The Case Against Utah
The Sugar Bowl Helmet Halo almost makes them look like angels. Almost...
I had forgotten that the Sugar Bowl was on two Fridays ago, so it was surprising to walk into that bar in Panama City Beach and see so many Tide fans that I thought it was their spring game. Even more surprising was when I looked up at the scoreboard and saw that Alabama was down 21-3. That was hard to believe. I thought this game was a sure thing. I never put 'root against Alabama' on my things to do list because I never thought Utah had a chance. I was wrong...
Utah finished ranked #2 in the AP poll and was the only major FBS school to go undefeated. Along the way, they beat 5 teams ranked at the time in the top 25: Michigan, Oregon State, TCU, BYU and Alabama. This was their second season with no losses in the last five years. If you recall, they also went undefeated in 2004 along with us. Their 2008 team was much better than the 2004 one, though. I'm a believer now. They weren't some 1984 BYU who played nobody on the way to the MNC. These guys are good. I think they would give a Texas or Oklahoma a run for their money, but probably not Florida.
Now, Utes fans (yes, Utes.) are clamoring for inclusion as a national champion. Their coach even stepped out of bounds in the coach's poll and voted for his team #1 even though he was obligated to vote for the BCS champion. Can't say I blame him really. He wouldn't be the first. Anyone remember how Tubs voted back in 2004? (asking: I don't know) But Utah is in the Mountain West conference, which if you recall, is the offspring of the old WAC when it ballooned up to 16 teams then split again. I guess you can call them the Mountain WAC now. I do.
But the MWC is a non-BCS FBS conference, just like the MAC, C-USA, et al. They don't get any BCS bowls reserved for them. They have to fight for four 'at-large' slots, and one of those has Notre Dame's name on it if they have a pulse that particular season. That certainly doesn't lend well for competing for national championships if you're a non-automatic qualifier. Even worse, they don't have the name recognition to get ANY recognition at the beginning of the season. Poor Utah's best chance to win a MNC is to build on this season next year and start out ranked in the top 6 and have another perfect season. Then, and only then...
But is that fair? Who said CFB was fair? Of course, it's fair. Who is Utah? Sure, they've played ball since 1892, roughly the same interval as we have. They're #34 in all-time wins with 607, which sounds good, but who have they played? Their all-time strength of schedule rating is only ranked 87th best. That's because they usually play other teams like themselves. Half of the top 10 all-time toughest schedules belong to current and former SEC teams. When we SEC homers talk about eating our own, we can back it up.
Is it fair to the top teams to include teams from conferences that don't pull their own weight typically? Why should they be invited to the party? Sure, it might be easy for them to get up for one big bowl matchup against a marquee opponent, but how would they fare if they had to play a whole schedule of them, plus a conference title game? Do you really think they could compete then? Forget comparing the major teams to the mid-majors. Make it easy and compare the conferences.
Some say that's it's a country club mentality--that the haves are trying to keep the have-not interlopers at bay. I hate to say it, but yea, sometimes it feels like Ted Knight trying to keep Rodney Dangerfield out of Bushwood. But the heavy hitters of college football came upon it honestly. They've paid their dues for the last 120 years. In their history, there's been tremendous regional bias to overcome and we're still dealing with it today. No one east and west of the Rockies really care about football in between those twin down markers yet. It's only important to them. Respect will have to earned--gradually. Slowly. Like Darwin-kinda slowly...
Football used to only be a Northeast and Midwest game. No one cared about Southern football for decades except Southerners. Southern football owes a debt of gratitude to those Alabama teams of the 1920s who went to the Rose Bowl a few times and won. They put Southern football on the map. Now the epicenter of the CFB world has refocused to the south.To give you an idea of how small it used to be, the Big 10(11) was originally known as the Western Athletic Conference. My, how things change.
Now the game is mostly about money. TV ratings are the barometer that allocates where the power is seated. The free market is the ultimate judge, and yes, sometimes it may seem like the rich are getting richer. Is it fair, I ask again? Yes and no. Maybe all they want is an opportunity. But what you believe is opportunity won't come until we get some sort of a playoff, and that will be decades, I truly believe now. So what are we supposed to do in the meantime to level the field? Here is my modest proposal about what those feeling left out these days could do to change their lot. Notice that no where do I claim that any of it is fair. I'm only saying that it's practical.
-
Grow, join, or secede your conference into 12 teams and play a conference playoff game. No mega-blob conferences like the WAC was before it split back into the WAC and the Mountain WAC. Implore the BCS conferences (Pac10, Big10(11), Big Eas(y)t who don't do this to start, in order to set a good example for you.
-
All the attention shouldn't be just at the college level. It has to start in high school. It's a cultural thing. Your prep farm system must be able to provide sustenance for all your major programs. You grow it like any other crop.
-
Expand your stadiums and sell them out. Sorry, we SEC'ers don't want to play in a 30k seat stadium outside of Nashville or Starkville. We don't even like playing in them then. Some high schools down here have larger stadiums than your universities, or fill them better. It's an investment. Your checkbook is your friend.
-
And any of you pull a fast one like Boise State did with that abomination of a field, you're gone FOREVER!!!
-
Extort, bribe and demand BCS conference schools to engage you in a series, even if you do have to travel two to one. Some call it the Florida State model. You play anyone, anywhere, any time. How else to you think a women's teacher college rose to be a football powerhouse in 50 years?
So there you have it. My recommendations for the mid-majors to slowly rise to the level of the big boys. You can't sit around and wait for a playoff to rescue this differential in opportunity. Every down is 1st and 40 for you if you're a mid-major. Time to chuck it across the middle into two-deep coverage for a change.
0 recs |
52 comments
|
Comments
Again War Eagle Atlanta....
you have valid points…..but I still think a play off is the only way a team like Utah has a real chance. Unless they manage to uproot and replace the Big Easy(t) (great moniker by the way) from their BCS status. That should be possible if the MWC continues to put two or three teams in the top 25 year in and year out, and especially if one or two of those teams continue to finish in the top 10 or top 5. If they to this and the Big Easy doesnt get bumped then the system is too flawed and biased to ever have another conference root its way in……and that would mean the Utah Attorney General is justified in his lawsuit (even if it does seem a huge waste of Taxpayers money and resources). I have always maintained that had Miami not been gifted the national championship in ‘83 that we deserved then Miami would still be like Fresno State and travelling for the paycheck and the respect. But there is a difference, Miami didn’t win them all and they were awarded a voters NC based on being a sudden media sensation……“Beat number 1, be number 1”….Howard Schnellinberger is still a grifter in my book. Utah has gone undefeated twice in recent years and has beaten some very good teams to do it…..the first time I could say fluke….the second time not so much of a fluke. They are 2-0 in BCS bowl games. AU got screwed out of a chance by OU and Bob Stoops crying and screaming foul, ESPN agenda and collusion with the SEC because of TV contracts…anything that would get his face on the screen after AU briefly passed them in the polls. After the beat down that USC put on OU everyone in the country collectively said “it should have been USC vs. AU”. Now OU goes out plays the best defensive game they have played all year faced the best Defense and Offense they faced all year and they predictably lose again….What does it take for everyone to say enough is enough I don’t want to see an OU team or Buckeye team in the NC game lets give the little guy a shot after all he only went 12-0 beat 5 top 25 teams one of which had beaten the almighty USC team and done everything that a team can do to get there…..instead we take a Big 12 team who has shown in the past that they are usually over rated just like last season we got to watch a Big 10 team that is usually over rated get shown that they are again over rated. Hell even Vegas said that OU was the Dog in the game despite being ranked #1. This system sucks plain and simple………I am through ranting now.
I would have gone to bammer if my grades hadn't been good enough to go to AU
Nice Caddyshack reference
Kyle Whittingham after the Sugar Bowl: “Hey everybody! We’re all gonna get laid!”
Also, Utah has to fight for one of FOUR at-large spots now that the BCS has expanded to 5 games (4 bowls and the MNC game).
The artist formerly known as...
Mr Redbird @ Viva El Birdos
PowerOfDixieland @ Track Em Tigers, other SEC blogs
Don't get me wrong, Todd...
I’m defintely not trying to compare their hosing to some of ours. I’m only slightly sympathetic to their cause. I hate that any good team doesn’t get a chance to prove themselves, but it’s hit or miss with teams outside the BCS. For every 2008 Utah that belongs, there’s a 2007 Hawaii that doesn’t.
Nice catch, JD. I shall correct that!
by War Eagle Atlanta on Jan 13, 2009 11:05 AM CST reply actions
Now...
Are you trying to lump Boise into a category with you, or vice versa? :-)
by War Eagle Atlanta on Jan 14, 2009 3:10 PM CST up reply actions
And the catagory is...
Teams to qualify for the BCS without an automatic qualification.
BCS record: 3-1
Average MOV: 3 points
The BCS worked for Hawaii, showing that they did not belong.
For Boise State a flukish win over a team that did not get to the BCS title game casts a shadow of doubt.
Twice now Utah has left the BCS bowls looking as good or better than they did coming in.
I only tout the win against Pitt in the Fiesta Bowl for you guys because.....
it was a BCS bowl….but the competition that Pitt provided in that BCS bowl was lackluster to say the least. This is not said to take away from the Utes win, rather I say it, to further point out the Big Easts weakness and that the MWC conference should get a serious look as a replacement for the Big East as a BCS conference. There should be some incentive or reward provided for Mountain West or WAC conference teams beefing up their schedules. If I were a MWC fan I would be screaming from the roof tops to get the conference to improve their out of conference schedules and ditch the Mountain West Network. And I wouldn’t necessarily say that the Boise win was flukish…..Boise State won the game doesn’t matter if they did it with the hook ‘n ladder, statue of liberty or anyother trick play. You will find that most of the SEC fans,myself included, think that Bama didn’t show up for the game…..but thats shame on them not the Utes. Had they shown up I think the Utes would have held their own and possibly still have won the game. Again, that is not the premise of my argument….my argument is that there should be some possibility or chance for a “Mid-Major” to win the National Championship. A playoff would be the best but at the very least a “plus one” scenario.
I would have gone to bammer if my grades hadn't been good enough to go to AU
I just don't understand the "plus one"
Who would play in the plus one this year? Utah, USC, or Texas (against Florida, I presume)? All have compelling cases. The plus one has never been an attractive option to me.
The artist formerly known as...
Mr Redbird @ Viva El Birdos
PowerOfDixieland @ Track Em Tigers, other SEC blogs
by jd is legend on Jan 14, 2009 6:35 PM CST up reply actions
Well...
The BCS would be structured differently. The top four teams would be invited to the top two bowls on rotation, then have the winners play each other in the ‘plus one’ game. It basically amounts to a 4-team playoff, which incidently, is all I think we’ll ever get in my lifetime, if that…
A Florida, Utah, USC and OU foursome would have played it out this year, or whoever was the top 4 in the BCS…
by War Eagle Atlanta on Jan 14, 2009 9:50 PM CST up reply actions
Exactly
Still no resolution even with the +1 this year. In MY opinion, the teams that should play each other right now for the MNC are Utah and USC.
The artist formerly known as...
Mr Redbird @ Viva El Birdos
PowerOfDixieland @ Track Em Tigers, other SEC blogs
by jd is legend on Jan 15, 2009 9:55 AM CST up reply actions
The Gators are more deserving than USC.....
especially in looking at who they lost too. Ole Miss showed just how good they are by dismantling Texas Tech. I have a hard time placing the Trojans over the Gators in any scenario and the Utes have nothing against them except strength of schedule and that is better than usual for a Mountain West team with so many opponents ranked, now or at least when they played them, in the top 25. In my Plus 1, USC is on the outside looking in, the Utes and the Gators are facing off.
I would have gone to bammer if my grades hadn't been good enough to go to AU
I think the Plus 1 model.....
is the only thing we will see in the short term (next 5-10 years) but I still hope that I will live long enough to see an actual playoff. The “Plus 1” is a weak solution and will leave as many questions unanswered in most years as what we have now. War Damn Eagle.
I would have gone to bammer if my grades hadn't been good enough to go to AU
A new idea.
The plus one does not address either of the two main issues with the BCS. The first is the failure to guarantee access to all undefeated teams. The second is the failure to establish a consensus as to who should participate.
Instead of simply taking the top 2, why not address both issues directly.
Include all undefeated teams.Include all teams above the first gap in the ranking average of 1.5 ( a difference of 0.0600 in the current BCS formula.)
Embed a flexible championship system into the current BCS structure.
A winning record warrents a berth in a regional bowl.
A conference championship warrent a berth in a premeir bowl.
Only the two criteria above warrent talk about being national champion.
Since 1998 this would have involved from 2 to 5 teams every year. By these criteria the BCS only really worked in 2002 and 2005. Several other years resolved themselves due to a favorable result in the other bowls.
Return the BCS bowls to New Year’s Day, with the championship game at least a week latter.
An additional neutral site wild card game, always a semi final and allowing other venues to bid for a part in the national championship system, would be needed for the most common cases involving 3-5 teams.
Play-in games hosted by the favored teams to kickoff the Bowl season would be needed for years with more than 4 teams.
To maintain the integrity of the remaining bowls it is important to maintain a total BCS participation of 10-11 teams each year, regardless of which structure is needed. This can be accomplished by using the BCS bowls as semi finals as needed. With four or more teams the BCS bowl with tie-in to the #1 seed would be used as a semi final. With 6 or more teams the BCS bowl wiht a tie-in to the #2 seed would be used as a semi final.
A championship system able to adjust to each years needs and maintain the rich tradition of the bowl structure while addressing the specific issues of the BCS system and staying in the current post season time frame is possible, involving at most 2 more games for the championship teams.
Increasing the time between the BCS bowls and the national championship game would help reduce the risk to the players and allow the coaches time to prepare their team. Timing this one game to be the saturday of the NFL bye before the Super Bowl would be in the best interest of the athletes and coaches.
I agree that the system needs to be flexible....
but under your argument Hawaii would have been in the mix last season and that would be a shame. Also what is to insure that an undefeated patsy (MAC for example) doesnt get pushed into the mix? All undefeated teams no…..not without a full blown playoff to weed them out.
I would have gone to bammer if my grades hadn't been good enough to go to AU
Arguments against Hawaii...
First, most MAC teams schedule harder than Hawaii did last year.
Last year three teams would have met the criteria, Ohio State, LSU and Hawaii.
Hawaii would have played LSU in the wild card game. The winner of this game would have played Ohio State in the National Championship game.
If a patsy could have beaten LSU and Ohio State last year they deserve to be champion.
In every case since 1998 an undefeated outsider would have had to play at least 2 games. 2004 and 2008 are the only years that would have required a play-in game, both times with Utah hosting Boise State.
The biggest problem case I know of would be as follows:
1 undefeated unanimous BCS team, say LSU.
1 undefeated Sun Belt team who played two top BCS teams that both pulled a Michigan, ending near the top 15.
3 closely grouped 1 loss teams vying for #2, say USC, Ohio State and Oklahoma.
This would make a gap between #1 and #2 and have the 2 teams needed to determine the system needed. With #2 and #3 in the Rose Bowl a problem could arise.
This case could be mitigated by requiring an undefeated team below #4 in the BCS standings to play at least a semi-final before the championship game, forcing the Criteria to be adjusted to the second gap in the standings. This would likely be just below the cluster of teams tied for #2, making a 5 team structure that year.
This team would then need to play the #4 team on the road, the consensus #1 in their host bowl and the winner of #2 and #3 in the natinoal championship game. That should boulster anyone’s resume to #1.
Undefeated is undefeated
They are all in division 1 and play in a conference. They can’t control who is in their conference. Undefeated is undefeated.
The only exception would be independent teams. They can rig their schedules and should be left out. Join a conference!
You would have a hard time....
convincing the BCS conferences that the ‘04 Utes were more deserving than an 11-1 Texas or even an 11-1 louisville for that 4th spot behind Auburn, USC, and OU. I like the reasoning and it fits with my belief that there should be flexibility to allow for an undefeated Mid major to get a shot. Although, if Bama had thought that they were still in it this year at the Sugar Bowl I am not convinced the outcome would have been the same. I don’t know what the answer is….outside of a full fledged playoff (which is the only true solution)….but I am more in favor of flexibility for a conference to become a BCS conference based on recent performance and the falling off in quality of another conference….i.e., the MWC replacing the Big East over the last couple of years.
I would have gone to bammer if my grades hadn't been good enough to go to AU
Certainly...
You’re not arguing that all conferences are the same, are you Jimi? Maybe we should remove the divisions, too—like 1-A, 1-AA, Div II and III?
Auburn versus Princeton: who are the real Tigers?
by War Eagle Atlanta on Jan 15, 2009 3:28 PM CST up reply actions
I didn't say all conferences are the same
That’s why there are 4 divisions (FBS, FCS, 2, 3) . Not every conference is the same, but everyone in a division should be “the same” or put them in their own division. Let them be real members of the BCS division or kick em out.
If they aren’t equal, they aren’t equal and that’s fine.
Give them the same automatic access or make a 5th division is all I’m saying.
by jimithing78 on Jan 15, 2009 10:35 PM CST up reply actions
I don't disagree.....
but I am afraid that the mid majors probably wouldn’t want to be ushered out to be another division…..the fear would be that the Big Boys would get even a larger share of the T.V. money, Bowl Money, Atheletic Sports Wear contracts, etc…. A playoff is the only real permanent solution. In the short term there should be a realistic chance for a conference to lose or win BCS status. I still maintain that the MWC is as deserving if not more deserving of BCS status over the Big East…..A realignment of the MWC would guarantee that but it would greatly weaken the WAC….not that I care if the WAC is weakened or not. If the MWC would drop their weakest 2 teams (San Diego State, New Mexico) add Boise State and Fresno State, in my opinion they would replace the Big East easily. And they had better do it fast before the Pac 10 joins the SEC, ACC, and Big 12 by adding 2 teams and having a conference championship. Those two teams would probably be Fresno and either Utah, BYU, or Boise. As far as the equality thing the lesser conferences can start playing the big boys exclusively in their out of conference schedules, beating them a respectable amount of times, which would increase the strength perception of their in conference schedule…..and you won’t get an argument about them being considered equal. That won’t happen though because most teams don’t want to go through the beatings to get there and for most teams there would be alot of beatings before they could even sniff a win against one of the big boys. I am calling for flexibility to give them a shot not complete disregard of an obvious pecking order as far as strength goes.
I would have gone to bammer if my grades hadn't been good enough to go to AU
Utah can't get the tough teams
They’ve said they are having a time getting teams to play them. It’s the same thing that’s happening with Auburn on years when we have to play a FCS team. Just saying “schedule USC, Texas and Ohio State every year” is easier than actually scheduling like that.
Doesn't have to be USC, Texas, and Ohio State...
could be South Carolina, Iowa, Oklahoma State etc…….I am not saying they have to stack their out of conference with top 5 teams but with solid BCS teams. That would be sufficient…….lose the Weber State game and pick an instate rival (BYU you have to play….Utah State just hurts your SOC), replace those two games with two quality opponents(admittedly road road games) and the Utah Utes are ranked higher in the BCS computers and gain alot more respect from the voters. Utah is just an example but you could apply the scenario across the board with the MWC or anyother midmajor conference.
I would have gone to bammer if my grades hadn't been good enough to go to AU
Utah won 4 of the 6 BCS computers
These final computer rankings have Utah #1:
Anderson and Hester
Massey W-L
Sagarin ELO-CHESS
Peter Wolfe
Utah’s final computer average would have been 0.98, Florida’s 0.97.
And this was with Weber State scheduled to make a tribute to our former coach, the one who build the infrastructure that Urban Meyer and Kyle Whittingham have capitalized on.
I think Utah impressed the computers just find. Now if we can get the voters to just watch Utah play before the bowl season we would be getting somewhere.
The MWC went 28-13 this year OOC. If they can keep getting 25+ wins they will build a name.
I am ooptomistic that the 2009 Sugar Bowl can be the MWC’s 1926 Rose Bowl.
I have said it before and I'll say it again....
ditch the Mountain West T.V. Network. I think you need to check your facts concerning the final BCS rankings……the BCS computer rankings had OU as the unanimous #1 as of the final BCS computer rankings on Dec. 7th. Utah had one computer ranking them at 2nd, computers had them at 4th, 1 at 5th and one at sixth. The computer rankings do not figure into who is actually NC at the end as that is decided on the field by the top 2 BCS teams which is decided by the computers and the 2 human polls. And the problem with MWC’s OOC win loss record is still that only about 25% of the games were against BCS competition.
I would have gone to bammer if my grades hadn't been good enough to go to AU
After the bowls
I looked them all up after the bowls and ran the numbers.
Utah #1×4, #3×2, 0.98
Florida #1×2, #2*4, 0.97
As for the MWC OOC, 15 out of 41 of our games were from BCS conferences, closer to 37%. The MWC was 10-5 vs. the big boys, 2-0 vs the SEC. One of those SEC games was by a MWC team that fired their coach.
You don't understand
Utah is GOOD and the other teams know it. They won’t play Utah. Saying you want SC, IA, OK state is easier than getting them to actually play you.
Examples:
Auburn – Furman 11/7/09
Auburn – Tennessee Martin 11/8/08
Auburn – Citadel 9/25/04
Auburn had to settle for those teams. Auburn didn’t seek out those teams.
The difference between AU......
and Utah is that AU would only settle for home and home, or home only….Utah like most midmajors would get the invite but not the reciprical visit….under that scenario most BCS conference schools would be more than happy to play the Utes. With 2 BCS schools playing each other there are more problems in scheduling home and home as egos typically get in the way. AU played the Citadel as a last minute fill in during the ’04 season due to Bowling Green backing out of their contract to play OU. The rest of the expamples you name are due to the new rules allowing one D-1aa school to count towards your bowl eligibility and BCS schools across the country are now scheduling D-1AA competition for the 12th game.
I would have gone to bammer if my grades hadn't been good enough to go to AU
That's one rule...
I wish they would change. It would be a good opportunity to load up a quality matchup, but a lot of teams are using it for a pre-season or tuner game. Up the bowl eligibility to ALL FBS wins—no FCS victories can count.
Like I said in that last bullet point, the non-BCS teams have to be ready for serious inequality in scheduling series with the big dogs…
by War Eagle Atlanta on Jan 16, 2009 4:58 PM CST up reply actions
Oh, my mistake
I guess I imagined the home and home Auburn had with Syracuse, USC, West Virginia, and Clemson.
Those...
…are all BCS conference teams, so it’s good to load up with those.
I’ve said it many times: part of any playoff arrangement would be for all BCS schools to be required to schedule at least 2 other BCS OOC games.
Under something like that, you might see long dormant series such as Auburn-GA Tech or Georgia-Clemson return. Otherwise, if it’s not mandated, it would be very difficult for a team like GA Tech to play 2 SEC schools year in, year out (us and Georgia).
by War Eagle Atlanta on Jan 16, 2009 8:27 PM CST up reply actions
How do you define BCS OOC?
Would a team with Duke and Syracuse make the cut while a team with Utah and Boise State get left out?
Under...
the current definition, yes.
But that leaves two games that could be non-BCS.
Perhaps when they get that far they would have expanded the BCS conferences…
Good point about that 12th game. You don’t have to play it, but to not do so is akin to a government bureaucracy not spending every last dime of their budget.
by War Eagle Atlanta on Jan 16, 2009 10:53 PM CST up reply actions
The reason for that rule
was to appease people who didn’t want to expand the schedule by adding a virtual bye.
The home field issue is dead on. Utah wants a home and home. The best offers they get from top BCS conference members is usually a 2 for 1. Wanting to maintain 2 home and 2 away games OOC each year, a 2 for 1 requires us to find a team willing to travel with no return visit, forcing us to water down our schedule.
We really need to expand our stadium to accommodate a top 25 crowd if we want to get a home and home with a top 25 program.
I agree that MWC stadiums.....
are not attractive to visiting SEC teams……but the biggest thing is Television coverage, the mountain west conference is not the place to be seen and being seen means money plus the money lost by playing a midmajor on the road doesn’t make sense……especially when there are 60 someodd midmajors that will make the one way trip for the payday……most make more visiting a place like AU than in two of their own home games…….I would hope that Utah is more flexible with their scheduling than to demand home and home only….thats kinda silly, I would rank that right up there with Ole Miss firing David Cutcliff the whole time forgetting that they are Ole Miss.
I would have gone to bammer if my grades hadn't been good enough to go to AU
I certainly agree about Hawaii not belonging.....
I just think it was more evident that Utah could play with the “Big Boys”. The slight against Utah being left out of the show was in my mind less of a slight when compared to AU’s ‘04 season…..but then again a team going undefeated in the SEC has run a gauntlet that compares to no other conference even in a supposedly down year. My only bent on this is that there is no allowance for the little guy when he does have that “special team” that could win it all……I agree that Mid Majors should schedule tougher opponents to get consideration in general…..but at the end of the season Utah had survived a pretty tough schedule all things considered. And after the fact we can set back and look at the Big 12 and say they weren’t the bad asses they were proclaimed to be…..again.
I would have gone to bammer if my grades hadn't been good enough to go to AU
Hawaii doesn't belong, TAKE 2
The agrument for Hawaii is much easier to make now that we saw what happened to them against Georgia, just like the arguments for Utah and USC’s inclusion is alot easier now after all the bowls have been played.
A month ago Texas was the only team with an ax to grind that the press took seriously. No one seriously thought Utah would beat Alabama, except maybe a Utah fan or two.
I’m just saying make a structure that allows teams to be exposed as imposters or allows them to build an impressive enough resume to earn a title. I think I have one.
Again if under your scenario...
Bama has a chance to get back into the Championship hunt……I am not sure that the Utes win it. I would have liked to have seen a fired up Bama squad, playing the football we saw them play all season, play against the Utes. I hate Bama as much as the next AU fan but I would rather see a good game and the SEC well represented…..as it was Bama played flat and never looked like they were in the game.
I would have gone to bammer if my grades hadn't been good enough to go to AU
It's telling...
…that no Auburn fans have gone on here badmouthing Alabama about losing to Utah. We’re still in shock as much as they are. But I give Utah their props,. They do have a hell of a team.
by War Eagle Atlanta on Jan 15, 2009 3:33 PM CST up reply actions
Lets be clear on my proposal...
Based on the end of the regular season:
I would have had Utah host Boise State in a play-in game the opening day of Bowl season.
The winner of that game would have played Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl.
Florida and Texas would have played in a Wild Card Game at a venue that bid for its spot to be the next in line to host such a game.
The Fiesta Bowl and Wild Card Game winners would have played in the national championship game.
Rose Bowl: USC vs. Penn State
Sugar Bowl: Alabama vs. Ohio State
Orange Bowl: Virginia Tech vs. Cincinnati
Alabama and USC both failed to win all there games or gain enough consensus to avoid having a gap in the average rankings of 1.5 from forming above them.
As for Alabama playing flat…
That means their coach is vastly over paid and might be one of the best arguments for scrapping the bowls altogether.
I'm...
Going to copy and paste that comment over at RBR. Then run like hell…
by War Eagle Atlanta on Jan 15, 2009 7:20 PM CST up reply actions
Any team
Any team that plays in a conference and finishes undefeated should be a national champion. Period. End. Final. Teams cannot control who is in their conference and have to play 8 or 9 of them every season. If there is more than one undefeated team, let them play each other until there isn’t one.
If the 6 BCS conferences won’t let the other 5 play then secede from the FBS and have another division. Then Utah and other undeserving teams would be national champions of their own division. We already have the FCS division and divisions 2 and 3, why not 5th divsion? Independents aren’t in the BCS conferences do they’ll have to play in the FBS or man up and join a conference.
BCS
FBS
FCS
D2
D3
Compose that theory...
We’ll have a playoff oriented thread on here by next year…
by War Eagle Atlanta on Jan 13, 2009 8:12 PM CST up reply actions
I miss the title "mythical national championship"
Do you guys remember when it was referred to as that? The fact of the matter is that there is no such thing as a NCAA D-I National championship. Auburn doesnt have one, Notre Dame doesn’t have one, and Alabama doesn’t have one. The fact that the old guard EVER decided a NC by an OPINION poll is bloody rediculous. We are slaves to tradition. The fact that “this is how we’ve always done it” is our biggest hurdle. A playoff system and a nice NCAA plaque to the winners would pretty much nullify all past “NC” winners for posterity. Look at it this way: everybody knows that the Packers won the first Super Bowl, but do people know that the Cleveland Rams and Chicago Cardinals were NFL Champions? Or, more to the point, that prior to the 1933 season, the NFL Championship was determined by a winning percentage with no platoff at all? Yeah, we need a playoff thread. I honestly believe I can refute any reason given for why we don’t have a playoff.
by SandMountainTiger on Jan 14, 2009 12:27 AM CST reply actions
Heheheh...
Yup, got the ding-dong song as a ring tone, too.
by SandMountainTiger on Jan 14, 2009 1:03 AM CST up reply actions
I got news for you...
It still is and is still referred to as a MNC. It’s mythical because even the BCS still relies heavily on opinion polls. It probably will always be mythical to a degree, being that with 119 teams and growing, there’s no way to ever have a credible playoff that doesn’t involve the polls. If there was only 36 or so teams like the NFL, it might be possible…
by War Eagle Atlanta on Jan 14, 2009 10:15 AM CST up reply actions
I think you can honestly say the D-1AA National Championship is not mythical...
just like you can say the NCAA Basketball D-1 championship is not mythical. Every year teams feel slighted for not getting into the Basketball 64 but in the end its a viable champion that is produced. In D-1 there is no reason not to have a 5 or six tiered playoff……5 without byes or 6 with.
I would have gone to bammer if my grades hadn't been good enough to go to AU
For all intents and purposes...
…it’s not, but if you want to get technical, it is, since a poll is still utilized. The tournament is universally acclaimed to be a ‘playoff’. You rarely hear much complaing from the 65th ranked team, though. And when you do, it doesn’t last long…
by War Eagle Atlanta on Jan 14, 2009 1:26 PM CST reply actions

by 













