Archived Topic

Why BSU was a good trade for Utah

by mcgregor · 7/31/2010

mcgregor

7/31/2010, 2:32:57 AM

First, let me apologize to those who have already covered this topic. I have been away from the board for a while, and I don't have the time to catalog through the files.

Also, let me start out by saying that obviously, the best scenario would have been for Utah to stay. Utah, BYU, TCU, and Boise State in the conference, along with the little guys picking up their slack, would have made for an AQ conference, and a great one at that.

BUT, since that didn't happen, Utah was a good trade.

1) Boise State puts a more consistent product on the field. Utah fields some great teams every four-ish years, no doubt. But BSU is in the discussion every single year. As a result, I personally believe they have a better football brand than Utah.

2) 2010. This year Utah has no shot at the BCS, much less a national title. Boise State, however, will almost certainly achieve a BCS game, assuming they keep their nose clean. At the same time, TCU has an EQUAL chance at the SAME RESULT. If both teams are undefeated by the end of the year, one could very well play in the title game, and the other team will play in another BCS game as the consolation prize. Whoever does what, it really doesn't matter. The point will be that the MWC will net a much better result than it would have with just Utah.

Utah will lose 4 games this year, anyway.

Agree, disagree?

Can't wait for the season to start!

GO COUGS.

JL McGregor

Dallas Tejas

Lawboy

7/31/2010, 3:09:49 AM

I think Utah loses 3 this year--Pitt, BYU and TCU. I think they beat the Domers, who are overrated every year without fail.

SpiffCoug

7/31/2010, 4:10:26 AM

While Boise is a good trade for Utah. The best situation would have been to keep both teams so as to make it simply an acquisition of Boise and not a trade for Boise.

Mars

7/31/2010, 4:35:22 AM

mcgregor wrote:
Utah will lose 4 games this year, anyway.

I sure hope so. The media thinks they will go 11-1. I think BYU will be slightly favored against them, and they will be slightly favored against Pitt and Notre Dame.

gmj81

7/31/2010, 5:53:05 AM

I seriously see the pukes starting out decent but dropping a lot down the road. I'd love for them to lose every game but think they'll beat Pitt and many of their early games. But I really see them dropping quite a few into November. I wouldn't be surprised to see them drop games to CSU, AFA, ND, TCU, SDSU, and BYU.

Schmoe

7/31/2010, 6:24:30 AM

AFA gets SO close to beating the Utards year after year. I'd love to see them pull it off this year, it would be a great win to get over that hurdle for their program.

Short_Change

7/31/2010, 7:34:06 AM

mcgregor wrote:
First, let me apologize to those who have already covered this topic. I have been away from the board for a while, and I don't have the time to catalog through the files.

Also, let me start out by saying that obviously, the best scenario would have been for Utah to stay. Utah, BYU, TCU, and Boise State in the conference, along with the little guys picking up their slack, would have made for an AQ conference, and a great one at that.

BUT, since that didn't happen, Utah was a good trade.

1) Boise State puts a more consistent product on the field. Utah fields some great teams every four-ish years, no doubt. But BSU is in the discussion every single year. As a result, I personally believe they have a better football brand than Utah.

2) 2010. This year Utah has no shot at the BCS, much less a national title. Boise State, however, will almost certainly achieve a BCS game, assuming they keep their nose clean. At the same time, TCU has an EQUAL chance at the SAME RESULT. If both teams are undefeated by the end of the year, one could very well play in the title game, and the other team will play in another BCS game as the consolation prize. Whoever does what, it really doesn't matter. The point will be that the MWC will net a much better result than it would have with just Utah.

Utah will lose 4 games this year, anyway.

Agree, disagree?

Can't wait for the season to start!

GO COUGS.

JL McGregor

Dallas Tejas

I agree that Utah will lose 4 games. They lost a TON of talent and the only reason I think they won't lose more is because of their run game and D-line. It seems as if a lot of people have forgotten about Utah's subpar years recently. I think they're heading toward another subpar year. I say they finish 4th in the MWC behind 1. TCU, 2. BYU, and 3. AFA.

I think it's very important that Utah doesn't do well this season so that if they do poorly in the Pac-12 initially we won't hear as much backlash about the MWC.

MTM

7/31/2010, 8:31:22 AM

gmj81 wrote:
I seriously see the pukes starting out decent but dropping a lot down the road. I'd love for them to lose every game but think they'll beat Pitt and many of their early games. But I really see them dropping quite a few into November. I wouldn't be surprised to see them drop games to CSU, AFA, ND, TCU, SDSU, and BYU.

What is your rationale for this? Do you really think they will go 6-6?

I think TCU is the only game on the schedule they don't have a good chance to win. Nearly every pre-season poll I've seen has them finishing 2nd in the conference implying they should beat everybody but TCU.AFA is always a nail biter. BYU is too often too close to call but at home they should win.

On paper Pitt is the 2nd best team on the schedule but I think they beat them only because it's home. They should beat ND but Brian Kelly could have that turned around especially by November.

I've just painted myself into an 11-1 season but the pessimist in me can't reconcile that. I'll say 10-2 or 9-3 but I do see potential for 8-4 if they stub their toe.

And on the subject of the OP-The MWC will be fine with BSU for Utah. BSU has been great the last two years but not really over the course of this decade.

They lost 3 games in '07 and 4 games in '05. I hate the SOS argument because in conference you play who you play but for most of the decade they have played a fairly weak OOC slate and are only 6-16 against BCS schools when they did schedule up.

If you get BSU of the last few years going forward then, yes, it's an upgrade but otherwise I think it's a pretty even trade.

BerliNY

7/31/2010, 2:19:23 PM

mcgregor wrote:

2) 2010. This year Utah has no shot at the BCS, much less a national title. Boise State, however, will almost certainly achieve a BCS game, assuming they keep their nose clean. At the same time, TCU has an EQUAL chance at the SAME RESULT. If both teams are undefeated by the end of the year, one could very well play in the title game, and the other team will play in another BCS game as the consolation prize. Whoever does what, it really doesn't matter. The point will be that the MWC will net a much better result than it would have with just Utah.

JL McGregor

Dallas Tejas

Never ever ever EVER going to happen. If the BCS consisted only of computers and algorithms it could absolutely happen, but as long as back-room politics, good-ol-boy-ishness, and $$$ feed into human-based decisions, the BCS will not, can not, let this happen.

It would be sweet though.

Raiderboy

7/31/2010, 2:54:12 PM

BerliNY wrote:

2) 2010. This year Utah has no shot at the BCS, much less a national title. Boise State, however, will almost certainly achieve a BCS game, assuming they keep their nose clean. At the same time, TCU has an EQUAL chance at the SAME RESULT. If both teams are undefeated by the end of the year, one could very well play in the title game, and the other team will play in another BCS game as the consolation prize. Whoever does what, it really doesn't matter. The point will be that the MWC will net a much better result than it would have with just Utah.

JL McGregor

Dallas Tejas

Never ever ever EVER going to happen. If the BCS consisted only of computers and algorithms it could absolutely happen, but as long as back-room politics, good-ol-boy-ishness, and $$$ feed into human-based decisions, the BCS will not, can not, let this happen.

It would be sweet though.

I really disagree that a non BCS team can't make it into the title game with the current system. If Boise starts at #4 or #5 in the polls (which they will this year) and goes undefeated they'll likely get in. TCU should start in the top ten and same deal for them. The only way I can see it NOT happening is if there are 2 undefeated BCS conference champions, and even then Boise or TCU could get in over an undefeated Big East or ACC champion.

Boise and TCU are nationally respected programs. Everyone knows they are BCS conference caliber programs. And while there might be some voters that try to keep them out, there are also a lot of voters that hate the current system and will try to get them in. This isn't some nationwide conspiracy. Not every voter, not even MOST voters are against letting a non BCS team into the championship game.

If we had had the current system in 1984, BYU would have been in the championship game. There also has never been a year in recent memory where 2 non AQ teams have started in the top 10 with this much potential.

Having said all this, I hate the current BCS system and I want at least an 8 team playoff. In TCU, Boise, and Utah's BCS years, they deserved a chance to play for the championship in a playoff. I think out of those teams, that 2004 Utah was the only team that was arguably the best team in the country. That team was crazy good and, at least arguably, deserved to be in the championship game.

The point is, there is no evidence to support claims that a non BCS team will never get into the BCS championship game, other than that it hasn't happened yet. Utah in 2004 is the only team that I think should even be in the discussion for even deserving to be in that game, and that happened to be a year where we had 5-6 undefeated teams at the end of the regular season. If Boise or TCU can do it again this year, excellent chance they'll be in.

jonnylingo

7/31/2010, 9:02:03 PM

tcu probably doesn't have a shot because of their weak schedule. bsu i think will get the benefit of the doub tif they beat vatech and then vatech does well.

CougarPeasant

8/1/2010, 1:10:38 AM

jonnylingo wrote:
tcu probably doesn't have a shot because of their weak schedule. bsu i think will get the benefit of the doub tif they beat vatech and then vatech does well.

I think the biggest reasons would be because BSU will have gone undefeated 2 years in a row and have beaten TCU during that stretch. TCU's schedule is still more challenging with having to beat both BYU and :utard: in conference. It would be difficult to keep either team out of a championship game given the only loss between them in the last two seasons would be the only game they played each other.

byutx

8/1/2010, 2:24:22 AM

jonnylingo wrote:
tcu probably doesn't have a shot because of their weak schedule. bsu i think will get the benefit of the doub tif they beat vatech and then vatech does well.

TCU's schedule is tougher and I could see an undefeated TCU passing an undefeated BSU. BSU tends to bomb against BCS teams on the road in the season, but I think they gameplan like nobody, aside from maybe Kryle, so they may have a shot at VT. I think they lose, though.

Mars

8/1/2010, 3:36:28 AM

jonnylingo wrote:
t cu probably doesn't have a shot because of their weak schedule. bsu i think will get the benefit of the doub tif they beat vatech and then vatech does well.

TCU's schedule will be tougher in the computers this year, because MWC > WAC, by a long shot.

This is an archived topic from the original CougarCorner forum. New replies are not accepted.