Talk:Boise State Broncos football

Boise State Football....what to say about the tragic events that befell the team of 1973?

Willy VanPopple, God rest his soul, was the heartbeat of the 1973-74, Boise State Broncos. Willy, or, 3-inch, as his girlfriend called him, was referred to as, "3-inch," due to his proclivity to his favorite bubble gum, Big Red.

Willy had a penchant for popping his tasty bubble gum treat, right before kickoff at both the start of the game and halftime. Here was the problem: The amount Willy insisted on "chewing." You see, Willy had a problem with keeping his hands to himself. He wasn't like "canceled" weird about anything, it was more like, don't say anything provocative around Willy, or things are going to get really uncomfortable......ugh,

My attorney just advised me that I shouldn't type anything else.....

BOOOOOOO, Attorneys!!!! Am I right?

Anyway, God bless Willy and his fight in Boise. May the the squandered squalor the brilliant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B167:2868:31C4:8080:98B2:9C28 (talk) 04:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Career Records

I don't think we should change "Career Records" until their career is over...See Ian Johnson...Mjquin_id (talk) 05:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Conference Championships

Boise State did not win the conference championship in 2007. That was Hawaii. I edited it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.138.240 (talk) 06:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate Bowl Results

It appears that someone has been editing the results of Boise State's various Bowl games over the years to make Boise appear better than they actually were. I fixed many of the errors, but there are still more that I did not feel like going into. The article currently says that Boise State won the 2001 Rose Bowl, when the team has never played in a Rose Bowl game. I suggest that this article be reviewed by someone who knows the history of the team a little better than I do, but it is readily apparent that some overzealous fans of the school have some issues facing reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.101.154 (talk) 06:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Football Championship Subdivision?

Boise State was never in the Football Championship Subdivision. They were in Division I-AA. It wasn't renamed as the FCS until well after Boise moved to Division I-A (now Football Bowl Subdivision). The name changes were not retroactive, and should not be treated as if they were in the article. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

National Championship argument

Someone insists on adding informationabout Boise State having an argument to claim the National Championship in 2006 and 2010. I think it is very inaccurate and arrogant to add that information. Yes, we were the only ones undefeated in 2006, but just saying that we have the right to claim a title dosent make it true. Yes it sucks that we have the system that we do and that we don't get a chance at the NC, but we shouldn't just complain about it, especially in the opening of this page. It just makes it seem like we are complaining instead of highlighting what we have accomplished. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 06:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Actually I think you are mistaken. Boise State doesn't have an "argument" to claim national titles, they have the right to claim them if they wish. The NCAA does not award FBS titles. Boise State was awarded the 2006 national title by Annual Football Predictions, Harry Frye, and The State's National Champions. They were awarded the 2009 National Title by Harry Frye. While these national title awards don't sound impressive they are the basis for hundreds of claimed and recognized national titles from around the country. Go look at Alabama, Penn State, or Texas A&M's list of national championships; you'll find many of them based upon these more obscure computers and polls, yet still just as legitimate as an AP or BCS title as neither of those are NCAA titles either. This is the reason many people simply refer to all FBS national titles as "Mythical National Champions".

Idaho still rivals?

It would be prudent to remove Idaho as a rival until such time where BSU is playing Idaho again and are considered to be on the same competing level. 96.18.238.19 (talk) 03:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Disagree. Should Colorado and Nebraska not be considered a rivalry anymore because they aren't scheduled to play again? No way, they still hate each other's guts! Boise State still hates Idaho and vice versa. The rivalry still exists, it's just dormant. Not to mention the two will still compete in basketball and other sports. ApolloVI (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Its been a major part of Bronco football history and should not have ever been removed. I would argue to have Hawaiʻi removed instead, its never really been a rivalry, it was close games for 2 years and nobody really gets excited about it other than then. Our rivals are Idaho, Fresno State, and Nevada. TCU probably shouldnt even be listed.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 01:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I disagree with you and the non-football example you give is not compelling. BSU has very little to do with the U of I these days (not just in football either), and the only elements of actual football rivalry are in memory and are never likely to be more than that again. Plus the U of I is not really known as a football school anymore. Besides, the only reason BSU fans remember Vandal fans is because of the wake of nasty and inebriated destruction that would be present in the immediate area around Bronco Stadium after one of those former rivalry games (personal experience there). Also, in the BSU museum, very little mention of Idaho still remains. Perhaps Idaho should be listed elsewhere in the article as a "former rival" instead. In the article's current state it suggests that they are 1) a current rival and 2) playing on a rivalry level, neither of which is the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.246.159 (talk) 04:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Nothing in that says anything about current rivalries, it just says rivalrys. They have always been and will always be our biggest rivals wheather we play them or not. Do you think Texas won't consider Texas A&M a rival anymore just because they won't play every year? How about Nebraska and Colorado? They are our rivals and should be listed first. Simple as that.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Hey instead of tearing down more obvious attempts at diplomacy, decency, and constructivism, why don't you actually read and consider what goes in in the discussion page? Also, what part of "the only elements of actual football rivalry are in memory and are never likely to be more than that again" DOESN'T explicitly speak of former vs current rivalries? I have extreme doubts about your ability to be an adult when your opinion differs from others. Also, the term "biggest rivals" AS YOU USE IT means it would be challenging for the Vandals to play BSU, and such a game is obviously not likely to be for an extremely long time for two very important reasons. The first would be the playing level, which is an obvious result. The second would be the lack of attention that the University of Idaho is displaying for ALL of its athletics; Coach Akey is even known for having a rather vitriolic rant about the situation. Additionally, the former vs current rival status was a compromise between your blatant hostility in your reverts (see the article history) and my position on the subject, and calm responsible people would at least talk about compromise BEFORE an outright revert. Now could we PLEASE bring back a little civility and get back to constructive edits AND constructive discussion? I should not have had to have such words on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.246.159 (talk) 06:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
      • First off, you tell me to talk about it on the discussion page before reverting it when you didn't even bother to check if we had already discussed it. The consensus was to keep them there way before you showed up and started changing things so don't talk to me about using the discussion page when you yourself did not. Second, THEY ARE OUR RIVALS!! ALWAYS HAVE AND ALWAYS WILL!! You don't have to play a team every year to be a rival. They games don't have to be close for it to be a rivalry. They fact is, Boise State fans hate Idaho, Idaho fans hate Boise State, when they play it is a heated rivalry on the field and in the stands, just because we have won 12 straight games does not make it any less of a rivalry. Same could be said when Idaho was winning for 12 straight years. They are a huge part of our overall all history and should be listed as our top rival. Your arguments about the school showing lack of attention toward athletics dosen't mean a thing about this rivalry. You are wrong, they stay listed as is.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Hey! Some actual discussion! Nice! You still need to work on the civility thing and it's best you do it quickly before less level-headed people escalate things to nearby thrift stores. Additionally, I'm having trouble finding where this previous discussion was. Again "you're wrong" isn't a reason to just auto-revert (and let's be clear, the history shows you as the reverter, especially when you seem to disagree), but hey, we need some more DISCUSSION from different people on this one. Also, repeating the argument that you use gets a discussion NOWHERE. If you're actually interested in level-headed constructive maintenance of the article, perhaps other parties should be brought in because you really aren't doing a good job in that department. I'll leave you to that if you're going to act like an adult on this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.246.159 (talk) 06:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
          • Telling you that "you're wrong" is not a personal attack, ITS A FACT! I made the same argument I made before because that is the only argument needed. They have been, are still, and always will be our biggest rival and thus should be listed as so. I don't just auto-revert for the sake of it, I auto-revert poor edits that bring down the quaulity of a page like yours did. I can understand if we hadn't played them in 5 years and there was no talk of playing again that listing it like that may be better, but we are not even done with the first season of not playing. There are still open spots on each others schedules after 2012 to add a game. Under your argument we should remove Hawaii since we didn't play them this year and remove TCU since we won't play them anymore. Idaho is a huge part of our history and needs to be listed as our first rival, not former. So I await your non construtive response that does nothing but point out how unadult and uncivil I am, eventhough I'm the only one who actually is adding to the point at hand. If you have a problem with me, leave it on my page. If you want to talk about this topic then do it.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

orange text

Why is over half of the article in an unreadable and obnoxious orange? Isn't there a policy against this? 97.121.57.244 (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Removal of former players no longer on an NFL roster

I deleted a few players that as of this date are not signed to an NFL team. I noticed after the fact that there is a "notable former players" section. Should those players have been moved there, instead? Some of the players currently in that section don't seem that "notable" to me. Jared Zabransky? Sure; he was on the cover of a video game. Kyle Brotzman? Ok, his missing of field goals were kind of a big deal to a couple of different Bronco seasons. But what about guys like Alex Guerrero? Should a guy be notable because they signed to an NFL team in the offseason and never went anywhere? BrettxPW (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Rivalries and seasons

BYU and San Diego State ARE NOT!! Boise State's rivals. Just because they are the closest team regionally to Boise and their are future games schedule does not make them a rival! Only 5 total games have been played agaist these two opponents, it is very premature addint them as a rival so DO NOT!! list them as a rival until a rivalry exists. As for listing others as discontinued is not accurate, the word you are looking for is dormat, but you don't have to play a team for a rivalry to exist. Idaho is still Boise State's main rival wheather they play or not. Also, Boise State did not get the TCU game moved, the Mountain West moved that, the Broncos have NOTHING to do with conference scheduleing. As for the thing about Petersen voting them lower, WHO CARES?!? It's totally his opinion and he can do whatever he wants in his poll and had no bearing on the rivalry.

The all time seasons should not be listed on this page. Lots of teams have their seasons listed on seperate pages. If it is listed here then there is absolutly no reason for the other page to exist because it would be redundent to have the exact same thing on 2 pages like that. Just leave the link, if someone really wants to know their alltime season records they will click the link.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

(1)According to many fans on broncocountry.com SDSU and BYU are rivals with BSU. The logic behind BYU & SDSU haven't played Boise enough to be rivals, but listing a non-regional 4 game "rivalry" with TCU does not make sense.

There is no history with BYU or San Diego State. To list them as rivals just because the are regional and we play them in future years is beyond stupid. We might aswell list all the teams that are in our division in the Big East aswell, that would make as much sense. With TCU there is a lot of hisotry. broncocountry.com is just a recruiting website, its not the end all be all on Boise State history. Ive had season tickets for 15 years and can tell you that for now the ARE NOT!! our rivals, add the info in the future if it becomes relevnt.Bsuorangecrush

(talk) 15:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Insults and shouting personal opinions seems to be your typical response. How can you claim 4 games against TCU = a lot of history, but 2 & 3 games with SDSU & BYU respectively does not equal enough history? It is illogical. Broncocountry.com is not just a recruiting website and saying so is disingenuous. It is the largest and most popular free fan forum for Boise State. It is where you will find a congregation of thousands of Boise fans. Observe that website long enough and you can see who Boise fans spend their time making fun of, etc. You seem to constantly present your opinion as fact. Being a season ticket holder for 15 years does not transform an opinion into fact. You remain one fan with one opinion amongst hundreds of thousands. (Veritas KGB (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC))

Thanks for not even reading my argument before changing it back. And pointing out miss spelling just proves you think you are just perfect!Bsuorangecrush (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

why do you care so much? Are you a Boise State fan? True, this is not a fan page, but lies shouldn't be posted here either. SDSU and BYU are not rivals. They should not be considered rivals simply because we have played close games with them recently, we play them in the future, and they are somewhat regional does not make them rivals. We have little to no history with either of these teams, until we do they are not rivals. As for future games, even BYUs coach has said the 10 year series is to long and it probably won't all happen. And conference realignment is not over so that 10 most likely wont happen. They may become rivals, but they should not be listed as rivals based on future speculation. Your argument of one website has them listed as rivals is not valid. Plus, why do you think they were not listed as rivals before you showed up? It was not an oversight, they were not there because they should not have been there. DO NOT add them as rivals without a more valid argument. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 16:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Apologies. But you posted into the middle of my post and did not leave a distinguishing indent. It's hard to respond to posts that are hidden within the body of previous posts. No I am not perfect, but you set yourself up for a spelling correction when you make a specious post about word choice and definitions. You deleted my additions when they were labelled "Dormant" prior to deleting them when they were labelled "Discontinued" so content, not word choice was always the issue with you. I care because I am a nerd for accuracy and standards. I have disconcerted by your attempts to turn this page into your personal fiefdom where the sole standard of what qualifies as worthy of adding to a previously sparse page is whether you like it or not. I do not understand your negative attitude towards others. I am a Boise State fan most of the time. Then please stop running this like a fan page. You continue to define what is not a rival, but fail to put forth a definition of what is a rival. Additionally, your definition of what eliminates a team from "rivalry status" (little to no history) would eliminate TCU, Fresno State, and Hawaii from the list of rivals as well. So don't add rivals based on speculating that they'll play in the future, but do remove rivals based on speculating that BYU probably wont play the full 12 game series and based on speculation about future conference realignment ending the SDSU-BSU games? My personal belief is that only Idaho and Nevada are our rivals. However, based on the broad definition of rival used on this page inherent in the inclusion of TCU, Fresno, and Hawaii then its only logical to include BYU and SDSU under those broad parameters as well. My argument is not that one website (broncocountry) considers them as rivals, my argument is that broncocountry posters as a whole provide a sample of the Boise State fan base and that from that sample we can draw conclusions about who all are BSU rivals, whether we personally agree with those conclusions or not. I would assume they were not listed as rivals prior because of your personal investment ensuring the content of this page reflects and promotes your viewpoint on Boise State football and because (1) this year marked the resumption of playing BYU and was the first game in a long series and (2) SDSU notched its first win against Boise State, and competitiveness is one of the many possible foundation stones for a rivalry. (Veritas KGB (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC))

(2)I think you meant dormant, not "dormat". And I'll be happy to switch the labeling from discontinued to dormant for you. But discontinued does mean "ended" and is synonymous with "cancelled, discarded, given up, interrupted, and terminated" so it's is really just a matter of po-tay-toe v po-tot-toe.

(3)I never said you have to play for a rivalry to exist. That's why Idaho etc are still listed there. I merely broke the rivalries up into two groups, active & discontinued. It seemed like an important piece of information to let people know which teams on Boise's schedule are rivals, and to let people know about past Boise State rivalries.

(4)The MWC moved the game at Boise's request. The statement is accurate and is sourced. You cannot delete facts just because you do not like them. This is not meant to be a "fanboy" page. It needs to be informative. You're just arguing semantics. The moved game venue was a major backstory of the last Boise-TCU meeting. It caused numerous media reports and I'm pretty sure TCU's athletic director publicly blasted the move. It is a story and a legitimate part of the rivalry's fan-lore. High rankings, important bowl games, and off the field slights, whether perceived or real, are all things that contributed to a brief, but intense rivalry. Once again, this information is informative in explaining why there is a rivalry between two such unlikely schools.

(5)Once again, Petersen's voting of TCU down is part of the rivalry's history. Of course he can vote however he wants and I personally don't care how he chooses to vote. However, this was another off-field dispute between the schools and fans that is part of the rivalry's history. It was another incident that garnered media attention, caused bickering between the fan bases, and caused public comment by school officials in response.

(6)To ignore the controversies and disputes between these two universities is to ignore the rivalry itself. It would be like deleting all references to mascot theft from the Army-Navy rivalry, etc.

(7)These stories are part of rivalry lore and the reader will come away all the richer for learning about why these two seemingly random schools came to dislike each other.

(8)I agree that there shouldn't be the all time season on two pages. I think the other page should be deleted and that it is strange to have a subtopic that contains nothing at all, but a link to another page. However, it's just a stylistic preference on my part so I'll let you return it to the way you like with links to other pages. (Veritas KGB (talk) 13:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC))

So you won't have trouble finding his one...

Of course Idaho is our main rival, no argument against that. Nevada is number 2, history proves that. Fresno is number 3, the fact that they invented a trophy for it proves that. Hawaii I will not argue for. We played 2 close games with them in 2004 and 2005 and accuracy nerds like you added it to the page and it stuck. We are not rivals with Hawaii but I've already had that fight so I leave it. TCU was a rival, I'd say for only a 3 year span, but its mostly just because of bowl games and polls, but it was such a large part of our history during a changing landscape of college football that they should be added. A couple of close games against teams we have only played a combined 5 times and the fact that a couple of them were close and the fact that we play them in the future is not enough! Ask a byu fan or an sdsu fan, none would list bsu as rivals. Rivals need to be built on history, not speculation. We could easily start a rivalry with any team in the big east just as we did with Fresno when we joined the WAC, but we shouldn't include them just because it may be a rivalry in the future. I am just as much as an accuracy nerd as you, and I enjoy you passion, and I know this is not my page but its not yours either! They are not our rivals and it is a flat out lie to say that they are. If a team being regional was all it took then Utah state would have been a rival but they never were. It is far to early to consider these teams rivals and it is inaccurate to include them in the rivals list. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. And sorry about missing your earlier posts in the talk page. I'll concede Fresno under the idea that trophy=rival and my opinion agrees with you about Hawaii. In the changed landscape of college football I think BYU and SDSU have become rivals for Boise State. I think the rivalries are in their infancy, but I think they have become rivalries because of the rapid changes in college football. SDSU has lost Fresno an annual game with Fresno, BYU is losing Utah and BSU has lost Idaho and is about to lose Nevada from the schedules. I think all three teams are searching for replacement rivals and have latched onto each other. Off the field you have Rocky Long's comments on blue turf that angered Boise fans as well as Boise fan frustration with BYU leaving the MWC and BYU's stubbornness in not joining Boise State in the Big East. I would not attempt to say that either one is the others primary number 1 rival, but plenty of teams have multiple rivals of varying degrees and for varying reasons. I think the information of BYU & SDSU is good and informative and would like to propose a compromise. Instead of listing them as "active" rivals what if I put them under the sub-heading of developing rivalries under which we can continue to beef up the info for readers and from which it can be moved into full rivalry status if we feel it is warranted in the future or delete all together if the series cools in future years instead of its current track where it is heating up? Also, sorry about getting testy with you, I took some of your earlier comments as insults and disrespectful. If we do that, then I can also eliminate the Active-Discontinued headings as the distinction would become meaningless as Discontinued would be 5 teams, developing would be 2 teams and active would be 0 teams. Let me know what you think. Thanks. (Veritas KGB (talk) 19:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I am fully against their inclusion at this time. However, if they are to be included I think the headers should just be removed all together. Discontinued sounds to final, like there is no chance it could ever happen again, but I don't like developing either. I would say list them in the order of Idaho, Nevada, Fresno, Hawaii (or just get rid of Hawaii, I don't think anyone would notice or care), TCU, San Diego State ( above byu because they are actually a conference member), then byu. I don't see the need for any distinction between active discontinued or developing especially when the table lists the last time they met and the last sentence of everyone says that there are no future games schedule (for the ones that applys to).Bsuorangecrush (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• • I was thinking about using the headers "Historic" instead of "Discontinued" so as to make it sound less final and using "Prospective" for BYU and SDSU so as to acknowledge your concerns that they are "real" rivals yet. Typically I list the paragraphs alphabetically and the chart by most played to least played. But if you still prefer not to have any distinctions in the headers then I'll do it that way. Let me know. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veritas KGB (talk • contribs) 19:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't like prospective because that's to broad. Like I said before, we could end up rivals with any team in the big east just like we did we Fresno in the WAC. I would just list them, with the table at the top people could quickly figure out who we have played recently. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• • • Not a problem. I eliminated prospective and historical and all other titles. I also tried to clean up the rivalry stats spreadsheet and make its reading more logical and less clunky. I threw in a top 25 chart for BSU earlier today, as I thought that was some good info for the page. I only used AP & Coaches, but not BCS b/c BCS is a pre-bowl season poll while AP & Coaches count bowl games. Let me know if you think BCS should be added or if BCS standings needs its own section or something. Let me know if you have any other ideas or suggestions. (Veritas KGB (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC))
  • Here's an idea. How about we do it like TCU's page. They list their major rivals (SMU, Baylor, Texas Tech) in their own paragraphs, but then they also have a catch-all section with "other rivalries" such as Texas, Boise State, Houston, Utah, BYU, etc. And at the bottom of the rivalries section they list the all-time records vs. all of their rivals, which includes the next scheduled meeting. Doing it this way could ensure that no one gets left out. Idaho, Nevada, and Fresno would get their own paragraphs, and the "catch-all" section could have Hawaii, TCU, BYU, and even some totally dormant rivalries like Idaho State. What do you guys think?ApolloVI (talk) 03:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Interesting idea, but do we have to give Idaho a whole paragraph? That rivalry is long dead and won't be revived in any foreseeable circumstance. OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
    • And more to the point, if I may, any of the more in-depth details about the rivalry at this point should be reserved for the actual article on the old rivalry itself (Boise State–Idaho football rivalry). ApolloVI's idea has merit and I think it's how we should go forward, but giving Idaho its own paragraph would paint a different picture than a purely NPOV one. (And, if for whatever reason the rivalry DOES get resurrected via unholy means, we should then at that time give Idaho its own paragraph, and if I'm still around, I'll write it myself.) OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
      • I disagree about the NPOV. By leaving out an Idaho paragraph you are implying that the Idaho rivalry was just another rivalry game or that it is long forgotten. It would be a disservice to the history of that rivalry to just try and sweep it under the rug so quickly. I understand the desire to move on, but Idaho is the only "real" rival that Boise State has ever had. There's more bad blood there than all of BSU's other rivals combined. And it's far from being "long dead"... the last game was just 3 years ago (current players have played in the game) and Idaho is still Boise State's most-played opponent. I say give it a few more years before totally demoting Idaho to "others" status. Just like I say give BYU a few years before upgrading them to "major" rival status.ApolloVI (talk) 07:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
        • I'm not saying leave Idaho out entirely, which would be ironic since the article Idaho Vandals football has left out BSU completely, but dedicating a parapgraph to them would largely be sentimental and therefore POV. The Vandals are a part of the history, yes, but the article more or less needs to stay encyclopedic; and like I mentioned, there's already an entire article on the rivalry. 65.121.128.194 (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Forgot to log in, claiming above comment. 17:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

More Rivals - Idaho State, C of I, SICE/NICE, Weber?

I know the rivalries section is the most controversial section on this page, but what do you think about the following teams as "other notable opponents":

• Idaho State - in-state game, former conference foes, first played in 1934
• College of Idaho - easily the closest opponent ever, first played in 1933, was the year-end game for BSC in the late 60/early 70s before the Idaho series started
• SICE/NICE - formerly were yearly in-state games during the JC years
• Weber - Boise's most-played series (when including the JC years) and the only team it shared a conference with at both the JC and NCAA level

I'm just thinking about ways to balance the rivalries section so that it's not so biased toward the modern day. There are other dormant rivalries that were clearly important in the past but have been forgotten over time. Obviously none of these would be considered major, but I think they could at least warrant a mention to add a little historical balance. ApolloVI (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Need to Improve the Boise State History Section

into smaller eras and having a paragraph or two on each of the mini-eras. I'm not sure if this is the best way to split Boise's history, but here are my suggestions for the chapters of Boise State's football history. (1) The JUCO era (2) The Tony Knap Years (3) From Setencich through Allen (4) Boise Transitions to FBS (5) Hawkins and new Heights for Boise State (6) Perfection under Petersen

Anyways, name them whatever you want or divide the history differently if you'd like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veritas KGB (talk • contribs) 18:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Titus Young removal

I see that Titus Young has been removed from the current NFL players section for what I can see was good reason. Should we add him back to something else like other notable football players? Seems kind of a waste to just remove him. OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

RE: Reasons for refusing home-and-home with Idaho

The section regarding the non-active rivalry between BSU and UI could use some more material as to why it is not happening anymore (at least with Football). I could find a few articles/sources, write something, and run it by here for approval, and then add it, but I want to see if others here will disagree if such material should be added or have any opinion as far as sources are concerned. Anyone have any thoughts on this? OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hearing no objection or any discussion at all over this, I'll be finding some references and writing the necessary material at some point in the near future and running it by here before inclusion. OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

All time record

Hi, sorry I'm not an expert at wikipedia editing, so I apologize if this isn't the correct place for this. I'm a Michigan football fan, so I've been keeping an eye on the race for the top spot at the end of the year. I think it's going to be really close. It's a very interesting scenario between Boise State, Michigan and Ohio State. I was compiling the numbers by starting from the official NCAA records from the end of 2018 (http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/2019/FBS.pdf) and adding in the current records. That shows Boise State's record as 448-168-2 at the end of last year. If we add in this year's record of 12-2, shouldn't the current record be 460-170-2? This page currently lists it at 461-169-2. Just curious what the difference is. For anyone who's interested, here are possible end-of-season scenarios:

	won	lost	tied	games	pct
Boise	448	168	2	618	0.726537217	After 2018
	12	2
	460	170	2	632	0.72943038	After 2019
Mich	953	342	36	1331	0.729526672	After 2018
	9	3
	962	345	36	1343	0.729709605	2019 Current
	10	3
	963	345	36	1344	0.729910714	2019 After Bowl Victory
	9	4
	962	346	36	1344	0.729166667	2019 After Bowl Defeat
Ohio	911	325	53	1289	0.727307991	After 2018
	13	0
	924	325	53	1302	0.730030722	2019 Current
	13	1
	924	326	53	1303	0.729470453	2019 After Semi Defeat
	14	0
	925	325	53	1303	0.730237913	2019 After Semi Victory
	14	1
	925	326	53	1304	0.729677914	2019 After Final Defeat
	15	0
	926	325	53	1304	0.730444785	2019 After Final Victory

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.106.56 (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

There's a discrepancy between certain sources for what Boise State's all-time record is. What it boils down to is a 1997 game against Cal State Northridge. Boise State lost the game on the field, but later on Northridge forfeited the game due to playing some ineligible players. According to NCAA rules (check out page 24), you're supposed to switch forfeits from losses into wins (in a vacated win scenario, which is what ordinarily happens in these cases, the win disappears for the vacator but the loss sticks for their opponent). So the record on this page reflects that game as a win, and Boise State's media guide reflects that game as a win. However, the NCAA's record book still counts it as a loss, presumably because they assumed Northridge vacated their win rather than forfeited their win. Of course it may be just a case of the terminology being reported wrong and Northridge actually did vacate the win rather than forfeit. I'm hoping that the issue is settled some time this off-season. ApolloVI (talk) 11:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• 30.05.2020 11.19.02 REC.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)