2010-2012. 6-13 vs. teams .500 or better

This season. BYU is currently 6-5. BYU has TWO wins against teams with winning records. Utah State (9-2) and GA Tech (6-5). Who ELSE have they beaten: Washington State (2-9); Weber St (2-9); Hawaii (1-9); Idaho (1-9). 4 of the 5 losses are against teams with winning record (exception is Utah). So BYU is 2 for 6 this year against teams with a winning record.



2011 Season. BYU was 10-3. Once again, TWO wins against teams with winning records: Utah State (7-6) and Tulsa (8-5). Who else did they beat: Ole Miss (2-9); Central Florida (5-7); Idaho State (2-9); San Jose (5-7); Oregon State (3-9); Idaho (2-11); New Mexico State (4-9); Hawaii (6-7). All 3 losses were against teams with winning records. So BYU was 2 of 5 against +.500 teams.



2010 Season. BYU was 7-6. Once again the magic number is TWO. Two wins against teams with a winning record: Washington (7-6) and SDSU (8-4). Who else they beat: Wyoming (3-9); UNLV (2-11); Colorado St (3-9); New Mexico (1-11); Utep (6-7). 5 of the 6 losses were against winning teams (exception was USU). So BYU was 2/7 against +.500 opponents.



Riley as a starter is 4-5 in 2012.



By the way, rumor is he broke his ribs and is now out the rest of 2012.



ALl I can say is that I am g lad we get to turn this page. Just wish Hill was healthy and still learning on the job.

AND???

has anything changed? during the 80s and 90s what is byu's record against teams .500 or better?

LaVell was about .500 vs winning teams. Worse against ranked teams. Winning 1 in 3 will not cut it. Ever.

Lawboy wrote:
LaVell was about .500 vs winning teams. Worse against ranked teams. Winning 1 in 3 will not cut it. Ever.

But this year really skews your numbers. Most of those teams we lost to were ranked or darn near ranked during the year.

Nice overview Lawboy. Watching that game last night and most of the others this year has been painful. Our D line and linebackers are the only reason we have been in all of these close games. Even with an average qb, this year could have been great. Maybe not BCS, but darn close. You have to think that Weber and possibly Doman will be gone at the end of the year. Lets bring in someone with a little experience as an OC. No more on the job training.

BroncoBot wrote:

LaVell was about .500 vs winning teams. Worse against ranked teams. Winning 1 in 3 will not cut it. Ever.

But this year really skews your numbers. Most of those teams we lost to were ranked or darn near ranked during the year.

For an apples-to-apples comparison, because the schedule this year skews things so much, this is disengenious, compare this year to Ty Detmer's senior season and run the numbers. Those were the glory days after all. Or grab 1985. I have no idea - but I have a gut feeling that we beat the snot out of the bad teams and list to most of the good ones.



From the day Detmer won the Heisman he lost five in a row - some to unranked teams - some to teams comparable to this year. ND is likely #1. I have not looked. We only beat a legitimate - team like ND once. That was at home - not on the road.



I do not know how old you are. As you know, I am an old guy. 61 to be precise.



I well remember who we were playing in the glory days.



Ignoring Bowl games - who did Jim McMahon beat? Hint: We were in The WAC - so 7-8 games were WAC. Throw in USU - usually in Provo. 8-9 games. Once in a while we scheduled up and played someone really, really, big. Like UCLA and usually lost.



Then Florida State in LA - truly neutral. Killed us. Worse than our recent losses to them. Baylor - split.



We caught Okie and Texas when they were really bad and won. Those teams were not ranked. I do not recall if they had a winnin record.



Our list of big wins over ranked teams other than AFA once and TCU once who beat us several times, and Miami who beat us in the rematch, very short list - even in the Glory days.



When Lavelll started scheduling up and getting recruits with more stars - downhill - and soon gone.



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

LaVell beat Miami, pretty much every PAC school, except perhaps USC, Texas schools, OU, ACC schools and even an SEC school (did not play many). Yes, he struggled against top-20 teams, but most programs do, unless they are their upswing.



LaVell was not this poor against teams with wining records(read: even WAC or MWC schools in his day) as this. I am not saying we are 6-13 vs top-20 teams, but teams that finish .500 or better.



It is not good enough. We can;t win them all, but how about winning our fair share and going .500? 11-8 I could live with. Gotta win our share, but 6-13 is not ok.

Lawboy wrote:
LaVell beat Miami, pretty much every PAC school, except perhaps USC, Texas schools, OU, ACC schools and even an SEC school (did not play many). Yes, he struggled against top-20 teams, but most programs do, unless they are their upswing.



LaVell was not this poor against teams with wining records(read: even WAC or MWC schools in his day) as this. I am not saying we are 6-13 vs top-20 teams, but teams that finish .500 or better.



It is not good enough. We can;t win them all, but how about winning our fair share and going .500? 11-8 I could live with. Gotta win our share, but 6-13 is not ok.

Give us the number of teams that were ranked when we played them or at some point during the season of those 13 teams and then I'll start to listen. Otherwise, I continue to believe that your numbers are skewed in favor of your argument in large part because of the schedule this year (3 ranked teams +1 receiving votes, and we beat another ranked team).



2010- lost to :

1. Utah State with Heaps looking like a deer in headlight and Hill on the way out the door.

2. Receiving Votes AFA

3. RANKED- Utah and TCU, Nevada, Florida State.



2011- Lost to :

1. Terrible Utah team

2. Receiving votes- Texas

3. Ranked #2-3- TCU



2012-Lost to:

1. Another terrible Utah team

2. SJSU receiving Votes and will be ranked most likely if they win next week

3. RANKED- #1 ND, #15 Oregon State, #22 Boise State



Really, It's no different than any other 3 year span where BYU would be playing this number of ranked/receiving votes teams. Sorry. I expect BYU to beat Utah in 2 of those 3 years and BYU SHOULD have beat Utah state in 2010. The rest of those teams caught BYU at an odd period and in 2012 especially they were able to squeak out a win. BYU simply wasn't that good during this 3 year span.

Lawboy wrote:
LaVell beat Miami, pretty much every PAC school, except perhaps USC, Texas schools, OU, ACC schools and even an SEC school (did not play many). Yes, he struggled against top-20 teams, but most programs do, unless they are their upswing.



LaVell was not this poor against teams with wining records(read: even WAC or MWC schools in his day) as this. I am not saying we are 6-13 vs top-20 teams, but teams that finish .500 or better.



It is not good enough. We can;t win them all, but how about winning our fair share and going .500? 11-8 I could live with. Gotta win our share, but 6-13 is not ok.

You are missing the point.



Comparing a time period when we played a lot .550-.600 teams with a year when we played 11-0 ND, 9-2 USU, 9-2 OSU, 9-2 BSU, and 6-5 GT - mostly BCS teams well over .750 - is disengenious.



If you want to compare how they did with .500-.600 teams this year, we were 1-0.



We are 0-1 vs 11-0 teams. In 30 years or so - Lavell best 1.



Then take 10-2 teams. Lavell did not play many and since we beat Miami - they were a 1 loss team.



Any way comparing apples and oranges tells you nothing any only annoys the fruit.



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



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

Cougarbib wrote:

Lawboy wrote:
LaVell was about .500 vs winning teams. Worse against ranked teams. Winning 1 in 3 will not cut it. Ever.

But this year really skews your numbers. Most of those teams we lost to were ranked or darn near ranked during the year.

For an apples-to-apples comparison, because the schedule this year skews things so much, this is disengenious, compare this year to Ty Detmer's senior season and run the numbers. Those were the glory days after all. Or grab 1985. I have no idea - but I have a gut feeling that we beat the snot out of the bad teams and list to most of the good ones.

1991 (Detmer's senior season)



BYU played 5 teams that finished ranked in the AP Poll: #3 Penn State, #4 Florida State, #10 Iowa, #19 UCLA, #25 Air Force. BYU went 1-3-1 against those teams. BYU was 1-0-1 against non-ranked .500 teams. BYU finished 8-3-2 and was ranked #23 in the final AP poll.



1985



BYU played 3 teams that finished ranked in the AP poll: #8 UCLA, #9 Air Force, #14 Ohio State. BYU went 1-2 against those teams. BYU was 2-0 against non-ranked .500 teams. BYU finished 10-3 and was ranked #16 in the final AP poll.



2012



BYU has played 3 teams currently ranked in the AP poll: #1 Notre Dame, #16 Oregon State, #25 Utah State. BYU is 1-2 against those team. BYU has little to no chance of finishing ranked in the final AP poll.



Based on what we've seen, it looks like Notre Dame is still a long shot to finish undefeated and in the top 5. I expect Oregon State to finished ranked--if they win out, they're a top 10 team, if they loose out, they're a fringe top 25 team. If USU wins out, they'll end up 20 or so. I'd say this year's schedule will probably end up being less difficult than '91 and '85 when all is said and done, and more on par with '83, '92, and '93.

what a team is ranked when you play them is pretty irrelevant. what they are ranked at end of year makes more sense. what was arkansas ranked at the beginning of the year. i don't understand why anybody would care much what a team was ranked when played.

jonnylingo wrote:
what a team is ranked when you play them is pretty irrelevant. what they are ranked at end of year makes more sense. what was arkansas ranked at the beginning of the year. i don't understand why anybody would care much what a team was ranked when played.

It would only be relevant if it was the last game of the year or late in the year. If you were number 2 and beat number 1 so your opponent fell to number 4 after the loss you'd tout that you beat the number 1 ranked team, not number 4. There is a big difference between our win over number 1 Miami in 1990 as compared to our win over number 3 (IIRC) Pittsburgh in 1984. Both at the start of the year. Miami ended up really being good. Pittsburgh ended up being Arkansas this year. Overrated teams that you beat early in the year that end up sucking shouldn't count as wins over ranked teams.

Wickchad84087 wrote:

what a team is ranked when you play them is pretty irrelevant. what they are ranked at end of year makes more sense. what was arkansas ranked at the beginning of the year. i don't understand why anybody would care much what a team was ranked when played.

It would only be relevant if it was the last game of the year or late in the year. If you were number 2 and beat number 1 so your opponent fell to number 4 after the loss you'd tout that you beat the number 1 ranked team, not number 4. There is a big difference between our win over number 1 Miami in 1990 as compared to our win over number 3 (IIRC) Pittsburgh in 1984. Both at the start of the year. Miami ended up really being good. Pittsburgh ended up being Arkansas this year. Overrated teams that you beat early in the year that end up sucking shouldn't count as wins over ranked teams.

exactly. i agree. bronco bot seems to want to state that what lawboy has stated is not relevant and that we need to talk about what teams were ranked when we played them. i was pointing out why his insistence on that is kind of pointless.

jonnylingo wrote:

jonnylingo wrote:
what a team is ranked when you play them is pretty irrelevant. what they are ranked at end of year makes more sense. what was arkansas ranked at the beginning of the year. i don't understand why anybody would care much what a team was ranked when played.

It would only be relevant if it was the last game of the year or late in the year. If you were number 2 and beat number 1 so your opponent fell to number 4 after the loss you'd tout that you beat the number 1 ranked team, not number 4. There is a big difference between our win over number 1 Miami in 1990 as compared to our win over number 3 (IIRC) Pittsburgh in 1984. Both at the start of the year. Miami ended up really being good. Pittsburgh ended up being Arkansas this year. Overrated teams that you beat early in the year that end up sucking shouldn't count as wins over ranked teams.

exactly. i agree. bronco bot seems to want to state that what lawboy has stated is not relevant and that we need to talk about what teams were ranked when we played them. i was pointing out why his insistence on that is kind of pointless.

Those were all end of the year rankings. Just sayin.

I'd say the best measure is our Sagrain rating and we are 33 now.

The Sagarin is a made up number, with values that are being input by non objective standards into a computer.



The only thing that matters is win_loss.



Who cares that we are #33 in a made up ranking when we are 1 game away from being below. 500 with 1 weeks left in the season?



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

Because it takes into account the strength of schedule. The teams we lost to were good teams. All top 30 except for Utah which is 45 I think.

Mingjai wrote:

BroncoBot wrote:

LaVell was about .500 vs winning teams. Worse against ranked teams. Winning 1 in 3 will not cut it. Ever.

But this year really skews your numbers. Most of those teams we lost to were ranked or darn near ranked during the year.

For an apples-to-apples comparison, because the schedule this year skews things so much, this is disengenious, compare this year to Ty Detmer's senior season and run the numbers. Those were the glory days after all. Or grab 1985. I have no idea - but I have a gut feeling that we beat the snot out of the bad teams and list to most of the good ones.

1991 (Detmer's senior season)



BYU played 5 teams that finished ranked in the AP Poll: #3 Penn State, #4 Florida State, #10 Iowa, #19 UCLA, #25 Air Force. BYU went 1-3-1 against those teams. BYU was 1-0-1 against non-ranked .500 teams. BYU finished 8-3-2 and was ranked #23 in the final AP poll.



1985



BYU played 3 teams that finished ranked in the AP poll: #8 UCLA, #9 Air Force, #14 Ohio State. BYU went 1-2 against those teams. BYU was 2-0 against non-ranked .500 teams. BYU finished 10-3 and was ranked #16 in the final AP poll.



2012



BYU has played 3 teams currently ranked in the AP poll: #1 Notre Dame, #16 Oregon State, #25 Utah State. BYU is 1-2 against those team. BYU has little to no chance of finishing ranked in the final AP poll.



Based on what we've seen, it looks like Notre Dame is still a long shot to finish undefeated and in the top 5. I expect Oregon State to finished ranked--if they win out, they're a top 10 team, if they loose out, they're a fringe top 25 team. If USU wins out, they'll end up 20 or so. I'd say this year's schedule will probably end up being less difficult than '91 and '85 when all is said and done, and more on par with '83, '92, and '93.

Very good start - now factor in the effect of ROAD vs HOME and stack up how the difficulty of this schedule compares. This is my beef and it is on Holmoe.



Take a team, that as you have shown, does well below .500 Vs ranked teams historically and even with a returning National Championship QB and another team with a returning Heisman QB, and give away home field advantage via naive scheduling



And then sit back and tweet while the fan base mauls the players and coaches.



But it will catch up with Tom. Fired a lot of coaches in 2010. Things got worse on offense. If he fires a bunch more in 2012, and things get worse - and record wise, they will due to naive scheduling - New AD. Unless he is saved by Wonen's sports.



Just Sayin



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

scott715 wrote:
Because it takes into account the strength of schedule. The teams we lost to were good teams. All top 30 except for Utah which is 45 I think.

exactly. It is a made up number. Strength of schedule doesn't mean anything until the end of the year.



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

Cougarbib wrote:
Very good start - now factor in the effect of ROAD vs HOME and stack up how the difficulty of this schedule compares. This is my beef and it is on Holmoe.

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

Would you rather see us lose to #1 Notre Dame on the road or see us beat Wyoming at home? I'll take losing to Notre Dame.