Official UofU homer thread

[Scat]

I'll admit I'm a bit of a homer. However you yourself said the refs were bad. IMO they gave BYU more than they took from them. Those plays I mentioned absolutely changed the game. And those 2 targeting fouls were blatant. The 2nd one deserves a long suspension no question he hit him in the head with his head. The first one was also contact with a defenseless players head, it doesn't matter if he used his helmet he hit him in the head and was a clear targeting foul. BYU would lose 20 seconds off of the clock if they wind the clock with 40 seconds left in the game, and also would not have been able to huddle to make a play call, on that reception near the sideline. The BS roughing call gave BYU a first down instead of 3rd and 20.
.
But Utah did more than the refs to give this game to BYU. I think Utah fumbled about 8 times total. they just didn't lose all of them.

I thought the targeting fouls were horrible calls. Both players led with their shoulders. Both players stayed on their feet and did not launch themselves. Those were just good old fashioned hard hits. Even the commentators questioned the targeting call. A totally unbiased poster here in Broncster said that the targeting fouls were bad calls. You can't and won't see it because as you admit, you are a homer.

The holding call on Bolles was crap.

The missed face mask on Williams was crap.

The missed grounding call was crap.

There were a lot of bad/missed calls.

I didn't pay attention but were those PAC 12 refs?

 

[green]

And before we keep throwing the "homer" thing around, let me recap:

- I loved how Utah's D played last night versus an offense with a very talented QB/RB combo. Not only that, being Detmer's 2nd game ever at the college level, Utah had almost ZERO to go off of in regards to game prep, opponent tendencies, etc. Out of BYU's 19 points, 13 came off of turnovers. BYU had 1 drive the entire game in which they marched downed the field and drove it into the end zone.
As a Ute fan, how am I not supposed to be happy about that?

- In regards to how Utah moved the ball last night, I didn't have a problem with their offense. In fact, I see some reasons for optimism as the season progresses. My obvious fear is that the turnover trend continues, which would obviously derail their season very quickly.

- I think it's fair to say Utah was better than BYU defensively last night. I think it's fair to say that Utah was better offensively than BYU last night. I think it's also fair to say that the biggest equalizer in the game was that Utah had 6 turnovers and was minus 3 in the turnover category for the game. BYU got 13 points off of turnovers. Off the top of my head, I think 2 of Troy Williams' INTs directly took two FG's off the table. Those factors make it at least a 19 point swing. I don't think it takes a "homer" to look at that and have the opinion that if Utah had won the turnover battle, they win the game by more than 1 point.

If you don't think that BYU is the better team and that Utah was lucky to win, then you are a homer.

 

[green]

This guy^

First, he was a BYU fan. Now, he is a Ducks fan. lol.

 

[green]

I thought the targeting fouls were horrible calls. Both players led with their shoulders. Both players stayed on their feet and did not launch themselves. Those were just good old fashioned hard hits. Even the commentators questioned the targeting call. A totally unbiased poster here in Broncster said that the targeting fouls were bad calls. You can't and won't see it because as you admit, you are a homer.

The holding call on Bolles was crap.

The missed face mask on Williams was crap.

The missed grounding call was crap.

There were a lot of bad/missed calls.

I didn't pay attention but were those PAC 12 refs?

You don't know what the targeting call is. It says that if you hit a defenseless receiver's head with ANYTHING, it is targeting. If there is ANY question, then it is targeting.

If you go off the way the rule was written, is was BLATANT targeting. Then, if you consider that targeting rule is implemented to reduce injuries, and BYU injured both players they hit in the head...

Again, only a fool would argue that it wasn't targeting. Go read the rule.

 

[green]

Some more terrible officiating:

The holding call on Bolles when he destroyed Langi. Terrible.
When Patrick was held by the BYU CB that stopped us from a TD? Horrible.
The clean hit on Hill when Hill had the intentional grounding? Appalling.
The missed call on the horse collar that injured Smith? Shocking.
Picking up the flag when their LB took a cheap shot on Troy?

Stop whining cougar fan. You got beat. You've been beaten the last six years.

We only played one quarter...we beat you.
We get more turnovers...we beat you.
You get more yards...we beat you.
You have senior QB's...we beat you.
We give you six turnovers...we beat you.

We are just better than you.

Take a deep breath, and become a man, and repeat these words:

Utah is a better team. I hope Kalani can coach these kids up so someday we can be as good as Utah and actually beat them. Six wins in a row is an *** kicking. Props to Whittingham and Utah. They are better than we are.

It's very simple stuff here. Utah is better. Utah continues to win.

 

[gregbroncs]

You don't know what the targeting call is. It says that if you hit a defenseless receiver's head with ANYTHING, it is targeting. If there is ANY question, then it is targeting.

If you go off the way the rule was written, is was BLATANT targeting. Then, if you consider that targeting rule is implemented to reduce injuries, and BYU injured both players they hit in the head...

Again, only a fool would argue that it wasn't targeting. Go read the rule.

This. As green said it does not say helmet to helmet it says you cannot hit a defenseless receiver in the head. Under the rule the way it is written and intended both plays are blatantly obvious violations. I didn't hear the announcer's because I was at the game. But if they questioned those calls then they also have no ****ing clue what the rule or the intent of the rule is. Par for the course half the announcer's for football games have no clue.

 

[trigg3r]

Dont put Utah in the same sentence as Stanford. Not sure why/how they got into the Pac-12, I wish we had picked up TCU and maybe Boise St instead, but that is a different matter. Or at the very least BYU since they are a bigger draw and Utah and BYU were pretty much the same from a football standpoint when they joined the PAC-12. Guessing if it went the other way BYU would have greatly improved and Utah would have shrunk away.

Yes Oregon has occasionally lost to "power teams" but they have also destroyed those types of teams in the last 10 years in many games. Teams such as Utah who they have beaten 51-27 and 44-21 in the previous meetings since they joined the Pac-12. They have also beaten They have lost to Stanford but since 2000 they are 11-4 against. Since 2010 they are 4-2, 2 of which were huge blowouts for Oregon. They are 4-2 against SEC teams (traditional power teams) since 2000. The list goes on, Oregon has a great record against any type of team recently. They have been very good since 2000. Since 2000 they are a top 10 and arguably top 5 best program.

Utes got won last year, hats off. We played a quarterback with a broken throwing hand and when the back up came in the team quit. I hated the lack of QB depth but that is what happens when you have an elite QB excel as a freshman. Utah played well but that wont happen again. It is a down year again for Oregon but not that down. Utah could make the game ugly and keep it close and maybe pull out a very close win at home but that is very unlikely.

Even if you take the mistakes away, neither team has much talent at the skill positions, which is what it takes to be good in college football. Yes, Utah can lean on the defense and hope for a decent season but they are not winning the south of having any season worth talking about.

That's pure silly talk. The PAC would never invite a religious institution or BYU would have been in a long time ago. It doesn't fit with the culture of the conference. So that right there means no TCU or especially BYU(which went further and pissed off pretty much the entire conference with the LDS backing of prop 8). Boise State is a joke that the PAC and the BIG10 now didn't even truly consider. It's not just about football performance. It's about market size, academics, and cultural fit along with athletic performance. Boise State having successful football seasons yet a smaller market size and terrible academics wasn't even in consideration quite honestly.

We have beaten every other PAC 12 team at least once since joining the conference. I believe only us and your Ducks have done that during that time period. I think we have shown we belong.

As for the Oregon game last year, you can make excuses or you can just be honest and say we got our ##### handed to us. Utah in the past had their ##### handed to them by Oregon. It happens. Injuries happen. It's football.

FWIW, Stanford has lost to us in our only 2 meetings since joining. We'll never beat them academically, but we have proven we can beat them on the football field.

 

[trigg3r]

Because BYUs offfense sucks. Look at what kind of points they put up the week before.



Utah's offense put up 13 points on very good positioning from Utah's defense. They had a solid 2 min drill drive before the half that lead to a good touchdown pass. They had another solid drive towards the end of the game against a worn down BYU defense missing some key players that were kicked from the game, including what I am guessing based on this game was BYU's best defensive player. Other than that Utah did nothing on offense, not sure what you have to be optimistic about but maybe Utah's offense has been so bleak that 2 decent drives a game is an improvement?

I also would not say it is fair to say both Utah's offense and defense were better than BYU when they only won by 1 point and it came down to 1 play, it was too close of game to make that conclusion. From this game you can draw the conclusion that these teams are a very close match-up and Utah is ever so slightly better. Yes Utah turned the ball over 6 times to but that would speak to how poor your offense is and if you take away turnovers or certain plays the game is entirely different and who knows the outcome, that is pure speculation. Games can play out a million different ways, you cant say if something changed in the game it would end up the way you think or want it to.

Sure, if you want to ignore the -3 turnover margin and the bad field position that went along with it... I think it's quite safe to say that Utah had a much better defense and that's why they ended up coming out on top even with all the mistakes by the offense and turning the ball over. How you can come to the conclusion that the defenses were even is beyond my comprehension.

 

[trigg3r]

There were terrible calls on both sides.

 

[Scat]

This. As green said it does not say helmet to helmet it says you cannot hit a defenseless receiver in the head. Under the rule the way it is written and intended both plays are blatantly obvious violations. I didn't hear the announcer's because I was at the game. But if they questioned those calls then they also have no ****ing clue what the rule or the intent of the rule is. Par for the course half the announcer's for football games have no clue.

https://www.sbnation.com/college-fo...6/utah-byu-holy-war-targeting-calls-ejections

https://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-f...a-college-football/1lil5ze9aap9e18411l44q1ia6

https://ohiostate.247sports.com/Board/120/Contents/Targeting-foul-craziness-in-Utah-vs-BYU-47381649

https://collegefootballtalk.nbcspor...ves-six-turnovers-to-top-byu-in-the-holy-war/

The wackiness of the game came to a crescendo in late in the 3rd quarter. Cougars safety Kai Nacua, who already had two interceptions on the night, was called for a controversial targeting penalty on a play in which he appeared to turn his shoulder on a hit that was eventually ruled incomplete. On the very next play, BYU picked Williams off and Nacua’s backup, Austin McChesney, was also called for targeting and ejected.

https://twitter.com/RedditCFB/status/774794189892677632

I am guessing, at the very least, Nacua's penalty will be overturned.

 

[UGLI baby]

I thought the targeting fouls were horrible calls. Both players led with their shoulders. Both players stayed on their feet and did not launch themselves. Those were just good old fashioned hard hits. Even the commentators questioned the targeting call. A totally unbiased poster here in Broncster said that the targeting fouls were bad calls. You can't and won't see it because as you admit, you are a homer.

The holding call on Bolles was crap.

The missed face mask on Williams was crap.

The missed grounding call was crap.

There were a lot of bad/missed calls.

I didn't pay attention but were those PAC 12 refs?

Big 12 refs

 

[Ron Mexico]

First, he was a BYU fan. Now, he is a Ducks fan. lol.

Nope, thanks for trying though. Guess when you have no argument you make stuff up.

I have always been a ducks fan since living in Oregon as a kid and moving to Eugene as a late teenager in the 90s cemented it. I have said on here and stick to that I slightly prefer BYU over Utah but dont follow or care for either team that much. I really dislike BYU the university but their football program I keep an eye on because my brothers really love them and that is the only thing they talk to me about but have never watched that many games ever and have never considered myself a fan of them.

I think you mixed yourself up. Your the former BYU fan that jumped to Utah because they are better right now according to you. You also said if BYU was better you might switch back or people might think you are a BYU homer.

 

[Ron Mexico]

Sure, if you want to ignore the -3 turnover margin and the bad field position that went along with it... I think it's quite safe to say that Utah had a much better defense and that's why they ended up coming out on top even with all the mistakes by the offense and turning the ball over. How you can come to the conclusion that the defenses were even is beyond my comprehension.

If Utah's defense is much better than BYU's than BYU's offense is better than Utah's. I dont really care which conclusion you draw. I dont know which is better but based in a game that came down to 1 play you cannot say one team is better all around, it is too close to make that claim.

 

[Ron Mexico]

That's pure silly talk. The PAC would never invite a religious institution or BYU would have been in a long time ago. It doesn't fit with the culture of the conference. So that right there means no TCU or especially BYU(which went further and pissed off pretty much the entire conference with the LDS backing of prop 8). Boise State is a joke that the PAC and the BIG10 now didn't even truly consider. It's not just about football performance. It's about market size, academics, and cultural fit along with athletic performance. Boise State having successful football seasons yet a smaller market size and terrible academics wasn't even in consideration quite honestly.

We have beaten every other PAC 12 team at least once since joining the conference. I believe only us and your Ducks have done that during that time period. I think we have shown we belong.

As for the Oregon game last year, you can make excuses or you can just be honest and say we got our ##### handed to us. Utah in the past had their ##### handed to them by Oregon. It happens. Injuries happen. It's football.

FWIW, Stanford has lost to us in our only 2 meetings since joining. We'll never beat them academically, but we have proven we can beat them on the football field.

Fair enough on your points. But the fact is no one in the PAC-10 was excited about Utah or wanted Utah. They got in because we couldnt get the teams we wanted and we wanted the money from having playoffs. Utah was there but I think we should have held out for a better team or picked someone else that helped the conference more. Utah adds/added very little to recruiting or TV market.

 

[trigg3r]

If Utah's defense is much better than BYU's than BYU's offense is better than Utah's. I dont really care which conclusion you draw. I dont know which is better but based in a game that came down to 1 play you cannot say one team is better all around, it is too close to make that claim.

The team that won the game was the better team yesterday. Even with the numerous mistakes offensively they were able to overcome a -3 TO differential and get the win.

 

[UGLI baby]

Broncster. Not a byu fan, but still a zoob.

Amaze.

 

[trigg3r]

Fair enough on your points. But the fact is no one in the PAC-10 was excited about Utah or wanted Utah. They got in because we couldnt get the teams we wanted and we wanted the money from having playoffs. Utah was there but I think we should have held out for a better team or picked someone else that helped the conference more. Utah adds/added very little to recruiting or TV market.

What better team was magically going to come along? The fact of the matter is that Texas never wanted to bolt for the PAC, the PAC didn't want OU and OSU without Texas. They took Colorado in preparation for other BIG12 teams like Texas bolting. It also didn't hurt that Colorado had a past history of good football and basketball play along with AAU status. At that point Utah was not only a logical addition, it was by far the best with what they had done on the big stage in football in recent years. They also fit culturally as a more secular university that prided itself in its improving academics even hoping to get invited to be a member of the AAU someday.

Geography(expanding the conference footprint), market size, cultural fit, athletic performance, and academic statistics made Utah a no-brainer for them when conference realignment was in full force and the PAC wanted to expand their product rather than being left behind. Texas wasn't coming. OU was saddled with OSU(a school the PAC doesn't want without also getting Texas). Tell me honestly, what better fit were you going to find? There wasn't one then and there hasn't been one since. After a few rocky seasons Utah has proven they belong. I think the vast majority of PAC12 fans outside of you and a much smaller minority would agree.

 

[Ron Mexico]

The team that won the game was the better team yesterday. Even with the numerous mistakes offensively they were able to overcome a -3 TO differential and get the win.

I dont disagree with that. Utah is a better team, thats why they won and have won. Although "overcoming" turnovers is not an argument for your team being better than their performance. Turnovers are a part of the game and they are part of the reason Utah was really bad in that game.

 

[trigg3r]

I dont disagree with that. Utah is a better team, thats why they won and have won. Although "overcoming" turnovers is not an argument for your team being better than their performance. Turnovers are a part of the game and they are part of the reason Utah was really bad in that game.

Overcoming a -3 turnover differential with typically good field position on said turnovers was more of an indication of how good the defense truly was yesterday. It was able to overcome an offense that made so many mistakes and yet they still were able to win. You won't get an argument from me that the offense was better yesterday. Just that the defense was vastly better and that made the entire team ultimately better which the score reflected. Without dumb offensive mistakes that game is not close. That's football though. Luckily the defense was excellent.

 

[trigg3r]

Fair enough on your points. But the fact is no one in the PAC-10 was excited about Utah or wanted Utah. They got in because we couldnt get the teams we wanted and we wanted the money from having playoffs. Utah was there but I think we should have held out for a better team or picked someone else that helped the conference more. Utah adds/added very little to recruiting or TV market.

To be fair, say the PAC did get Texas at that time... That would've meant they would've gotten Texas/Texas Tech(another school they don't want without the crown jewel, Texas), Oklahoma, Oklahoma State(same thing as Tech) and Colorado..... By my count that is 5 teams bringing them to 15. They would want another team and that would be Utah. Why?

Missouri had their sites set on the BIG10 and ultimately with no invite found themselves in the SEC. aTm also wanted to bolt and leave Texas for the SEC. Nebraska was invited to the BIG10. Kansas can go to the BIG10(which they will in the next realignment phase) due to basketball and AAU status whenever they wish. That leaves Baylor(limited market religious school which the PAC has 0 interest in) and KSU(another program that wouldn't be desirable alone).

Even in that scenario like it or not, Utah completes the PAC16 as it would be called. They would not stay at 15 for obvious reasons. 10 + 5 BIG12 schools + Utah = 16. I guess aTm could've been considered as the 16th team, but they chose the SEC.