Originally posted by no1marauderAlthough Boise state is undefeated and they beat Oregon State (a good win) but hardly as good as Michigan's, Florida's or USC best win, I would not say the WAC is the highest classification of football. The regular season means something when you give an incentive for playing tough schedules. If it is just about compiling a good record then there will be no tough out of conference games (michigan-ohio state), (USC-Arkansas) and no top conferences. If you play a bunch of tougher games you might lose 1 and still be better than a team that won all their games. For example, Michigan beat Wisconsin and Notre Dame and lost by three on the road to Ohio State. It is tough to find three games that Boise state played that are close being that impressive.
No, I wasn't joking. OSU has already beaten Michigan; what is the sense of them playing AGAIN in a month and a half? Does the regular season matter at all?
Boise State might have played a weaker schedule, but they are an unbeaten team in the highest classification of college football. Only OSU can also say that. And they did drub the team that upset USC.
Originally posted by no1marauderHa, ha, ha, ha, ha. You are most entertaining..
It must suck to be semi-retarded (giving you more credit than you probably deserve).
A) You raised the issue of a wager;
B) Whether Illinois was "in the game" is irrelevant to the point made; which was your claim that no defense could stop OSU's "high powered offense". Well, Illinois did and they have one of the worst teams i ...[text shortened]... yway. Sure, everyone would expect a blow out, but until the game is played, who knows?
A) OSU is 12-0 and headed for another championship season.
B) Deal with it.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. We will see who is the true retard come January 8th.
Originally posted by myteamtrulystinksI meant Division 1 is the highest classification. Boise State's going to wind up in a BCS Bowl anyway if they beat Nevada; what's the big deal if they play Ohio State rather than Texas? That would mean two unbeatens playing.
Although Boise state is undefeated and they beat Oregon State (a good win) but hardly as good as Michigan's, Florida's or USC best win, I would not say the WAC is the highest classification of football. The regular season means something when you give an incentive for playing tough schedules. If it is just about compiling a good record then there ...[text shortened]... It is tough to find three games that Boise state played that are close being that impressive.
BTW, Michigan-Ohio State was not an "out of conference" game.
I am truly amazed that after watching the whole season, you feel the team that deserves to play Ohio State is the champion of the WAC. It would be so much better to watch Ohio State play the SEC champion, Michigan or the winner of Notre Dame - USC. When you have lesser quality teams (even if they are undefeated) play for a national championship you ignore strength of schedule. If the Ivy League or the Patriot League or some high school league had an undefeated team would you have them play Ohio State too?
Originally posted by myteamtrulystinksWhat part of my post didn't you read? BOISE STATE WILL BE A BCS TEAM THIS YEAR. And what part of Division I don't you understand? Gawd, there are some opinionated simpletons on this site!
I am truly amazed that after watching the whole season, you feel the team that deserves to play Ohio State is the champion of the WAC. It would be so much better to watch Ohio State play the SEC champion, Michigan or the winner of Notre Dame - USC. When you have lesser quality teams (even if they are undefeated) play for a national championship ...[text shortened]... eague or some high school league had an undefeated team would you have them play Ohio State too?
EDIT: Clemson in 1981 and BYU in 1984 were recognized as national champions even though they played in what were considered weaker conferences.
BYU's national championship was a joke. They won a close bowl game against a 6-6 Michigan team. It was clearly the worst Michigan team in 25 years and I would look at '84 as a problem with college football and not something I'd want to repeat. If BYU played anyone else or played Michigan any other year they would have lost.
Originally posted by myteamtrulystinksYou are probably right. As you said though the SEC is deeper than the Big Ten. If OSU and Michigan had more competition in the conference like the SEC does then being undefeated would be a lot harder to do.
The SEC is deeper than the big ten, but I think Ohio State and Michigan are better than anyone in the SEC this year.
Originally posted by slimjimIt seems to me that everyone has forgotten about Wisconsin. Do they not only have one loss? Also, what about Penn State? Michigan beat them by only 7 points and they gave OSU a run for thier money up until the end of the 4rth quarter when they fell apart. I think the Big Ten is a better overall conference than what they are being given credit for.
You are probably right. As you said though the SEC is deeper than the Big Ten. If OSU and Michigan had more competition in the conference like the SEC does then being undefeated would be a lot harder to do.
Originally posted by myteamtrulystinksHow the hell do you know what would have happened if BYU had played some other team? And it was accepted that the system in 1984 was a problem, but you'd REPEAT that problem this year with your "strength of schedule" argument. BYU wasn't ALLOWED to play one of the top teams in a bowl in 1984 because the bowl system was locked up; BYU had to play in the Holiday Bowl. Now you want to do the same thing in 2006; shut undefeated Boise State out of a championship game, while at the same time complaining about 1984! The mind reels.
BYU's national championship was a joke. They won a close bowl game against a 6-6 Michigan team. It was clearly the worst Michigan team in 25 years and I would look at '84 as a problem with college football and not something I'd want to repeat. If BYU played anyone else or played Michigan any other year they would have lost.
Originally posted by whodeyWhy does everybody complain about strength of schedule with Boise State but not look at Wisconsin's out of conference games? They played Bowling Green, non-Division I Western Illinois, the University of Buffalo and struggled against San Diego state, a so-so Mountain West team.
It seems to me that everyone has forgotten about Wisconsin. Do they not only have one loss? Also, what about Penn State? Michigan beat them by only 7 points and they gave OSU a run for thier money up until the end of the 4rth quarter when they fell apart. I think the Big Ten is a better overall conference than what they are being given credit for.
EDIT: In fact, besides OSU's victory over Texas and Michigan's demolition of Notre Dame, there's not a single quality non-conference win by any Big Ten team.
I'm not sure you are fair to the better conference schools. For Boise State you are not bothered by their schedule you just note that they won their games. For Wisconsin, you rightfully point out that their
out of conference schedule stinks. And that is why they are ranked considerably below 1 loss teams in major conferences with tough out of conference schedules. If Wisconsin won at Notre Dame (like Michigan) or won at Arkansas (like USC) they would proabbly be a top 5 team. Nevertheless Wisconsin still play a Big 10 schedule and only lost one game. Boise plays no one in conference or out of conference. It seems like you want certain team to play even harder schedules and if they lose any games you will rank them behind teams that play easy schedules and lose none anyway.
Michigan State's won at Pitt? Since you seem to like Rutgers and teh Big East would you consider that a decent win for a poor Big Ten team?