Utah joins select company

Submitted by Don on

With the victory on Thursday night, Utah joins a very small subset of Michigan opponents. Since 1945, only three other non-conference opponents have won three straight (or more) regular season games against Michigan: Army ('45, '46, '49, '50, '54); Washington ('83, '84, '01); and Notre Dame ('87 thru '90).

It's of course true that the '08 and '14 teams Utah beat were two of the weakest Michigan teams since 1969, but that doesn't obscure the fact that Utah has been a pretty strong program since 2003. I'd compare the loss in SLC to the road losses we've had at UCLA, Washington, and ND over the years in terms of strength of opponent. Utah doesn't have the major-program cachet of those teams, but last year they beat USC, UCLA, and Stanford, the latter two on the road.

1974

September 5th, 2015 at 1:34 PM ^

I'd suggest that you look at this a little differently. I think it's interesting, and I'm glad that it doesn't happen more often.

Aside, we now have a coach that appears to face reality rather than clapping at everything. (Not that Hoke didn't do some things well ....)

DonAZ

September 5th, 2015 at 10:40 AM ^

Utah is a good team.  I'd rather have the W, but losing to Utah is less bad than losing to, say, Toledo.

There's a couple of interesting Pac-12 South games today to keep an eye on -- UCLA vs. Virginia, and (more significantly) ASU vs. Texas A&M.

 

DonAZ

September 5th, 2015 at 10:46 AM ^

I'm of two minds here ... yeah, I'd like to have the tomato can opener as a tune up.  But then again, as Harbaugh himself says, it's better to be at the big people table.  Other programs do this sort of thing and win.  Hell, Boise State has made this sort of thing their trademark.

We'll get there.  First game under Harbaugh (!) ... iterative improvement begins now.

LSAClassOf2000

September 5th, 2015 at 10:53 AM ^

I think the change to a playoff system where there is input from a committee which considers strength of schedule and the switch to a nine-game conference schedule (beginning next year, I believe) drives some of the need to fill those three slots in the schedule with more Utah-ish games and fewer EMU-ish games. I do agree with Harbaugh though, that it is better to be at the big people table - I like how he put that actually. 

BlueMk1690

September 5th, 2015 at 10:59 AM ^

It's really more the timing. I'd find it OK if it was next week after a home game to start.

Additionally, Thursday night is the time for conferences and teams that desperately need national attention because they can't get it on Saturdays. That's not Michigan.

I couldn't watch the game on Thursday night due to work commitments. That kind of sucks given it's the season opener?

DonAZ

September 5th, 2015 at 11:15 AM ^

Thursday night is the time for conferences and teams that desperately need national attention because they can't get it on Saturdays. That's not Michigan.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here for a second ... I'm not trying to be reflexively contrarian.

Let's imagine that Michigan won that game, and did so convincingly.  Wouldn't you rather have had that happen on an relatively uncrowded Thursday night of opening weekend than a crowded Saturday slot?  There was a lot of focus on the game because it was one of the first significant games of the season.

Going back to the big-people table analogy ... Michigan's not at that table**, and to get there requires we get back to the spotlight and beating good teams.  In that respect Michigan's Thursday night game against Utah was a good stage with a good spotlight for that.

Sadly, the outcome wasn't what we wanted.

** It would be an interesting discussion/debate to list the programs that are at that table.  And what programs are just outside making noise to get in.

 

Former_DC_Buck

September 5th, 2015 at 12:32 PM ^

I also think the opening weekend is different than the rest of the season. It is like the old Kickoff classic. I'm not thrilled having to wait until Monday and the short week for the team since we play again on Saturday. But this has been, from the quality of games, so far, a really nice opening week. And as you said. Had you won, you would have had a lot of nice PR on Friday and maybe even more talk on the pregame shows today.

Brewers Yost

September 5th, 2015 at 10:44 AM ^

Kyle Whittingham is a very good coach. Many times when an elite coach like Urban leaves a program you see a steady decline over the next couple years. Whittingham has done an excellent job of maintaining the program even with the move to a tougher conference.

Broken Brilliance

September 5th, 2015 at 10:48 AM ^

WE KNOW

On another note, Michigan is one of maybe 10 P5 teams that starts the season with a competitive game against an opponent with a pulse. I'm very surprised at how many cupcake games there are this week. I think this will pay dividends long term regarding the forging of this football team. 

Giff4484

September 5th, 2015 at 11:05 AM ^

Is Michigan played a ok to good team on the road. I think we know what we have to fix and we probably have 2 teams left better than Utah on our schedule. 

I would rather be tested early than cake walk through a MAC team or whoever we played under Hoke the past 3 years and think we are good team and get blasted like we did last year to the  ND or MSU teams of the world.

I really don't think we are that bad this year. 8 wins and we probably knock off someone ranked.

Don

September 5th, 2015 at 11:10 AM ^

but opening on the road with a non-conference game against anybody other than ND has been rarer still:

'54 at Washington; '57 at USC; '65 at North Carolina; '91 at BC; '12 against Alabama in Dallas; '15 at Utah

Sione's Flow

September 5th, 2015 at 11:17 AM ^

Utah is a good team, but they didn't win that game, we lost it. Now that being said I hope they do great this year, because it looks better on Michigan, if Utah is a PAC-12 contender. But I will say this their fans may be the nicest in the world. I had a couple of them give me hugs after the game.

Ryanonymous

September 5th, 2015 at 11:29 AM ^

Utah won the game, I give them credit.
Yes we made mistakes. Yes a few big plays may have been the difference.
All of these things are part of the game. A game in which they prevented us from making the big plays and by capitalizing on our mistakes.
It was a good test for this team and it shows where we need to improve.
I'm not mad at it at all and think Utah generally outplayed us overall with better sound execution.

UMProud

September 5th, 2015 at 11:39 AM ^

Playing a pretty good team like Utah as our opener will benefit us in the long run. If we started out with UNLV for instance the things that need addressed may not have been so readily exposed.

goblue16

September 5th, 2015 at 11:52 AM ^

Actually that 2002 game was against a 5-7 Utah team and we beat them 10-7. Boise at last night beat the huskies and have beaten 8 PAC-12 teams in the last 15 years. There are some great teams out west

004

September 5th, 2015 at 11:55 AM ^

We absolutely should schedule another home and home with Utah to even the record. In a year or two we will be at full Harbaugh. We were never going to win the National Championship this year... Losing a tough game on the road is the kind of experience which Harbaugh needs to get the team's attention. A win over a tomato can would not have demonstrated to the team how far we still have to go.

Blue Durham

September 5th, 2015 at 1:04 PM ^

Teams Michigan has a losing record against (minimum 2 games played): Army (4-5) Cornell (6-12) North Carolina (1-2) South Carolina (1-2) Southern California (4-6) Utah (1-3) USC is USC, and Cornell and Army were national powers when Michigan played them regularly. Utah is in very select company.

Blue Durham

September 6th, 2015 at 7:52 AM ^

Trivia question:

What opponent has the best winning percentage against Michigan (for a team that has played Michigan more than 1 time)?

Its not Notre Dame, Ohio State, Army, USC or even Ivy League teams like Harvard or Cornell. It is Utah.