A Little Perspective, Please?

Agree

I know the politically correct thing is to talk about how great Utah is, and they are a very good football team (end of qualifier). I think you may be jumping a bit early to conclusions. Miami and Florida State put together consistently great seasons before they were put in that upper echelon of programs.

They also had one huge built in advantage, their location. The location of both schools, and their phenomenal recruiting base enabled both programs to become great programs. No offense to Utah, which I know all to well produces quality players, it is not Florida.

Another advantage that both programs had was either their ability to keep great coaches, or in Miami’s case to consistently get great coaches. Florida State was extremely fortunate that Bobby Bowden stayed where he was for so long. Utah on the other hand lost their best coach, and possibly the best coach in the nation, Meyer to Florida after only two years. Admittedly, they seemed to have found another really good coach in Kyle Whittingham. The interesting thing will be is this year going to be his peak and a blip on the radar, or is this going to be the start of something great.

There have been a lot of schools that thought they were ready to make that next step, but most have never been able to do so. It will be extremely difficult for any program as the arm’s race in college football continues. It costs more and more money to keep coaches and it costs more money to keep building the facilites that you need. Ask Louisville and West Virginia, as recent examples of programs that thought they were ready for the big time.

by Kenny483 on Jan 7, 2009 1:45 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

i agree.

I am kind of tired of hearing about this myself. There is no way this team could beat Florida. That was by far the best team I have seen in person this year.

When are we going to start talking about recruiting on here? Heading to Iraq in 3 weeks and would like to get a good update/projection before I head over there.

by bamamilitary on Jan 7, 2009 1:54 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Over the next few weeks....

…NSD is Feb 4th, so the week leading up to that will be pretty much nothing but recruiting.

Roll Bama Roll

by Todd on Jan 7, 2009 2:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I posted this in another thread and i think i make a good point

This was in response to the question about Auburn being shafted in 2004…

Auburn got shafted

Becuase the #1 and #2 preseason teams also went undefeated….

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/rankingsindex?seasonYear=2004&weekNumber=1&seasonType=2

Auburn can bitch all they want but they started out at #18…

If we look at it, Utah wasn’t even ranked at the end of LAST season. They went 9-4 in the MWC. How is that good enough to be ranked anywhere on anyones preseason anything?

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/rankingsindex?seasonYear=2007&weekNumber=1&seasonType=3

Preseason rankings is everything unless you win big and win early….like Bama

Lets take Bama for example from this year. We started out at #24…beat a top 10 team to start the season. Jumped up in the low teens, then beat the #3 team in the country on the road in VERY impressive style, then road other teams loses to #1.

Utah on the other didn’t have a break through performance till week 7 when they beat OSU AT HOME….BY 3!!! By the time they got to the meat of their schedule the top 5 were already set.

It all goes back to consistency. If Utah wanted to be considered legitimate contenders this year for the NCG, they should have done better last year. Complain all you want but that is how CFB is set up right now. Utah going 9-4 last year in the MWC just wasn’t going to give them the push to be preseason anything.

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

by bammer on Jan 7, 2009 1:55 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Fair enough.

We Ute fans are all pretty darn thrilled to have newspaper columnists across the country declaring us #1, and it’s gone to our heads a bit. This is partly because it’s a pretty new thing for us, and also because we’re angry about our position as permanent outsiders. If we had gone undefeated in the Big East, with victories at Michigan, over Oregon State, and two in-state palookas (sorry Utah State and Weber State, but it’s the truth), we would have been in the national title game. This is not because the Big East is better than the Mountain West Conference; it’s because people assume that there is a significant quality gap between “BCS conferences” and “non-BCS conferences”, regardless of which two conferences are actually being discussed. So when the national media suddenly starts agreeing with what we’ve been saying all along, we want to make sure everyone hears about it. And everyone else (probably especially Bama fans) are, obviously, not as eager to hear about it as we are to talk about it! So, apologies for our enthusiasm; it will die down in a bit.

JazzyUte does go on in the comments to clarify that his position is that the Utes may be emerging as a football power in the way Miami and FSU did in the late 70s and early 80s. Two undefeated seasons in five years does not a tradition of greatness make, but it’s not exactly something to sneeze at either. In another five years it will be a lot more apparent whether we can sustain it year in and year out.

Consistency is achieve, of course. For just one example, see Bama’s records since 2002: 10-3, 4-9, 6-6, 10-2, 6-7, 7-6, 12-2.

by Neuromancer on Jan 7, 2009 2:09 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

you are right about our lack of consistency...

But i explained how and why we jumped up in the polls so quickly and Utah lagged behind.

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

by bammer on Jan 7, 2009 2:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Sure.

And it makes perfect sense. The thing that bugs me is that Alabama’s rapid advance was as much or more about reputation, not performance. [common wisdom]Last year Bama was 7-6, Utah was 9-4, but hey! This is Nick Saban’s second year in town, and we’ve all heard of him! Plus, everybody knows Alabama is a good football school! Plus, the SEC! Everybody’s good in the SEC (except Vanderbilt!) The MWC—uh who?[/common wisdom]

Then Bama beats Clemson and Georgia teams that both got their rankings based on reputation, not performance, and since everybody already believes Alabama is a good football school, Bama goes right to the head of the class.

I don’t mean to say that Alabama didn’t deserve its ranking; the Tide were obviously one of the best 10 or so teams in the country over the course of the season (along with Florida, Oklahoma, Texas, USC, Utah, Penn State, Texas Tech…you know the drill). But y’all get a boost from reputation which we don’t get, regardless of how the two teams perform on the field.

We aim to change that, of course, but winning respect can be a rather tiresome process for all concerned. Especially in the phase where the respect-winners are bragging up their accomplishments. ;)

by Neuromancer on Jan 7, 2009 2:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

hmmm yeah you are right

I was just thinking about how it seems that everytime Bama has a great game early on in the season, we get a huge push in the polls. Its as if people WANT us to be good. Beating clemson to start the season was just another example. The thing is beating them so bad…looked like one hell of a win. It wasn’t till later on that that win lost its luster. By then we have beaten UGA and were currently undefeated and on our way to #1.

Utah would have gotten a pretty big push early also if you guys had whopped Michigan. Instead it was a close win and everyone knew UM would struggle. How much no one knew. Having your big games where you could prove all the naysayers wrong didn’t come till it was too late.

But Clemson, UGA and all the other teams were ranked so high due to what they had done the year before..Bama had that #1 recruiting class and some hype..Im sorry but going 9-4 in the MWC is not going to be good enough to get a high enough preseason ranking to make that push late in the season. Lets think about next year for Utah..

You lose a lot correct? And most likely Utah will possibly go 9-4 again or worse. If it takes 2-3 seasons to rebuild, what will people think when you guys do have a good team built up? I can guarantee you won’t be in the preseason top 25.

Just think though dude. Did you think 5 years ago that Utah would one day be thought of as a NC?

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

by bammer on Jan 7, 2009 2:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Well . . .

That and you guys are Alabama.

Inconsistency (real or perceived) is a fatal flaw if you are a Utah, a mere down game quickly whisked away by new commentary on ESPN if you are an Alabama.

The vote is not about perception, it is about best team on the field. In that regard, we were clearly one of the best teams, but short of a playoff there is no National Champ outside arguments and BCS feudal lordships.

I also agree entirely that Utah is not a football power, in fact, part of the joy of this season is that they are not the rehashing of the glory years by the Ghost of College Football Past which pervades, inanely, every sportswriter’s ruminations, creating a system of haves and have nots simply through mere poundage of sputum expiated onto the screen.

Heck, the joy of ’Bama football was their climbing back from the brink of obscurity.

by MeanBobMean on Jan 15, 2009 2:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You're right but for the wrong reasons.

If we had gone undefeated in the Big East, with victories at Michigan, over Oregon State, and two in-state palookas (sorry Utah State and Weber State, but it’s the truth), we would have been in the national title game.

This is true, but not because of the name, because of the schedule. Compare Rutgers and Utah, whose SoS are very similar (#67 vs. #70, respectively). Rutgers’ non-conference opponents averaged #96 (five of them) while Utah’s averaged #74 (four of them). That means that Rutgers’ non-conference schedule was 25% worse than Utah’s while their total SoS were the same. If Utah had played in the Big East they would have had better conference competition, thus giving them the SoS necessary to get a boost in both the computers and the human polls.

by rugman11 on Jan 7, 2009 3:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

How about we look at the teams in the Big East?

Your ranking is a little skewed because Rutgers is the #3 team in the conference, so they played several teams ranked above them in conference. Utah wouldn’t have had to do that, because they’re the top-ranked team (in our example). So now you have the teams with the following Sagarin ratings:

TCU (#9) v. Pitt (#26)
BYU (#23) v. WVU (#34)
AF (#48) v. Rutgers (#38)
CSU (#84) v. UCONN (#42)
UNLV (#96) v. USF (#49)
UNM (#92) v. Louisville (#98)
Wyoming (#125) v. Syracuse (#104).

That’s an average for the Big East of 55. The #2-#7 in the MWC have a rating of 68. Not much of a difference.

Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.

by displacedute on Jan 7, 2009 4:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

So you're saying

is that if you throw out the second-best Big East team and the two worst MWC teams, then the Big East is still 24% better (ranking wise) than the MWC? How does that make your case? I was simply arguing that, had Utah played in the Big East, they would have been ranked higher not because it was the Big East, but because they would have played better competition, which those numbers clearly show.

You forgot Cincinnati (#28), meaning that only two teams in the MWC are better than their Big East counterpart (that excludes SD State as well).

by rugman11 on Jan 7, 2009 4:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I explained the Cincinnati issue.

Cincinnati wouldn’t have been ranked #28 because Utah would have beaten them. Same with West Virginia and any other team Rutgers lost to (none in conference). So to compensate I took out Cincinnati because Utah would have taken their place, in our example. Rutgers SOS goes down when they win games, and part (not all) of the reason Alabama and Utah have such low SOS is because they beat every team on the schedule.

We could deduct 15 points for the presumed additional loss and then include all the teams. That would put Cincinnati at #43 and West Virginia at #47.

Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.

by displacedute on Jan 7, 2009 4:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

But,

then you would have to remove a loss from all of the MWC teams, since they wouldn’t have had to play Utah. So it’s a wash.

by rugman11 on Jan 7, 2009 4:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Not a wash, and here's why.

We’re not worried about the hypothetical MWC schedule. We’re worried about Utah’s actual MWC schedule vs. Utah’s hypothetical Big East schedule. The hypothetical MWC schedule and the actual Big East schedule are largely irrelevant. We’re comparing what really happened to Utah in the MWC to what would have happened if Utah had done the same thing in the Big East.

And we know the Big East champion would be in the title game, look at USF last year. They made it to #2 because all of the teams ahead of them had one loss and they play in a “real” BCS conference. Can’t be based on USF’s football tradition (they were IAA 11 years ago, were CUSA 5 years ago). Must be based on their conference affiliation.

Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.

by displacedute on Jan 7, 2009 6:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You may be right about the scheduling thing,

buy my logic button isn’t working right now, so I’ll leave that.

They made it to #2 because all of the teams ahead of them had one loss and they play in a "real" BCS conference.

This is completely wrong. USF jumped to #2 because they had a win over a Top 5 team. If you had actually looked at those rankings, you would have seen that Arizona State was #12 and Kansas was #15 (both undefeated). Kansas didn’t jump into the Top 10 until beating TAMU (who was 6-2 at the time) and they didn’t make it into the Top 5 until November, when they hung 76 on Nebraska. They then needed Oregon and Oklahoma to lose just to get up to #2. And that was with the computers on their side.

Kansas was one of only two 1-loss BCS schools last season and they got shut out, so there is a precedent for BCS teams being passed over for teams with worse records.

by rugman11 on Jan 7, 2009 7:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Kansas had an additional problem.

And it’s the same problem Texas has this year. They didn’t even win their division (and it wasn’t a great division, although it had two good teams in it). It would take a lot for a team that didn’t even play in the conference championship to get to play for the national title. It’s not unprecedented (Nebraska has done it), but it’s unlikely.

But that is an example of a team getting passed over by a bcs team with a worse record. That being said, I stand by my position that any undefeated team from a BCS conference would get to the national title game, no matter the schedule, unless there were two undefeated teams ahead of them.

Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.

by displacedute on Jan 7, 2009 7:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m not sure it makes any sense to argue about the Big East.

If someone were to say “Yeah, the MWC is about as good as the Big East”, would you take that as a compliment? I sure as hell wouldn’t. Ditto for the ACC this year.

by PeteHoliday on Jan 7, 2009 4:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

We would.

And do you know why we would? Because the Big East and the ACC have automatic bids, and we don’t. If we had an automatic bid then maybe we’d concern ourselves with making sure we were better than the Big 12 or the SEC, but right now we just want someone to say we’re at least as good as the Big East. If that happens enough then we’ll get an auto-bid and maybe we’ll have a real shot at that title.

Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.

by displacedute on Jan 7, 2009 6:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Not really

There is a process for getting an auto bid (or losing it) and it is evaluated every three years (starting this year). At present, the MWC is about half what they need to get there. Utah’s end of season ranking should help that, but not enough.

It’s not like someone at the BCS just waves a wand and says “Let there be Utes!” The conference has to earn its way in and it takes a three year average of “BCS Level” performance.

by PeteHoliday on Jan 7, 2009 9:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly.

Thank you. I had seen the BCS rules before, but I had never seen the formula explained. That blog link was very nice.

But BCS rankings continue to be based on perception, so if people (with votes in the Coaches and Harris polls) start thinking the MWC is better than the Big East or the ACC, they’ll make it so. If they do it, it’ll be like a wand being waved and there will be Utes.

Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.

by displacedute on Jan 7, 2009 10:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The computer rankings

were supposed to take away the human perceptions, to even the playing field. The fact is that 2 teams playing for all the marbles isn’t enough, and there’s always going to be teams that are ‘left out’.

by yellowhammer on Jan 7, 2009 11:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Wow, that was awesome, Thank you.

I will definitely be tracking this over the next few years. It looks like the MWC has a chance if they can bring up the bottom half of the conference and consistently place 3 teams in the Top 25.

by rugman11 on Jan 8, 2009 12:14 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

And this is really the key point. It’s not about the perception of the MWC, it’s about the performance of the teams IN the MWC on a year to year basis. And not just the champion, but the conference top-to-bottom. That’s what the perception comes from. We can talk all we want about the 2008 Utes, but the issue isn’t (and never was) whether the Utes are/were deserving of an auto-bid, the question is whether the MWC as a whole is difficult enough that you deserve a bid just for winning it. Getting down to the crux of the matter, we’re really asking if the teams 2nd – last are any good.

If you look at the Big East, they had to actually bring teams in to get past the marker and get their bid because, on the whole, this is a zero-sum game.

by PeteHoliday on Jan 8, 2009 7:17 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

How about that 2008 MWC!!!

By that very system you link the MWC was the FIFTH best conference this year, ahead of the Big East and PAC 10.

The system does look at all teams but focuses on the top teams, the ones with a chance at the top 25.

If the MWC can continue to get 3 teams into the top 25 they will have a legitimate stake. Adding Bosie State would help significantly.

by utesfan100 on Jan 10, 2009 4:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

the MWC is at least as good as the big east, ACC, and big ten

happy? to bad it doesn’t change that utah wont get a co-championship. utah deserves the AP title, just like auburn did in 04, and unlike USC who didn’t in 03.

by tempebamafan on Jan 8, 2009 8:32 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Auburn...

…got what they deserved in 04.

by NiceLittleSaturday on Jan 8, 2009 11:05 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

How is that?

Their conference had a WAY down year from normal costing them the title?

Its just like USC got this year, only USC had a chance because they lost one.

by utesfan100 on Jan 10, 2009 4:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That should be

“Consistency is hard to achieve, of course” in the last paragraph. Sorry ’bout that.

by Neuromancer on Jan 7, 2009 2:10 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

i gotta agree

with Pete. i think people are really undermining how big it was losing our starting left tackle AND left guard. and if you want to get technical, since we didn’t have the depth, we had to move our starting right tackle over so we didn’t our starting right tackle as well (replaced him with a true freshman that never started a game). our O-line was this team’s BIGGEST (no pun intended) strength. can you imagine what Shaun Alexander’s MVP season would have been like without Walter Jones and Steve Hutchinson (and Sean Locklear if you count right tackle as well)? they definitely wouldn’t have made the Super Bowl and they definitely would have got destroyed by the Steelers. our offense even WITH our starting linemen was never explosive. so you take those two (three if you count D. Davis) out, and the offense is even worse, as seen in the Sugar Bowl. i have to believe that with our O-line at full strength, the opening drive of the game would have resulted in points. yes this whole argument, in the end, is just an excuse. but it’s a VALID excuse.

all this talk of Bama being dominated and blown out is ridiculous. winning the last 3 quarters 17-10 after getting behind 21-0 is not getting dominated or blown out. and again, i have to believe that even if we got down 21-0 WITH our starting O-line, we would have come back to win. also, all this talk about Utah’s speed running all over the place and overwhelming us is ridiculous as well. Kareem Jackson missing tackles to give up a TD is not running all over the place. Kareem makes that tackle and Utah only scores 3 points over the last 3 quarters.

i have to say, that if i were an AP voter, i wouldn’t vote Utah as the champion either. as has always been the case, the national champion has never been determined on just record alone. if that was the case, there wouldn’t be so many undefeated teams throughout the history of college football that got shafted. it’s who the voters think is the best team at the end of the year. playing NO tough/true road games, barely squeaking by OSU and TCU at home while beating a Bama team at 3/5 strength (2/5 if you count D. Davis) for me is not enough to merit them as the best team in the country. assuming Florida wins tomorrow, i would have to say Florida is. and i can even make a case for SUC being a better team than Utah. i think either of those teams would beat Utah on a neutral field hands down.

by CSon on Jan 7, 2009 2:46 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

CSon the loses to the offensive line were pretty big, what about the fact that the Bama defense had no answer for the Utah offense. Even with Andre Smith were in the game Utah would have won.

Bama was blown out 21-0 in the first quarter, Alabama did not have the offensive fire power to come back from that big of a deficit. Yes they came back after the punt return but then Utah answered right back.

all this talk about Utah’s speed running all over the place and overwhelming us is ridiculous as well.

How do you figure that quote? Stevenson Sylvester ran past the offensive line all day. And if you were to go back and watch the game on Hulu.com for free you would see Utah defensive tackle Greg Newman knock back your AA center five yards back and push him around, and Newman was outweighed by about 30-45 pounds.

As for those close wins over TCU and OSU what about your narrow win over a BAD Kentucky team. And how good is a team if their offensive lineman goes out the team falls part.

by jer on Jan 7, 2009 4:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I think...

…Andre Smith’s suspension took a big psychological toll on the team as a whole before the game, and Mike Johnson’s injury took a toll during the game.

We certainly didn’t have the offensive firepower to come back from that deficit with those two gone.

The quote is not mine.

I think the point with the TCU and OSU wins are that they were your best regular season opponents, whereas Kentucky was a trap game for us.

But who cares. Utah is a very good team, and you won. Bama fans are fiercely loyal and a little crazy, so you’re gonna read all kinds of stuff here. I know you were responding to CSon, so you can wait for his input if you like. Cheers.

by NiceLittleSaturday on Jan 7, 2009 4:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Not so fast

“CSon the loses to the offensive line were pretty big, what about the fact that the Bama defense had no answer for the Utah offense. Even with Andre Smith were in the game Utah would have won.”

Let’s not be hasty. I think you severely underestimate the importance of the interrelation between a strong offense and a strong defense. Let me give you a nice little example:

Utah comes out on fire, scores a touchdown. Fine. Does JPW turn around and almost immediately throw an INT? If not, you can bet that the 2nd and 3rd Utah drives would have been significantly more difficult. It took about 10 minutes of game time for Saban’s defense to sniff out and essentially shut down the Utah offense. For the purposes of that analysis, you can basically count that first drive as being worth 14 points because the defense had zero time to make adjustments in between the two on account of the INT.

I have watched the game two painful times. What I saw on Friday, and still see today, is an offensive line that looked confused. We don’t play football in a “line-up-and-push” world. It’s a more complicated game. Taking a line’s two best players on basically zero notice is a death knell against even mediocre teams (see, e.g., Tulane).

My estimation is that with Smith and Johnson, Utah’s 21 point start scores 10 instead, 8 sacks drops to 2, and ’Bama puts at least one more drive in the endzone. Those guys are absolutely that important. Not having them disrupted the whole rhythm of the offense.

by PeteHoliday on Jan 7, 2009 4:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

basically

the same thing that Pete said. offense and defense feed off each other. like i said, if our O-line was intact, then we probably score on the opening drive, like we did against most teams this year. then the defense gets to come out and play with a lead. not to mention, it puts pressure on Utah to score. Utah’s offense will probably be thinking they HAVE to score to be able to keep up. completely different ball game.

even if Bama didn’t score on the opening drive, the 2nd drive would have been better than a JPW interception. like Saban said post-game, they couldn’t get anything running the ball. Gee, i wonder why? So they had to start throwing the ball. if YOU were to go back and watch the game, YOU would see that once Bama’s patchwork offensive line started to kind of keep it together (which was a feat in itself), we went on long, time consuming drives. granted it didn’t really end in points, but it allowed the defense to rest and adjust. thus, only 10 points allowed through quarters 2-4.

yes, Bama’s D gave up 3 consecutive drives resulting in TD’s but lets not forget the 2nd drive was off JPW’s int. it was a short field. a 35 yard drive or something like that. it’s hard for a defense to make adjustments and catch their breath when they have to go right back on the field because the OFFENSE isn’t moving the ball or they’re turning it over. it puts strain on a defense. ANY defense for that matter. so although Andre Smith and Mike Johnson don’t play on defense, they’re part of the problem that made the defense go right back on the field.

and the “speed” i was referring to was in reference to your offense. OF COURSE your D-line is going to look good going against a displaced right tackle and a true freshman. and OF COURSE your defense is going to look good playing with a 21 point lead against a team predicated on the run.

And how good is a team if their offensive lineman goes out the team falls part.

first of all, its not one lineman. we were playing with THREE backup linemen. i’m sorry, but does Utah have the depth to sustain playing with 3 backup linemen? does Brian Johnson get as much time to throw the ball being protected by 3 backup linemen? i don’t know any team in the nation that can play with THREE backup linemen against a really good team like Utah. again, Utah is a really good team. but my whole point is that i don’t think Utah is the BEST team in the nation.

the competitor in me would love a rematch. of course it’ll never happen, but i firmly believe we would win and that we’re still the better team. that’s no disrespect Utah. i just know Bama’s a better team than what they showed at the Sugar Bowl.

by CSon on Jan 7, 2009 5:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Why three backup lineman?

And since when did you lose two all-americans? I count two backups (the backup to Smith and then the backup to the backup) and one all-american (smith). Caldwell still played.

Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.

by displacedute on Jan 7, 2009 6:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Mike Johnson was selected All American by a number of papers, on various teams. He had a few 2nd/3rd team spots, I think, and at least 1 first team selection. Regardless, though, he was that caliber Guard.

Three back-ups ended up playing even though one of them was a starter. Playing LT is not the same as playing RT. Definitely similar, and possibly interchangeable as far up the line as small high school ball, but the minute you start scouting a team, that change becomes a bigger one.

by PeteHoliday on Jan 7, 2009 6:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Gotcha.

I didn’t realize Johnson was an all-american as well. Why didn’t they leave the RT starter as the RT starter and put the backup RT in at LT, if that’s what was causing the problem? Then at least you’re only replacing two starters.

Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.

by displacedute on Jan 7, 2009 6:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

no idea

i have no idea what our coaching staff was doing, but i never said anything about 2 all-americans. and it’s THREE backup linemen because our LT, LG, and RT were not the regular starters. if they’re not the regular starter, then they’re the backup. if they were good enough to be the starter at that position, then they would have been all year long. and like Pete said, playing LT is not the same as playing RT. especially if they had no time to prepare for it and had to make the switch mid-game. not to mention, once our RT switched over to LT, he had to go against Krueger. not an easy task for a solid LT, let alone a displaced RT.

anyways, you guys played a good game, and you guys are a great team. but assuming Florida takes cares of business tomorrow, my final ballot would be Florida #1, SUC #2 and Utah #3.

by CSon on Jan 7, 2009 8:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I couldn’t tell you. What I can tell you is that Saban and his staff know a hell of a lot more about football than I do, and if they think that this was the best option then a) the alternative is probably even worse and b) we’re probably screwed.

by PeteHoliday on Jan 7, 2009 9:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

chemistry

not to belabor the point, but i can’t stress enough how big not having our O-line is. they’re almost half the foundation of this year’s team. the reason we we able to go 12-0 was because they were healthy all year. but O-line is also dependent on chemistry, cohesiveness and communication. hard to do that when the line is being shuffled a few days before the game and then during the game as well.

ok…seriously…no more excuses now

by CSon on Jan 7, 2009 9:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

ok fine i'll do it

I went to the game and have to say that the vast majority of Bama fans were great, before the game. I mean of course the typical arrogance was there. But you have earned that. We were told the Utes were in; The MAAC and The WAC, (which shows some only follow football within the Confederacy) still not a surprise to us. The chants of “SEC” got old,but like i said, it has been a great conference so the Ute fans took it with a grain of salt. We all loved partying with them and talking about Bama football of years past. Some of us even bought Houndstooth stuff. AND, I’ll have to say you have some of the most beautiful and classy female fans in the country.
But after the game, your EXCUSES started. No more smugness. I could actually see more than just the bottom of your noses. We heard all about Smith not playing. He probably watched some film and didn’t want to hurt his good name by giving up a sack or two-especially to Utah. A business decision is all it was.
Now tell me, how many times did you hear Ute fans give the excuse that we lost our 2 biggest interior lineman?

Uban Meyer knew about it:

http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/bcs-title-game-making-meyer-smile/

But I doubt BAMA fans did.

We also lost our stud LB Nai Fotu before the game ever hear that mentioned? No. Utah didn’t make excuses. Ute fans didn’t say “We’re gonna win, but if we don’t it’s just because we didn’t play well. We are the better team.” or “For you to win we’ll have to come out flat.” We heard both those pregame excuses.

Probably the most glaring thing that you need to admit to yourself is, your god, CNS, was systematically outcoached. It took him a quarter to figure out that the Utes were running a hurry up. True your slow linebackers didn’t really have a chance. But a good coach would have had them ready for a smaller team. It’s called the “forward pass” look into it. Also he should have noticed Ute D-ends were lining up way outside your slow tackles to create better angles. And, if Utah’s All American kicker could make a tackle or if Utah DBs wouldn’t have dropped 3-4 int’s thrown by Sarah Jessica Parker you would be stuck at 10points. AL made no drive of any substance. They looked good on the 30 yd drive after the fumble. The Utah adjusted. AL didn’t. Just run left, run left, drop back look deep, get sacked and repeat.

by distantUte on Jan 7, 2009 4:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

excuses

YOU didn’t make any excuses because YOU didn’t lose. i’m sure all your fans are so classy and great that they wouldn’t be making any excuses if Utah lost. gimme a break. people make excuses all the time. that doesn’t make Bama fans any more smug or arrogant than any other fanbase or any other people for that matter.

if i myself, was the Bama football team as an entity, i would say “lets have a rematch right now”. if you were to tell me that you would give me a rematch with everything on the line (meaning if Utah wins, they would be awarded a nat’l title and if Bama loses they would be stripped of all 12 mythical national championships), i would take it in a heartbeat. now if SUC proposed the same thing to us, i probably wouldn’t. not because i’m ignorant, but because i know what i saw. i watched Utah play MIchigan, i watched Utah play Oregon State, i watched Utah play TCU. the fact that you beat us doesn’t convince me that Utah’s a better team. honestly, i think even TCU’s a better team. if their kicker doesn’t miss both field goals, then you guys lose on your home field.

unfortunately, in this case, we can’t have a rematch. so that’s why excuses come out. not because we’re arrogant, smug or ignorant. as a competitor, i’ll make excuses until someone gives me a rematch. if i get beat again in a rematch, then i’ll shut up and give the respect that’s due.

by CSon on Jan 7, 2009 5:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

you're right

We didn’t lose. Not once.

by distantUte on Jan 7, 2009 6:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

good for you

you must be so proud

by CSon on Jan 7, 2009 6:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yep! :D

by Neuromancer on Jan 7, 2009 6:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

actually

I’m really happy for B.johnson and Whitt. especially after Meyer left them. Not exactly proud because all i did was wear my lucky shirt (and admittedly talk smack). They did all the work and beat Vegas all year long, not me. But as the Romans said for over a thousand years, “All glory is fleeting” We’ll see how Corbin Louks does next year.

by distantUte on Jan 7, 2009 6:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Are you actually trying to argue that the team that Utah faced was the same team in terms of talent, depth, and tenacity that was ranked #1 for several weeks this year?

Or are you trying to make strong arguments disappear by waving around a magic word?

The bottom line is that “We destroyed Alabama! We should be #1!” is wrong twice. First, because there was no destroying done. Second because beating the Alabama team that actually took the field on Friday could have been done by any team in the top 15. Probably the top 20.

by PeteHoliday on Jan 7, 2009 6:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

you're exactly right!

Beating this Alabama does not make anyone number one. Alabama was over-rated all year long. They couldn’t beat FL on a neutral field without Percy. When FL beat AL it didn’t make them National Champions. But, it kept them in the hunt for the title. It gave FL a chance at the title. That is all Utah wants. A chance to play for the title, like the NY Giants had last year. If the NFL were decided by the BCS, the NFC east would not have gotten a chance to play in the superbowl.

by distantUte on Jan 7, 2009 6:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

“Alabama was over-rated all year long.” So, what is the big deal about beating an over-rated team in the Sugar Bowl to complete your undefeated season?

And beating Alabama wasn’t the ONLY thing that gave them a chance at the title. It was demolishing each and every opponent after the loss! They didn’t get noticed by the talking heads because of Tebow’s tearful speech, but because of the scoreboard at the end of the games. Style points really erased that loss!!! THEN, they went into the SECCG and came out on top. No one hates to say it more than a Bama fan this year, but I think they deserve to be where they are. You guys played a great game last Friday night, but I have watched most of Florida’s games this year and they are just unbelievable! (once again, it pains me to say it!)

by crimsongirl on Jan 7, 2009 7:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

umm...

They couldn’t beat FL on a neutral field without Percy.

well, if you’re gonna use that argument, then i have to say that you barely beat TCU at home. actually, let me rephrase that. TCU gave you that game at home while Oklahoma beat TCU handily.

besides, Utah wouldn’t have beat FL on a neutral field with Percy either.

by CSon on Jan 7, 2009 8:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

correction

i meant to say without Percy

by CSon on Jan 7, 2009 9:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I see you conveniently ignored the primary question I asked: “Are you actually trying to argue that the team that Utah faced was the same team in terms of talent, depth, and tenacity that was ranked #1 for several weeks this year?”

If Alabama was “over-rated all year long” then Utah was supposed to beat them. Congrats. Now take your top 5 finish and shut up. The only way the Alabama win means anything here is if it was an upset, otherwise it’s just proof that the sugar bowl was were Utah belonged.

by PeteHoliday on Jan 7, 2009 9:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Utah fans will never admit that they beat a “weakened (in the words of skigator)” Bama team. it’ll always be that we’re a bunch of sore losers that likes to give excuses. personally, i’d have no excuses if they beat us straight up. i don’t remember anyone giving excuses when we lost to Florida. most Bama fans admitted Florida was the better team.

by CSon on Jan 8, 2009 1:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

A little off topic

But the Utah Attorney General is looking into a lawsuit against the BCS for the distrubution of the BCS money. Did not know that non BCS conf. teams that make the BCS get less than BCS conf teams.

http://www.thestreet.com/story/10456347/1/utah-ag-bcs-may-violate-antitrust-laws.html

Auburn fans are like slinkys... not really good for anything but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs.

by IHC800 on Jan 7, 2009 2:58 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I wrote a lot about this and then deleted it because it would only be interesting to law nerds.

Long story short: I don’t think this has a snowball’s chance in hell of even getting filed, let alone winning.

by PeteHoliday on Jan 7, 2009 4:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Hey, I'm one of those law nerds, but I don't do any antitrust.

How about you post it as a fanpost and those of us who care will certainly check it out.

Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.

by displacedute on Jan 7, 2009 4:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

…I guess I shouldn’t have deleted it. I’ll see what I can whip up tonight or tomorrow.

by PeteHoliday on Jan 7, 2009 4:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

What I keep thinking...

…is that whatever happens in the BCSNC game, at least three teams will be claiming they should be #1. Utah, USC, the winner of tomorrow’s game, and maybe Texas will all say they should be the top team in the country. Even if UF destroys OU, Texas will still say they deserved a shot, much like AU in 2004. I think UF and OU are the best two teams, but that kinda stinks.

by NiceLittleSaturday on Jan 7, 2009 3:12 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

but who takes home the crystal ball?

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

by bammer on Jan 7, 2009 3:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I've been pushing for Utah since the Sugar Bowl.

Do I think they deserve the MNC? I don’t know. Do they deserve to be in the discussion, yes. That said, I want to address a couple of points made here.

Bammer said “Preseason rankings is everything unless you win big and win early….like Bama” which I don’t think is entirely true. Utah jumped up to the #22 spot after their opening win against Michigan and was actually ranked only one spot behind Florida following the Ole Miss loss. Utah’s problem is that they had ZERO marquee wins. Just look at their schedule.

@Michigan 25-23 (This game put Utah in the conversation but people quickly soured on Michigan as they opened 2-7).
UNLV 42-21
@Utah St. 58-10 (Two dominating wins against teams they were supposed to dominate.)
@Air Force 30-23 (A last-second win against a team they probably should have beaten by more)
Weber State 37-21 (Dominating performance against a bad team – the game wasn’t that close)
Oregon State 31-28 (This is the game a lot of people are pinning Utah’s regular season on. But remember, this loss made OSU 2-3. They didn’t start getting attention until they won 6 straight against PAC-10 teams—only 2 of whom became bowl eligible. Additionally, winning at home on a last second field goal—with 10 points in the final 90 seconds—against a team that was 2-2 and would finish 8-4 is not a marquee win.)

At this point in the season Utah was one spot behind Florida in the standings. The next three weeks easily show why Florida jumped back up while Utah didn’t. Florida spent the next three weeks pummeling #4 LSU, Kentucky, and #6 Georgia by an average score of 54-12. Utah:

@Wyoming 40-7
Colorado State 49-16
New Mexico 13-10 (None of these wins are amazing and the New Mexico win looks really ugly given the Lobos’ 4-8 record)

After those three weeks, Florida jumped from #12 to #4 while Utah only moved up 3 spots thanks to attrition.

TCU 13-10 (This could have been Utah’s marquee win. If they had done to TCU what they did to BYU it would have been. Instead they needed two missed FGs and a last-minute TD to win.)

At this point they moved up to #7. They didn’t have another great win (no, BYU doesn’t count) until Alabama and four of the six teams in front of them didn’t lose. At no time during the season did they have a game where people could watch (or just see highlights) and say “Wow, that is a dominant team.” Instead, they beat up the little guys, squeaked by the decent teams (and some bad teams) and then rolled for 13 minutes on the Tide. It’s a great season and maybe if Michigan finishes 9-3 instead of 3-9 Utah pulls a split championship. It wasn’t a consistent season. It wasn’t a dominant season. It was a great season against modest competition (a SoS in the bottom half of the country). Do they deserve to be considered? Yes. Would I take them over USC? Yes. Over Florida or Oklahoma? No way.

by rugman11 on Jan 7, 2009 3:27 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

That USC matchup would be interesting....

How about this…

Would you take Utah at their best over Alabama at their best

IN the same thought

Utah over USC
Utah over Texas etc etc etc….

I would say no on all accounts..until you get to penn state.

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

by bammer on Jan 7, 2009 3:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't like thinking this way, though.

Bob Ryan was making the argument yesterday that Utah shouldn’t even be in the discussion because they wouldn’t be favored against any of the other teams, which is complete bullshit. They weren’t favored against us either, and look what happened. USC was favored against every team they played this season and that didn’t make them undefeated.

The MNC shouldn’t be about who would beat whom on a neutral field. It’s about who DID beat whom. I don’t think Utah would beat USC heads up, but I would take their resume (and their 13-0 record) over USC’s. Florida, Oklahoma, and Texas…maybe not.

by rugman11 on Jan 7, 2009 4:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

it was just for shits and giggles

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

by bammer on Jan 7, 2009 4:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Uh oh...

…you said giggles.

by NiceLittleSaturday on Jan 7, 2009 4:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

“The MNC shouldn’t be about who would beat whom on a neutral field.”

I disagree 1,000%. That’s certainly not all that it’s about, but until there’s a way to win it on the field, this is the only way to think about it that makes any sense. There’s not enough overlap of common opponents to do it any other way.

Also? Taking Utah’s “resume” over Florida or Oklahoma’s would be silly. They both lost to better teams than Utah even played.

To say nothing of the fact that resume ranking is probably one of the laziest and most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard of.

by PeteHoliday on Jan 7, 2009 4:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

See,

and I disagree, but for the exact same reason. Because there’s no way to win it on the field, who we think is better is meaningless, because we don’t actually know who really is better. If USC and Utah were scheduled to play, USC would be favored. But Utah beat the only team USC lost to. Which is a more important criterion? That Vegas thinks USC would win heads up or that Utah won a game USC couldn’t. Had there been no SEC Championship game, Alabama would have gone to the BCS Championship game on the strength of their undefeated season even though Florida was favored to win the game and eventually did. Should Florida have gone instead of Alabama just because they were the better team—even if they didn’t have the better resume?

by rugman11 on Jan 7, 2009 4:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

“who we think is better is meaningless”

Actually, no, that’s the only thing that matters. Because, guess what? “Resume ranking” is just another way for us to say who we think is better.

Resume ranking is a way that people try to act objective when all they’ve really done is move the subjectivity to the second level. You look at Utah’s resume and say “They didn’t lose, so they have the best resume.” I look at Florida’s and say that theirs is better because they played significantly better teams and their loss was to a team better than any team Utah beat.

Who’s right?

It’s still just as subjective. The difference is that using resume ranking leaves us with huge information gaps, especially when you have to go two or three levels deep just to get to a common opponent, and we know that the transitive property of football wins is complete hogwash, so what can we do?

We look at the teams on the field, see how they play, and try to decide who we think is better.

It’s also folly to assume that if you beat a team once you would beat them every time you played. The SECCG is a classic example. If that game were played 10 times, I’d give Florida 6 of them, max. “Playing a team close” is something that’s completely ignored in resume ranking and is probably the most important factor.

Take the sagarin rankings, for example. The one he uses for the BCS takes out margin of victory, but the other one he has that adds MOV back in is a MUCH better predictor. And that’s just talking about the SCORE difference.

by PeteHoliday on Jan 7, 2009 5:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

It's wrong because then the pollster is using his purely speculative opinion to support another opinion

The matchup will never happen and it is purely speculative to say what would happen. When a person does this, they are just using a more speculative opinion to support another opinion about who is the best team.

However, a resume is based on what has already happened. It is using facts to support an opinion. There is a big difference between using facts to support an opinion and using opinion to support an opinion. No one really knows who would win a hypothetical matchup between Utah and Florida. Who correctly called the Sugar Bowl?

by Ute in DC on Jan 7, 2009 5:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

False

Resume ranking is using an opinion about facts to support an opinion. Which is… say it with me… using an opinion to support an opinion. It’s no different, it’s just less direct, which manages to snow a bunch of people who don’t want to spend a whole lot of time really thinking about it.

by PeteHoliday on Jan 7, 2009 6:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Fine,

but I’d rather people make opinions based on what ACTUALLY happened, rather than what they think MIGHT happen.

by rugman11 on Jan 7, 2009 7:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

What you think might happen IS an opinion based on what’s already happened. What else would it be based on?

These two things are exactly the same. Neither is more objective or principled than the other. You favor the “resume” because you think it favors your team.

by PeteHoliday on Jan 7, 2009 9:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Rugman's not a utah fan.

And there certainly is some difference between the resume process and the “best team” process. One is based on the voter’s opinion about what the results on the field show, the other is based on the voter’s opinion about the talent of the players shows. The facts upon which the opinion are based are different, but obviously it is impossible to determine which is the more reliable predictor of success, much less which is the more valid measure of a true champion. Is the poll supposed to rank the teams that are the most talented? The most deserving? Both? Something else? That’s up to each individual voter.

The question is how principled is the voter when he applies his theory? With the resume theory there is more objective evidence to support the opinion, but the voter can certainly skew the evidence any way he wants. For instance, a resume voter can look at Utah’s resume and say “hey, they’re undefeated and beat 4 top-25 teams, as many as any other championship contender (assuming UF beats OU), they should be #1”. A different resume voter can look at Utah’s resume and say “Hey, they squeaked by a 4-8 UNM team, an unranked Air Force team, and needed 2 missed FGs and 2 sacks to prevent FG attempts to beat TCU”. Both of those are “resume” voters, but they read the resumes differently.

On the other hand, a speculative voter has less factual “evidence”. He goes largely based on his gut. He looks at recruiting rankings, and the NFL potential of their players, and the level of the coaching staff, and he makes his decision on that basis. Who’s to say that’s wrong? It seems less fact-based, but it is impossible to be principled because it’s based on an unknown set of factors for each voter. He looks at the team and thinks “hey, that team seems to be better than this team”. So the speculative voter looks at USC and says “man, that defense is full of NFL talent, they should be #1” or “Wow, Urban Mayer is an incredible big-game coach, he’d never lose a MNC game” or “Bradford (or McCoy) is the best QB in the game right now, and they’ll make sure their team never loses”. It’s hard to say what puts one team on top of the other for the speculative voter, so when you put the “evidence” of a speculative voter up against the “evidence” of a resume voter, the speculative voter’s evidence seems to pale by comparison. But the evidence the resume voter is relying on is just as open to interpretation as any other.

The only difference is that if you use resume voting you can make a clear set of rules for the resume (number of top-25 wins, victory margin, quality of losses, if any, value of road games, etc) and then if you apply it consistently, no matter which team it favors, you have a principled voting system. That is impossible with speculative voting, unless you’re basing it on recruiting rankings, which we all know is a giant mistake.

Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.

by displacedute on Jan 7, 2009 11:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I really don’t understand why people think there are different quantities of evidence available.

The speculative voter is using the same facts — that Utah beat 4 Top 25 teams, or that they squeaked by New Mexico. The difference is that the speculative voter is able to use MORE information. Match-ups, injuries, etc. So, in point of fact, the speculative voter is using MORE facts. The subjective part is much more obvious, but it’s not more subjective.

The only thing those clear rules do is limit the amount of information that the resume voter can use, making their job easier in exchange for making it less likely to produce a realistic result. After all, the more “rules” you add, the closer you get to a computer ranking.

But back to my primary point: a speculative voter could do the same thing. All of those same rules could be used to determine the predictive vote. Difference being that, for the resume voter, their latest vote is the be all and end all since, hey, they weren’t trying to predict the outcome. The predictive voter, on the other hand, gets a check and balance every week that allows him to analyze the quality of his method.

by PeteHoliday on Jan 8, 2009 7:25 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I never said

"They didn’t lose, so they have the best resume."

I said

but I would take their resume (and their 13-0 record) over USC’s. Florida, Oklahoma, and Texas…maybe not.

My opinion is that, since Utah is the only undefeated team, they should be the first choice. If you can make an argument for why another team has had a better season, fine. But that argument shouldn’t start with “I think Florida would beat them on a neutral field,” because, with the complete disparity in scheduling, that is an impossible statement to make accurately. Everyone thought Bama would beat Utah and (like with the SECCG) I think Bama would that game more often than not.

Again I come back to the question: If Florida and Bama had not played in the SECCG, should Florida have gone to the BCS Championship over Bama simply because they are the “better” team?

by rugman11 on Jan 7, 2009 7:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

What kind of bizarro world are you creating where the top team from each division doesn’t play in the SECCG? I don’t have enough information to answer your question.

You’re debating between something that we can’t know the answer to and something there is no answer to. “Who had the best season” is an opinion, not a fact. These two things are not substantially different.

by PeteHoliday on Jan 7, 2009 9:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Perhpas I should have clarified.

This is a hypothetical. Imagine that there was no SECCG. Alabama wins the SEC owing to their undefeated conference record, but never plays Florida, who finishes 11-1. Florida, according to everyone, is clearly the superior team, but Bama has the better record. Who goes to the MNC game? Florida? The “better” team with the tougher SoS? Or Bama? The team with the unblemished record and the (arguably) better resume (remember that Bama’s SoS prior to the SECCG was on par with Utah’s)?

by rugman11 on Jan 7, 2009 10:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Well, you’re creating hypos that can’t really happen in the real world. You might as well be asking me to predict who’d win the game if it were to be played underwater.

For starters, the league would need at least one fewer team in order to make this happen: which one do you get rid of? You’d probably also need to add another conference game to each team’s schedule. Who’s the extra team on Alabama’s and Florida’s schedule? What is the outcome of that extra game?

These things matter, you know.

In the end, though, assuming you end up with the same unbeaten/one-loss situation, you send the conference champion, whoever that is by the conference rules, because you shouldn’t be able to win the national title if you didn’t win your conference. Doesn’t matter who’s “better” in that case.

by PeteHoliday on Jan 7, 2009 10:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Mississippi State

I hate Cow Bells.

by utesfan100 on Jan 10, 2009 8:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You are correct with BYU not being a great win, but it is a good win the way they destroyed a top 15 team. One thing people forget about that TCU game is late in the game TCU had another chance to put the game away with a field goal but defensive end Paul Kruger made a huge sack to force TCU to punt.

I would not call that win lucky like some have, because with the game on the line Brian Johnson is arguably the best QB in the country, he shredded a TCU defense that stopped the Utes all day until the last drive. Same to be said about OSU.

I know those games were close but look HOW Utah won those games.

by jer on Jan 7, 2009 4:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

utah vs alabama

okay here i go. the mtn west posted a 10-4 record vs out of conference wins over bcs teams. the best % in the nation. the sec lost at least 12 if you count the bowl games. last year the great alabama team lost to la. monroe. a bottom dweller of the sbc. you had one suspension of note in the sugar bowl. it was your own players fault. the other players you mentioned were knocked out of the game by the utah defense. i saw at least 5 alabama players knocked out of the game. i saw none on the utah side. the sec is was the conference known for toughness and depth. i saw none of it in the game. i am a gambling man and took the 10 1/2 ponts in the game. i just wish i had the cajones to take the money line which was a plus 325. another thing is if there is such a passion for football in the sec why did all those lsu fans leave when troy was up by 4 td? when did lsu ever been down by 4 td’s to a sun belt team. the one thing the sec does not understand is that your bcs confereces are not gettin worse but the non bcs conferences are getting better including the sun belt! i think utah deserves to be ranked # 3 behind florida when they romp okie and usc. does the sec consider urban meyer a traitor since he might have told kyle whittingham how to defeat alabama? just an idea . peace!

by wolfman5 on Jan 7, 2009 3:44 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I think...

…Utah deserves to be ranked #2.

Urban Meyer is not a traitor…just an ass.

We know the non-BCS teams are getting better. You could have mentioned Northern Illinois, too.

I only noticed Mike Johnson getting injured, but I was watching it live (and slightly intoxicated), so….

Bama is still reeling from 5 years of NCAA probation, so we don’t claim to have depth. We do claim to have toughness, although there was a clear lack of mental toughness displayed in the Sugar Bowl.

Urban Meyer is still an ass.

by NiceLittleSaturday on Jan 7, 2009 3:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I love when people speak about stuff they don't know anything about

Wolfman, had you known anything about why this regular season was so outstanding for Alabama then you would understand that we have no depth, and we are lacking in several key skill positions. This is why Saban continues to garner so much praise, he did so much with so little (relatively speaking). Had you gotten any Alabama team at full depth and strength then Utah would have lost. Hands down. You guys feel like world beaters, and you should, but don’t get it wrong. We are still reeling from the lack of depth brought on by probation and the incompetence of former coaching staffs; you guys haven’t. The MWC is no SEC, and Utah is no Alabama long-term. You guys pop up with great seasons every now and then, but don’t forget how abismal that Michigan team you barely beat was. You are not miami, FSU, Bama, or anybody else but Utah. Play a season in the SEC and we’ll watch that 13-0 drop to about 7-6.

What Would Don Draper Do?

by BamaReturns07 on Jan 7, 2009 3:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

what the heck?

the other players you mentioned were knocked out of the game by the utah defense.

knocked out of the game by the utah defense? rolling over the back of someone’s leg when they’re not looking is not knocking them out of the game, genius.

by CSon on Jan 7, 2009 9:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You are putting words into Jazzy's mouth and knocking down a strawman

Come again? “Football dominance?” Did I miss something?

If you re-read what Jazzy wrote, he said that Miami and Florida State were the programs that were dominant. He was saying that Utah could be in the process of becoming a program like those two. Implicitly, he is saying Utah is not there yet.

The MWC is a good conference. I know some of you still don’t believe it, but it is. I live in ACC/Big East country and top to bottom, the MWC stacks up very well with those conferences. Utah’s records over the last six seasons:
2003: 10-2
2004: 12-0
2005: 7-5
2006: 8-5
2007: 9-4
2008: 13-0
Once you accept that the MWC is a good conference, then Jazzy’s argument makes more sense. With three 10-win seasons and three other seasons with winning seasons, Utah is headed in the right direction and has the potential to be the next Miami or FSU. Utah is not there yet, but in five years, it may be.

by Ute in DC on Jan 7, 2009 4:03 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I didn’t put any words in his mouth, I quoted him. If he meant something other than what he wrote, that’s his own problem, to be honest.

by PeteHoliday on Jan 7, 2009 4:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Point to me where he says Utah has football dominance

You can’t because he doesn’t say it. He says Utah is making the jump. There’s a difference.

Yes – that is putting words in his mouth.

by Ute in DC on Jan 7, 2009 4:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

“Two programs that leaped from obscurity to football dominance in a pretty short time. . . . That is exactly what Utah is doing right now.”

How long is “leaping” supposed to take?

(Also? Comparing the MWC to the ACC or the Big East is hilarious. You think those conferences are any good?)

by PeteHoliday on Jan 7, 2009 4:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

what Utah is doing

That implies Utah has not yet done it. I guess I’ll have to explain verb tense to you. He used the present tense (or to be more precise “the progressive aspect”) to indicate that it is an ongoing process that is not yet completed.

If he had used the past tense then you would be right. He would be saying that Utah had already dominated. But that is not what he said. To paraphrase, he said Utah is making the jump to football dominance. In other words, Utah is not there yet.

(Also? Comparing the MWC to the ACC or the Big East is hilarious. You think those conferences are any good?)

Well which conference would you prefer? True, the SEC is a class unto itself, but Utah just whipped the #2 team. As for the other five conferences, this bowl season has shown the Big 12 to be a paper tiger. The Big Ten’s glory years are long past. The Pac-10 has had a good bowl season, but the MWC gone 6-2 against the Pac-10 this year. The MWC should be a BCS conference.

by Ute in DC on Jan 7, 2009 5:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

“I guess I’ll have to explain verb tense to you.”

Oh, yes. You’re so smart and clever. Please do explain verb tense to me. That is the classy and mature thing to do, because clearly I do not understand how verbs work, right?

Or you could quit being a douchebag. Either/or.

Listen, we can play semantics all day if you want to, but the bottom line is that in word and tone, the JazzyUte’s post is way overblown. Even giving it the charitable reading that you seem to think is required, the comparisons to FSU and Miami are tremendously premature (regardless of your interpretation), his (and your) analysis of the game leaves much to be desired, and there’s nothing even vaguely straw-manny about either of those points.

by PeteHoliday on Jan 7, 2009 6:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

HA HA

Or you could quit being a douchebag. Either/or.

Epic, Pete, epic.

What Would Don Draper Do?

by BamaReturns07 on Jan 7, 2009 8:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

What really is overblown is your reply.

But thanks for reading my blog, anyway.

The fact is, I made it fairly clear that I didn’t think Utah was a dominate program right now, but that they were on the verge of becoming one.

In fact, I said as much here:

What they were missing was the birth of a football power and Friday night, Utah proved to the country that there is, in fact, football played in the Rocky Mountains.

Now maybe I’m wrong here, but I thought birth meant the beginning, right? That right there pretty much sums up what my point was: we’re seeing the birth of a football power.

Maybe I’m wrong and Utah reverts back to the 90s. But you know, I think what they’ve been able to do the past six seasons suggests maybe I’m closer to being right than wrong.

by JazzyUte on Jan 7, 2009 11:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

“Clear” isn’t really an objective standard. The fact that you had to re-explain yourself in your comments (and again here) suggests it wasn’t as clear as you think it was.

Also, about this whole birth thing… if I said we witnessed the birth of a baby, a baby would exist, crawling around somewhere. We wouldn’t have to wait two more years for there to be a baby.

by PeteHoliday on Jan 8, 2009 7:31 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I only did so because you didn't get it.

You’re parsing my words and you seem to the only person really getting your panties in a bunch over what I said. Surely if I wanted to say Utah was dominating football right now, I would have come out instead just that, right?

But I didn’t. I said they’re beginning something and I believe it is lasting.

For the birth part, it might be alive, but it doesn’t mean it’s at full development yet, right? A baby is a baby, not a person living up to its full potential. There is growth to be had, experiences to be lived and that was the point. Not many teams have won more games than the Utes over the past six seasons. No other team has managed to go undefeated twice in the BCS era. Not many other teams have managed two BCS bowl victories in four years. To me, that could be the start, or birth of something big.

That’s what I said, that’s what I meant and I’m sorry you couldn’t figure it out.

by JazzyUte on Jan 8, 2009 1:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Please do explain verb tense to me. That is the classy and mature thing to do, because clearly I do not understand how verbs work, right?

There were really only two possibilities here. Either your reading comprehension is not very good or you were intentionally mischaracterizing Jazzy’s article.

I chose the former. Maybe I was wrong.

by Ute in DC on Jan 8, 2009 3:01 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

“There were really only two possibilities here.”

Or you might be wrong. Although I understand how difficult it is for law students to understand that that is still an option. You’ll grow out of it, I promise.

by PeteHoliday on Jan 8, 2009 7:31 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Okay?

So what is the option I missed?

if I said we witnessed the birth of a baby, a baby would exist, crawling around somewhere. We wouldn’t have to wait two more years for there to be a baby.

This comment really helps my point. You don’t understand metaphors? Really? I’m sure Jazzy appreciates a “critique” about his lack of perspective.

by Ute in DC on Jan 8, 2009 12:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That's the thing.

The ACC and Big East aren’t awful, but they’re not better than the MWC. The thing is, they get the BCS payoff and the respect, regardless of what happens on the field. There’s no way an undefeated ACC or Big East time doesn’t go to the national championship game. The BCS system is based on the assumption that the Big East and the SEC are comparable, and the MWC and the Sun Belt are comparable. That’s (one of the reasons) why it’s such a stupid system.

by Neuromancer on Jan 7, 2009 5:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Um… if an undefeated SEC Champion can get snubbed, anyone can get snubbed.

by PeteHoliday on Jan 7, 2009 6:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

True, but that's a special year.

How often are there 5 undefeated teams on Bowl Selection Sunday? Not very. I am way to lazy to go back and look at every single year, but I can check the past few years pretty quickly. In 2008 there were two unbeatens pre-bowl (Utah and Boise State). In 2007 there was one (Hawaii). In 2006 there were two (Boise and OSU). In 2005 there were two (USC and Texas, that was an easy BCS year). In 2004 there were the aforementioned 5 (USC, OU, Auburn, Utah, Boise). In 2003 there were none. In 2002 there were two (OSU and Miami, that was an easy year too).

As we can see, usually the debate is about which one-loss team should face the undefeated national championship team, or which two one-loss teams should face each other, not about which two of several undefeated teams should face each other.

Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.

by displacedute on Jan 7, 2009 6:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Don't forget about...

…two loss teams, like LSU.

Every year is a new scenario. It doesn’t help when a team like ’07 Hawaii gets hyped all to hell, is the only undefeated team, people talk about the snub, and then they get demolished in their bowl game.

One of the biggest problems is that even after the bowl games we still don’t know who the best conference is because we very, very rarely match strength on strength. The Big Ten lost a lot of bowl games this season, but in many of them it seems like a team farther down the B10 pecking order is pitted against a team higher ranked in their home conference.

I don’t think the snubbing of MWC/MAC/WAC/Etc teams is nearly as sinister as it might seem, though. This year is a great example. There is a very plausible argument to be made that the two teams that beat Florida and OU could have gone undefeated in Utah’s spot. They might not be better than Utah. Probably aren’t, in fact, but who knows?

Problem is that all of our teams are in a giant weight-lifting competition, and SEC teams are given heaver weights. We’re more likely to drop one or two of them, but at the end of the season we have wins we can point to and say that we were tested. Absent some very aggressive scheduling, this just isn’t the case in the “lesser” conferences.

by PeteHoliday on Jan 7, 2009 9:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

True.

I was assuming a situation in which there are only one or two unbeaten teams, which, obviously, is not always the case.

by Neuromancer on Jan 7, 2009 8:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

a bit much

First off I am a Utah fan, but the paragraph that compares to this Utah program to the pre-dominance of FSU and Miami is absurd. A better example is that of West Virgina, but for Utah to get credit for what they have done the past 6 years they need to keep winning conference titles, 10 wins a year, and another BCS win in a few years.

Great team this year, good program on the verge of very good, but being in the MWC makes it hard for Utah to become an elite every year top 10 program.

by jer on Jan 7, 2009 4:14 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Utah Fans

I do have to agree with Pete on one more assertion. Utah fans are perhaps the most even keeled fans and all-around good people. You guys would never make it in the SEC! If this topic was about Auburn, we would have had a hundred death threats, and the discussion would already be closed down. I appreciate the kind discourse, and completely understand the enthusiasm, even if perhaps a bit over the top.

by Kenny483 on Jan 7, 2009 4:19 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Agreed!!!!

PLENTY of passion from everyone, but lots of class! On BOTH sides here…..

by crimsongirl on Jan 7, 2009 5:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: "even keeled"

Well the thing is we just respect Alabama fans too much to be real jerks to you. That was reinforced by enjoying NOLA with you all.
As far as death threats, check back in the Salt Lake papers leading up to the byu game. It’s just as heated as the Iron Bowl. I know it may be hard to believe but it’s true. Seriously, all the smack talk aside, we like and repect you alot- even more now that we’ve met some of you in person!
Best of luck next. I know you’re gonna return a great team.

by distantUte on Jan 7, 2009 5:58 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Which stage of grief does this fall under?

Anger? If Utah fans/papers/bloggers wanna talk national championship and hyperbolize about their season, I say let them. They won the right to do that and the current system encourages it. Do I think they’d beat USC, Florida, or OU in a one-off bowl game? No. But, I also thought they wouldn’t beat us, so what do I know? Frankly, I’m jealous we can’t do the same.

"That rug really tied the room together."

by pantsfucious on Jan 7, 2009 6:26 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Denial?

Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.

by displacedute on Jan 7, 2009 6:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

A lot of good

arguments have been made by both sides. I will say this, IMO (and most of the football men I know would agree with me) almost any game can realistically go both ways. I had some great days playing on the scout team at Bama when the starting offense didn’t feel like practicing. I’ve been on teams that were so unmotivated for games that you could sense a loss coming, and I’ve been on teams that were so motivated we beat or almost beat teams everyone expected us to lose to.

I guess what I’m trying to say is, Football is not just some game where we push a button, the players collide, and the best team always wins. I know a lot of the people close to me get frustrated when they talk to me about football because they look for absolute answers, but I have never and will never see it that way. Look at our 1999 season. Was Louisiana Tech better than us when they beat us in 1999? If their QB’s last second TD pass had been batted down, would the previous 130 plays have proved anything different? If Clint Stoerner’s last second pass attempt had been caught, would Arkansas have been better? Concerning our biggest victory, were we really flat out better than Florida? We only beat them 40-39 in the Swamp because they dropped a punt and missed a PAT. Otherwise, we would have lost. Then, we destroyed them in the SECCG 34-7. In terms of proving which team is better, analyze that using the logic many of you are using and it won’t make sense.

Because it can’t.

Football doesn’t and it never will because it’s so dependent upon a hundred players, a dozen coaches, external factors, injuries, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. If Utah and Bama played ten times you’d have ten entirely different results. Let’s see what Bama does for a whole game now with Andre Smith at LT and the rest of the line intact. Let’s see how they play defense now that they know Utah’s most effective plays. Conversely, let’s see how Utah plays now that they know Alabama’s weak spots. Let’s see if they double team Julio Jones and put Paul Kruger up against Drew Davis on the right side of the line. Let’s see if they automatically go into a hurry up offense anytime Mt. Cody is on the field. Let’s see, let’s see, let’s see… there’s a million different things that can happen in any game.

Even now in coaching, I don’t really look at as a matter of "We were better’ when we win games. Just this past season, the team I coach won several football games that we very easily could have lost, and we lost two that we could have won. A lot of the time it’s a simple playcall. If you do what your opponents expects, you’ll probably lose that particular play, but if you make a call that’s dramatically better than their call, you’ll win. Does that really mean one team was better, or just opportunistic? Maybe lucky? I like to look at it as fortunate.

Here’s the thing. On January 2, 2009, Utah was the BETTER team and that’s what the record will forever show. Does that mean they were more talented than Alabama? Does that mean they had a better crop of veteran players? Who knows. But they played with heart and intensity and they won the game.

To me, they came ready to go and they got after our ass. Sure, the anonymity factor helped them big time and admittedly, our (Bama’s) players didn’t take them seriously enough…but whose fault is that? Does that discredit Utah for playing their guts out, or does it discredit Bama for assuming their crap didn’t stink and they could just show up and win a game.

You have to play with intensity to win. If you don’t, it doesn’t matter who you are playing. You will lose if you are not ready; even if the team is not BETTER than you.

Utah played with more intensity and heart. They made more plays. They beat us. They will not be the champions because under the current (ridiculous) system that D-1A uses the winner of the BCS championship game will be number one.

Now, I will say this…I’m curious to see what they do without their veteran QB/Receivers now that a bullseye will be on their back.

by Bamagrad on Jan 7, 2009 6:47 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

That's a great post.

And I’m curious about next-year’s team too. We’ve got a great stable of backup WR (the TD pass in the 3Q went to a JR and several of the 1Q passes went to a SO) but we have to see how they handle being “the guy”. Plus, while Brooks (SO) will be a good replacement for Casteel, and Reed and Key will be great jump ball endzone type guys, like Brown, I don’t know if we have a replacement for Godfrey on the team. That guy went over the middle like few receivers are willing to do, and he usually came down with the ball. Godfrey will be missed.

As for QB, we just picked up a 4* Juco QB, plus our “running” QB who has played backup most of the time, and we have a pretty good 3* recruit from last year who redshirted and will push for time. none of them, however, will be Brian Johnson. We also lose two OL, and I’m not one to discount the importance of having a good OL “unit”. The individual replacements will be good, but I don’t know how long it will take the unit to gel.

Luckily, our defense loses a corner, a DE playing DT, and a SS. Hopefully they’ll still be able to keep us in games even if the offense isn’t as clutch as this year.

I’m not expecting 12-0 next year, but I think 10 wins is certainly reasonable.

Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.

by displacedute on Jan 7, 2009 6:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I really liked

the way Paul Kruger looked at defensive end. I was really impressed by him. When I was in college, our coaches talked about how the best athlete in the 4-3 defense should be the right defensive end. You guys were going back to Coach Stallings’ days with Cowboys, using that Flex 4-3.

Kruger looked fantastic. He’s really a good-looking football player. I would have been rooting for him, had he not been playing for you guys, lol.

I can’t believe some gangbangers tried to kill him. I read that story and got really pissed off. Thank god he didn’t die.

Take care.

by Bamagrad on Jan 7, 2009 7:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, Kruger's a stud. Our DT (Newman) and Kruger's little brother (David) were attacked as well.

And he was a 2* recruit and a QB in HS. Just like Eric Weddle (currently rocking the San Diego Chargers secondary) and Alex Smith. We sure do a lot with a little.

I’ve been a big fan of Sylvester’s too. Great LB, fast and hits hard. It’s too bad you guys didn’t get to see Nai Fotu, our other OLB. That guy’s a killer hitter, although he’s not as good in coverage. If you check youtube for Nai Fotu (especially his hit on Atiyyah Henderson of SDSU) you’ll get to see some great stuff.

Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.

by displacedute on Jan 7, 2009 7:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

DITTO

That’s a great post.

by CSon on Jan 7, 2009 9:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I've never

liked the fact that there are 119 D-1A teams, but only teams from six of the conferences have a legitimate shot at winning the championship. It makes me wonder, what’s the point of even having 119 teams that are supposedly playing at the same level.

by Bamagrad on Jan 7, 2009 7:02 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

The answer is Rambo.

What Would Don Draper Do?

by BamaReturns07 on Jan 7, 2009 8:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Are you bringing any weapons?

You ain’t changing anything.

by Bamagrad on Jan 7, 2009 9:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I really

isn’t fair that a non BCS conference team, like Utah, really has no shot at winning the NC in it’s division. These non BCS guys are like the only teams in all of sport that play in a league (D-1A) that they can not win no matter how good they are. Even if Utah was way better than they are, even if they beat their schedule by 50 pts. a game and beat Bama by 50, they still couldn’t win a NC. No matter how good they got, because they are in the MWC, they can not win the NC. We are not talking about they have a slim chance, they actually have no chance.

For that reason, and the fact they are the only undefeated team left, if I had a vote I’d vote for them #1.

But, we either need to come up with a way that teams from MWC, WAC, Sunbelt, USA, etc. have some chance, or we need to form a new division for them.

by 5026 on Jan 7, 2009 9:02 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

“Even if Utah was way better than they are, even if they beat their schedule by 50 pts. a game and beat Bama by 50, they still couldn’t win a NC.”

This really isn’t true at all. Fact is, that Utah didn’t thrash their schedule this way. There were so many opportunities for statements, but the Utes didn’t start making them until way too late. The Michigan win looked good initially, but after the season was half-way over, you have to ask… JUST TWO POINTS??

All of these teams know they have to make statements if they want to play for the MNC. That they fail to do so isn’t because the quirks of the BCS are unknown to them, it’s because they couldn’t manage to do it. Frankly, if you can’t manage to make a statement against this year’s Michigan team, I’m not sure you have any right to talk about “resumes”.

Utah had two convincing wins at the end of the season over terrible teams, hot on the heels of two 3-point wins. This is not championship-level performance in the MWC.

Utah might have the best team in the country, but on too many occasions during the regular season, they didn’t play like it.

by PeteHoliday on Jan 7, 2009 10:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Isn't it awesome Utah has to sit here and defend victories, while Texas, Florida, Oklahoma and USC don't have to defend their losses?

by JazzyUte on Jan 7, 2009 10:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Did Utah even beat a team besides Alabama as good as the ones those teams lost to?

by PeteHoliday on Jan 7, 2009 10:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

And by "those teams"

I mean Florida and OU. The rest of them are in the same spot the Utes are.

by PeteHoliday on Jan 7, 2009 10:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You're kidding right?

What a lousy argument.

I’d say TCU would beat Ole Miss, but maybe that’s just me.

But again you miss the point. Utah is here defending victories, while Florida & Oklahoma get a pass on their losses. Why? Because you believe the Utes weren’t impressive enough throughout the season? What a load!

I think it’s pretty pathetic there are people out there who believe a loss is actually better than a win. That is the madness that is the BCS. It’s bullshit that Utah has to defend their close wins, but Florida and Oklahoma get a pass because they had respectable losses.

But you can continue shoveling the BCS shit my way, I’m not taking it. Utah might not be better than Florida or Oklahoma, but then again, they might. No one will know and that is the beef Utah fans have right now. The fact they won’t get to prove it on the field because of the system we have.

by JazzyUte on Jan 7, 2009 10:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

If we went back to pre-BCS..

Utah would still have a shot in the final vote. That’s why I prefer either a fair playoff system or revert back to the ‘final poll after bowls’ .

But even then, it wouldn’t necessarily be because you ‘proved it on the field’, it would be because you didn’t lose a game.

by yellowhammer on Jan 7, 2009 10:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I actually agree with you and proposed something similar.

Revert back to the old system, however, keep the BCS bowls and allow non-BCS teams to qualify. Do away with the national championship game, promote the Cotton Bowl to the BCS-level and then decide the national champion when it’s all said and done.

It’s better than the current system and actually makes the New Years bowls more important.

by JazzyUte on Jan 7, 2009 11:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

This is a dangerous, though,

because we could end up with another sucky champion like 1984 BYU (who couldn’t hold a candle to Utah).

by rugman11 on Jan 8, 2009 12:05 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

haha, I like you. :)

by JazzyUte on Jan 8, 2009 12:10 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I know (84 byu)..

Voting after bowls is not perfect (the so-called best bball team doesn’t always win the ncaa tourney, either) but at least you would still have a ‘shot’ at the title by being one of the top 5 or so teams after the regular season.

by yellowhammer on Jan 8, 2009 6:39 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

“Utah might not be better than Florida or Oklahoma, but then again, they might. No one will know and that is the beef Utah fans have right now.”

So we might as well just give the Utes the crystal football and call it a day?

If you think Utah is the only team that has to defend its victories, I have some sobering news for you: in college football, virtually everyone has to defend their victories. Alabama spent half of the season having to defend its victories. OU/Texas/Texas Tech all played a nice little round robin of victory attack and defense. This is how it works for one very important reason:

The “real” order of team rankings is mostly unknown. We try to get as close to that “reality” as we can on very, very limited information. Because there are so many teams and so few games, we have to rely on some really bizarre analysis to come up with the rankings.

In the end, you’re only as good as the teams you’ve beaten. Combine, with that, the number of undefeated teams with weak schedules who have gone to bowl games and gotten their asses handed to them, and you end up with a “community” of voters who are awfully paranoid about frauds with weak schedules unseating a better team.

So, yes, you’re going to have to defend your victories. So is anyone else who wants to argue that they should be the national champs. I’m sorry if that offends your sensibilities.

by PeteHoliday on Jan 8, 2009 9:14 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Why not give them the crystal? They're doing the exact same thing tonight.

Just because the BCS says Oklahoma & Florida are the two best teams does not make it so. Maybe it’s Utah & USC, or USC and Texas, or Florida and Utah, or Oklahoma and Texas. The fact is, regardless of what you and I think, we will never really know who the best team in America was this season because of the BCS.

So why not give it to Utah? We’ve been awarding champions based on pure subjective bias for years now. At least Utah is undefeated, no?

As for defending victories, I don’t see Oklahoma or Florida defending any of their wins this season, since they got a free pass right to the national championship game. Hell, for that matter, they don’t even have to defend their losses and won’t. Once the game is played, the arguing will stop, the AP voters will vote for the winner as the champion and in a few weeks, all will be forgotten. It’s those teams that were left out that have to defend everything from opponent’s strength, margin of win and conference affiliation. But Utah is the only team that doesn’t have to explain away a loss for whatever reason. That has to count for something, right?

But this isn’t knew. LSU didn’t have to explain their two losses to Kentucky and Arkansas last year. They got a pass and were declared the winner, even though they became the first champion since God knows when to actually lose two games. And they also didn’t have to defend their lose close victories over So. Carolina, Alabama and Tennessee. They were allowed to play for the championship and because they beat an overrated, 1-loss Ohio State team, they won it all. Sure, there were some eyebrows raised, but it didn’t change the fact not much came from it. And we’ll see the exact same thing again this year. Either Florida or Oklahoma will win the championship and I’ll bitch and USC fans will bitch, people like you will tell us we weren’t all that good and didn’t deserve it, but it won’t change the fact we got screwed and then by spring ball, we’ll have moved on and everything will be peachy again.

You see, there is no rhyme or reason to the BCS. One year, barely winning a few of your games and having two-losses warrants a title and the next, being the lone undefeated, even if some of those wins were close, isn’t good enough. Everyone keeps changing what we need accomplish to fit their needs. I guess we Utah fans just tire of it. But you wouldn’t understand because an undefeated ‘Bama team this season, even with their close games against Tulane and Kentucky, would have easily been in the title game. Hell, you guys were #1 for how long with a schedule that wasn’t much better than Utah’s? You get the benefit of the doubt, so it must be easy to shrug off Utah’s claims as nothing more than whining. But how much whining would there have been on this blog had Alabama gone 13-0 and been left out of the national championship discussion?

I’m guessing a lot, close wins and all.

by JazzyUte on Jan 8, 2009 1:36 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs

Benefit of the doubt? Whining?

Where have you been the past 30-40 years? Come on, don’t you think you are kind of “preaching to the choir” when you start talking about disrespect and defending your wins/losses here? Look back over the years that Bama went undefeated, yet shared titles or was left out. Look back at our HISTORY. No, the current system is not perfect by a long shot, but it does prevent some of the wrongs that were done to our program in the past. (And we fared WELL with the old system…try posting this stuff with a Penn State fan and see how sorry they feel for ya’.)

As far as “if we had gone 13-0…,” every one KNEW we had to get past the Gators decisively for that to ever be a possibility. EVER. When we didn’t succeed there, we knew that dream died. This is part of the formula, is it not? Sort of like Florida losing then going on to put massive hurting on every team they played from that day forward, sans Bama. Part of the formula for getting to the NCG, right? Undefeated is not really a requirement to be NC, just a “bonus,” if you will, because it only means something when used in conjunction with SOS. From what I have seen, both of our SOS’s were weakened (not our faults) so how could we “whine” about it after the fact?

by crimsongirl on Jan 8, 2009 2:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Hey, JUte...

…I’m not trying to enter this pissing contest you and Petey and the gang have going, but I do have a few thoughts about your comments.

First, Texas just doesn’t look like they belong in the BCSNCG to me. I said it many times before it was decided, and the Fiesta Bowl only reaffirmed that position (and I can’t stand OU). USC, maybe. Utah, maybe. Texas, no.

Second, most of us here agree with you that LSU wasn’t much of a national champ last year. They were poorly coached and very lucky. However, nobody else in the country seemed to want the title, and I do believe that LSU was the most talented team in the country last year, so it didn’t drive me up the wall.

Third, I agree with you that the BCS stinks. However, the difference to me in the hypothetical scenario you have where a 13-0 Alabama team gets left out, is that the 13-0 Alabama team would have added a win over perhaps the 2nd best team in the country to its resume. Even if you claim that TCU and whoever else you want are as good as Georgia and Ole Miss, you simply would not have anything to compare to beating the Gators in the SECCG.

Now, does that mean you should still be there to play Bama over teams like USC, Texas, and OU? Maybe, although the difference between your win vs. TCU and OU’s is rather large.

This basically sums up why I think the best two teams are playing tonight. And one thing you should understand: I loathe the two teams that are playing tonight. I wish they were a combined 1-23 (UF does play UT, after all). However, despite my disgust for them and Utah’s worthiness as a top-five team, I would not put them in the top two. If we had a playoff? Hells yeah! But since we don’t….

Finally, I am wondering if you think that Boise State should have been playing in tonight’s BCSNCG, since they were also undefeated in the regular season.

And as I said before, I agree that the BCS stinks. Cheers.

by NiceLittleSaturday on Jan 8, 2009 2:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

Most of the nation judged the MWC as a whole on one game, Oklahoma vs. TCU.

That game played out a little like the Sugar Bowl. Oklahoma came out and fired up three TD’s before TCU’s defense settled down. Unlike the Sugar Bowl, TCU did not have an offense, or kick return game, capable of closing the gap. After TCU settled down, Oklahoma only put up 14 more points in 45 minutes.

The short of it, TCU got beat down for everyone to see, and it was the only MWC game most people saw. The MWC went 6-1 (regular season) vs the PAC 10, so the PAC 10 must really be down if the MWC is what they saw against Oklahoma.

The PAC 10 and MWC then combined to go 7-1 vs. other conferences in bowl games.

The MWC had some missed opportunities that could have made this banner year even better. At least we will be on the radar next year.

by utesfan100 on Jan 10, 2009 5:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

May I defend myself?

Thanks.

Firstly, when I brought up Miami and Florida State, I did so not by saying Utah was on the cusp of putting together exactly what they did. I’m not naive or ignorant, I realize Utah won’t ever roll through college football like the Hurricanes and Seminoles did in the 1980s and 90s. My point, however, still stands and that is Utah burst onto the scene unlike many programs have in recent history.

The reason I mentioned those two programs is because they went from obscurity to greatness in a pretty short time. Utah has done something similar and while they lack a national championship, it isn’t for a lack of trying. I mean, no other program in the BCS era has put together two undefeated seasons, yet the little ol’ Utes have done just that.

Ignore it, excuse it away as them doing it in a lesser conference, but it doesn’t change the fact Utah became the first program in the BCS era to put together two perfect seasons. USC didn’t do it. Oklahoma didn’t do it. Ohio State didn’t do it and Alabama didn’t do it. Not to say the Utes can compare to those programs, because in overall history, they can’t, but it does show just how quickly Utah burst onto the scene. And that was my point, that maybe the Utes are putting together something lasting and if they do, it’ll mean they came from nowhere to do it.

Maybe I got a little ahead of myself by using Miami and Florida State, instead of say Virginia Tech, but there just aren’t many examples of programs coming from nowhere and doing what Utah has done.

As I said while commenting on that post, how many people actually knew of Utah football prior to 2003? I’m guessing no one. They didn’t know about Utah football because Utah football was never great. Ron McBride, the coach Utah fired before Urban Meyer took over, put together solid seasons, but outside of 1994, where the Utes went 10-2 and finished in the top-ten, they didn’t do much on the national stage. They failed to win an outright conference championship. They failed to finish ranked. They failed to finish undefeated and the only thing those teams could really hang their hats on were the fact they did well in bowl games. Outside of that, though, Utah football in the 90s was a good program, but not one any fan thought would make national noise.

So when Urban Meyer came in and won in his first season, it was fairly surprising. He took over a team that had gone 5-6 the year before and went 10-2, winning the Mountain West outright, finishing with 10-wins for the first time since 1994 and finished ranked for the first time since 1994. Then 2004 came and Utah was even better, going 12-0, finishing in the top-5 and becoming the first non-BCS team to play in a BCS bowl.

Think about that for a second.

Utah went from a losing record to going 22-2 over a two year span and doing something many thought was impossible, crashing the BCS without being from a BCS conference. That’s a pretty remarkable surge to the top, wouldn’t you say?

Then Meyer leaves and the talk now centers around Utah being a flash in the pan. Surely what happened in 2004 was a once in a lifetime moment for the Utes, right? Well the media thought so, the local pundits thought so and I’m guessing a lot of fans thought so, too. Yes, we didn’t reload as fast as maybe Miami and Florida State did in the 80s and 90s. Yes, Kyle Whittingham had to grow as a coach and yes, Utah didn’t light the college football world on fire for the first three years of Whittingham’s coaching, but they still did just enough to stay above the losing pace.

An upset of nationally ranked Georgia Tech in the Emerald Bowl.
An upset of 11-2 TCU in the regular season, all with an offense that was gutted by injuries and graduation (the fact Utah had zero credibility at running back makes winning 8-games pretty remarkable).
An upset of then 11th ranked UCLA, which was the highest ranked opponent Utah had defeated until the Sugar Bowl).
A beat down of Louisville.
A methodical victory over TCU.
9-wins and one of the longest win streaks of the season.
A victory over Navy in the Poinsettia Bowl.

All leading to this moment. All leading to what would become a 13-0 season.

Putting the Utes as the first program since Nebraska to post multiple perfect seasons in such a short amount of time. In fact, since 1970, there have only been four programs that have accomplished that feat: Utah, Nebraska, Miami and Toledo, when they faced a schedule of mostly current FCS teams.

That might not compare to what Miami or Florida State have done in the past, but it’s still pretty remarkable for a team that only ten years ago couldn’t even win its own conference.

Maybe using Miami and Florida State wasn’t the perfect example, but it isn’t like there are many programs that have been able to burst onto the national scene like Utah has. That was the point, not saying the Utes will do what Florida State has done. Just saying that these programs went from being decent to great in a pretty quick time, especially Miami.

Utah won’t be able to do what Miami has done because they won’t get the shot to do it. That doesn’t mean, though, they can’t put together great season after great season and become a program that is not only known as being the best of the non-BCS leagues, but one of the best in college football.

by JazzyUte on Jan 7, 2009 10:27 PM CST reply actions 1 recs

Well . . .

And Utah won’t do what Miami did because the talent in Florida is insane.

by MeanBobMean on Jan 15, 2009 2:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

This thing could go on forever...

..but as long as we have this idiotic system, someone is going to feel ripped off, snubbed, and left out.

This year the dis-honor goes to Utah. Welcome to the show.

by yellowhammer on Jan 7, 2009 10:46 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Here's the thing:

Non-BCS teams are in a situation where nothing can be good enough.

Lose any games? Obviously, you’re a fraud, or at best inconsistent.

Play any close games? Obviously, you’re a fraud, or at best inconsistent. (It blows my mind that the Utes are getting dogged for only beating TCU by three points. TCU is a Top 10 team! Any victory against a Top 10 team is a good one.)

Thrash everyone you play? Obviously, they must have been a bunch of lousy teams! (In 2004, Utah beat every team they played by at least 14 points. They literally did not play a single game where the outcome was in doubt in the fourth quarter all year.)

Win consistently for years and years? Your conference must be full of lousy teams! (Boise State has won 10 games or more in 8 years out of ten. Does anybody outside of Idaho know or care?)

by Neuromancer on Jan 8, 2009 12:33 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Addendum:

With respect to close games this year—I’m not apologizing for a close game against Oregon State, who are obviously capable of beating anyone when they’re on form. Michigan let us down something awful, the punks, but a win at the Big House should still be worth something. (I know, I know, Toledo. Never trust a freakin’ Wolverine.)

I got nothin’ for New Mexico. New Mexico is That School for Utah—even in the years when we’re really good and they’re really bad, they always make it a close game. I don’t know if y’all have anybody in that role at Bama, but let me tell you, it’s freakin’ annoying.

by Neuromancer on Jan 8, 2009 12:37 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Vanderbilt..

is our New Mexico.

by yellowhammer on Jan 8, 2009 6:41 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

“In 2004, Utah beat every team they played by at least 14 points. They literally did not play a single game where the outcome was in doubt in the fourth quarter all year.”

And if they had done that in a year without 4 other undefeated teams, they’d be playing for the title. That year an SEC Champion got snubbed, what does that do to your argument?

by PeteHoliday on Jan 8, 2009 7:37 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Strengthens it!

Even in a year where everything went more right than it can be expected to ever go again, the non-BCS team didn’t get a sniff of the national title game. The SEC champion has made it several times since—even a two-loss SEC champion. A non-BCS team? Not on your life.

I’ll grant you, if the Utes, TCU, BYU (ugh) or Boise State go undefeated and beat everybody by two touchdowns next year, they have a chance. Not a guarantee, but a chance. (Maaayybe Fresno State, too.)

by Neuromancer on Jan 8, 2009 9:53 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Actually, we ended that year 6th pre-bowl, behind three undefeated teams and 2 one-loss teams.

So even in that year, we’d have gotten snubbed. Does it still seem fair?

Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.

by displacedute on Jan 8, 2009 11:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I ran the math

and if the BCS auto-bids were based solely on 2008 (pre-bowls) the MWC would be just short of getting an auto-bid. They had .491 points, when they needed .5. Given Utah’s ranking and having 3 teams in the Top 25, the only way, realistically for the MWC to gain an auto-bid in the next conference evaluation is if they significantly shore up the bottom of their conference. Having 4 teams below #80 in the computer rankings drags them down way too far.

by rugman11 on Jan 8, 2009 2:22 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Drop Wyoming, add Boise State.

by JazzyUte on Jan 8, 2009 3:04 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Keep Wyoming.

Add Boise State and two other schools with reasonable chances of sustained decency (Nevada and Fresno, perhaps?). That’d give the MWC 12 teams and a conference championship game, which would bring in more revenue to the conference (albiet modestly) as well as give one more showcase for any potential BCS-busting team(s).

Wyoming is working itself out, though. While they still have a long, long road to go before they get to mid-90s levels, they’re far better than during the Dimel/Koenning Dark Ages. They look to be better in the next year, now that their quarterback won’t be a freshman (which was the position that had held them back for so many years).

by Hooper on Jan 8, 2009 9:22 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

^albeit

by Hooper on Jan 8, 2009 9:23 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I actually think fewer is better in this case.

The MWC needs to shoot for an average team ranking of around 45-50. The problem they have now is that the have 4 teams with sub-80 rankings (and SD State who is sub-100). Dumping SD State for Boise would probably give them enough, but adding Fresno and Nevada would likely pull them down more.

by rugman11 on Jan 8, 2009 9:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Man im pissed!

I missed all this good debating….

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

by bammer on Jan 8, 2009 9:10 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

ouch

Sour grapes? Not sure how you can claim that wasn’t total domination. Sometimes, teams dominate with defense. 200 total yards? 30 yards rushing? It was dominant.

You are right that Utah/FSU and Utah/Miami comparisons are premature. I don’t think we’ll ever see a nonBCS school rise out of nowhere like they did. The system just won’t allow that anymore.

by sancho on Jan 8, 2009 9:37 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Y'all are funny.

by NiceLittleSaturday on Jan 8, 2009 11:22 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

i think mississippi will be better than alabama next year

who replaces wilson at qb at alabama? mississippi has snead back and their two other best players. everytime i saw snead he was deadly accurate. i expect mississippi to be in the national championship hunt next year. another observation i had about the utah/alabama game was nick saban constantly getting angrier and angrier as the game went on. is this his usual deamoner? i’ll give him credit by saying the lost was pretty much all his fault. as for next year with the utes i do expect a 10 win season. they do have a qb named corbin louks who is quite fast and has ran for a couple of 100 yard games. he needs to get bigger though and that might happen because he was only a sophmore and guys do get bigger when entering their jr. years. he definitely could run the spread offense and throw short passes but he really can’t throw the deep ball. utah always seems to come up with a great defense and that should get them to 10 wins. i actually will be pulling for tcu to go undefeated next year as they have their coach back in gary patterson, their jr. qb back in andy dalton and i think aaron brown was a jr. not sure though. i still think the tcu / boise game was the best bowl game. it was not as close as the score may have indicated. tcu rushed for 278 yards while boise had 28. i have quite a bit of money on florida tonight and would not be surprised if urban meyer told a couple of his defensemen to take a couple of shots at bradford even though they would be late hits and incur a 15 yard penalty. meyer is a smart guy and just would want to see how bradford would react to getting smacked around a little bit. i think over the whole year he was sacked less than 10 times. prediction, florida 35 and okie 28. peace out!

by wolfman5 on Jan 8, 2009 2:30 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I only saw Snead in 3 games, but that was his best game EVER! I was amazed! I don’t know if it was the TT defense or if he has just gotten that much better, but he really did look like a different player.

by crimsongirl on Jan 8, 2009 2:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

just remeber that OU

a real NC contender, put up 60 on these guys….it was the defense.

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

by bammer on Jan 8, 2009 2:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

sorry...

I got to the part where you said that Ole Miss is going to be in the hunt for the NC and stopped reading….it’s obvious you know little about CFB. Ole Miss might be in the top 15 next year but thats about it. Lets wait and see what Nutt does recruiting wise before we start getting over zealos.

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

by bammer on Jan 8, 2009 2:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I was being generous….just in case it was his dad or something. =) No, even with a pi**-poor D, he really was on fire! I don’t know about the rest of the post…….ADD is acting up today.

by crimsongirl on Jan 8, 2009 2:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

sorry i have to prove my point

Nutt is not known for his recruiting. A lot of what Ark brought in was due to Malzahn…and thats proven by the fact that Miss is currently 29th in the recruitng rankings behind…wait for it…..Miss State…Kentucky….Rutgers….Arkansas…and South Carolina….yeah im not seeing where Ole Miss will be all that great in years to come.

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

by bammer on Jan 8, 2009 2:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i was using scout but you can use rivals where they are 41st.

http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=9&c=14&yr=2009

http://rivals100.rivals.com/teamrank.asp?Year=2009&Page=2&PosType=0&Sort=0

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

by bammer on Jan 8, 2009 2:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

and again....man

When you debate…use facts…not opinions

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

by bammer on Jan 8, 2009 2:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

If you thought...

…Coach Saban looked angry at the Sugar Bowl loss, you should have seen him in the second half of our 36-0 blowout win over Auburn. I literally thought he might go Woody Hayes on somebody.

As far as Ole Miss, they are certainly good enough to win the SEC West, but I have a hard time seeing them win the conference, much less a national title, without LT Michael Oher or DT Peria Jerry, both of whom should be first round picks. Snead is very good, but it all starts on the line. My prediction for tonight: OU 3, UF 2. Peace.

by NiceLittleSaturday on Jan 8, 2009 2:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You're a rock star! I love it! PLEASE let that happen.........

by crimsongirl on Jan 8, 2009 2:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Just when I was thinking...

…about staying away from this site, you have to go and acknowledge my rock star status.

by NiceLittleSaturday on Jan 8, 2009 2:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, don’t go! I’m screaming and dancing front & center right now…..

by crimsongirl on Jan 8, 2009 2:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Now...

…I’m blushing. Just stop it already. You had me at ‘crimsongirl’.

by NiceLittleSaturday on Jan 8, 2009 3:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

what kind of dancing???

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

by bammer on Jan 8, 2009 3:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, you guys are so sweet….but I can’t reveal anymore! You know we don’t want these big threads deleted! =)

by crimsongirl on Jan 8, 2009 3:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

SHWEEETT!

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

by bammer on Jan 8, 2009 4:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The only perspective that I can come up with is

that a team that received no respect over the course of the year earned a shot to play on a huge stage. The team with the chip on its shoulder faced a team that decided—after playing 13 weeks of solid football—to only show up. From there, the former team played well, and rightfully beat the latter team. It’s almost comparable to Alabama vs. Clemson. I really wish that I could explain why Alabama didn’t play well, however….

There may not be an "I" in team, but there is an "m" and an "e".

by nosaj57 on Jan 8, 2009 6:55 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

In our favor

Andre Smith’s loss was huge. That wasn’t just one lineman. That wasn’t just our best player; that was the most dominant, imposing, game-changing left tackle in college football. He will be a top two pick in the draft.

In my opinion, that’s tantamount to Utah having to play without Brian Johnson. Howl and moan and call me a fool, but it’s true. Andre was our most important player, BJ was Utah’s. The last game Andre didn’t play in, Tulane shut our offense down just as well as Utah did. The difference is/was Tulane didn’t have anywhere near the firepower Utah had last week.

But hey, we lost. We can’t really say much of anything with too much credibility. We should have found a way to win. Utah won. Give them credit. We have to look to the future now. The season is over. Any argument we make is a weak one because we didn’t get it done on the field.

by Bamagrad on Jan 8, 2009 9:38 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Who would argue with you about the loss of Andre?

Maybe prior to the game, we would have argued that the loss of one player wouldn’t have that kind of effect on our team, but NOW? No. Way. Period.

I don’t think it is a slight to Utah in ANY way for us to acknowledge that either, nor do I believe it is an excuse! It is merely a fact. He was a fabulous player, and his loss was devastating to our team in the final game.

by crimsongirl on Jan 8, 2009 10:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I was more trying

to address the people who would call that an excuse or mention the starters Utah had lost.

by Bamagrad on Jan 9, 2009 12:11 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

like i said

Utah fans and every other non-BAMA fan will just say we’re giving excuses for playing with 3 backup linemen. but i don’t know any team in the country that can sustain that kind of loss in personnel and still beat a quality team like Utah.

as i mentioned before, we didn’t give excuses for losing to Florida. we were at full strength and we lost fair and square. and most of us admitted that Florida was the better team.

anyways, OU came to play to tonight. i think i gave Florida’s offense a little TOO much credit and gave OU’s defense not enough credit. so props to OU’s defense for doin their part and showin up (seein that i was baggin on them all week). but i also gotta lay it on OU for only scoring 14 points. most prolific offense my a**. 60 points over the last 5 games my a**. 50 points/game my a**. Sam Bradford is the best QB in the nation/heisman trophy winner my a**. welcome to the S-E-C where we actually play defense. defense STILL wins championships

by CSon on Jan 9, 2009 1:38 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah

they lost their starters mid season….more than enough time to make adjustments and get your backups ready. Three days before the game….not so much

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

by bammer on Jan 9, 2009 8:58 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I think the only relevant arguement to be taken...

from the original post is while Utah has had 2 superb years in the last 5, that doesn’t all of the sudden make them a football super power. Keep it up more consistently over the next decade and maybe you can claim that. Utah had a great run this year and did jump on Alabama…but they are not now FSU, Miami etc. I am just saying while the Utes in my opinion should be able to compete on the field for the NC, step away from yourself and take a breath for a minute, don’t get ridiculous. All this other stuff is pointless.

by String30 on Jan 9, 2009 8:54 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

Football power is a tradition, one I frankly don’t need to see my school devolve into. It takes the luster away form inspiring seasons such as this and infects the fan base with an expectation that can rarely be met.

by MeanBobMean on Jan 15, 2009 2:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Pete

let me say first off that I agree with the premise of your post in that in his haste, Jazzy was overly emphatic to the point of inaccuracy. It happens when one leads with their heart. But…

Do you have to be such a right-fighter?

Put yourself in their position for a moment. You have no football tradition, you don’t play in a BCS league, you’re less than an afterthought in the CFB world. The only thing you’re known for is being the school where Urban Meyer came from. Now envision you go undefeated twice in the last 4 years ending with a BCS bowl victory each time. The latter of which, is against a program that oozes the tradition you lack and are most likely envious of. Who wouldn’t be living in the clouds right now? This is a fanbase that is not accustomed to all this attention and success. They’ve got so much Ute-love in their bodies right now its coming out of their ears. And CFB is a sport who’s fans aren’t the least bit emotional, right?

All I’m saying is let the Utes live in the clouds for the next 7 months if they want to. They deserve it. And if they want to make arguments that they deserve a split NC or to be #1 or whatever let ’em say that, its better than attacking soft targets.

Thirty-Six to Nothing

by Bens4vcobra on Jan 9, 2009 9:01 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

How is Utah not an historical power?

The OP claims Utah fan’s claim to compare historically with Miami (FL) and FSU are unfounded.

The Original Utah fan’s claim was that Utah sits in a place similar to where FSU and Miami (FL) were in the early 1980’s, before they went on their title runs. I claim Utah’s situation is different because we actually have some prior history to back us up.

Perfect Seasons: 5
1926, 1929, 1930, 2004, 2008
5 way tie for 17th, Harvard, North Dakota State, Western Michigan, Cornell,

Undefeated Seasons: 7
Above plus 1928, 1941
3 way tie for 21st with Tennessee and Georgia Tech.

All time wins of current FBC teams:
Two way tie for #34 with Ole’ Miss at 606

Compare any of these to Miami and FSU.

All time W-L record: #33 606-419-31 0.58854
Ahead of:
Michigan State 0.58813
UCLA 0.58789
Boston College 0.58692

Miami and FSU beat Utah hear, but Boise State at (0.69959) beats all three.

In all time point differential Utah stands at #28.

National Championships:
Miami 1983, 1987, 1989, 1991, 2001
FSU 1993, 1999
Utah: NONE

But since when has college football truly had a champion that was anything more than mythical? Was BYU in 1984 better than Utah in 2004 or 2008?

Maybe we are no Alabama, but we are at least a top 30 all time program.

And the future looks good.
Only 18 of the 120 FBC teams have been to 2 BCS Bowls. Of those 18 only eleven have won 2. We did this without the benefit of an automatic qualifier for our conference.

How many teams during the BCS era have capped two undefeated season with an impressive BCS bowl win TWICE? In total points differential in BCS bowls Utah (42) stands at #4, behind USC (128), Florida (64) and LSU (61).

We have the longest bowl winning streak at 8, including wins over Fresno State, USC, Southern Mississippi, Pittsburgh, Georgia Tech, Tulsa, Navy and Alabama. Three of those teams have been to BCS bowls, combining for a 6-4 record. 6-2 if you don’t count loses to Utah.

Was our season less impressive than BYU’s 1984 championship year? What about last years LSU title?

Can you argue that our 2004 season was less impressive than FSU’s 1979 season? What about this season with FSU’s 1987 season? They had 7 and 9 win season in between. They had nothing before this.

Miami’s rise was faster and higher. Making their first mark in 1983 they returned in 1985.

Utah is on the rise and appears to be on a path somewhere between these two teams. If we can run off a few years of 10+ wins and our conference can continue to perform as it did this year we have a very bright future indeed.

by utesfan100 on Jan 10, 2009 2:57 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Dear utesfan100 (as well as utes fans 1-99):

We understand that y’all (that’s the plural of ‘you’ around here) feel slightly…slighted. Although Alabama’s own football tradition pales to that of no other school, we love good football played by any school. I realize there has been some back and forth on this site, and some of it has been less than friendly, but most of us — if not all — agree with most (if not all) of your sentiments regarding Utah’s place in college football. Is the current system completely fair? Of course not. Did Utah field a very good football team this year? Obviously, they did. Are you one of the top 30 programs of all time? Maybe (OK, this one I can’t agree with, but it doesn’t mean enough to me to debate). Is Utah on the rise? As my Magic 8-Ball says, “All signs point to ‘yes’”.

I guarantee you most readers of this site didn’t know Utah even played football in the 20s, so the stats you’ve posted here are certainly eye-opening to the masses. But what I’m saying is: you don’t have to prove yourselves to us. All excuses aside, you beat us convincingly in the Sugar Bowl, you finished 13-0, and ended the year ranked #2 in the country (deservedly higher than Bama). We wish a very bright future upon you, one that contains only a few occasional severe beat-downs by future Bama squads.

In the meantime, try to enjoy the fruits of a fine season. Peace out.

by NiceLittleSaturday on Jan 10, 2009 3:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Thank you

Actually, Alabama fans have been nothing but respectful to me. Living in Panama City Florida I run into more than a few.

Most of America now acknowledges that we were slighted, with Harris voters even going on record stating they did not watch a single Utah game until the Sugar Bowl. I find Alabama find even more sympathetic than most fans in that regard.

My goal was to open the eyes of the masses, including Utah fans, to Utah’s place in football history. It is much more than the blank sheet with a few recent notes that Boise State has. That said they have been better than us 8 of the last 10 years. We just got them the two that mattered most.

by utesfan100 on Jan 10, 2009 4:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Just

because you have a football history, doesn’t make you a ‘historical football power.’

Thirty-Six to Nothing

by Bens4vcobra on Jan 12, 2009 8:35 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

But the point should not be you have ot be a football power to be considered, and most sports writers conceded they had no idea how good we were beacuse they’d never seen us, simply voted based on who they usually watch.

The BCS system reinforces that.

If the system changes into a playoff, good for that. If we continue to Cinderlla up and shine every few years, heck even 1 in ten, I’m also on board with that. Both outcomes have their selling points.

by MeanBobMean on Jan 15, 2009 2:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

It is Tiring

To listen to, I’m done with it as well.

However, part of the spittle explosion is directly and inextricably linked to the fact that most folks want a playoff and beating this drum is the path to attainment of same in their eyes.

So view it for what it is, a tool to chide and stick it to “the man” who is the BCS system.

by MeanBobMean on Jan 15, 2009 2:20 PM CST reply actions 0 recs