# BYU and the BCS championship game!



## Comrade Duck (Oct 24, 2007)

Is it even a possibility? Interesting article on ESPN.com that discusses that. Brad Edwards is a college football researcher for ESPN. This is what he had to say:



> "BYU is entering October with a BCS standing that would be good enough for automatic inclusion in a major bowl game. So the question isn't whether the Cougars will make the BCS if they go undefeated. It's whether they could actually work their way into the BCS Championship Game. Obviously, that's impossible to answer right now, but by having a coaches' poll ranking of 7 and a Harris poll ranking of 9 entering October, BYU has made such a discussion far from ridiculous.
> 
> It's the highest a non-BCS team has been ranked at this stage of the season in the BCS era, and it's pretty close to where the Cougars were ranked (6th by the coaches, 7th by the AP on Oct. 1) when they won their national title in 1984."


http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/stor ... ogspot.com

Pat Forde, senior writer for ESPN.com and his take on the BYU/TCU game:



> BYU at TCU (29), Oct. 16. Thursday night game could be the Cougars' last legitimate threat until they wrap up the season with trips to Air Force and Utah. An impressive BYU victory here could enliven debate about whether it can become the ultimate BCS buster and crash the BCS Championship Game -- especially if other unbeaten teams continue to fall by the wayside.


http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/ ... ogspot.com

There is still a lot of football to be played. If BYU loses this talk is all for not, but lets say they run the table. Could they land in the championship game?

I think some major upsets would have to occur, something similar to what happened late in the season last year. A lot of the teams ahead of them in the rankings will play each other so by default some are going to lose. Last year was a crazy season. Could the same thing happen this year?

Could Utah be considered as well? How important would it be for BYU and Utah to both still be ranked at the end of the season so that the winner would even be considered?

What do you guys think?

Shane


----------



## mjschijf (Oct 1, 2007)

I don't know man. I mean, anything is possible but even if BYU does go undefeated they are still going to need A LOT of help from A LOT of other teams if they are going to make it to the national championship game. I think the same can be said for the Utes. I just don't think either team has a strong enough strength of schedule. I will say this though, if the Utes go undefeated I think they would be more deserving of playing for the national championship than if BYU were to go undefeated. Looking at the number of quality wins the Utes would have, I look at Michigan, Air Force, Oregon State, TCU, and BYU all as quality wins, maybe with Air Force being borderline. So that would be 5 for the Utes. Now let's look at BYU. If they went undefeated, their quality wins would be against TCU, Air Force, and the Utes. So that is only 3. To me, the Utes clearly have the tougher schedule and would be more deserving of playing for a national championship if they were to go undefeated. 
Like I said though, I don't think it's going to happen for either team. I don't think we even know how good BYU is yet, because they haven't played anyone good. They almost lost to a Washington team that is 0 and 4 now. They could have a tough game when they play at TCU. I expect BYU to win it, but I think that game will be a test for them. 
I think the Utes win over Michigan is looking a lot better now that the Wolverines upset Wisconsin. 
Anyway, we'll see how the rest of the season goes. I really hope both teams are undefeated when they face off for the holy war. It should be another great game.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

If BYU makes the championship game, it'd be the biggest travesty in sports history. No way do they rank with some of the power teams that are beating each other out of contention. BYU makes it, there should be an immediate outcry for discarding some computer poll system and going right to a playoff because they are not one of the two top teams in the nation.... on any day. :|


----------



## seniorsetterguy (Sep 22, 2007)

Riverrat77 said:


> If BYU makes the championship game, it'd be the biggest travesty in sports history. No way do they rank with some of the power teams that are beating each other out of contention. BYU makes it, there should be an immediate outcry for discarding some computer poll system and going right to a playoff because they are not one of the two top teams in the nation.... on any day. :|


Gee whiz, RR...I always thought you were a fun guy! Don't blow the candles out!


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

I'm sorry but I have to agree. You dont plays teams like UCLA, Washington, Wyoming, USU etc to make it to the National Championship. They should atleast play teams in the top 5 right now.


----------



## seniorsetterguy (Sep 22, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> I'm sorry but I have to agree. You dont plays teams like UCLA, Washington, Wyoming, USU etc to make it to the National Championship. They should atleast play teams in the top 5 right now.


Great point, CS...as usual. I'll call my friend Tommy Holmoe, and share your suggestion. Perhaps he can get on the phone and re-arrange the schedule to get some top 5 schools into LES this year. For that matter, Maybe we should suggest the same idea to Chris Hill. Maybe he could call Urban sown in Florida and arrange a game before the season is over. What are these guys thinking, anyway??????


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

> BYU makes it, there should be an immediate outcry for discarding some computer poll system and going right to a playoff because they are not one of the two top teams in the nation.... on any day.


Kind of funny. That is EXACTLY what led to the BCS system. Oh the irony.

I am a total BYU homer. I am convinced right now that they are the best non-BCS team in the country. I am also convinced that in ANY conference, they would be the top 1-2 team. That being said, I don't know right now how they place in the nation overall. If they played in Provo, there is not a single team in the country that would be favored to beat BYU. Conversely, BYU would be the dog on the road against those same top teams. This will take time to play out. Weird things could happen. Lots of football left before I break out any national title talk. I am just enjoying the way they play the game right now. It is great to watch.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> > BYU makes it, there should be an immediate outcry for discarding some computer poll system and going right to a playoff because they are not one of the two top teams in the nation.... on any day.
> 
> 
> Kind of funny. That is EXACTLY what led to the BCS system. Oh the irony.


Help me out here.... what do you mean? There has never been a "playoff system" in place... so what led to the BCS system? Two supposedly unworthy teams playing for the national championship? I will admit, the "co champ" crap always bugged me back in the day....


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Riverrat77 said:


> If BYU makes the championship game, it'd be the biggest travesty in sports history. No way do they rank with some of the power teams that are beating each other out of contention. BYU makes it, there should be an immediate outcry for discarding some computer poll system and going right to a playoff because they are not one of the two top teams in the nation.... on any day. :|


Whatever it takes to further discredit the BCS is a win for everyone! I sure hope that it is the Y coming out on top, but if it is the U, more power to them. Just imagine for a minute all of the right teams losing and then BYU and the U in the top 8 or so when they play, that would make the whole system even more jacked up, the more discredited the system is the better, playoffs would be one step closer.


----------



## orvis1 (Sep 7, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> > BYU makes it, there should be an immediate outcry for discarding some computer poll system and going right to a playoff because they are not one of the two top teams in the nation.... on any day.
> 
> 
> Kind of funny. That is EXACTLY what led to the BCS system. Oh the irony.
> ...


I think vegas would have something to say about that. I think most of the top 4 teams would be at least an 11 point favorite against the cougs and a 14+ point favorite against the utes. Bolth teams are having a good season but let's not get ahead of ourselves yet. Remember BYU has played no one that would be considered "decent" yet. Not that the utes have but they have beaten two schools that have knocked off top 15 schools. Slow down on that blue Kool Aid it doesn't taste so well coming back up. This almost sounds like something a drunken U fan would say...


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Riverrat77 said:


> Help me out here.... what do you mean? There has never been a "playoff system" in place... so what led to the BCS system? Two supposedly unworthy teams playing for the national championship? I will admit, the "co champ" crap always bugged me back in the day....


Back before the BCS, there was the BCA, and before that, there were bowls. Bowls had contracts with conferences, and regardless of national ranking, the bowl got the contracted team. Example: the rose bowl ALWAYS had the Pac 10 and Big 10 Champions. Period. The champions of those conferences had no choice - they HAD to play in the Rose Bowl. In 1984, that became a problem - as the #1 team in the country was contractually obligated to play in the Holiday Bowl, against the 5th place Big 10 Team - again by contract. This forced BYU to play a 6-5 unranked Michigan Team. The country went nuts because the claim was that BYU got the national championship trophey but was never tested against a top team. Twice in the next six years, the number 1 or 2 team played in the Rose Bowl, and the next best team was in the Sugar or Orange bowls - again by contract, thus preventing a national championship game. So there were a couple of years when there were two national champions, or co-champions named. But none of the conferences wanted to give up their ties to THEIR bowl games, and the Bowls didn't want to give up the ties to THEIR conference champions. So the SEC, ACC, Big East, and Big 12 got together in a dark room and said "We'll give our conference champion to a a Title game if they are ranked 1 or 2, if the national title game can rotate to each of our big conference bowl games. At the time, this included the Sugar, Orange, and Fiesta Bowls. The Big 10 and Pac 10 stayed out - keeping with the tradition of the Rose Bowl. At least for 4-5 years. Then they joined the others in forming the BCS.

The BCS was an evolution of events that were intended to put the #1 and 2 teams against each other in a Bowl Game. And I have to say, much as I hate the system, it has actually done a pretty good job of that. Is it a play-off? No way. But it wasn't intended to be. It was intended to put 1 against 2. And assumed that those teams would ALWAYS come from those six conferences. And to date, that has been correct. The other BCS games have turned into ways to make more money for the six conferences, but matching the conference champions against one another in hopefully top 10 match ups. To that end, much has failed, as mediocre teams can get into the games with 3 losses if they win the all "powerful" Big East or ACC.


----------



## buggsz24 (Mar 18, 2008)

GaryFish said:


> I am also convinced that in ANY conference, they would be the top 1-2 team.


This is the single funniest thing I have ever seen on the internet, I blew half my cereal out of my nose when I read this. Too funny!



GaryFish said:


> If they played in Provo, there is not a single team in the country that would be favored to beat BYU.


I'm sure your right, after all teams who belong in the top ten haven't ever played in a hostile environment. I'm sure your 64,000 fans in blue would be SO much more intimidating than the 90,000 + that show up on a regular basis to watch these teams play.

This is why BYU fans get a bad rap, this statement was devoid of any reality. IN the SEC you would be lucky to have a winning record, not even top 5. In the big 12 your fourth at best , and only in a down pac-10 would you be in the top 3.

I'm going back to breakfast now.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

If BYU played in the SEC, half those games would be in Provo, where those southern boys would be sucking wind half way through the second quarter. Part of what makes playing in Provo so tough is the elevation - HUGE difference for any team playing at/near sea level. 

Other years, I would not say this. This year is a once in a decade or two kind of team in Provo. So yes, this year's BYU team would be 1st or 2nd in any conference in the country thiis year. Any student of college football (other than beligerant Cougar Haters) can see this. And that is why BYU is getting the national attention they are getting.


----------



## buggsz24 (Mar 18, 2008)

GaryFish said:


> If BYU played in the SEC, half those games would be in Provo, where those southern boys would be sucking wind half way through the second quarter. Part of what makes playing in Provo so tough is the elevation - HUGE difference for any team playing at/near sea level.


I guess these guys aren't the elite athletes that everyone thinks they are. Most of the guys at the major contenders go to the NFL and I don't ever seen any of them sucking wind while playing in Denver (just a little bit higher). Don't pay too much attention to the altitude argument.



GaryFish said:


> Other years, I would not say this. This year is a once in a decade or two kind of team in Provo. So yes, this year's BYU team would be 1st or 2nd in any conference in the country thiis year. Any student of college football (other than beligerant Cougar Haters) can see this. And that is why BYU is getting the national attention they are getting.


And you know this how ? You haven't played anyone in the top 10 ----ANYONE.

Your ranking is a result of your winning record, which is a result of your weak schedule. I'm fully aware you don't control who has up or down years in your schedule, but competition against inferior opponents isn't cause for respect. Be humble, your team isn't a top ten team.


----------



## bowhunter3 (Oct 18, 2007)

Its funny how all of you BYU homers tried to discredit Utah in 2004, but now you are telling everyone here that BYU should be in the title game. You guys are great, love the football knowledge going on here. What makes it more funny is if Utah beats you guys, what are you going to say, are you going to tell us that BYU should still play a BCS game.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

buggsz24 said:


> And you know this how ? You haven't played anyone in the top 10 ----ANYONE.
> 
> Your ranking is a result of your winning record, which is a result of your weak schedule. I'm fully aware you don't control who has up or down years in your schedule, but competition against inferior opponents isn't cause for respect. Be humble, your team isn't a top ten team.


Since Texas has played yet a weaker schedule, you logically make the same argument against them, correct oh humble one?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Huge29 said:


> buggsz24 said:
> 
> 
> > And you know this how ? You haven't played anyone in the top 10 ----ANYONE.
> ...


I think buggs is saying Texas is NOT a Top Ten team. -_O-


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Huge29 said:
> 
> 
> > buggsz24 said:
> ...


And they'd also smoke BYU.... easily.


----------



## bowhunter3 (Oct 18, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Huge29 said:
> 
> 
> > buggsz24 said:
> ...


Or you homers can just wait till Texas plays OU, and the rest of there BIG 12 schedule and see who has a better and tougher schedule. I don't like the system guys, but don't compare BYU to Texas. Once again, very funny how you guys talked about Utah, but now are drinking the kool aid and eating the jello and saying BYU is national champion quality. Neither team will get a shot, NCAA is not going to allow that, won't happen, and probably wont happen in our life time unless bcs is gone or the pac 10 takes us in.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

bowhunter3 said:


> Or you homers can just wait till Texas plays OU, and the rest of there BIG 12 schedule and see who has a better and tougher schedule. I don't like the system guys, but don't compare BYU to Texas. Once again, very funny how you guys talked about Utah, but now are drinking the kool aid and eating the jello and saying BYU is national champion quality. Neither team will get a shot, NCAA is not going to allow that, won't happen, and probably wont happen in our life time unless bcs is gone or the pac 10 takes us in.


Try and keep up utefan, we are using the same LAME 'logic' as buggs. He says BYU doesn't 'deserve' to be ranked in the Top Ten because they haven't played any Top Ten teams, but neither has Texas. Do you see one of the MANY flaws of his 'logic' now?

As for "you guys talked about Utah", who is "you"? :?

How is it that riverrat is so much smarter than the COACHES, and 'experts'? They believe BYU would stand a very good shot of beating Texas. What info are you privy to that the rest of the nation is not? :roll:


----------



## buggsz24 (Mar 18, 2008)

Huge29 said:


> Since Texas has played yet a weaker schedule, you logically make the same argument against them, correct oh humble one?


I really don't think your retarded, but that statement really makes you look like one.

Up to this point the differences in schedule are negligible, but Texas's schedule actually get more difficult as the year progresses (can you say the same).

Texas will be playing: #1 Oklahoma away from home, #4 Misso, #Oklahoma State, #7 Texas Tech #16 Kansas and a Texas A&M team that should be ranked before the end of year. That is close to the same schedule they played last year with 10-3 results (all losses in conf.).

If you took all of the ranked games Texas played this year, it would still be two more ranked teams than the Y has seen in the past three seasons.


----------



## buggsz24 (Mar 18, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> bowhunter3 said:
> 
> 
> > How is it that riverrat is so much smarter than the COACHES, and 'experts'? They believe BYU would stand a very good shot of beating Texas. What info are you privy to that the rest of the nation is not? :roll:


I can tell you with a fair amount of certainty that 70% of these people haven't even seen Breed'um Young play this year (or last year for that matter). You've played exactly 0 games with national television coverage, do you really think coaches and experts on the east coast have a chance to see them play? And for that matter, do you think coaches who won't be playing BYU will take the time to watch their games if they don't have to?

It all comes down to record, they see the win streak, they see the win-loss record and the check their ballot. I really don't need to go over your strength of schedule vs. the top ten CONTENDERS, after all there is no comparison.


----------



## Comrade Duck (Oct 24, 2007)

bowhunter3 said:


> Its funny how all of you BYU homers tried to discredit Utah in 2004, but now you are telling everyone here that BYU should be in the title game. You guys are great, love the football knowledge going on here. What makes it more funny is if Utah beats you guys, what are you going to say, are you going to tell us that BYU should still play a BCS game.


The inverse of that is true as well. I have read the words of a lot of Ute "homers" on here discrediting BYU because they "haven't played anyone good."

I'm not on here to argue whether they deserve to play in the championship game but rather whether or not the possibility exists that they could make it to that bowl. Like I said, a lot would have to happen for BYU to even get to that point. They still have a lot of games to be played. I like the fact though that even they guys at ESPN are talking about the ultimate BCS buster.

No. If Utah beats BYU I won't say that. Utah isn't going to beat BYU though so it's silly to even discuss that.

Shane


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

bowhunter3 said:


> Or you homers can just wait till Texas plays OU, and the rest of there BIG 12 schedule and see who has a better and tougher schedule. I don't like the system guys, but don't compare BYU to Texas. Once again, very funny how you guys talked about Utah, but now are drinking the kool aid and eating the jello and saying BYU is national champion quality. Neither team will get a shot, NCAA is not going to allow that, won't happen, and probably wont happen in our life time unless bcs is gone or the pac 10 takes us in.


I don't know where you come up with such generalities?? You will see that I am very much a realist and not a homer in the least, BYU or the U shaking things up would be great, anything to mess up the BCS is awesome! However, Buggz is clearly off of his rocker on this one, BYU has played a much better schedule to date than the beloved Longhorns, that is a fact! So, to say what is good for the goose is not for the gander is ridiculous! I do not believe that the Y has proven to date that they are of championship quality, yet as Comrade quoted from numerous national sources, some people do, are they homers at ABC and ESPN too? I am a fan of the U for all but one game a year, as should any Y fan who wants to see better recognition of their team, which only happens with recognition of the conference.



buggsz24 said:


> Huge29 said:
> 
> 
> > Since Texas has played yet a weaker schedule, you logically make the same argument against them, correct oh humble one?
> ...


 That was never your statement! Since when does your ranking benefit from having future losses?


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

buggsz24 said:


> Up to this point the differences in schedule are negligible, but Texas's schedule actually get more difficult as the year progresses (can you say the same).
> 
> Texas will be playing: #1 Oklahoma away from home, #4 Misso, #Oklahoma State, #7 Texas Tech #16 Kansas and a Texas A&M team that should be ranked before the end of year. That is close to the same schedule they played last year with 10-3 results (all losses in conf.).
> 
> If you took all of the ranked games Texas played this year, it would still be two more ranked teams than the Y has seen in the past three seasons.


Pretty much the gist of my thinking.... Texas isn't unbeatable.... but then again, they aren't Wyoming or UCLA either and if BYU would play somebody halfway decent, they'd figure out just how fast a joyride can stop. Oh wait... that happened in week 2 and saying UW's team this year is halfway decent is even a stretch. 8) Am I smarter than coaches.... probably not. Smarter than the experts on tv? Sometimes thats actually not that hard to accomplish. 8) Knowing Texas would beat BYU.... thats a WAG but I'd feel pretty good about my chances taking the Horns over the Cougs.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

BYU didn't play well against UW - but still won. That is more than can be said for last year's national champion against unranked opponents at home. 

If the longhorns were to come to Provo this year, they would lose that game. Just like the last time they came to Provo. 

Do the Cougs belong in the BCS title game? Time will tell. They need to prove more to me before I will go there. Right now, I am loving being a BYU fan. And if they lose every single game this year, I'll still be a fan.


----------



## bowhunter3 (Oct 18, 2007)

Huge29 said:


> bowhunter3 said:
> 
> 
> > Or you homers can just wait till Texas plays OU, and the rest of there BIG 12 schedule and see who has a better and tougher schedule. I don't like the system guys, but don't compare BYU to Texas. Once again, very funny how you guys talked about Utah, but now are drinking the kool aid and eating the jello and saying BYU is national champion quality. Neither team will get a shot, NCAA is not going to allow that, won't happen, and probably wont happen in our life time unless bcs is gone or the pac 10 takes us in.
> ...


Of course espn is going to talk about it, it makes good tv. IF you really asked them if they thought it would happen they would tell you no way I am sure. But, if all of the teams ahead and behind the Cougars lose 3 games then yeah, they could do it. I am just saying it isn't going to happen. Just like in 04 when Utah had a top 5 ranking and didn't get a shot, just like with Boise St. and then with Hawaii. It won't happen as long as the BCS is around. Utah, and BYU need to play much better OCS to have a shot at respect. UCLA, Oregon St teams like that won't do it. Michigan would have if they were better but they are down as well. But need to play 2 real good teams, not one and none of this D2 crap, and USU hurts as well. ITs the schedule that hurts, beat good teams and see what happens


----------



## bowhunter3 (Oct 18, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> BYU didn't play well against UW - but still won. That is more than can be said for last year's national champion against unranked opponents at home.
> 
> If the longhorns were to come to Provo this year, they would lose that game. Just like the last time they came to Provo.
> 
> Do the Cougs belong in the BCS title game? Time will tell. They need to prove more to me before I will go there. Right now, I am loving being a BYU fan. And if they lose every single game this year, I'll still be a fan.


Wow, thats pretty bold. Glad you have that much faith in your team. I think it would be a game, but I don't think BYU would win, I would cheer for them because I hate Texas much more than I do BYU. As for Comrad saying that BYU will beat Utah no question about it is also bold. Kind of doubt that it will be as easy as you are making it.


----------



## buggsz24 (Mar 18, 2008)

Just for the record:

Year end BCS rankings from 2000-2007 and (strength of schedule) 

Texas: 3(47), 3(47), 7(20), 13(47), 8(28), *1* (13) , 19(61), 12(47)

BYU: 28(83), 28(83), 90(86), 68(14), 41(11), 55(65), 13(74), 17(59)

When your strength of schedule is top 50 your teams finishes outside the top 40, When your team finishes top 25 your strength of schedule is over 59+.

If the experts payed attention or did even just a LITTLE research your team wouldn't be in the top ten right now.


----------



## buggsz24 (Mar 18, 2008)

Huge29 said:


> However, Buggz is clearly off of his rocker on this one, BYU has played a much better schedule to date than the beloved Longhorns, that is a fact!


If your going to pull something out of your ass, at least try to make it believable. According to: http://www.sportsline.com/collegefootball/polls/119 (the S.O.S used by the BCS and the "Experts")

Texas - 62
BYU - 111

Buggsz is clearly not off his rocker. On top of that Texas has at least 5 more top 20 games (three in the top ten), BYU has two more top 20.

Take the blue glasses off, BYU's schedule looks like a special olympics berth when compared to TX or anyone else in the current top 5.

Repeat the word elitist as many times as you want, history and statistics support my argument.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

buggsz24 said:


> You've played exactly *0 games with national television coverage*, do you really think coaches and experts on the east coast have a chance to see them play?


Thank you for making a blatantly in accurate/false statement! Are you familiar with VS? I was in DC when the Y and UClA played, stayed at 5 hotels, 4 of the 5 had VS, does that count as national coverage? Then playing UW on Fox Sports, which I believe is regional??? Any how, VS is very clearly a national channel with national coverage, wrong again! Do your heels get sore from so much back stepping? You really need to try and be accurate to be taken serious?


buggsz24 said:


> Just for the record:
> ...
> When your strength of schedule is top 50 your teams finishes outside the top 40, When your team finishes top 25 your strength of schedule is over 59+.


I am so confused, so you get to be the best by future losses and historical strength of schedule, nothing to do with this year's performance? I am done, you are clearly out there, I will stop short of calling you the R word. BTW it significantly weakens your argument when you resort to personal attacks. Zig Ziglar quotes how the first person to throw a punch in a heated argument is the one who has realized losing the argument...something to that effect.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

The BYU schedule is soft. And that sucks because the argument CAN'T get settled on the field - just left to discussion. And that sucks. It also sucked for Utah in '04. I would have loved to see a four-team play-off that year with the four undefeated teams that year (USC, OU, Auburn and Utah. Three of those teams won their bowl games against far weaker opponents, and that sucks. Soft schedule or not - the Cougs are VERY good this year. I hope they can get a shot in a BCS game so they at least have a chanced at a good opponent. Beating Pac 10 #5 again in the Vegas bowl will prove nothing. And that sucks.


----------



## buggsz24 (Mar 18, 2008)

Huge29 said:


> Thank you for making a blatantly in accurate/false statement! Are you familiar with VS? I was in DC when the Y and UClA played, stayed at 5 hotels, 4 of the 5 had VS, does that count as national coverage? Then playing UW on Fox Sports, which I believe is regional??? Any how, VS is very clearly a national channel with national coverage, wrong again! Do your heels get sore from so much back stepping? You really need to try and be accurate to be taken serious?


ESPN, CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX <--- these are national television stations with HUGE viewing audiences. YOU HAVE NOT PLAYED ON ANY OF THESE. These stations get to everyone with a t.v., not just those with a sports package on sat/cable.

The fox broadcast was regional.



Huge29 said:


> I am so confused, so you get to be the best by future losses and historical strength of schedule, nothing to do with this year's performance?


The strength of schedule for this year is for games played thus far, nothing to do with future losses. The historical s.o.s and rankings is my attempt to bring you back to reality, your team has proven (and very consistently) that your not as good as you think you are.



Huge29 said:


> Zig Ziglar quotes how the first person to throw a punch in a heated argument is the one who has realized losing the argument...something to that effect.


I'm not sure that anything short of that will get you to understand, I've given you proof to support every assertion I have made.


----------



## Comrade Duck (Oct 24, 2007)

bowhunter3 said:


> As for Comrad saying that BYU will beat Utah no question about it is also bold. Kind of doubt that it will be as easy as you are making it.


That was said tongue in cheek. I will pick BYU to win the same way that you'll pick the Utes. 
This rivalry has shown though that no matter the records coming into the game that nothing will come easy.

Shane


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

You dont need cable to watch espn? Too bad your first example of national tv is the same as Vs.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Nor-tah said:


> You dont need cable to watch espn? Too bad your first of example of national tv is the same as Vs.


 -_O- -O|o-


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

I get that BYU hasn't had any major sports network coverage. I agree with that. VS is national, but under no terms can be considered on the same level as ESPN. I get that.

But to say a team is good because they are national TV is just silly talk. Notre Dame has the best, widest, and largest TV contract in all of college football. But are they any good? X does not equal Y in this sense. Auburn went undefeated in a season when they were BANNED from being on TV because of NCAA violations - but they had a great team. TV coverage has nothing to do with how good a team is.


----------



## buggsz24 (Mar 18, 2008)

Nor-tah said:


> You dont need cable to watch espn? Too bad your first example of national tv is the same as Vs.


Nope, you don't. 
ABC and ESPN are both whoely owned subsidiaries of Disney, so ABC carries broadcasts that are filmed and produced by ESPN. And thats how ESPN is different from Vs. If you watch ABC this weekend you will see what I'm talking about.


----------



## bowhunter3 (Oct 18, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> I get that BYU hasn't had any major sports network coverage. I agree with that. VS is national, but under no terms can be considered on the same level as ESPN. I get that.
> 
> But to say a team is good because they are national TV is just silly talk. Notre Dame has the best, widest, and largest TV contract in all of college football. But are they any good? X does not equal Y in this sense. Auburn went undefeated in a season when they were BANNED from being on TV because of NCAA violations - but they had a great team. TV coverage has nothing to do with how good a team is.


Guys, that is not what he said. In his first argument he was saying that the voters aren't even watching BYU because they are not on a major network. They are just voting for them because of the record. Which is true, our current TV deal is a joke. Our commish is a joke, should never have walked away from ESPN. ESPN owns the sports world right now and they can make you look better. Now there is barely a highlight from them. Dumb move mister comish.


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

buggsz24 said:


> Nor-tah said:
> 
> 
> > You dont need cable to watch espn? Too bad your first example of national tv is the same as Vs.
> ...


As of February cable/satilite will almost be imparative anyway. But good for Disney and ABC and all that mess...


----------



## buggsz24 (Mar 18, 2008)

Nor-tah said:


> As of February cable/satilite will almost be imparative anyway. But good for Disney and ABC and all that mess...


Broadcasts are going digital, so as long as you have a terrestrial receiver you won't need cable or sat. But how can you be a sports fan without it.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

ESPN has been covering, showing highlights, of BYU a lot this fall. Anytime a team is ranked in the Top Ten with a Heisman candidate, a Doak Walker candidate, and the BEST TE in the nation that just pitched TWO SHUT OUTS IN A ROW, it will get peoples attention! To assert that most in the sports media are clueless about BYU or their team this year is nonsensical. And, I assert that EVERY coach from the BCS programs are keeping an eye on the Cougars! If they are not, they are poor coaches that are caught up in their own grandeur.

If you don't have cable you can NOT watch ABC! :?


----------



## Comrade Duck (Oct 24, 2007)

I would rather have the games broadcast on ESPN. There is no doubt that ESPN is still the leader when it comes to giving a team exposure.

The contract with ESPN sucked though. It was nice to be on national tv but who wants to play on Wednesday night to do so. I watched part of a game last night. College football on a tuesday night? It just doesn't seem right.

Shane


----------



## bowhunter3 (Oct 18, 2007)

It was thursday night, and saturday night. That is still better than what we got now. And yes pro, I have seen highlights from both byu and Utah on espn, but nothing like the other schools, or even Boise St. and Hawaii got during there run. And you have got to be one of the biggest homers ever its great. What is going on with your last great TE? :mrgreen: Just messing with you, BYU has a great offensive squad. They would scare any team I would think. Hall has impressed me this year, he used to just throw the ball deep and hope push off Collie could draw a PI, now he is just throwing it everywhere. Seems like a humble kid to, not too ****y.


----------



## BIGBEAN (Apr 16, 2008)

So if I have the Disney Channel does that mean I can watch the Utes? :lol:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

BIGBEAN said:


> So if I have the Disney Channel does that mean I can watch the Utes? :lol:


Yes, it is under the title "SpongeBob SquarePants".


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

A few comments:

First I would love to see Utah or BYU play for a national championship, but it isn't going to happen unless; they start playing a tougher schedule or they get ALOT of help from other teams. IMO a 1 loss team (at the end of the season) such as USC or Oklahoma would deserve to play in the National Championship over a undefeated Utah or BYU. 

Second, sense we have been talking about Texas lets use them for example. If you put BYU or Utah in the same schedule they would be lucky to come out will less than 4 losses. That is what it is meant by a weaker schedule.

Third, BYU this year is not nearly as good as the Utes of 04' IMO.

All BYU and Utah can do is win games and hope other teams help them out. Also right now, as hard as it may be for some, Utah and BYU fans should be rooting for both teams. BYU needed TCU to beat Oklahoma, ect.. That is the best way to go up in the BCS system. BYU should root for UCLA to go undefeated from here on out, Utah should hope Michigan goes undefeated, you get my drift. Both teams are going to need a lot of help that they have no control over.


----------



## buggsz24 (Mar 18, 2008)

jahan said:


> Second, sense we have been talking about Texas lets use them for example. If you put BYU or Utah in the same schedule they would be lucky to come out will less than 4 losses. That is what it is meant by a weaker schedule.


Wow, someone gets it. I'm not so naive as to think Texas couldn't end up with the same record, but with that said I can tell you that a 1-2 loss Texas is still better than an undefeated Y given the schedules played.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

If BYU plays Texas, who wins? In Austin - Texas. In Provo - BYU. On a neutral field? Who knows. I get the strength of schedule argument. But just assuming BYU would lose 4 games in the Big 12 this year is a crock. Any one who knows football and has watched BYU play this year knows how good they are. But I get where you haters are coming from. Keep poking BYUFan because its fun. I get that. Whatever.


----------



## hairy1 (Sep 10, 2007)

To the original question:

I think it *is* possible to play in the national title....But an undefeated season is not all that it will take...They will need Utah to win big all year and then beat them decidedly with both teams ranked in the top ten.

Remember the BCS is evolving...Utah was the first team to bust the BCS and got a crappy team...With Boise busting it next they got a better team and finally with Hawaii busting it last year they got the best team to date.

BYU's high ranking is due to an evolving BCS. If Utah's '04 team played this year they would benefit from the evolution and would have a possible chance at the Championship game.

It is possible but very unlikely.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> If BYU plays Texas, who wins? In Austin - Texas. In Provo - BYU. On a neutral field? Who knows. I get the strength of schedule argument. But just assuming BYU would lose 4 games in the Big 12 this year is a crock. Any one who knows football and has watched BYU play this year knows how good they are. But I get where you haters are coming from. Keep poking BYUFan because its fun. I get that. Whatever.


Texas would beat BYU 3 out of 4 times in Provo. BYU is not as good as their ranking shows, they are not better than USC. I am not trying to be a downer, but I am just trying to talk reality. Also assuming is all I can do because BYU never plays a tough schedule like that. I hope some day that whatever conference BYU is in has four ranked teams, because that is what it is going to take for them to play in a National Championship, oh and most importantly winning those games against the ranked teams.


----------



## bowhunter3 (Oct 18, 2007)

Garyfish I don't understand you, just look at the top 5, 3 of those teams are from the Big 12. Therefore Byu or Utah would be the 4th best team. I am just as much of a Utah homer as you are a Byu homer but even I know that either team would not last a full season in that conference right now. Don't have enough depth behind the starters and that is what the big time programs have. They have blue chip athletes on there second and third teams. We can't compete. On a one game winner takes all, yes it could happen that a team like BYU beats Texas, or a team that did it Boise St. beats Oklahoma. But that same team would have had 3 or 4 losses in that conference instead of a cake walk of a conference. Now this year there is 4 good teams in the Mt. West, but still not on par yet with the big dawgs. Getting closer, closer than the BCS wants but not there yet.


----------



## buggsz24 (Mar 18, 2008)

GaryFish said:


> If BYU plays Texas, who wins? In Austin - Texas. In Provo - BYU.


I disagree with that completely, but I agree it could happen. Texas's performance against #1 OK this weekend should shed some light on that question.



GaryFish said:


> Any one who knows football and has watched BYU play this year knows how good they are.


I know enough about football to see that BYU has looked really (really) good against crappy teams (can you argue UCLA and no. Iowa aren't), I've also them sneak away with a win against an average (0-4) Washington team. +1 point differential and -2 in the turnovers, what is it that I should have came away with after a game like that ?

The cougars have little if no chance to move up in the standings without losses ahead of them, and even with losses ahead of them I see other undefeated with tougher schedules leapfrogging them.


----------



## Comrade Duck (Oct 24, 2007)

bowhunter3 said:


> It was thursday night, and saturday night. That is still better than what we got now.


The problem was that it wasn't going to stay Thursday nights and Saturday. I think that was one of the motivating factors of going with the MTN. If I remember right, without looking it up, BYU as well as Utah played some Wednesday night games and the idea was to have them play even more.

I don't necessarily like the Mountain, but it is nice to be able to go to the game on a Saturday afternoon rather than fighting the traffic on a week night and getting home at 1:00 in the morning. College football should be played on Saturday.

Was the trade off which resulted in lack of exposure worth it? I don't know.

Shane


----------



## bowhunter3 (Oct 18, 2007)

Comrade Duck said:


> bowhunter3 said:
> 
> 
> > It was thursday night, and saturday night. That is still better than what we got now.
> ...


The fact is the MTN is so bad, the announcers are the worst, the quality is bad, no HD. Lack of exposure. THere is nothing good about the deal. I hate it, you used to be able to watch byu games on channel 5 and Utah games on KJZZ now you only have one channel. I hate every part of the deal. And I am pretty sure it wasn't moving to Wed. nights. I don't think they have games on Wed. I watch ESPN all the time, I am pretty sure no games. Either way, liked it better with ESPN.


----------



## Comrade Duck (Oct 24, 2007)

bowhunter3 said:


> The fact is the MTN is so bad, the announcers are the worst, the quality is bad, no HD. Lack of exposure. THere is nothing good about the deal. I hate it, you used to be able to watch byu games on channel 5 and Utah games on KJZZ now you only have one channel. I hate every part of the deal. *And I am pretty sure it wasn't moving to Wed. nights. I don't think they have games on Wed. I watch ESPN all the time, I am pretty sure no games.* Either way, liked it better with ESPN.


You must not watch real close.

Last night Middle Tennessee played Central Florida, a Tuesday night game. Tonight Louisiana Tech plays at Boise State, a Wednesday night game. Tomorrow night, Oregon at Utah. I don't know who plays Friday night but they usually have one then as well.

The only way the MWC was going to get televised by ESPN was if they were willing to play during the week.

Shane


----------



## bowhunter3 (Oct 18, 2007)

Comrade Duck said:


> bowhunter3 said:
> 
> 
> > The fact is the MTN is so bad, the announcers are the worst, the quality is bad, no HD. Lack of exposure. THere is nothing good about the deal. I hate it, you used to be able to watch byu games on channel 5 and Utah games on KJZZ now you only have one channel. I hate every part of the deal. *And I am pretty sure it wasn't moving to Wed. nights. I don't think they have games on Wed. I watch ESPN all the time, I am pretty sure no games.* Either way, liked it better with ESPN.
> ...


Yeah I saw the one on yesterday, Utahs game isn't on espn I don't think anyway. I guess I was wrong about Wed. night. But, either way, I would rather some thursday night games and saturday night games if it meant espn games.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

> Utahs game isn't on espn I don't think anyway. I guess I was wrong about Wed. night. But, either way, I would rather some thursday night games and saturday night games if it meant espn games.


As a home game for a MWC team, the utahute-Oregon State game TV rights belong to the MTN. I hated the weeknight games. But now the MTN is doing it. BYU plays at TCU on a Thursday night game later this yeara. So much for that reason. I have to agree - the MTN sucks.


----------



## Guest (Oct 3, 2008)

jahan said:


> Third, BYU this year is not nearly as good as the Utes of 04' IMO.


And that opinion is based on what? It can't be based on who the '04 Utes beat, because the best team they beat, besides #19 Pitt, was a 7-5 Texas A&M. Hardly impressive. They got in because they were 1) pre-season ranked (16), 2) they finished perfect, and 3) they beat everyone by 3 or more scores. So far the Cougars' run at the BCS looks remarkably similar to the '04 Utes, except that the Cougars have a chance to actually play a couple of ranked teams if TCU gets back in and Utah stays in.


----------



## Nibble Nuts (Sep 12, 2007)

buggsz24 said:


> Texas's performance against #1 OK this weekend should shed some light on that question.


As usual, Oklahoma is going to spank texas in the Red River blowout.


----------

