# National Champion



## copper (Sep 11, 2008)

With Flordia winning the BCS National Championship, what are your thoughts on who is the real National Champion?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

With my nose plugged I voted for Utah.


----------



## seniorsetterguy (Sep 22, 2007)

Me too!


----------



## Al Hansen (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> With my nose plugged I voted for Utah.


 :lol:


----------



## husker (Sep 16, 2007)

Gators for sure.Utah season ticket holder been very fun season hope same for 2009. 1 gators 2 trojans 3 sooners 4 UTES


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

LOL! -BaHa!- :rotfl: -/O_- The sooners ahead of the Utes with 2 losses? Maybe you should trade in you seasons tickets for Utah for a set of Utah state tickets? How much you want to bet on that? :lol:


----------



## mjschijf (Oct 1, 2007)

1. Utes
2. Florida
3. Texas
4. USC
5. Oklahoma

That would be my year-end top 5.


----------



## copper (Sep 11, 2008)

Utes #2 in the AP, #4 in the Coaches. Whittingham was the only dissenting coach and voted Utah #1.


----------



## deadicated1 (Mar 17, 2008)

i just cant understand the hype about utah being #1. sure, they went undefeated, and were the only team in the nation to do so. but when you play san diego state, utah state, and some of the other below average teams they played, i have to pull the strength of scedule card. they barely squeaked out a win over air force, and oregon state. ya ya, osu beat usc, but imo they did to usc what utah just did to alabama. the bigger team blew em off and got beat based on lack of preparation. they are definitely a top 5 team, but not #1


----------



## OKEE (Jan 3, 2008)

Vote them #1 or not bottom line you will never know if they could/ should or are #1 unless they played each other. If utah would play florida this weekend the winner would be #1 the end .


----------



## orvis1 (Sep 7, 2007)

This is the very argument for the +1 system in college football we could have a game between Utah and Florida to settle it all..


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

> ya ya, osu beat usc, but imo they did to usc what utah just did to alabama. the bigger team blew em off and got beat based on lack of preparation. they are definitely a top 5 team, but not #1


 Utah actually had a strength of schedule ranking higher than USC with NO losses!


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

flyguy7 said:


> > ya ya, osu beat usc, but imo they did to usc what utah just did to alabama. the bigger team blew em off and got beat based on lack of preparation. they are definitely a top 5 team, but not #1
> 
> 
> Utah actually had a strength of schedule ranking higher than USC with NO losses!


so maybe you can tell me why the PAC10 had one of the best bowl records this year and the MWC didn't break 500...

1. Florida
2. Utah
3. Texas
4. USC
5. Oklahoma


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

hey stable, maybe you should read your stats before posting. The MWC was 3-2 in bowl games this year. If you go get a calculator you wil see that is ABOVE .500


----------



## buggsz24 (Mar 18, 2008)

stablebuck said:


> so maybe you can tell me why the PAC10 had one of the best bowl records this year


Perhaps they save all of their victories for the post season, lord knows they weren't too concerned about it during victories during the season.


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

Well Buggzs, you gotta be happy with the sweet justice of texas ending up finishing AHEAD of Choklahoma in the final AP rankings


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

The Big 10 was 1-5 in bowl games, and yet they get an automatic bid to a BCS game. The MWC 'deserves' to be on the same level as the Pac 10, the Big 10, the ACC, and the Big East.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

oh...sorry I forgot about CSU...my mistake...but the PAC10 did make a good impression in the bowl games compared to what everyone thought of them in the regular season. I don't care so much for the PAC10...just so you know...

yeah Bob Stoops is a HORRIBLE bowl game coach...with Tebow's 2 turnovers there is no reason why OU should have lost by 10 points! I knew he was gonna choke...1-3 in national championships...not a great percentage...

The MWC definitely deserves to be on the same level as the ACC and Big East!!


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

I wonder if there is a double secret PAC-10 homer club in Utah that none of us know anything about.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

flyguy7 said:


> I wonder if there is a double secret PAC-10 homer club in Utah that none of us know anything about.


riverrat77 is the president. :shock: :twisted:


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

> The MWC definitely deserves to be on the same level as the ACC and Big East!!


And the Big 10 and the Pac 10.... and only a step behind the big 12 and the SEC. The reason the MWC will never be as strong top to bottom as the other two is because of Geographic Location. The top recruits are never going to go to the MWC and deal with the weather and isolated locations when they can go to the big12/SEC and play football in nice weather. All things being equal would you rather play football in Laramie or Southern Cal, Texas, Florida, or Georgia? I think this is one of the biggest reasons for the decline of the Big 10. Since Spurrier put the SEC on the map, they have been drawing in a good portion of the top recruits away from the Big 10.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

This is true...I could be wakeboarding this afternoon on Lake Travis in Austin... :mrgreen:


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

Right on, stablebuck. Most college recruits would rather be wakeboarding in texas than ice fishing on Wheatland any day!


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

I'm curious as to peoples' opinions towards absorbing more teams into the MWC and creating like a north/south division and having a conference championship. What do y'all think??? I think it could only add legitimacy! I would think dividing the WAC between the PAC-10 and the MWC. That in theory would leave the BIG-10, Big East, and ACC lacking and move the MWC and PAC-10 up in AP Poll/BCS status.


----------



## buggsz24 (Mar 18, 2008)

stablebuck said:


> I'm curious as to peoples' opinions towards absorbing more teams into the MWC and creating like a north/south division and having a conference championship.


Conference championship isn't a bad idea, but they teams they pick up need to tougher than the teams currently there. They would be a lot better off getting rid of perennial bottom feeders SDSU and WYO and picking up a Boise or someone of their skill.


----------



## gwailow (Jan 20, 2008)

stablebuck said:


> I'm curious as to peoples' opinions towards absorbing more teams into the MWC and creating like a north/south division and having a conference championship. What do y'all think??? I think it could only add legitimacy! I would think dividing the WAC between the PAC-10 and the MWC. That in theory would leave the BIG-10, Big East, and ACC lacking and move the MWC and PAC-10 up in AP Poll/BCS status.


That would be great but there is no chance the PAC-10 takes on any more teams. If they ever do though, Utah and BYU would/should be the top contenders for being added....probably get screwed out of it again, but definitely the most deserving.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

I don't think adding teams like Boise, Nevada, Louisiana Tech, Hawaii, or Fresno State would do anything but *help* the MWC or PAC-10. Pretty sure anyone of those teams wouldve beat Washington or Wyoming this year!


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

I like the idea but I think you would be walking a slippery slope and it may do more to hurt the MWC than help its credibility. By splitting the conference into two divisions, not everyone will be playing everyone. If Utah doesn't end up playing TCU or visa verca, you are just helping the naysayers by playing a weaker schedule. The advantage to the MWC is all the good teams play each other, and with, say an east/west subdivision (or north/south), this isn't going to happen. This could possible hurt credibility more than anything. it doesn't affect a conference like the SEC with lots of good teams (also some bad ones as well) but it would hurt the MWC.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

Very true...you might need a stronger collection of teams to benefit with the subdivisions and a conference championship. The best option college football has in crowning a truly legitimate national championship (short of a tournament) is increased inter-conference competition in the regular season. That's why I love the idea of the OSU-USC or OSU-UT match-ups...it gives everyone a more accurate bearing on how legit a given team is before the first week in December or the first week in January...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

flyguy7 said:


> IBy splitting the conference into two divisions, not everyone will be playing everyone. If Utah doesn't end up playing TCU or visa verca, you are just helping the naysayers by playing a weaker schedule.


If they each won their division they would met in the conference championship game, problem solved.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

flyguy7 said:


> > The MWC definitely deserves to be on the same level as the ACC and Big East!!
> 
> 
> And the Big 10 and the Pac 10.... and *only a step behind the big 12 and the SEC.* The reason the MWC will never be as strong top to bottom as the other two is because of Geographic Location. The top recruits are never going to go to the MWC and deal with the weather and isolated locations when they can go to the big12/SEC and play football in nice weather. All things being equal would you rather play football in Laramie or Southern Cal, Texas, Florida, or Georgia? I think this is one of the biggest reasons for the decline of the Big 10. Since Spurrier put the SEC on the map, they have been drawing in a good portion of the top recruits away from the Big 10.


 :rotfl: -_O-


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Those calling for conference expansion must not remember what preceeded the MWC. Back when the Big-10 was really 10, the Big 12 was the Big 8, and the Big East had quality teams. There was no MWC - but the WAC. It was 8 teams, then added Fresno State. Then the Southwest Conference broke up - with the 4 best texas schools leaving to join the Big-8 to form the Big 12. This left the other 4 SWC schools without a home. So the jumbo WAC was born. 16 teams. 4-quads of 4 teams each. Every year you played every team in your quad. And then for two years, you played home and home with another quad, so there were rotating divisions. Then the two division leaders played in Vegas for a conference chamionship game. That is what led to BYU's 14-1 cotton bowl season - a 15 game season? really? With a "pre-season" classic game against Texas A & M and the conference championship plus the bowl game - yes. Anyway, after 4 years it was clear that the 16 team super conference wasn't working. Who could forget the classic WAC match-ups - Hawaii vs. Rice, SMU-Wyoming, and UTEP vs. San Jose State! It was all that crap that pretty much led to the pre-expansion WAC to break away and make their own "new" conference - the MWC. The point about making a bigger conference only dilutes things is spot on. That is exactly what happened. I don't care if we bring in Boise State, Hawaii or Fresno - that would not improve the MWC unless at the same time we kick out UNLV, New Mexico and Wyoming. And what would be in it for the WAC schools? They at least get to play on ESPN in the WAC. If they join the MWC? - Also - there are reasons they were not invited to join the MWC when it formed. Think about that.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

It makes me so upset how OSU will make it to a premier bowl game and/or be undefeated in the regular season, but the only reason why is because they didn't play one of the teams that are gunning for them on a semi-annual basis like MSU, Iowa, or Wisconsin. If you are gonna claim to be a conference champion then you either should have a conference championship or play everyone in the conference every year.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Ohio State didn't win the Big 10 this year - Penn State did. 

OSU gets premier bowls because they travel 50-75,000 people to bowl games. As a result, OSU gets alumni donations in excess of $100 million a year! Combine all Crimson Club and Cougar Club donations and you'll be a couple zeros short of that amount. It is about money. Nothing else. There is no NCAA champship in D-1 Football. There is a BCS champion, and a vote of AP writers on who they think is the best team. Nothing more. Nothing less. No champion.

This has never been about crowning a champion. It is about money. And as long as schools like Ohio State and their 100,000 plus student base and subsequent alumni base are spread across media markets, they will get premier bowl games. Realize that the population of all MWC media markets is smaller than the state of Ohio. Or Michigan. Or Florida. Or California.


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

> :rotfl: -_O-


Hmmmm, interesting, Tree, considering the MWC was 2-0 against the SEC this year. WYOMING beat Tennesee and Utah STOMPED Alabama, the #2 team in the SEC that until the utes, lead the SEC most of the year and didn't lose until the SEC championship in a very close game to the national champion Gators.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> OSU gets premier bowls because they travel 50-75,000 people to bowl games. As a result, OSU gets alumni donations in excess of $100 million a year! Combine all Crimson Club and Cougar Club donations and you'll be a couple zeros short of that amount. It is about money. Nothing else. There is no NCAA champship in D-1 Football. There is a BCS champion, and a vote of AP writers on who they think is the best team. Nothing more. Nothing less. No champion.
> 
> 
> 
> > I don't think you just roll over and die though! Or just blindly say that since a team went undefeated and beat such and such team that "almost" beat such and such team. We could go round and round all day. The only thing at this point that helps the MWC is more interconference play. The Cougar-Sooner game this coming September is a fantastic start to that! No fault of the MWC or Utah that Michigan sucked or no fault of BYU that UCLA sucked. But you really have to just roll the dice and see where with a national audience you can prove yourself so you can get team buy-in early on. Cause like you said...Utah and BYU don't have a whole lot of support outside of the beehive state...


----------



## Dead Drifter (Nov 22, 2008)

How do we know that the losses from Utah and BYU to Michigan and UCLA was not the catalist for the demise of those two programs this year. Maybe those losses were demoralizing enough to give the players doubts or just took the wind out of their sails for having undefeated seasons and hopes for national championships????


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

I don't think there is a demoralizing factor in the BCS equation. How would you quantify that? :roll:


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

deadicated1 said:


> i just cant understand the hype about utah being #1. sure, they went undefeated, and were the only team in the nation to do so. but when you play san diego state, utah state, and some of the other below average teams they played, i have to pull the strength of scedule card. they barely squeaked out a win over air force, and oregon state. ya ya, osu beat usc, but imo they did to usc what utah just did to alabama. the bigger team blew em off and got beat based on lack of preparation. they are definitely a top 5 team, but not #1


Wow... I'm gone for five days and D1 pops off with this?? Good call... and no, I didn't log in under his name. :lol:


----------



## Chaser (Sep 28, 2007)

deadicated1 said:


> i just cant understand the hype about utah being #1. sure, they went undefeated, and were the only team in the nation to do so. but when you play san diego state, utah state, and some of the other below average teams they played, i have to pull the strength of scedule card. they barely squeaked out a win over air force, and oregon state. ya ya, osu beat usc, but imo they did to usc what utah just did to alabama. the bigger team blew em off and got beat based on lack of preparation. they are definitely a top 5 team, but not #1


Pull the card, but realize that its gonna tell you that they had a tougher SOS than USC and Texas.

It is what it is. I agree with the #2 Ranking. WHY? Because they didn't have a chance to play those other top 5 teams. Had the Utes started the season in the Top 25, they may have gotten a shot at the title under the current BCS system. But closing out the season with a #2 rank after starting the year UN-ranked is saying A LOT. I still think they could have beaten any of the Top 5 teams however, which to me means they deserved a shot at the title. Unfortunately under the BCS, it wouldn't happen.

Now, here's why I think they should have gotten the #1 rank: because it would have blown the BCS out of the water, and changed things so that in the future, it would be fair for everyone.


----------

