@naval vetYou sure are "frantic" and definately
"emotional" to claim 6th place. LOL!
@ sammyg"Never has a battle for 6th place meant so much to so
few. Hilarious as usual"Never has playing for nothing meant so
much to so few. Hilarious in deed!
Never has a battle for 6th place meant so much to so few. Hilarious as usual.
Duckhunter:It is clearly been I who had been the provocateur of YOUR
frantic and emotional responses. I use FACTS, such as the Google search engine
requirements to PROVE, beyond reproach, where the 2011 Utes stood in the final
Pac-12 standings. And you provided......frantic emotion.Now you're going to have to produce a Google keyword search engine
requirement that validates ANY reputable college football publication that
identifies Utah as the "8th place team". Because failure to do so would
be a tacit admission to having offered up nothing but the frantic emotion of
which you've been accused, and it'll be case closed, you lose.So pretty much in other words, case closed. You lose.
deductive reasoning: "yawn, who cares; teams that finish with LOSING
conference records shouldn't even be bowl eligible"It sure
looked like someone cared enough to cling onto claiming fallacy as fact. If you
subscribe to the make believe world of "seeding" football teams, then I
suppose you're right. If you live a conscious life on Earth, however, you
would understand the actual NCAA criteria for bowl selection.
StGtoSLCyawn, who cares; teams that finish with LOSING conference
records shouldn't even be bowl eligible
@naval vetI love your "frantic and emotional" replies. I can
get one from you every single time. And yes utah is the 8th place team from the
pac12. The numbers don't lie.LOL!
Like I said Duckhunter. What is with BYU fans being obsessive about Utah joining
the Pac 12? Its funny reading some of the posts here. You and your buddies list
a bunch of stats and details that nobody outside of the state of Utah cares
about. Well unless you are an obsessive BYU fan.And who cares about how
many BYU players are in the hall of fame. What does that have to do with Utah
being in the PAC 12 anyway?And if you like independence that's fine.
Duckhunter:ESPN just published an article on their college football
website titled "Utah spring wrap", by Pac-12 blogger Kevin Gemmell.
Kevin identified Utah's Pac-12 standing as "T 3rd South". That
means we were "tied for 3rd-place in the Pac-12 South"; not
"4th-place behind Arizona State due to jealous,frantic and emotional
Indy-WACey-manufactured tie-breaker rules".Case closed.
I can't believe I'm still having to literally spell this out.As explained by ESPN's Ted Miller (capitalization added for emphasis):"The Pac-12 Conference has seven bowl tie-ins.#1 Bowl Championship
Series. As of 2011, the winner of the Pac-12 Championship Game gains an
automatic berth to a BCS bowl game, preferentially the Rose Bowl.#2 The
Alamo Bowl receives the second CHOICE of Pac-12 teams.#3 The Holiday Bowl
receives the third CHOICE of Pac-12 teams.#4 The Sun Bowl receives the
fourth CHOICE of Pac-12 teams.#5 The Maaco Bowl receives the fifth CHOICE
of Pac-12 teams#6 The Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl receives the sixth CHOICE of
Pac-12 teams.#7 The New Mexico Bowl receives the seventh CHOICE of the
Pac-12 teams."This is the exact reason that Boise was selected
by the Maaco Bowl, despite TCU actually winning the MWC championship. The Maaco
Bowl committee determined, apparently based on national status and 2010's
turnout, that Boise gave them better appeal than TCU.This reminds me
of the stubborn mule on Family Guy: "Nope, Kevin Bacon was not in
Duckhunter:"They get to the 5th place bowl because usc was
inelligible ...BYU was ranked ahead of utah in the only poll that ultimately
matters, the final poll. Pre-season means not a thing."Haha!
The only reason why the Indy-WACers got IN to that poll was because...USC was
ineligible. Well, THAT and the fact that your mid-majorey team loaded up on a
bunch of weak-WAC games in order to hit that 10-win milestone.And
the only score that matters is 54-10. You lose.And I WAS in El
Paso. Where where you? On another "business trip" to Tulsa? You
certainly weren't in Dallas. Nobody went to that game. And they
didn't watch in TV either. "LOL"P.S.: At least one
Pac-12 will ALWAYS get a BCS bowl. No Indy-WAC team will EVER get one.
@naval I notice BYU just got their 7th football player elected to
the NCAA Football Hall of Fame. Of course Coach Edwards makes 8 Cougars. I
couldn't find any ute's anywhere in the vicinity of the hall of fame.
Must be a conspiracy.
@navalYou're wrong, nothing unusual about that. And the fact
you frantically and emotionally responded is the iceing for me :)I
didn't say anything about this years rankings but as a program Boise is on
par with usc. Maybe Boise will be a little down from where they were but playing
them is a big noteworthy game of national interest and that is my meaning, not
that one is ranked higher than the other in pre season polls.As for
the bowls utah was the 8th seed. They get to the 5th place bowl because usc was
inelligible and two others went to the bcs. If only one went to the bcs and usc
was eligible utah would hae been in the #7 seeded bowl but got "lucky"
and "got to" go to el paso where you falsely have claimed to have
attended.Also I like independence and have no desire for BYU to join
a league. You'll have to find someone else to use that one on.p.s. BYU was ranked ahead of utah in the only poll that ultimately matters,
the final poll. Pre-season means not a thing.
Duckhunter:"USC - ok this is a good one. About on par with Boise
St."NOBODY -- not even Boise State -- thinks BSU is on par with
USC. Not for 2012 anyway. From the 2012 preseason polls I've seen
published...(1) Mark Schlabach ranks USC #1. Boise St. was #21.(2) "College Football News" ranks USC #6. Boise St. was #17. Utah
was #13.(3) "ESPN College Football Live" ranks USC #1. Boise St.
was #23.(4) "Athlon" ranks USC #2. Boise St. was #24.Phil Steele will put out his magazine next month. Then you'll see how
your SOS ranks compared to ours.In the meantime, feel free to
produce ANY legitimate polls not published by cougarboard, DeepShadesofBlue, the
DNews, or any OTHER suspect polls produced by your blue-goggled alumni that
shows Boise State on an even keel with USC. Don't tell me to look for
myself, because I already did, but didn't find any. Those 4 bullet points
above are all I found.P.S.: I didn't find any polls that
ranked the Indy-WACers ahead of the Utes either. "LOL"
Duckhunter:"Actually it does matter and it does apply because
that is how the pac12 seeds its bowl tie ins. So that made utah the 8th bowl
team for seeding purposes."Nope. StGtoSLC was correct. Those
tie-breaking rules ONLY apply to who represents their respective divisions in
the Pac-12 CCG. Furthermore, note the Bowl selection committees' version
of "seeding". For 2011...#1 - Rose Bowl (Oregon)#2 -
Typically the Alamo Bowl, but Stanford was invited to a better bowl (Fiesta)#3 - Alamo Bowl (Washington)#4 - Holiday (California)#5 - Sun
(Utah)#6 - Las Vegas (Arizona State)#7 - Kraft Fight Hunger
(UCLA)#8 - New Mexico (n/a for 2011)If Utah was the #8 team,
how did they get the #5 Bowl? Silly desperate frantic and emotional coug. Just
be grateful the WAC didn't fold for 2012, or you wouldn't have had
anybody to play with.P.S.: Did the Big 12 call yet? [*snicker*]
Because it appears they've been casting their eyes eastward to Tallahassee.
And last I read on ESPN a few months ago, Louisville and Cincinnati are still
the line ahead of you.*Ahem* "LOL"
Duky: "utah "fans" are simply deluded and think pac12 automatically
makes a team good."Actually according to Rivals, etc. it does,
just go see our pre and post PAC-12 recruiting class talent. PAC-12 affiliation
automatically opens up doors, winning keeps them open. What makes a good team
is talent and coaching, and I feel we have both.I think we can all
agree with ESPN's analysis of Utah's 1st PAC-12 season:"Still, the initial verdict is fairly positive. While the grind of Pac-12
play is far different than the Mountain West Conference, it's clear that
Utah can compete in the Pac-12. They figure to be a long-term fixture in the
South Division race."Can't wait for the two South top dogs
to battle in Season II ... USC @ RES.Go UTES!!
Ha yeah I did as well, so I guess once again, we'll have to agree to
disagree. Yes, I know there is a pecking order, but that is in the order in
which bowl committees get to invite eligible affiliated teams. There is not a
person alive who believes for one moment that the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl is the
best non-BCS bowl for the Pac-12, evidenced by the fact that it pitted a 6-7
team up against a 6-6 team this past year.
@stgNot so. Agreements were reached for the teams and what bowl they
played in but they do line up according to those seedings. There are plenty of
articles out there on this that you can easily google. I did.
The point of all that: no, there is no seeding in Pac-12 football. There are the
division winners who play for the conference championship, and then there is
everyone else. No designated 6th place team, no designated 8th place team. This
entire argument has been pointless on both sides.
Sorry buddy, bowl tie-ins do not work like that, except in the NCAA Football
'12 video game. They work on an invitation basis, with certain bowls
obviously having obligations to invite specific conferences' teams or
individual teams if any remaining are eligible.For instance, UCLA,
who won the south, was invited by the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl, the lowest-tier
bowl associated with the Pac-12. Arizona State, who by your tie-breaking
scenarios "placed" ahead of Utah, went to the Maaco Bowl Las Vegas, the
next one up from the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl.Continuing moving up,
the Sun Bowl picked Utah, but there was speculation prior to that that we could
be invited by the Holiday or Alamo (traditionally the 2nd- and 3rd-best Pac bowl
destinations), since Utah, Washington and Cal all had 7-5 records and Stanford
was expected to receive an at-large BCS bid and USC was ineligible.
@seminole bobutah's scheduleNorthern Colorado -
hmmmmmm....Utah State - they both play these guys.BYU -
aren't you guys claiming this one is a gimmee? If so you get no credit for
playing it.ASU - not a very good team although they did pound utah
last year.USC - ok this is a good one. About on par with Boise
St.ucla - really bad team with a new coach.Oregon St. -
they both play these guys but they aren't very good.Cal -
mediocre team but of course they pounded utah.Washington St. - not
very good but they both play them.Washington - decent, not great,
team. About on par with Georgia Tech. They did destroy utah.arizona
- bad program. bad team.colorado - one of the worst programs and
teams in all of d1.Frankly utah's schedule is pretty weak. Yea
I know it's a "pac 12" schedule but to everyone that isn't a
utah "fan" that doesn't mean much. utah "fans" are simply
deluded and think pac12 automatically makes a team good.That said
utah will not have any better of a record than they had last year.LOL!
@seminole bobBYU's schedule for this upcoming season.Washington St. - pac12 team. considering utah plays the same team this is a
wash.Weber St. - utah plays northern colorado, this is a wash.Utah - well I'm sure you think utah is better so we'll say BYU
is playing the better team this week. LOLBoise St. - they've
lost something like 3 games in 5 years. I'd say that a tough game.Hawaii - decent team, as good as lower pac12 teamsUSU - good team,
not great. As good as lower pac12 teams.Oregon St. - utah plays them
to. Wash.Notre Dame - no need to comment other than 28-3 and not in
utah's favor recently.Georgia Tech - utah just played them and
utah "fans" call it a "great victory over a quality opponent.Idaho Vandals - They aren't good but neither is colorado.San Jose St. - Once again not much worse than the bottom of the pac12.New Mexico St. - Once again bottom of the pac isn't much better.Really that is a pretty decent schedule. The last 3 are pretty weak but
overall it is a good schedule.
@stgActually it does matter and it does apply because that is how
the pac12 seeds its bowl tie ins. So that made utah the 8th bowl team for
seeding purposes. In essence they were the 8th place team. Now all of the teams
got moved up a couple of spots because both Oregon and Stanford played in BCS
bowls, that moved utah up to the 6th place bowl game, the sun bowl. But they
were without a doubt the 8th place team. What is actually fun about
this debate is that if you go back to last off season utah "fans" were
calling BYU the 5th place team from the mwc despite the fact they tied for 3rd
place. Oviously they were trying to be derogotory. Of course they were wrong
about that because BYU actually beat one of the 2 teams (SDSU) they tied for 3rd
place with, the other one was Air Force who BYU lost to, so really that would
have been 4th place for bowl seeding purposes. But I just really enjoy the
hypocrisy. I'm not saying you are one of the hypocrites, just that they are
there and they're fun to expose.
Duckhunter, nice job finding the conference's division tiebreaking rules.
My point is realistically there is no such thing as the "6th place,"
"8th place," or even "3rd place" team in the conference, because
those rules only apply to deciding the winners of the north and south divisions.
So somebody calling a team "6th place" is no more of a make-believe
statement than calling them "8th place." Bottom line: either way, it
changes nothing, it doesn't matter. Those teams beat us, good for them,
they have bragging rights going into this year's game against them, but
that's it, no medal for "6th place." We beat BYU, along with 4
other teams we will play this year, that's our bragging rights.
Seems to me the real fight here is BYU scheduling teams to play them. Utah is
primarily set. What is with Cougar fans obsessive attitude about Utah joining
the Pac 12? Go join your own conference rather than schedule sissy teams to
boost your ego to play in mediocre bowl games.
@stg"When you find in the Pac-12 rule book the ever-important
6th place tiebreaking criteria, please recite it to me!"Fom the
Pac 12's football tie breakers rules.Three or More Teams: The following procedures will only be used to eliminate all but two
teams, at which point the two-team tie-breaking procedure will be applied.
1.Head-to-head (best record in games among the tied teams). 2.Record in games played within the division. 3.Record against the
next highest placed team in the division (based on record in all Conference
games, both divisional and cross-divisional), proceeding through the
division. 4.Record in common Conference games. 5.Highest
BCS Ranking following the last weekend of regular-season games. Let's see, #1 say's "Head to head (best record in games among
the tied teams" utah lost to the two teams it tied for the 6th best record
with with making it the 8th place team. There you go. You can go
ahead and fill naval vet in on that fact as well because he is clinging to that
6th place finish like a life line for his sanity.LOL!
Naval VetYou are so correct the Utes fought hard, it's the fans
that are so desperate to somehow elevate their 'real' 8th place finish
to a three way tie for 6th place.Everyone really knows where the
Utes ended up. Go ask a Ute football player and he will in all honesty say that
losing to the other two teams in the 3-way tie really feels more like an 8th
place, not 6th place.I'm not desperate to downgrade anything,
it is what it is. Colorado 17 Utes 14 says more than I can possibly write about
the matter. 4-5 in a conference, not even a 50% win ratio and somehow it means
the Utes are in the top 50% of their class. Thank goodness for grading on a
curve huh?Again, seeing you and others debate 6th place is some of
the best entertainment on these boards.Call it what you want...
it's still only 6th place, galaxies away from anything remotely close to a
Top 25 / 26 ranking by a little independent church school.LOL
sammyg:Utah didn't fight for a 6th-place finish. We fought for
a 1st-place finish. We FOUGHT for it, but we just didn't EARN it. What we
EARNED was a 6th-place finish. What's "hilarious" is watching some
Indy-WACey fanbase, so distraught with the envy and the insecurity associated
with institutions that no other relevant conference will touch, so DESPERATELY
try to downgrade Utah's previous season to justify all their PREseason
"bottom-feeder" talk. The numbers don't lie. Utah was
tied for 6th-place, and cougar fans just can't admit it. Plus, Math is
hard for Y fans.
Sammyg....Seeing a fan of a team that was defeated 54 - 10 at home
by that team is even more hilarious.
Since there are so many mid-major byu fans commenting on this PAC 12 U of U
article, let me toss out some conference standings that you can chew on:1984 BIG TEN Final Conference Standings:1. Ohio State 10 -
32. Iowa 8 - 4 - 13. Illinois 7 - 44. Purdue 7 - 55.
Wisconsin 7 - 4 - 16. Michigan State 6 - 67. Michigan 6 - 6 (lost to
Michigan State)8. Minnesota 4 - 79. Northwestern 2 - 910.
Indiana 0 - 11Congrats on your come from behind 24 - 17
"*National Championship" over the 7th place team from a 10 team
conference in a lower tier December bowl game. #84 SOS out of 110 teams and
didn't play any teams finishing in the top 25.Also, congrats on
creating the need for the BCS to prevent the embarrassment from ever happening
Seeing a 4-5 team fanbase fighting for 6th place recognition is and always will
TheSportsAuthority:"For teams padding their schedule with weak
opponents, look no further than than Utes replacing Boise State with Montana
State."What a frantic and emotional thing to say. Everybody
knows that Utah did NOT replace BSU with MSU. BSU was an AWAY game. With 4
Pac-12 games AWAY, Utah had only 2 AWAY games left to fit on our schedule. Utah
had to drop one team from among BSU, Pitt, and the Indy-WACers. BSU was the
most logical choice since they didn't have the same history as the cougars,
and Pitt was the only other BCS team on our OOC slate.MSU was a
replacement for Iowa State. The Cyclones were contracted to give the Utes a
return game, but with the Big 12 moving to a 9-game schedule, as opposed to
their traditional 8-game slate, they had to drop one of their OWN AWAY games.
And they picked Utah. Utah needed a new HOME game, and had only 3-months to
find one. So we signed Montana State.But you KNEW that. You just
didn't have any legitimate barbs to throw at the Utes, so you made one up.
No rule book needed, just common sense, although some people would rather bury
their head in the sand, than accept reality. That doesn't
change the fact that Utah finished 8th in the PAC 12, the Cougars received the
26th most votes in the final AP poll, the Utes didn't receive a single vote
in either poll, and BYU has nearly as many Top 25 finishes during Bronco's
tenure at BYU, as Utah has in their entire history.
"Spin it anyway that helps you sleep at night"Ditto. Haha it
honestly doesn't matter to me, the season was what it was, it's just
hilarious to see people make up things that don't exist like the "AP
Top 26 Poll" and "6th place tiebreaker scenarios." When you find in
the Pac-12 rule book the ever-important 6th place tiebreaking criteria, please
recite it to me!
StGtoSLCSpin it anyway that helps you sleep at night, but anybody
with any brains can figure out that three teams finish with the same record, the
team that LOST to other two teams finishes behind them in the standings.Oregon won the PAC 12 North because the Duck and Cardinal finished with
the same conference record, but Oregon beat Stanford head-to-head. The same
formula works for teams that finish with the same record farther down in the
antiBCS, a) there is no conference tournament for football, so officially there
is no "seeding" of tied teams. b) there is no AP Top 26 poll.TSA, the only thing that both the Utah-BYU and Utah-CU games proved is that
the better-prepared team will usually win. And how can you reference a game Utah
won (WSU) as a discredit, while ignoring 3 near-miracle wins against teams
arguably on the same level as WSU (Miss, USU, USF) that BYU had? Your argument
anti BCSAnaheim, CAInsecurity is being a bottom feeder in ANY
conference, but pretending that meer association with more prestigious programs
somehow makes U special._________Your statement makes no
sense whatsoever. On the other hand at least Utah has an association with a
major conference. What does BYU have? Nothing bro.
no conferenceFor teams padding their schedule with weak opponents,
look no further than than Utes replacing Boise State with Montana State.navel vetDon't kid yourself. Even with
Utah's schedule, BYU would have still finished 10-3. Utah didn't beat
a single team ranked higher than BYU, but the Utes lost to several teams ranked
lower than the Cougars.The BYU-Utah game was simply one of those
games where everything that could go wrong, did go wrong for the Cougars, and
visa versa for Utah.Switch the turnover margin in BYU's favor,
and the Cougars would have won going away. Utah losing at home to Colorado(3-10)
and barely beating WSU(4-8) on OT proves that the Utes weren't nearly as
dominant as they pretend to be and they would have had to have gotten very lucky
to beat BYU if the game had been played in late November instead of early
Insecurity is being a bottom feeder in ANY conference, but pretending that meer
association with more prestigious programs somehow makes U special.btw, for any Ute fan trying to claim that the Utes finished sixth in the final
PAC 12 standings, the math is really not that hard to figure out.Oregon and Stanford both finished 8-1 in the conference, but Oregon finished
FIRST in the PAC 12 North because the Ducks BEAT the Cardinal. Does ANYBODY
dispute that the tie-breaker was the head-to-head results?Utah,
California and Washington all finished 4-5 in the conference, but California
finished SIXTH because the Bears beat the Huskies and the Utes, Washington
finished SEVENTH because the Huskies beat the Utes, and the Utes finished EIGHTH
because the Utes lost to BOTH the Bears and the Huskies.EVERYONE
knows that this would have been the seeding if the same results had been used
for seeding the PAC 12 basketball tournament, so why try claiming that football
standings are any different?btw,BYU #25 Coaches and #26
AP is still lightyears ahead of getting ZERO votes in the Final Polls.
No Ducky.Insecurity is standing on the sidelines and not joining a major
conference.Insecurity is playing bottom feeders and WAC teams to pad your
schedule.That is amusing. LOL!
@naval vetYour insecurity is amusing. LOL!
Goll. If only we didn't loose 54-10 we could criticize.
SportsFan:At 4-5, we finished THIRD in the Pac-12 South [only 2
teams had a better division record], and SIXTH [only 5 teams had a better
conference record] overall. I already told you. Jealous, frantic and emotional
justifications to the contrary won't change that.As for not
playing Oregon or Stanford....so what? The Pac-12 only plays 9 conference
games. All games count as equal. We DID have to play USC -- at the Coliseum no
less -- and despite losing, earned the respect of the Trojan crowd. Do you know
who ELSE didn't play Oregon or Stanford....or even USC? The
Indy-WACers. Good thing too. Otherwise, your 10-3 record would
have been 7-6 due to the dearth of WACey opponents on your schedule.Has the Big 12 called yet? No? Too bad! Mid-majors forever. "Live with
navel vetYou played FIVE home games, didn't play Oregon or
Stanford, USC was ineligible, and every other team in the PAC 12 South finished
with a losing record, yet you still couldn't win your pathetically weak
divisions because you couldn't beat a 10-loss team AT HOME.You
finished EIGHTH!Live with it!
Uteanymous:"Correction: Utah finished EIGHTH in the
PAC..."Nope. I had it right the 1st time. We finished 6th.
When 7 Pac-12 teams finish with a better conference W/L record, THEN we'll
have an 8th place finish. When only 5 do so -- as was the case last season --
we're 6th! Jealous, frantic and emotional justifications to the contrary
won't change that. How sad for you and your fellow cougar fans.And for the record...(1) A "near loss" to WSU means....we
WON!(2) Enough with the CU loss; WE BEAT YOU! 54-10. On your Home field,
and in front of a nat'l audience. So everybody knows it. Clinging to the
Utah-CU game only makes you guys look even MORE desperate.(3) There were
PLENTY of Ute fans at the Sun Bowl. I ought to know; I was there. You
weren't. Try not to confuse YOUR bowl game -- where hardly any fans showed
up -- with OURS.(4) 2010 BSU was a Top-10 team. They were SUPPOSED to win
that game. And BSU isn't even in the WAC anymore. YOU are.(5) ZERO
Top-5 finishes for Bronco.
Naval VetCorrection: Utah finished EIGHTH in the PAC, with a near
loss in OT to WSU(4-8), a humiliating loss to 10-loss Colorado, at home, and a
near loss to #56 Georgia Tech in the "prestigious" Sun Bowl, which
hardly any Utah fans actually attended.PAC 12 Final Standings
20111. Oregon (8-1) - beat Stanford2. Stanford (8-1) - lost to
Oregon3. USC (7-2)4. UCLA (5-4)5. Washington (5-4) 6.
California (4-5) - beat ASU and Utah7. ASU (4-5) - beat Utah8.
Utah (4-5) - lost to ASU and California9. OSU (3-6)10. WSU
(2-7) - beat Colorado11. Colorado (2-7) - lost to WSU12. Arizona
(2-7) - lost to Colorado It's LAUGHABLE how Utah fans beat
their chests about PRE-SEASON polls, but are soooo dismissive of FINAL polls.Top 25 during the Bronco/Kyle eraBronco 5Kyle 3Top 15 during the Bronco/Kyle eraBronco 3Kyle 1btw,
remind how Utah did the last time the Utes played a WAC team.*crickets*
Naval "On the OTHER hand, your comment suggests that perhaps
you do NOT belong. In fact, it sounded rather quite WAC-ish. Shouldn't you
be leaving comments under the handle "WAC man"?" That
was too funny...great post!
You tell 'em Naval!Go Utes!!
PAC man:Utah's inaugural Pac-12 season concluded with a
6th-place finish, a Sun Bowl victory over Ga. Tech [which - alongside Oregon -
represented only one of two postseason victories in the entire conference], and
at 8-5, owned the Pac-12's 4th best overall record. We also represented -
alongside USC - only one of two league members who didn't lose to any
out-of-conference opponent. It's pretty clear that body of work
demonstrated "we belong" to be numbered amidst the Pac-12; the CU loss
notwithstanding. On the OTHER hand, your comment suggests that
perhaps you do NOT belong. In fact, it sounded rather quite WAC-ish.
Shouldn't you be leaving comments under the handle "WAC man"?And FWIW: I just read yesterday that the "College Football
News" tabbed the 2012 Utes as the nation's #13 team in their preseason
poll. That was 3rd-best in the Pac-12 behind #3 Oregon and #6 USC. So it looks
like the "CFN" thinks the Utes belong as well.Have fun down
there in the WAC!
"Utah and Colorado, coming off disappointing debuts in the expanded
conference, are still trying to find their way. And coaches Kyle Whittingham and
Jon Embree will face even more pressure to prove the Utes and Buffaloes
belong."Whittingham even more so than Embree after that
embarrassing meltdown against the Buffs at home.