OU 2000 = BSU 2006?

[budbarrybob]

whuddya think? some new years food for thought

Not exactly but...

Both teams undefeated, conference champions
Both unrespected overachievers
Both young coaches
Both with new kid on the block mentality (it had been a long time for OU)
Both were "Cinderella" teams
Both at the time faced well respected Seasoned Coaches in their bowl
Both had savy play calling with a gamer as QB

IF BSU had been in the Big 12 they'd be playing for a MNC (assuming they'd go undefeated --- not a far stretch)

:pop:

[TUSooner]

Not a bad analogy.

[OSUAggie]

Boise might've, and I stress might've, won 7 games with OU's 2000 schedule.

[Widescreen]

Boise would not have gone undefeated in the B12 this year.

[TUSooner]

Boise would not have gone undefeated in the B12 this year.

Exactly, which leads me to this observation:

People frequently complain when a team seems to be wheedling its way into BCS contention by scheduling soft out-of-conference opponents. For example, Auburn got jabbed recently for playing the Citadel, and you can think of other examples for sure.

But some of the same people are saying that it doesn't matter that BSu had a soft CONFERENCE schedule. :eek: They seem to argue that it should be OK for BSu to go to the BCS biggy on the strength of a WAC championship and maybe one semi-tough non-conference foe, but they turn around and harp on an SEC, Big 12 or Big 10 team for playing a patsy, even though the major confenrence team faces a tough conference schedule each year.

Give due credit to BSu for a one-off perfect season, but excessive sympathy for the "little guy" makes for some astonishing inconsistency, and it moves things in the wrong direction by encouraging everybody to soften up their schedules.

That's another reason why I won't cry when Cinderella gets her comeuppance.

[Ash]

Boise would have won the North for whatever that's worth.

[soonerinabilene]

Boise would have won the North for whatever that's worth.
heck, baylor could have won the north the last few years.

[Ash]

heck, baylor could have won the north the last few years.

disagree, but you're probably not far off:twinkies:

[OK2LA]

Exactly, which leads me to this observation:

People frequently complain when a team seems to be wheedling its way into BCS contention by scheduling soft out-of-conference opponents. For example, Auburn got jabbed recently for playing the Citadel, and you can think of other examples for sure.

But some of the same people are saying that it doesn't matter that BSu had a soft CONFERENCE schedule. :eek: They seem to argue that it should be OK for BSu to go to the BCS biggy on the strength of a WAC championship and maybe one semi-tough non-conference foe, but they turn around and harp on an SEC, Big 12 or Big 10 team for playing a patsy, even though the major confenrence team faces a tough conference schedule each year.

Give due credit to BSu for a one-off perfect season, but excessive sympathy for the "little guy" makes for some astonishing inconsistency, and it moves things in the wrong direction by encouraging everybody to soften up their schedules.

That's another reason why I won't cry when Cinderella gets her comeuppance.

Couldn't have said it any better. :pop:

[blackbeauty02]

agree on everything minus the national championship and the schedule. i get so mad when people are saying oh Oklahoma just got beat by little 'ole Boise State

1. BSU was a very good team this year.
2. OU was not the best team this year but a good one.

[OSUAggie]

So... Boise is a "very good team" because they beat a "good" Oklahoma team (by 1 in OT on fluke plays) when it was fairly obvious that Oklahoma did not play very well while Boise played above their heads? I don't buy it...

Oklahoma is a better team than Boise. Sometimes the best team doesn't win the game, and that's a fact that some people (nationally) seem to not be able to grasp. Boise is very sure of themselves schematically, which makes up for a lack of athleticism.

However, if Boise were to play in one of the 5 big conferences, they wouldn't sniff undefeated, because familiarity would defeat the odd schemes. Athletically, they don't belong in the same sentence as Oklahoma, Texas, or even OSU. They had a one-time opportunity to "shock the world," and they did it. That doesn't mean that they're great or very good or whatever other superlative adjective might be fun to insert when describing them. Mid-majors are mid-majors for a reason. They're not as good as the major programs.

[picasso]

no comparison.

Boise has been winning for some years now. OU 2000 was just 2 years removed from not being very competitive.

[blackbeauty02]

So... Boise is a "very good team" because they beat a "good" Oklahoma team (by 1 in OT on fluke plays) when it was fairly obvious that Oklahoma did not play very well while Boise played above their heads? I don't buy it...

Oklahoma is a better team than Boise. Sometimes the best team doesn't win the game, and that's a fact that some people (nationally) seem to not be able to grasp. Boise is very sure of themselves schematically, which makes up for a lack of athleticism.

However, if Boise were to play in one of the 5 big conferences, they wouldn't sniff undefeated, because familiarity would defeat the odd schemes. Athletically, they don't belong in the same sentence as Oklahoma, Texas, or even OSU. They had a one-time opportunity to "shock the world," and they did it. That doesn't mean that they're great or very good or whatever other superlative adjective might be fun to insert when describing them. Mid-majors are mid-majors for a reason. They're not as good as the major programs.

agreed. i don't mean that Boise State was better than us but they were good enough on that day to beat us and we were not the best we could be to prevent that. That's what people (esp. dumbass Texas fans) don't understand. On "any given sunday (monday in our case)" the best team in the nation can lose to the worst team in the nation. It's not all skill...it's heart. And sometimes the underdog has more heart b/c they want it more and that's enough to get it done.

I know that if BSU were playing in any other division they would not made it near that far. I just think people (esp. dumbass Texas fans) need to shut up and quit saying we're the laughing stock of college football. You can't make fun when you didn't finish your season. Texas is the laughing stock b/c they couldn't beat a crappy KU team when the Big XII game was pretty much theirs for the taking.

[TUSooner]

So... Boise is a "very good team" because they beat a "good" Oklahoma team (by 1 in OT on fluke plays) when it was fairly obvious that Oklahoma did not play very well while Boise played above their heads? I don't buy it...

Oklahoma is a better team than Boise. Sometimes the best team doesn't win the game, and that's a fact that some people (nationally) seem to not be able to grasp. Boise is very sure of themselves schematically, which makes up for a lack of athleticism.

However, if Boise were to play in one of the 5 big conferences, they wouldn't sniff undefeated, because familiarity would defeat the odd schemes. Athletically, they don't belong in the same sentence as Oklahoma, Texas, or even OSU. They had a one-time opportunity to "shock the world," and they did it. That doesn't mean that they're great or very good or whatever other superlative adjective might be fun to insert when describing them. Mid-majors are mid-majors for a reason. They're not as good as the major programs.

"Good" or "very good".... meh, whatever. But I agree with your next two paragraphs. Every team has at least a game or 2 when they are "off", and you just can't be spot on 100% every game.

When the toughest teams you play are Oregon St. and Hawaii, and you also play Sacramento State and that ilk the rest of he time, you have a better chance of getting away with off-days and you dont need to be spot on 100%very often. When you play in a tougher conference - even the not-so-awesome Big 12 - there are at least a couple of teams that are just good enough to make a better team pay for an off day.

[blackbeauty02]

can someone tell me why i can't post new forums? i know out of left park and not appropriate for this topic but w-t-f?

[GrapevineSooner]

can someone tell me why i can't post new forums? i know out of left park and not appropriate for this topic but w-t-f?

IM Norm.

And do so nicely.

[TXBOOMER]

I don't think there is any way Boise would have won the North this year. They could not take the week in week out pounding. They would wear down. They beat us on pure emotion and better play calling. I think we would beat them 8 or 9 out of 10.

[blackbeauty02]

where do i find norm? is that his sn?

[OSUAggie]

where do i find norm? is that his sn?

try this (http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/member.php?u=36386)

[blackbeauty02]

IM Norm.

And do so nicely.

Hey Grapevine...how was this? I hope I impressed him enough to give me my much desired powers. Unknown to all I plan to use them to take over first soonerfans.com and then...the world! No one will ever see it coming.



Dear Norm,

I am writing you this letter in regards to my posting ability. I was wondering when I would have the permission to post new forums. I understand the laws and regulations surrounding this and will follow all guidelines with the utmost respect. I will still be doing most of my posting on other people's posts but there is one forum that I have been dying to start and will probably be one of the few that I write. Thank you and have a splendid day.

Cordially,

blackbeauty02

[josh09]

not =.

>

[Ash]

I don't think there is any way Boise would have won the North this year. They could not take the week in week out pounding. They would wear down. They beat us on pure emotion and better play calling. I think we would beat them 8 or 9 out of 10.

The week after week pounding by the big bad Colorado Buffaloes, or Iowa State, or who? Maybe you're right but outside of Nebraska who in the north could have slugged it out on both sides of the ball?

We win if we played a better first half.

[47straight]

I think our fans in 2000 were a lot classier than the ones from Potato State. We also didn't have a dirtbag thugg at tight end. The analogy fails.