Everything That's Wrong With College Football on Display at the Sugar Bowl

[Sooner04]

A simple question: why do teams like Utah even bother fielding a team? You go undefeated in 2004 and win your bowl. No small feat! So you do it again five years later, and does it make a bit of difference? No.

That's everything wrong with college football in a nutshell. What is the point of competing if you don't have the opportunity to pursue the ultimate prize? Nobody wants to go to Salt Lake City to play the Utes. How are they supposed to put together a schedule that will allow the computers to smile upon them? How are they going to play marquee opponents so they can impress the already biased pollsters?

We're very fortunate at Oklahoma because we're part of the "in" crowd. We all know who's in the club, but I'm beginning to think that membership, if not already earned by now, is unattainable. Boise State goes undefeated in 2006 and posts another unblemished regular season in 2008 and they're ranking is no higher. That's wrong. Utah has produced two undefeated teams in the last five seasons, yet they're still labeled a BCS buster instead of national championship contender. That's wrong.

What makes me the angriest is this simple, unavoidable fact. If Utah played the exact same schedule, and won by the exact same scores, but played their games as the Notre Dame Fighting Irish, they would be the #1 team in the country by a UNANIMOUS vote by the pollsters.

Now more than ever, we need a playoff. Don't tell me a playoff would dilute the regular season. What the hell does the regular season prove? Utah defeated every one that came to play them, and they have nothing in the grand scheme to show for it.

Give me college basketball. It's more democratic.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

i thought this was going to be about the forward pass again

[TUSooner]

On the short end, you rightly mention Utah and Boise St. And on the other end, consider last year. LSU loses twice, but because they are in the sacred SEC, it's OK. They go to the BCSCG (practically at home) where they get to play another "in" team - a hopelessly overrated Ohio St who played a schedule little tougher than Utah's. It's hard to complain when you are part of the "in" crowd, but we need a playoff.

[sooner59]

I bet George Washington would even support this post.

[chad]

Utah's future schedule (BCS opponents only)

2009: @ Oregon, Louisville,
2010: @ Iowa St, @ Notre Dame
2011: Oregon, Iowa St, Boise St.
2012: Washington st, @ Colorado, @ boise St
2013: @ Washington St, Colorado, @ boise St

They are slowly getting teams, Most of these came after their last hurray. I'm sure others will go for them.

It's not that bad of a deal for the mid and upper tier BCS teams. Play a respected Utah team, and even if they turn out to be a fluff team you can resort to the "we scheduled them when they were good" argument.

Hell let's book them for 2016 and 17. :)

[Leroy Lizard]

What is the point of competing if you don't have the opportunity to pursue the ultimate prize?

Then why do they field a team?

There must be more to it.

[DMAFB_Sooner08]

A simple question: why do teams like Utah even bother fielding a team? You go undefeated in 2004 and win your bowl. No small feat! So you do it again five years later, and does it make a bit of difference? No.

That's everything wrong with college football in a nutshell. What is the point of competing if you don't have the opportunity to pursue the ultimate prize? Nobody wants to go to Salt Lake City to play the Utes. How are they supposed to put together a schedule that will allow the computers to smile upon them? How are they going to play marquee opponents so they can impress the already biased pollsters?

We're very fortunate at Oklahoma because we're part of the "in" crowd. We all know who's in the club, but I'm beginning to think that membership, if not already earned by now, is unattainable. Boise State goes undefeated in 2006 and posts another unblemished regular season in 2008 and they're ranking is no higher. That's wrong. Utah has produced two undefeated teams in the last five seasons, yet they're still labeled a BCS buster instead of national championship contender. That's wrong.

What makes me the angriest is this simple, unavoidable fact. If Utah played the exact same schedule, and won by the exact same scores, but played their games as the Notre Dame Fighting Irish, they would be the #1 team in the country by a UNANIMOUS vote by the pollsters.

Now more than ever, we need a playoff. Don't tell me a playoff would dilute the regular season. What the hell does the regular season prove? Utah defeated every one that came to play them, and they have nothing in the grand scheme to show for it.

Give me college basketball. It's more democratic.


Totally agree with this post (although I do prefer CFB a lil more than CBB) What a great point about the Notre Dame reference, there is noway ND plays any schedule whatsoever, goes undefeated against that schedule, and goes to a BCS bowl game other than the BCS NCG. I am as happy as anyone that we are 1 of the 2 in it, but something needs to be done. CFB is not the same as it was even 12 years ago when they came up with the BCS.

On another thought, I am glad UTAH does field a team though, because it was so much fun watching the SEC crimson tide get beat like that!!:D

[Piware]

If nothing else it makes a case for Utah moving to a different conference. Put them in the Pac-10 and let them grind it out every season.

Maybe there should be a new conference and the Big 12 has some contributions we could make, e.g. Colorado, Baylor, Iowa State. Heck, even put the Smurfs in there, then the Domers, stir hard by ESPN and you have an interesting, if dysfunctional, stew. :pop:

[the_ouskull]

See, I think everybody's missing what 04 is trying to say...

We have to get rid of Notre Dame. Just completely eliminate them, and all of their accomplishments from the record books, and paint Touchdown Jesus crimson, turn it upside down, and save OU some money on another Heisman statue.

I was thinking about this a little bit, too. Yeah, it sucks for Utah, but ya know what...? Play someone... If you're throwing out Oregon State (9-4, 3rd in their conference; known primarily for upsetting USC) and BYU (10-3, but only played one ranked team, Utah, and lost to them) as teams that merit your inclusion into the national championship club, then you're a bit disillusioned in regards to what it truly takes to win one. (A playoff, coming full-circle to the original post; a post with which I do happen to agree...)

I just disagree with the Utah thing. I don't like there being no playoff system, but at the same time, I'm not comfortable with one of these flavor-of-the-month mid major schools K-Stating their way to a piece of a championship... They were entered, unbiased, into the same computers as everybody else. If you have a problem with the fact that a human poll factors into the computer that was brought about to take the human element out of determining a national champion, I get that.

If you want to eliminate Notre Dame, I get that too. (And would be happy to work with yu to formulate a plan...) The advantages they enjoy are not fair, and I agree wholeheartedly that, with the same schedule as Utah, they'd be in the national championship game. But, at the same time, nobody wins games for the Mormons. They win them for the Gipper. When you think of legendary coaches, you think of Knute Rockne, not Ike Armstrong. Maybe it's not fair that Notre Dame would receive benefits that Utah would not... but college football is a sport of history and tradition, and, like it or not, Notre Dame is STILL a "big name." They can Weis their way to another aim-for-the-middle season, but people will still brag about beating them...

Sad, but true stories of the up and down life of college football, by...

the_ouskull

[Leroy Lizard]

We're very fortunate at Oklahoma because we're part of the "in" crowd.

Which is why I am fully in favor of the status quo.

Utah has a problem with the way college football is played? Well, I hope they find a solution to THEIR PROBLEM.

And if the AP votes them #1, they will be ecstatic. (And if the AP does not vote them #1, then sportswriters are the most hypocritical bastards on the planet.)

[Flagstaffsooner]

This is what is right about college football. Gives us something to bitch and howl about. Playoffs, **** me three times in the ***! It will become just as booring as the nfl.

[Harry Beanbag]

College basketball ****ing sucks. It is a hollow shell of the sport that I grew up infatuated with, and if football becomes anything resembling the basketball of today, I might have to murder someone.

[Flagstaffsooner]

College basketball ****ing sucks. It is a hollow shell of the sport that I grew up infatuated with, and if football becomes anything resembling the basketball of today, I might have to murder someone.Shabang! xactly

[Flagstaffsooner]

And another damn thing for the ncaa to control.

[AlbqSooner]

(And if the AP does not vote them #1, then sportswriters are the most hypocritical bastards on the planet.)

This is particularly true, since the reason the AP broke away fom the BCS was so they could give uSuc their due the year they were left out of the BCSCG in Nawlins.

[adoniijahsooner]

On the short end, you rightly mention Utah and Boise St. And on the other end, consider last year. LSU loses twice, but because they are in the sacred SEC, it's OK. They go to the BCSCG (practically at home) where they get to play another "in" team - a hopelessly overrated Ohio St who played a schedule little tougher than Utah's. It's hard to complain when you are part of the "in" crowd, but we need a playoff.

:les: "No one has bested us in regulation!"

[GrapevineSooner]

I was thinking about this a little bit, too. Yeah, it sucks for Utah, but ya know what...? Play someone...

Well like 04 says, it's a little hard to do that when the big boys won't play you. It's not like you can say, "Oh we'll play Ohio State and Oregon this year." Has to be mutual interest to play that game. And when a lot of these a major programs already have non-conference games scheduled against teams from other major conferences, it's a little hard to schedule a dangerous team like Utah from a mid-major.

And unless the Pac 10 decides to become the Pac 11 or 12, Utah will also be stuck in a mid-major conference that won't have as many "strong" teams as the major conferences.

Strike 2 against them.

Then there's the possibility of your team doing so good that a team from a major conference decides they're going to pluck your head coach away from you, ala Florida with Urban Meyer.

We all "know" there's no way Utah could hang with Oklahoma, Florida, or USC. But until there's a system in place (like in college basketball) where these teams are forced to play Utah in a playoff, we'll never know.

[The Maestro]

College basketball, or the idea of it, is what is right in sports. The fact all the good talent leaves early and heads for the NBA early has ruined the sport. It's turning into college baseball with a better T.V. deal. I mean, the two best players in the NBA, Kobe and Lebron, NEVER played a second of college hoops. Meanwhile, way back when, even the likes of Michael Jordan played three years.

[1890MilesToNorman]

How many teams are there? 119/120 Solution:

10 conferences with roughly 12 teams, CC Games and a 12 team playoff. Use the current system to seed the teams with 1-4 getting first round byes. The 34 Bowl games can handle this setup easily.

Never mind, I'm talking out of my head. I love the BCS because it's truly the confusing American way. :P

[King Crimson]

Give me college basketball. It's more democratic.

it's probably more libertarian and we'd need to sue "the pod system" under Sherman anti-trust.

[SoonerMom2]

When the BCS took out strength of schedule and margin of victory from the BCS forumula, this is what you get. Several computer polls still have in strength but most don't. Then you will probably not have the mid major that plays a lot of cupcakes throughout the season rated so high. Put Boise or Utah in one of the major conferences like the Big 12 or SEC and see what they do. Put OU in their conferences and see what we do. We played TCU this year as an example. It is comparing apples and oranges. They get up for one big game while the larger conference teams are beat up game after game.

How many times has one of Ohio's mid majors beat Ohio State who they play in the non-conference every year. Let Utah play a Big 10 schedule and see how they do. I am sick and tired of schools that come up and beat someone like us or Alabama in a Bowl Game thinking they are on the same playing field. Join a major conference, play those 8 conference games, a championship game, and then we will talk.

How many undefeated years do you think OU would have playing the Boise State schedule or the Utah schedule? Time to end the bandwagon jumping on when some team with no strength of schedule ends up in the Top 10 because they took out two key ingredients.

Not saying Utah didn't have a great season, but to equate a team playing their schedule with an SEC, Big 12, Big 10, or PAC 10 is ludicrous.

My two cents!

[SoonerLB]

Eliminate the "human" polls for a start. Knock Notre Dame off their preferential pedestal and put them in a conference if they want to be in the mix. Institute a playoff system instead of everyone sitting around waiting out the month of December, and determine a National Champion the way it should be determined, ON THE FIELD!

And thank you Harry Beanbag! I'm with ya on that one! :D

[ousoonerspride]

The Utah's and Boise State's of the college football world wouldn't stand a chance at going undefeated in a real conference. As for the Sugar Bowl, what was Alabama's incentive in playing Utah? NOTHING! The Utes had everything to play for - especially respect - and it showed in the first quarter. Alabama didn't even want to be there - and it showed in the first quarter. The let down from losing to the gators in their conference championship was everything. They were playing for a National Championship, not a Sugar Bowl championship against a lesser opponent. Don't get me wrong, Utah played a great game and they deserved the win; however, they would never make it through a power conference undefeated and if there were a playoff system in place, they might make the field but they would not be able to run the tables against the likes of Oklahoma, Florida, USC, Texas, etc!

[bent rider]

Utah's future schedule (BCS opponents only)

2009: @ Oregon, Louisville,
2010: @ Iowa St, @ Notre Dame
2011: Oregon, Iowa St, Boise St.
2012: Washington st, @ Colorado, @ boise St
2013: @ Washington St, Colorado, @ boise St

They are slowly getting teams, Most of these came after their last hurray. I'm sure others will go for them.

It's not that bad of a deal for the mid and upper tier BCS teams. Play a respected Utah team, and even if they turn out to be a fluff team you can resort to the "we scheduled them when they were good" argument.

Hell let's book them for 2016 and 17. :)

In the recent past they have played
at Michigan (twice in the last 6 years)
at UCLA, Oregon and Arizona
at Louisville
Cal, Oregon State, UCLA, Boise State, Arizona at home

this scheduling is not new. What would be new is for "big name" teams outside of the Pac-10 to have the balls to come play at Utah, and for teams in the Big-12 or SEC to even consider playing Utah at all. I understand why not -- too much risk, not enough money or "marquee status", no recruiting advantage. But that is what is wrong with college football. Those things will not change, so Div-1 college football needs a playoff system. As good as the bowls are, a playoff would be 10 times better.

[bent rider]

Not saying Utah didn't have a great season, but to equate a team playing their schedule with an SEC, Big 12, Big 10, or PAC 10 is ludicrous.

My two cents!

The Mountain West had 3 teams in the Top-25 for most of the season. This year the MWC was better than the Pac-10 (6-1 vs Pac-10 teams IIRC) and more ranked teams than the Big East, ACC or Big-Ten.

Is the bottom of the MWC worse than the bottom of the SEC? Ask Tennessee who lost AT HOME to Wyoming. I'd like to see Okla try playing at New Mexico instead of Tenn-Chattanooga.

That said, as a Sooner fan of course I know that the Big-12 South had an exceptional season, also 3 (sometimes 4) ranked teams. However, so far TTech and OSU have lost their bowl games ... and Big-12 south is losing some of its mid-season luster.

[CatfishSooner]

screw utah...bwahahahhahhah

[Frozen Sooner]

When the BCS took out strength of schedule and margin of victory from the BCS forumula, this is what you get. Several computer polls still have in strength but most don't. Then you will probably not have the mid major that plays a lot of cupcakes throughout the season rated so high. Put Boise or Utah in one of the major conferences like the Big 12 or SEC and see what they do. Put OU in their conferences and see what we do. We played TCU this year as an example. It is comparing apples and oranges. They get up for one big game while the larger conference teams are beat up game after game.

How many times has one of Ohio's mid majors beat Ohio State who they play in the non-conference every year. Let Utah play a Big 10 schedule and see how they do. I am sick and tired of schools that come up and beat someone like us or Alabama in a Bowl Game thinking they are on the same playing field. Join a major conference, play those 8 conference games, a championship game, and then we will talk.

How many undefeated years do you think OU would have playing the Boise State schedule or the Utah schedule? Time to end the bandwagon jumping on when some team with no strength of schedule ends up in the Top 10 because they took out two key ingredients.

Not saying Utah didn't have a great season, but to equate a team playing their schedule with an SEC, Big 12, Big 10, or PAC 10 is ludicrous.

My two cents!

Every computer ranking system used in the BCS formula uses strength of schedule.

[bluedogok]

A simple question: why do teams like Utah even bother fielding a team? You go undefeated in 2004 and win your bowl. No small feat! So you do it again five years later, and does it make a bit of difference? No.

That's everything wrong with college football in a nutshell. What is the point of competing if you don't have the opportunity to pursue the ultimate prize?


Then why do they field a team?

There must be more to it.
Yep, there must be more to it than just winning an "ultimate prize" because 70-80 of the 120 Division I-A teams stand no chance at winning the "ultimate prize" but yet there are teams almost every year trying to move up to Division I-A from Division I-AA and most of those never won the "ultimate prize" in I-AA. Most of those schools know there is no chance for them to win but yet still field teams year in and year out. There are probably only 30 or so teams in basketball that have a legitimate shot at getting hot during the NCAA tournament and winning the "ultimate prize" so why do 300 or so field teams every season?

Yes, there is much more to sports than just playing for a national championship. To think that should be the only motivation is very small minded and short sighted and smacks of elitism. If that was the case then why does OU field a basketball teams most years? In the overall scheme of things the years they have competed for the "ultimate prize" are few and far between, but yet for some reason they keep playing the game :rolleyes:


Every computer ranking system used in the BCS formula uses strength of schedule.
They did reduce the importance of SOS after OU went instead of USC in 2004, that is why Sagarin has two rankings, the BCS-compliant ELO-CHESS and his original formula and they usually come up with very different rankings.

[sooner59]

Strength of schedule is also built into the minds of voters. If Utah played Akron, Montana, San Jose State, and Furman instead of Michigan, TCU, BYU, and Oregon State.....then Utah would have been 12-0 and still might not have been high enough in the BCS for a Sugar Bowl bid due to Harris and Coaches Polls alone, then the computers would kill them for it. So SOS might not be a "separate entity" included in the formula, but it is still hugely prominent in college football.

[badger]

It's the sequel to No-AP-championship-for-Texas-now bowl! If the writers don't vote for USC, they have to vote for undefeated Utah!

:rolleyes: Looks like it's all in for our game now, like it should have been all along...

[A-M]

As I have said before on this board, I never understood who Bama was #1! Go gack and look at who Bama beat and by how much. Therefore, Utah beating them was not that impressive to me.

[Frozen Sooner]

They did reduce the importance of SOS after OU went instead of USC in 2004, that is why Sagarin has two rankings, the BCS-compliant ELO-CHESS and his original formula and they usually come up with very different rankings.

The ELO-CHESS does not take margin of victory into account. It does take into account strength of schedule.

The BCS no longer uses a separate strength of schedule component, which I thought was the right move as it had the effect of double-counting strength of schedule.

[BoulderSooner79]

Since there are many who agree that 'Bama had little motivation against the Utes, I propose a ban on bitching about OU losing any bowl game except for the title game. They have little motivation to win and I don't even see a reason they should bring the starters. All in favor...?

[bluedogok]

The ELO-CHESS does not take margin of victory into account. It does take into account strength of schedule.

The BCS no longer uses a separate strength of schedule component, which I thought was the right move as it had the effect of double-counting strength of schedule.
I knew it was one of those....
Hadn't had enough caffeine yet...:D