To win you have to be willing to lose big . . .

Down 28-16. 4th and 3 at the BYU 46 yard line. 14 minutes to go in the fourth quarter.



What do you think Lavell Edwards would have done?



There really isn't any question is there? Of course I think Edwards would have lost the game 45-27 (by more points than Bronco), but he also would have had a much better chance to win the game.



The way BM called the game, the only way BYU wins against Washington is if KVN returns an interception for a TD, recovers a fumble for a TD and blocks a kick. Did he expect a repeat of the SDSU game last year?



Bronco is a Defensive Coordinator. He cares more for minimizing the opponents points than for increasing the probability of winning the game.



Sure, I think there are plenty of things Mendenhall can improve on - recruiting philosophy, oversight of offensive coaches, in-game adjustments. But far and away my biggest complaint is not wanting to look bad while losing. I would rather lose 65-14 five times to get one win 41-37, than lose 30-17 six times. Bronco wouldn't.

I would agree. It is the whole mentality. Part of this mentality makes us look and play flat, we don't play up for big games. We need to come out with our guns blazing and ready to play.

Actually, Lavell would have lost big and would have taken more time off to prepare for the bowl than Bronco did.



Bowl games against teams that won 8 or 9 regular season games:

Bronco: 3-2 Average Score: BYU 25 Opp 21

Lavell: 4-7 Average Score: BYU 22 Opp 32

Lavell (last five such bowls): 2-3 Average Score: BYU 20 Opp 35

The Lavell comparison doesn't really make sense, but I would agree BYU should have gone for it.

For the record, I would NEVER want to lose 65-14 again. I've suffered through a bowl game like that. They're not fun. In no way, shape or form, would be willing to do that again - let alone five more times.

SpiffCoug wrote:
Actually, Lavell would have lost big and would have taken more time off to prepare for the bowl than Bronco did.



Bowl games against teams that won 8 or 9 regular season games:

Bronco: 3-2 Average Score: BYU 25 Opp 21

Lavell: 4-7 Average Score: BYU 22 Opp 32

Lavell (last five such bowls): 2-3 Average Score: BYU 20 Opp 35

Good stats and cool new "sign". Perception and reality are different....stats always help.



I personally have a hard time looking at the numbers above as being apples to apples given the number of ranked teams Lavell faced in bowl games (14) vs the number of ranked teams BM faced (1). Tough to compare when the competition is not equal, now days anyone above .500 goes bowling, it was not the case back then.



You mention 8 to 9 wins, maybe that gets rid of all the ranked teams BYU played during Lavell's years......I am too lazy to look it up.

Yeah, I that's why I went with 8 or 9 wins - trying to keep the level of competition similar.



I really hate the Bronco to Lavell comparisons. It's not fair to Bronco and it's not fair to Lavell.



Lavell would have had to have coached very differently if he were in the game today. College football has changed so much since he started that it's almost not even the same sport.

I too don't like them, but it drives me crazy when other mention success of BM be equal to Lavell by only looking win/loss not actual accomplishments.



You are right it is impossible to compare. Lavell started the program from nothing and built it. BM inherited a ton of issues, but still had a solid program that was known and had a 60k+ stadium that was close to filled the majority of the time. Tough to look at what they have done apples to apples, different times, different situations, different recruiting standards etc.

Don't go to Vegas--sucker! :-)



Was there really 14 minutes remaining? Seems like it was less than that.

If it was 14 minutes and you are down 12 that's an easy decision for someone objective.

That's Only two scores.

Now if there is 8 minutes......

Making these types of decisions costs BYU one win every second or third year. If you use the NFL stats for going for it versus punting Mendenhall decreased BYU's chance of winning by 33% on that play (that's assuming a net punt of ~40 yards).



This is exactly the type of comparison between Edwards and Mendenhall that we can legitimately make. Edwards was light years ahead of Mendenhall in making decisions that improved the chances of winning even though BYU was more likely to lose big.



And for probably the millionth time Mendenhall's wins against SDSU, UTEP, Tulsa, Oregon, OSU, and UCLA in bowl games pale next to Edwards record against SMU, Washington St, Iowa, Kansas St, Oklahoma, Michigan, Missouri, and Colorado. It's not even close the caliber of teams the two played against (and the teams Edwards beat).



And yes I would take 5 big losses to get one extra win rather than 6 "close" losses. I was at the 65-14 game - sat through the whole thing - and I'd rather do that 5 times with one win than sit through 6 31-16 losses in which Mendenhall doesn't even try to win.

I don't think Washington was a close loss. Actually the teams you listed are without similar to the bowl wins o of Bronco. I'll post the similarities tomorrow.

SpiffCoug wrote:
Actually, Lavell would have lost big and would have taken more time off to prepare for the bowl than Bronco did.



Bowl games against teams that won 8 or 9 regular season games:

Bronco: 3-2 Average Score: BYU 25 Opp 21

Lavell: 4-7 Average Score: BYU 22 Opp 32

Lavell (last five such bowls): 2-3 Average Score: BYU 20 Opp 35

I was curious how Mendenhall and Edwards did against the spread in bowl games, if only to see how they compare at performing better or worse than expectations. While point spreads are by no means a perfect gauge of "expectations," I think they make a decent proxy here.



The Gold Sheet online archive only has data from 1993 onward, but with the data I have, it's more or less a wash if only because I only have 5 observations for Edwards:



ATS:

Mendenhall: 5-3-1 (covered against Oregon, Oregon St, UTEP, Tulsa, SDSU; push against Cal)

Edwards (last five): 3-2 (covered against Ohio St, OU, and Kansas St)



SU Record as favorite:

Mendenhall: 4-0 (W: Oregon, UCLA, UTEP, SDSU)

Edwards (last five): 1-0 (OU)



SU Record as underdog:

Mendenhall: 2-3 (W: Oregon St, Tulsa; L: Cal, Arizona, Washington)

Edwards: (last five): 1-3 (W: Kansas St; L: Ohio St, Tulane, Marshall)

jvquarterback wrote:
And for probably the millionth time Mendenhall's wins against SDSU, UTEP, Tulsa, Oregon, OSU, and UCLA in bowl games pale next to Edwards record against SMU, Washington St, Iowa, Kansas St, Oklahoma, Michigan, Missouri, and Colorado. It's not even close the caliber of teams the two played against (and the teams Edwards beat).



And yes I would take 5 big losses to get one extra win rather than 6 "close" losses. I was at the 65-14 game - sat through the whole thing - and I'd rather do that 5 times with one win than sit through 6 31-16 losses in which Mendenhall doesn't even try to win.

If you sat through the 65-14 game why would you have ANY desire to relive that awful game?!



But the teams you listed and their records going into the bowl game:

1996 Kansas St 9-2-0

1993 Oklahoma 6-5-0

1991 Iowa 10-0-1

1988 Colorado 8-3-0

1984 Michigan 6-5-0

1983 Missouri 7-4-0

1981 Washington St 8-2-1

1980 SMU 8-3-0

Combined: 62-32-2 (.646)





2012 SDSU 9-3-0

2011 Tulsa 8-4-0

2010 UTEP 6-6-0

2009 Oregon St 8-4-0

2007 UCLA 6-6-0

2006 Oregon 7-5-0

Combined: 44-34-0 (.564)



The teams are fairly comparable. Each with a 9-win team. Lavell faced three 8-win teams, Bronco two 8-win teams. Each faced a 7-win team. Each faced two 6-win teams. Lavell did face an unbeaten 10-win team, which is better than any bowl team Bronco has faced.



But it took Lavell 16 bowl trips before he faced a team that won double digit games in the regular season. Ironically, the teams Lavell faced got MORE difficult as the bowls expanded. Lavell faced FOUR teams that won 10 or more games in his final seven bowl appearances. He did not face a 10-win team in his first 15 bowls. He faced as many 9-win teams in the final seven bowls as he did in the first 15. Lavell was 1-8-1 against those ten opponents. Bronco is 1-1 against 9-win bowl opponents.

Ridiculous. SDSU is worse than every team Edwards beat in a bowl game. So were Tulsa, UTEP and UCLA (who wouldn't have been eligible if BM hadn't lost to them earlier in the year). The best team Mendenhall beat - OSU - might be on par with the Missouri win. All those 8-win teams Edwards beat would have one more win if they played a schedule with a FCS team on it.



But that doesn't even get to the point - which is that Mendenhall doesn't take the risks he needs to to produce a special season, even if it means losing by a ton in some games.

jvquarterback wrote:
Ridiculous. SDSU is worse than every team Edwards beat in a bowl game. So were Tulsa, UTEP and UCLA (who wouldn't have been eligible if BM hadn't lost to them earlier in the year). The best team Mendenhall beat - OSU - might be on par with the Missouri win. All those 8-win teams Edwards beat would have one more win if they played a schedule with a FCS team on it.



But that doesn't even get to the point - which is that Mendenhall doesn't take the risks he needs to to produce a special season, even if it means losing by a ton in some games.

I agree with your last paragraph. Mendenhall isn't a huge risk taker and I think it's because he's not afraid of losing. He knows he's keeping his bosses happy and he's happy with his job. He doesn't like to lose. But he doesn't dwell on losses like other teams, coaches or even players.



For instance, I don't think John Beck liked losing to Utah. In fact, after the 2005 loss he spent the off-season coming up with a hundred different things he could have done differently in that game to have beaten Utah. Then when 2006 came around, he was ready for that moment because the previous loss had eaten him so much that he'd gone through every scenario and was ready for.



Bronco admittedly doesn't dwell on losses or even remember specific plays from games gone by.



But back to your post, teams are what their records indicate. SDSU was a 9-win team. And I'm sorry, but nowhere in my book is 6-wins better than 9. I could argue a 6-win team might be better than a 7-win team, but not a 9-win one. It took Lavell 15 bowls to beat 9-win team. It took Bronco 8 and in his first try. Lavell needed 8 cracks at a 9-win team to break through.



Look, college football is VERY different now than it was when Lavell was coaching. As I've said previously, it's unfair to compare the two eras because of how different recruiting and coaching and media coverage and fan interest are in the sport.

Also, Lavell basically needed miracle finishes to win six of his seven wins. Lavell's teams VASTLY underperformed in the bowls. The offense was routinely anemic. The defense frequently porous. Looking to Lavell for any good points in a bowl performance is just a bad idea. BYU was just bad in bowl games under Lavell.

jvquarterback wrote:
Down 28-16. 4th and 3 at the BYU 46 yard line. 14 minutes to go in the fourth quarter.



What do you think Lavell Edwards would have done?



There really isn't any question is there? Of course I think Edwards would have lost the game 45-27 (by more points than Bronco), but he also would have had a much better chance to win the game.



The way BM called the game, the only way BYU wins against Washington is if KVN returns an interception for a TD, recovers a fumble for a TD and blocks a kick. Did he expect a repeat of the SDSU game last year?



Bronco is a Defensive Coordinator. He cares more for minimizing the opponents points than for increasing the probability of winning the game.



Sure, I think there are plenty of things Mendenhall can improve on - recruiting philosophy, oversight of offensive coaches, in-game adjustments. But far and away my biggest complaint is not wanting to look bad while losing. I would rather lose 65-14 five times to get one win 41-37, than lose 30-17 six times. Bronco wouldn't.

IDK. Google Miracle Bowl. According to Jim McMahon lore, LaVell Edwards wanted to throw in the towel in the 3rd quarter.



I am not claiming Bronco is perfect. In fact, I agree with pretty much everything ND Cougar said in his final post in the locked down thread. I could write a long list of Bronco's deficiencies. LaVell had some, too.



But, yes, Bronco is a very conservative coach. Plays field position. Relies on defense. Many great coaches do and have. I am not calling Bronco a great coach. He has not been around long enough to prove that and hopefully he is improving. He relates well to guys that want to earn everything they get. Not so well with entitled players.



I am ok with his conservative approach most of the time. I do wish our special teams and offense were as well coached as the defense usually is. Then the whole thing would work better.



You might prefer a gunslinger like Leach. A little more defense and field position and ball control and maybe he could manage a win over CSU or whomever it was he gave the bowl game to.

SpiffCoug wrote:
Also, Lavell basically needed miracle finishes to win six of his seven wins. Lavell's teams VASTLY underperformed in the bowls. The offense was routinely anemic. The defense frequently porous. Looking to Lavell for any good points in a bowl performance is just a bad idea. BYU was just bad in bowl games under Lavell.

And, this my friend, is true, mainly because the Bowl opponent was usually one of the very few if not the very first decent defense BYU played against most years.

SpiffCoug wrote:
For the record, I would NEVER want to lose 65-14 again. I've suffered through a bowl game like that. They're not fun. In no way, shape or form, would be willing to do that again - let alone five more times.

This too. And not just Bowl Games. UH followed by A&M vs Detmer come to mind. I remember a UCLA debacle or 2 in there, too.



I was at The Freedom Bowl win over Colorado. A close - hard fought - win by a back-up QB named Detmer. Colorado was not a powerhouse. RB was their strength. Bienemy. Defense and field position won that game.



I was at The Freedom Bowl when UCLA and Gaston Green humiliated BYU and multiple QBs. A little defense would have been nice in that one and Edwards also was a DC by the way. Five or so DBs and linebackers got booted a week before that game. Anyone wish we recruited more of those type of players?



I watched FSU and UCLA kill BYU in the Detmer era.



Long drive home.



If I had to pick a Freedom Bowl game to want to watch over again - forget the UCLA debacle. That grind it out win over Colorado suits me just fine.

Cougarbib wrote:

Also, Lavell basically needed miracle finishes to win six of his seven wins. Lavell's teams VASTLY underperformed in the bowls. The offense was routinely anemic. The defense frequently porous. Looking to Lavell for any good points in a bowl performance is just a bad idea. BYU was just bad in bowl games under Lavell.

And, this my friend, is true, mainly because the Bowl opponent was usually one of the very few if not the very first decent defense BYU played against most years.

Not to mention Lavell viewed bowl games as rewards and vacations for his players more than statement games. I remember attending Holiday Bowl practices in the Smith fieldhouse and watching receivers in jeans running routes on the hardwood in sneakers in some of the more "rigorous" practices of the bowl season. He emphasized fun in the post season more than winning.