January 28, 2012

Conference Affiliation and Exposure:  Access vs. Eyeballs
By Dave Haynie

[Visit www.byucougs.com to search archives and leave comments]

I will go on record here as one that hopes independence works out.  (Right about now, some of you are blowing up...)  To clarify, I am not for independence at all costs--I am for it working out to be better than any conference affiliation: more freedom, more money, better recruiting, more relevance, easier TV access, higher rankings, better opponents, more games in new parts of the country, good rivalries, etc. 

I hope it is.  It may not be.  In fact, it is probably impossible to get all of those in either scenario.  So, it’s important to both define and prioritize those aspirations.  And, it probably doesn't matter how I would prioritize them... the administration has already claimed that exposure is the name of the game.  Fair enough.  And, actually, probably not a bad pick, as it encompasses nearly all of the items above.

Hear (read) me out...

Exposure is a function of:
1. Being TV accessible to households (Access)
AND
2. Offering something that viewers will tune in to watch (Eyeballs)

Access
This means being on TV and being on stations that as many people as possible have access to.  BYU has effectively solved this problem.  In fact, they have knocked it out of the park.  Between ESPN and BYUtv, the Cougars likely have more Access than any other team in the country... and it might not even be close, considering the ubiquity of BYUtv in the US as well as its international reach.  Only 3-4 other teams had as many as 10 games on an ESPN network.  And, no other team gets every last one of their 3rd tier games broadcast in 70M homes and across the world.

So… access, check-plus….
Advantage: Independence.

Eyeballs
Getting viewers is another story… just because it’s on, doesn’t mean people will watch it.  There are several factors that make people want to watch your game (1-4 apply to both the team’s fanbase and the casual opportunistic viewer, while 5 pertains just to the teams fanbase):

So how is BYU doing on these metrics…

Advantage: Independence.
Task: Continue to prioritize scheduling of quality opponents, and if that proves too difficult, consider conference affiliation.

Task:  Closely follow the impacts of independence on recruiting.

Advantage: Conference.
Task: Win.  Consider creating things to play for (e.g. an independent championship?). Sign contracts for outcome-dependent post-season play.  Or, consider conference membership.

Advantage: Neutral.
Task: Continue as is.

Advantage: Neutral.
Task: None.

Advantage: Neutral.
Task:  Utilize a more exciting style of play. 

 

Final Tally
Access: Independence
Eyeballs: Independece 1, Conference 1, Neutral 2, TBD 1, Unrelated 2
            Opponents: Independence
            Performance: TBD
            Relevance: Conference
            Time Slot: Neutral
            Competitivity: Neutral
            Watchability: Unrelated

Independence is clearly better for access (though a conference affiliation might come close, depending on the way contracts are negotiated).  That is generally undisputed.  But, it is also only half the battle.

As for eyeballs, it is currently a draw, though any negative impacts on recruiting from independence (or missed positive impacts from a conference), and thus impacts on team performance, should be closely monitored.  Additionally, employing a more exciting style of offensive play would add eyeballs regardless of the conference status, which in an independent world, might be essential.

So there you have it.  “Exposure” really is much more than being on TV, and as long as the administration is thinking of it in these terms—access AND eyeballs—I trust that they will be on top of things and make the best decision.

January 19, 2012

A Sneak Peek at BYU Football 2012

By Scott Rappleye

Visit http://bluecougarfootball.blogspot.com/ for more BYU football information

 

The Brigham Young Cougars don’t kickoff the 2012 football season for another seven and a half months. However, it isn’t too early to take a sneak peek at the next season.

The 2012 edition of the BYU Cougars could be better than the 2011 team. Despite the losing several key players, no one position group will be replacing more than two starters. Most of the replacements have contributed in the past and showed they can handle full-time duties adequately. However, I am not ready to ramp up the hype machine.

The 2011 season taught BYU a lot of valuable lessons that players and coaches need to work on to be ready for 2012. Many questions about the next edition of Cougars won't be answered until the games begin. Hopefully with the right attitude and work ethic, the 29 seniors will lead BYU to a strong start and build on what was accomplished during the first year of independence.

This sneak peek looks at the key losses, returning contributors, new players to watch, and goals for each position group in 2012. It also includes on a scale of 1 to 10 how ready each position is, today, for the 2012 season.
 
OFFENSE
Quarterback
Key Losses: Jake Heaps
Returning Contributors: Riley Nelson 
Players to Watch: James Lark 
Goals: 1) Stay healthy. 2) Lead BYU to wins over the “quality” opponents on the schedule. 3) Improve accuracy. 4) Be prepared for defenses geared to stop designed QB runs.
Ready for Kickoff: 7

Running Back
Key Losses: J.J. DiLuigi, Bryan Kariya
Returning Contributors: Michael Alisa, Joshua Quezada
Players to Watch: Iona Pritchard, Adam Hine, Jamaal Williams.
Goals: 1) Find a power runner to replace Kariya. 2) Find a feature back who can gain 100 yards in a game regularly and break off a 50 yard run once or twice. 3) Overcome injuries—Pritchard, Alisa, and Quezada still have questions about injuries sustained in the last six months.
Ready for Kickoff: 5

Wide Receivers
Key Losses: McKay Jacobson
Returning Contributors: Cody Hoffman, Ross Apo, JD Falslev
Players to Watch: O’Neill Chambers, Brett Thompson, Terenn Houk, Dylan Collie
Goals: 1) Give the quarterback more than one “go-to guy.” 2) Three receivers with 50 or more receptions.
Ready for Kickoff: 9

Tight End
Key Losses: None
Returning Contributors: Austin Holt, Richard Wilson, Devin Mahina, Kaneakua Friel, Marcus Mathews
Players to Watch: No new tight ends will be in the mix.
Goals: 1) Stay healthy. 2) Average 4 receptions and 50 yards receiving per game as a unit. 3) Be effective in the red zone.
Ready for Kickoff: 3

Offensive Line
Key Losses: Matt Reynolds, Terrence Brown
Returning Contributors: Braden Hansen, Houston Reynolds, Braden Brown, Walter Kahaiali’i, Ryan Freeman.
Players to Watch: Ryker Mathews, Terry Alletto
Goals: Dominate the trenches.
Ready for Kickoff: 6

DEFENSE
Defensive Line
Key Losses: Hebron Fangupo, Matt Putnam
Returning Contributors: Romney Fuga, Eathyn Manumaleuna, Jordan Richardson, Mike Muehlmann, Travis Tuiloma
Players to Watch: Ian Dulan, Russell Tialavea
Goals: Get more pressure on the quarterback (hurries and sacks).
Ready for Kickoff: 8

Linebackers
Key Losses: Jordan Pendleton, Jadon Wagner, Jameson Frazier
Returning Contributors: Uona Kavainga, Brandon Ogletree, Kyle Van Noy, Spencer Hadley,
Players to Watch: Zac Stout, Austen Jorgensen, Alani Fua, Ezekiel Ansah, Uani Unga
Goals: Seal the edge better to eliminate 80-yard touchdown runs.
Ready for Kickoff: 10

Defensive Backs
Key Losses: Travis Uale, Corby Eason
Returning Contributors: Pretson Hadley, Daniel Sorensen, Joe Sampson
Players to Watch: Jordan Johnson, Mike Hague, Craig Bills
Goals: 1) Don’t let inexperienced and freshmen quarterbacks have success, especially on 3rd down. 2) Don’t give teams first downs by default with penalties. 3) Improve coverage on the deep balls.
Ready for Kickoff: 5

January 13, 2012

BYU 2011 Position Grades

By Scott Rappleye

Visit http://bluecougarfootball.blogspot.com/ for more BYU football information

 

BLUE COUGAR FOOTBALL is home to the most comprehensive season review for BYU football. It will include four parts. There is a possibility of a bonus, fifth part

Position grades are part 2. If you missed part 1, you can click here <http://www.bluecougarfootball.com/2012/01/brigham-young-cougars-2011-season.html> .

OFFENSE

Quarterbacks
Riley Nelson and Jake Heaps combined to pass for over 3,100 yards and 28 touchdowns. They both passed for over 300 yards in a single game once. Nelson finished two games with a pass efficiency rating over 200 (204.97 vs. Utah State, and 229.18 vs. Idaho State). The 229.18 rating was the twelfth best in BYU history. Nelson was a valuable contributor to the run game with 392 yards rushing.

The quarterback position did have its drawbacks. First and foremost, BYU had to change quarterbacks. Heaps never played well in a game for more than one half. Both QBs had some ugly turnovers in the three losses that can be linked to why BYU lost those games. The 3,100 yards and just two 300 yard passing games is very modest by BYU standards. The combined pass efficiency rating for Heaps and Nelson was sub 130, which is also sub par. Three times Heaps or Nelson completed less than 50 percent of their passes.

Heaps has now transferred and Nelson showed in the Armed Forces Bowl he still has lots of room for improvement.

Grade: B-
Nelson: 116-202 (57.4%), 1717 yards, 19 TD, 7 Int., 152.9 Pass Eff.
Heaps: 144-252 (57.1%), 1452 yards, 9 TD, 8 Int., 111.0 Pass Eff.
Totals: 260-454 (57.3%), 3169 yards, 28 TD, 15 Int, 129.6 Pass Eff.

Running Backs
As a team, BYU averaged roughly the same number of rushing yards per game this year as last (168.1 in 2010, 160.3 in 2011). BYU also had an identical 4.2 average yards per rush both this year and last. However, these figures for 2011 include 392 rushing yards (32.7 per game) from quarterback Riley Nelson. The BYU running backs clearly took a step back this year.

Once again, J.J. Di Luigi led the team in rushing yards, but his total yards was over 300 less than a year ago. Bryan Kariya and Joshua Quezada both topped 500 yards rushing a year ago. Neither one could top 300 yards this year. Not one of BYU’s four core running backs had a 100 yard rushing game.

Michael Alisa came along mid-season and provided a boost with 91 yards rushing against San Jose State. Before then, no running back had gained more than 56 yards in a single game. The jury is still out on whether Alisa is the long term solution.

Maybe Drew Phillips wouldn’t have been any better, but one can’t help but wonder how the rush attack might have been different had he not left school during the summer.

Grade: C
Di Luigi: 116 rush, 584 yards, 5.0 ave., 3 TD
Alisa: 85 rush, 455 yards, 5.4 ave., 3 TD
Kariya: 74 rush, 298 yards, 4.0 ave., 6 TD
Quezada: 86 rush, 298 yards, 3.5 ave., 1 TD
Totals: 361 rush, 1635 yds, 4.5 ave., 13 TD

Wide Receivers
The receiving corps made great improvements from a year ago. Cody Hoffman was the clear leader of this group. He is clutch. He is reliable. He is virtually uncoverable. Ross Apo had a solid freshman campaign. He finished with an impressive nine touchdowns, and he was making noticeable progress as the season concluded. JD Falslev was a pleasant surprise supplanting McKay Jacobson in the slot. Although Jacobson finished his career with his least productive season, he had two 40-yard receptions that directly shaped the success of this season.

The receivers can still improve their ability to get open against tight man-to-man coverage.

Grade: A-
Hoffman: 61 rec., 943 yards, 10 TD
Apo: 34 rec., 453 yards, 9 TD
Falslev: 31 rec., 330 yards, 2 TD
Jacobson: 25 rec., 323 yards, 1 TD

Tight Ends
The tight ends get a little bit of a pass due to all the injuries that occurred. The top three tight ends suffered season ending injuries at one point or another. Even though, this unit made great progress from a year ago. Austin Holt and Richard Wilson showed potential to be the next great tight end tandem in Cougar lore. Though still not a true tight end, Marcus Mathews was a reliable receiving option. He made a great heads up play to catch the winning touchdown against Utah State.

Notwithstanding the injuries, those further down on the depth chart stepped up. Four tight ends caught touchdown passes—Wilson, Mathews, Kaneakua Friel and Matt Edwards.

Grade: B+
Mathews: 27 rec., 299 yards, 1 TD
Holt: 11 rec., 180 yards
Wilson: 11 rec., 130 yards, 1 TD
Friel: 7 rec., 55 yards, 1 TD
Edwards: 1 rec., 9 yards, 1 TD
Total: 57 rec., 673 yards, 4 TD

Offensive Line
The offensive line did not live up to expectations. This unit is just as responsible as any for the slow start by the offense. They allowed only 17 sacks, but that is a little misleading. Jake Heaps was frequently getting rid of the ball early to avoid a sack, and Riley Nelson’s mobility enabled him to dodge defenders and make something positive even when protection was poor.

The line does deserve praise for helping the offense improve its 3rd down conversion percentage a full 5 percent this year to 51%. Lastly, hats off to Matt Reynolds for making the block of the year in the Armed Forces Bowl.

Grade: C

The offense only needed to make two or three more plays against both Texas and TCU to win those games. If that happens this would have been a completely different season.

Offense Grade: B

DEFENSE

Defensive Line
The defensive line didn’t put up as big of numbers as last year (6.5 less sacks, 5 less pass breakups, 8 less quarterback hurries). That doesn’t mean these guys didn’t have a presence in the trenches. Without a versatile guy like Vic So’oto or Jan Jorgensen, the D-line had a different role this year than in years past. The nine players who rotated at the three down linemen positions played their role well. While they might have lacked versatility, these big bodies were nimble and could be seen chasing down ball carriers from sideline to sideline.

Grade: B+
Eathyn Manumaleuna: 33 tackles
Hebron Fangupo: 26 tackles, 6 TFL, 2 pass breakups, 3 QB hurries
Romney Fuga: 25 tackles, 2 TFL
Graham Rowley: 16 tackles, 3 TFL, 1.5 sacks, 1 pass breakup, 2 QB hurries
Travis Tuiloma: 12 tackles, 1.5 TFL
Matt Putnam: 6 tackles, 2 TFL, 3 pass breakups, 1 fumble recovery, 1 forced fumble
Simote Vea: 5 tackles, 2 TFL, 1 sack, 1 QB hurry
Jordan Richardson: 4 tackles, 0.5 TFL
Mike Muehlmann: 3 tackles, 2 TFL, 2 sacks

Linebackers
The linebacking corps was the heart and soul of the defense. This unity was consistently making plays all over the field. This year they recorded more than double the number of sacks (8.5 to 17.5), quarterback hurries (9 to 20), and forced fumbles (3 to 10) from last year.

Depth proved to be essential among this group. Spencer Hadley stepped in admirably at Texas (12 tackles) when Brandon Ogletree missed the game due to a concussion. When Jordan Pendleton missed six games during the season, Jadon Wagner and Jameson Frazier were there to make sure the defense didn’t skip a beat.

Kyle Van Noy became the undisputed playmaker on defense. He led the team in tackles for loss, sacks, interceptions, interception return yards, and quarterback hurries.

Brandon Ogletree, despite missing one game, led the team in tackles. Uona Kaveinga forced four fumbles.

Grade: A
Ogletree: 76 tackles, 4 TFL, 1 int., 1 fumble recovery, 1 forced fumble
Van Noy: 68 tackles, 15 TFL, 7 sacks, 3 int., 3 pass breakups, 10 QB hurries, 1 fumble recovery, 3 forced fumbles, 1 blocked punt, 1 TD
Kaveinga: 57 tackles, 4.5 TFL, 1 pass breakup, 2 QB hurries, 1 fumble recovery, 4 forced fumbles
S Hadley: 45 tackles, 1.5 TFL, 1 interception,
Wagner: 37 tackles, 5 TFL, 2 sacks, 1 pass breakup, 1 fumble recovery, 1 forced fumble
Pendleton: 32 tackles, 8.5 TFL, 4 sacks, 1 pass breakup, 2 QB hurries,
Frazier: 27 tackles, 6 TFL, 2.5 sacks, 5 QB hurries, 2 fumble recoveries

Defensive Backs
Replacing three starters in the secondary led to occasional blown coverages and other concerns <http://www.bluecougarfootball.com/2011/10/byu-football-problems-with-pass-defense.html>  in the first half of the season. BYU had a 22 game streak snapped <http://www.bluecougarfootball.com/2011/09/byu-football-did-you-know-300-yard.html>  of not allowing a team to pass for 300 yards against UCF. True freshmen quarterbacks were making clutch plays on third down.

As the season progressed, secondary play improved. TCU passed for only 147 yards. Idaho managed to pass for 50 yards, but the starting quarterback had -6. New Mexico State loved to throw the ball and had plenty of weapons, but they only got 159 yards.

Junior College transfers Preston Hadley and Joe Sampson were welcome additions. Their play improved each week. Hadley and Corby Eason both had 14 pass breakups. Andrew Rich and Brian Logan combined for 15 last year. Sampson scored a touchdown on a fumble return and Daniel Sorensen returned an interception for a score. Travis Uale tied Kyle Van Noy for the team lead with three interceptions.

Everyone in the secondary was susceptible to getting beat for a big play. Games like Tulsa and UCF wouldn’t have been so close if the secondary didn’t have brief lapses in coverage. Utah was able to pick up momentum at the end of the second quarter and the start of the third quarter because of poor pass coverage.

Grade: B+
Sorensen: 61 tackles, 2 TFL, 2 int., 6 pass breakups, 1 fumble recovery, 1 TD
P Hadley: 51 tackles, 2.5 TFL, 1 sack, 14 pass breakups, 1 QB hurry,
Uale: 49 tackles, 3 int., 4 pass breakups, 1 fumble recovery
Eason: 46 tackles, 2 TFL, 14 pass breakups, 1 forced fumble
Sampson: 23 tackles, 5 TFL, 1 sack, 1 int., 3 pass breakups, 2 QB hurries, 1 fumble recovery, 1 TD

Perhaps what is most impressive about the 2011 Cougar defense was that in over 800 plays from scrimmage, there are only about 10 that were bad plays. Several times the offense put them in a bad situation, and they routinely came out of that situation pretty well.

Defense Grade: A-

SPECIAL TEAMS

Punting
By the numbers, Riley Stephenson had another solid season. However, the miscues against TCU still sting.

Stephenson and the cover guys got off to a slow start. He averaged well below 40 yards per punt the first two games. Opponents had 64 return yards on two returns in those games. The other 10 games, the punt team excelled.

Punting directly led to wins over UCF and Tulsa. Several punts were downed inside the 10-yard line as a result of great hustle and good hang time. Only 12 of the 47 punts were returned.

Grade: B
Stephenson: 47 punts, 42.2 yard average, 20 punts inside the 20, 15 punts 50 yards or more.

Field Goals/Extra Points
Justin Sorensen was another player with high expectations. The strong legged high school All-American only connected on 60% of his field goal attempts. He finished the year making just six of his last 14 tries, however, none of the misses really had any impact on the outcome of the game. From 50 yards or longer, he was 0 for 3.

Sorensen did connect on 100% of his point-after-touchdown attempts, which isn’t as easy as it appears. Of the times that BYU place kickers have been perfect with the PAT attempts, Sorensen had, by far, the most attempts.

Grade: B-
Sorensen: FG—15 of 25 (60%), long 46, 1 blocked; PAT—48 of 48

Returns
For the fist time in 13 years, BYU had a kickoff returned for a touchdown. For the first time in five years, BYU had a punt returned for a touchdown. It was the first time in 15 years that BYU did both in the same season. Additionally, Cody Hoffman set a new school record for most kickoff return yards in a season. JD Falslev had two 22-yard punt returns in the bowl game. The second one set BYU up just 48-yards away from scoring the game winning points.

The only strike against the return teams is the two fumbled kickoffs. One was of little consequence (late in the Idaho State blowout), but the other (Utah game) had a huge negative impact.

Grade: A-
KO—Hoffman: 36 returns, 879 yards, 24.4 ave., 1 TD
Punt—Falslev: 22 returns, 220 yards, 10.0 ave., 1 TD

Special Teams Overall: B

COACHING

The quality of coaching came into question several times this year. There were inevitable growing pains for the new coaches. While the growing pains were understandable, they don’t excuse every shortcoming by the coaches.

One coach who wasn’t experiencing growing pains was the head man Bronco Mendenhall. He devised some great defensive schemes that were well designed to stop other teams with the specific personnel BYU had. Mendenhall caught a lot of fire, however, over how he managed the team. The way he managed fall camp and the continuing pattern of his teams unraveling in big games drew the most criticism.

New offensive coordinator Brandon Doman struggled to make in game adjustments and keep the offense effective for four quarters. Ben Cahoon’s influence on the receivers had been good. Joe Dupaix faces a big challenge to get the running backs producing again. BYU’s leading rusher has not had less than 600 yards rushing since LaVell Edwards’ final season.

The offensive line needs better coaching. Someone needs to motivate them and get them playing with more passion.

Grade: B

December 29, 2011

Assessing BYU’s Bowl Game TV Ratings
By Dave Haynie

[Visit www.byucougs.com to search archives and leave comments]

With the Armed Forces Bowl coming up on Friday morning, and with an early kickoff set for 9am here, I anticipate that it won’t fare very well in the TV ratings game.   That got me wondering how the other Armed Forces Bowls have done in that time slot and how BYU has done in general with their bowl game TV ratings.  Let’s take a look…

First, the caveat that it is nearly impossible to compare TV ratings unless they were in the same time slot airing on the same day.  Otherwise there are just too many variables that matter:

• What day of the week was the game played?  (Wed vs Saturday)
• What day of the year? (on a holiday, during vacation days, before or after Christmas, etc)
• What time of the day did it air? (late night or early morning vs. primetime)
• How close was the game? (blowouts tend to lose viewers, overtime brings them in)
• What buzz did the game have—were the teams ranked?
• What channel was the game played on?
• What else was airing at the same time on other stations? (e.g. Game 7 of the World Series being played during the most recent BYU-TCU game)

 

But yet, the temptation is too great, so I am going to do it anyway, though it is difficult to make any concrete conclusions.  Here are the ratings from the last 7 bowl games BYU has participated in:

New Mexico Bowl
Year	Date	Day	Time	Teams			Rec	Rec	Score	Rating		Att
2011	17-Dec	7	2:00 PM	Temple-Wyoming			8-4	8-4	37-15	1.8		25,762
2010	18-Dec	7	2:00 PM	BYU-UTEP			6-6	6-6	52-24	2.11		32,424
2009	19-Dec	7	4:30 PM	Fresno St-Wyoming			8-4	6-6	28-35 OT	2.78		24,898
2008	20-Dec	7	2:30 PM	Colorado St-Fresno St			6-6	7-5	40-35	2.6		24,735
2007	22-Dec	7	4:30 PM	New Mexico-Nevada			8-4	6-6	23-0	1.96		30,233
2006	23-Dec	7	4:30 PM	New Mexico-SJSU			6-6	8-4	12-20	1.81		34,111
									AVE	2.18		28,694

Last year’s Cougar game, despite the worst incoming records in the game’s short history, and the blowout nature of the score (at one point it was 31-3), garnered just under the historical average TV rating.  The only other notables are that the highest rated game was an overtime game, with a last possession game getting second highest.  BYU also had the second highest attendance, only after the inaugural game with the home team.

Las Vegas Bowl
Year	Date	Day		Time		Teams		Rec	Rec	Score		Rating		Att
2011	22-Dec	5		8:00 PM		(8) Boise St-Arizona St		11-1	6-6	56-24		2.4		35,720
2010	22-Dec	4		8:00 PM		(10) Boise St-(20) Utah		11-1	10-2	26-3		3.78		41,923
2009	22-Dec	3		8:00 PM		(16) Oregon St-(15) BYU		8-4	10-2	20-44		2.58		40,018
2008	20-Dec	7		8:00 PM		Arizona-(17) BYU		7-5	10-2	31-21		2.5		40,047
2007	22-Dec	7		8:00 PM		(19) BYU-UCLA		10-2	6-6	17-16		2.48		40,712
2006	21-Dec	5		8:00 PM		(19) BYU-Oregon		10-2	7-5	38-8		1.97		44,615
2005	22-Dec	5		8:00 PM		California-BYU		7-4	6-5	35-28		2.4		40,053
2004	23-Dec	5		9:30 PM		Wyoming-UCLA		6-5	6-5	24-21		1.9		29,062
2003	24-Dec	4		7:30 PM		Oregon St-New Mexico		7-5	8-4	55-14		1.76		25,437
2002	25-Dec	4		4:30 PM		UCLA-New Mexico		7-5	7-6	27-13		2.9		30,324
										AVE		2.47		36,791

 

The Vegas Bowl also has BYU right at the ratings average for 4 of the 5 games played (though given that BYU is in 5 of the 10 games listed here, you could argue that BYU sets the average), the exception being the 2006 blowout (when it was 38-0 at one point).  BYU’s highest rated game, in 2008, was also not close, but perhaps maintained its rating due to the fact that both teams were ranked.  The highest rated games were last year’s game (21-3 combined record, both ranked), and a Christmas Day game in 2002.  BYU also has 5 of the top 6 attended games.

Armed Forces Bowl (Ft. Worth Bowl)
Year	Date	Day	Time	Teams	Rec	Rec	Score	Rating		Att
2011	30-Dec	6	12:00 PM	BYU-Tulsa	9-3	8-4
2010	30-Dec	5	12:00 PM	Army-SMU	6-6	7-6	16-14	1.55		36,742
2009	31-Dec	5	12:00 PM	Houston-Air Force	10-3	7-5	20-47	1.83		41,414
2008	31-Dec	4	12:00 PM	Houston-Air Force	7-5	8-4	34-28	1.7		41,127
2007	31-Dec	2	12:30 PM	California-Air Force	6-6	9-3	42-36	1.99		40,975
2006	23-Dec	7	8:30 PM	Tulsa-Utah	8-4	7-5	13-25	2.03		32,412
2005	23-Dec	6	8:00 PM	Kansas-Houston	6-5	6-5	42-13	2.28		33,505
2004	23-Dec	5	6:30 PM	Marshall-Cincinnati	6-5	6-5	14-32	1.6		27,902
2003	23-Dec	3	7:30 PM	(18) Boise St-(19) TCU	12-1	11-1	34-31	2.81		38,028
							AVE	1.97		36,513

 

BYU will be playing in the 9th Armed Forces Bowl (originally the Fort Worth Bowl), and anything less than a 1.85 rating would be considered disappointing for ESPN (the average for the last 8 games).  The highest rated game was the inaugural game, where they amazingly staged a matchup of ranked teams with a combined record of 23-2 (records like that generally only exist in BCS title games) which then played a nail-biter.  This game used to be played prior to Christmas in a prime time slot, and actually had better ratings then (perhaps not competing with bigger bowls and higher ranked teams, and the later start time surely didn’t hurt), and hasn’t broken a 2.0 since.  Should this year’s BYU game top 2.0, it would be considered a ratings success.

To put all of this in perspective, here is some context:

1.60 – BYU’s highest regular season TV rating this season (Texas, UCF, USU)
2.34 – BYU’s average bowl game rating since 2005
2.92 – Ave for all non-BCS bowls last year
7.05 – Highest non-BCS bowl last year (Outback Bowl, Florida-Penn St)
7.20 – Ave for all of March Madness (2011)
8.09 – Ave BCS game 2010-11 season (excluding title game)
11.7 – NCAA Men’s Basketball Championship (2011)
15.3 – BCS title game 2010-11 season (Oregon-Auburn)
22.3 – NFL playoffs average (2011)
46.0 – Super Bowl (2011)

Now that we have covered all of that, what can we conclude?  Really only that BYU can be counted on to fill the seats and consistently bring ratings that meet expectations.  You may not break any viewership records, but you won’t disappoint your advertisers (they know what they are getting), and will be solid in the time slot allotted.

 

December 29, 2011

College Football Playoffs Would Be a Goldmine
By Dave Haynie

[Visit www.byucougs.com to search archives or leave comments]

With another college football bowl season having been sufficiently tampered with by the BCS to lose much of its luster, fans clamoring louder than ever for a playoff, and all-the-while the NCAA effectively looking the other way while the purse-strings of its post-season are given away to conference big-wigs and bowl committee fat cats, it is perhaps time to shout something in a language that the parties in power will listen to… $$$.

The current BCS system is quite lucrative for those involved (both personally and organizationally), and thus there has been very little momentum to change it.  But greed (or self-interest as you may prefer to call it) could perhaps move them when nothing else will.  So, that begs the question… just how much money would a college football playoff be worth?  How much money is being left on the table?  Knowing any additional revenue would have to feed more mouths, would it be enough make a difference?

To answer this, let’s take a look at the impact that March Madness, the NCAA Men’s basketball tournament has had on its respective basketball post-season, both in terms of ratings and revenue (2007-11 averages).

Average NCAA Mens’s Basketball TV Ratings (household ratings)
1.1    Regular season games (average of 131 games televised on ESPN in 2011)
6.4    March Madness tournament (all games)
12.0  Championship game

The tournament represents a nearly a 6x bump over the regular season, with the championship about 2x that.  Here is how the NFL stacks up, with a similar ratio for the championship and playoffs, only with the regular season appearing much more significant (who says that a playoff would eliminate the value of the regular season?).

Average NFL TV Ratings (household ratings)
10.0   Regular season games
20.2   Playoffs
43.7   Super Bowl

So what does College Football look like?

Average NCAA College Football TV Ratings (household ratings)
1.7   Regular season games
4.0   All bowl games
15.7  BCS Championship Game

In comparison to college basketball and the NFL, the obvious outlier here is the post-season, where the bowls are only about 25% of the championship ratings, even though you would expect it to be closer to half.  And, considering that college football is more popular than college basketball (12% of American list it as their favorite sport and 53% consider themselves fans, compared to 4%/47% for college basketball, and 31%/63% for the NFL, per Gallup and Harris Interactive), you would expect that to potentially be even higher.

If you assume the same bump that college basketball gets, here are the projected college football playoff TV ratings:

Sport                        Reg Season      Playoffs        Championship
NCAA FB                     1.7                    4.0 (2.3x)      15.7 (9.0x)
Men’s BB                    1.1                    6.4 (6.1x)      12.0 (11.5x)

NCAA FB (Proj)          1.7                   10.5 (6.1x)    19.9 (11.5x)

How would those increased ratings translate into dollars?  With its current TV ratings, the going ad rate is $1.14M for a 30 second commercial (2010).  With a project 27% increase in ratings, we would assume a corresponding average 27% increase in ad rates to $1.45M.

The current contract with ESPN pays out $125M/year for four games (BCS title game, Fiest, Orange, and Sugar Bowl), getting the ratings and ad revenue above.  A playoff would not only include a 27% increase in ad prices, but would also include several additional games.  Assuming the title game generates the most revenue and in proportion with its ratings, the value of a playoff is below:

Format                     Title Game     + Games      $/Game        Gross         Gain
BCS (current)             $51.3M                3            $24.6M       $125M       --
8 Team Playoff          $61.3M                6            $32.5M       $256M       $131M
16 Team Playoff        $61.3M              10           $32.5M        $386M      $261M

Moving to even an 8 team playoff would gross more than double the current take!!  And a 16 team playoff?  Triple!!!  

After netting out the current revenue from the games that would be sucked into a playoff (average of $6.25M per game), the money being left on the table is still mind-boggling:

Format                     + Games     Gross       Less ($ x gm)   Net Gain
BCS (current)               3             $125M         --                     --
8 Team Playoff            6             $256M       $18.8M           $112M
16 Team Playoff        10             $386M      $43.8M           $217M
Of course there are lots of other arguments for and against a playoff, but with dollars like these, it is only a matter of when—as we have seen, dollars are the only thing that matters (San Diego State in the Big East, anyone?).  A playoff will happen.

So why hasn’t it happened yet?  One can only believe that those in charge are able to see the $$$ writing on the wall, and are trying to figure out how to move toward a playoff AND keep the piggy bank.  A quick or radical change would likely involve splitting up the new revenue much more equally than will be required if they can do it slowly.

November 23, 2011

Senior Ceremony on BYUtv
By Dave Haynie

[visit www.byucougs.com to search archives and leave comments]

If you were not able to watch the senior night blanket ceremony after the New Mexico State game on Saturday, you need to. It can be seen here and starts at the 3:30 mark.

I have attend many senior nights in the past (final home game), and enjoyed the experience; however this year watching it on BYUtv, as it was televised for the first time, was perhaps my favorite.

The cameras were able to capture the feeling and emotion of the moment on the faces of the players (the score on the TV didn't hurt either).  I found my own memories and emotions welling up as I remembered the feeling of walking off the field for the last time.  It was a quasi Rudy moment...

Besides the emotion and facial expressions, it was great to see their relationship with Bronco reflected in that interaction.  I also enjoyed seeing their families with them--wife, kids, parents--and even a few legends (LaVell, Austin Collie, Danny Frazier, etc).

The only shame of the whole thing is that the stadium was empty.  No doubt this was a function of the mid-20 degree temps and the fact that it was taking place at around midnight--unfortunate collateral circumstances of the late ESPN start time.

Going forward, a great BYU tradition would be for all BYU fans to remain on Senior Night--for there to be a stadium full of appreciative fans saluting those who have worked so hard and sacrificed so much to wear the blue and white… whether they ever saw the field or not.  And whether you can attend in person or not, you should make it a point to catch it on TV, year in and year out.

 

November 19, 2011

Van Noy Lays It All Out on the Line In Pendleton’s Absence

By Scott Rappleye

Visit http://bluecougarfootball.blogspot.com/ for more BYU football information

In the first game since it was announced that Brigham Young Cougars outside linebacker Jordan Pendleton would miss the rest of the season with a knee injury, fellow outside linebacker Kyle Van Noy paid tribute to Pendleton in a way only he could--with some Van Noise.

The sophomore linebacker played, arguably, his best game of the season. He recorded a career high 10 tackles (9 solo) to lead the team. He also had one sack, two tackles for loss, and one forced fumble.

Following the game, Van Noy explained that Pendleton was a big reason for his outstanding production in the game: “I wanted to lay it all out on the line for him. I respect that kid more than anyone can imagine.”

Van Noy helped set the tone early. On Idaho’s first possession, Van Noy made a third down stop to force a Vandal punt. He did the same on the Vandals’ third possession of the game, as well, with a five-yard tackle for loss.

These stops by Van Noy probably made Idaho feel the same way Van Noy did when he learned about Pendleton’s plight. Van Noy said he was “depressed” and that “my heart sank” when Pendleton called to share the news.

While Van Noy’s stat totals and overall play was impressive, all Van Noy wanted to do was play for someone like Pendleton. “I know he would die to be here. I want to play for my teammates,” Van Noy said.

With Pendleton gone for the year, the defense will look to Van Noy to fill much of the void. Van Noy is the player who most resembles Pendleton’s athleticism, tenacity, and heart. Pendleton and Van Noy rank number 1 and 2, respectively, in tackles-for-loss this year (8.5 and 8), and they are tied for first on the team with four sacks each.

While it is just one game, as long as Van Noy continues to “have [Pendleton] in [his] heart,” it appears, the BYU defense will continue to feel Pendleton’s presence and see his production on the field.

October 28, 2011

 

U Football: Did you know? (Less Than 100 Rushing Yards Allowed)

By Scott Rappleye

Visit http://bluecougarfootball.blogspot.com/ for more BYU football information

 

The Brigham Young Cougars gave up 20 yards rushing against Idaho State. It was the fifth time in 2011 that BYU has held its opponent under 100 yards rushing.

October 21, 2011

Cody Hoffman's Potential

By Scott Rappleye

Visit http://bluecougarfootball.blogspot.com/ for more BYU football information

Brigham Young Cougars wide receiver Cody Hoffman had more than just a career game against the Oregon State Beavers. He made plays that beg the question: How much potential does he have?

After all the preseason BYU hype that fizzled out, I hesitate to even pose this question. However, if there is anyone on the BYU offense who is living up to his preseason promise, it is Cody Hoffman.

Is it too crazy to think Hoffman has Austin Collie potential? The 6’4” sophomore wide out had more receiving yards in the game at Oregon State (162) than Collie ever did (156).

Do you remember USC All-American Mike Williams? Hoffman is making acrobatic and one-handed catches that conjure up memories of Williams when he played for the Trojans in 2003.

What about Hoffman working his way to be as good as Pro Football Hall of Famer Lynn Swann? Swann is most famous for his catch in Super Bowl that is now called the “Swann Dive.” He caught it momentarily before the Cowboys defender knocked it out of his hands, but Swann caught it again as he fell to the turf. Hoffman’s 46-yard catch (3:46 mark) in the third quarter was very similar.

On the season, Hoffman has 28 receptions for 420 yards and 2 touchdowns. Of those 28 receptions, Hoffman made seven (25%) of them on third down and converted for a first down or touchdown. Another 11 of Hoffman’s reception, for 18 total (64%), have come on first or second down, but were enough for a first down or touchdown.

Hoffman has proven he can make big catches. He has proven he can make clutch catches. Now, he needs to do these consistently. That is what made Collie so great as a Cougar. He could be counted on, every game, to make one big reception (40 yards or more) and total 100 receiving yards, or close to it.

Hoffman has only had 100 yards receiving twice this year. Just one week ago against San Jose State, Hoffman had only one reception. If Hoffman can start to regularly produce and make plays the way he did against Oregon State, he should garner All-American citations by the time his college career is done.

The door to the NFL should be open to Hoffman as well, thus giving him the opportunity to fully develop his potential on the same stage as Collie does now. Once a pro, you never know how things might shake out, but that remote possibility is there that Hoffman could, one day, find himself with Swann in the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

Cody Hoffman's true potential is still unknown. For him to reach that potential, Hoffman will have to invest an incredible amount of work to perfecting his abilities. At this point, however, it appears that with the proper work ethic and a down-to-earth attitude the sky is the limit.

October 6, 2011

Bronco Mendenhall Gets Second Chance to Manage QBs Right

By Scott Rappleye

Visit http://bluecougarfootball.blogspot.com/ for more BYU football information

A year and a half ago, Brigham Young Cougars head coach Bronco Mendenhall had to replace his starting quarterback. With a little experienced backup and a blue chip recruit battling it out, Mendenhall let the quarterback position battle become a long, drawn out process that was eventually resolved by default—Riley Nelson got injured. The quarterback position again needs to be managed. Mendenhall now has a second chance to get it right.

Be Involved
The first thing that Mendenhall needs to do differently is be involved. He has a defensive background, so he left the QB situation almost entirely in the hands of his offensive coordinator and quarterback coach (two people at that time).

As the last year and a half has shown, this issue is serious enough that, as the head coach, Mendenhall should be highly involved. Mendenhall wants the team to function in a certain way. The quarterback position cannot be an exception. He should give clear instructions to the new offensive coordinator Brandon Doman that the starting quarterback should be decided the same way as every other position.

Inconsistency
The way it all happened, the quarterback position was not decided the same way. Normally, the backup quarterback from the year before is assumed to be the next starter, or at least has the inside track. Nelson was never declared the number one quarterback. Coaches never alluded to the starting spot being his to lose.

Several other starting spots were up for grabs at the same time. Three out of four linebacker positions were open. Highly touted incoming freshmen Zac Stout and Kyle Van Noy were not elevated on the depth chart.

BYU needed to replace running back Harvey Unga. Freshman running back Joshua Quezada didn’t get much consideration to fill that void, despite an impressive high school resume and spring practices.

Even at tight end, where five freshman were dueling for the starting spot, Richard Wilson didn’t get preferential treatment. He was very, very highly rated out of high school.

All of these freshman clearly had more physical gifts, but none of them, except maybe Wilson, were given an equal chance to win the starting job. The upperclassmen won out in every case. The value of their experience tipped the scales in their favor.

Nelson should have been clearly stated number one on the depth chart. He should have gotten the lion’s share of the reps. Even as Heaps flashed his great talent, the coaching staff should have been consistent giving value to Nelson’s greater experience and knowledge of what it was like playing in a college football game just as they did at the other positions.

Heaps, on the other hand, should have been held to the same standards as the other incoming freshmen. It is well documented how Mendenhall has made nothing easy for Van Noy. Van Noy has had to work and fight for all the opportunities he has been given. Just this week, it came out that Mendenhall told USC transfer Hebron Fangupo, point blank, he thought he would never play.

Why wasn’t Heaps “put in his place” when he arrived? Why wasn’t he told the quarterback position at BYU was too complex for a freshman to start? Why wasn’t he told that earning the starting spot would take more than just waiting your turn, but he was expected to fit into the team culture that was already established?

A QB is a QB
While giving Nelson the benefit of the doubt due to his experience, he needed to know that a quarterback is a quarterback. He could be the BYU starter, but he was expected to do the same thing as Steve Young and Brandon Doman. He had to be able to lead a successful passing attack, notwithstanding his ability to create plays with his legs. He would be protected during practice so that defensive players didn’t hit him.

The coaches didn’t take that approach. They tried to develop a new scheme for him around his skill set. That hindered his development throwing the ball. He took some hits in practice that inevitably cut his season short and impacted his effectiveness in the games he did play.

Had the coaches treated Nelson just like any other quarterback, both in practice and in expectations, Nelson may have been healthy all year in 2010. He could have played better once adversity hit in the Air Force game.

That was then, this is now
As they say, hindsight is 20/20, and it is easy to say what should have been done. That was then, and this is now. What matters now is using the lessons learned to settle the quarterback situation now.

After what happened against Utah State, Mendenhall has a rare second chance to correct the mismanagement from a year ago. Mendenhall needs to immediately name Nelson as the starter. He can wait to make that public knowledge for strategic purposes, but internally everyone needs to know and be on the same page.

Heaps can continue his development as a quarterback, leader, and teammate off the field. He can learn the position at the college level by watching an older, more experienced player.
Heaps may have more physical gifts and more upside than Nelson. However, Nelson showed that he is a more complete package, at this point. Nelson has learned to take charge on the field. He knows how to rally a team together. He converted his third downs. Nelson put points on the board.

Points, afterall, are what wins games, and winning games is what takes precedent.

September 29, 2011

Defense's Depth Pays Dividends In BYU Win

By Scott Rappleye

Visit http://bluecougarfootball.blogspot.com/ for more BYU football information

A lot of hype surrounded the Brigham Young Cougars coming into the season. In many ways, the hype has failed to materialize. Against UCF, the Cougar defense validated some of the hype.

The Cougar defense was supposed to be good, and that wasn't limited to the first unit. Not only were all 11 starters supposed to be quality players, but they were being pushed by 11 guys who would be starting on many other FBS teams across the country. In the UCF game, many of the second string defensive players validated the strong depth on the defensive side of the ball.

Outside linebacker Jordan Pendleton is one of BYU’s best athletes and had routinely made key tackles this year. Pendleton was out for the UCF game with an ankle injury. Enter Jadon Wagner. Wagner finished the game tied for second on the team with 6 tackles. He was in position several times to make stops when BYU needed it. He was all over the field and made his presence felt.

Nobody on the defense works harder than the down linemen. It is inevitable that they will need to take a series or two off during the game. When the starters were on the bench, their absence was not felt, especially late in the game. In the second half, Travis Tuiloma, Jordan Richardson, and Graham Rowley had their names called after making key plays. The biggest highlight for the reserve D-line came on the final play of the game. With his fresh legs, Mike Muehlmann was able to bull rush the UCF tackle and sack the quarterback and force a fumble. It was an exciting way to finish the game.

The most impressive reserve defender was Joe Sampson. He made the most of his limited action. In the first quarter, Sampson took momentum away from the Knights with a 9-yard sack. Late in the game, when UCF was driving for a game tying touchdown, Sampson came up big, twice. He came up and made a great play on a run by UCF to stop the running back for no gain. On the very next play, he made an interception to end UCF’s last threat.

Jadon Wagner, Joe Sampson, Mike Muehlmann and the rest of the defensive line reserves legitimized the hype and expectations that BYU fans had for the depth of the Cougar defense. When the starters are out, Cougar Nation can rest easy. The replacements are equal to the task, even when the game is on the line.
AND ANOTHER ...
 
Part 2: Fixing the Run Game is Not A Priority For BYU
 
Last week, BLUE COUGAR FOOTBALL argued that the Brigham Young Cougars offense should wait to fix the run gam until the passing game was fine tuned. Offensive coordinator Brandon Doman did not heed this advice, and BYU worked on fixing the run game. After the UCF game, it is even more evident that working on the passing game is more important for BYU than the run game.

BYU had its best rushing game of the season against the UCF Knights, but at what cost? Jake Heaps had his worst passing game. Heaps passed for only 133 yards and his pass efficiency rating was terrible (74.0). The BYU offense had its second worst game of the season with only 260 total yards.

The only reason BYU won the game was vastly superior special teams. Take away the Cody Hoffman touchdown return, and BYU is down to 17 points. Take away Riley Stephenson’s great punting, and BYU doesn’t get such great field position for two other touchdowns.

BYU will never have a good enough running game to score a lot of points game after game after game. Against UCF, BYU used the run game to hold the ball for over 10 minutes in the second quarter, but got zero points to show for it. BYU doesn’t have the players to drive 70, 80, or 85 yards down the field to score if they primarily run the ball. No touchdown drive was longer than 38 yards against UCF. If the special teams had not set the offense up so nicely, BYU probably ends up with two more field goals.

The post last week demonstrated that a fine tuned BYU passing game is capable of beating the elite teams in the country. A fine tuned BYU run game is not. Just go back one year when BYU lost to number 4 TCU, 31-3. BYU could not move the ball in that game.

TCU will do the same this year against BYU if the passing game doesn’t make strides. Until Heaps shows some improvement, no team is going to respect the BYU passing game. They will load up the box to stop the run and make Heaps beat them. That was UCF’s attitude.

On one drive during that scoreless second quarter, the first play was a run for no gain. Heaps then completed a 19-yard pass to JD Falslev for a first down. The next play was another run, which lost a yard. Heaps then completed a 14-yard pass to Richard Wilson for a first down. A 2-yard completion followed. At this point, BYU had run the ball twice for -1 yard. Heaps completed all three of his passes, two of which were over 10 yards and resulted in a first down. UCF didn’t care. Stopping the run was still their first priority. On 2nd-and-8, BYU ran the ball and lost a yard, again. It was now 3rd down and 9 yards to go for a first down. Heaps threw an incomplete, and BYU punted.

UCF had no concern about Heaps stringing together several 10-20 yard completions to score a touchdown. The Knights knew that if they stopped the run and forced the pass, the BYU passing game would stop itself before it reached the end zone.

The passing game is just as important as the run game in the fourth quarter to control the clock and preserve a win. BYU had two chances to put the game away against UCF. First, with 8:46 to play, BYU took over at the 50. A touchdown would make the game 31-17, and essentially seal the win. Three run plays got a first down. On the next play, UCF stopped Bryan Kariya for no gain. Heaps then threw two incomplete passes. With 6:05 to play, BYU punted the ball back to UCF.

The Cougar defense got the ball back for the offense with 2:55 remaining. Running out the clock should be easy, especially when your opponent has only one timeout. BYU couldn’t manage a first down. A pass on 3rd-and-5 was completed, but for only four yards. A fine tuned passing game would have gotten six.

The passing game should be the top priority for the BYU offense. BYU cannot rely on special teams and defense to win every week. BYU needs to be competent at running the ball, but only for complimentary purposes. Until the passing game is fine tuned, BYU will continue to have drives stall, score few points, and need exceptional plays by the defense and special teams to win games.

That is not a formula for success.

September 11, 2011

Pulling Off the BYU Equivalent of Notre Dame's Scheduling
By Dave Haynie

[Visit  http://www.byucougs.com/2011/09/pulling-off-byu-equivalent-of-notre.html  to leave comments or search archives]

I have tried to avoid chiming in too much on the Big XII expansion circus thus far, for several reasons: 1) the information available is primarily rumor, 2) the situation is changing constantly, 3) the drivers of change are closer to hurt feelings and daytime drama than to dollars and analysis, and 4) there is little doubt that BYU would be the obvious choice for Big XII expansion if it goes that way, so the question is really whether BYU should accept or not if an offer comes--and again I believe that this decision is going to be based more on the hearts (of the board of trustees) than the mind (and associated byucougs.com analysis).

My preference actually would be for BYU to remain independent and be wildly successful as such (so much could go wrong… but so much could go right—the age-old risk/reward tradeoff).  I love that nearly all of their games are on ESPN.  I love BYUtv as a Cougar sports channel.  I love that they can play in stadiums all over the country and the nation-wide fan access that this provides. (I realize that this isn't a high priority for the average Utah County Cougarboarder, but living in Northern CA, it would be great to see the Cougs play out here, and when traveling to a game, it is about the same cost to go to Austin as it is to go to Provo). 

Clearly there are dozens of other factors that will play into this--TV rights, Sunday play, how to handle the WCC relationships, increased revenue, BCS access, conference championships, etc.  But for me, its hard to get any more excited about playing Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, and Kansas State (that is likely the division we'd be in) than it was to play New Mexico and Colorado State  and Wyoming every year.  In fact, give me San Diego State, UNLV, TCU, and Air Force over that alternative.

With all that in mind, however, there is one thing that could break independence for me: inability to schedule beyond Idaho State, Idaho, Weber State, New Mexico State and San Jose State during the latter part of the season.  I think those are great games for this year and next, while we get this going, but if it were to go beyond that, the old MWC schedule would have been better, and a Big XII schedule would definitely be an upgrade.

So to consider this question, I took a look at Notre Dame's scheduling philosophy to see how they have managed to do it so successfully, and in particular, schedule games during the latter half of the season, to see if there is anything that BYU could learn from and/or imitate.  We’ll break down Notre Dame’s approach, and try to map it to an equivalent one for BYU, and see if it appears reasonable.

Here are a few observations from reviewing their schedules from the most recent 6 seasons and next year (2006-2012):

Annual Games

“Scheduled” Games

Timing

Other Interesting Observations

 

So the summary for Notre Dame is that they have 8 annual games, leaving only 4 to “schedule” and of those, only one that would generally need to be scheduled during the hard-to-schedule months of October or November.  That is doable.  Quite a system—I sense a bit of envy coming from Tom Holmoe’s office these days.

Now for some analysis-influenced speculation…Could BYU successfully replicate that approach?  If so, what would/should it look like?

Annual Games           

“Scheduled” Games

Timing

Conclusion
After looking that over, surprisingly, it doesn’t seem like too much of a stretch—Utah, USU, and Hawaii are already on board.  Extend contracts with Boise and Notre Dame.  Set something up with UNLV.  Get the service academies on board.  The one and done will be easy.  That leaves 4 games to schedule, several of which are already on the books, and only two of which need to be in Oct or November.

Although I haven’t yet dialed any numbers from the AD’s office, it’s enough for me to retain my hope in Independence.

 

August 18, 2011

BYU Would Bring Stability To The Big XII

By Scott Rappleye

Visit http://bluecougarfootball.blogspot.com/ for more BYU football information

 
The Texas A&M Aggies aren’t going to the SEC <http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/6861385/sec-satisfied-current-alignment-extend-invite-texas-am>  after all. At least not yet. The real concern for the Big XII is not whether Texas A&M is staying or leaving. The SEC vote to decline an invite to the Aggies does little to stabilize the volatile Big XII. For all we know, the SEC could be delaying the invite to A&M until team number 14, or 15 and 16, can be chosen and persuaded to join. One thing is certain, the Big XII needs to stabilize itself, and there is an easy way to do that.

The fastest and easiest way for the Big XII to find stability is to bring in the Brigham Young Cougars. Inviting BYU serves two purposes. First, if Texas A&M does jump ship soon, then you already have your replacement school. Second, if BYU leaves independent status, then the threat of Texas going independent is gone.

Right now, the idea of Texas going independent is far fetched. The only way the Longhorns would try lone star football is if independence was a proven option. BYU is the case study for independence. If the Cougars are able to show everyone that independence is viable and show how to do it, then Texas might make the move. With BYU in the Big XII, the blueprint for succeeding as an independent will be incomplete. Texas will be content with its Longhorn network, and be happy its Olympic sports won’t have to play in Conference USA.

The Big XII should be prepared to make concessions to get BYU, including allowing BYU to keep its television deal with ESPN <http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5520453> . Whatever the concessions are, they will be worth it. (Don't worry, BYU's desired concessions won't be overbearing, that isn't BYU's style.) Besides, individual television packages just might be the future of college athletics, and other schools in the Big XII would be wise to start exploring their own networks. Instead of $2 billion deals for entire conferences, each school will have its own $100-200 million deal.

The only question that remains is will BYU bite? The future as an independent is exciting. Although the surface has just been scratched, the possibilities seem endless. Nevertheless, BYU probably will bite at a Big XII invite, especially if concessions are made. BYU had one major goal and one major caveat when deciding to go independent. The Big XII would meet both.

The goal was to increase exposure to BYU. The caveat was to find a suitable home for Olympic sports. There is no debate about the caveat: the Big XII is a better home than the West Coast Conference (WCC). As for exposure, BYU would find increased exposure as a member of the Big XII. In the Big XII, if BYU is 10-0 in November they will be in the national championship conversation. The national championship picture is the lead college football story on every TV show and radio station in November. As an independent, if BYU is 10-0 in November they will be in the BCS buster conversation. BCS busting is exciting, but the national championship always gets more attention and coverage. The Olympic sports would bring more exposure as well. In the WCC, the basketball team would have to make a deep run in the NCAA tournament to generate the same exposure BYU would receive just for beating a number one ranked Kansas team.

Once again, the Big XII has dodged a bullet, but this is not a time for a sigh of relief. It is time to be proactive. If Big XII Commissioner Dan Beebe wants to keep his job, and the schools up north want to stay in a nationally relevant conference, then BYU needs to be invited now. Don’t risk dropping to 9 or 8 teams. Don’t risk Texas using the BYU blueprint to go independent. Get BYU on board. Make all the concessions necessary. This will lock up Texas for the long term. This will bring stability to the Big XII.

August 3, 2011

Stacking Up BYU's National TV Exposure
By Dave Haynie

[Visit www.byucougs.com to search the archives and to leave comments]

Although all of this year’s TV broadcasting decisions haven’t been finalized, we know that BYU will be on ESPN at least 10, possibly 11 times (pending the Oregon State outcome). Great exposure from any Cougar fan’s point of view, but how does it stack up against other teams from around the country with conference ESPN contracts? Better? Worse? Yawn? Here is a look at how last season played out on the tube, and where BYU would have fit both in 2010 and 2011.

2010 Nationally Televised Regular Season Games*

 

Conclusion
This year’s TV line up would have put BYU tied for fourth most appearances on one of the networks or ESPN last season. Not bad, especially considering the company they were in with their 2010 lineup (Army, Duke, Hawaii) versus 2011 (Auburn, Michigan) and the teams they would have been above last season (Florida, USC, Texas, Ohio St). So yes Cougar fans, this exposure is special, and is something to be excited about.

*A few notes on the assumptions and calculations:
• Network appearances include ABC, NBC, CBS; ESPN includes ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU; Other National Networks include FSN, Versus, CBSC. The Mtn, BTN, ESPN Gameplan, and regional Fox channels were not considered national broadcasts, even though technically they are available across the country.
• Not all teams are included in the analysis (I included 4-5 teams from each conference—the 3-4 best teams and 1-2 bottom dwellers to put things into perspective); however, I believe that all of the teams with the most exposure have been included, so probably the top 15 teams or so, are pretty accurate.
• Regular season only; no bowls or championship games were included.
• I recognize that not all viewing times are created equal (e.g. Boise on a Wed night isn’t the same as Alabama on Sat at 7pm) but haven’t accounted for those variances here.
• TV appearances are often schedule dependent, and whether a team gets on national TV is determined by the home team contract and the quality of the opponent; given this, and the variability in schedules, it is expected that appearances would vary somewhat from year to year.
• Whenever a game was broadcast on ABC and an ESPN channel, I counted it as an ABC game.

 

July 31, 2011

A Few Nuggets from the Preseason Rankings
By Dave Haynie

[Visit www.byucougs.com to search archives and read comments]

Preseason rankings have been trickling in for months now, and although the only preseason polls that actually mean anything (justification for that is another debate)— AP and Coaches–still won’t be out for a couple of weeks, by the time they are, we will have plenty of other things to discuss (like fall camp that starts next week).   And, it’s unlikely that either of those polls will really add anything to the equation that will meaningfully change what we already know anyway.  

So let’s do it anyway… A preseason, pre-AP and pre-coaches poll, panorama of predictions:

* FCS team
**The top 25 countdown had only reached #20 at the time of this writing
Note: Not shown are Lindy’s, About.com, Blue Ribbon Yearbook, and Bleacher Report, since TCU was the only team ranked in each

While none of this really means all that much other than it’s more fun to look at than we want to admit, here are some of the not-much-more meaningful takeaways:

• While landing in only one top 25, BYU is right on the cusp of just about all of them, and will probably show up in the ‘others receiving votes’ section when the season starts.
• The one list that they do crack the top 25, is also the most recently released, adding another data point to what seems to me a slow rise in perception for the Cougs by the national media as the season closes in.
• While only one team on the schedule is consensus Top 25 (TCU), there are two more that should be included in that conversation (Texas, Utah), and three more that are widely considered to be in the top half of teams this season (UCF, OSU, Hawaii).  Another, on the road in the opener (Ole Miss) is thought by the experts to be good enough to be dangerous.
• BYU plays four teams from the cellar of college football.   In many cases, this will be used to discount the difficulty of the schedule, and numerically it will—although it shouldn’t.   After about number 75 or 80, it doesn’t really matter how good or bad the opponent is, either way, we should be good enough to beat them and likely would whether it’s an 85th ranked Colorado State or a 105th ranked Utah State.
• Speaking of which… the USU game is going to be a welcome relief after a brutal first four games.
• Given that our highest ranked opponent (TCU) is on the road on a Friday, it’s nice to have ISU the week before.
• The Rogers Poll (http://www.rogerspoll.com/ncaafb_2011_poll_preseason.html) is the only one that is computer based (supposedly removing some of the group think and the human bias), so it’s interesting to see it give Texas (45) and Ole Miss (80) their lowest ratings (reputation alone would keep someone from ranking them that low), while giving Utah (18), UCF (42), Hawaii (50), Idaho (82), USU (94), and SJSU (106) their highest rankings.  It would also suggest that the ranks of BYU, TCU, and OSU are just about right (not as influenced by perception, either way), and that NMSU (119) is just plain bad.

I’m sure that there are other insights that I missed.  Please chime in with any other thoughts.

July 29, 2011

Forecasting BYU's First Year of Independence

By Scott Rappleye

Visit http://bluecougarfootball.blogspot.com/ for more BYU football information

 

The 2011 football season is the Brigham Young Cougars’ first season as a college football independent. The major question ever since BYU made this move has been can BYU be successful? Forecasting the long term success of BYU as an independent is difficult; however, data is available to help forecast the first season.

Year one as an independent will be a year of transitioning and rebounding. Early indications are that the quarterback position to be a bright spot, and that there is a possibility for a 10 game win streak. 

TRANSITIONING
In this day and age of college football, declaring independent status sounds revolutionary. In reality, BYU leaving the Mountain West Conference (MWC) and becoming independent is simply a transition. BYU has had a pretty good track record in the first year following a major transition.

1996: The Western Athletic Conference (WAC) expanded to 16 teams. Amidst all the hype and hoopla of this bold move by the WAC, the 1996 Cougars recorded the second best season in BYU football history. BYU finished the year ranked number 5 nationally, played in the Cotton Bowl on January 1, and posted a 14-1 record.

1999: BYU left the WAC and was transitioning to the MWC. The season started with an exciting win over Washington. After nine games, BYU was 8-1 and ranked number 12. Three straight losses to end the year resulted in an 8-4 record.

2001: The sun set on the LaVell Edwards era at BYU, and Gary Crowton became head coach. The transition between head coaches started very smooth. Edwards had built a winning tradition at the Y, and win is all Crowton did for the first 12 games. BYU raced as high as number 7 in the national rankings. Crowton’s new offensive scheme produced the 2001 Doak Walker Award Winner. BYU finished the year 12-2 and ranked numbers 24 and 25.

2005: BYU was again transitioning from one head coach to another. Bronco Mendenhall was replacing Crowton. The 2005 season wasn’t sensational, but after three straight bowl-less, losing seasons, Mendenhall guided BYU to a 6-5 regular season and a trip to the Las Vegas Bowl. It was enough for BYU and its fans to feel a sense of satisfaction and accomplishment.

BYU has had some problems finishing down the stretch in these years, but the start is usually fantastic. A fast start will be great for BYU in 2011. The schedule is front loaded. Wilting down the home stretch would be hard to see. The final three games are home games with Idaho and New Mexico State and a road game at Hawaii. The Hawaii game could be a trap game, and if BYU loses that one and the TCU game October 28 to finish 2-2 in the final four games, that could be considered a late season letdown.

REBOUNDING
BYU is on the rebound in 2011. At 7-6, the 2010 season was disappointing. The good news is that BYU tends to rebound well after disappointing seasons.

1975-76: BYU struggled in 1975 to reach 6-5 after winning the WAC the year before. The next year, however, BYU raced to the most wins in school history (9), and played in a bowl game for just the second time ever. Quarterback Gifford Nielsen became the first BYU QB to pass for more than 3,000 yards in a season and was named All-American.

1993-94: The bizarre 1993 season ended with a 6-6 record. BYU had a much better season in 1994 highlighted by a win over Notre Dame in South Bend and a final ranking of 10 in the coaches’ poll after BYU crushed Oklahoma in the Copper Bowl to finish the year 10-3.

1997-98: The Cougars were just 6-5 in 1997. That season was followed by a 9-3 regular season that landed BYU in the WAC championship game for the second time in three years. At one point, BYU won seven straight games. Ronney Jenkins rushed for 1,307 yards (second most in BYU history, at that time). BYU crushed 14th ranked Arizona State 26-6.

2000-01: A 6-6 record was not the parting gift that BYU had in mind for Edwards in his final season. Nevertheless, they did throw a great welcoming party for Crowton, as noted above. The 2001 offense was one of the most lethal offenses in BYU history. Beside Luke Staley winning the Doak Walker Award, quarterback Brandon Doman had a superb season throwing for over 3,500 yards and 33 touchdowns.

BYU has had other seasons that felt disappointing, even though the win-loss record wasn’t near 0.500, namely: 1978 (9-4), 1982 (8-4), 1995 (7-4). Each of these seasons were followed by fantastic seasons: 1979 (11-1, #12/13), 1983 (11-1, #7), and 1996 (14-1, #5).

Only twice has BYU had disappointing seasons (1986 and 2002) and not rebounded immediately.

One common thread with every single disappointing season that BYU had had since 1975 is this: BYU was breaking in a new starting quarterback. The two times that BYU did not rebound immediately, BYU did not have stability at the quarterback position. The 2011 BYU Cougars have stability at quarterback.

OTHER INDICATORS
If you regularly visit the site, you will have noticed other indicators that point to a posititive forecast for 2011. Here are links to them:

July 27, 2011

How BYU Squeezed  10 Games into ESPN’s Full Slate
By Dave Haynie

[Visit byucougs.com to read comments or search archives]

In light of last winter’s TV time slot fixed pie analysis (http://www.byucougs.com/2010/02/look-at-college-football-tv-window.html), the fact that BYU has been able to gobble up 10 ESPN appearances this season, has been not only unexpected, but almost unbelievable—there weren’t 10 slots available!  The actual contract with ESPN is for a minimum of 4 games—at least 3 games on either  ESPN/ESPN2/ABC, at least one on ESPNU, and one exclusively on BYUtv.  Thus, leaving one game (or possibly two in a 7 home game season like 2011) where ESPN has first option.

As mentioned, only two of this year’s games will not be on ESPN—a road game at Oregon St. (which OSU has TV prerogative over, and will likely end up on FSN), and Idaho St. (which fills the one game exclusive BYUtv contractual obligation.)

 So where did the 10 game slots come from?  A good question that deserves a closer look…  Here is where this season’s games will be televised:

Lineup:
4 ESPN
3 ESPN2
3 ESPNU (1 guaranteed, the other two probable—on ESPN networks, but could be picked up by ESPN/2)

Here are the time slots (and contracts) being filled:
Ole Miss—Saturday afternoon (SEC)
Texas—Saturday evening (B12)
Utah—Saturday late (BYU ESPN2)
UCF—Friday (BYU ESPN)
USU—Friday (BYU ESPN)
SJSU—Saturday TBD (BYU ESPNU)
TCU—Friday (BYU ESPN—neutral, but BYU is designated home team)
Idaho—Saturday TBD (BYU ESPNU)
NMS—Saturday TBD (BYU ESPNU)
Hawaii—Saturday, week 14 bonus, late game (WAC)

So what is incredible, is that BYU was able to get 10 games on one of the ESPN channels without taking any of the prime slots (Saturday noon, 3:30p, and 7p EST) on ESPN or ESPN2 all of which are already contractually spoken for. 

Breakdown
-2 Saturday prime time games fill other conference obligations (SEC, B12)
-1 Saturday late game is during the bonus week 14 and fills another conference obligation (WAC)
-7 games are BYU “hosted”, of those…
     -1 Saturday late slot (many of these available)
     -3 Friday slots (many available)
     -3 Saturday ESPNU slots, time still TBD (which may have been negotiated to fill part of the 6 required WAC ESPNU broadcasts, or may start in the late time slot)

So there you have it.  Despite no time slots really “available”, the Cougars were able to get 10 games on the Sports Leader.  Nice work, Tom, Dave, and Co.

July 16, 2011

The 2011 BYU Tight End Dilemma
By Nate Crain

[Visit www.byucougs.com to search archives or leave comments]

It’s not easy to replace the NCAA all-time leader in career yards for a tight end. After the 2009 football season when Dennis Pitta graduated and got drafted by the Baltimore Ravens the BYU football coaches learned that lesson first hand.  When a team loses a great player, the next step is to identify amongst its personnel who has the talent and capacity to take over the tradition of excellence and in ideal circumstances you already have a player identified who has been groomed for the position in advance.

In BYU’s case, Pitta’s primary backup in both 2008 and 2009, Andrew George, also graduated after the 2009 season. The 3rd string tight end in 2008, Kaneakua Friel, left for his mission following that season. The 3rd string tight end in 2009, Braden Brown, was switched to offensive tackle a position better suited to his talents. This turnover in personnel left the proverbial “cupboard” bare of experienced playmakers at the tight end position.

BYU had recruited five freshmen on its roster to vie for Pitta’s coveted role of star tight end for the 2010 season. It’s unclear whether it was anticipated that all five would be competing simultaneously as freshmen. The missionary program at BYU makes planning several years in advance a logistical nightmare. Four of the tight ends in 2010 who got playing time were returned missionaries, whereas one player graduated from high school and then redshirted. It’s highly probable that all of them preferred starting their eligibility after Pitta and George graduated.  Regardless, it’s not generally prudent to have five players in the same eligibility year in the same position group.

The Previous 5-Year Tight End Production

BYU fans are accustomed to over achieving tight ends. The previous 5 seasons (2005-2009) of lightly recruited tight ends produced Jonny Harline and Pitta. Pitta averaged 908 yards and 6.33 touchdowns per season from 2007-09. His predecessor, Harline, averaged 894 yards and 8.5 touchdowns from 2005-06. Even the backup tight ends Daniel Coats and Andrew George were receiving threats and more productive than most teams starting tight ends during those years.

As a side note, if BYU had played its games on a bigger network (i.e. not on “the Mountain”- the Mountain West Conference channel) Harline would likely have been the runaway winner of the 2006 Mackey Award.  His 12 TDs and 935 yards were 3 times as many touchdowns and 371 more yards than that year’s award winner. Despite having eye popping stats for a TE, he wasn’t even a finalist for the award. The reason for his omission, in my opinion, was that only Mountain West Conference fans ever saw him play. Those were the dark ages of BYU football where only certain states and cable packages could tune into games.

The Challenges in 2010

The 2010 season result of having nobody groomed to take over for Pitta was that BYU was forced to play a merry-go-round combination of five freshmen tight ends, which proved to be disastrous to the overall production of the tight end position. The tight ends were inconsistent throughout the season and made mistakes in blocking assignments, dropped passes, fumbled, and were generally unproductive as a whole. This level of performance was foreseeable based on the lack of experience of all the tight ends.

Compounding the issue of transitioning from Pitta to tight end “by committee” was BYU’s commitment to play quarterback “by committee” at the start of the 2010 season, which dictated both the quality and quantity of throws that the tight ends received. In games 2, 3, and 4 of the 2010 season, the tight ends had only two catches as a group. This lack of production was a combination of the tight ends being ineffective and the offense not having found an identity at that stage of the season.

Here’s a breakdown of the 2010 season stats for the freshmen tight end committee:

For comparisons sake, all 5 tight ends combined had 451 yards in 2010 and 0 TDs, whereas Pitta and George had 1,237 yards and 13 TDs combined in 2009 and 1,302 yards and 12 TDs in 2008. What is disconcerting about the 2010 group is the lack of production as red (blue) zone targets.  

2011 Outlook

Rather than rehash the ineptitude and mistakes of the 2010 TE group, let’s look ahead to 2011. There is usually a leap in improvement between players’ freshman and sophomore seasons particularly with the lure of playing time that is awarded to the hardest worker. 

The outlook for the 2011 season has 5 sophomores competing for playing time. Of the 5 sophomores, only 4 were on last year’s team: Devin Mahina, Marcus Mathews, Richard Wilson, and Austin Holt. Mike Muehlmann, the other freshman tight end, moved to defensive line and was replaced by Kaneakua Friel who returned from an LDS mission prior to spring ball.

Mahina has a 6’6” 236 frame with room to add some weight and is the favorite to become the starter at least this year. Last year, he played in 12 games, starting 5, and had 11 receptions for 118 yards. Mahina has the biggest body of the TEs to both block and throw the ball to. He’ll need to work on his route running and hands to consistently see the field. He runs well for his size, but not as well as Wilson, Mathews, or Friel. However, he appears to have all the tools to be a decent playmaker in BYU’s offense.

Mathews at 6’5” 200 played in 8 games last year with 8 catches for 136 yards. He appears to have some trouble gaining weight, as he didn’t fill out at all on his mission and during the 8 months prior to last season. If he can hold enough weight on his frame, he has the size and receiving ability to be an elite receiving TE. To be a complete TE, however, he will need to work on his blocking and holding onto the football. He had some issues with ball security last year based on the way he held the ball after the catch. If he fails to bulk up, he’ll likely play both TE and be flexed out as a receiver on a limited basis. The official BYU roster has him listed as a WR/TE, which probably means the coaches are concerned about his weight as a TE.

Wilson at 6’2” 233 is the smallest of the TEs, but is probably the most gifted receiver of all the TEs (with Friel being the closest competitor).  He was heavily recruited with offers from Miami, LSU, Tennessee, and others out of high school. Despite his immense receiving talent, he hasn’t shown a strong commitment to blocking and must get more physical. Injuries have also slowed his progress down in getting additional playing time. Since he is the smallest target of the tight ends, he will need to create consistent separation to get open to beat out the others. Wilson was in the coach’s “doghouse” for unknown reasons a big portion of last year, but that coach has now moved on. That may equate to more receiving opportunities. He may be used this season as primarily a third down receiving target as he can be quite a mismatch as a receiver.

Holt is 6’4” 245 pounds and the best fundamental blocker of the group and works hard in the weight room. For his blocking ability alone he’ll get playing time. He was highly recruited out of HS with offers from Florida, Oregon and other schools. He played in 12 games a year ago, starting 2, and had 4 catches for 40 yards. The concern with him is speed. Will he be able to get separation on his routes? His talent is very high to become a complete tight end, so he has a good chance to push his way into the two deep for the next three seasons.

Friel is a dark horse candidate at TE, since he wasn’t on the team last year and just got back from his mission in 2011. At 6’5” 235, Friel redshirted 2007 and played in 8 games in 2008 (one start) where he was mentored by George and Pitta before serving a mission. His experience was blocking as he didn’t make a catch in 2008, although he is an excellent athlete with a 35”+ vertical who runs extremely well for his size (4.54 40). He is cross trained at fullback, so he may get some time there too. He is just coming off a mission and an injury in spring ball, so he is little behind the learning curve. At the same time, he may be the best athlete of all the tight ends and already has two years in the program, so he has a chance to be the best combination of blocker-receiver of all the tight ends. I wouldn’t be surprised to see him as the starter by the end of the season.

Redshirt Considerations

Logistically, there are 5 tight ends all sophomores that are competing for playing time. If the group stays intact, the program will have déjà vu after the 2013 season. Thus, at least one tight end will need to redshirt to be the main man in 2014. Wilson and Friel have already burned their redshirt years, so the redshirt will need to be one of the other three. Mathews appears to need the most time in the weight room, whereas both Mahina and Holt have the excellent frames to be very good all-around tight ends. It would be prudent to redshirt two of three and save two experienced tight ends for 2014.  

Final Thoughts

Although last year’s tight end group played inconsistently and was overall much less productive than in year’s past, there is reason for optimism. BYU invested heavily into last year’s group with the hope that it would pay dividends starting this year through 2013. Freshmen don’t generally get accelerated learning courses of real playing time, so this group should be able to build off last year’s performance and make strides to make tight end the focal point of BYU’s offense once again. The cream should rise to the top. Going into 2012, I expect that BYU fans will once again be talking about the next great BYU tight end with two more years of eligibility.

 

July 16, 2011

BYU Media Day Recap and Report

By Scott Rappleye

Visit http://bluecougarfootball.blogspot.com/ for more BYU football information

 The Brigham Young Cougars held their football media day yesterday. I participated in as many events as I could. I have made in depth reports for each event, just click on the heading to the sections below to be directed to those reports.

All in all, the BYU media day was what it is supposed to be: a pep rally for the season. Media and fans had access to players and coaches. The football program was pumped up as being the program that would get the most exposure of any school in the nation this year. Optimism was high.

Here are my overall impressions of each event I participated in.

BYU Football 2011—State of the Program 

A lot of new sides to the same issues about independence and BYU football (scheduling, honor code) were touched on by Athletic Director Tom Holmoe and Head Coach Bronco Mendenhall.

Announcements were made about how BYU football will be more accessible to fans with iPhone and iPad apps. A lot of emphasis was put on BYU appearing on ESPN 10 times this season.

The best part was having ESPN Vice-President of Programming Dave Brown in attendance. He said a lot of very nice things about BYU. I am not sure how much of it was sincere and how much of it was him toeing the company line.

True Blue Special Edition

The special episode of True Blue was a little disappointing. The players didn’t open up very much in their answers to the questions they were asked. The best segment was the final segment with ESPN Analyst (and a true blue Cougar) Holly Rowe. She had a lot of good information that few people know.

Fan Q&A With Current Players

Justin Sorenson was my favorite. The others were fine, but I learned the most from his Q&A session. Once again, the players kind of danced around a lot of the questions. The write up still has a lot of good information you are not going to find out anywhere else.

Fan Q&A With Former Players

Ty Detmer and Bryan Kehl were great. They have wonderful media skills and their passion for BYU football comes out when you talk with them.

Legends Roundtable

This is a must read. LaVell Edwards, Steve Young, Ty Detmer, Trevor Matich, and Bryan Kehl share a lot of stories and knowledge that very few other people know. They answer questions about BYU’s independence, the ESPN contract, the honor code, their greatest moments at BYU, their memories of playing in Laramie, Wyoming, and they fielded some questions from the media.

Towards the end, Jake Heaps and Matt Reynolds join the discussion.

June 7, 2011

What Does Brigham Young Cougars Quarterback Jake Heaps Need To Do To Join The BYU Quarterback Club

By Scott Rappleye

Visit http://bluecougarfootball.blogspot.com/ for more BYU football information

 
Jake Heaps was afforded the greatest privilege in Brigham Young Cougars football in 2010. He was the starting quarterback. In 2011, he will attempt to join the hallowed BYU Quarterback Club. Heaps has found favor with coaches, teammates, and fans. He is surrounded by a group of players with plenty of talent and potential.

As a freshman, Heaps set new standards for BYU freshmen quarterbacks in almost every statistical category. He won a bowl game and was named the game’s MVP. Joining the club appears to be there for the taking.

While the conditions are favorable for young Jake, he has to earn membership in the club on the field. Membership requirements can be broken down into three categories: Individual Statistics, Team Results, and His Gimmick.

Individual Statistics

Heaps needs to put up stats comparable to his predecessors. That means he will need a minimum of 3,000 yards passing this year and every year after. His case will be stronger if he goes over 3,500. After all, every quarterback since Marc Wilson who has joined the club has eclipsed 3,500 at least once.

Heaps needs to throw at least 25 touchdown passes this year and over 30 in 2012. After throwing 15 touchdowns as a freshman, reaching 25 should be a breeze. The real goal this year should be 30. Regardless of how many touchdown passes Heaps throws, his touchdown to interception ratio should be 2:1 at worst. A 3:1 ratio is considered ideal, but it has eluded many of the best BYU quarterbacks. However, they have attained a 2:1 ratio or better 17 times since 1980.

One final season stat to monitor is completion percentage. Heaps needs to complete greater than 60% of his passes. That standard may sound low after Max Hall and John Beck completed 65% or better four times from 2005-2009. Beck and Hall did that with former offensive coordinator Robert Anae’s offense, which emphasized shorter, high-percentage throws. New offensive coordinator Brandon Doman has said repeatedly that the offense will throw down field like BYU did in the 1980s and 90s. In those decades, the good quarterbacks completed 60-65% of their passes. Anything over 65% was an exceptional season.

Team Results 

Statistics alone won’t get Heaps into the BYU Quarterback Club. His great play needs to be contagious and make those around him play better. If this happens, it will be reflected in the team’s won-loss record. The great BYU QBs have been able to lead their teams to 10 win seasons and to a national ranking. Heaps needs to lead BYU to achieve both 10 wins and a national ranking before he can be guaranteed a place in the QB club. Waiving this requirement can only be done under very exceptional circumstances. With Bronco Mendenhall leading a very talented and deep defense, even on a bad day, the offense should be able to score enough points to win nearly every game.

Although he has not been elected team captain this year, Heaps still needs to be a leader who creates synergy. He needs to be working hard and giving the right example to earn the admiration and respect of the other players. Former BYU tight end Chad Lewis recently said Heaps is a “gym rat,” so it sounds like Heaps is on the right track. Otherwise, the team won’t rally around him late in a game, when it counts, and any attempted heroics will come up short.

His Gimmick

All the great BYU quarterbacks possess at least one. Gary Sheide started the whole thing. Gifford Nielsen threw for over 3,000 yards and was named All-American. … John Beck took BYU back to the top. Max Hall beat #3 Oklahoma.

Gimmicks come in all shapes and sizes. Heaps can fulfill this requirement in several different ways. Taking BYU to a BCS bowl, picking up a signature win, helping BYU enter independent status with a huge splash, finishing the season ranked in the top 10, or, simply, beating Utah by more than two touchdowns would all give Heaps a gimmick for fans to remember him as a unique contributor to BYU football.

Then again, Heaps may already have his gimmick. He is the only true freshman to come in and play from day one. He didn’t just break, he shattered, almost every school passing mark for a freshman.

Class of 2011

What will it take for Heaps to be a class of 2011 BYU Quarterback Club inductee? First, he needs to meet the higher statistical standards for passing yards (3,500) and touchdowns (30) and meet the basic requirements for completion percentage (60%) and touchdown to interception ratio (2:1). Second, BYU needs to win at least 10 games in the regular season and finish the year ranked in the top 25. Third, somewhere in those 10 wins Heaps needs to have a great game or game moment that will be remembered and talked about for years to come.

With the 2011 football season fast approaching, Heaps’ quest for induction into the BYU quarterback club will be one storyline worth following.

April 20, 2011

Brigham Young Cougars 2011 Halftime Ceremony

By Scott Rappleye

Visit http://bluecougarfootball.blogspot.com/ for more BYU football information

 

In recent years, the Brigham Young Cougars have had special halftime ceremonies at a home football game fairly regularly. Some of the more recent ones have been:

2010--Quarterback Weekend honoring former All-American Quarterbacks.
2009--The 1984 National Championship team was honored during the 25th anniversary season.
2007--Gifford Nielsen and Ty Detmer had their jerseys retired.

I don’t remember one for 2008, and after extensive research I still can’t find a home game that had a special halftime ceremony.

What about 2011? BYU has several players and teams that could be honored this season.

Luke Staley—It has been 10 years since Luke Staley won the Doak Walker Award after he exploded for 1,582 yards rushing (8.1 yards per carry) and 28 touchdowns (24 rushing, 4 receiving).

The 1996 team—This team was the last truly great BYU football team, and probably the second best ever. They set an NCAA record for most wins in a season (14), they played in (and won) BYU’s first ever January bowl game (Cotton), and they finished with the second highest national ranking in BYU history (5).

Jason Buck—Buck was the first BYU player to win the Outland Trophy 25 years ago (1986). The Ricks College transfer had 12.5 sacks and 13 tackles-for-loss to go with 59 total tackles that season. He finished his career with the third most sacks in a career, and the BYU record for most sacks in a game (4 vs. Oregon State, 1986).

Jim McMahon—There are rumblings that McMahon is trying to finish up his degree and qualify for the BYU Athletics Hall of Fame. This year marks the 30th Anniversary of his senior season. A surprise announcement and halftime ceremony to honor him as a Hall of Fame inductee could be in the works.

While each of these is worthy of a special halftime ceremony, the one I would like to see the most is Jason Buck. BYU’s defensive accomplishments are largely unheralded. Buck represents several BYU defensive stars who have gone on and excelled in the NFL, and who deserve a lot of credit for BYU winning 10, 11, 12, or more games several times. If BYU wants to continue to build a dominating defense, and sign more top defensive recruits, then BYU needs to illuminate the great accomplishments of guys like Buck.

Back in 1986, the Outland Trophy Award winner was announced November 29. BYU has a home game scheduled against New Mexico State on November 19, 2011. That might be the most appropriate game to honor Buck making it as close to the actual date the event occurred.
 

February 7, 2011

 The Brigham Young Cougars' Super Bowl Heritage 
By Scott Rappleye

Visit http://bluecougarfootball.blogspot.com/ for more BYU football information

 
 
The Brigham Young Cougars have three former players who have helped the Pittsburgh Steelers and Green Bay Packers reach Super Bowl XLV. On the Steelers side Brett Kiesel and Chris Hoke represent BYU, while an injured Brady Poppinga is part of the Green Bay Packers. This will be the 28th Super Bowl that features at least one former BYU player in some capacity. Indeed, BYU has a rich Super Bowl heritage.

Ironically, BYU's Super Bowl heritage dates as far back as the Pittsburgh Steelers. When Pittsburgh won its Super Bowl debut 16-6 over the Minnesota Vikings in Super Bowl IX, former Cougar Gordon Gravelle played tackle for the Steelers. In total, 36 different BYU Cougars, and one former assistant coach (Mike Holmgren), have been members of 35 teams that have earned their way to the Super Bowl. Some of the players have been reserves. Other players have been unheralded starters. There have also been stars who have made key plays, put up big numbers, and even set Super Bowl records. What follows is a record of their achievements on the biggest stage in sports.

STATS
Passing Totals: 38-59 (64.4%) 601 yards, 6 TD, 0 Int, 132.1 Rating
Jim McMahon (XX) 12-20 (60.0%) 256 yards, 0 TD, 0 Int, 104.2 Rating
Steve Young (XXIV) 2-3 (66.7%) 20 yards, 0 TD, 0 Int, 85.4 Rating
Steve Young (XXIX) 24-36 (66.7%) 325 yards, 6 TD, 0 Int, 134.8 Rating

Rushing Totals: 19 rushes, 86 yards (4.5 yard average) 2 TD
Bill Ring (XVI) 5 rushes, 17 yards (3.4 ave.) 0 TD
Jim McMahon (XX) 5 rushes, 14 yards (2.8 ave.) 2 TD
Steve Young (XXIV) 4 rushes, 6 yards (1.5 ave.) 0 TD
Steve Young (XXIX) 5 rushes, 49 yards (9.8 ave.) 0 TD

Receiving Totals: 18 receptions, 198 yards (11.0 yard average) 1 TD
Golden Richards (XII) 2 rec., 38 yards (19.0 ave.) 1 TD
Bill Ring (XVI) 1 rec., 3 yards (3.0 ave.) 0 TD
Todd Christensen (XVIII) 4 rec., 32 yards (8.0 ave.) 0 TD
Doug Jolley (XXXVII) 5 rec., 59 yards (11.8 ave.) 0 TD
Austin Collie (XLIV) 6 rec., 66 yards (11.0 ave.) 0 TD

Punt Returns:
Golden Richards (X) 1 return, 5 yards (5.0 yard average)

Punting Totals:
Lee Johnson (XXIII) 5 punts, 221 yards (44.2 average)

Sacks: 2.0 sacks
Jason Buck (XXIII) 1.0 sack
Jason Buck (XXVI) 1.0 sack

Interceptions:
Kurt Gouveia (XXVI) 1 interception, 23 yard return

Fumble Recoveries:
Brett Keisel (XLIII) 1 Fumble Recovery

Passes Defensed:
Aaron Francisco (XLIII) 1 Pass Defensed

Tackles: 16 tackles (15 Unassisted, 1 Assisted)
Brett Keisel (XL) 3 tackles (3 UA)
Chris Hoke (XL) 1 tackle (1 UA)
Rob Morris (XLI) 4 tackles (4 UA)
Brett Keisel (XLIII) 5 tackles (4 UA, 1 A)
Aaron Francisco (XLIII) 1 tackle (1 UA)
Aaron Francisco (XLIV) 2 tackles (2 UA)

Note: The NFL did not start tracking tackles data until the 2001 season. Therefore, tackles made by Jason Buck, Leon White, Kurt Gouveia, Todd Shell, Tom Holmoe, Matt Mendenhall, and Travis Hall are not accounted for.

RECORDS
Most rushing touchdowns by a quarterback, single game: 2, Jim McMahon, Chicago Bears, Super Bowl XX

Longest Punt: 63 Yards, Lee Johnson, Cincinnati Bengals, Super Bowl XXIII

Most Touchdown Passes in One Half (Tie): 4, Steve Young, San Francisco 49ers, Super Bowl XXIX
Most Touchdown Passes in One Game: 6, Steve Young, San Francisco 49ers, Super Bowl XXIX

Second Most yards per attempt by a quarterback: 12.8, Jim McMahon, Chicago Bears, Super Bowl XX (Terry Bradshaw, 14.7, Super Bowl XIV)

RANDOM FACTS
Super Bowl MVPs: 1, Steve Young (Super Bowl XXIX)

Most Super Bowls played in: 3 (Gravelle, Young, Holmoe, Bart Oates, Kiesel, and Hoke).

Former players who coached a Super Bowl: 2, Brian Billick (Baltimore Ravens, Super Bowl XXXV) and Andy Reid (Philadelphia Eagles, Super Bowl XXXIX).

Number of Super Bowls that both teams have had a former player: 6

Number of times former players have been on the winning team: 23

Number of times former players have been on the losing team: 11

Most former players in one Super Bowl: 6, Super Bowl XXIII (Cincinnati Bengals-3, San Francisco 49ers-3)

Most former players on one Super Bowl team: 4, 49ers (Super Bowl XXIX-Steve Young, Bart Oates, Jamal Willis, and Tim Handshaw) and Eagles (Super Bowl XXXIX-Chad Lewis, Reno Mahe, Ifo Pili, and Coach Andy Reid).

Most consecutive Super Bowls with at least one former player: 13 (Super Bowls XIV-XXVI).

Number of different NFL teams in the Super Bowl with former BYU players: 18

NFL Team with the most former players on Super Bowl teams: San Francisco 49ers (12).

Number of players who played on the 1984 National Championship team and won a Super Bowl: 3 (Kurt Gouveia, Lee Johnson, Leon White)

Only Purdue and Alabama have more former quarterbacks that have won the Super Bowl (3) than BYU (2).

It cannot be denied, BYU has left its footprint on the Super Bowl. Other universities might have a bigger footprint, but the BYU footprint is big enough it must be included in any account of Super Bowl history.  

Sources:
BYU Official Athletic Site
http://www.cougarstats.com/1984/1984roster.html

December 10, 2010

BYU 2010 Bowl Primer
By Scott Rappleye

Visit byufootballtalk.blogspot.com for more BYU football information

 
The Brigham Young Cougars are set to kick off the college football bowl season by playing in the New Mexico Bowl eight days from today. Here are some BYU bowl game facts to help prime everyone for the 2010 grand finale. (Where possible, I have already included the New Mexico Bowl vs. UTEP.)



Overall Bowl Record: 10-17-1
Bronco Mendenhall’s Bowl Record: 3-2
Longest Win Streak: 2 games (1980-81; 1983-84; 1994, 1996; 2006-07)
Biggest win: 30 points (2006, 38-8 vs. Oregon)

Most yards passing: 576 (1989 vs. Penn State)
Most yards rushing: 173 (2006 vs. Oregon)
Most total yards: 651 (1989 vs. Penn State)

Fewest points allowed: 6 (1994 Copper Bowl vs. Oklahoma)
Fewest passing yards allowed: 38 (1976 Tangerine Bowl vs. Oklahoma State)
Fewest rushing yards allowed: 41 (1997 Cotton Bowl vs. Kansas State)
Fewest total yards allowed: 202 (1984 Holiday Bowl vs. Michigan)

Number of different bowls played in: 13 (Fiesta, Tangerine, Holiday, Florida Citrus, Freedom, All-American, Aloha, Copper, Cotton, Motor City, Liberty, Las Vegas, New Mexico)
Most played in bowl: Holiday (11 times: 1978-1984, 1989-91, 1993)
Bowls played in multiple times: Holiday (11), Las Vegas (5), Freedom (2), Liberty (2)

Most played opponent: Ohio State (3 times—1982, 1985, 1993)
Current conference affiliation for all bowl opponents:

November 30, 2010

Was Saturday The "End" of The BYU-Utah Rivalry? No Way!
By Scott Rappleye

Visit byufootballtalk.blogspot.com for more BYU football information

 
The Brigham Young Cougars and Utah Utes finished another hard fought game that went down to the wire and had an unexpected ending. With BYU embarking on independence next year, and Utah joining the Pac-12, many have surmised that the “Holy War” is dead, over, done. This year was the end of the rivalry. Those taking this position argue that not playing in the same conference, that Utah gaining a recruiting advantage, and that the game no longer being played in November are the causes of death. To that, there is only one answer: NO WAY! The BYU-Utah rivalry will live on. It is greater than the two schools sharing the same conference affiliation, the games being competitive, and the placement of the game on the schedule.

DIFFERENT CONFERENCES

The rivalry, supposedly, will lack appeal for not having a conference championship on the line when BYU and Utah meet. If that is the case, then the rivalry didn’t start until 1981, and it died two years ago in 2008. Those were the first and last years that the winner would win the conference outright, or a share of the conference championship.

Rivalries across the country stretch beyond the limits of conference affiliation. Texas and Oklahoma was one of the sports greatest rivalries long before they were in both in the Big 12. Florida State-Miami weren’t conference mates until Miami came to the ACC a few years ago. USC-Notre Dame is another. If that isn't enough, don't forget about Florida-Florida State, Clemson-South Carolina, Georgia-Georgia Tech, and TCU-SMU.

Believe it or not, there are bigger things out there in college football than a conference championship. They are called a national championship and a BCS bowl. Now, national championship hopes are on the line. More so for Utah than BYU, but the fact remains that Utah as a member of a BCS AQ conference can realistically expect a spot in the BCS national championship game if they are undefeated. Look at Oregon. However, to be undefeated, Utah will have to beat BYU.  Maybe Utah doesn't win the Pac-12, they can still fight for an at large selection. A loss to BYU might be the deciding factor that keeps them out. BYU may have a special team assembled and the perfect schedule to make a run for a top two ranking in the BCS. In this day and age, BYU and Utah will know about either sides’ national championship hopes, aspirations, and possibility well before the season starts.

Maybe the national championship isn’t much of an issue in a particular year, there are still the national rankings. BYU could beat Utah, but both teams finish the year with identical 10-2 records. Will BYU be ranked ahead of Utah? Or will the poll voters favor Utah’s “tougher” conference schedule and put Utah ahead?

The point is, there are still hot button issues beyond the field of play that will keep players and fans’ interest piqued even if the Utes and the Cougars don't share the same goal to win the same conference championship. 

LACK OF COMPETITION

The BYU-Utah rivalry has been very, very competitive since the 1993 season. Just as we saw on Saturday, the games typically go down to the wire and require someone to step up and be the hero or the goat. Those players have ranged from the star skill players to little known kickers and return men. Somehow, many people think that these fantastic finishes will stop once Utah reaps the recruiting benefits of the Pac-12 label. Whether this hypothesis proves to be real or imaginary, it won’t mean the end to the rivalry.

Up until 1993, this rivalry never was competitive. It was either dominated by Utah or BYU. Each side has enjoyed a nine game win streak Even though the rivalry wasn’t competitive, there are plenty of examples that illustrate that the game meant a lot to the players and fans involved.

1953—BYU and Utah faced off for the 29th time. BYU had won exactly once. The two teams had tied on just four other occasions. The game ended with a score of 33-32. The jubilation on the BYU side was so great that the players carried head coach Chick Atkinson off the field. The catch: BYU was not the victor. Utah had won.

1992—BYU cruised out to a 31-0 lead. Yawn. Nothing new. BYU was about to win its fourth in a row (none closer than 23 points), and 19th of the last 21. Rather than pack up and go home, the Utah crowd tried to make the game bearable by throwing snowballs from the stands at BYU players.

Do we really think that this series has to be competitive for it to be meaningful to those involved?

PLAYING EARLIER IN THE YEAR

We have gotten used to seeing BYU-Utah at the end of the schedule. This has not always been the case. It is true that the majority of the games have been played in November (53), including 46 of the last 47 meetings. However, almost half of these 46 November match ups were not the last game that BYU played (22 times, 24 if you count the years that BYU played in the WAC Championship game). On ten occasions, BYU played two or more games after playing Utah.

BYU and Utah had become rivals long before 1964 when the game has been played almost exclusively in November. November would be my preference for this game, but it is not the lynch pin holding this rivalry together. Going back to the other cross conference rivalries noted, Texas and Oklahoma always play in October. Florida State and Miami play in the first half of the year. USC and Notre Dame is played in October one year and in November the next.

Playing the game early also adds to the possibility for controversy in the national rankings later in the year. That keeps the rivalry relevant between the two fan bases into October and November, even if the game has already been played.

WHAT GIVES THIS RIVALRY LIFE?

If sharing the same conference, retaining a competitive balance, and playing the game in November aren't the life blood in this rivalry, what is?

The "Holy War" will remain the biggest game of the year for both BYU and Utah for the near and distant future for the following reasons:

• It will still divide families. One family member will attend the U and a few years later another will attend the Y, thus splitting the allegiance of families for the rest of their mortal lives.
• It will still have the “Church vs. State” slant. There is no way to remove it. As long as BYU is the flagship University of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and BYU makes football decisions based on increasing exposure for the Church.
• It will still be a game between two schools located close to each other. The geographic proximity cannot be changed. Nor can it be ignored. BYU and Utah alumni come into contact with each other daily. Each time they come across each other, the outcome of the last game matters. Life is much more pleasant when you have those bragging rights.
• It will still feature a Utah team coached by a disproportionate amount of former BYU players. Head Coach Kyle Whittingham, Co-offensive Coordinator Aaron Roderick, and Defensive Coordinator Kalani Sitake all played for BYU. That is the core of any team’s coaching staff. It hurts to lose to your enemy, but to have your former players leading the charge makes it worse.
  

Some of the details surrounding the game will change, but the underlying factors that make the rivalry bigger than any other game will remain in tact. September 17, 2011, is already circled on my calendar.

November 23, 2010

Remembering the Rivalry: BYU 51, Utah 20 (1975)
By Scott Rappleye

Visit byufootballtalk.blogspot.com for more BYU football information

 
It's rivalry week for the Brigham Young Cougars and the Utah Utes. This week's game will be the 86 game between the two schools. Each day this week, BYU FOOTBALL TALK will look back on one of the Cougars' great victories over the Utes. I have done my best to research each game and provide a summary. If you were there or remember these games, please fill in with any details that you feel were significant that I have left out.

November 15, 1975--BYU came into this game 4-4, needing a win to keep hopes alive for a second consecutive winning season, and third in four years. After struggling early in the year to find a new quarterback, Gifford Nielsen was the unquestioned starter by this time. He played a solid game connecting on 10 of 15 passes for 150 yards and a touchdown with one interception. Nielsen also added a score on the ground. Charley Ah You made a splash rushing for 77 yards and scored once.

This win marked the first time in the history of the rivalry that BYU had scored over 50 points, won by more than 28 points, and won four games in a row. Not only was this the first time BYU won four straight, BYU beat Utah State, 24-7, the week before to make this only the third time that BYU won the "State Championship" (1958 and 1966 were the other two times).

Stan Varner was an animal on defense recovering two fumbles and intercepting a pass. Varner wasn't the only one making big plays. The entire defense was exceptional limiting Utah to just 14 yards rushing.

After a horrendous 0-3 start, BYU had now won five out of six games.

November 17, 2010

Laying Out The Holiday Options
By Dave Haynie

[Visit www.byucougs.com to leave comments and search archives]

 

During the offseason, Craig Thompson and the MWC brass had an opportunity to enhance the conference's bowl possibilities, as nearly all bowl contracts across the country expired last year, and negotiations were the order of the summer across the land.  With a number of higher payout bowls in the footprint available, we did a bowl primer and comprehensive review of the options and the best case scenario at the time http://www.byucougs.com/2009/08/and-bowl-frenzy-begins.html.  Given the possibilities, the outcome was somewhat disappointing, if not unexpected.

The MWC went from this (2009):
Las Vegas                        MWC #1 vs Pac 10 #4/5  $1.1M   Dec 22
Poinsettia (San Diego)      MWC #2 vs Pac 10 #6    $750K   Dec 23
Armed Forces (Ft Worth)  MWC vs CUSA               $600K   Dec 31
Humanitarian (Boise)         MWC vs WAC               $750K   Dec 30
New Mexico (Albuq.)         MWC vs WAC                $750K   Dec 19

To this (2010):
Las Vegas                           MWC #1 vs Pac 10 #5    $1.1M   Dec 22
Poinsettia (San Diego)        MWC #2 vs Navy            $750K   Dec 23
Independence (Shreveport) MWC #3 vs ACC #7      $1.1M    Dec 27
Armed Forces (Ft Worth)    MWC vs CUSA               $600K   Dec 30
New Mexico (Albuq.)           MWC vs WAC                $750K   Dec 18

The replacement of the Humanitarian Bowl with the Independence bowl is definitely an upgrade, but given what was on the table (Holiday, Sun, Insight), overall it feels like a loss.  The Vegas bowl dropped from the PAC 10 #4/5 to #5 going forward.  The Poinestta Bowl dropped the PAC 10 and has a contract with Navy/WAC going forward.  The Independence Bowl is a nice pick up date-wise, payout wise, and opponent-wise, but is in a terrible location for fans to get there (except TCU).  Overall, the conference was not able to improve its slate in any meaningful way.

So, Projections...
BCS--TCU (only one game left... vs New Mexico)
Vegas--winner of BYU-Utah if Utah loses to SDSU (Vegas would love a ranked Utah, but wouldn't mind one last dance with BYU)
Poinsettia--San Diego State (dream matchup for city)
Independence--Air Force (base nearby)
Armed Forces--Loser of BYU-Utah if Utah loses to SDSU (already had Air Force last two years)
New Mexico--MWC will not fill slot

Interestingly, this weekend's Utah-SDSU game will not have any meaningful influence on SDSU's bowl destination, as the Aztecs seem essentially locked in at this point to the hometown bowl, and even if Utah loses this weekend, but beats BYU, they would likely be headed to Vegas.  And, should Utah win this weekend, but lose to BYU, it is possible the bowl would take one last crack at a 7-5 BYU on a 5 game winning streak and sell out the stadium, over a 9-3 Utah having lost 3 out of its last 4, including to its rival, and risk an empty stadium.  If it were down to a 7-5 BYU or an 8-4 Utah, Vegas takes the Cougs.

November 10, 2010

Breaking Down Jake Heaps' Breakout Game
By Scott Rappleye

Visit byufootballtalk.blogspot.com for more BYU football information

The Brigham Young Cougars’ true freshman quarterback Jake Heaps had his much anticipated breakout game against UNLV last Saturday. Heaps finished the day with 19 completions on 31 attempts (61.3%) for 294 yards and 2 touchdowns. His pass efficiency rating was 162.25. In reality, this stat line represents what should be a “typical day at the office” for a BYU quarterback, but for this true freshman, it was a breakout game for several reasons.

• Heaps had his first game with multiple touchdown passes.
• He had a career high in passing yards.
• He averaged 9.5 yards per attempt; his previous best was 5.73.
• He had not had a pass efficiency rating higher than 107.2.
• He completed over 60 percent of his passes for only the second time.
• He had three pass completions for more than 35 yards (his previous long was 32).
• He had led such a productive offense, he didn't play the fourth quarter.
  

While virtually no one will argue that this wasn’t a breakout game for Heaps, the above list does not do justice to just how well Heaps played on Saturday. The BYU passing attack had lacked any kind of downfield element. Even throwing for a first down in short yardage situations was nearly impossible. Heaps and Co. overcame both these hurdles against UNLV.

Further breakdown of Heaps' play shows that this freshman did not play like one on Saturday.

3rd Down
6-9, 128 yards, 1 TD, Pass Eff. 222.8
All 6 completions resulted in a first down or a touchdown.
 
Momentum Builders
12 completions resulted in a first down.
2 completions were touchdowns.
73.7% (14 of 19) of Heaps’ completions helped BYU build momentum.
 
2nd Quarter
8-10, 146 yards, 1 TD, Pass Eff. 235.6
--Six completions resulted in first downs or a touchdown.
--At one point Heaps completed six consecutive passes.
--Of the two that were not “momentum builders,” one was a 9 yard completion on 1st and 10, the other was a 7-yarder on 2nd and 10 that helped set up the last second field goal.
--Heaps' second quarter play helped produce 24 points in the quarter that put the game away.
 
Going Down Field
Nine completions went for 14 yards or more, five were for 20 or more yards, and 3 were over 35 yards.
 
Ineffective Short Throws
As noted, all but five completions helped BYU build momentum. Of those five, only one could be considered ineffective. It was Heaps’ first throw of the game for three yards on second and 8. BYU did not convert the ensuing third down and had to punt.
The other four non-momentum builders were still effective (see list below for throw numbers).

1. Throw 6 was a six yard completion on first down. Second and four is a very manageable down and distance. (J.J. Di Luigi picked up the first down on the next play.)
2. Throw 10 was only for four yards on second and 10, but on the very next play Heaps connected with Di Luigi for a first down.
3. Throw 17 was a nine-yard completion on first down. Second and one is a great down and distance.
4. Throw 20 was the 7-yarder on 2nd and 10 that helped set up the last second field goal to end the first half.
When it really mattered, Heaps was at his best. Getting inside the numbers shows that Heaps didn’t just break out, he excelled. He played with a maturity beyond his years. Hopefully, this was just a stepping stone for Heaps, and he will exceed this impressive performance on a regular basis.

********************

List of all 31 pass attempts.
1. 2nd and 8, pass complete to Luke Ashworth for 3 yards
2. 3rd and 10 pass incomplete
3. 3rd and 4 pass complete to McKay Jacobson for 11 yards
4. 1st and 10 pass incomplete
5. 1st and 10 pass complete to Jacobson for 19 yards
6. 1st and 10 pass complete to Ashworth for 6 yards
7. 1st and 10 pass incomplete
8. 2nd and 5 pass complete to Devin Mahina for 6 yards
9. 1st and 10 pass incomplete
10. 2nd and 10 pass complete to Jacobson for 4 yards
11. 3rd and 6 pass complete to JJ Di Luigi for 7 yards
12. 1st and 10 pass incomplete
13. 1st and 10 pass complete to Cody Hoffman for 20 yards
14. 1st and 10 pass complete to JJ Di Luigi for 21 yards
15. 1st and 10 pass complete to Cody Hoffman for 37 yards for a TOUCHDOWN
16. 2nd and 4 pass complete to Marcus Mathews for 9 yards
17. 1st and 10 pass complete to JJ Di Luigi for 9 yards
18. 3rd and 12 pass complete to McKay Jacobson for 36 yards
19. 1st and 10 pass incomplete
20. 2nd and 10 pass complete to JJ Di Luigi for 7 yards
21. 2nd and 10 pass complete to Spencer Hafoka for 11 yards
22. 2nd and 11 pass incomplete
23. 3rd and 11 pass incomplete
24. 1st and 10 pass incomplete
25. 3rd and 5 pass complete to Luke Ashworth for 42 yards for a TOUCHDOWN
26. 2nd and 5 pass incomplete
27. 3rd and 5 pass incomplete
28. 3rd and 10 pass complete to Luke Ashworth for 18 yards
29. 2nd and 7 pass complete to Bryan Kariya for 14 yards
30. 2nd and 8 pass incomplete
31. 3rd and 8 pass complete to Luke Ashworth for 14 yards
(Source: http://espn.go.com/ncf/playbyplay?gameId=303100252&period=0
 

November 6, 2010

Quantifying the Missionary Advantage--A 2010 Update
By Dave Haynie

[Visit www.byucougs.com to leave comments and search archives]

Last season, we tried to dig into the commonly cited, but never quantified, claim that BYU's players are "significantly" older than their opponents and concluded that on average, Cougar players were 1.11 years older than their counterparts (see analysis here).  A difference to be sure, but a far cry from the "your 26 year-olds vs. our 19 year-olds" that is nearly always claimed.

I wanted to do an update on that for this season.  Granted we are already 2/3 of the way through this season, but given how it has turned out so far, it might be of particular interest.  All assumptions are handled in the same manner as the original analysis (linked above).  Thanks to Jordan Christiansen in the BYU Football Medial Relations office for the cooperation on the data collection.

The only mission-related age difference for BYU vs other schools this year is 1.01 years per player on average.  Per the previous write-up, this is due to not all players serving missions and the class mix (e.g. more underclassmen than other schools).  A few interesting notes:

Here is the actual analysis for anyone interested:

                                              Fr         So          Jr          Sr         Total
Average Age (US)                 18.5      19.5       20.5      21.5
Class Mix (US)                      37.6%  22.1%    21.7%  18.5%
Weighted Ave Age (US)                                                             19.71

BYU Players by Class           41          27          24         14         106
Class Mix (BYU)                 38.7%    25.5%     22.6%   13.2%
BYU Ave Age w/o Mission   18.5      19.5        20.5       21.5      19.60

BYU Former Missionaries      9           24          16          10         59
Percent of BYU Class          22.0%     88.9%    66.7%   71.4%   55.7%
BYU Ave Age w/ Mission     18.9        21.3       21.8       22.9      20.72
Actual Age Difference (yrs)   0.44      1.78       1.33       1.43       1.01

November 2, 2010

Fabulous? Freshman Contributions for BYU
By Scott Rappleye

Visit byufootballtalk.blogspot.com for more BYU football information

 
The 2010 recruiting class for the Brigham Young Cougars was the best in a long time. By the time the 2010 season kicked off, it was apparent that many freshman from this recruiting class, as well as redshirt and return missionary freshman, would play significant minutes for BYU this year. Coming off the bye week, I thought it was a good time to look at how the freshmen are contributing through the first eight games.

OFFENSE
Joshua Quezada, RB
37 carries, 159 yards (4.3 yards per carry)
5 receptions, 29 yards, 1 TD

Jake Heaps, QB
120-229 (52.4%), 1,057 yards, 2 TD, 7 Int., 87.9 Pass Efficiency

Cody Hoffman, WR
21 receptions, 198 yards, 1 TD
4 kick off returns, 135 yards

JD Falslev, WR
6 punt returns, 46 yards
5 kick off returns, 117 yards

Marcus Matthews, WR
7 receptions, 127 yards

Richard Wilson, TE
3 receptions, 45 yards
All were in the first game.

Mike Muehlmann, TE
4 receptions, 48 yards
1 kick off return, 11 yards

Devin Mahina, TE
3 receptions, 31 yards

Austin Holt, TE
1 reception, 2 yards

Ross Apo, WR
Injured his hand after the first game, will seek medical redshirt.

Drew Phillips, RB
Redshirting. Shining on the scout team.

Cody Hoffman gets my vote for offensive freshman of the year, at this point. He is tied with McKay Jacobson for most receptions by a wide receiver, and he only trails Jacobson by 3 yards for most receiving yards by a wide out. Luke Ashworth is the only other wide receiver to have a touchdown reception. The receiving corps was supposed to be a bright spot on offense; instead, Hoffman has been the bright spot in the receiving corps.

While more is needed <http://byufootballtalk.blogspot.com/2010/10/is-jake-heaps-worst-brigham-young.html>  from Heaps, I would say the only major disappointment regarding offensive freshmen would be at the tight end spot. The team really needed one of these four to step up and continue BYU's legacy at this position. No one has been able to do it yet, and the season is two-thirds over.

DEFENSE
Kyle Van Noy, LB
Played in all 8 games (2 starts)
19 tackles (13 unassisted, 6 assisted)
4 tackles for a loss for 22 yards
1 sack for 9 yards
2 forced fumbles

Zac Stout, LB
Played in 7 games
14 tackles (7 assisted, 7 unassisted)
1 tackle for a loss for 2 yards

Jray Galea’i, DB
Played in all 8 games
4 tackles (4 unassisted)
1 fumble recovery

Thomas Bryson, DE
Played in 7 games
2 tackles (2 unassisted)
1 pass breakup
1 quarterback hurry

Graham Rowley, DE
Played in 3 games.
1 quarterback hurry.

Kyle Van Noy is clearly the defensive freshman of the year, so far. As I said after the Wyoming game <http://byufootballtalk.blogspot.com/2010/10/game-recap-brigham-young-cougars-25.html> , I like his chances to be a freshman All-American. He has the 11th most tackles on the team, the 3rd most tackles for a loss, 2nd most yards lost, tied for 4th in sacks, and tied with Andrew Rich for most forced fumbles.

October 29, 2010

UNLV Prediction from Season Leader
By Dave Haynie

[Visit www.byucougs.com to leave comments or search archives]

Many of you probably participate in an online BYU prediction game of one sort or another (cougarboard, cougarfan, etc), and if so, you know how hard it is to win one of those even for one week, let alone lead in the standings.  And, especially so in a season such as this one with so many unknowns and so much inconsistency.   Yet, impressively, one person has been at the top of the standings on Cougarfan's Football Challenge for seven weeks now--ever since the Air Force Game.  I have invited him to provide some guest commentary and a prediction on the game.

BYU is slowly starting to gain confidence offensively. At this point in the season, it’s no longer a question of whether BYU will get in the end zone, but how often. I think BYU will build on its relative offensive success in the Wyoming game, and will score 30 points or more for the first time this year. Defensively, I think BYU will continue to play well against the run.


UNLV has enough athleticism to score against the Cougars, but they have (like BYU) struggled to be consistent. BYU started very strongly against SDSU (up 14-0) and Wyoming (up 16-0). If UNLV can take a 7-0 lead, or more, BYU will be in a dogfight. But BYU has two weeks to prepare for this one, and I think BYU will be the team that starts strong again. This one won’t be as close as Wyoming was. My prediction: BYU doubles up the Rebels, 34-17.
                            --Jared Haynie, Seven-week Football Challenge Leader

In an ironic twist, Jared's wife Julie is the only one from the family to have had the top score from any single game prediction...

October 27, 2010

Is Jake Heaps the Worst BYU Freshman Quarterback Ever?
By Scott Rappleye

Visit byufootballtalk.blogspot.com for more BYU football information

 
Jake Heaps is making history in many ways as quarterback for the Brigham Young Cougars this year. Making history isn’t always a good thing. I commend Heaps for getting the win Saturday against Wyoming, and throwing the touchdown pass that sealed the win. However, he only threw for 81 yards, and he had another touchdown pass (pick six) that was a big reason why this game was even close. Add to this that Heaps was coming off of a 91 yard outing with two interceptions and a less than 50% completion rate the week before against TCU, and wheels start to turn in your head and you start to wonder.

Before all the staunch Heaps supporters stop reading, let’s make one thing certain. The fact that this question can even be asked about Heaps is a tremendous compliment to the kid. Rarely does a quarterback come to campus, grasp the offense, and have his skills developed to a point that he can even see significant time on the field as a freshman.

A quarterback cannot be judged on just touchdowns and interceptions, or yards passing. Therefore, before jumping to any conclusions or getting upset. Let’s conduct a proper analysis.

Since 1973, when BYU fully adopted the forward pass, Jake Heaps is just the fifth freshman quarterback to log significant minutes during meaningful moments of games. Ty Detmer (1988), Drew Miller (1997), Matt Berry (2002), and John Beck (2003) are the others. Although comparing statistics is never a perfect apples-to-apples comparison, looking at each quarterbacks’ stats is a good starting point. Following their stats is a little more background information about how those stats were accumulated, which should give us sufficient understanding to rank these five signal callers.

TY DETMER
83 completions, 153 attempts (54.2%), 1,252 yards, 13 TD, 10 Int., 138.0 Efficiency

Notes: Detmer threw the most TD passes, has the highest efficiency, however, he also threw the most interceptions. He was 1-0 as a starter, a 65-0 blowout of New Mexico (2-10). He threw for 333 yards and 5 TDs. Detmer came off the bench to win 3 other games, including the Freedom Bowl.

DREW MILLER
37-67 (55.2%), 430 yards, 3 TD, 4 Int., 112.0 Efficiency

Notes: Miller has the least completions, attempts, and yards. He also had the least interceptions. He was 0-1 as a starter in a ugly loss to UTEP (14-3) when he threw three of his interceptions (one a pick six). He came off the bench to throw 3 TDs and win the TCU game. TCU was 1-10 that year.

MATT BERRY
108-184 (58.7%), 1,309 yards, 7 TD, 9 Int., 121.2 Efficiency

Notes: Berry has the highest completion percentage, and the most passing yards. He was 2-4 as a starter. In his best game he threw for 360 yards against Wyoming (2-11).

JOHN BECK
73-145 (50.3%), 864 yards, 5 TD, 5 Int., 104.9 Efficiency

Notes: Beck has the lowest completion percentage. He was just 1-3 as a starter. One of those losses was a direct result of a Beck interception. BYU was leading Stanford 14-12 with 4:20 to play. Beck threw an interception and Stanford promptly scored the winning points. He also came off the bench against Wyoming and threw a pick six that gave Wyoming a 13-0 lead. BYU lost 13-10.

JAKE HEAPS (through 8 games)
120-229 (52.4%), 1,057 yards, 2 TD, 7 Int., 87.9 Efficiency

Notes: Heaps has the most completions and attempts, yet he has the least TD passes. He also has the worst efficiency. Heaps is 2-3 as a starter. He played well off the bench in the only other win of the season (Washington).

Using just the stats and the notes, I would put Jake right in the middle at number 3. However, I have some serious reservations.

1. Yards per attempt. Heaps averages 4.62 yards per attempt. Anything less than 8 isn’t very good.
2. Very few touchdown passes. With 45 more throws and 12 more completions than the next closest QB, Heaps should have much more than two touchdown passes. Yes, some passes have been dropped in the end zone, but even with all the drops, you would think Heaps would have at least 5 TD passes. As it is, it takes 115 throws to get one caught in the end zone.
3. The coaches have consciously decided to emphasize the run. That hurts any quarterback’s case.
   

Keeping these three concerns in mind, let’s take a closer look at Beck, and Miller. Miller’s position suffers because he saw the least action. I find it a drawback, too, that all his TDs came against a 1-10 team. When he played a 4-7 team the next week he threw three interceptions. I think that had Miller played more, his numbers would get worse, and I don’t know if he would have won a game as a starter. The coaches would have probably shifted and given the ball much more to Brian McKenzie, who ended up rushing for 1,004 yards that year. Miller did have a 6.4 yards per attempt average, which is better than Heaps, but still well below the 8.0 standard.

Beck’s numbers are not much better than Heaps’ numbers. His yards per attempt is just 6.0. Beck also saw his passes reduced from 45 to 35 to 26, while BYU increased its rushes to 45 in the only game Beck won as a starter. Beck bests Heaps in touchdown passes, but Beck definitely had costlier interceptions. He cost BYU two games in 2003. Thus far, I can’t point at one of BYU’s five losses this year and say that Heaps lost that game.

That makes the final ranking of freshman quarterbacks as:

1. Ty Detmer
2. Matt Berry
3. Jake Heaps
4. John Beck
5. Drew Miller

Jake Heaps’ freshman season is not over yet. With four, maybe five, games left, he could still move ahead of Berry, or drop below Beck. Heaps has shown glimpse of his potential. One particular drive in the first quarter against Washington was very impressive. Heaps connected on back to back passes to McKay Jacobson for 13 and 17 yards. A 16 yarder to J.J. Di Luigi followed, which took BYU to the Washington four-yard line. Heaps looked poised and comfortable against Florida State running the two minute offense just before the half on a drive that ended in a touchdown pass. Heaps has demonstrated that he has the tools and the potential. When he starts using those tools to consistently play to his potential will determine where he sits on this list at the end of the year.

As for his sophomore-senior years, the results of the other four give Heaps a 50/50 chance at being the next great BYU quarterback. He also has a 50% chance to be the one who kept the seat warm before the next great QB came along. Detmer and Beck are legends. Miller transferred and Berry lost the job to Beck. For Heaps' sake and the sake of BYU football, I hope he joins Detmer and Beck as BYU quarterback greats.

 

October 27, 2010

Phil's Mid-Season All-MWC Nominees
By Dave Haynie

[Visit www.byucougs.com to leave comments or search archives]

Phil Steele has his mid-season all-conference list out. Not surprisingly, there are no BYU players on the first team (perhaps that can change by the end of the season) as the rolls are dominated by TCU, Utah, Air Force, and San Diego St. There are, however, five players on the second team and a few more on the third team. Overall, with 8 players listed, BYU represented 9% of the total players (0% of 1st team, 18% of 2nd team, 9% of 3rd team).

Mid-Season MWC 2nd Team
RB, JJ DiLuigi
FB, Brian Kariya
OT, Matt Reynolds
CB, Andrew Rich
LB, Jordan Pendleton

Mid-Season MWC 3rd Team
OG, Jason Speredon
OG, Braden Hansen
PK, Mitch Payne

The rest of the conference is as follows:
TCU 19 (39% of 1st team)
Utah 17 (29% of 1st team)
AFA 12 (11% of 1st team)
SDSU 11 (14% of 1st team)
CSU 8
WYO 5
UNLV 4
UNM 4

October 22, 2010

A Mid-Season Diagnosis
By Dave Haynie

[Visit www.byucougs.com to leave comments or search archives]

Washington 1986.  Hawaii 1989. Oregon, Hawaii, Texas A&M 1990.  Florida State 1991.  2000 pre-Doman.  Hawaii 2001.  2002.  2003.  2004.  Utah, TCU 2008.  TCU 2009. 

What is the common thread in all of these?  That you were there until the end.  You didn't leave the stadium early.  You didn't turn off the TV.   You stood by the Cougars until the end.  That is what true fans do.  They support their team in good and bad.  That is a defining characteristic of BYU fans.  We believe.  We stay until the end.  No matter the score.  No matter the time.  The team doesn't stop competing (I can only think of two exceptions--CSU and Boise in 2003) and we don't stop supporting.  

But, that doesn't mean that we don't have opinions, or dissect every move of the players and coaches, or think we might have some insight into what is really going on.  I am no different. 

Here is my somewhat-stream-of-consciousness take on a few pieces of our current situation:

Jamie Hill--Hill was not a scapegoat.  Bronco is not one to be reactionary.  The fact that Hill was released means to me that there were significant underlying reasons, and that if anything, Bronco probably waited longer than he should have.

Coaching Matters--What Bronco did to the defense in a few days between Utah State and SDSU, was stunning.  Most BYU fans were bemoaning the fact that we had no talent on D.  Then the first quarter of the SDSU game happened and it hasn't stopped.  The same players, minus a few of the better ones to injury, have performed admirably.  One can only imagine that the same transformation could be performed on offense.  The talent level is not the problem. 

Hot Seat--Robert Anae has to be on the hot seat.  I like him.  He frustrates me at times--frequently this season--but I hope he succeeds.   I want him to find the solutions and get the ship righted.  But, if he cannot do it, Bronco will need to find someone who can. 

Leadership Vacancy--Bronco has stated a couple of times that this team is short on leaders... and he is looking for someone to step up.  I would suggest that this is a problem that is actually inherent in the approach to this season.  Bronco has only named two captains, leaving two other traditional spots unfilled.  There were two opportunities to provide a mantle of leadership to a couple of his seniors.  Perhaps they were not ready--a mantle allows a player to step up and grow into the role and responsibility.  It allows the players around him to respect and follow that leader without thinking that the player is trying to be presumptuous.  How was Jake supposed to be a leader early in the season?  He wasn't the starter.  Bronco had not expressed confidence in him, so how were the other players supposed to feel?  BYU of all places is a place where players know how to lead and how to follow.  They understand mantles.  How many times have these players followed a district leader, zone leader, bishop, EQP, etc that was given a mantle?  A "calling" to team captain, might have been, and still could be a good recipe for leadership success.  Vic So'oto? Bryan Kariya?  Brian Logan?  These guys should be captains.  Give them the mantle and let them run with it.

Starters--Failing to name a starter at QB and TE, has left these positions in somewhat of a tailspin.  QB has been on the mend after an injury mercifully ended the spiral.  TE is still out of control.  A coach needs to pick a starter and then let him play.  Should he lose the job, there are others waiting to step up.  If they are all the same, go with the gut.  Failing to name a starter cuts reps, leadership ability, confidence, and chemistry.

Reps Impact--Linked closely to the failure to name a starter is the impact that has on repetitions for those players.  I promised some numbers in this first analysis since I've been back.  Here it is (if not exact, it is at least illustrative).  If a typical opposing player gets 100 reps, here is how this shakes out for the BYU QBs, TEs, WRs.

100: Typical player reps (for example)
  80: BYU practices are roughly 20% shorter than most opponents practices
  72: Assume 10 percent of those reps (early season) were lost to time spent installing two distinct offenses
  36: Reps are split between the two QBs, leaving them with 36 each--WR's only get 36 reps with each QB
    7: With 5 TE's splitting time, each only gets 20% of those 36  reps with each QB

What is the result? Our QB, a true freshman, is (was) only getting 36% of the reps of the opponent's QB.  Our WR's were only getting 36% of the reps with their QB as opposing WRs were getting with their QB.  Compounding that, our TE's--all rookies--are (were) only getting 7.2% as many reps each as players from opposing teams!  At that rate the season will be over before any of our TE's get the same number of reps as opposing players get in Fall Camp!!!  And these are players that needed to get more reps than opposing players due to inexperience!  The WR's and QB's three games into the season were barely where others were at the end of fall camp.  This has been course-corrected for Heaps and his WR's, but the TEs are still a mess, and unless someone gets named a starter soon, is unlikely to improve.

Drops--Are you following the chain here?  64% fewer reps for our QBs and WRs than the competition might shed light on some of our drops here.  The drops this season have been unprecedented.  Doubtless some portion of them must be a systematic failure such as above.  Likely there are others too.  I would hope to see more accountability for receivers dropping passes--critical first downs, touchdowns, third down conversions, easy dumps, fades, across the middles and everything in between.  It was reduced in the TCU game but still remained an issue--hard not to improve considering how glaring this was.  I wish I had tracked the actual number of drops in those first few games.  I think we would have seen a significant number of drives ended and points missed due directly to dropped passes--enough so that it could have been the difference in the season so far.

The Long Ball--Between the dropped passes (seemingly one or more per series in the first 5 games) and the decision to have Heaps throw it deep on nearly 1 in 3 plays in those first few games, can explain nearly all of the offensive ineptitude.  Anyone who ever succeeded at intramural football knows that the long ball is hardly ever completed and yet is so tempting that many do it anyway, to the detriment of their t-shirt dreams.  BYU was essentially throwing 2 plays away (a drop and a long ball), leaving us with one real crack at a first down, and ensuring 3 and out repeatedly.  It is good to see we have moved away from this, but perhaps we have mistaken failures of the long ball for failures of the passing game and need to reinstate the mid range game.

Running Personnel--Our running game has improved significantly since the UW game.  However, there are still far too many instances of Kariya trying to take it around the end on third and short or DiLuigi trying to go up the middle in the same situation.  Enough to make you want to pull your hair out.  Use the personnel to their strengths. 

Coaches Giving Up--In many of the early games, the coaches elected to punt from inside the 40 yard line.  They opted to kick field goals when touchdowns were needed if there was any hope of winning.  As an anxious fan, it was exasperating.  It felt as if the coaches were giving up--going for the moral victory.  When coaches are doing that, what are the players supposed to do?  The fake field goal was a turning point.  It showed that the coaches had not given up. BYU is going to need much more of that mentality from its coaches if it wants that message to rub off on the players.

So there you have it. 

June 23, 2010

Winners and Losers
By Dave Haynie

[Visit www.byucougs.com to search archives or make comments]

With the dust now settling from the first volleys of conference realignment, it’s time to assess the winners and losers…

Winners (in order)
1. University of Utah--the move to the PAC-10 improves the image of the school athletically and academically by association.  The athletic budget stands to gain $9-10M per year more than they currently get in the MWC.  Recruiting (especially in CA, OR, and WA) should improve as recruits want to go to a school that A) has a chance for a auto bid and national title, and B) play annually in front of home town friends and family.
2. Nebraska--moving to the Big Ten gives them conference stability, a meaningful financial increase (though not as much as Utah), and more prestige.
3. Boise State--although the financial windfall will not be as great as Utah or Nebraska, Boise will reap an additional $2-3M per year in the MWC over the WAC.  It also associates with universities of a higher caliber, which is incredible for a school that was a junior college just a generation or so ago.  Admissions and academics also stand to improve as much from this move as the level of competition.
4. Big East--Although there may still be moves to come from the Big Ten, at least for now the Big East is breathing a sigh of relief and shelving the survival plans as it has managed to avoid the doomsday scenarios that had it being cherry picked into oblivion.
5. Big Ten--Thanks to the PAC 10's public coup on the Big Ten's best, Nebraska turned to the open arms of the Big Ten for comfort and security.  The Big Ten in return gets an upgrade over the rumored alternative in Missouri, and now sits at a comfortable 12.
6. PAC 10--Although some insist that Larry Scott and the PAC 10 have some egg on the very public failure to lure Texas, et al., I believe that the conference knew it wanted at least Utah and Colorado and decided to make a run at something better, with the former as a comfortable backstop in case the plan didn't work.  No harm done and I say kudos to a bold and proactive approach.  The conference will now be able to stage a championship game and adjust scheduling somewhat to eliminate a few intra-conference losses that seem to sink any hopes of a second BCS bid year after year.  The conference also moves east and finally breaks beyond the scheduling limitations of the Pacific time zone.
7. Colorado--Colorado gets a nod here for finding the home that it wanted.  Otherwise, all in, I would say it is about a wash.  The PAC 10, financially, will not be much different than the Big 12 and the television visibility will be worse (although Colorado isn't on TV that much anyway); however, the university (both athletically and academically) will improve in prestige and will have more equal representation in a non-Texas dominated conference.
8. The state of Utah--with the state's flagship university now affiliated with the PAC 10, it is a validation of sorts for the community that it is accepted and respected on a national level.  The state will also see some budgetary savings due to the significant increases in television funding from the new conference affiliation.

Losers (in order)
1. BYU--Despite what anyone says, Cougar fans and administrators have been holding out hope for a PAC 10 invite for decades.  To see it go to your chief rival, and relative new kid on the block, while being left behind is a demoralizing blow.  And although yet to be fully understood, there may be detrimental effects on the program as Utah improves its recruiting base, funding, facilities, etc.  BYU knew that it would likely not end up in the PAC 10 but was hoping for a seat at the table somewhere when everything settled down.  That didn't happen.
2. WAC--The WAC loses Boise State, its only legitimate national player of the last several years.  The loss jeopardizes its TV contract with ESPN, its standing as the number 8 conference (just above CUSA), and at least one of its bowl games. 
3. Big 12--While the teams that remain managed to right the ship, and there are rumors of more lucrative television deals in the works, the conference took a major hit to is national perception, prestige, and stability.  The losses of Colorado and Nebraska will hurt television prospects, and at least with Nebraska, national relevance in football.  Dan Beebe (the conference commissioner) also comes out of this looking a bit inept, weak, and reactionary rather than proactive.
4. Fans of the BYU-Utah Rivalry--After more than 100 years of competing for the same conference championship each time these teams took the field, that will come to an end.  They will likely continue to play each other annually, probably in every sport, but it will be preseason, non-conference, and less on the line.  Thanksgiving weekend won't be quite the same without it.
5. MWC--With a BCS auto bid in sight and the addition of Boise, the MWC was poised to become a major player.  The great intermountain void (only states with D1 programs and no BCS bid) on the BCS map (Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Nevada, New Mexico) seemed destined to be filled by the MWC.  With Utah (the most populous of those five states) now removed from that equation, the chances have to be diminished somewhat, even if still alive.
6. Utah State--With BYU and Utah now likely to be scheduling annual out of conference games, it is possible that Utah State may be the odd man out and see it without its annual tilts with its in-state rivals.  This would be unfortunate for everyone, and may relieve USU of its only guaranteed sellout of the season.

June 10, 2010

One Year Recap and Summer Reading
By Dave Haynie

[Visit www.byucougs.com to search archives and leave comments]

At some point over the last couple of weeks, the readership of this column hit 20,000.  I will make it a habit to mention from time to time when we hit various milestones.  I would also like to mention that you can subscribe to the RSS feed directly from www.byucougs.com, as dozens of you already do, and have new content delivered right to your inbox.

In honor of our first year covering BYU football for Phil Steele, and in light of a dearth of any college football news outside of realignment, I am reposting the links to the top five most popular stories from this site over the last year.  These articles have been picked up by national and local news organizations, including ESPN, Sports Illustrated, CBS, Rivals, Scout, and dozens of others as well as scores of fan sites and other blogs.   The top 5 in order:

http://www.byucougs.com/2009/10/updated-comparison-of-conference-tv.html

http://www.byucougs.com/2010/02/numbers-behind-pac-10-expansion-what-it.html

http://www.byucougs.com/2009/12/recruiting-lag-look-at-contributions-by.html

http://www.byucougs.com/2009/09/numbers-inside-missionary-advantage.html

http://www.byucougs.com/2010/04/official-bcs-conference-standings.html

http://www.byucougs.com/2009/12/rebuttal-of-vegas-bowl-excuses.html

These are based purely upon the number of people that have read these articles.  If there are other columns from this site that you feel are worthy of summer reading but didn’t make the above cut, let us know!

April 24, 2010

Official Mid-Term Conference BCS Standings
By Dave Haynie

[Visit www.byucougs.com to leave comments or search archives]

Something isn’t right.  The BCS actually released the official calculation criteria for a conference to gain automatic qualification (http://www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=5126859).  My first reaction was that they cooked the books—waited to see how the conference rankings stacked up at the midway point and then offered up a target that would be out of reach for the MWC.  However, Bill Hancock and company, maintain that these criteria have been clearly written for several years, but that only now they are releasing them publicly.  I was skeptical.  Then I ran the numbers.  The MWC is clearly on track to gain AQ status.  You read that right.  If things continue on the field as they have for the last two years, the MWC should qualify for AQ status, even without Boise State.

Per the BCS press release, here is the long awaited, never expected, official criteria (all calculations will be based on membership at the end of the 2011 regular season):

The evaluation includes the following for each conference:
(1) the ranking of the highest-ranked team in the final BCS Standings each year (if a conference does not place a team in the final BCS Standings, then its highest-ranked team is determined by the conference member that has the highest average ranking in the computer rankings used in the BCS Standings),
(2) the final regular-season rankings of all conference teams in the computer rankings used by the BCS each year, and
(3) the number of teams in the top 25 of the final BCS Standings each year, with adjustments to account for differences in the number of members of each conference.

A conference will become the seventh automatic qualifier if it finishes among the top six conferences in both No. 1 and No. 2 and if its ranking in No. 3 is equal to or greater than 50 percent of the conference with the highest ranking in No. 3.

[Further, a conference will be eligible to apply to the Presidential Oversight Committee for an exemption if it finishes among the top six in both No. 1 and No. 2 and if its ranking in No. 3 is equal to or greater than 33.3 percent of the conference with the highest ranking in No. 3,
OR
If it finishes among the top seven in either No. 1 or No. 2 and among the top five in the other and if its ranking in No. 3 is equal to or greater than 33.3 percent of the conference with the highest ranking in No. 3.]

No. 3 above, the "Top 25 Performance Rating," will be calculated as follows: Points will be awarded to the conferences based on their teams' finishes in the top 25 of the final BCS Standings each year. Points will be awarded as follows:
Teams finishing 1-6: 4 points for each team
Teams finishing 7-12: 3 points for each team
Teams finishing 13-18: 2 points for each team
Teams finishing 19-25: 1 point for each team

The point totals will be adjusted to account for the size of the conference, as follows:
Conference membership | Adjustment
12 or more members | no adjustment
10 or 11 members | points increased by 12.5 percent
9 or fewer members | points increased by 25 percent

In summary, a conference has to be ranked in the top six in Criteria 1 and Criteria 2, and be at least 50% of the top ranked team in Criteria 3.  If it doesn’t quite meet these criteria, it can apply for an exemption as long as
A) it finishes in the top six in Criteria 1 and 2, and at least 33.3% of the top team in Criteria 3, or
B) it finishes in the top seven in either Criteria 1 or Criteria 2 and in the top five the other and at least 33.3% of the top team in Criteria 3.

So, although my first assessment is only a few days old, it is already time to re-crunch the numbers without any of the ambiguity or assumptions required in the previous version.  What follows are the two year averages.  Hold on to your seats…

Criteria 1—Highest Ranked Team in the Conference

Criteria 2—Average Final Regular Season Ranking for All Teams

Criteria 3—Points for Teams Finishing in the BCS Top 25

To be clear, these criteria do not apply to the current AQ conferences.  They are already guaranteed an AQ berth through 2013 by virtue of the 2004-2007 evaluation period (yes, that is six years of AQ for a four year evaluation period).  So, all of this is only interesting to the MWC, WAC, MAC, CUSA and the Sun Belt.  However, in reality, only the MWC and WAC could realistically still qualify, and the WAC would have to surpass the MWC in Criteria 2 to achieve at least a seven, while at the same time maintaining its ranking as fifth in Criteria 1, and then apply for an exemption—very unlikely, but technically possible.

The MWC on the other hand, needs to surpass at least one conference in Criteria 2, while maintaining position in the others in order to achieve guaranteed AQ status.  Should it remain in seventh in Criteria 2, which is likely, it will need to remain at fifth or better in Criteria 1, while it is already essentially assured a sufficient rank in Criteria 3.

It will be very difficult for the MWC to achieve a rank of six or better in Criteria 2.  In order to bump up the average by the requisite 8.5 to pass the sixth rated conference—the Big Ten, each team in the MWC would have to improve their average ranking by double that (17) since we are already halfway into the cycle.  TCU, BYU, and Utah, cannot improve by that much (in fact, some slip can be expected), meaning that the other six schools would have to improve by an additional 8.5 each, or 25.5 total average improvement for the bottom six.   This would be technically possible, but rather unlikely.

Average Final Computer Rank and Future Requirement

So, given the probable seventh place finish in Criteria 2, the MWC will have to apply to the Presidential Oversight Committee for an exemption and make its case.  The closer it is to sixth the better.  And, if it can maintain its top three status in Criteria 1 and Criteria 3, it will be in good shape.

MWC Expansion Impact
As already covered earlier this week (http://www.byucougs.com/2010/04/mid-term-standings-in-mwc-quest-for-aq.html), Boise State is the only school that could improve the conference’s body of work through expansion.  It would bump up Criteria 2 by an average of 5.2 spots and move the conference to number one overall in Criteria 3 (at least at the mid-point).

Criteria 1
Remains the same (3rd) since an MWC school finished ranked higher than Boise in both years.

Criteria 2

Criteria 3

So, adding Boise, while impactful, still isn’t enough to guarantee an AQ berth, but it does strengthen the case significantly, and makes it somewhat more feasible for the bottom six schools to improve a more modest 11.0 in the average rankings, versus 25.5 without Boise, in order to overtake the next closest conference.

Conclusion
You never know what might happen between now and then (I imagine most of us never thought we’d see the day the criteria would be released), but it looks like the MWC, with its current membership, will almost certainly qualify under the exemption rule (and not automatically) and will need to make its case before the Presidential Oversight Committee, at which point, it still might be anyone’s guess what they would do.  However, the strength of the conference’s ranking in 2 out of the 3 criteria, would make it hard to ignore.  And, add Boise, and the MWC screams for admission. 

April 17, 2010

MWC Mid-Term AQ Status Part 2
By Dave Haynie

[Visit www.byucougs.com to leave comments or search archives]

A couple of questions have been brought up in relation to the previous post.  I have answered them in the comments section, but wanted to repost those here as well as show a bit more data.

Q: How much closer would the MWC be to an AQ BCS bid after adding other non AQ teams such as SMU?
A:  Besides Boise State, there are no other teams west of the Mississippi that could meaningfully enhance the overall body of work by the current MWC membership, based on performance over the last two years.  That is not to say that one or more of these teams could have breakout seasons over the next two years, but the MWC couldn’t plan on that, and therefore would not invite them in an effort to enhance the BCS appeal (there could be other reasons for adding them).

There are no other available schools that finished ranked in the final BCS rankings (which impacts two of the criteria), so improving the conference overall average ranking is the only way another school could contribute.  A quick look at the data shows that the only schools even in the running would be Houston, Nevada, and Fresno State as each average in the mid-50s over the last two years, which is basically right around where the current conference average rank already is, thus making each of them essentially only net neutral to the MWC BCS AQ bid, yet requiring a splitting of the revenue by more athletic departments—a difficult proposition.  To provide even a one rank average bump (from 54 to 53 for example), a team would have to be 10 spots better than the average, or a 44 or better.

Two Year Average Final Season Computer Ranking
59.2 MWC current membership
54.0 MWC with Boise State
52.8 Houston
53.3 Nevada
54.8 Fresno State
70.4 Tulsa
71.5 Hawaii
77.3 Rice
92.2 SMU

The only other way to make any improvement (without adding a team from a current AQ conf) is to improve by subtraction, which I am not advocating, but only offering to be comprehensive.  It is San Diego State and New Mexico that have been the biggest anchors on the league over the last two seasons.

7.8 TCU
14.3 Utah
16.8 BYU
49.3 Air Force
80.3 UNLV
80.3 Wyoming
81.6 CSU
100.2 UNM
102.7 SDSU

53.8 MWC without SDSU
54.1 MWC without UNM

Q: Why is there a four year evaluation period for a two year Auto Bid?
A: That is just another one of the ways that the deck is stacked against the non-AQs. The most recent four year evaluation period from 2004-2007 guaranteed six years of auto qualification (2008 through 2013). The current four year evaluation period 2008-2011 only guarantees two years of AQ status. Another evaluation period runs from 2010-2013 leading to AQ status in 2014-2017.

What that means is that the next two years are doubly important since they will be counted twice. Hopefully the MWC (and anyone they may be inviting) will have a good showing these next two years, and it wouldn’t hurt if a couple of current AQ conferences had a down year or two.

April 14, 2010

Mid-Term Grade: MWC Quest for AQ BCS Status
By Dave Haynie

[Visit www.byucougs.com to search archives and leave comments]

Now that spring football is in the books, next week’s NFL draft (see http://www.byucougs.com/2010/03/byu-pro-day-and-nfl-draft-projections.html) and a bit of recruiting news is all there really is for football fans to digest between now and the start of fall camp in August… which is exactly why it is a good time to dig into the numbers and take a closer look at where the Mountain West stands at half time in its quest for an AQ bid.

Criteria
If you are reading this, you are probably already up on your BCS criteria, but just in case, here is the scoop…  The current BCS contract allows for a seventh conference to gain automatic qualifying status for the 2012 and 2013 regular seasons based on a four year performance window in the 2008-2011 regular seasons.  There are three metrics by which conferences will be evaluated:

Scorecard
So with that in mind, we are at the mid-point of the four year cycle, so where does the MWC stand in its effort to gain an automatic BCS bid and the validation that comes with it?  Here is the scorecard (listed in order of television money):

Not surprisingly, the BCS has not divulged exactly how this data will be used (criteria weightings, relative vs. absolute comparisons, qualitative or quantitative, etc.).   And in the case of the second item, it isn’t even necessarily clear what data will be used—will it be the average ranking of the teams in each conference (as I have used), the median ranking, a pyramid weighted ranking (like Sagarin does), etc.?

Standings
Without any further guidance, we will equally weight each of the criteria, as well as score each based on the percent of the total possible (as the BCS does for its weekly rankings).  For the middle score (average final computer rank of each team) we will use the best conference average as the numerator.  Here are the relative scores and season/overall standings:

 

Despite finishing 5th in year one and 6th in year two, the MWC is currently in 7th place overall, just .002 behind the Big East and .007 behind the ACC, although such a small margin means that the three conferences are essentially tied for 5th at the midway point.

It is apparent from this data, and assuming that there are no significant departures from these averages over the next two years, that no conference is going to have its AQ status stripped (a move that would require compellingly inferior data by one of the conferences over multiple years).  It is also clear that only the MWC is in a position to be considered for AQ status, as the others have too much ground to make up in just two years.  If the decision were made today, the MWC would be able to make a strong case for inclusion, but would still have to be considered on the bubble, because as long as it remains in seventh place, a case could be made to leave them out as well (and probably would given the amount of money that is involved).  Should the conference move into a higher slot, say ahead of the Big East or ACC (the two most likely options), it would be much more difficult for the BCS commission to leave them out, and would likely guarantee the MWC and automatic seat at the table.

Going Forward
So what can the conference do over the next two years to strengthen its position?  It is unlikely to be able to make any progress on the first criteria, as it has had a team finish sixth (Utah) and fourth (TCU) in the last two seasons, and that will be hard to top.  It is also unlikely to place more than three teams in the final regular season top 25.  In fact, if the conference is able to match either of these feats again in the next two years, it will be quite an accomplishment.  However, the second criteria—final regular season computer ranking for all of the teams—is the conference’s primary weakness, and one that offers significant potential for improvement.  All of the teams four through nine need to get better, but when it comes down to it, there are really only two ways to improve this score:

Winning non-conference games begins with creating winning programs led by winning coaches (among other things).  The conference has been able to keep its best tenured coaches (Patterson, Mendenhall, and Whittingham), and attract several promising ones (Troy Calhoun, Dave Christensen, Brady Hoke).  The jury is still out on Steve Fairchild, Mike Locksley, and Bobby Hauck.

What about Boise?
Perhaps the biggest question of the summer for MWC fans will be whether or not Boise State is invited to join the conference.  The BCS rules stipulate that the final evaluation will include all teams that play in the conference during the 2011 season.  Boise would need to give a one year notice to leave the WAC.  So, if Boise is going to get the invite, it is going to come this summer.  And, it will only come if  1) the MWC feels that it may not be guaranteed AQ status on the basis of its current membership, and 2) adding Boise would guarantee that status. 

Unfortunately, the MWC will need to make a decision based essentially on the data above, since it will not have the luxury of another season before making the decision.  Given the above data the MWC is in good shape, but it not necessarily a shoo-in; despite incredible success over the previous two years, as the seventh conference they could still be left out when all is said and done.  So how would things look if Boise were added?  It becomes the mythical no-brainer.  Here it is with Boise:

Adding Boise, puts the AQ bid squarely in the cross hairs of the MWC, as it would be nearly impossible to argue that a conference ranking better than four current AQ conferences should be left out.

The MWC is in a tough spot without any clear guidance from the BCS on how exactly the data will be used.  The conference would love to know exactly where the target is before it starts shooting.  Also, with all of the conference realignment talk, the rules of the game may change at half time.  In any case, it seems as if the MWC should be using this quiet period to recommit its wanderlust members (BYU, TCU, Utah) such that they shun the overtures from other conferences, and prepare to invite Boise sometime before mid-August.  Because, unless things blow up (i.e. significant realignment), adding Boise is a guaranteed winning move.  Then again, the rules may change before there is a chance to finish the game.

March 27, 2010

Spring Camp Week 2: QB Battle Update
By Dave Haynie

[Visit www.byucougs.com to search archives and leave comments]

With seven spring practices now in the books, the second week of spring camp ended on Friday.  As mentioned before, it is hard to read too much into stats from practice, but here are the composite stat lines for the three practices this week from the three primary contenders for the starting quarterback spot:

Week 2 Stat Lines
Riley Nelson, Jr (3/7, 18 yds, 0 TDs, 1 int)
James Lark, So (6/8, 54 yds, 0 TDs, 0 int)
Jake Heaps, Fr (14/20, 176 yds, 2 TDs, 0 int)

All reports seem to indicate that each has been given similar opportunities and similar situations while rotating with the 1s, 2s, and 3s.  The discrepancy in attempts is primarily a factor of the QB being able to keep a drive alive, creating more passing opportunities.   Here are the combined stat lines from weeks 1 and 2:

Week 1 & 2 Cumulative Stat Lines
Nelson:  12/22 (55%), 84 yds, 1 TD, 1 int
Lark:  16/26 (62%), 128 yds, 0 TDs, 2 int*
Heaps:  26/39 (67%), 380 yds, 5 TDs, 0 int

*I inadvertently left off one of Lark’s interceptions from last week and have added it here

Without being able to attend practices in person, I will refrain from picking a front runner or commenting on the probability of each of these talented QBs starting in September, but it is hard not to notice the success that Jake Heaps has had through his first two weeks in the program.

Other notes of interest from week 2:

• Offensive lineman Famika Anae went down on Monday with a torn ACL.  He already underwent surgery and will redshirt this year
• WR Marcus Matthews has been moved to tight end, increasing the depth at a position that  might already be most intense competition for minutes
• BYU announced it will be playing Oregon State in a home and home in 2011-12
• Friday was the annual high school coaches clinic with roughly 300 coaches from high school programs across the west

March 20, 2010

Spring Camp Week 1: Quarterback Battle Update
By Dave Haynie

[Visit www.byucougs.com to search archives and leave comments]

In the background of the NCAA tournament this week, BYU kicked off spring camp by holding four practices (Wednesday was off).  It is hard to read too much from practices or personnel at this point, given that there will be a number of players joining the team this fall, and that much depends on which team a given player was playing with and against (first, second, third, etc).   But with that said, all eyes are on the quarterbacks anyway, and their stats—even those from practice are being reported here and there—and are being fully followed by the faithful in an effort to discover who, if any, will be named the primary signal caller going into the summer.  Here are the summarized stat lines from the first week:

Riley Nelson, Jr (9/15, 66 yds, 1 TD, 0 int)
James Lark, So (10/18, 74 yds, 0 TDs, 1 int)
Jake Heaps, Fr (12/19, 204 yds, 3 TDs, 0 int)

Nelson has a year in the system, Lark has two years in the system but is just a few months removed from a mission, and Heaps is only a few months removed from high school (and only 4 days into official BYU practices).  It is early, and to be fair, the stats are not necessarily comparable, but it looks like Heaps is off to a good start and will only get better as he becomes more familiar with the playbook and his teammates.

Other notes:

March 11, 2010

BYU Pro Day and NFL Draft Projections
By Dave Haynie

[Visit www.byucougs.com to search archives and leave comments]

Seven players from BYU’s 2009 team and two from previous teams, worked out in front of 20 NFL scouts on Wednseday as part of BYU’s pro day on campus.  You can read the official BYU press release and check out photos here (http://www.byucougars.com/Filing.jsp?ID=13664).

Dennis Pitta, Manase Tonga, and Max Hall were among 300 or so players invited to work out for scouts at last month’s invite only NFL combine, and took the chance at the Pro Day to build on what they had already accomplished.  Jan Jorgensen, Shawn Doman, Andrew George, and Tevita Hola were the other players from the 2009 team to get a shot at impressing someone enough to get picked up either through the draft or as a free agent.  A couple of semi-surprises from those that didn’t participate—Matt Bauman (who was just named recipient of an NCAA graduate scholarship), Coleby Clausen, Brett Denney, and RJ Willing—although perhaps they have already assessed their chances and decided to move on.

Jonny Harline and Curtis Brown represented the 2006 team at the workout, both of them determined to give it one last best shot before moving on.  Good for them.   Both have been busy of late, as Harline’s rock band membership has been well-publicized and Brown has been working as a pharmaceutical sales rep.

So how did everyone do and what is the current draft forecast?  Let’s look at them in order likely draft status.  There are numerous draft services, but I tried to use a mix of selective and comprehensive (see links at end of article for sources and commentary):

Dennis Pitta
Pitta had a fantastic combine performance already and so he used the Pro day to show off his skills blocking and catching.  At the combine he ran a 4.63 in the 40 (third among TE’s), did 27 reps of 225 lbs (second), 6.72 seconds in the 3 cone drill (first), 4.17 seconds in the 20 yd shuttle (first), and 11.53 seconds in the 60 yard shuttle (first), 9.5’ broad jump (tied for fifth), and 34” vertical jump (tied for seventh).   Here is where various services project him:
ESPN:  position rank 6, overall 80 (mid third round)
Scouts, Inc : grade 77
Walterfootball.com:  position rank 7, draft round 3-4
NFLdraftscout.com:  position rank 4, overall 76, draft round 2-3

Max Hall
Hall had a rather so-so combine performance and was looking to improve his 40 time in particular.  He clocked 4.84 at the combine, but turned in a 4.72 at BYU’s pro day (same as Tim Tebow), a significant improvement.  His other combine scores:  32” vertical jump (seventh among QB’s), 7.07 seconds on the 3 cone drill (tied for sixth), 4.35 seconds on the 20 yard shuttle (sixth) and did not rank in the other drills.  He demonstrated his accuracy today as he showed the scouts that he can make all the throws, and is trying to overcome his size (at 6’1”, 209 he is smaller than most NFL teams would like) and get a shot at an NFL roster.  Max is likely to be a late rounder or a free agent pick up.
ESPN: position rank 19, overall n/a
Scouts Inc:  grade 30
Walterfootball.com: position rank 15, draft round 6-7
NFLdraftscout.com: position rank 15, overall 277, draft round 7-FA

Manase Tonga
Not many NFL teams use a true fullback anymore (or colleges for that matter), but with that in mind, Tonga has elite skills at a position that is not necessarily in high demand, although teams that use a fullback are paying close attention.  At the combine, Tonga’s performance with thrown in with all of the running backs, so only his bench of 19 reps at 225 (tied for eighth) ranked among the top scores, but he also turned in a 4.85 second 40.  He tried to improve on those measurements again at Pro Day, but he has not yet talked about his performance.
ESPN: position rank 3, overall n/a
Scouts Inc: grade 41
Walterfootball.com: position rank 3, draft round 6-7
NFLdraftscout.com:  position rank 7, overall 300, draft round 7-FA

Jan Jorgensen
Jorgensen had really only one shot to impress the scouts and wasn’t satisfied with his performance.  He ran a 4.9 second 40 and put up 29 reps on of 225.  He is hoping to get a shot at a roster via free agency, where his football skills will come through.
ESPN: position rank 33, overall n/a
Scouts Inc: 30
Walterfootball.com: not ranked
NFLdraftscout.com:  position rank 34, overall 409

Andrew George
George played in the shadow of Pitta for most of his time at BYU, and also used pro day as his only shot to show scouts what he can do.  He ran a 4.7 second 40, and spent time showing off his hands on the other end of Hall’s arm.  He is likely hoping for a shot via free agency.
ESPN: not rated
Scouts Inc: not rated
Walterfootball.com: not rated
NFLdraftscout.com:  position rank 31, overall 590

Shawn Doman
Doman had a solid career at BYU and no doubt used the pro day to put his best foot forward on a childhood dream of playing in the NFL.  He is a long shot at free agency.
ESPN: not rated
Scouts Inc: not rated
Walterfootball.com: not rated
NFLdraftscout.com:  position rank 182, overall 999

Tevita Hola
Tevita is in a similar situation as Shawn Doman and his NFL dreams will hinge on a long shot at free agency.
ESPN: not rated
Scouts Inc: not rated
Walterfootball.com: not rated
NFLdraftscout.com:  not rated

A few other BYU seniors have shown up on scout boards, despite not working out, and although are unlikely to get picked up, could get a shot via free agency.

Coleby Clausen
ESPN: position rank 38, overall n/a
Scouts Inc: grade 30

Brett Denney
NFLdraftscout.com:  position rank 55, overall 618

Matt Bauman
NFLdraftscout.com:  position rank 35, overall 999

Terrence Hooks
NFLdraftscout.com:  position rank 156, overall 999

So, with the NFL draft coming up on April 22-24, it looks like Pitta is a lock to get drafted.  Hall and Tonga are hopeful on the draft and locks on free agency.  Jorgensen and George have the best possibilities on free agency. 

Sources:
1.ESPN-- http://insider.espn.go.com/nfldraft/draft/tracker/school?name=b&draftyear=2010&action=upsell&appRedirect=
2. Official NFL Scouting Combine-- http://www.nfl.com/combine/top-performers#tp-tab-set-1:tp-grid-container-forty-yard-dash
3. CBS/NFLdraftscout.com-- http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/prospectsearch?name=rj
4. Walterfootball.com-- http://walterfootball.com/draft2010QB.php

February 19, 2010

A Look at College Football TV Window Availability
By Dave Haynie

[Visit www.byucougs.com to search archives or leave comments]

If conference realignment actually happens in the next 12 months, it will be purely to increase revenue to the participating schools, and more specifically, revenue from TV contracts (see Comparison of Conference TV Contracts).   The Pac 10 in particular is about to renegotiate its TV contract, and if expansion allows the conference to make the pie bigger for everyone, then it will likely expand.

We already looked at how much money new schools would need to generate to be considered viable (see Numbers Behind Pac-10 Expansion) from a financial perspective.   The other question that must be considered is whether or not the broadcast windows or TV slots are available for the Pac 10 to gain a more favorable distribution package when its current contract expires after the 2010-11 basketball season.   With recent contracts by the Big 10 and SEC locking in long term deals with ESPN for prime time spots, there isn’t much remaining. 

Time Slot Arithmetic
There are a limited number of “windows” or time slots when games can be shown.  In a best case scenario, a dedicated station (like ESPN) would have a maximum of 4 slots on a Saturday (Eastern times: 12 noon, 3:30pm, 7:00pm, and 10:30pm for Pacific starts only) and up to one slot on the other nights of the week.  With 13 in a season (or up to 15, depending when you star t and end), the three ESPN channels (ESPN, ESPN2, and ESPNU) each have roughly 13*3=42 ideal Saturday slots, and an additional 13 late slots, for a total of 126 ideal slots and up to 39 late games (although this competes with Sports Center and is too late for most of the country).  All of the ideal slots (noon to 7:00pm) are claimed, although only a handful of late games are played (3-5), nearly all by the Pac 10. 

The other six national sports channels airing college football games (ABC, NBC, CBS, FSN, CBS College Sports, and Versus) have a similar number of slots.  Of those, only FSN uses the late slot, showing about 5 late Pac 10 games per year.  ABC and CBS CS have filled all of the first three slots, while NBC only airs 8 Notre Dame games in the afternoon and CBS only airs 14 SEC games also in the afternoon.  FSN and Versus each only have about 20 of the potentially 39 ideal slots filled with football games.

Saturday  Slate  (12 noon, 3:30, 7:00)—About 39 Available Slots
ESPN:  39 (13 Big 10, 13 SEC, 7 B10, 5 SEC, 1 Pac 10)
ESPN 2: 42 (12 Big 10, 12 ACC, 2 CUSA, and 15 mirror games*--11 Big 10, 3 Big 12, 2 Big East)
ESPNU:  41 (13 SEC, 13 ACC, 6 Big East, 6 WAC, 2 MAC, 1 Sun Belt)
ABC:  66 games (16 Big 12, 15 Pac 10, 15 Big Ten, 14 ACC, and 6 Big East), many of which are only shown regionally.
CBS CS:  33-40 (13-15 CUSA, 11-16 MWC, 6 Navy, 3 Army)
FSN: 20 (13 Big 12, 7 Pac 10)
Versus: 18 (8 MWC, 5 Big 12, 5 Pac 10)
CBS: 15 (14 SEC, 1 Army vs Navy)
NBC:  8 (Notre Dame)
ESPN Classic: 2-3 (Option to pick up Big 10 and SEC if necessary)

Saturday Night Slots (10:30pm Eastern)—About 13 Available
ESPN:  3 (Pac 10)
FSN:  5 (Pac 10)

Other nights (ESPN/2)—About 13 Available
Fri:  15 (6 Big East, 6 WAC, 1 CUSA, 1 MAC, 1 Army)
Thur:  13 (4 Big East, 4 ACC, 2 SEC, 1 Pac 10, 1 CUSA, 1 WAC)
[Versus and CBS CS also show 2-3 Thur games each season]
Wed:  5 (2 CUSA, 2 MAC, 1 WAC)
Tue:  6 (3 MAC, 2 Sun Belt, 1 CUSA)
Monday:  none, except on Labor Day
Sun: 6 (3 CUSA, 2 Big East, 1 WAC)

There are a couple of key insights from this:

Expiring Contracts
Another option is to try to take some of the market share that another conference currently holds.  But, given when contracts expire, that is really only possible for slots held by Conference USA and/or the ACC, since those are the only contracts that will come up before the Pac 10 deal does at the end of the 2010-11 season.  Here is the rundown:

TV Contract Expiration (last season)
CUSA      2010 (football)
ACC        2010-11 (basketball)
Pac 10    2010-11 (basketball)
Big East 2012-13 (basketball)
ND          2015 (football)
Big Ten   2015-16 (basketball)
Big 12     2015-16 (basketball)
MWC       2016-17 (basketball)
WAC       2016-17 (basketball)
SEC        2023-24 (basketball)

Conclusion: Available Options
In order for the Pac 10 to get better distribution and/or money, there are really only a couple of options:

February 11, 2010

Numbers Behind PAC-10 Expansion:

What It Means to the MWC and Big 12
By Dave Haynie

[Visit www.byucougs.com to search archives or leave comments]

With the PAC 10’s confirmation earlier this week that it is exploring expansion possibilities, conference expansion rumors have been buzzing.  Nearly every scenario eventually drags the Mountain West into it, either directly or indirectly, so it makes sense to take a closer look at what will drive the PAC-10 and whether expansion would involve members of the MWC.

As discussed previously (see www.byucougs.com/2009/10/updated-comparison-of-conference-tv.html) conference revenue, and specifically TV revenue, is the primary driver.  With the SEC and Big Ten throwing down the gauntlet, other conferences are forced to scramble to keep up or risk getting left looking from the outside in.

The PAC-10 is likely dealing with a number of motivations right now—primarily a new (and more lucrative) television contract, but also increased relevancy on the national stage, an increased ability to gain a second BCS bid, and access to additional rich recruiting fields. 

Increased relevancy and opportunity at a second BCS bid would both be helped by going to 12 schools.  In two divisions, the schools would no longer have to play all 9 other schools, thus eliminating a number of guaranteed losses and improving the odds that more than one school is highly ranked.  When all schools play each other, the conference guarantees at least six losses in conference to its top four teams, while the SEC and Big 12 routinely have two highly ranked, and even undefeated teams at the end of the season squaring off against each other.  Easy to do when the teams in the conference don’t all play each other, and even better when the media gives a pass on the issue.

So, even without considering TV revenue, the conference would have to at least look at what it would take (and what it would cost) to get to 12, which is the minimum required in order to host a conference championship game.

But there is the revenue issue.   It is unlikely that the conference will expand unless it at least maintains the current levels of revenue for each school.  So that means that any new additions will have to add at least the current average revenue per team to the conference coffers.  So here is a look at how much additional revenue a new conference member would have to generate:

 Relevant Annual Conference Revenue
Current TV Contract                                   $53.2M
BCS Payouts (3 yr ave)                              $18.2M
Other Bowl Games (excess of $750K)           $5.1M
NCAA Basketball Credits Payout                  $13.4M
FB Conference Championship Game                $0M
Total                                             $89.9M
Average per Team                         $9.0M
Each new team added to the conference would have to at least contribute $9.0M to the conference coffers.  There will be no expansion unless it gets the conference to 12 teams, so at a minimum there needs to be $18M of new revenue collectively created by the new teams.  Here’s where it might come from:

Potential for Increased Revenue after Expansion
Improved footprint of TV contract            ?
1. Better shot at second BCS bid                 $1.5M           
2. Additional non-BCS bowl revenue            $0.5M
3. Additional NCAA bball bids                        $0.6M
4. Create a FB Championship game            $8-10M
Total                                             $10.3-12.3M
Remaining Gap ($18M min)           $5.7-7.7M

1.  Should the conference get a second BCS bid once every three years, they would net an additional $4.5M for an average of $1.5M per year
2.  If the conference were able to add one additional bowl game with a payout of at least $1.25M, after assumed expenses of $750K, the conference would have an additional $500K to split each year
3.  The Pac-10 currently has 65 credits accumulated over the rolling 6 year period.  In order to maintain status quo the conference would have to earn an additional 2 credits per year (one for each game appearance in the tourney).  This is unlikely, however, if the conference were able to get one additional credit every other year (more than they already would anyway), they would accumulate three additional credits over the six year span meaning that pay out at roughly $200K each, for $600K total.
4. A football championship game would generate revenue from ticket sales and TV rights.  The SEC game earns that league roughly $12-14M per year.  The Big 12 is just below that.  The ACC hasn’t done as well, but with USC playing in most years, it would likely come in just below the current Big 12 and make $8-10M (70K seats at $50 each = $3.5M + $4.5-6.5M for TV rights and sponsorships).

So the million dollar question:  Are there two teams out there that could collectively add roughly $6-8M to the soon to be negotiated Pac-10 TV contract?  The new TV deal will almost certainly be more than the current deal regardless of expansion, so any new teams need to be incremental to the already expected increases (which would increase the amount needed to break even, so we will compare with the current deal).

To consider this, we will assume that TV contract values are based on the number of households, and that all households are created equal (although viewer intensity is obviously higher in some markets).

Current Pac-10 Market Households
2. Los Angeles             5.6M   4.9%
6. Bay Area            2.5M   2.2%                       
13. Seattle            1.8M   1.6%
22. Portland            1.2M   1.0%
12. Phoenix            1.9M   1.6%
66. Tuscon            0.5M   0.4%
119. Eugene            0.2M   0.2%
Total                  13.8M  12.0%

So with 13.8M households, and 12.0% of the US, the Pac-10 has a current contract of $53M per year.   So for two teams to add an additional $6-8M to that total, together they would need to add roughly 10-15% more households to the footprint (about 1.5-2M), or 750K-1.0M each, just to break even.  In order to increase the payout to the conference, it would have to be more.

These are the schools in markets west of the Mississippi that could meet that requirement:

School (Market Rank, City, Households)
Texas (5. Dallas, 2.5M; 37. San Antonio, 0.8M; 48. Austin, 0.7M)
Oklahoma (5. Dallas, 2.5M (some portion); 45. Oklahoma City, 0.7M)
Texas A&M (portions of Dallas and Houston)
TCU (5. Dallas, 2.5M)
SMU (5. Dallas, 2.5M)
Houston (10. Houston, 2.1M)
Missouri (21. St Louis, 1.2M; 32. Kansas City 0.9)
Colorado (16. Denver, 1.5M)
San Diego State (28. San Diego, 1.1M)
BYU (31. Salt Lake, 0.9M; US West/LDS, 1.0M)
Utah (31. Salt Lake, 0.9M)
           
Las Vegas (42, 720K), Albuquerque (44, 694K), Fresno (55, 579K), Honolulu (71, 433K), Omaha/Lincoln (76, 410K), Waco (89, 340K), Colorado Springs (92, 335K), El Paso (98, 311), Reno (108, 270K), Boise (112, 263K), Topeka (136, 180K), are Lubbock (143, 158K) are all markets too small to increase the value of the TV contract sufficiently.

The San Diego market is likely already covered by the inclusion of USC and UCLA.  TCU and SMU are small private schools that have become victims of markets with too much noise for the size of their alumni base, and are not the primary driver of sports in those markets.   Houston, although a large school with 37K students, suffers to a lesser degree from the same plight as the Metroplex schools—too much noise from pro sports and living in the shadow of Texas/Texas A&M.   Missouri is focused on the Big Ten right now, and seem an unlikely candidate.

From this perspective BYU and Utah could not both be added, since together they do not bring any additional households.  It would be one or the other or neither.

The only remaining options are Texas, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Colorado, and BYU or Utah.  The Dallas market is sufficiently large, that despite the overlap, any combination of the above would also work, except for BYU and Utah.  Any discussion mentioning other schools is unrealistic, purely from a TV perspective before even getting to any other factors.

Would any of the Big 12 teams leave?  Perhaps, if the money was right.   The Big 12 includes a rather limited footprint, and a number of very small markets (see above).  Outside of Texas, Missouri, and Denver, there isn’t  much, and without  the state of Texas in particular, the conference would fall apart financially.  With that in mind, the upside of the Big 12, unless membership changes are made, is very limited.  But still, for a team to leave behind its rivalries and tradition, it would have to make significantly more revenue than it does now—for our purposes, we will say 35% more.  Colorado fewer rivalries and traditions with the Texas schools, and thus likely has a lower bar, maybe 25%.  Here is an estimate of what these schools will receive this year from Big 12 revenue sources (using last year’s allocation % against this year’s projected $136.2M):

Current Big 12 Revenue (Departure Hurdle Value)
Texas $13.6M (would need $18.4M)
Oklahoma $13.0M (would need $17.6M)
Texas A&M $11.0M (would need 14.9M)
Colorado $10.7M (would need $13.4M)

The Pac-10 currently only brings in$90M or about $9.0M per team.  Non-TV expansion benefits would add about $12M or $1.0M per team.  A new TV contract without the additional schools could possible bump up another $2M or so per school before the expansion consideration (assume $75M per year for 10 teams).   That would put total revenue at $122, or $10M for each school before considering TV market increases.   Enough for BYU or Utah.  Not yet tempting for Colorado, and with a ways to go for the Texas schools.  So it all comes down to the potential to increase TV value.

Increased TV Value
Texas adds about 4.0M households (29% increase of $21.8M)
Oklahoma adds 3.2M (23% increase of $17.4M alone, or 5% for $3.8M with Texas)
Texas A&M maybe 2.5M (18% increase of $13.6M, alone and 3% or $2.2M with Texas)
Colorado 1.5M (11% increase of $8.2M)
BYU would add 1.9M (14% for $10.4M)
Utah would add 0.9M (7% or $4.9M alone, $0 with BYU)

So which combinations work?
Utah and Colorado: 2.4M new HH (18%), $13.1M new TV dollars, $135M total and $11.3M/team
-This works for Utah, but Colorado would be unlikely (unless there were intangible reasons).

BYU and Colorado: 3.4M new HH (25%), $18.6M new TV dollars, $140.6M total and $11.7M/team
-Again, this works for BYU, but would be unlikely for Colorado.

Colorado and Texas: 5.5M new HH (40%), $30M new TV dollars, $152M total and $12.7M/team
-Likely works for Colorado (as Big 12 w/o Texas is much less), won’t work for Texas

Texas and Oklahoma: 4.7M new HH (34%), $25.6M new TV dollars, $147.6M total and $12.3M/team
-Would be unlikely to work for Texas or Oklahoma (unless there was a massive uneven revenue split)

Colorado and Texas A&M: 4.0M new HH (29%), $21.8M new TV dollars, $143.8M total and $12.0M/tm
-Could work for both Colorado and Texas A&M (more than they get now) but unlikely to be worth the effort unless there was unequal sharing in their favor or significant intangible reasons to do it, since it does not meet the hurdle.

BYU and Texas A&M:  4.4M new HH (32%), $24M new TV dollars, $146M total and $12.2M/team
-Works for BYU, is more than TAMU gets now, but as in the scenario above, unless A&M is unhappy in the current situation, this will likely not meet the hurdle rate for them.

BYU and Utah: 1.9M new HH (14%), $10.4M new TV dollars, $132.4M total and $11.0M/team
-Both BYU and Utah would do this.  And, which surprisingly, at the end of the day, might be what it comes down to… which teams would be both qualified and willing.  It would not be much of a revenue bump for the conference, but it would be revenue neutral and achieve the relevance and BCS goals.

Conclusions

January 27, 2010

BYU’s “One-and-Done” Game History
By Dave Haynie

[Visit www.byucougs.com to search archives and leave comments…]

With this week’s announcement that BYU will play at Texas on Sept 10, 2011, it is worth taking a closer look at BYU’s history with similar games.  Since LaVell Edwards took over the program in 1972, BYU has played 24 “one-and-done” games, where there is no follow-up game with the opponent and compiled an incredible 19-5 record.  Of those games, 10 have been with schools from current BCS AQ conferences (6-4 record), 6 with other FBS schools (5-1 record), and 8 with FCS schools (8-0).  Here is the full list:

 

BCS Opponents
Of the 10 games played against current BCS opponents in the last 38 years, here are a couple of interesting notes…

Afer the string of one and done road games in the early 80’s, a newly expanded stadium, and some national success, it seems that BYU was able to schedule home and away games with BCS caliber programs without too much difficulty for the next 25 years.  It has only been the last 1-2 years that BCS schools are no longer as willing to do so.  This could be seen either as the new reality of the BCS—you get what you measure, which is apparently wins, regardless of the opponent—or seen a sign that BYU is no longer respected the way they were for much of the last three decades and its stadium is no longer a sufficient draw/payout for opposing teams.  Reality is probably somewhere in between.

FBS (Div I)

It is unlikely that any non AQ FBS teams will show up as one and done games on BYU’s schedule in the near future, as those teams are also feeling pressure to get wins and finding difficulty in filling home games. 

FCS (Div I-AA)

It is likely that fans will see a continued increase in the number of these games scheduled in future seasons as the team finds it harder and harder to schedule games with comparable programs and needs to fill home slots for revenue generation.  Plausibly, there will be no more than one per year, and hopefully (from the fan’s perspective) not in consecutive years.

January 18, 2010

Key Offseason Dates to Remember
By Dave Haynie

[Visit www.byucougs.com to search archives and leave comments…]

Here are a few key dates for football fans to keep in mind as the offseason gets into full swing…

January 23 – East West Shrine Game (Orlando, FL)
Max Hall, Dennis Pitta, and Jan Jorgensen will play in the 85th East West Shrine game that kicks off at 3pm EST and will be televised on ESPN2.

Feb 3 - Signing Day
The Class of 2010 will finally fax in their forms in the morning, allowing coaches to finally comment on them.  Watch for BYU to hold a press conference touting this top 20 recruiting class in the stadium Cougar Room sometime late morning or early afternoon.

Feb 24-Mar 2 – NFL Scouting Combine
Max Hall, Dennis Pitta, and Manase Tonga have been invited to participate in this year’s event.

Early March – BYU Pro Day
NFL scouts will descend on campus for one day for the departing seniors to show off their skills in advance of the draft.  Hall, Pitta and Tonga, will have the option to try to better any of their scores from the combine, while other seniors such as Andrew George, RJ Willing, Colby Clausen, Matt Bauman, Scott Johnson, Brett Denney, and Sam Doman will be given their one and only shot to impress the observers and try to land a free agent spot.  [If you know when this is being held, please share, and I’ll update the list…]

March 15 - Spring Practice Begins
This is the much anticipated debut of several members of the Class of 2010 that have already enrolled in school to ensure participation in spring ball, including Jake Heaps (QB), Ross Apo (WR), Kyle Van Noy (LB), and Josh Quezada (RB).  This will also be the first appearances of return missionary freshmen Devin Mahina (TE), Famika Anae (OL), and Marcus Matthews (WR).   The story of spring ball will be the battle for starting quarterback with Riley Nelson (Jr) returning, James Lark (Fr), and Heaps all vying for the spot. 

April 10 - Blue and White Spring Game
After not playing last year due to stadium field upgrades (although that is debatable given how the field performed this year), the game is back on the schedule, and likely to be appreciated more than in the past.  Significant interest will also be generated by the QB lineup.

April 22 - NFL Draft
For the first time ever, the NFL draft will begin by holding the first round in prime time on a Thursday night.  Selections will commence at 7:30pm ET.  The second and third rounds will be held on Friday, April 23 beginning at 6:30pm ET.   Rounds 4-7 will be on Saturday April 24 beginning at 10am ET.   Of the BYU players that have entered the draft, only Pitta has a realistic shot at Friday, with most of the other players hoping to hear their names called in late rounds on Saturday.  Watch for a number of free agent contracts to be signed by the undrafted.

Early August – Fall Practice Begins
I have been unable to track down the exact date for this.  If you have it, please pass it along to the rest of us. This will be the first official gathering of the remainder of the class of 2010 (non-early enrollees) and the other return missionaries with the returning players from the 2009 team.  With numerous high profile and talented newcomers, a number of key position openings, and a wealth of returning talent, this should be an exciting fall camp.

September – Season Begins (non-conf games)
September 4 – Washington (home)
September 18 – Florida State (road)
September 25 – Nevada (home)
October  1 – Utah State (road)

January 8, 2010

BYU’s Last Seven Freshman All-Americans
By Dave Haynie

[Visit www.byucougs.com to search the archives or leave comments]

Braden Hansen, the freshman who started every game at left guard for the Cougars this past season, was selected as a Freshman All-American by the Football Writers Association.  This is the seventh year in a row that BYU has had a Freshman All-American named, dating back to 2003.  Here is the press release from BYU:

PROVO, Utah (Jan. 7, 2009) – BYU freshman offensive lineman Braden Hansen was named a Freshman All-America Thursday by the Football Writers Association of America.

A Sandy, Utah, native, Hansen started every game at left guard as one of four new starters on BYU’s offensive line in 2009. The 6-foot-6, 300-pound redshirt freshman was a key contributor in helping BYU achieve an 11-2 record, including a 3-1 mark against nationally ranked opponents.

Hansen and Wyoming safety Shamiel Gary represent the Mountain West Conference on the 28-man team. The FWAA and Aon Insurance announced their ninth annual Freshman All-America Team Thursday during the association's annual awards breakfast. CLICK to view the entire 2009 FWAA Freshman All-America Team.

BYU has had a newcomer earn Freshman All-America accolades each of the past seven seasons. Hansen joins a list of consecutive honorees that include offensive lineman Matt Reynolds (2008), running back Harvey Unga (2007), defensive end Jan Jorgensen (2006), offensive lineman Dallas Reynolds (2005), wide receiver Austin Collie (2004) and tight end Daniel Coats (2003).

That is an impressive seven year run.  I thought it would be interesting to take a closer look at each of these players—how highly recruited they were, how productive they were in their sophomore, junior, and senior seasons, and if they have had any success in the NFL.

Daniel Coates (2003)
Recruiting:  Class of 2002, 3 stars on Scout, ranked #42 WR, offers to Colorado and NC State
BYU:  Always a solid blocker, though receiving stats never surpassed 2003
2003—30/378, 4TD
2004—13/160, 0TD
2005—21/189, 3TD
2006—22/239, 2TD
NFL:  Free agent pick up, with Cincinnati Bengals, 3rd year in NFL, started 11 games, 16/150 yds

Austin Collie (2004)
Recruiting:  Class of 2004, 3 stars on Scout, ranked #48 WR, offers to Stanford, Arizona State, Wash State
BYU:  Increasingly productive at BYU, left after junior year as all-time leading receiver in yards (3,258) and receptions (215)
2004—53/771, 8 TD
2007—56/946, 7TD
2008—106/1538, 15 TD; Led NCAA in yards
NFL:  4th round draft pick of Indianapolis Colts, 60/676 yds,  7 TD; led all rookies in catches and TDs

Dallas Reynolds (2005)
Recruiting: Class of 2003, 3 stars on Scout, ranked #78 OL, offers to Colorado, Tennessee, Stanford
BYU:  Started all 51 games while at BYU, first Team MWC
NFL:  Free agent with the Philadelphia Eagles in 2009, practice squad for most of year

Jan Jorgensen (2006)
Recruiting:  Class of 2005, 1 star on Scout (unrated), not ranked LB
BYU:  Started 51 consecutive games, 30 sacks in BYU career, career MWC leader, 3 time first team MWC, most productive sophomore season (14 sacks)
NFL:  Will enter 2010 draft, projected as a free agent

Harvey Unga (2007)
Recruiting:  Class of 2005, 2 stars on Scout, not ranked RB, offer from Utah
BYU:  Started all three years and had 1,000+ yards each season; only a junior and already BYU career leader in rushing yards, third in all-purpose yards; 2009 first team MWC
2007—244/1,227 rushing 13 TD, 44/655 receiving 4 TD
2008—240/1,153 rushing 11 TD, 42/309 receiving 4 TD
2009—208/1,087 rushing 11 TD, 16/121 receiving 1 TD
NFL:  Deciding whether to enter 2010 draft, projection uncertain

Matt Reynolds (2008)
Recruiting: Class of 2005, 4 stars on Scout, #8 ranked OL, offers from UCLA, Cal, Arizona, Arizona State
BYU:  first team MWC sophomore season (2009)
NFL:   Likely to participate in 2012 draft (or sooner), highly projected

Braden Hansen (2009)
Recruiting:  Class of 2006, 2 stars on Scout, not ranked OL, offer from Stanford
BYU: TBD
NFL: TBD

A few interesting observations:

1. Overall a great group of players—we were lucky to have four of them together on the team this season.  We actually had five of them last season (2008).
2. BYU owes a debt of large proportions to Mrs. Reynolds, showing tangibly that Bronco’s decision to retain Lance Reynolds on his staff has paid off multiple times over.
3. None of these players were true freshmen.  Even those that didn’t go on missions (Coats, Jorgensen, Unga) still waited at least a year or two before starting as a redshirt freshman.  Makes you wonder who on this year’s practice squad might be next year’s FAA.
4. All of them went on to have very productive four year (or three for Collie and possibly Unga) careers for the Cougars.  They have also proven very durable with none of them ever missing any significant amount of time due to injury.
5. The first three, and only three to already have had a shot at the NFL, have made it with Collie and Coats as solid contributors this season.
6. There is one from every class 2002-2006.  Three of them (Jorgensen, Unga, Matt Reynolds) come from the class of 2005.  Hansen, this year’s winner is from the class of 2006.  This again shows the lag that BYU experiences in recruiting (see article on the topic here: http://www.byucougs.com/2009/12/recruiting-lag-look-at-contributions-by.html), as other schools are already graduating players from the class of 2006.
7. Interesting that three of them are on the offensive line, given that BYU doesn’t usually like to start freshmen there, allowing them time to learn the system.  But then again, that also means that for a freshman to start on the line, they must be very good.

In 2009, besides Hansen and Riley Stephenson (punter), I can’t think of any other freshmen that started, and only Brett Thompson, Craig Bills, and a couple of backup O linemen seemed to get any meaningful reps.

Given the consistency of the past seven years, the class of 2007, 2008, and 2009 likely still hold players who will be named FAA.  Next year, with a number of key openings and many talented newcomers, could be a year that offers more opportunities for freshman than in several years.  Among those most likely to get playing time and make themselves candidates for FAA status are whoever starts as QB (Heaps or Lark) if it isn’t Nelson, an RB if Harvey leaves for the NFL (either Malosi Teo or Josh Quezada), a TE (Devin Mahina, Austin Holt, or Mike Muehlmann), Apo or Marcus Matthews  at the WR spot (both will likely be in the rotation),  a LB (Kyle Van Noy and Zac Stout will both have shots to play given that there will be three openings), and on the DL with all three slots open (Bronson Kaufusi and Kona Schwenke would be the leading candidates, although I am unaware of their mission plans).   There may be more freshmen playing next year than in a long time.  BYU will need these players to step up next season, so here is my toast to the freshmen of 2010… may one of you be the next FAA!

January 7, 2010

Best Finishes in BYU Football History
By Dave Haynie

[Visit www.byucougs.com to search the archives or leave comments]

With the season’s final game being played on Thursday and the rankings coming out shortly thereafter, it makes sense to take a quick look at how BYU has fared in the past and how this season stacks up against the all-time best. 

BYU has finished the season ranked 16 times, this will be the 17th.  If the Cougs finish #12 or better as expected, it will be the best finish since 1996 and the fourth best finish of all time.  Here is how the 10 best finishes stack up:

Best 10 Finishes in BYU Football History (thru 2008)

Going into the bowl game against #16 Oregon State, the Cougars were ranked #15 in the AP, which by itself would rank as the eighth best finish of all-time.  But with the big win over a ranked opponent, the statement made by several of the other MWC teams (TCU aside), and the losses by teams just above them (Miami #14, LSU #13, Georgia Tech #9, Oregon #7) that should drop several spots,  BYU should move up 3-4 spots.  Look for them to finish find themselves #11 or #12 when the polls come out.  Anything more would be a nice surprise, anything less would be a slight.

December 29, 2009

A Rebuttal of Vegas Bowl Excuses
By Dave Haynie

[Visit www.byucougs.com to search the archives or leave comments]

I have nothing but nice things to say about Oregon State—the university, the athletic department, the players and the fans.  But, this is not the place where I am going to say them.  Rather, this is a rebuttal to all of the OSU and PAC-10 apologists out there making excuses for why OSU lost the Vegas Bowl to BYU.  I understand that many of the people making these excuses are not exclusively or even primarily the OSU fans themselves, so I address this to the apologists collectively.

These are the primary excuses that I have heard from TV talking heads, sports writers, bloggers, and just plain old fans leaving comments wherever they can.:

• The wind determined the outcome of the game.  Are you kidding?   The wind was clearly a factor in the game that both teams had to deal with, but…

A) Each team played 2 quarters into the wind.  BYU won the coin toss and elected to receive, so OSU selected which end of the field they wanted—if the quarters that they had to drive into the wind (2nd and 3rd) were to their disadvantage in any way, it was also their choice.  However, in exact contrast the disadvantage would seem to be going into the wind in the first (getting a quick start) and fourth quarters (in case of needing a field goal or late score).
B) In addition, a team with a strong running game (a la Oregon State) would seemingly have the advantage in 40mph winds, as the ESPN announcers opined early in the contest.  
C) And, as far as kicking goes (per ESPN’s continuous replay of the 6 yard OSU punts), BYU punted 3 times into the wind and kicked off 4 times into the wind, while OSU only punted 2 times into the wind and never kicked off into the wind—the result is that OSU had great field position off of each of those kicks, seemingly winning the straight-up field position battle (turnovers not included).
On the surface, wind would seem to be a neutral factor, but if the apologists want to push the issue, then it appears that if anything, the wind factor was, if not neutral, then an advantage to the Beavers.

• OSU was not motivated to play.   Granted, there is disappointment in losing to your rival in the last game of the season.   But this excuse deserves another multi-shot take down.
• The coaches and players themselves have discredited this by saying both before and after the game that they were ready for this and there would not be a motivational letdown.
• OSU started out strong and on fire getting big stops on both of BYU’s first two possessions and scoring a quick touchdown on offense.   Motivation was clearly not a factor in the first 10 minutes of the game.  So, what, did they become unmotivated after a couple of possessions and change their minds?
• BYU was playing in the Vegas Bowl for the fifth time in a row.  The Cougars also met with disappointment this season at more than one point and were looking forward to playing in a BCS game and ended up in the same location again.   The Cougars should be clearly tired of the same old song and dance and yet were able to overcome that just fine.
• BYU was ranked in the top 15, and higher than Oregon State in every poll.  Any team that claims to not be motivated to play and try to beat a top 15, higher ranked team—for the glory, perception enhancement,  program advancement, bragging rights, recruiting advantages, ranking ramifications, etc. that come with beating a highly ranked team—is either trying to create a distraction, or there are deeper issues within the program.
• BYU is older and more mature and its players were men against boys on the field and much less distracted off the field (among the temptations and vices of Vegas).   This excuse is getting old.
• The actual age advantage that BYU has on average is about 1.1 years—19.7 years old for the national average vs. 20.8 years old for BYU.  (See http://www.byucougs.com/2009/09/numbers-inside-missionary-advantage.html )Yes, all other things being equal an additional year of age is an advantage.  But all other things are not equal.   OSU has four returned LDS missionaries in their team, yet none of them start.  If it was such an advantage, why don’t they start?  There are another 4-5 LDS players on their team that have not served missions for whatever reason.  If it were a significant advantage, why aren’t the coaches pushing those players to leave for two years?
• Due to the same religions and cultural influences that cause Cougar players to leave on missions, the BYU football team did not practice on Sunday, in what is usually a key two-day-prior to the game practice.  Did anyone ever make that out as an excuse for the Cougs? No.
• Many of the players are married.  You could argue that they were more distracted having wife and (in some cases) kids along on the road trip and staying in the team hotel for the first time of the year.
• Any “distractions” that the OSU players may have felt (this argument coming from fans/apologists, not from the players or coaches themselves), could have been mitigated by personal discipline and team rules.   Any “distractions” would have been there for the BYU players as well.
• OSU played their worst game of the year.  Maybe they did.  I haven’t seen many of their other games.   But in any case, you have to believe that the team on the other side of the line of scrimmage had something to do with that.  Especially when you see that BYU was able to contain the running game (harder to just have a “bad game”), run down Beavers from behind (nothing to do with a bad game), and break up pass after pass (OSU receivers would have made those catches if the defense weren’t there).
• BYU played “dirty”.  I can only think of two plays that would lead to this conclusion (maybe there are others?).  One was when Harvey Unga slapped the helmet of the defender the continued to engage him after crossing the goal line and scoring a touchdown.   I agree that he should not have done this and wish that he hadn’t, but it wasn’t much of a slap and I probably would hesitate to call it dirty.  In any case, I challenge anyone to claim that this changed the outcome of the game.  The second was when Scott Johnson hit the OSU receiver on the BYU sideline breaking up a pass.  It appeared that Johnson “launched” himself and hit the receiver in a “helmet to helmet” infraction.   Upon watching the replay at home (I was in attendance at the game), it appears that Johnson missed the helmet and hit the shoulder of the receiver in a great defensive play (albeit jarring hit).   In this case Johnson was flagged—15 yards automatic first down—an even better outcome than had the receiver caught the ball.  Dirty or not, how does that hurt the Beavers?
• BYU was physical.  Maybe more physical than the Beavers are used to.  This is football.  Deal with it.  UCLA said the same thing when the Cougars beat them up in Pasadena.
• Oregon State was also very physical.  Max Hall said afterward that he has not been so beat up since that same UCLA game in 2007. There were a couple of late hits on Max Hall, which I would argue are not just physical but do border on dirty when done intentionally (throwing the QB to the ground several seconds after the whistle?).  There was also the apparent “helmet to helmet” decleating after a pass that nearly knocked him out of the game.  I did not hear BYU fans calling OSU players dirty or making excuses.
• Refs handed the game to BYU.  There were lots of calls going both ways (11 on OSU, 9 on BYU).  On my way out of the stadium, I heard the BYU fans commenting/questioning/complaining quite a bit about the officiating.  I was actually surprised to see the OSU/Pac 10 fans complaining about the officiating on fan boards and article commentaries.  Whatever gripes the OSU fans have (of which I am not aware), there are equal gripes on the other side.   From a BYU fan perspective, there would be the curious time elapse at the end of the first half, the aforementioned helmet-to-helmet on Scott Johnson, the also mentioned no-call hit on Max Hall, the Unga fumble that was apparently caused by the ground… etc.  The fact that both teams were unhappy, means that there was equal if not great officiating.  My personal take is that the refs made the calls as they saw them and did a reasonable job.  And, in an apologists world, even if there were a couple of calls that they think should have gone the other way, that doesn’t make up for a 30 point deficit going into the 4th quarter.
• MWC teams can get up for PAC 10 games like it was the Super Bowl, because they don’t have to get ready week in and week out for big games.   This one almost makes me laugh.   Of BYU’s 13 games this season, 5 were effectively played against teams that were ranked—Oklahoma, TCU, Utah, Oregon State, and FSU (just outside the polls at #26).  There was the Utah State game, where USU gets up for BYU as a rivalry game.  Air Force (8-4) was still playing for a conference title and offered the #1 pass defense in the country.   In conference, BYU played Wyoming in Laramie, New Mexico in Albuquerque, and San Diego State in California.   While not striking fear into the hearts of opponents, all of those teams get up for BYU as much as any game on their schedule (since BYU is considered a rival by all of them) and play their best games of the year.  If anything, BYU knows better than Oregon State what it means to have to prepare for games week in and week out.   How many teams in the PAC 10 see Oregon State as their rival?

So why did Oregon State lose then?  Take your pick…

• They were outcoached
• They were outplayed
• BYU was more physical
• BYU was faster
• BYU had better QB play
• BYU had the better defense
• BYU was better able to handle adversity (turnovers, etc)
• BYU had better mental fortitude to drive into the wind
• BYU’s receivers and tight ends were able to get open almost at will
• BYU’s linebackers had a bigger impact
• BYU had the better secondary
• BYU’s power running game trumped OSU’s
• The Cougars had a better game plan
• The top 15 Cougars were clearly the better team

December 26, 2009

What We Learned in the Las Vegas Bowl versus Oregon State
By Dave Haynie

[Visit www.byucougs.com to leave comments or search archives]

What a game the Cougars put together.  They came out with the A game that was seen against Oklahoma, Tulane, and Wyoming earlier this year—an A game that would  keep the Cougars in contention with any team in the country.  There are a number of interesting things to note coming out of the game. First we will recap what we were watching for (commentary in italics) then list a few other items of note in a follow up post.

What to Watch For on the Field:

• Max at his best.  When Max is having fun and relaxed he is at his best and nearly unstoppable.  When he feels pressure and weight of expectations, he tends to play tight, force things, and generally play at a lower level.  Watch for him to come out playing loose as he got the monkey off his back by beating Utah and solidified his place as a successful Cougar QB.  The rest now is bonus. 

Max played a nearly flawless game.  He was loose and it showed.  He took some of the hardest hits of the season and stepped up to the line for the next play.  There was one decleating hit on him in particular that would have taken most other QBs out of the game.  He said after the game that he was more beat up after this game than any other game since his first—at UCLA in 2007.  What a way to go out.

• Watch for the BYU seniors to have big games.  There are several seniors (Hall, Unga, Pitta, Andrew George and Jan Jorgensen) on the team with aspirations to make an NFL squad next year.  This will be the first time they have appeared on ESPN (a true national audience) since the Tulane game and it is their chance to impress.  [Unga is only a junior].

All of these seniors, and Manase Tonga, had great games and likely improved their national standing.  Hall was already discussed above.   Unga (71 yds rushing, 15 yds receiving, TD) repeatedly carried defenders with him and several times picked up an extra 4-5 yards after the first hit. Tonga was particularly impressive (5 carries for 42 yards, 2 catches for 19 yards, 2 TDs) in what was easily his best game of the season, as he was effective not only as a lead blocker but with the ball as well.  George (4 catches, 46 yds) and Pitta (5 catches, 45 yds, TD) consistently made clutch catches, impressing not only fans but also the ESPN talking heads.  Jorgensen had a complete game, anchoring an effective defensive front, getting a key third down bat-down, and even had a 6 yard carry at the end of the game.  Watch for all of these players to work hard going into this spring’s NFL draft.  I believe that Pitta, Tonga, and Unga have the best shot at being drafted, with Hall, George, and Jorgensen likely getting a shot through free agency.

• Stop the run and limit the pass.  The BYU defense has been decent at stopping the run this season.  They will have their hands full with Jaquizz Rogers—a speedy, shifty, short but powerful back.  There is a chance that they are able contain him.  But, can they contain the run and limit the pass at the same time?  This season, when focusing on the run, they Cougs have tended to give up on the pass completely.   BYU will need big games from its ends and blitzing linebackers to keep Canfield on the run (an accurate passer, but slow of foot).

The BYU defensive game plan was nearly perfect.   Not completely unexpectedly, the Cougars were able to contain the running game, holding OSU to 88 yards, but more impressively, they held the passing game in check as well—not through pressure as much as solid down-field coverage.  I don’t recall a game where more BYU defenders were able to break up or knock down a pass.

• Will OSU get pressure on Hall?  OSU’s defense is not known for its front line, and has been inconsistent with the pass rush.  BYU’s offensive line should be able to keep them at bay.  If they don’t, it will mean trouble for the Cougs.

The O line was able to give Hall just enough time.  He was hit at the end of several plays, but never lost his rhythm. 

• McKay Jacobsen has declared himself 100% for the first time perhaps all season.  Watch for him to have a breakout game.  The receiving corps has not had a significant impact this season, and the focus of the defense will likely be on the tight ends, leaving McKay open to make a difference.

Apparently, OSU didn’t get the memo about covering the BYU tight ends, and both Pitta and George had big games.  Jacobsen was relatively quiet (2 catches, 27 yards).   As far as him contributing, the large lead mitigated the number of passing downs, and thus his performance.   I imagine that there is no one complaining there.

• BYU’s secondary.  James Rogers, is the leading receiver for OSU and will be several steps faster than any of BYU’s DB’s.  If the front seven is unable to force Canfield to throw off balance or hurried, no doubt the Beavers will be gunning for the long ball, just as Utah did.  The only difference is that Sean Canfield is much more accurate and seasoned than Jordan Wynn and where Wynn consistently overthrew his open receivers downfield, Canfield will hit them.  Bradley, Logan, Rich, and Johnson will need to be up to the challenge.

Challenge resoundingly met.  If I had a game ball to give away, I would give it to the secondary.  They played their best game of the year.   Perhaps I overestimated Canfield’s accuracy, but in any case, BYU’s last line of defense was incredible bringing big hits, breakups, and sure tackles.  Good news for Cougar fans is that 3 of these 4 will be back again next season (Johnson is a senior).

• Limit turnovers.  OSU is known for holding on to the ball.  BYU has been spotty, but improved over the course of the season.  It will be important for BYU to limit the turnovers.  A minus one might be overcomeable, but should they have a minus 2 or more it will be difficult to win.

The reverse of this was also applicable for OSU as they ended up with the minus one in turnovers and were never able to fully overcome that deficit.  Despite 5 turnovers overall, 3 for OSU (two fumbles and a pick) and 2 for BYU (two fumbles), while the game was still in question OSU had two critical turnovers, while both of BYU’s (Unga fumble near the red zone and Tonga on an onside kick) came after the game had already been decided and essentially only kept the score from becoming ridiculous.

I think the BYU offense will be successful with both the run and the pass.  Max will play as relaxed as he has in several games executing the passing game flawlessly.  This will open the door for Unga to have a good game as well.  The BYU defense will have its hands full in both the running and passing game.  It might very well come down to possessions and turnovers.  I predict a high scoring affair with BYU winning in the end.  BYU 38  OSU 31.

I saw BYU having success on offense, but I didn’t see BYU’s defense having the success they did to limit OSU. 

Other Items of Note:

• Manase Tonga actually looked quick picking up a couple of big gains and outrunning would-be tacklers for perhaps the first time of the season.
• BYU defense looked fast (as it did against Oklahoma).  The Cougs were actually running down OSU’s speedsters from behind on a number of plays.
• Scott Johnson’s big hit in the fourth quarter on the BYU sideline brought out a yellow salute from the refs.  It was an incredible play, but also a hard one for the officials not to flag, given how it looked to them.  From Sam Boyd, I was both happy with the play and accepting of the penalty as it seemed legitimate.  After watching the replay, however, it is apparent that there was no “helmet to helmet” contact and Johnson made contact with the receiver’s shoulder.  Despite this, however, I do not fault the referee’s as they could not have seen this without the added benefit of camera angles available only to viewers.
• Unga’s fumble at the end of the game seemed to be caused by the ground.  Fans in the stands were sure that it was going to be overturned and the ball returned to the Cougars.  The television replays however, show a much muddier picture as it would have been hard to tell either way.  Without undisputed video evidence, the referees upheld the call on the field.
• At the end of the first half, with the wind at their backs, McKay Jacobsen seeming got out of bounds with 2-3 seconds remaining, yet the clock ticked off and the half was over.  The only plausible explanation is that he was marked down for forward progress (but did the whistle blow?).  However, unfortunately for OSU, it ended up being rather irrelevant.
• The wind was impressive and made this one of the colder games that I have ever attended, despite temperatures only in the 30’s.  The stadium lights were swaying back and forth 5-6 feet.  Escaped post-game confetti was swirling in the North end zone. 
• The field size flag roll-out prior to the game was able to feature 40-50 foot high wind blown billows, creating one of the more stunning flag displays I have ever witnessed.  Those responsible to hold it at the edges were being whipped and dragged like a rodeo cowboy.
• In watching the game again, I noticed a great display of senior leadership from Dennis Pitta, that I imagine most viewers (live and TV) missed.   On BYU’s first touchdown drive, near the goal line, one of BYU’s offensive linemen was jawing and pushing with an OSU player after the play.  Pitta rushed in, grabbed the BYU player , got up in his grill (no doubt yelling at him for risking a penalty in such a critical situation) and then pushed him away.  The player didn’t do it again, and BYU avoided a penalty that might have changed the outcome of the game. 

December 22, 2009

What to Watch for Against Oregon State in the Las Vegas Bowl
By Dave Haynie

[Visit www.byucougs.com to leave comments or search archives]

With three weeks since the last game, the storylines of this game have been covered multiple times each by the local Oregon, Utah, and Vegas media.  The national media have picked up on the highlights.  The commentating crew (an A team from ESPN) will likely mention each of these again as well during the course of the game.  But here is a brief summary of the storylines:

Game Storyline Recap

• Bronco vs. his alma mater.   When BYU last played Oregon State, in 1986, Bronco was a linebacker for OSU as they defeated BYU in Provo 10-7.
• Cousin connection.  Havey Unga has two Unga cousins that play for the Beavers—primarily on special teams. 
• Shawn Doman, BYU linebacker, is from Oregon and was first recruited by Oregon State and coach Mike Riley.
• The story of two good senior quarterbacks—Max Hall and Sean Canfield
• Let Down. OSU’s ability to get up for the game or not after missing out on a Rose Bowl bid and PAC-10 championship by 4 points against their rival Oregon in the last game of the season.
• Ranked teams.  First time the Vegas Bowl has paired two ranked teams, BYU #14 and Oregon State #16.  BYU is the highest ranked team ever to appear in the game.
• The spread.  OSU is a 2.5 point favorite, despite being lower ranked.
• Mountain West vs. the PAC 10.  BYU is 2-2 in the Vegas Bowl vs. the Pac 10.  They are 5-3 in the last three seasons.  The Cougs went 2-1 last season (beating UCLA and Washington, losing to Arizona).  They were 2-1 in 2007 (beating UCLA and Arizona, and losing at UCLA).  They were 1-1 in 2006 losing to Arizona and beating Oregon).  With TCU and Boise paired together in a cowardly move by the BCS, this game will be the highest profile matchup of AQ BCS vs. non-AQ BCS.  The eyes of America will be watching.
• Hall’s last game as a Cougar, going out as winningest quarterback in BYU history
• Dennis Pitta, a consensus All-American, was snubbed by the Mackey Award—how will he respond?
• The Rodgers brothers, Jacquizz and James, 5 foot 6 and 5 foo t 7 inch twins, lead in receiving and rushing for OSU.  Both are speedy and quick.  Their father is in a prison near Houston Texas. 

What to Watch For on the Field:

• Max at his best.  When Max is having fun and relaxed he is at his best and nearly unstoppable.  When he feels pressure and weight of expectations, he tends to play tight, force things, and generally play at a lower level.  Watch for him to come out playing loose as he got the monkey off his back by beating Utah and solidified his place as a successful Cougar QB.  The rest now is bonus. 
• Watch for the BYU seniors to have big games.  There are several seniors (Hall, Unga, Pitta, Andrew George and Jan Jorgensen) on the team with aspirations to make an NFL squad next year.  This will be the first time they have appeared on ESPN (a true national audience) since the Tulane game and it is their chance to impress.  [Unga is actually a junior, but is likely to declare himself eligible for the draft after the season and forego his senior year.]
• Stop the run and limit the pass.  The BYU defense has been decent at stopping the run this season.  They will have their hands full with Jaquizz Rogers—a speedy, shifty, short but powerful back.  There is a chance that they are able contain him.  But, can they contain the run and limit the pass at the same time?  This season, when focusing on the run, they Cougs have tended to give up on the pass completely.   BYU will need big games from its ends and blitzing linebackers to keep Canfield on the run (an accurate passer, but slow of foot).
• Will OSU get pressure on Hall?  OSU’s defense is not known for its front line, and has been inconsistent with the pass rush.  BYU’s offensive line should be able to keep them at bay.  If they don’t, it will mean trouble for the Cougs.
• McKay Jacobsen has declared himself 100% for the first time perhaps all season.  Watch for him to have a breakout game.  The receiving corps has not had a significant impact this season, and the focus of the defense will likely be on the tight ends, leaving McKay open to make a difference.
• BYU’s secondary.  James Rogers, is the leading receiver for OSU and will be several steps faster than any of BYU’s DB’s.  If the front seven is unable to force Canfield to throw off balance or hurried, no doubt the Beavers will be gunning for the long ball, just as Utah did.  The only difference is that Sean Canfield is much more accurate and seasoned than Jordan Wynn and where Wynn consistently overthrew his open receivers downfield, Canfield will hit them.  Bradley, Logan, Rich, and Johnson will need to be up to the challenge.
• Limit turnovers.  OSU is known for holding on to the ball.  BYU has been spotty, but improved over the course of the season.  It will be important for BYU to limit the turnovers.  A minus one might be overcomeable, but should they have a minus 2 or more it will be difficult to win.

I am at the airport now on my way to Las Vegas.  I’m looking forward to a good game.  I think the BYU offense will be successful with both the run and the pass.  Max will play as relaxed as he has in several games executing the passing game flawlessly.  This will open the door for Unga to have a good game as well.  The BYU defense will have its hands full in both the running and passing game.  It might very well come down to possessions and turnovers.  I predict a high scoring affair with BYU winning in the end.  BYU 38  OSU 31.

Leave your thoughts and predictions below…

December 20, 2009

Recruiting Lag—A look at contributions from previous classes
By Dave Haynie

[Visit www.byucougs.com to search archives or leave comments]

With Jake Heaps and Ross Apo signing grant-in-aid agreements with BYU earlier this week, the recruiting talk is getting under way once again and will soon be in full swing filling its role as fan board fodder between bowl season and spring ball.  It also makes for an interesting time to take a look at the lag that BYU often experiences from when a player signs until he begins to contribute on the field.  Every school faces a similar lag, but at BYU, with so many players leaving on missions either before or after their freshman seasons, it is much more pronounced.

For example, the elusive Andrew George, splitter of Utes and defender of (Beehive) Boots, was actually part of the class of 2002.  Brett Denney and RJ Willing were both in the class of 2003.  And 2004 and 2005?  More of the same.  

Players Contributing in 2009 by Recruiting Class (class in 2009)
2002
Andrew George (Sr)

2003
Mitch Payne (Jr)
RJ Willing (Sr)
Dan Van Sweden (Sr)
Brett Denney (Sr)

2004
Terrence Brown (So)
Nick Alletto (Jr)
Matt Putnam (So)

2005
Manase Tonga (Sr)
Harvey Unga (Jr)
Spencer Hafoka (So)
Luke Ashworth (Jr)
Jan Jorgensen (Sr)
Terrance Hooks (Sr)
Matt Reynolds (So)
Shawn Doman (Sr)
Vic So’oto (Jr)
Russell Tialavea (Sr)
Stephen Covey (So)

2006
Brandon Bradley (Jr)
Brandon Ogletree (Jr)
Braden Hansen (Fr)
Romney Fuga ( So)
Ian Dulan (Jr, mission)
Mike Muellman (Fr)
Max Hall (Sr)
Ryan Freeman (So)
Riley Stephenson (Fr)
Robbie Buckner (Fr)
James Lark (Fr, mission)
Rhen Brown (Fr)
McKay Jacobsen (So)
Mike Hague (So)

OK, so everyone already knows that some of BYU’s players take two years out.   And we covered that already here:  http://www.byucougs.com/2009/09/numbers-inside-missionary-advantage.html.   But here is the interesting part.   In 2003, 2004, and 2005 BYU was recruiting on the heels of consecutive losing seasons.   Due to misconduct, the 2004 class was decimated, and the effects are still being felt.  In 2005, while technically Bronco’s first class, there was no one steering the ship during critical recruiting periods while the coaching hire saga was playing out, and the program essentially took what they could and/or players willing to be loyal through the transition, which fortunately turned out to be some great players, but was not a proactive targeted, recruiting approach by any means.

So 2006 is effectively Bronco’s first recruiting class.  It is just beginning to contribute and the majority of players from that class were freshmen or sophomores this season, and even so, many of them were significant contributors.

What all of this means is that during a period of unprecedented success in BYU football (four consecutive years with 10+ wins—never before done), the team has been playing with a patchwork of recruits, JC transfers, walk-ons, and young contributors.  But that era is coming to an end.  While fans may not see many in the class of 2009 until 2011 or beyond (for those who choose to serve a mission), the class of 2006 is back and has a year under their belts.  The class of 2007 is back and ready to go this spring.   Some in the class of 2008 will be back before the fall.   So while other schools are bidding farewell to the class of 2006 this winter, the Cougars are finally getting a look at theirs.

And with the signing of Ross and Jake and the many others that will follow them in February, BYU will have its best class ever.   And for the first time since 2000, that class will be playing on a team that is almost completely composed of recruits from the current coaching staff.

December 4, 2009

What We Learned in the Utah Game
By Dave Haynie

[Visit www.byucougs.com to share comments or search archives]

With now almost a week to move past the post-game storm, there is a bit more bandwidth to take a closer look at the game itself and how the team played along the dimensions that we were watching.  I have left the pre-game assessment from last week in italics and responded below it…

• Passion.  The Cougars had it last week against Air Force for seemingly the first time.  The Utes seem to have it in all the big games.  The team that has more of it will likely be ahead at halftime.

The Cougars were ahead at half time and then quickly fell behind as they appeared complacent and intent on running out the clock with a 20-6 lead going into the fourth quarter.  A “prevent” offense is a sure intensity and passion killer, and on cue, the team lost its passion and its lead at the same time.

• Turnovers.  This game has been decided by 7 points or less for of the last 11 games.  Essentially decided on the last play of the game in 2005, 2006, and 2007.   Every possession matters.  The team that has more turnovers, will likely be playing catch up in the final minutes.

One turnover was perhaps the difference in this game.   And the team that committed it, was indeed playing catch up at the end.  And once again the game was decided on the last play.

• Touchdowns or field goals.  It seems that in games with Utah where BYU has been favored, the Cougars have dominated the stat box, but only come away with field goals at the end of several long drives, leaving it open for the Utes to make one fourth quarter drive to take the lead.  They will need touchdowns in order to maintain control of this at the end.

The tables were finally turned, as it was Utah that had 4 FGs and only 1 TD in regulation, while the Cougs had 2 of each.  Ironically, in overtime, this question, FG or TD, would actually determine the winner of the game, and it was the Cougs that once again were able to pull out a touchdown when it was needed.  Big props need to be given to the defense for holding the Utes to field goals on so often on short fields.

• Relax, Max.  When Max is relaxed and having fun, he plays well.  Sometimes, when he feels the pressure and forced to come from behind, he forces things and drives tend to end quickly in three and outs or sooner with a turnover.

Max did not look relaxed at all (which is perhaps what we saw come out after the game), and had one of his worst games of the season.  However, the silver lining is that while several drives did end in three-and-outs, at least they didn’t end in interception, as he was conscientiously tucking the ball and being careful not to force it.  What fans complained of as over-caution, may have actually kept the ball from being turned over.

• Run the ball.  The Cougs have a history of successfully running the ball in the Utah game.  It is almost as if Utah has given that up in favor of defending the pass, daring our offensive coordinator to go to the run more than is in the game plan.  If the Utes do that again, Anae will need to have the courage to take what they are giving.  Unga will be relied upon heavily to keep the ball moving.  Success in this area will be key.

Harvey Unga was the unheralded MVP of the game (116 yds, 1 TD, 5.0 yds/carry), as he essentially carried the game on his shoulders while Max was a bit off.  Interestingly, Kariya and DiLuigi were not given any carries in this game.

• Pressure Jordan Wynn.  With the Cougar defense, it has been all or nothing as far as pressuring the quarterback.  When they have opted to apply pressure, in general opposing quarterbacks have shown cracks and the defense has had success (although a glaring exception is the FSU game).  In any case, it is in the best interest of the defensive psyche (and fans for that matter), to make proactive mistakes of aggression, rather than passively sit back and give up essentially the same yardage and big plays by being too conservative.  It will be essential to keep the freshman on edge.

Pressure from the front seven was inconsistent, but when pressure was applied, he was rattled.  When he had time (except on the long throws), he was able to find the open receiver.   On the flip side, the defense did a good job of stopping the run and holding Utah to under 100 yards as a team (although Eddie Wide broke some big ones in the fourth quarter and ended with 116 yards).

Both teams are 9-2.  Both teams have shown flashes of brilliance and incompetence at various times throughout the season.  This game will be decided by the small things—turnovers, penalties, big third and fourth down conversions, a missed tackle here, a dropped pass there.  With all of that in mind, I will refrain from predicting the pace of the game, but only the outcome.  BYU 30 Utah 26.

This game was a microcosm of the season for both seasons.  The Cougars going hot and cold.  The Utes starting out poorly and then coming on strong at the end.  In the end it was the small things—unsportsmanlike penalties, a fourth down conversion, the lone turnover—that decided the game.

A few other observations:

• BYU only completed four passes to wide receivers in this game.  That has to be the lowest total of the season, and perhaps in several years.
• The defense made a strong showing when it counted in a big game (after failing against FSU and TCU). 
• From the east stands, it appeared that the early hit on Jordan Wynn, may have been a late hit, but upon watching the game again, it looks like it was a clean hit.  And to his credit, he was able to come back and play through it.
• It is easy to question the play calling and coaching decisions in any game, and I don't want to get into that habit, but two scenarios in particular seemed to stand out to me... 1) the punt from the Utah 35 yard line in the second quarter on 4th and 5.   They could have tried a 52 yard field goal (probably the same odds as not getting a touchback) or gone for it (better odds).  In any case, it was a hard decision to understand in a close rivalry game when all parties know that every possession and every point is going to be needed at the end.  2) The clock management at the end.  Given the fourth quarter play, I felt the team had a much better shot at getting into field goal range and winning in regulation, than pulling it out in overtime.  Had BYU used a timeout with 1:10 left, they would have had plenty of time to try to pick up 40 yards and hit a field goal. Instead they took the ball with 0:29 and not much of chance to do anything.

November 28, 2009

What to Watch for in the Utah Game
By Dave Haynie

[Visit www.byucougs.com to share comments or search archives]

It’s rivalry week.  It doesn’t matter who is favored.  Home team “advantage” has proved to be mythical.  Fans of both teams will be seated alongside each other throughout the stadium like a tossed salad.  There are bound to be things said and done both on and off the field that will be regretted on Sunday morning.  It will be anyone’s game and this is what fans and players look forward to all year.

A few items to watch for as the game unfolds:

• Passion.  The Cougars had it last week against Air Force for seemingly the first time.  The Utes seem to have it in all the big games.  The team that has more of it will likely be ahead at halftime.
• Turnovers.  This game has been decided by 7 points or less for of the last 11 games.  Essentially decided on the last play of the game in 2005, 2006, and 2007.   Every possession matters.  The team that has more turnovers, will likely be playing catch up in the final minutes.
• Touchdowns or field goals.  It seems that in games with Utah where BYU has been favored, the Cougars have dominated the stat box, but only come away with field goals at the end of several long drives, leaving it open for the Utes to make one fourth quarter drive to take the lead.  They will need touchdowns in order to maintain control of this at the end.
• Relax, Max.  When Max is relaxed and having fun, he plays well.  Sometimes, when he feels the pressure and forced to come from behind, he forces things and drives tend to end quickly in three and outs or sooner with a turnover.
• Run the ball.  The Cougs have a history of successfully running the ball in the Utah game.  It is almost as if Utah has given that up in favor of defending the pass, daring our offensive coordinator to go to the run more than is in the game plan.  If the Utes do that again, Anae will need to have the courage to take what they are giving.  Unga will be relied upon heavily to keep the ball moving.  Success in this area will be key.
• Pressure Jordan Wynn.  With the Cougar defense, it has been all or nothing as far as pressuring the quarterback.  When they have opted to apply pressure, in general opposing quarterbacks have shown cracks and the defense has had success (although a glaring exception is the FSU game).  In any case, it is in the best interest of the defensive psyche (and fans for that matter), to make proactive mistakes of aggression, rather than passively sit back and give up essentially the same yardage and big plays by being too conservative.  It will be essential to keep the freshman on edge.

Both teams are 9-2.  Both teams have shown flashes of brilliance and incompetence at various times throughout the season.  This game will be decided by the small things—turnovers, penalties, big third and fourth down conversions, a missed tackle here, a dropped pass there.  With all of that in mind, I will refrain from predicting the pace of the game, but only the outcome.  BYU 30 Utah 26.

November 24, 2009

BYU-Utah: Battle of Common Opponents
By Dave Haynie

[Visit www.byucougs.com to share comments or search archives]

In trying to get a handle on this week’s rivalry game, there are a nearly unlimited number of angles to compare the teams—experience, average statistics, offense, defense, history, coaching, etc.  Yet, this rivalry has proven that none of that will mean anything when the game kicks off on Saturday. On the other hand, it doesn’t keep us from taking a look anyway…  So, here is a look at how they have fared against the eight common opponents this season:

Utah State
BYU 35-17, Utah 35-17
Both teams played USU at home early in the season and had identical outcomes.
Winner: Even

Colorado State
BYU 42-13, Utah 24-17
Again both teams played CSU early in the season on back to back weeks.  BYU jumped out to an early 21-0 lead and cruised to a big win.  Utah scored the winning touchdown with 3 minutes remaining.
Winner: BYU

UNLV
BYU 59-21, Utah 35-15
This was the sixth game for both teams and each game was a runaway for the winner.
Winner: Even

San Diego State
BYU 38-28, Utah 38-7
The outcome was never in doubt, but BYU never really put SDSU away until the fourth quarter.
Winner: Utah

TCU
BYU 7-38, Utah 28-55
TCU was clearly better than both teams, as both teams lost by roughly 30 points.  In this matchup, BYU’s defense showed better, while Utah’s offense showed better.
Winner:  Neither

Wyoming
BYU 52-0, Utah 22-10
BYU dominated the game from the start in Laramie, while Utah struggled at home.
Winner: BYU

New Mexico
BYU 24-19, Utah 45-14
The Cougars could have easily lost this game and never really seemed to engage.  The Utes did what they were supposed to do.
Winner: Utah

Air Force
BYU 38-21, Utah 23-16 OT
While the Falcons were able to take Utah into overtime, they never had a chance against a fired up BYU team.
Winner: BYU

Overall it is BYU 3 (CSU, Wyo, AFA), Utah 2 (SDSU, UNM), Even 3 (USU, UNLV, TCU), giving the slight nod in this particular area to the Cougars.

November 23, 2009

What We Learned in the Air Force Game
By Dave Haynie

[Visit www.byucougs.com to share comments or search archives]

Saturday was perhaps the most solid performance of the season for the Cougs.  They played an inspired game against a quality opponent in an Air Force team that had taken two ranked teams into overtime and lost to another by only three points.  They boasted the number one pass defense in the country.  None of that mattered as BYU dominated from the opening drive.  Last week I wrote:

“Hall and his fellow seniors know they only have two games left and will make the most of this one, having fun, playing relaxed, and showing a good first half…  BYU 34, Air Force 24.”

They did exactly that, playing with more emotion and fire than in any game since Oklahoma.  BYU’s seniors, recognizing the fleeting nature of their remaining opportunities to play the game, made it a point this week to focus on emotion (for the first time in the Bronco Mendenhall era?) and wanted to play fired up.  It showed, as they looked almost unstoppable at times.  It also showed that “execution” combined with emotion is a potent combination.  Here’s to hoping they can duplicate that recipe two more times this season (and against TCU in the next).

What we learned…

 In the books…

Almost achieved…

November 20, 2009

MWC Big Four: The Case for Air Force
By Dave Haynie

[Visit www.byucougs.com to share comments or search archives]

It has become increasingly popular to reference BYU, TCU, and Utah as the Mountain West’s “Big Three” football programs.  It has moved beyond the media and even coaches are doing it on a regular basis now.  However, all of this referencing is a recent development, and with a closer look at what is behind this, you might be surprised.

A little history… In 2005, 2006 and 2007, there was really only a “Big One” as TCU went undefeated in 2005 and then BYU did not lose a conference game for two consecutive seasons.  So the concept of a Big Three has really only been in the vernacular for 18 months or less, beginning with the conference’s 2008 breakout season that saw 3 MWC teams ranked in the final BCS standings and in the polls (with TCU and Utah both in the top 10).  It was this performance that seemingly separated these programs from the rest.  And, perhaps it is only these last two seasons (2008, 2009) that matter, but it would seem more appropriate to look at the last three, four, or five years (since TCU joined the league), since we are talking about a trend (otherwise any two data points will create a trend line).  Doing so creates a slightly different picture of the Big Three.

A few assumptions:

1. We only consider conference games (although non-conf games are an important part of a team’s perception)

2. We do not consider extenuating circumstances (injuries, suspensions, etc) although they may directly contribute to a loss

3. No consideration is given for OT games, although that would provide perhaps other interesting insights

4. We do not try to rank the teams within the top four (Air Force may very well be the fourth), but rather look at separation from the rest of the conference and where the division lies

A Look at Total Conference Losses

This picture shows the overall success the programs have achieved in the Mountain West.  And this picture shows the reason for the Big Three talk since 2008, as Utah has narrowed the gap with BYU and TCU.  It also reveals a slight gap between the top three and Air Force.  But many of Air Force’s losses come to the three teams above it, so to provide a better look, we will take a look at losses to teams from outside this group…

Non Big Three Conference Losses

The picture here is now much different with BYU and TCU slightly separated in front (except in the two year view).  With this lens, Air Force is actually on par with Utah, or actually slightly above.  But some of those conference losses may have come to Air Force, which according to the data above, should be considered as part of the Big Four.  If we remove losses to Air Force (TCU and Utah have one each), then the concept of a Big Four is confirmed…

Over a two or three year window, there is definitely a Big Four.  Expanding to a five year look, BYU and TCU would appear a tier above Utah and Air Force, which are essentially on par. 

So, why has a concept of Big Three emerged rather than Big Four?  In non-conference games, Air Force has lost to Navy five years in a row as well as lost its bowl games the last two years.  With those two losses in addition to its conference losses the last two seasons, it seems to perpetually find itself just outside of the top 25 rankings.

For Air Force, a win over BYU this season and/or a win in its bowl game, would be big steps forward for its program and begin to open eyes to the fact that in the Mountain West there is really a Big Four.

And, as the media, fans, and coaches begin to refer to the Big Four, rather than just the Big Three, as it is clear that is the case, it will be good for the perception of depth in conference for the rest of the country.

November 20, 2009

What to Watch for Against Air Force
By Dave Haynie

[Visit www.byucougs.com to share comments or search archives]

At 7-4, Air Force will become only the third team BYU has faced this season that currently has a winning record (TCU at 10-0 and Oklahoma at 6-4 are the others; Wyoming and Florida State are 5-5).  This very well may be the second or third most difficult game of the year.  The Academy held TCU to 20 points and only lost by 3 (20-17).  They took Utah to overtime before losing (23-16).  They also went into overtime with a good Navy team (8-3) before giving up another close one.  The Cadets mean business and they are desperate to break through into the top tier of the MWC.  They will come not only with talent, but with motivation.  Despite having Air Force’s number for the last several years, it is going to take everything the Cougars have to pull this one out.  Saturday will be a good one.

What to watch for…

Will BYU’s offensive line be able to open up running lanes on the smaller Falcon D line?  The first two series should be an indicator of how this game will go.  The running game from BYU will be essential to winning this game.  The size could become more of a factor as the game wears on and Air Force’s lighter line begins to tire.

Will Unga be able to go?  And, if not, will Kariya and DiLuigi be up to the task of filling in for him.  Last week, without Unga in the game, the running game suffered.  That won’t cut it this week.

Can the Cougar front 7 continue to contain the run?  For most of the season, the specialty of the defense has been limiting opponents running games.  That will be key this week, as Air Force is fourth in the country in rushing offense (and 118th in passing). 

How much will the team miss Terrance Hooks in the middle?  Will Shawn Doman be able to hold it down solo?  Will Shane Hunter be able to spell him sufficiently to be effective?  Defending the wishbone option will require all players to know their assignments, and a lack of experience could cost the Cougars.

Will Dennis Pitta get the big game that he needs to solidify his status as Mackey finalist?  He has historically had a big game against the Falcons, but opponents are much more aware of him this season.  With 7 catches, 85+ yards, and a TD, Pitta would likely be in.

What impact will the weather have?  Friday night has a 20% chance of rain.  On Saturday there is a 30% chance of snow.  Highs are forecast to be 44 degrees.  The team has been doing some practicing outdoors this week, ostensibly in preparation for Saturday’s conditions.  A wet field might favor a passing game, but a cold precipitation would swing in favor of a running game.  In any case, should rain/snow arrive before or during the game, expect the field to be sloppy.

Can the team come out of this game without any significant health losses going into the rivalry game with Utah?  Last year, Air Force’s chop blocks and low hits took a toll on Dennis Pitta specifically, as he was only a limping shell of himself in the Utah game (and played anyway) and was worse than a non-factor as he probably hurt the team by playing.

Will the records finally fall?  By the numbers…

How do I see this playing out?  BYU got a wake-up call last week against New Mexico and will put in some extra effort this week in preparation and game planning.  The Falcons will have the Cougars attention and there will not be any problem with losing focus.  Hall and his fellow seniors know they only have two games left and will make the most of this one, having fun, playing relaxed, and showing a good first half.  The defense will play well enough to give the Cougars a small lead at half-time.  The second half will likely have AFA gaining some momentum out of the gate to make it look like a game, only to begin to tire going into the 4th quarter and BYU pulling out a two score win.  BYU 34, Air Force 24.

November 19, 2009

Dennis Pitta Remains Mackey Award Front Runner
By Dave Haynie

[Visit www.byucougs.com to share comments or search archives]

With week 11 in the books, the Nassau County Sports Commission, released its list of 8 semi-finalists for the Mackey Award given to the nation’s top tight end.   Despite stringing together a number of quiet games over the past couple of weeks, Dennis Pitta is still very much in the mix, and must be considered at least a favorite to be included in the list of three finalists to be released on Monday, Nov 23.   A big game against Air Force (9 catches, 113 yards last year) could be what puts him over the top.

As we have been following this race on this site, it is worth mentioning that of the eight semi-finalists,  three had appeared in my front runner list, two as contenders, and three as darkhorses (see www.byucougs.com/2009/10/pittas-march-toward-mackey-award.html).

Here is how they stack up:

This is a great group of tight ends and it will be difficult for the commission to narrow this field down to just three.  All of them except Aaron Hernandez have been named Mackey Tight End of the Week at least once, with Pitta (3—2009, 2008x2), Slate (3—2009x2, 2007), and Moeaki (2—2009, 2007) with multiple recognitions.   I am going to go ahead and take a crack at narrowing this down (prior to this weekend’s pivotal games)…

First we will eliminate the last three on this list.  McCoy only has 17 catches (though a high 22.5 yds/catch average) and USC has suffered a few embarrassing losses of late.  Rudolph is only a sophomore and is a notch below the other five in stats; Notre Dame is also in a funk.  Moeaki  has only played in 7 games so far, and Iowa’s season has also lost a bit of its early luster, which would have helped his cause.

We will call the first five, then, the front runners and can make a case for each of them.
Dennis Pitta leads in yards and yards/game.  He is tied for second in TDs and right at the top (third) in receptions.   He has been named TE of the week 3 times and voters will remember his clutch 4th down catch against Oklahoma.
Cody Slate has also been named TEOW 3 times, including twice this season.  He leads in catches and is right in the mix in yards and TDs.  His liability is his team’s 5-5 record in CUSA.
Aaron Hernandez is right near the top in just about every category and is a key player on the number one team in the country.  With only two touchdowns this season and also being a junior, it is somewhat easier to find reasons to leave him off the list of final three.
Dorin Dickerson immediately stands out for his 10 touchdowns.   His yards and receptions are also comparable.  However, he racked up 4 of those TDs against Yougstown St and Buffalo.  With Pitt enjoying a breakout year, he has been the beneficiary of some additional media love.
Ed Dickson has quietly been a big part of Oregon’s comeback this season.  His yards and touchdowns have been on par with this group, although his number of receptions lags just a bit.

Narrowing the field of five—I think that Hernandez will be the first one left off the list of five for the reasons mentioned above.  Of the remaining four, it will depend somewhat on this weekend’s performance.  Pitta has less to prove and with at least an average game, will likely be in; a big game could solidify his finalist status.  For Slate (due to 5-5 record) and Dickson (late bloomer), I believe that it will come down to their game this weekend vs. SMU and Arizona, respectively.  Dickerson has a bye, but could slip in should neither of the other two impress.  But should they both have big games, either Pitta or Dickerson could find themselves without a chair when the music stops on Monday.

Prediction:
Dennis Pitta (big game against Air Force, make-up for not including him as a finalist last year)
Cody Slate (high NFL potential, big game over SMU)
Ed Dickson (will have a chance to impress vs AZ, while Dickinson has bye.  Also, was initially listed as a front runner in this column, so he gets the nod)

On the other hand, a few minutes on the website of the award and it is obvious that they are big on NFL potential and validation, and at the end of the day, that may be the unspoken, but final, criteria.  In that scenario, where stats don’t matter, how will Pitta Stack up?   Feel free to share your thoughts…

November 17, 2009

What We Learned Against New Mexico
By Dave Haynie

[Visit www.byucougs.com to leave comments or search the archives]

Yes, I did.  I opted for Football Bingo last week.  I am not sure that it was entirely in line with the more analytical and objective approach that this site has been trying to develop, but it seemed like a nice distraction at the time.  Unless there is public outcry (doubtful), then I will resume the regular game preview and assessment with Air Force coming to Provo this weekend.  But first, a few things that we learned in the New Mexico game and a check of the Bingo Card:

What  we learned:

Football Bingo—filled in squares in Bold on the previous post.  Overall a pretty quiet bingo game for the Cougs (as was mentioned by a UNM fan in the comments to the last post).

Max throws for 300 yards
Unga runs for 100 yards
Pitta gets 5 catches
Jorgenson gets sack
Riley Nelson completes 1 pass

Max throws for 2 TDs
Unga gets 1 TD
Jacobsen gets 1 TD
Clawson gets sack
Defense holds to 10 pts or less

DiLuigi does a jig (TD)
Defense gets 2 turnovers
FREE
Jacobsen gets 75 yards
Pitta gets 65 yards

Hall throws no picks
Johnson gets pick
Pitta gets 1 TD
George gets 2 catches
Pendleton gets sack

Kariya gets 25 yards
Max gets 20 yards rushing
Logan gets pick
Offense goes over 40 pts
Defense gets 2 sacks

November 14, 2009

What to Watch for Against New Mexico—Football Bingo
By Dave Haynie

[Visit www.byucougs.com to leave comments or search the archives]

Given that the outcome of the game this weekend is not in question and that the quality of the opposition will make it difficult to really learn much about the play of the team, I thought I would mix it up this week and introduce the pregame review as football game bingo.  Here is how this works:

Max throws for 300 yards
Unga runs for 100 yards
Pitta gets 5 catches
Jorgenson gets sack
Riley Nelson completes 1 pass

Max throws for 2 TDs
Unga gets 1 TD
Jacobsen gets 1 TD
Clawson gets sack
Defense holds to 10 pts or less

DiLuigi does a jig (TD)
Defense gets 2 turnovers
FREE
Jacobsen gets 75 yards
Pitta gets 65 yards

Hall throws no picks
Johnson gets pick
Pitta gets 1 TD
George gets 2 catches
Pendleton gets sack

Kariya gets 25 yards
Max gets 20 yards rushing
Logan gets pick
Offense goes over 40 pts
Defense gets 2 sacks

Create your own football bingo in the comments below (I will follow up… bragging rights will come).   In the event that more than one person gets Bingo, we’ll go with whoever has the most.  Feel free to use mine and rearrange them (to save time), or to create your own (try to stick with things that aren’t a given).  Go Cougs!  Bingo!

November 13, 2009

This Week’s Assault on the Records
By Dave Haynie

[Visit www.byucougs.com to leave comments or search the archives.]

The fact that Max Hall is only one win away from tying Ty Detmer for the most wins as a starting quarterback in BYU history (with 29) has been well-publicized elsewhere.  What has not been mentioned much is that Unga is likely to become the all-time leading rusher this week.  Pitta is also making a move.  As fans, it should be viewed as both a tribute to these players themselves as well as to the coaching staff.   It should also be viewed as an outcome beyond what was thought possible just a couple of years ago.  Remember 2004 and the missed field goals against New Mexico (and Boise) that ensured a third straight losing season?  What would you have thought if someone told you that the next starting quarterback would get more wins than any other in BYU history?  That the current running back (Curtis Brown) would eventually become the all-time leader in rushing yards and that the one after that would break his record?  These are good times indeed, and yet with prospects for an even brighter future, it has been easy for fans to get distracted by the glare.  Here’s a small effort toward appreciating the present.

Here is the latest on Max, Harvey, and Dennis’ assault on the BYU career records:

Against TCU and Wyoming—

Likely to Happen Against New Mexico

1. 71 yards--Unga should become the all-time leading rusher, passing Curtis Brown

2. 2 TDs--Hall will move into second place with Jim McMahon in passing TDs

3. 15 yards, 4 catches--Pitta will move into fourth and second in receiving yards and receptions, respectively, overtaking Matt Bellini in both categories (2,635 yards on 204 catches)

Novmber 10, 2009

What We Learned in the Wyoming Game
By Dave Haynie

[Visit www.byucougs.com to leave comments or search the archives.]

Wow.  I didn’t see that one coming, but if that is how it’s going to be, then I hope I’m off every week.  The first half of that game was perhaps the best and most complete football BYU has played since the UCLA game last year and was a fine reward for the fans.  It even looked like the players themselves were having a good time.  And once again, the team, with a near flawless game, has done a good job of raising expectations for the next three games to a level that may be hard to meet.  As we witnessed in the aftermath of the FSU and TCU games, it can be dangerous to set such high expectations for fans (although fortunately it appears as if the players themselves have been more grounded), but at the same time, it will ensure that BYU football is the topic of conversation in meetinghouse hallways on Sunday mornings across America once again.

What we learned:

A few other thoughts

November 6, 2009

What to Watch for Against Wyoming
By Dave Haynie

[Visit www.byucougs.com to leave comments or search the archives.]

Given what happened in the TCU game, it could be argued that this has been a great time for a bye week or that it was terrible timing.  But in either case, being focused back on the field this week will be great not only for the team, but also for the fans.  Let’s be honest, even though last week was likely the most productive week many of us have had since early August, two weeks in a row of such productivity and people would begin to expect that kind of performance week in and week out… what do they think this is—the SEC?

On to the game.  Wyoming is coming off of a confidence building performance against Utah.  It is still hard to tell just how good Utah is, but in any case, Wyoming managed to lead for three quarters, so they can’t be far behind.   They have been improving nearly every week and we all remember their first half against Texas.  Their freshman quarterback, Austyn Carta-Samuels,  is mobile and has been a spark for the offense and now has a number of games under his belt (becoming the starter in game 4).  Their defense is very similar to the 3-3-4 that BYU runs and has been efficient.  With a couple of days extra for BYU to prepare, the bye week may have been pretty good timing in any case.

A few things to watch for:

Wyoming is playing good football right now.  They are probably the fourth or fifth best team in the conference right now (battling for those honors with Air Force and San Diego State).  BYU has a game on its hands, but should be the better team.   I think BYU comes out focused and plays a good first half, but finds itself only up by a small margin (3-10 points) at the half, due to inspired play by Wyoming as opposed to poor play by BYU.  The blue and white come out in the second half and take that opening drive the distance.  Finally.  Then pull away.  The cold weather and some wind  impacts the passing game and the Cougars run the ball out in the fourth quarter, while Wyoming gets some points it should not have been given.  Final score:  BYU 37 Wyoming 24.

What else are you watching for?  How do you see the game playing out?  Reactions?  Leave your thoughts and predictions at www.byucougs.com…

October 27, 2009

What We Learned in the TCU Game
By Dave Haynie

[Visit www.byucougs.com to leave comments or search the archives.]

There is something about being a BYU fan that allows for rugged optimism and hope in the face of diminishing possibility. There nearly always remains a way to win, a path to victory, or some combination of great playmaking, lucky breaks, and a touch of magic that keeps the dream alive. Yet, despite this, at some point the possibilities and optimal combinations become no longer viable. For fans of some teams, this may have happened early in the first quarter down 14-0, or at half time down 21-7, or even when TCU went up 31-7 ten minutes into the third quarter. But for BYU fans, it likely wasn’t until midway through the fourth quarter when defeat was acknowledged. They stay until the end of the game. They believe in the possibilities.

Here is what we learned this week in response to last week’s questions:

• Can Max Hall get rid of the ball in time? For the most part. There was quite a bit of pressure on the pocket, but Hall seemingly had enough time to get rid of the ball, and despite a couple of sacks, for most part was able to do so. The real issue seemed to be that there were no open receivers to throw to, resulting in coverage sacks or dumps for short to no gain.
• Will the BYU defensive front seven be able to contain the TCU run game and still get some pressure on Andy Dalton? Yes and no. Run game contained? Check. Pressure on Andy Dalton? Non-existent. For the third week in a row, BYU was able to contain the running game (giving up 127 yards on 37 carries to TCU is respectable). But until late in the game, there was almost no pressure on Dalton, allowing him to take his time waiting for something to open up. In the fourth quarter, when pressure was finally applied via blitz, Dalton threw several bad passes and looked flustered. And although too little too late, hopefully the coaches will identify this and incorporate it into future game plans a bit earlier.
• Has the BYU defense learned to adapt to the Wildcat and can it contain Jeremy Kerley? Yes. Kerley was held to 12 yards on 3 carries.
• What impact will the return of the injured have? Slightly positive. The return of Tonga improved the running game. With several players back special teams coverage was improved. The secondary, with a still hurt Johnson playing and flu-recovered Bradley, was not significantly better. McKay Jacobsen, still out with a hamstring, would have made a difference in this game, but did not play.
• Will BYU win the turnover battle? No. BYU 2, TCU 0. I wrote last week, “whichever team wins the turnover battle on Saturday is likely to win the game.” The interception in the opening drive of the third quarter leading to a TCU field goal was ominously reminiscent of a similar outcome in the FSU game. The best way for BYU to come back at that point was to get a few turnovers, but it never happened as the Cougars gave up a fumble to go with it.
• Will BYU’s running game find success? Not when it counted. The total yards were decent (Harvey had 123), but much of it came near the end of the game, when (surprise) TCU was giving up some room to run. The greater question is why BYU was running at that point. When it mattered most—on third downs, short distances, etc.—the run game was essentially shut down. What really hurt is that the passing game, was similarly stymied, and as mentioned already, the receivers appeared unable to get open when they needed to.
• Will BYU have the emotional intensity to match TCU without letting it interfere with their execution? Mostly. TCU did not appear to dominate the emotional battle as they obviously did last year. Nor did it seem to be primarily lack of execution that lost the game as it did in the FSU game (missed tackles, turnovers, etc.). BYU seemed focused and prepared to play, but matched up with an superior team (at least on this night) and with a few bad breaks, got behind early and was unable to overcome the deficit.

A few other things of note:
• Looks like the Poinsettia Bowl for the Cougars this year. The Vegas Bowl has already said that they would like to change it up and fans feel the same way, so with a BCS game out of the question, San Diego seems the likely destination. For your Holiday planning, that game will be played on Wednesday, December 23 at 5pm (PST) on ESPN. This will be the fifth year of that bowl game (first played in 2005), with the MWC playing in it each year, going 3-1. Interestingly, BYU has played in the Vegas Bowl all four years of the Poinsettia Bowl’s existence.
• Good time for a bye week. McKay Jacobsen will likely be back to full speed by the Wyoming game on Nov 7.
• Fans will always question the coaches’ decisions and play calling. But there are some plays and decisions that are easier to question than others. In particular, I thought it curious that they called a running play on third and eleven when we were within scoring range and that they decided to punt on fourth and two near midfield, down big in the second half…

 

October 23, 2009

What to Watch For Against TCU
By Dave Haynie

If Gary Patterson thought last year’s game was a media circus, he is likely to expand his horizons a bit this weekend, as the ESPN Game Day event has become the talk of the town in fan circles and Provo has become the town of the talk on the national scene. The nation will be watching. All day. The Cougars may actually be able to undo some of the damage done in the Florida State game by showing up on Saturday and showing what they have shown in the last couple of games. Yes, underneath all of the hype and hoopla, there is an actual game being played, and yes, it should be a good one. It seems almost a distraction right now to focus on elements of the game when there are clever signs to be made, television images to be aware of, and talking heads to analyze. But let’s do it anyway.

• Can Max Hall get rid of the ball in time? Having enough time to throw is relative. If you have a lot of time, you can throw it deep, where it takes some time for plays and patterns to develop. If you don’t have time, you need to throw dump it quickly. Max (and Anae) have been much better at dumping it off this season, introducing a screen pass and throwing more underneath routes.
• Will the BYU defensive front seven be able to contain the TCU run game and still get some pressure on Andy Dalton? Aside from the Florida State game, BYU has been able to contain the run in nearly every game this season. However, last week, despite holding SDSU to only 20 yards rushing, there was almost no pressure on the quarterback and Lindley looked like an all-american. Dalton is a better runner and passer, and if given time, will be able to do more damage.
• Has the BYU defense learned to adapt to the Wildcat and can it contain Jeremy Kerley? Last season Jeremy Kerley ran seemingly untouched every time he lined up behind center. This season he has been dangerous as well on special teams.
• What impact will the return of the injured have? Last week several players were out with injuries, as well as another half dozen or so playing under the influence of influenza. Manase Tonga (knee) should immediately upgrade the run game. Improvement from Scott Johnson (ankle) and Brandon Bradley (flu) should improve the secondary. McKay Jacobsen (hamstring) will be a game time decision. Several special teams players are also back.
• Will BYU win the turnover battle? Whichever team wins the turnover battle on Saturday is likely to win the game. Both teams are so evenly matched that an extra possession or improved field position could be the difference. It was the 5 turnovers against Florida State that was the Cougar’s undoing as much as anything.
• Will BYU’s running game find success? The passing game will be there. Will there be a complimentary running game. If so, the Cougars will be in good shape. If not, this one could easily become a battle to the wire or worse.
• Will BYU have the emotional intensity to match TCU without letting it interfere with their execution? That is something that all of us will be watching. It was obvious last year in Ft. Worth, that the BYU team had no idea what had just hit them. After the first possession, it will be clear again, which team showed up for the emotional battle. But key to that will be maintaining focus and execution at the same time—Bronco said that he has never seen his players as fired up as they were prior to the FSU game, but that lead to missed assignments and lack of focus, as football fans across the country are well aware.

I am putting on my Cosmo head right now and picking the Cougars to win this one. The coaches will have a great game plan for this one and do what is necessary to get the team up for the game. BYU stays focused and avoids big mistakes. The defense contains TCU’s run game and BYU is able to get 100+ yards on the ground opening up the passing game even more. Max gets rid of the ball when under pressure, limits turnovers, and guides the team to its second victory over a top 10 opponent this season. BYU 34 TCU 27.

 

October 23, 2009

An Updated Comparison of Conference TV Contracts
By Dave Haynie

 

[Note: This article was originally published on this site on September 18, 2009 and this updated version (with regards to the Big East and Notre Dame) supersedes all that was written previously.  Visit www.byucougs.com to leave comments or search archives.]

Once again, the Mountain West is taking collateral damage from its TV partners in the standoff between Direct TV and Comcast over Versus, and has raised the issue of conference television contracts to the forefront.  Of particular note is the fact that ESPN Game Day will be in Provo to catch the excitement of the occasion, while Versus will actually be broadcasting the game, just not into any homes with Direct TV (most college football fans, and especially out-of-footprint MWC fans).

However, it is not just the MWC that desires more from its TV partners.  I wrote a piece comparing the TV contracts with each conference back in September prior to the Florida State game.  That article has been one of the most widely cited, searched, and seen publications on this site.  It was pointed out that Notre Dame had not been included and that I had not considered the basketball schools from the Big East.  I have addressed both of those concerns in this updated view. 

With that introduction, let’s take a closer look at the MWC TV contract relative to the other conferences’ contracts, including the pros and cons of each.

[I should note that I am a non-MWC footprint Direct TV subscriber, and a relatively happy one at that. This year and last year have offered great access to all of the BYU games as well as most other conference games—almost enough good times to help me forget the years of purgatory, when in 2006 and 2007 many of the games were not available to me at any price. It was during those lean times that I purchased a Slingbox, which has merely acted as my emergency backup during the recent fat times, but may be called upon to come through in the clutch this weekend due to the Versus contract disputes.]

Conf   Teams  $/Year    $/Yr/Team  Contract
SEC      12       $205.0     $17.1        CBS, ESPN
Big 10   11       $174.0     $15.8       BTN, ABC/ESPN, CBS*
ND         1       $11.0       $11.0       NBC, Big East*

Big 12   12       $79.5       $6.6        ABC/ESPN, FSN
ACC      12       $66.9       $5.6        ABC/ESPN, Raycom*
Pac 10   10       $53.2      $5.3        ABC/ESPN, FSN, ABC/ESPN*
Big East  8^     $45.3      $3.7        ABC/ESPN, CBS*
MWC      9        $12.0      $1.3        CBSC/Mtn.
CUSA     12      $11.3       $0.9        CBSC, ESPN
WAC       9         $4.0       $0.4        ESPN
MAC       13       $1.4       $0.1        ESPN
Sunbelt   9         $0.0       $0.0        ESPN, Cox/Charter

*Separate basketball contracts

^Big East has 16 schools, only 8 of which participate in football and receive $1.7M each for football only; All 16 schools receive an additional $2.0M per year for basketball

When it comes to taking a closer look at the contracts, there are essentially four tiers—The Haves, The Wannabe Haves, The Not-Quite Have-Nots, and the Have-Nots. It is interesting to note that every conference, with the exception of the MWC, has some sort of arrangement with ESPN.

Upon closer consideration (and in light of the SEC/ESPN domino), it appears that the trend is toward larger, longer contracts for the conferences with the biggest TV draws, which leaves fewer slots and dollars for the rest of the football world. The MWC and Big Ten have chosen to create their own networks in an effort to combat that trend. The Big 12, ACC, Pac 10 are exploring that option now.  Notre Dame has watched helplessly as it relinquished its title as king of college football television, as all SEC teams now make more than it does, yes, even Vanderbilt. The Big East is hanging on to what it has (primarily stemming from legacy efforts and basketball prowess) and looking to improve its lineup for the next go-around. Conference USA is heading back down to the have-nots and the WAC is hoping to move up to the not-quite have-nots. Overall, the MWC package is better than any of the alternatives its non-AQ brethren have by a long shot.

The Haves
The SEC and Big 10 are a head and shoulders above everyone else. The bar has been set and other conferences that want to keep up are scrambling to find a way to match the TV revenue that they are going to bring in over the next 15 years.

1. SEC
The SEC has an $825M, 15 year contract with CBS, for an exclusive time slot and first pick of games (14 regular season and championship game). The league made headlines earlier this summer when it signed a second 15 year deal for $2.25B with ESPN. ESPN gets its pick of the rest of the games, some of which are sublicensed to regional carriers. It is hard to find any issues with these arrangements. This large investment by ESPN will ensure that college football fans continue to hear about the “dominance” of the SEC from the Sports Leader for years to come, and due to limited time slots, will also preclude other leagues from signing similarly valued deals with ESPN.

2. Big 10
The Big Ten Network launched last year and is projected to bring in $2.8B over the next 25 years; this also guarantees coverage for all of the leagues games. In addition, there is a $1.0B, 10 year contract with ABC/ESPN, and a $20M, 10 year basketball deal with CBS. When the SEC is essentially using ESPN as its own conference network, the Big 10 did the next best thing by starting its own, and has a high enough profile to generate more viewers and dollars than the Mtn.

 

3. Notre Dame

Notre Dame was once the king of the college football television world and it wasn’t even close.  However, recently, it must find itself looking up at the Big 10 and SEC with envy and imagining the implications of being left behind.  Despite this, it still brings in almost double the next closest school, and so remains one of the “haves” but could be quickly relegated to “wannabe have” status in the next 3-5 years.  The school agreed to a 5 year contract extension with its football TV partner NBC this summer, and although terms have not been disclosed, they are believed to be in the same neighborhood as the previous contract, which would put it at about $9.0M per year.  For basketball, the Irish are affiliated with the Big East and bring in another $2.0M per year or so.  If Notre Dame ever decides to end its independent status, it will be because of its inability to remain relevant and draw viewers (and thus TV dollars) while being left out of the ongoing BCS and conference supremacy debate.

The Wannabe Haves
The Big 12, ACC, and Pac 10 feel an urgency to keep up with the Joneses. Rumors of creation of joint TV networks between Big 12 and ACC or Pac 10 and ACC have been flying. The Pac 10 brought in a new commissioner with the primary task of working out a more favorable TV arrangement (Pac 10 expansion may even be a possibility).

4. Big 12
There is a $480M, 8 year deal with ABC to show first pick of up to 19 games per season (and ESPN has rights to all basketball games). FSN has a 4 year, $78M deal to show the rest. Of those, FSN has sublicensed 7 games to ESPN and 5 to Versus. Overall good exposure, but significantly less compensation for the effort than the SEC or Big 10.

5. ACC
The addition of Miami, Virginia Tech, and Boston College has not quite played out in TV market land as was hoped. The ACC has a 7 year, $258M contract with ABC/ESPN that is expiring soon. In that deal, ABC gets first pick, then ESPN/ESPN2, then Raycom (as part of basketball deal), and lastly ESPNU. Raycom has a subordinate deal with them for 10 years for $300M for basketball. The ESPN contract requires a marquee game on Labor Day each year. It is obvious that the conference is exploring all avenues as it has been linked to nearly all of the mega conference TV network deal rumors.

6. Pac 10
The main contract here is $125M with ABC/ESPN for 20 games per year over 5 years ending in 2011. There is another contract with FSN for 5 years and $97M—5 of those games have been sublicensed to Versus, keeping 13 windows for games on FSN. The remainder of the games end up on a hodgepodge of Fox regional networks such as FSN Northwest, Fox Sports West, Fox Sports Arizona, Oregon Sports Netowrk, CSN Bay Area, etc. The prime gripe here is that most games are not readily available to a national audience. New conference commissioner Larry Scott was able to raise the profile of the Women’s Tennis Tour through savvy TV contracts and was hired to do the same with the Pac 10.

The Not-Quite Have-Nots
The Big East, Mountain West and Conference USA find themselves with real TV contracts that actually compensate them for the product (differentiating them from the WAC, MAC and Sunbelt), but for annual amounts and levels of exposure that don’t qualify them to be in the same grouping with the previous four conferences. It leaves them looking up with envy, but also looking down knowing it could be worse. The Big East is by far the best off of these three, and could be argued that it deserves to be with the group above based on total revenue, but since more than half of its money comes from basketball, leaving football only TV revenue of $1.7M (which is close to what the MWC makes), and the fact that it has been forced to play games at rather fringe start times, the Big East has been placed in this group.  It is also unlikely that the Big East will be able to maintain that level of revenue in its next contract unless some significant changes are made.

7. Big East
The Big East has a 6 year, roughly $218M deal with ESPN ($80M for football split 8 ways and $138M for basketball split 16 ways) running through 2013, which appears to be a Mike Tranghese boondoggle. In any case, the league is getting paid and has 17 games guaranteed to be on ABC or ESPN, with at least 3 on ABC. In order to achieve that the conference had to agree to up to 4 games on Thursdays, 2 on Sundays and mutually agreeable Friday games. 5 additional games can appear on ESPNU. Given that this is only an 8 team league, there are not that many games to begin with, especially in conference, and only 37% of these televised games ended up being played on Saturdays, effectively ensuring no marquee Big East games on the sport’s biggest day. The conference also has a 6 year $54M contract with CBS that pays another $9M per year (but must be split 16 ways).  So football schools make $3.7M per year ($1.7M from football and $2.0M from basketball), while the basketball only schools get roughly $2.0M each).  This is the only conference that makes more from televising its basketball games than it does from its football games, and likely owes its status as an AQ-BCS football conference to its perception as the number one basketball conference.  With the recent beating the conference has taken in the media and from fans, there are rumors that the Big East is again looking to expand (Memphis or an ACC reverse raid), in order to improve its profile and reputation and cling to its football TV revenue.

8. Mountain West
After leaving ESPN, for increased revenue and regular game times, the Mountain West television situation is finally settling down. What was originally a 12 year, $120M contract with CSTV, added Comcast the day after it was announced, and was since sold to CBS College Sports. The Mtn. was created and Versus (which is owned by Comcast) was given 8 games per year (as part of the contract 8 games per year must be distributed to a national audience of 70 million homes or more). CBSC has the rights to up to 24 games per year (and has selected 11 this year). Overall, the national footprint/access is improving as is the quality of the product; however, what suffers is the exposure on ESPN—both on TV and online, as the station does not have any vested interest in developing the leauge’s profile. There is also no web streaming available.

9. Conference USA
There is a legacy contract with ESPN/ESPN2 for 10 games per season paying $45.8M and another with CBSC for $22M over 6 years for its pick of the remainder of the games. Both contracts end at the end of the 2010 football season, and were originally set up pre-Big East raid of Cincinnati, Louisville, and South Florida, and pre-MWC raid of TCU. Many games required to be played on weeknights, in order to get on TV. When these contracts end, the conference will likely take a major hit on the revenue and exposure side of things.

The Have-Nots
10. WAC
The conference moves from its $1M per year contract with ESPN to one paying closer to $4M per year starting in 2010-11. The old deal allows ESPN/ESPN2 rights to a minimum of 8 games and the new deal requires a minimum of 10. The new deal also requires at least 6 games on ESPNU. Many of the games on ESPN/ESPN2 will be played on weeknights in order to find TV time. The silver lining in all of this is the online streaming and rights retained by schools for games not televised. This contract leaves a lot to be desired, but it is something and provides the exposure that is desperately needed by a conference trying to raise its profile. Should Boise no longer be a member of this conference during the next round of negotiations, look for the TV situation to take a step backwards.

11. MAC
The MAC will take what it can get. It has an 8 year, roughly $11M deal with ESPN to televise a minimum of 11 games—6 on ESPN/ESPN2 and 5 on ESPNU. Nearly all of these games will be played on weeknights. The bright spot for the MAC is that the creation of the Big Ten Network and the removal of Big Ten games from regional networks is that there is a demand for sports programming on many of the regional networks and many MAC games are being syndicated regionally.

12. Sunbelt
Its not easy being at the bottom of the college football food chain. The Sunbelt has a 3 year contract with ESPN to show at least 2 games per year. These games must be willing to allow for a 12 day advance scheduling window and play on weeknights. It isn’t clear if the league even receives any meaningful compensation for its product, but is looking for exposure however it can get it. Comcast/Charter Sports own the regional rights.

Note: Here are a few links to other sources covering TV contracts…
1. http://mattsarzsports.blogspot.com/2009/08/discussing-conferences-thyeir-tv.html
2. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/stewart_mandel/07/24/tv-deals/index.html
3. http://www.ncaabbs.com/printthread.php?tid=350645

 

October 21, 2009

Effective Rankings —Week 7
By Dave Haynie

[Visit www.byucougs.com to leave comments and search archives]

BYU moved up several spots in each of the major polls this week, as we are all aware at this point, and combined to debut at number 16 pretty much across the board—AP, Coaches, Harris, BCS. However, the relative “rank” is not what matters in these polls, as was pointed out last week in my introduction to the “effective” rankings (www.byucougs.com/2009/10/inside-polls-byus-effective-ranking.html). All that really matters is the votes received and the percentage of votes of the total possible votes. Keeping in mind that each 4% gain in votes is one increase in “rank”, and that the “effective” rank can also be thought of as the average ballot slot given by voters. Based on this approach, I have updated the rankings to reflect BYU’s actual positioning each week and provided the effective AP poll.

 

BYU in AP

wk opponent  record  rank votes  %votes    gain      eff

P   ----            0-0     20    267    17.8%    ----      21.55

1   Oklahoma   1-0      9     984    65.6%    47.8%   9.60

2   Tulane        2-0      7    1122    74.8%   9.2%     7.30

3   Florida St    2-1     19   349    23.3%   -51.5%  20.18

4   CSU            3-1     20   349    23.3%    0.0%     20.18

5   Utah St       4-1     18   403    26.9%    3.6%     19.28

6   UNLV          5-1     18   490    32.7%    5.8%     17.83

7   SDSU          6-1     16   601    40.1%    7.4%     15.98

 

The effective increase was just under two spots, putting BYU above 40% for the first time in 5 weeks. And the second consecutive week of significant gains in votes.

 

BYU in Coaches

wk opponent   record   rank  votes  %votes    gain       eff

P    ----            0-0       24    178     12.1%    ----       22.98

1    Oklahoma   1-0      12    755     51.2%    39.1%   13.20

2    Tulane         2-0      9     941     63.8%    12.6%   10.05

3    Florida St    2-1      20    279     18.9%   -44.9%  21.27

4    CSU            3-1      21    298     20.2%    1.3%    20.95

5    Utah St       4-1      20    353     23.9%    3.7%    20.02

6    UNLV          5-1     19     441     29.9%    6.0%    18.53

7    SDSU          6-1     16     577     39.1%    9.2%    16.22

 

Of the three major polls, BYU is effectively ranked the lowest in the Coaches Poll at 16.22, but also experienced the largest increase in the Coaches poll gaining 9.2% over last week.

 

BYU in Harris

wk   opponent      record   rank  votes  %votes    gain    eff

4     Colorado St    3-1       19     796    27.9%    ----     19.02

5     Utah St          4-1      17      847    29.7%    1.8%   18.57

6     UNLV             5-1      17      963    33.8%    4.1%   17.55

7     SDSU             6-1      16     1210    42.5%    8.7%   15.39

 

Although ranked similarly in the Harris Poll as the other two polls at #16, BYU is effectively still ranked highest in this poll at 15.39 with 42.5% of the vote, effectively offsetting the Coaches poll in the BCS rankings. Also, despite only moving up only one official spot, they gained 8.7%, which is effectively more than two places.

 

Effective AP Rankings

Eff     Team        Votes   AP  Last

1.88  Alabama   1447     1    2.17

2.10  Florida      1434     2   1.17

3.25  Texas        1365     3   2.75

5.78  USC          1213     4   6.65

6.62  Cincinnati  1163     5   8.70

6.73  Boise St    1156     6   6.02

7.80  Iowa         1092     7  10.68

8.40  Miami       1056     8    9.83

9.10  LSU          1014    9   10.22

9.32  TCU          1001   10  10.72

11.65 GA Tech    861   11   18.45

11.85 Oregon      849    12   13.07

13.45 Penn State  753   13   16.05

14.50 Okla State  690   14   16.68

14.60 VA Tech      684   15     4.62

15.98 BYU            601   16    17.83

18.03 Houston      478   17   22.80

19.78 Ohio State   373  18    8.53

20.17 Utah            350  19    24.73

20.50 Pittsburgh    330   20      --

21.23 Texas Tech  286   21      --

22.58 West VA      205   22      --

23.35 So Carolina 159   23    20.68

24.00 Kansas        120   24    16.82

24.05 Oklahoma    117   25    18.80

 

The biggest changes were at the top and bottom of the poll. Alabama didn’t move up as much as Florida moved down. Texas, despite remaining #3, dropped a half a spot. Cincinnati, Iowa, and Georgia Tech had the largest gains. The gap between BYU and the team ahead of it widened from about 1.2 to 1.4.

 

October 19, 2009

What We Learned in the San Diego State Game
By Dave Haynie

[Visit www.byucougs.com to leave comments or search archives]

In a game that played out much closer than most expected, the Cougars put San Diego State behind them with an offense that played just  below its UNLV performance (best of the season) and a defense that was barely better than its Florida State performance (worst of the season). 

Last week I wrote:
“BYU will come out focused and meet SDSU’s preparation with preparation and execution.  After a tight first quarter and a close first half, BYU pulls away in the third quarter and plays the subs in the fourth.  Records fall, experience is gained, and the Cougars can finally focus on TCU.”

That was a good assessment of the first half, although in the second half the Cougs didn’t really pull away until the fourth quarter.  Hall and Pitta did make their move up the record charts,  and the team learned some lessons that will hopefully wake them up for this week’s game.

• Health—Success.  Despite several players fighting a flu bug, and not playing at 100%, there were no major injuries. 
• Box Score Victory—Draw.  The score was closer than it needed to be as BYU didn’t cover the spread, however, given the number of losses in the top 25 this week, it didn’t really matter.
• Another Clean Game—Offense yes, Defense no.  As mentioned last week, it would take a combination of several significant mistakes—key turnovers, meaningful penalties, blown coverages, special teams meltdowns, etc—for BYU to lose this game.  And as the offense held up its share of the bargain, the defense alone was not able to make enough mistakes to lose the game.  That said, there were some blown coverages and 1 or 2 meaningful penalties.  There were a few questionable penalties as well—as I was in attendance at the game, I have not had a chance to review most of the calls, but several seemed suspect at the time (as well as 2-3 obvious no-calls) and Bronco seems to agree, having submitted at least two calls to the league for review.
• Max Protection—Max played a great game.  There were a few moments where he felt the pressure and was able to escape.  He ended up with 14 runs for 47 yards, and had another 30+ yarder called back on a penalty.
• Scott Johnson—Played.  There was some question as to whether he would play and how that would impact the game.  Johnson played and had a key interception at the goal line.  
• Eenie, meenie, minie, moe, to which receiver will Hall throw?  All of them.  Despite 346 passing yards, as has become common this season, no single receiver filled the stat sheets, but it was Andrew George, Dennis Pitta and JJ DiLuigi that came up with the big plays when they were needed. 
• Secondary Impact Games—OU close loss.  TCU big win.  The stage is set for another top 10 battle this Saturday in Provo, complete with Game Day on hand.  I find it interesting to note that BYU had already been in discussions with ESPN regarding Game Day for several days prior to Sunday’s announcement.  It is likely hard not to overlook a game when you are already making plans predicated on victory.  I wonder how the impacted the team or staff, if at all (and to the extent they were aware of it—at the very least I imagine Bronco was).
• Player Records—Done.  Hall passed McMahon for third place in passing and total offense.  Pitta passed college-football-hall-of-famer Gordon Hudson to become all-time leader for receiving yards by a tight end, as well as moved into third place for receptions and sixth for yards among all BYU receivers.

 

A few other items of note:

• Overall seemingly poor officiating—inconsistency, long delays, late calls, non calls, questionable calls.
• Hall looked great on his feet, but at some point is going to pay a price for that
• In a curious decision by the coaches, the defense only sent three rushers for most of the game, giving SDSU QB Lindley enough time to throw that he looked like an All-American. 
• Several of the big plays given up by the defense were not a matter of defenders being out of position or even beat really, but rather was an issue of how the defender played the receiver at the point of reception—often seemingly not even aware the ball was coming, only to make a tackle after a catch that could/should have been denied.
• As it was my first time in Qualcomm Stadium, my first impression was the vast emptiness of the seats.   Otherwise, it was nice, with reasonable parking and easy access to the various levels.   
• The running game seemed to lack a bit of creativity and impact, but was likely hampered by the loss of Manase Tonga’s lead blocking skills.  It was also curious to see JJ DiLuigi given the ball on two critical short down plays, where a power runner (or at least someone that can push through the first tackler) would seem to be more suited.
• The kick returners seem to have adopted a new practice of going half speed until the blockers have committed to the defenders—it didn’t seem especially effective and was rather frustrating to watch.  Anyone have any insights as to what was going on there?

October 16, 2009

What to Watch for Against San Diego State
By Dave Haynie

[Visit www.byucougs.com to leave comments or search archives]

Coming off of the most complete game of the season, it will be hard for the Cougars not to regress somewhat, at least statistically (611 yards is hard to live up to), while at the same time trying to string together back-to-back complete games. San Diego State is going to put a better defense on the field than UNLV did, although the SDSU offense is likely inferior to what BYU faced last week. With that in mind, the outcome of the game is not as much in question as to how it is achieved. Here are a few things to watch for as you assess the “how” on Saturday afternoon:

• Health—Aside from winning the game, the number one goal for the team in this game is to come out with everyone at full strength for next week’s match with what will be a top 10 TCU team (if they win on Saturday). Should BYU get a big lead, watch for the bench to be cleared sooner than later.
• Box Score Victory—Just as last week, no one not wearing BYU blue is going to be watching this game and thus the team needs to look good in the box score as well for voters that will make decisions based on what they find. To do that, the spread is 17.5 and needs to be covered at a minimum. Holding SDSU to under 20 points would also contribute to that perception.
• Another Clean Game—It would take a combination of significant mistakes—several key turnovers, meaningful penalties, blown coverages, special teams meltdowns, etc—for BYU to lose this game. But, aside from playing well enough to win, the team needs to prove its own identity to itself, that it really is the team that showed up last week, and building confidence in consistently clean play.
• Max Protection—SDSU has had a bye week to prepare for this game and on top of that, Rocky Long has historically been successful at limiting BYU’s offense. Watch for SDSU to try to disrupt the passing game with stunts and blitzes in an attempt to keep Max from getting into a rhythm. If Max Hall is constantly throwing on the run, getting flushed from the pocket, or dropped for a loss, then it will be working for the Aztecs. But should Max get into a groove early and the passing game and running game get off to a good start in the first quarter, it is going to be a long afternoon for the hometown team.
• Scott Johnson—The senior free safety is the quarterback of the defense making coverage calls and making sure everyone is on the same page. Due to his experience and knowledge, he has been likened to another coach on the field. He is coming off of a two pick game (his first two), but also tweaked his ankle and will be a game time decision. The last game he missed was with Florida State, and we know how that one turned out. Hopefully he is good to go, but if not, watch to see how the defense performs in his absence.
• Eenie, meenie, minie, moe, to which receiver will Hall throw? Jacobsen is still out, so who will fill in for his production from the wideout spot? Last week it was freshman Brett Thompson with a big game. The week before it was junior Luke Ashworth. Will they repeat? Will Hafoka or Chambers come up big? Since these are all capable options, the SDSU defense has no more idea of who it will be than fans do—a positive factor for the benefitting receiver.
• Secondary Impact Games—As you change the channels during commercials, a few games outcomes that will impact BYU this week are Oklahoma/Texas and TCU/Colorado State. An Oklahoma win would help to recall BYU’s opening game performance to the collective national memory. A TCU win is needed to ensure that BYU faces its second top 10 ranked opponent next week in Provo, and provide the game with more luster to capture some additional national attention.
• Player Records—Hall , Pitta, and Unga will continue their assault on the career record books--watch for Dennis Pitta and Max Hall in particular to move up this week.
o Max Hall—with 8 yards passing and 37 of total offense, Hall will move into third place all-time in both of those categories, passing Jim McMahon and trailing only Ty Detmer and John Beck.
o Dennis Pitta—with 14 yards receiving, Pitta will pass Gordon Hudson to become the all-time leader in receiving yards among tight ends, at the same time he will move into sixth place among all receivers. With 78 yards, he will pass Phil Odle for fifth place. Pitta, already the all-time leader in receptions by a tight end, will pass Margin Hooks and move into third place among all receivers with 2 receptions this week, trailing only Austin Collie and Matt Bellini.

I think the team will come out focused and meet SDSU’s preparation with preparation and execution. After a tight first quarter and a close first half, BYU pulls away in the third quarter and plays the subs in the fourth. Records fall, experience is gained, and the Cougars can finally focus on TCU. BYU 45 SDSU 17.

 

October 15, 2009

Inside the Polls:  BYU’s Effective Ranking
By Dave Haynie

With the official BCS standings scheduled to be released on Sunday for the first time this season, it seems like an appropriate time to take a closer look at the major polls included in that system—providing both a context to make sense of them and a framework for interpreting them.  Then, we will see that the apparent lack of love for the Cougars from the pollsters in recent weeks is not what it seems.

The Context
Rankings, by definition, are relative.  A team’s ranking then, merely says that a team is supposedly better than all teams ranked below it and not as good as those ranked above it.  A ranking does not quantify the difference between teams.  For that, the total votes relative to other teams is the key, which provides a much more accurate assessment of how a team is viewed by voters in any given poll.  The BCS standings, to their credit, only use the votes and not the ranking, in its calculations.  Fans, then, should not be paying as much attention to a team’s rank when the polls come out on Sunday afternoon, as to the number of votes received and the change over the prior week.

The Framework
Since the votes are the more accurate assessment of how a team is perceived by voters in a given poll, here is an easy way to quickly assess the impact of votes:

• Magic number is 4%—Each voter ranks 25 teams, and then “votes” are awarded based on that ranking with 25 points given to the top team, 24 to the second and so on.  Not news to you.  But what that means is that each rank is given 4% more points than the one after it (1/25=4%).   Therefore, if a team gains 4% more votes than the previous week it has effectively moved up on average by one spot on voters’ ballots.
• Total voters equals 4%—The number of first place votes given (60 for AP, 59 for USA Today, 114 for Harris, etc) will tell you how many ballots are submitted in each poll and represents how many votes are needed to get to 4%, or effectively “move up” one ranking spot.   So if a team gains 90 votes in the AP poll (on 60 ballots), it effectively “moves up” 1.5 spots regardless of whether its actual ranking moves up or down, and is thus listed on the average ballot 1.5 spots higher than the previous week.

Application
With this context and framework in mind below is how the Effective AP Poll (as I am calling it) would look after week 6.  The effective rank can also be thought of as the average rank given on voter’s ballots.  When there are several teams clumped closely together in the final vote tally, it leads to the team in the front being ranked higher than its votes justify and the team in the back, being ranked lower than its votes justify.  For example, TCU is ranked 12th, despite an average ballot placement of 10.72.  And conversely, Penn State is ranked 14th, despite an average ballot placement of 16.05.  To use an accounting analogy, TCU is sitting on some rankings receivables (an asset, having done the work without receiving payment yet) and Penn State is sitting on some unearned rankings (a liability, having received the payment and not yet done the work).

Effective Rank	Team	Votes	AP
1.17	Florida	1490	1
2.17	Alabama	1430	2
2.75	Texas	1395	3
4.62	Virginia Tech	1283	4
6.02	Boise State	1199	5
6.65	USC	1161	6
8.53	Ohio State	1048	7
8.70	Cincinnati	1038	8
9.83	Miami (FL)	970	9
10.22	LSU	947	10
10.68	Iowa	919	11
10.72	TCU	917	12
13.07	Oregon	776	13
16.05	Penn State	597	14
16.40	Nebraska	576	15
16.68	Oklahoma St	559	16
16.82	Kansas	551	17
17.83	BYU	490	18
18.45	Georgia Tech	453	19
18.80	Oklahoma	432	20
20.50	South Florida	330	21
20.68	So Carolina	319	22
22.80	Houston	192	23
24.73	Utah	76	24
24.75	Notre Dame	75	25

 

Impact on BYU
With that in mind, it is interesting to note how BYU has fared in the effective rankings.  Despite seemingly going nowhere in the rankings that last several weeks, BYU has in fact been moving up the effective rankings and is sitting on some “rankings receivables” in the AP and USA Today polls, and a rankings liability in the Harris poll.

			AP
Week	Opponent	Record	rank	votes	% votes	gain	effective
Pre		0-0	20	267	17.8%		21.55
1	Oklahoma	1-0	9	984	65.6%	47.8%	9.60
2	Tulane	2-0	7	1122	74.8%	9.2%	7.30
3	Florida St.	2-1	19	349	23.3%	-51.5%	20.18
4	Colorado St.	3-1	20	349	23.3%	0.0%	20.18
5	Utah St.	4-1	18	403	26.9%	3.6%	19.28
6	UNLV	5-1	18	490	32.7%	5.8%	17.83

AP—The rankings slip from #19 to #20 in week four after the CSU game, was relative only, as the team held steady at 20.18 in the effective rankings.   This last week, BYU did not move up at all in the relative rankings, remaining at #18, however that is misleading since the team experienced a large jump in the votes (effective rankings) moving up 6% or roughly 1.5 spots.

			USA Today/Coaches
Week	Opponent	Record	rank	votes	% votes	gain	effective
Pre		0-0	24	178	12.1%		22.98
1	Oklahoma	1-0	12	755	51.2%	39.1%	13.20
2	Tulane	2-0	9	941	63.8%	12.6%	10.05
3	Florida St.	2-1	20	279	18.9%	-44.9%	21.27
4	Colorado St.	3-1	21	298	20.2%	1.3%	20.95
5	Utah St.	4-1	20	353	23.9%	3.7%	20.02
6	UNLV	5-1	19	441	29.9%	6.0%	18.53

USA Today—Despite dropping from #20 to #21 in week 4, the team actually moved up about a half spot from 21.27 to 20.95.  And what appeared to only be a jump of one spot this last week, was actually 1.5 spots (6%).

 

			Harris Poll
Week	Opponent	Record	rank	votes	% votes	gain	effective
Pre		0-0
1	Oklahoma	1-0
2	Tulane	2-0
3	Florida St.	2-1
4	Colorado St.	3-1	19	796	27.9%		19.02
5	Utah St.	4-1	17	847	29.7%	1.8%	18.57
6	UNLV	5-1	17	963	33.8%	4.1%	17.55

Harris—BYU was sitting on some unearned ranking in the Harris poll last week, and so despite gaining more than one spot in the effective rankings (4.1%, 18.57 to 17.55), they teams official rank of 17 remained unchanged.

October 13, 2009

What We Learned in the UNLV Game
By Dave Haynie

[Visit www.byucougs.com to leave comments and search the archives]

After perhaps the most complete game of the year against perhaps the worst team played against so far, it is time to assess where improvement was made. Last week I wrote:

“UNLV will come out swinging in the first half, play a good game, but will be outmatched by BYU’s talent. The Cougar offense will cut down on the turnovers (but likely still have at least one) and get into the end zone more than last week as they pull away in the second half. BYU ends up winning big and Sanford is out of a job before Monday. BYU 52, UNLV 13.”

I was essentially short a kickoff return TD for each team and only premature on the formality of Sanford’s resignation/dismissal, but otherwise, was pretty close in what I thought at the time was a rather gutsy call. Here is the outcome of the things to watch for:

• A Clean Game—BYU played its cleanest game of the year. Zero turnovers. Eight of eleven on third downs. Relatively few penalties. Not only was it clean, but the level of play was maintained for all four quarters, as the team scored a touchdown in all four for the first time this season.
• Health and Concussions—There were no serious injuries, although Scott Johnson left the game with a sprained ankle, and Manase Tonga suffered a knee injury. Both players status remains in question for the game with San Diego St. The absence of five players on special teams primarily due to injury was a likely contributor to the UNLV kickoff TD.
• More than Cover the Spread—Check. The spread was 16.5. The MOV was 38.
• Rushing and Total Offense—The box score victory was also secured as the offense and defense seemed to be clicking on all cylinders. Harvey Unga (20 carries, 149 yds, 3 TD) continued to improve and had his best game of the season, including a 52 yard TD, the longest Cougar rushing TD since 2006. Overall the team had 611 yards of total offense (320 passing, 291 rushing), well above the 500 or so total needed to solidify the win on paper.
• Filling in for McKay Jacobsen—Due to the lopsided nature of the game and the success of the running game, the receivers were never really tested. That said, Hafoka and Ashworth were relatively quiet with 1 and 2 catches each. It was Brett Thompson that stood out with 52 yards on only 2 catches, with a 46 yarder on a beautiful cut into a wide open post.
• Dennis Pitta Encore—Pitta had a solid, if unspectacular game with 2 catches for 60 yards and one touchdown (Andrew George also had a great game from the TE spot going for 61 yards on 3 catches). Pitta continues to lead all tight ends nationally in receptions (28) and yards (399); he is third in touchdowns (4).
• Mike Sanford’s Final Game—UNLV never appeared to give up (and so Sanford will likely coach again this weekend against Utah), but they did not deliver the job-saving performance that was needed. After five years, it is apparent that Sanford has not been able to turn the program around and no doubt the UNLV athletic director is already compiling a short list of replacement targets.

A couple of other notes from this game:
• In the second half, Max Hall threw a pass to Andrew George on the left side of the field that was overthrown and uncatchable. I realized as I watched that and thought about how long it had been since that had happened, how rare it was to see him overthrow someone, and that it has become easy to take his accuracy for granted.
• It was good to see Hall finally break his streak of interceptions.
• The rankings appear on the surface to not have given the Cougars any love, but in reality they gained a significant number of votes in each of the polls.
• Chambers 97 yard kickoff return was a long time in waiting, and as he has guaranteed a TD return, almost made good on his promise.
• The kicking game was much improved over the beginning of the season, as several kickoffs went into the endzone, and all of the PATs and the long field goal sailed through the uprights without any drama. Surprisingly, it was the punting in this game that was below par.
• The defense came through with a big game (aside from giving up the 75 yard TD pass), and managed three game changing interceptions—Pendleton’s in particular was an incredibly athletic and on-the-ball move to make the catch and stay in bounds.
• Manase Tonga, prior to getting injured looked better than he has all season, a positive sign that he is working hard and regaining his playing shape. He actually had a nice run in the second half where he outran several linebackers, something I didn’t think I would see him do this season.

 

October 9, 2009

What to Watch for Against UNLV
By Dave Haynie

Saturday night’s game against UNLV will be the third of four games that could be considered “trap games” for the BYU football team (you could possibly argue that the Florida State game actually fell into that category as well, making this the fifth of six) where there is very little for the Cougars to gain and yet significant benefit that will accrue to the opponent should they pull off the upset.   Considering UNLV’s performance last week, and that Coach Mike Sanford is literally fighting for his career this weekend, watch for UNLV to come out with their A game, as they find themselves in a similar scenario to Florida State prior to the Seminoles playing the Cougars.  This will be their chance to right the ship, prove the doubters wrong, turn the season around, and save their general.  Or it will be the last hurrah.  Here are a few things to keep an eye on as you watch this drama unfold on Saturday night:

• A Clean Game—BYU can give the ball up as they have been doing and still come away with a victory.  However, as turnovers and mistakes have been a focus in practice this week, the team needs to come out and play a clean game in order to show that it is improving and ready to take on TCU in two weeks.
• Health and Concussions—The team needs to avoid injuries, as several key players have gone down in recent weeks.  In particular, concussions has become a recurring problem this season (can anyone remember a season that featured more head injuries?).  There were two last week as Steven Thomas and Tucker Lamb both were knocked out in special teams play—neither will play this week.   In addition, we lost Matt Bauman in the Oklahoma game and Scott Johnson in the Tulane game both to concussions.   Four players in five games is staring to border on serious issue.  Will the team avoid a concussion this week?
• More than Cover the Spread—As this is a prime time game on the Mtn,  the voters will not be watching and will only see the box score when all is said and done.   In order to continue to move up the rankings, BYU needs to beat the teams it is supposed to and in a manner that is expected (whether fair or not).  That means covering the spread at a minimum which is 16.5.
• Rushing and Total Offense—Harvey Unga looked quick and effective last week.  Can he keep it up this week?  UNLV gave up 559 yards rushing  and 773 total yards to a winless Nevada team last week.  Watch for Harvey and the other backs to exploit this and for BYU to go over 500 yards.  Again whether fair or not, 773 is the number in the backs of all of the box score viewers minds…
• Filling in for McKay Jacobsen—after missing last week’s game with a hamstring injured while stretching in warm-ups, it was determined earlier this week that it is more serious than expected and Jacobsen will be out 4-6 weeks recovering.  Ashworth filled in nicely last week.  Hafoka seemed to be in the dog house after fumbling the first catch of the game.  Watch for both of these receivers to have good games as the offense gets rolling.
• Dennis PItta Encore—After his biggest game of the year last week and being named the John Mackey Award Tight End of the Week, Pitta could take advantage of the spotlight by adding to his stats and overall frontrunner status this week against a soft UNLV defense.
• Mike Sanford’s Final Game—Should UNLV get down early and give up on their head coach as they did last week, this will likely be Sanford’s last game in Sam Boyd Stadium.  In order to keep his job, the Rebels don’t have to win the game, but they need to play hard from beginning to end.  Anything less and Sanford might as well begin dusting off his golf clubs. 

 

I think UNLV will come out swinging in the first half, play a good game, but will be outmatched by BYU’s talent.   The Cougar offense will cut down on the turnovers (but likely still have at least one) and get into the end zone more than last week as they pull away in the second half.   BYU ends up winning big and Sanford is out of a job before Monday.   BYU 52, UNLV 13.

 

October 7, 2009

Pitta Named Mackey Tight End of the Week– Week 5 Award Frontrunners
By Dave Haynie

[Visit www.byucougs.com to leave comments or search archives]

Dennis Pitta (5 catches, 83 yards, 2 TD) was named the John Mackey Tight End of the Week for week 5, collecting the honor for the third time (after being named twice last year). He is the sixth player to have received the weekly award at least three times (last year’s winner Chase Coffman of Missouri also had won the weekly award three times). Last week I gave an update on the race for the Mackey Award and profiled five players that I consider the frontrunners, five contenders, and five dark horses (you can read that article at http://www.byucougs.com/2009/10/pittas-march-toward-mackey-award.html). Here is an update on the five frontrunners after week 5:

Player,		Class,	School	G	Rec	Yds	TD	rec/g	yds/rec	yds/g
Dennis	Pitta,	Sr,	BYU	5	26	339	3	5.2	13	67.8
Ed	Dickson,	Sr,	Oregon	5	22	309	4	4.4	14	61.8
Cody	Slate,	Sr,	Marshall	5	26	289	2	5.2	11.1	57.8
Garrett	Graham,	Sr,	Wisc	5	23	268	4	4.6	11.7	53.6
Jamie	McCoy,	Sr,	TA&M	4	18	209	0	4.5	11.6	52.3

McCoy seems to be slipping behind the top four who are all very close at this point, and Pitta strengthened his frontrunner status this week as he is now leading in receptions (tied with Marshall’s Slate), total yards, and yards per game (although he trails Erik Highsmith of North Carolina who averages 72.5 yards/game).

An offical mid-season watch list will be released by the Nassau County Sports Commission on Monday, Oct 19.

 

October 5, 2009

What We Learned in Utah State Game
By Dave Haynie

[Visit www.byucougs.com to leave comments and search archives]

With a solid defensive performance (despite a late scoring drive that muddied the box score), and a now familiar offensive performance (good, but mistake prone), BYU controlled the game and ticked off another win in its second of four “no-win situation” games as the team awaits a chance to make a statement against TCU on Oct 24. Along the way, the team helped answer the following questions:

• Will Max Hall avoid throwing an interception? Two in a row… on what looked like very similar plays. Max now has 10 picks—still more than any other QB in the country, and pushed his streak to 8 games in a row. You might expect that from a 50% accuracy passer, but since Hall is a 65-70% passer, it is somewhat surprising. So rather than just poorly thrown balls, they tend to be poor decisions, often trying to squeeze a ball into an all-too-narrow lane, or miscommunications on routes with his receivers.

• Will Jan Jorgensen get a sack? Finally. He answered the call with his first sack of the season. The defense turned in three sacks total, a season high, now totaling 8 through 5 games.

• Can we manage to keep the ball for 30 minutes or longer? It’s about… time. Despite an early fumble and two quick picks to start the second half, and with the gratitude of the defense, the offense held onto the ball for 31:15. In the past two games Florida State and Colorado State both seemed focused on winning the time of possession battle as a core game strategy, and used it to successfully mitigate the defense.

• Will there be a special teams or defensive touchdown? Not this time.

• Can the offense score a touchdown in all four quarters? 3 out of 4. Scoreless in the third quarter as the interceptions ended what would have likely been scoring drives.

• Will we get to see more balls thrown to Spencer Hafoka? That depends. As if on cue after reading this column, Hafoka had the first catch of the game, as he was starting in place of McKay Jacobsen (who pulled a hamstring in warm-ups). He then promptly fumbled it, causing the coaches to replace him with Luke Ashworth who proceeded to have a breakout game with 5 catches for 91 yards.

• Will Riley Nelson see the game? Three plays. One that seemed a bit out of sorts and ended with a illegal procedure penalty. Another that went for 13 yards and a first down on a play designed for him to sneak up the middle. A third—taking a knee on the last play of the game. Perhaps what Bronco meant when telling the media that Nelson would be inserted despite game situation, was that there would be specifically designed one-off plays such as this.

• How many passes will be thrown at Brian Logan? None. Logan missed a team walk through and did not start, as he was replaced by Robbie Buckner.

• Will Riley Stephenson ever have to punt and if so will he be able to stay #1 in the country in net punting yards? Yes and no. 3 punts and a 37 yard average, was not enough to stay at the top, dropping to #6 with a 41.92 average.

• Will the USU fans in attendance be able to come up with any witty, clever, or jabbing signs, chants, or t-shirts for the home team? I am sure they did. The Mtn. was unable to capture it for the viewing audiences. If you were there and can share your stories, please do!

• Finally, can Oklahoma beat Miami and solve out transitive property strength of schedule issues? Almost doesn’t count. Miami now owns both Oklahoma and Florida State, doing what the Cougars were unable to do.

 

October 2. 2009

What to Watch for Against Utah State
By Dave Haynie

[Visit www.byucougs.com to join in the discussion]

There have been a few close games with Utah State over the years. I remember as a teenager in 1993, coming home from a production of Saturday’s Warrior with my parents and listening to Paul James call the second half of the 58-56 shootout (as the game was not on local TV). Then in 2002 while living and working in Dallas, driving up to Denton with my brother, where there was a high spot in a Waffle House parking lot where we could pick up KSL on the car radio (as there was no Mtn or Slingbox ) and listened to the biggest comeback in Cougar history and Curtis Brown’s coming out party as BYU won 35-34. Despite those two close games, BYU has dominated this series for the last 30 years and it is unlikely that the outcome tonight will be any different. However, there are always a few things to watch for in how they win, that will reveal how much the team has improved over last week. There are also a few things to watch for just to keep it interesting.

• Will Max Hall avoid throwing an interception? With 8 toss-aways Hall has more picks than any other quarterback in the country right now, and has thrown a pick for 7 straight games.
• Will Jan Jorgensen get a sack? He does a good job and is often double teamed, but hopefully he can avoid the Fresno State syndrome (all hype, no results) and get the sack monkey off his back.
• Can we manage to keep the ball for 30 minutes or longer? A lopsided time of possession has demoralized the defense in both of the last two games, and is primarily a function of allowing the other team to get long sustained, chip-away-at-us drives. Utah State has a potent offense but an equally impotent defense. The Cougs need to keep them off the field. Watch to see if the 3-and-out defense from the OU and Tulane games makes an appearance.
• Will there be a special teams or defensive touchdown? The Utah State game has traditionally been a game where the non-offensive players add to their scoring stats.
• Can the offense score a touchdown in all four quarters? After failing to score a TD in the first quarter in any of the first three games, last week the team made up for that by scoring three… and then promptly dozing off during the second quarter.
• Will we get to see more balls thrown to Spencer Hafoka? After an exciting 24 yard touchdown catch and run near the end of the CSU game that included a bit of fancy footwork, fans would like to see more of him.
• Will Riley Nelson see the game? As a much discussed USU transfer, it would be nice to see him get into the game. And, Bronco reaffirmed this week that he would still like to see Nelson get 10-12 quarters of work this season. Since he only has two with 8 games remaining, he is going to have to start inserting him more than in mop-up duty. And while there is mop-up-duty potential this week, Bronco also stated that he would insert him regardless of the game situation (read: doesn’t need to be a blowout).
• How many passes will be thrown at Brian Logan? He is third in the country in passes defended with 9 and fist overall in the nation in passes broken up with 7. A nice JC addition for BYU.
• Will Riley Stephenson ever have to punt and if so will he be able to stay #1 in the country in net punting yards?
• Will the USU fans in attendance be able to come up with any witty, clever, or jabbing signs, chants, or t-shirts for the home team? USU fans have developed a bit of a personality to make up for their shortcomings in other areas (victories) and have become quite adept at it. Remember last year when they chanted overrated as the clock ticked off on a 20 point loss?
• Finally, can Oklahoma beat Miami and solve out transitive property strength of schedule issues?

I think the offense will find their rhythm, move the ball well and score a lot of points, against a defense that has no answer for them. The Cougar defense will be solid at times, but in the end will give up a lot of yards and more points than they should to the Aggies. Final score BYU 47 USU 27.

 

Pitta’s March toward the Mackey Award
By Dave Haynie

[This is also published at www.byucougs.com]

Prior to the season, several Cougars were named to national award watch lists.  A quick start to the season focused that lens on Max Hall in particular, who came in a consensus third, fourth, or fifth in Heisman forecasts by national pundits through the second week of the season.  However now that we are entering week 5, it seems that Dennis Pitta has the only legitimate shot at a national award this year, but with his two primary competitors out for the season (Arizona’s Rob Gronkowski and Oklahoma’s Jermaine Gresham) he may very well be the frontrunner for the John Mackey Award given to the “best collegiate tight end” each year by the Nassau County Sports Commission.  It is still very early, but here is how the competition breaks out so far, and the players to keep your eye on:

Frontrunners
These are upperclassmen playing on winning teams that were nominated to the preseason watch list and in the top 10 in receiving yards per game.

Player, Class, School	G	Rec	Yds	TD	rec/g	yds/rec	yds/g
Dennis Pitta, Sr, BYU	4	21	256	1	5.25	12.2	64.0
Jamie McCoy, Sr, Tex A&M	3	13	169	0	4.33	13.0	56.3
Ed Dickson, Sr, Oregon	4	15	206	3	3.75	13.7	51.5
Cody Slate, Sr, Marshall	4	17	201	2	4.25	11.8	50.3
Garrett Graham, Sr, Wis	4	16	200	4	4.00	12.5	50.0

Dennis Pitta leads the nation in tight end receptions, while Garrett Graham leads in touchdowns by a tight end.  Dennis Pitta and Cody Slate were were consensus top 5 tight ends in preseason fantasy football rankings (along with Gresham, Gronkowski, and Arkansas’ DJ Williams), with Garret Graham usually showing up in the top 10.  Cody Slate and Ed Dickson were named 2009 Mackey Player of the Week for week 1 and week 4 respectively.  Dennis Pitta was twice named Mackey Player of the Week in 2008.

Contenders
These are nominees on the preseason watch list that are either playing on teams with losing records or are underclassmen, as well as un-nominated players that are in the top 10 in yards per game or receptions.

Player, Class, School	G	Rec	Yds	TD	rec/g	yds/rec	yds/g
Erik Highsmith, Fr, N Car	3	16	279	2	5.33	17.4	93.0
Jason Harmon, Sr, Fla Atl	3	16	197	0	5.33	12.3	65.7
Riar Geer, Sr, Colorado	4	21	232	1	5.25	11.0	58.0
Kyle Rudolph, So, ND	4	17	214	2	4.25	12.6	53.5
Aaron Hernandez, Jr, Fla	4	15	198	2	3.75	13.2	49.5

Erik Highsmith is only a freshman and is the backup to the injured Zack Pianalto (Jr, North Carolina, who was named the Mackey Player of the Week in week two) and leads the nation in receiving yards by a tight end, yards/reception, and yards per game, all while only playing in three games.  Jason Harmon was not nominated in the preseason but is second in the country in yards per game.  Riar Greer  is tied with Dennis Pitta for most receptions, but plays on team with a losing record.  Kyle Rudolph was nominated preseason, and named Mackey Player of the Week in week three, but is only a sophomore.  Aaron Henandez was also nominated preseason, but is just outside the top 10 in receiving yard per game at number 11.

Darkhorses
These are players that were nominated to the preseason watch list and are ranked in the top 25 in receiving yards per game.

Player, Class, School	G	Rec	Yds	TD	rec/g	yds/rec	yds/g
Tony Moeaki, Sr, Iowa	2	11	87	1	5.50	7.9	43.5
Anthony McCoy, Sr, USC	4	7	160	0	1.75	22.9	40.0
Weslye Saunders, Jr, S Car	4	14	156	0	3.50	11.1	39.0
Dorin Dickerson, Sr, Pitt	4	17	155	4	4.25	9.1	38.8
Jeffery Anderson, Jr, UAB	5	12	179	3	2.40	14.9	35.8

Because they already have somewhat of a spotlight on them by virtue of being named in the pre-season, with a couple of big games and/or special seasons for their respective teams, these players could move into contender status.

 

September 29, 2009

Mountain West Wins Stack Up Well
By Dave Haynie

The Mountain West is a “tweener” conference. It hasn’t yet been accepted as a BCS conference, but it has already leaped from the ledge of the little guys and is currently mid-air over the gulf separating the haves from the have-nots. This flight of faith was undertaken hoping that the landing spot doesn’t move out from under it. The conference set out on this course a few years ago by spurning ESPN’s offer for meager pay and weeknight football games, and then recommitted recently by going alone (without the WAC, for example) in its quest to achieve AQ BCS status. The magic carpet in all of this being on field performance, and so far this season (to the relief of the suits and ties in MWC circles), the collective performance of teams in the MWC has been much more similar to the BCS conferences than the non-BCS conferences. After four weeks this season, here is how the MWC stacks up in non-conference games (stats compiled on Phil Steele’s Tuesday ):

total overall
winning percentage
	W	L
SEC	43	5	89.6%
Big Ten	34	10	77.3%
Big East	30	10	75.0%
Big 12	34	14	70.8%
ACC	33	15	68.8%
Pac 10	19	11	63.3%
MWC	22	14	61.1%
CUSA	20	28	41.7%
WAC	16	23	41.0%
MAC	15	37	28.8%
Sun Belt	10	26	27.8%

 

In overall games (including games against FBS teams), the conference is 7th. Not really newsworthy except for the fact that the conference appears to have separated itself from the other four non BCS conferences and is clinging to its 7th place spot with hopes that it brings a permanent place at the table.

winning percentage
vs FBS Teams only
	W	L
SEC	32	5	86.5%
Big Ten	26	10	72.2%
Big East	20	10	66.7%
Big 12	25	14	64.1%
ACC	20	14	58.8%
Pac 10	15	11	57.7%
MWC	16	14	53.3%
CUSA	11	28	28.2%
WAC	9	23	28.1%
Sun Belt	7	25	21.9%
MAC	7	36	16.3%

After removing games against FBS teams, the conference is still in a solid seventh place, and again is much closer to joining the top six than the bottom four. In fact the winning percentage gap between the MWC and the next closest conference widens from 20% to 25% after removing wins against lower division teams.

WINNING PERCENTAGE
vs BCS Teams Only
	W	L
SEC	10	4	71.4%
ACC	9	10	47.4%
Big East	7	8	46.7%
Pac 10	7	8	46.7%
MWC	5	9	35.7%
Big Ten	4	9	30.8%
Big 12	3	8	27.3%
CUSA	6	19	24.0%
WAC	2	13	13.3%
Sun Belt	2	20	9.1%
MAC	2	27	6.9%

In games against teams from the best conferences, the MWC actually jumps up to 5th place passing the Big Ten and Big 12, putting it squarely as a peer to all non-SEC BCS conferences. If the conference can keep up this kind of performance consistently, its peers will have no choice but to reluctantly acknowledge the landing.

Conference Teams with Records Below .500
Big 12	1	8.30%
SEC	1	8.30%
PAC 10	1	10.00%
Big East	1	12.50%
ACC	2	16.70%
Big Ten	2	18.20%
MWC	2	22.20%
CUSA	5	41.70%
MAC	7	53.80%
WAC	5	55.60%
Sun Belt	5	55.60%

Finally, when looking at the number of teams in each conference with losing records, the MWC with only two such teams also fits much more closely with the six conferences above it than the four below it.

 

September 28, 2009

What We Learned in the Colorado State Game
By Dave Haynie

[Visit www.byucougs.com to leave comments or subscribe to the content]

For a game that BYU won handily and featured a lot of scoring over a previously unbeaten in-conference contender, it was not a particularly interesting, exciting, or encouraging victory. There are a number of contributing factors and in reviewing the team’s progress over the previous week, many of these come to light.

Last week I wrote:
“I think that the team comes out with a little fire and a chip on their shoulder. They will have corrected the tackling issues, and will show up on third down. With the ball in the hands of the offense more, the defense will be more rested, becoming more stingy, and will put up more points than last week. The long plays go in our favor and BYU gets a nice rebound. BYU wins 41-20.”

Here is my assessment of the questions asked before the game:

• Will they play with fire in the belly? One quarter was enough. The defense came out with intensity and played that way for the entire first quarter, getting turnovers, making hard hits, and putting the offense in good field position. Although that waned somewhat as the game wore on, the defensive intensity of the first quarter set the tone for the game and really was the determining factor in the game. The offense never really got into a rhythm, scoring quickly on short fields and did not have many early sustained drives or time of possession.

• Will the front seven be able to contain CSU’s QB? No problem. QB Grant Stucker ended the game with -36 yards rushing on a couple of sacks. His running threat was a non-factor. That said, he had eons of time to throw, especially in the second half.

• Will the defense get stingy on third down? Mostly. After conceding nearly all third downs to FSU last week, the team held on 7 of 17 third downs this week, a significant improvement.

• Will the punt return unit finally get a chance? Two thumbs up for the unit. Of note out of five punts, Matt Marshall had a back breaking punt block in the first quarter and McKay Jacobsen had a confidence building clean fair catch. No real preview to the actual return capabilities, but a good performance by the punt return/defense team.

• Can the defense limit the big plays? Sufficiently. Although the defense gave up 438 total yards, they limited the big plays and forced CSU to do it in small chunks, which sucked up game time, but kept CSU out of the end zone quite a bit more than FSU last week.

• Which run defense will show up? Closer to Tulane than FSU. CSU was playing catch up for the entire game and primarily looked to the passing game to get them back in it, but still, was limited to 66 yards rushing on 28 carries (2.8 yd/carry average). Nice job by the run defense.

• How effective will the blitz be? Almost non-existent. There was very little blitzing (apparently a game strategy decision by coaches), and equally little pressure on the quarterback, especially in the second half, so it should not be a surprise that CSU was able to pass for 372 yards. The sacks that BYU did get were often coverage sacks.

• How big of a factor will missed tackles be? No longer an issue. After missing tackles on seemingly every play against FSU, the defense resumed its sure-handed grip on opposing ball carriers, and stopping them for minimal gain an many key plays.

• Will the turnover pendulum swing back? On its way. After a -5 in the turnover department last week, it was progress to be even (two each), especially with CSU who was one of the national leaders so far this season in turnover margin. However, Max Hall has got to be somewhat disappointed in his two-interception outing, putting him even this season with 8 touchdowns and 8 interceptions. To put it in perspective, last season Max had 7 touchdowns in the UCLA game alone and only 8 interceptions through 11 games. Although he is effectively moving the ball, he has now thrown a pick in 7 consecutive games (15 total during those games).

• How much success will Max to McKay have with deep balls? Minimal. After Hall to Collie deep was the story of the game last year against CSU, Hall to Jacobsen (or Chambers), was not much of a story. Chambers had a 37 yard catch to the 5 yard line, Jacobsen had one that was called back, and there were a few that didn’t connect, but otherwise most balls were thrown at fewer than 20 yards.

• Have the fans recovered and will they show up? Almost. Although selling the game out for the 14th consecutive game, the crowd seemed to be a bit slow to react and not much of a factor. Perhaps that is because the Mtn. seems to muffle the crowd noise for television somewhat, so if you were at the game and have a different perspective, please speak up.

• What impact will the new turf have on the game? Primarily embarrassment. There did not seem to be much in the way of player slippage, although the field looked like a joint meeting of the local beginner golfer convention and a gopher reunion. Between plays there was a crew out stomping down divots and relocating displaced chunks of sod. Not a good showing for the field crew of the stadium.

All in it was a good enough game, not a great game. The first quarter, which essentially was the difference in the game, went as fans and players would have hoped, but the remaining three quarters were much less decisive, leaving some question in the minds of fans as to the team’s actual progress over the previous week’s game.

 

September 25, 2009

What to Watch for Against Colorado State
By Dave Haynie

With less than 24 hours until kickoff, the team finally has a chance to rinse the residue of last weeks’ disappointment from their collective and individual memories. Each week, I provide a list of things to watch for as you assess the team’s progress over the previous games. As always, improvement is the name of the game, and to assess this, you need to look beyond just the yardage totals and final score. And, as expected after last week’s non-show, the defense will be under the microscope this week.

• Will they play with fire in the belly? Watch for the team to come out on fire—swarming, sharp, hitting hard, having fun, playing with intensity. There may not be a more motivational situation in college football than to vindicate a bad loss and prove the doubters wrong. If this doesn’t happen, and the team looks tentative or only luke-warm, then underlying questions of the heart may surface… and my dating life tells me that nothing good happens after that.

• Will the front seven be able to contain CSU’s QB? Last week, FSU QB Ponder seemed to be able to pick up whatever yards he needed whenever he needed them. CSU’s QB is not as mobile or as accurate, but has now seen how it’s done and no doubt will hope to emulate. The defense will need to adjust and make corrections, or they could be on the field a long time. QB pressure, like was displayed in the first two games is also going to be key.

• Will the defense get stingy on third down? Unless they are able to do this, the time of possession could be just as imbalanced as last week (40 min for FSU compared to 20 min for BYU). After allowing 12/15 third down conversions, BYU is near the bottom in the nation. This week they will need to correct that.

• Will the punt return unit finally get a chance? That will depend on how the defense does on third downs… but it is about time. Two games without a punt return.

• Can the defense limit the big plays? Colorado State is known for taking big chances and utilizing a number of trick plays. They have had relative success with that approach this season (and last season against BYU). BYU’s defense on the other hand has been relatively stingy on per snap yards, having only given up three plays longer than 25 yards in three games. If they can keep it up, it will make a statement about the secondary and the pre-game preparation.

• Which run defense will show up? Last week in giving up 313 yards rushing the defensive line made FSU’s offensive line and backs look All-American. Bronco thinks that it was execution errors and is (and hopefully was) correctable. That remains to be seen.

• How effective will the blitz be? Part of the success against the run is going to be getting to the QB and linebackers taking the right gaps. This worked for two weeks. Last week it was shredded by FSU. Was this due to failed tackles and missed assignments (better execution needed), or was it a matter of FSU watching and learning and dissecting our system and tendencies (structural adjustments needed)?

• How big of a factor will missed tackles be? For that matter, last week several key plays were made after the FSU player slipped the first tackler. Had the first BYU player to arrive held on the game would have been significantly closer, and perhaps ended differently.

• Will the turnover pendulum swing back? Speaking of holding on… the offense needs to hold on as well. Can Max avoid a pick? Will Chambers dig out his death grip? Will the defense pick up a few?

• How much success will Max to McKay have with deep balls? McKay has become a deep ball specialist this season averaging an incredible 28 yards per catch. Last year against CSU Hall to Collie was the story of the game. Will McKay have similar success?

• Have the fans recovered and will they show up? After last weeks’ hype attack and subsequent crash, will the fans be able to rebound? As of Thursday, the game was not yet sold out and the ticket office was advertising available tickets. They will likely be needed in this game to get the team off to a good start in the first quarter, something that has yet to happen, as BYU has only scored 6 points total in the first quarter so far this year.

• What impact will the new turf have on the game? Much has been made of the failures of the new turf. It was not obvious during the game, but was commonly raised after. It has only been a week, and some of the issues cannot be corrected except with time, so it will be up to the players to adjust and make it work.

I think that the team comes out with a little fire and a chip on their shoulder. They will have corrected the tackling issues, and will show up on third down. With the ball in the hands of the offense more, the defense will be more rested, becoming more stingy, and will put up more points than last week. The long plays go in our favor and BYU gets a nice rebound. BYU wins 41-20.

Visit www.byucougs.com to add your own prediction and thoughts to the thread…

 

Rebound History after Top 10 Losses
By Dave Haynie

[Visit www.byucougs.com to join the discussion]

This isn’t the first time that BYU has lost as a top ten ranked team and (despite the fears of the sky-is-falling fans out there) surely, it won’t be the last.  In fact, this is the tenth time that this has occurred and there are some interesting insights and lessons to be gleaned (and a bit of hope) by looking back at the previous nine occurrences. 

Including the two weeks this season as #9 and #7, BYU’s football team has been ranked in the AP top 10 for a total of 58 weeks (see the previous entry entitled BYU No Stranger to Top 10).  There were three seasons that they finished ranked in the top 10, meaning they have played a total of 55 games while perched above eleven, and the team has been 45-10 (.818) in those games. 

Losses While Ranked in the Top 10

Year	Opponent (score)	Pre	Post	Final	Record
2009	FSU (54-28)	7	19	?	?
2008	TCU (32-7)	9	18	25	(10-3)
2001	Hawaii (72-45)	9	19	25	(12-2)
1990	Hawaii (59-28)	4	13	22	(10-3)
1990	Oregon (32-16)	4	11	n/a	n/a
1985	Ohio State (10-7)	9	16	16	(11-3)
1985	UTEP (23-16)	7	17	n/a	n/a
1985	UCLA (27-24)	8	16	n/a	n/a
1981	UNLV (45-41)	8	17	13	(11-2)
1979	Indiana (38-37)	9	13	13	(11-1)

The Breakdown

• Including this year, 5 of the losses were to current AQ BCS teams (FSU ‘09, Oregon ’90, UCLA ’85, Ohio St. ’85, Indiana ’79)
• Only three of the losses were to conference teams (TCU ’01, Hawaii ’90, UTEP ’85)
• Two were in bowl games (Ohio State—Citrus Bowl, Indiana—Holiday Bowl)

How It Stacks Up

• The 26 point loss to FSU was the third worst, after losing by 31 to Hawaii in 1990 and 27 to Hawaii in 2001.  Last year’s 25 point loss to TCU is number four.  The 1990 loss to Oregon was by 16 points is number five.
• All five of the top ten losses prior 1990 were by a touchdown or less—Indiana by 1 in 1979, UNLV by 4 in 1981, UCLA by 3 in 1985, UTEP by 7 in 1985, and Ohio St. by 3 in 1985

Rankings Drop

• The 12 spot drop from #7 to #19 is the biggest one of all ten losses
• After losing to Hawaii in 2001 and UTEP in 1985 BYU dropped 10 places each time
• The smallest drop was 4 places after losing by 1 point to Indiana in the bowl game in 1979
• The average drop has been 8.5 spots

Have Hope

• There were two seasons where the team made it back into the top 10 again (1985, 1990)
• There was one season where the team returned to the top ten twice (1985)
• Every season that they cracked the top 10, the team has finished ranked
• The most losses they ever finished with after falling out of the top 10 was 3 (1985, 1990, 2008)
• The only other time they dropped out of the top 10 this early was in 1985 after losing to UCLA in the second game of the season (and made it back to the top 10 two more times that year)
• The next earliest time was in game five against Oregon in 1990 and also made it back into the top 10 that year (back up to #4).

The Rebound Game

• Of the ten losses, two were in bowl games, and one is still TBD, so there have been 7 rebound games and they have gone 5-2 (.714) in those games.
• 2008 W 42-35 UNLV
• 2001 L 10-28 Louisville
• 1990 L 14-65 Texas A&M
• 1990 W 52-9 Colorado State
• 1985 W 31-3 Washington
• 1985 W 59-0 Wyoming
• 1981 W 27-7 San Diego State
• Of those seven games, there appears to be the most similarities to 1990 post-Oregon-loss-game with Colorado State.  A big early season win against a top ranked team.  A jump in the polls.  A bad loss to a high profile team relatively early in the season.  And, conveniently, a follow up game against CSU.  BYU fans and players hope the outcome is also similar!

 

September 23, 2009

What We Learned Against Florida State
By Dave Haynie

[This has been published simultaneously at www.byucougs.com, where you can leave comments and subscribe to the feed.]

I have now completed my self-imposed 72 hour deep breath and am prepared to assess this game from a place other than the ledge. This loss was a hard pill to swallow… A bad loss to a team held in low national esteem on national TV while ranked in the top ten and playing in front of the home crowd. It showcased an impotent defense and a very generous offense. On the flip side, however, the team is still 2-1, nationally ranked, with a win over a very good Oklahoma team on their resume, and several redemption games still left on the schedule.

Last week I wrote:
“FSU will be ready for this game—for them it is redemption, a chance to salvage a season, prove the doubters wrong, and knock off a top 10 team on national TV (sorry Direct TV subscribers). There is also a chance that BYU has begun to believe the hype and all of the things that are being said about them (let’s hope not), which, if true, probably will take one to two quarters to snap out of. In any case, BYU fans and players will take a win any way they can get it.”

That turns out to have been the story of the game, only we never really snapped out of it.  I also posed 11 key questions that would impact the outcome of the game and allow fans to measure the team's improvement over the previous week. Here is my assessment of the answer and impact for each:

• Will the injured Players Play? Yes and No. Harvey Unga played and had a good game, but looked as if he was still feeling the effects of his hamstring pull. Senior Scott Johnson sat out and was replaced by true freshman Craig Bills. Also, Braden Hansen sat out on the O line (as expected) and Moose Thorson played in his place. As the field general on the defense, Johnson’s presence in particular was missed on the field.
• Can Max Hall avoid throwing an interception? No. No. No. This game was a turnover nightmare. Three interceptions, two fumbles, and zero take-aways from the other team. Max has now thrown a pick for six games in a row (13 in his last 6 games). That in and of itself isn’t incredibly meaningful (Ty Detmer used to throw a ton of interceptions) as long as Max is still consistently moving the offense with confidence; however, a streak like this can begin to shake that confidence.
• Which direction will the running game go? Regressed from the Tulane game. The overall rushing game was relatively effective (5.7 yards/carry), but not very significant in the outcome of the game. With 108 rushing yards the rushing game seemed to have settled somewhere in the middle of its previous two showings (28 and 208 yards respectively). Time of possession and playing come-from-behind limited the number of carries by the blue team in the game.
• How nice is it to be home? Not so much. The 18 game home win streak was snapped. The new field left much to be desired in its debut as it gave way to divots and slippage. Despite the sellout, crowd noise was never really a meaningful factor as FSU took an early lead and never relinquished.
• Will the refs become a factor? Yes, but not really. The ACC refs only called three penalties on BYU (the fewest in the last 16 games dating back to only two against UCLA in the Las Vegas Bowl to end the 2007 season), but it was what they didn’t call that seemed to stand out—frequent play-making holdings and a blatantly obvious slingshot PI on the pick six. That said, the game might have been closer, but given how well FSU played, it would not have changed the outcome.
• How much will the altitude affect the Seminoles? A non-factor. Altitude tends to affect the defense more, since it is harder to substitute, and it tends to become a factor late in the game. FSU did a great job mitigating this by maintaining possession for 40 minutes, allowing the defense plenty of rest, and by taking a large lead into the fourth quarter nullifying the importance of any slowdown by its defensive players.
• Who will kickoff? Riley Stephenson. He won the job in practice last week and was an improvement over the previous two games. He had five kickoffs: 2 touchbacks, 1 returned out of the end zone to the 18, 1 returned from the 1 yard line to the 27, and 1 that only went to the 12 yard line returned to the 40. It was nice to see a few kicks into the end zone and an instance of them starting behind the 20. Hopefully with more confidence and experience, Riley will improve his consistency and this type of kicking game will be the rule rather than the exception.
• Have we solved the punt return issues? Don’t know. Florida State only punted once in this game and it rolled to a stop. Stay tuned…
• Will the team stay healthy? Mostly. There were no season ending injuries, although nose tackle Russell Tialavea, lost early in the first quarter, will be out for 2-3 games with a sprained knee. Overall, this was a good outcome against an athletic physical team.
• Will the receivers be able to get open on FSU’s man defense? Yes. For the most part, the offense was able to do as it wished. The only things that really stopped them were turnovers ending possessions and standing on the sidelines while the defense was on the field.
• Can the defense maintain pressure on QB Christian Ponder? No. This was perhaps the key to winning the game for FSU. Ponder was 21/26 for 195 yards, 2 TDs, and no picks. Even more importantly he had 77 yards rushing on 11 runs, and the team was 12/15 on third down. The few times that the BYU defense did get in, Ponder was able to take a hit and deliver the ball or evade the tackle and run for significant gain. The Cougars missed numerous tackles, and gave up over 300 yards rushing. It was as if FSU knew exactly what we were going to do on each play—and now that our blitz schemes and alignments are on film from the first two games, perhaps they did.

 

 

September 22, 2009

A Comparison of Conference TV Contracts
By Dave Haynie

This weekend’s collateral damage from the standoff between Direct TV and Comcast over Versus (BYU vs.Florida State will not be available on Direct TV) has raised the issue of college football television contracts to the surface again and brought back painful memories to fans of Mountain West teams outside the limited conference geographies. As such, it seems like a good time to take a closer look at the MWC TV contract relative to the other conferences’ contracts, including the pros and cons of each.

[I should note that I am a non-MWC footprint Direct TV subscriber, and a relatively happy one at that. This year and last year have offered great access to all of the BYU games as well as most other conference games—almost enough good times to help me forget the years of purgatory, when in 2006 and 2007 many of the games were not available to me at any price. It was during those lean times that I purchased my Slingbox, which has merely acted as my emergency backup during the recent fat times, but will be called upon to come through in the clutch this weekend due to the Versus contract disputes.]

	Teams	$/Year	$/Yr/Team	Contract 1
SEC	12	$205.00	$17.10	CBS, ESPN
Big 10	11	$174.00	$15.80	BTN, ABC/ESPN, CBS*
Big 12	12	$79.50	$6.60	ABC/ESPN, FSN
ACC	12	$66.90	$5.60	ABC/ESPN, Raycom*
Pac 10	10	$53.20	$5.30	ABC/ESPN, FSN, ABC/ESPN*
Big East	8	$33.30	$4.20	ABC/ESPN
MWC	9	$12.00	$1.30	CBSC/Mtn.
CUSA	12	$11.30	$0.90	CBSC, ESPN
WAC	9	$4.00	$0.40	ESPN
MAC	13	$1.40	$0.10	ESPN
Sunbelt	9	$0.00	$0.00	ESPN, Cox/Charter

 

When it comes to taking a closer look at the contracts, there are essentially four tiers—The Haves, The Wannabe Haves, The Not-Quite Have-Nots, and the Have-Nots. It is interesting to note that every conference, with the exception of the MWC, has some sort of arrangement with ESPN.

Upon closer consideration (and in light of the SEC/ESPN domino), it appears that the trend is toward larger, longer contracts for the biggest TV draws, which leaves fewer slots and dollars for the rest of the football world. The MWC and Big Ten have chosen to create their own networks in an effort to combat that trend. The Big 12, ACC, Pac 10 are exploring that now. The Big East is hanging on to what it has (primarily stemming from legacy efforts) and looking to improve its lineup for the next go-around. Conference USA is heading back down to the have-nots and the WAC is hoping to move up to the not-quite have nots. Overall, the MWC package is better than any of the alternatives its non-AQ brethren have by a long shot.

The Haves
The SEC and Big 10 are a head and shoulders above everyone else. The bar has been set and other conferences that want to keep up are scrambling to find a way to match the TV revenue that they are going to bring in over the next 15 years.

1. SEC
The SEC has an $825M, 15 year contract with CBS, for an exclusive time slot and first pick of games (14 regular season and championship game). The league made headlines earlier this summer when it signed a second 15 year deal for $2.25B with ESPN. ESPN gets its pick of the rest of the games, some of which are sublicensed to regional carriers. It is hard to find any issues with these arrangements. This large investment by ESPN will ensure that college football fans continue to hear about the “dominance” of the SEC from the Sports Leader for years to come, and due to limited time slots, will also preclude other leagues from signing similarly valued deals with ESPN.

2. Big 10
The Big Ten Network launched last year and is projected to bring in $2.8B over the next 25 years; this also guarantees coverage for all of the leagues games. In addition, there is a $1.0B, 10 year contract with ABC/ESPN, and a $20M, 10 year basketball deal with CBS. When the SEC is essentially using ESPN as its own conference network, the Big 10 did the next best thing by starting its own, and has a high enough profile to generate more viewers and dollars than the Mtn.

The Wannabe Haves
The Big 12, ACC, Pac 10, and Big East feel an urgency to keep up with the Joneses. Rumors of creation of joint TV networks between Big 12 and ACC or Pac 10 and ACC have been flying. The Pac 10 brought in a new commissioner with the primary task of working out a more favorable TV arrangement. The Big East is exploring all expansion options in an effort to maintain its place at the table.

3. Big 12
There is a $480M, 8 year deal with ABC to show first pick of up to 19 games per season (and ESPN has rights to all basketball games). FSN has a 4 year, $78M deal to show the rest. Of those, FSN has sublicensed 7 games to ESPN and 5 to Versus. Overall good exposure, but significantly less compensation for the effort than the SEC or Big 10.

4. ACC
The addition of Miami, Virginia Tech, and Boston College has not quite played out in TV market land as was hoped. The ACC has a 7 year, $258M contract with ABC/ESPN that is expiring soon. In that deal, ABC gets first pick, then ESPN/ESPN2, then Raycom (as part of basketball deal), and lastly ESPNU. Raycom has a subordinate deal with them for 10 years for $300M for basketball. The ESPN contract requires a marquee game on Labor Day each year. It is obvious that the conference is exploring all avenues as it has been linked to nearly all of the mega conference TV network deal rumors.

5. Pac 10
The main contract here is $125M with ABC/ESPN for 20 games per year over 5 years ending in 2011. There is another contract with FSN for 5 years and $97M—5 of those games have been sublicensed to Versus, keeping 13 windows for games on FSN. The remainder of the games end up on a hodgepodge of Fox regional networks such as FSN Northwest, Fox Sports West, Fox Sports Arizona, Oregon Sports Netowrk, CSN Bay Area, etc. The prime gripe here is that most games are not readily available to a national audience. New conference commissioner Larry Scott was able to raise the profile of the Women’s Tennis Tour through savvy TV contracts and was hired to do the same with the Pac 10.

6. Big East
The Big East has a 6 year, $200M deal with ESPN running through 2013, which appears to be a Mike Tranghese boondoggle. In any case, the league is getting paid and has 17 games guaranteed to be on ABC or ESPN, with at least 3 on ABC. In order to achieve that the conference had to agree to up to 4 games on Thursdays, 2 on Sundays and mutually agreeable Friday games. 5 additional games can appear on ESPNU. Given that this is only an 8 team league, there are not that many games to begin with, especially in conference, and only 37% of these televised games ended up being played on Saturdays, effectively ensuring no marquee Big East games on the sport’s biggest day. With the recent beating the conference has taken in the media and from fans, there are rumors that the Big East is again looking to expand (Memphis or an ACC reverse raid), in order to improve its profile and reputation.

The Not-Quite Have-Nots
The Mountain West and Conference USA find themselves with real TV contracts that actually compensate them for the product (differentiating them from the WAC, MAC and Sunbelt), but for annual amounts and levels of exposure that don’t qualify them to be in the same grouping with the previous four conferences. It leaves them looking up with envy, but also looking down knowing it could be worse.

7. Mountain West
After leaving ESPN, for increased revenue and regular game times, the Mountain West television situation is finally settling down. What was originally a 12 year, $120M contract with CSTV, added Comcast the day after it was announced, and was since sold to CBS College Sports. The Mtn. was created and Versus (which is owned by Comcast) was given 8 games per year (as part of the contract 8 games per year must be distributed to a national audience of 70 million homes or more). CBSC has the rights to up to 24 games per year (and has selected 11 this year). Overall, the national footprint/access is improving as is the quality of the product; however, what suffers is the exposure on ESPN—both on TV and online, as the station does not have any vested interest in developing the leauge’s profile. There is also no web streaming available.

8. Conference USA
There is a legacy contract with ESPN/ESPN2 for 10 games per season paying $45.8M and another with CBSC for $22M over 6 years for its pick of the remainder of the games. Both contracts end at the end of the 2010 football season, and were originally set up pre-Big East raid of Cincinnati, Louisville, and South Florida, and pre-MWC raid of TCU. Many games required to be played on weeknights, in order to get on TV. When these contracts end, the conference will likely take a major hit on the revenue and exposure side of things.

The Have-Nots
9. WAC
The conference moves from its $1M per year contract with ESPN to one paying closer to $4M per year starting in 2010-11. The old deal allows ESPN/ESPN2 rights to a minimum of 8 games and the new deal requires a minimum of 10. The new deal also requires at least 6 games on ESPNU. Many of the games on ESPN/ESPN2 will be played on weeknights in order to find TV time. The silver lining in all of this is the online streaming and rights retained by schools for games not televised. This contract leaves a lot to be desired, but it is something and provides the exposure that is desperately needed by a conference trying to raise its profile. Should Boise no longer be a member of this conference during the next round of negotiations, look for the TV situation to take a step backwards.

10. MAC
The MAC will take what it can get. It has an 8 year, roughly $11M deal with ESPN to televise a minimum of 11 games—6 on ESPN/ESPN2 and 5 on ESPNU. Nearly all of these games will be played on weeknights. The bright spot for the MAC is that the creation of the Big Ten Network and the removal of Big Ten games from regional networks is that there is a demand for sports programming on many of the regional networks and many MAC games are being syndicated regionally.

11. Sunbelt
Its not easy being at the bottom of the college football food chain. The Sunbelt has a 3 year contract with ESPN to show at least 2 games per year. These games must be willing to allow for a 12 day advance scheduling window and play on weeknights. It isn’t clear if the league even receives any meaningful compensation for its product, but is looking for exposure however it can get it. Comcast/Charter Sports own the regional rights.

Note: Here are a few links to other sources covering TV contracts…

• http://mattsarzsports.blogspot.com/2009/08/discussing-conferences-thyeir-tv.html
• http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/stewart_mandel/07/24/tv-deals/index.html
• http://www.ncaabbs.com/printthread.php?tid=350645

 

September 18, 2009

What to Watch for Against Florida State
By Dave Haynie

[Also posted at www.byucougs.com, follow the link to leave comments and engage in discussion]

 

After significant improvement from game one to game two, the expectations are high. It will take a great effort just to maintain the level of play the team displayed last weekend vs. Tulane. However, on the margins there are still areas that can be improved and several unanswered questions. Here are several things to watch for in Saturday’s game:

• Which injured players will play? Harvey Unga played for two series last week and is listed as probable for Saturday, but will he get in the game, and if he does, will he be 100%? Free safety Scott Johnson is listed as possible after notching his second concussion of the year; should he not play, Andrew Rich will move to free and Shiloah Te’o will play strong safety in his place. This will entail some drop off in secondary play, but how much remains to be seen. O lineman Braden Hansen is out with a sprained knee, and Moose Thorson, who had earned the starting spot at one time during fall camp, will replace him.

• Can Max Hall avoid throwing an interception? After only throwing 7 interceptions in his first 10 games last year, Hall finished the year throwing 7 in his last three (AFA-1, Utah-5, AZ-1). He has started this year with picks in both of the first two games (OU-2, Tulane-1), and has now tossed it to the other team in five straight games (10 picks in last 5 games).

• Which direction will the running game go? After only 28 net rushing yards against a quick and dominant OU defensive front, the team’s horses exploded for 206 yards on the ground last week in a one of the best team rushing displays in a while. It will be interesting to see if the team can pick up where it left off last week, or if it falls back to game-one-esque against another athletic front.

• How nice is it to be home? The Cougars open their home schedule defending an 18 game winning streak. The game is sold out. After two games away, a high national ranking, and a winnable game against a high profile opponent, expect the fans to be rabid and the noise to make a difference on at least one play.

• Will the refs become a factor? Although the first two games saw a lot of yellow coming from the zebras, they seemed to be balanced and well-called games for the most part. This weekend’s game will be called by an ACC crew, which isn’t necessarily significant, although BYU has been burned by sole conference officiating in the past (think Pac 10 crews).

• How much will the altitude affect the Seminoles? Coach Bobby Bowden says it won’t affect his team at all… history would say he is missing something. The question is how much will it affect them and when will it start to kick in. Look for the FSU defense to begin to drag a bit by the fourth quarter.

• Who will kickoff? And, will it stay in bounds? Bronco opened up the competition this week between Riley Stephenson and Mitch Payne for kickoffs (saying Payne will remain as placekicker on FGs and PATs). After both of them kicked it out of bounds last week, and Payne doing it the week before, watch for that to have been corrected. Stephenson has the stronger leg (he kicks it 5-7 yards further than Payne), so my bet is that as long as he was able to show consistency keeping it in bounds this week in practice, he will get the nod.

• Have we solved the punt return issues? After no punt returns last week (all fair catches or bounces), this question still remains following a poor showing from this department in the Oklahoma game that nearly cost us the game.

• Will the team stay healthy? The 2009 Cougars are a talented, if not deep, team and have the potential to win a lot of games this year. One of the many things that might derail them would be significant injuries in thin positions (offensive line, quarterback, secondary, linebacker). As they gear up for a conference run, it is important that they come out of this game without losing any key players.

• Will the receivers be able to get open on FSU’s man defense? Against OU, the outside receivers often struggled to get open, and while FSU’s secondary is perhaps not as good as Oklahoma’s, it is filled with fast athletic players that will attempt to win a man-to-man defensive battle with our receivers. Tulane tried a similar strategy, but without the athletes to make it work. Should FSU succeed, watch for a lot of passes to the backs and tight ends. If the Cougars win this battle it could be a memorable day in Provo.

• Can the defense maintain pressure on QB Christian Ponder? The key to this game for BYU is going to be slowing down FSU’s passing game and the key to that is going to be getting pressure on the quarterback. Our defensive pass rush—its personnel, tendencies, blitz packages, alignments, and disguises—has been on display (and on film) for two weeks now. How effective it can continue to be will be the difference between a shootout and a comfortable win for the home team.

I think the BYU running game regresses somewhat, but that its passing offense continues to perform, and BYU’s defense slows FSU down just enough to get the win. BYU 34 FSU 23

Time for predictions… add your prediction in the comments (on www.byucougs.com) as well as anything else will you be watching for in the game.

 

September 16, 2009

Florida State—Records within Reach
By Dave Haynie
[This post is parallel posted at byucougs.com. CLICK HERE to leave comments or join the discussion]

Several players on this year’s team are quickly moving up the program’s all-time records charts. In particular Max Hall, Dennis Pitta, and Harvey Unga were already in the top 10 in several career categories as the season began, and now, with two games under their belts, have begun their statistical assault on the players that have gone before. I will provide a regular (although likely not weekly) update on the status of each, where they stand and what type of performance would be needed in that week’s game to move them up a notch. (The original assessment of each of player, as well as national award nominations, was posed on August 12, 2009 and can be found HERE

Summary of Records within Reach vs. Florida State:
• Max Hall could reach #4 in total offense (needs 238 yards)
• Max Hall could reach #4 in TD passes (1 to tie, 2 for sole possession)
• Dennis Pitta could reach #9 in receiving yards (14 yards for #9, 158 yards for #8)
• Dennis Pitta could reach #2 in tight end receiving yards (158 yards)
• Dennis Pitta could reach #5 in receptions (8 catches)
• Harvey Unga could reach #6 in rushing yards (107 for #6, 122 for #5)
• Harvey Unga could reach #9 in all-purpose yards (60 yards)
• Harvey Unga could reach #3 in TDs (needs 3)

Max Hall
• #4 Passing Yards (began season #7, needs 1,093 to become #3)—With 329 and 309 passing yards in weeks 1 and 2 respectively, Hall moved into 4th place all time, passing Kevin Feterik, John Walsh, and Robbie Bosco. He needs 1,093 yards to pass Jim McMahon for #3 all-time.
• #5 Total Offense (began season #6, needs 238 yards to become #4)—Passed Robbie Bosco to move into 5th place all time. With 238 yards, will pass Steve Young for 4th place all-time.
• #6 Touchdown Passes (began season #6, needs 1 TD pass to become #4)—After throwing for 4 touchdowns already this season, Hall needs just 1 to tie with John Walsh and Robbie Bosco, and 2 to move into sole possession of 4th place.

Dennis Pitta
• #10 Receiving Yards (began season #11, needs 14 yards to become #9)—With 137 receiving yards so far, Pitta has passed Mike Chronister (1976-78) to reach #10. With another 14 yards, he will pass Glen Kozlowski for #9. Chris Smith is #8, 158 yards ahead.
• #3 Tight End Receiving Yards (began season #3, needs 158 to reach #2)—With another 158 yards, he will pass Chris Smith for #2 all-time in BYU’s storied tight end tradition.
• #6 Receptions (began season #8, needs 8 catches to move into #5)—Pitta passed Eric Drage and Reno Mahe during the Oklahoma game. With 8 more receptions, he will pass Gordon Hudson for #5.

Harvey Unga
• #7 Rushing Yards (began season #8, needs 107 yards to become #6 and 122 to become #5)—Despite not playing in game one and only getting three carries for 17 yards in game two (due to a hamstring injury), Unga passed John Ogden (1964-66) for 7th place all-time. He is expected to be full speed this week and with 107 yards he passes Pete Van Valkenberg (1970-72) for #6, and with 122 passes Luke Staley for #5.
• #10 All Purpose Yards (began season #10, needs 60 yards to become #9)—Will pass Reno Mahe with 60 yards, to become #9.
• #7 Scoring (began season #7, needs 24 points to reach #6)—Still needs 24 points to catch Curtis Brown at #6.
• #4 Touchdowns (began season #4, needs 3 to reach #3)—With 3 touchdowns, will catch Lakei Heimuli for #3 all-time.

 

September 14, 2009

What We Learned in the Tulane Game
By Dave Haynie

[This post is parallel posted at byucougs.com. CLICK HERE to leave comments or join the discussion]

Prior to the Tulane game, I wrote that weekly improvement was going to be the key to a successful season this year for the Cougars (something we didn’t see last year), and then essentially offered a checklist of areas of improvement to watch for in that game. And, if improvement from game one to game two is any indication, it looks like it may indeed turn out to be a special season. What follows is a checklist review of the areas specified prior to the game and how the team performed relative to each.

One Game at a Time Mentality—Check. The team was ready for this game and appeared focused on the task at hand, rather than looking ahead to FSU.

Running Game Improvement—Check. After only gaining a net of 28 yards on the ground last week against OU, the team rolled out 206 yards this week. While Harvey Unga did play sparingly in the first quarter (3 carries for 17 yards), the improvement in the running game was primarily at the hands (or legs) or JJ DiLuigi and Brian Kariya. DiLuigi had 71 yards on 12 carries (5.9 yd/car) and Kariya had 63 yards on 12 carries (5.3 yd/car). For DiLuigi, this was a coming out party of sorts, and fans have been hoping to see this kind of a performance from him since his arrival in Provo two years ago. For Kariya, it was a validation of his performance last week. In both cases, it assures coaches and fans that the running back position should be deep enough to last the season.

O Line Protection—Check. No sacks were given up. Hall had plenty of time. The running lanes were huge. Great game by the O Line. With Braden Hansen going down with a knee early in the game, however, depth could become an issue.

Ball Distribution—Check. Hall put the ball into 12 receivers hands (as opposed to 7 last week), and five of those were outside receivers (only two last week). A full 50% of his passes were caught by the receivers accounting for 60% of the yardage (only 32% last week).

Punt Return Improvement—TBD. There were no punt returns in the game.

Quarterback Pressure—Check. The Cougar D recorded two sacks on Tulane’s first drive setting a tone that would last for the entire game.

Points—Check. They needed to hold Tulane to two touchdowns or less to maintain defensive respect nationally and came through with flying colors.

Field Goals—Incomplete. This is really an issue of placekicking in general… PAT’s, FG’s and kickoffs. Although Payne did hit his first field goal in five tries, he missed a subsequent point after. He also kicked another kickoff out of bounds. After replacing Payne, Stephenson did the same thing. The good news is they had got a lot of practice at both PAT’s and kickoffs.

Penalties—Check. Only 5 penalties for 47 yards. None of them were critical. And, considering the number of new players that were able to enter the game late, they played a very clean game.

Turnovers—Check. Hall threw one pick, but the defense was able to take two of its own, along with two fumbles. The turnover margin is now +1 for the season (+0.5/game), and much closer to the team’s 2006 high water mark set at an average of +1.08/game. Turnovers were key to the final score of this one, as each of Tulane’s turnovers led to BYU scores.

It appears that the coaches and players must be reading this column, as they checked off 8 of the 10 items listed, leaving punt returns for another game, and failing to improve only in the kicking game.

 

September 11, 2009

What to Watch for Against Tulane
By Dave Haynie

On the heels of a season-defining performance over Oklahoma, BYU football has been showered with positive national press this week.  However, that performance could become much less significant should the team not build on it by continuing to improve as the season progresses.  That will be the key to the season—continuous improvement.  Remember, it was about this time last year that BYU beat UCLA 59-0 in an incredible performance by players and coaches; however, that was the high point of the season as far as execution goes, and the team seemed to decline each week.  Had they continued to improve, the season would have ended very differently.  With that in mind, prior to each game, I will outline a number of areas that can be improved and a couple of things to watch for as you try to gauge the team’s improvement each week. 

• One Game at a Time Mentality—Has the team been focused on Tulane?  Have they been looking ahead to Florida State?  Have they been caught up in the same national projections that fans are indulging in?  Have they believed the hype?  Watch for them to come out with focus and fire; if they don’t it will be a much closer game than it should have been (as was seen several times last year).
• Running Game Improvement—It will be hard to not see improvement here, after going up against perhaps the best defensive line in the country with a first time starter.  Harvey Unga (hamstring) will be a game time decision, and should he play, will add to the running game significantly, but essentially sitting out for the last several weeks, has got to have taken a toll on his conditioning.  Manase Tonga appeared a bit slow last week—watch for him to pick up more positive yards.  In Unga’s absence, watch to see if Brian Kariya can maintain last week’s form now that he is on film and if J.J. DiLuigi gets more carries (only one last week) in a confidence building performance. 
• O Line Protection—The offensive line performed well last week considering that four of them were starting for the first time, the other had a cast on his hand, and that they were going up against an NFL caliber onslaught.  But, the reality is that Hall was sacked several times, hit more times again than is sustainable, and was under pressure almost the entire night.  Watch for the line to provide more time and comfort to the General in the pocket.
• Ball Distribution—Max Hall put the ball in seven different receiver’s hands last week, but two of those were tight ends and three were running backs (Kariya, DiLuigi, Tonga).  Only Chambers and Jacobson got the ball on the outside (8 of 26 catches, 31%).  Watch to see if more passes go to the outside against a potentially less talented secondary and if some of those go to the next receivers in the rotation—Luke Ashworth, Spencer Hafoka, or even freshman Brett Thompson.
• Punt Return Improvement—OU punted 7 times last week, and we had 2 returns for 3 yards and a critical fumble.  Watch for significant improvement in the return game this week.
• Quarterback Pressure—Last year BYU brought the heat on UCLA and the defense looked All-American.  But that was it.  After the “game planning” for that game, they went back to an “out-execute-them” strategy for the rest of the season, and faced a steady decline.  The D line and linebackers played an excellent game against Oklahoma, but now that the blitzed and alignments are on film, it will be interesting to see if they can maintain the pressure and keep Tulane’s QB on the run.
• Points—After giving up only 13 points to the number three team in the land, expectations are high for the scoring defense.   Watch to see if it can maintain mojo by keeping Tulane to two touchdowns or less.  Anything more, and it will not look good scrolling across the bottom of screens across the country.
• Field Goals—BYU has now missed four field goals in a row going back to the Las Vegas Bowl against Arizona.  I am sure that they hope they don’t have to attempt any three pointers this week, but if they do, watch for consistency to emerge here soon, or expect it to be the difference in a game at some point.
• Penalties—the team had 10 penalties for 87 yards last week, and if it hadn’t been for OU giving that penalty yardage right back, likely would have cost them the game. Watch to see if this improves and if last week can be chalked up to first game jitters or if it was more fundamental.
• Turnovers—four turnovers (and several other close calls), and a negative two turnover margin last week leaves a lot of room for improvement.  When BYU seemed unstoppable in 2006 it ranked fourth in the country in turnover margin (13 total turnovers and 27 takeaways) with a plus 1.08 per game. 

 

September 9, 2009

BYU No Stranger to Top Ten
By Dave Haynie

[This post is also published at www.byucougs.com ]

BYU vaulted 11 spots in the AP poll yesterday, going from #20 to #9, placing them in the top 10 for the first time since October 12, 2008, when the team was ranked #9 the week before losing to TCU.   The team tied a record for the largest jump as it also shot up 11 spots in 1990, from #16 to #5, after beating #1 Miami.  And while it is true that it’s been a while since BYU has been a consistent presence in the top ten, they have now been ranked in the AP top ten 57 times, beginning with its debut on November 11, 1979—an average of roughly 2 weeks per season for the last 30 years.

The team has been successful as top-tenners, having gone 44-9 (.830) while ranked in the top ten (three of the polls were final polls, so there was no game).

There are a number of interesting streaks and facts related to BYU’s ranking in the top ten:

• Has been ranked 57 times in the AP top 10
• First time was November 11, 1979
• This (week 1) is the earliest the team has appeared in the top 10, since debuting in the preseason poll at #10 in 1985
• Has been ranked in the top 10 during 10 different seasons (1979, 1981, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1990, 1996, 2001, 2008, 2009)
• Average 1.9 weeks per year in ranked in the top 10 over the last 30 years (since 1979)
• Spent three weeks in the top 10 last season (2008)
• Record of 44-9 (.830) as a top 10 team
• Team is 12-4 (.750) when ranked #9
• Has been ranked ninth 17 times, more than any other top ten spot
• Has never been ranked #2
• Has been ranked in the top 5 for 17 weeks total over three seasons (1984, 1990, 1996)
• Has received number one votes during 18 weeks in the top 10 (32% of the time while ranked in top 10), in four different seasons (1979, 1984, 1985, 1990)
• Last season was only the third season (1985, 1990, 2008) in which the team was ranked in every poll, preseason through final
• Team’s longest streak of continuous top 10 rankings is 16 weeks, from 9/11/84 to 9/3/85
• Has been ranked in 23 consecutive AP polls, the seventh longest active streak (Texas 143, USC 118, Ohio St 70, Florida 67, Oklahoma 52, Georgia 36) in FBS
• Was ranked for 35 consecutive weeks from 1984-1986, the school’s longest such streak

 

I have included here some of the actual data (all rankings are AP):

Seasons
1979—4 weeks (w10 #10, w11 #10, w12 #9, w13 #9)
1981—2 weeks (w4 #10, w5 #8)
1983—6 weeks (w10 #8, w11 #9, w12 #9, w13 #9, w14 #9, wF #7)
1984—14 weeks (w2 #8, w3#6, w4#8, w5#7, w6#5, w7#7, w8#5, w9#4, w10#4, w11#3, w12#1, w13#1, w14#1, wF#1)
1985—7 weeks (wP #10, w1 #8, w7 #9, w8 #7, w13 #9, w14 #9, w15 #9)
1990—9 weeks (w2 #5, w3 #4, w4 #4, w8 #9, w9 #10, w10 #8, w11 #5, w12 #4, w13 #4)
1996—6 weeks (w12 #10, w13 #8, w14 #7, w15 #6, w16 #5, wF #5)
2001—5 weeks (w10 #9, w11 #8, w12 #9, w13 #10, w14 #9)
2008—3 weeks (w5 #9, w6 #8, w7 #9)
2009—1 week (w1 #9)

Weeks by Ranking and Record When Ranked
#1—4 times (3-0, one final)
#2—none
#3—1 time (1-0)
#4—6 times (4-2)
#5—6 times (5-0, one final)
#6—2 times (2-0)
#7—5 times (3-1, one final)
#8—9 times (7-2)
#9—17 times (12-4, one current)
#10—7 times (7-0)

 

September 7, 2009

What We Learned in the Oklahoma Game
By Dave Haynie

[Visit BYUCougs.com to share your thoughts]

I was lucky enough to attend this one (making sure to gather a few extra game programs on the way out of the stadium), and then after some celebration pizza, returned home late Saturday night and proceeded to watch the entire game again on DVR. It was almost as good the second time.

After each game this season, I will post a weekly game recap along the lines of “what we learned in the fill-in-the-blank game”. There are already dozens of media outlets that will cover the game itself, so I will try to provide something that is unique and interesting (understanding that those reading this have likely already scoured the Internet trying to satiate their post-game thirst). Finally, given that this is the first game, and against such a quality opponent, there was a lot to learn.

• Classy Fans—The Oklahoma fans were classy. In my conversations with them, I found them to be thoughtful, knowledgeable, and gracious. Before, during, and after the game, not a single four letter word was aimed my way… or my mother’s. As we were leaving the stadium, many OU fans reached out to congratulate us on the victory and a game well won. Having attended several Cougar non-conference road games over the last several years and been treated in just about every manner by opposing fans (at Arizona being the worst), this was refreshing and commendable. I can only hope that opposing fans are treated in a similar manner by the Cougar faithful.
• De Facto BCS Game—This was a de facto BCS game for BYU. Nicest stadium in the world. Prime time ESPN. 75,000 Fans. Top 3 Opponent. Big Payout (only about $1.5M for BYU—compared to $9M for a non-AQ in a BCS game—but it didn’t have to be split with anyone else in the conference, so it is effectively about the same if not better).
• Max Hall—Despite a few times looking a bit nervous as the stadium’s high definition cameras and big screen captured his eyes at the line, Max played a gutsy game, shedding the monkey from his back and redeeming himself completely from the last season’s forgettable ending.
• This Isn’t Last Year’s Defense—the defense was the difference in this game and may end up being the biggest story of the year for this team. Across the board they were quicker, more assignment sound, and better able to disguise their formations. Not once did OU’s supposed superior “athleticism” appear to be a factor against the BYU defense. There were a number of defensive standouts:

• Jamie Hill—In his first game with full defensive play calling responsibilities, he came through with flying colors—calling the right plays, mixing up the alignments, and confusing the OU offense.
• New Positions—There may have been 8 starters back on defense from last year’s underperforming bunch, but several of them were in new positions—corners moved to safeties, safeties to linebackers, linebackers to ends, and ends to tackles. All of this added up to increased speed and the right people in the right spots.
• Secondary—Brian Logan and Brandon Bradley were able to effectively lock down the outside, staying step for step with the OU wideouts, while Scott Johnson and Andrew Rich did the same in the middle.
• Jordan Pendleton—Seemed to be all over the field. After bulking up somewhat and converting to outside linebacker from safety in the offseason, he seemed to be in on the action in several key plays and will be a handful for opposing teams all sesason.

• Preparation—The team seemed to be well prepared for just about everything from handling the noise in the arena with silent snap counts (several players said that the piped-in noise in the practice facility was louder) to having a go ahead fourth down play ready to roll without hesitation. Kudos to the coaches.
• Chambers is Improved. With the caveat that he didn’t get a lot of playing time last season, when O’Neil Chambers did play last season he looked somewhat sluggish and hesitant. That is not the case this season as he appears confident and quick. Look for him to become a key part of the offense as the season progresses.
• Pitta Is Back—After playing injured in the last few games last season, he appears fully healed and back to his clutch form. Future opponents be warned.
• The Kariya Surprise—Brian Kariya, former walk-on, filled in admirably at running back for the injured two-time thousand-yarder Harvey Unga, and should be able to provide adequate shoulders to retain some of the load upon Unga’s return.
• Kicking Game Questions—The punting game with freshman Riley Stephenson appears to be in good hands, however issues around place kicking and kickoffs that originally surfaced during fall camp almost prevented the victory. A missed field goal. Short kickoffs. A crucial kickoff going out of bounds. Hopefully Matt Payne will be able to step it up and perform at a higher level, or this deficiency may end up costing BYU at least one game this year.
• Upon Further Review—In a game filled with penalties on both sides, the refs seemed surprisingly balanced. However, there were three key penalties that appeared questionable in the single replay provided in the stadium. After watching them again several times at home, here is my take:

• Late Hit Out of Bounds—After seeing it from another angle, this looked reasonable, if not clear-cut. Good call.
• Pass Interference on BYU in End Zone—The replays on TV only reaffirmed my belief that this was a clean play on the ball. Perhaps even a textbook play. However, it would have been difficult for the referees to have seen the angles that TV provided. Poor but understandable call.
• Pass Interference on OU in End Zone—I questioned this one at the time, thinking we caught a break and that George should have made the catch. While I still think George should have caught the ball, it looks like he was pushed in the back just before the ball’s arrival. Good call.

• Weekend Spin—Despite ESPN’s continuous coverage of Sam Bradford’s status drowning out the story of BYU’s performance, anyone who watched the game knows that this was a game that BYU earned. They were step for step with OU if not ahead. After a missed field goal, a fumbled punt return at the 30 yard line, and a fumble into the end zone, OU was lucky not to be down 17-0 at the end of the first half, WITH Bradford in the game.

So now with game one in the books, the question remains as to how the pollsters will handle this one… The Wall Street Journal put BYU 5th in their poll over the weekend. The AP and Coaches poll will come out on Tuesday. Keeping in mind that polls don’t mean much at this point in the season, I expect them to land between 8 and 11.

Lastly, the team will now once again find itself in the media spotlight and in opponents’ sights—how it handles that pressure will determine the remainder of the season. Hopefully lessons were learned last year that will help the team avoid a similar fate, remaining focused on one game at a time and enjoying the journey.
What else did we learn? Share your thoughts at www.byucougs.com.

 

September 2, 2009

The Numbers Inside the Missionary Advantage
By Dave Haynie

[Note: In an effort to allow readers increased access (RSS) and ability to engage, visit byucougs.com. Please visit that site to leave comments/feedback, join discussions, or subscribe to the content. ]

An Age Old Debate
Despite the fact that it seems to come up about every other week in the national media, the fact that BYU has players on its football team that are somewhat older than typical college athletes is not a new story.   Many of their players do leave school and football behind (among other things) to spend two years at their own expense in an assigned region of the world providing service and sharing a message of faith and hope. 

Both Pros and Cons
Some see this as an advantage—players return older, more physically mature, more mentally mature, and with increased discipline and focus.  Others see it as a disadvantage—players return out of shape and rusty having not played football or worked out regularly for two years, players may lose their aggressive edge, and managing personnel and recruiting when losing 40+ players after every season can be a scholarship and depth chart nightmare.   It is often also pointed out that if it were such an advantage, then why don’t other schools encourage their LDS athletes to serve missions (the opposite is usually true, as they are generally discouraged from serving).  There is merit to the arguments on both sides, and the debate over whether having returned missionaries on the team is an advantage or disadvantage will inevitably continue.

Apples and Oranges
What is nearly always missing in the debate, however, is the magnitude of the age difference, or advantage, in question.  It is not uncommon for even respected national sports writers to compare an occasional 25 or 26 year old player on BYU’s roster to an 18 year old true freshman on the opposing team.  Obviously that is a mismatch.  But the underlying question is whether that is an advantage due to the missionary program or not.   Given that a mission is a maximum of two years, such comparisons are obviously inaccurate, as other factors (such as late enrollment, redshirt, or injury exceptions) available to any athlete must led that player to be older.  The maximum age advantage then could only be two years—which would be the case if every BYU football player were a return missionary, and no one on the other team were.  But this is not the case—not all BYU players are, and there are some on other teams that have served missions as well.  So, with the BYU missionary data courtesy of Carey Hoki, in the BYU Football Media Relations Office, we will take a look at the actual age difference of BYU players versus each of the teams BYU plays this season.

Assumptions
A few assumptions used and how they impact the analysis:

• Assume that all players having served a mission are two years older than they would otherwise be.  Conservative—although two years is the expected duration, we know that some missionaries return home for various reasons prior to two years.
• No players on other teams have served missions.  Conservative—there are a number of return missionaries on other teams, most notably Utah and Utah State.
• Redshirt years will not be considered, since that is an option available to all players at all schools and unrelated to missionary service.  Although it is possible that BYU redshirts more of its players than others, since they are often not in game shape upon returning from two years off, any age difference due to redshirting cannot be attributed to missionary service.  Neutral.
• Average assumed age of all non-missionary players (for BYU and opponents) is 18.5 (Fr), 19.5 (So), 20.5 (Jr), 21.5 (Sr).  Any other age differences are due to other factors.  Neutral.
• No other player delays are considered (such as military service, peace corp, delayed entrance, etc.).   Conservative—there are other players in other programs that also delay their athletic careers to participate in something else for a time, extending their eligibility.
• Class mix impacts the average age of a team and varies from program to program.  We assume that the average collective class mix of the teams that BYU plays (a roughly 10% sample) is typical of all college football teams.  Neutral.
• Some teams may lose more than the average number of players to the NFL early, reducing the number of seniors on the team.    This will not be considered in this analysis.  Neutral.
• Fall camp rosters have been used for each team.  There have obviously been changes due to injury and attrition since these were released, but it is assumed that such circumstances affect each team equally.  Air Force has been excluded because it does not include freshmen on it preseason roster.  Neutral.
• This looks at the entire roster, not just the starters or two deep.  Neutral to slightly aggressive.  This assumes that the percentage of starters that have been on missions is the same as the roster as a whole, which is close, but not exact.  It looks like 13-14 players will start that have been on missions (59% compared to overall average of 56%).

The Relevant Difference
Based on the typical class mix, and given the assumptions above, the average age of a college football player is 19.71 years.  Without considering missions, and given BYU’s current class mix, the average age of BYU’s players would also be 19.71 years.  Of the 106 players on BYU’s roster in fall camp, 59 of them spent time as a missionary (55.7%).   When considering the additional two years in age for those players, BYU’s average age is 20.82 years.  The difference then, and only relevant number to the missionary debate is 1.11 years.  Whenever comparisons are made or debates are had, as a team, BYU is only an average of 1.11 years older than a player of similar class on the other team.

	Fr	So	Jr	Sr	Total
Average Age (US)	18.5	19.5	20.5	21.5
Class Mix (US)	37.6%	22.1%	21.7%	18.5%
Weighted Ave Age (US)					19.71
BYU Players by Class	37	30	19	20	106
Class Mix (BYU)	34.9%	28.3%	17.9%	18.9%
Without Mission Ave Age (BYU)	18.5	19.5	20.5	21.5	19.71
BYU Returned Missionaries	13	19	11	16	59
Percent of BYU Class	35.1%	63.3%	57.9%	80.0%	55.7%
With Missions Average Age (BYU)	19.2	20.8	21.7	23.1	20.82
Actual Age Difference (years)	0.70	1.27	1.16	1.60	1.11

 

Against the Schedule
Here is how the age of BYU players stacks up against each of the opponents this season.  The only difference here, being the class mix—some teams are heavy on upperclassmen and others have a disproportionate number of freshmen.  BYU’s players range from being 0.97 years older than UNLV (52% juniors and seniors) to being 1.27 years older than Colorado State (45% freshmen).

 

Opponent	Fr	So	Jr	Sr	Total	vs BYU
Oklahoma	34	21	20	20	95
	36%	22%	21%	21%	19.77	-1.05
Tulane	43	18	20	15	96
	45%	19%	21%	16%	19.57	-1.25
Florida State	27	39	13	18	97
	28%	40%	13%	19%	19.73	-1.09
Colorado State	49	21	23	16	109
	45%	19%	21%	15%	19.56	-1.27
Utah State	35	26	29	17	107
	33%	24%	27%	16%	19.76	-1.06
UNLV	29	17	24	18	88
	33%	19%	27%	20%	19.85	-0.97
San Diego State	37	23	22	24	106
	35%	22%	21%	23%	19.81	-1.01
TCU	46	23	30	14	113
	41%	20%	27%	12%	19.61	-1.21
Wyoming	31	16	17	18	82
	38%	20%	21%	22%	19.77	-1.05
New Mexico	42	18	18	17	95
	44%	19%	19%	18%	19.61	-1.22
Utah	35	18	19	24	96
	36%	19%	20%	25%	19.83	-0.99
Total	408	240	235	201	1084
%	37.6%	22.1%	21.7%	18.5%	19.71	-1.11

 

September 1, 2009

Fall Camp Recap
By Dave Haynie

[Note: In an effort to allow readers increased access (RSS) and ability to engage, these entries will be simultaneously posted on byucougs.com. Please visit that site to leave comments/feedback, join discussions, or subscribe to the content. ]

As fall camp is now over and the team is finalizing game prep for the much-anticipated opener with the Sooners, it’s time for a look at how the key position battles turned out (as identified previously).

Key Position Battle Results
As camp opened on Aug 3, I broke down the position battles into three categories—open or unsettled starting spots, key backup spots, and locked down spots. Within each of those, I gave some thoughts to the various positions. Here is how those battled turned out:

Open Starting Spots (OL, WR, CB, DT, ST)
• Offensive Line—This position has lived up to its billing as there has been plenty of drama on the line over the last three weeks. Matt Reynolds, the lone returning starter, broke his hand and missed most of camp, although is expected to start in the opener. Jason Speredon, the tentative starter at left guard, tore a rotator cuff and will miss the season due to surgery. Jesse Taufi has not yet qualified academically (although he may be able to join the team at some point during the season). Houston Reynolds, expected to be a backup, is out for the season with an ACL. The surprise of camp is Marco “Moose” Thorson (6-3, 321 So) who seems to have locked down the left guard spot over Braden Hansen and Ryan Freeman. Likely starters are Matt Reynolds (LT), Moose Thorson (LG), RJ Willing (C), Terrence Brown (RG), Nick Alletto (RT).
• Wide Receiver—McKay Jacobsen and O’Neill Chambers are locks as expected. Luke Ashworth and Spencer Hofoka have been the next two in. Brett Thompson (6-3, 216 Fr) has been performing well in practice and will likely crack the rotation before the season is over.
• Corner Back—Several injuries at this spot have created a revolving door. Brandon Bradley’s tendonitis in the knee flared up during the first week, and still has not fully recovered. He was expected to start at boundary corner, but JC transfer Lee Aguirre has taken advantage of the opportunity to showcase his skills, creating some question as to who will actually start on Saturday. At the other side, freshman Robbie Buckner was an early surprise locking down a spot with the ones, before he was sidelined with injury. Another JC transfer Brian Logan, has performed well enough to win the spot in his absence, but will be playing with a broken finger come game day.
• Defensive Tackle—a bright spot of camp. Russell T was able to join the team, Romney Fuga has been able to quickly regain his pre-mission form, and Tevita Hola has been declared the most improved player on the team by Bronco. Bronco has also been personally coaching this position during camp as a way to get back to what he loves.
• Special Teams—Jacobsen and Chambers have locked down kick return as expected. Riley Stephenson has also been very good as punter. It is kickoffs and field goals that have been surprisingly competitive as Mitch Payne was somewhat inconsistent on field goals and kickoffs during camp. He is still listed as the starter and hopefully will be able to perform come game time, but Stephenson could fill in well if called upon.

Key Backup Spots (QB, RB)
• Quarterback—Brendon Gaskins backed up Hall last season and was slotted to do so again this year, at least for the beginning of the season. However, Riley Nelson will be the only returning quarterback on the roster next year, and Bronco stated that he wanted to get him at least 12 quarters of football this season. Gaskins, approached Bronco and suggested that Riley be given the backup spot in an effort to prepare him for next season—it was going to happen at some point during the season, but it was big of Gaskins to expedite it for the good of the team at his own expense.
• Running Back—Two year starter Harvey Unga was held out of much of fall practice as a precautionary measure and still managed to pull a hamstring, but is expected to play Saturday. Manase Tonga was cleared to enroll in school and has picked up where he left off—he will be expected to immediately take some of the burden off of Unga. JJ DiLuigi showed enough to secure the third spot—backup tailback—and Brian Kariya will back up Tonga.

Locked Down Spots (LB, S, DE, TE)
• Linebacker—the starters are the same here, but it is notable that Brandon Ogletree (5-11, 222 Fr) and Jordan Atkinson (6-3, 243 Jr) cracked the two-deep. Shiloah Te’o, backup strong safety, also played some at backer as part of a nickel package.
• Safety—Scott Johnson and Andrew Rich consistently performed well in camp and should make this position the strength of the defense. True freshman Craig Bills (6-1, 209 Fr) impressed coaches and teammates this fall and earned the right to backup Johnson at free safety. He will likely see the field sooner than later—possibly in every game.
• Defensive End—With starters Jan Jorgenson and Brett Denney locked in, the only notable development is the solid play of Vic So’oto, an athletic tight end-turned-linebacker-turned-defensive end.
• Tight End—Braden Brown earned the third spot behind Dennis Pitta and Andrew George and will be the heir apparent next season.

 

August 17, 2009

O Line Getting Thin
By Dave Haynie

Only eight fall practices are in the books and already the offensive line is getting thin. Going into fall camp without four starters from last year, revamping the offensive line was one of the primary concerns. Now it is THE primary concern. With 19 days remaining until this group faces an Oklahoma defensive line that will put several players on your TV screens on Sundays, here is where the team stands:

• Matt Reynolds (So), LT—The lone returning starter broke his hand and had to have it surgically repaired. He is now the proud owner of a pin and a metal plate inside that hand, and is expected out for 2-3 weeks. Given the level of expectations placed on him, look for him to find a way to play in the opener, but will be held out of practices until then and may not be at 100%.
• Jason Speredon (Jr), LG—The other protector of Max Hall’s backside is out for the season with a torn rotator cuff in his shoulder requiring surgery and 3-5 months of rehab.
• Jesse Taufi (Jr), LG—Expected to add depth in the two deep at right guard, Taufi has not yet been cleared academically to join the team. There is a possibility that he is able to join once school starts, but that may not be much consolation going into the Oklahoma game.

In the mean time, the offensive line is playing with 5 freshmen and 3 sophomores on the two deep and is as follows (first team, second team):

LT: Braden Hansen (Fr), Terrence Alletto (Fr)
LG: Marco Thorson (So), Ryan Freeman (So)
C: RJ Willing (Sr), Houston Reynolds (Fr)
RG: Terrence Brown (So), Tui Crichton (Fr)
RT: Nick Alletto (Jr), Fono Vakalahi (Fr)

 

August 14, 2009

And the Bowl Frenzy Begins
By Dave Haynie

It has finally started. The Pac-10 pushed over the first domino this week in the bowl game free-for-all by agreeing in principal with the Alamo Bowl to send its second place finisher there, bumping the Big 10. The Big 10 in turn is talking to the Gator Bowl bumping the Big East… and the frenzy begins.

For several years now, conferences and bowl games have quietly signed contracts ending with the 2009 season, knowing that it was the end of the current BCS contract, and wanting to not be left out when the dancing started. Well, the new BCS contract has been signed and the dancing has started. Early props go to the Pac-10 for being proactive.

So what are the implications for BYU and the rest of the MWC? If the conference wants to increase its national profile, then lining up higher profile post-season games for its teams should be high on the list. And, since an automatic bid to the BCS is off the table at least for a few more years, this might be the only structural change that can be made until then.

Currently, the conference has contracts with five bowl games for 2009, all of which are up for renegotiation after this season. They are:

Las Vegas	MWC #1 vs Pac 10 #4/5	$1.1M	Dec 22
Poinsettia (San Diego)	MWC #2 vs. Pac 10 #6	$750K	Dec 23
Armed Forces (Fort Worth)	MWC vs. CUSA	$600K	Dec 31
Humanitarian (Boise)	MWC vs. WAC	$750K	Dec 30
New Mexico (Albuquerque)	MWC vs. WAC	$750K	Dec 19

 

While that doesn’t seem like much of a lineup—three games played before Christmas, paltry payouts by bowl standards (even BYU home gate receipt standards), and with the exception of Boise (at least right now) all games are played in league stadiums. However, at least that is improvement over the initial conference post-season. These were the bowl tie-ins in 1999:

Liberty (Memphis)	MWC #1 vs. CUSA #1	$1.3M	Dec 31
Motor City (Detroit)	MWC vs. MAC	$750K	Dec 27
Las Vegas	MWC vs. WAC	$750K	Dec 18

The conference has improved its access (now with 5), geographic proximity to league fan bases, and to a lesser degree, matchups (reality is that it is nearly impossible to change the outside perception of the conference without playing teams from automatic qualifying BCS conferences).

Here is where the league needs to go from here (e.g. Craig Thompson’s marching orders):

• Improve the payouts to league teams—especially the conference champion
• Improve matchups, trying to get more teams from AQ BCS conferences and higher in the pecking order—in particular for the MWC conference champion
• Maintain five bowl tie-ins (MWC unlikely to ever qualify six teams)
• Maintain ties with bowls in the western US (unless prestige or payout justifies it), prioritizing destination cities (San Diego > Boise, for example)

With these criteria in mind, here are the potential options:

Cotton (Dallas)	Big 12 #2 vs. SEC	$3.0M	Jan 1
Alamo (San Antonio)	Big 10 # 4/5 vs. Big 12	$2.2M	Jan 2
Holiday (San Diego)	Pac 10 #2 vs. Big 12 #3	$2.1M	Dec 30
Sun (El Paso)	Pac 10 #3 vs. Big 12 or Big East	$1.9M	Dec 31
Insight (Phoenix)	Big 10 # 6 vs. Big 12 # 6	$1.2M	Dec 31
Emerald (San Francisco)	ACC #5/6/7 vs. Pac 10	$850K	Dec 26
Texas (Houston)	Big 12 #8 vs. Navy	$600K	Dec 30
Hawaii (Honolulu)	WAC vs. CUSA	$400K	Dec 24

 

What are the chances for the MWC with each of these?

Cotton—This would be the dream scenario. But not going to happen.
Alamo—Good city with a nice date and matchup. It has been reported that they will up the payout to $3M starting next season and take the Pac 10 #2. With that in their back pocket, it looks likely that this bowl will also move up in the Big 12 pecking order. So, take this one off the table for the MWC.
Holiday—Looks like this bowl is going to be relegated to the PAC 10 #3 and possibly to Big 12 #4, which might open a door for the MWC champion. Good location, good payout, good matchup. Would be an ideal upgrade.
Sun—Nice payout, good New Years Eve game date, would be great to play a Big 12 team, warm weather location and proximity is good (although El Paso, isn’t really a destination city). Would be great to Probably getting bumped to Pac 10 #4, so could possibly open the door for MWC #1 or #2.
Insight—Similar to Sun Bowl (date, matchup, geography), only better city (closer to fans), less history, and reduced payout. The date for this is better than the Vegas bowl, payout about the same, city not as good, matchup about the same. All in, probably on par or just below Vegas bowl, a good option for MWC #2 or #3.
Emerald—A better city and date than a few of the MWC’s current bowls. Better potential matchup and slightly improved payout. Toss up with Poinsettia Bowl. Would be good for MWC #3 or #4.
Texas—Non-destination city would be a stretch for most MWC fans not from Texas, payout is poor, matchup is sub-par. MWC should pass on this one.
Hawaii—great location, but destination would have to be its own reward, since given the low payout the conference would probably lose money. Would likely be playing against Hawaii in most years or another WAC team. Still, much easier to get excited about than Humanitarian or New Mexico. A potentially good option for MWC #3 or #4 or #5, but would need to increase the payout to make it work for the conference.

Here is the best case scenario (without considering a BCS game):

• MWC #1—Holiday or Sun Bowl. Champion goes to Holiday Bowl to play Pac 10/Big 12 #3/4 team on Dec 30 with $2M+ payout. Sun Bowl paying $1.9M (playing either Pac 10 #4 or Big 12 #4/5) would be first alternate, should Holiday Bowl go another direction. MWC would not be able to get both of these, so it’s one or the other.
• MWC #2—Vegas Bowl. Great city. The date holds it back from becoming a great bowl game, as it will always be played before Christmas. The matchup is sub-par and looks to get worse as it will likely be the Pac 10 #5 going forward. Also, will be known as the Maaco Bowl starting this year. Seems like a definite downgrade for a conference champ, but still a destination that fans will travel to for a game, and should be kept in the MWC fold.
• MWC #3—Insight Bowl. Good conference matchup with Big 10 or Big 12 (although likely the #6 from those conferences) in warm location (but below Vegas) on Dec 31 (better than Vegas). Payout at $1.2M is similar to Vegas Bowl. If matchup could be upgraded to ACC #4, Big East #3, or Big 10/Big 12 #5, then this would a great spot for the MWC #2.
• MWC #4—Poinsettia Bowl or Emerald Bowl. Two bowls in the same city might be overkill. Take Poinsettia if we don’t already have Holiday, and Emerald if we do. Can’t go wrong with San Diego or San Francisco.
• MWC #5—Armed Forces Bowl. It’s good to have some presence in Texas for recruiting and media exposure. The New Year’s Eve date is also good for the conference profile.
• Alternates—Hawaii Bowl. If the payout were increased to $800-900K, then this bowl might be a nice option for the conference at #4 or #5.
• Drop-outs—Humanitarian and New Mexico Bowls. The Humanitarian Bowl is a one year contract for 2009 and likely won’t be continued. The New Mexico Bowl, although it is in a good position when New Mexico qualifies, has served the conference well for the last few years and should now be passed on to the Sun Belt and WAC.

The commissioner has his work cut out for him, but the options are out there. Things are going to happen fast, the conference better be ready.

 

 

August 12, 2009

Records Should Fall, Awards Could Be Won
By: Dave Haynie

Last week, I looked at the historical success of the BYU program over key periods. I noted that one of the obvious pieces missing over the last three seasons for BYU (as opposed to the previously successful periods) was individual awards and recognition. This might be the year to get back on track.

Several players have been nominated to preseason watch lists:
• Max Hall: Walter Camp Award (player of the year), Davey O’Brien Award (quarterbacks), Johnny Unitas Golden Arm Award (senior quarterback)
• Dennis Pitta: John Mackey Award (tight ends), Fred Biletnikoff Award (receivers)
• Jan Jorgensen: Ted Hendricks Award (defensive ends)

Hall, Pitta, Jorgensen, as well as Harvey Unga are also on tap to crash the BYU career stat leader boards. By the end of the season, look for Max Hall to be second in passing yards, second in total offense, and second in TDs thrown. Pitta should be first in receptions and either first or second in receiving yards. Unga should be first in rushing yards, first or second in touchdowns, top three in all-purpose yards, and second or third in scoring. If these players can manage to avoid injury, keep up the career-setting pace, and win some big games, there just might be some post-season hardware coming to Provo at the end of the season.

Max Hall, Sr
• Passing Yards: currently ranked #7 with 7,805; needs 3,217 yards to pass John Beck for second (Ty Detmer is first with 15,031)
• Total Offense: currently ranked #6 with 7,934; needs 3,126 yards to pass John Beck for second
• TD Passes: currently ranked #6 with 61; needs 24 to pass Jim McMahon (84) for second, would need 61 to pass Ty Detmer (121) for first

Dennis Pitta, Sr
• Receiving Yards: currently ranked #8 with 2,072; needs 1,184 to pass Austin Collie(3,255) for first, needs 994 to pass Eric Drage (3,065) for second, and needs 770 to pass Margin Hooks (2,841) for third
• Receptions: currently ranked #8 with 159; needs 57 catches to pass Austin Collie (215) for first, 46 to pass Matt Bellini (204) for second, and 31 to pass Margin Hooks (189) for third

Harvey Unga, Jr
• Rushing Yards: currently ranked #8 with 2,368; needs 854 to pass Curtis Brown (3,221) for first
• All Purpose Yards: currently ranked #10 with 3,335; needs 1,662 to pass Curtis Brown (4,996) for first, needs 1,315 to pass Austin Collie (4,649) for second, and needs 1,033 to pass Jamal Willis (4,367) for third
• Scoring: currently #7 with 200 points; needs 134 to pass Owen Pochman (333) for first, needs 113 to pass Matt Payne (312) for second, needs 91 to pass Luke Staley (290) for third
• Touchdowns: currently #4 with 33 touchdowns; needs 16 to pass Luke Staley (48) for first, needs 8 to pass Jamal Willis (40) for second, needs 4 to pass Curtis Brown (36) for third

 

August 11, 2009

Fall Camp Update
By: Dave Haynie

Players reported on Friday and the team held the first practice on Saturday. Since I cannot be at practice in person, I will not be breaking any camp news this fall, but I will keep everyone updated on the big picture and report important roster changes and other items of interest. Here are the notable stories after day one:

• Rick Wolfley, who had been expected to compete for the backup spot at NT, has quit the team to focus on school
• Tyler Kozlowski, expected to contribute on special teams and add depth at WR, also quit the team for personal reasons
• Robbie Buckner, a redshirt freshman return missionary, has jumped out in front as the player to beat at the open corner spot (over the three incoming JC transfers)
• McKay Jacobsen, who returned from a mission and will be a sophomore WR, confirmed reports of being ready to contribute this season by winning the annual run up Y Mountain, being the first player to arrive at the top
• Brett Thompson, Mitch Matthews, and Cody Hoffman—all true freshman WRs—already turned heads and should compete for time in the WR rotation. In particular, look for Thompson to find the field sooner than later.
• Houston Reynolds, freshman return missionary looks like he is on track to find a place on the offensive line two deep

 

August 7, 2009

25 Years…
By Dave Haynie

It has been 25 years since the 1984 football season which saw BYU voted number one in the nation by the AP and UPI voters, bringing the school its only football national championship. This CNNSI article provides a good recap of that season and the controversy that surrounded it at the time. (In honor of the silver anniversary, a 25th anniversary diamond logo will appear on this season’s fan t-shirts and will also be worn on the back of the players’ helmets.) The 1984 season was the culmination of several years of football success by the Cougars, which you could say is what made 1984 possible. In this blog entry, we are going to take a closer look at what transpired in the five seasons prior to 1984 (1979-1983), as well as what the Cougars have accomplished in the 25 years since their accomplishment.

1979-1983 (Five seasons leading up to 1984)
55-9 Record (.859)
5 wins over current BCS teams: Texas A&M, Wisconsin, Washington St, UCLA, Missouri
4 Top 15 final AP rankings (13th, 12th, 13th, 7th)
5 Conference championship
5 Bowl games (3-2)
5 Consensus All-Americans
2 Davey O’Brien Awards
3 Sammy Baugh Trophy
4 Top 5 Heisman finishes (2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 5th)
1 Coach of the Year Award
4 College football Hall of Fame inductees
4 First round draft picks
28 Players drafted (5.6 per year; including NFL ROY, 2x NFL MVP, Super Bowl MVP, 2x Super Bowl champion quarterback)

1984
13-0 Record
3 Wins over current BCS teams: Pitt, Baylor, Michigan
1 Top 15 final AP ranking (1st)
1 Conference championship
1 Bowl game (1-0)
23 Game winning streak at end of season
1 Top 5 Heisman finish (3rd)
1 Sammy Baugh Trophy
1 Davey O’Brien top two finish (2nd)
1 Coach of the Year Award
1 First round draft pick
6 Players drafted (in 1985 draft)
23 Starters were either drafted or signed contracts

Looking at the accomplishments of the 1984 team it is plain to see that it was just a continuation of a string of successes that had been ongoing for five years. It is also clear, based on post-season awards and draft picks, that the BYU teams of the early 1980’s were clearly talented teams. This body of work would say that the 1984 national championship was not a fluke, but the product of well-coached talent stringing together several consecutive years of success on the field. It would likely take another multi-year string of such successes for BYU or any other team outside the current AQ conferences to once again have a chance at a national championship.

Those were definitely glory days for BYU football. In the 24 seasons that have passed since 1984, BYU has had its share of success, but not quite at the elite level like what they were able to do from 1979-1984. Here is what the program has accomplished since 1984:

1985-2008
204-98 Record (.675)
28 Wins over current BCS teams (1.17 per year): Arizona, 2x Arizona St, Boston College, 2x California, Colorado, Georgia Tech, Iowa (tie), Kansas St, Miami, Mississippi St, 2x Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Oregon, Penn St, Syracuse, 2x Texas, Texas A&M, 2x UCLA, 3x Washington, Washington St, Virginia
2 Top 15 final AP rankings (5th, 14th)
10 Top 25 final AP rankings
12 Conference championships
18 Bowl games (5-12-1)
1 Heisman Trophy, 3 Top 10 Heisman finishes (3rd, 3rd, 9th)
2 Davey O’Brien Awards, 1 top five finish (3rd)
2 Sammy Baugh Trophies
1 Doak Walker Award
2 Outland Trophies
7 Consensus All-Americans
5 First round draft picks
61 Players drafted (2.5 per year)

Looking over this 24 year body of work and comparing it to the six seasons culminating in a championship, it is not nearly as impressive. Although the Cougars have continued to beat some of the biggest teams in the country and have done so consistently, their overall winning percentage has declined, and (despite several individual honors) based on All-American citations and draft picks (although the draft has changed over the years), it appears that the talent level has dropped off since the early 1980s as well. Most glaringly, the rankings have also dropped off—after five top 15 finishes in six years (79-84), there have only been two in the last 24. During this period, the team would average 8-9 wins, a bowl game (usually a loss), and a ranking every 2-3 years. Above average, but not especially note-worthy and not positioning-for-a-national-championship type performance.

Cougar fans would like to believe that the team has turned a corner once again, however, and is building momentum for a BCS-busting season, or even a national title run again in the coming year or years. If so, then one would expect the team to post 1979-1983 like results for a few years prior to a big breakthrough. And, perhaps it is in the middle of doing just that. Here are the results of the most recent three seasons (2006-2008):

2006-2008
32-7 Record (.821)
5 Wins over BCS teams (1.67 per year): Arizona, Oregon, 2x UCLA, Washington
1 Top 15 final AP rankings (14th)
3 Top 25 final AP rankings (14th, 16th, 25th)
2 Conference championships
3 Bowl games (2-1)
0 Consensus All-Americans
0 First round draft picks
5 Players drafted (1.67 per year)

The rankings, big wins, winning percentage, championships, and bowl games are all very similar to the 1979-84 period. The most obvious difference is the lack of individual honors (awards, consensus All-Americans) and draft picks, a sign of perhaps overachieving with lesser talent. If the program can continue on this trajectory and reload at higher talent levels than have been on the field over the last few years (which appears to be the case looking at those committed, signed last year, on missions, and returning from missions), then BYU might be on track to once again be a challenger in the hunt for the national championship.

August 3, 2009

Finally… Camp Week
By Dave Haynie

After a long summer spent living with the memories of last season’s shortcomings, fall camp finally arrives this week. Players report on Friday and the first practice will be held on Saturday morning, August 8th. Here is a look at key stories and positions to watch heading into fall camp.

Open Practices
Three practices and a meet the team event will be open to fans:
Aug 14—10am (practice)
Aug 14—5pm (practice)
Aug 18—10am (practice)
Aug 18—6pm (Cougar Kickoff, meet the team event)

Scrambling for Tickets
After twelve consecutive sellouts dating back to the 2007 opener against Arizona (W, 20-7), and a better than usual home slate, season ticket sales were halted last week. If you are still in the market for tickets, your best bet now is either a student package if you qualify (went on sale Aug 3rd at 9am and is likely to sell out soon) or single game tickets for the games with fewer tickets reserved for the visiting team (Air Force, Utah State, Colorado State).

Positions to Watch During Fall Camp
Going into fall, this season’s position battles essentially break down into three categories:

1. Battles for open or unsettled starting spots (OL, WR, CB, DT, ST)

• Offensive Line—Only Matt Reynolds (6-6, 320 So), who started as a freshman at the key left tackle spot last year (Freshman All-American) returns, leaving four vacant spots created by the departure of seniors Dallas Reynolds, Ray Feinga, Travis Bright, and David Oswald to NFL camps. The likely replacements all come with significant experience, so although this position represents the biggest question mark on the team, it is one that is in good hands.
• Keep your eyes on RJ Willing (6-5, 310 Sr) who has experience at nearly every line position and is expected to start at center.
• Pencil in Terrence Brown (6-3, 351 So) at right guard, as he took all of the reps with the ones in spring and crashed the two deep as a freshman prior to his missionary service.
• Either Nick Alletto (6-6, 318 Jr) or fresh-off-a-mission Braden Hansen (6-6, 286 Fr) are expected to win the battle for right tackle.
• Jason Speredon (6-5, 305 Jr) and redshirt JC transfer Jesse Taufi (6-4, 302 Jr) will be battling it out at left guard. Ryan Freeman (6-4, 275 So), who returned from a mission this spring after cracking the two deep as a freshman in 2006, is a potential dark horse.

• Wide Receiver—The departures of Austin Collie (led NCAA in receiving yards last year and now with Colts) and Michael Reed have opened the door for several talented receivers to step up. It is unclear how many will make Robert Anae’s rotation, as it has varied over the last several years, but here are the leading contenders:
• McKay Jacobsen (5-11, 192 So), is all but guaranteed one of the open spots, as he was a significant contributor as a freshman prior to his mission and is one of the fastest players on the team.
• The remaining open spot is being seriously contested by a half dozen returning players, with the leading competitors being Luke Ashworth (6-2, 201 Jr) and O’Neil Chambers (6-2, 209 So). Spencer Hafoka (6-0, 183 So), back from an extended and serious bout with influenza that kept him out during spring, must be considered a serious candidate as well.

• Cornerback—Brandon Bradley (6-0, 200 Jr) has solidified his position at one of the CB spots, but the departure of Brandon Howard from the other side, leaves possibly the most glaring hole on the team. In contrast to the other key open positions (OL, WR), that return players with significant experience to compete for starting spots, this one is wide open and will likely be filled by a newcomer.
• There are three incoming JC transfers, brought in specifically to challenge for this position—Brian Logan (5-9, 195 Jr), Lee Aguirre (5-9, 200 Jr), and Corby Eason (5-9, 180 Jr). Not having stepped a foot on campus yet, they are essentially unproven, but it is expected (and hoped) that one of these will be able to perform at a level high enough to win the job.
• Should the JCs falter, watch for redshirt freshman Garret Nicholson (5-9, 181 Fr) or returned missionary freshman Robbie Buckner (5-10, 165 Fr) to step in and take over.

• Nose Tackle—This position will be interesting to watch only if returning starter Russell Tialavea (6-3, 286 Sr) leaves for his mission and does not participate with the team this fall. Should he delay his mission until after the season, he is a lock to start. If not, this significant hole would be likely filled by Romney Fuga (6-2, 280 So) who started prior to his mission, or Rick Wolfley (6-3, 352 Jr) an offensive lineman switched to DL to add depth at the position.

• Special Teams—A number of key spots on special teams will be open this fall. Departed are Austin Collie on kick returns (NFL), Justin Sorenson on kickoffs (mission), and CJ Santiago on punts (graduated). Punt return ranked among the worst in the country last year and was done by committee, so it goes without saying that it is wide open as well.
• Watch for WR O’Neil Chambers to return at one of the kickoff return spots, with the other spot a key area of interest going into fall camp.
• Mitch Payne (6-2, 210 Jr), who handled kickoffs his freshman year (prior to the arrival of super-leg freshman Justin Sorenson), and will be handling place kicking duties again this year, should be back at kickoff duty. It will be worth watching to see if his distance has improved from the 2007 season, where his short kicks were a frustration to the team and fans alike.
• Riley Stephenson (6-0, 175 Fr), just back from a mission, and Tyler Holt (5-9, 177 So) should battle for punting duties.
• Punt return is wide open, but look for WR McKay Jacobsen to be a prime candidate as he was especially effective in that role as a freshman in 2006.

2. Interesting developments or battles for key backup spots (QB, RB)

• Quarterback—Max Hall (6-1, 201, Sr) has had the QB spot locked down for three years now, but fans and coaches will be watching closely to see how return missionary transfer Riley Nelson (6-1, 195 So) progresses. Brendan Gaskins (6-4, 213 Sr) was the backup last year and this spring, but should be pushed by Nelson, who will be the only returning quarterback next season, so look for coaches to try to get Nelson some game time reps in preparation for next seasons battle with Jason Munns, James Lark, and Jake Heaps for the starting job.

• Running Back—Harvey Unga (6-0, 239 Jr) is also a lock at running back for the third season in a row. Last season, without a reliable backup, Unga carried nearly the entire load at running back and began to pay the price physically for that effort as the season wore on. Coaches are hoping to avoid a similar fate this year and will be trying to find a back that can take some of the burden this fall. Primary candidates are JJ Di Luigi (5-9, 198 So), Malosi Te’o (5-10, 199 Fr), and Brian Kariya (6-0, 212 So). In particular, fans are hoping to see Di Luigi to perform at the level expected of him after a highly decorated high school career and a disappointing freshman season. Also look for fullback Manase Tonga to take some reps should he be able to rejoin the team.

3. Positions that are essentially determined and of less interest (LB, S, DE, TE)

• Linebacker, safety, defensive end, and tight end are all filled with senior returning starters. There won’t be much question in camp as to the personnel manning the spots, as much as the level of performance they are able to achieve. While DE and TE should have all-conference, and possibly even all-American performances again this year coming from TE’s Dennis Pitta (6-5, 248 Sr) and Andrew George (6-5, 249 Sr), and DE Jan Jorgensen (6-3, 259 Sr), the linebacker and safety positions need to improve if BYU is going to win a conference championship this year.
• Safety—Scott Johnson (5-11, 188 Sr) has been moved from CB to free safety and Andrew Rich (6-3, 215 Jr) takes over at strong safety. Improvement over last year is expected, with these two now at the helm.
• Linebacker—There are five returning senior linebackers in the two-deep. This group was embarrassed in the Las Vegas Bowl against Arizona, so improvement is needed. They have been working hard and fans will want to listen for any vibe surrounding this group.

July 28, 2009

A Summer Review
By: Dave Haynie

Welcome Back.

Whether you spend hours a day worshipping at the shrine of your preferred patron fan board or are just getting back up to speed on the team happenings over the summer, as college football fans we are universally anticipating the arrival of opening kickoff… or, in reality, for many of us even the start of fall camp in a few days will begin to satisfy our thirst for action after the long summer drought. That said, I hope that you have had a summer full of adventure and have big plans to take advantage of what still remains, because I already know that your September, October and November Saturdays are booked.

This opening blog is dedicated to helping fans who took the summer off to quickly catch up on the top stories since spring camp (April, May, June, July). The next entry will take a look ahead at key stories going in to fall camp.

BYU Football Top Summer Stories

• Recruiting—I will be the first to recognize that recruiting hype is just that. It doesn’t directly do a thing for the scoreboard, which at the end is just about all that will matter. But with that caveat, or perhaps because of it, recruiting was the top story of BYU football this summer. Based on the 20 known commitments the program has received thus far, BYU is on track to land its highest rated (which hopefully translates to most talented) class ever. The class is headlined by Jake Heaps, a 6’-2”/195 lb two-time state champion QB from the Seattle, WA area. He was offered a scholarship by just about every major program in the country, is rated the number one player in the country by Scout, and was the winner of the MVP at the Elite 11 QB camp in California last week. That in itself might get fans excited, but what has really fired up the Cougar Faithful, is the ownership Jake has been taking of his own class. Beginning with a press conference in June to announce his commitment, where he introduced fellow commits Ross Apo (WR previously committed to Texas) and Zac Stout (rated top five linebacker in US by Scout), Jake has blossomed into a one-man recruiting pitch to some of the top talent around. No doubt in part due to this influence, BYU is winning head to head recruiting battles with the best of them and fans are energized.

• Personnel—It is not uncommon for adjustments to be made to the roster in the offseason. Players transfer or move on. Others never recover from injury. Some don’t qualify. This summer is not any different. Although what may be changing is the 24/7 media coverage of such changes, which creates headlines and chat room frenzy out of each one. These are the roster situations that caused a stir this summer:

-Russell Tialavea, senior starting nose tackle unexpectedly decided to apply for missionary service and will likely not participate with the team this fall, leaving an unexpected and potentially vulnerable hole in the middle. Word is that there is a slight chance (very slight) that he may not enter the Missionary Training Center until after the season, and would therefore be able to participate.

-Brandon Howard, starting corner, has left school for personal reasons and is not expected back

-Matt Ah-You, senior backup linebacker, has left school in hopes of an opportunity to start with another program. Although not a starter, he provided valuable depth to the linebacking corps.

-Bernard Afutiti, after some impressive practices and a redshirt year, coaches, teammates and fans were looking forward to having him on the field this fall, but he wasn’t able to get it done in the classroom, and is academically ineligible.

-Manase Tonga, senior fullback, is expected to rejoin the team this fall, pending academic performance in a few classes on campus this summer. Suspended from school for academic reasons, he spent the last year working on his grades and degree progress at Utah Valley University, and could be an extremely valuable piece of the puzzle in the backfield this fall.
-Jamie Hill, defensive coordinator, will have full responsibility for calling the defensive plays this season, a duty that he was heavily involved with last year, but now becomes his.

• MWC and the BCS—After the on field performance by Mountain West Conference teams last season, the off season was spent by conference big wigs shining a light on the issue. First it was a playoff proposal sponsored by the MWC at the NCAA meetings. Then it was BCS anti-trust hearings in the US Congress sponsored by Utah Senator Orrin Hatch. A big deal was made about signing (or at least waiting until the last minute) to sign the new BCS television deal with ESPN. Of course all of this culminated with speculative talk of adding Boise State to the league—the vibe seems to be tilting to a ‘not if, but when’ scenario. Not many people, if any (including conference and school executives), expected any actual near-term changes to come out of all of the activity, but if the goal was to raise the conference profile, increase national awareness, and put a big fat spotlight on this upcoming season, then it was a success.

• Riley Nelson Rule—A little known and relatively obscure rule change was passed at the NCAA gathering this summer that has come to be known among Cougar Fans as the Riley Nelson rule. The rule, sponsored by Utah State, makes changes to how missions are treated for transfer purposes and essentially requires that a returning missionary must sit out a year should he decide to transfer, just like any other athlete that remained in the program. It is unclear what impact this will have on the program, but caused a bit of a local ruckus among finger-pointing fans in the Beehive State, when it was learned that Utah State QB Riley Nelson would be transferring to BYU upon completion of his missionary service.

• MWC Media Days—As per tradition, the media gathered in Las Vegas during the second to last week in July and talked football with the coaches and a few players from each team. The outcome of preseason (and essentially meaningless) polls has the Cougars finishing second to TCU (Utah third), with QB Max Hall as the MVP, and along with RB Harvey Unga, TE Dennis Pitta, and OL Matt Reynolds selected to the first team.

• Oklahoma—Finally, there has been buzz around the Oklahoma game circled on September 5th on prime time ESPN. The Cougars are expected to be heavy underdogs, but summer chatter has focused on just about every aspect of that game—The chances the team will have in that game. How we stack up. What adjustments should be made to give the team its best chance. The new stadium. Its scoreboard.—Fans quickly gobbled up available tickets and are busy planning trips to Dallas.

Pre-Fall Camp Update
By: DJ Savage

So fall camp is about to begin and I am drooling on my keyboard, because All-Sport passes go on sale August 3rd. So here are my predictions and some predictions going into camp:

-Max Hall will be better in big games that he was last year. Ok so that’s not that bold of a prediction because it would be nearly impossible for him to get worse. He will be better though, because of the loss of Austin Collie. That means that Hall won’t be able to lock in on a single receiver like he did last year and this will force defenses to be more honest in defending BYU’s passing attack.

-There will not be any drop off in performance from the offensive line. The O-line lost 4 starters this year but they will be replaced by more than adequate players with a lot of experience. Plus they return Freshman All-american Matt Reynolds.

-The defense returns quite a bit of experience from last years team but they will have to be a lot better if they expect to compete for a BCS bowl. This unit looks to be a bit more athletic than last years with the inclusion of some key JC transfers into the secondary.

-Defensive End Jan Jorgensen said on a local radio station that he was concerned about the secondary. That’s not a big surprise, frankly I would be a bit concerned for Jorgensen’s mental health if he was not concerned about the secondary. The good news is that they can’t get too much worse than last years unit, and as mentioned earlier, some key JC transfers should sure up the unit a lot.

-Position changes: Vic So’oto is switching to defensive end to help fill the void left by Russell Tialavea and Ian Dulan who are leaving to serve church missions.I like the switch and I think So’oto will do a lot of damage in the backfield of BYU’s opponents. Jordan Pendelton switched in the spring from a DB to Linebacker. Pendelton is a great athlete and will huge for the BYU defense this year, as soon as he learns the schemes.Scott Johnson has also switched from a CB to a Safety. Johnson is a very smart player who works hard and is a great leader. He will quarterback the defense from here and this should be an upgrade from Kellen Fowler last year.

The Cougars are working a lot harder this summer than they were last year when they were prematurely anointed “BCS Busters” before they had actually earned it. If these guys keep their heads and continue to work they will be in the mix come November. These guys are working their tails off in a real quest for perfection this year. They’re just not telling anyone this time.