they have too wide a range of performance to be great. their best is better than anyone elses best, but their worst is well below the other top teams worst.

OU looks strong as hell

there are several teams that look really strong this year. would be a good time for a playoff.

Yeah I agree, they're not a national title contender as they will likely get picked off at least twice. But I still see more good in them than VT.

an 8 team playoff with lsu/bama/ou/wisc/boise/stan/okst/clem would sell out a stadium in africa

You always have to cheapen the conversation by including Boise.

you would be wrong but ok

boise also doesn't interest me at all. i'd much rather see a team like clemson or arkansas in there. i think those 2 teams are more likely to hang with a top-3 team than boise, who could lose 55-10 for all i know.

Your emotional investment in that team is silly. It's just too bad that Oklahoma, Virginia Tech, Georgia and some others have conspired to ruin college football by lending Boise some level of legitimacy. It's a trucker college that plays 2-3 real games a year. That is not something to rally around.

you don't know what you're talking about. didn't you see that double end-around flea flicker 7 years ago? they deserve a title shot.

Im not emotionally invested in all, but whenever someone is wrong about college football Im going to call them out

Oh stop it, yes you are. You bumped the thread to point out their dominance of Fresno ****ing State. Don't act like you haven't managed to get your pride somehow wrapped up in the perpetual championing of Boise Trucker College.

For what it's worth, if Boise would like to be a player, perhaps they could consider striving to be an actual academic school? That's the reason that the Pac-12 won't even consider them when they consider expanding. Any conference that takes that into account immediately crosses BSJC off the list for that very reason.

Utah was able to break the glass ceiling and Boise wasn't. With good cause. I'm proud of my conference for not letting themselves be sullied by such an association.

I just don't see how someone could think who you play determines how good of a team you are. If you dropped an nfl team in the sun belt they would still be the best team in college football even if they are just pounding troy and la-monroe every week.

I didn't say that it determines how good you are. All I've ever said is that they never put together a body of work in a given season to prove that they're elite.

They play 2-3 real games a year; the rest of the time they not only can just prevail on talent alone, but that enables them to stay much healthier than big conference teams who have to play a true grind week in and week out. Oregon suffers a very important injury the other night; this is far less likely to happen to Boise because they play these safe little games where big hits barely get leveled against them. They're in a situation where they get made to look as good as they possibly can.

Given all of that, why would people ever look to give them the benefit of the doubt? When it comes to pursuing a national championship, the burden of proof needs to be put squarely on the team pursuing it. If they can't meet that burden, then they shouldn't be in the conversation and the real teams from real conferences should.

I have a hard time imagining why someone wouldn't want a team to truly earn their spot.

i lol to myself when any non-ivy conference rejects(or adds) a team in the name of academics. i mean, cmon now.

boise st. could very easily gain my respect by a playing real teams via OOC scheduling.

dkgo-- put yourself in my shoes for a sec. i'm probably a 7.5/10 on the "fan scale" meaning i'm not a casual fan but i also couldn't tell you whether or not wisconsin has good linebackers or if LSU's QB is a junior or senior. i'm not a fan of any particular team but enjoy watching games all day saturday. i really look forward to competitive bowl games.


who would i rather see in a meaningul bowl game? boise st or any number of schools that i KNOW can hang with the elite programs? i'm not gonna sit here and say that arkansas or clemson will beat LSU/bama/OU but i'm pretty sure that i won't be turning off the TV in the 2nd quarter either.

can you say the same for boise? you could talk about how strong kellen moore's arm is or how fast their D is or how many points they beat idaho by but at the end of the day nobody has any idea whether this team can hang with LSU or not. they gameplan for 1 game per year (and they're virtually 100% healthy for this game since their starters can be benched halfway through every other game) vs. a so-so BCS school. big deal.

the last thing i want to see is a hawaii/georgia 2.0. i'm not saying hawaii = boise (boise is clearly better and almost certainly a top 10 team) but i don't see how boise fans think they've earned a shot vs. an elite school. you get 11-12 games to prove to the country why you belong in the national championship game. every year, i can name a half dozen teams that provide me a more compelling argument.

Are you acting like any non-Ivy is basically the same?

To be fair, they can't easily do this because lots of teams don't want to play them. What's in it for the other team to accept that matchup? You don't get the same amount of respect for beating them that you do out of beating a big name like Texas, and you put yourself in a position where they may very well beat you.

(I'm sympathizing on this front because it's what WSU ran into in trying to schedule strongly OOC when they were really good at the beginning of the decade.)

LOL at disko's edit just as I got argumentative with him. But yeah we do basically agree.

i don't think all non-IVYs are created equal but it seems like a silly basis for determining the inclusion of a school when every major conference has at least a few crap institutions under their umbrella.

boise st. needs to incentivize the big schools to play them. iirc correctly boise's "we'll play you anytime, anywhere" invitation was really "we'll play you on our lopsided terms"

again, i'm no NCAAFB authority, but i seem to remember fresno st. having some strong seasons awhile back and doing everything they could to get games with strong programs (playing on the road, paying them, etc.)

Meh, a few crap institutions...sort of. But if you look to the bottom of the Pac-12 academically, it's WSU/OSU/ASU/UA, and those schools are all still light years ahead of BSJC. They're actual research universities.

It's difficult for Boise to take on big financial burdens to get big matchups because they aren't in a big conference and schools outside of the big conferences just don't have the revenue coming in. They certainly have to agree to go on the road for all of their big games, which is problematic too, but that's how they're managing to get games like Georgia and Virginia Tech. They do still have a tough time putting together a strong schedule even when they endeavor to.

i can't say i blame them for scheduling the way they do. the system is beyond ******ed and boise is using it in their favor. hell, what did they have to gain in that game vs. georgia? whatever the answer, it's a whole lot less than what boise had to lose, imo.

but from MY (worthless) perspective, i'd much rather see a handful of teams play [#1] for the championship until i believe boise has earned it.

lkj (or anyone else), would you have ever selected boise to play for the championship under a
"+1" system? i think i would've taken TCU last season.

Well, I'm clearly anti-Boise, so I'm probably not the guy to ask.

But anyway, playing Georgia is an attempt to get into the title game. The BCS computers, and for that matter the voters, wouldn't stand for ranking Boise in the top two with no wins against anyone of any legitimacy. Now the Georgia win probably isn't that amazing, they beat the 5th or 6th best team in the SEC, but it's something. If they just played Idaho State instead, it would be far more difficult to make their already difficult case.

yes I can because they have a five year track record of being extremely good while beating very good teams in that span. Hawaii was bad that year and everyone knew it since they were a 14 point underdog in their bowl. Boise was favored at uga and at vt last year. They would be no worse than a 3-4 point dog on a neutral field to lsu or alabama. I do not think they are as good as the clear top 4 this year.

WTF, you cannot be serious about this. LSU blows Oregon's doors off and they would be favored by no more than 4 against Boise? I seriously, seriously doubt that. Especially in a national title game scenario where LSU would presumably have had to beat Bama along the way to get there too.

why do you consider the last 5 years? that seems kinda silly to me.