After all the hubbub last week that Boise State was going to be No. 1 in the BCS Standings, the Broncos promptly checked in at No. 3 in the first official release. Despite a 48-0 victory over San Jose State, they dropped two spots, behind Oklahoma and Oregon.
So is there a conspiracy against the Broncos?
The answer, surprisingly, is no.
Boise State's "fall" has much more to do with Ohio State and Nebraska losing than anything else. Oklahoma was the strongest team in the computer rankings in the standings last week, and what held the Sooners back was their placement in the human polls. With two teams ahead of them losing, they naturally moved up (two and three spots, respectively, in the Harris and coaches polls). And their computer ratings were enough to make up the human poll deficit and get them to No. 1 this week.
The Broncos also fell .0023 points behind Oregon, an infinitesimal gap. A swing of one spot by one of the computers would be enough to move them past the Ducks. They were hurt, in this area, by the weakness of their opponent San Jose State - not a ton, but just enough.
Overall, though, it has been a good week for the Broncos. Despite falling to No. 3 in the BCS standings, the really important development for Chris Petersen's gang is that it's now a solid No. 2 in both of the polls that matter in the BCS. There had been much speculation that the voters would be unwilling to let Boise State break the glass ceiling, purportedly at No. 3. This week's polls dispelled that myth.
Besides, the Broncos' 48-0 victory in San Jose actually offered an important comparison. Alabama beat the same Spartans team, at home, 48-3. With their strength of schedule continuing to be an issue as they get into conference play, every bit of favorable common opponent comparison helps, particularly with the voters.
All that said, the Broncos should take absolutely nothing for granted and they by no means control their own destiny. They need to continue to win impressively and in the meantime hope for their BCS conference rivals to lose games along the way. As I noted in last week's post, since the formula was last "fixed" in 2004, no team finishing first or second in the final polls has failed to play in the BCS title game.
This year will not be different. That's why this week's standings actually brought good news for the Broncos.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
No, Boise did not get screwed. Give Boise's schedule to Oklahoma, Oregon, Alabama, heck...Texas or Nebraska and they'd be undefeated too. Can you imagine if one of the teams I mentioned went independent and set up a schedule like that so they'd coast right into the national championship? What a joke. It's almost like cheating with a schedule like that.
Hey, since Boise State is leaving the WAC there are spots open. I'm sure that if Oklahoma, Oregon, Alabama, Texas or anyone else with half a pulse expressed interest they'd get an invite tomorrow. If you think being in the WAC is such an advantage join up!
But beyond that Oklahoma (for example) did play Utah State (from the WAC) and beat them by merely 7 points at Oklahoma. Alabama did play San Jose State (WAC) and won 48-3 at Alabama. Meanwhile, Boise State played SJSU on the road and still won 48-0 (and while Alabama had to score 17 points in the second half to make their spread Boise State took their foot off the gas after only 7 points in the second half). And I'll bet Boise State beats Utah State by a whole heck of a lot more than 7 points. Lets see who does better against Oregon State - Boise State or Oregon.
I don't think you could say what would happen if Boise had Alabama's schedule or Texas's or Oklahoma's or Oregon's. But I'd bet Boise State would do better than those "superior" teams have been doing. They have been against common opponents so far.
One can not compare the scores of Boise State and Alabama against San Jose State. Once the game is not in doubt, Boise State will not run up the score. Sportmanship is more important that BSC style points. If Coach Peterson had not taken the starts out at half time, the score for the San Jose State game would have been 80 to 0.
Also, how many times does BSU need to beat Oregon?
Seems the good ole boys at the BCS want to keep BSU down on the farm. In my book BSU is #1 until someone beats them.
Hey anonymous: Boise State will actually have to play someone before someone can beat them.
The "Boise doesn't play anyone" crowd makes it hard to be a college football fan. Yeah, duh if Boise played Alabama's schedule they'd have a harder time going undefeated than they do in the WAC, but the Pac10 isn't going to offer admission anytime soon. Boise schedules whoever they can get, this isn't some strategy to beat the game on the part of the Broncos. They'd love to play Alabama's schedule. The big question is, why don't the Alabamas and Ohio St.s of the world schedule Boise? If you want to talk about using the schedule to cheat your way into a national title why not bring up Ohio St., which was ranked #1 last week despite having the 99th best nonconference schedule in the country. That's 4 free wins, and they get to schedule those games themselves. Even better, why not clamp down on the Kentucky's of the world who schedule such light out of conference fare that last year they went 3-5 in conference, but 8-5 overall and went to a bowl game. Broncos are a victim of being a late player in the game. Teams like Ohio St and Kentucky are the ones cheating.
The other thing I would encourage people to do is compare the box scores between SJSU's games with Alabama, Wisconsin, and Utah and the SJSU/BSU game. Offensively, BSU did as well as any of these other opponents did, and defensively, BSU had a far superior showing. Plus, BSU played SJSU at home, while these other teams had games at home. BSU does have a weaker schedule, to be sure. But there are ways to compare.
Against BSU, SJSU had 8 yards total offense in the entire first half while its first string was still in. 8 yards! BSU averaged more than that (10.6) on every play. Alabama, Wisconsin, and Utah didn't even come close to being that dominant on defense.
Of course Boise State and TCU got screwed, its meant to be that way with the inane, vapid and ridiculous BCS system. The major networks that paid millions of dollars to televise BCS match ups don't want to lose there market share. The adage of "always follow the money" is the real reason why we are in this stupid system. Have a play-off, forget who beat whom and by how many points. As Frank Beamer said after getting beat by Boise State at FedEx field in Landover, Maryland (with 85,000 VT fans) earlier this year, "the coaches I talked to said playing Boise State was a lose/lose." Sorry Frank, it was a lose, lose, lose scenario. Nobody, but nobody, will play Boise State on a home and home basis. Why should Boise State agree to play other teams on their home team without reciprocity?? Have a playoff, dump the BCS. It is a crummy system designed to keep the fat cats fat!
Yes, Boise St. got screwed. And guess what they will continue to get screwed, just like TCU and Utah. Granted Utah has been up and down the past few years. But Boise and TCU have been the cream of the crop. I agree none of the "big boys" will play TCU or Boise. Why? Because they know it is a loss. Because Peterson and Patterson are the "best" coaches in the game right now. Look a Florida, Tebows gone and they loss 3 straight. Meyer can't coach. Take the top 8 in the final BCS poll and have a playoff. Lets see who is the best team. Boise beat Oklahoma a few years ago. They beat Oregon last year. Lets just let the "fat cats" get fat and die.
No, Boise State did not get "screwed." Let's handle each of these claims one at a time.
1) The braggadocio from the BSU fans is hilarious. Comments like "if team X had half a pulse they'd" invite BSU to play. No they won't. It is a WELL ESTABLISHED FACT that Boise only agrees to home and home - and no team is going to that 30,000 seat dump when they can pack in 100,000 fans. Last year Boise said they were dropping their "home and home" demand - and then demanded a million bucks to come to Nebraska. Boise has to follow in FSU's footsetps and play in disadvantageous positions. Otherwise, it's nothing but whining.
2) Everyone KNOWS you cannot use the transitive property to compare teams. Saying that because Boise beat San Jose by more points than Alabama that that makes them better is a proven farce. Oklahoma beat Texas Tech in 2008 by a bunch of points; Tech beat Texas. Using Boise logic OU beat Texas - except, of course, they lost by ten points. So much for that dumb argument.
3) One anonymous poster brings out "Hey, Boise beat Oregon twice." Hmm - they also lost to TCU TWICE, didn't they? But I don't see any Boise fans saying TCU should be ranked higher. Now - I'm sure the argument will be "but Boise beat them the last time they played." But fact is the Broncos still have a losing record against TCU and both are unbeaten. So TCU should be higher - if you want to bring in prior years.
4) Re: Zach Denver: I don't see Boise calling Alabama up - do you? Mal Moore said right after BSU's AD shot his mouth off that Boise has not called Alabama. That's a two-way street.
5) As already noted comparing the box scores of what a team did against San Jose State is a dumb argument. Drop it, folks, you're only embarrassing yourselves. Care to compare Boise's record against the SEC?
6) In answer to the Boise whining about the home and home - hey folks, build a stadium that makes money. One would think if you're THAT good (you got money from playing in some recent BCS bowls did you not?) you could upgrade that dump. Boise would not schedule a home and home with a college that only seated 1200 fans - they have no business demanding it of others, either.
7) Also - spare me the garbage of how Boise does in isolated games. "We beat Oklahoma!" Sure you did - after you had a month to prepare for ONE GAME that meant nothing to them and everything to you. "We beat Oregon!" Sure - but you only play them (and Va Tech) with EIGHT MONTHS to prepare in the openers.
Nobody denies that Boise can hang with most teams in ONE GAME they have to get up for. But Boise would not have gone through Arkansas-Florida-South Carolina (with two on the road) unbeaten, either. If they think they would - let them schedule such games.
No, Butler did not get screwed. Give Butler's schedule to Duke, Michigan State, Kansas State, Syracuse and they'd be undefeated too. Can you imagine if one of the teams I mentioned went independent and set up a schedule like that so they'd coast right into the Final Four? What a joke. It's almost cheating with a schedule like that.
And by the way - if we're going of PAST PERFORMANCE (as the Boise fans want to do) then shouldn't UTAH be ranked ahead of both Boise and TCU? I'm sure now the Boise fans will suddenly object, "Well, Boise has played a tougher schedule." Funny - they don't look at it that way any other time.
Boise State is a mediocre, mid-level nothing that won one big game on a big stage - a game they only got to because of the Big Ten thinking they're entitled to the Rose Bowl (consequently - an added game).
If schedule doesn't matter then we need to retroactively reward Tulane the 1998 championship, but I don't hear any Boise fans clamoring for that. Hawaii should have played for the title in 2007. Of course, they were exposed as frauds as well via Georgia (just as BSU was in 2005).
Sorry, but Boise should not even be in the top ten football teams in college ball.
(Georgia over Boise State 2005, Georgia over Hawaii, 2007) = Boise State and Hawaii exposed as "frauds".
Other way around? (Utah over Pittsburgh, 2004, Boise State over Oklahoma, 2006, Utah over Alabama, 2008) A "fluke."
Yeah, got it.
Here's the quote:
=========
(Georgia over Boise State 2005, Georgia over Hawaii, 2007) = Boise State and Hawaii exposed as "frauds".
Other way around? (Utah over Pittsburgh, 2004, Boise State over Oklahoma, 2006, Utah over Alabama, 2008) A "fluke."
=============
No, you didn't get it. CLEARLY you didn't get it.
1) I didn't say those wins were 'flukes.' Please show me where I did.
2) What I DID say - and stand beside - is that Boise plays a carefully crafted schedule that always allots them plenty of time to focus on the one good team they play per year.
3) TWO of those three you cite were Utah, which has nothing to do with this issue about Boise.
Let's take these 2 ignorant comments as well:
1) Boise State played SJSU on the road and still won 48-0 (and while Alabama had to score 17 points in the second half to make their spread Boise State took their foot off the gas after only 7 points in the second half).
2) One can not compare the scores of Boise State and Alabama against San Jose State. Once the game is not in doubt, Boise State will not run up the score. Sportmanship is more important that BSC style points. If Coach Peterson had not taken the starts out at half time, the score for the San Jose State game would have been 80 to 0.
==================
What this shows is the lack of even basic knowledge that Boise fans have of other teams. Aside from the flawed comparison of "we beat team B by more points," the people writing this stuff apparently didn't watch the Alabama-SJSU game they're commenting on.
1) Alabama benched its starting QB in the 2nd quarter with a 21-3 lead.
2) Alabama benched its entire starting squad at halftime with a 31-3 lead.
3) Those 17 second-half points were compiled by a 2nd-string QB and a third-string running back.
4) Alabama was missing its best offensive (Mark Ingram) and defensive (Marcel Dareus) players.
5) If you're going to use the "we're undefeated and beat SJSU by more points" argument then why aren't you clamoring for Utah to be number one? Utah beat SJSU by 53 points, more than either Alabama or BSU.
6) Why did the poster first say you couldn't compare the scores of Boise and Alabama - and then turn right around and show he knew nothing about the Alabama-SJSU game and when the starters were pulled?
And then there's this insanity:
=============
The big question is, why don't the Alabamas and Ohio St.s of the world schedule Boise?
=============
RE: Because it's a well-established fact that nobody is going to that Smurf dump that only seats 30,000 people. And so Boise then demands a million bucks for a game (like they did with Nebraska). The big schools come calling and Boise starts throwing out new demands.
Championship teams don't do that.
====================
If you want to talk about using the schedule to cheat your way into a national title why not bring up Ohio St., which was ranked #1 last week despite having the 99th best nonconference schedule in the country.
=========================
REPLY:
At the time you're talking, yes. Except you're ignoring the fact that they actually do have to play decent teams.
What's funny is you don't apply this argument evenly. First you folks want to say "schedule doesn't matter" and then you complain about the schedule of a team who's rated higher. Trust me, by the end of the season Ohio State's schedule will make Boise's pale in comparison.
=============
That's 4 free wins, and they get to schedule those games themselves.
=============
REPLY:
1) You mean like Boise does when they schedule Toledo and Idaho?
2) You conveniently ignore that Ohio State played Miami. Sure, the Hurricanes aren't that good this year but how was Ohio State supposed to know that five years ago when the game was scheduled? In recent years the Buckeyes have played USC twice and Texas twice (plus a bowl game against Texas) and played Washington on the road. Their record in six games is 3-3. I suspect Boise's would not be any better and probably worse. Keep in mind that I hate Ohio State, but you brought up the argument.
Help me understand this statement:
"Because it's a well-established fact that nobody is going to that Smurf dump that only seats 30,000 people."
Are you saying that no BCS school will play an away game with a school which has 30K or fewer seats? Or is it just Idaho schools with 30K or less? I think your reasoning is a bit flawed as a quick check of most of the BCS team schedules involve visits to schools with less than 30K seating. It does make the point though, this is about money not the sport. Very simple solution, lets do a tournament, top 8 schools, you beat Boise end of arguement, you lose then start making excuses how they were just too prepared and that is unfair...
As an Auburn fan, I have a hard time feeling sorry for BSU when the weak schedule thing gets thrown around. AU won four games against teams who were in the top 10 at game time and got left out due to, as the media put it, "a weak schedule because they played the Citadel as an OOC." Nevermind that they played more top 10 and more top 25 teams than OU or USC and won in more convincing fashion (only trailing twice the entire season, vice 4 for OU and 6 for USC).
I'm over 2004, but BSU is going to have to realize that if the media doesn't want you in, they'll find a way to keep you out. I'd be willing to bet that AU is #1 in the BCS when it comes out this evening, and the media is already hyping the shit out of the Iron Bowl. Should a #3-#6Bama beat Auburn (assuming AU runs the table to that point), watch them jump the undefeated midmajors and play UO. I'm not saying its right...it sucks, I've been in your shoes. I would just tone down the chest-thumping bravado, because it only makes you guys look like jerks while simultaneously having no impact of your fate. BSU is already an alienating topic, and the fans are only making it worse. I wouldn't be able to stand you guys if it weren't for my closest friend having been a former football player up there.
Best of luck to the Broncos going forward. War Eagle.
To all the people saying "Well Established Fact" that Boise requires home and home is flat out wrong! http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-boise110709
They have offered to play any major opponent with no return date to Idaho. They would like to join the Big 12, but can't even get an offer to play in their league.
Do I think that Bama and Auburn have tougher schedules? Yes. Is an undefeated season by them more impressive? Yes. However, after 4 years (assuming an undefeated season this year) of undefeated seasons, it gets annoying that they don't get a shot in championship game. As long as they don't play a big opponent in a bowl, the longer the talk will go on. It'd be nice to give them a chance to put up or shut up.
yeah ass for a hat 2 post down, your right BSU deserves a #1 ranking, about as much as you deserve a boot to the head. I know you didnt really just compare Oregon, Oklahoma, and Bama's Schedule to that of BSU's. Because you would have to be high and or retarded to believe that statement! Teams that play 3 games followed by 9 bye weeks(San Jose St, Fresno St, Hawaii...) don't have the same strength of schedule. And If your wondering why big confrence teams have no desire to join a weak confrence like the WAC Or Mountain west, It's because they are weak and they don't make money!!! BSU didnt get screwed, they lucked out being where they are, theyre good but good in a pathetic confrence. They don't play real teams week in week out. There are high school teams that could give WAC teams a run for there money. I just dont know why mid major fans don't get it. There's a reason that you have no automatic BCS bids people!!!
====================
Help me understand this statement:
"Because it's a well-established fact that nobody is going to that Smurf dump that only seats 30,000 people."
Are you saying that no BCS school will play an away game with a school which has 30K or fewer seats?
============================
No, I'm saying it all comes down to economics. And Boise would not do any different. Let's say you're Florida. You can play FIU at home and sell out the stadium to however many thousand you have (I'm not looking it up but it's huge).
OR...
You can go play Boise in a 30,000 seat dump. The first one guarantees you money and all but guarantees you win; the second one you not only lose a ton of money but you might lose the game.
Which would you do?
========================
Or is it just Idaho schools with 30K or less? I think your reasoning is a bit flawed as a quick check of most of the BCS team schedules involve visits to schools with less than 30K seating.
=========================
OK, who in the SEC seats less than 30,000 people? And who - other than Vandy - is forced to play in such small venues?
Keep in mind - a bus ticket for a five-hour ride is a whole lot cheaper than a plane flight to Boise.
It's all about the money.
@Mike H
=================
To all the people saying "Well Established Fact" that Boise requires home and home is flat out wrong! http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-boise110709
=====================
REPLY:
Two points:
1) This is recent news.
2) The poster didn't bother to mention that Boise's NEW chicken way out is to demand a million dollars for a game.
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/09/assistant-nebraska-ad-boise-wanted-1-million-to-play-us/
You CANNOT say you're a big deal and expect to get paid cupcake money. Decide if you're good or not and stick with it.
======================
They have offered to play any major opponent with no return date to Idaho.
=====================
REPLY:
Yes. For a MILLION DOLLARS they have. Don't try to con us, Mike.
========================
They would like to join the Big 12, but can't even get an offer to play in their league.
========================
REPLY:
So? Why should the Big 12 let them in?
=================
Do I think that Bama and Auburn have tougher schedules? Yes. Is an undefeated season by them more impressive? Yes. However, after 4 years (assuming an undefeated season this year) of undefeated seasons, it gets annoying that they don't get a shot in championship game.
========================
REPLY:
Go talk to Penn State about that.
=============================
As long as they don't play a big opponent in a bowl, the longer the talk will go on. It'd be nice to give them a chance to put up or shut up.
============================
REPLY:
Uh, no. Another poster has COMPLETELY missed the issue. The issue is NOT whether Boise can get up with one month to prepare and beat a big-name team. They've done that (but then again so has Utah yet no Boise fan ever thinks Utah should be ranked higher, do they?).
No. It's a simple question of the accumulation of games. Boise plays a tough opponent in the first game - eight months to get ready for that one big game. Now, I'm sure the counter is to say, "But the opponent has 8 months, too." Yes, but the opponent also has to consider the later games that will win its particular conference. Everybody but Boise actually plays a decent foe later in the year.
Boise learned that the hard way in 2005 - which was the last time they had much trouble. They played 2 big name opponents on the road back-to-back - Georgia and Oregon State. They got slammed the first game and barely lost the 2nd to a mediocre OSU team. Boise then vowed that never again would they schedule two tough road opponents in a row. And they haven't. I would argue they haven't played two DECENT opponents in a row since then, either - in consecutive weeks anyway.
I'm going to close my comments with one point - why do Boise State fans think they should be ranked ahead of Utah?
Seriously.
Post a Comment