Who cares. Stop comparing an 05 team that doesn't resemble anything that today's BSU team is. Your points are just silly. Others seem to agree that most of what you say is rubbish or non-standing with this years team.
Boise winning with pretty much zero NFL prospects o their roster would surpass that travesty. At least BYU had guys on that team that went on to play in the NFL.
Boise winning with pretty much zero NFL prospects o their roster would surpass that travesty. At least BYU had guys on that team that went on to play in the NFL.
Last ime Bosie was suppose to be a title contender and they play an SEC team, they lost by 5 TDs. When another WAC team, Hawaii, was suppose to ba a title contender and they played an SEC team, they lost by 5 TDs. I think the SEC is just bored and has lost interest.
At the risk of beating this to death, that Hawai'i team was a whole different animal. Didn't they have near-misses at San Jose and La Tech? I think they were also an ATS disaster - meaning that they underperformed expectations repeatedly. They were not an elite team, just an undefeated one. They were shown for what they were in the Sugar Bowl. Boise, on the other hand, is legit. I'm not saying they're the best team in the country, though I think they'd drill Ole Miss and Florida. That Oklahoma win changed their whole trajectory. They're bigger, faster and deeper than that 2005 team you keep bringing up.
This whole thing is like diving. Boise's degree of difficulty isn't very high, so it has very little margin for error. Not only can't they lose, they have to look good while winning. The SEC teams have a higher degree of difficulty, so they get to stay in the conversation with one loss, maybe even two (though not this year), or a crappy win or two. It is what is.
Again, I'm generally on the OTHER side of this argument. However, when you look at how average teams like Texas and Florida have been this year, I think you do Boise an injustice by simply assuming out of hand that they're just "not in that league." I think they're a lot more in that league than you think (and I hate them!).
Last ime Bosie was suppose to be a title contender and they play an SEC team, they lost by 5 TDs. When another WAC team, Hawaii, was suppose to ba a title contender and they played an SEC team, they lost by 5 TDs. I think the SEC is just bored and has lost interest.
At the risk of beating this to death, that Hawai'i team was a whole different animal. Didn't they have near-misses at San Jose and La Tech? I think they were also an ATS disaster - meaning that they underperformed expectations repeatedly. They were not an elite team, just an undefeated one. They were shown for what they were in the Sugar Bowl. Boise, on the other hand, is legit. I'm not saying they're the best team in the country, though I think they'd drill Ole Miss and Florida. That Oklahoma win changed their whole trajectory. They're bigger, faster and deeper than that 2005 team you keep bringing up.
This whole thing is like diving. Boise's degree of difficulty isn't very high, so it has very little margin for error. Not only can't they lose, they have to look good while winning. The SEC teams have a higher degree of difficulty, so they get to stay in the conversation with one loss, maybe even two (though not this year), or a crappy win or two. It is what is.
Again, I'm generally on the OTHER side of this argument. However, when you look at how average teams like Texas and Florida have been this year, I think you do Boise an injustice by simply assuming out of hand that they're just "not in that league." I think they're a lot more in that league than you think (and I hate them!).
I stand corrected. You are correct when you say Boise was not a national title contender, and they were't because the BSC completely shut teams from non-BCS schools out of the picture. The discussion back then was to open the BCS up to non-BCS conference schools like Boise so they could get a shot at the national title. Nevertheless, the argument was pretty much the same back then as it is now.
In 2002 Boise was 12-1 with their only loss being a 4 TD ass-whoopin' to Arkansas. In 2003 they were 13-1 with their only set-back being a 2-point loss to Oregon State (fortunately Boise didn't have to play an SEC team that year). Because of their 25-2 record the previous 2 years, the pre-season hype surrounding Boise in 2005 was enormous. Accordingly they were only a 7-point dog to Georgia - pretty ridiculous really. So no they weren't title contenders in '05 because Georgia quickly disabuse the college football world of that silly notion just like Virginia Tech should have done this season. They were clearly the better team.
I understand what you are saying, but if you don't play a big boy schedule and you don't have big boy talent, you cannot possibly king of the big boys. As Adam Vinatieri says, "to be the best, you've got to beat the best," and Boise can't beat the best because they don't play the best. If Boise did play the best, they would get their ass handed to them just like they have the past.
TCU would not fare well against top tier competition either. They are also not a top 10 team. So beating them means very little.
I stand corrected. You are correct when you say Boise was not a national title contender, and they were't because the BSC completely shut teams from non-BCS schools out of the picture. The discussion back then was to open the BCS up to non-BCS conference schools like Boise so they could get a shot at the national title. Nevertheless, the argument was pretty much the same back then as it is now.
In 2002 Boise was 12-1 with their only loss being a 4 TD ass-whoopin' to Arkansas. In 2003 they were 13-1 with their only set-back being a 2-point loss to Oregon State (fortunately Boise didn't have to play an SEC team that year). Because of their 25-2 record the previous 2 years, the pre-season hype surrounding Boise in 2005 was enormous. Accordingly they were only a 7-point dog to Georgia - pretty ridiculous really. So no they weren't title contenders in '05 because Georgia quickly disabuse the college football world of that silly notion just like Virginia Tech should have done this season. They were clearly the better team.
I understand what you are saying, but if you don't play a big boy schedule and you don't have big boy talent, you cannot possibly king of the big boys. As Adam Vinatieri says, "to be the best, you've got to beat the best," and Boise can't beat the best because they don't play the best. If Boise did play the best, they would get their ass handed to them just like they have the past.
TCU would not fare well against top tier competition either. They are also not a top 10 team. So beating them means very little.
I wasn't the one who brought up the past. A previous poster have repeatedly argued that because Boise beat Oregon last season, they are better than Oregon this season. So I followed their absurd logic by bringing up the fact that Boise has played 2 middle of the road SEC teams in the 21st century, and they lost by 4 TDs and 5 TDs respectively. And if they played a decent SEC team this year the result would be similar.
My points are not silly, they are undisputable facts. Moreover, they trump your points because as of now you have failed to make any. And the reason you most likely have not made a point is becasue you have none to make.
I wasn't the one who brought up the past. A previous poster have repeatedly argued that because Boise beat Oregon last season, they are better than Oregon this season. So I followed their absurd logic by bringing up the fact that Boise has played 2 middle of the road SEC teams in the 21st century, and they lost by 4 TDs and 5 TDs respectively. And if they played a decent SEC team this year the result would be similar.
My points are not silly, they are undisputable facts. Moreover, they trump your points because as of now you have failed to make any. And the reason you most likely have not made a point is becasue you have none to make.
This year's team is very much like previous Boise teams. They recruited the 80th best talent back then, and there are still recruiting the 80th best talent now. They haven't been able to stay within 4 TDs of an SEC team then, and probably can't stay within 4 TDs of a good SEC team now.
This year's team is very much like previous Boise teams. They recruited the 80th best talent back then, and there are still recruiting the 80th best talent now. They haven't been able to stay within 4 TDs of an SEC team then, and probably can't stay within 4 TDs of a good SEC team now.
The '05 Boise team was a 7 point dog to Georgia after they were being hyped in the preseason as a BCS contender. Many Boise koolaid drinkers on this very board were backing Boise in that game and predicting a straight up victory. I gave the inferior talent speach then as I am doing now and was laughed at. The laughter didn't last long.
The 07 Boise team lost to Hawaii by 2 TDs. Many pundits then were hyping Hawaii as the new Cinderella national title contender that year. It is comparable because both were suppose to be able to play with the big boys until they lost by 5 TDs. Nothing has changed between now and then. Boise is still a candy-ass WAC team who consistently recruits the 80th best talent in the nation. And when or if they face teams with world-class talent, the result will be similar. Nothing has changed
The '05 Boise team was a 7 point dog to Georgia after they were being hyped in the preseason as a BCS contender. Many Boise koolaid drinkers on this very board were backing Boise in that game and predicting a straight up victory. I gave the inferior talent speach then as I am doing now and was laughed at. The laughter didn't last long.
The 07 Boise team lost to Hawaii by 2 TDs. Many pundits then were hyping Hawaii as the new Cinderella national title contender that year. It is comparable because both were suppose to be able to play with the big boys until they lost by 5 TDs. Nothing has changed between now and then. Boise is still a candy-ass WAC team who consistently recruits the 80th best talent in the nation. And when or if they face teams with world-class talent, the result will be similar. Nothing has changed
Boise would lose to about 10-15 teams in the country on neutral field, and most of those games would not be competitive. Every team they would face would pretty much have superior talent across the board.
What Boise has going for them is experience and coaching. Both of those are huge factors, but it would not be enough against top teir teams. Anyone who watch the Virginia Tech game could see that the Hokies should have won that game by 2 TDs, and if they played again today they would get beat by that much.
Boise had to do almost nothing on their own to jump out to a 17-0 lead in the first quarter. Those points came solely on unforced errors by Tech (not anything Boise did). They also got the benefit of 40 yards of field position on their game-winning drive on two absolutely ridiculous calls by the refs. So the Tech does not show why they should be in the title game, it shows why they should not.
In the SEC alone there are probably 7 teams that Boise would not beat, and if Boise had to play the other 5 bottom teams they might go 3 & 2.
So just in the SEC alone they would be no better than the 8th best team in the conference.
They also would not be a top team in the Big 10, Big 12 or the PAC 10 or the ACC. I think they would have a fighting chance in the Big Least however.
The bottom line is that beating Virginia Tech in no way qualifies them for a shot at the title, no more than it qualified Bama last season when they completely dominated Tech in the first game of the season. Any suggestion to the contrary is patently absurd.
Boise would lose to about 10-15 teams in the country on neutral field, and most of those games would not be competitive. Every team they would face would pretty much have superior talent across the board.
What Boise has going for them is experience and coaching. Both of those are huge factors, but it would not be enough against top teir teams. Anyone who watch the Virginia Tech game could see that the Hokies should have won that game by 2 TDs, and if they played again today they would get beat by that much.
Boise had to do almost nothing on their own to jump out to a 17-0 lead in the first quarter. Those points came solely on unforced errors by Tech (not anything Boise did). They also got the benefit of 40 yards of field position on their game-winning drive on two absolutely ridiculous calls by the refs. So the Tech does not show why they should be in the title game, it shows why they should not.
In the SEC alone there are probably 7 teams that Boise would not beat, and if Boise had to play the other 5 bottom teams they might go 3 & 2.
So just in the SEC alone they would be no better than the 8th best team in the conference.
They also would not be a top team in the Big 10, Big 12 or the PAC 10 or the ACC. I think they would have a fighting chance in the Big Least however.
The bottom line is that beating Virginia Tech in no way qualifies them for a shot at the title, no more than it qualified Bama last season when they completely dominated Tech in the first game of the season. Any suggestion to the contrary is patently absurd.
At the risk of beating this to death, that Hawai'i team was a whole different animal. Didn't they have near-misses at San Jose and La Tech? I think they were also an ATS disaster - meaning that they underperformed expectations repeatedly. They were not an elite team, just an undefeated one. They were shown for what they were in the Sugar Bowl. Boise, on the other hand, is legit. I'm not saying they're the best team in the country, though I think they'd drill Ole Miss and Florida. That Oklahoma win changed their whole trajectory. They're bigger, faster and deeper than that 2005 team you keep bringing up.
This whole thing is like diving. Boise's degree of difficulty isn't very high, so it has very little margin for error. Not only can't they lose, they have to look good while winning. The SEC teams have a higher degree of difficulty, so they get to stay in the conversation with one loss, maybe even two (though not this year), or a crappy win or two. It is what is.
Again, I'm generally on the OTHER side of this argument. However, when you look at how average teams like Texas and Florida have been this year, I think you do Boise an injustice by simply assuming out of hand that they're just "not in that league." I think they're a lot more in that league than you think (and I hate them!).
I know that you and many others say subjectively Boise is legit, but what I see is the same Boise teams that get hyped every year that would have no chance against top tier competition. Virginia Tech is not a top tier team, and after watching that game you cannot honestly say they are a better team than Tech. I have watched that game 4 times, and that game proves to me beyond any doubt whatsoever they cannot hang with top tier competition. Had VT not shited themselves and spotted Boise 17 points off of unforced errors in the 1st quarter, Tech cruises to a perfunctory 2 TD victory.
If Boise had to play a SEC West conference schedule with their current depth and talent, they would win 2-3 conference games max. There is no way they could withstand the pounding.
At the risk of beating this to death, that Hawai'i team was a whole different animal. Didn't they have near-misses at San Jose and La Tech? I think they were also an ATS disaster - meaning that they underperformed expectations repeatedly. They were not an elite team, just an undefeated one. They were shown for what they were in the Sugar Bowl. Boise, on the other hand, is legit. I'm not saying they're the best team in the country, though I think they'd drill Ole Miss and Florida. That Oklahoma win changed their whole trajectory. They're bigger, faster and deeper than that 2005 team you keep bringing up.
This whole thing is like diving. Boise's degree of difficulty isn't very high, so it has very little margin for error. Not only can't they lose, they have to look good while winning. The SEC teams have a higher degree of difficulty, so they get to stay in the conversation with one loss, maybe even two (though not this year), or a crappy win or two. It is what is.
Again, I'm generally on the OTHER side of this argument. However, when you look at how average teams like Texas and Florida have been this year, I think you do Boise an injustice by simply assuming out of hand that they're just "not in that league." I think they're a lot more in that league than you think (and I hate them!).
I know that you and many others say subjectively Boise is legit, but what I see is the same Boise teams that get hyped every year that would have no chance against top tier competition. Virginia Tech is not a top tier team, and after watching that game you cannot honestly say they are a better team than Tech. I have watched that game 4 times, and that game proves to me beyond any doubt whatsoever they cannot hang with top tier competition. Had VT not shited themselves and spotted Boise 17 points off of unforced errors in the 1st quarter, Tech cruises to a perfunctory 2 TD victory.
If Boise had to play a SEC West conference schedule with their current depth and talent, they would win 2-3 conference games max. There is no way they could withstand the pounding.
Correct. WR Titus Pettis is currently projected as a 2nd-3rd round draft pick, and WR Titus Young projects as a 3rd. They have a couple of others that could work their way into the bottom of the draft - DE Ryan Winterswyk & SS Jeron Johnson. Their kicker Kylr Brotzman could possibly get a tryout too, but I doubt anyone will use a draft pick on him though.
Correct. WR Titus Pettis is currently projected as a 2nd-3rd round draft pick, and WR Titus Young projects as a 3rd. They have a couple of others that could work their way into the bottom of the draft - DE Ryan Winterswyk & SS Jeron Johnson. Their kicker Kylr Brotzman could possibly get a tryout too, but I doubt anyone will use a draft pick on him though.
Because the teams that have the best players usually win, and Boise is a long way from having the best players.
Because the teams that have the best players usually win, and Boise is a long way from having the best players.
I agree that TCU is better than Boise. I'm not a big Andy Dalton fan, but I think TCU is more talented overall.
I agree that TCU is better than Boise. I'm not a big Andy Dalton fan, but I think TCU is more talented overall.
Not only would Boise not win any of these games, they wouldn't even be competitve.
Not only would Boise not win any of these games, they wouldn't even be competitve.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.