Comments about ‘Utah Utes football: Coach Kyle Whittingham says move to Pac-12 has 4-6 Utes in 'new world'’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Nov. 13 2012 4:00 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended


I am a Ute fan also, Gary Anderson? Come on buddy, he has had 1 so-so year and one good one as a head coach. What and the heck would he do different than Coach Whit? If you understand college football you would understand what Utah is going through right now. Yes we would all like to see more wins but I promise you they are coming.

We were not going to walk in and win right off the bat, our coaches need to learn to coach at a higher level, our players need to play at a higher level, and our fans need to know that we are no longer playing the likes of New Mexico, Wyoming, Colorado State. Gary Anderson would have to start at the same level, learn how to coach in the PAC12.

Slow down a bit be a good Ute fan and let it happen, don't think someone else is going to come in here and change everything especially Gary Anderson. Maybe the likes of Urban Meyer but that's long gone. We have great coaches they too just need to learn and get better just like the players.

Wilsonville, OR

I'm still trying to figure out the benefit to the program of abandoning in-state rivalries, since both of those rivals are going to bowl games this year. Maybe it's all about the money.

East Salt Lake City, Utah


"The difference was Utah rolled all over our opponents by 14+ points."


out how uninformed you really are.

The BCS computers aren't even allowed to consider margin of victory in their formulas for ranking teams.


When, in 2001? Margin of victory was included in 2001 when BYU went 12-2 (see below).

Regardless, I never said anything about margin of victory in computer rankings. I was talking about why an invitation wasn't given.

You really think margin of victory doesn't influence the decision to invite BYU? I argue BYU struggling against horrible teams did influence the decision to give them a BCS invite.

It;s hilarious that BYU fans would think that because they're team got exposed as being a 12-0 fraud that somehow that opened the doors for Utah/TCU/Boise.

"Beginning in 2001, The Peter Wolfe and Wes Colley/Atlanta Journal-Constitution computer rankings were used in place of the NYT and Dunkel rankings. The change was made because the BCS wanted computer rankings that did not depend heavily on margin of victory... The BCS continued to purge ranking systems which included margin of victory, causing the removal of the Matthews and David Rothman (statistician) ratings before the 2002 season."

East Salt Lake City, Utah

@anti BCS

btw, I noticed that you still haven't given us evidence that Utah beat a single regular season opponent in 2004 that made the Utes "BCS worthy".


We demolished everyone on our schedule and we proved that we were "BCS worthy" by destroying #18 Pitt 35-7 who was worthy enough to finish AP #25.

Now your turn, can you please provide us with evidence that BYU beat a single team ALL YEAR in 1984 that made the Cougars "National Championship" worthy.

East Salt Lake City, Utah


EVERY rule change is precipitated by an event that triggers a discussion that leads to a rule change.


True but in 2001 a 12-0 BYU team getting spanked by:

12/8 @Hawaii (9-3) 45-72

triggered laughter that even made Duckhunter LOL, not BCS rule changes.

Gilbert, AZ


It's ridiculous that you posted that the BCS decided BEFORE the BYU-Hawaii game that they weren't going to invite BYU to a BCS bowl, then you justify BYU not being invited BECAUSE they lost to Hawaii.

Maybe you need a course in logic, because it appears you'll grasp at anything to justify your ill conceived argument.

It's laughable that you continue to dodge the very simple question of providing the name of even one team on that illustrious list of Utah 2004 regular seaso opponents that proved that Utah was worthy of a bcs invite.

Since you refuse to answer the question, for obvious reasons, I'll answer it for you.

Utah didn't beat a single regular season opponent of any significance in 2004. In fact, unlike BYU 2001, Utah only beat three regular season opponents that finished with winning records and NONE of them won more than 7 games.

anti BCS
Anaheim, CA


Sorry, it's not my turn until you answer the question:

What regular season opponent did Utah beat that proved that the Utes were "bcs worthy"?

(include name, record, and ranking)


antiBCS, phoenix, duck, sammy, etc.

Why all the hate? Again, coming from a fan base of an institution that claims to have a higher call, all articles on Utah athletics have been assaulted of late by BYU "fans".

It only comes across as sour grapes. It is a fact that, since Utah beat BYU again, Utah fans have bragging rights. That's just the way it works. But some of you BYU "fans" don't seem to get that. And some of your comments are unbelievably ugly, with many more BYU "fans" trying to trash Utah than vice verse. Come on, guys, lighten up. You have next year to try to settle the score. Meanwhile, try eating a little humble pie.

Spokane Ute
Spokane, WA

@ anti BCS

Allow me to chime in here. Let's compare BCS teams in 2004 to see if Utah was BCS worthy, shall we? Let's list who other BCS bowl teams beat (ranked) during the season, and how they fared in there BCS bowl.

Other BCS teams that year:
Virginia Tech.: Beat #18 Virginia during the season, lost to #3 Aburn in bowl (1-1)
Pitt: didn't beat a ranked team, lost to #6 Utah(0-1)
Michigan: lost to #25 Michigan, beat #12 Iowa, lost to #4 Texas in bowl (1-2)
LSU: lost to #3 Auburn, lost to #7 Georgia, lost to #12 Iowa in bowl (0-3)
Utah: beat #20 Texas A&M, beat #21 Pitt in bowl (2-0)

Was Utah BCS worthy? Of course, they beat everyone they played, the records above speak for them self. When BYU goes undefeated in the BCS era, maybe you can will under stand what it means to be "BCS worthy". Until then, just worry about beating Utah. That seems to be task enough.

deductive reasoning
Arlington, VA

A little background on 12/8/2001 BYU @Hawaii

The week of BYU's scheduled September 15th game at Mississippi State, a tragic event we refer to as "9/11" occurred. Because of 9/11, BYU's game with MSU was postponed until December 1st. Instead of having a week off before traveling to Hawaii, BYU was forced to travel to Starksville (1,700 miles) and back, arriving back in Provo early Sunday morning, then travel to Honolulu (3000 miles) 5 days later, a total of more than 6,000 miles traveled in less than a week.

During their Saturday night game at MSU, BYU lost the nation's best running back to a career ending knee injury.

On Monday, undefeated, 8th ranked BYU was informed by the BCS that BYU WOULD NOT BE INVITED to a BCS bowl, even if they destroyed 8-3 Hawaii and finished the regular season 13-0.

Given the circumstances, it was remarkable that a tired, demoralized team, that was missing one of its key offensive players, was able to play as well as they did against a very skilled and motivated Hawaii team in an environment that was always tough, even under normal conditions.

Baltimore, MD

Spokane Ute

How BCS bowl teams performed in their respective BCS bowl is irrelevant in this discussion.

The issue isn't whether Utah proved they were BCS worthy by beating Pittsburgh, the issue is whether Utah beat anybody during the regular season, PRIOR to being selected as an at-large team, that proved that Utah deserved to be invited to a BCS game.

Fortunately for Utah, the rules were changed for 2004, and Utah didn't have to worry about the BCS randomly deciding to invite a 10-2 SEC team instead of Utah.

Spokane Ute
Spokane, WA


Of course they were BCS worty prior to the bowls. You do realize that only 3 teams finished undefeated that year, and only 3 had one loss don't you? Look at my post regarding other BCS teams that year, and the ranked teams they beat during the regular season. Going undefeated, for the most part, will earn you a BCS bid. Reference: Hawaii (didn't beat a ranked team), Boise State and TCU. I disagree with your comment that how they performed is irrelavent. Obvioulsy Hawaii wasn't worthy. Utah proved it's case in both BCS bowl games. A small little group of Bitter BYU fans are the only one's that I know, who would ever question Utah's merit in 2004 or 2008. Is it an inferiority complex, or just a hatred toward Utah? Maybe a combination of both, but pretty sad and pathetic in my book.

Springville, UT


I'm still waiting to hear the Ute 'true story'.


Could you please begin to expound how pointing out that your team's dismal performance is hate?

The Utes 'new world' is one of serfdom in the PAC12.

I personally think its hilarious to have put up with you guys chest pounding and so called superiority smack for these three years and then to witness this train wreck.

It's irony, it's classic tragedy, it's entertainment at its best. It's not hate.

Win some games and change the 'stars'. But please don't expect those that you've been rubbing noses in 'it' for a few seasons to not take advantage of the change of the events.

Quit whining. You're embarrassing your fan base.

This is fun and you know you deserve every bit of it.

East Salt Lake City, Utah

@anti BCS

I answered your silly question, the 2004 team proved it on the field that they were "BCS worthy" in the postseason. Were they a "national championship worthy" team? Nope! We had a weak schedule compared to Auburn and USCheaters.

The 2001 BYU team was not "BCS worthy", since they struggled against weak teams and were finally was exposed by Hawaii and Louisville.

Since you asked the original question, time to back up your 1984 "national championship worthy" team.

East Salt Lake City, Utah

@defective reasoning

Same old tired argument by probably the same person.

Again, even with your RB you still struggled to beat 4 lousy teams on the road all year (in Sept, Oct, and Nov). And even if you had your RB in the Hawaii game he wouldn't have prevented your sorry defense from being pasted for 72 points.

Nice try.

Spokane Ute
Spokane, WA

Utah 24 Final
BYU 21

East Salt Lake City, Utah


Utah didn't beat a single regular season opponent of any significance in 2004. In fact, unlike BYU 2001, Utah only beat three regular season opponents that finished with winning records and NONE of them won more than 7 games.


What, come again? Each team won 3 teams with winning records:

BYU 2011:
@ New Mexico (6-5) W 24-20
@ Colorado State (7-5)W 56-34
Utah (8-4) W 24-21

Overall: 21-14

Utah 2004:
Texas A&M (7-5)W 41-21
@New Mexico (7-5) W 28-7
@Wyoming (7-5)W 45-28

Overall: 21-15

Again the difference?

BYU struggled and was exposed as a 12-0 fraud, Utah was legit.

Spokane Ute
Spokane, WA

@ Uteology

Amen Brother!

Baltimore, MD

Spokane Ute

Based on the level of their competition, Utah wasn't legit, just lucky, that the rules were changed in 2004 to require the BCS to invite a team that hadn't beaten ANYBODY to their little dance. The majority of fans didn't even think that Pittsburgh, the team that Utah beat in the Fiesta Bowl, was BCS worthy.

There's no possibility that an 8-3 team that was ranked #21 in the BCS and that finished in a 4-way tie for first in a 7-team conference would have been invited to a BCS bowl, if the Panthers hadn't been an automatic qualifier.

The truth is, Utah was a very good team that dominated a bunch of very weak teams. Utah was the only decent team in the entire WAC in 2004.



Utah fans couldn't possibly understand the void left in an offensive by the loss of the nation's best running back, because the Utes have never, ever lost the nation's best anything in football.

Baltimore, MD


BYU 2001
Utah (8-4) W 24-21

It's interesting that completely glossed over the fact that BYU 2001 was good enough to beat the 8-4 Utah team that beat USC in their bowl game, while Utah 2004 didn't beat ANY regular season opponents that finished with less than 5 losses.

A win is a win; you don't have to "dominate" the other team in order to validate a win.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments