Boise State #1

Originally posted by Wulebgr
I'd rather live with the fantasy that Boise State deserves to be in such a game.

If Boise State is better than USC because BSU beat OSU who beat USC, then is Washington State also better than USC for beating OSU, despite losing to USC? Is University of Washington also better than USC for beating WSU who beat OSU who beat USC, even though Washington lost t ...[text shortened]... eams are good.
2. USC thinks it is too good for the second toughest conference in the country.

Wulebgr, what college football team in 2006 season most exceeded expections? Shouldn't the #1 team be that team? The team that really did have the best season. And isn't that team Boise State?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Ironic that you're making the same statements about a USC-Boise State matchup that the Big Ten supporters made about a OSU-Boise State matchup.

USC lost two games; there's no way they earned being rated higher than Boise State. And the way OSU was demolished by Florida, it's a travesty that they hung on to #2.

You've lost the thread. I said nothing about a BSU-USC match up, but I find it ridiculous that some people think they are better than USC because they beat a team that beat USC. Geez, UCLA beat USC, Washington beat UCLA, and nearly everyone that played Washington beat them, except Washington State (and that's the only game I care about).

My team (Washington State) had a bad year and did not go to a bowl, but we beat Oregon State. We also finished much better than the Pac-10 last place that was predicted for us. Boise State was proud of their victory over Idaho (where they practiced the two point conversion that won an impressive bowl game). We, too, crushed Idaho.

USC played three games in three weeks that came down to the final play.

They won against Washington State.
They won against Washington.
They lost to Oregon State.
Then, several weeks later, they lost to UCLA.


Yes, it's a travesty that OSU hung on to #2. The polls reflect the opinions of those with something at stake in the system, and they give OSU #2 as a courtesy.

Boise State exceeded all expectations; Hawaii also deserves more credit than they get with their only losses to Oregon State, Boise State, and Alabama. Most of their wins were lopsided, too.

Florida crushed the supposed #1 team.
USC crushed some people's #2 in the second strongest bowl.
Boise State won an impressive game against a strong, but not top-5 Oklahoma. Records must be balanced with strength of schedule.

I agree that any team that ends undefeated should be in the top 5, and I would drop a team that gets blown out (as Michigan and Ohio State) from the top 3.

Originally posted by Delmer
Wulebgr, what college football team in 2006 season most exceeded expections? Shouldn't the #1 team be that team?

No.

Florida exceeded expectations, as did Boise State, Washington State, Hawaii, and many others. How do you measure the degree of excess?

The bowl results also show that unrealistically high expectations were set for Ohio State and Michigan, although Wisconsin proved that the Big-10 is still a tough conference at the top. Too bad they didn't play Ohio State.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
You've lost the thread. I said nothing about a BSU-USC match up, but I find it ridiculous that some people think they are better than USC because they beat a team that beat USC. Geez, UCLA beat USC, Washington beat UCLA, and nearly everyone that played Washington beat them, except Washington State (and that's the only game I care about).

My team (Washingt ...[text shortened]... 5, and I would drop a team that gets blown out (as Michigan and Ohio State) from the top 3.

Huh? This is "saying nothing about a BSU-USC match up":

Boise State was impressive, but in a bowl game USC would take them apart in a way that makes Ohio State look good.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
No.

Florida exceeded expectations, as did Boise State, Washington State, Hawaii, and many others. How do you measure the degree of excess?

The bowl results also show that unrealistically high expectations were set for Ohio State and Michigan, although Wisconsin proved that the Big-10 is still a tough conference at the top. Too bad they didn't play Ohio State.

If you watched the Wisconsin-Arkansas game, you would be underwhelmed by the Badgers. Arkansas dominated the game outgaining Wisconsin about 2-1 but killed themselves with costly penalties. A win's a win, but I don't consider that game has convincing evidence that the Big Ten was really tough at the top - I think Wisconsin would have had a tough time winning half of their games if they played Florida's schedule.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Huh? This is "saying nothing about a BSU-USC match up":

Boise State was impressive, but in a bowl game USC would take them apart in a way that makes Ohio State look good.

Evidently I don't read what I type. 😳

Clearly I need more coffee this morning, so I can remember what I'm typing.

I still fail to see how my logic resembles that of Ohio State and Michigan fans. Your sense of irony escapes me this time. They (Big-10 fans) thought their teams were gonna tear everyone apart, and the reverse occurred. I've been arguing that Michigan and Ohio State were overrated because essentially untested.

I'm now arguing that claims for Boise State must take into account their schedule, which is far weaker than those of Michigan and Ohio State, far weaker than USC, far weaker than Florida. My caution not to overrate Boise State follows the same reasoning that led me to call Big-10 teams overrated, and directly counters the arguments employed by Big-10 fans.

I predicted accurately that USC would beat Michigan.
I predicted accurately that Florida would beat Ohio State.
I predicted (optimistically) prior to the USC-UCLA game that USC would beat Ohio State.

Boise State scored some impressive victories and deserve lots of credit for finishing without a loss. But they played no teams that finished in the top 5, and only Oklahoma that finished in the top 10.

I was responding to a proposal for a Florida-Boise State match-up. Florida would take them apart in a way that makes Ohio State look good.

I also was responding to arguments that BSU belongs above USC because BSU beat Oregon State, who beat USC. Lots of teams beat Oregon State and UCLA--the two teams that beat USC. And Boise State would have beaten most of them, had they played.

For the record, however, I do think that USC would have beat Boise State had they played a bowl game.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
I'd rather live with the fantasy that Boise State deserves to be in such a game.

If Boise State is better than USC because BSU beat OSU who beat USC, then is Washington State also better than USC for beating OSU, despite losing to USC? Is University of Washington also better than USC for beating WSU who beat OSU who beat USC, even though Washington lost t ...[text shortened]... eams are good.
2. USC thinks it is too good for the second toughest conference in the country.

Michigan and Ohio State both did not play well in their bowl games, but there are a lot of short term memories. In the last poll (the one the overemphasizes the recent bowl games) the Big Ten still has three teams in the top 8. Ohio State and Michigan still had excellent seasons including wins on the road against then #2 teams Texas and Notre Dame. USC is an excellent team and had a convincing home win in the Rose Bowl over Michigan, but there is no comparison between the Big 10 and Pac 10 this year.

Originally posted by no1marauder
If you watched the Wisconsin-Arkansas game, you would be underwhelmed by the Badgers. Arkansas dominated the game outgaining Wisconsin about 2-1 but killed themselves with costly penalties. A win's a win, but I don't consider that game has convincing evidence that the Big Ten was really tough at the top - I think Wisconsin would have had a tough time winning half of their games if they played Florida's schedule.

Perhaps.

Penn State also beat Tennessee, who the Gators barely beat.

The toughness I've attributed to the top 3-4 teams in the Big-10 must be seen in light of my other statements that they are far weaker than the SEC and Pac-10, perhaps also the ACC.

The Big-10 is tougher than the WAC.

Only the Pac-10 and SEC consistently produce 6th and 7th place teams that have a shot at #1 in those respective conferences, and #1 in both is nearly always a championship contender.

Originally posted by poundlee
Ohio State and Michigan still had excellent seasons including wins on the road against then #2 teams Texas and Notre Dame.

As these "impressive" victories are Ohio State's and Michigan's best claims to strength of schedule, I must agree that there is no comparison between the overrated Big-10 and the always tough Pac-10.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Perhaps.

Penn State also beat Tennessee, who the Gators barely beat.

The toughness I've attributed to the top 3-4 teams in the Big-10 must be seen in light of my other statements that they are far weaker than the SEC and Pac-10, perhaps also the ACC.

The Big-10 is tougher than the WAC.

Only the Pac-10 and SEC consistently produce 6th and 7th plac ...[text shortened]... t #1 in those respective conferences, and #1 in both is nearly always a championship contender.

Penn State played a very good game and surprised me. Still, the Big Ten wound up 2-5 in bowl games and their top two got creamed.

The WAC won 2 of 3 against the Big Ten; Hawaii #2 in the WAC beat Purdue tied for 4th in the Big Ten. There is probably an argument that the Big Ten is slightly stronger than the WAC. However, all we know about Boise State is that they beat everybody they played and upset Oklahoma (which was probably a top 5 team except for the Oregon fiasco). Assumptions about what would happen in a game between Boise and Florida are just guesses with not a lot of evidence to support them.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Penn State played a very good game and surprised me. Still, the Big Ten wound up 2-5 in bowl games and their top two got creamed.

We're in agreement here.

They only have four teams that deserved a bowl berth, and there is no question that there top two needed to play others than each other for a championship game to exist. Both got clobbered by teams from tougher conferences.

It had been a LONG LONG LONG time sinse the number 6 team in the PAC 10 is nearly as good as USC has been. In fact it is a long since anyone in the Pac 10 is as good as the USC has been the past few years.
The Big 10 normally has more balance. Penn State had a good bowl win, but really lost all its big games this year and Iowa was probably the biggest disappointment in the Big 10. Most years in th Big 10 (or any conference you don't have 3 top 8 teams) and as a result your 4th and 5th best teams will win a few more and they will seem better. The rest of the Big 10 was really down. Every big conference has a few (stanford, Mississippi and Mississippi St) the Big 10 just had a little less balance but that's cyclical.

Originally posted by poundlee
It had been a LONG LONG LONG time sinse the number 6 team in the PAC 10 is nearly as good as USC has been. In fact it is a long since anyone in the Pac 10 is as good as the USC has been the past few years.

When USC is on their game, they are better than everyone else in the Pac-10, but they remain capable of losing to teams in the middle of the Pac (while they will always crush Michigan and Ohio State).

USC lost to #3 and #4 in the Pac-10. #4 UCLA lost to #8 and #9 (both of which took USC to the final play). #3 Oregon State also lost to #8 Washington State.

Any given team in the Pac-10 can beat any other team in the Pac-10 in any given year, and the top team can usually beat almost any other team in the country.

That's what makes it a tough conference.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
[b]No.

Florida exceeded expectations, as did Boise State, Washington State, Hawaii, and many others. How do you measure the degree of excess?

"After the Florida stomping of over-rated Ohio State, FOX showed highlights of the Boise State game."

That's one way to measure the degree of excess.

One thing is certain in these threads, there simply is no real way to agree on a National Champion. And that's true in any sport. Any team can beat any other team on any given day. Playoffs don't help. The top teams at the end of a long, grueling season often lose in short playoff matchups. In baseball this year the Yankees should have played the Mets, as I recall. But no, we have playoffs and neither the Yanks nor Mets are in the World Series. Same thing happens in pro football, pro basketball and college basketball.

But, after all, it's all exciting and gives us something to discuss, and provides for a sort of reasonable way to sell beer and give away really nice trophies.

People who don't follow sports miss a lot, I think.

Originally posted by Delmer
"After the Florida stomping of over-rated Ohio State, FOX showed highlights of the Boise State game."

That's one way to measure the degree of excess.

One thing is certain in these threads, there simply is no real way to agree on a National Champion. And that's true in any sport. Any team can beat any other team on any given day. Playoffs don't help. The ...[text shortened]... nd give away really nice trophies.

People who don't follow sports miss a lot, I think.

People who don't follow sports miss a lot, I think.
Yep, especially all the ambiguity.

One thing is clear, however, and that is that Boise State was undefeated. 'Nuff said.