What's new
By:

College Football Thread

LOL at UK (as if anyone gives a damn).

On a 3.5 favored spread went up 35-10 toward end of 1st half.

Now at end of 3rd we're trailing 38-35. My God..
 
I know it's one week and FSU didn't play yet but to me, based on the end of last season, what I saw this weekend, coaching, and schedules, I think Michigan, Ohio State, Alabama, Houston and Louisville to be the best five, most complete teams in the country. Clemson and maybe FSU round out the top 7. Four of those teams will be in the playoff. Not sure who else could get in. Washington? Doubtful to happen. LSU if they run the table? Very doubtful.
 
The only thing that can truly ease the pain of being beat by a team whose football program is 6 years old is watching Ole Miss crumble after having a huge lead on National TV.
 
A few of my take aways after Week 1:

-I'm probably going to be biased against Houston all season. They're super fun to watch, looked legit in Week 1 and most likely will run the table. That being said, as of right now their schedule looks like dog **** aside from Louisville in November and the AAC title game they play in will most likely not be against a very impressive opponent. I think it's a dangerous precedent to put a G5 school in the playoffs that played a hard game in Week 1 and doesn't get tested again for 2 months. When Utah looked like world beaters in 2004 I sure enjoyed the ride, but I had no illusions that they belonged in a championship game over the 3 other schools that finished the season undefeated. Maybe it's not fair to Houston, but the body of work just won't be there. Just my opinion, but I think the playoffs should be reserved for the teams that took the hardest path to get there. Houston's path is a cake walk.

-I really wasn't believing the Texas improvement hype in the preseason but after 1 game I'm ready to concede. That Freshman QB looks legit and Charlie Strong's mentality will only further imbed itself with that team after a big win vs ND.

-I watched very little of the BYU game but what I did watch, I was very surprised to see Taysom Hill look somewhat pedestrian. Again, small sample size but that didn't look like the Taysom I'm used to seeing. It will be very interesting to see how he looks against Utah. Maybe the multiple injuries have caught up with him physically (how could they not)?

-The Pac12 looked pretty unimpressive over all and they are flirting with going 3 straight years without having a team in the playoff. That's not good. Pac12 folks better keep their fingers crossed that one of those teams can run the table but it certainly doesn't look likely.
 
I am rooting for Houston, such a fun team, tons of play makers on offense and defense.
 
[MENTION=422]jazzman12[/MENTION] I made the same observation about Taysom. He looked slower and less explosive.
 
jazzman12 said:
A few of my take aways after Week 1:

-I'm probably going to be biased against Houston all season. They're super fun to watch, looked legit in Week 1 and most likely will run the table. That being said, as of right now their schedule looks like dog **** aside from Louisville in November and the AAC title game they play in will most likely not be against a very impressive opponent. I think it's a dangerous precedent to put a G5 school in the playoffs that played a hard game in Week 1 and doesn't get tested again for 2 months. When Utah looked like world beaters in 2004 I sure enjoyed the ride, but I had no illusions that they belonged in a championship game over the 3 other schools that finished the season undefeated. Maybe it's not fair to Houston, but the body of work just won't be there. Just my opinion, but I think the playoffs should be reserved for the teams that took the hardest path to get there. Houston's path is a cake walk.

-I really wasn't believing the Texas improvement hype in the preseason but after 1 game I'm ready to concede. That Freshman QB looks legit and Charlie Strong's mentality will only further imbed itself with that team after a big win vs ND.

-I watched very little of the BYU game but what I did watch, I was very surprised to see Taysom Hill look somewhat pedestrian. Again, small sample size but that didn't look like the Taysom I'm used to seeing. It will be very interesting to see how he looks against Utah. Maybe the multiple injuries have caught up with him physically (how could they not)?

-The Pac12 looked pretty unimpressive over all and they are flirting with going 3 straight years without having a team in the playoff. That's not good. Pac12 folks better keep their fingers crossed that one of those teams can run the table but it certainly doesn't look likely.
Click to expand...

bigb said:
[MENTION=422]jazzman12[/MENTION] I made the same observation about Taysom. He looked slower and less explosive.
Click to expand...

I'm with you both. He looked slower. I'm thinking though that it's due to the new system and he is thinking about every move he makes which is slowing him down.
I think if he just went after it he would get much of his speed back. I'm not necessarily thinking he should, but as he gets more comfortable with the plays and system he will speed up. I think it's mental. I don't think a linsfranc injury will slow a player down like that, but what do I know.
 
How about that FSU frosh QB, Francois. 419 yds against ole miss in his first game. Ridiculous arm, legit speed, willing to stand in and take a hit, would rather throw down the field than tuck and run. Looks like a star in the making.
 
seattlejazzfan said:
How about that FSU frosh QB, Francois. 419 yds against ole miss in his first game. Ridiculous arm, legit speed, willing to stand in and take a hit, would rather throw down the field than tuck and run. Looks like a star in the making.
Click to expand...

Nah Ole Miss just sucks ***. Bo Wallace is the Jay Cutler of college football.
 
Jazz Spazz said:
I'm with you both. He looked slower. I'm thinking though that it's due to the new system and he is thinking about every move he makes which is slowing him down.
I think if he just went after it he would get much of his speed back. I'm not necessarily thinking he should, but as he gets more comfortable with the plays and system he will speed up. I think it's mental. I don't think a linsfranc injury will slow a player down like that, but what do I know.
Click to expand...


Good points. I'm sure Taysom will start to play "faster" within that system once the season rolls on. That's just one of the many reasons I'm glad to be getting BYU in week 2. It's probably a combination of the new slowed down system and at least a little wear and tear from what his body has gone through. I'm really interested to see how BYU's more conventional offense holds up against Utah. Turnovers have absolutely killed them in recent rivalry history and you'd have to think that slowing it down and not being obsessed with the "go fast, go hard" mentality will help them. Under Whitt, Utah has been very good vs the teams that want to line up and slug it out. Performances against teams like Stanford and USC have shown us that. Then again, we've seen 1 game of Ty Detmer running an offense. For all we know, Taysom could line up in the shotgun exclusively against Utah and try to run up tempo, but I doubt it.

I caught a partial interview on DJ & PK this morning with a former BYU player who was on the Cotton Bowl team. Didn't catch who it was, but he had some thoughts that to me were very telling and I'm interested to hear a BYU fans opinion on it. He talked about his biggest perceived difference with BYU now that Sitake is in charge and the differences that it will make in the rivalry going forward. He said that you can just tell that this team now believes they can compete in this game and they "want" it more than before. It's also something I've heard many BYU fans reference since the hiring. I laugh at that notion from the simple stand point that it's not as if players under Bronco didn't "want" to beat Utah. I know many BYU fans have a problem with how Bronco treated that game like any other, but I personally have never watched a Utah-BYU game in which the BYU players didn't act like they wanted it. Now that Sitake is here, it's magically as if BYU was never up for a Utah game in the past 12 years which I think couldn't be further from the truth. If that's the case, did BYU players not "want" to beat Utah during Lavell's last 10 years when the game was basically a toss up each year? Do we honestly believe that wanting to beat Utah during this losing streak wasn't something that the team felt strongly about? I actually think that the reason so many of the games have been close battles is the fact that BYU has actually wanted it very badly and has played pretty determined. Otherwise, I think you'd see Utah win all of those games by 2+ scores.

I feel like that's the problem with the mentality of a large segment of BYU fans and apparently even some of their players. When discussing what's gone wrong in the rivalry, it's never brought up that Utah has created a gap between themselves and BYU in talent and depth during the last 20+ years. It always boils down to goofy excuses about how BYU hasn't wanted it as bad, that Utah has gotten all the lucky breaks, that Utah's DB's are allowed to manhandle BYU receivers, etc. I have no problem admitting that there simply was a time when BYU was flat-out better than Utah. I'm not specifically pointing to any of you in here, but it does seem like the average BYU fan will never allow themselves to admit that in the last 2 decades of this rivalry, Utah has simply been the better team.
 
jazzman12 said:
Good points. I'm sure Taysom will start to play "faster" within that system once the season rolls on. That's just one of the many reasons I'm glad to be getting BYU in week 2. It's probably a combination of the new slowed down system and at least a little wear and tear from what his body has gone through. I'm really interested to see how BYU's more conventional offense holds up against Utah. Turnovers have absolutely killed them in recent rivalry history and you'd have to think that slowing it down and not being obsessed with the "go fast, go hard" mentality will help them. Under Whitt, Utah has been very good vs the teams that want to line up and slug it out. Performances against teams like Stanford and USC have shown us that. Then again, we've seen 1 game of Ty Detmer running an offense. For all we know, Taysom could line up in the shotgun exclusively against Utah and try to run up tempo, but I doubt it.

I caught a partial interview on DJ & PK this morning with a former BYU player who was on the Cotton Bowl team. Didn't catch who it was, but he had some thoughts that to me were very telling and I'm interested to hear a BYU fans opinion on it. He talked about his biggest perceived difference with BYU now that Sitake is in charge and the differences that it will make in the rivalry going forward. He said that you can just tell that this team now believes they can compete in this game and they "want" it more than before. It's also something I've heard many BYU fans reference since the hiring. I laugh at that notion from the simple stand point that it's not as if players under Bronco didn't "want" to beat Utah. I know many BYU fans have a problem with how Bronco treated that game like any other, but I personally have never watched a Utah-BYU game in which the BYU players didn't act like they wanted it. Now that Sitake is here, it's magically as if BYU was never up for a Utah game in the past 12 years which I think couldn't be further from the truth. If that's the case, did BYU players not "want" to beat Utah during Lavell's last 10 years when the game was basically a toss up each year? Do we honestly believe that wanting to beat Utah during this losing streak wasn't something that the team felt strongly about? I actually think that the reason so many of the games have been close battles is the fact that BYU has actually wanted it very badly and has played pretty determined. Otherwise, I think you'd see Utah win all of those games by 2+ scores.

I feel like that's the problem with the mentality of a large segment of BYU fans and apparently even some of their players. When discussing what's gone wrong in the rivalry, it's never brought up that Utah has created a gap between themselves and BYU in talent and depth during the last 20+ years. It always boils down to goofy excuses about how BYU hasn't wanted it as bad, that Utah has gotten all the lucky breaks, that Utah's DB's are allowed to manhandle BYU receivers, etc. I have no problem admitting that there simply was a time when BYU was flat-out better than Utah. I'm not specifically pointing to any of you in here, but it does seem like the average BYU fan will never allow themselves to admit that in the last 2 decades of this rivalry, Utah has simply been the better team.
Click to expand...

I didn't hear the interview, so I'll respond based on how you framed it.

I also think the players wanted it, not sure I can say the same for the coaches as a whole. I think they wanted it but were saying something different and were not united, imo. The coaches were not even there last year, they had their bags packed and were getting ready for Richmond.

I agree that for the most part Utah has had more elite players, and have had more athleticism as well as more depth. I do think a couple of the years BYU may have been slightly better than the U especially in skilled players and I did think they should have won. I think though that preparation and other factors as well as the fact that anything can happen on the field came into play. To sum up, even if I think BYU had the better team once or twice, Utah won and by definition won that argument. It's hard to say the better team lost on the field, and even if the Y was better those times it wouldn't have been enough to even make that argument after the fact. The facts are that the U has sent more players to the NFL over that span, and they have won way more head to head games. While it sucks for me to say as a Y fan, it is what it is.

I don't know that BYU players want it more. Maybe they do because it's been so long. I think the biggest difference is that they can say that they want it real bad now instead of pretending they don't want it more than another game.

Referencing that radio program, before that interview you heard, they were talking about how Bronco pushed the religion aspect of things with recruits parents to the point that it was inferred that for your kid to be a good Mormon and to still go on a mission and all that, the kid should go to BYU and the rates of other kids that plan on going on a mission that change their mind at other schools is much higher than BYU. That sort of talk rubbed (especially UofU) other coaches the wrong way, which if true is understandable.

Now that that aspect of things is gone (Bronco), the negative vibe to the rivalry appears to be dying down. Does that sound fair or right in assessment?
 
Jazz Spazz said:
I didn't hear the interview, so I'll respond based on how you framed it.

I also think the players wanted it, not sure I can say the same for the coaches as a whole. I think they wanted it but were saying something different and were not united, imo. The coaches were not even there last year, they had their bags packed and were getting ready for Richmond.

I agree that for the most part Utah has had more elite players, and have had more athleticism as well as more depth. I do think a couple of the years BYU may have been slightly better than the U especially in skilled players and I did think they should have won. I think though that preparation and other factors as well as the fact that anything can happen on the field came into play. To sum up, even if I think BYU had the better team once or twice, Utah won and by definition won that argument. It's hard to say the better team lost on the field, and even if the Y was better those times it wouldn't have been enough to even make that argument after the fact. The facts are that the U has sent more players to the NFL over that span, and they have won way more head to head games. While it sucks for me to say as a Y fan, it is what it is.

I don't know that BYU players want it more. Maybe they do because it's been so long. I think the biggest difference is that they can say that they want it real bad now instead of pretending they don't want it more than another game.

Referencing that radio program, before that interview you heard, they were talking about how Bronco pushed the religion aspect of things with recruits parents to the point that it was inferred that for your kid to be a good Mormon and to still go on a mission and all that, the kid should go to BYU and the rates of other kids that plan on going on a mission that change their mind at other schools is much higher than BYU. That sort of talk rubbed (especially UofU) other coaches the wrong way, which if true is understandable.

Now that that aspect of things is gone (Bronco), the negative vibe to the rivalry appears to be dying down. Does that sound fair or right in assessment?
Click to expand...

For the most part, I think that is a very fair assessment and if most BYU fans shared your outlook, the rhetoric between fans would die down greatly. That being said, there's plenty of rhetoric coming from Utah fans, but to be fair, I think it's a group of people that just see excuses trotted out every year instead of just giving credit where credit is due and there is some frustration born out of that.

While the coaches are much more friendly with Bronco gone, I'm not really buying the idea that this is turning into a civil rivalry. The key to that is how the fans treat each other and I don't see that changing any time soon. That being said, maybe we should just suck it up and embrace the hate. I don't think Michigan and Ohio State are wrapped up in making their rivalry more peaceful.
 
jazzman12 said:
-The Pac12 looked pretty unimpressive over all and they are flirting with going 3 straight years without having a team in the playoff. That's not good. Pac12 folks better keep their fingers crossed that one of those teams can run the table but it certainly doesn't look likely.
Click to expand...

This is only the third year of the CFP and Oregon made it in year one, and won a semi final game.

I agree PAC 12 didn't look good, but I don't see a reason to start assuming we won't put a team in the playoffs. Stanford has the best chance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top