Utah Makes a Case for No. 1

By whipping Alabama in the Sugar Bowl, Utah has finished the season as college football's only undefeated team, and made a case that it deserves to be considered the No. 1 team in the country.

Asked whether his players should be called the national champions, Utah coach Kyle Whittingham said this:

"Somebody has to explain to me why they wouldn't. There is only one undefeated team in the United States of America right now in Division I football, and it's these guys right there.
"All you can do is go out and beat the people that are on your schedule, beat the people you play against, take care of business and do what you can do and that's about all you can do. All the other things are beyond your control."

The Utes won't win either of the two generally recognized national championships, of course. The BCS national title will go to the Oklahoma-Florida winner, and the majority of the AP voters will choose the winner of that game as the AP national champion as well.

But I expect a handful of AP voters to pick Utah No. 1, especially if Florida beats Oklahoma. Florida, after all, didn't look nearly as impressive against Alabama as Utah did, winning a hard-fought 31-20 victory over the Crimson Tide last month. (The common opponents argument doesn't serve Utah well if Oklahoma beats Florida; TCU is the only team that played both Utah and Oklahoma this season, and the Frogs were a lot more competitive in losing to the Utes than they were in losing to the Sooners.)

So is Utah really the No. 1 team in the country? Not in my opinion. I believe both Florida and Oklahoma are better than Utah, and Texas and USC are too. But in college football, where the champion is determined not on the field but in the minds of poll voters, it's perfectly reasonable for some of those voters to make up their own minds and vote for Utah.

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)

1-03-2009 @ 6:54AM

CDS said...

Before tonight, everyone believed that Alabama was a lot better than Utah too.

If the national title is determined primarily by reputation rather than performance on the field, than USC would win every year by virtue of all the 5-star recruits Pete Carroll brings in.

In conclusion, I really don't see any logical argument against Utah at this point.

1-03-2009 @ 1:18PM

David said...

USC's reputation? They were 11-1. Their defense gave up 100 points on the season. They lost to a 9-win team. Their performance on the field is just as dominant as the other contenders, if not moreso.

The "national championship" game is a WEEK after Jan. 1. CF can easily make a +1 game for that title, since it won't effect the bowl system anyway. Besides the fact most teams already play 2 more games now than they did a decade ago.

Everybody in America knows this, and it wouldn't take money away from anyone. Just knock a few 6th or 7th place finishers in the SEC, Big 10, or Big 12 out of a bowl game, if not - preferably - Notre Dame.

1-03-2009 @ 7:51AM

Biebs said...

This season is exactly why a +1 format for the NC is such a bad idea. Who would go? USC or Utah?

I really hope Texas destroys Ohio St. too.

1-03-2009 @ 10:20AM

jIM said...

sorry, there will be no destruction of the buckeyes by texas....

1-03-2009 @ 8:36AM

Esther said...

yes florida played a hard fought game against alabama but there are two things to consider here and they're both intangibles so they cannot be proven using numbers and stats....first alabama obviously respected Florida and they made them work for their victory...if you watched the sugar bowl you could see in that first series alabama had no respect whatsoever for utah and thought they could just run all over their line...that was a big mistake..because when you underestimate an opponent and they prove you wrong..it messes you up completely....for the crappy way 'bama was playing, they should have lost by a lot more....secondly, florida played a complete alabama....'bama did not have their best player on the line and another injury forced the entire line to be mucked up...couple that with no respect and you get an @ss kicking

auburn had an undefeated season and they didn't get a number one either...and there wasn't all this chatter about it either...so why should this be any different?

1-03-2009 @ 9:14AM

First of all, there was ALOT of chatter about Auburn being screwed out of a national title that year.

Secondly, there were TWO other undefeated teams that year. This year, there are none except Utah.

You're essentially saying Utah doesn't deserve a national title because Alabama showed them no respect and had a few backups on the offensive line.

Yeah, that makes alot of sense...

1-03-2009 @ 11:05AM

Jim said...

Esther, your argument makes a lot of sense. Alabama lost their premier offensive lineman (and his backup) and it wrecked their blocking schemes. So you're saying what most sane people believe -- that a loss of a single player CAN make a huge impact on a game, even to the point of determining the outcome. Thanks. You're the first SEC fan I have heard that understands that. Those of us from Ohio State thought the same thing about the 2007 Fiesta Bowl, but SEC bloggers said that all that matters is the final score. I'm glad you've been rescued from the Dark Side.

1-09-2009 @ 12:29PM

bk lounge said...

durp? durp durp durp. durp!

1-03-2009 @ 8:50AM

ktk said...

Although an eight team playoff would also have flaws, it would be infinitely preferable to the current asinine system.

1-03-2009 @ 3:06PM

everyone will always speculate who is the best...but the truth is, even in a playoff system,the winner will be the team that gets the breaks,the turnovers, the refs calls, and plays a team that matches up well for them...they will not play each team in a play off system......it is who is best on that day....the next day, their beaten opponent could win against them if the circumstances changed....
i still favor a playoff system over the current however..........i believe utah is the #1 team based on fact. 0 losses and beat up a top team in the country...would this utah team have lost to the winning opponents of florida and oklahoma ????the #1 ranked team should not be a team that looks the best on tv...if they were the best, they would nt have lost during the season period!!!

1-03-2009 @ 9:49AM

Wade said...

I agree with Utah's coach. What more can a school that doesn't happen to be in a non-BCS conference do? I can't think of anything, yet they still don't have a chance at the "National Championship". If that's the case, there should be a different division for those schools. Why are they D1 (or FBS) if they have zero chance of winning the championship?

1-03-2009 @ 9:55AM

Going undefeated does not automatically earn you a national championship. The BCS crowns a national championship, regardless of whether you like it or not. Utah has gotten itself a huge win and will hopefully now commandeer a greater respect. Play USC in the regular season, Texas or Oklahoma and duplicate the season you had this year and I guarantee you that you will be playing in the national title game. Jim Crow was unfair too, but those laws didn't change by people sitting around and b*tching about it. IF you hate the BCS so damn much why are you watching the games...boycott the damn thing and make a difference.

1-03-2009 @ 10:01AM

Martin said...

If Texas crushes Ohio State,that will go a long way to showing that the BCS got it right. But if Texas does not beat Ohio State by at least 3 touchdowns, coupled with the losses by Oklahoma State and Texas Tech, that will show that the Big-12 was vastly overrated. And if Texas looks underwhelming against Ohio State and if the Oklahoma/Florida game is close, coupled with Alabama's loss to Utah, that would certainly imply that Florida and the SEC were overrated as well. Thus, under that scenario, it would look like the BCS got it all wrong and that Utah and USC should have been playing for the championship.

1-03-2009 @ 10:15AM

Well Martin, I agree with you to some degree, but the Oklahoma and Florida game is supposed to be close and like I said before, Utah's win says more about Utah than it does about the SEC. Next time Alabama plays a team outside the SEC, they should come to play. Although I believe that Utah had a phenomenal season and are a top caliber team this season--if they want to play for a championship then they need to start scheduling traditional powerhouses like USC or Oklahoma and not teams like Michigan. Michigan has not been good in over five years. Utah deserves all the credit and should be extremely proud of what they've accomplished, but that still does not relegate them to championship status. Let's not forget that Michigan was only beaten by two points, Oregon State, New Mexico and TCU by three, and Air force by seven. Utah was tired of being disrespected and they had far more to gain by winning this game...Alabama on the other hand thought they should have been playing Texas and it showed from the very first play.

1-03-2009 @ 10:39AM

Esther- As I said, if Texas beats Ohio State by at least three touchdowns, I have no real argument with the winner of the Oklahoma/Florida game being national champion, regardless of whether it is a close game or a blowout. But if Texas doesn't defeat Ohio State by at least three touchdowns (since USC crushed both Ohio State and Penn State), coupled with the losses by Texas Tech and Oklahoma State, that shows that the Big-12 was overrated. In that case, if Oklahoma (which lost to Texas) plays Florida close, coupled with Alabama's loss, that most certainly would show that the SEC was also overrated. And the Bowl games have shown that both the PAC-10 (5-0 in bowl games)and Mountain West (wins for Utah and TCU) were under rated

1-03-2009 @ 10:36AM

JIm, I agree with you 100% up until your second paragraph. Let Oklahoma, Texas or Florida move into the sunbelt then. I guarantee you those teams will be undefeated each and every year...would that make them national champions? Utah, if you want your conference to be taken seriously then you need to start playing the dominant teams in the so called power conferences...start playing usc or oklahoma...texas or florida....ohio state (they suck but are still better than michigan)...virginia tech or boston college or georgia tech or georgia...start scheduling these kind of games year in and year out and make your damn case on the field...beating alabama was a first step...now keep it up...show the rest of the country that this wasn't a fluke

1-09-2009 @ 1:30AM

mike said...

You and miriad others keep harping on "play powerhouse teams year in and year out and then we might respect you." Utah didn't back out of playing Texas this year - Texas did.
Eastern "Powerhouse teams" don't want to travel to play out of conference games they might loose - like to Utah, Boise St., TCU, and to a lesser extent BYU. And when they do, they won't come to our house, we have to go shuffling to them.

The only BSC conference with the testicles to consistantly play against Utah, Boise St., and BYU is the Pac-10 and given our recent domination of them that may change. TCU gets to play your "Powerhouse" teams more regularly than the others because they're closer. But they're wary of playing them too - and they should be. As badly as Utah whooped 'Bama, TCU would've also opened a can of whoop ass on the Tide.

Yours (and the other's) argument is one of pure BCS snobbery and the basis for keeping the uppity "non" BSC teams and conferences in their place - which is out of the national championship game. (Which is the reason for the whole BSC in the first place - thank you BYU and the 1984 Nat'l Championship) "Never again!" is the mantra.

1-03-2009 @ 11:01AM

esther said...

Martin, there is one thing that you fail to take into account and it's the same thing that transpired during the Sugar Bowl. By this, OSU has heard how much better Texas is. I'm sure that Texas will be overlooking OSU as pushovers. It happened in the Sugar Bowl this year and you see how that turned out. Personally I believe Texas will lose for the same reason 'Bama lost. Cockiness. The same thing happened to OSU when Florida went in and kicked their patooties. If OSU wins, I don't think that will mean the Big12 is overrated. And I think you need to give credit where credit is due, Texas Tech's loss does not make them overrated. THey lost only two games...one of which was to a very good Oklahoma team and the second to the only team to hand Florida it's loss. Perhaps no one outside the SEC gave ole miss a chance...but I had them winning that game. I believe Texas and Oklahoma will lose...but I still think that the Big12 was/is the most dominant conference this year.

1-03-2009 @ 11:06AM

It's real easy to say Utah should play OU, USC, or Texas in the regular season, it's much harder to schedule them. Those schools don't need a tougher schedule, if they win their conference they are in the BCS games. Why would they want to play a home and home with someone like Utah? They aren't going to risk a loss in their non-conference schedule.

1-03-2009 @ 11:15AM

Martin, the "BCS" is not some guy in Auatralian outback picking names at random. It's every BCS league coach and a number of other coaches, a series of other pollsters comprising the Harris poll, and six separate computer geeks. That is an attempt to take "strength of schedule" into account. And who are the ones blocking any attempt to redesign the BCS into a playoff? That would be every BCS college president (the last vote was unanimous, by the way, against changing the BCS). At least the BCS pits #1 and #2, even if there is disagreement about who they are. Oklahoma in 2000 and Ohio State in 2002 would have been screwed out of their NCs had there been no BCS. In fact, a lot of NCs throughout the history of college football would have been different had there been a BCS then (think BYU beating 6-6 Michigan in the 1984 Holiday Bowl to win the NC). So there has been a lot of good resulting from the BCS.

| 1 | 2 | 3 | Most Recent | Next 20 Comments