|
Post by Chuck Storm on Apr 2, 2009 14:13:07 GMT -6
I should not have specifically said big markets but big conferences. Utah beat up on a pretty good Alabama team and I think they could have won the NC game. Are you high? Oklahoma would have beaten Utah by 30 points (at least). Just because Utah beat an Alabama team that played over their heads all year when it was missing the anchor of its offensive line doesn't mean they could have hung with Oklahoma, Florida or Texas.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck Storm on Apr 2, 2009 14:16:46 GMT -6
How is Utah backdooring their way into the NC game if they win all of their games in deciding fashion? All they can expect you to do is schedule the best teams you can and win them. They did that. If Weber State is the best team Utah can schedule, their AD may be more retarded than Ron Guenther. By the way, beating a 3 win Michigan team by 2 points isn't decisive (Illinois beat them by 25 in Ann Arbor, and it wasn't that close), nor is beating a mediocre Oregon State team (remember the Emerald Bowl?) by 3.
|
|
|
Post by mattahawk on Apr 2, 2009 14:27:39 GMT -6
I should not have specifically said big markets but big conferences. Utah beat up on a pretty good Alabama team and I think they could have won the NC game. Are you high? Oklahoma would have beaten Utah by 30 points (at least). Just because Utah beat an Alabama team that played over their heads all year when it was missing the anchor of its offensive line doesn't mean they could have hung with Oklahoma, Florida or Texas. 1) no, I am not. 2) Just because Utah beat an Alabama team that played over their heads all year when it was missing the anchor of its offensive line doesn't mean they could NOT have hung with Oklahoma, Florida or Texas. Fixed that for you chucky.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck Storm on Apr 2, 2009 14:27:58 GMT -6
The system is set up so BCS schools won't schedule good mid-majors in the non-conference because their is too much risk. If the BCS team loses in college football, the system can make it that a BCS team's season is basically over after a loss to a "mid-major" or smaller conference. From a fan's standpoint, would you rather see Iowa play FIU and Maine in the non-conference or someone like Colorado State, San Diego State, Georgia Tech, etc? Bullshit. The teams that really care about their national title hopes (USC, Ohio State, Texas, Florida, etc.) will play anyone as long as the gate is right. You don't see Ohio State traveling to Utah precisely because Utah doesn't have any fans and can't afford to pay them to play. There's no structural disincentive to playing. Iowa plays teams like FIU and Maine because they don't have to give up a home game. If Utah wants to come to Iowa, they can do it in a second (which is how Utah got a game at Michigan). Besides, most teams aren't in the title hunt in any given year anyway. A team like Illinois only cares about the money being offered. That is why we played in Detroit against WMU last year (well, that and the fact our AD is retarded). Playing in Detroit against WMU is no worse than playing in St. Louis against Missoura as far as "risk" goes.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck Storm on Apr 2, 2009 14:31:36 GMT -6
Are you high? Oklahoma would have beaten Utah by 30 points (at least). Just because Utah beat an Alabama team that played over their heads all year when it was missing the anchor of its offensive line doesn't mean they could have hung with Oklahoma, Florida or Texas. 1) no, I am not. 2) Just because Utah beat an Alabama team that played over their heads all year when it was missing the anchor of its offensive line doesn't mean they could NOT have hung with Oklahoma, Florida or Texas. Fixed that for you chucky. Yeah, that doesn't make any sense. Honestly, have you ever even seen a college football game before? Did you watch the national championship game? Have you seen Utah play? Either of Florida or Oklahoma would have KILLED them.
|
|
|
Post by mattahawk on Apr 2, 2009 17:35:12 GMT -6
If you honestly think that, then good for you. I would however disagree completely. I have watched many a CFB game. I have seen Utah play and they are very solid. They put up, what, 30 points on the team with a top 5 D' in the country? But yeah your probably right. They suck.
And as far as Utah not having any fans, would you like to wager now before I attempt at finding the link, that Utah had 15,000 people in LA for their bowl game? I would be willing to bet that YOU did not watch the Utah game as I did. And I can assure you there was an awful lot of red there.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck Storm on Apr 3, 2009 8:12:07 GMT -6
If you honestly think that, then good for you. I would however disagree completely. I have watched many a CFB game. I have seen Utah play and they are very solid. They put up, what, 30 points on the team with a top 5 D' in the country? But yeah your probably right. They suck. And as far as Utah not having any fans, would you like to wager now before I attempt at finding the link, that Utah had 15,000 people in LA for their bowl game? I would be willing to bet that YOU did not watch the Utah game as I did. And I can assure you there was an awful lot of red there. Here's a story about how Utah couldn't sell their allotment to the Sugar Bowl. www.fanblogs.com/alabama/007955.php Shocking, I know. And you do realize Alabama's main color is red, right (well, crimson, but only women can tell the difference)? Maybe that's what was confusing you.
|
|
|
Post by mattahawk on Apr 3, 2009 10:24:38 GMT -6
Each school was allotted 17,500 tickets. Utah sold 5,000 short as of that article which makes it 12,500 sold. Did you by chance take a second to read when that article was written? 12/15/08. A full 2 or 3 weeks before the game was even played.
I am willing to bet that they came close to OR exceeded the 15,000 tickets I said they sold. As far as the red, their is crimson red, and their is Ute' red which is as red as red can get. Hope that helps you understand it better.
|
|