BYU_rocks wrote:

Thanks for the reminder. I think we all forgot about how we won the LV Bowl last year. We did win, right? BYU beat UCLA, correct? Or did we just get lucky? I think we were just lucky. We shouldn't give BYU any credit for winning that game. After all, it is style points that count, not wins and losses. I would have preferred a 41-40 loss versus a 17-16 win any day of the week!

I hope the reader is able to discern the sardonic nature of this post. By the way, while we are on the subject of reminders, did you know that the "bad" UCLA Bruins were playing for a Rose Bowl birth in their last conference game of the year vs. USC?

Go Cougars! Here's to a 13-0 season and BCS win!

How can you even argue that a 6-6 team that got absolutely destroyed by Utah was a good team? Especially when they were playing with their 3RD STRING QB!

Sure BYU won, but they should have won. It's nothing to get all that excited about. It's not like BYU beat USC or something.

j2b03 wrote:

A little off topic but, I bothers me that people keep saying, BYU is working harder than any other school in the nation in the offseason:unsure: ummm, really? How do you know that? Just because our long gone insider said they are working hard doesn't mean that other teams are working less. I am a BYU homer but come on we can never know that is true, it may be but . . .

It's called eyewitness reports.

On the reverse prove they are not.

timmyboy wrote:

In the first place, let's be sure to divorce playing in the BCS with being a top national team. These two things are not the same. Hawaii proved it last year. Pittsburgh proved it in 2004. Notre Dame proves it all the time. Being BCS-worthy only has a little to do with being a top team.

Now that I got that out of the way, maybe we can reframe the question - is BYU really a Top 10 team?

Absolutely true.

I think can be a BCS caliber team this year. I don't think they are a top 10 team.

Top 10 teams can actually win road nonconference games and can beat legit top 25 teams more than once a decade. BYU hasn't cleared those hurdles yet under Bronco. I'm confident they will, but it just goes to show how far BYU still has to go in order to get where Bronco wants to program to be (A National Title Contender).

I'm not arguing that UCLA was a great team, or even a very good team. They were an average PAC-10 team. The PAC-10 is a very good conference so UCLA even being average means that they are still a decent team. They have high school all-americans and great athletes. So what they were playing with the 3rd string QB? Should we feel sorry for them? Injuries happen and are part of the game.

BYU's win over UCLA was a great win, especially the manner in which the game was won. It is frustrating when fans want to dismiss the Cougars effort as sub-par or say that BYU isn't a great team because BYU didn't blow out UCLA. That just doesn't make sense to me. Granted BYU didn't play a great game, but they WON! I will never look down on a win, especially against a PAC-10 team.

By the way, mighty USC lost to woeful Standford at home. Standford was a 41 POINT UNDERDOG. What does that say about the Trojans? That they are a terrible team?? hmmm?

BYU_rocks wrote:

I'm not arguing that UCLA was a great team, or even a very good team. They were an average PAC-10 team. The PAC-10 is a very good conference so UCLA even being average means that they are still a decent team. They have high school all-americans and great athletes. So what they were playing with the 3rd string QB? Should we feel sorry for them? Injuries happen and are part of the game.

BYU's win over UCLA was a great win, especially the manner in which the game was won. It is frustrating when fans want to dismiss the Cougars effort as sub-par or say that BYU isn't a great team because BYU didn't blow out UCLA. That just doesn't make sense to me. Granted BYU didn't play a great game, but they WON! I will never look down on a win, especially against a PAC-10 team.

By the way, mighty USC lost to woeful Standford at home. Standford was a 41 POINT UNDERDOG. What does that say about the Trojans? That they are a terrible team?? hmmm?

It says the Trojans had a lot of injuries and their string qb was too dumb to realize that he had a broken finger and come out. If booty had sat down instead of deciding to throw the ball with a broken finger on his throwing hand USC wins that game.


Also 10-2 teams should beat teams that are 6-6 that are playing with their 3rd string qb. Not just beat them, they should win handily. If BYU can't win convincingly against a mediocre pac-10 team, what makes you think they can hang with georgia or LSU?

Hengst wrote:

It says the Trojans had a lot of injuries and their string qb was too dumb to realize that he had a broken finger and come out.
...
If BYU can't win convincingly against a mediocre pac-10 team, what makes you think they can hang with georgia or LSU?

Haha, UCLA had to deal with way more injuries than USC. Are you kidding me?! You're using the very same arguement others of us are using to explain how a 6-6 UCLA team could be better than their record to say how USC lost to Stanford.

And near as I can tell, no one has yet mentioned on this board or any other that we'd be a sure bet to win a BCS bowl, just that it wasn't a stretch of the imagination that we'd be undefeated getting there. Depending on which game we get invited to and who our opponent is will greatly determine whether we are undefeated come mid-January 2009. We match up well with even some of the top teams but others would simple dominate us. It all depends on the matchup.