LOL Nate Davis

[FirstTimer]

wrong, Ball State was undefeated in the regular season because the conference championships are not considered regular season games. the MAC championship game was played on December 5th, 2008. this article

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3743813

Postseason=Bowl games.
The MAC Champion crowns the MAC champion and designates them for postseason play to a certain bowl.

which was written in NOVEMBER, before the MAC championship (which is not regular season) which was Ball States first loss. so ya, unless someone has a time machine, i'm pretty sure you are completely wrong. they were in talks long before Ball States first loss because THEY WERE THE ONLY TWO UNDEFEATED TEAMS.

How could Ball St accept a bowl bid or turn down a bowl bid until AFTER the MAC Championship game? Up until after that game they had no idea for sure what bowl they could go to.

no other bowl was making the offer for Ball State to play Boise State besides the Humanitarian Bowl

Which would not have been a matchup of two undefeated teams because Ball St LOST to Buffalo. So your entire idea of that happening would not have mattered.

again, no other bowl made that offer

No shit? You know that how? Are you privvy to bowl information not on ESPN? Ball St did not want to play a road game for a bowl game and Boise St refused to play them anywhere else but at home.

Boise State beat a very good Oklahoma team fair and square. don't make any excuses. and even if they weren't as good as they have been in recent years

Fair and square? Who the hell said they cheated? I said Oklahoma was napping and was not as good as they usually are.

Ball State accepting the bid to play Boise, taking care of business against Buffalo, and then beating Boise certainly would have helped that program. but they missed that opportunity by pussing out.

LOL at a win over Boise St "helping" a program? Who the fuck cares about Boise St? Outside of some idiot WAC homers. No one. Boise St is a nothing program nationally 99% of the time. The run a statue of liberty play then fade away for the next 10 years and no one cares.

Utah is more nationally relevant than Boise St and Utah is barely relevant on a yearly basis.

You beat Oklahoma. Great. That win must have done a lot for your program seeing as you lost to TCU last year.

never said Boise was "so great". but like i said, Boise had nothing to prove that year as a program.

Boise has plenty to prove as a program. One win over a down Oklahoma team doesn't erase years of being a non-factor.

. this was Ball States chance. they wouldn't take it.

LOL at comparing a BCS bowl and BCS caliber team to the 2008 Boise St squad. I highly doubt Ball St would turn down a BCS birth.

ya, i guess it was. glad you had fun. but i don't see what that has to do with anything.

Point


Your head.

Fail.

BALL STATE ARE A BUNCH OF FUCKING PUSSIES. Boise did not refuse to play Ball State anywhere BUT in the Humanitarian Bowl. the Humanitarian Bowl was the only bowl that was offering both those teams the chance to play each other. thats it. THE. ONLY. BOWL. and instead of Ball State manning up and saying "well, if this is the only bowl that is gonna give us this chance, then we should take it". by accepting the offer, they would have gotten respect even if they lost.

Respect from who? The 150 people to tune into the game? Ball St could have beaten or lost to Boise St by 100 points and I would not have given a shit either way and neither would 99% of the country. Beating Boise St would not have given any more legitmacy to Ball St as a program than a win over any other squad.


I love these Boise St homers. Win a BCS game 3 years ago and now playing them is some high honor and a way to "prove" oneself.

 

[Senser81]

ya, and? Ball State decided to preserve their undefeated season and refused to play Boise BEFORE they lost. when they were still UNDEFEATED. is that hard to get or something?

But Ball State still had the conference championship game to play, so they couldn't have known if they would still be undefeated when they would have the chance to play Boise State.

 

[FirstTimer]

But Ball State still had the conference championship game to play, so they couldn't have known if they would still be undefeated when they would have the chance to play Boise State.

Ding

 

[Senser81]

this article pretty much sums up my thoughts perfectly

The article was awful. I don't remember Fresno State ever accepting a bizarre 'sidebar' game on another team's home field, yet the writer compares Fresno State to Ball State as their opposite. And seriously, I don't care how bad Notre Dame is (they DID win a bowl game, no?), a Ball State win over Notre Dame would be just as big as a Ball State win over Boise State in terms of program prestige. Sheesh.

The embarrassment is Boise State throwing the gauntlet down to Ball State, but only willing to play on their home turf. THAT is a pussy move, because if you aren't willing to play at a neutral site then you should just keep your mouth shut. Can you imagine a boxer saying he'll fight anyone, but only if they fight him in his hometown?

 

[Senser81]

jesus christ, forget the fucking fact about what games they had to play. Ball State never said "hey, lets wait until after the MAC championship to decide, okay?" they just flat out refused to play Boise regardless.

No, you said they refused to play Boise because they wanted to preserve their undefeated record. Now you are saying they flat out refused to play Boise for no apparent reason. Anyone with a brain would say that Ball State couldn't have known if they would be undefeated or not heading into the bowls, and they would say that the sticking point was the game being played at Boise State, not Ball State's potential undefeated record.

jagain, there is absolutely no proof that Boise State was unwilling to play Ball State anywhere but on their home turf. show me that proof and i'll be willing to say that they were both a bunch of pussies.

Because their offer to play Ball State included the caveat "at Boise State"?

 

[FirstTimer]

then why does every single article written on the topic say Ball State turned down the chance to play Boise?

I never said Ball St didn't turn down a chance to play Boise.

Ball St had no way of turning down a bowl bid to play Boise based on the fact of protecting it's undefeated season when they didn't even know if they'd be undefeated when they played them.........

lol, i love that somehow i'm a Boise State homer. nobody is ever willing to argue a point the normal way. they just automatically assume you are a homer and then resort to personal attacks.

No, I assume you are some sort WAC homer, or just someone that doesn't know college football. I'm laughing my ass at your article and your idea that Boise St is on some pedastal because they beat Oklahoma 3 years ago.

ND was 6-6 last year. A Ball St win over them in a bowl>>>a win over 12-0 Boise St in a bowl as far as helping program prestige.

 

[FirstTimer]

Because their offer to play Ball State included the caveat "at Boise State"?

Yeah, did I miss somewhere when Boise St offered to play Ball St anywhere else? Boise St wanted to play Ball St ONLYif it was on their homefield.

 

[FirstTimer]

Early reports had the game possibly being played in the Humanitarian Bowl on the Boise State campus, but the Broncos have the second-highest winning percentage at home since 1999, and Chryst said the idea of playing a "neutral" game on Boise State's field wasn't appealing.

I love this gem from the article too. It's says the game was to "possibly" be played at Boise St. Meaning it did not have to be there. It was part of the negotiation. Ball St didn't want to play a road game in the bowl and Boise St obviously refused to play them anywhere else but at home.

 

[Sportsbuck]

Boise State beat a very good Oklahoma team fair and square.

LOL very good Oklahoma team? That group was one of the worst this decade at OU, they had a WR turned QB (This happened 2 days before fall practice) under center. Not to mention AD was coming back from an injury after about 9 weeks off..