Quote:
Originally Posted by Cali Coug
Why is it embarrassing? Because they lost to a WAC team?
You are stuck in this odd paradigm where you think a team is only good if they play really good competition. Who a team plays has nothing to do with how good a team is. Get it in your head. They are two totally different issues. Strong schedules help us measure a team's quality, but the lack of a strong schedule only means we have less information to guide us in evaluating a team's quality.
As it turns out, Boise is good- very, very good. They beat a solid MWC team which was superior to the Utah team from last year in all respects. Better offense, better defense (ok- I will give Utah the nod on special teams), just better overall. Boise beat them. They would have beaten Utah from last year too. Lucky for Utah they didn't have to play Boise.
Scary thing is, Boise will be even better next year. No shame in losing to them. They may be the best team in the nation this year.
|
What do you think this is? The academy awards? I've got news for you. You live in a country that determines truth not based on feelings, not based on superstition, but on empiricism. Your record and who you beat is the sole determinant of who is better.
Why is Boise very good? How do we know? Because TCU is better than 2008 Utah? How so? Because you say so? I've got Utah 31 Alabama 17 that says Utah is certainly better than TCU, and probably better than Boise. Have you hard? TCU finished 12-1, not 13-0, and lost to Boise 17-10. As Arch said, yesterday's game was UGLY.
The sad thing is, the biggest winner is the BCS. Outside the mountain west no one cares that Boise beat TCU. Who cares, a game between mid-majors. This wasn't like beating Bear Bryant's school in the SUGAR BOWL.