I live in Boise, Idaho home of the Mountain West Conference and Big Sky Territory. I'm sure you all have seen the past Fiesta Bowl where BSU and Chris Peterson trick plays best Oklahoma. From there they have gone on to beat Pac12 opponents (still wondering with Wicox connection to BSU would he consider putting them on our schedule, but that's a different story) but here is my argument and has been evident this year. Cal doesn't have to wait till the end of the year to play bowl game opponent's, we do it every week. With top notch physical athletes who beat up on each other that haveresulted in injuries. We have seen what key injuries will do to a team. When you don't play the same caliber of opponents as a Pac12 team (BSU plays Marshmallow opponents each week with for the most part none of them are in top 25 nor have winning records) injuries don't seem to be an issue. Can BSU compare themselves to a Pac12 team?

IdahoBear said:

---

I live in Boise, Idaho home of the Mountain West Conference and Big Sky Territory. I'm sure you all have seen the past Fiesta Bowl where BSU and Chris Peterson trick plays best Oklahoma. From there they have gone on to beat Pac12 opponents (still wondering with Wicox connection to BSU would he consider putting them on our schedule, but that's a different story) but here is my argument and has been evident this year. Cal doesn't have to wait till the end of the year to play bowl game opponent's, we do it every week. With top notch physical athletes who beat up on each other that haveresulted in injuries. We have seen what key injuries will do to a team. When you don't play the same caliber of opponents as a Pac12 team (BSU plays Marshmallow opponents each week with for the most part none of them are in top 25 nor have winning records) injuries don't seem to be an issue. Can BSU compare themselves to a Pac12 team?

---

Boise's record, going back as far as Dirk Koetter, suggests to me that they are regularly the equal of all but the top 2 or 3 Pac12 teams. I suspect the gap between the Power 5 leagues and the other FBS leagues is much narrower than the average fan (or even the national media) believe. That said, I'm not ready to subscribe to any theory that strength of schedule has any significant effect on injuries, many of which occur on the practice field and are essentially self-inflicted.

I have a very short leg to stand on when we lost to Nevada...

If you feel BSU is worthy of being in the pac12 who would you kick out?

Boise State is a good team and would do fine in the Pac-12. They would contend for the division and championship some years. But their record would probably not be as good as some of their supporters assume just extrapolating from their head-to-head OOC games with the Pac-12 because of the weekly wear-down discussed that they currently don't have to undergo.

I say probably only because I haven't seen any study on this, how playing tough teams every week affects teams physically and psychologically compared with teams that play in an easier conference (not that the MWC is much easier than the Pac-12 these days). The question is whether, when Pac-12 teams play Boise, they are in the midst of a grind and psychologically, it's just another game. Whereas Boise is fresher and circles the date of their match-up with the Pac-12 on their calendar. It seems like it's likely true but I don't know if there's any conclusive evidence for it.

Boise per Sagarin (which is finally getting to the stage in the season where it is worth anything in aggregate based on actual 2019 results) has the 111th toughest strength of schedule, whereas every Pac-12 team has a harder strength of schedule. But then... Boise State is undefeated.

Sagarin:
10. Oregon (SOS: 23rd)
18. Washington (SOS: 32nd) - I think perhaps a bit over-inflated due to their runaway margins against weaker teams.
24. Utah (SOS: 68th)
---------------------------------
25. Boise State (SOS: 111th)
---------------------------------
27. Arizona State (SOS: 44th)
28. USC (SOS: 12th)
35. Stanford (SOS: 2nd)
41. California (SOS: 14th)
48. Washington State (SOS: 98th)
54. Arizona (SOS: 54th)
70. Colorado (SOS: 36th)
75. Oregon State (SOS: 33rd)
80. UCLA (SOS: 5th)

Edited to add: as for Boise State joining the Pac-12, I don't know about that. Lots to consider. But the Pac-12 would probably have to move to 2 7-team divisions like the SEC, with another team besides Boise (San Diego State?) joining as well.

In hindsight, a couple of those Kellen Moore led teams had a tremendous amount of talent and I believe Boise would have been uber competitive with the best of the Pac-12 over the course of those seasons.

Other than that, I think they'd be a typical middle of the road squad. Mostly because the Pac-12 schedule provides no breaks other than bye weeks. BSU fans say that if they were in the P12 they'd get a better recruit (shoring up depth problems) but I would think that six-to-seven loss seasons (or potentially worse) would take a lot of the shine off.

Not sure what, if any, role academics would play. Not sure if they recruit to a less stringent set of rules so technically it might not matter. That said, it would be far and away the easiest degree path in the conference.

In a best case scenario they would be a Utah-lite. Worst case, they'd get into a losing cycle and never be able to get themselves out of it as long as they were a member of the Pac-13.

Boise isn't going to join the P12 for the same reason San Diego State or Fresno State aren't. The P12 is committed to having only research universities (some would argue that even OSU and WSU are a stretch).

Utah came from a lesser league and is now at the top tier of the pac.

Just point to Utah.
Utah was a lot like Boise.
They struggled (compared to how they did in the MW) initially after joining the Pac-12.


2018 Pac-12 9 - 5 .643Kyle Whittingham (9-5) Holiday Bowl-L
2017 Pac-12 7- 6 .538 Kyle Whittingham (7-6) Heart of Dallas Bowl-W
2016 Pac-12 9-4 .692 Kyle Whittingham (9-4) Foster Farms Bowl-W
2015 Pac-12 10-3 .769 Kyle Whittingham (10-3) Las Vegas Bowl-W
2014 Pac-12 9- 4 .692 Kyle Whittingham (9-4) Las Vegas Bowl-W
2013 Pac-12 5-7 .417 Kyle Whittingham (5-7)
2012 Pac-12 5-7 .417 Kyle Whittingham (5-7)
2011 Pac-12 8-5.615 Kyle Whittingham (8-5) Sun Bowl-W
2010 MWC 10 -3 .769 Kyle Whittingham (10-3) Maaco Bowl-L
2009 MWC 10-3 .769 Kyle Whittingham (10-3) Poinsettia Bowl-W
2008 MWC 13-01.000 Kyle Whittingham (13-0) Sugar Bowl-W
2007 MWC 9-4 .692 Kyle Whittingham (9-4) Poinsettia Bowl-W
2006 MWC 8-5 .615 Kyle Whittingham (8-5) Armed Forces Bowl-W
2005 MWC 7-5 .583 Kyle Whittingham (7-5) Emerald Bowl-W
2004 MWC 12-0 1.000 Kyle Whittingham (1-0), Urban Meyer (12-0) Fiesta Bowl-W
2003 MWC 10-2 .833 Urban Meyer (10-2) Liberty Bowl-W

They are doing better now (but not as well as their glory years), partly because they can recruit as a member of the Pac.
It is harder to win consistently in a major conference, especially the Pac-12 with 9 conference games.
The SEC only plays 8, which is easier.

IdahoBear said:

---

Can BSU compare themselves to a Pac12 team?

---

Yes, given they are better than at least half the conference virtually every year, and not due to simply W-L (which is an unfair comparison)

Pac 12 teams play 9 conference games. At one point there were 5 or 6 ranked P12 teams. I'd start and end my arguments there.

My take is if BSU played 9 games against P12 opponents yearly...they'd become very average very quickly. Just look at who Cal has played so far in the Pac: UW, ASU, UO. Still has $C, UCLA, Furd, WSU. BSU would likely win as many games as Cal in this situation, probably less and it would take a physical beating like they've never experienced before.

BSU uses the same tactic as the SEC in scheduling 1 or 2 big games and the rest cupcakes. The thing is, the MWC schedule is basically all cupcakes minus 1 or 2 teams, and they can't play themselves. Just look at the other teams in the MWC.

p.s. to be clear...cherry picking 1 or 2 games a year against P5 teams is NOT the same as a full slate of conference play. Only a full idiot thinks so.

I beg to differ in this case, I think they can "David and Goliath" teams at the end of season, but you need to factor in the wear and tear of playing against 4 and 5 star athletes like USC, UCLA, Stanford etc. each week that it takes a wear and tear on the body. Anyone can draw up a few trick plays, but the week to week grind of playing this kind of talent would wear on any team......where is Chase......

IdahoBear said:

---

I beg to differ in this case, I think they can "David and Goliath" teams at the end of season, but you need to factor in the wear and tear of playing against 4 and 5 star athletes like USC, UCLA, Stanford etc. each week that it takes a wear and tear on the body. Anyone can draw up a few trick plays, but the week to week grind of playing this kind of talent would wear on any team......where is Chase......

---

I guess I wouldn't summarize their success for over a decade as a few trick plays.

I also think you overrate the "wear and tear" factor.

Another Bear said:

---

Pac 12 teams play 9 conference games. At one point there were 5 or 6 ranked P12 teams. I'd start and end my arguments there.

My take is if BSU played 9 games against P12 opponents yearly...they'd become very average very quickly. Just look at who Cal has played so far in the Pac: UW, ASU, UO. Still has $C, UCLA, Furd, WSU. BSU would likely win as many games as Cal in this situation, probably less and it would take a physical beating like they've never experienced before.

BSU uses the same tactic as the SEC in scheduling 1 or 2 big games and the rest cupcakes. The thing is, the MWC schedule is basically all cupcakes minus 1 or 2 teams, and they can't play themselves. Just look at the other teams in the MWC.

---

Boise St record vs P5 2006 - 2015


2016
Pac-12: 2-0
Big 12: 0-1

2017
Pac-12: 1-1

2018
0-0

2019
ACC: 1-0

Total record v P5 since 2005:
19-8.

Their track record for over a decade unequivocally shows they're a legit P5 team.

GBear4Life said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

Pac 12 teams play 9 conference games. At one point there were 5 or 6 ranked P12 teams. I'd start and end my arguments there.

My take is if BSU played 9 games against P12 opponents yearly...they'd become very average very quickly. Just look at who Cal has played so far in the Pac: UW, ASU, UO. Still has $C, UCLA, Furd, WSU. BSU would likely win as many games as Cal in this situation, probably less and it would take a physical beating like they've never experienced before.

BSU uses the same tactic as the SEC in scheduling 1 or 2 big games and the rest cupcakes. The thing is, the MWC schedule is basically all cupcakes minus 1 or 2 teams, and they can't play themselves. Just look at the other teams in the MWC.

---

Boise St record vs P5 2006 - 2015


2016
Pac-12: 2-0
Big 12: 0-1

2017
Pac-12: 1-1

2018
0-0

2019
ACC: 1-0

Total record v P5 since 2005:
19-8.

Their track record for over a decade unequivocally shows they're a legit P5 team.

---

GBear some homework, what were the combined records of those beaten by BSU? So far this year the combined records of their opponents is 14-14, Cal has a 19-14 record. Do really compare Marshall, PSU, Air Force, UNLV and FSU to Oregon, Washington. Arizona State, Ole Miss? My point is anyone can get up for one big game at the end of the season but if you had to grind it out each week I don't think BSU could hang with the Pac12. Go Hawaii Rainbow Warriors!

Boise is a good team although they would not look as good in the P12, at least initially. As for them joining the P12, why would we invite them? They contribute nothing to us financially via a new TV contract. Add them and SDSU or NM, and the only result is a lower per school payout.

Correct expansion move remains to add Oklahoma, Okie State, Texas and Texas Tech. That increases per school payout.

IdahoBear said:

---

GBear some homework, what were the combined records of those beaten by BSU? So far this year the combined records of their opponents is 14-14, Cal has a 19-14 record. Do really compare Marshall, PSU, Air Force, UNLV and FSU to Oregon, Washington. Arizona State, Ole Miss? My point is anyone can get up for one big game at the end of the season but if you had to grind it out each week I don't think BSU could hang with the Pac12. Go Hawaii Rainbow Warriors!

---

Is your position they wouldn't be Pac-12 contenders or they haven't demonstrated to be better than any of the 12 teams in the Pac?

I seem to recall a statement by a coach a couple of years ago: "...they can get anyone they want up there." Meaning that admissions are not a problem at BS and the players don't appear to worry about academics. That isn't the case in the P12 (although who knows what goes on at WSU, OSU and ASU?).

BSU vs. Utah comparison: The problem for BSU is that a) Boise, while a great city and an even better football town, is dwarfed all the way around by Salt Lake City and b) UofU is a researching flagship and all that while BSU is not and c) a boatload more of alums, well healed and otherwise.

Much easier and realistic for Utah to have successfully made that transition versus what would be ahead for Boise State if they ever walked that path.

Bear8 said:

---

I seem to recall a statement by a coach a couple of years ago: "...they can get anyone they want up there." Meaning that admissions are not a problem at BS and the players don't appear to worry about academics. That isn't the case in the P12 (although who knows what goes on at WSU, OSU and ASU?).

---

What suggests they don't "worry about academics"?

If a state school has a high admission % (that's their job, to admit as many residents of the state as possible that in theory is not handicapped enough to flunk out), it automatically means the students don't care about academics?

Does everybody from Cal think this about other schools? It's pretty ignorant.

A lot of schools, even prestigious schools -- including Cal, I think (?) -- lower admission standards for athletes who excel in their trade. Yes, it would be counterproductive to let players in who don't show the acumen to graduate in 5 years even with resources like free tutorship etc.

I'm 100% in favor of this. It benefits all parties -- school and student athlete. Schools like Cal reject a lot of bright students. There are many to go around.

Lot of good programs and quality students at state schools. A lower percentage, sure.

UrsaMajor said:

---

Boise isn't going to join the P12 for the same reason San Diego State or Fresno State aren't. The P12 is committed to having only research universities (some would argue that even OSU and WSU are a stretch).

---

Nope, Wazzou or OSU are not a stretch; they are (perhaps surprisingly?) R1 uni's, as are the rest of the p12. Boise State is an R2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_research_universities_in_the_United_States

GBear4Life said:

---

IdahoBear said:

---

GBear some homework, what were the combined records of those beaten by BSU? So far this year the combined records of their opponents is 14-14, Cal has a 19-14 record. Do really compare Marshall, PSU, Air Force, UNLV and FSU to Oregon, Washington. Arizona State, Ole Miss? My point is anyone can get up for one big game at the end of the season but if you had to grind it out each week I don't think BSU could hang with the Pac12. Go Hawaii Rainbow Warriors!

---

Is your position they wouldn't be Pac-12 contenders or they haven't demonstrated to be better than any of the 12 teams in the Pac?

---

I would say they would non contender either way, we are 4-2 with 2 loses to top 25 teams and we are a non contender...

IdahoBear said:

---

I would say they would non contender either way, we are 4-2 with 2 loses to top 25 teams and we are a non contender...

---

Okay, I think they'd be a shoe-in to place better in the Pac 12 than we have since its inception (so top half). And they'd occasionally challenge for the conference title. They'd be getting even better players as a Pac member.

Utah is the best comparison, and they've been competitive, but they've never won a conference championship and they've never gone to a major bowl while in the PAC-12. And that's probably the best case scenario. Utah is in a larger market and has recruiting advantages. Boise would be competitive some years and less competitive in other years. No way do they compete at or near the top of the conference year in and year out.

AEM80 said:

---

Utah is the best comparison, and they've been competitive, but they've never won a conference championship and they've never gone to a major bowl while in the PAC-12. And that's probably the best case scenario. Utah is in a larger market and has recruiting advantages. Boise would be competitive some years and less competitive in other years. No way do they compete at or near the top of the conference year in and year out.

---

What's a major bowl game these days? And how many Pac teams and # of times have they been in one?

AEM80 said:

---

Utah is the best comparison, and they've been competitive, but they've never won a conference championship and they've never gone to a major bowl while in the PAC-12. And that's probably the best case scenario. Utah is in a larger market and has recruiting advantages. Boise would be competitive some years and less competitive in other years. No way do they compete at or near the top of the conference year in and year out.

---

To me, both Utah and TCU proved that moving to a P5 conference would initially take some adjustment, because the level of competition week in and week out would wear down a team making the transition.

First, there is they physical aspect of playing bigger teams almost every week, and second, there isn't that one or two games a season you get up for because it defines your season and you're super focused - you're playing that level of competition every week

Doesn't mean there isn't the possibility of longer term success, but both Utah and TCU were a the top of the mountain at a lower level conference, and both took a substantial step back their first few years.

Both now can contend for their respective conference titles from time to time - but neither was able to "transfer" their 11 and 12 win seasons immediately into the same number of wins in the P5 type conference and I feel it would be the same with any other G5 program - it would take some time

The issue is there is no shortage of first team talent in the country. That D1AA teams beat D1A teams shows that. Boise beating Oklahoma doesn't mean much when AppSt beats a highly ranked Michigan at home. It happens.

Boise, like Cal, doesn't have the depth. How many times have we heard about Cal's D getting worn down in the 4th. How many times did they say "Oregon will rotate 10 or 12 guys on the Dline, Cal will use the same guys all game." last week?

How many times have we heard USCs third team would start anywhere else?

Depth doesn't matter when no one in the conference has depth. Depth doesn't matter when you can find the energy to play 60 minutes at peak imtensity occasionally. Depth DOES matter when other teams have depth and you need to play 60 minutes 10 times a year.

Boise would get obliterated in the PAC. They have the talent to beat anyone, but not everyone. Same as Cal. If they moved to the PAC, they could maybe recruit that next level of athletes and get to the next tier, but Cal hasn't been able to for a decade, so maybe not.