Records against #1 teams

[Spence]

I agree with Billybud on this. If a mid major wants to win a national championship then they need to play a schedule worthy of a national champion. They have the opportunity to play 5 OOC games if they choose. If they schedule 5 top flight teams, no way the all fizzle.

If they feel that is unfair, then they need to form another sub-division of 1A, because they just don't have the conference strength to compete for a championship within their conference.

[ktffan]

I agree with Billybud on this. If a mid major wants to win a national championship then they need to play a schedule worthy of a national champion. They have the opportunity to play 5 OOC games if they choose. If they schedule 5 top flight teams, no way the all fizzle.

If they feel that is unfair, then they need to form another sub-division of 1A, because they just don't have the conference strength to compete for a championship within their conference.

Rare is the team that has 5 OOC games. Plus, it's not always possible to get a top flight program. I like to see them play 3, but 2 plus a bowl is enough for consideration. Anything more might be impossible for them to get.

[Spence]

With the addition of the 12th game, it should be easier to schedule teams. The NCAA should prohibit 1-AA games. A team could easily schedule 5 upper to mid level major conference teams. It really serves no purpose for a mid major to schedule mid majors from another conference.

[colorado_loves_football]

Oh bullfeathers...if you don't play and beat good teams, you shouldn't be a national champion.

Its not about criticizing BYU...its about recognizing that going 13-0 is tempered by playing teams that don't make the top 40.

& Pitt and Baylor weren't good in 1984...they didn't hit .500

The BCS has at least helped in that regard....

Pitt was ranked #3. Due to the system, you can't penalize teams because their tank it. BYU went out and got two opponents that should have been good and weren't. That deserves consideration.

Thanks Kttfan, for taking the 'high' road, in this debate.
I remember when BYU played Michigan for the national title, in the Holiday Bowl. Michigan was 6-5 that year, obviously not National Championship 'material'.
But, the simple fact is BYU was undefeated. And, nobody else was, to my knowledge. That means something. And, you all know how good Michigan is, traditionally. I doubt Michigan was a 'patsy'.
BYU didn't win that game easily. It was a knock-down, drag-out, all-or-nothing proposition for them. And yes, they knew what was at stake.
Don't 'penalize' a team for not playing in a 'major' confernece.
I think BYU justly deserved the National Championship that year.
Can't do much better than 13-0.
As far as Pitt is concerned I wasn't aware of their ranking when BYU played them, but it's eerily reminiscent of TCU's win over Oklahoma.
Suggests TCU maybe had a NC 'in hand' but let it slip away, last year.
Losing to SMU conjures up memories of their 1935 title run.

[billybud]

This is laughable...when someone says something that CLF can cling too...they are "taking the high road"...

BYU did win an NC...but most football fans agree that it was a poll travesty and that BYU's record (see KTFFAN's post) didn't support it...from Bryan Gumbel on ESPN to Barry Switzer, folks lambasted the poll...and thankfully it led to changes...

Anybody can go undefeated on a weak schedule and no national champ should go for the title against a 6-5 team..

And, had TCU gone undefeated last year, what would it have proved? Only that TCU played a weak schedule compared other teams.

In terms of strength, I would have had TCU as underdogs if playing Texas, USC, Ohio State, Virginia Tech, Penn State, FSU, Notre Dame, Auburn, LSU, WVU, and more.

[colorado_loves_football]

This is laughable...when someone says something that CLF can cling too...they are "taking the high road"...

Let people decide which position they 'favor' before passing judgment on them.

BYU did win an NC...but most football fans agree that it was a poll travesty and that BYU's record (see KTFFAN's post) didn't support it...from Bryan Gumbel on ESPN to Barry Switzer, folks lambasted the poll...and thankfully it led to changes...

FYI, 'if' BYU and Oklahoma had been paired together in a 'hypothetical' NC game, explain exactly how that would have 'fixed' anything, assuming BYU had beaten them (which they likely would have).
Oklahoma lost to Washington. Washington had claim (along with BYU) for the national title. Actually, there were 4 'recognized' national champions that year, BYU (AP, UPI), Washington, Florida, and Nebraska.
Nothing is 'resolved' by having BYU and Oklahoma 'square' off, if anything it convolutes it futher than it was, in my opinion.
If the argument is being made that somehow Michigan wasn't 'deserving' of a Holiday Bowl invitation I think you need to explain your position further. The simple fact is, in 1985, Michigan was co-champions, along with Oklahoma, after beating Nebraska in the Fiesta Bowl. So, how would you have resoved that predicament?
The bowls do a pretty good job, as far as getting the 'candidates' down to four. I did an analysis of this already. A four-team 'post-BCS' bracket would be sufficient to crown a legitimate national champion, every year.
In 1984, BYU, Nebraska, Washington, and Florida (had they been eligible) would have been sufficient. As it was, we had four teams with a 'claim' on the national championship, but only two (BYU and Washington) were 'viable'. Plus-one would have worked, but as it was, BYU was likely the better team, as evidenced by BYU's win the next year.

Anybody can go undefeated on a weak schedule and no national champ should go for the title against a 6-5 team..

Michigan wasn't playing for the national championship. They were playing 'spoiler' something they did by beating #1 Miami, FL early-on. It's not a moot point. Michigan also scheduled Washington, and lost. If anything, I think Michigan was the 'ideal' team for BYU to play, under the circumstances.

And, had TCU gone undefeated last year, what would it have proved? Only that TCU played a weak schedule compared other teams.

No, not true. TCU, in my opinion, played a very competitive schedule. You are entitled to your opinion, but it's not based on solid evidence.
5 of TCU's opponents were bowl-eligible, but only 4 were selected, one reason why there will be a New Mexico Bowl, this year. Secondly, you keep referring to how 'weak' TCU's competition was, when the evidence obviously refutes that. It's not based on one team (Oklahoma) as you claim. BYU was a good team. So was Utah. So was New Mexico. So was CSU. 6-5 isn't a bad record, so I'm almost glad you use Michigan, 1984 as a reference point. They are a 'perfect' example of a team that likely was a lot better than their overall record suggested.

In terms of strength, I would have had TCU as underdogs if playing Texas, USC, Ohio State, Virginia Tech, Penn State, FSU, Notre Dame, Auburn, LSU, WVU, and more.

Yeah, you and AP both (with the exception of Auburn). Give me a break.