Debunking the "they don't deserve it" argument

by JazzyUte on Jan 4, 2009 3:18 PM MST in Sugar Bowl Comment 30 comments

There is a small -- and hopefully it remains that way -- group of people out there who want to prop up the notion Utah somehow doesn't deserve a national championship. I'm sure in the coming days and weeks they'll become more vocal as we make our case, which is why I see it fit to nip this foolish and completely false argument in the bud.

Utah couldn't beat USC, Florida, Oklahoma and Texas! How do they deserve a championship?

Firstly, basing a championship around something so utterly subjective is ridiculous. Without a true playoff, no one knows the answer to this, so there really is no point in arguing it. Secondly, those same people who say Utah wouldn't stand a chance against any of those teams were singing the exact same tune prior to the Sugar Bowl.

Think about it, 91% of the country had written Utah off even before the game started against the Tide. How did that turn out? The Utes proved the game isn't played on message boards or in sports studios, radio shows and newspaper articles. It's played on the field, where it should be and that is the only way you can decide the real national champion.

Utah plays a weak schedule, put them in the SEC or Big 12 and they wouldn't go undefeated!

Ok, well neither did Oklahoma or Florida, yet they're preparing for the championship game. This is probably the most laughable argument, since whoever wins Thursday will have lost on the season. In fact, counting this year's champion, the last three will have had at least one-loss, including LSU, who finished last season 12-2 and still managed to win the national championship.

Maybe Utah wouldn't go undefeated in the BCS, but that really isn't the point, since it isn't a prerequisite to winning the national championship -- at least according to the BCS. If Notre Dame had Utah's exact schedule and managed to win every game, is there any doubt they would be playing in Miami Thursday?

Either Florida or Oklahoma will have defeated the #1 or #2 ranked team to win the championship, no win by Utah compares.

Maybe so, but then again, do we really know if these are the two top teams in the nation? Beyond that, Utah has done something neither of those teams can claim, they've gone undefeated. Nothing Oklahoma or Florida can say or do will compare to that.

One slip-up shouldn't derail an entire season.

Maybe not, but had the Utes lost earlier in the season, it would have. That's the double standard non-BCS teams have to live with and it's unfortunate. However, Utah didn't slip-up, they took care of business for 13 straight games. They didn't allow an excuse to derail their undefeated hopes, Oklahoma and Florida did. The Gators can build a wall of excuses for their loss to Ole Miss, but it doesn't change the fact it happened.

Excusing that loss away so easily also kind of puts a dent into the argument that the regular season acts as a playoff. Because obviously it doesn't. Under the current system, Florida & Oklahoma proved they weren't up to the snuff week in and week out. Utah did. There is no excusing that.

Alabama didn't want to be there, so Utah's victory is hollow.

Bull. Did Ohio State get rolled in consecutive national championships because they didn't want to be there? Is that why Penn State was abused by USC in this year's Rose Bowl? Of course not and no one will ever use this argument to justify those losses. So why are they doing it now? Georgia felt they had as equal of a shot at the championship as LSU last year, then got stuck playing an undefeated non-BCS team in the Sugar Bowl and won 41-10. Did they want to be there? Maybe, maybe not, but they didn't let it impact their play on the field against Hawaii.

What about USC's win in the 2008 Rose Bowl? The Trojans thought they had a beef when it came to the national championship and were rejected for Ohio State. Who'd they get instead? Illinois. A team that was 9-3 and didn't even win the Big Ten. Obviously the Illini won, right? I mean, the Trojans didn't want to be there, playing another Big Ten team in another Rose Bowl. And for Illinois, it was a huge game, since they hadn't been to the Rose Bowl in like 23 years. They were probably jacked and maybe they were, but it didn't result in a victory. The Fighting Illini didn't give up much of a fight, losing 49-17.

This excuse might bother me the most because it's the one we hear the most. Non-BCS fans hear it every single time their team defeats a BCS opponent. Yet when the shoe is on the other foot or a BCS team gets throttled by another, that excuse is rarely brought up. It's only used to stifle any argument that maybe, just maybe, a non-BCS team could really be this good. Add in all those other excuses and you have a pathetically light and superficial case to make against Utah.

These facts belie their argument because if you give the Utes' resume to USC, there is no debate and there is no denying them a spot in the national championship. Did the Trojans really accomplish more this season than Utah? No. Yet the fact they are in the BCS automatically gives them the benefit of the doubt. The fact Florida and Oklahoma call the BCS home will give them an advantage no non-BCS team can ever receive. And every time a team like Utah comes along and does everything asked of them, there will be those who'll add yet another requirement and create another excuse.

Well to that I say, "Not this time."

Who'll join me?

0 recs | Comment 30 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

well written.

no doubtfully, i’m with you!

by bcs_sux on Jan 4, 2009 3:39 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

I'm with you

On all counts. I actually predicted that Utah would beat Alabama convincingly. I also don’t get the argument that Utah couldn’t make it through other conferences unscathed. The MWC is better than the Big East, Pac 10 (although USC is great), and ACC. I mean, did anyone watch the Virginia Tech/Cincinnati game? The top three teams in the MWC can play with anyone. I wish the BCS conferences would have some sort of agreement to play the MWC or WAC. The Big 10 does a good job playing the MAC (which isn’t as strong, but they give them the opportunity). It would be interesting to see some sort of rotating schedule where each BCS conference has to play a counterpart from the a non-BCS conference; think the Big10/ACC challenge in basketball. That would at least guarantee that these teams at least get a shot at proving themselves. Unfortunately, the BCS teams are scared silly of scheduling these tough opponents.

by rencito on Jan 4, 2009 4:13 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

Well.....

…non conference games at the beginning of the year would be the perfect forum to have great interconference matchups, but unfortunately most of those games are pretty watered down.

I wouldn’t say that the MWC is better, top to bottom, than the PAC 10, Big 12, or SEC at this point, but they do seem to be closing the gap with their top 3 teams.

I think Utah could beat anybody on any given day, but until I see it, this year I still think FL, OU, TX, and USC are on average better than the Utes.

"...don't TAZE me, bro..."

by zE bOp on Jan 4, 2009 8:00 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Results on the field

The MWC went 6-2 against the Pac-10 and 2-0 against the Lordly SEC.

Utah beat 6 bowl teams and 4 ranked teams en route to being the ONLY UNDEFEATED D-1 TEAM.

No matter who wins Thursday, that team will have one more loss than Utah.

by Rhino95 on Jan 5, 2009 9:43 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Fighting Shadows

I understand the compulsion to set up defenses for the attacks that usually follow such a victory. I have been around a few sites and even live in NW Florida, called Lower Alabama.

This win is different. It was not a last minute overtime win on a fluke play. We beat one of the traditional powers at their strength and made them look silly. The system is still recoiling from the shock.

Thanks to ESPN’s hype of the Rose Bowl, USC was gaining popularity as a alternative candidate for disgruntled AP voters to cast a protest vote and got the talk of a split title rolling. We have stolen USC’s thunder and added a few sparks of our own.

If Florida defeated Oklahoma and Ohio State upsets Texas I like the odds of a Florida-Utah split championship. Think about what the sports writers, also the AP voters, would have to say about that?

by utesfan100 on Jan 4, 2009 4:56 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

"Not so fast my friend......."

Problem is….

..the BCS system was created to have one game to determine the #1 team. It’s pretty darn rigid like that!

Utah didn’t get to that game, so there’s a 99.9999…% chance they won’t see the #1 spot.

It will remain as speculation whether they or FL or OU or USC are the #1 team since Utah will not have played those teams.

Very good chance they will finish #2 though. I wouldn’t have a problem with that.

“…don’t TAZE me, bro…”
<img src=" Problem is…. ..the BCS system was created to have one game to determine the #1 team. It’s pretty darn rigid like that! Utah didn’t get to that game, so there’s a 99.9999…% chance they won’t see the #1 spot. It will remain as speculation whether they or FL or OU or USC are the #1 team since Utah will not have played those teams. Very good chance they will finish #2 though. I wouldn’t have a problem with that. “…don’t TAZE me, bro…” "/>

"...don't TAZE me, bro..."

by zE bOp on Jan 4, 2009 7:51 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

How's that working out?

the BCS system was created to have one game to determine the #1 team.

We are about to complete the 11th season under the BCS and it still fails to “determined the #1 team.”

The AP is under no obligation to vote for the BCS champion as the national champion. And this year they shouldn’t.

by Ute in DC on Jan 4, 2009 8:13 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

the BCS system was created to ensure the "power 6" conferences would get the bulk of the bowl payouts... nothing more.

Utah IS the national champion in college football, whether the AP or the BCS say so… the whole country knows it.

by NFCEagles on Jan 5, 2009 3:29 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

sry bout the mistake there^^.....

"...don't TAZE me, bro..."

by zE bOp on Jan 4, 2009 7:52 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

and yes...

Utah’s win over ’Bama was solid, not flukey….very good defense for the Utes and their O came out firing on all cylinders, at least for about a 1 1/2 qtrs.

"...don't TAZE me, bro..."

by zE bOp on Jan 4, 2009 8:03 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

Uh,

the BCS is better than the previous system, and a playoff system is not without similar flaws to the BCS, i.e. one regional bracket could have the 2-3 best teams in it, but only one of them gets to move on to the next bracket.

Yea, the pollsters don’t HAVE to vote for the BCS Champs, but it’s pretty much a slam dunk that they will.

The big problem I have with part of the UTE argument is that they assume since they went undefeated that they should be #1, just like the Smurfs did a few years back. And alot of these teams from weaker conf.s take up space in the polls during the year because they are undefeated for a time but then get exposed and drop like a lead weight.

So, Utah does not deserve to be #1 just because they are undefeated. FL or OU or TX or USC might be able to take them to the woodshed 9 times outta 10 even as 1 loss teams.

But yea, if Utah ends up getting voted #1 over FL and OU then they ARE #1—on paper at least. I wouldn’t agree with it, but whatever…..

I suppose if you took the 2-3 best teams from each conference and had each one play every other team, it is the only way you would know for sure, but it would take 12 months to do that.

But we will be looking online on our holographic computers for discount tickets on a space shuttle ride to the dark side of the moon before there is a playoff system in CFB. Not gonna happen,

So, some teams are always going to get ‘robbed’.

"...don't TAZE me, bro..."

by zE bOp on Jan 4, 2009 10:47 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

Who did you have picked to win the Sugar Bowl?

The fact is you do not know that Utah would lose to Florida if they were to play. No one does.

by Ute in DC on Jan 4, 2009 11:09 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd love to see . . .

FL or OU or TX or (especially) USC come to Salt Lake and play at altitude in the cold.

GAME ON!!!

by Rhino95 on Jan 5, 2009 9:48 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

That is the lamest excuse you BCS loving people from BCS conferences put up

and its just another excuse to keep the status quot and keep the big payouts “in house”. Look at the facts – Utah earned the MWC 17 million that will be split among ALL MWC teams ~ 1.4 million each. Alabama earned 7 million for Alabama by losing…. go figure…. and now you see why the ‘Haves" don’t want to allow the “have nots” into the BCS, or change the system to allow for a playoff. What would happen to “their” hard earned $$. What a joke, and the FBI should be investigating the BCS and NCAA – they are both NON-PROFIT, as are all bowl games, but you could be an inbred pole loving dumba$$ from the heart of the SEC and still see somebody is getting “paid”. At least Obama should pull all federal funding for all BCS schools until they decide to level the playing field.

As for that lame excuse, that system you are saying is unfair because it might leave some good teams out, works in the NFL… the Patriots miss the playoffs @ 11-5 and the Chargers are in @ 8-8… YOU HAVE TO WIN YOUR DIVISION , OR IN CFB, WIN YOUR CONFERENCE TO GET TO THE DANCE!!!!. And, the system as it is now, DOES LEAVE GOOD TEAMS OUT…. AND FOR THE ALMIGHTY DOLLAR!! That is the lamest excuse there is to keep thing as they are. You BCS schools are too French to settle it on the field and face the possibility that a team like UTAH would do to you likE they did to Bama…. STOMP YOUR EFFIN MUDHOLES DRY!!!!! GO UTES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A UTAH MAN AM I………

by NFCEagles on Jan 5, 2009 3:17 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

I thought....

that ‘Bama was going to take Utah to the woodshed, but I hadn’t seen Utah play all year.
I thought ’Bama was overrated when they were #1, but I thought they would be too physical for Utah. Utah has a much better team than I had suspected.

No, no one knows if Utah could beat FL, or OU, but I would speculate that either of those teams would beat Utah 5 outta 7 times. FL, OU, TX, and USC are all better than ’Bama(and Utah) IMO. They all have better QBs for one thing….

"...don't TAZE me, bro..."

by zE bOp on Jan 4, 2009 11:26 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

We were 10 point dogs to Bama.

After the Sugar Bowl, do you think we’d be 10 point dogs to anyone? Bama was only 2 point dogs to UF, IIRC. The reason nobody gave us any credit was because we’re Utah. If we were USC, same players, same schedule, same resume, we’d have a national title. Hell, we’d have two because we’d have gotten a shot in 2004 too.

In fact, for this year we wouldn’t even need to be USC (although we would need it in 2004). We could have been Duke for all it mattered this year. And if you don’t believe me, South Florida was #2 for a week last year. Just need that BCS tag and we’d be in.

Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.

by displacedute on Jan 5, 2009 12:32 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

That's just it, no one knows if Utah would defeat them.

I addressed this in the post. It’s all subjective and that is NOT how you decide a national champion.

Hell, prior to the NBA Finals last year, most pundits had picked the Lakers, since the Celtrics had struggled in three straight series before reaching the Finals. What happened? The C’s rolled ’em!

No one thought Utah would beat Alabama, yet they did. Maybe they wouldn’t beat Florida, but then again, maybe they would. Why is zE bOp’s opinion any greater than those who think Utah would win? It isn’t. Which is why we need a playoff, since it will leave the real debate on the field…where it belongs.

by JazzyUte on Jan 5, 2009 1:01 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

err, Celtics, not Celtrics.

by JazzyUte on Jan 5, 2009 1:02 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Upon further review

Bama was 9 1/2 point dogs to Florida in the SECCG.

Comparing the Utah personnel to the Trojans, I think SC has an advantage at RB because of speed, Utah has advantages at QB (Johnson is a better leader) and WR (Utah has depth). Both defenses have tons of speed.

Last time Utah met USC the Trojans ran for negative yards, and Carson Palmer limped off the field.

by Rhino95 on Jan 5, 2009 9:54 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Beat Utah 5 out of 7 times

people thought that of ’Bama too. Does it really matter?

The played 1 game and Utah won. End of story.

If the #1 team is based on who’d win in a best of 7, they should play a best of 7 then. Until then though… whoever wins the 1 game that is played is the winner.

The Utah Jazz

by UtesFan89 on Jan 6, 2009 3:10 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

bedtime here....

2 b continued……..:)

"...don't TAZE me, bro..."

by zE bOp on Jan 4, 2009 11:27 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

Rgdg 'displacedute's' remarks...

…I think we’ve all made the point that the current poll/BCS system involves subjectivity and that no one will know if Utah is better than USC, FL, etc. this year.

I think a strong case could be made that USC, FL, TX, and OU have better and deeper rosters, hence better teams than Utah. I think all those teams have a clear QB advantage over Utah. It would also be hard to believe that the MWC is better than the Big 12, SEC, and even PAC 10; I don’t think it is. But the Utes played some respectable teams so they do have a beef.

I will say it again, ‘Bama was overrated and was put in the #1 spot in part because they ’are ’Bama’ and play in the SEC and because they were undefeated until they met FL. They are a top 10 team though.

Utes have a case for similarly being put in the #1 spot but, as we have said, they are ‘Utah’ and play in the MWC. So, if they don’t end up #1 in the polls—which they probably won’t—we will never know for sure if they were the number one team in ’08.

It’s too bad, but as I pointed out above, a playoff system is not infallible, so no matter what system you have, questions will always remain.

I don’t know who you guys return next year, but if you don’t lose too much you should come into the season ranked pretty high.

So it looks like you will have to kick butt for another year and perhaps you’ll get another, better chance at #1.

"...don't TAZE me, bro..."

by zE bOp on Jan 5, 2009 6:22 AM MST reply actions 0 recs

Utah loses most of its offense.

They return most of their defense.

Basically, they won’t be as good as they were this year, but they’ll still be really good. I expect the Utes to be a preseason top-20 team and if they get a few breaks, it’s possible they roll into the TCU game undefeated, but that could be asking for a bit much.

by JazzyUte on Jan 5, 2009 8:37 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs

That being the case....

…maybe Ute Nation should take up a collection hat to pay off some poll voters, like NOW, this year! I guess the AP can vote for whomever they want. Money talks!

Just kidding, but I was reading a list from ESPN.com where they show undefeated teams that haven’t made a final #1 ranking: they ALREADY have Utah in that list for 2008!

I’ll see if I can provide a link……

"...don't TAZE me, bro..."

by zE bOp on Jan 5, 2009 11:01 AM MST reply actions 0 recs