Sugar Bowl

[Orioles West]

Good post. And just to add: Maybe Utah's schedule wasn't quite as difficult as Florida or Oklahoma, but they did still play 6 bowl eligible teams and beat 3 ranked teams and manhandled a #4 Alabama team that was #1 for a very large part of the season. And Utah was the only team to go through their schedule undefeated.

Excellent points. I'd love to see a playoff, as I think games like this show that just because a team doesn't catch the media's eye, doesn't mean they don't have the talent to play against anyone in the country. Boise State's win over Oklahoma was another one of those games a couple years back. Lesser known doesn't always mean a lesser team, especially in modern college football.

-Don

[Pedro Cerrano]

I'd be right pissed if I was a Utah fan. This is similar to the Auburn situation a few years ago where they were undefeated but two other teams were also.

[RShack]

Agree that it's got to be tough for them to schedule a top team.

Even so, it's not like they scheduled wimps.

They spent one OOC game on Weber State because it's an in-state thing.

The other 2 they spent on Oregon St (who beat USC) and Michigan.

When they scheduled this a few years ago, nobody knew that Michigan was gonna suck this year.

They can't single-handedly upgrade their conference. So, what else could they do?

[Birds of B'more]

Even so, it's not like they scheduled wimps.

They spent one OOC game on Weber State because it's an in-state thing.

The other 2 they spent on Oregon St (who beat USC) and Michigan.

When they scheduled this a few years ago, nobody knew that Michigan was gonna suck this year.

They can't single-handedly upgrade their conference. So, what else could they do?

And while the Mountain West wasn't great overall they were, by far, the best of the non-BCS conferences. And Utah did beat the two other 10-win teams in their conference, plus a decent Air Force team. Does it compare to the week-to-week challenges of the SEC? Of course not. But to get through that schedule unblemished and to convincingly beat the second best team the SEC had to offer is enough for me to believe that they certainly deserved a chance. Sadly they will have to take their spot with USC and (maybe) Texas as 2008's teams that deserved a shot and never got one.

[waroriole]

I'd be right pissed if I was a Utah fan. This is similar to the Auburn situation a few years ago where they were undefeated but two other teams were also.

Utah was also unbeaten that year. That year would have been a perfect situation for a 4 team playoff.

[waroriole]

And while the Mountain West wasn't great overall they were' date=' by far, the best of the non-BCS conferences. And Utah did beat the two other 10-win teams in their conference, plus a decent Air Force team. Does it compare to the week-to-week challenges of the SEC? Of course not. But to get through that schedule unblemished and to convincingly beat the second best team the SEC had to offer is enough for me to believe that they certainly deserved a chance. [b']Sadly they will have to take their spot with USC and (maybe) Texas as 2008's teams that deserved a shot and never got one[/b].

The difference between Utah and those schools is that Texas and USC had their shots. USC lost to Oregon State and Texas lost to Texas Tech. Utah didn't lose. They are the only unbeaten team in the country.

BTW, the guy who said that Utah isn't as good as Ole Miss needs to wake up. Utah beat Alabama and showed they were a better team. Bama beat Ole Miss and finished well ahead of them in the SEC West. Utah showed that they are every bit as good as anyone in the country.

[Pedro Cerrano]

The difference between Utah and those schools is that Texas and USC had their shots. USC lost to Oregon State and Texas lost to Texas Tech. Utah didn't lose. They are the only unbeaten team in the country.

BTW, the guy who said that Utah isn't as good as Ole Miss needs to wake up. Utah beat Alabama and showed they were a better team. Bama beat Ole Miss and finished well ahead of them in the SEC West. Utah showed that they are every bit as good as anyone in the country.

This is circular logic. Florida lost to Ole Miss but beat Alabama. Is Utah better than Florida?

You can't really say, which is why we need a playoff...badly.

[waroriole]

This is circular logic. Florida lost to Ole Miss but beat Alabama. Is Utah better than Florida?

You can't really say, which is why we need a playoff...badly.

True, point taken. However, I still say it's absurd to suggest that Ole Miss was better than Utah.

[mrbig1]

Oklahoma or Florida may win in the polls but Utah won it on the field. IMO Utah is the national champions.

[Bosibus]

Oklahoma or Florida may win in the polls but Utah won it on the field. IMO Utah is the national champions.

They should just start printing themselves their own T-shirts proclaiming National Champions. Let Texas do it too. Now everyone is National Champions. What is the BCS going to do?

[Birds of B'more]

This is circular logic. Florida lost to Ole Miss but beat Alabama. Is Utah better than Florida?

You can't really say, which is why we need a playoff...badly.

Using March Madness as the example, the best team does not always win the title. See NCSt in 1983 and Villanova in 1985. Nor was George Mason one of the 4 best teams in 2006. But that just makes it more fun to me. It's not always who is the best team, but who happens to play the best at the right time.

[ledzepp8]

Using March Madness as the example' date=' the best team does not always win the title. See NCSt in 1983 and Villanova in 1985. Nor was George Mason one of the 4 best teams in 2006. But that just makes it more fun to me. It's not always who is the best team, but who happens to play the best at the right time.[/quote']

The point of playoffs isn't to crown the "best" team as champion, it's to give each deserving team an equal shot at being champion. The BCS is sportswriters and TV people choosing who they want to play for a mythical national championship. It's bull****.

[Pedro Cerrano]

The problem is two-fold:

1) ESPN just signed a contract to keep the BCS around.

2) The big-time schools keep making gobs and gobs of money playing in these essentially meaningless bowl games (I don't care how entertaining they are, they are absolutely meaningless in terms of deciding the national champion).

Because of that, this joke of a system will be around for a while.

[mweb]

The problem is two-fold:

1) ESPN just signed a contract to keep the BCS around.

2) The big-time schools keep making gobs and gobs of money playing in these essentially meaningless bowl games (I don't care how entertaining they are, they are absolutely meaningless in terms of deciding the national champion).

Because of that, this joke of a system will be around for a while.

I would argue that they would make even more if those bowls games meant something, tv ratings would certainly be higher.

A 6 team playoff would allow all 5 BCS bowl games to still occur, and to matter even more. Plus, it would keep some of the importance of finishing 1st or 2nd because those teams would get a bye. There would still be plenty of debate about that and who gets the last couple spots or so.

[Pedro Cerrano]

So basically, one national semi-final is played in Los Angeles as the "Rose Bowl?"

And it just rotates? I still think the bowl games would not be as big a cash cow. Right now the team that wins the bowl game I have to think would earn more money than if they finished in like 4th place overall.