Undefeated Utah

[Ronbo]

Should be playing for the National Championship. They are awesome!xnodx

[putter]

Utah gets as much respect from the BCS as San Diego gets from this board.

[TexasTerror]

Utah gets as much respect from the BCS as San Diego gets from this board.

Utah at least played legitimate competition...

At the very least, we all recognize when San Diego loses (great job, Jacksonville!). If Utah lost, most people wouldn't even realize it was a big thing. Here, we were all hooting and hollering when USD went down because it kept this board away from what we've seen before.

[semobison]

Wow! The speed of their defense is amazing!

[putter]

Utah at least played legitimate competition...
At the very least, we all recognize when San Diego loses (great job, Jacksonville!). If Utah lost, most people wouldn't even realize it was a big thing. Here, we were all hooting and hollering when USD went down because it kept this board away from what we've seen before.

Problem is, when listening to the talking heads at ESPN etc. Utah has not played anyone and does not have the athletes to hang with the top teams.

[JMU DJ]

Game isn't over yet boys... let's see how this second half goes

[CrackerRiley]

Yeah, 'bama may be waking up now. Though, I will now give Utah a lot more credit than I ever have after this game, win or lose.

[Franks Tanks]

Very surpised the way Utah is playing-- they are for real. However I still think the USC, Florida, Oklahoma, and Texas are a cut above Bama and Utah.

[petethepenguin15]

GO UTES they are soo good i knew they were going to upset bama

They might even be better than florida and oklahoma

They have to go to a new conference like the big 12 or the pac-10

[petethepenguin15]

GO UTES they are soo good i knew they were going to upset bama

They might even be better than florida and oklahoma

They have to go to a new conference like the big 12 or the pac-10

Now that i think about it they probly arn't but they are still the only undefeated team

[bluehenbillk]

Wow, 4 minutes and ticking, Utah is gonna beat the Tide. And they're a gear faster than one of the S.E.C.'s best, wow!

They so need a playoff, couldn't we file a fan class action suit to force one???

Computer polls are worth less than toilet paper.

[TheValleyRaider]

And TCU nearly beat them! xbangx xbangx xbangx

[bluehenbillk]

Game over, convincing W for Utah, wow!

[DuckDuckGriz]

And TCU nearly beat them! xbangx xbangx xbangx

....As did Oregon State (at Utah)

[GrizFanStuckInUtah]

....As did Oregon State (at Utah)

I was at that game, the fans were all filing out with the last couple minutes and I was like wtf? It aint over yet. Utah had that knack for winning the close ones this year and they got better over the break unlike some teams......cough....byu :D

[Big Al]

I was at that game, the fans were all filing out with the last couple minutes and I was like wtf? It aint over yet. Utah had that knack for winning the close ones this year and they got better over the break unlike some teams......cough....byu :D

HA! Way to suck, Cougars! You blew the Conference Bowl Challenge for the Mountain West!

Boo! Hiss!

PS - After watching this game, I'm not sure if the the '04 squad or the current one is the best team in Utah history. Damn, them boys is good!

[ngineer]

Way to go 'Utes guys'!

[UNHWildCats]

I bet Utah gets atleast 1 #1 vote in the poll that doesnt automatically vote the BCS winner #1

[Big Al]

Well, Kyle Whittingham said he was gonna vote them #1...

[Lionsrking]

Utah would get my #1 vote, if I had one...they were the only unbeaten team defeating Michigan, Oregon State, TCU, BYU and Alabama in the process...not the most difficult schedule in the country by a long shot - and maybe not the most impressive collection of wins - but that's as good a resume as Ohio State had in '08, and they played for the NC...who knows how Utah would fare against an Oklahoma, Florida or Texas, but at least they navigated their season unbeaten and I'm of the opinion they should be rewarded...that doesn't mean I think they're the best team, but they took on all comers and walked away unscathed...no one else can make that claim in '08.

[ngineer]

I agree they did all they could do. Remindful of Penn State's teams in 1968 and 1969. Undefeated and unrespected.

[JohnStOnge]

Should be playing for the National Championship. They are awesome!xnodx

Not in a situation where there are only two teams selected. They were playing a team that was disappointed to be where it was last night plus it was a team that had severe problems with a unit, the offensive line, that was the strength of their team last year. Meanwhile that was a big game to Utah because they wanted to prove themselves.

I wish there were playoffs so that teams like Utah could get their reality checks in playing top BCS league teams with something to play for. Utah plays teams like USC, Florida, Texas, or Oklahoma with a national title on the line so that the game means something to both sides and they get killed.

[Cocky]

Utah looked better than Florida against UAT. Utah is faster too.

[JohnStOnge]

And TCU nearly beat them! xbangx xbangx xbangx

They should have beaten them. I think some people are getting carried away. Especially with the speed thing. In particular, I don't think Utah's offensive skill people looked particularly fast at all. They were mostly running underneath patterns and running between the tackles. I don't remember any instances at all where any of their offensive players looked like they were giving Alabama defenders problems with their speed.

If you watched the Ole Miss/Texas Tech game, you saw an example of speed and/or quickness on offense in the form of Ole Miss' #22 giving the other team problems. He beat Texas Tech defenders who had the angle on him repeatedly and left them grasping for air in space. That is not the kind of thing that was happening to Alabama last night. Whatever Utah was doing scheme wise was resulting in people missing coverages. Plus there was one great catch a guy made with a defender right on him and a couple of instances where guys broke tackles then got into the end zone. Finally, when they got into their "wild hog" type formation that big back did a good job of running with power between the tackles. But he wasn't running away from anybody.

I also saw Alabama receivers run by Utah defensive backs a few times but the QB couldn't get the ball to them. The place where Utah looked fast was on the pass rush. But they broke completely clean a lot while playing against a reshuffled offensive line missing two starters including what people appear to think is the top O line prospect in college football. Offensive linemen are always slower than the guys accross from them and especially slower than linebackers or safeties that are coming on the blitz. They have to know what they're doing and play as a unit. I don't think Alabama's offensive line was seeing more speed on defense than it saw a number of times in the SEC.

[JohnStOnge]

Utah looked better than Florida against UAT. Utah is faster too.

Oh PLEASE. Utah is not faster than Florida. The only place where one might reasonably argue that they're even comparable is along the defensive front and I think that's a stretch. Florida's skill people are WAY faster than Utah's. I'd feel very comfortable in betting that if you were to take the 22 starters position by position on both teams and have them run 40s Florida would win at least 60 percent of the matchups and I'd probably bet it's be more like 80 percent.

Yeah. I can just see Utah's backs and receivers trying to win footraces with Florida's. Right.

[JohnStOnge]

Yeah. I can just see that back from Utah in a footrace with Jeffrey Demps or any of Utah's receivers trying to run with Percy Harvin.

By the way I just looked up the old Rivals stuff on the two Utah defensive ends and the two Florida defensive ends when they were recruits. Utah's were listed at 4.73 and 4.6. Florida's were listed at 4.65 and 4.6. I realize there's some error in those things but if you were to line them up against each other I'd bet on Florida's defensive ends to win the footraces.

[Hansel]

Not in a situation where there are only two teams selected. They were playing a team that was disappointed to be where it was last night plus it was a team that had severe problems with a unit, the offensive line, that was the strength of their team last year. Meanwhile that was a big game to Utah because they wanted to prove themselves.


Utah totally dominated Alabama. And Alabama's "awesome but depleted O-line" doesn't play defense- but maybe they should have last night. Bama did nothing on O and 14 of 'Bama's 17 points came off a punt return and an INT. If not for a bunch of penalties against Utah in the second half this score could have been a lot uglier. I don't want to hear the missed FGs excuse either... a college kicker should not be expected to do much better than 1/3 for 49, 49 and 52 yards.

349 to 208 yards of Total Offense- in favor of Utah

BTW the Mountain West went (including bowl games):

2-0 versus SEC
5-2 versus Pac-10
1-0 versus Big 10
3-1 versus CUSA
7-2 versus WAC (including a TCU win over Boise)
1-2 versus Big 12
1-1 versus MAC

[813Jag]

Sounds like a lot of excuses for Bama losing. Especially that "they were disappointed and didn't want to be there" line. Those guys were ready, they just got smacked in the mouth right off the bat. Georgia was in the same position last year, they did a lot of complaining before the game, but when the whistle blew they played the game. When Julio Jones dropped that pass early I knew Bama was in trouble.

[SeattleGriz]

I just want that big mouth Mark May from ESPN to admit he was wrong...again.

If May posted on this board, he would be the World's largest SEC homer.

Now I readily admit I think the SEC is the best conference from top to bottom, but so many people are forgetting how quickly the good high school athlete ranks are growing.

There are just too many good kids available to think the traditional powers are going to get all of them. Why do you think the parity amongst the college ranks is growing.

By the way, does anyone think that Utah being a Mormon predominant college is a benefit? I mean the guys go on a mission for two years and then return. There is a lot of physical development that goes on in a student athletes first two years.

[wkuhillhound]

I just want that big mouth Mark May from ESPN to admit he was wrong...again.

If May posted on this board, he would be the World's largest SEC homer.

Now I readily admit I think the SEC is the best conference from top to bottom, but so many people are forgetting how quickly the good high school athlete ranks are growing.

There are just too many good kids available to think the traditional powers are going to get all of them. Why do you think the parity amongst the college ranks is growing.

By the way, does anyone think that Utah being a Mormon predominant college is a benefit? I mean the guys go on a mission for two years and then return. There is a lot of physical development that goes on in a student athletes first two years.

I think you are confusing Utah with BYU.

[89Hen]

Not in a situation where there are only two teams selected.... I wish there were playoffs so that teams like Utah could get their reality checks in playing top BCS league teams with something to play for.
I agree with both of these statements, but I'm not sure they get killed by the likes of Florida (barely beat Bama), USC (lost to Oregon St who Utah beat), etc...

Utah did not belong in a two team playoff, but certainly belongs in an 8 team field (even a 4 team field). xpeacex

[813Jag]

The SEC is a good league, but it is not as great as people think. They have a great team (Florida), some good teams (Georgia, Alabama) and some really bad teams (Mississippi St and Tennessee). They beat up on each other just like in basketball.

[Hansel]

If Utah played in the Big East or ACC there is a good chance they would have been undefeated- and therefore been playing in the National Title Game

[813Jag]

If Utah played in the Big East or ACC there is a good chance they would have been undefeated- and therefore been playing in the National Title Game
they could, but they might lose a game from all that travelling. xlolx

[NDSUFREAK]

they could, but they might lose a game from all that travelling. xlolx

xlolx xlolx thats very true

[TheValleyRaider]

They should have beaten them.

Almost. You have to make the FGs too. Special Teams is a part of the game, and a big one at times. Too many penalties and dropped passes hurt the offense, but they were in position to win. That could have been the Frogs embarassing Alabama last night :(


BTW the Mountain West went (including bowl games):

2-0 versus SEC
5-2 versus Pac-10
1-0 versus Big 10
3-1 versus CUSA
7-2 versus WAC (including a TCU win over Boise)
1-2 versus Big 12
1-1 versus MAC

Respect the Mountain West xrulesx


I think you are confusing Utah with BYU.

Actually, UU has a pretty large Mormon population as well. It certainly doesn't compare to BYU, but given it's the state university of a predominantly Mormon state, there's going to be some representation

[wkuhillhound]

Actually, UU has a pretty large Mormon population as well. It certainly doesn't compare to BYU, but given it's the state university of a predominantly Mormon state, there's going to be some representation

That makes sense.

[JMU DJ]

Just another reason why the FBS should switch to a playoff system... but every time I say that or think about it... It makes me think about how much Steve Carrol, Mark Richt, or all the other "snubbed" coaches would complain when their team was on the bubble of being the last team in the playoffs and didn't make it... I need to stop thinking about this, it makes my hear hurt.

[JohnStOnge]

I agree with both of these statements, but I'm not sure they get killed by the likes of Florida (barely beat Bama), USC (lost to Oregon St who Utah beat), etc...

Utah did not belong in a two team playoff, but certainly belongs in an 8 team field (even a 4 team field). xpeacex

Remember, when Alabama and Florida played Alabama was playing for a shot at the national title game and had an offensive line anchored by what may be a top 3 NFL draft choice intact after having avoided injury all season. Besides, you know how that goes. Texas beat Oklahoma while Texas Tech beat Texas. You saw how much that helped Texas Tech when it played an Oklahoma team that was ready to play and was clicking.

Stuff happens. Remember, Oregon State beat USC by jumping on them early. I do not think Utah should be in a 4 team playoff if they had one. I think with a four team playoff based on what it looked like at the end of the regular season it would clearly have to be Florida, OU, USC, and Texas.

[gmoney55]

If Utah played in the Big East or ACC there is a good chance they would have been undefeated- and therefore been playing in the National Title Game

And that's the shame with this system. They would have played an easier schedule in either of those leagues too.

[Reign of Terrier]

And that's the shame with this system. They would have played an easier schedule in either of those leagues too.

Boise State, Utah, and TCU are the best schools not playing in BCS conferences. had ECU not been as injured they might be 4th. I think Boise, Utah, and TCU could all win a few a games in the BCS conferences.

[JohnStOnge]

On the speed thing:

It's hard to find all the 40 times Utah players had as recruits. But I did note that they probably are faster at the tackle positions than teams like LSU and Florida. The reason is that the two guys starting at tackle for them were listed as a defensive end recruit and a linebacker recruit coming out of high school. So it's kind of like having no real defensive tackles and instead having four defensive ends.

So, in comparing that to LSU (for instance), you've got a 240 pound DT who runs 4.6 and a 260 pound DT that runs 4.7 vs. having two guys who go 290 and 300 and run 4.88 and 4.90 (or at least those are the times they were listed as having when they were high school recruits).

However, at linebacker LSU is probably both bigger and faster. I was trying to stay consistent in terms of source by using Rivals recruit 40 times and I could only find that for one of the Utah linebackers. It was that #10 who was causing so many problems for Alabama on the blitz. As a recruit he was listed at 4.7 in the 40. Well, LSU's three starting linebackers as recruits were listed at 4.58, 4.52, and 4.53 in the 40. Also, they're now listed at 237, 240, and 232 while #10 for Utah is listed at 220.

I really don't think Alabama was seeing anything in terms of overall speed and athleticism on defense that it didn't see in the SEC. I think that, on a number of occasions, the Tide faced better athletes on that side of the ball and also more overall defensive speed than they saw last night playing Utah.

And on the offensive side, Utah didn't look fast at all. They looked like they did a good job of confusing Alabama's coverages, especially early on, breaking tackles, and running well between the tackles from that "wild hog" type of formation. But they didn't look like they were running away from anybody or beating angles at all.

[Chi Panther]

Not in a situation where there are only two teams selected. They were playing a team that was disappointed to be where it was last night plus it was a team that had severe problems with a unit, the offensive line, that was the strength of their team last year. Meanwhile that was a big game to Utah because they wanted to prove themselves.

I wish there were playoffs so that teams like Utah could get their reality checks in playing top BCS league teams with something to play for. Utah plays teams like USC, Florida, Texas, or Oklahoma with a national title on the line so that the game means something to both sides and they get killed.

What happened with WKU and McNeese??????

So WKU is much better when there is something on the line....

I don't agree with you.xpeacex

[JohnStOnge]

Like I said, I wish there were playoffs with at least 16 teams for many reasons. And one of them is to see how teams like Utah and Boise State would do playing top BCS league schools in games such that the continuity of the season wasn't lost (i.e., you play your first playoff game one or two weeks after you play your last regular season game) and such that those games mean something substantial to the BCS league schools.

With both Boise State's win over Oklahoma a few years back and last night's Utah win, I think it's fair to say that playing a Boise State or a Utah was a letdown for the BCS league school. To the non BCS school, it's their big moment to show they belong.

Don't get me wrong. I think upsets would happen from time to time and there would be occasions upon which top teams from conferences like the SEC would get knocked off. But I don't think it would happen much and I don't think you'd see many if any cases where teams like this year's Utah squad would get beyond the second round. Most of the time I think they'd be one and done. When it's all said and done you'd be seeing all the national titles going to the Big 12, Big 10, SEC, Pac 10, and maybe the ACC unless the Big East suddenly got a lot tougher.

And if I turned out to be wrong about that it'd still be fun.

[Chi Panther]

On the speed thing:

It's hard to find all the 40 times Utah players had as recruits. But I did note that they probably are faster at the tackle positions than teams like LSU and Florida. The reason is that the two guys starting at tackle for them were listed as a defensive end recruit and a linebacker recruit coming out of high school. So it's kind of like having no real defensive tackles and instead having four defensive ends.

So, in comparing that to LSU (for instance), you've got a 240 pound DT who runs 4.6 and a 260 pound DT that runs 4.7 vs. having two guys who go 290 and 300 and run 4.88 and 4.90 (or at least those are the times they were listed as having when they were high school recruits).

However, at linebacker LSU is probably both bigger and faster. I was trying to stay consistent in terms of source by using Rivals recruit 40 times and I could only find that for one of the Utah linebackers. It was that #10 who was causing so many problems for Alabama on the blitz. As a recruit he was listed at 4.7 in the 40. Well, LSU's three starting linebackers as recruits were listed at 4.58, 4.52, and 4.53 in the 40. Also, they're now listed at 237, 240, and 232 while #10 for Utah is listed at 220.

I really don't think Alabama was seeing anything in terms of overall speed and athleticism on defense that it didn't see in the SEC. I think that, on a number of occasions, the Tide faced better athletes on that side of the ball and also more overall defensive speed than they saw last night playing Utah.

And on the offensive side, Utah didn't look fast at all. They looked like they did a good job of confusing Alabama's coverages, especially early on, breaking tackles, and running well between the tackles from that "wild hog" type of formation. But they didn't look like they were running away from anybody or beating angles at all.

Get off your Rivals kick. South Carolina gets great southern recruits with 4 stars....the Univ of Iowa get very average recruiting classes.....Iowa destroyed them.

How did Iowa beat Florida and LSU in those BCS games a couple years back?

I think Utah did a great job of developing their talent.

While I think Rivals is a good indicator, the game still needs to be played.

[813Jag]

And that's the shame with this system. They would have played an easier schedule in either of those leagues too.
I don't think the ACC or Big East are easier. Utah's tough games are BYU and TCU. That's a solid big 3, but the rest leave something to be desired.
Win or lose I'd take a Mountain West schedule than playing Wake, Miami, Clemson, Boston College, Georgia Tech, and Virginia Tech in a row.

[813Jag]

On the speed thing:

It's hard to find all the 40 times Utah players had as recruits. But I did note that they probably are faster at the tackle positions than teams like LSU and Florida. The reason is that the two guys starting at tackle for them were listed as a defensive end recruit and a linebacker recruit coming out of high school. So it's kind of like having no real defensive tackles and instead having four defensive ends.

So, in comparing that to LSU (for instance), you've got a 240 pound DT who runs 4.6 and a 260 pound DT that runs 4.7 vs. having two guys who go 290 and 300 and run 4.88 and 4.90 (or at least those are the times they were listed as having when they were high school recruits).

However, at linebacker LSU is probably both bigger and faster. I was trying to stay consistent in terms of source by using Rivals recruit 40 times and I could only find that for one of the Utah linebackers. It was that #10 who was causing so many problems for Alabama on the blitz. As a recruit he was listed at 4.7 in the 40. Well, LSU's three starting linebackers as recruits were listed at 4.58, 4.52, and 4.53 in the 40. Also, they're now listed at 237, 240, and 232 while #10 for Utah is listed at 220.

I really don't think Alabama was seeing anything in terms of overall speed and athleticism on defense that it didn't see in the SEC. I think that, on a number of occasions, the Tide faced better athletes on that side of the ball and also more overall defensive speed than they saw last night playing Utah.

And on the offensive side, Utah didn't look fast at all. They looked like they did a good job of confusing Alabama's coverages, especially early on, breaking tackles, and running well between the tackles from that "wild hog" type of formation. But they didn't look like they were running away from anybody or beating angles at all.
All of that doesn't change the fact Bama got worked. Their top lineman was out for a selfish reasons.

[JohnStOnge]

What happened with WKU and McNeese??????

So WKU is much better when there is something on the line....

I don't agree with you.xpeacex

I think WKU and McNeese were pretty evenly matched teams and the situation was that McNeese had a good game plan and had some things go its way the first time while WKU had a good game plan and had some things go its way the second time.

WKU only got 10 first downs in that championship game. But they did a good job of getting big plays on some key occasions in which McNeese blitzed. Also, having been burned by B.J. Sams the first time the two played, they went out of their way to keep the ball away from him the second time. I also think McNeese just flat made more mistakes the second time. They had something like 22 first downs and over 400 yards of offense but ended up with only 14 points.

Another factor, though probably not enough to make the difference between winning and losing, is that McNeese played the championship game without the their top running back who was the Southland Conference's offensive player of the year. In fact they had to go through most of the playoffs without him and I do think it hurt their offense a lot in terms of being able to finish off drives and score points.

Anyway, I don't see how you can't see the possibility that Alabama, having had its last game be a loss in a contest to see who was going to play in the BCS championship game, might not have been as "into" preparing for and playing in last night's game as Utah, which one can reasonably say looked at last night's game as a chance to show they "belong," was.

[813Jag]

I think WKU and McNeese were pretty evenly matched teams and the situation was that McNeese had a good game plan and had some things go its way the first time while WKU had a good game plan and had some things go its way the second time.

WKU only got 10 first downs in that championship game. But they did a good job of getting big plays on some key occasions in which McNeese blitzed. Also, having been burned by B.J. Sams the first time the two played, they went out of their way to keep the ball away from him the second time. I also think McNeese just flat made more mistakes the second time. They had something like 22 first downs and over 400 yards of offense but ended up with only 14 points.

Another factor, though probably not enough to make the difference between winning and losing, is that McNeese played the championship game without the their top running back who was the Southland Conference's offensive player of the year. In fact they had to go through most of the playoffs without him and I do think it hurt their offense a lot in terms of being able to finish off drives and score points.

Anyway, I don't see how you can't see the possibility that Alabama, having had its last game be a loss in a contest to see who was going to play in the BCS championship game, might not have been as "into" preparing for and playing in last night's game as Utah, which one can reasonably say looked at last night's game as a chance to show they "belong," was.
I don't buy that excuse. You can use that game as a chance to make you're case that you belong. I don't see the point of working for 20 days to not show up ready to play. Bama looked ready they just got beat plain and simple. No way to spin that.

[JohnStOnge]

All of that doesn't change the fact Bama got worked. Their top lineman was out for a selfish reasons.

Oh yeah, there's obviously no doubt that Utah outplayed Alabama last night. All I'm saying is that I think people are getting carried away when they start saying stuff like Utah has more team speed than Florida does. I wouldn't be surprised to find that Utah does not have a single player that could start for Florida at any position.

[JohnStOnge]

I don't buy that excuse. You can use that game as a chance to make you're case that you belong. I don't see the point of working for 20 days to not show up ready to play. Bama looked ready they just got beat plain and simple. No way to spin that.

I don't see how you can possibly say they looked "ready."

Now, I'm going to ask you some questions:

If Utah played Florida, who would you pick? Which of the two teams do you think has better athletes? Which of the two do you think has more overall team speed?

Followed by same question but substitute Oklahoma, USC, and Texas for Florida.




.

[813Jag]

I don't see how you can possibly say they looked "ready."

Now, I'm going to ask you some questions:

If Utah played Florida, who would you pick? Which of the two teams do you think has better athletes? Which of the two do you think has more overall team speed?

Followed by same question but substitute Oklahoma, USC, and Texas for Florida.




.
You can tell when someone is ready to play by their body language. It shows when you are focused.

Being that I live in Florida and have watched the Gators all year I know they are the better team. In talent and speed. This team is faster than their 06 title team or 96 title team. I think it would take an A+ effort for Utah to beat those teams with help from the other team (turnovers or dumb mistakes)

My only arguement is that Utah was better last night which to me, is the only important arguement. Who knows how many teams they would win in 10 games. I think Utah is a solid team but I don't know if they could play a tough BCS schedule with out tripping up at least once.

[JohnStOnge]

My only arguement is that Utah was better last night which to me, is the only important arguement. Who knows how many teams they would win in 10 games. I think Utah is a solid team but I don't know if they could play a tough BCS schedule with out tripping up at least once.

No doubt they outplayed Alabama last night. But, as I've said many times before, I don't think the best team always wins. I also think it's possible for the best team in a matchup to not only lose, but get thoroughly outplayed in that one game.

One example I always use involves the 1994 San Fransisco 49ers in the NFL. I think it was one of the better NFL teams in history. They went 16-3, averaged 33 points per game, and beat San Diego 49-26 in the Super Bowl. Two of their three losses were by 7 points to Kansas City and by 7 to Minnesota. Both were playoff teams.

But the third loss made no sense at all. They lost by 40-8 to the Philadelphia Eagles, a team that went 7-9, averaged only 19 points per game, and was home for the post season. I watched the game too. On that day, Philadelphia just flat dominated the 49ers.

Now, would anybody say that the 7-9 Eagles of 1994 were better than the 16-3 Super Bowl champion 49ers? I don't think so. But that didn't mean that on one particular day things didn't work out that Philadelphia played better than San Francisco did, had things work better, etc.

I think if you put Utah as that team is constructed against an SEC schedule trying to play week in and week out with stuff like defensive tackles at 240 and 260 pounds you'd be talking about more than one loss for sure. Nothing's impossible but I don't think they could've accomplished what Alabama did over a season.

[813Jag]

No doubt they outplayed Alabama last night. But, as I've said many times before, I don't think the best team always wins. I also think it's possible for the best team in a matchup to not only lose, but get thoroughly outplayed in that one game.

One example I always use involves the 1994 San Fransisco 49ers in the NFL. I think it was one of the better NFL teams in history. They went 16-3, averaged 33 points per game, and beat San Diego 49-26 in the Super Bowl. Two of their three losses were by 7 points to Kansas City and by 7 to Minnesota. Both were playoff teams.

But the third loss made no sense at all. They lost by 40-8 to the Philadelphia Eagles, a team that went 7-9, averaged only 19 points per game, and was home for the post season. I watched the game too. On that day, Philadelphia just flat dominated the 49ers.

Now, would anybody say that the 7-9 Eagles of 1994 were better than the 16-3 Super Bowl champion 49ers? I don't think so. But that didn't mean that on one particular day things didn't work out that Philadelphia played better than San Francisco did, had things work better, etc.

I think if you put Utah as that team is constructed against an SEC schedule trying to play week in and week out with stuff like defensive tackles at 240 and 260 pounds you'd be talking about more than one loss for sure. Nothing's impossible but I don't think they could've accomplished what Alabama did over a season.
Every team is capable of laying an egg from time to time. That's what makes sports great you never know when a team will step up and win.

That's my only focus here, somebody said Utah would have an easier time in the ACC I don't agree with that at all.

[Hansel]

I think if you put Utah as that team is constructed against an SEC schedule trying to play week in and week out with stuff like defensive tackles at 240 and 260 pounds you'd be talking about more than one loss for sure. Nothing's impossible but I don't think they could've accomplished what Alabama did over a season.

Which of the teams that Bama beat do not think Utah could beat?

Wins over teams with winning records final BCS ranking (Bowl Result in parentheses)

Bama
#15 10-3 Georgia
#25 9-4 Ole Miss

8-5 LSU
7-6 Clemson
7-6 Kentucky

Utah
#4 12-2 Alabama
#11 11-2 TCU
#16 10-3 BYU

9-4 Oregon State
8-5 Air Force
7-6 Colorado State


Even before the Sugar Bowl... Utah's resume' was similar to Alabama's sans the SEC name recognition

[wkuhillhound]

Which of the teams that Bama beat do not think Utah could beat?

Wins over teams with winning records final BCS ranking (Bowl Result in parentheses)

Bama
#15 10-3 Georgia
#25 9-4 Ole Miss

8-5 LSU
7-6 Clemson
7-6 Kentucky

Utah
#4 12-2 Alabama
#11 11-2 TCU
#16 10-3 BYU

9-4 Oregon State
8-5 Air Force
7-6 Colorado State


Even before the Sugar Bowl... Utah's resume' was similar to Alabama's sans the SEC name recognition

Excellent point. I didn't realize that Utah played Oregon State. xnodx

[813Jag]

Which of the teams that Bama beat do not think Utah could beat?

Wins over teams with winning records final BCS ranking (Bowl Result in parentheses)

Bama
#15 10-3 Georgia
#25 9-4 Ole Miss

8-5 LSU
7-6 Clemson
7-6 Kentucky

Utah
#4 12-2 Alabama
#11 11-2 TCU
#16 10-3 BYU

9-4 Oregon State
8-5 Air Force
7-6 Colorado State


Even before the Sugar Bowl... Utah's resume' was similar to Alabama's sans the SEC name recognition
Would Utah be able to win at LSU? Who knows? Would they be able to play at the level they did last night for 7 league games (they would beat Mississippi St. for sure) I don't think Air Force or Colorado St are on par with LSU, Clemson, or Kentucky.

[Hansel]

Would Utah be able to win at LSU?

LSU would be probably be disappointed that they were playing Utah and not another BCS team so they would not be "up" for the game - therefore Utah would have a shot.... xlolx


LSU was very up and down this year (weren't they losing to Tulane late in the game)... so who knows.

[wkuhillhound]

Would Utah be able to win at LSU? Who knows? Would they be able to play at the level they did last night for 7 league games (they would beat Mississippi St. for sure) I don't think Air Force or Colorado St are on par with LSU, Clemson, or Kentucky.

That is a huge compliment for a Kentucky fan. Kentucky was routinely 5th or 6th not to long ago. It seems like UK has stepped up their recruiting but the problem is so has everyone else in the SEC. Maybe that's the reason why people perceive SEC is the best conference from top to bottom. Even Vanderbilt won their first bowl game in generationS.

[813Jag]

LSU would be probably be disappointed that they were playing Utah and not another BCS team so they would not be "up" for the game - therefore Utah would have a shot.... xlolx


LSU was very up and down this year (weren't they losing to Tulane late in the game)... so who knows.
you have a good point. xlolx

Troy had LSU on the ropes. It's tough for a team to win there on their first visit. I take nothing away from Utah, it's just tough to project how a team would do playing another team's schedule.

[GannonFan]

If I was an AP voter, I'm putting Utah number 1. The only reason why we'll never find out whether Utah really could win the national title is because of all the institutional roadblocks the BCS conferences have put up to stop them from doing it. Could they win it all? Hard to tell, and it's a shame we'll never get a chance to see it. My theory, keep putting pressure on the BCS conferences to open up access to the championship by allowing some type of playoffs, and when you have a chance to legitimately put a team into the #1 slot, like undefeated Utah, then do it. There's no way you can say for certain how Utah would do against Florida or Oklahoma so when it doubt, I'm going to vote for the Utes.

[JohnStOnge]

Which of the teams that Bama beat do not think Utah could beat?

Even before the Sugar Bowl... Utah's resume' was similar to Alabama's sans the SEC name recognition

I don't think their resume was similar. I think there's a big difference in terms of "physicality" between going through a league like the Mountain West and going through a league like the SEC. It's not a matter of which team teams beat them. It's that they'd have to go through 9 games against SEC teams in 11 weeks to do what Alabama did. They have a small defense made up primarily of athletes that coudn't start for teams like LSU, Auburn, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, or Tennessee. There's a big difference between having a month pointing towards what you look at as the biggest game of the year for your program against an SEC team and having to mix it up with SEC athletes one week then immediately having to get ready to do it again in 6 days most of the time and 13 days at most.

And if you have any doubt that there's a huge difference between the concentration and quality of athletes in the SEC and those of a the Mountain West you need only look at NFL rosters. There is no comparision.

In fact I went ahead and looked it up at http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/college?letter=w . There's an average of 26.2 players per SEC program in the NFL as compared to 9.9 players per program for the Mountain West. Utah is near the top of the Mountain West with 16 players in the NFL. 10 of the 12 SEC programs have more than that. Only Vandy and Kentucky do not. LSU, Georgia, Florida, and Auburn all have more than twice as many.

Yes, I know Utah's numbers on defense were good. But they did it without the athletes that most SEC programs have on that side of the ball and they only had to play 3 BCS league programs all year with five weeks between BCS league opponents 1 and 2 then three months between BCS league opponents 2 and 3.

In the SEC they'd be on the short end of the athletes stick in the majority of their games and I think it'd show up if they had to try to handle those kinds of athletes week after week.

[I Bleed Purple]

I don't think their resume was similar. I think there's a big difference in terms of "physicality" between going through a league like the Mountain West and going through a league like the SEC. It's not a matter of which team teams beat them. It's that they'd have to go through 9 games against SEC teams in 11 weeks to do what Alabama did. They have a small defense made up primarily of athletes that coudn't start for teams like LSU, Auburn, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, or Tennessee. There's a big difference between having a month pointing towards what you look at as the biggest game of the year for your program against an SEC team and having to mix it up with SEC athletes one week then immediately having to get ready to do it again in 6 days most of the time and 13 days at most.

And if you have any doubt that there's a huge difference between the concentration and quality of athletes in the SEC and those of a the Mountain West you need only look at NFL rosters. There is no comparision.

In fact I went ahead and looked it up at http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/college?letter=w . There's an average of 26.2 players per SEC program in the NFL as compared to 9.9 players per program for the Mountain West. Utah is near the top of the Mountain West with 16 players in the NFL. 10 of the 12 SEC programs have more than that. Only Vandy and Kentucky do not. LSU, Georgia, Florida, and Auburn all have more than twice as many.

Yes, I know Utah's numbers on defense were good. But they did it without the athletes that most SEC programs have on that side of the ball and they only had to play 3 BCS league programs all year with five weeks between BCS league opponents 1 and 2 then three months between BCS league opponents 2 and 3.

In the SEC they'd be on the short end of the athletes stick in the majority of their games and I think it'd show up if they had to try to handle those kinds of athletes week after week.

BYU and TCU have athletes that rival most of the SEC schools. Besides, they're not preparing for BCS teams when they're not playing them that week. And with the exception of SDSU, the lower MWC teams weren't horrible.

[dgreco]

The SEC is a good league, but it is not as great as people think. They have a great team (Florida), some good teams (Georgia, Alabama) and some really bad teams (Mississippi St and Tennessee). They beat up on each other just like in basketball.

MWC bottomfeeder Wyoming, beat Tennessee this year.

[Big Al]

If I was an AP voter, I'm putting Utah number 1. The only reason why we'll never find out whether Utah really could win the national title is because of all the institutional roadblocks the BCS conferences have put up to stop them from doing it. Could they win it all? Hard to tell, and it's a shame we'll never get a chance to see it. My theory, keep putting pressure on the BCS conferences to open up access to the championship by allowing some type of playoffs, and when you have a chance to legitimately put a team into the #1 slot, like undefeated Utah, then do it. There's no way you can say for certain how Utah would do against Florida or Oklahoma so when it doubt, I'm going to vote for the Utes.

Sounds good to me!

[seantaylor]

Utah absolutely should be #1. They've beaten better teams than anyone else save for maybe Oklahoma.

[Cleets]

Utah would get my #1 vote, if I had one...they were the only unbeaten team defeating Michigan, Oregon State, TCU, BYU and Alabama in the process...not the most difficult schedule in the country by a long shot - and maybe not the most impressive collection of wins - but that's as good a resume as Ohio State had in '08, and they played for the NC...who knows how Utah would fare against an Oklahoma, Florida or Texas, but at least they navigated their season unbeaten and I'm of the opinion they should be rewarded...that doesn't mean I think they're the best team, but they took on all comers and walked away unscathed...no one else can make that claim in '08.

Wow..!!!
How many top 20 teams are you supposed to play in one season..? xlolx
you can't play them all...

[JohnStOnge]

BYU and TCU have athletes that rival most of the SEC schools. Besides, they're not preparing for BCS teams when they're not playing them that week. And with the exception of SDSU, the lower MWC teams weren't horrible.

I don't know what you mean by "rival most SEC schools" but, over time, I don't think they have the athletes SEC schools. I counted 14 BYU players and 12 TCU players on NFL rosters. Kentucky has 10 and Vandy has 13. Besides those two, no SEC school has fewer than 17. I think it's reasonable to say when you say they rival "most" they rival more than half. The top 7 SEC schools in NFL player production are Georgia at 42, LSU at 41, Tennessee at 37, Florida at 36, Auburn at 35, Alabama at 24. So the lowest production among the top half of SEC schools is twice that of TCU and over 70% higher than BYU's. In my opinion the TCU and BYU talent levels have not rivaled most SEC schools.

What I'm talking about with respect to playing every week against athletes like the SEC is the grind and having to be both physically and mentally prepared for that level of competition week in and week out. Mentally, I think a team like Utah has the advantage when it plays a BCS league school because it's always a big game for them. They only do it a few times per year. Physically, what I'm talking about is trying to go out and play the talent level the SEC has week after week with, for instance, a defensive line that averages 256 pounds per man.

I look at East Carolina as an example of a non BCS that started out great against two good BCS league teams but played too many over too short a time frame. And I do not think it likely that Utah could've played Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, LSU, Mississippi State and Auburn in rapid succession over 9 weeks and gone undefeated. We'll never know because it didn't happen. But I don't think it likely at all. I think it would've been impossible for them to maintain the kind of "high" they probably had in each of their three games against BCS league opponents week in week out during a stretch like that and I also think they'd have gotten pretty beaten up physically by playing week in and week out against SEC teams.

[JohnStOnge]

I actually went to http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/college.php?DSTeamId=82&sortorder=tsxpos&order=ASC to get estimated 40 times for Florida and Utah players listed as starters on depth charts you can get at yahoo sports. I must say that Utah is faster than what I thought they were on defense but Florida is clearly the faster team overall.

There were 10 comparisons available. I'd say Utah had faster 40 yard times listed for 6 of the positions while Florida had faster times listed for 4. Utah was faster at the four D line positions and at cornerback. Florida was faster at the two linebacker positions for which times were available and at safety. The differences were not large either way at safety and corner. Florida is listed at 4.51 and 4.53 at safety while Utah is listed at 4.52 and 4.57. Utah is 4.43 and 4.54 at corner while Florida is 4.46 and 4.58.

On offense, Florida is faster at 7 of the 9 positions for which comparisons are available. As expected, the big advantage for Florida is at the skill positions. At quarterback it's 4.58 vs. 4.87. At running back it's 4.32 vs. 4.67. Florida's three wideouts are 4.36, 4.36, and 4.38. The two available Utah wideout times are 4.54 and 4.63. Tight end is not available for Utah but Florida's is 4.62, which is a slightly faster time than one of Utah's wideouts.

Utah is faster in the defensive line, apparently because they sacrificed size for a little bit more speed. As I said in a previous post they average 255 on the defensive line of scrimmage. Otherwise the defenses appear to be about the same speed wise with Florida maybe having a bit of an advantage at linebacker. On offense the only positions at which Utah players have faster estimated 40 times are center and one guard. Again, Florida is WAY faster at the skill positions.

[JohnStOnge]

Oh...and if you go by those 40 times at the site I linked it looks like Alabama...at least as Alabama was before their offensive line got depleted...had more overall team speed than Utah.

It's the same basic thing. Utah has more speed on the defensive line because they're playing defensive end/linebacker types all across the front. Alabama plays a three four and all three of their defensive linemen are defensive tackle types. Bama's front three averages over 300 pounds per man while, as noted earlier, Utah's front four averages about 255 (something like that).

At linebacker it's hard to tell because I can't get the time for one of Utah's guys. The two I have are 4.66 and 4.76. Bama's four linebackers are 4.68, 4.73, 4.74, and 4.88. Alabama, at least according to the 40 times estimated, is a little faster overall in the secondary (4.46, 4.49, 4.50, 4.57 vs. 4.43, 4.52, 4.54, 4.57). But that's so close I think you can basically say even.

On offense, as was the case with Florida, Alabama was clearly faster than Utah. The offensive line was...at least as it was constituted during the season...faster. And the skill positions were all faster too. I only have two Utah starting wideout times and they're 4.54 and 4.63. Alabama's three wideouts are listed at 4.49, 4.43, and 4.53. At running back it's 4.53 vs. 4.67.

I'll admit that in looking at this I was surprised at how fast the Utah defense is. I do think that if you took the average 40 time of Utah's defense it would be faster than that of any SEC defense; mainly because they're playing with four defensive end and maybe even linebacker types in some cases (one of their tackles is 245) on the defensive line and their speed at linebacker and in the defensive backfield is comparable to that characterizing SEC teams.

However, I don't think the statement that Utah was "faster" than Alabama was correct. I think that if you'd have taken all the starters, lined them up against their counterparts on the other side, and had them run 40 yard sprint races Alabama's players would've won the majority of the matchups. That's because Utah is, at least as compared to teams in the SEC, downright slow on the offensive side of the ball.

[Cocky]

Utah was faster on the football field while Florida and UAT may win at the spring track meet.

[JohnStOnge]

Utah absolutely should be #1. They've beaten better teams than anyone else save for maybe Oklahoma.

Two things about that. First is that you have to look at things as of the end of the conference championship games. And at the end of the conference championship games, Oklahoma's schedule was rated 8th by Sagarin's, Florida's was rated 19th, and Utah's was rated 70th . It wasn't just the polls that recognized that Utah hadn't had one of the two best performances at that point. It was the power rating systems too.

Second, it's not going to be true that they will have beaten "better teams than anyone else" aside from Oklahoma by the time the season's open by any reasonable person's reckoning. For sure, either Oklahoma or Florida is going to win the game between the two. If Oklahoma wins, the Sooners will have beaten Florida, Texas, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech among others. If Florida wins, the Gators will have beaten Oklahoma, Alabama, and Georgia.

I have a prediction. The overwhelming majority of objective power rating systems are not going to have Utah rated at #1 when it's all said and done and I think the chances are better than even that none of them will. I expect that Oklahoma, Florida, Texas, and USC at the least will be rated higher than them by most systems and that's the way it should come out because even with Florida or Oklahoma losing and even if Texas loses to Ohio State their overall performances given schedule difficulty will be more impressive than Utah's undefeated season against a weaker than average schedule will be.

Again, I wish there was a playoff so we didn't have to hear this kind of stuff about teams like Utah as they'd get smacked and that'd be the end of it.

[Cocky]

No, what should happen is teams like UAT, Okla, Texas, and others should schedule home and homes with these type teams.

[813Jag]

No, what should happen is teams like UAT, Okla, Texas, and others should schedule home and homes with these type teams.
Only my opinion but you have to earn home and homes by playing at a high level for a long period of time. Those schools don't want home and homes with each other.

I know people are upset but it's going to take a SEC or Big 12 team getting left out (I.E. Auburn in '04) for the system to change.

[Hansel]

Only my opinion but you have to earn home and homes by playing at a high level for a long period of time. Those schools don't want home and homes with each other.


Texas is doing a 2 for 1 with Wyoming- of course Wyo has no chance of beating the Longhorns- I don't think Texas would head to Salt Lake. Most(all?) of Pac-10 schools minus USC have done home/homes with Mountain West teams

[wkuhillhound]

Only my opinion but you have to earn home and homes by playing at a high level for a long period of time. Those schools don't want home and homes with each other.

I know people are upset but it's going to take a SEC or Big 12 team getting left out (I.E. Auburn in '04) for the system to change.

Forgive me for my brashness. Am I supposed to be crying a river? Poor Auburn, yeah right. Poor Penn State, USC for being losers and playing in the Rose Bowl. xrolleyesx

[semobison]

I cant believe we have people comparing 40 times, and then telling us how Utah would fare against the SEC. The fact is, they are 13-0, beat Alabama handily, and are screwed because of a lousy system! Could they have won the championship if there was a playoff system? It would have been great to find out!

[813Jag]

Forgive me for my brashness. Am I supposed to be crying a river? Poor Auburn, yeah right. Poor Penn State, USC for being losers and playing in the Rose Bowl. xrolleyesx
I don't think so, I don't shed a tear for any team that misses out on the BCS. I don't argue about a playoff or any thing. I could care less if Utah, Boise St., etc play for a BCS title. My statement was for people who think the system will change because Utah finished 13-0. People were mad when FSU made it one year they shouldn't have. Oklahoma dealt with them and that was that. So in short I don't expect anything from you or anyone else. Just stating my opinion as so many pro Utah people have.

[wkuhillhound]

I don't think so, I don't shed a tear for any team that misses out on the BCS. I don't argue about a playoff or any thing. I could care less if Utah, Boise St., etc play for a BCS title. My statement was for people who think the system will change because Utah finished 13-0. People were mad when FSU made it one year they shouldn't have. Oklahoma dealt with them and that was that. So in short I don't expect anything from you or anyone else. Just stating my opinion as so many pro Utah people have.

I know that it won't change the because rules says so. I just hate the fact that the BCS believes in a monopoly for the Big 6 and screw the rest.

This is why I prefer college basketball, over 90% of the college teams has a chance at a national championship. Unless a conference has a limited number teams that make the postseason.

I wasn't in a great mood today because of this stupid weather and I never gotten a chance to exercise today. Who knew that exercising can bring me more peace? xlolx xpeacex

[JohnStOnge]

I cant believe we have people comparing 40 times, and then telling us how Utah would fare against the SEC. The fact is, they are 13-0, beat Alabama handily, and are screwed because of a lousy system! Could they have won the championship if there was a playoff system? It would have been great to find out!

I agree about a playoff system. But I can't believe you people can't see the difference between playing week in and week out in the SEC and playing three games over several months against BCS league schools and winning a game that was the most important of the season for you while it was a disappointment for the team you were playing. Plus they were playing a team that had its offensive line totally disrupted for most of the game.

The only reason I compared 40 times is because we had people saying Utah was faster than Alabama and also had somebody say they were faster than Florida. They're not. They're faster than I expected on defense but they're, as I said, downright slow on offense.

[JohnStOnge]

I just hate the fact that the BCS believes in a monopoly for the Big 6 and screw the rest.

I don't like the BCS either but there's no way any system reasonably designed to pick the two teams with the most impressive performances over a season would've picked Utah to be one of those two teams. I think you can get a hint of that by looking at this:

http://www.mratings.com/cf/compare.htm

Most of the systems involved in creating a situation where Utah was, on average, rated 8th don't "care" about whether or not you're in a "Big 6" conference per se.

There's just no way. Given the system, it would've been an outrage to put a team that went undefeated against the schedule Utah played and had the performance Utah had against that schedule into the championship game.

If I had my way there would be a playoff where every FBS conference champion...even that of the Sun Belt...would be in. But that's not the system.

[JohnStOnge]

Utah was faster on the football field while Florida and UAT may win at the spring track meet.

Seriously. I cannot believe you've watched Florida play this year and think Utah was faster on the football field. You need to visualize in your mind what Percy Harvin and Jeffery Demps look like when they're moving and compare that image to what you saw from Utah's skill people. The only place Utah is clearly faster is at defensive tackle and that's because they're playing defensive end and/or linebacker types at those positions (guys weighing 245 and 260 pounds). Meanwhile all four of Florida's starting backs/receivers group run sub 4.4 and nobody in that group of starters for Utah even makes 4.5. No way Utah has as much overall team speed as Florida does. On the defensive side of the ball it's close and Utah may actually have a slight edge (which is saying something for Utah). But on the offensive side of the ball Florida is at a totally different level. Plus on the defensive side Florida has a much more imposing set of athletes overall. As I said earlier, I wouldn't be surprised to find that there's not a single guy on Utah's team that could start for the Gators.

[wkuhillhound]

I don't like the BCS either but there's no way any system reasonably designed to pick the two teams with the most impressive performances over a season would've picked Utah to be one of those two teams. I think you can get a hint of that by looking at this:

http://www.mratings.com/cf/compare.htm

Most of the systems involved in creating a situation where Utah was, on average, rated 8th don't "care" about whether or not you're in a "Big 6" conference per se.

There's just no way. Given the system, it would've been an outrage to put a team that went undefeated against the schedule Utah played and had the performance Utah had against that schedule into the championship game.

If I had my way there would be a playoff where every FBS conference champion...even that of the Sun Belt...would be in. But that's not the system.

If a playoff was instituted it wouldn't matter what schedule Utah had and by the way they beat 4 Top 25 teams this year including Alabama (Oregon State, TCU, and BYU are the other 3 teams). So to say that Utah had a weak schedule is way off.

If the FCS had a system similar to FBS. The 2008 national champions wouldn't have been Richmond. A computer system would never have picked Richmond to be a Top 2 team, not even Sagarin had that one right. That's what I missed most about FCS, Division II, Division III, and NAIA. They have already settled their national champion, while the FBS still is arguing over who deserve to be in the game. All of this could have already been decided. xnodx

[813Jag]

I know that it won't change the because rules says so. I just hate the fact that the BCS believes in a monopoly for the Big 6 and screw the rest.

This is why I prefer college basketball, over 90% of the college teams has a chance at a national championship. Unless a conference has a limited number teams that make the postseason.

I wasn't in a great mood today because of this stupid weather and I never gotten a chance to exercise today. Who knew that exercising can bring me more peace? xlolx xpeacex
the system is what it is. It's bad, but no where near as bad as it used to be with the polls and split titles. College basketball is good, but how many of those teams realistically have a shot at a title? I love when Southern makes the dance but I know the odds are huge for them to be successful.

[wkuhillhound]

the system is what it is. It's bad, but no where near as bad as it used to be with the polls and split titles. College basketball is good, but how many of those teams realistically have a shot at a title? I love when Southern makes the dance but I know the odds are huge for them to be successful.

At least there is an appearance. Who thought that WKU would make the Sweet Sixteen last year? I didn't, I had them losing to UConn in the 2nd round. So anything is possible.

Utah can't even appear despite an undefeated season.

[813Jag]

If a playoff was instituted it wouldn't matter what schedule Utah had and by the way they beat 4 Top 25 teams this year including Alabama (Oregon State, TCU, and BYU are the other 3 teams). So to say that Utah had a weak schedule is way off.

If the FCS had a system similar to FBS. The 2008 national champions wouldn't have been Richmond. A computer system would never have picked Richmond to be a Top 2 team, not even Sagarin had that one right. That's what I missed most about FCS, Division II, Division III, and NAIA. They have already settled their national champion, while the FBS still is arguing over who deserve to be in the game. All of this could have already been decided. xnodx
I don't think Utah's schedule was weak, they did the only thing they could do and that's win all of your games. My only issue is people thinking because Utah is a very good team that the MWC is all of a sudden on par with the SEC. Utah beating Bama does not mean the rest of the MWC could do it. Utah had a good matchup against Bama and they worked them.

And people need to make up their minds about Oregon St. in this thread people are saying they're good to boost Utah. In the Penn St. thread they're talking down about them to make USC look bad for losing to them. Arguements like these make it hard to follow bowl games.

[wkuhillhound]

I don't think Utah's schedule was weak, they did the only thing they could do and that's win all of your games. My only issue is people thinking because Utah is a very good team that the MWC is all of a sudden on par with the SEC. Utah beating Bama does not mean the rest of the MWC could do it. Utah had a good matchup against Bama and they worked them.

And people need to make up their minds about Oregon St. in this thread people are saying they're good to boost Utah. In the Penn St. thread they're talking down about them to make USC look bad for losing to them. Arguements like these make it hard to follow bowl games.

Wyoming did beat Tennessee in Knoxville. You have to admit that was off-the-wall.

Oregon State is a very good team to me. Their future is great with the Rodgers brothers, the Penn State loss was aberration. They were off that day. USC has dominated the Pac-10 for so long, that loss to Oregon State is bigger than life in the conference. It wouldn't have matter if it was Arizona or Washington State any loss by USC to a Pac-10 would have been a black eye for them.

[813Jag]

Wyoming did beat Tennessee in Knoxville. You have to admit that was off-the-wall.

Oregon State is a very good team to me. Their future is great with the Rodgers brothers, the Penn State loss was aberration. They were off that day. USC has dominated the Pac-10 for so long, that loss to Oregon State is bigger than life in the conference. It wouldn't have matter if it was Arizona or Washington State any loss by USC to a Pac-10 would have been a black eye for them.
that loss was no where near as bad as Stanford last year. USC has been known to lose a Pac 10 game. Personally I think Oregon State was good, they had a shot to win the Pac 10 at the end of the season.

Wyoming beating Tennessee was a surprise but you have to admit Tennessee wasn't very good this year. Here's another example a bad UAB team went into Tiger Stadium and beat LSU on homecoming. Does that mean CUSA is better than the SEC? I don't think so.

[JohnStOnge]

If a playoff was instituted it wouldn't matter what schedule Utah had and by the way they beat 4 Top 25 teams this year including Alabama (Oregon State, TCU, and BYU are the other 3 teams). So to say that Utah had a weak schedule is way off.

If the FCS had a system similar to FBS. The 2008 national champions wouldn't have been Richmond. A computer system would never have picked Richmond to be a Top 2 team, not even Sagarin had that one right. That's what I missed most about FCS, Division II, Division III, and NAIA. They have already settled their national champion, while the FBS still is arguing over who deserve to be in the game. All of this could have already been decided. xnodx

I agree with everything you say except the statement about Utah not playing a relatively weak schedule. It looks like, by the time it's all said and done, they will have played at least three teams that finish in the top 25 (BYU might not, they were rated 17th before losing their bowl so it'll be close). But a schedule consists of 12 games and their overall schedule strength as of the end of the regular season was weaker than average.

Go to that link I posted above. It has 112 rating systems. 106 of them do not put Utah in the top 2. Three of them or polls so you can take that out and say that among objective power rating systems 103 of 109, or 94%, did not have Utah in the top 2 at the end of the season. All of those systems are taking who teams beat and who they played into account.

Even if you take the NCAA schedule strength thing that really isn't the best because it just looks at won/loss records of opposition, Utah's schedule was much weaker than Oklahoma's or Florida's (http://web1.ncaa.org/mfb/2008/Internet/toughest%20schedule/fbs_9games_cumm.pdf ). Note too that Utah's strength of schedule on that list includes consideration of having beaten Alabama. It wouldn't have at the end of the regular season.

[Reign of Terrier]

This game proved that Boise state and TCU had at least a shot at a BCS bowl game. Think about it--TCU beats Boise by 1 and loses to Utah by 3 (and really could have won). The only outside loss is TCU losing to Oklahoma 35-10 (TCU turned the ball over 5 times in that game.

By the way the defense that held 'Bama to 10 offensive points looks to be coming back next year (losing only one senior) They lose most of their offense but Utah could still win the MWC next year.

[JayJ79]

This is why I prefer college basketball, over 90% of the college teams has a chance at a national championship. Unless a conference has a limited number teams that make the postseason.

what are the 10% of division 1 teams that don't have a chance?

[813Jag]

This game proved that Boise state and TCU had at least a shot at a BCS bowl game. Think about it--TCU beats Boise by 1 and loses to Utah by 3 (and really could have won). The only outside loss is TCU losing to Oklahoma 35-10 (TCU turned the ball over 5 times in that game.

By the way the defense that held 'Bama to 10 offensive points looks to be coming back next year (losing only one senior) They lose most of their offense but Utah could still win the MWC next year.
5 turnovers or not TCU's style of play is bad against Oklahoma. TCU's defense kept that game from being worse. Using turnover logic Boise St. had costly turnovers against TCU, so they should have won. Of course both had a shot, but TCU with two losses deserves to be in over which at large team? You'd have the same arguement if there was a playoff. Who would you leave out to let them in. No matter what someone would be upset. There's a playoff in FCS, does everybody get in who deserves to? some people here look at the OVC and MEAC the same way the BCS schools look at non BCS schools. Seems kind of hypocritical to me.

Utah was a bad matchup for Bama. I think TCU would have been a better matchup for them.

[Big Al]

Even if you take the NCAA schedule strength thing that really isn't the best because it just looks at won/loss records of opposition, Utah's schedule was much weaker than Oklahoma's or Florida's (http://web1.ncaa.org/mfb/2008/Internet/toughest%20schedule/fbs_9games_cumm.pdf ). Note too that Utah's strength of schedule on that list includes consideration of having beaten Alabama. It wouldn't have at the end of the regular season.

John, normally I think you're a pretty clear thinker but it seems to me you're twisting yourself in knots trying to justify Alabama's loss and minimize how capable Utah is of beating Oklahoma, Florida or Texas. Like WKUhillhound stated earlier, Utah is similar to Richmond in that nobody really considered them championship material (which isn't to say people didn't think they were good) until they went to the playoffs and ran the table. I am perfectly willing to take Utah against any other BCS team in the country because they've proven the only way to win games is to play 'em and not rely on conference pedigrees or 40 yard dash times to determine a winner.

[wkuhillhound]

what are the 10% of division 1 teams that don't have a chance?

Most of the independents and teams in conferences that have limited tournament spots. For example, the Big Sky only invites 6 teams out of 9. The Northeast Conference invites 8 out of the 11. The SWAC invites 8 out of 10. There are probably a couple of other conference, but those are the ones that I think of on top of my head.

[wkuhillhound]

I agree with everything you say except the statement about Utah not playing a relatively weak schedule. It looks like, by the time it's all said and done, they will have played at least three teams that finish in the top 25 (BYU might not, they were rated 17th before losing their bowl so it'll be close). But a schedule consists of 12 games and their overall schedule strength as of the end of the regular season was weaker than average.

Go to that link I posted above. It has 112 rating systems. 106 of them do not put Utah in the top 2. Three of them or polls so you can take that out and say that among objective power rating systems 103 of 109, or 94%, did not have Utah in the top 2 at the end of the season. All of those systems are taking who teams beat and who they played into account.

Even if you take the NCAA schedule strength thing that really isn't the best because it just looks at won/loss records of opposition, Utah's schedule was much weaker than Oklahoma's or Florida's (http://web1.ncaa.org/mfb/2008/Internet/toughest%20schedule/fbs_9games_cumm.pdf ). Note too that Utah's strength of schedule on that list includes consideration of having beaten Alabama. It wouldn't have at the end of the regular season.

That may be so, but Utah's schedule was still above .500 winning percentage any way you look at it. According to the website they were at 31. I wish it would have included WKU but I understand why it didn't. WKU's schedule was brutal with UK, Virginia Tech, Troy, Alabama, EKU, Ball State, and Florida Atlantic all made either the playoffs or a post season bowl their record combined post season record is (3 - 3) so far with Ball State yet to play.

If FBS implemented a playoff it will pay much more dividends than the bowl system. Since Utah has a chance of winning a national championship with a playoff this will never be implemented in the near future. It is a travesty. The FBS will always be the joke of the NCAA unless the BCS is eliminated completely, no more tweaking, it only makes it worse.

[wkuhillhound]

that loss was no where near as bad as Stanford last year. USC has been known to lose a Pac 10 game. Personally I think Oregon State was good, they had a shot to win the Pac 10 at the end of the season.

Wyoming beating Tennessee was a surprise but you have to admit Tennessee wasn't very good this year. Here's another example a bad UAB team went into Tiger Stadium and beat LSU on homecoming. Does that mean CUSA is better than the SEC? I don't think so.

Tennessee wasn't very good this year and this was probably UK's best chance of beating them and still lost. Part of the reason why they was clearly UT adrenaline for the coach's last game. If it was normal circumstances it would have been much different in my view.

[seantaylor]

SEC fans are the most delusional in all of sports. And they are the only fans that pull for their hated rivals on a constant basis. You will never hear a Michigan fan say, "man I wish OSU would win today so I can live vicariously through them." SEC fans do this and it boggles my mind. I would root for the Iraqi National Team over Furman or Appy.

[813Jag]

SEC fans are the most delusional in all of sports. And they are the only fans that pull for their hated rivals on a constant basis. You will never hear a Michigan fan say, "man I wish OSU would win today so I can live vicariously through them." SEC fans do this and it boggles my mind. I would root for the Iraqi National Team over Furman or Appy.
I agree with this statement, I could care less if a SWAC or ACC team wins if it's not my own. Especially my rivals, they could all go 0-11 for all I care.

[Big Al]

That may be so, but Utah's schedule was still above .500 winning percentage any way you look at it.

Did you see where Alabama was ranked? 38th! Getting beat by Utah actually helped their strength of schedule!

[813Jag]

Did you see where Alabama was ranked? 38th! Getting beat by Utah actually helped their strength of schedule!
Utah's nonconference schedule was much tougher than Alabama's. Although that's no surprise. And it will probably always be that way.

[89Hen]

Like WKUhillhound stated earlier, Utah is similar to Richmond in that nobody really considered them championship material (which isn't to say people didn't think they were good) until they went to the playoffs and ran the table.
I missed Hound's comment, but this is spot on. Richmond would not have been in the I-A NC game as it stands now. They most definitely wouldn't have been in a four team playoff and they most likely wouldn't have even been in an eight team field. xeekx

[andy7171]

I saw the last quarter of this game, did anyone else think the refs went flag happy on Utah?

[Big Al]

I saw the last quarter of this game, did anyone else think the refs went flag happy on Utah?

I thought a couple of them were questionable, but overall Utah had fewer dumb penalties than normal. That excessive celebration call was a complete crock, however.

[wkuhillhound]

I missed Hound's comment, but this is spot on. Richmond would not have been in the I-A NC game as it stands now. They most definitely wouldn't have been in a four team playoff and they most likely wouldn't have even been in an eight team field. xeekx

#83 was my comment he was referring to. xnodx

[Big Al]

I missed Hound's comment, but this is spot on. Richmond would not have been in the I-A NC game as it stands now. They most definitely wouldn't have been in a four team playoff and they most likely wouldn't have even been in an eight team field. xeekx

This actually leads me to another thought:

In no way do I mean this to question the validity of the Spider's NC, but why do they suddenly end up on top of the Massey & Harris polls when they never occupied that spot through the course of the season? It seems like they're trying to make their models justify reality after the fact.

[bluehenbillk]

Loved the bowl season, another shot to the BCS. Who's to say Utah & USC aren't the 2 best teams in the land???

[89Hen]

why do they suddenly end up on top of the Massey & Harris polls when they never occupied that spot through the course of the season? It seems like they're trying to make their models justify reality after the fact.
Thanks to beating four ranked teams over four weeks. xpeacex

[GannonFan]

Loved the bowl season, another shot to the BCS. Who's to say Utah & USC aren't the 2 best teams in the land???

Yup, only a playoff system could answer that question and we don't have it so it will be left unproven. Darn BCS. xnonono2x

[Big Al]

Thanks to beating four ranked teams over four weeks. xpeacex

Like I said, I don't mean to diminish their NC at all but the polls seem to lack consistency. First they're low, and then they're #1. Plus, their 1 point victory over UNI means the Panthers end up something like 7th in one poll (behind UNH) and 4th in the other.

I guess my beef with the polls and power rankings is they don't do all the teams justice by simply ordering from 1-25. Reality is being ranked number one is more like "firstish" and 2-5 can be rearranged about 12 different ways and be justified each time.

Edit: In a true playoff, at least there is no question about #1 & #2. From there, I think it's most accurate to say "these 2 teams lost in the semis, these 4 teams lost in the quarters, etc." You can reasonably project a range for where a team stands, but that's about it.

[89Hen]

Like I said, I don't mean to diminish their NC at all but the polls seem to lack consistency. First they're low, and then they're #1. Plus, their 1 point victory over UNI means the Panthers end up something like 7th in one poll (behind UNH) and 4th in the other.

I guess my beef with the polls and power rankings is they don't do all the teams justice by simply ordering from 1-25. Reality is being ranked number one is more like "firstish" and 2-5 can be rearranged about 12 different ways and be justified each time.

Edit: In a true playoff, at least there is no question about #1 & #2. From there, I think it's most accurate to say "these 2 teams lost in the semis, these 4 teams lost in the quarters, etc." You can reasonably project a range for where a team stands, but that's about it.
I agree and I honestly don't see any value in polls after the playoffs. Maybe that's why I didn't vote in the final polls this year. :)

[NDB]

man this bcs thing is crazy.

has any body ever thought about getting rid of it and going to a playoff system?

that would make good discussion for a radio/tv sports show.

[Cobblestone]

man this bcs thing is crazy.

has any body ever thought about getting rid of it and going to a playoff system?
that would make good discussion for a radio/tv sports show.

He agrees...

http://perrylogan.org/images/obama_smoking.png