Bleacher Report - Boise State Football

Why Boise State's Kellen Moore Belongs in the Heisman Race

Kevin Hatfield — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:03:01 -0500

Mark Ingram, Toby Gerhart, C.J. Spiller, Case Keenum, Colt McCoy, and Tim Tebow are the players being considered for the ever-so-biased Heisman Trophy. All of these players have one of two qualities: quality stats or wins.

But Kellen Moore has both.

Moore is the leader of the No.1 ranked Boise State offense. They average 44.6 points per game to go along with 456 yards per game. These are very impressive team stats, but Moore also does it individually.

Moore is leading the nation in passer efficiency and in touchdowns as well. One of Moore's most impressive stats is his remarkable 33 touchdowns to three interceptions, which also puts him tops in the nation.

So why is a quarterback who is putting up these kinds of numbers on an undefeated team not getting the national recognition he deserves?

Maybe the fact that he is sophomore? Well that did not stop Tim Tebow.

Maybe because he is on Boise State? Then why is Case Keenum being considered?

Maybe because he only has about 2,800 yards? While Keenum may be ahead in this stat, Moore is ahead of both McCoy and Tebow.

So again, why is Kellen Moore not considered?

The Heisman Trophy has become somewhat of a joke this year. It seems to blatantly favor the big schools and big players even if they do not have the stats to back it up.

Take Tim Tebow for example. He is undoubtedly one of the greatest college football players of all time, but he is not playing like it this year.

Tebow has a meager 1,730 yards passing, 604 yards rushing, and only 22 total touchdowns. While these numbers may be great for most quarterbacks, this is the Heisman Trophy.

Colt McCoy does not fare much better either.

McCoy has 2,628 yards passing and only 19 touchdowns this season. This is the same guy who put up nearly 4,000 yards passing and 45 total touchdowns last season, and finished second in the voting.

I still think that Mark Ingram would be an excellent Heisman Trophy candidate, but other than Reggie Bush in 2005, there has not been another running back winner in this decade.

This is why Kellen Moore should not only be considered for the Heisman Trophy, but should also be one of the front runners.

With his exciting offense, amazing stats, and an undefeated season, Moore has all the credentials to take home the trophy.

Read more Boise State Football news on BleacherReport.com

Boise State Not Overlooking Utah State To Prep for Nevada Showdown

Lace Banachek — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:11:25 -0500

Many of the college elite football teams are playing soft games this week. Florida is playing their rendition of the Boise State-Cal Davis game. The Gators are playing Florida International or something close to that.

The end result should be a sweet Florida victory and it gives them a week to nurse their wounds and get as healthy as they can for Florida State, who is now playing with their backup quarterback. However, all is not cushy for Florida, as their last game is the SEC championship game with Alabama.

Like Florida, Boise State has a potentially easy game coming this week with Utah State. However, Utah State is very well coached and have the players to capitalize on another’s mistakes should Boise State not bring their A-game.

Yet, for all intents and purposes, the Broncos will not overlook coach Anderson's Utah State team, which they are set to play Friday. The Broncos' final game of this season against New Mexico State should not promote any real concern either. The concern for the Broncos and their fans will have already played itself out.

Boise State is set to play Nevada Reno on the final Saturday night of November. Earlier in the year, Nevada appeared to be struggling; even Notre Dame blew them out, but the Wolfpack of Nevada is a much more explosive team than the one that the fighting Irish played.

Just a week ago, Nevada Reno closed out their once-close game with 35 unanswered points. Bronco fans, that says a mouthful! Indeed, the Wolfpack are developing their A-game.

The Broncos also played extremely well last week against the hapless university of Idaho Vandals. The Boise State Broncos may have played their best game since they knocked the yellow socks right off of the Oregon Ducks in the Broncos season opener.

So what does all this mean? Once again, Nevada is the WAC hopeful for spoiler. The pack always is a potential threat and they must be taken seriously. Guaranteed Boise State will be studying them as in-depth as they can over the eight days between games.

That Bronco fans is why Boise State is the elite team of the WAC. The Broncos take every game serious whether it is Oregon State, Oklahoma, Tulsa, or Miami of Ohio. Boise State will be ready. The Bronco defense will be prepared, and Kellen and company will do their thing—SCORE. And that’s another story.

Go Broncos!

Read more Boise State Football news on BleacherReport.com

BCS or WTF?: The System Doesn't Include an Undefeated Boise State?

Jerry Mooney — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:04:30 -0500

As a college football fan I am constantly amazed at how the talking heads, who are also ostensibly fans, talk out of both sides of their mouths when discussing the landscape of college football.

They tend to use information like a drunk uses a street lamp: for support and not illumination. Everyday I listen to the talking heads rationalize their arguments one way to support the resume of a team and then completely use the same information to dismantle another.

The biggest problem is how disingenuous the whole thing is. If someone came out straight and said, I have an old school, southern bias and I don’t like to look at facts or change my opinions regardless of evidence, there would be refreshing honesty in that position.

Instead, the Mark Mays and the Craig James’ and BCS officials of the world perpetrate themselves as neutral experts. They avoid inconvenient information and grope for the tidbits that point in the direction they want.

This happens in other sports, but it’s irrelevant in those sports because they have a legitimate format for determining a champion. The BCS is not a championship. It’s a fraternity and the only reason they don’t just come out and call it such is that they would be subject to congressional review and anti-trust scrutiny. So, let’s examine the slippery rhetorical tools used to support this ridiculous system.

To start with, when the “analysts” use hypothetical situations and call them fact it is like fingernails on a chalkboard to me. For example, I hear statements like, “The fact is, if BSU played in the SEC they would lose several games a year.”

Beyond dissecting the truth of this statement, the real fact is that this is not a fact. This is hypothetical. Because we can’t test it in a lab or tee it up and find out, it is, in fact, hypothetical. A fact is something that is or was. Not something that would be or might be. It’s not even something that probably would be.

For example, it’s not a fact that the Pittsburgh Steelers would beat the Hooters waitresses in a game of football. It is almost infinitely likely, but it is not a fact .

What is a fact is that Utah beat Alabama last year in the Sugar Bowl. What is a fact is that BSU beat Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl. What is a fact is that non BCS teams are 3-1 in BCS bowl games against BCS teams. So, if you want to use facts, use them. Use them for illumination, but don’t make hypothetical scenarios and call them facts . They aren’t.

Another of my favorite slippery concepts used again to manipulate rather than illuminate is parity. When a major college team loses, you can chalk it up to parity. There is so much parity in college football today. Teams can’t expect to dominate like they once did.

Well, how does that work with the notion that some teams play soft schedules? How does that work with TCU, Utah and BSU winning as much as they do? If there is parity, could strength of schedule be anything other than coincidence?

For example, the last couple of years the Michigan Wolverines have been terrible. This year Oklahoma is no prize pig. USC has three loses and two of them are to schools that are supposed to be cupcakes. So if a team were to schedule those three schools (never going to happen because the system is cowardly and corrupt) two years ago in an attempt to improve its out of conference schedule, it would find itself behind the argument that, well, they just didn’t play anybody good.

On the other hand, a team like TCU can schedule a perennially mediocre Clemson team, beat them, and have it be the year they contend for the ACC title. The fact is that teams change from year to year. Two years ago Hawaii was undefeated going into their bowl. This year they are at the bottom of a pretty weak WAC.

So when TCU scheduled Virginia, an ACC team, it looked like they were stepping up. But with Virginia losing to William and Mary among others, this is less than a notch on TCU’s belt.

The problem isn’t the scheduling or the parity though. The problem is that the minds don’t want to change about the landscape of the sport or the possibility that a TCU, BSU or a Cincinnati could be better than a Texas, Alabama or Florida.

And even if they are better we don’t want them having the money that is earmarked for those bigger named schools. So, with parity, the “analysts” use the word to explain away uncomfortable losses. They never seem to use it, however, to suggest that the non-traditional schools deserve their due.

So, rhetorically, parity is good for the big teams: Can’t win ‘em all. It’s bad for the little teams because it explains away their big victories. And it never is discussed when the topic of how BSU goes undefeated four out of six years comes up.

Growing on my list of rhetorical tricks is the abuse of the word “resilience.” When Iowa beats NIU by one at home, they are resilient. They just find ways to win. When Alabama has to block two field goals to beat Tennessee at home by two, they are resilient and know how to win.

But when BSU beats La. Tech by 10 in Ruston after leading by 27 and having a surge by the home team, BSU can’t dominate. La Tech, by the way, is the same team that went into Baton Rouge and lost by eight to LSU.

When Chris Peterson is 49-4 in his brief tenure as head coach, that is resilient. When every team BSU faces treats the game like its Super Bowl and BSU wins anyway, that is resilient. When Oregon has a year to stew and plot revenge for the beating BSU put on them at Autzen and BSU dominates them again, that is resilient. When BSU has four head coaches in a decade and maintains its winning standard while the departed coaches go on to crash and burn in their new posts, that is resilience. The word resilience wouldn’t bother me so much if it weren’t used as such a hypocritical rhetorical device.

So, instead of sifting through the rhetoric of the jaded and terminally dim, lets look at the college football landscape as it is with the idea that sports are designed to be competitive and determined by individual games.

How can we look at teams like Boise St., TCU, Utah, BYU, Houston and any others that emerge with the same amount of juice created by those mentioned? Well, when the topic of a playoff system is discussed, we hear about the importance of the games and that the season’s value would be watered down.

How valid is this? When we look at evidence, it appears to be more rhetorical trickery.

If the games had that much weight, then an undefeated BSU team would not have to worry about being jilted five out of its six undefeated seasons. Undefeated would be enough. Same with leaving out a one-loss BYU or Utah team in favor of a two-loss BCS team.

Shouldn't an undefeated team be rewarded for winning all of its games? That means no stumbles. If you listen to the wonks discuss the Oregon vs. BSU result, you could conclude that it’s easy to trip up. According to them, if Oregon played BSU 10 times, Oregon would win nine (again with the hypothetical being portrayed as fact).

This statement is designed, again, to explain away a loss and to legitimize the conventional powers. I particularly enjoy this statement because it ignores the actual facts (ugh, there’s that word again).

Oregon and BSU have played two games in two seasons, one at Autzen and one at Bronco Stadium. BSU won both. So the only facts we have is that BSU is 2-0 versus Oregon and that two is more than one, thus making the nine out of 10 suggestion a mathematical impossibility.

Yesterday I heard a good ol’ boy on CBS Sportsline say very matter-of-factly that Alabama would kill any of the undefeated teams other than Florida. He was attempting to use a hypothetical to express a fact again. But he was reminded that the only fact was that Utah dismantled Alabama in the Sugar Bowl, which was practically a home game for Alabama.

Before that game, the rhetoric was the same: Alabama will kill Utah. I guess that’s why they play the game. The problem is...they don’t play the game.

TCU has virtually no shot at playing the game. Neither does BSU nor Cincinnati. To me this is like telling the 2006 George Mason basketball team we want your Final Four banners back because we think other teams were better than you.

Here’s another trick the pundits throw at us: the bigger schools get better recruits, therefore they would dominate week in and week out if BSU, TCU, Utah, etc. played them.

Are they talking about the Nu'Keese Richardsons of the world? How’s that working out for Tennessee? Is it possible that some of these upstart schools actually outsmart the old school powers? Few want to acknowledge that possibility, but it’s true.

Because the college landscape is so large it’s hard to completely break it down, but every year magazines and analysts tell us who got the best players in the country. But how accurate are they? I know this, Ryan Clady wasn’t the top rated tackle in his class (far from it), but he was the highest drafted into the NFL and was an all rookie selection.

What that means is that projecting a kid from high school is not necessarily accurate to how he will perform in a certain system, under certain coaching in college.

The NFL draft proves this point too. If the talent evaluations were air-tight, Tom Brady would not go 199th in the NFL draft. Joe Montana would not go in the third round. Ryan Leaf would not go second overall. Yet there is an entire industry dedicated to evaluating who got what and how good they are.

This same industry tells me year in and year out that BSU only got about the 80th best talent in the country, yet year after year they win all or nearly all of their games and produce players that produce in the NFL.

For example, in recent years the Broncos have produced Ryan Clady (starter, critical position), Orlando Skandrick (starter/nickel), Jered Alexander (starter), Cory Hall (starter), Darren College (starter), Legedu Naanee (Slot), Derek Shuman (starter), Chris Carr (nickel/kick returner) as well as some practice squad talent and some that were simply just good college players.

The point is actually this, there is increasing levels of pro talent up and down the rosters of these mid-major schools. But one thing that seems apparent as we read the national headlines is that the BSUs of the world recruit great kids who are good football players and not great football players who may or may not be good kids.

This not only keeps the kids on the field, but allows for better coaching, more complicated schemes, better game plans, better attitudes and fewer headaches. Of course none of this is ever part of the talent evaluations. But all you need to do is look at the Memphis Grizzlies in the NBA to see how great talent combined with a lack of character works out from a production standpoint.

I will admit that I have been slow to adjust as well. I expected Oklahoma to wax BSU in the Fiesta Bowl. I expected Alabama to mash Utah in the Sugar Bowl. Even after BSU beat Oregon at Autzen I expected them to lose at home to a revenge-driven Ducks team.

What is becoming clear to me is that perhaps some of these teams have built a better mousetrap. But the world is slow to accept new-comers. That doesn’t mean the new kids on the block aren’t as good or they aren’t as deserving.

So that raises a different question: Are the new kids on the block deserving of the attention, credit, and money that is part of major college football? They weren’t major contributors to the landscape as college football has built its following over the decades. Should it be able to just jump in and take advantage of what the old school has created?

Of course!

Here is why: the original football league was the Ivy League. The battles between Harvard and Yale go back more than a century. Watching the old Ivy League is where the fanatic lust for football began.

Back then, they couldn’t imagine a lesser academic institution beating them in sport. They were genetically superior, smarter, and better coached. Well, we’ve seen what has happened to the Ivy League in major college sports. Now the times, they are a changin’ again.

This time it’s about schools that aren’t etched into the psyches of historic college football breaking down the door. These new team powers may not have taken the baton from the Ivy League, but they are currently part of what makes college football interesting.

Will BSU beat Oregon? Is TCU the best team in Texas? These questions create interest in the sport and as such the principle players should be allowed access to the ball that they are making worth watching. If there is no Cinderella, should there be a ball? How boring is that?

Are we so dedicated to time zones and tradition that we’ve lost sight of what makes sports exciting? It's the tension of the game.

Is the match up between a multi-loss Penn St. and a multi-loss Oklahoma St. compelling? If so, how? How is it more exciting than watching an undefeated BSU with infinite recent credentials take on a traditional power house? Truth is, it’s not.

Would more people eat more Tostitos tortilla chips because Penn St. and Oklahoma St. are playing? Not really. Yet this scenario is possible because of the good ol’ boy agreements that dominate the sport.

If these tired matchups occur, are we left to wonder whether or not college football is even a legitimate sport?

If it is, it would want the questions as to who is better to be answered on the field. I would think it should be, but then why do the talking heads insist that the Alabamas of the world playing the BSUs of the world shouldn’t happen?

The slippery rhetoricians go back to work to justify. They try to explain that those teams don’t even deserve a chance to see if they could win (how sporting is that?). They use schedules and conference strengths to explain away their fear of playing the new breed, regardless of the fact that the BCS teams are not forced to schedule the BSUs, the TCUs and Utahs of the world.

Nor do they want to.

BCS bowls are not required to take the highest ranked teams. BCS components are not required to reward undefeated teams. And because there is no forced scheduling outside of conference, and less and less incentive to play these teams on the rise, the wonks have additional ammunition.

Those teams don’t play a hard enough schedule. This is the mantra of the BCS apologist. It doesn’t matter that the BCS teams won’t play the new breed schools. It doesn’t matter that the scheduling is fluid. It doesn’t matter that this year the Mountain West is superior in depth and quality to many of the BCS conferences. It doesn’t matter that BSU dominated Oregon (who will probably win the Pac-10).

As such, the NCAA and BCS risk becoming the WWE. They’re already the WTF.

If they chose a Penn St. team with two losses to their only two quality opponents for a BCS game, they would certainly become the WTF. If an Oklahoma St. team whose best win is over a five-loss Oklahoma team is selected, the BCS’ credibility would be lower than the WWE/WTF.

The logic is nonexistent. The reasoning is beyond defense. The consequences are invalidating the entire sport.

Yet Mark May and Craig James will continue to profess that their hypotheticals are facts. They will try to convince us that a multi-loss team with no good wins is more deserving than an undefeated BSU. They will forget that the games are played to determine who deserves what. They will continue to tell us that, and will we continue to believe them.

When I was eight years old my dad told me that professional wrestling was fake. I hated to hear that and resisted with every fiber in my body. Now it seems obvious to me. Likewise, the old school college football fan hates to accept that the college football game has changed. They will throw their tantrums and deny that these upstart schools are for real.

But their denials don’t create facts. And the facts are that these new teams deserve their shot. If they don’t get it, how far is the BCS from the WWE?

Read more Boise State Football news on BleacherReport.com

Why The Non-BCS Teams Don't Deserve a Chance Under The Current BCS

Nick The Only — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 13:00:06 -0500

Lately, there has been a lot of clamor from the non-BCS (or non-AQ) teams and their fans for consideration as title-contenders. Under the current BCS system, there are only two teams each year that gain the privilege of playing for a BCS national title.

The most commonly cited argument in support of the inclusion of non-AQ teams is that they have shown they can beat the big boys. Boise State fans point to their opening win over Pac 10-title-contender Oregon. TCU fans will argue that they beat Virginia and Clemson on the road.

While these wins are commendable—and certainly show that BSU and TCU can compete with BCS conference teams once or twice per season—they do not equate to BSU and TCU being worthy national title contenders.

To see why BSU and TCU (and the like, such as Utah last year) don't deserve one of the coveted BCS title game spots, look no further than the rest of their schedules.

After Oregon, the rest of BSU's schedule is Miami (OH), Fresno State, Bowling Green, UC Davis, Tulsa, Hawaii, San Jose State, Louisiana Tech, Idaho, Utah State, Nevada, and New Mexico State.

Besides Virginia and Clemson, TCU's remaining schedule is Texas State, Southern Methodist, Air Force, Colorado State, BYU, UNLV, San Diego State, Utah, Wyoming, and New Mexico.

While the rest of TCU's schedule is more difficult than the rest of BSU's schedule, there is a common theme to both. The majority of both of their schedules are teams that are considered cupcake opponents for BCS teams.

When Texas played Wyoming, they were chided for scheduling a cupcake opponent. For TCU, Wyoming is just another conference opponent. The same rationale applies to the majority of these non-AQ teams schedules.

Suppose that BSU or TCU were fortunate enough to schedule three or four out of conference games against BCS opponents. If them won them all, would they have a tough enough schedule to get a BCS title game spot?

The answer is still "no." Even if they played and beat a several BCS opponents, they would still go untested in their remaining eight or nine games.

Schools like Alabama, Florida and Texas play at least eight games against BCS conference competition (and at least nine if you consider their conference title games, which will always be required for a title run).

Thus, in any given season, a BCS conference team will play at least twice as many big time opponents as the BSUs and TCUs of the world.

For a team like BSU, the Oregon game was their season. After BSU won that game, they haven't faced an opponent even half as good.

For every Pac 10 team, Oregon is just another conference opponent. And for Oregon, BSU was just another team on their schedule. After the BSU game, Oregon has played many teams that are just as good or better than BSU.

Under the current system, it is just not fair to to the BCS-league teams to allow a team like BSU or Oregon a title spot when they play a schedule that BCS teams would be laughed at for playing.

The criticism that Florida and Texas have received this year for their weaker than usual OOC schedules is ironic in this context because their OOC's stack up favorably to BSU and TCU's conference schedules.

The soundness of my argument is evidenced by the terminology used by fans and the media. For example, when USC plays San Jose State, they are considered a "cupcake" opponent. When BSU's plays them, they are considered another conference test.

Also consider how much more taxing it is to play teams like Oregon, Virginia, and Clemson almost every week than it is once or twice a season. The mental stress of being on your A-game all the time, combined with the physical toll of getting hit by bigger and faster athletes, is something TCU and BSU just don't have to deal with.

Simply put, BSU and TCU (and their ilk) are victims of circumstance.

When your conference schedule is filled with opponents that the powerhouses are criticized for playing, you simply don't deserve consideration as one of the two best teams in the land.

In defense of BSU and TCU, I think both would be worthy of a spot this year if we had an eight-team playoff. Both teams look good in most of their games, and three straight BCS playoff wins would legitimize them much more than any BCS bowl win.

However, in a two-team scenario, they cannot stack up.

Read more Boise State Football news on BleacherReport.com

A Letter to MWC Commish Craig Thompson from a Boise State Fan

Tucker Botkin — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 12:16:55 -0500

Dear Commissioner Thompson,

Congratulations on a decade of tremendous athletics from your conference since its founding in 1999. No, none of your competitors in any sport has won a National Title of any kind since being members of the Mountain West, but the schools consistently yield competitive teams.

I would like to address, today, the growing issue between your conference and my school. The very large elephant in the room if you will. The issue, it seems, that you never want to discuss.

I want to know why your conference will not add Boise State University.

For the sake of this letter, I will speak in terms of the football program. As I'm sure you can agree that is the big money maker. Although our other athletic programs are also more than qualified for a conference upgrade.

It is easy to see why we were not initially invited to join. In 1999, when you split off to do your thing, we were a brand new D-I school competing in that tiny little conference called the Big West.

In 1999, we won that conference. We won it again in 2000.

Following the 2000 season—and after your conference had taken many of its members—the Western Athletic Conference invited us to join them.

We won the conference our second season as a member. Then again the third season. Then again the fourth, fifth, sixth, and eighth seasons.

This—ninth—season, we are poised to win it again.

The only season we didn't win it, 2007, we were second only behind BCS bound Hawai'i. (Yes, I saw the outcome of that Sugar Bowl.)

There is a reason we refer to it as a "Decade of Dominance."

We have only lost four conference games since 2000.

Yes, you can talk about how the competition in the WAC is inferior to that of the Mountain West.

You would be right (but don't forget Boise State is 16-1 vs. MWC schools, too). That's why we need you.

But don't you need us, too?

Starting next season, the Bowl Championship Series will air on the ESPN family of networks.

In case you haven't noticed, Boise State is an ESPN darling.

How else do you explain the seven BSU games broadcast by the network this season?

This wouldn't be the first time you have expanded, either.

In 2005 you added the Texas Christian University Horned Frogs.

Today, I am watching a popular college television show being broadcast from that campus. And that team will probably bust the BCS this year. That is big bucks in your wallet and the budgets of all the MWC schools.

Imagine getting that money every single year. Imagine finishing a football season with four teams from your conference ranked in the top 25.

Adding the Broncos to your conference will only help you and your cause. It is a win-win situation.

Maybe it's not too far-fetched to think that the MWC can get an automatic bid to a BCS game. I'm sure we would agree that the MWC+Boise State would be better and more competitive than the Big East, Big Ten, and ACC. Using this year as a gauge, I would say even better than the Big XII and Pac-10.

There is zero reason for you not to invite the Boise State Broncos to your conference. I will personally call WAC commissioner Karl Benson and express condolences on your behalf for robbing him of his money maker.

(No hard feelings, Mr. Benson. You understand, right?)

With all excuses moot, I—along with some other pretty intelligent people—have already gone through the trouble of preparing your post 2009-10 football season press release:

"We the commissioner and presidents of schools of the Mountain West Conference, in order to form a more perfect conglomerate, establish justice (the moral principle determining just conduct), insure conference tranquility (serenity), provide for the BCS, promote our own welfare, and secure the (monetary) blessings of automatic qualifying to ourselves and our(selves) posterity, do ordain and establish this invitation to the Boise State University Broncos to join our conference."

I anxiously await your response.

Sincerely yours,

Robert Tucker Botkin

Read more Boise State Football news on BleacherReport.com