Boise State hypocritical in not wanting to play Idaho

[ram29jackson]

Greed + easy wins. Why would they change anything, it's not like Florida has had trouble winning National Titles because of it.

in the hunt for and succeeded at, are 2 different things

 

[West]

I feel like upholding a long standing and important tradition to both communities should take priority over an attempt to schedule just one stronger opponent for the slightly more plausible potentiality of a BCS bid :ionno:

 

[FedEx227]

in the hunt for and succeeded at, are 2 different things

But they play in good enough conferences that an undefeated season pretty much guarantees you a trip to the national championship, why schedule a top-tier team for a home and home or a series when you can just get a cupcake home game at the beginning of the year?

Florida doesn't have to prove anything, they go undefeated in the SEC and regular season...they'll be in the title game.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

lol.

Boise State are hypocritical, because it wants schools like Florida to schedule them instead of West Southern Florida School for the Mildly Retarded, and it doesn't want to schedule Idaho because it wants to schedule schools like Florida.

Hypocritical bastards.

It's pretty amazing how badly people are misreading this.

Again, Boise isnt ducking Idaho. They blow them out every year. Boise is dumping Idaho in an effort to play better teams.

The BCS schools are afraid to play Boise, and straight duck them.

Boise is dumping Idaho to play harder teams, teams like Florida avoid scheduling Boise in order to play easier teams.

Nothing hypocritical here whatsoever. Boise does everything they can to play a better schedule, yet people still shit on them. Makes no sense.

I also find it interesting that people complain when BCS schools play cupcakes, yet Boise is trying to dump the cupcakes off their schedule,a nd the same people are complaing about that.

Talk about hypocrites...

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

It's pretty amazing how badly people are misreading this.

Again, Boise isnt ducking Idaho. They blow them out every year. Boise is dumping Idaho in an effort to play better teams.

The BCS schools are afraid to play Boise, and straight duck them.

Boise is dumping Idaho to play harder teams, teams like Florida avoid scheduling Boise in order to play easier teams.

Nothing hypocritical here whatsoever. Boise does everything they can to play a better schedule, yet people still shit on them. Makes no sense.

I also find it interesting that people complain when BCS schools play cupcakes, yet Boise is trying to dump the cupcakes off their schedule,a nd the same people are complaing about that.

Talk about hypocrites...

Teams do not duck Boise because they are "scared of them"...they don't play them for the same reason Boise doesn't want to play Idaho...the bigger schools have zero to gain from it.

Why play Boise, when Boise won't pay as much as say a lesser school would to play teams like Florida, et al.

A school like Florida doesn't play a school like Boise because they don't have to and its not financially responsible to do so. Florida, as is, for example, does not really play far away road games...saves on travel, and the local schools pay more than a school like Boise would, to play them.

 

[FirstTimer]

maynard, you need to argue factual information and not your personal bias... i really do think the 2008 Utah Utes were the best team in college football, based on their body of work... and you have clearly never played football, b/c any player in their right mind would have been up and ready and would haven given 100% in that game, regardless of their last games outcome... hell, in 2007 WVU lost a shot at the national title and then lost their coach a week later... they responded by shitting on Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl... if players allow themselves to feel sorry for themselves and be sad enough about a loss to the point where it affects their ability to play, they shouldnt be playing football... that shit is an excuse for losing to a "subpar" team, nothing more...

Hell no. Just no.

That year I'm taking Florida, Okalahoma, Texas, and maybe USC over Utah in one game. Hell, I'd take 'Bama too in a "1 game for the championship". Credit Utah for beating 'Bama but the Tide were flat as hell that game. Anyone could see that. No way in hell I even think of taking Utah against Florida, Oklahoma or Texas though.

 

[Atlas]

Hell no. Just no.

explain...

 

[FirstTimer]

explain...

I edited my post.

See above.

Florida's defense would eat Utah alive. They'd have way too much speed for Utah to handle. On offense they are way to balanced and have too many weapons on the edge and up the middle. No way Utah can slow down Oklahoma's offense and Oklahoma's defense would stifle Utah. Texas' offense is too good and balanced and there defense pwns all over Utah.

Utah beat Alabama. Great. But Alabama wasn't the most amazingly balanced team in the world and relied really heavily on their running game. I don't think there is anyway Utah could handle a top tier team that was really balanced on the offensive side of the ball. Utah took advantage of a hell of a matchup. A flat one dimensional team on offense. Kudos to them but no way they stand a chance against a team like Florida, Texas, or Oklahoma than can attack in so many different ways.

 

[Senser81]

... i really do think the 2008 Utah Utes were the best team in college football, based on their body of work...

Interesting thought. I think 2008 Utah was a great power team, and they matched up well against Saban's Alabama team that year in their bowl game. IIRC, Utah had a very smart QB who didn't have a great arm, but they played conservative and wore down the opposition. I think that worked well against Bama, because Saban plays the same style, but Utah had the edge at the QB position. Alabama got rattled right away when Utah knocked them around, but Utah remained calm when Bama tried to do the same.

 

[Atlas]

I edited my post.

See above.

Florida's defense would eat Utah alive. They'd have way too much speed for Utah to handle. On offense they are way to balanced and have too many weapons on the edge and up the middle. No way Utah can slow down Oklahoma's offense and Oklahoma's defense would stifle Utah. Texas' offense is too good and balanced and there defense pwns all over Utah.

Utah beat Alabama. Great. But Alabama wasn't the most amazingly balanced team in the world and relied really heavily on their running game. I don't think there is anyway Utah could handle a top tier team that was really balanced on the offensive side of the ball. Utah took advantage of a hell of a matchup. A flat one dimensional team on offense. Kudos to them but no way they stand a chance against a team like Florida, Texas, or Oklahoma than can attack in so many different ways.

everyone said Bama's D would eat Utah alive too, and that definitely didnt happen... and as for calling Bama one dimensional: that same one dimensional team won the title a year later, being a run heavy offense and asking McElroy to manage games, and to not lose them... however, all the teams you listed were pretty one dimensional, UF was a run heavy, dink and dunk team, OU was a pass happy attack, and Texas was pretty much the same as OU that year, but did run the ball a bit more (still, they werent a "balanced" attack)... in reality, all of this conjecture and there is no way to know for sure who the best team was that year (or last year)... until there is a playoff in college football, everyone will continue to put their two cents on topics and it will always come down to a matter of opinion, and my opinion was that Utah was the best TEAM that year and I think they showed that during their bowl game in SEC country...

Interesting thought. I think 2008 Utah was a great power team, and they matched up well against Saban's Alabama team that year in their bowl game. IIRC, Utah had a very smart QB who didn't have a great arm, but they played conservative and wore down the opposition. I think that worked well against Bama, because Saban plays the same style, but Utah had the edge at the QB position. Alabama got rattled right away when Utah knocked them around, but Utah remained calm when Bama tried to do the same.

Utah came out and punched Bama in the mouth and the tide laid down... Whittingham flat outcoached Saban that game and got the most out of his players, something he doesnt get enough credit for... Yes, Bama, UF, Texas and OU all had more talent than Utah, but the Utes were the best team that year in my eyes...

 

[FirstTimer]

everyone said Bama's D would eat Utah alive too, and that definitely didnt happen..

Everyone also assumed that Bama would come out hungry. They didn't. Utah showed up and played a great game but 'Bama didn't want to be there and it showed. If Bama shows up do they win that game? Who knows, but they came out and played flat uninsipired football.

.

and as for calling Bama one dimensional: that same one dimensional team won the title a year later,

Ok? That doesn't mean they weren't one dimensional.

.

being a run heavy offense and asking McElroy to manage games, and to not lose them.

McElroy>>JPWilson. Wilson barely had a +TD/Int ratio. McElroy went 17-4 TD/INT ratio wise. Obviously Alabama was still built around running the football but McElroy is a much better QB than Wilson. Trying to equate McElroy to JPWilson doesn't really make much sense. One(McElroy) is much better than the other(Wilson)

.. .

however, all the teams you listed were pretty one dimensional, UF was a run heavy, dink and dunk team, OU was a pass happy attack, and Texas was pretty much the same as OU that year, but did run the ball a bit more (still, they werent a "balanced" attack)

I don't think anyone that actually watched college football that season would say that Florida, Okalahoma, or Texas couldn't run and pass the ball effectivley when they wanted to. Alabama couldn't dictate a pasing game to another team. They had to run the ball. If Okalahoma, Texas or Florida wanted to run the ball, or pass the ball they could do either.

Oklahoma had Murray and Brown at RB, as well as their passing attack...which was obviously beastly.

Texas had McCoy,and while no rusher had incredible stats their rushing attack had 3-4 guys capable of running the ball very well. They just split the carries up among them.

Florida had a very effective passing game then had Harvin, Rainey, Demps, Moody at running back.

.

until there is a playoff in college football, everyone will continue to put their two cents on topics and it will always come down to a matter of opinion, and my opinion was that Utah was the best TEAM that year and I think they showed that during their bowl game in SEC country...

Utah's "body of work" wasn't even that impressive in comparison to the others. Their big wins were against TCU, BYU, and then Alabama. That Michigan team won 3 games.

Florida beat LSU, FSU, South Carolina, Alabama, and Oklahoma. (1 loss was on road to Ole Miss)

Texas beat: Oklahoma, Mizzou, OK St, and Ohio St. (Loss on road to Texas Tech)

Oklahoma beat: TCU, Kansas, Texas Tech, OK St, and Mizzou (Losses to Texas and Florida)

.

but the Utes were the best team that year in my eyes...

There were three teams better than them that year. At least. They were a top 5 team most likely but undefeated or not if I rank them they are not even in consideration for being better than Oklahoma, Texas, or Florida.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Teams do not duck Boise because they are "scared of them"...they don't play them for the same reason Boise doesn't want to play Idaho...the bigger schools have zero to gain from it.

Why play Boise, when Boise won't pay as much as say a lesser school would to play teams like Florida, et al.

A school like Florida doesn't play a school like Boise because they don't have to and its not financially responsible to do so. Florida, as is, for example, does not really play far away road games...saves on travel, and the local schools pay more than a school like Boise would, to play them.

You can blame money all you want, but we all know the real reason BCS teams avoid playing the Boise's is not the same reason Boise is dropping Idaho. Completely different reasons all together, and nothing close to hypocritical.

Its just mind boggling that some of you are shitting on the team that wants better comp, and consistantly proves it with the moves they make. We should be applauding Boise for dumping the fat, but instead we jump to be unfairly critical without any analytical thought.

If Idaho was a big time team, you think this game would be dropped? You know the answer. Boise does things right, its the BCS cartel that handcuffs college football and ruins the sport.

 

[FirstTimer]

Anothr thing, not sure where you get Utah's schedule was ranked tougher but the Saragin rankings from that season have SOS as:

Florida: 4th
Oklahoma:7th
Texas:14th
Alabama: 28th

Utah:56th

 

[Atlas]

Everyone also assumed that Bama would come out hungry. They didn't. Utah showed up and played a great game but 'Bama didn't want to be there and it showed. If Bama shows up do they win that game? Who knows, but they came out and played flat uninsipired football.

Bama showed up, but laid down when Utah punched them in the mouth in the 1st quarter

Ok? That doesn't mean they weren't one dimensional.

Bama wasnt necessarily one diminesional either if thats the case...

McElroy>>JPWilson. Wilson barely had a +TD/Int ratio. McElroy went 17-4 TD/INT ratio wise. Obviously Alabama was still built around running the football but McElroy is a much better QB than Wilson. Trying to equate McElroy to JPWilson doesn't really make much sense. One(McElroy) is much better than the other(Wilson)

both were game managers and were almost incapable of winning a game on their own, so it is very easy to compare the two... and saying one is better than the other is downright laughable...

I don't think anyone that actually watched college football that season would say that Florida, Okalahoma, or Texas couldn't run and pass the ball effectivley when they wanted to. Alabama couldn't dictate a pasing game to another team. They had to run the ball. If Okalahoma, Texas or Florida wanted to run the ball, or pass the ball they could do either.

Oklahoma had Murray and Brown at RB, as well as their passing attack...which was obviously beastly.

Texas had McCoy,and while no rusher had incredible stats their rushing attack had 3-4 guys capable of running the ball very well. They just split the carries up among them.

Florida had a very effective passing game then had Harvin, Rainey, Demps, Moody at running back.

my point is, UF is a run first, run second , pass when you have to offense, and Texas and OU were pass first, pass second, run to set up the pass offenses... Bama 08 and 09 were mirror images of each other, and Utah crushed the 08 version of the tide...

Utah's "body of work" wasn't even that impressive in comparison to the others. Their big wins were against TCU, BYU, and then Alabama. That Michigan team won 3 games.

Florida beat LSU, FSU, South Carolina, Alabama, and Oklahoma. (1 loss was on road to Ole Miss)

Texas beat: Oklahoma, Mizzou, OK St, and Ohio St. (Loss on road to Texas Tech)

Oklahoma beat: TCU, Kansas, Texas Tech, OK St, and Mizzou (Losses to Texas and Florida)

Utah also beat an Oregon State team that would end up being ranked in the final polls... Utah beat 4 ranked teams that year, same as Florida (based on the final polls)... also, UF lost their game to Ole Miss in the Swamp, not on the road... in reality, the only team you listed that can truly have an argument against Utah is Texas, who lost on the last play of a game, on the road, in a rivalry game and then was excluded from the Big 12 championship b/c of a retarded tiebreaker rule...

There were three teams better than them that year. At least. They were a top 5 team most likely but undefeated or not if I rank them they are not even in consideration for being better than Oklahoma, Texas, or Florida.

again, this is conjecture based on your obviously biased opinion... based on talent alone, yes, they were better... however, Utah was the best TEAM and played like a team better than any one of the teams you listed (possible exception being texas)... i feel that 2008 Utah would have matched up very well with any of those teams, and in a game at neutral site, could and probably would have won...

Anothr thing, not sure where you get Utah's schedule was ranked tougher but the Saragin rankings from that season have SOS as:

Florida: 4th
Oklahoma:7th
Texas:14th
Alabama: 28th

Utah:56th

i never mentioned SOS...

 

[FirstTimer]

Another thing, not sure where you get Utah's schedule was ranked tougher but the Saragin rankings from that season have SOS as:

Florida: 4th
Oklahoma:7th
Texas:14th
Alabama: 28th

Utah:56th

Bama wasnt necessarily one diminesional either if thats the case...

Yes they were. JPWilson was not a good QB. Alabama could not dictate a passing game at all.

both were game managers and were almost incapable of winning a game on their own, so it is very easy to compare the two... and saying one is better than the other is downright laughable...

No. You even comparing the two skills wise is laughable. McElroy is a better QB. McElroy may be at the higher end of game managing but Wilson could barely get of of his own way at times. McElroy>>>Wilson. Easy.

my point is, UF is a run first, run second , pass when you have to offense, and Texas and OU were pass first, pass second, run to set up the pass offenses...

Ok..and both teams could and did do both when they needed to or wanted to. Alabama couldn't come out and throw the ball whenever they wanted and Wilson couldn't dictate a passing game. McElory had a little bit more wiggle room in that reagrd. Obviously Ingram made that team go but McElroy could at least be a threat in the passing game. Wilson was not.

Bama 08 and 09 were mirror images of each other, and Utah crushed the 08 version of the tide...

Except for 2009's team being much better. McElroy>>>Wilson. Ingram and Richardson>>Coffee and Ingram.

Utah also beat an Oregon State team that would end up being ranked in the final polls.

Oh boy! Oregon State! Pardon me while I *yawn*. Fine, add them. Their body of work still doesnt matchup at all.

Utah beat 4 ranked teams that year, same as Florida (based on the final polls)..

Oh please. All ranked teams are not created equal. That's common knowledge. QUit being a pud.
On top of that the other teams had tougher conference games week in and week out.

also, UF lost their game to Ole Miss in the Swamp, not on the road... in reality, the only team you listed that can truly have an argument against Utah is Texas, who lost on the last play of a game, on the road, in a rivalry game and then was excluded from the Big 12 championship b/c of a retarded tiebreaker rule...

Ok, my bad. Florida lost at home. Then went on a curb stomping rampage the rest of the season including beating the #1 ranked team in back to back weeks.

Florida>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.Utah.

again, this is conjecture based on your obviously biased opinion

Yeah I'm "biased" by my fandom for Notre Dame.....

based on talent alone, yes, they were better... however, Utah was the best TEAM and played like a team better than any one of the teams you listed (possible exception being texas)... i feel that 2008 Utah would have matched up very well with any of those teams, and in a game at neutral site, could and probably would have won...

Any team could win on any given day. REAL strong case there......

LOL at Utah's "body of work" being better when you have to argue for Oregon State being a big win.

Utah wasn't the best team in the nation that season. Their body of work doesn't hold up.

 

[FirstTimer]

i never mentioned SOS...

Someone did. My bad.

 

[Archer]

Someone did. My bad.

I did after seeing the rankings on ncaa.org but was later corrected.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

You can blame money all you want, but we all know the real reason BCS teams avoid playing the Boise's is not the same reason Boise is dropping Idaho. Completely different reasons all together, and nothing close to hypocritical.

Its just mind boggling that some of you are shitting on the team that wants better comp, and consistantly proves it with the moves they make. We should be applauding Boise for dumping the fat, but instead we jump to be unfairly critical without any analytical thought.

If Idaho was a big time team, you think this game would be dropped? You know the answer. Boise does things right, its the BCS cartel that handcuffs college football and ruins the sport.

Yes it is.

They want better competition but do not make it to anyone's benefit but their own to play them. They don't compensate monetarily nor play to the terms of the teams they want to play.

I do applaud Boise for doing it "the Miami way" (play anybody, anywhere, any time) but this isn't the 1980's and college football is more and more about the money...to schedule the big dogs in the power conferences you need to compensate them monetarily (and if you schedule for them to come to your house, you better lay out the red carpet in regards to accommodations and travel).

Lets look at an example...Miami. To schedule Notre Dame at a home-and-home they also needed to take on a neutral site game in Notre Dame territory (Chicago)...and this is the second largest television team in all of college football (ND #1, Miami #2...and Miami will pop a higher rating!). Yet, Miami needed to bend to ND just to get the game.

Yet, Boise, fuggin Boise State (who I love, btw, don't get me wrong) can't ante up monetarily or give the power schools the accommodations they want...these power schools don't need Boise State on their schedule...they are better off financially scheduling local opponents.

btw - some of Boise's OOC games in the future...

Toledo
Wyoming
Tulsa
Miami Ohio
Washington State (Idaho's rival, and has even gone so far as designating games in Pullman as Idaho home games to help them out financially - Idaho requested the game to be played every four years once Robb Akey took over)

Couldn't fit Idaho, an in-state rival (and we'll avoid the discussion of having nothing to gain from playing Idaho, much like there is nothing to game from power school playing Boise OR the effects of recruiting the state of Idaho should Idaho actually beat Boise) in there?

Bollocks.

Its hypocritical and for you not to see that is just silly or you are being a contrarian.

In sum...Boise has nothing to gain (monetarily or via quality of opponent that they need) so they aren't taking the game. Much like a lot of other schools do to Boise, yet, Boise complains.

That is hypocritical.

 

[strahanfan92]

Guys, this is just like Delaware vs. Del State. UD just has nothing to gain from playing the downstate brothas.

 

[Atlas]

Yes they were. JPWilson was not a good QB. Alabama could not dictate a passing game at all.

they couldnt do it last year either...

No. You even comparing the two skills wise is laughable. McElroy is a better QB. McElroy may be at the higher end of game managing but Wilson could barely get of of his own way at times. McElroy>>>Wilson. Easy.

the skill sets between the two are the same... the biggest difference is the mindset of the two (JPW was weak-minded, where as McElroy shrugs things off) as well as playcalling... Saban often put JPW in situations where he was forced to make a play, which is something he failed at often... with McElroy, he learned from his mistakes and made him more of a game manager, and that paid off, putting much less of the burden on McElroy... couple that with a 09 Bama having a much better running game and much better defense and i can see where you think the two are vastly different... however, i think if you exchanged the two QB's, you'd get the same result...

Ok..and both teams could and did do both when they needed to or wanted to. Alabama couldn't come out and throw the ball whenever they wanted and Wilson couldn't dictate a passing game. McElory had a little bit more wiggle room in that reagrd. Obviously Ingram made that team go but McElroy could at least be a threat in the passing game. Wilson was not.

read above...

Except for 2009's team being much better. McElroy>>>Wilson. Ingram and Richardson>>Coffee and Ingram.

agreed... couple that with another year of growth for Jones, Maze and Peek and of course it will be easier to pass the ball...

Oh boy! Oregon State! Pardon me while I *yawn*. Fine, add them. Their body of work still doesnt matchup at all.

oregon state was better than LSU, USCe, Ole Miss and FSU in 2008 and they also beat a #1 ranked team that year... my main point is, when Utah had to play a genuine top 25 team, they performed well, and most importantly, didnt lose to any of them, unlike texas, OU and UF...

Oh please. All ranked teams are not created equal. That's common knowledge. QUit being a pud.
On top of that the other teams had tougher conference games week in and week out.

oregon state wasnt a push over, and they did beat a very good USC team that year... but yes, the SEC is the best conference, but it is very top heavy, and teams 5-12 are very similar to 5-10/11/12 teams from the Pac 10, Big Ten and Big 12... its not like Vandy, Kentucky and Miss St are gonna beat top teams from other conferences...

Ok, my bad. Florida lost at home. Then went on a curb stomping rampage the rest of the season including beating the #1 ranked team in back to back weeks.

Florida>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.Utah.

yea, but they still lost, at home, to a team they should have beaten easily... this didnt happen to Utah, thus being the basis for argument for them being the best TEAM... you are reading too much into talent, which is not what im arguing... of course the others have more talent than Utah, but 08 Utah played the best as a team and that is why i think they were the best team that year...

Yeah I'm "biased" by my fandom for Notre Dame.....

you're biased b/c you dont think the small schools can compete with the big boys, when it is clear that they can...

Any team could win on any given day. REAL strong case there......

i hate this saying, b/c its not really true... when all is said and done, great talent will win out over great coaching, and that should help you realize the Utah wasnt too far off, talent-wise, from the big boys...

LOL at Utah's "body of work" being better when you have to argue for Oregon State being a big win.

Utah wasn't the best team in the nation that season. Their body of work doesn't hold up.

it might not hold up in your mind, but it does in a lot of peoples minds... oregon state played the 8th toughest schedule that year and went 9-4, so its not like Utah beat some patsy directional school... they were a legit team from one of the better BCS conferences... in fact, i think the Pac 10 went undefeated in bowls that year... and yes, i do think Utah had a better body of work than everybody (except texas), with the main reason being they didnt have a loss... like i said, its all conjecture until we get a playoff and nothing can be proven...