AFA @ Boise

[WizardHawk]

And seriously, what is the deal with BSU's mascots? They have a bronco and a giant potato. Thought I was having an acid flashback when I saw that thing for a moment.

 

[Boise4Life]

If those experts who rank football teams were perfect there would only need to be one. They don't all agree and often are at great odds. That means by default it is an opinion and nothing that resembles fact. That someone has to tell you this (yet again) is sad and says a lot more about your understanding than what you are raising in questions about mine.

The fact is moving to an AQ would take pretty much any program down at least a peg and for some of the reasons I have already mentioned. We don't need pollsters to tell us their opinion on that as we have the facts of actual history to tell us so. We also have logic to guide us that real injuries will happen far more facing the size and speed of AQ teams than the fluff they came from and they will develop their young talent far less in live games because 70-3 games are far less frequent in conference games in those AQ conferences.

Sorry if you need to keep on fooling yourself with spin because you can't face real facts, but I'll not enable your denial. Just won't do it.

The facts are that TCU finished #6 in 2009 and #2 in 2010 after two BCS bowl appearances and Utah finished #4 in 2004 and #2 in 2008 after two BCS bowl victories. That's not my opinion. That's the truth. Those were damn good teams, way better than the current ones at each respective school. That's my whole point. I agree in that the Pac 12 is brutal for Utah. The Big 12 is obviously a big step up for TCU as well. Let's face it though. Both teams aren't anywhere near as good as those BCS winning versions of them were.

 

[WizardHawk]

And they aren't as good because they moved up. That's the point you guys never seem to recon with. We get it. You can't admit that because it would fly in the face of your dreams of taking the mighty blue up to an AQ and winning the conference in the first year. It simply isn't going to happen so deal with that and maybe you can have a real discussion after.

 

[Boise4Life]

And they aren't as good because they moved up. That's the point you guys never seem to recon with. We get it. You can't admit that because it would fly in the face of your dreams of taking the mighty blue up to an AQ and winning the conference in the first year. It simply isn't going to happen so deal with that and maybe you can have a real discussion after.

No that isn't the reason. As I've said these two teams aren't nearly as talented as they were in their BCS seasons. Maybe they'll never get back to that level. Those were special football teams regardless of the fact that they played in the MWC. Did you watch them? And look at the final rankings and the BCS bowl results.

Lastly, when did I ever say Boise would win an AQ conference in year one? That would be about as foolish as it possibly gets. Don't put words in my mouth. This year's Boise team would probably be anywhere from fifth to seventh place overall in the Pac 12 team at best this season. We suck this year. I'll be the first to stand up and admit that.

 

[Black Belt Disciple]

b4l, how many times do we have to go over this? When you don't risk injury over the course of a season you are way more fresh for your bowl game than those who do risk injury. That is a fact. Also with all the cupcakes those great TCU and Utah teams played they had the advantage of giving real game time to developing players. Something most AQ's do far far less often. There are many reasons why mid-majors doing great in that role and dropping when they reach AQ is the norm.

^^^^^THIS

 

[Berkeley_Blues]

Hmmm, Boise State, Utah and TCU are 4 - 0 in BCS Bowls against Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Pitt and Alabama.

I guess some of the AQ Shit_Talkers forget that, huh?

 

[WizardHawk]

and yet you blew out another conference opponent tonight. That's the point. Those teams you ask if others saw also blew out conference opponents only they got up for their one or two other games better than yours did this year. That's all those polls you hold so dearly have to go on. I've been telling you for a very long time I think EVERY mid major is grossly overrated and I couldn't care less what you think about that opinion. BYU should NOT have been crowned champs in '84 and I watched that team along with everyone else back then. They weren't even a top 10 team ffs and didn't play or beat a single ranked team. Were all of those pollsters 100% correct? If you say yes you are nothing but a total retard and this conversation if finished. If you say no then your rants about those polls meaning anything is bullshit and should be dropped in favor of real points.

 

[Berkeley_Blues]

Nice win tonight, Broncos.

Petersen is coaching up this very, very young team quite nicely.

Watch out towards the end of the season!!

 

[Boise4Life]

Hmmm, Boise State, Utah and TCU are 4 - 0 in BCS Bowls against Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Pitt and Alabama.

I guess some of the AQ Shit_Talkers forget that, huh?

Those weren't weak opponents going in either. Oklahoma was #7, Wisconsin was #5, Pitt (clearly the worst) was #18, and Alabama was #4.

 

[WizardHawk]

again, no one questions if those teams won. We all saw it. The question is was their road there equal and fair compared to other teams and did they have an advantage in those games over the teams they played and the answer is yes. for the reasons I already gave.

 

[HuskerOC]

Kansas 2007

If you want the perfect example of a team that is non-AQ level that caught fire for a single season, then look no further than Kansas 2007.

2007 Kansas Schedule: (Final records in parentheses for that year)

Central Michigan (3-9) : W
SE-Louisiana (5-7): W
Toledo (5-7): W
Florida International (1-11): W
@ K-State (5-7): W
Baylor: (3-9): W
@ Colorado (6-7): W
@ Texas A&M: (7-6): W
Nebraska: (5-7): W
@ Oklahoma State (7-6): W
Iowa State (3-9):W
Missouri (12-2): L

Bowl Game:
Virginia Tech: (11-3) W

Previous year record for Kansas was (6-6). The year after record in 2008 returning 14 starters (8-5).

The reality is a team can get on roll playing weak/down competition. Confidence means a ton more than pure athletic talent in many a number of situations. But when all was said and done, that 2007 Kansas team was good, but far from being a legit Top 10 team. Their schedule was so pathetic that they were able to win a lot of games.

All told, Kansas beat 2 teams with a winning record prior to Virginia Tech in the Orange Bowl. 2 teams that had won 7 games at the end of the season. Teams that were likely well more than .500 against non-AQ competition.

And how did they beat Virginia Tech? It was an ugly game. VT with 3 turnovers and KU with an INT for a TD. Not to mention, the ACC was rather average that year as LSU raped the ACC Champ VT 48-7 earlier in the season.

Thus, none of the AQ conference fans are surprised in the least that teams moving from the non-AQ level to the AQ level are losing and not nearly as competitive as the non-AQ fans said they would be in an AQ conference.

 

[Boise4Life]

again, no one questions if those teams won. We all saw it. The question is was their road there equal and fair compared to other teams and did they have an advantage in those games over the teams they played and the answer is yes. for the reasons I already gave.

Yeah. I'd say it was fair. The two TCU teams I mentioned and the two Utah ones went 48 and 1 collectively (with the only loss being TCU to undefeated Boise in the 2010 Fiesta). They damn well deserved to be there. Pitt came in losing 3 games, Oklahoma 2 games, Bama and Wisky each with a loss, etc. And obviously the results of those BCS games against highly ranked AQs for those particular teams proved that to be true. They absolutely deserved to be there. NIU last year not so much. You have to run the table as a mid-major in my opinion to get that right.

 

[Boise4Life]

Excuse me. Those teams went 51 and 1 not 48 and 1. My bad.

 

[Boise4Life]

They weren't the top teams in the country those particular seasons, but they were damn close to it and that was reflected in their EOY rankings (2, 2, 4, and 6).

 

[WizardHawk]

Would a team that didn't play any games at all have an advantage over a team that had injuries, fatigue, and strains of 12 games going in? If you say no then just change it to also playing 12, but 10 of them being little more than scrimmage games. This just isn't that hard of a concept really. Agree or not it is real.

Were they good teams? Well yeah, they did beat some darned good teams. The question was were the roads to those games even and fair and many would say no. Deal with it.

further it by saying once you do reach an AQ that first year you face those injuries. Ask Utah about their first year in the Pac. They had devastating injuries they never had before. They weren't able to give a soft landing to any of their young kids and the next year they shared more of their recruiting grounds with teams far above them with more history than they ever did before. Those are realities my friend.

 

[WizardHawk]

I know you guys want to argue and debate this, but without new angles there is really no need to continue. All I really hear is they were great, pollsters are always 100% right and to argue with them means you don't know anything, and there are other unrelated reasons why those programs are not the same now. You can't refute the injury statistics of AQ teams, nor can you say they don't get more worn out or are nursing more injuries because the battles they have over the season produce far more of that. You can't deny a fresh team has advantages over a tired and worn out team (ask the SEC why they have cupcakes before rivalry week). And you can't deny there is an expected drop facing those in your first years of moving up to that level. Add that you also give up some of your prior recruiting grounds to your new conference rivals and there is no debate that going AQ hurts. There just isn't.

 

[Black Belt Disciple]

I know you guys want to argue and debate this, but without new angles there is really no need to continue. All I really hear is they were great, pollsters are always 100% right and to argue with them means you don't know anything, and there are other unrelated reasons why those programs are not the same now. You can't refute the injury statistics of AQ teams, nor can you say they don't get more worn out or are nursing more injuries because the battles they have over the season produce far more of that. You can't deny a fresh team has advantages over a tired and worn out team (ask the SEC why they have cupcakes before rivalry week). And you can't deny there is an expected drop facing those in your first years of moving up to that level. Add that you also give up some of your prior recruiting grounds to your new conference rivals and there is no debate that going AQ hurts. There just isn't.

^^^^^again.....this^^^^^^

So what your saying is that if Boise ever got the stones to join the future Pac16, they would get curb stomped for at least 5 years?

 

[Berkeley_Blues]

^^^^^again.....this^^^^^^

So what your saying is that if Boise ever got the stones to join the future Pac16, they would get curb stomped for at least 5 years?

Boise State is 6 - 1 over PAC 12 teams the last 5 years -- with only 1 of those games being played in Boise.

Boise State would do fine in the PAC but the PAC won't likely invite them anytime soon.

(Boise State is already a PAC wrestling school and Boise wins PAC conference wrestling titles)

 

[pitman]

Until we play a full season in a AQ conference we will never know, this year we would be lucky to get 6 wins, In the Moore years I think we could get 10 wins, but Moore is gone. Move on

 

[BamaTee1]

These Mtn WAC teams sure aren't the same since joining big boy conferences.

The week in and week out is just too much for them. Playing against talent each week is different than a non aq conference.

This^^^!!! Nothing else need be said!