[LandRun89']

Originally Posted by ShowMeTigers

They were hard to predict this year. They had a lot of close games and mostly won with defense while their offense was poor. Washington had more quality wins, thats why I picked them. But your right, every time I pick Boise to lose they end up winning.

Well, your right SMT. Their defense came to the rescue several times. Kellen is a hard act to follow! At the same time, WU did have more quality wins, so go figure!...

They always seem to come out on top when most think they are on the bottom side... They do have some very good players! Peterson seems to always have whatever goods, are needed to pull it out!...

[Major Seahawk]

Originally Posted by Viper

A third macco bowl.....yay.

Hey its not bad for a huge rebuilding year. I predicted they would lose 3 games at the beginning of the season and they only lost 2 so they did damn good

[WeWantTheVest]

Originally Posted by Kinnick

Boise never impresses me, they just keep slipping by. They beat a BCS conference team but the team was 7-5, lost three games by a total of 104 points and also lost to Wash St. If Boise doesn't lose at home to SDSU, they are in a BCS game.

Boise always impresses me. Everyone says they're no good and will lose, but they keep winning. I don't even remember the last time they had an unsuccessful season. They've been nothing but impressive for the better part of two decades.

Haters gonna hate.

[BamaChamps]

Originally Posted by WeWantTheVest

Boise always impresses me. Everyone says they're no good and will lose, but they keep winning. I don't even remember the last time they had an unsuccessful season. They've been nothing but impressive for the better part of two decades.

Haters gonna hate.

No. I lot of people stated that if they were in a better conference like Utah and TCU, they would have a conference record like Utah (7-11 in PAC 12 in two years) and TCU (4-5 in Big 12 in one year). Nothing is impressive about racking up wins by beating high school homecoming opponents.

For example Kentucky who is consistently the worst team in the SEC and who did not win a game in the SEC (0-8) absolutely destroyed MAC school (11-2) Kent St. 47-14. Just because a school can inflate their record against overmatched opponents doesn't mean they are nearly as great as their record would indicate.

Boise is a good team but its annoying when some of their fans compared their success to AQ schools who actually have to play 3 ranked teams in a row, that actually have a chance of beating them and not the worst schools in FBS.

Its funny how Utah and TCU had equal or close to the same level of success while they were in the MWC and the WAC, but as soon as they go to a decent AQ conference they severely struggle to reach .500 in conference play.

[Major Seahawk]

Nobody has made a case for Utah being an elite team. They had a good one in 08, but for that one year only. They don't have a good program like Boise and TCU do. So putting Utah in there is irrelevant cause they aren't on the same level as the other two. And you're completely ignoring the fact that TCU was undefeated this year until they lost their starting QB, only after that they started losing games. Big deal, as soon as he was gone everyone knew they wouldn't be as good. That's just the way it goes. Considering the circumstances I think TCU's first year in the BIG 12 was a success, and if they hadn't of lost Pachall they would have challenged for the conference title

[BamaChamps]

Originally Posted by Major Seahawk

Nobody has made a case for Utah being an elite team. They had a good one in 08, but for that one year only. They don't have a good program like Boise and TCU do. So putting Utah in there is irrelevant cause they aren't on the same level as the other two.

I'm strictly stating their success in the MWC. They won the conference 3 times in the last ten years (2003,2004, 2008). And the last year before they went to the PAC 12 they finished 2nd in 2010. But you made my point that you don't have to be an elite team to have a lot of success in the MWC.

Originally Posted by Major Seahawk

And you're completely ignoring the fact that TCU was undefeated this year until they lost their starting QB, only after that they started losing games. Big deal, as soon as he was gone everyone knew they wouldn't be as good. That's just the way it goes. Considering the circumstances I think TCU's first year in the BIG 12 was a success, and if they hadn't of lost Pachall they would have challenged for the conference title

That's part of football whether by injury or suspension like in Pachall's case. LSU lost a heisman candidate in the Honey Badger and still won 10 games, South Carolina lost Marcus Lattimore still won 10 games no excuses when you play with the big boys. Plus the bottom half of TCU schedule was by far the hardest, Texas Tech, OK State, West Va, K State, Texas, and OK last six.

[WeWantTheVest]

Let me guess, his arguments consist of Boise is a high school team that never plays anyone and if you don't play in the SEC you might as well not even play. Am I close?

[BamaChamps]

Good luck in your bowl game Vest. I'm sure Meyer will have them prepared.

[JDIII2007]

Originally Posted by BamaChamps

Its funny how Utah and TCU had equal or close to the same level of success while they were in the MWC and the WAC, but as soon as they go to a decent AQ conference they severely struggle to reach .500 in conference play.

You are a moron who knows nothing about TCU. If not for record attrition, TCU would have done its usual this year. Few teams in the country would have performed as well as TCU did this season with similar attrition. The only thing funny is how the same hacks (you for one) continue to try to fit TCU into their preconceived notions. Sorry, it doesn't work. TCU did fine in year 1 in the Big12 and will do even better in year 2.

[LandRun89']

Originally Posted by Major Seahawk

Nobody has made a case for Utah being an elite team. They had a good one in 08, but for that one year only. They don't have a good program like Boise and TCU do. So putting Utah in there is irrelevant cause they aren't on the same level as the other two. And you're completely ignoring the fact that TCU was undefeated this year until they lost their starting QB, only after that they started losing games. Big deal, as soon as he was gone everyone knew they wouldn't be as good. That's just the way it goes. Considering the circumstances I think TCU's first year in the BIG 12 was a success, and if they hadn't of lost Pachall they would have challenged for the conference title

Most people that I know in CFB, don't use the word "Elite" unless, they are 13-0 and have the crystal football in their hands!...