Non-Conference Scheduling rumors

[Jeff Lebowski]

I already established in this thread today that I do not partake of alcohol.

Seriously? You were sober today?

[myboynoah]

After beating you guys 4 years in a row, their really isn't anything to be afraid of. Think what you want though.

I'm thinkin' it because that's what they said. Now Funk and PU are upset by the possibilities. But it is better this way, since uofutah fans can always say, "We would have beat BYU!" and not be burdened with the memory of reality.

[PaloAltoCougar]

HL, don't you see any logical inconsistency with using the pollsters (who didn't rank highly any of BYU's opponents) to belittle BYU's number one ranking, when those same pollsters are the ones who bestowed that ranking? Did they rank BYU's opponents correctly, but simply muffed on BYU? Why? And if Washington were the most deserving of the '84 NC, wouldn't you be a bit troubled by the fact that the Huskies didn't even win their own conference that year? Fact is, BYU deserved the NC in what was a very down year for contenders.

[Omaha 680]

HL, don't you see any logical inconsistency with using the pollsters (who didn't rank highly any of BYU's opponents) to belittle BYU's number one ranking, when those same pollsters are the ones who bestowed that ranking? Did they rank BYU's opponents correctly, but simply muffed on BYU? Why? And if Washington were the most deserving of the '84 NC, wouldn't you be a bit troubled by the fact that the Huskies didn't even win their own conference that year? Fact is, BYU deserved the NC in what was a very down year for contenders.

Well he knows more than you about BYU football. Or maybe you are in the 10%.

[lambdacoug]

Did I say I was down with Washington ducking BYU?

I like that we're still having this argument 30 years later.

[Moliere]

UMass? WTF??

Granted I might make that trip just to see Boston and some friends up there, but couldn't they at least schedule BC or Rutgers or someone else in the northeast?

[USUC]

UMass? WTF??

Granted I might make that trip just to see Boston and some friends up there, but couldn't they at least schedule BC or Rutgers or someone else in the northeast?

http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthr...=1#post1132617

[Katy Lied]

uofutah was and is afraid of BYU, very afraid. With juggernauts like WSU, CU, and UA coming up, Dr. Hill and Coach Kyle had to dumb down the schedule with pushovers like ISU, Fresno, and Michigan.

Mission accomplished!

I'm not sure that they were afraid of playing BYU. I just think that the rivalry game takes so much out of the Utes, with all the preparation needed and gathering the bulletin board material to sustain that chip on Kyle's shoulder, and the exhaustion of the hostility. I think they wanted to concentrate their efforts on the conference games and not worry about a non-conference foe. So yeah, they were afraid of the effort it takes to beat BYU, which they have proved to be quite capable of doing lately.

It's interesting- Kyle has always excelled at getting his merry band of players to play with the chip on their shoulder, in an effort to prove that they belong with the big boys. Now that they are getting facilities upgrades, and lots of money, and better recruits, how will that sustain Kyle's primary strategy of getting his players foaming mouth angry and ready to do battle? I wonder if Kyle's the kind of coach that can coach from a position of unlimited resources; he sure has dropped some baffling games that he had no business losing.

[lambdacoug]

I'm not sure that they were afraid of playing BYU. I just think that the rivalry game takes so much out of the Utes, with all the preparation needed and gathering the bulletin board material to sustain that chip on Kyle's shoulder, and the exhaustion of the hostility. I think they wanted to concentrate their efforts on the conference games and not worry about a non-conference foe. So yeah, they were afraid of the effort it takes to beat BYU, which they have proved to be quite capable of doing lately.

It's interesting- Kyle has always excelled at getting his merry band of players to play with the chip on their shoulder, in an effort to prove that they belong with the big boys. Now that they are getting facilities upgrades, and lots of money, and better recruits, how will that sustain Kyle's primary strategy of getting his players foaming mouth angry and ready to do battle? I wonder if Kyle's the kind of coach that can coach from a position of unlimited resources; he sure has dropped some baffling games that he had no business losing.

I love the argument of the rivalry is just getting too nasty. Those that think that should listen to die-hard KU fans talk about the MU slavers. The best rivalries have some bad blood that predates/supercedes the rivalry and is tied closely to regional history. BYU-UofU is religion. MU-KU is the civil war. Things that have nothing to do with football, but add all the spice to the rivalry and keep it going strong even in a hiatus of playing. I hate this era of killing rivalries. They are supposed to be heated and nasty.

[Paperback Writer]

You've just seemed like you are ok with it. Nobody wanted to play BYU in 1984. They asked a lot of people to come play them in that bowl.

If I was a team like Washington that thought they had a claim to a NC, I would want to play the only unbeaten team that was ranked #1. But that's just me.

HL, don't you see any logical inconsistency with using the pollsters (who didn't rank highly any of BYU's opponents) to belittle BYU's number one ranking, when those same pollsters are the ones who bestowed that ranking? Did they rank BYU's opponents correctly, but simply muffed on BYU? Why? And if Washington were the most deserving of the '84 NC, wouldn't you be a bit troubled by the fact that the Huskies didn't even win their own conference that year? Fact is, BYU deserved the NC in what was a very down year for contenders.

Agree that BYU deserved the MNC in 1984. In retrospect, Washington's best chance of claiming a MNC was to play BYU in the Holiday Bowl. But at the time, there was the troubling fact that Washington didn't win the Pac-10 in 1984 (as PAC pointed out) which was getting a lot of press so maybe the Huskies thought they were out of the running. There's also the possibility that Oklahoma defeats Boston College in the Orange Bowl (BC would have gone had Washington not accepted) and pollsters vote OU #1 at 10-1-1 instead of Washington even if the Huskies had defeated the Cougars. The logic being that OU had won the Big 8 while Washington did not win the Pac-10. And if Washington loses to BYU in the Holiday Bowl then the Huskies not only lose a game, they forfeit some significant $$$ by not playing in the Orange Bowl. So I can understand why Washington mitigated that risk and went to the Orange Bowl hoping someone else would defeat BYU in the Holiday Bowl because OU was very likely to roll over BC in the Orange Bowl.

[USUC]

It's interesting- Kyle has always excelled at getting his merry band of players to play with the chip on their shoulder, in an effort to prove that they belong with the big boys. Now that they are getting facilities upgrades, and lots of money, and better recruits, how will that sustain Kyle's primary strategy of getting his players foaming mouth angry and ready to do battle? I wonder if Kyle's the kind of coach that can coach from a position of unlimited resources; he sure has dropped some baffling games that he had no business losing.

Whit's ability to get their team to play with a chip on their shoulder is probably one reason why Utah goes to a bowl game this year (the other reasons are a down PAC-12, improvement at the skill positions, and not playing BYU). Everyone wrote Utah off as a bottom feeder in the conference. This is the type of situation where he excels. Whether or not he can sustain success is another issue.

[MarkGrace]

I'm not sure that they were afraid of playing BYU. I just think that the rivalry game takes so much out of the Utes, with all the preparation needed and gathering the bulletin board material to sustain that chip on Kyle's shoulder, and the exhaustion of the hostility. I think they wanted to concentrate their efforts on the conference games and not worry about a non-conference foe. So yeah, they were afraid of the effort it takes to beat BYU, which they have proved to be quite capable of doing lately.

It's interesting- Kyle has always excelled at getting his merry band of players to play with the chip on their shoulder, in an effort to prove that they belong with the big boys. Now that they are getting facilities upgrades, and lots of money, and better recruits, how will that sustain Kyle's primary strategy of getting his players foaming mouth angry and ready to do battle? I wonder if Kyle's the kind of coach that can coach from a position of unlimited resources; he sure has dropped some baffling games that he had no business losing.

2011:
USC - L
BYU - W
UW - L

2012:
USU - L
BYU - W
ASU - L

2013:
OSU - L
BYU - W
UCLA - L

While the Utes love to crow this year about how they wish they had their guaranteed BYU win on the schedule this year, three years worth of obvious trend suggests that trading two losses every year for one BYU win was having a negative impact on their results. Look at the impact it had -- trading an extra loss just to beat BYU was the difference between going bowling and sitting home the last two seasons. And there were easily winnable games in there. Losses the in the week before BYU included at home against OSU in '13 and on the road against USU in '12. But when you're so consumed with winning one game it's easy to not focus on your opponent the week before, and then have an emotional letdown the week after. Not scheduling BYU has provided the Utes with the opportunity for a net gain in wins, and provided BYU with national exposure by starting the year 4-0. If there was ever a win-win arrangement between the two teams, this is it.

[Paperback Writer]

I'm not sure that they were afraid of playing BYU. I just think that the rivalry game takes so much out of the Utes, with all the preparation needed and gathering the bulletin board material to sustain that chip on Kyle's shoulder, and the exhaustion of the hostility. I think they wanted to concentrate their efforts on the conference games and not worry about a non-conference foe. So yeah, they were afraid of the effort it takes to beat BYU, which they have proved to be quite capable of doing lately.

It's interesting- Kyle has always excelled at getting his merry band of players to play with the chip on their shoulder, in an effort to prove that they belong with the big boys. Now that they are getting facilities upgrades, and lots of money, and better recruits, how will that sustain Kyle's primary strategy of getting his players foaming mouth angry and ready to do battle? I wonder if Kyle's the kind of coach that can coach from a position of unlimited resources; he sure has dropped some baffling games that he had no business losing.

But Kyle's Utes are playing in the Big Leagues now. If Utah now has unlimited resources what does USC and UCLA have? I can't think of too many PAC-12 teams that will have inferior facilites and lessor talent than Utah. So Kyle should still be able to get his players to play with a chip on their shoulder if that's really his method of operation. Perhaps I'm not baffled as much by Utah's losses-most PAC-10 foes have equal or better talent and coaching as Utah.

[Bo Diddley]

Whit's ability to get their team to play with a chip on their shoulder is probably one reason why Utah goes to a bowl game this year (the other reasons are a down PAC-12, improvement at the skill positions, and not playing BYU). Everyone wrote Utah off as a bottom feeder in the conference. This is the type of situation where he excels. Whether or not he can sustain success is another issue.

Not scheduling BYU this year might end up working out really well for the Utes. BYU, a destroyer of opposing quarterbacks, might not only have taken away Utah's momentum, but set them on a path to irrelevance for the rest of the year.

[CardiacCoug]

The other thing that I like to point out about BYU's 1984 NC is that pollsters were clearly under no obligation to rank BYU #1 if they thought they didn't deserve it.

Rutgers went undefeated in 1976 and didn't sniff the #1 spot. SMU was undefeated in 1982 (granted with a tie I believe) and got jumped by a team with a loss. Tulane and Marshall went undefeated in the 90s and nobody ranked them anywhere near #1 either as far as I recall.

Sometimes you hear people say stuff like "Well they had no choice but to rank BYU #1 even though everybody knew they didn't deserve it" and clearly that's not the case.