Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

2008/9 COLLEGE Football Thread

SLC Flyfishing said:
University of Utah=2004 NCAA football national champions.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with this statement. I saw them (and USC) play several times that year and I don't think they were beatable when at the top of their game.

Rodimus Prime said:
A real question to ask is what happens if Texas Tech and Texas are number 1 and 2. Based on the look over the BCS that could very easily happen.
Click to expand...

But it won't happen because of the "gentlemen's" agreement in the BCS. There will once again be poll manipulations to ensure two teams from the same conference, let alone the same division, will not meet in the "championship" game. They manipulated it last year and in doing so anointed two-loss LSU champions by letting them play a team that didn't even deserve a top 10 ranking.
 
SLC Flyfishing said:
I'm really hoping it works out that Utah and BSU are the only top 12 teams without a loss by the end of the season. Then maybe we'll get our F%&$ing playoff.

University of Utah=2004 NCAA football national champions.

SLC
Click to expand...

Sorry, SLC, Utah had a good team in 2004, but to call them the best team in the country is a stretch in my opinion.

2004
Texas A&M
at Arizona
at Utah State
Air Force
at New Mexico
North Carolina
UNLV
at San Diego State
Colorado State
at Wyoming
BYU

Fiesta Bowl - Pittsburgh

I don't see a signature win on that 2004 schedule
Yes, they won them all, but a LOT of teams could have won them all on that schedule

And this year?
I commend you for scheduling Michigan, but they turned out to be godawful
So when your 2 biggest games are TCU and BYU, well...
If USC is penalized for playing a weak schedule, how can Utah be rewarded?
Again, a lot of teams could run the table on that schedule

2008
at Michigan
UNLV
Utah State
Air Force
Weber State
Oregon State
Wyoming
Colorado State
New Mexico
TCU
San Diego State
BYU

Two non BCS teams (3 with Ball State) being the only undefeateds will not force a playoff issue by any means. It will not even be "the story" of the season... that probably belongs to Alabama and Texas Tech regardless of what happens.


Rodimus Prime said:
That would not do it. There being a 3 way tie in the big 12 will do more damage than anything else because then you have to argue if Texas, OU or Tech is the best team in the Big 12 south.

A real question to ask is what happens if Texas Tech and Texas are number 1 and 2. Based on the look over the BCS that could very easily happen. It would take Alabama losing and Texas Tech beating OU. Both of which could easily happen. if that happens it leaves the door wide open for a good shot at 2 big 12 schools being 1 and 2.

Ranking wise I think losing to a high rank team does way to much damage. there is a legit argument that OSU should still be in the top 10. Their only loses have been to a number 1 and number 2 ranked team.
Click to expand...

The 3 way tie scenario for the Big 12 South is a legitimate nightmare. As I understand it, the highest ranked BCS Team will play for the Big 12 Championship and that will suck big time. Of course that is more a function of the Big 12 tie breaker rules than the BCS itself. With that in mind, the other 2 teams are effectively shut out of the BCS NC (the "Georgia rule"... you gotta win your division and your conference... which we all know has not always been the case). No way the final BCS rankings have 2 Big 12 schools ranked 1-2 in that case... witness the fall of the Dawgs last year and the rise of LSU in the final rankings.

Cave Man said:
I have no problem with this statement. I saw them (and USC) play several times that year and I don't think they were beatable when at the top of their game.
Click to expand...

"... when at the top of their game" being the operative words there. Many teams could claim that, but being at the top of one's game is not always possible and doesn't play out over a 12-13 game schedule, especially the one Utah played (see above). That is why they play the game.

But it won't happen because of the "gentlemen's" agreement in the BCS. There will once again be poll manipulations to ensure two teams from the same conference, let alone the same division, will not meet in the "championship" game. They manipulated it last year and in doing so anointed two-loss LSU champions by letting them play a team that didn't even deserve a top 10 ranking.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree here. There are many nefarious deeds being conspired in the smokey back rooms even now... seeking to make sure the right teams are in place :)

Bottom line, you gotta take care of your business on the field, and even those 1 loss teams had the chance to go undefeated. The non BCS teams that could go undefeated? Well, let's just say they have enough doubters to keep them out, and history has justified that decision more often than not... Boise and Utah notwithstanding.

Woof, Woof - Dawg
pawprint.gif
 
Cave Man said:
\But it won't happen because of the "gentlemen's" agreement in the BCS. There will once again be poll manipulations to ensure two teams from the same conference, let alone the same division, will not meet in the "championship" game. They manipulated it last year and in doing so anointed two-loss LSU champions by letting them play a team that didn't even deserve a top 10 ranking.
Click to expand...

that sucks because there can be some legitimete agurments that the number 1 and 2 teams in the country are from the big 12 and that would be Texas Tech and texas.

if Alabama lose and Texas Tech wins against OU that could easily put Texas Tech and Texas 1-2.

It would just make it a mess. I could understand why in the national championship you would not want that since Texas Tech had already beat Texas.
 
Rodimus Prime said:
It would just make it a mess. I could understand why in the national championship you would not want that since Texas Tech had already beat Texas.
Click to expand...

Ah, the old Michigan-Ohio State scenario that resulted in a Gator National Championship. Only considered a possibility because the Big 10 does not have a true conference championship game like the ACC, SEC and Big 12.

The Big 12 South will only be able to cough up one of the 3... Oklahoma, Texas or Texas Tech for a NC game. One (or 2) of the others may make a BCS game, but you will NOT have 2 from the Big 12 South in the BCS NC.

The Big 12 winner will likely face the SEC winner (Bama or the Gators) barring something unforseen (Auburn for the Tide or FSU for the Gators). But then again... last year taught us that it ain't over till its over. Who wudda thunk that Pitt would take down West Virginia and send the whole football world scurrying for a solution?

Woof, Woof – Dawg
pawprint.gif
 
MacDawg said:
Sorry, SLC, Utah had a good team in 2004, but to call them the best team in the country is a stretch in my opinion.

I don't see a signature win on that 2004 schedule
Yes, they won them all, but a LOT of teams could have won them all on that schedule

And this year?
I commend you for scheduling Michigan, but they turned out to be godawful
So when your 2 biggest games are TCU and BYU, well...
If USC is penalized for playing a weak schedule, how can Utah be rewarded?
Again, a lot of teams could run the table on that schedule
Click to expand...

Well that's the problem isn't it. We've got the best record of all the non-BCS schools against BCS teams. We've got an 11 and 3 bowl record which includes 7 straight bowl wins. One of those was the Fiesta Bowl which we won against a crap opponent. We should have been given the opportunity to play a "quality team" that year, we would have rolled anyone. But letting the Utes do that would only expose the BCS as the sham of an operation that it is.

In the past few years we've beaten some great teams in our Bowl games, including a 10-6 win over the anointed team from SoCal. We've also beaten Georgia Tech, Southern Miss, Fresno State etc. But how are we ever going to prove anything if the big teams won't schedule us, and the BCS selection committee won't give us a worthy opponent?

So I think you can understand why we consider our 2004 Utes to be the National Champions, we had an incredible team who never had a chance in hell of even playing in the National Championship game, if all the BCS conference teams had 3 losses that year and we went undefeated we'd still have gone to the fiesta bowl, even though we were miles ahead of anyone in terms of talent. This BCS garbage is a system setup to assure that some teams excel while others are repressed. And I think that if we have 2 undefeated non BCS schools (Utah and BSU) at the end of this season, both of which have gone to BCS games and won them, then we'll have the ammunition we need to press even harder to overturn the system.

Utes=2004 National Champions.

SLC
 
Here's a question for y'all:

Do you like how the BCS formula is currently structured?

Would it be better to have a completely non-subjective result with the entire formula consisting of computer analysis (SOS, points, offensive/defensive yards, etc...), or would it be better to have all three aspects based on human polling?

Or do you have a different idea?

EDIT: The "different idea" can't be a playoff. That's another matter. We're talking BCS here. :)
 
MacDawg said:
And this year?
I commend you for scheduling Michigan, but they turned out to be godawful
So when your 2 biggest games are TCU and BYU, well...
If USC is penalized for playing a weak schedule, how can Utah be rewarded?
Again, a lot of teams could run the table on that schedule
Click to expand...

You do realize that we are ranked #3 by the BCS computers right? That is supposed to be based off SOS, we've beaten teams from two "Power conferences" as well as a #12, and soon a #17 (as long as BYU doesn't lose to AFA).

You realize that USC is ranked at #7 by the computers too right? Their SOS is worse than Utah's and yet the coaches and Harris folks swoon over them so much that they somehow remain ahead of us even though our one common opponent resulted in a win for us and a loss for them, and only one week separated from each other. Explain that to me without saying that the BCS system is a load of crap.

SLC
 
SLC Flyfishing said:
You do realize that we are ranked #3 by the BCS computers right? That is supposed to be based off SOS, we've beaten teams from two "Power conferences" as well as a #12, and soon a #17 (as long as BYU doesn't lose to AFA).
Click to expand...

Can you give a link to this?

I'm not trying to bash on Utah, I just can't find the info you gave above.
 
evilgEEk said:
Here's a question for y'all:

Do you like how the BCS formula is currently structured?

Would it be better to have a completely non-subjective result with the entire formula consisting of computer analysis (SOS, points, offensive/defensive yards, etc...), or would it be better to have all three aspects based on human polling?

Or do you have a different idea?

EDIT: The "different idea" can't be a playoff. That's another matter. We're talking BCS here. :)
Click to expand...

I would prefer computer analysis to what we have now just for the fact that it would be possible to know why a team was ranked the way they were. It would mean teams playing their hearts out against everyone, not just the big guys.

P-Worm
 
SLC Flyfishing said:
://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/bcs.htm#computer

Computer rank has us at #3, which is where it's been all year long.

SLC
Click to expand...

Not too be picky, as your point is well received, but if you look at the USA today link you sent, there is a problem with their computer rankings. Alabama and Texas should not be tied at 2. Bama is 0.970 and UT is 0.920. So this makes Utah ranked 4th, not 3rd. You can see here: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/BCSStandings

Again though, your point is well received as the computers are taking into account the big wins from Utah and shows that they belong.
 
gibbz said:
Not too be picky, as your point is well received, but if you look at the USA today link you sent, there is a problem with their computer rankings. Alabama and Texas should not be tied at 2. Bama is 0.970 and UT is 0.920. So this makes Utah ranked 4th, not 3rd. You can see here: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/BCSStandings

Again though, your point is well received as the computers are taking into account the big wins from Utah and shows that they belong.
Click to expand...

Hadn't noticed the difference in the points between Bama and Texas. 4th it is, but it's been at 3 all season long, I swear.

SLC
 
SLC Flyfishing said:
Hadn't noticed the difference in the points between Bama and Texas. 4th it is, but it's been at 3 all season long, I swear.

SLC
Click to expand...

Like gibbz, I'm also not trying to be picky but Utah hasn't been ranked at #3 in the BCS at all this year. The rankings can be found easily enough and:

BCS Week 1: #8
BCS Week 2: #T-7
BCS Week 3: #7
BCS Week 4: #4

They have steadily climbed the ranks, and as long as they beat BYU then that may go up still.

I don't know. I'm as big of a non-BCS fan as the next guy, but I just can't get behind all this "we deserve a shot at the title" talk. Boise's QB said it at the end of the Fiesta Bowl back in '07, and all the locals felt he was an idiot for saying that. We were a great team back then, but there's no way we could have beat Florida. Nor do I think Utah could have beat USC back in '04.

This year is no different. Boise State is very young, and that youth would show through on the big stage I'm sure. They have been making some very stupid penalties in the last few games, and if those continue it will catch up to them.

I feel Utah is inconsistent. There have been blowouts, but there have also been close calls that shouldn't have been, namely the game at home versus Weber State (Div. 1AA). That game should have been blown wide open.

But the TCU game scares me the most. There are other teams out there with excellent defense that won't give the game away with penalties and missed field goals, and Utah HAS to win if they get a BCS Bowl Game.
 
P-Worm said:
I would prefer computer analysis to what we have now just for the fact that it would be possible to know why a team was ranked the way they were. It would mean teams playing their hearts out against everyone, not just the big guys.

P-Worm
Click to expand...

I agree.

Personally I think it would be best to eliminate the human polls from the formula all together. Make it strictly statistical.

Although having said that, how would we decide what statistical category held more weight over another?


EDIT: More negative non-BCS press. Gotta love it! ;)
 
evilgEEk said:
Personally I think it would be best to eliminate the human polls from the formula all together. Make it strictly statistical.
Click to expand...

It has to be human + computer. The computers would miss things. Teams that, for the sake of sportsmanship, ease up so they don't mercilessly slaughter the opposing team. Teams that may have a good record, but people know aren't in the top tiered programs. That's not to say the little guys should never get a shot, but, what was Hawaii ranked in the computers last year? They looked great on paper...
 
evilgEEk said:
Like gibbz, I'm also not trying to be picky but Utah hasn't been ranked at #3 in the BCS at all this year. The rankings can be found easily enough and.....

I feel Utah is inconsistent. There have been blowouts, but there have also been close calls that shouldn't have been, namely the game at home versus Weber State (Div. 1AA). That game should have been blown wide open....
Click to expand...

Utah has been ranked at #3 all year by the BCS computers. It's the coaches poll and the Harris poll that make them average where they have been.

The computers have their average at #3 (#4 this week apparently). And that's based on SOS, and that's what MacDawg claimed is lacking in the Utes.

And the Weber State game would have been blown wide open if they'd played with their 1st string offense and defense. But it just so happens that they got ahead early and put in their 2nd and 3rd string players for the whole of the 2nd half. So that result is impressive in that respect. Weber still did get beat pretty handily.

SLC
 
The BCS conferences have all the power because that's where the majority of the money is. So their teams get the most exposure on television and by the media, and that in turn affects people's perception. It's not necessarily right, but it's the way it is.

Unless we get a playoff, the smaller market teams will always have to fight bias in the polls. The reality is that with 117 (or whatever it is) Div 1 teams, you're never going to be able to rank teams in a way that'll appease everyone. And unfortunately, perception not only matters in college football, but it has a lot of inertia. Perception is hard to change.

For example, I haven't seen much of Utah all year. I've seen plenty of USC. Now I'm aware of the results against a common opponent, but if someone forced me to bet straight up on a game between the two, I'd pick USC every time. I have no earthly logical reason to do so, but my own perception of the situation biases my judgment. I'm pretty sure it's the same with most people. Worse yet, the BCS is perfectly happy with that arrangement because they don't care if Utah is any better than USC - they just know that having USC in the big game will generate more revenue, and that's all that really matters.

So to sum up the rant - I feel bad for teams like Utah, Boise St., and so on, but I don't see a lot changing without a playoff.
 
Pretty good article on the BCS "busters":
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/notebook?page=notebook/onthemark1110

Utah is the only team from a non-BCS league with an argument to claim a BCS berth.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Only one of the aforementioned teams is guaranteed a chance to play in one of the five BCS bowl games. Under the current BCS rules, a team from outside the six BCS conferences -- ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-10 and SEC -- automatically qualifies if it finishes in the top 12 of the final BCS standings.

Such a team also qualifies if it is ranked No. 16 or better and is higher than the champion of one of the BCS leagues. As it currently stands, No. 16 North Carolina is the highest-rated ACC team. No. 21 Pittsburgh is the highest-rated Big East team.

The Tar Heels and Panthers have done more to deserve a BCS berth than Ball State, Boise State or Utah.
Click to expand...

UNC won't win the ACC this year, but I agree that they've done a whole helluva lot more than the three non-BCS schools. Same argument can be made for Pitt.
 
Cave Man said:
Yeah, you're right. After seeing how each did against a common opponent, it's clear Utah is the better team.
Click to expand...

Apparently you think that the transitive property applies to sports. It doesn't, and never has. It can be one piece of the puzzle, but only a sporting neophyte would conclude A is better than C solely due to the reason that A beat B and C lost to B. Remember, Cave Man, the Atlanta Hawks do beat the Spurs once in a while.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back