Utah Dominates Bama!

[Sten Carlson]

So, RR's fledgling offense actually had a chance to beat the only undefeated team in the country, who is not only a BCS spoiler, but now an SEC killer as well. Good the for the Utes!

Wasn't Alabama ranked #1 going into the SEC Championship Game?

This BCS is such a joke!

Florida moved up into the NC Game because of their win over then top-ranked Bama, but now it turns out that Bama got smoked by Utah. So, was Bama overrated? If they were, then the amazing jump that Florida made over Texas was unfounded (who incidentally got jumped by Oklahoma as well after OU beat a seemingly overrate Mizzu). Then we have TT (who was claiming that they got snubbed by the BCS, but who got smoked by OU), the only team to beat Texas (the only team to beat Oklahoma), get smoked by Ole Miss, the only team to beat Florida. Then USC (who are miffed for not being invited the big dance, but lost to Oregon State) smoked PSU (who smoked Oregon State, but who might have gotten snubbed as well), who beat OSU (who also got smoked by USC), but PSU lost to Iowa, who smoked South Carolina.

No matter who wins the NC Game, Texas (as long as they beat OSU soundly) and USC have legitimate claims as National Champions. Then there is Utah, how is an undefeated team, that just smoked the former #1 (whose only loss came in the conference championship to the now #2 team) being left of out the discussion?

Its all making my head spin, and makes me really want to see a playoff!

[primetime101]

+1 the BCS is a joke, i dont even care anymore

[MAIZEandBLUEsuedeshoes]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here....

The two main reasons I can think of right now(as to why I would like a playoff)

1) It would be exciting(even if the worst seed won---but would that be fair?)
2)It gives teams such as Utah(and others) a chance to prove themselves--which in my opinion is more important than the first reason I gave.

Other than that, I don't see a need for a playoff. I mean...FOR EXAMPLE: Let's say USC went undefeated this regular season, and lost in the first round--- to most likely(due to their record) the worst seeded team(I'm thinking of Stanford right now for some reason....). Does this mean that USC is not worthy of being National Champion? Should USC be punished for that ONE PLAYOFF LOSS, while there are other teams with possibly two losses(against worse teams?) going in to the playoff? This is the only downside(from my perspective)-----and is as bad as the BCS-----see above scenario.

EDIT: I would like to add--- even though in the scenario I mentioned that USC lost, which ever team makes it to the last game and wins--- would definately be WORTHY of being a champion. However, USC may still be the best....
A first round loser may be able to beat all the other teams in the "playoff"(besides the team that beat them in the first round or it's even possible that the first round loser could lose the first game, and win 2 in a row against that same team!! 2 out of 3!----- we will never know!

(not saying the game should be best of three...LOL)





A playoff or BCS Championship game--- neither is perfect, but I would like to see Utah have their chance as well......

[rickyleach]

hey we put up a better fight against the utes then bama did , how funny is that , in fact we should have beat them..

[Bossgobbler23]

Good for the Utes! They played well and deserved to win. I bet the SEC didn't see that one coming. SEC speed? Huh! The Utes were all over the Bama QB (8 sacks?) with their much superior speed.

[1OSUNUT]

A plus one would not work this year. Who would you send to the game USC, Utah or Texas (if they beat OSU). In most years a plus one would work - not this year.

[blueisbetterthanred]

Just because a +1 system would have flaws doesn't mean it wouldn't be leaps and bounds ahead of the current system. Whatever they use, it will have problems, but a +1 this year would have had LESS controversy than the bowl games.

You can't wait for a "perfect" system to materialize because it won't, but something has got to give.

[1OSUNUT]

A plus one would of worked this year if you had 1 play 4 and 2 play 3. This way the it is a playoff between the top 4 teams. That would be the only way to fairly judge the teams. Florida would play Texas and Oklahoma would play USC. I feel for Utah but they just don't play a tough enough schedule. It does not mean that they are not good enough or even better then a few of the above teams - it just is what it is. Every year a team that thinks it belongs will be left out. This year those teams would be Alabama and Utah.

[Seger]

Just because a +1 system would have flaws doesn't mean it wouldn't be leaps and bounds ahead of the current system. Whatever they use, it will have problems, but a +1 this year would have had LESS controversy than the bowl games.

You can't wait for a "perfect" system to materialize because it won't, but something has got to give.
I agree that it would be better than what we have now, but I still think the best scenario is for conference winners to enter a playoff with the highest ranked teams getting the home field advantage at least for the first round. The regular season would still be meaningful and you would be motivated to schedule out of conference games that test your team against other conferences' best teams without the fear of blowing your chance at a NC.

[tpilews]

I agree that it would be better than what we have now, but I still think the best scenario is for conference winners to enter a playoff with the highest ranked teams getting the home field advantage at least for the first round. The regular season would still be meaningful and you would be motivated to schedule out of conference games that test your team against other conferences' best teams without the fear of blowing your chance at a NC.

Couldn't have said it better Seger. Right on man.

[tpilews]

A plus one would of worked this year if you had 1 play 4 and 2 play 3. This way the it is a playoff between the top 4 teams. That would be the only way to fairly judge the teams.

Well sure, judge the 4 teams involved. What about those others that have had good seasons, they don't deserve a shot at the title? In an ideal playoff format, every team would be invited. Obviously, this can't happen, so there needs to be a compromise. There needs to be enough teams that you would be absolutely sure the real top teams would be included. But, there also needs to be a few as possible because of a time constraint. My personal opinion is that 16 teams will meet both those criteria better than any other number. 8 teams would certainly work, and I'd be happy with that scenario. 4 teams is not enough this year, 2004, ..... There needs to be a system with as little controversy as possible.

[LAMfan]

A plus one would of worked this year if you had 1 play 4 and 2 play 3. This way the it is a playoff between the top 4 teams. That would be the only way to fairly judge the teams. Florida would play Texas and Oklahoma would play USC. I feel for Utah but they just don't play a tough enough schedule. It does not mean that they are not good enough or even better then a few of the above teams - it just is what it is. Every year a team that thinks it belongs will be left out. This year those teams would be Alabama and Utah.

Utah would deserve more of a chance than OK. If you lose your big game, you go home. That was a playoff game, no chance for a do-over in the playoff system.

[Blue In Ohio]

Seems like a RR type offense comes up big every year against somebody in a bcs game. It may be the formula of the future for sucess against the guys at the top. I don't think Michigan or anybody will outrecruit USC. The Utes have the personel to run this offense with sucess against anybody. I don't see any big ten team recruiting the talent to beat USC at their own game in any future Rose Bowl. We may have a chance in that game in the future if we have the correct personel to run this offense. As bad as this year was maybe we are on the right track. What's the point of going to big time bowls only to get blown out year after year trying to beat a USC at their own game and getting stuffed on every play?

The Utes should be undisputed national champs. They won every game on their schedule and whooped on a program that just a few weeks ago was number one and just missed out on being in the championship game. What more does the NCAA expect from them? The BCS is nothing but a big sham. The top two teams aren't even getting to play for the championship. This is ludicrious. An asterisk should be placed next to the winner of the BCS game if they are a unanimous number one.

[ronleflore]

Best thing that can happen here is for the AP to annoint UTAH National Champs, and have a split. Isn't that what the BCS was supposed to eliminate?
We're Number 1, I mean the big fuzzy finger has about as much legitimacy as the effing BCS. Go Utes!

[Mich97c]

A plus one would not work this year. Who would you send to the game USC, Utah or Texas (if they beat OSU). In most years a plus one would work - not this year.

Isn't that more like a (when they beat OSU).

[1OSUNUT]

Like Alabama was going to beat Utah. Like Texas Tech was going to beat Ole Miss. That is why they play the game.

Utah is in a non-BCS conference. They really did not have a marque victory over a BCS school all season. Michigan normally would be a BIG win - not this year. Utah had a nice season - but you cannot crown them National Champs. Because if you do that then next year an unbeaten Hawaii or Boise State will claim the championship. If Utah was in the Big Ten, PAC 10, SEC, ACC or Big 12 they would not be unbeaten. They should not be rewarded just because they ran the table against sub par opponents and won a bowl game.

[Sten Carlson]

Like Alabama was going to beat Utah. Like Texas Tech was going to beat Ole Miss. That is why they play the game.

Utah is in a non-BCS conference. They really did not have a marque victory over a BCS school all season. Michigan normally would be a BIG win - not this year. Utah had a nice season - but you cannot crown them National Champs. Because if you do that then next year an unbeaten Hawaii or Boise State will claim the championship. If Utah was in the Big Ten, PAC 10, SEC, ACC or Big 12 they would not be unbeaten. They should not be rewarded just because they ran the table against sub par opponents and won a bowl game.

Isn't manhandling Alabama considered a marquis win? I mean shit, Bama was #1 only a few weeks ago, and their lose to Florida is THE reason why Florida is in the NC game. Basically, the system gives props to a team (like Alabama) when it's convenient to (like after Florida beats them), but when it's not (like after they got whipped by Utah) then their passed over as unimportant.

Its all a big sham designed to get the most popular teams into the mix, not identify the best teams and see who wins.

[1OSUNUT]

Teams like Utah, West Virgina, Boise State and others do a very good job coming up with a one game plan for the bowl games. They use the four weeks to their advantage and use their speed and unpredictable offense to shock and surprise their opponent. I think that is outstanding. They would be unable to do that if they played in a tough conference. They use the time to create a game plan to attack the bigger slower team by using their speed and space. It does not always work - but it does at times. I also think the bigger teams like Oklahoma and Alabama take these smaller schools for granted or to lightly. Then by the time they realize that they are in a game its to late. In a one game bowl set up anything can happen. But if Utah, Boise or WVU had to play those kind of teams week in and week out they would not have near the same sucess.

[NCBLUE]

I hate to agree with nut but Utah's win while a bit suprising & nice cannot justify putting them number #1 or #2 or compare with a team that has to run the gauntlet provided by a BCS conference schedule.

Bowl games are exhibitions they cannot be compared to a playoff. They were created to give cold climate teams a reward by traveling to a warm destination. They are operated as businesses to make money. They do that by pitting teams whose fans will travel and raise television ratings. "Who deserves what never factors into the equation" which is why the non BCS schools do not get much representation.

I think we are still a long ways away but I like Seger's idea of putting the 6 BCS conference winners (plus 2 other teams with at least 1 coming from a non-BCS conference) in an 8 team playoff. Allow the top 4 seeds to host the first round of the playoff. (I would love to see a southern team or USC come north once in awhile). After that use the main bowls as neutral sites hosts (Rose, Sugar, Orange) for the final 4 teams.

Of course a plus one would be better than what we have though.

Alas it is all a pipe dream as it will require too many people to get on board for anything to happen in the near term.

[tpilews]

Alas it is all a pipe dream as it will require too many people to get on board for anything to happen in the near term.
I think the only not on board with a playoff are the conference presidents and business owners.

I'm not sure why businesses would be against sponsoring more, exciting games, but whatever. It's their loss. And until they realize they're losing millions, they won't do anything about it.

[GoDeepHammer]

I think the only not on board with a playoff are the conference presidents and business owners.

I'm not sure why businesses would be against sponsoring more, exciting games, but whatever. It's their loss. And until they realize they're losing millions, they won't do anything about it.

I agree, until they can make more money, nothing will change.

[NCBLUE]

I think the only not on board with a playoff are the conference presidents and business owners.

I'm not sure why businesses would be against sponsoring more, exciting games, but whatever. It's their loss. And until they realize they're losing millions, they won't do anything about it.

I think it has to do with chance & risking a tried and true method of making money for the bowl games. Plus there would be some worry that a true playoff would overshadow the rest of the bowls. Which for the fan would probably be fine but for the business entities that operate the bowls or the cities that host them may not be a good thing.

Again I would like to see one but there would be obstacles and people who would stand in the way.

[amazinblue]

I think it has to do with chance & risking a tried and true method of making money for the bowl games. Plus there would be some worry that a true playoff would overshadow the rest of the bowls. Which for the fan would probably be fine but for the business entities that operate the bowls or the cities that host them may not be a good thing.

Again I would like to see one but there would be obstacles and people who would stand in the way.

NCBLUE,

No doubt, the major bowls are financially driven enterprises - and they don't want things to change - who could blame them. That's one of the reasons why I believe keeping the bowl system intact - and using the four major bowls - Rose, Sugar, Orange, and Fiesta as "national quarterfinals". The Rose can keep it's Big 10 / Pac 10 history, and the other bowls can return to their traditional alignments - or figure out how to "align" the teams. I don't like a 1 vs. 8, 2 vs. 7, etc. for the four majors - if you win a major conference, you're in - with mid-majors and teams like Texas / Alabama trying for an at-large spot.

I think most everyone would have excitement about watching the four major bowls - and, the interest / advertising / money - that would go to national semis, and a national final would be incredible.

This bowl season seems especially lackluster - I hate the "week off" between most of the bowls and the MNC game, and this week seems to be taking forever.

And, I thought the Utes win over Bama was fantastic. Perhaps neither the SEC or the Big 12 are as strong and deep as many people believe.