A Split National Championship in 2008?

[cincibuck]

The BCS pollsters are a poor man's version of the AP, and the computers haven't watched a game in their life. All they see are empty numbers with zero context. Smart argument here.and a complete lack of reasoning or context.balderdash. Oregon State crippled them and they never recovered. It's not even comparable to the lessened value of beating OSU.

The view from Manhatten; Sunday's NY times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/04/sports/ncaafootball/04score.html?scp=5&sq=BCS&st=cse

 

[Buckeyefrankmp]

Why not? Don't misunderstand, I agree that a 3 loss team, in a regular year, should have not "claim" to the title... your 16 team system, incidentally, gives such teams a chance (Oklahoma State and Georgia Tech this year being fine examples) to stake such a claim. How do playoff proponents reconcile this? Awareness that #17 has "no legit argument" but then affords #16 a shot at the title?

Easy to reconcile. There is not as much parity in college football as there is in the pros. A three loss team in college football would not be able to run the table against the top 5 teams. No. In the regular season Oklahoma State lost to Oregon, Oklahoma, Texas Tech and Texas.

You would have to have a standard playoff set up each year. You cannot say one year there are only 4 teams deserving to be national champ, so we will have a 4 team playoff one year and have a 8 team playoff the next year. You would set it at a fixed number every year and if a few three loss teams get in so be it.

The only way a playoff will happen is if you could figure out how the money is distributed to keep everyone happy. The only reason a #17 team would complain is that they would not be getting the money that the #16 team would get for being in the tournament.

 

[Buckeyefrankmp]

my opinion? (like anyone cares) plus one. or SMALL playoff. no more than eight. actually, i'd be cool with six or four. this year UT, UF, UU, and Boise could have duked it out. OU would have been out in light of their head to head loss against the Horns...

I don't like the "plus one" format. How are you going to decide to play the plus one game. If you are a one loss team one year and they decide not to play the "plus one" game are you going to be mad? If you decided to play the "plus one" game this year who would get in? Texas, USC of Utah?

 

[Buckeyefrankmp]

The view from Manhatten; Sunday's NY times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/04/sports/ncaafootball/04score.html?scp=5&sq=BCS&st=cse

From the above article "In an article published in The Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports two years ago, he wrote that the B.C.S. computer rankings serve as little more than a confirmation of the results of the two opinion polls the system also uses to create its rankings. The people who run the computer rankings, he noted, have never been given any clear objective criteria to design their programs, and they are not allowed to use the score or site of a game in their calculations."

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Not really. Both Penn State and USC were conference champs with one loss and they got left out of the title picture. Utah was conference champs and undefeated and was left out of the title picture.

USC shouldn't have lost then. Penn State shouldn't have lost, and shouldn't have scheduled Coastal Carolina and other awful teams.... I trust you saw my caveat about schedule in my earlier post.

As it is, we had to find a way to differentiate between otherwise like teams (1 loss Florida, Oklahoma, USC, Penn State, Alabama and zero loss Utah). The BCS does exactly that. You may not agree with the result, or the system of determination... but it DOES do what it's designed to do. Florida and OU got the shot because they played harder (real or perceived) schedules. In my mind, that makes both OU and Florida "more worthy" and I don't have any problem with USC, Penn State... Utah... you name it.. being left out. Don't want to be left out? Don't lose. If you think you're gonna lose (and you probably are, frankly) you'd better beef up the ol schedule strength. (giving us better games to watch, in the long run)

This give more high calibur noncon games. If all you have to do is qualify for a playoff, you'll see a lot more shitty games being scheduled.

Easy to reconcile. There is not as much parity in college football as there is in the pros. A three loss team in college football would not be able to run the table against the top 5 teams. No. In the regular season Oklahoma State lost to Oregon, Oklahoma, Texas Tech and Texas.

You would have to have a standard playoff set up each year. You cannot say one year there are only 4 teams deserving to be national champ, so we will have a 4 team playoff one year and have a 8 team playoff the next year. You would set it at a fixed number every year and if a few three loss teams get in so be it.

The only way a playoff will happen is if you could figure out how the money is distributed to keep everyone happy. The only reason a #17 team would complain is that they would not be getting the money that the #16 team would get for being in the tournament.

I don't believe you adequately addressed my question. I'm not suggesting we have a rotating number of playoff teams.. indeed, I don't want a playoff at all... Not 4 teams.. not 8 teams... not 16..

My point was, BL drew the line at 16 teams... and said we all pretty much agree #17 has no legit claim to the title and thus can't complain if they get left out. A) the 66th team in basketball still complains, so I doubt #17 will go gently in to that good night B) If we agree that 17 has no legit complaint, how does #16 get a shot.... why is that "OK"?

My point is you're including teams who do NOT deserve anything. (said with the emphasis on deserve since that word is so prevelant in discussing, say, Utah, this year... ie "they deserved a shot")

I would reluctantly accept a 4 team playoff... though, if Ohio State runs the table against the #1 schedule in the nation... and has to play 1 or 2 loss Alabama in a playoff game... I'm hard pressed to see the point of a playoff.

Again... the issue in college football is this - since 1936 we have sought that our national champion be, on some metric, the "best" A playoff does not establish who is the best.

Likewise, even on a 4 team playoff... it solves nothing...

Suppose Ohio State plays USC in round one. Ohio State wins 17-10. Alabama plays Oklahoma. Alabama wins 24 -17... Ohio State and Bama play... Well.. wait a minute... who's to say USC wouldn't have beaten Alabama? We'll never know...they didn't even get the opportunity....

Understand... I'm not calling playoffs "illigitimate" I'm saying that they don't serve the purpose the proponents believe it serves.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Also - in terms of teams "knowing what they have to do" every year.... This is also untrue in another respect, in terms of advocating a playoff.

The example is Bubble Teams... Going in to 2008-09, the Ohio State Basketball team knows what, exactly, about what they need to do to make the Tourney? Sure... win their conference.. that'll work... but.. wait.. it's bigger than that... what if Ohio State loses 5 games? How about 10? 7? What is the "max" number of games they can drop and still get it? Hell, they could lose 20, but win the B10 tourney and still get in....

We have no idea what it'll take...

In football, we have an idea... the number of games you can drop is zero. If you drop one, well.... you're no longer in the driver's seat... Too bad, so sad. Football aint for pussies.

 

[Bucklion]

Playing devil's advocate here, BL...

Such a system is in place already. The national championship is a clearly recognizable crystal ball which is carried off the field by the winner of the BCS National Championship game. Teams are aware that, in order to get a chance to play for it, they are best served to win all their games. In the event of a loss, they realize there are a host of factors which their chances turn on. Such is the consequences of losing control of your own destiny. But, anyway.. it's as simple as this - win all your games. (And if you win all your games and you still dont make it... schedule some more impressive opponents. No one wants to see a 12-0 team which beat up on a dreadful schedule. Respect is earned, not given.)

The current system also crowns a champion, but also gives us "the best" on some level (though an arguable one)

Every year.

We have that already and it puts high emphasis on the regular season. HIGH emphasis.. it also thereby preserves the emphasis on conference championships. (Unless you're in the big 12 I guess... lol) Win all your games. Not just 4. ALL. Win em, and you're in (again, and if you're not in, stop scheduling the Citadel or playing in a weak confernce)

Why not? Don't misunderstand, I agree that a 3 loss team, in a regular year, should have not "claim" to the title... your 16 team system, incidentally, gives such teams a chance (Oklahoma State and Georgia Tech this year being fine examples) to stake such a claim. How do playoff proponents reconcile this? Awareness that #17 has "no legit argument" but then affords #16 a shot at the title?

You're answer, I assume, is "you have to draw the line somewhere..." OK.. the current system draws that line at 2. Finnish at 1 or 2, you're in. 3? Thanks for playing... enjoy a multi-million dollar pay out at some other bowl.

You're simply choosing an arbitrary metric. Suppose 2012 USC goes 12-4, with it's final 4 wins being in your playoff system. Suppose also Ohio State goes 16-0 in 2015.. they did not accomplish the same thing. You say they do because you're choosing to look at an arbitrary set of games, 4. I can say the same, but just limit my arbitrary set to 1 game. Each champion will be able to say they won the "Championship Game" regardless of the rest.

Why not look at OOC schedule and declare a champion? It's a 4 game set at some point in the season... We'll use pre-season polls to determine the 16 teams who get "in" and then, after the 4th week, we'll call it all off...

I realize that's ridiculous, but a playoff really the same thing... just at the end of the season.... big f'in deal.

You know I don't know what the fuck your problem is, I just put stuff out there for discussion and you jump all over me like...

Yeah OK, I'm kidding. But to respond anyway:

Such a system is in place already. The national championship is a clearly recognizable crystal ball which is carried off the field by the winner of the BCS National Championship game. Teams are aware that, in order to get a chance to play for it, they are best served to win all their games. In the event of a loss, they realize there are a host of factors which their chances turn on. Such is the consequences of losing control of your own destiny. But, anyway.. it's as simple as this - win all your games. (And if you win all your games and you still dont make it... schedule some more impressive opponents. No one wants to see a 12-0 team which beat up on a dreadful schedule. Respect is earned, not given.)

The current system also crowns a champion, but also gives us "the best" on some level (though an arguable one)

We have that already and it puts high emphasis on the regular season. HIGH emphasis.. it also thereby preserves the emphasis on conference championships. (Unless you're in the big 12 I guess... lol) Win all your games. Not just 4. ALL. Win em, and you're in (again, and if you're not in, stop scheduling the Citadel or playing in a weak confernce)

That logic would be wonderful if someone who won all their games won the championship every year. Of course, this rarely happens, especially anymore. There are usually teams with one loss, and in some cases 2 losses, in the title game, and thus there are many teams also with one loss, or 2 losses, sometimes who have beaten the teams in the title game, who are left out. I don't think you can say to Texas "Screw you, you should have won all your games this year" because Florida got in, who didn't even win all their home games this year, and they beat Oklahoma, who also played for the title...and obviously didn't win all their games. I counter your logic with why declare a title game in the first place if this is how it works? It's still the same crap where polls, you know, media perception and coaches who don't watch games, are deciding who is the champion...they just do it before the "supposed" title game now, instead of after the season. I argue it is really no different than it ever was.

Why not? Don't misunderstand, I agree that a 3 loss team, in a regular year, should have not "claim" to the title... your 16 team system, incidentally, gives such teams a chance (Oklahoma State and Georgia Tech this year being fine examples) to stake such a claim. How do playoff proponents reconcile this? Awareness that #17 has "no legit argument" but then affords #16 a shot at the title?

You're answer, I assume, is "you have to draw the line somewhere..." OK.. the current system draws that line at 2. Finnish at 1 or 2, you're in. 3? Thanks for playing... enjoy a multi-million dollar pay out at some other bowl.

You're simply choosing an arbitrary metric. Suppose 2012 USC goes 12-4, with it's final 4 wins being in your playoff system. Suppose also Ohio State goes 16-0 in 2015.. they did not accomplish the same thing. You say they do because you're choosing to look at an arbitrary set of games, 4. I can say the same, but just limit my arbitrary set to 1 game. Each champion will be able to say they won the "Championship Game" regardless of the rest.

Yes, I am, but it is an arbitrary metric now, and only includes 2 media-driven teams. I'd rather see 8, or 16, than 2. Take the NCAA basketball tournament...their metric is 64, and some 65th place team always bitches and moans. But they usually have lost 12-15 games and have an even or losing conference record...it's a hell of a lot easier to say "thanks for playing, enjoy the NIT" to them than it would be a 2nd place team from a major conference who beat the first place team and finished 27-4, but didn't make the tournament because there are only 4 teams in it. If you even had 8, almost every year you'd have all the undefeated teams, all the one loss teams, and the 2-loss teams who played the more difficult schedules. Sounds better to me.

And yes, I can say a 12-4 team and a 16-0 team did the same thing...they won the national championship. A 27-4 or 31-2 college basketball team also win championships, the same trophy someone takes home every year. If you go undefeated, all the better to put yourself in the mythical "greatest of all time" argument, but at least you went through the same system to get the same trophy.

Why not look at OOC schedule and declare a champion? It's a 4 game set at some point in the season... We'll use pre-season polls to determine the 16 teams who get "in" and then, after the 4th week, we'll call it all off...

I realize that's ridiculous, but a playoff really the same thing... just at the end of the season.... big f'in deal.

Errr, well, if you don't think we learn about a team's body of work after 12 weeks more than we do after 4, OK, but I'd say 11 or 12 games is a better measuring stick. Lots of teams start 9-0 and drop a couple, and lots lose an early game and steamroll. So I guess I'd say it is a big f'in deal, considering you have the entire season to base it on.

All this is said in the spirit of understanding there will be no playoff. None. Why? Because there are over 100,000 asses in seats in Columbus, State College, Ann Arbor, and Knoxville every home game the way it is now, and teams are making 15 mil for a consolation BCS game. How many people would care about college basketball without March Maddness? Way less than do now, I surmise. Football has no such issue, so there is no incentive to change it. The big schools make a ton of money, and conferences get BCS money, so basically everyone is bribed into leaving it the way it is. So be it.

 

[Buckeyefrankmp]

As it is, we had to find a way to differentiate between otherwise like teams (1 loss Florida, Oklahoma, USC, Penn State, Alabama and zero loss Utah). The BCS does exactly that. You may not agree with the result, or the system of determination...

Apparently a lot of people do not agree with the system of determination. As per the NY Times article posted before, "In an article published in The Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports two years ago, he wrote that the B.C.S. computer rankings serve as little more than a confirmation of the results of the two opinion polls the system also uses to create its rankings. The people who run the computer rankings, he noted, have never been given any clear objective criteria to design their programs, and they are not allowed to use the score or site of a game in their calculations."

 

[MaxBuck]

I am not a big advocate of a playoff, but I also hate the current system. It rewards teams for scheduling cupcake teams, look at the OOC schedule for USC, now the one for Oklahoma. But Oklahoma played all those great conference teams, well they looked great playing each other.

As for your last comment, so you're telling me that you don't consider any team that wins the NCAA Basketball tournament to be the national champ? I don't see a lot of complaints there other than the teams who don't get in.

Of course I consider the team that wins the Final Four to be the national champ. Because there is one and only one basis for determining the NC in D1 hoop.

So long as the polls vote after the BCS NC game, there are multiple bases for figuring a gridiron NC. None of them are guaranteed to determine the objectively best team (and BTW, neither does the Big Dance, but it does better at it than any other system IMO).

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

You know I don't know what the fuck your problem is, I just put stuff out there for discussion and you jump all over me like...

Yeah OK, I'm kidding. But to respond anyway:

Wanna take this outside? :tic:

That logic would be wonderful if someone who won all their games won the championship every year. Of course, this rarely happens, especially anymore. There are usually teams with one loss, and in some cases 2 losses, in the title game, and thus there are many teams also with one loss, or 2 losses, sometimes who have beaten the teams in the title game, who are left out. I don't think you can say to Texas "Screw you, you should have won all your games this year" because Florida got in, who didn't even win all their home games this year, and they beat Oklahoma, who also played for the title...and obviously didn't win all their games. I counter your logic with why declare a title game in the first place if this is how it works? It's still the same crap where polls, you know, media perception and coaches who don't watch games, are deciding who is the champion...they just do it before the "supposed" title game now, instead of after the season. I argue it is really no different than it ever was.

Well, the BCS is designed to limit media bias. Lets take a step back and review:

In times of old, #1 played #6 in the Rose Bowl, while #2 played #7 in the Sugar and # 3 was playing #4 in the Orange.... people said "We need 1 v. 2. We can't figure this out..."

Enter the "bowl coalition"

Well, we get 1 v. 2 ... but... not really.. the Rose Bowl, Big Ten and Pac 10 aren't "playing nice" We're tired of possible split titles... we're tired of media bias... we need some other system...

Enter the BCS....

Multiple polls, including computers... different factors... quality wins.. MOV.. SOS.... we get 2 teams spit out of the formula.. they play... every one is pretty happy.....

But then... tragedy strikes...

WAIT!!!! The BCS spit out two teams which don't include #1 in the People polls, USC (2003) WHAT THE FUCK!!!! How can this be? It's not "right" that the BCS doesn't match what the people think! Dammit! Ditch the system!!!

Bull fucking shit... you asked for it... you got it... and then.. when it gave you an answer different than the "media bias" poll... you all said "Well, fuck a lot of that! This system must be broken!" (Not you specifically, BL... just using the royal "you")

Point is - the BCS does EXACTLY what it's designed to do. While they've tweaked away a lot of the benefits (owing to public pressure), at its best, the BCS system removed - or at least put a check on - media bias... USC 2003... Were they deserving? I don't know.. maybe... But.. I'll tell you why they were NOT deserving... because the media .. or the public "thought" so... if they were deserving its because of what they did on the filed... and as against who.... The BCS determined it was not "good enough" when compared to LSU and Oklahoma. So be it.

You (again, not you, BL) asked for something to get rid of bias.... you were given it.. and when it didn't agree with perceptions, you said "Well, it must be wrong!"

I call shenanigans.

Yes, I am, but it is an arbitrary metric now, and only includes 2 media-driven teams. I'd rather see 8, or 16, than 2. Take the NCAA basketball tournament...their metric is 64, and some 65th place team always bitches and moans. But they usually have lost 12-15 games and have an even or losing conference record...it's a hell of a lot easier to say "thanks for playing, enjoy the NIT" to them than it would be a 2nd place team from a major conference who beat the first place team and finished 27-4, but didn't make the tournament because there are only 4 teams in it. If you even had 8, almost every year you'd have all the undefeated teams, all the one loss teams, and the 2-loss teams who played the more difficult schedules. Sounds better to me.

I agree the current BCS is indeed "media driven" It doesn't have to be. It wasn't always... we have the system our own "outrage" has created as I outlined above.

And yes, I can say a 12-4 team and a 16-0 team did the same thing...they won the national championship. A 27-4 or 31-2 college basketball team also win championships, the same trophy someone takes home every year. If you go undefeated, all the better to put yourself in the mythical "greatest of all time" argument, but at least you went through the same system to get the same trophy.

I still don't see how this is any different from what we have now. Villanova won a national title without winning a confernce championship in 1985. What's the big deal if Nebraska had done so in 2001 in football? Fact is, Florida this year can say "We won the national championship" They can also so "We did the same thing as LSU in 2007, Florida in 2006, Texas in 05, USC in 04, LSU in 03, Ohio State in 02 ...." and so on. they have the same trophy as everyone else.

It is - indeed - the same system. And as long as it continues to be the same system, it will remain, of course, the same system....

Errr, well, if you don't think we learn about a team's body of work after 12 weeks more than we do after 4, OK, but I'd say 11 or 12 games is a better measuring stick. Lots of teams start 9-0 and drop a couple, and lots lose an early game and steamroll. So I guess I'd say it is a big f'in deal, considering you have the entire season to base it on.

Like that body of work matters at all... New England won 11 games and lost 5 this year.... Better than Arizona... which team made the playoffs again?

I'm overstating for effect, of course, because ultimately my argument is EXACTLY about body of work. You want a playoff? Fine. It starts September 7 2009. It will proceed through 12 weeks... lose and you're out, or at least out of control (just like a team needing a loss from some other team to qualify for the wild card....). Play a shit schedule.. and you're out.

All this is said in the spirit of understanding there will be no playoff. None. Why? Because there are over 100,000 asses in seats in Columbus, State College, Ann Arbor, and Knoxville every home game the way it is now, and teams are making 15 mil for a consolation BCS game. How many people would care about college basketball without March Maddness? Way less than do now, I surmise. Football has no such issue, so there is no incentive to change it. The big schools make a ton of money, and conferences get BCS money, so basically everyone is bribed into leaving it the way it is. So be it.

I feel the opposite. You'll get your playoff eventually. And... even though I won't like it... I'll still watch.

Apparently a lot of people do not agree with the system of determination. As per the NY Times article posted before, "In an article published in The Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports two years ago, he wrote that the B.C.S. computer rankings serve as little more than a confirmation of the results of the two opinion polls the system also uses to create its rankings. The people who run the computer rankings, he noted, have never been given any clear objective criteria to design their programs, and they are not allowed to use the score or site of a game in their calculations."

I agree with the result of the JQA as I discussed above.. I also outlined WHY it's come to that. It doesn't have to be that way... and it wasn't always that way....

It is that way because we, the people, asked for it... and now we're bitching about it? It all comes down to USC 2003.... we couldn't handle the system putting up 2 teams which the humans didn't have #1... so, we tweaked the "bias check" right out of the system.

 

[Buckeyefrankmp]

Point is - the BCS does EXACTLY what it's designed to do. While they've tweaked away a lot of the benefits (owing to public pressure), at its best, the BCS system removed - or at least put a check on - media bias.


I agree the current BCS is indeed "media driven" It doesn't have to be. It wasn't always... we have the system our own "outrage" has created as I outlined above.

Did we remove the media bias or is it media driven?

 

[JXC]

So many words, and yet so little said

But seriously...

Utah ends up beating #6, #7, #18, and #25. 4-0 against the top 25. 2-0 agains the top 10.
Florida ends up beating #5, #6, #13, and #21 BUT lost to #14. So 4-1 against the top 25. 2-0 against the top 10. So yes, they played a tougher top 25 schedule, but they lost the game that make's it tougher. Had Utah also played, let's say, #12 Texas Tech, and lost...they'd be lower than #2. If you take the names away...and just look at the rankings...u'd be hard pressed to say Utah isn't #1. At least 14 AP voters saw it that way. No split national championship, even though Utah looked the most impressive out of all the BCS teams.

 

[cincibuck]

The view from Manhatten; Sunday's NY times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/04/sports/ncaafootball/04score.html?scp=5&sq=BCS&st=cse

Also from the article: "Notre Dame, an independent, goes to the B.C.S. if it ranks eighth or higher in the standings, not a consideration this year because the team made no one's top 25. But no matter: Notre Dame gets an automatic $1.3 million payout whether it makes it to the championship series or not."

Stop and think about that for a minute, especially you folks who root for ND when they play Michigan, and then do some more math. A team gets 18.3 mill to appear in a BCS game. I'm assuming they take their expenses out of that. I have no idea what those might be, but half a mill doesn't seem to be an outrageous guess. Let's just say that expenses are 300K ('cause that's a level of math I can deal with) then you divide the pot among the 11 teams in the Big 10 (Wow, does that ever bogle the logic node) That means that a Big 10 team walks away with 1.6 mill for PLAYING in a BCS bowl. Meanwhile, Notre Dame has no expenses and gets damn near as much as a team in the game! But let's not stop there. If the Irish are in a BCS game, they must divide the pot with all the teams in their conference, so you take 18.3M, deduct the 300K for expenses and divide by 0.

And folks wonder why I hate Notre Dame so much.

 

[BayBuck]

Utah ends up beating #6, #7, #18, and #25. 4-0 against the top 25. 2-0 agains the top 10.
Florida ends up beating #5, #6, #13, and #21 BUT lost to #14. So 4-1 against the top 25. 2-0 against the top 10. So yes, they played a tougher top 25 schedule, but they lost the game that make's it tougher. Had Utah also played, let's say, #12 Texas Tech, and lost...they'd be lower than #2. If you take the names away...and just look at the rankings...u'd be hard pressed to say Utah isn't #1. At least 14 AP voters saw it that way. No split national championship, even though Utah looked the most impressive out of all the BCS teams.

Do you realize Utah and Florida played more than 4/5 games this season? You are parroting the media who disregard Utah's pathetically weak rest of the schedule, along with the solid group of non-ranked opponents Florida also dispatched.

And "Utah looked the most impressive"? Did you miss how they actually squeaked out all their best wins in the regular-season? If they played 4 more teams with a pulse, they probably would have lost one, and most voters realize that.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Did we remove the media bias or is it media driven?

I believe I answered that quite fully. We removed the media bias with the advent of the BCS... and over time, we tweaked it right on out of the system such that it is, indeed, media driven today. USC 2003 being the prime example (cause).

So many words, and yet so little said

But seriously...

Utah ends up beating #6, #7, #18, and #25. 4-0 against the top 25. 2-0 agains the top 10.
Florida ends up beating #5, #6, #13, and #21 BUT lost to #14. So 4-1 against the top 25. 2-0 against the top 10. So yes, they played a tougher top 25 schedule, but they lost the game that make's it tougher. Had Utah also played, let's say, #12 Texas Tech, and lost...they'd be lower than #2. If you take the names away...and just look at the rankings...u'd be hard pressed to say Utah isn't #1. At least 14 AP voters saw it that way. No split national championship, even though Utah looked the most impressive out of all the BCS teams.

I find it hard to take your mostly silent argument seriously. You assume the legitimacy of TCU,. Boise State and BYU's rating (which, of course, they suffer the same problem your precious Utah faces, if not more so)...

You choose a handful of games, ignoring the rest of a 12 game schedule. Florida beat .. no blasted... unranked LSU. BYU had to tough it out with unranked New Mexico (W: 13 - 10)

I can't help but notice you've yet to give me (or maybe I've just missed it) your prediction of how Utah would have fared against Florida's schedule. Or, Florida against Utahs...

No sense in humoring me at this point...