Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Sports Talk' started by crittergitter, Jan 13, 2009.
This is great! I love Rick Reilly!!!
I can't disagree - we really need a small playoff system. Utah beat some good teams and clownstomped Alabama in the south. They scheduled tough games on the road and did everything in their power to ramp up their schedule. Utah is my #1 this year and I don't blame the coach for voting them #1 & giving up his vote next year (doesn't anybody see something wrong with this picture?). There would have been several other coaches vote them #1 if not contractually obligated to vote for FL.
Would Utah win out in a playoff? Who knows, but they deserve the chance.
BSC = BS in 2008
Amen to that. I didn't see Utah play so I can't comment on how good they are but they didn't lose and they played a pretty solid schedule. They beat Alabama just as handily as Florida did. What more could they do? It is just another example of how screwed up the system is.
Uuummmmmmmmmm........actaully Florida was losing until the final 6 minutes of the game and Utah went up 21 zip on bama.
Also, Utah has won 8 straight bowl games.
Me thinks someone didnd't read the article.
I read the article just fine. By the way it is an old article. That was out last week.
The 8 straight bowl games doesn't mean anything to me. The win this year against 'Bama is significant but look back at the rest of them. Navy, Tulsa, Georgia Tech, Pitt, Southern Miss, BYU, Las Vegas. Not exactly what I would deem BCS caliber teams.
I still agree that Utah has every right to be in the conversation for this year's title.
I agree the 8 straight bowl wins is as meaningless as, oh lets say, a ND winning season. Any good team can have a strong showing in one game against a good opponent-it happens al the time, especially in bowl games and in early season match-ups. I strongly disagree that Utah deserves to be called NC. Insert Utah into the SEC (or the Big 12) where they play strong competition week-in and week-out (and get beat up, suffer injuries to key players that have to go full throttle for the entire game, can't prepare in advance for stronger opponents, etc) and they likely lose at least 2 games. In the Big 10 they lose 1 or 2. This is obviously JMO which is even less meaningful (or is it more meaningless) than the BCS.
Timmy "The Greek" Toolman
I also think they are not NC material, but they are a great ball team. They played a great schedule and finished undefeated. Like Toolman said, if you put them in the SEC or Big 12, they wouldn't last due to injuries and ever week being a big ball game.
For a team coming from a non-BCS conference, a #2 in the nation final ranking is very, very, very respectable.
I totally agree with you, I was able to watch Utah play a couple games, and I can guarantee that they would of game ANY team a game, They basically manhandle BAMA.
And the BCS is BS every year
I typically agree that a non-BCS team in a solid BCS league would drop a couple games - not this year and not this Utah team. I watched them play more than once - they would have WON the Big Ten, Big East & ACC IMO. I think they would have had every chance to win every game in the SEC or the Big 12 (not real impressive this year) - they are much better than most around the country believe. They play well on both sides and have a great QB and a playmakers at receiver.
Injuries happen throughout the year, but Utah is a physical football team. They proved that more than once - they beat the crap physically out of UM in AA in a very mediocre win, but it was the opener and we know how rusty most teams look on day 1. They knocked the snot out of Bama - I think this really surprised those Bama boys. They thought they would be the more physical team, until they lined up.
I don't know how many of you watched FL & Bama play, but FL was lucky to win that game. This is the same Bama team that ROLLED through the SEC as #1 - FL barely escaped with the win. Utah controlled Bama at the line of scrimmage from snap #1.
If their name wasn't Utah - nobody would be arguing this fact. I think #2 is great, bt I also think they got a raw deal.
Just my $.02 wich is worth even less
It is certainly easy to fall in to the belief that that non-BCS league teams can not compete on a regular basis in a BCS conference. We will never know that answer. In my gut I do question whether Utah would have still been at the top in one of those leagues but nothing happened to them throughout the year to make that gut feel a reality. You just can't evaluate who's better on paper or a forum. That is why they line them up on Saturdays and play the games. And Utah did everything they could by putting a serious whooping on Bama which was a pretty darn good team. Could they have beaten Florida? I really have no idea nor do the poll voters.
I have a great idea. If the polls are going to disregard the non-BCS leagues in their rankings then what they should do is form a new division within the D1 area. They should have the BCS system applicable for all of the BCS conferences and then a separate system (whatever they want to call it) for the non-BCS leagues. I am not saying this with tongue in cheek either. After all every team begins the year shooting for #1 and theoretically every team should have that chance. But in reality they don't. If they can't truly include them in the current system then they should either make room for them or create a level for those others.
bkr - I agree; nobody knows if Utah could beat FL; I would like to have seen them play. But to dismiss Utah simply because they play in a non-BCS league is crazy. They were an elite team this year. And the only data we have is playing a like opponent and the advantage CLEARLY would go to Utah. This isn't a fair way to access things either, but it is all we have. At 13-0 with their schedule and the butt-whopping they put on the SEC's #2 team that FL barely beat IMO they are #1. Had FL not lost to a mediocre team (even if it was a very close loss) I wouldn't have this opinion.
We will never know as I don't see a playoff of any sort coming soon. The BCS is a cashcow and the conferences involved won't share. Trying to work that deal out would be nearly as challanging as fixing our mess of an economy.
Money makes the world go round - even in college athletics I guess!
You mean to tell me that you think Utah could be USC...who actually had the best team in the nation this year on paper. I think USC would have beat Florida if they would play them this weekend.
I am not saying they "would" beat USC. Could they? Perhaps but without playing there is no way of knowing that answer.
I imagine that most everyone's view of Utah's bowl game was that they would get waxed in that one by 'Bama and we see how that one went. Who's to say the "experts" are right in saying that USC would drill them.
They would drill them...don't get me wrong, Utah is a good club, but they are not of USC caliber.
BTW...I was one of those guys who never gave them a chance against Alabama, but I was rooting for them in the game.
USC has a history of taking lesser named opponents for granted and would probably get waxed by this Utah team for that very reason!
Also, NO WAY in all the world could Boise State hang with Oklahoma..................oh......................wait.....................they actually beat them. Nevermind.
The sad reality is that even a plus 1 wouldn't have fixed this season. I suppose it would have pit Texas against Florida.........or maybe USC against Florida. Either way Utah wouldn't have made it into the plus one this year either.
That is a great point and exactly why I don't like the +1 concept. It may answer a question with regard to a single matchup but too many others can still get left out. To me it is a waste of time to add just the one more game.
Exactly the point I was making.
The same USC team that got beat by a crappy Oregon St. team that lost by 50 points to PSU... yes I think Utah would have a chance to beat USC.
USC is the best team on paper year in and year out...loaded with NFL caliber players. They have guys on the sideline that would start at many BCS schools. Yet every year they get whipped by some .500 team taht on paper shouldn't even be on the field with them.
My point wasn't to sepculate who would win in an 8-10 team playoff. My point was simply IMO Utah is the #1 team this year. Utah didn't take a game off and lose focus and get beat by a crappy team (USC), Utah didn't lose a close one on the road to an inferrior opponent (FL, TX), Utah didn't get beat by 10 and pretty much dominated at a neutral site (OK). Utah won against every single team they lined up against, including 4 ranked teams, UM in AA, and then followed it up by spanking the SEC#2 IN THE SOUTH 1500 miles from home when nobody gave them a chance.
Utah was the best and most exciting college football team in 2008.
You're exactly right. The whole "they would've lost to USC, Florida, the New York Giants" argument is a moot point. They didn't cupcake their way to an undefeated record.
This is why NCAA hoops have a solid system. When Larry Johnson (not the running back, the basketball player) and Stacey Augmon ended up at UNLV in the early 90's and beat everyone you put in front of them, they had a chance to prove how good they were at the end of the year. If NCAA basketball was like football's postseason, they would've never had that opportunity.
You just never know! ANY team can win or lose on any given day.