Official 2010-2011 NCAA Football Thread

[kev211]

Ok, this is no longer worth arguing over, because every piece of data that I present you guys find some bogus excuse not to count as relevant. And if I have no data that is relevant, there is no point in continuing this discussion.

This.

[RockRaines]

No, the point is that Boise built a program over time, just as Gonzaga did in basketball, that is producing better players, that is attracting top-tier recruits, that is proving itself more and more on a national stage. Since the win over Oklahoma several years ago, they have really taken big steps to improve their program.

Leave bball out of this.

 

Second, Boise hasnt been attracting top tier recruits at all. They are never ranked in the top 50 as far as team rankings and havent improved as far as players signed in the last 5 years at all. They've had 2 4 star recruits in the last 10 years, not exactly "top tier" talent as you said above. They've put less players in the NFL than Baylor among others. I dont see where you get that they've built this powerhouse program other than the fact they have learned to dominate a seriously sub par conference.

[RockRaines]

You do have to recognize that Boise tries to put together the strongest non-conference schedule possible, but most BCS schools will not schedule them.

This is bulls*** BTW. Boise asks for money to play BCS schools, which is exactly what BCS schools DONT do. This is the reason nobody schedules them. OSU reached out to them for a home and home and they wanted a pay out richer than most MAC schools want. Thats not called trying to put together a strong non-con schedule, thats called treating your own team like a second tier program.

[zenryan]

This is bulls*** BTW. Boise asks for money to play BCS schools, which is exactly what BCS schools DONT do. This is the reason nobody schedules them. OSU reached out to them for a home and home and they wanted a pay out richer than most MAC schools want. Thats not called trying to put together a strong non-con schedule, thats called treating your own team like a second tier program.

 

 

 

 

And it keeps up the perception that Boise is the victim against BCS schools.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

This argument is just getting stupid. Team A's w/l record isn't as bad as it seems. Team B's record isn't as good as it seems. GMAB.

 

Boise State played a schedule that puts them in the middle of the Big Ten, but better than BCS-likely teams Ohio State and Wisconsin. You can ignore that objective measure if you like, but that's the situation. To complain that they play lesser opponents is dumb. Over the course of the season it evens out.

 

Here's the big ten strength of schedule (key number in parenthesis):

 

4 BIG TEN (A) = 75.16 75.19 ( 4) TEAMS= 11 75.19 ( 4)

College Football 2010 through games of November 27 Saturday the BCS uses the ELO_CHESS from here

HOME ADVANTAGE= 3.02 RATING W L SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10 | VS top 30 | ELO_CHESS | PREDICTOR

9 Ohio State A = 88.63 11 1 68.96( 64) 0 0 | 1 1 | 86.66 15 | 90.61 6

15 Wisconsin A = 86.49 11 1 68.54( 71) 1 0 | 3 1 | 88.23 11 | 84.25 19

21 Michigan State A = 83.16 11 1 69.47( 60) 0 0 | 2 1 | 86.98 14 | 79.46 33

25 Iowa A = 80.01 7 5 72.11( 46) 0 1 | 1 3 | 77.31 33 | 82.85 22

36 Illinois A = 77.31 6 5 72.46( 42) 0 2 | 0 3 | 75.57 40 | 78.67 34

46 Michigan A = 75.07 7 5 73.41( 30) 0 1 | 1 4 | 77.00 34 | 72.60 53

49 Penn State A = 74.48 7 5 71.77( 50) 0 2 | 0 4 | 75.70 39 | 72.64 52

69 Northwestern A = 69.87 7 5 68.60( 69) 0 0 | 1 2 | 72.24 57 | 66.97 78

91 Purdue A = 64.64 4 8 72.25( 45) 0 1 | 0 4 | 66.44 85 | 62.22 100

92 Minnesota A = 64.25 3 9 73.85( 27) 0 1 | 1 4 | 64.46 95 | 63.37 95

98 Indiana A = 63.21 5 7 68.03( 74) 0 1 | 0 3 | 64.42 96 | 61.35 102

 

Here's Boise State:

 

9 WESTERN ATHLETIC (A) = 68.45 68.84 ( 9) TEAMS= 9 68.64 ( 9)

College Football 2010 through games of November 27 Saturday the BCS uses the ELO_CHESS from here

HOME ADVANTAGE= 3.02 RATING W L SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10 | VS top 30 | ELO_CHESS | PREDICTOR

8 Boise State A = 88.91 10 1 69.15( 62) 0 0 | 2 1 | 85.17 16 | 95.00 3

 

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbc10.htm

 

 

I don't think anyone is arguing that Boise should be playing for the championship. They screwed that up by losing to Nevada. But I do think there's a legit argument to be made that they should be looked at equally (in terms of football accomplishments) as Ohio State, which will get that 2nd BCS bid. I'm fine with it, cuz it's all about money and viewership. But stop this ridiculous "they don't play anyone, my team plays everyone" nonsense. Boise State is a great program and in the discussion for top ten in the country right now. If you don't agree you're just ignoring reality.

[RockRaines]

This argument is just getting stupid. Team A's w/l record isn't as bad as it seems. Team B's record isn't as good as it seems. GMAB.

 

Boise State played a schedule that puts them in the middle of the Big Ten, but better than BCS-likely teams Ohio State and Wisconsin. You can ignore that objective measure if you like, but that's the situation. To complain that they play lesser opponents is dumb. Over the course of the season it evens out.

 

Here's the big ten strength of schedule (key number in parenthesis):

 

 

 

Here's Boise State:

 

 

 

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbc10.htm

 

 

I don't think anyone is arguing that Boise should be playing for the championship. They screwed that up by losing to Nevada. But I do think there's a legit argument to be made that they should be looked at equally (in terms of football accomplishments) as Ohio State, which will get that 2nd BCS bid. I'm fine with it, cuz it's all about money and viewership. But stop this ridiculous "they don't play anyone, my team plays everyone" nonsense. Boise State is a great program and in the discussion for top ten in the country right now. If you don't agree you're just ignoring reality.

 

First of all the reason they arent getting a BCS bid is when they lost not who they lost to. Bring up money all you want, it has nothing to do with that. Secondly, SOS only tells a fraction of who a team plays since its heavily weighted by record. If you think a 6-6 non-ranked BCS team is the same as a 6-6 non ranked WAC team, then thats your problem. There is a clear difference not only in the size of players but the overall talent of players that they play week in and week out. Above everyone was jumping on Iowa as a team that would get rolled by Boise. Iowa will put more players in the NFL this season than Boise and Nevada combined, there is a significant talent difference between even the top WAC schools and a second tier Big Ten or SEC team.

 

[RockRaines]

So beyond the woe is me discussion on Boise.

 

 

Big Ten post season awards came out. I will tell you right now that it would be difficult to field a better first team defensive line than the one that was picked.

 

Kerrigan

Watt

Clayborn

Heyward

 

 

All of those guys should play prominent roles on Sunday.

[Jenksismyhero]

First of all the reason they arent getting a BCS bid is when they lost not who they lost to. Bring up money all you want, it has nothing to do with that. Secondly, SOS only tells a fraction of who a team plays since its heavily weighted by record. If you think a 6-6 non-ranked BCS team is the same as a 6-6 non ranked WAC team, then thats your problem. There is a clear difference not only in the size of players but the overall talent of players that they play week in and week out. Above everyone was jumping on Iowa as a team that would get rolled by Boise. Iowa will put more players in the NFL this season than Boise and Nevada combined, there is a significant talent difference between even the top WAC schools and a second tier Big Ten or SEC team.

 

You don't think that all evens out? A 6-6 bcs team will have (likely) 3 horrible non-bcs games (worse than the WAC), a couple of top 25 games, and then middle of the road games. That's the same schedule as Boise. You're letting your major conference fandom cloud your judgment here. We have upsets every single year in college football. The level of play from BCS to non-BCS programs isn't THAT dramatic (especially the top non-bcs schools).

 

And the number of NFL players means nothing to this argument about which TEAM is better. Ask Oklahoma from 2005 if it mattered.

[LittleHurt05]

So beyond the woe is me discussion on Boise.

 

Big Ten post season awards came out. I will tell you right now that it would be difficult to field a better first team defensive line than the one that was picked.

 

Kerrigan

Watt

Clayborn

Heyward

 

All of those guys should play prominent roles on Sunday.

 

As will the 5th guy on the list, who led the 2nd team D-line, Corey Liuget

[Soxbadger]

I already responded to the SOS argument, but no one really wanted to discuss it:

 

Im not sure how much stock you can put into SOS.

 

Wisconsin played 2 top 10 teams, yet has a SOS lower than OSU and Boise State. How do you really judge SOS, if you play 10 teams ranked in the 30s is that harder than 2 teams ranked in the top 10 and 8 teams ranked less than 100?

 

I guess I dont know and when I see these ratings, they just dont seem to past the eye test.

[Jenksismyhero]

I already responded to the SOS argument, but no one really wanted to discuss it:

 

I consider 10 games against good teams more difficult than 2 games against really really good teams and 8 against crap teams. If both teams come out with an 8-2 record, IMO the team that plays the 10 good teams has a more impressive record. It's tough to be consistent in college football.

[dasox24]

On a lighter note (getting away from this stupid Boise St. argument that will never be solved), almost the entire Big 12 1st-Team Offense is from the state of Oklahoma. 9 of the 15 spots - Kinda ridiculous.

 

http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.dbm...TCLID=205038561

[RockRaines]

You don't think that all evens out? A 6-6 bcs team will have (likely) 3 horrible non-bcs games (worse than the WAC), a couple of top 25 games, and then middle of the road games. That's the same schedule as Boise. You're letting your major conference fandom cloud your judgment here. We have upsets every single year in college football. The level of play from BCS to non-BCS programs isn't THAT dramatic (especially the top non-bcs schools).

 

And the number of NFL players means nothing to this argument about which TEAM is better. Ask Oklahoma from 2005 if it mattered.

No it doesnt even out at all.

 

And NFL players DOES add to the argument. Thats exactly like saying 1-A undefeated high Schools teams are on the same talent level as an 8-A team loaded with D-1 players. The WAC teams that BSU plays week in and week out have almost zero players that will play on sundays, zero. If you dont think that makes a difference well then you will never see through your underdog glasses. And the fact you have to go back 5 years to find an example of an upset that doesnt come close to proving your point, well then there you go. Any team can upset another team in any one game. Going through a conference schedule filled with much more size, speed and skilled players is harder than a lesser conference.

 

Lets put this in perspective:

 

 

Bottom half of WAC:

Louisiana Tech 5-6

Idaho 5-7

Utah State 4-7

New Mexico State 2-10

San Jose State 1-11

 

Bottom Half of B10:

Illinois (tied with PSU) 6-5

PSU 7-5

Michigan 7-5

Northwestern 7-5

Purdue 4-8

minny 3-9

Indiana 5-7

 

Bottom Half of SEC:

Bama 9-3

Miss St 8-4

Tenn (3 way tie) 6-6

Georgia 6-6

Kentucky 6-6

ole Miss 4-8

Vandy 2-10

 

 

Do you really think that the teams in the conferences are equal in terms of talent and difficulty to play week after week? You can look at SOS all you want, the roads for BCS conference schools like the B10 and SEC are harder week after week than any team in the WAC.

[iamshack]

First of all the reason they arent getting a BCS bid is when they lost not who they lost to. Bring up money all you want, it has nothing to do with that. Secondly, SOS only tells a fraction of who a team plays since its heavily weighted by record. If you think a 6-6 non-ranked BCS team is the same as a 6-6 non ranked WAC team, then thats your problem. There is a clear difference not only in the size of players but the overall talent of players that they play week in and week out. Above everyone was jumping on Iowa as a team that would get rolled by Boise. Iowa will put more players in the NFL this season than Boise and Nevada combined, there is a significant talent difference between even the top WAC schools and a second tier Big Ten or SEC team.

WTF are you even arguing? Are we arguing that Boise has more talent, player for player, as any of these big conference schools? Is that what we are all supposed to be cheering for? You keep bringing up size and quantity of NFL prospects, as if that is what we should be judging these teams on, rather than their ability to play the game of football. I could care less about whether or not Ohio State has more NFL prospects than Boise. I can care less what the average size of their offensive lines are. All I care about is who plays the game of football the best. Why the hell even bother to play the games if we're going to measure by the criteria you continue to bring up? Oh, and btw, more than half of TCU's starting defense will probably play in the NFL, so should they be ranked higher than Auburn? Because I can guarantee you TCU will send more players from this class to the NFL than Auburn will.

 

Secondly, this is not a "woe is Boise" argument. Not ONE f***ing person has argued that Boise should be playing for a championship, or even in a BCS bowl. What is being argued is that the loss to Nevada does not prove they aren't a good enough team to deserve a shot, had they not lost to Nevada.

[Jenksismyhero]

No it doesnt even out at all.

 

And NFL players DOES add to the argument. Thats exactly like saying 1-A undefeated high Schools teams are on the same talent level as an 8-A team loaded with D-1 players. The WAC teams that BSU plays week in and week out have almost zero players that will play on sundays, zero. If you dont think that makes a difference well then you will never see through your underdog glasses. And the fact you have to go back 5 years to find an example of an upset that doesnt come close to proving your point, well then there you go. Any team can upset another team in any one game. Going through a conference schedule filled with much more size, speed and skilled players is harder than a lesser conference.

 

Lets put this in perspective:

 

 

Bottom half of WAC:

Louisiana Tech 5-6

Idaho 5-7

Utah State 4-7

New Mexico State 2-10

San Jose State 1-11

 

Bottom Half of B10:

Illinois (tied with PSU) 6-5

PSU 7-5

Michigan 7-5

Northwestern 7-5

Purdue 4-8

minny 3-9

Indiana 5-7

 

Bottom Half of SEC:

Bama 9-3

Miss St 8-4

Tenn (3 way tie) 6-6

Georgia 6-6

Kentucky 6-6

ole Miss 4-8

Vandy 2-10

 

 

Do you really think that the teams in the conferences are equal in terms of talent and difficulty to play week after week? You can look at SOS all you want, the roads for BCS conference schools like the B10 and SEC are harder week after week than any team in the WAC.

 

You're ignoring the fact that Boise actually played some tough teams. And it's not like Ohio, Western Michigan, Marshall, Indiana, Minnesota, etc are SO much better than the WAC teams. GMAB dude. My argument is that the differences aren't as big as you seem to think. Do BCS schools have more talent? Sure. Does that mean they're automatically better teams. Hell no.

[RockRaines]

You're ignoring the fact that Boise actually played some tough teams. And it's not like Ohio, Western Michigan, Marshall, Indiana, Minnesota, etc are SO much better than the WAC teams. GMAB dude. My argument is that the differences aren't as big as you seem to think. Do BCS schools have more talent? Sure. Does that mean they're automatically better teams. Hell no.

No, but those MAC teams are just as good if not better than the bottom tier WAC teams that are conference games for BSU. Next the bottom tier B10 and SEC teams are as good as most of the other teams in that conference. There is a much tougher road for B10 and SEC, B12 teams just playing conference games than BSU has playing in conference and they dont really add much more than opponents as good as the top tier teams in the big conferences when they play OOC games. My point is overall its a much tougher road throughout the season week after week than BSU will ever see playing their current schedule regardless of what the flawed SOS says.

[RockRaines]

WTF are you even arguing? Are we arguing that Boise has more talent, player for player, as any of these big conference schools? Is that what we are all supposed to be cheering for? You keep bringing up size and quantity of NFL prospects, as if that is what we should be judging these teams on, rather than their ability to play the game of football. I could care less about whether or not Ohio State has more NFL prospects than Boise. I can care less what the average size of their offensive lines are. All I care about is who plays the game of football the best. Why the hell even bother to play the games if we're going to measure by the criteria you continue to bring up? Oh, and btw, more than half of TCU's starting defense will probably play in the NFL, so should they be ranked higher than Auburn? Because I can guarantee you TCU will send more players from this class to the NFL than Auburn will.

 

Secondly, this is not a "woe is Boise" argument. Not ONE f***ing person has argued that Boise should be playing for a championship, or even in a BCS bowl. What is being argued is that the loss to Nevada does not prove they aren't a good enough team to deserve a shot, had they not lost to Nevada.

Actually yes, there has been an argument that Boise should be going to a BCS bowl, read above.

 

And you keep going back on which "team" plays football better. My point is that 6-6 teams in the WAC vs 6-6 teams in larger conferences are not the same quality of opponent regardless of record. This is clearly seen in the quality of players on those teams that make up the opponent. Its easy for smaller schools to run through their conferences because of a system or because of one or two standout players, in larger conferences those talent and scheme matchups become less of an advantage because of increased level of talent. If you dont think thats important than thats your prerogative. I've seen it first hand when my Redhawks DOMINATED their opponents for the most part in 2003 including a very good Louisville team in a bowl game because of their scheme and a standout QB, however their one loss that season was to a much more physically dominating team in Iowa. If you dont think a talent difference means anything in football, well then there is nothing I can say that you will take seriously.

 

And you really think half of TCU's defense will play in the NFL? They have 11 alumni in the NFL at the moment, you are projecting a 50 percent increase in that number on defensive players alone? I'll go with Auburn and take that bet.

[iamshack]

No, but those MAC teams are just as good if not better than the bottom tier WAC teams that are conference games for BSU. Next the bottom tier B10 and SEC teams are as good as most of the other teams in that conference. There is a much tougher road for B10 and SEC, B12 teams just playing conference games than BSU has playing in conference and they dont really add much more than opponents as good as the top tier teams in the big conferences when they play OOC games. My point is overall its a much tougher road throughout the season week after week than BSU will ever see playing their current schedule regardless of what the flawed SOS says.

So basically, what you and others are going to argue, is that no matter the data presents, no matter what actual mathematical formulas and statistics we present which state that schools like Boise and TCU can hack it against the best football programs in the country, you are going to respond that they are "flawed" because your eyes tell you otherwise?

 

Because their uniforms happen to say Indiana on them instead of Fresno State, and you see them on Saturday mornings getting their asses kicked by the likes of mediocre Penn State teams, and you don't see Fresno State playing solid football, because you are in a bar drunk with your fraternity brothers by then, that we should just buy your argument?

 

That because some of these power conference schools get the leftover athletes from bigger high school programs in bigger football regions, guys that have shown up on the top 50 recruiting lists at their positions instead of lesser known players from small towns out west, that they must be better, stronger programs simply by default.

 

That because they go 3-5 in their conference play or 2-6, but beat Morehead State and Delaware Tech and finish 6-5 and are bowl eligible, they must indeed be better than teams from lesser conferences that finish 9-3.

 

Ok then.

[iamshack]

Actually yes, there has been an argument that Boise should be going to a BCS bowl, read above.

 

And you keep going back on which "team" plays football better. My point is that 6-6 teams in the WAC vs 6-6 teams in larger conferences are not the same quality of opponent regardless of record. This is clearly seen in the quality of players on those teams that make up the opponent. Its easy for smaller schools to run through their conferences because of a system or because of one or two standout players, in larger conferences those talent and scheme matchups become less of an advantage because of increased level of talent. If you dont think thats important than thats your prerogative. I've seen it first hand when my Redhawks DOMINATED their opponents for the most part in 2003 including a very good Louisville team in a bowl game because of their scheme and a standout QB, however their one loss that season was to a much more physically dominating team in Iowa. If you dont think a talent difference means anything in football, well then there is nothing I can say that you will take seriously.

 

And you really think half of TCU's defense will play in the NFL? They have 11 alumni in the NFL at the moment, you are projecting a 50 percent increase in that number on defensive players alone? I'll go with Auburn and take that bet.

 

I'm not saying that teams from bigger conferences don't have the ability to beat teams from lesser conferences. I'm saying that the time has come and gone for people to outright dismiss good teams from bad conferences on the basis of their conference schedule. You must take things on a case by case basis, which is all that the Boise supporters in this thread are asking for. Instead, you're outright dismissing them, and claiming the loss to Nevada is all the proof you need. Well that's just pure bulls***, and you honestly haven't been able to dispute the data except with nonsensical outdated arguments and dismissing the data by claiming it is "flawed."

 

As for TCU, ask Mel Kiper Jr, Rock. TCU's defense is absolutely loaded with NFL prospects. Auburn, on the other hand, is pretty damn mediocre with the exception of Cam Newton.

[Balta1701]

As for TCU, ask Mel Kiper Jr, Rock. TCU's defense is absolutely loaded with NFL prospects. Auburn, on the other hand, is pretty damn mediocre with the exception of Cam Newton.

So, one of Mel Kiper's "Agent Friends" has the in at TCU?

[RockRaines]

So basically, what you and others are going to argue, is that no matter the data presents, no matter what actual mathematical formulas and statistics we present which state that schools like Boise and TCU can hack it against the best football programs in the country, you are going to respond that they are "flawed" because your eyes tell you otherwise?

 

Because their uniforms happen to say Indiana on them instead of Fresno State, and you see them on Saturday mornings getting their asses kicked by the likes of mediocre Penn State teams, and you don't see Fresno State playing solid football, because you are in a bar drunk with your fraternity brothers by then, that we should just buy your argument?

 

That because some of these power conference schools get the leftover athletes from bigger high school programs in bigger football regions, guys that have shown up on the top 50 recruiting lists at their positions instead of lesser known players from small towns out west, that they must be better, stronger programs simply by default.

 

That because they go 3-5 in their conference play or 2-6, but beat Morehead State and Delaware Tech and finish 6-5 and are bowl eligible, they must indeed be better than teams from lesser conferences that finish 9-3.

 

Ok then.

Wow, no need to get personal. Maybe if you and your small school lovers werent too busy sitting on the curb drinking your vodka out of paper bags.........

 

 

FYI, I went to a small school, I've watched more MAC football than most people on this board.

 

You clearly dont understand my argument. And I still havent seen your statistical analysis except for SOS which is universally known as a flawed statistic. And by no count am I saying that BSU and TCU cannot compete with other large programs across the country, this is what you are clearly misunderstanding. I am simply pointing out that week in and week out the players and teams they face in conference arent as tough as schools with similar records in the B10 or SEC, which SOS doesnt completely factor in. And the fact that you completely discount the difference in the quality of players clearly shown by both recruiting rankings (also flawed) and the number of NFL players currently playing from those schools. The schemes and "team" aspect of a team goes a long way in the quality of the program, but at some point there is a talent gap at the player level that has to be taken into account on the differences between playing a WAC schedule and playing an SEC schedule regardless of the record of the teams they play. If you have a mathematical formula that tells me that Louisiana Tech is the same quality team as a team with a similar record in the B10 such as Illinois then I would love to see it. I will tell you that if they have the same record I look at the quality of players in that program to show me how they play, with what speed and physicality to determine who i think is best. I am lucky enough to have several family members who played at one of the best college football programs in the country in Mount Union and I can empirically say they could stick with several bigger schools during a one game contest, but over the course of the season, the talent level and size difference would really take its toll.

 

And since I am clearly striking a nerve with you, I'll back off this subject moving forward.

[iamshack]

Wow, no need to get personal. Maybe if you and your small school lovers werent too busy sitting on the curb drinking your vodka out of paper bags.........

 

 

FYI, I went to a small school, I've watched more MAC football than most people on this board.

 

You clearly dont understand my argument. And I still havent seen your statistical analysis except for SOS which is universally known as a flawed statistic. And by no count am I saying that BSU and TCU cannot compete with other large programs across the country, this is what you are clearly misunderstanding. I am simply pointing out that week in and week out the players and teams they face in conference arent as tough as schools with similar records in the B10 or SEC, which SOS doesnt completely factor in. And the fact that you completely discount the difference in the quality of players clearly shown by both recruiting rankings (also flawed) and the number of NFL players currently playing from those schools. The schemes and "team" aspect of a team goes a long way in the quality of the program, but at some point there is a talent gap at the player level that has to be taken into account on the differences between playing a WAC schedule and playing an SEC schedule regardless of the record of the teams they play. If you have a mathematical formula that tells me that Louisiana Tech is the same quality team as a team with a similar record in the B10 such as Illinois then I would love to see it. I will tell you that if they have the same record I look at the quality of players in that program to show me how they play, with what speed and physicality to determine who i think is best. I am lucky enough to have several family members who played at one of the best college football programs in the country in Mount Union and I can empirically say they could stick with several bigger schools during a one game contest, but over the course of the season, the talent level and size difference would really take its toll.

 

And since I am clearly striking a nerve with you, I'll back off this subject moving forward.

 

I wasn't taking a personal shot at you. I'm pointing out the huge disadvantage the schools out west have because they are simply not viewed nearly as much because of their game times. That has been proven. Most young rabid college football fans are partying by the time schools like Boise or Fresno or Hawaii are playing, and thus have no idea how talented they are. Do you know how difficult it is, btw, to go into Hawaii and beat them?

 

Secondly, I can present BCS rankings data. Is that not good enough for you?

 

Thirdly, college football, as a game in and of itself, is entirely different from many of the arguments you're making about NFL prospects, recruits, etc. Don't confuse success in the game of college football with the potential of the players to succeed in the NFL. Those are two entirely different concepts with entirely different criteria from which to measure.

 

I think we are basically on the same page, Rock. I understand what you are saying about power conferences. I think we are just sort of confusing what the argument is about a bit.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

For the record I'm a huge Big Ten fan (Illinois) but still don't understand why people think a team like Northwestern is better than a team like Boise simply because they lose to "better" teams in a better conference.

 

I'm also not calling for Boise to get an automatic BCS bid. I'm saying they should be in the discussion. After the Nevada loss people basically are giving them a mediocre bowl bid, which is ridiculous IMO.

[Jenksismyhero]

Wow, no need to get personal. Maybe if you and your small school lovers werent too busy sitting on the curb drinking your vodka out of paper bags.........

 

 

FYI, I went to a small school, I've watched more MAC football than most people on this board.

 

You clearly dont understand my argument. And I still havent seen your statistical analysis except for SOS which is universally known as a flawed statistic. And by no count am I saying that BSU and TCU cannot compete with other large programs across the country, this is what you are clearly misunderstanding. I am simply pointing out that week in and week out the players and teams they face in conference arent as tough as schools with similar records in the B10 or SEC, which SOS doesnt completely factor in. And the fact that you completely discount the difference in the quality of players clearly shown by both recruiting rankings (also flawed) and the number of NFL players currently playing from those schools. The schemes and "team" aspect of a team goes a long way in the quality of the program, but at some point there is a talent gap at the player level that has to be taken into account on the differences between playing a WAC schedule and playing an SEC schedule regardless of the record of the teams they play. If you have a mathematical formula that tells me that Louisiana Tech is the same quality team as a team with a similar record in the B10 such as Illinois then I would love to see it. I will tell you that if they have the same record I look at the quality of players in that program to show me how they play, with what speed and physicality to determine who i think is best. I am lucky enough to have several family members who played at one of the best college football programs in the country in Mount Union and I can empirically say they could stick with several bigger schools during a one game contest, but over the course of the season, the talent level and size difference would really take its toll.

 

And since I am clearly striking a nerve with you, I'll back off this subject moving forward.

 

Frankly, this entire argument is irrelevant. We're not debating who would win in a 10 game series. We're saying based on the results of the games that were played, who has proven themselves more?

 

[zenryan]

For the record I'm a huge Big Ten fan (Illinois) but still don't understand why people think a team like Northwestern is better than a team like Boise simply because they lose to "better" teams in a better conference.

 

I'm also not calling for Boise to get an automatic BCS bid. I'm saying they should be in the discussion. After the Nevada loss people basically are giving them a mediocre bowl bid, which is ridiculous IMO.

 

 

 

 

Who said Northwestern is better than Boise?

 

 

If that is what you've walked away with after all the discussion about this topic then it is really pointless to discuss this further.

 

 

 

I'll try to make it brief since I dont have the energy to get into a long discussion right now.

 

Boise plays in a conference where for 7 games they place a "C" game and win. If a team like Ohio St,Iowa,Wisconsin plays a "C" game vs an Illinois,Northwestern,Purdue then they probably lose.

 

Boise plays in a conference where they dont have to worry about sleep walking for 3 quarters and then realize they are in a dogfight for the final 15 minutes.

 

 

I remember a Miami game in 2002(season they lost to OSU) and Ken Dorsey was playing with a broken hand(non throwing) and they were at a 1-7 Rutgers team. The game was 17-14 Rutgers going into the 4th quarter. Miami won 42-17. Boise never has to worry about not showing up for a game and being in danger of losing to a bottom feeder in the WAC. That cant be said for top teams in major conferences.