The final college football AP Poll was released this afternoon, with Florida leading the way, followed by Utah at #2, then USC, Texas, and Oklahoma rounding out the top 5.
I take exception to people claiming Utah should be ranked #1.
Argue about the BCS all you want, but under the current system, the 2009 Utah Utes cannot and should not be Nation Champions. They can make a case - and should certainly be in the discussion - but the preponderance of evidence clearly shows they fall short.
More than anything else, their schedule works against them. When your conference is traditionally weak, you cannot schedule non-conference games against Weber State, Utah State, and Michigan.
Don't let the word 'Michigan' fool you. In the past, they'd be a very difficlt opponent; but the team they're fielding now is comparable to UNLV, UTEP, and Temple.
They're most difficult conference games included BYU and TCU, who both ran the table on other Mountain West teams and are ranked in the Top 25. Beat a ranked team that matters - and at this point, neither of them elevate you to 'National Title Contender.'
With TCU losing rather easily to Oklahoma, and BYU losing to Arizona, it's clear they do not compete at the same level of college football's elite.
But don't let Utah's defeat of Alabama fool you. Just like Boise State's win over Oklahoma in the 2007 Fiesta Bowl, it's not difficult for a very good team to play at the highest level for the biggest game of their careers. However, competing at that high level week in and week out with other Big 12, SEC, or Pac-10 teams is another discussion.
And don't forget, Alabama was playing without their best player, offensive lineman Andre Smith. Utah exploited it, and sacked John Parker Wilson eight times. Not an Alabama excuse - it's just a fact.
I do not believe Utah would be the 2008 Big 12 Champion, however they could compete in the Big 12 North. They would not win the SEC Title, either. Playing a schedule that consisted of Alabama, Florida, LSU, and Georgia would wear them down.
It's clear they're the best team in the Mountain West, and have possibly outgrown the conference. Preparing your team to win each week is difficult, and often taken for granted, but they should have finished that schedule undefeated.
Preparing for the biggest game in school history versus an Alabama team who didn't want to be there in the first place? Very commendable. It was an impressive win to top off an impressive season, but their body of work did not show me enough.
Under the guidelines of our current system, an undefeated team should not be the de facto #1 team. The BCS is designed to find the best team in the nation - not place an undefeated team at the top.
Can you imagine if USC, Texas, Florida, or Oklahoma played Utah's schedule and were undefeated in the National Championship? People would be screaming their schedule was too soft, and arguments would be made for more deserving one-loss teams.
But since we love the little guy, we'll let it slide.
If winning all your games was all it took, there would be no incentive for our powerhouse programs to schedule difficult non-conference games.
Who you play matters.
But at this point, what does winning the BCS National Championship get you, anyway? Of the 11 years the BCS has existed, it's the sixth controversy. While I love that the BCS makes each week matter, realistically, it's no better than the previous system.
At least that gave us exciting bowl games.
I take exception to people claiming Utah should be ranked #1.
Argue about the BCS all you want, but under the current system, the 2009 Utah Utes cannot and should not be Nation Champions. They can make a case - and should certainly be in the discussion - but the preponderance of evidence clearly shows they fall short.
More than anything else, their schedule works against them. When your conference is traditionally weak, you cannot schedule non-conference games against Weber State, Utah State, and Michigan.
Don't let the word 'Michigan' fool you. In the past, they'd be a very difficlt opponent; but the team they're fielding now is comparable to UNLV, UTEP, and Temple.
They're most difficult conference games included BYU and TCU, who both ran the table on other Mountain West teams and are ranked in the Top 25. Beat a ranked team that matters - and at this point, neither of them elevate you to 'National Title Contender.'
With TCU losing rather easily to Oklahoma, and BYU losing to Arizona, it's clear they do not compete at the same level of college football's elite.
But don't let Utah's defeat of Alabama fool you. Just like Boise State's win over Oklahoma in the 2007 Fiesta Bowl, it's not difficult for a very good team to play at the highest level for the biggest game of their careers. However, competing at that high level week in and week out with other Big 12, SEC, or Pac-10 teams is another discussion.
And don't forget, Alabama was playing without their best player, offensive lineman Andre Smith. Utah exploited it, and sacked John Parker Wilson eight times. Not an Alabama excuse - it's just a fact.
I do not believe Utah would be the 2008 Big 12 Champion, however they could compete in the Big 12 North. They would not win the SEC Title, either. Playing a schedule that consisted of Alabama, Florida, LSU, and Georgia would wear them down.
It's clear they're the best team in the Mountain West, and have possibly outgrown the conference. Preparing your team to win each week is difficult, and often taken for granted, but they should have finished that schedule undefeated.
Preparing for the biggest game in school history versus an Alabama team who didn't want to be there in the first place? Very commendable. It was an impressive win to top off an impressive season, but their body of work did not show me enough.
Under the guidelines of our current system, an undefeated team should not be the de facto #1 team. The BCS is designed to find the best team in the nation - not place an undefeated team at the top.
Can you imagine if USC, Texas, Florida, or Oklahoma played Utah's schedule and were undefeated in the National Championship? People would be screaming their schedule was too soft, and arguments would be made for more deserving one-loss teams.
But since we love the little guy, we'll let it slide.
If winning all your games was all it took, there would be no incentive for our powerhouse programs to schedule difficult non-conference games.
Who you play matters.
But at this point, what does winning the BCS National Championship get you, anyway? Of the 11 years the BCS has existed, it's the sixth controversy. While I love that the BCS makes each week matter, realistically, it's no better than the previous system.
At least that gave us exciting bowl games.
