All I ever needed to know...

...I learned on my mission, or so goes the quote (sort of.)



A good friend and CC contributor and I were talking about the mission experience, particularly about mission politics. It made me think about what Riley and Jake gained/didn't gain by serving/not serving a mission. Beyond the obvious growth in maturity and stature, I believe Jake would have grown in his ability to better read and deal with people, particularly his teammates, and their several agendas.



There were some fantastic missionaries in leadership positions in my mission in South Texas-elders who were born to lead and inspire. Some of the best men I have or will ever know were this type of missionary.



Then there were a few who needed those positions to be able to develop and mature-elders who needed the experience to become better missionaries and men. I witnessed tremendous growth among this group-one in particular grew from immature idiot to a strong man of faith in just a few months.



Then there were a select few posers that weren't necessarily bad missionaries (or good ones) but that would and say and do the right things, but only at strategic times and for whom all the stars would line up perfectly to allow them to scoot into positions of leadership-elders that knew how to play the game. Everyone knew about mission politics, but these guys made an artform of them.



I was not a fan of these types but I had the misfortune of replacing one of them to "fix" his area once all the stars went out of alignment and our president finally saw him for what he was. This elder had some important friends in key positions (AP, Office Elders, couple zone leaders and, of course, the Mission President) and was a district leader. He and his zone leader best friend literally planned how the ZL would become AP, get the DL "promoted" to ZL and then bring him in-plan A was as AP and plan B was as an office elder.



When I got to the area there was nothing going on. The 30 or so people in the teaching pool that this elder had been reporting was really about 8 people (1 family, couple individual really old folks) that had no real interest in the discussions but sure loved this elder. His most recent baptism refused to come to church. It was obvious that they hadn't been working the full complement of hours (although they reported to the contrary).



There are certain things that I believe can only really be learned and honed on a mission. Many of them are good qualities and Christ-like attributes. But one often overlooked skill [if you can even call it that] is the ability to play politics as a manipulator or, as its corollary, the ability to recognize these folks and discern their intent.



If Jake Heaps had served a mission, I believe he would have matured. I believe he would have been humbled. I believe he would have been converted to the gospel in a way that is unique to the missionary experience. I also believe he would have learned to either play the political games or, at least, be able to identify and avoid them-rather than be a victim of them.



For the record, I am a BYU-guy. I am not a Jake or a Riley guy. I'm one that thought that Riley should finish out the season because of his success on the field, albeit against weaker opponents. But, I can't help wonder what might have been if things had gone better-if there wasn't a deep rift in the locker room-if there weren't any "ites" among them. I don't pretend to know all the background involved, but I do know that Heaps had a prima donna attitude and that Riley Nelson played mission-like political games in an environment ideally suited for the creation of (to borrow from my CC friend) a sense of "reverse entitlement" due to Bronco's borderline infatuation with "Little Engines that Could." It worries me that as the talent in Bronco's recruiting classes has increased, our on-field outputs have regressed.



In the end, I don't pretend to say that I have a solution. And, since I'm just an "uneducated fan" [as Bronco would say] looking on from the outside, I don't know that my opinion means a lot. But, I do think the team can learn from this and we as fans can do likewise.



Furthermore, instead of getting depressed wondering what might have been, I hope our guys can somehow pull it together and become a team again. I would love for them to prove me wrong, but I don't think they can do it until several key upperclassmen, including and especially Riley Nelson, graduate. Best case scenario would be for them to all pull together for next year (whether Jake redshirts or is the starter) to begin the process of rebuilding together. The worst case scenario would be for Jake to transfer and Riley being replaced after his yearly injury by some combination of Lark/Munns or a recently RM Taysom Hill. What I suspect, though, is another mediocre season in 2012 with 8 or so wins and losses at Utah, BSU, ND and GT and a Poinsettia Bowl appearance against the #2 MWC team. I hope that is enough. I think 2013 could be a special year, but much will hinge on what happens next year and whether Jake stays in Provo.



We are at a major crossroads as a team, school and fanbase. This is the worst time for division and disunity, for sarcasm and synicism-both on the team and among us as fans. This post started to serve as an out for my frustration but has turned into a bout of self-reflection and a catharsis of sorts. I am hopeful that things will work out, despite being doubtful they will based on the current status of the team. In the NFL it's okay if everyone hates eachother, cause they're all getting paid, much of which is directly related to the outcome on the field. Hate in a college football locker room is poison, one that threatens the very band that makes the team a band of brothers.



For my part, I am going to try to look past the politics, enjoy this Saturday's near-certain win in Honolulu and then wait for the bowl game where I will, in person, cheer the Cougars on to victory. ALL of them.

P.S. I'm not yet at a spot where I can accept our fate regarding independence or conference membership yet. As unsettling as all of that is, I hope they can resolve it soon.

nice post. I don't doubt that footballers are competitive, which includes winning the mindset battle as well, but you make Riley sound down-right devious. (maybe he is!) So everything he's done on the team, like when he told Bronco he'd play "any position" on the field simply because he knows Bronco likes the little engines of the world, was simply a politic and positioning battle?. and that he learned to be this devious and manipulative on his mission?



FWIW, I knew some Elders on my mission who certainly thought their leadership callings were inevitable manifestations of their worthiness and talents but I'd never heard of someone planning their ascent like your mission. if true, sounds like some rather misguided Elders.



My point is if Riley had gone to my mission, I doubt he would have learned much of politicking. But he certainly would have learned the "dealing with difficult people" lesson (since i was there right?) as well as all the maturity lessons.



I was a lot like Jake in HS. A talented,self-absorbed semi-prima dona. the difference is that I had a competitor who beat me out simply because they worked that much harder than I did. i had the talent, they got the job done. that was my MAJOR humbling experience. Not sure Jake has had that before, but I know what it feels like.

I am fairly certain that he played mental and political games. It's possible that could come from a sort of skewed good place (playing games because of a desire to help the team win) or it could be out of a more devious inspiration. I do think that we would be in a much better place had he stayed in Logan. I hope we can make it work going forward.

All I know is that the 2011 team has/had internal strife issues. And they were along the lines of older v younger players. Some was tied to entitled, some was tied to experience, and some was tied to personalities. Most teams have issues, though. They just come out more when teams struggle. But under Bronco, the last two years have seemed more political than his previous 5 were combined.

I disagree. I don't care what politicing went on in the locker room. Riley's transfer bridged the gap between Max Hall and Jake heaps. We would be in a much better place today if our offensive coaches had had the nads to tell heaps that he wasn't ready and needed to redshirt last year.

You bring up some good points, but I do not know that I agree with your conclusion that we would be better off if Riley had stayed in Logan. I'm not sure I can see any scenario in which the team was improved last year, or this year with out the wins the that Riley brought us that Jake Heaps was simply incapable of achieving.



Like you said, the fact is that Jake Heaps did not serve a mission, and because of that and his upbringing he has never had to over come a serious obstacle or play against other people that were as good as he is and could outwork his talent advantage.



There was not a single player on the team that didn't believe Jake Heaps was the guy going into this season. It just didn't happen. I'm not sure how you can blame a guy who wants to play so badly that he's playing on special teams just for a chance to get on the field. A guy who was willing to switch to Safety or Running Back just to get a chance to play, but the coaches wouldn't let him.



Some people will see that as mental games, others will see it as hard work and trying to do their best. Who can say which it is? Sometimes we get so caught up in what we hear from an inside source we don't take the opportunity to think about the fact that every source sees certain things from their own perspective and you'll never know the full truth about a persons motivations or desires. We can (and have) debate back and forth about if Riley was subversive or if Jake was entitled. There's may be a certain amount of truth in both, or none at all.



We also have another example of this in Michael Alisa and Josh Quezada. Josh came in as the hyped, super talented freshman and fans were ready to bench JJ and Kariya in favor of the young talent. All year his freshman year, we heard about how much better our rushing game would be if we would only stop giving the ball to anyone else and give it Quezada. This year, Quezada has been flat out terrible, but Alisa has come in and saved the RB season. Another less talented, little engine that could playing over the talented kid. But no body cares about that because unlike Riley Nelson he fits the idea of what a BYU RB should be whereas Nelson doesn't fit the fan expectations of a QB.



Personally, I'm a fan of BYU first and foremost. I want every position on the field to be manned by good people that will win games. Having 2 years of bowl ineligible teams would be completely unacceptable to me. In that regard I'm beyond grateful to have Riley Nelson and Michael Alisa. I hope that Jake Heaps learns something from his work ethic, if he does, he could become a special talent. I don't care if the player playing is a walk on or a 5 star recruit, as long as they are the best option at the time to win the game.



In conclusion, I really hope one day to see Riley Nelson go on the show Survivor, because if he's truly the master manipulator that Heaps apologists claim that he is, he would put Coach to shame and would likely even have Jeff Probst openly rooting for him during challenges.

I don't like talking about locker room issues because it's inherently second-hand or speculative. Even if you have an "in" with the team, you're only getting getting one account of the story, which is pretty unreliable ESPECIALLY if there really are locker room divisions. Having said that, however, I'd just like to make a single observation.



Like it or not, selling a persona is a big part of success in pretty much any tiered organization - be it business, mission, sports, church, whatever. Call it what you want - politicking, interpersonal skills, putting on a face, whatever - it's something you've got to do. Yeah, it's problematic, and it favors those with "attractive personalities" when sometimes said personality has little correlation with success (especially in the church), but it's a reality. This is especially true when said organization deals with younger guys working under a significantly older leadership body. You've got to put on a good face and present yourself as the type of person the leaders want. Anybody here who has ever campaigned hard for a job position or acted a little different in an interview than in real life has done essentially the same thing.



If Nelson "politicked" his way into the starting position, I don't hold that against him in the slightest. For example, if byutx's statement that Riley played the "Little Engine That Could" angle with Bronco is true, I think Riley did the right thing there. Riley has a right to present himself in the strongest light possible, and we've certainly seen that his determination, work ethic and competitiveness are not facades. It'd be one thing if Nelson talked the talk with the coaches and players but did nothing to back it up, in which case, I'd put him in the category byutx refers to when he talks about missionaries "who do the right thing when the circumstances align." But Riley's been consistent - I think everyone would agree that Riley's objective is to lead BYU to victories, not merely to supplant and humiliate Heaps.



If some of the loopier locker room rumors are true - that Riley's basically been "Gadianton robber-ing" Heaps by intentionally turning the locker room against him, and encouraging them to play worse under him - I don't support that. But I've got no problem with a backup QB sniping for the #1 spot if he's willing to work hard, be a leader and play well. Frankly, a backup QB owes as much to his team - competition breeds results, and a good #2 should produce better results from your #1.



I understand that one of byutx's points is that Heaps, being younger and having less life experience, was in less of a position to play "the game" of winning hearts and minds within the BYU organization. I think that's a fair point, but all of this could've been averted if Heaps had simply played well. It wasn't like Riley conned him out of playing time - Heaps saw meaningful snaps in his first game as a true freshman and was given the keys to the offense outright this year. Yes, there's plenty of blame for our early-season offensive ineptitude in 2011 that led to the renewed controversy. Yes, I do think Doman shoulders more of the blame for that than Heaps. But the problem was that Heaps was looking worse as Doman began improving in the UCF and USU games. To me, Riley didn't so much take the starting job as much as Heaps lost it.

A quick side-note - byutx says "It worries me that as the talent in Bronco's recruiting classes has increased, our on-field outputs have regressed."



I've seen this a lot over on rumorboard as well. I'm totally agnostic on whether or not Bronco can coach highly-touted recruits - it's not like we have a huge sample size to work with - but I'd pose the following question. If you're BYU, and you HAD to choose between a coach that could coach talent but couldn't cultivate unheralded guys, or a guy that could cultivate talent but couldn't coach the big recruits, you'd take the latter, right? BYU is never going to have enough 4 and 5 star guys for that to be our bread and butter.

Let's see how the recruiting classes increasing in talent and the on-field outputs regressing plays out over the next few years. Remember, this is the first year Bronco has had 5th year seniors. We're still another two years away from Bronco's first recruiting class from going on missions and redshirting.



I think BYU is poised to go on another run of 10-plus wins seasons.

SpiffCoug wrote:
Let's see how the recruiting classes increasing in talent and the on-field outputs regressing plays out over the next few years. Remember, this is the first year Bronco has had 5th year seniors. We're still another two years away from Bronco's first recruiting class from going on missions and redshirting.



I think BYU is poised to go on another run of 10-plus wins seasons.

Eh... We'll see. I wanna get my hopes up BUT hesitate.



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

byutx wrote:
I am fairly certain that he played mental and political games. It's possible that could come from a sort of skewed good place (playing games because of a desire to help the team win) or it could be out of a more devious inspiration. I do think that we would be in a much better place had he stayed in Logan. I hope we can make it work going forward.

Really. I can only hope Jake Heaps is more accountable about why he isn't starting than some of his fans or he will never improve.



Much has been made of the team rallying around Riley and not Jake. Jake came in as aprima dona and that alienated some people. If he was good enough it would have all worked out anyway. Riley is just better - plain and simple. Jake is not very good yet - plain and simple.



I agree that the team played harder for Riley - but it had nothing to do with politics. It had to do with leadership, confidence, and knowing what he needed and watned them to do, and being capable of doing it.



The first example I noticed was the first time RIley either scrambled or QB drawed down field - the entire team seemingly smashed into the pile after RIley drove into it and was stood up and they pushed the pile nearly 10 yard further before it cam crashing down. They cannot do that for Jake. He almost never takes off down field. WHen he does, he slides yards before any contact is made. The players do not know how to help him in that situation.



Second example. THe blocker sknow that RIley willl try to extend the play when protection breaks down, so they look for someone to block even after the 3 or 4 secon dmark knowing that RIley may still have the ball and be taking off to run, or be buying time to throw. The rceivers know this too. Case in point, USU game when Jacobsen kept working to get open an dadjusted his route to make a play. The blockers and receivers cannot do this for Jake. the ball is gone in 3.5 seconds whether the pressure is coming or not. It is often thrown before routes have developed and certianly before they would be adjusted. They do not know how to help Jake in that regard.



This last point is why Bronco and several others singled out the one play last game where Jake extended the play be stepping up into the pocket, and fnding Falslev to make a play as the best play of his career. it is becasue untilthen he just has not even tried to do that.



Next point. On ecould argue that receivers - like Jacobsen adn Hoffman early on were not fighting to get enough separation. considering that Jake was locking on to Apo on nearly every play and never checking down to 2nd ro 3rd receivers - do you get the sens of why a receiver who is secondary or tertiary might not fight as hard or take the risk to push off a little to get free - the ball ain't coming. WHy bother. Een in the last game, early, announcers mentioned several times that a receiver was wide open and Jake tried to force the throw to a covered receiver. Tha timproved as the game went on.



THen Jake geting all jumpy trying to avoid a hit - and throws with inconsistent accuracy, precisoin, verlocity, tlouch. Even i nthe last game early, announcers were pointing out balls thrown low an dhot an dhigh. The nhe settled in better after that. And these teams really were not bringin any rela presure. Team stha tbring real pressure - unravle Jake. Hopefully he will eventually grow out of that.



But sorry - I do nto feel that BYU would have been better off to have lost the UW game in 2010 by gong with Jake. I don't think sacrificing a 2nd straight loss to USU would have been worth it. IDK what other losses we might have suffered after USU before we got into the absolute cake defenses of ISU, Idaho, and NMSU. Even against NMSU, Jake scored fewer points than their opponents averaged. That is where he is right now and politics have nothing whatsoever to do with it.

hawkwing wrote:
In conclusion, I really hope one day to see Riley Nelson go on the show Survivor, because if he's truly the master manipulator that Heaps apologists claim that he is, he would put Coach to shame and would likely even have Jeff Probst openly rooting for him during challenges.

Coach? Please. The best strategic game ever played was by Boston Rob last season. The season ever played was by Fireman Tom who basically won every single challenge the entire season.



But I will concede the Jeff Probst point.

SpiffCoug wrote:
Let's see how the recruiting classes increasing in talent and the on-field outputs regressing plays out over the next few years. Remember, this is the first year Bronco has had 5th year seniors. We're still another two years away from Bronco's first recruiting class from going on missions and redshirting.



I think BYU is poised to go on another run of 10-plus wins seasons.

I noticed this same supposed pattern under Lavell Edwards after the NC season. But the other part of the pattern was that it was after that season that BYU started trying to play anyone anywhere and that difference in the strength of opponents played into it.



In Bronco's 2nd and 3rd years - I don't recall us giving 1 and dones and 2 for 1s and unneutral fields.



Secondly, the biggest time programs have big time recruits that don't live up to expectations. The difference is that they have so many top recruits that nobody pays as much attention when one fizzles because it does not stand out in such stark contrast. When a messiah only comes along every decade or two - it really gets noticed if they do not turn out.



Look at Florida this year. Explain that drop. It was not lack of stars. It was not a tougher schedule. It was either inexperience or guys that did not pan out.



Everyone wants to turn back to the BYU glory years - and then they immediatley forget that McMahon, Young, Detmer, Wilson, Bosco, Nielsen, Sheide, Carter, Sarkisian, Beck, and Hall and whomever I left off this list that you have in mind like Walsh, Feterik, Hancock, etc., - none of them were highly recruited. They were all guys who were too slow, too small, lacked arm strength, were not athletic enough, etc. to get into the ND, USC, Michigan, Ohio State, etc., programs of their time. None of them.



Then list the highly touted guys if you can even remember them.



Shoemaker - never lost a game in 4 years as a starter in high school - we took him over Koy Detmer. BUST.



Ben Olsen - my son-in-law played with him in High School. I have seen him play in HS. Amazing player. Never started a game at BYU. Pouted. Transferred to UCLA and obscurity. Injury prone. Eventually - became a head case at UCLA after too many injuries. Nice kid, though.



Steve Clement - transferred from Texas. Lefty - Steve Young type. Never materialized.



Larry King's nephew.



Or go basketball



Shawn Bradley - he was actually good, but left after a misson and 1 year when Ryan Cuff and another highly touted recruit buddy turned against Roger Reid. That trio - of highly touted recruits went up in smoke. Cuff transferred to ASU to get more PT and rode the bench. Eventually transferred again to Weber State where he had a god senior season.



Or the guy from Irvine - Woodbridge High school - that chose Duke - said he was gong to go NBA after 1 year - rode pine - transferred to Utah - never distinguished himself. still waitin gfor that NBA call - Chris Burgess.



Then you have the Jimmer - too small, not athletic enough - worked hard and proved his detractors wrong.



BYU was built on little engines that could - and has had the wheels fal off almost every over-rated big train. No matter who was coaching.



as someone said, when we start getting too many 4* and 5* players to count - then let's lose sleep over it. But when we get that many great players - odds are some of them will work out.



And yes - some guy from Oklahoma did transfer to UCLA for a scheme that fit his strengths - back when Okie was an option team - and had a phenominal career. It does happen once in a while. Not so often, though.

SpiffCoug wrote:

In conclusion, I really hope one day to see Riley Nelson go on the show Survivor, because if he's truly the master manipulator that Heaps apologists claim that he is, he would put Coach to shame and would likely even have Jeff Probst openly rooting for him during challenges.

Coach? Please. The best strategic game ever played was by Boston Rob last season. The season ever played was by Fireman Tom who basically won every single challenge the entire season.



But I will concede the Jeff Probst point.

There's never been a better challenge competitor than Tom. No question about that, but he didn't have the subversive aspect of the game like a coach or a Boston Rob.

College football recruiting in the 70s 80s and early 90s us very different today so as to be an entirely different process and animal.

For the record here are the number of targets the first four games while Jake was the starter. He didn't necessarily lock on to Apo more than anyone else. He actually seemed to spread the ball around quite well.



Di Luigi: 24

Kariya: 7

Quezada: 1

Apo: 25

Jacobson: 23

Hoffman: 26

Falslev: 14

Holt: 5

Wilson: 12

Alisa: 5

Matthews: 13

Good News -



Next Year's team would probably grab 10 or 11 wins vs this year's schedule.



Bad News -



Take a look at next year's schedule. It is significantly more challenging.



GT - Our opening ACC foe - on the road of course - returns its best runner and passer - since they are the same person - and he will be a senior next year.



ND - seems to have a decent coach now.



BSU - well let's hope their new QB is a prima donna and very inexperienced



Utah - If Wynn comes back in after we knock him out - knock him out again.



Hawaii - I think it is in Provo - thank goodness.



Washington State - I hope they fade rather than continue to rise up.



USU - see Wash St.



Oregon State - let's hope they stay down another year.



We have 8 games that will be very interesting imho - then 3 more WAC types - NMSU, Idaho, SJSU, plus lower division Weber State.



Overall schedule is definitely tougher.



Our toughest in 2011 - TCU, Texas, and Utah(in Provo), and USU(in Provo). Everyone else has a losing record. We won one of these - barely.



2012 - Georgia Tech, Notre Dame, Utah(in SLC), BSU, USU, then OSU, WSU, and Hawaii should be improved due to experience.

SpiffCoug wrote:
For the record here are the number of targets the first four games while Jake was the starter. He didn't necessarily lock on to Apo more than anyone else. He actually seemed to spread the ball around quite well.



Di Luigi: 24

Kariya: 7

Quezada: 1

Apo: 25

Jacobson: 23

Hoffman: 26

Falslev: 14

Holt: 5

Wilson: 12

Alisa: 5

Matthews: 13

He locked on to the primary receiver. Primary receiver varied depending on the play called.



If you look at the game s after that - I would guess you will see Hoffman more an Apo less. But I agree that it was locking on primary - not locking on Apo.

SpiffCoug wrote:
For the record here are the number of targets the first four games while Jake was the starter. He didn't necessarily lock on to Apo more than anyone else. He actually seemed to spread the ball around quite well.



Di Luigi: 24

Kariya: 7

Quezada: 1

Apo: 25

Jacobson: 23

Hoffman: 26

Falslev: 14

Holt: 5

Wilson: 12

Alisa: 5

Matthews: 13

How much time did Apo miss in those first four games for getting lit up in the middle? I know he missed at least one game.