2010 NCAA Football Thread

[infrared41]

(See how easy it is to be objective about your favorite team? )

Oh, I can be very objective about Boise. I assume you missed my ranting about how undisciplined they were playing against Oregon State. I mean, there were even punches thrown - the fighting in the fourth quarter was inexcusable for both teams.

And it's fine to say that Oregon should move up based on beating Stanford. But I sure hope you're not planning on using the "body of work" argument anytime soon, because Boise's recent body of work includes two straight wins over Oregon in '08 and '09.

A.) I was just goofing on you with the objective thing.

B.) Body of work only applies to the season during which it takes place. What Boise did last season and in 2008 is meaningless this season. Ohio State beat Oregon last year in the Rose Bowl. That win doesn't mean this season.

[NEW.ERA]

Is there any site where we can look up what voter voted for which school on the AP Poll?

I'm really intrigued as to who is continuously giving the Broncs a first place vote.

[Jigga]

Is there any site where we can look up what voter voted for which school on the AP Poll?

I'm really intrigued as to who is continuously giving the Broncs a first place vote.

I think it's still this guy.

[dfwabel]

Is there any site where we can look up what voter voted for which school on the AP Poll?

I'm really intrigued as to who is continuously giving the Broncs a first place vote.

Here

The voter is Pete DiPrimio (Ft. Wayne News-Sentinel). He placed Boise as #1 in week 2. His preseason ballot had TCU ahead of Boise.

[Red Wolf]

(See how easy it is to be objective about your favorite team? )

Oh, I can be very objective about Boise. I assume you missed my ranting about how undisciplined they were playing against Oregon State. I mean, there were even punches thrown - the fighting in the fourth quarter was inexcusable for both teams.

And it's fine to say that Oregon should move up based on beating Stanford. But I sure hope you're not planning on using the "body of work" argument anytime soon, because Boise's recent body of work includes two straight wins over Oregon in '08 and '09.

A.) I was just goofing on you with the objective thing.

B.) Body of work only applies to the season during which it takes place. What Boise did last season and in 2008 is meaningless this season. Ohio State beat Oregon last year in the Rose Bowl. That win doesn't mean this season.

Body of work does matter. What do you think preseason polls are for? Florida and Texas were ranked highly because of what they've recently accomplished. Had nothing to do with what they had done this seaosn.

[rams80]

What do you think preseason polls are for?

Generally mucking things up for a more objective assessment of team performances and solidifying the "establishment" of college football by rewarding name programs?

[WJMorris3]

I hate to say I agree with Tank, but I do - the only way things are going to get better is through a playoff - and it needs to be the eleven conference champions. If you want to tell me that the Sun Belt's champ shouldn't get the opportunity, then let them prove that on the field.

[infrared41]

(See how easy it is to be objective about your favorite team? )

Oh, I can be very objective about Boise. I assume you missed my ranting about how undisciplined they were playing against Oregon State. I mean, there were even punches thrown - the fighting in the fourth quarter was inexcusable for both teams.

And it's fine to say that Oregon should move up based on beating Stanford. But I sure hope you're not planning on using the "body of work" argument anytime soon, because Boise's recent body of work includes two straight wins over Oregon in '08 and '09.

A.) I was just goofing on you with the objective thing.

B.) Body of work only applies to the season during which it takes place. What Boise did last season and in 2008 is meaningless this season. Ohio State beat Oregon last year in the Rose Bowl. That win doesn't mean this season.

Body of work does matter. What do you think preseason polls are for? Florida and Texas were ranked highly because of what they've recently accomplished. Had nothing to do with what they had done this seaosn.

So does that mean that since Ohio State beat Oregon last season with an entirely different team the Buckeyes should be favored to beat Oregon this season? I'll give you Ohio State and take Oregon on that bet any time you want to make it.

Preseason polls are stupid. It's proven each and every season. "Body of work" applies to this season and this season only.

[WJMorris3]

The problem with preseason polls is that people are hesitant to drop someone unless they lose. So you might have a situation where two teams start 1-2, never lose, and thus are in the title game, where what might have been the best team (because they play in the best conference, don't forget) started in the 20s, and could only climb up to #3.

[Lights Out]

The problem with preseason polls is that people are hesitant to drop someone unless they lose or they're a non-AQ school.

FYP.

[Cola]

I wasn't really surprised with the Boise State drop. If the top 10 all continue to win, it will happen again in a few weeks when TCU jumps Boise due to strength of schedule. I found it a bit suspicious when Nevada snuck into the Top 25 at a particular point, when there were plenty of other teams more deserving that would murder Nevada on the field. I kind of hate it for Boise State in a way, because they can't technically help that they play in a weak and irrelevant conference (for the time being until they switch to the less irrelevant MWC)...but at the same time, dropping them in ranking is the only fair thing to do when other teams are risking much more and playing difficult opponents.

In all honesty, I'd like to see Boise State play the SEC champion in the National Championship so it can all be settled for good. Hawai'i was shut up a few years ago and you haven't heard their story anymore, so maybe it would be worth it to keep things in perspective here.

On the subject of preseason rankings, I think they are pretty pointless. However, I think it all usually works out in the end. In the past 5 or 6 years, would anyone else had deserved the championship or chance to play in the game? Probably not. Polls are just entertainment and bragging rights for fans from week to week, again...it usually works out and the best will compete.

Vanderbilt, as we all know isn't the cream of the SEC...but if they won 11 or 12 games this season...you are going to be in the Top 3 and you are going to play for the National Championship. Their preseason ranking won't matter.

[rams80]

I wasn't really surprised with the Boise State drop. If the top 10 all continue to win, it will happen again in a few weeks when TCU jumps Boise due to strength of schedule. I found it a bit suspicious when Nevada snuck into the Top 25 at a particular point, when there were plenty of other teams more deserving that would murder Nevada on the field. I kind of hate it for Boise State in a way, because they can't technically help that they play in a weak and irrelevant conference (for the time being until they switch to the less irrelevant MWC)...but at the same time, dropping them in ranking is the only fair thing to do when other teams are risking much more and playing difficult opponents.

In all honesty, I'd like to see Boise State play the SEC champion in the National Championship so it can all be settled for good. Hawai'i was shut up a few years ago and you haven't heard their story anymore, so maybe it would be worth it to keep things in perspective here.

On the subject of preseason rankings, I think they are pretty pointless. However, I think it all usually works out in the end. In the past 5 or 6 years, would anyone else had deserved the championship or chance to play in the game? Probably not. Polls are just entertainment and bragging rights for fans from week to week, again...it usually works out and the best will compete.

Vanderbilt, as we all know isn't the cream of the SEC...but if they won 11 or 12 games this season...you are going to be in the Top 3 and you are going to play for the National Championship. Their preseason ranking won't matter.

The difference, my conference touting friend whose own school brings down said conference, is that TCU, Boise State, and those BCS-bound Utah teams would also have pimp-slapped that literally defenseless Hawaii team across the field. Confuse that team for the others at your peril.

As for the "Vanderbilt" argument....not if Oregon and Ohio State ran the table and started ahead of them. Remember 2004 Auburn dear chap?

[Lights Out]

Hawai'i was shut up a few years ago and you haven't heard their story anymore, so maybe it would be worth it to keep things in perspective here.

Hawai'i was also extremely overrated and played nobody that year. Their toughest opponent was Boise State and they didn't have a choice in playing them. Meanwhile, Boise not only makes the effort to play great tradition schools out-of-conference, but they also beat them consistently. They've also gone undefeated in three out of the last four years, with increasingly-tougher schedules each year, and have a great chance at running the table again this year. So that flash-in-the-pan 2007 Hawai'i team is not a very good comparison at all.

In the past 5 or 6 years, would anyone else had deserved the championship or chance to play in the game? Probably not.

Last year, Boise and/or TCU deserved a shot in the title game. The Boise/TCU Fiesta Bowl pairing was basically a no-balls move by the BCS.

[Cola]

I wasn't really surprised with the Boise State drop. If the top 10 all continue to win, it will happen again in a few weeks when TCU jumps Boise due to strength of schedule. I found it a bit suspicious when Nevada snuck into the Top 25 at a particular point, when there were plenty of other teams more deserving that would murder Nevada on the field. I kind of hate it for Boise State in a way, because they can't technically help that they play in a weak and irrelevant conference (for the time being until they switch to the less irrelevant MWC)...but at the same time, dropping them in ranking is the only fair thing to do when other teams are risking much more and playing difficult opponents.

In all honesty, I'd like to see Boise State play the SEC champion in the National Championship so it can all be settled for good. Hawai'i was shut up a few years ago and you haven't heard their story anymore, so maybe it would be worth it to keep things in perspective here.

On the subject of preseason rankings, I think they are pretty pointless. However, I think it all usually works out in the end. In the past 5 or 6 years, would anyone else had deserved the championship or chance to play in the game? Probably not. Polls are just entertainment and bragging rights for fans from week to week, again...it usually works out and the best will compete.

Vanderbilt, as we all know isn't the cream of the SEC...but if they won 11 or 12 games this season...you are going to be in the Top 3 and you are going to play for the National Championship. Their preseason ranking won't matter.

The difference, my conference touting friend whose own school brings down said conference

Nice. Carolina is 4-1 and in the Top 25 with their only loss coming to Top 10 Auburn by one score in a game we gave away in the 4th quarter. Sounds like we are holding our side up for now- we will see what happens this week against Bama.

...is that TCU, Boise State, and those BCS-bound Utah teams would also have pimp-slapped that literally defenseless Hawaii team across the field. Confuse that team for the others at your peril.

Hawai'i beat Boise State by two scores. UGA beat them by 5 scores 2 games later.

As for the "Vanderbilt" argument....not if Oregon and Ohio State ran the table and started ahead of them. Remember 2004 Auburn dear chap?

I remember this well and may be an exception in the early stages of the BCS- at least from what we know now, Auburn's chances would have been pretty good with the SECs showing in National Championship games. They did receive a title at the time, and even a larger share now posthumously since USC was stripped of their title.

[Cola]

Hawai'i was also extremely overrated and played nobody that year. Their toughest opponent was Boise State and they didn't have a choice in playing them. Meanwhile, Boise not only makes the effort to play great tradition schools out-of-conference, but they also beat them consistently. They've also gone undefeated in three out of the last four years, with increasingly-tougher schedules each year, and have a great chance at running the table again this year. So that flash-in-the-pan 2007 Hawai'i team is not a very good comparison at all.

I just think you are overcompensating for the schedule you guys have. You say they make the effort to play "great tradition schools out of conference". One team to open each season- the rest are truly cupcakes. 2006, Oregon State. 2007...um, Washington I guess? 2008, Oregon. 2009, Oregon once again. Beyond that, Boise plays nobodies for the rest of the season...out and in conference. I don't see the effort to create a challenging schedule there if you want to convince the rest of the nation that you're a team that can play hard football week in and week out AND survive to impress voters.

Many Boise fans will talk about their undefeated seasons (regular seasons, mind you) but forget that simple fact above: playing a tough team week in and out makes a difference that they can't relate to. It's physical, emotional, mental, and psychological wear and tear week after week. We see @ Georgia between the hedges, Arkansas, Auburn, @ Alabama, @ Florida in the swamp, plus the other guys in the SEC that won't give you a break including our rivalry game to finish up. Imagine what Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Mississippi State, or my beloved Gamecocks would do if they saw UC Davis, Bowling Green, San Jose State, Louisiana Tech, New Mexico State, and others as the MEAT of our schedule? What a life that would be. Those opponents are who we schedule to open our seasons- not define our strength as a team.

In the SEC, we open with the weakest opponent possible (like Southern Miss) so we can prepare for our schedule. Boise opens with a big name team to remind everyone they exist and keep themselves in the headlines.

I don't mean to sound like I'm bragging or being blind or whatever you want to call it- it's just a different mindset that those outside of Southern football have a hard time understanding until they move here and implant themselves into it. I also didn't mean to come pumping the SEC in here (although my allegiance and passion is obvious); I honestly was just reading through the thread and saw an interesting topic and this board lacks many of those these days.

[infrared41]

The problem with preseason polls is that people are hesitant to drop someone unless they lose. So you might have a situation where two teams start 1-2, never lose, and thus are in the title game, where what might have been the best team (because they play in the best conference, don't forget) started in the 20s, and could only climb up to #3.

Careful Will, that actually makes sense.

[Lights Out]

I just think you are overcompensating for the schedule you guys have. You say they make the effort to play "great tradition schools out of conference". One team to open each season- the rest are truly cupcakes. 2006, Oregon State. 2007...um, Washington I guess? 2008, Oregon. 2009, Oregon once again. Beyond that, Boise plays nobodies for the rest of the season...out and in conference.

2010: #10 Virginia Tech and #24 Oregon State. And as far as "nobodies" in the conference goes, we've got #21 Nevada coming up in November. Is it the ideal schedule? Hell no, it's not. But Boise scraps for the best schedules they can possibly get every year.

I don't see the effort to create a challenging schedule there if you want to convince the rest of the nation that you're a team that can play hard football week in and week out AND survive to impress voters.

I see the effort. It's just that AQ schools are turning them down. Kind of hard to play hard football week in and week out when tough schools refuse to play you because of profit margins and fear. Oh, and we also have to play our pathetic conference schedule at some point in the season, there's no getting out of that.

And as for your thinly-veiled "Boise wouldn't survive in the SEC" argument, statistics-based simulations prove otherwise.

I'm not trying to be a homer here - although I may be coming across as one - but as a Boise State fan, I'm beyond tired of having to always defend my team because no win is ever good enough and other fans just love to find anything to rip Boise to shreds for.

[infrared41]

Imagine what Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Mississippi State, or my beloved Gamecocks would do if they saw UC Davis, Bowling Green, San Jose State, Louisiana Tech, New Mexico State, and others as the MEAT of our schedule? What a life that would be. Those opponents are who we schedule to open our seasons- not define our strength as a team.

Or any "AQ conference" team for that matter. Can anyone seriously make the argument that the top teams in the SEC, Big Ten, Big XII, and PAC-10 wouldn't go undefeated every season if they played Boise State's conference schedule? Trust me, if Ohio State goes undefeated I'd much rather see Boise State than Alabama or Oregon in the title game. That's not because I think Boise State isn't any good or anything. I just think Ohio State matches up better with Boise State than they do with Oregon or Alabama. I'll take a team that hasn't played anyone in ten weeks over a tested SEC team or Oregon's talent every time.

[infrared41]

Kind of hard to play hard football week in and week out when tough schools refuse to play you because of profit margins and fear. Oh, and we also have to play our pathetic conference schedule at some point in the season, there's no getting out of that.

And as for your thinly-veiled "Boise wouldn't survive in the SEC" argument

Let me preface this by saying that I'm using Ohio State as an example because they're the only school whose non-conference schedule I'm familiar with. That said...

Ohio State has scheduled Texas, USC, and Miami in the last 6 years. Do you really believe the reason they haven't scheduled Boise State is because they "fear" them? Do you really believe that Alabama "fears" Boise State? You can't possibly believe that Texas thinks it's easier to go to Columbus to play Ohio State than it is to schedule a home game against Boise State can you? Same thing with USC or Miami. Seriously dude, it's time to stop with the "people are afraid to play Boise State" bull- .

The profit margin thing I'll buy because it makes sense. No one is going to want to do a home and home with Boise State because their cute little stadium holds all of 32,000 fans. It's barely bigger than the -ing Glass Bowl in Toledo. Why would Ohio State, who gets 100,000+ for a home game, want to trade home dates with a school whose stadium is the size of the student section at the 'Shoe? Once Boise gives up on getting home and home games they'll have no trouble lining up "big name" non-conference games. The reason they can't schedule anyone is because they can't return the favor when it comes to the gate receipts. It's all about the money. "Fear" ain't got a thing to do with it.

Boise State would do just fine in the SEC; they'd be on about the same level as Arkansas or Ole' Miss etc. They would be competitive but you're kidding yourself if you believe they'd be one of the elite teams in the SEC. I'm not knocking your boys. I'm just stating the facts.

[rams80]

Nice. Carolina is 4-1 and in the Top 25 with their only loss coming to Top 10 Auburn by one score in a game we gave away in the 4th quarter. Sounds like we are holding our side up for now- we will see what happens this week against Bama.

Congratulations. You might finally break through to the SEC Championship game after 18 years, and all it took was Georgia, Tennessee, and Florida's offense simultaneously falling off the face of the planet. For comparison and context Mississippi State has already played in one of these games. Shoot, Arkansas has played in 3. Meanwhile, every other year of their SEC tenure South Carolina comes in with great expectations that only serve to get amusingly immolated at various points in the season, disgracing the Conference and end up relegated to a second tier bowl at best. The only thing more amusing is Clemson's annual fall from even higher expectations.

Hawai'i beat Boise State by two scores. UGA beat them by 5 scores 2 games later.

I wasn't talking about the 2007 Broncos. I was talking about the BCS busting editions of the Broncos. One would have thought I was being clear about that by my omission of say...BYU pre-2010

I remember this well and may be an exception in the early stages of the BCS- at least from what we know now, Auburn's chances would have been pretty good with the SECs showing in National Championship games. They did receive a title at the time, and even a larger share now posthumously since USC was stripped of their title.

The success of Florida, LSU, and Alabama in a BCS championship game setting is not a guarantee of future or past success by any other individual team. The "competition" encountered in league play did not make those teams "tougher" and better suited to winning Championships; their recruiting, talent, and coaching* did.

As for 2004 Auburn, their "National" Championship is about as legitimate as half of Alabama's claimed titles (especially 1941), and no, their share did not go up with the USC vacation except among residents of "the Plains".

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ever notice how the biggest proponents of SEC uber alles cheer for second or third tier teams in the Conference?

*-Not including Les Miles, who is the luckiest SOB in the world.