billybud wrote:FSU did lose some games last year...but FSU beat the best three teams in the ACC...all end ranked Top 25...TCU hasn't matched that kind of power...and really played a mediocre schedule.
TCU playing FSU's schedule every year would likely be below .500 in conference.
Last year, I'd think that VT, BC, Miami, Clemson all would have cleaned TCU's clock...Virginia beat Iowa and, when Hagan was on, was tough..
Wake and TCU would have been a good match...
I'm pretty sure I already gave reason to support the position that the ACC likely was 'superior' to the MWC, but that's not really my argument, anyway.
I was arguing TCU's claim on the BCS, and yes it does matter how a MWC team does paired against an ACC opponent, if we are to make a 'fair' decision, one way or the other.
Utah did in fact lose to UNC, in Chapel Hill, N.C. The problem is that UNC only lost to two other teams (Wisconsin 5-14, and Maryland 30-33).
In my mind, that likely means UNC was pretty tough to beat, at home. Maryland was 5-6 on the year, but that included losses to W. Virginia, Virginia Tech, Florida St, Clemson, B.C. and N.C. State, all pretty good teams. So, losing to Maryland maybe wasn't so bad, for UNC.
That being said I suppose it's maybe 'fair' to put Utah somewhere near or around where UNC and Maryland were, competitively in the ACC.
Utah beating Georgia Tech, maybe isn't the 'fairest' measure of either team, since it's possible Utah ran up the score. Either way, it would appear that Utah likely was a better team than Georgia Tech was. You can't take a win away just because you don't 'like' it.
Now, UNC did beat some other 'respectible' if not outstanding ACC teams, in Virginia, B.C. and N.C. State. All three of those teams won their bowl pairings, end of season. So, in my opinion, Utah losing to UNC in and of itself doesn't mean Utah wasn't a good team, out of conference. I think you have to weigh both games separately before drawing any conclusions, either way.
Was Utah as good as say, Virginia Tech, FSU, Clemson, or N.C. State? Probably not. That's being 'fair'.
But as far as Maryland, Miami, Virginia, and Wake Forest go, I think the evidence tilts in Utah's favor myself. That puts Utah somewhere in the 4-4 range, assuming those were the games scheduled. And that pretty much makes sense given where Utah finished overall (7-5), same record as Georgia Tech, who was 5-3 ACC.
Another interesting bit of information maybe lost in all of this is how they would have fared had they been in the Big East. UNC losing big to Louisville would suggest Utah likely wouldn't beat them. And Maryland beating UNC, but losing to W. Virginia would suggest W. Virginia likely would beat Utah, in a competitive arrangement. Georgia Tech scheduled Connecticut and won. I believe that puts Utah somewhere in the vicinity of those teams, relative to the Big East. The interesting thing about this, if applied correctly is we can ascertain generally where a team likely stands relative to each other.
I think Utah if in the Big East, near the level Connecticut, or better, but likely not nearly as good as Louisville or W. Virginia.
Similarly, put them in the ACC, they probably fall somewhere between Clemson, and Maryland, competitively.
That's my opinion, about where they fall relative to those conferneces.
