The College Football Thread 11/11 - 11/15

[HarleyQuinn 0]

The one thing I noticed is that the I-AA level of football is a lot more run heavy and the top quarterbacks, while having high completion %'s and high TD to INT ratios, don't really throw it a whole lot during the game. It seems like I-A has a lot more 3,000+ yard and 30+ TD passers.

 

Here are the averages for some of the top quarterbacks.

 

QB Jonathan Dally (8 Games): 11/17 for 198 yards with 2 TD

QB Cameron Higgins (11 Games): 22/32 for 316 yards with 3 TD vs. 1 INT

QB Armanti Edwards (10 Games): 13/21 for 200 yards with 2 TD

QB Cole Bergquist (10 Games): 15/23 for 222 yards with 2 TD

QB Sebastian Trujillo (9 Games): 21/32 for 254 yards with 3 TD vs. 1 INT

 

Compare that to the following top I-A quarterbacks.

QB Sam Bradford (10 Games): 22/33 for 341 yards with 4 TD vs. 1 INT

QB Colt McCoy (10 Games): 24/31 for 288 yards with 3 TD vs. 1 INT

QB Chase Daniel (10 Games): 27/36 for 326 yards with 3 TD vs. 1 INT

QB Max Hall (10 Games): 25/35 for 307 yards with 3 TD vs. 1 INT

QB Graham Harrell (10 Games): 33/46 for 408 yards with 3 TD vs. 0 INT (or 4 TD vs. 1 INT)

QB Tim Tebow (9 Games): 14/22 for 193 yards with 2 TD

 

I always had the idea that the stats were inflated at the I-AA level when looking at the low amount of interceptions (one could still make the argument for the running game, I guess) but it seems like if anything, I-AA football eschews the pass more in favor of the run game. I wonder if some of it is the spread offense in I-A and the sheer talent of the quarterbacks at that level, where the offensive coordinators know they can throw it 30-35 times a game with a lot of success and still win?

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

Stewart Mandel and I must be related in a past life or something, because this argument on why the BCS makes the regular season more important and exciting mirrors my opinion practically word-for-word:

 

But why, you ask, is the regular season "more important" with the BCS in place? Let us count the ways -- just using last weekend as an example. If college football had a playoff ...

 

• Iowa's dramatic upset of Penn State wouldn't have mattered in the slightest. The Nittany Lions can and probably will still win the Big Ten. The loss would only hurt their playoff seeding.

 

• Alabama's overtime win over LSU -- one of the most intense endings I've ever covered -- would have been largely irrelevant. While the game would still be a big deal because of Nick Saban's return to Baton Rouge, the palpable tension in that stadium after the Tigers blocked the Crimson Tide's field goal was due to the fact that Alabama's entire season was on the line.

 

Under a playoff, if the Tide had lost ... oh well. They could still clinch a spot in the SEC title game the following week.

 

• Would anyone outside of the two states involved have cared about the Texas Tech-Oklahoma State game? I doubt it. Whichever team won would still have more work to do to win its division, and the fact that Tech retained its No. 2 ranking in the BCS standings would no longer be part of the discussion.

 

• The only game in the country that would have taken on more importance under a playoff was TCU-Utah. If that's the kind of sport you really want, America, I have good news for you: It already exists. It's played on Sundays.

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

The flip side to that argument, of course, is that while one or two games a week gain extra importance with the BCS, the fifty other games on the schedule become entirely irrelevant. Unless you are a fan of the four or five teams that have a shot at the BCS title, you've had nothing to be interested in all season. I haven't even checked to see what Oregon, the local college team, has even done in the past few weeks because its entirely meaningless.

 

A playoff would, you know, settle things on the actual field instead of on a computer or piece of paper. The regular season is not more important with the BCS in place. If anything, a playoff system would make regular season games and conference championships much more important because they'd actually start to mean something in terms of achieving a playoff spot. It'd also cultivate a system where teams are rewarded from improving over the course of a season, whereas the opposite is true now.

[Psycho Penguin 0]

The flip side to that argument, of course, is that while one or two games a week gain extra importance with the BCS, the fifty other games on the schedule become entirely irrelevant. Unless you are a fan of the four or five teams that have a shot at the BCS title, you've had nothing to be interested in all season. I haven't even checked to see what Oregon, the local college team, has even done in the past few weeks because its entirely meaningless.

 

A playoff would, you know, settle things on the actual field instead of on a computer or piece of paper. The regular season is not more important with the BCS in place. If anything, a playoff system would make regular season games and conference championships much more important because they'd actually start to mean something in terms of achieving a playoff spot. It'd also cultivate a system where teams are rewarded from improving over the course of a season, whereas the opposite is true now.

 

Would Oregon games have any more importance if there was a playoff right now? No. That's what happens when you lose a few times including a blowout loss to USC and a loss at home to little Boise (who probably would have liked a playoff this year)

 

Would TTU/Oklahoma State have meant less? Yes.

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

Would Oregon games have any more importance if there was a playoff right now? No. That's what happens when you lose a few times including a blowout loss to USC and a loss at home to little Boise (who probably would have liked a playoff this year)

 

Would TTU/Oklahoma State have meant less? Yes.

A playoff system would basically require that every conference had a championship game. Oregon, sitting with two conference losses, would have an outside chance at getting to that game and playing their way into the playoffs. The chances would be slim, but fans of the team could at least hold on to a slight degree of hope. As it was, the Boise State loss ended their season.

 

Without bothering to look at the intricacies of possible tie-breakers in the Big XII, I'd wager a bet that the TT/Ok. St. game would have still had a ton of importance in a playoff world. Wouldn't the winner of the game be in line to play for the conference title? I don't see how it would be any less crucial with a playoff spot on the line.

[Psycho Penguin 0]

Would Oregon games have any more importance if there was a playoff right now? No. That's what happens when you lose a few times including a blowout loss to USC and a loss at home to little Boise (who probably would have liked a playoff this year)

 

Would TTU/Oklahoma State have meant less? Yes.

A playoff system would basically require that every conference had a championship game. Oregon, sitting with two conference losses, would have an outside chance at getting to that game and playing their way into the playoffs. The chances would be slim, but fans of the team could at least hold on to a slight degree of hope. As it was, the Boise State loss ended their season.

 

Without bothering to look at the intricacies of possible tie-breakers in the Big XII, I'd wager a bet that the TTY/Ok. St. game would have still had a ton of importance in a playoff world. Wouldn't the winner of the game be in line to play for the conference title? I don't see how it would be any less crucial with a playoff spot on the line.

 

The Pac 10 would need 2 more teams to get a conference title game under the current rules, and the teams already play round robin anyways. Why does it need a title game? Why couldn't the regular season champ just go since they all played each other? Why can a team go 1-1 against someone, losing 54-10 and winning 13-10, and get in just because they won 13-10 at the end? (All hypothetical, of course)

 

EDIT - In addition, you just gave the exact reason why a playoff system would NOT be a good idea. A team that loses 3 times, including once at home to Boise, would have a chance at playing for the national title in your system. Oregon can still make a BCS game or a nice bowl now. They have stuff to play for.

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

-Six BCS conferences, each with twelve teams and two divisions.

 

-Division winners play in the Conference title game. Winner goes to playoffs.

 

-Six spots taken by BCS conference winners, with one at-large BCS bid and one at-large non-BCS bid closing out the final two.

 

Am I just crazy? This all seems so logical to me.

 

 

[Psycho Penguin 0]

-Six BCS conferences, each with twelve teams and two divisions.

 

-Division winners play in the Conference title game. Winner goes to playoffs.

 

-Six spots taken by BCS conference winners, with one at-large BCS bid and one at-large non-BCS bid closing out the final two.

 

Am I just crazy? This all seems so logical to me.

 

Probably because

1) some years a non-BCS team is going to not deserve the slot

2) You're going to get a lot of people complaining about the BE and ACC getting slots

3) How do you possibly determine who gets the at-large bid? COMPUTER RANKINGS?

 

Face it, college football can't be like the NFL. There's too many teams and there's no way to fairly have a tie breaker system.

[2GOLD 0]

-Six BCS conferences, each with twelve teams and two divisions.

 

-Division winners play in the Conference title game. Winner goes to playoffs.

 

-Six spots taken by BCS conference winners, with one at-large BCS bid and one at-large non-BCS bid closing out the final two.

 

Am I just crazy? This all seems so logical to me.

 

I learned about three years ago that the word "logic" and "college football" don't go together. This is just the way it's going to be. It's never going to change. Unless we end this year with a Boise State vs Utah national title game, there will never be a call for a playoff. Let two mid majors get to the title game and those old Presidents will whistle a new tune. As it is, they never will. Doesn't matter what the coaches want, this is the way it's going to be.

[cabbageboy 0]

There are a couple of major reasons why the BCS sucks

 

1. Quite literally every bowl aside from the BCS title game is an irrelevant exhibition. There are quite a few great games during bowl season, but do they truly matter in the long run? Not really. At least under the screwed up old bowl system you could follow Florida/FSU in the Sugar Bowl and then also check the Rose Bowl with Arizona State/OSU and this all matters when it comes to the national title.

 

2. This is the big one: Teams can go undefeated and not even get a chance to play for the title. What kind of unethical, immoral sport doesn't even pretend to allow an equal playing field? This year there may well be 3 teams that go undefeated and have no real shot to even play for the title (Utah, Boise St., Ball St.). I mean hell, I recall in women's basketball some small conf. team like Liberty went unbeaten and at least earned the right to be a #16 seed and get squashed by Tennessee. They at least got a chance. How can a team like Florida be an undisputed national champion in 2006 when Boise State was the only undefeated team in the nation and won a major bowl? Or USC in 2004? How were they truly legit champs when Auburn and Utah were both undefeated after the bowls?

 

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

Because no one would seriously wonder if Auburn or Utah would beat USC that year, the same USC team that won the BCS title game by the score of 59-14. I mean, really.

[Guest]

I like the pre-BCS system better than anything which could possibly come to pass in current college football.

[Psycho Penguin 0]

It's funny that everyone bitched about the old days before the BCS, too.

[HarleyQuinn 0]

And people think there's only a problem with the BCS... From a Sports Network Article.

 

The Southland Conference announced on Tuesday that it has been notified that it cannot award the 2008 league football championship to Central Arkansas, the team currently leading the Southland race. To do so would result in the league forfeiting its automatic bid to the NCAA Division I Football Championships.

 

As a transitional team moving from Division II to FCS, Central Arkansas is ineligible for the playoffs. But Southland officials notified the NCAA months ago that it intended to let UCA compete for the conference title, with the league runner-up advancing with the automatic bid in the event that the Bears won.

 

As a matter of fact, the Southland had a championship trophy awaiting UCA in its final game of the 2007 season, had the Bears beaten McNeese State for a co-championship. The engraved trophy remained in the trunk of commissioner Tom Burnett's car when McNeese State won, 41-14, to capture the crown outright.

 

The crux of this case all boils down to one little sentence in the NCAA championship by-laws that reads:

 

"If a conference champion is ineligible to compete, or cannot compete for any reason, automatic qualification shall be withdrawn for that year and the remaining conference members shall be considered at-large."

 

The Southland thought it had received a waiver from that requirement when it initially filed its paperwork for the 2008 FCS playoffs, but when the subject came up again a couple of weeks ago, the NCAA decided there was a problem.

[Psycho Penguin 0]

Ivy Leagues can't play for the FCS title, either.

[MFer 0]

Because no one would seriously wonder if Auburn or Utah would beat USC that year, the same USC team that won the BCS title game by the score of 59-14. I mean, really.

But you don't think that Auburn and Utah earned the right to play it out on the field instead of just hearing "well, USC would've crushed you anyways" all offseason? I just think it's absurd that a team in any sport at any level can lose a grand total of ONE game (or even zero in some cases) during the regular season and have no shot at the championship.

[Urban Warfare 0]

Not sure if anyone heard of this story, but Myron Rolle, a star safety at Florida State is up for the Rhoades scholarship. His interview for the scholarship would have forced him to miss the Noles' next game, until the NCAA stepped in and pushed the game time back and granted Rolle a private jet flight from the interview to the Noles' game. A real nice story, Rolle is clearly one hell of a player and just as good of a person.

[Slayer 0]

I know HMW and I have argued countless times over the whole "playoff vs. status quo" thing... so what's one more time!

 

- The whole "regular season won't mean anything with a playoff in place" is bullshit because the regular season is already rendered meaningless when you're a deserving #3 team that's right on par with the #2 team but you're on the outside looking in because the computers think you're .005 not as good as the #2 team.

 

- When the BCS does work it's much more by luck than by design, when we somehow wind up with only two undefeated teams in the end ('99, '02 and '05). Otherwise you get one of two scenarios: Either you have 3-4 teams all with the same record and the question is "which two are worthy?" ('03 and '04) or you have one top team and 2-3 teams with the same record and the question of "Which one of those is worthy to face #1?" ('98, '00, '01 and '06, Michigan controversy notwithstanding)

 

Unfortunately I've come to (unwillingly) accept the status quo for what it is, since the networks and presidents are probably never going to change things at this point. The ideal time to kill the system was after it completely failed in 2003, locking out USC in favor of OU and resulting in a split national championship, the very concept which the BCS was implemented to prevent

 

As 909 said, things were almost more preferable back in the days before they conceived this whole BCS mess.

[MFer 0]

Michigan could sure use Rolle right about now

[HarleyQuinn 0]

Ivy Leagues can't play for the FCS title, either.

 

As I'm more than aware (and anybody else can tell you that). My contention was largely that it felt like the NCAA was saying, "If you name them as your conference champion, we'll revoke your automatic bid priviledge anyway" even though the conference has recognized that Central Arkansas is ineligible for the playoffs and basically said, "We'll send our runner up in place of CA."

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

Because no one would seriously wonder if Auburn or Utah would beat USC that year, the same USC team that won the BCS title game by the score of 59-14. I mean, really.

But you don't think that Auburn and Utah earned the right to play it out on the field instead of just hearing "well, USC would've crushed you anyways" all offseason? I just think it's absurd that a team in any sport at any level can lose a grand total of ONE game (or even zero in some cases) during the regular season and have no shot at the championship.

 

Until it benefits Michigan, right? The truth is, yes it sucks that Auburn and Utah wasn't given a fair shot at the BCS title, but seriously. Compare the bowl games. USC outclassed everyone. They deserved that title. Now 2003 would have been a better example, as USC and LSU won their bowl games in similar fashions against similarly ranked teams, therefore essentially setting up the natural title game of USC/LSU that never came under this current system.

[Bored 0]

Stewart Mandel and I must be related in a past life or something, because this argument on why the BCS makes the regular season more important and exciting mirrors my opinion practically word-for-word:

 

But why, you ask, is the regular season "more important" with the BCS in place? Let us count the ways -- just using last weekend as an example. If college football had a playoff ...

 

• Alabama's overtime win over LSU -- one of the most intense endings I've ever covered -- would have been largely irrelevant. While the game would still be a big deal because of Nick Saban's return to Baton Rouge, the palpable tension in that stadium after the Tigers blocked the Crimson Tide's field goal was due to the fact that Alabama's entire season was on the line.

 

Under a playoff, if the Tide had lost ... oh well. They could still clinch a spot in the SEC title game the following week.

I'm so sick of the playoff debate but I have to call bullshit on this argument by Maisel. If Alabama had lost in overtime to LSU, they still would have had almost full control of their destiny to make the MNC game. If they lose that game, they drop to no lower than #5 and they would still have a shot to beat Florida in the SEC Championship game. They win that game and they still likely end up in the MNC game against the Big XII champ.

 

After having a two loss national champ last year, I don't see how anyone can still make the "whole season is a playoff" argument with a straight face.

[HarleyQuinn 0]

2004

- USC went 12-0 regular season. Killed Oklahoma 55-19 in the Orange Bowl.

- Utah went 11-0 regular season. Slaughtered Pittsburgh 35-7 in the Fiesta Bowl.

- Auburn went 12-0 regular season and won SEC Title. Beat Virginia Tech 16-13 in the Sugar Bowl.

- Oklahoma went 12-0 regular season and won Big 12 Title. Got killed by USC.

 

The 2004 Louisville team would've made for an interesting playoff team as well. They went 10-1 regular season and beat Boise State 44-40 in the bowl but scored fewer than 34 points just twice during the year. Their only loss was to Miami 41-38.

 

I can see the National Title to USC argument (although saying they deserved it just 'cause they got lucky and blew out Oklahoma doesn't say much...) but Utah and Auburn also had serious cases and both teams also won their respective bowl games. The reason I said lucky was that it's all about the opponent and who's to say that USC would've slaughtered Utah or Auburn in the same way they did Oklahoma? I'm sure Hawaii could've matched up more favorably against some of the other top teams but got faced with Georgia, thus they got slaughtered and everybody was all, "See!"

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

It's also about the quality of the bowl opponents. USC got "lucky" to be paired up with another undefeated team while Auburn and Utah didn't have to? No, see, this is what makes USC even more deserving. The Big East and the ACC has consistently been mediocre conferences that sent out teams to get killed.

 

By your list:

 

USC beats an undefeated Big XII team in Oklahoma by 36.

 

Auburn beats a weak conference (ACC) champion in Virginia Tech by 3.

 

Utah beats weak conference (BIG EAST) champion Pittsburgh by 28.

 

Now take a look at those three circumstances. Think about the quality of opponent. Think about margin of victory. No way USC wasn't leaving Miami without the crystal football or the AP #1.

[MFer 0]

Because no one would seriously wonder if Auburn or Utah would beat USC that year, the same USC team that won the BCS title game by the score of 59-14. I mean, really.

But you don't think that Auburn and Utah earned the right to play it out on the field instead of just hearing "well, USC would've crushed you anyways" all offseason? I just think it's absurd that a team in any sport at any level can lose a grand total of ONE game (or even zero in some cases) during the regular season and have no shot at the championship.

 

Until it benefits Michigan, right? The truth is, yes it sucks that Auburn and Utah wasn't given a fair shot at the BCS title, but seriously. Compare the bowl games. USC outclassed everyone. They deserved that title. Now 2003 would have been a better example, as USC and LSU won their bowl games in similar fashions against similarly ranked teams, therefore essentially setting up the natural title game of USC/LSU that never came under this current system.

This isn't about Michigan or USC. USC deserved the title and I'm sure they would've handled any other team that year easily but we all just assume that it would've played out that way (because you know, upsets never happen). The fact of the matter is that Auburn won every game on their schedule and got shut out of the MNC because they didn't win every game by 50 or accumulate enough "style points". I'm sure that Jason Campbell, Cadillac Williams, and Ronnie Brown would've wanted their shot against USC, even if it meant getting blown out in the end. Of course, if there was a playoff system in place at that time, it would all be a moot point. You could've ended up with USC/OU as a seminfinal and Auburn/Utah as another. Imagine if Roger Goodell just cancelled the NFL playoffs last year and ordered the Super Bowl to be Dallas (or even Green Bay) vs. New England, since those teams looked all-world during the regular season. I just want to see D-I football become more objective than subjective.

[RepoMan 0]

Not sure if anyone heard of this story, but Myron Rolle, a star safety at Florida State is up for the Rhoades scholarship. His interview for the scholarship would have forced him to miss the Noles' next game, until the NCAA stepped in and pushed the game time back and granted Rolle a private jet flight from the interview to the Noles' game. A real nice story, Rolle is clearly one hell of a player and just as good of a person.

 

I actually think it's a bunch of BS. They wouldn't do this for a player from a non-BCS conference, let alone any of the lower divisions, or say a player in a non-revenue sport, or any female student athlete. If he really wants to be a Rhoades scholar, he can miss a football game.

 

[Slayer 0]

I'm just surprised that a 4.0 high school athlete and potential Rhodes scholar somehow wound up at Free Shoes U...

 

Did Nebraska or Miami (the non-academic one) not want any of that?

[HarleyQuinn 0]

It's also about the quality of the bowl opponents. USC got "lucky" to be paired up with another undefeated team while Auburn and Utah didn't have to? No, see, this is what makes USC even more deserving. The Big East and the ACC has consistently been mediocre conferences that sent out teams to get killed.

 

By your list:

 

USC beats an undefeated Big XII team in Oklahoma by 36.

 

Auburn beats a weak conference (ACC) champion in Virginia Tech by 3.

 

Utah beats weak conference (BIG EAST) champion Pittsburgh by 28.

 

Now take a look at those three circumstances. Think about the quality of opponent. Think about margin of victory. No way USC wasn't leaving Miami without the crystal football or the AP #1.

 

And this is why a playoff scenario should be implemented, because Auburn and Utah weren't even given a smidge of a chance to get to play against USC. It was pretty much USC/Oklahoma with Auburn and Utah getting to run over "easier" opponents as a compromise. And it's not the fault of Auburn or Utah that they got shoved out of any NC chances and were pitted against teams from "weak" conferences.

 

If we're talking margin and quality, then that makes the entire scenario even more questionable. Do we decide who the best undefeated team is (i.e. the two to make the NC) by SOS? That automatically penalizes weaker conferences that teams have no say in playing in. Not every team's lucky to play in the Big 12/Big 10/SEC. Do we choose by the ability to run up the score and win 70-3 and 63-7 on weak teams?

 

During the regular season... Auburn might've had the best SOS but Utah was arguably the most dominant margin wise. So who would get chosen?

- Oklahoma beat Texas 12-0, Kansas State 31-21, Oklahoma State 42-35, and Texas A&M 42-35.

- Auburn beat LSU 10-9 and beat Alabama 21-13. Other than those two games, they soundly beat everybody else and then struggled against Virginia Tech in their bowl game.

- Utah was slaughtering every opponent they faced. Heck, they beat Texas A&M 41-21 (20 point difference). Their toughest game was a drubbing of Air Force, 49-35.

 

In 2008, now we have the following teams who are all undefeated...

- Texas Tech (10-0)

- Alabama (10-0)

- Utah (10-0)

- Boise State (9-0)

- Ball State (9-0)

 

Along with a myriad of other teams that could clutter the picture should Texas Tech and Alabama lose: Florida (8-1), USC (8-1), TCU (9-2), BYU (9-1), Texas (9-1), Oklahoma (9-1), Tulsa (8-1), Michigan State (9-2), Penn State (9-1)

 

What happens if TT, Alabama, and Utah lose while Boise State and Ball State both finish undefeated? How is it that a 1 loss team like Florida or USC deserves a shot simply because they play in better conferences/have better talent? What makes a team like Florida or USC better than a BYU, Texas, Oklahoma, or Penn State? The whole situation could get murky real fast with the sentiment being that Florida/USC should be the game (or Florida/Texas or Florida/Oklahoma) and it seems like if you go undefeated, that only counts if you're a big name school.

 

There's no way you could tell me that a BCS scenario could not only fix but make sense of such an above scenario to where the two best teams go on when it's coaches (biased as all hell) and writers largely controlling the contest rather than the teams getting a chance to play it out in a win or go home scenario.

[Psycho Penguin 0]

It's also about the quality of the bowl opponents. USC got "lucky" to be paired up with another undefeated team while Auburn and Utah didn't have to? No, see, this is what makes USC even more deserving. The Big East and the ACC has consistently been mediocre conferences that sent out teams to get killed.

 

By your list:

 

USC beats an undefeated Big XII team in Oklahoma by 36.

 

Auburn beats a weak conference (ACC) champion in Virginia Tech by 3.

 

Utah beats weak conference (BIG EAST) champion Pittsburgh by 28.

 

Now take a look at those three circumstances. Think about the quality of opponent. Think about margin of victory. No way USC wasn't leaving Miami without the crystal football or the AP #1.

 

Big East hasn't lost a BCS bowl since 2004.

 

[iggymcfly 0]

It's also about the quality of the bowl opponents. USC got "lucky" to be paired up with another undefeated team while Auburn and Utah didn't have to? No, see, this is what makes USC even more deserving. The Big East and the ACC has consistently been mediocre conferences that sent out teams to get killed.

 

By your list:

 

USC beats an undefeated Big XII team in Oklahoma by 36.

 

Auburn beats a weak conference (ACC) champion in Virginia Tech by 3.

 

Utah beats weak conference (BIG EAST) champion Pittsburgh by 28.

 

Now take a look at those three circumstances. Think about the quality of opponent. Think about margin of victory. No way USC wasn't leaving Miami without the crystal football or the AP #1.

 

LOL lookingatonegameaments. It might interest you to remember that USC was one play away from losing to Cal at home in 2004. If Aaron Rodgers could have converted one of four plays from the 9-yard line, USC's out of the chase and if Cal gets USC in Berkeley, it's probably more than enough to swing the game the Golden Bears' direction. That's the same Cal team that lost to Texas Tech by 14 in the Holiday Bowl BTW. You could argue that Cal played bad in their bowl due to the disappointment of missing a BCS game and I'd probably agree with you, but that just makes looking at Auburn's performance against VT under a microscope after they got screwed out of a national title shot all the more silly.

 

Also, that same season that USC should have lost to Cal, Utah's closest win was a 14-point win over Air Force and they picked up wins over teams from both the Pac-Ten and Big XII in non-conference. It's silly to minimize the championship debate from that year.