The Big Announcement finally came and I've been prepping for our trip to the BYU game, er, vacation to Utah!
Crazy. I really figured it would come next year. Here it is: BYU is leaving the MWC effective June 30, 2011. Its football team will be indepedent. ESPN will help fill out its schedule (probably help BYU get 2-4 games that ESPN wants to broadcast). I doubt any MWC school will schedule with BYU anytime soon, with the exception of maybe Air Force. BYU already has future series scheduled with Texas, Oregon State, Boise State, Utah State, and Hawaii. BYU will probably not receive any special BCS treatment, deservedly so: BYU hasn't exactly earned it yet.
All other sports (with the exceptions of softball, swimming and diving, and track and field) will reside in the West Coast Conference (WCC). The WCC does not play those aforementioned sports. Gonzaga and St. Mary's are the most notable basketball schools in the conference, though San Francisco probably has the most storied history of the group. The conference will play a 16-game conference schedule, i.e. you play each other school twice. Interesting side note: the conference tournament is played in BYU's favorite location, Las Vegas...
The West Coast Conference consists of Portland, San Diego, San Francisco, St. Mary's, Santa Clara, Gonzaga, Loyola Marymount (CA), and Pepperdine. And now BYU. The WCC does have good women's soccer and volleyball, that much I know for sure...
The TV terms were not set out but I would guess that BYU will get to broadcast all of its sporting events on BYU-TV that are not on ESPN, including the WCC basketball tournament, minus the championship game which is always on ESPN.
I do NOT believe this is a step TOWARDS where BYU wants to go. I believe this IS the step BYU wants to take.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Finally, a Look at BYU
Offense: they have a lot of experience returning on the O-Line. 8 players on the depth chart have starts, including the 4 main starters from last year's team. All of their WRs are back, with a few new additions in freshmen, redshirts, etc. The RBs have two semi-experienced guys in J.J. DiLuigi and Bryan Kariya who are in their third year in the program, with 125 carries between them. They also add the Juice, an outstanding true freshman who can carry the ball some. There are a lot of young, inexperienced TEs competing to fill the void left by two guys on NFL rosters. I imagine the offense will use fewer TE sets until that gets somewhat settled. Last year was actually more of the exception, as we often saw two TEs in the game, usually there is just one (and in the Nate Meikle years, a lot of plays were run with zero TEs and 3-4 WRs).
The QB situation is obviously the big, highly-publicized question mark. By all accounts, Riley Nelson and Jake Heaps (and James Lark for that matter), appear to be better-than-serviceable, but Nelson is still a run-first guy and Heaps and Lark are still inexperienced. They have a solid O-Line and WRs to help ease the transition. I imagine they will ease Heaps along and let Nelson do his thing in the mean time. Given that they have 3 QBs that were highly recruited out of high school (4 if you count Jason Munns, but I wouldn't use the word "highly" in reference to his recruitment), one of them is bound to be able to get the job done well.
Defense: there are a lot of new starters on the defense. However, that is not to say that the team is inexperienced. D-Line: Fuga and Putnam both played significantly the past two seasons, Manumaleuna started every game as a freshman before his mission, So'oto has been around forever (at 3 different positions). Depth is a bigger concern on the D-Line than experience: after the first 5 guys in the rotation you are looking at mostly freshmen. At LB, however, experience is the concern, where depth is not as big of a deal. Jordan Pendleton was THE playmaker on last year's defense, but the rest of the guys are either new to the program or have only played on special teams. Given the mobile QBs/option attacks BYU faces the first 4 games of the season, these guys will have to learn quickly. For once, the secondary isn't the biggest concern. 3 of 4 starters return, as do most of the backups. The lone new starter is junior Steven Thomas, who is entering his 4th season in the program, so he is a somewhat experienced player. While the secondary is always A concern at BYU, having 5 or 6 known guys is much better than usual, and the fact that it isn't THE concern is nice for a change.
Schedule: the non-conference schedule should have 4 bowl-bound teams in it. It looks like this: Washington, at Florida State, Nevada, and at Utah State. They should beat Nevada and Utah State, they could beat Washington, and they should lose at Florida State. They could lose any of the four and could win any of the four, with the possible exception of the Florida State game. Although miracles do happen: it is the week after the Seminoles travel to Oklahoma and Florida State is typically a better road team than home team, but given the dominating performance in Provo against a veteran BYU team...you get the drift. I'll call this 2-2, certainly with a good chance for 3-1.
Conference home games are San Diego State, Wyoming, UNLV, and New Mexico. This season is a bit of a yawner for home games, compared to last season, both in conference and non-conference games. BYU shouldn't have any trouble dispatching of any of these teams at home. They have an "extra" day to prepare for San Diego State with a Friday night game the week prior, and an extra week to prepare for UNLV with a bye ahead of that. I feel safe calling this 4-0.
Conference road games are Air Force, TCU, CSU, and Utah. BYU should beat CSU and probably should beat Air Force (but I'm high on them this season). A lot can happen between now and November 27th, but Utah has the edge right now. TCU, assuming that they are still in the top 10 at that time, should take care of business in Fort Worth. We'll go 2-2 here, though I believe it either comes together or not and they go 3-1 or 1-3.
Outlook: looking at what BYU lost on both sides of the ball, how they performed last year, and the schedule this year, 8-4 has always sounded about right to me for 2010. If things come together, they could possibly get up to 10-2. If things go horribly, horribly wrong, they should still get to 7-5, or maybe as bad as 6-6. The disparity between BYU and the bottom half of the MWC is too great for it to get much worse than that right now, even with a mostly improved MWC this season. I'll start at 8-4, feeling confident that BYU will do AT LEAST that well this season.
The fact that there has not been an announcement about going independent is no surprise to me. BYU has put in way too much effort and research to rush into any decision. I think, as far as timing is concerned, it may be better to be in the MWC next season, and go independent after that. I believe that BYU should be favored to win the MWC next season and could very well do so with younger Boise State and TCU teams coming to Provo (barring a major shake-up in the scheduling, like adding Nevada and Fresno State). 10-2/11-1 and an MWC title next season should be enough to get to a BCS game, given that the loss at Texas is respectable. Then when 2012 comes the sky is the limit as an independent. I know it's a little early to be making 2011 predictions (I promise I haven't written off 2010 yet...), but there you have it: BYU 2011 MWC champs, assuming they are still in a 9-team MWC.
The QB situation is obviously the big, highly-publicized question mark. By all accounts, Riley Nelson and Jake Heaps (and James Lark for that matter), appear to be better-than-serviceable, but Nelson is still a run-first guy and Heaps and Lark are still inexperienced. They have a solid O-Line and WRs to help ease the transition. I imagine they will ease Heaps along and let Nelson do his thing in the mean time. Given that they have 3 QBs that were highly recruited out of high school (4 if you count Jason Munns, but I wouldn't use the word "highly" in reference to his recruitment), one of them is bound to be able to get the job done well.
Defense: there are a lot of new starters on the defense. However, that is not to say that the team is inexperienced. D-Line: Fuga and Putnam both played significantly the past two seasons, Manumaleuna started every game as a freshman before his mission, So'oto has been around forever (at 3 different positions). Depth is a bigger concern on the D-Line than experience: after the first 5 guys in the rotation you are looking at mostly freshmen. At LB, however, experience is the concern, where depth is not as big of a deal. Jordan Pendleton was THE playmaker on last year's defense, but the rest of the guys are either new to the program or have only played on special teams. Given the mobile QBs/option attacks BYU faces the first 4 games of the season, these guys will have to learn quickly. For once, the secondary isn't the biggest concern. 3 of 4 starters return, as do most of the backups. The lone new starter is junior Steven Thomas, who is entering his 4th season in the program, so he is a somewhat experienced player. While the secondary is always A concern at BYU, having 5 or 6 known guys is much better than usual, and the fact that it isn't THE concern is nice for a change.
Schedule: the non-conference schedule should have 4 bowl-bound teams in it. It looks like this: Washington, at Florida State, Nevada, and at Utah State. They should beat Nevada and Utah State, they could beat Washington, and they should lose at Florida State. They could lose any of the four and could win any of the four, with the possible exception of the Florida State game. Although miracles do happen: it is the week after the Seminoles travel to Oklahoma and Florida State is typically a better road team than home team, but given the dominating performance in Provo against a veteran BYU team...you get the drift. I'll call this 2-2, certainly with a good chance for 3-1.
Conference home games are San Diego State, Wyoming, UNLV, and New Mexico. This season is a bit of a yawner for home games, compared to last season, both in conference and non-conference games. BYU shouldn't have any trouble dispatching of any of these teams at home. They have an "extra" day to prepare for San Diego State with a Friday night game the week prior, and an extra week to prepare for UNLV with a bye ahead of that. I feel safe calling this 4-0.
Conference road games are Air Force, TCU, CSU, and Utah. BYU should beat CSU and probably should beat Air Force (but I'm high on them this season). A lot can happen between now and November 27th, but Utah has the edge right now. TCU, assuming that they are still in the top 10 at that time, should take care of business in Fort Worth. We'll go 2-2 here, though I believe it either comes together or not and they go 3-1 or 1-3.
Outlook: looking at what BYU lost on both sides of the ball, how they performed last year, and the schedule this year, 8-4 has always sounded about right to me for 2010. If things come together, they could possibly get up to 10-2. If things go horribly, horribly wrong, they should still get to 7-5, or maybe as bad as 6-6. The disparity between BYU and the bottom half of the MWC is too great for it to get much worse than that right now, even with a mostly improved MWC this season. I'll start at 8-4, feeling confident that BYU will do AT LEAST that well this season.
The fact that there has not been an announcement about going independent is no surprise to me. BYU has put in way too much effort and research to rush into any decision. I think, as far as timing is concerned, it may be better to be in the MWC next season, and go independent after that. I believe that BYU should be favored to win the MWC next season and could very well do so with younger Boise State and TCU teams coming to Provo (barring a major shake-up in the scheduling, like adding Nevada and Fresno State). 10-2/11-1 and an MWC title next season should be enough to get to a BCS game, given that the loss at Texas is respectable. Then when 2012 comes the sky is the limit as an independent. I know it's a little early to be making 2011 predictions (I promise I haven't written off 2010 yet...), but there you have it: BYU 2011 MWC champs, assuming they are still in a 9-team MWC.
Monday, August 30, 2010
A Look at Utah
Offense: here is a list of what is coming back, which is pretty substantial, including 3 All-MWC members. 4 of 5 on the O-Line, replacing NFL draftee Zane Beadles at LT with #1 JC prospect John Cullen. 2 RBs with major talent and experience in 6th-year Matt Asiata and senior Eddie Wide. Return the QB from last year that started the last 5 games in Jordan Wynn, also have backup Terrence Cain who started the first 8 games. Jereme Brooks is back at WR. The strengths are obviously the O-Line and the running game. Cullen is a little undersized for a LT and we'll see how he'll adjust to playing D-I defensive lines, but being next to LG Caleb Schlauderoff will help ease that transition. Asiata is a powerback. Wide is more of a shifty runner. I would anticipate that one-two punch should get the job done.
The main concern is the passing game. I am convinced that Jordan Wynn is the way to go for Utah and he played well for a freshman last season, but playing well for a freshman won't win you a conference title or get you to a BCS game. He had the great bowl game against Cal, worked over 1-11 New Mexico, and led a 4th-quarter comeback against Wyoming. However, in the other games, he was a 50% passer. If he can get that up higher, say around 60%, I'd feel better about things. That will be tougher given that his favorite receiver, David Reed, is gone. Shaky Smithson and Jereme Brooks are the only veterans in the receiver corps. They have talented guys there, but playing a lot of freshmen and sophomores usually isn't ideal. If they can bring the passing game together, the offense should be unstoppable. Since the departure of Urban Meyer, Utah has won a lot of games in spite of their offense, but this year (with a passing game), they might go back to winning because of their O.
Defense: they have a lot to replace, including all of the biggest playmakers on the defense, Stevenson Sylvester, Robert Johnson, Koa Misi, etc. They have a much deeper, though a little undersized by typical Utah standards, defensive line. They have new starters at LB, but most of them are upper classmen, so I wouldn't worry as much about them, they'll adjust quickly. The secondary is in a similar situation: new starters, but mostly juniors and seniors. They have a little less quality depth in the secondary, but if they don't get hurt, this should be a pretty solid unit. Despite the improvement across the offenses in rest of the MWC, I would anticipate little, if any, dropoff in this unit that was 19th in total defense and 23rd in scoring defense last season. The two main areas of concern will be getting to the QB and creating turnovers. Koa Misi and Kepa Gaison are gone, as are their 9 sacks. How will Christian Cox do when the O-Lines don't have to worry about those other beasts? As far as turnovers go: without Misi, Wright, RoJo, who will force fumbles or pick off passes?
Schedule: they have a difficult non-conference schedule. Pitt on Thursday night, San Jose State, at Iowa State, and at Notre Dame (after playing at Air Force and against TCU). The could easily win all 4 of these. They could also just as easily lose 3 of them (San Jose State is the only definite win). I would anticipate a 3-1 record, perhaps as low as 2-2 if things don't gel for the inexperienced defense and/or receiving corps.
Conference home games are UNLV, CSU, TCU, and BYU. They will certainly beat UNLV and CSU. I would give the edge to TCU, right now. The BYU game is usually a toss-up (unless Utah is 11-0 at the time, and then it's a blowout). We'll call it 3-1 today.
Conference road games are New Mexico, Wyoming, Air Force, and San Diego State. At worst, they should be 3-1, but that San Diego State game is a bit of a trap game, sandwiched between 3 big games ahead of it and the rivalry game with BYU after it. I think Air Force could beat Utah this year and the timing of the SDSU game gives me pause in declaring this a 4-0 MWC road swing. We'll call it 3-1 for now.
Outlook: if things are rolling by the end of October, this could be an 11-1 or 12-0 team. If they don't get on a roll by then, though, they could easily drop to 7-5. My gut says the D will come together quickly but the passing game won't. I think that puts them behind the 8-ball for the TCU and Notre Dame (and maybe for Iowa State or Air Force) games. In my mind, I think it's probably a 9-3 season with a winnable bowl game, with the Utah-Air Force game deciding 2nd place in the MWC. Too many questions for Utah and BYU to feel really comfortable predicting either of them...but you guys read for my thoughts, not for my wafflings. Utah, 9-3, losing to TCU and Air Force in conference and finishing third. If they lose to BYU, they go 8-4 and finish 4th. For now, 9-3 (sorry Cougar fans, but if they had to play today, Utah would definitely win: lucky for BYU, they don't and they have a season to get it going).
The main concern is the passing game. I am convinced that Jordan Wynn is the way to go for Utah and he played well for a freshman last season, but playing well for a freshman won't win you a conference title or get you to a BCS game. He had the great bowl game against Cal, worked over 1-11 New Mexico, and led a 4th-quarter comeback against Wyoming. However, in the other games, he was a 50% passer. If he can get that up higher, say around 60%, I'd feel better about things. That will be tougher given that his favorite receiver, David Reed, is gone. Shaky Smithson and Jereme Brooks are the only veterans in the receiver corps. They have talented guys there, but playing a lot of freshmen and sophomores usually isn't ideal. If they can bring the passing game together, the offense should be unstoppable. Since the departure of Urban Meyer, Utah has won a lot of games in spite of their offense, but this year (with a passing game), they might go back to winning because of their O.
Defense: they have a lot to replace, including all of the biggest playmakers on the defense, Stevenson Sylvester, Robert Johnson, Koa Misi, etc. They have a much deeper, though a little undersized by typical Utah standards, defensive line. They have new starters at LB, but most of them are upper classmen, so I wouldn't worry as much about them, they'll adjust quickly. The secondary is in a similar situation: new starters, but mostly juniors and seniors. They have a little less quality depth in the secondary, but if they don't get hurt, this should be a pretty solid unit. Despite the improvement across the offenses in rest of the MWC, I would anticipate little, if any, dropoff in this unit that was 19th in total defense and 23rd in scoring defense last season. The two main areas of concern will be getting to the QB and creating turnovers. Koa Misi and Kepa Gaison are gone, as are their 9 sacks. How will Christian Cox do when the O-Lines don't have to worry about those other beasts? As far as turnovers go: without Misi, Wright, RoJo, who will force fumbles or pick off passes?
Schedule: they have a difficult non-conference schedule. Pitt on Thursday night, San Jose State, at Iowa State, and at Notre Dame (after playing at Air Force and against TCU). The could easily win all 4 of these. They could also just as easily lose 3 of them (San Jose State is the only definite win). I would anticipate a 3-1 record, perhaps as low as 2-2 if things don't gel for the inexperienced defense and/or receiving corps.
Conference home games are UNLV, CSU, TCU, and BYU. They will certainly beat UNLV and CSU. I would give the edge to TCU, right now. The BYU game is usually a toss-up (unless Utah is 11-0 at the time, and then it's a blowout). We'll call it 3-1 today.
Conference road games are New Mexico, Wyoming, Air Force, and San Diego State. At worst, they should be 3-1, but that San Diego State game is a bit of a trap game, sandwiched between 3 big games ahead of it and the rivalry game with BYU after it. I think Air Force could beat Utah this year and the timing of the SDSU game gives me pause in declaring this a 4-0 MWC road swing. We'll call it 3-1 for now.
Outlook: if things are rolling by the end of October, this could be an 11-1 or 12-0 team. If they don't get on a roll by then, though, they could easily drop to 7-5. My gut says the D will come together quickly but the passing game won't. I think that puts them behind the 8-ball for the TCU and Notre Dame (and maybe for Iowa State or Air Force) games. In my mind, I think it's probably a 9-3 season with a winnable bowl game, with the Utah-Air Force game deciding 2nd place in the MWC. Too many questions for Utah and BYU to feel really comfortable predicting either of them...but you guys read for my thoughts, not for my wafflings. Utah, 9-3, losing to TCU and Air Force in conference and finishing third. If they lose to BYU, they go 8-4 and finish 4th. For now, 9-3 (sorry Cougar fans, but if they had to play today, Utah would definitely win: lucky for BYU, they don't and they have a season to get it going).
Saturday, August 28, 2010
A Look at Wyoming
Offense: they experienced some growing pains last season as a bunch of new personnel grew into their new system. Now, it's year two. They return 7 starters from a 7-6, bowl-winning team, including Austyn Carta-Samuels at QB. Hopefully, he'll improve on his fairly poor 54% completion percentage. He's certainly exciting to watch as a runner, but their WRs David Leonard and Zach Bolger need to be getting the ball in space. Leonard is the headliner at WR. RB Alvester Alexander had a great bowl game against Fresno State, but didn't really do too much in any other game. He's a shorter, shiftier kind of back that they should try to get outside more. They tried to hammer him up the middle as a freshman and he clearly didn't do too great of a job.
Defense: it's amazing they won 7 games with as poor as their D was (the same could be said for their offense). The switch to the 3-4 should help. If nothing else, it makes the DL look deeper. They typically recruit better LBs anyway, so I think this suits them better. Look for them to improve on fairly abysmal numbers across the board from last season. In their defense, they did play the toughest schedule in the country last season with some of the great offenses in the country playing opposite this D (Texas, TCU, BYU, and Fresno State were all top 15 offenses). However, it won't be any easier this season with the schedule we'll highlight later. Their secondary has the playmakers to change games, with the speedy Gipson brothers starting at the corners and senior Chris Prosinski at free safety. Shamiel Gary brings the wood at SS, but he needs to be make plays closer to the line of scrimmage! Those guys make a lot of great plays, but they have to tighten it up on the consistency front.
Schedule: as I mentioned, the schedule isn't any easier this year. They play I-AA Southern Utah, at Texas, Boise State, and at Toledo. They should beat Southern Utah and could beat Toledo. They'll drop the other two, but there is no shame in that: I fully anticipate Texas and Boise State to finish in the top 10, perhaps even the top 5. So 2-2 or 1-3 in the non-conference.
Conference home games are Air Force, Utah, San Diego State, and Colorado State. I believe they could win any of these games, but they will probably strike out against Air Force and Utah. If they are 2-6 entering the SDSU game (which is fairly likely actually), it'd be tough to imagine them having the confidence to pull that one off. They do have the altitude advantage there though. Let's call this 2-2 or 1-3 as well.
Conference road games are TCU, BYU, New Mexico, and UNLV. TCU and BYU are losses. I just think it's tough regrouping with such a poor record late in the season for those games at New Mexico and UNLV. Again, they could be 2-2, but it's probably more likely to see them 1-3.
Outlook: they found ways to win games last season, which I still find baffling, even after watching 3 or 4 of the wins. They got blown out 6 times, and won 6 tight games, with one blowout win against 1-11 New Mexico. If they can stay close, they can find enough ways to win. But I think they will take one step backwards this year, and probably sit around 4-8. They return the core of the 2010 team in 2011, with the main question being at WR. Just wait, Wyoming, your time is coming. 2011 should be a promising year.
Defense: it's amazing they won 7 games with as poor as their D was (the same could be said for their offense). The switch to the 3-4 should help. If nothing else, it makes the DL look deeper. They typically recruit better LBs anyway, so I think this suits them better. Look for them to improve on fairly abysmal numbers across the board from last season. In their defense, they did play the toughest schedule in the country last season with some of the great offenses in the country playing opposite this D (Texas, TCU, BYU, and Fresno State were all top 15 offenses). However, it won't be any easier this season with the schedule we'll highlight later. Their secondary has the playmakers to change games, with the speedy Gipson brothers starting at the corners and senior Chris Prosinski at free safety. Shamiel Gary brings the wood at SS, but he needs to be make plays closer to the line of scrimmage! Those guys make a lot of great plays, but they have to tighten it up on the consistency front.
Schedule: as I mentioned, the schedule isn't any easier this year. They play I-AA Southern Utah, at Texas, Boise State, and at Toledo. They should beat Southern Utah and could beat Toledo. They'll drop the other two, but there is no shame in that: I fully anticipate Texas and Boise State to finish in the top 10, perhaps even the top 5. So 2-2 or 1-3 in the non-conference.
Conference home games are Air Force, Utah, San Diego State, and Colorado State. I believe they could win any of these games, but they will probably strike out against Air Force and Utah. If they are 2-6 entering the SDSU game (which is fairly likely actually), it'd be tough to imagine them having the confidence to pull that one off. They do have the altitude advantage there though. Let's call this 2-2 or 1-3 as well.
Conference road games are TCU, BYU, New Mexico, and UNLV. TCU and BYU are losses. I just think it's tough regrouping with such a poor record late in the season for those games at New Mexico and UNLV. Again, they could be 2-2, but it's probably more likely to see them 1-3.
Outlook: they found ways to win games last season, which I still find baffling, even after watching 3 or 4 of the wins. They got blown out 6 times, and won 6 tight games, with one blowout win against 1-11 New Mexico. If they can stay close, they can find enough ways to win. But I think they will take one step backwards this year, and probably sit around 4-8. They return the core of the 2010 team in 2011, with the main question being at WR. Just wait, Wyoming, your time is coming. 2011 should be a promising year.
A Look at UNLV
Offense: it's tough to determine how this group will handle an overhaul in the coaching staff. Last year they couldn't run effectively. Under Hauck, they may not even try to run at all. They are a little green on the interior offensive line, and lack depth across the line, so that might bode well for them. Their QB situation is pretty good, with an experienced starter and backup. Phillip Payne is a touchdown maker at WR. The bigger the stage, the better he plays. Problem is: he's pretty much alone on the outside with no real big threats. Without a running game, as with SDSU, it is more difficult to score TDs in the red zone. We'll see how they do under Hauck. He is well-schooled in scoring points and winning football games, but has had issues with discipline and player character. Unfortunately, that may not be the best combination at UNLV.
Defense: they have a very experienced defense. However, these guys were bad last year, particularly against the run, giving up 220 yards a game. The pass defense wasn't anything to write home about either, giving up 235 per game. One would think experience would play a role this year. They are likely starting 9 seniors and 2 juniors, so you can't blame youth. They have two 300-pounders up the middle, but they are the types to eat up blocks, not make plays. Their LBs were surprisingly weak last season (usually UNLV has one or two studs there), which negates the man-eaters upfront. They lost their only pass-rushing threat from last year, and even with him they were 106th in the country in sacks. Their secondary, which returns 4 starters or guys with starting experience, only picked off 5 passes last season, which was tied for dead last in the country. To recap: they couldn't stop the run (112th in the country), they couldn't pressure the QB (only 1.25 sacks/game), and they couldn't cover anybody (last in the country in INTs). It's amazing they managed to go 5-7. That must have been some offense.
Schedule: because they are playing at Hawaii, they have 5 non-conference games this year. Wisconsin, at Idaho, Nevada, at West Virginia, and at Hawaii. They could easily lose all 5 of those games. The only ones they have a realistic chance is at Idaho and home against rival Nevada. They always could pull off the upset in one of the other games, but I see this as a 1-4/0-5 type of season for them in the non-conference.
Their conference home games are New Mexico, TCU, Wyoming, and Air Force. They will lose to TCU and Air Force. They could beat New Mexico or Wyoming. I'll say they split and go 1-3 at home in the MWC.
Their conference road games are Utah, CSU, BYU, and SDSU. Utah and BYU are losses. They could possibly split with CSU/SDSU. 1-3. At best.
Outlook: unless Bobby Hauck drastically improves that defense (which I doubt, even in going to the I-AA National Championship Game last season at Montana, his defense was in the bottom half of the country in most defensive categories), it's tough to imagine them even approaching a bowl game. They need 7 to get there. I foresee maybe getting to 4. But they will probably score a lot of points in the process!
Defense: they have a very experienced defense. However, these guys were bad last year, particularly against the run, giving up 220 yards a game. The pass defense wasn't anything to write home about either, giving up 235 per game. One would think experience would play a role this year. They are likely starting 9 seniors and 2 juniors, so you can't blame youth. They have two 300-pounders up the middle, but they are the types to eat up blocks, not make plays. Their LBs were surprisingly weak last season (usually UNLV has one or two studs there), which negates the man-eaters upfront. They lost their only pass-rushing threat from last year, and even with him they were 106th in the country in sacks. Their secondary, which returns 4 starters or guys with starting experience, only picked off 5 passes last season, which was tied for dead last in the country. To recap: they couldn't stop the run (112th in the country), they couldn't pressure the QB (only 1.25 sacks/game), and they couldn't cover anybody (last in the country in INTs). It's amazing they managed to go 5-7. That must have been some offense.
Schedule: because they are playing at Hawaii, they have 5 non-conference games this year. Wisconsin, at Idaho, Nevada, at West Virginia, and at Hawaii. They could easily lose all 5 of those games. The only ones they have a realistic chance is at Idaho and home against rival Nevada. They always could pull off the upset in one of the other games, but I see this as a 1-4/0-5 type of season for them in the non-conference.
Their conference home games are New Mexico, TCU, Wyoming, and Air Force. They will lose to TCU and Air Force. They could beat New Mexico or Wyoming. I'll say they split and go 1-3 at home in the MWC.
Their conference road games are Utah, CSU, BYU, and SDSU. Utah and BYU are losses. They could possibly split with CSU/SDSU. 1-3. At best.
Outlook: unless Bobby Hauck drastically improves that defense (which I doubt, even in going to the I-AA National Championship Game last season at Montana, his defense was in the bottom half of the country in most defensive categories), it's tough to imagine them even approaching a bowl game. They need 7 to get there. I foresee maybe getting to 4. But they will probably score a lot of points in the process!
A Look at TCU
Offense: 9 returning starters, kind of. Their "starting" RB graduated, but TCU has always been a tailback by committee offense. They had 4 guys rush for 600+ yards (including Andy Dalton), and 3 of them are back. It's actually kind of ridiculous to think of how talented this offense should be. They have 4 WRs back who had over 20 catches last season. They have 2 RBs who averaged over 5 yards/carry back, with over 100 carries. Andy Dalton has won 29 games as a starter, emerging in his freshman year and never looking back since. They get good field position because of a solid defense and great kick/punt-returning. Last year they scored 38 points/game. It's tough to imagine that not happening again this year. The only question marks on the offense: turnovers and an Andy Dalton injury. They turned the ball over twice a game last year. With their style of offense, Andy Dalton takes a lot of shots. Last year, they had a former starting QB as the backup in Marcus Jackson. This year, however, they don't have a backup QB with a collegiate pass attempt on the roster (I somewhat blame Gary Patterson for this: he plays his starters into the 4th quarter, regardless of the lead). What happens if Dalton goes down?
Defense: they "only" return 7 starters here. Although 9 of the projected starters from this year's defense have started and played significant minutes in the past. Last year's defense was 5th in scoring defense, 6th in passing defense, 3rd in rushing defense, and 1st in total defense. They will play slightly tougher offenses this season, so I anticipate those numbers going down, but, still, this is a nasty D. They blitz from everywhere. Their DBs can play man on just about anybody in the conference. And if they can't, they either double the one guy they can't single cover and/or get in the QB's face so he can't see that guy. They should finish in the top 10 in most of those statistical categories again. The pass defense might be the only one that slips out of the top 10.
Schedule: the non-conference schedule is neutral site (in Dallas) vs. Oregon State, Tennessee Tech, Baylor, and at SMU on a Friday night. Yes, all 4 games are in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. I would anticipate them to beat Tech and Baylor, without incident. Both Oregon State and SMU have a chance, however. Still, at worst, they should be 3-1 in the non-conference, but more likely to be 4-0. I don't think Oregon State or SMU has the horses in the first month of the season to pull off an upset.
Conference home games are Wyoming, BYU, Air Force, and SDSU. They get Wyoming, BYU, and Air Force in a row (how's that for a scheduling quirk). BYU is the only one that could challenge them, but, today, you have to think even that won't be much of a challenge. Things could change tomorrow though. Most likely they'll be 4-0 here.
Conference road games are CSU, UNLV, Utah, and New Mexico. Utah is the only one that could challenge them here. After beating them thoroughly throughout the game two years ago, Utah took advantage of a myriad of fourth quarter mistakes and beat them at Utah. Last year, TCU exacted revenge on Utah at home, and it could have been worse than the 55-28 score. Can they do it at Rice-Eccles again (but without the fourth quarter miscues)? The big question with that game: what will be riding on it? Right now, it appears the conference title and a potential BCS game will be. However, anything can happen. They should be 3-1 or 4-0.
Outlook: anything but a very solid season for 2010 would be surprising. Big question, can they recover mentally if they lose a game? They clearly have their sights on the National Championship, so if that is shot in the first week of the season, what will they do? Or what happens if they lose Andy Dalton for the year early in the season? I think the absolute worst they could do, even if everything went against them, would be 9-3. Going 12-0 is difficult, even if you are the best team in every game you play. I think they will win the MWC title, and I believe they'll probably end up going 11-1, good enough for another BCS game.
Defense: they "only" return 7 starters here. Although 9 of the projected starters from this year's defense have started and played significant minutes in the past. Last year's defense was 5th in scoring defense, 6th in passing defense, 3rd in rushing defense, and 1st in total defense. They will play slightly tougher offenses this season, so I anticipate those numbers going down, but, still, this is a nasty D. They blitz from everywhere. Their DBs can play man on just about anybody in the conference. And if they can't, they either double the one guy they can't single cover and/or get in the QB's face so he can't see that guy. They should finish in the top 10 in most of those statistical categories again. The pass defense might be the only one that slips out of the top 10.
Schedule: the non-conference schedule is neutral site (in Dallas) vs. Oregon State, Tennessee Tech, Baylor, and at SMU on a Friday night. Yes, all 4 games are in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. I would anticipate them to beat Tech and Baylor, without incident. Both Oregon State and SMU have a chance, however. Still, at worst, they should be 3-1 in the non-conference, but more likely to be 4-0. I don't think Oregon State or SMU has the horses in the first month of the season to pull off an upset.
Conference home games are Wyoming, BYU, Air Force, and SDSU. They get Wyoming, BYU, and Air Force in a row (how's that for a scheduling quirk). BYU is the only one that could challenge them, but, today, you have to think even that won't be much of a challenge. Things could change tomorrow though. Most likely they'll be 4-0 here.
Conference road games are CSU, UNLV, Utah, and New Mexico. Utah is the only one that could challenge them here. After beating them thoroughly throughout the game two years ago, Utah took advantage of a myriad of fourth quarter mistakes and beat them at Utah. Last year, TCU exacted revenge on Utah at home, and it could have been worse than the 55-28 score. Can they do it at Rice-Eccles again (but without the fourth quarter miscues)? The big question with that game: what will be riding on it? Right now, it appears the conference title and a potential BCS game will be. However, anything can happen. They should be 3-1 or 4-0.
Outlook: anything but a very solid season for 2010 would be surprising. Big question, can they recover mentally if they lose a game? They clearly have their sights on the National Championship, so if that is shot in the first week of the season, what will they do? Or what happens if they lose Andy Dalton for the year early in the season? I think the absolute worst they could do, even if everything went against them, would be 9-3. Going 12-0 is difficult, even if you are the best team in every game you play. I think they will win the MWC title, and I believe they'll probably end up going 11-1, good enough for another BCS game.
A Look at San Diego State
Offense: They bring back a lot of the pieces from their passing attack. Three of the top 4 receivers come back, and they weren't just top by default, they are pretty good: watch out for Vincent Brown and DeMarco Sampson to both push for 1,000 yards this season. Their QB comes back a year older and wiser after a 3,000 yard season. Four of the 5 offensive linemen return. Their 6'4" 255 pound TE comes back. The main concern from last year was the running game (116th in the nation in yards per game, 115th in yards per carry), which led to another problem: scoring points. It's tougher to throw in the red zone where the throwing lanes get smaller, so they turned the ball over a lot (1.5 INTs thrown per game) and scored less. With four of the 5 linemen back, they should be able to run more. They have a stud freshman running back named Ronnie Hillman who is supposed to be the second coming of Marshall Faulk. But he's a freshman, and if he is supposed to carry the load for the season, he will wear down about game 8 or 9 and be ineffective down the stretch. If Ryan Lindley cuts down on the picks and if they can find a second running back to share the load, they will put up a lot of points, perhaps 28-plus/game, which would be enough to push for a bowl game.
Defense: to me, their struggles on D last year started upfront. They couldn't get pressure on QBs (89th in sacks/game) and couldn't stop the run (85th in rushing defense). They are more experienced there this season, but the problem is: they are playing the same guys as last year! If they improve, that will open things up behind them. In the defense's defense, they were playing in a 3-3-5 last season, which was new to most of the players. A year under their belt should help, since a lot of players understand the system better. Rocky Long has had a year to instill a little more toughness in the secondary, which is critical in the 3-3-5. The problem is they have taller, leaner players in the back 5. I see this unit improving this season over the 30.5 points/game they gave up last year, but maybe not that substantially. If they can improve enough to give up less than 28/game, they could easily move into that rotating 5th spot in the conference (Wyoming last year, CSU the year before).
Schedule: the non-conference is fairly breezy with 3 winnable games. I-AA opponent Nicholls State to open the season, then at New Mexico State, at Missouri, and finishing with Utah State at home. They will beat Nicholls State and New Mexico State. They will fall to Mizzou. Utah State is a bit of a toss-up. We'll call it a win, as Utah State might be looking ahead to Riley Nelson and BYU the following week. So in the non-conference they will be halfway to bowl eligibility.
Conference home games are Air Force, Colorado State, Utah, and UNLV. 3 of the 4 are in November, where I expect the undersized defense and freshman running back to be a little worn down. I think they should go 2-2 (which they will probably need to get to a bowl game), but could also go 1-3 in this stretch. The UNLV "rivalry" game comes after SDSU plays at TCU and then against Utah, however, bowl eligibility may be on the line there for both teams. So it might actually be a game worth watching!
Conference road games are BYU, New Mexico, Wyoming, and TCU. In conference they went 1-3 on the road last year (overall road record was 1-5). On paper, they should beat New Mexico and could beat Wyoming and lose to BYU and TCU. The only ones I feel confident predicting are BYU and TCU losses. They get New Mexico after a bye (harder to win) and get Wyoming after they play at BYU (easier to win), so I anticipate a split there for a 1-3 record. They could go 2-0 in that UNM-Wyo stretch though. Until they prove they can win on the road, I'm calling it 1-3.
Outlook: I think they will be improved from their 4-8 season last year. I feel confident that they should win at least 5 games, but I don't see them getting any more than 6. If the D does come around maybe they could get 7. If the O can't figure out how to run, they may remain at 4.
Defense: to me, their struggles on D last year started upfront. They couldn't get pressure on QBs (89th in sacks/game) and couldn't stop the run (85th in rushing defense). They are more experienced there this season, but the problem is: they are playing the same guys as last year! If they improve, that will open things up behind them. In the defense's defense, they were playing in a 3-3-5 last season, which was new to most of the players. A year under their belt should help, since a lot of players understand the system better. Rocky Long has had a year to instill a little more toughness in the secondary, which is critical in the 3-3-5. The problem is they have taller, leaner players in the back 5. I see this unit improving this season over the 30.5 points/game they gave up last year, but maybe not that substantially. If they can improve enough to give up less than 28/game, they could easily move into that rotating 5th spot in the conference (Wyoming last year, CSU the year before).
Schedule: the non-conference is fairly breezy with 3 winnable games. I-AA opponent Nicholls State to open the season, then at New Mexico State, at Missouri, and finishing with Utah State at home. They will beat Nicholls State and New Mexico State. They will fall to Mizzou. Utah State is a bit of a toss-up. We'll call it a win, as Utah State might be looking ahead to Riley Nelson and BYU the following week. So in the non-conference they will be halfway to bowl eligibility.
Conference home games are Air Force, Colorado State, Utah, and UNLV. 3 of the 4 are in November, where I expect the undersized defense and freshman running back to be a little worn down. I think they should go 2-2 (which they will probably need to get to a bowl game), but could also go 1-3 in this stretch. The UNLV "rivalry" game comes after SDSU plays at TCU and then against Utah, however, bowl eligibility may be on the line there for both teams. So it might actually be a game worth watching!
Conference road games are BYU, New Mexico, Wyoming, and TCU. In conference they went 1-3 on the road last year (overall road record was 1-5). On paper, they should beat New Mexico and could beat Wyoming and lose to BYU and TCU. The only ones I feel confident predicting are BYU and TCU losses. They get New Mexico after a bye (harder to win) and get Wyoming after they play at BYU (easier to win), so I anticipate a split there for a 1-3 record. They could go 2-0 in that UNM-Wyo stretch though. Until they prove they can win on the road, I'm calling it 1-3.
Outlook: I think they will be improved from their 4-8 season last year. I feel confident that they should win at least 5 games, but I don't see them getting any more than 6. If the D does come around maybe they could get 7. If the O can't figure out how to run, they may remain at 4.
Friday, August 27, 2010
It's Official
BYU will play BOTH quarterbacks in their first game against Washington. My guess is, barring injury, both will see time throughout the season as well. I do not believe the split will start at 50-50, I don't think it will ever be 50-50, and I don't think the season will end with the same split that it starts with. If Heaps plays well, his time will go up and Nelson will become a situational QB. If Heaps doesn't play well, or if Nelson throws well, Heaps' time will go down...
On another note, Greg Wrubell had the following to say about BYU's independence:
http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=498&sid=12167861
I agree with his sentiments. BYU may begrudgingly be in the MWC in 2011, but it won't last any longer than that. 2012 brings something new. The MWC doesn't have enough to offer BYU, even if it were willing to offer it.
The insight about the TV deal is spot on. The MWC has no TV deal if the Utah market is gone (Utah State doesn't remedy that situation either). That is why BYU will leave: Comcast will not voluntarily give up BYU's rights to broadcast (that's their only revenue from the MWC), so there can be no saving the situation. What BYU ultimately wants is the one thing it can never get.
On another note, Greg Wrubell had the following to say about BYU's independence:
http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=498&sid=12167861
I agree with his sentiments. BYU may begrudgingly be in the MWC in 2011, but it won't last any longer than that. 2012 brings something new. The MWC doesn't have enough to offer BYU, even if it were willing to offer it.
The insight about the TV deal is spot on. The MWC has no TV deal if the Utah market is gone (Utah State doesn't remedy that situation either). That is why BYU will leave: Comcast will not voluntarily give up BYU's rights to broadcast (that's their only revenue from the MWC), so there can be no saving the situation. What BYU ultimately wants is the one thing it can never get.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
A Look At New Mexico
Offense: they are starting a sophomore QB. Apparently he eked it out over two freshmen. At least he will be behind a big offensive line. They have 3 experienced, but young, running backs. They return two of their most productive WRs and their best TE. The problem is: these are the same guys that played on last year's 1-11 team, that only broke 20 points 3 times all season. But with a less experienced quarterback. Honestly though, I think Porterie was being asked to do things he didn't want to do. If your QB doesn't trust the coaching staff, the team isn't going to do well. Mr. Holbrook isn't going to have an ego problem.
Defense: well, they stunk last year, but at least most of those guys are gone! The offense was bad last year: their defense was pathetic. They bring back their 3 best pass rushers, plus they added one of the top DTs coming out of high school. Their biggest problem is in the secondary. In a run-first league, which the MWC is with few exceptions, you can't give up 250 passing yards a game. Worse than that: you can't give up 40+ points 5 times. That's just bad. Their "best" game was giving up only 20 points to New Mexico State, who was 3-10 in the WAC. That's even worse. The good news: it can't possibly get worse than that. Can it?
Schedule: non-conference games at Oregon and New Mexico State, with home games against Texas Tech and UTEP. They could win at New Mexico State or against UTEP, but probably not both of those. 1-3 in the non-conference.
MWC home games are against Utah, SDSU, Wyoming, and TCU. They could beat SDSU or Wyoming. They were 4-8 two years ago and gave a BCS-busting Utah team a run for their money. They have only been within 3 TDs of TCU once since they joined the MWC. I see this as a 2-2, best case, more likely a 1-3 record.
MWC road games are against UNLV, CSU, Air Force, and BYU. The first three are winnable, given that Air Force is later in the year when Air Force tends to wear down, with a 3-game stretch leading up to it in at TCU, Utah, and at Army. I could see them going 2-2, best case, but I'd put money on 1-3.
Outlook: well, I've got them down for 3-9 this year, with a legitimate chance to get a fourth win (if they build enough confidence they could even cap out at 5 wins...but no more than that). The future is bright though: 2011 could potentially be a bowl year and 2012 they will be likely be led by a third year starting QB, behind a fairly solid O-Line. They have a bunch of freshmen, redshirt freshmen, and sophomores who are 300 pounds already. By then they will have developed some skills to go with their size. Their skill positions are loaded with younger players, as is the secondary. Patience, Lobos, patience. Basketball season isn't too far behind now, and it's just 12 more months until next football season starts with a lot more promise.
Defense: well, they stunk last year, but at least most of those guys are gone! The offense was bad last year: their defense was pathetic. They bring back their 3 best pass rushers, plus they added one of the top DTs coming out of high school. Their biggest problem is in the secondary. In a run-first league, which the MWC is with few exceptions, you can't give up 250 passing yards a game. Worse than that: you can't give up 40+ points 5 times. That's just bad. Their "best" game was giving up only 20 points to New Mexico State, who was 3-10 in the WAC. That's even worse. The good news: it can't possibly get worse than that. Can it?
Schedule: non-conference games at Oregon and New Mexico State, with home games against Texas Tech and UTEP. They could win at New Mexico State or against UTEP, but probably not both of those. 1-3 in the non-conference.
MWC home games are against Utah, SDSU, Wyoming, and TCU. They could beat SDSU or Wyoming. They were 4-8 two years ago and gave a BCS-busting Utah team a run for their money. They have only been within 3 TDs of TCU once since they joined the MWC. I see this as a 2-2, best case, more likely a 1-3 record.
MWC road games are against UNLV, CSU, Air Force, and BYU. The first three are winnable, given that Air Force is later in the year when Air Force tends to wear down, with a 3-game stretch leading up to it in at TCU, Utah, and at Army. I could see them going 2-2, best case, but I'd put money on 1-3.
Outlook: well, I've got them down for 3-9 this year, with a legitimate chance to get a fourth win (if they build enough confidence they could even cap out at 5 wins...but no more than that). The future is bright though: 2011 could potentially be a bowl year and 2012 they will be likely be led by a third year starting QB, behind a fairly solid O-Line. They have a bunch of freshmen, redshirt freshmen, and sophomores who are 300 pounds already. By then they will have developed some skills to go with their size. Their skill positions are loaded with younger players, as is the secondary. Patience, Lobos, patience. Basketball season isn't too far behind now, and it's just 12 more months until next football season starts with a lot more promise.
The QB Battle
I have been asked several times if I'm on Team Jacob or Team Edward, er, Riley. Apparently they are both doing very well. They go back and forth. Riley Nelson looks in total command at times. Jake Heaps can throw the seams off the ball. I digress, here are my thoughts:
1) I think Riley's mobility and experience gives BYU a better chance to win against aggressive, fast, blitzing defenses: Florida State, TCU, and Utah. Jake's pure passing skills give BYU a better chance against most of the other teams on the schedule that would be good enough to beat them: Washington, Nevada, and Utah State. Whether or not BYU beats Air Force will depend on BYU's defense, not on the QB situation. BYU should beat CSU, Wyoming, New Mexico, SDSU, and UNLV, regardless of which one plays.
Just looking at it that way, I'd play Riley Nelson. BYU could beat Nevada and Utah State with Riley, but I don't think BYU can beat Florida State or TCU with Jake. That is not a knock on Jake, it's just that those two defenses will do things that a true freshman won't have any idea what to do with. Most of the great collegiate QBs weren't even any good as freshmen. I don't see why Jake Heaps would be immune to that. (By the Utah game, he would have gained enough experience that this wouldn't necessarily be true anymore.)
2) BYU's offense relies on a precision passer who can distribute the ball all over the field. Jake can make all of the throws, including the deep out and the bomb (the two throws that Max Hall couldn't make). Riley is more of a short throw, dink and dunk, kind of guy. With a typical BYU receiving group, that is fine. But this group has speed, size, and hands. BYU has to play Jake Heaps with this group of WRs/TEs/RBs and with their style of offense.
3) BYU cannot play two QBs equally. The only two-QB system that has ever worked successfully was Chris Leak and Tim Tebow. The thrower, Leak, was the starter. The runner, Tebow, came in on 3rd down and goalline situations. The thrower got the majority of the snaps. The runner never got entire series, only situational plays. That's the only way it CAN work. The thrower needs to get in rhythm, and he can't get that when he's splitting time. The runner just needs his number called on play one so he can take a shot and get those juices flowing. BYU has to play Jake Heaps.
4) I cannot think of the last team to win the MWC with a QB who wasn't at least in his third year in college football. Alex Smith was a redshirt sophomore when he led Utah to their first MWC championship. Max Hall is the only other sophomore I could come up with, and he had a redshirt, a transfer, and a mission. The rest have all been juniors and seniors. Experience counts for a lot in the MWC when it comes to the QB position. If BYU wants to compete for a conference title THIS year, they have to play Riley Nelson.
Since I obviously cannot decide, here is how I would play it out: Riley Nelson gets the start against Washington. Jake Heaps takes the first series or two of the second half. Against Air Force, Heaps takes the first two series of the second half. Maybe you extend it to three, maybe you even give him a first half possession (not in a two-minute situation). At Florida State, Heaps takes no more than 3 series. Starting with the Nevada game, assuming Nelson hasn't gone 3-0, you can transition Heaps to the starting role by giving him the first and third quarters. At Utah State, you can give Jake a two-minute drive, assuming you have the ball at the end of the first half. By Wyoming (read: after TCU), Jake Heaps is the starter with Riley Nelson taking third down and shorts and all "and goal" plays (first and goal, etc.).
Because I can't decide, that is how I would play it. Then again, the coaches are watching these kids practice every day. They see how the team responds to them, they see things beyond the stats, and they know all of the strengths and weaknesses of each player. I am just doing a theoretical exercise based on historical precedent, offensive style, and the reports I hear on the QBs from people that are watching them. Also, I am guessing that 5 or 6 games into the season, there will be a disparity in level of play on the field and it will become evident whom to start. However, to answer the original question: I'm on team Jake-ley...
1) I think Riley's mobility and experience gives BYU a better chance to win against aggressive, fast, blitzing defenses: Florida State, TCU, and Utah. Jake's pure passing skills give BYU a better chance against most of the other teams on the schedule that would be good enough to beat them: Washington, Nevada, and Utah State. Whether or not BYU beats Air Force will depend on BYU's defense, not on the QB situation. BYU should beat CSU, Wyoming, New Mexico, SDSU, and UNLV, regardless of which one plays.
Just looking at it that way, I'd play Riley Nelson. BYU could beat Nevada and Utah State with Riley, but I don't think BYU can beat Florida State or TCU with Jake. That is not a knock on Jake, it's just that those two defenses will do things that a true freshman won't have any idea what to do with. Most of the great collegiate QBs weren't even any good as freshmen. I don't see why Jake Heaps would be immune to that. (By the Utah game, he would have gained enough experience that this wouldn't necessarily be true anymore.)
2) BYU's offense relies on a precision passer who can distribute the ball all over the field. Jake can make all of the throws, including the deep out and the bomb (the two throws that Max Hall couldn't make). Riley is more of a short throw, dink and dunk, kind of guy. With a typical BYU receiving group, that is fine. But this group has speed, size, and hands. BYU has to play Jake Heaps with this group of WRs/TEs/RBs and with their style of offense.
3) BYU cannot play two QBs equally. The only two-QB system that has ever worked successfully was Chris Leak and Tim Tebow. The thrower, Leak, was the starter. The runner, Tebow, came in on 3rd down and goalline situations. The thrower got the majority of the snaps. The runner never got entire series, only situational plays. That's the only way it CAN work. The thrower needs to get in rhythm, and he can't get that when he's splitting time. The runner just needs his number called on play one so he can take a shot and get those juices flowing. BYU has to play Jake Heaps.
4) I cannot think of the last team to win the MWC with a QB who wasn't at least in his third year in college football. Alex Smith was a redshirt sophomore when he led Utah to their first MWC championship. Max Hall is the only other sophomore I could come up with, and he had a redshirt, a transfer, and a mission. The rest have all been juniors and seniors. Experience counts for a lot in the MWC when it comes to the QB position. If BYU wants to compete for a conference title THIS year, they have to play Riley Nelson.
Since I obviously cannot decide, here is how I would play it out: Riley Nelson gets the start against Washington. Jake Heaps takes the first series or two of the second half. Against Air Force, Heaps takes the first two series of the second half. Maybe you extend it to three, maybe you even give him a first half possession (not in a two-minute situation). At Florida State, Heaps takes no more than 3 series. Starting with the Nevada game, assuming Nelson hasn't gone 3-0, you can transition Heaps to the starting role by giving him the first and third quarters. At Utah State, you can give Jake a two-minute drive, assuming you have the ball at the end of the first half. By Wyoming (read: after TCU), Jake Heaps is the starter with Riley Nelson taking third down and shorts and all "and goal" plays (first and goal, etc.).
Because I can't decide, that is how I would play it. Then again, the coaches are watching these kids practice every day. They see how the team responds to them, they see things beyond the stats, and they know all of the strengths and weaknesses of each player. I am just doing a theoretical exercise based on historical precedent, offensive style, and the reports I hear on the QBs from people that are watching them. Also, I am guessing that 5 or 6 games into the season, there will be a disparity in level of play on the field and it will become evident whom to start. However, to answer the original question: I'm on team Jake-ley...
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
A Look At CSU
Here are my thoughts about this CSU team:
Offense: they have a lot of depth and talent, but they are very inexperienced. They have a decent-sized O-line, but they are a little small on the right side (better to have the beef on the left side to protect the QB's blind side), and quite green. However, all of these younger players are Coach Fairchild's recruits, so he can't complain if they don't perform. They have a couple of big, tall WRs and the lone small guy is their most experienced. They have a potential NFL fullback, leading for a less experienced tailback. They are starting a freshman QB who was a BCS recruit. There are growing pains associated with youth on the O-Line and at QB. They are probably more talented than last year, but experience is huge in a conference with BYU, Utah, TCU, and Air Force.
Defense: they have a lot of experience on the first line, but they have pretty much zero depth. They just haven't been able to recruit very good defensive players. They have a good mix of size and speed on the D-Line, but in that 4-3 system against the lines you see at TCU, BYU, and Utah, you can't have backup DTs under 275, and both of theirs are under 265 (one under 250). They can't afford any injuries in the front 7. The secondary should be the better part of their defense but, again, any injuries there and they are playing true freshmen. Look for this unit to start the year strong and fade the second half of the season.
Schedule: their non-conference schedule puts them on a neutral field against Colorado, at Nevada and Miami (OH), and finishing with a home game against Idaho. They should hope to go 2-2, but it's probably more likely to go 1-3. They don't have the horses to contain CU (not a good sign for their season) or Nevada. It's always tough for a bottom-feeder MWC school to head into MAC territory and Idaho is on the up-and-up, winning a bowl game last season for the first time ever (I think, maybe it was their second one...). Scratch that, they could be 0-4...
Their conference home games are TCU, UNLV, New Mexico, and BYU. If they had BYU earlier in the season they would have a chance, but with their depth issues on defense, that isn't likely. New Mexico and UNLV are winnable games. TCU is a loss. Best case: 2-2, but more likely is 1-3.
Their conference road games are Air Force, Utah, San Diego State, and Wyoming. They could get the San Diego State or Wyoming games, but at that point in the season they are looking at being 2-7 or 3-6. Winnable games are less winnable after losing so many in a row. I think best case here is 1-3, but they could go 0-fer.
Outlook: I think this is a "throwaway" season for the Rams. Too many young guys on offense. Too little depth on defense. The schedule would be manageable for a better team. When things starting going bad last year, they completely folded. I would hope they are more mentally tough than that this year. If they are, they could go 4-8, perhaps even 5-7. However, with the more winnable games at the end of the year and no byes during the season, it could snowball. More likely to see them 3-9 again. If Fairchild is around next year, however, they could make a push toward the middle of the league. This year, however, they are looking at 8th or 9th.
Offense: they have a lot of depth and talent, but they are very inexperienced. They have a decent-sized O-line, but they are a little small on the right side (better to have the beef on the left side to protect the QB's blind side), and quite green. However, all of these younger players are Coach Fairchild's recruits, so he can't complain if they don't perform. They have a couple of big, tall WRs and the lone small guy is their most experienced. They have a potential NFL fullback, leading for a less experienced tailback. They are starting a freshman QB who was a BCS recruit. There are growing pains associated with youth on the O-Line and at QB. They are probably more talented than last year, but experience is huge in a conference with BYU, Utah, TCU, and Air Force.
Defense: they have a lot of experience on the first line, but they have pretty much zero depth. They just haven't been able to recruit very good defensive players. They have a good mix of size and speed on the D-Line, but in that 4-3 system against the lines you see at TCU, BYU, and Utah, you can't have backup DTs under 275, and both of theirs are under 265 (one under 250). They can't afford any injuries in the front 7. The secondary should be the better part of their defense but, again, any injuries there and they are playing true freshmen. Look for this unit to start the year strong and fade the second half of the season.
Schedule: their non-conference schedule puts them on a neutral field against Colorado, at Nevada and Miami (OH), and finishing with a home game against Idaho. They should hope to go 2-2, but it's probably more likely to go 1-3. They don't have the horses to contain CU (not a good sign for their season) or Nevada. It's always tough for a bottom-feeder MWC school to head into MAC territory and Idaho is on the up-and-up, winning a bowl game last season for the first time ever (I think, maybe it was their second one...). Scratch that, they could be 0-4...
Their conference home games are TCU, UNLV, New Mexico, and BYU. If they had BYU earlier in the season they would have a chance, but with their depth issues on defense, that isn't likely. New Mexico and UNLV are winnable games. TCU is a loss. Best case: 2-2, but more likely is 1-3.
Their conference road games are Air Force, Utah, San Diego State, and Wyoming. They could get the San Diego State or Wyoming games, but at that point in the season they are looking at being 2-7 or 3-6. Winnable games are less winnable after losing so many in a row. I think best case here is 1-3, but they could go 0-fer.
Outlook: I think this is a "throwaway" season for the Rams. Too many young guys on offense. Too little depth on defense. The schedule would be manageable for a better team. When things starting going bad last year, they completely folded. I would hope they are more mentally tough than that this year. If they are, they could go 4-8, perhaps even 5-7. However, with the more winnable games at the end of the year and no byes during the season, it could snowball. More likely to see them 3-9 again. If Fairchild is around next year, however, they could make a push toward the middle of the league. This year, however, they are looking at 8th or 9th.
Independent Criticism
Here is a look at the criticism that BYU has faced for nearly going independent:
Arrogance
1) Is the move arrogant? Absolutely. But, as we learned, it is justified arrogance. They put themseleves out to market and two conferences (the WAC and the West Coast Conference) were willing to take their non-football sports just to get them in the conference. ESPN was willing to broadcast their games and pay them substantially more than they are currently receiving. We'll look at revenue in more detail later, but suffice it to say here: BYU's TV contracts (for football alone) were going to be more than half of the entire MWC TV deal (which includes all sports). That means the rights to their football games are worth more than the entire athletic programs of the other 8 schools, combined. Yet they are treated "equally" and not given any special treatment whatsoever.
2) They are not Notre Dame. Everybody knows that. BYU admits as much. But in order to improve on the status quo, they don't need to be Notre Dame. Their deal with ESPN wouldn't have come close to Notre Dame's deal with NBC. But it would have given them at least twice as much money and probably 10 times the exposure. They don't need to be Notre Dame, they just need to continue being BYU, and they will be much better off than right now. Also, people are always saying that BYU is no Notre Dame, but they are in a much better position than Army and Navy, the other two independents. TV ratings and fan attendance are much greater for BYU than those two (with the exception of the Army-Navy game).
BCS Bowls
1) They move from "automatically qualifying for a BCS bid as a conference champion in the top 12" to "eligible for an at-large bid if they are in the top 14." The fact of the matter is, at this point in time, if BYU goes 11-1 or 12-0, regardless of conference affiliation (or lack thereof), they will go to a BCS game. Whether that is an automatic bid or an at-large bid is pretty irrelevant. In the MWC, they have to split the automatic money in half, give half to the other non-BCS conferences, and then divide the remainder with the MWC. As an independent, they get the same payday but without having to share it. People use last year as an example: BYU was eligible for an at-large bid but was passed up by Florida, Boise State, and Iowa. Those three teams were all way more deserving than BYU. I don't think any rational person has a problem with those teams going over BYU. If BYU was good enough to go 11-1 last season, maybe it's a different story, but they weren't good enough to do that.
2) With ESPN as a partner, they don't need anyone to lobby for them for greater access. If BYU goes 11-1 with 4 appearances on ESPN or ESPN2 (plus the fact that BYU-TV is on Satellite everywhere in the country so people will have a chance to see them multiple times), they will have access if and when they deserve access. They would probably play at least 5 ranked or BCS conference teams every year. ESPN would probably set up one game to which Gameday would go. That kind of exposure could move them up 2-3 spots in the polls, assuming they go 11-1. If BYU is in the top 8, they will get an at-large.
Revenue
1) If the MWC sends a team to a BCS game, BYU goes to the Las Vegas Bowl, and BYU makes the NCAA Tournament along with 2 other MWC teams, BYU's take for TV revenue, bowl payouts, and NCAA Tournament money is just less than $3.5M. ESPN offered more than that for 4 home football games. Depending on what you believe, the total package for BYU sports was going to be worth AT LEAST twice that, probably somewhere in the $7-10M range. This does not include bowl payouts or NCAA tournament money depending on which conference they end up in. There is nothing the MWC could offer that is even close to comparable.
2) They miss out on BCS money if an MWC school goes to the BCS. Boise State, TCU, and Utah have been the teams to bring home the BCS cash, not BYU, which they then share with the conference. But we're talking about $500K a year for BYU if someone else goes to a BCS game. Given the fact that they have at least doubled their revenue, it's still a multi-million dollar net gain without that half-million.
3) The jump to independence would rejuvenate their fan base, i.e. increase merchandise sales, donations, etc. My wife used to work in the BYU Bookstore E-Commerce Department. She said that sales essentially doubled over a weekend when BYU won as opposed to when they lost. Now imagine the enthusiasm from going independent: it would have a much bigger effect than a single win.
No Bowl Tie-Ins
1) If they had joined the WAC in other sports, they would have had access to the WAC's bowl games, according to the pre-nup they had with the WAC. Short of joining the Big XII, they would not have any bowl tie-ins. There is no arguing that point. They would go to a bowl game, because every year two or three conferences do not qualify enough teams: but this bowl would be less than desirable.
2) However, there will have to be a massive renegotiation in bowl contracts soon. The Pac 12 and Big Ten are going to want more bowl games. The Big XII will probably qualify fewer teams for bowls with their smaller league with fewer non-conference games. If the WAC disappears, their bowl games open up (I believe there were four tie-ins for them). The MWC has just grown in size and will need to find more bowls. A large restructuring of the bowls is going to take place. Some bowl is going to take a chance with BYU, especially given that ESPN would be a strong partner and ally of BYU's.
Exposure
1) Some wonder what would happen if BYU's "ESPN games" ended up on ESPNU, ESPN-Classic, or ESPN3. Those are difficult stations to find. However, having 5-6 games per year on The Mtn is even harder to find! I could watch those games easier and cheaper than I can with The Mtn, CBS-CS, and Versus.
2) BYU's contract with ESPN would be for four home games. However, take into account that most of BYU's road opponents will have a contract with ESPN as well, and you are looking at having perhaps as many as 6-8 games on national television (not counting BYU-TV games).
3) According to the agreement the WAC and BYU had, all other tournaments and BYU homes games could be on BYU-TV, meaning greater exposure for the network/BYU. Imagine St. Mary's or Gonzaga traveling to Provo or having the West Coast Conference Basketball Tournament on BYU-TV (minus the championship game). Tens-hundreds of thousands of people would discover BYU-TV. Good for the University and good for the Church.
Scheduling
1) 12 games will be tough to get scheduled every year. SDSU has already said they wouldn't schedule BYU (oh no, BYU will have to play Texas instead...). However, figure that BYU could schedule Utah, Utah State, and Hawaii most years, at least 2 of the 3 independents would be willing, they were already scheduling 2 or 3 other non-conference games every year, and ESPN would help broker 2 games. That's already at least 9 games. Throw a I-AA game and a cash-strapped C-USA/MAC/Sun Belt team and they are nearly there. Pulling all of that together for 2011 might be difficult, but for 2012 they could probably make those arrangements, even without help from the WAC.
2) Scheduling should get easier with ESPN as a partner and BYU-TV being available across the country. Besides, after 4 or 5 years of decreased ticket sales (and that crappy new TV deal they'll get if/when BYU leaves), even MWC schools might come around and play BYU again. They would probably even be willing to go to Provo to get some of that ESPN or BYU-TV money too!
On-Field Performance
1) They cannot lay eggs like they did against TCU and Florida State last season. If ESPN puts 4 big games on TV, they need to be respectable in all 4 and probably win at least 2 of them. If they don't perform, ESPN will not continue to broadcast them down the road.
2) BYU should be favored to win the MWC next season (2011). If they go out as conference champions with a BCS game under their belt, that would bode much better for how much exposure they could get in 2012. Given that the 2012 schedule will probably be softer than 2013 and beyond (tough to get big-name opponents on such short notice) and that BYU will have a very experienced team (based on the number of freshmen and sophomores on this year's two-deep), that's the best year to make the jump, if they make it.
Looking at all of the factors, I don't see how BYU considers the MWC a long-term solution. They have seen the revenue out there awaiting them. They have seen the amount of exposure possible with ESPN and BYU-TV. I do not see how they can return to the MWC for much longer without serious concessions on the TV side, but even then, they cannot get near the money or exposure as a member of the MWC as they could as an independent. Arrogant? Yes, but they've shown the MWC (the country, i.e. the Big XII) that they have earned that right. If the MWC won't acknowledge that fact, ESPN will.
Arrogance
1) Is the move arrogant? Absolutely. But, as we learned, it is justified arrogance. They put themseleves out to market and two conferences (the WAC and the West Coast Conference) were willing to take their non-football sports just to get them in the conference. ESPN was willing to broadcast their games and pay them substantially more than they are currently receiving. We'll look at revenue in more detail later, but suffice it to say here: BYU's TV contracts (for football alone) were going to be more than half of the entire MWC TV deal (which includes all sports). That means the rights to their football games are worth more than the entire athletic programs of the other 8 schools, combined. Yet they are treated "equally" and not given any special treatment whatsoever.
2) They are not Notre Dame. Everybody knows that. BYU admits as much. But in order to improve on the status quo, they don't need to be Notre Dame. Their deal with ESPN wouldn't have come close to Notre Dame's deal with NBC. But it would have given them at least twice as much money and probably 10 times the exposure. They don't need to be Notre Dame, they just need to continue being BYU, and they will be much better off than right now. Also, people are always saying that BYU is no Notre Dame, but they are in a much better position than Army and Navy, the other two independents. TV ratings and fan attendance are much greater for BYU than those two (with the exception of the Army-Navy game).
BCS Bowls
1) They move from "automatically qualifying for a BCS bid as a conference champion in the top 12" to "eligible for an at-large bid if they are in the top 14." The fact of the matter is, at this point in time, if BYU goes 11-1 or 12-0, regardless of conference affiliation (or lack thereof), they will go to a BCS game. Whether that is an automatic bid or an at-large bid is pretty irrelevant. In the MWC, they have to split the automatic money in half, give half to the other non-BCS conferences, and then divide the remainder with the MWC. As an independent, they get the same payday but without having to share it. People use last year as an example: BYU was eligible for an at-large bid but was passed up by Florida, Boise State, and Iowa. Those three teams were all way more deserving than BYU. I don't think any rational person has a problem with those teams going over BYU. If BYU was good enough to go 11-1 last season, maybe it's a different story, but they weren't good enough to do that.
2) With ESPN as a partner, they don't need anyone to lobby for them for greater access. If BYU goes 11-1 with 4 appearances on ESPN or ESPN2 (plus the fact that BYU-TV is on Satellite everywhere in the country so people will have a chance to see them multiple times), they will have access if and when they deserve access. They would probably play at least 5 ranked or BCS conference teams every year. ESPN would probably set up one game to which Gameday would go. That kind of exposure could move them up 2-3 spots in the polls, assuming they go 11-1. If BYU is in the top 8, they will get an at-large.
Revenue
1) If the MWC sends a team to a BCS game, BYU goes to the Las Vegas Bowl, and BYU makes the NCAA Tournament along with 2 other MWC teams, BYU's take for TV revenue, bowl payouts, and NCAA Tournament money is just less than $3.5M. ESPN offered more than that for 4 home football games. Depending on what you believe, the total package for BYU sports was going to be worth AT LEAST twice that, probably somewhere in the $7-10M range. This does not include bowl payouts or NCAA tournament money depending on which conference they end up in. There is nothing the MWC could offer that is even close to comparable.
2) They miss out on BCS money if an MWC school goes to the BCS. Boise State, TCU, and Utah have been the teams to bring home the BCS cash, not BYU, which they then share with the conference. But we're talking about $500K a year for BYU if someone else goes to a BCS game. Given the fact that they have at least doubled their revenue, it's still a multi-million dollar net gain without that half-million.
3) The jump to independence would rejuvenate their fan base, i.e. increase merchandise sales, donations, etc. My wife used to work in the BYU Bookstore E-Commerce Department. She said that sales essentially doubled over a weekend when BYU won as opposed to when they lost. Now imagine the enthusiasm from going independent: it would have a much bigger effect than a single win.
No Bowl Tie-Ins
1) If they had joined the WAC in other sports, they would have had access to the WAC's bowl games, according to the pre-nup they had with the WAC. Short of joining the Big XII, they would not have any bowl tie-ins. There is no arguing that point. They would go to a bowl game, because every year two or three conferences do not qualify enough teams: but this bowl would be less than desirable.
2) However, there will have to be a massive renegotiation in bowl contracts soon. The Pac 12 and Big Ten are going to want more bowl games. The Big XII will probably qualify fewer teams for bowls with their smaller league with fewer non-conference games. If the WAC disappears, their bowl games open up (I believe there were four tie-ins for them). The MWC has just grown in size and will need to find more bowls. A large restructuring of the bowls is going to take place. Some bowl is going to take a chance with BYU, especially given that ESPN would be a strong partner and ally of BYU's.
Exposure
1) Some wonder what would happen if BYU's "ESPN games" ended up on ESPNU, ESPN-Classic, or ESPN3. Those are difficult stations to find. However, having 5-6 games per year on The Mtn is even harder to find! I could watch those games easier and cheaper than I can with The Mtn, CBS-CS, and Versus.
2) BYU's contract with ESPN would be for four home games. However, take into account that most of BYU's road opponents will have a contract with ESPN as well, and you are looking at having perhaps as many as 6-8 games on national television (not counting BYU-TV games).
3) According to the agreement the WAC and BYU had, all other tournaments and BYU homes games could be on BYU-TV, meaning greater exposure for the network/BYU. Imagine St. Mary's or Gonzaga traveling to Provo or having the West Coast Conference Basketball Tournament on BYU-TV (minus the championship game). Tens-hundreds of thousands of people would discover BYU-TV. Good for the University and good for the Church.
Scheduling
1) 12 games will be tough to get scheduled every year. SDSU has already said they wouldn't schedule BYU (oh no, BYU will have to play Texas instead...). However, figure that BYU could schedule Utah, Utah State, and Hawaii most years, at least 2 of the 3 independents would be willing, they were already scheduling 2 or 3 other non-conference games every year, and ESPN would help broker 2 games. That's already at least 9 games. Throw a I-AA game and a cash-strapped C-USA/MAC/Sun Belt team and they are nearly there. Pulling all of that together for 2011 might be difficult, but for 2012 they could probably make those arrangements, even without help from the WAC.
2) Scheduling should get easier with ESPN as a partner and BYU-TV being available across the country. Besides, after 4 or 5 years of decreased ticket sales (and that crappy new TV deal they'll get if/when BYU leaves), even MWC schools might come around and play BYU again. They would probably even be willing to go to Provo to get some of that ESPN or BYU-TV money too!
On-Field Performance
1) They cannot lay eggs like they did against TCU and Florida State last season. If ESPN puts 4 big games on TV, they need to be respectable in all 4 and probably win at least 2 of them. If they don't perform, ESPN will not continue to broadcast them down the road.
2) BYU should be favored to win the MWC next season (2011). If they go out as conference champions with a BCS game under their belt, that would bode much better for how much exposure they could get in 2012. Given that the 2012 schedule will probably be softer than 2013 and beyond (tough to get big-name opponents on such short notice) and that BYU will have a very experienced team (based on the number of freshmen and sophomores on this year's two-deep), that's the best year to make the jump, if they make it.
Looking at all of the factors, I don't see how BYU considers the MWC a long-term solution. They have seen the revenue out there awaiting them. They have seen the amount of exposure possible with ESPN and BYU-TV. I do not see how they can return to the MWC for much longer without serious concessions on the TV side, but even then, they cannot get near the money or exposure as a member of the MWC as they could as an independent. Arrogant? Yes, but they've shown the MWC (the country, i.e. the Big XII) that they have earned that right. If the MWC won't acknowledge that fact, ESPN will.
Monday, August 23, 2010
A Look at Air Force
Here are my thoughts on Air Force:
Offense: this is a typical Falcon offense. They aren't huge upfront. People mention the O-Line as a weakness because they don't have many starts: guess what, that is Air Force football. They always play juniors and seniors on the line, so they never have much game experience, but they have plenty of guys who have been around the block and know the system in and out. The 6 non-OL positions are all in good shape. Again, they have a lot of juniors and seniors. A lot of guys who have played a lot of snaps. A lot of guys who know how to take care of the rock and move the chains. They should be able to throw more this season than last season with Warzeka and Fogler, plus a more experienced QB (or QBs...).
Defense: like the offense, the defense doesn't really change much from year to year. You get what you always get. They have a lot of depth, a lot of experience, but not a lot of size. This is why they run the 3-4: it suits their personnel better. They have biggers LBs to make up for the smaller defensive front, as they will always have a smaller defensive front at the Academy. The secondary is strong (though not as strong as the hype). Because they lack size in the front, teams often commit to the run against the Falcons, so their passing defense looks better. What they lack in athleticism, they make up for in smarts. And they do lack athleticism.
Schedule: very balanced schedule. Non-conference slate is Northwestern State (FCS school), at Oklahoma, Navy, and at Army. They should beat Northwestern State, lose to Oklahoma, Navy is a toss-up, and they should beat Army. A 3-1 record would really help the conference, but beating Navy is a tough challenge, as they haven't done it in with any regularity for a decade, so 2-2 is a better bet until they prove otherwise.
In the conference they get BYU, CSU, Utah, and New Mexico at home. They should go at least 2-2 there, but I believe this is the year they get either BYU or Utah, and make that 3-1. They have been close with Utah 3 of the last 4 games but never got over the hump, and they beat them 5 years ago in Rice-Eccles. They get BYU early in the year when their offense is not in sync. The best time of the year to play BYU is September. Air Force should get at least one of those two.
They travel to Wyoming, San Diego State, TCU, and UNLV. They may have some troubles at Wyoming and San Diego State, but I think they still SHOULD win both of those games. They will lose to TCU in Fort Worth and will beat UNLV in Vegas. As with the other groupings, 2-2 is the worst you'll see, but I would anticipate them to go 3-1.
Outlook: if you do the math, I've got them probably about 8-4, maybe as good as 9-3. I believe they'll have a 6-2 or 5-3 record in conference. At 6-2, they would finish 2nd. If they end up at 5-3, they'll probably be tied for third with the loser of the BYU-Utah game.
Offense: this is a typical Falcon offense. They aren't huge upfront. People mention the O-Line as a weakness because they don't have many starts: guess what, that is Air Force football. They always play juniors and seniors on the line, so they never have much game experience, but they have plenty of guys who have been around the block and know the system in and out. The 6 non-OL positions are all in good shape. Again, they have a lot of juniors and seniors. A lot of guys who have played a lot of snaps. A lot of guys who know how to take care of the rock and move the chains. They should be able to throw more this season than last season with Warzeka and Fogler, plus a more experienced QB (or QBs...).
Defense: like the offense, the defense doesn't really change much from year to year. You get what you always get. They have a lot of depth, a lot of experience, but not a lot of size. This is why they run the 3-4: it suits their personnel better. They have biggers LBs to make up for the smaller defensive front, as they will always have a smaller defensive front at the Academy. The secondary is strong (though not as strong as the hype). Because they lack size in the front, teams often commit to the run against the Falcons, so their passing defense looks better. What they lack in athleticism, they make up for in smarts. And they do lack athleticism.
Schedule: very balanced schedule. Non-conference slate is Northwestern State (FCS school), at Oklahoma, Navy, and at Army. They should beat Northwestern State, lose to Oklahoma, Navy is a toss-up, and they should beat Army. A 3-1 record would really help the conference, but beating Navy is a tough challenge, as they haven't done it in with any regularity for a decade, so 2-2 is a better bet until they prove otherwise.
In the conference they get BYU, CSU, Utah, and New Mexico at home. They should go at least 2-2 there, but I believe this is the year they get either BYU or Utah, and make that 3-1. They have been close with Utah 3 of the last 4 games but never got over the hump, and they beat them 5 years ago in Rice-Eccles. They get BYU early in the year when their offense is not in sync. The best time of the year to play BYU is September. Air Force should get at least one of those two.
They travel to Wyoming, San Diego State, TCU, and UNLV. They may have some troubles at Wyoming and San Diego State, but I think they still SHOULD win both of those games. They will lose to TCU in Fort Worth and will beat UNLV in Vegas. As with the other groupings, 2-2 is the worst you'll see, but I would anticipate them to go 3-1.
Outlook: if you do the math, I've got them probably about 8-4, maybe as good as 9-3. I believe they'll have a 6-2 or 5-3 record in conference. At 6-2, they would finish 2nd. If they end up at 5-3, they'll probably be tied for third with the loser of the BYU-Utah game.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Mo Predicts
After studying Holmoe's Education Week Q&A session and seeing the news about BYU inking a two-year deal with the University of Texas, Mo is ready to predict that BYU is going to leave the MWC (probably to be an independent) with an ESPN contract by the 2012 football season, if not for the 2011 season.
I have no sources. I have not talked to anyone in the know. But this is going to happen. Read between the lines!
5 reasons:
1) They cannot return to the MWC now, even if the conference made major concessions, which Craig Thompson has said he will not do anyway. You cannot get stabbed in the back like that and return, especially not when you are the gravy train.
2) Texas would not have inked a deal to play in Provo if the game were to be on the Mtn. or Versus. BYU (and probably ESPN) must have made assurances to Texas that the game will be broadcast on ESPN in primetime. That cannot happen in the MWC TV deal will not allow that.
3) Holmoe sounded extremely enthusiastic about BYU's broadcasting capabilities. He must have some intent to use them and the MWC TV deal will not allow that either.
4) Holmoe talked about how important of a partner ESPN is to be BYU. He has never said that about The Mtn. (and certainly not in the recent past). And, currently, ESPN and BYU are not official partners!
5) BYU has not announced anything. They have not confirmed their commitment to the MWC nor have they stated that they will stop researching independent status. Their silence means: we will not be two-faced like everyone else involved (except Utah State). "We will not say one thing today and do something else tomorrow (or 5 minutes from now behind your back...)." They will remain silent until they have something to announce. They are realigning those ducks and once they are back in a row, they will announce. Next week, maybe, but certainly before September 1, 2011.
What will the MWC TV deal look like after that? Hey, Comcast, we lost the Salt Lake market but we added Reno and Fresno (and their combined average attendance of 50,000). Or, sorry, Wyoming, we know you rely on BYU coming to town every other year to give you maximum ticket sales, but you voted to stab them in the back too, so stop complaining and just do a better job of marketing that Nevada game.
I should also predict that The Mtn. channel disappears within one year of BYU leaving the conference.
I have no sources. I have not talked to anyone in the know. But this is going to happen. Read between the lines!
5 reasons:
1) They cannot return to the MWC now, even if the conference made major concessions, which Craig Thompson has said he will not do anyway. You cannot get stabbed in the back like that and return, especially not when you are the gravy train.
2) Texas would not have inked a deal to play in Provo if the game were to be on the Mtn. or Versus. BYU (and probably ESPN) must have made assurances to Texas that the game will be broadcast on ESPN in primetime. That cannot happen in the MWC TV deal will not allow that.
3) Holmoe sounded extremely enthusiastic about BYU's broadcasting capabilities. He must have some intent to use them and the MWC TV deal will not allow that either.
4) Holmoe talked about how important of a partner ESPN is to be BYU. He has never said that about The Mtn. (and certainly not in the recent past). And, currently, ESPN and BYU are not official partners!
5) BYU has not announced anything. They have not confirmed their commitment to the MWC nor have they stated that they will stop researching independent status. Their silence means: we will not be two-faced like everyone else involved (except Utah State). "We will not say one thing today and do something else tomorrow (or 5 minutes from now behind your back...)." They will remain silent until they have something to announce. They are realigning those ducks and once they are back in a row, they will announce. Next week, maybe, but certainly before September 1, 2011.
What will the MWC TV deal look like after that? Hey, Comcast, we lost the Salt Lake market but we added Reno and Fresno (and their combined average attendance of 50,000). Or, sorry, Wyoming, we know you rely on BYU coming to town every other year to give you maximum ticket sales, but you voted to stab them in the back too, so stop complaining and just do a better job of marketing that Nevada game.
I should also predict that The Mtn. channel disappears within one year of BYU leaving the conference.
The MWC Has Given Up?
There is now talk of the MWC champion playing the C-USA champion for a right to get into a BCS game. Has the MWC given up hope of an automatic bid? Chances are, their champion is going to qualify for a BCS game, just have to be in the top 12, i.e. finish 11-1 or 12-0. Why muddy it up by giving C-USA a 50% chance at it? Why would the BCS even consider accepting this anyway? Also, this game would probably have to be broadcast on The Mtn. at least every other year, right? How does that help exposure or revenue?
I read that part of this might be an attempt to keep BYU? Seriously, if I'm BYU this makes me realize even more how small of an organization the MWC is. How is this ANY better than the status quo? It's even worse! And if I'm President Samuelson and this was the solution presented to me to "improve" the conference in that call on Tuesday, I would have hurried off the phone too (and then have the conference secretly vote in new members while I was gone...). Any excuse would do: I have to go (and make phone calls that might actually benefit my university).
My proposed better solution: Fresno State, BYU, Boise State, Air Force, TCU, Houston and some combination of Hawaii, Southern Miss, SMU, UTEP, and East Carolina (and maybe Tulsa) form a new conference (and get a commissioner not named Craig Thompson). This new conference could ink a deal with ESPN worth probably about 5 times what most of them are receiving right now and it would probably even be a BCS-caliber conference on its own: no stupid play-in games that the BCS doesn't care about anyway. These teams have money, average about 30,000+ in attendance, and/or have spent at least some time in the top 25 in the past 4 seasons. Leave the leeches behind. Teams like Wyoming and Rice aren't worth a quarter of a million in TV revenue, yet they take a million more than that. Find a real solution, I'll give you a hint: a C-USA/MWC "championship" game isn't it. What a joke, Craig Thompson!
I read that part of this might be an attempt to keep BYU? Seriously, if I'm BYU this makes me realize even more how small of an organization the MWC is. How is this ANY better than the status quo? It's even worse! And if I'm President Samuelson and this was the solution presented to me to "improve" the conference in that call on Tuesday, I would have hurried off the phone too (and then have the conference secretly vote in new members while I was gone...). Any excuse would do: I have to go (and make phone calls that might actually benefit my university).
My proposed better solution: Fresno State, BYU, Boise State, Air Force, TCU, Houston and some combination of Hawaii, Southern Miss, SMU, UTEP, and East Carolina (and maybe Tulsa) form a new conference (and get a commissioner not named Craig Thompson). This new conference could ink a deal with ESPN worth probably about 5 times what most of them are receiving right now and it would probably even be a BCS-caliber conference on its own: no stupid play-in games that the BCS doesn't care about anyway. These teams have money, average about 30,000+ in attendance, and/or have spent at least some time in the top 25 in the past 4 seasons. Leave the leeches behind. Teams like Wyoming and Rice aren't worth a quarter of a million in TV revenue, yet they take a million more than that. Find a real solution, I'll give you a hint: a C-USA/MWC "championship" game isn't it. What a joke, Craig Thompson!
The Plot Thickens
Last night, Utah State and Boise State shed a little more light on this whole fiasco. Utah State acted very honorably, albeit very naively. They had an agreement and they stuck with it and stuck by BYU. (Interesting that they would rather have been in the WAC with BYU, in all sports but football, than to be in the MWC with BYU, including football, but that's another story for another day...) However, they stuck by their word.
Boise State pointed out that the expansion vote took place without BYU, and without BYU's knowledge on the fact. Apparently, BYU was unwilling to cease exploring the independence option, so the rest of the MWC schools held a secret vote. The fact that BYU was as surprised as the rest of the country at the invitation means that none of the MWC presidents, ADs, commissioners, etc. had the guts (or they had enough hatred) to even inform BYU that the vote took place. The fact that Utah State was voted in as well means this had nothing to do with improving the conference, but had everything to do with destroying the WAC. You cannot blame the MWC for the actions they took but you can blame them for the manner in which they did it. They wanted to force BYU back to the table without any leverage so they wouldn't have to make any concessions. And the Commissioner had the audacity to say that BYU is still a trusted, respected, and full-voting member of the MWC. What hypocrisy!
Tom Holmoe, BYU's athletic director, did a Q&A yesterday and his comments were very telling. There are articles for this all over but here is the article at the D-News: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700058532/BYU-football-Holmoe-Things-are-playing-out.html
Some highlights: BYU can't get anybody to come play because of the Mtn. deal. As soon as this independent thing came out, Texas is all of a sudden interested in an extended series (beyond the one-time game set in Austin next season). They are only interested because of independence and ESPN, as Texas and BYU both stated. If they are "close" to a deal, as both Texas and BYU stated in the past 24 hours, it stands to reason that BYU must STILL be "close" to independence. I initially thought this wasn't going to happen after the WAC got smacked, but, if you read between the lines of what Holmoe, it can't possibly mean anything else.
Holmoe again mentions BYU broadcasting capabilities. He mentions the "blackout" that the MWC TV deal forces on campus. He talks about the need for exposure and how it isn't possible with the MWC. He talks about how important of a partner ESPN is. Why would you say that when your only currently contracted TV partner is Comcast/The Mtn? It seems like he just wanted to demonstrate the many ways that the MWC is holding BYU back from doing what it can do. BYU cannot be saying what it is saying if it is planning on returning to the MWC. The MWC cannot be doing what it is doing and expect BYU to go back anyway but begrudgingly. This marriage has turned extremely sour, extremely fast, and I expect a bitter divorce, sooner than later most likely, for the MWC's "adultery."
3 days ago I was adamantly opposed to BYU leaving the MWC. But 3 days ago we lived in a different world. After the events of the past 72 hours, I do not want to see BYU's continued membership with the current members of the MWC (and yes, I realize this would be an emotional decision, but it appears to be a good financial one too). The MWC stabbed BYU in the back; willfully, repeatedly, and happily. Fresno State and Nevada went back on agreements they had made, for money. Utah State is the most honorable one here and they are getting screwed the most (and I felt bad for them already before I even knew what events had transpired behind the scenes). I do not know where BYU will go, but I do not see any choice left for them but to leave the MWC (and I hope they bring Utah State along with them). You cannot be treated with such disdain, lack of respect, and hypocrisy (especially by people who are making their living off of your revenue stream), and go on as if nothing happened. They may not make the announcement before September 1, but they will make it! I hope the announcement comes just as the TV contract is renegotiated but not signed. That would be sweet justice. Make them enter into negotiations all over again, without BYU! Let's see how different that contract looks without the gravy train to pull it.
Boise State pointed out that the expansion vote took place without BYU, and without BYU's knowledge on the fact. Apparently, BYU was unwilling to cease exploring the independence option, so the rest of the MWC schools held a secret vote. The fact that BYU was as surprised as the rest of the country at the invitation means that none of the MWC presidents, ADs, commissioners, etc. had the guts (or they had enough hatred) to even inform BYU that the vote took place. The fact that Utah State was voted in as well means this had nothing to do with improving the conference, but had everything to do with destroying the WAC. You cannot blame the MWC for the actions they took but you can blame them for the manner in which they did it. They wanted to force BYU back to the table without any leverage so they wouldn't have to make any concessions. And the Commissioner had the audacity to say that BYU is still a trusted, respected, and full-voting member of the MWC. What hypocrisy!
Tom Holmoe, BYU's athletic director, did a Q&A yesterday and his comments were very telling. There are articles for this all over but here is the article at the D-News: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700058532/BYU-football-Holmoe-Things-are-playing-out.html
Some highlights: BYU can't get anybody to come play because of the Mtn. deal. As soon as this independent thing came out, Texas is all of a sudden interested in an extended series (beyond the one-time game set in Austin next season). They are only interested because of independence and ESPN, as Texas and BYU both stated. If they are "close" to a deal, as both Texas and BYU stated in the past 24 hours, it stands to reason that BYU must STILL be "close" to independence. I initially thought this wasn't going to happen after the WAC got smacked, but, if you read between the lines of what Holmoe, it can't possibly mean anything else.
Holmoe again mentions BYU broadcasting capabilities. He mentions the "blackout" that the MWC TV deal forces on campus. He talks about the need for exposure and how it isn't possible with the MWC. He talks about how important of a partner ESPN is. Why would you say that when your only currently contracted TV partner is Comcast/The Mtn? It seems like he just wanted to demonstrate the many ways that the MWC is holding BYU back from doing what it can do. BYU cannot be saying what it is saying if it is planning on returning to the MWC. The MWC cannot be doing what it is doing and expect BYU to go back anyway but begrudgingly. This marriage has turned extremely sour, extremely fast, and I expect a bitter divorce, sooner than later most likely, for the MWC's "adultery."
3 days ago I was adamantly opposed to BYU leaving the MWC. But 3 days ago we lived in a different world. After the events of the past 72 hours, I do not want to see BYU's continued membership with the current members of the MWC (and yes, I realize this would be an emotional decision, but it appears to be a good financial one too). The MWC stabbed BYU in the back; willfully, repeatedly, and happily. Fresno State and Nevada went back on agreements they had made, for money. Utah State is the most honorable one here and they are getting screwed the most (and I felt bad for them already before I even knew what events had transpired behind the scenes). I do not know where BYU will go, but I do not see any choice left for them but to leave the MWC (and I hope they bring Utah State along with them). You cannot be treated with such disdain, lack of respect, and hypocrisy (especially by people who are making their living off of your revenue stream), and go on as if nothing happened. They may not make the announcement before September 1, but they will make it! I hope the announcement comes just as the TV contract is renegotiated but not signed. That would be sweet justice. Make them enter into negotiations all over again, without BYU! Let's see how different that contract looks without the gravy train to pull it.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
The New News
The only recent "development" in the MWC-WAC saga is actually something that didn't develop. Utah State was extended an invitation to join the MWC, further proof of my theory that this was nothing but an attempt to destroy the WAC so BYU had nowhere else to go. However, Utah State turned down that invitation, stating that they had made a commitment to the WAC, and to BYU, to join the WAC. They also believed the $5 million buyout clause to be enforced, something Nevada and Fresno State shrugged off. Further evidence of my theory: notice how ZERO mention has been made about the schedule, divisions, TV contract restructuring, etc. They clearly didn't plan this as thoroughly as the Boise State invite, when they were able to pose at least some answer to those questions. Now maybe they can't speak to that because the plan was to have 12 teams, but only 11 showed up to the party. Do they invite Houston? Or do they re-extend an invite to Utah State, now that the WAC commissioner has released all remaining WAC teams from the $5M buyout clause.
If the WAC can salvage a conference, BYU could still join, but I doubt the "revamped" WAC would be attractive enough for BYU to join. They can go one of three places to find AT LEAST two schools: the Sun Belt, the MAC, and I-AA. The Sun Belt is a geographic stretch: the conference already extends from Hawaii to Louisiana, and going to Alabama, Tennessee, or Florida doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The same goes for the MAC, whose furthest west team is in Illinois. There simply aren't two close I-AA schools that could make that transition. Montana is the only western I-AA school currently capable of making the jump, and they just lost their head coach to UNLV...they also know that they would not be able to make the competitive jump. They don't have the athletes, facilities, or the revenue to be a I-A program.
The other commonly mentioned conference for BYU non-football sports to land is the West Coast Conference, which has made overtures to BYU. In men's basketball, this would be a great option, given the success of Gonzaga and the more recent success of St. Mary's. Even Loyola Marymount won a game AT BYU a few years back, something only a handful of teams has done since. WCC women's soccer and women's volleyball is also good. However, there is something that the WAC could offer that the WCC can't: 4-6 football games every year to help BYU fill a 12-game schedule. Scheduling was going to be tough anyway, but with the 4-6 WAC games each year, ESPN helping out, the other independent schools, and BYU's normal avenues of scheduling, it could have been done. Now it's a very dicey proposition.
The other potential snag is that the WCC, a collection of mostly religious schools, plays the majority of its sports on Sunday. Is BYU worth the hassle of rescheduling EVERY sport to them? Add in the fact that, besides the no Sunday play, BYU would ask for other concessions surrounding broadcast rights. BYU would come in demanding the world, but would only able to promise a few thousand tickets for its road games (doesn't help Gonzaga and St. Mary's which already do well in hoops attendance) and perhaps only a slight increase in TV revenue. The reason I say only a slight increase in TV revenue is that basketball isn't the money-maker that football is and the dollars associated with strictly basketball packages has one less zero at the end of it. Plus BYU would try to get as many of their home games on BYU-TV as possible or gain as much freedom in self-broadcasting as possible. Once this is more fully explored, I expect the WCC to take a long, hard look at the dollars to see if this makes cents...maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I don't know the numbers myself, so I don't know. I would imagine we're talking about an extra $100,000 in TV revenue per school maximum (and probably more likely closer to half of that), plus an extra $15-20K in ticket revenue when BYU comes to town.
A lot of people seem to think this is going to happen still. I just see the probability of it happening soon shrinking rapidly. All of the ducks were lined up until the story leaked and the MWC issued their knee-jerk reaction, quite shrewdly, quite successfully, I might add. The window for the 2011 season is very tight. They may have to wait one more year to get this to happen, and it might be better to see how everything shakes out in the western US anyway.
One other thing is clear: any concessions BYU was hoping to get on the broadcasting rights for games is NOT going to happen now. The Fresno State-BYU basketball game will not be broadcast under the TV deal, and BYU will not be allowed to show it on their own. The MWC will forever clamp down on ANY attempt BYU makes to get self-broadcast rights either through KSL or BYU-TV. This bad marriage between the cash cow and the other 10 is going to get filled with more bitterness, resentment, and hostility in the coming months.
BYU did prove, to some degree, that they are in demand. ESPN reportedly offered them $1 million per game for 4 games in TV revenue. That's substantial, especially for a non-BCS team! They have shown that they have the ability to get their games out to the masses via their own platform. I expect that, within two years, BYU will ultimately leave the MWC, whether that's to go independent or elsewhere. This arranged marriage can only end badly. It's just a matter of time before the ducks line up in a row again. BYU will be more prepared to pull the trigger then BEFORE the story gets out.
If the WAC can salvage a conference, BYU could still join, but I doubt the "revamped" WAC would be attractive enough for BYU to join. They can go one of three places to find AT LEAST two schools: the Sun Belt, the MAC, and I-AA. The Sun Belt is a geographic stretch: the conference already extends from Hawaii to Louisiana, and going to Alabama, Tennessee, or Florida doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The same goes for the MAC, whose furthest west team is in Illinois. There simply aren't two close I-AA schools that could make that transition. Montana is the only western I-AA school currently capable of making the jump, and they just lost their head coach to UNLV...they also know that they would not be able to make the competitive jump. They don't have the athletes, facilities, or the revenue to be a I-A program.
The other commonly mentioned conference for BYU non-football sports to land is the West Coast Conference, which has made overtures to BYU. In men's basketball, this would be a great option, given the success of Gonzaga and the more recent success of St. Mary's. Even Loyola Marymount won a game AT BYU a few years back, something only a handful of teams has done since. WCC women's soccer and women's volleyball is also good. However, there is something that the WAC could offer that the WCC can't: 4-6 football games every year to help BYU fill a 12-game schedule. Scheduling was going to be tough anyway, but with the 4-6 WAC games each year, ESPN helping out, the other independent schools, and BYU's normal avenues of scheduling, it could have been done. Now it's a very dicey proposition.
The other potential snag is that the WCC, a collection of mostly religious schools, plays the majority of its sports on Sunday. Is BYU worth the hassle of rescheduling EVERY sport to them? Add in the fact that, besides the no Sunday play, BYU would ask for other concessions surrounding broadcast rights. BYU would come in demanding the world, but would only able to promise a few thousand tickets for its road games (doesn't help Gonzaga and St. Mary's which already do well in hoops attendance) and perhaps only a slight increase in TV revenue. The reason I say only a slight increase in TV revenue is that basketball isn't the money-maker that football is and the dollars associated with strictly basketball packages has one less zero at the end of it. Plus BYU would try to get as many of their home games on BYU-TV as possible or gain as much freedom in self-broadcasting as possible. Once this is more fully explored, I expect the WCC to take a long, hard look at the dollars to see if this makes cents...maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I don't know the numbers myself, so I don't know. I would imagine we're talking about an extra $100,000 in TV revenue per school maximum (and probably more likely closer to half of that), plus an extra $15-20K in ticket revenue when BYU comes to town.
A lot of people seem to think this is going to happen still. I just see the probability of it happening soon shrinking rapidly. All of the ducks were lined up until the story leaked and the MWC issued their knee-jerk reaction, quite shrewdly, quite successfully, I might add. The window for the 2011 season is very tight. They may have to wait one more year to get this to happen, and it might be better to see how everything shakes out in the western US anyway.
One other thing is clear: any concessions BYU was hoping to get on the broadcasting rights for games is NOT going to happen now. The Fresno State-BYU basketball game will not be broadcast under the TV deal, and BYU will not be allowed to show it on their own. The MWC will forever clamp down on ANY attempt BYU makes to get self-broadcast rights either through KSL or BYU-TV. This bad marriage between the cash cow and the other 10 is going to get filled with more bitterness, resentment, and hostility in the coming months.
BYU did prove, to some degree, that they are in demand. ESPN reportedly offered them $1 million per game for 4 games in TV revenue. That's substantial, especially for a non-BCS team! They have shown that they have the ability to get their games out to the masses via their own platform. I expect that, within two years, BYU will ultimately leave the MWC, whether that's to go independent or elsewhere. This arranged marriage can only end badly. It's just a matter of time before the ducks line up in a row again. BYU will be more prepared to pull the trigger then BEFORE the story gets out.
Nothing At All
After a strange 24 hours, to say the least, a lot of BYU fans awoke this morning feeling these words of Tennyson ringing true (In Memoriam):
Behold, we know not anything,
I can but trust that good shall fall
At last-far off-at last, to all,
And every winter change to spring.
So runs my dream: but what am I?
An infant crying in the night:
An infant crying for the light:
And with no language but a cry.
When will BYU's winter change to spring? Or will it ever? For now, they remain a BCS-caliber school stuck in a non-BCS league.
And so, after a frantic 24 hours, the status of BYU is "unknown," which is to say, nothing has changed. As far as we know, BYU will continue forever to be a member of the MWC. In the end, the media circus brought about one change: Fresno State and Nevada are going to join the MWC in 2012. The MWC should take this one step further and add either Utah State (which they probably SHOULD have added in place of Nevada) or Houston. This 11-team thing is pretty worthless.
The MWC has survived: the WAC must die. I feel for Utah State who finally might have a football program worth something and who have had a quality hoops team for the better part of a decade. Where do THEY go from here? Or Hawaii, who does offer quite a bit as well? Now San Jose State, New Mexico State, Louisiana Tech, and Idaho don't really bring anything to anyone, so they will have to try to latch on to some other gravy train of some sort. Or lose football and join the Big Sky in everything else?
Behold, we know not anything,
I can but trust that good shall fall
At last-far off-at last, to all,
And every winter change to spring.
So runs my dream: but what am I?
An infant crying in the night:
An infant crying for the light:
And with no language but a cry.
When will BYU's winter change to spring? Or will it ever? For now, they remain a BCS-caliber school stuck in a non-BCS league.
And so, after a frantic 24 hours, the status of BYU is "unknown," which is to say, nothing has changed. As far as we know, BYU will continue forever to be a member of the MWC. In the end, the media circus brought about one change: Fresno State and Nevada are going to join the MWC in 2012. The MWC should take this one step further and add either Utah State (which they probably SHOULD have added in place of Nevada) or Houston. This 11-team thing is pretty worthless.
The MWC has survived: the WAC must die. I feel for Utah State who finally might have a football program worth something and who have had a quality hoops team for the better part of a decade. Where do THEY go from here? Or Hawaii, who does offer quite a bit as well? Now San Jose State, New Mexico State, Louisiana Tech, and Idaho don't really bring anything to anyone, so they will have to try to latch on to some other gravy train of some sort. Or lose football and join the Big Sky in everything else?
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Appears to be Official
The Mountain West has now officially announced that Nevada and Fresno State have officially accepted invitations to join the MWC. Craig Thompson said that this was the plan all along. Why, exactly, the conference picked today, as opposed to a month ago, to extend the invitations is a little baffling. He also stated that the MWC would not make any concessions to try to keep any team in the conference: you can come and go as you please. What he is saying is: BYU, don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out. Good riddance/luck.
This definitely increases my frustration with the Mountain West. Again, Houston helps their BCS cause more than either Fresno State or Nevada. This appears to be a play to hurt BYU more than a way to strengthen the conference. All it does is add a few more mediocre teams. Fresno State lost to the 5th place MWC team the last two seasons in bowl games. Good, the MWC added a good candidate for 6th place to replace the cohort of UNLV/SDSU/New Mexico/CSU. Nevada, who had their best team ever last season, still only went 8-5 and lost by 35 points in a bowl game against an 8-5 SMU team. Houston had a better record and computer ranking in 2009 and 2008 than both of these schools. Craig Thompson wants to create new in-conference rivalries: how about Fort Worth vs. Houston?
Again, all this move does is take away some of BYU's leverage, it doesn't increase the chances of a BCS bid. It doesn't really even help the TV situation: another California school that nobody cares about, in a city of 500,000 and a school from Reno, with its booming metropolis of less than 500,000 people. They have now solidified the state of Nevada and it's TV markets. Excited, yet? Neither is Comcast. Also, for attendance: Fresno State averages 33,000 fans, would be 4th in the MWC. Nevada averages a whopping 17,500, good for dead last, and one of only two schools that averages less than 20,000 fans per game. Now are you excited?
BYU still could leave the conference to be independent in football, but I don't see any viable options. If Conference USA were in play, maybe, but if the West Coast Conference is the best there is, I don't see that as a possibility. There simply isn't a better option. The increased revenue and exposure for football isn't worth complete anonymity in every other sport. Notre Dame has the Big East. BYU doesn't have anything for its other sports. I hope they don't forge ahead anyway. But then again, I've thought that from the beginning!
This definitely increases my frustration with the Mountain West. Again, Houston helps their BCS cause more than either Fresno State or Nevada. This appears to be a play to hurt BYU more than a way to strengthen the conference. All it does is add a few more mediocre teams. Fresno State lost to the 5th place MWC team the last two seasons in bowl games. Good, the MWC added a good candidate for 6th place to replace the cohort of UNLV/SDSU/New Mexico/CSU. Nevada, who had their best team ever last season, still only went 8-5 and lost by 35 points in a bowl game against an 8-5 SMU team. Houston had a better record and computer ranking in 2009 and 2008 than both of these schools. Craig Thompson wants to create new in-conference rivalries: how about Fort Worth vs. Houston?
Again, all this move does is take away some of BYU's leverage, it doesn't increase the chances of a BCS bid. It doesn't really even help the TV situation: another California school that nobody cares about, in a city of 500,000 and a school from Reno, with its booming metropolis of less than 500,000 people. They have now solidified the state of Nevada and it's TV markets. Excited, yet? Neither is Comcast. Also, for attendance: Fresno State averages 33,000 fans, would be 4th in the MWC. Nevada averages a whopping 17,500, good for dead last, and one of only two schools that averages less than 20,000 fans per game. Now are you excited?
BYU still could leave the conference to be independent in football, but I don't see any viable options. If Conference USA were in play, maybe, but if the West Coast Conference is the best there is, I don't see that as a possibility. There simply isn't a better option. The increased revenue and exposure for football isn't worth complete anonymity in every other sport. Notre Dame has the Big East. BYU doesn't have anything for its other sports. I hope they don't forge ahead anyway. But then again, I've thought that from the beginning!
Too Many Unnamed Sources...
...to know what is actually going on. The MWC has invited Fresno State and Nevada. That is official. That is the ONLY OFFICIAL news about this whole thing right now. There are reports that say that Fresno State and Nevada have accepted. There are reports that neither can afford the recently added $5M buyout to leave the WAC. There are reports that Nevada never signed such an agreement. First off, how can a board of directors receive an invitation and accept it in the same day, when yesterday they had no idea that the invitation would come?
Also, there is nothing official about BYU going independent. I keep hearing "done deal." Texas was once a done deal too. Would the potential move by Fresno State and Nevada "undo" it? Perhaps those moves would be enough to revamp the TV deal in such a way to keep BYU? Honestly, I think the move was done to screw BYU, not to try to convince them to stay. They could have moved for a Conference USA school like Houston, which would help them much more, but they chose to go after WAC universities.
If the WAC only has 6 teams, they dissipate unless they add at least 2 more members. Football-wise, the WAC couldn't add anybody at Fresno State or Nevada's level: they don't have enough to offer Houston. If BYU couldn't land its other sports in the WAC, is football independence a viable option?
Would the West Coast Conference be a potential fit? There's a lot of Saints in the WCC, i.e. religious schools. Between St. Mary's and Gonzaga, the hoops is a decent draw. As far as other sports, who cares? The MWC, WAC, WCC? If there is a difference in level of competition, the average person doesn't have any idea.
As I said earlier today, I was against the move when I read last night that it was a consideration. Unfortunately, I don't have my notes with me, so I can't be as thorough as I would like. First off, for football it's a much better situation. More revenue. More exposure. Two things that the MWC has not done for them anymore than the old WAC did. BYU got as much TV revenue and more exposure in one football game aired on ESPN last season than they did from 11 other football games, one dominating bowl win, 35+ basketball games, and an NCAA Tournament win combined. If ESPN paid them $1M for 2-4 games a year, they are already making more money. If BYU-TV was able to broadcast other games, or if they got on CBS-CS against Service Academies or NBC with Notre Dame, they could stand to easily triple, quadruple, or perhaps more their TV revenue. Plus a package with ESPN and BYU-TV would make it easier to schedule games than this sales pitch: come play us and you can be on the Mtn. No, the picture is always that fuzzy, no, they don't usually have a first down line on the TV, and yes, the announcers always say stupid stuff like that. Obviously, increase revenue and exposure from football is huge!
However, basketball is (and other sports are) definitely getting hurt. They are going from a 3-bid league to a one-bid league. They SHOULD dominate the WAC, but EVERY loss counts double what an MWC loss would. Last season, BYU didn't win the conference championship. They didn't even play in the MWC Tournament Final. They lost 5 games to MWC opponents. They still managed a 7-seed in the NCAA tournament. If they lose 2 or 3 games in the WAC, they are firmly on the bubble. With an easier schedule, the margin for error decreases substantially. I don't like what this does to hoops: Dave Rose has built this program up after Steve Cleveland laid the foundation. A switch to the WAC could unravel that. The WCC has a better reputation right now than the WAC.
Football scheduling becomes better and harder all at once. They have the freedom to NOT go to Laramie, Albuquerque, or Fort Collins. That is exciting. However, the freedom to schedule 12 games that you actually want to play means that you have to get 12 non-conference games. BYU has struggled to get 4 OOC games at times, and after beating Oklahoma last year, that should get even tougher: nobody wants to play BYU because they might lose. Washington opted out of the last two games in their series with BYU to add I-AA teams. Also, any goodwill BYU basketball built up as a member of the MWC disappears when it goes to the WAC. Coach Rose stated that they approached over half of the BCS schools for games this year. UCLA is the only BCS addition to the schedule (Arizona was already on the schedule from a two-year contract)! Out of nearly 40 schools approached, they only got ONE! In the WAC, that number may not go down, but it certainly won't go up either.
Well, I had some other points, but if Fresno State and Nevada end up joining the MWC, which it appears they have done (maybe, or not), the rest isn't valid anymore. The extension of the invitations itself says: the MWC isn't going to do ANYTHING for BYU. BYU loses its leverage. It loses its chance to prove to the Big XII how financially valuable they would be as an addition to the conference. BYU is now the Missouri of the MWC. And even if they stay, it'll make for some awkward moments. I have no doubt that BYU could be better off as an independent in football, but I have no reservations about saying, I don't like it one bit and I hope it never happens. I hope the MWC goes one step further and adds Houston, that BYU stays, and that they can renegotiate the TV contract for something more than a paltry $1.33 million per school (of course that isn't likely given that the network has operated in the red every year, and Fresno State and Nevada don't add $1.33M in revenue apiece). Then BYU can wait it out a few years, see what happens with the rest of the conferences, see if the MWC gets a BCS bid or not, and then move forward with its plans should it choose to. It is nice to see that this has pushed the MWC into action! They've been so passive to this point, it's been ridiculous. I hope that BYU does the most sensible thing right now: stay in the MWC! Don't take the money and run!
Once some things get firmly established and announced, I'll see if there's anything more to say and say it. In the meantime, all of you keep giving the rest of us your thoughts, opinions, and any substantiated news. The same sources that said BYU was going independent/WAC for sure are the same sources saying that Fresno State and Nevada are going the MWC. Those two things don't seem like they can happen at the same time.
Anyone realize Thursday marks two weeks until kickoff? CSU announced its starting QB yesterday. Air Force hasn't announced a change in its starting QB, though Conor Dietz has come on strong to battle Tim Jefferson for the starting spot. BYU doesn't appear that it will make its decision anytime soon, so early next week, I'll just give my predictions without that useful piece of information.
Also, there is nothing official about BYU going independent. I keep hearing "done deal." Texas was once a done deal too. Would the potential move by Fresno State and Nevada "undo" it? Perhaps those moves would be enough to revamp the TV deal in such a way to keep BYU? Honestly, I think the move was done to screw BYU, not to try to convince them to stay. They could have moved for a Conference USA school like Houston, which would help them much more, but they chose to go after WAC universities.
If the WAC only has 6 teams, they dissipate unless they add at least 2 more members. Football-wise, the WAC couldn't add anybody at Fresno State or Nevada's level: they don't have enough to offer Houston. If BYU couldn't land its other sports in the WAC, is football independence a viable option?
Would the West Coast Conference be a potential fit? There's a lot of Saints in the WCC, i.e. religious schools. Between St. Mary's and Gonzaga, the hoops is a decent draw. As far as other sports, who cares? The MWC, WAC, WCC? If there is a difference in level of competition, the average person doesn't have any idea.
As I said earlier today, I was against the move when I read last night that it was a consideration. Unfortunately, I don't have my notes with me, so I can't be as thorough as I would like. First off, for football it's a much better situation. More revenue. More exposure. Two things that the MWC has not done for them anymore than the old WAC did. BYU got as much TV revenue and more exposure in one football game aired on ESPN last season than they did from 11 other football games, one dominating bowl win, 35+ basketball games, and an NCAA Tournament win combined. If ESPN paid them $1M for 2-4 games a year, they are already making more money. If BYU-TV was able to broadcast other games, or if they got on CBS-CS against Service Academies or NBC with Notre Dame, they could stand to easily triple, quadruple, or perhaps more their TV revenue. Plus a package with ESPN and BYU-TV would make it easier to schedule games than this sales pitch: come play us and you can be on the Mtn. No, the picture is always that fuzzy, no, they don't usually have a first down line on the TV, and yes, the announcers always say stupid stuff like that. Obviously, increase revenue and exposure from football is huge!
However, basketball is (and other sports are) definitely getting hurt. They are going from a 3-bid league to a one-bid league. They SHOULD dominate the WAC, but EVERY loss counts double what an MWC loss would. Last season, BYU didn't win the conference championship. They didn't even play in the MWC Tournament Final. They lost 5 games to MWC opponents. They still managed a 7-seed in the NCAA tournament. If they lose 2 or 3 games in the WAC, they are firmly on the bubble. With an easier schedule, the margin for error decreases substantially. I don't like what this does to hoops: Dave Rose has built this program up after Steve Cleveland laid the foundation. A switch to the WAC could unravel that. The WCC has a better reputation right now than the WAC.
Football scheduling becomes better and harder all at once. They have the freedom to NOT go to Laramie, Albuquerque, or Fort Collins. That is exciting. However, the freedom to schedule 12 games that you actually want to play means that you have to get 12 non-conference games. BYU has struggled to get 4 OOC games at times, and after beating Oklahoma last year, that should get even tougher: nobody wants to play BYU because they might lose. Washington opted out of the last two games in their series with BYU to add I-AA teams. Also, any goodwill BYU basketball built up as a member of the MWC disappears when it goes to the WAC. Coach Rose stated that they approached over half of the BCS schools for games this year. UCLA is the only BCS addition to the schedule (Arizona was already on the schedule from a two-year contract)! Out of nearly 40 schools approached, they only got ONE! In the WAC, that number may not go down, but it certainly won't go up either.
Well, I had some other points, but if Fresno State and Nevada end up joining the MWC, which it appears they have done (maybe, or not), the rest isn't valid anymore. The extension of the invitations itself says: the MWC isn't going to do ANYTHING for BYU. BYU loses its leverage. It loses its chance to prove to the Big XII how financially valuable they would be as an addition to the conference. BYU is now the Missouri of the MWC. And even if they stay, it'll make for some awkward moments. I have no doubt that BYU could be better off as an independent in football, but I have no reservations about saying, I don't like it one bit and I hope it never happens. I hope the MWC goes one step further and adds Houston, that BYU stays, and that they can renegotiate the TV contract for something more than a paltry $1.33 million per school (of course that isn't likely given that the network has operated in the red every year, and Fresno State and Nevada don't add $1.33M in revenue apiece). Then BYU can wait it out a few years, see what happens with the rest of the conferences, see if the MWC gets a BCS bid or not, and then move forward with its plans should it choose to. It is nice to see that this has pushed the MWC into action! They've been so passive to this point, it's been ridiculous. I hope that BYU does the most sensible thing right now: stay in the MWC! Don't take the money and run!
Once some things get firmly established and announced, I'll see if there's anything more to say and say it. In the meantime, all of you keep giving the rest of us your thoughts, opinions, and any substantiated news. The same sources that said BYU was going independent/WAC for sure are the same sources saying that Fresno State and Nevada are going the MWC. Those two things don't seem like they can happen at the same time.
Anyone realize Thursday marks two weeks until kickoff? CSU announced its starting QB yesterday. Air Force hasn't announced a change in its starting QB, though Conor Dietz has come on strong to battle Tim Jefferson for the starting spot. BYU doesn't appear that it will make its decision anytime soon, so early next week, I'll just give my predictions without that useful piece of information.
It Might Be, It Could Be...
This thing apparently has some legs. Some reports are that it's a done deal, pending approval from the board of directors, i.e. the governing body of the church. [Of course, Texas going to the Pac 10 was also "done" at one point in time.] If these reports are true, this truly will only happen "if it is God's will." Either way, two weeks from yesterday we'll know for certain: any announcement to leave the MWC for the 2011 season must be made by September 1, 2010.
One other TV thought: last year, BYU was paid as much money by ESPN to play Oklahoma as it received for ALL OTHER games played in their TV contract with Comcast (The Mtn, CBS-CS, and Versus), i.e. ESPN paid them for one game what BYU got for 20+ football and men's basketball games, plus all other sports programming on the Mtn. Imagine the money they could get if BYU played mercenary for 2 or 3 other big-name games, including a true "Holy War" with Notre Dame. How much would ESPN pay for the rights (and name) to that game? Plus CBS-CS owns the rights for the Service Academies. TV revenue could increase by a factor of 10, even without a specific contract, if it were done right. Plus, ESPN would then have a vested interest in pimping BYU, which exposure could only help the school accomplish its mission. However, it's a dangerous, gutsy move to make without having something from ESPN in writing!
One other TV thought: last year, BYU was paid as much money by ESPN to play Oklahoma as it received for ALL OTHER games played in their TV contract with Comcast (The Mtn, CBS-CS, and Versus), i.e. ESPN paid them for one game what BYU got for 20+ football and men's basketball games, plus all other sports programming on the Mtn. Imagine the money they could get if BYU played mercenary for 2 or 3 other big-name games, including a true "Holy War" with Notre Dame. How much would ESPN pay for the rights (and name) to that game? Plus CBS-CS owns the rights for the Service Academies. TV revenue could increase by a factor of 10, even without a specific contract, if it were done right. Plus, ESPN would then have a vested interest in pimping BYU, which exposure could only help the school accomplish its mission. However, it's a dangerous, gutsy move to make without having something from ESPN in writing!
A Few Thoughts on Independence
BYU is the Texas of the MWC. They are not Texas by any means, I am just comparing what BYU does for the MWC being similar to what Texas does for the Big XII: make TV money and put butts in the seats. The main difference (besides the extra zero at the end of the dollar amounts), the Big XII bends over backwards for Texas, whereas the MWC seems to always do what it can to screw BYU. Is this rumor about BYU leaving the MWC for independence in football and the WAC in all other sports akin to what happened with Texas earlier this summer?
The Mtn TV deal is laughable, at best. BYU carries the network, yet receives only 1/9th of the revenue from it. Without BYU (and Utah), the deal is certainly not worth what it costs ($66 Million over the next 6 years), even with Boise State in the fold (which would apparently be in jeopardy if BYU left). So, given this breaking "development," will Comcast renegotiate the deal to try to keep BYU in the fold, or will it risk "wasting" a large portion of that $66M over the next 6 years without them. Would they, and the MWC teams, sweeten the deal to keep BYU on board (just like the Big XII did with Texas, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M)? It would probably take both a bump in the contract PLUS the MWC schools offering BYU its "fair share" (i.e. more than everybody else, aka unequal revenue sharing) to be enough to attempt to counter what BYU would get on its own.
What can BYU get for a TV contract outside on its own? Well, ESPN knows the value of BYU: they approached BYU for the opener with Oklahoma at Cowboy Stadium last year. Three of their top 10-rated football games ever have been BYU games. BYU played the first ever college football game on ESPN.
For comparison's sake: the Big East deals with ESPN and CBS are currently worth $6M per school (that also includes basketball, however). One would think that BYU would easily be worth the "average" Big East school, in football at least. BYU would still make MUCH less than all other BCS teams, but they would probably make 3 times more than what they get now from the MWC TV deal. If they aren't making 3 times the current MWC deal, the entire exercise should be nixed ASAP. Obviously, if you compare Notre Dame's sweet deal as an independent to what they would get in a conference, it's not even close. However, BYU is just as much NOT Notre Dame as they are NOT Texas.
In addition to potential ESPN deals, BYU already has its own network, which is available worldwide, and will be available in full HD prior to the 2011 football season. However, that is not a revenue-producing channel. They don't sell ads. The few "commercials" they do have are LDS church spots. They would have a very limited number of entities they would be willing to sell ads to, based on the religious nature of the current programming and university. They will only purchase textbooks from a limited number of sources (driving up the cost for students), so something tells me they will be exclusive in whom they offer commercial space to.
If BYU joined the WAC in every other sport, would they allow BYU full autonomy in broadcasting its games in other sports? Given how cash-strapped a lot of schools in the WAC are, they would probably be willing to make any concessions to add BYU. That's the rub-down on the money. BYU stands to make much more as an independent from TV deals. The WAC would also benefit from BYU too because of, again, TV revenue and butts in seats. They know this: that's why they would entertain offers for BYU. However, how much would be offset by having to travel further for 4 football road games that would have been played at MWC locations? Plus, what would be the added expenditure of all other sports traveling from Hawaii to Louisiana for games, meets, and matches?
Now to accessibility. No question that BYU-TV and ESPN are easier to get, nationwide, worldwide, and even in the MWC footprint, than the Mtn, Versus, and CBS-CS. ESPN is ESPN, they are available everywhere on every platform. BYU-TV is available on Cable in the Rocky Mountain region, plus Northern California (I hear, never lived there myself to know for sure) and on satellite everywhere in the nation. An estimated 60 million homes in the United States have BYU-TV (though my guess is that 58 million of those have no idea!), plus approximately another million viewers overseas. Plus, add in the bonus that BYU fans don't have to try to figure out which of the 3 obscure networks BYU is on. For BYU fans, this is great.
Going independent is by far the best TV option. The money is good. BYU fans can watch their team without the current hassles. But what about everyone else? What about gaining national exposure if their ESPN games don't end up on ESPN or ESPN2, but go to ESPNU, ESPN-Classic, or ESPN3 instead? Most football fans aren't scouring BYU-TV (or ESPN the Ocho) to find football. And besides, isn't the mission of the university about much more than letting BYU fans watch their football team?
The Mtn TV deal is laughable, at best. BYU carries the network, yet receives only 1/9th of the revenue from it. Without BYU (and Utah), the deal is certainly not worth what it costs ($66 Million over the next 6 years), even with Boise State in the fold (which would apparently be in jeopardy if BYU left). So, given this breaking "development," will Comcast renegotiate the deal to try to keep BYU in the fold, or will it risk "wasting" a large portion of that $66M over the next 6 years without them. Would they, and the MWC teams, sweeten the deal to keep BYU on board (just like the Big XII did with Texas, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M)? It would probably take both a bump in the contract PLUS the MWC schools offering BYU its "fair share" (i.e. more than everybody else, aka unequal revenue sharing) to be enough to attempt to counter what BYU would get on its own.
What can BYU get for a TV contract outside on its own? Well, ESPN knows the value of BYU: they approached BYU for the opener with Oklahoma at Cowboy Stadium last year. Three of their top 10-rated football games ever have been BYU games. BYU played the first ever college football game on ESPN.
For comparison's sake: the Big East deals with ESPN and CBS are currently worth $6M per school (that also includes basketball, however). One would think that BYU would easily be worth the "average" Big East school, in football at least. BYU would still make MUCH less than all other BCS teams, but they would probably make 3 times more than what they get now from the MWC TV deal. If they aren't making 3 times the current MWC deal, the entire exercise should be nixed ASAP. Obviously, if you compare Notre Dame's sweet deal as an independent to what they would get in a conference, it's not even close. However, BYU is just as much NOT Notre Dame as they are NOT Texas.
In addition to potential ESPN deals, BYU already has its own network, which is available worldwide, and will be available in full HD prior to the 2011 football season. However, that is not a revenue-producing channel. They don't sell ads. The few "commercials" they do have are LDS church spots. They would have a very limited number of entities they would be willing to sell ads to, based on the religious nature of the current programming and university. They will only purchase textbooks from a limited number of sources (driving up the cost for students), so something tells me they will be exclusive in whom they offer commercial space to.
If BYU joined the WAC in every other sport, would they allow BYU full autonomy in broadcasting its games in other sports? Given how cash-strapped a lot of schools in the WAC are, they would probably be willing to make any concessions to add BYU. That's the rub-down on the money. BYU stands to make much more as an independent from TV deals. The WAC would also benefit from BYU too because of, again, TV revenue and butts in seats. They know this: that's why they would entertain offers for BYU. However, how much would be offset by having to travel further for 4 football road games that would have been played at MWC locations? Plus, what would be the added expenditure of all other sports traveling from Hawaii to Louisiana for games, meets, and matches?
Now to accessibility. No question that BYU-TV and ESPN are easier to get, nationwide, worldwide, and even in the MWC footprint, than the Mtn, Versus, and CBS-CS. ESPN is ESPN, they are available everywhere on every platform. BYU-TV is available on Cable in the Rocky Mountain region, plus Northern California (I hear, never lived there myself to know for sure) and on satellite everywhere in the nation. An estimated 60 million homes in the United States have BYU-TV (though my guess is that 58 million of those have no idea!), plus approximately another million viewers overseas. Plus, add in the bonus that BYU fans don't have to try to figure out which of the 3 obscure networks BYU is on. For BYU fans, this is great.
Going independent is by far the best TV option. The money is good. BYU fans can watch their team without the current hassles. But what about everyone else? What about gaining national exposure if their ESPN games don't end up on ESPN or ESPN2, but go to ESPNU, ESPN-Classic, or ESPN3 instead? Most football fans aren't scouring BYU-TV (or ESPN the Ocho) to find football. And besides, isn't the mission of the university about much more than letting BYU fans watch their football team?
BYU's Independence Day
BYU message boards are aflutter with activity on BYU potentially going independent in football and joining the WAC in every other sport. This would make BYU-TV a sports cable network akin to Mormon ESPN. Kind of. Anyway, I will post my full thoughts on this tonight, but I wanted to see what you all think about this.
I will tell you this now, though: I oppose this in just about every sense. Every pro has a con that is very comparable, or worse, and there are more cons than pros to begin with. Perhaps I am missing some of the pros or cons: what say ye? What am I missing?
I will tell you this now, though: I oppose this in just about every sense. Every pro has a con that is very comparable, or worse, and there are more cons than pros to begin with. Perhaps I am missing some of the pros or cons: what say ye? What am I missing?
Monday, August 16, 2010
One Final Thought On Utah's Transition
Sorry, I had planned to write a post about something entirely different yesterday. I was even going to call a couple of you. Then our fridge and freezer stopped fridging and freezing and we had to scramble before the contents spoiled.
So I had one final LONG thought over the weekend about the Utes transition to the Pac 12, centering around their defensive philosophy. The Utes run a very aggressive, high-risk, high-reward type of defense. They play a lot of bump-n-run, tight, man-free or man-to-man coverage. They do a lot of blitzing, overloading, and twisting with the front 7. At least one DB is left on an island nearly every play. One false step by any defender and a crease becomes a hole. One missed tackle and a 7-yard completion becomes a 60-yard touchdown. However, they can and do get away with it in the MWC. Their defense shuts most MWC opponents down, most of the time.
They have won 28 MWC games over the past 5 years, trailing only TCU, 33, and BYU, 34, in that timeframe. There are two main reasons behind this: 1) they are extremely well-coached. They aren't sending 5 and 6 players to the NFL each year because of their stellar recruiting. They get good players and coach them to be great players. Those guys are made NFL-ready at Utah, they don't come with all of the tools necessary. Take Paul Kruger for example, who was drafted as a redshirt sophomore, after a mission. He was a scrawny, high school QB when he showed up on campus. He left a 265-pound beast of a defensive end, that dominated an entire half of the big, bad Alabama OL in the Sugar Bowl. 2) With the exception of TCU, the Ute defenders are the most athletic in the MWC. If they take a bad angle, they can make up for it against the smaller, slower players from the opposing teams. They can smother guys at every position. Linemen can't get off their blocks, receivers can't get on their routes, and backs can't break tackles. They struggle a little bit against TEs in OT though...
However, I will be interested to see if they need to change their defensive philosophy in the Pac 12. These next tidbits are in no way to discredit the progress of the MWC, but rather to point out some of the differences between playing SDSU, New Mexico, CSU, etc. and Washington State, Arizona State , UCLA, etc.
The Pac 12 teams will have superior athleticism and talent. The 2010 Utah recruiting will be its best ever BY FAR, and it ranks 7th in the Pac 12. Every year you go back in time, that 7th drops lower and lower. Washington State is the only team in the Pac 12 that Utah has outrecruited each of the last 3 years. Recruiting rankings are certainly not everything and are just rough estimates, but if you look at the teams generally in the top 10 in recruiting, they are the same teams generally in the top 10 in the rankings too.
The Pac 12 teams will have better (and experienced) QBs. 7 of the 11 teams are likely to have a returning starter at QB in 2011. More than likely, 3 or 4 teams will play a QB with over 20 starts before 2011 even starts. Most of the Pac 12 QBs were highly recruited, highly talented kids coming out of high school as opposed to MWC schools that almost never have a guy coming in with 3 stars next to his name or a guy leaving to continue their football career after college.
The Pac 12 teams will be better coached than most MWC schools. While the Pac 12 coaches are, historically speaking, down right now, they compare very favorably to the MWC coaches. Gary Patterson, Troy Calhoun, and Bronco Mendenhall are the only MWC coaches who have even coached in 3 bowl games. Dennis Erickson, Rick Neuheisel, and Dan Hawkins have all finished in the top 5. Chip Kelly took Oregon to a Rose Bowl in his first season. Mike Riley, Jim Harbaugh, and Mike Stoops have made their respective schools relevant for the first time in a long time, and, in some cases, for the first time ever. Steve Fairchild, Bobby Hauck, and Dave Christensen are good coaches, an upgrade over their predecessors, but there is a reason they are coaching in Fort Collins, Vegas, and Laramie instead of Seattle, Los Angeles, or even Tempe.
The Pac 12 teams will have bigger and stronger offensive lines. In the MWC, the Ute defensive line weighs as much as, or more than, the offensive lines at 3 of the 9 MWC schools. In the Pac 12, they will likely give up an average of 30 pounds, unless the Ute front gets substantially bigger across the board next year. Some teams will only outweigh them by 15-20 pounds, but USC and UCLA could have a 40-pound advantage, depending on who leaves early, gets injured, etc.
The Pac 12 teams will have bigger and taller WRs, with bigger verticals, better hands, and faster 40 times than most MWC schools. Most of the Pac 12 teams have a WR depth chart resembling the MWC 1st and 2nd teams by themselves, when looking at height, weight, and speed. In many cases, the third option at a Pac 12 school would be a star at any MWC school.
I certainly don't anticipate Kyle Whittingham or Kalani Sitake (the current Defensive Coordinator at Utah, as a side note, both of those coaches played their college ball at BYU) to change their philosophy one iota. But one must wonder: can the aggressive defense work every week for the Utes in the Pac 12? My guess is, most Pac 12 teams will be surprised at how stout this non-BCS defense is, but will be able to create some mismatches in a way that few MWC schools can. The fact always remains: the top of the MWC and the top of the Pac 12 are generally comparable, but the bottom of the Pac 12 is as strong as the middle of the MWC. Given that Utah often struggles against some of the middle MWC teams, I don't anticipate a Rose Bowl for them in 2011.
Still don't believe me that Utes won't compete for the Rose Bowl in 2011: last year Air Force took them to OT in Rice-Eccles before falling after a bad spot on third down, they needed three 4th quarter interceptions to beat a 3-9 CSU team on the road, and they trailed halfway through the 4th quarter against Wyoming at home. Now substitute Air Force with Oregon State, CSU with Arizona State, and Wyoming with UCLA.
So I had one final LONG thought over the weekend about the Utes transition to the Pac 12, centering around their defensive philosophy. The Utes run a very aggressive, high-risk, high-reward type of defense. They play a lot of bump-n-run, tight, man-free or man-to-man coverage. They do a lot of blitzing, overloading, and twisting with the front 7. At least one DB is left on an island nearly every play. One false step by any defender and a crease becomes a hole. One missed tackle and a 7-yard completion becomes a 60-yard touchdown. However, they can and do get away with it in the MWC. Their defense shuts most MWC opponents down, most of the time.
They have won 28 MWC games over the past 5 years, trailing only TCU, 33, and BYU, 34, in that timeframe. There are two main reasons behind this: 1) they are extremely well-coached. They aren't sending 5 and 6 players to the NFL each year because of their stellar recruiting. They get good players and coach them to be great players. Those guys are made NFL-ready at Utah, they don't come with all of the tools necessary. Take Paul Kruger for example, who was drafted as a redshirt sophomore, after a mission. He was a scrawny, high school QB when he showed up on campus. He left a 265-pound beast of a defensive end, that dominated an entire half of the big, bad Alabama OL in the Sugar Bowl. 2) With the exception of TCU, the Ute defenders are the most athletic in the MWC. If they take a bad angle, they can make up for it against the smaller, slower players from the opposing teams. They can smother guys at every position. Linemen can't get off their blocks, receivers can't get on their routes, and backs can't break tackles. They struggle a little bit against TEs in OT though...
However, I will be interested to see if they need to change their defensive philosophy in the Pac 12. These next tidbits are in no way to discredit the progress of the MWC, but rather to point out some of the differences between playing SDSU, New Mexico, CSU, etc. and Washington State, Arizona State , UCLA, etc.
The Pac 12 teams will have superior athleticism and talent. The 2010 Utah recruiting will be its best ever BY FAR, and it ranks 7th in the Pac 12. Every year you go back in time, that 7th drops lower and lower. Washington State is the only team in the Pac 12 that Utah has outrecruited each of the last 3 years. Recruiting rankings are certainly not everything and are just rough estimates, but if you look at the teams generally in the top 10 in recruiting, they are the same teams generally in the top 10 in the rankings too.
The Pac 12 teams will have better (and experienced) QBs. 7 of the 11 teams are likely to have a returning starter at QB in 2011. More than likely, 3 or 4 teams will play a QB with over 20 starts before 2011 even starts. Most of the Pac 12 QBs were highly recruited, highly talented kids coming out of high school as opposed to MWC schools that almost never have a guy coming in with 3 stars next to his name or a guy leaving to continue their football career after college.
The Pac 12 teams will be better coached than most MWC schools. While the Pac 12 coaches are, historically speaking, down right now, they compare very favorably to the MWC coaches. Gary Patterson, Troy Calhoun, and Bronco Mendenhall are the only MWC coaches who have even coached in 3 bowl games. Dennis Erickson, Rick Neuheisel, and Dan Hawkins have all finished in the top 5. Chip Kelly took Oregon to a Rose Bowl in his first season. Mike Riley, Jim Harbaugh, and Mike Stoops have made their respective schools relevant for the first time in a long time, and, in some cases, for the first time ever. Steve Fairchild, Bobby Hauck, and Dave Christensen are good coaches, an upgrade over their predecessors, but there is a reason they are coaching in Fort Collins, Vegas, and Laramie instead of Seattle, Los Angeles, or even Tempe.
The Pac 12 teams will have bigger and stronger offensive lines. In the MWC, the Ute defensive line weighs as much as, or more than, the offensive lines at 3 of the 9 MWC schools. In the Pac 12, they will likely give up an average of 30 pounds, unless the Ute front gets substantially bigger across the board next year. Some teams will only outweigh them by 15-20 pounds, but USC and UCLA could have a 40-pound advantage, depending on who leaves early, gets injured, etc.
The Pac 12 teams will have bigger and taller WRs, with bigger verticals, better hands, and faster 40 times than most MWC schools. Most of the Pac 12 teams have a WR depth chart resembling the MWC 1st and 2nd teams by themselves, when looking at height, weight, and speed. In many cases, the third option at a Pac 12 school would be a star at any MWC school.
I certainly don't anticipate Kyle Whittingham or Kalani Sitake (the current Defensive Coordinator at Utah, as a side note, both of those coaches played their college ball at BYU) to change their philosophy one iota. But one must wonder: can the aggressive defense work every week for the Utes in the Pac 12? My guess is, most Pac 12 teams will be surprised at how stout this non-BCS defense is, but will be able to create some mismatches in a way that few MWC schools can. The fact always remains: the top of the MWC and the top of the Pac 12 are generally comparable, but the bottom of the Pac 12 is as strong as the middle of the MWC. Given that Utah often struggles against some of the middle MWC teams, I don't anticipate a Rose Bowl for them in 2011.
Still don't believe me that Utes won't compete for the Rose Bowl in 2011: last year Air Force took them to OT in Rice-Eccles before falling after a bad spot on third down, they needed three 4th quarter interceptions to beat a 3-9 CSU team on the road, and they trailed halfway through the 4th quarter against Wyoming at home. Now substitute Air Force with Oregon State, CSU with Arizona State, and Wyoming with UCLA.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Prediction Cap for a Friday morning
Well, let's throw out a few "bold" predictions this morning. One prediction, per conference, in reverse-alphabetical order.
Boise State wins the WAC. They beat everybody by 17 points or more, with the exception of the Nevada and Utah State games, which games are actually decided in the 4th quarter. Make sure to watch those if you can.
The Sun Belt title will be decided by October 5th. Not mathematically, obviously, but realistically. Troy travels to Middle Tennessee State, winner takes all. I'm not a betting man, but I'd put my money on Troy's Defense.
The SEC will have 6 teams in the top 25 all season, but never more than 2 in the top 10. They are certainly a deep conference, but, just like most conferences in America, are top-heavy.
Oregon will not win the Pac 10 outright, or perhaps maybe not even share it at all. So much off-season turmoil. New starting QB in a conference with a lot of returning starters at that position. 5 Pac 10 road games.
TCU will be the first MWC team to repeat as champions since BYU in 2006-2007. They can probably afford to lose one game and still be BCS eligible. This would be the year for an 11-1 non-BCS school to make a BCS game (provided that it's an MWC school or Boise State).
Central Michigan will not repeat as the MAC champions. They have been in the upper echelon of the MAC for the better part of a decade. Brian Kelly helped them to the top. Butch Jones filled in nicely after he left. However, no school has 3 successful coaching hires in a row these days.
Army is the only independent not to play in a bowl game this season. Again. Notre Dame can actually get a decent bowl game this year. The schedule is that easy...by Notre Dame standards.
Houston at SMU on October 23rd will decide the C-USA champion (the winner of that game wins their division and beats up on the other division champ in the title game). I also project that that will be the highest scoring game of the season.
The Big Ten will not have an undefeated conference champion. Ohio State plays at Wisconsin and at Iowa. Wisconsin plays at Michigan State, Iowa, and Michigan. Penn State plays at Iowa and Ohio State. Iowa is Iowa: they will never go undefeated.
The Big East will, once again, not send a team to the National Championship Game. They won't even have a team break the top 10 this season. Well, let's say top 8.
Nebraska will finish the season in the top 10 for the first time since 2001. They have one of the easiest schedules you'll see for a BCS conference contender. Right now, they have 1 ranked team on the schedule. And they play that game at home. Oh, and they have 7 home games. I never realized how much their schedule always looks like a Big Ten schedule until now...that should make the transition easy.
The ACC will, again, only send one team to a BCS game. Only the conference champion will represent them. Again. For their sake, they better hope it's Virginia Tech or Georgia Tech, otherwise their abysmal BCS game record will certainly get worse. Of course, that's assuming one of those two can actually win one. Are they 1-10 now, is that right?
There you have it. Happy Weekend, everyone!
Boise State wins the WAC. They beat everybody by 17 points or more, with the exception of the Nevada and Utah State games, which games are actually decided in the 4th quarter. Make sure to watch those if you can.
The Sun Belt title will be decided by October 5th. Not mathematically, obviously, but realistically. Troy travels to Middle Tennessee State, winner takes all. I'm not a betting man, but I'd put my money on Troy's Defense.
The SEC will have 6 teams in the top 25 all season, but never more than 2 in the top 10. They are certainly a deep conference, but, just like most conferences in America, are top-heavy.
Oregon will not win the Pac 10 outright, or perhaps maybe not even share it at all. So much off-season turmoil. New starting QB in a conference with a lot of returning starters at that position. 5 Pac 10 road games.
TCU will be the first MWC team to repeat as champions since BYU in 2006-2007. They can probably afford to lose one game and still be BCS eligible. This would be the year for an 11-1 non-BCS school to make a BCS game (provided that it's an MWC school or Boise State).
Central Michigan will not repeat as the MAC champions. They have been in the upper echelon of the MAC for the better part of a decade. Brian Kelly helped them to the top. Butch Jones filled in nicely after he left. However, no school has 3 successful coaching hires in a row these days.
Army is the only independent not to play in a bowl game this season. Again. Notre Dame can actually get a decent bowl game this year. The schedule is that easy...by Notre Dame standards.
Houston at SMU on October 23rd will decide the C-USA champion (the winner of that game wins their division and beats up on the other division champ in the title game). I also project that that will be the highest scoring game of the season.
The Big Ten will not have an undefeated conference champion. Ohio State plays at Wisconsin and at Iowa. Wisconsin plays at Michigan State, Iowa, and Michigan. Penn State plays at Iowa and Ohio State. Iowa is Iowa: they will never go undefeated.
The Big East will, once again, not send a team to the National Championship Game. They won't even have a team break the top 10 this season. Well, let's say top 8.
Nebraska will finish the season in the top 10 for the first time since 2001. They have one of the easiest schedules you'll see for a BCS conference contender. Right now, they have 1 ranked team on the schedule. And they play that game at home. Oh, and they have 7 home games. I never realized how much their schedule always looks like a Big Ten schedule until now...that should make the transition easy.
The ACC will, again, only send one team to a BCS game. Only the conference champion will represent them. Again. For their sake, they better hope it's Virginia Tech or Georgia Tech, otherwise their abysmal BCS game record will certainly get worse. Of course, that's assuming one of those two can actually win one. Are they 1-10 now, is that right?
There you have it. Happy Weekend, everyone!
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Mailbag Question of the Week
Well, I've been asked to put on my little predictor's cap again. Question comes as follows, from a long-time and very loyal reader: what does the Pac 12 future hold for Utah?
There is a lot of buzz around this question in the state of Utah for sure. Utah fans feel they will go in and instantly compete for the Rose Bowl. BYU fans feel most years that Utah doesn't compete for the MWC crown anyway and will be lucky to make a bowl game in the Pac 12.
The answer is: probably somewhere in between, but it certainly depends. Here are a few things it depends on: how do the divisions split? That is important for scheduling. How far will USC fall with its NCAA penalties (or, in my opinion a more pertinent question: how far will they fall with Lane Kiffin at the helm)? Determines how likely Utah is to beat them. What approach will Utah take with its nonconference schedule? If they decide to schedule 3 patsies, they are already halfway to a bowl game. Next year, however, they are scheduled: Iowa State, at Boise State, at Pittsburgh. How many home games vs. road games will they have? For all of the talk of Utah's dominance against the Pac 10 teams, Kyle Whittingham is 0-3 on the road, with 2 blowout losses. He is 3-0 at home, eking out 2 of those by 3 points. He is 1-0 at neutral sites, with a 10-point win, though it wasn't really that close.
I'll tell you one thing: there is not a single team that Utah could not beat in the Pac 12. Followed immediately by: there is not a single team that Utah couldn't lose to either. Kyle Whittingham's Utah teams get up for the big game, no doubt about it. Since Kyle took over, Utah is the only MWC team to win a BCS game. Utah is the only MWC team with a winning record against TCU. Besides TCU, Utah is the only MWC team to beat BYU twice (TCU has done it 3 times). However, Utah has also lost to every team in the MWC, including two losses to New Mexico. There are some pretty bad teams in there to be losing to: CSU and UNLV, in the years that Utah lost to them, would have easily been the worst teams in the Pac 10.
Simply put, Utah's motto is: get up for the big game, play down for the little one. To win the Pac 10, you have to follow up a win against Oregon, Oregon State, or USC with a win against Arizona State or Washington State. I'll think most years they'll manage a winning record in the Pac 12, depending on the schedule, but, week in and week out, they cannot get up. This is not to mention the upward trajectory of some of the programs meaning MORE big games: Washington, Stanford, and Arizona are all on the rise.
Next year, 2011, first year in the Pac 12, with 4 homes games and 5 road games, they probably go 3-1 at home and 2-3 on the road for a 5-4 record. If they get 5 home games and 4 road games they might get up to 6-3. Obviously it depends on which 9 teams they play and where they play them, but since I can't predict that, I just have to predict how they'll do. They will lose at least one game at home and probably have a losing record on the road. Assuming they beat Iowa State and get bowl eligible, they probably get a Las Vegas Bowl bid against the loser of the BYU-Boise State game (with the winner going to a BCS game).
There is a lot of buzz around this question in the state of Utah for sure. Utah fans feel they will go in and instantly compete for the Rose Bowl. BYU fans feel most years that Utah doesn't compete for the MWC crown anyway and will be lucky to make a bowl game in the Pac 12.
The answer is: probably somewhere in between, but it certainly depends. Here are a few things it depends on: how do the divisions split? That is important for scheduling. How far will USC fall with its NCAA penalties (or, in my opinion a more pertinent question: how far will they fall with Lane Kiffin at the helm)? Determines how likely Utah is to beat them. What approach will Utah take with its nonconference schedule? If they decide to schedule 3 patsies, they are already halfway to a bowl game. Next year, however, they are scheduled: Iowa State, at Boise State, at Pittsburgh. How many home games vs. road games will they have? For all of the talk of Utah's dominance against the Pac 10 teams, Kyle Whittingham is 0-3 on the road, with 2 blowout losses. He is 3-0 at home, eking out 2 of those by 3 points. He is 1-0 at neutral sites, with a 10-point win, though it wasn't really that close.
I'll tell you one thing: there is not a single team that Utah could not beat in the Pac 12. Followed immediately by: there is not a single team that Utah couldn't lose to either. Kyle Whittingham's Utah teams get up for the big game, no doubt about it. Since Kyle took over, Utah is the only MWC team to win a BCS game. Utah is the only MWC team with a winning record against TCU. Besides TCU, Utah is the only MWC team to beat BYU twice (TCU has done it 3 times). However, Utah has also lost to every team in the MWC, including two losses to New Mexico. There are some pretty bad teams in there to be losing to: CSU and UNLV, in the years that Utah lost to them, would have easily been the worst teams in the Pac 10.
Simply put, Utah's motto is: get up for the big game, play down for the little one. To win the Pac 10, you have to follow up a win against Oregon, Oregon State, or USC with a win against Arizona State or Washington State. I'll think most years they'll manage a winning record in the Pac 12, depending on the schedule, but, week in and week out, they cannot get up. This is not to mention the upward trajectory of some of the programs meaning MORE big games: Washington, Stanford, and Arizona are all on the rise.
Next year, 2011, first year in the Pac 12, with 4 homes games and 5 road games, they probably go 3-1 at home and 2-3 on the road for a 5-4 record. If they get 5 home games and 4 road games they might get up to 6-3. Obviously it depends on which 9 teams they play and where they play them, but since I can't predict that, I just have to predict how they'll do. They will lose at least one game at home and probably have a losing record on the road. Assuming they beat Iowa State and get bowl eligible, they probably get a Las Vegas Bowl bid against the loser of the BYU-Boise State game (with the winner going to a BCS game).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)