Team Speed Kills: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
Around SBN: The USA TODAY/Bloody Elbow Top 50 MMA Fights Ever, I


spread the word

Changing the World, If Only for a Night: Utah Defeats Alabama

At some point Friday night, everyone watching the Sugar Bowl came to the same conclusion: This is not a fluke. The better team is winning this game.

You can talk about the absence of Andre Smith all you want -- and anyone who doesn't think line play is important needs to only watch a recording of this game. You can ponder whether Alabama was "ready" for the game or not, whether they "bought into the hype" or not. You can talk about missed kicks and Julio Jones' dropped passes and the like all you want. But the better team won.

If you were to break this game down by quarters, Alabama really only "won" one of them: the 2nd. Utah steamrolled them in the first, building up a 21-point lead that would have been enough to win the game. The Tide's offense was held to 208 yards -- 31 of them rushing -- a single TD and 15 first downs. Utah contained Julio Jones (7 receptions, 77 yards), though Jones helped some by dropping some passes he would normally grab. CB Robert Johnson had two interceptions, while his teammates on the front seven often had Alabama QB John Parker Wilson scrambling for his life. Stevenson Sylvester had three sacks in the game.

Utah QB Brian Johnson, meanwhile, played beautifully, completing 27 of 41 passes for 336 yards and 3 TDs, often hitting receivers in stride on short- and medium-range passes that Alabama was unable to stop. The first quarter, he guided the offense to two scores in their first 10 plays. And he got plenty of time to throw; I count two sacks in the play-by-play. For the most part, the Utah offense avoided the fatal turnovers that capsize so many upset bids. They converted six of 14 third downs, often in crucial situations.

Brianjohnson_medium
Really, would you rather have him or John Parker Wilson?

It would be easy to oversell this win, either in terms of its impact on the national picture or its effect on Alabama. After all, let's remember that Oklahoma has won two consecutive Big XII Championships after its loss to Boise State and will play for the national title next Thursday.

But the Mountain West has raised a very tricky question for the BCS: Why not us? At this point in the bowl season, the MWC might have the best two wins in the country: TCU's dominant (if only one-point) defeat of Boise State and Utah's victory Friday. Are the ACC and the Big East really more deserving of an automatic bid than the Mountain West?

As for the question of whether Utah should be voted No. 1 -- let's slow down a minute. I'm certainly not ruling out putting them in first place on my BlogPoll ballot, but there are other games to be played, not least of which is Thursday's showdown in Miami.

Meanwhile, the SEC had a good day aside from the Alabama loss, moving to 5-2 with Ole Miss' waxing of Texas Tech and Kentucky's bizarre comback against East Carolina. Those games, particularly the Ole Miss win, should not be dismissed in considering how the SEC has done this postseason.

Utah's victory, though, will be remembered far longer. As well it should. It's naive to think that the college football world will be reordered after Friday's game. But, for a short while, the Utes were on top of that world.

Where they belonged.

0 recs | Comment 24 comments | Share on Facebook Digg!

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

For an automatic bid

the Mountain West might have to join powers with the WAC and create a football-only conference. If you have a conference anchored by Utah, BYU, TCU, Boise, Hawaii, and Fresno and throw in Air Force, Nevada and Colorado State, that should merit an at-large bid. I’d rather have them conference get an autobid over the Big East.

mlmintampa
UF C/O 06

by mlmintampa on Jan 3, 2009 3:43 AM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I still think Utah would have had a good shot at winning....

but, Andre Smith’s absence was definitely felt quite a bit in the game. I can’t even count how many times defenders came up from behind to tackle him. That only happened once all season when Smith was playing. And after Mike Johnson got hurt, that weakened the right side of the line because we moved our right tackle to the left side. After that, they were coming at Wilson from both sides. No quarterback would have been able to play well with that kind of pressure. That game was the one everyone was waiting for all year. Bama to get injuries and then the lack of depth to rear it’s ugly head.

But again, Utah played great. All the problems on offense had nothing to do with how poorly the defense played. I’m not sure what their deal was, but they couldn’t tackle to save their life last night.

by jsholt969 on Jan 3, 2009 7:43 AM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Andre Smith doesn't play defense ...

Which was an issue, as you point out.

But, yes, Smith not being there was a huge problem for Alabama. The Tide needs more depth, which Saban will take care of in future recruiting classes.

Team Speed Kills. All SEC, all the time.

by cocknfire on Jan 3, 2009 5:01 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

it just wasn't about Smith

Mike Johnson going down on the 2nd drive was HUGE!!! Thats enough for any team to struggle..

When you are an Alabama fan you are expected to hate Auburn, I hate Tennessee because I want to.

by bammer on Jan 3, 2009 7:40 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Are the ACC and the Big East really more deserving of an automatic bid than the Mountain West?

No.

Does anything in this screwed up system have to do with desert? ACC and BE markets have more TV viewers than the Mountain Time Zone; that’s about all that matters.

by PhilipVU94 on Jan 3, 2009 5:30 PM EST reply reply actions actions   0 recs

And that's a key point

If you think the MWC is better than the Big East (which is pretty clear to me) and that there would have been little fanfare about where say West Virginia would be ranked had they gone 13-0 (#1, I’m sure), don’t you have to vote Utah #1 (a team that played in a better conference and went 13-0).

As an aside, for all the Pac-10 talk this past week, the MWC went 6-1 against them this year. They had more victories (and a better win percentage) than the SEC, Big XII, and Big Ten over BCS conference teams. This is one of the top 5 conferences in the country. A 13-0 team from a top 5 conference should be #1.

by DoubleB on Jan 3, 2009 7:46 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

The only catch in your example....

If West Virginia finished this particular regular season 12-0, they’d probably be #1 or #2 in the BCS standings and be playing Oklahoma in Miami Gardens. If they won that game, then the, “No way they’re as good as Oklahoma or Florida,” argument would fall apart.

Don’t misunderstand — Utah has my vote for #1. It’s ridiculous to blame them for a system that locked them out of the BCS championship game from the outset.

In the future, maybe the MWC or other conferences’ teams can get their due so that the Oklahoma-Utah matchup won’t be imaginary.

by PhilipVU94 on Jan 3, 2009 8:19 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Understand your point

But is Bama that much worse than those teams? They all went 12-1 with relatively similar schedules.

I felt there were 7 teams with 1 loss who had a claim to be in that game: Bama, Florida, Texas, TTech, Oklahoma, USC, and Penn State. Utah obviously had a claim as well. Beating Bama, in my opinion, has the same effect as them beating any of them. Maybe you disagree.

by DoubleB on Jan 3, 2009 10:04 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Not really

Alabama was already considered by most to be toward the bottom of that one-loss cohort by virtue of the recent loss to Florida but you make good points.

I’m on your side. I’m just anticipating the sorts of arguments people make as to why it’s ridiculous to vote Utah #1. I don’t think they’re right. I think it’s ridiculous to talk about a national championship as though it pertains to all of I-A when teams like Utah aren’t de facto eligible in the first place.

by PhilipVU94 on Jan 3, 2009 10:50 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

The problem I have with that ...

In my heart, I agree with what you’re saying. But, the fact of the matter is, if you’re a resume voter (like I am), you don’t vote based on whether someone’s undefeated. I took a lot of heat from Alabama fans for not voting Alabama No. 1 on some of the weeks when they were undefeated because I though Florida had wins that were so much better than Alabama’s that it was enough to overcome the loss to what turned out to be the third-best team in the SEC.

If Florida, with its current record, had gone 13-1 and defeated Oklahoma in the national title game, I would be just as likely (if not more so) to place them at No. 1 instead of an undefeated West Virginia team as I am to place the Gators at the top instead of an undefeated Utah team. It will come down to assessing how much “better” the wins of Florida (or Oklahoma, or anyone else for that matter) are stacked up against the wins of Utah and whether the Ole Miss loss is enough to move Florida to No. 2. I’m voting based on the whole season, including the bowls — not just the bowls. (Otherwise, we might as well have a playoff, because we’re then allowing the same problem I have with playoffs to come into the bowl system — i.e., the regular season is immaterial, it’s only the games at the end of the year that count.)

A 13-0 team from a top 5 conference should be #1.

Not necessarily. Again, being undefeated counts for something, but it doesn’t count for everything. There can be a 13-1 team from one of the top 2 conferences, for example, that’s better than a 13-0 team from the fourth or fifth best conference. Going undefeated counts for something. It doesn’t — and shouldn’t — count for everything.

Team Speed Kills. All SEC, all the time.

by cocknfire on Jan 4, 2009 5:38 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Really who are you (who are you) to put a ranking on any conference!

Are you god, I think not!
Are you employed to do as such, I don’t care!
Are you smarter than the rest of us, maybe maybe not!
Are you a long time coach or player! would it matter!

Who are you, are you the Who or are you Nestors cousin?

Paul D. Kelley

by so.cal.native1952 on Jan 5, 2009 4:13 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Um, it's a blog

It is an outlet for my opinion, and you’re welcome to express yours. Any ranking I put on any conference is my opinion of the various conferences.

Team Speed Kills. All SEC, all the time.

by cocknfire on Jan 6, 2009 11:08 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Reall

y who are you (who are you) to put a ranking on any conference!

Whats funny about that so.cal is that you’re being extremely hypocritical. EVERYONE and yes that includes you keeps a mental note on which conference is the best or worst. You might not always voice that opinion but if you would be honest with yourself, you’d admit that you also rank the conferences. Why? Cause everybody is doing it!

When you are an Alabama fan you are expected to hate Auburn, I hate Tennessee because I want to.

by bammer on Jan 6, 2009 11:46 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

also d-bag

This is cocknfire’s blog…scroll on down to the bottom of the page and tell me what you see….His name with MANAGER right beside it. Since it’s pretty much his blog (i don’t see anyone else posting on the front page) he is free to express whatever he wants. Just like Conquest Chronicles can see fit to ban someone for politely voicing his opinion….good ole cock n fire can say whatever he damn well feels like.

Confused?

When you are an Alabama fan you are expected to hate Auburn, I hate Tennessee because I want to.

by bammer on Jan 6, 2009 11:50 AM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Listen dude I really can't say which conference is the top one they all got great teams.

I can see why Paragon dump you is because you throw out comments and slurs and hide behind a blog. Do me a favor and Email me at pkcourt@gmail.com and we can discuss a place and time to debate.

Your friend d-bag

Paul D. Kelley

by so.cal.native1952 on Jan 6, 2009 6:23 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

i think

you were the one who came here and started flamming. I just called you out on it.

What the hell is the point in “debating” when you live in Cali and i live in Georgia? We can “debate” here if you’d like.

When you are an Alabama fan you are expected to hate Auburn, I hate Tennessee because I want to.

by bammer on Jan 6, 2009 7:48 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Going undefeated
Going undefeated counts for something. It doesn’t — and shouldn’t — count for everything.

In one theoretical sense I agree. If we’re just debating whose resume is best, which could be one way of approaching the MNC debate, then certainly Florida or Oklahoma 2008 stand to turn out way ahead of Tulane 1998 or BYU 1984.

But I’m arguing that conferring a “national championship” is not the same thing as judging resumes. How you confer the national championship legitimizes or delegitimizes the whole system. If Utah can be eliminated from contention without losing a game, then IMO that makes the whole enterprise pretty farcical.

(How far am I willing to stretch my logic? Would I give Tulane the 1998 MNC? That’s a tough one to justify, but even in the present BCS clusterfuck Tulane ‘98 ’http://www.infoplease.com/spot/cfbr12-7.html’>would have gotten to play in a BCS bowl. In any case, the AP voters gave BYU the ‘84 MNC so I guess there’s some precedent of sorts for the teams with really horrid schedules.)

by PhilipVU94 on Jan 5, 2009 6:32 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

But it all really doesn't matter

Why because it’s not a played out result but opinion of vote and does everyone in US get to vote no only a certain few. Really what do you get out of your team that you follow winning a national championship nothing, oh you can brag, but did you actually perform the feat. Unless you’re on the team or a coach it all doesn’t matter, its just BS.

Paul D. Kelley

by so.cal.native1952 on Jan 5, 2009 8:35 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

It doesn't matter...

Which is why Southern Cal claims the 2003 championship every chance they get even though they only won it in an AP vote, right?

Team Speed Kills. All SEC, all the time.

by cocknfire on Jan 6, 2009 8:06 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

This is where you get into the argument about the playoffs

And where you come down on it. Should a championship simply be doing what’s required, or should it somehow be “earned”? It’s a legitimate debate.

Team Speed Kills. All SEC, all the time.

by cocknfire on Jan 6, 2009 8:09 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Yah I agree except for losing bowls I guess a playoff would solve this mess!

I mean really was that the real Alabama team out there, I mean what’s the point in winning a game that really means nothing. Back before the BCS Bowls were traditional and meant something to the team and alumni and fans.

Paul D. Kelley

by so.cal.native1952 on Jan 7, 2009 12:35 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

The teams should agree to play a non-NCAA-sanctioned playoff.

But with immediate ejections for any horse-collars, spearing, picking on injuries, etc.

I can hear the clock ticking and my heart beating. I can see individual pixels of the TV picture. I can hear the caution in the opponent's voice. I can smell the fear in the sweat of the opponent's fans. I can taste... THE CHAMPIONSHIP. I AM IN CHAMPIONSHIP MODE.

by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Jan 9, 2009 7:02 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

well that's the question isn't it

Two reasonable people can look at the same data and conclude two different things. I value the loss more highly than you but that doesn’t make me right.

I will say this though. I think assessing the resume can get far too technical. By that, I think we attempt to place an ordinal number on something that really doesn’t work that way. The rankings are much more bell curve in nature. The difference between the top team and the 20th ranked team is much, much greater than the difference between team 20 and team 40. And that difference is much greater than team 40 and team 60.

I argued above that I think Utah’s top 4 wins would be comparable to UF’s and OU’s. I think Utah’s schedule resume gets progressively weaker after that, but how much weaker. Are Miami and FSU that much better than Air Force? Is Kansas or Missouri? I think they’re better but I also think they are in a range that doesn’t offset the loss.

In 2006 Boise State just didn’t have the resume. They blew out Oregon State and beat Oklahoma and . . well that’s about it. I think Utah’s resume stacks up a lot, lot better.

Here’s a what if scenario. What if Michigan had gone 9-3 or 10-2 this year? Would that be enough to have put them over the top for you?

by DoubleB on Jan 5, 2009 8:30 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

That's an interesting question

I have to be honest and say I don’t know. But I think it would have made a significant difference, given that winning 10 games against Michigan’s schedule would have required having a pretty good team.

As it is, we have a good deal of evidence that Michigan wasn’t very good this year. Sure, Utah defeated the Wolverines in the Big House — but so did Toledo.

Team Speed Kills. All SEC, all the time.

by cocknfire on Jan 6, 2009 8:08 PM EST to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about the SEC
Start posting on Team Speed Kills »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Chowder2_small
Pac-10 - SEC Bowl
Gse_multipart30441_small
Back to Back, and Then Back to Back Again
Gator-f__custom__small
Vote Mingo
Theirvote_small
Nick Adenhart, R.I.P.
Theirvote_small
cocknfire OT: Major League Baseball Predictions

Post_icon New FanPost All FanPosts Carrot-mini


Managers

Theirvote_small cocknfire

Gator-f__custom__small Year2

Editors

14563741_small JCCW Jerry

Official Partner of CBS Sports