Between the end of basketball season and the start of football season, I often become impatient for football and think about the upcoming season. This year my impatience for football resulted in me analyzing the changing psychological environments at BYU and Utah. I wondered how history was experienced by both schools and how that affected their future actions. I will attempt to show how the programs remain dependent on each other and how their psyche continues to change. I will limit the analysis to the years of my life. Let’s start with my childhood years.
During the 1980s and ’90s, Utah’s fan base and team needed BYU for psychological survival. Utah’s season often had very poor results while BYU regularly won the conference, gained national attention, and even won a national championship. This led to a feeling among Utah fans that beating BYU was the only important criteria for a successful season. Concurrently, Utah’s poor performance led to BYU having its pick at most recruits and Utah having to pick from the remaining.
Each team’s psychological state showed up on the field. While BYU enjoyed confidence and usually played to its potential in most games, Utah usually lacked confidence and played below its potential. Utah’s true potential was often only seen during the last game of the season. While BYU fans watched their team perform at a high level most weeks, Utah fans were furious that their team usually only played up to its potential once during the season. Though Utah fans' rage was often unconscious, it was real, powerful and often demonstrated by the the 10 percent crowd. Utah fans were usually left with a choice of avoiding the frustration by not watching or avoiding the painful thoughts by rationalizing that their team’s success only depended on beating BYU. For Utah, the frustrations were manifest in low game attendance, some purposely flaunting a non-LDS lifestyle and some would not show their anger for years.
In 2000, LaVell Edwards' retirement was the first lasting change to the situation. By the second year with Gary Crowton, BYU was experiencing the first of its decline. However, Utah was unable to take advantage of BYU’s struggles and was forced to make a change of its own. This led to the brilliant hire by Chris Hill of Urban Meyer.
Meyer recognized the lack of an independent identity that was hurting recruiting, attendance and team performance. Meyer used his first year to establish an identity within the team that was not dependent on only the BYU game but every game. He started interacting with the newly formed MUSS, regularly with the media, and he was winning nearly every game. The next year, Utah went undefeated and pummeled Pitt in the Fiesta Bowl. This was the start of Utah forging an independent identity and changing its psyche.
The situation continued to evolve as Urban Meyer left for greener pastures, BYU fired Crowton and also fired Val Hale. This was an impactful time psychologically for both schools as it revealed unknown futures. While the lack of predictability was all too familiar for the Utes, it was new to the Cougars. Utah fans were not afraid of the unknown in the same manner as BYU fans because they had already weathered this storm for years.
Moreover, Utah fans showed faith in Chris Hill as he already proved effective in recruiting talent (and continues to be a great athletic director). Meanwhile, BYU was struggling to make sense of its new situation, and the prospect of rebuilding with a new athletic director added to the difficulty. This all led to the showdown that was the courtship of Kyle Whittingham.
BYU and Utah both offered the job to Whittingham, a former BYU player and Utah coach. When Whittingham chose Utah, this was a significant moment for the psyche of both programs. This event cemented Utah’s identity as a big-time player. Concurrently this was a realization of changing times and the need to redefine BYU football.
In 2005, both schools hired their defensive coordinators as the head coach and Utah and BYU were evenly matched for the next five years. While Utah continued building an identity that started with Meyer’s success, BYU chose to highlight a rich history and issued a call to higher personal standards. 2005-2010 were good years for both schools and both were optimistic about the future. BYU enjoyed multiple 11-win seasons and Utah had a magical 2008 season. They were equal in recruiting and both were top-tier teams in the Mountain West Conference. This was the first time in my life that BYU and Utah were psychologically on equal footing.
In 2010, the biggest change to the system happened when both schools left the MWC. Psychologically this was one of the first times BYU was at a disadvantage to Utah.
Chris Hill’s brilliant work to secure membership in the Pac-12 was a clear advantage for Utah. No longer would Utah be on the outside looking in. Hill had capitalized on Utah’s recent success, and it was now in an advantageous position for recruiting. Moreover, if it started winning in the Pac-12, it might access nationwide exposure. This further bolstered the psyche of the team and fan base.
Concurrently, BYU had other options, but they required help. BYU was able to secure national exposure in a deal with ESPN but still needed help filling up a schedule. As BYU asked its old rival for games to fill the schedule, Hill ignored the needs of BYU. When he decided to forgo scheduling BYU for the 2014 and 2015 seasons, he set wheels in motion that are very difficult to stop. (I admit that I am still unhappy about my alma mater making this decision.) This was the declaration that BYU and Utah were not partners and that Utah wanted to go it alone.
There were politically correct reasons coming from Hill’s office, but they didn’t make sense. For me, the idea that scheduling BYU would hurt Utah’s chances did not hold water because Utah had won the recent rivalry games and BYU was struggling. Instead of buying the politically correct talking points, I used a psychodynamic approach to analyze Hill’s decision and see things in a completely different light. When BYU openly asked for help from Utah, Hill and the administration had an opportunity to extend an olive branch to a known friend and rival. The act of denying this request increases the likelihood that the actions were, consciously or unconsciously, rooted in deeply repressed rage and anger from years of pain in the ’80s and ’90s. Regardless of the reason, Utah made this decision, and a point of no return was passed.
Utah’s identity would now be judged solely on the win column and not a game with BYU.
Utah’s membership in the Pac-12 provided an initial boost in recruiting, and Utah secured talented in-state recruits that traditionally were BYU-bound. After going 8-5 in 2011, Utah fans again had to suffer two 5-7 seasons with a win against BYU as the only silver lining. During these years we saw a shift of Utah fans from cheering for the Utes to cheering for the Pac-12. Psychologically, this clearly represented a regression back to a time when the fans based the team’s success on beating BYU in any manner, instead of facing a disappointing season.
In 2014, BYU again struggled to keep up with Utah. Its season was upended with a Taysom Hill injury and a poor defensive performance while Utah showed it could compete in the Pac-12. With a strong year under its belt, the psychological environment favored Utah. Utah again started establishing itself as the destination for the best in-state recruits. This environment only lasted until the winter when Hill again was involved in a blunder that resulted in two of Utah’s coaches leaving for Oregon State. This move weakened the psychological footing for the team, the fan base and recruiting. The 2015 class saw multiple in-state recruits go to other Pac-12 schools instead of Utah.
This history builds up to the current situation. Utah and BYU will resume rivalry, but to compete nationally, both schools need to establish themselves as the destination for in-state talent.
BYU has already established a timeline of three years to get into a Power-5 conference, and this infers that future recruiting is dependent on Power-5 membership. Though BYU continues to play competitive schedules and recruit well, it needs help to maintain. It needs an independent team to make the playoffs within the next two years, or more likely it must find a home in a Power-5 conference. Either of these would be a psychological advantage that could lead to in-state recruiting dominance.
Utah is more interesting because it hasn't publicly declared its situation. After the administration facilitated an environment that led to two crucial coaches moving to Corvallis, Oregon, Utah was left in a position of needing to prove that it is still on the rise and more than a fifth-place doormat of the conference. In believe Utah has about three years to win the Pac-12 South or it will be at a psychological disadvantage and struggle to recruit.
Utah’s opportunity to establish itself as a destination for the best recruits will be much easier while BYU remains independent. If Utah hasn’t established itself by the time BYU is a member of a Power-5 conference, BYU will have the psychological advantage.
When BYU finds its way into a Power-5 conference, its increased standards will attract talent. (This is similar to the way the U.S. military uses increased standards to attract talent to the special forces or pilot programs.)
In my opinion, BYU and Utah will always be connected in some way. But the rivalry has changed and will never be the same. I predict that by the end of 2016 Whittingham will establish Utah as a national contender. I also believe that BYU will be a member of a Power-5 conference within two years and that within three years both schools will be psychologically even. But in the end, we must wait, see and be entertained.
Dr. Hans Watson D.O. is a practicing physician and president of Universityexcel.com, a company that trains students and their parents to be the elite in college and to obtain any desired career. email: hwatson@universityexcel.com