Quantcast

Comments about ‘BYU football: Scheduling as independent helps recruiting’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, June 30 2013 11:30 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
STuFOO
Korea, AE

WACPaddingOurSchedule

"Interesting, college football fans see BYU on TV, wonder why they have a football team, and flip the channel."

You're confusing what you do with what many other people are doing.

How could you possibly know what people do when they see BYU football on T.V.?

Why would the opposing teams fans turn the channel?

And why would anyone except u trolls look at BYU and wonder why they have a football team?

Most of the country is not as cynical as you. I watch the BYU Notre Dame Game at Six Flags Magic Mountain with 100 other people. MANY of whom were not ND fans.

No one asked to change the channel.

Tators
Hyrum, UT

To Who Am I Sir:

You sir, are someone not very informed with your football facts. Like McNasty pointed out, Notre Dame has chosen to retain its football independence, even though they could've joined the ACC in that sport next year, too. Their independence has worked out great for them, something obvious to even people not so informed regarding college football facts.

And though BYU is no Notre Dame yet, it's the same independence path they are pursuing, and for the same reasons. And most indicators are showing that it's working out very well. They are now playing on national TV multiple times as often as Utah is and they are continuing to play in post-season bowl games each year... something Utah can no longer claim.

Please be a bit more careful with the facts you choose to use and from where you choose to cast your criticisms. Both things will help readers take you a bit more seriously.

Tators
Hyrum, UT

To WACPaddingOurSchedule:

If college football fans were really turning their channels after finding a BYU football game on, do you really think ESPN would've given them a long, financial rewarding 8 year contract? No, they most definitely would not have. They are much smarter than that. And perhaps even more-so than some Ute commenters.

It's pretty obvious that ESPN has the means and resources to know more of what it is that football fans like to watch more than you do. And it's also pretty obvious that on a national level, BYU must be somewhat in demand. The proof is in the pudding... I mean in the contract.

softbear
Olympia, WA

Ok,here it goes to both BYU & UTE fans, "Who cares which team has the best recruiting class", what counts is the final wins & standings. Doesn't matter who you play only if you win with the talent you have. Neither school will never have the 4 & 5 star players the "Big Schools" have, good talent but not yet best. USC has 9 5 stars that will never happen in the state of Utah with all the schools combined!!! So, play the games and see who wins the most, it's that simple.

Who am I sir?
Cottonwood Heights, UT

@ tators and McNasty

MY BAD! Thank you for correcting me. (That shows how much I follow independence!) I take pride in being able to support my claims - it truly is not often I have been found to make such a basic and erroneous mistake. Please follow my post and see if I can live up to this last statement.

WACPaddingOurSchedule
pocatello, ID

Tators
Hyrum, UT
To WACPaddingOurSchedule:

If college football fans were really turning their channels after finding a BYU football game on, do you really think ESPN would've given them a long, financial rewarding 8 year contract? No, they most definitely would not have. They are much smarter than that. And perhaps even more-so than some Ute commenters.

It's pretty obvious that ESPN has the means and resources to know more of what it is that football fans like to watch more than you do. And it's also pretty obvious that on a national level, BYU must be somewhat in demand. The proof is in the pudding... I mean in the contract.

_______

There is only so much that ESPN can do to protect its experimental investment with BYU. Especially since they have conference contracts, don't wan't to upset them by way of TV scheduling. If ESPN thinks a lot of BYU as you claim, why is BYU not showcased every Saturday night during prime time?
Its because schools like Alabama, LSU, USC, Michigan and others get higher viewer ratings.

BlueCoug
Orem, UT

"If ESPN thinks a lot of BYU as you claim, why is BYU not showcased every Saturday night during prime time?"

Be careful what you wish for.

Already announced (and it's only July 1st):

Sat, Sept 7, Texas at BYU, 7:00 PM ET ESPN2
Fri, Oct 25, BSU at BYU, 8:00 PM ET ESPN

Compare that to:

Sat, Sept 14, Oregon State at Utah, 10:00 PM ET FOX Sports 1
Thu, Oct 3, UCLA at Utah, 10:00 PM ET FOX Sports 1

MacNasty
Rexburg, ID

Re: Who am I sir @ 6:04 pm

Thank you for your admission of your error; most trolls would not do that.

I have a good suggestion, why don't you stop trolling BYU articles. I don't troll Ute articles and probably never will, but I find I have enough to say sticking to BYU articles.

If you just comment on Ute articles, I believe both of us will be happier.

Whoa Nellie
American Fork, UT

paddywac,
Yet BYU still has a contract with ESPN, a contract that does not include the word "experimental". Regardless of the date and time, BYU is still on national TV, except when they have to play a MWC team at their location.

JustTheTruthMan
bountiful, ut

2 for 1 is not as bad as the delusional would like to project it as. Which is truly better? Being part of someone's schedule by conference affiliated force or because they want to play the brand? Is it better to ... blah blah blah, I'm rambling. Bottom line is that I am looking forward to the years 2019, 2021, and 2023 as we will have even more compelling head to head balance to fight each other about... And so we have to go to the collesium twice after playing host first... So during the next 10 years two games are in Arizona to one in LES... Whoopty doo man! I mean seriously... The fights brought to the battle ground are petty at best and insolent in truth! Get the best possible schedule possible and go out and win... Win every game! That is the goal for any team worth cheering for... Not some measly conference affiliation!

JustTheTruthMan
bountiful, ut

While ND is in the ACC it is only for olympic sports. They still RETAIN their INDEPENDENT football status while being helped in the scheduling department with 5 ACC teams a year... and ACC whoopty doo! Yes, it was BCS during an era where those three nefarious letters 'meant something' but really didn't bring much meat to the potatoes of the 'system' in the championship game.... Will we within the next 5 months witness final acceptance from BCS land that it was the SEC and then every other swinging sally out there? No, we won't... Because pride is the root of all evil. :)

poyman
Lincoln City, OR

All of this comes down to money... Some schools need an AQ conference because they need to offset the taxpayer money they get to cover the cost of their athletic programs... And even then some fall short...

Some are caught with substandard facilities, low gate receipts, and without enough revenue to bring them up to a competitive level... As a result, those schools will change just about anything just so they can be accepted by an AQ conference and some AQ conferences are more lucrative than others...

If a school already has great facilities and has large gate receipts plus a strong national draw, then belonging to an AQ conference may not be as important... At least from a money stand point it is not, and as a result they really don't have to give up as much in tradition principals... They will be fine financially because their athletic programs probably pay for themselves... Notre Dame would be an example, and I'm sure their is a couple of others...

Once the finances are taken care of all you have to do is worry about scheduling and reputation... And having the 15th best FB program is also probably enough.

Naval Vet
Philadelphia, PA

Tators:

"If Utah recruits are so much better than BYU and USU, exactly why is it that Utah finishes dead last of those 3 schools at end of the year national rankings?"

Because those rankings are subjective and based primarily on W/L records. And since the Indy-WACers SOS is so weak, they subsequently win more games. Polls are conducted for the purpose of deciding who the best teams are since obviously, they can't all play each other. But for as long as Utah plays our Indy-WACey little brother, there can be no question as to who is the better team. And since Utah keeps beating you, we're the better team.

The Indy-WACers outrecruited the Utes only 3 times these past dozen years. And they won only 3 games. Over that same time frame, the Aggies were outrecruited EVERY year, and they won only once....and just barely. If you REALLY want to take the position that recruiting rankings don't really matter, then please explain why the team with the superior recruits is 16-4 (.800) against those other two.

truecoug1
Provo, UT

@Naval Vet "If you REALLY want to take the position that recruiting rankings don't really matter, then please explain why the team with the superior recruits is 16-4 (.800) against those other two."

I don't understand...Notre Dame has out-recruited Boston College every year except one since 2002 (according to Rivals, your favorite recruiting site). Yet BC has won 6 out the last 10, including 6 in a row during a time when Notre Dame dominated them in recruiting.

How in the heck did THAT happen, since Notre Dame was obviously the better team and getting better recruits?

Fortunately, you explained that the finals polls are subjective, hence the discrepancy in why Utah has finished behind BYU in the polls for 3 of the last 4 years.. It's a good think that recruiting databases aren't subjective at all, or else we'd be in serious trouble and wouldn't know how to explain such crazy anomalies as the BC/Notre Dame series (roll my eyes).

Go Cougars!

truecoug1
Provo, UT

@Naval Vet

It's also interesting that when BYU finished beating Utah 3 out of 4 times back in 2009, Utah had out-recruited them every year but one during that streak.

So I'm not really sure what your point about recruiting is. Utah definitely has scoreboard, but has it really been because of a huge discrepancy of talent? Local media here in Utah (Jake Scott and Tony Parks) were talking about how Utah beating BYU was a big upset last year, and that BYU lost the game rather than Utah winning it.

Doesn't sound like they thought Utah was more talented.

BYU has given Utah the rivalry game on a silver platter in two of the last three years. That's cool, because that's how rivalries go, and most games come down to one or two plays. That's what makes it awesome! It'll be sad to see it go away for a couple of years, though hopefully it will give us a break from trolls like yourself, so there is that to look forward to :)

Go Cougars!

Naval Vet
Philadelphia, PA

trueIndyWACer1:

The BC-Notre Dame series was more likely some anomolous exception to the rule. Just look at the turnover in coaches at Notre Dame during that time span. This scenerio does not apply similarly to the recruiting amid the Utah schools since the only school to change coaches was Utah St.

"It's also interesting that when BYU finished beating Utah 3 out of 4 times back in 2009, Utah had out-recruited them every year but one during that streak."

Not quite little brother. You all outrecruited the Utes in 2: 2004 and 2007. The majority of your starters are Juniors and Seniors with missions and/or redshirt years. That basically puts the majority of those 2009 athletes in the 2003 and 2004 recruit classes.

Naval Vet
Philadelphia, PA

trueIndyWACer1:

"Local media here in Utah (Jake Scott and Tony Parks) were talking about how Utah beating BYU was a big upset last year, and that BYU lost the game rather than Utah winning it...Doesn't sound like they thought Utah was more talented."

It doesn't matter what Scott and Parks "think". The game happened. We won. In fact, that game was won by the 3rd Qtr.

"BYU has given Utah the rivalry game on a silver platter in two of the last three years."

Not so little brother. The Indy-WACers aren't in the business of gifting ANYTHING. In fact, the reason why you all were the most hated team in the WAC/MWC was because you all weren't "team players". You were all in it for yourselves. Utah won those games because we were the better team. And one of the reasons why we were the better team was because we have superior athletes (with more "stars"), and superior coaches. And while the Band of Little Brother upgraded their coaching staff by adding Anae and dumping Doman, Utah ALSO upgraded OUR coaching staff by adding Erickson and KEEPING Johnson.

STuFOO
Korea, AE

Navel,

"In fact, that game was won by the 3rd Qtr."

What game were you watching?

That must be why the u fans rushed the field when the third quarter ended.

I am going to love your absence when BYU beats utah this year.

truecoug1
Provo, UT

@NavalVet "The BC-Notre Dame series was more likely some anomolous exception to the rule. Just look at the turnover in coaches at Notre Dame during that time span."

Oh, of course, the classic "anomolous (sic) exception" fallback. Nice try, Naval Vet. What does turnover in coaching have to do with anything? According to you, recruiting rankings have a direct correlation to one team's success against another. The team that is ranked higher should win the majority of the time. But that didn't hold true with BC and Notre Dame, nor with BSU/Oklahoma, BYU/Oklahoma, Utah/Alabama, Appalachian St/Michigan, etc.

And again, the only reason BYU hasn't won 5 of 7 against Utah is because of a blown call from the refs in 2010 (not to mention a bunch of other fluke plays) and an unforced error by BYU last year (botched snap returned for a TD).

Nothing to do with talent.

If recruiting rankings determined success on the field, then Alabama wouldn't have been national champs 3 years in a row and Wisconsin wouldn't have been to the Rose Bowl 3 years in a row either.

truecoug1
Provo, UT

@NavalVet "You all outrecruited the Utes in 2: 2004 and 2007. The majority of your starters are Juniors and Seniors with missions and/or redshirt years. That basically puts the majority of those 2009 athletes in the 2003 and 2004 recruit classes."

Okay, so using your logic, the majority of Utah's starters are juniors and seniors who don't have missions to worry about, which means the majority of their players in 2009 were from the 2005 or 2006 classes, both of which rank higher than BYU's class in 2004.

Nice spin job, Naval, but your argument just got blown up.

I think it's ironic that you call final polls subjective, but say nothing about the subjectivity of recruiting databases when each one of those varies wildly from the other.

Example: Isaiah Nacua for BYU is rated as a 3 star prospect, 25th ranked in his position by Rivals, a 3 star prospect, 65th ranked at his position by Scout, and a 4 star prospect, 27th ranked in his position.

So who's right?

Just something for you to ponder.

Go Cougars!

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments