT offsides.


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

In fairness to NC State, while getting beat was definitely part of it, they cancelled the ECU series partly because there were near riots and a fair amount of property damage to the stadium and injuries when the visiting ECU fans got out of hand the last cvouple of trips. If that had not happened, I doubt they would have been able to cancel the series so easily.

Also, I disagree that playing Boise is like playing Duke. If a team schedules and beats Boise, that will count for something, Boise has proven on the field the last several years that they are worthy. Duke is vastly better than before and improving, but they have not risen to that level and probably never will. Scheduling Duke will not help Alabama's strenght of schedule, but they also play 5 or 6 other top 25 teams. Boise plays 2 top 25s and the rest are Duke level opponents practically. No way they have the toughness to say they are as good as Bama.

Also, one bad game is allowable. You can't beat everyone by 48. I will say that the Tennessee-Bama game probably served as a good wake up call for those guys as essentialy the fact that Tenn's kicker has a low delivery and Mt Cody has hands the size of a catchers mitt is all that stood between the Volunteers beating them. In fact, if his hand was 3 inches to one side, that ball probably goes through.

On the other hand, even a plus one would stop much of this as you would have 6 teams with a legitamate shot and a couple more longshots each year that could prove themselves in what is now the BCS games and then have the final game between the top two after that.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Lee L said:


> In fairness to NC State, while getting beat was definitely part of it, they cancelled the ECU series partly because there were near riots and a fair amount of property damage to the stadium and injuries when the visiting ECU fans got out of hand the last cvouple of trips. If that had not happened, I doubt they would have been able to cancel the series so easily.


I went to NC State, and am a fan, so I feel it gives me some leeway to be critical of them.

In further fairness... the ECU fans were branded as hooligans out of control for storming the field after beating NC State and pulling down goalposts... BUT NC State fans doing the same thing after beating Florida St (for example) were considered good celebrations. The end result, though, was the same... destruction of property and danger to fans... so unless NC State also wanted to stop its own fans from hitting the field after games, I found that excuse to be kind of weak back in the day.



Lee L said:


> Also, I disagree that playing Boise is like playing Duke


I agree... *I* don't feel that way... but clearly the voters do... because if you put Boise on your schedule and lose, no one says "Boise is good"... heck, I heard more than one announcer say that they still thought Va Tech was the better team after Boise won this past Monday! :eek2:

That's why I made the comparison... IF Duke beats Alabama no one will say "Duke must be good"... they will instead say "I guess Alabama wasn't as good as we thought"... and that is still how a lot of people view Boise... even those who are giving them some credit.



Lee L said:


> . If a team schedules and beats Boise, that will count for something, Boise has proven on the field the last several years that they are worthy. ... Boise plays 2 top 25s and the rest are Duke level opponents practically. No way they have the toughness to say they are as good as Bama.


Perhaps inadvertently, but you kind of just proved my point... in the same paragraph saying Boise has proven themselves on the field BUT still doubting they have the toughness to play with a "big" team.

That's what they are fighting... perception, moreso than their on-field performance.



Lee L said:


> Also, one bad game is allowable. You can't beat everyone by 48. I will say that the Tennessee-Bama game probably served as a good wake up call for those guys as essentialy the fact that Tenn's kicker has a low delivery and Mt Cody has hands the size of a catchers mitt is all that stood between the Volunteers beating them. In fact, if his hand was 3 inches to one side, that ball probably goes through.


I agree... it's just not applied to all teams equally. Alabama or Florida would get the benefit of the doubt for barely winning against a team they should pound into the dirt... but if Boise doesn't win against the same kind of opponent people say they "proved" they aren't as good by not soundly thrashing an opponent.

That brings up another conundrum to me... People get mad if a team like Alabama runs up the score against a team they are blowing out... BUT if 'bama takes it easy and only beats a "scrub" team by 14 points, then they lose some votes.

Consider how both Texas and Florida dropped in the coaches poll this week and they won the games they played! They lost votes because they didn't win big enough... BUT the same people who took points off their voting for that would have publicly chastised both teams IF they had scored 80 points against those teams.



Lee L said:


> On the other hand, even a plus one would stop much of this as you would have 6 teams with a legitamate shot and a couple more longshots each year that could prove themselves in what is now the BCS games and then have the final game between the top two after that.


That's pretty much my thinking... IF the BCS would actually match 1-4 and 2-3 in bowl games... then a "+1" game would work most years to take care of it.

My preference would be to get rid of a lot of the lower tier bowls, though, and have an 8-team playoff... BUT if they want to keep the bowls, I'd advocate incorporating them into a playoff system where the traditional high-profile bowls get the early "round" of the playoffs and then you play another game or 2 to shake things down from there.


----------



## coldsteel (Mar 29, 2007)

And with VA Tech losing to JMU, that makes BSU's strength of schedule even weaker...


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

coldsteel said:


> And with VA Tech losing to JMU, that makes BSU's strength of schedule even weaker...


Somehow I suspect Va Tech will count against Boise more than Duke will count against Alabama.

Heck... the whole ACC looked like crap this weekend and I'm an ACC fan... but ACC and Big East are in the BCS with automatic bids for their conference champion.

For all the "Boise wouldn't make it in the SEC" conversations... I bet Boise would run the table in the Big East or ACC... but I don't hear anyone talking about how no one in the ACC or Big East plays a good conference schedule like we do with Boise.

It's a shame when someone in the ACC this year will get a BCS bid... not a championship big, but a BCS major bowl bid... and probably have 2-3 losses in getting there... while Boise would have to go undefeated just to be in consideration for a BCS bid... and won't sniff the championship game unless everyone else loses at least 1 game... and probably teams like Alabama would need to lose 2 games to drop.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> but I don't hear anyone talking about how no one in the ACC or Big East plays a good conference schedule like we do with Boise.


They do talk about the Big East. Remember there is a requirement for a BCS conference to maintain an average ranking for its conference champion of 12 or higher over a 4 year period. This has been dubbed the "Big East Rule." But somehow the Big East seems to have one team bubble up each year to keep them in the top 12.

If it weren't for its status in basketball, the Big East would not be a BCS conference.


----------



## sorentodd45 (May 12, 2009)

> That's another part of the equation... the teams with more reputation don't want to play at Boise... but Boise would like to schedule 2-year home-and-home games I expect.


I read an interview somewhere with the BSU athletic director that the reason for that (high profile teams not wanting to come to Boise) is because of the capacity of Bronco Stadium. It only seats 33K, so there's less money to be made for the visiting team.

Personally I think that's a crock; the Alabama's and the Texas's like to schedule creampuffs out of conference so they can pick up an easy win.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

sorentodd45 said:


> I read an interview somewhere with the BSU athletic director that the reason for that (high profile teams not wanting to come to Boise) is because of the capacity of Bronco Stadium. It only seats 33K, so there's less money to be made for the visiting team.
> 
> Personally I think that's a crock; the Alabama's and the Texas's like to schedule creampuffs out of conference so they can pick up an easy win.


They pay those cream-puffs big money. Alabama paid my alum UNT $750,000 for last years arse whoopin'.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

sorentodd45 said:


> I read an interview somewhere with the BSU athletic director that the reason for that (high profile teams not wanting to come to Boise) is because of the capacity of Bronco Stadium. It only seats 33K, so there's less money to be made for the visiting team.
> 
> Personally I think that's a crock; the Alabama's and the Texas's like to schedule creampuffs out of conference so they can pick up an easy win.


It is a crock. That is why you schedule a home and home. You get the all the money when they come to your place and they get all the money when you go to theirs. I would think BSU would be an attractive draw for schools that don't sell out early season non-conference games.


----------



## the_batman (Sep 20, 2007)

Herdfan said:


> It is a crock. That is why you schedule a home and home. You get the all the money when they come to your place and they get all the money when you go to theirs. I would think BSU would be an attractive draw for schools that don't sell out early season non-conference games.


Well, the big schools do prefer to have schools come to them. Alabama sells 100,000 plus tickets and pay the smaller schools an amount they would not get @ their home stadiums. It's a win win.

As for cream puffs, when you play LSU #15, Florida #10, (recent national championship teams), Penn State #18, Arkansas #12, South Carolina #13 Tenn, Auburn #16 are a few easier teams not allowed?


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Yes it is, but I am not talking about the large schools who would sell out even if they were playing a junior college. I am talking about the smaller of the BCS schools. Take my in-state rival WVU. They sell out for Pitt and Louisville, but when a MAC school comes to town, there are 15-20,000 unsold seats, plus they have to pay a fee to that school.

Instead of a MAC team, bring in BSU. You would get another sell out and even if you had to pay, you would still be better off. The go to them the next year. So even if they only have 33,000 seats to sell, that is a them problem.

With the caveat that BSU has a much better chance of beating you than does a MAC school.

I think people just don't like the smurf turf.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Herdfan said:


> They do talk about the Big East. Remember there is a requirement for a BCS conference to maintain an average ranking for its conference champion of 12 or higher over a 4 year period. This has been dubbed the "Big East Rule." But somehow the Big East seems to have one team bubble up each year to keep them in the top 12.


The inherent problem, of course, with that is that the way the system works... it is much more likely for a Big East team to "bubble up" each year because there is incentive for their coaches to vote that way instead of honestly.

Given the "strength" of the Big East... should a 1-loss Big East team really finish in the top ten? I like how that schedule and conference strength thing only seems to apply to the non-BCS conferences.

Like we are saying... there's really nothing about the Big East (or ACC really this year) that screams "strong"... but those conferences will be given the benefit of the doubt over Boise St's conference or TCU as well.

Granted, the ACC is working hard to ensure they don't even have a 1-loss team at the end


----------

