What is the plan here?

After reading a really good post by Cougs Rule in the "Why We Lost" thread, I looked at some figures...



If you look at the last 10 years under Bronco (not counting this year in progress) BYU is 21-29 (.420) vs Ranked/BCS/P5 teams. I'm talking about ranked at the end of the year, not during the year that may or may not mean anything.



Against those Ranked/BCS/P5 teams with a winning record? 9-25 (.265)



Against those Ranked/BCS/P5 teams at .500 or below? 12-4 (.750)



Who were our 9 wins against Ranked/BCS/P5 teams with a winning record?



(Going in order of win %)



2006: 31-17 over TCU (who finished 11-2) - John Beck (senior)

2012: 6-3 over Utah St (who finished 11-2) - Taysom Hill

2009: 26-23 over Utah (who finished 10-3) - Max Hall (senior)

2009: 14-13 over Oklahoma (who finished 8-5) - Max Hall (senior)

2009: 44-20 over Oregon St (who finished 8-5) - Max Hall (senior)

2013: 40-21 over Texas (who finished 8-5) - Taysom Hill

2006: 38-8 over Oregon (who finished 7-6) - John Beck (senior)

2010: 23-17 over Washington (who finished 7-6) - Jack Heaps/Riley Nelson

2013: 38-20 over Georgia Tech (who finished 7-6) - Taysom Hill



Seems to me that the relatively few times we've beaten our best opponents were when had a senior QB or a phenom like Taysom. I imagine Mangum will be on that list, maybe when this year is done.



Most would agree that the first 4 game stretch this year was a good example of what life would be like in a P5 conference.



Question #1 - If we eventually got an invite to a P5 conference, would our recruiting and depth improve enough to be competitive? Or would we be worn down quickly with injuries like we have this year?



Question #2 - If we eventually got an invite to a P5 conference, would our coaching be sufficient to be competitive? Or would we get regularly humiliated like we did against Michigan?



Question #3 - What is Tom Holmoe's plan exactly? Is it to schedule tough and hope we beat enough of the big boys to get a P5 invite? I see a lot of 8-5 finishes that way. It seems he has abandoned the strategic scheduling of a Boise State, for example, where you play 1 or 2 big boys, while beating up on inferior competition the rest of the time, as an easy way to a NY6 bowl game. Maybe Boise State has chosen that route because they realize their market may be too small for a P5 invite? And maybe Holmoe thinks we are in a different situation and is scheduling accordingly?

KingCoug wrote:
After reading a really good post by Cougs Rule in the "Why We Lost" thread, I looked at some figures...



If you look at the last 10 years under Bronco (not counting this year in progress) BYU is 21-29 (.420) vs Ranked/BCS/P5 teams. I'm talking about ranked at the end of the year, not during the year that may or may not mean anything.



Against those Ranked/BCS/P5 teams with a winning record? 9-25 (.265)



Against those Ranked/BCS/P5 teams at .500 or below? 12-4 (.750)



Who were our 9 wins against Ranked/BCS/P5 teams with a winning record?



(Going in order of win %)



2006: 31-17 over TCU (who finished 11-2) - John Beck (senior)

2012: 6-3 over Utah St (who finished 11-2) - Taysom Hill

2009: 26-23 over Utah (who finished 10-3) - Max Hall (senior)

2009: 14-13 over Oklahoma (who finished 8-5) - Max Hall (senior)

2009: 44-20 over Oregon St (who finished 8-5) - Max Hall (senior)

2013: 40-21 over Texas (who finished 8-5) - Taysom Hill

2006: 38-8 over Oregon (who finished 7-6) - John Beck (senior)

2010: 23-17 over Washington (who finished 7-6) - Jack Heaps/Riley Nelson

2013: 38-20 over Georgia Tech (who finished 7-6) - Taysom Hill



Seems to me that the relatively few times we've beaten our best opponents were when had a senior QB or a phenom like Taysom. I imagine Mangum will be on that list, maybe when this year is done.



Most would agree that the first 4 game stretch this year was a good example of what life would be like in a P5 conference.



Question #1 - If we eventually got an invite to a P5 conference, would our recruiting and depth improve enough to be competitive? Or would we be worn down quickly with injuries like we have this year?



Question #2 - If we eventually got an invite to a P5 conference, would our coaching be sufficient to be competitive? Or would we get regularly humiliated like we did against Michigan?



Question #3 - What is Tom Holmoe's plan exactly? Is it to schedule tough and hope we beat enough of the big boys to get a P5 invite? I see a lot of 8-5 finishes that way. It seems he has abandoned the strategic scheduling of a Boise State, for example, where you play 1 or 2 big boys, while beating up on inferior competition the rest of the time, as an easy way to a NY6 bowl game. Maybe Boise State has chosen that route because they realize their market may be too small for a P5 invite? And maybe Holmoe thinks we are in a different situation and is scheduling accordingly?

I think the first 4 games is not quite representative of what life in a P5 conference would be like--because 3 of those 4 games were on the road. Most conference schedules won't do that to you.

Question 1 - I think it would take time to transition to have P5 depth (see Utah in the P12--I don't think they've finished above 5th in their division in spite of the good teams they have put out there).

Question 2 - Good question--but its hard to say if the coaching is "good enough for P5". Anae has some P5 coaching experience (at Arizona) but I don't know that the rest of them do.

Question 3 - the "big fish in a small pond" strategy is definitely not the future Holmoe envisions. It appears to me that his goal is to put together as much of a "P5 schedule" as he can. Which is a tough task. Not all P5s are willing/able to fill all available slots--especially late in the season. But it appears he is getting more and more P5 games going forward and they are more balanced with road/away games. Until a P5 invite comes, he'll do his best to play schedules like the team is already one of them and they will be better prepared when/if that invite comes. I don't think G5 conference/shot at an access bowl is going to be the cat's meow going forward.

Concur with the above. As soon as the playoff was introduced, all other bowls, including the NY6, just became consoloation prizes, not intended destinations. TH wants BYU to at least have the opportuntity to go to the playoff. A schedule like this year's makes it possible. A schedule like Boise State's does not. If you want to be with the big boys you have to act like the big boys. BYU is showing that it belongs...the embarassment to Michigan aside.

The simple, mathematical truth is that most teams have losing records to teams that finish ranked at the end of the year, because those teams win more games than they lose. That's why they are ranked at the end of the year, and the teams that beat them are generally ranked even higher (apologies to 2014 Virginia Tech). That said:



1) Yes, I think our depth would improve and get us up to the task. Probably faster than Utah's did, because we're not in as big a money hole as they were. We're always going to have a little bit of a glass ceiling because we can't pursue kids who the Honor Code would disqualify. But we would get to be regular competitors, for sure.



2) I think the coaching is fine, if we improved the caliber of athletes we had as in 1). There's some things we could improve with clock management, and I'd like to see more focus on the opponent's strengths and weaknesses instead of "we just need to worry about ourselves" so that we can exploit matchups between players and schemes more. But who else is out there that would be better that is within the realm of possibility that we could actually hire?



3) I'm honestly fine with 8-5 with these kind of schedules. We haven't done worse than 8-5 since independence, and many P5 teams would kill to go 8-5. Wake Forest? Kansas? Iowa State? Colorado? Vanderbilt? Kentucky? Washington State? Our program would already be more competitive in a P5 conference than any of these and many others, and it would only get better. Just since Bronco started as coach, we've beaten 10 of the Pac-12, we've beaten Notre Dame, we have wins against every Big 12 school we've played, we swept Georgia Tech, we've beaten Virginia, and--get this--we're batting 1.000 against the mighty SEC (yes, it was one game, but it was on the road, and we had a huge handicap at QB). We beat every P5 team on the schedule last year. This kind of schedule has already allowed us to prove we're every bit worthy to be a P5 program, and all conferences with P5 scheduling rules have acknowledged that. I hope we continue to have more of the same so that we can learn from (and learn to beat) better competition than we've ever had.

I'm still not a believer that you get a P5 invite because the product on the field deserves it. You get in if the money warrants it.

Utah and TCU have gotten better and deeper and I think BYU would also benefit. However I never hear it mentioned that Utah/TCU both had major flaws when they got their invites. Utah forgot they needed a qb for multiple recruiting classes and moved any one with a pulse that may have been a qb to other positions. TCU had like 5-6 good players get kicked out (including their starting qb) for doing/distributing weed. I think their improvements are 1/2 better recruiting and 1/2 they got past those issues.

For the better schedule I think it's put in place because it drives fan interest better than a big fish in a little pond schedule. All bowls but the championship/playoffs have been consolation prizes since the BCS was invented.



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

redneckjedi wrote:
The simple, mathematical truth is that most teams have losing records to teams that finish ranked at the end of the year, because those teams win more games than they lose. That's why they are ranked at the end of the year, and the teams that beat them are generally ranked even higher (apologies to 2014 Virginia Tech). That said:



1) Yes, I think our depth would improve and get us up to the task. Probably faster than Utah's did, because we're not in as big a money hole as they were. We're always going to have a little bit of a glass ceiling because we can't pursue kids who the Honor Code would disqualify. But we would get to be regular competitors, for sure.



2) I think the coaching is fine, if we improved the caliber of athletes we had as in 1). There's some things we could improve with clock management, and I'd like to see more focus on the opponent's strengths and weaknesses instead of "we just need to worry about ourselves" so that we can exploit matchups between players and schemes more. But who else is out there that would be better that is within the realm of possibility that we could actually hire?



3) I'm honestly fine with 8-5 with these kind of schedules. We haven't done worse than 8-5 since independence, and many P5 teams would kill to go 8-5. Wake Forest? Kansas? Iowa State? Colorado? Vanderbilt? Kentucky? Washington State? Our program would already be more competitive in a P5 conference than any of these and many others, and it would only get better. Just since Bronco started as coach, we've beaten 10 of the Pac-12, we've beaten Notre Dame, we have wins against every Big 12 school we've played, we swept Georgia Tech, we've beaten Virginia, and--get this--we're batting 1.000 against the mighty SEC (yes, it was one game, but it was on the road, and we had a huge handicap at QB). We beat every P5 team on the schedule last year. This kind of schedule has already allowed us to prove we're every bit worthy to be a P5 program, and all conferences with P5 scheduling rules have acknowledged that. I hope we continue to have more of the same so that we can learn from (and learn to beat) better competition than we've ever had.

I like everything you said above but we have never beaten the Irish under Bronco. We've played them 3 times so far, all in South Bend...



2005: lost 23-46

2012: lost 14-17

2013: lost 13-23



Meanwhile, we are still waiting for those potato-eating leprechauns to actually come to Provo.



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

Yes, you're right. The win was 2004, when Bronco was DC under Crowton. We won that game with defense, backup quarterbacks, a halfback pass to Austin Collie, and the punting of Matt Payne. Awesome game. :)



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

There's no one thing that qualifies us or any other school for expansion. It's the schoolwith the most complete package of football, other sports, money opportunities, academic considerations, and overall reputation/branding.



Holmoe can do something about two, maybe three of those.



Scheduling a P5-type schedule is like the old advice about how to go after getting a promotion: behave as though you already have it.

Holmoe knows that a little-pond schedule is not going to be enough to get into the playoffs, though it would help for NY6. But the reputational advantage of the NY6 dimmed with the playoff (as others noted). So now, the appeal of a bowl game is to 1) play a big-name team, 2) play in a unique, historic venue, 3) get a bunch of money (or at least not go broke), 4) have a chance to add to your reputation, and 5) give the players a chance to have some fun.

The schedule we've had over the first 4 games has given us 1-4, and fans really don't care about 5. The biggest difference between this and a bowl is the degree of 4: Reputation boost. Yes, there's a difference between playing Nebraska at Memorial or playing them in a bowl game, but I'd argue that the difference isn't that big.Beating NU and BSU and coming close with UCLA gave BYU a lot of great pub--at least as much as a win in a bowl game would. And here's the kicker: There's a lot of uncertainty about who and whether you'll play in a bowl game. Even more uncertainty around whether you'll play in a NY6. So why not schedule with certainty a "name" team like the first NU/BSU/UCLA/UM to be able to play them with certainty that is comparable in reputation with whoever ends up in the NY6, on the way to a possible NY6 game ourselves VERSUS play patsies for the possibility of playing a NY6 team that we could have scheduled to play outright?



I agree with redneckjedi on the problem of looking at records against ranked teams. I'd love to know the record of our principle competitors for a P5 invite (e.g Memphis, Cinci, the directional Florida teams, Houston, BSU) by that same metric. It's also going to be lousy. But they probably have fewer such games (BSU) or a lower win % (everyone else) than BYU.

On a related note, it's kind of misleading to look at how BYU did against teams with a winning season because the game against BYU likely changed several teams' trajectories, if not their win/loss record. We play a physical brand of football and tend to (unintentionally i believe, but we do have a reputation for being a dirty team) knock out other teams key players a la Sam Bradford.

Plus, the loss to BYU counts in the loss column. How do things look if you pull the BYU game completely out of their W/L percentage?

So, there's a flaw in your initial argument. BYU doesn't have a great record against teams that are ranked at the end of the year, because most teams don't have a great record against teams that are ranked at the end of the year. That's why those teams are ranked...



Now to your questions.



1. Yes, BYU's recruiting would improve in a P5 conference. BYU already gets really good, top end, highly rated guys (Hill, Mangum, Heaps-he was a bust, but rated highly, Warner brothers, Jamaal Williams, etc.). We're already competing with, and winning more than our fair share, in recruiting battles against USC, Stanford, Utah, Oregon and Boise State. So our top end talent is good. Where we would improve is getting better in the depth of our recruiting classes. We'd get more of the 3 stars to fill our middle group instead of the 2 stars.



2. Yes, as long as we can get rid of Anae. He's poisoning our recruiting by not playing nice with recruits and their families (Covey, Collie families are examples). If Anae were just the OL coach, he'd be fine, and actually probably pretty good, but since he runs the whole offense, we have issues.



3. Tom Holmoe's plan is to show we get ratings and will be worth the money that it will cost broadcasting companies (ESPN/FOX) for them to be brought into the conference. The Big 12 would love to have BYU as a competitor, name brand, etc, but the Big 12 isn't the final decision makers, it's the rights holders. Right now ESPN is ecstatic with BYU's numbers in the late time slot. The times BYU has been on FS1, they've outperformed expectations. That's what Holmoe is doing.



Is this easy? No. But it's working. Going back to G5 or playing a G5 schedule would kill recruiting. My prediction is that the divide will continue to grow between the G5 and P5 in recruiting. BYU can go to recruits and say, "The SEC, ACC, and Big 10 have all recognized us as a P5 team. The Pac 12 schedules us regularly, even in November. We plan to play Big 12 teams when we can. We hare a P5 program. You're a P5 player. Come help us win."

stuckinbig10country wrote:
So, there's a flaw in your initial argument. BYU doesn't have a great record against teams that are ranked at the end of the year, because most teams don't have a great record against teams that are ranked at the end of the year. That's why those teams are ranked...

If BYU wants to get to our ultimate destination...competing regularly in a P5 conference, getting into the playoffs, and ultimately a national title, we need to do better against the top teams. Because right now, our record against them is abysmal. There's no getting around that or explaining it away. Our best win the date under Bronco is still against TCU in 2006.



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