The Rest of College Football

[WM Wolverine]

M played 10 bowl eligible teams and Minnesota & Eastern.

[Dr. Strangelove]

I wouldn't doubt it if that turned out to be true. Michigan was in a position to have influence over whom they would play, and figured they matched up better with VA Tech than Boise.

Boise gets "up" for two games a year. One where they actually play a major BCS team in their pre-season, and secondly, in their bowl game.

I'd trade schedules with Boise in a heartbeat. Especially next year. Let them play that meat-grinder we are facing.

And this is typically how BCS fans write off Boise. Denounce them as weak schedulers while refusing to play them because they're too likely to beat you. After all, ANYONE can routinely beat Top 10 teams if you only play a couple a year.

Boise played 8 bowl eligible teams, not that that really means a whole lot

[SeanB]

I believe he stopped playing at AZ State because of concussions. Is that right?

I read that, too, JD. Last I heard, he was a GA there.

Who knows with the new coach in town, though.

[Paul L]

You can ask Boise State fans about that and they will not have kind words for Michigan over it. Rumors were flying that Michigan and Delaney pushed the Sugar to take Virginia Tech instead. Did not want to play Boise.

It's a no-win situation -- win and big deal, you were supposed to. Lose and you lost to a freakin' MWC team.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Except I don't think there's anyone who regards losing to Boise as an embarrassment. Oregon, Oklahoma, Georgia, Virginia Tech have all been beaten by them over the last 4 years. Anyone who considers Boise a "team you're supposed to beat" is a moron at this point. They would have even more wins against BCS teams except our bowl system and its automatic bids condemns them to crappy 3rd tier bowl games if they aren't undefeated.

The biggest joke of all came in 2009 when Boise and TCU were forced to play each other in a BCS bowl, for the second eyar in a row, rather than give them an opportunity to play a "traditional power". So Boise gets blasted on both ends. They are bashed for playing a weak schedule, which is dictated to them by the power conferences, and every time they actually do win against a BCS team, it's written off because they wouldn't go undefeated if they had to play a "full schedule". Which, of course, is denied them because the power conferences don't want to play them, because they will lose far too often.

[Jeff Buchanan]

And this is typically how BCS fans write off Boise. Denounce them as weak schedulers while refusing to play them because they're too likely to beat you. After all, ANYONE can routinely beat Top 10 teams if you only play a couple a year.

Boise played 8 bowl eligible teams, not that that really means a whole lot

Right ...... the implication, I assume then, is that Michigan pussied out and argued for the team that gave them a better match-up, yes?

If you're intent is to cast some kind of shadow over M football in 2011 compared to osu's willingness to take on all comers, I offer up the circumstance where osu's head coach screwed the Sugar bowl committee, the BCS, the NCAA and Arkansas by suiting up 5 ineligible players whom without, Arkansas would have stomped osu.

This kind of BS trumps anything Dave Brandon might have finagled with the Sugar Bowl a thousand times over.

Every time an osu fan steps in here and makes a post that tries to cast doubt on the excellence of M football there will be a slew of posts, mine first among them, reminding you fans of the ugly truth about osu football. It is your destiny.

[hack]

That is only appropriate. Ohio's is an inferior program to Michigans in every possible metric, both qualitative and quantitative. Their wins will never be as satisfying and their losses will sting more. They will be paying the price far beyond a bowl ban and a few lost scholarships.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Let's not get side-tracked into another discussion about THE Ohio State. This is a Michigan forum. Let's keep the topic on how far Michigan has fallen when it has to duck Boise State in order to secure easier wins and fluff up Coach Hoke's record. The Fort needs something to point to and say "SEE? Michigan is BACK, Baby!"

[lineygoblue]

Paul said it very well above. Michigan has more to lose, and Boise has everything to gain. If Michigan wins, its "big deal, they were supposed to win". Lose, and they add our scalp to the rest of the "bigs" that they have knocked off.

Michigan allowed its good name to be ruined enough by losing to App State at home. I'd say that is a sufficient enough contribution to the cause of smaller schools.

Maybe the "flagship" of the B1G should "show the way", and schedule Boise. Who knows? Maybe the rest of the conference will follow along ....

[Optimus Prime]

NEVER happen the Urban Fryer is Ubber-Risk-Avoidance.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Michigan State is playing Boise next year. At least the flagship of the state of Michigan is showing some guts.

And come on, Liney. Boise State cannot remotely be compared to Appy State in terms of prestige. Do you really believe losing to them would be a huge embarrassment?

[Optimus Prime]

Like the Urban Fryer coaching in the Gator? Oh please....

[lineygoblue]

And come on, Liney. Boise State cannot remotely be compared to Appy State in terms of prestige. Do you really believe losing to them would be a huge embarrassment?

Well, in terms of reality, it wouldn't be such a big deal, because Boise is a good team. But the sports networks and writers around the country would interpret it as some sort of "breakthrough" for Boise, seeing that they defeated Michigan on a "big stage".

We don't need that. We're still trying to re-establish OUR program as an "elite" program. We don't need Boise validating their claim to BCS contention at our expense.

[Dr. Strangelove]

No offense but you're flattering yourself a bit to think Boise beating Michigan would gain them all sorts of credibility they currently don't have. If anything, it was their win over Oklahoma 5 years that did that. And since then they've beaten Oregon, Virginia Tech, and this year Georgia.

[lineygoblue]

As I said above. There is no advantage to Michigan to give Boise the opportunity to add our scalp to those names.

Sure, we could, and should be able to beat them. But, like the others found, Boise can turn it on when they need to. And, I can't think of anything that would motivate Boise more, than to take on and beat Michigan in the Sugar Bowl.

I think maybe Dave Brandon was thinking along those same lines. If he was given the opportunity to choose an opponent, I don't blame him for turning down Boise. I'd rather see us take on Va Tech.