# Utah "homers" aren't the only ones with a gripe!



## Chaser (Sep 28, 2007)

Got this in an email today, and heard Mick and Alan from KBER 101 reading it as well:


> Vote for Utah, for College Football's Sake
> 
> By John Feinstein
> Special to washingtonpost.com
> ...


----------



## buggsz24 (Mar 18, 2008)

+1*10^?


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

So... basically, this guy would be fine with somebody like say Marshall, or Buffalo or some tiny school like that being national champs if they went undefeated? What if Utah played Florida, Texas, OU, Bama, USC, LSU, TT, TCU, Ohio State, and Penn State and lost once.... you're telling me they'd be fine with not being considered for the national championship even though they played a hellacious schedule and managed to win everything but one just because some small school from nowhere just happened to make it through their year undefeated? I doubt that very, very seriously. Where was this guy all season? Odd that folks like this goofball pop up now and claim that nothing should be taken into consideration but the record. Ummmm... he's still high from whatever he just smoked, didn't watch a single game (like most folks, admittedly no less, who he seems to think are qualified to vote on Utahs number 1 chances)or he's just up in the night. 8) If the record at the end of the season was all that mattered, you'd see the path to the championship littered with non conference games against far weaker opponents, just for the sake of ringing up a win and to me, thats about as bogus a national champ as you can get.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

If you would take your purple (UW) glasses off and read the article again you might get his point. :? He is making the point that the current systems is bogus. He even said NUMEROUS times that it isn't just because Utah is undefeated. You are a smart enough guy, stop digging your homer hole you're about to China already.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> If you would take your purple (UW) glasses off and read the article again you might get his point. :? He is making the point that the current systems is bogus. He even said NUMEROUS times that it isn't just because Utah is undefeated. You are a smart enough guy, stop digging your homer hole you're about to China already.


Did you miss this part?

*
I say this not to demean the performance of Southern California, Texas or the winner of Thursday's Oklahoma-Florida game. All are fine teams that have had outstanding seasons. They have, however, one thing that Utah does not have.

A loss.

All of us know that in competition anyone -- whether an individual or a team -- who does not lose once is the champion. It's really pretty simple: If no one beats you, then you are the winner. You are No. 1. You go home with the first-place trophy.*

I didn't see any stipulations in there about who the no loss team was and I'm pretty sure most folks wouldn't be ok with handing off the national champ trophy to Southern Methodist University on the basis of running the table in the WAC or middle of nowhere conference or whatever they're in now.

This guy talks about its about how Utah beat Alabama.... after Florida had such a rough time with them. Ummmm ok pal, what about how Utah had to struggle through three or four of its games this year barely winning against much weaker teams than Bama, teams on par with maybe a Vandy or somebody of that nature. I guess TCU would be the sole exception there because I don't think anyone is looking at OSU as a real smash all opposition team either. So... if you struggle with teams you're supposed to beat easily.... doesn't that take Utah out of the race? This guy is the one thats full of crap. How can it be about a record, claiming if you go undefeated it makes you the champ and then in the next bit of the article talk about how its not just about the record, its about how they won. Make up your mind there Mr. Feinstein...do you want quality wins or do you want an undefeated record? In the conferences with actually tough competition, its a rare occasion when a school can accomplish both... Utah only has the record. What if you struggle through a weak schedule barely winning all your games? Does it count as a quality win when your team struggles to beat a team like New Mexico? :? I couldn't really tell you where Mr. Feinstein stands on that based on his article....


----------



## fixed blade XC-3 (Sep 11, 2007)

fatbass said:


> Good article. The BCS system sucks and SOME kind of additional tie-breaker game would be a good idea if there is a split championship. * Utah should get a chance to play the winner of Fla-Ok.*


I kind a like your Idea.


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

Someone in the article mentioned that after seeing Utah he realized that they are just as big, just as fast, just as athletic as Alabama, and in that game they proved they were better coached, more motivated, and had a better game plan. 

I think one of his main points is: it's hard to go through any conference and any season undefeated regardless of the level of athletes in your conference. To do that, when injuries, sickness, focus, and motivation come in to play, not too mention weather, should mean something.


----------



## copper (Sep 11, 2008)

Riverrat77 said:


> So... basically, this guy would be fine with somebody like say Marshall, or Buffalo or some tiny school like that being national champs if they went undefeated? What if Utah played Florida, Texas, OU, Bama, USC, LSU, TT, TCU, Ohio State, and Penn State and lost once.... you're telling me they'd be fine with not being considered for the national championship even though they played a hellacious schedule and managed to win everything but one just because some small school from nowhere just happened to make it through their year undefeated? I doubt that very, very seriously. Where was this guy all season? Odd that folks like this goofball pop up now and claim that nothing should be taken into consideration but the record. Ummmm... he's still high from whatever he just smoked, didn't watch a single game (like most folks, admittedly no less, who he seems to think are qualified to vote on Utahs number 1 chances)or he's just up in the night. 8) If the record at the end of the season was all that mattered, you'd see the path to the championship littered with non conference games against far weaker opponents, just for the sake of ringing up a win and to me, thats about as bogus a national champ as you can get.


I guess you don't like March Madness. You know all those dinky schools, who didn't have to play in the ACC get a chance? Like Davidson and Western Kentucky.

And forget about OU vs BSU, that was just at terrible game. Same with the shocker on Thursday. Just terrible.

How can we the fans benefit from CFB having a playoff system and not being compared to figure skating with 3 legit National Champions this year? Nah, lets just stay the same where we have undeserving teams match up against each other so they can be anointed, rather than prove their stuff on the field.

Forget the underdog, all of those Hollywood sport movies are always made about the sure thing, the powerhouse schools. Never about these dinky schools taking on the big boys and winning.

But forget that most of those are about sports unrelated to CFB, because after all, in CFB, only the powerhouse school can be crowned victor. And that always makes for a compelling story.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

copper said:


> I guess you don't like March Madness. You know all those dinky schools, who didn't have to play in the ACC get a chance? Like Davidson and Western Kentucky.
> 
> And forget about OU vs BSU, that was just at terrible game. Same with the shocker on Thursday. Just terrible.
> 
> ...


Great post! I never realized riverrat77 is an figure skater at heart. -_O-


----------



## idiot with a bow (Sep 10, 2007)

The main point he was making is that you could give Utah the nod and have it be valid, therefore frustrating the current system. I think it is a great opportunity. Any one who says the BCS is a better solution then a playoff is the worst person ever.


----------



## seniorsetterguy (Sep 22, 2007)

Riverrat77 said:


> Odd that folks like this goofball pop up


This goofball is one of the most well known and respected sports writers and commentators of all time. Read the article again...like an English teacher. Identify his thesis. It is that the BCS is corrupt and a vote for Utah as national champ is a chance to take and action that might help bring the BCS down.

Awarding automatic bids to teams from weak conferences, with weak schedules and weak win/loss records -- while avoiding a playoff system -- is stupid and corrupt. There is no good argument for doing it. The argument put forth by the BCS junta is "We have the money and the power and the leverage, and we're gonna do it because it benefits us and because we can. The rest of you quit your damned whining!"


----------



## seniorsetterguy (Sep 22, 2007)

Riverrat77 said:


> I couldn't really tell you where Mr. Feinstein stands on that based on his article....


Hmmm. I guess you couldn't. So, you're the only one that can't. Maybe you should try again. Read it carefully and try to understand what he is saying. Not that tough.

Ooh...that sounded harsh. Sorry, RR. I really do like reading your stuff. But I just think you're being pretty stubborn and blinded by your BCS-bias (sure is a lot of bs in "BCS-bias  )


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

SSG, I actually did quite well in English classes, both in college and high school. I was always taught that you have a main idea (that the BCS is not a good system) but that you support it with ideas and sentences that support that main "thesis" of the paper, not make bold statements about having one team be champs because they're the only ones with a winning record and then in the very next paragraph contradict himself with saying his reasoning is because of how they won. He needs to go one way or the other and stick with it and his article does not. If how they won and their schedules are taken into consideration, then he certainly can't award Utah a national championship based on that because just on that stat alone, four other teams are more worthy than Utah based on scheduling. Utah beat TCU by 3.... OU beat them by 40 something I think. His paper is just all over the place... and yeah, I read the article just like a professor would have had me read it. 8) 

Now, on to the playoff system. I'm no BCS homer... in fact, I'd like to see teams from weak conferences play their way to the top because it would only justify the top teams getting their rank they do EVERY year. Sure, you'll have your cinderellas that make a run every year or so... but it'll get shortstopped. Remind me again when Davidson won the NCAA tournament? I'm sorry... just making it to the final rounds doesn't make you a national champion... it'll get you an attaboy or a good game, and I've given Utah that, but I don't think they're national champ caliber, even after beating Bama. I think there's oh.... another three or four teams that would stop them on the way up. Compelling story... but oddly enough, most of that stuff comes from places like Disney.... and thats VERY realistic right?? :lol:


----------



## copper (Sep 11, 2008)

TCU lost their starting QB in that game vs OU, It was also non-conference and at the start of the season. In TCU vs Utah, they had their QB and the victor of the game had a good shot at a BCS bowl game. There was a bit of a difference.

Regardless, this is all nonsense, nonsense because in the real world they would have been given the shot to prove their differences on the field.

But that is the point of the article, the point is, not that Utah is better, but that they deserve it because they were never given the opportunity. And that a vote for Utah is a vote for a playoff system.

Right now, CFB is the equivalent of figure skating. It is the truest comparison. We look at a team, their record, their stats, etc, and we _judge_ how good they are. Based upon those judges, we then decide who is the Champion.

And the little schools may not be "national caliber" right now. But if given a shot on a level playing field, they would be able to recruit the same big names that big schools have a monopoly on. If Utah consistently made its way into the playoff and won a few games, many players would be convinced to come here who otherwise wouldn't.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/n ... &type=lgns


----------



## seniorsetterguy (Sep 22, 2007)

Riverrat77 said:


> SSG, I actually did quite well in English classes, both in college and high school. I was always taught that you have a main idea (that the BCS is not a good system) but that you support it with ideas and sentences that support that main "thesis" of the paper, not make bold statements about having one team be champs because they're the only ones with a winning record and then in the very next paragraph contradict himself with saying his reasoning is because of how they won. He needs to go one way or the other and stick with it and his article does not. If how they won and their schedules are taken into consideration, then he certainly can't award Utah a national championship based on that because just on that stat alone, four other teams are more worthy than Utah based on scheduling. Utah beat TCU by 3.... OU beat them by 40 something I think. His paper is just all over the place... and yeah, I read the article just like a professor would have had me read it. 8)
> 
> Now, on to the playoff system. I'm no BCS homer... in fact, I'd like to see teams from weak conferences play their way to the top because it would only justify the top teams getting their rank they do EVERY year. Sure, you'll have your cinderellas that make a run every year or so... but it'll get shortstopped. Remind me again when Davidson won the NCAA tournament? I'm sorry... just making it to the final rounds doesn't make you a national champion... it'll get you an attaboy or a good game, and I've given Utah that, but I don't think they're national champ caliber, even after beating Bama. I think there's oh.... another three or four teams that would stop them on the way up. Compelling story... but oddly enough, most of that stuff comes from places like Disney.... and thats VERY realistic right?? :lol:


So, you agree with his thesis? That the BCS system is corrupt? That all teams, regardless of conference, should have to win on the field and not in the computer or in someone's opinion?

Then, we are on the same page. Good. We can end this thread now. As we usually do, we are now repeating ourselves.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

My little bro is doing his MBA at THE Ohio State University and is taking a class in sports business from the athletic director. On our trip to Vegas for the BYU game, we spent a lot of time talking about college football and sports business in general. He said that the AD at Ohio State said point blank the BCS is not about any kind of championship - it is absolutely, purely financial. And he shared how much money in donations the football team at OSU generates each year. It is about 10 times what BYU and Utah generate - combined. And BYU and Utah have the best athletic programs in the MWC - by far. In fact, BYU and Utah are near the top of ALL non-BCS programs in facilities and money. But just a fraction of what the big boys have.

I bring this up only to point out that MWC is no where in the same world as the big boys. No where near it. The fact that MWC teams are as competative as they are is a true testament to the programs. 

Feinstein's article alludes to this concept - take it to the man, rage against the machine, stand up to big business, whatever cliche you want to attach to it. That is the messege. The more I learn about the shear scale of money we are talking about here - the more I realize just how wide the gap is between the BCS and non-BCS conferences. The BCS is NOT about crowning a national champion. It is about money. Plain and simple. And Feinstein points out that the AP vote is a chance to send a messege that it should be about more than the money.


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

I'm glad I took the english classes where the professors allowed poetic license. Those old school hard-nosed grammatical witches, with the magnifier glasses hooked to beaded chain, with stringent rules and sour-puss attitudes, sure ruined a lot of creativity. Kind of like the BCS ruins a good football season every year.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

> Under the BCS, about *$9.5 million* is distributed among Conference USA, the Mid-American, Mountain West, Sun Belt and Western Athletic conferences for making their teams available to play in BCS games.





> By comparison, the share to each conference with an automatic berth in the BCS-the ACC, Big East, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-10 and SEC-is about *$18 million* each.


Is this the level playing field you talk about rr77? :?


----------



## ACHY (Oct 18, 2007)

Anyone else hear about this?
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3814472


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

ACHY said:


> Anyone else hear about this?
> http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3814472





proutdoors said:


> http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ap-bcs-utahlawsuit&prov=ap&type=lgns


 :mrgreen:


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

Boy, if powerhouse football team Alabama would have just won that game, all of this nonsense would be put to rest. OOOOHHHH Alabama, bamalam OOOOOOHHHHH Alabama, bamalam, Alabama had a football game bamalam, the dam* thing went wild, bamalam, OOOOHHH Alabama, bamalam, OOOOHHH Alabama, bamalam, they really scewed things up in Bamaland!


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

The lawsuit is garbage. Don't sue the BCS. Sue the NCAA. But Utah signed on to the terms of the BCS agreement through the MWC. Might as well sue your boss/company for not paying you enough for the work you agreed to do at negotiated price. After you've been paid. This makes the state of Utah look like a whiner baby.


----------



## seniorsetterguy (Sep 22, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> The lawsuit is garbage. Don't sue the BCS. Sue the NCAA. But Utah signed on to the terms of the BCS agreement through the MWC. Might as well sue your boss/company for not paying you enough for the work you agreed to do at negotiated price. After you've been paid. This makes the state of Utah look like a whiner baby.


+1

Seems our attorney general would have more important things to worry about. Yeah, I HATE the BCS too, but maybe he should let Orrin Hatch or Barack Obama take care of them :lol: :lol:


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

No looking like whiner babies about it. They are whiner babies!
Take the win and run. It was a good season; a good team; a little luck, and a fantastic finish. Next year will be different. You can't always be lucky and you can't always play your best game. Things will change. Ups and downs and all arounds. Utah did what they could do, and I can understand coach Whittingham's belief that an undefeated team should be champs because he saw his beloved BYU (he is an alumni) 1984 team get it, that Utah should get it, but things have changed.


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

Riverrat, using you logic, I guess we shouldn't even play games to a decision. Just them them play for 60 minutes and not keep score. The teams that look the best in there games should get a national championship? I guess all you have to do is schedule only the best football teams in the country and you get the national championship, regardless if you win or lose? Good god, you're logic is just getting worse and worse. Should be do away with keeping score altogether because the wins and losses shouldn't matter? :shock:


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

On the "playing a close game not good enough" logic, I submit:

Florida - Played a close game at home against Mississippi (#25 in last BCS ranking - finished 9-4)- and lost 31-30.
Oklahoma - Played a somewhat close game on neutral field against Texas (#3 in last BCS ranking - finished 12-1)- and lost 45-35.
Texas - Played a close game on the road at Texas Tech (#7 in last BCS ranking - finished 11-2)- and lost 39-33
USC - Played a close game on the road at Oregon State (not ranked in final BCS ranking - finished 9-4) - and lost 27-21

Utah - Played a close game at Michigan (not ranked - - and won 25-23
Utah - Played a close game at home against Oregon State (not ranked in final BCS ranking - finished 9-4)- and won 31-28
Utah - Played a close game at home against TCU (#11 in final BCS ranking - finished 11-2)- and won 13-10

I guess that Utah IS different than the other teams. They were able to WIN their close games. (I hate the UtahUtes so this pains me to point this stuff out! shesssshhh!)


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

So Riley you would like to sit there watch a game that a blowout over a game that come down to a filed goal or a touchdown?


----------



## Comrade Duck (Oct 24, 2007)

Put Oklahoma in Utah's schedule. Who do they lose to? 

Do the Sooners go to the Big House and only come away with a 2 point win? How about at Air Force? Do the Falcons keep it close to the end? OSU? Do you really think they hold on to barely beat the beavers at home, a place where Stoops has lost only a couple of games in his career? How about TCU? They showed what they could do against the Frogs? New Mexico? Do you really think they go into Albuquerque and only come away with a 3 point win against a one dimensional team? Would they lose to Alabama? Maybe, most likely not. If the Tide had trouble stopping Utah's hurry up no huddle offense how are they going to fare against the highest scoring offense in NCAA history that runs only a hurry up offense?

What about Texas in a Ute schedule?
Florida?

USC you could argue Oregon State. How different though does that game end if it is played in the Coliseum?

I don't buy the "we're the only undefeated team" (I can't believe I'm agreeing with RR) so we should be #1. I think a lot of the top tier teams could go undefeated in a Utah schedule. I think some of them do it more convincingly as well. This is what sucks about the current BCS system though. We'll never know.

The Utes are an outstanding team. Definitely deserving of a top five ranking. They are a team though that peaked at the right time. They looked very suspect at times during the regular season. At times Ute fans wanted BJ to be benched. If I had a quarter for every time I've heard "Fire Ludwig" I could sponsor a BCS game. 

The good news is though that they are playing as good as anyone now. The argument for #1 is one that I can understand the Utes making. I don't think they are, but I can see where they are coming from.

If you are going to make that argument, make it because you just smacked one of the best that the SEC has to offer right in the mouth, on national tv for everyone to see. That right there is proof enough that you can hang. 

Anything else is inviting critics to put you under the microscope to reveal at times that this team looked pretty bad.

Shane


----------



## bowhunter3 (Oct 18, 2007)

Riverrat77 said:


> SSG, I actually did quite well in English classes, both in college and high school. I was always taught that you have a main idea (that the BCS is not a good system) but that you support it with ideas and sentences that support that main "thesis" of the paper, not make bold statements about having one team be champs because they're the only ones with a winning record and then in the very next paragraph contradict himself with saying his reasoning is because of how they won. He needs to go one way or the other and stick with it and his article does not. If how they won and their schedules are taken into consideration, then he certainly can't award Utah a national championship based on that because just on that stat alone, four other teams are more worthy than Utah based on scheduling. *Utah beat TCU by 3.... OU beat them by 40 something I think*. His paper is just all over the place... and yeah, I read the article just like a professor would have had me read it. 8)
> 
> Now, on to the playoff system. I'm no BCS homer... in fact, I'd like to see teams from weak conferences play their way to the top because it would only justify the top teams getting their rank they do EVERY year. Sure, you'll have your cinderellas that make a run every year or so... but it'll get shortstopped. Remind me again when Davidson won the NCAA tournament? I'm sorry... just making it to the final rounds doesn't make you a national champion... it'll get you an attaboy or a good game, and I've given Utah that, but I don't think they're national champ caliber, even after beating Bama. I think there's oh.... another three or four teams that would stop them on the way up. Compelling story... but oddly enough, most of that stuff comes from places like Disney.... and thats VERY realistic right?? :lol:


Just so you know they beat them something like 30-10 not by 40 since you keep bringing it up


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Oklahoma beat TCU 35-10.


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

Comrade, BYU didn't beat a team with a better record than 7-4 in 1984 (including a win over 6-6 Michigan in the Holiday bowl.) Did they deserve to win the national championship that year?


----------



## seniorsetterguy (Sep 22, 2007)

flyguy7 said:


> Comrade, BYU didn't beat a team with a better record than 7-4 in 1984 (including a win over 6-6 Michigan in the Holiday bowl.) Did they deserve to win the national championship that year?


Just like Utah is arguing (and I agree), they beat everyone they played. One of Utah's "quality" wins this year was against a not-so-good Michigan team. All you can do is beat the teams on your schedule. BYU was undefeated. What did they do wrong? Same with Utah this year and in '04!!!!

We need a playoff so all this random speculation and manipulation of statistics and "we beat XYU, who beat BBU, who beat....therefore, ..." can stop! Let's decide it on the field...not by polls or algorithms!!!!!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

flyguy7 said:


> Comrade, BYU didn't beat a team with a better record than 7-4 in 1984 (including a win over 6-6 Michigan in the Holiday bowl.) Did they deserve to win the national championship that year?


Under the system in place in 1984 they most definitely DESERVED to be crowned national Champions. They were the ONLY undefeated team and ended the season ranked NUMBER ONE! Nuff said. 8)


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

> BYU was undefeated. What did they do wrong? Same with Utah this year and in '04!!!!


my point exactly! Nothing. Both teams are deserving. As in any sport, strength of schedule should only be a factor in a tiebreaker. I will say it again, if Pro sports used the same system of the BCS, the New York Giants OR Phillies would have never gotten the opportunity to play for and win their championships!


----------



## Comrade Duck (Oct 24, 2007)

flyguy7 said:


> Comrade, BYU didn't beat a team with a better record than 7-4 in 1984 (including a win over 6-6 Michigan in the Holiday bowl.) Did they deserve to win the national championship that year?


Answering a question with a question. Nice. I'll answer yours, you answer mine.

You better be careful what you imply. If you guys want to bring up 1984 to bolster your cause, then I don't want to hear @#&* from any of you Utes about how 1984 was a joke.

The same argument could be made about the 1984 team. The top teams could have and most likely would have went undefeated in a BYU schedule. Were the Cougars the best team in college football that year? I don't know, probably not, but the voters seemed to think so. Like the last two undefeated Ute teams they didn't have a chance to prove it one way or the other.

Are the Utes the best team in College Football this year? I don't know, probably not, but the voters will get to decide, at least in the AP. I wouldn't bank on any Championship celebration in SLC any time soon.

When it's all said and done, the Utes will have accomplished twice what the 84 Cougars were able to do, except that BYU will be the only one with a National Championship banner. Is it right? No, but it is pretty funny.

Shane


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

> You better be careful what you imply. If you guys want to bring up 1984 to bolster your cause, then I don't want to hear @#&* from any of you Utes about how 1984 was a joke.


You way want to read my last post before YOU imply anything


----------



## Comrade Duck (Oct 24, 2007)

flyguy7 said:


> > You better be careful what you imply. If you guys want to bring up 1984 to bolster your cause, then I don't want to hear @#&* from any of you Utes about how 1984 was a joke.
> 
> 
> You way want to read my last post before YOU imply anything


How many other Utes agree with your assessment of 1984? When did you decide the 84 championship was legit?

Shane


----------



## Chaser (Sep 28, 2007)

I think the main point of the article, is if Utah beat all the teams they played, why shouldn't they have a shot at a supposed "tougher" team, to prove they are legit, before AUTOMATICALLY crowning one of those other teams, WHO DID LOSE a game, the National Champions. The authors main point is that the BCS system is flawed and corrupt. Like Garyfish said, it IS about the money. They want to set up these games to generate as much revenue as possible, and from a business perspective, I can respect that. However- to try to tell all of college football which schools are the "big boys", and only the big boys deserve a chance to be the best each year, now that's putting a caste system on college football, and it's wrong! There MUST be a playoff system. It is the ONLY way that every school can get a fair shake. If the "big boy" schools are always the ones to win in a playoff system, then so be it, but at least EVERYONE got the same opportunity.


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

> How many other Utes agree with your assessment of 1984? When did you decide the 84 championship was legit?


Are you LOOKING for an argument or whats your deal? Im asking you if you think BYU's national Championship is legit, then why do you think Utah's isn't? :roll:


----------



## Comrade Duck (Oct 24, 2007)

flyguy7 said:


> Are you LOOKING for an argument or whats your deal? Im asking you if you think BYU's national Championship is legit, then why do you think Utah's isn't? :roll:


Utah's Championship?

When the voters say Utah is the Champion, I'll give them their due.

I don't see any difference between the Utes undefeated seasons and the Cougars back in 84 other than at the time the voters decided that BYU was the National Champions. That's what they saw. Until the voters decide that the Utes are a National Champion, you're not. I can understand your argument, but based on what I saw from this years team I don't think they are the best College Football has to offer. If they get the nod from the AP though, *I won't argue it.*

You have a better argument in my opinion for the 04 team than you do for this years team.

BYU's championship is legit because that is where they ended up when it was all said and done, #1. They benefitted from the system that was in place at the time as well as a reputation that had already been formed by the great teams leading up to that season. *I don't know if they were truly the best team that year* except that they received the most votes.

The system, much like today, didn't allow them to prove it on the field.

Shane


----------



## GRIFF (Sep 22, 2007)

CD you think the '04 team had a better arguement when their best wins were against a 7-5 Texas A&M and Pitt the Big Least champion, and USC and Auburn(I may be wrong) were both undefeated as well?

Later,
Griff


----------



## Comrade Duck (Oct 24, 2007)

GRIFF said:


> CD you think the '04 team had a better arguement when their best wins were against a 7-5 Texas A&M and Pitt the Big Least champion, and USC and Auburn(I may be wrong) were both undefeated as well?
> 
> Later,
> Griff


I think the 04 team was a much better team than the 08 squad. I think if given the chance they would have hung with USC or Auburn and then would have had a leg to stand on in the argument of who was best. They weren't given that chance.

I was impressed with how this years Utes finished, but they struggled to beat some pretty bad teams earlier in the season. That's why I don't think they are better than the 3 or 4 teams that will finish in the polls ahead of them.

The 04 team mopped up on everyone they faced.

Shane


----------



## GRIFF (Sep 22, 2007)

USC had Matt Leinert and Reggie Bush (the most exciting college football player ever!), their was no way Utah touched USC, but would have been nice to find out.

Later,
Griff


----------



## Comrade Duck (Oct 24, 2007)

GRIFF said:


> USC had Matt Leinert and Reggie Bush (the most exciting college football player ever!), their was no way Utah touched USC, but would have been nice to find out.
> 
> Later,
> Griff


You're not going to get me to argue on behalf of the team in red any more than I already have.

You win!

Shane


----------

