Exactly, but we don't have a tournament and that is the problem. In basketball SOS doesn't matter, except to get in the tournament.
Ah Corey, you loved that post so much you had to post it twice?? :twisted: :twisted: Give me a break about sticking to the topic. What you mean is stick to the to the issue as you define it! And that the facts as you define them don't fit our case. I guess come Friday morning when the final polls are out you can find the email of all those folks who will vote for the Oklahoma/Florida winner and let them know the didn't stick to the facts! As defined by Corey of course. I was of course joking about the double post it happens to all of us. I'll delete one of them.
Well thanks for the clarification gipper. Now let me say that in my opinion Florida, Oklahoma and Texas are the best three. But with Texas being left out of the equation that either Florida or Oklahoma will be the best at the end. As to USC they are 4th at best. That is my opinion, thanks for correcting me on yours.
Ten bowl teams is ten bowl teams and I would guess no other team played that many. Of those ten teams six came out winners in their bowl games. I would also guess that no team played 6 teams that won their bowl games and of course one of the 4 losers of bowl games, the team that Utah can claim their fame on....Alabama....was #1 for several weeks and will certainly finish in the top 8 in the country... ....and just for kicks two non-bowl teams UF played were SEC road games AT Tenn and AT Arkansas. Not exactly a walk in the park even though both had off years. It was a pretty tough schedule and worthy of the rewards it has brought to the Gators. By contrast Ohio State, last year's BCS title game participant played only 6 bowl teams.....who went 3-3 in their games.
KP We don't have a tourney in Football but we do have a season. In basketball at the end of the tourney the only undefeated team is the champion. I'm applying the same rationale to this college football season. I thought Utah play a difficult enough schedule and passed its final exam well enough to be considered to have had the best SEASON. Isn't that what should be the deciding factor in determining who should be the SEASON champion?
I recall a couple of times in the past (60s? 70s?) when Penn State went undefeated but was not voted #1 because their schedule was confined pretty much to eastern teams who collectively were not strong enough at the time to compete with other teams' schedule strength. It's not apples/apples re: Utah, but it's the same kind of perception, regardless of their wins over Oregon State and Alabama (and don't even mention this year's Michigan team). I cannot buy the argument that Utah's overall SOS matches those of the other 3 teams. regardless of Corey's passion in pursuing his point. Yes, their Sugar Bowl win was impressive enough to include them in the conversation, but in the end they are burdened by the collective strength of their 12 game schedule and the perception thereof. As far as which 1-loss team deserves to be #1, perception always has played a major role in the final vote, even before the BCS. At the end of the 1977 season there were four 11-1 teams - Notre Dame, Alabama, Arkansas, and Texas. ND had demolished previously TX in the Cotton Bowl 38-10 after losing early in the season to Mississippi. Notre Dame was the consensus national champion. If the internet had been around at that time, I'm sure there would have been an uproar and an argument similar to this one.
Sid To this day I can not reconcile what happened in 1989. ND played and beat 6 teams that were conference champions that year (2 were co champions in the WAC) (this included both teams in the Rose Bowl. They ended the season beating the Big 8 Champion, undefeated and ranked no. 1 Colorado. They had one loss and no team was undefeated that year. In the end they ended up ranked 3rd for the season behind no. 2 FSU who lost more games in 8 da. that season than the ND team had lost in 2 yrs. In other words the pollsters will look at strength of schedule if it fits their agenda. If not they'll look to head to head. If not they'll look for best record. It's complete bullchit.
1. We now gauge quality by bowl participation instead of rankings?? Are we really going down that path now? You played 10 bowl teams and 3 of them were ranked. If anything points to the laughable situation that is college football, that should be it. Being a bowl team use to mean something. Now, it appears that Florida Atlantic and Tulsa are on par with Oklahoma State and Oregon.... Utah started this season playing AT Michigan. Granted Michigan sucked but this constant suggestion that they took an easy road during the season is silly. But in Dave's words 'a bowl team is a bowl team'... I find this statement rather odd coming from a guy trying to use SOS as a case for his team. Florida Atlantic=Florida?? No sir...
I have no doubt that voters in both polls have a built in preconception of who is worthy and who isn't worthy, heck I know I do. I remember back to 1984 when BYU won the Nat'l Championship, they had a great team were undefeated and all that, didn't have a signature bowl win, instead beat a mediocre UM team in the Holiday Bowl to clinch. I didn't think they deserved it, they didn't play a major conference schedule. But if Utah somehow gets the #1 slot in the AP poll that's fine with me, I still won't believe they are the best team in the country or that they would be undefeated if they played in one of the BCS conferences (well maybe the Big East).
Terry, I see and respect your point here but if we are talking 'best team' (as Gipper pointed out) that is a heckuva lot different than "National Champion" or BCS Champ for that matter. In a playoff situation, I'm not sure anyone wants a part of USC... While they have their big game brain farts that folks love to point to, they tend to circle the big dates on calenders and kill people. Aside from Texas' (and Vince Young's) fantastic NC game performance... USC has trucked most all other 'big game' opponents... I think maybe Oregon was the only other 'big game' I can remember them losing.
What year was it that all USC had to do was beat UCLA to get into the Nat'l Championship game and UCLA sucked and still beat them. That was like a 1st round playoff game for USC and they lost. So while I won't argue that USC is a great team and certainly would be one of the favorites, they are not a team of supermen who can't be beat.
Gip, I too believe that Utah should, at the very least, split the championship with the BCS winner. There is only one flaw that I see with your statement above. What if Tennessee stopped traveling all over the country for non-conference opponents. What if we decided that we would play MTSU, Tennessee Tech, UT Chattanooga, and Tennessee State University. Would it be enough to win the SEC and beat those sacrificial lambs? My point is that we have to have guidelines about acceptable opponents in a schedule for an undefeated team. I could field a team that could beat the good sisters of the blind 12 times but I don't think that would make us a championship team. :wink:
Fair einough Tom, you're talking about the part of the schedule that a team can control. Utah scheduled Mich. at Ann Arbor (when they were a perennicl power) and Ore. St. They schedule well in the discretionary part of the schedule and unlike some teams do play nonconf games out of state.
I would hold Tenn on a par with Michigan this year. And....how many teams were ranked at the time Florida played them? When the Gators beat LSU they were highly ranked and had won 23 regulation games in a row ( lost in OT twice).
Tom, I pray your Vols never would take that approach, but if they did, you'd have to change your name to LSU
2006 Terry, that loss is what allowed Florida into the Championship game against Ohio State. I'll remember that game forever.
Bill is correct. All the talk about USC playing for the NC and worrying about what the polls will do with Florida if they win out etc... and USC talked and talked, then fell flat on their face against UCLA All I have to say about that is... LOL
Gip, The difference is that SOS has no meaning once the BB tournament starts because you have to make it through the bracket. There is no bracket in the BCS. If DIV IA had a tournament and undefeated Utah lost to a 1 loss Oklahoma for instance in the first round , they would be out. Having the best (regular) season would be irrelevant. But we don't have a tournament so SOS does come into it, and even though Corey doesn't agree and even though Utah beat the hell out of Alabama, Utah's SOS was not as tough as UF, UT or OU. But that is obviously just my humble opinion.
That reminds me Sid, we had this discussion before, 1965 (or 66?)Alabama undefeated, Notre Dame went for the tie and won the NC. Strength of Schedule? :roll:
KP, I remember that game with Notre Dame and Michigan State. Notre Dame went for the tie and ended up winning the National Championship. Those were also the days when the East and Midwest had a natural advantage over us southerners as witness an no loss southern team finishing behind a tied midwest team. Two things have changed however, no more ties and the advantage seems to have shifted south.