Exposing the Boise State myth

[firstdownBSU]

Understood.

This thread has made it obvious that you guys aren't willing to face the truth

Funny, i was just thinking how this thread shows that a portion of your fan base is stuck in 1999.

Enjoy your dinner!

 

[KrAzY3]

How many times do we need to repeat that you are wrong? The proof is on ESPN, and has been for ages now. It's been reported over and over and over.

Haven't we been over this? They want a million or a home and home. That's not a take on all comers attitude. Boise State had no problem getting things done because they started settings up their arbitrary requirements. Either they get what they want or they pretend they did all they could to make it happen. Once again they are unwilling to sacrifice.

Virginia Tech is the perfect example. I'm sure VT would loved for that to be a home game for them. You really think it was VT that pushed for it to be on neutral territory or was that BSU's doing? The claims and the comparisons to actual scheduling just don't add up. Yes, most teams from BCS conferences are not going to do a home and home (on blue turf) or pay a absurd sum of money.

However, if VT will be on neutral territory and Pac-10 teams will play home and home clearly there's a lot of teams (like Georgia, South Carolina and Arkansas) that have been and would be willing to host Boise State. It's Boise State that's preventing that, it's Boise State that changed their criteria. Look at it, did Georgia become afraid of hosting Boise State after they blew them out? Did South Carolina? Did Arkansas? I don't think so...

 

[vigilant4BSU]

Heck, you've made about $30M in the last few years from BCS bowls, haven't you?

Not buying the 'can't afford it'.routine. If you don't have the fan / booster support or ticket sales / bowl winnings to play with the big dogs... well, sorry. No one owes BSU anything.

"The world needs ditch diggers, too." Judge Smails

Absolutely wrong. Remember the BCS is rigged to not pay the non-AQs. BSU pocketed 7.5 million from their 2 BCS games total. $4.5 mil (as the one qualifying non-AQ) in 07. $3 mil in 10 and the alternate non-AQ. Despite the decreased payout, it is a big deal to us. You guys get that much from not playing in a BCS.... (ok, maybe not quite that much, but Alabama kicks butt so they wouldn't know, ask Vanderbilt)

 

[firstdownBSU]

Haven't we been over this? They want a million or a home and home.

Yes, you're wrong on that too. ESPN is paying a portion of the cost. $1M is pretty standard fair for one and dones these days, and the hosting team isn't even paying that amount. ESPN is funding a portion of it as well as prime time national coverage. There is NO REASON teams shouldn't be lining up to play a top 10 BSU team in this scenario, unless they are afraid of losing.

As for VT, the location of that game has NOTHING to do with BSU. The Redskins and ESPN brokered both teams and set everything up. The Redskins and ESPN are paying both teams HUGE sums of money for that game (1.25M for BSU, 3M+ for VaTech). That game is a made for TV market adventure by the Redskins.

 

[vigilant4BSU]

No Text

 

[vigilant4BSU]

"Top schools" do not ask for money to travel under most circumstances - only small schools do. Top schools build schedules that benefit them and pay small schools to fill out that schedule. Simply by asking for a payment, you are identifying yourself as a program in need as opposed to one that has arrived.

"Top Schools" don't do one and done games is what you really mean. They get Home and Home games so both teams keep their own gate in different years and payouts aren't needed. Perhaps schools that pretend to be top schools refuse to do Home and Home games with the top ranked teams in the nation for reasons such as protectionism and greed. There is a flip side to this topic. For example, Alabama would get as much money out of a Home and Home with BSU as they do with Vanderbilt. Probably more from BSU as they would raise ticket prices to go with the demand of tickets for a top 10 visiting team rather than a cake walk with a punchless conference non-rival.

Funny how this whole argument works. "BSU needs to play up and against tougher teams and also on the road for no pay. Just not against us because we don't owe them anything. Try the next door down."

 

[NYBamaFan]

We are. I'm talking admittance to the MNC game, you're talking performance at the MNC game. Neither has anything to do with each other ...

Ahh, then I agree with you, assuming that you are taking all factors into account. IMO, an undefeated BSU team with at least 2 victories against AQ teams deserves a shot over a 1 loss AQ team - even if that team were Bama. Less than 2 wins over AQ teams and all bets are off...

 

[ElkhartTider]

Hahahaha I haven't read the whole thread and won't.

Are these real BSU fans on here or is this a prank?

BSU is a joke. That is all.

Oh almost forgot.. I wish BSU would've played UF! lol They would've got DESTROYED.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[NYBamaFan]

"Top Schools" don't do one and done games is what you really mean...

No, they do many - but they are played on a neutral field. This is a very common practice for teams like Alabama. Why? Because it is too hard to work out deals for home/away. They can take years to iron out, and have to be scheduled many years before they are actually played. To fill a schedule, we often rely on neutral field games...

 

[KrAzY3]

Care to share with the rest of us on how you came to that opinion?

Battle weary... if you want a example let's look at Mike Tyson's career.

When he started fighting he fought 15 people in 1985, in 1986 he fought 13. In 1987 he fought 4 people and gained the undisputed title. In 1988 he had 3 fights.

Now part of that is the fact that he didn't have to keep fighting because his paydays were bigger. The other part is that he had to be hungry early on and take on everyone he could get in the ring with (there's a example in that to). Ultimately though, once he went from the fairgrounds to the top level of boxing he simply couldn't sustain that pace. Fighting 15 fairground opponents and fighting 4 top contenders is completely different. It's much easier to bounce back from fighting a nobody, fighting a real battle takes a lot out of you. Boise State still ends up fighting fairground opponents while other teams get beat up by top contenders. When Boise State does play another top team they come in better rested and less battle weary, that's a given.

I've said this before but they say playing in a football game is like a car wreck. Alabama plays in the SEC. Those are big fast cars hitting big obstacles at high rates of speed. It takes a huge toll. Boise State plays in the WAC which just isn't the same level football. It takes less out of you. Yes, Boise State can be Buster Douglas on a good day. They are talented enough to get in there with the best and beat them under the right circumstance. However, like Buster Douglas I do not think they can stand up to the rigors of top level competition.

My whole thing... and I'll go back to this is that I absolutely feel Boise State can do more to better their schedule. Take the show on the road, do what ever it takes to join the MWC, pay another FBS schools to play them if that's what it takes to keep FCS schools off their schedule... but don't play UC Davis and not one BCS team on the road and then act like you didn't end up with a giftwrapped season. That's what it was, that's how it went down.

I could be a big supporter of BSU, heck I cheered for them against OU. However, I think they have a long way to go and they seem to have forgotten their place. They need to get their way into a better conference (like the MWC), they need to bend over backwards to schedule legit competition and in time they might be set up for legitimate championship contention.

I want Boise State to rise to the challenge. However, as things stand now I remain convinced that they are gaming the system. They know that they can schedule one or two tests all year and if they pass those they coast into a BCS game. I want to see them take their show on the road and if they drop their arbitrary requirements I'm sure that can happen. If they could do it in 2000-2005, with their increased resources I'm positive they are more capable of doing it now.

 

[formersoldier71]

Wow. this is crazy aburd. A team that is one of the best in the country should play 2/3rds of their games on the road? Are you trying to ask them to earn it or are you trying to kill the program and the kids who play? It sounds like the later. You apparently are trying to set expectations that no one can achieve as requirements for someone who is there right now. We all know what travel fatigue is. You aren't looking to see a teams mettle, you are trying to break them.

Here's a sample of the scheduling of a team that scheduled big names and traveled. This helped make their program. Of course during this time frame, they played home and home against regional teams. Notice against these big names how few home games they played. During this time frame they also played a home and home with Oklahoma St. and with Miss St., which while from big conferences were hardly big name opponents. You didn't hear much about this team before this time period, but after playing opponents like this, and of course with a good coach and good recruiting, you may have heard of them now....


1976:
At Oklahoma
1978:
At Pitt
1979:
Arizona St. (neutral)
At LSU
1980:
At LSU
At Nebraska
Pitt
1981:
At Nebraska
At Ohio St.
At Notre Dame
At Pitt
At LSU
1982:
Pitt
At Ohio St.
At LSU
1983:
At LSU
At Pitt
At Arizona St.
1984:
At Arizona St.
1985:
At Nebraska
1986:
At Nebraska
At Michigan
1987:
At Michigan St.
1988:
Michigan St.
1989:
At LSU

.... Florida State. They played big names, traveled and raised their stature. They didn't expect to be given something, they went and made it happen. I think folks around these parts expect that BSU can and should do the same thing if they want to make it to the big leagues.

 

[RespectTheBlue]

This is the typical response we get from AQ fans. I'm glad he is in the minority and that most of your fan-base is class.

Hey, Bama fans it's been fun talking with you. Thanks for you hospitality on this board. Hopefully one day we can discuss playing against each other.

RTB out... for now....

Hahahaha I haven't read the whole thread and won't.

Are these real BSU fans on here or is this a prank?

BSU is a joke. That is all.

Oh almost forgot.. I wish BSU would've played UF! lol They would've got DESTROYED.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[GulfCoastTider]

Krazy, I bet you never envisioned this thread going viral like it has.

I find it interesting that the BSU fans have avoided addressing the points in your OP.

 

[vigilant4BSU]

Haven't we been over this? They want a million or a home and home. That's not a take on all comers attitude. Boise State had no problem getting things done because they started settings up their arbitrary requirements. Either they get what they want or they pretend they did all they could to make it happen. Once again they are unwilling to sacrifice.

Virginia Tech is the perfect example. I'm sure VT would loved for that to be a home game for them. You really think it was VT that pushed for it to be on neutral territory or was that BSU's doing? The claims and the comparisons to actual scheduling just don't add up. Yes, most teams from BCS conferences are not going to do a home and home (on blue turf) or pay a absurd sum of money.

However, if VT will be on neutral territory and Pac-10 teams will play home and home clearly there's a lot of teams (like Georgia, South Carolina and Arkansas) that have been and would be willing to host Boise State. It's Boise State that's preventing that, it's Boise State that changed their criteria. Look at it, did Georgia become afraid of hosting Boise State after they blew them out? Did South Carolina? Did Arkansas? I don't think so...

Since we have already discussed the "absurd amount of money" and determined this to be patently false, we can cut that short right now. Don't bother bringing up "absurd amounts of money" since we have already shown that despite the fee paid to BSU, any major school will make more than this over their regular income for another home game. You bring in BSU, the school (whomever is big enough to be considered a reasonable opponent) makes more money than when you bring in Vanderbilt or Fresno State. It a red herring argument, so stop.

As for VT, that game was brokered by ESPN and the Washington Redskins. Yes, the Redskins. This had nothing to do with Boise State making demands and the VT payout is nearly triple what BSU gets. Maybe even Alabama might have jumped at a local road game (it isn't like VT has very far to go) for $3+ million and national ESPN exposure to play another top rated team early in the season. Maybe not.

 

[ElkhartTider]

This is the typical response we get from AQ fans. I'm glad he is in the minority and that most of your fan-base is class.

Hey, Bama fans it's been fun talking with you. Thanks for you hospitality on this board. Hopefully one day we can discuss playing against each other.

RTB out... for now....

Oh I apologize for being SO classles by sharing my opinion of your little league program.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[BAMA1979]

As for removing the blue turf, get Georgia to remove the hedges. It isn't going to happen. We are going to hold on to the tradition we have. Some have mentioned that playing on the blue gives us an advantage. Yes, that is correct. It is called "Home Field Advantage". HFA is significant for every football team in America. We rarely lose at home. It is probably why teams like Florida have not played an OOC game outside of Florida in almost 4 decades.

Why should they when they schedule OOC games against Florida State and Miami?

 

[ABamaManNTX]

For you guys to gain respect, you need to join a BCS Conference and add some seats to your stadium. Has any work been done on these things? Has anyone from BSU contacted the Pac 10? Playing in that weak conference is NOT going to get it done.

I know that one of you BSC guys did respond to my statement earlier about the Blue Field, but I have enjoyed watching Boise State play on TV but I have had a problem with the ALL Blue Uniforms on the Blue field. I have not been to a game live in that stadium to see how that would be. However, I do have a problem seeing the action with the Blue on Blue on TV! I'm also sure it's can't be much worse than listening to 50,000+ cowbells at MSU.

However, I can see why your coaches have had players suit up in BLUE pants and BLUE jerseys. It's got to be a BIG advantage. I don't know why your fans don't wear ALL Blue to the games to help even more. If, TCU had a PURPLE field, I'm sure that would be a big advantage for them with their players wearing PURPLE: Helmets, pants and jerseys.

 

[vigilant4BSU]

I'm sorry, but this is laughable. The wear and tear in the SEC is not even comparable to the WAC. Sorry, this statement cannot be quantified.

As far as the BCSCG, as far as me taking a pick to play Texas or Boise vs. our chances to win, I'd rather have played Boise than Texas.

... says the fan of the team that is 0-1 vs Non-AQ teams in BCS games. Your percentage is better against the likes of the Longhorns of the world. Or did you already forget Utah, the team we have never lost to?

 

[vigilant4BSU]

For you guys to gain respect, you need to join a BCS Conference and add some seats to your stadium. Has any work been done on these things? Has anyone from BSU contacted the Pac 10? Playing in that weak conference is NOT going to get it done.

I know that one of you BSC guys did respond to my statement earlier about the Blue Field, but I have enjoyed watching Boise State play on TV but I have had a problem with the ALL Blue Uniforms on the Blue field. I have not been to a game live in that stadium to see how that would be. However, I do have a problem seeing the action with the Blue on Blue on TV! I'm also sure it's can't be much worse than listening to 50,000+ cowbells at MSU.

However, I can see why your coaches have had players suit up in BLUE pants and BLUE jerseys. It's got to be a BIG advantage. I don't know why your fans don't wear ALL Blue to the games to help even more. If, TCU had a PURPLE field, I'm sure that would be a big advantage for them with their players wearing PURPLE: Helmets, pants and jerseys.

Funny, I've never had trouble watching it on the DVR when I get home. Maybe because I already watched the game at the stadium and already know that the perspective for the players is not from the top down. They are looking at real people moving on the ground at the same level, not playing 2 dimensional people pasted on a wall or a video game.

 

[SavannahDare]

This thread is either going to be locked or I'm going to end up sending more than a few people on their way down the cyber highway. The ignorant sparring is just too irresistible for some of you.

Locking it down because y'all can't bring yourselves to mind your manners in the sandbox.