but it's the entire schedule that counts, not just the top half. any team in the country can potentially lose to the 4-5 toughest teams on their conference schedule. it's the bottom half that makes the difference. teams that finished in the bottom half of the SEC (losing record in conference): Auburn Arkansas South Carolina Mississippi St. elite teams? no, around average, maybe slightly above. teams capable of beating teams in top half of conference? happened 3 times in '09 plus 5 games where they came within 7 of beating a team finishing in top half. teams that finished in the bottom half of the MWC (losing record in conference): UNLV San Diego St New Mexico Colorado St. below average in my opinion. not a single one of these teams beat a team finishing in top half of conference in '09. and only twice did they come within 7 pts of a team with a conference record above .500 that's the difference between the conferences. the "should wins" are not as easy in the power conferences as they are in the MWC and WAC. Your elite teams still win these games more often than not, but it's not always a walk in the park to do it. edit to add: 2009 average score of Alabama's conference games = 22-10 2009 average score of TCU's conference games = 54-11
Good post (as usual!!).... again I'm not arguing that the sos of the MWC is as deep as BCS conferences. My point was to suggest Utah plays enough good teams in and out of conference (and wins most all of them) to lead me to believe they could compete in any conference and even win league titles now and again. In the world of things are never as bad as they seem... or as good... I don't believe any of the BCS conferences are as tough top to bottom as the fans tend to make them out to be, nor are some of the lesser conferences as bad as we want to believe they are. .... makes me wonder how many times Western Michigan has to beat Iowa for us to figure out many, many teams can play the game.... or UL Monroe over Bama, or Wyoming beating Tennessee.... the list is endless.....
but the depth of your conference tests the depth of your roster. if your conference doesn't offer you a complete patsy once in a while, your 1s and 2s end up with a lot more mileage on them by seasons end. Nicks and bruises don't heal and guys run out of gas. I don't know if Utah has the roster depth to go through a season like that. we know their 1s can compete. question is: can their 2s and 3s compete. because as we all have seen, there will come a point where those guys will be on the field in a game that hasn't been decided yet.
There is an under-riding assumption here that Utah has less nicks and bruises and doesn't have to go into their two-deeps as often... or if a player is nicked up, he can sit out against one of the lesser foes and be healthy for the big games. It also assumes there is a big drop off in the two-deeps. This I simply do not know to be true or not.
i'm not assuming anything. they probably have just as many nicks and bruises as anyone else. but when your average margin of victory in-conference is up around 30pts, you have more opportunities to give guys a breather than if your average margin of victory was 10-12pts. I'm not suggesting they can sit these guys out the entire game and still win. But once the game is "in the bag", hell yeah you rest your guys and get the reserves some experience. And that rest while not a cure all, can be beneficial. is there a big drop off in their two-deeps? i have no clue.
I would say that is the main point being made by those who don't think they deserve to play in the BCS Championship Game. I know that's how I feel. We'll see what happens when they join the Pac-10. We will see what Boise St. is made of when they play VT. If Boise goes undefeated, I think they might actually make it to the BCS Championship Game (unless an SEC and Big 10 team go undefeated).
