This is how Independence would work

I've said before that a big part of BYU being successful as an independent is strategic scheduling. And I think having several "core games" built into that schedule on a yearly basis is a must. It's what the other independent teams do and it would help BYU to do the same.



In my opinion, it would make sense for BYU to have 8 permanent opponents, much like it would if it were in a conference. For reasons that should be self-evident, those should include: Utah, Utah State, Hawaii, Boise State, Air Force, Navy, Army, and Notre Dame. Obviously that would leave 4 open slots to play a diversity of other teams.



1. Utah - Played on a permanent basis for every opening game.



2. Open



3. Open



4. Open



5. Utah State - Played on a permanent basis every General Conference weekend.



6. Open



7. Air Force - Considering the history between BYU and Air Force, as well as the fact that the Falcons have shown a willingness to play non-conference games later in the year, we could play them here.



8. Boise State - BYU and Boise State have obviously joined forces for the long term. And it looks like the Broncos would be willing to play us later in the season as well.



9., 10., 11. Army, Navy, Notre Dame - It only makes sense to play the other independent teams in the latter part of the schedule. Obviously it wouldn't be the last game of the year because Army plays Navy and Notre Dame is usually playing somebody like USC or Stanford. But we could play all three teams, in any order, the weeks before.



12. Hawaii - Hawaii has always been in a unique position themselves considering their geography. And given their history and ties with BYU, this would make a great closing game on a permanent basis.

I would be fine with that. The trick is talking some of them into it - especially on an equal home and away basis. Sign them up. We need to kiss up to some of our old MWC foes to fill in the blanks. Don't overschedule those slots. The 8 you listed are a pretty respectable schedule alreeady.



When some of these go BEAST WEST - they may not want to pkay us out of conference and they won't need to. But SDSU might want a rivalry when they are no longer a little brother. You could try to work in WSU, AZ, OSU, UCLA, ASU, Colorado, Baylor, UTEP, etc. But go ahead and get a guaranteed win over New Mexico and UNLV in there and then hope we win and they don't rise up and bite us.

Cougarbib2 wrote:
I would be fine with that. The trick is talking some of them into it - especially on an equal home and away basis. Sign them up. We need to kiss up to some of our old MWC foes to fill in the blanks. Don't overschedule those slots. The 8 you listed are a pretty respectable schedule alreeady.



When some of these go BEAST WEST - they may not want to pkay us out of conference and they won't need to. But SDSU might want a rivalry when they are no longer a little brother. You could try to work in WSU, Baylor, UTEP, etc. But go ahead and get a guaranteed win over New Mexico and UNLV in there and then hope we win and they don't rise up and bite us.

One reason, among many, that I would choose those 8 permanent opponents if I think all of them would be open to playing BYU on a yearly basis. The only one where we'd have to play a 2 for 1, at least for a while, would be Notre Dame.



Other than Air Force, and the new addition of Boise State, I don't see any point in playing other MWC teams. One reason we left the conference is to not play most of those teams anymore.



I agree that we shouldn't over-schedule the open games. For those 4 open slots, an example of what I'm thinking would be something like Stanford, SMU, Northwestern, and Vanderbilt. (Obviously with an emphasis on playing other private institutions but not a "must.")

Just for fun - what do you think our record would have been vs those teams in 2010 and 2011?



And we will break in a new QB every 2 or 3 years and not all of them will work out quickly - just look at BYU history or just about any school history over 20 or 30 years and see the ups and downs.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

ND's November schedule is pretty much booked through 2016. They've done it smart and locked November down well in advance.



Also not a big fan of playing the AFA option in the middle of the schedule where we lose a few defensive players to low blocks.

Notre Dame and Boise State, alone, give the schedule legitimacy. And, they give us good games in October and November. But, we should shoot to play ONE out of Air Force/Navy/Army each year, not three games. Put this game in October or November.



The suggestions regarding Utah State, Hawaii, and Utah are solid.



That gives us 5-6 games on a yearly (or nearly yearly) basis. Four of those games would be in October or November.



I would fill out the October and November schedules with a Weber State or Idaho State and one or two WAC/MWC opponents, then focus on a balanced September schedule - with a Texas/Wisconsin/USC type (an "A" game), a Southern Miss/UCF/Houston type (a solid "B" game against a havenot), and a Oregon State/Washington State/Iowa State type (a solid "C" game against a lower tier BCS program). Here's a hypothetical schedule:



1- @Utah

2- Houston

3- @ Washington State

4- Wisconsin

5- Utah State

6- @ Colorado State

7- San Jose State

8- Boise State

9- @ Army

10- Weber State

11- @ Notre Dame

12- BYE

13- @Hawaii



That would be a pretty tough schedule, but provide some very quality match-ups that should pacify all the schedule-haters.

"A" Level (tough game, but prestigious opponent) - Wisconsin, Notre Dame, Boise St

"B" Level (decent chance to win, good opponent) - Utah, Houston

"C" Level (should win, so-so opponent) - Washington State, @ Hawaii, Utah St

"D" Level (easy win, easy opponent) - @ Colorado St, San Jose St, Weber St, @ Army



With this kind of schedule, 9-3 and 8-4 seasons would be the norm and a fringe top-25 ranking. The schedule would have some attractive games (both home and away), but would also have some easy wins. Occasionally, BYU would have a shot to go for 10 or more wins and a top 10 or 15 ranking, but you can't expect that to be the norm if you are shooting for at least 5 games against solid or tough competition. The schedule would set itself up for a truly magical season if BYU runs the table, but that cannot be our expectation.

KingCoug wrote:

9-11. Army, Navy, Notre Dame - It only makes sense to play the other independent teams in the latter part of the schedule. Obviously it wouldn't be the last game of the year because Army plays Navy and Notre Dame is usually playing somebody like USC or Stanford. But we could play all three teams, in any order, the weeks before.



12. Hawaii - Hawaii has always been in a unique position themselves considering their geography. And given their history and ties with BYU, this would make a great closing game on a permanent basis.

I kind of like the idea of having an "Informal Independent Conference." Playing each other of your own free will, and not out of any conference obligation, would be cool.



Also, I'm not sure I like playing Hawaii the last game of your schedule every year, unless you want to freeze their butts off in December in Provo. If that's the point, I'm all for it, but otherwise, make it fair and put them in games 3-8.