T1B

Depth. LOL. Not a single one of you jackasses, save for the couple dudes who actually follow Boise, know a single thing about BSU's depth. Not one of you can name a single player on their bench. So just stop with this. Considering Boise St can graduate half their team and still field a top 10 product the following year, that might indicate they actually have some decent guys hanging out on the bench.

Felix wrote:

Sudden Sam wrote:If they were in a major conference, obviously they could recruit better athletes, so they'd probably do pretty well.

winner winner, chicken dinner.......if they were playing in the SEC, they'd be competing for SEC caliber athletes

but you should have stopped right there

While they could likely play in the SEC this year, maintaining that level of success in a power conference is a whole other argument. One slip up by Boise State (7-6 type of year) and the whole deck of cards could come crashing down on them. They don’t have a long history to lean on and they are in the middle of nowhere. When you consider that every major BCS team has gone through a down period, the real argument is if they can sustain their current level of success once adversity hits.

Sudden Sam wrote:I don't understand why it's so hard for y'all to grasp the fact that playing real teams every week would be quite a difference for BSU.

Exactly how many games would they win in the SEC, Pac, Big 10, etc? Who knows? That's where this shit gets funny. It's all speculation, and that's all it'll ever be, yet you're throwing out shit like "facts are facts." Umm, no, you have zero facts to back up your take. Same as me. It's all fantasy talk. We will never know if Boise is a "mid pack" team in the SEC or not. My personal opinion is that, yes, of course it would be harder to win games in the SEC, Big Ten, etc. How many they would win per year, I don't know. I think the team BSU has right now would be a top 3 team in ANY of the major conferences. Boise would not be scared by the middling Kentuckys and Northwesterns just because they have to play them back-to-back weeks.

TheJON wrote:Yeah, but if they were in a major conference they could probably recruit better and have more depth. So maybe they would be able to compete.

And if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle. You have no idea how much better they could recruit players to play on that ugly fucking blue field and 30,000 seat stadium (soon to be 50,000, I'm told). The FACT is that they don't play in a major conference, and likely never will, so this discussion will continue to pop up every season that Boise goes 12-0. Your point is a non-point, and there is no way to prove whether Boise can compete with the big dogs week in, week out, with their current team. This whole discussion is fruitless and nothing more than message board fodder.

Sudden Sam wrote: Get them in the Pac 12 and see how they do.

This was never discussed -- the reason being, that their academics weren't anywhere near up to snuff. While they've upgraded over the years, it's still essentially a fancy community college, which the PAC wasn't interested in.

So, we have an "academically inferior" school -- and some recruits actually are after that fancy piece of paper that tends to help with non-football related employment.

And we also have essentially a one-sport school. You know who ponied up the money and shouted from the rooftops to get Oregon playing baseball again? The football boosters, that's who -- they figured they lost some recruits, since many star athletes want to play a spring sport as well (and you can play dirty pool by giving baseball schollies to football players). So, how is BSU competing on that front? "But we have intramural sack-races in the spring"?


Lots of disadvantages to their recruiting.

Hell Mace, that’s what makes this shit fun. What else are we going to debate? Is Iowa going to win the Big 10? Is Notre Dame going to get it turned around under Kelly? That stuff will play itself out on the field. Debating what Boise State would do in a major conference is interesting because as you said, we’ll never know.

Killian wrote:Hell Mace, that’s what makes this shit fun. What else are we going to debate? Is Iowa going to win the Big 10? Is Notre Dame going to get it turned around under Kelly? That stuff will play itself out on the field. Debating what Boise State would do in a major conference is interesting because as you said, we’ll never know.

I know, Killian, and I usually jump into this discussion like everyone else, but we should just sticky a Boise thread at the top of the forum so that we can post our opinions ONCE and refer back to it once in awhile when we feel the need. :) I agree though, it is kind of fun to see some of the stupid arguments on both sides and absolutely no way to prove, or disprove, anyone's opinion.

Dinsdale wrote:

Sudden Sam wrote: Get them in the Pac 12 and see how they do.

This was never discussed -- the reason being, that their academics weren't anywhere near up to snuff. While they've upgraded over the years, it's still essentially a fancy community college, which the PAC wasn't interested in.

So, we have an "academically inferior" school -- and some recruits actually are after that fancy piece of paper that tends to help with non-football related employment.

And we also have essentially a one-sport school. You know who ponied up the money and shouted from the rooftops to get Oregon playing baseball again? The football boosters, that's who -- they figured they lost some recruits, since many star athletes want to play a spring sport as well (and you can play dirty pool by giving baseball schollies to football players). So, how is BSU competing on that front? "But we have intramural sack-races in the spring"?


Lots of disadvantages to their recruiting.

I didn't think it was their academics (right around the Arizona schools, I believe) that kept them out of the Pac 10 but their endowment. I read that it was only about $50M, far short of the other schools in the Pac 10.

As for the scholarship thing, you can't get football players in using other sports. That used to be a favorite of Bear Bryant in the 60's, but now if a player signs a scholarship for a sport other than football, he has to wait until his junior year before he can play.

Jesus, Georgia couldn't even beat Colorado this year.


Boise State will probably roll them by three or more touch downs.

Dinsdale wrote:

Sudden Sam wrote: Get them in the Pac 12 and see how they do.

This was never discussed -- the reason being, that their academics weren't anywhere near up to snuff. While they've upgraded over the years, it's still essentially a fancy community college, which the PAC wasn't interested in.

well it's significantly more than a community college, but yeah, the academic level isn't anywhere near where it needs to be to be considered for a conference like the PAC 10...er 12...

Killian wrote:
I didn't think it was their academics (right around the Arizona schools, I believe) that kept them out of the Pac 10 but their endowment. I read that it was only about $50M, far short of the other schools in the Pac 10.

it was a combination of academics, endowments, and facilities....the stadium will only hold about 31,000 and the Pac 10...er 12 ain't looking for no 30K stadiums.....that's one of the primary reasons BSU can't get any larger schools here is we simply can't offer them the kind of return they can get playing in a 65 to 70k stadium....in the final analysis, I don't blame any team for not wanting to absorb the monetary loss associated with playing in a small stadium...that's why I give Oregon and Oregon State all the props in the world for coming here...it was a money loser for both of them

Killian wrote:I didn't think it was their academics (right around the Arizona schools, I believe) that kept them out of the Pac 10

I'm sure the endowment would come into play, but...

No. The PAC has strict academic standards for their schools, and BSU feel short on multiple fronts. They don't have any meaningful post-grad programs (strike #1), and they don't have a major scientific research facility (strike # infinity) -- Utah and Colorado do -- that a big freaking deal to the PAC -- every member school has a top research facility in their field-of-specialty. Several school have multiple research facilities (OR, UDub, Furd, I believe UCLA).


This was brought up more than once during expansion talks, when many a layman thought BSU was a no-brainer, until the PAC officials set those laymen straight.

Montana (north western part of the state) > Idaho. It's not even close.

And speaking of Montana and Georgia girls, here's 2 good looking Georgia girls that I used to live with when I worked out in Montana. I'm sure you could tell, but they are sisters. They are from Atlanta and are big UGA fans and have GREAT asses!

Sudden Sam wrote:Felix, got any women like this at BSU?

Saw plenty of crazyhot chicks at the Oregon/BSU game in Eugene. Got drunk(er) after the game with a couple of them.

Remember, Idaho is next to Oregon -- what do you expect for chicks?

Dinsdale wrote:

Sudden Sam wrote:Felix, got any women like this at BSU?

Saw plenty of crazyhot chicks at the Oregon/BSU game in Eugene.

Remember, Idaho is next to Oregon -- what do you expect for chicks?

So Idaho has chicks like Tonya Harding too?

While Tonya may have grown up in the Portland area (OK, very close to me), we exported her to Vancouver, where she fits in much better.

IndyFrisco wrote:I just enjoy watching the would have/could have arguments that some have over things that neither side of the argument is ever going to be right.

eh, there's a difference between saying no way could they ever not going to hear it blah blah blah and uh, they beat the good teams they do play, they have nfl-caliber players, i'm pretty sure they'd hold their own.

shutyomouth wrote:And MCunt - shut the Oliver & Hardy fuck up, dimdick. Your team lost to Appalachian State.

oh, i forgot we draw personal credibility from the teams we root for. i guess that means you and toejam will have fun massaging each other's feet over there in the corner once the ncaa drops the hammer on cam newton.

Sudden Sam wrote:
Felix, got any women like this at BSU?

do they count?

actually you walk around the campus and it's surprising how many hot babes attend BSU

Felix wrote:it's surprising how many hot babes attend BSU

You're surprised that there's hot chicks walking around a college campus?

Get out much?

Dinsdale wrote:

Felix wrote:it's surprising how many hot babes attend BSU

You're surprised that there's hot chicks walking around a college campus?

Get out much?

Yep, there are hot chicks on every college campus. The last time I went to a college bar with a bunch of high school coaches, I was admiring the view and then realized that those girls were only a couple of years older than my daughter. It's hell to get old.

Mace wrote:It's hell to get old.

I strongly disagree.

It's NOT getting old that sucks.

Might have only been his senior year, but I'm fairly certain (not absolutely) that Jordan Kent played football at Oregon on a basketball schollie.

Dinsdale wrote: You're surprised that there's hot chicks walking around a college campus?

Get out much?

I get out lots....what I meant was there are a LOT more of them than when I went there....it must be something in the water...

but I'm with Mace...most of them look remind me of my buddies daughters....

Felix wrote: I get out lots....what I meant was there are a LOT more of them than when I went there...

No, same number.

When you were twenty, you were picky.

Once you crack 40, ALL 20 year old chicks are hot -- hell, when the fat ones walk by, it's greeted with "damn, what a cute face. Love those full cheeks."

Okeydokey.

I'm racking my brain, and it's possible that he had some cheesy academic scholarship or some shit.

I could have sworn that he was on a non-football schollie, but the rules you posted say I'm wrong there.

FWIW, he was on the track team, as well.

i guess. should have purchased better jucos, i suppose.

Boise State > Colorado > Georgia... PEOS.

Sam's argument fails.

Isn’t there a rule that prohibits basketball players from taking a basketball scholarship and playing football the next year? I seem to remember something about when Dane Fife signed with Indiana (he was also a very good QB) that he couldn’t be a dual sport athlete until his Junior year because of this rule. He didn’t end up doing it anyway.

Dinsdale wrote:
No, same number.

When you were twenty, you were picky.

Once you crack 40, ALL 20 year old chicks are hot

yepp

Sudden Sam wrote:But once you hit 50, looking at those 20 year olds becomes sorta....creepy.

Or so I'm told...by my wife.

siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Creepy. Yep, that's the right word....but even an old guy has to sneak a peek once in awhile. :)

Killian wrote:Dane Fife

BWA!

What a tool he was. I went to a lot of frat parties at IU when he played. Fife would always show up drunk as shit. My bud would walk up to him with his hand out as if he was going to shake his hand and then fall down (flop which is what Fife lived on on the floor) and roll around. Fife fell for it 4 times that I saw.