FB: Empire 8

[AUKaz00]

82- That ECAC road game a few years ago was Husson.

Yep thats right Husson.

In the post season.

Husson.

Wasn't that a close game? Like 17-10 or something? I remember hearing the score and thinking wow, Fisher did not come to play apparently.  Was that the year they were playoff bound but lost to AU? Not taking shots, just wondering...

In fairness to the Cardinals, Vosburg made a point to play EVERYONE in that game up in Maine.  No use making kids travel that far and not see the field.  That could have held Fisher's scoring down a bit.

[fisheralum91]

I must have some sort of weird Coach karma going on..A few weeks ago I run into Blaise before the UC Fisher game, and yesterday as I am walking into a local oneonta pizza joint- low and behold the entire Wick coaching staff was having a meeting.   Well- I couldnt let sleeping dogs lie - so as I was leaving i looked over at the table and said Go Fisher!



I laughed all the way back to my office!

[Jonny Utah]

A few of my thoughts on the last couple posts:

1.  Alfred can recruit the same players SJF or Ithaca can.  You still see most of the great players from all these schools (you can include Union and RPI) come from a lot of podunk usptate NY towns.  There is some real good HS football in western NY and western PA where Alfred is going to have the advantage because it may be a 2-4 hour drive instead of a 5-7 hour drive to Ithaca.  SJF might have the advantage in Rochester, and Ithaca might have the advantage in New England.

2.  I don't think any recruit is going to care about an ECAC game.  The ECAC game factor is probably very minimal in the grand scheme of things.

3.  I do agree with some of Alfredsaxon's point.  Let's look at what Boise State and Alabama have to overcome in order to win a national championship.  Now in theory, both schools choose what conference they can play in, but we both know that both teams have to play conference games.  You need to look at these games and decide how each team would do against these teams.

Boise State should know that they have 8 conference games and that they can play 4 non conference games.  They shoud know that of those 4 non conference games, all 4 should be good teams from good conferences.  Now Oregon State and Virgina Tech are two real good teams from two great conferences.  They beat those teams, and we now find out that one of them (Virginia Tech) may not be that great of a win.  But in those other two game (Wyoming and Toledo) is where Boise State kills themself.  They did choose to play those teams.  Since their conference schedule is weaker than Alabamas or Wisconsins or Stanfords is, it should force them to play 4 nonleague games against top teams.


At the end of the year Alabama will have played 5-8 ranked teams, and Boise State will have played 2-3 ranked teams.  That is why Boise needs to prove more than Alabama needs to.

[Bombers798891]

A few of my thoughts on the last couple posts:

1.  Alfred can recruit the same players SJF or Ithaca can.  You still see most of the great players from all these schools (you can include Union and RPI) come from a lot of podunk usptate NY towns.  There is some real good HS football in western NY and western PA where Alfred is going to have the advantage because it may be a 2-4 hour drive instead of a 5-7 hour drive to Ithaca.  SJF might have the advantage in Rochester, and Ithaca might have the advantage in New England.

2.  I don't think any recruit is going to care about an ECAC game.  The ECAC game factor is probably very minimal in the grand scheme of things.

3.  I do agree with some of Alfredsaxon's point.  Let's look at what Boise State and Alabama have to overcome in order to win a national championship.  Now in theory, both schools choose what conference they can play in, but we both know that both teams have to play conference games.  You need to look at these games and decide how each team would do against these teams.

Boise State should know that they have 8 conference games and that they can play 4 non conference games.  They shoud know that of those 4 non conference games, all 4 should be good teams from good conferences.  Now Oregon State and Virgina Tech are two real good teams from two great conferences.  They beat those teams, and we now find out that one of them (Virginia Tech) may not be that great of a win.  But in those other two game (Wyoming and Toledo) is where Boise State kills themself.  They did choose to play those teams.  Since their conference schedule is weaker than Alabamas or Wisconsins or Stanfords is, it should force them to play 4 nonleague games against top teams.


At the end of the year Alabama will have played 5-8 ranked teams, and Boise State will have played 2-3 ranked teams.  That is why Boise needs to prove more than Alabama needs to.

Scheduling is a two-way street though. As a Michigan State fan, I remember hearing about how how they backed out of a committed game at Hawai'i when they had Brennan and all those receivers. Of course, there's countless anecdotal evidence that teams have offered Boise 2-for-1 deals, etc. But I don't think just a matter of Boise calling up Alabama, Nebraska, Oregon and Ohio State and there's you're OOC schedule.

If you were those teams, and you didn't need a win over Boise to be #1 because of your schedule, would you throw them on there and risk a loss? Or if you were Michigan State and fighting for a bowl bid (well, most years) would you jeopardize it by scheduling a almost sure loss? IDK. I think it's a complex issue which doesn't have a simple solution

[Jonny Utah]

A few of my thoughts on the last couple posts:

1.  Alfred can recruit the same players SJF or Ithaca can.  You still see most of the great players from all these schools (you can include Union and RPI) come from a lot of podunk usptate NY towns.  There is some real good HS football in western NY and western PA where Alfred is going to have the advantage because it may be a 2-4 hour drive instead of a 5-7 hour drive to Ithaca.  SJF might have the advantage in Rochester, and Ithaca might have the advantage in New England.

2.  I don't think any recruit is going to care about an ECAC game.  The ECAC game factor is probably very minimal in the grand scheme of things.

3.  I do agree with some of Alfredsaxon's point.  Let's look at what Boise State and Alabama have to overcome in order to win a national championship.  Now in theory, both schools choose what conference they can play in, but we both know that both teams have to play conference games.  You need to look at these games and decide how each team would do against these teams.

Boise State should know that they have 8 conference games and that they can play 4 non conference games.  They shoud know that of those 4 non conference games, all 4 should be good teams from good conferences.  Now Oregon State and Virgina Tech are two real good teams from two great conferences.  They beat those teams, and we now find out that one of them (Virginia Tech) may not be that great of a win.  But in those other two game (Wyoming and Toledo) is where Boise State kills themself.  They did choose to play those teams.  Since their conference schedule is weaker than Alabamas or Wisconsins or Stanfords is, it should force them to play 4 nonleague games against top teams.


At the end of the year Alabama will have played 5-8 ranked teams, and Boise State will have played 2-3 ranked teams.  That is why Boise needs to prove more than Alabama needs to.

Scheduling is a two-way street though. As a Michigan State fan, I remember hearing about how how they backed out of a committed game at Hawai'i when they had Brennan and all those receivers. Of course, there's countless anecdotal evidence that teams have offered Boise 2-for-1 deals, etc. But I don't think just a matter of Boise calling up Alabama, Nebraska, Oregon and Ohio State and there's you're OOC schedule.

If you were those teams, and you didn't need a win over Boise to be #1 because of your schedule, would you throw them on there and risk a loss? Or if you were Michigan State and fighting for a bowl bid (well, most years) would you jeopardize it by scheduling a almost sure loss? IDK. I think it's a complex issue which doesn't have a simple solution

No you are right.  But I think they could have done better than Wyoming and Toledo.

I mean, what would we be saying if Alabama's non conference games were against Hawaii, Nevada, Fresno State and Idaho (the WACs best teams)?  Then Boise State has to play Mississippi State, Mississippi, Tennessee and Kentucky (the four worst teams in the SEC)?

Then do the same for the top/bottom teams in both leagues that both have to play.

Bottom line is that Alabama has to prove less with their non conference games and Boise has to prove more.  And Va Tech and Oregon State are not enough.

[Bombers798891]

No you are right.  But I think they could have done better than Wyoming and Toledo.

I mean, what would we be saying if Alabama's non conference games were against Hawaii, Nevada, Fresno State and Idaho (the WACs best teams)?  Then Boise State has to play Mississippi State, Mississippi, Tennessee and Kentucky (the four worst teams in the SEC)?

Then do the same for the top/bottom teams in both leagues that both have to play.

Bottom line is that Alabama has to prove less with their non conference games and Boise has to prove more.  And Va Tech and Oregon State are not enough.

Ok, but let's say you're Kentucky, and you know you're going to pick up 4-5 losses in conference and you were fighting for a bowl spot, and had no shot at the National Title anyway. Why would you schedule a Boise when a loss could cost you bowl eligibility? Wouldn't it make more sense to schedule the Akron/Charleston Southern/Louisville/Western Kentucky slate instead? How do you convince these middle of the pack BCS teams to put a team like Boise on the schedule instead of a guaranteed win? Where's the benefit?

I don't disagree with the crux of that argument. I just question how we can fairly apply it. If the teams in control (The BCS teams) don't receive any benefit from scheduling Boise, what's to stop them from turning Boise down in one breath and then saying "You refuse to play anyone!" in the next?

[Jonny Utah]

I guess I'm just saying that there are two better teams out there that were willing to play Boise St. that were better than Wyoming and Toldeo.

[Bombers798891]

I guess I'm just saying that there are two better teams out there that were willing to play Boise St. that were better than Wyoming and Toldeo.

I don't think you're wrong, but honestly, no-one's going to give Boise credit if they beat the four worst SEC teams. It's going to have to be a murderer's row of OOC opponents, and there's no way it can happen. At the end of the season, there will probably be three ranked teams on Boise's schedule, which is more than we can say about some BCS conference teams.

Here's a question: When Ohio State played for the National Championship in 2007, how many teams on their schedule were ranked heading into the bowls? Two. #13 Illinois and #18 Wisconsin. Same story in 2006. They went to the national title playing two ranked teams: #18 Texas and #3 Michigan. Was the rest of the conference better than the WAC? Sure. But were they that much better that Boise couldn't navigate it? Tough to know, but the Big-10 wasn't exactly held in high esteem those days

[Jonny Utah]

I guess I'm just saying that there are two better teams out there that were willing to play Boise St. that were better than Wyoming and Toldeo.

I don't think you're wrong, but honestly, no-one's going to give Boise credit if they beat the four worst SEC teams. It's going to have to be a murderer's row of OOC opponents, and there's no way it can happen. At the end of the season, there will probably be three ranked teams on Boise's schedule, which is more than we can say about some BCS conference teams.

Here's a question: When Ohio State played for the National Championship in 2007, how many teams on their schedule were ranked heading into the bowls? Two. #13 Illinois and #18 Wisconsin. Same story in 2006. They went to the national title playing two ranked teams: #18 Texas and #3 Michigan. Was the rest of the conference better than the WAC? Sure. But were they that much better that Boise couldn't navigate it? Tough to know, but the Big-10 wasn't exactly held in high esteem those days

Well there aren't a lot of people going to give them credit for beating Wyoming, Toledo, Oregon State or Virginia Tech either.  And I think we would give Boise State some credit if they beat the four worst SEC teams (two on the road) by the same amount Alabama or Florida beat them.

As for Ohio State in 2007 I think that is a seperate issue.  As AlfredSaxon also pointed out, that is the problem we all have with the BCS.  If Ohio State can go 9-0 in the Big Ten, then yea so could Boise State.  But Alabama, Texas, USC, Virginia Tech and Florida State might also have gone 9-0 in that league as well.  Point being, Boise State doesn't get a free pass that year just because Ohio State went undefeated in the big 10 that year.

[Bombers798891]

I guess I'm just saying that there are two better teams out there that were willing to play Boise St. that were better than Wyoming and Toldeo.

I don't think you're wrong, but honestly, no-one's going to give Boise credit if they beat the four worst SEC teams. It's going to have to be a murderer's row of OOC opponents, and there's no way it can happen. At the end of the season, there will probably be three ranked teams on Boise's schedule, which is more than we can say about some BCS conference teams.

Here's a question: When Ohio State played for the National Championship in 2007, how many teams on their schedule were ranked heading into the bowls? Two. #13 Illinois and #18 Wisconsin. Same story in 2006. They went to the national title playing two ranked teams: #18 Texas and #3 Michigan. Was the rest of the conference better than the WAC? Sure. But were they that much better that Boise couldn't navigate it? Tough to know, but the Big-10 wasn't exactly held in high esteem those days

Well there aren't a lot of people going to give them credit for beating Wyoming, Toledo, Oregon State or Virginia Tech either.  And I think we would give Boise State some credit if they beat the four worst SEC teams (two on the road) by the same amount Alabama or Florida beat them.

As for Ohio State in 2007 I think that is a seperate issue.  As AlfredSaxon also pointed out, that is the problem we all have with the BCS.  If Ohio State can go 9-0 in the Big Ten, then yea so could Boise State.  But Alabama, Texas, USC, Virginia Tech and Florida State might also have gone 9-0 in that league as well.  Point being, Boise State doesn't get a free pass that year just because Ohio State went undefeated in the big 10 that year.

Right, but of course, people also point out that there's no way Boise could navigate the SEC. Which is probably true. But those OSU teams probably couldn't have done that either. This OSU team might not. This Nebraska team might not. But we're not going to keep Ohio State out of that National Title game because we "know" they would lose in the SEC. We won't keep Nebraska out either.  Just Boise and TCU

They're right that we're letting Boise get away with something other teams don't (a relatively easy schedule). But we also hold Boise to an impossible to prove, hypothetical standard that we don't hold other teams to (running the table in a tougher conference than the one they're in)

[Jonny Utah]

Yea 2007 was a strange year.   There were probably 8-12 teams which could have won a national championship game on any given day.  The "national champion" was LSU, a team which had already lost twice that year, but also played 7 ranked teams, including a 48-3 win over #9 ranked Virginia Tech. 

But you are right, we do hold Boise State to a higher standard than we would to an SEC team.  Why shouldn't we?  That would be true for any sport wouldn't it? 

In d1 basketball, the Ivy league is going to get one team in, and the ACC is going to get 5 teams in.  If the second best Ivy league team wants to get an at large bid, then they better have beaten some ACC or Big East teams along the way.

[Bombers798891]

Yea 2007 was a strange year.   There were probably 8-12 teams which could have won a national championship game on any given day.  The "national champion" was LSU, a team which had already lost twice that year, but also played 7 ranked teams, including a 48-3 win over #9 ranked Virginia Tech. 

But you are right, we do hold Boise State to a higher standard than we would to an SEC team.  Why shouldn't we?  That would be true for any sport wouldn't it? 

In d1 basketball, the Ivy league is going to get one team in, and the ACC is going to get 5 teams in.  If the second best Ivy league team wants to get an at large bid, then they better have beaten some ACC or Big East teams along the way.

Because in D-I basketball, winning the Ivy gets you a shot at the championship. In D-I football, winning the WAC does not.

[Jonny Utah]

Yea 2007 was a strange year.   There were probably 8-12 teams which could have won a national championship game on any given day.  The "national champion" was LSU, a team which had already lost twice that year, but also played 7 ranked teams, including a 48-3 win over #9 ranked Virginia Tech. 

But you are right, we do hold Boise State to a higher standard than we would to an SEC team.  Why shouldn't we?  That would be true for any sport wouldn't it? 

In d1 basketball, the Ivy league is going to get one team in, and the ACC is going to get 5 teams in.  If the second best Ivy league team wants to get an at large bid, then they better have beaten some ACC or Big East teams along the way.

Because in D-I basketball, winning the Ivy gets you a shot at the championship. In D-I football, winning the WAC does not.

True, but again that is a BCS issue.  I'm talking about the second place Ivy league team which may be a better basketball team than the 5th ranked ACC team.  What can that Ivy league team do to get in the playoffs over that 5th ranked ACC team?  They need to beat some of the same teams that the 5th ranked ACC team had beaten (presumably some higher and lower ranked ACC teams or the like).

[SJFF82]

82- That ECAC road game a few years ago was Husson.

Yep thats right Husson.

In the post season.

Husson.

Wasn't that a close game? Like 17-10 or something? I remember hearing the score and thinking wow, Fisher did not come to play apparently.  Was that the year they were playoff bound but lost to AU? Not taking shots, just wondering...

kinda like IC after losing Cortaca, like Bombers said.  Their other ECAC loss in 2003 to RPI was after an AU loss knocked 'em out, (If i recall correctly).

[Bombers798891]

Yea 2007 was a strange year.   There were probably 8-12 teams which could have won a national championship game on any given day.  The "national champion" was LSU, a team which had already lost twice that year, but also played 7 ranked teams, including a 48-3 win over #9 ranked Virginia Tech. 

But you are right, we do hold Boise State to a higher standard than we would to an SEC team.  Why shouldn't we?  That would be true for any sport wouldn't it? 

In d1 basketball, the Ivy league is going to get one team in, and the ACC is going to get 5 teams in.  If the second best Ivy league team wants to get an at large bid, then they better have beaten some ACC or Big East teams along the way.

Because in D-I basketball, winning the Ivy gets you a shot at the championship. In D-I football, winning the WAC does not.

True, but again that is a BCS issue.  I'm talking about the second place Ivy league team which may be a better basketball team than the 5th ranked ACC team.  What can that Ivy league team do to get in the playoffs over that 5th ranked ACC team?  They need to beat some of the same teams that the 5th ranked ACC team had beaten (presumably some higher and lower ranked ACC teams or the like).

Correct, but I don't think we can separate the BCS and the Boise thing. The argument only exists because the BCS does