True or False: The Utah Utes should be considered the #1 team in the nation

Please state your choice and your case for it below.

About these ads

84 thoughts on “True or False: The Utah Utes should be considered the #1 team in the nation

  1. Nope. I think they should get the chance to become the #1 team by playing the winner of the Jan. 8 game between Oklahoma and Florida. How cool would that be?

  2. I imagine they’ll get some votes in the AP poll which doesn’t require its voters to vote for the winner of the BCS Championship Game.

    The only problem with them getting a shot at the Okla-Fla winner is that USC is left out. We would have had the best 8-team playoff with Ok, Fl, USC, Utah, Alabama, Tex, Penn St., and fill-in-the-blank.

    The MWC really needs to press the BCS for an automatic berth by the way. They would be wise to look at adding Boise St., Fresno St., and either Hawaii or Nevada. It’d be a helluva conference.

  3. By the way, since the BCS was formed a decade ago, Utah and Boise St. have combined for more wins (3)than the ACC has in all. Virginia Tech’s win this year vs. Cincinnati was the ACC’s first since Fla St. won in 2000.

  4. Utah has as good a claim as anyone. Of course, I don’t really consider that there has ever been a number 1 team in the nation. How can you take seriously the results of a poll? The system has been a joke for decades and will only be legitimate with a playoff, preferably of 16 teams.

  5. The BCS becomes more of a joke each year. A 12 or 16 team playoff would resolve this but I’ve given up hope.

    Utah did everything it could to win the championship. The system clearly sucks if you win every game against a serious schedule and don’t even get a shot at the title.

  6. Yes. They are the only team that will finish its schedule without losing a game.

    0 > 1

    SkyNet isn’t the cause of Judgment Day, I think it’s the BCS computers. When they figure out how to get it right, look out….

  7. I think Utah has as good of a case for the #1 spot as USC or the Florida/Oklahoma winner. In fact if Florida wins Utah has and even better case because both the Gators and the Trojans lost to good but not great teams this season. At least Oklahoma lost at Texas who is currently a top 5 team. (Though if Texas loses to Ohio State that gives Utah an even better case).

    I expect Utah to pick up some #1 votes and they’ll deserve them.

  8. Utah is #1 right now in my book. They won their bowl game against a top 5 team and the former #1. No one else can say the same. If Florida wins, it will have a claim, as will Oklahoma or Texas if they win, but they haven’t yet. Even then, however, none of them can claim to be undefeated. Utah is it for me.

  9. And, btw, even if Texas wins, it’s only against Ohio State, which is not a very highly ranked team this year. The only reason Texas will have a claim is that they beat Oklahoma. If Oklahoma loses however, Texas loses too. They have no claim to #1 over Florida. Utah does, by virtue of being undefeated.

    The BCS system is an arrogant, bloated embarassment that should be put out of its glaring, stinking misery immediately.

  10. As far as the MWC and the BCS, I believe there is a re-evaluation period coming up, and if there is any justice…they should replace the ACC or Big East. That won’t fix the problem, but it will make me feel a bit better.

  11. Alabama has been overrated all year. There’s no way Utah would beat either OU or Florida right now.

  12. #5 You just stated the entire case to keep the BCS. Utah made no more of a statement than did USC. With the 500 million dollar payday that ESPN jsut gave the BCS there may be a tweak but never a playoff and no major changes. What is a Ute? do you not see the indian on the logo? Or read any Utah or American history. The Utes are an indian tribe which the state was named after.

    I strongly disagree that Alabama was over rated. They have played a strong schedule and they dominated as well as anyone. They deserve respect just as Utah does.

    Just as bias controls the discussion on this media so will bias select the national champion.

  13. Utah dominated Alabama the entire game and only a punt return kept the game even close. Only weeks earlier, Florida trailed Alabama 20-17 going into the fourth quarter before finally pulling out the win.

    Alabama gave up around 350 yards to both teams. Utah held Alabama to 31 yards rushing and 208 total yards, while Alabama racked up 136/323 against Florida.

    Impossible to argue that Florida is better than Utah based on that head-to-head comparison.

  14. Sadly, Utah should not be considered the #1 team in the nation this year. They have no ability to challenge Florida and Oklahoma, who the powers that be have deemed the teams fighting for the national championship. Thus, for this year, the #1 team in the nation will be either Florida and Oklahoma.

    Maybe someday the powers that be will create a system that will let teams battle each other on the field to see who the winner is rather than by some computer. I know, I know, a very revolutionary concept. Not been done before with success anywhere.

  15. #17,

    The only case to keep the BCS is to keep lining the pockets of a few corporation that run the BCS and some of the other bowls. EVERYONE else loses. A playoff would generate and lot more money overall, would make bowl games meaningful, and would deliver a real champion every year. The difference is that the larger financial pie would be cut differently than the current disgusting pie we are being fed.

    I like the 16 team plan Dan Wetzel has been pushing. Let’s hope the new president and congress step in to break the cartel currently holding college football hostage because the people whose pockets are lined by this mess certainly won’t volunteer to relinquish their stranglehold on the sport.

  16. I would vote for the Utes if I could. Although I am a big fan, I never seriously expected them to play as well as they did. I no longer believe that the idea of their being the best in the country is wishful thinking.

    Unfortunately, the only way to get rid of the BCS is for people to stop watching it. But did I boycott the Sugar Bowl game? Nuh uh, although I did bail on the Rose Bowl early on and would have skipped the Orange Bowl altogether, had my son-in-law not just graduated from Virginia Tech.

  17. Alabama has been overrated all year. There’s no way Utah would beat either OU or Florida right now

    Based on what?

  18. No one ever said Alabama was overrated until now. To say that now is just nothing but pure sour grapes. If Utah was from a BCS conference we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. They would be #1 right now by acclamation.

    #18 is correct that, based on the only measure that we have available, Utah is better than Florida and deserves to be ranked higher. If Florida beats Oklahoma, Utah should be NCAA Champs.

    The only reason they won’t be is because of BCS contracts which have nothing to do with who the best team really is.

  19. To be fair, I’ve been calling Alabama overrated all year. Of course, I am a Florida fan and don’t understand why those yokels in the Western half are even allowed in the greatest conference in college football. They’re dragging those of us in the Eastern SEC down!

  20. But #18 is a complete fallacy. The Penn St. fans were clamoring about being better than USC since they destroyed the team that beat USC. Well, that didn’t turn out so well. Otherwise, you could say that Oklahoma would kill Utah since they beat TCU much worse than Utah did.

  21. Utah should be #1. They beat 4 top 25 teams including a team who went undefeated in the regular season and was rated #1 for half the season. USC, Texas, Florida and Oklahoma have all beat between 3-5 top 25 teams too but each of them have lost a game so as far as strength of schedule, they’re almost exactly even. Utah wins by default because they didn’t lose a game. USC has absolutely no claim because the best team they beat (Penn St.) wasn’t even ranked as high as the best team Utah beat (Alabama), plus Utah beat the team USC lost to. So they shouldn’t really even be considered. Texas should actually be the team playing Florida rather than Oklahoma because they beat them in the head-to-head. The only reason Oklahoma is there is because the stupid way their conference decides a tiebreaker (highest BCS ranking at the end of the season rather than the head-to-head matchup).

    Saying “Oh, of course Florida/Oklahoma would kill Utah right now” is exactly what the BCS system is based on. They want everyone to THINK that rather than actually PLAY the games. You’re a sucker if you think that and are gullible for buying into this bullsh** system. This is football, a game based on wins and losses, not ice-skating based on judges’ bias.

  22. Texas should actually be the team playing Florida rather than Oklahoma because they beat them in the head-to-head.

    Then why not Texas Tech since they beat Texas?

  23. If Notre Dame had played Utah’s schedule and come out with Utah’s record they’d be #1 right now. Well, actually they’d be playing for the championship. But the point is that Utah’s schedule is worthy of respect, they beat serious opponents, and the primary reason they aren’t getting more respect is that there is bias.

    As for the ‘Bama wasn’t that tough crap… Before the game everyone was saying that Utah would get creamed. Now that they dominated there is some revisionist history going on, claiming that Alabama was overrated. The system is a joke. The whole concept of a national champion is a joke. Frankly, there is no “national champion” and never has been because there is no fair system to determine one. There are simply teams that won their bowl games and teams that didn’t.

  24. Utah = No. 1. And it pains me to admit it. I am dreading listening to all of my insufferable Ute fan friends go on and on about this year.

  25. Again, I’ve been calling Alabama overrated all year. It helps in this argument if you are a fan of the SEC (greatest conference in college football and all that). I’m sure that if I was an Oregon State fan, I’d be calling USC overrated, too.

  26. arJ,
    I did or, at least, I thought they stood a decent chance. I had a lot of respect for the Utes and very little for Alabama which ran through a very down western SEC. The one real challenge that Bama faced (Florida) they lost and they played to the level of much of their other mediocre competition. I actually buy into the talk that this was a down year for the SEC (really for College Football in general outside of the MWC and Big-12). In many ways, though I think it is a better program, Bama this year reminded me of BYU this year: better than most of the crowd, but not excellent; better on paper than in reality.

    Utah, on the other hand, was nobody’s pick all year long. They had been playing against tough opponents and tougher expectations all year round. Further, while I think that Bronco Mendenhall is a better regular season coach (to take the other local example), Whit knows how to coach in big games, especially bowls. The Utes wanted it more, where very (if not equally) talented, and had a chip on their shoulder after a season of being functionally ignored (TCU generally got more and better press, much less BYU). It was a spoiler waiting to happen and I am frankly happy it occurred.

  27. Um, guys?

    Utah *got* an automatic BCS bid. It got into the BCS bowls. However, it wasn’t ranked either 1 or 2, so it didn’t get to play in the title game.

    Enough kvetching about how the MWC doesn’t have an auto-in. If they’re any good, they have an auto-in; they just have to have a higher ranking (1 or 2) to play for the championship.

    Currently undefeated or not, Utah wasn’t ranked as high in the AP poll or the coaches poll as Florida, Oklahoma, Texas, Alabama, or USC. And really, they didn’t deserve to be.

    Yes, their schedule was moderately solid. No, it wasn’t as tough as Oklahoma’s or Texas’s, or Florida’s. Not even close.

    CBS Sportsline puts Utah’s strength-of-schedule at #57 in the country. (http://www.sportsline.com/collegefootball/polls/119) Other ratings list the Utes as having a SOS as low as #100 in the country. (http://www.gberatings.com/sos/)

    Until this week, Utah’s big victories have been home games against a then-#11 and a then-#14. Sorry, that doesn’t really cut it. Beating up all the kiddies in the kiddie pool isn’t really all that impressive.

    Yes, they sort-of tried to schedule a decent slate. They did schedule Michigan and Oregon State, and it’s not Utah’s fault that this was a down year for both of those programs. But they also scheduled freaking Weber State. Not the route to national respect.

    And the wins they did get weren’t always impressive. A squeaker against Oregon State? A barely-eked-out over New Mexico? Puh-lease.

  28. Kaimi, you are missing the point.

    The BCS contracts give automatic bids to the annointed BCS conferences every year regardless of rankings. Those teams have to prove nothing. They get to the top bowl games every year just by virtue of winning their conferences. Utah, or any other team outside a BCS conference, gets considered for those top bowl games only if they go undefeated, and sometimes not even then because there is only room for two teams (or less) from outside the BCS conferences to play in those bowls.

    You are buying into the BCS prejudice when you say that Utah’s schedule wasn’t as tough as the BCS schools. I can’t emphasize this enough: That’s because they rate the MWC as a bunch of patsies. From the very beginning! Utah has no chance to get ranked very high because those people who determine the SOS ratings are, just like you, saying that Utah is playing in the kiddie pool. It’s all just made up in their heads. It has nothing to do with how good any of those teams really are.

    By buying into this point of view, you are just perpetuating the illusion that the BCS has created: Some teams are just always better than others. Why? Because we say so. Utah has proved otherwise (twice now), but you, and deluded people like you, won’t believe it because you believe the BCS rankings are fair. They absolutely are not. Never have been.

  29. Enough kvetching about how the MWC doesn’t have an auto-in. If they’re any good, they have an auto-in; they just have to have a higher ranking (1 or 2) to play for the championship.

    BTW, I nominate this for the funniest comment of the year. I can’t stop laughing.

  30. Kaimi, the problem is that it’s impossible for some teams (like Utah) to be #1 or #2 just because they aren’t in the big name conferences.

  31. Kaimi,
    Listen to yourself. You’re so busy discussing Weber State’s strength, so busy comparing the point spread of the Oregon State game, so busy defending the idea of ranking teams (which is, by its very nature, a subjective exercise) that you are distracted from the entire point of sports: competition. Wins/losses. “That’s why you play the game.” Etc. And this is exactly what the BCS system wants you to do. They LOVE it when people argue about the final point spreads in games and strength of schedule because THAT’S THEIR SYSTEM. It’s not based on winning your way to the top, it’s based on people opining you to the top. And it’s not like they’re doing it because there is no other way to determine a winner (subjective sports like ice skating or diving), there is an objective way to determine the champion that both the NFL and lower division teams do. And it works. Nobody has ever legitimately claimed that a Super Bowl winner shouldn’t be considered the NFL champion.

    But go ahead, keep talking about how Utah shouldn’t be considered champions because they didn’t dominate New Mexico, they only just beat them.

  32. Would it be bad form to point out that under the criteria used to select the national champion in 1984, Utah would easily be #1?

  33. It’s pretty similar, but BYU opened that season with a win on the road at Dan Marino’s #3 ranked Pitt team. Now, had Michigan been the normal Michigan it would have helped Utah drastically.

  34. LL,
    The criteria is certainly different and BYU’s 1984 championship is pretty thin considering they played a 6-5 team in the bowl game. So yes, under that criteria Utah would easily be #1.

    Tim,
    Dan Marino was playing in Miami in 1983. It might have been Pitt, but it was no longer Marino’s team.

  35. Of course in 1984 BYU was given the name of national champion entirely at the whim of voters who could easily have denied it to them — more than a third selected someone else with their first place votes. BYU beat an unranked team in their bowl after all, after trailing for most of the game. Utah has a much better claim this year. In 1984 second-ranked Washington was invited to play in the Holiday Bowl but turned it down to play Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl which was a more lucrative offer. Then, as always, the bowls have been nothing other than making a lot of money.

    1984 final polls
    Associated Press

    1. BYU (38) 1,160
    2. Washington (16) 1,140
    3. Florida (6) 1,092
    4. Nebraska 1,017
    5. Boston College 932
    6. Oklahoma 883
    7. Oklahoma St. 864
    8. SMU 761
    9. UCLA 613
    10. USC 596

  36. Kaimi,
    I know that your point is that those teams are in different leagues, therefore it seems you are suggesting that the BCS conferences should literally be in a different league than the rest of the Division 1 teams, is this correct?

    It’s true that the non-BCS Division 1 conference teams are the only ones in all of college football that have zero chance of ever winning a championship. It might in fact be better to relegate them all to their own league, then they can actually have their own championship. Division 1.5 or something like that.

    Otherwise, by insisting on the minor conferences to stay in the big league but never expect a chance at the championship makes you an elitist with a black soul and no respect for sport.

  37. Rusty, not only is Kaimi’s argument bankrupt (to the extent one dignifies it with the title of argument – you had to extend him the benefit of the doubt), his facts are simply wrong.

    He links us to a Nov. 23 page and pretends that all three teams are undefeated. In fact, Tuskegee lost the following weekend, and Grand Valley state lost in the tournament quartefinals.

    The problem is not that we have to account for differences between BCS and non-BCS conferences. The problem is that those differences, if they were ever meaningful, no longer apply, except in the minds of the lazy and the partisan. MWC beat the PAC-10 in 6 of 7 games this year. But most voters never bothered to watch those games:

    http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-utah010509&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

  38. In true American, self-proclaimed patriotic style, I declare that if the nation does not vote Utah the national champion of the NCAA FBS, I am moving to Canada.

  39. The BCS worked perfectly this year is regards to Utah. The whole goal of the thing is to keep the great unwashed out of the national title game. Mission accomplished.

  40. Otherwise, by insisting on the minor conferences to stay in the big league but never expect a chance at the championship makes you an elitist with a black soul and no respect for sport.

    Minor conferences??? What minor conferences??? You mean the ones that kicked the asses of the so-called “major” conferences this year? Even the BCS doesn’t call them “minor” conferences.

  41. and the extra loss is BYU’s Vegas Bowl loss to Arizona.

    Hmm — do you mean the game where the ranked team from the MWC (“we don’t get no respect”) — one of the Utes’ two signatures wins, mind you — lost to an unranked team that finished 5th in the Pac-10?

    Hey, go Mountain West. Plus, TCU beat up Boise State in the Nobody Cares Bowl.

  42. You’re right. Those Pac-10 wins are really what it’s all about.

    For instance, BYU beat Washington (which finished the season 0-12). They also beat UCLA (which finished the season 4-8).

    Of course, they got their ass handed to them when they actually had to play a Pac-10 team with a winning record; but hey, props where props are due. They didn’t lose to the Pac-10 basement. And that’s something to be proud of! Go, Cougars.

    Utah beat Oregon State (which had a good season this year). That’s a quality win.

    Colorado State lost to Cal.

    UNLV beat an ASU team (sniff) which was ranked at the time; but which ended up finishing the season 4-6.

    New Mexico (unlike BYU) was able to beat Arizona. Hey, not bad.

    So, there’s one quality MWC over PAC-10 win (Utah), one not bad (New Mexico over Arizona), and one pretty solid PAC-10 over MWC (Arizona over BYU), and one so-so (Cal over C-State).

    The rest of those wins? Meh. Sure, the MWC could win against Washington this year. So did every single team Washington played.

  43. TCU beat up Boise State in the Nobody Cares Bowl.

    Why is it the Nobody Cares Bowl? Because the BCS blowhards said that a two-loss team from the MWC (ranked 11) and an undefeated team from the WAC (ranked 9) weren’t worth putting in a BCS bowl?

    The fact is, either TCU or BSU would have beaten most of the BCS teams this year. TCU only lost to Oklahoma and Utah, both of whom ended the season in the top 5. BSU hasn’t lost all season and beat Oregon. These are two quality teams that people should care about, but what would the BCS rather see? Cincinatti (12) v. Virginia Tech (19). Please explain to me how that makes any sense.

  44. MCQ,
    I should have put quote marks around the word “minor” as I meant minor in the eyes of the BCS. And yes I do think that the BCS considers them minor.

    Kaimi,
    Dude, just keep talking about strength of schedule, I think you’ve almost convinced us that opinions should determine championships rather than actual games.

    Nobody Cares Bowl? You are exactly right, nobody cares what bowl it was, but actual college football fans cared about that GAME because of the high-ranking matchup. If you don’t care about a bowl game because it doesn’t have a BCS in front of it then you are truly a fairweather observer who should be mocked.

  45. Isn’t the whole argument of BCS conferences vs. “mid majors” about depth? That in-conference schedules for a BCS team are a gauntlet?

    So USC beat up on 3 teams who you specifically discredited (Washington, UCLA, Arizona St.) They beat 2 teams you didn’t mention, but we know are bad (Stanford and Washington St.) They had one “not bad” win (Arizona). They beat Oregon and Cal (good, not great.) Then they lost to a team that was a “nice win” for Utah (Oregon St.)

    That is one heck of a conference.

    The top 3 teams in the PAC-10 had 8 losses between them.

    -USC to a nice Oregon St. team.
    -Oregon lost to USC, Cal and lowly old Boise St.
    -Oregon St. lost to Stanford, Penn St., Utah and Oregon.

    The MWC top 3 only lost 5.

    -Utah lost none while beating one of the PAC-10′s top 3.
    -TCU lost to undefeated Utah and potential national champion Oklahoma.
    -BYU lost to undefeated Utah, TCU and Arizona from the mighty mighty PAC-10 conference (and who could blame them for losing to a PAC-10 school?)

    So not only did the MWC prove to be deeper this year with head to head match ups that pit the have-nots from each conference against each other – but they are stronger at the top with 3 top 11 teams at some point in the year compared to 1 from the PAC-10.

    Not only this, but lowly Boise St. was also top 10 this year single handedly tying the WAC with the PAC-10 for top 10 teams. Boise St. only had 1 loss this year. That was to MWC runner up TCU, fortunately, they were able to defeat PAC-10 runner up Oregon.

    I’m fully aware this is only a look at one year of play. But that just goes to show the stupidity of the system. There are 119 teams, with an amazing amount of personnel turnover every year. The sport is amazingly fluid. To guarantee anything to anyone is just silly.

    Yes it is a one year comparison, but you could make favorable comparisons in many years to the Big 10, ACC and Big East.

    The whole thing is a joke.

  46. I would add that the justification for the depth of BCS conferences is circular. Those conferences do better recruiting, therefore they should have better teams, therefore their champions should be better than the champions of non-BCS conferences. The problem being that recruitment is tied into the opportunities that BCS bowls and titles bring. If someone has to choose between Utah and Cal-Berkley, well, one has a potential shot at the National Title and the other one doesn’t. So the recruitment of top athletes tends to go to BCS schools and the cycle repeats itself. It is an unfair system that is specifically designed to continue to be unfair.

    The only reason why the Mountain West is up for BCS consideration is because the Big East and the ACC are consistently terrible in football (and therefore bad for national ratings). For that matter, the two programs that were the reasons the ACC and the Big East were added (FSU and Miami) are both down; the ACC might come back with a renewed Miami program (with FSU it won’t happen until Bowden retires); the Big East (now without Miami or even Boston College) has no reason to be considered a big-time football conference (or, at least, no reason that the MWC doesn’t have).

  47. There’s no doubt BYU was way overrated this year. It was obvious early on that we had pretty huge defensive problems and a quarterback who liked to throw into coverage and tended to throw to only two people. (And was unjustifiably cocky to boot)

  48. BTW – the other problem with the current system is that the playoff games are played basically a month after the last game played. What exactly does that show again?

  49. You folks are obviously right. Forget about education. Bring the playoffs. Let’s add six more weeks to the end of the season. These kids’ education is secondary; what really matters is that you yokels know who is undisputed king of the hill.

    And remember, playoffs are pure. Playoffs are not about opinions, dammit, they’re about games played. They are never controversial or opinion-based. This is why there is never any controversy about who gets included in March Madness, and who gets left out.

  50. there is an objective way to determine the champion that both the NFL and lower division teams do

    You mean like this year’s NFL playoffs, where the 11-5 Patriots aren’t even allowed to play (though the 8-8 Chargers do)?

    Playoffs: Pure, objective, unbiased, beautiful.

  51. Kaimi,
    Please. Your education argument is a fine argument, but one you haven’t proposed until now. I’m sure most everyone here agrees that education is important and would need to be worked out in some way if a playoff were indeed introduced. But as an educated person I’m of the belief that smart people can get together and make it work, rather than use it as an third-tier excuse for keeping the current system.

    And your second point is incredibly weak. In fact, I’d be embarrassed to be a lawyer offering such an argument (similar to those proposed by Blagojevich’s attorneys). March Madness is a 64-team tournament including all of the conference champions. The controversy that does happen is extremely minimal and limited to aberrations. There isn’t a college basketball fan out there that would want to change it in any way. It’s as perfect of a system as exists. And your NFL example is even worse because it’s not a problem with the system at all, it’s a problem with the Patriots. They failed in fulfilling the known criteria in which they had every opportunity to fulfill.

    But this is all distraction still. You are arguing about the entrance to the tournaments, not the product of the tournaments themselves. There is absolutely no controversy about who the NFL champion is every year. Same in college basketball (and hockey and basketball and baseball and soccer and so on and so forth). I’m sure if the NCAA instituted a tournament there would be controversy on the bubble teams, but there would no longer be a controversy about the champion.

    But keep ‘em coming, man. I know you’re working hard at this.

  52. Rusty, do you realize that other than conference champs, the entire March Madness bracket is put together by a *committee* (opinions! opinions!); and that they use a variety of factors, including conference (boo! hiss!), and strength of schedule (so-called) to make their selections.

    Why, you might as well just throw darts at a board, man.

  53. p.s. By “as perfect a system as exists,” do you mean the current (post-2001) 65-game setup, or the earlier 64-game setup?

  54. And your NFL example is even worse because it’s not a problem with the system at all, it’s a problem with the Patriots. They failed in fulfilling the known criteria in which they had every opportunity to fulfill.

    Ditto Utah.

    They know the criteria. These are:

    1. Win games.
    2. Win games in a convincing way.
    3. Don’t schedule Weber State.

    They managed #1, but not #2 or #3.

    Utah *knows* that it comes down to a committee. They *know* the way that you make an impression. (There are dozens of ESPN articles about Texas and Oklahoma and the convincing ways they beat teams.)

    Utah knew the rules, and they blew it. And now they’re bellyaching about it.

  55. Kaimi, the problem is tat the rules are different for Utah than they are for the BCS schools. We have already made that point, and you know it, and you have not offered anything to rebut it.

  56. So the Big 12 teams should be punished for being in a tough conference?

    Seriously. Enough focus on losses. Let’s look at actual *wins*.

    Number of top-10 teams beaten:

    Texas: 3
    Florida: 3 (with one game still to play)
    Utah: 1

    Until the Bowl, Utah’s best win was over No. 12.

    Do you guys really think that a schedule that tops out at #12 should entitle you to play for all the marbles? Really?

  57. The education argument is just silly. You do realize these teams have been practicing for over a month since their last game. All that would change is they would get to play a game on the weekend. Their school work doesn’t play a part in the discussion.

    And if adding a couple weeks of playoffs would damage the football players so…why no outcry about the length of the college basketball season? It is a good deal longer.

  58. They know the criteria. These are:

    1. Win games.
    2. Win games in a convincing way.
    3. Don’t schedule Weber State.

    They managed #1, but not #2 or #3.

    Utah *knows* that it comes down to a committee. They *know* the way that you make an impression. (There are dozens of ESPN articles about Texas and Oklahoma and the convincing ways they beat teams.)

    Utah knew the rules, and they blew it. And now they’re bellyaching about it.

    Look, I have no dog in this fight whatsoever, but I think you’re wrong. It’s not like Utah can just call up next year’s projected top ten and say, “Hey, how about we play some football?!” The football season is, necessarily, very limited. Utah played Michigan (usually better than they were this year, but there was no way to know that when the game was scheduled) and an Oregon State team that had just beaten USC. *Every* school schedules in-state rivals and a few subpar warm-up games. Do you think UTEP was a challenge for Texas, or Chattanooga a worthy opponent for Oklahoma?

    I think Utah knew the rules and did everything they could have possibly done (short of teleporting themselves into a BCS conference).

  59. Kaimi,

    Setting aside the rightness or wrongness of Utah’s bid to be #1, would you agree that the BCS is an unfair system designed to continue tilting the playing field in favor of those 5 conferences (for all the good it is doing the ACC and the Big East)?

  60. This thread is now incontrovertible proof that Kaimi will argue the other side of any point which seems sensible.

  61. Do you guys really think that a schedule that tops out at #12 should entitle you to play for all the marbles? Really?

    Yes, really. It happens all the time that the teams playing for the national championship haven’t played a top 10 team until the bowl game. In fact, until Alabama (their last game) Florida did not play a top ten team all year, and still managed to have one loss.

  62. HP, maybe he should be a defense attorney? (bg)

    The problem is that teams like Utah are effectively ineligible for any real playoff. That two teams with loses were placed ahead is just ridiculous. Especially since just a few years ago Utah was in the situation.

    The fact that MCQ notes just demonstrates the bias in the system.

  63. It pains me to say it, but yes, they should be #1. If BYU had done what Utah did, I’d be saying the same thing, so I have to be intellectually honest here.

    As for a playoff, make it the top 8 ranked conference champions. You have to win your conference to get in, and you have to win some real OOC games, too, to get ranked. No at-large bids, unless an independent is ranked higher than one of the top-eight conference champs.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s