I didn't want to thread drift on the Gator section. This was suppose to be an comprehensive, fact based tutorial for Terry about Boise State football. I had to walk away from my desk and when I came back to hit submit, it asked me to log in again but wouldn't take my login... ergo, it all got lost. I'll post it again later.
I'll keep it short and sweet since you apparently have zero interest in actually learning and will probably keep re-treading the same old guard media lines. My original post was much longer with citations, context and refutations for all of the re-tread strawmen that you'd throw out to downplay it all.. but that got flushed.. so we'll keep it short. In an egg timer. Boise State did not play DI football until 1996. They broke from the Mason/Pokey Allen mold in an attempt to go 'big time' by hiring an up and coming head coach by the name of Houston Nutt. Nutt spent one .500 season there in 1997 and bailed. In come Koetter. Under Koetter, Boise started to beat those conference rivals and become tough for the Big West. They were no threat to even mid to low major conference competition. That's a fact. He improved Boise only slightly. He used the ignorance of the average football fan, reporter and administrator to leverage his ass out of Boise once people started to consider him a 'guru' like Nutt. Enter Hawkins in 2001. Hawkins had to replace everything that left with Koetter. His biggest and best hire was the youngish WR coach from Oregon to be his OC. A guy by the name of Chris Peterson. Under Hawkins, Boise became a threat to low and mid level major conference competition. They were absolutely dominant against their own conference competition. They had elevated the program from a nice little story to something right on the cusp of becoming a big dog. The reason for that was Peterson's offense. Hawkins seemed to be a whiny prima donna who had more than a large vanity issue. His last year in Boise, he was literally shopping himself because he too was now a 'guru.' Hawkins bails and Boise promotes their OC to the role of HC. Something you all should have probably noticed, but no one did because no one follows Boise football here, is that the Boise people were jacked up and excited to have Peterson as the guy. The college football world (those who even noticed) thought there's no way this program would recover from the loss of yet another 'football genius.' Meanwhile, the people in Boise were yelling that this guy is the reason... No one cared. No one noticed.. but they went unbeaten and that includes Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl. Under Peterson, they've gone from a cute story to a team that is a legitimate threat to beat you no matter where you play on any level. The difference between the quality of football played by Boise under Peterson vs Hawkins is almost laughable. Peterson rounded the program out, bringing in defense, real recruiting and talented OL prospects. They pound the ball on the ground and don't play some pass happy flag football offense (ala Koetter and Hawkins). Koetter and Hawkins aren't even in the same building with Peterson. I think a good example of the difference between the 'then and now' was the Georgia series. Boise went to Athens under Hawkins and melted down. They self-destructed, Hawkins threw his headset and pouted all over the place. They got their ass whipped on national TV. Under Peterson, Boise goes down to play Georgia in the Georgia dome and beats their ass inside out. Georgia quit. Georgia doesn't get thumped that bad very often, but they were dominated in all facets of the game. The game was nowhere near as close as the 35-21 score would indicate. If anyone cares to refute that, go watch the replay of the game. The 2nd half is a boring snooze fest with the commentators in shock. If anyone wants to refute the quality of that Georgia team, they were a 10 win Georgia team that won the East and played in the SEC CG. I can see how it's an easy (but lazy) line to draw.. oh yeah, Peterson is yet another one.. but the real story is much deeper. Koetter was a snake oil salesman who stayed 2 years longer than Houston Nutt. That's it. Hawkins was supposed to be the genius, but I think it's painfully obvious that Peterson (as Boise fans believed all along) was the real 'guru' I had a whole thing for you, as I mentioned before that was thesis level awesome... but you don't seem interested in all that, so there's the egg timer.
So did I miss a big argument over BSU somewhere? Kesley hates them... but that's probably because he had to live in Idaho while they were in the early part of their streak and had to deal with some fans who wanted to equate them to Bama, and OSU, and USC... I've never been a fan either, but you can't argue with wins and they have them against real teams. I don't doubt Peterson is the guy. He's the constant. I also think it helped that he had some QB's who were pretty good at running his offense. Nutt... I think the name says it all. Not sure what put the shine on his apple. Koetter... never heard much about him. I think he went to ASU (right?) but what happened then I didn't pay attention. Hawkins... what a tool. CU is still a molten blast crater after his visit...
I knew all that, I guess when I commented about Nutt that made you go professorial. Still don't know why Nutt is any factor one way or another in the BSU story. Guy was less than .500 in one year and bailed. Koetter though was pretty hot property when he left, in fact he was on the plane to Stillwater to accept the Ok State job when he got the ASU offer and litterally turned the plane around to go take the ASU job. Some unknown guy named Les Miles was the back up choice. You may be right that Hawk was riding Petersen's back when he was at BSU, I don't know. And just to be clear my comments weren't meant to disrespect Petersen, just point out that when the Boise State guys leave Boise State they leave their success behind. Now Petersen is still at BSU so we don't know for sure about him, but he certainly has a great record no doubt. Kudo's to him.
Appreciate the history Corey and I find it interesting. I am not sure what some of your side comments are about though but thanks for the background.
It stems from you constantly discounting anything that Boise does. The best compliments you've ever given them are back handed, and that's being kind. You implied that Peterson isn't better than either Hawkins or Koetter, but rather just 'smart' enough to stay in Boise. They're an incredible story. More than that, they're a great program that's overcome the cancer death of Pokey Allen, being used as a stepping stone by 3 alleged 'guru' coaches and constantly being **** on by the BCS system. Maybe it's residual anger from having Mack Brown as your coach, or the fact you're paying him more than $5million I don't know.. but Peterson is a great coach. I'd take Peterson over Brown every day of the week. The truth is, not a lot of people know about Boise. If I'm a Wazzu guy who spent all that time in Idaho, I'd resent and hate the **** out of Boise too. Sorry Kes.. lol
Many Texas fans agree with you and had hoped in the past that Petersen would come to Austin to replace Mack Brown. I think you have been reading somebody else if you think I have done nothing but denigrate the BSU program. I think they have a great program, but the way things are for them they have in the past played a very weak schedule and then won a big game in the Bowls like when they beat OU. You make the leap that if you beat somebody in a bowl, like BSU did OU or like Louisville did vs UF, or like Utah did vs Alabama that means that they would be at the top of the conference that they beat. But Utah moved to the Pac12 and has been a middle of the pack team. If Boise State moved to the Pac12 I'd be shocked if they were one of the upper level teams. They are in the Mountain West now and doing very well, I think that's where they belong. TCU moved to the B12 and they haven't done all that well, they are doing OK but not great, certainly nothing like what they did when they were Mtn West members. When will you be on the Northern Illinois band wagon?
I didn't start out hating BSU. I respect what they did with such limited opportunities for success. What really turned me off to the program was similar to the article you referenced in your Tidelandia article. BSU fans should really have been in that top 10 list. Almost every fanboy wears about $500 worth of BSU stuff when they're winning, even though the vast majority have never been to the campus, much less attended a game. In those few instances when I was dealing with an actual alum taking pride in his school, even then it was an unreal expectation to be compared to the Nebraska, Alabamas, USCs of college football, when at the time they had a 10 year history of D1 football under their belts. I would pat them on the head and say "nice team, now do it for another 100 years and you'll have my attention". Now that I'm in Utah, and I don't have it in my face every day, I'm better. But even here there are those fans, only they are diluted and drowned out by the BYU, Utah, Utah St. fans. Thank god.
Exactly who is making a leap here? We live in a world in which the SEC is considered the undisputed premier conference in the land based upon their success in one game a year. That's not to say they suck, or are even bad, but I do believe between Kes and I, to have shown they have a great many 'average' showings just like everyone else. Yet, they win the one big game and all is forgiven. It applies to them, but not others. I don't think you can say the 2009 Utah team would be 'mid-level' Pac12. We can't know that. All we do know is the chances they had against other teams, they won. It's not like Alabama didn't have more than a month to prepare for that beating they took. Part of the longer post that didn't get sent before explained that Boise was able to reload between Hawkins and Peterson due to a variety of factors (including both Washington schools being terrible and UCLA being mid-level at best). Now both Oregon schools are good, both Washington schools are on the rise, UCLA is starting to become a recruiting machine the past 2 years and USC is the pirate program they always are regardless of restrictions. All of those things contribute to take away a guy here or there and it adds up. They still aren't bad, and they are still very much a threat to walk into anyone's house and beat them annually despite rebuilding. That wasn't the case with Hawkins and Koetter. The 'weak schedule' argument gets a bit played out when we continually see teams from 'major' conferences struggle early but then 'get good' when they enter their 'tough conference slate.' There's so much of this system that's based on assumption. I eagerly look forward to the day the FBS puts on big boy pants and plays at least an 8 game playoff like everyone else.
Kes, You make a strong point about their fans. I've known a few alums and if they are any indication of the non-alums or bandwagon fans in Idaho, I can't imagine! lol
I would agree that we can't know what Utah would have done in the Pac12 in 2009, just like we can't know what they would have done playing in the SEC in 2009. But since they have joined the Pac12 they have been at best average, since TCU joined the B12 (a conference which is roundly derided around here) they have been decidedly average same for WVa leaving the Big Least where they had a nice run of success (remember they beat OU as well, and beat them with an interim HC). Boise has beaten a number of major conference teams, and nobody really wants to schedule them. They are doing well in the Mtn West, I don't think (but don't know) they would be the same team if they joined the Pac12. Not sure based on the TCU experience that moving to the B12 (which has been talked about) would leave them with the same success that they have had. As far as recruiting, you are probably right that their rise had a lot to do with being smart and developing kids along with getting some kids who might have stayed in the Pac if Wash, Stanford (pre-harbaugh), UCLA, etc had been where they are today. Also, and I don't know the answer to this, do they compete with Fresno State for Pac the better Pac left overs?
I see what you're saying and agree to an extent. I mean, by the same token, how are Texas A&M and Missouri doing in the SEC? I'd say that Boise certainly competes with Fresno for P12 kids. Taking a moment to take a shot at my home conference, I can't think of a reason why (aside from academic elitism) that San Diego State, Fresno State and Boise State are not in the P12 (if they were ever to go the 16 team route). I still think athletically, in terms of upside, any of those 3 would have been a better addition than Colorado. Boise has pulled some Texas kids, I think the overall upgrade in football in the state of Texas has something to do with them getting fewer of them as well. Kids can go to Baylor, Tech etc and there's actually a chance now they could play (or beat) Texas or Oklahoma.
Wow Corey you come out with some great reports and have knowledge in some areas most of us just don't have. But other than with you I think the SEC reputation is much more than just winning one game per year. However that one game is the one game all schools have tried to get in for a number of years. So the way I see it here is a partial list of why that one game carries so much weight for the SEC. getting to that game for 7 straight years. With 4 different programs from that conference Against 5 different schools From 3 different conferences and a storied independent And even one year placing both teams in that game. So it seems to me it's a pretty important little game. But take heart Corey the SEC did lose in one of those 7 games. And come next year will be a 4 team tournament.
It's the planted flag theory again Bill. Like I said, I'm not saying the SEC is bad or anything like that. Hell, it was Dave who supplied the data. The SEC dominates the BCSCG, but is one game over .500 in all other BCS games. There's no denying the dominance of the top of the conference, even if it's semi-rotating. (Alabama has won the last 2 and 3 of 4.) All I'm saying is that it is a slippery slope. When you have something that is supposed to be judged annually, you wind up with a strong potential for hypocrisy when you start passing blanket judgments on one team and conference showing preference, but not the other.
I still say the fact that the SEC has provided it's #2 team to the BCS way more times than any other conference speaks well of SEC depth.... more so than it is a judgement on the BCS winning percentage of those 2nd place SEC teams.