I think there might be a home game this Saturday...
by JazzyUte on Sep 28, 2011 3:51 AM MDT
in Football
Email
PrintEven though the Utes have officially played a home game (Montana State), this weekend really feels like the home opener. In fact, it will be the first Saturday game of the year and it's taking place in October. I don't recall that ever happening before and it's all due to a scheduling quirk that had Utah playing two road games prior to their bye-week.
To put that into perspective, by October 1st last year, the Utes had already played three home games.
Like I said, I can't recall a season where Utah had played only one home game once October rolled around, though I'm sure it's happened before (probably in the early 90s).
So that makes this weekend a bit more special. We've yet to experience an entire Saturday of tailgating and football watching at the U this year. I anticipate that will only boost the enthusiasm and anticipation for this game. It doesn't hurt that it's Homecoming and the first ever Pac-12 home game. Of course, playing it against a decent, and historically strong, Washington team only adds to the atmosphere.
It's also fitting, I guess, we're still not sure what to make of the Utes. They looked very good against a BYU Cougars team that is obviously struggling and faltered, at times badly, against a Trojans team that, talent aside, appears to be coached by a thirty-something year old novice.
What does that mean for Saturday?
Really, it's as if this season is starting anew. Certainly Utah is one game down in the conference standings and they do need a victory to keep pace with Arizona State in the Pac-12 South, but their loss to SC was never going to be the deciding factor in anything outside the potential of perfection. In my mind, even though they're 0-1 in conference play and could have gained a huge leg up had they won a few Saturdays ago, they still kind of feel like an 0-0 conference team.
That changes this week, though. SC was a throwaway game solely because we knew, due to sanctions, the Trojans would not be able to qualify for a spot in the conference title game. Washington might not be a division rival, but a loss here, coupled already with their defeat to SC, would pretty much take Utah out of the Pac-12 South race.
A win, though, puts them right in the the thick of things heading into what could be the biggest game of the season - a contest between division rival Arizona State.
I don't want to sound like I'm overlooking the Huskies toward that game next Saturday, because I'm not. Instead, I'm only illustrating why Saturday is so important for the Utes' division hopes. They need to win this weekend.
Painfully obvious, right?
But like I said originally, this kind of feels like a new beginning to the season. Yes, the loss to SC counts in the standings and I'm not going to ignore that defeat, but it was never a must for the Utes if they were going to win the Pac-12 South. The Washington game is.
That's the exciting thing about this. There really hasn't been a conference game this important this early in the season since TCU in '06. The way the old Mountain West's pecking order played out, every must-win conference game (I guess you could say most conference games are must-win, but eh) from '07 to '10 came later in the season.
Not the fourth game.
Why? Because the cream of the conference, year in and year out, was essentially the same three teams: Utah, TCU and BYU. The rivalry game against the Cougars was always scheduled at the end of the season and Utes-Frogs' game slowly gravitated from mid-September in '05, to early October in '06, late October in '07 and finally settled in on early-to-mid November by '08, '09 and '10.
For the past three seasons, the two biggest conference games were always at the very end of the year.
That isn't the case anymore. Utah's already played one of its biggest conference games of the season and now will string together two more before taking a brief out of conference road trip back east to take on Pittsburgh.
Right there, in a span of only a month, the Utes already have played three of its most important conference games.
After their brief trip to Big East, err ACC, Country, Utah once again finds itself playing must-win, but far from guaranteed, football games against Oregon State, Arizona/Cal, Washington State and Colorado.
Not an easy stretch by any means.
Saturday, in Utah's first home weekend game of the season, that gauntlet begins.
Hope they're ready.
155 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Surely you jest
I’ll guarantee you these games right now:
Oregon State (bad)
Washington State (bad)
Colorado (worse)
No way we’re gonna lose those.
All of the others you mentioned have a shot.
No joke.
The only guarantee is, if you play a bad game, you’ll probably lose.
It’s easy to SAY that the Beavs, Buffs and Wazzu ain’t in your class, but then that Saturday rolls around, and suddenly they start looking a lot better.
It’s `The Grind’ that Whittingham has been talking about and talking about. He knows that it’s real, even it you don’t.
I agree
In the Pac-12, you can speculate W’s but you can’t write them in.
by spencer peaty on Sep 28, 2011 11:56 AM MDT up reply actions
Ask USC why they didn't play in more BCSNCG's during their run.
Better yet, ask OSU and Cal why USC didn’t, for starters.
Ducks GOOOOD. Fuskies BAAAAAD.
by BigGreenWreckingMachine on Sep 28, 2011 6:41 PM MDT up reply actions
Those are games Utah should win, no doubt...
But they’re not a guarantee. All three are capable of beating Utah if the Utes have an off day.
you should win each of those ...
…but I guarantee you lose one of them, and I’m guessing OSU.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
@TomahawkRed.... Don't you remember '07?
I agree we shouldn’t be too worried about those three games (and I’d probably throw Arizona in there too). In fact, looking at OSU, Wash, CO & Ariz…. I’m kind of reminded of UNLV, SDSU, CSU, Wyoming & New Mexico…. I really am as worried about OSU, Wash, CO & Ariz as I ever was about UNLV, CSU, Wyoming & New Mexico (and you can throw in San Diego State minus last season).
But not being too concerned and “guaranteeing” a win are two very different things. Even in the Mountain West we learned never to say “guaranteed”. As UNLV taught us in ‘07. Remember the 0-27 kicking of our ass? Did you “guarantee” a win that year? How many times did New Mexico come out of nowhere to beat us? Ask Urban. They’re the only Mountain West team who beat him.
My point is. I don’t really see much of a difference between the MW’s bottom teams and the PAC’s bottom teams. And my level of concern is about the same. Which is to say… I am always concerned until the game is over. Because after UNLV sent us home packing with only a goose-egg to show for our visit, I realized there’s always the possibility someone will beat you, so you should ALWAYS be aware of it.
I definitely think we should beat all the bottom tier PAC teams, just as I always though we should beat Wyoming. But that’s not to say we will. And nobody knows what will happen until Saturday. To say you guarantee a win, or we WILL win, is to ignore that there’s another group of guys with different colored jerseys on that field. And they want that ‘W" too. So we need to not get complacent by assuming wins. We have to earn them. And until we do, let’s just keep in mind that any of these guys could be us. And although I believe we have the ability to beat them all. It’s not Saturday yet.
In that last paragraph....
“though” —> “thought”
“be” —> “beat”
Wrote all that a little too quickly and proofread after submitting, apologizes. Oh, and I couldn’t figure out how to edit.
I'm sorry ...
… but this is the dumbest thing I’ve ever read, although I’m sure you meant it sincerely.
Unless you are Oregon, you need to be concerned with every team in the Pac 12.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
Putting any of those teams on a level with the dregs of the Mountian West is a mistake
I’m sure you’ll have it all figured out in a few years.
Agreed...
Not sure why people think that New Mexico, Wyoming, etc. is in the same class as Washington St.
…Washington St. has managed to go to the Rose Bowl not too long ago…and even when they’re down, they still beat 2nd tier conference teams in their OOC games.
Exactly, they have been absolutely terrible lately, but that is out of the ordinary for them.
It is rare that teams in the Pac-12 are that bad.
An apology
I don’t really see much of a difference between the MW’s bottom teams and the PAC’s bottom teams.
In fact, looking at OSU, Wash, CO & Ariz…. I’m kind of reminded of UNLV, SDSU, CSU, Wyoming & New Mexico…. I really am as worried about OSU, Wash, CO & Ariz as I ever was about UNLV, CSU, Wyoming & New Mexico (and you can throw in San Diego State minus last season)
We’re not happy about it, and we wish that we were as good at football as the average Mountain West team. Collectively, I know that I speak for the other cellar dwellers in the Pac-12 when I say that I am sorry that we drag down the entire conference. It is unfortunate that you have found yourselves stuck in a league as awful as ours.
Please accept my apology for the badness that is Washington Football.
You obviously do not need it and just as likely would not want the kind of luck that a loser from Washington has to offer, but please know that the Huskies respect the Utes and wish Utah well.
by Bugs Dodger on Sep 28, 2011 2:29 PM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
This was a much better reply than mine
Seeing any of those Pac-12 teams compared to Wyoming is pretty hilarious.
I don't know why Washington or Arizona are on there at all.
Maybe WSU and OSU this year are comparable to those teams. His point was that even though you may be favored by 2 touchdowns, which I think we will be against WSU and CO, we were also favored by 2 touchdowns or more against UNLV in 2007 before we got beat 27-0 in our most embarassing game of recent memory. We have also lost to New Mexico, CSU, and Wyoming of recent years, so I think he was saying that you don’t write in anyone as an automatic win, even if they are 0-12 the year before.
But I don’t really know why Arizona and Washington are in the last. They are great teams, especially as of late. We barely beat Arizona a couple years ago when they were considered horrible by a field goal. At Home.
So no games are a given, but games weren’t always a given in the MWC either.
And there we go full circle again. I just think those quotes were being taken out of context.
I don't really think the quotes were taken out of context. What else can you take away from the first one?
It is weird that in the past 6 years there have been some absolutely terrible Pac-10 teams (mostly from the state of Washington). That is not normally the case and as a whole the bottom of the Pac-12 is much stronger than the bottom of the MWC.
He's referring to his level of concern regarding playing them.
That’s what I got out of it. Utah will be favored to win against CO and WS by similar margins to Wyoming, New Mexico, and UNLV – Not saying they are comparable on a competitive level (Which is another argument altogether – One that I think we would come to different conclusions on) – Just saying the level of concern is the same, because an upset is an upset in either case, and you can’t assume a win with anyone.
Washington
Although it is true that Washington has suffered through a historically tough stretch for our program this last decade , Washington is historically one the the powers is the conference. The Huskies have won the third highest number of conference titles behind only USC and UCLA, has won the third highest number of Rose Bowls behind only USC and Ohio State, has won an Orange Bowl, and has won a National Championship. To lump us in with bottom feeder conference or any MWC school is stupidity. We are not back to our previous level, but we are on the way back, and will be at that level again soon. Just two years after a horrendous 0-12 season, we finished third in the conference last year. We are 7 and 1 in our last 8 games, including 5 straight conference wins, and a win over Nebraska in the Holiday Bowl. We have an elite level offense. Once our defense, which has very few upperclassmen, matures, we will be a very touch team to deal with. It is only a matter of time before we are once again the dominate program that we are supposed to be. Plus, once Oregon is put on probation and Chip Kelly is fired, it is only a matter of time before they are once again the doormats that they are supposed to be and have historically been. As a Husky fan, I had to get the jib in on those damn quakes.
Sorry, but history means jack in the current time.
It doesn’t matter what you did over a decade ago. Congrats. Guess what, about that same time Colorado was a national power as well. You know what that means right now.
Diddly Squat.
You may not be equal to the middle or bottom of the MWC, but I would say the top of the MWC is equal to or better than Washington has been lately. We don’t know what to make of Washington this year. Sark may have you guys on the rise, but lately you guys have been bottom feeders of the Pac-12.
I’m happy for you that you have the third highest number of Rose Bowls, and that you have won an Orange Bowl, and a National Championship. In all honestly I even envy that a bit as a Ute. It’s a great history to be proud of. But it also means squat right now.
Keep saying such things.
You’ll find out.
Ducks GOOOOD. Fuskies BAAAAAD.
by BigGreenWreckingMachine on Sep 29, 2011 11:00 AM MDT up reply actions
Which part don't you agree with
That history over a decade old doesn’t have anything to do with current, or that over the past 3-4 years Utah, TCU, BYU, and Air Force have been just as good, if not better than Washington? Or if you want to go off of the Current MWC you would make that TCU/Boise State.
I don't care about the rest.
I’m saying the past doesn’t matter in a way you don’t understand: It doesn’t matter how “down” a team is in the Pac, it only matters how they play on a given day. PacX history is absolutely riddled with upsets of the haves by the have-nots. I would suggest you view looking at schedules and inking in victories as a part of your past. The whole premise that one can equate UNM with WSU or OSU is ludicrous, and the whole idea that UW’s legacy is irrelevant is laughable. They are spending more on their stadium renovation than your entire athletic budget for the next few years. That doesn’t just happen in a vacuum. They also have continued to bring in strong recruiting classes year after year despite being in turmoil. There’s also a reason for that, and “tradition” is very much part of it. You need to understand that there’s more of a difference between the MWC and a BCSAQ conference than a guaranteed BCS berth and more TV dollars. Even our “bottom feeders” have more resources than all or most top non-AQ teams, and because of that a drifting ship can turn itself around in a quick hurry.
Ducks GOOOOD. Fuskies BAAAAAD.
by BigGreenWreckingMachine on Sep 29, 2011 12:52 PM MDT up reply actions
"I don’t really see much of a difference between the MW’s bottom teams and the PAC’s bottom teams."
(He’ll find out.)
Andy Wooldridge, andy_wooldridge@yahoo.com
BuildingTheDam.Com
Go Beavs!
That is absurd.
If you think WSU at its worst (the past 2 years) was ever as bad as Wyoming or UNM or the others, you are completely deluded. And simply because 3 top-10 teams in a row beat the tar out of UA doesn’t mean you have anything approaching an easy win. Not one of those teams you mentioned could beat WSU or OSU on anything approaching a regular basis, As a matter of fact, I think you’re in for a nasty surprise from the Whelps this Saturday.
Ducks GOOOOD. Fuskies BAAAAAD.
by BigGreenWreckingMachine on Sep 28, 2011 6:46 PM MDT up reply actions
Hard to count the USC game as a "throwaway" game unless you don't care about actually winning the south
Making the CCG if USC wins the south would be nice, but it certianly wouldn’t make you the south champs and wouldn’t really be something to be that proud of.
If you take USC’s spot and then beat Stanford or Oregon, well you could be proud of that.
It certainly would mean we won the south...
Because we’d be considered the official south champions in every record book.
Look at it this way...
No one doubts Florida’s ’08 championship, even though Utah finished undefeated and with a better record.
If people have no problem accepting the Gators’ claim to a championship, when Utah was automatically eliminated from ever playing in the BCS title game solely because of conference affiliation, I think they can suck it up and get over Utah getting into the Pac-12 championship game, even if SC finishes tied with them or with a better overall record.
I'm just saying you can't really claim to have "won" the south
If you finish with a worse record and make it into the championship game because USC is DQ’d for something that happened 5 years ago.
The national championship issue is quite different, involving a lot of different factors.
If USC wins the south but can’t play in the CCG they will definitely count it in their record books as being the south division champions, as they should.
Yeah, we really can...
And you just proved why we could in your post. It doesn’t matter what the records indicate, if we’re selected to represent the Pac-12 South in the title game, we are officially Pac-12 South champions. It’s no different than when Florida and Oklahoma, who finished with worse overall records than Utah, were selected to play for the national championship.
You can try to spin it all you want, but in the end, the Utes were disqualified from having any chance of winning the title that year – even if they went 13-0 to Florida’s 13-1 and Oklahoma’s 12-2.
Ignore it, dismiss it – but it’s all the same. Florida is technically considered the champion, even though Utah finished with a better record. They’re technically considered the champion because the rules state they’re the champion.
Just as if Utah wins the Pac-12 South, even if they finish with a worse record than USC, they’ll still be called the Pac-12 South champions. Why? Because the rules say they are. You might not like it if it happens, but you’ll just have to live with it.
And I’ll have no problem accepting it if it happens because I sat through the two greatest seasons in Utah football history and watched as my program was disqualified, not because they broke NCAA rules mind you, from playing in the national championship game solely because they weren’t a BCS program.
I’ve accepted that and moved on and realized no, in ’04 and ’08, the Utes were not national champions.
You’ll have to do the same too if that happens here.
by JazzyUte on Sep 28, 2011 2:56 PM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
If you want to claim to be the champions after losing to another team in your division which finishes with a better conference record than you, that's your choice
But think that is pretty weak and I would never claim that if I was in your situation.
In that situation you would not be “selected” to play in the CCG, you would be there representing the south division as its second place team because the first place team got disqualified.
I really do not care about whatever happened to Utah in ’08 or ’04. That is a completely different situation with a ton of different factors going into it. The champions of the Pac-12 divisions are the teams which finish with the best conference record in each division. Being disqualified from post season play has nothing at all to do with it.
Interestingly enough, in that situation Utah could win the Pac-12 without even winning their own division.
I know you don't care about what happened to us in '04 and '08...
I do, though. I have for many years. It’s of no issue to you because it didn’t involve your team.
But what I do know is that we watched our Utes play a perfect season in both years and both years, had to accept that they were disqualified from playing in the national championship. That might not be a big deal to you. That might be irrelevant to you. It isn’t to me. Florida was selected to play in the national championship game – a game Utah had no chance of playing in, regardless of what they did.
As a fan who saw that happen twice in ‘04 and ’08, I don’t think I’d have a problem accepting a spot in the Pac-12 title game, even if SC finished with a better record.
Just as I’m sure Florida fans had no problem accepting their national championship, even though Utah finished with a better record. If you don’t like it, fine. But frankly, I don’t really care what you think – just as I’m sure Gator fans don’t care what I think.
Again, you might dismiss that comparison, but it is a legitimate comparison.
I'm not going to argue about what happened in '08 with you, it isn't relevant to this discussion.
In those years there was an established method for choosing who played in the MNC and Utah was not selected.
In the Pac-12 south, the champion is the team with the best conference record. If the champion cannot represent the division in the CCG, then the second place team will take their place. The second place team does not become the division champion just because they play in the CCG.
It is perfectly relevant...
Utah was disqualified from playing in the national championship in ’08. They had a better record than Florida. Florida was named the national champion.
They’re considered the national champion, even though Utah finished with a better record.
The difference is that the method for determining a champion in each case is different
In the Pac-12 south it is the team that finishes with a better conference record.
For the BCS champ, it is the team that is selected by the BCS formula to play in and win the BCS championship game. Overall record actually has nothing to do with it. Once you make the MNC and win it you are a national champion no matter what your record is compared to other teams.
If you want to claim that Utah should have been in the game and deserves to be considered champions because the BCS is total BS that’s fine by me and I might even agree with you, but these are different situations.
You're absolutely right...
Except when dealing with a team that is disqualified from playing in the Pac-12 title game.
Perhaps if USC didn't cheat, you would have an argument.
Your argument is as if you were playing 8-ball pool, and you sunk the 8-ball out of turn. Even though you might have had a 4 ball lead, you violated the rules, and you lost.
End of story.
No one on the current USC team has cheated, aside from that this argument doesn't really follow. Those are the rules of the game.
I am arguing that the rules of the game say the team with the best conference record is the champ.
The rules say that USC is ineligible.
…and does USC manage to have the program it currently has in 2011 if they don’t cheat. All of this has a snowball effect.
So I don’t get your point. They cheated, they suffer the consequences.
No one should feel bad for cheaters.
Agreed.
They aren’t ineligible from being the south division champions though, just from representing the south division in the CCG.
That depends on how you look at it.
The Pac-12 ruled that USC could not participate in the championship game. I’m following that logic to determine that since they can’t participate, and the champions of each division are the participants, then if follows that USC by rule cannot win the division.
You’re point of view is that they can’t participate but they can still be champion. I understand where you come by that idea, I don’t agree, but I see your point. I guess it depends on how the Pac-12 brass rules it. Unfortunately we don’t as far as I know have a transcript on their ruling on the matter.
The champions of each division are not the by definition the team that plays in the CCG.
I agree that it is unfortunate we don’t have a copy of their bylaws or ruling.
The champions of each division are not the by definition the team that plays in the CCG.
The Pac-12’s website says this:
“The Pac-12 Football Championship Game will feature the North Division Champion against the South Division Champion. The Divisional Champions will be determined based on record in all Conference games (both divisional and cross-divisional).”
So, actually it kind of is in a way. Like I said, it depends on the Pac-12’s ruling vis-a-vis USC’s eligibility. The ruling could be that since they are under NCAA sanctions they can’t be the champion of the south division, and therefore cannot represent the south in the championship game. It could also be that they can be the champion of the south but are banned from the championship game and therefore the runner up takes their place. We don’t know because we don’t have the transcript.
I guess we’ll find out at the end of the year if this scenario actually plays out. (unlikely)
USC cheated
USC is punished. It doesn’t matter what players were involved, USC cheated.
by JoeBountiful on Sep 28, 2011 4:41 PM MDT up reply actions
And they got their just deserts
Their punishment did not include being barred from being the Pac-12 south champions. Their punishment was being prevented from playing in any post season games.
I can't help but think that this is a meaningless discussion
Not just because it appears that we are simply parsing words and agonizing over semantics…but also because I don’t think USC is going to finish with the best conference record in the south division.
by kadoogan on Sep 28, 2011 7:15 PM MDT up reply actions 2 recs
The biggest difference
is that you never played Florida, so direct comparisons were impossible. If USC manages to finish with a better record (I don’t think they will so this whole conversation is probably pointless), after beating you, and playing both Stanford and Oregon when you missed them, then yes they are going to be considered better the better team.
My bad - please disregard
I didn’t realize this topic had already been discussed in the depth it had (I really need to learn to scroll all the way down).
I'm calling bullshit
You absolutely would claim it if you were in the position.
Let's see, I'm guessing you're 21, 22 years-old?
Suffer through a few more years of disappointment, frustration and betrayal…you’ll be amazed at the things you’ll claim to make yourself feel better
/looks at the University of Utah 2008 Kadoogan Voter’s Poll National Champions banner hanging in den
Haha, you're right about the age.
I have hopes that I’ll be able to stick to my principles.
I’ve got a good start, I don’t claim that UW is the conference champion in basketball when we win the tournament every other year. The regular season means more to me and that’s what I count. Some people choose the tournament, most just take both, ignoring the fact that it doesn’t make any sense to claim it whenever you win either one.
You would be the south rep
not the south champ.
Hope this helps.
I miss *REAL* Four Loko
by B-Lot tailgater on Sep 28, 2011 3:14 PM MDT up reply actions
And we'd still be considered Pac-12 South champions...
Because SC is disqualified. They don’t count. They’re not in this equation. Had the Pac-10 never expanded and the Trojans still had the same sanctions levied against them, if they finished first and undefeated, while Oregon or Stanford finished second, with one conference loss, the Ducks or Cardinals would still be considered Pac-10 champions.
The only way that wouldn’t work is if the championship was taken away retroactively and not prior to the season. SC lost its rights to play for or win the conference championship for two years. They cannot claim a title. That means, ultimately, we kind of act like they don’t exist this year.
That is not true at all.
They were banned from postseason play, not from winning the confernce title. If they had won it last year they would still have been the Pac-10 champs and no self respecting Pac-10 fanbase would have claimed otherwise.
You're right...
I was wrong about SC being banned from winning the conference in that scenario.
However, now they are banned from winning the conference because they can’t really play for the Pac-12 title game.
They could claim a division championship, but Utah would be the true champion because they’re disqualified from representing the division in the conference championship as a champion.
It’d be no different than the Miss American pageant. When Vanessa Williams was forced to relinquish the crown, disqualifying her from being Miss America, we accepted the runner-up as the Miss America – even though she wasn’t ‘elected’.
Yes, USC cannot be Pac-12 champs this year.
Why do you keep saying “Utah would be the true champion?” Utah would not be the true champion, they would just represent the south in the CCG. USC would be the “true” south division champion, they just wouldn’t be able to play in the CCG.
Utah COULD be the Pac-12 champions without being south division champions.
They would be the Pac-12 South champion, tho...
This is what you’re not getting. If Utah finishes tied with the Trojans, or a game behind, they will still be considered the division champions by the record books. Just as Suzette Charles is considered Miss America, even though she didn’t actually win the contest.
Does that mean SC can’t claim the South champion? Of course not – but Utah would be the true one because they would be representing the South in the Pac-12 title game – not SC.
Yes, SC would have a better record and a better claim to the division. But you give that up when you’re disqualified from the title game.
I think this is more about semantics.
I think he’s saying that the winners of either north or south would not be considered “champions”, only the winner of the Championship game will be considered champions.
I disagree though. At the NFL level you have division champs, conference champs and Super Bowl Champs. So I have no problem with teams calling themselves North/South Champs, and even having a banner in the stadium showing the years they won the North or South.
by Mind of no mind on Sep 28, 2011 3:32 PM MDT up reply actions
That's not what I'm saying.
I’m saying the team that finishes with the best conference record in the South is the division championship, which is not neccesarily the same team that will represent the south in the conference championship game.
No, I mean what B-Lot tailgater is saying about being the Rep, not champion.
I could be wrong though, it’s just how it came accross to me.
by Mind of no mind on Sep 28, 2011 3:36 PM MDT up reply actions
They can claim being the division champion...
But so can Utah, because they would be acting as the division champion in this scenario.
I don't see how you could possibly claim that
If every team in the south other than Utah was disqualified, and they went 0-9 in conference but still represented the south in the Pac-12 championship game would you still calim that they were the south champions?
Sure...
I’ll concede that if every Pac-12 South team was disqualified, except Utah, and won the division with an 0-9 record, it would be hard to accept the title of Pac-12 South champs.
But you still would???
The difference we have is obvious.
You are mistakenly defining the Pac-12 south division champions as the south divisions representative in the CCG.
The reality is that the Pac-12 south division champion is the team that finishes with the best conference record. That team is then awarded, by the virtue of their championship, the opportunity of playing in the CCG. If the champion cannot accept that opportunity because they are banned from post season play, the Pac-12 will extend the opportunity to the second place south division team. The division title does not change hands along with the CCG invite.
I'm not mistakenly doing anything...
History would indicate the Utes would have a claim to the Pac-12 South title. That’s all that matters.
What history? How about the rules of the conference?
I’m sure that the announcers for the CCG would say “Here’s the Pac-12 title game, featuring the Pac-12 north champion cardinal and the second place south division team, Utah, here because USC is disqualified from post season play”
Why do you think that the Pac-12 south representative is also considered the Pac-12 south champion? Just because that is normally the case doesn’t mean it is how things work.
Yup...
Because the team ahead of them is ineligible. Therefore, like it does in every damn situation from Miss America to elected officials – the winner goes to the runner-up.
How about this scenario.
There is one cookie left. You and your friend play rock paper siccsors for it and he wins. He then realizes it is peanut butter and he is allergic to peanuts. You then get the cookie because he was disqualified from eating it. Did you win the cookie?
The situation would be more like this...
There is one cookie left. You’re friend cannot have the cookie because he is being punished for stealing a cookie earlier in the day. You play him in rock paper scissors and lose…you still get the cookie because he couldn’t have it no matter what happened.
Ineligible
in·el·i·gi·ble/inˈelijəbəl/
Adjective: Not eligible; legally or officially unable to be considered for a position or benefit.
But he still won the game!
In this case the game = the south division. And cookie = CCG. I’m glad we agree on this.
It DOESN'T matter because the rules of the game prevent him from winning!
USC is preemtively ineligible of winning any championship. They may as well not even be playing, because their results don’t matter except in the win loss category of their opponent.
The rules of Rock Paper Scissors didn't prevent him from winning
Just, after he won, he couldn’t get the prize for winning so it went to the second place contestant.
They are unable to be considered for the CCG
They can still win the south title.
Representing the south in the CCG does not equate to being the south champions.
UW11...
…why don’t we see this fire over at the DawgPound. WOOF
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
haha, I don't post much when I agree with things
See my 150 post discussion with KirkD over the stadium renovation.
by UW11Bowdown on Sep 29, 2011 12:56 PM MDT up reply actions
If USC can claim a 2003 National Championship,
then I have no problem with Utah claiming the Pac 12 South in this situation.
by Mind of no mind on Sep 28, 2011 3:27 PM MDT up reply actions
How is that at all similar?
They were voted the champions by the AP poll. If Utah finishes with a worse record then USC who will be claiming that Utah won the south? Everyone will say, as they should, “USC won the south, but since they were DQ’d Utah played in the CCG”
The BCS championship game was the agreed upon method of determining a NC in college football.
But USC won a poll of voters who named them champions instead, and USC ran with it. But I have no problem with USC hanging a banner, the same way I’d have no problem with Utah doing the same.
by Mind of no mind on Sep 28, 2011 3:38 PM MDT up reply actions
That was the agreed upon method for the Coaches Poll to decide a NC
There is a difference. See my explination above for why the situations are completely different.
I was on-board until with the logic until this comment
Although I disagreed with Bowtown, I at least followed his logic until he flipped on this point of controversy. If you argue that Utah can’t be the Pac-12 South champs (Assuming Utah finishes 2nd and USC finishes first), then of course USC can’t claim to be the 2003 national champs. That is the natural conclusion of the line of thought argued in this thread.
Why not?
They never claimed to be the BCS national champions, they claimed to be the AP national champions. There is a difference there.
Anyway, this is a ridiculous debate...
A) Utah might not even represent the South in the Pac-12 title game. It could be ASU.
B) Utah might represent the South in the Pac-12 title game and do it with a better record than SC.
C) Utah might represent the South in the Pac-12 title game, do it with a worse record than SC, win the Pac-12 title and no one is going to give a flying fuck.
My original point in all this was that the SC game wasn’t as important to Utah’s chances of playing for the conference championship as some other games on the schedule.
Sure, I think every Ute fan would love to win the division without doing it by default, but ultimately, if that’s the path to the Pac-12 title game, we’ll all take it.
So yes, the SC game was a throwaway game in the sense that the Utes’ season didn’t end with a loss. They can still claim a Pac-12 title and I doubt anyone here would turn down an offer to the Pac-12 title game, even if they finished a game behind the Trojans.
So just to finish this.
What is your definition of a Pac-12 division winner?
That's the entire argument
See comments 1-50 above. Nothing more to add other than two people disagreeing and using comparisons, then the other person running with the flawed logic of those comparisons, until the comparisons themselves become the topic of argument.
You are both right – In your respective fields of thought. I just happen to ultimately agree with Jazzy – If pressed to vote on it.
It is very sad that you all care more about who plays in the CCG then who has a better confernce record.
I would still like to hear JazzyUte’s answer to my question though.
Did you follow my reasoning for why they are irrelevant?
The BCS had an agreed upon formula for choosing who played in the MNC. The Pac-12 has an agreed upon formula for choosing who plays in the CCG. Florida and Oklahoma came out on top of the BCS (rightly or wrongly) and they were both able to play in the game so they did. In this situation USC would come out on top in the formula for the CCG, unfortunately, they are disqualified, so the second place team, Utah, would then be invited to the CCG.
Exactly...
And Utah was disqualified from that agreed upon formula – just as SC is disqualified from the agreed upon formula for who plays in the Pac-12 title game this year.
Your definition of disqualified is entirely made up though.
You may be correct to feel that way, but they weren’t actually disqualified from the BCS. USC is actually disqualified from the CCG.
They actually were disqualified...
They had no chance, once the BCS computer rankings selected Oklahoma and Florida to play in the title game, to win a championship – even though they finished with a better overall record.
They were disqualified in December of ’08 when the final BCS standings came out – without losing an actual game.
I don't want to get into this argument with you.
You can agree that they were eligible for the BCS championship game right? Just cause they didn’t make it doesn’t mean they were disqualified.
Of course it does...
They were disqualified from winning the national championship. There was absolutely no way Utah could claim the BCS national championship once the final BCS standings were released.
It didn’t matter what they did or who they beat or what record they finished, they were absolutely, unequivocally ineligible for the BCS title game.
Obviously for different reasons than SC is disqualified from the Pac-12 title – but being disqualified is being disqualified.
Utah might have finished with a better record and tied with the same wins as Florida, but there was no way they could ever claim to be national champions. They didn’t win it. It’s in the record books that Florida won that championship.
Sigh... Yes, they were disqualified from playing in that game once the BCS standings came out
But that really isn’t the same situation at all. A similar situation would be if Utah had been chosen for the game, but then was disqualified for another reason.
No way...
Because, in this scenario, SC wouldn’t be disqualified from playing in the Pac-12 championship AFTER receiving the bid – instead, it would have come BEFORE.
Another difference we are apparently having.
I don’t think the Pac-12 takes into account eligibility in its division championship formula. That comes afterward, once they have the winners of the divisions, they see if they are eligible for the CCG and if so then they invite them. Are the Pac-12 bylaws online anywhere so we can check this?
No Utah comes out on top in this situation not USC
To me the difference you and Jazzy are having is that you stop one step sooner than Jazzy to declare your South Champion.
The Pac-12 has an agreed upon formula for choosing who plays in the CCG, including considering sanctions. So in this situation USC would not come out on top Utah would. The disqualification is part of the agreed upon formula.
by JoeBountiful on Sep 28, 2011 4:54 PM MDT up reply actions
Even if that were the case, why would that mean that Utah could claim to be the south division champs?
As B-Lot said above, you would most certiantly be the legitamite south division representative, that does not make you the south division champion.
The team that plays in the CCG?
Alrighty then, there’s no way that we will ever come to an agreement on this. I honestly don’t see how you could possibly claim to have won a divsion that you came in second in.
I wish we had the Pac-12 bylaws around, because I’m pretty sure they would solve this problem for us.
Who was president of the United States January 20, 2001–January 20, 2005?
Because it doesn’t matter who got the most votes. The history books all show George Bush was president from that time period in spite of having fewer votes than Al Gore.
Do you have difficulty seeing how George Bush could claim to be president in spite of coming in second in votes?
Well that would be due to our messed up electoral college system.
It isn’t like Gore got more votes and was then disqualified, Bush won because that’s how the system was set up.
Do you know why I care more about who plays in the CCG than who has the better record?
Because you get to play in the freaking CCG!
Shit, I’d happily have three goddamn teams ahead of me be ineligible so I could get the CCG and possibly the Rose Bowl.
I don't think anyone would turn down that deal.
I meant it more in that people seemed to think making the CCG was more important in determining a champion than who had a better conference record.
My definition...
The winner of a Pac-12 division is the ELIGIBLE team with the highest overall conference record, or the team who tied for the top spot and won through tiebreaker scenarios. In my view if you’re barred from post season play, ie ineligible to compete in a championship or bowl game you are therefore inherently ineligible to win a championship of any type regardless of your or any other teams record.
Why? Simple, the conference is given the authority to define it’s conference championship rules in the NCAA by-laws. These are contingent on them being aligned with NCAA guidelines. If a team is under NCAA sanction ruling them ineligible for post season play, they are therefore also ineligible to be awarded a championship of any type.
Moot.
It only matters what the P12 defines as a division winner.
Ducks GOOOOD. Fuskies BAAAAAD.
by BigGreenWreckingMachine on Sep 28, 2011 6:48 PM MDT up reply actions
Well, that and what the media/fans think.
If this situation were to play out I’m guessing that most Pac-12 fans would say that USC won the south but was ineligible so Utah got to play in the CCG.
What the media and fans think is meaningless.
Ducks GOOOOD. Fuskies BAAAAAD.
by BigGreenWreckingMachine on Sep 29, 2011 11:01 AM MDT up reply actions
haha, ok then...
I’m pretty sure that’s the only thing I really care about. If you win a trophy but everyone thinks it is BS, is that good enough for you? Luckily the fans and media will normally agree with the P12 definition, but in cases where they don’t I’d rather have the fans behind me then the conference.
I think I can speak for all BYU fans
and says “YES” (speaking of 1984 NC they are SO proud of, but fans and media think it’s BS)
Haha, you mean our national championship?
Yeah, I’d rather have the rest of the country on my side than some stupid poll.
So if I'm following this thread correctly...UW11 thinks it's alright to get a foot up by cheating.
That’s pretty much the summary.
Where did I ever say that?
I agree that USC shouldn’t be able to play in the CCG. All I’m saying is that you can’t claim to be the south champions because they aren’t ineligible from being the south champs, they are ineligible for the CCG.
Sure, and then they would be able to say they were AP national champs as well.
I think you’re right that we’re getting a bit into semantics. But I would say that the team with the best record is the champ, and it is semantics to just call the representative in the CCG the champ instead.
I follow what you're saying...
…but I’m not going to “feel bad” if Utah and USC finish in a virtual tie for the Pac-12 South, as you had commented on earlier.
Sure, the current group had no part of the previous’ cheating…but you can’t account for the uptick effect in exposure, the profile of the program, and how it still benefits them today.
USC may have the better record, but no one should feel they are the better team any more than a poker player with cards up his sleeve legitimately has the best hand.
Hm, I don't think USC succeded because they were cheating
They weren’t the ones paying Reggie Bush and it is debateable wheter or not they knew about it. Its not like you can just discount everything an entire program does after they are caught breaking the rules.
Way back in the day UW boosters paid our players, which certianly made us a better team, and has likely had an effect on our team being better today than if they hadn’t been paid. We had an advantage 50 years ago which somewhat helped us today, therefore whatever we do now doesn’t count?
This topic is done...
I don’t want to close the comments to this story, so please don’t make me. Drop it. Focus on the Washington-Utah game. You are a Washington fan, after all.
Why so harsh?
I was just replying to something that wasn’t even related to the actual discussion. I’ve certianly had some good discussions on this site the past few days, its not like I’m trolling or anything. How does civil discussion harm anything?
Because I've been trying to move this post beyond this topic for a bit now...
Downthread, I did a post about it – before the replies above. I don’t want to continue rehashing something that is not relevant to the point of this thread.
So, let’s just keep the focus on Washington-Utah. That’s all.
2000
This whole thread is giving me flash backs to the 2000 presidential election. Where the Supreme Court that cheating, does in fact, prosper.
Okay. We're done with this debate. Seriously...
I think we’re tempting fate here. Utah isn’t even in position at the moment to win the Pac-12 South. We’re debating about something that might not even happen. The game Saturday is what we should be focused on, not whether Utah should be considered Pac-12 South champions if USC finishes ahead of ’em in the standings.
I blame myself for getting into this debate. But I am going to end it here. NO MORE INELIGIBILITY TALK.
haha
Both fan bases are underestimating the other.
I follow both the Utes (I was in the Muss ‘04-’08) and the Huskies (born and raised in Seattle). Reading both teams message boards and blogs I’ve noticed neither side seems to be taking the other team very seriously. I think that’s a mistake and I hope the coaching staffs do not think that way. We have Doxastic comparing UW to UNLV, Wyoming etc. which is absurd, and on Bob Condotta’s blog, Huskies are crowing about how Utah has never seen an offense like Washington’s before. I think these teams are pretty even overall, and I think each side deserves a little bit more respect. It’s going to be tought game for both sides.
Utes won't play at Husky stadium until 2014
Since next year’s return trip is at Century Link, Utes won’t experience Husky Stadium until 2014, then we miss you the next cycle, so the next game at Husky Stadium after that is likely 2018. Crazy.
That is crazy, I didn't really realize that.
The games at Century Link will be fun too though. That place can definitely get loud.
I've noticed that a lot too.
No matter what the result of the game is, a lot of people are going to be in for a rude awakening this weekend.
by Mind of no mind on Sep 28, 2011 7:19 PM MDT up reply actions
Not sure I agree with that...
I think some fans, obviously, are a bit too optimistic. But on the whole, most seem reasonable. gng007 did a poll asking margin of victory and 5% of Ute fans said Utah wins by less than 10: http://www.blocku.com/2011/9/27/2453185/washington-vs-utah
I think we’re expecting a close game.
What I’ve seen, from reading Washington forums, is that some of their fans believe they’ll win if they do this or that. It’s not ‘could win’, but more a definitive statement. That I disagree with. Though, to be fair, some of their fans have, on Block U, predicted a close loss.
Basically, I’m thinking Utah wins because it’s a home game. If this were in Seattle, I’d be starting every comment with ‘could win if they…’
Well it completely depends on what they are saying.
If they are saying things like “UW will win if they hold Utah to under 20 points,” then that isn’t very ridiculous.
by UW11Bowdown on Sep 28, 2011 10:30 PM MDT up reply actions
Well obviously...
If Utah holds UW scoreless, I guarantee they’ll win.
But I think a good deal of Washington fans are going to be surprised. Reading the Seattle newspaper comments, they all seem to think Washington should win and maybe by a comfortable margin – not blowout, mind you, but not on the last play, either.
And just go look at gekko's preview of Utah for what I'm talking about...
http://www.uwdawgpound.com/2011/9/28/2456968/the-gekko-file-utah
He predicts Washington 44, Utah 28
Might happen. But I don’t think it’s Utes fans overlooking the Huskies here.
You know how many times Utah has lost by more than 10 points at home the last ten years? Twice. The teams to do that? BSU in ’06 and TCU in ’10.
What do they have in common? Both went undefeated, busted the BCS and finished ranked 5th and 2nd respectively.
Gekko Mojo is in for an eye-opening experience.
by Ute in DC on Sep 28, 2011 11:35 PM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
It's interesting.
Your defense has looked good against mediocre competition, while our offense has looked good against mediocre competition.
UW fans are really excited about our offense, to the point where I’m sure a lot of people don’t think anyone could hold us under 30 points. While we aren’t as confident about our defense, a lot of people don’t see anything special about your offense that we should be particularly worried about.
I don’t think many Utah fans know enough about our offense to know how good it is, and the same is probably true for UW fans and the Utah defense. I’m really excited to see how that battle goes on Saturday.
See this is why we think Washington is overconfident
UW fans are really excited about our offense, to the point where I’m sure a lot of people don’t think anyone could hold us under 30 points.
Washington has scored 30, 40, 38, and 31 points respectively. Those are good scores, but to extrapolate that no one could hold Washington below 30 is stretching credibility. One more great defensive play from California or Eastern freaking Washington, and someone would have already done that. And those are two teams who are average on defense.
I know, I'm just telling you how our fanbase is feeling.
Some UW fans are overconfident, just like some Utah fans are overconfident.
California is above average defensively, they have a pretty good front 7.
That being said, I’m thinking that we’ll put up 30+ on Saturday. Our offense is really good.
And while I'm thinking of it
How many Seattlites follow this site? I’m up in the Emerald City, there’s Seaute, Utah-UCLA Alum and at least one more.
Jazzy you my boi blue! but... this argument with uw11 is making me vomit blood right now!
I don’t know who is correct, I don’t care, lets just see some good football this weekend! and don’t worry about usc, AsssU took care of them last weekend and we’ll do our part and rage on them this weekend (I hope) so they won’t even be in the discussion for the best record in the south! BearDown!
Vegas line has shot up to -9.5 for the Utes
Looking like the money is really going for the Utes right now. I guess the wiseguys are more confident than I am.
First Quarter
I get the feeling that the start of this game is going to go a long way toward deciding it. If UW is able to come out and score early and often (a big “if”, I know), it puts us in a position to grind out a victory. I’m not sure if you guys quite have the firepower to come back from a big deficit (assuming we hang on to the ball). Conversely, if the Huskies don’t come out firing on all cylinders, you guys could really wear us down and gash us on the ground, setting up big play-action plays. As the pressure mounts in a hostile environment, that is where the danger of making mental mistakes and coughing the ball is more likely.
This is a game I have been looking forward to all season! Let both teams leave it all on the field and may the best team win!
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.
