Deseret News | Utes deserve No. 1 ranking

Reader comments
Utes deserve No. 1 ranking

ECR | 6:00 a.m. Jan. 6, 2009

Well said. Amen!

Get rid of the BCS! | 6:59 a.m. Jan. 6, 2009

The Utes don't deserve to be ranked #1 but they deserve a shot at playing for that ranking. They ended the season with an impressive win over Alabama but they struggled against some lesser teams throughout the year. I wonder if they would have gone undefeated in the Big 10. When is the NCAA going to do the right thing and create a playoff? The BCS is just a good ol' boys club to try and keep the money and the championship to certain conferences.

uncannygunman | 7:04 a.m. Jan. 6, 2009

To play devil's advocate, there was nothing stopping Utah from playing in the BCS championship this year--all they had to do was exactly what they did but do it more convincingly. Score three or four more touchdowns every game this season while giving up fewer points, and the Utes are in. It's not like Utah didn't know how the BCS works before the season started.

Incidentally, the BCS is a playoff system of sorts--it just only has two teams in it. The NCAA basketball tournament has the same problem on a larger scale. Teams with better records get excluded to make room for conference champions and schools whose worse record results from stiffer competition.

I love the Utes and I'm very proud of them. I will happily proclaim them one of the best teams in the country. But we have a system to choose the #1 team and Utah is not it.

Comments continue below

ECR | 7:35 a.m. Jan. 6, 2009

uncannygunman - your comment is slightly incorrect. No matter how many points Utah scored or how impressive their wins, they could not play in the BCS Championship game because they are not in a BCS conference. That's the rub - possibly the best team, the ONE TEAM that won ALL their games, is left out of the championship game.

Maria | 8:04 a.m. Jan. 6, 2009

"They keep getting in the faces of the BCS and winning their arguments on the field. . . "

No they don't. They have only done it twice. When the Utes are consistently in the top 10 year after year, then they will deserve championship games. BYU and Utah are inconsistent, some years on most years off.

How about Texas? | 8:40 a.m. Jan. 6, 2009

Utah has the best argument that they are #1. But if OK beats Florida, then Texas could also claim to be #1 by virtue of their identical record and win over Oklahoma at a neutral site. Thursday night we have the opportunity to watch the BCS Irrelevant Bowl. What a system.

Re: uncannygunman | 9:18 a.m. Jan. 6, 2009

uncannygunman said: "there was nothing stopping Utah from playing in the BCS championship this year--all they had to do was exactly what they did but do it more convincingly. Score three or four more touchdowns every game this season while giving up fewer points, and the Utes are in."

Wrong. That's exactly what the Utes did in 2004. They routed everyone. Their closest game was a 14-point win. Did they get to the national championship game? No!

Mark my words: A non-BCS team could go undefeated, win every game by 35, and not make the national championship game. The system is designed to keep them out.

E B Williams | 9:18 a.m. Jan. 6, 2009

Any team at any one time can win or lose a game, regardless of their record.

I thought the best team is the team that wins every scheduled game, regardless of what conference they are in.

Champions (those that win all their games) are winners, not loosers. Yet all great teams are winners. The name of the game is winning: Isn't it?

RE: Maia | 9:24 a.m. Jan. 6, 2009

What would you call "in your face then?" We slaughtered Pitt in '04 and they are one of the 'Big Bad BCS' Schools, we came out this year and showed the Tide how football should be played. We broke the BCS twice, beat other teams this year that won against the other teams in the Major Bowl games. You don't get much more in your face than that from a non-BCS conference. Look for Utah, BYU, TCU and Boise State alot more in the big games because we not only can compete against some of the frauds *ahem* ACC, PAC 10, and Big Easy, we can flat out Dominate them.

KM | 9:35 a.m. Jan. 6, 2009

They should be given #1 because of the 'against all odds senario they have to deal with.

Think of how unfair and unbalanced the whole thing is - More money, bigger stadiums breeds better recruiting power and more money and bigger stadiums.

Somehow the playing feild has to be equaled, so that the money doesn't always end up at the same schools, year after year.

Simple formula | 9:35 a.m. Jan. 6, 2009

For all you whiners in the non-BCS conferences - your teams need to get with the system.

All your team has to do is blow out every opponent by at least 5 touchdowns during the year and hope that every BCS team has at least 2 losses.

That will almost certainly get you into the national championship game where you will finally control your own destiny.

Dean | 11:07 a.m. Jan. 6, 2009

Question for "Opinion on BCS & quest for #1

Do you enjoy March Madness?

I thought so!

Agki | 11:38 a.m. Jan. 6, 2009

As a U of U grad, I don't care! But the rankings system in college football is seriously flawed. The problem is, of course, that the NCAA has playoff systems for virtually every other college sport (especially at the NCAA Division I level) and one should be instituted to avoid these controversies. In the 2006 season, Boise State was the only undefeated Division I team but Florida was proclaimed "champion" despite a loss to the #10 ranked Auburn. In the 2008 season, Florida will probably pull it off again despite a loss to unranked Mississippi. Similar events occurred earlier. BYU's 1984 championship was tainted by the fact that "they never really played anybody," Georgia Tech's 1990 UPI championship paired against AP's split with Colorado. It all begs for a playoff but the Rose Bowl won't unlock the Big 10 and PAC contracts. Go figure!

Too "Dean | 11:07 a.m." | 12:23 p.m. Jan. 6, 2009

I do enjoy March Madness, and I would enjoy a college football playoff if they had one. I didn't say I wouldn't 'enjoy' it, I just said it's not required nor neccesary for my hapiness as a fan.

I think we can be just as happy and satisfied with the undefeated season we had whether we end up #1 in some media poll or not. The focus should be on winning our conference games and any opportunities we get to play out-of-conference opponents during the season and then if we perform well... showcasing our tallent against whatever team the pair us up with in our post-season bowl game.

I don't need a playoff or a poll to tell me we're #1 to be happy with the way the Utes performed this year.

no to Texas | 1:36 p.m. Jan. 6, 2009

to 'How about Texas' I think a 14 point victory over a #4 ranked team on a hostile field easily trumps a last minute squeaker over a weak #10 team from the 1-6 Small 10 conference.

das | 6:22 p.m. Jan. 6, 2009

The BCS does not have an impregnable defense. I do not avoid watching the national championship football game, but I do refuse to watch the commercials. If 50 million non-BCs believers would boycott the commercials, the system would receive its proper burial. It's one thing to complain; it's another to take affirmative action.

Agki | 7:17 p.m. Jan. 6, 2009

Opinion said: "1.Players WILL get injured and lose their possible career for our entertainment in these extra games."

Your objections don't hold water. First, that risk exists in all games. Second, career-ending injuries in any one game are extremely rare. And it is for our entertainment and the money for the schools no matter how you cut it.

"2.What students/fans can afford to travel to a series of games around the country? It's enough to finance a trip to one special game."

The bowls don't seem to have any trouble filling the stands, do they? A playoff would also fill them up.

"College football isn't the NFL-D-League and it doesn't mater which school is #1 (to me)."

Sure it is! But it doesn't matter to me either.

"They are students-not-professionals."

Some of them are.

"College-football-is-about-developing-skills,competition,-and-entertaining-the-students-and-fans. It's-not-supposed-to-be-NFL-Junior-and-it-really-doesn't-matter-which-school-is-#1."

But it does matter to the schools. There's a lot of money to be made by being #1 in football or basketball. That's how they pay those huge salaries to the assistant professors in the French Literature department!

Yes to Texas | 9:45 a.m. Jan. 7, 2009

The U's one game season does not come close to the season UT completed. Texas played 4 top 10 programs and 3 Heisman candidates in a 4 week period. Utah, strugling at times through a joke of a conference and winning a bowl game is not worthy of a national title.

Anthony | 10:03 a.m. Jan. 7, 2009

I find it amusing that pour Attorney General thinks this a legal issue that warrants his attention. There is one really simple answer here. Leave the comfort of the Mountain West and the poor teams that exist there, and move to the PAC 10. Immediate improvement in strength of schedule and an automatic bid to a BCS bowl.

As much as I like the Utes, they have no leg to stand on in this argument even if they are undefeated. Four teams clearly standout with tougher schedules and better resumes for the year. Stop being stubborn and move to a real conference. Then your complaints are warranted.

To: Anthony | 11:55 a.m. Jan. 7, 2009

Why would the UTES want to move to the PAC-10, the MWC went 6-1 against them this year so how are they better than the MWC? Wyoming, the worst of the MWC went and beat Tenn. at their house, how can this be they are a SEC team, This is about the NC this year not who has the best team or conferance in the past. so as most of us see it the UTES have a huge leg to stand on, FOR THIS YEAR

UTES #1

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.