Do the Utah Utes Have a Case to Make for Winning the National Championship?
by T Kyle King on Jan 4, 2009 8:51 PM EST
in Football
41 comments
Now that only three bowl games (and only two consequential bowl games; sorry, GMAC Bowl) remain, it is time to begin giving thought to how the teams will be ranked on my postseason BlogPoll ballot. One question, of course, leaps directly to the forefront of my deliberations: "How seriously does Utah deserve to be considered for the national championship?"
Obviously, the Utes will conclude the campaign as the lone unbeaten team in Division I-A, which counts for quite a lot. I gave similar consideration to Boise State two years ago, for the same reason, and the identical issue has reared its head again this year. (For some reason, whenever Florida is in the running for the national championship, it always involves a mid-major power arguably getting hosed, be it Brigham Young in 1996, Boise State in 2006, or Utah in 2008.)
As stated by JazzyUte, the argument for the Mountain West Conference champions is simple: "Utah still did more than any other team in college football. They proved it on the field every single week by winning all their games, while the winner of the BCS National Championship will have failed at doing that."
There is, however, more to a team’s resume than just its record. In 1990, Georgia Tech went undefeated against (a) a weak A.C.C., (b) what remains to this day the worst Georgia team since the Johnny Griffith era, and (c) Nebraska in the bowl game at a time when the Cornhuskers couldn’t buy a postseason victory in the Sunshine State. That simply, and correctly, counted for less in the eyes of many voters than Colorado’s once-beaten run through a daunting Big 8 slate and non-conference schedule.
Let us, therefore, look at the Utes’ resume, which stacks up as follows:
W 25-23 at Michigan (3-9)
W 42-21 v. U.N.L.V. (5-7)
W 58-10 at Utah State (3-9)
W 30-23 at Air Force (8-5; lost Armed Forces Bowl)
W 37-21 v. Weber State (Division I-AA)
W 31-28 v. Oregon State (9-4; won Sun Bowl)
W 40-7 at Wyoming (4-8)
W 49-16 v. Colorado State (7-6; won New Mexico Bowl)
W 13-10 at New Mexico (4-8)
W 13-10 v. Texas Christian (11-2; won Poinsettia Bowl)
W 63-14 at San Diego State (2-10)
W 48-24 v. Brigham Young (10-3; lost Las Vegas Bowl)
W 31-17 v. Alabama (12-2; lost Sugar Bowl)
That comes to three wins over B.C.S. conference teams, six wins over teams that went to bowl games (including three over bowl champions), and six wins over Division I-A teams that finished with winning records.
Leaving aside the Utes’ one game against Division I-AA opposition, Utah beat five teams that lost eight or more games but also defeated five teams that won eight or more games. Utah beat the Horned Frogs, whose only other loss was to Oklahoma, and the Crimson Tide, whose only other loss was to Florida.
The question is how that resume compares to this one . . .
W 56-10 v. Hawaii (7-7; lost Hawaii Bowl)
W 26-3 v. Miami (Florida) (7-6; lost Emerald Bowl)
W 30-6 at Tennessee (5-7)
L 31-30 v. Ole Miss (9-4; won Cotton Bowl)
W 38-7 at Arkansas (5-7)
W 51-21 v. Louisiana State (8-5; won Chick-fil-A Bowl)
W 63-5 v. Kentucky (7-6; won Liberty Bowl)
W 49-10 v. Georgia (10-3; won Capital One Bowl)
W 42-14 at Vanderbilt (7-6; won Music City Bowl)
W 56-6 v. South Carolina (7-6; lost Outback Bowl)
W 70-19 v. The Citadel (Division I-AA)
W 45-15 at Florida State (9-4; won Champs Sports Bowl)
W 31-20 v. Alabama (12-2; lost Sugar Bowl)
. . . or this one . . .
W 57-2 v. Chattanooga (Division I-AA)
W 52-26 v. Cincinnati (11-3; lost Orange Bowl)
W 55-14 at Washington (0-12)
W 35-10 v. Texas Christian (11-2; won Poinsettia Bowl)
W 49-17 at Baylor (4-8)
L 45-35 v. Texas (11-1; Fiesta Bowlwinresult pending)
W 45-31 v. Kansas (8-5; won Insight Bowl)
W 58-35 at Kansas State (5-7)
W 62-28 v. Nebraska (9-4; won Gator Bowl)
W 66-28 at Texas A&M (4-8)
W 65-21 v. Texas Tech (11-2; lost Cotton Bowl)
W 61-41 at Oklahoma State (9-4; lost Holiday Bowl)
W 62-21 v. Missouri (10-4; won Alamo Bowl)
. . . if a victory by one over the other is added to the mix.
If the Sooners win on Thursday night, would Utah have an argument over Oklahoma? What about when if the Gators win on Thursday night? Would it matter whether the winner of the designated national championship game won by a little or won by a lot?
Go ‘Dawgs!
0 recs |
41 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Postscript:
JazzyUte has put forth additional arguments, which are worth a look.
His two best points, in my opinion, are (1) it undercuts the argument that the regular season is a playoff (which I maintain is true) to deny a deserving undefeated team like Utah its place at the table, and (2) if Notre Dame had gone undefeated against Utah’s schedule, there’s no question the Fighting Irish would be playing in Miami.
Go 'Dawgs!
by T Kyle King on Jan 4, 2009 9:12 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
well...
they should just eliminate the exclusion of the ‘lesser’ conferences to the BCS scene; that is, get rid of the ’non BCS conference thing.
Then teams from those conferences would be on equal footing to get into the BCS games based on the polls, just like everybody else.
Currently some of those teams have scratched their way into the BCS bowls, but they are relunctantly let in.
"...don't TAZE me, bro..."
by zE bOp on Jan 4, 2009 10:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Utes
The UTes looked very impressive in their win over ‘Bama in the Sugar Bowl; they’re a nuch better team than I thought they were.
I think they DO have a case in arguing for the #1 spot, but unfortunately they will not be playing the #s 1 or 2 rated teams so it looks like we will never know.
That’s the system that’s in place. Utah is in what is arguably a weaker conference than the Big 12 and SEC and it is quite possible they wouldn’t have gone undefeated had they been in either of those. To be #1, you just have to be in the top BCS poll to get a shot at #1, period. That’s the way it is for everybody. TX and USC have a legit gripe about not getting into the Top BCS bowl as well. It’s all about the end of regular season rankings….
To me, Utah looks like the #5 team in the country behind FL, OU, USC, and TX, but they could very well finish #2 behind FL or OU after their impressive showing vs ’Bama, combined with their undefeated record.
I say they are #5 though…….
"...don't TAZE me, bro..."
by zE bOp on Jan 4, 2009 9:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Well as mentioned previously
Florida and Oklahoma didn’t go undefeated in those conferences either.
I don’t think anybody is arguing whether a 13-0 Utah should be ahead of a hypothetically undefeated SEC or Big XII team. The question is whether the Utah resume (which is better than a lot of people think) stacks up to a 1-loss SEC or Big XII team. I think it does. At worst, it should be given serious consideration.
by DoubleB on Jan 4, 2009 9:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Problem is....
..the BCS system was created to have one game to determine the #1 team. It’s pretty darn rigid like that!
Utah didn’t get to that game, so there’s a 99.9999…% chance they won’t see the #1 spot.
It will remain as speculation whether they or FL or OU or USC are the #1 team since Utah will not have played those teams.
Very good chance they will finish #2 though. I wouldn’t have a problem with that.
"...don't TAZE me, bro..."
by zE bOp on Jan 4, 2009 9:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
A legitimate gripe
TX and USC have no legitimate complaint about being left out of the BCSCG.
Each of them lost a game. When a team loses a game it loses the right to control it’s own destiny.
Utah won every game it played, and as the only undefeated team in D1, it should be playing for the BCS championship.
The argument that Utah played an inferior schedule has been thoroughly debunked by those who have examined the records of the Utes’ toughest foes. TCU, Oregon State, BYU, Alabama. I suppose one could quibble about the win over Michigan, but who’s to say Michigan wasn’t ruined by what happened to it in the Big House on 8/30?
One could also belittle the Utah win at New Mexico, a 3-pointer. But before doing so, maybe Pete Carroll should be asked if he would have pooh-poohed a 3-point road win over Oregon State. Or ask Urban Meyer if he would have taken a 3-point home win over Mississippi.
I’d vote:
1. Utah
2. Florida/Oklahoma
3. USC
4. Oklahoma/Florida
5. Texas
by Rhino95 on Jan 7, 2009 2:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think the top of the resume for Utah is as good as Oklahoma’s or Florida’s:
TCU, Bama, Oregon State, BYU are Utah’s top 4 wins
Oklahoma, Bama, Georgia, LSU would probably be Florida’s top 4 wins
Florida, TCU, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State would probably be Oklahoma’s top 4 wins
Teams 5-6 though is where it gets tricky. After Air Force and Colorado State it gets pretty low for Utah. Oklahoma would still have Cincinnati and Missouri. Florida would still have Florida State and Miami.
Does the undefeated season overcome the lack of depth in the middle of the resume? I think it does, but it’s certainly up for debate.
Agreed with the poster who stated that if Notre Dame went 13-0 with this schedule, they would be #1 and there would be no complaints.
by DoubleB on Jan 4, 2009 9:33 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
r u kidding?
The Domers will probably go into the ’09 season ranked numero uno after their historic victory over the Warrior Rainbows!
Gotta love it…
LOL!
"...don't TAZE me, bro..."
by zE bOp on Jan 4, 2009 10:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Notre Dame 2009
NationalChamps.net forecasts ND to be among others receving consideration in the Pre-season polls.
by Rhino95 on Jan 7, 2009 2:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Oklahoma or Florida
Still would have won more games over better teams.
Not that it is Utah’s fault, but 4 of their opponents won 4 games or less. Add that to the Div II game and they had 5 easy weeks.
None of UF’s D-1 opponents were worse than 5-7 and 11 of the 13 went bowling.
Oklahoma played 3 games against opponents with 4 or fewer victories, but they also played 9 bowl teams and 8 of those had at least 9 wins.
Do I think Utah could beat UF and/or Okalhoma? Yes. Do I think it is likely that Utah would 3 games against an SEC or Big 12 schedule? Yes. It is a little easier to get up for fewer big games, when you have several weeks of easy breathers.
All of that is not Utah’s fault- they probably thought they were scheduling a big powerhouse when they put Michigan on the schedule….
I would take Florida or Oklahoma (or USC) against Utah. All 3 teams have the speed to counter Utah’s biggest strength.
by skigator93 on Jan 4, 2009 10:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Depends on if you're a resume voter or power poll voter, though
For a power poll voter (which Kyle and I are not), it’s a bit easier: Florida and Oklahoma would “likely” beat Utah on a neutral field.
The question for a resume voter is trickier. How much do Florida’s and/or Oklahoma’s losses affect their resumes. They have a demerit — against good competition, granted, but still a demerit — while Utah does not.
Team Speed Kills. All SEC, all the time.
by cocknfire on Jan 5, 2009 5:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The argument...
…that strength of schedule matters is valid and that it is easier to go undefeated when 1/2 your games are breathers. Crap, I wish Nebraska would have had more breathers this year, but whatever…LOL.
But, it still doesn’t mean that Utah couldn’t beat FL, OU, USC, or TX this year. We just won’t know and I won’t say that it’s too bad because there is no perfect system, not even a playoff system is perfect. Just look at the NFL, the Pats went 11-5 and were hot at the end, but San Diego gets in the playoffs at 8-8(right?).
Utah has been penalized for their weaker conference by not being rated higher in the polls in the season. Just the way it is.
"...don't TAZE me, bro..."
by zE bOp on Jan 4, 2009 10:39 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
But that's kind of the point .. .
how weak is the MWC? They went 8-5 against BCS teams which is more wins and a better percentage than the Big Ten, Big XII, and the SEC. They went 6-1 against the Pac-10.
I think you can make a case that it’s a top 5 conference. I feel pretty confident in saying it’s better than the Big East. If West Virginia went 13-0 would you be saying the same thing?
by DoubleB on Jan 4, 2009 11:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You'd be wrong, though
The thing is that the bottom half of the MWC, upsets over the Arizona schools and Tennessee notwithstanding, is really, really bad. My Orange (which won one Big East game, and only did that due to GRob’s strange mojo over Kragthorpe) would likely have won three or four games in the MWC (and that’s assuming we don’t play a I-AA team or Notre Dame) between SDSU, Wyoming, UNLV, and the New Mexico schools. So would Louisville. Rutgers and UConn are probably better than Air Force and BYU; Cinci, WVU, and Pitt certainly are (and might be better than TCU).
And the MWC went 6-2 vs. the Pac 10, not 6-1. All games not involving the Arizona schools were won by the heavy favorite (the Arizona schools lost to New Mexico and UNLV in the regular season, and then Arizona upset BYU in the Las Vegas Bowl).
by drothgery on Jan 5, 2009 1:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Your comment about the big east is ridiculous.
BYU and TCU are much better than any big east team outside of Cincinnati, and might both be better than them as well. Air Force and Colorado State could both have gone at least 6-6 playing a big east schedule. The MWC is a lot tougher than you think. Wyoming beat Tennessee on the road, you think they’d have trouble with Syracuse? New Mexico beat Arizona on the road, you think they’d have trouble with Syracuse? Syracuse would have 1 win, against SDSU, and that’s it.
There is absolutely no way that the Big East can claim any sort of superiority over the MWC. In fact, if we matched them head to head:
Utah v. Cincinnati. Utah, hands down, no questions.
TCU v. Pitt. TCU, hands down, no questions. TCU’s only losses are to top 5 teams. Pitt lost to Bowling Green, Rutgers and Oregon State, besides the Cincy game.
BYU v. West Virginia. I hate BYU so I’d like to give West Virginia this one, but they got blown out by East Carolina, lost to a bad Colorado team, plus the Cincy and Pitt losses. BYU’s losses are to two top-10 teams and an average (but bowl-eligible) Arizona team. Byu also has one fewer loss. Tie goes to the better record with the tougher schedule.
Air Force v. Rutgers. Let’s see. Air Force went 1-1 against Houston, lost to TCU, BYU and Utah (all top-25 teams), and lost to bowl-bound Navy. Rutgers got blown out by Fresno, at home, then got blown out by UNC, at home, then lost to Navy, plus the WV and Cincy losses. Navy losses cancel out, the other losses are all worse than Air Force. This one goes to Air Force.
CSU v. UCONN. CSU lost to a bad CU team, got killed by California, and then lost pretty badly to the MWC teams ahead of them (Utah, TCU, BYU and AF). UCONN barely beat Temple, lost to USF, Rutgers, WV, Cincy, and Pitt. I’ll give this one to UCONN.
UNLV v. USF. UNLV has the big wins over ASU and IA State (hah!) to go along with the choke against SDSU. Needless to say, USF wins this one.
New Mexico v. Louisville. Neither team is very good. New Mexico’s good win is Arizona. Louisville’s is South Florida. Losses are pretty bad on both sides (UNM lost to aTm and UNLV, Louisville lost to Syracuse and Kentucky, along with not being competitive in a lot of games). I will treat this as a motion for summary judgment so we’ll give this to Louisville.
Syracuse v. Wyoming. Wyoming beat Tenn on the road. Syracuse beat Notre Dame on the road. Syracuse lost to Akron, Wyoming lost to UNLV. Syracuse’s win is better, but their loss is worse. Both teams padded with a IAA team. In this case we go with the team with the better win-loss record, Wyoming.
So that’s 5 wins for the MWC (Utah, TCU, BYU, Air Force, Wyoming) and 3 for the Big East (Louisville, USF, UCONN). So I will agree with you that the bottom of your conference, with the exception of Syracuse, is better than the bottom of the MWC. But overall, the MWC is better.
Sagarin largely agrees:
Utah (#8) v. Cincy (#28)
TCU (#9) v. Pitt (#26)
BYU (#23) v. WVU (#34)
AF (#48) v. Rutgers (#38)
CSU (#84) v. UCONN (#42)
UNLV (#96) v. USF (#49)
UNM (#92) v. Louisville (#98)
Wyoming (#125) v. Syracuse (#104).
He gives you Wyoming and Air Force but takes away Louisville, for a 4-4 split.
Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.
by displacedute on Jan 5, 2009 3:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
and you know that how?
How do you know that Syracuse would beat SDSU, Wyoming, UNLV, and New Mexico? Was it the loss to Akron that convinced they were that good or the 9 point win over a 2-10 I-AA team.
We have some non-conference games that shows the bottom half of the conference can compete with other BCS teams. It’s not a ton of evidence, but it is the only real objective evidence we have. Saying “I think” or “its likely” is opinion only.
As an aside, I don’t think there’s a team in the Big East that could touch Utah OR TCU.
by DoubleB on Jan 5, 2009 6:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You guys are Georgia fans...
… would you really, really bet against Pat White? I mean, seriously?
by drothgery on Jan 5, 2009 6:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If I'm reading his moniker correctly . . .
. . . at least one of the commenters to whom you are responding (displacedute, which I take to be “displaced Ute”) is a Utah fan.
Fair point on Pat White, although I’d like our chances in a Rich Rodriguez-free/Steve Slaton-less rematch. Let’s not forget that, in the final 44 minutes of that game, Georgia outscored the Mountaineers 35-10 and fell short of the victory only because of a fake punt. Had D.J. Shockley touched the ball a final time, Georgia would have won.
I will give credit where credit is due, however: Georgia has lost three non-conference games under Mark Richt, and two of them were to Big East teams. However, we have no recent history with the current upper crust of the Mountain West, so I have no basis for comparison as a Bulldog fan.
Go 'Dawgs!
by T Kyle King on Jan 5, 2009 7:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Comparing schedules
I wish Nebraska would have had more breathers this year . . .
As a Utah Man, I wish Utah would have been able to play 8 home games, and would have had W. Michigan, San Jose State, New Mexico State, Iowa State, Baylor and Colorado on the schedule.
That looks like plenty of “breathers” to me.
by Rhino95 on Jan 7, 2009 2:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't have a problem
with a split NC and I hope Utah gets a share of the AP. What else could they have done? The only win on their resume that brings any question to me is New Mexico. That game was too close. Other wise they look good enough to be considered #1.
And, if they played UF they would have a chance at winning.
However if winning the NC is important to Utah they are going to need to either 1- Go independent and play a tougher schedule or 2- Find a BCS conference like the PAC-10 to get into. Problem is the PAC-10 doesn’t want to expand.
Going independent seems to be the only way for them to move up to the big time- FSU and Miami both were independent when they moved up to the big time.
by 5026 on Jan 4, 2009 11:52 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I dunno......
“….If West Virginia went 13-0 would you be saying the same thing?…”
No, I probably wouldn’t. But none of this is a purely objective science(albeit, they try and work the computers into the thing). The Big East is a BCS conference and the MWC isn’t. Does that make complete sense? No, and I don’t know why the MWC isn’t except that until recently the majority of the teams have been viewed as pretty weak.
The Big East used to have MIA in it in their glory years, and I think FSU was in it back in the day too.
West Virginia, like VA Tech, has proved themselves more over a number of years whereas Utah hasn’t, as far as I can tell. I remember NE playing those teams 15 or so yrs ago when they were trying to make a name for themselves.
So, there’s a history/tradition aspect to the poll voting that is just the way the world works. As for the Utes W over ‘Bama the other nite, they went from being relatively unknown to, ’whoa, these guys might be for real’, like overnite. If Utah keeps getting opportunities to knock off the ‘big boys’ they will certainly gain clout in the ensuing years. They just don’t have that right now, though it wouldn’t surprise me one bit if they finish out at #2 which I don’t think Ute Nation should be disappointed with. People also think of them as a ‘1 year wonder’, which also makes no sense as rating goes, but it is there.
POLITICS!
But, the NC must pretty much be won head to head in the BCS Champ game and that’s not the way the cookie crumbled this time around for Utah.
Let’s say this, I’m not convinced they ARE NOT the #1 team in the country, we will not know for sure, but they won’t end up there in all likelyhood.
Hey, Nebraska’s my team, we’ve been jipped here and there over the last 4 decades….
It happens…..winning a NC is not as easy as it seems…..
"...don't TAZE me, bro..."
by zE bOp on Jan 5, 2009 12:08 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
West Virginia, like VA Tech, has proved themselves more over a number of years whereas Utah hasn’t
Really? What has WV done? Besides this year, Utah went undefeated in 2004 and destroyed Pitt (another big east team) in the Fiesta bowl. The year before that they beat a Carson Palmer-led USC team in the Vegas Bowl. Is that enough?
by sdballin on Jan 5, 2009 3:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It depends on what you mean by "postseason polls"
Rules are rules, so the winner of the BCS championship game is #1. Speaking of rules - “whomever it is”? Really?
by NCT on Jan 5, 2009 8:06 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
They're only mandated #1 in the Coaches' Poll
The AP is free to vote for whomever it likes.
http://hobnailboot.blogspot.com/
by AuditDawg on Jan 5, 2009 8:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Drat
That’ll teach me to post polls hurriedly.
Go 'Dawgs!
by T Kyle King on Jan 5, 2009 9:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Here's a good bottom line question
If UGA were to move into the MWC, over a period of 5 seasons, how many games do you think UGA would lose?
My estimate would be less than 1 game per year on average. I would say that UGA could even go undefeated 3 times in 5 years….and that includes getting up for a BCS team every January….and I am obviously not a UGA homer.
p.s. I would make the same argument for Oklahoma, Texas or USC if they moved to the MWC.
by skigator93 on Jan 5, 2009 11:22 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I think UGA would start out winning that many games, because of the problems with the BCS system.
But give them a few years to recruit without BCS money and exposure and see where they end up? Same with putting Utah in the SEC. Would Utah have gone undefeated this year in the SEC? Maybe not (although their SOS was as good as Alabama’s prior to the SECCG). But if you give them 5 years of SEC exposure and money and recruiting? They’d certainly have a shot. Also, if they DO go undefeated, they get to play in the national title game. Seems like a nice perk. How about you ask Georgia if they’ll trade places with us?
Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.
by displacedute on Jan 5, 2009 3:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If you think
That SEC powers are only able to recruit so well because of BCS money, then you have no idea how large southern schools’ football budgets are. Our stadiums are twice as big as yours and still there aren’t nearly enough seats to meet demand for big games.
You couldn’t sniff the SEC championship game this year for less than $400. Sports is religion here.
by skigator93 on Jan 5, 2009 3:41 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Outside of Florida (because of Gatorade)
the SEC teams need BCS money and TV money and exposure just like everyone else. I realize football is a religion in the SEC, but Georgia would be unwilling to trade with Utah and Utah would jump at the chance to trade with Georgia. That should tell you whether being “Georgia” is as important as being in the SEC. Trust me, it’s not.
Same with the PAC 10 and the Big 12. Utah would, right now, without hesitation, take the place of any pac 10 or big 12 school. We’ll do a straight-across trade. Texas could rule the MWC every year, and we’ll take our place in the Big 12. Because with the quadrupling of our budget and the instant recruiting and exposure upgrade, we’d be national champs within 10 years. In fact, if Utah were in the Big 12 you wouldn’t have a national championship yourselves because Urban never would have left. Big 12 talent would have done exactly what SEC talent did in the hands of Urban Meyer, it would have won championships.
Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.
by displacedute on Jan 5, 2009 5:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You make some good points, displacedute . . .
. . . but let’s not get carried away here.
Utah has a fine team and an underappreciated program, I am giving serious consideration to ranking the Utes No. 1 on my final BlogPoll ballot (which is why I threw this out there for discussion), and I don’t doubt that Utah could win a national championship within a decade of making the jump to a league with a longer pedigree.
It’s presumptuous, however, to assume that such an achievement would be inevitable. Arizona State made a lot of noise in the W.A.C. for a while before making the jump to the Pac-10. While the Sun Devils have come close (most notably in 1996), they haven’t finished No. 1 in the final polls. Howard Schnellenberger declared Louisville to be on “a collision course with the national championship” and the Cardinals were expected to be the new beast of the Big East after Boston College, Florida State, and Miami (Florida) bolted for the A.C.C. Instead, U. of L. has faltered.
I’m not saying the same thing would happen to Utah if, say, the Pac-10 expanded to include the Utes. It isn’t a done deal, though.
Beyond that, you may be right that being Georgia isn’t as important as being in the S.E.C., but being in Georgia certainly is. There’s a limit to how far a program can go without an available local talent base from which to recruit unless that program happens to be Notre Dame, which is the exception to most rules. Even if Texas and Utah swapped spots, the Longhorns still would have a natural advantage, as being a top-tier program in the Lone Star State simply gives a team access to substantially more talent than being a top-tier program in the Beehive State.
I will grant, however, that being in a league with better television contracts and bowl tie-ins to provide exposure and revenue matters a great deal, and that the Utes are hampered less by their quality as a squad than by the relative obscurity in which they and their Mountain West brethren toil. That is a fine point, and I appreciate your contributions to the discussion as I struggle with where to place Utah on my ballot.
Go 'Dawgs!
by T Kyle King on Jan 5, 2009 8:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Very reasonable Kyle.
I do have one great argument, however, and that is Urban. Urban left Utah because he knew he couldn’t win a championship here. If Utah was in the PAC 10 then Urban would have won his National Title at Utah, rather than at Florida.
I love Coach Whitt, and I hope he’s around for a long time, but if Urban had stuck around I can imagine a world where Utah already has a BCS title.
Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.
by displacedute on Jan 5, 2009 8:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Again
Just being in the conference does not mean you would have the caliber of athletes to run the table in the BCS conference and win a national championship. Urban is a great recruiter, but the Percy Harvins and Knoshawn Morenos of the world ain’t playing for Utah. It is easier to “get up” for 6 tough games than to do so for 11 tough games….sometimes you need superior athletes to claim a victory on an off week when you don’t play your best.
by skigator93 on Jan 6, 2009 12:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
can't have it both ways
I’m on the fence about the Utes in this situation, but I do empathize with them. They are currently participating in a system that intentional discriminates against them. In spite of that, they completed an undefeated season against (in some cases) real competition. It seems to me that we should have been having this discussion weeks ago when the bowl selections were taking place. Would anyone have a problem with Utah replacing Florida or Oklahoma in Miami (UF partisans aside)?
by Sparrow on Jan 5, 2009 4:02 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Yes
The 5 breather weeks makes Utah’s schedule considerably less difficult than Oklahoma’s or Florida’s. It’s not Utah’s fault- that is just the way it is.
by skigator93 on Jan 6, 2009 12:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Alabama win is a bit of an asterisk
There are two problems with using Alabama in your list of huge wins when you’re comparing yourself to Florida and Oklahoma. One, they haven’t even played their bowl yet so whichever team wins will be able to add the other name to the list and suddenly it will look far better again (especially if Florida wins, since they also beat Bama). The other problem is that Alabama, being in a bowl they didn’t care about, was not exactly motivated. They were playing a team no one knew a thing about and being told they would kill them. They didn’t want to be there anyways cause they were one game away from the NC. Florida beat them when everything was on the line. Huge difference, and you’re lying to yourself if you don’t think that motivation really changes a team. Alabama in the bowl game was not the Alabama of the regular season.
by Pantheon on Jan 6, 2009 1:19 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I don't buy the motivation thing
Nick Saban gets paid $4 million a year to get his kids motivated 12 to 14 times in a season. If he can’t get an Alabama team fired up about playing in the Sugar Bowl for the first time in over 15 years, he’s vastly overpaid.
Likewise, if the Crimson Tide didn’t know about Utah, they haven’t been following college football very closely in recent years. The Utes were the original “B.C.S. busters.” They went undefeated and won a B.C.S. bowl game in 2004. Their head coach, Urban Meyer, later was hired at Florida, where he now is enjoying considerable success. Utah came into the game with a better record, both in this season and in the last five seasons, than Alabama.
I don’t buy that an S.E.C. team that wanted to be in the national championship game instead of the Sugar Bowl can’t get “up” for a game in New Orleans against an undefeated top ten team from a mid-major conference just because the players have been told that they should win the game handily. I seem to recall a similar situation a year ago . . . and a final score of 41-10.
Go 'Dawgs!
by T Kyle King on Jan 6, 2009 7:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree but
I wouldn’t compare Utah to Hawaii. I think Utah would trounce them – they actually play some real teams during the regular season.
I think the distractions and loss of both offensive tackles had more to do with Alabma’s loss than focus.
Any arguments about focus were dispelled with Utah jumped out to the 21-0 early lead and woke up Alabama, who responded and cut the lead to 21-17. From there, Utah was just the better team that night and won the game.
by skigator93 on Jan 6, 2009 11:02 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Fair point on Hawaii
My point mainly was that the “not excited to be there” argument doesn’t wash. Georgia played inspired football in the Superdome that night against an opponent the Bulldogs had much more incentive to overlook than Alabama did.
I agree that Utah was the better team that night (as the Utes have been every week of the season), but the Sugar Bowl looked a lot like the Georgia-Alabama game back in September. In both games, the team with the superior line took a commanding lead early, and, when the trailing team started to show some fight, the leading team marched right down the field for the score that iced the game.
After the ’Bama game, I tried to tell myself that the ’Dawgs made a valiant attempt at a comeback and fell just a bit short, but, in the cold clear light of day, it was apparent that this simply was not true. The shoe was on the other foot for the Sugar Bowl, where the Tide threatened to climb back into it and got as far as the doorstep but never really came as close to getting over the hump as the 21-17 score suggested. As soon as Alabama looked likely to make a game of it, Utah put its foot back on the gas and it was all Utes after that.
Go 'Dawgs!
by T Kyle King on Jan 6, 2009 12:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I would have Utah #3.....
- BCS Champion
- Southern Cal
- Utah (beat #2 in SEC not the conf. champ!)
- BCS Loser
- Texas (they barely beat a 2nd place Big 10/11 team in Ohio St-whose conf. finished at 1-5 in postseason).
by Dawgrees on Jan 6, 2009 9:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Why Southern Cal 2, if I could ask.
Texas would have just as good, if not better, resume than every other team on that list. The Ohio State team they played was the best Ohio State has been all season, and certainly better than the team Southern Cal played (in LA). Southern Cal didn’t beat many teams as bad as it ‘should’ have, and they didn’t even beat Oregon State—whom Utah beat. Utah’s resume is also better than Southern Cal’s.
by The ArchDawg on Jan 7, 2009 12:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
