Sunday, November 28, 2010

Actual Proof That Boise State Doesn't Belong as a Big-Time Football School

Sure, some people are heralding BSU's loss against Nevada as proof positive that Boise State was a National Championship Pretender. I whole-heartedly disagree. Proof of BSU's wannabe status as a major football program didn't come till after the disappointing loss.



In a matter of a day, over 9,000 people joined “The Bronco Nation Loves Kyle Brotzman”Facebook Group. The page has been filled with positive comments from fans who all want Brotzman to feel their support. This is quite the divergence from the typical treatment of kickers who have cost their teams with missed kicks. Here’s what it says in the group’s description:
“Boise State’s Kyle Brotzman is the all-time leading scorer for Bronco Football. A walk-on in 2006 and a local Idaho boy from Meridian High School, Kyle has been a key part of the Broncos’ success during an incredible four-year run. In the 2010 Fiesta Bowl, Kyle was at the center of the most memorable play, “The Riddler,” in which he took a snap on a fake punt on 4th down and threw a pass to Kyle Efaw, setting up the touchdown that would win the game for the Broncos.
True Bronco fans love Kyle and appreciate all that he has brought to this incredible team and program. Thanks, Kyle. We can’t wait to cheer for you and your team in your final two games. GO BRONCOS !!!”


Amateurs. You'll never be a big-time program until the goat of a game this big fears for his grandma's life and has his cell phone number distributed on internet message boards. 

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Continuing the previous post's discussion:

I think the whole AQ vs. non-AQ terminology is something that has outlived its usefulness.

I know the MWC and WAC aren't the strongest conferences in the country, but the fact is that a three (WVU), four (UConn) or five (Pitt) loss team from the Big East will play in a BCS bowl game, while TCU had to go undefeated to even sniff a BCS bowl is insane to me. How is Boise State, now highly unlikely to see a BCS bowl, not worthy of a BCS bowl, while WVU, UConn or Pitt are?

This leads me to the question of how the BCS is set up. What if UCONN had an 11-0 record, would they be ahead of TCU simply because they play in an AQ conference?

Likewise, FSU plays VT for a chance to "win" the ACC and make a BCS bowl game. On merit alone, would either of these two teams be chosen to play in a BCS bowl game? Essentially, the way the system is set up now, if FSU beats VT, then suddenly FSU becomes "worthy" of playing a BCS bowl game, while BCS apologists point to Boise State's victory at VT and scoff at it.

Conversely, if VT wins, then a team will be playing in a BCS bowl game that lost, at home, to a team with fewer losses that will be on the outside looking in. Also, keep in mind VT lost to James Madison.

It's incredibly shortsighted to point to someone's conference affiliation and say "they don't deserve a shot because they're in a non-AQ conference." Who cares if it's a non-AQ conference, especially when there are AQ conferences that are arguably worse than the upper tier non-AQ conferences.

My overall point can be summed up as such: if Boise or TCU go undefeated in the Big East somehow they would be rewarded for playing even more inferior competition, simply because someone 15 years ago deemed the Big East to be "acceptable."

Chris W said...

Anonymous--

Certainly the AQ conferences are outdated to a large extent, and if the BCS is going to refuse to adopt a playoff, at the very least it absolutely needs to reevaluate which conferences deserve automatic bids.

With that said, I think at the end of the day from a scheduling standpoint, the Mountain West and WAC have to be considered much weaker conferences overall than the major conferences, with the exception of the ACC and Big East, and I think, despite the weakness of the ACC and Big East, I probably would have to say that overall the MWC and WAC are weaker than them for a team like Boise State because although there isn't a lot of excellence in the ACC or Big East, there are a lot of .500 teams in major conference play there (I know this is something of a circular argument, but I do have to think that being a 7-5 team against Georgia Tech, Wake Forest, etc is a little more impressive than being an 8-3 team against Rice, et. al like Utah probably will be this year.

That doesn't by any means mean that a Boise State or TCU can't be better than the best team in the Big East or ACC, or hell--the best team in the Pac-10, SEC, or Big 10. I absolutely believe that TCU has shown that it has a very very good argument for being every bit as good as Auburn. They haven't played as strong a schedule as Auburn has in conference, but they have won much more convincingly.

I would argue that a system where an SEC or Pac-10 team gets an automatic bid whereas a MWC or CUSA or WAC team does not is not inherently unfair. But I do agree with you that something is wrong with a system that is contractually obliged to take a 5-loss Big East team (without even the cop out of a Conference Championship game a la 2003 K-State) but will owe absolutely nothing to a Boise State team that beat 2 AQ teams and absolutely dismantled all but one team in a mediocre conference.

Biggus Rickus said...

The problem for most non-AQ schools is that they don't boost ratings. Neither do most ACC and Big East teams, but I'm all for dropping those two conferences from AQ status.

Chris W said...

BTW, Anonymous, it seems like this news was written just for you:

http://sports.espn.go.com/dallas/ncf/news/story?id=5862368

Anonymous said...

Chris,

I will not disagree with anything you've said. There is no way that anyone can compare the Big 10, PAC 10 or SEC to the MWC or WAC.

However, the important factors into deciding who plays in a BCS bowl game are a team's competition and how they've played against that competition. Obviously the conference affiliation of a team is directly reflected in the level of competition faced, so why is the conference affiliation essentially double counted (AQ vs. Non-AQ and in the rankings)?

It's unfair to say that since TCU is in the MWC they have to go undefeated every year they want to play in the BCS while an inferior Big East team makes it. Just abolish the automatic qualifiers and you'd see the quality teams still make it, but teams that have no business being there open up spots for those that probably deserve a chance to play.

For example, if the ACC and Big East weren't taking up two spots this year we could BCS bowls featuring more one (or even two) loss teams from the better conferences.

In the same vein, the PAC 10, SEC and Big 10 will "automatically" get a team in anyway, just based off of the number of quality teams in those conferences. Sure, there might be a year here and there that a power conference doesn't get a team in, but how often would that happen if the automatic qualification system was thrown out the window?

Ultimately, I feel as if the BCS games should be given to those who have earned the right to be there and not to those teams that simply play in a specific conference.

Adam said...

The BCS is a self perpetuating system set up by the big conferences to rake in money for themselves. The amount of money Boise St. lost in that one loss is astonishing. Going to the Rose Bowl would net them $18M but now they are projected to play in the "Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl" (whatever that is) which will only get them $850k.

The BCS is still based 2/3 on polls which are totally subjective and always going to lean towards the high profile team.

Most of the computer rankings don't look at the whole picture either - PF/PA, margin of victory etc. They are mostly based on strength of schedule which itself not be an accurate number.

Even this past week for the top 2 shows this. Auburn barely gets by the #11 team and Orgeon beats the #21 team by 19 and falls to #2?

The thing that bothers me about the BCS is any team that is not in an AQ conference has zero chance of winning a national championship.

Andy said...

Ah, you spoke too soon!

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5864003

Chris W said...

Anon--

The only reason I like the Automatic Qualifier is because it gives an incentive to win the conference. I do enjoy the conference championship game format. Although it would cost my Razorbacks a BCS bid, it would be pretty cool if South Carolina could beat Auburn and cheapen their season.

JMO

Elliot said...

If Boise St wants to actually play in a national championship game, there's a really simple way: stop scheduling teams like Wyoming and Toledo as your non-conference games. That's great that you scheduled VA Tech and Oregon State, but come on.

It's bad enough that they have to automatically schedule such perennial powerhouse programs as Louisiana Tech and Utah State. If you want to be taken seriously, play real AQ schools and beat them.

Until then, quit bitching. Please. Especially when you can't even beat Nevada.

Elliot said...

I just looked at Larry's comment from a few days ago, and I realize he refuted much of what I said above. Please disregard all postings from me until after finals.

Chris W said...

Elliot:

How dare you? Never come to our site again.

Signed,

the internet

Elliot said...

*uncontrollable weeping*