ESPN at it again: "Despite Boise's loss, non-AQs belong"

[msubullie4life]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?columnist=wojciechowski_gene&id=5854511<div>
</div><div>http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?columnist=wojciechowski_gene&id=5854511They win, they belong...they lose, they belong. Sheesh!

<div>
</div><div>Nothing against the Boises and TCUs of the world. All I want is for them to play 3 or 4 good non-conference opponents to make up for the mostly ****** conference games. Do this and then talk about how they belong. Miami, Penn State, FSU did that every year in the 70s, 80s and early 90s when they were independents.. I doubt anyone was screaming their lungs out when they got into Sugar bowls, Orange bowls, etc.</div></div><div>
</div><div>It's easy to get yourselves up for 1 or utmost 2 games every season and go 12-0.</div>

 

[Joe Schmedlap]

Either one are better than all but maybe one or two teams in the SEC. I agree their schedules are weak, but they can't help it if big name schools are afraid to play them. I think TCU is legit at number 3, and even after the heartbreaking loss last night, BSU should remain in the top 10. The two best teams are Oregon and Cam Newton, but should either one falter, TCU deserves a shot.

 

[TBonewannabe]

MSU would win at least 10 games. If they really want to be taken seriously, they should play 4 tough road games. They essentially have 10 homecoming games a year with 2 tougher games. I wouldn't mind playing BSU but I wouldn't give them a return game.

 

[AssEndDawg]

Either one are better than all but maybe one or two teams in the SEC.

I'll give some credit to TCU because they played a pretty tough NC schedule but Boise did nothing. You can sit there and watch their starters play against creampuffs every week and talk about how they would be good in the SEC but we don't get the opportunity to play our starters every week. I've seen Boise's backups in some of their games and they are not good. Start taking out some of their starters and they would fall apart. Playing in the SEC is all about your two-deep and I don't think either of those teams could compete in that environment.

 

[Joe Schmedlap]

MSU would win at least 10 games. If they really want to be taken seriously, they should play 4 tough road games. They essentially have 10 homecoming games a year with 2 tougher games. I wouldn't mind playing BSU but I wouldn't give them a return game.

Boise Sate has earned the right for a return game from low to mid tier dwellers from the power conferences. This year's Boise State team is 21 points better than MSU on any given day in any given venue. State would have only 2 losses with BSU's schedule. So, yes, the weak schedule is an issue that cannot be ignored. But, I dare say BSU would be 9-2 at worst with our schedule. BSU would have beaten AU to start the season because of their offense. We didn't have one and almost beat Cam. LSU had no offense when State played them yet cruised to easy victory over the Bulldogs. BSU would have made LSU earn points to win. It wouldn't necessarily have happened. With our schedule, only Alabama and Arkansas would have been likely to defeat BSU. If State was 9-2 right now, wouldn't we be in the top 10 to 12 teams? All this rambling to say this: we need a playoff system, not the seriously flawed popularity contest that is the BCS.

 

[Original48]

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, LSU et al seat 90k. Do the math on a home and home series with Boise and explain how this is financially acceptable. I believe Alabama (I could be mistaken) offered a 2 for 1 deal and Boise declined. I don't think anyone in the SEC is scared to play them. But losing money on the process is rediculous. It's Boise that has to step up.

 

[XUglow]

I don't get whythe writeris taking pot shots at OSU's Gee. To me, this game backs Gee up. Boise St. has been playing no one and winning. They FINALLY play someone of substance and lose the game. Put 4 Big Ten or SEC true road games on their schedule, and let's see how they fare. Boise's OOC schedule is a joke. IF they schedule 4 big programs and play only road games against those teams, they would still have an easier schedule than MSU.

 

[msubullie4life]

Sure, the only 2 games we lost by 3 TDs were at Bama and at LSU - 2 of the toughest places in all of college football. We were this close to beating #2 Auburn and #10 Hogs.

 

[newyorkdawg]

They only play LSOP also. So two teams that play weak schedules and win against them finally play each other. One of them wins. Big deal. Unless someone has at least six "losable" games a year, they can get "up" for the big games. When you have a major conference schedule you have to learn to win whether you are "up" or not.

 

[UpTheMiddlex3Punt]

Really, the MWC should get the Big East's autobid next year.

 

[Hanmudog]

<font color="#cc0000">Either one are better than all but maybe one or two teams in the SEC</font>. I agree their schedules are weak, but they can't help it if big name schools are afraid to play them. I think TCU is legit at number 3, and even after the heartbreaking loss last night, BSU should remain in the top 10. The two best teams are Oregon and Cam Newton, but should either one falter, TCU deserves a shot.

Boise played 2 ranked teams all year and none were against a top 10 team. Every team in the SEC West will have played against at least 4 top 25 teams with at least 3 of them being against top 12 teams. The level of competition that Boise faced makes them look way better than they are. Conversely, the level of competition that we played (or even LSU for that matter) makes us look worse. Look at our OOC games other than UAB, we beat the hell out of those teams and looked like BCS contenders too.
Boise is still riding that wave from winning that bowl game a few years ago but they have done nothing to show that they deserve a national title.

 

[newyorkdawg]

The Big East and ACC should have a play in game.

 

[Mjoelner]

Either one are better than all but maybe one or two teams in the SEC EAST.

There, fixed it for you.

 

[EAVdog]

Would at the very least be 10-1 wit that weak schedule. I'll give Boise credit when they join the MWC conference with the others they will have a real schedule, but they'll start losing more regularly.

 

[QuaoarsKing]

This would work itself out. We wouldn't need mass speculation.

 

[Incognegro]

If you do that, then it doesn't look any different than what Oregon is doing. Just because the Pac-10 is an AQ conference doesn't mean that it's a good conference either. Especially considering that out of all the games Oregon has played, only 3 of those teams have winning records and the best team in this bunch is Stanford currently sitting at 10-1. USC and Arizona State are both at 7-4. Out of the other 8 teams with losing records, 4 of those teams are fighting just for bowl eligibility. Lastly, out of those 8 teams with losing records, 6 of those are from their conference of 10 teams. 6!!! Their last game against Oregon State is no better. The beavers are trying to fight for bowl eligibility as well. To make matters even worse, 3 of those 8 teams haven't won more than 2 games with 1 of them only winning 1 game this whole season and that is New Mexico State who finishes the season off facing TCU. And this is the team that is number 1 in the BCS. Quite frankly I find that ******** especially when people always throw strength of schedule in the argument.<div>
</div><div>I'm not saying Oregon doesn't deserve to be, but you look at Auburn's schedule, they've beaten 6 teams that have been or currently are in the top 25(even though some may not have started at the start of the season). Even further, they've beaten 3 teams who have been placed in the top 10 at one point this whole season. Also, out of the 12 teams they have played, 4 of these teams have a losing record with 2 of them fighting for bowl eligibility. 2 teams, Ole Miss and Arkansas State, sit at 4-7 and have the worst records on Auburn's whole schedule. If strength of schedule is really as important as people make it out to be, then there shouldn't be any question that Auburn should be at number 1 over Oregon.</div><div>
</div><div>Granted, TCU's and Boise's schedule's are bad, but in comparison to Oregon's it really doesn't look as bad as a lot of people make it out to be.</div>

 

[Hanmudog]

This would work itself out. We wouldn't need mass speculation.

This is true but we don't. Therefore, alot of the rankings depend on exposure and getting pimped by ESPN. They have done their damnedest to see to it that TCU, Boise, and formerly Utah get included in the national title talk. There are probably 7 or 8 teams in the SEC that could go 11-1 or 10-2 with the schedule these teams played. Common sense needs to creep into the equation sometimes.

 

[FQDawg]

And as someone who is going to the Sugar Bowl, I'd rather see Boise State in New Orleans than Ohio State or someone from the ACC or Big East.

 

[vicious]

both pride themselves onplaying one tough game per year against an outside foe. SEC teams have to play tough teams almost every game. If Boise played LSU, BAMA, Florida, South Carolina in a row...they might be 2-2. There is just nothing like the SEC. Nothing. Any attempt to say Boise plays teams week in week out like MSU does is hogwash and wishful thinking. Yeah and in the above example, I just left the best team in the SEC out of the equation. Funny.