No respect for the Mountain West

[BonMallari]

Texas didn't ever run up a score, did they??
I know they didn't Sat!!

Sorry Bon, that was mean..........


RK

from a Vegas standpoint, Mack Brown is known for not running up the score,not that I bet against my team to not cover the spread ...BUT when they had to impress the pollsters and get in the BCS game a few years back you bet they tried to run up a score

style points matter to the pollsters and the odds makers


I have to eat crow this week..it was funny...not a fair weather fan..just dont like the aftertaste...

[TN_LAB]

Oregon doesn't have a win against a team with a record over .500 and their big win this weekend was a win over Arizona State, a .500 team with wins over N. Arizona and Portland State?

Come on people!

Oregon beat Tennessee in Tennessee (and looked pretty impressive doing it). Tennessee isn't very good right now, but the name still carries a fair amount of respect in many circles.

My guess is there is definitely a biase towards BCS schools. Lot of it is due to the legacy of the programs. Not perfect, but that's pretty much the way it goes. So...if Utah can sustain things over several years they will get more respect and probably a higher ranking (see Boise St & TCU).

Not much help in late September, but there is still a lot of football to play. Therefore...keep winning and let it work itself out (remember...its where you finish, not where you start).

[M&K's Retrievers]

I bet Mack Brown was doing his Colombo impersonation on the sidelines.

[Nate_C]

You say rankings aren't based on who teams beat and then go onto to say Stanford moved up seven places because of who they beat???? Who they play and win and by how much directly affects the rankings.

The Mountain West teams get no respect because they never play any teams. This is coming from a Boise State fan. Up until this year Boise plays maybe 1 decent team a year and this year they play 2 decent teams. First they play VT and barely beat them and the next week VT goes on to lose to an unranked team. This past week Boise beat a 24th ranked Oregon team. Now for the rest of the season they play absolutely no one. And to top it off I'm still confused why non BCS teams even get a chance in BCS games anyway.

EDIT: Just looked at Utah's schedule. They played a 15th ranked Pittsburgh team that they barely won in over time by a field goal. and now they play no one else until TCU. if they beat TCU and don't move in the rankings (provided they don't lose a game first) then you would have a valid complaint.

I was saying rankings are not based solely on who you beat. That some teams get extra advantages. Yes Utah doesn't have a SEC type schudual but it has alot of good teams on it. Pitt and TCU, a ND team that must be pretty good because Stanford passed us by beating them. Air Force is very good too 3-1 and lost to Oklahoma by a field goal.

Almost every ranking out there has the Montain West ranked higher then the Big East and the ACC. Last year we were 4-1 in bowls with 3 teams in the top 25 and the year before we where 3-2 with 3 teams in the top 25. So winning that conference is an accomplishment. People assume that wins against georgia, tennesse...ect... are better when they are not. PS that is the same thing they said about Boise St. schedual before they beat Oklahoma and Utah before they beat Pitt and Alabama in BCS bowls.

[aandw]

Utah and other non-BCS are at a disadvantage. But strength of schedule does matter, Pitt isn't very good, ND is not good this year but is a good opp. most year, Iowa St. doesn't help, don't know the other non-con game. the ACC looks down this year, the Big East isn't a good football con anymore, minus Miami & Va Tech. the SEC is not as good either (UT,UG) Florida& Ala. are rebuilding. But year in and year out the SEC is the strongest con. Big 10 & 12 not far behind. Utah & Boise St. are one game wonders, they do have good teams and can compete on any given saturday. But i don't think they can do it every week against SEC, Big 10 or 12, not enough depth or talent.
Utah needs a good rival and play at least 3 top 15 teams every year to get recognition and respect. Ala. will play 6 top 20 teams this year, that doesn't include tenn or ole miss, that are normally in there.

[BonMallari]

rankings are based on REPUTATIONS...plain and simple..the BCS is deathly afraid that Bama or Ohio St trip up late and they have no choice but to put an undefeated Boise St in the MNC game, thats one of the reasons they always fall back on the strength of schedule defense...a plus 1 playoff would determine a true National Champion

[aandw]

rankings are based on REPUTATIONS...plain and simple..the BCS is deathly afraid that Bama or Ohio St trip up late and they have no choice but to put an undefeated Boise St in the MNC game, thats one of the reasons they always fall back on the strength of schedule defense...a plus 1 playoff would determine a true National Champion

agreed, but if a team from the previous year that finished well returns the majority of their starters why wouldn't they be ranked high. like it or not almost everyone outside utah and idaho would rather watch SEC, Big 10, or Big 12 play for it. i don't like the +1 because i think 2nd & 3rd place finishers in the BIG 3 will get left out. just because utah goes undefeated doesn't mean they are one of the 4 best.
i say go to a 16 team playoff, let the bowls bid for the games, 15 total games over 4 consecutive weeks. if utah can beat 4 quality opponents in 4 weeks my hat is off to them. BTW 15 games would only be about half of the current bowls and would finish sooner.

[BonMallari]

agreed, but if a team from the previous year that finished well returns the majority of their starters why wouldn't they be ranked high. like it or not almost everyone outside utah and idaho would rather watch SEC, Big 10, or Big 12 play for it. i don't like the +1 because i think 2nd & 3rd place finishers in the BIG 3 will get left out. just because utah goes undefeated doesn't mean they are one of the 4 best.
i say go to a 16 team playoff, let the bowls bid for the games, 15 total games over 4 consecutive weeks. if utah can beat 4 quality opponents in 4 weeks my hat is off to them. BTW 15 games would only be about half of the current bowls and would finish sooner.

Have to disagree on the 16 team playoff..think about this, the 16th ranked team in the country doesnt deserve a shot at the national championship...I would be in favor of a Final Four...the winner of each of the 4 major bowls play off ...Rose,Sugar,Orange,and Fiesta...sadly the Cotton Bowl is no longer considered a top tier bowl

[aandw]

Have to disagree on the 16 team playoff..think about this, the 16th ranked team in the country doesnt deserve a shot at the national championship...I would be in favor of a Final Four...the winner of each of the 4 major bowls play off ...Rose,Sugar,Orange,and Fiesta...sadly the Cotton Bowl is no longer considered a top tier bowl

the problem with that is i could make an argument for runner ups in the big 3 that would be left out. i might agree to an 8 team playoff, if the con champ game doesn't count. freeze the polls after the last regular game. more times than not i think runner ups in the big 3 are better than the one game wonders. guess where utah will be ranked if they do a +1 (5 or 6)

[TN_LAB]

I PS that is the same thing they said about Boise St. schedual before they beat Oklahoma and Utah before they beat Pitt and Alabama in BCS bowls.

Boise has proven that they can beat any team with enough time, however I don't think they could run the gauntlet of a BCS conference where you have to play tough teams just about every week (certainly every other week).