🏈 Offensive game plan for Utah?
- Thread starter Crimson Hawk
- Start date
I doubt they'd be 12-0, but 11-1 or 10-2 and a chance to get because of affiliation...sure. Even Bama and Florida have a hard time going undefeated in league, however even with a loss or two you STILL have a chance to make the BCS.
How can you tell me a 9-4 Virgina Tech or 10-2 OSU EVER deserves to be in a BCS game!? Especially when you have a 12-0 Boise St. and a 10-2 TCU.
People can talk all they want about the BCS championship, but until there is a playoff there is no real champion. How can anyone claim a 12-1 Bama/FL is better than USC/Texas/Ok/Utah and other teams unless they play!
There's a reason so many people refer to the mythical national championships. I thought votes/opinions decided things like diving gymnastics or synchronized swimming...not football.
How can you tell me a 9-4 Virgina Tech or 10-2 OSU EVER deserves to be in a BCS game!? Especially when you have a 12-0 Boise St. and a 10-2 TCU.
People can talk all they want about the BCS championship, but until there is a playoff there is no real champion. How can anyone claim a 12-1 Bama/FL is better than USC/Texas/Ok/Utah and other teams unless they play!
There's a reason so many people refer to the mythical national championships. I thought votes/opinions decided things like diving gymnastics or synchronized swimming...not football.
Bama1966 said:
No, I don't think they would be this year. That 2004 Utah team, on the other hand, could have been a different story. However, in the SEC (or other BCS conferences) you don't have to be 12-0 to get a chance to play for all the marbles.
If Utah was to get into a BCS conference and had access to BCS money, exposure, TV broadcasts, etc., to help recruiting, then I'd say chances are very good that they would be competitive on a year-in, year-out basis. The fact we can even get to this point without those advantages speaks volumes about the quality of the program, IMHO.
Sixpack said:
Some of the things in this post, and earlier posts, aren't things I look at when I came up with how I see this game breaking down. But, there are a few things I want to address.
You are the second person I've seen here mention defending Calvin Johnson when he was at Georgia Tech, but have gone a step further in mentioning a few others as well.
I asked this in another thread, but didn't get a response. Specifically, it was pointing out the mention of Calvin Johnson.
What on earth does that have to do with this game? Seriously, what's the relevance?
If we want to talk about something that happened in 2005 and use that to somehow say it has a bearing on this year I can easily point to the defense we had in 2005 and how it shut down the Tx. Tech offense in the Cotton Bowl.
IF our shutting down TTU has a bearing, then I also have to take into account that we held them to around 25% of their normal offensive productivity, which in turn would lead me to say we'll do the same to the Utah offense this year.
So, that means instead of scoring your average point total of the high 30's, you'll be scoring about 10 in this game.
Now, as to Julio.
Sean may be able to defend him very well. He's a good CB. Teams we've faced this year that lined up in zone coverage, in cover two with man on the corners, etc., have had problems with him in single coverage.
Kentucky gave teams the blueprint on how to defend him. Press coverage with a safety over the top. That leads to other mis-matches...
TerryP said:
I think we are starting to see this change a little this year. Right now Utah, BYU and TCU recruits are rated much higher than they are typically for our schools. I actually don't mind our players having a lower ranking because I trust our coaches we've had alot of 2/3 star recruits move on to the next level while at the same time our big gets not pan out. To a give you an idea here are some more recent players...
Mike Anderson (Denver)
Jamal Anderson (Atlanta)
Jordan Gross (Carolina)
Steve Smith (Carolina)
Maake Kemoeaotu (Carolina)
Chris Kemoeaotu (Steelers)
Sione Pouha (Jets)
Eric Weddle (Chargers)
Alex Smith (49ers)
If I remember correctly none of these players had more than 2 stars during recruiting. One or two may have had 3 stars, but I don't think so.
Utah fans refer to Calvin because he was the last WR from back east we weren't supposed to be able to stop.
This is just my opinion...
I never was that impressed with Calvin Johnson. Granted, I was impressed with the skill set he had, but playing at Ga. Tech wasn't the best place to showcase his talent.
When you guys played them a few years ago their offense was average. Seriously, average.
Now, I'm not saying that our offense is a "world beating" kind of offense. But, I'd damn well hold up our running attack against any team in this nation.
When I say that, you have to understand the comparison's I'm making as well...
It's one of the best running attacks I've seen in a long, long time in the NCAA.
I never was that impressed with Calvin Johnson. Granted, I was impressed with the skill set he had, but playing at Ga. Tech wasn't the best place to showcase his talent.
When you guys played them a few years ago their offense was average. Seriously, average.
Now, I'm not saying that our offense is a "world beating" kind of offense. But, I'd damn well hold up our running attack against any team in this nation.
When I say that, you have to understand the comparison's I'm making as well...
It's one of the best running attacks I've seen in a long, long time in the NCAA.
TerryP said:
It's getting better (two BCS games in 5 years will do that), but it's somewhat of a tough sell. "Come to Utah and never get seen on national TV, never get your highlights on ESPN, never have a chance to win a national title, and if you're lucky and things fall our way, you might get a chance to play in a BCS game. If we run the table and a few other teams lose."
You can probably see how being in a BCS conference changes a few things.
What I find funny is if a school is recruiting a player and all of sudden a big name school shows interest watch his rating JUMP. It happens quite often.
Also if you're from a more populous area like FL, TX or CA it seems you're automatically better than players from smaller areas.
Another big difference in ratings is involvement with the various services. Utah's main recruiting site is with Rivals, BYU's is with Scout, guess who wins the league recruiting titles, you guessed it, Utah @ Rivals and BYU @ Scout. One will rate a player as a quality 4 star the other a borderline 3 star or even a 2 star. It's politically driven just like the polls.
A great example of this is our 06 class on Scout. 4 players of that class that now start were never even evaluated by scout, as well as 5 others. How can they claim an honest assessment has been done when 9 of 25 commits were never evaluated.
While some may get motivated by how their team is doing in terms recruit rankings I don't. If you go back and look at some recent class rankings, how many are complete BUSTS. Coaching has a big influence on a team, but evaluating personnel to fit a system is just as important.
I think Meyer's success at Utah is a great example of this. He walked into a good situation for him in that the players would work in his system. He succeded using the previous coach's players. His recruiting classes weren't very good, but the coaching he brought with him changed an '02 team from 5-6 to the 10-2 and 12-0 in '03 and '04.
That is why I think very good coaches like Saban, Meyer, Carrol, and more have success, they find people that will work in their system.
If recruiting class rankings told the whole story then teams with high rankings shouldn't be crappy (Michigan 3-9, Notre Dame 7-6, UCLA 4-8)
Or how does USC, Florida and others lose to teams that don't even have the recuiting classes even close to the same.
Teams get up, mistakes are made, whatever...that's why I love seeing it being decided on the field.
If we really believed all the recruiting hype players from non-BCS teams should have little chance in the NFL, but if you go look you'll see rosters littered with players from all across this country.
Also if you're from a more populous area like FL, TX or CA it seems you're automatically better than players from smaller areas.
Another big difference in ratings is involvement with the various services. Utah's main recruiting site is with Rivals, BYU's is with Scout, guess who wins the league recruiting titles, you guessed it, Utah @ Rivals and BYU @ Scout. One will rate a player as a quality 4 star the other a borderline 3 star or even a 2 star. It's politically driven just like the polls.
A great example of this is our 06 class on Scout. 4 players of that class that now start were never even evaluated by scout, as well as 5 others. How can they claim an honest assessment has been done when 9 of 25 commits were never evaluated.
While some may get motivated by how their team is doing in terms recruit rankings I don't. If you go back and look at some recent class rankings, how many are complete BUSTS. Coaching has a big influence on a team, but evaluating personnel to fit a system is just as important.
I think Meyer's success at Utah is a great example of this. He walked into a good situation for him in that the players would work in his system. He succeded using the previous coach's players. His recruiting classes weren't very good, but the coaching he brought with him changed an '02 team from 5-6 to the 10-2 and 12-0 in '03 and '04.
That is why I think very good coaches like Saban, Meyer, Carrol, and more have success, they find people that will work in their system.
If recruiting class rankings told the whole story then teams with high rankings shouldn't be crappy (Michigan 3-9, Notre Dame 7-6, UCLA 4-8)
Or how does USC, Florida and others lose to teams that don't even have the recuiting classes even close to the same.
Teams get up, mistakes are made, whatever...that's why I love seeing it being decided on the field.
If we really believed all the recruiting hype players from non-BCS teams should have little chance in the NFL, but if you go look you'll see rosters littered with players from all across this country.
Some of this I agree with Pack, some of it I see differently.
There is always a difference in how a lot of players are ranked when you compare one site to another. That makes sense considering it's two different sets of people doing those evaluations.
It may be driven around Utah differently than down south, but I'd hardly think it's a BTU vs Utah deal...primarily because most evaluators are covering more than one state. I'd suspect that's the case for Utah as well.
I do agree that the rankings don't tell the entire story. But, on the other hand, if you look at the team that are ranked highly by these services the majority of them have success with those classes. For every UCLA example you give it can be countered with a USC, Texas and Oklahoma. For every Notre Dame you'll have a Florida and an LSU.
One thing is certain. When you look back over the last 10 years every national champ you find has had a class that was ranked #1 or #2 before that year.
One last thought...
I've found, and I've been following recruiting for 2 decades now pretty closely, that when a kid isn't evaluated or isn't well known by those recruiting services the majority of the time the fault lies with the High School coach and those around that player...they didn't get his tapes out so he could be evaluated.
It is what you make of it...
There is always a difference in how a lot of players are ranked when you compare one site to another. That makes sense considering it's two different sets of people doing those evaluations.
It may be driven around Utah differently than down south, but I'd hardly think it's a BTU vs Utah deal...primarily because most evaluators are covering more than one state. I'd suspect that's the case for Utah as well.
I do agree that the rankings don't tell the entire story. But, on the other hand, if you look at the team that are ranked highly by these services the majority of them have success with those classes. For every UCLA example you give it can be countered with a USC, Texas and Oklahoma. For every Notre Dame you'll have a Florida and an LSU.
One thing is certain. When you look back over the last 10 years every national champ you find has had a class that was ranked #1 or #2 before that year.
One last thought...
I've found, and I've been following recruiting for 2 decades now pretty closely, that when a kid isn't evaluated or isn't well known by those recruiting services the majority of the time the fault lies with the High School coach and those around that player...they didn't get his tapes out so he could be evaluated.
It is what you make of it...
TerryP said:
There are differences between sites sure, but to consistantly favor one over another is pretty obvious.
What bothers me about all of this is everything is still based on personal opinions. The mythical championship is still based on opinion. You can argue that its better because now we have a final game now, but you'll never convince me that USC and Oklahoma deserved to be in the championship game over Utah and Auburn in '04.
Just like this year, how stupid is it that opinions decide who will be in the championship game. I'd love to see someone tell a Longhorn fan Oklahoma is better than them, hence they don't deserve a shot or any of the other 11-1 teams or Utah standing at 12-0.
I do believe the BCS formula could be used to select at large teams for a playoff and seeding, but should it decide for us who is really best!?
What would you think of a playoff format like that below...
I'd make a few changes such as 1st and maybe 2nd round games at home of the higher ranked team. No playing someone from your conference first round. Obviously this was done prior to the final BCS standings, but it gives you an idea. It rewards conference champions, keeping the regular season relevant, plus gives at large teams a ligitimate shot to prove themselves.
One last change I would want is mandating to the computers to weight away wins higher than home wins. It is always harder to win on the road than home and teams willing to travel and able to win should be rewarded.
We're (non-BCS) not saying we'll win a national championship, but we want it decided on the field, rather than in the media.
Let me know what you think...
Yes, I probably could convince you that Auburn didn't belong there in '04. And, for the reasons I don't think Auburn belonged there in '04 the same applies to Utah.
In terms of teams Utah beat in 2004, the best wins were against three teams that were 7-5. Those three teams had the best records that year for any team that you played.
Sorry, strength of schedule just kills you there.
Same with Auburn in 2004. They would deserve a shot before you guys because they did play 3 teams with 9 wins or more on the season. But, they chose to play a really horrible out of conference schedule.
Strength of schedule strikes again.
As to your playoff scenario...
In terms of teams Utah beat in 2004, the best wins were against three teams that were 7-5. Those three teams had the best records that year for any team that you played.
Sorry, strength of schedule just kills you there.
Same with Auburn in 2004. They would deserve a shot before you guys because they did play 3 teams with 9 wins or more on the season. But, they chose to play a really horrible out of conference schedule.
Strength of schedule strikes again.
As to your playoff scenario...
Sixpack said:
Because, if we went to a playoff the NCAA is the one that controls the payouts. It's no longer under the control of the schools and the conferences.
When they talk about it being a "money issue," they are right. It's about who controls the money. Period.
As an example, look back to the 80's when the schools got together and formed the College Football Association so the conferences could sell the television rights for game played. That kept the money in conference coffers but more importantly took it out of the NCAA coffers.
You may not see this is the same light as I do.
The last thing I want to see is the NCAA involved in television contracts, bowl payouts, etc. They will, as they have in college basketball, approach it in a socialistic economic approach.
Personally, I don't give a damn if Ball State doesn't get the same payout as we do. But, if they were included in the arrangement you have mentioned here their share would go to their conference, and then teams like Toledo would be getting paid.
Geez, with so many teams actually losing money with their football programs I'd rather they just shut them down. Heck, the last time I looked UAB was losing several million a year b/c of their football program.
TerryP said:
Yet you hold up your '08 schedule as great. Lets take a look.
Auburn '04
Louisana-Monroe 5-6
Citadel 3-7 (FCS)
Lousiana Tech 6-6
Bama '08
Ark St. 6-6
Clemson 7-5
W. Ky 2-9 (1st year FBS)
Lousiana Tech 2-9
You had one more game in Clemson so that does make your schedule tougher, but I wouldn't go waving it around too much.
Once again we beat so and so who beat so and so. To me that simply doesn't cut it. Using your logic I could discount most programs and find why each team shouldn't be playing for a MNC.
Statistically speaking there are not enough data points in a 12 game season to have any certainty about who's schedule is stronger. The SEC only had 4 games against MWC, Big 12 and Pac-10 teams, going 1-3. Based on the limited data points we have to fall back on how common opponents did and even that is limited and really stretching the possibilities.
If you follow college basketball you'll know that the computer models really don't start showing a real SOS until past 20-25 games. You start having enough data intersections for SOS to emerge. You don't have to rely on this team beat that team which beat that team and so on. In college football there are simply not enough data intersections.
Take a look at USC this year, they man handle OSU, Virgina and Notre Dame. On paper this looks like a much better non-conf schedule than anything the SEC or Big 12 champs have put together. Is it USCs fault that Virgina and Notre Dame are down this year? Yet their out...
Let's look at it from just the BCS school standpoint. If you look at most BCS teams non-conf schedule there are typically around 1 or 2 BCS teams scheduled to play. Lets say an average of 1/team (I counted 12 this year). So the SEC has around 12 BCS non-conf games, there simply isn't enough interaction to tell me Florida is better than USC. To imply that since the team I beat had nine wins thats better than a team with 7 wins is silly if that 9 win team played a crappy non-conf schedule as well. You can only stretch the statistics so far.
Sixpack said:
First of all...
"Yet you hold up your '08 schedule as great. Lets take a look."
I've never said that. I've never said anything remotely close to that.
So, now you are bringing up our schedule in '08? What does that have to do with why I believe neither Utah or Auburn deserved to be in the NC game in '04?
Absolutely nothing.
That said...I suppose your last paragraph is somehow referring to the point that while I didn't think Auburn deserved to be there I thought they had a better argument than Utah playing in the NC game in '04?
Again, I'm not one that falls into this "6-degrees of separation" in comparing football teams.
I can say I saw Texas A&M play a few times in '04 including the beat down that Tennessee put on them in the bowl game.
I also clearly remember that Utah's three big wins in 2004 (those 7-5 A&M, New Mexico and Wyoming teams) only one of those teams was even ranked and that was A&M. But, after their loss to Tennessee they dropped out of both polls.
Compared to Auburn's big wins? A top 10 team in Georgia, and two top 20 teams in Tennessee and LSU.
By that, I think is a pretty safe statement to say an undefeated Auburn team deserved more attention than an undefeated Utah team.
BUT, both didn't deserve a higher recognition than either USC or OU.
TerryP said:
And there is where we go our ways. Why should Baylor or other similar teams benefit from a monopolistic system like the BCS, while others are locked out.
I guess you don't understand the reveue sharing from the NCAA basketball. If the same program was instituted for football I don't see it as socialistic. Each team that participates in a game get a unit. Teams that win get a bigger share, than ones that don't. The revenue is paid to the league just like today and league sharing rules then apply.
The money to be shared is revenue(TV & gate) less expenses (Site allowance, team allowance) (ncaa is limited to a certain amount or percent). I'd also predict that the TV contract would definitely be worth more than current bowl contracts.
The most recent NCAA BBall Tournament contract was $6 Billion for 11 years. So roughly $545 million/year. A football playoff would likely get a similar type contract if not better. Each team is given is allowed so much for expenses per game. This is taken out prior to unit distribution.
You can find more about how the basketball money is distributed here...
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect...662/Revenue Distribution Plan.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
Read the section on the BASKETBALL FUND. That will give you an idea of what I propose.
So teams that win get the money for their conference, sounds socialistic to me. The current system is definitely more socialistic. All teams are given a shot and CF Fans get a real champion. Definitely a lose/lose situation.
TerryP said:
Why should I have to recognize OU or USC, why can't they prove it on the field?
I noticed that you ignored my comments on statistics. There are simply not enough data intersections to definitively say one team is better than another, hence more deserving. You can have your opinion, but mathmatically the computers are really stretching the analysis. Besides 2/3 of the BCS equation is personal opinion.
We could argue this all day, the final question is...
Why are you so against proving it on the field...if the BCS schools are so much better prove it. Give up the monopolistic social program called the BCS and prove it.
Weight road wins more heavily than home victories in the computers, everyone know its harder to win on the road, yet the BCS computers don't reflect it. Yet in BBall they do.
An FCS win/game should be discounted. I don't believe any top FBS teams should be playing an FCS team if they want to be considered for a National Championship. If they do, their SOS should take a hit. USC plays all FBS teams yet their SOS is lower than teams like Bama (W. Kentucky doesn't count as a conditional I believe), Florida, Texas, Utah and Oklahoma who all played FCS teams.
-
🏈 '27 Class Recruiting Updates
Four-Star IOL Jatori Williams has Committed to Alabama- Brandon Van de Graaff
- Replies: 49
-
-
-
Thread '✏ RTB 2025 Pick 'Em contest: Regular Season Final Standings.'
RTB.com's Pick 'Em contest: Are your picks in?- RTB.com
- Replies: 65
-
Thread 'Anybody watched any good new shows or series lately?'
The off-season "blues." What to watch?- Brandon Van de Graaff
- Replies: 110
-
Thread '🏀 2025-26 Bama Basketball Off-season News and Updates: THURS Press Conference with Nate Oats'
Bama held their 1st practice 9/22- Brandon Van de Graaff
- Replies: 642
Similar threads
| PICK 'EM
Pick 'Em, 2026 for SEC Basketball. (Straight up.) Are you in? Games begin first week of January.
- TerryP
- Our Fansights
- 19
- 690
