ATQ Blogpoll: What are we going to do with Boise?
by David Piper on Oct 27, 2009 9:50 AM PDT
in ATQ Blogpoll
Email
PrintThe BlogPoll is about to reach critical mass.
Oregon lost to Boise State. Fair and square. To date, that has been the reasoning for the rankings of the two teams. They've played head to head, Oregon lost, rank them behind Boise, right? Many of the mainstream pollsters have a similar attitude, and it has brought about questions of whether the Ducks have the chance to pass Boise at all sans a Bronco loss.
But what if we do beat USC?
Because if that one loss had been to anyone besides Boise, this is a completely different argument. Should USC be ranked behind Washington? Houston behind UTEP? At some point, the resume has to win out over the head-to-head.
We're about to reach that point with Oregon and Boise. I'm not trying to be a homer here, but Boise has one really good win, by eleven points at home. And they won't get another. This is a team that, ultimately, will not have had to grind out a long string of games against quality competition. That won't have faced a test on the road. And I realize that it's not the fault of the Bronco players, but at some point you have to stop ignoring it. Oregon's resume is already better than Boise's, and a win over the Trojans will make that undebateable (and a loss makes it all a moot point).
Am I the only one that finds it funky that if Oregon had lost to Purdue instead of Boise, we'd be in a better position to make a NC run than we are now?
Of course, a playoff would take care of all of this, now wouldn't it (and I realize that I flip-flop on that yearly).
But that's getting ahead of ourselves......
In spite of a struggle against Tennessee last week, Alabama remains a clear #1 in my mind. Still the best resume, and the only struggle they've had this year. TCU is just crushing teams and moves way up. A road win at Michigan somewhat legitimizes Penn State, and California sneaks back into the poll.
I had somebody ask me why no Oklahoma? I ask, why should I put in a three loss team with only one quality win?
As always, I'll take suggestions in the comments.
 |
||
| Rank | Team | Delta |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Alabama | |
| 2 | Florida | |
| 3 | Texas | |
| 4 | Iowa | |
| 5 | TCU |  7 |
| 6 | Cincinnati | |
| 7 | Boise State |  2 |
| 8 | Oregon | 1 |
| 9 | Southern Cal | 2 |
| 10 | LSU | |
| 11 | Georgia Tech | |
| 12 | Virginia Tech | 1 |
| 13 | Penn State | 1 |
| 14 | Pittsburgh | 3 |
| 15 | Oklahoma State | 4 |
| 16 | Utah | |
| 17 | Houston | 2 |
| 18 | Miami (Florida) | 10 |
| 19 | Arizona | 3 |
| 20 | Notre Dame | |
| 21 | Ohio State | 1 |
| 22 | West Virginia | |
| 23 | Central Michigan | 1 |
| 24 | California | |
| 25 | Wisconsin | |
| Last week's ballot | ||
376 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
We'll jump Boise if we win out
For two reasons:
1. Our SOS is MUCH higher than BSU.
2. Its a season-opening loss, which doesn’t usually result in a huge penalty.
"Good evening Blazer fans, wherever you may be!"-Bill Schonely
We'll jump Boise
If we beat USC, we don’t need to win out. We should jump some teams if we beat USC even if every team above us win their game this weekend, I believe our win would count a little more and provide some more evidence for the voters. It will help us in all kinds of ways
"I used to play sports. Then I realized you can buy trophies. Now I'm good at everything." - Demetri Martin
My opinion on this
Documented in a different thread (last week’s blogpoll, I think), but I’ll try to summarize here:
When we’re trying to determine who is better than whom, we have two types of evidence:
Objective: Wins and losses, head to head record, road record
Subjective: Quality of victory, strength of schedule, conference quality, injury effects, etc.
In my opinion, objective measures should ALWAYS be used before subjective measures, whenever possible. In the case of Oregon vs. Boise St., not only is BSU’s W-L record better, but they won the head to head matchup. The objective evidence is hugely in favor of the Broncos. The subjective evidence, on the other hand, is hugely in favor of the Ducks. But being that it’s subjective, the evidence is not of the same quality, and therefore weighted less in import than the objective evidence. If BSU wins out, and even if the Ducks win out as well, I just don’t ever see there being enough subjective evidence in favor of the Ducks to overcome the fact that: BSU has a better record and BSU won the head to head matchup.
That’s just my opinion. If I had to guess, both teams winning out would result in the Ducks passing the Broncos in the actual polls. I would never vote that way, but I see other people voting that way, mainly because they have a different thought on how much weight subjective evidence should have in the process. I’ll defend my opinion, but I think the rest of you smart people on here can make valid points saying the opposite, so I’m not planning on arguing ad nauseum. I do enjoy a good discussion, though.
But if any of you come after my "over-rated" chant again, I’ll tear you all apart.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
by Gorbachav5 on Oct 27, 2009 10:59 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
In terms of how that would play out on this particular poll, I would put BSU, ahead of Cincinnati and TCU, because I think BSU has beaten a higher quality opponent than the others. USC gets bumped over Oregon this week because their high quality victories have come on the road.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
Arguing ad nauseum is OVER-RATED!
I support your position on this. I think any opportunity to weigh teams head to head has to be placed first. Hypothetical situations change as teams’ resumes appear to improve or worsen throughout the season, but a head-to-head match-up is irrefutable evidence. Both teams had equal opportunity to win that game. I don’t think Boise should fall behind Oregon unless they lose.
By the grace of Juju, we all are day-to-day.
But they will
If Oregon gets close the NC game because the barons of the BCS would hate nothing more than having a non-Big 6 team in the NC game.
"Good evening Blazer fans, wherever you may be!"-Bill Schonely
Yes, I completely agree that they will. Big conference influencers will manipulate the system as much as possible to keep the big money out of the pockets of the smaller conferences. As I’ve said before, with so many schools facing budget issues, there is ample motivation for screwing otherwise worthy teams out of BCS games. If it can be done, it will be done.
By the grace of Juju, we all are day-to-day.
Head-to-head matchups are NOT irrefutable evidence. It is simply another piece of evidence to be weighed with many other pieces of evidence. The problem with head-to-head, is that inferior teams beat superior teams on a regular basis, and that must be taken into account.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
Yeah, I see your point. I guess in this instance my focus was solely on two high-quality, near-equal teams. I didn’t consider the other scenario. I don’t think any of us believes that because USC lost to Washington that UW is the better team.
Frankly, this whole discussion gives me heartburn. Really, I’m out-of-my-mind sick of these debates of who would and who should. There’s only one right answer and it’s still years away. Hopefully we settle this with playoffs at some point before I die.
By the grace of Juju, we all are day-to-day.
How do we know that Boise State and Oregon are near equal. As has been proven for decades, one game does not show the true value of a team.
The problem is that Boise State simply cannot prove its a great team, because it doesn’t have the schedule to do it.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
And I bet if we played BSU in BSU again today
We’d probably beat them.
That game was their season, for us it was important but not mission critical.
"Good evening Blazer fans, wherever you may be!"-Bill Schonely
We’re totally different teams than we were then. Which is why it’s important to look at the entire body of work, so you can try and decide who is the better team over the entirety of the season.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
Which is why it is better to lose early rather than late
"Good evening Blazer fans, wherever you may be!"-Bill Schonely
Correction, it was their Super Bowl
Sincerely,
Joe G
by Bill Musgrave on Oct 27, 2009 6:35 PM PDT up reply actions
It already proved it’s a great team by beating a great team and continuing to win each of its games.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
That’s absolutely false. If BSU were a fluke, they could very easily lose to a mediocre WAC team. The fact that they haven’t is significant.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
How is that significant? Winning in the WAC proves nothing about the team.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
That is your opinion. Winning in the WAC is still winning. It means less, using subjective evidence, than winning in the Pac 10, but it’s not meaningless.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
Are you saying that even objectively, winning the Pac-10 is on par with winning the WAC?
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
That’s what I’m saying. But you guys are blowing this way out the water. It’s clearly not the only thing that matters. I’m not crazy. If all I knew about two teams was that one won the Pac 10 and the other won the WAC, I’m taking the Pac 10 team every single time.
Subjective evidence ABSOLUTELY matters. I never said it didn’t. I just think, that when ranking two teams, the objective evidence matters more.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
Well, as you said above, we’re gonna disagree.
But there is absolutely no such thing as objective or subjective evidence.
Evidence is evidence. And then you subjectively try to piece it together to come up with an end result.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
I disagree. We can argue all day until we’re blue in the face about how much a particular win might mean, but at the end of the day, one team won and one team lost. That’s the very definition of objective. There is no need for interpretation.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
But then you insert it into a situation such as this, and it is automatically subjective. You cannot change that.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
There is such a thing as objective and subjective evidence.
Objective evidence consists of pure facts, that require no judgment. “Oregon is undefeated in the Pac-10.” That’s objective. So is “Oregon’s opponents have a better combined winning percentage than Boise State’s.”
Subjective requires judgment. “Oregon is the best team in the Pac-10” is subjective. As is “Oregon’s schedule is tougher than Boise State’s.”
Now 2-0 in Husky Stadium with a win each for LSU and Oregon.
I support Sonja Newcombe for Heisman.
All Saints Day 1966: the NFL awards New Orleans a franchise. WHODAT!
by AllSaintsDay on Oct 27, 2009 12:02 PM PDT up reply actions
I think JT would argue that “Oregon is the best team in the Pac-10” isn’t evidence at all, but more an interpretation of evidence. Oregon is undefeated in the Pac-10, no one else is…etc.
--Dominic, Addicted to Quack
Autzen Stadium is where great teams go to die." - J. Brady McCullough, The Michigan Daily.
Good point. I don’t know why I gave a subjective statement that wasn’t really “evidence” for anything.
Now 2-0 in Husky Stadium with a win each for LSU and Oregon.
I support Sonja Newcombe for Heisman.
All Saints Day 1966: the NFL awards New Orleans a franchise. WHODAT!
by AllSaintsDay on Oct 27, 2009 12:05 PM PDT up reply actions
Anyone can slice this stuff to generate just any desired outcome. There is not obvious truth that can be revealed by comparing past performances or speculating about what might happen of UO and BSU played again. Why should we be so convinced that Oregon would go into Boise and get beat again? Teams match up differently in terms of strengths or weaknesses. How do you factor that in?
I guess at the end of the day I’ll defer to the smartest ranking system that I give credence to: Sagarin. Current Elo-Chess (aka “politically correct” style that’s used for the BCS) Sagarin rankings have Oregon ranked fifth, one spot behind Boise and two spots ahead of USC. Right now I have more gripe with USC being ahead of Oregon in the human polls now that the body of evidence includes several common opponents. Of course, Oregon has all it can ask for in an opportunity to shape human opinion of the Oregon v. USC question with results on the field.
By the grace of Juju, we all are day-to-day.
True, but that’s why you look at objective evidence FIRST, not EXCLUSIVELY. I couldn’t with good conscience say that UW is a better team than USC. Why not? Well, first of all, look at other objective evidence – their W-L records. USC is 6 – 1. UW is 3 – 5. I don’t even have to go to subjective evidence to tell me that despite the head to head victory for UW, USC is the better team.
What about in a case like OkSt. vs Houston? In that case, we have one objective piece of evidence saying that they’re equal (overall W – L) but another (head to head) saying that Houston is better. Houston starts with a large advantage in this case, but not nearly as large as BSU’s advantage over Oregon. Also, Houston’s loss came on the road, while they beat OkSt. at home. That’s a big deal.
Now let’s go to the subjective evidence – OkSt.‘s SoS thus far actually hasn’t been that much better than Houston’s. They also haven’t done much on the road. Their victories have been a bit better, but not much. I would still have Houston ahead ok OkSt. for now. If OkSt. beats Texas this weekend, though, I would probably move them up. At that point, the subject evidence becomes enough to overcome the objective. That’s huge.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
See, all of that is totally subjective. You’re deciding what is important and how much it should count. In rankings, there is no objectivity.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
And that’s where the opinions come in. How you use objective versus subjective evidence is, in itself, subjective. I think that we should use the concrete evidence with much greater weight and certainty than the subjective evidence, because that will leave you with less bias and nebulous factors. You obviously feel differently.
I don’t think we’re going to ever reconcile those differences.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
You could say that strength of schedule is concrete because it’s based on opponent wins and losses, and opponents opponents wins and losses.
This whole idea of objective and subjective is simply contrived. At the end of the day, you’re still making a decision on what wins and losses mean, and placing different levels of importance on different factors. These factors aren’t any more or less objective.
If you say that wins and losses are objective, then strength of schedule, quality of conference, etc. are all objective also, because you can tie all of those things to wins and losses.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
When I talk of a win or a loss, I talk about it being what it is – nothing more, nothing less. Completely objective. A BSU win over Bowling Green means just as much as a BSU win over Oregon.
When you assign meaning to those, that’s where the subjective stuff comes in. You can make it a formula, but that’s subjective, because how much weight do you give Bowling Green’s record vs the record of their opponents, etc.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
It’s still subjective to say “all wins should count equally.”
There are infinitely many measures we can use out there. To pick one requires some subjectivity.
Now 2-0 in Husky Stadium with a win each for LSU and Oregon.
I support Sonja Newcombe for Heisman.
All Saints Day 1966: the NFL awards New Orleans a franchise. WHODAT!
by AllSaintsDay on Oct 27, 2009 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
Wait… Houston should be ahead of Oklahoma State… Unless Oklahoma State beats Texas…
But yet if Oregon beats wins the rest of their schedule, including USC, they shouldn’t move over BSU?
It's spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-H-I-M-S-E-L-F"
That’s what I’m saying – Houston and OkSt. have both lost one game, so they’re equal in that regard. Houston gets a big nod for winning the head to head matchup. OkSt. gets a big nod for all the subjective measures that say they’re better than Houston. As of right now, I’d still put Houston slightly ahead. But if both teams win out, the subjective measures for OkSt. become so overwhelmingly greater that they push them ahead.
BSU has two different measures that say their better – they’ve won every game AND they won head to head. If neither of those change, I don’t think there will be evidence overwhelming enough to push Oregon ahead. That’s just my opinion.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
Undefeated teams generally mean nothing. I loath the day when every team forgoes a tough OOC scheduling for cupcakes just to appease the pollsters. That very concept just crawls under my skin and hate college football.
I don’t disagree that SEC is the toughest conference, but I’ll continue to give them very little respect until they actually grow some balls and schedule tough teams. Georgia is starting to be one of my favorite teams because of that.
Wins are subjective, because so many of them are completely meaningless. I’d sooner want to see a team that has 10-2 and actually has meaningful wins and losses in a BCS game than a 12-0 team that played absolutely NOBODY all year. (Ref: 2008 Sugar Bowl)
It's spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-H-I-M-S-E-L-F"
I completely agree with you regarding this statement: "I loath the day when every team forgoes a tough OOC scheduling for cupcakes just to appease the pollsters. "
I hate that too. In this case, BSU didn’t ONLY schedule cupcakes. They scheduled Oregon, who clearly is not a cupcake. If BSU had scheduled someone like UW or ASU instead of UO, we wouldn’t be having this discussion, because other than an undefeated record vs Oregon’s one loss (let’s say they lost to LSU instead), there wouldn’t be anything to show me that BSU is the better team. I’d have no qualms putting UO ahead in that scenario.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
It’s fun to say that win and losses are objective, but they are not. Each win and each loss means different things depending on the circumstances. Most of the factors going into this poll are subjective.
I place importance on the strength of the entire resume. If the resumes are close, they you can look at head-to-head, but often times head-to-head does not display the performance of a team over an entire season, which is what we are attempting to rank.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
I’d say the opposite. Wins and losses are objective. There’s no “opinion” to the fact.
The whole ranking business is that there is something subjective (“better team”) and you are trying to find a way to do it with as much objective evidence as possible. Wins and losses as a percentage and/or head-to-head are a way to measure it, but it’s a horrible idea to use only that. You can also use objective measures like “opponents’ winning percentage” and “margin of victory.” If you try to make a mathematical formula out of them to remove all bias, you end up with a mathematical ranking system like the ones the BCS misguidedly calls “computer rankings.”
Now 2-0 in Husky Stadium with a win each for LSU and Oregon.
I support Sonja Newcombe for Heisman.
All Saints Day 1966: the NFL awards New Orleans a franchise. WHODAT!
by AllSaintsDay on Oct 27, 2009 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions
And there is a reason margin of victory was removed
Under the original BCS formula, certain times (Miami in particular) would run up the score because the computers rewarded that.
As we know, MOV can often be misleading.
"Good evening Blazer fans, wherever you may be!"-Bill Schonely
I think having margin of victory is a better idea than not having it.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
Oh I agree
But throwing it into the computer formula has more negatives than positives, even though it would hurt some teams this year (cough, Iowa, cough).
"Good evening Blazer fans, wherever you may be!"-Bill Schonely
I think there has to be a way to use margin of victory that doesn’t encourage running up the score. Like, MoV only counts up to a 35 point differential. Or, MoV matters more the closer the teams are in the rankings when the game is played.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
The cap used to be 21
After the first season of the BCS in any case MOV only counted up to 21.
"Good evening Blazer fans, wherever you may be!"-Bill Schonely
Right. They removed MoV because teams ran up the score. Not because it was inaccurate.
Now 2-0 in Husky Stadium with a win each for LSU and Oregon.
I support Sonja Newcombe for Heisman.
All Saints Day 1966: the NFL awards New Orleans a franchise. WHODAT!
by AllSaintsDay on Oct 27, 2009 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions
The human polls already factor in margin of victory.
No reason to have the computers emphasizing it as well. The People In Charge wanted to do something to limit running up the score.
Hasn’t exactly worked the way they thought, but at least they could say they tried..
It depends on the context you are talking about wins and losses. If you start ranking, you have to say some wins and losses mean more or less than others, and that becomes subjective. If you are merely looking at standings, they are not.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
What are you measuring? That determines...
Your position is pretty sound – if you’re answering the question:
“Which team most deserves to go forward?”
That’s not the same question that other people are answering, namely:
“Which is the best team in college football right now?
I say this because clearly, the team that lost to Boise State is not the same team that played Cal, Washington State, Washington. They didn’t have their act together. If Boise State and Oregon played today, it’s no contest: Oregon would beat them. If they played 10 times, I believe Oregon would win the majority of those games, if not all.
Again, that’s if they played today. Oregon has improved dramatically. I haven’t seen that much of a move in Boise’s play.
However, if the question is “who deserves to go forward?” then it’s a different system. Boise has the better record (regardless of whom they play – that’s sadly the system). They have a head-to-head win against Oregon, and would normally get to advance (er, be higher in the polls) and be considered ahead of Oregon.
We had our shot. That’s the system, and we blew it.
I’m a fan of good football. I’d like the best teams to play – it’s subjective, I know. That’s the only reason I’m OK with Oregon taking over Boise in the polls.
Otherwise teams that play in tough conferences and play tough games every week (and thus are much more likely to lose occasionally) don’t get a fair shake against good teams that play very weak opposition most of the year and have to show up for one or two tough games. That’s not a fair system either.
by gamedaytribe on Oct 27, 2009 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions
I am trying to answer “Which is the best team in college football right now.” The discussion is revolving around how we go about answering that question. You’re right in that the evidence presented to us suggests that Oregon has improved. But BSU also beat Oregon by 11 points. Has Oregon improved enough to overcome the 11 points that BSU beat them by? If BSU lost a game along the way, I would feel comfortable saying that “Absolutely, Oregon would beat them if they played again today.” A loss for BSU would go a long way toward showing that their victory over the Ducks was a fluke.
As it is, as long as they both win out, I would have BSU ranked one spot ahead of Oregon the rest of the season, because I just don’t see there being enough to tell me that the head to head matchup was just a fluke. If BSU REALLY struggled against a bottom of the barrell team like NMSt. or SJSt., I might change my mind. But I don’t think that’s going to happen.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
If BSU REALLY struggled against a bottom of the barrell team like NMSt. or SJSt., I might change my mind. But I don’t think that’s going to happen.
Boise couldn’t score so much as a field goal against UC-Davis until the second quarter, only put it in the end zone with less than a minute to go before halftime, and had a lead as little as 9 points going into the final minute.
Now 2-0 in Husky Stadium with a win each for LSU and Oregon.
I support Sonja Newcombe for Heisman.
All Saints Day 1966: the NFL awards New Orleans a franchise. WHODAT!
by AllSaintsDay on Oct 27, 2009 12:26 PM PDT up reply actions
That’s a good point, but they still wound up winning by three scores.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
You can do a heck of a lot of struggling and still end up winning by three scores, especially if “three scores” is 18 points.
Now 2-0 in Husky Stadium with a win each for LSU and Oregon.
I support Sonja Newcombe for Heisman.
All Saints Day 1966: the NFL awards New Orleans a franchise. WHODAT!
by AllSaintsDay on Oct 27, 2009 12:28 PM PDT up reply actions
To our credit (or lack thereof)
UC Davis was selected as a 13th opponent, in real time. Without them, we’d have a 12 team schedule with no FCS teams on it. Sadly, this was a pretty stupid choice. (and one heck of a cold day to play football. I could have used a bye week)
"You know where i'm from, a little suspicion about one's true identity and motives is considered good manners."
-- Nale
I’m sorta entertained that this whole BSU and Oregon thing flared up again. I’m not particularly anxious to play BSU again, despite my clear arrogance that we could probably win a rematch. (Man… sounds like I’ve said this before)
It's spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-H-I-M-S-E-L-F"
I’m not dissing you for a bad schedule. I’m interested in looking at the evidence and saying, without looking at the name on the uniforms, which team would I think is better? Struggling somewhat with UC-Davis is evidence.
Now 2-0 in Husky Stadium with a win each for LSU and Oregon.
I support Sonja Newcombe for Heisman.
All Saints Day 1966: the NFL awards New Orleans a franchise. WHODAT!
by AllSaintsDay on Oct 28, 2009 10:21 AM PDT up reply actions
Wow, this comment thread is group think at its finest
You guys can talk yourselves into anything.
Yes, inferior teams beat other teams all the time. This doesn’t necessarily mean that they should be ranked higher. However, when said team beats another team and has not lost another game (no matter who they’ve played), it has to count for something. Otherwise, why even award the win or loss? Why not just say Boise State played better on that day?
Look, no one is going to argue the WAC is as difficult as the PAC 10 but it has to count for something. Boise State has done everything it can and played the hand it’s been dealt. If this is the way its going to be every year they’re in the WAC, then we might as well disband the FBS and move everyone in a non AQ conference to another level because they’re clearly not playing on the same level as the AQ teams, even when they actually play them on the same field. This is BS.
Lastly, don’t give me any crap about that game being Boise State’s season and it just being another game for Oregon. Not after the way the game went down last year for Oregon in Autzen, not after having the entire summer to prepare for Boise State, and surely not after Oregon had it’s most healthy and complete team on the field that day. Oregon might not be the same team as they were that day, but Boise State isn’t either.
Sorry had to get that off my chest. Good luck Saturday and go beat the Trojans. I like to root for Oregon when I’m not riled up by the (hopefully) minority of its fans.
Well, at least we didn't lose 43-19...
Or lose every game for the past half decade against them. I am sorry we hurt your feelings last Saturday, Bitter much?
On Halloween; USC will die, Matt Barkley will cry, and all of the little bandwagoning Trojan fans will shout "WHY!?"
In the holy name of Juju, I am the humblest of servants
Whoops, I just saw the purple "W" behind you-My Bad!
Either way, SOS (UC Davis is one hell of an opponent) would bump us over you IF we keep winning. Plus, as Gorbachev stated, nobody was arguing what you ranted on about. Enjoy the remainder of the season…See ya!
On Halloween; USC will die, Matt Barkley will cry, and all of the little bandwagoning Trojan fans will shout "WHY!?"
In the holy name of Juju, I am the humblest of servants
“Lastly, don’t give me any crap about that game being Boise State’s season and it just being another game for Oregon. Not after the way the game went down last year for Oregon in Autzen, not after having the entire summer to prepare for Boise State, and surely not after Oregon had it’s most healthy and complete team on the field that day. Oregon might not be the same team as they were that day, but Boise State isn’t either.”
Umm, I don’t think anyone in here said that. Or even insinuated it (and believe me, I know, I’ve responded to almost every post in this thread). And mainly, the argument against Boise St. is that their OOC schedule, outside of Oregon, is absolute garbage, which you can’t deny is true. And unlike their in conference schedule, Boise has control over who they play OOC.
IMO, that’s still not enough to rank the Ducks ahead of them, but it’s close. And everyone else disagrees with me; they feel it IS enough to rank the Ducks ahead. I can’t really say they’re wrong. If BSU wants to keep getting respect, they need to schedule better OOC so no one can toss it in their face.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
I was referring to the comment by skywaker9
And I just replied to your comment because it was the beginning of the thread. I’m more talking to everyone else’s comments below yours.
They do have control over their OOC schedule. It’s time that gets better. I think we all know it’s not as easy to schedule as just making a few changes before you start the season ala NCAA Football on Xbox, but we could definitely schedule more difficult opponents than we have and we’ve taken our AD to task for this.
Ah, I missed Skywalker’s post, but I don’t think it means what you’re referring to. That game was important to Oregon, but as his post implies, we could lose that game, and be fine. Heck, here we are, 7 weeks later, and it’s not completely out of the realm of possibility to consider Oregon for a spot in the NC game (not that I’m thinking about that, Juju, it’s just a point I’m making).
If BSU had lost? They’d barely be in the top 20 right now, if that.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
As soon as we stop hearing the “Boise has won the games they’ve played, so you can’t drop them” mantra, Bronco fans will have a leg to stand on when talking about how Duck fans are able to convince themselves of anything.
Now 2-0 in Husky Stadium with a win each for LSU and Oregon.
I support Sonja Newcombe for Heisman.
All Saints Day 1966: the NFL awards New Orleans a franchise. WHODAT!
by AllSaintsDay on Oct 27, 2009 10:32 PM PDT up reply actions
I love that a BSU fan comes in here talking about group think. That’s rich.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
I have no clue if you’re referring to something specific or just throwing that out there. Thanks for furthering the conversation.
Right. Just like you did when you came here, and merely because we disagree, you claim we’re convincing ourselves of something.
As far as group-think, Boise State fans are some of the worst when it comes to convincing yourself that winning the WAC is even comparable to winning one of the bigger conferences.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
Well.
Even if you finish 1st in the PAC-10 this year, you’d still be 2nd if you played in the WAC; for the 2nd consecutive year, I might add.
"You know where i'm from, a little suspicion about one's true identity and motives is considered good manners."
-- Nale
One day!
One day, those words will be OURS!!
"You know where i'm from, a little suspicion about one's true identity and motives is considered good manners."
-- Nale
I hope so. You guys deserve to have a schedule that will give you a shot at a national title.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
Seriously… get the hell out of the WAC. It’s bad for your soul.
It's spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-H-I-M-S-E-L-F"
How did TCU get out? Those bastards have like 3 conference championships from 3 different conferences…
It's spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-H-I-M-S-E-L-F"
Pouring salt on the wound
TCU was the lone bid into the MWC that year. And we were the other bidder… And then we beat them in the bowl game after their induction.
Grrrr.
"You know where i'm from, a little suspicion about one's true identity and motives is considered good manners."
-- Nale
being dealt the hand and playing with it
I think card analogies are lame, especially since Oregon has a pair of Queens in its schedule, and Boise has a pair of 6’s. Our cards are larger, so our hand is better. Anything can happen, but the cards we were dealt are better, go get a different dealer if you don’t like your cards
"I used to play sports. Then I realized you can buy trophies. Now I'm good at everything." - Demetri Martin
with my luck
they’d hit another 6 on the river after pushing all in
"I used to play sports. Then I realized you can buy trophies. Now I'm good at everything." - Demetri Martin
And one of your queens is actually just a Jack in drag.
It's spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-H-I-M-S-E-L-F"
by JShufelt on Oct 28, 2009 8:14 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
FWIW, I think that you should also rank Washington over Southern Cal, UTEP over Houston, and OSU over Georgia. Head-to-head has to matter more than anything else!
Also, Miami needs to be ranked over Georgia Tech. They won head-to-head!
Now 2-0 in Husky Stadium with a win each for LSU and Oregon.
I support Sonja Newcombe for Heisman.
All Saints Day 1966: the NFL awards New Orleans a franchise. WHODAT!
Mattering more than anything else doesn’t mean nothing else matters. If a head to head matchup counts as 35% of where a team is ranked relative to another team, that can be the biggest factor and still result in the losing team being ranked ahead, considering the other 65% of the evidence.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
If you count the head-to-head as 35%, and everything since as 65%, Oregon is better than Boise.
Now 2-0 in Husky Stadium with a win each for LSU and Oregon.
I support Sonja Newcombe for Heisman.
All Saints Day 1966: the NFL awards New Orleans a franchise. WHODAT!
by AllSaintsDay on Oct 27, 2009 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions
But there is other objective evidence, such as BSU being undefeated while Oregon has one loss.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
And other objective evidence, like “Oregon’s schedule is 10th hardest by Sagarin’s formula, while Boise’s is 54th”
Now 2-0 in Husky Stadium with a win each for LSU and Oregon.
I support Sonja Newcombe for Heisman.
All Saints Day 1966: the NFL awards New Orleans a franchise. WHODAT!
by AllSaintsDay on Oct 27, 2009 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, that in itself, isn’t completely objective. How much do you weigh opponent’s opponent’s records verseus opponents?
Defending maligned chants since 2009
"Objective"
Why do you keep using that word? I do not think it means what you think it means.
Now 2-0 in Husky Stadium with a win each for LSU and Oregon.
I support Sonja Newcombe for Heisman.
All Saints Day 1966: the NFL awards New Orleans a franchise. WHODAT!
by AllSaintsDay on Oct 27, 2009 12:17 PM PDT up reply actions
Errr…You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
/Princess Bride fail
Now 2-0 in Husky Stadium with a win each for LSU and Oregon.
I support Sonja Newcombe for Heisman.
All Saints Day 1966: the NFL awards New Orleans a franchise. WHODAT!
by AllSaintsDay on Oct 27, 2009 12:20 PM PDT up reply actions
This
not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
I.E. a win is a win, a win over another team is a win, etc.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
This
not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
I.E. a win is a win, a win over another team is a win, etc.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
According that that definition, the Sagarin SOS rating is an OBJECTIVE FACT.
All evidence is by very definition objective. When you start weighing the evidence, even objective evidence such as Team A beat Team B, it becomes subjective.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
If Sagarin only considered the W-L record of opponents, then yes, I’d agree with you. I thought he included opponent’s opponent’s record, in which case, he’s weighting those and has introduced subjective factors.
But yeah, if it’s only opponent’s W-L, sure, that would be objective.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
Sagarin factors in opponents SOS
That’s why it’s slightly more accurate data, as opposed to people going by just win-loss (they’re estimating based on their perceptions what the quality of that win is, whether they realize it or not).
Sagarin has the Ducks at #3 in his complete formula, but #5 in the partial formula that BCS uses.
by gamedaytribe on Oct 27, 2009 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions
Opponents W-L is objective, and Opponents Opponents W-L is also objective. They are both the very definition of objective.
Both are facts. Both have no bias. You must decide how to interpret that fact.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
Except how much do you weight each one? That requires subjectivity. That’s more objective than saying, “USC beat a good ND team,” but you can’t say it’s completely objective. Sagarin had to figure out how opponents and opponent’s opponents should be treated.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
Niether AllSaintsDay or myself mentioned sagarin’s method in our most recent comments.
But both Opponents W-L and Opponents Opponents W-L are objective fact.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
Can you explain how opponents’ opponents’ records are less objective than opponents’ records, based on the definition of objective above?
Now 2-0 in Husky Stadium with a win each for LSU and Oregon.
I support Sonja Newcombe for Heisman.
All Saints Day 1966: the NFL awards New Orleans a franchise. WHODAT!
by AllSaintsDay on Oct 27, 2009 12:35 PM PDT up reply actions
If I bother to go through and calculate the Ducks’ opponents’ opponents’ record, then what I’ve told you isn’t a fact?
Now 2-0 in Husky Stadium with a win each for LSU and Oregon.
I support Sonja Newcombe for Heisman.
All Saints Day 1966: the NFL awards New Orleans a franchise. WHODAT!
by AllSaintsDay on Oct 27, 2009 12:38 PM PDT up reply actions
I think the point others are trying to make is that using objective numbers (wins vs losses) is great evidence of how teams do on a particular day. Team A is better than Team B on this given day. Great. I think the problem lies in how that evidence, combined with other like evidence, is interpreted and weighted to give certain outcomes.
The part that is subjective is saying “I’m going to weight SoS X amount and I’m going to weight the human polls X amount and I’m going to weight MoV X amount”
--Dominic, Addicted to Quack
Autzen Stadium is where great teams go to die." - J. Brady McCullough, The Michigan Daily.
There is no "objective" evidence in rankings
You can say a win or a loss is “objective” and in and of itself, you are right. But it is the factor of weighting (as you say in the 35% example) that is the important part.
It is the matter of importance that is placed on the evidence (whether subjectively gathered or objectively gathered) which determines the rankings, and the matter orf importance or weighting on that eveidence is ALWAYS subjective.
I could say that total record is most important to me in ranking, in that case, in doesn’t matter if Oregon played BSU or not, they have a better record and should be ranked higher. The total record is objective, but my importance on it being the ultimate deciding factor is what would put BSU above Oregon (that is subjective)
I could say I think head to head match ups are the most important, then I would have to look at who played whom, once again it is what I consider important.
This is the main problem with the computer rankings. You can put all the “objective” data you want into a computer ranking, it is the weightings you add to that data that really matters.
Just my $.02.
I guess it’s all semantics. And I admitted in my first post that how you weight these pieces of evidence is all opinion. My opinion is that the pieces of evidence where you cannot argue their basic meaning (wins and losses, head to head matchups) are more important than other pieces of evidence. Other pieces aren’t meaningless, or even insignificant, just not as much as the “objective stuff.” Others disagree. That’s the point of this whole thing.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
No I get that
It’s like the old argument, does the best team always win? (Don’t get me started)…
I just think that a “Ranking” system in and of itself is never going to be objective, nor the components involved. You cn say a Win or Loss is objective at face value, but when you are applying that to a system overall that is wholly subjective, it starts to break down.
The one redeemable aspect of the computer ranking's "weights" and "biases"
is that they don’t change week to week.
A pollster might catapult Texas above Alabama because the cheerleaders looked good this week, or breakfast tasted funny in Baton Rouge… or just change the more reasonable but always fuzzy, unsubstantiated criteria located in their heads somewhere.
The computer reads the criteria designated at the start of the season the same way every week. At minimum, there’s something fair about that.
And now, I call for the playoff debate! Everyone throw down your playoff thesis, 500-1000 words.
Or not.
by Bill Musgrave on Oct 27, 2009 6:50 PM PDT up reply actions
Man do we need it to be sat
Arguing ad nauseum is OVER-RATED!
How many teams in the nation can say there holder is a legitimate threat? Amazing work podcast!
I don’t think chanting “Over Rated!” at arguing is very respectful. I think we should just be happy with winning…
(hides)
--Dominic, Addicted to Quack
Autzen Stadium is where great teams go to die." - J. Brady McCullough, The Michigan Daily.
I was not trying to be disrespectful
Just ready for a different topic.
(Hides at work)
How many teams in the nation can say there holder is a legitimate threat? Amazing work podcast!
by trumpetduck on Oct 27, 2009 12:17 PM PDT up reply actions
Over Rated! * clap * clap * clapclapclap *
It's spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-H-I-M-S-E-L-F"
by JShufelt on Oct 27, 2009 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Best? Or most deserving?
Are we better than BSU today? I think so.
Is BSU more deserving? Probably.
Let’s just hope that Iowa goes undefeated and we get a rematch.
IMO, Boise State isn’t deserving of anything until they play a real schedule.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
It looks like you’re more interested in punishing Boise for their crappy OOC scheduling than actually ranking them where they should be ranked.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
I think it’s perfectly valid if you think the Ducks should be ranked above BSU. They’re very close. I have no problems with that.
But your statements just seem to exude anger that anyone could even consider them to be ranked that high when their schedule is so weak.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
It’s my opinion that BSU does not deserve to go to a national championship based on the schedule that they play.
I’m not interesting in punishing anyone.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
I understand your point. If they hadn’t played Oregon, I would agree with you. Or if Oregon was mediocre this year, I would agree with you. But they did, and they’re not, respectively, so I have to take them seriously.
I wouldn’t mind at all if BSU went to the NC game. Heck, they’d probably have a better shot at it then tOSU did the last few years.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
I understand they beat Oregon, but I put more emphasis on playing a tough schedule, even if you lose, than playing one hard team and a bunch of nobodies. Any team can win one game. It takes as great team to beat a lot of good teams.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
A side question that I find somewhat interesting:
Assume that Oregon was mediocre when Boise played them. Depending on your opinion, you may take this as “Pretend that Oregon was mediocre when Boise played them.” or “Remember that Oregon was mediocre when Boise played them.”
Now, given that assumption, does the fact that Boise beat a mediocre (for a few weeks) Oregon team deserve any more attention than it would if they had beaten a mediocre (for a season) Oregon team.
Now 2-0 in Husky Stadium with a win each for LSU and Oregon.
I support Sonja Newcombe for Heisman.
All Saints Day 1966: the NFL awards New Orleans a franchise. WHODAT!
by AllSaintsDay on Oct 27, 2009 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions
See, that’s where all the subjectivity bothers me. How the heck do I know how mediocre Oregon was at the beginning of the season? Certainly, they’ve improved, but there’s something to be said for the fact that Chip Kelly had all fall to prepare, and he had virtually everyone healthy.
How much has BSU improved since that game, too? Do you think they peaked in game 1? It’s definitely possible, but I can’t say for sure. The UC Davis struggle is one point in favor of saying yes, but that’s not quite enough for me. If it’s enough for you, I won’t tell you you’re wrong because I don’t know. That’s why I’m placing more weight on the head to head thing.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
I wouldn’t say it’s anger… but I don’t think it’s too far off. Punishment isn’t exactly the correct term. Based upon a resume style ranking, BSU’s rankings should go down and down and down each week removed from the Oregon win, and if Oregon loses a couple more games, they probably shouldn’t even be in the top 25. Meanwhile, if Oregon continues to win, their resume gets better and better solely because of the opponents they are playing.
It's spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-H-I-M-S-E-L-F"
I’ll also note that I have a lot of respect for the BSU program. They’ve done a lot with a little. But they don’t deserve a shot at the national title.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
I am going to have to agree with you. But all you can do is win all your games…
How much better is Texas’ schedule than BSU’s is what I’m wondering.
by jessenumber1 on Oct 27, 2009 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions
Texas has at least played some decent teams and play consistent top 50 competition. The Big 12 is down this year, but it’s still nowhere near the crapitude that is the WAC.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
At this point, probably not. Texas has played like a top team for most of the year, and have a couple good wins. Iowa has a better win-loss resume, but has looked a lot worse doing it.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
Iowa just lost their top RB for the season
Give that their QB is not good, this is probably it for them.
"Good evening Blazer fans, wherever you may be!"-Bill Schonely
Whoa now. No talking about anything but how to rank teams in here.
Now 2-0 in Husky Stadium with a win each for LSU and Oregon.
I support Sonja Newcombe for Heisman.
All Saints Day 1966: the NFL awards New Orleans a franchise. WHODAT!
by AllSaintsDay on Oct 27, 2009 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions
They already lost Jewel Hampton...And won all 8 games W/out him...
They will be fine
On Halloween; USC will die, Matt Barkley will cry, and all of the little bandwagoning Trojan fans will shout "WHY!?"
In the holy name of Juju, I am the humblest of servants
Well, what we need is a inter-conference playoff
But I’m the queen of wishful thinking….
Look at it this way..
I’m new here. Created this account to add this twist to the argument:
What if Boise played their schedule in reverse? What if they started out10-0 against a bunch of scrubs? They would be ranked what, top 20? Maybe? At best? What if Oregon was 11-0 and undefeated with wins over Utah, Cal, USC, Stanford, Arizona and Oregon State? What would they be ranked? I’d argue top 3. So what if #3 Oregon played #20 BSU in the last game of the season and BSU beat Oregon 19-8? Would Boise really leapfrog Oregon in any rankings? Would they suddenly be ranked higher in the BCS? I HIGHLY doubt it. So IF (HUGE IF) Oregon keeps winning and BSU keeps winning and the Ducks end up with just one loss and the Broncos end up with no losses, how is that ANY different when one considers the total body of work?
Aloha!
by MauiDanP on Oct 27, 2009 12:44 PM PDT reply actions 4 recs
Great point man, and thanks for joining in the conversation!
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
I think you have the hypothetical 10-0 Boise State too low in the rankings (now, let’s argue about that!). Boise State was a preseason mid-teen team in most rankings (#14 in the AP and #16 in the Coaches). Argue all you want about how stupid polls are that early in the season, I think it would be hard to argue against the fact that after going 10-0, even against WAC opponents, Boise State would be no worse than that preseason ranking, and most likely close to the top 10, if not inside. Given those rankings, I would expect Boise to jump Oregon after beating them in the final game of the regular season.
Clearly you don’t know that unique ideas and fresh perspectives don’t fly at the AtQ. Just scream at Shufelt for forgetting the beer and yell at trumpetduck for making grammatical errors and you’ll fit in fine. But none of this making really good points business.
/sarcasm
It's spelled "T-A-K-O-T-U-E-S-D-A-Y-S-!-!-!."
I support inroywetrust in his support of The VD Special in his support of me supporting Roger Kieschnick in his quest to becoming the best Kieschnick ever to play professional baseball.
It’s an excellent point, thanks for the input. I would argue that BSU would be ranked somewhat higher than 20. They were ranked 12th going into their final game of the season in 2006, when they played a barely tougher schedule. I would think that they’d still be up around #15. And then a win over a top 4 Oregon team should vault them into the top 10.
That still wouldn’t be enough to get them to a NC game, but I never said they deserved to go to the NC game. I said I would rank them ahead of Oregon, which I still would in this case.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
A lot of this has to do with how we subjectively value late and early season wins and losses. :D
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
It’s true.
But if you objectify your subjectively measure object, your subject will object subjectively.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
by Gorbachav5 on Oct 27, 2009 1:11 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
In order to control your fear, you must not fear control!
--Dominic, Addicted to Quack
Autzen Stadium is where great teams go to die." - J. Brady McCullough, The Michigan Daily.
I vote and submit that we admit.
Now 2-0 in Husky Stadium with a win each for LSU and Oregon.
I support Sonja Newcombe for Heisman.
All Saints Day 1966: the NFL awards New Orleans a franchise. WHODAT!
by AllSaintsDay on Oct 27, 2009 1:16 PM PDT up reply actions
I’m not okay with this meme being back.
It's spelled "T-A-K-O-T-U-E-S-D-A-Y-S-!-!-!."
I support inroywetrust in his support of The VD Special in his support of me supporting Roger Kieschnick in his quest to becoming the best Kieschnick ever to play professional baseball.
It's spelled "T-A-K-O-T-U-E-S-D-A-Y-S-!-!-!."
I support inroywetrust in his support of The VD Special in his support of me supporting Roger Kieschnick in his quest to becoming the best Kieschnick ever to play professional baseball.
Seriously...There will be a hailstorm of Sanchez now!
On Halloween; USC will die, Matt Barkley will cry, and all of the little bandwagoning Trojan fans will shout "WHY!?"
In the holy name of Juju, I am the humblest of servants
Here, let me provide a picture to illustrate that for you.
I tried to find a picture of the Ducks doing so, but google images involving Sanchez and the Ducks were…painful.
Now 2-0 in Husky Stadium with a win each for LSU and Oregon.
I support Sonja Newcombe for Heisman.
All Saints Day 1966: the NFL awards New Orleans a franchise. WHODAT!
by AllSaintsDay on Oct 27, 2009 1:43 PM PDT up reply actions
what about him eating the hotdog on the sideline?
"I used to play sports. Then I realized you can buy trophies. Now I'm good at everything." - Demetri Martin
I’m a Saints fan, so I figured I’d go with one of theirs. It was between the one I used and this one.
Now 2-0 in Husky Stadium with a win each for LSU and Oregon.
I support Sonja Newcombe for Heisman.
All Saints Day 1966: the NFL awards New Orleans a franchise. WHODAT!
by AllSaintsDay on Oct 27, 2009 7:49 PM PDT up reply actions
“I would argue that BSU would be ranked somewhat higher than 20.”
I have read earlier posts in this thread and I have to ask: Is this objective?
haha
In all seriousness, the only reason Boise would be ranked as high as you assert after playing a cupcake schedule like the one they play (minus the Duck game), is because of preseason ranking. So are you arguing that BSU deserves a BSC bowl game because of a preseason ranking?
Actually that’s based on 2006, when BSU was unranked preaseason and wound up being ranked 12th before its final game despite a schedule just as full of cupcakes as this year. Assuming that final game was against a top 4 team, I’m not sure how you could NOT vault them into the top 10 if they won.
Also, that team beat Oklahoma in a BCS bowl.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
Except wasn’t the WAC better then. Fresno State and Hawaii were both WAY better and wins over them could push a team upward. I don’t think being pushed to the limit against Tulsa and steamrolling this years UH (sigh) would warrant the same kinds of jumps up the polls.
A tad. Hawaii was certainly better. Fresno State was awful that year (4-8). SJ St. wasn’t terrible. Overall, though, I don’t think there’s that much of a difference. Plus my statement didn’t even assume BSU was ranked preseason, which they were, as dvieira pointed out. Given a starting ranking of #16, I can’t see how they’d be lower than that going into their last game of the season.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
My bad on FSU. I honestly didn’t check. I remember them being very competitive for a few years there.
2005 was their year, and they lost to BSU.
Give it to BSU, they have built a very good program, and didn’t go the Pat Hill way of shitting the bed every other game. Props to them. I really hope they can get into a real conference. MWC would be perfect.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
great, great point by MauiDanP on the Boise State strength of schedule. Rec for you
--Dominic, Addicted to Quack
Autzen Stadium is where great teams go to die." - J. Brady McCullough, The Michigan Daily.
mahalos
Thanks fellas…
I grew up a Hawaii fan and love the WAC (I became a huge Duck fan when I went to college there 17 years ago but still have love for the home team), but the notion that one win against a good team like Oregon and 10 against patsies (including barely beating a Tulsa team that just lost to UTEP) should somehow leave a team ranked above a team with one loss and 11 wins (HUGE hypothetical reach here, but I’m going there for arguments sake) over the likes of Cal, Stanford, USC, Arizona, UW and the barkrats is just ludicrous. The face to face thing complicates it, but if you look at the entire body of work, I don’t see how anyone can argue that BSU is more deserving of a BCS game than Oregon is. Now if (when?) Oregon loses another game, then sure, but until then, BSU has to live with it’s schedule. If the Boise fans don’t like that the need to get in a better conference or schedule two or three more games with teams from BCS conferences (not the MAC, WAC and Conf. USA) to go with their cupcakes.
If Oregon wins out, they will be ranked above BSU (who better win out or they will be a laughing stock with that schedule). If Oregon loses again, it’s a non factor. If Boise fans don’t like this I’d suggest they take it up with their athletic director.
One of the problems with BSU is, the WAC really doesn’t want them to go, and MWC isn’t exactly open to have them.
If they were assured an automatic bid in the Fiesta Bowl, I bet that would all change. And honestly… I would rather enjoy seeing that.
It's spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-H-I-M-S-E-L-F"
If both teams win out, Oregon will beat Boise State for the Pac-10 title.
It's spelled "T-A-K-O-T-U-E-S-D-A-Y-S-!-!-!."
I support inroywetrust in his support of The VD Special in his support of me supporting Roger Kieschnick in his quest to becoming the best Kieschnick ever to play professional baseball.
WTF are you talking about?
You are clearly insane…Oh wait,
On Halloween; USC will die, Matt Barkley will cry, and all of the little bandwagoning Trojan fans will shout "WHY!?"
In the holy name of Juju, I am the humblest of servants
No! You can't make me!
On Halloween; USC will die, Matt Barkley will cry, and all of the little bandwagoning Trojan fans will shout "WHY!?"
In the holy name of Juju, I am the humblest of servants
Are you objecting?
Is that your objective?
by Bill Musgrave on Oct 28, 2009 5:59 PM PDT up reply actions
No! You can't make me!
Anyways…My only objective as Juju’s humble servant is to appease Juju.
On Halloween; USC will die, Matt Barkley will cry, and all of the little bandwagoning Trojan fans will shout "WHY!?"
In the holy name of Juju, I am the humblest of servants
Subjective vs. Objective
Hi guys, been reading this blog the past couple years and really have enjoyed it.
I think I’ll beat this dead horse a little more if you don’t mind.
Subjectivity and objectivity are more of a spectrum. It’s true there are few pieces of evidence that are entirely one or another.
For the purpose of conversation, though, and apologies for dumbing it down a bit:
Subjective : Words as Objective : Numbers
Subjective measures are ones open to interpretation.
Objective measures are not.
So, in my opinion, the nature of polling is entirely objective. Polls are not saying “19 is more than 8” or “1.000 is more than 0.857”. They are saying “BSU is better than UO.”
The key difference would be between the words “more” and “better”.
Also, as Ducks fans, I think we’re the worst people to ask whether UO should be considered “better” than BSU, given our inherent bias that they quite obviously and indisputably are. ;)
I think that everyone thinks we’re better. If polls were about who was better, as they usually are in the NFL and NBA and such, the Ducks would be ranked higher by pretty much everyone. Some people are doing it any way (one of my other blogs justified its ballot a few weeks ago with “And no, I don’t have a problem ranking them above a team that had trouble with UC-Davis.”) and some are ranking Boise one step ahead of UO and feeling the pressure of how that starts pushing everything else out of whack.
Now 2-0 in Husky Stadium with a win each for LSU and Oregon.
I support Sonja Newcombe for Heisman.
All Saints Day 1966: the NFL awards New Orleans a franchise. WHODAT!
by AllSaintsDay on Oct 27, 2009 1:22 PM PDT up reply actions
One major problem with college football is that the sample sizes are so small, and there are few points of reference that mean very much. College football is a regional sport, which is why we need a playoff, so that the winners of each region, through the standings, can face off at the end of the year.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
As much as I love college football, really, the “national championship” is a complete and utter scam. Obama’s opinion that we need a playoff is the primary reason I voted for him (OK, not really.)
I think they should model it after the old NCAA basketball tournament. The six BCS conference champs would be automatic bids. The remainder of the conference champs can play in.
Of course, given the billions of dollars involved in the bowl system, it’s never gonna happen. But it should.
by HoodRiverDuck on Oct 27, 2009 1:37 PM PDT up reply actions
There is so much money to be made off a playoff. Too bad the NCAA is a worthless piece of crap that is scared of any change.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
by jtlight on Oct 27, 2009 1:38 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Agreed. March Madness isn’t exactly suffering for sponsors.
by HoodRiverDuck on Oct 27, 2009 1:39 PM PDT up reply actions
They hide behind the stupid “It would ruin the season-long playoff mentality” argument. How is that true? You’d still have to be in the top 8, which is still really hard to do. It’s not like losing once drops you out of the race as it is – how many of the last few NC games have featured two undefeated teams? (I’m too lazy to look it up right now)
There is a ton of money to be made here. The status quo is earning them a bunch, though, and they’re too scared to mess with that. Effing NCAA.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
JT – this is why I love you, man. Exact same point I’ve made repeatedly for years. No balls at the NCAA. Too much old-school, old-guard still in charge at the major universities. Fear of hearing even more noise from the academic elitists who just wish major sports would just go away (every school has them). The BCS is a FRAUD. Someone with real vision and the kiwis to follow it through needs to be put in charge. Someone get Jerry Jones on the phone! I don’t like him much, but he gets shit done.
I’m fine with BCS ranking system, with no release ‘til mid-season. Then teams 1 through 16 bracketed out. If you’re no. 17? Well, sorry. It’s like being first team to not make the field of 64. You probably shouldn’t have lost that third or fourth game. Enjoy your Humanitarian Bowl. First two rounds at the higher seed’s home field to ensure stadiums are filled beyond capacity. Semis and Finals at big, pre-determined neutral sites. Everything on network TV. We’d see epic levels of ratings. And incredibly intriguing story lines all the time – huge rematches, clashes of traditional versus non-traditional powers, Cinderella stories, incredible upsets, and – gasp – some four-loss team from the Big East winning it all, the right way, on the field.
It would be the best month of football EVER. Corporate money would fall from the sky like Husky fans jumping off the Hwy 99 bridge.
By the grace of Juju, we all are day-to-day.
"Too much old-school, old-guard still in charge at the major universities"
Don’t be too surprised when you wake up to find JoePa standing over you with a knife…
You should lay low for a few weeks
On Halloween; USC will die, Matt Barkley will cry, and all of the little bandwagoning Trojan fans will shout "WHY!?"
In the holy name of Juju, I am the humblest of servants
I think that that’s a problem, but I think that it’s more a problem that there wasn’t a playoff for the longest time, and now there’s only a 2-team one.
In other sports, people are free to make their rankings however they want. I can rank the Saints higher or the Giants coming into their game, but it won’t affect who goes to the Super Bowl. That’s because NFL rankings are midweek filler. College football rankings used to be midweek filler too, but then some idiot decided to refer to the team ranked #1 at the end of the season as the “champion.” And so now, there are things other than “who’s better” going on in the rankings, namely the twin ideas of
(a) “who deserves it more,” such as things like “You can only win the games in front of you” and feeling like you can’t penalize a team for having a weak schedule AND
(b) “they play cupcakes,” where you penalize teams for having weak schedules because you don’t want to reward that, even though you would think that they’re better.
Which both happened because something that does its best as a conversation generator is being used to claim 90% of the sport’s championships.
Now 2-0 in Husky Stadium with a win each for LSU and Oregon.
I support Sonja Newcombe for Heisman.
All Saints Day 1966: the NFL awards New Orleans a franchise. WHODAT!
by AllSaintsDay on Oct 27, 2009 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions
We’ve been objecting over the subject of what is objective and subjective. But it’s all for fun. Really, we’ve given no feedback on the actual poll ballot listed.
Luckily for us, this is only one ballot in a much larger pool of ballots. If it’s super whacked out, it will get made fun of by Brian Cook. (It’s always a treat.) The main goal is to avoid the Coulter/Kos Award curse. That thing is wicked.
It's spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-H-I-M-S-E-L-F"
Nebraska avoided it for a couple weeks, and then lost to Texas Tech and Iowa State in humiliating fashion. It cannot be avoided.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
I slept through the bulk of this discussion
Here’s what I think: it’s your poll Dave. You can do whatever you want with it. If you have evidence (objective, subjective, perspective, elective, floobyschmecktive, whatever) to support what you think, feel free to back up your decision. If you want to be unfailingly stubborn about keeping Boise State above Oregon because of H2H, you can do that if you want. If you still believe Oklahoma or Notre Dame is a Top 25 worthy team, keep them in. It’s your prerogative. Cases can be made for both sides, so it comes down to what you find most important.
It's spelled "T-A-K-O-T-U-E-S-D-A-Y-S-!-!-!."
I support inroywetrust in his support of The VD Special in his support of me supporting Roger Kieschnick in his quest to becoming the best Kieschnick ever to play professional baseball.
Whoa whoa whoa, I didn’t know we were bringing floobyschmektive evidence into this. That opens up a whole new avenue of discussion…
There’s the color of their uniforms, the fact that BSU’s coach has more letters in his last name, the average amount of rainfall during the offseason immediately preceding the season…I could go all afternoon on floobyschmektive evidence.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
I have a silver TV. Therefore, Cincinnati is the number one team in the country.
It's spelled "T-A-K-O-T-U-E-S-D-A-Y-S-!-!-!."
I support inroywetrust in his support of The VD Special in his support of me supporting Roger Kieschnick in his quest to becoming the best Kieschnick ever to play professional baseball.
If there’s a better argument, I haven’t heard it.
But, by the same token, I ate a chimichanga for lunch, which clearly puts TCU ahead of Iowa.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
Great point. Is it Tuesday? It is! Ohio State is back in my Top 10.
It's spelled "T-A-K-O-T-U-E-S-D-A-Y-S-!-!-!."
I support inroywetrust in his support of The VD Special in his support of me supporting Roger Kieschnick in his quest to becoming the best Kieschnick ever to play professional baseball.
Well known to tOSU fans, the Buckeyes are much better on Tuesdays than Saturdays.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
To talk a bit more about Iowa, Matt Hinton has a great breakdown of Iowa and the BCS computers….
So if you’re somewhat baffled by the digital love for the Hawkeyes, don’t blame the computers — blame the feeble human minds behind the system that doesn’t trust the machines enough to let them use all the relevant information.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
What really matters?
Oregon wins out we are guaranteed to go to a BCS Bowl, Boise wins out are they guaranteed a BCS Bowl with TCU ahead of them? If TCU and Boise are they only teams standing without a loss do they both get into the NC game? What if; TCU is #1, Boise is #2, and Oregon is #3; who makes into the NC game?
IMHO all this talk of does Boise belong ahead of us only matters for bowl selection if TCU has a loss as well as 4 of the other 5 without a loss.
You can also think about this in terms of the BCS process
If Oregon and Boise State both win out, I think Oregon will almost definitely jump Boise State in the computers, and I think it’ll be just as divided in the polls as it is in this discussion, putting BSU and Oregon on close to an even keel in terms of poll points. That’s gonna put Oregon higher in the BCS.
It's spelled "T-A-K-O-T-U-E-S-D-A-Y-S-!-!-!."
I support inroywetrust in his support of The VD Special in his support of me supporting Roger Kieschnick in his quest to becoming the best Kieschnick ever to play professional baseball.
I think Oregon will almost definitelyjumpbe significantly ahead of Boise State in the computers,
It's spelled "T-A-K-O-T-U-E-S-D-A-Y-S-!-!-!."
I support inroywetrust in his support of The VD Special in his support of me supporting Roger Kieschnick in his quest to becoming the best Kieschnick ever to play professional baseball.
Well… I guess I should say in the part of the computer rankings that count, BSU is 4th, and Oregon is 5th. But in the current rankings that don’t count towards the BCS, Oregon is 3rd, and BSU is 6yth.
It's spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-H-I-M-S-E-L-F"
That’s only in Sagarin. In the aggregate of all computer polls, Oregon is 6th, BSU is 8th.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
Everybody’s right! Wheeeee!
It's spelled "T-A-K-O-T-U-E-S-D-A-Y-S-!-!-!."
I support inroywetrust in his support of The VD Special in his support of me supporting Roger Kieschnick in his quest to becoming the best Kieschnick ever to play professional baseball.
You? You don't apply under everybody...
So no…You are clearly incorrect
On Halloween; USC will die, Matt Barkley will cry, and all of the little bandwagoning Trojan fans will shout "WHY!?"
In the holy name of Juju, I am the humblest of servants
Wait, Are we having a subjective versus objective argument instead of talking about USC????
PANIC!!!!!!!
Objectively, I can’t think of any reason to panic, but subjectively?
PANIC!!!!
Defending maligned chants since 2009
Floobyschmecktively, I’m out of milk. PANIC!!!
It's spelled "T-A-K-O-T-U-E-S-D-A-Y-S-!-!-!."
I support inroywetrust in his support of The VD Special in his support of me supporting Roger Kieschnick in his quest to becoming the best Kieschnick ever to play professional baseball.
Today, I had a sandwich.
PANIC!!!!!!!!
Addicted To Quack [dot] com; Six-hundred and ninety-four yards of total offense.
Panictiveley...
SANDWICH!!!!!!
It's spelled "T-A-K-O-T-U-E-S-D-A-Y-S-!-!-!."
I support inroywetrust in his support of The VD Special in his support of me supporting Roger Kieschnick in his quest to becoming the best Kieschnick ever to play professional baseball.
Holy crap! Talk about Torpedo's!
PANIIIIC!!!
On Halloween; USC will die, Matt Barkley will cry, and all of the little bandwagoning Trojan fans will shout "WHY!?"
In the holy name of Juju, I am the humblest of servants
Once more for good measure
A hypothetical (which is probably only a little off of reality):
Team A (Boise) beats team B in the first game of the season by 11 points at home. Their remaining 11 opponents forfeit for lack of fielding full teams. End of season record 12-0.
Team B (Oregon) loses to team A. They win their remaining 11 games which come against increasingly difficult competition, in fact many of the best teams in the nation. End of season record 11-1.
Who would be the better team at the end of the season on a neutral field? Ultimately this is the question we are trying to answer, because everyone wants to see the best teams collide in a game of monumental proportions.
To say team A should be the team because of the head to head provides no room for growth and experience among teams.
It hit me this year why teams with an early loss are looked at more favorably than a team with a late loss. In Oregon’s case, it is quite possible that the loss was the cumulative factors of a young O-line and a first year head coach in his first game on the road in a hostile environment. This team with an early loss (can’t get any earlier) has so obviously grown to become the dominant force they were perceived to have already been preseason. A team with a late loss obviously still has issues to work out or they just aren’t as good as the team they lost to.
To think that a team that lost their first game (specifically because of the issues Oregon faced) can’t grow to become the best team in the nation, because the team they lost to still hasn’t lost even though they didn’t have any more tough challenges, is foolish.
No matter what...This will be a gray area.
We beat USC, It will be all but settled in the minds of the BCS that we are the better team
On Halloween; USC will die, Matt Barkley will cry, and all of the little bandwagoning Trojan fans will shout "WHY!?"
In the holy name of Juju, I am the humblest of servants
ENOUGH! We're tempting the cruel football gods to step in
All this talk of Boise and polls and so on.
None of this matters if we don’t beat USC. It’s very, very, very premature to talk about that (yes, I know, mea culpa, too).
I’m getting nervous.
Could we start another thread and discuss USC, please? USC? Hello, remember them? The guys we have to play on SATURDAY ????
People?
best post in this thread
well besides all those sanchez pics
How many teams in the nation can say there holder is a legitimate threat? Amazing work podcast!
I personally think that we are over-looking USC.
Don’t be getting too excited about the Stanford game, we still have to beat some SoCal team before the Pac-10 game of the millenium…
Come on guys, focus on USC!!!
On Halloween; USC will die, Matt Barkley will cry, and all of the little bandwagoning Trojan fans will shout "WHY!?"
In the holy name of Juju, I am the humblest of servants
Well, to be fair, the topic is about the polls, not about the team itself. We should get some leeway from Juju for this.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
I was being as sarcastic as possible there...
In seriousness, so long as we respect Juju as it’s humble servants, we should be okay
On Halloween; USC will die, Matt Barkley will cry, and all of the little bandwagoning Trojan fans will shout "WHY!?"
In the holy name of Juju, I am the humblest of servants
This makes me nervous
Talking post-USC polls before USC sounds like the kind of thing that would catch Juju’s attention.
If we beat USC and don’t slip after that good things will happen regardless of the BCS.
Juju > Polls
Expecting leeway from JuJu?
Oh noes, PAAAAAAANIIIIIIC
by Bill Musgrave on Oct 27, 2009 7:05 PM PDT up reply actions
Stanford? Bring on Georgia!
Now 2-0 in Husky Stadium with a win each for LSU and Oregon.
I support Sonja Newcombe for Heisman.
All Saints Day 1966: the NFL awards New Orleans a franchise. WHODAT!
by AllSaintsDay on Oct 27, 2009 9:46 PM PDT up reply actions
As a Boise fan...
I’d hate to start this up again— But I’m probably going to.
Could an 11-1 Oregon team beat a 13-0 Boise team in a rematch?
Absolutely, No question about it.
Should Boise State fall below Oregon if Boise ends up 13-0 and Oregon 11-1?
No.
Strength of Schedule seems to be the main point as to why Oregon should be ranked higher, and although this should be taken into account it should not override head-to-head. Here is why.
Just because Boise State doesn’t play em, doesn’t mean they cant beat em. As a matter of fact it is more logical to say that Boise would beat the teams Oregon plays. Just because Boise wins the WAC it makes them less of a team than Oregon, who it beat, because they win the PAC-10??
Now this isnt saying that Head-to-Head is all that matters, and UTEP should be above Houston. I am talking a 13-0… 13-0 Boise State team. Nobody has proven they are a better team than Boise, especially a team that Boise Beat. If we lose, Jump us, and go win a national championship.
Note: I realize Boise will most likely be jumped this week by Oregon if you beat USC this week. I think we will keep falling, and soon be out of a BCS bowl. I am still a HUGE, HUGE Oregon fan, and will be rooting for the Ducks as if I was one of your own. The more you win, even if it means you jumping us, the better we look.
Go Broncos. Go Ducks.
Bronco fans, you talk like this, I'm going to have to start liking you guys again.
(are you sure this isn’t MarineCorpsDuck writing under a pseudonymn?)
Just because Boise State doesn’t play em, doesn’t mean they cant beat em
The other side of the coin says that just because you don’t play them, doesn’t mean that you CAN beat them. On that particular day, Boise State won. They were the better team that day. What happened? Boise State was ranked higher than Oregon that day. As the season has progressed, people are starting to question whether that outcome would still be that way. Would Boise State still win the game, is Oregon a different team then they were back in September. The polls are snapshot in time and the computers encompass a body of work given certain criteria.
--Dominic, Addicted to Quack
Autzen Stadium is where great teams go to die." - J. Brady McCullough, The Michigan Daily.
Who would beat BSU out of the PAC-10 this year?
BSU would go at least 7-3 in the PAC-10 this year.
by BSU Alumni stranded in Portland on Oct 28, 2009 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions
Washington beat USC
As Garnett would say, anything is possible. I think Boise State would do well in the Pac-10, probably in the top half. I think Dom is talking about improvement, which Oregon has shown marked improvement while Boise State has shown less improvement.
It's spelled "T-A-K-O-T-U-E-S-D-A-Y-S-!-!-!."
I support inroywetrust in his support of The VD Special in his support of me supporting Roger Kieschnick in his quest to becoming the best Kieschnick ever to play professional baseball.
BSU would go at least 7-3 in the PAC-10 this year.
Which would not be enough to go to a BCS Bowl….unlike their current situation where you can beat one.
--Dominic, Addicted to Quack
Autzen Stadium is where great teams go to die." - J. Brady McCullough, The Michigan Daily.
who would their losses be to?
They beat Oregon, I see Oregon State, Cal(?) and USC being their 3 losses, but then who knows what would happen with Arizona, Stanford, ASU and Washington. They could be anywhere from 2nd to 6th in the Pac-10 but I DO NOT see them winning it, and really don’t see them coming in 2nd either.
"I used to play sports. Then I realized you can buy trophies. Now I'm good at everything." - Demetri Martin
Could an 11-1 Oregon team beat a 13-0 Boise team in a rematch?
Absolutely, No question about it.
As a matter of fact it is more logical to say that Boise would beat the teams Oregon plays.
Unfortuately, these two viewpoints are inconsistent. There’s no “transitive property” of college football. You don’t have to look hard at all to find Ouroboros structures — a fun one that comes to my mind immediately is USC > Notre Dame > Washington > USC.
As I see it, there are basically two things at work here.
1) Teams can improve or decline over time. Oregon itself has served as a clear example of both — the former this year, the latter in 2007 (stupid knee injuries!), for example.
2) There is an inherent amount of randomness in college football. Certain players can have good days or bad days, passes get caught or dropped based on the weather, and so forth. If you pick any two of the top 50 teams in college football and have them play each other ten times, it’s almost certain that you won’t have ten identical outcomes.
My only point is that when you admit that Oregon has a strong potential to beat Boise State in a rematch, you inherently acknowledge the presence of one of the two factors above (or something similarly subject to change/fluctuation). But in either case, it certainly doesn’t follow that Boise will beat anyone Oregon beats. It doesn’t even follow that Boise is likely to beat anyone Oregon beats.
That’s not to say Boise isn’t a good team. Boise’s a great team. Boise could in fact beat many (most? all?) of the teams we’ve played. But my conviction in saying that isn’t based solely on the fact that they beat us.
So, how do we treat this in terms of the rankings? It’s tough, obviously. There’s a very good discussion above on this thread about objective vs. subjective qualities and what (should) determine a ranking. I happen to believe that a head-to-head ranking is important, but is not an immutable fact that cannot be overcome. With a sufficiently impressive feat of strength, Oregon should have the potential to cleanse its palate of its bomb-on-blue performance in Boise. A victory over the Trojans would be a demonstration of this caliber. That said, I do see why others feel that head-to-head should trump all; it is certainly one of the most tangible things that we have to use.
I’m going to try pretty hard to take a page out of Chip’s book and stop thinking about this, though, since A) we’re putting the cart waaaaay before the Trojan horse, and B) stressing about national rankings isn’t something I have any interest in doing. Mostly, I just like a healthy discussion. Also, as an Idaho native, Boise State is my second-favorite team, and I don’t enjoy the conflicting interests.
LaMichael's number is 21 because "7 7 7" doesn't fit on a jersey.
by ProbablyMonty on Oct 27, 2009 10:02 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Probably
You make good points, you can do these “ouroboros structures” (you learn something new everyday, well as far as the name of these things go) for basically all teams in college football. I remember on ESPN years back when they did one with a chain of about 30 teams on who should be in the championship game. They started with USC and funny thing, ended with them 30 teams later.
My main point was Boise, we are assuming, goes undefeated. You can not say this for the teams you used. That is my main gripe, and if we lost a game— Drop us below Oregon. Actually if we lose to anyone on our schedule, Drop us hard.
You definitely have some fair points.
Like I mentioned — though I have an opinion, I certainly see your side of things. If Oregon does leapfrog Boise, I’ll feel guilty and self-conscious about it, even though it’s something I think should be a possibility.
More than anything, I wish the following would happen:
1) Boise State joins the MWC, leaving the WAC a flaming husk of a conference. The MWC is then recognized as a legitimately tough school and consequently steals the BCS AQ spot from the Big East.
or
2) A 16-team playoff is enacted.
But I dream.
LaMichael's number is 21 because "7 7 7" doesn't fit on a jersey.
by ProbablyMonty on Oct 28, 2009 7:41 PM PDT up reply actions
I’m not sure what facts you’re referring to, so I’ll assume that it’s the fact that Boise State could get screwed by the status quo. (And like I said, I’m an Idaho native, so this does distress me.) Or maybe it’s the fact that USC is coming to down and has a very real chance of rendering this whole conversation irrelevant. Or maybe that it’s midnight and I still have real work to do tonight before I get to sleep. :-D
But seriously. Boise State in the MWC would be fantastic. That’d be a killer conference.
LaMichael's number is 21 because "7 7 7" doesn't fit on a jersey.
by ProbablyMonty on Oct 29, 2009 12:09 AM PDT up reply actions
That's an Idaho Vandal fans' motto!
"You know where i'm from, a little suspicion about one's true identity and motives is considered good manners."
-- Nale
by Loque on Oct 29, 2009 7:12 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
SLOW DOWN
Lets take care of business Sat. night before you look at who should be ranked ahead of who. I dont even want to think about anything other than Halloween night right now. GO DUCKS!!
"if Oregon had lost to Purdue instead of Boise, we'd be in a better position to make a NC run than we are now?"
I think you may be right on that one.
Damn the Blazers. Damn them to hell. - 'The Sports Guy' Bill Simmons
It was rip city showtime - fully fantastic - positively Portland - slam bombastic!
boise state should join the mountain west
if they join the mountain west conference they’d at least have some better competition to boost their strength of schedule AND the mountain west would be better for it since they’d have an other legit team and it might help them with the argument for an automatic bcs bid.
they need to make this happen asap
by Arthritis Sorebonis on Oct 28, 2009 5:57 AM PDT reply actions
Well.
From what I can tell of this poll, the only reason why you’re having this argument about leaping Boise is you fell in love what the computers did and dropped us 2 spots as well.
If you kept us up over a lucky and haphazard Iowa team, a Cincinnati team who plays lesser opponents than us (thus far), and a TCU team that earned all it’s accolades defeating an abysmal BYU team (ps. I’m a BYU fan after the Broncos and I know it’s true), then you could have saved this argument for a later date.
But, it’s pretyy ridiculous you did a 2-spot drop on Boise. It almost feels like you’re already forgetting what happened in Sept. 3rd. I didn’t, I was there.
Now that that has been said, I DO believe that Oregon will leap us in the long run. In fact, I find it highly likely that you can be campaigning for the NC game over us. And I won’t complain one little bit about it… well, unless you win the NC game. Then we have full merit to gripe and send Larry Craig to D.C. … via a bus, of course.
"You know where i'm from, a little suspicion about one's true identity and motives is considered good manners."
-- Nale
I understand that Cinci gripe, but they beat two good teams (USF and Oregon State) on the road, which I think counts for a lot. Similarly, Iowa has struggled, but has also beat a few of good teams on the road, something Boise just hasn’t had the ability to do. It’s not really your fault, but we’re measuring just what a team has done.
Also, I wouldn’t get too worked up about the rises or drops. For one, I think polls should be reevaulated from week to week, and not just move people up or down based on losses. Secondly, I did last week’s poll, and Dave did this weeks. So there was bound to be a bit of a change.
As far as this computer nonsense, the blogpoll philosophy tells voters to look as resume only, and what has happened on the field. Unfortunately, Boise’s resume will be diluted further and further as the season progresses. In the Blogpoll, that will hurt them significantly.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
I always knew the computers would be our enemy
I just didn’t think it’d be this soon. We all probably wouldn’t be complaining so much about position if we didn’t get to #4 in the first week of the BCS standings.
As you all know, it’s a lot more fun playing with a chip on your shoulder… until you get screwed out of a 2nd straight BCS bowl (cry)
"You know where i'm from, a little suspicion about one's true identity and motives is considered good manners."
-- Nale
Not really
I didn’t drop BSU to punish them, but because TCU went on the road an blew the water out of a quality team. As Jared said, he filled in on the poll last week, and I never would have had Boise over Cincy to begin with (mainly because of the quality of Cincy’s road wins).
I actually root for Boise most of the time (I’m rooting for a Bronco loss at some point this year, though I know its unlikely, for obvious reasons). I wish they had a better schedule. I wish they were in the MWC. But if Oregon, Georgia Tech, and LSU keep winning, the resume is going to make it difficult to keep Boise above them. If those teams lose, this argument becomes moot.
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, SBN's Oregon Ducks blog
by David Piper on Oct 28, 2009 10:07 AM PDT up reply actions
QUALITY?
Byu quality? at home? they got stomped on by a ok at best Florida State team.
Boise vs Cincy
Boise st – 48-0 over miami oh
Cincy struggled at 1st over Miami 37-13
Boise st on the road @ Fresno 51-34 win
Cincy at home yet again struggled 28-20 win
up till this point cincy hasnt done anything impressive cept beat a south florida team that has a back up qb in cause the starter is out for the season. now if cincy goes undefeated granted they should be higher, with their sos and w.e. but up till now NO. Check your facts their partner!
Life's Greatest Question.... "Why do they sell hot dogs in packs of 12 but buns in packs of 8?"
by BoiseFanSince98 on Oct 28, 2009 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions
I guess you'll just conveniently forget about Cincy winning at Oregon State
I was also impressed with how they blew out Rutgers on the road, though a cursory look at the Rutgers schedule show the jury to be very much out on that one.
I’ll take it under reconsideration, but three road wins vs. BCS foes is pretty strong.
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, SBN's Oregon Ducks blog
by David Piper on Oct 28, 2009 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions
BSU Alumni
Beat you at home and away. That is what really matters, period.
by BSU Alumni stranded in Portland on Oct 28, 2009 7:55 AM PDT reply actions
Wait, you beat us twice this year? Man, I gotta start paying more attention to college football.
It's spelled "T-A-K-O-T-U-E-S-D-A-Y-S-!-!-!."
I support inroywetrust in his support of The VD Special in his support of me supporting Roger Kieschnick in his quest to becoming the best Kieschnick ever to play professional baseball.
In all fairness, we beat you at your home too, it just happened not to be the same type of beating you’re referring to.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
by Gorbachav5 on Oct 28, 2009 9:14 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
rec'd for making me laugh
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, SBN's Oregon Ducks blog
by David Piper on Oct 28, 2009 10:03 AM PDT up reply actions
so is it okay to joke about this now?
It's spelled "T-A-K-O-T-U-E-S-D-A-Y-S-!-!-!."
I support inroywetrust in his support of The VD Special in his support of me supporting Roger Kieschnick in his quest to becoming the best Kieschnick ever to play professional baseball.
That’s exactly what I was thinking earlier… Like… I’ve made jokes in regards to Michael Jackson (RIP)… certainly this is okay too… right?
Then again, jokes about Abraham Lincoln just got phased in to “okay”…
I don’t know the rules!
It's spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-H-I-M-S-E-L-F"
Bill Maher still attracts derision after his Amelia Earhart jokes.
Addicted To Quack [dot] com; Six-hundred and ninety-four yards of total offense.
well you saw what happened when I made a Michael Vick joke and hell, he’s out of jail now
--Dominic, Addicted to Quack
Autzen Stadium is where great teams go to die." - J. Brady McCullough, The Michigan Daily.
what Abe lincoln jokes?
"I used to play sports. Then I realized you can buy trophies. Now I'm good at everything." - Demetri Martin
Careful now, you're wading into some pretty dangerous water
by Bill Musgrave on Oct 29, 2009 5:36 PM PDT up reply actions
sarcastic or serious?
I have no idea what any of this is about? Amelia or President Lincoln. Perhaps I should google, but I am too lazy
"I used to play sports. Then I realized you can buy trophies. Now I'm good at everything." - Demetri Martin
Sorry man, just messing with you, totally sarcastic, as was JShufelt.
IE, Abe Lincoln died +/- 150 years ago and it would be pretty silly if an Abe Lincoln joke was still “controversial”.
It might also be odd to tell an Abe Lincoln joke at all, as he’s maybe a bit out of the every day conversation these days. We could make fun of his silly beard or his gangly legs, or his antiquated politics, but, oh, it just doesn’t seem funny or like anyone would care.
Oh dear god I hope I haven’t offended anyone named Abe or anyone who played with Lincoln Logs growing up.
by Bill Musgrave on Oct 30, 2009 12:11 AM PDT up reply actions
"so other than that, how did you like the play Mrs. Lincoln"
I did google, and I actually found some ‘racy’ lincoln jokes that might not be okay to post here.
"I used to play sports. Then I realized you can buy trophies. Now I'm good at everything." - Demetri Martin
LGB and BSU Rivalry
Tough to laugh about it, but is the best remedy for the incident.
It is a shame that UO and BSU will not be a regular rivalry. Logistics would work and both towns show great passion for football. Please help BSU grow into a PAC-12 position. A move to the MWC would be lateral at best.
by BSU Alumni stranded in Portland on Oct 28, 2009 10:24 AM PDT reply actions
no
a move to the MWC makes the MWC a legitimate BCS conference.
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, SBN's Oregon Ducks blog
by David Piper on Oct 28, 2009 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions
The MWC plus Boise State would be better than the Big East, and would be on par if not better than the Big Ten and ACC.
It's spelled "T-A-K-O-T-U-E-S-D-A-Y-S-!-!-!."
I support inroywetrust in his support of The VD Special in his support of me supporting Roger Kieschnick in his quest to becoming the best Kieschnick ever to play professional baseball.
No $$ in the MWC
Come on guys you need to share some of the pie.
by BSU Alumni stranded in Portland on Oct 28, 2009 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions
MWC + Boise State gets into the BCS when they review the conferences after the 2011 season, and gets more $$
It's spelled "T-A-K-O-T-U-E-S-D-A-Y-S-!-!-!."
I support inroywetrust in his support of The VD Special in his support of me supporting Roger Kieschnick in his quest to becoming the best Kieschnick ever to play professional baseball.
Blech.
Making the MWC an AQ conference legitimizes the BCS. And I’m just not up for that. I would like a move to the MWC, but I think my hatred of the BCS is larger.
Forget the whole “mid-major” thing. Talking heads are already saying they don’t want Iowa or Cincinnati in the BCS if they go undefeated, even over 1-loss SEC teams. That’s just stupid. “I don’t like you, so I don’t want you to be the champion.”
"You know where i'm from, a little suspicion about one's true identity and motives is considered good manners."
-- Nale
Which talking heads. There are a lot of people saying a lot of stupid things. Don’t give them power by acting like they have any.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
its about TV ratings
"I used to play sports. Then I realized you can buy trophies. Now I'm good at everything." - Demetri Martin
A MWC with Boise will get a BCS berth
there is a system in place that would virtually guarantee it.
And a Pac-12 is never going to happen. And for a Pac-12 to include Boise is even less likely. Boise State will never, ever, sniff Pac-10 membership.
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, SBN's Oregon Ducks blog
by David Piper on Oct 28, 2009 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions
Never Say Never
It was the PAC-8.
by BSU Alumni stranded in Portland on Oct 28, 2009 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions
The day the Pac-12 is born, so is the 15-game college season.
Addicted To Quack [dot] com; Six-hundred and ninety-four yards of total offense.
agreed
most likely inductees would be Utah and Colorado.
If ya can't get your Dick Enright, get your Dick Harter!
More like...
Utah and BYU. In-state rivalry and good academics. Better PAC mix than Utah and CU
I love the colors Orange and Blue. Go Broncos!!! Go Titans!!!
I wouldn't say they would be excluded
In my NCAA Basketball game WSU got kicked out and my Hawaii team got a bid to the Pac-10 instead. Nobody likes WSU, why the hell not do it for football.
"I used to play sports. Then I realized you can buy trophies. Now I'm good at everything." - Demetri Martin
I think there could be a lot more money in it. I really think there is an AQ in the Fiesta Bowl for the MWC if they had Boise State. That’s a lot more income for the conference overall, and it is close enough to ensure better odds of travel. It would be a far more challenging conference than the Big East.
I’m in full support of Boise in the MWC and then the MWC being an AQ.
As for Boise State being in the Pac-10(12) well… I really don’t see this happening in the next 50 years. There are too many other levels of competition that Boise needs to show up in. (Academically, Basketball, etc)
It's spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-H-I-M-S-E-L-F"
College Hoops
Must be refreshing for the college hoop fans to crown a legitimate champion out of 64 teams every year. They have none of this nonsense.
We beg for a playoff system!
by BSU Alumni stranded in Portland on Oct 28, 2009 10:39 AM PDT reply actions
I think most of us can agree on that
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, SBN's Oregon Ducks blog
by David Piper on Oct 28, 2009 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions
If only football teams could play two games a week.
It's spelled "T-A-K-O-T-U-E-S-D-A-Y-S-!-!-!."
I support inroywetrust in his support of The VD Special in his support of me supporting Roger Kieschnick in his quest to becoming the best Kieschnick ever to play professional baseball.
USC
OK, so you are informed Duck Fans. I believe the key to winning this game against USC is getting to Barkley. No one has yet, although the Beavers blitzed more than anyone.
You have to interrupt the timing of the O machine for the Trojans.
by BSU Alumni stranded in Portland on Oct 28, 2009 11:49 AM PDT reply actions
I would be just fine if BSU and Oregon played in the rose bowl so you guys could just stop with this ridiculous idea that Oregon is better then BSU. Wake up, we’ve been the most consistent team in the NW over the last ten years, now its clear we’re the best team in the NW.
See? This is the problem with subjective evidence.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
by Gorbachav5 on Oct 28, 2009 12:57 PM PDT up reply actions 4 recs
This should be green. And floobyschmecktively, nobody beats Montana.
It's spelled "T-A-K-O-T-U-E-S-D-A-Y-S-!-!-!."
I support inroywetrust in his support of The VD Special in his support of me supporting Roger Kieschnick in his quest to becoming the best Kieschnick ever to play professional baseball.
Especially now that they have THE Justin Roper!
On Halloween; USC will die, Matt Barkley will cry, and all of the little bandwagoning Trojan fans will shout "WHY!?"
In the holy name of Juju, I am the humblest of servants
Ropert is God!
--Dominic, Addicted to Quack
Autzen Stadium is where great teams go to die." - J. Brady McCullough, The Michigan Daily.
The "best" team, the worst conference.
How is that working out for you?
On Halloween; USC will die, Matt Barkley will cry, and all of the little bandwagoning Trojan fans will shout "WHY!?"
In the holy name of Juju, I am the humblest of servants
The Problem lies in the Preseason Rankings
USC started the season ranked at #3 (really close in the number of votes to #2 Texas); they were ESPN’s preseason darlings slated to play Florida in the national championship. The bottom line is that once a team receives a high preseason ranking it is difficult for the human polls to move them backwards. I guess it shows that the sports analysts, writers, and voting coaches don’t want to admit they got it all terribly wrong. Nothing is more baseless and ignorant than the pre-season rankings; based on nothing but a bunch of sports nuts best guesses!
Q: How did USC remain in the top 10 after losing to a non-ranked team that went 0-12 the previous season?
A: High preseason ranking.
Should Oregon receive a higher poll ranking than BSU if they beat USC? Once again the problem is that USC is ranked too high. The question of who is the better team between BSU and Oregon was answered on Sept 3rd in Bronco Stadium…unless of course we are now throwing out loses in face of moral victories! Why not let a few stats geeks-living in their parent’s basement-decide the fate of all games. If we really want to let the polls decide “who is the better team”, let’s cancel the season and let the Vegas decide the outcome of the season!
Would BSU beat Oregon every time they played (as I have heard some Oregon fans argue), if they played each other 10 times in a row? Who knows or cares; statistical analysis goes out the window in face of an actual loss (or two as is the case in the Oregon/BSU series). Would any team win every time, including Florida, Alabama, etc.? We have beat Oregon twice; that really should end the discussion.
If Oregon fans want to pretend that they are better on paper; you can have that victory any day; I hope you beat USC! Just remember receiving a higher poll ranking does not mean you are the better team; that debate has already been settled (twice), any talk to the contrary is just sour grapes.
I don't think anyone here is doubting that the Broncos have owned the Ducks on the field,
because they have. No Oregon fan has the right to talk trash to a Boise State fan until we play you again. But, one game (in the case of this season) does not a Week 9 Top 25 make. I think if BSU plays Oregon 10 times on a neutral field, it ends up 5-5. I’d even give you 6-4 Broncos cuz you beat us at Autzen. And I agree with your preseason ranking point; it’s nothing but subjective evidence shaping how the season will fill out.
That being said, as a Boise State fan what do you expect from these polls? All the team can do is win all their games. But, from a conference as weak as the WAC, that just isn’t enough in the eyes of voters. As you build a season-long resume, the Oregon win becomes less and less significant, just like the loss becomes less and less significant for us as we blow out Pac-10 teams. Oregon doesn’t have the right to say we’re a better football team then Boise State. But we have a right to say we deserve to be ranked higher in a season-long poll.
It's spelled "T-A-K-O-T-U-E-S-D-A-Y-S-!-!-!."
I support inroywetrust in his support of The VD Special in his support of me supporting Roger Kieschnick in his quest to becoming the best Kieschnick ever to play professional baseball.
few stats geeks-living in their parent’s basement
This is arguably the most annoying cliché of the SABR era. People seriously need to stop using this.
Addicted To Quack [dot] com; Six-hundred and ninety-four yards of total offense.
Now let me just put on my Yoda t-shirt and get back to painting my level 23 halfling warlock miniature…
Defending maligned chants since 2009
by Gorbachav5 on Oct 28, 2009 6:27 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Labeling a line from a person’s posting as an “annoying cliché of the SABR era” is itself an annoying cliché. A snobby-elitist favorite tactic is to call something unoriginal in order to discredit the blogger as “out of touch”.
Qrsouther,
Please describe or characterize, (in a non-annoying cliché manner) how it is that statisticians have completely taken over college football. Wins are no longer wins; ranking is decided by pitting teams that have not played each other and having a stats beauty contest between the two teams.
What a joke that Oregon fans would even discuss the possibility of receiving a higher ranking; it is quacks (no pun intended) like this that perpetuate the horrible BCS system. If Oregon is ranked higher than BSU the pollsters have committed an egregious error. I guess after taking a horrible loss on the blue and having your star running back have a complete mental breakdown; you folks are scratching for any kind of victory at this point. Good luck with that!
But having a narrow-minded view that one game strictly dictates a ranking is just as ridiculous. I’m not saying Oregon is “better” than Boise State, on-field performance has shown that. But if the only rule for ranking teams is that you can’t be ranked higher than a team that’s beaten you, it would create paradoxes and make it impossible to rank certain teams.
Also, I don’t think at any point Quinn’s comment was saying that statisticians have taken over college football. He was saying that not all nerds live in their parent’s basement. So csf68, please explain to me how all nerds live in their parents’ basement. 500 word maximum, this assignment will be due Friday at 6 PM. Thanks.
It's spelled "T-A-K-O-T-U-E-S-D-A-Y-S-!-!-!."
I support inroywetrust in his support of The VD Special in his support of me supporting Roger Kieschnick in his quest to becoming the best Kieschnick ever to play professional baseball.
If Washington had won all of their games after beating USC; who would be ranked higher?
Of course there is not just one rule for ranking teams, but ranking teams higher that have beat the lower ranked teams is a great place to start.
Had BSU lost a game after the Oregon victory you might have an arguement that holds water. We were ranked higher in the preseason (in the AP) and we have won all our games. As much as I hate the polls, it does validate our ranking. The real way would be a real championship, but we all know that is not going to happen. Did the pollsters that had us ranked at #14 and Oregon at #16 not know that teams that were on our schedules?
Drop the holier-than-thou attitude.
Tako said everything I wanted to say.
Addicted To Quack [dot] com; Six-hundred and ninety-four yards of total offense.
See Qr/Tako, you two can get along after all :)
Come on csf, Please don’t come over to our blog for the sole purpose of engaging in a one sided ad hominem attack on a person. Please don’t act as if the BCS system is out to “attack” only you Broncos and nobody else. Us Ducks have been subject to unfair treatment by the BCS, 2001 for example. The bottom line is that we have a WAY stronger SOS than you will ever dream of having; If we beat USC, we have a right to be ranked higher.
On Halloween; USC will die, Matt Barkley will cry, and all of the little bandwagoning Trojan fans will shout "WHY!?"
In the holy name of Juju, I am the humblest of servants
The BCS is totally not fair to Boise State
but that’s not our problem. It’s conference strength. All BSU can do is win games, but that’s also all we can do right now too, and we’re doing it against a stronger conference.
It's spelled "T-A-K-O-T-U-E-S-D-A-Y-S-!-!-!."
I support inroywetrust in his support of The VD Special in his support of me supporting Roger Kieschnick in his quest to becoming the best Kieschnick ever to play professional baseball.
Of course the BCS is not fair to BSU...
But they are not the only team to have been disrespected by the system, thats all
On Halloween; USC will die, Matt Barkley will cry, and all of the little bandwagoning Trojan fans will shout "WHY!?"
In the holy name of Juju, I am the humblest of servants
…so by that rationale if you are better than the other teams in the PAC-10 and we are better than Oregon, don’t we still deserve to be ranked higher. Ranking talk is really pointless only half way through the season.
This argument is moot anyway, you will probably lose to USC and possibly Arizona, Arizona State, and/or Oregon State. This blog is really premature and reeks of high hopes. You lost twice to a better team, please let these festering wounds heal; it is time to move on ducks. If you guys are really nice we might even invite you to play in Roady’s Humanitarian Bowl to play Idaho. I would love to see you guys on the blue again!
Well that’s subjective.
It's spelled "T-A-K-O-T-U-E-S-D-A-Y-S-!-!-!."
I support inroywetrust in his support of The VD Special in his support of me supporting Roger Kieschnick in his quest to becoming the best Kieschnick ever to play professional baseball.
…this whole discussion is subjective. The only thing that is not subjective is who is the better team. That was actually answered this season. Everything else is bull shit speculation.
It’s fans like you that make me smile when I think of Boise State being shut out of the BCS again.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
Oregon = Biggest cry babies fans in college football.
You guys talked so much shit before the game and now you still won’t shut up about being ranked higher, all that after losing again. How many times do we have to humiliate you before you stop the superior attitudes. If you guys are the best the PAC-10 has to offer than the PAC-10 sucks! UC Davis was more impressive than Oregon.
Oregon fans = rational discussion about polling right now
You = irrational bitching because BSU dropped in the polls
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
by jtlight on Oct 28, 2009 9:21 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Irrational because we dropped in YOUR polls. Kellen Moore expects more from you.
Needless to say, it’s past the blogpoll submission time, anyway. So, all this doesn’t matter (unless we get a bump up next week due to our raging success over San Jose State….
……….
"You know where i'm from, a little suspicion about one's true identity and motives is considered good manners."
-- Nale
You can call us crybabies all you want...
But that would be comically hypocritical, you are the one whining here. We are trying to respond to you in a rational manner, only to recieve emotionally based factless jabber in return.
One you can hold back your tears, please explain how the WAC is better than the Pac-10 as you state that the “Pac-10 sucks”.
On Halloween; USC will die, Matt Barkley will cry, and all of the little bandwagoning Trojan fans will shout "WHY!?"
In the holy name of Juju, I am the humblest of servants
really…because it makes me smile everytime I remember watching Blount dragged off the field kicking and screaming, all the while Chip Kelly had an expression on his face that can only be described as the orphan child that Christmas forgot. Ahhh the memories…!
all the trash talk a side (I acutally love Chip Kelly, and think that he is a class act)… I do hope that you guys beat USC and win out the rest of the season. It is fun to talk some smack, but I really could care less if you are ranked ahead of us, if it means that we get to go to another BCS Bowl game! On principle it kind of pisses me off, but it is not BSU’s goal. Going to a BCS Bowl is really my only hope, beyond that most BSU fans don’t care about their rankings
BSU in a BCS game? Not if TCU wins out.
Sorry, had to go there :)
On Halloween; USC will die, Matt Barkley will cry, and all of the little bandwagoning Trojan fans will shout "WHY!?"
In the holy name of Juju, I am the humblest of servants
You are right, damn I wish we were in the MWC!!!! I am a huge Utah fan the rest of this season. My gut says that Utah will not stop TCU. Here comes another shitty bowl game.
I'm sure that the WAC will cling on as hard as possible
To keep their one good team! They will put up one hell of a fight not to let you guys go.
TCU has cleared their biggest hurdle (by a mile!) in a BYU team…If they focus, winning out will be no problem.
On Halloween; USC will die, Matt Barkley will cry, and all of the little bandwagoning Trojan fans will shout "WHY!?"
In the holy name of Juju, I am the humblest of servants
but can the WAC really do anything?
I don’t think they can. If the MWC comes calling, Boise is there ina heartbeat.
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, SBN's Oregon Ducks blog
I don't know anything about conference legislation...
I was just kind of assuming that they had some say in the matter, sounds like they really don’t. And yes, if the MWC comes calling, Boise would not even think twice about jumping their sinking ship of a conference
On Halloween; USC will die, Matt Barkley will cry, and all of the little bandwagoning Trojan fans will shout "WHY!?"
In the holy name of Juju, I am the humblest of servants
You worked your way out of utter douchehood at last.
Addicted To Quack [dot] com; Six-hundred and ninety-four yards of total offense.
Seriously? That is your argument?
About as original as some recycled “insult” about uniforms
On Halloween; USC will die, Matt Barkley will cry, and all of the little bandwagoning Trojan fans will shout "WHY!?"
In the holy name of Juju, I am the humblest of servants
You know what’s fun? Not being an ass.
QSouther asked a legitimate question, which would have been easy to answer without descending into complete doucheyness.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
We were having a nice discussion!
There were Boise fans in here who were essentially defending your point, but they found ways not to be assholes about it. They had opinions, we had opinions, and it was okay that we disagreed. I guess you missed the memo.
LaMichael's number is 21 because "7 7 7" doesn't fit on a jersey.
by ProbablyMonty on Oct 29, 2009 12:10 AM PDT up reply actions
Sorry, this post was a bit premature. I just got to your post from 9:41 PM where you made it better. ;-)
LaMichael's number is 21 because "7 7 7" doesn't fit on a jersey.
by ProbablyMonty on Oct 29, 2009 12:15 AM PDT up reply actions
I almost did the same thing.
Whew! Good thing that I didn’t suffer from premature extrapolation.
It's spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-H-I-M-S-E-L-F"
My wife hates it when I prematurely extrapolate.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
by jtlight on Oct 29, 2009 7:31 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
How would Oregon beat BSU now?
Thats what all you guys said last year and months before the opener. We are the better football team, ask Blount, he was lucky to get back to the line of scrimmage all night long. Your hero Masoli looked like a WR u guys just threw in for lack of a passer. All I heard all summer was how Masoli was the best pac-10 qb and dickson and the “tazer” plays would light us up. How Blount would run all over us, did any of you watch the game? The High School had a better chance of putting up double digits. I would be happy to play Oregon again b/c it would give the Broncos another W.
Yes, we watched the game.
I don’t get where in the world that whole post came from.
Addicted To Quack [dot] com; Six-hundred and ninety-four yards of total offense.
reply fail? there’s stuff up there about us beating boise state i think.
It's spelled "T-A-K-O-T-U-E-S-D-A-Y-S-!-!-!."
I support inroywetrust in his support of The VD Special in his support of me supporting Roger Kieschnick in his quest to becoming the best Kieschnick ever to play professional baseball.
I was just wondering...
You guys act like you used a practice squad against us. What makes you think Oregon would beat BSU? Don’t forget we had our problems too. If we didnt fumble so often that game would of been a blowout. We out maned Oregon is every aspect of the game.
Dude. There’s a reply button right down there. It makes conversations way easier to comprehend.
It's spelled "T-A-K-O-T-U-E-S-D-A-Y-S-!-!-!."
I support inroywetrust in his support of The VD Special in his support of me supporting Roger Kieschnick in his quest to becoming the best Kieschnick ever to play professional baseball.
You guys act like you used a practice squad against us. What makes you think Oregon would beat BSU? Don’t forget we had our problems too. If we didnt fumble so often that game would of been a blowout. We out maned Oregon is every aspect of the game.
There is nothing in your wins against Hawaii and UC Davis that makes me think you are a better team then you were in September. There are, however, games versus Utah, Cal, UCLA and Washington that do make me think that Oregon is a better team then they were in September.
--Dominic, Addicted to Quack
Autzen Stadium is where great teams go to die." - J. Brady McCullough, The Michigan Daily.
Man… I’m so glad that Washington is a better team than USC! Now we got our tougher game out of the way! We’ll be able to just walk over USC with no problem!
Oh wait… that isn’t how it works? Crap.
It's spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-H-I-M-S-E-L-F"
It’s funny, after hearing the BSU fans in here, I think I’m going to convert to your side. I just feel dirty over here…
So to summarize – I was adamant about keeping BSU ranked above Oregon until I heard BSU fans make that argument. I feel like Paul when the scales fell off his eyes and he could see again.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
Really?
Yes UC Davis was bad, but we whipped UH by 45 on the road. Think of what the score would of been if we didnt just give the ball to Kaiserman the whole 4th quarter.(Not saying he is bad, but he is #4 on the depth chart). And how was Utah impressive for you guys? You barley beat a team who has nothing from last year. Cal was obviously overrated, UCLA is a weak argument and although I like where UW is going, they are still not there.
It’s nice you’re talking about beating Hawaii. Unfortunately, according to Sagarin, they are also the 121st ranked team in the country. That wouldn’t even get them into division 1-A. And UC Davis is ranked 122.
If you don’t kill both of those teams (which BSU didn’t do), there’s something wrong with your team.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
I don’t think even if we beat USC that we should move above them, I mean we have to move above Boise State, cause it was their Super Bowl/BCS Bowl Game/New Year’s celebration/birthday all rolled into one, and we have a better overall schedule, but we can’t seriously think that we should move ahead of USC, because that will be our biggest game of the year, and they have a better overall schedule, I guess this whole head to head stuff doesn’t really matter anyway.
It's also annoying me that you guys think Oregon was our whole season.
Coming into the season I had no fear the Broncos would lose, our biggest game this year will be our BCS game, Oregons just gunna help us get there.
I was in Boise the week of the game. Every radio station was saying that the Oregon game was the season. Your student section chanted BCS at the end of the game! Come on…
It's spelled "T-A-K-O-T-U-E-S-D-A-Y-S-!-!-!."
I support inroywetrust in his support of The VD Special in his support of me supporting Roger Kieschnick in his quest to becoming the best Kieschnick ever to play professional baseball.
by Takimoto on Oct 29, 2009 9:03 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
You know what's annoying?
That you deny that Oregon was your whole season. Seriously. Look at your schedule. Heck, I’ll even allow you to forget for the moment that your conference is pathetic this year. Your OOC, other than Oregon:
1. Miami (OH): Ah yes, the OTHER Miami. The one without the hot women and Al Pacino doing cocaine. Rank by Sagarin? 146
2. Bowling Green. These guys would be better off ACTUALLY bowling. Rank? 95
3. UC Davis. What are they going to do? Throw cow dung at you? Rank? 122
4. Tulsa. Last, but certainly not least, the school that sounds like a spicy condiment, but is actually much worse at football. Rank? A robust 82
Oregon was your whole season. That’s not bragging by Oregon fans. That’s reality. The average school on your OOC list would barely make it into the FBS. If you had lost to the Ducks, you could win every week by 30 points and still get dropped in the rankings.
You know what? That’s nothing to be ashamed of. Whether by poor scheduling or bad luck, every other team on your schedule sucks. But you beat the one team that didn’t, which shows BSU is a quality team. None of that makes it untrue that the Oregon game meant everything to the Broncos. Just admit it and move on with your life. You’ll be happier, I promise.
In other news, why am I still posting in this thread?
Defending maligned chants since 2009
BSU wins at home and away vs. UO
Beating UO at home and away is really what matters. The rest is for the politicians to work out. The Autzen win was actually bigger than winning at home, we always win at home.
BSU goes undefeated they will make a BCS bowl. TCU may play for the NC.
by BSU Alumni stranded in Portland on Oct 30, 2009 5:06 AM PDT reply actions
So BSU ends up lower
It really doesn’t matter to BSU if Oregon passes us. For that to happen you will have to beat USC which, means you would probably swap places. Net to BSU is no change. What BSU really needs is for TCU and/or Iowa to lose. I would love to see Oregon win out, it does nothing but improve our SOS. Wouldn’t it be nice if either both Florida and Alabama lose or one of them loses and Texas gets a loss. I could see how, with 1 loss early and a win over USC, Oregon could end up in the NC game. From me and a lot of BSU fans. Just Win Baby!!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
