Why is Boise St better than WSU...program-wise?
- Thread starter ttowncoug
- Start date
Better product on the field. Better community and regional support. Prop 48 helped for a while but now they have the rep as well. Freeway and a real airport. Our advantage is being in a super conference that may have more of an impact with recruits we compete for in future.
Re: Why is Boise St better than UW
Why is their program better than Washington? Why is their program better than Arizona? Why is their program better than Utah? Why is their program better than Colorado? USC? ASU? Hell, pretty much everyone in the PAC 12 minus Oregon....
They are a big fish in a small pond. They have produced a mindset of winning, of dominating the Mountain West Conference. A lower quality conference of institutions that struggle athletically, as well as academically. Really, it's not that tough to figure out.
This post was edited on 1/1 8:11 AM by CrimsonDisciple
Why is their program better than Washington? Why is their program better than Arizona? Why is their program better than Utah? Why is their program better than Colorado? USC? ASU? Hell, pretty much everyone in the PAC 12 minus Oregon....
They are a big fish in a small pond. They have produced a mindset of winning, of dominating the Mountain West Conference. A lower quality conference of institutions that struggle athletically, as well as academically. Really, it's not that tough to figure out.
This post was edited on 1/1 8:11 AM by CrimsonDisciple
I agree with everything CD said, and would add one additional item relating to a combination of HC & program culture.
BSU was blessed with a string of HC/staffs that could evaluate talent, as well as being very quick to run off kids after a year if they didn't look like they were going to be starters. Absolutely ruthless in that regard. Just one tiny example; yesterday's bowl game between BSU and Ariz included a DE listed on Ariz's roster as 2nd unit DE (Jeff Worthy) who went to BSU from Whittier Christian for one year; then went to a community college for the 2nd year; then went to Arizona. He was good enough to be a back up at Ariz but wasn't good enough to avoid being run out of Boise after a year. And in that case it wasn't academics.
Football is big business, with the herd needing to be culled every year and fresh blood brought in. Pete Carroll did that. Sarky tries to do that. BSU started doing it earlier and more often than most, and that element of internal competition and ruthless culling is integral in their program. There are pro's and con's to that, but as a smaller school program trying to climb the staircase, I think it was probably an effective strategy for them to institutionalize.
BSU was blessed with a string of HC/staffs that could evaluate talent, as well as being very quick to run off kids after a year if they didn't look like they were going to be starters. Absolutely ruthless in that regard. Just one tiny example; yesterday's bowl game between BSU and Ariz included a DE listed on Ariz's roster as 2nd unit DE (Jeff Worthy) who went to BSU from Whittier Christian for one year; then went to a community college for the 2nd year; then went to Arizona. He was good enough to be a back up at Ariz but wasn't good enough to avoid being run out of Boise after a year. And in that case it wasn't academics.
Football is big business, with the herd needing to be culled every year and fresh blood brought in. Pete Carroll did that. Sarky tries to do that. BSU started doing it earlier and more often than most, and that element of internal competition and ruthless culling is integral in their program. There are pro's and con's to that, but as a smaller school program trying to climb the staircase, I think it was probably an effective strategy for them to institutionalize.
Well, it is true that BSU is a terrible academic university. It's tied at #63, ranked 12 spots below Central, in US News' list of "Western regional" universities. That's a complete joke for a school trying to hold itself out as a legitimate national university.
As far as whether they can take kids that Pac-12 schools, can't ... in most cases, I doubt it. Most of the schools other than Stanford (and, now, Cal) just require kids to meet NCAA minimum standards.
This post was edited on 1/1 1:55 PM by 425cougfan
B,S. - The Boise State program was built over the past 10 to 15 years with kids who were Pac10 or Pac 12 caliber athletes but were not good enough students to get into a Pac 10 or Pac 12 school.
Don't really understand the Boise State hate. Underdog program that he risen to great success....beating the national powers at times...overachieving....etc.
Sounds like WSU, or at least what we aspire to do.
They are sort of sister school in that respect. I love to see the big powers lose. This is why I want Oregon, for example, to win the national championship. OSU, Univ of Alabama, and FSU have all won national championships. Oregon has not. This would be great for college football (and no, it is not so much driven by "hate" of the SEC).
But back to BSU...their success should be applauded. We typically see growth of programs in the past 40+ years where there is also economic dynamism. See USC in the 1960s, see Florida in the 1990s, see Texas schools in the 2000s and 2010s...
Boise has seen economic dynamism that has coincided with their rise as a football program. It's kind of that simple.
1. Boise State competes with WSU for dollars, fan interest, attention, and recruits. Hence, while I can admire some aspects of what that program has done, I certainly don't applaud it. I also believe a good chunk of it is smoke and mirrors. Things were going downhill, albeit slightly, in Petersen's last couple years. We'll see if Harsin and crew can keep things going. I'd argue they have a relatively easy path to maintaining national relevance in the MWC. They'd have to get significantly worse to be a truly bad team that doesn't make bowl games and have a shot at being a top-25ish team each year, whereas that same team could turn into circa-2014 Oregon State in a hurry in the Pac-12.
2. I don't think general "economic dynamism" is responsible for Boise State's success as a football program. I'd be willing to buy that being in an economically growing area is helpful to growing a football program, and as you say, it's coincident, but I don't think it's as simple as a growing economy begetting a successful local college football team, as you seem to be saying with the "kind of that simple" remark.
Several reasons. First, just like Gonzaga basketball, they were able to build when the uw and WSU were at low points. They filled a void. Plus, the Pac 10 not allowing back then Prop 48 recruits gave BSU an influx of really good talent. Then, first in the WAC and then the MWC, they were able to feed up upon mediocre teams.
Plus, the administration/leadership were all in to the football program. They invested in the program. While Rawlins was making cutbacks, BSU wanted to win.
Plus, the administration/leadership were all in to the football program. They invested in the program. While Rawlins was making cutbacks, BSU wanted to win.
That's not necessarily true. Each school has a certain number of "special admits", students that don't qualify academically for the school, but are admitted due to some kind of special circumstance or ability. Obviously, athletic ability as viewed as something that could be a benefit to the university, so each school allows a certain number of student athletes to be admitted, even though they do not qualify otherwise.
That said, schools don't just allow an unlimited number of special admits. It's why Chandler Leniu ended up at WSU after trying to enroll at Cal.
Exactly. BSU took advantage of a great opportunity. They built good facilities while UW was still playing in a decrepit old stadium that was falling apart and WSU still had a portable as a press box and was paying their coach $600K.
Now that the TV money is coming in and UW has remodeled, WSU has SIGNIFICANTLY upgraded their facilities and both have upped their salaries for coaches, I see the gap between the Pac12 & MWC widening again, just like it was in the 90s.
BSU will still run their conference, but I think they're run of stomping Pac12 teams will only last unitl the facility & coaching upgrades start to show up on the field.
At some point we can't blame Rawlins' and the past, we have to look at today.
On paper, we recruit better than Boise.
We play in a higher profile conference.
I think their blue turf is extremely unattractive and screams "i need attention."
All that aside, they pretty much handled Arizona all game and won.
On paper, we recruit better than Boise.
We play in a higher profile conference.
I think their blue turf is extremely unattractive and screams "i need attention."
All that aside, they pretty much handled Arizona all game and won.
