Quantcast
Sports

Red roundup: Kyle Whittingham joins Pac-12 coaches in discussing upcoming campaign

Comments

Return To Article
  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    May 20, 2012 9:43 p.m.

    @naval vet

    You sure are "frantic" and definately "emotional" to claim 6th place. LOL!

  • Elmer Fudd Sandy, Utah
    May 18, 2012 3:46 p.m.

    @ 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!

  • sammyg Springville, UT
    May 18, 2012 2:59 p.m.

    Never has a battle for 6th place meant so much to so few. Hilarious as usual.

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    May 18, 2012 11:27 a.m.

    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.

  • StGtoSLC SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    May 15, 2012 11:00 p.m.

    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.

  • deductive reasoning Arlington, VA
    May 15, 2012 9:33 p.m.

    StGtoSLC

    yawn, who cares; teams that finish with LOSING conference records shouldn't even be bowl eligible

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    May 15, 2012 3:01 p.m.

    @naval vet

    I 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!

  • Seminolebob JACKSONVILLE, FL
    May 14, 2012 7:19 p.m.

    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.

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    May 14, 2012 6:13 p.m.

    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.

  • StGtoSLC SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    May 14, 2012 5:33 p.m.

    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 Footloose!"

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    May 14, 2012 5:06 p.m.

    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. Mid-majors forever.

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    May 14, 2012 4:13 p.m.

    @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.

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    May 14, 2012 4:11 p.m.

    @naval

    You'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.

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    May 14, 2012 2:31 p.m.

    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"

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    May 14, 2012 1:41 p.m.

    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"

  • Uteology East Salt Lake City, Utah
    May 14, 2012 11:41 a.m.

    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!!

  • StGtoSLC SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    May 14, 2012 8:37 a.m.

    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.

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    May 14, 2012 7:39 a.m.

    @stg

    Not 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.

  • StGtoSLC SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    May 13, 2012 10:23 p.m.

    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.

  • StGtoSLC SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    May 13, 2012 9:12 p.m.

    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.

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    May 13, 2012 8:56 p.m.

    @seminole bob

    utah's schedule

    Northern 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!

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    May 13, 2012 8:39 p.m.

    @seminole bob

    BYU'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. LOL

    Boise 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 teams

    USU - 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.

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    May 13, 2012 8:26 p.m.

    @stg

    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. 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.

  • StGtoSLC SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    May 13, 2012 2:20 p.m.

    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.

  • Seminolebob JACKSONVILLE, FL
    May 13, 2012 11:30 a.m.

    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.

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    May 13, 2012 8:53 a.m.

    @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!

  • sammyg Springville, UT
    May 12, 2012 5:12 p.m.

    Naval Vet

    You 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

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    May 12, 2012 10:54 a.m.

    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.

  • MidMajor4ever Syracuse, UT
    May 11, 2012 11:47 p.m.

    Sammyg....

    Seeing a fan of a team that was defeated 54 - 10 at home by that team is even more hilarious.

  • MidMajor4ever Syracuse, UT
    May 11, 2012 11:33 p.m.

    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 - 3
    2. Iowa 8 - 4 - 1
    3. Illinois 7 - 4
    4. Purdue 7 - 5
    5. Wisconsin 7 - 4 - 1
    6. Michigan State 6 - 6
    7. Michigan 6 - 6 (lost to Michigan State)
    8. Minnesota 4 - 7
    9. Northwestern 2 - 9
    10. Indiana 0 - 11

    Congrats 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 again.

  • sammyg Springville, UT
    May 11, 2012 11:28 p.m.

    Seeing a 4-5 team fanbase fighting for 6th place recognition is and always will be hilarious.

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    May 11, 2012 11:25 p.m.

    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. So sad.

  • phoenix Gilbert, AZ
    May 11, 2012 11:09 p.m.

    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.

  • StGtoSLC SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    May 11, 2012 9:54 p.m.

    "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!

  • TheSportsAuthority Arlington, VA
    May 11, 2012 9:43 p.m.

    StGtoSLC

    Spin 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 standings.

  • StGtoSLC SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    May 11, 2012 9:17 p.m.

    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 =/= logic.

  • WACPaddingOurSchedule pocatello, ID
    May 11, 2012 6:40 p.m.

    anti BCS
    Anaheim, CA
    Insecurity 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.

  • TheSportsAuthority Arlington, VA
    May 11, 2012 5:51 p.m.

    no conference

    For teams padding their schedule with weak opponents, look no further than than Utes replacing Boise State with Montana State.

    navel vet

    Don'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 September.

  • anti BCS Anaheim, CA
    May 11, 2012 5:27 p.m.

    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 Conference Will Take Us SEATTLE, WA
    May 11, 2012 3:20 p.m.

    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!

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    May 11, 2012 2:32 p.m.

    @naval vet

    Your insecurity is amusing. LOL!

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    May 11, 2012 10:16 a.m.

    Goll. If only we didn't loose 54-10 we could criticize.

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    May 11, 2012 9:19 a.m.

    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 it!"

  • SportsFan Orem, UT
    May 11, 2012 6:28 a.m.

    navel vet

    You 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!

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    May 10, 2012 10:54 p.m.

    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.

  • Uteanymous Salt Lake City, Utah
    May 10, 2012 10:20 p.m.

    Naval Vet

    Correction: 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 2011
    1. Oregon (8-1) - beat Stanford
    2. Stanford (8-1) - lost to Oregon
    3. USC (7-2)
    4. UCLA (5-4)
    5. Washington (5-4)
    6. California (4-5) - beat ASU and Utah
    7. ASU (4-5) - beat Utah

    8. Utah (4-5) - lost to ASU and California

    9. OSU (3-6)
    10. WSU (2-7) - beat Colorado
    11. Colorado (2-7) - lost to WSU
    12. 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 era
    Bronco 5
    Kyle 3

    Top 15 during the Bronco/Kyle era
    Bronco 3
    Kyle 1

    btw, remind how Utah did the last time the Utes played a WAC team.

    *crickets*

  • Wallbanger Spanish Fork, UT
    May 10, 2012 8:42 p.m.

    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!

  • VegasUte Las Vegas, NV
    May 10, 2012 6:12 p.m.

    You tell 'em Naval!

    Go Utes!!

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    May 10, 2012 9:43 a.m.

    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!

  • PAC man Anaheim, CA
    May 9, 2012 8:27 p.m.

    "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.