When did who you play become more important than who you beat?

When did losing to a good team become more important than beating an average one?

These are questions I find myself asking more and more these days.

Whether its discussing who should be in a bowl game, who should win the BCS national championship, who should be ranked or who should be in the NCAA tournament, the debate always comes up.

At the end of the college football season it went like this: Sure, Utah went undefeated, but the Utes didn't play anybody. So Florida won a national championship without even having to play Utah.

Right now, this is what I hear from Utah State basketball naysayers: Sure, the Aggies are 23-1, but they haven't played anybody. I guess that's why it took Utah State until just this week to crack the AP Top 25 for the first time all season.

This logic is unfathomable to me.

An undefeated football team is legit, no matter who it beat along the way. It can't control how good its opponents are. All it can do is win the games it plays. End of story.

Then, because it had to listen to analysts dog its schedule all year, it more often than not comes out motivated in a bowl game and proves everyone wrong. Think Utah over Alabama in the Sugar Bowl this year, Kansas over Virginia Tech in the Orange Bowl last year and Boise State over Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl the year before that.

All three teams ended the season with the fewest losses of anyone in the country, but most people thought SEC teams were undisputedly better. Why? Because of who they played.

A one-loss basketball team this time of the year is also superb. Even if its wins all came against Colorado School of Mines, it is doing well for itself. Yet, a nine-loss squad from the East is better respected?

It is the dumbest reasoning in all of sports.

Just look at ESPN.com this week. On its latest edition of Bubble Watch, a weekly feature that takes a look at who will make the NCAA tournament, the Worldwide Leader is treating Utah State like New Jersey Institute of Technology.

"The Aggies are well on their way to their 10th consecutive season with at least 23 victories," the article said. "But they probably will have to win the WAC tournament to feel really good about their chances of playing in the NCAAs."

Really? A 23-1 team with a perfect 11-0 record in the WAC needs to win its conference tournament to feel safe about making the Big Dance? Not in my book.

Utah State should be a lock for March Madness. Pundits will say that they aren't because 15 of the Aggies' victories have come against woeful competition, and their only quality victory was against Utah. But that's ridiculous.

Look at how Utah State won those games. It flogged Weber State, the Big Sky's best team, by 26 points, smashed Cal Poly by 40 points and is untouchable at home. The Aggies have the nation's second-longest current home winning streak.

That's part of the reason Utah State doesn't play any top-tier opponents. No one from outside the high desert wants to play in Logan, Utah.

The Aggies also beat Utah, a highly ranked team in the RPI, 66-64 and their only loss came 68-63 on a neutral court at Energy Solutions Arena to BYU.

All together, I'd say the Aggies have a pretty solid resume.

But the "who did you play?" folk have the power right now.

That's why teams like Georgetown, which is currently 13-9 and has lost six of its last seven games, are perceived as better than Utah State.

Here's what ESPN had to say about the Hoyas: "Georgetown has lost seven of its last 10 games … However, it might take a complete collapse for the Hoyas not to receive an at-large bid."

Wow, I guess playing a bunch of top 25 teams is all that matters. Even if you lose to most of them, you're respect level goes up. It worked for Idaho State. Even after winning only three nonconference games, coaches across the league said the Bengals were one of the conference's best teams because of who they played. They are now fighting for fifth place in the league standings.

For whatever reason, most people care more about who you play than who you beat.

How else can anyone explain how Georgetown, a team that has lost nine games to top 100 RPI opponents, is safely in the NCAA tournament but the Aggies aren't?

True, the Hoyas have beaten UConn and Memphis. Utah State can't say that. And I value strength of schedule when two teams have similar records. But is 13-9 really better than 23-1?

When you value losses and ignore wins, anything is possible.

Kellis Robinett's column appears on Sundays. Call him at 239-3136 or e-mail krobinett@journalnet.com with comments or story ideas.