I Wish I Knew How to Quit You - The BYU Sports Thread

[U-Ute]

2. Utah is the new Arizona at this point of their foray into the PAC. That's indisputable. Will Utah have the depth to truly compete year in and year out? A Rational, realistic mind says not likely. Every 4 - 5 years? Maybe, with the right coaching and in part due to an upgrade in facilities etc. Of course, USC, UCLA and Stanford will always out-recruit Utah. What's more is Whit that right coach? The jury is out at this point. Winning solves many things. It better start Thursday ...

Nobody in this league is USC, Sanford, or UCLA. If things go well, we are the next Washington. That is far from terrible.

3. At best the decision to not play BYU was the result of a combination of newly found Ute hubris, non ratified new conference agreements and miscommunications coupled with a miscalculation on the part of Dr. Hill as to how such news would be received. At worst, Dr. Hill and the Utes were caught in a lie. Regardless, the move was motivated in large part by fear of the opponent and the game ...

At best, this is all contrived, wishful thinking BS by Internet fanboys. This is a business, and Hill treats it as such.

4. Utah isn't even the most popular college football team in their own media market. Who owns what? Utah needs this game more than they need a game with Michigan. To his credit Dr. Hill seems to have figured that out.

We are going towards where the puck will be, not where it currently is. Utah is building a really nice fan base right now, and if you aren't looking, in 10-15 years, Utah fans may outnumber BYU fans.

[wally]

Do you realize that you just got trolled?

LOL, we have all been trolled!! Do we not realize that the REAL objective here is to extend the discussion of BYU on a Utah message board!?!

They want to be able to say that many of the longest sports threads on UB5 are involving BYU, and they won't be wrong!

Ultimatly whether fans on either side of this rivalry like it or not, their paths are inexorably intertwined by proximity, religion and demographics. BYU and Utah will always be each others measuring sticks, it is an immovable fixture in this state. No unhallowed hand can stop it! The best we can hope for is to confine our BYU obsession to this AND ONLY THIS thread. What the hand of Senioritis has wrought let no man put asunder, or something like that.

[LA Ute]

LOL, we have all been trolled!! Do we not realize that the REAL objective here is to extend the discussion of BYU on a Utah message board!?!

They want to be able to say that many of the longest sports threads on UB5 are involving BYU, and they won't be wrong!

Ultimatly whether fans on either side of this rivalry like it or not, their paths are inexorably intertwined by proximity, religion and demographics. BYU and Utah will always be each others measuring sticks, it is an immovable fixture in this state. No unhallowed hand can stop it! The best we can hope for is to confine our BYU obsession to this AND ONLY THIS thread. What the hand of Senioritis has wrought let no man put asunder, or something like that.

Agreed. I think it would be within the spirit of this thread and the intent of its venerable founder, Senioritis the Hilarious, to joke about our insatiable desire to have fun mocking BYU sports. We might as well be honest about it.

[concerned]

I say this with love.

the funny thing about these claims that we are the next Wazzou, is that the Y would die a million deaths to be in what they claim is our position--to be the next Wazzou, Arizona, OSU, Baylor, Kansas, Texas Tech, etc., in either the Pac 12 or the Big 12.

[Utah]

Tomorrow night, Chuckie is going to get creamed. Did anyone remember when VJ knocked him down last year, and he was rattled the rest of the game? I bet Whitt goes after Keaton hard to start the game, and Erickson tries to overpower their DL. I think it will be a boring first quarter, but when the first Q ends, we are up 14-0.

[Scratch]

It amazes me to see people put Stanford in the top tier of P12 as a program when discussing long-term issues. Of the current 12 P12 teams, Stanford ranks 7th in terms of all-time winning percentage. And it's not like they have a BYU type history where they absolutely sucked for a century before managing two decades of competence. To the contrary, most of their success from a W-L standpoint is 80 years old. Harbaugh's second-best year there was 8-5, and they were 25-55 the 7 years before that 8-5 season.

Furthermore, their fanbase is pretty crappy. They draw from all over the country, with very few students caring at all about Stanford football before the day they show up on campus. Furthermore, while a decent number stick around the Bay area, a much higher percentage leaves the area than for any other team in the P12. This makes it tough to build the program.

Sure Stanford has some huge advantages, but it also has some extremely significant disadvantages. Given their limitations, it will be tough for them to keep up if they suddenly become less attractive to the intellectually sound elite athletes.

In any event, when setting up tiers of P12 programs based on history and future prospects extending beyond 4 or 5 years, USC is head and shoulders above everyone else, and the next group really has to include Washington, UCLA, and Oregon (their recent surge has been longer and better than Stanford's, and their rise seems to be less coach-based than Stanford, but still Oregon may have a tough time keeping up with the entrenched advantages Washington and UCLA have if the Nike money dries up or they somehow squander the "cool" factor.

[FountainOfUte]

Dead spot on, Scratch. Every word of it.

[U-Ute]

It amazes me to see people put Stanford in the top tier of P12 as a program when discussing long-term issues. Of the current 12 P12 teams, Stanford ranks 7th in terms of all-time winning percentage. And it's not like they have a BYU type history where they absolutely sucked for a century before managing two decades of competence. To the contrary, most of their success from a W-L standpoint is 80 years old. Harbaugh's second-best year there was 8-5, and they were 25-55 the 7 years before that 8-5 season.

Furthermore, their fanbase is pretty crappy. They draw from all over the country, with very few students caring at all about Stanford football before the day they show up on campus. Furthermore, while a decent number stick around the Bay area, a much higher percentage leaves the area than for any other team in the P12. This makes it tough to build the program.

Sure Stanford has some huge advantages, but it also has some extremely significant disadvantages. Given their limitations, it will be tough for them to keep up if they suddenly become less attractive to the intellectually sound elite athletes.

In any event, when setting up tiers of P12 programs based on history and future prospects extending beyond 4 or 5 years, USC is head and shoulders above everyone else, and the next group really has to include Washington, UCLA, and Oregon (their recent surge has been longer and better than Stanford's, and their rise seems to be less coach-based than Stanford, but still Oregon may have a tough time keeping up with the entrenched advantages Washington and UCLA have if the Nike money dries up or they somehow squander the "cool" factor.

Top 10 teams ranked by number of Rose Bowl appearances per Wikipedia:

USC	32	24	8		2009
Michigan	20	8	12		2007
Washington	14	7	6	1	2001
Ohio State	14	7	7		2010
Stanford	13	6	6	1	2013
UCLA	12	5	7		1999
Wisconsin	9	3	6		2013
California	8	2	5	1	1959
Oregon	6	2	4		2012
Illinois	5	3	2		2008

[Scratch]

Top 10 teams ranked by number of Rose Bowl appearances per Wikipedia:

USC	32	24	8		2009
Michigan	20	8	12		2007
Washington	14	7	6	1	2001
Ohio State	14	7	7		2010
Stanford	13	6	6	1	2013
UCLA	12	5	7		1999
Wisconsin	9	3	6		2013
California	8	2	5	1	1959
Oregon	6	2	4		2012
Illinois	5	3	2		2008

That just makes my point when you look at when those appearances occurred. 8 of the 13 were before 1941, the 9th was in '52, then they made it in '71 and '72. In other words, before last year they had gone once in 40 years and thrice in 60 years. That supports them as falling in line somewhere behind USC, UW, UCLA, and Oregon in terms of likelihood of future program success.

[U-Ute]

That just makes my point when you look at when those appearances occurred. 8 of the 13 were before 1941, the 9th was in '52, then they made it in '71 and '72. In other words, before last year they had gone once in 40 years and thrice in 60 years. That supports them as falling in line somewhere behind USC, UW, UCLA, and Oregon in terms of likelihood of future program success.

But you could also argue that Oregon is a "Johnny come lately" without the history. I would rate Stanford higher than Oregon *because* they have those appearances 70 years ago.

I guess it depends on where you want to place your importance.

The more interesting statistic is how far out front USC really is in this measurement. O.o

[sancho]

But you could also argue that Oregon is a "Johnny come lately" without the history. I would rate Stanford higher than Oregon *because* they have those appearances 70 years ago.

I guess it depends on where you want to place your importance.

The more interesting statistic is how far out front USC really is in this measurement. O.o

True that Oregon is not a traditional football power. I see their success as more sustainable because they bought their success with a boatload of money, and that money source is not drying up. Also, though Oregon has never been a superpower, they have also never been the Pac-10 doormat, a title that has applied to Stanford as recently as 5 years ago.

[Scratch]

But you could also argue that Oregon is a "Johnny come lately" without the history. I would rate Stanford higher than Oregon *because* they have those appearances 70 years ago.

I guess it depends on where you want to place your importance.

The more interesting statistic is how far out front USC really is in this measurement. O.o

I agree. It all depends on what you're trying to measure. I'm talking about likelihood of future success. To me, Stanford has the same strengths and weaknesses it has had for the last 50 years. The difference recently has been due to coaching. While I think Oregon has had very good coaching, I think the much bigger issue has been their relationship with Nike and the corresponding $$$$$ and cool factor. To me, the relationship with Nike and associated benefits seems much more likely to continue than Stanford's hiring of elite coaches (especially if rumored low compensation to Stanford coaches is true). I could certainly be wrong, but that's what my beliefs are based on.

[SoCalPat]

But you could also argue that Oregon is a "Johnny come lately" without the history. I would rate Stanford higher than Oregon *because* they have those appearances 70 years ago.

I guess it depends on where you want to place your importance.

The more interesting statistic is how far out front USC really is in this measurement. O.o

Apples and oranges. The Big 10 had a no-repeat Rose Bowl policy up until the the early/mid 1970s. (Sidenote: Its teams could also participate in ONLY the Rose Bowl.). For the longest time, there was one exception: Minnesota played in back-to-back games in 1960-61 because the faculty at Ohio State forbade the Buckeyes (8-0-1 and ranked No. 2) from participating in the Rose Bowl.

[sancho]

because the faculty at Ohio State forbade the Buckeyes (8-0-1 and ranked No. 2) from participating in the Rose Bowl.

Faculty are so lame.

I hear that Utah did not cancel classes tonight? Thanks, faculty, for thinking your classes are so important. Seriously, what other profession is so self-important that they would turn down a day off from work?

[SoCalPat]

Also, today's Pac-12 has supplied the "West" team in all but five years (twice during WWI, when military teams played, 2001 Miami, 2004 Texas and 2010 TCU are the others.). The "East" team in the Rose Bowl has only been supplied by the Big 10 since 1947. So USC should be ahead of everyone else by a wide margin.

[U-Ute]

Apples and oranges. The Big 10 had a no-repeat Rose Bowl policy up until the the early/mid 1970s. (Sidenote: Its teams could also participate in ONLY the Rose Bowl.). For the longest time, there was one exception: Minnesota played in back-to-back games in 1960-61 because the faculty at Ohio State forbade the Buckeyes (8-0-1 and ranked No. 2) from participating in the Rose Bowl.

For my purposes, I was really only focusing on the P12 teams, but that is an interesting factoid I was not aware of! Thanks!

[U-Ute]

I agree. It all depends on what you're trying to measure. I'm talking about likelihood of future success. To me, Stanford has the same strengths and weaknesses it has had for the last 50 years. The difference recently has been due to coaching. While I think Oregon has had very good coaching, I think the much bigger issue has been their relationship with Nike and the corresponding $$$$$ and cool factor. To me, the relationship with Nike and associated benefits seems much more likely to continue than Stanford's hiring of elite coaches (especially if rumored low compensation to Stanford coaches is true). I could certainly be wrong, but that's what my beliefs are based on.

Do you believe that the funding will stay for the next 100 years? What happens after Uncle Phil passes in and Nike hits a tough financial stretch?

[sancho]

Do you believe that the funding will stay for the next 100 years? What happens after Uncle Phil passes in and Nike hits a tough financial stretch?

I think with football it takes a solid 10-20 year stretch of highly ranked teams with a few national championships to become a superpower. Once you reach that status, it's hard to leave. Oregon is closer than any other outsider to breaking in to that club.

Mandel's kings, barons, etc list is pretty good.

[Scratch]

Do you believe that the funding will stay for the next 100 years? What happens after Uncle Phil passes in and Nike hits a tough financial stretch?

I agree with what Sancho said. I've wondered what will happen when Knight dies, but frankly it may just mean Oregon gets a huge infusion from his estate. I just think there's a god chance that by then Oregon may be able to set up its position as an elite team.

[Utah]

Something that worries me about Stanford is money. We've seen with Utah how a great head coach (Whitt) can struggle because he either can't afford to bring in a top flight assistant or can't afford to keep him. I wonder if Kyle could have given Andersen $500,000 like he did Sitake, if Andersen wouldn't have stayed.

Anyways, back to Stanford. Are they going to be willing to put the cash into the football program to stay elite? They do have the whole degree from Stanford angle, but it won't be too long where competing coaches can go in and say, yeah, look at what Stanford grads make, but look at what former Stanford football players make. Also, if they can't keep the coaches around, and they start to slip in an area or two, that could be the difference between a 5 loss season and a two loss BCS season.

Finally, I have no clue why Stanford and ASU didn't play last weekend. These are two teams that many feel should be playing in the PAC-12 title game and both of these teams only have one bye week this year. That is nuts.

[LA Ute]

One of the great things about having BYU as a rival is we are guaranteed a steady stream of stuff like this:

https://twitter.com/gregwrubell/status/37 4705161500758016

@gregwrubell: RB Jamaal Williams says team has already moved on to Texas; about Virginia game, says "even though we took the loss, we felt like we won."

It's just wonderful.

[Utah]

Anyone look at Whitt's first tweet:

UtahCoachWhitt Here I am @espn700bill. It took a while, but isn't it really more about executing the tweets than the tempo of the tweets? #goutes 9/3/13 8:25 AM

LOL.

[Scorcho]

add this to the things that you never want to hear your head coach say (especisally during the season) ....

Bronco - "all of the offense line positions are up for grabs"

what's that old adage, "if you have 2 qb's, you really have none." If you're rotating 10 lineman, what do you really have?

[U-Ute]

add this to the things that you never want to hear your head coach say (especisally during the season) ....

Bronco - "all of the offense line positions are up for grabs"

what's that old adage, "if you have 2 qb's, you really have none." If you're rotating 10 lineman, what do you really have?

A loss on week 1.

[UtahsMrSports]

I get a kick out of BYU. So one hand, Jamal Williams says in the Gordon Monson article that BYU will start making teams "bow to their will" and that he learned from Saturday that with hard work they can beat anybody. At the same time, Bronco is saying that all 5 offensive line positions are being battled for? ALL 5!?!?!?!?!?

[SoCalPat]

I get a kick out of BYU. So one hand, Jamal Williams says in the Gordon Monson article that BYU will start making teams "bow to their will" and that he learned from Saturday that with hard work they can beat anybody. At the same time, Bronco is saying that all 5 offensive line positions are being battled for? ALL 5!?!?!?!?!?

Is it just because I'm a Utah fan and paid attention to what BYU did for so many years or are there more college football teams out there with a history of players who write as many checks that their mouths can't cash?

[Bacana Ute]

I get a kick out of BYU. So one hand, Jamal Williams says in the Gordon Monson article that BYU will start making teams "bow to their will" and that he learned from Saturday that with hard work they can beat anybody. At the same time, Bronco is saying that all 5 offensive line positions are being battled for? ALL 5!?!?!?!?!?

The fact that you even bothered to read a Gordon Monson article is amusing to me.

[SoCalPat]

The fact that you even bothered to read a Gordon Monson article is amusing to me.

You need to check the thickness of your skin. Monson is an equal-opportunity skewer, and napalmed BYU in his latest column.

[USS Utah]

You need to check the thickness of your skin. Monson is an equal-opportunity skewer, and napalmed BYU in his latest column.

Brady Poppinga is not pleased.

[Scratch]

Brady Poppinga is not pleased.

Why not? It felt like a win to him.