What is disappointing is that Max Hall looks pretty dang good, which wasn't a given before the season, and we are 1-2.

The rebuilding part of this year was the QB.

We are underperforming.

This is my bitch. I bet the 1 and 2 came from Hall being bad, not from the defense, the kicking game and the general lack of preparation being the cause. Losing to Tulsa stinks.

Motor City Bowl? Boy, you sure can hold a grudge.

I don't think UCLA was a bad loss. I think they underperformed against Utah. It was a winnable game but not a bad loss. I also think many are getting all worked up about Tulsa. It was a bit of a buzzsaw.

IMO, this team should have won one of those two. I can agree that at this point in time BYU has underperformed this year, but I don't believe it is to the extent that some of you project.

Further while Max Hall has looked good he has also made some enormous mistakes that have played a big role in the outcomes of the two losses. I stated after the U of A game how huge it was for BYU that the U of A cb dropped that potential pick 6 that hit him right in the hands because had he caught that ball the entire complexion of that game changes.

Regardless, I believe UCLA beat BYU because they had better athletes. Tulsa beat the Y because BYU was totally unprepared. For anyone to believe that the loss to Tulsa was as bad as the SDSU loss is difficult for me to grasp. That smells of someone who just wants to whine.

It mirrors the 1985 UTEP loss, because we had just lost to UCLA even though we kinda expected to win, we were on a high horse expecting a blowout win and gave a half-hearted effort in an ill-prepared method to lose to an inferior opponent.

1985 UTEP was much worse, I watched every stinking moment, as I wondered aloud why not Fowler who was not injured unlike Bosco.

So, because we were unprepared both mentally and physically I see some analogies to the SDSU loss.

I think the comparison works better with Crowton. BYU 2001 = ND 2006. Then the wheels fell off.

In your opinion, did UCLA also underperform against BYU? Or did they overperform, or play at their skill level?

UCLA is a much better team at home they are on the road. I don't think they played up to their potential against BYU, as BYU should not have doubled up the Bruins statistically, but BYU played into their hands a bit through stupid errors. Regardless, against BYU I think the Bruins played with emotion. Against the Utes, the Bruins just did not care.

It reminded me of an undefeated UCLA squad in 2005 rolling into Tucson and losing to a two win U of A team 55-7.

Karl Dorrell is a mediocre coach who rarely gets the best from his talent, I think he got enough to be dangerous when the Bruins played BYU.

I partly disagree with you about UCLA against the Utes. UCLA cared until midway through the 3rd quarter when Louks threw the TD pass to Rogers (where everyone went right and Louks threw back to the left). After that, UCLA gave up.

Wusses.

I was hoping that UCLA would score, so I could give them a pity cheer, much like what UCLA fans gave BYU several years ago when the Bruins throttled BYU in the Rose Bowl.

I think that UCLA played with quite a bit of emotion up until the fumble caused by Robert Johnson deflated them late in the 3rd quarter.

The Utes are much better than many are giving them credit for in getting this win.

Well, you can give them credit for the UCLA win, but what is the real Ute team: the UCLA one or the Oregon State/AFA one?

I think the Utes are far more capable than they appeared in the OSU and AFA games. I can agree that they demonstrated capability that indicates they are still a top tier team in the MWC and if they play like they did against UCLA every week they could win a heck of a lot of their remaining games.

However, UCLA's history under Carl Dorrell is a fact that cannot be just swept aside. His teams have a proven history of some enormous choke jobs on the road. Time will tell if Utah is that good or if UCLA just failed to show up.

The real team is closer to the one that beat UCLA. I think you know that, but are hesitant to admit it because of your hatred for all things University of Utah.

The real Ute team is the team you saw on Saturday. The downside to the Utes nearly every year is that they develop mental weakness, usually midway through the season. I think that mentally the Utes were weakened by the OSU and AFA losses, and now they have regrouped, and have gained significant confidence. Utah could win every remaining game if they can avoid more mental setbacks resulting in a loss of confidence.

You have got to admit that the Utes athleticism on Saturday was not that surprising.

I have twice the amount of 2007 data that says they suck than I have data that says they don't.

...

So? Data can be manipulated to say whatever one wants it to say.

The Utes wouldn't have lost to OSU had Johnson and Asiata not been hurt. The offense stalled after Johnson went down.

Against AFA, Grady sucked because he's not a spread offense QB. Against UCLA, the Utes tailored an offensive scheme for Grady's ability and he had a much better game.

I didn't say the weighting should be TeamRating = Game3 * 3 + Game 2 + Game1

I disagree. Tulsa's receivers were too fast for our DBs. It was probably far more obvious in person than it could have been on TV.

I'm dismayed at the fervor of Indy's hatred for the U of U. It's ugly.

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...6&postcount=52

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...1&postcount=56

This is your cause for dismay? You're worse than my mom.

For someone who posts 10:1 BYU to Utah and 1,000:1 Mormon religion vs whatever he believes, this has to be the ultimate pot/kettle/black comment ever.

But I'm sure he'll tell you he was being purposefully ironic.

What lou holtz forgets to mention is that he is the biggest cheater east of tom osborne

As David Locke so accurately stated the last time he was here in SLC, BYU is a good barometer to see just how good BCS teams are. If BYU beats them, they're not very good. If BYU loses to them, they're a decent team.