Idaho to go independent? NMSU, too?

http://www.fbschedules.com/2012/08/idaho-play-fbs-independent-in-2013/#comment-11880" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Idaho and NMSU are there if we want 'em.



I would say go for 2-for-1 and then a 4th "neutral" field game where Idaho/NMSU can be the "home" team so they can count it as a home game (if that is allowed). Las Vegas for NMSU neutral game and Denver, Seattle, or Portland for Idaho neutral game. (Portland's civic stadium hosts the MLS Portland Timbers and underwent a $31 million upgrade and now seats about 22K; that's 4k more than Idaho's stadium and much better venue).

YNot wrote:
http://www.fbschedules.com/2012/08/idaho-play-fbs-independent-in-2013/#comment-11880



Idaho and NMSU are there if we want 'em.



I would say go for 2-for-1 and then a 4th "neutral" field game where Idaho/NMSU can be the "home" team so they can count it as a home game (if that is allowed). Las Vegas for NMSU neutral game and Denver, Seattle, or Portland for Idaho neutral game. (Portland's civic stadium hosts the MLS Portland Timbers and underwent a $31 million upgrade and now seats about 22K; that's 4k more than Idaho's stadium and much better venue).

Las Vegas or SLC for both = sellout



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

Cougarbib2 wrote:
Las Vegas or SLC for both = sellout

These probably aren't money-maker games, but could be broadcast on BYUTV (or another network if someone wants to pick up the games).



Although likely de facto BYU home games, we could split the "neutral" gate revenue 50/50, which is likely better than most away games.



Wouldn't it be ironic to have a game at Rice-Eccles in 2014 or 2015?

YNot wrote:

Las Vegas or SLC for both = sellout

These probably aren't money-maker games, but could be broadcast on BYUTV (or another network if someone wants to pick up the games).



Although likely de facto BYU home games, we could split the "neutral" gate revenue 50/50, which is likely better than most away games.



Wouldn't it be ironic to have a game at Rice-Eccles in 2014 or 2015?

Not big money makers for us - but for them. For us, it beats traveling to their house and gets BYU fans in the neutral site access.



It obviously would be better to just do 1 and dones at LES if they will do it.



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

Cougarbib2 wrote:
Not big money makers for us - but for them. For us, it beats traveling to their house and gets BYU fans in the neutral site access.



It obviously would be better to just do 1 and dones at LES if they will do it.

I was actually coming more from the angle that Idaho and NMSU will need HOME games just to be able to stay at the FBS level. The NCAA rules require a minimum of FIVE home games against FBS competition. The rules allow one "neutral-site" game each year to be considered a home game. Because the WAC and Idaho and NMSU helped BYU out in its first two years of independence, it would be a nice gesture to return the favor and offer them a 3-for-1 that counts as a 2-for-2 with NCAA eligibility requirements.



Or perhaps, a simple 1-for-1 (for NCAA requirement purposes), but that is actually one game at LES and one game at Las Vegas/SLC. That would work too.

Their RPI are not good enough. I would higher ranked teams unless we can't fill a slot. then a 1 done at our house or SLC. By the way it felt dirty to suggest playing up North. Their stadium is on the small size. And I don't want to set a precedent of playing games away from Provo.

I see a ton of Homecoming games in their futures if they do.

I can't think of any good reason why we should even consider either of those. It only diminishes our schedule and has no redeeming value. Why don't we schedule Provo High School while we are at it. Probably get a better game. There are plenty of schools we can schedule that we can fill the seats and make plenty of money that are lower tier BCS schools. Our schedule has enough cupcakes without considering these!



Go Cougs!



L Hatton

Louisville, KY

8 home games a year should be the goal. If NMSU and Idaho get us there I'll take it.



You only need 5 home games but one can be neutral site and another can be an FCS team. I imagine they could get 2-1 with some MWC teams to make it there. Also only 6 games have to be against FBS teams.

A single season is one thing. But only a handful of teams in the nation would be able to be a long term independent team. Notre Dame, the service academies, Texas and BYU.

jvquarterback wrote:
8 home games a year should be the goal. If NMSU and Idaho get us there I'll take it.



You only need 5 home games but one can be neutral site and another can be an FCS team. I imagine they could get 2-1 with some MWC teams to make it there. Also only 6 games have to be against FBS teams.

WWCD. (winner winner chicken dinner).

KYCoug wrote:
Our schedule has enough cupcakes without considering these!

I think we actually need and want more cupcakes. You might be looking at 2011 and 2012 schedules. Look at 2013's schedule. Our easiest games are at Utah State and at Hawaii. Otherwise, we literally run the gauntlet with Texas, Boise State, Utah, and Georgia Tech at home and Wisconsin, Notre Dame, Houston, and Washington State on the road. Do we really want anyone other than a NMSU/Idaho-level competition to finish that schedule? Some of the lower MWC schools would fit this mold (New Mexico, UNLV), but I don't see them wanting to schedule us quite yet.



In 2014, the schedule is a bit more manageable (for now) with Texas, Boise State, and UCF on the road, and Houston, Southern Miss, Hawaii, and Utah State at home. But, I still think we will get another marquee game (Wisconsin?), another PAC 12 team (UCLA?) and an ACC team (Syracuse?) on the 2014 schedule. At that point, we will again want someone at the level of NMSU or Idaho to round out the schedule.



AND, it would be a very honorable gesture on BYU's part to return the favor extended to us by the WAC/NMSU/Idaho when we went independent.

These are +100 teams -- too bad. A cupcake would be a SJSU which is around 80.

scott715 wrote:
These are +100 teams -- too bad. A cupcake would be a SJSU which is around 80.

exactly. we can't afford with the new system coming into place to play +100 teams. cupcakes would be everybody in the pac12 besides oregon, usc, and maybe stanford. most of the pac12 is 50 +

jonnylingo wrote:

These are +100 teams -- too bad. A cupcake would be a SJSU which is around 80.

exactly. we can't afford with the new system coming into place to play +100 teams. cupcakes would be everybody in the pac12 besides oregon, usc, and maybe stanford. most of the pac12 is 50 +

Nonsense. SOS only needs to be ~65. One or two 100+ teams won't prevent that.



Btw independence is now idaho's official plan.



http://m.espn.go.com/ncf/story?storyId=8276498#" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



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

Why schedule a 100 team when you can get an 80? Both will be wins but there is an effect on SOS. You never know how each team will perform that year. Why risk your final standing? It could effect access to NC and it will effect your top 25 poll. Look at last year. We played only a few winning teams where some teams had sup par years.



The only reason it would be okay if it was needed to fill a hole where no othe team can fill it.

BYU will only get in a four team playoff with an undefeated season unless their SOS is <20 and they have one loss. Even then I don't think they would make it in with a loss.



Having a couple 100+ teams is not a bad thing. It moves the SOS from 45 to 60 and might yield a 4 seed instead of a 3 (or maybe a 2) but other than that won't make any difference.

scott715 wrote:
Why schedule a 100 team when you can get an 80? Both will be wins but there is an effect on SOS. You never know how each team will perform that year. Why risk your final standing? It could effect access to NC and it will effect your top 25 poll. Look at last year. We played only a few winning teams where some teams had sup par years.



The only reason it would be okay if it was needed to fill a hole where no othe team can fill it.

I didn't know that teams kept their ranking for years. Who is to say that the team ranked 80 and the team ranked 100 don't flip fop? not hard to do when you are that low.

True but we are talking about 2013 aren't we? There won't be much change in that short of a time frame.