Congratulations To The National Champions..utah Utes.

oldguystudent · January 4, 2009

It's either one division of FBS schools in which a win is a win is a win or it's not. Divide it into 1A (BCS), 1AA (the other 5 FBS conferences), and 1AAA(FCS). Admit to the division that already exists and delineate it, or shut the hell up when a Utah or Boise comes along and let them play. The way things are currently set up, it's like a win over the Detroit Lions really shouldn't count as a win towards a playoff appearance.

Incidentally, did anyone notice during the Rose Bowl when they listed the bowl records of the conferences that only ten conferences were listed? The Sunbelt was conspicuously absent.

CMJ · January 4, 2009

Incidentally, did anyone notice during the Rose Bowl when they listed the bowl records of the conferences that only ten conferences were listed? The Sunbelt was conspicuously absent.

That was because they listed conferences with at least 3 reps(as only those with three of more count in the Bowl Challnge Cup). We had two.

oldguystudent · January 4, 2009

That was because they listed conferences with at least 3 reps(as only those with three of more count in the Bowl Challnge Cup). We had two.

I didn't realize that. Pretty poor when you think about it. So every other conference had 3 or more bowl representatives and we're jumping up and down like a bunch of kids on Christmas morning with over full bladders when we get two representatives, one of which begged and pleaded to play for free. This conference needs to step it up a couple notches.

ETA -- Am I mistaken in my impression that this whole division of the haves and have nots has its origins in the BYU national championship of 1984? Didn't that really upset the powers that be?

Edited January 4, 2009 by oldguystudent

emmitt01 · January 4, 2009

I didn't realize that. Pretty poor when you think about it. So every other conference had 3 or more bowl representatives and we're jumping up and down like a bunch of kids on Christmas morning with over full bladders when we get two representatives, one of which begged and pleaded to play for free. This conference needs to step it up a couple notches.
ETA -- Am I mistaken in my impression that this whole division of the haves and have nots has its origins in the BYU national championship of 1984? Didn't that really upset the powers that be?

Yes. What does it say when you throw millions upon millions at your football program and the little guys simply run, tackle and catch better than you?

keith · January 4, 2009

My, my, my.....so many BCS apologists right here in Mean Green land. Apparently the brain washing is working. The BCS is a crock of you know what. How ludricous is it to declare before each season even starts that the "champion" can only come from these few annointed conferences? Acutally it's really worse than that. There are only a chosen few schools that compete for the "championship" each year. Going back to 1992 starting with the Bowl Coalition and Bowl Alliance "champions" the precursor the the BCS, a whopping twelve different, count 'em .... 12 .... have played in the annointing, er, "championship" game. Nine of these 12 have played multiple times. So basically, while 120 schools play D1 football, only a select few have been pre-selected for the privledge (almost like a birth-right or something) to wear the crown. It's down right un-American. Count me as one who is sick and tired of watching the same 12 schools "compete" for the championship each and every year.

Keith

eulessismore · January 4, 2009

My, my, my.....so many BCS apologists right here in Mean Green land. Apparently the brain washing is working. The BCS is a crock of you know what. How ludricous is it to declare before each season even starts that the "champion" can only come from these few annointed conferences? Acutally it's really worse than that. There are only a chosen few schools that compete for the "championship" each year. Going back to 1992 starting with the Bowl Coalition and Bowl Alliance "champions" the precursor the the BCS, a whopping twelve different, count 'em .... 12 .... have played in the annointing, er, "championship" game. Nine of these 12 have played multiple times. So basically, while 120 schools play D1 football, only a select few have been pre-selected for the privledge (almost like a birth-right or something) to wear the crown. It's down right un-American. Count me as one who is sick and tired of watching the same 12 schools "compete" for the championship each and every year.
Keith

Benjamin Franklin, the old anti-elitist that he was, would agree with you.

GoMeanGreen1999 · January 4, 2009

Wrong. Utah played a tougher schedule and still is getting the "they don't play in a BCS league" crap.
And nobody has answered my question about how Utah would be viewed if "Big East" were on their uniform patch.

I don't really like a team getting an automatic bid in the BCS if they are not at least ranked in the top 10. That being said, I guess if they were in the Big East there would still be an argument that they had not run through the Big 12, SEC or Pac 10.

neither does Florida, OU, Texas or USC

True, doubtful though they would have only had one loss either.

The system is screwed up no doubt....there needs to a playoff badly. But let me ask you a question (not that this makes it right), but lets say it was North Texas in Florida's or even OU's place. Would we all still be out partitioning for Utah to be crowned champions over our North Texas Mean Green after we had gone through the SEC or Big 12 this year? I mean would we would be out fighting for the little guys, offering millions of OUR dollars to the "little guys?"

emmitt01 · January 4, 2009

I don't really like a team getting an automatic bid in the BCS if they are not at least ranked in the top 10. That being said, I guess if they were in the Big East there would still be an argument that they had not run through the Big 12, SEC or Pac 10.
True, doubtful though they would have only had one loss either.
The system is screwed up no doubt....there needs to a playoff badly. But let me ask you a question (not that this makes it right), but lets say it was North Texas in Florida's or even OU's place. Would we all still be out partitioning for Utah to be crowned champions over our North Texas Mean Green after we had gone through the SEC or Big 12 this year? I mean would we would be out fighting for the little guys, offering millions of OUR dollars to the "little guys?"

I would hope that what we would be doing is agreeing to meet them on the field in a tournament to prove just how superior we are, since we made it through the Big XII or SEC and all. Of course Alabama made it through the big bad SEC with a single loss...and then Utah blew their doors off.

Travis · January 4, 2009

That was because they listed conferences with at least 3 reps(as only those with three of more count in the Bowl Challnge Cup). We had two.

When the SBC had only one go to a bowl game (unt) there had to be at least 2 reps. Then when we were able to get 2 they bumped it to three... interesting.

UNT90 · January 4, 2009

I would hope that what we would be doing is agreeing to meet them on the field in a tournament to prove just how superior we are, since we made it through the Big XII or SEC and all. Of course Alabama made it through the big bad SEC with a single loss...and then Utah blew their doors off.

We would all be on here griping that it was a no win game for us, because if we won, thats what everyone would be expecting, but if we lost, it would be devasting to our program (someone wake me up from this dream).

It's all a matter of which side your on.

That said, the BCS sucks.

UNTflyer · January 4, 2009

There are two solutions here.

1. Keep the BCS, but expand it to 8 BCS Bowls (add the Cotton, Citrus, Gator, and Peach Bowls) and a Plus-Two Championship Series. Increase the number of AQ conferences to include the WAC and MWC (sorry SBC and MAC, but we're not making the cut yet). The neutralizes the argument that a playoff would ruin the regular season (a gutless and unsubstainiated argument).

2. Dump the entire concept of the bowl game, and hold a 16-team tournament where the conference champions all get in and a selection committee picks the other 5 teams.

Edited January 4, 2009 by UNTflyer

UNTFan23 · January 4, 2009

1. Keep the BCS, but expand it to 8 BCS Bowls (add the Cotton, Citrus, Gator, and Peach Bowls) and a Plus-Two Championship Series. Increase the number of AQ conferences to include the WAC and MWC (sorry SBC and MAC, but we're not making the cut yet). The neutralizes the argument that a playoff would ruin the regular season (a gutless and unsubstainiated argument).

You forgot about poor little CUSA. Where do they fit in to the picture?

CMJ · January 4, 2009

When the SBC had only one go to a bowl game (unt) there had to be at least 2 reps. Then when we were able to get 2 they bumped it to three... interesting.

I'm pretty sure it was always three....

NT03 · January 4, 2009

Congrats to their season, but put them in the SEC, Big 12 or Pac 10 and they don't go undefeated.

Might want to go look up the record of how the MWC did vs the Pac 10 this year

NT03 · January 4, 2009

Maybe now after that win...but they still only won by a field goal to a New Mexico team that finished 4-8. This whole situation reminds me of that stupid Boise hype that built after they beat OU.

You mean that same New Mexico team that BEAT Arizona!

New Mexico beat Arizona by 8 (36-28) and guess what USC only beat Arizona by 7, ( 17-10)

Edited January 4, 2009 by NT03

nautique · January 5, 2009

Congratulations! You have entirely missed my point. Let me spell it out a different way.
If I took the teams in the Sun Belt and told them all at the beginning of this season that their out of conference schedule had to consist of any combination of the following teams:
OU
UT
VaTech (ACC Champion)
Cincinnati (Big East Champion)
Alabama
Florida
USC
Every team in the Belt goes undefeated out of conference. Then throughout the season the Sun Belt teams beat eachother up (the same thing that teams in the Big XII and SEC do) but North Texas managed to run the table and end up undefeated.
At season's end voters (and some of you BCS bootlickers on this board) would insist that North Texas didn't play in a tough enough conference and we'd go to the Orange Bowl for a chance to end the season ranked #4 or so.

Your threw a strike with your post Emmitt. You are right on the mark.

MDH · January 5, 2009

You mean that same New Mexico team that BEAT Arizona!
New Mexico beat Arizona by 8 (36-28) and guess what USC only beat Arizona by 7, ( 17-10)

You mean the same New Mexico that lost to Tulsa 56-14?

Wait a minute, we only lost to Tulsa by 56-26? By goly, I think UNT could beat New Mexico now

Or the New Mexico that lost to UNLV? And UNLV lost to San Diego St... uh oh

New Mexico isn't that bad..they were a pretty strong team when they wanted to be this year. A national champ shouldn't win by a FG against a New Mexico squad however. (I know the "a win is a win" is comming)

NT03 · January 5, 2009

You mean the same New Mexico that lost to Tulsa 56-14?
Wait a minute, we only lost to Tulsa by 56-26? By goly, I think UNT could beat New Mexico now
Or the New Mexico that lost to UNLV? And UNLV lost to San Diego St... uh oh
New Mexico isn't that bad..they were a pretty strong team when they wanted to be this year. A national champ shouldn't win by a FG against a New Mexico squad however. (I know the "a win is a win" is comming)

A win is a win

Well UNLV did beat a #15 ranked team at the time on the road against Arizona State.

Could you agree that USC could be considered the National Champion this year ???

If so , it's ok that USC only beats Arizona by 7 , but Utah can go undeafted but their win vs a New Mexico team by only 3 is unacceptable ??

Edited January 5, 2009 by NT03

Green Guy Bass · January 5, 2009

USC would beat Utah.

NT03 · January 5, 2009

USC would beat Utah.

Your right , I don't even know why college football should even have games on the field. We might as well just have all the voters watch every team practice and then vote to decide on the National Champion without any games ever being played.

I would be willing to bet that most Beavers might say Utah is better , but what do they know they only played them both on the field.

ADLER · January 5, 2009

USC would beat Utah.

Didn't Oregon State play both? What were the results of those games?

CMJ · January 5, 2009

Didn't Oregon State play both? What were the results of those games?

Can't really use the associative property though, I mean Penn State annhilated Oregon State.

That said, Utah beat two top 10 schools, four top 25 schools, and six Bowl teams. THAT my friends is a deserving schedule.

NT03 · January 5, 2009

New Mexico isn't that bad..they were a pretty strong team when they wanted to be this year. A national champ shouldn't win by a FG against a New Mexico squad however. (I know the "a win is a win" is comming)

So in 2002 when NATIONAL CHAMPION OHIO STATE beat conference USA foe Cinicinnati by 4 points that year you saying they shouldn't of been crowned champions ???? I mean hell even NORTH TEXAS beat CINCY by more that year in the NO Bowl... we won by 5 !!!!

Rudy · January 5, 2009

Wow, all this logic. Im beginning to think one of you guys found the WMDs.

buff64 · January 5, 2009

If we are to continue with the BCS farce, I think they should name the Cotton Bowl as the 6th BCS bowl, and give the Mountain West winner an automatic bid and also would allow another at-large team. Now that the Cotton Bowl will be played at Jerry's place the weather is not a factor, which has been the argument against adding the Cotton Bowl to the BCS bowl list.