Gonzaga BB vs. Boise FB Poll

[halfmanhalfbronco]

1 minute ago, happycamper said:

They were better than the American and were considered  a power conference. 

On the court success says otherwise.

[halfmanhalfbronco]

Nothing says you are playing against a power conference like 17 NCAA wins in 20 years and 9 ranked finishes.  JFC, those are pathetic numbers.

[Aslowhiteguy]

I voted for Boise, but honestly, it's pretty much a draw. 

If the question was which program has the better brand, the Zags would win, hands down. 

The Zags are regarded as amoung the elites in college BB. Unfairly or not, the Broncos are still the little school who could.  

[happycamper]

16 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

On the court success says otherwise.

 

10 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Nothing says you are playing against a power conference like 17 NCAA wins in 20 years and 9 ranked finishes.  JFC, those are pathetic numbers.

Nothing says power conference like 1 national championship in 57 years. That's exactly the same as the WAC. 

[Joe from WY]

19 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Yes, we were.  Sorry you missed that.  Happy said no team from a non power conference has done what Gonzaga has.

And you brought up Louisville which was in a conference/situation that was completely alien to the landscape Gonzaga dealt with in 1999-present. 

[halfmanhalfbronco]

Just now, Joe from WY said:

And you brought up Louisville which was in a conference/situation that was completely alien to the landscape Gonzaga dealt with in 1999-present. 

They were not in a power conference and won two titles.  If happy had just said no other team has done what Gonzaga has from conference similar to the WCC I would have let it go.  That is not what he said though.

[Pelado]

Because I'm an idiot, I just went back and looked at where the Metro conference ranked in each year Louisville was a member.  I used the SRS from www.sports-reference.com for the years in question because it was easy to compile.  Here's a description of the rating system:

Quote

Simple Rating System; a rating that takes into account average point differential and strength of schedule. The rating is denominated in points above/below average, where zero is average. Non-Division I games are excluded from the ratings.

and a link to explain the system for those who care about it more than I do: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/index4837.html?p=37

From the seasons ending in 1976-1995, the Metro finished as high as 4 (1983) and as low as 10 (1981, 1990).  Excel calculated its mean rating as 7.15 and its median as 7.5.

For the 1996-2005 seasons, Louisville was in Conference USA.  During that time, CUSA finished as high as 6 (1996, 1999, 2000) and as low as 8 (1997, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2005) with a mean rating of 7.2 and a median rating of 7.5.

From 2006-2013, Louisville was a member of the Big East.  Surprisingly, the Big East never topped the ratings during those seasons, topping out at 2 (2006, 2011, 2013), going as low as 5 (2007), with a mean and median rating of 3.

Louisville spent one season in the American (2014).  The conference was rated 7th that season.

Since the 2015 season, Louisville has been in the ACC.  It's been rated 2 (2015-2017) and 3 (2018) with a mean of 2.25 and a median of 2.

The Big East and ACC are/were definitely better/stronger basketball conferences than were the Metro or CUSA.  However, remembering that conferences tended to be much smaller then than now, with more good teams spread out among the conferences, I see no problem with happy's assertion that the Metro was a power conference in its day.

[Jack Bauer]

I think playing in a national title game is more important than what Boise has done, but I think both programs are equal as a whole.

I see both sides of the arguments.  There is diminishing value to me on a NY6 game these days, given that Boise played in one with 2 losses and both losses were blowouts.  There's been some good teams over the years and others that were less deserving in those games since G5 teams started going to them.

[halfmanhalfbronco]

1 minute ago, happycamper said:

 

Nothing says power conference like 1 national championship in 57 years. That's exactly the same as the WAC. 

The WAC was never anything resembling a power conference or even the original MWC circa 2004-2010.  

[Joe from WY]

1 minute ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

They were not in a power conference and won two titles.  If happy had just said no other team has done what Gonzaga has from conference similar to the WCC I would have let it go.  That is not what he said though.

It was a power conference. 

[Joe from WY]

Just now, halfmanhalfbronco said:

The WAC was never anything resembling a power conference or even the original MWC circa 2004-2010.  

You said the WAC-10 did more than the Metro did though. Which obviously isn't the case. 

[happycamper]

Just now, halfmanhalfbronco said:

The WAC was never anything resembling a power conference or even the original MWC circa 2004-2010.  

Outside of USC, the PAC only has 1 national champ in football since 1961. 

[Pelado]

Doing the same www.sports-reference.com analysis for the West Coast Conference from 1999-2018:

Highest rated season was 2015 at 7.  Lowest was 2001 at 14.  Mean rating of 11.1, median of 11.  Significantly lower rated than any conference Louisville has been in since at least its Metro days.

[halfmanhalfbronco]

 

7 minutes ago, Joe from WY said:

It was a power conference. 

Averaged out to be the 7th best conference during it's existence.  Seems like a stretch.  

[halfmanhalfbronco]

12 minutes ago, Joe from WY said:

You said the WAC-10 did more than the Metro did though. Which obviously isn't the case. 

If I did I misspoke.  I was talking about the original MWC.  I guess you had 9 not 10 though.  

I would also contend the idea of a "power" conference is much different today than it used to be given the huge influx of money. and changing ways in which we crown champions. 

Using BYU in a system where you could play your last game against a 6 win team and be proclaimed national champs as an argument for it being easier to win a NC football in the BCS and playoff era makes little sense.

[Pelado]

28 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

 

Averaged out to be the 7th best conference during it's existence.  Seems like a stretch.  

Which conferences would you have included as power conferences during that time period?  Big Eight?  Southwest?  WAC?  Pac-8/10?  Southeastern?

[halfmanhalfbronco]

18 minutes ago, Jack Bauer said:

I think playing in a national title game is more important than what Boise has done, but I think both programs are equal as a whole.

I see both sides of the arguments.  There is diminishing value to me on a NY6 game these days, given that Boise played in one with 2 losses and both losses were blowouts.  There's been some good teams over the years and others that were less deserving in those games since G5 teams started going to them.

I have said multiple times now in this thread and the 3 others on the topic this week that Gonzaga has a slightly more impressive resume because they played in a title game.  Take away the title game and Boise has a more impressive resume.  

The Idea that is is harder to finish high in basketball than football because there are more basketball teams is ignorant in the extreme.  In football you are competing with schools who invest 50-100 million a year in order to finish high.  In 200+ schools are not looking to invest a lot of money in their program, 200 of those schools treat it like any other Olympic sport.  You are still only competing with schools investing money year after year.

[Jack Bauer]

9 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

I have said multiple times now in this thread and the 3 others on the topic this week that Gonzaga has a slightly more impressive resume because they played in a title game.  Take away the title game and Boise has a more impressive resume.  

The Idea that is is harder to finish high in basketball than football because there are more basketball teams is ignorant in the extreme.  In football you are competing with schools who invest 50-100 million a year in order to finish high.  In 200+ schools are not looking to invest a lot of money in their program, 200 of those schools treat it like any other Olympic sport.  You are still only competing with schools investing money year after year.

I largely agree with what you're saying, but given the blue bloods in college bball like Duke, Kenturky, Kansas, and CheatNC; I think it's equally difficult to break in to the club.  Gonzaga has broken in to the club, currently.  Boise has fallen off since the Petersen years.  

And I'm not even ragging out Boise.  What you guys have accomplished is amazing.  I'd trade the last 20 years with you in a heartbeat.

[pokebball]

On 5/14/2018 at 3:22 PM, Nevada Convert said:

Cappyhamper is apparently afraid to start this poll, so I'll do it for him.

Cappy thinks that what Gonzaga BB has accomplished in BB is vastly more than what Boise has accomplished in FB. 

I contend that comparing the 2 is apples and oranges. Football involves massively more moving parts and money than BB. Putting together a big coaching staff, recruit a boatload of players every year, coach and babysit 80 or so players, etc. is just in another universe compared to BB. 

Gonzaga doesn't have FB so they pour all their money into BB. There's nothing amazing about that. There have been plenty of mid-majors that have gotten deep into the tourney, but in modern times in football (sorry BYU) no G5 has ever been on the verge of playing in a national championship like Boise has. TCU came close but I think they were already P5, IIRC. Boise's FB accomplishments are much harder to do when also supporting other sports such as men's BB.

Poke wrestling is stronger than Zag BB and BSU  football combined!

[happycamper]

3 hours ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

 

Averaged out to be the 7th best conference during it's existence.  Seems like a stretch.  

More conferences means more power conferences.  There were about 8 power conferences at the time