National championship decided?

[Beta84]

Would you get off the Weber State crap...Utah did play in a bowl and beat a former #1, quite convincingly. The BCS is what it is(a sham), but they are not all inclusive of all D1 teams, Utah is a D1 team, they weren't beat so they are the #1 team. Until the fans start putting pressure on the NCAA, they will always be this argument. From the strength of schedule argument, you can go down the list of D1 teams at the beginning of the year and eliminate 50% of them based on their schedule alone, no matter what their record is at the end of the year. It's a sham set up for the big money conferences.

That said, yes, UF won the BCS championship, and you really don't need to go into all the reasons why, I know them. duh...

Tell you what, you can have the BCS Championship...Utah won the NCAA D1 championship, hows that??

Former #1? UF beat UGA (preseason #1), Bama (former #1...and did it without Harvin and Rainey, while Bama had their #1 star left tackle instead of their 3rd string guy that they had against Utah), Oklahoma (twice #1), LSU (former top 5), and a bunch of other quality teams in between (mind you, they beat the #1 team in the nation two games in a row to close the season).

Utah wasn't beat, but they also didn't play a very tough schedule, which is why they weren't rated strong enough to play in the national championship game. You can't be the national champs if you don't win the national championship. I don't see Utah ranked #1 in any legitimate poll anywhere, so it's tough to be the national champ when your top ranking is #2.

Utah played 4-5 tough games all season. The reason why top teams are pardoned for 1 loss (at times) is due to their brutal schedules. When you play a slew of good teams, you are tested week in, week out and it's physically exhausting. Sometimes you don't bring your A game but you survive. Sometimes you don't bring your A game, your quality opponent brings their A+ game, and you falter. Utah hardly beat Michigan...friggin MICHIGAN (3 wins?)...let alone playing a bunch of nobodies for most of the season that most BCS teams schedule for their cupcakes so they can put in the bench warmers.

You blow off strength of schedule like it's not important, but it really is. The teams in bad conferences should either try getting into better conferences (like some teams did a few years ago), or schedule more difficult games. But they don't...because they care about getting wins and getting the best record they can. They don't -want- the national championship. That's not their goal. Their goal is to get the best record possible (regardless of ranking) so it can improve their recruiting, facilities, and money. Once that comes into place, they would schedule some difficult games and try for the title. I'm not seeing that happen yet. The only reason you hear Utah screaming about the title is because they know the higher they get ranked to finish the season (like #2 in the AP), the better their recruiting will be. They wouldn't dare play 4 good teams out of conference, because they'd lose games and it would hurt them more than help (see: Fresno State).

Sure, the BCS system isn't perfect (better than the old system tho), but it's not like deserving teams from non BCS leagues haven't won a title before. It hasn't happened in the era of the BCS, but that's because no team has been ranked high enough. I know for certain BYU has won a title before. How'd they manage that? It's all about how impressive you look and who you beat, so the voters put you higher. The voters are the key, not the BCS league that you're in. Utah didn't impress the voters enough to warrant a national championship because of their patsy schedule and stats that were still less impressive than other teams who played more difficult opponents. UF, OU, Texas, USC, Penn State, and a few other teams would have went undefeated with the same schedule. I'm not impressed.

 

[Otter]

Former #1? UF beat UGA (preseason #1), Bama (former #1...and did it without Harvin and Rainey, while Bama had their #1 star left tackle instead of their 3rd string guy that they had against Utah), Oklahoma (twice #1), LSU (former top 5), and a bunch of other quality teams in between (mind you, they beat the #1 team in the nation two games in a row to close the season).

Utah wasn't beat, but they also didn't play a very tough schedule, which is why they weren't rated strong enough to play in the national championship game. You can't be the national champs if you don't win the national championship. I don't see Utah ranked #1 in any legitimate poll anywhere, so it's tough to be the national champ when your top ranking is #2.

Utah played 4-5 tough games all season. The reason why top teams are pardoned for 1 loss (at times) is due to their brutal schedules. When you play a slew of good teams, you are tested week in, week out and it's physically exhausting. Sometimes you don't bring your A game but you survive. Sometimes you don't bring your A game, your quality opponent brings their A+ game, and you falter. Utah hardly beat Michigan...friggin MICHIGAN (3 wins?)...let alone playing a bunch of nobodies for most of the season that most BCS teams schedule for their cupcakes so they can put in the bench warmers.

You blow off strength of schedule like it's not important, but it really is. The teams in bad conferences should either try getting into better conferences (like some teams did a few years ago), or schedule more difficult games. But they don't...because they care about getting wins and getting the best record they can. They don't -want- the national championship. That's not their goal. Their goal is to get the best record possible (regardless of ranking) so it can improve their recruiting, facilities, and money. Once that comes into place, they would schedule some difficult games and try for the title. I'm not seeing that happen yet. The only reason you hear Utah screaming about the title is because they know the higher they get ranked to finish the season (like #2 in the AP), the better their recruiting will be. They wouldn't dare play 4 good teams out of conference, because they'd lose games and it would hurt them more than help (see: Fresno State).

Sure, the BCS system isn't perfect (better than the old system tho), but it's not like deserving teams from non BCS leagues haven't won a title before. It hasn't happened in the era of the BCS, but that's because no team has been ranked high enough. I know for certain BYU has won a title before. How'd they manage that? It's all about how impressive you look and who you beat, so the voters put you higher. The voters are the key, not the BCS league that you're in. Utah didn't impress the voters enough to warrant a national championship because of their patsy schedule and stats that were still less impressive than other teams who played more difficult opponents. UF, OU, Texas, USC, Penn State, and a few other teams would have went undefeated with the same schedule. I'm not impressed.

 

[Larry Gude]

...

Utah wasn't beat, but they also didn't play...

...for the BCS title. End of story. They did not play with the expectation and/or pressure of knowing if they won, they would be considered the national champs.

I think in a pre BCS year they would have been considered co-national champs and I think their schedule is every bit as legit as anyone elses over the years.

To me, the only people that play a real schedule are Notre Dame and SEC teams. Everyone else tends to have more lightweights in conference and seem to schedule more easy W's.

 

[Beta84]

great response! That's a good way to end a discussion when you've been defeated

...for the BCS title. End of story. They did not play with the expectation and/or pressure of knowing if they won, they would be considered the national champs.

I think in a pre BCS year they would have been considered co-national champs and I think their schedule is every bit as legit as anyone elses over the years.

To me, the only people that play a real schedule are Notre Dame and SEC teams. Everyone else tends to have more lightweights in conference and seem to schedule more easy W's.

Not only did they not "play with the expectation and/or pressure of knowing if they won, they would be considered the national champs", but they were playing a team that wasn't overly enthused to be there and expected to win. Teams that walk into a game with nothing to play for, or expect to win in a walk, often lose their bowl games. Bama this year. Michigan had it happen 2 years ago. Oklahoma has had it happen a few times. Georgia too. Usually the first half is the worst part, because they either go into the game with their heads down or they think they're better than their opponent and get punched in the mouth. The team makes a rally afterward, but it's usually too late.

In the pre-BCS era, it would have been a completely different story. UF would have went to the Sugar Bowl and played a good team, but it probably would have been Texas or one of the teams that played in the Orange Bowl. Oklahoma would have played in the Fiesta against some substandard team as well. Utah would have played in the Whogivesacrap Bowl, possibly the Poinsettia Bowl or something of that caliber. They would have won the game against a nobody (but possibly Boise State) and would have had less of a claim to the championship. UF and OU likely wouldn't have played, both would have probably won their games, and they would have split the championship (UF #1 in the AP, OU #1 in the Coaches poll). I'm just guessing on the bowl matchups, since they were kinda random at times.

With either system, Utah wouldn't have won the title this season due to their schedule (since it still relies on the pollsters, who didn't rank Utah high enough). Notre Dame definitely plays a bunch of big name teams every season. The SEC plays a tough in-conference schedule, but it's typically nice to see them play at least 1 decent out of conference (OOC) game. I think the Big XII is a solid enough conference, as well as basically every "major" conference besides the Big East. But even teams in these conferences need to play some good OOC games if they want to be in play for the title game. You can't prove it just within your conference and you can't prove it without playing anybody of note.

The reason Texas Tech was ranked lower than OU and Texas throughout the season was due to their OOC schedule. OU and Texas were both given the #1 slot, but Texas Tech never got it. They didn't beat anyone besides teams from their conference. Texas Tech is infamous for playing crappy OOC schedules. They do it for the free wins. The teams they played this season include Eastern Washington, Nevada, Southern Methodist, and Massachussetts. Their "tough" game in that schedule was Nevada, a 7-6 team from the WAC. Even if Texas Tech had made the game against OU close, they would have dropped to about the same rank according to the analysts, and rightfully so.

Even with a playoff system, teams with horrid schedules (not saying Utah is in that category, but Ball State certainly was) are automatically eliminated from the title hunt. Even if Ball State had went undefeated, which looked possible for awhile, they wouldn't have finished top 10. It's still all about the pollsters. The only way to impress them is to beat good teams. I'm not saying you need a top 10 schedule to be considered for the title game, but you need to play a solid schedule to get ranked high enough. Strength of schedule always matters. Always. End of story.

 

[Larry Gude]

...

Not only did they not "play with the expectation and/or pressure of knowing if they won, they would be considered the national champs", but they were playing a team that wasn't overly enthused to be there and expected to win. Teams that walk into a game with nothing to play for, or expect to win in a walk, often lose their bowl games. Great point, that Bama this year. Michigan had it happen 2 years ago. Oklahoma has had it happen a few times. Georgia too. Usually the first half is the worst part, because they either go into the game with their heads down or they think they're better than their opponent and get punched in the mouth. The team makes a rally afterward, but it's usually too late.

In the pre-BCS era, it would have been a completely different story. UF would have went to the Sugar Bowl and played a good team, but it probably would have been Texas or one of the teams that played in the Orange Bowl. Oklahoma would have played in the Fiesta against some substandard team as well. Utah would have played in the Whogivesacrap Bowl, possibly the Poinsettia Bowl I resent that...or something of that caliber. They would have won the game against a nobody (but possibly Boise State) and would have had less of a claim to the championship. UF and OU likely wouldn't have played, both would have probably won their games, and they would have split the championship (UF #1 in the AP, OU #1 in the Coaches poll). I'm just guessing on the bowl matchups, since they were kinda random at times.

With either system, Utah wouldn't have won the title this season due to their schedule (since it still relies on the pollsters, who didn't rank Utah high enough). Notre Dame definitely plays a bunch of big name teams every season. The SEC plays a tough in-conference schedule, but it's typically nice to see them play at least 1 decent out of conference (OOC) game. I think the Big XII is a solid enough conference, as well as basically every "major" conference besides the Big East. But even teams in these conferences need to play some good OOC games if they want to be in play for the title game. You can't prove it just within your conference and you can't prove it without playing anybody of note.

The reason Texas Tech was ranked lower than OU and Texas throughout the season was due to their OOC schedule. OU and Texas were both given the #1 slot, but Texas Tech never got it. They didn't beat anyone besides teams from their conference. Texas Tech is infamous for playing crappy OOC schedules. They do it for the free wins. The teams they played this season include Eastern Washington, Nevada, Southern Methodist, and Massachussetts. Their "tough" game in that schedule was Nevada, a 7-6 team from the WAC. Even if Texas Tech had made the game against OU close, they would have dropped to about the same rank according to the analysts, and rightfully so.

Even with a playoff system, teams with horrid schedules (not saying Utah is in that category, but Ball State certainly was) are automatically eliminated from the title hunt. Even if Ball State had went undefeated, which looked possible for awhile, they wouldn't have finished top 10. It's still all about the pollsters. The only way to impress them is to beat good teams. I'm not saying you need a top 10 schedule to be considered for the title game, but you need to play a solid schedule to get ranked high enough. Strength of schedule always matters. Always. End of story.

 

[Otter]

great response! That's a good way to end a discussion when you've been defeated



Not only did they not "play with the expectation and/or pressure of knowing if they won, they would be considered the national champs", but they were playing a team that wasn't overly enthused to be there and expected to win. Teams that walk into a game with nothing to play for, or expect to win in a walk, often lose their bowl games. Bama this year. Michigan had it happen 2 years ago. Oklahoma has had it happen a few times. Georgia too. Usually the first half is the worst part, because they either go into the game with their heads down or they think they're better than their opponent and get punched in the mouth. The team makes a rally afterward, but it's usually too late.

In the pre-BCS era, it would have been a completely different story. UF would have went to the Sugar Bowl and played a good team, but it probably would have been Texas or one of the teams that played in the Orange Bowl. Oklahoma would have played in the Fiesta against some substandard team as well. Utah would have played in the Whogivesacrap Bowl, possibly the Poinsettia Bowl or something of that caliber. They would have won the game against a nobody (but possibly Boise State) and would have had less of a claim to the championship. UF and OU likely wouldn't have played, both would have probably won their games, and they would have split the championship (UF #1 in the AP, OU #1 in the Coaches poll). I'm just guessing on the bowl matchups, since they were kinda random at times.

With either system, Utah wouldn't have won the title this season due to their schedule (since it still relies on the pollsters, who didn't rank Utah high enough). Notre Dame definitely plays a bunch of big name teams every season. The SEC plays a tough in-conference schedule, but it's typically nice to see them play at least 1 decent out of conference (OOC) game. I think the Big XII is a solid enough conference, as well as basically every "major" conference besides the Big East. But even teams in these conferences need to play some good OOC games if they want to be in play for the title game. You can't prove it just within your conference and you can't prove it without playing anybody of note.

The reason Texas Tech was ranked lower than OU and Texas throughout the season was due to their OOC schedule. OU and Texas were both given the #1 slot, but Texas Tech never got it. They didn't beat anyone besides teams from their conference. Texas Tech is infamous for playing crappy OOC schedules. They do it for the free wins. The teams they played this season include Eastern Washington, Nevada, Southern Methodist, and Massachussetts. Their "tough" game in that schedule was Nevada, a 7-6 team from the WAC. Even if Texas Tech had made the game against OU close, they would have dropped to about the same rank according to the analysts, and rightfully so.

Even with a playoff system, teams with horrid schedules (not saying Utah is in that category, but Ball State certainly was) are automatically eliminated from the title hunt. Even if Ball State had went undefeated, which looked possible for awhile, they wouldn't have finished top 10. It's still all about the pollsters. The only way to impress them is to beat good teams. I'm not saying you need a top 10 schedule to be considered for the title game, but you need to play a solid schedule to get ranked high enough. Strength of schedule always matters. Always. End of story.

Most of my comments were tongue in cheek, if you happened to notice the laffing smilies sprinkled throughout the posts..Sorry that you took it the wrong way. Sorry for the laffs, but as I said earlier, I heard your lecture the first time around.. My gawd, man, its just a game.

Defeated?? lol, naaaa...I think its patently unfair that more than half of the D1 schools really have no chance being crowned #1 due to not being affiliated with the BCS or playing in weaker conferences. Utah played the cards as they were dealt and walked away undefeated. We'll never know if they could catch lightning in a bottle and beat Florida. Anything is possible.

 

[Beta84]

sorry that my Poinsettia bowl was insulting. Actually that was one of the best games and matchups this bowl season, but the bowl itself is mediocre.

Most of my comments were tongue in cheek, if you happened to notice the laffing smilies sprinkled throughout the posts..Sorry that you took it the wrong way. Sorry for the laffs, but as I said earlier, I heard your lecture the first time around.. My gawd, man, its just a game.

Defeated?? lol, naaaa...I think its patently unfair that more than half of the D1 schools really have no chance being crowned #1 due to not being affiliated with the BCS or playing in weaker conferences. Utah played the cards as they were dealt and walked away undefeated. We'll never know if they could catch lightning in a bottle and beat Florida. Anything is possible.

I like discussing and debating college football...u gave me someone to discuss/debate with

I agree. Utah could have had a fire lit under their asses and beat the Gators. They played the teams on their schedule but they could have scheduled better teams. It may not be fair that some teams get eliminated, but without a playoff, that's kinda how it goes. Teams are responsible for their own schedules and if they want to be included then they have to schedule correctly. It's their choice if they want to play for the title or not. If they play a great OOC schedule and go undefeated, then they probably have a shot. If their schedule is crappy...that's their choice. Too bad.

Either way...just read an article that I really liked and it reminded me of some discussions I've had here.
Scout.com: Is Florida Really The No. 1 Team?

 

[Otter]

sorry that my Poinsettia bowl was insulting. Actually that was one of the best games and matchups this bowl season, but the bowl itself is mediocre.



I like discussing and debating college football...u gave me someone to discuss/debate with

I agree. Utah could have had a fire lit under their asses and beat the Gators. They played the teams on their schedule but they could have scheduled better teams. It may not be fair that some teams get eliminated, but without a playoff, that's kinda how it goes. Teams are responsible for their own schedules and if they want to be included then they have to schedule correctly. It's their choice if they want to play for the title or not. If they play a great OOC schedule and go undefeated, then they probably have a shot. If their schedule is crappy...that's their choice. Too bad.

Either way...just read an article that I really liked and it reminded me of some discussions I've had here.
Scout.com: Is Florida Really The No. 1 Team?

Haven't read the article..but lets play 'suppose'... The ACC was horrendous this year, suppose an ACC team played their conference schedule and a bunch of D1 no-names to fill in the cracks..They win the conference championship game, thus they are undefeated..Do you doubt that they wouldn't have been in the title game because of the ACC tie-in to the BCS? Can you imagine the screaming if they weren't?

Also, no 'elite' teams were beating down the doors to schedule Utah, home or away, over the past 3 or 4 years, they didn't want to chance it.

Had a bit of this discussion New Years Eve with the esteemed Mr Gude and stated then that Florida would smoke Oklahoma and frankly I've been saying since early November that Florida was the best so don't get the impression that I am against Florida, hell, they could run off 3 yrs of being #1 with their whole offensive line and ENTIRE starting defense being freshmen or sophomores. I just think it is patently unfair that a team can run off a perfect season and still told they are not good enough, for whatever reason.

 

[Beta84]

Haven't read the article..but lets play 'suppose'... The ACC was horrendous this year, suppose an ACC team played their conference schedule and a bunch of D1 no-names to fill in the cracks..They win the conference championship game, thus they are undefeated..Do you doubt that they wouldn't have been in the title game because of the ACC tie-in to the BCS? Can you imagine the screaming if they weren't?

Also, no 'elite' teams were beating down the doors to schedule Utah, home or away, over the past 3 or 4 years, they didn't want to chance it.

Had a bit of this discussion New Years Eve with the esteemed Mr Gude and stated then that Florida would smoke Oklahoma and frankly I've been saying since early November that Florida was the best so don't get the impression that I am against Florida, hell, they could run off 3 yrs of being #1 with their whole offensive line and ENTIRE starting defense being freshmen or sophomores. I just think it is patently unfair that a team can run off a perfect season and still told they are not good enough, for whatever reason.

There have been seasons where the Big East has sucked so badly that there was discussion that a 1 loss SEC team (or a couple other conferences) might get the nod over an undefeated West Virginia team. WVU never ended up undefeated, but there had been discussion about that. It doesn't only affect the mid-majors. I agree it sucks that you go undefeated and don't have a chance for the title, but until they come up with a better system, it is what it is. The problem with changing anything is it could ruin the bowl system and they aren't willing to sacrifice that.

UF might lose 1 guy on the defense...our MLB, Spikes, is a junior and is considering going pro. The rest should be back. We have 1 or 2 other junior starters back there but plenty of depth. Our offensive line has 2 senior starters this year (Tartt and Trautwein), but one of them was hurt most of the year and replaced by a soph anyway. Next season might be another championship run. I guess we'll see. If Tebow comes back, they have a great shot. I don't see Harvin coming back, but there are plenty of quality playmakers to replace him. The only other top player they're losing is Ingram...but he was out for the entire season anyway. Out of 22 starters, it's possible 20 will return. More likely, it'll be 18 or 19. Still good stuff.

Speaking of which, Utah will have a monster defense next season. The offense will have to rebuild, but could be good again. I guess we'll see what happens. I can't seem to find a schedule of theirs for next season though.