For Those Who Think Utah Has Better "Access"

Which team was still getting ink after week 8 about their possible path to the BCS?

snoscythe wrote:
Which team was still getting ink after week 8 about their possible path to the BCS?

Is that due to poor results on the field or actual access? I hear ya......Utah does have better access to bowl games etc in the PAC 12, but they are forgetting they need to win games first. They have better competition, which means less opportunities.

NDCougar wrote:

Which team was still getting ink after week 8 about their possible path to the BCS?

Is that due to poor results on the field or actual access? I hear ya......Utah does have better access to bowl games etc in the PAC 12, but they are forgetting they need to win games first. They have better competition, which means less opportunities.

They have a path to an auto-bid or even an at-large via their conference, but it's a near impossible path for them given (i) their low-man-on-the-pole status in recruiting in their footprint now, and (ii) the difficult schedules they will be facing year-in, year-out in the PAC12. They either have to win the PAC12, or finish ranked in the top-14 and hope for an at-large spot.



BYU has a path to an auto-bid or at large that is more stringent, but BYU is improving in recruiting results and BYU can control its own schedule to a degree that Utah cannot, which allows BYU to build winnable schedules that can put it into the BCS discussions even with 2 losses each season.



I think 2-loss seasons are much more likley for BYU going forward than PAC12 championships or top-14 finishes are for Utah.

snoscythe wrote:

snoscythe wrote:
Which team was still getting ink after week 8 about their possible path to the BCS?

Is that due to poor results on the field or actual access? I hear ya......Utah does have better access to bowl games etc in the PAC 12, but they are forgetting they need to win games first. They have better competition, which means less opportunities.

They have a path to an auto-bid or even an at-large via their conference, but it's a near impossible path for them given (i) their low-man-on-the-pole status in recruiting in their footprint now, and (ii) the difficult schedules they will be facing year-in, year-out in the PAC12. They either have to win the PAC12, or finish ranked in the top-14 and hope for an at-large spot.



BYU has a path to an auto-bid or at large that is more stringent, but BYU is improving in recruiting results and BYU can control its own schedule to a degree that Utah cannot, which allows BYU to build winnable schedules that can put it into the BCS discussions even with 2 losses each season.



I think 2-loss seasons are much more likley for BYU going forward than PAC12 championships or top-14 finishes are for Utah.

It all changes going forward. No more BCS which means top 14 finishes are irrelevant.



It is all about impressing the committee who will not only pick the playoff teams, but fill in the other major bowl matchups. There is no autobid for BYU only the hope that the committee will like us. Utah still has a much clearer path to a major bowl game.

mormonrasta wrote:
[Going forward i]t is all about impressing the committee who will not only pick the playoff teams, but fill in the other major bowl matchups. There is no autobid for BYU only the hope that the committee will like us. Utah still has a much clearer path to a major bowl game.

Not really I'd say BYU has better access next year than they had this year. Utah can to win the PAC12 to do it. Other than that, they have the exact same criteria as BYU moving forward, with one exception. And the reality is that Utah is 4+ years away from competing for the PAC12 title, if ever. BYU will have expanded access as the committee must select one mid-major team each year--and that selection is entirely subjective, as opposed to Utah's objective path.



It remains that they are overmatched in their conference, and they will struggle to sniff the top-25 each year and really have no way to change their circumstance. I don't see Utah in the selection committee conversation any time soon.



BYU can create favorable schedules and put together perennial top-25 finishes to put them in the selection committee conversation each year for the foreseeable future. To be a legitimate contender, BYU simply has to finish in the top-25 to get in the conversation for that "mid-major" selection.



This year, if BYU were to end the regular season in the top-25, they'd be in the conversation along with Fresno St, NIU, and UCF. You've got to believe BYU would get serious consideration.

snoscythe wrote:

[Going forward i]t is all about impressing the committee who will not only pick the playoff teams, but fill in the other major bowl matchups. There is no autobid for BYU only the hope that the committee will like us. Utah still has a much clearer path to a major bowl game.

Not really I'd say BYU has better access next year than they had this year. Utah can to win the PAC12 to do it. Other than that, they have the exact same criteria as BYU moving forward, with one exception. And the reality is that Utah is 4+ years away from competing for the PAC12 title, if ever. BYU will have expanded access as the committee must select one mid-major team each year--and that selection is entirely subjective, as opposed to Utah's objective path.



It remains that they are overmatched in their conference, and they will struggle to sniff the top-25 each year and really have no way to change their circumstance. I don't see Utah in the selection committee conversation any time soon.



BYU can create favorable schedules and put together perennial top-25 finishes to put them in the selection committee conversation each year for the foreseeable future. To be a legitimate contender, BYU simply has to finish in the top-25 to get in the conversation for that "mid-major" selection.



This year, if BYU were to end the regular season in the top-25, they'd be in the conversation along with Fresno St, NIU, and UCF. You've got to believe BYU would get serious consideration.

Except we are not in the "mid-major" conversation. The criteria is that the committee has to take a member from the "group of 5" being the highest ranked (per committee ranking) of the MWC, Sun Belt, MAC, CUSA, and AAC. That does not include BYU.



Just like Utah, we need to be exceptional in order to get to a major bowl, not just pretty good.

snoscythe wrote:

snoscythe wrote:
Which team was still getting ink after week 8 about their possible path to the BCS?

Is that due to poor results on the field or actual access? I hear ya......Utah does have better access to bowl games etc in the PAC 12, but they are forgetting they need to win games first. They have better competition, which means less opportunities.

They have a path to an auto-bid or even an at-large via their conference, but it's a near impossible path for them given (i) their low-man-on-the-pole status in recruiting in their footprint now, and (ii) the difficult schedules they will be facing year-in, year-out in the PAC12. They either have to win the PAC12, or finish ranked in the top-14 and hope for an at-large spot.



BYU has a path to an auto-bid or at large that is more stringent, but BYU is improving in recruiting results and BYU can control its own schedule to a degree that Utah cannot, which allows BYU to build winnable schedules that can put it into the BCS discussions even with 2 losses each season.



I think 2-loss seasons are much more likley for BYU going forward than PAC12 championships or top-14 finishes are for Utah.

I think the last 3 years of recruits for BYU (not including this year) have their share of a few solid players, but our depth is desperately lacking and Utahs recruiting class last year spanked our class. In fact I'm very impressed by Utahs class from last year; we wanted nearly a dozen of the guys they got.



This years class is a different matter, we have a very very good and very underated recruiting class, however with missions, etc. it takes a very long time to see the fruits. After Taysom is gone in 2 years, we are shallow at a lot of positions.



I never thought Utah had better access though. BYU has the church and a world-wide following. Utah fans (particularly the ones in Utah) don't get that. BYU has ESPN and has Hall of Fame alumni from the pros. People outside of Utah still see and hear about Utah.. no one outside of Utah hears about Utah.

Plus the Pac 12 network is garbage.

craigoscarson wrote:
Plus the Pac 12 network is garbage.

That's a total insult to garbage, and I won't stand for it!

mormonrasta wrote:
Except we are not in the "mid-major" conversation. The criteria is that the committee has to take a member from the "group of 5" being the highest ranked (per committee ranking) of the MWC, Sun Belt, MAC, CUSA, and AAC. That does not include BYU.

My understanding was that, while the announced change included the "Group of Five," some months ago they clarified that the Group of Five included BYU, Army and Navy.

Theoretically, Utah has the best access - guaranteed access. In reality Utah has no access. They had far better access in The MWC. If you doubt that, ask me in 25 years when they still have not sniffed two more BCS Bowls.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Frankly, I'd be surprised if the Utes had two 10-win seasons in the next 25 years.

SpiffCoug wrote:
Frankly, I'd be surprised if the Utes had two 10-win seasons in the next 25 years.

Not with the current coaching staff they won't.

frdbtr wrote:

Frankly, I'd be surprised if the Utes had two 10-win seasons in the next 25 years.

Not with the current coaching staff they won't.

I think the discovery of Wilson's condition bought Whittingham an extra year. I think the offensive staff is out the door after this season any way, but I think Whitt gets an extra year after the revelation of the circumstance he was dealing with--"Yeah, you went 5-7 again, but you had a QB with brain damage."

snoscythe wrote:

SpiffCoug wrote:
Frankly, I'd be surprised if the Utes had two 10-win seasons in the next 25 years.

Not with the current coaching staff they won't.

I think the discovery of Wilson's condition bought Whittingham an extra year. I think the offensive staff is out the door after this season any way, but I think Whitt gets an extra year after the revelation of the circumstance he was dealing with--"Yeah, you went 5-7 again, but you had a QB with brain damage."

Agree and he will ride that 4 years in a row over BYU card for a while, I think it matters on the Hill (50% of the job).

I'm getting old and can't read like I used to. My first reading of the sentence above was "4 years in a row over BYU- GIFT- card". The one year 54-10 they forgot to even mail it in. The whole team except for Jake Heaps was not even mentally there that night. Spiff can probably confirm this, but I believe Jake's PER in the first half of that game was the best PER for a half against Utah for any BYU quarterback in the last ten years.

snoscythe wrote:

Except we are not in the "mid-major" conversation. The criteria is that the committee has to take a member from the "group of 5" being the highest ranked (per committee ranking) of the MWC, Sun Belt, MAC, CUSA, and AAC. That does not include BYU.

My understanding was that, while the announced change included the "Group of Five," some months ago they clarified that the Group of Five included BYU, Army and Navy.

Sadly, it doesn't include us.



Independents like BYU are not considered part of the Group of Five and thus are not guaranteed access. Notre Dame has a shared deal with the Big Ten and SEC for the spot opposite the ACC in the Orange Bowl.



http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/stewart_mandel/11/12/college-football-playoff-six-bowls/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Alphaleonis wrote:
I'm getting old and can't read like I used to. My first reading of the sentence above was "4 years in a row over BYU- GIFT- card". The one year 54-10 they forgot to even mail it in. The whole team except for Jake Heaps was not even mentally there that night. Spiff can probably confirm this, but I believe Jake's PER in the first half of that game was the best PER for a half against Utah for any BYU quarterback in the last ten years.

At least until he melted down about 5 minutes before the 1st half ended starting the downward spiral. And yes because that fumblerooski thing he did at the start of the game with the bad snap does not count in a PER Calc.



Wait - if nobody else showed up, who caught the passes that created that PER.

snoscythe wrote:

Except we are not in the "mid-major" conversation. The criteria is that the committee has to take a member from the "group of 5" being the highest ranked (per committee ranking) of the MWC, Sun Belt, MAC, CUSA, and AAC. That does not include BYU.

My understanding was that, while the announced change included the "Group of Five," some months ago they clarified that the Group of Five included BYU, Army and Navy.

Link. That would be nice.

No, bib I'm talking about the whole first half, not skipping the last 5 minutes of the half. I'm saying that while the game was still in doubt, which was basically until the opening kickoff of the second half was fumbled by the kick returner resulting in a turnover and a Ute touchdown, Jakes PER was higher than any other BYU QB's PER in any half against Utah in the past ten years. I may be wrong but probably not out of the top 3 halves out of 20.



As to the fumble on BYU's opening offensive play. Watch it again. When a quarterback is running full speed away from the line of scrimmage he can't see what's coming at him. I'm sure he didn't expect all three (the Utes only rushed 3 on that play) of the Ute linemen to get to the ball at about the same time he did. Even giving the OL the benefit of the doubt (the play call may have been a screen pass) aren't they supposed to at least slow down the DL's on screen pass. So the OL passed the hike over Jakes head, then didn't even touch the DL rushers. And Cougarnation blamed the play on Heaps for trying too hard.



Even after that play, and into the second half the game was still winnable because of Heaps PER. But everyone kept giving the ball to the Utes. Most of the givaways were not Jakes.



But most of the "fans" on this site had already given up on Jake long before this game. It started the year before when a true freshman couldn't beat TCU on their field, when TCU may have been the best team in college football that year. And when a true freshman couldn't beat a very good Nevada team (their only loss was to BSU). And when a true freshman lost his costarting position which he had earned in both Spring and Fall practice when he threw his very first college interception. (O the irony, to lose your starting job for throwing one interception and to lose it to the one who would become the King of the pick 6)



I have been reading this board and other boards which preceded this one for years. Jake was driven out of town, All but tarred and feathered and driven out on a rail - and all for not doing the humanly impossible.



And he took it with more class than our immature head coach has shown by badmouthing him repeatedly to the media several times since his departure.



I do not know Jake Heaps, nor do I know anyone who knows him. Just a disclaimer.