MWC in BCS

[RockyBalboa]

USC and Oklahoma played in the title game that year and USC obliterated them.

I think Auburn would've been a much better test of Utah that year and it would've been a very good game. It's B.S. they were forced to play Pitt. I can also understand why U fans would be even more rankled at the media coverage and attention Boise State got,,,,even though Utah was the first Non-BCS team to crash the BCS.

Boise State faced higher caliber opponent, both talent and exposure wise, and the game ended up in thrilling fashion that will be on Top 10 lists for years and years.

Utah should've had the same chance Boise did and to get to play a better opponent.

Hawaii was an embarrassment and most people knew Georgia was going to crucify them and they did. Those Utah and Boise State teams would've also crushed Hawaii.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

USC and Oklahoma played in the title game that year and USC obliterated them.

I think Auburn would've been a much better test of Utah that year and it would've been a very good game. It's B.S. they were forced to play Pitt. I can also understand why U fans would be even more rankled at the media coverage and attention Boise State got,,,,even though Utah was the first Non-BCS team to crash the BCS.

Boise State faced higher caliber opponent, both talent and exposure wise, and the game ended up in thrilling fashion that will be on Top 10 lists for years and years.

Utah should've had the same chance Boise did and to get to play a better opponent.

Hawaii was an embarrassment and most people knew Georgia was going to crucify them and they did. Those Utah and Boise State teams would've also crushed Hawaii.

Utah was forced to play Pitt.

There was a representative from the Sugar Bowl at the Utah/BYU game that year, but the Utes were never going to go there because of geographic location. And the Fiesta Bowl had to take the Big East champion.

Utah was never going to play anyone other than Pitt. The Utes never had a choice in the matter.

Still, despite getting hosed by the BSC, '04 was a fun year.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Utah was forced to play Pitt.

There was a representative from the Sugar Bowl at the Utah/BYU game that year, but the Utes were never going to go there because of geographic location. And the Fiesta Bowl had to take the Big East champion.

Utah was never going to play anyone other than Pitt. The Utes never had a choice in the matter.

Still, despite getting hosed by the BSC, '04 was a fun year.

Oh, I've no doubt it was a fun year.

I'm just saying, especially considering the geographic challenge...and yet they end up putting Hawaii there a few years later. Go figure.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

Oh, I've no doubt it was a fun year.

I'm just saying, especially considering the geographic challenge...and yet they end up putting Hawaii there a few years later. Go figure.

True about Hawaii. But I suppose Phoenix is closer to Honolulu than Miami, eh?

[Spaz]

I'm not convinced that a perfect scenario doesn't put BYU in the title game this year.

Starting the year ranked in the top-20, combined with IMPRESSIVE wins the first three weeks, followed by 20+-point obliterations in MWC play and the right combinations of teams losing....

Remember, all you have to do according to current rules is be ranked #1 or #2 in the BCS rankings at the end of the year. I really don't think they've built biases into the computer rankings, despite the conspiracy theorists that abound...


Similarly, I think Utah in '04 would have played in the NC if the right teams had lost as the season went along...

[The Borg]

Originally Posted by Spaz

I'm not convinced that a perfect scenario doesn't put BYU in the title game this year.

Starting the year ranked in the top-20, combined with IMPRESSIVE wins the first three weeks, followed by 20+-point obliterations in MWC play and the right combinations of teams losing....

Remember, all you have to do according to current rules is be ranked #1 or #2 in the BCS rankings at the end of the year. I really don't think they've built biases into the computer rankings, despite the conspiracy theorists that abound...


Similarly, I think Utah in '04 would have played in the NC if the right teams had lost as the season went along...

Your point certainly makes a case...but the BCS powers that be would be squirming like you've never seen before. I would love the situation to develop as you've outlined just for the entertainment value of what would be going on with "the voters".

My thinking is that you would see a team, or two, "mysteriously" jump BYU in the polls due to "strength of schedule"...yadda yadda yadda.

Sure would be fun to watch though. Just might be enough to prompt Congress or a real class action lawsuit to finally come to the front.

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by The Borg

Your point certainly makes a case...but the BCS powers that be would be squirming like you've never seen before. I would love the situation to develop as you've outlined just for the entertainment value of what would be going on with "the voters".

My thinking is that you would see a team, or two, "mysteriously" jump BYU in the polls due to "strength of schedule"...yadda yadda yadda.

Sure would be fun to watch though. Just might be enough to prompt Congress or a real class action lawsuit to finally come to the front.

Depending on the situation, I wouldn't be surprised to see that jump.

Now, if BYU plays an undefeated Utah team ranked in the top 15 on the last week, and clobbers them, and are still jumped....yeah, I'd start to buy into the BCS conspiracy.


I don't buy the idea that the human voters (I can't remember of the BCS uses the media or coaches polls) are influenced by the BCS contempt to the degree it's made out to be.

[il Padrino Ute]

Spaz - I love calling anyone that and it's even better that in this case it isn't meant to be insulting -

The problem is that because the BCS loves to use computers to decide which teams are deserving to play in their fake championship, it would be very easy for them to manipulate the data that is entered to favor teams from their little club over the alleged lesser teams. I've not heard that there is an independent agent auditing what they are doing. It's all based on what the BCS says it is.

I'll admit that I am a conspiracy theorist when it comes to the BCS - and it started back in '96 or so when BYU got hosed and ended up in the Cotton Bowl.

[sonofchet]

I wonder if maybe winning an AP title might be more likely (and easier) than winning a BCS title for a non-BCS team. Theoretically, if a year like last year happened, but a dominant non-BCS team went undefeated and won decisively in a BCS bowl, a lot of writers might consider that team to be #1 regardless of what the computers or BCS says.

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Spaz - I love calling anyone that and it's even better that in this case it isn't meant to be insulting -

The problem is that because the BCS loves to use computers to decide which teams are deserving to play in their fake championship, it would be very easy for them to manipulate the data that is entered to favor teams from their little club over the alleged lesser teams. I've not heard that there is an independent agent auditing what they are doing. It's all based on what the BCS says it is.

I'll admit that I am a conspiracy theorist when it comes to the BCS - and it started back in '96 or so when BYU got hosed and ended up in the Cotton Bowl.

It would certainly be easy to do. And, should they do it, I hope they get caught and get their asses handed to them in the courts...