If the Pac 10 manages to get 5 more teams from the Big XII (Colorado is officially gone), here is my proposal for what Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, and Baylor (and possibly Missouri):
1) Vote as a block to keep the Big XII alive. It takes 9 votes to dissolve the conference. If the conference dissolves, the dissenters do not need to pay the penalty for leaving (around $9 Million per school). 8 (or maybe only 7) schools have to pay $60-70 Million in aggregate to the conference for leaving. That's a nice little trophy for their loyalty, i.e. they don't get as screwed as they thought.
2) Do not join another conference, instead, invite the best available surrounding teams. If you go to the MWC you are stuck with SDSU, UNLV, New Mexico, Wyoming, and CSU. Instead, invite the best MWC teams to join you: BYU, Utah, Air Force, and TCU. That's a pretty solid 8-team football league. Hoops isn't bad either (mostly thanks to Kansas, Kansas State, and Baylor). If you want to take it a step further, grab the two most westerly Big East teams (assuming the Big East gets raided by the Big Ten and that conference's teams are looking for a place to land) Louisville and Cincinnati. They have average to decent football teams and both have very good basketball teams. If 12 is a magical number, add Houston and either Tulsa, SMU, Boise State (or you have Missouri if they didn't get an invitation to the Big Ten party).
Why? Keep your BCS status. Keep your TV contracts, i.e. don't have to get the Mtn./raw deal. Maintain your presence in the Midwest, Denver, and Texas. Add the Salt Lake, Cincinnati, and Louisville markets. Keep the Big XII championship game. BYU and Air Force have decent-sized national followings because of their religion and cadets, respectively. Utah also a sizable national following with their multiple BCS (and the first ever BCS) runs. Louisville and Cincinnati are nationally known. Houston and TCU have very respected histories and are certainly football programs on the rise/at the top in TCU's case.
I see it like this: it's better than where any of these teams will end up if they are not careful. It's better than the MWC, it's better than C-USA, and it's better than where the BCS teams will end up when their leagues disappear. Someone please point out the flaws? No, seriously, do point them out because I want to know what I'm missing.
Heck, if you want to be like everyone else and go to 16, add: the remaining two of Tulsa/SMU/Boise State, plus New Mexico and CSU (or maybe Louisiana Tech/UTEP/Rice/UNLV). That secures the Denver area for the conference, adds another viable football (Boise State) and hoops (New Mexico or even UNLV) program, and gives you all of New Mexico's televisions (what better do they have to do there than watch Alford cuss out college kids on their senior night?).
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
For Boomer
Since there is so much info out about expansion, for my bro who is too busy to follow it all (and apparently can't form opinions about it on his own anyway), I'll try my best to sum it up.
The Big Ten scenarios:
1) No expansion.
2) Big Ten adds Notre Dame and ceases to expand beyond that.
3) Big Ten adds Nebraska, Missouri, and probably three Big East teams (Pittsburgh, Rutgers, and Syracuse).
Notre Dame doesn't want everyone to expand to 16 and be the only one left out, particularly if the Big East falls apart as a result, since all of Notre Dame's other sports are in the Big East. But if they join the Big Ten, the 16-team conference scenario is less likely. If the Big Ten expansion stops at 12 teams, then they don't NEED to join a conference. But it won't stop at 12, unless Notre Dame is the one addition. So Notre Dame is really in a lose-lose situation. The Big Ten is in a win-win situation: they either get Notre Dame and have a 12-team conference, or expand to 16 teams, including Nebraska, Missouri, Pitt, Rutgers, and Syracuse (if they can't get Texas that is, which I'm not sure they can if it's a competition between the Pac 10, SEC, and Big Ten). Nebraska, Missouri, and any Big East teams will gladly go to the Big Ten, if offered, so there is no issue there with having their invitations accepted. Timing might be the biggest issue here, as the Big Ten's window to get Nebraska and Missouri might close as early as this Friday.
The Big XII scenarios:
1) Nobody leaves, they all make nice, they all stay together. The Big Ten got Notre Dame to agree to join them (by Friday) and doesn't need Nebraska or Missouri.
2) One or two teams leave, probably to the Pac 10 (probably Colorado).
3) 4-6 teams end up leaving and the rest try to save the Big XII by adding some combination of the following teams: BYU, TCU, Houston, Utah, or Tulsa. This scenario would probably only be the result of a Pac 10 grab that is not accompanied with a Big Ten grab.
4) The conference disseminates to the Pac 16 and Big Sixteen. Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, and Colorado or Baylor look to the MWC.
I believe that Texas wants to stay in the Big XII, as currently constituted (and also would be willing to stay in a Big XII if only Colorado leaves). If Nebraska and Missouri do not commit to stay in the Big XII this Friday (i.e. those schools feel that the Big Ten will invite them), then Texas would not want to stay in the Big XII and would go with all of its friends to the Pac 10. It's theoretically possible that the Big Ten only takes ND, Nebraska and Mizzou commit to the Big XII, but Texas leaves with 5 companions for the Pac 10 anyway. Mind you, I think that is the least likely scenario of them all, but it still could happen and the remaining Big Six would add a few teams and remain a BCS conference (a much lower one on the totem pole).
The Pac 10 scenarios:
1) No changes.
2) Add two teams, likely Colorado and Utah.
3) Go big or go home: Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Baylor or Colorado.
I think the Pac 10 wants to expand, but only if it helps the conference. I don't think the Utah/Colorado combination helps them that much. It doesn't give them access to recruiting grounds or markets that they aren't already utilizing. I think they will do that over doing nothing, but they obviously want the big fish (Texas), if they can catch it. How disappointing would a CU/U of U addition be after dreams of the Texas market and recruiting?
The SEC scenario:
1) Continue to do whatever it wants and continue to make the most money and be the most successful. Any expansion plans would probably include 3 or 4 ACC teams.
The ACC:
1) If the Big East remains intact, they would do nothing.
2) If the Big East collapses, pick up the best of the rest: Connecticut, West Virginia, Cincinnati. I'm not sure they would touch South Florida or Louisville (maybe Louisville for the hoops). Perhaps they would add a C-USA team as well?
The Big East:
1) Hope.
2) Pray.
The Big Ten scenarios:
1) No expansion.
2) Big Ten adds Notre Dame and ceases to expand beyond that.
3) Big Ten adds Nebraska, Missouri, and probably three Big East teams (Pittsburgh, Rutgers, and Syracuse).
Notre Dame doesn't want everyone to expand to 16 and be the only one left out, particularly if the Big East falls apart as a result, since all of Notre Dame's other sports are in the Big East. But if they join the Big Ten, the 16-team conference scenario is less likely. If the Big Ten expansion stops at 12 teams, then they don't NEED to join a conference. But it won't stop at 12, unless Notre Dame is the one addition. So Notre Dame is really in a lose-lose situation. The Big Ten is in a win-win situation: they either get Notre Dame and have a 12-team conference, or expand to 16 teams, including Nebraska, Missouri, Pitt, Rutgers, and Syracuse (if they can't get Texas that is, which I'm not sure they can if it's a competition between the Pac 10, SEC, and Big Ten). Nebraska, Missouri, and any Big East teams will gladly go to the Big Ten, if offered, so there is no issue there with having their invitations accepted. Timing might be the biggest issue here, as the Big Ten's window to get Nebraska and Missouri might close as early as this Friday.
The Big XII scenarios:
1) Nobody leaves, they all make nice, they all stay together. The Big Ten got Notre Dame to agree to join them (by Friday) and doesn't need Nebraska or Missouri.
2) One or two teams leave, probably to the Pac 10 (probably Colorado).
3) 4-6 teams end up leaving and the rest try to save the Big XII by adding some combination of the following teams: BYU, TCU, Houston, Utah, or Tulsa. This scenario would probably only be the result of a Pac 10 grab that is not accompanied with a Big Ten grab.
4) The conference disseminates to the Pac 16 and Big Sixteen. Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, and Colorado or Baylor look to the MWC.
I believe that Texas wants to stay in the Big XII, as currently constituted (and also would be willing to stay in a Big XII if only Colorado leaves). If Nebraska and Missouri do not commit to stay in the Big XII this Friday (i.e. those schools feel that the Big Ten will invite them), then Texas would not want to stay in the Big XII and would go with all of its friends to the Pac 10. It's theoretically possible that the Big Ten only takes ND, Nebraska and Mizzou commit to the Big XII, but Texas leaves with 5 companions for the Pac 10 anyway. Mind you, I think that is the least likely scenario of them all, but it still could happen and the remaining Big Six would add a few teams and remain a BCS conference (a much lower one on the totem pole).
The Pac 10 scenarios:
1) No changes.
2) Add two teams, likely Colorado and Utah.
3) Go big or go home: Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Baylor or Colorado.
I think the Pac 10 wants to expand, but only if it helps the conference. I don't think the Utah/Colorado combination helps them that much. It doesn't give them access to recruiting grounds or markets that they aren't already utilizing. I think they will do that over doing nothing, but they obviously want the big fish (Texas), if they can catch it. How disappointing would a CU/U of U addition be after dreams of the Texas market and recruiting?
The SEC scenario:
1) Continue to do whatever it wants and continue to make the most money and be the most successful. Any expansion plans would probably include 3 or 4 ACC teams.
The ACC:
1) If the Big East remains intact, they would do nothing.
2) If the Big East collapses, pick up the best of the rest: Connecticut, West Virginia, Cincinnati. I'm not sure they would touch South Florida or Louisville (maybe Louisville for the hoops). Perhaps they would add a C-USA team as well?
The Big East:
1) Hope.
2) Pray.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
I Couldn't Resist
Expansion, expansion, expansion. It's on everyone's minds (and everyone's sports shows...). So the MWC didn't invite Boise State. Initially, I thought it was idiotic not to add them. But the more I think about it, they probably made the most prudent decision, based on the current status of college football. Since they don't have any of the bargaining chips, trying to be proactive doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and might even leave them worse off than if they did nothing. So, what happens now? Well, with expansion, there are likely only 3 external possibilities, and I will present them, along with how I believe the MWC responds.
1) No changes take place with conference realignment. This may make the Boise State decision a good idea. If the MWC can gain BCS status without adding Boise State, why add them? Realistically, the MWC can only get screwed by NOT adding Boise State if they do not gain BCS status without them. But there is no guarantee they would get it WITH them either. If nothing happens in the next three weeks, they could still add Boise State prior to July 1, but they will do so knowing that the landscape didn't shift beneath their decision.
2) A few small changes take place, but no super conferences are formed. I think the MWC was rolling the dice that this would NOT happen. This is probably the worst case scenario for the MWC. In this case, they are quite likely to have one of their top programs "poached" by the Big XII or Pac 10. If it happens BEFORE July 1, 2010, they could still add Boise State and recover. If it happens after July 1 (or if two of the top MWC teams leave the conference), they are in big trouble and will have little chance of gaining BCS status.
3) Major shifts happen with the Pac 10, Big Ten, and SEC, as they all expand to 16. The Big XII dissolves and the ACC and Big East are forced to join together with what's left of their conferences after the "Big Three" raids are finished. So now we have 4 16-team "super" conferences, though the ACC/Big East wouldn't be so super. The MWC has only one realistic play here: add Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State (if they have to), and Baylor or Colorado (whichever gets left out of Pac 10, Big Ten expansion), along with Boise State and Fresno State from the WAC and Houston from Conference USA. If the other 4 go to 16, the MWC has to go to AT LEAST 12, but, realistically, they have to take the leftovers from the Big XII, and, in all likelihood, has to add 2-4 others to get to 16. This is just to try to keep up. That conference would be better than the ACC/Big East combo conference, which would lose 5 or 6 of their best teams to the SEC and Big Ten/Sixteen. With major shifts, the BCS is going to have to rewrite a lot of their rules and stipulations. Who knows, it might even be the start of some kind of playoff system...doubtful.
As far as what I think is going to happen, I believe the Pac 10 invites 6 Big XII teams. I think they all accept. I think the Big Ten invites 1 or 2 Big XII teams, Notre Dame, and 2 or 3 Big East/ACC teams. I think they all accept. The SEC raids the ACC, taking Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech, and Clemson or Virginia Tech. The Big East and ACC join forces. The universities and conferences have seen so much money dangled in front of them with these potential super conferences, I think it'd be tough to stop it from happening at this point.
As much as I hate to admit it, the MWC might actually have done the smart thing not to add Boise State. Yet. Wait and see if anything happens in the next two or three weeks and then take another vote on whether to expand/add BSU or not. If the rumors die or if something actually happens, it will be easier to make a good decision based on those facts. I hate that they aren't being proactive, it's tough to cheer for teams and a conference that MUST be reactive, but that is just where they are at this point. Now imagine how the Big East is feeling! At least the MWC had an option, the Big East is just waiting to see WHO will jump ship, and WHEN.
Note: BYU fans, you do not have much room to complain about this, I can almost guarantee you that your university president was one of at least 3 presidents to vote AGAINST expansion.
1) No changes take place with conference realignment. This may make the Boise State decision a good idea. If the MWC can gain BCS status without adding Boise State, why add them? Realistically, the MWC can only get screwed by NOT adding Boise State if they do not gain BCS status without them. But there is no guarantee they would get it WITH them either. If nothing happens in the next three weeks, they could still add Boise State prior to July 1, but they will do so knowing that the landscape didn't shift beneath their decision.
2) A few small changes take place, but no super conferences are formed. I think the MWC was rolling the dice that this would NOT happen. This is probably the worst case scenario for the MWC. In this case, they are quite likely to have one of their top programs "poached" by the Big XII or Pac 10. If it happens BEFORE July 1, 2010, they could still add Boise State and recover. If it happens after July 1 (or if two of the top MWC teams leave the conference), they are in big trouble and will have little chance of gaining BCS status.
3) Major shifts happen with the Pac 10, Big Ten, and SEC, as they all expand to 16. The Big XII dissolves and the ACC and Big East are forced to join together with what's left of their conferences after the "Big Three" raids are finished. So now we have 4 16-team "super" conferences, though the ACC/Big East wouldn't be so super. The MWC has only one realistic play here: add Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State (if they have to), and Baylor or Colorado (whichever gets left out of Pac 10, Big Ten expansion), along with Boise State and Fresno State from the WAC and Houston from Conference USA. If the other 4 go to 16, the MWC has to go to AT LEAST 12, but, realistically, they have to take the leftovers from the Big XII, and, in all likelihood, has to add 2-4 others to get to 16. This is just to try to keep up. That conference would be better than the ACC/Big East combo conference, which would lose 5 or 6 of their best teams to the SEC and Big Ten/Sixteen. With major shifts, the BCS is going to have to rewrite a lot of their rules and stipulations. Who knows, it might even be the start of some kind of playoff system...doubtful.
As far as what I think is going to happen, I believe the Pac 10 invites 6 Big XII teams. I think they all accept. I think the Big Ten invites 1 or 2 Big XII teams, Notre Dame, and 2 or 3 Big East/ACC teams. I think they all accept. The SEC raids the ACC, taking Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech, and Clemson or Virginia Tech. The Big East and ACC join forces. The universities and conferences have seen so much money dangled in front of them with these potential super conferences, I think it'd be tough to stop it from happening at this point.
As much as I hate to admit it, the MWC might actually have done the smart thing not to add Boise State. Yet. Wait and see if anything happens in the next two or three weeks and then take another vote on whether to expand/add BSU or not. If the rumors die or if something actually happens, it will be easier to make a good decision based on those facts. I hate that they aren't being proactive, it's tough to cheer for teams and a conference that MUST be reactive, but that is just where they are at this point. Now imagine how the Big East is feeling! At least the MWC had an option, the Big East is just waiting to see WHO will jump ship, and WHEN.
Note: BYU fans, you do not have much room to complain about this, I can almost guarantee you that your university president was one of at least 3 presidents to vote AGAINST expansion.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Many Thanks...
To all of you loyal readers. After taking some time to think about my life, and evaluating my performance on obligations to my family, church responsibilities, and my continual learning/education/growth, I am planning on taking at least the summer off from writing. At that time I will re-evaluate whether or not to continue blogging/blabbing my opinions on college football and MWC/BYU basketball. It has been a rather joyous ride, nearly two years and well over 300 posts. I hope you have enjoyed my predictions, analysis, and general thoughts as much as I have enjoyed your reactions to them.
Thanks for all your wonderful comments, insights, etc. Perhaps we will see you again in the fall, perhaps not, but until then: enjoy some NBA/NHL playoffs and some of America's past time! Stay classy.
Thanks for all your wonderful comments, insights, etc. Perhaps we will see you again in the fall, perhaps not, but until then: enjoy some NBA/NHL playoffs and some of America's past time! Stay classy.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
My Apologies...
To Rockies fans everywhere. No sooner did I add Manny Corpas to my fantasy team then he gives up 4 runs in the 9th inning last night to the Fightin's. I normally wouldn't be arrogant enough to presume I have such power over the universe, but given the fact that he had allowed only 4 runs in his previous 21 2/3 innings and he only has a bad outing the first one after I add him to the roster, I have to assume it's me. I further apologize to Red Sox fans for cursing their franchise (again): Ellsbury hurt for a month and Ortiz and Beckett in the doghouse. Carlos Zambrano (Cubs), Jason Kubel (Twins), Justin Verlander (Tigers), and Brian Fuentes (Angels) are also having the worst years of their careers to this point: coincidence, I don't think so. The Mo Knows Fantasy Curse is coming soon to a city near you.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Back to Hoops Again
Well, the deadline for underclassmen to pull their names from the NBA draft has come and gone. There were only two MWC players involved: New Mexico's Darington Hobson and BYU's Jimmer Fredette.
Hobson is going to take the money and run. He brings the same skill set to the NBA that Lamar Odom did as a rookie. He will have to, as Odom has definitely done, improve in two major areas to earn time in the NBA: outside shooting and strength. He was "strong" for a MWC SF/PF, but he won't get the job done at his current size at the next level. Strength is probably going to be easier to improve for him than his outside shooting, so I would say he should do what Odom did: put on 20 pounds of muscle his first 3 seasons in the NBA. He was a streaky outside shooter, so maybe hope isn't lost there. Most sites project him as a late-first round pick. This was a good move for him. He might have improved his stock somewhat with another year in college, but it's doubtful he was going to end up in the lottery anyway.
Fredette is taking the other route, opting to return to school for another crack at improving his stock. His superb ball skills and shooting ability put him as the number 2 or 3 PG in the draft, depending on who you trust, but it wasn't enough to guarantee a first round pick. True to his word (which was kind of a ridiculous "ultimatum" for a slow underclassman PG), if he had no first round guarantee, he would be back for his senior year. His toughness has been well documented as well as his clutch play. However, he struggled mightily against the better, higher pressure defenders he faced, and nearly all of the players he would face in the NBA would be better than those who shut him down in college. He could definitely improve his stock by another year in college. Realistically, he isn't going to move into the lottery either, but he could move up into the late-middle of the first round. Whether he does or not, we shall see. If he has a phenomenal year, he could move into the top 20; if he has a better year, late first-round; if he has the same type of year, early second round; and if he sucks it up, he might not get drafted at all.
How it impacts the MWC race:
The MWC landscape is definitely changed from what it appeared to be at the end of the season based on the following semi-major events: Michael Loyd Jr. transferring from BYU, BYU landing high-profile JC Forward Stephen Rogers, Nate Garth transferring from New Mexico, 4 Utah players transferring out, Utah landing a quality JC PG, Fredette returning, and Hobson leaving. BYU is losing some of its depth. Utah is losing most of its proven offensive firepower. New Mexico is losing 3 of their 8-man rotation instead of just 1.
New Mexico definitely loses its position as the MWC favorite. Utah's slide down the standings probably continues into next season (though in their grind-it-to-a-halt type of O, if they have a PG who can create for himself and others, you don't want to underestimate them: I'm just not sure yet if Josh Watkins is that guy or not). BYU still remains near the top and in the hunt.
BYU is probably my favorite to win the REGULAR SEASON conference championship at this point for the following reasons (SDSU is a close second):
1. Home dominance: BYU might lose one conference game at home. Might. But never more than one, and they often make up for it with a win at SDSU or (more rarely and less recently) New Mexico.
2. They beat who they should beat: BYU has not lost a game to anyone that finished in the bottom half of the MWC standings since Rose's first year at the helm. That includes home, road, and conference tournament games.
3. UNLV and SDSU are probably too inconsistent to string together a championship run: each year these teams lose at least one game they have no business losing. SDSU lost at Wyoming each of the past two years. UNLV lost to Utah twice this past season and at TCU, CSU, and Wyoming the previous year. Losing one game you shouldn't in this league is enough to separate you from that coveted conference title. If New Mexico would have lost even one last year, they would have had to share the MWC crown. For the past 4 years, this has been the case.
I think UNLV obviously has the leg up when it comes to the MWC tournament, playing at home (though SDSU has knocked them out each of the past two seasons). SDSU is probably going to have the best showing in the NCAA Tournament, purely based on athleticism and experience.
Updated predictions:
1. BYU
2. SDSU
3. UNLV
4. New Mexico
5. CSU
6. Wyoming
7. Air Force
8. Utah
9. TCU
Hobson is going to take the money and run. He brings the same skill set to the NBA that Lamar Odom did as a rookie. He will have to, as Odom has definitely done, improve in two major areas to earn time in the NBA: outside shooting and strength. He was "strong" for a MWC SF/PF, but he won't get the job done at his current size at the next level. Strength is probably going to be easier to improve for him than his outside shooting, so I would say he should do what Odom did: put on 20 pounds of muscle his first 3 seasons in the NBA. He was a streaky outside shooter, so maybe hope isn't lost there. Most sites project him as a late-first round pick. This was a good move for him. He might have improved his stock somewhat with another year in college, but it's doubtful he was going to end up in the lottery anyway.
Fredette is taking the other route, opting to return to school for another crack at improving his stock. His superb ball skills and shooting ability put him as the number 2 or 3 PG in the draft, depending on who you trust, but it wasn't enough to guarantee a first round pick. True to his word (which was kind of a ridiculous "ultimatum" for a slow underclassman PG), if he had no first round guarantee, he would be back for his senior year. His toughness has been well documented as well as his clutch play. However, he struggled mightily against the better, higher pressure defenders he faced, and nearly all of the players he would face in the NBA would be better than those who shut him down in college. He could definitely improve his stock by another year in college. Realistically, he isn't going to move into the lottery either, but he could move up into the late-middle of the first round. Whether he does or not, we shall see. If he has a phenomenal year, he could move into the top 20; if he has a better year, late first-round; if he has the same type of year, early second round; and if he sucks it up, he might not get drafted at all.
How it impacts the MWC race:
The MWC landscape is definitely changed from what it appeared to be at the end of the season based on the following semi-major events: Michael Loyd Jr. transferring from BYU, BYU landing high-profile JC Forward Stephen Rogers, Nate Garth transferring from New Mexico, 4 Utah players transferring out, Utah landing a quality JC PG, Fredette returning, and Hobson leaving. BYU is losing some of its depth. Utah is losing most of its proven offensive firepower. New Mexico is losing 3 of their 8-man rotation instead of just 1.
New Mexico definitely loses its position as the MWC favorite. Utah's slide down the standings probably continues into next season (though in their grind-it-to-a-halt type of O, if they have a PG who can create for himself and others, you don't want to underestimate them: I'm just not sure yet if Josh Watkins is that guy or not). BYU still remains near the top and in the hunt.
BYU is probably my favorite to win the REGULAR SEASON conference championship at this point for the following reasons (SDSU is a close second):
1. Home dominance: BYU might lose one conference game at home. Might. But never more than one, and they often make up for it with a win at SDSU or (more rarely and less recently) New Mexico.
2. They beat who they should beat: BYU has not lost a game to anyone that finished in the bottom half of the MWC standings since Rose's first year at the helm. That includes home, road, and conference tournament games.
3. UNLV and SDSU are probably too inconsistent to string together a championship run: each year these teams lose at least one game they have no business losing. SDSU lost at Wyoming each of the past two years. UNLV lost to Utah twice this past season and at TCU, CSU, and Wyoming the previous year. Losing one game you shouldn't in this league is enough to separate you from that coveted conference title. If New Mexico would have lost even one last year, they would have had to share the MWC crown. For the past 4 years, this has been the case.
I think UNLV obviously has the leg up when it comes to the MWC tournament, playing at home (though SDSU has knocked them out each of the past two seasons). SDSU is probably going to have the best showing in the NCAA Tournament, purely based on athleticism and experience.
Updated predictions:
1. BYU
2. SDSU
3. UNLV
4. New Mexico
5. CSU
6. Wyoming
7. Air Force
8. Utah
9. TCU
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Final Expansion Thoughts
First off, if any BCS conference invites any non-BCS team, that team is accepting the invite. There has been speculation that somebody would turn down an offer. Nobody or institution is that stupid. You take the money and are content moving to the bottom of the standings. Utah would never turn down an offer from the Pac 10. BYU would never turn down an offer from the Big 12 (unless the invite came with a "you must play on Sundays" mandate).
Secondly, if the Pac 10 expands to 12, I don't see any scenario where they don't take Utah. The rest of the Pac 10 won't allow another California school (as if they were attractive options anyway), and Colorado needs a nearby travel companion (and CSU isn't up to par athletically for the Pac 10). I also don't see any scenario where they would take BYU. Furthermore, I don't see any scenario where Utah is competitive in the Pac 10/12 in football or basketball for quite some time. The football program is in much better shape to be competitive, but the big issue with Utah under K-Whit is remaining focused from week to week. Utah always gets up for the big game but frequently lets lesser competition play with them. With more big games each season (Oregon, USC, Cal, Stanford, Oregon State) and with lesser competition that is more competitive (Washington, UCLA, Arizona), the losses would probably add up a lot faster. I think they would still make bowl games each year, but conference titles, dougle-digit wins for a season, and BCS games are much less likely. Basketball: they are not even in position to be competitive in the MWC, so the Pac 10 is out of the question.
Thirdly, adding BYU is a tricky proposition for any conference. Because of BYU's standards, rules, and regulations, they came to the table with a list of demands. Every other non-BCS team comes to the table hoping for scraps. That's tough to compete with. I do believe that if the Big 12 needs to add two teams, they'd be foolish not to have BYU in the top 3 (with TCU and perhaps Houston or New Mexico). If you talk about academics, athletic prestige, stadium sizes, fan base, money, etc, there is no non-BCS team anywhere close to BYU when you wrap it all up into one presentation. You also can't discount the Mormon factor, as much as you would like to think it isn't an issue in these days; days when a scrawny, awkward black child can grow up to become President of the United States: you just don't know how that is going to be evaluated. Realistically however, the Big 12 just has to do a balancing act to determine if the demands BYU brings to the table are exceeded by the positives. As a BYU follower, I believe what BYU brings to the table outweighs the demands that follow them wherever they go, but, as a fan and follower, I can't see things clearly and entirely from the Big 12 Executives' perspective. No matter how objective you TRY to be, it is impossible to step completely out of your shoes and into another person's. That's why the mock draft experts did such a poor job outside of the top 9 picks in the NFL draft: they aren't in the rooms with each team's ownership, they don't know what each team is looking for or at, and they can't see beyond their own biases. It's the nature of sports.
Fourth, enough talk already: let's see some expansion in action! The NCAA tourney got the ball rolling (thankfully it didn't roll too far!), let's see the Pac 10 or Big 10 make a move. Soon.
Secondly, if the Pac 10 expands to 12, I don't see any scenario where they don't take Utah. The rest of the Pac 10 won't allow another California school (as if they were attractive options anyway), and Colorado needs a nearby travel companion (and CSU isn't up to par athletically for the Pac 10). I also don't see any scenario where they would take BYU. Furthermore, I don't see any scenario where Utah is competitive in the Pac 10/12 in football or basketball for quite some time. The football program is in much better shape to be competitive, but the big issue with Utah under K-Whit is remaining focused from week to week. Utah always gets up for the big game but frequently lets lesser competition play with them. With more big games each season (Oregon, USC, Cal, Stanford, Oregon State) and with lesser competition that is more competitive (Washington, UCLA, Arizona), the losses would probably add up a lot faster. I think they would still make bowl games each year, but conference titles, dougle-digit wins for a season, and BCS games are much less likely. Basketball: they are not even in position to be competitive in the MWC, so the Pac 10 is out of the question.
Thirdly, adding BYU is a tricky proposition for any conference. Because of BYU's standards, rules, and regulations, they came to the table with a list of demands. Every other non-BCS team comes to the table hoping for scraps. That's tough to compete with. I do believe that if the Big 12 needs to add two teams, they'd be foolish not to have BYU in the top 3 (with TCU and perhaps Houston or New Mexico). If you talk about academics, athletic prestige, stadium sizes, fan base, money, etc, there is no non-BCS team anywhere close to BYU when you wrap it all up into one presentation. You also can't discount the Mormon factor, as much as you would like to think it isn't an issue in these days; days when a scrawny, awkward black child can grow up to become President of the United States: you just don't know how that is going to be evaluated. Realistically however, the Big 12 just has to do a balancing act to determine if the demands BYU brings to the table are exceeded by the positives. As a BYU follower, I believe what BYU brings to the table outweighs the demands that follow them wherever they go, but, as a fan and follower, I can't see things clearly and entirely from the Big 12 Executives' perspective. No matter how objective you TRY to be, it is impossible to step completely out of your shoes and into another person's. That's why the mock draft experts did such a poor job outside of the top 9 picks in the NFL draft: they aren't in the rooms with each team's ownership, they don't know what each team is looking for or at, and they can't see beyond their own biases. It's the nature of sports.
Fourth, enough talk already: let's see some expansion in action! The NCAA tourney got the ball rolling (thankfully it didn't roll too far!), let's see the Pac 10 or Big 10 make a move. Soon.
Monday, May 3, 2010
What to Expect From 2010 BYU Football
Well, sorry it's taken so long. I'm glad I waited a while before posting this, though, since Harvey Unga's announcement that he is withdrawing from BYU changes things a little bit. First off, Harvey could potentially come back for this upcoming season. He would just need an ecclesiastical endorsement prior to the start of fall camp. Secondly, if you were going to lose a superstar, I would rather lose Harvey Unga than any of the other 3: WR McKay Jacobson, SS Andrew Rich, or OLB Jordan Pendleton. There is a lot more depth at RB than there is at those 3 spots. Don't believe me: tell me who the backup running back is. You probably answered JJ DeLuigi or maybe you said Bryan Kariya. Perhaps hotshot freshman Joshua Quezada went through your mind. Now quick, give me the backup SS or OLB. Wide Receiver isn't quite as bad as SS or OLB since they have Luke Ashworth, Spencer Hafoka, and O'Neill Chambers (and maybe Ross Apo?). Better Unga than any of those 3.
OK, let's start with the schedule and work our way to personnel. The schedule isn't amazingly difficult, it never really is in the MWC. The non-conference schedule includes two BCS conference foes, one at home with Washington and one on the road with Florida State and a new head coach after decades of Bobby Bowden. Two WAC foes, both of which shouldn't give BYU a whole lot of trouble (though you never know about the rivalry game in Logan, homecoming for Riley Nelson), one at home with Nevada, and one on the road with Utah State (who I believe will push for a bowl game this season). The toughest MWC opponents are ALL on the road, but realistically, the home-field advantage isn't a huge deal with the MWC's mostly tiny stadiums and with BYU's large following (other than playing at Utah which is about as hostile an environment as there is in college football, for the BYU game that is, not generally speaking). The bye comes after BYU's 8th game of the season, leading into November. You would always prefer to have the bye prior to TCU, but that is never going to happen.
BYU starts the year home, away, away, home, and then finishes with a home-away pattern for the close of the season. They will probably play 3 ranked opponents, one in September, one in October, and one in November. It is a very balanced schedule. If BYU starts out 0-3, I would anticipate a 7-5 finish. If they go 1-2, maybe that jumps to 8-4. At 2-1, I like their chances to win 9 or maybe even 10 games. If they beat Washington, win at Air Force, and take down the Florida State Seminoles in Tallahassee, I think they are likely to win 10 or possibly even 11 games. I do not like their chances to go 12-0. I would be shocked and disappointed if they didn't win at least 7 games. I would hope they could get to 8 or 9 wins this year. I would consider that a good year. 10 or 11 wins would be a phenomenal year. 6 wins or less would mean they absolutely chose the wrong starting QB! I think they will probably go 8-4 and finish 3rd or 4th in the conference for the following reasons:
1. Even if they choose the best QB for the job, there are growing pains associated with starting at the Division I level for the first time. Max Hall was still experiencing some of them last year! It will inevitably cost them one game. Whether that is a close game where there is a bad read in the 4th quarter, or a game where the QB plays poorly throughout that prevents BYU from being in the game, you never know. But it will cost you one game. Look at Utah last year: they lost at Oregon b/c of their QB, they lost at TCU partially because their QB dug them into a huge hole in the first half, they lost at BYU in OT because they couldn't do anything on offense in the 2nd and 3rd quarters and because they had to settle for a field goal in OT.
2. There is no question this is somewhat of a rebuilding year. The last rebuilding year for the Cougars, BYU managed to win a conference championship. However, that season, TCU was 8-5 and Utah lost to UNLV 27-0: neither of those are happening this season. While they are going to be able to replace some of the losses they took with graduation, there is no way they can replace all of them at the same level. This team will probably have greater talent, speed, and size than last year's team at most positions (not DE or TE), but experience is vital to success in Division I athletics. Look at hoops: Duke vs. Kentucky. Duke's upper-classmen definitely weren't better or more talented than Kentucky's freshman, but they had the Division I experience to win an NCAA Championship. Kentucky did not. BYU is going to play a lot of inexperienced guys. Period. There are a lot of teams with more experience on their schedule, including Washington, Air Force, Florida State, TCU, Utah.
Personnel
QBs: this is obviously the most highly publicized position battle. There are 3 quality candidates, 4 if you count Munns (I don't count him: he has no chance to be the starting QB). At least one of them could have a stellar career as BYU's QB. I think the longer the "race" goes, the more likely Heaps is going to win it. His biggest weakness at this point is experience. The longer this drags out, the more experience he is going to have. If they had named a starter after Spring Ball, it probably would not have been Heaps. Since they didn't name one: it's going to be Heaps. If you look at the stats from Spring Ball scrimmages, Heaps had a higher completion % (Doman's number one criteria because completions yield first downs and first downs yield touchdowns), more yards per attempt, and more TDs than the other two candidates. He can throw deep, he can throw short, he can move in the pocket, he can handle the playbook, he can read the defense. Why wouldn't you start the guy? I think Heaps starts and he throws for 3,000 yards and gets 8 wins: a nice start to replace Hall on the top of BYU's winningest QB list.
RBs: even without Harvey Unga, BYU has a really solid backfield. While they don't have a big bruiser like Tonga to lead the way (who does these days?), they have serviceable lead-blockers, and Kariya could be more than serviceable for sure. Now add Unga to the mix and BYU has a great backfield. I think BYU will rely on the run game more if Unga is there. If not, they'll utilize the backs like BYU's offense normally does. With Riley Nelson as either the starting QB or backup/wildcat QB, they wouldn't even necessarily need the RBs as much. The running game is still a position of relative strength for the Cougars, even without Unga.
WRs: this should be a solid, but relatively unspectacular, unit this year. This is nothing new. The big, strong, fast WRs just don't matriculate to the campus of BYU. If they do, they have no hands. There is some promise with big, strong WRs this year: Chambers as a Junior and Apo the incoming freshman. Jacobson is wicked fast. Ashworth and Hafoka are BYU's traditional precision route runners. I think once you get below that 5th WR, people won't be seeing much playing time. The top 5 are, again, solid. If Apo is the real deal and Jacobson stays healthy (and Heaps plays QB), this unit could move into the "great" category.
TEs: I know the coaches say these new guys are talented, but I'm not sure I buy it. They certainly aren't Pitta and George (who are now on the Ravens and Panthers). There are two "talented" freshmen, two juniors who weren't good enough to see the field the last two years, and two guys coming off missions. I think the TE might be somewhat absent from BYU's repertoire, at least the first half of the season. It will certainly be more absent than last year. This will hurt the most in the red zone, where the TEs could be used as blockers or on play-action as touchdown makers.
OL: obviously there is some concern here because of injuries. However, BYU did the same thing last year and the O-Line turned out to be pretty solid. About half of the penalties on the line last year were called on the lone departure, Center R.J. Willing. The other 4 starters return. There will also be 3 new linemen who fought for starting jobs last year and had season-ending injuries before the season. That's 7 solid linemen, plus the 5 guys who got all of the reps in spring camp because everyone else was injured. So, this should be a very good unit with 4 returning starters and 8 good/experienced players behind them, assuming they get healthy and gel together. I'd like to see a little more toughness from them in the running game, but you can't expect them to do perfectly. They are led by a future 1st round draft pick (according to Todd McShay).
DL: for a team that runs a 3-4 that lost it's top 4 DL, they surprisingly have a lot of experience on this unit. 4 guys played good minutes last year and the year before, at least 2 others were seeing very significant time on special teams. However, I still see a huge dropoff from last year. It starts in the middle: there is only one true nose tackle with Romney Fuga. He's the only guy within a reasonable distance of 300 pounds. The lack of size on the DL is disconcerting. There is some speed off the edge, but that doesn't do much good if teams pound you up the middle. Last year they had this same issue but had some beefy MLBs to back them up, which evened the playing field a bit. This year, they don't have that luxury.
LBs: there is a lot of potential here. But to this point, everyone but Jordan Pendleton is just a "potential" good player. Kyle Van Noy, Jameson Frazier, Brandon Ogletree: they might be good. You just don't know. One thing is for sure: this unit will need to play well. The defensive scheme for BYU asks the LBs to do so much more than the other positions. This unit needs to make plays, plain and simple. Last year, Pendleton and Baumann made big plays. The year before, nobody made big plays. The year before that all of the LBs were playmakers. There is a huge difference from year to year. Last year the D was much better than 2008, neither of which were anywhere near as good as the 2007 D. If Pendleton isn't a dominant force, who is going to be? Ideally, you'd like another LB to step up so the former Bingham Miner doesn't have to carry the front 7 by himself.
CBs: a lot of things can and have been said about the history the cornerback position at BYU. They are either really quick but short with no ability to play or the ball or tall but slow with no ability to be close enough to even play the ball at all. I think this year, these guys might actually be better than the traditional BYU CB. Both starters from last year are returning, and they were better than half-decent. Brandon Bradley showed promise last year: he was in on a lot of tackles (4th on the team), however, he didn't get a single interception the entire season (you can't have a starting corner in Division I that didn't get a single pick). He did force two fumbles, though, so at least he's involved in creating turnovers somehow. Brian Logan got better at playing the ball last year as the year went along (he even ended up with 14 pass break-ups, which was one of the best in the country), but he needs to improve dramatically: teams will continue to pick on him because of his size, or lack thereof (his percentage of pass break-ups was not very spectacular). He had 6 or 7 pass interference penalties and also gave up a lot of receptions. Where these two corners definitely excel is in preventing YAC (yards after the catch). The backups are supposedly serviceable. Lee Acquirre played quite a bit last year and played about as well as the starters. Corby Eason and Robbie Buckner were in the hunt for the starting jobs last year and would probably be decent, if playing them became necessary. They lack size, though both are bigger than Logan. In 2011, those two will probably be starting.
Safeties: Andrew Rich is a beast. He led the team in tackles (and it wasn't even close). He tied for the team lead in picks with 4. He was occasionally used as a blitzer, very effectively. He played tough on screens and swing passes. He was all over the field. And he did all of that with injuries to his ankle and shoulder that required surgery in the offseason. Unfortunately, you have to play two safeties. Plus, Rich doesn't have a solid backup either. This is the one position where they are set and screwed at the same time. Rich is the best player on the defense, but they have no quality free safety options. I wouldn't be completely surprised if Rich moves to free safety, since the guys competing for free safety are really strong safeties anyway and he has such a mastery of the defensive schemes. I think that would be a mistake, personally, and I hope they don't do it. If they don't discover a quality free safety, the QB of BYU's D, they might be in trouble, regardless of how well everybody else does.
BYU has plenty of talent. They have mostly bigger, faster, stronger players than last year, but they are definitely much greener. I think the greenies can and will pull out 8 or 9 wins. I don't expect 10, but if they get 6, I will second guess personnel decisions across the board. I'll blame Harvey Unga for his honor code issues. I'll blast recruiting strategies and results. I will pick apart every aspect of the program that I don't agree with. I'm a fan and blogger, so I can do that! Just kidding. I think Bronco is doing a great job. I think the program is miles ahead of where it would be at this time with K-Whit. He's perfect for Utah, Bronco is perfect for BYU. I will, however, be brutally honest with what I think is happening with the program. I think the long-term future looks very bright for the program, though in the short-term some growing pains are to be expected.
OK, let's start with the schedule and work our way to personnel. The schedule isn't amazingly difficult, it never really is in the MWC. The non-conference schedule includes two BCS conference foes, one at home with Washington and one on the road with Florida State and a new head coach after decades of Bobby Bowden. Two WAC foes, both of which shouldn't give BYU a whole lot of trouble (though you never know about the rivalry game in Logan, homecoming for Riley Nelson), one at home with Nevada, and one on the road with Utah State (who I believe will push for a bowl game this season). The toughest MWC opponents are ALL on the road, but realistically, the home-field advantage isn't a huge deal with the MWC's mostly tiny stadiums and with BYU's large following (other than playing at Utah which is about as hostile an environment as there is in college football, for the BYU game that is, not generally speaking). The bye comes after BYU's 8th game of the season, leading into November. You would always prefer to have the bye prior to TCU, but that is never going to happen.
BYU starts the year home, away, away, home, and then finishes with a home-away pattern for the close of the season. They will probably play 3 ranked opponents, one in September, one in October, and one in November. It is a very balanced schedule. If BYU starts out 0-3, I would anticipate a 7-5 finish. If they go 1-2, maybe that jumps to 8-4. At 2-1, I like their chances to win 9 or maybe even 10 games. If they beat Washington, win at Air Force, and take down the Florida State Seminoles in Tallahassee, I think they are likely to win 10 or possibly even 11 games. I do not like their chances to go 12-0. I would be shocked and disappointed if they didn't win at least 7 games. I would hope they could get to 8 or 9 wins this year. I would consider that a good year. 10 or 11 wins would be a phenomenal year. 6 wins or less would mean they absolutely chose the wrong starting QB! I think they will probably go 8-4 and finish 3rd or 4th in the conference for the following reasons:
1. Even if they choose the best QB for the job, there are growing pains associated with starting at the Division I level for the first time. Max Hall was still experiencing some of them last year! It will inevitably cost them one game. Whether that is a close game where there is a bad read in the 4th quarter, or a game where the QB plays poorly throughout that prevents BYU from being in the game, you never know. But it will cost you one game. Look at Utah last year: they lost at Oregon b/c of their QB, they lost at TCU partially because their QB dug them into a huge hole in the first half, they lost at BYU in OT because they couldn't do anything on offense in the 2nd and 3rd quarters and because they had to settle for a field goal in OT.
2. There is no question this is somewhat of a rebuilding year. The last rebuilding year for the Cougars, BYU managed to win a conference championship. However, that season, TCU was 8-5 and Utah lost to UNLV 27-0: neither of those are happening this season. While they are going to be able to replace some of the losses they took with graduation, there is no way they can replace all of them at the same level. This team will probably have greater talent, speed, and size than last year's team at most positions (not DE or TE), but experience is vital to success in Division I athletics. Look at hoops: Duke vs. Kentucky. Duke's upper-classmen definitely weren't better or more talented than Kentucky's freshman, but they had the Division I experience to win an NCAA Championship. Kentucky did not. BYU is going to play a lot of inexperienced guys. Period. There are a lot of teams with more experience on their schedule, including Washington, Air Force, Florida State, TCU, Utah.
Personnel
QBs: this is obviously the most highly publicized position battle. There are 3 quality candidates, 4 if you count Munns (I don't count him: he has no chance to be the starting QB). At least one of them could have a stellar career as BYU's QB. I think the longer the "race" goes, the more likely Heaps is going to win it. His biggest weakness at this point is experience. The longer this drags out, the more experience he is going to have. If they had named a starter after Spring Ball, it probably would not have been Heaps. Since they didn't name one: it's going to be Heaps. If you look at the stats from Spring Ball scrimmages, Heaps had a higher completion % (Doman's number one criteria because completions yield first downs and first downs yield touchdowns), more yards per attempt, and more TDs than the other two candidates. He can throw deep, he can throw short, he can move in the pocket, he can handle the playbook, he can read the defense. Why wouldn't you start the guy? I think Heaps starts and he throws for 3,000 yards and gets 8 wins: a nice start to replace Hall on the top of BYU's winningest QB list.
RBs: even without Harvey Unga, BYU has a really solid backfield. While they don't have a big bruiser like Tonga to lead the way (who does these days?), they have serviceable lead-blockers, and Kariya could be more than serviceable for sure. Now add Unga to the mix and BYU has a great backfield. I think BYU will rely on the run game more if Unga is there. If not, they'll utilize the backs like BYU's offense normally does. With Riley Nelson as either the starting QB or backup/wildcat QB, they wouldn't even necessarily need the RBs as much. The running game is still a position of relative strength for the Cougars, even without Unga.
WRs: this should be a solid, but relatively unspectacular, unit this year. This is nothing new. The big, strong, fast WRs just don't matriculate to the campus of BYU. If they do, they have no hands. There is some promise with big, strong WRs this year: Chambers as a Junior and Apo the incoming freshman. Jacobson is wicked fast. Ashworth and Hafoka are BYU's traditional precision route runners. I think once you get below that 5th WR, people won't be seeing much playing time. The top 5 are, again, solid. If Apo is the real deal and Jacobson stays healthy (and Heaps plays QB), this unit could move into the "great" category.
TEs: I know the coaches say these new guys are talented, but I'm not sure I buy it. They certainly aren't Pitta and George (who are now on the Ravens and Panthers). There are two "talented" freshmen, two juniors who weren't good enough to see the field the last two years, and two guys coming off missions. I think the TE might be somewhat absent from BYU's repertoire, at least the first half of the season. It will certainly be more absent than last year. This will hurt the most in the red zone, where the TEs could be used as blockers or on play-action as touchdown makers.
OL: obviously there is some concern here because of injuries. However, BYU did the same thing last year and the O-Line turned out to be pretty solid. About half of the penalties on the line last year were called on the lone departure, Center R.J. Willing. The other 4 starters return. There will also be 3 new linemen who fought for starting jobs last year and had season-ending injuries before the season. That's 7 solid linemen, plus the 5 guys who got all of the reps in spring camp because everyone else was injured. So, this should be a very good unit with 4 returning starters and 8 good/experienced players behind them, assuming they get healthy and gel together. I'd like to see a little more toughness from them in the running game, but you can't expect them to do perfectly. They are led by a future 1st round draft pick (according to Todd McShay).
DL: for a team that runs a 3-4 that lost it's top 4 DL, they surprisingly have a lot of experience on this unit. 4 guys played good minutes last year and the year before, at least 2 others were seeing very significant time on special teams. However, I still see a huge dropoff from last year. It starts in the middle: there is only one true nose tackle with Romney Fuga. He's the only guy within a reasonable distance of 300 pounds. The lack of size on the DL is disconcerting. There is some speed off the edge, but that doesn't do much good if teams pound you up the middle. Last year they had this same issue but had some beefy MLBs to back them up, which evened the playing field a bit. This year, they don't have that luxury.
LBs: there is a lot of potential here. But to this point, everyone but Jordan Pendleton is just a "potential" good player. Kyle Van Noy, Jameson Frazier, Brandon Ogletree: they might be good. You just don't know. One thing is for sure: this unit will need to play well. The defensive scheme for BYU asks the LBs to do so much more than the other positions. This unit needs to make plays, plain and simple. Last year, Pendleton and Baumann made big plays. The year before, nobody made big plays. The year before that all of the LBs were playmakers. There is a huge difference from year to year. Last year the D was much better than 2008, neither of which were anywhere near as good as the 2007 D. If Pendleton isn't a dominant force, who is going to be? Ideally, you'd like another LB to step up so the former Bingham Miner doesn't have to carry the front 7 by himself.
CBs: a lot of things can and have been said about the history the cornerback position at BYU. They are either really quick but short with no ability to play or the ball or tall but slow with no ability to be close enough to even play the ball at all. I think this year, these guys might actually be better than the traditional BYU CB. Both starters from last year are returning, and they were better than half-decent. Brandon Bradley showed promise last year: he was in on a lot of tackles (4th on the team), however, he didn't get a single interception the entire season (you can't have a starting corner in Division I that didn't get a single pick). He did force two fumbles, though, so at least he's involved in creating turnovers somehow. Brian Logan got better at playing the ball last year as the year went along (he even ended up with 14 pass break-ups, which was one of the best in the country), but he needs to improve dramatically: teams will continue to pick on him because of his size, or lack thereof (his percentage of pass break-ups was not very spectacular). He had 6 or 7 pass interference penalties and also gave up a lot of receptions. Where these two corners definitely excel is in preventing YAC (yards after the catch). The backups are supposedly serviceable. Lee Acquirre played quite a bit last year and played about as well as the starters. Corby Eason and Robbie Buckner were in the hunt for the starting jobs last year and would probably be decent, if playing them became necessary. They lack size, though both are bigger than Logan. In 2011, those two will probably be starting.
Safeties: Andrew Rich is a beast. He led the team in tackles (and it wasn't even close). He tied for the team lead in picks with 4. He was occasionally used as a blitzer, very effectively. He played tough on screens and swing passes. He was all over the field. And he did all of that with injuries to his ankle and shoulder that required surgery in the offseason. Unfortunately, you have to play two safeties. Plus, Rich doesn't have a solid backup either. This is the one position where they are set and screwed at the same time. Rich is the best player on the defense, but they have no quality free safety options. I wouldn't be completely surprised if Rich moves to free safety, since the guys competing for free safety are really strong safeties anyway and he has such a mastery of the defensive schemes. I think that would be a mistake, personally, and I hope they don't do it. If they don't discover a quality free safety, the QB of BYU's D, they might be in trouble, regardless of how well everybody else does.
BYU has plenty of talent. They have mostly bigger, faster, stronger players than last year, but they are definitely much greener. I think the greenies can and will pull out 8 or 9 wins. I don't expect 10, but if they get 6, I will second guess personnel decisions across the board. I'll blame Harvey Unga for his honor code issues. I'll blast recruiting strategies and results. I will pick apart every aspect of the program that I don't agree with. I'm a fan and blogger, so I can do that! Just kidding. I think Bronco is doing a great job. I think the program is miles ahead of where it would be at this time with K-Whit. He's perfect for Utah, Bronco is perfect for BYU. I will, however, be brutally honest with what I think is happening with the program. I think the long-term future looks very bright for the program, though in the short-term some growing pains are to be expected.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
MWC Football Outlook 2010
What the MWC Media/Coaches are probably going to say:
1. TCU
2. Utah
3. BYU
4. Air Force
5. Wyoming
6. UNLV
7. SDSU
8. CSU
9. New Mexico
So let's look at the likelihood of teams ending up like that, followed by what I think actually happens:
TCU
Why they will win the conference: they are returning pretty much the entire offense from the most dynamic offensive MWC team from 2009. Their defense loses a few key guys and one of their returning starters at LB is uncertain for the early part of the year. But they were by far the best defense in 2009, and for the better part of the past decade they have always had a great defense. If their offense is clicking too, they are nearly unstoppable.
Why they won't win the conference: the last time TCU came in as the defending MWC champ and super-hyped, potential BCS buster (2006), they busted. BYU dominated them in Fort Worth on the Horned Frogs' way to a 6-6 record. They seem to relish the underdog role: see what happened to them in Provo last year vs. what they did at the Fiesta Bowl. There is some uncertainty on D, losing two key DBs and both starting LBs (Tank Carden will likely be unavailable the early part of the season), so things must gel quickly for their aggressive, hit you in the mouth, and ride you all the way down the field mentality on defense. Also, they have to play at Utah, which has become a tougher and tougher place to play each year during the K-Whit era. TCU also has the unfortunate disadvantage of playing 3 games at altitudes more than 3,000 feet higher than Fort Worth.
Utah
Why they will finish 2nd or higher: they always have a good D, same as TCU, so having to replace a few key guys shouldn't be a huge issue. They sometimes struggle on offense. They are returning a lot of firepower at RB with Asiata and Wide (and Shakerin, if you count him, but I don't anticipate he'll see much action, since he was only the "wild Ute" RB after Asiata got hurt) and with Wynn coming back at QB. They also get TCU and BYU at home.
Why they will finish 3rd or lower: that D that has always been good has never seen the type of turnover the past two years have dealt it. Two years ago, they lost 3 playmakers. Last year, they lost the other 3. A non-BCS school can't deal with the loss of 6 defensive playmakers in 2 years: not with recruiting classes perennially in the 40's and 50's. They have a tough non-conference slate (Pitt, at Iowa State, at Notre Dame) which does a couple of things: exposes your weaknesses, increases your chances of injury, and puts a wear and tear on young men's bodies. Their 3 toughest conference games are all in the final month of the season. The game at Air Force just before hosting TCU could be a look-ahead game if the Utes and Frogs are both undefeated and in the top 10. They follow that up at ND then at SDSU, before the rivalry game against BYU. That's a very physical month for any team.
BYU
Longer preview to come later this week
Air Force
Why they'll finish in the top half of the conference: they are the ultimate model of consistency in the MWC (besides BYU). They have finished in the top half of the conference each of the past three years. Most of their toughest conference games are at home. They are probably the team that TCU seems to struggle with the most (though in both MWC home games against Air Force, TCU has blown them out). They bring back the core of a group that played surprisingly down the stretch last year, culminating in a blowout win over Houston in the Armed Forces Bowl.
Why they'll finish in the bottom half of the conference: they usually have had a tendency fade down the stretch, and their schedule the first month doesn't exactly inspire confidence that they can make up for that a hot start. I wouldn't be all that surprised to see them start 1-3 on the season (Northwestern State, BYU, at Oklahoma, at Wyoming), 0-2 in MWC play, and that's before playing TCU and Utah.
Wyoming
Why they can break into the top half of the conference: finished the season on a good note for the first time in years. They bring back a decent offensive unit. This year, they made some changes on D that should make for an improvement on that side of the ball. Typically, the D carries the O, but last year it was the opposite. If they can get on the same page this year, watch out. Plus, all they really have to do to bust in to the top half is beat Air Force out. They get them early in the year, at home, and, with a win, could create the separation they need to bust into the top 4. They also gave Utah a run for their money last year, and they'll get them at home this year.
Why they falter and drop back to the also-rans of the MWC: last year, the conference was really weak after the top 4, somebody had to move up. This year, the bottom half will be improved, and Wyoming won't be able to or receive a bowl bid kind of by default. The switch to the 4-3 could blow up in their face. Austyn Carta-Samuels could have a sophomore slump and the O wouldn't probably recover from that. Both of those are possibilities.
UNLV
Why this year is finally their year: they brought in a proven winner, with Bobby Hauck. He will instill discipline and a team-first mentality. They have some beef on the lines, coupled with some speed on the outside. They have shown they can play with some of the bigger boys, they just haven't been able to pull of wins in those games.
Why it's the same story, different year, different coach: coach Hauck might not be able to handle some of the prima donna attitudes of his more talented players. He never experienced that at Montana! His emphasis on discipline may lead to division among the team between those who buy in and those who don't. They have to travel to Utah in week two, a week after playing Big Ten physicality in Wisconsin. They also have a difficult stretch of 4 games that could doom their season: at West Virginia, at CSU, TCU, at BYU.
SDSU
Why you can believe Coach Hoke has these boys headed in the right direction: they could start the season 3-1, which would be a huge confidence boost. They nearly made a bowl game last year and this year's schedule looks a lot easier. They had a much more consistent offense last year than they have had in recent memory. They have always relied on the big play, but they were able to have a few solid, long drives from time to time. If they can beef up a bit on the line, they might actually have a decent squad. The running game needs a feature back, or at least one of the two main backs being a little more of a playmaker (Walter Kazee and Brandon Sullivan combined for only THREE carries over 20 yards: some of the better RBs in the MWC had multiple games where they had 3 carries over 20 yards!).
Why they will finish where they always finish, in a fight for last place: they are very young. There is virtually no senior leadership. None of the players on the team have experienced a .500 record in Division I football! I know it's cliche, but they are probably a year away [from being able to win 8 games]. They have little to no home-field advantage (Utah State, Utah, Air Force, even UNLV...). All of their road games are played at altitude (NMSU, UNM, BYU, Wyoming) and/or against very good opponents (Missouri, BYU, TCU).
CSU
Why they might return to their 2008 form in 2010: they have a couple of really solid RBs. That's about all I got for them this next year. It's going to be a rough one.
Why the 9-game collapse from last year carries over into this year, and beyond: 5 home games. 5 games at home. 2 of those are BYU and TCU. The other 3 are losable games as well: Idaho, UNLV, and New Mexico. They are breaking in a new QB, a mostly new OL, and have to replace 2 of the most productive WRs in their program's history. They aren't even a year away.
New Mexico
Why they'll win more than one game this year: this is also a tough one, perhaps not quite as tough as CSU though! They have 5 winnable games (at UNLV, UTEP, SDSU, at NMSU, at CSU), they should be able to pull out 2 of them, maybe. The good news is they play all 5 in a row, so they could even get on a winning streak (it's been 3 years since they had one of those). There isn't a big off-the-field controversy to distract players. Yet.
Why they won't: at Oregon, Texas Tech, Utah, and that's just the first three games of the season. The last 3 don't look much better: at Air Force, at BYU, TCU. They are losing a 4-year starter at QB (granted he had a horrible senior year, but still). They did get a big hog-molly for their defensive front, perhaps the biggest "get" for a non-BCS team on signing day, but one man won't improve one of the worst defenses from last year west of the Mississippi, which includes some pretty pathetic teams.
How I actually see it:
The past few years, the top 3 have segregated themselves from the pack. They have been closely followed by Air Force, who has been closely followed by the 5th best team. So the real questions would seem to be who is going to rise to be the 5th team and what order will the top 3 be in. I disagree. I think the top 4, yes, including Air Force, will dominate the bottom 5 so badly, that there may not be a 5th team that rises to the middle of the pack. I think this year, Air Force can not only break into the top three, but maybe even slide into the 2nd spot. They will need a win over either BYU or Utah, but they may not even need both to get to 2nd place. They have 2 difficult 2-game stretches (BYU, then at Oklahoma; @TCU, then hosting Utah), but the rest of the schedule are winnable games. The most likely teams, I think, to rise to 5th are UNLV and SDSU. UNLV gets Utah early in the year which could be a curse or a blessing. Curse: they will be healthy still on O. Blessing: Utah has got to get some stuff figured out on D, and they might not have it taken care of after just one game. SDSU could take some lumps early with a trip to BYU before hosting Air Force, and then take them again late, playing at TCU then hosting Utah in November. But that stretch in between could give them 3 straight conference wins, including two on the road. I would count Wyoming out merely based on confidence level: they have to play Air Force, @ TCU, Utah, and @ BYU their first 4 conference games. They might get one of those, but it's tough to imagine them getting 2 or 3 and going into the easy half of the schedule with any confidence. I believe the standings might look like this:
1. TCU
2. Air Force
3. Utah
4. BYU
5. UNLV
6. Wyoming
7. SDSU
8. CSU
9. New Mexico
So really, I think the MWC will undervalue Air Force and overvalue Wyoming. I'm probably wrong. It's still early: no way to tell how things shake out with injuries or star RBs withdrawing from school or anything of the sort. But it's still fun to talk about. If I were a betting man, I'd go all-in on the following: TCU winning the crown, Utah finishing in the top 3, and CSU and New Mexico finishing in the bottom 3. Of course, my all-in at this point in life would be about $2, so it isn't that big of a risk anyway!
1. TCU
2. Utah
3. BYU
4. Air Force
5. Wyoming
6. UNLV
7. SDSU
8. CSU
9. New Mexico
So let's look at the likelihood of teams ending up like that, followed by what I think actually happens:
TCU
Why they will win the conference: they are returning pretty much the entire offense from the most dynamic offensive MWC team from 2009. Their defense loses a few key guys and one of their returning starters at LB is uncertain for the early part of the year. But they were by far the best defense in 2009, and for the better part of the past decade they have always had a great defense. If their offense is clicking too, they are nearly unstoppable.
Why they won't win the conference: the last time TCU came in as the defending MWC champ and super-hyped, potential BCS buster (2006), they busted. BYU dominated them in Fort Worth on the Horned Frogs' way to a 6-6 record. They seem to relish the underdog role: see what happened to them in Provo last year vs. what they did at the Fiesta Bowl. There is some uncertainty on D, losing two key DBs and both starting LBs (Tank Carden will likely be unavailable the early part of the season), so things must gel quickly for their aggressive, hit you in the mouth, and ride you all the way down the field mentality on defense. Also, they have to play at Utah, which has become a tougher and tougher place to play each year during the K-Whit era. TCU also has the unfortunate disadvantage of playing 3 games at altitudes more than 3,000 feet higher than Fort Worth.
Utah
Why they will finish 2nd or higher: they always have a good D, same as TCU, so having to replace a few key guys shouldn't be a huge issue. They sometimes struggle on offense. They are returning a lot of firepower at RB with Asiata and Wide (and Shakerin, if you count him, but I don't anticipate he'll see much action, since he was only the "wild Ute" RB after Asiata got hurt) and with Wynn coming back at QB. They also get TCU and BYU at home.
Why they will finish 3rd or lower: that D that has always been good has never seen the type of turnover the past two years have dealt it. Two years ago, they lost 3 playmakers. Last year, they lost the other 3. A non-BCS school can't deal with the loss of 6 defensive playmakers in 2 years: not with recruiting classes perennially in the 40's and 50's. They have a tough non-conference slate (Pitt, at Iowa State, at Notre Dame) which does a couple of things: exposes your weaknesses, increases your chances of injury, and puts a wear and tear on young men's bodies. Their 3 toughest conference games are all in the final month of the season. The game at Air Force just before hosting TCU could be a look-ahead game if the Utes and Frogs are both undefeated and in the top 10. They follow that up at ND then at SDSU, before the rivalry game against BYU. That's a very physical month for any team.
BYU
Longer preview to come later this week
Air Force
Why they'll finish in the top half of the conference: they are the ultimate model of consistency in the MWC (besides BYU). They have finished in the top half of the conference each of the past three years. Most of their toughest conference games are at home. They are probably the team that TCU seems to struggle with the most (though in both MWC home games against Air Force, TCU has blown them out). They bring back the core of a group that played surprisingly down the stretch last year, culminating in a blowout win over Houston in the Armed Forces Bowl.
Why they'll finish in the bottom half of the conference: they usually have had a tendency fade down the stretch, and their schedule the first month doesn't exactly inspire confidence that they can make up for that a hot start. I wouldn't be all that surprised to see them start 1-3 on the season (Northwestern State, BYU, at Oklahoma, at Wyoming), 0-2 in MWC play, and that's before playing TCU and Utah.
Wyoming
Why they can break into the top half of the conference: finished the season on a good note for the first time in years. They bring back a decent offensive unit. This year, they made some changes on D that should make for an improvement on that side of the ball. Typically, the D carries the O, but last year it was the opposite. If they can get on the same page this year, watch out. Plus, all they really have to do to bust in to the top half is beat Air Force out. They get them early in the year, at home, and, with a win, could create the separation they need to bust into the top 4. They also gave Utah a run for their money last year, and they'll get them at home this year.
Why they falter and drop back to the also-rans of the MWC: last year, the conference was really weak after the top 4, somebody had to move up. This year, the bottom half will be improved, and Wyoming won't be able to or receive a bowl bid kind of by default. The switch to the 4-3 could blow up in their face. Austyn Carta-Samuels could have a sophomore slump and the O wouldn't probably recover from that. Both of those are possibilities.
UNLV
Why this year is finally their year: they brought in a proven winner, with Bobby Hauck. He will instill discipline and a team-first mentality. They have some beef on the lines, coupled with some speed on the outside. They have shown they can play with some of the bigger boys, they just haven't been able to pull of wins in those games.
Why it's the same story, different year, different coach: coach Hauck might not be able to handle some of the prima donna attitudes of his more talented players. He never experienced that at Montana! His emphasis on discipline may lead to division among the team between those who buy in and those who don't. They have to travel to Utah in week two, a week after playing Big Ten physicality in Wisconsin. They also have a difficult stretch of 4 games that could doom their season: at West Virginia, at CSU, TCU, at BYU.
SDSU
Why you can believe Coach Hoke has these boys headed in the right direction: they could start the season 3-1, which would be a huge confidence boost. They nearly made a bowl game last year and this year's schedule looks a lot easier. They had a much more consistent offense last year than they have had in recent memory. They have always relied on the big play, but they were able to have a few solid, long drives from time to time. If they can beef up a bit on the line, they might actually have a decent squad. The running game needs a feature back, or at least one of the two main backs being a little more of a playmaker (Walter Kazee and Brandon Sullivan combined for only THREE carries over 20 yards: some of the better RBs in the MWC had multiple games where they had 3 carries over 20 yards!).
Why they will finish where they always finish, in a fight for last place: they are very young. There is virtually no senior leadership. None of the players on the team have experienced a .500 record in Division I football! I know it's cliche, but they are probably a year away [from being able to win 8 games]. They have little to no home-field advantage (Utah State, Utah, Air Force, even UNLV...). All of their road games are played at altitude (NMSU, UNM, BYU, Wyoming) and/or against very good opponents (Missouri, BYU, TCU).
CSU
Why they might return to their 2008 form in 2010: they have a couple of really solid RBs. That's about all I got for them this next year. It's going to be a rough one.
Why the 9-game collapse from last year carries over into this year, and beyond: 5 home games. 5 games at home. 2 of those are BYU and TCU. The other 3 are losable games as well: Idaho, UNLV, and New Mexico. They are breaking in a new QB, a mostly new OL, and have to replace 2 of the most productive WRs in their program's history. They aren't even a year away.
New Mexico
Why they'll win more than one game this year: this is also a tough one, perhaps not quite as tough as CSU though! They have 5 winnable games (at UNLV, UTEP, SDSU, at NMSU, at CSU), they should be able to pull out 2 of them, maybe. The good news is they play all 5 in a row, so they could even get on a winning streak (it's been 3 years since they had one of those). There isn't a big off-the-field controversy to distract players. Yet.
Why they won't: at Oregon, Texas Tech, Utah, and that's just the first three games of the season. The last 3 don't look much better: at Air Force, at BYU, TCU. They are losing a 4-year starter at QB (granted he had a horrible senior year, but still). They did get a big hog-molly for their defensive front, perhaps the biggest "get" for a non-BCS team on signing day, but one man won't improve one of the worst defenses from last year west of the Mississippi, which includes some pretty pathetic teams.
How I actually see it:
The past few years, the top 3 have segregated themselves from the pack. They have been closely followed by Air Force, who has been closely followed by the 5th best team. So the real questions would seem to be who is going to rise to be the 5th team and what order will the top 3 be in. I disagree. I think the top 4, yes, including Air Force, will dominate the bottom 5 so badly, that there may not be a 5th team that rises to the middle of the pack. I think this year, Air Force can not only break into the top three, but maybe even slide into the 2nd spot. They will need a win over either BYU or Utah, but they may not even need both to get to 2nd place. They have 2 difficult 2-game stretches (BYU, then at Oklahoma; @TCU, then hosting Utah), but the rest of the schedule are winnable games. The most likely teams, I think, to rise to 5th are UNLV and SDSU. UNLV gets Utah early in the year which could be a curse or a blessing. Curse: they will be healthy still on O. Blessing: Utah has got to get some stuff figured out on D, and they might not have it taken care of after just one game. SDSU could take some lumps early with a trip to BYU before hosting Air Force, and then take them again late, playing at TCU then hosting Utah in November. But that stretch in between could give them 3 straight conference wins, including two on the road. I would count Wyoming out merely based on confidence level: they have to play Air Force, @ TCU, Utah, and @ BYU their first 4 conference games. They might get one of those, but it's tough to imagine them getting 2 or 3 and going into the easy half of the schedule with any confidence. I believe the standings might look like this:
1. TCU
2. Air Force
3. Utah
4. BYU
5. UNLV
6. Wyoming
7. SDSU
8. CSU
9. New Mexico
So really, I think the MWC will undervalue Air Force and overvalue Wyoming. I'm probably wrong. It's still early: no way to tell how things shake out with injuries or star RBs withdrawing from school or anything of the sort. But it's still fun to talk about. If I were a betting man, I'd go all-in on the following: TCU winning the crown, Utah finishing in the top 3, and CSU and New Mexico finishing in the bottom 3. Of course, my all-in at this point in life would be about $2, so it isn't that big of a risk anyway!
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
BYU basketball season in review and preview
This was definitely a landmark season for BYU basketball. Most wins in school history. Ranked for 12 straight weeks, including in the final poll of the season. NCAA Tournament win for the first time in 17 years. Had an All-American for the first time in 22 years, not counting Lee Cummard's 4th team Foxsports.com All America Team last year (I'm not counting it as pretty much nobody else is).
They accomplished a lot: more than any other BYU team in the last 25 years. There are only 2 or 3 BYU teams ever to have the kind of success BYU did this year. But they still left a lot on the table. They lost at home. Didn't win the conference title. Lost to UNLV in the MWC Tournament again. Missed a chance to play in the Sweet 16 in Salt Lake City.
They got a great start out of Tyler Haws, a great finish out of Michael Loyd, and several memorable performances throughout by Jimmer Fredette. There were some very bright spots. There were some pretty low points. There were some incredible victories. There were some bitter losses. They found a way to win in the NCAA tournament, in double OT. They found a way to let a SINGLE player eliminate them from the NCAA tournament. Again.
So here's what they lose:
Chris Miles: solid, big-bodied defensive center. Didn't score much. Not a particularly great rebounder. But he got his hands on a lot of balls and the guy he was boxing out never got the rebound. His size was a great asset to the team. Offensively, his 4.5 points per game won't really be missed. By the end of the season, he wasn't getting but 10-15 minutes a game anyways.
Jonathan Tavernari: the occasionally hot, but sometimes very not, PF. He combined his thick body with quickness and was a great post defender. He was versatile enough to play the 3 on rare occasions. He could keep you in a game with his shooting, or he could put you out of reach with his poor shot selection. I think his senior year was a bit of a waste. He was a mental case a lot of the time and didn't have his head in the game. The one thing he always did really well was eat up minutes. That will be missed because there isn't another 3/4 combo that can do that.
Lamont Morgan Jr: team captain and back-up to Jimmer at PG. He was injured the last 10 games of the season, so, in a way, BYU has already moved on from him.
Tyler Haws: slashing SG/SF with a mid-range game and money from the charity stripe. His shot was crucial to the early 14-1 non-conference stretch. However, he hit a wall with his shot about mid-January. He found ways to score driving to the hoop and at the free throw line but he was 0 for February outside of 8-10 feet. He missed a few games with injury and had some foul trouble throughout the season. BYU should be able to absorb his absence for his mission fairly well.
Who is coming in:
Kyle Collinsworth: Utah's Mr. Everything. He was everything this year in Utah High School hoops that Tyler Haws was last year, but with a little more size and length. He's 6'6", 200 lbs. Supposedly his outside shot is a little better as well. He may not start as Haws did as a freshman, but that would only be because Charles Abouo has improved and will get the starting nod.
Anson Winder: PG out of Las Vegas. He is supposedly really quick. He isn't the most highly rated player and he's unlikely to see much time with Jimmer and Michael Loyd sitting ahead of him in the depth chart. I would be shocked if he played more than James Anderson does next year.
Chris Collinsworth: former Mr. Everything in Utah. Played PF as a freshman before his mission. He was stabbed while in Australia, but has fully recovered. His conditioning will be a big question mark, though. His jump shot was not even a question mark (more like an emphatic no with 3 !!! after it) before and I don't anticipate that it improved after two years Down Under. He is, however, a solid rebounder and potential shot-blocker. He showed flashes of brilliance as a freshman, but also showed flashes of coordination issues. He should have grown into his body a bit. Again, his conditioning will be crucial. With James Anderson as the backup center, Collinsworth will need to provide solid minutes so Noah Hartsock can 1) get a breather and 2) play center some so Coach Rose can keep James Anderson on the bench where he belongs. With his size, he might be able to play a little C as well.
Nick Martineau: PG, played some as a freshman prior to his mission. Bad place to be on the depth chart for next year's team. My guess is that he'll redshirt next year.
Concern for next year's squad:
Depth in the post. Tavernari, for all the negatives he brought with him on the court, will be sorely missed. His 24 minutes a game allowed Noah Hartsock to sit on the bench and play some C (roughly 8-9 minutes per game) when Miles and Davies got in foul trouble or couldn't match up with the opposing big man (which seemed like most games). They add Collinsworth, which should help that somewhat. But they are losing 40 minutes of C/PF play in Miles and Tavernari. Davies can play another 5-10 minutes a game and Anderson improved enough to where he could play 8-10 minutes a game without putting the game in jeopardy. When Davies is in foul trouble is where the issue is HUGE.
How to fix it:
Davies puts on 10 pounds. Collinsworth gets in really good shape, really fast, and maintains it the entire year. Also, they have one scholarship available, if they can get a Division I-ready Junior College PF/C who isn't already committed elsewhere. Anyone want to guess how many of those are just sitting around waiting for BYU to offer them a scholarship?
What the team looks like:
The top 7 or 8 on next year's team could be much more talented than this year's top 7 or 8 (it's after that where the problems lie). The starting 5 should be better. Consider:
Jimmer without mono, strep, gonorrhea, or whatever other ailments he had last year, with Michael Loyd backing him up. Better at the PG spot.
Jackson Emery with the confidence to hit a fadeaway 3 with 1 minute left in the NCAA Tournament, and always a 1st-team MWC defender. As good, or hopefully improved, at the 2 spot.
Abouo with another year of experience under his belt and Collinsworth bringing his length and basketball IQ to the 3 spot. That two-headed monster should be as good or better than the combo of shorter/smaller Haws and less-experienced Abouo.
Hartsock another year older, more confident in his offensive abilities, and more adept at playing other post players, with Collinsworth, a much bigger defender than JT was, backing him up. Improved at the PF spot down low, but with zero threat of outside shooting.
Davies should be much more consistent as a sophomore offensively. He has a knack for getting in foul trouble, though, but with 10 pounds and a lecture on not flopping on D, he should be better there. He could become a shot blocker if he worked at it, he's so long. Either way, offensively and athletically, vast improvement at C.
I don't anticipate Zylstra, Magnusson, or Anderson to play particularly large roles on the team next year, though Magnusson could certainly play a few quality minutes a game and Anderson can buy you a possession or two without screwing up (provided the opposing team isn't paying attention that he entered the game for that period of time).
Reason they will win the MWC: home court advantage.
Reason they won't win the MWC: road woes, particularly New Mexico and UNLV. The inability to handle 40 minutes of full-court pressure. Also, I believe UNLV and SDSU will be improved and New Mexico will be nearly as good. Really, everybody in the conference should be better next year, excluding Utah and TCU who lose a lot of players (in Utah's case, literally half of the team has graduated or transferred).
Actual outlook: if the Collinsworth brothers contribute next year and if Davies and Hartsock up their combined scoring to about 20 points/game (right about 12 PPG this season), there is no reason they won't win or finish second in the MWC. However, things could easily not come together and they could finish as low as 4th. I think with the leadership of Jimmer Fredette and Jackson Emery, it would be hard to imagine a scenario where they don't finish 2nd or higher.
SDSU and UNLV always lose a game or two they shouldn't, you can bank on that every year (this year: at Wyoming for SDSU and two losses to Utah for UNLV). New Mexico, who won the conference by one game (a 2-point win at BYU when Jimmer didn't play much because of illness), caught a lot of breaks this year that they might not get next year, especially having to face an improved MWC without Ramon Martinez. No matter how the rest of it plays out, I think BYU could contend for a conference championship. They are certainly not the frontrunner, and definitely shouldn't be. But any of the top 4 could make a push for the title, so why couldn't BYU come out on top? I think they likely end up 2nd, probably behind SDSU, but that's just me, a long time ahead of the season without knowing how the schedules look or what injuries might occur or which freshmen will make immediate impacts.
They accomplished a lot: more than any other BYU team in the last 25 years. There are only 2 or 3 BYU teams ever to have the kind of success BYU did this year. But they still left a lot on the table. They lost at home. Didn't win the conference title. Lost to UNLV in the MWC Tournament again. Missed a chance to play in the Sweet 16 in Salt Lake City.
They got a great start out of Tyler Haws, a great finish out of Michael Loyd, and several memorable performances throughout by Jimmer Fredette. There were some very bright spots. There were some pretty low points. There were some incredible victories. There were some bitter losses. They found a way to win in the NCAA tournament, in double OT. They found a way to let a SINGLE player eliminate them from the NCAA tournament. Again.
So here's what they lose:
Chris Miles: solid, big-bodied defensive center. Didn't score much. Not a particularly great rebounder. But he got his hands on a lot of balls and the guy he was boxing out never got the rebound. His size was a great asset to the team. Offensively, his 4.5 points per game won't really be missed. By the end of the season, he wasn't getting but 10-15 minutes a game anyways.
Jonathan Tavernari: the occasionally hot, but sometimes very not, PF. He combined his thick body with quickness and was a great post defender. He was versatile enough to play the 3 on rare occasions. He could keep you in a game with his shooting, or he could put you out of reach with his poor shot selection. I think his senior year was a bit of a waste. He was a mental case a lot of the time and didn't have his head in the game. The one thing he always did really well was eat up minutes. That will be missed because there isn't another 3/4 combo that can do that.
Lamont Morgan Jr: team captain and back-up to Jimmer at PG. He was injured the last 10 games of the season, so, in a way, BYU has already moved on from him.
Tyler Haws: slashing SG/SF with a mid-range game and money from the charity stripe. His shot was crucial to the early 14-1 non-conference stretch. However, he hit a wall with his shot about mid-January. He found ways to score driving to the hoop and at the free throw line but he was 0 for February outside of 8-10 feet. He missed a few games with injury and had some foul trouble throughout the season. BYU should be able to absorb his absence for his mission fairly well.
Who is coming in:
Kyle Collinsworth: Utah's Mr. Everything. He was everything this year in Utah High School hoops that Tyler Haws was last year, but with a little more size and length. He's 6'6", 200 lbs. Supposedly his outside shot is a little better as well. He may not start as Haws did as a freshman, but that would only be because Charles Abouo has improved and will get the starting nod.
Anson Winder: PG out of Las Vegas. He is supposedly really quick. He isn't the most highly rated player and he's unlikely to see much time with Jimmer and Michael Loyd sitting ahead of him in the depth chart. I would be shocked if he played more than James Anderson does next year.
Chris Collinsworth: former Mr. Everything in Utah. Played PF as a freshman before his mission. He was stabbed while in Australia, but has fully recovered. His conditioning will be a big question mark, though. His jump shot was not even a question mark (more like an emphatic no with 3 !!! after it) before and I don't anticipate that it improved after two years Down Under. He is, however, a solid rebounder and potential shot-blocker. He showed flashes of brilliance as a freshman, but also showed flashes of coordination issues. He should have grown into his body a bit. Again, his conditioning will be crucial. With James Anderson as the backup center, Collinsworth will need to provide solid minutes so Noah Hartsock can 1) get a breather and 2) play center some so Coach Rose can keep James Anderson on the bench where he belongs. With his size, he might be able to play a little C as well.
Nick Martineau: PG, played some as a freshman prior to his mission. Bad place to be on the depth chart for next year's team. My guess is that he'll redshirt next year.
Concern for next year's squad:
Depth in the post. Tavernari, for all the negatives he brought with him on the court, will be sorely missed. His 24 minutes a game allowed Noah Hartsock to sit on the bench and play some C (roughly 8-9 minutes per game) when Miles and Davies got in foul trouble or couldn't match up with the opposing big man (which seemed like most games). They add Collinsworth, which should help that somewhat. But they are losing 40 minutes of C/PF play in Miles and Tavernari. Davies can play another 5-10 minutes a game and Anderson improved enough to where he could play 8-10 minutes a game without putting the game in jeopardy. When Davies is in foul trouble is where the issue is HUGE.
How to fix it:
Davies puts on 10 pounds. Collinsworth gets in really good shape, really fast, and maintains it the entire year. Also, they have one scholarship available, if they can get a Division I-ready Junior College PF/C who isn't already committed elsewhere. Anyone want to guess how many of those are just sitting around waiting for BYU to offer them a scholarship?
What the team looks like:
The top 7 or 8 on next year's team could be much more talented than this year's top 7 or 8 (it's after that where the problems lie). The starting 5 should be better. Consider:
Jimmer without mono, strep, gonorrhea, or whatever other ailments he had last year, with Michael Loyd backing him up. Better at the PG spot.
Jackson Emery with the confidence to hit a fadeaway 3 with 1 minute left in the NCAA Tournament, and always a 1st-team MWC defender. As good, or hopefully improved, at the 2 spot.
Abouo with another year of experience under his belt and Collinsworth bringing his length and basketball IQ to the 3 spot. That two-headed monster should be as good or better than the combo of shorter/smaller Haws and less-experienced Abouo.
Hartsock another year older, more confident in his offensive abilities, and more adept at playing other post players, with Collinsworth, a much bigger defender than JT was, backing him up. Improved at the PF spot down low, but with zero threat of outside shooting.
Davies should be much more consistent as a sophomore offensively. He has a knack for getting in foul trouble, though, but with 10 pounds and a lecture on not flopping on D, he should be better there. He could become a shot blocker if he worked at it, he's so long. Either way, offensively and athletically, vast improvement at C.
I don't anticipate Zylstra, Magnusson, or Anderson to play particularly large roles on the team next year, though Magnusson could certainly play a few quality minutes a game and Anderson can buy you a possession or two without screwing up (provided the opposing team isn't paying attention that he entered the game for that period of time).
Reason they will win the MWC: home court advantage.
Reason they won't win the MWC: road woes, particularly New Mexico and UNLV. The inability to handle 40 minutes of full-court pressure. Also, I believe UNLV and SDSU will be improved and New Mexico will be nearly as good. Really, everybody in the conference should be better next year, excluding Utah and TCU who lose a lot of players (in Utah's case, literally half of the team has graduated or transferred).
Actual outlook: if the Collinsworth brothers contribute next year and if Davies and Hartsock up their combined scoring to about 20 points/game (right about 12 PPG this season), there is no reason they won't win or finish second in the MWC. However, things could easily not come together and they could finish as low as 4th. I think with the leadership of Jimmer Fredette and Jackson Emery, it would be hard to imagine a scenario where they don't finish 2nd or higher.
SDSU and UNLV always lose a game or two they shouldn't, you can bank on that every year (this year: at Wyoming for SDSU and two losses to Utah for UNLV). New Mexico, who won the conference by one game (a 2-point win at BYU when Jimmer didn't play much because of illness), caught a lot of breaks this year that they might not get next year, especially having to face an improved MWC without Ramon Martinez. No matter how the rest of it plays out, I think BYU could contend for a conference championship. They are certainly not the frontrunner, and definitely shouldn't be. But any of the top 4 could make a push for the title, so why couldn't BYU come out on top? I think they likely end up 2nd, probably behind SDSU, but that's just me, a long time ahead of the season without knowing how the schedules look or what injuries might occur or which freshmen will make immediate impacts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)