Should we continue playing MWC opponents?

It has been reported often, how Bronco feels about continuing certain games on the schedule after the move to independence. He has mentioned that he definitely wants to continue the UofU and USU games because they are in-state rivals and good traditions. He has said he wants to continue the Air Force series because of the quality of young men who play for Air Force and what they represent to our country (and probably because he knows how to dominate them, especially if Jaime is gone). He has mentioned this week how he would like to continue the Wyoming game.



Is any one else noticing that Bronco essentially wants to play an MWC schedule?



In addition, he wants to play Army and Navy. We went indy so we could play the "whos who" in college footaball not continue the MWC schedule and watch service academy's run 30 dive plays a game, in middle of no where, population 10.



I get that he's being politically correct but come on we can't continue every series we currently play. I'm tired of these reporters asking Bronco those questions every freaking game we play. My guess is that the answer is always, yes we would like to continue playing these guys for PR purposes but let's get real, we went indy to get away from these fools and get exposure by playing great teams in great venues on great TV channels. What teams from the MWC would you like to keep playing? As for me, the only team I would like to continue playing is the UofU. All of the rest can go. Thoughts?

Point taken. But, Why would he want to close the door on some easy wins? TH is not letting up on the heavy scheduling. 3-8 seasons will get old fast and some folks, Bronco included, will long for the MWC and a chance of getting some easy wins and a chance of at least a conf championship.

We will definitely need a balanced schedule with some marquee matchups and some medium tier and lower tier opponents but right now I'd rather get away from the MWC. Let's play Conference USA teams, let's go play bottom tier Big East and ACC teams. Let's play Temple and Wake Forest you know....I feel like we need to rebrand ourselves as a team and shine up our image by getting away from our conference.



There will be much more travel involved but we are making alot more money too.



Another interesting idea to me is that if you were to strategically pick up those "easy wins" on the east coast instead of the MWC/WAC would the "East Coast" bias swing in our favor a tiny bit? I think if you were to blow someone out in an early game time match-up on the east coast you will get more press on that side of the country, more votes from that side of the country, more hours for ESPN to play our highlights throughout the day, etc...

College football is a regional sport. Schedules should be balanced. If you take a look at the schedules already being compiled - they are already top heavy. And if Holmoe keeps having to give 4 for 2 (ND), 2 for 1(Texas), etc., to get those teams on the schedule - get them off the schedule.



Do the math - if you play a team every week that is a 50/50 match - great games to watch, I agree - home team will usually win - you go 500 on the season - you are irrelvant nationally.



Pull up the teams that are relevant year in and year out and you will find that they have more home games than road games, rarely leave their time zone, and only have a few games that are 50/50 or even fewer where they are the underdog.



Only suckers and fools will be goaded into playing that kind of a schedule.



I would be delighted to play Texas, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, USC, Nebraska, BSU, TCU, U of U, on a home and away basis - 3 of them every year and mix in 3 more games with ASU, AZ, UW, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, WSU, Colorado, AFA, etc.



But give me 6 WAC or MWC patsies to mix in between those games - thanks.



BYU will be well challenged with that kind of a schedule - and most likely will disappoint most of you.



Until BYU goes undefeated against the kind of schedule BSU, TCU, and U of U have done it with several times - quit crying about the schedule. The schedule is not the problem. We are not that good.



When Florida, Texas, Notre Dame, Alabama, start stealing our coaches and coveting our players - then we will know we have improved - but even those schools play 6-8 sure wins every season and they get teams like us to sucker up and roll over and go 2 for 1 to fatten their records. Their conference mates look more respectable, becasue they have all fattened up their records on lower division teams while our patsies, like Wyoming this year, loaded up on BSU, TCU, Utah, Texas, AFA, and became just another lousy 2-5 team like BYU who loaded up on Washington, Air Force in an up year, Florida State on the road, Nevada in an up year, USU in an up year on the road, and TCU with SDSU in an up year, with Utah in an up year on the road to go.



BYU would lose 3 in a great year and 8 in a bad year with any team we have had in recent past with that schedule.



You wil see next year what strength of schedule will continue to do to our cougars.



Ask Notre Dame what it did to their legendary program. They just keep firing coaches, landing 5 star recruits, losing and staying irrelevant.

Many who travel across time zones - especially 2 time zones - get jet-lagged. That is why football is best left as a regional sport. Play your neighbors, BEAT your neigbors, and other than a little bit of whining from Barry Switzer about your schedule, it all works out nicely.



And if you do decide to travel clear to South Bend Indiana, which I am OK with since it is Notre Dame, 1 for 1 or do not do it.



BTW - Provo, South Bend, Penn State (Happy Valley), Boise, aren't exactly Metropolis.



It will be nice to see the Cougs on ESPN - if they win most of the time. If they lose most of the time - they soon won't be on ESPN much.

Cougarbib2 wrote:



became just another lousy 2-5 team like BYU who loaded up on Washington, Air Force in an up year, Florida State on the road, Nevada in an up year, USU in an up year on the road, and TCU with SDSU in an up year, with Utah in an up year on the road to go.

Does is piss anyone else off that(for freaking once @#$!^ it!) our schedule that was supposed to be good actually is! And it's the one year where we suck beyond recognition. Seems like every year we play hyped teams and after we beat them they tank the season making it look worthless (OU, UW). This year everyone we lose to ends up remaining a top 25 worthy team. Does this piss anyone else off?! I mean, our 2008 and 2009 teams would both have at most 1 loss right now and we'd be in the back end of BCS discussions. Just wow.

I think we need 2 more easy wins each year. So add UNM and then after we beat both NM teams we can clain the NM state title cup. And UNLV is always welcome on our schedule. Lots of LDS in Vegas too, so want a presence there. An occassional game in San Diego is always nice as well, but since we got Hawaii, may not need them as a destination game. But need a game in Cali, so try to get UC-Davis go D-1 with the WAC and add them each year.

If it were me, I would never schedule SDSU again--ever; nor would I schedule UNLV or Wyoming. The others? sure, schedule them if you can. But neither would I do anything to help the MWC, their treatment of BYU has been horrid, and the replay thing with SDSU should be cause for firing or sanctioning of several SDSU officials.



To be honest, I don't think BYU is going to have much difficulty scheduling 12 games a year. The first year (2011) could be a little difficult, but after that, I don't think there will be a problem.



One of the positives I see coming out of BYU's independence is, these deep seated rivalries and grudge matches are going to largely go away. Utah will still be there, but no more "racist" crap from SDSU, or all the vile and hate we have gotten at Wyoming over the years. Our schedule will be more random than in the past, and I think that will take a lot of the negatives out of the game. Teams and players can just come and play.

I want patsies mingled with three high quality teams. That keeps us in the national spotlight with the opportunity to bust the bcs every year. we need to adopt bsu's strategy.

I think the 2 for 1's were done to start the independence off on the right foot and establish us. We have got a lot of press and great matchups announced. there is now no need to do 2 for 1's except for those in our favor. We should never schedule a team ranked 160 like NM. I think 80 is about as low as we should go. We will still win them but it looks better and makes for better tv. Temple is in the Mid America conference by the way. They are improving and I would like to see that game too.

As to the question: Not until they come crawling back on their knees begging us to play them. I want them groveling for a 2 for 1. I want them pleading with us to bring our fans to their stadium so they keep their FBS status. I want them to apologize for all the bigotry their fan bases and student bodies (and in the case of SDSU their broadcasters) have spewed forth the last several years when it has reached new levels.

kitic77 wrote:
As to the question: Not until they come crawling back on their knees begging us to play them. I want them groveling for a 2 for 1. I want them pleading with us to bring our fans to their stadium so they keep their FBS status. I want them to apologize for all the bigotry their fan bases and student bodies (and in the case of SDSU their broadcasters) have spewed forth the last several years when it has reached new levels.

Agreed.

Good point - How many 1 for 2s in our favor are on the future schedules? I don't recall any. We may pick up a 1 for none payday game here and there for a lower divison team - but I think we ought to schedule New mexico - who usually isn't at the bottom of the barrel like they are now, but we ought to insist on a 2 for 1. Same goes for Wyoming, USU, NMSU, Idaho, ISU, and any other programs with tiny stadiums and smal fan bases. Have we gotton any 1 fer 2s?



But lets not go travelling across time zones - or at least not more than 1 time zone - and never give 2 games for 1.

If you don't have a 40,000 seat stadium (Wyoming, Utah State, etc) it's a 2 for 1. Twice in Provo. If you have a larger than 40,000 seat stadium, but don't average 40,000 fans (SDSU, etc), it's a 2 for 1. Twice in Provo.

I keep reading about teams getting $1M - even FCS teams, to come lay down for the big boys. We need to utilize our new found contract to get some people to come to Provo an droll over for us - as filler and tune-ups - and to help us stay healthy - so we can punk 1-2 teams like Utah, TCU, BSU, USC, ND, Oregon, Texas and Oklahoma from around the hood every year and 2-3 more like UCLA, CAL, UW, WSU, AZ, ASU, CU, and Stanford to keep things interesting. All home and away for those teams, of course. But then load up on SJSU, NMSU, Idaho, Wyoming, NM, CSU, UNLV, etc., 2 for 1s as filler.

The MWC, at the end of this school year, will be just part of our past and the only reason we should schedule a game is if it makes sense related to our independent schedule. I've liked the regionality of playing Wyoming because they hate us so bad and therefore it is fun to have smacked them sideways more often than not, but I don't know if I would give them a home and home series without a two-fer because their fans have made it ridiculous for our traveling fans and as Kitic has said, you don't give someone with a stadum smaller than 40K straight up games.



I'm curious why its been so hard to get games with the SEC and Big Ten. We seem to be able to play PAC10, Big 12 and ACC, but it's been a stone age since we played against anyone from those two conferences. Having grown up a Big Ten fan, I'd love to see more games with them. Although Ohio State is my second favorite team I follow in college FB, I'd still like to see a game with them and see BYU win as our last two matchups in the Holiday Bowl and Citrus Bowls were losses. I know there have been conversations with Michigan and they might be hanging up on a two-fer deal and Bronco has stated that Northwestern fits the form of the type of schools he likes BYU to play. I really thought that maybe with Vanerbilt having Gordon Gee as Chancellor, who is not only LDS, but a Utahan and although one of his degrees is from the Pukes, he was a professor and dean at BYU, that we'd seem some action there, but no sniffs mentioned. I'm sure a Chancellor could influence his AD to consider BYU.



While I can easily get about 1/2 of the schools on Bronco's list of 15 that he gave to TH to set up, I'm not sure who the other half schools are.

Cougarbib2 wrote:
College football is a regional sport. Schedules should be balanced. If you take a look at the schedules already being compiled - they are already top heavy. And if Holmoe keeps having to give 4 for 2 (ND), 2 for 1(Texas), etc., to get those teams on the schedule - get them off the schedule.



Do the math - if you play a team every week that is a 50/50 match - great games to watch, I agree - home team will usually win - you go 500 on the season - you are irrelvant nationally.



Pull up the teams that are relevant year in and year out and you will find that they have more home games than road games, rarely leave their time zone, and only have a few games that are 50/50 or even fewer where they are the underdog.



Only suckers and fools will be goaded into playing that kind of a schedule.



I would be delighted to play Texas, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, USC, Nebraska, BSU, TCU, U of U, on a home and away basis - 3 of them every year and mix in 3 more games with ASU, AZ, UW, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, WSU, Colorado, AFA, etc.



But give me 6 WAC or MWC patsies to mix in between those games - thanks.



BYU will be well challenged with that kind of a schedule - and most likely will disappoint most of you.



Until BYU goes undefeated against the kind of schedule BSU, TCU, and U of U have done it with several times - quit crying about the schedule. The schedule is not the problem. We are not that good.



When Florida, Texas, Notre Dame, Alabama, start stealing our coaches and coveting our players - then we will know we have improved - but even those schools play 6-8 sure wins every season and they get teams like us to sucker up and roll over and go 2 for 1 to fatten their records. Their conference mates look more respectable, becasue they have all fattened up their records on lower division teams while our patsies, like Wyoming this year, loaded up on BSU, TCU, Utah, Texas, AFA, and became just another lousy 2-5 team like BYU who loaded up on Washington, Air Force in an up year, Florida State on the road, Nevada in an up year, USU in an up year on the road, and TCU with SDSU in an up year, with Utah in an up year on the road to go.



BYU would lose 3 in a great year and 8 in a bad year with any team we have had in recent past with that schedule.



You wil see next year what strength of schedule will continue to do to our cougars.



Ask Notre Dame what it did to their legendary program. They just keep firing coaches, landing 5 star recruits, losing and staying irrelevant.

This perfectly sums up the dilemma we are in with going independent. Nice post. The reality of the situation is we dont have the ability to get many home games with good BCS teams. They just dont play road games unless they are conference games. What is their motivation? Its money and home games, not playing trap games on the road at BYU.



I think the move to independence might be fun and thrilling right now, but another reality is that an expanded MWC without Utah would still allow us to have ND, Texas, GT, and other neutral site games on our schedule (that have been scheduled as an independent), but have a manageable remaining schedule that would include decent teams, home and away. We would be guaranteed TCU, BSU, Utah, Utah State (if we wanted), and some good regional rivalries with MWC teams. Even though their seems to be an amazing amount of mutual hate between us and the MWC teams right now, it wasn't too long ago that we were all singing the praises of how great the MWC was top to bottom because it favored our opinion of the conferences BCS worthiness. (granted, many argued that the bottom of the conference sucked, but there were many of us who polished that turd with serious fervor) Did the MWC teams (minus Utah) get much worse since last year when we were signing their praises? Not really, they have all (minus NM) gotten better.



If we are frustrated now with a rebuilding year, what happens when we are decent, but playing every tough game away from home? Regardless of how good we may be, the odds are not in our favor of being able to win that many away games. That is just the reality of playing away games against top opponents, and the win %'s of the visiting teams over the years has proven to be dismal. We won't be a statistical aberration. We will lose a lot.



I hope that I am proven wrong on this, but independence may make it immediately noticeable that we actually need MWC teams and a conference to remain relevant. Just my two cents.

EM_Puma wrote:
I'm curious why its been so hard to get games with the SEC and Big Ten. We seem to be able to play PAC10, Big 12 and ACC, but it's been a stone age since we played against anyone from those two conferences. Having grown up a Big Ten fan, I'd love to see more games with them. Although Ohio State is my second favorite team I follow in college FB, I'd still like to see a game with them and see BYU win as our last two matchups in the Holiday Bowl and Citrus Bowls were losses. I know there have been conversations with Michigan and they might be hanging up on a two-fer deal and Bronco has stated that Northwestern fits the form of the type of schools he likes BYU to play. I really thought that maybe with Vanerbilt having Gordon Gee as Chancellor, who is not only LDS, but a Utahan and although one of his degrees is from the Pukes, he was a professor and dean at BYU, that we'd seem some action there, but no sniffs mentioned. I'm sure a Chancellor could influence his AD to consider BYU.



While I can easily get about 1/2 of the schools on Bronco's list of 15 that he gave to TH to set up, I'm not sure who the other half schools are.

SEC and Big Ten teams don't like to travel in the non-conference. They like their non-conf games at home or the same time zone. They simply don't travel - unless you're one of the biggest of the big boys.

CaptainCoug wrote:

College football is a regional sport. Schedules should be balanced. If you take a look at the schedules already being compiled - they are already top heavy. And if Holmoe keeps having to give 4 for 2 (ND), 2 for 1(Texas), etc., to get those teams on the schedule - get them off the schedule.



Do the math - if you play a team every week that is a 50/50 match - great games to watch, I agree - home team will usually win - you go 500 on the season - you are irrelvant nationally.



Pull up the teams that are relevant year in and year out and you will find that they have more home games than road games, rarely leave their time zone, and only have a few games that are 50/50 or even fewer where they are the underdog.



Only suckers and fools will be goaded into playing that kind of a schedule.



I would be delighted to play Texas, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, USC, Nebraska, BSU, TCU, U of U, on a home and away basis - 3 of them every year and mix in 3 more games with ASU, AZ, UW, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, WSU, Colorado, AFA, etc.



But give me 6 WAC or MWC patsies to mix in between those games - thanks.



BYU will be well challenged with that kind of a schedule - and most likely will disappoint most of you.



Until BYU goes undefeated against the kind of schedule BSU, TCU, and U of U have done it with several times - quit crying about the schedule. The schedule is not the problem. We are not that good.



When Florida, Texas, Notre Dame, Alabama, start stealing our coaches and coveting our players - then we will know we have improved - but even those schools play 6-8 sure wins every season and they get teams like us to sucker up and roll over and go 2 for 1 to fatten their records. Their conference mates look more respectable, becasue they have all fattened up their records on lower division teams while our patsies, like Wyoming this year, loaded up on BSU, TCU, Utah, Texas, AFA, and became just another lousy 2-5 team like BYU who loaded up on Washington, Air Force in an up year, Florida State on the road, Nevada in an up year, USU in an up year on the road, and TCU with SDSU in an up year, with Utah in an up year on the road to go.



BYU would lose 3 in a great year and 8 in a bad year with any team we have had in recent past with that schedule.



You wil see next year what strength of schedule will continue to do to our cougars.



Ask Notre Dame what it did to their legendary program. They just keep firing coaches, landing 5 star recruits, losing and staying irrelevant.

This perfectly sums up the dilemma we are in with going independent. Nice post. The reality of the situation is we dont have the ability to get many home games with good BCS teams. They just dont play road games unless they are conference games. What is their motivation? Its money and home games, not playing trap games on the road at BYU.



I think the move to independence might be fun and thrilling right now, but another reality is that an expanded MWC without Utah would still allow us to have ND, Texas, GT, and other neutral site games on our schedule (that have been scheduled as an independent), but have a manageable remaining schedule that would include decent teams, home and away. We would be guaranteed TCU, BSU, Utah, Utah State (if we wanted), and some good regional rivalries with MWC teams. Even though their seems to be an amazing amount of mutual hate between us and the MWC teams right now, it wasn't too long ago that we were all singing the praises of how great the MWC was top to bottom because it favored our opinion of the conferences BCS worthiness. (granted, many argued that the bottom of the conference sucked, but there were many of us who polished that turd with serious fervor) Did the MWC teams (minus Utah) get much worse since last year when we were signing their praises? Not really, they have all (minus NM) gotten better.



If we are frustrated now with a rebuilding year, what happens when we are decent, but playing every tough game away from home? Regardless of how good we may be, the odds are not in our favor of being able to win that many away games. That is just the reality of playing away games against top opponents, and the win %'s of the visiting teams over the years has proven to be dismal. We won't be a statistical aberration. We will lose a lot.



I hope that I am proven wrong on this, but independence may make it immediately noticeable that we actually need MWC teams and a conference to remain relevant. Just my two cents.

+1



The only saving grace is the theory that our recruiting will improve along with independence. If it does we move up a notch in the football world. If it doesn't then we will certainly see multiple 4 or 5 loss seasons. Personally, I just want to watch a team that is no longer doubted because of its schedule--I hate that argument. Thankfully, it seems that will no longer fly against us going forward.

kitic77 wrote:

I'm curious why its been so hard to get games with the SEC and Big Ten. We seem to be able to play PAC10, Big 12 and ACC, but it's been a stone age since we played against anyone from those two conferences. Having grown up a Big Ten fan, I'd love to see more games with them. Although Ohio State is my second favorite team I follow in college FB, I'd still like to see a game with them and see BYU win as our last two matchups in the Holiday Bowl and Citrus Bowls were losses. I know there have been conversations with Michigan and they might be hanging up on a two-fer deal and Bronco has stated that Northwestern fits the form of the type of schools he likes BYU to play. I really thought that maybe with Vanerbilt having Gordon Gee as Chancellor, who is not only LDS, but a Utahan and although one of his degrees is from the Pukes, he was a professor and dean at BYU, that we'd seem some action there, but no sniffs mentioned. I'm sure a Chancellor could influence his AD to consider BYU.



While I can easily get about 1/2 of the schools on Bronco's list of 15 that he gave to TH to set up, I'm not sure who the other half schools are.

SEC and Big Ten teams don't like to travel in the non-conference. They like their non-conf games at home or the same time zone. They simply don't travel - unless you're one of the biggest of the big boys.

Another issue: The trend in all of CFB is to play as weak a non-conference schedule as possible, all at home. Larger conferences are coming, which means a decrease in available non-conference games. Based on what presumably will happen in the next couple years with conference expansion and an increase in dummied down non-conference schedules, we could be in a really difficult scheduling situation, not only with the Big-10 and SEC, but also in Pac-10 (who should be our main conference we schedule)