That schedule is nuts.
 

Okay, pardon input from a Big XII girl.

ANY BCS school would gladly buy their way out of that one.

A lot of BCS schools are realizing that tough non-conference schedules are frankly not worth it.

Look at Texas. If they had played Middle Tennessee State instead of Ohio State, they'd still be #1. Now they're hoping to back-door it into the national title game.

A tough non-conference schedule is only better if you can win all the games.

It's a little different for a non-BCS school because you've gotta "prove" yourself. But those four teams...in the same season...that's just crazy-talk!

I don't believe the ND game is real, the FSU game is and it would be nice to have OSU.

Two of those games would be great as once in a while we can win and those games would be broadcast for certain.

Plus the annual deathmarch against Utah, and that is five potentially difficult games.

However, ideally this year's recruiting class will produce the fourth-year seniors in 2010. A great finish by the Cougs would be very helpful to lure the Havilis of the world to Provo. Or did Bronco already fill his scholarships with his preseason run at the nation's finest 11th-graders?

Sorry but your perspective as a Big XII girl doesn't do any good here. You have OK, Neb, TT, and Mizzou on your conf schedule. We have to get those teams on our OOC schedule or we don't have them at all.

Don't look at the names. And don't seperate OOC from conference. If we stacked up this schedule of four big names and our MWC schedule against your typical schedule it would look the same. It's not crazy-talk to think that if we think we're a top 30 program that our SOS should look roughly the same as another top 30 program.

Also, you're completely wrong about the trend in college football. The trend is the opposite. Auburn went undefeated and got kept out of championship game due to schedule. Schedules have gotten tougher and tougher as teams realize it's important in the BCS standings. SEC and to lesser extent Big XII are the last ones to catch on, and it hurts them every year in the BCS.

By the way, Texas' schedule may do them in as much as their loss to Ohio State. They dumbed down their schedule and it's biting them in the ass.

A few comments on this.

1. Sagarin's SOS ratings were very generous to us those years. Sagarin had us #14 in 2003 and #11 in 2004. Massey (also in BCS) had us #31 in 2003 and #18 in 2004.

2. Most certainly, those schedules are as lethal as the 2010 schedule (based on rankings this year).

2003 for our OOC (using my rankings)
#2
#12
#33
#44
(I threw out #69 Stanford because we added another conference game since then)

2004
#1
#10
#31
#46

2010
#1
#13
#46
#52

The 2010 schedule is actually the easiest of the three. The point being that "names" don't always equate to great SOS. Tulsa will end up as our toughest opponent this year.

3. With those schedules, we went 4-8 and 5-6 with some lousy teams. If we had a this year's team, I believe we'd go 9-3 and have a better shot at going BCS than we would this year. If we somehow had an amazing team that could compete for national championship, if we were undefeated we'd be #1, if we had one loss, we'd be #2. Compare that to about #5 with this year's schedule if we're undefeated.

4. In 2004, Utah was undefeated, raising our SOS significantly. We can't count on the MWC to provide us with any kind of SOS.

ND has been listed on ND sites for about 4 years too.

Since when does 9-3 ever give you a shot at the BCS?

That very well may be, but Holmoe has gone on record in the Deseret News by saying it simply isn't the case.

I agree with Indy on this issue. I'd love to see the 2010 schedule every year if I thought our program could handle it. But I can't think of a single season when a brutal schedule like that benefitted us.

BYU (and really almost any historical "mid-major" success) has always benefitted from a schedule where they could beat maybe one legitimately good BCS team, 1 or 2 average BCS teams, and pound the crap out of their conference schedule.

9-3 with top 20 schedule like 2003/2004 would put us at about #10-12 in the nation in the computer rankings.

You guys aren't thinking big picture. You think there is one model for non-BCS to make a BCS bowl game--go undefeated or one loss with easiest schedule as possible.

That doesn't maximize your chances. The 2010 kind of schedule (I realize that may not be our actual schedule but lets call it that for example sake) maximizes your chances.