Happy medium between tough and ultra tough. We already play a top 30 schedule every year. It's not wise to push for a top 10 schedule unless we really believe we have a top 10 program.Originally Posted by DrumNFeather
That said, I'd love to rotate BYU off in favor of a P5 every once in a while. That seems to be the best solution. We already successfully piloted that program.
Last edited by sancho; 07-13-2017 at 09:54 AM.
Well, I'm speaking specifically to our non-conference schedule. Clearly our league schedule is difficult, and especially in a year like this where Cal and Oregon St. are not on it, it's even tougher. I'm even fine with the A, B, C, mode of thinking...but I think that who falls under what category needs to be evaluated a little more closely.
For example, if we want to call BYU our "A" game when we play in Provo, I think that's fine...but if we do that, we should be looking to bring someone into RES in those years as a "B" game that generates some excitement. I think the SDSU game in a few years probably does that. SJSU, Wyoming, and No. Illinois, however, do not.
“It only ends once. Anything that happens before that is just progress.”
Well, because he thought it was good sport. Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.
I think we differ a bit here. I am not going to be particularly excited about any G5 team except boise or a game I can drive to. If we want to upgrade, we need to do it with P5 games.
Oh believe you me, I was stretching to call SDSU an exciting game. I mean, if we were playing Wyoming this year with Josh Allen as a potential top 3 QB in next year's draft, that would be interesting. Absent that, I agree with you.
“It only ends once. Anything that happens before that is just progress.”
Well, because he thought it was good sport. Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.
I guess the USU AD said that USU would not do a 2 for 1 with Utah. I understand his position and it is hard to argue differently when the Utes have 1 for 1 with Wyoming (IMO stupid), SDSU (IMO good) and Houston (IMO good). Since joining the PAC 12 I have consistently been in favor of playing USU and BYU on a rotating 1 for 1 basis. I used to love going to Logan for games and never enjoyed going to Provo for games. Money is not an issue because they keep the gate when we play at USU and we keep the gate when we play at SLC - probably the same deal we are doing with NIU and the schools mentioned above.
somebody tweeted that if USU is big enough for a home and home, they should not be getting appropriations from the legislature for recruiting
So, Mark Harlan just tweeted something interesting...
For those on a mobile device: "Congrats @ClemsonFB, see you soon."
Last edited by DrumNFeather; 01-07-2019 at 11:15 PM.
“It only ends once. Anything that happens before that is just progress.”
Well, because he thought it was good sport. Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.
Utah's SOS per Sagarin since 2011:
2016: 60th
2015: 28th
2014: 36th
2013: 3rd
2012: 41st
2011: 49th
Average: 36th. Toss out the high/low, and it's 38.5. Take out 2013, and it's 42.6.
I suspect this year will be closer to 2013, so it's not wise to say we play less than a top 40 schedule. Top 30 is pushing it, but far from being wildly inaccurate.
I think there's room to go A-A-C, or B-B-B. I think it's a fallacy to say every week is a grind in the Pac-12, because too often, we play down to our competition. We create that grind more than other teams creating it for us. Would scheduling up in the non-con help us avoid the letdowns we see against Pac-12 teams that are inferior or having a down year? There's simply not enough evidence to say.
What there is enough evidence of, is a 1-loss Utah team competing against other 1-loss teams for a spot in the playoff will likely be left out with a SOS in the mid to low 30s.
2016: 3-1-6-53, average of 15.75
2015: 1-21-20-30, average of 18
2014: 29-2-20-21, average of 18
Are we scheduling to compete/win in the Pac-12, or are we scheduling with bigger goals in mind? It would be a tough pill to swallow if a one-loss Utah team got shut out of the playoff because we believe we scheduled A-B-C, but the results were closer to B-C-C. I think in the big picture, there's very little to lose by scheduling up, but the price you pay for scheduling down could be a killer. Programs like Utah get generational bites at the playoff apple.
I agree with everything you said except this. There is risk either way. Maybe we go 13-0 and grab a playoff spot because of a weaker non-conf. Maybe harder games cause us to miss a bowl game one year or cause us to miss a top 25 ranking. Maybe a tougher grind takes a brutal toll on performance or depth.
I'd be excited to see better teams on our schedule, but, man, let's not forget how amazing our schedules already are.
Last edited by sancho; 07-13-2017 at 01:34 PM.
Those are largely inconsequential feats. So what if we miss a bowl game? We missed two earlier this decade and followed it up with a 28-11 run.
Once you get past the top 10, few fan bases beat their chests over a ranking 11-25.
You think those are significant accomplishments every year, and that's fine. For me, in some years (2014) they are significant. In some years, like last year, they do nothing for me.
If we go 13-0, we're in the playoff 99 seasons out of 100. Going 12-1 at least once in the next 10 years is much more likely than going 13-0. Again, we are not the kind of program that gets multiple bites at the playoff apple. So when those seasons come around, why not implement a scheduling strategy that's more likely to get you in the playoff rather than leaving you out?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote