Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Claude G

Boise-San Jose State Cancelled

Recommended Posts

Kick Bushleague State TF out. 

We expect their gamesmanship and underhanded garbage. But it's the height of irony  given how much they've b'thced and moaned about media money and exposure, and they've completely destroyed a golden chance for media exposure, and left our media partner hanging after giving us our big chance. 

Seriously, take your act somewhere else, beyond tired of it.

 

ezgif-5-959914ff2250.gif.f0cc4fc558f5a154dc6ff5904c80bf34.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, thedude15 said:

 

They go by lose column not win column. 4-1 is the exact same as 7-1. So as long as you are equal in losses they will start to use tiebreakers (head to head, record vs common opponents, then I think comp ranking).

That's not my understanding. I thought they were going by win percentage? So 7-1 trumps 4-1 but 4-0 trumps 7-1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Best win. Thank you SDSU!

SJSU has a win against SDSU, too, though in reality that would only come into play if SJSU-Nevada is canceled, since otherwise head to head will be the clear tiebreaker if it came to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Best win. Thank you SDSU!

Nope. I thought that was the tiebreak also but it isn't . It is best win vs a "common" opponent. SDSU don't matter cause they didn't play Boise. 

I believe in a 3 team tie it would come down CFP rankings then computer rankings. So maybe a 7-0 Nevada would get ranked at #25 in the CFP poll? Then SJSU/BSU would be decided by whoever has better comp rankings. Which again might be out of whack related to the shorten season. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Spot50B said:

That's not my understanding. I thought they were going by win percentage? So 7-1 trumps 4-1 but 4-0 trumps 7-1.

Yep that is what I thought also. But apparently it is not true. 4-1 is same as 7-1 per the admin over at the barkboard. I guess they logic behind it is fairness? idk. I mean maybe they didn't want a team eliminated because of COVID, especially if it wasn't even an outbreak on their team (see SJSU getting two games canceled). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ziggy29 said:

SJSU has a win against SDSU, too, though in reality that would only come into play if SJSU-Nevada is canceled, since otherwise head to head will be the clear tiebreaker if it came to that.

I know. That would be the real MW championship this year anyway.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, KingBronco said:

Anyone who legitimately thinks BSU pulled the plug on SJSU just to better their chances of making the CG are idiots. This was a national television game and also BSU's Senior Day. No way in hell this game doesn't get played unless BSU is friggin' decimated with COVID issues. The fact the game was canceled so late tells me BSU was trying everything possible to be able to play.

So, for full disclosure...according to an article I just read from one of the local papers, BSU only had 9 players who would have been out today due to positive tests or contact tracing. That is less than the 14 and 12 we've had out for the last two games. Not sure why we couldn't get it played if that is the case. 

I still doubt BSU would cancel a national TV game on Senior Day unless there were huge issues with being able to field a competitive team, but I'm definitely curious why we were able to play the last two weeks but not today. The only thing I can think of is if all the COVID issues were from a particular position group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, SierraSpartan said:

Sucks.  This was going to be a helluva game.

Looking forward, it would appear that the Fighting Donkeys very much benefit from this being called a 'no contest'...and that's wrong.  

 

Craig Thompson cancelled the game to protect his... 

bell-cow.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, thedude15 said:

Nope. I thought that was the tiebreak also but it isn't . It is best win vs a "common" opponent. SDSU don't matter cause they didn't play Boise. 

I believe in a 3 team tie it would come down CFP rankings then computer rankings. So maybe a 7-0 Nevada would get ranked at #25 in the CFP poll? Then SJSU/BSU would be decided by whoever has better comp rankings. Which again might be out of whack related to the shorten season. 

Nah. Common opponents comes after record of the next highest team when it comes down to three or more teams. It could be Fresno, but the scenario supposes Nevada beats or doesn’t play Fresno cuz the Rona. If nobody played Fresno, it goes down the standings to the next team which is likely SDSU.

Boise’s best hope is to not play football while other teams do. They don’t control their fate.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, King Spartan said:

Hope your game against BYU was worth it, Boise.

Didn't they have a COVID outbreak before the BYU game? I mean honestly I think it comes down to

- Idaho is kinda having a spike in generally

-Boise wasn't like Fresno/Cal/USC (ie one positive test and it is over). They just removed the player that tested positive. Obviously this allows you to play but it also lets the virus linger. Iets say one person gets it and they spread it to 3 people.  In the case of a Cali school the team is shut down for 14 days so only those 4 players will get it. Boise on the other hand test the whole team but lets say when they test only 1 of those 3 players actually test positive (the other 2 are too early in disease course for positive test). So know you have 2 players will COVID that can continue to spread for the team. And then the next week you test may 5 test positive but  3 other players have COVID but it is too early for their test to be positive. This pattern keeps repeating until you are down to many players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Nah. Common opponents comes after record of the next highest team when it comes down to three or more teams. It could be Fresno, but the scenario supposes Nevada beats or doesn’t play Fresno cuz the Rona. If nobody played Fresno, it goes down the standings to the next team which is likely SDSU.

Boise’s best hope is to not play football while other teams do. They don’t control their fate.

that is not what the admin over at the barkboard is saying. I would assume he knows what he is talking about. I mean it is kind of his job...

his reply is in this thread

apparently their are different rules for  "unbalanced tiebreakers"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KingBronco said:

So, for full disclosure...according to an article I just read from one of the local papers, BSU only had 9 players who would have been out today due to positive tests or contact tracing. That is less than the 14 and 12 we've had out for the last two games. Not sure why we couldn't get it played if that is the case. 

I still doubt BSU would cancel a national TV game on Senior Day unless there were huge issues with being able to field a competitive team, but I'm definitely curious why we were able to play the last two weeks but not today. The only thing I can think of is if all the COVID issues were from a particular position group.

It's not just the total. You have to have, at least, 4 DL, 7 OL, and 1 QB to cancel. I'm guessing it's the DL that's the issue. They've only had 5 the last two weeks and needed to convert one of the OL to even get to that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, thedude15 said:

Yep that is what I thought also. But apparently it is not true. 4-1 is same as 7-1 per the admin over at the barkboard. I guess they logic behind it is fairness? idk. I mean maybe they didn't want a team eliminated because of COVID, especially if it wasn't even an outbreak on their team (see SJSU getting two games canceled). 

https://mwwire.com/2020/10/02/mountain-west-nixing-divisions-for-2020/

I found an article about it. It says there is a minimum number of games required to qualify for the championship game. Initially set at 6 but may be moved to 5. Does anyone know if the number has been moved down? Boise may have to play the next two games to qualify-- they definitely have to play one of the next two.

The championship game site is determined by winning percentage but you were correct about the tiebreaker to get into the game. They really shouldn't even have the game. The whole thing seems illegitimate to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, KingBronco said:

So, for full disclosure...according to an article I just read from one of the local papers, BSU only had 9 players who would have been out today due to positive tests or contact tracing. That is less than the 14 and 12 we've had out for the last two games. Not sure why we couldn't get it played if that is the case. 

I still doubt BSU would cancel a national TV game on Senior Day unless there were huge issues with being able to field a competitive team, but I'm definitely curious why we were able to play the last two weeks but not today. The only thing I can think of is if all the COVID issues were from a particular position group.

 

Which is what I said in my post and I called an "idiot" lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, kingpotato said:

It's not just the total. You have to have, at least, 5 DL, 7 OL, and 1 QB to cancel. I'm guessing it's the DL that's the issue. They've only had 6 the last two weeks and needed to convert one of the OL to even get to that

Yeah, that was my suspicion also. We've been getting hammered with COVID and injuries along the DL all year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Spot50B said:

https://mwwire.com/2020/10/02/mountain-west-nixing-divisions-for-2020/

I found an article about it. It says there is a minimum number of games required to qualify for the championship game. Initially set at 6 but may be moved to 5. Does anyone know if the number has been moved down? Boise may have to play the next two games to qualify-- they definitely have to play one of the next two.

The championship game site is determined by winning percentage but you were correct about the tiebreaker to get into the game. They really shouldn't even have the game. The whole thing seems illegitimate to me.

Current min number of games to be eligible for MW champ game is 4 since at least 8 conference games have been canceled. If at least 14 are canceled the min is 3. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...