Going Into The Season - Has BYU Ever Had A More Intriguing

Set of Wideouts?

I do not think so. There are at least 5 guys I cannot wait to see on the field in 2014 and 2 or 3 others that might be worthy of some PT. Fresh receivers all day long.



Set of DBs?

I do not think so. We will have a legit starter at all 4 spots with decent depth at back-ups. BYU rarely has more than 1 or 2 legit starters at DB.



QB/RB Combo?

Maybe. Maybe not. We have had QBs more intriguing. Detmer after Heisman season. Maybe even Heisman season. But who was the RB? McMahon as a senior. Maybe even as a junior. But who was the RB? Doman was not all that intriguing going in. Staley maybe. We have had intriguing QBS like Young. And RB like Unga. But duos. I think going into a season, Hill / Williams might have the edge.



OL?

Yes. This is not the most intriguing line. The intrigue is just hope that they are finally decent again. Intriguing in that sense.



Tight Ends?

Yes. See OL. The intrigue is hope that tight ends are actually relevant.



FB?

Yes. The intrigue is whether we will even have a full back.



Defense should be solid. Kicking - color me worried.



Camp starts in 4 days. Go Cougs.

I think you truly mean intriguing and not "promising", but I can't tell.



One clear group you left off was LBs. Will the OLB, twin towers be as awesome as I think they will? Will they get a lot of media attention? Will the incoming OLBs also provide intriguing depth to match their hype?

Will the MLBs be a pleasant surprise and fill shoes nicely? Will Stout finally make something of himself in college? Will Pikula get a lot of tackles with teams targeting the middle of the D and avoiding the edges?

So, yes, a lot of intrigue this year that is hopefully matched by a lot of promise and results.

Same could be said of the Dline. What exactly does BYU have? A lot of possibilities and potential, but what will be the results?

Cougs_Rule wrote:
I think you truly mean intriguing and not "promising", but I can't tell.



One clear group you left off was LBs. Will the OLB, twin towers be as awesome as I think they will? Will they get a lot of media attention? Will the incoming OLBs also provide intriguing depth to match their hype?

Will the MLBs be a pleasant surprise and fill shoes nicely? Will Stout finally make something of himself in college? Will Pikula get a lot of tackles with teams targeting the middle of the D and avoiding the edges?

So, yes, a lot of intrigue this year that is hopefully matched by a lot of promise and results.

Promise was a huge part of the intrigue factor for the first 3. I glossed over the defense and special teams other than the promising DBs.



Intrigue abounds on this team. I usually am a "show me" guy on the P words like Promise and Potential, but our forgiving schedule this season has tempted me enough, that I drank a few sips of the Blue Kool-aid made with the forbidden fruit - wait - I think I actually ate Blue Jello in a Forbidden Fruit Mold at a recent wedding or funeral.

Yes. Your typical hedging is fledgling. But I am not only drinking but serving koolaid for reasons that you also typically point out and that is schedule. Although, this isn't a cupcake schedule. People are making too much of that. This is the perfect BYU schedule. I only wish Cal were a bit better, but maybe they turned things around.

Cougs_Rule wrote:
Yes. Your typical hedging is fledgling. But I am not only drinking but serving koolaid for reasons that you also typically point out and that is schedule. Although, this isn't a cupcake schedule. People are making too much of that. This is the perfect BYU schedule. I only wish Cal were a bit better, but maybe they turned things around.

I agree about the schedule. This schedule is more forgiving than 2013 was and 2015 will be, but it is not a cupcake schedule. Not even close to cupcake.



BYU has had a few schedules that were tougher, but not very many.

Cougarbib wrote:

Yes. Your typical hedging is fledgling. But I am not only drinking but serving koolaid for reasons that you also typically point out and that is schedule. Although, this isn't a cupcake schedule. People are making too much of that. This is the perfect BYU schedule. I only wish Cal were a bit better, but maybe they turned things around.

I agree about the schedule. This schedule is more forgiving than 2013 was and 2015 will be, but it is not a cupcake schedule. Not even close to cupcake.



BYU has had a few schedules that were tougher, but not very many.

Not sure "cupcake" is the right word but it will be a very "light" schedule. No one we cannot or should not beat. There are solid teams but no one that is an expected top tier (top 15) or even expected to ranked (could be wrong).



Half the games should be auto W's: Viginia, Nevada, MTSU, UNLV, Savannah State, Cal and potentially even UConn. When half the schedule should be auto W's it is extremely light and borderline cupcake.



Several good teams that if we beat them we get credit for: UT and BSU.



If we beat Houston and USU I don't think we get the credit we deserve. UCF could end up being solid or could be a one hit wonder.......we shall see it will be exciting.



We will know by week two or three what the year will look for BYU, being independent allows us to jump right in vs putting cream puffs first. If we were in a conference we ould have MTSU and Savannah State first.

NDCougar wrote:

Cougs_Rule wrote:
Yes. Your typical hedging is fledgling. But I am not only drinking but serving koolaid for reasons that you also typically point out and that is schedule. Although, this isn't a cupcake schedule. People are making too much of that. This is the perfect BYU schedule. I only wish Cal were a bit better, but maybe they turned things around.

I agree about the schedule. This schedule is more forgiving than 2013 was and 2015 will be, but it is not a cupcake schedule. Not even close to cupcake.



BYU has had a few schedules that were tougher, but not very many.

Not sure "cupcake" is the right word but it will be a very "light" schedule. No one we cannot or should not beat. There are solid teams but no one that is an expected top tier (top 15) or even expected to ranked (could be wrong).



Half the games should be auto W's: Viginia, Nevada, MTSU, UNLV, Savannah State, Cal and potentially even UConn. When half the schedule should be auto W's it is extremely light and borderline cupcake.



Several good teams that if we beat them we get credit for: UT and BSU.



If we beat Houston and USU I don't think we get the credit we deserve. UCF could end up being solid or could be a one hit wonder.......we shall see it will be exciting.



We will know by week two or three what the year will look for BYU, being independent allows us to jump right in vs putting cream puffs first. If we were in a conference we ould have MTSU and Savannah State first.

Light compared to whom? Hawaii had a cupcake schedule the year they went undefeated before getting creamed in The Sugar Bowl. That is a cupcake schedule. Boise State built it's Cinderella cult following usually playing a cupcake schedule and on occasion a borderline cupcake schedule. I am not sure Boise State has ever played a schedule any tougher than BYU will play this year. Yes, they have on occasion played 1 team tougher than any on our schedule this year. Ok. That still gets you to 11-1.



I agree that almost every PAC team will play a schedule tougher than ours this year. But some are not much different.



This schedule is not elite. It is not Top 25. It is probably about slightly above the middle.



This schedule is tougher than 1984. Even if Pitt had been legit, this schedule would still be tougher.



in 1984, AFA, was the toughest WAC opponent. Then Hawaii. Then Utah at 6-5. No WAC team had more than 8 wins even with 8 WAC opponents in every schedule. Add a bad Pitt team, Baylor, Tulsa, and USU for BYU. And that schedule was above average for BYU up until that time. Average. Not weak.



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

Cougarbib wrote:
in 1984, AFA, was the toughest WAC opponent. Then Hawaii. Then Utah at 6-5. No WAC team had more than 8 wins even with 8 WAC opponents in every schedule. Add a bad Pitt team, Baylor, Tulsa, and USU for BYU. And that schedule was above average for BYU up until that time. Average. Not weak.



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

1984 was actually a pretty weak schedule - even by BYU terms of the era. In 1984, BYU played exactly one team that won 8 games and one team that won 7. Six teams won 4 or fewer.



Some comparisons of similar years

1986, 3 teams won 8, 1 team won 7, 5 teams won <4

1985, 1 team won 12 games, 2 teams won 9, 1 team won 8, 1 team won 7, 4 teams won <3

1983, 1 team won 10, 1 team won 8, 4 teams won 7, 2 teams won <4

1982: 1 team won 11, 1 team won 10, 1 team won 9, 1 team won 8, 1 team won 7, 3 teams won <4

Bibs,



Not sure saying another team has a weak schedule so it means BYU's schedule is not light. Yes Hawaii had a light schedule, not sure how that impacts BYU's 2014 schedule. Same with BSU, what does them having weak schedules have to do with anything? Does that impact whether we should or should not win a game this year.



Re: 1984, that was a very weak schedule as well. The moral of this story should be you don't know how tough the schedule will be until it is played. Pre-season 1984 if you said BYU would beat Pitt and Michigan you would have been very pleased. Maybe this schedule ends up being tougher than it looks but there is nobody at is a guaranteed L.



Again, anything more than 2 losses should be a disappointment. BSU, UCF and UT on the road could be tough; USU and UH at home are tough. That means 7 games are games that we should win, no questions. That means of the 5 games listed above we need to beat 3, none are world beaters and all are winnable.



This is a very light schedule. You can point the finger at other programs and say they have weaker schedules.....that does not impact our schedule. Given differences in schedules a 10 win schedule is not tough for us, if you want to compare our schedule to a PAC 12 or SEC schedule and then say "if we win less than 10 wins would be great" I would agree.......but we cannot have a one size fits all schedule and compare 10 wins for BYU vs 10 wins for a P5 conference.



End of story, it is weak this year. Texas and BSU are down, if they were both playing top tier football I would change my stance.

NDC



This is what it has to do. Someone called this a cupcake schedule. Used other words that would imply that it would be weaker than most teams. That simply is not true. It is not a strong schedule. 50 or so teams may have an equal or stronger schedule. That leaves 70 or so with a weaker schedule.



I simply gave Hawaii and a typical BSU schedule of the past as examples of what a weak schedule looks like.



Ironically, when teams like BSU, BYU, Utah, and TCU get tired of hearing people call their schedule weak, they schedule up a bit and then start losing more.



Look no further than ND. There was a time when ND played a Top 5 schedule almost every year. Parity came and ND had a long string of more losses than they were used to and went through a few coaches. Those were ridiculously strong schedules. Like Utah plays last year and this year. Suicide.



You need to realize that in between strong and weak is a higher middle ground called average, below average and above average. Most teams fall in that range. BYU falls in that range this year. Slightly above average.



Re 1984, Michigan was irrelevant going into the season. Nobody knew who we would play in a bowl. Likewise this year. Who knows, we might be in the playoffs or a New Year's Day Bowl or the Beach Ball Bowl vs who knows whom.



So the stats Spiff posted after I said schedules BEFORE 1984 were usually even weaker, where he then responds with 1985 data and pre 1984 data that includes bowl opponents - that sort of changes the argument. Bowl games end up being whatever they end up being and we have no idea what our bowl game will be this year. But, for regular season schedule, this schedule going in looks well above what regular season schedules going in did in most years pre 1984 and admittedly, 1982 and 1983 were stronger than typical ones before that. Back in those good old days, the Bowl Opponents were usually pretty good - Michigan being a notable exception.

Bibs,



Not disagreeing. I was not saying BYU's schedule should be tougher, simply saying it is light.......that is it. Never said they need to upgrade it nor change it. It is light, it is what it is, it is what it has to do if it wants to get 10+ wins. Simply put if they don't win 10 games this year I feel they have underperformed based on the schedule.



P.S. I would not call ND's schedule light, I think the ranked teams on their schedule may disagree: Florida State, Stanford, USC, Arizona State, Michigan, UNC. ;) Could be a tough schedule.

Just my $0.02, but I think this schedule will wind up being tougher than it looks on paper.

SpiffCoug wrote:
Just my $0.02, but I think this schedule will wind up being tougher than it looks on paper.

What are you thinking? Top 50, top 40, top 30?

Having a tough schedule is a bit luck, schedules get filled out years in advance an no way to tell how they turn out.



I actually like the schedule, mainly winnable games. You have UT and BSU, which when scheduled were expected to be tougher games.



There is a possibility that this does turn out to be tougher than expected, if Charlie Strong turns things around at UT, BSU improves, UCF stays the course from last year, UH ends up being legit and USU ends up playing well. I don't see it, but do love the UT match-up as we are getting them at the right time and really feel towards the second half of the year they will improve.

Cougarbib wrote:

So the stats Spiff posted after I said schedules BEFORE 1984 were usually even weaker, where he then responds with 1985 data and pre 1984 data that includes bowl opponents - that sort of changes the argument. Bowl games end up being whatever they end up being and we have no idea what our bowl game will be this year. But, for regular season schedule, this schedule going in looks well above what regular season schedules going in did in most years pre 1984 and admittedly, 1982 and 1983 were stronger than typical ones before that. Back in those good old days, the Bowl Opponents were usually pretty good - Michigan being a notable exception.

No, actually the 1984 schedule was weak even for the "good old days". If you take the 5 previous seasons, it ranks 6th in opponent winning percentage. If you add the 5 years following it ranks 11th. It was WELL behind all the similar era years.


Slide1.GIF
Slide2.GIF

Back to the OP. Schedule clearly adds intrigue to this year, particularly when the variableof talent, coaching, schemes, etc are added. Very intriguing. And all posts point that way. Whether folks are doom and gloomers or optimists. Everyone senses the possibilities. Intrigue.

NDCougar wrote:
Bibs,



Not disagreeing. I was not saying BYU's schedule should be tougher, simply saying it is light.......that is it. Never said they need to upgrade it nor change it. It is light, it is what it is, it is what it has to do if it wants to get 10+ wins. Simply put if they don't win 10 games this year I feel they have underperformed based on the schedule.



P.S. I would not call ND's schedule light, I think the ranked teams on their schedule may disagree: Florida State, Stanford, USC, Arizona State, Michigan, UNC. ;) Could be a tough schedule.

I would not call any ND schedule light either. I have not even looked at 2014. I would not call any of ND schedules that I remember light. They were just not as brutal as they had been. Lately, instead of ridiculously tough, they have been reasonably tough. Many criticized them when they went undefeated recently. That was not a cupcake schedule. It was not Top 5 either. Somewhere in the middle. Challenging. ND almost always if not absolutely always has a tougher schedule than BYU. There are either Zero exceptions to this statement or nearly Zero. Probably Zero.

SpiffCoug wrote:

So the stats Spiff posted after I said schedules BEFORE 1984 were usually even weaker, where he then responds with 1985 data and pre 1984 data that includes bowl opponents - that sort of changes the argument. Bowl games end up being whatever they end up being and we have no idea what our bowl game will be this year. But, for regular season schedule, this schedule going in looks well above what regular season schedules going in did in most years pre 1984 and admittedly, 1982 and 1983 were stronger than typical ones before that. Back in those good old days, the Bowl Opponents were usually pretty good - Michigan being a notable exception.

No, actually the 1984 schedule was weak even for the "good old days". If you take the 5 previous seasons, it ranks 6th in opponent winning percentage. If you add the 5 years following it ranks 11th. It was WELL behind all the similar era years.


Slide1.GIF
Slide2.GIF

The good old days started in about 1974 or so. Start about there. Whenever Gary Sheide was rocin and rollin. Leave out the bowl opponents since this is a discussion of regular season schedule. Actually, it is a discussion of schedules going into the season - tough to measure that. SO sure. ;ets look at schedule after the regular season plays out. Holiday Bowl brought some decent opponents a times and skews things. Also, the chart of wins of opponents and win % completely ignores who they were racking those wins up against.



I am not arguing strongly. 1984 was not a back breaking schedule. History has taught me not to mention asterisks on this site, so I won't ;) but we all know what I think about the 1984 schedule. Very doable. The kind of schedule BYU should schedule every year in my opinion. At the end of the day, the 1984 regular season schedule like most that preceded it in the glory years, was built on a foundation of 8 WAC opponents who all had schedules built on a foundation of 8 WAC opponents with very rare appearances on BYU's schedule of schools on any P5 conference lists today and then those teams were usually not conference leaders. Bowl games were a little tougher. That is why BYU usually lost their Bowl games in spite of their lofty W/L record and ranking going into those games.



That was back when 400 yard games were routine. 300 yards passing was customary. And games over 500 yards happened on occasion. Beating CSU, NM, Wyo, and others by 40 or more points was pretty much expected. Even Utah sucked most of the time.

I'm glad to hear that you've learned to stop or at least limit your being wrong on this site.