Utah has byu's number, and beat them for the fourth straight year.Utah beat a higher ranked opponent than byu did this year.Utah
received nearly 50 votes in the latest AP Coaches Poll (the ones who are tuned
into what's happening on the actual field of play), byu received zero
votes.Utah still has an outside shot at playing in the PAC-12 Title
game, byu still has a chance for...?
I guess the Stanford dive only goes to show how disappointed those voting in the
Polls were with the Indians (I mean the Cardinal) loss... They obviously viewed
it as a huge upset... Congrats utah for killing Stanford's hope of a
National Championship and in winning your first conference game against a team
with a winning record...It will be interesting to see how the utes
do on the road in league play this week... If they lose to the Wildcats the
Pollsters will view last week as a flash in the pan...
@truthsandwich - nice try. You and SpokaneUte take a comment about the article,
and divert attention to BYU because of the large chips on your shoulders, then
get defensive when called out on the exposure of your insecurities. Sounds more
like your feathers are in a perpetual state of being ruffled, just waiting for
any opportunity to get offended and turn attention to the team you dislike.As for me, why would I post statistics about Texas? Again, the article
isn't about Texas or BYU. Just because you are incapable of separating any
Ute discussion from your obsession with BYU doesn't mean I and others
can't stay on topic. Personally, I like the Utes. I like
Coach Whit, and the players. I think Stanford is better than Texas, although we
need to see the entire season to make a fair judgment about that.Let's face it - Utah and BYU are not great teams. Above average, but not
great. You, Spokane Ute, Chris B and Duckhunter can argue all day long about
who is better, but really you're fighting about who is 33rd best in the
land versus who is 34th best. A pretty pathetic debate.
@ Mr. PlateYeah. Those feathers still sound ruffled.You
could try posting statistics about how Texas was better than Stanford in 2005.
That seems to be making a lot of byu fans feel a little better for some reason.
How sad it must be to continue to pretend that one game makes a season, even
though you've finished with a worse record and lower ranking than your
rival 5 of the last 8 seasons.
How sad it must be to lose to your rival 4 years in a row, troll there articles,
and post slanted statistics to try and justify your teams realavence.
That's exactly what many BYU fans continue to do. Sad and pathetic when you
think about it
JD-DadIt takes MUCH more than 3 or 4 great seasons to become an
elite team - it's more like 3 or 4 great DECADES, and Stanford hasn't
even had one great decade.Since 2002, Stanford has had 4 winning
seasons, 7 straight LOSING seasons, no undefeated seasons, and only one season
with less than 2 losses.2002 2-92003 4-72004 4-72005 5-62006 1-112007 4-82008 5-72009 8-52010
12-12011 11-22012 12-2Overall record 68-65; nothing even
close to establishing "eliteness" there.
JD-Dad"My point is that I don't believe in looking back at
your distant history to determine elite status."Texas last won a
national championship in 2005.Stanford last won a shared national
championship with Alabama in 1926.Oregon has never won a national
championship.It's quite obvious which one of the three is an
elite program and which ones have only had a few good years recently.
@truthsandwich - it would probably be helpful if you learned to tell the
difference between some tongue-in-cheek banter and having ruffled feathers.
Maybe not being able to tell the difference is the result of the same chip on
your shoulder that compels you and Spokane Ute to bring the discussion back to
BYU.Anyway, no ruffled feathers - just doing my part to help keep
BYU-obsessed Ute fans on topic, which I admit is an impossible task with some.
Thanks for the clarification, because when people of any and all fan bases are
talking about the actual subject of the article (in this case - the fall of
Stanford from #5 to #13 after playing Utah), and then others have to expose
their inferiority complex by diverting attention to BYU, it should be prefaced
with some clarification on the relevance of the diversion.
@uteanymousMy point is that I don't believe in looking back at
your distant history to determine elite status. That's why I brought up
those teams that had met the requirements of NC and Heisman. Clearly, those
teams are not elite at the present time. I will be the first to admit that
Stanford has at times sucked and not deserving of an elite status. Being
elite is having a higher status, influence, and higher capabilities, and with
sports a recent proven record. If you take a 3 to 4 year period of a schools
history (typical recruiting class period), you can determine if that school is
an elite program at that time. The college football landscape is very dynamic
with certain programs meeting that definition of elite status and then falling
away. You can't tell me that over the last 3-4 years schools like Oregon
and Stanford, yes there are others, don't meet that requirement of being
elite. How many programs use them as a measuring stick? How many programs are
trying to keep up their facilities, on field success, even their many different
uniforms in the case of Oregon? Emulation is the highest form of flattery.
@ Mr. PlateIt looks like that comment really ruffled your feathers.
The point is that byu fans who don't have any room to talk, probably
shouldn't be talking. Especially on Utah articles. But
it's fun to respond to the one's who do!LOL!
@truthsandwich - Texas fell even more dramatically than Stanford, so what's
your point? Did talkinsports claim that Texas did not fall dramatically?
'Cause if he did, I missed it. Maybe you and Spokane Ute should start a
radio talk show where every discussion, about every topic, about every sport,
every day, football season or not, could end with the question "Who actually
won this year when Utah and BYU played?" And then you could ROFL shouting
LOL! LOL! to the 5 listeners who think your line of argument makes sense. By the
way, does anyone but 13-year-old girls still use LOL?
@talkinsports"Since this is an article about Stanford falling
dramatically in polls after losing to Utah, your question is irrelevant."Stanford fell 'dramatically' eh. How would you describe what
happened to Texas' ranking?LOL
Spokane Ute"Who actually won this year when Utah and BYU
played?"Since this is an article about Stanford falling
dramatically in polls after losing to Utah, your question is irrelevant.
Who actually won this year when Utah and BYU played? Just askin..........
DSBHow do you know that Texas won't be the better team by
season's end?Texas just got through curb-stomping then
12th-ranked, now 18th-ranked Oklahoma, while Stanford was losing to unranked
Utah.Did you ever consider the possibility that Stanford might be
over rated this year?
I any football player would rather be on a very good team, regardless of its
historical eliteness, than a traditionally elite program in a bad year. This
year, would you rather play for Stanford or Texas? For the past 3 years, is
defeating Stanford or Texas a better victory for your team? Clearly the answer
Let's end the debateAll-time College Football Team RankingsRank/Team/Total Points/Win Percent Points/Schedule Points/NC Points/Big
4 Bowl Points1 Alabama 2506.63 712.43 899.2 560 3352 Notre
Dame 2339.01 733.03 885.98 475 2453 Southern California 2271.59 701.47
820.12 395 3554 Oklahoma 2196.39 715.9 810.49 350 3205 Michigan
2179.54 732.91 931.63 235 2806 Ohio St. 2134.96 716 843.95 280 2957
Texas 2080.93 714.05 861.87 200 3058 Nebraska 2073.1 703.57 819.53 250
3009 Louisiana St. 1990.28 648.23 892.06 165 28510 Tennessee 1874.7
684.34 830.36 130 230
Sounds like Utah fans need to take a reality pill and stop pretending that every
team in the PAC is an elite team.The truth, there's only one
truly elite football program in the PAC, and that's USC.Stanford, UCLA, Oregon, Washington, and others have been very good at times,
but none of them rises to the level of being "elite".
JD-DadYou can argue until you're blue in the face, but NOBODY,
except a few Utah fans trying to pump up their win over the Cardinal, considers
Stanford an elite football program.EVERYBODY, considers Texas an
elite football program; it's not even debatable.Even the PAC
acknowledged that when Scott tried desperately to persuade Texas and Oklahoma to
join the PAC.
Let's see,when you try to define Stanford you look at there history and
say, "they are not elite." When I give you teams with the history, that
you described (national champs, heisman, etc.), you say they are not elite. So
it must be that the present, the here and now, should be used to define elite
and that your previous definition has now changed. You can't have one
definition for one program and another for another program.If history is
not it, then recent times must be it. Last 3 years:Okl 32-8ND 28-11 loss to Cardinal '10,'11USC 25-13 loss to
Cardinal all 3 yearsTex 24-14Bama 35-5Stan 35-5Stanford and Oregon have influenced college football and have in someways
redefined it. Their facilities off the field, their records on the field
clearly show that. btw, shameful to belittle Army's
accomplishments like that. Kids at that school preparing for war and getting
maybe one last chance to play a sport they love. Both '45 and '46
Heisman winners went to West Point by choice!!
Sounds like many BYU fans need to take up residence in India, where the caste
system dictates who is inherently better than other people. What in the world
difference does it make if a team has a traditional resume, national
championships, and awards? Who is best RIGHT NOW and are you able to compete
with them?If by some fluke Kent State winds up with unusually
fantastic talent, heart, and grit, and demolishes everyone in their path, would
a win against a down Texas team really be better than a victory against Kent
State in that season?Can't we all agree that Stanford is
demonstrably better than Texas this year? Maybe Texas has turned things around,
but is there any question when BYU played them, they were a little worse than
terrible? And, that Stanford has put together an enviable program over the past
3-4 years. Are some of you really arguing that a victory over a poor team
(Texas) is really better than a victory over a very good team (Stanford)?As a BYU fan, sometimes I'm embarrassed to have Chris B
counterweights on my side. It's really ok if Utah's pretty good this
JD-DadRegardless of whether Army was once an elite program is
irrelevant - that glow has long since faded.NOBODY today recognizes
Army or Minnesota or Harvard or Yale or any other team that hasn't won a
national championship in over half a century as elite programs.btw,
would Army have won back-to-back national championships if not for WWII
siphoning most of the best talent from all of the other top football programs of
the day?Stanford has been a very good football program lately, but
the Cardinal are at best a step below truly elite programs like USC, Texas,
Oklahoma, Notre Dame, and Alabama.
"Christopher BOgden, UTSome Intersting difference
between utah's win over Stanford and byu's win over Texas." Why is BYU and not Oregon the measuring stick?
You have to relate history in it's own context. That is, if it was
accepted that a champion was crowned by one poll than that is what you must take
it. You cannot use a two poll definition if two polls did not exist or it was
not accepted at that time to be crowned a champion. Therefore, Army
'44,'45 meets your criteria of consesus national champions ans heisman
winners and, by your thinking, from now until eternity must be considered elite.
I am saying that your definition of elite is wrong. I quess I am more of
what have you done for me lately kind of guy. I am saying that programs become
elite from time to time. Not all the programs that were elite 10-20-30 years
ago are elite now. Vise vera, there are current elite programs that were not
elite even a decade ago. If you show dominance over a short period, during that
period you should be considered elite. I think you are confusing elite
with tradition. The two are not the same.I would love to see you tell
Dennis Erickson that his '91 championship doesn't mean as much(not
@JD-DadHaha nicely done sir.This whole thread is
hilarious. Now byu's win over texas is more impressive / meaningful /
whatever comforting adjective you want to use, than Utah's win over
mid-season #5 ranked powerhouse Stanford, because historically Texas was a
better program.The mental gymnastics Ute-haters use to cope with
Utah victories, never ceases to entertain :)
JD-Dad"Elite football programs by the AP poll:..."That's not what he said is it?What he really said was:No program can truly be considered "elite", without
winning at least one CONSENSUS National Championship,that is, finishing #1
in BOTH the AP AND Coaches polls.But, that was only the MINIMUM
requirement; not the only requirement.As Duckhunter stated, there
are only a handful of schools that most fans would classify as
"elite":Notre Dame, USC, Ohio State, Michigan, Penn St,
Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Florida, Florida St, Miami, Alabama, LSU, Georgia,
Tennessee, and Auburn, which coincidentally, accounts for ALL of the
CONSENSUS National Champions during the last 30 years.Stanford, as
good as they've been recently, doesn't come close to being an elite
JD-Dadtwo words - reading comprehensionY's little
brother said "No program can truly be considered "elite", without
winning at least one consensus (#1 in AP and Coaches polls) National
Championship."In other words, winning a consensus National
Championship is the MINIMUM requirement for being considered an "elite"
program; he never said it was the only requirement.Perennial Top 25
finishes, numerous national award winning players, Heisman Trophy winners,
dozens of conference championships, and dozens of bowl appearances would be
additional requirements to considered an elite program.
Oh Ducky, so nice of you to join in. One name for you Jim Plunkett 1970 Heisman
winner and oh by the way, he played for Stanford.Better put Pitt
back on that list 1976 Tony Dorsett, SMU Doak Walker 1948, Army 1945,46,58,
Iowa 1939, Minnesota 1941, Colorado 1994, all Heisman winners. How about Navy
1963 Roger Staubach, come on this Staubach. If that is not a "pinnacle"
I'm not sure what is.I'll have some of the same punch your
drinking as well. My Blanton's is just not cutting it these days. Are you still using that apple IIc to connect to the internet. I had
one in '84 when I was in high school. How did you retrofit it to get on
@jd-dadTruly elite programs, of which there are very few, are
programs that have sustained a high level of success over a long period of time
and have won the ultimate football prizes, national championship and heisman
trophy, along the way. Those programs include usc, notre dame, alabama,
michigan, texas, oklahoma, and perhaps a couple of others but that is it.
Stanford, while currently an excellent team and program, is not one of these
elite programs. They have none of the honors nor do they have the sustained
success.Yes all of those programs have had occasional down periods,
and some other programs, like oregon or stanford, have risen up for short
periods of time, but to be elite it must be done for a looooong time and they
have to attain the pinnacles along the way. So beating a good team
in any given season is always a nice accomplishment, but beating a team
acknowledged to be one of the very few of the elite is always a big deal even if
that elite team is having one of its occasional down seasons because being able
to say you beat them is a big deal forever.
JD dad, that's funny. You called a guy out on a ridiculous way of showing
that a team is Elite. By winning 1 NC? Ha! So both schools (Y and the U) have
beaten "Elite" programs like TCU, and the U beating an "Elite"
Pitt team in the Fiesta bowl, jeez, that was like amazing. So, losing against an
"Elite" Colorado team 2 years ago with the South on the line isn't
as bad as it once looked. I'm glad that guy brought to my attention, that
Colorado should be considered "Elite" suddenly that loss doesn't
sting as much.
@Y's little brotherInteresting definition:Elite
football programs by the AP poll:Minnesota: 1936, TCU 1938,
Pittsburgh 1937,76, Army 1944,45, Tennessee 1951, Iowa 1958, Syracuse 1959,
Colorado 1990.By your definition these are elite programs. You need
to join the here and now and let go of 1984. I know that none of us are truly
considered experts in college football rankings, however, you would be hard
pressed to find one that would agree that these programs are currently elite and
Stanford is not. I guess Oregon is not an elite program either.I
need to get some of your punch because mine just can't seem to cloud my
mind enough to accept your definition. Cheers!!
nosaerfoeciovehtRemind us the last time Stanford won a national
championship.* crickets *
@sportsfan"Regardless of how you slice it, Stanford may be doing
well lately, but they are not an elite program.Texas may be down a
little, but they are an elite program."LOL! All that matters is
who was better ten years ago!The spin cycle has been cranked to
FYIAnybody trying to determine "respect for a program" based
on one week's movement in a poll is grasping at straws.
UteFan4LyfI am not making fun of utahs win, nor saying that is the
truth.All I meant to show is some in the media are coming up with
excuses.The utes are good.But I don't think people should
berate another program because they beat a top 5 opponent.
JD-Dad"When does one become an elite program?"No
program can truly be considered "elite", without winning at least one
consensus (#1 in AP and Coaches polls) National Championship.Stanford is a very good program, currently, but nobody considers the Cardinal
an "elite" program.
No one can understand Lou Holtz when he attempts to speak anyway!
@Ed Grady"Wow! For Stanford to drop 8 spots in the poll tells you the
disrespect the polls have for Utah."I do not know if the polls
indicate respect. However, if as you claim, how many spots a team drops tells
about the disrespect the polls have for a team, then what does it say about the
disrespect the polls had for BYU when Texas dropped from #15 to #29 after that
loss.(AP Poll) After their win over Texas BYU received 14 votes in the AP Poll.
After their win over Stanford, Utah received 47 votes. Are the polls indicating
that there was more respect for Utah's win over than Stanford's than
BYU's over Texas?@BeSmartHere is what Lou Holtz actually
said,"I don't know that for a fact, but that looked like a football
team that was in midterms. He didn't know and made a ridiculous excuse
since Stanford didn't have midterms. In addition, these are student
athletes, playing during testing is part of the deal, often with better
rescources for study than the average student.There were teams out
there winning on Saturday that had midterms last week, possibly even Utah.
All of the "our win was better than your win" is pure silliness. They
were both great wins. Next it will be "my mamma can beat up your
daddy". and the answer is....."of course she can - have you seen her
@ sportsfan"Regardless of how you slice it, Stanford may be
doing well lately, but they are not an elite program.Texas may be
down a little, but they are an elite program."When does one
become an elite program? 3 BCS bowls in the last three years, competing in the
PAC 12 and Pac 10 prior to that, 5 losses in 3 years compared to 14 for Texas.
3 Texas wins this year NMSt 0-6, KSt 2-3, ISt 1-4. Stanford has one win
against team with loosing record Army 3-4. Since 1985 Texas v Stanford 2-2.
Calling Stanford not elite is ignorant. Utah wins against quality
opponents is not on the same level as Stanford, but it's getting there as
the schedule progresses. Hopefully the quality wins will keep coming Utah's
way and they will work themselves up the Polls.Head to head vs poll
rankings have always been difficult to explain, too much goes into poll
rankings. However, in a given year if a team beats another they can and should
be able to hold that over the other team. A win is a win no matter, "how you
StGtoSLCDon't kid yourself. If utahcountyute didn't call
out his fellow Utah fans for trying to diminish BYU's win over Texas,
he's just a guilty of hypocrisy as those who did.
How do you quote Lou Holtz as an excuse for a loss? That, and the fact that
Stanfords quarter started three weeks ago, which means midterms are still a few
weeks out, makes that comment ridiculous.
"Classic hypocritical comment from a Ute considering all of the downgrading
of Texas that Utah fans have been doing all season to make themselves feel
better."Don't know if you understand the meaning of the
word, but it's really only hypocritical if you can cite utahcountyute for
doing the same thing. My guess is that you can't, but I don't really
read the Cougar boards too often, so I could be wrong.
Rockwell"If any Utah fan can give a logical explanation of why
Stanford is ranked 13th and Utah is unranked, without totally negating their
head-to-head narrative, I'd love to hear it."Based on
head-to-head, there isn't a logical explanation for explaining why Stanford
is ranked and Utah isn't; and there certainly isn't a logical argument
to claim that unranked Utah is better than a team ranked 13th.This
was a great, confidence-building, signature win for Utah, but it won't mean
much if the Utes finish 7-5 and unranked.
SportsFanGood questions:"why isn't Utah ranked
ahead of Stanford? After all, by virtue of their win over the Cardinal,
aren't the Utes the better program?"Isn't this the
narrative Utah fans have been spouting forever that the head-to-head PROVES
which team is BETTER, regardless of whatever happens the rest of the season?If any Utah fan can give a logical explanation of why Stanford is ranked
13th and Utah is unranked, without totally negating their head-to-head
narrative, I'd love to hear it.
utahcountyute"Love the [Cougars] on here trying to down grade
the Cardinal to make themselves feel better. Classic Cougs."Classic hypocritical comment from a Ute considering all of the downgrading of
Texas that Utah fans have been doing all season to make themselves feel
better.Go BYU Cougars!
Bottom line, this is one W in a long season. A really nice W, that the Utes
really needed before heading out on the road, but ONE W. Love the
cougies on here trying to down grade the Cardinal to make themselves feel
better. Classic cougs. lolGo Utes!
JD-DadRegardless of how you slice it, Stanford may be doing well
lately, but they are not an elite program.Texas may be down a
little, but they are an elite program.Speaking of better programs,
why isn't Utah ranked ahead of Stanford? After all, by virtue of their win
over the Cardinal, aren't the Utes the better program?
Differences between BYU win over Texas and Utah win over Stanford.BYU
destroyed texas (reason why they fell out of the polls, and fired a
coordinator)Utah wins on a last minute goal line stand (Stanford was
always in the game)Lou Holtz- Stanford lost because they were mentally
tired from midterms (that isn't mocking Utah)I think Utah did a great
job and won a great game.Did you see that Texas team is ranked above the
Utes?Utes are better than BYU this year, but both teams have a long road
ahead.Go Utes and CougsStill a lot to prove on the road.
@SportsFanOver the last 20 years? Really, why not look at the last
3 years. That's a look at where the program is now.Stanford:2012 12-2 Rosebowl Champ2011 11-2 Lose in Fiesta Bowl2010
12-1 Orange Bowl ChampTexas:2012 11-2 Cotton Bowl
Champ2011 8-5 Holiday Bowl Champ2010 5-7 Not Bowl
EligibleSeems to me, Stanford is currently the better program. Next you'll be using the logic that the more Texas wins the better
byU looks. To that, I say keep winning byU you just keep making the UTES look
better and better. Then again, we have been saying that for the past 4
years.@Wacko##Utah is clearly a big time program when people
from Texas are posting on a local article. Don't you have a local Texas
team to worry about?
Wow! For Stanford to drop 8 spots in the poll tells you the disrespect the
polls have for Utah.
P.S. The national media are not saying Utah is a premier team now.Lou
Holtz said Utah won because of Stanford midterms.
The season is only half over there are a lot of road games left to play. That is
a true measure of a team. Would the Utes beat Stanford at Stanford? nobody
knows. The utes are good but they have not left the State of Utah yet.
Road games are a monster just looks at the utes beating Stanford or BYU beating
Texas.One win does not make a premier program for either school. That is
getting national titles and 10 win seasons.
Chris,Focus on what you are, rather than what you are not.You will never be what you aren't...
The biggest difference in Utah's win over Stanford versus BYU's win
over Texas:The Utes barely survived beating the Cardinal by the skin
of their teeth.The Cougars curb stomped the Longhorns, rolling over
Texas for 550 yards rushing, the MOST rushing yards EVER given up by Texas in
over 1,200 games.The second biggest difference:Texas is
one of the elite football programs with multiple AP national championships,
including one with Mack Brown as head coach. (Expectations at Texas are always
much higher than they are at non-elite schools.)Stanford is a
sometimes up, sometimes down program, that has had more losing seasons than
winning seasons in the last 20 years and has never won an AP national
borrowing from Deep BlueLatest RankingsAP/Coaches/Sagarin#9/#10/#6 UCLA(5-0)#13/#13/#14
Stanford(5-1)#18/#18/#18 Oklahoma(5-1)ur/ur/#24 BYU(4-2)ur/ur/#25 Utah(4-2)ur/ur/#29 Texas(4-2)ur/ur/#37 Oregon St(5-1)ur/ur/#40 Georgia Tech(3-3)Utah is 29th in AP and 34th in Coaches
in "Others Receiving Votes"-------Next big
hurdle for Utah: win a road game against a PAC team with a winning record,
something the Utes haven't done since 1996, interestingly, at Stanford
Even though Wacko is being sarcastic and mocking I will answer that question: AP
Ranking #29, Coaches #34.
BigCougFan, Wacko is obviously trying to get digs in by trying to mock Utah fans
for things they've never said.
Congrats to the Utes on an upset win.. But (Re: Wacko) it will take more than
one PAC12 win to move you into the top 20.
Some Intersting difference between utah's win over Stanford and byu's
win over Texas. Stanford was not kicked out of the top 25 for losing
to Utah. Texas was for losing to byu I don't see national media
mocking Stanford for losing to Utah like we did Texas for losing to byu Stanford didn't fire a coordinator for losing to Utah. Texas did
Stanford's coach isn't on the hot seat for losing to Utah.
Texas coach is on hot seat, with most people pointing to byu loss as "the
final straw"Speaks volumes about what the football works thinks
of byu and Utah
So the Cardinal fell to #13, but how high did our Utes rise? We are certain to
be in the top 20 after that impressive win right? I'm surprised the
headline isn't "Utes rise to #1" Come on DN why no mention of our