Boise State making unheard of offer, but no takers so far

BS

I’m not buying what they’re selling!

Washington Husky Football-Undefeated 1991 National Champions 12-0!

by dawgfan22 on Nov 7, 2009 3:55 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

“Unheard of” offer? Hardly – this is what non BCS schools do, play road games against BCS schools. The article is quite slanted.

Now, that’s not to excuse the chicken-sh** teams that are turning them down, but maybe Boise should’ve tried to schedule one of these harder games a little sooner than 2 years out when most schedules are set.

by kirkd on Nov 7, 2009 4:20 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

The Cougs do this all the time.

Auburn, Wisconsin, and Notre Dame are a few recent games that come to mind.

CougCenter WSU's second main blog

by Dancing Football on Nov 8, 2009 9:33 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

All I’m saying is that scheduling a big-time team at the last minute (which is what this is in terms of scheduling) is tough, and it’s no surprise Boise is having a hard time. I have little doubt if they really want to add a big-name team to their schedule they could figure out terms that would appeal to those schools. And scheduling them farther in advance would help greatly in expanding their pool of available teams.

I don’t have a huge amount of sympathy for Boise State. If they want to be taken more seriously, they need to get themselves into a better conference and/or put together better OOC schedules (and do so with some advanced notice).

And again, I’m not trying to excuse the chicken-sh** teams that are turning Boise down – that’s weak sauce. But then again, the current system doesn’t punish big-time teams from scheduling patsies for their OOC games, so there is that factor…

by kirkd on Nov 8, 2009 12:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I think that's it exactly

But then again, the current system doesn’t punish big-time teams from scheduling patsies for their OOC games, so there is that factor…

The only teams that would seem to gain an advantage playing Boise State are not-quite-elite teams from big conferences. Or, like GekkoMojo pointed out below, the other BCS-busters. Well, it would at least help the school that wins, but it would drop the school that loses completely out of the BCS picture, whereas some of the bigger schools might survive a loss to BSU.

by johnnycougar on Nov 9, 2009 3:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Nope on BSU!

These guys haven’t earned anything yet. We did along time ago. We built this program up early last century to get an invite to the Pac 10 Conference. We don’t need Boise State! If they want us, they can visit Husky Stadium anytime they want, but if they expect a return trip- forget it!

I think this program needs to follow a trend, that is dummy-down the scheduling a bit. But we should never play as a visitor to a non-BCS school in football. We earned our stripes, they haven’t.

Boise State is playing the Gonzaga card all to well. They are lobbying to be considered a big boy program stuck in a mid major league. UNTIL you play in a BCS-level conference you are still a mid major no matter how you slice it. NO on Boise State.

All I saw was purple

by crazidawg on Nov 9, 2009 4:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The difference in comparisons is that Gonzaga has successfully added tough OOC games to their schedule (which is admittedly easier to do in basketball) to offset their weak in-conference schedule.

by kirkd on Nov 9, 2009 7:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Gonzaga is still a mid major

Those early OOC games are a joke! Most teams don’t hit their stride until league action gets going or at a mid point in the season. Gonzaga plays in a inferior league- enough said.

All I saw was purple

by crazidawg on Nov 10, 2009 5:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Gonzaga has played and beaten a lot of pretty good teams out of conference, and their NCAA tournament record is respectable. They’ve been in the tournament every year from the ‘98-’99 season onward, and in that time they’ve gone one and done 3 times. 3 times they’ve advanced to the field of 32. 4 times they’ve advanced to the Sweet 16, and 1 time they’ve made it to the Elite 8. That makes a 14-11 record in the NCAA tournament.

They’re clearly one of the top-20 programs in the country. Poor conference or not.

by kirkd on Nov 10, 2009 7:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

And that conference (and most the mid-majors) aren't that bad.

The real difference is that teams from power conferences have a choice— chose to play a tougher OOC schedule, or chose to schedule patsies.

There is no choice in football, because one loss signifies death and penalties aren’t enforced for having cupcakes on the schedule, so auto-wins are the way to go. If, however, the polls took into account the fact that Florida, for example, plays at most one quality team OOC a year and dinged them, they would change. Think about how many teams from better conferences DON’T make the NCAA tourney because they had cheap wins in an easy OOC schedule. Fix that, you fix the problem.

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by whiskey chainsaw on Nov 17, 2009 1:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

BSU vs Washington

Didn’t we play them a couple of years ago and beat them? I think we finished in last place that year if I’m not mistaken.

Washington Husky Football-Undefeated 1991 National Champions 12-0!

by dawgfan22 on Nov 7, 2009 5:06 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, that was in Jake's first year.

The year we started off 2-0 and then promptly went into the crapper.

Is that the light at the end of the tunnel, or the headlights of an oncoming train?

by Benne on Nov 7, 2009 7:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah and our crapper...

…team still handled boise state.

Washington Husky Football-Undefeated 1991 National Champions 12-0!

by dawgfan22 on Nov 7, 2009 7:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Sign em up...

…I’d love to play boise state again. Kirk has a good point though. Scheduling is set years in advance. I think BSU is using this as a publicity stunt.

Washington Husky Football-Undefeated 1991 National Champions 12-0!

by dawgfan22 on Nov 8, 2009 1:34 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Funny thing . . .

they just hired a PR firm to help their BCS chances. This is just the first step to try and build sympathy for their cause.

"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
"BOW DOWN TO WASHINGTON"

by Lear Pilot on Nov 9, 2009 6:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

This is a very easy problem to solve

… BSU is not the only program that can’t get the top three or four conferences to play them non-conference. If you are a rising team in the Big East, MWAC, WAC, Conf-USA or Mid-American nobody wants to play you. Houston is going to have this problem. Cincy is going to start having this problem. Rutgers had it. Utah has it. BYU has it. TCU is going to have it more frequently. USF is having trouble with it. The easy answer? Play each other. In fact, schedule a conference wide contract that matches a couple of your top finishing teams from the season before against a couple of the top finishing teams of other conferences … and make it a dynamic. The teams change based on finishes the year before (and, of course, make sure that you have ESPN signed on to broadcast it).

A BSU / Cincy matchup in 2011 on national television would serve to legitimize each other’s schedule. What about BSU / USF game? What about USF and TCU? What about Houston and Cincy?

This can be done with just a little commitment and creativity. If these teams keep trying to crack in by playing the same way the big boys play, they have no chance.

Damn, my eyeball tastes good.

by Gekko Mojo on Nov 8, 2009 3:14 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Have you looked at Cincy's schedule

Comparaing the WAC to the Big East…LMFAO Look at the Big East and see who is in the conference. Over half the teams in the Big East would wipe up up the WAC including Boise State. If Boise State was playing the schedule of Cincy, Boise State wouldn’t be rated. They would have 3 losses already.

by bigdawgdaddy999 on Nov 9, 2009 8:30 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't disagree with the Big East comment ...

… but my point is still valid. These are not teams that are on the “inside track” for BCS bids and are good enough that no one will want to schedule them. So, again, my response is to schedule each other.

Damn, my eyeball tastes good.

by Gekko Mojo on Nov 9, 2009 12:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I see what you're saying

The Mountain West already takes care of a part of the problem itself, but the issues they face can be used to argue against your logic. If no team in the MWC wins out, they won’t be sniffing the BCS. One loss and they’re done, most 10-2 BCS teams would be chosen instead. Say TCU finishes 11-1 this year. Are they really worse than a 10-2 Penn State team that beat no one of consequence? But Penn State would almost certainly get the bid instead.

I’m pretty sure the only way to get to a BCS bowl from any lower conference is to go undefeated, unless there’s a completely wacky season where all the top BCS schools beat each other up. So if all the contenders ended up scheduling each other it is quite likely that none of them will emerge as undefeated BCS busters. I think they actually have greater potential for making the BCS as they have it now because pollsters like undefeated teams. There’s also the side-effect of creating chaos and hopefully leading to some sort of playoff situation where everyone could just shut up and play.

by johnnycougar on Nov 9, 2009 3:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I see it differently...

… I think teams like BYU, BSU,, TCU and Houston have earned enough respect that they could each handle losing one to each other and still make noise in a season with no other BCS undefeateds. Case in point: before its untimely loss to Stanford, Oregon was making a BCS push despite their one loss to Boise St.

Damn, my eyeball tastes good.

by Gekko Mojo on Nov 10, 2009 6:46 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

But there are two other factors there

1) Oregon is BCS, which matters to a lot of people (whether it should or not)
2) Early season losses can be overcome a lot easier, especially when you also can write it off as something like “new head coach” or (in other cases) “star player injured” or whatever.

I don’t mean this as an insult, but a team like USC could still be in the championship (certainly would get an at large BCS bid) if they’d only lost to UW. “Barkley was injured and it was a road game” they’d say, and even though UW probably isn’t even a bowl team it could be overcome. Houston loses at UTEP in a trap game after a thrilling one point win at Texas Tech and they’re out of the picture. Even after beating Oklahoma media people were still saying BYU had to go undefeated to reach a BCS game.

I wish that respect was there for these teams but I don’t think it is yet. I think we have to be realistic: if TCU loses to Utah (or especially, god forbid, to New Mexico or Wyoming) they are out of the BCS picture. Maybe they could still get an at large spot if they lose a tough one to Utah and a bunch of the other top teams lose, but it is no sure thing.

by johnnycougar on Nov 10, 2009 10:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I've got a great solution

A playoff.

Ground Breaking, huh?

"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
"BOW DOWN TO WASHINGTON"

by Lear Pilot on Nov 10, 2009 12:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It would be nice

Aren’t the conferences tied to a contract for at least the next three or four years?

by johnnycougar on Nov 10, 2009 3:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I really have no use for a playoff. I don’t think it proves nearly as much as people think it does.

For what it’s worth, I’d prefer going back to the old bowl affiliations, and if people are really upset at split title situations like we had in 1991, set up a +1 game to happen after the New Year’s Day bowls, and rotate the site amongst the major bowl sites.

by kirkd on Nov 10, 2009 5:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with Kirk

.. I like the tradition of the bowls and, with an 8 team format, we’ll still get the “who deserves to be in there” argument.

Damn, my eyeball tastes good.

by Gekko Mojo on Nov 10, 2009 5:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, the thing with playoffs is it doesn’t necessarily tell who the best team is, just who the hottest team in the tournament was. And as you mention, it wouldn’t eliminate the debates – there’d always be arguments about the teams that didn’t make the cut.

I like the fact that in the current system, every game counts. You can’t just scrape by and win your conference with 3 losses and then get hot in a playoff to win a “championship”. To me, that takes a lot of the importance away from each week. People might not like the “beauty pageant” aspect of the current system, but at least it places a great deal of importance on winning each and every week rather than doing just enough to get into the tournament. It rewards the entire season.

Given that, I’d rather just see the traditional bowl matchups and watch a lot of good football games around the holidays and preserve all the good things about bowls. It just wouldn’t be the same in a playoff scenario.

I know there are a lot of people that really want a playoff system, but I’m not one of them.

by kirkd on Nov 10, 2009 7:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Seems a fine fit for the Basketball tourney...

Do you think Michigan State was the 2nd best team in the country? Of course not, but they got hot at the right time and beat everyone short of UNC in the playoffs. Same thing with Arizona in the NFL playoffs last year.

There is no debate in a playoff. The biggest debate would be who gets into the playoffs, but we can remedy that with the current BCS system.

BCS conf. champs get in and the non-AQ schools can play their way into the top 8 based on the BCS rankings.

All the bowls can remain…I don’t know why people think that bowls will suddenly mean less than they do now, or even stupider is that they’ll disappear all together. There is still a bowl system, even though 90% of the teams know they have zero chance of winning the NC. Bowl games = money…they’ll exist as long as CFB and mean the same to everyone (a chance to end the season with a win and a free trip to somewhere nobody really likes to go).

Now onto the plan, keep all the current bowl games (we’ll move two of the current bowls into the playoff to fill the semi-final void…or hell create two new ones since they’ll generate money no matter what)

Round 1: Bowls will be seeded based on BCS rankings (1 v. 8, 2 v. 7, etc.) and played in two of the aforementioned “upgraded” bowl games and 2 current BCS bowl games (which will rotate on an annual basis between Round 1 and the semi-finals).

Round 2: Winners will play in the semi-finals for a spot in the title game.

National Championship: Game will be played at a location of one of the sites of the playoff (or it can go beyond that to somewhere like the new Cowboys stadium or Landshark or whatever) on a rotation system.

Literally nothing changes, the bowl games mean just as much and there will now be an undisputed NC every season. No more Auburns or Utah’s or BSU’s. Just a champion. If you want to play for the title win your conference, if you can’t win your conference than there is no guarantees.

I guess I just can’t imagine a scenario where this would not be better than the current system.

by B Money on Nov 11, 2009 11:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

did you say "even stupider" ...

… that’s kind of funny.

Damn, my eyeball tastes good.

by Gekko Mojo on Nov 13, 2009 12:22 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Hey...

I never laid claim to being a grammar champion…a common sense constest is mine to lose…but spelling and grammar isn’t something I excel in.

by B Money on Nov 14, 2009 6:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

This makes so much sense, and sounds like so much fun, that it guarantees the NCAA will never, ever even consider it as an option.

Is that the light at the end of the tunnel, or the headlights of an oncoming train?

by Benne on Nov 14, 2009 8:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Except that every game doesn't count.

Florida International, Charleston Southern and Troy are on the Gator schedule.

Those games “count?” They count only in tally, but not in reality. Replace those with some “real” games vs. upper tier teams in mid-majors and 95% of the problems would be solved.

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by whiskey chainsaw on Nov 17, 2009 1:07 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

They all count in the sense that any loss during the season jeopardizes your chances of playing for the National Championship. Losing to a great team by a few points is obviously going to be looked upon more kindly than losing by a lot, or to a much inferior team.

And let’s be clear – while playing a team like Charleston Southern is a joke, the Gators did what a great team should do to a lower division team – blow them out early.

by kirkd on Nov 17, 2009 10:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You said it perfectly:

“They all count in the sense that any loss during the season jeopardizes your chances of playing for the National Championship.”

You basically explained why they never play anyone, nor will they. However, what if there was a paradigm shift and they got marked down significantly for having weak-sister matchups with cupcakes, hence all the top conference schools with national title hopes went out and played “real” games with their out of conference schedule? Then, perhaps, this whole “must be undefeated” formula would end, in addition to giving us a much better idea who is the best team in the land.

As is, the system is FUBAR, and frankly I don’t give a rat’s ass that they blew out lower division talent. It’s an embarrassment to even schedule them.

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by whiskey chainsaw on Nov 17, 2009 12:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Well, programs have to weigh the pros of having a more impressive strength of schedule vs. the risk of taking a loss.

The NCAA could partially address this by going back to the rule that playing Div 1-AA teams only counted once ever three years instead of 1 every year counting.

I think Gekko has the right idea – schools like Boise State and Utah and Cincinnati and others that don’t have the same cachet as the major BCS conference schools should start scheduling each other to build up their strength of schedule.

by kirkd on Nov 17, 2009 1:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Cincy IS a BCS school.

However, right now there is NO WEIGHT to the ‘pros of having a more impressive strength of schedule’ if that schedule leads to even a single loss.

You are better playing cupcakes, and that’s wrong.

As for the other point, Boise State and Utah playing each other doesn’t address that Florida will still play schools like Troy, Charleston Southern and Florida International yearly. All it does is eliminate one of them with that single loss— Exactly what the BCS schools would like to see.

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by whiskey chainsaw on Nov 17, 2009 1:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

While I’m not thrilled to see Florida playing teams like Charleston Southern, that’s not that much worse than the annual games that Boise State has with teams like New Mexico State. The reality is that the in-conference slate SEC teams have (as well as Big-12, Big-10 and Pac-10) is damn hard, so they don’t really need to add much in terms of strength of schedule when it comes to OOC games.

And I would strongly argue the contention that strength of schedule currently carries no weight – look at past seasons when no teams have been undefeated. Who’s rated highest and who goes to the BCS title games? The ones with impressive strength of schedule factors (which just happen to be BCS conference schools).

I’m not really sure what we’re arguing, really. We both agree it would be better if pollsters put more weight in strength of schedule. Outside of revoking the ability to count 1 game per year against a Div 1-AA team towards bowl eligibility, I’m not sure what more the NCAA can really do.

by kirkd on Nov 17, 2009 2:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Again, their not playing one team like Charleston Southern.

They play 3 per year. It’s a joke.

In addition, the Florida SEC schedule isn’t all that great. They basically had 3-4 “games” this year, and a bunch of gimmies.

The BCS needs to be broken up for the integrity of college sports. You wont convince me otherwise.

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by whiskey chainsaw on Nov 17, 2009 6:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You know Florida has not played

a non-conf game out of the state of Florida since 1993? Any pac-10 fan finds that absurd.

by spencer peaty on Nov 24, 2009 11:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Wow. I didn't know that.

But then, I’m not surprised…

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by whiskey chainsaw on Nov 25, 2009 1:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It all depends on how you set it up.

If you take a 8 team playoff, each BCS conference champion gets a spot, and a play in or ar large birth for the other two spots. It proves everything, win your conference or go home and shut up. It gives the little guys a fair chance, and you can keep all of the bowls and their league affiliations.

For instance, UW wins the PAC10, and plays the Big Ten champion in the Rose Bowl, a week later the 4 BCS bowl winners face off, and a week later the final two teams face off. What do you lose in that scenario? Two teams miss a week of class, and two teams miss two weeks of class, sure sounds good to me.

If done right, you gain everything, and lose nothing. You keep the history, the tradition, and you get a true champion. If you didn’t make it in, it’s because you didn’t win all of your games.

"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
"BOW DOWN TO WASHINGTON"

by Lear Pilot on Nov 11, 2009 7:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I wish that respect was there for these teams but I don’t think it is yet.

Well, the respect has to be earned.

by kirkd on Nov 10, 2009 2:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes

In BCS games: Utah beat Alabama last year, Boise beat Oklahoma a few years ago, Utah crushed Pitt in 2005… I believe the only BCS buster that lost was Hawaii, who won the auto bid despite being ranked 12th in the computers and having only one win over a ranked team all year and a number of very close wins over mediocre teams.

I’m not as familiar with the non-BCS records but at least in the regular season the MWC and Boise State often beat their BCS opponents. I think the respect should be there.

by johnnycougar on Nov 10, 2009 4:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Bowl games are not repsect...

Bowl games are not repsect, playing BCS teams more than one a time year in regular season, not Bowl games gets respect. Look at BYU’s Shedule. Oklahoma, Florida State, TCU, UTAH, etc. Boise State doesn’t even come close. Boise State wants respect…starting playing BCS teams in non conference of more than one.

by bigdawgdaddy999 on Nov 10, 2009 4:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Isn't that the point of the original Fan Post?

Boise wants to schedule harder games but no one will take them up on it? I agree that in this particular case (we have an open slot, let us come play you) but in general I don’t think they can schedule two or three BCS teams a season very often.

But why aren’t BCS games worth respect? Every disrespects Ohio State because they have recently choked in big games, ditto Oklahoma. Those games aren’t the be-all end-all but they are still big games. At least for Boise State a couple years ago, everyone said “you went undefeated against a weak-ass schedule, prove to us you can play.” And they did, beating Oklahoma. I don’t see why that isn’t worth some respect.

by johnnycougar on Nov 11, 2009 12:07 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You're leaving out...

Hawaii and some of the others who have been crushed in those games.

Washington Husky Football-Undefeated 1991 National Champions 12-0!

by dawgfan22 on Nov 10, 2009 4:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I said Hawaii

And I think they’re the only one

by johnnycougar on Nov 11, 2009 12:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It takes more than 4 bowl games of evidence to convince people. Prove it on a regular basis.

Fact of the matter is, until last year, Boise State hadn’t beaten a BCS conference team on the road, and that includes a bad UW team in 2007.

by kirkd on Nov 10, 2009 5:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

exactly ...

… so, play each other multiple times over many years and let the reputation grow. If you implement my creative “conference contest” idea with a rotation matching the two best teams between conferences every year, you’ll generate buzz, attention, and tv dollars. Over time, your reputation will go to on-par with the other traditional programs.

Damn, my eyeball tastes good.

by Gekko Mojo on Nov 10, 2009 5:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I like that idea. If the BCS teams won’t let you in their little circle, play each other. There are enough strong teams in the various smaller conferences that if they start scheduling each other, they would have a schedule that stacks up with anybody in the country and would deserve respect if they went undefeated.

Best case scenario for Boise State is to get themselves into the MWC. That would give the conference a number of good teams: Utah, TCU, BYU, Boise State. And if those teams are regularly playing teams like Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Houston, East Carolina, etc. – that’s a good slate of games.

But here’s the thing – I think Boise likes things just fine the way they are. They dominate their conference, win 11+ games every year, sometimes go undefeated, always go bowling, sell out all their home games, maybe sneak into a BCS bowl every once in a while. Their fans love it and the school makes a pretty good amount of money.

If they started getting really serious about trying to be a legit BCS title game contender, they’d risk exposing the reality that they probably aren’t at that level. If they start losing 3, 4, 5 games every year – what does that do to their fanbase? Do they bring in as much money?

by kirkd on Nov 10, 2009 7:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

That is an excellent point

I also wonder if Boise just likes making a lot of noise but really wants to keep things the way they are. Although if they managed to actually join a bigger conference then the money could be worth the extra couple losses per year.

by johnnycougar on Nov 11, 2009 12:10 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

boise state is playing va. tech first game next college football

season. it’s at fed ex field. not sure if they have any other aq bcs schools on schedule

by wolfmanshowlforever on Nov 11, 2009 8:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

First 4 games of Boise State 2010

09/11/2010 Toledo – at Boise
09/18/2010 Wyoming at Laramie
09/25/2010 Oregon State at Boise
10/02/2010 Virginia Tech at Fedex Field

No top ranked program will play a home and home with Boise due to the size of the Stadium in Boise, plus not having the money to given them.

by bigdawgdaddy999 on Nov 11, 2009 9:46 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

okay they do have two aq bcs teams next year

that is a step in right direction.

by wolfmanshowlforever on Nov 11, 2009 10:13 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

you are probably right ...

… but that won’t go on forever. you have characters like Obama and Orrin Hatch screaming for “equality” in college football (I’m sure there are no bigger fish to fry). This puts pressure on administration. If there is an opening for them to break in and that price is slightly stiffer competition, I don’t see them able to resist.

Damn, my eyeball tastes good.

by Gekko Mojo on Nov 11, 2009 2:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

here is a complete breakdown of bcvs wins by teams in non aq bcs conferences

utah has 18 wins. 9 vs the pac-ten and 7 different teams including usc in vegas bowl.
tcu has 15 or 16
byu has 14 or 15
navy, yes navy has around 14 wake forest and notre dame this year
houston has eight or nine okie state, texas tech and somebody this year. they have three this year.
boise state has seven

utah has two bcs bowl wins
boise has one
hawaii got crushed by georgia. was least deserving too. they played two fcs teams that year

by wolfmanshowlforever on Nov 10, 2009 7:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

trust me tcu will beat utah this weekend and then they have new mexico and another bottom dwellar of the mwc

they are going 12-0 and they will be playing in a bcs bowl. i would love for them to play usc. they would crush usc like oregon did and wahington did. usc can’t beat teams with dual threat qb’s. masoli and locker. pryor can really only run. he is not an accurate passer. i know tcu is going 12-0 but will usc go 10-2. stanford could be tough. ucla i’ll give em but arizona is like arizona state but with offense. all you have to do is look at matt barkley’s stats in that whole game vs asu. they were pathetic. it was usc worst offensive output in 5 and 1/2 years. barkley’s stats were like case keenums(houston qb) just one “quarter” of his qb play in the past two weeks. tcu uses 7 rb’s if you count dalton and they all have speed. dalton has gotten his yards per average up to 4.5 yards. he is only a junior but his record is 27-4 as a starter. can’t wait if it happens.

by wolfmanshowlforever on Nov 10, 2009 7:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Don't Be To Sure...

…Pete Carroll can coach and he has depth and talent in spades and what’s his record in big BCS games?

Washington Husky Football-Undefeated 1991 National Champions 12-0!

by dawgfan22 on Nov 10, 2009 7:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

all i have to say to that is andy dalton far superior qb to barkley

and as for pete carrol’s bcs record it is good but the game will not be in the rose bowl(basically home field advantage for usc). it will be in tempe and people love supporting an underdog even though tcu probably would be favored by a couple of points in game. it’s true that gary patterson has not even one bcs bowl game but he has put together 4 consecutive 10 or more win seasons. if it happens tcu 31 usc 17. peace.

by wolfmanshowlforever on Nov 11, 2009 8:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

and you could be right...

…we’ll just have to see how it plays out.

Washington Husky Football-Undefeated 1991 National Champions 12-0!

by dawgfan22 on Nov 12, 2009 4:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You used your own paragraph as a fanpost?!?

Or re-used it here?

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by whiskey chainsaw on Nov 17, 2009 1:10 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It called money on playing at Boise State

Your not going to play at Boise State for $600,000. Unless your stupid like Oregon. When you can get over $1,000,000 playing elsewhere. Get a bigger Stadium, start playing BCS teams on regular basis, a minimum of 3 games year, not 1 game year. Then Boise State migh get respect. Until then, any other talk is just garbage.

by bigdawgdaddy999 on Nov 9, 2009 8:39 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Last I checked, Oregon doesn't really need the money.

They may need a lot of things, but money isn’t one of them. Kudos to them for going to Boise.

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by whiskey chainsaw on Nov 17, 2009 1:11 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

What they didnt tell anyone is that when they play that team

they want $1,000,000 guarenteed. Who would give that kind of money for a non guarenteed win? You only heard what they want you to hear…

by bigdave967 on Nov 11, 2009 11:16 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Div 2 teams get $750,000.00 for playing Div 1 Team...

Div 2 teams get $750,000.00 for playing Div 1 Team…That is the going rate. That is fact. Now Div 1 Teams is a different story, they command more money. I think you only hear, what you want to hear.

by bigdawgdaddy999 on Nov 11, 2009 3:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

But that is for a guaranteed win...

that’s the D-II schtick…“pay us big and we’ll play you bad”. BSU can beat almost any team in the country in any given game. This game is not a gimme like a D-II school (sans App. State, still makes me laugh by the way).

BSU has gotten to big for their britches, and it’s biting them in the ass. They’re a good team, but to demand 1 million guaranteed instead of putting this on Thursday night on ESPN and grinding your way to respectability is just ridiculous.

by B Money on Nov 11, 2009 11:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Also...

You are referring to the old 1-AA not Div 2. No FBS team would play a Div 2 team. The only way you see that is Div 2 playing Div 1-AA and the Div 2 team is not getting more than $100k. 1-AA teams will command between $500-750k for a game but like it was mentioned below, its more of a guarentee “W” than Boise State. Also, Boise needs to play these teams WAY more than those teams need to play Boise. If they were serious about it they should look to take less money because in the long run it will help them make more in a BCS bowl game.

by bigdave967 on Nov 12, 2009 7:12 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs