This story from Yahoo proves conclusively that college football’s BCS system sucks and that the two teams that get to play in the title game are there for reasons other than their on-field success. Some voters in the Harris Interactive Poll, which helps determine BCS rankings, NEVER WATCHED UTAH PLAY! The same Utah team that finished 13-0 and whipped Alabama (formerly top ranked) in the Sugar Bowl.
“I did not see them play [in the regular season],” Bobby Aillet said.
“I didn’t see any live games,” Lance McIlhenny said. “I just [saw] highlights.”
“I don’t recall if I saw them play specifically during the regular season,” David Housel said. “I don’t remember a specific game. … I wouldn’t say I probably was wrong. I was wrong,” said Housel, a former Auburn athletic director who had the Utes ranked 10th.
That is amazing and proves that this Thursday’s Oklahoma-Florida game will not determine the national champion and is more of a popularity contest. There is no way a Sooner fan (whose team lost by 10 to Texas on a neutral field) or a Gator fan (whose team lost at home to Mississippi) can argue otherwise; just accept your gift and stop trying to justify it with illogical arguments. Unbeaten Utah has more claim to the title than anyone else.
I’ll let Dan Wetzel of Yahoo have the last word:
How did a team this good wind up a lowly sixth in the final BCS standings?
The answer speaks to the illogical way college football crowns its champion, a system where perception, reputation and media hype can mean more than touchdowns and tackles.
Utah could do the latter as well as anyone. It was non-competitive in the former - suffering from tired stereotypes, a lack of television exposure and the mind-numbing power of group think.
Even by the absurd standards of the BCS, having voters not bother to watch an undefeated team play a single game is a new low.
Whether Utah deserved to be ranked No. 1, 2 or 25 isn’t the point of this argument. The Utes deserved to have voters at least see them.
on Jan 7th, 2009 at 10:26 am
First off, Utah plays in a weak conference. They had a couple decent wins, but they still play in a weak conference.
Second off, how do you expect the pollsters to see every team play a game? That’s just simply impossible.
Oklahoma, Florida, Texas, USC… they’re all better than Utah. Easily.
on Jan 7th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
You can’t beat Michigan by 2 points and expect to be #1.
Utah Pre-Bowl Ranking
BCS #6
USA Today #7
AP #7
Harris #7
ESPN Power #7
Computer #5
Not much discrepancy.
Out of all of those polls, the only voter to see Utah play was the Utah coach.
Florida beat a #1 Alabama team playing for a conference championship and for the opportunity to play for the National Championship. Utah beat a #4, Andre Smith-less, Alabama team that was playing for the Sugar Bowl Championship title. Utah was happy to be invited. Alabama would rather be playing on January 8. Playing a top ranked team and playing a formerly top ranked team are not equal challenges.
Utah will end up #3 or #4 in the final BCS poll, behind Florida/Oklahoma, Texas and possibly USC. They’ll also be over-ranked at #3 or #4 in the final AP poll.
on Jan 7th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
“Second off, how do you expect the pollsters to see every team play a game? That’s just simply impossible.”
Then they shouldn’t be pollsters! Otherwise you’re voting on perceptions and media bias.
Florida: 1 loss, struggled with Alabama.
Utah: 0 losses, led Bama 21-0 and never trailed. So who’s the better team?
on Jan 7th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Why is the Mountain West always be referred to as a “weak conference”? There were 3 MWC teams in the top 16: Utah, TCU and BYU. The MWC went 5-1 in the regular season against the Pac 10 (which was 5-0 in bowl games).
The Big East conference is a BCS member, and have they ever had 3 teams in the top 16?
I just feel that this argument will continue until there’s a play-off to determine which team really is the best.
on Jan 7th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
So then which teams, exactly, should pollsters have to see? Do you expect them to see every D-I FBS team? Only those that are “good?” And what about coaches - do you have a problem with their poll? You don’t expect them to see every team, do you?
on Jan 8th, 2009 at 12:21 am
I would expect a pollster, by at least the middle of the season, to start tracking the games of every unbeaten team and who seem like the contenders, then to WATCH THEM PLAY (what a novel concept!). How on Earth can you trust anyone’s poll when they haven’t seen the top teams play? Obviously, the idiot from Auburn who voted Utah #10 “knew” Utah wasn’t good enough until the Utes beat up on Bama.
And I have a major problem with the coaches; they should not be voting since their biases have been proven when USA Today released who voted for who at the end of the season. Coaches stick together in their conferences, play favorites etc.
It’s this kind of group think where everyone “knew” the Pac-10 was weak (then it goes 5-0 in the bowls), the SEC was top-notch (only to see ‘Bama get dominated by an “inferior” Utah team etc.)
on Jan 8th, 2009 at 6:36 am
I’ll agree with your last comment (which finally brought some analysis to the matter) that any pollster should be tracking the top 10 teams and watching the next 10 casually. There’s no way you can track all 25 teams or the entire NCAA for that matter unless you’re a computer :).
Regarding coaches I completely agree and have always wondered about that poll. It’s a cool poll and reflects some insight but it just that, an oddity to enjoy. Mack Brown has already claimed his bias by saying he’s voting Texas for #1 even before seeing the OU-FL game.
Regarding the MWC being weak I think that is a stretch but it’s not the same level as SEC or Big 12 this year. So UT is a better team but their conference doesn’t elevate them to great team.
All that being said, we can restart the playoff debate but I’m telling you there is no logistical way to pull it off. If you take the fans and alumni out of the equation and forget the Christmas break and throw finals out then maybe you could pull it off. Those things are reality and prevent a legitimate playoff system from being held.
on Jan 8th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
You know, everyone has their opinion about the BCS and a playoff series, but I will say this. I live in an SEC area and I have always been an avid SEC fan, but why does not the SEC out of conference play ANY worthy teams–sure you may get a Tennessee play a California, but that’s it. And as for as I could see this year, the Big 12 made the SEC look like the Sunbelt Conference. I was not impressed and still the SEC played an unchallenging out of conference schedule. The PAC 10 however tend to be more competitive out of conference. The Big 10 is the weak conference everyone should be talking about especially those calling the Mountain West a weak conference. It is all a popularity contests folks and it is all about the teams that the media covers. Tebow won the Heisman last year, the OK quarterback this year so now a big matchup–BIG DEAL. If I were voting, I would vote Utah #1—–reason, very simple, OK-1 loss, USC-1 loss, Texas-1 loss, Florida-1 loss and Utah–undefeated. You wanna talk strength of schedule–then let’s do—why don’t all you supporters of those 1 loss teams I mentioned send out an invite to play Utah in the regular season in the oncoming years—-I just have a feeling there is some type of excuse why that will never happen! So keep playing your Appalachian States and your Minnesota Technical College of Hairdressing and fantasizing that you are indeed #1.
on Jan 8th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
In years past Texas has played some critical teams in the non-conference schedule. Classic was when they played USC and Ohio State in the years when both were schedule to win the national championship. This year and in years to come we go creampuff in the non-conference which weakens their BCS opportunities. Texas only benefited this year from a strong Big 12 and more specifically Big 12 South. I agree that teams should be pulling in the Utahs and others into non-conference schedules. The problem with that is that Utah only has a few non-conference games themselves and scheduling happens 4 and 5 years ahead of the season. So who do you schedule with? Besides I don’t think Utah wants to play an OU,Texas and Florida the first three games of their non-conference. One is enough so which one? Besides they are just as much to blame for scheduling creampuffs in the non-conference such as Utah State. So some flaws in your logic for the overall but you do make a point.