Yes you did.
I said Utah should be ranked and you said that would be a "bizzarro world" where "bad teams get ranked."
Breh, the beginning of the season when Utah beat up on Florida was otherwise their WORST stretch of the season when they could hardly move the football. After kicking Florida's ass, they barely beat Baylor 20-13, only put up 31 on Weber State, edged UCLA 14-7, then lost 21-7 to Oregon State.
That's why I told you
at the time, that Utah was only the 6th-best team in the Pac-12. Just like you thought Kentucky was good, just like you thought Florida was good, just like you thought Tennessee was good, you assumed Utah was good solely because they beat bad/mediocre teams. Now you want to turn around and claim they're not good anymore just cause they lost to three top-15 teams. You obviously have no idea what goes on on a football field other than the W-L column and "SEC is better".
In the last month they've looked BETTER and played BETTER FOOTBALL than they did to start the season. They beat Cal 34-14, USC 34-32, and Arizona State 55-3. Their only losses in that time were to #3 UW in a tight 35-28 game, to #5 UO, and to #15 UA.
Yet you still can't explain why UT is ranked better than Utah, Clemson, NC State, and other teams with the same or better records against better schedules.