BYU a team 'waiting to be recognized'

[Coach McGuirk]

Thanks for supporting my point.

I believe the phrase is, my point exactly.

[UtahDan]

I have a hard time believing it is as well.

Give him the benefit of the doubt for not having experienced it, but the Sugar Bowl is the most fun I have ever had as a sports fan. It is hard to described the pure joy of that. It is the kind of thing that can keep you going as a sports fan for a very long time in a way that winning a conference championship never can.

[Hot Lunch]

At least we are talking football today. August and September are a long ways away. That sucks.

[beefytee]

MNC is a generic term for a NC handed out by pollsters, regardless of the games. I chose 3 random years to see who could remember them, given that is the question at hand.

I appreciate that you acknowledge BYU's National Championships in the same regards as all the others.

[Jarid in Cedar]

I appreciate that you acknowledge BYU's National Championships in the same regards as all the others.

Why shouldn't I? Whether they were the best team or not is irrelevant to the voting. The debate for BYU in 1984 is whether they were the best team or whether they "deserved it". Similar arguments are made with Colorado in 1991 and others, but in the end, they have the trophy.

[SeattleUte]

No, really. Is this serious? This statement I quoted here, this is serious?

It's ingrained. Self-deluded self-satisfaction. Of course it's better to twice do something that will be forever be remembered than five times do something nobody cared about when it happened.

[SeattleUte]

Is someone other than SU arguing that Utah won a national title?

ELO CHESS is more credible than man-polls.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system"]Elo rating system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:ChessSet.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6f/ChessSet.jpg/250px-ChessSet.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/6/6f/ChessSet.jpg/250px-ChessSet.jpg[/ame]

[Flattop]

I thought his point was that there were enough undefeated 2nd place teams to fill pages and pages of history books. Not that they were forgettable.

I thought he was being sarcastic.

[Flattop]

Perhaps I should have worded it this way: "I don't agree with your assessment. It seems to me that you are taking into account only a couple of seasons from the past decade. Utah' s record looks amazing if you only look at the 2004 and 2008 seasons." There are a lot of 4 and 5 loss seasons and a couple of "weenie bowls" you might want to account for.

BYU:

2000 6-6, 4-3 3rd
2001 12-2, 7-0 1st
2002 5-7, 2-5 7th
2003 4-8, 3-4, 6th
2004 5-6, 4-3, 3rd
2005 6-6, 5-3, 2nd
2006 11-2, 8-0 1st
2007 11-2, 8-0 1st
2008 10-3, 6-2 3rd
2009 11-2, 7-1 2nd


Utah

2000 4-7, 3-4 6th
2001 8-4, 4-3 3rd
2002 5-6, 3-4 5th
2003 10-2, 6-1 1st
2004 12-0, 7-0 1st, Fiesta Bowl
2005 7-5, 4-4 4th
2006 8-5, 5-3 3rd
2007 9-4, 5-3 4th
2008 13-0, 8-0, 1st Sugar Bowl
2009 10-3, 6-2 3rd

[Flattop]

Utah has finished 3rd or worse in the MWC four of the last five seasons. Even during the 2002 to 2005 down years, BYU never did that poorly.

http://cougarstats.com/fbseasons.html

TCU not joining the conference until 2005 might have had something to do with that.

[Flattop]

I don't think that is a fair assessment. I can see how one could come to the conclusion of picking either scenario. However, if you were to ask the players, I wonder which they would choose.

5 Vegas Bowl appearances vs 1 Sugar Bowl appearence.

3 bowl wins vs 5

2 MWC titles vs 1.

Yep, it's a tough call.

[old_gregg]

TCU not joining the conference until 2005 might have had something to do with that.

so... in a comparison between byu and utah, a team they both have to play's presence changes the fact that byu has consistently finished above the u in conference standings? i'm not sure i see why tcu would have anything to do with that in a world where both teams play them every season.

[SeattleUte]

BYU:

2000 6-6, 4-3 3rd
2001 12-2, 7-0 1st
2002 5-7, 2-5 7th
2003 4-8, 3-4, 6th
2004 5-6, 4-3, 3rd
2005 6-6, 5-3, 2nd
2006 11-2, 8-0 1st
2007 11-2, 8-0 1st
2008 10-3, 6-2 3rd
2009 11-2, 7-1 2nd


Utah

2000 4-7, 3-4 6th
2001 8-4, 4-3 3rd
2002 5-6, 3-4 5th
2003 10-2, 6-1 1st
2004 12-0, 7-0 1st, Fiesta Bowl
2005 7-5, 4-4 4th
2006 8-5, 5-3 3rd
2007 9-4, 5-3 4th
2008 13-0, 8-0, 1st Sugar Bowl
2009 10-3, 6-2 3rd

You always lead with your chin, go for the capillary. Please don't engage them on their terms. Seriously, 2004 and 2008 are all that matter.

[Flattop]

so... in a comparison between byu and utah, a team they both have to play's presence changes the fact that byu has consistently finished above the u in conference standings? i'm not sure i see why tcu would have anything to do with that in a world where both teams play them every season.

This is the comment I was responding to:

Utah has finished 3rd or worse in the MWC four of the last five seasons. Even during the 2002 to 2005 down years, BYU never did that poorly.

In a comparison of the Utah 2005-2009 and BYU 2002-2005, TCU being in the conference during every year of one period but not every year in the other could be seen to be relevant. BYU of 2002-2005 only had to play TCU once. Utah 2005-2009 played TCU five times.

[Flattop]

You always lead with your chin, go for the capillary. Please don't engage them on their terms. Seriously, 2004 and 2008 are all that matter.

Picking and choosing among facts is what zoobs do.