Previewing Utah's path to the Pac-12 title game
by JazzyUte on Aug 2, 2011 12:37 AM MDT
in Football
Email
PrintI'm going to start this post out by saying that I do not think Utah will represent the Pac-12 South in the inaugural conference title game. I don't think that's too dramatic of a position and I'm sure many of you will actually agree with me. I'll explain my doubt in this post outlining, ironically, the way they could win the Pac-12 South.
So while I'm not betting it will happen or expecting it will happen, it is a possibility. That's what I'm going to discuss - the way to that possibility.
If Utah is going to win the Pac-12 South, they've got to win every conference home game. That sounds awfully simple, but ask any former Pac-10 fan how easy it is to go an entire season without losing at least once at home.
This is why I think the Utes are unlikely to win the division, because losing just one home game would most likely require them to find another win somewhere on the road against SC, Arizona, Cal or Washington State. I'm not saying they need to win all those games, but they probably need to produce at least a 3-1 record to be in position to claim the Pac-12 South.
I know that sounds steep and it's possible, with the difficulty of Arizona State's schedule, that they could feasibly win with a 7-2 conference record, however, that assumes a lot of things, like they'll beat SC or Arizona and right now, I'm not sure they'll win either of those games.
If they lose both, and can't win out at home, they'll have a 6-3 conference record at best and it becomes more and more difficult envisioning a path to the title game without ASU completely faceplanting - especially if that lone home loss is against those Sun Devils.
It might be a bit pessimistic, but it shows you how difficult it is to actually win at this level. Road trips are not to be taken for granted, not even a trip to Pullman to take on the improving Washington State Cougars. The fact the Utes are only 2-5 against the BCS on the road since Whittingham arrived, with those wins coming against 3-9 Michigan and 6-6 Louisville, should keep most fans' expectations a bit grounded when looking at road games.
For me, I think just finishing with an above .500 conference road record would be a huge indicator of good things to come for the Utes. If you're going to win in the Pac-12, most years you're going to have to do it on the road.
But I'm skeptical Utah can do it this season. I'm skeptical they're good enough to not drop two or three conference road games. SC and Arizona are going to be extremely tough and the Utes will be the underdog in both games for good reason.
So if they're going to win the south, it's going to take perfection at home. Because I just don't see a path that includes winning on the road.
That, of course, could change in a second if Utah bests SC a month and a week from Saturday. If they do that, they've claimed a huge road win and should be the favorites to win the division.
But that's a big question right now. Which is why I put so much weight on their ability to win at home. Every home game is winnable and, unless they start the season with a string of lopsided losses, the Utes should be favored in nearly every home game (minus ASU, and even then, some lines have Utah as favorites at the moment).
That gives them five conference wins right off the bat. Now they can afford to drop two games to Arizona and SC and still be right in the thick of things in the end, especially if they own a win over ASU, since I think it's very unlikely the Sun Devils finish 8-1 in Pac-12 play.
That's their door. The schedule is perfect for that advantage. And it's not like it hasn't been done before. Oregon went 9-0 in the final two years of the Pac-10 at home.
With Utah's sketchy road past, I think it's asking a bit much for them to rapidly adapt to playing four conference road games against BCS teams. There will be a learning curve there, especially when a lot more will be on the line than when the Utes traditionally went down to Tucson to play Arizona (like in '04).
Will they be able to handle the pressure? It's a question that none of us have an answer for, though I question their ability to do just that based on how poorly they've looked in the past.
It doesn't mean, though, I'm expecting bloodshed when Utah leaves the 801. Far from it. It's just not likely, in my mind, the Utes can withstand a loss at home and two losses on the road and still claim a shot at the Pac-12 title.
That leaves two paths to the Pac-12 title game:
- Win out at home, including a win over ASU. Then defeat Cal and Washington State on the road. That would give them a 7-2 mark and almost a near-guarantee spot in the title game because, as I said, I don't foresee the Sun Devils going 8-1 in conference play. And with Utah owning the tie-breaker, they can still get in with losses at SC and at Arizona.
- They come of age on the road. Who knows, maybe the Utes will open the conference season with a win over SC and plant themselves atop the south division. It's possible. Certainly I think it's a game Utah could win. If that's the case, and they do win that one or go down to Tucson and beat the Wildcats, they'll be in good position, even with a home defeat, to win the Pac-12 South.
That's how I see it, anyway. The Utes have one thing going for them that no other Pac-12 South team has and that's the fact they miss both Oregon and Stanford. I mentioned that I think it's unlikely Arizona State would go 8-1 in the Pac-12 South if they lost to Utah because they've got to go to Eugene a week after their game against the Utes. That's a mighty tough road trip and I've got to suspect they'll be heading back to Tempe with no less than one loss.
In the end, the Utes will obviously need to play good, consistent football throughout the nine-game schedule if they're going to have a shot at the Pac-12 South. Washington State is their easiest road game of the season and it's going to be hell. It's the second-to-last game of the season, Pullman can get downright nasty in November and the Cougars, while nowhere near where they were the last time Utah played there (a 27-7 win for Wazzu back in '99), are an upstart that will be difficult to beat, even if they have another down year.
So consistent play throughout is their only hope. That means no letdowns, no taking the weekend off like they did when they played Notre Dame last year and certainly no sulking if they get their butts thumped in one game.
If they do that, then they have a very good chance of proving me wrong and putting themselves a game away from the Rose Bowl.
98 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I like the skepticism, because we cannot get cocky after just joining the PAC. I think we got super lucky
not playing both Oregon and Stanford, and hopefully it works to our advantage late in the season. Realistically
though IF we stay healthy and Wynn plays well, and Norm implements a consistent offense I think we have a good
chance to win the south. After watching Wynn over the years he doesnt have “IT”. I hope our running game comes to play
or we may be a bit disappointed this season. Its too bad we dont have a potent offense this year because the
way the schedule lined up for us this year allows us to do some big things. I could be very wrong though…
So JazzyUte, or anyone else closely following the team seen some practices? Or know when they go on? I would like
a detailed review of some of the players and how the team is doing on the field if its possible, and would like to check out some practices myself. Thanks for the insight, GO UTES!
fall camp starts on thursday.
typically, there is not much (if anything) that is open to the public. Whit seems to become more restrictive each year as well. Spring ball has a few more openings, but that is neither here nor there.
I don’t know how you can say that Wynn doesn’t have “it”. I think he is developing “it” and this year will really tell us what we can expect.
Affectionately known on Over the Monster as "Pete"
Follow me on twitter: @BigBenSportsGuy
by BigBenSportsGuy on Aug 2, 2011 8:13 AM MDT up reply actions
Jordan Wynn
turned 21 last July. I’m not quite ready to sell him down the river just yet.
Not that we even need to think about. In two years, he’s thrown for 3663 yards with 25 TDs and 14 INTs. He averages well over 7 yards per attempt and had a QB rating last year of 139.9.
Matt Barkley (just as an example) threw for 400 more yards last year, but got less per attempt and a QB rating of 141.2. 26 TD and 12 INT (that’s just last year, expected with more attempts and no TCU).
I’m not sure how you define ‘it’, but I’ll take a QB like that every year. If I’m right, and he still needs to mature a little bit (see Brian Johnson, e.g.), and he’s actually going to get BETTER? Hold on to your hats.
by Joseph Silverzweig on Aug 2, 2011 9:34 AM MDT up reply actions
Let's not forget...
Most people would have said Brian Johnson didn’t have “it” going into his senior year.
And he played a real schedule...
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
by Gekko Mojo on Aug 5, 2011 10:41 PM MDT via mobile up reply actions
Yea the “it” was really vague, he does deserve respect and has played some great games.
I guess what I meant to say was that he may not have the skills transition well into a much
better division than he is used to. I hope he steps up his game and is better against teams
with better defenses on a consistent basis
The division is much better
Than Wynn is used to, but I don’t see it as being much better in regards to defending the passing game. To my mind, we have exactly one thing to worry about with the passing game, and that’s blitz pickup by our unseasoned running backs. I think if we lose a lot of games this year, it’s going to be against high-scoring, pass happy teams with star QBs who are taking apart our inexperienced secondary.
I think Wynn will continue to perform… unless he plays every game on his back.
by Joseph Silverzweig on Aug 3, 2011 12:32 PM MDT up reply actions
That's a really good point
In Fact Utah’s Pac-12 Schedule includes only three teams in the top 50 of Passing Defense By Yards
California – 13
Washington – 35
UCLA – 36
Arizona – 57
Oregon State – 58
Arizona State – 81
Washington State – 87
USC – 108
For comparison Utah was 80th.
MWC Comparison’s from last year
TCU – 1
Air Force – 2
Wyoming – 29
Brigham Young – 30
New Mexico – 43
San Diego State – 49
Colorado State – 54
UNLV – 86
Of course I would take the MWC rankings with a huge grain of salt, because it’s not like they were going up against the most potent offenses.
Can someone please explain the Arizona Love?
What have they done to deserve any of it. Granted they have a good QB in Foles, but really what have they done to be considered such a difficult game. That game is a push at best, and that’s even being an Away Game.
I don't have a high opinion of the Wildcats
but Arizona’s a tough, tough place to play. The Wildcats have posted a 258-139-12 record at Arizona Stadium over the years; last year was an aberration that way. (The year before, they only lost one game at home, and that was to Oregon, which was red-hot and barely managed to pull out a 44-41 shootout.)
by The Ancient Mariner on Aug 2, 2011 8:27 AM MDT up reply actions
Unless You're Oregon State
They’ve won five in a row in Tucson. They’ve won five in a row in Berkeley, too.
Of course, they haven’t beaten USC in Los Angeles since 1960, and didn’t win in Tempe between 1969 and 2009.
The Beavers are weird.
That's Mike Riley
A lot of it is they play Arizona late in the year — Cal, too — and the Beavers under Riley always seem to start off cold and finish hot. If you’re going to play OSU, you want to do it in the first couple conference games.
by The Ancient Mariner on Aug 3, 2011 8:52 AM MDT up reply actions
I agree
The Beavers aren’t weird or hard to figure out. The formula for beating them is simple: Play them in the first 4 weeks.
I'm not sold on Arizona...
But they’re a tough home team. Even though Stoops has an overall .470 winning percentage there, he’s 25-20 at home – a winning record.
In the last four seasons, the Wildcats are 18-7 at home, a huge increase over their overall winning percentage throughout that same stretch.
It’s no cakewalk going down to Tucson and winning. Even good teams like UCLA in 2005 (only two-losses) lost down there against a bad Arizona team (that Utah actually beat in the season opener).
I’m not giving Arizona love because they’re Arizona. I’m giving them love because they’re playing the game at home.
One thing Utah Has in it's favor
They easily have the best coach in the division. It’s not even close. Colorado’s Embree is an unknown, but the 4 other’s we know about are all varieties of turd sandwiches.
They come in three varieties:
Used to be good, but has gone rotten with age: Dennis Erickson, Slick Rick Neuheisel
How are they still employed: Slick Rick, Mike Stoops
And Just slimy, dirty: Lane Kiffin.
100% agree
But this year will test whitt to prove that he really is the top dog in the division.
Is it sept 1 yet?
Affectionately known on Over the Monster as "Pete"
Follow me on twitter: @BigBenSportsGuy
by BigBenSportsGuy on Aug 2, 2011 8:14 AM MDT up reply actions
lane kiffin
Lane Kiffin hasn’t really proven anything yet. All he’s done is prove he can take teams with tons of talent and lead them to 7-6 and 8-5 seasons.
You Forgot
That he can also rack up sanctions.
Very well laid out
You’re absolutely right: the first requirement to contend in the Pac has long been to build a steel curtain around your home field, because most of the other teams do most years. Even the bad teams will usually make it hard for you on their home turf; if you drop one at home you ought to win, it’s going to be very, very hard to make that up on the road.
by The Ancient Mariner on Aug 2, 2011 8:22 AM MDT reply actions
I'm a little torn on this.
Part of me says, “Yep, this is definitely not going to be a cakewalk, and Ute fans better learn to adjust expectations. Undefeated seasons—hell, even 10 win seasons—will most likely become a rarity.” But there’s another piece that remembers how well they can play, how much heart they can play with and just how dominant they can become when it’s all clicking. In the end, all we can reasonably expect is that they compete. So long as they keep fighting to the end, and don’t give up (like last year), fans should have no reason to feel disappointed. The one thing those of us in the stands can do is to cheer on regardless. We all have a job to do: coaches coach, players play and fans cheer. We each do our bit, no matter what, and it’ll be the first in a long line of good-great seasons.
thats why I think its so weird that Witt wouldnt have more public practices, get the fans in there…
cheer your team on and get the players going, it could very well add to the competition.
It is to maintain focus during practice, removing distractions of both fans and media, as well as keeping things under your hat. Take from a Bears fan who’s seen the head coach tighten things up as things get more problematic
"Our hearts shall sing and our voices ring for the dear old Blue and Gold!"
Agreed...
Don’t need to turn it into a madhouse.
It’s business. Practice has been a business since Meyer took over. Practices during the McBride era here were less business like and the team kind of approached each game with that type of mindset. What do you know, he was the coach who got Utah to a decent level but always mucked up every season because they produced THE most undisciplined teams in college football.
PAC 10 is half and half with coaches who open practice...
…Sark, Kiffin, Wulff, and Neu are pretty open. Chip and Tedford? Not so much
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
by Gekko Mojo on Aug 5, 2011 10:45 PM MDT via mobile up reply actions
schedules
Chris Hill and Kyle Whittingham were pretty good at putting difficult out of conference schedules together when Utah was in the MWC. I still think the Mountain West is a little under rated. Don’t forget, even UNLV and New Mexico had wins over PAC10 teams in 2008. I think scheduling away games like Michigan, Notre Dame, Oregon, UCLA, and Pitt consistently with conference opponents like BYU, TCU, Air Force and UNM several seasons ago and SDSU recently in conference is a good stepping stone to the pac12.
There’s no doubt in my mind that in the last 5 years Utah had the hardest schedules out of any Non-BCS team. You typically got 3 conference games that were as hard or harder than middle of the road Pac10 teams and then 2 or 3 out of conference games that were as hard as PAC10 teams. So that’s around 5 games a year that Utah had against teams of the same caliber of most of the pac10 teams. Now its 8 games… 7 if you ignore WSU since they are more like a middle of the road WAC opponent.
Compare this to one of Boise’s schedules and they have 2, maybe 3 games a year that are equivalent to a PAC10 game.
Comparing last year’s schedule to this years schedule I think Pitt, Notre Dame, Iowa State were all BCS teams at the same level as the PAC10. Then, TCU, BYU, Air Force and SDSU all played to the level as most PAC10 teams. So looking at last year’s schedule Utah played 7 games at the same dificulty level as the PAC10. Then there is Wyo, CSU, UNM and SJSU that are all roughly about the same as Montana State and WSU.
I can go along with that...
It’s not that I don’t believe the “week in, week out” mantra that’s been chanted ad nauseum -the PAC schedule is definitely harder and it will be a grind. But it’s not like we were coming from the MAC or Sun Belt or even the WAC. The MWC was rated as the 5th or 6th best conference the last couple years, wasn’t it? If we can compete in the MWC, is it a stretch to say we could have held our own in the Big East or ACC? I think so. But yes, the PAC is still as step up yet from the MWC, BE, and ACC-we’re definitely going to a harder league.
I really think the difference between playing a PAC schedule versus a MWC is a factor of two if your a top tier MWC team (which Utah was), or three if you were a middling in the MWC (having to play the “Big 3” every year).
Put another way, last year’s 7-1 Ute team (in conference) probably goes 6-3 in the PAC. For this year, I’m predicting 6-3, maybe 5-4 for the Utes. Had we stayed in the MWC, I would have expected about 7-1, perhaps 6-2 depending on how the schedule played out.
Is two losses a significant difference? In a season of 12 reg season games, I think so—we’re looking at an average of .200-ish difference in winning percentage from season to season. If you get a warm fuzzy from getting double-digit wins, expect to be disappointed more often than not now in the PAC-12. If you can adjust thinking and now view 8-4 as a pretty good season and 7-5 as okay but not horrible, you’ll be fine.
To end my ramble, I don’t think the Utes make the PAC-12 CG this year, but if they made it, I wouldn’t be shocked, either.
by fountainofute on Aug 2, 2011 10:59 AM MDT up reply actions
You're underselling WSU.
Seriously. Even under Wulff, WSU is a clear step up from the likes of Idaho.
by The Ancient Mariner on Aug 3, 2011 8:56 AM MDT up reply actions
WSU crushed OSU in Corvallis last year.
…good luck with the beavers this year.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
by Gekko Mojo on Aug 5, 2011 10:48 PM MDT via mobile up reply actions
SBN formatting
Only one em-dash per paragraph — if you put two in, it takes it as strikethrough of whatever’s between them.
by The Ancient Mariner on Aug 3, 2011 8:54 AM MDT up reply actions
Agree. Momentum Will Be Huge . . .
For ALL teams in the division.
Obviously to start with a win at USC would be best. But as long as USC doesn’t blow them out, I think Utah comes out a little on top. USC doesn’t often lose at home, even against bigger name teams, so even if Utah loses, as long as it’s a close loss and well fought on both sides, Utah can come home knowing perfectly well that they’re competing at the PAC-12 level.
So, considering the previous week for each game, here’s what I think.
@ USC – Yeah, beating Montana St. won’t mean much before heading to LA. But as I said, so long as Utah doesn’t get blown out, they’re doing alright. Let’s bank conservatively and call this a loss. 0-1 conf ( 0-1 div )
vs Wash – If USC takes Utah behind the woodshed, this becomes a dangerous game. Mental mistakes would allow Wash to stay in the game and steal one here. Winning gives a foothold, winning big gives a big boost in confidence. 1-1 ( 0-1 )
vs ASU – Kyle’s good at keeping his guys focused week by week, but don’t think the whole team doesn’t know this game may well determine the division. It’s home and Utah wants to prove itself. So long as Utah isn’t overconfident, or reeling from a Wash upset, they’ll win. 2-1 ( 1-1 )
@ Cal – Cal is still struggling and I think Utah comes off the high of beating ASU. Utah wins so long as they don’t overlook Cal, especially with Cal’s Jekyll/Hyde tendency to win at home. 3-1 ( 1-1 )
vs OSU – This is the home game I’m worried about. OSU is often the spoiler of the conference. Even if they don’t win the conference title, it’s not uncommon for them to knock off the front runners. Here’s hoping we don’t suffer from a blackout voodoo repeat of 2010. But again for conservative predicting, I’ll say they lose. 3-2 ( 1-1 )
@ Zona – Honestly, I’m not sure what to expect here. Zona has shown great potential as well as dashing those dreams. I still think Utah will pull it out, but for this prediction, let’s call it a loss. 3-3 ( 1-2 )
vs UCLA – Home against a struggling program? Plus, how is UCLA at playing at altitude in the cold? I’ll put in a birthday wish request for Utah to win. 4-3 ( 2-2 )
@ WSU – WSU is improving, but I still think Utah is too much for them. Plus, Utah NEEDS to win this game and Kyle will have his guys knowing that. 5-3 ( 2-2 )
vs CU – Last home game, and I really don’t think CU will improve that much in only one year, even if they’ve had a full season under the new regime. 6-3 ( 3-2 )
As for ASU, I think they will lose to USC and Utah which means they can’t do better than tie Utah at 3-2 in their division. Losing to Oregon means they’d have at best a 6-3 conference record. Utah wins that tie-breaker with the head-to-head.
Frankly, I don’t want to take the South Div title due to USC restrictions since that opens up all sorts of future ridicule. But I’ll take it if that’s how it turns out.
If anyone found my snowboarding gloves after storming the field following the 2004 TDS game, I want them back!
Among Others
As a fan, I hate being left wondering “What If?”
And regardless of what future success Utah may have, detractors will hang onto that for years. Suppose Utah actually wins the first PAC-12 title, but only because USC had sanctions. Do you really want Utah 2011 to be thought of as TDS 1984?
If anyone found my snowboarding gloves after storming the field following the 2004 TDS game, I want them back!
I think the only people who would remember would be Trojan fans
And life is too short to worry about what they think.
Alternatively...
@USC, Unceremoniously thumped. Something like 33-17. Hey, it’s USC.
Vs UW, Lose a tough one, say 20-16. Uh-oh…
Vs ASU, Shoot, thumped again, 31-10. Injuries mounting.
@Cal, Really seriously thumped, 42-17. Well, this is a catastrophe…
Vs OSU, Regroup, somewhat, but lose another tough one, 24-20.
@Zona, Dammit, thumped again, 38-22.
Vs UCLA, Congratulations! Pac-12 Win #1, 28-24.
@ Wazzu, Tuel goes nuts, and you lose a thriller, 30-28.
Vs Buffs, Congratulations! Pac-12 Win #2, 31-17.
Not meant to be insulting. You assume a lot of wins. Based on what exactly, I don’t know.
In my alternative scenario, I assume a lot of losses, four of them where you’re thumped by clearly more athletic teams, and three of them where you fight and scratch and claw against slightly more (or less) athletic teams, but still come up a little short.
At this level, it’s pretty much about athletes. How good, and how many. You’re playing a schedule full of teams that, surprisingly, are frequently better (bigger, faster, stronger) than your guys. Guys that win the one-on-one battles that collectively determine the course of a game. Guys that have been down this Pac-X road before.
You finish 4-8 (2-7), tied with UCLA for 4th in the Pac-12 south. ASU @ 9-3 (6-3) wins it going away, with USC and Zona tied for 2nd @ 4-5.
The power and depth is clearly in the North now, and for the foreseeable future. They beat each other up, but then routinely get well at the Souths expense. Stanford wins it at 11-1 (8-1), with Oregon, Washington and Cal in a cut-throat muddle at 7-2, 6-3, and/or 5-4. Even bringing up the rear, @4-5 or 3-6, OSU and Wazzu are still in the bowl picture. Because they beat the South.
We've always been told 'those guys are bigger, faster, and more athletic than your guys."
Forgive us if don’t listen anymore. Your scenario to put it bluntly, doesn’t give us any credit for the team we’ve become. Cal, UW, ASU, OSU are all close enough games. Losing to Wazzu would be a disaster on the scope of losing to Wyoming. I don’t see it happening.
The power and depth is clearly in the North now, and for the foreseeable future.
Based on what? On your Huskies getting blown out by the Ducks? Two seasons is hardly a basis for ‘the foreseeable future.’
Oregon/Stanfurd
UDub/OSU/Cal
Wassu
USC (dq)/UT/ASU
AU
CU/UCLA
Comprable schools….yes the North has more powerful teams this year than the South does….and considering ASU is a favorite and they got decimated by a Cal team that couldn’t seem to score after half way through the season by 52 points….yes it is easy to question the strength of the South.
Frankly UT/CU I consider as both untested because I do not know what to expect, I haven’t watched you in and out over the years. You certainly think you have a shot at things (personally I think you’ll make it over ASU) and as new coaching staffs breathe fresh air into programs who knows what Colorado could do (2001 Cal: 1-10, 2002 Cal:7-5….I know of the transformations I speak of). The South is the division that is up for grabs….the North is pretty much a battle for 3rd.
"Our hearts shall sing and our voices ring for the dear old Blue and Gold!"
Took me a second to realize who UT was
Around here we usually say abbreviate to UU or U of U. Or “the U,” but Miami fans think that’s a good name for their school because they have the word “University” in their full school name, which is clearly very unique to them.
Dolphins and sharks are natural enemies. Dolphins are like, "Quit eating us," and sharks are like, "Stop smiling all the time, you morons."
Sort-of-daily sort-of-funny sort-of-thoughts at danoftheday.com
by CrimsonUte on Aug 3, 2011 10:58 AM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
apologies…good to know the conventions…thank you
"Our hearts shall sing and our voices ring for the dear old Blue and Gold!"
Oh, no need to apologize
I’m just trying to clarify. And make fun of Miami fans.
Dolphins and sharks are natural enemies. Dolphins are like, "Quit eating us," and sharks are like, "Stop smiling all the time, you morons."
Sort-of-daily sort-of-funny sort-of-thoughts at danoftheday.com
I love how BYU fans
become Miami’s number one fans when it comes to that point as well. Yet another reason Im thankful I wasnt born a zoob.
No longer tweeting due to an overload of spam. please check out my blog sometime @ bigbenstechnicalfoul.blogspot.com for my thoughts on sports, religion, politics, family life and a host of other random stuff.
by BigBenSportsGuy on Aug 4, 2011 11:32 AM MDT up reply actions
this year perhaps...
considering ASU is a favorite and they got decimated by a Cal team that couldn’t seem to score after half way through the season by 52 points….yes it is easy to question the strength of the South.
That’s just one game, Washington got beat by ASU 24-14 and AU 44-14. Oregon State lost to UCLA, Cal lost to USC and Arizona. All loses for the north to the south. What does all of this mean? Nothing, it happened a year ago and every team will be different this year. You can assume that the north will be better all you like, but the only justification I see at this point are Oregon and Stanford.
However, Stanford has a new coach, and will lose their star QB after this season so I wouldn’t necessarily count on them to be a long term power in the north. And who knows what will happen to Oregon in terms of potential sanctions etc. My point: you can in no way say that the north will be the power for the ‘foreseeable future.’ Especially once USC’s sanctions are over. I’d say the champion is likely to come from the north this season…but long term who knows how things will shake out.
If you know anything about ASU is that it crashes….every year, to a certain degree like Cal has during the last half of this decade. They are not a team you should be worried about imo.
As for Stanfurd (you must truly learn how to spell it correctly), I do not know why you feel the need to talk about the long term. The OP, and therefore my comment, are on Utah winning the Pac-12 South in 2011. Not for the near future, not even next year, the discussion is of this year. As we are discussing this season, I would hope you notice that their “new coach” is simply being promoted from being the OC…he knows his offense, his offense isn’t learning anything new, and nothing is truly going to change about it that would damage it. What will be interesting is seeing how the defense responds under a new DC.
Now while I would love to see Oregon get put in shackles and take the seat already warmed by the Trojans, trust me nothing would give me greater pleasure except seeing the Trojans and Oregon be in the same boat for many years to come, the feeling I get from Kelly is that everything is just fine…and so I rather doubt they’ll get in that much trouble. Oregon is rather good at weaseling out of recruitment gray areas. Add to that the fact that the NCAA moves slower than molasses (see USC 2004 Reggie Bush translate into sanctions only…..now?), I doubt that anything relevant will happen this season even if their are sanctions.
Once more I would like to point out, we are talking about the battle for the Pac-12 South in 2011, not in 2012-2015, so please, stop trying to shift the discussion to one of the long term. This year the North is heavier than the South, especially with sanctions being levied upon the Trojans.
"Our hearts shall sing and our voices ring for the dear old Blue and Gold!"
The power and depth is clearly in the North now, and for the foreseeable future.
I wasn’t trying to shift it to long term…you threw it out there, I responded. As for the ‘Furd’ as call fans so eloquently call them, I don’t think they’re nearly as good this year. It’s all fine and well that the head coach knows the offense but is he really going to be calling plays? Yeah, I thought not. And new DC will also affect their chances.
For the south division. I think most people are of the opinion that since USC is ineligible Utah and ASU are likely to fight it out for the championship game. You seem to be virtually alone in believing that Utah will lose almost every Pac-12 game. I guess you’re entitled to your opinion as asinine as it is.
You're quoting the wrong guy...
"Ignorance is the parent of fear." ~Melville
by johnnycougar on Aug 5, 2011 12:23 PM MDT up reply actions
If you honestly think ASU, USC and UA are that much better than Utah
then your other conclusion (that the power and depth are in the north for the foreseeable future) is massively flawed.
Here’s how I would rank the teams for next year (and I’ll leave Utah and Colorado out of it because there’s no reasonable way to compare them right now):
1- Oregon. This is risky considering the MASSIVE likelihood that Kelly is getting fired soon and they’re getting sanctioned for cheating, but we’ll see what happens.
2- USC. Kiffin is a poor coach, but I think he’s fired after next year and someone good comes in. Even with kiffykins, I think they win 8 or 9, and they’re better than that if they have a decent coach.
3- Stanford. This is based entirely on last year and it’s NOT SUSTAINABLE. I think they hang on to Harbaugh’s work next year and then fall off considerably without him.
4- ASU. Most-experienced program. Sure, Erickson is on his way out (not this year, but he’ll get one more and then be forced out), but they’re talented, experienced, and have a lot to play for. I expect a 9 win season, if not 10, and a mid-20’s ranking.
5- UW. Sarkesian has them pointed in the right direction and there’s a lot to like about that program.
6- Arizona. Stoops is an average coach, but they’re talented and when they put a real offense together with their always above-average defense (like they will next year), they’re very good.
7- OSU. Riley’s a good coach and they’re generally a tough team that doesn’t take games off. Unlikely to get upset by weaker teams, occasionally capable of upsetting better ones. Never the most talented, they’re good (last year’s aberration notwithstanding). This is a low ranking for them only due to the loss of a lot of talent from a not very talented team. They’ll get back soon.
8- Cal. Yes, seriously. Tedford’s on the decline and I don’t think he turns it around seriously. I think they’ll finish 5th in the north behind Oregon, Stanford, Wash, OSU, in that order.
9- UCLA. Decent talent, but no cohesiveness, no team attitude, horrible slimebag coach.
10- WSU. Poor talent. Nice guy coach but just not able to compete with less-talented athletes and not much fire in his belly.
So, if we split that up, it is 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10 in the north for an average of 5.67 and it is 2, 4, 6, 9 in the south for an average of 5.25, putting the talent of the existing PAC 10 teams largely in the south, assuming Utah and Colorado are not 11 and 12 in the league next year.
Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.
Well, here's how they ended up last year, in actuality...
(As opposed to in your opinion, however fascinating that opinion might be.)
1. Oregon, 9-0
2 Stanford, 8-1
3. UW, 5-4
3. USC 5-4
5. ASU, 4-5
5. OSU, 4-5
5. Zona, 4-5
8. Cal, 3-6
9. UCLA, 2-7
10, Wazzu, 1-8
Northern teams went 30-24. Southern teams went 16-20.
But just for fun, lets look at these final standings broken down into competitive pairs. The bottom eight teams pair up quite nicely, with one team from the north and its doppelganger team from the south with an equal or near-equal record..
Conveniently, all these doppelgangers played each other, so we can review the competitive results on the field. Starting at the bottom….
UCLA hosted Wazzu and won 42-28. Highly competitive and entertaining game until a late Coog collapse.
(BTW, snatching a late defeat from the jaws of victory is called `Cooging it’ in the Pac-X, and for very good historical reasons. It’s a term commonly used in the NW, but y’all feel free to adopt the lingo too.)
Arizona hosted Cal and won 10-9. Competitive game and then some.
OSU hosted ASU and won 31-28. See the competitive pattern developing here?
USC hosted Washington, and lost 32-31. Yet another nail-biter between two very evenly matched teams.
So you see, the competitive balance between these bottom four pairings is about as balanced as balanced can get, as convincingly demonstrated on the actual field of play.
It’s only when you get to the top pair that things go a little haywire. You can’t help but notice that, 1.) they’re both far and away better than the rest of the Pac-X, and 2.) they’re both in the North.
These 2 facts rather upset the whole `balance’ thing that you’re arguing. In fact, there ain’t no balance at all. Except at the bottom. And in your opinion.
And unless you’re suggesting that Utah and Colorado = Oregon and Stanford, this competitive IM-balance is likely to continue right on through 2011.
Stanford and Oregon didn’t lose much to graduation, and they both recruited and red-shirted very well. Fact is, they’re both probably better than last year, and everybody else is chasing. Distantly.
It’s far more likely that Utah and Colorado = lets say… Arizona and Cal. Or USC and Wazzu. Or pick any other random pair of teams not named `Stanford’ or `Oregon’. As such, you will fall right into the middle of the muddle, with Utah perhaps a bit on the high end of the muddle, and Colorado a bit on the low. Or vice versa. Who knows…
There’s no shame in that. Those eight teams that made up the also-rans in the Pac-X last year included some really good teams. It always does.
Math edit...
Southern teams went 15-21, not 16-20 as posted… Sorry.
So Flawed It's Almost Funny
Please explain this “Power in the North” statement. You consider Stanford a “power team” now, a team that’s only had 6 winning seasons in the last 16 ( and only 2 in the last nine. ) By that criteria, shouldn’t Utah be considered a “power team” too? And why is USC, a traditional powerhouse, now relegated to the middle of the pack? Because they’ve had some down years largely due to NCAA sanctions? You’re saying they won’t recover? You’re saying that two years a dynasty makes?
If anyone found my snowboarding gloves after storming the field following the 2004 TDS game, I want them back!
USC's down years are not a result of NCAA Sanctions
In fact other than Last year’s bowl ban, USC hasn’t really been under NCAA sanctions.
Because of the Appeal, the Roster Limits and Scholarship reductions could not be put into effect. Even so, it will take roughly another year after they go into effect for the Sanctions to really be noticed.
So last year’s down year for USC isn’t because of the Sanctions. It’s just good ole fashioned hard work.
True, I Phrased that Badly
But I think it’s pretty hard to fully quantify the sanctions, and the process that led to them. I’d call 2009 the first “down year,” even though they still finished 9-4. But at that point, the NCAA had been investigating them for years. How do you measure that impact? What recruits decided to go elsewhere because they didn’t want to be at a program that might get the hammer? What instabilities were caused in the Athletic Dept? I don’t know the answers here. Maybe they weren’t much, maybe more than we realize. Yes, you are right that repercussions will be felt worse in the next two years.
But still, counting 9-4 and 8-5 as disappointing seasons hardly relegates USC to the level of Cal, UCLA, and UW.
If anyone found my snowboarding gloves after storming the field following the 2004 TDS game, I want them back!
Considering USC Was still getting top 10 Recruiting classes
I would say that not many recruits decided to go elsewhere.
What exactly is the "level of Cal, UW and UCLA"?
…as I don’t see much commonality between the status of those teams (BTW – UW beat all of those teams, including USC at USC last year). One is a struggling program swooning, one is a strong program coming off of one substandard year (despite taking Oregon to the wire) and one is a former national champion powerhouse on an upswing.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
by Gekko Mojo on Aug 6, 2011 7:01 AM MDT via mobile up reply actions
You ASSUME a Lot of Losses, Based on What Exactly?
Right, Utah has little to no athleticism. That’s why our defense was so slow compared to Alabama. I know it may be difficult, and a little frightening, but try to take off your homer glasses for just a second. This isn’t the 1980s or 1990s anymore. Utah has speed. They have size. And most importantly, they have a coach that knows how to get every bit of effort and performance out of his players. If you’re ranking Utah’s athleticism strictly on a very subjective recruit star ranking, why even play the games? Just simulate everything with a math formula and save a lot of travel money.
If UW has such great athletes, how do they lose to BYU? If Cal is so athletic, how do they lose to Nevada?
If anyone found my snowboarding gloves after storming the field following the 2004 TDS game, I want them back!
"If Cal is so athletic, how do they lose to Nevada?"
Because Nevada was really, really good last year. Boise State also lost to Nevada. Are they unathletic? What does that make the teams Boise State beat?
Why don’t we keep Cal out of all the talk. We were just minding our own business.
Good luck on your first year.
Not All Zonks are Zorks
Just because one team loses to another, Or just because one team beats another does not mean that one team is not athletic, or one team is athletic.
That's My Point
My last post was in reply to Hawnx’s post about 20 posts up, entitled “Alternatively.” The argument was made that at this level of football, athleticism is the most important thing. Cal and UW were the first examples that came to my mind ( no, I’m not trying to pick on them, insult the programs, or anything like that. )
If anyone found my snowboarding gloves after storming the field following the 2004 TDS game, I want them back!
I don't think he thinks you are king to lose every game...
… I think he was trying to make a point – one that I think you already understand and probably agree with. Even the upper tier teams get challenged once or twice during in conference play. Factors like injuries and horrible PAC 12 reffing DO impact the outcome of games between closely matched competitors. New young stars emerge every year (last year brought us Darron Thomas, Alameda Ta’amu, Jon Franklin, And Robert Woods, to name a few) on each team to throw competitive balance off from where it was the year prior. Winning road games is the path to a championship because you likely WILL lose one or two home games. my guess is you guys are severely underestimating how good ASU and CAL are relative to those of us who have followed the PAC more closely because the strengths of their teams are front seven focused (ASU likely has top 5 total talent in their front 7 while Cal is not far behind).
Sit back and enjoy the ride, Utes. You have a lot going for you. You are rich now. You will get exposure now. You will begin to be able to recruit California now. You already have the talent of a competitive middle of the PAC team (so you will win your fair share now), you’ve got a great coach and you’ve got the best schedule you coil hope for in your first year. Just don’t dismiss the “any given Sunday” factor that plays out on Saturdays in the PAC 12
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
by Gekko Mojo on Aug 6, 2011 7:14 AM MDT via mobile up reply actions
King=going in autocorrect language
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
by Gekko Mojo on Aug 6, 2011 7:15 AM MDT via mobile up reply actions
We'll see.
That’s all, Hawnk. We’ll just have to see.
by Joseph Silverzweig on Aug 3, 2011 12:33 PM MDT up reply actions
Couple things
One, it’s UW, not “Wash.” WashU is Washington University in St. Louis, MO — completely different school.
Two, I think you have Cal and OSU flipped. Cal under Tedford’s been a first-half team; I doubt they lose that one at home. On the other hand, the Beavers probably won’t be playing at full heat yet when they show up at Rice-Eccles, especially since personnel changes are likely to make this an unusually slow-gelling OSU team; as such, I would expect you to beat them. Otherwise, I’d say your calls are quite reasonable.
by The Ancient Mariner on Aug 3, 2011 9:02 AM MDT up reply actions
Noted & Thanks
On the Wash → UW.
As for Cal and OSU, I’m just basing that prediction on the little I’ve seen of them in the past few years. OSU isn’t a completely unpredictable team, but they do have that wildcard tendency to pull out the surprising games, not uncommonly on the road. I see that game coming down to the wire, similar to 2008. This is in the second half of the season, so even if OSU is slow to “gel,” if they’re not firing by then, they won’t being doing much of anything this season and I don’t think that will happen.
I think the Cal game may also be close, but Cal’s home wins seem to falter when a good team comes to town, so I think Utah can pull it out.
If anyone found my snowboarding gloves after storming the field following the 2004 TDS game, I want them back!
Per Cal's Home Field
With the exception of last year, there have been only 2 teams that have consistently beaten Cal at home during Jeff Tedford’s reign: USC (Pete Carrol) and OSU (Mike Riley). Oregon under Kelly had their first win in Berkeley since Tedford started coaching at Cal this past year, as did Washington under Sarkisian—both games were determined by less than a field goal. In fact I think Kelly (1-0), Sarkisian (1-0) and Mike Riley (4-0) are the only current conference coaches who do not have negative records in Berkeley, with Lane Kiffin to make his first trip this year (and of course, Whittingham and Embree).
And yet, it will be interesting to see what happens this year when Cal plays at home….for the stadium will be a baseball park across the Bay with 20,000 less seats and miles away from campus…and therefore not Berkeley at all. Certainly one of Cal’s questions is whether it can still play well at “home” without its usual surroundings. If this is your year to beat us at home, I say it is this one.
"Our hearts shall sing and our voices ring for the dear old Blue and Gold!"
by Joe Bandsmen on Aug 3, 2011 10:14 AM MDT up reply actions
I honestly think the season boils down to the ASU game.
This assumes a couple of things:
1- Colorado will suck again. No reason for an improvement of a bad team with a brand new coach and little continuity, but if Colorado rises up (and I saw one prediction out of SEC country that thinks they will) then we have a whole new ball game.
2- UCLA will suck again. If UCLA rises up then we have problems. Luckily Neuheisal sucks and coaches on the hot seat rarely save themselves. I think they’re destined for 5-7 and a new coach.
3- Arizona will be average again. We don’t need to beat them, but we do need them to lose to teams like Oregon and USC and a couple more so that they’re not in our tie-breaker.
If all of those things are true then here’s how I see the division:
1- USC. 8-1. Wins against everyone in the south, splits Oregon/Stanford, beats UW and Cal. Might be 7-2 if they lose one of the UW/Cal games.
T2- Utah. 6-3. Loses to USC, Arizona, split Cal and OSU.
T2- ASU. 6-3. Loses to USC, Utah, Oregon. Loses tiebreaker due to head-to-head.
4- UA. 5-4. Loses to USC, ASU, Oregon, splits Stan/OSU.
5- UCLA. 3-6. Loses to USC, Utah, ASU, UA, Stan, splits Cal/OSU
6- Colorado. 2-7. Loses to all south teams, plus Stanford and Oregon, might lose to UW too, playing WSU for their only win.
If we lose the ASU game they’ll be playing in the title game barring some massive upsets by us and a team like OSU.
Now, if UA beats both Stanford and OSU then we have an interesting situation. We have three teams tied for 2nd; Utah, ASU, UA. Utah beats ASU, ASU beats UA, UA beats Utah. All would be tied in the south at 3-2. What’s the next tiebreaker? BCS component.
So now we need to look at the overall records and rankings. Preseason rankings have ASU getting some love (20-25 mostly, some as high as 15). A little bit of love for us (23, 24, 25 are about the best I’ve seen), no love for UA that I’ve seen. Assuming the above results are true, here’s how each team goes during the season:
ASU-
1- UC Davis. Win. 1-0
2- Missouri. Loss is possible here, but let’s say they win at home. 2-0
3- @Illinois. If this game were later I’d not be surprised to see a loss, but early should be a win, 3-0.
4- USC. If they get blown out, they’ll drop out of the rankings. If they keep it close they’ll stay in the mid 20s. 3-1
5- OSU. Win, stay in the 20s. 4-1
6- @Utah. Loss, the bigger the better. Close and they stay ranked, blow them out and we get ranked and they drop out. 4-2
7- @Oregon. Loss, the bigger the better. Drop out regardless. 4-3.
… The rest of their games are wins in this scenario, so they’ll crawl back to respectability and probably a 20-25 ranking after beating Arizona and Cal at the end of the year.
UA-
1- NAU. Win. 1-0
2- @OSU. OSU is getting a ton of love, plus the road game, plus new OL still gelling, this is a loss, might be a really bad loss. 1-1.
3- Stanford. Remember, in order for them to get to the three-way tie, they have to beat Stanford at home. This will get them some votes, won’t get them ranked. 2-1
4- Oregon. Loss, lose all their votes from last week. 2-2.
5- @USC. Loss, now losing record, no votes. 2-3.
6-11. In this scenario I have them winning all the rest of their games until ASU in week 12. This means they may be ranked at 7-3, but they won’t be after they lose to ASU, even assuming they beat LA-Lafayette the next week.
Utah
1-MSU. Win 1-0
2- @USC. Loss, keep it close, but we’ll still fall out of the rankings after this game. 1-1.
3- @BYU. If we win we get some votes back, but just very few. Call it 5 votes. 2-1.
4-9- We have to win all these games if we want to win in a three-way tiebreaker, including the roadie at Pitt, except for Cal or OSU. If we do then we’ll be ranked, as long as we keep the CAL/OSU game close. But then we lose to UA, knocking us out of the rankings at 6-3, climbing back to barely ranked after beating UCLA, WSU and Colorado.
So, in the three-way-tie we probably lose to ASU on the rankings front, although there’s a lot of give in that system and we have a tougher schedule. Should be interesting.
Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.
Nice analysis
I just can’t see USC going 8-1 in conference play, though. Kiffin just isn’t that good, they have an inexperienced OL that might struggle to protect Barkley, and they’ll fade down the stretch like last year most likely as motivation runs dry and legs get tired.
That was my exact thought.
8-1 for USC is certainly possible, but unlikely, IMO.
Dolphins and sharks are natural enemies. Dolphins are like, "Quit eating us," and sharks are like, "Stop smiling all the time, you morons."
Sort-of-daily sort-of-funny sort-of-thoughts at danoftheday.com
Maybe, but here's their schedule:
Their first 6 are Minn (win), Utah (prob win), Syracuse (win), @ASU (prob win), UA (win), @Cal (maybe a loss here)
Their last 6 are @ Notre Dame (loss), Stanford (maybe loss), @CU (win), UW (win), @ Oregon (loss), and UCLA (win).
At worst they are 6-3 in conference (Cal, Oregon, Stanford) and still beat UA and ASU.
Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.
I wouldn't say that the game @ASU is a probable win for the Trojans
I think I’d give the nod to the Sun Devils.
by fountainofute on Aug 2, 2011 5:22 PM MDT up reply actions
I'm in the mode of thinking Utah/ASU/UA are all on the same level, one step behind USC.
So if Utah is a probable win, so is ASU, although I would put the chances at 75% in the Utah game and 60% in the ASU game based on it being on the road.
Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.
I disagree...
I think SC is on a higher level, but I do not believe there is near the gap you suggest. Take last year, a 6-6 ASU team, with all of four wins against FCS teams, lost in the closing seconds by one to the Trojans on the road.
My guess is that ASU is A) favored in the game and B) stands a very good chance of winning.
To me it's
First Level is Oregon. Second Level is Stanford.
Level Three is empty’
Level 4 is USC, and Level 4.5 is Utah/AU/ASU
I don't get this whole "Kiffin isn't that good" thing...
… he’s a chump, but keep in mind a few things. ONE he’s been good enough to get an NFL job and two of the best jobs in all of college football. TWO the evidence would seem to suggest that he’s not just a good recruiter, but an elite recruiter of football talent (both Tenn and USC). THREE he has assembled the best top to bottom coaching staff in the PAC 10 in terms of resumes and FOUR he does have a track record of winning football in his years as an assistant and as HC, and FIVE he is known as one of the better motivators and inspirers of football players in the nation.
I agree that he’s a chump who may lack certain personality attributes that you and I may value, but the capabilities of he and his staff on the football field do not meet the standard of “just not that good”.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
No one knows about Kiffin...
Saying he’s not good is just as ridiculous as saying he’s great.
Kiffin has an overall college record of 15-11. There is nothing in that that indicates he’s a good football coach or a bad football coach.
Do I think he’ll be a good coach? Yes. I think the fact he didn’t faceplant at Tennessee and didn’t do badly in his first year at SC indicates he’ll probably win enough games to be considered a decent coach.
Is he a great coach capable of taking SC back to their 00 heights? I’m not so sure. He could just be a smarter version of Ron Zook – someone who is killer in recruiting, but not so much on the field when the game is being played.
That’s going to be the interesting thing to watch these next few years. He certainly has the talent to win 11 games this year. However, a few more 8-5 seasons and Kiffin will look more like Larry Smith and less like this coaching prodigy some might have us believe he is.
As I said in my ranking of Pac-12 coaches a few weeks back, he hasn’t done much of anything to prove he’s a great head coach, a bad head coach or just a good head coach. It’s hard, of course, because we’re only talking two years. All we know is he didn’t crash and burn at Tennessee and hasn’t at SC.
I think this upcoming year will give us an idea of what type of coach he is.
Watching the Hawaii game last year makes me think he doesn't have the in-game sense of a good coach.
Recruit like a maniac, sure, but any USC coach should be able to do that. To make them truly elite you need to be able to instill discipline and know how to win the game between the sidelines. I get the distinct impression Kiffin can’t do that, plus it appears he cheated at UTENN, although that might have just been stupidity, I think some of it was intentional.
Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.
by displacedute on Aug 7, 2011 11:20 PM MDT up reply actions
My criteria for a good season remains unchanged.
1) Beat BYU.
2) Win the conference.
3) Win a Bowl game.
Two out of three is a good season.
GO UTES!
Busting the BCS from the inside now.
With USC on probation...
The biggest game is our home game against ASU. Preseason, this game looks like the deciding factor in the PAC 12 south.
It is possible USC goes 9-0, with ASU and Utah tied at 6-3 and the rest below that.
Busting the BCS from the inside now.
It's unlikely.
Not impossible, but very unlikely. Kiffykins is a goober and his team will start reflecting that soon enough.
Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.
Just Like
It’s not impossible that North Texas goes 12-0, but ask anyone and they’ll all tell you it’s not possible.
Again I state, it’s not possible USC goes 9-0
Anything's possible
but if nothing else, it’s highly unlikely they beat Oregon at Autzen. Honestly, I don’t think they beat Stanford, either; though, much as I hate to say it, I think this is the year they take revenge on the Huskies for the last two.
by The Ancient Mariner on Aug 3, 2011 9:06 AM MDT up reply actions
Isn't USC like 0-4 in Oregon the Last 4 years.
I agree they beat U-Dub. They Beat OSU. The Beat their little brothers From California. They also beat the other Pac-12 newcomers.
I Think ASU, Oregon, Stanford all notch victories.
They’ll probably beat the Bears.
And I would say the Utes are a coin flip game for them, but I’m predicting a Utah victory.
OOC USC goes 2-1 (Losing to ND, beating Minnesota/Syracuse)
My Bad, USC misses the Beavers this year.
I think AU is also a coin flip for them.
`I agree they beat U-dub.'
Why? They’re 0-2 against us in the last two years. The Huskies are getting better. The Trojans…. ain’t.
The Trojans are the Yankees of the Pac. Yeah, they’re generally OK, and sometimes really good. But everybody always assumes they’re great. And they’re most definitely not.
Trust me I dont' assume their great
And you are right, USC is 0-2 the last two years.
But it’s by a combined 4 points.
However this year you guys must go to the Coliseum. Also, as completely overrated as Jake Locker was, he did cause matchup problems with his legs (Definitely not with his feet).
I like Sark, and believe that he, and not Locker is the true reason Washington has had such success. I also believe that the success will continue. And yest the Huskies are getting better. But USC is still above an improving Husky team in all honestly. I also think 2011 is going to be 1 step back, before 2 steps forward in 2012. And a lot of that has to do with the QB.
UW has had an inherit advantage over USC the last two years ...
… given UW staff’s intimate knowledge of the USC roster. That advantage is dwindling while UW’s talent is increasing. That probably nets out. However, winning two straight at the Coliseum isn’t something I’m going to bet on. That said, playing there IS a home game for some of UW’s biggest stars Polk and Price. That must count for something.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
I think Utah will have a tough time at USC and it seems most Ute fans are chalking this up as a probable loss. They have had top 10 recruiting class for the last several years and are playing at home.
The Holy War is always a coin toss and is at Provo. If Utah comes out of that game 1-2, the Washington game becomes critical with Southern Division front runner Arizona State looming next and then a tough cross country road trip to Pitt. Not an easy first half.
For all the issues the Utes have (QB depth, secondary, OL depth, unproven RBs), many teams on the bottom half of their schedule are in the same boat. Cal seems to be in a down cycle and has issues on offense on top of lossing their 3 best defenders. OSU lost their star player and best DL.
I’m not terribly worried about Arizona. Everything I’ve read indicates their best pass rushers are gone and their LB corps are suspect. While they have what could be the top QB-WR duo in the league, they replace their whole starting OL. I think Utah could force them into mistakes with a strong DL.
People overlook UCLA, but i think they have a lot returning starters back. Obviously they have issues at QB but should be tougher than assumed.
It is fun not knowing the outcome of most games though. Taking a look at last years PAC 10 conference record is interesting.
Last year, Oregon and Stanford were the cream of the crop. Both play in the Northern Division. The top team in what is now the Southern Division, finished conference play at 5-4 (USC). Second place AZ ST (heads up win over AZ) would have finished at 4-5 and won the division. Could that happen again this year? Utah misses both top 10 teams. Could that be the scheduling break that pushes them over the top? You figure two, almost-automatic losses for everyone else.
You'll be surprised at ...
UCLA’s power rushing attack and the size if their receivers. If they can get anything out of their QBs then they’ll be a tough out
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
by Gekko Mojo on Aug 6, 2011 5:32 PM MDT via mobile up reply actions
You'll be surprised at ...
UCLA’s power rushing attack and the size if their receivers. If they can get anything out of their QBs then they’ll be a tough out
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
by Gekko Mojo on Aug 6, 2011 5:32 PM MDT via mobile up reply actions
AQ road wins
Let us not forget that we beat Iowa State on the road and whether you want to admit it or not, they are also an AQ team so the 2-5 road record since ’05 is incorrect.
Man, it's all speculation anyway, so chill, baby, chill!
Seriously, like I said earlier, all we can do as fans is cheer and support. That’s it, everything else is moot. All the number crunching, cogitation and vehement defending of personal positions by fans won’t help the Utes win or lose. There’s no sense in getting riled up over differing opinions because it’s all opinion.
If you’re not going to freak out and post an angry rant based on someone else’s opinion what’s the point of even reading a blog? xD
by NC Ute on Aug 3, 2011 1:19 PM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
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.
