Question about Boise State vs. Oklahoma

[infrared41]

Wait so you are saying that's sadder than a bunch of middle aged people trying to relive their glory years because they are depressed about how their life has turned out. College Sports are fun but they should be for the students and pretty much for the students only. It's one thing to watch your alma matter if you are flipping through the TV and come to the game but these over the top Alumnus are some of the most pathetic people ever. At least in the example above the person has money on the game now that's something to be sad about if the team losses not that the school you went to 20 years ago lost a bowl game.

That's an interesting take from someone who has Maryland plastered all over their post.

Yeah you're right. NFL fans never do anything stupid at the games. I guess a grown man dressing up like a dog or the guy in Oakland who wears the medieval S&M get up is much classier. The truth is that every sport has more than their share of ridiculous fans. College football doesn't have a monopoly on that. ANYONE over 25, regardless of the sport, doing that is pathetic.

I also bet the the Dallas stadium will be sold out. When teams like the Cowboys, Redskins, and Giants have waiting list that people stay on for upwards of 20 years.

Yeah but that will never happen in most of the other cities. I'm sure the list for Jaguars tickets is pretty short. They are a contender yet there was talk of them leaving Jacksonville because they don't draw like they should. Oddly enough The Gators who are not far from Jacksonville don't seem to have an attendance problem. Neither do the Noles. I wonder why that is?

Not to mention that pros feature better players and is far an away the better game. Don't fool yourself the only reason why the college football atmosphere is better is because of drunk students not because it's a better game. It's a longer more boring game.

I won't argue with you. The NFL definitely has better athletes and players. But that does not make it a "better" game. I watch sports for entertainment and to me NFL football is nowhere near as entertaining as college football. Yeah the players are better but the games certainly aren't. The quality of play may be "higher" but it's not nearly as "good" and I mean good as in fun to watch. Can you honestly say that the Browns-Texans game last week was "entertaining?"

Again, I forgot that NFL fans never get drunk at games.

Don't get me wrong. I am an NFL fan but for pure entertainment purposes it can't hold a candle to College football. Sorry but that's the way I see it.

[jkrdevil]

Wait so you are saying that's sadder than a bunch of middle aged people trying to relive their glory years because they are depressed about how their life has turned out. College Sports are fun but they should be for the students and pretty much for the students only. It's one thing to watch your alma matter if you are flipping through the TV and come to the game but these over the top Alumnus are some of the most pathetic people ever. At least in the example above the person has money on the game now that's something to be sad about if the team losses not that the school you went to 20 years ago lost a bowl game.

That's an interesting take from someone who has Maryland plastered all over their post.

I'm also a current student at Maryland. Like I said before college sports should be for the students. If you catch me in 10-15 years just donating money to the Maryland football program slap me.

And as far as atmosphere goes it's more about being a student than being drunk. People in their late teens early 20's have more energy than people in their 30's or 40's.

College Football in general is painfully boring and long. The lack of emphasis on defense and the emphasis on passing is a killer coupled with the rules is painful to watch. The games take too long. And I'm not even getting into the amount of blowouts there are in college football which are always exciting to watch .

And let's not forget pro football actually has a championship.

[BlueSky]

In the interest of full disclosure, my wife is an OU alum. Fortunately, we went to bed and missed the 4th quarter. That saved us some repair costs around the house.

With that said, and due credit to Boise State for what was a miraculous win, it's a joke to think they deserve part of the National Championship or even to play for it with this schedule:

Sacramento State W 45-0

Oregon State W 42-14

Wyoming W 17-10

Hawaii W 41-34

Utah W 36-3

Louisiana Tech W 55-14

New Mexico State W 40-28

Idaho W 42-26

Fresno State W 45-21

San Jose State W 23-20

Utah State W 49-10

Nevada W 38-7

Oklahoma W 43-42

You guys are just caught up in the euphoria of the moment. How many of those teams are ranked? Sure, they beat the Fighting Rainbows and blew out the likes of Louisiana Tech, but it took eveything they had (and some incredible luck) to beat a ranked team by 1 point in a game they couldn't help but be motivated for. What I mean by that is let's see them beat ranked opponents in regular season games that aren't in the national spotlight like this one was.

That team would be average at best vs. an SEC schedule, for example LSU's:

Louisiana (Lafayette)

Arizona

at Auburn

Tulane

Mississippi State

at Florida

Kentucky

Fresno State

Tennessee

Alabama

Ole Miss

at Arkansas

Notre Dame

[Guest]

How come in every other sport, the axiom is "the only stats that matter are wins and losses," whereas in college football we have to jump through all these stupid hoops with not beating strong teams, or beating teams by too many points, or not beating teams by enough points, or almost losing, or any of that? Boise State is undefeated against Division 1 teams. LSU has lost two games to Division 1 teams. Why is LSU ranked higher? Because they've been "judged" to be better? What is this, a county fair? Only in college football can two losses be better than zero losses. Who's in charge of the math here? University of Miami cornerbacks?

[BlueSky]

How come in every other sport, the axiom is "the only stats that matter are wins and losses," whereas in college football we have to jump through all these stupid hoops with not beating strong teams, or beating teams by too many points, or not beating teams by enough points, or almost losing, or any of that? Boise State is undefeated against Division 1 teams. LSU has lost two games to Division 1 teams. Why is LSU ranked higher? Because they've been "judged" to be better? What is this, a county fair? Only in college football can two losses be better than zero losses. Who's in charge of the math here? University of Miami cornerbacks?

Teams are not created equal, that's why it matters. Beating Hawaii is not the same as beating Michigan. The NFL uses strength of schedule and strength of victory as tie-breakers, so college football is not the only place it's a criteria.

The spectrum of best to worst is far more narrow in the NFL, that's for sure. The Raiders beating the Chargers isn't out of the realm of possibility. For all practical purposes, Louisiana-Monroe beating Ohio State is.

[Guest]

A win is a win, a loss is a loss.

[BlueSky]

A win is a win, a loss is a loss.

Maybe in your world. Let's do a poll and see how many agree. Not many would be my guess.

[infrared41]

I'm also a current student at Maryland. Like I said before college sports should be for the students. If you catch me in 10-15 years just donating money to the Maryland football program slap me.

Ahh youth...call me in 20 years and we'll see if you feel the same way. I am an active Ohio State alumnus because I believe in the university as a whole not just the football team. Ohio State played a role in shaping who I am today...and I like to think I am a fairly successful, well-educated adult, not some drunken alum re-living my glory days. I stay involved because I want pass on what Ohio State and the alumni association did for me. So if that's wrong then I am guilty as charged.

I'd also like to ask you this question. If college sports are meant for the students then why do they have homecoming? Why do alumni associations have tailgate parties at every game? Come to think of it why does Ohio State try to get me to buy tickets to everything they do?

I don't know how it works in Maryland but in Ohio The Buckeyes are everyone's team...students, alumni, and anyone else who cares to join in. It's a state school so we all have an interest in it if we want to.

[whitedawg22]

Incredible game.

but...

I love Boise State's style and I usually root for them every time they're on TV here in Boston, but can we cool the "they deserve to be in Glendale" talk?

No. They're a Division 1 school. They're undefeated. They should get a shot. Let them prove they aren't good enough on the field. It cracks me up that people were willing to put Michigan in the title game purely on the speculation that they were better than Florida. It was all about "Michigan deserved their shot" despite the fact that there was little evidence to back up the claim. People also argued that Michigan didn't deserve to go because Florida played a tougher schedule and in a tougher conference. However if the same type of argument is made for Boise State then everyone says no because Boise State didn't play anyone or they only beat a team by so many points etc. It's hypocritical as hell to not allow Boise State the same argument that we blindly allowed for Michigan or Florida.

This argument works for a sport like college basketball, where teams can play almost 40 games per season, and thus can stage a realistic tournament between every possibly deserving team without devaluing the regular season. It absolutely doesn't work in college football.

Let's say you mandate that if a team goes through the regular season undefeated, they get a shot at the championship. The first thing that will happen is that teams will stop playing ANY remotely interesting nonconference games. Top schools will immediately go with the Bill Snyder/Mike Leach school of scheduling in order to maximize their chances of going undefeated, which will actually hurt schools like Boise in the long run, since they won't be able to get a shot at teams like Georgia and Oklahoma outside the bowls.

Second, as a result, there will inevitably be more undefeated teams. Problem not solved.

Third, it is in NO WAY hypocritical to suggest that Boise isn't "allowed" the same argument as Michigan or Florida. After the SEC Championship game, there was lots of intelligent debate over which team should play OSU in Glendale. Much of it centered around their respective schedules and the teams they beat. Applying that argument to Boise weakens their contention, since they didn't play anybody remotely of the level of Wisconsin/Notre Dame/Ohio State/Auburn/LSU/Tennessee/Arkansas. Boise could easily have scheduled 3-4 nonconference games against top schools in order to prove themselves (it's certainly possible for a mid-major - look at Fresno State's scheduling), but instead they CHOSE to schedule the likes of Sacramento State and Wyoming on top of their creampuff conference schedule.

Bottom line - Boise had a chance to schedule games that would give them a chance to prove themselves, and they turned it down. Going undefeated through a schedule that any good major-conference team would probably walk through is admirable, but in no way qualifies them for a shot at the championship.

[Guest]

I'm sure Boise would LOVE to play a school like Wisconsin if Wisconsin didn't load up on creampuffs like a state fair visitor.

A win is a win, a loss is a loss.

Maybe in your world. Let's do a poll and see how many agree. Not many would be my guess.

Nice job marginalizing my stance. You'd think I said "a win is a small bird indigenous to Central America." Geez.

[BlueSky]

I'm sure Boise would LOVE to play a school like Wisconsin if Wisconsin didn't load up on creampuffs like a state fair visitor.

A win is a win, a loss is a loss.

Maybe in your world. Let's do a poll and see how many agree. Not many would be my guess.

Nice job marginalizing my stance. You'd think I said "a win is a small bird indigenous to Central America." Geez.

I meant no offense, but it's hard to defend saying "a win is a win" when we're talking something as divergent as the quality of Division 1 college teams.

[WJMorris3]

Is Boise State good enough to beat Ohio State or Florida? Probably not. But they won't get that chance, sadly, because there is no playoff.

A 24 team playoff is not that bad, in my opinion -- it's still 20% of the teams, just like the NCAA basketball tournament. Besides, it gives any team hope of winning a national championship by winning all their games.

Now, am I saying that the champ of the Sun Belt will be good enough to beat an Ohio State or a Florida or a USC? No. But we must give them that chance. As it is, you have Football Bowl Subdivision teams that going into the season have absolutely no chance at a national title, even if they go unbeaten, and that's a real shame.

If we want to keep the BCS as a system to determine who makes the playoffs, that's fine with me. But you MUST include all 11 conference champions for it to be a truly legitimate playoff.

[lilgump]

Teams are not created equal, that's why it matters. Beating Hawaii is not the same as beating Michigan. The NFL uses strength of schedule and strength of victory as tie-breakers, so college football is not the only place it's a criteria.

However the NFL doesnt vote on its strength of schedule. The strength is based solely on the records of the teams who each team played. There is no they beat a Tennessee team who is better than the Rams, so they are better. Strength of schedule is just records, 7-9 is 7-9. (Hypotheically speaking, not sure if those are correct records)

So in NCAA if they did strength same way a 10-3 Hawaii would count just as much as a 10-3 anyone else.

[Pat]

Why is there arguing over which is better, the NFL or college football? They both have their plusses and minuses. Id give the edge to the NFL because I feel a connection to a team while I dont necessarily have a school in the NCAA. However college football can be very, very exciting sometimes. Rose Bowl 06. This years Fiesta Bowl. Plus the atmosphere is crazy and lots of the time the gameplay is more wide open and exciting. In the NFL were treated with the best athletes in the world, as well very exciting games: Super Bowl XXXVIII. That Colts/Steelers beauty last year.

My point is that both are exciting. Whichever you feel you have a stronger connection to is what you'll follow more closely. Arguments like "Was the Browns/ Texans game exciting last week?" suck. Well gee whiz I don't get excited for Northwestern vs Michigan State games either. Both have a share of good and bad games. Both have places where th teams have immense support (OSU, USC.... Green Bay, Pittsburgh) Both have teams with little support as well. Both have there chare of controversy as well.

Just because you like, or follow the NFL or NCAA closer then the other, doesn't make it a superior product. Both are very entertaining in their own respects. Why does it have to be a competion? I like both.

[CityOfWalrus]

Sure, they beat the Fighting Rainbows and blew out the likes of Louisiana Tech,

Hey! check the facts they're the warriors.. and never in University of Hawaii history did they have the name Fightin' in anything except back in the 1909 College of Hawaii (who became University of Hawaii) they were the Fightin Deans

[footballfiji]

I posted this in another thread until it got graveyarded:

If Florida wins the NC, I wouldn't have a problem with a split. Especially seeing as how they'll be the only undefeated team.

Let's look at it this way. Boise played and beat the following teams:

Oregon State

Hawaii

Utah

San Jose State

Nevada

Oklahoma

That's 5 Bowl teams and to top that off, 4 teams that won their bowl game. Not to mention beating the Big XII champion.

For LSU:

Kentucky

Tennessee

Alabama

Arkansas

Notre Dame

That's only 4 bowl teams and only one of those won their bowl game. Plus a 5th game with Notre Dame.

It's not that Boise State won it's that they destroyed most of their opponents and they were actually pretty good opponents.

Boise's average margin of victory was 22 points

Compared to LSU's which was 20.

As for the response "most of the bowl teams were 6-6"

OSU: 9 wins

Hawaii: 10 wins

Utah: 7 wins

SJSU: 8 wins

Nevada: 8 wins

Oklahoma: 11 wins

and for LSU:

Arkansas: 10 wins

Alabama: 6 wins

Tennessee: 9 wins

Kentucky: 7 wins

Notre Dame: 10 wins

That's an 53 wins for Boise's Teams and 42 for LSU....even if you want to take out Boise's "easiest opponent" Nevada: 46 to 43.

[HedleyLamarr]

I posted this in another thread until it got graveyarded:

If Florida wins the NC, I wouldn't have a problem with a split. Especially seeing as how they'll be the only undefeated team.

Let's look at it this way. Boise played and beat the following teams:

Oregon State

Hawaii

Utah

San Jose State

Nevada

Oklahoma

That's 5 Bowl teams and to top that off, 4 teams that won their bowl game. Not to mention beating the Big XII champion.

For LSU:

Kentucky

Tennessee

Alabama

Arkansas

Notre Dame

That's only 4 bowl teams and only one of those won their bowl game. Plus a 5th game with Notre Dame.

It's not that Boise State won it's that they destroyed most of their opponents and they were actually pretty good opponents.

Boise's average margin of victory was 22 points

Compared to LSU's which was 20.

As for the response "most of the bowl teams were 6-6"

OSU: 9 wins

Hawaii: 10 wins

Utah: 7 wins

SJSU: 8 wins

Nevada: 8 wins

Oklahoma: 11 wins

and for LSU:

Arkansas: 10 wins

Alabama: 6 wins

Tennessee: 9 wins

Kentucky: 7 wins

Notre Dame: 10 wins

That's an 53 wins for Boise's Teams and 42 for LSU....even if you want to take out Boise's "easiest opponent" Nevada: 46 to 43.

Is there a reason why you omitted Auburn and Florida off LSU's resume?

Surely you're not comparing Boise State's soft schedule to LSU's docket. LSU played four road games at Top-10 schools. No other team can say that.

[footballfiji]

I posted this in another thread until it got graveyarded:

If Florida wins the NC, I wouldn't have a problem with a split. Especially seeing as how they'll be the only undefeated team.

Let's look at it this way. Boise played and beat the following teams:

Oregon State

Hawaii

Utah

San Jose State

Nevada

Oklahoma

That's 5 Bowl teams and to top that off, 4 teams that won their bowl game. Not to mention beating the Big XII champion.

For LSU:

Kentucky

Tennessee

Alabama

Arkansas

Notre Dame

That's only 4 bowl teams and only one of those won their bowl game. Plus a 5th game with Notre Dame.

It's not that Boise State won it's that they destroyed most of their opponents and they were actually pretty good opponents.

Boise's average margin of victory was 22 points

Compared to LSU's which was 20.

As for the response "most of the bowl teams were 6-6"

OSU: 9 wins

Hawaii: 10 wins

Utah: 7 wins

SJSU: 8 wins

Nevada: 8 wins

Oklahoma: 11 wins

and for LSU:

Arkansas: 10 wins

Alabama: 6 wins

Tennessee: 9 wins

Kentucky: 7 wins

Notre Dame: 10 wins

That's an 53 wins for Boise's Teams and 42 for LSU....even if you want to take out Boise's "easiest opponent" Nevada: 46 to 43.

Is there a reason why you omitted Auburn and Florida off LSU's resume?

Surely you're not comparing Boise State's soft schedule to LSU's docket. LSU played four road games at Top-10 schools. No other team can say that.

They're not included because LSU didn't beat Auburn or Florida. All I'm saying is to say Boise State going undefeated doesn't mean anything because of a soft schedule is ridiculous.

[infrared41]

Why is there arguing over which is better, the NFL or college football? They both have their plusses and minuses. Id give the edge to the NFL because I feel a connection to a team while I dont necessarily have a school in the NCAA. However college football can be very, very exciting sometimes. Rose Bowl 06. This years Fiesta Bowl. Plus the atmosphere is crazy and lots of the time the gameplay is more wide open and exciting. In the NFL were treated with the best athletes in the world, as well very exciting games: Super Bowl XXXVIII. That Colts/Steelers beauty last year.

My point is that both are exciting. Whichever you feel you have a stronger connection to is what you'll follow more closely. Arguments like "Was the Browns/ Texans game exciting last week?" suck. Well gee whiz I don't get excited for Northwestern vs Michigan State games either. Both have a share of good and bad games. Both have places where th teams have immense support (OSU, USC.... Green Bay, Pittsburgh) Both have teams with little support as well. Both have there chare of controversy as well.

Just because you like, or follow the NFL or NCAA closer then the other, doesn't make it a superior product. Both are very entertaining in their own respects. Why does it have to be a competion? I like both.

Excellent points. I stand corrected.

[Fred T. Jane]

What is this, a county fair?

If it was a county fair, LSU would be the sickly bull the poor delusional farmer brings every year hoping to win the milk cow division.