Was postponing BYU rivalry a good thing?
For most college football fans, Michigan football is known as the winningest program. For the Utah Utes, the Wolverines are going to be known as a well-played excuse. That at least is my take on the Utes' decision for dropping BYU. If the Utes wanted to continue to play their rival, they would have made it work. Even in Chris Hill's eyes, he acknowledged from BYU's standpoint, the game should have been thought of as a priority. "They aren't happy," he said more than once during Tuesday's luncheon with a group of media members. Sure the rivalry has gotten more fierce and downright ugly at times in recent years, but most rivalries have their ugly moments. Hill though has seemed tired of hearing about the fights in the stands, some of the low blows among the players and so forth. He said Tuesday he felt the game was different too, being played in September. "You get to November and say, 'What happened?'" he said. Scheduling Michigan seemed to be a perfect opportunity to get out of the rivalry. That game will still give Utah fans an 'event game,' and will keep Utah's strength of schedule strong. What the Utes will lose is the tradition of playing the boys down south. To me, losing that tradition is a sad thing. What do you think? Does playing Michigan and dropping BYU make you happy? Would you have rather seen both on the schedule? Would you rather see the Utes play BYU instead of Michigan? Let us know what you think. If you want your response to be included in an article, e-mail your response to Lwodraska@sltrib.com