BCS FUN

In a way I hope Texas doesn't get a BCS bid!
Hate to see them play high-rated team and get the tar beat out of them again. They just don't seem to take bowl games seriously, no fire in the gut.
Would be interesting--Utah vs Texas.

 

If all three remain undefeated, Auburn should definitely be in as they play in a tougher conference than the other two.

And the Big 12 is so weak this season, especially in the North, that USC should get the other spot.

 

I Love the mess, it shows the BCS for the sham that it really is. Lets scrap this system and go to a playoff system with the top 16 teams. The arguments will then relvove around who are the last teams to qualify - not the top.

Is utah really any good - play it off and see!
Can Texas stand up - probably not, but lets see
USC with thier mush schedule?

My opinion on the current mess is that Auburn and Ok have faced the toughest schedules and should play in the championship game

 

True. But they have only played 3 good football teams. Their out of conference was pathetic and the lower half of the SEC West is still worse than the East. I really expected Arkansas to make more noise than the did. The only other teams with a real shot a beating Auburn were re-building LSU and Alabama teams.

All this said, I think the other two have had an even easier road. The Pac-10 is a one horse show. Cal isn't nearly as good as they are getting credit for. The Big 12 is in a serious down year all the way around. Texas only looks good because everyone else besides OU is so bad.

There probably isn't a team in the Big 12 North that could win the Big East this year.... maybe not the MAC either.

I don't know how you sort that one out.

Problem is that there seems to be a bias against Auburn. The title game barring a ND upset of USC is going to be OU and USC.

OU in my opinion is a good bit better than USC.... and I can be objective since I don't like either one.

 

Why? The Hogs only had one returning starter on offense and something like three on defense.

 

If Utah had to play in the Pac-10, SEC, ACC, Big-10 (really 11) or even the Big 12, they would not be undefeated. Getting up for one or two games a season is not the same as playing Auburn, Alabama and Florida in three consecutive weeks. New Mexico, Air Force and Colorado State just don't match up. Same goes for Boise State. They are good teams, no doubt, put would not be undefeated. That said, there should be a playoff system. They could use the bowl games as the playoff locations and have a legitimate champion. Does everyone realize that the NCAA declares a champion for every sport EXCEPT Division 1-A football? Now tell me there isn't something screwed up with that! They make all the rules, yet don't declare a champion!

 

Arizona only won three games this year and North Carolina turned around and lost the next game they played, typical up and down North Carolina team. I stand by what I said, Utah is a mid-major having a good season, next year when they lose their coach they will be back to reality

 

I don't know what you think you are proving, but let's consider what you left out of your little evaluation... "How bad did Texas beat A&M?" I assume you are talking about point spreads; so Texas beat A&M by 13, Utah beat them by 20. Okay, make of that what you will. But note Utah beat Arizona, as you say, by 17, while USC beat them USC beat them by 40, and California beat them by 38. As for North Carolina, Utah beat them 30; Louisville beat them by 34. Does Louisville deserve Utah's spot for a BCS?

In case it's not point spreads, what were you basing your pleas for respect upon? As if point spreads prove anything anyway, is it because Utah is a 'better' team than Texas that QB Young blundered by holding the ball out near the goal line that resulted in a 14-point swing, that the score was not Texas 33, A&M 6 (a better point spread than Utah's over A&M)?

 

Yes.

This is one team that isn't getting any BCS sympathy... or love.

I am interested in seeing how the Utes fair against a really good football team. Unfortunately, the debate may not get settled since the most likely BCS opponent for Utah is whoever slinks in out of the Big East.

I would personally like to see them matched against One of the other undefeated teams.

BTW, watching the ND-USC game left me with the impression that either OU or Auburn can run all over USC. Further, I think the team speed on defense for both would not allow USC to do what they did to ND when the running game wouldn't go.

I now firmly believe that either OU or Auburn should beat USC therefore the odd man out should be USC.

You could justify it as payback for last year if the PAC-10 weren't so pathetic after the top 2. But if it is payback, why punish Auburn? OU is the one who got the undeserved shot last year.

 

This is the exact same argument I used to make against Oklahoma and Nebraska in the old Big 8... although the Utes did play a better non-conf schedule than Nebraska used to.

 

So does that mean we agree or that we don't agree?

 

This really is a matter of the second string. This where the difference between the majors and mid-majors shows itself in a huge way. Oklahoma has a second string that would start in most other places, Utah has second stringers that would still be second stringers or even third stringers at major programs.

What would happen if the NCAA limited the scholarships to 70 instead of the current 85? What would that do to parity? BTW the NFL only allows 53 or 55 players with 8 on the practice squad.