And the BCS standings will more than likely work out in their favor as well.
Now, the conundrum I'm posting about is something I've yet to decide about my own opinion on.
A team like Utah has consecutive seasons undeated, but the disadvantage of playing in a less-competitive conference than other contenders.
Do they not deserve some shot at a Bowl Championship?
I've always been a fan of strength of schedule, its importance, and its contribution to the BCS rankings.
But Florida didn't lose one game to say, a #3 or a #5. They lost to a team that, at the time, was completley unranked.
Strength of schedule should be taken into account when you have to beat better teams to get your record than another school does.
But when you lose to a team you 'should' beat and still end up ranking #1 because of weights and values going your way?
I'm finding myself seeing both sides of this situation. I'm not so blinded by SEC loyalty that I can't see Utah's point. They can't prove their worth a shot until they're given one.
What say you?
Original Post