Life of Riley - National Champion

[JQK]

Some gifts people give are pointless: Styling mousse to Dick Vitale. An all-you-can-eat card to Kate Moss. The BCS Championship given to Oklahoma or Florida.

It means nothing because the BCS has no credibility. Florida? Oklahoma? Who cares? Utah is the national champion.

The End. Roll credits.

Argue with this, please. I beg you. Find me anybody else that went undefeated. Thirteen-and-zero. Beat four ranked teams. Went to the Deep South and seal-clubbed Alabama in the Sugar Bowl. The same Alabama that was ranked No. 1 for five weeks. The same Alabama that went undefeated in the regular season. The same Alabama that Florida beat in order to get INTO the BCS Championship game in the first place.

Yeah, that's how it is now in the shameful, money-grubbing world of college football. If you're Florida and you beat Alabama, you get a seat in the title game. If you're Utah, you get a seat on your sofa.

Hey, remind me: What do they give out for one of those BCS things anyway? It's been so long since I cared. Something from Sears? This is the sixth year in the past 10 that the title has been in dispute under this cash-grab, fan-dis, monopoly that the BCS has created. Which is why the title game just doesn't matter anymore. It's like being named Miss Ogallala. Or Best Amish Electrician.

Just take a look at the teams that think they're worthy of being called national champs:

USC? Great year. Wonderful. Let's all go to SkyBar and celebrate. But it lost to Oregon State, a team Utah beat.

Texas? You think beating Ohio State by a nubby three points gets you the title? The Big Ten was 1-6 in bowl games! That's like pinning David Spade!

Florida and Oklahoma? They lost. Utah never did.

So that's it. Utah is the national champion. The Utes should probably have two now, actually. They went undefeated in 2004, too, and their coach still thinks they were the best team in the land. Smart fella named Urban Meyer. Coaches Florida now.

By the way, we're calling our title the "national" championship because it actually includes the whole nation­?all 119 Division I schools?unlike the BCS, which includes 66. Yeah, the BCS somehow eliminated the middleman?the NCAA. The conferences these schools play in take their dump trucks full of cash straight from the TV networks and fairness can go suck a lemon.

Do me a favor. Call Ohio State president Gordon Gee and ask him why he won't support a playoff. He's one of the most powerful presidents in the NCAA. He could get it done. If he says anything other than, "We don't want to share the loot" then you know he's lying his bow tie off.

"This is not how we normally do things in America," says Utah president Michael Young. "In America, quality usually wins, not conspiracy. And there's a reason people usually enter into a conspiracy. It's money. You make money doing it. And those that are in on the conspiracy want to stay in and keep everybody else out."

Sure, BCS blowhards will hand you schlock about how the college football season is like a playoff, how it's an elimination tournament every week. Really? Well, how come Florida and Oklahoma weren't eliminated with their losses? Utah ran the table, beat everybody set in front of them, including Ala-damn-bama in no less than the Sugar Bowl, and gets the bagel.

Oh, by the way? It was Utah's eighth straight bowl win, the nation's longest streak. Among the losers during that run? Let's see USC, Georgia Tech, Pittsburgh, and now the legendary Houndstooth Hats.

"What else do we have to prove?" asks Utah's magical quarterback, Brian Johnson. Good question. He and the Utes essentially whipped Alabama at home. Handed Nick Saban a garlic necklace to wear the entire offseason. Stepped on his team's neck 21-0 in the first three possessions and never looked back. Let's see. Who was it that was losing to Alabama until nearly six minutes into the fourth quarter? Oh, yeah. Florida.

What, you want the Utes to win a spelling bee? Make a prize-winning souffle? Knock up Angelina Jolie? What?

It just slays me. It really does.

Call Myles Brand, president of the asleep-at-the-wheel NCAA, and ask him if he and his greedy presidents are going to stand in defiance of president-elect Barack Obama, who wants a playoff and wants it yesterday.

Ask Brand what he's going to do if Obama starts asking the Justice Department to look into anti-trust hearings against the BCS. The Utah attorney general has already launched an investigation into that very thing. Or ask him what he'll do if Obama asks the Department of Education to consider withholding federal funds from these schools that have entered into this secret club called the BCS. You don't think playing in the title game means millions in general-fund donations for a school? That's as unfair as anything Title IX fought against.

Until all these people do the right thing, I'll be celebrating with the true national champions ? the undefeated, untied Utah Utes.

Lemonades for everybody!

[Korbyn]

Great Article and drives home the point.

All hail Utah!

[epper]

Usually I can't stand Reilly (especially on TV), but I totally agree on this one. If you dont' lose a game, how can you NOT be the best in the nation?

[scooter13]

Yes it does. I was so happy when Utah ran the table and beat 'Bama no less. Proves the point people are making. The BCS is just BS.

[TFoA]

This is weird because I'm usually not on the undefeated bandwagon (Boise St. & Hawaii were nice stories, but the WAC is a freaking awful conference outside of those two and Fresno St., Boise's only BCS quality win was over OU that year, and we all know what happened to Hawaii), but this time I am. Utah played a damn good schedule in a conference that is COMPETITIVELY on par with most BCS conferences, and they went undefeated. Utah then went into SEC country and beat a team that took one of the potential national champions to the limit. I agree with Reilly, the national champion is the team that just went 13-0 on a non-cupcake schedule.

[BlueSky]

I agree with the BCS being meaningless because a playoff system is needed, plain and simple.

But crowning Utah champions for simply going undefeated makes little sense. Their schedule included the likes of Wyoming, Weber State, UNLV, San Diego State, & Utah State. That's the reason the BCS process is so fouled up, because you simply can't equate going undefeated with a Utah schedule to going undefeated (or even taking 1 loss) in a major conference. It's clearly not apples-to-apples.

Being undefeated in and of itself doesn't make you the National Champion.

[JQK]

UT Chattanooga

Washington

Baylor

A mighty gauntlet of top-tier football right there...

[STL FANATIC]

Try as they might, jaded (and perhaps rightfully so) lawmakers won't be able to prove anything illegal about the BCS, because...there isn't anything.

Secondly, a playoff system would suck.

Now I don't care about the money, I care about the tradition.

I'd support the plus-one, but that's it.

Have five or six major bowl games, keeping the traditional conference matchups and adding a few more for flexibility, and then release one more set of rankings where the top two teams play in the National Championship game.

[See Red]

Utah does have a compelling case, but you're not going to convince me that they're better than Oklahoma, Florida, or Texas, which is what this :censored:ty system comes down to. They're not the National Champions, and shouldn't be. I mean, Utah beat TCU by 3 -- Oklahoma beat them by 25. Utah played the 57th hardest schedule -- Oklahoma's ranked 1st and Florida's 3rd. Ultimately, I don't think Utah could hang within 2 TD's of Oklahoma, Florida, Texas, or USC.

[Epiphanic]

Secondly, a playoff system would suck.

Now I don't care about the money, I care about the tradition.

Y'know, you might be right. Honestly there's nothing really wrong with the bowl system per se. And if it extends into perpetuity, I'd be cool with it. The problem is what appears to be the need for a definitive national champion in FBS level football. There isn't. If you want one, a playoff (one which at least all FBS-level champions get in) is the only way to go. However, I'm perfectly content with simply having the bowls and essentially saying, "You're the champion of the Such-n-Such Bowl. Good for you." Polls are subjective, even computer ones.

For me, Utah (as Boise State was a few years ago) is the "national champion" in the sense that, given what's happened on the field, they are the best team in the country.

Just my subjective opinion.

[rams80]

I agree with the BCS being meaningless because a playoff system is needed, plain and simple.

But crowning Utah champions for simply going undefeated makes little sense. Their schedule included the likes of Wyoming, Weber State, UNLV, San Diego State, & Utah State. That's the reason the BCS process is so fouled up, because you simply can't equate going undefeated with a Utah schedule to going undefeated (or even taking 1 loss) in a major conference. It's clearly not apples-to-apples.

Being undefeated in and of itself doesn't make you the National Champion.

Like the BCS conferences can claim differently? The Big Ten has Indiana, the Pac Ten has Washington, the Big XII has Iowa State and Baylor, the Big East has Syracuse, the SEC has Mississippi State, and the ACC has Duke. Every conference has exceptionally bad teams, so stop saying that the BCS 6 are "tougher".

[TFoA]

I agree with the BCS being meaningless because a playoff system is needed, plain and simple.

But crowning Utah champions for simply going undefeated makes little sense. Their schedule included the likes of Wyoming, Weber State, UNLV, San Diego State, & Utah State. That's the reason the BCS process is so fouled up, because you simply can't equate going undefeated with a Utah schedule to going undefeated (or even taking 1 loss) in a major conference. It's clearly not apples-to-apples.

Being undefeated in and of itself doesn't make you the National Champion.

Like the BCS conferences can claim differently? The Big Ten has Indiana, the Pac Ten has Washington, the Big XII has Iowa State and Baylor, the Big East has Syracuse, the SEC has Mississippi State, and the ACC has Duke. Every conference has exceptionally bad teams, so stop saying that the BCS 6 are "tougher".

@ Mississippi State being thrown into that. lol.

But he does have a point. Hell, Duke won a case after the 2007 season in which they had to prove that they were THE WORST TEAM IN DIVISION 1-A FOOTBALL. So once again, that argument holds little weight.

[BBTV]

Secondly, a playoff system would suck.

Now I don't care about the money, I care about the tradition.

Y'know, you might be right. Honestly there's nothing really wrong with the bowl system per se. And if it extends into perpetuity, I'd be cool with it. The problem is what appears to be the need for a definitive national champion in FBS level football. There isn't. If you want one, a playoff (one which at least all FBS-level champions get in) is the only way to go. However, I'm perfectly content with simply having the bowls and essentially saying, "You're the champion of the Such-n-Such Bowl. Good for you." Polls are subjective, even computer ones.

For me, Utah (as Boise State was a few years ago) is the "national champion" in the sense that, given what's happened on the field, they are the best team in the country.

Just my subjective opinion.

I bolded the key word. Any system that relies on subjectivity is flawed. A playoff would answer the question of who's best objectively.

[WJMorris3]

We need a playoff and quick. 11 teams, take the 11 conference champs. You win your conference, then you go. Best thing of this, undefeated teams can't be left out, as there can never be more than one unbeaten team in a conference.

[See Red]

We need a playoff and quick. 11 teams, take the 11 conference champs. You win your conference, then you go. Best thing of this, undefeated teams can't be left out, as there can never be more than one unbeaten team in a conference.

Yes there can. Every Big Ten team doesn't play one another. I'm sure other conferences without a Championship game are the same way. And really, how does that relieve us of the Texas/Oklahoma controversy?

[Sport]

I'm all for a Utah national championship. If they beat everything you throw at them and then some then how can they not win the national championship? If a team can go undefeated and not get to the National title game in a season when they're the only unbeaten team then what's the point of calling them a "division 1" team or FBS or whatever it is now?

[infrared41]

All of this is great. None if it changes the fact that College Football is under no obligation at all to provide us with an undisputed National Champion. The question I would ask anyone is this, what difference does it make? Will our lives be one bit better or worse with or without a playoff in football? Yeah, all the other football divisions do it but the truth is that the only time anyone pays attention to lower division teams is during their championship game.

Quick, without using google, tell me who win the D-III national title in football this season. There are what, 113 D-I college football teams? No way does an 8 team playoff definitively decide who the "best" is. It simply tells us who won the right games at the right time.

Any "National Champion" that resulted from an 8 team playoff would have the very same issues we are arguing tonight. A Utah or BYU would have been left on the outside looking in and the same debate would still be raging.

This much can be said about the BCS, it keeps people talking about D-1 college football from August thru January. In the entertainment business that's about as good as it gets. The same thing can't be said about lower division football or D-1 basketball. If you put a gun to my head right now and said "name the number one team in the College Basketball poll or you die" I'd have to start making peace with my maker. There wasn't a point throughout football season where I couldn't have run off the top 5 for you.

If we get a "plus one" title game then people will start clamoring for a four team playoff. Then it will be eight, then sixteen, and so on. I'd much rather have a disputed title that everyone is talking about over a tournament that essentially proves no more than did the system it replaced.

Utah can stake a claim to the National Championship. So can the winner of tonight's game. So what? It's hardly the end of the world. What makes college football so great is how -ed up it is. We'll likely be debating this thing for the next few weeks, if not all the way into spring training. All the while college basketball will be deep into conference play and 70% of us won't give a until selection Sunday. As I said, when you're in the entertainment business you want people talking about your product all year long. One month of interest followed by 11 months of who gives a just isn't as good. Careful what you wish for with College Football is all I am saying.

[STL FANATIC]

I don't agree with you're understatements of how entertaining CBB is, but I think you're dead on about the situation infared.

I propose the plus-one as a compromise. But it surely isn't perfect. There's not a single system that is. Not one.

[infrared41]

I don't agree with you're understatements of how entertaining CBB is, but I think you're dead on about the situation infared.

I propose the plus-one as a compromise. But it surely isn't perfect. There's not a single system that is. Not one.

I don't think CBB sucks or anything. It's just an example of how much less appeal the regular season has when compared to CFB. Take the ACC for example. UNC/Duke is great but let's be realistic, if both of those teams win 18+ games they are going to the dance. Who wins the regular season match-ups between the two means nothing. A loss for either one is not a season ender. A Florida-Georgia match-up in football has huge ramifications not only in The SEC but nationally more times than not. I wasn't trying to denigrate basketball to make football look better. I was simply saying that if we go to a 16 team playoff (and let's be honest, we know it won't stop at 16 teams) then football's regular season will suffer the same fate that basketball's has. It will still be good but not nearly as many people will care about it.

[nolegboy]

No way does an 8 team playoff definitively decide who the "best" is. It simply tells us who won the right games at the right time.

This is somewhat true. Just like the 12 team NFL playoff didn't really show us what team was REALLY the best last season. NFL didn't get to just pull the Pats and Cowboys and throw them into the big one, did they? The 2006 World Champion Detroit Tigers have leased out the World Series trophy to the 13th best team in baseball that year. That 8 team playoff didn't come close to giving its championship to the team that was best for 162...just to the team that played well enough over the last 20 or so. How many #1 overall seeded teams have won the NCAA basketball tournament? Should they stop the season right now and put Pitt and Duke in the championship?

Fact of the matter is, the team or two that performs the best during the regular season doesn't always win it all. I'd guess that they don't win it more often than they do. Should all playoffs be done away with?