I wrote the following article as a reply to this article: Utah's Hollow Argument to Be Ranked AP No 1, but I feel it can be applied to most any Alabama apologist and Utah dismisser.
I'll give you the benefit of a doubt and assume your argument is being made out of ignorance. Almost everything you said couldn't be more wrong. First, let us look at the game.
If Utah's jerseys said (insert storied BCS program's name) instead of Utah, you wouldn't be making these laughable excuses for Alabama.
Utah didn't play the "real Alabama"? Who did they play then? A different team that stole their equipment and snuck into the game? Alabama suited up all but one player—ONE. An offensive lineman at that.
Alabama had everyone else playing, you just might not have noticed because Utah made them look so bad. Try this on for size—instead of Utah winning because Alabama played so badly, maybe Alabama looked so bad because they were so outclassed and outplayed, which is exactly what everyone would be saying if Utah's jerseys said Florida on them.
Utah DOMINATED Alabama. There was no trick plays, no lucky breaks, no Alabama playing with their second string (except where injured by the hard hitting Utes), no nothing. Utah DOMINATED an Alabama team that was less than a quarter of football away from playing in Miami for the title.
Utah dominated them in a way Florida can only wish was them doing the beat down. Alabama would win in a neutral field rematch? Are you serious? Utah not only can beat Alabama on a neutral field, but they just did it in a surrogate home game for Alabama, where almost 90 percent of the fans in attendance were Alabama fans.
Alabama would beat Utah two out of three times? What teams play each other three times a year? That's right—none, because that's not how football works.
You get one shot in football to prove you're the better team, and Utah did so without the slightest sliver of a question. Unless, of course, you ask people like you who know nothing about Utah, nothing about the Mountain West Conference, and are using the past to try to explain away present reality.
The reality is Utah went undefeated when no other team, regardless of their level of talent, stepped up to match their feat. The reality is this year, the only year that's relevant to the 2009 title claim, Utah played a schedule as tough as almost anyone and didn't lose a single game. Utah was not a lowly David to Alabama's big, bad Goliath.
Florida's schedule sure looked tough when the year started, but look how it turned out now that we know which teams are for real and which weren't. Florida's toughest opponent? Alabama, and Florida had to come from behind to win in the 4th quarter.
Their second toughest? Ole Miss, and FLORIDA LOST THAT GAME AT HOME, in case you forgot.
Utah's toughest? Alabama, and they took them behind the shed and gave them the beating of their life. The score makes the game look way closer than it really was.
Utah's second toughest opponent? TCU, a team that will finish the season in the top 10, that is WAY better than Ole Miss, and oh yeah—Utah won; again, something Florida can only wish they did with Ole Miss.
A champion is not the team with the most talent. If that was the case, then the 2008 NFL champs would be the Patriots instead of the clearly less-talented Giants. The Patriots only lost one game all season, after all. Fortunately, that's not how things work in the NFL.
In the NFL, the champion is the team that earns it. Unfortunately, in college football it's the team with the right name/logo on their jersey. Does Utah have as much talent as Florida or Oklahoma? That depends on if you're talking about the talent to play the game of football or the talent to win actual football games.
Last time I checked, WINNING is what makes a team deserve to be champions; not raw talent. By that measure, the University of Utah is the 2009 college football national champions, with a resume of teams they beat to back up their title as strong as any other team in the country can claim.
Oh yeah, and not a single loss. The only team of all 119 to accomplish that feat. You are wrong. Your article is wrong. You should be congratulating the Utes on their historic run, but instead you are trying to tear them down.
When the BCS is dead and gone, people will look to this Utah team, this national championship deserving Utah team, as the final nail in the coffin. It lends a whole new meaning to the term BCS buster, doesn't it?