UTAH WINS QUARTER OF NATIONAL TITLE
See, John Parker Wilson stands at a bar at Bourbon Street, and he’s wondering what to drink. There’s a lot of beers, see. Tons of them. There’s Abita Amber, Abita Turbo Dog, Bud, Bud Lite, Corona, Coors Light, Harp, Guinness, PBR. So many options! He’s just about to decide, he’s looking, he promises he is and he’s looking….he reaches his bruised arm into his pocket to get money.
The bartender asks: “What do you want?”
And in the moment, just when John Parker Wilson is about to decide, he is tackled by three defenders wearing Utah jerseys. They take his money and mock his bangs before heading to Pat O’Brien’s to drink Hurricanes until their eyes cross.
Oh, go ahead and laugh and lean back in your chair and lean back on that most Alabamian of nostrums, “There ain’t no answer for power football.” There is: tt collapses in the face of more powerful football played to nasty precision fueled by a level of infectious anger that, to the disloyal objective viewer, had to convert you to rooting for the Utes by the second quarter.
Award Utah a fourth of the national title. This is not 2004 Utah, a team that turned a fluffy schedule and a victory over a palsied Pitt team into an undefeated season. Utah beat 5 ranked teams and embarrassed the SEC West champion. They did not lose a game this season. They had a defense that dealt out harm to all they faced and boasted one of the more accurate quarterbacks in the nation. They beat people with spread-option tactics executed with wishbone brutality.
If you want more from a team, you’re either unreasonable, a total flaming asshole, or both. In lieu of a playoff, we have to resort to fractions, and to be fair: one fraction is just as good as another.
Therefore, the gold coin of the national title this year will be delved out in pieces of eight. Utes, you get at least a quarter for perfection achieved against quality. This may seem unfair, and it is, but in this most imperfect of college football worlds, unfair desserts are the only dish on the menu.










51
meatybob says:
@46
You’re 100% right. USC doesn’t have a legimate argument in this at all. There is no rational reason how anyone could justify USC as #1 after the MWC beatdown of the Pac 10 this year.
January 3rd, 2009 at 12:52 pm
52
not if I see you first says:
Number 44
I just don’t think it would remain at 16: If we open the gate for 16 teams (the conference champs and 5 at large as you suggest), lawsuits will insure that the five non-BCS conference champions get a berth.
If you look at NCAA basketball, they began with 8 and are now at 64. DIdn’t Division IAA begin with 4 and are now at 18 with more expansion on the horizon for next year?
And March Madness is loads of fun, but does anyone really care about the regular bball season?
January 3rd, 2009 at 12:53 pm
53
TAFKastOSUB says:
Why does everyone keep calling for a playoff? Better yet, why does everyone thing we are going to get it? Even better yet, why does everyone think that it would solve anything? IT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN AND IF IT DOES IT WILL NOT BE ANY BETTER THAN WHAT WE HAD PRE BCS.
First of all, if we’re all concerned about giving teams a second chance or in Utah’s case a first chance, then we should all be equally concerned about giving EVERYONE the opportunity to host a post season game in their region. That’s right, if we’re having play off games, then some of them need to be played in the Midwest, in the elements. They do it in the NFL, and since what must of you want is an NFL like post season, it should include having to play in all conditions. No more SEC teams playing in Florida and no more USC playing 11 miles down the road. Not that I think USC is worried about playing in the cold or anywhere else and not that I think playing in the cold would change everything completely…the argument is if we are searching for a fair and balance system it has to include a fair and balance system for where the games are played. This is not basketball or hockey…
So if you are in favor of a playoff system because its the right thing to do, then you should be equally in favor of playing those games on home fields, regardless of location.
And good luck trying to figure out how that is going to work in terms of fans ability to travel and TV ratings – see the ACC championship game the last two years.
The answer is simple. Go back to the traditional bowl game format, dump the BCS, and go back to enjoying College Football the way used to – all on New Year’s Day and if there is a split NC, who really cares.
If you want a playoff system, pick a professional team from the NFL and enjoy, otherwise let’s just leave it alone.
January 3rd, 2009 at 12:55 pm
54
Smyth says:
#49
Did you read the whole post? In the 16-team format, the non-BCS conferences already get a spot. No lawsuits needed.
January 3rd, 2009 at 1:01 pm
55
not if I see you first says:
#50
I’m not sure about your “in the cold” rant, but otherwise agree. Let’s shut up and love the imperfect, messy college season and bowl season and get over our “I am special” pre-K need to have everything neatly tied up, lined up and “fair”.
January 3rd, 2009 at 1:05 pm
56
SpartanDan says:
One quibble, Smyth: Everything until the title game would have to be at home sites. You’re not going to get fans to travel three times on short notice. (I know, basketball does it – but there you have four or eight teams trying to fill an arena, not two, and even the biggest ones are usually smaller than the major bowl game stadiums. And even then most of the tickets go to locals or, in the case of the Final Four, some to a public lottery.) Otherwise I don’t see a problem with it.
I think an eight-team playoff could work if you stipulate that conference champions – even from the major conferences – aren’t guaranteed in unless unbeaten. Any method that leaves out an unbeaten team cannot be considered legitimate. Six conference champs + 2 at-large is no good; if Ball State had won against Buffalo you’d have three mid-major unbeatens and only two spots. This year it would have been:
(1) Oklahoma v. (8) Boise State
(4) Alabama v. (5) USC
(2) Florida v. (7) Texas Tech
(3) Texas v. (6) Utah
Interestingly, only three of the BCS conferences are represented here – the ACC and Big East being left out are no surprise, but Penn State drops out due to the unbeaten rule (replaced by Boise State). That’s unusual, though; going back to the beginning of the BCS five of the six would be represented 8 out of 11 times, and the only other time three would be left out would be ‘04 (again due to Boise at #9 bumping out #8, though that year it’s the ACC that loses its team as a result).
January 3rd, 2009 at 1:06 pm
57
TAFKastOSUB says:
The bottom line is that College football was never intended to be a replacement for professional football. College football is special, special because of tradition, tradition that exists because of things like rivalry games and annual bowl games that reward players by pitting them against their conference rival.
As a college football fan, anything that takes away from the rivalry games or the traditional bowl games is not worth it.
Beat your rival, win your conference, play your rival conference’s champion in a bowl – those should be the priorities. If you can do all those things and remain undefeated in the process then you deserve consideration for the NC, if not then someone else from another conference who did the same thing (beat their rival, won their conference, beat their conference rival, and did it all while going undefeated) deserves the NC.
I think the problem is that not all teams have a great rivalry like Ohio State Michigan, Texas OU, Florida FSU, USC ND, etc. and not all conferences have a true conference rival that they can be matched with in the bowls. It is part of what makes the Rose Bowl special and I think that bothers a lot of SEC fans and fans from other conferences. The BCS was created to destroy the Rose Bowl, but I think it is destroying the entire bowl season in the process.
January 3rd, 2009 at 1:10 pm
58
Mr.Pelican Pants says:
Tcugolf,
Depth isnt really the key as is the talent void left once one or two of your most heralded offensive players is out of the game. Honestly, our offensive line was our MVP for the season, masking a sub par QB, allowing him time to pass and allowing our runners to open up what little passing we did to Julio Jones, our only “weapon”…I am sure Urban Meyer relayed that once we lost Andre, he probaly told his buddy at Utah to pin their ears back, jump on Alabama early since Alabama cant get back into the game via the run, and they damn sure cant pass once the run game is null and void, sit back, play center field ,and let JPW do what he does best: FOLD…Plus Alabama is built to stop the run, and versus Florida, the soft spot in the secondary is Marquis Johnson, which Florida exploited, and as we saw, so did Utah. I bet he doesnt see the field next year…so the glaring need for Alabama is a bonafide pass rusher off the edge…
Think about your teams most heralded offensive player, the one with all the awards, the one that is going NFL in the first round, then replace him with someone who isnt going pro as a Junior, then let him get hurt, then replace him with a Freshman…..
How do you think Florida would fare with Tebow out? How does that affect rhythm and timing? Do ya think the opposing defensive coordinator can find a weakness with a few weeks to prepare? And as added bonus, the “backup” QB goes down with an injury? That would make things interesting…..
I felt we were in the game and had chances to make plays, we left points on the field with missed field goals and underthrown/overthrown passes to WIDE OPEN receivers like Marquis Maze…..TWICE he had his guy beaten one on one and, once again, our QB couldnt make it happen, once overthrown, once underthrown………while their QB made all the throws on target…..thats what we need to be competitve on a national level is a damn quality QB—its more crucial, and it was no secret this year, so ask many Bama fans about SJPW, and we knew it would eventually happen again…
January 3rd, 2009 at 1:11 pm
59
SpartanDan says:
#52: I’d be fine with it if we had a system that didn’t promise us a legitimate national champion at all. The problem is that the BCS makes that promise but doesn’t deliver. If we want a legitimate champion (whether that’s useful or not is a matter for debate), a playoff of at least eight teams is the only way.
January 3rd, 2009 at 1:13 pm
60
not if I see you first says:
# 51
I misunderstood you. So, okay, what happens after those 16 teams play?
January 3rd, 2009 at 1:14 pm
61
CuseFanInSoCal says:
@#48/meatybob – USC beat all three other teams that beat Oregon State (Penn State, Oregon, and Stanford). Why do you think Utah would be different? I mean, I think Utah’s a good a choice for #1 as USC or the BCS title game winner or Texas if they beat Ohio State (though I don’t think they will), but I really don’t think Utah is better than Penn State; the Lions would have crushed Alabama, too.
January 3rd, 2009 at 1:19 pm
62
TAFKastOSUB says:
CyberTydeSabanNation Dept:
Perusing the internets this morning and if I had to form a mental image of the collective Bama fan base, it would be that of a crazed redneck, cowboy1979 or whatever the hell his name is, balled up in the corner screaming 36-0! 36-0! at anything that moves…like a crazed dog barking at the wind. LSUFreek…little help here please!!! We demand your best…I don’t care if I have to wait a week for it, please just bring your a-game!
Best line I’ve heard…”Bama got Ute-thenized on National Television.”
January 3rd, 2009 at 1:19 pm
63
chg says:
All of you went and made me agree with TAFKastOSUB.
If you want playoffs, go to the NFL, where 500 ball in the regular season can get you a title if you play in the right division and get hot at the right time. Utah deserves a title almost as much as Auburn from a few years back. Unlike Auburn, Utah might get half of one because AP voters like voting for the little guy much more than rewarding an SEC team.
To the Michigan/Big Ten fan asking what Southern Cal gets: a nice #3 ranking and an “Attaboy” for polishing off most of the midgets of the Pac-10 and a couple of Big Ten teams. Stop choking away one or two games a year and scraping by in a couple others and you’ll get to play in the big boy game again one day.
January 3rd, 2009 at 2:01 pm
64
Signal to Noise says:
I would have no problem with going back to pre-BCS days if everyone then abandoned the polls, no one crowned a “national champion”, not the AP nor any other press service or poll you could think of, and everyone just played out for conference superiority.
That shit’s out of the bag and it ain’t gonna happen. As long as you have pollsters polling and handing out mythical MNCs, split or otherwise, the muck gets uglier as the playing field gets leveled out. I am a firm endorser of the 16-team system that Smyth put forth. Getting the smaller cons automatic ins for its champs and seeding the teams for home games in the playoff rounds (you can play the semis and final at a neutral of your choosing, rotate the sucker every year) does a couple things:
1) Provides the non-con power matchups that top programs in major cons don’t schedule any more.
2) Builds up the rest of the competition by giving non-BCSers more to play for.
3) Gets the conferences in line. It’s beyond absurd that the NCAA has no control over the post-season of its most popular sport and the conferences get to hoard the money.
I have a real hard time believing that you can’t or shouldn’t do in Div. I-A what is easily done in I-AA and below, more so after watching a I-AA playoff game in person this year. Eight teams won’t cut it.
January 3rd, 2009 at 2:04 pm
65
augirl says:
No, Nick Saban really did win this game. Straight from the devil’s mouth at the post-game press conference (slightly paraphrased):
Q: You had made the comment before the game that your team had gone 12-0 in a real conference. That comment fired up the Utah team and was why they came out so revved up. Any comments?
A: Utah played extremely well. If I said something that fired them up then I guess that means I’m responsible for the way they played tonight. And I’m responsible for the way our team played so I guess I’m responsible for the whole damn kit n kaboodle.
*yes, he ACTUALLY said “whole damn kit n kaboodle”. awesome*
January 3rd, 2009 at 2:08 pm
66
Brian O'Blivion says:
I wish there was a way to harness some fractional pennies to my bank account (like in Superman) for every internet post about how a college football playoff would work every year. I would be a gazillionaire.
January 3rd, 2009 at 2:10 pm
67
tcugolf says:
Mr. Pelican Parts – TCU was without its two biggest offensive playmakers (Joseph Turner – concussion Sat before Thurs @ Utah; Jeremy Kerley – our version of Asiata – to groin tear) when we went on the road and played Utah. We shot our foot off in the redzone, missed two FGs too, and we put up a helluva lot better effort than you guys did and we did it at their place. We held them to 13 points at their place in a three-point heartbreaking loss.
Where was your defense last night? On Bourbon Street? Your defense couldn’t tackle if their lives depended on it. Where was the pass rush? That had nothing to do with Mr. Smith and his agent. Utah was faster AND more physical. I’m not buying this BS that two offensive linemen, even top-notch ones, go down and you can’t replace them with someone adequate in an SEC conference. Is there some kind of recruiting advantage you don’t have as ALABAMA and with a $4 MILLION coach? GMAFB.
No one outside of the MWC respected Utah’s defense. Brian Johnson played like a senior quarterback instead of a Princess.
Get over it – Utah may have squeaked out some games, but they showed up when it mattered. If you legitimately thought Bama was deserving of a nat’l title opportunity, they just set themselves back big time. Frauds.
Utah and schools locked out by the cartel have to do everything the hard way. You guys get to split $17MM from BCS games every year and enjoy your CBS TV money and 100,000 fans per game pouring cash into your program. I’m not sure if Utah is really better than Oklahoma or Florida, but they did everything one could ask of them, including make Alabama look like Vanderbilt.
January 3rd, 2009 at 2:33 pm
68
Signal to Noise says:
@63 – I’m sorry, I hate that argument. “If you want playoffs, go to the NFL.”
That’s a crock as far as a proposed CFB system would go. It would be very, very rare that a, say, 6-6 team would make it into the 11 conference champs + 5 at large model, and if they somehow win the whole thing, given the disparities between the lower tier conferences and the BCS cons in terms of recruiting, money, and coaching power, then those undefeated, 1-loss, and 2-loss teams aren’t nearly as good as their records suggest.
Under the rubric, Buffalo would be in with its 8-5, but it would be a very low seed and likely to get beaten by going to play a #1 or #2 seed that has home-field.
January 3rd, 2009 at 2:58 pm
69
CuseFanInSoCal says:
@#68/Signal to noise – yup. My variation of that playoff plan — and I’ve been advocating the same plan for years — would have had Buffalo opening the playoffs at Florida. I just don’t think they’d get past that, and if they did manage to beat four higher seeds on the road (or at neutral sites in the finals and maybe the semis) to win the title, I’d think they deserved it.
http://cusefaninsocal.blogspot.com/2008/12/about-those-playoffs.html
January 3rd, 2009 at 3:12 pm
70
janus09 says:
I am really sick of the “‘Bama just didn’t care to be there and weren’t trying” argument. That is ridiculous on so many levels.
Did you see Arenas on each and every return attempt? That guy was fighting for each and every yard and he was jacked. If he wasn’t so up for that game he wouldn’t have finally broken a tough one for a TD.
And also don’t say that ‘Bama had all these things break the wrong way. There were a lot of breaks that went against Utah and if they hadn’t then Utah coulda made this more embarrassing than it already was.
And yes, Alabama was overrated all year long and everyone knew it, they were just too happy seeing that “‘Bama was back!”
And I did enjoy Saban postgame saying that Brian Johnson was the best QB they played all season. Even in defeat he snipes at the opposition (in this case Tebow.) Gotta love his dedication to evil.
January 3rd, 2009 at 3:31 pm
71
JRedwine12 says:
This is all such nonsense. I’m calling Tom Osborne and begging him to leave the Big XII and join the mountain west. You only have to show up three games a year and even remotely serious people like Orson will award you a National Championship.
Screw Utah, screw Boise, screw Hawaii…all of you can join a real conference, Utah didn’t belong in the Sugar Bowl, all their win does is touch off another short sighted round of “They really do belong”, yeah they played so well against Michigan, I was sold. (Does that mean Michigan is better then Alabama, since they didn’t get humiliated by Utah, and the Sugar Bowl is worth more then the other 12 games this year combined? I mean, that’s obviously what all of you Utah-pologists are saying, right?))
Join a real conference, losers, you win the Pac-10, then you can go to the Rose Bowl. (But Utah fan knows it would never happen, they’re too irrelevant to join the Pac Ten, and if they did, they’d wear out the Vegas and Emerald Bowls after their constant 7-5/8-4 finishes.) Either way, not 1/4, not 1/8, not 1/16, not 1% of the National Title goes to a team that escaped New Mexico, Air Force and Michigan by a total of 11 points. Not in this lifetime.
Any media member that votes them in the top 5, should be publicly stripped of their vote, forever.
And instead of talking about the game, we end up, once again, with a process story about a school that “Doesn’t get any respect.” Please in the name of Osborne, give us a playoff so teams like Utah can be eliminated early and we can actually spend time talking about the games. Please.
January 3rd, 2009 at 3:42 pm
72
Big Jon says:
If you have an 8-team playoff, seeds 9-11 will bitch about not getting in. The same with seeds 13-15 in a 12-team format or seeds 65-68 in a 64-team field. Teams will always have legitimate complaints and there is no “perfect” playoff format in a league that boasts 119 teams.
Although I’m all alone I actually kind of like the current BCS format in that it gives a team like Utah a shot at one of the big boys. If I were the president of football (that’s a real title, right?) I would remove the label of “championship game” and add the Cotton and perhaps the Gator/Holiday Bowls to create 5-6 games with matchups of quality teams that carry serious implications. If the title gets split, so be it. Rarely does a single team in this era of college football have a legitimate claim as the undisputed National Champion anyway. Anybody who attended a school that went undefeated and didn’t get a shot at the trophy shoulld agree. (ASU, 1975)
Furthermore, someone else made a great point- who cares about the college basketball regular season? I don’t want any sort of playoff in football because it diminishes the importance of every single game throughout the year. Under the existing format the entire college football season is a playoff, and if you shit the bed against a conference puppy you probably shouldn’t get another opportunity at the MNC. The “every game matters” system is what makes college football unique and special for fans.
January 3rd, 2009 at 3:48 pm
73
www.southbendblarney.com says:
Utah has more players than they are given credit for, and ‘Bama was over-hyped because they are in the SEC, but its games like this that show how many good coaches (an players) there are nationally, and how most any team can be exploited. College football still has the have and have-nots, but the lines are blurring.
January 3rd, 2009 at 3:57 pm
74
Signal to Noise says:
@69 – like everything about it save the West/East bracketing, but maybe that’s for travel considerations I’d not thought of. I’d rather run 16-1, 15-2, etc.
January 3rd, 2009 at 3:57 pm
75
Sparrow says:
It seems to me that everyone is laying this at the feet of the conferences. The SEC is overrated. The MWC was disrespected. Why not get rid of the conferences? We’ll just go to a format of completely open scheduling, all season long. Then the regular BCS bowl season or playoff follows. What about that?
January 3rd, 2009 at 4:28 pm
76
not if I see you first says:
If we think we can have a playoff of 8 or 16 teams, we are just refusing to see that it will inevitably expand to include more.
So after we get a playoff system, how about a draft? Billy-Bob wanted to go to Florida but got drafted by Louisiana Tech?
January 3rd, 2009 at 4:36 pm
77
Steve-O says:
I demand an eight team playoff just so the games are meaningful and I get to see these teams from crappy conferences get their comeuppance. It’s possible that a Utah could occasionally break through to win a title, just like in basketball, but usually they’d get bounced in the first round, and winning three games against quality competition would nearly always be too tall a feat.
Quick question for those advocating an eight team playoff. Who’s the 9th team this year? Boise St. or one of the one-loss BCS schools?
Congratulations to Utah, since they scheduled well OOC (although Michigan turned out to be crappy, luckily for Utah), their conference had a banner year, and they beat every team put in front of them. There’s still no way in hell I’d pick them to beat the BCS title-game loser, let alone the winner, put that’s (point spreads) not what determines the #1 team, is it?
I still think that OU/Florida go through Utah’s pre-Bama schedule undefeated will a fairly high degree of certainty. I doubt Utah could say the same for OU/Florida’s schedule. I doubt they’d even have only one loss, especially OU’s schedule. Eight teams on OU’s schedule could have beaten Utah. That means they’d have to play well or hope their opponent played poorly eight times, plus a bowl game. How many times did they have to get up this year? How many teams better than Kansas did they play? Three, four?
January 3rd, 2009 at 5:34 pm
78
PortTrojan says:
Although I feel confident the Trojans can play with anyone, I’d rank them #3 or #4 depending on the Texas-tOSU outcome.
Most of the SC blowjobs are from the media (ESPN), not the fanbase. A lot of us believe in our team; very few of us believe we should get the AP title. This isn’t 2003.
January 3rd, 2009 at 6:19 pm
79
meatybob says:
@Cusefan
USC lost, Utah didn’t. And I do believe that Bama would have rolled PSU. The schedule difference is not big enought to justify a USC over Utah pick.
That’s what happens when you lose, you fall behind those that haven’t unless the schedule merits it.
January 3rd, 2009 at 6:26 pm
80
GTSteve says:
Utah this year was freakishly good. Anyone who would argue that Florida did not belong in the national championship hasn’t been paying attention to what they are capable of doing, and Alabama held close with them. College teams vary greatly from week to week, and Alabama lost their left tackle because he apparently is being investigated for talking to an agent or something, so this Alabama team was not the same team that played Florida.
Does this mean that the Mountain West was underrated and the SEC overrated? No, of course not. It means that Utah outplayed Alabama that week, and deserve a lot of credit for it.
But the doomsayers screaming for or against a playoff miss a fundamental point: you still have to rank teams to get into the playoffs. There is no tractable way to rank 120 teams based on 12, possibly 13 games. There isn’t enough connectivity between schedules to compare two 10-2 teams, never mind teams that are 8-4 or worse. Win/loss is meaningless with how little overlap of schedule there is between teams, even at the highest levels. So a playoff really doesn’t resolve much of the controversy that would have been present anyway, it just blurs it out.
This is why I still argue for split titles. This year you could easily argue that Utah should get a chunk of a national championship, as should the winner of Florida/Oklahoma. And why not split the title? If there’s this much controversy in a year at least a split title reflects that fact in the history books.
January 3rd, 2009 at 6:56 pm
81
TAFKastOSUB says:
There are a couple of other issues that would have to be addressed in order to create a playoff system.
1. Conference championship games. They all have to go. There is no need for them. The Pac 10 and Big 10 had this problem solved for decades, Pac 10 still does, by having all teams in a conference play each other. I know it’s hard for SEC fans to get their head around this, but if each team plays every other team in the conference, you don’t need an additional championship game. I know you guys enjoy the advantage of the extra game and extra week of practice, but it is not needed.
2. The 12 game schedule. It’s too many, has no value, and was only created as a way to try and give back the time lost due to the play clock rule changes – that’s another thing that has to go. Go back to the old clock rules.
3. Notre Dame. How in the world are you going to deal with ND? Why should they get an automatic bid without having to win a conference?
4. TV contracts. Those would have to be worked out.
There are just too many things that cannot be resolved, and personally I hope they are not.
January 3rd, 2009 at 7:04 pm
82
beckett929 says:
Steve-O = sore loser, rationalizer, and all around whiner…. just fucking admit that Alabama got FUCKING ROCKED. Make all the excuses for them you want, but whats it say when with all those excuses added up, that was the second best team in your conference!!! Just fucking admit your conference isnt **THAT** much fucking better than anyone elses? How many bowl teams did the SEC have?
Your mighty SEC…. lost games to Wyoming at home, a Bill Stewart coached West Virginia team that lost 4 games this year, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, Clemson, and several others, not counting close games (LSU to Troy)…
The fact is, whether you take off your plastic sunglasses and brush your ‘Bama bangs out of your face to see it or not, the college football world is pretty fucking even right now. Florida is a great team. OU is a great team. Utah is a great team. USC is a great team. But one conference is not way more dominate than the others of comparable note.
But comparing their conferences and trying to say ‘well so and so would be bad if they played infront of a larger crowd’ is fucking horseshit and you know it…..
January 3rd, 2009 at 8:03 pm
83
CuseFanInSoCal says:
@69/Signal to noise – I like the east/west bracketing both for travel and for television; keeping eastern time zone teams and pacific time zone teams away from each other should prevent games that are unwatchable for one fanbase or another most of the time (except for the occasional #8 seed that gets banished to the ‘wrong’ region due to imbalance; if Tulsa had won CUSA instead of ECU, my bracket would have worked out ‘right’ instead of having Troy stuck in the west).
@72/Big Jon — an 8 team playoff with autobids for the BCS 6 champs would frequently leave out deserving teams, no question about it. An 8 team playoff without autobids would sometimes leave out deserving teams (and probably would this year, depending on your opinion of the relative merits of Texas Tech, Penn State, and Boise State). A 16 team playoff with autobids for all 11 conference champs would very, very rarely leave out deserving teams (how often is a legit title contender neither a conference champion nor one of the five best other teams). A 16 team playoff without autobids would almost never leave out deserving teams.
Yes, in just about any playoff format there will be grumbling over the final at-large spot and seeding. But that’s a lot better than arguing over who deserves to be in the title game, or than a team with a record as good or better than the title game participants and an impressive bowl win ought to get the AP title.
And I don’t think that it’s inevitable that the playoffs will expand. The I-AA playoffs have been sixteen teams for a long time. The basketball playoffs have expanded from 64 to… 65 — but no one thinks the ‘last team in’ the basketball tournament has a legit chance of winning the tournament. Maybe of winning a game — the lowest seeds in basketball are typically low-major conference champs; major-conference at-large teams are typically the ‘last teams out’ — but not of winning the whole thing. Besides, nearly three times as many schools play division I basketball as play I-A football.
January 3rd, 2009 at 8:04 pm
84
TAFKastOSUB says:
Threadjack ()
{
Cowboy speaks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tObPOl7nBnc
Priceless
}
January 3rd, 2009 at 8:07 pm
85
CuseFanInSoCal says:
@81/TAFKastOSUB -
1 – I kind of agree with you here, but barring some enforced massive realignment back to eight to ten team conferences, that ship has sailed. The Big Ten, though, really needs to either drop a team or add one and join the moneygrabbers with their conference title games; they’ve already had ties for the conference title between teams that didn’t play each other three times since Penn State was added.
2 – The twelve game schedule predates the new clock rules; it was enacted because there used to be tons of oddball ways of getting an extra game allowed, so they figured standardizing on twelve games (unless you play a non-conference game at Hawaii) would simplify things — and make more money. The combination of conference title games and a twelve-game schedule just means that a sixteen-team tournament participant could play 17 games; state high school finalists in some states play sixteen, so I’m not overly concerned by this.
3 – Any playoff system with at least one at-large spot, or without autobids entirely, doesn’t need any special rules for Notre Dame (or other independents). If they’re good enough, the selection committee or formula will give them a spot.
4 – This probably wouldn’t be a problem; the revenue potential for a I-A football tournament is huge.
January 3rd, 2009 at 8:16 pm
86
SpartanDan says:
#71, 77: Utah beat four teams ranked in the final regular-season polls. That’s more than Florida even has played (although that will balance out after the MNC game), let alone won. The SEC had none of its usual depth – three good teams and a bunch of mediocrity. Utah has at least as good a claim as Florida this year (although it’s at least arguable with OU).
#72: The difference is that if you have to argue for the #8 spot, it’s pretty safe to say you’re not #1. That can’t be said for #2 or #3.
January 3rd, 2009 at 8:18 pm
87
Me says:
The recipe to beat Alabama is to score quickly and make them throw the ball to come back. I said before the game that if Utah got up two quick TDs and held bama to nothing while doing it that they would win the game. Turns out they got up 21-0. Sure you can say bama wasn’t ready to play, but they really just weren’t that good this year to begin with. They feasted on a weak SEC. The 6 most dissappointing teams this year were Clemson, UGA, LSU, Tennessee, Michigan, and Auburn. Guess what? bama had 5 wins against those teams. Face it, they weren’t that good.
Give Utah a share of the title b/c they are the only undefeated team, but don’t pretend that jumping on an overrated bama team early and hanging on for the win is the reason why…
January 3rd, 2009 at 9:37 pm
88
beckett929 says:
#87 —
If Alabama wasnt that good… then I want every SEC homer to admit that the SEC isnt the shit its cracked up to be and to stop acting like you’re God’s gift to fucking football
January 3rd, 2009 at 10:41 pm
89
General Disarray says:
@84
Cowboy = any and all white trash Bammeroid stereotypes
Let me save you 4+ minutes of your lives, here is the profound wisdom of the Cowboy, distilled like fine Tennessee whiskey:
“So all I got is one word to say….Roll Fuckin’ Tide Baby, Roll Fuckin Tide!”
Looks like we need to clean this end of the gene pool……
January 3rd, 2009 at 10:53 pm
90
TAFKastOSUB says:
#87
I’m with beckett929, you can’t have it both ways. That was a signature performance last night and Nick Saban and Alabama’s name is on it, signed with permanent marker. Just like Jim Tressel and Ohio State’s name is is all over the 41-14 performance vs. Florida. There are no excuses. Man up and take your fucking medicine. Alabama was ranked number one for 5 weeks and after the Florida game all we heard about was how well Alabama played. Making excuses about Andre Smith not being in the game is about as ridiculous as making an excuse that Ted Ginn Jr went down after the first play of the game or that Troy Smith spent a month eating In and Out burgers on the Heisman Banquet Tour.
Plain and simple, you had your asses handed to you in the exact manner that Ohio State had their handed to them. Deal with it. And don’t give us excuses about depth, not wanting to be there, etc – Ohio State had 9 first year starters on defense in 2006 and really didn’t have a lot of depth on defense.
January 3rd, 2009 at 11:29 pm
91
not if I see you first says:
#83:
“The I-AA playoffs have been sixteen teams for a long time. The basketball playoffs have expanded from 64 to… 65″
The IAA playoffs started at 4 and went to 8 within 4 years, thento 12 the next season. Theya re now at 18 (not 16) and will go to 20 next year.
NCAA Bball went from 8-65.
What the hell are you talking about?
January 3rd, 2009 at 11:40 pm
92
PSUfanNYC says:
# 58 @ Pelican Pants,
Florida’s #1 offensive player was out against Bama and that didn’t stop them from putting up 31 on Alabama’s vastly overrated defense. Blaming this loss on Smith’s absence, if true, indicates how weak Alabama is, along with the rest of the SEC for not giving them one loss during the regular season. If your entire offense is centered around 1 offensive lineman, you’ve got big, big problems.
January 3rd, 2009 at 11:45 pm
93
crabs says:
I’m calling it now. Ole Miss and UF in the 2009 SECCG. Gig Gig Giggety!
January 3rd, 2009 at 11:52 pm
94
robert johnson says:
The Utes are a top 5 team but that doesn’t allow them to pretend to qualify for the mythical national championship, whether they beat an Alabama team that even Jeff Sagarin had rated lower than Utah or not.
This seasons schedule wasn’t the fluff of four years ago but it didn’t have the caliber of top 10 opposition that is needed if you want to separate yourself from the pretenders.
Utah is still a pretender … albiet a good one.
Take the initiative of scheduling a Missouri or Penn State, not the Ball State’s and Tulsa’s who happen to crack the Top 25 … BIG difference .. as big as the difference between a champion and a pretender.
January 4th, 2009 at 1:44 am
95
Whiskey Wednesday says:
No article about the Cotton Bowl? As much as you like the respective three ring circuses that are Leach and Nutt, I figured you’d be all over this one, Orson. Oh well, still trying to satisfy the lingering football boner from Friday. Hang 70 on OU for us.
WW
January 4th, 2009 at 2:54 am
96
Gen. Stoopnagle says:
This is all Willie Martinez’s fault. Bama rode their win in Athens all year long and now look what it has done!
It’s a good thing that Michigan State is only marginally better than Hawaii so that no one is overvaluing Georgia anymore and throwing perspectives all out of whack.
Also, all of you playoff doo-dahs are forgetting something very important: if you go to a playoff, then every I-A football program will get a cut of the money. That means if you are a BCS school you will get less money. If you cut up a pie in more slices, the slices are smaller. That pie would have to get A LOT bigger for the slices that Florida and USC are getting right now look small to what their playoff slices would look like. It ain’t happening.
And goofnagle Ohio State nazi: you are right on everything but the Rose Bowl thing. The Rose Bowl can keep it’s shitty match-ups as long as it wants. No one down here gives a shit.
January 4th, 2009 at 9:32 am
97
meatybob says:
All of these “Utah doesn’t deserve #1″ defenses sound similar to the creationists “argument” against evolution. Oh, I love how Florida, OU, and Texas have some of the most pathetic OOC schedules, but yet its Utah’s fault.
Look at the wins, and rationally make an argument that Utah’s undefeated schedule doesn’t hold up. Better yet, look at the losses. What BS.
January 4th, 2009 at 11:04 am
98
SpartanDan says:
#94: You mean games against the end-of-regular-season #4, #11, #17, and #24 aren’t enough? Then why the hell is USC getting thrown in the discussion with games against #6, #10, #15, and #24 (with a loss to one of them, no less)? Or Florida with #2, #4, #16, and #20 (again, with a loss, and one of them yet to be played)?
Oklahoma is the only team that should have even a chance of leaping Utah. They’ve at least played a zillion good teams (after the bowl, it will be #1, #3 [loss], #8, #11, #12, #13, and #25). But Florida’s schedule (to say nothing of USC’s) isn’t that much tougher than Utah’s this year – not enough so that I would even consider taking a one-loss team ahead of an unbeaten.
January 4th, 2009 at 11:20 am
99
Dr.Ed phdxyz says:
Mr. Pelican Pants,
Excuses are for losers. You got your ass beat all over the field. Out coached, out played and certainly out classed. The Bama players gave it their best, they have my respect. But their fans can KISS MY ASS.
January 4th, 2009 at 11:25 am
100
PW says:
mearybob–
How does this sound similar to creationist arguments against evolution? Seems like an odd comparison.
January 4th, 2009 at 11:29 am