West Virginia fans talkin' crap about Utah
by JazzyUte on Aug 5, 2009 3:52 AM MDT
in Football
13 comments
Yeah, it's on.
Ok, it's nothing we haven't heard before and certainly not to the degree we've seen at times, but still (the red meat can really be seen in the comments).
They started to lose me around #16, when Oregon came off the board. Then, at #17, I completely gave up on this fiasco.
Why?
Firstly, Oregon at 16th isn't entirely bad. Since the BCS was formed, the Ducks have surely cemented their position as one of the stronger BCS teams, right? So how is it a stretch to put them at 16th in this ridiculous ESPN draft?
I don't get it.
But what further confuses me is the statement that he fully gives up on the list with Utah's ranking at 17th.
Again, why?
Because West Virginia was ranked behind Utah? I can see them having a gripe with their ultimate spot (28th), but what have the Mountaineers done to be placed ahead of Utah?
They don't own a national championship.
They have the exact same BCS bowl record as the Utes (2-0).
They've not really outperformed Utah on a national scale over the past few years.
So where's the gripe with being placed behind Utah?
Maybe because they're not BCS?
I have no problem with their argument that their ranking was trash. I actually agree. West Virginia deserves to be higher than that and I wouldn't even bat an eye at placing them ahead of Utah. But then, I'd also concede they haven't done much more than the Utes over the span of their history and certainly not since the BCS began.
They might fall back on the broken and flawed argument that the Mountain West is weak (I can't take Big East fans seriously when they do this), but in the end, when it comes down to perception, who holds more weight right now? I'm going to guess it's not West Virginia.
But that's not a bad thing. It's something Utah faced when Urban Meyer bolted and it's not new territory for schools who lose their successful coach to a bigger and more known program. The Utes had to prove their success went beyond Meyer and in 2008, they did just that. West Virginia fell back a bit after Rich Rodriguez bolted for Ann Arbor and it's going to take more than just a 9-4 season to regain what was lost during their early-2008 struggles.
If Bill Stewart proves to be the right man for the job, they'll be back and this debate will become moot. However, until that point and since these rankings were based on potential, it's not hard to see why the Utes were rated higher than West Virginia.
Utah has won eight straight bowl games. This suggests they perform better on the national level than many teams and get it done in big games.
Utah is the only team in the BCS era to go undefeated twice. Not USC. Not Florida. Not Oklahoma and certainly not West Virginia.
West Virginia's highest poll finish in school history was 5th (reached twice -- 1988 and 2005). Utah's is 2nd.
This can change and if Stewart gets the ball rolling again, I'm sure it will. But it's hard to forget the fact they started 2008 ranked 8th and could only manage 9-wins with a team many thought would contend for a championship.
Hell, they didn't even win their own conference.
What ultimately bugs me, though, is the fact they seem so insulted their team is ranked behind the Utes. I could see this if they had dominated their conference for years, racked up national titles and finished in the top-ten routinely. Yet that isn't the case.
There was a great three-year window under Rodriguez from 2005-'07, however, beyond that, especially when you look at Don Nehlen's final seven seasons, they pretty much hummed along, but hardly did anything spectacular.
In fact, they had losing seasons in 1995, 1999 and 2000. One more than the Utes during a similar span.
Utah's record from 1990-2000 was 75-53, or a winning percentage of .585.
West Virginia's record from 1990-2000 was 72-54-2, or a winning percentage of .570.
I'm not seeing much of a difference.
From 2000 to 2008, Utah is 76-33, or a winning percentage of .697.
From 2000 to 2008, West Virginia is 77-35, or a winning percentage of .687
Again, not seeing much of a difference.
You'll have to go all the way back to the 80s to find a decade where the Mountaineers were actually better than the Utes.
Regardless, though, I do believe they deserve more praise than they received in ESPN's mock draft. But how are they really better than Utah?
They're not.
The difference, of course, is that the Utes' undefeated season - rightfully or not - is still fresh in the minds of many. That's something no Mountaineer team has ever accomplished.
0 recs |
13 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Having penned that quote, I should comment
Regardless of what your thoughts on the MWC vs. Big East (and, being Utah fans, I can guess where you guys stand) debate these days, West Virginia has traditionally played in a better conference than Utah. You can cite winning percentages, but when those wins occur inside the WAC and MWC, you’re not going to find a lot of support outside of fans from those conferences.
by Dr. Charley West on Aug 5, 2009 9:14 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Ahh yes...
the traditionally powerfull college football conference that is the Big East. How could one argue with that.
And the Utes haven’t been in the WAC for over a decade.
Furthermore, perhaps your team wouldn’t be ranked quite as low if they hadn’t lost to East Carolina in a blowout, Colorado, Cincinnatti, and Pitt last year. That has a lot more to do with year beginning rankings than your precious “traditionally better conference.”
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
by slc ranger on Aug 5, 2009 9:36 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
The original poster cited the 1990s, which is when you were in the WAC.
by Dr. Charley West on Aug 5, 2009 10:07 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
You got me on that one...
In the 90s, the Big East was better than the WAC.
But it’s all relative and right now, I think the argument is harder to make that the Big East is leaps and bounds over the MWC.
If anything, they’re almost on identical footing. Which suggests both teams are extremely alike and that Utah only gets the nod because of its most recent undefeated season.
I’m sure if WVU went undefeated next year and ESPN reworked their rankings, they would’ve been put ahead of Utah.
That’s just how fickle they are.
My point, though, was that you shouldn’t feel offended or slighted by ESPN putting the Mountaineers behind the Utes.
I certainly wouldn’t have felt that way if the opposite were true. We’re not chopped liver here, my friend.
by JazzyUte on Aug 5, 2009 2:08 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right
But the point of that ranking was to get the best 40 annually, not on your past glory years.
by MeanBobMean on Aug 5, 2009 2:09 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Even furthermore...
Furthermore, perhaps your team wouldn’t be ranked quite as low if they hadn’t lost to East Carolina in a blowout, Colorado, Cincinnatti, and Pitt last year. That has a lot more to do with year beginning rankings than your precious "traditionally better conference."
We just won 9 games in the first year with a new head coach. The year after you lost Meyer, Utah lost to TCU, North Carolina, Colorado State, San Diego State, and New Mexico.
Stellar.
by Dr. Charley West on Aug 5, 2009 10:15 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
So you just won 9 games with a first year coach...
clearly you should be ranked ahead of a Utah team that just went undefeated and won the Sugar Bowl right? Obviously that’s worth throwing a tissy fit or “completely giving up on this fiasco.”
I’m not the one bitching about how the ’06 Utes should have been ranked higher now am I.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
by slc ranger on Aug 5, 2009 10:24 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I give up
Not because of your argument, but because it’s stupid arguing over this ESPN draft when I have no idea what the criteria were. If it was overall program strength, WVU wins. If it was based on last year’s record, Utah wins. But they sure made it seem like it wasn’t based on just last year, but then pick the teams like it was. So I will just let it all fade away.
by Dr. Charley West on Aug 5, 2009 11:13 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough...
stupid to argue over anything on ESPN.
This I can agree on.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
by slc ranger on Aug 5, 2009 11:46 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well. . .
We’ve beaten Oregon, UCLA, USC, Cal, Texas A&M, Louisville at their place, etc. in that streatch as well and have the nation’s longest Bowl winning streak.
So, schedule schmedule, we been winning our share of games against quality opponents.
by MeanBobMean on Aug 5, 2009 9:44 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't you see the irony, though?
I’m sure you get tired of all the other Big Six conferences disparaging your programs because of their lack of quality victories due to a poor conference.
The perception is that the Big East today sucks. That perception was there in 2004, when your champion Pitt was 9-4 and got drilled against Utah in the Fiesta and that perception is there today.
Do you agree with that perception? Do you accept it? Does it anger you or make you laugh when people say your wins count less than say the SEC because of the conference?
I’m guessing you’ll find Utah & West Virginia fans are an awful lot a like in this regard, because we’re stuck defending our conference and our schedule. As if going 12-0 and 13-0 is somehow far easier because of the conference Utah did it in.
Well if that was the case, the Utes wouldn’t be the lone team in the BCS era to do it twice. If it were so damn easy, there would be a ton of programs, including those in the Big East, doing the exact same thing.
But in the end, your own conference has struggled to gain the attention of the national media post-Miami/Va Tech. It looked like things were turning around in 2006, but how long did that last?
In 2007, Rutgers was decent, but nowhere at the level they were a year prior. Louisville? Well they totally collapsed (Utah knows this well, because we beat them that season).
Look, this post was never meant to slam West Virginia and I think I did a good job of toeing the line between doing so and bringing up a valid point.
I just get tired, as do many Ute fans, of watching BCS programs and fans dismiss my team because they don’t happen to be in a BCS conference. We heard the same crap heading into the Sugar Bowl and we’re hearing it now.
Except now it’s from a Big East fan and here I thought you guys would at least be a bit sympathetic to our situation, because you’ve faced the same bullshit over the last five years — the height of WVU’s program.
by JazzyUte on Aug 5, 2009 2:10 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can see
where the WV fans are mad. I would be pissed too if BYU was ranked ahead of Utah haha. By the way we all know your argument with the Big East being better than the MWC but really in my opinion Utah would play and win just as many games in the Big East as they do in the MWC. The Big East is easily one of the two weakest “BCS” conferences, with the ACC. The MWC is easily the best “non-BCS” conference…so in a way I think we are about the same. You take the best of the outsiders against the worst of the insiders and I think it is pretty even. The difference is that you can lose 3 games and still get put into a BCS bowl game while we can’t lose any…
GO UTES!!
by Jman87 on Aug 5, 2009 10:22 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Block U
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
