On Bronco prioritizing faith, family, education, football (and

[Top Ute]

The closest parallel in college are championships.

Let me get this straight, because I think you've taken my words out of context in response to this: Are you talking conference championships or national championships?

I thought you were talking conference championships, because that's the only context I could assume you were forming in a thread about Bronco Mendenhall's priorities.

[jay santos]

Let me get this straight, because I think you've taken my words out of context in response to this: Are you talking conference championships or national championships?

I thought you were talking conference championships, because that's the only context I could assume you were forming in a thread about Bronco Mendenhall's priorities.

Let it go. You just make yourself look like more of an ass.

[Top Ute]

Do you think Florida considers the last season to have been on par with the year before? Don't be asinine.

What part of almost always did you not understand?

[Pheidippides]

What part of almost always did you not understand?

Probably the part at the very beginning where it said "Top Ute"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[byu71]

Although careless in his remarks, Bronco was right when he said the level of criticism matches the level of education, and I think the fact this continues to be a "hot" point of discussion proves it.

When you have a product in high demand, you can insult your customers all you want. However, if the competition brings out a better product and yours isn't as good, insulting your customers in the past can end up being a problem.

I note Bronco's quotes on fans have been much more accomodating of late. Bravo for him recognizing a lot of things and making changes.

One other note. I know for a fact when Bronco made his statement on priorities, a highly sought after BB recruits Dad called Rose and asked if he had the same philosopy. Rose assured him BB was his top priority as the BB coach. I think it is silly to dismiss people who weren't excited about the quote as being, "uneducated". Just because someone differs in opinion, doesn't make them uneducated.

[All-American]

What part of almost always did you not understand?

Ah. So winning the BCS game is only like winning the Super Bowl if you were undefeated. I take it that Utah's accomplishments in the 2004 and 2008 seasons were therefore more like winning the super bowl than what LSU's 2007 team was able to do?

[Top Ute]

Ah. So winning the BCS game is only like winning the Super Bowl if you were undefeated. I take it that Utah's accomplishments in the 2004 and 2008 seasons were therefore more like winning the super bowl than what LSU's 2007 team was able to do?

Florida wasn't a conference champ or undefeated, never mind that it couldn't defend its national title. It was a bad example on your part. So is this one. Try again.

[All-American]

Florida wasn't a conference champ or undefeated, never mind that it couldn't defend its national title. It was a bad example on your part. So is this one. Try again.

I did. LSU. Keep up.

[All-American]

I did. LSU. Keep up.

A few other examples you should address, while we're at it.

Assume, contrafactually, that Nebraska, who lost its own division (to say nothing of its conference), had beaten Miami in the 2002 Rose Bowl and thereby become the national champions. Would their accomplishment have met your "super bowl"-like threshold?

Consider also 2004, in which USC, Auburn and Utah all went undefeated and won their conferences and bowl games. Did all three of them win the college football analogue of the super bowl?

Finally, tell me about the Patriots v. the Giants in Super Bowl XLII. The Giants, of course, lost several games before beating the Patriots, including one to the Patriots during the final game of the regular season. Was their Super Bowl victory less significant than any other?

[Top Ute]

I did. LSU. Keep up.

Which illustrates my point to perfection. The idea that 2007 LSU had a better season than either 2004 or (especially) 2008 Utah, absent a playoff, is ludicrous. It demonstrates clearly the split-level residences that exist in college football, where you have penthouse blue-bloods and those aspiring to get there (but probably won't), and nothing short of conference affiliation change is going to change that.

Any team can play its way into a BCS bowl game, just like anyone can play its way into a Super Bowl, and even win it. Therein lies the equivalency between college and the NFL. It's not about playing for a championship in which the manner by which the participants are chosen are highly subjective.

[All-American]

Which illustrates my point to perfection. The idea that 2007 LSU had a better season than either 2004 or (especially) 2008 Utah, absent a playoff, is ludicrous. It demonstrates clearly the split-level residences that exist in college football, where you have penthouse blue-bloods and those aspiring to get there (but probably won't), and nothing short of conference affiliation change is going to change that.

Any team can play its way into a BCS bowl game, just like anyone can play its way into a Super Bowl, and even win it. Therein lies the equivalency between college and the NFL. It's not about playing for a championship in which the manner by which the participants are chosen are highly subjective.

You're mixing up your arguments. Yes, the college football postseason is rife with inequity and counterintuitive structure. You respond to this by giving trophies out to everybody and calling them all winners. That makes Utah's 2004 and 2008 seasons more analogous to a sixth grade soccer team than to a Super Bowl champion.

By all means, let's attack the BCS system. Calling everybody a champion, on the other hand, is just silly.

One further example, if you can't find it in you to give up your foot of soil. Are you saying that any team that goes undefeated, wins its conference, gets into the best available bowl game, and wins that game has effectively won the closest thing available to the Super Bowl?

[Top Ute]

By all means, let's attack the BCS system. Calling everybody a champion, on the other hand, is just silly.

Programs have been declaring themselves champions for decades, some years after the fact. But college football, and to a greater extent, the bowl system, has brought this upon itself. What constituted a champion in 1960 is much different than today.

Are you saying that any team that goes undefeated, wins its conference, gets into the best available bowl game, and wins that game has effectively won the closest thing available to the Super Bowl?

I don't know what more such a team could achieve. I know walking down Bourbon Street on Jan. 2, 2009, I felt like Utah just won the Super Bowl. Especially with everyone telling me we had the best team in the country.

[All-American]

Programs have been declaring themselves champions for decades, some years after the fact. But college football, and to a greater extent, the bowl system, has brought this upon itself. What constituted a champion in 1960 is much different than today.



I don't know what more such a team could achieve. I know walking down Bourbon Street on Jan. 2, 2009, I felt like Utah just won the Super Bowl. Especially with everyone telling me we had the best team in the country.

Thank you for conceding that Utah's 2004 and 2008 seasons are no more significant than BYU's 1984 season. They went undefeated, after all, and went to the best available bowl game, where they beat their opponent.

You've put forward several other interesting propositions. First is the idea that there are lots of college football teams that can win the analogue to the super bowl. There were three teams in 2004 that did it, for example. This seems odd to me, given that the Raison d'être of the Super Bowl, from the first to the latest, is to find the single best team in the nation. Show me one person who would not prefer the results of USC's 2004 to Auburn's 2004.

Second, you purport that the prior history of the team somehow renders the accomplishment of THAT GAME more significant, in that a team that loses games before the bowl puts the super bowl level of accomplishment out of reach. Thus, Florida's Sugar Bowl victory over an previously undefeated conference champion was more significant than Utah's Sugar Bowl victory over a non-undefeated non-conference champion. Certainly, Utah's 2008 was better than Florida's 2009, but you're not comparing seasons; you're saying that the game itself is the equivalent to the Super Bowl.

The problems don't end there. By your logic, there was no "Super Bowl" champion in 1996; no team went undefeated, and therefore, there essentially was no team worthy of the designation. So too is LSU's national championship somehow rendered inferior to Utah's victory in The SUG. Some impressive spinning, but I can't find it in me to consider myself obtuse for failing to agree, under any circumstances, that winning the national championship game is less of an accomplishment than winning any other game.

Your response will, no doubt, point out all the reasons that I'm wrong, which reasons basically rest on the foundation of the inequity of the college football season. With that sentiment, I agree; the system is a mess. That doesn't change my reliance on THIS premise: the "Super Bowl" champion of college football is the national champion, the team declared to be the best in the nation. Our disagreement hinges on the respective premises on which we rely. I think you'll find few that agree that yours is the better.

[Portland Ute]

How many times did LaVell win 43 games in four seasons?

How many 12 game regular seasons did Lavell have to work with?

[Indy Coug]

How many 12 game regular seasons did Lavell have to work with?

Quite a few with all those Hawaii road games. He also had 14 and 15 game seasons to work with on occasion.