I was wondering what my fellow OKCTalkers thought on this. Who is the better team, Boise State or Oklahoma State?

ohhhh thats is a great question!I'd say both teams would win at home and BSU would win on a neutral site,OSU's d is still underperforming but OSU also plays better opponents than BSU.

I can pretty much agree with that except I wouldn't say which team would win on a neutral site. I lean more towards Oklahoma State winning on a neutral site but could easily see Boise State winning as well.

65-52 osu

I'd love to see them play. It would be a great bowl matchup.

I'd love to see them play. It would be a great bowl matchup.

I was laying in bed thinking the same thing last night. It's possible they could play in a bowl this year.

Boise State QB phenom, Kellen Moore, is just 3 games away from the most wins by a starting QB in NCAA history.
BSU is 63-5 over the last five seasons.
A QB shootout with OSU and Weeden would be one helluva game.

Based only upon the Emotional Intelligence of the Head Coach I'd have to go with Boise State.
Otherwise, it's a toss-up . . .

Boise State QB phenom, Kellen Moore, is just 3 games away from the most wins by a starting QB in NCAA history.
BSU is 63-5 over the last five seasons.
A QB shootout with OSU and Weeden would be one helluva game.

Most teams in the Big XII would be 63-5 or better playing in the MWC.

Boise State or Oklahoma State? I'll delay my reply until after Oklahoma State's game against Texas.

Pokes!

Playing the same opponents as BSU, Oklahoma State wouldn't have lost to Nevada last year, that's for sure.

BSU is a good team, too good a team for its conference. In most major conferences, they'd probably get bowl eligible, but they wouldn't contend for a title.

At least T Boone has not bought them orange grass yet. Dang, I may have just given them an idea.

Boise State or Oklahoma State? I'll delay my reply until after Oklahoma State's game against Texas.

Before that game, I considered Boise State and Oklahoma State to be somewhat equal. After seeing that Oklahoma State didn't take care of Texas as well as OU did, I'm going to go with Boise State.

Before that game, I considered Boise State and Oklahoma State to be somewhat equal. After seeing that Oklahoma State didn't take care of Texas as well as OU did, I'm going to go with Boise State.

OU didn't handle Kansas the way OSU did and Texas is better than Kansas. :-)

The MAC was the worst conference in Div. 1 football, so when a legitimately good team came out of it, they were most definitely going to dominate it. When Boise went to the MWC, they brought several MAC teams with them, and some of the good MWC teams left, so it's not not much better than the MAC was. Boise outmatches their opponents because they're playing little sisters of the poor just about every week, except for maybe a non-conference game. You can't use win/loss records to compare teams with vastly different competition levels. It'd be like comparing the OKC Redhawks to the Texas Rangers.

The MAC was the worst conference in Div. 1 football, so when a legitimately good team came out of it, they were most definitely going to dominate it. When Boise went to the MWC, they brought several MAC teams with them, and some of the good MWC teams left, so it's not not much better than the MAC was. Boise outmatches their opponents because they're playing little sisters of the poor just about every week, except for maybe a non-conference game. You can't use win/loss records to compare teams with vastly different competition levels. It'd be like comparing the OKC Redhawks to the Texas Rangers.

Thank you. You summed that up very well and made it clear as could be for those of us who actually think Boise State is a team sent from God himself.

Boise was in the WAC until this season, the MAC (Mid-American Conference) is mostly smaller schools from Michigan (Central, Eastern, Western), Illinois (Northern Illinois), Indiana (Ball State), Ohio (Toldeo, Ohio U, Miami, Kent State, Bowling Green, Akron) and New York (Buffalo). I think Boise can play with anyone given a month or so to prepare, they may not win but would be in the game. The difference between conferences is in having one week to prepare for a quality team and having to play multiple quality teams in a much shorter time span. Right now Boise has a big non-conference game and a bowl game, after this season they will not have a team like TCU to deal with. Next season there is no one in the conference that is any better than Iowa State or Kansas. Nevada, Hawaii and Fresno can have decent teams every once in awhile, just like Kansas and ISU have had in years past but none were consistent threats to Boise in the WAC, it takes a special player(like Kapernick at Nevada last season) to have a team that is competitive with them. It isn't entirely Boise's fault but until they have to face better competition in conference they will always just be a nice story.


OU didn't handle Kansas the way OSU did and Texas is better than Kansas. :-)
Every game is a different situation entirely, you can't really compare common opponents anymore without looking like a fool. The OSU-KU game was in Stillwater, the OU-KU game was in Lawrence and OSU struggled more with Texas than OU did, the scores from one week to the next mean very little because every game is its own unique entity. When you have turnovers like Texas did against OU things snowball which tends to skew the actual results on the field.

I wasn't comparing bluedogok, the poster I was responding to had said that OSU did handle Texas the way that OU did hence OU was the better team and I was using the comparison to show how invalid comparisons of teams can be. And OU played Texas in Dallas which is closer to Norman than it is Austin and OU definately had more fans in Dallas than OSU did in Austin and OSU went down to Austin and still put up 38 points on a day where they had a very bad performance.

Not a comparison. I don't go by comparisons. If OSU beats Texas Tech that doesn't mean they'll win Bedlam, it just mean they had a better day against them than OU did so there's no reason to even have this coversation cause you and I are on the same page. If you would like to have an arguement with some who seems to believe that, then respond to inquisitive_mind not MDot. I know it seemed like I was favoring OSU, which is forbidden on this forum, but that doesn't mean respond to my post when I wasn't even the one who posted about that first.

And I know this is gonna come of as me being rude and all, but this post is more sarcastic and poking fun then anything else so don't take it in the in the nuts the way other people do.

I was just trying to reinforce your statement, the previous quote didn't come along for the ride....

I just know some who try to hold onto those comparisons as hard proof of something...mainly it's the fools in the media.

My mistake, I meant the WAC, but said the MAC instead. The WAC is the worse conference.

That said, I agree that that is the competitive advantage Boise has. When Boise stumbles, it's statistically going to be against a weak team. They didn't do that well against Air Force on Saturday, but Air Force isn't really that good so it was irrelevant. They don't have to play quality teams weak in and weak out, they can rest their starters more and not be in any close games for most of the season. For other teams, by the time they get to bowl games, they have significant injuries and close games wearing on the mind. It's a harder environment.

Boise does have a lot of talent, but their success has at least a little bit to do with how easy they have it for most of the year. If the other teams are at their best, I don't really think Boise beats any of the teams ahead of them in the rankings.

Yeah, all those Boise State wins were just....excuses, excuses.

Boise State, when given the opportunity, plays with the "big boys" very well, thank you very much:

Kellen Moore's next win makes him the winningest QB in NCAA history. He's racking up incredible numbers while only playing in the 2nd half - twice this year.

Going 14-0 and winning the Fiesta Bowl wasn't enough to shut the naysayers up.

Boise State this season went on the road, into the heart of SEC country and beat Georgia, who is now 5-2, ranked 22nd and is #1 in the SEC East. But that's not enough.

They deserve a shot in the NC game if they win out. Only a convincing defeat of LSU, Alabama, etc. might shut the naysayers up.

Oh...and Chris Peterson...btw.... is one HELL of a football coach.

For starters, no one said they weren't a good team, in fact, we've said the exact opposite. So I'm going to ignore the obvious straw man.

You said it best. He's played in the second half twice this year. They're far and away better than their competition and that gives them an advantage at the end of the season. They're not as susceptible to injury because they don't have to play close games often. You're throwing out 63 and 5 and then ignore the fact that nearly all of the teams they beat are teams in the worst conference in football. Whine about excuses all you want, you're just ignoring the point people make about them. You said Boise would win because they went 63-5 the past 5 years, but the fact is that they're not playing the same schedule. Boise didn't go 63-5 in the SEC or the Big-12 or even the ACC. They did it in the WAC and the Mountain West. Yeah, 5 loses in as many years is a good thing to tout, but let's not pretend that they had the same challenge as most of the teams they're ranked ahead of. They've had the easy road, they only have to wake up a few times a year.

What will shut the naysayers up is if Boise State goes to a good conference and continues their success. As it is, they're a talented team who is playing a schedule that other talented teams would dominate as they have. Boise State is getting the press they're getting because they're an outsider, but if it was OU in that position, people around the country would be criticizing them for a cream-puff schedule, and rightfully so.

As for Georgia, they're not #1 in the SEC East (South Carolina is #1). Georgia's record is also, despite their ranking, not very impressive when you actually look at what they've done. Two wins were against teams with winning records, and one of them is an FCS team. The SEC records of the teams they've beaten is 1 and 15. This isn't your father's Georgia team. This Georgia team has been average for a while now and their record shows that they have yet to actually do well against an opponent with teeth.

For starters, no one said they weren't a good team, in fact, we've said the exact opposite. So I'm going to ignore the obvious straw man.

You said it best. He's played in the second half twice this year. They're far and away better than their competition and that gives them an advantage at the end of the season. They're not as susceptible to injury because they don't have to play close games often. You're throwing out 63 and 5 and then ignore the fact that nearly all of the teams they beat are teams in the worst conference in football. Whine about excuses all you want, you're just ignoring the point people make about them. You said Boise would win because they went 63-5 the past 5 years, but the fact is that they're not playing the same schedule. Boise didn't go 63-5 in the SEC or the Big-12 or even the ACC. They did it in the WAC and the Mountain West. Yeah, 5 loses in as many years is a good thing to tout, but let's not pretend that they had the same challenge as most of the teams they're ranked ahead of. They've had the easy road, they only have to wake up a few times a year.

What will shut the naysayers up is if Boise State goes to a good conference and continues their success. As it is, they're a talented team who is playing a schedule that other talented teams would dominate as they have. Boise State is getting the press they're getting because they're an outsider, but if it was OU in that position, people around the country would be criticizing them for a cream-puff schedule, and rightfully so.

As for Georgia, they're not #1 in the SEC East (South Carolina is #1). Georgia's record is also, despite their ranking, not very impressive when you actually look at what they've done. Two wins were against teams with winning records, and one of them is an FCS team. The SEC records of the teams they've beaten is 1 and 15. This isn't your father's Georgia team. This Georgia team has been average for a while now and their record shows that they have yet to actually do well against an opponent with teeth.

Hawk, I'll be honest with you, I'm not interested in arguing back and forth over something as trivial as college football. As much as I enjoy it - it's the opiate of the people today. It's big business, pure and simple. I don't like it near as much as I did back in the day. As for Georgia, they're tied for 1st in the SEC East
http://espn.go.com/college-football/team/_/id/61/georgia-bulldogs

I know Georgia isn't what it was back when I paid attention closely (Vince Dooley days - I'm 52 years old), but beating Georgia on the road in the SEC still says something.

Today, college football has nothing to do with "student athletes" and everything to do with the corporate influence in the whole thing (surprise, surprise - we're all slaves to Corporate America in damn near everything we do).

I was just trying to reinforce your statement, the previous quote didn't come along for the ride....

I just know some who try to hold onto those comparisons as hard proof of something...mainly it's the fools in the media.

Aha. Sorry about the mix-up. But no I don't like comparing, it proves nothing.

Hawk, I'll be honest with you, I'm not interested in arguing back and forth over something as trivial as college football. As much as I enjoy it - it's the opiate of the people today. It's big business, pure and simple. I don't like it near as much as I did back in the day. As for Georgia, they're tied for 1st in the SEC East
http://espn.go.com/college-football/team/_/id/61/georgia-bulldogs

I know Georgia isn't what it was back when I paid attention closely (Vince Dooley days - I'm 52 years old), but beating Georgia on the road in the SEC still says something.

Today, college football has nothing to do with "student athletes" and everything to do with the corporate influence in the whole thing (surprise, surprise - we're all slaves to Corporate America in damn near everything we do).

Yes, it does prove something and Georgia isn't half bad this year either. I think the real test though will come next season when they open the season against Michigan State in Michigan.

Hawk, I'll be honest with you, I'm not interested in arguing back and forth over something as trivial as college football. As much as I enjoy it - it's the opiate of the people today. It's big business, pure and simple. I don't like it near as much as I did back in the day. As for Georgia, they're tied for 1st in the SEC East

Honestly, man, I'm with you. It's supposed to be a fun diversion, not something to place your entire sense of identity on.

But discussing it ends up being a decent way to pass the time, and there's no more meaningless conversation than one that will ultimately end up with a group of strangers playing a game

Honestly, man, I'm with you. It's supposed to be a fun diversion, not something to place your entire sense of identity on.

But discussing it ends up being a decent way to pass the time, and there's no more meaningless conversation than one that will ultimately end up with a group of strangers playing a game

Sports are younger people's politics. Lol

I used to talk politics a whole lot more when I was younger....
Once you realize there is really no difference between the two parties other than rhetoric and therefore becoming disillusioned with the entire political process has a way of reducing your interest in that subject. Sports has its own politics but it is easier to separate it from what happens on the field.

I used to talk politics a whole lot more when I was younger....
Once you realize there is really no difference between the two parties other than rhetoric and therefore becoming disillusioned with the entire political process has a way of reducing your interest in that subject. Sports has its own politics but it is easier to separate it from what happens on the field.

Wow. I guess I just got me some polotics edgumication.

Sorry, I was just trying to say that political discussions aren't just for "older" people, I was much more involved and active when I was younger until I was exposed to some of the not so pretty underbelly of politics.

...back to our regularly scheduled sports discussion.