Scheduling - Tilted Field Disadvantage

Avoiding metaphors a few can't seemingly deal with:



BYU has been on the downside of a tilted field in several recent scheduling announcements. Occasionally - Weber State and USU for example - BYU enjoys being on the upside of those arrangements. Every team would prefer to be in a truly neutral - flat field - situation at minimum or being on the upside when they can get that advantage.



The Bibster says to BYU: Just Say No when a potential opponent pops the question - or demand as the case may be. The U has been posturing in this regard. They already popped the question or made the demand relative to 2014/2015. BYU wisely said no. U unwisely scheduled Michigan home and away. Why was the U unwise? Their schedule is already too tough for them. Weber State would have been a more logical replacement. It is rumored by Lawboy - the poster most sensitive about metaphors, ironically, that U is popping a similar question again about 2013/2016. If the U is making demands, The Bibster says, Just Say HECKCK no! Otherwise - metaphor time.



Why do teams keep doing this to BYU and other teams? Why does BYU do it to Weber State and USU and others?



Because they can.



Why do teams agree to live with such arrangements?



Because they have to do it to get something they WANT or NEED.



Therefore - The Bibster thinks it is very important for programs to distinguish between wants and needs - and prioritize those wants and needs. The price is steep and dangerous.



Many mid-majors and lower teams just need the money. They have little or no choice. BYU does not need the money.



I have seen these justifications.



1: If we give up home field for this team, we will get even arrangements in the future. The best we have gotten so far is 4-2 with ND and rumors of cancellations. Got a few 2-1. And then, they will ask for it again or get someone else to do it. Why - because it serves their purpose and business is business. They do not want to lose games. The SEC is the master of this scheduling game. Other conferences are starting to follow suit.



2: BYU is being singled out and persecuted by PAC because they hate us and / or want to dominate the Utah market. Maybe. Both are certainly true - they hate us and business is business - they want the market. PAC is also tired of having the reputation of being weak. Seem to be starting to schedule down. Even U has to have been humbled by losing to USU on the road and starting PAC 0-4 again. Maybe even they are capable of learning from The SEC model.



3: When we go beat these guys against all odds - over and over again - we will have proven ourselves and then they will respect us and play us straight up. Well - if somehow we overcome those odds - what do you think the odds are that they will want to play us fairly and increase their odds of losing? They might not want to play us at all - even at their place - see Washington State recent decision to push us out and schedule down. Kind of like even Nevada did a few years ago.



BYU wants to play on the big stages. Maybe they feel they need to. The problem is this: the teams we want to play on those big stages do not need us - at all - except for This: They can get teams to play them straight up all day long. They need teams to give them an advantage that decreases their chance if losing.



Sometimes the game is won or lost before it is ever played



Scheduling.

I look at this and see BYU having the attitude of "what can BYU do for you" and no dialogue of "what can XXX do for BYU". We need to look at incentives. What reason/incentive does a big time team have to give BYU a 1x1 or a 2x2?



I don't see the incentive. ND, Michigan, OU, USC don’t need BYU, but BYU needs them. BYU offers little in terms of better revenue than their alternatives and only offers the opportunity for a loss (on the field). In many pundits eyes beating BYU offer little upside/credit, but losing is a huge amount of downside. Until BYU offers something unique and different it is going to be tough to get 1x1. These teams know BYU needs to fill games and that BYU would die for a home and home; the “big time” teams/games can demand more. BYU needs them more than they need BYU.

Irish Cougar wrote:
I look at this and see BYU having the attitude of "what can BYU do for you" and no dialogue of "what can XXX do for BYU". We need to look at incentives. What reason/incentive does a big time team have to give BYU a 1x1 or a 2x2?



I don't see the incentive. ND, Michigan, OU, USC don’t need BYU, but BYU needs them. BYU offers little in terms of better revenue than their alternatives and only offers the opportunity for a loss (on the field). In many pundits eyes beating BYU offer little upside/credit, but losing is a huge amount of downside. Until BYU offers something unique and different it is going to be tough to get 1x1. These teams know BYU needs to fill games and that BYU would die for a home and home; the “big time” teams/games can demand more. BYU needs them more than they need BYU.

Exactly. Most major conference teams are looking to play OOC teams that are at least a likely victory. Playing a tough OOC team, especially one that's not a non-AQ, the AQ team would need some incentive--usually money, publicity, or convenience. BYU offers some publicity with its solid (not elite) reputation and ESPN contract, but it's no Notre Dame. BYU has to make up for it non-elite status by offering money and convenience. The AQ team gets the earnings and convenience of an additional home game--enough to compensate them for having to a play relatively tough OOC team.



Now that BYU's independent, they have concerns will filling 8 Oct-Nov dates, and that fact is not lost on other schools. BYU begins its negotiations from a position of relative weakness. From the AQ school's point of view, if negotiations with BYU fall through, they can always pay Utah State, a MAC school, or a Sun Belt school to come to Columbus or Ann Arbor or Baton Rouge. At most they have to pay 4 schools a year to do this, and its not too hard to cover the fee when you fill up an 80,000 seat stadium every year.

Agree with both posts. BSU, TCU, U, and Hawaii had the same dilemma - so they played mostly beatable teams and at most one or two - often none OOC - and played the elite teams in a ZbCS Bowl on a relatively even playing field - when it counted. And they usually won.



Proven Strategy. Worked for all but Hawaii and more than once for two of them.



And then they all moved up a notch in conference affiliation - scheduled up as a direct result - and none have come close to running the table since then.



Ironic? Predictable - definitely.



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

If BYU is doing the same to Weber, USU and others why should they be treated any different?

creative45 wrote:
If BYU is doing the same to Weber, USU and others why should they be treated any different?

As I said before - any team should do it to every team if they CAN. I think BYU has alternatives and is in a better position to say no thanks than USU or Weber State or any other mid-major.



But not if we really feel we NEED to play those elite teams. Need vs want is my issue.



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

It must be groundhog day. This is at least the third version of this exact same topic started by the exact same guy in the past week......

Fido wrote:
It must be groundhog day. This is at least the third version of this exact same topic started by the exact same guy in the past week......

As long as you are here - what are your thoughts on the matter?



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

Go to the other threads for his comments.