Running bowl thread

A 6-6 Arkansas team beat a 10-2 Boise State team 38-31 in 2000. A 9-5 Arkansas team beat a 12-1 Boise State team 41-14 in 2002. In 2001, a 9-3 South Carolina beat an 8-4 Boise State team 32-13.

 

Stupid facts.

 

You cannot make a definitive statement about whether or not any team that did not lose a game would or would not go undefeated in another conference - the "week to week grind" nonsense aside.

Unless you believe that every team on Alabama's schedule is better than the best team Boise beat - Oregon - than you cannot possibly know how Boise would fare this year in the SEC regardless of how many different ways you SEC fanboys want to shout it from the mountain tops.

And what happened in 2000, 2001 and 2002 is not relevant to THIS YEAR which is what this discussion is about.

 

Every SEC team Alabama played is better than every WAC team Boise played.

 

Neither Kentucky and Mississippi State would go undefeated in the WAC, nor would South Carolina.

 

In the WAC? Yes they would. In the Mountain West? No.

 

College football: The sport where imaginary games count more than the real ones

 

No they wouldn't.

Prove it.

Oh that's right, you can't.

Which is why the BCS is bullshit and why this whole ridiculous notion that TCU and Cincy didn't earn a trip to the national title game but Alabama did is just a plain fraud.

 

You don't have to go undefeated to be better than the other teams.

You're gonna argue that Nevada, which got trucked by Notre Dame AND Colorado fucking State (35-20, having trailed 35-6), and whose only non-conference win was UNLV, is better than anyone in the SEC bar Vanderbilt?

Because Nevada is the second-best team in the WAC, and it's not even close. They beat the only other WAC teams to finish above .500 by a combined margin of 122-59.

 

And you can prove your idiotic statement how exactly?

 

I think you're missing the point. You asked if there were better matchups out there that could have happened. I said yes, point out that all that would have happened was for the second-to-last pick to be different, and you come back with ticket sales. Your original question was about matchups, what happened on the field. I answered that, and every reply you've made since has been about ticket sales, which had nothing to do with the question you originally asked.

Never said the Fiesta Bowl didn't make its own choices, never said the BCS should have stepped in to arrange games. Simply said there was a better game to be had for the Fiesta Bowl than a bowl we've seen twice in the past six seasons. It's a risky choice for the Fiesta, gambling that fans who have seen the previous two matchups will be just as enthusiastic to see the third edition of the trilogy in a down economy simply because it's a BCS venue. In fact, Cincy fans might actually be more encouraged to hit the desert if Kelly does in fact leave for Notre Dame, knowing this could be as good as it ever gets for the program, going for a 13-0 season and a chance to make a statement it deserves a slice of the national championship.

 

And then their other 12 games, the way they won their 12 regular-season games last year. That fucking counts for a lot, when taken with their win over a BCS power in a BCS bowl game, it shows the development of a powerhouse program, that transcends its conference. What they did against Arkansas in 2000-2002 has nothing to do with where Boise is now.