Schedule like Nebraska! Or another way the BCS sticks it to Utah

by JazzyUte on Jul 9, 2009 3:31 AM MDT in Football Comment 14 comments

That's what University of Nebraska at Lincoln Chancellor Harvey Perlman said during Tuesday's BCS hearings.

Well damn, why didn't Chris Hill and Kyle Whittingham think of that?

There you go, folks. It's that simple. Schedule like Nebraska and you can go undefeated.

Glad we got that out of the way.

So I'm guessing now that this is established, the Cornhuskers will be making a trip to Salt Lake City in a couple of years?

Eh, probably not.

Yup, if it were that easy, don't you think Utah would've already done it?

Exactly.

So Mr. Perlman, it isn't that easy. I know your intent was to boil down an entire argument to a cute five-second talking point, but we're not that naive.

You see, the Utes can't just schedule like Nebraska. It isn't that easy because teams like Nebraska won't even play them.

Oh sure, you might be lucky to get a game against them in Lincoln, but you'd have an easier time finding caffeine in Provo than convincing the Cornhuskers to play in Salt Lake.

It just ain't going to happen.

And Nebraska isn't alone, folks. Why do you think Michigan was a one-and-done? Because the Wolverines have no interest in coming to Salt Lake.

Does Nebraska play all its tough BCS games on the road? I don't think so.

Which means even if Utah tried to schedule like Nebraska, they wouldn't have the luxuries Mr. Perlman's school currently has.

But what exactly does schedule like Nebraska mean?

Play Florida Atlantic, Arkansas State and Louisiana-Lafayette? Because that's who the Cornhuskers are playing this season.

That's an awesome schedule you have up there in Lincoln, Mr. Perlman.

Or do you mean conference games -- which Nebraska has no control over?

Well fine. Mr. Perlman, let's see how influential you really are. Throw your weight around and get the Sooners to play a home/away game with the Utes.

I'm sure if Chris Hill and Kyle Whittingham had that option, they'd pounce.

Bob Stoops? Probably not.

The fact is, Utah is between a rock and a hard place right now.

The Big Schools complain Utah doesn't play a tough enough schedule to warrant any national championship discussion. But if Utah tried to get Florida or USC or Oklahoma to play in Salt Lake, they'd probably fail.

So Utah's only hope of getting a shot at the Big Boys is if they go on the road, which no matter how good you are, leaves you at a huge disadvantage.

BCS teams, though, don't have that problem. So not only do they get the benefit of the doubt for their perceived tough conference schedules, they also get the benefit of the doubt for passing on big games for the likes of Louisiana-Monroe.

Utah, though? It's all or nothing. Unfortunately, they'll never have it all in the BCS' eyes.

0 recs | Comment 14 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I disagree

As a Ute fan I am partial to all of this talk and love the idea of the MWC earning an auto bid to the BCS.

I do find fault in your argument about not getting big name teams to come play at RCE, or anywhere in the Mountain West. Just look at the TDS they play Oklahoma on a neutral field and have Florida State coming in (part of a home and home). Wyoming has Texas coming to NO WHERE, Wyoming.

I am a fan of Dr. HIll but I honestly think more can be done to schedule the tougher teams. Urban sent Texas away. so it proves those schools are willing to come to town but we (The Utes) don’t seem as willing as we should be.

by ufan1 on Jul 9, 2009 8:21 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

BYU gets games because of their fan base.

I don’t know how Wyoming gets games, but I know that Texas was willing to schedule a home-and-home when we were average and they’re not willing to do so now that we’re good.

Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.

by displacedute on Jul 9, 2009 8:40 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think you missed the point.

Utah can schedule anyone they want, if they’re willing to play that game on the road.

That is not an issue for Nebraska or Florida or any other BCS team out there.

So yes, the Utes can go out and play USC, but it’ll be a one-and-done played on the road. That isn’t quite the same as scheduling like Nebraska, is it?

My point is that while Utah is told to schedule better, they’re never going to have the advantage other schools have because every tough game against the BCS will most likely HAVE to come on the road.

So what does Utah really gain from playing @ Florida with no return trip? A chance to walk into there and maybe win, but let’s be honest, it’s difficult to do that.

It’s difficult for any team to do that.

Now do you think the Gators would be up to playing one game, on the road against SC? Probably not.

So why should Utah be expected to do the same? How is that fair?

Further, as for BYU playing Oklahoma…where is that game being played? It surely isn’t down in Provo, even though I believe the Cougars are the designated home team.

A game against the Sooners, in Dallas, isn’t much of a home game.

Utah also managed to get Texas A&M to come to Salt Lake when we were a pretty mediocre football program. Do you honestly believe we could ever get them to trip here again? I doubt it.

Face it, the only chance Utah has of playing the Big Boys is if they do what they did last year against Michigan and next year against Notre Dame. It works sometimes, but it is not the way to build a schedule.

That’s why no BCS team ever does it.
’
But Utah is expected to schedule a road game against a top-10 team just in hopes of making their case for a NC berth.

No one ever would suggest Nebraska do that, though. I mean, this year they get Oklahoma at home.

Utah could never play the Sooners here.

So that leaves a ‘neutral’ site, or a road trip.

And while I believe Hill and Whitt are open to one-and-dones with Big Time programs, they aren’t going to do it every year. And I don’t blame them.

by JazzyUte on Jul 9, 2009 1:35 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually . . .

I live in Tallahassee. FSU was looking for a filler opponent after Auburn bailed on a game. I checked Utah’s schedule—at that time 12 games were cool and they had 11 scheduled as I recall. I called FSU as a Utah alum and was put in touch with Ahletic director Dave Hart. Hart said “We’d love to play Utah, I’d do anything to get a team like that here because right now I got nobody.”

I called Utah athletics, said I was authorized to call on behalf of FSU football which Hart said I was “absolutely, make a call . . .” I was patched to Chris Hill and he said “I doubt they’d give me a home and home.”

But here is the interesting part, he said as I recall “You’re an Alum? You just called and got them to commit to a game with us? I don’t believe it.”

I asked him to call Hart, gave him the number, he refused to listen to my pleadings and reasoning, that he might ask for a home and home at alater date, politely said he did not believe me and that was the end of the call.

So, yeah, he was dubious FSU would in the future arrange a one and one as a gesture of thanks (I suggested he ask for a future one and one as a followup for helping them out) and passed on a nationally televised game with FSU. He wouldn’t even call, according to what he told me.

So, I have to say that Utah has also blown opportunities they might have had by being provincial. Chris Hill wants a big time program, but he’s been as boneheaded as he has savvy. Can anyone say “Ray Giacoletti?”

I mean, he wouldn’t even take 5 minutes, call Dave Hart and say “well, if I scratch your back in time of need . . . .” and what FSU wanted was a quality, DI opponent. Their AD, Dave Hart, said he would “do anything to get a tea, like Utah” because he was looking at Ronaldo’s School of Hairdressing as an opponent with a TV contract and knew he’d get bounced like old toast.

by MeanBobMean on Jul 10, 2009 7:25 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I disagree with your disagreement.

What else exactly should Utah do schedule-wise? They already have two “BCS” schools scheduled this upcoming season in Louisville and Oregon. Their other two non-conference games are against Utah State (a team that they have been playing for over 100 years), and San Jose State (which went 6-6 or something like that). Who does Nebraska play in their non-conference this season? Florida Atlantic, Arkansas State, Louisana-Lafayette (three real barn-burners from the Sun Belt Conference), and Virginia Tech on the road. Let’s compare schedules shall we? I equate playing Oregon and Virginia Tech on the road as basically being equal in difficulty. Are you really saying that Florida Atlantic, Arkansas State, and Louisiana-Lafayette are THAT MUCH BETTER than Utah State, Louisville, and San Jose State? I just don’t see your argument. And again, Utah has NO CONTROL over what conference they are in and who they have to play against league-wise. Neither does Nebraska. It’s not like Utah can just up and join the Pac-10 (the mythical “BCS/Big” conference that the Mountain West beat the holy hell crap out of last season) or the Big 12 at their leisure. Schools can only join these “big” leagues at the “big” leagues’ invitation. And I’ll tell you right now, the Big 12 and the Pac-10 are not going to send Utah or anyone else one of these invitations any time soon.

by pappyman on Jul 9, 2009 8:41 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

My thought

is that the BCS needs to place a greater emphasis on OoC scheduling. As it is, teams can’t control their in-conference games, nor the teams in their conference (if teams could move up to join a Big 6 conference, they would).

Teams that go out and schedule opponents from similar or better leagues deserve a lot more credit than teams that schedule multiple FBS teams. Yes, winning is important, but strength of OoC schedule needs to be taken into consideration when the BCS rankings and all are released.

True Blue Jazz
Bucco Ball
I'm on Twitter
RIP Nick Adenhart. 4/9/09

by UtesFan89 on Jul 9, 2009 9:33 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

USC

Would play in Salt Lake if they could get a guaranteed TV package making them enough cash for it—Carrol will play anyone anywhere.

Nebraska and teh otehrs? No.

They won’t schedule a home and home with Oregon or OSU either.

Again, in 18 seasons Florida has not left the state ot play an OOC opponent. Now that FSU and MIami suck, they can but all the wins they want and expend very little travel time and energy.

by MeanBobMean on Jul 10, 2009 7:10 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Au contraire

What makes you think Nebraska wouldn’t schedule a 1-1 with Utah when they’re perfectly willing to do 1-1’s with teams like USC during the Callahan era, much less the Pelini years? I’ve NEVER heard NU being accused of ducking other teams early in the season until today. I’d absolutely FAINT if they said “No” to a 1-1. We’d love to play Utah.

Since everyone is hung up on cupcake teams, let me pose a hypothetical question to the group: Do you think USC (or any major for that matter) would open its pre-conference season with a schedule of Oklahoma, Florida, Texas, and Ohio State? Of course they wouldn’t play that many top-tier teams. Aside from probably dropping at least one of those games, they’d be so beaten up by the opening of conference play that they’d have a hard time getting through their own conference. However, if they play one or two tougher games with a sprinkling of cupcakes, chances are that they’ll be healthy for the start of conference play and yet have adequate time to prepare for each of their early “tougher” games. Play any more than that and they’ll just be shooting themselves in the foot.

by Paul in WI on Jul 10, 2009 3:35 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Because USC is USC and Utah is Utah.

Whether you want to admit it or not, there is still a stigma when it comes to losing to non-BCS teams.

Nebraska has nothing to lose when they face USC. They lose, oh well, they win, great.

They play Utah and what do they have to gain? Nothing.

Rightfully or not, that is the perception.

Just look at the Sugar Bowl.

by JazzyUte on Jul 11, 2009 3:06 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

Nebraska would play us when we had no program. No they are trying to rebuild we’re a chance they likely won’t take.

Did we get a Home and Home with Notre Dame or only their place? They are a tad more “this is what college ball is” oriented.

by MeanBobMean on Jul 13, 2009 9:04 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Because if they lose to Utah . . .

. . . it hurts their feelings but if they lose to USC they can say “Oh well, expected it.”

Bottom line?

They pay lip sevrice to what college ball should be but they don’t live it.

by MeanBobMean on Jul 13, 2009 9:02 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

The painful truth is.......

in the eyes of the media and the nation, teams like Utah and Boise State haven’t earned the right to be taken seriously. This has NOTHING to do with the BCS and everything to do with not having a tradition of fielding good teams year in and year out. It doesn’t help your case either when teams like Hawaii are built up in a similar fashion—only to get crushed in a bowl. (Please note that I am NOT saying that Utah is not fielding good teams right now.)

I dislike the BCS as much as anybody. I’ve loathed it since Day One and pointed out on the day that it was announced that it would hose Non-BCS schools. (I’m 100% pro-playoff.) However, until I heard otherwise from the NU athletic department, it doesn’t change the fact that NU would STILL do a 1-1 with Utah. Would we like to lose to you and help validate your football program? Heck no, but we have never been yellow either.

by Paul in WI on Jul 12, 2009 8:25 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs