Neverending Mountain West region college football thread

[SandSailor]

Agree 100 percent!

[eastidaho]

Conjecture 100 percent!

[Cirrus]

conjecture [kuhn-jek-cher] noun | a proposition that is unproven but is thought to be true and has not been disproven

Yes, since Boise will never play Colorado 9 times in one season that statement does qualify as conjecture. Nevertheless, it's a common sense point that only a Boise fan would object to.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

conjecture [kuhn-jek-cher] noun | a proposition that is unproven but is thought to be true and has not been disproven

Yes, since Boise will never play Colorado 9 times in one season that statement does qualify as conjecture. Nevertheless, it's a common sense point that only a Boise fan would object to.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

All trash talking aside, I want to raise a point: Colorado's defeat of Utah is proof that the difference between BCS conference and mid-major schedules really is a big deal.

If Utah had played an MWC schedule they would have had 2 or 3 games against potentially difficult teams, and then steamrolled everyone else. It would be unthinkable for one of the top conference teams to lose to UNLV or New Mexico.

But in the Pac even the bottom-feeders are capable of rising up and winning. No one really thinks that Colorado was better this year than Utah, but the gap was narrow enough for an upset. And when the upset happened, nobody was particularly surprised, because upsets ALWAYS happen. Colorado beats Utah, Arizona beats UCLA, Oregon State beats Washington, Iowa State beats Oklahoma State, Northwestern beats Nebraska... that's the nature of major conference play. Upsets aren't just "thinkable," they are expected.

And that's why it will always be hard for mid majors like Boise to crack the top levels of respect. It isn't because they don't schedule and win big games when big games come along. It's because in between the big games they don't have to survive a whole gamut of teams that are clearly lesser, but all capable of pulling an upset. It's because winning 8 or 9 games in a row against BCS conference teams is really, really hard. It's because if Boise State played Colorado 9 times, Colorado would probably pull an upset once or twice along the way, despite being the inferior team.

Agreed. Just look at BYU becoming a WAC team for the last few games. You would think they were pretty good, but then you look at their scores against teams from BCS conferences and the narrative changes dramatically.

[eastidaho]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

conjecture [kuhn-jek-cher] noun | a proposition that is unproven but is thought to be true and has not been disproven

Yes, since Boise will never play Colorado 9 times in one season that statement does qualify as conjecture. Nevertheless, it's a common sense point that only a Boise fan would object to.

I get a kick out of you Cirrus, only you could put these words together...'that statement does qualify as conjecture. Nevertheless, it's a common sense point..."

Colorado's defeat of Utah is proof that the difference between BCS conference and mid-major schedules really is a big deal.

Boise State knew the second Utah was invited to the Pac 10/12 there would be attempts to use Utah's performance as proof over the unproven. The common sense point is Utah is not Boise State.

Fact:
Boise State beat the 2009 Pac 10 champion.
Boise State beat the 2010 ACC champion.
Boise State beat the 2011 SEC east champion.

Head to Head:
Utah has scored a combined 6 points in the last two games.

Common Foe:
Boise State last two losses to TCU...combined 2 points.
Utah last two losses to TCU...combined 67 points.

Utah loses to Colorado on two missed field goals.
Boise State loses to TCU twice on a missed field goal.

It's all conjecture until you get the Pac 12 to invite us.

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by eastidaho

I get a kick out of you Cirrus, only you could put these words together...'that statement does qualify as conjecture. Nevertheless, it's a common sense point..."



Boise State knew the second Utah was invited to the Pac 10/12 there would be attempts to use Utah's performance as proof over the unproven. The common sense point is Utah is not Boise State.

Fact:
Boise State beat the 2009 Pac 10 champion.
Boise State beat the 2010 ACC champion.
Boise State beat the 2011 SEC east champion.

Head to Head:
Utah has scored a combined 6 points in the last two games.

Common Foe:
Boise State last two losses to TCU...combined 2 points.
Utah last two losses to TCU...combined 67 points.

Utah loses to Colorado on two missed field goals.
Boise State loses to TCU twice on a missed field goal.

It's all conjecture until you get the Pac 12 to invite us.

LOL, must be eating you guys up inside that Utah got the invite and not you clowns. Dont care if you beat us, we still did everything first.

[xseven]

Originally Posted by eastidaho

It's all conjecture until you get the Pac 12 to invite us.

Boise State playing Toledo, Tulsa, Nevada, Fresno State, Colorado State, UNLV, and New Mexico is nowhere near a standard nine-game PAC-12 schedule.

Boise State's football schedule aside, if the PAC-12 doesn't want BYU, what makes anyone think they would want Boise State?

Don't expect an invite. It won't happen.

[Cirrus]

Fact:
Boise State beat the 2009 Pac 10 champion.
Boise State beat the 2010 ACC champion.
Boise State beat the 2011 SEC east champion.

Remember the part where my whole point was that it isn't the big games that make the difference? Citing big game results is not a convincing argument that I'm wrong.

The funny thing about conjecture is that you can't disprove it either.

[eastidaho]

Remember the part where my whole point was that it isn't the big games that make the difference?

Remember the part where I bolded the statement...It's all conjecture...

The funny thing about conjecture is that you can't disprove it either.

Remember the part where I bolded the statement...It's all conjecture...

[BoiseAirport]

LOL, hilarious how the Utah and Colorado fans feel this constant need to express their supposed superiority over us. How insecure.

What's Colorado's record been over the last 10 years?
What's Utah's record over us? How many points scored?

At least Utah's done something in football over the last 10 years. But who's dominated the news? Who's had more Top 10 finishes in the last 10 years? Who has a better coach? Who's in a better city? Who has the better stadium? I mean you guys have had century to get where you're at, and we've done just about everything you guys have in half the time.

By the way, Utah was the first? Of course they were. But remember this?



In 2001 Fresno State was #8 in the country and right on track to be the first BCS-buster. Only... a little team called Boise State went into Bulldog Stadium and ended that. You can thank us for helping you be the first.

It must be eating you guys up inside that we're in the top 10, so you feel the constant need to trash every one of our accomplishments. Again, how insecure. Call me when you guys have a decent football team, I won't be holding my breath.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by eastidaho

Remember the part where I bolded the statement...It's all conjecture...

I thought my replies were pretty clear, but since you seem to be having trouble understanding them I will try to do better. Allow me to explain:

Yes, it is all conjecture. The fact that it is all conjecture neither strengthens nor weakens either of our arguments, because the fact that is all conjecture means it can neither be proven nor disproven. Saying it is all conjecture does not mean it is wrong, any more than saying it is all conjecture means it is right. Your statement is completely meaningless. Repeating it ad nauseam accomplishes nothing.

Originally Posted by BoiseAirport

LOL, hilarious how the Utah and Colorado fans feel this constant need to express their supposed superiority over us.

Again it seems that my replies have been misunderstood. I can only imagine why.

Please reread my replies and find the statement where I claimed Colorado was superior to Boise. You will probably have trouble, because I have not made that claim. In fact, if I recall correctly, I specifically said that it is inferior. Here, let me quote myself for you:

Originally Posted by me

Colorado would probably pull an upset once or twice along the way, despite being the inferior team.

I bolded the important part, for emphasis.

I'm not sure how you took my statement that "Colorado is the inferior team" to somehow mean you think I am "trying to express my superiority". Perhaps you are confused about the meaning of the words "inferior" and "superior"? Or perhaps you're bad at math and think one or two wins out of nine tries constitutes a majority. Again, I can only imagine.

Now, since you seem to be having problems understanding my point, I will try to be more clear with you as well. My post was not an attack on Boise. My post was not a veiled attempt to prove Colorado's superiority to Boise. My post was an attempt to explain the fact that Boise continues to face limited opportunities due to the perception that it plays a weaker schedule than major conference teams.

Perhaps you disagree with my statement that Boise continues to face limited opportunities? Or perhaps you feel that the reason Boise faces limited opportunities is different than the reason I identified? If you intend to reply again, it would be helpful to indicate which of those statements you object to.

Surely the explanation for your off-target reply is not that you have such an inferiority complex that you can't take even constructive criticism without launching into an overly defensive tirade? Perish the thought.

[eastidaho]

I understand your comments and enjoy your smack talk and opinions. My repetitive comment probably came across a lot more harsh than intended. However, I will call b.s. when someone attempts to take a timeout and state that the facts are in and the case is closed against Boise State. Particularly when the sentence begins like this...

Originally Posted by Cirrus

All trash talking aside, I want to raise a point: Colorado's defeat of Utah is proof ...

I can't buy the idea that Colorado over Utah amounts to proof of anything related to Boise State. Bring your opinions to the table, but leave the hard evidence statements to the head-to-head matchups. Want to sign a 10 year home-and-home?

[Cirrus]

Don't cut off the quote.

Originally Posted by me

I want to raise a point: Colorado's defeat of Utah is proof that the difference between BCS conference and mid-major schedules really is a big deal.

Colorado's defeat of Utah is proof that the difference between BCS conference and mid-major schedules is legitimately a big deal. It is a proven fact that highly ranked BCS conference teams routinely lose to teams that are considered bad within their own conference, while highly ranked mid-majors virtually never do so.

It is not proof that Colorado would definitely beat Boise 15% of the time. That is conjecture. Conjecture based upon a solid foundation of historical precedent, but conjecture nonetheless.

... And of course, that 15% estimate is based on the current quality of play for both Colorado and Boise. 10 years ago Colorado was ranked #3, won the Big 12, and played in the Fiesta Bowl, while Boise was 8-4 in the WAC with losses to Rice and Louisiana Tech. Under those circumstances, Colorado would be expected to win the large majority of games with Boise (although Boise would almost certainly win sometimes). Presumably (conjecturally), the current wide gap between them can be expected to narrow, since Boise is currently enjoying unprecedented success and Colorado experiencing unprecedented failure. The odds are that in ten years Boise will not be as good as it is now, while Colorado will be better than it is now.

[eastidaho]

I agree with the idea that there is a difference in schedules. IMO, our argument is over the "big deal" part that gets blown out of proportion. I hear 'murderer's row' all of the time. If Boise had to face murderer's row...oh wait, now we have proof on Boise, b/c Utah just went 4-5 in a BCS conference. Listening to BCS homers, Boise State would be six feet underground facing this schedule...

Montana State
USC
BYU
Washington
Arizona State
Pitt
Oregon State
Arizona
UCLA
Washington State
Colorado

I am not saying that Boise would be undefeated and making flight plans for the mNCG. But please humor my opinion that the above schedule if given to Boise State would have a different result than Utah's 4-5 conference result.

Tell me, in your opinion do you think that Boise would be:

7-2 or 8-1 with a good shot at beating Oregon for the Rose bowl bid.
7-2 or 8-1 without a chance of beating Oregon for the Rose bowl bid.
4-5 b/c Utah was proof.

[Cirrus]

Let's leave Oregon out of it for now, since the big games aren't the point. Let's also go ahead and toss out Montana State. That leaves the following 10 opponents:

USC
BYU
Washington
Arizona State
Pitt
Oregon State
Arizona
UCLA
Washington State
Colorado

I think Boise would lose somewhere between 1 and 3 games facing that schedule, most probably 2. Note that with the possible exception of USC, Boise would be the clear favorite in all of them, but teams slip up. Oklahoma State loses to Iowa State. Nebraska loses to Northwestern. It happens. Almost inevitably, Boise would lose a game or two that it should normally win. This is conjecture, but it's reasonable given the frequency of upsets during 100 years of college football history.

This is where the difference between the national championship game versus a regular BCS bowl comes in to play. People are OK with sending Boise to a BCS bowl because the winners of BCS conferences are typically expected to have a loss or two. Most BCS bowl game participants will not have perfect records, so the prospect of Boise theoretically (probably) dropping a game or two if it had to face a harder schedule doesn't matter. But that difference does matter for the national championship, where being undefeated is much more important.

For the record, I think Boise is better than Utah this year, probably by a wide margin. But that really isn't the point. The point is: upsets by inferior teams are a bigger threat in BCS conferences.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by BoiseAirport

It must be eating you guys up inside that we're in the top 10, so you feel the constant need to trash every one of our accomplishments. Again, how insecure. Call me when you guys have a decent football team, I won't be holding my breath.

It's not eating me up, but it is a joke. I can't imagine what those voters are thinking. They're obviously not taking into account how weak your schedule is.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

All trash talking aside, I want to raise a point: Colorado's defeat of Utah is proof that the difference between BCS conference and mid-major schedules really is a big deal....

I don't think Colorado's win over Utah proves anything. If we'd had Wynn as QB and Colorado had beaten us, that might prove something. It's a minor miracle Utah won any games after losing Wynn. If we'd had Wynn throughout the season, this season would've been a very different story.

[eastidaho]

Cirrus, I would say your fair response is not shared by the majority of BCS homers. The way you first expressed your point reflected an abundance of comments stated by fans of BCS teams, who try and factualize Boise State as an automatic .500 W/L team.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by Stenar

If we'd had Wynn as QB and Colorado had beaten us, that might prove something. It's a minor miracle Utah won any games after losing Wynn. If we'd had Wynn throughout the season, this season would've been a very different story.

Everybody has injuries. Colorado was a very beat up team as well (no bye week for the Buffs all season). I'm sorry but that excuse will not win many people over. You have to expect injuries every year.