# BYU vs USC



## goosefreak

Well, I only caught the second half but, That game would have been won a lot sooner had they just kicked a field goal on 4th & 1 with 8 minutes left in the 3rd... Someone slap that OC would ya!

So, Tennessee now USC..

The Washington game will be interesting..


----------



## Catherder

It was a good win for the cougs. Nicely done!

As a Ute fan, I have mixed feelings about it as the win makes what happened 3 weeks ago look much better on our resume ( and I'm no fan of USC) but it knocks back Pac-12 cred that the Trojans lost. 

I would think it would cool Sitakes seat quite a bit too.


----------



## wyoming2utah

I watched the game and rooted for the Cougs the whole time. The PAC-12 sucks...no other way to put it. I'm not sure the conference is any better than the one the Utes and Cougars left.

I also won't be surprised if the Utes lose this Friday, though I hope they don't.


----------



## hunting777

Good, fun, entertaining game! I am really excited to see this weeks games. 
Fridays game, USC is now on the home turf, which makes a huge difference. BYU still at home. I hope they put up a good fight. I know with last weeks win with USC, Washington I am sure is more on their toes. 
Aggies at San Diego. GO AGGIES!!!!


----------



## Vanilla

wyoming2utah said:


> I watched the game and rooted for the Cougs the whole time. The PAC-12 sucks...no other way to put it. I'm not sure the conference is any better than the one the Utes and Cougars left.


Interesting take. I don't ever recall the MWC having 6 teams ranked 3 weeks into the season?

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/27621898/return-pac-six-pac-12-teams-now-ranked

I think if we told anyone that after week three that 6 teams would be ranked in the top 25, and none would be named Stanford or USC, folks would have said the PAC-12 is looking very strong. But, you tell me where that logic is wrong. I'm willing to listen.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Rankings...you mean those subjective takes? Nevermind that the Pac-12 is only 4-4 against the Mountain West.

Yeah, the Pac-12 is overrated for sure. Don't be surprised when ASU, Cal, and possibly WSU drop out down the road. Right now, the Pac-12 has teams ranked just because of their past. The ho-hum teams will go down that same road as always...

...and the Pac-12 will miss the college football playoff once again.


----------



## Catherder

wyoming2utah said:


> Rankings...you mean those subjective takes? Nevermind that the Pac-12 is only 4-4 against the Mountain West.
> 
> Yeah, the Pac-12 is overrated for sure. Don't be surprised when ASU, Cal, and possibly WSU drop out down the road. Right now, the Pac-12 has teams ranked just because of their past. The ho-hum teams will go down that same road as always...


The MWC has done ok so far, but it never hurts to look at the details.

MWC teams have beaten Colorado, Arizona, UCLA and Oregon St. Good for them! However, UCLA and Oregon St. are hot garbage right now. I don't think that represents great accomplishment. Any conference will have their bottom feeders. Colorado and Arizona, while certainly not world beating teams themselves, have beaten competitive teams from the Big 10 and Big 12 this year, thus strongly suggesting that those other conferences are not all that either. The only difference might be those conferences have that one great team, which the Pac 12 may not have. Time will tell.

The historical record is fairly clear that the Pac-12 does better than the MWC in head to head competition. Your desire to "go back" to the MWC is not a view shared by very many Utefans.


----------



## wyoming2utah

NO, maybe not. But, I long for the days of BYU, Utah, and TCU all together and imagine what would have been had USU and Boise ST. joined those other three (not toe mention Nevada and Fresno St.)...that would have been fun. 

Right now, I still say the Pac-12 is garbage...and that super fun game the Utes had against Idaho State was garbage too.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Catherder said:


> The historical record is fairly clear that the Pac-12 does better than the MWC in head to head competition.


Except in bowl games where the MWC has the edge.


----------



## Vanilla

wyoming2utah said:


> ...and the Pac-12 will miss the college football playoff once again.


Oh,



wyoming2utah said:


> ...you mean those subjective takes?


Only w2u can contradict himself in the same post and not realize it! Come on, you're better than this. Bring your A game!

And you long for those days that Utah and TCU were in the same conference. All 6 years of it? What history! It's so disappointing to lose a storied series like that.

There might be three total Utah and TCU fans combined that long for the MWC days. I'm sure there are two W2Us in Texas somewhere...


----------



## wyoming2utah

My subjective take is worth every bit as much as the stupid college football polls....that mean what exactly?

So, the history that Utah has with Oregon ST. is much better...? Oh, that California rivalry really gets your heart pumping, doesn't it? I mean Utah vs. UCLA...that's a fun one too!

Really? Rivalries? That's your argument against the old MWC? The old MWC rivalries are a lot more real than the new Colorado rivalry!

Yeah, the Pac-12 sucks...but, at least, the Utes will have a chance to get to the CFP. I will give it that.


----------



## Vanilla

wyoming2utah said:


> My subjective take is worth every bit as much as the stupid college football polls....that mean what exactly?


Your take means nothing outside of just you are a person and entitled to your opinion. I would say it's completely worthless, but that would devalue you as a person, and I certainly don't want to do that. Outside of that, however, your take (and mine equally) is pretty irrelevant and worthless.

Polls mean money, notoriety, measured success, and a whole lot more. So yes, your (and my) take is worth a whole lot less than that of the polls. Even a person that likes to purposefully make totally insane arguments like you gets that.


----------



## BigT

wyoming2utah said:


> So, the history that Utah has with Oregon ST. is much better...? Oh, that California rivalry really gets your heart pumping, doesn't it? I mean Utah vs. UCLA...that's a fun one too!


Every one of us Utah fans REALLY miss those match-ups with Wyoming, New Mexico, UNLV, Air Force, Colorado St, etc.....

Come on! I don't care if California is down, and by the way they're decent.. I don't care if UCLA is down... And yeah they stink.. But it's SOOOOO much better than watching Utah play New Mexico and Wyoming and on and on year after year. Utah is a great team.. But could still lose this Friday to a highly talented team. BYU beat them because they won the turnover battle. Hopefully Utah can replicate that.

We are all entitled to our opinions... You sound bitter personally that the old MWC is gone. But the way that College Football is moving, it's better to be a part of the big boys then not.

As far as the worthless polls as you mentioned... They play a huge role in where teams end up in the CFP. You have to be ranked decently to have a shot. I love the Ute's.. Think they're a great team. But history says they'll drop a game or two that they shouldn't. They have a realistic shot at a New Years 6... I think it's a really long shot at the CFP. But there's a chance if they go undefeated. Could even make it there with one loss depending on who that loss it to.


----------



## wyoming2utah

The PAC-12 is a joke in football...yep, I wish the Utes were still playing Air Force, Wyoming, SDSU, BYU, New Mexico, and TCU in conference. It was a lot more fun back then...

Love this:
https://www.denverpost.com/2019/09/14/kiszla-cu-buffs-lose-to-air-force-pac-12-football/

Quote:
"If I were Mountain West commish Craig Thompson, I would pick up the telephone first thing Monday morning, call Pac-12 offices and ask Scott when he would like to begin merger talks between the two leagues."

Also this:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-pac-12-is-in-shambles/

And this:
https://www.seattletimes.com/sports...eputation-as-an-inferior-football-conference/

And this:
https://www.theringer.com/2019/3/12...basketball-football-larry-scott-mismanagement

And, don't even get me started about the pathetic state of Pac-12 basketball:
https://bleacherreport.com/articles...nference-in-shot-clock-era-of-mens-basketball


----------



## wadedylan2

As WSU coug fan I am really hoping BYU can pull one out against the UW huskies this week. Go cougs!


----------



## Vanilla

W2U sounds like Bill Reilly on ESPN 700 right now. Logic rings loud for both.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Yup, the Pathetic-12 is right where they left off last year:

Look at the conferences four best teams: Oregon, Utah, Washington and Washington State. They play a combined total of one nonconference game against a Power Five opponent—Oregon's season opener against Auburn in Texas, which they lost.

So, the strength of the Pac-12 is being determined by Stanford (vs. Northwestern, at UCF, vs. Notre Dame), USC (vs. Fresno State, at BYU, at Notre Dame) and UCLA (at Cincinnati, vs. San Diego State, vs. Oklahoma). Any chance the Pathetic-12 has a winning record in those games? I don't think so...especially since Stanford already lost to Northwestern and UCF, USC has already lost to BYU, and UCLA has already lost to Cincinnati, SDSU, and Oklahoma.

So, even if division favorites Washington and Utah fare well in conference, they will get no respect for 11 wins compiled against a pathetic nonconference schedule and what is perceived as a weak conference. 

If Utah loses a conference game, no way they are getting in. Reminds me a lot of the old MWC days....


----------



## RandomElk16

wyoming2utah said:


> Oregon's season opener against Auburn in Texas, which they lost.


Only missing 5 WR's.... and they still barely lost...

You keep highlighting the level of competition, it's not like the MWC is playing super teams. The years Weber State(very aware they aren't MWC, using them as an example of "good in your weak conference") does well, they get DESTROYED by U of U. At least be consistent with who the MWC plays.

The Pac is significantly better than MWC. But they are in that weird middle ground for recruiting. The schools aren't as good as the other football programs. They also don't have some of the academic appeal of some of the other bigger schools. It's a weird area.


----------



## wyoming2utah

I didn't say the MWC is playing better teams...what I am saying is that the Utes had just as easy of an opportunity of getting in the CFP when they were in the MWC as now because of how pathetic the PAC-12 is. As soon as a PAC-12 loses a game...they are out.

And, nobody is crying any tears over who Oregon did or did not have in their opener. I am sure that weak argument won't get them in the CFP later on. All that matters are the Ws and Ls.

And, no, the PAC-12 is NOT significantly better than the MWC in football (marginally better, maybe...probably)...certainly not better in basketball.


----------



## wyoming2utah

RandomElk16 said:


> But they are in that weird middle ground for recruiting. The schools aren't as good as the other football programs.


A lot of data out there suggesting that Pathetic-12 recruiting is going downhill because talent in California is going downhill. The data is showing that the number of potential recruits in the talent pool is dwindling because fewer and fewer kids are playing football out west.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/01...r-than-those-of-other-power-five-conferences/


----------



## RandomElk16

wyoming2utah said:


> A lot of data out there suggesting that Pathetic-12 recruiting is going downhill because talent in California is going downhill. The data is showing that the number of potential recruits in the talent pool is dwindling because fewer and fewer kids are playing football out west.
> 
> https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/01...r-than-those-of-other-power-five-conferences/


Ok? So you are saying exactly what I am saying. And the MWC would also be competing for talent, so their pool will shrink as well. Doesn't mean these aren't good programs in the PAC-12.

Calling them the Pathetic-12 reminds me of the adolescents who call Lebron "LeBum" and "LeQueen" and crap like that. It's hard to take any stance seriously when that is built into it.


----------



## wyoming2utah

RandomElk16 said:


> Ok? So you are saying exactly what I am saying. And the MWC would also be competing for talent, so their pool will shrink as well. Doesn't mean these aren't good programs in the PAC-12.
> 
> Calling them the Pathetic-12 reminds me of the adolescents who call Lebron "LeBum" and "LeQueen" and crap like that. It's hard to take any stance seriously when that is built into it.


I was agreeing with the fact that their recruiting is struggling and that the Pac-12 teams aren't as good as other teams.

They are only good when you compare them to Non-Power 5 conferences. I call them the Pathetic-12 because that's what they are...a pathetic "Power 5" conference. IN fact, they are the most pathetic Power 5 conference. But, truthfully, all I am doing is following the lead of sportswriters...

https://www.oregonlive.com/sports/oregonian/john_canzano/2018/03/canzano_ugly_postseason_turns.html


----------



## Vanilla

wyoming2utah said:


> If Utah loses a conference game, no way they are getting in. Reminds me a lot of the old MWC days....


Except two pieces of objectively factual data points that we can look at, and not just assume. Utah went undefeated two times in the MWC, and got how many chances to compete for a national championship?

If they go undefeated any year in the Pathetic-12, they will be in. Nobody is arguing against that. Not even your ridiculous attempts to troll here.

But don't let facts get into the way of your argument now. By all means, be you! It's more fun that way.


----------



## RandomElk16

I can't read him repeat pathetic 12 over and over.

It's not like we are far removed from a final 4 for Oregon and CFP for Oregon. 

There are 65 schools in the Power 5. I wouldn't even say the top 25 schools could be called "great". It's the top 10, maybe, and really only the top 7 or so COULD win if Bama, Clemson, etc didn't exist.

Hell, 6 of them are from the Pac 12 and you are calling them pathetic. Think about that. 6 of 12. 6 of the 65 Power 5 schools. Almost 25% of the top 25 are Pac 12. It could be much worse.

Edit: I forgot about Washington making the CFP also.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Vanilla said:


> Except two pieces of objectively factual data points that we can look at, and not just assume. Utah went undefeated two times in the MWC, and got how many chances to compete for a national championship?
> 
> If they go undefeated any year in the Pathetic-12, they will be in. Nobody is arguing against that. Not even your ridiculous attempts to troll here.
> 
> But don't let facts get into the way of your argument now. By all means, be you! It's more fun that way.


I will agree with you on that...doesn't change the fact that the Pathetic-12 is the worst Power 5 conference. Nor does it change my opinion that the old MWC was a lot more fun rooting for the Utes to tear down the BCS.

As things stand right now, the only way the Utes are in the CFP is if they do go undefeated...fat chance of that happening, right?


----------



## wyoming2utah

RandomElk16 said:


> I can't read him repeat pathetic 12 over and over.
> 
> It's not like we are far removed from a final 4 for Oregon and CFP for Oregon.
> 
> There are 65 schools in the Power 5. I wouldn't even say the top 25 schools could be called "great". It's the top 10, maybe, and really only the top 7 or so COULD win if Bama, Clemson, etc didn't exist.
> 
> Hell, 6 of them are from the Pac 12 and you are calling them pathetic. Think about that. 6 of 12. 6 of the 65 Power 5 schools. Almost 25% of the top 25 are Pac 12. It could be much worse.
> 
> Edit: I forgot about Washington making the CFP also.


OH, but you conveniently forgot these stats: The SEC has won nine of the past 13 national-championship games, Clemson (ACC) has won two, Florida State (ACC) one and Texas (Big 12) the other. The only NCAA championship game the Pac-12 has won in the past 21 years was USC in 2004, and that title was stripped due to recruiting violations.

And the fact that last season the Pathetic-12 won just 2 games against ranked nonconference teams--ASU over Michigan State and Washington over
BYU. Teams that both finished a whopping and not impressive 7-6.

Additionally, over the past two seasons the Pathetic-12 owned a wonderful 4-12 record in bowl games. And, since its inception, the Pathetic-12 has only had 2 teams make the CFP...for you math whizzes that is a whopping 10 percentage of all teams. And, the only win the Pathetic-12 have had in all that time came...what is it? 5 years ago now.

Moreover, according to the article: 
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-pac-12-is-in-shambles/ 
the Pathetic-12 was only "3.53 points better than the average FBS team in 2018-19, the lowest mark by a Power Five conference in six years. Since 2010, the conference has produced three of the seven worst seasons, two of which came in the past two seasons."

Not only that, but the Pathetic-12 has arguable the worst power 5 football team in Oregon State and traditional powers like USC and UCLA are nothing of their traditional selves and haven't been for quite a few years. The sad thing is that we are only 3 weeks in and it already appears that the Pathetic-12 has been eliminated again from the CFP!

Any bets that the Pathetic-12 won't have 6 ranked teams at the end of the season? Which ones will fall out first?


----------



## Vanilla

wyoming2utah said:


> Any bets that the Pathetic-12 won't have 6 ranked teams at the end of the season? Which ones will fall out first?


They probably won't. But I'll bet you the ACC, Big 12, and Big 10 don't either. So, what does that mean if they are the same as everyone else?


----------



## wyoming2utah

What did the Pac-12 end up with last year? 2. Washington and Washington State. And, the Big-10 did end up with 6 in the last AP Poll last year.

Any bets the Pac-12 will have a losing record in bowl games again? I sure hope they can do better than the results two years ago (1-8!). Heck, I would love to see them just beat a few legit top-25 teams...when was the last time that happened? How did they do last year in Bowl games? 3-4. That's especially sad considering the only other conferences with losing bowl records were the Mid-American and AAC. Even worse is that the top teams of the Pac-12 conference all lost.

Just as interesting is the number of bowl games--the Big 10 had 9 bowl games, the ACC had 11 bowl games, the SEC had 12 bowl games, the Big 12 had 7 bowl games, a the AAC had 7 bowl games, and the MWC had 6 (though Boise States bowl game against BC was cancelled). So, the only Power 5 with as few bowl games as the PAC 12 was the Big 12 (which also had Oklahoma representing it in the CFP). Based on that, you can make an argument that the PAC 12 is not as good as the AAC.


----------



## RandomElk16

wyoming2utah said:


> OH, but you conveniently forgot these stats: The SEC has won nine of the past 13 national-championship games, Clemson (ACC) has won two, Florida State (ACC) one and Texas (Big 12) the other. The only NCAA championship game the Pac-12 has won in the past 21 years was USC in 2004, and that title was stripped due to recruiting violations.
> 
> And the fact that last season the Pathetic-12 won just 2 games against ranked nonconference teams--ASU over Michigan State and Washington over
> BYU. Teams that both finished a whopping and not impressive 7-6.
> 
> Additionally, over the past two seasons the Pathetic-12 owned a wonderful 4-12 record in bowl games. And, since its inception, the Pathetic-12 has only had 2 teams make the CFP...for you math whizzes that is a whopping 10 percentage of all teams. And, the only win the Pathetic-12 have had in all that time came...what is it? 5 years ago now.
> 
> Moreover, according to the article:
> https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-pac-12-is-in-shambles/
> the Pathetic-12 was only "3.53 points better than the average FBS team in 2018-19, the lowest mark by a Power Five conference in six years. Since 2010, the conference has produced three of the seven worst seasons, two of which came in the past two seasons."
> 
> Not only that, but the Pathetic-12 has arguable the worst power 5 football team in Oregon State and traditional powers like USC and UCLA are nothing of their traditional selves and haven't been for quite a few years. The sad thing is that we are only 3 weeks in and it already appears that the Pathetic-12 has been eliminated again from the CFP!
> 
> Any bets that the Pathetic-12 won't have 6 ranked teams at the end of the season? Which ones will fall out first?


You really are annoying with the persistence on the name. Like, a 12 year old.

I didn't conveniently forget that. But in one of those years the Utes were undefeated, easier to do when you play TRASH teams in the MWC. Maybe the 08 team was amazing, we won't know because they played **** competition. Funny you brought up 04 with USC. What was the Utes record that year? Did they get to play in the ship? What about UCF in 2017? Yeah... that's what I thought.

I already said it's harder for the Pac-12 to recruit. You even agreed. But that means if they aren't getting players in the west, neither is the MWC. Again, it's a crappy conference. So put one of the best Pac teams down into a crap conference, makes sense. Maybe the basketball teams you coach should start playing down an age group. Instead of competing with the good travel teams, play in a weaker tier. Winning games against s*** teams isn't exciting. It's like beating the browns those two seasons.

I love how short sighted this all is. "Last year... Last two seasons... blah blah blah..."

Bama has won it 5/10 years... So every other college team must be s***.

No one will disagree that Oregon State should be out. Still would rather play in the weakest Power 5 then in some conference that can't get any national tv games and people back east don't know exists.

Any bets the MWC won't have any ranked teams at the end of the season? Shoot, during the season?


----------



## wyoming2utah

RandomElk16 said:


> Any bets the MWC won't have any ranked teams at the end of the season? Shoot, during the season?


Yeah, I'll gladly take that bet!

By the way, the 08 team played poor competition? Really? Besides beating Michigan at Michigan, that juggernaut Power 5 team Oregon State, BYU ranked 25th (10-3), and TCU ranked 7th(11-2 winner of bowl game over Boise State who was ranked 11th), the Utes won their bowl game over Alabama who ended up ranked 6th.

Hell, that's better competition than the Utes will see this year by far!


----------



## RandomElk16

wyoming2utah said:


> Yeah, I'll gladly take that bet!
> 
> By the way, the 08 team played poor competition? Really? Besides beating Michigan at Michigan, that juggernaut Power 5 team Oregon State, BYU ranked 25th (10-3), and TCU ranked 7th(11-2 winner of bowl game over Boise State who was ranked 11th), the Utes won their bowl game over Alabama who ended up ranked 6th.
> 
> Hell, that's better competition than the Utes will see this year by far!


See below:



wyoming2utah said:


> Rankings...you mean those subjective takes?


----------



## Vanilla

08 competition was fantastic. Butnits not better than this ear. Just stop Stu. Stop. 

It’s one thing to stir the pot, it’s another to become insane.


----------



## hunting777

wyoming2utah said:


> Yeah, I'll gladly take that bet!
> /


o-||o-||o-||
Vanilla, I stole this from another entertaining thread you chimed in on. 
"When are you and Shaun going to Rodizios?"

Maybe, with this bet going on. W2U, you, and RandomElk16 can join Goosefreak and Shaun at Rodizios. :rotfl::EAT:


----------



## RandomElk16

hunting777 said:


> o-||o-||o-||
> Vanilla, I stole this from another entertaining thread you chimed in on.
> "When are you and Shaun going to Rodizios?"
> 
> Maybe, with this bet going on. W2U, you, and RandomElk16 can join Goosefreak and Shaun at Rodizios. :rotfl::EAT:


This isn't like their beef. This is a friendly sports disagreement (or delusion if you are w2u lol... only kidding).


----------



## wyoming2utah

Vanilla said:


> 08 competition was fantastic. Butnits not better than this ear. Just stop Stu. Stop.
> 
> It's one thing to stir the pot, it's another to become insane.


Yeah, because the Utes will face multiple top-10 teams this year...

...will they even face one?

Where is your argument? You resort to calling me insane, but you can't support your argument with any real evidence? Weak...just weak. I want to see any kind of support...just any. Got some?


----------



## wyoming2utah

Randomelk16, I only referred to those flawed rankings because you are basing so much off them. You know, using your own argument against you...

...but, I guess those teams shouldn't have been top-10, right?


----------



## Vanilla

I’ve been arguing with W2U over silly stuff online now for...what, 15+ years? Dang...that’s kind of depressing. 

It’s all in good fun. Even if he is insane sometimes.


----------



## wyoming2utah

You know what they say, WAFE, the real idiot is the one arguing with an idiot. I just wish I didn't have to admit that I am the real idiot.

It will be even more fun if BYU can pull out a win against Washington at home this weekend. Or, sadly, if USC beats the Utes. Or, if Ole Miss beats Cal. Or, if Stanford beats Oregon. Or, if UCLA beats Washington St. Or, if Colorado beats ASU.

At least you guys are giving me some reason to watch the Pathetic-12.


----------



## wyoming2utah

hunting777 said:


> Maybe, with this bet going on. W2U, you, and RandomElk16 can join Goosefreak and Shaun at Rodizios. :rotfl::EAT:


Maybe, but I don't think RandomElk16 is dumb enough to take that bet...

....because we both know that Boise St. will most likely end up ranked (Aren't they already?). I hope he's not that dumb, anyway...making a bet that he would lose before it was even made. Ouch, that would be bad.


----------



## RandomElk16

wyoming2utah said:


> Randomelk16, I only referred to those flawed rankings because you are basing so much off them. You know, using your own argument against you...
> 
> ...but, I guess those teams shouldn't have been top-10, right?


I mean.. you brought up Michigan as the first team for the 08 Ute's, that team was 3-9.

Any Bama team that finishes out of the top 4 isn't a real Bama team haha.

Utes played 3 ranked teams that year, shoot 3 loss BYU was even 16 that year (tells you how bad college ball was that season).

The Utes played Weber, Utah State (3-9 coming off 2-9), your beloved Oregon St (Who actually went 9-4 that year), UNLV a 7 loss team, Wyoming an 8 loss team, a 2-10 SD st, a 4-8 New Mexico, a 6 loss colorado....

I mean, aside from TCU and Bama they played no one. Neat, they may not play 2 teams like that this year, but their overall schedule is significantly harder.


----------



## wyoming2utah

RandomElk16 said:


> The Utes played Weber, Utah State (3-9 coming off 2-9), your beloved Oregon St (Who actually went 9-4 that year), UNLV a 7 loss team, Wyoming an 8 loss team, a 2-10 SD st, a 4-8 New Mexico, a 6 loss colorado....


Ouch, that sounds like the Pathetic-12--UCLA, Oregon St., Stanford, Colorado. Aren't 2 of those from the vaunted Pathetic-12? Yeah, ouch.

Think the Utes will play any top-10 teams this year? I don't.


----------



## Vanilla

If they make it to the Sugar Bowl they will! Remember, Alabama was not on their schedule. It was their bowl game. 

And yes, you are the real idiot. We finally agree on something!!!


----------



## Catherder

Wait..........did I hear Rodizios? I want in! :EAT: 


All I will say at this point is that W2U sounds exactly like all the PAC-12 hating cougarfans on the D News comment boards. The only difference is that I know that cougarfans (and the Y) would join the "Pathetic-12" in a New York minute if the invitation came. 

I think W2U knows that it is just a juicy argument topic to bring up with all of us Utefans ecstatic that we aren't playing conference games in Laramie and Albacracky any more.


----------



## RandomElk16

wyoming2utah said:


> Ouch, that sounds like the Pathetic-12--UCLA, Oregon St., Stanford, Colorado. Aren't 2 of those from the vaunted Pathetic-12? Yeah, ouch.
> 
> Think the Utes will play any top-10 teams this year? I don't.


The teams they play will have a better win-loss record, and those teams are also playing better teams. (Example would be weber state having a good record, playing shizzy teams like in 2008 )

The teams Utah plays now, play better teams! Not sure what type of rocket science you think this is.

TCU wasn't ranked top 10 until the very final week. They landed there by default of other teams losing, while they closed the season against freaking air force.

TCU played 3 ranked teams in reg season.. one was a BYU team that lost to all the good teams they played, the other two were Utah and Oklahoma and they lost both. They were certainly overrated.

Alabama was a good win. I will give them that. Missing two all-american linemen, one of which was the #6 pick, but still they showed up great. Bowl games are anyones to take. Bama wasn't happy with how the rankings played out and they went into that game a mental mess, while the Utes went in with something to prove. A good game, but still the regular season was weak comp.


----------



## BGD

Man - all that Utah hype took exactly one game into the conference schedule before a wet blanket was thrown on it. Come on Utah! Time to win a game that you are supposed to.


----------



## RandomElk16

BGD said:


> Man - all that Utah hype took exactly one game into the conference schedule before a wet blanket was thrown on it. Come on Utah! Time to win a game that you are supposed to.


Kyle has never been great at that lol


----------



## HighNDry

Same old story: Rank them high, then watch them die. Bring 'em home on the POO POO CHOO CHOO.


----------



## Vanilla

It does go to show the relevance of football programs in the state. A BYU vs USC thread turns completely to a discussion about Utah, even a week later as both teams have moved on to other opponents.

*GO UTES! *


----------



## HighNDry

Actually, I think it turned to a PAC12 conversation in general, then to a Utah discussion as the arrogant defenders of the PAC12 started to appear. Then the big red go Utes appears as if somehow rubbing that in someones face will cure the hurt from a dropped game. Stay proud.

Looks like Washington (PAC12) is putting it on the Cougars.


----------



## Vanilla

HighNDry said:


> Actually, I think it turned to a PAC12 conversation in general, then to a Utah discussion


So we agree? Good to know.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Another year of college football in Utah down the drain...oh well, at least I can still watch the Cowboys.

Are we really resting our Pathetic-12 hopes on California, ASU, or WSU to get into the CFP? Or, are Washington and Oregon still the best two teams?

The Utah/USC game was entertaining but pathetic at the same time...how many penalties were thrown in that game? The flags became so annoying that it got harder and harder to watch. As for the Utes, for a team so built on defense, it was sad to see their defense let them down so badly--how many long balls did Pittman catch? Is Jalen Johnson really pro material? And the rush defense held them to what -16 yards until they had to stop them and couldn't....a sad defensive game for the Utes. Offensively, I was really impressed. I think Huntley has finally come into his own...sadly, though, like Moss, I think it is only a matter of time before he too gets hurt and has to sit. And, how many times did the Utes have drives stall out in the red zone without getting TDs or even points at all?

BYU looked totally overmatched against Washington. What does that say, if anything, about USC and Utah?


----------



## Vanilla

You must be a hit at parties!


----------



## wyoming2utah

Well, WSU is now out and so is ASU. Let's hope Cal can carry the Pac-12 torch! I'm glad I'll be hunting this weekend and won't bother thinking about who the Utes play.

Another article on the Pac-12:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/20/sports/pac-12-tv-recruiting.html


----------



## RandomElk16

You do realize only 4 teams get into the playoffs, right?

Let me know when a MWC team gets in. We will probably both be dead.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Maybe they won't...but it is still more fun trying to break up the elitist party than being the uninvited elitist who is left out! How many times did the Utes get to do that when we had the old MWC and the BCS? How many times have they done anything close as a member of the Pathetic-12? Right now, Boise State has a better chance than any Pac-12 team...

When will the Pathetic-12 get another team in? Before you die?


----------



## RandomElk16

I bet you $1000 there is a Pac-12 team in the next 5 years.


You just use the playoffs as your measure, which is hilarious. In the modern CFP (last 5 years) Big 10 has gone 3 times (Ohio twice, Spartans once) and the Big 12 3 times (One freaking school - Oklahoma). Pac 12 also twice (Oregon, Washington). 1 independent has made it.


SEC and ACC have and will always be the two most dominant conferences in CFB. The measure stick you use is stupid. Whatever, enjoy your hate. Oh and who has Boise played? FSU on a year they aren't ranked. Neat-o! Again, easy competition means nothing.


----------



## Catherder

RandomElk16 said:


> SEC and ACC have and will always be the two most dominant conferences in CFB.


I would submit that the ACC has had one dominant *TEAM* (Clemson), but is pretty mediocre otherwise. This weeks ESPN ACC rankings had Roscoes team, Virginia, number 2. I saw that they barely won over that football powerhouse, Old Dominion last week. Give me a break.

For all the Debbie downers commenting, this past week proves that the U is not a playoff team. No freaking duh. I'm sorry if some of you bought into the hype.


----------



## wyoming2utah

So, what you are saying is that the Pathetic-12 is the worst power 5 conference? Wasn't that my point?

Well, let's hope USC or UCLA or Oregon return to national prominence...I just want the conference of champions and the Utes to become relevant in college football. Something they aren't now but were before.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Catherder said:


> For all the Debbie downers commenting, this past week proves that the U is not a playoff team. No freaking duh. I'm sorry if some of you bought into the hype.


I think that is what has me so exhausted about college football. Every spring we start seeing the Y and the U hyped up in our local papers and by our local radio stations. Then, we hear it almost all summer and into the start of the season...only to be disappointed by the reality.

I was hoping that the hype was real...deep down I knew it was not and here we are only at the beginning of the season and, once again, hope is lost and the college football season will slowly wind down to a very anti-climactic end. But, that is college football and the CFP as we know it.

At least in college basketball there is hope if you can get to the tournament. Even if you don't, it is still fun trying to get through the lesser tournament.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Catherder said:


> This weeks ESPN ACC rankings had Roscoes team, Virginia, number 2. I saw that they barely won over that football powerhouse, Old Dominion last week. Give me a break.


But, they won. So, for all those Virginia fans out there, hope is still alive. In the end, wins are what mean the most. No different than the Utes win over Northern Illinois (which was far from easy). As a power 5 player, if Virginia wins all or all but one of its conference games and its conference championship, they are in.


----------



## Catherder

wyoming2utah said:


> I think that is what has me so exhausted about college football. Every spring we start seeing the Y and the U hyped up in our local papers and by our local radio stations. Then, we hear it almost all summer and into the start of the season...only to be disappointed by the reality.


I will heartily agree with you here. IDK if you get all the Salt Lake sports talk radio stations where you live but it is ridiculous. Shutting those off on my drivetime radio has increased my sporting enjoyment immensely.

We Utefans have always joked about the BYU hype machine that builds up the team (esp the QB) over the summer and then results in the inevitable letdown. Thanks to our local media, the U is becoming the same. :sad:

TOTP!


----------



## wyoming2utah

yeah, I have said it before...I hate Reilly on ESPN 700. I make the same mistake over and over to listen on my drive to and from work. Some days I am smart enough to turn it off; most days I am not.

But, I also keep reading articles like this:
https://bleacherreport.com/articles...ending-reign-as-cfbs-worst-power-5-conference


----------



## Vanilla

You have set up such a false narrative. A couple national writers label Utah as a dark horse playoff contender, and all the sudden that becomes the bench mark? 

Every goal the team had when the season started is still on the board. I guarantee you that Kyle Whittingham has not talked for one second to this team about winning a national championship this year. 

Win the division, then win the conference. Anything that happens on top of that is gravy. Both of those things are still possible. I’m not jumping off 4 weeks into the season after one loss that I suspected could come before they ever started fall camp. Such a happy, positive guy like W2U has to be on the welcoming committee for anything he does. As was said before, if YOU bought the hype of the playoff, then this is a YOU problem, not a Utah problem.


----------



## wyoming2utah

I know...I shouldn't have hopes that the Utes could crack into national prominence. Really? What fan doesn't want his/her team to win the "Championship" at the start of the year? Am I supposed to look at things the same way the coach does?

What has me down and negative are these kinds of stats:
Since 2010, the Pac-12 has won 11 bowl games against the MW and lost 12. A sub-.500 record in bowl games against the MWC is inexcusable.

Against other Power 5 programs, the Mountain West has records of:

5-7 against ACC 
2-34 against Big-10 
2-14 against Big-12 
3-14 against SEC

Then, I read things like this: "In recent years, Mountain West Conference football is on the rise. Even though the conference lost some of their better programs like TCU, BYU and Utah, they've regained prominence. With their upsurge in production, 2017 and 2018 were the MWC's two best years in S&P+ ratings."

And this: "If the Mountain West Conference continues to stay competitive against Power 5 teams, this should be considered. However, Larry Scott continues to hold the Pac-12 back from financial success, the Pac-12 will slip. It is completely possible for the Mountain West Conference football becoming an equal to the Pac-12 in 10 years. "

https://unafraidshow.com/pac-12-vs-mountain-west-conference-football-the-failures-of-larry-scott/


----------



## RandomElk16

So bowl games are all that matter? Nevermind that except for boise, a lot of the reason these two get paired is because it was a bad year for that school. Oregon lost almost their entire team the year Marriota left, and the next year they lost a bowl game to the MWC.

You love to pick one stat to support you? Nevermind the PAC 12 is (113-57) against Mountain West. Those 57 losses should never happen!!! (oddly enough Utah was one of the teams racking those wins up).

You really are exhausting. If you believe the MWC is better than the Pac-12... well that's your mental issue not mine.


----------



## wyoming2utah

No, I don't believe the MWC is better than the Pathetic-12...I have been trolling you on that one. But, I do believe the gap is closing quickly. My measuring sticks are multiple: head to head, bowl games, CFP, rankings etc.

I'm just trying to figure out how, if the Pac-12 is so much better than the MWC, why they are losing so many bowl games to the MWC when other conferences do not?

I would say, though, that if TCU, BYU, and Utah would have stayed in the MWC and Boise State would have joined....they would be every bit as good as the PAC-12 and maybe better. IF only...


----------



## wyoming2utah

RandomElk16 said:


> (oddly enough Utah was one of the teams racking those wins up).


So our climactic reward as fans for Utah joining the Pac-12 is a thrilling chance to play a MWC team? Fun. I always wanted a little more than that...


----------



## RandomElk16

wyoming2utah said:


> No, I don't believe the MWC is better than the Pathetic-12...I have been trolling you on that one. But, I do believe the gap is closing quickly. My measuring sticks are multiple: head to head, bowl games, CFP, rankings etc.
> 
> I'm just trying to figure out how, if the Pac-12 is so much better than the MWC, why they are losing so many bowl games to the MWC when other conferences do not?
> 
> I would say, though, that if TCU, BYU, and Utah would have stayed in the MWC and Boise State would have joined....they would be every bit as good as the PAC-12 and maybe better. IF only...


5 of the 12 losses were BYU and Utah beating Pac-12 teams. I mean we are talking about less than two dozen games in 20 years? It's not a great measure man.

I don't think the "gap" is closing... If you look at CFB rankings, maybe the top 6-7 have a chance in hell at winning a ship. 10 schools have made the playoffs in 5 years. It's pretty clear it's top heavy. There will always be ebbs and flows of programs. Boise is the only change the MWC has at doing something, and they will probably bounce soon.

The Pac is +win% against the Big 10 and the ACC in bowl games, and 7-9-1 against the almighty SEC. Bowl games aren't the best measure.


----------



## wyoming2utah

So, what is the best measure? How can we tell if the Pac-12 is slipping or not?


----------



## RandomElk16

wyoming2utah said:


> So, what is the best measure? How can we tell if the Pac-12 is slipping or not?


Well looking at bowl games from 10-20 years ago against one conference won't tell you that.

I don't think they are as good the last two seasons based on records and eye tests, as say the 2014-2017 years. But "slipping" is an open term. I don't foresee impending doom. Programs have ebbs and flows. I would agree they aren't as good right now as they could/SHOULD be.

Oregon is 3-1 and lost to Auburn while missing 5! of their WR. Arizona, 2-1. Arizona St 3-1. Colorado 3-1. Washington 3-1. Washington St 3-1. USC 3-1. Utah 3-1. Every single loss was by a TD or less. The simple mistakes always cost the Ute's, and really the entire Pac 12.

Also, I am not a Ute's fan. I enjoy them, but they aren't my team. So I always piss people off because I don't believe the hype. I simply don't trust them to play a clean game every time. A few years ago they started the season undefeated and I called they losses that happened. They always lose to one of the Arizona teams when they shouldn't. Stupid things keep them from getting over the hump. I think of the Bronco's with Fox as coach. They couldn't quite get there, brought in Kubiak and won the SB. The only thing that changed was cleaning up simple mistakes. Simple things always cost the Ute's.


----------



## Vanilla

You can’t make this stuff up. No, I do not go into every year expecting Utah to win a national championship. You ought to follow CPAJeff’s example and cheer for Alabama. 

Why not look at entire records instead of just Bowl games? MWC champ playing the 6th place PAC-12 team, shouldn’t we expect the MWC champ to win that game?


----------



## wyoming2utah

Vanilla said:


> You can't make this stuff up. No, I do not go into every year expecting Utah to win a national championship. You ought to follow CPAJeff's example and cheer for Alabama.
> 
> Why not look at entire records instead of just Bowl games?


Expectations and hope are different. I hope that Utah is competing for a national championship year in and year out. Why? Isn't Utah a member of a Power-5 conference and, therefore, on the same level as Alabama? This isn't 1A vs. 6A...this is the same level. Why shouldn't Utah aspire to compete for a national championship every year? Should I hope they are simply mediocre every year? Why shouldn't I want Utah to be the Alabama of the West?

I always felt like the college football landscape is all about your top teams competing and winning on the national front. Like the ACC or the SEC. Who cares if their bottom teams suck. The top doesnt. So, when the top PAC 12 teams are losing their bowl games and top MWC teams are winning theirs. I see that as a problem. Even worse, though, is when your second-tier teams are losing to lower conferences but the rest of the country's second tier power 5 teams are not. And, it is not just me that feels like the Pac-12 is losing the popularity contest that is college football.


----------



## CPAjeff

Vanilla said:


> You ought to follow CPAJeff's example and cheer for Alabama.


EXACTLY - *ROLL TIDE*!!!!!

#bandwagoner
#myseasonalwaysendshappily


----------



## RandomElk16

CPAjeff said:


> EXACTLY - *ROLL TIDE*!!!!!
> 
> #bandwagoner
> #myseasonalwaysendshappily


I am now bandwagoning Clemson so we can have a rivalry.


----------



## RandomElk16

wyoming2utah said:


> Expectations and hope are different. I hope that Utah is competing for a national championship year in and year out. Why? Isn't Utah a member of a Power-5 conference and, therefore, on the same level as Alabama? This isn't 1A vs. 6A...this is the same level. Why shouldn't Utah aspire to compete for a national championship every year? Should I hope they are simply mediocre every year? Why shouldn't I want Utah to be the Alabama of the West?
> 
> I always felt like the college football landscape is all about your top teams competing and winning on the national front. Like the ACC or the SEC. Who cares if their bottom teams suck. The top doesnt. So, when the top PAC 12 teams are losing their bowl games and top MWC teams are winning theirs. I see that as a problem. Even worse, though, is when your second-tier teams are losing to lower conferences but the rest of the country's second tier power 5 teams are not. And, it is not just me that feels like the Pac-12 is losing the popularity contest that is college football.


Lol.. So we are going to pretend recruiting doesn't exist? That there is perfect parity? Shoot, the NBA and NFL have fair "drafts", but you aren't expecting Cleveland to win again are ya? What about the Suns... They should compete for a chip every season right?

AGAIN, you are treating it like the other power 5 conferences have more than a couple teams that are elite. There are 64 teams in the Power 5. 5 or 6 Pac 12 teams are in the AP25 of the entire country, all conferences. They have a pretty good level of talent in their conference. Why does the Pac 12 have a good record in bowl games against other Power 5 schools? hmmm...

What the Pac 12 doesn't have is an Alabama. There is only one of those. Then again, they lost to a MWC Utah so they must suck.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Oh...so, Cleveland fans (I am expecting Cleveland to do quite well this year, and yes compete for a championship!), Suns fans whoever fans should just expect their teams to never compete for a championship? Really? You mean Utah and Alabama can't recruit the same kids? You mean Alabama has an unfair advantage recruiting? Sorry, but they are all on the same level and have to follow the same rules. Why shouldn't I hope that the teams I root for can compete with the best when they are on that same level? What kind of fan doesn't want his team to compete on the highest possible level? Saying that Utah shouldn't expect to play at the highest level is like saying that the AFC West teams like the Chiefs or AFC south teams like the Jags or Texans shouldn't expect to compete with the Patriots because the Patriots are the best. That's stupid...and, I bet their owners don't feel that way. Just like many of the ADs from the PAC-12 don't either (Why did Lynn Swann resign, by the way? Was it because his fan base and boosters was happy with the Trojans and the direction that team is heading? Or, is it because they expect a lot more. I heard John Pease say on the radio the other day that the difference between what is happening now at USC and what happened before under Peter Carroll was that expectation--the expectation that year in and year out USC would be in the national title picture. It's funny how those expectations can lead to success.) I am waiting for the Pac-12 to have just ONE elite team...nevermind two. I go into every Utah Jazz season hoping that they compete for a championship. I go into every Dallas Cowboy season hoping they compete for a championship. And, I go into every Philadelphia Phillies season hoping they compete for a championship. Do they? No. But, that doesn't change my outlook from year to year. And, it shouldn't. Neither should it change for the Utes. But, now I will not watch them much or pay any more attention to them because those hopes are gone. Just like those years when the Phillies are out of it by the August...my interest dwindles. Sorry, but hoping that my teams are crappy just isn't in my DNA.


----------



## CPAjeff

RandomElk16 said:


> I am now bandwagoning Clemson so we can have a rivalry.


I like it.

Depending on who wins this year, we might both be on the Clemson bandwagon!


----------



## CPAjeff

wyoming2utah said:


> Oh...so, Cleveland fans (I am expecting Cleveland to do quite well this year, and yes compete for a championship!), Suns fans whoever fans should just expect their teams to never compete for a championship? Really? You mean Utah and Alabama can't recruit the same kids? Umm no - absolutely not. You mean Alabama has an unfair advantage recruiting? They just win more often and have better coaches. Sorry, but they are all on the same level and have to follow the same rules.Not really . . . Why shouldn't I hope that the teams I root for can compete with the best when they are on that same level? No team in Utah, you can quote me on that, will compete with the 'best' in the Nation. What kind of fan doesn't want his team to compete on the highest possible level? Saying that Utah shouldn't expect to play at the highest level is like saying that the AFC West teams like the Chiefs or AFC south teams like the Jags or Texans shouldn't expect to compete with the Patriots because the Patriots are the best. Well, the Patriots have clearly proved they are the best dynasty - ever. That's stupid...and, I bet their owners don't feel that way. Owners have so much money . . . it's just something for them to do on Sunday. Just like many of the ADs from the PAC-12 don't either (Why did Lynn Swann resign, by the way? Was it because his fan base and boosters was happy with the Trojans and the direction that team is heading? Or, is it because they expect a lot more. I heard John Pease say on the radio the other day that the difference between what is happening now at USC and what happened before under Peter Carroll was that expectation--the expectation that year in and year out USC would be in the national title picture. It's funny how those expectations can lead to success.) Hence why Alambama has been so dominate at recruiting the best of the best. I am waiting for the Pac-12 to have just ONE elite team...nevermind two. I go into every Utah Jazz season hoping that they compete for a championship. Sounds like you're disappointed every year then. I go into every Dallas Cowboy season hoping they compete for a championship. This year might be their chance! And, I go into every Philadelphia Phillies season hoping they compete for a championship. Who? We all know there is really one major league team worth following - the Yankees Do they? No. But, that doesn't change my outlook from year to year. And, it shouldn't. Neither should it change for the Utes. But, now I will not watch them much or pay any more attention to them because those hopes are gone. Just like those years when the Phillies are out of it by the August...my interest dwindles. Sorry, but hoping that my teams are crappy just isn't in my DNA. I like your style!


See my comments in Crimson. -O|o-


----------



## wyoming2utah

CPAjeff, you do know what the Utes record against Alabama in football is, don't you? That's why I long for the old MWC days...31-17 drubbing. Now, that was fun, and I didn't even need a national championship! Back then, I spent time trolling the Alabama football discussion boards as Bamabuster! I loved it. I went on, predicted the Utes would win big, and then went back to rub it in.


----------



## RandomElk16

wyoming2utah said:


> Oh...so, Cleveland fans (I am expecting Cleveland to do quite well this year, and yes compete for a championship!), Suns fans whoever fans should just expect their teams to never compete for a championship? Really? You mean Utah and Alabama can't recruit the same kids? You mean Alabama has an unfair advantage recruiting? Sorry, but they are all on the same level and have to follow the same rules. Why shouldn't I hope that the teams I root for can compete with the best when they are on that same level? What kind of fan doesn't want his team to compete on the highest possible level? Saying that Utah shouldn't expect to play at the highest level is like saying that the AFC West teams like the Chiefs or AFC south teams like the Jags or Texans shouldn't expect to compete with the Patriots because the Patriots are the best. That's stupid...and, I bet their owners don't feel that way. Just like many of the ADs from the PAC-12 don't either (Why did Lynn Swann resign, by the way? Was it because his fan base and boosters was happy with the Trojans and the direction that team is heading? Or, is it because they expect a lot more. I heard John Pease say on the radio the other day that the difference between what is happening now at USC and what happened before under Peter Carroll was that expectation--the expectation that year in and year out USC would be in the national title picture. It's funny how those expectations can lead to success.) I am waiting for the Pac-12 to have just ONE elite team...nevermind two. I go into every Utah Jazz season hoping that they compete for a championship. I go into every Dallas Cowboy season hoping they compete for a championship. And, I go into every Philadelphia Phillies season hoping they compete for a championship. Do they? No. But, that doesn't change my outlook from year to year. And, it shouldn't. Neither should it change for the Utes. But, now I will not watch them much or pay any more attention to them because those hopes are gone. Just like those years when the Phillies are out of it by the August...my interest dwindles. Sorry, but hoping that my teams are crappy just isn't in my DNA.


Hope is different from reality.

Not hard to see in Utah that die hard Ute fans do often think the Ute's can win it all. Same with Jazz fans!

Realists understand they have a significant hurdle ahead.

And hell yes Alabama has an advantage. If you are a college player and Saban comes into your living room, says he wants you to play for him on a full ride... You are going to go learn to be a **** winner with one of, if not THE, best coach in CFB history. Don't believe me? Look at their recruiting classes, I don't have to prove it lol.

What's an elite team to you? Competing for a chip every season? Only a hand-full of teams have done that for more than a short stint. And that's typically the same coaches changing schools lol.

You just said you believe in the Cowboys every year. So you are proving the point that it depends how unrealistic of a fan you want to be. I think the Utes over the last 20 years have had a better chance at a National Title than the Cowboys.


----------



## CPAjeff

wyoming2utah said:


> CPAjeff, you do know what the Utes record against Alabama in football is, don't you? That's why I long for the old MWC days...31-17 drubbing. Now, that was fun, and I didn't even need a national championship!


Yes, I do. That was what, 10 years ago? ;-)

That's kind of like bringing up the '97 and '98 Utah Jazz against the '97 and '98 Golden State Warriors . . .

Truth be told, I love a good game - regardless of who is playing. However, being a band-wagoner has it's benefits!

TOTP


----------



## Vanilla

W2U, 

Go find the recruiting budgets for Alabama and Utah and report back. 

Then go look at how many 4 and 5 star kids come from the South, and compare that to the 4 and 5 star kids that come from the inter-mountain west. 

Then type with a straight face that Alabama does not have a recruiting advantage. 

Child please. You're getting more ridiculous as this conversation goes on. What are you going to tell me next? If Utah and BYU played today that BYU would win?


----------



## wyoming2utah

RandomElk16 said:


> Hope is different from reality.
> 
> Not hard to see in Utah that die hard Ute fans do often think the Ute's can win it all. Same with Jazz fans! .


As they should...you show me a fan base that doesn't, and I will show you a bunch of losers!

Yup, hope is different from reality...and, the reality is that the Pac-12 is pathetic right now.

I guess, if I am like you, I should just expect the Utes to continue their run of mediocrity and conclude that they won't play Alabama for another 100+ years...

...but, again, that's not the kind of fan I am. Maybe the Pac-12 should hand-out yearly participation trophies too.


----------



## RandomElk16

wyoming2utah said:


> As they should...you show me a fan base that doesn't, and I will show you a bunch of losers!
> 
> Yup, hope is different from reality...and, the reality is that the Pac-12 is pathetic right now.
> 
> I guess, if I am like you, I should just expect the Utes to continue their run of mediocrity and conclude that they won't play Alabama for another 100+ years...
> 
> ...but, again, that's not the kind of fan I am. Maybe the Pac-12 should hand-out yearly participation trophies too.


Lol.. I love how you bounce all over the place. You first say the pac 12 expecting not to win isn't ok, I tell you they do expect to win, and you say as they should. Like what the hell are you even trying to prove?

You gonna tell me the SEC East isn't a**? The Pac is a well balanced conference. That has made the modern playoffs. LSU hasn't even made them for 5 years. The Pac 12 has as good of a record as any of the power conferences right now, probably more parity. Problem is, they all beat eachother. USC at home coming of a close BYU loss wasn't going to be a scrub. These teams all have eachothers number.

You don't seem to have any concept of recruiting, money, etc...

No one said mediocrity is ok. But Utah can make an argument as a top 20 football program, top 20 of the entire **** country. That's not exactly mediocre.

Enjoy your MWC games lol. Talk about mediocrity, let me know when Boise takes down Bama in the CFP. Might as well as go root for the local youth champions.

You literally haven't made a point. MWC is not better than Pac-12. The power 5 is dominated by less than 5 schools. The Pac has positive records and is as balanced and competitive as any conference if you remove those very very few schools. I'm done - good luck this season Coach.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Vanilla said:


> W2U,
> 
> Go find the recruiting budgets for Alabama and Utah and report back.
> 
> Then go look at how many 4 and 5 star kids come from the South, and compare that to the 4 and 5 star kids that come from the inter-mountain west.
> 
> Then type with a straight face that Alabama does not have a recruiting advantage.
> 
> Child please. You're getting more ridiculous as this conversation goes on. What are you going to tell me next? If Utah and BYU played today that BYU would win?


Budgets, yep, big difference...not only between the Utes and Alabama but between the PAC-12 and the SEC. Why? Because of their ridiculous tv deals...but, that's on the conference. They had every chance to keep those budgets similar. Didn't I post that link already? Of course I did...but you didn't read it. Because you don't like reading others saying what I am saying.

The same thing could be said about coaches...compare the number of listed coaches Alabama has and Utah has. Again, this is a budget problem but it is about revenue...which is slipping in the Pac-12 in recent years and that revenue difference between conferences is widening. Didn't I post those links already?

4 and 5 kids from the south vs. 4 and 5 kids from the West. Didn't I already post that link too. But, nevermind that...how many kids from the West are heading to the South to play? That's what is worrying me...and, why are they leaving? Because the Pac-12 sucks.

With that being said, Utah has the same opportunity to recruit those kids...they just aren't getting them. What happened prior to Nick Saban, though. You know those Mike Shula years...why didn't the recruiting landscape change so drastically after Shula? Has Saban improved the recruiting at Alabama in his tenure? Did he out recruit other schools upon his arrival? Was he considered the best college football coach in 2007? Wasn't Bama's previous championship prior to Saban's tenure like 20 years prior? Wasn't those years immediately prior to Saban's arrival also the years that USC was so dang good. So, what did Saban do to start winning the best recruits and stealing them from USC? Doesn't that mean other schools could do it too?

Well, crap, I guess you are right. Utah and the pathetic-12 should just throw up their arms and say, "We can't compete with Alabama, and neither can anyone else besides Clemson. No sense in steering this ship anymore."

The funny thing is that my arguments are just regurgitating the same arguments being made by some of the national pundits--especially Pac-12 pundits.


----------



## RandomElk16

wyoming2utah said:


> Well, crap, I guess you are right. Utah and the pathetic-12 should just throw up their arms and say, "We can't compete with Alabama, and neither can anyone else besides Clemson. No sense in steering this ship anymore."


No one is saying that. We are saying you are an idiot for not thinking they have an advantage. That basing the status of the Pac 12 on a championship is ridiculous, while ignoring they always have a strong presence in the top 25. No one is complacent, just not dumb enough to think the MWC is better. Do you have a solution, or just here to talk ****? Is the solution the Utes go back to the MWC and have an even smaller budget? Or you just talking **** because so far you can't even highlight a point. If they were slipping they wouldn't continue to be ranked year in and year out.

You just talk in circles.. talk in circles... talk in circles....


----------



## Vanilla

Interesting snippet a friend sent me this morning, from Fox Sports Bruce Feldman. 

“People who've written off the Pac-12 having a shot of getting a Playoff team have jumped the gun. Worth noting: The Pac-12 leads all P5 Conferences in non-conference games vs. other Power 5 teams (incl. BYU & ND) w/ a 7-4 record. Big12 is 6-4, SEC is 6-5, B1G is 5-5; ACC is 4-9.”


----------



## Catherder

Vanilla said:


> "People who've written off the Pac-12 having a shot of getting a Playoff team have jumped the gun. Worth noting: The *Pathetic-12* leads all P5 Conferences in non-conference games vs. other Power 5 teams (incl. BYU & ND) w/ a 7-4 record. Big12 is 6-4, SEC is 6-5, B1G is 5-5; ACC is 4-9."


Fixed it for you. 

Not a bad response from the Utes last night too. It would seem that a lot of people would sprain their ankles overreacting to every result and jumping on and off the bandwagon. :-|


----------



## Vanilla

Catherder said:


> Not a bad response from the Utes last night too.


Meh. Would have been way better if it was against New Mexico.


----------



## Catherder

Vanilla said:


> Meh. Would have been way better if it was against New Mexico.


Word. And I'm sure that New Mexico losing to Liberty college this week was a most extreme anomaly for the vaunted MWC member.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Yeah, because Washington State is really a quality crew...Patheticc-12 ain't getting anybody in. Who are you guys fooling? And, just out of curiosity, why is BYU considered a P-5 team? Aren't two of those wins against the lowly Cougs? (Weren't they a MWC team?) Do they really get in the CFP with an undefeated record? 1-loss record?

https://fbschedules.com/should-byu-count-as-a-power-5-opponent/


----------



## Vanilla

Ha! Had to throw the whole bowl of spaghetti at the wall for that one to see what would stick, huh? 

o-||


----------



## RandomElk16

wyoming2utah said:


> Yeah, because Washington State is really a quality crew...Patheticc-12 ain't getting anybody in. Who are you guys fooling? And, just out of curiosity, why is BYU considered a P-5 team? Aren't two of those wins against the lowly Cougs? (Weren't they a MWC team?) Do they really get in the CFP with an undefeated record? 1-loss record?
> 
> https://fbschedules.com/should-byu-count-as-a-power-5-opponent/


Does a MWC team get in undefeated? We watched the Utes do that twice with nothing.

Again, you with your 4 team playoff rant is the dumbest argument.


----------



## wyoming2utah

With nothing? You mean breaking up the BCS was nothing? That was a heck of a lot more fun than what we have had since...


----------



## RandomElk16

wyoming2utah said:


> With nothing? You mean breaking up the BCS was nothing? That was a heck of a lot more fun than what we have had since...


You are giving them credit for breaking up the BCS?

They went undefeated, no championship game. Boise State could go undefeated, and still wouldn't get into the CFP.

Again, watch your conference of subpar teams playing eachother and enjoy the 
"victories".


----------



## wyoming2utah

Or, I could watch utah against oregon state...I'm sure that will be a real hoot.


----------



## RandomElk16

wyoming2utah said:


> Or, I could watch utah against oregon state...I'm sure that will be a real hoot.


Or you could watch Alabama play WCU, that will be a hoot.

Oh, or Boise play CO State... That will be a hoot also.

No one disagrees Oregon State sucks. Every single conference has those.


----------



## wyoming2utah

ON a different note, that new California legislation is really interesting. It could really sway the recruiting battle towards California and make USC, UCLA, Stanford, and CAL legitimate again in the future. Heck, if I were a highly touted Texas recruit or Alabama recruit or Florida recruit...I'm going to Cali for the possibility of making money!


----------



## RandomElk16

wyoming2utah said:


> ON a different note, that new California legislation is really interesting. It could really sway the recruiting battle towards California and make USC, UCLA, Stanford, and CAL legitimate again in the future. Heck, if I were a highly touted Texas recruit or Alabama recruit or Florida recruit...I'm going to Cali for the possibility of making money!


There was a big debate on if they wanted rings or money.

If I am a college student, I am taking the money lol. I suspect most will.

Then the NCAA says "no tourney" so California starts their own tourney, which would net the players even more money.

Ultimately, the NCAA sat on their butts and this forces their hand. They keep saying "We are looking into it" about paying for likeness. Delayed themselves into a forced change.

I think it could become a big freaking battle though. All it will take to fold the NCAA stance is a couple STAR recruits to say "I am going to Cali because of this opportunity".


----------



## Vanilla

So you can legally get paid for your likeness and image in California now and now win anything, or you can illegally get paid at Alabama and play for national championships. 

I think they'll stay at Alabama. Nobody in California likes football enough to pay what they are already paying in the South.


----------



## RandomElk16

Vanilla said:


> So you can legally get paid for your likeness and image in California now and now win anything, or you can illegally get paid at Alabama and play for national championships.
> 
> I think they'll stay at Alabama. Nobody in California likes football enough to pay what they are already paying in the South.


&#128514;&#128514;&#128514;

Fair enough. It probably is bigger for basketball. That Florida kicker couldn't even have a football on his youtube though. So for content creators it's big too.


----------



## wyoming2utah

I just saw this:
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/27803061/there-pac-12-party-bottom-10

I probably would have brought it up sooner, but I have lost all interest in college football once again. So, I didn't even see who won or lost last weekend. Yup, pathetic-12!


----------



## RandomElk16

wyoming2utah said:


> I just saw this:
> https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/27803061/there-pac-12-party-bottom-10
> 
> I probably would have brought it up sooner, but I have lost all interest in college football once again. So, I didn't even see who won or lost last weekend. Yup, pathetic-12!


"most internally competitive league"

And Big 10 and 12 have been in the same spot.

The don't even have the worst record overall of power 5 schools.

Oregon and Arizona are on 4 game win streaks. You all just live to hate.

But man... the MWC if so exciting! I bet Boise makes the playoffs.... pahahaha


----------



## Vanilla

Random, you have to understand w2u is a closet BYU fan that claims online to be a Utah fan so he appears objective. He’s a little bitter the kitties are still left out in the cold.


----------



## wyoming2utah

RandomElk16 said:


> "most internally competitive league"


I'll agree with this one...a bunch of bad teams fighting over who is the best of the worst.

What started out as 6 ranked teams is down to what 3 now? Who's next to fall?


----------



## wyoming2utah

Wafe...I am not closet BYU fan. I am a BYU fan openly. I root for them against everyone except Utah, Utah St., and SUU. Who does the U have next? Does it matter?

Their lack of conference affiliation is worse even than the U's pathetic affiliation to a conference. Bait the hook well. This fish will bite!


----------



## Catherder

RandomElk16 said:


> And Big 10 and 12 have been in the same spot.


Actually, it was the super cool kids, SEC and ACC that were featured on the coveted 5th spot on the Bottom 10. (I'm an avid bottom 10 fan.)

But hey, if you have one super dominant team, you are good to go, even if the rest of your conference members are a bunch of schmoes, like the ACC this year. If your conference doesn't, then you may as well not exist.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Catherder said:


> If your conference doesn't, then you may as well not exist.


That's the mess that is college football and the CFP. Also the reason I lose interest every year about now.


----------



## RandomElk16

Catherder said:


> Actually, it was the super cool kids, SEC and ACC that were featured on the coveted 5th spot on the Bottom 10. (I'm an avid bottom 10 fan.)
> 
> But hey, if you have one super dominant team, you are good to go, even if the rest of your conference members are a bunch of schmoes, like the ACC this year. If your conference doesn't, then you may as well not exist.


This is what I tried to tell him earlier!!

SEC East is awful.


----------



## Vanilla

wyoming2utah said:


> Also the reason I lose interest every year about now.


You lose interest so much you can't keep from coming back and talking about it! :rotfl::rotfl:


----------



## wyoming2utah

I like gut-hooked fish...


----------



## Vanilla

wyoming2utah said:


> I like gut-hooked fish...


Sometimes when you think you're fishing you are really just the bait. Gotta watch your six. You can never be too sure.


----------



## RandomElk16

Pathetic.


----------



## wyoming2utah

We'll see how pathetic they are when bowl season comes around. Any bets they miss out on the CFP again?

Still fishing....the CFP rankings will come out tonight. Personally, I agree with Mike Leach: "In the end you look at the votes, and it pretty well reflected where the members of the committee were from." That's the problem with college football...the Power-5 teams have set up a system that benefits really only Power-5 teams. And, they have these stupid polls to justify it.

Pathetic-12 will have some relevance when they start beating other good Power-5 conference teams...have they done that yet? I guess Utah's win over Northern Illinois counts...


----------



## wyoming2utah

2 years later...and a loss in the conference championship and a clear path to this year's championship, and i still agree, Doug, I still agree!

https://www.deseret.com/2017/12/22/20624509/pac-12-membership-came-at-a-price-for-utes


----------



## Catherder

wyoming2utah said:


> Pathetic-12 will have some relevance when they start beating other good Power-5 conference teams....


Yeah, like Minnesota, Baylor, Alabama, and Clemson have.

Speaking of Clemson.....
https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...he-playoff-but-the-rest-of-the-acc-is-a-mess/


----------



## Catherder

wyoming2utah said:


> 2 years later...and a loss in the conference championship and a clear path to this year's championship, and i still agree, Doug, I still agree!
> 
> https://www.deseret.com/2017/12/22/20624509/pac-12-membership-came-at-a-price-for-utes


Since Dougs article is addressed to Utefans and I am one, I feel quite comfortable telling him his article is full of excrement. The Utefans I rub shoulders with feel very much the same as I.

Duggie wrote that article more for cougarfan consumption than for Utefans.


----------



## Vanilla

wyoming2utah said:


> 2 years later...and a loss in the conference championship and a clear path to this year's championship, and i still agree, Doug, I still agree!
> 
> https://www.deseret.com/2017/12/22/20624509/pac-12-membership-came-at-a-price-for-utes


I remember reading this when it came out and laughing almost as hard as I am two years later. He could be entered into the "freezing cold takes" twitter realm for this one. Well done.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Catherder said:


> Yeah, like Minnesota, Baylor, Alabama, and Clemson have.
> 
> Speaking of Clemson.....
> https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...he-playoff-but-the-rest-of-the-acc-is-a-mess/


Well, this is one Ute fan that still agrees.

The ACC is almost as bad as the pathetic-12...at least they have Clemson going for them. The difference between the ACC and the pathetic-12 is the top and bottom. In the pathetic-12, the top is worse than the ACC and the bottom is better. But, most of the teams are right in the middle of mediocrity.

Well, maybe...just maybe...this will be the year Utah will do something. But, then we have that sweet nonconference schedule and lack of good Pathetic-12 teams to play against. Nah...the pathetic-12 ain't getting in.


----------



## Vanilla

wyoming2utah said:


> The difference between the ACC and the pathetic-12 is the top and bottom. In the pathetic-12, the top is worse than the ACC and the bottom is better.


As one who follows the ACC pretty closely, this just simply isn't true. Yes, Clemson has been better the last few years, but that is not how it always has been or always will be. If Utah or Oregon had played Clemson's cake walk schedule, would they be undefeated and ranked in the top 5? Would Clemson beat either team this year? I hope we get to find out!


----------



## RandomElk16

wyoming2utah said:


> We'll see how pathetic they are when bowl season comes around. Any bets they miss out on the CFP again?
> .


It's funny when you act like being one of the 4 teams in the nation a behind door group of morons picks.

You YOURSELF said it - "Oh yeah...this is college football where teams don't have to play each other to decide who is and is not better. I forget."

Two teams with only one loss, in the coaches top 10.... seems pathetic.


----------



## RandomElk16

The ACC is the worst conference.


----------



## Catherder

Here it is.

https://www.espn.com/college-footba...ate-leads-cfp-top-four-lsu-alabama-penn-state

Oregon#7, Utah #8. (Behind only Georgia in the one loss group)

Just pathetic.


----------



## wyoming2utah

We'll see how they do come bowl season...last year the ACC put 11 teams into bowl games and had some really good wins. How many did the Pathetic-12 get?

The committee has the Utes in at #8. Great! Maybe, if they win out, they can jump up to 5 or so. What does that mean?


----------



## wyoming2utah

ON a different note, how stupid are those rankings anyway? I mean seriously...Alabama 3 and Clemson 5? Look at those two teams schedules--neither of them have beaten a ranked team and they share the same "best" win over Texas A&M. On the flip side, Clemson has beaten more Power 5 teams than Alabama has and Clemson has beaten more teams with winning records than Alabama has. Clemson's opponents have a better overall win percentage than Alabama's. Yet, Clemson is lower.

That's not even mentioning Baylor and Minnesota....do we really have two unbeaten power 5 teams that can't crack the top 10? Ouch. At least those teams still have some big games that will determine where they actually stand. But, why are they given so little respect when Alabama and Clemson are given so much? And, why are those unbeatens given less respect than a team like Utah (who hasn't beaten anybody either)?

This is why college football is so annoying...

I would give more credence to an RPI of some sort than these stupid committees.


----------



## ridgetop

wyoming2utah said:


> We'll see how they do come bowl season...last year the ACC put 11 teams into bowl games and had some really good wins. How many did the Pathetic-12 get?
> 
> The committee has the Utes in at #8. Great! Maybe, if they win out, they can jump up to 5 or so. What does that mean?


It means they will be going to the rose bowl, which would be pretty awesome!


----------



## wyoming2utah

wyoming2utah said:


> ON a different note, how stupid are those rankings anyway? I mean seriously...Alabama 3 and Clemson 5? Look at those two teams schedules--neither of them have beaten a ranked team and they share the same "best" win over Texas A&M. On the flip side, Clemson has beaten more Power 5 teams than Alabama has and Clemson has beaten more teams with winning records than Alabama has. Clemson's opponents have a better overall win percentage than Alabama's. Yet, Clemson is lower.
> 
> That's not even mentioning Baylor and Minnesota....do we really have two unbeaten power 5 teams that can't crack the top 10? Ouch. At least those teams still have some big games that will determine where they actually stand. But, why are they given so little respect when Alabama and Clemson are given so much? And, why are those unbeatens given less respect than a team like Utah (who hasn't beaten anybody either)?
> 
> *This is why college football is so annoying...
> *
> I would give more credence to an RPI of some sort than these stupid committees.


Well, Alabama still has 0 wins against a top-25 team. How low will they fall in the rankings? When it is all said and done, their lone chance at a top-25 win will have to be that game at Auburn.

And, Minnesota stays unbeaten by beating previously ranked #4 Penn State. How high do they climb? And, Baylor stays unbeaten as well...


----------



## RandomElk16

wyoming2utah said:


> We'll see how they do come bowl season...last year the ACC put 11 teams into bowl games and had some really good wins. How many did the Pathetic-12 get?
> 
> The committee has the Utes in at #8. Great! Maybe, if they win out, they can jump up to 5 or so. What does that mean?


That they would be the 5th best team in the entire nation?

Pathetic.

Here is how the ACC faired last year. You show me 11 good teams:


----------



## RandomElk16

wyoming2utah said:


> Well, Alabama still has 0 wins against a top-25 team. How low will they fall in the rankings? When it is all said and done, their lone chance at a top-25 win will have to be that game at Auburn.
> 
> And, Minnesota stays unbeaten by beating previously ranked #4 Penn State. How high do they climb? And, Baylor stays unbeaten as well...


But you will still give the Pac-12 flack if they aren't in the top 4 - Despite most of the top 4 playing complete scrubs.


----------



## wyoming2utah

How many bowl games did the pathetic-12 get last year? How many wins?

Then, look at the pathetic-12's records from last year. How many good teams did they have? 1, 2? Any?

Here is pathetic-12 from 2018:


----------



## wyoming2utah

RandomElk16 said:


> That they would be the 5th best team in the entire nation?
> 
> View attachment 138885


According to the same people who just had Minnesota ranked how many spots below Penn State? And the same people who had Alabama ahead of Clemson in the CFP rankings...

....all I know is that Utah needs Minnesota, Baylor, Alabama, Georgia...whoever to lose and they need to win out.

Just another weekend of college football that proved that the only way to tell who is or is not best should be decided on the field and not by a committee or poll.


----------



## wyoming2utah

RandomElk16 said:


> But you will still give the Pac-12 flack if they aren't in the top 4 - Despite most of the top 4 playing complete scrubs.


Yep...especially with so many undefeated teams still out there. And, look at the rest of the pathetic-12. How many good teams are there in the conference? The ACC still has (besides Clemson and Wake Forest) Virginia, Virginia Tech, Pitt, and Miami that are all decent teams.


----------



## Vanilla

wyoming2utah said:


> The ACC still has (besides Clemson and Wake Forest) Virginia, Virginia Tech, Pitt, and Miami that are all decent teams.


Ha!


----------



## Catherder

wyoming2utah said:


> The ACC still has (besides Clemson and Wake Forest) Virginia, Virginia Tech, Pitt, and Miami that are all decent teams.


:rotfl:-_O-:rotfl:-_O-

Yep, Wake Forest looked really awesome this week.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Oh, they looked bad against a good team. So, Utah sucks too because they looked like crap against USC (who isn't good?)?
Compared to who in the pathetic-12?

Conference rankings (pathetic-12 is ranked 6th):


----------



## Catherder

wyoming2utah said:


> Oh, they looked bad against a good team.


Who's that? You mean the guys that have a 6-3 record due to somewhat close wins against 2 FCS teams and Bottom 10 denizen Old Dominion? And who lost 45-10 to the dookies?

Whatever you say. :roll:


----------



## wyoming2utah

Yup...pathetic-12. I'm glad you are now agreeing! 6th best conference in the country now...again, how many decent teams does the pathetic-12 have? 2? Or, are you going to count USC who lost to Notre Dame by more points than that terrible VA Tech team?

Any bets that the ACC still puts more teams into bowl games than the pathetic-12?


----------



## RandomElk16

They had the same win percentages overall.. and that's even with Clemson giving them a boost.

And if you look at those bowl games, most of them lost. You want to give out participation trophies?




You crack me up because you bash the subjectiveness of Playoffs and Bowls games, then IMMEDIATELY use them as a validator.



Edit: I hadn't read your most recent post about Minnesota and Penn. Making it even more laughable. Rankings and Bowl games either count or don't.


----------



## RandomElk16

This all coming from a guy who likes the MWC.


----------



## RandomElk16

wyoming2utah said:


> Virginia Tech, Pitt, and Miami that are all decent teams.


Decent based on what? You earlier used the argument they need to be top 25, then it was they need to be in the CFP.

How many of those teams are ranked?

You flip flop so much on your criteria. We get it, you don't like the Pac-12 but you also don't like the CFP rankings... Easy to feel validated when you flop all over the place and really don't have a position other than hating a conference.


----------

