Running bowl thread

deskslave ... would a Boise win over, say, Kentucky, look better than a win over TCU because it was a BCS conference team?

 

Bama vs. Boise, a week from Sunday at JerryWorld in DFW.

Only way to be sure.

 

I don't doubt that. They've got a pretty good gig going, and it's perfectly possible (likely) they'd get exposed in a real competition for the title.

 

Boise's 2010 sked: Toledo, @Wyoming, Oregon State, Virginia Tech @ D.C. (so in essence a road game), and the WAC (Fresno, Hawaii, La. Tech and Utah State at home, the rest on the road).

It's not a great schedule by any means, but it's definitely a step up in non-con. If they beat Oregon State and Virginia Tech and avoid any WAC upsets (@Nevada?), they'll probably get in the title game by process of elimination, if they start the season in the top eight.

In 2011, they play no AQ conference teams (Wyoming, @Toledo, Tulsa, Utah), then in 2012 it's @Oregon State, BYU and @Utah with a fourth opponent TBD.

 

I'm trying to think of another major team sport where you can be eliminated from title contention without actually failing to win a game.

 

The 2011 schedule's not complete because, like this year, they get an extra game for playing at Hawaii. (Which, actually, makes it even more ridiculous that they haven't scheduled any better than they have. They get five non-con games every other year. Comparing this year's schedule to next year's, they appear to have spent their extra game on UC-Davis. Well done.)

They have allegedly laid down a gauntlet for 2011, where they'll play anyone, anywhere, under any conditions. (Though that's the public statement. I'm unconvinced that they're not setting conditions behind the scenes.)

And Cosmo, whether a win over Kentucky would look better than a win over TCU is irrelevant, because Boise hasn't *scheduled* either of them. And while a bowl win over TCU is significant, certainly, it would be different (not better, necessarily, just different) if it were during the regular season, when you don't have a month to prepare, and when you're coming off a game the week before.

Boise didn't set itself the challenge of playing TCU.

TCU vs. Kentucky? Probably about the same. Bowling Green vs. Kentucky? Miami of Ohio vs. Kentucky? Tulsa vs. Kentucky? UC-Davis vs. Kentucky? Not the same.

 

All I was really saying was it's not fair to not call TCU an impressive win because they're not in a BCS league. TCU this year was better than 80 percent of the teams from BCS leagues. You're right, though, it wasn't scheduled.

And all of this Boise 2011 title talk is moot because they're not going to beat Virginia Tech in Landover.

 

Well, and that's what I was saying at the end. TCU is an impressive win. The ones Boise scheduled aren't.

And FWIW, if you play in a BCS league, being better than 80 percent of BCS-conference teams doesn't get you a BCS bowl bid. It gets you a lovely trip to Orlando or Dallas, but it doesn't get you a BCS bowl bid. So while the deck may be stacked against the MWCs of the world, it's not as though they've been dealt a hand of 3s and 5s.

(As for Kentucky, remember that arguably TCU's most impressive win was against a team that scraped by Kentucky in a bowl game.)

 

But if they do...

 

Florida > Texas every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

 

They'll still be passed over by a one-loss SEC team and an undefeated from some other conference.

That still wouldn't be nearly strong enough a schedule to compare for those who think schedule is verything.

 

I sure hope you're right, but as a VT fan, I'm far, far, far from comfortable with that one.