...to know what is actually going on. The MWC has invited Fresno State and Nevada. That is official. That is the ONLY OFFICIAL news about this whole thing right now. There are reports that say that Fresno State and Nevada have accepted. There are reports that neither can afford the recently added $5M buyout to leave the WAC. There are reports that Nevada never signed such an agreement. First off, how can a board of directors receive an invitation and accept it in the same day, when yesterday they had no idea that the invitation would come?
Also, there is nothing official about BYU going independent. I keep hearing "done deal." Texas was once a done deal too. Would the potential move by Fresno State and Nevada "undo" it? Perhaps those moves would be enough to revamp the TV deal in such a way to keep BYU? Honestly, I think the move was done to screw BYU, not to try to convince them to stay. They could have moved for a Conference USA school like Houston, which would help them much more, but they chose to go after WAC universities.
If the WAC only has 6 teams, they dissipate unless they add at least 2 more members. Football-wise, the WAC couldn't add anybody at Fresno State or Nevada's level: they don't have enough to offer Houston. If BYU couldn't land its other sports in the WAC, is football independence a viable option?
Would the West Coast Conference be a potential fit? There's a lot of Saints in the WCC, i.e. religious schools. Between St. Mary's and Gonzaga, the hoops is a decent draw. As far as other sports, who cares? The MWC, WAC, WCC? If there is a difference in level of competition, the average person doesn't have any idea.
As I said earlier today, I was against the move when I read last night that it was a consideration. Unfortunately, I don't have my notes with me, so I can't be as thorough as I would like. First off, for football it's a much better situation. More revenue. More exposure. Two things that the MWC has not done for them anymore than the old WAC did. BYU got as much TV revenue and more exposure in one football game aired on ESPN last season than they did from 11 other football games, one dominating bowl win, 35+ basketball games, and an NCAA Tournament win combined. If ESPN paid them $1M for 2-4 games a year, they are already making more money. If BYU-TV was able to broadcast other games, or if they got on CBS-CS against Service Academies or NBC with Notre Dame, they could stand to easily triple, quadruple, or perhaps more their TV revenue. Plus a package with ESPN and BYU-TV would make it easier to schedule games than this sales pitch: come play us and you can be on the Mtn. No, the picture is always that fuzzy, no, they don't usually have a first down line on the TV, and yes, the announcers always say stupid stuff like that. Obviously, increase revenue and exposure from football is huge!
However, basketball is (and other sports are) definitely getting hurt. They are going from a 3-bid league to a one-bid league. They SHOULD dominate the WAC, but EVERY loss counts double what an MWC loss would. Last season, BYU didn't win the conference championship. They didn't even play in the MWC Tournament Final. They lost 5 games to MWC opponents. They still managed a 7-seed in the NCAA tournament. If they lose 2 or 3 games in the WAC, they are firmly on the bubble. With an easier schedule, the margin for error decreases substantially. I don't like what this does to hoops: Dave Rose has built this program up after Steve Cleveland laid the foundation. A switch to the WAC could unravel that. The WCC has a better reputation right now than the WAC.
Football scheduling becomes better and harder all at once. They have the freedom to NOT go to Laramie, Albuquerque, or Fort Collins. That is exciting. However, the freedom to schedule 12 games that you actually want to play means that you have to get 12 non-conference games. BYU has struggled to get 4 OOC games at times, and after beating Oklahoma last year, that should get even tougher: nobody wants to play BYU because they might lose. Washington opted out of the last two games in their series with BYU to add I-AA teams. Also, any goodwill BYU basketball built up as a member of the MWC disappears when it goes to the WAC. Coach Rose stated that they approached over half of the BCS schools for games this year. UCLA is the only BCS addition to the schedule (Arizona was already on the schedule from a two-year contract)! Out of nearly 40 schools approached, they only got ONE! In the WAC, that number may not go down, but it certainly won't go up either.
Well, I had some other points, but if Fresno State and Nevada end up joining the MWC, which it appears they have done (maybe, or not), the rest isn't valid anymore. The extension of the invitations itself says: the MWC isn't going to do ANYTHING for BYU. BYU loses its leverage. It loses its chance to prove to the Big XII how financially valuable they would be as an addition to the conference. BYU is now the Missouri of the MWC. And even if they stay, it'll make for some awkward moments. I have no doubt that BYU could be better off as an independent in football, but I have no reservations about saying, I don't like it one bit and I hope it never happens. I hope the MWC goes one step further and adds Houston, that BYU stays, and that they can renegotiate the TV contract for something more than a paltry $1.33 million per school (of course that isn't likely given that the network has operated in the red every year, and Fresno State and Nevada don't add $1.33M in revenue apiece). Then BYU can wait it out a few years, see what happens with the rest of the conferences, see if the MWC gets a BCS bid or not, and then move forward with its plans should it choose to. It is nice to see that this has pushed the MWC into action! They've been so passive to this point, it's been ridiculous. I hope that BYU does the most sensible thing right now: stay in the MWC! Don't take the money and run!
Once some things get firmly established and announced, I'll see if there's anything more to say and say it. In the meantime, all of you keep giving the rest of us your thoughts, opinions, and any substantiated news. The same sources that said BYU was going independent/WAC for sure are the same sources saying that Fresno State and Nevada are going the MWC. Those two things don't seem like they can happen at the same time.
Anyone realize Thursday marks two weeks until kickoff? CSU announced its starting QB yesterday. Air Force hasn't announced a change in its starting QB, though Conor Dietz has come on strong to battle Tim Jefferson for the starting spot. BYU doesn't appear that it will make its decision anytime soon, so early next week, I'll just give my predictions without that useful piece of information.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
It Might Be, It Could Be...
This thing apparently has some legs. Some reports are that it's a done deal, pending approval from the board of directors, i.e. the governing body of the church. [Of course, Texas going to the Pac 10 was also "done" at one point in time.] If these reports are true, this truly will only happen "if it is God's will." Either way, two weeks from yesterday we'll know for certain: any announcement to leave the MWC for the 2011 season must be made by September 1, 2010.
One other TV thought: last year, BYU was paid as much money by ESPN to play Oklahoma as it received for ALL OTHER games played in their TV contract with Comcast (The Mtn, CBS-CS, and Versus), i.e. ESPN paid them for one game what BYU got for 20+ football and men's basketball games, plus all other sports programming on the Mtn. Imagine the money they could get if BYU played mercenary for 2 or 3 other big-name games, including a true "Holy War" with Notre Dame. How much would ESPN pay for the rights (and name) to that game? Plus CBS-CS owns the rights for the Service Academies. TV revenue could increase by a factor of 10, even without a specific contract, if it were done right. Plus, ESPN would then have a vested interest in pimping BYU, which exposure could only help the school accomplish its mission. However, it's a dangerous, gutsy move to make without having something from ESPN in writing!
One other TV thought: last year, BYU was paid as much money by ESPN to play Oklahoma as it received for ALL OTHER games played in their TV contract with Comcast (The Mtn, CBS-CS, and Versus), i.e. ESPN paid them for one game what BYU got for 20+ football and men's basketball games, plus all other sports programming on the Mtn. Imagine the money they could get if BYU played mercenary for 2 or 3 other big-name games, including a true "Holy War" with Notre Dame. How much would ESPN pay for the rights (and name) to that game? Plus CBS-CS owns the rights for the Service Academies. TV revenue could increase by a factor of 10, even without a specific contract, if it were done right. Plus, ESPN would then have a vested interest in pimping BYU, which exposure could only help the school accomplish its mission. However, it's a dangerous, gutsy move to make without having something from ESPN in writing!
A Few Thoughts on Independence
BYU is the Texas of the MWC. They are not Texas by any means, I am just comparing what BYU does for the MWC being similar to what Texas does for the Big XII: make TV money and put butts in the seats. The main difference (besides the extra zero at the end of the dollar amounts), the Big XII bends over backwards for Texas, whereas the MWC seems to always do what it can to screw BYU. Is this rumor about BYU leaving the MWC for independence in football and the WAC in all other sports akin to what happened with Texas earlier this summer?
The Mtn TV deal is laughable, at best. BYU carries the network, yet receives only 1/9th of the revenue from it. Without BYU (and Utah), the deal is certainly not worth what it costs ($66 Million over the next 6 years), even with Boise State in the fold (which would apparently be in jeopardy if BYU left). So, given this breaking "development," will Comcast renegotiate the deal to try to keep BYU in the fold, or will it risk "wasting" a large portion of that $66M over the next 6 years without them. Would they, and the MWC teams, sweeten the deal to keep BYU on board (just like the Big XII did with Texas, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M)? It would probably take both a bump in the contract PLUS the MWC schools offering BYU its "fair share" (i.e. more than everybody else, aka unequal revenue sharing) to be enough to attempt to counter what BYU would get on its own.
What can BYU get for a TV contract outside on its own? Well, ESPN knows the value of BYU: they approached BYU for the opener with Oklahoma at Cowboy Stadium last year. Three of their top 10-rated football games ever have been BYU games. BYU played the first ever college football game on ESPN.
For comparison's sake: the Big East deals with ESPN and CBS are currently worth $6M per school (that also includes basketball, however). One would think that BYU would easily be worth the "average" Big East school, in football at least. BYU would still make MUCH less than all other BCS teams, but they would probably make 3 times more than what they get now from the MWC TV deal. If they aren't making 3 times the current MWC deal, the entire exercise should be nixed ASAP. Obviously, if you compare Notre Dame's sweet deal as an independent to what they would get in a conference, it's not even close. However, BYU is just as much NOT Notre Dame as they are NOT Texas.
In addition to potential ESPN deals, BYU already has its own network, which is available worldwide, and will be available in full HD prior to the 2011 football season. However, that is not a revenue-producing channel. They don't sell ads. The few "commercials" they do have are LDS church spots. They would have a very limited number of entities they would be willing to sell ads to, based on the religious nature of the current programming and university. They will only purchase textbooks from a limited number of sources (driving up the cost for students), so something tells me they will be exclusive in whom they offer commercial space to.
If BYU joined the WAC in every other sport, would they allow BYU full autonomy in broadcasting its games in other sports? Given how cash-strapped a lot of schools in the WAC are, they would probably be willing to make any concessions to add BYU. That's the rub-down on the money. BYU stands to make much more as an independent from TV deals. The WAC would also benefit from BYU too because of, again, TV revenue and butts in seats. They know this: that's why they would entertain offers for BYU. However, how much would be offset by having to travel further for 4 football road games that would have been played at MWC locations? Plus, what would be the added expenditure of all other sports traveling from Hawaii to Louisiana for games, meets, and matches?
Now to accessibility. No question that BYU-TV and ESPN are easier to get, nationwide, worldwide, and even in the MWC footprint, than the Mtn, Versus, and CBS-CS. ESPN is ESPN, they are available everywhere on every platform. BYU-TV is available on Cable in the Rocky Mountain region, plus Northern California (I hear, never lived there myself to know for sure) and on satellite everywhere in the nation. An estimated 60 million homes in the United States have BYU-TV (though my guess is that 58 million of those have no idea!), plus approximately another million viewers overseas. Plus, add in the bonus that BYU fans don't have to try to figure out which of the 3 obscure networks BYU is on. For BYU fans, this is great.
Going independent is by far the best TV option. The money is good. BYU fans can watch their team without the current hassles. But what about everyone else? What about gaining national exposure if their ESPN games don't end up on ESPN or ESPN2, but go to ESPNU, ESPN-Classic, or ESPN3 instead? Most football fans aren't scouring BYU-TV (or ESPN the Ocho) to find football. And besides, isn't the mission of the university about much more than letting BYU fans watch their football team?
The Mtn TV deal is laughable, at best. BYU carries the network, yet receives only 1/9th of the revenue from it. Without BYU (and Utah), the deal is certainly not worth what it costs ($66 Million over the next 6 years), even with Boise State in the fold (which would apparently be in jeopardy if BYU left). So, given this breaking "development," will Comcast renegotiate the deal to try to keep BYU in the fold, or will it risk "wasting" a large portion of that $66M over the next 6 years without them. Would they, and the MWC teams, sweeten the deal to keep BYU on board (just like the Big XII did with Texas, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M)? It would probably take both a bump in the contract PLUS the MWC schools offering BYU its "fair share" (i.e. more than everybody else, aka unequal revenue sharing) to be enough to attempt to counter what BYU would get on its own.
What can BYU get for a TV contract outside on its own? Well, ESPN knows the value of BYU: they approached BYU for the opener with Oklahoma at Cowboy Stadium last year. Three of their top 10-rated football games ever have been BYU games. BYU played the first ever college football game on ESPN.
For comparison's sake: the Big East deals with ESPN and CBS are currently worth $6M per school (that also includes basketball, however). One would think that BYU would easily be worth the "average" Big East school, in football at least. BYU would still make MUCH less than all other BCS teams, but they would probably make 3 times more than what they get now from the MWC TV deal. If they aren't making 3 times the current MWC deal, the entire exercise should be nixed ASAP. Obviously, if you compare Notre Dame's sweet deal as an independent to what they would get in a conference, it's not even close. However, BYU is just as much NOT Notre Dame as they are NOT Texas.
In addition to potential ESPN deals, BYU already has its own network, which is available worldwide, and will be available in full HD prior to the 2011 football season. However, that is not a revenue-producing channel. They don't sell ads. The few "commercials" they do have are LDS church spots. They would have a very limited number of entities they would be willing to sell ads to, based on the religious nature of the current programming and university. They will only purchase textbooks from a limited number of sources (driving up the cost for students), so something tells me they will be exclusive in whom they offer commercial space to.
If BYU joined the WAC in every other sport, would they allow BYU full autonomy in broadcasting its games in other sports? Given how cash-strapped a lot of schools in the WAC are, they would probably be willing to make any concessions to add BYU. That's the rub-down on the money. BYU stands to make much more as an independent from TV deals. The WAC would also benefit from BYU too because of, again, TV revenue and butts in seats. They know this: that's why they would entertain offers for BYU. However, how much would be offset by having to travel further for 4 football road games that would have been played at MWC locations? Plus, what would be the added expenditure of all other sports traveling from Hawaii to Louisiana for games, meets, and matches?
Now to accessibility. No question that BYU-TV and ESPN are easier to get, nationwide, worldwide, and even in the MWC footprint, than the Mtn, Versus, and CBS-CS. ESPN is ESPN, they are available everywhere on every platform. BYU-TV is available on Cable in the Rocky Mountain region, plus Northern California (I hear, never lived there myself to know for sure) and on satellite everywhere in the nation. An estimated 60 million homes in the United States have BYU-TV (though my guess is that 58 million of those have no idea!), plus approximately another million viewers overseas. Plus, add in the bonus that BYU fans don't have to try to figure out which of the 3 obscure networks BYU is on. For BYU fans, this is great.
Going independent is by far the best TV option. The money is good. BYU fans can watch their team without the current hassles. But what about everyone else? What about gaining national exposure if their ESPN games don't end up on ESPN or ESPN2, but go to ESPNU, ESPN-Classic, or ESPN3 instead? Most football fans aren't scouring BYU-TV (or ESPN the Ocho) to find football. And besides, isn't the mission of the university about much more than letting BYU fans watch their football team?
BYU's Independence Day
BYU message boards are aflutter with activity on BYU potentially going independent in football and joining the WAC in every other sport. This would make BYU-TV a sports cable network akin to Mormon ESPN. Kind of. Anyway, I will post my full thoughts on this tonight, but I wanted to see what you all think about this.
I will tell you this now, though: I oppose this in just about every sense. Every pro has a con that is very comparable, or worse, and there are more cons than pros to begin with. Perhaps I am missing some of the pros or cons: what say ye? What am I missing?
I will tell you this now, though: I oppose this in just about every sense. Every pro has a con that is very comparable, or worse, and there are more cons than pros to begin with. Perhaps I am missing some of the pros or cons: what say ye? What am I missing?
Monday, August 16, 2010
One Final Thought On Utah's Transition
Sorry, I had planned to write a post about something entirely different yesterday. I was even going to call a couple of you. Then our fridge and freezer stopped fridging and freezing and we had to scramble before the contents spoiled.
So I had one final LONG thought over the weekend about the Utes transition to the Pac 12, centering around their defensive philosophy. The Utes run a very aggressive, high-risk, high-reward type of defense. They play a lot of bump-n-run, tight, man-free or man-to-man coverage. They do a lot of blitzing, overloading, and twisting with the front 7. At least one DB is left on an island nearly every play. One false step by any defender and a crease becomes a hole. One missed tackle and a 7-yard completion becomes a 60-yard touchdown. However, they can and do get away with it in the MWC. Their defense shuts most MWC opponents down, most of the time.
They have won 28 MWC games over the past 5 years, trailing only TCU, 33, and BYU, 34, in that timeframe. There are two main reasons behind this: 1) they are extremely well-coached. They aren't sending 5 and 6 players to the NFL each year because of their stellar recruiting. They get good players and coach them to be great players. Those guys are made NFL-ready at Utah, they don't come with all of the tools necessary. Take Paul Kruger for example, who was drafted as a redshirt sophomore, after a mission. He was a scrawny, high school QB when he showed up on campus. He left a 265-pound beast of a defensive end, that dominated an entire half of the big, bad Alabama OL in the Sugar Bowl. 2) With the exception of TCU, the Ute defenders are the most athletic in the MWC. If they take a bad angle, they can make up for it against the smaller, slower players from the opposing teams. They can smother guys at every position. Linemen can't get off their blocks, receivers can't get on their routes, and backs can't break tackles. They struggle a little bit against TEs in OT though...
However, I will be interested to see if they need to change their defensive philosophy in the Pac 12. These next tidbits are in no way to discredit the progress of the MWC, but rather to point out some of the differences between playing SDSU, New Mexico, CSU, etc. and Washington State, Arizona State , UCLA, etc.
The Pac 12 teams will have superior athleticism and talent. The 2010 Utah recruiting will be its best ever BY FAR, and it ranks 7th in the Pac 12. Every year you go back in time, that 7th drops lower and lower. Washington State is the only team in the Pac 12 that Utah has outrecruited each of the last 3 years. Recruiting rankings are certainly not everything and are just rough estimates, but if you look at the teams generally in the top 10 in recruiting, they are the same teams generally in the top 10 in the rankings too.
The Pac 12 teams will have better (and experienced) QBs. 7 of the 11 teams are likely to have a returning starter at QB in 2011. More than likely, 3 or 4 teams will play a QB with over 20 starts before 2011 even starts. Most of the Pac 12 QBs were highly recruited, highly talented kids coming out of high school as opposed to MWC schools that almost never have a guy coming in with 3 stars next to his name or a guy leaving to continue their football career after college.
The Pac 12 teams will be better coached than most MWC schools. While the Pac 12 coaches are, historically speaking, down right now, they compare very favorably to the MWC coaches. Gary Patterson, Troy Calhoun, and Bronco Mendenhall are the only MWC coaches who have even coached in 3 bowl games. Dennis Erickson, Rick Neuheisel, and Dan Hawkins have all finished in the top 5. Chip Kelly took Oregon to a Rose Bowl in his first season. Mike Riley, Jim Harbaugh, and Mike Stoops have made their respective schools relevant for the first time in a long time, and, in some cases, for the first time ever. Steve Fairchild, Bobby Hauck, and Dave Christensen are good coaches, an upgrade over their predecessors, but there is a reason they are coaching in Fort Collins, Vegas, and Laramie instead of Seattle, Los Angeles, or even Tempe.
The Pac 12 teams will have bigger and stronger offensive lines. In the MWC, the Ute defensive line weighs as much as, or more than, the offensive lines at 3 of the 9 MWC schools. In the Pac 12, they will likely give up an average of 30 pounds, unless the Ute front gets substantially bigger across the board next year. Some teams will only outweigh them by 15-20 pounds, but USC and UCLA could have a 40-pound advantage, depending on who leaves early, gets injured, etc.
The Pac 12 teams will have bigger and taller WRs, with bigger verticals, better hands, and faster 40 times than most MWC schools. Most of the Pac 12 teams have a WR depth chart resembling the MWC 1st and 2nd teams by themselves, when looking at height, weight, and speed. In many cases, the third option at a Pac 12 school would be a star at any MWC school.
I certainly don't anticipate Kyle Whittingham or Kalani Sitake (the current Defensive Coordinator at Utah, as a side note, both of those coaches played their college ball at BYU) to change their philosophy one iota. But one must wonder: can the aggressive defense work every week for the Utes in the Pac 12? My guess is, most Pac 12 teams will be surprised at how stout this non-BCS defense is, but will be able to create some mismatches in a way that few MWC schools can. The fact always remains: the top of the MWC and the top of the Pac 12 are generally comparable, but the bottom of the Pac 12 is as strong as the middle of the MWC. Given that Utah often struggles against some of the middle MWC teams, I don't anticipate a Rose Bowl for them in 2011.
Still don't believe me that Utes won't compete for the Rose Bowl in 2011: last year Air Force took them to OT in Rice-Eccles before falling after a bad spot on third down, they needed three 4th quarter interceptions to beat a 3-9 CSU team on the road, and they trailed halfway through the 4th quarter against Wyoming at home. Now substitute Air Force with Oregon State, CSU with Arizona State, and Wyoming with UCLA.
So I had one final LONG thought over the weekend about the Utes transition to the Pac 12, centering around their defensive philosophy. The Utes run a very aggressive, high-risk, high-reward type of defense. They play a lot of bump-n-run, tight, man-free or man-to-man coverage. They do a lot of blitzing, overloading, and twisting with the front 7. At least one DB is left on an island nearly every play. One false step by any defender and a crease becomes a hole. One missed tackle and a 7-yard completion becomes a 60-yard touchdown. However, they can and do get away with it in the MWC. Their defense shuts most MWC opponents down, most of the time.
They have won 28 MWC games over the past 5 years, trailing only TCU, 33, and BYU, 34, in that timeframe. There are two main reasons behind this: 1) they are extremely well-coached. They aren't sending 5 and 6 players to the NFL each year because of their stellar recruiting. They get good players and coach them to be great players. Those guys are made NFL-ready at Utah, they don't come with all of the tools necessary. Take Paul Kruger for example, who was drafted as a redshirt sophomore, after a mission. He was a scrawny, high school QB when he showed up on campus. He left a 265-pound beast of a defensive end, that dominated an entire half of the big, bad Alabama OL in the Sugar Bowl. 2) With the exception of TCU, the Ute defenders are the most athletic in the MWC. If they take a bad angle, they can make up for it against the smaller, slower players from the opposing teams. They can smother guys at every position. Linemen can't get off their blocks, receivers can't get on their routes, and backs can't break tackles. They struggle a little bit against TEs in OT though...
However, I will be interested to see if they need to change their defensive philosophy in the Pac 12. These next tidbits are in no way to discredit the progress of the MWC, but rather to point out some of the differences between playing SDSU, New Mexico, CSU, etc. and Washington State, Arizona State , UCLA, etc.
The Pac 12 teams will have superior athleticism and talent. The 2010 Utah recruiting will be its best ever BY FAR, and it ranks 7th in the Pac 12. Every year you go back in time, that 7th drops lower and lower. Washington State is the only team in the Pac 12 that Utah has outrecruited each of the last 3 years. Recruiting rankings are certainly not everything and are just rough estimates, but if you look at the teams generally in the top 10 in recruiting, they are the same teams generally in the top 10 in the rankings too.
The Pac 12 teams will have better (and experienced) QBs. 7 of the 11 teams are likely to have a returning starter at QB in 2011. More than likely, 3 or 4 teams will play a QB with over 20 starts before 2011 even starts. Most of the Pac 12 QBs were highly recruited, highly talented kids coming out of high school as opposed to MWC schools that almost never have a guy coming in with 3 stars next to his name or a guy leaving to continue their football career after college.
The Pac 12 teams will be better coached than most MWC schools. While the Pac 12 coaches are, historically speaking, down right now, they compare very favorably to the MWC coaches. Gary Patterson, Troy Calhoun, and Bronco Mendenhall are the only MWC coaches who have even coached in 3 bowl games. Dennis Erickson, Rick Neuheisel, and Dan Hawkins have all finished in the top 5. Chip Kelly took Oregon to a Rose Bowl in his first season. Mike Riley, Jim Harbaugh, and Mike Stoops have made their respective schools relevant for the first time in a long time, and, in some cases, for the first time ever. Steve Fairchild, Bobby Hauck, and Dave Christensen are good coaches, an upgrade over their predecessors, but there is a reason they are coaching in Fort Collins, Vegas, and Laramie instead of Seattle, Los Angeles, or even Tempe.
The Pac 12 teams will have bigger and stronger offensive lines. In the MWC, the Ute defensive line weighs as much as, or more than, the offensive lines at 3 of the 9 MWC schools. In the Pac 12, they will likely give up an average of 30 pounds, unless the Ute front gets substantially bigger across the board next year. Some teams will only outweigh them by 15-20 pounds, but USC and UCLA could have a 40-pound advantage, depending on who leaves early, gets injured, etc.
The Pac 12 teams will have bigger and taller WRs, with bigger verticals, better hands, and faster 40 times than most MWC schools. Most of the Pac 12 teams have a WR depth chart resembling the MWC 1st and 2nd teams by themselves, when looking at height, weight, and speed. In many cases, the third option at a Pac 12 school would be a star at any MWC school.
I certainly don't anticipate Kyle Whittingham or Kalani Sitake (the current Defensive Coordinator at Utah, as a side note, both of those coaches played their college ball at BYU) to change their philosophy one iota. But one must wonder: can the aggressive defense work every week for the Utes in the Pac 12? My guess is, most Pac 12 teams will be surprised at how stout this non-BCS defense is, but will be able to create some mismatches in a way that few MWC schools can. The fact always remains: the top of the MWC and the top of the Pac 12 are generally comparable, but the bottom of the Pac 12 is as strong as the middle of the MWC. Given that Utah often struggles against some of the middle MWC teams, I don't anticipate a Rose Bowl for them in 2011.
Still don't believe me that Utes won't compete for the Rose Bowl in 2011: last year Air Force took them to OT in Rice-Eccles before falling after a bad spot on third down, they needed three 4th quarter interceptions to beat a 3-9 CSU team on the road, and they trailed halfway through the 4th quarter against Wyoming at home. Now substitute Air Force with Oregon State, CSU with Arizona State, and Wyoming with UCLA.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Prediction Cap for a Friday morning
Well, let's throw out a few "bold" predictions this morning. One prediction, per conference, in reverse-alphabetical order.
Boise State wins the WAC. They beat everybody by 17 points or more, with the exception of the Nevada and Utah State games, which games are actually decided in the 4th quarter. Make sure to watch those if you can.
The Sun Belt title will be decided by October 5th. Not mathematically, obviously, but realistically. Troy travels to Middle Tennessee State, winner takes all. I'm not a betting man, but I'd put my money on Troy's Defense.
The SEC will have 6 teams in the top 25 all season, but never more than 2 in the top 10. They are certainly a deep conference, but, just like most conferences in America, are top-heavy.
Oregon will not win the Pac 10 outright, or perhaps maybe not even share it at all. So much off-season turmoil. New starting QB in a conference with a lot of returning starters at that position. 5 Pac 10 road games.
TCU will be the first MWC team to repeat as champions since BYU in 2006-2007. They can probably afford to lose one game and still be BCS eligible. This would be the year for an 11-1 non-BCS school to make a BCS game (provided that it's an MWC school or Boise State).
Central Michigan will not repeat as the MAC champions. They have been in the upper echelon of the MAC for the better part of a decade. Brian Kelly helped them to the top. Butch Jones filled in nicely after he left. However, no school has 3 successful coaching hires in a row these days.
Army is the only independent not to play in a bowl game this season. Again. Notre Dame can actually get a decent bowl game this year. The schedule is that easy...by Notre Dame standards.
Houston at SMU on October 23rd will decide the C-USA champion (the winner of that game wins their division and beats up on the other division champ in the title game). I also project that that will be the highest scoring game of the season.
The Big Ten will not have an undefeated conference champion. Ohio State plays at Wisconsin and at Iowa. Wisconsin plays at Michigan State, Iowa, and Michigan. Penn State plays at Iowa and Ohio State. Iowa is Iowa: they will never go undefeated.
The Big East will, once again, not send a team to the National Championship Game. They won't even have a team break the top 10 this season. Well, let's say top 8.
Nebraska will finish the season in the top 10 for the first time since 2001. They have one of the easiest schedules you'll see for a BCS conference contender. Right now, they have 1 ranked team on the schedule. And they play that game at home. Oh, and they have 7 home games. I never realized how much their schedule always looks like a Big Ten schedule until now...that should make the transition easy.
The ACC will, again, only send one team to a BCS game. Only the conference champion will represent them. Again. For their sake, they better hope it's Virginia Tech or Georgia Tech, otherwise their abysmal BCS game record will certainly get worse. Of course, that's assuming one of those two can actually win one. Are they 1-10 now, is that right?
There you have it. Happy Weekend, everyone!
Boise State wins the WAC. They beat everybody by 17 points or more, with the exception of the Nevada and Utah State games, which games are actually decided in the 4th quarter. Make sure to watch those if you can.
The Sun Belt title will be decided by October 5th. Not mathematically, obviously, but realistically. Troy travels to Middle Tennessee State, winner takes all. I'm not a betting man, but I'd put my money on Troy's Defense.
The SEC will have 6 teams in the top 25 all season, but never more than 2 in the top 10. They are certainly a deep conference, but, just like most conferences in America, are top-heavy.
Oregon will not win the Pac 10 outright, or perhaps maybe not even share it at all. So much off-season turmoil. New starting QB in a conference with a lot of returning starters at that position. 5 Pac 10 road games.
TCU will be the first MWC team to repeat as champions since BYU in 2006-2007. They can probably afford to lose one game and still be BCS eligible. This would be the year for an 11-1 non-BCS school to make a BCS game (provided that it's an MWC school or Boise State).
Central Michigan will not repeat as the MAC champions. They have been in the upper echelon of the MAC for the better part of a decade. Brian Kelly helped them to the top. Butch Jones filled in nicely after he left. However, no school has 3 successful coaching hires in a row these days.
Army is the only independent not to play in a bowl game this season. Again. Notre Dame can actually get a decent bowl game this year. The schedule is that easy...by Notre Dame standards.
Houston at SMU on October 23rd will decide the C-USA champion (the winner of that game wins their division and beats up on the other division champ in the title game). I also project that that will be the highest scoring game of the season.
The Big Ten will not have an undefeated conference champion. Ohio State plays at Wisconsin and at Iowa. Wisconsin plays at Michigan State, Iowa, and Michigan. Penn State plays at Iowa and Ohio State. Iowa is Iowa: they will never go undefeated.
The Big East will, once again, not send a team to the National Championship Game. They won't even have a team break the top 10 this season. Well, let's say top 8.
Nebraska will finish the season in the top 10 for the first time since 2001. They have one of the easiest schedules you'll see for a BCS conference contender. Right now, they have 1 ranked team on the schedule. And they play that game at home. Oh, and they have 7 home games. I never realized how much their schedule always looks like a Big Ten schedule until now...that should make the transition easy.
The ACC will, again, only send one team to a BCS game. Only the conference champion will represent them. Again. For their sake, they better hope it's Virginia Tech or Georgia Tech, otherwise their abysmal BCS game record will certainly get worse. Of course, that's assuming one of those two can actually win one. Are they 1-10 now, is that right?
There you have it. Happy Weekend, everyone!
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Mailbag Question of the Week
Well, I've been asked to put on my little predictor's cap again. Question comes as follows, from a long-time and very loyal reader: what does the Pac 12 future hold for Utah?
There is a lot of buzz around this question in the state of Utah for sure. Utah fans feel they will go in and instantly compete for the Rose Bowl. BYU fans feel most years that Utah doesn't compete for the MWC crown anyway and will be lucky to make a bowl game in the Pac 12.
The answer is: probably somewhere in between, but it certainly depends. Here are a few things it depends on: how do the divisions split? That is important for scheduling. How far will USC fall with its NCAA penalties (or, in my opinion a more pertinent question: how far will they fall with Lane Kiffin at the helm)? Determines how likely Utah is to beat them. What approach will Utah take with its nonconference schedule? If they decide to schedule 3 patsies, they are already halfway to a bowl game. Next year, however, they are scheduled: Iowa State, at Boise State, at Pittsburgh. How many home games vs. road games will they have? For all of the talk of Utah's dominance against the Pac 10 teams, Kyle Whittingham is 0-3 on the road, with 2 blowout losses. He is 3-0 at home, eking out 2 of those by 3 points. He is 1-0 at neutral sites, with a 10-point win, though it wasn't really that close.
I'll tell you one thing: there is not a single team that Utah could not beat in the Pac 12. Followed immediately by: there is not a single team that Utah couldn't lose to either. Kyle Whittingham's Utah teams get up for the big game, no doubt about it. Since Kyle took over, Utah is the only MWC team to win a BCS game. Utah is the only MWC team with a winning record against TCU. Besides TCU, Utah is the only MWC team to beat BYU twice (TCU has done it 3 times). However, Utah has also lost to every team in the MWC, including two losses to New Mexico. There are some pretty bad teams in there to be losing to: CSU and UNLV, in the years that Utah lost to them, would have easily been the worst teams in the Pac 10.
Simply put, Utah's motto is: get up for the big game, play down for the little one. To win the Pac 10, you have to follow up a win against Oregon, Oregon State, or USC with a win against Arizona State or Washington State. I'll think most years they'll manage a winning record in the Pac 12, depending on the schedule, but, week in and week out, they cannot get up. This is not to mention the upward trajectory of some of the programs meaning MORE big games: Washington, Stanford, and Arizona are all on the rise.
Next year, 2011, first year in the Pac 12, with 4 homes games and 5 road games, they probably go 3-1 at home and 2-3 on the road for a 5-4 record. If they get 5 home games and 4 road games they might get up to 6-3. Obviously it depends on which 9 teams they play and where they play them, but since I can't predict that, I just have to predict how they'll do. They will lose at least one game at home and probably have a losing record on the road. Assuming they beat Iowa State and get bowl eligible, they probably get a Las Vegas Bowl bid against the loser of the BYU-Boise State game (with the winner going to a BCS game).
There is a lot of buzz around this question in the state of Utah for sure. Utah fans feel they will go in and instantly compete for the Rose Bowl. BYU fans feel most years that Utah doesn't compete for the MWC crown anyway and will be lucky to make a bowl game in the Pac 12.
The answer is: probably somewhere in between, but it certainly depends. Here are a few things it depends on: how do the divisions split? That is important for scheduling. How far will USC fall with its NCAA penalties (or, in my opinion a more pertinent question: how far will they fall with Lane Kiffin at the helm)? Determines how likely Utah is to beat them. What approach will Utah take with its nonconference schedule? If they decide to schedule 3 patsies, they are already halfway to a bowl game. Next year, however, they are scheduled: Iowa State, at Boise State, at Pittsburgh. How many home games vs. road games will they have? For all of the talk of Utah's dominance against the Pac 10 teams, Kyle Whittingham is 0-3 on the road, with 2 blowout losses. He is 3-0 at home, eking out 2 of those by 3 points. He is 1-0 at neutral sites, with a 10-point win, though it wasn't really that close.
I'll tell you one thing: there is not a single team that Utah could not beat in the Pac 12. Followed immediately by: there is not a single team that Utah couldn't lose to either. Kyle Whittingham's Utah teams get up for the big game, no doubt about it. Since Kyle took over, Utah is the only MWC team to win a BCS game. Utah is the only MWC team with a winning record against TCU. Besides TCU, Utah is the only MWC team to beat BYU twice (TCU has done it 3 times). However, Utah has also lost to every team in the MWC, including two losses to New Mexico. There are some pretty bad teams in there to be losing to: CSU and UNLV, in the years that Utah lost to them, would have easily been the worst teams in the Pac 10.
Simply put, Utah's motto is: get up for the big game, play down for the little one. To win the Pac 10, you have to follow up a win against Oregon, Oregon State, or USC with a win against Arizona State or Washington State. I'll think most years they'll manage a winning record in the Pac 12, depending on the schedule, but, week in and week out, they cannot get up. This is not to mention the upward trajectory of some of the programs meaning MORE big games: Washington, Stanford, and Arizona are all on the rise.
Next year, 2011, first year in the Pac 12, with 4 homes games and 5 road games, they probably go 3-1 at home and 2-3 on the road for a 5-4 record. If they get 5 home games and 4 road games they might get up to 6-3. Obviously it depends on which 9 teams they play and where they play them, but since I can't predict that, I just have to predict how they'll do. They will lose at least one game at home and probably have a losing record on the road. Assuming they beat Iowa State and get bowl eligible, they probably get a Las Vegas Bowl bid against the loser of the BYU-Boise State game (with the winner going to a BCS game).
Friday, August 6, 2010
Debate: Preseason Polls
One reason I am not a big fan of preseason polls is that different people see it as a different thing, and vote accordingly. Is it: where teams are RIGHT NOW? Is it where you think teams should end up at the end of the season? And how much is it based on last year? The problem is: they don't say what the preseason poll is supposed to be. So some people vote based on "right now" and others vote on "end of season predictions." What do you all think?
[I personally believe, since the Week 2 Poll is based off of Week 1 performance and the Preseason Poll, it should be RIGHT NOW. However, I personally favor a "wait 4 weeks before generating the first poll since they count towards National Championships and BCS bowl games" strategy. But, given the system as it is, I think it should be based on how the teams probably are right now, because it is all guesswork. As such, no team without a returning QB should be in the top 5...]
Leave your thoughts in the comments section or send me an e-mail at moknowssports@gmail.com!
[I personally believe, since the Week 2 Poll is based off of Week 1 performance and the Preseason Poll, it should be RIGHT NOW. However, I personally favor a "wait 4 weeks before generating the first poll since they count towards National Championships and BCS bowl games" strategy. But, given the system as it is, I think it should be based on how the teams probably are right now, because it is all guesswork. As such, no team without a returning QB should be in the top 5...]
Leave your thoughts in the comments section or send me an e-mail at moknowssports@gmail.com!
Thursday, August 5, 2010
BYU Schedule, Part III
Week #7: @TCU, 2pm (MT), on Versus
Before BYU: Wyoming
After BYU: @UNLV
Two Weeks After: @Utah
Looking ahead: Not likely. I suppose it depends on BYU's record. Though senior QB Andy Dalton has said that he believes the "rivalry with BYU will continue to grow." That means TCU's starting QB considers BYU a rival. You don't overlook a rival. Plus, you don't put a BYU helmet on your practice dummy and then overlook BYU...
Beat up: Not likely. TCU will be 3 weeks removed from its last real test (at SMU).
Chances for BYU: Not great. TCU seems to have figured BYU out (or at least they had Max Hall pegged). Perhaps a few new faces on offense will do BYU some good in this game. As far as stopping TCU's offense is concerned: speed kills. Especially speed on trick plays, of which TCU always has a few ready for their rival...there is always a chance, the score starts 0-0, and BYU has a good team, but if I had to pick one game this season that I had to bet against BYU on, I would pick this one.
Week #8: Wyoming, 12pm (MT), on Mtn
Two weeks before BYU: @TCU
Before BYU: Utah
After BYU: San Diego State
Looking ahead: nope. Not with rival BYU. Not with their previous two games. Who else is left on the schedule after that?
Beat up: positively. Nobody wants to play TCU and Utah back-to-back. Nobody. In the country. And certainly nobody wants BYU the next game. Tough break in the schedule. You have to play all three, but I'm sure they'd rather see them a little more spread out.
Chances for BYU: fantastic. Wyoming. At home. After their rough schedule (also add in games earlier in the year at Texas and against Boise State). Wyoming may make a bowl game this year, but one of their wins will NOT be against BYU.
Week #9: Bye
Week#10: UNLV, 12pm (MT), on Mtn
Before BYU: TCU
After BYU: Wyoming
2 Weeks After: Air Force
Looking ahead: they cannot afford to. They are playing two tough-ish games after BYU, but it's still BYU.
Beat up: how could you not be after TCU the week before? They ride you all the way up and down the field for 60 minutes (assuming you move the ball down the field on them at all...).
Chances for BYU: great. Coming off of a bye week, with a chance to regroup and settle in for the home stretch, against an inferior opponent, they should win this one.
Before BYU: Wyoming
After BYU: @UNLV
Two Weeks After: @Utah
Looking ahead: Not likely. I suppose it depends on BYU's record. Though senior QB Andy Dalton has said that he believes the "rivalry with BYU will continue to grow." That means TCU's starting QB considers BYU a rival. You don't overlook a rival. Plus, you don't put a BYU helmet on your practice dummy and then overlook BYU...
Beat up: Not likely. TCU will be 3 weeks removed from its last real test (at SMU).
Chances for BYU: Not great. TCU seems to have figured BYU out (or at least they had Max Hall pegged). Perhaps a few new faces on offense will do BYU some good in this game. As far as stopping TCU's offense is concerned: speed kills. Especially speed on trick plays, of which TCU always has a few ready for their rival...there is always a chance, the score starts 0-0, and BYU has a good team, but if I had to pick one game this season that I had to bet against BYU on, I would pick this one.
Week #8: Wyoming, 12pm (MT), on Mtn
Two weeks before BYU: @TCU
Before BYU: Utah
After BYU: San Diego State
Looking ahead: nope. Not with rival BYU. Not with their previous two games. Who else is left on the schedule after that?
Beat up: positively. Nobody wants to play TCU and Utah back-to-back. Nobody. In the country. And certainly nobody wants BYU the next game. Tough break in the schedule. You have to play all three, but I'm sure they'd rather see them a little more spread out.
Chances for BYU: fantastic. Wyoming. At home. After their rough schedule (also add in games earlier in the year at Texas and against Boise State). Wyoming may make a bowl game this year, but one of their wins will NOT be against BYU.
Week #9: Bye
Week#10: UNLV, 12pm (MT), on Mtn
Before BYU: TCU
After BYU: Wyoming
2 Weeks After: Air Force
Looking ahead: they cannot afford to. They are playing two tough-ish games after BYU, but it's still BYU.
Beat up: how could you not be after TCU the week before? They ride you all the way up and down the field for 60 minutes (assuming you move the ball down the field on them at all...).
Chances for BYU: great. Coming off of a bye week, with a chance to regroup and settle in for the home stretch, against an inferior opponent, they should win this one.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Media Poll Thoughts, Part II
#5 Wyoming:
Good pick at number 5. Coming off one of the more thrilling bowl games, and the first winning season in 5 years, I like them here. They bring back 17 starters from a team that survived the toughest schedule in the country last year, managing to go to a bowl game and win it. They are scheduled to play 2 top-10 teams in the non-conference (at Texas and hosting Boise State). They switched defenses from a 4-3 to a 3-4, which was always a trademark of the good Wyoming teams of the mid-90's. There are a lot more LBs to recruit in the farms of Wyoming than DL. They haven't done enough to show they can pass the Big 3, or even Air Force, but, provided that their returning QB, Austyn Carta-Samuels, does not experience "the sophomore slump" and that they deal with some losses in the early part of the schedule, they could eke their way back to a bowl game. If they can survive the 3-game stretch at TCU, Utah, at BYU at 1-2, they SHOULD make 7-5 before the bowls.
#6 San Diego State:
Had as good a year last year as they have had in a long time. Kind of sad that 4-8 is one of your better years in recent memory. They have a great coaching staff. They have a lot of tall, fast receivers. They lack playmakers at RB, and size is always a concern for their OL and DL. But they are tough, though not deep. Last year they just collapsed down the stretch, losing their last 4 games. The schedule lays out a little nicer this season for them, with 3 winnable non-conference games. They also have 3 winnable conference home games against Air Force, CSU, and UNLV. The big one to me is that Utah game: Utah will be coming off a stretch of at Air Force, TCU, and at Notre Dame, looking a week ahead to perhaps the final regular season BYU-Utah game. Of course, SDSU is coming back from a road game against TCU, so...
#7 Colorado State:
This is a bit of a surprise for last year's last-place finisher to be picked 7th, though not too surprising. Coach Fairchild is entering his third year at the helm, and has had some decent recruiting classes. But he lost a lot of players from last year's team. The good news is they weren't that good anyway. The O-Line underperformed, the QBs couldn't hang onto the ball, and the D couldn't stop anybody, the red zone D being particularly bad. I think a 7th-place finish is a bit of a stretch for them. They do have a good schedule: the better opponents are, for the most part, spread out throughout the season.
#8 UNLV:
The new coaching staff is a big question mark. Bobby Hauck ran a powerhouse program at the FCS level. Can he succeed in Vegas where most others have failed? Well, I don't anticipate he'll be playing for National Championships, but he could have the level where John Robinson had it in the 90's: going to bowl games more often than not. I think they have been close for a few years now and never quite got there. A new coach can either push you over the hump, or set you back. I think they are more likely to go over the hump than get set back, but apparently the MWC Media disagrees. They bring back a lot of experience. The bad news is that it's all the same guys they had last year...All 4 of their non-conference games are against bowl teams from last year, plus the 5 conference games against bowl teams from last year. With 13 games on the schedule (they play at Hawaii and get a 13th game as a result) they'd have to be 7-6 to play in a bowl game. It would take a mini-miracle to pull that off, even in the Vegas desert. They could finish easily higher than 8th though...
#9 New Mexico:
Last year was a struggle from start to finish. They will definitely be better than last year. They were that bad that they couldn't be any worse...well, I guess that depends. They are going to start the year 0-3. That is tough to recover from. But if they don't get their first win until October, it'll still be an improvement on last year's season. Again, I think they'll be better than last year, but that still won't be good enough for a bowl game. At best, they finish 7th in the MWC this season. They have some good, young talent. But they are at least a year away from threatening to go to a bowl game.
Good pick at number 5. Coming off one of the more thrilling bowl games, and the first winning season in 5 years, I like them here. They bring back 17 starters from a team that survived the toughest schedule in the country last year, managing to go to a bowl game and win it. They are scheduled to play 2 top-10 teams in the non-conference (at Texas and hosting Boise State). They switched defenses from a 4-3 to a 3-4, which was always a trademark of the good Wyoming teams of the mid-90's. There are a lot more LBs to recruit in the farms of Wyoming than DL. They haven't done enough to show they can pass the Big 3, or even Air Force, but, provided that their returning QB, Austyn Carta-Samuels, does not experience "the sophomore slump" and that they deal with some losses in the early part of the schedule, they could eke their way back to a bowl game. If they can survive the 3-game stretch at TCU, Utah, at BYU at 1-2, they SHOULD make 7-5 before the bowls.
#6 San Diego State:
Had as good a year last year as they have had in a long time. Kind of sad that 4-8 is one of your better years in recent memory. They have a great coaching staff. They have a lot of tall, fast receivers. They lack playmakers at RB, and size is always a concern for their OL and DL. But they are tough, though not deep. Last year they just collapsed down the stretch, losing their last 4 games. The schedule lays out a little nicer this season for them, with 3 winnable non-conference games. They also have 3 winnable conference home games against Air Force, CSU, and UNLV. The big one to me is that Utah game: Utah will be coming off a stretch of at Air Force, TCU, and at Notre Dame, looking a week ahead to perhaps the final regular season BYU-Utah game. Of course, SDSU is coming back from a road game against TCU, so...
#7 Colorado State:
This is a bit of a surprise for last year's last-place finisher to be picked 7th, though not too surprising. Coach Fairchild is entering his third year at the helm, and has had some decent recruiting classes. But he lost a lot of players from last year's team. The good news is they weren't that good anyway. The O-Line underperformed, the QBs couldn't hang onto the ball, and the D couldn't stop anybody, the red zone D being particularly bad. I think a 7th-place finish is a bit of a stretch for them. They do have a good schedule: the better opponents are, for the most part, spread out throughout the season.
#8 UNLV:
The new coaching staff is a big question mark. Bobby Hauck ran a powerhouse program at the FCS level. Can he succeed in Vegas where most others have failed? Well, I don't anticipate he'll be playing for National Championships, but he could have the level where John Robinson had it in the 90's: going to bowl games more often than not. I think they have been close for a few years now and never quite got there. A new coach can either push you over the hump, or set you back. I think they are more likely to go over the hump than get set back, but apparently the MWC Media disagrees. They bring back a lot of experience. The bad news is that it's all the same guys they had last year...All 4 of their non-conference games are against bowl teams from last year, plus the 5 conference games against bowl teams from last year. With 13 games on the schedule (they play at Hawaii and get a 13th game as a result) they'd have to be 7-6 to play in a bowl game. It would take a mini-miracle to pull that off, even in the Vegas desert. They could finish easily higher than 8th though...
#9 New Mexico:
Last year was a struggle from start to finish. They will definitely be better than last year. They were that bad that they couldn't be any worse...well, I guess that depends. They are going to start the year 0-3. That is tough to recover from. But if they don't get their first win until October, it'll still be an improvement on last year's season. Again, I think they'll be better than last year, but that still won't be good enough for a bowl game. At best, they finish 7th in the MWC this season. They have some good, young talent. But they are at least a year away from threatening to go to a bowl game.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)