Wake up, Bronco Nation: Boise State football links and things, 2-10-12

if they use WVU’s exit settlement to assuage the pain that BSU is about to suffer financially, then i’m all for it. but on the radio someone had a great point: why do we want to be the enabler to the whole thing? is that something that we want to carry around with us? is that the reputation going forward that we want to have? my guess is yes. at least if i get cable next football season, i won’t have to try and get whatever package the mountain, etc., is on (if it is a special package).

as far as momentum, i do agree. our worst case scenario will be tcu 2011. i know Coach Pete will have the team prepared for MSU, but the playbook will be massively limited and most likely having to change to suit whichever QB gets the starting spot. if we stay in the MWC, i’d say 11-1 or 10-2 regular season at the worst. if we go to the Big East who knows. but we’d lose the 13th game so we wouldn’t have to worry about that. i guess.

We owe the MWC nothing (except the exit fee). Boise State’s 2012 schedule would get an immediate bump as would ticket sales and Boise State has a chance for an auto-bid next year instead of waiting till 2013 and a diminished Big East. Pull the trigger, Bob—or someone else will.

Nick: Didn’t you mean to say “less costly” instead of “more costly”, in regards to your take on touchbacks, since the new rule moves the TB line 5 yards further downfield? Just checkin’!!

I agree with you and AdaminFL; some things just shouldn’t be changed.

I asked this same question when the NFL did it. The ball is almost always assured to wind up the endzone so why even bother having the kickoff? Just put the ball on the freaking 20/25 and not waste the time of lining up just to watch the ball play superman into the endzone.

They want to move the kick-off from the 30 to the 35 so that it results in a touchback and can’t be returned, which is when the injuries occur. But then they want to shorten the running start of the kicker so that the ball won’t travel as far, which means that it won’t result in a touchback, and as a result can then be returned and players can be injured. I don’t freaking understand.

should allow them to play the freakin’ game. I understand the safety aspect. The fact is, they play a violent game. Injuries are a part of it.

I’m not particularly upset about the rules except the new helmet rule. Why would they have to go on the sidelines if they lose their helmet? If they’re not injured, it’s not an injury. And if they lose their helmet, they should have until the ball is snapped again before they have to get it on and snapped up. But to say they HAVE to go to the sidelines for the next play is overkill.

And if you lose your helmet, you can’t participate in the play? I understand the safety aspect but losing your helmet is never an intentional thing and it doesn’t give anybody an advantage by doing so. So if a running back loses his helmet while breaking a tackle and has an open field to the end zone, they’re just going to blow the play dead? Or if there’s one guy between the ball carrier and the endzone and he happens to have lost his helmet he needs to just step aside and let them score? That doesn’t sit well with me. There are so many possible scenarios that can arise from this rule that would be unfair… QB gets his helmet taken off during a play (unintentionally) and he has to sit out when it’s 4th and goal with :04 left and down by 4? There’s a lot of potential to abuse this rule to a team’s advantage. I’m not liking it at all…

I do not get the kick off rules. But that is nothing new with the NCAA. A lot I don’t get with them