Quantcast
Sports

Stanford Cardinal falls to No. 13 after Saturday's loss to Utah

Comments

Return To Article
  • Wacko Houston, TX
    Oct. 13, 2013 6:26 p.m.

    So the Cardinal fell to #13, but how high did our Utes rise? We are certain to be in the top 20 after that impressive win right? I'm surprised the headline isn't "Utes rise to #1" Come on DN why no mention of our ranking?

  • Christopher B Ogden, UT
    Oct. 13, 2013 8:01 p.m.

    Some Intersting difference between utah's win over Stanford and byu's win over Texas.

    Stanford was not kicked out of the top 25 for losing to Utah. Texas was for losing to byu

    I don't see national media mocking Stanford for losing to Utah like we did Texas for losing to byu

    Stanford didn't fire a coordinator for losing to Utah. Texas did

    Stanford's coach isn't on the hot seat for losing to Utah. Texas coach is on hot seat, with most people pointing to byu loss as "the final straw"

    Speaks volumes about what the football works thinks of byu and Utah

  • BigCougFan Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Oct. 13, 2013 8:01 p.m.

    Congrats to the Utes on an upset win.. But (Re: Wacko) it will take more than one PAC12 win to move you into the top 20.

  • StGtoSLC SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Oct. 13, 2013 9:27 p.m.

    BigCougFan, Wacko is obviously trying to get digs in by trying to mock Utah fans for things they've never said.

  • FYI Taylorsville, UT
    Oct. 13, 2013 9:41 p.m.

    Even though Wacko is being sarcastic and mocking I will answer that question: AP Ranking #29, Coaches #34.

  • skywalker Palo Alto, CA
    Oct. 14, 2013 6:34 a.m.

    borrowing from Deep Blue

    Latest Rankings

    AP/Coaches/Sagarin

    #9/#10/#6 UCLA(5-0)
    #13/#13/#14 Stanford(5-1)
    #18/#18/#18 Oklahoma(5-1)
    ur/ur/#24 BYU(4-2)
    ur/ur/#25 Utah(4-2)
    ur/ur/#29 Texas(4-2)
    ur/ur/#37 Oregon St(5-1)
    ur/ur/#40 Georgia Tech(3-3)

    Utah is 29th in AP and 34th in Coaches in "Others Receiving Votes"

    -------

    Next big hurdle for Utah: win a road game against a PAC team with a winning record, something the Utes haven't done since 1996, interestingly, at Stanford 17-10.

  • SportsFan Orem, UT
    Oct. 14, 2013 7:43 a.m.

    The biggest difference in Utah's win over Stanford versus BYU's win over Texas:

    The Utes barely survived beating the Cardinal by the skin of their teeth.

    The Cougars curb stomped the Longhorns, rolling over Texas for 550 yards rushing, the MOST rushing yards EVER given up by Texas in over 1,200 games.

    The second biggest difference:

    Texas is one of the elite football programs with multiple AP national championships, including one with Mack Brown as head coach. (Expectations at Texas are always much higher than they are at non-elite schools.)

    Stanford is a sometimes up, sometimes down program, that has had more losing seasons than winning seasons in the last 20 years and has never won an AP national championship.

  • Veritas Aequitas Fruit Heights, UT
    Oct. 14, 2013 8:23 a.m.

    Chris,

    Focus on what you are, rather than what you are not.

    You will never be what you aren't...

  • BeSmart Cheyenne, WY
    Oct. 14, 2013 8:42 a.m.

    The season is only half over there are a lot of road games left to play. That is a true measure of a team.
    Would the Utes beat Stanford at Stanford? nobody knows.
    The utes are good but they have not left the State of Utah yet. Road games are a monster just looks at the utes beating Stanford or BYU beating Texas.
    One win does not make a premier program for either school. That is getting national titles and 10 win seasons.

  • BeSmart Cheyenne, WY
    Oct. 14, 2013 8:43 a.m.

    P.S. The national media are not saying Utah is a premier team now.
    Lou Holtz said Utah won because of Stanford midterms.

  • Ed Grady Idaho Falls, ID
    Oct. 14, 2013 8:50 a.m.

    Wow! For Stanford to drop 8 spots in the poll tells you the disrespect the polls have for Utah.

  • JD-Dad RIVERTON, UT
    Oct. 14, 2013 8:56 a.m.

    @SportsFan

    Over the last 20 years? Really, why not look at the last 3 years. That's a look at where the program is now.
    Stanford:
    2012 12-2 Rosebowl Champ
    2011 11-2 Lose in Fiesta Bowl
    2010 12-1 Orange Bowl Champ

    Texas:
    2012 11-2 Cotton Bowl Champ
    2011 8-5 Holiday Bowl Champ
    2010 5-7 Not Bowl Eligible

    Seems to me, Stanford is currently the better program.

    Next you'll be using the logic that the more Texas wins the better byU looks. To that, I say keep winning byU you just keep making the UTES look better and better. Then again, we have been saying that for the past 4 years.

    @Wacko##
    Utah is clearly a big time program when people from Texas are posting on a local article. Don't you have a local Texas team to worry about?

  • BeSmart Cheyenne, WY
    Oct. 14, 2013 9:34 a.m.

    Differences between BYU win over Texas and Utah win over Stanford.
    BYU destroyed texas (reason why they fell out of the polls, and fired a coordinator)
    Utah wins on a last minute goal line stand (Stanford was always in the game)
    Lou Holtz- Stanford lost because they were mentally tired from midterms (that isn't mocking Utah)
    I think Utah did a great job and won a great game.
    Did you see that Texas team is ranked above the Utes?
    Utes are better than BYU this year, but both teams have a long road ahead.
    Go Utes and Cougs
    Still a lot to prove on the road.

  • SportsFan Orem, UT
    Oct. 14, 2013 10:17 a.m.

    JD-Dad

    Regardless of how you slice it, Stanford may be doing well lately, but they are not an elite program.

    Texas may be down a little, but they are an elite program.

    Speaking of better programs, why isn't Utah ranked ahead of Stanford? After all, by virtue of their win over the Cardinal, aren't the Utes the better program?

  • utahcountyute Cedar Hills, UT
    Oct. 14, 2013 10:28 a.m.

    Bottom line, this is one W in a long season. A really nice W, that the Utes really needed before heading out on the road, but ONE W.

    Love the cougies on here trying to down grade the Cardinal to make themselves feel better. Classic cougs. lol

    Go Utes!

  • Cougars - Wise Older Brothers Anaheim, CA
    Oct. 14, 2013 11:08 a.m.

    utahcountyute

    "Love the [Cougars] on here trying to down grade the Cardinal to make themselves feel better. Classic Cougs."

    Classic hypocritical comment from a Ute considering all of the downgrading of Texas that Utah fans have been doing all season to make themselves feel better.

    Go BYU Cougars!

  • Rockwell Baltimore, MD
    Oct. 14, 2013 11:17 a.m.

    SportsFan

    Good questions:

    "why isn't Utah ranked ahead of Stanford? After all, by virtue of their win over the Cardinal, aren't the Utes the better program?"

    Isn't this the narrative Utah fans have been spouting forever that the head-to-head PROVES which team is BETTER, regardless of whatever happens the rest of the season?

    If any Utah fan can give a logical explanation of why Stanford is ranked 13th and Utah is unranked, without totally negating their head-to-head narrative, I'd love to hear it.

  • UoU 1991 Park City, UT
    Oct. 14, 2013 12:04 p.m.

    Rockwell

    "If any Utah fan can give a logical explanation of why Stanford is ranked 13th and Utah is unranked, without totally negating their head-to-head narrative, I'd love to hear it."

    Based on head-to-head, there isn't a logical explanation for explaining why Stanford is ranked and Utah isn't; and there certainly isn't a logical argument to claim that unranked Utah is better than a team ranked 13th.

    This was a great, confidence-building, signature win for Utah, but it won't mean much if the Utes finish 7-5 and unranked.

  • StGtoSLC SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Oct. 14, 2013 12:17 p.m.

    "Classic hypocritical comment from a Ute considering all of the downgrading of Texas that Utah fans have been doing all season to make themselves feel better."

    Don't know if you understand the meaning of the word, but it's really only hypocritical if you can cite utahcountyute for doing the same thing. My guess is that you can't, but I don't really read the Cougar boards too often, so I could be wrong.

  • Utefan4Lyf West Jordan, UT
    Oct. 14, 2013 12:26 p.m.

    How do you quote Lou Holtz as an excuse for a loss? That, and the fact that Stanfords quarter started three weeks ago, which means midterms are still a few weeks out, makes that comment ridiculous.

  • phoenix Gilbert, AZ
    Oct. 14, 2013 12:59 p.m.

    StGtoSLC

    Don't kid yourself. If utahcountyute didn't call out his fellow Utah fans for trying to diminish BYU's win over Texas, he's just a guilty of hypocrisy as those who did.

  • JD-Dad RIVERTON, UT
    Oct. 14, 2013 1:35 p.m.

    @ sportsfan

    "Regardless of how you slice it, Stanford may be doing well lately, but they are not an elite program.

    Texas may be down a little, but they are an elite program."

    When does one become an elite program? 3 BCS bowls in the last three years, competing in the PAC 12 and Pac 10 prior to that, 5 losses in 3 years compared to 14 for Texas. 3 Texas wins this year NMSt 0-6, KSt 2-3, ISt 1-4. Stanford has one win against team with loosing record Army 3-4. Since 1985 Texas v Stanford 2-2. Calling Stanford not elite is ignorant.

    Utah wins against quality opponents is not on the same level as Stanford, but it's getting there as the schedule progresses. Hopefully the quality wins will keep coming Utah's way and they will work themselves up the Polls.

    Head to head vs poll rankings have always been difficult to explain, too much goes into poll rankings. However, in a given year if a team beats another they can and should be able to hold that over the other team. A win is a win no matter, "how you slice it."

  • D4inSLC SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Oct. 14, 2013 1:47 p.m.

    All of the "our win was better than your win" is pure silliness. They were both great wins. Next it will be "my mamma can beat up your daddy". and the answer is....."of course she can - have you seen her lately!"

  • FYI Taylorsville, UT
    Oct. 14, 2013 1:59 p.m.

    @Ed Grady
    "Wow! For Stanford to drop 8 spots in the poll tells you the disrespect the polls have for Utah."

    I do not know if the polls indicate respect. However, if as you claim, how many spots a team drops tells about the disrespect the polls have for a team, then what does it say about the disrespect the polls had for BYU when Texas dropped from #15 to #29 after that loss.(AP Poll) After their win over Texas BYU received 14 votes in the AP Poll. After their win over Stanford, Utah received 47 votes. Are the polls indicating that there was more respect for Utah's win over than Stanford's than BYU's over Texas?

    @BeSmart
    Here is what Lou Holtz actually said,"I don't know that for a fact, but that looked like a football team that was in midterms. He didn't know and made a ridiculous excuse since Stanford didn't have midterms. In addition, these are student athletes, playing during testing is part of the deal, often with better rescources for study than the average student.

    There were teams out there winning on Saturday that had midterms last week, possibly even Utah.

  • slcjimmy SLC, UT
    Oct. 14, 2013 2:16 p.m.

    No one can understand Lou Holtz when he attempts to speak anyway!

  • Y's little brother Sandy, UT
    Oct. 14, 2013 3:58 p.m.

    JD-Dad

    "When does one become an elite program?"

    No program can truly be considered "elite", without winning at least one consensus (#1 in AP and Coaches polls) National Championship.

    Stanford is a very good program, currently, but nobody considers the Cardinal an "elite" program.

  • BeSmart Cheyenne, WY
    Oct. 14, 2013 4:13 p.m.

    UteFan4Lyf
    I am not making fun of utahs win, nor saying that is the truth.
    All I meant to show is some in the media are coming up with excuses.
    The utes are good.
    But I don't think people should berate another program because they beat a top 5 opponent.

  • backpacn Sandy, UT
    Oct. 14, 2013 4:29 p.m.

    FYI

    Anybody trying to determine "respect for a program" based on one week's movement in a poll is grasping at straws.

  • nosaerfoecioveht NSL, UT
    Oct. 14, 2013 4:48 p.m.

    @sportsfan

    "Regardless of how you slice it, Stanford may be doing well lately, but they are not an elite program.

    Texas may be down a little, but they are an elite program."

    LOL! All that matters is who was better ten years ago!

    The spin cycle has been cranked to high.

  • talkinsports Gilbert, AZ
    Oct. 14, 2013 4:51 p.m.

    nosaerfoecioveht

    Remind us the last time Stanford won a national championship.

    * crickets *

  • JD-Dad RIVERTON, UT
    Oct. 14, 2013 8:51 p.m.

    @Y's little brother

    Interesting definition:

    Elite football programs by the AP poll:

    Minnesota: 1936, TCU 1938, Pittsburgh 1937,76, Army 1944,45, Tennessee 1951, Iowa 1958, Syracuse 1959, Colorado 1990.

    By your definition these are elite programs. You need to join the here and now and let go of 1984. I know that none of us are truly considered experts in college football rankings, however, you would be hard pressed to find one that would agree that these programs are currently elite and Stanford is not. I guess Oregon is not an elite program either.

    I need to get some of your punch because mine just can't seem to cloud my mind enough to accept your definition. Cheers!!

  • yankees27 Heber, Utah
    Oct. 14, 2013 9:26 p.m.

    JD dad, that's funny. You called a guy out on a ridiculous way of showing that a team is Elite. By winning 1 NC? Ha! So both schools (Y and the U) have beaten "Elite" programs like TCU, and the U beating an "Elite" Pitt team in the Fiesta bowl, jeez, that was like amazing. So, losing against an "Elite" Colorado team 2 years ago with the South on the line isn't as bad as it once looked. I'm glad that guy brought to my attention, that Colorado should be considered "Elite" suddenly that loss doesn't sting as much.

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    Oct. 14, 2013 9:37 p.m.

    @jd-dad

    Truly elite programs, of which there are very few, are programs that have sustained a high level of success over a long period of time and have won the ultimate football prizes, national championship and heisman trophy, along the way. Those programs include usc, notre dame, alabama, michigan, texas, oklahoma, and perhaps a couple of others but that is it. Stanford, while currently an excellent team and program, is not one of these elite programs. They have none of the honors nor do they have the sustained success.

    Yes all of those programs have had occasional down periods, and some other programs, like oregon or stanford, have risen up for short periods of time, but to be elite it must be done for a looooong time and they have to attain the pinnacles along the way.

    So beating a good team in any given season is always a nice accomplishment, but beating a team acknowledged to be one of the very few of the elite is always a big deal even if that elite team is having one of its occasional down seasons because being able to say you beat them is a big deal forever.

  • JD-Dad RIVERTON, UT
    Oct. 14, 2013 10:35 p.m.

    Oh Ducky, so nice of you to join in. One name for you Jim Plunkett 1970 Heisman winner and oh by the way, he played for Stanford.

    Better put Pitt back on that list 1976 Tony Dorsett, SMU Doak Walker 1948, Army 1945,46,58, Iowa 1939, Minnesota 1941, Colorado 1994, all Heisman winners. How about Navy 1963 Roger Staubach, come on this Staubach. If that is not a "pinnacle" I'm not sure what is.

    I'll have some of the same punch your drinking as well. My Blanton's is just not cutting it these days.

    Are you still using that apple IIc to connect to the internet. I had one in '84 when I was in high school. How did you retrofit it to get on the internet?

  • Just the FAX Olympus Cove, Utah
    Oct. 14, 2013 11:15 p.m.

    JD-Dad

    two words - reading comprehension

    Y's little brother said "No program can truly be considered "elite", without winning at least one consensus (#1 in AP and Coaches polls) National Championship."

    In other words, winning a consensus National Championship is the MINIMUM requirement for being considered an "elite" program; he never said it was the only requirement.

    Perennial Top 25 finishes, numerous national award winning players, Heisman Trophy winners, dozens of conference championships, and dozens of bowl appearances would be additional requirements to considered an elite program.

  • TrueBlue Orem, UT
    Oct. 14, 2013 11:37 p.m.

    JD-Dad

    "Elite football programs by the AP poll:..."

    That's not what he said is it?

    What he really said was:

    No program can truly be considered "elite",
    without winning at least one CONSENSUS National Championship,
    that is, finishing #1 in BOTH the AP AND Coaches polls.

    But, that was only the MINIMUM requirement; not the only requirement.

    As Duckhunter stated, there are only a handful of schools that most fans would classify as "elite":

    Notre Dame, USC, Ohio State, Michigan, Penn St, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Florida, Florida St, Miami, Alabama, LSU, Georgia, Tennessee, and Auburn,

    which coincidentally, accounts for ALL of the CONSENSUS National Champions during the last 30 years.

    Stanford, as good as they've been recently, doesn't come close to being an elite team.

  • nosaerfoecioveht NSL, UT
    Oct. 14, 2013 11:47 p.m.

    @JD-Dad

    Haha nicely done sir.

    This whole thread is hilarious. Now byu's win over texas is more impressive / meaningful / whatever comforting adjective you want to use, than Utah's win over mid-season #5 ranked powerhouse Stanford, because historically Texas was a better program.

    The mental gymnastics Ute-haters use to cope with Utah victories, never ceases to entertain :)

  • JD-Dad RIVERTON, UT
    Oct. 15, 2013 8:40 a.m.

    You have to relate history in it's own context. That is, if it was accepted that a champion was crowned by one poll than that is what you must take it. You cannot use a two poll definition if two polls did not exist or it was not accepted at that time to be crowned a champion. Therefore, Army '44,'45 meets your criteria of consesus national champions ans heisman winners and, by your thinking, from now until eternity must be considered elite.
    I am saying that your definition of elite is wrong. I quess I am more of what have you done for me lately kind of guy. I am saying that programs become elite from time to time. Not all the programs that were elite 10-20-30 years ago are elite now. Vise vera, there are current elite programs that were not elite even a decade ago. If you show dominance over a short period, during that period you should be considered elite.
    I think you are confusing elite with tradition. The two are not the same.
    I would love to see you tell Dennis Erickson that his '91 championship doesn't mean as much(not consensus).

  • WON84 PLANO, TX
    Oct. 15, 2013 9:29 a.m.

    "Christopher B

    Ogden, UT

    Some Intersting difference between utah's win over Stanford and byu's win over Texas."

    Why is BYU and not Oregon the measuring stick?

  • SportsFan Orem, UT
    Oct. 15, 2013 10:46 a.m.

    JD-Dad

    Regardless of whether Army was once an elite program is irrelevant - that glow has long since faded.

    NOBODY today recognizes Army or Minnesota or Harvard or Yale or any other team that hasn't won a national championship in over half a century as elite programs.

    btw, would Army have won back-to-back national championships if not for WWII siphoning most of the best talent from all of the other top football programs of the day?

    Stanford has been a very good football program lately, but the Cardinal are at best a step below truly elite programs like USC, Texas, Oklahoma, Notre Dame, and Alabama.

  • DSB Cedar Hills, UT
    Oct. 15, 2013 3:00 p.m.

    Sounds like many BYU fans need to take up residence in India, where the caste system dictates who is inherently better than other people. What in the world difference does it make if a team has a traditional resume, national championships, and awards? Who is best RIGHT NOW and are you able to compete with them?

    If by some fluke Kent State winds up with unusually fantastic talent, heart, and grit, and demolishes everyone in their path, would a win against a down Texas team really be better than a victory against Kent State in that season?

    Can't we all agree that Stanford is demonstrably better than Texas this year? Maybe Texas has turned things around, but is there any question when BYU played them, they were a little worse than terrible? And, that Stanford has put together an enviable program over the past 3-4 years. Are some of you really arguing that a victory over a poor team (Texas) is really better than a victory over a very good team (Stanford)?

    As a BYU fan, sometimes I'm embarrassed to have Chris B counterweights on my side. It's really ok if Utah's pretty good this year.

  • JD-Dad RIVERTON, UT
    Oct. 15, 2013 3:16 p.m.

    Let's see,when you try to define Stanford you look at there history and say, "they are not elite." When I give you teams with the history, that you described (national champs, heisman, etc.), you say they are not elite. So it must be that the present, the here and now, should be used to define elite and that your previous definition has now changed. You can't have one definition for one program and another for another program.
    If history is not it, then recent times must be it. Last 3 years:

    Okl 32-8
    ND 28-11 loss to Cardinal '10,'11
    USC 25-13 loss to Cardinal all 3 years
    Tex 24-14
    Bama 35-5
    Stan 35-5

    Stanford and Oregon have influenced college football and have in someways redefined it. Their facilities off the field, their records on the field clearly show that.

    btw, shameful to belittle Army's accomplishments like that. Kids at that school preparing for war and getting maybe one last chance to play a sport they love. Both '45 and '46 Heisman winners went to West Point by choice!!

  • deductive reasoning Arlington, VA
    Oct. 15, 2013 4:25 p.m.

    JD-Dad

    You can argue until you're blue in the face, but NOBODY, except a few Utah fans trying to pump up their win over the Cardinal, considers Stanford an elite football program.

    EVERYBODY, considers Texas an elite football program; it's not even debatable.

    Even the PAC acknowledged that when Scott tried desperately to persuade Texas and Oklahoma to join the PAC.

  • TroyTown Anaheim, CA
    Oct. 15, 2013 4:31 p.m.

    Sounds like Utah fans need to take a reality pill and stop pretending that every team in the PAC is an elite team.

    The truth, there's only one truly elite football program in the PAC, and that's USC.

    Stanford, UCLA, Oregon, Washington, and others have been very good at times, but none of them rises to the level of being "elite".

  • Uteanymous Salt Lake City, Utah
    Oct. 15, 2013 5:04 p.m.

    Let's end the debate

    All-time College Football Team Rankings

    Rank/Team/Total Points/Win Percent Points/Schedule Points/NC Points/Big 4 Bowl Points

    1 Alabama 2506.63 712.43 899.2 560 335
    2 Notre Dame 2339.01 733.03 885.98 475 245
    3 Southern California 2271.59 701.47 820.12 395 355
    4 Oklahoma 2196.39 715.9 810.49 350 320
    5 Michigan 2179.54 732.91 931.63 235 280
    6 Ohio St. 2134.96 716 843.95 280 295
    7 Texas 2080.93 714.05 861.87 200 305
    8 Nebraska 2073.1 703.57 819.53 250 300
    9 Louisiana St. 1990.28 648.23 892.06 165 285
    10 Tennessee 1874.7 684.34 830.36 130 230

  • DSB Cedar Hills, UT
    Oct. 16, 2013 8:41 a.m.

    I any football player would rather be on a very good team, regardless of its historical eliteness, than a traditionally elite program in a bad year. This year, would you rather play for Stanford or Texas? For the past 3 years, is defeating Stanford or Texas a better victory for your team? Clearly the answer is Stanford.

  • Uteanymous Salt Lake City, Utah
    Oct. 16, 2013 9:38 a.m.

    DSB

    How do you know that Texas won't be the better team by season's end?

    Texas just got through curb-stomping then 12th-ranked, now 18th-ranked Oklahoma, while Stanford was losing to unranked Utah.

    Did you ever consider the possibility that Stanford might be over rated this year?

  • Spokane Ute Spokane, WA
    Oct. 16, 2013 10:08 a.m.

    Who actually won this year when Utah and BYU played? Just askin..........

  • talkinsports Gilbert, AZ
    Oct. 16, 2013 10:49 a.m.

    Spokane Ute

    "Who actually won this year when Utah and BYU played?"

    Since this is an article about Stanford falling dramatically in polls after losing to Utah, your question is irrelevant.

  • truthsandwich RANDOLPH, UT
    Oct. 16, 2013 12:01 p.m.

    @talkinsports

    "Since this is an article about Stanford falling dramatically in polls after losing to Utah, your question is irrelevant."

    Stanford fell 'dramatically' eh. How would you describe what happened to Texas' ranking?

    LOL

  • Mr. Plate Lindon, UT
    Oct. 16, 2013 12:26 p.m.

    @truthsandwich - Texas fell even more dramatically than Stanford, so what's your point? Did talkinsports claim that Texas did not fall dramatically? 'Cause if he did, I missed it. Maybe you and Spokane Ute should start a radio talk show where every discussion, about every topic, about every sport, every day, football season or not, could end with the question "Who actually won this year when Utah and BYU played?" And then you could ROFL shouting LOL! LOL! to the 5 listeners who think your line of argument makes sense. By the way, does anyone but 13-year-old girls still use LOL?

  • truthsandwich RANDOLPH, UT
    Oct. 16, 2013 1:20 p.m.

    @ Mr. Plate

    It looks like that comment really ruffled your feathers. The point is that byu fans who don't have any room to talk, probably shouldn't be talking. Especially on Utah articles.

    But it's fun to respond to the one's who do!

    LOL!

  • JD-Dad RIVERTON, UT
    Oct. 16, 2013 3:00 p.m.

    @uteanymous

    My point is that I don't believe in looking back at your distant history to determine elite status. That's why I brought up those teams that had met the requirements of NC and Heisman. Clearly, those teams are not elite at the present time. I will be the first to admit that Stanford has at times sucked and not deserving of an elite status.
    Being elite is having a higher status, influence, and higher capabilities, and with sports a recent proven record. If you take a 3 to 4 year period of a schools history (typical recruiting class period), you can determine if that school is an elite program at that time. The college football landscape is very dynamic with certain programs meeting that definition of elite status and then falling away. You can't tell me that over the last 3-4 years schools like Oregon and Stanford, yes there are others, don't meet that requirement of being elite. How many programs use them as a measuring stick? How many programs are trying to keep up their facilities, on field success, even their many different uniforms in the case of Oregon? Emulation is the highest form of flattery.

  • MrPlate Lindon, UT
    Oct. 16, 2013 5:30 p.m.

    @truthsandwich - it would probably be helpful if you learned to tell the difference between some tongue-in-cheek banter and having ruffled feathers. Maybe not being able to tell the difference is the result of the same chip on your shoulder that compels you and Spokane Ute to bring the discussion back to BYU.

    Anyway, no ruffled feathers - just doing my part to help keep BYU-obsessed Ute fans on topic, which I admit is an impossible task with some. Thanks for the clarification, because when people of any and all fan bases are talking about the actual subject of the article (in this case - the fall of Stanford from #5 to #13 after playing Utah), and then others have to expose their inferiority complex by diverting attention to BYU, it should be prefaced with some clarification on the relevance of the diversion.

  • Marked it Down Park City, UT
    Oct. 16, 2013 6:06 p.m.

    JD-Dad

    "My point is that I don't believe in looking back at your distant history to determine elite status."

    Texas last won a national championship in 2005.
    Stanford last won a shared national championship with Alabama in 1926.
    Oregon has never won a national championship.

    It's quite obvious which one of the three is an elite program and which ones have only had a few good years recently.

  • DeepBlue Anaheim, CA
    Oct. 16, 2013 6:23 p.m.

    JD-Dad

    It takes MUCH more than 3 or 4 great seasons to become an elite team - it's more like 3 or 4 great DECADES, and Stanford hasn't even had one great decade.

    Since 2002, Stanford has had 4 winning seasons, 7 straight LOSING seasons, no undefeated seasons, and only one season with less than 2 losses.

    2002 2-9
    2003 4-7
    2004 4-7
    2005 5-6
    2006 1-11
    2007 4-8
    2008 5-7
    2009 8-5
    2010 12-1
    2011 11-2
    2012 12-2

    Overall record 68-65; nothing even close to establishing "eliteness" there.

  • Spokane Ute Spokane, WA
    Oct. 16, 2013 8:30 p.m.

    How sad it must be to lose to your rival 4 years in a row, troll there articles, and post slanted statistics to try and justify your teams realavence. That's exactly what many BYU fans continue to do. Sad and pathetic when you think about it

  • Uteanymous Salt Lake City, Utah
    Oct. 16, 2013 10:18 p.m.

    How sad it must be to continue to pretend that one game makes a season, even though you've finished with a worse record and lower ranking than your rival 5 of the last 8 seasons.

  • truthsandwich RANDOLPH, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 10:21 a.m.

    @ Mr. Plate

    Yeah. Those feathers still sound ruffled.

    You could try posting statistics about how Texas was better than Stanford in 2005. That seems to be making a lot of byu fans feel a little better for some reason.

  • MrPlate Lindon, UT
    Oct. 17, 2013 2:26 p.m.

    @truthsandwich - nice try. You and SpokaneUte take a comment about the article, and divert attention to BYU because of the large chips on your shoulders, then get defensive when called out on the exposure of your insecurities. Sounds more like your feathers are in a perpetual state of being ruffled, just waiting for any opportunity to get offended and turn attention to the team you dislike.

    As for me, why would I post statistics about Texas? Again, the article isn't about Texas or BYU. Just because you are incapable of separating any Ute discussion from your obsession with BYU doesn't mean I and others can't stay on topic.

    Personally, I like the Utes. I like Coach Whit, and the players. I think Stanford is better than Texas, although we need to see the entire season to make a fair judgment about that.

    Let's face it - Utah and BYU are not great teams. Above average, but not great. You, Spokane Ute, Chris B and Duckhunter can argue all day long about who is better, but really you're fighting about who is 33rd best in the land versus who is 34th best. A pretty pathetic debate.

  • poyman Lincoln City, OR
    Oct. 17, 2013 10:55 p.m.

    I guess the Stanford dive only goes to show how disappointed those voting in the Polls were with the Indians (I mean the Cardinal) loss... They obviously viewed it as a huge upset... Congrats utah for killing Stanford's hope of a National Championship and in winning your first conference game against a team with a winning record...

    It will be interesting to see how the utes do on the road in league play this week... If they lose to the Wildcats the Pollsters will view last week as a flash in the pan...

  • Samurai Jake Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 18, 2013 4:56 p.m.

    Utah has byu's number, and beat them for the fourth straight year.

    Utah beat a higher ranked opponent than byu did this year.

    Utah received nearly 50 votes in the latest AP Coaches Poll (the ones who are tuned into what's happening on the actual field of play), byu received zero votes.

    Utah still has an outside shot at playing in the PAC-12 Title game, byu still has a chance for...?