That's saying quite a bit to me. If you actually believe that. If a team in the Big East went undefeated this year, they would be the BCS champion. No matter how bad their conference was.
Great article on ESPN on UTAH
- Thread starter Dave19642006
- Start date
That's saying quite a bit to me. If you actually believe that. If a team in the Big East went undefeated this year, they would be the BCS champion. No matter how bad their conference was.
I bet you they would have been undefeated if they played in the ACC, Big East, and Big 10.
If a team from any of these conferences goes undefeated in the regular season and then absolutely clubs a 1-loss SEC team (who was also #1 for half of the season), they would be the national champion with no questions asked.
Thinking about the "perfect" solution reminded me of:
Is the BCS system better than what we had before? Yep. Perfect? Nope. Better or worse than a playoff? Argue that one all day long and never reach a solution.
I like the bowls. I don't know about them being the best way to determine the "champs", but I don't want to scrap it all to be "more fair". The +1 method (1 vs. 4, 2 vs. 3, and winners for the title) is possibly better, and while we're at it, make it all 8 "big bowl" teams, for a 3 round tourney. But wait - then the NC game is gone, so does Utah even get in to the BCS system? And my head is spinning, so forget it...
Good luck fixing it! The fact that the non-auto BCS conferences agreed to the current arrangement says a lot to me. It's like the guy who took out the mortgage for way more than he could realistically afford, filled the house with new furniture and 2 new cars in the garage, and then complains about predatory lending when the ARM kicks in - read the agreement before signing on, k? Maybe we're all just a bunch of whiners and complainers - the suing by the gov. and quotes of "we should be #1!" get a little old...
that rant > $0.02 from me, sorry...
Is the BCS system better than what we had before? Yep. Perfect? Nope. Better or worse than a playoff? Argue that one all day long and never reach a solution.
I like the bowls. I don't know about them being the best way to determine the "champs", but I don't want to scrap it all to be "more fair". The +1 method (1 vs. 4, 2 vs. 3, and winners for the title) is possibly better, and while we're at it, make it all 8 "big bowl" teams, for a 3 round tourney. But wait - then the NC game is gone, so does Utah even get in to the BCS system? And my head is spinning, so forget it...
Good luck fixing it! The fact that the non-auto BCS conferences agreed to the current arrangement says a lot to me. It's like the guy who took out the mortgage for way more than he could realistically afford, filled the house with new furniture and 2 new cars in the garage, and then complains about predatory lending when the ARM kicks in - read the agreement before signing on, k? Maybe we're all just a bunch of whiners and complainers - the suing by the gov. and quotes of "we should be #1!" get a little old...
that rant > $0.02 from me, sorry...
I absolutely do not understand this logic.
In fact, I think it is the exact opposite. We and the other 90 teams would actually have a chance to play ourselves into the national spotlight. If we win in the playoff, people are gonna start paying attention to us. If we do it repeatedly, we are amongst the best teams in the country.
Good article. Why didn't the trophy Rick awarded Utah for their NC have a sasquatch or unicorn on it instead of a football? Seems that would be a more fitting symbol.
If we had a +1, Utah would most likely not have been in it. It would have been Florida, Oklahoma, Texas, and either Alabama or Penn St or USC.
I agree with you here some fact for you people says thier conference isn't as good as the rest. The MWC 1 win against the big 10, 6 wins against the pac-10, 2 against the sec, 1 against a big 12. Then there the fact that thier conference was dominate in the 80's and 90's. Then they and TCU to the mix I would have to say they as a conference is better hands down then the Pac-10, ACC, the Big East, & C-USA. And this year the third best conference in the nation. Here's a neither fact for ya Utah, Florida, & USC played only 3 teams with 10 or more wins. Oklahoma & Texas played 5. So if anyone can seat there and tell me that the MWC is a weak conference, go look at the football history of all of those schools it's better 80% of the schools in any conference.
I thought this is call the national championship not the BIG CASH SELLOUTS championship. Plus they're the only team in the land to go UN-DEFEATED and that is all that matters.
Had Ball State beaten Buffalo, there would have been 3 conference champions who were undefeated. How do you know that Boise State wouldn't have beaten Alabama too? And how do you know they wouldn't have beaten Utah?
Utah also went undefeated in '04, and nobody even sniffed a whif of them getting the national championship.
In almost every one of the proposed playoff systems, undefeated teams are at risk, and likely would, be left out of a playoff. The reasonable playoff scenarios are all just as illegitimate as the current system.
The ONLY way to make it really, truly fair is to make the (currently false) assumption that every team in 1A is playing the same schedule against the same competition. That the winner of the MWC or MAC or Sun Belt has accomplished just as much as the winner of the SEC or Big XII or Pac-10.
I mean, without polls to tell you who is good or bad - which everyone yells at and hates - how do you know that the MWC isn't as good as the Big-12?
Nobody who advocates a playoff overlaid on top of the current conference configuration wants it to be objectively "fair" and "decided on the field". They want it to be subjectively exciting and subjectively "right".
The logical extension of "fair" and "decided on the field" means you're going to have a playoff lineup of Tulsas, Buffalos, Boise States and Troys.
I do.
I want a 16 team playoff with the 11 FBS conference champions and 5 at large bids. That way EVERY TEAM in FBS has the opportunity to win the national championship EVERY YEAR.
Even though a playoff is years from happening, I doubt any playoff system will go beyond 8 tems, and I think a 4 team playoff is more realistic. The colleges already hide behind "academics" as a reason to not play more games, so adding anything more than one or two games just isn't going to happen. Besides, you can still keep the bowls is the playoffs only consist of three separate games.
Also, as far as conferences go, Sagarin ranks them at:
ACC
Big 12
SEC
Big East
Big 10
Pac-10
MWC
He gives more weight to the middle teams, but it's pretty telling that Utah goes undefeated in the 7th best conference and gets a #7 ranking, while if USC had gone undefeated in the 6th best conference they'd be #1. Shows how much the polls suck.
Also, as far as conferences go, Sagarin ranks them at:
ACC
Big 12
SEC
Big East
Big 10
Pac-10
MWC
He gives more weight to the middle teams, but it's pretty telling that Utah goes undefeated in the 7th best conference and gets a #7 ranking, while if USC had gone undefeated in the 6th best conference they'd be #1. Shows how much the polls suck.
But then you're being unfair to the conferences that really ARE better than the mid-majors.
How, then, are you going to select the at-large teams? Is the second place team in the MWC (TCU) more deserving to go to the playoff than the second place team in the Big 10? What about 1 loss Ball State?
I'd buy the champion from a 11 team playoff with no at-large bids and revolving byes, but I'd MUCH rather have the system as it currently is, or preferably, with a plus one game and the bowls put back in their places.
And at the end of the day, NO system in college football, as it currently stands, is going to definitively tell you who the "best" team that year is, because even the definition of "best" is up for debate.
You are out of your mind. They would lose 3 maybe 4 games in the ACC. The ACC beat the SEC head to head and is the deepest conference in the country this year.
Utah couldn't last in that conference all year.
As for the Big 10. Utah beat Michigan by 3. I don't think Utah could beat Ohio St and I think they would slip up in another game.
Guys it is much easier to go undefeated when you only have to get up for 1/2 the games you play rather than all of them
If Utah had say, Iowa's schedule, they would have a VERY good shot at undefeated, same as if they had ours...
I disagree. While Iowa's and our schedules were weak, and Utah may play some better teams, they also had a really easy conference schedule
Look at OU in past years. Florida and USC this year. It's not that they lose to great teams, but those teams are better than playing Wyoming, Colorado St, San Diego St, New Mexico, and UNLV.
Now compare that to Mizzouri, Kansas, Colorado, Nebraska, etc. Tell me that it is not a huge difference
Sagarin also has Utah's schedule ranked at 70. Only 3 teams in BCS conferences had worse SoSs. Arizona at 78, Kentucky at 73 and Louisville at 81.
