The "Boise State" of 2007?

[ThEgReAtOnE]

In light of all the BStU talk, I must throw out something I think everyone should watch for, in 2007. The new "BStU"! First there was Utah, then Rutgers and as of Monday night Boise State. These are teams that made the turn from Mid-Major Uni's to solid respected programs.

In 2007, I give you....

the Rice Owls

2007 Outlook:
Go ahead laugh - if you want - but I have a feeling the Owls will make a little more noise, next year. They return Heisman-finalist, WR-Jarrett Dillard (5'11 175). Also, they bring back an excellent QB, in Chase Clements (6'2 205). This kid only played in 8 games, and still managed to throw for 1707 yds and 21 TDS, with just 5 INTS. He didn't play in the Troy game, nor the Texas, UCLA and FSU games. He was 6-2 as a Starter, but was injured throughtout the season. A tall target in 6'6 Freshman, WR/TE-Taylor Wardlow, returns - as well.

They return a stout RB, that should have split time with (SR) Quinton Smith - but didn't due to injury - in RB-Bio Bilaye-Benibo (6'1 210). They also bring back 5 other Offensive starters, mainly across the O-line, in (massive) OT-Lute Barber (6'7 300), OG-Robby Heos (6'4 305), OC-Austin Wilkinson (6'2 280) and OG-David Perkins (6'4 285). Defensively, they return 7 starters (5 of which were Sophmores in 2006). Most noticeably, fierce Sophmore LB-Brian Raines (5'11 205), who compiled a stat total of 118 tckls - in 2006 - to lead the team. All in all - starting or not - the Owls return 11 of their top 16 tcklrs. And return 5 out of a 7-man starting rotation, in the Secondary. (Those 5 recorded 8 INTS.)

In summation, the Owls return 16 starters. 35 non-Seniors, either, started or saw significant PT. They only graduate 12 Seniors, and return a bottom heavy, 51 RS-Freshmen/Freshmen and RS-Sophmores/Sophmores.

And in regards to incoming talent, QB-Nathan Dick, QB-Pierce Beasley(RF), S-Max Anyiam, S-Terrence Garmon, OT-William Hinton, DB-Andrew Sendejo, TE-Kody Emmert, RB-Jarvis Crawford and OG-Tyler Parish should be making some noise, this upcoming season. Unlike years past - when Rice was lucky to get 1 or 2 2-Star Recruits - they are recruiting mid to top ranked athletes, that are seemingly hidden gems. Heisman finalist, Jarrett Dillard, was rated as a 1-Star recruit, coming out of Arlington, TX. 2-Star and 3-Star athletes are committing to Rice, with ease. I sense a few 4-Star recruits are going to come Rice's way, in the next few years.

Returning Offensive Production:
Total Yards: 2,537 yds/31 tds
Quality wins: Tulsa (8-5), East Carolina (8-5), SMU (6-6)

In closing...
Not much can be said, except, the future for Rice looks much better than the past. Can they be the next Boise State? They're certainly on the right track. I look forward to seeing them, next season.

[bleedblue]

There won't, I don't see any non-BCS team cracking the BCS next year

[Texasfrog]

Boise State is one of those fluke teams that is going to happen about once every 3 years now.

There will be a non-BCS conference team about every 3 years that has a senior laden team and pretty much plays a pasty schedule and gets into a BCS Bowl and plays their one major game of the year and has a 50-50 shot at pulling it off.

I still say that if teams like Utah (a few seasons ago) and Boise St (this year) had to play the whole season in a BCS Conference. They would of taken at least 1 or 2 losses on the year.

Having to play against an above average team almost every Saturday in a BCS Conference isnt easy for any team in the country. Utah and Boise St would of had at least 1 game where the ball just didnt bounce their way in the game and it cost them a "W."

Shoot, I just looked at Boise St schedule. They really played no one all year. I'll give them a little respect for beating Hawaii and Oregon St but that's about it.

[FarmerFootballPlayer]

I would absolutely love to see Rice establish a solid Football program.

[ThEgReAtOnE]

Boise State is one of those fluke teams that is going to happen about once every 3 years now.

There will be a non-BCS conference team about every 3 years that has a senior laden team and pretty much plays a pasty schedule and gets into a BCS Bowl and plays their one major game of the year and has a 50-50 shot at pulling it off.

I still say that if teams like Utah (a few seasons ago) and Boise St (this year) had to play the whole season in a BCS Conference. They would of taken at least 1 or 2 losses on the year.

Having to play against an above average team almost every Saturday in a BCS Conference isnt easy for any team in the country. Utah and Boise St would of had at least 1 game where the ball just didnt bounce their way in the game and it cost them a "W."


I agree 1000%! BStU started 14 5th-yr Seniors, 5 Juniors and 3 Sophmores, on this years' squad. And even with all those Seniors they still struggled to beat a team of 10 Sophmores, 3 Freshmen, 4 Juniors and 5 Seniors, by 1 pt - using a trick play.

Good teams that are that Senior-rich, usually, come once every 3 yrs. And from Conferences like the WAC, C-USA and Sunbelt it doesn't usually matter, because there is no true SOS, the talent level is lower and there is no convincing depth.

[da hawaiian]

I think Hawaii and BYU will make a run next year

[Texasfrog]

I think Hawaii and BYU will make a run next year

I think the travel for Hawaii pretty much knocks them out. I know when teams come to Hawaii and play them they are about as tough as anyone in the country because teams have to travel to Hawaii and get caught up in the (Travel, time difference and just being in Hawaii).

But, when Hawaii has to come to the main-land and play against one of the lower 48 State teams. It's tough on them and that usually bites them in the butt a couple of times during the regular season.;)

[ThEgReAtOnE]

I think Hawaii and BYU will make a run next year

They might. Then again, I think BYU is a little more recognized, than Rice, Hawaii and BStU.

[Texasfrog]

They might. Then again, I think BYU is a little more recognized, than Rice, Hawaii and BStU.

I think Rice will have a great season in 2008. They will have an experienced Senior laden team and a coaching staff that has been there with the system for a few years.

It wouldnt surprise me at all to them run the table in 2008 and make a major Bowl game.

[ThEgReAtOnE]

I think Rice will have a great season in 2008. They will have an experienced Senior laden team and a coaching staff that has been there with the system for a few years.

It wouldnt surprise me at all to them run the table in 2008 and make a major Bowl game.

Exactomundo!

[farmerfan]

I agree 1000%! BStU started 14 5th-yr Seniors, 5 Juniors and 3 Sophmores, on this years' squad. And even with all those Seniors they still struggled to beat a team of 10 Sophmores, 3 Freshmen, 4 Juniors and 5 Seniors, by 1 pt - using a trick play.

Good teams that are that Senior-rich, usually, come once every 3 yrs. And from Conferences like the WAC, C-USA and Sunbelt it doesn't usually matter, because there is no true SOS, the talent level is lower and there is no convincing depth.

So OU using those trick plays on their run to a national title back in 2000 made the run a fluke right? OU under Stoops in his first few years made a living off of trick plays.

I kept hearing all week in SEC country about tirck play this and trick play that. It was funny to silence people when I informed them that Boise only used 3 trick plays the entire game. Also everyone makes a point about the 4 turnovers that OU had well what about the turnover that Boise had that allowed OU to take their first lead of the game with a minute left in the game?
Boise out played OU all game long, they created a turnover to give them that 14 point lead early on by having their DE blow past the OU offensive line and strip the ball from Thompson. That is not OU giving them the ball, that was Boise creating the turnover and an opportunity for themselve. I think most people in this country are not giving the Broncos enough credit and too many people are tarnishing this victory they had.

[ThEgReAtOnE]

So OU using those trick plays on their run to a national title back in 2000 made the run a fluke right? OU under Stoops in his first few years made a living off of trick plays.

I kept hearing all week in SEC country about tirck play this and trick play that. It was funny to silence people when I informed them that Boise only used 3 trick plays the entire game. Also everyone makes a point about the 4 turnovers that OU had well what about the turnover that Boise had that allowed OU to take their first lead of the game with a minute left in the game?
Boise out played OU all game long, they created a turnover to give them that 14 point lead early on by having their DE blow past the OU offensive line and strip the ball from Thompson. That is not OU giving them the ball, that was Boise creating the turnover and an opportunity for themselve. I think most people in this country are not giving the Broncos enough credit and too many people are tarnishing this victory they had.

I'm not tarnishing Boise State's win. I'm simply saying that if UT, LSU, Michigan, OU, USC, Ohio State, Florida and about 20 other Major Uni's had that kind of Senior leadership (14th 5th-Yr Senior Starters) they'd be playing for Super Bowls, let alone National Titles. Wonder how many scouts will at Boise, compared to Norman, OK - this Spring?

And yes, 3 underthrown passes, 2 that were sure-tds and a tip ball - that was INT'd and returned for a td is more than BStU outplaying OU....it's OU outplaying themselves, as well.

BStU is much like Utah, a few yrs back. They will only have teams, like this Senior-rich team, once every 3 or 4 yrs. Think about it...BStU recruits 3-Star athletes, while Major Uni's recruit 4-Star and 5-Star athletes, and most of the time those 4-Star and 5-Star athletes are gone after their Junior seasons.

There's a reason a team has 14 5th-yr Seniors starting for them....and, most of the time, it has nothing to do with not wanting to enter the NFL Draft early.

Btw...

Outplayed?...

OU (10 Sophmores, 3 Freshmen, 4 Juniors and 5 Seniors)

407 yds of Offense
23 1st-Downs
4 turnovers
4 Sacks
...winning with :18 seconds to play.

BStU (14 5th-yr Seniors, 5 Juniors and 3 Sophmores)
370 yds of Offense
17 1st-Downs
3 turnovers
2 Sacks
...losing with :18 seconds to play.

...No, I'd rather stick to "OU did more to beat themselves, than BStU did to win".

[Texasfrog]

Boise St had a very solid team this year. I'll still say that if they played in a BCS Conference they would of had at least 1 loss and maybe even 2.

Just like Utah a couple of seasons ago.

Next, we'll see just how good Boise St is as a "Program" next year. If they come back and repeat and have another Top #25 season. I'll give them a little more respect.

But, I think they'll have at least 2 or maybe 3 losses next year before they play in a Bowl game.

But, I do think about every 3 years we'll see a solid team come out of a Conference's like the WAC, MWC, USA or MAC that puts together a (12-0) season and ends up in a BCS Bowl game.;)

[farmerfan]

I'm not tarnishing Boise State's win. I'm simply saying that if UT, LSU, Michigan, OU, USC, Ohio State, Florida and about 20 other Major Uni's had that kind of Senior leadership (14th 5th-Yr Senior Starters) they'd be playing for Super Bowls, let alone National Titles. Wonder how many scouts will at Boise, compared to Norman, OK - this Spring?

And yes, 3 underthrown passes, 2 that were sure-tds and a tip ball - that was INT'd and returned for a td is more than BStU outplaying OU....it's OU outplaying themselves, as well.

BStU is much like Utah, a few yrs back. They will only have teams, like this Senior-rich team, once every 3 or 4 yrs. Think about it...BStU recruits 3-Star athletes, while Major Uni's recruit 4-Star and 5-Star athletes, and most of the time those 4-Star and 5-Star athletes are gone after their Junior seasons.

There's a reason a team has 14 5th-yr Seniors starting for them....and, most of the time, it has nothing to do with not wanting to enter the NFL Draft early.

Btw...

Outplayed?...

OU (10 Sophmores, 3 Freshmen, 4 Juniors and 5 Seniors)

407 yds of Offense
23 1st-Downs
4 turnovers
4 Sacks
...winning with :18 seconds to play.

BStU (14 5th-yr Seniors, 5 Juniors and 3 Sophmores)
370 yds of Offense
17 1st-Downs
3 turnovers
2 Sacks
...losing with :18 seconds to play.

...No, I'd rather stick to "OU did more to beat themselves, than BStU did to win".




SO once again you look past the underthrown give me interception that Zambrowsky gave OU to take the lead with a little over a minute left. You know the first lead OU had all night. Including being down by double digits for the better part of 2+ quarters. But your right that means Boise did not out play OU. OU just gave them every thing. Boise who went 13-0 just sucked. The big boy elitist attitude still reamins in this country and it cracks me up. I guess no one learned a lesson from George Mason last year who advanced to the final four after defeating Michigan State, UNC, Wichita State and UCONN, teams that have combined for roughly 30 trips to the final four and around 10 national championships.
Football is more than just stats. Boise had no problem with OU for the better part of 3 quarters. They scored on their defense, they got the stops when needed and created turnovers.
But I did notice after I brought up OU's reputation under Stoops for using trick plays you got away from that..
Now if you dont mind One, why havent you hit on the fact that Boise "gave" OU the go ahead score. Or did you see that as supieror play on the part of OU?

[ThEgReAtOnE]

SO once again you look past the underthrown give me interception that Zambrowsky gave OU to take the lead with a little over a minute left. You know the first lead OU had all night. Including being down by double digits for the better part of 2+ quarters. But your right that means Boise did not out play OU. OU just gave them every thing. Boise who went 13-0 just sucked. The big boy elitist attitude still reamins in this country and it cracks me up. I guess no one learned a lesson from George Mason last year who advanced to the final four after defeating Michigan State, UNC, Wichita State and UCONN, teams that have combined for roughly 30 trips to the final four and around 10 national championships.
Football is more than just stats. Boise had no problem with OU for the better part of 3 quarters. They scored on their defense, they got the stops when needed and created turnovers.
But I did notice after I brought up OU's reputation under Stoops for using trick plays you got away from that..
Now if you dont mind One, why havent you hit on the fact that Boise "gave" OU the go ahead score. Or did you see that as supieror play on the part of OU?


Nothing wrong with running a trick play...alot of teams do it. At the same time, the notion is understood that if you have to resort to trick plays, you most likely wouldn't score any other way. But, trick plays are part of the game. Stoops knows this, I'm sure.

BStU didn't have a turnover until the 4th qtr of the game. OU had already turned the ball over, twice, before the end of the 1st half. (1 being a stripped ball by Thompson and 1 being an underthrown ball to a WR that was cleary 5 or 6 steps ahead of BStU's best DB.) In the second half, BStU didn't have over 100 yds of offense, until the "trick play".

Again, with the Offensive Production...

BStU
1st Half
Gained 183 yds
0 turnovers
0 underthrown sure-tds
3 Punts
Started on OU side of field 1 time

2nd Half
Gained 157 yds
3 turnovers (1 Returned for TD)
0 underthrown sure-tds
5 Punts
Started on OU side of field 1 time

OT
7 plays in order to score

OU
1st half
Gained 188 yds
2 turnovers
2 underthrown sure-tds (2 INTS)
2 Punts
Started on BStU side of field 0 times

2nd Half
Gained 252 yds
2 turnover (1 Returned for TD)
0 underthrown sure-tds
2 Punts
Started on BStU side of field 1 time

OT
1 play in order to score

FF, I'm not saying that Senior-rich team didn't play its' heart out - thus deserved to win, I'm saying the Sophmore-rich OU team didn't look very good. Did it have some to do with BStU? Absolutely. They played a great game. But even the HC admitted in interviews that he was nervous the entire time, because the OU team seemed to just get stronger and faster, as the game went on. And that OU didn't look like themselves, in the 1st half. He knew what was coming, in the secod half. And all of this, considering OU outgained BStU in both half's, offensively.

Hats off BStU, they took advantage of the opportunity...and won. But to say they beat OU up and down the field and OU only got ahead because BStU let them, is hilarious...considering OU outgained BStU and gave up more turnovers - thus allowing BStU to take such an overrated lead. Nope..there's no doubt that if the game is played 10 times - using this years' class, OU wins 8 or 9 of them. In almost all years, OU destroys BStU...easily.;)

[farmerfan]

Nothing wrong with running a trick play...alot of teams do it. At the same time, the notion is understood that if you have to resort to trick plays, you most likely wouldn't score any other way. But, trick plays are part of the game. Stoops knows this, I'm sure.

BStU didn't have a turnover until the 4th qtr of the game. OU had already turned the ball over, twice, before the end of the 1st half. (1 being a stripped ball by Thompson and 1 being an underthrown ball to a WR that was cleary 5 or 6 steps ahead of BStU's best DB.) In the second half, BStU didn't have over 100 yds of offense, until the "trick play".

Again, with the Offensive Production...

BStU
1st Half
Gained 183 yds
0 turnovers
0 underthrown sure-tds
3 Punts
Started on OU side of field 1 time

2nd Half
Gained 157 yds
3 turnovers (1 Returned for TD)
0 underthrown sure-tds
5 Punts
Started on OU side of field 1 time

OT
7 plays in order to score

OU
1st half
Gained 188 yds
2 turnovers
2 underthrown sure-tds (2 INTS)
2 Punts
Started on BStU side of field 0 times

2nd Half
Gained 252 yds
2 turnover (1 Returned for TD)
0 underthrown sure-tds
2 Punts
Started on BStU side of field 1 time

OT
1 play in order to score

FF, I'm not saying that Senior-rich team didn't play its' heart out - thus deserved to win, I'm saying the Sophmore-rich OU team didn't look very good. Did it have some to do with BStU? Absolutely. They played a great game. But even the HC admitted in interviews that he was nervous the entire time, because the OU team seemed to just get stronger and faster, as the game went on. And that OU didn't look like themselves, in the 1st half. He knew what was coming, in the secod half. And all of this, considering OU outgained BStU in both half's, offensively.

Hats off BStU, they took advantage of the opportunity...and won. But to say they beat OU up and down the field and OU only got ahead because BStU let them, is hilarious...considering OU outgained BStU and gave up more turnovers - thus allowing BStU to take such an overrated lead. Nope..there's no doubt that if the game is played 10 times - using this years' class, OU wins 8 or 9 of them. In almost all years, OU destroys BStU...easily.;)

One
You shoudl know better than anyone though that you can use a parameter of team A would win 9 out of 10x if they played. However you dont get that luxury in football especially college and thats why when you are OU you better come out and play a full 4 quarters or else you risk the chance of being beat by a team that has notrecruited as well or does not have the athletes and comes from a second tier conference. When that happens I believe it is better to not come up with excuses but just say you know what my team got beat, its as simple as that. The game I watched saw Boise lead up until the final minute and even OU's lead lasted less than a minute. Sure it might have only taken them 1 play to score but that was just about the only time AD got going. Boise's defense did a pretty good job containing him, in my mind they did as good as anyone else did who played against him all year.
Stats are also nice to look at and use as somewhat of a way of saying well they didnt really beat us but in the end we all know that the only stat that matters is the one that reads 43-42. Boise led on that main stat board for the majority of the game. We can also use the under thrown ball as an excuse but thats jus the way it goes.
Last year Boise could have said the same thing when they went to Athens to play Georgia. Zambrowsky threw 5 interceptions in the first half and they were all on balls that were either underthrown or like the one he threw that gave OU the lead. Georgia scored on 2 of those and the other 3 gave the Dawgs great field posistion. Does that mean that Boise gave the game to the Dawgs? I mean all their first half points came off the result of those turnovers right?
I say no. I guess I dont believe in making excuses and when a team gets beat they get beat and you shouldnt take anything away from that. Its not fair to those men up in Boise who busted their tails all off season and summer and fall to allow this to happen for them.
Just the way I see it and I understand you see itdifferently. O well. Im not right and your not wrong and vice versa. Just two different opinions on the way the game was played out.

[HUM398]

i dont know about any of this.


But 10 bucks says Bible aggy loses a lot next year.

[Sicemhorns09]

Baylor Bears are the next Boise St

[Humblefied]

Baylor Bears are the next Boise St

Yeah, that's what we thought a couple of years ago when they went 6-6. Don't think it will happen.

[ThEgReAtOnE]

One
You shoudl know better than anyone though that you can use a parameter of team A would win 9 out of 10x if they played. However you dont get that luxury in football especially college and thats why when you are OU you better come out and play a full 4 quarters or else you risk the chance of being beat by a team that has notrecruited as well or does not have the athletes and comes from a second tier conference. When that happens I believe it is better to not come up with excuses but just say you know what my team got beat, its as simple as that. The game I watched saw Boise lead up until the final minute and even OU's lead lasted less than a minute. Sure it might have only taken them 1 play to score but that was just about the only time AD got going. Boise's defense did a pretty good job containing him, in my mind they did as good as anyone else did who played against him all year.
Stats are also nice to look at and use as somewhat of a way of saying well they didnt really beat us but in the end we all know that the only stat that matters is the one that reads 43-42. Boise led on that main stat board for the majority of the game. We can also use the under thrown ball as an excuse but thats jus the way it goes.
Last year Boise could have said the same thing when they went to Athens to play Georgia. Zambrowsky threw 5 interceptions in the first half and they were all on balls that were either underthrown or like the one he threw that gave OU the lead. Georgia scored on 2 of those and the other 3 gave the Dawgs great field posistion. Does that mean that Boise gave the game to the Dawgs? I mean all their first half points came off the result of those turnovers right?
I say no. I guess I dont believe in making excuses and when a team gets beat they get beat and you shouldnt take anything away from that. Its not fair to those men up in Boise who busted their tails all off season and summer and fall to allow this to happen for them.
Just the way I see it and I understand you see itdifferently. O well. Im not right and your not wrong and vice versa. Just two different opinions on the way the game was played out.

What "main stat board" did BStU lead, most of the game? If you meant the scoredboard, I have to agree...as that is a factual statement.

My point is made, by the BStU vs Georgia game, last year...
When BStU turned the ball over 4 times or more, Georgia took advantage by putting up 575 yds of offense, winning the game, 48-13. OU turned the ball over 4 times and BStU could only managed to win by 1 pt. I would like to believe that if OU had turned the ball over 4 times against Georgia, the score would've been 48-13....not 43-42.

Again FF,
I'm not saying BStU doesn't deserve a hard fought win, I'm just saying I just didn't think I saw OU's "A" game.

[Sicemhorns09]

Yeah, that's what we thought a couple of years ago when they went 6-6. Don't think it will happen.

I can dream...I have faith in John David & Co.

[farmerfan]

What "main stat board" did BStU lead, most of the game? If you meant the scoredboard, I have to agree...as that is a factual statement.

My point is made, by the BStU vs Georgia game, last year...
When BStU turned the ball over 4 times or more, Georgia took advantage by putting up 575 yds of offense, winning the game, 48-13. OU turned the ball over 4 times and BStU could only managed to win by 1 pt. I would like to believe that if OU had turned the ball over 4 times against Georgia, the score would've been 48-13....not 43-42.

Again FF,
I'm not saying BStU doesn't deserve a hard fought win, I'm just saying I just didn't think I saw OU's "A" game.


The only stat in a football game or any game for that matter is the scoreboard.
As far as Georgia, Boise gave them those turnovers those, Im just going on what you said OU did with their turnovers. If OU can give Boise the football by not playing their A game then the same can be said for Boise against Georgia. Obviously Boise did not play their A game and the Bulldogs had everything to do with that. OU did notplay their A game and Boise had everything to do with that. You may be giving Boise credit for the victory but you come back with excuse after excuse. Just say OU got beat by the better team that bnight. In football that is all that matters. Many times people feel that had teams played 10x that one team would win 9 of them. The good thing about sports is that is all speculation. We dont know what would happen if they played 10x what we do know is they played 1 timne and that 1 game they played Boise proved to be the better team.

[ThEgReAtOnE]

The only stat in a football game or any game for that matter is the scoreboard.
As far as Georgia, Boise gave them those turnovers those, Im just going on what you said OU did with their turnovers. If OU can give Boise the football by not playing their A game then the same can be said for Boise against Georgia. Obviously Boise did not play their A game and the Bulldogs had everything to do with that. OU did notplay their A game and Boise had everything to do with that. You may be giving Boise credit for the victory but you come back with excuse after excuse. Just say OU got beat by the better team that bnight. In football that is all that matters. Many times people feel that had teams played 10x that one team would win 9 of them. The good thing about sports is that is all speculation. We dont know what would happen if they played 10x what we do know is they played 1 timne and that 1 game they played Boise proved to be the better team.

OU - not bring their "A" game - didn't have anything to do with Boise State showing up. When a converted WR steps back, with perfect form and no pressure, and delivers a 40 yd bomb - that falls 8 yds short, thus is int'd - it isn't because of the team they're facing. It's because the QB underthrew a wide-open WR. All stats matter. They can determine the true play of a team. When the Chicago Bears beat Arizona, I'd be willing to bet Grossman's stats weren't that impressive, thus the offense wasn't. But we all know, the scoreboard - indicating a win - didn't truly tell the whole story, did it?

I'm not making excuses. I'm saying, OU didn't appear to play -mainly in the 1st half - the way they're capable of. (Plus, the #1 goto WR was injured in the 1st Qtr, and didn't return.)

Yes...
The score was 43-42. But the win - ALONE - didn't say enough. There were circumstances that effected the outcome....of which are hidden, due to the, IMO, overrated excitement.

[farmerfan]

OU - not bring their "A" game - didn't have anything to do with Boise State showing up. When a converted WR steps back, with perfect form and no pressure, and delivers a 40 yd bomb - that falls 8 yds short, thus is int'd - it isn't because of the team they're facing. It's because the QB underthrew a wide-open WR. All stats matter. They can determine the true play of a team. When the Chicago Bears beat Arizona, I'd be willing to bet Grossman's stats weren't that impressive, thus the offense wasn't. But we all know, the scoreboard - indicating a win - didn't truly tell the whole story, did it?

I'm not making excuses. I'm saying, OU didn't appear to play -mainly in the 1st half - the way they're capable of. (Plus, the #1 goto WR was injured in the 1st Qtr, and didn't return.)

Yes...
The score was 43-42. But the win - ALONE - didn't say enough. There were circumstances that effected the outcome....of which are hidden, due to the, IMO, overrated excitement.


a converted WR?
Paul Thompson was one of the most sought after QB's coming out of HS. He played one year, 1 FREAKING year at WR and even in that year he started the season as the OU QB. He was obvisously good enough to lead OU to a big 12 championship so dont give this BS of a converted WR to QB. Everyone knows Thompsons first posistion the one he played his whole life was QB. Using stats is very aggyess in that it gives you somewhat of a moral victory. That doesnt count. Stats are more of a glorified way of accepting a loss. The scoreboard is the only thing that matters in any sporting event. Its about Wins and losses.
The circumstances went both ways too. Boise themselves had 3 TO's including one very poor thrown pass that allowed OU to take their first lead of the game. A lead that was quickly lost due to great execution of Boise. You still have not acknowledged that yet. That had just as much of an impact on the game as the OU turnovers did. The only thing that matters and you and all of big conference elitist america fail to realize is the better team did win that night. Thats all that matters, not who had more first downs, not who had more total yards. Hell I am a fan of the Red Sox, in 2004 the yankees socred more runs than than we did in the ALCS I guess that means the better team didnt win the series right?

[ThEgReAtOnE]

a converted WR?
Paul Thompson was one of the most sought after QB's coming out of HS. He played one year, 1 FREAKING year at WR and even in that year he started the season as the OU QB. He was obvisously good enough to lead OU to a big 12 championship so dont give this BS of a converted WR to QB. Everyone knows Thompsons first posistion the one he played his whole life was QB. Using stats is very aggyess in that it gives you somewhat of a moral victory. That doesnt count. Stats are more of a glorified way of accepting a loss. The scoreboard is the only thing that matters in any sporting event. Its about Wins and losses.
The circumstances went both ways too. Boise themselves had 3 TO's including one very poor thrown pass that allowed OU to take their first lead of the game. A lead that was quickly lost due to great execution of Boise. You still have not acknowledged that yet. That had just as much of an impact on the game as the OU turnovers did. The only thing that matters and you and all of big conference elitist america fail to realize is the better team did win that night. Thats all that matters, not who had more first downs, not who had more total yards. Hell I am a fan of the Red Sox, in 2004 the yankees socred more runs than than we did in the ALCS I guess that means the better team didnt win the series right?

IMO, the better team didn't win, that night. Boise State played better, accompanied by OU's poor showing. (And even with that, they won by 1 pt.) Dallas lost to Detroit, last week. Does that mean the Lions are a better team than the Cowboys? Nope!

Like I said...scoreboards can be decieving. But, in the end...they have the final say. You have your opinion, I have mine.

[Reaganrattler07]

IMO, the better team didn't win, that night. Boise State played better, accompanied by OU's poor showing. (And even with that, they won by 1 pt.) Dallas lost to Detroit, last week. Does that mean the Lions are a better team than the Cowboys? Nope!

Like I said...scoreboards can be decieving. But, in the end...they have the final say. You have your opinion, I have mine.

Oh I agree....this meant a hell of a lot more to Boise than it did OU, imo.

If there was a playoff that Boise is whining about then Boise wouldn't last past Round 2.

[ThEgReAtOnE]

Oh I agree....this meant a hell of a lot more to Boise than it did OU, imo.

If there was a playoff that Boise is whining about then Boise wouldn't last past Round 2.

I hear you, bro. Not surprised...other posters have said the same thing.

[BlackandRed05]

Oh I agree....this meant a hell of a lot more to Boise than it did OU, imo.

If there was a playoff that Boise is whining about then Boise wouldn't last past Round 2.

And OU wouldnt last past Round 1 !!

[Reaganrattler07]

I hear you, bro. Not surprised...other posters have said the same thing.

You all should know I don't read what others say in the college section. I just go to the last posts of the thread, catch the gist of it all, then throw my opinion out there!

But I was rooting for OU...only two times out of a year I'll do it.

[Reaganrattler07]

And OU wouldnt last past Round 1 !!

Nope.

[ThEgReAtOnE]

And OU wouldnt last past Round 1 !!

Depends on who they were playing...

If OU drew BStU, they'd win. If they drew LSU, they'd be 1-N-done.

Just like if BStU drew Houston, they'd win. If they drew Texas, they'd be 1-N-done.

In a Playoff, you play for the National Title. In a Bowl game - it's just another Bowl game....and the Sooners have plenty of wins in those.

[Texasfrog]

Depends on who they were playing...

If OU drew BStU, they'd win. If they drew LSU, they'd be 1-N-done.

Just like if BStU drew Houston, they'd win. If they drew Texas, they'd be 1-N-done.

In a Playoff, you play for the National Title. In a Bowl game - it's just another Bowl game....and the Sooners have plenty of wins in those.

I think if we look at the results 5 years from now. Everyone will see the Oklahoma is a legit bigtime program and Boise st is a "wanta be."

Remember in the 1998 Sun Bowl (I think 1998). TCU beat USC ;)

[Reaganrattler07]

I think if we look at the results 5 years from now. Everyone will see the Oklahoma is a legit bigtime program and Boise st is a "wanta be."

Remember in the 1998 Sun Bowl (I think 1998). TCU beat USC ;)

That was under my boy Franny!:D

[ThEgReAtOnE]

I think if we look at the results 5 years from now. Everyone will see the Oklahoma is a legit bigtime program and Boise st is a "wanta be."

Remember in the 1998 Sun Bowl (I think 1998). TCU beat USC ;)

I agree...
We're on the same page, TF.

[Texasfrog]

That was under my boy Franny!:D

Ya it was. I'm sure that is the first Bowl game he list on his resume (TCU over USC in the Sun Bowl).;)

[Reaganrattler07]

Ya it was. I'm sure that is the first Bowl game he list on his resume (TCU over USC in the Sun Bowl).;)

Lol, do you blame him?

[Texasfrog]

Lol, do you blame him?

Nope..;)

[farmerfan]

IMO, the better team didn't win, that night. Boise State played better, accompanied by OU's poor showing. (And even with that, they won by 1 pt.) Dallas lost to Detroit, last week. Does that mean the Lions are a better team than the Cowboys? Nope!

Like I said...scoreboards can be decieving. But, in the end...they have the final say. You have your opinion, I have mine.

Dude, scoreboards have the only say. You know what though to steal a line from the sports guy, your right greatone, OU was the better team, they shouldnt have played the game, THAT WAS STUPID.

[farmerfan]

Depends on who they were playing...

If OU drew BStU, they'd win. If they drew LSU, they'd be 1-N-done.

Just like if BStU drew Houston, they'd win. If they drew Texas, they'd be 1-N-done.

In a Playoff, you play for the National Title. In a Bowl game - it's just another Bowl game....and the Sooners have plenty of wins in those.

According to actual facts which you obvisously dont understand they wouldnt win. If final scores dont matter then why doi they keep em?

[farmerfan]

I think if we look at the results 5 years from now. Everyone will see the Oklahoma is a legit bigtime program and Boise st is a "wanta be."

Remember in the 1998 Sun Bowl (I think 1998). TCU beat USC ;)

Whats Boise's record over the last 5 years? History has shown they are a pretty solid program. Plus we are not talking five years from now, we are talking about the now and on this night in 2007 the facts prove that Boise was a better football team then OU was this season.

[farmerfan]

Oh I agree....this meant a hell of a lot more to Boise than it did OU, imo.

If there was a playoff that Boise is whining about then Boise wouldn't last past Round 2.

That bogus and an excuse. How the hell can you say a BCS bowl game is not important? OU knew the ramifications going into this thing and had said leading up to the game that they were excited to be in the Fiesta bowl and playing Boise state. Dont for one minute act like OU didnt care who they were playing. Thats complete bull ****.

[lonny23]

Boise State is one of those fluke teams that is going to happen about once every 3 years now.

There will be a non-BCS conference team about every 3 years that has a senior laden team and pretty much plays a pasty schedule and gets into a BCS Bowl and plays their one major game of the year and has a 50-50 shot at pulling it off.

I still say that if teams like Utah (a few seasons ago) and Boise St (this year) had to play the whole season in a BCS Conference. They would of taken at least 1 or 2 losses on the year.

Having to play against an above average team almost every Saturday in a BCS Conference isnt easy for any team in the country. Utah and Boise St would of had at least 1 game where the ball just didnt bounce their way in the game and it cost them a "W."

Shoot, I just looked at Boise St schedule. They really played no one all year. I'll give them a little respect for beating Hawaii and Oregon St but that's about it.You hit it on the head. Boise State this year is like Texas Tech, who got beat a few times!:D You can win a few games against teams with more talent, but eventually you'll get beat if you play enough. Boise looks like champs for making the most of their opportunity, but they would've been playing Russian Roulette if they kept doing it.

[lonny23]

That bogus and an excuse. How the hell can you say a BCS bowl game is not important? OU knew the ramifications going into this thing and had said leading up to the game that they were excited to be in the Fiesta bowl and playing Boise state. Dont for one minute act like OU didnt care who they were playing. Thats complete bull ****.
OU cared about the game. They might've taken them too lightly, but they cared. Michigan didn't go in prepared to win and they lost. They did like Cal and were worried about being gyped instead of playing.

There weren't any bowl games easier for me to pick than Cal beating Fran and USC beating Michigan.

[farmerfan]

You hit it on the head. Boise State this year is like Texas Tech, who got beat a few times!:D You can win a few games against teams with more talent, but eventually you'll get beat if you play enough. Boise looks like champs for making the most of their opportunity, but they would've been playing Russian Roulette if they kept doing it.

The thing is though, Boise didnt get beat at all this year. They played their schedule, defeated a Oregon State badly who defeated not only USC but Mizzou as well. Boise is not getting enough credit for this victory and I think its sad that some of yall who call yourselves sports fan are downplaying it.

[lonny23]

The thing is though, Boise didnt get beat at all this year. They played their schedule, defeated a Oregon State badly who defeated not only USC but Mizzou as well. Boise is not getting enough credit for this victory and I think its sad that some of yall who call yourselves sports fan are downplaying it.
I agree it's a big win. I loved the play-calling. I think Boise should win the AP Poll if Florida beats Ohio State. They might not be the best team, but they deserve the title. They should be #2 in the Coach's Poll regardless of who wins the BCS Championship.

[ThEgReAtOnE]

According to actual facts which you obvisously dont understand they wouldnt win. If final scores dont matter then why doi they keep em?

You obviously don't know the difference between playing in a Playoff - for a National Title and playing just another Bowl Game - of which you already own more wins than 99.9% of the schools in the Nation.

Like I said, if it were a Playoff, the enthusiasm would've been different. Sounds crappy, but I believe it's the truth.

[ThEgReAtOnE]

Dude, scoreboards have the only say. You know what though to steal a line from the sports guy, your right greatone, OU was the better team, they shouldnt have played the game, THAT WAS STUPID.

Yup...OU was the better team, athletically. But, they lost...a Bowl game. Sue'em.

Not to discredit BStU...I just don't think BStU comes out ahead if OU's "A" game shows up in a tournament.

[ThEgReAtOnE]

Whats Boise's record over the last 5 years? History has shown they are a pretty solid program. Plus we are not talking five years from now, we are talking about the now and on this night in 2007 the facts prove that Boise was a better football team then OU was this season.

No...the facts have shown that BStU's only real competition of the season, besides an overrated OStU, was a Sophmore-Rich OU squad. And they won by 1 pt, in OT - using trick plays.

Is BStU a good team? Absolutely. A Senior-rich team, as well. Their last 2 Bowl games were losses to Louisville (2004) and Boston College (2005), when those 1-Star, 2-Star and (few) 3-Star athletes were R-Freshmen and R-Sophmores. Now, they're 5th-yr Seniors, and 24 yrs old....one would expect them to play at a high level. They did what they should've done....and still almost lost.

That says more about the youthful 5-Star and 4-Star athletes Major programs recruit, if you ask me. That's why they're rated so high, coming out of HS. They're THAT good....and so young.

[farmerfan]

You obviously don't know the difference between playing in a Playoff - for a National Title and playing just another Bowl Game - of which you already own more wins than 99.9% of the schools in the Nation.

Like I said, if it were a Playoff, the enthusiasm would've been different. Sounds crappy, but I believe it's the truth.

And you or anyone else does know the difference of playing in a playoff in college football? I mean last time I checked when did they have one in division 1 football?
The thing is OU knew well before the season and bowl game it wasnt a playoff. Dont feed me this ******** that they didnt care or their enthusiasm was down. Last year in a much lesser bowl they came out and played their hearts out and upset Oregon. I dont remember hearing anyone use the excuse that Oregon wasnt motivated because it was playing in a lesser bowl. You simply looked past that and said the better team won regardless if it was a close game, its funny how the shoe is on the other foot now because of what happend to your precious team.
Its a straight excuse and an eltitist attitude to sit here and say that a team didnt have any enthusiasm to be playing in a freaking BCS bowl game. The fact that you believe that is even more funny.

[farmerfan]

Yup...OU was the better team, athletically. But, they lost...a Bowl game. Sue'em.

Not to discredit BStU...I just don't think BStU comes out ahead if OU's "A" game shows up in a tournament.

So if a team losses then it still can be the better team right?

This is the same **** yall were ripping on matt leinart for last year after the Rose Bowl. The hypocrisy shown by some on this board amazes me.

[ThEgReAtOnE]

And you or anyone else does know the difference of playing in a playoff in college football? I mean last time I checked when did they have one in division 1 football?
The thing is OU knew well before the season and bowl game it wasnt a playoff. Dont feed me this ******** that they didnt care or their enthusiasm was down. Last year in a much lesser bowl they came out and played their hearts out and upset Oregon. I dont remember hearing anyone use the excuse that Oregon wasnt motivated because it was playing in a lesser bowl. You simply looked past that and said the better team won regardless if it was a close game, its funny how the shoe is on the other foot now because of what happend to your precious team.
Its a straight excuse and an eltitist attitude to sit here and say that a team didnt have any enthusiasm to be playing in a freaking BCS bowl game. The fact that you believe that is even more funny.

Believe it or not. I have nothing to prove to you. I have my opinion, you have yours. It appears I wont change your mind...and your argument - or lack there of - definitely wont change my mind.

Agree to disagree.

[lonny23]

And you or anyone else does know the difference of playing in a playoff in college football? I mean last time I checked when did they have one in division 1 football?
The thing is OU knew well before the season and bowl game it wasnt a playoff. Dont feed me this ******** that they didnt care or their enthusiasm was down. Last year in a much lesser bowl they came out and played their hearts out and upset Oregon. I dont remember hearing anyone use the excuse that Oregon wasnt motivated because it was playing in a lesser bowl. You simply looked past that and said the better team won regardless if it was a close game, its funny how the shoe is on the other foot now because of what happend to your precious team.
Its a straight excuse and an eltitist attitude to sit here and say that a team didnt have any enthusiasm to be playing in a freaking BCS bowl game. The fact that you believe that is even more funny.I've seen teams be down because they were mad about what bowl game they were playing in and they usually lose those games (California vs. Texas Tech in 2004, Michigan vs. USC in 2007), but that wasn't the case here.

OU got the best possible bowl game they could have. OU was an 11-3 team this year and that's pretty much what they should be. I know they got ripped in Oregon, but they weren't the Four Horseman on steroids. They were a team with flaws who won some close games and ended up losing a few games. They weren't dominant and I sure didn't think they came into the game not prepared to win like I felt about Michigan. For all the hype LSU heard about how bad Notre Dame was, they sure took them to the woodshed instead of slacking off.

As far as OU's 4 and 5 star recruits, I'll just sit here and watch until they actually get a QB and even then they won't have Mike Stoops running that defense like he used to do. I look at recruiting in reverse too. I don't worry about what A&M, UT, and OU get as much as I look at it as players that Tech didn't get. Somehow the big boys waste a lot of the talent that they get.

[ThEgReAtOnE]

So if a team losses then it still can be the better team right?

This is the same **** yall were ripping on matt leinart for last year after the Rose Bowl. The hypocrisy shown by some on this board amazes me.

Again...Dallas lost to Detroit...does that mean the Detroit Lions are a better team than the Dallas Cowboys?

Athletically, I still feel Texas had the better team, last year....just as I feel - ATHLETICALLY - the OU Sooners are still better than the Senior-Rich BStU Broncos.

Again, your opinion...my opinion. Agree to disagree.

[farmerfan]

Believe it or not. I have nothing to prove to you. I have my opinion, you have yours. It appears I wont change your mind...and your argument - or lack there of - definitely wont change my mind.

Agree to disagree.

you saying my argument is an lack there of type is what is even more funny. you know when making arguments you need to be able to back it up with defintitive facts and be decisive right. what is more decisive then having a competition between Team A and Team B and seeing the end result be Team A won. That right there proves my argument to be factual based and your assesment to be well weak and unvalid. Nice try.

[farmerfan]

Again...Dallas lost to Detroit...does that mean the Detroit Lions are a better team than the Dallas Cowboys?

Athletically, I still feel Texas had the better team, last year....just as I feel - ATHLETICALLY - the OU Sooners are still better than the Senior-Rich BStU Broncos.

Again, your opinion...my opinion. Agree to disagree.

Well obviously they lost to them and that is all we have to go on and it sounds foolish to say well the better team didnt win. If they were the better team they sould have taken care of business and they didnt, when your team losses you dont havethe luxury of saying the better team lost cause if that was the damn case they wouldnt have lost.

[lonny23]

Well obviously they lost to them and that is all we have to go on and it sounds foolish to say well the better team didnt win. If they were the better team they sould have taken care of business and they didnt, when your team losses you dont havethe luxury of saying the better team lost cause if that was the damn case they wouldnt have lost.
You know that's not always true. When Team A plays Team B, one of them will win. Whoever it is, you know they almost always deserved to win. Sometimes the team that would win 8 or 9 times out of 10 loses the game. That's when you say the better team didn't win. Detroit deserved to beat Dallas, but they aren't better over the course of a whole season.

Games like Detroit-Dallas lead us to use phrases like overachieve, underachieve, choke, fluke, etc. Since it's the NFL, I'll just say Detroit had it in them as professionals to play that way, but it's not something they've consistently done this year as 3-13 shows. The Cowboys were better than that most weeks, but their 9-7 record shows that they didn't play their best football every week. They were inconsistent. You're going to lose some games when you play at your worst and the other team plays at their best.

[farmerfan]

You know that's not always true. When Team A plays Team B, one of them will win. Whoever it is, you know they almost always deserved to win. Sometimes the team that would win 8 or 9 times out of 10 loses the game. That's when you say the better team didn't win. Detroit deserved to beat Dallas, but they aren't better over the course of a whole season.

Games like Detroit-Dallas lead us to use phrases like overachieve, underachieve, choke, fluke, etc. Since it's the NFL, I'll just say Detroit had it in them as professionals to play that way, but it's not something they've consistently done this year as 3-13 shows. The Cowboys were better than that most weeks, but their 9-7 record shows that they didn't play their best football every week. They were inconsistent. You're going to lose some games when you play at your worst and the other team plays at their best.


Its all speculation. I work with facts. The facts I work with are end results. The end results tell us differently and until those same teams play again you cant say the better team didnt win. I dont know what is so hard to figure out about that.
When I played baseball and football we lost to some teams I thought we were better than. After the game it was foolish of me or anyone on our team to say well we are still better they just beat us tonight. You dont have that luxury especially in the college game. If you want to put away all doubts you better make damn sure you go in and take care of business. If not you have to live with the fact that you cant ever say you were the better team because the results just dont back you up.

[ThEgReAtOnE]

you saying my argument is an lack there of type is what is even more funny. you know when making arguments you need to be able to back it up with defintitive facts and be decisive right. what is more decisive then having a competition between Team A and Team B and seeing the end result be Team A won. That right there proves my argument to be factual based and your assesment to be well weak and unvalid. Nice try.

You keep making my point. Agree to disagree.

[ThEgReAtOnE]

Well obviously they lost to them and that is all we have to go on and it sounds foolish to say well the better team didnt win. If they were the better team they sould have taken care of business and they didnt, when your team losses you dont havethe luxury of saying the better team lost cause if that was the damn case they wouldnt have lost.

Nice move to not answer the question. Is the Detroit Lions a better football team than the Dallas Cowboys?

Agree to disagree.

[ThEgReAtOnE]

You're going to lose some games when you play at your worst and the other team plays at their best.

Thank you. You've backed the point that I've been MAKING this entire time. Regardless of anyone elses opinion, it is MY opinion that OU played a poor game, while BStU played a very solid game.

[ThEgReAtOnE]

Its all speculation. I work with facts. The facts I work with are end results. The end results tell us differently and until those same teams play again you cant say the better team didnt win. I dont know what is so hard to figure out about that.
When I played baseball and football we lost to some teams I thought we were better than. After the game it was foolish of me or anyone on our team to say well we are still better they just beat us tonight. You dont have that luxury especially in the college game. If you want to put away all doubts you better make damn sure you go in and take care of business. If not you have to live with the fact that you cant ever say you were the better team because the results just dont back you up.

You're right...you have your speculation and/or opinion...everyone else has theirs. Neither has to be right. A win - ACCORDING TO THE SCOREBOARD - is a win. How the score is achieved, is factualized in both stats and opinions.

Like I said, you wont be swayed....and I definitely wont, either.

Agree to disagree.

[farmerfan]

Nice move to not answer the question. Is the Detroit Lions a better football team than the Dallas Cowboys?

Agree to disagree.

They certainly were opn the sunday that the played. Thats all we have to work with so based on the end result how could you say there are not a better football team?

[farmerfan]

You keep making my point. Agree to disagree.

and how is that?
your arguments has lacked any decisive facts and therefore is easily shot down. you work on opinion and I work on fact. your opinion says OU is a better football team funny thing is you cant prove that can you?

I say Boise is a better football team, guess what? I can prove that.

[ThEgReAtOnE]

and how is that?
your arguments has lacked any decisive facts and therefore is easily shot down. you work on opinion and I work on fact. your opinion says OU is a better football team funny thing is you cant prove that can you?

I say Boise is a better football team, guess what? I can prove that.

You said BStU dominated OU during most of the game...I presented actual facts destroying your notion, and you side-stepped them.

Fact? BStU had 14 5th-Yr Seniors starting for them. They were Senior-rich. OU had 11 Sophmores starting for them. They were Sophmore-rich.

Fact? BStU scored on a trick play, at the end of the game to present them a chance to win, in OT.

Fact? Malcolm Kelly - OU's Top WR, and one of the best in the NCAA - was injured in the 1st Qtr, and didn't return.

Fact? OU had 407 total yds. BStU had 377 total yds.

Fact? OU had 23 1st-Downs. BStU had 17 1st-Downs.

Fact? OU punted 4 times. BStU punted 8 times.

Fact? Thompson had 14 career starts. Zabransky had 47 career starts.

Fact? OU turned the ball over 4 times. BStU turned the ball over 3 times.

Fact? OU rushed for 177 yds. BStU rushed for 110 yds.

Fact? BStU won the game on a trick play, in OT. (After taking 7 plays to score. OU took 1 play.)

You've ignored all of the FACTS that I've presented. Again, IMO, BStU deserved their hard earned win. However, I still felt OU didn't bring their "A" game. And I still feel that if they met BStU 10 times, they'd win 8 or 9 games.

[ThEgReAtOnE]

They certainly were opn the sunday that the played. Thats all we have to work with so based on the end result how could you say there are not a better football team?

You're not answering the question, FF. DETROIT beat DALLAS....is DETROIT a better football team, than DALLAS?

No excuses, remember. ;)

[farmerfan]

You said BStU dominated OU during most of the game...I presented actual facts destroying your notion, and you side-stepped them.

Fact? BStU had 14 5th-Yr Seniors starting for them. They were Senior-rich. OU had 11 Sophmores starting for them. They were Sophmore-rich.

Fact? BStU scored on a trick play, at the end of the game to present them a chance to win, in OT.

Fact? Malcolm Kelly - OU's Top WR, and one of the best in the NCAA - was injured in the 1st Qtr, and didn't return.

Fact? OU had 407 total yds. BStU had 377 total yds.

Fact? OU had 23 1st-Downs. BStU had 17 1st-Downs.

Fact? OU punted 4 times. BStU punted 8 times.

Fact? Thompson had 14 career starts. Zabransky had 47 career starts.

Fact? OU turned the ball over 4 times. BStU turned the ball over 3 times.

Fact? OU rushed for 177 yds. BStU rushed for 110 yds.

Fact? BStU won the game on a trick play, in OT. (After taking 7 plays to score. OU took 1 play.)

You've ignored all of the FACTS that I've presented. Again, IMO, BStU deserved their hard earned win. However, I still felt OU didn't bring their "A" game. And I still feel that if they met BStU 10 times, they'd win 8 or 9 games.

Here is THE ONLY FACT THAT MATTERS, BOISE STATE 43 OKLAHOMA 42. What about that does not say that Boise was the better team.
Here is another Fact, OU led for roughly 42 seconds in regulation. That is it. Boise had the led for roughly 55 minutes.
You keep harping on how Boise had to use a trick play and OU had all these Turnovers well what about the one Turnover that led to OU taking its only lead of the game? Funny how you seem to overlook that.
Whatabout the excellent execution of Boise, call it a trick play all you want thefact that it worked and gave Boise the victory is all you need to know. OU themselves has made a living off of trick plays during the Stoops era, have they not? Why dont you say OU was lucky and had to result into using tirck plays to win games?
You can throw out all the stats you like however those dont mean ****, the only stat that does it the one that tells us who the winner is and who the losser is and that stat read for about 55 minutes of the game including the end result that will forever stand as Boise as the winner.

[farmerfan]

You said BStU dominated OU during most of the game...I presented actual facts destroying your notion, and you side-stepped them.

Fact? BStU had 14 5th-Yr Seniors starting for them. They were Senior-rich. OU had 11 Sophmores starting for them. They were Sophmore-rich.

Fact? BStU scored on a trick play, at the end of the game to present them a chance to win, in OT.

Fact? Malcolm Kelly - OU's Top WR, and one of the best in the NCAA - was injured in the 1st Qtr, and didn't return.

Fact? OU had 407 total yds. BStU had 377 total yds.

Fact? OU had 23 1st-Downs. BStU had 17 1st-Downs.

Fact? OU punted 4 times. BStU punted 8 times.

Fact? Thompson had 14 career starts. Zabransky had 47 career starts.

Fact? OU turned the ball over 4 times. BStU turned the ball over 3 times.

Fact? OU rushed for 177 yds. BStU rushed for 110 yds.

Fact? BStU won the game on a trick play, in OT. (After taking 7 plays to score. OU took 1 play.)

You've ignored all of the FACTS that I've presented. Again, IMO, BStU deserved their hard earned win. However, I still felt OU didn't bring their "A" game. And I still feel that if they met BStU 10 times, they'd win 8 or 9 games.

You're not answering the question, FF. DETROIT beat DALLAS....is DETROIT a better football team, than DALLAS?

No excuses, remember. ;)


Had Detroit and Dallas not played one would say no Detroit is not the better team. However Detroit proved to be the better team. Care to dispute how they cant be? They proved it on the field. May not be a popular pick but facts prove that yes indeed Detroit is a better team.

Now let me ask you, you have been avoiding comments I have made about OU using trick plays regularly under Stoops, does that mean they were not the better team when they played Alabama back in 02? I mean they had to use a tirck play to win right? What about the A&M game in 2000? trick plays were used there, does that mean A&M was the better team?
What about turnovers you keep addressing how OU turned it over so much, but what about the turnover by Boise that was a "horrible" pass that gave OU the lead. Will you say OU got lucky there or was that skill?

[ThEgReAtOnE]

Here is THE ONLY FACT THAT MATTERS, BOISE STATE 43 OKLAHOMA 42. What about that does not say that Boise was the better team.
Here is another Fact, OU led for roughly 42 seconds in regulation. That is it. Boise had the led for roughly 55 minutes.
You keep harping on how Boise had to use a trick play and OU had all these Turnovers well what about the one Turnover that led to OU taking its only lead of the game? Funny how you seem to overlook that.
Whatabout the excellent execution of Boise, call it a trick play all you want thefact that it worked and gave Boise the victory is all you need to know. OU themselves has made a living off of trick plays during the Stoops era, have they not? Why dont you say OU was lucky and had to result into using tirck plays to win games?
You can throw out all the stats you like however those dont mean ****, the only stat that does it the one that tells us who the winner is and who the losser is and that stat read for about 55 minutes of the game including the end result that will forever stand as Boise as the winner.

This argument is going nowhere. It's based, not on who actually won, but on the strength of the win. Who played to their capability...and who did not.

Stop making it about more than that. BStU won. The whole world knows. Great.

I still have my opinions, as you have yours.

This is getting boring. Agree to disagree.

[farmerfan]

This argument is going nowhere. It's based, not on who actually won, but on the strength of the win. Who played to their capability...and who did not.

Stop making it about more than that. BStU won. The whole world knows. Great.

I still have my opinions, as you have yours.

This is getting boring. Agree to disagree.

you right it is boring, i expected better and more factual based evidence out of you :eek: ;)

[ThEgReAtOnE]

Had Detroit and Dallas not played one would say no Detroit is not the better team. However Detroit proved to be the better team. Care to dispute how they cant be? They proved it on the field. May not be a popular pick but facts prove that yes indeed Detroit is a better team.

Now let me ask you, you have been avoiding comments I have made about OU using trick plays regularly under Stoops, does that mean they were not the better team when they played Alabama back in 02? I mean they had to use a tirck play to win right? What about the A&M game in 2000? trick plays were used there, does that mean A&M was the better team?
What about turnovers you keep addressing how OU turned it over so much, but what about the turnover by Boise that was a "horrible" pass that gave OU the lead. Will you say OU got lucky there or was that skill?

The turnovers and trick plays are speculative. Does nothing for me, now.

And please, let the record show, farmerfan has said that the DETROIT LIONS (3-13, in the regular season) are a better team than the DALLAS COWBOYS! (9-7, in the regular season).

You've just thrown out everything that has made your "argument" somewhat decent, FF.

I now know who I've been arguing with...and I plead with you...

PLEASE STOP!

Stop while you're NOT TOO far behind!

Checkmate,
OnE

[ThEgReAtOnE]

you right it is boring, i expected better and more factual based evidence out of you :eek: ;)

That's funny...I didn't expect anything out you, therefore I wasn't surprised.

Moving on.;)

[farmerfan]

The turnovers and trick plays are speculative. Does nothing for me, now.

And please, let the record show, farmerfan has said that the DETROIT LIONS (3-13, in the regular season) are a better team than the DALLAS COWBOYS! (9-7, in the regular season).

You've just thrown out everything that has made your "argument" somewhat decent, FF.

I now know who I've been arguing with...and I plead with you...

PLEASE STOP!

Stop while you're NOT TOO far behind!

Checkmate,
OnE


Did Detroit defeat Dallas?
Did Detroit give Dallas matchup problems all game?
Did Dallas evever have control of that game?
What would lead you to think that Detroit right now isnt a better football team than Dallas?
I mean for christ sake Mike freaking Williams had 2 of his season impressive 8 catches against Dallas. The defense once again could not stop the pass. What makes you think Dallas was the better team?

[farmerfan]

That's funny...I didn't expect anything out you, therefore I wasn't surprised.

Moving on.;)

ha
i set myself up for that. its ok.

[ThEgReAtOnE]

Did Detroit defeat Dallas?
Did Detroit give Dallas matchup problems all game?
Did Dallas evever have control of that game?
What would lead you to think that Detroit right now isnt a better football team than Dallas?
I mean for christ sake Mike freaking Williams had 2 of his season impressive 8 catches against Dallas. The defense once again could not stop the pass. What makes you think Dallas was the better team?

Athletic potential, SOW (Strenght of Wins) and game planning. Simple.

[farmerfan]

Athletic potential, SOW (Strenght of Wins) and game planning. Simple.

so you overlook the most important factor and that is actual head to head results. wow you are a true spin miester.
plus what was so impressive about the quality of Dallas's wins? They only defeated one team with a winning record all year. :eek:

[ThEgReAtOnE]

so you overlook the most important factor and that is actual head to head results. wow you are a true spin miester.
plus what was so impressive about the quality of Dallas's wins? They only defeated one team with a winning record all year. :eek:

The score of the Dallas vs Detriot game is a known fact. Though I use athletic potential, SOW and game planning determing factors, allowing me to believe the better team lost. Losing can hoard several determing factors.

Dallas (9-7) beat 1 team that was 12-4 (Indianapolis), 3 teams with 8-8 records (Carolina, NY Giants, Tennessee) and 1 team that 7-9 (Atlanta). Points forced - 425. Points allowed - 350.

That's not bad.

Detroit beat 1 team that 9-7 (Dallas) and 1 team that was 7-9 (Buffalo).
Points forced - 305. Points allowed - 398.

That's decent...I guess.

Another question...HOUSTON beat INDIANAPOLIS. Is HOUSTON a better football team than INDIANAPOLIS? I would like to believe I understand the hidden flaws of stats and scoreboards.

[lonny23]

The score of the Dallas vs Detriot game is a known fact. Though I use athletic potential, SOW and game planning determing factors, allowing me to believe the better team lost. Losing can hoard several determing factors.

Dallas (9-7) beat 1 team that was 12-4 (Indianapolis), 3 teams with 8-8 records (Carolina, NY Giants, Tennessee) and 1 team that 7-9 (Atlanta). Points forced - 425. Points allowed - 350.

That's not bad.

Detroit beat 1 team that 9-7 (Dallas) and 1 team that was 7-9 (Buffalo).
Points forced - 305. Points allowed - 398.

That's decent...I guess.

Another question...HOUSTON beat INDIANAPOLIS. Is HOUSTON a better football team than INDIANAPOLIS? I would like to believe I understand the flaws of stats and scoreboards. No, Houston is not better than the Colts. I'm not entirely convinced they're better than Cy Falls or Rice!:p