FB: Empire 8

[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...

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.

good memory...plus I think it was like 10 degrees with ice on the field that day.

[Bombers798891]

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).

I would love to see teams be able to pick their own opponent. Probably a logistical nightmare/impossibility, but it would help

[AlfredSaxon8]

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.

Thanks for some support Johnny Podunk... You were able to convey much better what I was trying to say yesterday.  I hold Boise State an incredibly high standard.  Is that standard too high? Probably.  But I see a lot of good football.  Good games week in and week out and for some reason they seem to involve the same teams while in between those games, I see a score that pops up and says Boise State is up by 35 at halftime on some WAC team.

Are they good? No doubt.  Can they beat top tier d-1 teams? I believe so. But I haven't seen it.  And to me, they haven't proven to be able to do it week after week like other teams... Personally, I think they play teams less than mediocre week after week.

This is just my opinion, but say you move Kentucky from SEC to the WAC... What happens?  Kentucky probably goes undefeated up until they play Boise State. Maybe they lose a game to Nevada but for agruments sake lets say they are undefeated. Then they lose to Boise State but its respectable, say 35-24 or something like that, not totally humiliating.  A close game up until the late 4th quarter.  Now a team that was the bottom of the barrel in the SEC suddenly has a 7-1 record and say a 4-1 conference record.  But since they have a good game against Boise State, they hang around somewhere in the top 25 at like 18 or so because Boise State is ranked #3... What does this mean?  It means that a team that's at the low end in one conference can probably go to the WAC, put up some W's, give Boise State a decent game and call it a successful season while they wouldn't have hit .500 in their old conference. The fact that Boise State plays in the WAC holds them back.  

I'm not even saying they need to go out and play Top 10 school after Top 10 school... but I would like to see them play tougher competition.  I think scheduling more BCS schools would do wonders.  I would give them more respect if they played and beat teams like Purdue, Wisconsin, Arizona State, Washington, etc... They don't need to constantly play big time schools but at least play schools that the conferences you want to be associate with woudl play as well.  If you want a shot at the national title, play some SEC competition.  It doesn't have to be the best SEC teams but I'm sure Kentucky and Ole Miss would play Boise State and there's probably plenty of teams in back half of the Big 12 or Big 10 that would play them as well...

[lewdogg11]

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).

I don't think there are too many 2nd place Ivy League basketball teams complaining that they got screwed and could have been National Champs.  Atleast 65 teams get a shot, and usually, one of the best ones wins.

If the NCAA expanded to an 8 team playoff, 9 and 10 will ALWAYS be pissed off, but odds say the best team in the country will be the National Champion.  If you are pulling from only 2, you severely limit yourself.

We've been harping on Boise St., but what about 2008 Utah who went undefeated and beat # 4 Alabama in the Sugar Bowl?  Anyone think they shouldn't have had a chance at the National title?  And they beat a #24, #11, #14, and #4 that year.

[PBR...]

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).

I don't think there are too many 2nd place Ivy League basketball teams complaining that they got screwed and could have been National Champs.  Atleast 65 teams get a shot, and usually, one of the best ones wins.

If the NCAA expanded to an 8 team playoff, 9 and 10 will ALWAYS be pissed off, but odds say the best team in the country will be the National Champion.  If you are pulling from only 2, you severely limit yourself.

We've been harping on Boise St., but what about 2008 Utah who went undefeated and beat # 4 Alabama in the Sugar Bowl?  Anyone think they shouldn't have had a chance at the National title?  And they beat a #24, #11, #14, and #4 that year.

good point LD agree totally...plus ncaa hoops teams have a choice. they have been encouraged by the selection committee to play a tough o.o.c. schedule and they will be rewarded for it(assuming they win a majority of the games). So a 2nd place ivy league team does have a choice, go play the unc/duke/uconn/nova's of the world and have a strong s.o.s. and you will be rewarded for it.  Unfortunately the same can't be said for d3 footballs selection committee...

[AlfredSaxon8]

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).

I don't think there are too many 2nd place Ivy League basketball teams complaining that they got screwed and could have been National Champs.  Atleast 65 teams get a shot, and usually, one of the best ones wins.

If the NCAA expanded to an 8 team playoff, 9 and 10 will ALWAYS be pissed off, but odds say the best team in the country will be the National Champion.  If you are pulling from only 2, you severely limit yourself.

We've been harping on Boise St., but what about 2008 Utah who went undefeated and beat # 4 Alabama in the Sugar Bowl?  Anyone think they shouldn't have had a chance at the National title?  And they beat a #24, #11, #14, and #4 that year.

Honestly, its VERY similar to this years Boise State. They play Michigan first game of the season, Michigan is ranked.  Utah wins.  The following week Michigan loses to App. State... Similiar to Va Tech? Scary similar.  

Did they deserve a shot at the National Title? Sure.  Everyone does.  Every team deserves a shot at the National Championship.  There, I said it.  I dont think its fair that one teams road to the title is tougher than others but sure, they do all deserve a shot.  I just think, since they are an "outsider" by BCS standards, they have to prove it 3x's over. That's all.  

What if they had a post BCS championship? It would be an alternative to a playoff system? All the teams would be making substantial money from the Bowl game plus you might better get a shot at an "undisputed" champ.  I guess, you would once again run into who plays who in what games but it would settle the whole debate if a team finishes undefeated, wins a bowl game, and doesn't get a chance to play the BCS winner...

[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).

I don't think there are too many 2nd place Ivy League basketball teams complaining that they got screwed and could have been National Champs.  Atleast 65 teams get a shot, and usually, one of the best ones wins.

If the NCAA expanded to an 8 team playoff, 9 and 10 will ALWAYS be pissed off, but odds say the best team in the country will be the National Champion.  If you are pulling from only 2, you severely limit yourself.

We've been harping on Boise St., but what about 2008 Utah who went undefeated and beat # 4 Alabama in the Sugar Bowl?  Anyone think they shouldn't have had a chance at the National title?  And they beat a #24, #11, #14, and #4 that year.

I just think, since they are an "outsider" by BCS standards, they have to prove it 3x's over. That's all.  

And who decides if these teams can be an "insider"? The very teams who try to keep them out!

[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).

I don't think there are too many 2nd place Ivy League basketball teams complaining that they got screwed and could have been National Champs.  Atleast 65 teams get a shot, and usually, one of the best ones wins.

If the NCAA expanded to an 8 team playoff, 9 and 10 will ALWAYS be pissed off, but odds say the best team in the country will be the National Champion.  If you are pulling from only 2, you severely limit yourself.

We've been harping on Boise St., but what about 2008 Utah who went undefeated and beat # 4 Alabama in the Sugar Bowl?  Anyone think they shouldn't have had a chance at the National title?  And they beat a #24, #11, #14, and #4 that year.

Utah is a better example, but there are two different issues here:

1. Who deserves to be in the national championship game, or who deserves to be ranked #1 or #10.

2. Who are the best two football teams at the end of the year.

Again, Utah chose to play Weber State, Michigan, Oregon State, and Utah State as their non conference games and they ended up playing in a major bowl game.  It should also be noted that their ranked opponents they beat that year did not end up in the top 10, (except for Alabama).  BYU, TCU and Michigan were ranked, but beating them with other WAC teams should not put you in the national championship game.

My point remains that if you want to be ranked #1 or #2 at the end of the year, most of your wins should be against top 50 teams.  Utah and Boise State had some top 25 wins, but after that their wins were against bottom feeders, worse than the SEC or Big 10 bottom feeders which sometimes are still ranked in the top 50.

[AlfredSaxon8]

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).

I don't think there are too many 2nd place Ivy League basketball teams complaining that they got screwed and could have been National Champs.  Atleast 65 teams get a shot, and usually, one of the best ones wins.

If the NCAA expanded to an 8 team playoff, 9 and 10 will ALWAYS be pissed off, but odds say the best team in the country will be the National Champion.  If you are pulling from only 2, you severely limit yourself.

We've been harping on Boise St., but what about 2008 Utah who went undefeated and beat # 4 Alabama in the Sugar Bowl?  Anyone think they shouldn't have had a chance at the National title?  And they beat a #24, #11, #14, and #4 that year.

I just think, since they are an "outsider" by BCS standards, they have to prove it 3x's over. That's all.  

And who decides if these teams can be an "insider"? The very teams who try to keep them out!

But thats the point though, you don't need to be an insider if they added an extra bowl game... If Utah, TCU, Boise State etc., did what they had to do, go undefeated, win the bowl game, then they get their shot... It would put an end to the scenario in 2008 where before the bowl game there were 3 undefeated teams...

This is just all an alternative to a playoff as that will seemingly never happen. I would love to see a playoff.  I would love for Boise State to prove me wrong.  It's just that I finally think they might beat a worthy opponent and then Va Tech ends up sucking.  Then Oregon State comes along and their Freshman QB looked like he was still in High School.  I am just waiting to be impressed with Boise State...

Maybe its cynical.  Maybe Boise State IS the reason Oregon State's QB looked awful.  I have thought about that... But I really just dont think that's the case.  I think Oregon State wasn't that good.

But if Boise State and Oregon St were to play 10 games, I bet Boise State would win 8 or 9.  But Boise St doesn't play Oregon State 10 times.  They play WAC teams.  And those teams, they will beat 10 our of 10 times.  Thats where I think the inconsistency is.  Maybe Boise St will win 90 % of the games vs BCS schools, but that's the marking of a team ranked #8-15, not a team in the top 5.

Maybe that explains my position better?  

[Bombers798891]

But thats the point though, you don't need to be an insider if they added an extra bowl game... If Utah, TCU, Boise State etc., did what they had to do, go undefeated, win the bowl game, then they get their shot... It would put an end to the scenario in 2008 where before the bowl game there were 3 undefeated teams...

This is just all an alternative to a playoff as that will seemingly never happen. I would love to see a playoff.  I would love for Boise State to prove me wrong.  It's just that I finally think they might beat a worthy opponent and then Va Tech ends up sucking.  Then Oregon State comes along and their Freshman QB looked like he was still in High School.  I am just waiting to be impressed with Boise State...

Maybe its cynical.  Maybe Boise State IS the reason Oregon State's QB looked awful.  I have thought about that... But I really just dont think that's the case.  I think Oregon State wasn't that good.

But if Boise State and Oregon St were to play 10 games, I bet Boise State would win 8 or 9.  But Boise St doesn't play Oregon State 10 times.  They play WAC teams.  And those teams, they will beat 10 our of 10 times.  Thats where I think the inconsistency is.  Maybe Boise St will win 90 % of the games vs BCS schools, but that's the marking of a team ranked #8-15, not a team in the top 5.

Maybe that explains my position better?  

Fair point. But let's remember: If Boise were in the SEC or Big 10, they'd also have access to the TV money those schools bring in, which helps with budget issues. They'd also have access to a completely different talent pool--one that is much deeper. They'd also get much more national exposure every week.

That's what people forget when they imagine Boise/Hawaii in the SEC. They imagine a school with a WAC budget, isolated geographically from recruits, never on TV. And those are all distinct disadvantages that would, to a degree, get evened out. Likewise, putting an SEC school in Idaho and cutting their resources would hurt them. These schools don't exist in vacuums.

[theoriginalupstate]

Highlights from the SJF/IC game from SatErday...

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#!/video/video.php?v=1549415530012

[Jonny Utah]

Highlights from the SJF/IC game from SatErday...

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#!/video/video.php?v=1549415530012

You mean Fisher highlights.

[theoriginalupstate]

Highlights from the SJF/IC game from SatErday...

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#!/video/video.php?v=1549415530012

You mean Fisher highlights.

Hasn't that been the case for the past 5 years?

I mean Ithaca hasn't scored more than 17 points since Felicetti's senior year.

[Jonny Utah]

Highlights from the SJF/IC game from SatErday...

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#!/video/video.php?v=1549415530012

You mean Fisher highlights.

Hasn't that been the case for the past 5 years?

I mean Ithaca hasn't scored more than 17 points since Felicetti's senior year.

They still had some big plays though.

[AUPepBand]

There's another thing we haven't discussed. IC-Cortland is a huge game, and I wonder if kids check out mentally after losing that game and knowing they're stuck with ECAC's. Three of the four Bomber ECAC wins (Including the last three) have come after winning Cortaca. The one loss came in a season they lost Cortaca.

Excellent point. In IC's case, an ECAC game after Cortaca is actually a letdown. Alfred, meanwhile, does not have a season-ending rivalry game such as an AlBart or a HoFred. The Saxon season ends usually with just another game in Week 11. Right now, that game is Utica, which could be much more interesting this season, but not on the level of a Cortaca.