Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bronco's record--against the top 25 and below

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bronco's record--against the top 25 and below

    Where rankings are shown, the rankings are the final season average computer rankings at the Massey comparison page.

    Against,W-L,MOV
    Top 25, 2-7, -13
    26-50, 7-6, +1.5
    50-75, 7-2, +9
    the rest, 28-0, +26

    Against, W-L, MOV
    BCS, 6-8, -.1
    non-BCS, 38-7, +16

    Excluding the 2005 season and rerunning just for the four (I'm hopeful) 10 win seasons in a row.

    Against,W-L,MOV
    Top 25, 2-4, -12
    26-50, 7-5, +2
    50-75, 5-0, +19
    the rest, 24-0, +26

    Against, W-L, MOV
    BCS, 6-5, +4.4
    non-BCS, 32-4, +17

    A couple points I make from this:
    1. David Locke used to call us "Barometer U" meaning you could evaluate any team we play based on our performance against them. We always beat the bad teams and always lost to the great teams, without much variance. This is probably more true than ever looking at these W-L records by ranking category. I give Bronco some credit on this. He has had a lot of consistency.

    2. I know a lot of us have a lot of pride and fulfillment in the team by pointing to the three potentially four 10 win seasons in a row. I think this data provides some meaning to this. Those 10 win seasons are made by beating up the worst teams in the nation. During that stretch of 10 win seasons, our against BCS record is 6-5, implying we'd be middle of the road in a BCS conference. We're 2-4 against top 25, implying we're not on average over the four years a top 25 team (maybe the bottom of the top 25). And we're 7-5 with MOV of +2 against teams 26-50, implying on average we're right in the middle of that category.


    Compare that to the talent level Bronco recruited and the potential for the program. Has Bronco done a good job? Maybe. I wouldn't say he's done a bad job. Maybe average based on expectations.

  • #2
    This tells me two things:
    1) We lose more often to higher-ranked and BCS teams.
    2) We end each season ranked about where we belong.

    Neither of these seems very unique to BYU or Bronco.
    At least the Big Ten went after a big-time addition in Nebraska; the Pac-10 wanted a game so badly, it added Utah
    -Berry Trammel, 12/3/10

    Comment


    • #3
      I saw how bad things can get when Crowton was the coach. There was no guarantee that we could beat the bad teams. In fact, BYU lost to quite a few bad teams during his tenure. His failure to beat teams like UNLV and Reno is a big part of what got him fired.

      Given the limited coaching pool, the only possible better coach that was realistically available was KWhitt. IIRC, BYU didn't want to pay the price for him.
      Part of it is based on academic grounds. Among major conferences, the Pac-10 is the best academically, largely because of Stanford, Cal and UCLA. “Colorado is on a par with Oregon,” he said. “Utah isn’t even in the picture.”

      Comment


      • #4
        Bronco has the program about where Lavell had it when it was humming. I think Bronco faces a higher number of better teams because the conference is much better with TCU and Utah. However, Bronco has yet to put it all together yet for a trully great year. Some think that it will never happen, I don't yet feel that way.

        All things considered I think BYU's final year of season ranking is higher than its average end of year recruiting rankings. BYU is normally in the 40's for recruiting and I think it is normally about 20-35 as far as what the final output on the year is. I think BYU football overachieves. I thought it did under Lavell and I think it does again under Bronco.

        I think what really has turned blueintheface into a pussie is the Ute success and the envy BYU fans have for that. I don't think BYU deserves what Utah has done in 2004 or 2008 just because Utah did it.
        Do Your Damnedest In An Ostentatious Manner All The Time!
        -General George S. Patton

        I'm choosing to mostly ignore your fatuity here and instead overwhelm you with so much data that you'll maybe, just maybe, realize that you have reams to read on this subject before you can contribute meaningfully to any conversation on this topic.
        -DOCTOR Wuap

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Goatnapper'96 View Post
          Bronco has the program about where Lavell had it when it was humming. I think Bronco faces a higher number of better teams because the conference is much better with TCU and Utah. However, Bronco has yet to put it all together yet for a trully great year. Some think that it will never happen, I don't yet feel that way.

          All things considered I think BYU's final year of season ranking is higher than its average end of year recruiting rankings. BYU is normally in the 40's for recruiting and I think it is normally about 20-35 as far as what the final output on the year is. I think BYU football overachieves. I thought it did under Lavell and I think it does again under Bronco.

          I think what really has turned blueintheface into a pussie is the Ute success and the envy BYU fans have for that. I don't think BYU deserves what Utah has done in 2004 or 2008 just because Utah did it.

          Bronco has a long ways to go to be compared to Lavelle, IMHO. You talk about the conference being better, well I am not so sure. The difference between the haves and the have nots wasn't so great back then. UNM, UTEP, Wyoming, AFA, eventually CSU could field good teams.

          Look at the teams BYU beat A and M, Texas, Penn. St. ND, Michigan, Miami, Missouri. Bronco's signature wins are Oklahoma and possibly the Oregon game in the Vegas Bowl. He could end up with the same or even more, but they're not comparable now.

          Also Lavelles legacy enabled the school to go out and raise a hell of a lot of money and build facilities that rival what the big boys have.

          I really doubt they could go out based on Bronco's record and raise a hell of a lot of money right now.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by byu71 View Post
            Bronco has a long ways to go to be compared to Lavelle, IMHO. You talk about the conference being better, well I am not so sure. The difference between the haves and the have nots wasn't so great back then. UNM, UTEP, Wyoming, AFA, eventually CSU could field good teams.

            Look at the teams BYU beat A and M, Texas, Penn. St. ND, Michigan, Miami, Missouri. Bronco's signature wins are Oklahoma and possibly the Oregon game in the Vegas Bowl. He could end up with the same or even more, but they're not comparable now.

            Also Lavelles legacy enabled the school to go out and raise a hell of a lot of money and build facilities that rival what the big boys have.

            I really doubt they could go out based on Bronco's record and raise a hell of a lot of money right now.
            It seems to me that more teams are ranked from the conference each year. It seems to me that at least two-three teams have been ranked for all of the past two years and two teams were ranked a great deal of 2006. I think the top end is significantly better and I don't think the bottom end is any worse.

            I also think that some of Mendenhall's wins over marginal BCS teams is every bit as impressive as many of those wins you list that Lavell has. I think the key is the word you used "yet." Mendenhall has not yet done what he is doing for 20 years and he has yet to have had the special years that Lavell had in 79,80,81,83,84 and 96. To me that is the only real difference is that Bronco has yet to put together a top 10 season.
            Do Your Damnedest In An Ostentatious Manner All The Time!
            -General George S. Patton

            I'm choosing to mostly ignore your fatuity here and instead overwhelm you with so much data that you'll maybe, just maybe, realize that you have reams to read on this subject before you can contribute meaningfully to any conversation on this topic.
            -DOCTOR Wuap

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by byu71 View Post
              Also Lavelles legacy enabled the school to go out and raise a hell of a lot of money and build facilities that rival what the big boys have.

              I really doubt they could go out based on Bronco's record and raise a hell of a lot of money right now.
              I think it is important to point out that it is easier to go from absolutely shitty to good than it is to go from good to exceptional. I respect and revere Saint Lavell for what he did but my point is once Lavell had things established I don't see significant difference, other than the special years where he took a team to the top 10, between what he did and Bronco is currently doing.
              Do Your Damnedest In An Ostentatious Manner All The Time!
              -General George S. Patton

              I'm choosing to mostly ignore your fatuity here and instead overwhelm you with so much data that you'll maybe, just maybe, realize that you have reams to read on this subject before you can contribute meaningfully to any conversation on this topic.
              -DOCTOR Wuap

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by byu71 View Post
                Look at the teams BYU beat A and M, Texas, Penn. St. ND, Michigan, Miami, Missouri. Bronco's signature wins are Oklahoma and possibly the Oregon game in the Vegas Bowl. He could end up with the same or even more, but they're not comparable now.
                BYU simply needs to catch those big name schools on down years more often, like LaVell did. Our wins often came against 0.500 or worse versions of these big name schools: 1994 Oklahoma, 1996 Texas A&M, 1984 Michigan, 1992 Penn State, 1987/1988 Texas, 1994 Notre Dame. There are only about 3 or 4 wins against truly "big name schools" that were legitimately good at the time BYU beat them over LaVell's 29 year career.

                P.S. This point is reinforced by LaVell's bowl record.

                P.P.S. At this point, the main difference between LaVell and Bronco is longevity.
                Last edited by Indy Coug; 10-28-2009, 02:06 PM.
                Everything in life is an approximation.

                http://twitter.com/CougarStats

                Comment


                • #9
                  The one point on LaVell's bowl record is that they took the bowl as a "reward" for a good year. Often they didn't practice much and it was a vacation. Other than that I'd agree with you.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by cougswin View Post
                    The one point on LaVell's bowl record is that they took the bowl as a "reward" for a good year. Often they didn't practice much and it was a vacation. Other than that I'd agree with you.
                    Even assuming what you say is accurate, I'm not sure how that materially changes things.
                    Everything in life is an approximation.

                    http://twitter.com/CougarStats

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Goatnapper'96 View Post
                      It seems to me that more teams are ranked from the conference each year. It seems to me that at least two-three teams have been ranked for all of the past two years and two teams were ranked a great deal of 2006. I think the top end is significantly better and I don't think the bottom end is any worse.

                      I also think that some of Mendenhall's wins over marginal BCS teams is every bit as impressive as many of those wins you list that Lavell has. I think the key is the word you used "yet." Mendenhall has not yet done what he is doing for 20 years and he has yet to have had the special years that Lavell had in 79,80,81,83,84 and 96. To me that is the only real difference is that Bronco has yet to put together a top 10 season.
                      Wasn't there a year where BYU, AFA, and Utah (maybe?) were all ranked top 10 or 15 at some point? Under DeBerry, AFA had some really solid years, as did CSU. It does look like a new era of dominance by three solid teams, but I'm not sure that 4-5 yrs of that is unique just yet.
                      At least the Big Ten went after a big-time addition in Nebraska; the Pac-10 wanted a game so badly, it added Utah
                      -Berry Trammel, 12/3/10

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by cougswin View Post
                        The one point on LaVell's bowl record is that they took the bowl as a "reward" for a good year. Often they didn't practice much and it was a vacation. Other than that I'd agree with you.
                        I think this is given more creedance than it deserves. I think BYU has a different subculture with more players married with famalies. I think the famalies went with the players and I think this became some sort of statement that BYU did not take the bowls serious. I think that a guy as successful as Lavell and his players were highly competitive and wanted to win every game, I just think they played better teams. I think the argument to defend Lavell's less than spectacular bowl record is twofold:

                        1.) Compared to today's bloated bowl schedule Lavell played legitimately good teams. If he had todays bloated bowl schedule he would have likely won more games.

                        2.) BYU's intricate passing system was prone to being more rusty due to the long layoff between beating Utah's ass and losing the bowl game.

                        Other than that I think it best to admit they played teams that were just better, not that BYU didn't try as hard.
                        Do Your Damnedest In An Ostentatious Manner All The Time!
                        -General George S. Patton

                        I'm choosing to mostly ignore your fatuity here and instead overwhelm you with so much data that you'll maybe, just maybe, realize that you have reams to read on this subject before you can contribute meaningfully to any conversation on this topic.
                        -DOCTOR Wuap

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          That's why I said other than that I agree with you.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by ERCougar View Post
                            Wasn't there a year where BYU, AFA, and Utah (maybe?) were all ranked top 10 or 15 at some point? Under DeBerry, AFA had some really solid years, as did CSU. It does look like a new era of dominance by three solid teams, but I'm not sure that 4-5 yrs of that is unique just yet.
                            BYU, CSU, and Utah all finished 1993 in the top 10 in at least one of the polls, I believe.

                            CSU had several top 25 teams in the 90's, so did Air Force.

                            I'm also not yet ready to say the league competition Bronco has faced is any better than what Lavell faced, at least in the late 80's and 90's. The WAC in the late 70's early 80's was abysmal.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by jay santos View Post
                              BYU, CSU, and Utah all finished 1993 in the top 10 in at least one of the polls, I believe.

                              CSU had several top 25 teams in the 90's, so did Air Force.

                              I'm also not yet ready to say the league competition Bronco has faced is any better than what Lavell faced, at least in the late 80's and 90's. The WAC in the late 70's early 80's was abysmal.
                              It was '94.

                              BYU also wasn't really dominant in the late 80's and 90's either.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X