UMassHoops.com

jjmc85 · Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:46 pm Post subject:

I've already admitted to not watching FBS, but as I understand it, if anyone in Pac 10 had been one of two teams in the nation to go undefeated, they'd be in the national championship game, no questions asked.

I've also been told that the Pac 10 is a much better conference than the Mountain West. At first I accepted this without question, but then it was pointed out to me this year the Mountain West went 6-1 vs the Pac 10 in games. If they dominate a BCS conference on the field, have an undefeated champion and still can't get a championship bid, again I ask, what's the point of them fielding a team in FBS?

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/wildcats/270988

ShadesOf96and98 · Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 3:06 pm Post subject:

im much more of a proponent of my stance that Utah is not deserving of a shot when it is an SEC team involved on the other side, because there is no comparison between playing an SEC schedule and any other schedule. in a good year the Big 12 can stack up, but the Pac 10 cant.

the simple way to view the Pac-10 argument in context is that none of the Mountain West teams played USC. If USC had gone undefeated in the Pac-10 and beaten Ohio State non-conference, that would have been better than anything Utah could have done in the MWC. If any other Pac 10 team had gone undefeated, they would have had to defeat USC, a top 5 team.

you have to remember that in order to have been the real national champ, Utah would have had to finish the regular season ranked 1 or 2. coming into the bowl game, the Utes had two quality wins...TCU and BYU...an an undefeated Mountain West run. Is that more impressive than USC going undefeated in the Pac 10 and beating Ohio State, or another team going undefeated in the Pac 10 and beating USC? i dont think so

plus, half of that 6-1 MWC record were from wins over three Pac 10 teams that went a combined 9-27.

ktabz16 · Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 3:45 pm Post subject:

why bother with a title game? it's obvious the sec champ should just be crowned as champs. except that ole miss was never even in the title picture at all this year and beat florida at home. at one point this year ole miss was 3-4 and had losses to wake forest, south carolina and vanderbilt.

utah by comparison didn't let up at all and beat all comers.

kdogg8173 · Senior Joined: 10 Apr 2003 Posts: 1724

ShadesOf96and98 · Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 4:18 pm Post subject:

kdogg8173 · Senior Joined: 10 Apr 2003 Posts: 1724

Pitt, Miss. st. and Okla. St. all had less than 5 that weren't number 1.

My point being that similar to the St. Joes basketball team, a lot of people think Utah is good for reasons other than their record i.e. that their speed matched up with a top SEC team or their qb has a pretty accurate arm.

If all this hype about utah being national champ was based on being undefeated I would think a team like Boise St. would be ranked a little higher than 11th or 13th for only having 1 loss..

Now I agree that if people think Utah should be number 1 solely because they went undefeated that doesn't make sense. But if some believe Utah would beat Florida so be it. Personally I think Florida would win, but I also took the Oklahoma money line.

ShadesOf96and98 · Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:32 pm Post subject:

Yeah i hear ya, and I dont dispute that Utah has a great team. but this entire hype about Utah deserving to be champ IS based on them being undefeated. if they had a loss, they wouldnt have even been in the BCS. on the same token, before they beat Alabama none of these people on the bandwagon now were clamoring for them to be in the title game. Thus, the argument for them being the champ hangs on the fact that they beat Alabama, and i cant get behind that one game alone being enough. especially because Florida beat Alabama too when the Tide had MUCH more to play for.

Boise State lost a non-BCS bowl game, which is why they were dropped where they were for their one loss. If Utah had lost to Alabama, they likely would have been dropped to between 8-10.

Regardless, the argument here is not whether Utah, as a team, is good enough to be national champion. i dont know if they are or not. the argument is whether Utah's body of work is enough to be deserving of a national title. I say, unequivocally, that it is not.

umassfan0299 · Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:50 pm Post subject:

ShadesOf96and98 · Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 6:30 pm Post subject:

lets take a look

First of all, for this contention that because the MWC went 6-1 against the Pac 10 it is a better conference, Arizona, 5th in the Pac-10, beat BYU, 3rd in the MWC and one of Utah's three quality wins, 31-21 in the Vegas Bowl

USC throttled No. 8 Penn State
Oregon beat No. 13 Oklahoma State
Oregon State beat No. 20 Pitt 3-0
California beat Miami

Of those five best teams in the Pac 10, only two of them, Arizona and Oregon State, were involved in that MWC going 6-1 against the Pac 10, and that same Arizona team came back to beat one of the MWC's "marquee teams". So can you really cite that record as the MWC being on par with the Pac 10???

Now, lets look at the SEC...which went 6-2 in Bowl games.

Florida beat No. 1 Oklahoma
Ole Miss beat No. 7 Texas Tech
LSU beat No. 14 Georgia Tech
Georgia beat No. 18 Michigan State
Vandy (6-6 in the SEC) beat No. 24 BC
Kentucky beat CUSA champ East Carolina

More than that, SEC had five teams this season ranked in the top 10 at one point or another, including three different teams ranked No. 1 and four in the top 5.

The Pac 10 had two teams ranked in the top 10, including Oregon which didnt make it to No. 10 until after the season was over, and one team, USC, in the top spot and the top five.

Of the six BCS conferences, the Pac 10 had the second-fewest teams ranked this season. Only the Big East had fewer.

Does that help you out?

Plano Minuteman · Posted: Mon Jan 12, 2009 1:47 pm Post subject:

Whoa, this is still going strong, huh?

I agree with the argument in a few posts that calling one team "THE national champion" is futile. No playoff, no national champion. I can totally accept that.

Having said that, the Utah Utes, are as deserving or more deserving of calling themselves the champs as any of the other top contenders: Florida, Texas, and USC are.

Am also back to refute Shades argument that Utah had very few bumps in the road in going undefeated.

It's already been proven that the elite in the MWC are stronger than half the BCS conferences. It's also a fact that the MWC did indeed go 6-1 vs. the Pac-10.

If you look at the individual teams in the MWC, there aren't that many sh!tty teams, and I would be remiss if I let the team in my current town, CSU, be dismissed so easily.

The other teams in the MWC:

Colorado St - best early non-conference win was Houston, which isn't too bad. They're probably as good as in-state rival,CU, but having to adjust to a new coach, cost them some early opportunities at wins. They probably should've beaten TCU and BYU. They beat Fresno St in a bowl game, with their running back, Gartrell Johnson, setting a bowl record in yards from scrimmage: 285 or so yards rushing and another 95 or so receiving. Fresno St's not bad: they crushed Rutgers at Rutgers, and came close vs. Wisconsin.

UNLV - a good program in general. A little down this year, but won at Arizona St.

Wyoming - took out Tennessee at Tennessee.

Air Force - split with Houston, once in a bowl game, and is never an easy out.

San Diego St - no wins of note, but played Notre Dame fairly tight.

New Mexico - rough year for them, but still beat Arizona. Arizona played USC fairly tough.

Other than San Diego St, I don't see any free passes in league play.

As for non-conference play, it was a virtual deadlock:

Utah's non-conference schedule was as reasonable as Florida's:
@Michigan, Oregon St, Utah St, Weber St.

2 BCS schools and 2 in-state rivals.

Florida's was:

Hawaii, Miami, at FSU, Citadel

Pretty even to me. 2 power conference schools, 1 WAC team, 1 D-I-AA team.

Also, the MWC schools start with a competitive disadvantage. Their teams are ranked low in the AP poll. They have to keep win a ton just to get ranked. Not sure where Utah started, but probably not even ranked. Florida probably started #5 or so.

ShadesOf96and98 · Posted: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:29 pm Post subject:

Plano Minuteman · Posted: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:44 pm Post subject:

Rankings are skewed in BCS teams favor, because as I said before,
BCS teams are ranked in the preseason and non-BCS teams are ignored.

LSU was #4 when Florida played them which was a joke if you saw how LSU played most of the regular season. They didn't find a real QB until their bowl game.

The BCS is also a joke. I'll concede that the Mt West is not the SEC, but if you compared the Big East or the ACC head-to-head with the Mt West this year, I contend that the Mt West comes up on top.

Think that an undefeated Big East or undefeated ACC team gets left out of the BCS national championship?

CrooksisRhyming · Posted: Mon Jan 12, 2009 4:00 pm Post subject:

Plano Minuteman · Posted: Mon Jan 12, 2009 4:31 pm Post subject:

CSU-CU, we shall see what happens this year. Except for last year, every game in the last 8 years was with 7 points.

I am still sick about CU losing to Nebraska on that 57 yard FG. Ugh!

ShadesOf96and98 · Posted: Mon Jan 12, 2009 4:32 pm Post subject: