New Coaches poll: BYU down 1, Utah up 2

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by YOhio

We dropped? After a win? Anti-Mormonism rears it's ugly head.

We need to schedule another Bye, and that seems to improve our SOS more than a win against a non-entity.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by ute4ever

Nice sidestep.

Sidestep to what? I'm not even sure I understand your point.

You are saying that Utah and Gonzaga have success in the NCAA hoops tournament, therefore football teams from the same mid-major schools are as good as their BCS counterparts?

Clarify your point first. I'd be happy to address it.

[Surfah]

It is what it is. All we can do is play our schedule and keep winning. I do believe that though SOS will come into play, it will be tough to ignore a 22 game winning streak if we take care of business. One game at a time. We drop one and all this discussion is worthless.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

It's based upon relative perceived strengths and weaknesses of various teams across the country when no team or teams play all teams.

You're right. USU and Wyoming aren't really lower-tier programs. They're just perceived that way because we're all just prejudiced.

No offense, Arch, but you're starting to sound like you study at the SeattleUte school of college football commentary.

[Coach McGuirk]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

You're right. USU and Wyoming aren't really lower-tier programs. They're just perceived that way because we're all just prejudiced.

No offense, Arch, but you're starting to sound like you study at the SeattleUte school of college football commentary.

No, the problem is the same prejudice is not applied when Colorado sucks, or Nebraska sucks or Iowa or Oregon. I am just suppose to buy that other conferences are a gauntlet of bear traps. I mean how many years has Nebraska sucked now? But lets say Nebraska at 3-1 were to win next year against a 4-0 Texas team, and neither team had played anyone of note(even me saying this is a load, since I am just feeding the name recognition bullshit) . Well Nebraska would just be seen as a return to their greatness and Texas would get penalized just a little, with t

never mind, I am done, this whole thing is shit, and I hate typing about it, and the fact that triplet daddy or anyone buys into it just pisses me off that much more.

The whole thing is a sham.

[TripletDaddy]

I guess I still don't get why it is such a bad thing to be a mid-major.

[cougjunkie]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

I guess I still don't get why it is such a bad thing to be a mid-major.

I think what he is saying is that BCS teams automatically receive the benefit of the doubt. If Nebraska was 4-0 and had played North Texas, La-Monroe, Ohio, and Troy, and Texas was 4-0 and had played a similar schedule. If Texas lost to Nebraska they would just assume that Nebraska was back to being a powerhouse and Texas would not be penalized much. Eventhough neither team has proven its worth. If a MWC team had won 4 games over those type of opponents and then lost to a team like Nebraska the MWC team would be heavily penalized and people would say they got "exposed".

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by cougjunkie

I think what he is saying is that BCS teams automatically receive the benefit of the doubt. If Nebraska was 4-0 and had played North Texas, La-Monroe, Ohio, and Troy, and Texas was 4-0 and had played a similar schedule. If Texas lost to Nebraska they would just assume that Nebraska was back to being a powerhouse and Texas would not be penalized much. Eventhough neither team has proven its worth. If a MWC team had won 4 games over those type of opponents and then lost to a team like Nebraska the MWC team would be heavily penalized and people would say they got "exposed".

I know this....but this is why I am still confused.

The BCS was created by....well, the six BCS conferences. They wanted to maximize their revenues. This is a club that was founded to make money. They can make whatever rules they wish. It is their club. So naturally they will always get the benefit of the doubt.

I would understand all these "fairness" arguments if some random, neutral group invented the BCS and then hand selected the 6 conferences based on this neutral group's perception of which conferences were superior and which were inferior. Then maybe I could see why the mids would be clamoring about fairness, about "hey, you didnt even consider us...we are just as good, etc..."

But this is simply 6 people getting together and forming a club. No more, no less than that. Their club, their rules.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Coach McGuirk

No, the problem is the same prejudice is not applied when Colorado sucks, or Nebraska sucks or Iowa or Oregon. I am just suppose to buy that other conferences are a gauntlet of bear traps. I mean how many years has Nebraska sucked now? But lets say Nebraska at 3-1 were to win next year against a 4-0 Texas team, and neither team had played anyone of note(even me saying this is a load, since I am just feeding the name recognition bullshit) . Well Nebraska would just be seen as a return to their greatness and Texas would get penalized just a little, with t

never mind, I am done, this whole thing is shit, and I hate typing about it, and the fact that triplet daddy or anyone buys into it just pisses me off that much more.

The whole thing is a sham.

I have conceded many times that there are biases toward certain programs and biases toward certain conferences. College football has, and always will be, a sport grounded in a hierarchy founded on assumption.

However, it's absurd for Archaea to try to suggest that SEC schedules are somehow less legitimate than the MWC's because of the SEC's easy non-conference games. Said SEC non-conference games feature Utah State, Wyoming and UNLV.

It's absurd for him to try to suggest that the MWC SOS is not actually any weaker than Auburn's SOS, it's only "perceived" as such.

Also absurd is his argument that "it should be about winning period," regardless of caliber of competition. That's even sillier. By that logic we should just crown the undefeated DIII team the champion of all of college football.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

I have conceded many times that there are biases toward certain programs and biases toward certain conferences. College football has, and always will be, a sport grounded in a hierarchy founded on assumption.

However, it's absurd for Archaea to try to suggest that SEC schedules are somehow less legitimate than the MWC's because of the SEC's easy non-conference games. Said SEC non-conference games feature Utah State, Wyoming and UNLV.

It's absurd for him to try to suggest that the MWC SOS is not actually any weaker than Auburn's SOS, it's only "perceived" as such.

Also absurd is his argument that "it should be about winning period," regardless of caliber of competition. That's even sillier. By that logic we should just crown the undefeated DIII team the champion of all of college football.

It is interesting to see how the ranked teams at the top will now start accumulating losses...ie, OU v Texas....why is that? Is it because all of a sudden, these teams are overrated? No...it is because they start playing each other in conference.

Meanwhile, BYU is gearing up to play....New Mexico! The Utes are traveling to Laramie!

Damn the torpedoes! It just isn't fair!