Uh...what? The '06 Broncos over the '08 Utes?
Graham Watson, bless her everloving soul, has ranked the top non-BCS teams of the decade. The list isn't half-bad, however, I take great exception with her choice to follow the 2004 Utes (who placed first). She put Boise State's 2006 squad in there. For the life of me, I can't figure out why.
For starters, 2008's Utes went out and finished with the highest ranking of any team in non-BCS history (counting the BCS era only, of course). That was a second place finish to the declared champion Florida Gators. The Broncos, in 2006, reached only as high as fifth (the Utes were fourth in the coaches poll in '08).
Now my math has always been suspect, however, in terms of finish, two is better than five.
But maybe we'll give her a pass on that one. I mean, final placement in the top-25 is subjective after all. Yet beyond overall ranking, is there any evidence to suggest 2006's Broncos were better than 2008's Utes?
I don't think so.
Sure, their win over Oklahoma was improbable and probably the most entertaining bowl game of the decade. But it was also only The Greatest Ever because Boise State blew a huge first half lead and nearly lost in regulation before pulling a few rabbits out of their hat at the end and in overtime. It was not a dominant effort.
Likewise, Oklahoma was not a dominant team. They were good - but far from great. They entered that game as winners of the Big 12, but also had losses to Oregon and Texas. They spent all of zero weeks at number one and were only ranked 7th heading into the Fiesta Bowl.
To compare, Utah dominated Alabama. It was not a game that came down to one play in the closing minutes of regulation or overtime. It was a wire-to-wire abusing. The Utes jumped to a 21-0 lead, took the Tide's best shot and shut them down for pretty much the entire game. It was as convincing as it was surprising. And while it might not have as many lasting images as the 2007 Fiesta Bowl between the Broncos & Sooners, it was a far better and more complete effort by Utah.
They should not be docked because they failed to blow a lead and win in spectacular fashion. In fact, they should be praised for such an effort against a team that was clearly better than the '06 Sooner squad Boise State beat to finish their undefeated campaign.
Alabama entered that game ranked 4th nationally. Their lone loss came to Florida in the SEC Championship game. Prior to that contest, they spent five consecutive weeks atop the polls. They were, for a good stretch of the season, the top team in college football.
Oklahoma, for how good they were in 2006, could not lay claim to that. Not at the start of the season and certainly not toward the end of it.
Alabama also finished that season 6th nationally. Oklahoma's final ranking in 2006 was 11th. Again, a clear edge to Utah.
But maybe she's looking beyond just the bowl performance. It's just one game, right?
Okay, sure. Yeah.
But look at Boise State's 2006 schedule:
Oregon State (10-4)
@ Wyoming (6-6)
Hawaii (11-3)
@ Utah (8-5) - Still painful
LA Tech (3-10)
@ New Mexico State (4-8)
@ Idaho (4-8)
Fresno State (4-8)
@ San Jose State (9-4)
Utah State (1-11)
@ Nevada (8-5)
Overall, a rather mediocre schedule. Outside of their win over Oklahoma, only Oregon State found its way into the final AP poll at 21st. Beyond that game, their next best win was against Hawaii. They did face five teams with an above .500 record (Utah included), but also faced five teams with four or fewer losses (including Utah State, who went 1-11).
Now compare their schedule with that of Utah's from 2008:
@ Michigan (3-9)
UNLV (5-7)
@ Utah State (3-9)
@ Air Force (8-5)
Weber State
Oregon State (9-4)
@ Wyoming (4-8)
Colorado State (7-6)
@ New Mexico (4-8)
TCU (11-2)
@ SDSU (2-10)
BYU (10-3)
On its face, the schedules don't look that much different. Utah is dragged down a bit by their win over Weber State (though that seems almost equal to Utah State in '06). However, dig deeper and you'll see the Utes again trump Boise State's 2006 squad. Firstly, the Utes, outside of the Sugar Bowl, beat three teams that finished the season in the top-25 (Oregon State, TCU and BYU). That win over TCU is, in my opinion, equal to that of Boise State's victory over the Sooners in the Fiesta. Those Frogs managed to finish the season in the top-ten. Even counting the Broncos' Fiesta Bowl win, they still failed to beat a team that finished the season ranked in the top-ten.
Now beyond the rankings, the Broncos and Utes share a very similar schedule. They're both bogged down by weaker opponents. But it isn't necessarily the strength of their weakest team and more about the greatness of each good team they defeated. In that regard, Boise State doesn't stack up.
What we're left with is a ranking that isn't substantiated by much. Which explains why Watson didn't even try to justify it.
2. Boise State, 2006: The Broncos appear several times on this list, but this is the season that really put them on the map. The win over Oklahoma in the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl made Boise State a household name.
Fantastic! But what's that got to do with being great?
If anything, Boise State's 2009 squad has a far better case for that number two slot than their 2006 counterparts.
Why she felt the need to rank them over the 2008 Utes makes little sense. Not because '06's Broncos weren't good. But because Utah's '08 team did far more.
0 recs |
29 comments
|
Comments
I think you have a fair argument.
But then again, I also think any just about any Boise State team the last decade would put whupping on Utah, just as they did in 2006, in SLC.
The 2008 Utah team was very good though. They barely beat a TCU team that would eventually barely beat Boise State. Still I think Boise State would have walked through Utah that same year. But I’m not being objective here either, I guess.
2002,2003,2004,2006,2007,2008,2009 – any of those Bronco teams would give the Utes all they could handle, and one did.
What’s great about all of this is knowing Graham Watson raises the ire of more than just Bronco fans. And knowing that Utah and Boise State have a much anticiapted series coming up in the next few years. Heck, the Broncos might be in the MWC by then anyway.
So I’m not so worried over who could’ve been the better team. I’m much more interested of who will be the better team going forward.
In all fairness, you do have an argument, just one that can be quantified.
Boise State - The best in all the land (The "land" being Idaho, and large parts of California, Oregon, and Nevada.)
>can't be quantified-
Boise State - The best in all the land (The "land" being Idaho, and large parts of California, Oregon, and Nevada.)
Obviously the head-to-head assertion is subjective speculation.
No one knows if the ’06 Broncos could beat the ’08 Utes.
That is clear.
What is also clear is that in nearly every recorded regard, Utah bested Boise State. They finished with a higher ranking. They beat a higher ranked team in their bowl game. They defeated four teams that finished the season in the top-25, including two in the top-ten.
’Course, you made a lot of sense for the most part. That is outside this asinine claim:
But then again, I also think any just about any Boise State team the last decade would put whupping on Utah, just as they did in 2006, in SLC.
Ridiculous. Trash, in fact. So ridiculous, I think it undercuts any possible opinion on this matter.
2008 Bronco’s would have whooped the 2008 Utes?
The 2005 Broncos over the 2004 Utes?
Jesus, man. That’s just insane.
Nice try, though.
Awwww C'mon...
You didn’t like it?? Why?
I think you caught on there at the end. It is speculation. And Graham Watson is certainly not an authority I put my trust in. Nobody can say who could beat who after the fact. Because people (like my example above) make baseless claims that they know their team would win.
Now, as a fan, do I think my team crushes your puny little team? Of course.
Does it make sense? Absolutely not.
Do I care? Nope.
Here’s what does make sense; they’re gonna play. We’re gonna be able to watch it, then we’ll know.
Comparing opponents, their records, ranking, 1st round draft picks, final scores, yards gained… whatever, of two teams that didn’t play each other is pointless. None of it matters because its all speculative. Just like my sarcasm.
Boise State played and beat two opponents (ranked opponents) that Utah lost to this season. Should I assume Boise State would then also have beaten Utah?
I can, but assuming it doesn’t make it so. Just as assuming the The ’08 Utes were better than the ’06 Broncos. Or vice-versa.
Damn Graham Watson!!
Boise State - The best in all the land (The "land" being Idaho, and large parts of California, Oregon, and Nevada.)
BSU would maul us
This last year? I assume they’d beat us, but last year we were a different team with too much talent and cohesion.
This year you guys had that on us easy.
Doubtful.
TCU beat the hell out of BSU, they plowed them under—the final was close, but the game wasn’t close, BSU was shoved all over that game. Utah was the same type of team. I doubt Boise would have played well against us that year. This year? They’d maul us. Last year? You guys were better than Alabama?
Doubtful. Well, let’s just say it: No.
Wow, you wanna talk about arguments that can't be quantified?
Maybe you ought to go back and read your entire post.
Really? The ’04 Broncos would give the ’04 Utes “all they could handle”? Really?
Really? The ‘08 Broncos would “walk through” the ’08 Utes? It wouldn’t even be a close game?
Look, you’re right — the argument can’t be quantified because the ‘08 Utes never played the ’06 Broncos. But in spite of all the compelling evidence you’ve given to support your opinion (I am, of course, being sarcastic), I think Jazzy did a little better job backing his opinion with facts rather than purely biased statements.
If you have to point out your sarcasm...
is it really sarcastic?
I liked this one;
I think Jazzy did a little better job backing his opinion with facts rather than purely biased statements.
Isn’t an opinion a biased statement?
So isn’t my opinion as credible as any other opinion?
Who needs facts when we have opinions? Not me!!
Boise State - The best in all the land (The "land" being Idaho, and large parts of California, Oregon, and Nevada.)
Glad you liked it.
I was merely pointing out my sarcasm so that it wouldn’t be lost on you. Kind of like how you pointed yours out in your post titled “Awwww C’mon…” I don’t blame you — it’s kind of hard to make sure sarcasm comes across in writing. But to answer your question, yes, it is still sarcasm.
I think you and I have a different idea of what an opinion is. An opinion is not necessarily defined as “a biased statement”. As far as opinions go, certainly they are influenced by our own biases. But to base your opinion entirely upon your bias, ignoring all facts or logic just makes you look foolish.
Orrrr, maybe... just maybe,
By ignoring all facts or logic in my own biased statement, I’m simply using sarcasm, as a vehicle to suggest that there is no remedy or answer to who is the best team , when the said teams don’t play each other.
There is no amount of deductive reasoning you can use to substaniate your argument. All the facts and logic in the world won’t help you, I’m simply pointing that out. They didn’t play, we don’t really know who was better.
My bias says my team is better, yours does the same, that won’t change no matter how many defintions of opinion and sarcasm we cast about.
Pointing out sarcasm takes away from the actual sarcasm doesn’t it? At least I find it less sarcastic. It’s almost an apology or sorts;
I’m popping off, but I better point out my intention.
Then again, pointing it out so it’s not lost on me, carries a different tone, now doesn’t it? It assumes that you assume I’m not capable of the intellect required to notice your wit. In effect, I’m stupid. Which at this point is ironic, considering my first post was a retort, oozing with sarcasm, to the original post, which apparently since I didn’t point it out, was lost on you.
An interesting turn of events. Of course, maybe I’m just stupid.
Maybe I think following only the facts and logic that give you a means to your own end makes you look foolish, or biased, or opinionated, even sarcastic.
Maybe it simply makes you stupid…?
I think though, it just makes you a fan. And we all know there’s nothing wrong with that.
Unless you’re an Idaho fan, that is the defintion of wrong. Good day…
Boise State - The best in all the land (The "land" being Idaho, and large parts of California, Oregon, and Nevada.)
Very well.
Agreed — your sarcasm was indeed lost on me. Like I said, it’s difficult to ensure that sarcasm comes across in writing. Please don’t misunderstand me — when I said I didn’t want my sarcasm to be “lost on you”, that wasn’t my round about way of calling you stupid. I don’t think you’re stupid — I didn’t mean anything more than what I said.
Maybe I think following only the facts and logic that give you a means to your own end makes you look foolish, or biased, or opinionated, even sarcastic.
Maybe it simply makes you stupid…?
A valid point. I agree again — if you only take into account those facts that promote your own agenda, you might end up looking foolish. Then again, if no one is able to present any facts or logical data to prove you wrong, you probably won’t.
Anyway, if your entire argument is that this is a pointless debate because the teams never played, why even bother commenting — thus contributing to a pointless debate? :)
You’re right, we’ll never know which team was better in the past, but I’m looking forward (as I’m sure you are) to finding out which team is better in the future.
As a side note — For what it’s worth, I find you significantly less annoying than most Boise State fans I’ve encountered.
As a side note — For what it’s worth, I find you significantly less annoying than most Boise State fans I’ve encountered.
Well, that’s a step in the right direction, I suppose.
Anyway, if your entire argument is that this is a pointless debate because the teams never played, why even bother commenting — thus contributing to a pointless debate? :)
I don’t know that it’s pointless. I said in my initial post that Jazzy Ute did have a fair argument. Just one that you have no way of winning (it can’t be quantified).
In that I meant that I understood his questioning of Graham Watson’s choice (she does generally make poor choices).
It’s simple really for Graham.
Boise State is the winningest team in the decade, 112-17. Not just the winningest team in the NON-BCS, the best in the country over the last ten years.
They are the highest scoring team in the country during the decade, 41.4 ppg.
They have won their respective conference 8 out of 10 times.
They have a home record of 71-2 during that time (they’ve never lost a WAC game at home).
68-4 in conference play during the decade.
They have had FOUR undefeated regular seasons since 2004.
So it’s not really about whether or not Utah had better teams in certain years. The decade long body of work speaks for itself. Utah can’t top Boise State in any of those categories.
Nor can any other NON-BCS team out there, thus her decision.
Boise State - The best in all the land (The "land" being Idaho, and large parts of California, Oregon, and Nevada.)
Now that's more like it
BSU definitely has accomplished a lot in recent years. They have one of the best football programs in the country, and I don’t see anyone in the WAC being able to challenge them for the conference any time soon.
Here’s hoping non-aq teams like Utah and Boise continue to stick it to the BCS until some kind of reform happens.
Cheers.
Here 's another thing.
Here’s hoping non-aq teams like Utah and Boise continue to stick it to the BCS until some kind of reform happens.
Your comment is exactly the reason I’d rather the MWC not be given AQ status. All that does is perpetuate a system that is fundamentally flawed. Keep the Non-AQ tag, and continue demoralizing every AQ team you play. Doing that does far more to push for reform than simply becoming an BCS Conference.
Boise State - The best in all the land (The "land" being Idaho, and large parts of California, Oregon, and Nevada.)
well we will find out in the future because i saw a home and home games in the future schedule
i really don’t think boise state could have beaten the 08 utes. it was a magical year. also the record stands like this. utah 2—0 in bcs games, bsu 2-0 in bcs games. i would say our victory over alabama was the best win over an aq bcs team not only because it was tradition rich bama but it was basically a home game for them. here is another part of the resume: utah has 19 aq bcs wins which is the most of any non aq bcs team. i think boise state has around 8 or 9 but it’s nowhere around utah’s number. yes boise has beaten utah 2 or 3 times in the last 12 years and that counts for something but i’ll take utah’s resume over boise state. however boise state is the money train and noone can deny that. they are so far in first place when it comes to beating the spread when they play. i believe they are around 54 -58 games over 50% ever since joining division 1-a football when it was called that or fbs.
i would have liked the stressed out picture of nick saban during the sugar bowl. it was classic.
i'm all about covering the spread and moneylines. i was building a house, i don't deserve this, deserves have nothing to do with it. bang. "unforgiven"
by wolfmanshowlforever on Jan 21, 2010 12:49 PM MST reply actions
huh
you also said many times throughout this year that TCU was better than Boise State, you were obviously mistaken. As I said when you were posting on the obnug fansite, TCU’s “big” wins were against clemson and virginia, I don’t know in what world those would be considered good wins.
2006 Bronco’s and 2008 Utes were both very very good. You can’t really compare them becusue both of those teams played oppoenents that were supposed to slaughter them. The underdog always has a little edge because they have something to play for. And its even harder to say which was a better win, both oklahoma in 06 and bama in 08 were very good, and both are filled with history and tradition.
i admitted my mistake on the obnug blog too.
tcu’s wins over utah, byu clemson, smu and airforce were good wins. all those teams won their bowl games. smu just destroyed nevada but i live in nevada and know the wolfpack had many problems leading up to that game. boise state’s big win was vs oregon. they lost to osu. ohio state has not been winning many bowl games lately. in fact the only team that won a bowl game on your schedule was idaho. they did it in exciting fashion too. is that not the team you guys always make fun off too? bama was better win because it was basically a home game for them. i will give you that the oklahoma game was one of the most exciting off all-time. i also get sick of espn and the general public saying boise won with trick plays. they actually dominated three quarters vs okie and the okie had one really good quarter. i made alot of maney on that game too. i always said it’s a bad idea to give boise state points in any game. i did not follow my own advice but i did have the rest of the mwc games and i won. that means i went 4-1. that is money. i would never put down boise either i just thought tcu was a little better. i was wrong. nobody can pick em all.
i'm all about covering the spread and moneylines. i was building a house, i don't deserve this, deserves have nothing to do with it. bang. "unforgiven"
by wolfmanshowlforever on Jan 22, 2010 3:27 PM MST up reply actions
BSU tough as nails
Tough at home especially.
by MeanBobMean on Jan 22, 2010 8:30 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
Well said.
Boise State - The best in all the land (The "land" being Idaho, and large parts of California, Oregon, and Nevada.)
Yeah, Mark May thought the Pitt '04 team was great....
He was the only one. Oklahoma wasn’t really a quality opponent in ‘06-’07? If they wouldn’t have been completely robbed by Pac-10 officials there was a good chance they would have been in the NC game. I don’t think that argument carries any weight at all.
If they wouldn’t have been completely robbed by Pac-10 officials there was a good chance they would have been in the NC game.
That’s a fact that is routinely missed by Boise State detractors.
Oklahoma’s loss in Eugene was highly controversial (the PAC10 officials were suspended). If the Sooners had won that game (as they should have), they would have played in the Title game that year instead of Florida, against Ohio State, as an 11-1 BIGXII champ. Instead they were relegated to the Fiesta Bowl.
Imagine what could have been?
Boise State - The best in all the land (The "land" being Idaho, and large parts of California, Oregon, and Nevada.)
Hmmmm . . .
What could have been . . . you guys would have had to play Florida? They were a better teamn than Oklahoma.
Well,
At least Ohio State made them look better than Oklahoma.
But you never know…
Boise State - The best in all the land (The "land" being Idaho, and large parts of California, Oregon, and Nevada.)
Boise State did end up being the only undefeated team in the nation that year...
… I’m just sayin’…
Boise State - The best in all the land (The "land" being Idaho, and large parts of California, Oregon, and Nevada.)
boise state is great ats but i'll take utah's 19 aq bcs wins over bsu's 7 or 8.
by the end of next year i think utah will have at least 21 b/c we have three more aq bcs teams in the 2010 season.
I'm all about covering the spread and moneylines. I was building a house, I don't deserve this, deserves have nothing to do with it. Bang. "Unforgiven" I drink your milkshake. I drink it up! "There Will BE Blood"
by wolfmanshowlforever on Feb 7, 2010 10:31 PM MST reply actions

by 











