2007 like 1997--Goatnapper CB post

[jay santos]

Look at the times we've replaced great/good senior QB's lately:

1995 7-4, #58 D, Sark as new JC transfer, below avg RB's in Heimuli and Atuaia, subpar receiver group
1997 6-5, #50 D, Fet as inexperienced soph, avg RB's in McKenzie and Johnson, bad receiver group
2000 6-6, #66 D, QB problems with Engy/Peterson/Doman, RB's looked good going in but performed below avg with Staley inconsistent, great receiver group with Hooks, Pittman, Horton
2002 5-7, #74 D, thought we would be good at QB with Engy, RB looked good with Whalen but turned out very bad year at RB, WR’s were expected to be good with Mahe, Nead, Ord but turned out below average

Compared to this data set, I think our D will be favorable, our RB’s will be average, our WR group might be above average (a lot depends on Collie), and our OL should blow away any year. Next year’s OL should be one of our best ever.

So in all, I expect next year to be the best or near the top of any of these four seasons, but that doesn’t say much looking at the records.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Look at the times we've replaced great/good senior QB's lately:

1995 7-4, #58 D, Sark as new JC transfer, below avg RB's in Heimuli and Atuaia, subpar receiver group
1997 6-5, #50 D, Fet as inexperienced soph, avg RB's in McKenzie and Johnson, bad receiver group
2000 6-6, #66 D, QB problems with Engy/Peterson/Doman, RB's looked good going in but performed below avg with Staley inconsistent, great receiver group with Hooks, Pittman, Horton
2002 5-7, #74 D, thought we would be good at QB with Engy, RB looked good with Whalen but turned out very bad year at RB, WR’s were expected to be good with Mahe, Nead, Ord but turned out below average

Compared to this data set, I think our D will be favorable, our RB’s will be average, our WR group might be above average (a lot depends on Collie), and our OL should blow away any year. Next year’s OL should be one of our best ever.

So in all, I expect next year to be the best or near the top of any of these four seasons, but that doesn’t say much looking at the records.

I think our RB's, WR's, O-line, and defense will all be above average for BYU standards since 1995. I think we will drop a few because of inexperience at QB, but they may still only lose 2 games next year (this team shouldn't have lost any but did in the process of gaining back confidence).

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Look at the times we've replaced great/good senior QB's lately:

1995 7-4, #58 D, Sark as new JC transfer, below avg RB's in Heimuli and Atuaia, subpar receiver group
1997 6-5, #50 D, Fet as inexperienced soph, avg RB's in McKenzie and Johnson, bad receiver group
2000 6-6, #66 D, QB problems with Engy/Peterson/Doman, RB's looked good going in but performed below avg with Staley inconsistent, great receiver group with Hooks, Pittman, Horton
2002 5-7, #74 D, thought we would be good at QB with Engy, RB looked good with Whalen but turned out very bad year at RB, WR’s were expected to be good with Mahe, Nead, Ord but turned out below average

Compared to this data set, I think our D will be favorable, our RB’s will be average, our WR group might be above average (a lot depends on Collie), and our OL should blow away any year. Next year’s OL should be one of our best ever.

So in all, I expect next year to be the best or near the top of any of these four seasons, but that doesn’t say much looking at the records.

I concur. I don't know if we play a twelve or eleven game schedule, but assuming an eleven game schedule, I see our team winning seven to eight games at most, losing a few we shouldn't due to inexperience at QB, or maybe because TCU and a few others are simply better.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

I think our RB's, WR's, O-line, and defense will all be above average for BYU standards since 1995. I think we will drop a few because of inexperience at QB, but they may still only lose 2 games next year (this team shouldn't have lost any but did in the process of gaining back confidence).

I understand basing your logic on historical example is not always best because you really might be better than you were all those years.

But, the problem with your logic is that we almost always think we're going to be better than we are actually do at most positions.

It's very possible we'll look back at 2007 and say man our RB stable really sucked, or if Collie doesn't come back in shape and TE's don't step up then we say that receiving group was nothing. Or if the MLB's don't fill in nice, Criddle gets hurt, and the D is all of a sudden as bad as 2004.

[pelagius]

Here are the Massey end of year computer ranks for each of those years:

1995: 53
1997: 69
2000: 63
2002: 97

So with the possible excpetion of 1995, all of these are pretty poor years even when schedule strength is taken into account. From the 1992-2006 period 1997, 2000, and 2002 are all in the bottom 4 by end of year massey computer rank. The other year in the bottom 4 is 2003.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I understand basing your logic on historical example is not always best because you really might be better than you were all those years.

But, the problem with your logic is that we almost always think we're going to be better than we are actually do at most positions.

It's very possible we'll look back at 2007 and say man our RB stable really sucked, or if Collie doesn't come back in shape and TE's don't step up then we say that receiving group was nothing. Or if the MLB's don't fill in nice, Criddle gets hurt, and the D is all of a sudden as bad as 2004.

Sure, there are a lot of things that could happen that would make us worse next year. But, I think based on what we know now, there is no reason to think we will be anything but above average at each of the positions listed for BYU standards.

[Indy Coug]

When in doubt, always assume the worst. That way, if they do well you can be pleasantly surprised and if they do poorly, then you can berate those who weren't as pessimistic as you and tout your clear-headed realism.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

When in doubt, always assume the worst. That way, if they do well you can be pleasantly surprised and if they do poorly, then you can berate those who weren't as pessimistic as you and tout your clear-headed realism.

That's funny because in the past you've accused me of setting too high of expectations for the coach with my W/L prediction.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I concur. I don't know if we play a twelve or eleven game schedule, but assuming an eleven game schedule, I see our team winning seven to eight games at most, losing a few we shouldn't due to inexperience at QB, or maybe because TCU and a few others are simply better.

We play a 12 game schedule next year and pretty much will every year from here on out since the NCAA passed a rule saying that playing a win against a I-AA can count towards bowl eligibility.

Next year's schedule is this:

ROAD: @UCLA, Sept 8th, @ Tulsa, Sept.15, @ UNLV, @New Mexico, @ San Diego State, @ Wyoming

HOME: vs. Arizona, Sept 1st, vs Eastern Washington, Oct 20th, vs. TCU, vs. Colorado St, vs. Air Force, vs. Utah

[pelagius]

Of course one of the biggest factors is going to be schedule strength. Applying the 2006 end of year massey computer ranking to the 2007 schedule we get the following:

20-30: TCU
30-40: UCLA, Arizona
40-60: Tulsa, Utah
60- 80: Wyoming
80-100: New Mexico, Air Force
> 100: E Washington, San Diego St, UNLV, Colorado St

Suppose the team plays as well as the 1995 team (which is the best performer of Jay's sample). How many wins do we expect if the schedule strength stays similar to the above table. I model the probability of a win using a pooled game by game logit regression that controls for opponent quality (year end computer ranking), location played (home,away,bowl), and year to year BYU team quality (I can do this reasonably well with year fixed effects; yes, this does assume BYU team quality is constant within a given year). If 2007 is as good as 1995, then with the above schedule strength I expect that BYU will win 6.68 games. So a 7-5 schedule seems pretty reasonable to expect.