Jump to content

halfmanhalfbronco

Moderator
  • Posts

    53,052
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    407

Everything posted by halfmanhalfbronco

  1. Refs let us play a lot more this year than they have in years past. Hopefully that helps.
  2. The quality of Boise's OOC schedule will not be impacted by this. The P5 teams we can get on the schedule we will be able to get regardless and the tournaments that will invite us will or will not, regardless. Condolences that you might have to cancel a buy game a year in order to keep your schedule. That seems to be the only real point you made.
  3. If the conference has a similar win percentage against similar quality of opponents in future seasons as this one, or even the past two, it will be a net help for the conference. It also eases the scheduling burden many teams not named SDSU have that is only going to get tougher, and will even get tougher for SDSU as well. I think our most our conference leaders are pretty sharp cookies and voted according to the best data and advice available. If there was one school to not do that, well, we know what school that would be.... Anyays, we got tip off soon. We can table this. I think all relevant points have been made.
  4. So this year it would have added 22 total conference games. 10 of which would have been quad 1 wins. Nearly half the games added would have been quad Q1 wins for somebody. Conference this year had 37 total. "2 more bad games". That quote is the crux of tSDSUf on here the past several years. Traylor park conference, etc...and the mindset behind their lone "no vote" and their off season shenanigans as well as a key contributor in attendance woes.
  5. I'll make sure to dismiss your opinion on the T.V. deal next go around since your football team has done nothing of accomplishment. Lulz.
  6. Two more bad conference games? What conference have you been watching the past 3 years? This year it would have meant 10 more quad 1s. It's a small gamble betting on the conference to remain strong. If it does it will give fans more quality home games, and the teams more quality wins, on average. It's not going to impact our ability to get into tournaments or get P5s on the schedule, if your school still wants to. Only 1 school voted for it. Their fans are the only ones vocal against it. What's your point?
  7. That's how I see it. Our ability to schedule up will be limited by OOC availability of the P5, not our own. I see this as taking away lower quality OOC games and replacing it with conference games. and giving most teams an extra quality home game for their fans. We are still going to do our tournaments and schedule P5 teams that would be able and willing to schedule us anyays.
  8. The MWC had a great OOC performance this year. Hard to do much better. If the committee did not respect our OOC performance this year, they never will. I understand it is a long held position of SDSU. Used to be a long held position of UNLV and one or two others as well based on the vote failing last time. Times change. It is getting harder, not easier to schedule up and will only continue to get harder. There are less opportunities. SDSU may be able to, that is great for them, for most MWC teams the fewer opportunities against the conferences going to 20 and 22 game schedules means it is just going to be harder than it already is to fill out a schedule with few NET anchors. On top of that, the MWC is better than ever have been and are in a sweet spot. NIL and the transfer portal help us it seems. Yes, 5 or so conferences can poach from us, we can poach from 20 or so. This is going to be a 4 or more bid conference most years I would bet. As long as we continue to perform well in preseason tournaments and get top 100 neutral site and road wins it will be provide more Q1 and 2 wins for the conference as a whole. Seems pretty simple.
  9. I don't think there has been a tournament where the entire conference is rooting for each other like this one. CSU fans will only be cheering slightly harder than the rest of us.
  10. That every MWC school was in agreement (outside SDSU) tells me that data/information was presented to them by the conference and internally within their own departments that a 20 game conference schedule would be beneficial moving into the ever changing landscape. Makes sense. Much of the conference has a hard time scheduling, especially at home. This will only be made harder as the P5 all move to 20 and 22 conference game schedules. If the conference remains strong ,even if it takes a step back from this year, it will give teams additional good games BEYOND what they are able to schedule OOC. Most years teams will get an additional highly anticipated home game. That's a big deal. Seems it is an easy way to ensure the conference gets more Q1 and Q2 wins as well as an additional electric (most the time) home game. This is the MWC again under Gloria betting on themselves and their conference members. We are betting the MWC will remain strong and perform well OOC. I like that.
  11. And Boise State's leadership is absolutely fantastic. Killing it at every level. Academically and athletically. Nothing but good decisions being made all the way around. Boise's academic trajectory the past 30 years has been nothing short of remarkable. So yeah, not sure what that has to do with anything. Meanwhile, we ALL know SDSU's leadership (athletically) has proven to be +++++ing retarded the past 2 years. Seems like every decision they make is tragically dumb. Pretty good bet if SDSU is the only school who thinks something is a good idea, it's not.
  12. And that has what to do with moving to a 20 game conference schedule and the one no vote against it? SDSU has stepped on its dick over and over again when it comes to decision for their future and the future of the conference. If they are against an important MWC decision, and are the only ones, good bet they are on the wrong side as to what is ultimately best for the conference. I am sure the 9 yes votes looked at the available relevant data and past committee decisions and decided it was in their best interest and/or that of the MWC. Maybe not the best for SDSU but I would not trust SDSU leadership to know what is best for them. You know who has always known what is best for SDSU? Boise. Going back to Kustra. You should just let us make your decisions and give us your vote.
  13. I mean yeah, decisions SDSU has made under their current leadership regarding what is best for them or their conference have been awfully bad. If SDSU is against it, chances are it benefits the MWC and them, even if they don't know it. Current MWC leadership under Gloria outside of SDSU seems to have it together. I trust their consensus and the logic that with the P5 going to 20 and 22 game schedules there will be less opportunities to schedule up, so overall more games against what we expect to remain a strong MWC is good for the conference
  14. We can beat CU and Florida if we come to play. We have beaten better teams in more hostile environments this year.
  15. The OOC slots will not limit SDSU's ability to schedule those games if you can and want to. Looks like there are other games you could opt out of scheduling instead. For the conference as a whole, this should help our metrics as long as the coaching staffs and AD remain aligned in OOC scheduling philosophy as has been mentioned we currently are. If SDSU is the lone school against it, I am pretty sure it is a good deal for the conference. SDSU has shown to be pretty freaking incompetent.
  16. Yes. Replacing OOC NET anchors with conference games will help our seeding. Further, as the P5 BB conferences get larger and go to 20 and 22 game schedules, opportunities to "schedule up" against those teams will be fewer and further between. It's not just what Gloria said, it is what every MWC school AD agrees with as well outside SDSU, who, as we know, is +++++ing retarded
  17. I've tried to get into the office multiple times, was never able to. Parks and recs is fun
  18. 232'nd compared to 32'nd (200 places higher and something the selection committee claims every year is something they factor in) ranked OOC SOS, two less quad 1 wins, only 3 true road wins (again something the committee claims to factor in every year, road success) 1 place higher in NET and Lower in KPI. No, Boise has a superior resume to Colorado. As was the consensus among bracketologists. Lawd I hope Boise, CSU, UNM, USU and Nevada get some wins between them.
  19. https://www.sciencealert.com/physicist-claims-universe-has-no-dark-matter-and-is-27-billion-years-old I posted the original paper last year, follow up stuff. Pretty fun hypothesis. Almost like Occom's razor of cosmology or something, eliminating the need for dark energy and matter.
  20. Yep. Exactly. No way in hell those resumes are 5 seed lines better. Ridiculous. As was pointed out earlier, of the 100+ bracketologists included in bracket matrix (basically the equivalent of a bracket composite), only 5 teams were seeded on average 1.5 seed lines or worse by the NCAA selection committee. All 5 are MWC teams. Clearly the selection committee put emphases on things they claim they do not, such as past years results and name, and for the first time in such an obvious way it sets precedent. Oh, and BPI should be tossed as a metric. It has been shown that ESPN contracted teams to rate better and non ESPN contracted teams worse, year after year, consistently, when compared to every other formula.
  21. Lunardi's thoughts. Seems the consensus is Boise got royally +++++ed.
×
×
  • Create New...