Appalachian State thread

[Entropy]

The last 4 years the Utes have won 9 games, 10 games, 9 games and 7 games.   They had 2 losing season before that but it seems like they've adjusted.

[Brutus Buckeye]

Yeah, they adjusted, but before that they were running the table and beating Bama in bowl games.

It took a while for them to adjust to the week in, week out grind of a P5 schedule. 

KW saw them through the storm.

[bayareabadger]

Yeah, they adjusted, but before that they were running the table and beating Bama in bowl games.

It took a while for them to adjust to the week in, week out grind of a P5 schedule.

KW saw them through the storm.

I mean, the did that once after Urban. They did that in the same way OSU under Tress was running the table and winning huge bowls against teams loaded with NFL players. 
After that Bama year it was
10-3 (Losses to 11-2 BYU, 12-1 TCU and Pac-10 champ Oregon)
10-3 (losses to TCU, ND and Boise in the bowl)
8-5 (Year 1 in Pac-12)
5-7
5-7
9-4
10-3
9-4
It's a reminder of how small things make if feel like there were big swings. 

[Brutus Buckeye]

Yeah, they went from winning at least ten games a year to having losing records.

[847badgerfan]

I really think BSU is ahead of where Utah was at this point. They've sustained for quite a long time now. From 2000-2010 (the last year Utah was in the MWC) Boise was 124-18 (tops in the country by far) and Utah was 96-39.


Boise was also 2-0 against Utah in this time period. They also won a couple of Fiesta Bowls in this period - and of course Utah took down a few giants as well during this time.


I think they are very similar, but Boise is in a better position going in - not that they will ever get that chance. They won't.

[bayareabadger]

Yeah, they went from winning at least ten games a year to having losing records.

The three years before the 13-0 year, they lost 5, 5 and 4 games. College football teams go up and down, it's the nature of these things. 

[Entropy]

agree.. BSU has been better than Utah.   PAC wasn't interested in a small state/school that did not have a great academic reputation.    BSU would have been more competitive than Utah, but both would have need a couple recruiting years to build the depth needed for a power 5 schedule.   IMO, you don't get the depth of players outside the power 5 that you do within... easier to recruit within the power 5.    Doesn't mean they don't have good players, just the depth. 

[Brutus Buckeye]

The three years before the 13-0 year, they lost 5, 5 and 4 games. College football teams go up and down, it's the nature of these things.

Be that as it may, their fanbase went through a period of buyer's remorse. They believed that they may have bitten off more than they could chew. 
In the end, it turned out that be the right move.

[fezzador]

agree.. BSU has been better than Utah.   PAC wasn't interested in a small state/school that did not have a great academic reputation.    BSU would have been more competitive than Utah, but both would have need a couple recruiting years to build the depth needed for a power 5 schedule.   IMO, you don't get the depth of players outside the power 5 that you do within... easier to recruit within the power 5.    Doesn't mean they don't have good players, just the depth.  

I think you're partially correct about the PAC passing on BSU and taking Utah instead.  IMHO, Utah's best teams were probably better than Boise State's best teams, but the Broncos have been a more consistently good program.  A bad season for Utah is 6-6, while a bad season for Boise is 8-4.  
With that being said, BSU is hardly an academic powerhouse, but I think it has potential to become respectable.  I think the real reason why the PAC took Utah over BSU is the SLC market.  It's not as big as Portland or Denver, but at over 1M, it's still twice as big as Boise, so naturally more eyes will be glued to the TV.  Boise is still an extremely fast-growing market, so if the PAC ever finds itself forced to expand again, they may take a harder look at Boise, especially as it approaches the "magical" 1M market threshold.
And if the PAC still thumbs its nose at Boise, the Big 12 may actually be a better fit, especially if they can get BYU in a package deal.

And the Mountain West would then take NDSU, which would then take BSU's place as the premier G5 program.

[OrangeAfroMan]

agree.. BSU has been better than Utah.   PAC wasn't interested in a small state/school that did not have a great academic reputation.    BSU would have been more competitive than Utah, but both would have need a couple recruiting years to build the depth needed for a power 5 schedule.   IMO, you don't get the depth of players outside the power 5 that you do within... easier to recruit within the power 5.    Doesn't mean they don't have good players, just the depth.  

Let's run through this
A. Those are college schedules. Until one of them says something like 500th, they're college schedules. Florida did not host a high school a few weeks back. It hosted a damn college.  Sigh.  Are you limited to being so literal?  A "high school schedule" simply means it's a weak schedule.
B. This does not mean those are robust schedules by any measure. It reflects the basic unbalances of the sport. It reflects that FBS is really a two-class system, with a lot of variance within.
C. Calling those schedules embarrassing for Iowa is a good piece of context-less hot takery. If you give me some sort of nuance beyond, loogit them numbers, I'll read something into it. If not, I'll assume it's shooting from the hip.  We know there are 65ish P5 schools, so one of them having a SOS in the 70s is, in any context you want, embarrassing for them.
D. App State will win lots of game against non-P5 teams. That's who it's allowed to play.
E. The schedule flip game is always just an avenue to say what we want. Most counter factuals are bad. I dunno if Iowa would have hardware. I've seen it lose to NIU and a great FCS team. It's the same silly game of "if team X were in Conference Y" and then we say whatever our worldview supports.
F. You're playing this game that schools have some kind of control over their schedules. They don't. Historically, they've controlled, what? One third or one fourth of the schedule depending on a historical rivalry. And even that you have limited control of because of the sports ups and downs. Lets say a team controls three games because of a historical rivalry, and it picks Western Carolina, Southern Miss and a 4-win UCF team. Then let's say they schedule Western Kentucky, Troy and FAU the next year. That's how you get back-to-back Top-5 schedules.
G. The final question is this defense or support of Boise. What it, and this is just an idea, we assume Boise is a perfectly good football programs maximizing a situation that puts a cap on what it is? Not that it's some fraud. But that it's simply a program that because of the structures of the sport has little way to escape the kids table. Boise doesn't WANT to have a MWC schedule. But no one's offering anything else. SOS is a nice crutch, a sort of washing of the hands of a simple truth: The sport is built to ensure more than half the teams in FBS have no path to compete at the highest level. Boise could have a dang NFL team, and it couldn't change its situation. (Interestingly, the team with the worst SOS in the NFC last year won the Super Bowl, so perhaps, maybe just maybe, a team with poor SOS can actually be worth something)  Reeeeally poor example - the weak SOS allowed them to have a good record and get into the playoffs.

Let's run through this
A. Those are college schedules. Until one of them says something like 500th, they're college schedules. Florida did not host a high school a few weeks back. It hosted a damn college.
B. This does not mean those are robust schedules by any measure. It reflects the basic unbalances of the sport. It reflects that FBS is really a two-class system, with a lot of variance within.
C. Calling those schedules embarrassing for Iowa is a good piece of context-less hot takery. If you give me some sort of nuance beyond, loogit them numbers, I'll read something into it. If not, I'll assume it's shooting from the hip.
D. App State will win lots of game against non-P5 teams. That's who it's allowed to play.
E. The schedule flip game is always just an avenue to say what we want. Most counter factuals are bad. I dunno if Iowa would have hardware. I've seen it lose to NIU and a great FCS team. It's the same silly game of "if team X were in Conference Y" and then we say whatever our worldview supports.
F. You're playing this game that schools have some kind of control over their schedules. They don't. Historically, they've controlled, what? One third or one fourth of the schedule depending on a historical rivalry. And even that you have limited control of because of the sports ups and downs. Lets say a team controls three games because of a historical rivalry, and it picks Western Carolina, Southern Miss and a 4-win UCF team. Then let's say they schedule Western Kentucky, Troy and FAU the next year. That's how you get back-to-back Top-5 schedules.
G. The final question is this defense or support of Boise. What it, and this is just an idea, we assume Boise is a perfectly good football programs maximizing a situation that puts a cap on what it is? Not that it's some fraud. But that it's simply a program that because of the structures of the sport has little way to escape the kids table. Boise doesn't WANT to have a MWC schedule. But no one's offering anything else. SOS is a nice crutch, a sort of washing of the hands of a simple truth: The sport is built to ensure more than half the teams in FBS have no path to compete at the highest level. Boise could have a dang NFL team, and it couldn't change its situation. (Interestingly, the team with the worst SOS in the NFC last year won the Super Bowl, so perhaps, maybe just maybe, a team with poor SOS can actually be worth something)

[OrangeAfroMan]

If you dropped Boise into the PAC, they would be ho-hum in 3 years, if not sooner.  They'd lose their 'biggest fish in the small pond' status.  They'd start playing back-to-back difficult games, which they've never done before.  All while the PAC is really down.

[bayareabadger]

If you dropped Boise into the PAC, they would be ho-hum in 3 years, if not sooner.  They'd lose their 'biggest fish in the small pond' status.  They'd start playing back-to-back difficult games, which they've never done before.  All while the PAC is really down.

It depends how you define ho hum. IF ho hum is good, occasionally very good, than that sounds somewhat likely. Sometimes that's how ho-hum feels.
(People think the big fish and difficult back-to-backs are some kind of magic thing. The last two mid-major call-ups have been either very good or pretty good. Maybe Boise bucks that trend, but chances are, we'll never know and all the discussion will be make believe)

[bayareabadger]

OAM, it won't let me quote that, so I'll answer the three things. 

Sigh.  Are you limited to being so literal?  A "high school schedule" simply means it's a weak schedule.


We're in this college football world where everything has to be sort of extreme. Your schedule can't be mostly good. It has to be high school teams or UTTERLY BRUTAL. A coach has a very narrow window between trash and great. Everything is bombastic. I try to keep a more even keel. Thus, I roll my eyes at the idea that a weak schedule should be characterized as high school. It's also an outgrowth of the fact most people have the most trouble understanding what Division I is. If that wasn't a thing, I'd probably be easier on it. 

We know there are 65ish P5 schools, so one of them having a SOS in the 70s is, in any context you want, embarrassing for them.

Reeeeally poor example - the weak SOS allowed them to have a good record and get into the playoffs.

So these kind of go together. You throw around the 70s as if you know what it means. And you don't. And in truth, you don't want to dig, and have context. You want a number that sounds extreme. We know this because you think the Eagles' schedule was the reason they made the playoffs. Which is silly and inaccurate. But you're not super interested in that part. You want to find the number and have it mean what you want it to mean. (Interestingly college football reference doesn't seem to have season-by-season lists of SOS, so we can't go into how numbers can bunch in the middle)

So here's a hint of background. That SOS is a bastardized NFL metric. It pairs with a simple rating system. The point of the SOS is to say how many points per game your schedule is above or below average and then cross that with MOV. So last year, the Eagles with the bad SOS were the best team in the conference. The Pats were the best team in the other conference. The gaps the spots in SOS are variable and probably pretty thin at points. In short, it's not the magic number that says what you think it says. 

[OrangeAfroMan]

If the NFL's SOS is that convoluted, then why did you bring it up in the first place?!?



I'm perfectly even keeled.  I could do a deep dive and look at the middle 8 teams of Boise's schedule vs the middle 8 vs Iowa's (or whoever else's) schedule, trimming off the extremes and really reveal the difference between a real schedule and a HIGH SCHOOL schedule, but I didn't deem it a worthwhile use of my time.  Because it's obvious.


I keep forgetting nothing is obvious anymore.  Everything's a damn debate - teach the controversy, right?!?