Boise State needs a good old fashioned MTAQ butt whupping!
- Thread starter TommyMac
- Start date
- Status
Don't get me wrong, I think the entire WAC is a joke, including Frenso State, so let's just get that out of the way.
I've also posted results and examples of teams upgrading to tougher conferences. For example, did the Arizona schools carry over their WAC domination to the Pac-10? I'll help you out, they didn't... despite being the dominant teams in the conference for over a decade. The idea that a team can just jump to a higher level of competition and instantly rise to it isn't grounded in reality. If you want another example, Arkansas (who beat Boise State a couple times by the way) won the SWC 13 times. They've been SEC champions 0 times...
At this point in time Boise State is neither worthy, nor ready to go to a completely legitimate conference. They don't even seem ready for the MWC.
I can't help it. This thread reminds me of the movie, Patton.
Coach Petersen of Boise State is the German Field Marshall, Rommel. Bob Stoops of Oklahoma is the British Field Marshall, Montgomery. And, yep, Nick Saban is General Patton.
The field is North Africa, in 1942 and 1943. Rommel, "The Desert Fox," runs circles around the English in North Africa. An exception: Unlike Stoops against Petersen in the bowl game a few years ago, Montgomery finally pushes Rommel halfway across North Africa.
But Rommel (Petersen) doesn't really get his comeuppance until he meets Patton (Saban) at El Geuttar. That's when the Germans, still marching on their toes, come striding into the valley, following their tanks, unaware that Patton and his Seventh Army are waiting in ambush.
Patton's aide says, "They still haven't spotted us."
Patton answers, "They'll get an education in about ten seconds. Wait 'til they get a dose of that artillery."
As the Seventh Army rains down upon the unsuspecting opponent, Patton mutters, "H__ of a waste of fine infantry." (Even if most of 'em were three-star recruits.)
It is the beginning of the end of the war. Rommel and troops are dispatched from North Africa. Rommel mutters under his breath, "I didn't really realize just how powerful teams were in that Southeastern Conference. But I do now!"
Coach Petersen of Boise State is the German Field Marshall, Rommel. Bob Stoops of Oklahoma is the British Field Marshall, Montgomery. And, yep, Nick Saban is General Patton.
The field is North Africa, in 1942 and 1943. Rommel, "The Desert Fox," runs circles around the English in North Africa. An exception: Unlike Stoops against Petersen in the bowl game a few years ago, Montgomery finally pushes Rommel halfway across North Africa.
But Rommel (Petersen) doesn't really get his comeuppance until he meets Patton (Saban) at El Geuttar. That's when the Germans, still marching on their toes, come striding into the valley, following their tanks, unaware that Patton and his Seventh Army are waiting in ambush.
Patton's aide says, "They still haven't spotted us."
Patton answers, "They'll get an education in about ten seconds. Wait 'til they get a dose of that artillery."
As the Seventh Army rains down upon the unsuspecting opponent, Patton mutters, "H__ of a waste of fine infantry." (Even if most of 'em were three-star recruits.)
It is the beginning of the end of the war. Rommel and troops are dispatched from North Africa. Rommel mutters under his breath, "I didn't really realize just how powerful teams were in that Southeastern Conference. But I do now!"
I agree that a good ol fashioned butt whupping would do a lot towards shutting up the BSU faithful. Look what good it did for the Hawaii rainbow warriors, hardly ever hear a peep out of them any more.LOL
Not saying your lying because I have heard this from plenty of people before but can you show me proof of where this happened? As I said I have heard this story before, although what I heard is that ESPN said they would televise the game, giving it more exposure, but not pay the fee to Boise???? Well big name teams get TV exposure from playing big name games so that isnt really a great incentive, but as I said even that is just word of mouth. I was just wondering if there is any proof of these statements....(not bleacher report or a boise state message board of course :biggrin
You can call me a "Doubting Thomas," but I'll require more than just your statement above. Not questioning your integrity, but there's just too much that goes on behind the scenes when scheduling football games to buy that four word explanation. Especially when you're talking about an inter-sectional game and one on such short notice. Plus, you made no mention of any financial details and you can bet the $$$ would be a significant factor.
Here's how we can settle it... Let's let Arkansas (or insert any SEC team that is good but clearly a year in, year out mid-level SEC team... South Carolina?) go to the WAC. My prediction is that they would go undefeated or close to it, told that everyone is cheating them out of a NC, and their QB would be on the heisman list.
I mean, I could beat my wife in a game of basketball 50-0, but I promise you that this white boy can't jump.
And for the record... I have no problem w/ BSU fans... I really dont care what they have to say.
I mean, I could beat my wife in a game of basketball 50-0, but I promise you that this white boy can't jump.
And for the record... I have no problem w/ BSU fans... I really dont care what they have to say.
Boise is not going to get any more talent up there if they jump conferences. The only possible realistic (and I say that in a broad way) is joining the Pac-10. They could be better than Wazzu, but I don't see them competing with USC and Oregon all the time for the Pac-10 crown. Additionally, Washington will return to join USC at the top of the Pac-10, and that'll affect them.
I do think that Boise will be beat VT next year for one reason - there will be no film the Hokies can use to prepare for that offense. Their offense isn't unstoppable, but Peterson can sure scheme extremely well (at least he has the past few years).
I do think that Boise will be beat VT next year for one reason - there will be no film the Hokies can use to prepare for that offense. Their offense isn't unstoppable, but Peterson can sure scheme extremely well (at least he has the past few years).
For me, it is a meaningless game b/c of the rest of Boise's schedule. If they beat VT they have proven very little to me except they can get up for their one big game per year.
Schedule
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]9-11 Toledo
9-18 @ Wyoming
9-25 Oregon State
10-2 [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Virginia Tech [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]@Landover, MD[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
TBA Fresno State
TBA Hawai'i
TBA Louisiana Tech
TBA Utah State
TBA at San Jose State
TBA at Idaho
TBA at Nevada
TBA at New Mexico State[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]9-11 Toledo
9-18 @ Wyoming
9-25 Oregon State
10-2 [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Virginia Tech [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]@Landover, MD[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
TBA Fresno State
TBA Hawai'i
TBA Louisiana Tech
TBA Utah State
TBA at San Jose State
TBA at Idaho
TBA at Nevada
TBA at New Mexico State[/FONT]
What happened last time Boise St. played a SEC team? I say come on down to Georgia again boys and get you another one.
I'm not sure if you did this on purpose, but both Arkansas and South Carolina have blown out Boise State. In addition, the two years Arkansas beat Boise State, Boise State didn't lose a single conference game. I think that makes your point fairly well since it sets up a strong argument that Arkansas would have run the table against the same competition Boise State faced both years.
If one wants to consider the level of competition Boise State faces in conference, let's consider Vanderbilt. Alabama last lost to Vanderbilt in 1984. Alabama has had quite a few embarassing losses in that time span, why none to Vanderbilt? Simple, being a in conference opponent and limited talentwise, they never were able to catch Alabama off guard. Boise State gets this level of predictable and weak opponents in conference all year, in truth I think Vanderbilt is better than a lot of the teams that Boise State plays. Why anyone can conclude that beating a bunch of Vanderbilts (or worse) really means anything is beyond me.
Good point, and I'll add this, Vanderbilt would finish in the top 3 of the WAC perennially!
This is one of the most ignorant excuses. Nothing is good enough for you people, so why don't you just come out and say it? Instead, it's just excuse after excuse on why someone, anyone doesn't belong. If you think like this, you should be ashamed to call yourself a fan of the sport.
If you can't give a team credit for what they do, WIN, what's the point in playing games at all. It's not like we have lost to two non-BCS schools in the past three years, OH WAIT... we have. Man... if we can't even win those "one games," I guess we couldn't even hack it in their conference, whatsoever.
Whom do you refer to as we? Surely it's not the University of Alabama alumni or fans.Some thoughts are better left unsaid,unless it were on a BS board.
HUH squared.. :conf2: :conf2:
Playing and winning out against a mostly cupcake schedule (two or three non-cupcakes) IMO should NOT be an automatic path to the NC game. However, I think it will be this year, if BSU or any other cupcake-eater can stay undefeated. The BCS folks have to be getting nervous when politicians start rumblings about interfering in college football. 2010 could be BSU's year to get to the BCSNC game if they can go undefeated.
Even if BSU goes undefeated I'll never be convinced they deserve to be in the BCSCG with the schedule they play. But I don't get a vote.
I do not think it is a matter of giving them credit. I think it is a matter of appropriate credit. No one is saying that they are not winning their games. They are. No one is saying that their coaching staff is doing a poor job, quite the contrary.
Being as big a fan of the game as anyone, I personally love to watch that team play (as long as I have green tinted sunglasses on
). But in my opinion to say that winning the games on their schedule is equal to going 9-3 in the SEC is a huge leap. Believe me we are taking our lumps (and with good reason) because our team lost to Utah. That is fair. We lost. Got a little out schemed, and definantly outplayed at the start, and could not come back from it. I get it. This does not make the point that a team has an advantage getting up for one game when they are not beaten to smithereens by the rest of the schedule any less valid. Actually, it tends to bolster the argument.
My opinion: They belong in the discussion, but unless they do some major investment in their program, and find a way to upgrade their schedule and talent they will never get the respect they want. We have been there too, but few are alive to remember it.
Well, I give them tons of credit. I truly think they're a great team... probably a Top 10 or even Top 5 team... just not national championship worthy. Last year, considering how all of the other teams faired, I think their ranking was appropriate. Also, if you look at how the rankings were voted by coaches, it seems the BS coach agreed w/ the ranking as well.
- Status
Trending content
Latest threads
-
ESPN: College football bowl season: MVP picks for all 36 matchups- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: Washington staying with Terrapins for '26 season
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: Way-too-early 2026 Heisman watch: 15 players who could win the award
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: QB Mendoza first Hoosier to win Heisman Trophy
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: Navy goes for it, beats Army on 4th-and-goal TD
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 1
-
ESPN: Dillingham's agent, ASU exploring new contract
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0