T1B

BSU is a media whore

Get on TV enough and even Snooki Polizzi becomes a star.

Carson wrote:BSU is a media whore

I don't see why Boise State haters resent their media exposure so much

Sudden Sam wrote:Does anyone...any serious football fan...think that Kellen Moore would be putting up the numbers he does if he was throwing against real athletes?

Throwing against the level of kids playing in his conference is a joke. If he were tossing passes against a Big 10, Big 12, or SEC defense, he would be considered a mediocre QB.

Georgia, as bad as they are these days, will expose the Broncos.

can you come up with any other way to say "if they were playing in (insert conference) they'd suck?

So you don't consider Virginia Tech to be "real athletes"? He carved their defense up pretty well.....you seem to operate under the assumption that there is some huge seismic gap between the athletic ability in certain conferences and I can assure you there's not....Moore would be a great quarterback in any conference he played in....he's probably one of the smartest college players playing right now....

We'll see when they get to Atlanta....

of course, if Boise State wins that game, you'll be the first one saying "well, Georgia just isn't that good, if they were playing one of the top tier (insert conference) teams, they would have gotten their asses kicked"

fuck Sam, give it a rest.....we all know you think Boise State sucks

Felix wrote:

Carson wrote:BSU is a media whore

I don't see why Boise State haters resent their media exposure so much

Sudden Sam wrote:Does anyone...any serious football fan...think that Kellen Moore would be putting up the numbers he does if he was throwing against real athletes?

Throwing against the level of kids playing in his conference is a joke. If he were tossing passes against a Big 10, Big 12, or SEC defense, he would be considered a mediocre QB.

Georgia, as bad as they are these days, will expose the Broncos.

can you come up with any other way to say "if they were playing in (insert conference) they'd suck?

So you don't consider Virginia Tech to be "real athletes"? He carved their defense up pretty well.....you seem to operate under the assumption that there is some huge seismic gap between the athletic ability in certain conferences and I can assure you there's not....Moore would be a great quarterback in any conference he played in....he's probably one of the smartest college players playing right now....

We'll see when they get to Atlanta....

of course, if Boise State wins that game, you'll be the first one saying "well, Georgia just isn't that good, if they were playing one of the top tier (insert conference) teams, they would have gotten their asses kicked"

fuck Sam, give it a rest.....we all know you think Boise State sucks

RACK. Georgia is going to get their ass handed to them.

Sudden Sam wrote:What I've said all along is that they couldn't compete against a conference schedule made up of teams from a major conference. They'd be decent, but mid-pack at best.

well, I could speculate they'd run roughshod over the SEC and that has just as much validity as your assertion...we'll never know until such time that Boise State makes it to a power conference


45-7 after 3 quarters. Final: 48-13.[/quote]


seriously dude, that was five fucking years ago....entirely different coaching staff and entirely different caliber of players....you know, I could probably search the archives for some footage of when alabama sucked monkey testes, but how relevant would that be to today?

Sudden Sam wrote:Yeah, that was 5 years ago and it was a highly ranked and well-respected BSU going against a Georgia team that was expected to be mediocre.

Umm, according to the clip you posted Georgia was ranked 5 spots better.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

Sudden Sam wrote:Yeah, that was 5 years ago and it was a highly ranked and well-respected BSU going against a Georgia team that was expected to be mediocre.

Umm, according to the clip you posted Georgia was ranked 5 spots better.

Yes, but an SEC team that is only considered the 13th best team in the country is no better than 18th in that conference.

Sudden Sam wrote:Yeah, that was 5 years ago and it was a highly ranked and well-respected BSU going against a Georgia team that was expected to be mediocre.

but they weren't mediocre were they? unless you consider 10-3 mediocre

BSU does not get the level of athletes that major conference teams do. This can be easily verified by the number of BSU players who move on to the next level. This is not a slap at BSU...its just the facts. If they played in the Big Ten, that might change. Better athletes would probably opt to go there.

you seem to live under the impression that having a team full of great athletes makes for a great team....I can assure you it doesn't.....

Therefore, IMHO, as things stand now, the Broncos could not go week after week against the Texas A&Ms, the Oklahomas, the Texas (what's plural for Texas?) or the Ohio States, Michigan States, Iowas, Wisconsins...or the Alabamas, Auburns, LSUs, etc. in the CFB world. They haven't got the speed, the size, and mainly the depth that those schools have. Plus, they're not getting the elite athletes that those schools do.

how do you know that? you don't, it's just wild speculation on your part....it's no more valid than me saying the BSU could go undefeated in the Pac 10 (which I honestly think they could have this year)

It's good to see a school like that compete with the big boys.

by "big boys" I guess you mean all these guys must be like 6-10 and weigh in at close to 390 lbs....Boise State had one of the top rated offensive lines in the country

But I don't see any way they could go at it week after week in a major conference.

why not? are the athletes in the major conferences universally that much better? if so, then I'm assuming that EVERY graduating senior from Alabama's team will be drafted in the NFL and all will be huge impact players-right?

Running up lopsided wins against the level of competition the Broncos play in the WAC means nothing to anyone. Or it shouldn't.

so do you diss TCU this much? because if you look at it, TCU played a much weaker schedule than BSU yet never once have I seen you run them into the ground the way you hammer BSU....btw, Boise State no longer plays in the WAC

I agree, TCU is the real fraud. Seriously, have they ever beaten ANYONE???

Felix wrote:

Sudden Sam wrote:Yeah, that was 5 years ago and it was a highly ranked and well-respected BSU going against a Georgia team that was expected to be mediocre.

but they weren't mediocre were they? unless you consider 10-3 mediocre

Bwa! Don't make me laugh.

That's what we call a LOSING SEASON in the SEC!

Sudden Sam wrote:Does anyone...any serious football fan...think that Kellen Moore would be putting up the numbers he does if he was throwing against real athletes?

You mean while Stephan Paea is trying to kill him?


Sam, I'm a BSU Basher, but that was dumb.

Almost as dumb as Felix thinking they could have gone undefeated in the PAC.


Yes, the same Felix who just can't grasp the concept of "depth," since BSU has never needed it.

Papa Willie wrote:Personally - I have to say that ... I'm hoping that the SEC kicks everybody's ass in the bowl games.

You didn't have to say it. :P

Believe the Heupel wrote:

TheJON wrote:I agree, TCU is the real fraud. Seriously, have they ever beaten ANYONE???

Yes. Goddamn it.

See: OU's last home loss.

My bad, they've had 1 good win. Gee, sorry.

Felix wrote:TCU played a much weaker schedule than BSU

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt10.htm


#70SoS vs. #80SoS... pretty huge difference, including one common OOC opponent.


Dumbass.

Papa Willie wrote:SS - I'd have to say that BSU would beat UGA - certainly earlier in the year, but even now.

Personally - I have to say that I'm still for what's best for AU. Yeah - I'm hoping that the SEC kicks everybody's ass in the bowl games.

That being said, I hope Oregon pounds the shit out of LSU next year at the beginning of the season. LSU is in the SEC West. Anything other than a loss to LSU is of no good to Auburn. Maybe there's more of a method to the SECBSHomerisms than you fuckers thought!

We heard you the first time.

Dinsdale wrote:

Felix wrote:TCU played a much weaker schedule than BSU

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt10.htm


#70SoS vs. #80SoS... pretty huge difference, including one common OOC opponent.


Dumbass.

Using SOS is the absolute WORST argument to prove who played a tougher schedule. Doesn't mean anything in many cases.

Dinsdale wrote: Almost as dumb as Felix thinking they could have gone undefeated in the PAC.

the only team I think might have potentially threatened them was Oregon and we know how that went for the Ducks the two years preceding this year....yeah I know Oregon has a great offense and different personel than they did last year and they definitely have that fast tempo offense clicking, but based on what I've seen of them this year, I think their defense is weaker than it was last year....they definitely appear smaller on defense than they were last year

Yes, the same Felix who just can't grasp the concept of "depth," since BSU has never needed it.

Boise State is at least two deep at every line position-both offense and defense-they rotate 10 different guys into the defensive front before they've blown somebody out and the third stringers are mopping up....any of those 10 guys could (and have) started....they have four non-starting offensive linemen that can rotate to virtually any of the line positions and are maybe a half speed below the starters....they've got 13 linebackers listed on the depth chart-just how much more depth do you think they need?

exactly how deep is oregon at the line positions?

Dinsdale wrote: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt10.htm


#70SoS vs. #80SoS... pretty huge difference, including one common OOC opponent.


Dumbass.

it's still a tougher schedule.....so why the insults

TheJON wrote:
Using SOS is the absolute WORST argument to prove who played a tougher schedule.

So...


judging strength of schedule based upon... strength of schedule isn't valid?

Who else but Noj would come up with that?

In response to using previous seasons as an indicator of what might happen now, Felix wrote: seriously dude, that was five fucking years ago....entirely different coaching staff and entirely different caliber of players...

Then, in a fine example of a KYOA, in the same thread, Felix wrote: we know how that went for the Ducks the two years preceding this year

You and Noj are swapping PMs planning your trolling effort, right?

based on what I've seen of them this year, I think their defense is weaker than it was last year

You must have not seen much. Defense is definitely better this year (considerably). Secondary lost a couple of guys to the Sunday gig, so defending the deeper passes isn't quite as good... but they were replaced by the guy who led the country in INT tuddies.

they definitely appear smaller on defense than they were last year

It's 9 of the same guys -- maybe you should try adjusting your TV (and one of the two players that left was replaced by a slightly bigger guy).

Boise State is at least two deep at every line position-both offense and defense-they rotate 10 different guys into the defensive front before they've blown somebody out and the third stringers are mopping up....

Sam's usually somewhat rude about it (not that I'm not), but instead of whining (which has become the true trademark of BSU football), maybe you should actually read what he's saying -- WAC "depth" and SEC/B11/PAC depth aren't the same thing. Hate to use one of Sam's tired arguments, but it would appear that NFL scouts see about as much "depth" at BSU as the non-WACBSHs.

Dinsdale wrote: #70SoS vs. #80SoS... pretty huge difference, including one common OOC opponent.


Dumbass.

Felix wrote:it's still a tougher schedule.....so why the insults

Felix wrote:TCU played a much weaker schedule than BSU

Because you made shit up to support your point.

In fact, TCU's cupcakes were tougher than BSU's cupcakes, and the only reason BSU didn't finish behind was because a team that got very hot down the stretch decided to roll over for BSU early in the season.


Next, you'll be saying Moving Sale is MUCH taller than Billy Barty, and Jon is MUCH smarter than a trained monkey, and M2 is MUCH more hetero than Richard Simmons.

oh look, someone mentions boise and, like clockwork, sam breaks out the same old boise-as-negative-space BSH reasoning. i know you went to dixie schools, but jesus.

BSU does not get the level of athletes that major conference teams do. This can be easily verified by the number of BSU players who move on to the next level. This is not a slap at BSU...its just the facts.

irrelevant since we're not talking about bsu's program history. we're talking about bsu as constituted now, so you have till next april to come up with a reason why so many bsu players off this team got drafted but, but, but.

Therefore, IMHO, as things stand now, the Broncos could not go week after week against the Texas A&Ms, the Oklahomas, the Texas (what's plural for Texas?) or the Ohio States, Michigan States, Iowas, Wisconsins...or the Alabamas, Auburns, LSUs, etc. in the CFB world. They haven't got the speed, the size, and mainly the depth that those schools have. Plus, they're not getting the elite athletes that those schools do.

you know who could go against the schools you listed of the worlds? no one. that's why every conference also has their vanderbilts, indianas, iowa states, wazzus, etc. and no, those teams don't have the sort of two-star world beaters you think constitute more of a challenge than hawaii, fresno, etc.

that means the actual ohio state and alabamas of the world play one tough game a year, three dangerous games a year, three games against mediocre teams with a sort of pulse, and five games of why'd we even bother to roll out of bed.

Anyone could beat a higher level school if they played them once a season, while spending the rest of their time playing a BSU conference schedule. Running up lopsided wins against the level of competition the Broncos play in the WAC means nothing to anyone.

oh, i see you've finally left off that indiana or vanderbilt or whoever else would be a top ten team if they played in the wac. here's the question, though: how does the fact lsu would dominate the wac prove boise would flail around in a bcs conference?

Dinsdale wrote:

TheJON wrote:
Using SOS is the absolute WORST argument to prove who played a tougher schedule.

So...


judging strength of schedule based upon... strength of schedule isn't valid?

Who else but Noj would come up with that?

Those that make the horrible argument that SOS is a true indicator of how tough your schedule is are the same morons that think Derek Jeter is a good fielder because his fielding percentage was the highest in the AL, and those that think pitcher wins is a meaningful statistic. It's the same thing. If you don't understand why SOS doesn't prove much, you should do some studying up on football stats.

Dinsdale wrote:
"Then, in a fine example of a KYOA, in the same thread, Felix"] we know how that went for the Ducks the two years preceding this year

the difference being that it was exactly the same Boise State team that pummeled Oregon the preceding year, save for one defensive back....that's why it's relevant....look, we've been through this before...they returned 21 of 22 starters from an undefeated team

You must have not seen much. Defense is definitely better this year (considerably). Secondary lost a couple of guys to the Sunday gig, so defending the deeper passes isn't quite as good... but they were replaced by the guy who led the country in INT tuddies.

I'd venture to say I've seen Oregon play as much as anybody (except for you)....I watched them play probably 8 times

It's 9 of the same guys -- maybe you should try adjusting your TV (and one of the two players that left was replaced by a slightly bigger guy).

then maybe it's the other guys that make them look smaller....they didn't look big compared to a lot of the teams they played this year

Sam's usually somewhat rude about it (not that I'm not), but instead of whining (which has become the true trademark of BSU football), maybe you should actually read what he's saying -- WAC "depth" and SEC/B11/PAC depth aren't the same thing. Hate to use one of Sam's tired arguments, but it would appear that NFL scouts see about as much "depth" at BSU as the non-WACBSHs.

I'm just answering your blithering on about Boise States depth....they've got one of the better rated offensive lines....I'm not the only one saying it, it's sportswriters and coaches that have been saying it as well....but what the fuck would sportswriters and coaches know about it?

Because you made shit up to support your point.

Boise State played four teams that were ranked in the top 25 when they played them during the regular season, and five if you count Utah postseason....how many top 25's did TCU play?

that's how I measure strength of schedule.....apparently you rely solely on Jeff Sagarin and his computers

Felix wrote:the difference being that it was exactly the same Boise State team that pummeled Oregon the preceding year, save for one defensive back....that's why it's relevant....look, we've been through this before...they returned 21 of 22 starters from an undefeated team

When did 11 points turn into a pummeling?

Sudden Sam wrote:I'm done with this. It's not BSU-bashing. Facts are facts. They don't have the players to go thru a season in a top-level conference. They couldn't do it.

i don't think many people would put money on boise state running the sec or whatever shitty conference is second best this year, but you're a dumbfuck if you think they're anything other than an upper escholen team in any conference. i don't remember the exact number, but the last time you brought this boise state as fraud shit up i went looking at draft prospects and found seven bsu players on the board. and that's just seniors. they have the athletes.

but since you brought up the pac 12, please, tell us where they'd fit in this pecking order:

washington
wazzu
oregon
oregon state
stanford
cal
usc
ucla
arizona
arizona state
utah
colorado

take your time, bigot.

M Club wrote:

Sudden Sam wrote:I'm done with this. It's not BSU-bashing. Facts are facts. They don't have the players to go thru a season in a top-level conference. They couldn't do it.

i don't think many people would put money on boise state running the sec or whatever shitty conference is second best this year, but you're a dumbfuck if you think they're anything other than an upper escholen team in any conference. i don't remember the exact number, but the last time you brought this boise state as fraud shit up i went looking at draft prospects and found seven bsu players on the board. and that's just seniors. they have the athletes.

but since you brought up the pac 12, please, tell us where they'd fit in this pecking order:

washington
wazzu
oregon
oregon state
stanford
cal
usc
ucla
arizona
arizona state
utah
colorado

take your time, bigot.

I’d have them battling for second with Stanford. But I’m a lot smarter and more reasonable than Sam. Or Felix.

M Club wrote:but since you brought up the pac 12, please, tell us where they'd fit in this pecking order:

washington
wazzu
oregon
oregon state
stanford
cal
usc
ucla
arizona
arizona state
utah
colorado

This year? Probably 3rd behind Stanford and Oregon. USC may have clipped them because USC is good, but erratic. On any given year in this conference? Always in the top 4, likely in the top 2-3 and contending for the title every year. Since USC is going on probation, they will be top 1-2 for at least 5 years.

Killian wrote: This year? Probably 3rd behind Stanford and Oregon. USC may have clipped them because USC is good, but erratic. On any given year in this conference? Always in the top 4, likely in the top 2-3 and contending for the title every year. Since USC is going on probation, they will be top 1-2 for at least 5 years.

i'd figure the same, though would have to feel good knowing you whooped the two-time defending champion's ass the preceding two years.

exactly, they'd be some also-ran in the big ten, except they just took a home-and-and home from the two-time defending champs as well as just whooped next year's southern winner's ass in a bowl game.

Killian wrote: When did 11 points turn into a pummeling?

did you see the game?

believe me, it was a much bigger ass kicking than 11 points

Sudden Sam wrote:Playing Washington, Oregon, USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal, Arizona, Utah week after week...with the team they have now...they would NOT win every game. Not even close. Even the mediocre PAC teams would wear them down, compared to what they're dealing with now.

yeah because we saw how physically dominant all of the Pac 10 teams were this year.....and given the sterling record they produced this year, no doubt they'll be hauling in 5 star recruits left and right
fuck, do you ever read what you write before you hit the submit button

Sudden Sam wrote:We're talking about playing good to very good teams week after week instead of playing shit teams. There's a HUGE difference.

oh, more of your "they're bad because they win games" argument.

Felix wrote:

Killian wrote: When did 11 points turn into a pummeling?

did you see the game?

believe me, it was a much bigger ass kicking than 11 points

Yeah, it was a very boring game. Neither team could get their offense on track.

Again, 11 points isn't a pummeling.

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.

Same old arguement, I see. :roll: Personally, I don't see any way that Boise could compete in a big time conference and expect to win it....and lack of depth would be the #1 reason. Is their starting lineup as good as anyone? Maybe, but how good would their lineup be when they were playing with 3rd and 4th sting offensive linemen, or 3rd string running backs, etc? To me, that's the biggest difference. I like Kellen Moore, and think he's a deadly passer and obviously a great leader, but he is undersized and would have a much more difficult time being successful week after week playing better competition. The WAC sucks...period. Indiana might not win the WAC but they would consistently be in the top 3 or 4 because, who the hell would beat them? Boise might end up in the top 4 in the PAC, and be considered a dangerous team to play, but they would not go 12-0 in the PAC. Hell, they didn't even survive the WAC unscathed this season.

Bottom line is that we'll continue to have this discussion for years to come because Boise isn't going to join a big time conference. They bring nothing to the table except football and aren't an attractive addition to any conference. Since we'll never know if they can compete, we'll continue to argue this year after year. If you threw them in the Big 10, I'd see them as another Northwestern. Extremely well coached and capable of knocking off good teams, but never really getting over the hump to win the league. That's not a slam against Boise, because I think Northwestern is a good football team.....when Dan Persa is healthy.

Yeah, speculation is all Sam has to go on, as does Felix and everyone else, because we'll never know for sure. I think Boise has been a legit Top 25 team the past few years, but there is no way they were deserving of their lofty #3 ranking based on who they'd beaten....and it took Nevada to prove it.

I just love seeing the SEC BSH's reference events than happened four-five years ago to leverage themselves on current issues. Stupid fucking people.

Quick, Spray. Go get some Youtubes of App St/scU-M to post, you're falling behind Slobbering Sam.

Sudden Sam wrote:That's what I've been saying, Mace. Maybe someone will listen to you.

Oh, I highly doubt it.

Goddam...this is so easy to see.

Yeah, me too. Iowa rarely has their best 11 guys on the field on either side of the ball. They played 10 linebackers this year and the offensive line is always riddled with injuries. If you aren't at least 3 deep with very little drop off in talent, you're going to have problems winning games in a legit conference. I seriously doubt that Boise is good that deep into the roster.....but they don't need to be with their schedule.

Yeah, me too. Iowa rarely has their best 11 guys on the field on either side of the ball. They played 10 linebackers this year and the offensive line is always riddled with injuries. If you aren't at least 3 deep with very little drop off in talent, you're going to have problems winning games in a legit conference. I seriously doubt that Boise is good that deep into the roster.....but they don't need to be with their schedule.

That's true, but I think their starting 22 can hang with anyone. It's just a matter of staying healthy. If they have a roster like they do this year and are lucky enough to stay healthy, then I definitely think they could content in a power conference. The problem is that type of luck won't happen very often. Injuries are a part of the game and they're tough to avoid.

TheJON wrote:

Yeah, me too. Iowa rarely has their best 11 guys on the field on either side of the ball. They played 10 linebackers this year and the offensive line is always riddled with injuries. If you aren't at least 3 deep with very little drop off in talent, you're going to have problems winning games in a legit conference. I seriously doubt that Boise is good that deep into the roster.....but they don't need to be with their schedule.

That's true, but I think their starting 22 can hang with anyone. It's just a matter of staying healthy. If they have a roster like they do this year and are lucky enough to stay healthy, then I definitely think they could content in a power conference. The problem is that type of luck won't happen very often. Injuries are a part of the game and they're tough to avoid.

That's the whole point, JON. They don't have the depth to compete in a power conference where they wouldn't have their best 22 players available week after week. That's not a real issue for them in the WAC but it would be in the PAC, SEC, or Big 10. Injuries don't effect them as much in the WAC because Boise's second and third stingers are probably better than the competition, and they suffer fewer injuries because most of their opponents are less physical.

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.

Sudden Sam wrote:That's what I've been saying, Mace. Maybe someone will listen to you. You're considerably less insane than I am!

Depth is the main point. I've said that repeatedly. The wear and tear of playing good teams would destroy BSU. They could hang for a while in a major conference, but, as the season went on, they'd wear down and lose 2,3,4 games in any good conference.

They may beat Georgia next year (since we're not allowed to go back to any previous seasons to use as examples...I thought that was what we used to base our opinions on), but they wouldn't beat Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, Miss State, Auburn, LSU, etc. week after week.

Goddam...this is so easy to see.

The thing is, Boise State has been a fixture in the top 25 for the past 6 years or so. They haven’t fallen back to 7-5 type seasons. That’s a sign of good coaching and great player development. All teams lose key players from the previous year, including Boise. Yet they haven’t taken a step back. Their depth isn’t an issue.

Perhaps it would be if they played in a tougher conference. Maybe by playing in those conferences, Boise would have to play their starters longer and not develop their depth like they have in the past. But given how they haven’t missed a beat from year to year, if I was making a case against Boise State, I wouldn’t point to their lack of depth. They obviously develop their players really, really well. So saying every year that “their starting 22” could hang with anyone is a little silly, considering some of those 22 were back ups the previous year.

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