iamshack

QUOTE (Tex @ Nov 30, 2010 -> 08:40 PM) With the legal limits for drunk driving getting lower and lower and the places to legally smoke cigarettes getting fewer and fewer, the climate just isn't there for adding another intoxicating, burning, product to the mix. If the state and federal deficits continue to mount, that climate will change very quickly.

QUOTE (Tex @ Nov 30, 2010 -> 07:10 PM) Male, Female, Shack, Rock, Kap, and my favorite Soxy Why bother even having it as a question, I guess, is my query?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 30, 2010 -> 04:56 PM) Exactly. That team went from that 100 point race with the Packers in the Playoffs to barely sticking their heads above water. That's all the QB shift. There are subtleties in the NFL that can have huge ramifications. The Cardinals have been without Breaston for most of the year, have lost Dansby and some other key defensive pieces, Boldin is gone, and they have substituted one of the better qb's in NFL history for one of the worst in NFL history. Yes, there is a focus on the QB in this league. It is the most important position in all of sports. But you don't just find a talented QB and solve all your problems. Which is what Lost was arguing.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 30, 2010 -> 04:56 PM) Wow, no need to get personal. Maybe if you and your small school lovers werent too busy sitting on the curb drinking your vodka out of paper bags......... FYI, I went to a small school, I've watched more MAC football than most people on this board. You clearly dont understand my argument. And I still havent seen your statistical analysis except for SOS which is universally known as a flawed statistic. And by no count am I saying that BSU and TCU cannot compete with other large programs across the country, this is what you are clearly misunderstanding. I am simply pointing out that week in and week out the players and teams they face in conference arent as tough as schools with similar records in the B10 or SEC, which SOS doesnt completely factor in. And the fact that you completely discount the difference in the quality of players clearly shown by both recruiting rankings (also flawed) and the number of NFL players currently playing from those schools. The schemes and "team" aspect of a team goes a long way in the quality of the program, but at some point there is a talent gap at the player level that has to be taken into account on the differences between playing a WAC schedule and playing an SEC schedule regardless of the record of the teams they play. If you have a mathematical formula that tells me that Louisiana Tech is the same quality team as a team with a similar record in the B10 such as Illinois then I would love to see it. I will tell you that if they have the same record I look at the quality of players in that program to show me how they play, with what speed and physicality to determine who i think is best. I am lucky enough to have several family members who played at one of the best college football programs in the country in Mount Union and I can empirically say they could stick with several bigger schools during a one game contest, but over the course of the season, the talent level and size difference would really take its toll. And since I am clearly striking a nerve with you, I'll back off this subject moving forward. I wasn't taking a personal shot at you. I'm pointing out the huge disadvantage the schools out west have because they are simply not viewed nearly as much because of their game times. That has been proven. Most young rabid college football fans are partying by the time schools like Boise or Fresno or Hawaii are playing, and thus have no idea how talented they are. Do you know how difficult it is, btw, to go into Hawaii and beat them? Secondly, I can present BCS rankings data. Is that not good enough for you? Thirdly, college football, as a game in and of itself, is entirely different from many of the arguments you're making about NFL prospects, recruits, etc. Don't confuse success in the game of college football with the potential of the players to succeed in the NFL. Those are two entirely different concepts with entirely different criteria from which to measure. I think we are basically on the same page, Rock. I understand what you are saying about power conferences. I think we are just sort of confusing what the argument is about a bit.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 30, 2010 -> 05:38 PM) True...but I think it mostly tells me how truly important the QB position is in that league (Going back to LF's statement that it isn't as important as some think). That's not fair though, Balta. You're comparing a hall of fame QB versus a drunken fool, in Derek Anderson. Talk about going from one end of the spectrum to another.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 30, 2010 -> 05:35 PM) Actually yes, there has been an argument that Boise should be going to a BCS bowl, read above. And you keep going back on which "team" plays football better. My point is that 6-6 teams in the WAC vs 6-6 teams in larger conferences are not the same quality of opponent regardless of record. This is clearly seen in the quality of players on those teams that make up the opponent. Its easy for smaller schools to run through their conferences because of a system or because of one or two standout players, in larger conferences those talent and scheme matchups become less of an advantage because of increased level of talent. If you dont think thats important than thats your prerogative. I've seen it first hand when my Redhawks DOMINATED their opponents for the most part in 2003 including a very good Louisville team in a bowl game because of their scheme and a standout QB, however their one loss that season was to a much more physically dominating team in Iowa. If you dont think a talent difference means anything in football, well then there is nothing I can say that you will take seriously. And you really think half of TCU's defense will play in the NFL? They have 11 alumni in the NFL at the moment, you are projecting a 50 percent increase in that number on defensive players alone? I'll go with Auburn and take that bet. I'm not saying that teams from bigger conferences don't have the ability to beat teams from lesser conferences. I'm saying that the time has come and gone for people to outright dismiss good teams from bad conferences on the basis of their conference schedule. You must take things on a case by case basis, which is all that the Boise supporters in this thread are asking for. Instead, you're outright dismissing them, and claiming the loss to Nevada is all the proof you need. Well that's just pure bulls***, and you honestly haven't been able to dispute the data except with nonsensical outdated arguments and dismissing the data by claiming it is "flawed." As for TCU, ask Mel Kiper Jr, Rock. TCU's defense is absolutely loaded with NFL prospects. Auburn, on the other hand, is pretty damn mediocre with the exception of Cam Newton.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 30, 2010 -> 05:28 PM) No, but those MAC teams are just as good if not better than the bottom tier WAC teams that are conference games for BSU. Next the bottom tier B10 and SEC teams are as good as most of the other teams in that conference. There is a much tougher road for B10 and SEC, B12 teams just playing conference games than BSU has playing in conference and they dont really add much more than opponents as good as the top tier teams in the big conferences when they play OOC games. My point is overall its a much tougher road throughout the season week after week than BSU will ever see playing their current schedule regardless of what the flawed SOS says. So basically, what you and others are going to argue, is that no matter the data presents, no matter what actual mathematical formulas and statistics we present which state that schools like Boise and TCU can hack it against the best football programs in the country, you are going to respond that they are "flawed" because your eyes tell you otherwise? Because their uniforms happen to say Indiana on them instead of Fresno State, and you see them on Saturday mornings getting their asses kicked by the likes of mediocre Penn State teams, and you don't see Fresno State playing solid football, because you are in a bar drunk with your fraternity brothers by then, that we should just buy your argument? That because some of these power conference schools get the leftover athletes from bigger high school programs in bigger football regions, guys that have shown up on the top 50 recruiting lists at their positions instead of lesser known players from small towns out west, that they must be better, stronger programs simply by default. That because they go 3-5 in their conference play or 2-6, but beat Morehead State and Delaware Tech and finish 6-5 and are bowl eligible, they must indeed be better than teams from lesser conferences that finish 9-3. Ok then.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 30, 2010 -> 03:36 PM) I don't think they were TERRIBLE. That just goes to show you how great Warner and Fitzgerald were. Absolutely. And it hurts losing Dansby as well.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Nov 30, 2010 -> 02:30 PM) i dont really see the star wars comparison either in the storyline, but it is undeniably Dances With Wolves/Pocahontas in space. But really, aren't we to the point now that pretty much every plot is just a twist or tweak of something that has been done before?

Diaspora sounds like an RX for an std, does it not? As for the drop down menu, what would you type in instead of selecting? What are the alternatives?

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 30, 2010 -> 10:15 AM) First of all the reason they arent getting a BCS bid is when they lost not who they lost to. Bring up money all you want, it has nothing to do with that. Secondly, SOS only tells a fraction of who a team plays since its heavily weighted by record. If you think a 6-6 non-ranked BCS team is the same as a 6-6 non ranked WAC team, then thats your problem. There is a clear difference not only in the size of players but the overall talent of players that they play week in and week out. Above everyone was jumping on Iowa as a team that would get rolled by Boise. Iowa will put more players in the NFL this season than Boise and Nevada combined, there is a significant talent difference between even the top WAC schools and a second tier Big Ten or SEC team. WTF are you even arguing? Are we arguing that Boise has more talent, player for player, as any of these big conference schools? Is that what we are all supposed to be cheering for? You keep bringing up size and quantity of NFL prospects, as if that is what we should be judging these teams on, rather than their ability to play the game of football. I could care less about whether or not Ohio State has more NFL prospects than Boise. I can care less what the average size of their offensive lines are. All I care about is who plays the game of football the best. Why the hell even bother to play the games if we're going to measure by the criteria you continue to bring up? Oh, and btw, more than half of TCU's starting defense will probably play in the NFL, so should they be ranked higher than Auburn? Because I can guarantee you TCU will send more players from this class to the NFL than Auburn will. Secondly, this is not a "woe is Boise" argument. Not ONE f***ing person has argued that Boise should be playing for a championship, or even in a BCS bowl. What is being argued is that the loss to Nevada does not prove they aren't a good enough team to deserve a shot, had they not lost to Nevada.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Nov 30, 2010 -> 01:41 AM) Derek Anderson is awesome. It was sad to hear all the commentators making fun of him.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 29, 2010 -> 10:47 PM) Will Scott Linebrink become this loved when he becomes an ex White Sox? Uribe was another guy who was pounded on this board. All of a sudden, the amount of people who always loved him has grown faster than the deficit. Gloat away, Dick. I guess you should be the only guy who is happy to see him do well.

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Nov 29, 2010 -> 09:30 PM) And when was the last time Gonzaga made the Final Four? I hate it when people try to compare football to basketball because it's not the same thing. 65 (soon to be 68) teams make the tournament every year and get their shot to win it all. Some of the non-power conference teams win a game or two, but they rarely make the Final Four and it's exceedingly rare for them to win it all (UNLV in 1990 being the exception in recent history when they had multiple NBA players). Only two teams have a shot to win a title in college football, so the benchmark for getting that shot is an awful lot higher. Football is also a completely different sport, there are far more players involved in the equation. One or two great player that slipped through the cracks can make a huge difference in the result (ie Gordon Hayward and Shelvin Mack at Butler last year). The same is not true in football. If there were a playoff, I'd have no problem giving them a shot to win it all. It's an entirely different story to pick them over multiple 11-1 teams that faced an entirely different schedule in a one-game playoff for the national championship. Then why should there even be any teams outside of the BCS conferences? Why not just have 1 division with just BCS conferences and another with the rest of the teams?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 29, 2010 -> 09:15 PM) Because its not about data, its about what you see with your eyes. When you see Boise State, do you really believe that they are the best team in the nation? I'm not arguing that they are the best team in the nation. I'm arguing that they are amongst the best, and prior to the loss to Nevada, I believed they deserved to be in the conversation. They certainly have shown as much as anyone else this year.

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Nov 29, 2010 -> 09:13 PM) When you conveniently ignore it when they lose games, yes, it is. They went 42-7 from 2002-2005, but those losses against the BCS schools in that stretch somehow aren't relevant in this discussion apparently. And my point was not that it doesn't matter. My point is that if they go even 6-2 in a major conference they're nowhere near the national championship game and probably out at 7-1 too. No, the point is that Boise built a program over time, just as Gonzaga did in basketball, that is producing better players, that is attracting top-tier recruits, that is proving itself more and more on a national stage. Since the win over Oklahoma several years ago, they have really taken big steps to improve their program.

QUOTE (zenryan @ Nov 29, 2010 -> 09:10 PM) Yeah it's a pretty good number. But that stat is so misleading since they play nobody worth a crap. Boise is suppose to be one of the best run defenses in the country and Nevada went right through them. And dont start with how BCS schools wont schedule them. Boise tries to bend over BCS schools with stupid crap and when the BCS schools tell Boise to take a hike, Boise plays the victim card. I found it funny when the Alabama's AD called out Boise earlier this year when he said Boise never called him for a game. Ok, this is no longer worth arguing over, because every piece of data that I present you guys find some bogus excuse not to count as relevant. And if I have no data that is relevant, there is no point in continuing this discussion.

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Nov 29, 2010 -> 09:06 PM) 1) You can't just ignore the schedule they play when you say they have the #4 offense in the country. A lot of BCS teams could put up huge numbers against suspect competition, just look at what someone like Indiana did before they ran into some decent teams. 2) Why would you pick 2006 as a starting point? 15 games is already a small sample size, that's barely an entire season worth of data, and it's not like their performance against everyone else changed at all (they lost 3 games from 2002-2004, went 9-4 in 2005 with 3 of their losses coming against BCS teams). If you want to cherry pick the data, they're 6-1 against them since 2006. That hardly seems relevant though since their entire season hinges on their performance in those few games against legitimate opponents. So now their record against BCS teams is irrelevant too, because those are the only games in which they care about. Give me a f***ing break, guys.

QUOTE (kjshoe04 @ Nov 29, 2010 -> 08:55 PM) They went 0-3 in the 2005 season and have been 6-1 since then. 6-1 since, which is about when their program began to flourish. And most of those wins are probably against solid BCS teams, not just any BCS teams.

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Nov 29, 2010 -> 08:41 PM) But they lost to Nevada, didn't they? How do we know Nevada is any good? The only BCS team they played all year was a 5-6 Cal team, and they lost to a 9-3 WAC team (Hawaii). You just don't know because there are far too many teams like New Mexico State and Idaho on their roster that BCS schools schedule when they want a guaranteed rout. I'll put it this way: since 2002 (as far back as ESPN goes), Boise State is 8-7 against BCS teams. They're 96-5 against everyone else over that span. Nevada has the # 4 offense in the nation. I'd say they're pretty good. Secondly, you are absolutely right about New Mexico State and Idaho on their schedule, and Boise pays for this by basically having to go undefeated to have any chance at a BCS bowl. No one is arguing that Boise deserves to be there with the one loss. Only that had they gone undefeated, they would have an argument. You do have to recognize that Boise tries to put together the strongest non-conference schedule possible, but most BCS schools will not schedule them. Third, what is Boise's record against BCS teams since 2005?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 29, 2010 -> 08:15 PM) I gotta disagree with this. The difference between BCS conference and non-BCS is staggering. I am a Wisconsin fan, so I will use them as an example. Since 2002 ( as far as ESPN goes back), Wisconsin has lost 1 game to a non-bcs team (2003 UNLV). I believe they are 23-1 in that span. Wisconsin is on average a solid Big 10 team, but by no means the best. Basically Wisconsin matched Boise's streak, over a 9 year span, with 2 different classes and no one cares because those are games a big program should NEVER lose. I really have no doubt that most top SEC or Big 10 schools, would win 20+ out of 24 games. In fact most of the teams that Boise State beats, are considered teams that the BCS teams MUST beat. If they dont beat them its an upset. Id say that if Iowa and Boise State played 100 times, I would expect Iowa to win 60% of the games. Let me make something clear. I am not one of these people that doesn't recognize the difficulty of playing in a major conference and the cumulative effect that has. But this Boise team is very good. They're got excellent skill players and a very solid defense. Do all their recruits have the pedigree of a lot of the major conference teams? No. But they play within a system that works extremely well for them and that other "major conference" teams have recognized is just as difficult, if not more difficult to defeat as any major conference team. I'm not arguing that many of these teams that play in weak conferences would fare the same if they played in the SEC or the Big Ten or the Pac 10. I'm just arguing that THIS particular Boise team can play with anyone in the country. And one final point, all one has to do is watch Auburn to see that you don't have to have be stacked everywhere to win in a major conference. Auburn is a very average team. They just happen to have the nation's most impactful player playing the most impactful position in sports for them.

QUOTE (Capn12 @ Nov 29, 2010 -> 08:09 PM) #1 - 42nd #2 - 91st #3 - 84th #4 - 112th #5 - 62nd #6 - 118th #7 - 114th #8 - 41st #9 - 92nd #10 - 46th #11 - 71st Those are the total defense ranks of the teams the "very, very good" Boise State team beat. Darn impressive to score loads of points on those teams, I agree! Has anyone argued that Boise played an extremely difficult schedule?

QUOTE (kjshoe04 @ Nov 29, 2010 -> 07:58 PM) I'd say Boise wins at least 7 out of 10 against Iowa. I don't think people are familiar enough with Nevada to know. They have one of the best offenses in the country. Boise would beat Iowa this year 9 out of 10 times, if not all 10 times, IMO. They won 24 games in a row, people. You don't win that many games in a row, no matter what your schedule, unless you are a very, very good team. Just ask Iowa that.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 29, 2010 -> 07:36 PM) I don't disagree with that. They are still better than pretty much every team Boise State and/or TCU played. Better on paper?

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 29, 2010 -> 06:57 PM) Absolutely agree. I think Iowa on any given Saturday could beat a whole lot of teams. Unfortunately, Iowa didn't execute when needed at the end of games. Well of course they could. A lot of teams "on any given Sunday" could beat a whole lot of teams. That doesn't change the fact that Iowa lost to every team they played worth a damn outside of MSU. And they have some horrible losses in Northwestern and now Minnesota. Just because they are very capable certainly doesn't mean anything if they don't play up to their capabilities time and time again.