Don't you love it when analysts say "On paper, Team X" will win? That's another way of saying "my pick is....." because on paper is only an opinion. Then when Team Y wins, those analysts look for excuses because on paper Team X should have won. That's one problem with the BCS... it's all a bunch of "on paper" business. However, I will remember Phil Steele (to not put much value in his opinions)... because "on paper" he doesn't measure up to a competent analyst. Leeson learned: His analysis should always be considered "suspect".........
By the way, I think he may made a mistake in the numbering with that ranking -- he probably meant to put BYU at 14, and Utah at 17. Just a thought.
Actually, he did it 100% on purpose. He also received many emails from Cougar fans. So many that he was forced to respond to why he thought Utah would be better. He sounded like a true Ute fan in his response. He pretty much said that Utah's d-line would be good because "it always is" even though they are inexperienced and unproven. Yet he doesn't give the same credit to a traditionally good BYU LB core.
He pretty much gives the best case scenario for Utah as a given and a mediocre scenario as a given for the Cougs. There have already been 3 or 4 threads about this whole thing before.
