Bronco and scheduling.
 

Bronco is going to get run over by the BCS bus if he starts to schedule like Hawaii did this year. He can set up the schedule now to be easy (riding on the Hawaii formula bandwagon), but the BCS powers that be will make strength of schedule a factor in the selection criteria, just wait and see. They did not want Hawaii there, and Hawaii showed they shouldn't be there. SOS would have helped keep them out.

If Bronco dumbs down the schedule, the BCS criteria will change on him midstream, and BYU will be stuck with a crap schedule which will then count against them and keep them out of the BCS. I hope he can see the writing on the wall. Play the best you can, and beat them. That is the only sure-fire formula for a mid-major to crack the BCS.

I think dumbing down the schedule equals BYU setting up an annual Div IAA scrimmage for the team vs having one such team every two to three years. I don't think there will too much difference in what the schedule looks like now.


2009
9-12 @ Arizona State
9-19 Florida State
TBA Utah State
2010
9-18 @ Florida State
TBA Washington
TBA @ Utah State
2011
TBA @ Washington
TBA Arizona State
TBA Utah State
TBA @ Army
2012
TBA Washington
TBA Utah State
TBA Army


2008 you have Washington and UCLA (as of now the game is set), Utah State and TBA. Not a bad balance given the challenge that conference brings.

I doubt strongly that Bronco will go to the extreme that Hawaii did this year in scheduling two terrible Div IAA teams with a combined 6-17 record. One also has to consider the conference scheduling. The WAC really is a bad conference. 3 teams with winning records this year?

the WAC will be looked at with more scrutiny given the SOS issue. The MWC will continue to be doing their thing and if they can put up a team that avoids losing more than one game a year, they will be challenging for BCS games each season. That is even with one D1AA team per year.

Reason?

MWC has 5 teams with winning records vs 3 teams in this years WAC
MWC has a .531 composite winning record vs .478 for the WAC
MWC has a .585 OOC winning record vs .439 for the WAC

Include SOS

8th MWC 0.6641 vs WAC 0.5197 for perspective

Rk Conf Tms W L SOS
1 Mid-American 13 17 42 0.7821
2 Pac 10 10 24 12 0.7435
3 Southeastern 12 44 8 0.7134
4 Big East 8 30 13 0.7008
5 1-A Independ. 4 19 26 0.6998
6 Colonial 12 30 17 0.6738
7 Atlantic Coast 12 35 19 0.6711
8 Mountain West 9 24 17 0.6641
9 Big 10 11 37 11 0.6515
10 Big 12 12 38 14 0.6503
11 Patriot League 7 17 19 0.6411
12 Ivy League 8 11 13 0.6363
13 Ohio Valley 10 13 21 0.6336
14 Sun Belt 8 10 31 0.6279
15 Southwestern 10 7 11 0.6197
16 Conference USA 12 17 36 0.6196
17 Big South 5 15 20 0.6189
18 Big Sky 9 11 20 0.6180
19 Southern 8 24 14 0.6168
20 Northeast 7 14 19 0.6018
21 Southland 8 13 20 0.5898
22 Mid-Eastern 10 9 12 0.5771
23 Pioneer 8 23 9 0.5448
24 WAC 9 18 22 0.5197
25 Great West 5 19 16 0.5124
26 Gateway 7 26 14 0.4692
27 1-AA Independ. 4 17 21 0.4172

Do not be surprised if dumbing down the schedule equals one Div IAA team per season as a warm up to get ready for the season. Sound familiar?

In any case, The WAC will struggle as Utah State, New Mexico State, Idaho are all struggling to meet current Div IA requisites. San Jose State had a nice boost last year, but this year did not see improvement which could easily slide the program back into the risk zone. La Tech is having problems, and this leaves basically four programs to bear up the entire conference.

Bronco's sold you on this "balance" concept, eh?

USC plays 12 BCS schools next year.

Playing two is "balance" for BYU.

Only 25 teams played two or fewer BCS schools this year. Balance?

We play Utah State, Wyoming, SDSU, and UNLV. And adding another D1AA to those losers is "balance"?

We think we're a top 12 team but we want to move our schedule down to the 80th best in the nation in the name of "balance"?

The other problem with the balance concept is that every other year the home schedule plain sucks. Maybe the balance of power in the MWC will change over time and UNM, UNLV, Wyoming and SDSU will be the exciting MWC games at home. However, right now our home schedule next year plain sucks.

I know there are enough "true blue fans" to fill the stadium with a suck schedule and therefor I will just have to live with it and complain.

Tell you what, you find one season in the past where BYU did just fine against 4 or more BCS teams, then we can talk about the wisdom/necessity of scheduling 3 or 4 BCS teams for next year.

What do you mean by "just fine"?

When you see that only 25 teams played two or fewer BCS schools this year, do you feel comfortable making that as the standard for BYU? And why? Because we're entitled to 8-4 seasons even when we suck?

I believe that in the long run a program is better off for going 8-4 even when they suck. Perception is reality in college football and ensuring your down years don't drop you off the radar is important.

My approach is one OOC patsy, either a sucky non-BCS program, and three good games with at least two of them being against teams from BCS conferences. 2-2 OOC years doesn't bother me if BYU is losing to legitimately good teams. The past two years they lost to three average teams and one legitimately good team, BC.

However, given what Bronco inherited and the trends I have seen I think that he will start winning more and more of the OOC games.

Hey dude, we are 11-2 and off the radar. Wake up.

That is not due to scheduling. That is due to the mtn debacle.

Further, as a nationally ranked program about to enter into a long preseason of plenty of BCS breaking buzz, I think the extent to which BYU is off the radar is arguable.

Arguable??? They will be ranked in the top 20. His comment isn't arguable, it is ridiculous.