Boise St Anytime, Anywhere, $$$$

[BGIF]

Boise State wanted $1 million to play Nebraska? - CBSSports.com

Boise State wanted $1 million to play Nebraska?
Posted by Adam Jacobi
September 9, 2010

It's pretty well-known that Boise State has historically struggled to fill its schedule with enough legitimate teams to beef the season's strength of schedule to the point of respectability. Sure, there's Oregon last year, Virginia Tech last weekend, but by and large, it's slim pickings. But if the report from the Omaha World-Herald today is true, it sure sounds like Boise's not really putting in a good-faith effort:

Nebraska called. Nebraska tried.

In the past year, NU tried to put together a series with BSU; two-for-one, home-and-home, one-way trip to Lincoln. Whatever. It ended up fizzling out. Why?

Because, according to NU Assistant Athletic Director Jeff Jamrog, Boise wanted a minimum $1 million to play in Lincoln.

This, of course, is insanity. Nebraska has zero incentive to agree to a deal like that; while the athletic program would still make money off of the game even after handing over seven figures to their esteemed guests, they'd make a lot more by hosting any number of other programs instead. Moreover, for BCS teams, non-conference strength of schedule doesn't really matter. Or, if you demand more nuance, SOS does matter, but not nearly to the extent that it would offset the negative effect of taking a loss should Nebraska lose that game (easily possible).

But if that's the way Boise wants to play it, by all means, let them. Just keep stories like these in mind the next time a BSU fan complains about the consequences of the cupcake schedule they face every year.

Note the question mark in the blog title.

 

[mgriff]

I would like to see some more confirmation on this before I pass judgment, but if this is the case, then I have more reason not to like Boise!

 

[DirtySecret]

I would like to see some more confirmation on this before I pass judgment, but if this is the case, then I have more reason not to like Boise!

It's been romured in pervious years about Boise St asking so much to play them. What irks me is that they play the "it's not our fault our schedule sucks, nobody will play us" card then they make such unreasonable demands that no big-time BCS school will ever agree, then they walk to the first reporter they see and say, "See, they won't play us. They're afraid of us.." When in reversed, Boise wouldn't agree to those draconian terms, either. Why would anyone? Why pay Boise $1m for a tough, loseable game when you could pay North Texas a little over half that for a cakewalk?

 

[WaveDomer]

At this point in time, and for the past few years, BSU is a better program than Nebraska. This price is not so outrageous when you compare it to what other schools are getting. Nebraska is paying Idaho 800 grand to play in Lincoln and they won't throw in another 200 grand to play BSU? Something is probably amiss in this story. Of course, you can go with the logic that it doesn't make sense to pay more money for a potential loss. Also, VT is potentially a better program at this point than Nebraska and BSU didn't duck them. Outside of the WAC, BSU plays/played VT, Wyoming, Oregon State, and Toledo. VT is a legitimate top 20 team and Oregon State will probably be by the end of the year. Okay, Toledo blows. Wyoming is so-so. The rest is WAC. Next year they move to the MWC, which has 3 teams that are ranked in some poll: TCU, Utah, and BYU. So they are doing what they should be doing at this point. Should a 1 loss SEC team leapfrog an undefeated BSU team? Probably, depending on the loss. But I just don't get this anti-BSU deal. They are a good team, very good. They are good even if they play the AFC East schedule. Their recruiting rank last year was ranked 96 by Rivals. In 2007 their recruiting, including Kellen Moore, was ranked 68. They are a good program that wins consistently with kids who aren't recruited by big name schools. They are well coached and play good football. They give great TV. So, I don't get the anti-feeling. I don't see the players or Petersen being smug or anything but good sportsmen. The fans may be a different story, but fans are fans.

 

[BGIF]

At this point in time, and for the past few years, BSU is a better program than Nebraska. This price is not so outrageous when you compare it to what other schools are getting. Nebraska is paying Idaho 800 grand to play in Lincoln and they won't throw in another 200 grand to play BSU? Something is probably amiss in this story. Of course, you can go with the logic that it doesn't make sense to pay more money for a potential loss. Also, VT is potentially a better program at this point than Nebraska and BSU didn't duck them. Outside of the WAC, BSU plays/played VT, Wyoming, Oregon State, and Toledo. VT is a legitimate top 20 team and Oregon State will probably be by the end of the year. Okay, Toledo blows. Wyoming is so-so. The rest is WAC. Next year they move to the MWC, which has 3 teams that are ranked in some poll: TCU, Utah, and BYU. So they are doing what they should be doing at this point. Should a 1 loss SEC team leapfrog an undefeated BSU team? Probably, depending on the loss. But I just don't get this anti-BSU deal. They are a good team, very good. They are good even if they play the AFC East schedule. Their recruiting rank last year was ranked 96 by Rivals. In 2007 their recruiting, including Kellen Moore, was ranked 68. They are a good program that wins consistently with kids who aren't recruited by big name schools. They are well coached and play good football. They give great TV. So, I don't get the anti-feeling. I don't see the players or Petersen being smug or anything but good sportsmen. The fans may be a different story, but fans are fans.

Nice commentary on everything about BSU EXCEPT their lamentation that they can't get a game. Whether VT is a better program than NU is a smoke screen. That they played VT is a smoke screen. So is this whole nonresponsive, "anti-feeling" commentary on a simple article about scheduling a series with the type of school BSU complains refuses to schedule them. That smacks of the Jackson/Sharpton "I'm a victim" shakedown (but if you write out a big enough check we'll be quiet).

BSU laments we can't get a game and we'll go anywhere. (Yeah, as long as THEIR conditions are met).

Do a google search and you'll find articles from both the Nebraska and Idaho papers as well as a number of other websites discussing a NU/BSU series of games. There are articles from January 2010 discussing a variety of options that NU offered ranging from a 2 for 1 to a straight buyout. BSU said no to all. That is their preogative. But you don't get to cry "nobody will schedule us" when you reject games.

Pat Hill took Fresno St anywhere, anytime. When he said it, he meant it.

 

[DirtySecret]

Nice commentary on everything about BSU EXCEPT their lamentation that they can't get a game. Whether VT is a better program than NU is a smoke screen. That they played VT is a smoke screen. So is this whole nonresponsive, "anti-feeling" commentary on a simple article about scheduling a series with the type of school BSU complains refuses to schedule them. That smacks of the Jackson/Sharpton "I'm a victim" shakedown (but if you write out a big enough check we'll be quiet).

BSU laments we can't get a game and we'll go anywhere. (Yeah, as long as THEIR conditions are met).

Do a google search and you'll find articles from both the Nebraska and Idaho papers as well as a number of other websites discussing a NU/BSU series of games. There are articles from January 2010 discussing a variety of options that NU offered ranging from a 2 for 1 to a straight buyout. BSU said no to all. That is their preogative. But you don't get to cry "nobody will schedule us" when you reject games.

Pat Hill took Fresno St anywhere, anytime. When he said it, he meant it.

Agree.. This the reason I don't like Boise St. will they play anyone, anywhere? For the right price, yea, ofcourse for the right price..

 

[WaveDomer]

Actually, it's not much of a smokescreen. Out of 4 non-conference games they play 2 top teams, one okay team and one not good team. Next year they move to a conference that will be very good with their addition. Plus, you don't really know why the NU negotiations broke down. It could be a variety of reasons. If they were "ducking" teams, why the heck would they fly to DC to play VT? Keep in mind that BSU is a relatively new program. One of the reasons they have skyrocketed is that they have managed the program well. That includes who and where they schedule, etc. Is money not supposed to be a concern to them? Why is money a legitimate concern to every other school, especially any BCS school, but if it's a concern to BSU, they are ducking? Boise State is a relatively small program. They don't have a major tv contract, their alumni base isn't on the same level as bigger programs, and their stadium doesn't seat that much. A BCS game is a huge payday for a school like Boise State. Even Nebraska fans think it's interesting that they would pay Idaho 800k but not 200 more for BSU. Fresno State will go anywhere at any time. Good for them. It hasn't really served them well. What Boise State has done has served them very well so far. It's easy for schools like Bama etc. to talk when money for their program isn't really a total concern. You can say that they aren't living up to "anyplace anytime", but college football is still a business that needs to be managed well.

 

[RDU Irish]

Charge an extra $4 per ticket for that game only, blame BSU and build a little more animosity for fans that don't need much of a reason to get vitriolic.

You don't think trading BSU for WMU on our schedule this year would be worth $200K AT MINIMUM for the added pomp and circumstance that would surround the game? BSU is building a brand and expecting a higher payout for a better product makes sense (unless you are a pinko commie socialist).

 

[military_irish]

At this point in time, and for the past few years, BSU is a better program than Nebraska. This price is not so outrageous when you compare it to what other schools are getting. Nebraska is paying Idaho 800 grand to play in Lincoln and they won't throw in another 200 grand to play BSU? Something is probably amiss in this story. Of course, you can go with the logic that it doesn't make sense to pay more money for a potential loss. Also, VT is potentially a better program at this point than Nebraska and BSU didn't duck them. Outside of the WAC, BSU plays/played VT, Wyoming, Oregon State, and Toledo. VT is a legitimate top 20 team and Oregon State will probably be by the end of the year. Okay, Toledo blows. Wyoming is so-so. The rest is WAC. Next year they move to the MWC, which has 3 teams that are ranked in some poll: TCU, Utah, and BYU. So they are doing what they should be doing at this point. Should a 1 loss SEC team leapfrog an undefeated BSU team? Probably, depending on the loss. But I just don't get this anti-BSU deal. They are a good team, very good. They are good even if they play the AFC East schedule. Their recruiting rank last year was ranked 96 by Rivals. In 2007 their recruiting, including Kellen Moore, was ranked 68. They are a good program that wins consistently with kids who aren't recruited by big name schools. They are well coached and play good football. They give great TV. So, I don't get the anti-feeling. I don't see the players or Petersen being smug or anything but good sportsmen. The fans may be a different story, but fans are fans.

as much as i want to agree with you its hard for the fact that when Boise moves to the MWC both Utah and BYU will be leaving. Utah to the PAC-10 and BYU is going independent.

I've always been one to root for the "underdog" when it comes to games that don't involve ND. The way i see it is if a non-BCS team should never be in the NC game then they shouldn't be D-I. if the only ones allowed are BCS teams because of there schedule then they should be the only ones to play D-I football.

i guess what i am saying is if their are 120 college teams but only half or so can make it then whats the point of the other teams. just get rid of the rest, but until that time comes, which it won't because of all the ratings it gets, everyone will just have to deal with the possiblities.

 

[LeapinLeprechaun]

Of course all this crap could be put to rest if they just went to a playoff system. God forbid we would want competitors to actually settle it on the field.

Plus I still want our 1993 National Championship back. That has nothing to do with this topic, but it still pisses me off.

 

[eNDzone]

How does Boise St. not end up in the national championship game with the rest of their schedule? Beat Two good teams ,don't worry about getting beat on all year and you play for the NC.
Maybe they should think about where they rank teams that have soft shedules. But I guess the BCS rankings are not out yet ,so we will see.

 

[kmoose]

BSU is building a brand and expecting a higher payout for a better product makes sense (unless you are a pinko commie socialist).

Kia Motors is building a brand, too. But they aren't charging the same money as Mercedes, are they?

 

[irishfan]

If you want to be treated like a top team, start acting like one. Don't bitch about money. Take a bus to Nebraska if you have to. A 12-0 season with wins over VT and Nebraska would have just about assured a slot in the NC (as long as there weren't two undefeated BIG 10/Big 12/SEC teams) You have to take that game.

 

[DirtySecret]

I know most of the "Let Boise have a shot" crowd will think I am just a homer but here goes. I agree that on a one game basis BSU can compete with good teams. I just think giving them a NC game shot is like letting a jockey enter the horse race in the last turn. I can't help who is in their conference. If you put them in a tough conference and see how they navigate a real schedule with injuries and fatigue as factors just like they are for all the top programs then you would see what they are really made of. It is interesting to see that BSU had all summer to prepare for VT and then they have a week off their second weekend of the season and, guess what?, then they play their only other ranked opponent. How convenient! I know these schedules are made out years in advance and all but come on... we all know SJSU, NMS, Toledo, La Tech, Fresno State, etc. are not going to be ranked top 25 anytime soon so please let that argument sit on the shelf for now. Again, I agree they are a talented team but they still have to prove they can compete week in and week out with the top level of opponents not just one or two games a year before I will agree that they are a powerhouse football team. No one in college football plays a one game season. You are only as good as the teams you beat.

 

[coachjohnson]

I would love to play Boise State. Funny that Va Tech got beat by JMU, that really hurts the Boise win.

 

[DirtySecret]

I would love to play Boise State. Funny that Va Tech got beat by JMU, that really hurts the Boise win.

Yea Boise would ask for 1.5M for ND to play them, screw that!!

 

[WaveDomer]

I know most of the "Let Boise have a shot" crowd will think I am just a homer but here goes. I agree that on a one game basis BSU can compete with good teams. I just think giving them a NC game shot is like letting a jockey enter the horse race in the last turn. I can't help who is in their conference. If you put them in a tough conference and see how they navigate a real schedule with injuries and fatigue as factors just like they are for all the top programs then you would see what they are really made of. It is interesting to see that BSU had all summer to prepare for VT and then they have a week off their second weekend of the season and, guess what?, then they play their only other ranked opponent. How convenient! I know these schedules are made out years in advance and all but come on... we all know SJSU, NMS, Toledo, La Tech, Fresno State, etc. are not going to be ranked top 25 anytime soon so please let that argument sit on the shelf for now. Again, I agree they are a talented team but they still have to prove they can compete week in and week out with the top level of opponents not just one or two games a year before I will agree that they are a powerhouse football team. No one in college football plays a one game season. You are only as good as the teams you beat.

I don't necessarily disagree with this. Like I said above, I would take a one loss top tier team over BSU for the Nat. Champ game. However, you are wrong about their schedule. They play Wyoming this week, then they play O State. Taking a week off is just smart. Look what happened to Tech. That was just dumb. Then, even though Utah and BYU are leaving the MWC, BSU still has them scheduled for the next few years.

That VA Tech loss probably bones them for this year, unless they drop the hammer on every team they play.

 

[Irish_Angst]

Of course all this crap could be put to rest if they just went to a playoff system. God forbid we would want competitors to actually settle it on the field.

Plus I still want our 1993 National Championship back. That has nothing to do with this topic, but it still pisses me off.

+1000

Absolutely no reason Div 1 College Football is the only sport on the planet (other than the horseshoes and hand grenade league) that doesn't have a playoff. Implement that and all this other BS goes away.

And I want our '93 Title back too... Bubby B didn't deserve it!

 

[ACamp1900]

+1000

Absolutely no reason Div 1 College Football is the only sport on the planet (other than the horseshoes and hand grenade league) that doesn't have a playoff. Implement that and all this other BS goes away.

And I want our '93 Title back too... Bubby B didn't deserve it!

Yes because God knows relegating the regular season to nothing more than a qualifer to a playoff even though the sample size of the season tells you TONS more than some crap shoot playoff, allowing teams that are nowhere near the best in their conference/divison to potentially become the "best team in the sport" because they get hot for one month, and destroying the bowls is not BS.....


I am so sick of this weak ass playoff argument... playoffs have just as many flaws as the BCS if anyone ever cares to look at them... the BCS is not perfect and needs to be fixed... a playoff kills cfb and would make it a one month sport in the eyes of America. Just like cbb, the NHL or the NBA... hell all sports seem to be losing interest in anything but the playoffs... The strength of cfb is it's regular season... let's go destroy that so we can all live in the staus quo.

(takes deep breath... moves on from his playoff hating rant)

 

[IrishinSyria]

I was wondering when you were going to make an appearance here camp. Question for you: because, presumably, any college football playoff would be incredibly selective to make doesn't that make it more in line with what you ultimately want: settling the question of whose best on the field?

 

[mgriff]

Yes because God knows relegating the regular season to nothing more than a qualifer to a playoff even though the sample size of the season tells you TONS more than some crap shoot playoff, allowing teams that are nowhere near the best in their conference/divison to potentially become the "best team in the sport" because they get hot for one month, and destroying the bowls is not BS.....


I am so sick of this weak ass playoff argument... playoffs have just as many flaws as the BCS if anyone ever cares to look at them... the BCS is not perfect and needs to be fixed... a playoff kills cfb and would make it a one month sport in the eyes of America. Just like cbb, the NHL or the NBA... hell all sports seem to be losing interest in anything but the playoffs... The strength of cfb is it's regular season... let's go destroy that so we can all live in the staus quo.

(takes deep breath... moves on from his playoff hating rant)

I've always been a proponent for a playoff, but the more I think about it, the more I realize that I agree with ACamp and his train of thought. I don't watch the college basketball season, I watch March Madness. I don't really watch the NFL, I watch the playoffs. I do, however, watch all of college football. Even if there is a playoff, there are still going to be teams that get screwed, it's the nature of the beast. Teams still get screwed in playoff systems in every sport, and it would absolutely diminish the college football season if they went to a playoff.

 

[ACamp1900]

lol... I couldn't hold back... I tried


I could live with a playoff if we were to keep the bowls and play a four team playoff the week after... MAYBE... but you would have to have it written in stone that you could never, ever, ever expand it under any circumstance... this is why I have said just move the title game back one week and do the bowls the way they used to... their will NOT be three undfeated teams... and the teams that cry about getting left out who have lost a game... here's a violin.

why destroy what makes CFB great??? and you can call it a false arugment all you want... but it is a fact that every other sport has expanded and expanded and expanded while the fans cry for the number three team left out of a 1&2... then cry for the number five team left out of the 4 team playoff then the number nine team left out of the 8 team and so on... it's happened everytime,.. and everytime the sports go along with it because it's all dollars to them... more games. NOT about fairness.

I find it imposible to believe that within 20 years of putting in a playoff system we wouldn't have a football version of the abortion that is college baskteball...

and I'll always stand by this... I get angry when teams go undefeated and don't get their shot... The BCS must be fixed somehow... but I get just as angry when some wildcard team knocks off some division winner that proved their place over the course of the entire season... how one game in football or three games in baseball can mean more than 16 games or 162 is just flippin beyond me... I can't stand this "win it when it counts" stuff that a playoff creates... I believe every game should carry the same weight... the system that comes cloest to this is the BCS... for all it's faults.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Though I will defend the NHL playoffs to my last breath, I agree with your general point. I just think that in college football, a playoff could resolve a lot of the uncertainty of the BCS while not diluting the regular season: it would be just as hard to get into an 8 team playoff as it was to get into the old BCS. I agree that under no circumstances could it be expanded AND that people would still cry about teams 9 and 10.

 

[ACamp1900]

Though I will defend the NHL playoffs to my last breath, I agree with your general point. I just think that in college football, a playoff could resolve a lot of the uncertainty of the BCS while not diluting the regular season: it would be just as hard to get into an 8 team playoff as it was to get into the old BCS. I agree that under no circumstances could it be expanded AND that people would still cry about teams 9 and 10.

I agree with this point overall... and like the idea of SMALL playoffs... the way baseball and football used to do them... win your large divison in baseball and play ONLY teams that also won theirs...

or in football... have the best record in your conference and play the other team from the other conference... and that's it... when you water down who can qualify you water down the season and thus the championship itself... IF there is a tie, THEN you have a playoff... nothing wrong with that from any perspective...

but there is no way cfb would not expand it once you put it in place... sorry, it would happen and probably happen very quickly.

 

[mgriff]

The conference champs would be nice for a college playoff, but then you have some weak winners getting in because they won their weak conference. I would only go along with that if they restructured all of college football to create balanced conferences. That won't happen anytime soon....oh wait.....expansion.......four 16 team superconferences. I will fight that tooth and nail, but if it happens, we will probably see a four team playoff with the winners of the four playing.

 

[ACamp1900]

The conference champs would be nice for a college playoff, but then you have some weak winners getting in because they won their weak conference. I would only go along with that if they restructured all of college football to create balanced conferences. That won't happen anytime soon....oh wait.....expansion.......four 16 team superconferences. I will fight that tooth and nail, but if it happens, we will probably see a four team playoff with the winners of the four playing.

if you had super conferences and stuff... yeah, maybe... you still take the bowls out of it... but eh...

youre talking about a huge fundemental change to make that work though... it's like wanting to change step 19 on the instructions when you haven't even gotten to step 2

If you put in a playoff you already destroy all the conference rival, and tradition type stuff anyway imo... if you go there you might as well make it something that really works... this would sound better than doing a playoff from our current format imo.

 

[Irish_Angst]

Yes because God knows relegating the regular season to nothing more than a qualifer to a playoff even though the sample size of the season tells you TONS more than some crap shoot playoff, allowing teams that are nowhere near the best in their conference/divison to potentially become the "best team in the sport" because they get hot for one month, and destroying the bowls is not BS.....


I am so sick of this weak ass playoff argument... playoffs have just as many flaws as the BCS if anyone ever cares to look at them... the BCS is not perfect and needs to be fixed... a playoff kills cfb and would make it a one month sport in the eyes of America. Just like cbb, the NHL or the NBA... hell all sports seem to be losing interest in anything but the playoffs... The strength of cfb is it's regular season... let's go destroy that so we can all live in the staus quo.

(takes deep breath... moves on from his playoff hating rant)

Sorry... but I just don't buy that argument that going to a playoff will ruin college football.

It's not that hard:
- 8 teams (6 conf champions & 2 at large teams).
- Use existing BCS bowls to play the games (rotate as needed).
- Everyone else can still play in the "regular bowls".

OR

- 4 teams (top ranked teams after regular season).
- Use existing BCS bowls to play the games (rotate as needed).
- Everyone else can still play in the "regular bowls".

There. Done and done. Much better than the monkey forkin' a football BCS system we have now where weasel teams like Boise State can back their blue azzes into a championship game.

The argument that fans lose interest in a sport is NOT due to having playoffs, it's because of too damn many games (basketball, baseball, etc) that dilutes the value of each contest. College football does not have that problem.

 

[ACamp1900]

sorry, expanded playoffs ruined each of those sports on down the line... each game should count equal... not one game played in december counts 100% more than one played in september... and IF you do cut the importance into segments the bigger sample size whould carry the bigger weight and yeah people don't watch cbb's reg. season b/c it does not matter... the number of games has nothing to do with it...

to each their own though... many have tried to convince me how great playoffs are... none have suceeded and most likely never will... because they are just as flawed... noble effort though...

k, off to work.

 

[Irish_Angst]

Understood. Being an anal-retentive German, I like (demand! ) clarity & resolution to a season by having the final results settled on the field instead of by politicking and maneuvering.

But I can see how others may differ.