[Dr Jkel]

OK, Good point about Oregon, BUT everyone thought Orefon was so much better because of Masoli. Well we see Masoli is not everything he was cracked up to be, if he was then he would have won alot more games at Ole Miss. Oregon is sjowing this year how much better they are without him.

A couple of years ago Oregon was a stud team until Dennis Dixon hurt his knee and they fell apart.

Now as far as Boise goes, sure they can schedule 1 maybe 2 top 25 teams hopefully 1 top 5 team, but when you look at Oklahoma, Alabama, Auburn etc... count how many top 25 teams, top 10 teams they play and it does not compared. That would be like Alabama scheduling pitty patter games and play LSU and Auburn, doesn't compute.

Alabama, Auburn and probably LSU would eat their lunch, it would be over before half time.

I go back to last year when Alabama won it all, who did they play. Sure they ahd 3 games of substandard competition but the others were not. There is no dispute that Florida and Texas were the two best teams in the country when Alabama played and beat them. That is undisputed, who did Boise Play?

Even this year they talk about who Boise played, VT, well VT is having a substandard year, Oregon St- where are they at. When you biggest game left is Nevada, good luck selling that one.

Look at OK, played Fl. St, Texas, Missouri this weekend, probably Nebraska, 4 good teams.

Alabama will play at least, the very least, 3 top ranked teams when they Arkansas, South Carolina, Auburn and LSU, not to mention Penn State and Florida at the time of playing them were highly ranked,

Alabama will probably not go to Arizona, why? South Carolina but I can say this if Alabama is lucky enough to go the rest of the way undefeated, then they deserved a shot over Boise because who they have played.

In all honesty, after last night Oregon looked like a video game. They just wear you down and everyone is placing them in the BCS. Remember when Oklahoma has this fast paced, 50 point a game season and then they played Florida. At that point Florida had the athletes to match OK, so then the hurry up wasn't much of a factor. Same case with Oregon.

Look at history over just the last few season. Texas, starter 45-2, all world QB, gets hit Texas faulters, OKlahoma- Sam Bradford another video game like QB, throw all over the field with his eyes closed, gets hurt OK faulters, Tebow gets hurt and Florida faulters. Ohio St- Pruor has a not so good game - Wisconson houses them.

Then you have teams that have good players but when the " Star " goes down it's next man up. I think it is alot easier to replace a running back, even a Heisman Trophy running back than it is to replace a QB, especially when you have depth. QB is a whole other animal.

Texas lost last year for one reason, they couldn't run the ball. Look at OK this year they can run the ball, look at Oregon etc..... they all have the ability to run the ball, why did Alabama lose to SC , they couldn't run the ball.

My whole point goes back to the BCS in this aspect. It is kinda like being Bowl Eligible, everyone thinks 6 wins and your in, well almost, you have to have at least 5 wins over Div I schools. The BCS Should be the same, if your biggest game of the year is Nevada then go home and shut up.

Everyone talks about Boise Beating Oklahoma 5 years ago, SHUT UP, Oklahoma did the same thing Alabama did with UTAH, they slept through practice and just showed up. Is that Boise and Utahs fault , well no, BUT if it were a regular season game then it is a whole lot different for them. I would dare say that this weekend Oklahoma, Alabama, Auburn, Wisconsin, Michigan St, Michigan, LSU and whomever else has a chance to go to the BCS would house Boise St no matter where they played.

I am not being a homer because honestly OK and Oregon maybe Auburn ( we will see this weekend) are the real legit contenders and I do not like any of them, Sorry PQ, lol but looking at their teams they are playing the best football. We will all see how good when the competition is stepped up, again this weekend Aub-LSU, Ok-Missouri.

Who does Boise play? That's what I thought.

[CamaroSkooter]

Blah blah blah blah.

Tournament!!

[bigearl]

Really I'm not disagreeing with you for the most part Dr. J. Like I said, I'd like to see BSU get in to put up or shut up. I'd also like to see some retooling on the BCS. I think Alabama would beat BSU. I'm not so sure about Auburn and LSU- I guess we'd have to see.

I think you're way off base when you say it'd be over by halftime on most of those teams (Auburn, Wisconsin, Michigan St., Michigan). I think you're just counterreacting to the media hype and not being fair here. I think those would be good games for the most part except Michigan who'd be sent packing. You've got a bias built in that really isn't supported. Giving off that laundry list of teams and saying they'd school BSU is just sort of armchair quarterback bs because even the coaches poll (you know, people who aren't just making sh1+ up after watching espn like you and me) say BSU is top 5.

BSU did state anywhere anytime btw, they got few takers. LSU turned them down from what I understand, BSU apparently offered very favorable to LSU terms. Just because VT turned out not to be as good as hoped, BSU couldn't have known that prior to the season and the expectation was that VT was going to be top 10. They played Oregon last year with the expectation that Oregon was going to be top 10, turns out they weren't- but that's not because BSU didn't try to get a top 10 team. In fact, people were talking up Oregon like they were going to be a Rose Bowl lock preseason. So they're not avoiding top 10 teams out of fear, because it really does look like they're trying to get them on the schedule. You'll know what BSU's really made of when they're in a conference with at least 3 other top 25 teams-which may be the case next year.

BSU's biggest problem is the media really wants an underdog story badly. If everyone put their conference bias bs away, I think BSU would likely be rated somewhere between 6 and 9. A perfect candidate to go to the Rose Bowl vs the Ducks. I do not think the Ducks could beat Alabama right now either btw. I'd give the ducks a real unbiased rating between 3 and 7.

[RB43TD]

Originally Posted by PQ

BOOMER SOONER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just sayin'

You do realize that MU is going to send the Sooner's home crying tomorrow, right? Just sayin...........

[PQ]

Originally Posted by Dr Jkel

Who does Boise play? That's what I thought.

I always said they could line up and play the Bamas, Oklahomas, and Ohio States, and beat them. BUT, they don't deserve the chance.

I'll just come out and say it. THEY DON'T DESERVE THE SHOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't care HOW good they are.

Fact is that conference is filled with pattsie games for other conferences. Here is an illustration of this. The red, obviously, are pattsie wins. Records and rankings are as of current. OUs pattsie team is from the MWC and so is one of Bamas. lmao
(I added Baylor is a pattsie even though they are in the Big 12)

HOW PATHETIC IS THIS???

[bigearl]

Iowa State, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, and Colorado should all be red as well. Just because they're big doesn't mean they're good. Colorado has a 0 carbon footprint football program though- so I'll give them 10 bonus points.

If I'm going to buy your argument, then Alabama is the only one above that really deserves a shot of the three teams shown. Therefore- your point is: only the SEC should get a shot at any bowls.

[PQ]

Originally Posted by bigearl

Iowa State, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, and Colorado should all be red as well. Just because they're big doesn't mean they're good. Colorado has a 0 carbon footprint football program though- so I'll give them 10 bonus points.

If I'm going to buy your argument, then Alabama is the only one above that really deserves a shot of the three teams shown. Therefore- your point is: only the SEC should get a shot at any bowls.

You're drinking the cool-aid.

Seriously? TT, TA&M, Colorado...... PATSSIE GAMES??? You're reaching HARD. I give you a choice between A&M, Texas Tech Colorado or Toledo in a life or death game you MUST win,,,,, you're taking Toledo or any other of those teams.

Look at Texas A&M, Texas Tech, and Colorados record against the MWC and the WAC. Still dominates their 'pattsie' schedule.

Oh, and Iowa State, could be red as well, but they also have a winning record against the WAC.

And I guess you haven't paid attention to MSU, Ole Miss, Tenessee and Goergia latley.

With the exeption of Iowa State, all the ones you just named have been ranked recently, and all but one, ranked in the top 10.

You'd really put Toledo, and Nevada and the rest of those with Texas Tech, A&M, and Colorado?

Name ONE team other than BSU in the WAC that can say that. JUST ONE. In fact have any of them EVER been for more than a week?

And my 'point' is that college football and the whole system is stupid.

[2010-1SS-IBM]

Originally Posted by PQ

And my 'point' is that college football and the whole system is stupid.

I like the college system better than everything else. The regular season should be all that matters in every sport. Playoffs are just a marketting scheme.

I'd get rid of conference championships too (arbitrary).

[PQ]

Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM

I like the college system better than everything else. The regular season should be all that matters in every sport. Playoffs are just a marketting scheme.

I'd get rid of conference championships too (arbitrary).

Fair enough.

But if it were voted on, you'd be in the absolute minority.

I do, however, like the BCS era much better than the old method. I hated watching the number one team play the number 20 team and the number 2 team play number 12 and have NO chance of earning it. That REALLY sucked.

You gotta give it to the BCS, Cllege football is bigger now than it ever was.

[PQ]

Originally Posted by bigearl

Iowa State, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, and Colorado should all be red as well. Just because they're big doesn't mean they're good. Colorado has a 0 carbon footprint football program though- so I'll give them 10 bonus points.

If I'm going to buy your argument, then Alabama is the only one above that really deserves a shot of the three teams shown. Therefore- your point is: only the SEC should get a shot at any bowls.

Say what about Iowa State?

Texas 21, Iowa State 28 F


Had a WAC team, other than BSU, done that they would put up a sign.

[RB43TD]

MU - 36 OU - 27. Good game.

[RB43TD]

Originally Posted by PQ

I always said they could line up and play the Bamas, Oklahomas, and Ohio States, and beat them. BUT, they don't deserve the chance.

I'll just come out and say it. THEY DON'T DESERVE THE SHOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't care HOW good they are.

Fact is that conference is filled with pattsie games for other conferences. Here is an illustration of this. The red, obviously, are pattsie wins. Records and rankings are as of current. OUs pattsie team is from the MWC and so is one of Bamas. lmao
(I added Baylor is a pattsie even though they are in the Big 12)

HOW PATHETIC IS THIS???
Attachment 174953

You could probably take Baylor out of the Pattsie category since they're currently first in the Big 12 South.

[2010-1SS-IBM]

Originally Posted by PQ

Fair enough.

But if it were voted on, you'd be in the absolute minority.

I do, however, like the BCS era much better than the old method. I hated watching the number one team play the number 20 team and the number 2 team play number 12 and have NO chance of earning it. That REALLY sucked.

You gotta give it to the BCS, Cllege football is bigger now than it ever was.

Agree.

I'm on the fence regarding tinkering with the BCS much more.

On the one hand, I like bowl games for teams that are out of the national championship hunt. I think it rewards the fans and alumni of those schools better than a playoff system.

On the other hand, a single elimination tourney of only undefeated's would resolve all questions of who the champion is, but it only rewards the one team that wins. All the other teams are losers.

[Chrisrp454]

Just say Overated U falls!