Slugger21dwdAmazing? I just don't think that's the word to describe '04. They were a great team, don't get me wrong. I'll remember them as a great team with a most fortunate schedule.
Ditto, ditto, ditto. I don't have the info at this moment but I've posted it before. In 2004, Utah's opponents lost more than 60% of their games. The win/loss totals of Utah's opponents in 2004 showed their opponents lost a combined 30+ games more than they won. I'm no mathematician but that's a huge discrepancy and key to proving their schedule was weak, weak, weak. I admit, they were a very good team. But they took a mystery offense through one of the most pathetic schedules in college football. But they did blow out their opponent. Call me crazy, but I've never believed they could have competed with USC, Auburn or Oklahoma that year. They benefited from teams like BYU, Tulane, Boise, Marshall and others that tried to break into the big bowls but were shut out.
Actually, the Yewt's opponents didn't lose more than 60% of their games. The combined records of Utah's 2004 opponents was 61-76.
Compare that to the combined records of BYU's opponents in 1984 (55-80) and you'll find that the Yewt's 2004 opponents did better.
Now I'm not trying to compare these two teams but you make a mistake if you try to show how good/bad a team is based on how poor the opponents were that they beat.
If you take the best team in the history of college football and match them up with poor competition, they will go undefeated. That doesn't mean you can draw any conclusions on how good or bad they are based on the schedule they played.
I think the compelling point in this thread is that the "BSC Busters" are soon forgotten. We need a true playoff in order for any of the non-BCS teams to get the recognition they deserve.
