cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board - View Single Post

jay santos · 11-08-2006, 03:35 PM

Apparently we have the following OOC teams on the schedule in 2010.

Notre Dame
Washington
Ohio State
Florida State

I LOVE IT!

Some people (including Indy Coug) think that's suicide and schedule overkill. I strongly disagree (sorry IC, it's not personal I've been banging this drum since long before we clashed on CB).

If we had that schedule this year, we'd be listed as having SOS about #30.

This is about where we'd be ranked in the computers at the end of the regular season with that SOS:

0 loss: #2
1 loss: #4
2 loss: #7
3 loss: #15

Compare that with where we'd be ranked in the computers at the end of the season with our SOS this year (about #90):

0 loss: #5
1 loss: #11
2 loss: #18

To me, there's no question which schedule I'd rather play.

When it comes to schedule, I say the tougher the better. The benefits are numerous: respect in the media, respect in the polls--both computer and human, fun for fans, fun for players. The negatives? We might lose. That's just doesn't fly with me. If we think we're a top 30 program, let's have a schedule appropriate for a top 30 program.

There's also this idea that a tough schedule will beat you up and cause you to lose more in the future. I think that's just an anecdote with no factual basis. In 2000, we recovered enough to finish with two great wins over UNM and Utah.

SEC is the last conference to refuse to upgrade their scheduling, and it hurts them in the BCS every year. When it comes to BCS, better the schedule the better. There is no sweet spot where anything tougher is bad for you.

11-08-2006, 03:35 PM	#1
jay santos Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,177	2010 Schedule and SOS theories Apparently we have the following OOC teams on the schedule in 2010. Notre Dame Washington Ohio State Florida State I LOVE IT! Some people (including Indy Coug) think that's suicide and schedule overkill. I strongly disagree (sorry IC, it's not personal I've been banging this drum since long before we clashed on CB). If we had that schedule this year, we'd be listed as having SOS about #30. This is about where we'd be ranked in the computers at the end of the regular season with that SOS: 0 loss: #2 1 loss: #4 2 loss: #7 3 loss: #15 Compare that with where we'd be ranked in the computers at the end of the season with our SOS this year (about #90): 0 loss: #5 1 loss: #11 2 loss: #18 To me, there's no question which schedule I'd rather play. When it comes to schedule, I say the tougher the better. The benefits are numerous: respect in the media, respect in the polls--both computer and human, fun for fans, fun for players. The negatives? We might lose. That's just doesn't fly with me. If we think we're a top 30 program, let's have a schedule appropriate for a top 30 program. There's also this idea that a tough schedule will beat you up and cause you to lose more in the future. I think that's just an anecdote with no factual basis. In 2000, we recovered enough to finish with two great wins over UNM and Utah. SEC is the last conference to refuse to upgrade their scheduling, and it hurts them in the BCS every year. When it comes to BCS, better the schedule the better. There is no sweet spot where anything tougher is bad for you.