The Greek Sports Book: Utah favorite to win Pac-12 South
by JazzyUte on Jun 1, 2011 3:40 PM MDT
in Football
Email
Print
Hat tip to House of Sparky and Tomahawk Nation
Utah football is the favorite to win the Pac-12 South according to The Geek's gambling futures figures released yesterday:
Arizona +200
Arizona State +150
Colorado +650
UCLA +500
Utah +125
Though I'm surprised Utah was picked as the favorite, it's not hard to make a case for their selection. The Utes avoid Oregon and Stanford, get Arizona State at home and one of their toughest road games against the Pac-12 South comes against SC - who can't win the division due to sanctions.
That leaves Arizona as Utah's biggest road obstacle and even a loss there, coupled with a loss to the Trojans, could leave the Utes in a good spot should they win out at home - since the Sun Devils play at Oregon the week after their game against Utah in Salt Lake City.
It's possible the deciding game is, in fact, the October 8th contest between the Utes and Sun Devils.
Even so, I still think Arizona State, with all the talent they return and the fact they're familiar with the Pac-12, its road stadiums and the grueling nature of the schedule, should be considered the preseason favorite.
Then again, outside Dennis Erickson's first year down in Tempe, the Sun Devils have been underwhelming to say the least.
25 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
More of an indictment against Erickson
And for that matter Stoops.
That, and the schedule, of course...
Avoiding Oregon/Stanford really is a plus for Utah.
Utah doesn’t have a near-guaranteed loss on the schedule. I think ASU does with their road game to Oregon.
Method for determining division winner
Can someone explain to me how division winners are determined? For example, if a team in the South goes 5-0 in their division, but their overall conference record is 6-3, and another team goes 4-1 in the South Div and 7-2 overall in conference, who wins the South? The team with the best division record or the team with the best conference record?
I believe it's overall conference record...
So the team that went 7-2 overall in the Pac-12 would win the South.
Interesting
I guess that explains why everyone is saying Utah is so lucky to have avoided Oregon and Stanford this year. I thought the best division record determined the winner, but if it’s overall conference record Utah really does have the inside track to play in the first Pac-12 title game considering AZ plays both Oregon and Stanford and ASU plays Stanford this year.
That gives Utah a little bit of wiggle room while adjusting to the new conference schedule.
Since Utah won't be a full financial member for a few years, this was the Pac-12's way of trying to make up for it...
I think. At least that’s what I heard in the summer of 2010. It’s why Utah has five conference home games and Colorado only has four and is stuck playing Oregon and Stanford.
Utah will get four conference home games next year
The conference does a home-and-home schedule for its teams. Whoever you have at home this year you have away next year. Colorado will get five conference home games next season as well.
As far as misses, it was the luck of the draw. You miss both teams this year, but what if Washington and Oregon State become monsters for the 2012 season? Those misses don’t look so good now and heavily favor UCLA.
And ASU misses Stanford this year, but plays Oregon in Eugene.
The best conference record wins the division.
In the event that two teams have the same conference record, then the head-to-head game determines the Division Champion.
In the event that 3 or more teams are tied for the same conference record, then division record is the first tie-breaker.
The schedule does set up nicely...
A legit top 25 team should be able to take Utah’s schedule to AT LEAST the PAC CG. Question is, is Utah a legit T25 team? This year’s group is such a mystery. I’m leaning toward us being a little less than stellar. My gut is 7-5.
The only thing that would surprise me would be any sort of losing record. I’m pretty confident that won’t happen. Above that? From .500 on, who knows?
Just to clarify...
At 7-5, to me, that’s the equivalent of about a 9-3 year in the MWC. Most years, we’re not elated, but contented with that. That’s about how I’d feel. Anything 8-4 or better would have me doing back flips.
by fountainofute on Jun 1, 2011 4:40 PM MDT up reply actions
I think the numbers will move away from Utah as the season approaches
Based on schedule alone, I suppose there’s a good argument for Utah to win the south. But I don’t think the betting public will buy it, and I expect the odds to shift toward ASU.
I’m also not convinced Utah has what it takes to win it. Something died in the TCU game last year, and the Utes looked like complete crap in that game and most of the rest of the season. Have they fixed whatever needed to be fixed? Can Jordan Wynn stay healthy all year? Because I don’t see the backup QBs as ready for the Pac-12. How will the unproven secondary perform? How will Utah stack up against a full Pac-12 slate?
I think there are a lot of serious questions about this next year, and I refuse to drink any Kool-Aid until at least halfway into the season. (Although that didn’t work out for me last year.) I am VERY excited for 2011 Utah football, but I’m not setting my expectations too high.
I keep accidentally eating my pets. Maybe I should get something less appetizing, like a cat instead of a Twinkie.
Sort-of-daily sort-of-funny sort-of-thoughts at danoftheday.com
I'm with you...
Saying that “something dies in the TCU game” is exactly right. Seriously, TCU’s skill or Wynn’s health aside, Utah lost something intangible but significant in that game, and it’s not come back in one game since. There’s no evidence to suggest that they’ve recovered “it” since their loss to Boise State.
I’ll say it again. I’m setting the bar at .500 this year. Mainly because I have no idea what to expect, and any evidence I can point to gives me no reason to think we’ll be spectacular. Good? Yes. Beyond that? Who knows.
by fountainofute on Jun 2, 2011 10:35 AM MDT up reply actions
I don't think anything died with the TCU game...
Last year, I did an extensive post about blowout losses and how frequent they were in the Pac-10 – unlike in the Mountain West. Ute fans better get thicker skin because I’m going to wager there will be more games like TCU than we’d like.
So I can’t buy that something is lost or that something died with that game. Blowouts, unfortunately, do happen and we’ve got to prepare ourselves for them because, based on history anyway, we’re going to see an uptick in those blowouts in the Pac-12.
It’s weird, I know, but every great team the last ten years has, at one point, been embarrassed a time or two in their conference games.
Nothing "died" in the TCU game.
Truth is Utah was never right, even in the wins leading up to it.
Also last year, especially the TCU game, will have very little effect on this year’s team. The variables are different, the players are different, heck the conference is different.
A few things will matter (Wynn’s health) from last year, but worrying about this year because we got blown out by TCU is faulty thinking.
Besides, despite all the talk otherwise, I believe a lot of the coaching staff, and players, couldn’t help but think about the Pac-12 last season. If anything died during the TCU game, it was the pretense of getting up for 2010 with bigger and better on the horizon.
I do agree with your last point...
When Utah lost to TCU, I think they decided to mail it in the rest of the season.
I don’t normally agree with that theory because a team always has something to play for, but rarely does a team face the upcoming prospects of what Utah saw last season. It’s hard not to get ahead of yourself and that was always my concern heading into the 2010 season – would Utah overlook the entire season toward the Pac-12?
Once they lost and it became clear there would be no conference championship or BCS bid, I think they lost some interest and wanted to just move on to the next year.
Not to excuse away their performances, and obviously the Wynn injury played a role, but it all goes together and creates what we saw in 2010.
Even with that said, if something had died in the TCU game, no way do the Utes go on the road and beat a good SDSU team and then turn around and beat BYU. Had something died, they would have lost those two games and the season would have ended extremely badly.
As for the Vegas Bowl? I think Utah came to play. I think the Utes’ defense put them in position to take that game early. The offense, though, failed to execute and because of that, Utah failed at every golden opportunity and eventually lost the game.
Now Utah played the Las Vegas Bowl without its starting quarterback and then turned around and overhauled the offense in the offseason.
Does it mean everything is fixed? No – but this is not the same team that played in 2010. Not by a long shot. Wynn should be healthy (he wasn’t after the Iowa State game), we won’t have the look-ahead mentality and, more importantly, the offensive staff has seen a considerable upgrade.
Media, fans, were all focusing on 2011.
It was only natural that when there was nothing to play for, players, coaches, etc would as well, even if it was never said. Heck Jordan Wynn having surgery before the bowl game, was a move designed to improve 2011.
And your right, people forget how well Utah played in the 2nd half of the SDSU game. People also forget that Utah, defensively, absolutely dominated the beginning of the Bowl game. I still maintain if Wynn had been the QB instead of Cain, whom I liked, but he was just never really comfortable, or able to lead that offense, Utah wins that game going away.
I can’t buy that something “died” after TCU. This is a different team. It may be a successful team (South Division Winner, maybe more), or it may not (6-6, 7-5), but no matter the result it has nothing to do with 2010, other than the need to make some changes (Norm Chow) that were shown last season.
I still think they lost "it"
Beating SDSU and BYU were nice. But remember how those games went? Neither of them were bad opponents, but basically a luck-out Hail Mary was the difference between winning and losing to the Aztecs. And, we all know how close the BYU game was.
My point is, if we had played EITHER of those two games before we lost “it” against TCU, do you think those games are that close? Hell no! I’ll bet we beat BYU by 14 and SDSU is a much more comfortable win.
To my amateur eye, the team lost their swagger when TCU pantsed them. They lost a little of their mean side. Their confidence was gone. They were still talented, well-coached, etc. but the x-factor had been stripped away. That x-factor was worth at least several points a game. Add to that a dinged up QB (emotionally as much as physically) and it was a different team.
I know that in life, sometimes a fresh start is all that’s needed to put problems in the past. Still, I’m not confident that the Utes issues were left in Vegas last bowl season. But I’ll know by week 2 or 3 this year. The heat is going to come fast, and we’ll know what this team is made of pretty quickly.
by fountainofute on Jun 2, 2011 4:44 PM MDT up reply actions
Fully agreed. Utah lost the swagger.
I think the defense showed back up for the BYU and Boise State games, but outside of the SDSU game, the offense showed little life for the remainder of the season. Can you chalk it up to Wynn’s undisclosed injury? Possibly, but whatever it was, I hope it has changed for the upcoming year.
I keep accidentally eating my pets. Maybe I should get something less appetizing, like a cat instead of a Twinkie.
Sort-of-daily sort-of-funny sort-of-thoughts at danoftheday.com
What, exactly, did they lose?
I guess you could claim they lost it a week before against AFA, since that game was similar to SDSU and BYU.
If Utah is that susceptible to losing ‘it’ after one blowout loss, we’re toast in the Pac-12. So we might as well get used to being at the bottom of the conference with the likes of Washington State and Colorado – because that’s exactly where they will be if one game has that much impact on a season.
Like I said, blowouts are very common in the Pac-12. Hell, Oregon went on the road in 2009, the year they won the conference and played in the Rose Bowl, and got abused by Stanford. They also had an ugly, lopsided loss to Boise and fell to Ohio State in the Rose Bowl.
Not comparing the Ducks to Utah entirely, but it just furthers my point: blowouts are common in the Pac-12.
Mental toughness
Speaking as a Husky fan who has seen some dark days in the recent past, thick skin and a short term memory are two things that are an absolute necessity in order to survive in the Pac12. If you can shake off the losses (and there will be losses) and stay relatively healthy, I see you finishing in the 7-5 to 9-4 range. But if you can’t shake off the emotional roller coaster that is the Pac12 it could get ugly in a hurry too.
For a “not mentally tough” example, see our 2008 season. 2008 was supposed to be the year we got back to a bowl game. We opened the season with a big loss at home to Oregon. Then, we lose the second game of the season to BYU due to the “excessive celebration” call at the end of the game, and then Locker is knocked out for the season in the Stanford game. The team gave up completely and the result is 0-12. Or last year, look at Arizona’s end of the season implosion once they lost “it.”
Contrarily, last year we were absolutely creamed by Nebraska, but bounced back to beat USC. We went through a hellish 3 game run against Arizona, Stanford, and Oregon, but managed to bounce back and salvage a bowl game (and eventual redemption against Nebraska).
FWIW (and back on point with the original post) I have Utah finishing behind USC, but representing the South in the Pac12 conference game. See you all October 1!
Sure they lost their swagger.
But as Jazzy and I both mentioned, we believe that had more to do with giving up the “charade” of 2010, while looking towards 2011, and the major changes coming up.
In fact I would argue that the fact that Utah just barely beat SDSU and BYU, points to the fact that they were fully invested (pun intended) into those games, until they had to. Then when their backs were against the wall they turned it on.
It’s like when you have given your notice to leave one job, for another that pays more, has better benefits, and comes with a corner office. You don’t want to burn bridges with your old company, because you never know when you might need those relationships, but you also don’t care nearly as much as you used to.
The TCU loss was basically Utah’s resignation being accepted. At that point, there was nothing else to do but play out the string.
Not necessarily...
As has been pointed out already, Utah was in the old system where that one game meant EVERYTHING.
I’ll take your word that blowouts are more common in the PAC10. But now, one loss is not going to derail the Utes chance at a BCS bowl. Yes, they’ll get blown out, but it won’t be the same thing. But remember the hype leading up to the TCU/Utah game last year? What game will have that significance anymore unless its the PAC CG, or a game that has direct bearing on the Utes getting into the CCG.
You asked what Utah lost against TCU? That’s actually a good question. I think they lost an excuse. That is, they lost the chance to say “Eh, it was just one bad fluky game” (referring to the trouncing the year before in DFW, or the last-second loss @ BYU). I think the beat down in SLC made the Utes face up to the fact that they were undoubtedly not the best team in the conference, that they couldn’t flip a switch to be amazing. I think they got a lot of mileage out of that the season or two before. I think the 2010 loss to TCU was the official end of the ’08 magic. Yes, they had lost before then, but there were excuses. There was no excuse after this particular loss. From then on, they were not the same team.
I see it differently...
For starters, we really do not know the impact Wynn’s injury had on the offense. He played very tentatively after the Iowa State game and it became obvious against Wyoming and Air Force – two games the Utes ambled through prior to the TCU debacle.
Beyond Wynn, Utah also struggled with injuries from DeVonte Christopher, Chad Manis and Brian Blechen – though all played. Is that an excuse? Maybe. Were they the difference between a win and a loss had they been 100%? Of course not – TCU was a better team than Utah.
But to me, Utah pre-Iowa State and Utah post-Iowa State are two completely different teams. Wynn looked bad against Wyoming a week later and so-so against Air Force the week prior to TCU.
If he had been healthy, Utah probably still loses to the Frogs, but not nearly as badly and maybe even bounce back to beat Notre Dame and potentially Boise State, while winning their games against SDSU and BYU in stronger fashion.
But of course, I’d also wager that play calling played a huge role in some of those losses and that was addressed by Whittingham with the hiring of Chow. I do not believe, however, that somehow the TCU loss will hang over the Utes’ heads this season. It’s done with, the team has probably moved on and so has the coaches. It won’t be the focal point nearly as much this season as it was last season because the Frogs aren’t an issue anymore.
Now if you want to claim Wynn’s health is a reason why you’re not fully on board with them being the favorites in the South, I absolutely agree. I think, as this team showed last year, it sinks or swims with Wynn. If he’s healthy, I think this team can be good enough to win the South. If he’s battling injuries again, though, no, they’re not and you’re absolutely right.
But that doesn’t have much to do with TCU, IMO.
one of the college football publications has utah at 47th ouch. might be lindy's?
Anderson Silva would never fight "Bones". He is too scared to fight the real P4P champion. Nick Diaz, the man who will prove to the MMA world that he is the best WW in the world. Still public enemy #1 and enjoying every minute of it.
by wolfmanshowlforever on Jun 4, 2011 5:13 AM MDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
- Urban Meyer
"Wow. Wow. Wow."
- Daryl Johnston after Utah took a 21-0 lead on Alabama in the 2009 Sugar Bowl
Related FanPosts on Block U
Related FanShots on Block U
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
