I have been asked several times if I'm on Team Jacob or Team Edward, er, Riley. Apparently they are both doing very well. They go back and forth. Riley Nelson looks in total command at times. Jake Heaps can throw the seams off the ball. I digress, here are my thoughts:
1) I think Riley's mobility and experience gives BYU a better chance to win against aggressive, fast, blitzing defenses: Florida State, TCU, and Utah. Jake's pure passing skills give BYU a better chance against most of the other teams on the schedule that would be good enough to beat them: Washington, Nevada, and Utah State. Whether or not BYU beats Air Force will depend on BYU's defense, not on the QB situation. BYU should beat CSU, Wyoming, New Mexico, SDSU, and UNLV, regardless of which one plays.
Just looking at it that way, I'd play Riley Nelson. BYU could beat Nevada and Utah State with Riley, but I don't think BYU can beat Florida State or TCU with Jake. That is not a knock on Jake, it's just that those two defenses will do things that a true freshman won't have any idea what to do with. Most of the great collegiate QBs weren't even any good as freshmen. I don't see why Jake Heaps would be immune to that. (By the Utah game, he would have gained enough experience that this wouldn't necessarily be true anymore.)
2) BYU's offense relies on a precision passer who can distribute the ball all over the field. Jake can make all of the throws, including the deep out and the bomb (the two throws that Max Hall couldn't make). Riley is more of a short throw, dink and dunk, kind of guy. With a typical BYU receiving group, that is fine. But this group has speed, size, and hands. BYU has to play Jake Heaps with this group of WRs/TEs/RBs and with their style of offense.
3) BYU cannot play two QBs equally. The only two-QB system that has ever worked successfully was Chris Leak and Tim Tebow. The thrower, Leak, was the starter. The runner, Tebow, came in on 3rd down and goalline situations. The thrower got the majority of the snaps. The runner never got entire series, only situational plays. That's the only way it CAN work. The thrower needs to get in rhythm, and he can't get that when he's splitting time. The runner just needs his number called on play one so he can take a shot and get those juices flowing. BYU has to play Jake Heaps.
4) I cannot think of the last team to win the MWC with a QB who wasn't at least in his third year in college football. Alex Smith was a redshirt sophomore when he led Utah to their first MWC championship. Max Hall is the only other sophomore I could come up with, and he had a redshirt, a transfer, and a mission. The rest have all been juniors and seniors. Experience counts for a lot in the MWC when it comes to the QB position. If BYU wants to compete for a conference title THIS year, they have to play Riley Nelson.
Since I obviously cannot decide, here is how I would play it out: Riley Nelson gets the start against Washington. Jake Heaps takes the first series or two of the second half. Against Air Force, Heaps takes the first two series of the second half. Maybe you extend it to three, maybe you even give him a first half possession (not in a two-minute situation). At Florida State, Heaps takes no more than 3 series. Starting with the Nevada game, assuming Nelson hasn't gone 3-0, you can transition Heaps to the starting role by giving him the first and third quarters. At Utah State, you can give Jake a two-minute drive, assuming you have the ball at the end of the first half. By Wyoming (read: after TCU), Jake Heaps is the starter with Riley Nelson taking third down and shorts and all "and goal" plays (first and goal, etc.).
Because I can't decide, that is how I would play it. Then again, the coaches are watching these kids practice every day. They see how the team responds to them, they see things beyond the stats, and they know all of the strengths and weaknesses of each player. I am just doing a theoretical exercise based on historical precedent, offensive style, and the reports I hear on the QBs from people that are watching them. Also, I am guessing that 5 or 6 games into the season, there will be a disparity in level of play on the field and it will become evident whom to start. However, to answer the original question: I'm on team Jake-ley...
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
A Look At CSU
Here are my thoughts about this CSU team:
Offense: they have a lot of depth and talent, but they are very inexperienced. They have a decent-sized O-line, but they are a little small on the right side (better to have the beef on the left side to protect the QB's blind side), and quite green. However, all of these younger players are Coach Fairchild's recruits, so he can't complain if they don't perform. They have a couple of big, tall WRs and the lone small guy is their most experienced. They have a potential NFL fullback, leading for a less experienced tailback. They are starting a freshman QB who was a BCS recruit. There are growing pains associated with youth on the O-Line and at QB. They are probably more talented than last year, but experience is huge in a conference with BYU, Utah, TCU, and Air Force.
Defense: they have a lot of experience on the first line, but they have pretty much zero depth. They just haven't been able to recruit very good defensive players. They have a good mix of size and speed on the D-Line, but in that 4-3 system against the lines you see at TCU, BYU, and Utah, you can't have backup DTs under 275, and both of theirs are under 265 (one under 250). They can't afford any injuries in the front 7. The secondary should be the better part of their defense but, again, any injuries there and they are playing true freshmen. Look for this unit to start the year strong and fade the second half of the season.
Schedule: their non-conference schedule puts them on a neutral field against Colorado, at Nevada and Miami (OH), and finishing with a home game against Idaho. They should hope to go 2-2, but it's probably more likely to go 1-3. They don't have the horses to contain CU (not a good sign for their season) or Nevada. It's always tough for a bottom-feeder MWC school to head into MAC territory and Idaho is on the up-and-up, winning a bowl game last season for the first time ever (I think, maybe it was their second one...). Scratch that, they could be 0-4...
Their conference home games are TCU, UNLV, New Mexico, and BYU. If they had BYU earlier in the season they would have a chance, but with their depth issues on defense, that isn't likely. New Mexico and UNLV are winnable games. TCU is a loss. Best case: 2-2, but more likely is 1-3.
Their conference road games are Air Force, Utah, San Diego State, and Wyoming. They could get the San Diego State or Wyoming games, but at that point in the season they are looking at being 2-7 or 3-6. Winnable games are less winnable after losing so many in a row. I think best case here is 1-3, but they could go 0-fer.
Outlook: I think this is a "throwaway" season for the Rams. Too many young guys on offense. Too little depth on defense. The schedule would be manageable for a better team. When things starting going bad last year, they completely folded. I would hope they are more mentally tough than that this year. If they are, they could go 4-8, perhaps even 5-7. However, with the more winnable games at the end of the year and no byes during the season, it could snowball. More likely to see them 3-9 again. If Fairchild is around next year, however, they could make a push toward the middle of the league. This year, however, they are looking at 8th or 9th.
Offense: they have a lot of depth and talent, but they are very inexperienced. They have a decent-sized O-line, but they are a little small on the right side (better to have the beef on the left side to protect the QB's blind side), and quite green. However, all of these younger players are Coach Fairchild's recruits, so he can't complain if they don't perform. They have a couple of big, tall WRs and the lone small guy is their most experienced. They have a potential NFL fullback, leading for a less experienced tailback. They are starting a freshman QB who was a BCS recruit. There are growing pains associated with youth on the O-Line and at QB. They are probably more talented than last year, but experience is huge in a conference with BYU, Utah, TCU, and Air Force.
Defense: they have a lot of experience on the first line, but they have pretty much zero depth. They just haven't been able to recruit very good defensive players. They have a good mix of size and speed on the D-Line, but in that 4-3 system against the lines you see at TCU, BYU, and Utah, you can't have backup DTs under 275, and both of theirs are under 265 (one under 250). They can't afford any injuries in the front 7. The secondary should be the better part of their defense but, again, any injuries there and they are playing true freshmen. Look for this unit to start the year strong and fade the second half of the season.
Schedule: their non-conference schedule puts them on a neutral field against Colorado, at Nevada and Miami (OH), and finishing with a home game against Idaho. They should hope to go 2-2, but it's probably more likely to go 1-3. They don't have the horses to contain CU (not a good sign for their season) or Nevada. It's always tough for a bottom-feeder MWC school to head into MAC territory and Idaho is on the up-and-up, winning a bowl game last season for the first time ever (I think, maybe it was their second one...). Scratch that, they could be 0-4...
Their conference home games are TCU, UNLV, New Mexico, and BYU. If they had BYU earlier in the season they would have a chance, but with their depth issues on defense, that isn't likely. New Mexico and UNLV are winnable games. TCU is a loss. Best case: 2-2, but more likely is 1-3.
Their conference road games are Air Force, Utah, San Diego State, and Wyoming. They could get the San Diego State or Wyoming games, but at that point in the season they are looking at being 2-7 or 3-6. Winnable games are less winnable after losing so many in a row. I think best case here is 1-3, but they could go 0-fer.
Outlook: I think this is a "throwaway" season for the Rams. Too many young guys on offense. Too little depth on defense. The schedule would be manageable for a better team. When things starting going bad last year, they completely folded. I would hope they are more mentally tough than that this year. If they are, they could go 4-8, perhaps even 5-7. However, with the more winnable games at the end of the year and no byes during the season, it could snowball. More likely to see them 3-9 again. If Fairchild is around next year, however, they could make a push toward the middle of the league. This year, however, they are looking at 8th or 9th.
Independent Criticism
Here is a look at the criticism that BYU has faced for nearly going independent:
Arrogance
1) Is the move arrogant? Absolutely. But, as we learned, it is justified arrogance. They put themseleves out to market and two conferences (the WAC and the West Coast Conference) were willing to take their non-football sports just to get them in the conference. ESPN was willing to broadcast their games and pay them substantially more than they are currently receiving. We'll look at revenue in more detail later, but suffice it to say here: BYU's TV contracts (for football alone) were going to be more than half of the entire MWC TV deal (which includes all sports). That means the rights to their football games are worth more than the entire athletic programs of the other 8 schools, combined. Yet they are treated "equally" and not given any special treatment whatsoever.
2) They are not Notre Dame. Everybody knows that. BYU admits as much. But in order to improve on the status quo, they don't need to be Notre Dame. Their deal with ESPN wouldn't have come close to Notre Dame's deal with NBC. But it would have given them at least twice as much money and probably 10 times the exposure. They don't need to be Notre Dame, they just need to continue being BYU, and they will be much better off than right now. Also, people are always saying that BYU is no Notre Dame, but they are in a much better position than Army and Navy, the other two independents. TV ratings and fan attendance are much greater for BYU than those two (with the exception of the Army-Navy game).
BCS Bowls
1) They move from "automatically qualifying for a BCS bid as a conference champion in the top 12" to "eligible for an at-large bid if they are in the top 14." The fact of the matter is, at this point in time, if BYU goes 11-1 or 12-0, regardless of conference affiliation (or lack thereof), they will go to a BCS game. Whether that is an automatic bid or an at-large bid is pretty irrelevant. In the MWC, they have to split the automatic money in half, give half to the other non-BCS conferences, and then divide the remainder with the MWC. As an independent, they get the same payday but without having to share it. People use last year as an example: BYU was eligible for an at-large bid but was passed up by Florida, Boise State, and Iowa. Those three teams were all way more deserving than BYU. I don't think any rational person has a problem with those teams going over BYU. If BYU was good enough to go 11-1 last season, maybe it's a different story, but they weren't good enough to do that.
2) With ESPN as a partner, they don't need anyone to lobby for them for greater access. If BYU goes 11-1 with 4 appearances on ESPN or ESPN2 (plus the fact that BYU-TV is on Satellite everywhere in the country so people will have a chance to see them multiple times), they will have access if and when they deserve access. They would probably play at least 5 ranked or BCS conference teams every year. ESPN would probably set up one game to which Gameday would go. That kind of exposure could move them up 2-3 spots in the polls, assuming they go 11-1. If BYU is in the top 8, they will get an at-large.
Revenue
1) If the MWC sends a team to a BCS game, BYU goes to the Las Vegas Bowl, and BYU makes the NCAA Tournament along with 2 other MWC teams, BYU's take for TV revenue, bowl payouts, and NCAA Tournament money is just less than $3.5M. ESPN offered more than that for 4 home football games. Depending on what you believe, the total package for BYU sports was going to be worth AT LEAST twice that, probably somewhere in the $7-10M range. This does not include bowl payouts or NCAA tournament money depending on which conference they end up in. There is nothing the MWC could offer that is even close to comparable.
2) They miss out on BCS money if an MWC school goes to the BCS. Boise State, TCU, and Utah have been the teams to bring home the BCS cash, not BYU, which they then share with the conference. But we're talking about $500K a year for BYU if someone else goes to a BCS game. Given the fact that they have at least doubled their revenue, it's still a multi-million dollar net gain without that half-million.
3) The jump to independence would rejuvenate their fan base, i.e. increase merchandise sales, donations, etc. My wife used to work in the BYU Bookstore E-Commerce Department. She said that sales essentially doubled over a weekend when BYU won as opposed to when they lost. Now imagine the enthusiasm from going independent: it would have a much bigger effect than a single win.
No Bowl Tie-Ins
1) If they had joined the WAC in other sports, they would have had access to the WAC's bowl games, according to the pre-nup they had with the WAC. Short of joining the Big XII, they would not have any bowl tie-ins. There is no arguing that point. They would go to a bowl game, because every year two or three conferences do not qualify enough teams: but this bowl would be less than desirable.
2) However, there will have to be a massive renegotiation in bowl contracts soon. The Pac 12 and Big Ten are going to want more bowl games. The Big XII will probably qualify fewer teams for bowls with their smaller league with fewer non-conference games. If the WAC disappears, their bowl games open up (I believe there were four tie-ins for them). The MWC has just grown in size and will need to find more bowls. A large restructuring of the bowls is going to take place. Some bowl is going to take a chance with BYU, especially given that ESPN would be a strong partner and ally of BYU's.
Exposure
1) Some wonder what would happen if BYU's "ESPN games" ended up on ESPNU, ESPN-Classic, or ESPN3. Those are difficult stations to find. However, having 5-6 games per year on The Mtn is even harder to find! I could watch those games easier and cheaper than I can with The Mtn, CBS-CS, and Versus.
2) BYU's contract with ESPN would be for four home games. However, take into account that most of BYU's road opponents will have a contract with ESPN as well, and you are looking at having perhaps as many as 6-8 games on national television (not counting BYU-TV games).
3) According to the agreement the WAC and BYU had, all other tournaments and BYU homes games could be on BYU-TV, meaning greater exposure for the network/BYU. Imagine St. Mary's or Gonzaga traveling to Provo or having the West Coast Conference Basketball Tournament on BYU-TV (minus the championship game). Tens-hundreds of thousands of people would discover BYU-TV. Good for the University and good for the Church.
Scheduling
1) 12 games will be tough to get scheduled every year. SDSU has already said they wouldn't schedule BYU (oh no, BYU will have to play Texas instead...). However, figure that BYU could schedule Utah, Utah State, and Hawaii most years, at least 2 of the 3 independents would be willing, they were already scheduling 2 or 3 other non-conference games every year, and ESPN would help broker 2 games. That's already at least 9 games. Throw a I-AA game and a cash-strapped C-USA/MAC/Sun Belt team and they are nearly there. Pulling all of that together for 2011 might be difficult, but for 2012 they could probably make those arrangements, even without help from the WAC.
2) Scheduling should get easier with ESPN as a partner and BYU-TV being available across the country. Besides, after 4 or 5 years of decreased ticket sales (and that crappy new TV deal they'll get if/when BYU leaves), even MWC schools might come around and play BYU again. They would probably even be willing to go to Provo to get some of that ESPN or BYU-TV money too!
On-Field Performance
1) They cannot lay eggs like they did against TCU and Florida State last season. If ESPN puts 4 big games on TV, they need to be respectable in all 4 and probably win at least 2 of them. If they don't perform, ESPN will not continue to broadcast them down the road.
2) BYU should be favored to win the MWC next season (2011). If they go out as conference champions with a BCS game under their belt, that would bode much better for how much exposure they could get in 2012. Given that the 2012 schedule will probably be softer than 2013 and beyond (tough to get big-name opponents on such short notice) and that BYU will have a very experienced team (based on the number of freshmen and sophomores on this year's two-deep), that's the best year to make the jump, if they make it.
Looking at all of the factors, I don't see how BYU considers the MWC a long-term solution. They have seen the revenue out there awaiting them. They have seen the amount of exposure possible with ESPN and BYU-TV. I do not see how they can return to the MWC for much longer without serious concessions on the TV side, but even then, they cannot get near the money or exposure as a member of the MWC as they could as an independent. Arrogant? Yes, but they've shown the MWC (the country, i.e. the Big XII) that they have earned that right. If the MWC won't acknowledge that fact, ESPN will.
Arrogance
1) Is the move arrogant? Absolutely. But, as we learned, it is justified arrogance. They put themseleves out to market and two conferences (the WAC and the West Coast Conference) were willing to take their non-football sports just to get them in the conference. ESPN was willing to broadcast their games and pay them substantially more than they are currently receiving. We'll look at revenue in more detail later, but suffice it to say here: BYU's TV contracts (for football alone) were going to be more than half of the entire MWC TV deal (which includes all sports). That means the rights to their football games are worth more than the entire athletic programs of the other 8 schools, combined. Yet they are treated "equally" and not given any special treatment whatsoever.
2) They are not Notre Dame. Everybody knows that. BYU admits as much. But in order to improve on the status quo, they don't need to be Notre Dame. Their deal with ESPN wouldn't have come close to Notre Dame's deal with NBC. But it would have given them at least twice as much money and probably 10 times the exposure. They don't need to be Notre Dame, they just need to continue being BYU, and they will be much better off than right now. Also, people are always saying that BYU is no Notre Dame, but they are in a much better position than Army and Navy, the other two independents. TV ratings and fan attendance are much greater for BYU than those two (with the exception of the Army-Navy game).
BCS Bowls
1) They move from "automatically qualifying for a BCS bid as a conference champion in the top 12" to "eligible for an at-large bid if they are in the top 14." The fact of the matter is, at this point in time, if BYU goes 11-1 or 12-0, regardless of conference affiliation (or lack thereof), they will go to a BCS game. Whether that is an automatic bid or an at-large bid is pretty irrelevant. In the MWC, they have to split the automatic money in half, give half to the other non-BCS conferences, and then divide the remainder with the MWC. As an independent, they get the same payday but without having to share it. People use last year as an example: BYU was eligible for an at-large bid but was passed up by Florida, Boise State, and Iowa. Those three teams were all way more deserving than BYU. I don't think any rational person has a problem with those teams going over BYU. If BYU was good enough to go 11-1 last season, maybe it's a different story, but they weren't good enough to do that.
2) With ESPN as a partner, they don't need anyone to lobby for them for greater access. If BYU goes 11-1 with 4 appearances on ESPN or ESPN2 (plus the fact that BYU-TV is on Satellite everywhere in the country so people will have a chance to see them multiple times), they will have access if and when they deserve access. They would probably play at least 5 ranked or BCS conference teams every year. ESPN would probably set up one game to which Gameday would go. That kind of exposure could move them up 2-3 spots in the polls, assuming they go 11-1. If BYU is in the top 8, they will get an at-large.
Revenue
1) If the MWC sends a team to a BCS game, BYU goes to the Las Vegas Bowl, and BYU makes the NCAA Tournament along with 2 other MWC teams, BYU's take for TV revenue, bowl payouts, and NCAA Tournament money is just less than $3.5M. ESPN offered more than that for 4 home football games. Depending on what you believe, the total package for BYU sports was going to be worth AT LEAST twice that, probably somewhere in the $7-10M range. This does not include bowl payouts or NCAA tournament money depending on which conference they end up in. There is nothing the MWC could offer that is even close to comparable.
2) They miss out on BCS money if an MWC school goes to the BCS. Boise State, TCU, and Utah have been the teams to bring home the BCS cash, not BYU, which they then share with the conference. But we're talking about $500K a year for BYU if someone else goes to a BCS game. Given the fact that they have at least doubled their revenue, it's still a multi-million dollar net gain without that half-million.
3) The jump to independence would rejuvenate their fan base, i.e. increase merchandise sales, donations, etc. My wife used to work in the BYU Bookstore E-Commerce Department. She said that sales essentially doubled over a weekend when BYU won as opposed to when they lost. Now imagine the enthusiasm from going independent: it would have a much bigger effect than a single win.
No Bowl Tie-Ins
1) If they had joined the WAC in other sports, they would have had access to the WAC's bowl games, according to the pre-nup they had with the WAC. Short of joining the Big XII, they would not have any bowl tie-ins. There is no arguing that point. They would go to a bowl game, because every year two or three conferences do not qualify enough teams: but this bowl would be less than desirable.
2) However, there will have to be a massive renegotiation in bowl contracts soon. The Pac 12 and Big Ten are going to want more bowl games. The Big XII will probably qualify fewer teams for bowls with their smaller league with fewer non-conference games. If the WAC disappears, their bowl games open up (I believe there were four tie-ins for them). The MWC has just grown in size and will need to find more bowls. A large restructuring of the bowls is going to take place. Some bowl is going to take a chance with BYU, especially given that ESPN would be a strong partner and ally of BYU's.
Exposure
1) Some wonder what would happen if BYU's "ESPN games" ended up on ESPNU, ESPN-Classic, or ESPN3. Those are difficult stations to find. However, having 5-6 games per year on The Mtn is even harder to find! I could watch those games easier and cheaper than I can with The Mtn, CBS-CS, and Versus.
2) BYU's contract with ESPN would be for four home games. However, take into account that most of BYU's road opponents will have a contract with ESPN as well, and you are looking at having perhaps as many as 6-8 games on national television (not counting BYU-TV games).
3) According to the agreement the WAC and BYU had, all other tournaments and BYU homes games could be on BYU-TV, meaning greater exposure for the network/BYU. Imagine St. Mary's or Gonzaga traveling to Provo or having the West Coast Conference Basketball Tournament on BYU-TV (minus the championship game). Tens-hundreds of thousands of people would discover BYU-TV. Good for the University and good for the Church.
Scheduling
1) 12 games will be tough to get scheduled every year. SDSU has already said they wouldn't schedule BYU (oh no, BYU will have to play Texas instead...). However, figure that BYU could schedule Utah, Utah State, and Hawaii most years, at least 2 of the 3 independents would be willing, they were already scheduling 2 or 3 other non-conference games every year, and ESPN would help broker 2 games. That's already at least 9 games. Throw a I-AA game and a cash-strapped C-USA/MAC/Sun Belt team and they are nearly there. Pulling all of that together for 2011 might be difficult, but for 2012 they could probably make those arrangements, even without help from the WAC.
2) Scheduling should get easier with ESPN as a partner and BYU-TV being available across the country. Besides, after 4 or 5 years of decreased ticket sales (and that crappy new TV deal they'll get if/when BYU leaves), even MWC schools might come around and play BYU again. They would probably even be willing to go to Provo to get some of that ESPN or BYU-TV money too!
On-Field Performance
1) They cannot lay eggs like they did against TCU and Florida State last season. If ESPN puts 4 big games on TV, they need to be respectable in all 4 and probably win at least 2 of them. If they don't perform, ESPN will not continue to broadcast them down the road.
2) BYU should be favored to win the MWC next season (2011). If they go out as conference champions with a BCS game under their belt, that would bode much better for how much exposure they could get in 2012. Given that the 2012 schedule will probably be softer than 2013 and beyond (tough to get big-name opponents on such short notice) and that BYU will have a very experienced team (based on the number of freshmen and sophomores on this year's two-deep), that's the best year to make the jump, if they make it.
Looking at all of the factors, I don't see how BYU considers the MWC a long-term solution. They have seen the revenue out there awaiting them. They have seen the amount of exposure possible with ESPN and BYU-TV. I do not see how they can return to the MWC for much longer without serious concessions on the TV side, but even then, they cannot get near the money or exposure as a member of the MWC as they could as an independent. Arrogant? Yes, but they've shown the MWC (the country, i.e. the Big XII) that they have earned that right. If the MWC won't acknowledge that fact, ESPN will.
Monday, August 23, 2010
A Look at Air Force
Here are my thoughts on Air Force:
Offense: this is a typical Falcon offense. They aren't huge upfront. People mention the O-Line as a weakness because they don't have many starts: guess what, that is Air Force football. They always play juniors and seniors on the line, so they never have much game experience, but they have plenty of guys who have been around the block and know the system in and out. The 6 non-OL positions are all in good shape. Again, they have a lot of juniors and seniors. A lot of guys who have played a lot of snaps. A lot of guys who know how to take care of the rock and move the chains. They should be able to throw more this season than last season with Warzeka and Fogler, plus a more experienced QB (or QBs...).
Defense: like the offense, the defense doesn't really change much from year to year. You get what you always get. They have a lot of depth, a lot of experience, but not a lot of size. This is why they run the 3-4: it suits their personnel better. They have biggers LBs to make up for the smaller defensive front, as they will always have a smaller defensive front at the Academy. The secondary is strong (though not as strong as the hype). Because they lack size in the front, teams often commit to the run against the Falcons, so their passing defense looks better. What they lack in athleticism, they make up for in smarts. And they do lack athleticism.
Schedule: very balanced schedule. Non-conference slate is Northwestern State (FCS school), at Oklahoma, Navy, and at Army. They should beat Northwestern State, lose to Oklahoma, Navy is a toss-up, and they should beat Army. A 3-1 record would really help the conference, but beating Navy is a tough challenge, as they haven't done it in with any regularity for a decade, so 2-2 is a better bet until they prove otherwise.
In the conference they get BYU, CSU, Utah, and New Mexico at home. They should go at least 2-2 there, but I believe this is the year they get either BYU or Utah, and make that 3-1. They have been close with Utah 3 of the last 4 games but never got over the hump, and they beat them 5 years ago in Rice-Eccles. They get BYU early in the year when their offense is not in sync. The best time of the year to play BYU is September. Air Force should get at least one of those two.
They travel to Wyoming, San Diego State, TCU, and UNLV. They may have some troubles at Wyoming and San Diego State, but I think they still SHOULD win both of those games. They will lose to TCU in Fort Worth and will beat UNLV in Vegas. As with the other groupings, 2-2 is the worst you'll see, but I would anticipate them to go 3-1.
Outlook: if you do the math, I've got them probably about 8-4, maybe as good as 9-3. I believe they'll have a 6-2 or 5-3 record in conference. At 6-2, they would finish 2nd. If they end up at 5-3, they'll probably be tied for third with the loser of the BYU-Utah game.
Offense: this is a typical Falcon offense. They aren't huge upfront. People mention the O-Line as a weakness because they don't have many starts: guess what, that is Air Force football. They always play juniors and seniors on the line, so they never have much game experience, but they have plenty of guys who have been around the block and know the system in and out. The 6 non-OL positions are all in good shape. Again, they have a lot of juniors and seniors. A lot of guys who have played a lot of snaps. A lot of guys who know how to take care of the rock and move the chains. They should be able to throw more this season than last season with Warzeka and Fogler, plus a more experienced QB (or QBs...).
Defense: like the offense, the defense doesn't really change much from year to year. You get what you always get. They have a lot of depth, a lot of experience, but not a lot of size. This is why they run the 3-4: it suits their personnel better. They have biggers LBs to make up for the smaller defensive front, as they will always have a smaller defensive front at the Academy. The secondary is strong (though not as strong as the hype). Because they lack size in the front, teams often commit to the run against the Falcons, so their passing defense looks better. What they lack in athleticism, they make up for in smarts. And they do lack athleticism.
Schedule: very balanced schedule. Non-conference slate is Northwestern State (FCS school), at Oklahoma, Navy, and at Army. They should beat Northwestern State, lose to Oklahoma, Navy is a toss-up, and they should beat Army. A 3-1 record would really help the conference, but beating Navy is a tough challenge, as they haven't done it in with any regularity for a decade, so 2-2 is a better bet until they prove otherwise.
In the conference they get BYU, CSU, Utah, and New Mexico at home. They should go at least 2-2 there, but I believe this is the year they get either BYU or Utah, and make that 3-1. They have been close with Utah 3 of the last 4 games but never got over the hump, and they beat them 5 years ago in Rice-Eccles. They get BYU early in the year when their offense is not in sync. The best time of the year to play BYU is September. Air Force should get at least one of those two.
They travel to Wyoming, San Diego State, TCU, and UNLV. They may have some troubles at Wyoming and San Diego State, but I think they still SHOULD win both of those games. They will lose to TCU in Fort Worth and will beat UNLV in Vegas. As with the other groupings, 2-2 is the worst you'll see, but I would anticipate them to go 3-1.
Outlook: if you do the math, I've got them probably about 8-4, maybe as good as 9-3. I believe they'll have a 6-2 or 5-3 record in conference. At 6-2, they would finish 2nd. If they end up at 5-3, they'll probably be tied for third with the loser of the BYU-Utah game.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Mo Predicts
After studying Holmoe's Education Week Q&A session and seeing the news about BYU inking a two-year deal with the University of Texas, Mo is ready to predict that BYU is going to leave the MWC (probably to be an independent) with an ESPN contract by the 2012 football season, if not for the 2011 season.
I have no sources. I have not talked to anyone in the know. But this is going to happen. Read between the lines!
5 reasons:
1) They cannot return to the MWC now, even if the conference made major concessions, which Craig Thompson has said he will not do anyway. You cannot get stabbed in the back like that and return, especially not when you are the gravy train.
2) Texas would not have inked a deal to play in Provo if the game were to be on the Mtn. or Versus. BYU (and probably ESPN) must have made assurances to Texas that the game will be broadcast on ESPN in primetime. That cannot happen in the MWC TV deal will not allow that.
3) Holmoe sounded extremely enthusiastic about BYU's broadcasting capabilities. He must have some intent to use them and the MWC TV deal will not allow that either.
4) Holmoe talked about how important of a partner ESPN is to be BYU. He has never said that about The Mtn. (and certainly not in the recent past). And, currently, ESPN and BYU are not official partners!
5) BYU has not announced anything. They have not confirmed their commitment to the MWC nor have they stated that they will stop researching independent status. Their silence means: we will not be two-faced like everyone else involved (except Utah State). "We will not say one thing today and do something else tomorrow (or 5 minutes from now behind your back...)." They will remain silent until they have something to announce. They are realigning those ducks and once they are back in a row, they will announce. Next week, maybe, but certainly before September 1, 2011.
What will the MWC TV deal look like after that? Hey, Comcast, we lost the Salt Lake market but we added Reno and Fresno (and their combined average attendance of 50,000). Or, sorry, Wyoming, we know you rely on BYU coming to town every other year to give you maximum ticket sales, but you voted to stab them in the back too, so stop complaining and just do a better job of marketing that Nevada game.
I should also predict that The Mtn. channel disappears within one year of BYU leaving the conference.
I have no sources. I have not talked to anyone in the know. But this is going to happen. Read between the lines!
5 reasons:
1) They cannot return to the MWC now, even if the conference made major concessions, which Craig Thompson has said he will not do anyway. You cannot get stabbed in the back like that and return, especially not when you are the gravy train.
2) Texas would not have inked a deal to play in Provo if the game were to be on the Mtn. or Versus. BYU (and probably ESPN) must have made assurances to Texas that the game will be broadcast on ESPN in primetime. That cannot happen in the MWC TV deal will not allow that.
3) Holmoe sounded extremely enthusiastic about BYU's broadcasting capabilities. He must have some intent to use them and the MWC TV deal will not allow that either.
4) Holmoe talked about how important of a partner ESPN is to be BYU. He has never said that about The Mtn. (and certainly not in the recent past). And, currently, ESPN and BYU are not official partners!
5) BYU has not announced anything. They have not confirmed their commitment to the MWC nor have they stated that they will stop researching independent status. Their silence means: we will not be two-faced like everyone else involved (except Utah State). "We will not say one thing today and do something else tomorrow (or 5 minutes from now behind your back...)." They will remain silent until they have something to announce. They are realigning those ducks and once they are back in a row, they will announce. Next week, maybe, but certainly before September 1, 2011.
What will the MWC TV deal look like after that? Hey, Comcast, we lost the Salt Lake market but we added Reno and Fresno (and their combined average attendance of 50,000). Or, sorry, Wyoming, we know you rely on BYU coming to town every other year to give you maximum ticket sales, but you voted to stab them in the back too, so stop complaining and just do a better job of marketing that Nevada game.
I should also predict that The Mtn. channel disappears within one year of BYU leaving the conference.
The MWC Has Given Up?
There is now talk of the MWC champion playing the C-USA champion for a right to get into a BCS game. Has the MWC given up hope of an automatic bid? Chances are, their champion is going to qualify for a BCS game, just have to be in the top 12, i.e. finish 11-1 or 12-0. Why muddy it up by giving C-USA a 50% chance at it? Why would the BCS even consider accepting this anyway? Also, this game would probably have to be broadcast on The Mtn. at least every other year, right? How does that help exposure or revenue?
I read that part of this might be an attempt to keep BYU? Seriously, if I'm BYU this makes me realize even more how small of an organization the MWC is. How is this ANY better than the status quo? It's even worse! And if I'm President Samuelson and this was the solution presented to me to "improve" the conference in that call on Tuesday, I would have hurried off the phone too (and then have the conference secretly vote in new members while I was gone...). Any excuse would do: I have to go (and make phone calls that might actually benefit my university).
My proposed better solution: Fresno State, BYU, Boise State, Air Force, TCU, Houston and some combination of Hawaii, Southern Miss, SMU, UTEP, and East Carolina (and maybe Tulsa) form a new conference (and get a commissioner not named Craig Thompson). This new conference could ink a deal with ESPN worth probably about 5 times what most of them are receiving right now and it would probably even be a BCS-caliber conference on its own: no stupid play-in games that the BCS doesn't care about anyway. These teams have money, average about 30,000+ in attendance, and/or have spent at least some time in the top 25 in the past 4 seasons. Leave the leeches behind. Teams like Wyoming and Rice aren't worth a quarter of a million in TV revenue, yet they take a million more than that. Find a real solution, I'll give you a hint: a C-USA/MWC "championship" game isn't it. What a joke, Craig Thompson!
I read that part of this might be an attempt to keep BYU? Seriously, if I'm BYU this makes me realize even more how small of an organization the MWC is. How is this ANY better than the status quo? It's even worse! And if I'm President Samuelson and this was the solution presented to me to "improve" the conference in that call on Tuesday, I would have hurried off the phone too (and then have the conference secretly vote in new members while I was gone...). Any excuse would do: I have to go (and make phone calls that might actually benefit my university).
My proposed better solution: Fresno State, BYU, Boise State, Air Force, TCU, Houston and some combination of Hawaii, Southern Miss, SMU, UTEP, and East Carolina (and maybe Tulsa) form a new conference (and get a commissioner not named Craig Thompson). This new conference could ink a deal with ESPN worth probably about 5 times what most of them are receiving right now and it would probably even be a BCS-caliber conference on its own: no stupid play-in games that the BCS doesn't care about anyway. These teams have money, average about 30,000+ in attendance, and/or have spent at least some time in the top 25 in the past 4 seasons. Leave the leeches behind. Teams like Wyoming and Rice aren't worth a quarter of a million in TV revenue, yet they take a million more than that. Find a real solution, I'll give you a hint: a C-USA/MWC "championship" game isn't it. What a joke, Craig Thompson!
The Plot Thickens
Last night, Utah State and Boise State shed a little more light on this whole fiasco. Utah State acted very honorably, albeit very naively. They had an agreement and they stuck with it and stuck by BYU. (Interesting that they would rather have been in the WAC with BYU, in all sports but football, than to be in the MWC with BYU, including football, but that's another story for another day...) However, they stuck by their word.
Boise State pointed out that the expansion vote took place without BYU, and without BYU's knowledge on the fact. Apparently, BYU was unwilling to cease exploring the independence option, so the rest of the MWC schools held a secret vote. The fact that BYU was as surprised as the rest of the country at the invitation means that none of the MWC presidents, ADs, commissioners, etc. had the guts (or they had enough hatred) to even inform BYU that the vote took place. The fact that Utah State was voted in as well means this had nothing to do with improving the conference, but had everything to do with destroying the WAC. You cannot blame the MWC for the actions they took but you can blame them for the manner in which they did it. They wanted to force BYU back to the table without any leverage so they wouldn't have to make any concessions. And the Commissioner had the audacity to say that BYU is still a trusted, respected, and full-voting member of the MWC. What hypocrisy!
Tom Holmoe, BYU's athletic director, did a Q&A yesterday and his comments were very telling. There are articles for this all over but here is the article at the D-News: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700058532/BYU-football-Holmoe-Things-are-playing-out.html
Some highlights: BYU can't get anybody to come play because of the Mtn. deal. As soon as this independent thing came out, Texas is all of a sudden interested in an extended series (beyond the one-time game set in Austin next season). They are only interested because of independence and ESPN, as Texas and BYU both stated. If they are "close" to a deal, as both Texas and BYU stated in the past 24 hours, it stands to reason that BYU must STILL be "close" to independence. I initially thought this wasn't going to happen after the WAC got smacked, but, if you read between the lines of what Holmoe, it can't possibly mean anything else.
Holmoe again mentions BYU broadcasting capabilities. He mentions the "blackout" that the MWC TV deal forces on campus. He talks about the need for exposure and how it isn't possible with the MWC. He talks about how important of a partner ESPN is. Why would you say that when your only currently contracted TV partner is Comcast/The Mtn? It seems like he just wanted to demonstrate the many ways that the MWC is holding BYU back from doing what it can do. BYU cannot be saying what it is saying if it is planning on returning to the MWC. The MWC cannot be doing what it is doing and expect BYU to go back anyway but begrudgingly. This marriage has turned extremely sour, extremely fast, and I expect a bitter divorce, sooner than later most likely, for the MWC's "adultery."
3 days ago I was adamantly opposed to BYU leaving the MWC. But 3 days ago we lived in a different world. After the events of the past 72 hours, I do not want to see BYU's continued membership with the current members of the MWC (and yes, I realize this would be an emotional decision, but it appears to be a good financial one too). The MWC stabbed BYU in the back; willfully, repeatedly, and happily. Fresno State and Nevada went back on agreements they had made, for money. Utah State is the most honorable one here and they are getting screwed the most (and I felt bad for them already before I even knew what events had transpired behind the scenes). I do not know where BYU will go, but I do not see any choice left for them but to leave the MWC (and I hope they bring Utah State along with them). You cannot be treated with such disdain, lack of respect, and hypocrisy (especially by people who are making their living off of your revenue stream), and go on as if nothing happened. They may not make the announcement before September 1, but they will make it! I hope the announcement comes just as the TV contract is renegotiated but not signed. That would be sweet justice. Make them enter into negotiations all over again, without BYU! Let's see how different that contract looks without the gravy train to pull it.
Boise State pointed out that the expansion vote took place without BYU, and without BYU's knowledge on the fact. Apparently, BYU was unwilling to cease exploring the independence option, so the rest of the MWC schools held a secret vote. The fact that BYU was as surprised as the rest of the country at the invitation means that none of the MWC presidents, ADs, commissioners, etc. had the guts (or they had enough hatred) to even inform BYU that the vote took place. The fact that Utah State was voted in as well means this had nothing to do with improving the conference, but had everything to do with destroying the WAC. You cannot blame the MWC for the actions they took but you can blame them for the manner in which they did it. They wanted to force BYU back to the table without any leverage so they wouldn't have to make any concessions. And the Commissioner had the audacity to say that BYU is still a trusted, respected, and full-voting member of the MWC. What hypocrisy!
Tom Holmoe, BYU's athletic director, did a Q&A yesterday and his comments were very telling. There are articles for this all over but here is the article at the D-News: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700058532/BYU-football-Holmoe-Things-are-playing-out.html
Some highlights: BYU can't get anybody to come play because of the Mtn. deal. As soon as this independent thing came out, Texas is all of a sudden interested in an extended series (beyond the one-time game set in Austin next season). They are only interested because of independence and ESPN, as Texas and BYU both stated. If they are "close" to a deal, as both Texas and BYU stated in the past 24 hours, it stands to reason that BYU must STILL be "close" to independence. I initially thought this wasn't going to happen after the WAC got smacked, but, if you read between the lines of what Holmoe, it can't possibly mean anything else.
Holmoe again mentions BYU broadcasting capabilities. He mentions the "blackout" that the MWC TV deal forces on campus. He talks about the need for exposure and how it isn't possible with the MWC. He talks about how important of a partner ESPN is. Why would you say that when your only currently contracted TV partner is Comcast/The Mtn? It seems like he just wanted to demonstrate the many ways that the MWC is holding BYU back from doing what it can do. BYU cannot be saying what it is saying if it is planning on returning to the MWC. The MWC cannot be doing what it is doing and expect BYU to go back anyway but begrudgingly. This marriage has turned extremely sour, extremely fast, and I expect a bitter divorce, sooner than later most likely, for the MWC's "adultery."
3 days ago I was adamantly opposed to BYU leaving the MWC. But 3 days ago we lived in a different world. After the events of the past 72 hours, I do not want to see BYU's continued membership with the current members of the MWC (and yes, I realize this would be an emotional decision, but it appears to be a good financial one too). The MWC stabbed BYU in the back; willfully, repeatedly, and happily. Fresno State and Nevada went back on agreements they had made, for money. Utah State is the most honorable one here and they are getting screwed the most (and I felt bad for them already before I even knew what events had transpired behind the scenes). I do not know where BYU will go, but I do not see any choice left for them but to leave the MWC (and I hope they bring Utah State along with them). You cannot be treated with such disdain, lack of respect, and hypocrisy (especially by people who are making their living off of your revenue stream), and go on as if nothing happened. They may not make the announcement before September 1, but they will make it! I hope the announcement comes just as the TV contract is renegotiated but not signed. That would be sweet justice. Make them enter into negotiations all over again, without BYU! Let's see how different that contract looks without the gravy train to pull it.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
The New News
The only recent "development" in the MWC-WAC saga is actually something that didn't develop. Utah State was extended an invitation to join the MWC, further proof of my theory that this was nothing but an attempt to destroy the WAC so BYU had nowhere else to go. However, Utah State turned down that invitation, stating that they had made a commitment to the WAC, and to BYU, to join the WAC. They also believed the $5 million buyout clause to be enforced, something Nevada and Fresno State shrugged off. Further evidence of my theory: notice how ZERO mention has been made about the schedule, divisions, TV contract restructuring, etc. They clearly didn't plan this as thoroughly as the Boise State invite, when they were able to pose at least some answer to those questions. Now maybe they can't speak to that because the plan was to have 12 teams, but only 11 showed up to the party. Do they invite Houston? Or do they re-extend an invite to Utah State, now that the WAC commissioner has released all remaining WAC teams from the $5M buyout clause.
If the WAC can salvage a conference, BYU could still join, but I doubt the "revamped" WAC would be attractive enough for BYU to join. They can go one of three places to find AT LEAST two schools: the Sun Belt, the MAC, and I-AA. The Sun Belt is a geographic stretch: the conference already extends from Hawaii to Louisiana, and going to Alabama, Tennessee, or Florida doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The same goes for the MAC, whose furthest west team is in Illinois. There simply aren't two close I-AA schools that could make that transition. Montana is the only western I-AA school currently capable of making the jump, and they just lost their head coach to UNLV...they also know that they would not be able to make the competitive jump. They don't have the athletes, facilities, or the revenue to be a I-A program.
The other commonly mentioned conference for BYU non-football sports to land is the West Coast Conference, which has made overtures to BYU. In men's basketball, this would be a great option, given the success of Gonzaga and the more recent success of St. Mary's. Even Loyola Marymount won a game AT BYU a few years back, something only a handful of teams has done since. WCC women's soccer and women's volleyball is also good. However, there is something that the WAC could offer that the WCC can't: 4-6 football games every year to help BYU fill a 12-game schedule. Scheduling was going to be tough anyway, but with the 4-6 WAC games each year, ESPN helping out, the other independent schools, and BYU's normal avenues of scheduling, it could have been done. Now it's a very dicey proposition.
The other potential snag is that the WCC, a collection of mostly religious schools, plays the majority of its sports on Sunday. Is BYU worth the hassle of rescheduling EVERY sport to them? Add in the fact that, besides the no Sunday play, BYU would ask for other concessions surrounding broadcast rights. BYU would come in demanding the world, but would only able to promise a few thousand tickets for its road games (doesn't help Gonzaga and St. Mary's which already do well in hoops attendance) and perhaps only a slight increase in TV revenue. The reason I say only a slight increase in TV revenue is that basketball isn't the money-maker that football is and the dollars associated with strictly basketball packages has one less zero at the end of it. Plus BYU would try to get as many of their home games on BYU-TV as possible or gain as much freedom in self-broadcasting as possible. Once this is more fully explored, I expect the WCC to take a long, hard look at the dollars to see if this makes cents...maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I don't know the numbers myself, so I don't know. I would imagine we're talking about an extra $100,000 in TV revenue per school maximum (and probably more likely closer to half of that), plus an extra $15-20K in ticket revenue when BYU comes to town.
A lot of people seem to think this is going to happen still. I just see the probability of it happening soon shrinking rapidly. All of the ducks were lined up until the story leaked and the MWC issued their knee-jerk reaction, quite shrewdly, quite successfully, I might add. The window for the 2011 season is very tight. They may have to wait one more year to get this to happen, and it might be better to see how everything shakes out in the western US anyway.
One other thing is clear: any concessions BYU was hoping to get on the broadcasting rights for games is NOT going to happen now. The Fresno State-BYU basketball game will not be broadcast under the TV deal, and BYU will not be allowed to show it on their own. The MWC will forever clamp down on ANY attempt BYU makes to get self-broadcast rights either through KSL or BYU-TV. This bad marriage between the cash cow and the other 10 is going to get filled with more bitterness, resentment, and hostility in the coming months.
BYU did prove, to some degree, that they are in demand. ESPN reportedly offered them $1 million per game for 4 games in TV revenue. That's substantial, especially for a non-BCS team! They have shown that they have the ability to get their games out to the masses via their own platform. I expect that, within two years, BYU will ultimately leave the MWC, whether that's to go independent or elsewhere. This arranged marriage can only end badly. It's just a matter of time before the ducks line up in a row again. BYU will be more prepared to pull the trigger then BEFORE the story gets out.
If the WAC can salvage a conference, BYU could still join, but I doubt the "revamped" WAC would be attractive enough for BYU to join. They can go one of three places to find AT LEAST two schools: the Sun Belt, the MAC, and I-AA. The Sun Belt is a geographic stretch: the conference already extends from Hawaii to Louisiana, and going to Alabama, Tennessee, or Florida doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The same goes for the MAC, whose furthest west team is in Illinois. There simply aren't two close I-AA schools that could make that transition. Montana is the only western I-AA school currently capable of making the jump, and they just lost their head coach to UNLV...they also know that they would not be able to make the competitive jump. They don't have the athletes, facilities, or the revenue to be a I-A program.
The other commonly mentioned conference for BYU non-football sports to land is the West Coast Conference, which has made overtures to BYU. In men's basketball, this would be a great option, given the success of Gonzaga and the more recent success of St. Mary's. Even Loyola Marymount won a game AT BYU a few years back, something only a handful of teams has done since. WCC women's soccer and women's volleyball is also good. However, there is something that the WAC could offer that the WCC can't: 4-6 football games every year to help BYU fill a 12-game schedule. Scheduling was going to be tough anyway, but with the 4-6 WAC games each year, ESPN helping out, the other independent schools, and BYU's normal avenues of scheduling, it could have been done. Now it's a very dicey proposition.
The other potential snag is that the WCC, a collection of mostly religious schools, plays the majority of its sports on Sunday. Is BYU worth the hassle of rescheduling EVERY sport to them? Add in the fact that, besides the no Sunday play, BYU would ask for other concessions surrounding broadcast rights. BYU would come in demanding the world, but would only able to promise a few thousand tickets for its road games (doesn't help Gonzaga and St. Mary's which already do well in hoops attendance) and perhaps only a slight increase in TV revenue. The reason I say only a slight increase in TV revenue is that basketball isn't the money-maker that football is and the dollars associated with strictly basketball packages has one less zero at the end of it. Plus BYU would try to get as many of their home games on BYU-TV as possible or gain as much freedom in self-broadcasting as possible. Once this is more fully explored, I expect the WCC to take a long, hard look at the dollars to see if this makes cents...maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I don't know the numbers myself, so I don't know. I would imagine we're talking about an extra $100,000 in TV revenue per school maximum (and probably more likely closer to half of that), plus an extra $15-20K in ticket revenue when BYU comes to town.
A lot of people seem to think this is going to happen still. I just see the probability of it happening soon shrinking rapidly. All of the ducks were lined up until the story leaked and the MWC issued their knee-jerk reaction, quite shrewdly, quite successfully, I might add. The window for the 2011 season is very tight. They may have to wait one more year to get this to happen, and it might be better to see how everything shakes out in the western US anyway.
One other thing is clear: any concessions BYU was hoping to get on the broadcasting rights for games is NOT going to happen now. The Fresno State-BYU basketball game will not be broadcast under the TV deal, and BYU will not be allowed to show it on their own. The MWC will forever clamp down on ANY attempt BYU makes to get self-broadcast rights either through KSL or BYU-TV. This bad marriage between the cash cow and the other 10 is going to get filled with more bitterness, resentment, and hostility in the coming months.
BYU did prove, to some degree, that they are in demand. ESPN reportedly offered them $1 million per game for 4 games in TV revenue. That's substantial, especially for a non-BCS team! They have shown that they have the ability to get their games out to the masses via their own platform. I expect that, within two years, BYU will ultimately leave the MWC, whether that's to go independent or elsewhere. This arranged marriage can only end badly. It's just a matter of time before the ducks line up in a row again. BYU will be more prepared to pull the trigger then BEFORE the story gets out.
Nothing At All
After a strange 24 hours, to say the least, a lot of BYU fans awoke this morning feeling these words of Tennyson ringing true (In Memoriam):
Behold, we know not anything,
I can but trust that good shall fall
At last-far off-at last, to all,
And every winter change to spring.
So runs my dream: but what am I?
An infant crying in the night:
An infant crying for the light:
And with no language but a cry.
When will BYU's winter change to spring? Or will it ever? For now, they remain a BCS-caliber school stuck in a non-BCS league.
And so, after a frantic 24 hours, the status of BYU is "unknown," which is to say, nothing has changed. As far as we know, BYU will continue forever to be a member of the MWC. In the end, the media circus brought about one change: Fresno State and Nevada are going to join the MWC in 2012. The MWC should take this one step further and add either Utah State (which they probably SHOULD have added in place of Nevada) or Houston. This 11-team thing is pretty worthless.
The MWC has survived: the WAC must die. I feel for Utah State who finally might have a football program worth something and who have had a quality hoops team for the better part of a decade. Where do THEY go from here? Or Hawaii, who does offer quite a bit as well? Now San Jose State, New Mexico State, Louisiana Tech, and Idaho don't really bring anything to anyone, so they will have to try to latch on to some other gravy train of some sort. Or lose football and join the Big Sky in everything else?
Behold, we know not anything,
I can but trust that good shall fall
At last-far off-at last, to all,
And every winter change to spring.
So runs my dream: but what am I?
An infant crying in the night:
An infant crying for the light:
And with no language but a cry.
When will BYU's winter change to spring? Or will it ever? For now, they remain a BCS-caliber school stuck in a non-BCS league.
And so, after a frantic 24 hours, the status of BYU is "unknown," which is to say, nothing has changed. As far as we know, BYU will continue forever to be a member of the MWC. In the end, the media circus brought about one change: Fresno State and Nevada are going to join the MWC in 2012. The MWC should take this one step further and add either Utah State (which they probably SHOULD have added in place of Nevada) or Houston. This 11-team thing is pretty worthless.
The MWC has survived: the WAC must die. I feel for Utah State who finally might have a football program worth something and who have had a quality hoops team for the better part of a decade. Where do THEY go from here? Or Hawaii, who does offer quite a bit as well? Now San Jose State, New Mexico State, Louisiana Tech, and Idaho don't really bring anything to anyone, so they will have to try to latch on to some other gravy train of some sort. Or lose football and join the Big Sky in everything else?
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Appears to be Official
The Mountain West has now officially announced that Nevada and Fresno State have officially accepted invitations to join the MWC. Craig Thompson said that this was the plan all along. Why, exactly, the conference picked today, as opposed to a month ago, to extend the invitations is a little baffling. He also stated that the MWC would not make any concessions to try to keep any team in the conference: you can come and go as you please. What he is saying is: BYU, don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out. Good riddance/luck.
This definitely increases my frustration with the Mountain West. Again, Houston helps their BCS cause more than either Fresno State or Nevada. This appears to be a play to hurt BYU more than a way to strengthen the conference. All it does is add a few more mediocre teams. Fresno State lost to the 5th place MWC team the last two seasons in bowl games. Good, the MWC added a good candidate for 6th place to replace the cohort of UNLV/SDSU/New Mexico/CSU. Nevada, who had their best team ever last season, still only went 8-5 and lost by 35 points in a bowl game against an 8-5 SMU team. Houston had a better record and computer ranking in 2009 and 2008 than both of these schools. Craig Thompson wants to create new in-conference rivalries: how about Fort Worth vs. Houston?
Again, all this move does is take away some of BYU's leverage, it doesn't increase the chances of a BCS bid. It doesn't really even help the TV situation: another California school that nobody cares about, in a city of 500,000 and a school from Reno, with its booming metropolis of less than 500,000 people. They have now solidified the state of Nevada and it's TV markets. Excited, yet? Neither is Comcast. Also, for attendance: Fresno State averages 33,000 fans, would be 4th in the MWC. Nevada averages a whopping 17,500, good for dead last, and one of only two schools that averages less than 20,000 fans per game. Now are you excited?
BYU still could leave the conference to be independent in football, but I don't see any viable options. If Conference USA were in play, maybe, but if the West Coast Conference is the best there is, I don't see that as a possibility. There simply isn't a better option. The increased revenue and exposure for football isn't worth complete anonymity in every other sport. Notre Dame has the Big East. BYU doesn't have anything for its other sports. I hope they don't forge ahead anyway. But then again, I've thought that from the beginning!
This definitely increases my frustration with the Mountain West. Again, Houston helps their BCS cause more than either Fresno State or Nevada. This appears to be a play to hurt BYU more than a way to strengthen the conference. All it does is add a few more mediocre teams. Fresno State lost to the 5th place MWC team the last two seasons in bowl games. Good, the MWC added a good candidate for 6th place to replace the cohort of UNLV/SDSU/New Mexico/CSU. Nevada, who had their best team ever last season, still only went 8-5 and lost by 35 points in a bowl game against an 8-5 SMU team. Houston had a better record and computer ranking in 2009 and 2008 than both of these schools. Craig Thompson wants to create new in-conference rivalries: how about Fort Worth vs. Houston?
Again, all this move does is take away some of BYU's leverage, it doesn't increase the chances of a BCS bid. It doesn't really even help the TV situation: another California school that nobody cares about, in a city of 500,000 and a school from Reno, with its booming metropolis of less than 500,000 people. They have now solidified the state of Nevada and it's TV markets. Excited, yet? Neither is Comcast. Also, for attendance: Fresno State averages 33,000 fans, would be 4th in the MWC. Nevada averages a whopping 17,500, good for dead last, and one of only two schools that averages less than 20,000 fans per game. Now are you excited?
BYU still could leave the conference to be independent in football, but I don't see any viable options. If Conference USA were in play, maybe, but if the West Coast Conference is the best there is, I don't see that as a possibility. There simply isn't a better option. The increased revenue and exposure for football isn't worth complete anonymity in every other sport. Notre Dame has the Big East. BYU doesn't have anything for its other sports. I hope they don't forge ahead anyway. But then again, I've thought that from the beginning!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)