Re: In my opinion
TerryP said:
U-Ute said:
Keep in mind that roughly 70%-80% of those games were on the road, and the majority of those are pre-1990. Since 2000, Utah has better than a .500 record against BCS schools, including teams such as Michigan, USC, North Carolina, Georgia Tech, and Navy (I forget the exact number). In between, we had some success as we have been building.
We're not expecting you guys to say that we'll win, but declaring that we don't have anyone on our team that would start anywhere in the SEC shows a serious lack of respect.
Personally, my feeling right now is Alabama by 5. The one thing we can't match is the quality of depth. Our 1's are as good as yours, but there is a big drop off after that. Furthermore, both teams are very physical, so it is going to be a very physical football game. I worry about the situation late in the game.
U-Ute
A couple of thoughts...
One, Navy isn't in a BCS conference...but that doesn't really matter in this conversation.
I realize that Utah has had a record that is over .500 in this decade. I looked at that a few days ago and if memory serves me correctly it was a record of 14-10, or real close to that.
Pointing to games against BCS teams is ok, it makes sense. But, what I have an issue with is the teams you are pointing to and who they were when you played them.
As example, you talk of a win versus USC. True, a 6-6 USC that had also lost to Stanford and UCLA that year and a couple of more very mediocre Pac 10 teams.
You mention playing North Carolina. There, a decisive win versus a 6-6 Tarheel team.
1-1 versus Michigan. That loss was a close game.
A win over a 7-5 Ga Tech team.
Looking over your BCS wins, it seems to me that the best team Utah has beaten from a BCS conference was your win against an 8-6 Cal team. I think the win over Pitt is right there with that win over the Cal team. They were 8-3 going into that bowl game but when you look at the teams they lost games to that year you pause for a second.
Again, it isn't about who you have played, but about they they were when you played them.
Bingo.
That is part of how I do my breakdowns and predictions. It is not just about who you played, but how you played - and how the teams you played have played. Circumstances around the game can make a difference.
Wyoming beat Tennessee this year, and that game has been cited by some Utah fans as evidence that the MWC is competitive. Even in a down year for UT that would be impressive and true - but not in this case. Wyoming beat UT on 11/8. Fulmer was fired on 11/3...five days before they played I have my doubts as to how prepared UT was for that game...the phrase "total disarray" comes to mind. Had Wyoming played UT on any other week during the season, I doubt they would have been within 2 TD's - regardless of how bad UT was in 2008...but they didn't, so the MWC fans are basing some of their assumptions on the outcome of that game. That is flawed.
The one factor going into the Sugar Bowl that adds a bit of uncertainty, is the Bama coming off of a loss in the SECCG. There are two possibilities. (1) Bama will be looking for redemption (2) Bama will be down in the dumps because of the loss.
Given that there is almost a month between games, the team has good senior leadership, and Saban is a master of the philosophy of taking one game at a time, I think the former is far more likely than the latter.
Some Utah fans have taken exception to my comments that no more than 3 of their players would start (or make the rotation) on SEC teams...well, that is not exactly what I said. I was referring to the upper echelon SEC teams.
That comment is not a stretch.
When you look at the players who are cited as being their best...
you find a QB who has good numbers against questionable opposition. Who would he start for? JPW is a 5th year senior with more passing yards and fewer interceptions. Matthew Stafford is all-world at UGA. Tim Tebow is a freak of nature. Jevon Snead is a phenomenally gifted QB. He would start at LSU or South Carolina. I don't know that he would fit into the system at Vandy - and I don't know that he would get admitted - but he might start there or at UK...but Vandy, UK, and SC are not upper echelon.
Sean Smith is their great cover corner, but he is a converted RB in his second year playing the position. There have been some good DB's who were converted RB's, but few of them started in their first or second season at the position. He might start at UGA due to their issues in the secondary - but interestingly enough, UGA's passing defense is ranked higher than Utah's.
You can go on down the line, and at best there are no more than a handful of players that would start on upper tier SEC teams. Their roster is filled with players who were not very highly rated coming out of HS. Offensively, they run a good system that takes advantage of what defenses give them, and maximizes their talent...but that same talent would not see the field on teams like Alabama, Georgia, or LSU, who run a completely different system, or Florida, who runs a similar scheme but is loaded with five star super-athletes.
Their DL is undersized and would not fit into most SEC schemes. They do have a DE who would see the rotation on some teams. None of their OL would start at Bama, Florida, or LSU (and several others), but they have one or two who would challenge for PT at UGA. Their RB would not start over Coffee, Moreno, Harvin, or Scott.
I don't see any of that as a slight against Utah. If anything it is a complement to their coaches, who get the most out of their players - or to their players, who leave it all on the field.
I have said it before (and some might not agree with me), on the three deep, Alabama is the third or fourth most talented team in the conference. Even so, our recruiting has ranked significantly higher than Utah over the past 5 years. Recruiting rankings are not an end-all, but they are a pretty good indicator of how good a team will be. When you look at the top 5 teams every year, chances are most of them are top 5 in recruiting...Florida, USC, Texas, OU, Alabama - all have finished with highly rated recruiting classes, and the rankings reflect it. Coaching will make a difference as well, but all things being equal, the higher ranked recruiting classes (if they qualify and have no external issues) will result in higher performing teams.
Our talent level is changing, and when Saban's recruiting fills up the roster, our team will be a sight to behold. Like Utah, we run a system that our players are comfortable in, they are coached up, and play their hearts out. That is why we are 12-1.
Utah is well coached, and the players play hard - as is the case with Alabama. Based on recruiting results and NFL draft projections, Utah does not have as much talent on the roster as Alabama (and many other SEC teams), and I believe that it will show on January 2.
