ok, so make the argument that BYU in 84 deserved #1 but Utah today doesn't

[creekster]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

when a bunch of fat old white men sit around and put their finger in the air and tell me who the best team is, excuse me if I don't care.

WOuld you feel better about it if they were slender?

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Of course I can make the argument, it's easy. Voters unanimously voted BYU #1, so did the coaches. Voters didn't unanimously vote Utah #1 (or the coaches). End of story.

That isn't an argument. It's just stating that the result was different back then. We all know that. But times have changed. My question deals not with what did or didn't happen in 84 or 08. I'm talking about what SHOULD happen. If you argue BYU should have been #1 in 84, how do you justify saying Utah shouldn't be in 2008? BYU certainly would not have been #1 in 84under the same rules. No way. The computers would have had OU and UW ahead of us and we would have had no chance at #1. One purpose of the BCS was to prevent something like 1984 from happening again. Enter Utah 2008. The system did just what it was designed to do -- keep the riffraff from stealing the national championship.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

It isn't mythical. It happened. Unanimously. Perhaps Utah's overall achievements are more impressive to you in 2008. The voters didn't seem to think that was relevant in making their decision in 1984.

It is mythical. All college football national championships are mythical because there is no playoff. The term has nothing to do with 1984. Unlike what some Utah fans think, it was coined many years before 1984 because the national "champion" was determined by polls and not on the field in a playoff like in other NCAA sports. There is no official NCAA champion in D1 football. The BCS has tried to change that perception by essentially instituting a 2-team playoff that includes some of the D1 conferences. Almost every year there has been a controversy about who should be #1 even after the BCS championship game has been played, so it has really resolved nothing. I still reject the idea that we have a real national champion or ever have had one.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by BlueK

That isn't an argument. It's just stating that the result was different back then. We all know that. But times have changed. My question deals not with what did or didn't happen in 84 or 08. I'm talking about what SHOULD happen. If you argue BYU should have been #1 in 84, how do you justify saying Utah shouldn't be in 2008? BYU certainly would not have been #1 in 84under the same rules. No way. The computers would have had OU and UW ahead of us and we would have had no chance at #1. One purpose of the BCS was to prevent something like 1984 from happening again. Enter Utah 2008. The system did just what it was designed to do -- keep the riffraff from stealing the national championship.

It IS an argument. Like I said, it is a comparative exercise. BYU was better than everyone else in 1984. That doesn't have to mean that BYU would be better than everyone else in 2008. It is perfectly fine to think that Utah is second best in 2008 (because any number of other schools may be better) but to think in 1984 nobody was better than BYU.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

It IS an argument. Like I said, it is a comparative exercise. BYU was better than everyone else in 1984. That doesn't have to mean that BYU would be better than everyone else in 2008. It is perfectly fine to think that Utah is second best in 2008 (because any number of other schools may be better) but to think in 1984 nobody was better than BYU.

I think you're missing an important point. Utah would likely be #1 pre-BCS. BYU would not be #1 if we had a BCS in 1984. And there are plenty of people who probably voted for BYU to be #1 in 1984 but didn't necessarily think they were the best team. It's just that the way things worked at the time there was no other team that had a better case to be voted #1. That isn't the same thing as saying you think they were the best team. The same people who today might argue Utah isn't as good as Florida would have been 100% convinced before January 2nd that Utah wasn't as good as Alabama either. It's all opinion without a playoff and I reject the idea that a "champion" should be chosen by opinion. That's no better than figure skating.

[Snowcat]

Originally Posted by BlueK

I think you're missing an important point. Utah would likely be #1 pre-BCS. BYU would not be #1 if we had a BCS in 1984. And there are plenty of people who probably voted for BYU to be #1 in 1984 but didn't necessarily think they were the best team. It's just that the way things worked at the time there was no other team that had a better case to be voted #1. That isn't the same thing as saying you think they were the best team. The same people who today might argue Utah isn't as good as Florida would have been 100% convinced before January 2nd that Utah wasn't as good as Alabama either. It's all opinion without a playoff and I reject the idea that a "champion" should be chosen by opinion. That's no better than figure skating.

I think you could argue that BYU 1984 started the wheels in motion that keeps Utah from being #1 in 2008. Hopefully, Utah 2008 will lay the groundwork that will make a MWC national champion (BYU) more likely in the future.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

It IS an argument. Like I said, it is a comparative exercise. BYU was better than everyone else in 1984. That doesn't have to mean that BYU would be better than everyone else in 2008. It is perfectly fine to think that Utah is second best in 2008 (because any number of other schools may be better) but to think in 1984 nobody was better than BYU.

How do you know BYU was better in '84 than Oklahoma? Or Washington? And using the '85 game against Washington doesn't work because that was not the '84 season.

How do we know Utah is not better than Oklahoma or Florida? We don't.

BlueK's point is that without a playoff, we can't say which team is the best in any year.

[SeattleUte]

Blue K: I think Utah in 2008 was better than BYU in 1984, even though Utah was ranked no. 2 and BYU no. 1.

Cali: No. BYU was better. Look at the rankings.

Classic Cali.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Blue K: I think Utah in 2008 was better than BYU in 1984, even though Utah was ranked no. 2 and BYU no. 1.

Cali: No. BYU was better. Look at the rankings.

Classic Cali.

SU: I have no idea what is going on here, as it does not involve green tea or Pride and Prejudice. But, I will feign an interest if it means the chance to take an eventual shot at BYU which I am convinced must be evil, based on their gratuitous use of salt on icy roads.

Classic SU.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by BlueK

I think you're missing an important point. Utah would likely be #1 pre-BCS. BYU would not be #1 if we had a BCS in 1984. And there are plenty of people who probably voted for BYU to be #1 in 1984 but didn't necessarily think they were the best team. It's just that the way things worked at the time there was no other team that had a better case to be voted #1. That isn't the same thing as saying you think they were the best team. The same people who today might argue Utah isn't as good as Florida would have been 100% convinced before January 2nd that Utah wasn't as good as Alabama either. It's all opinion without a playoff and I reject the idea that a "champion" should be chosen by opinion. That's no better than figure skating.

The system stinks, but it is the system. Utah wouldn't have been #1 in 1984, not without a 1983 BYU-type season preceding it. Utah could even be #1 in 2009, if they were to go undefeated again. I don't know that the BCS era is all that different than the non-BCS era. Utah went undefeated in 2008 but had a lousy 2007. Give them a 12-1 2007 and Utah is playing in Miami against Florida.