Deep ..... I mean Shades of Blue

Can someone with a PC handy pop the link in CC News Bites over here? DSB makes a compelling argument - fact based - that although BYU has been better in MWC, Vs common opponents,NAND over-all the last twenty years, Utah is 12-8 over BYU proving Utah does overachieve in these games.



A good read.

Nothing that tries to argue Utah's superiority is a good read for a cougar fan. What site do you think you're on?

http://deepshadesofblue.com/does-utah-get-up-more-for-the-holy-war/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I do not subscribe to this theory, and the main reason is that when teams get up, they tend to come out fast but can't maintain it for 4 quarters. So they use the intial burst to jump to a lead then hang on.



And in the BYU-Utah series, that simply does not happen. BYU tends to come out quicker and plays better early. BYU led the 2011 game until just before half, then got pwned in half 2. In the 2010 game, BYU came out quicker, led for 3 quarters, then lost it late. In 2009, BYU came out quicker, then tried to hold on, and barely did in OT. In 2008, Utah did start quicker, but BYU held on in half one, then half 2 happened. In 2007, BYU started ok, was tight most of the way, then Utah scored late, with BYU wining it later. 2006 was close and back and forth all gamem until BYU pulled it off late. 2005 is the exception.



Point to this is that in the Bronco era, other than 2005, Utah has really been the better second half team, with BYU being the better first half team. I think that draws that thought process into question. But what it does do it put coaching and half time adjustments into the spot light. Clearly Utah has been the better team in half two in 6 of the last 7 games in the series, so it is no wonder they won 4 of those 7 games.



BYU has to be better in half 2. That is the issue. BYU has to close better.

Lawboy wrote:
I do not subscribe to this theory, and the main reason is that when teams get up, they tend to come out fast but can't maintain it for 4 quarters. So they use the intial burst to jump to a lead then hang on.



And in the BYU-Utah series, that simply does not happen. BYU tends to come out quicker and plays better early. BYU led the 2011 game until just before half, then got pwned in half 2. In the 2010 game, BYU came out quicker, led for 3 quarters, then lost it late. In 2009, BYU came out quicker, then tried to hold on, and barely did in OT. In 2008, Utah did start quicker, but BYU held on in half one, then half 2 happened. In 2007, BYU started ok, was tight most of the way, then Utah scored late, with BYU wining it later. 2006 was close and back and forth all gamem until BYU pulled it off late. 2005 is the exception.



Point to this is that in the Bronco era, other than 2005, Utah has really been the better second half team, with BYU being the better first half team. I think that draws that thought process into question. But what it does do it put coaching and half time adjustments into the spot light. Clearly Utah has been the better team in half two in 6 of the last 7 games in the series, so it is no wonder they won 4 of those 7 games.



BYU has to be better in half 2. That is the issue. BYU has to close better.

Largely agree.



Bronco is good at pre-game preparation. Especially if he has sufficient time.



But when it comes to game time X's and O's and adjustments, Kryle has the edge.

Sammich wrote:
Nothing that tries to argue Utah's superiority is a good read for a cougar fan. What site do you think you're on?

This article actually gives data that shows BYU has been the best program but that U has been better prepared for the rivalry games - which is what most posters on CC seem to keep posting. They overachieve in the one game orvBYU underachieves or both.



This article seems pro BYU overall - and backs it up with facts.

Agreed. The article doesn't argue Utah's superiority, but BYU's, as a program, not as a head-to-head matchup. Getting hyped up for a big game can be a two-edged sword. I think BYU was hyped up last year, and when their bubble was burst by mistakes and turnovers (which could have been partially related to being hyped-up), they got discouraged and essentially gave up.