2006 Boise and 2008 Utah

[SteelClip49]

I have not been on in a while so sorry if this has already been talked about but I figure it should be mentioned.

In 2006, Boise State finished as the only undefeated team defeating Oklahoma who in reality just had 1 loss before losing to Boise. That year Boise defeated a 10 win Oregon State in Corvallis 42-14....same Beaver team they nipped USC 33-31. But when it was all said and done, Boise in no way deserved a split national title?

In 2008, now, Utah will finish as the only undefeated team having beat a former #1 one loss Alabama in the Sugar Bowl....Saban's favorite game. Utah did beat TCU and BYU which are very good and defeated, guess who, Oregon State 31-28....same Beavers team who handed USC their only loss, 27-21. Yet Utah deserves a split title according to many people?

I am in no way objecting to a split title in favor of Utah but why not Boise State in 2006? Seems to me that Utah 2008 and Boise 2006 are mirroring each other yet Utah is title worthy and not Boise 2 years ago. I seriously wonder about this.


1984 BYU...only undefeated team won national title
2004 Utah....one of three undefeated teams but not the same as 2008
2006 Boise....happy to win over big school and a top 5 finish
2008 Utah....huge statement finish and perhaps a split title?

[adoniijahsooner]

Anything to cause anarchy to the college football system.

[cheezyq]

Well, Utah CLEARLY deserves it because they defeated a team in the almighty SEC. Boise State only defeated one of the top 2-3 programs in the history of college football...but that's nothing compared to defeating a team from the SEC. Those are NFL players, with otherworldly speed and superhuman strength.

[Scott D]

I'll say it. 2006 Boise St. would whip 2008 Utah. Oh wait, they did in 2006 at Utah 38-3.

[TMcGee86]

What blows my mind is that no once during the Sportscenter broadcast the next day did the word "upset" come up.

And yet, there were people saying when BSU beat OU that it was one of the greatest upsets of all time.

I guess that means we are more respected than Bama, but it still seems ridiculous. That was a mediocre OU team that backdoored their way into the Fiesta Bowl in a down year for the Big12. This was a Bama team that was ranked #1 for much of the season, was an at large BCS pick, and was undefeated till the last game of the year.

If anything was an upset it was this year.

[reddfoxx]

This is really simple folks, Utah in not in a BCS conference and is therefore not elligible for the BCS National Championship.

The same rule applied to the 2006 Boise State team.

[Frozen Sooner]

Er, there's no such rule. Trust me, Notre Dame would have never agreed to the BCS if such existed.

And I recall a few people saying that Boise State deserved a national title after the Fiesta Bowl.

[KingBarry]

This is really simple folks, Utah in not in a BCS conference and is therefore not elligible for the BCS National Championship.

The same rule applied to the 2006 Boise State team.

I am pretty sure this is wrong (the Notre Dame exception has already been noted.)

I believe it works this way -- if a non-BCS conference school wins all its games, and is ranked near the top 2 in the human polls, and is loved by the computer polls, that school could find itself ranked as either No 1 or No 2 in the BCS standings. I don't think conference affiliation would ever enter the equation.

That said, it is obviously hard for non-BCS teams to get the gravitas needed to be ranked so highly by both humans and computers, but there doesn't seem to be any rules that exclude it from happening.

[JLEW1818]

"THAT'S NOT TRUE"