Indy's post on CB made me think

[byu71]

of something I heard yesterday in an interview with Bronco. I just caught part of it, so it may be out of context and maybe someone heard the whole thing.

What I heard him say was that there could be a player who is younger and better, but that he also has to take into consideration a player who has put in the effort for several years and what he owes to that player in determining who is going to play. Something like that.

It really sounded to me like he was saying he would play the lesser player on the field because of time served.

Here is where I would take a different view. These are kids who are past little league or even High School. In the real world, you are paid on performance, not on time served. Those who take the opposite view fall behind on the competitive field. It sounds like teacher tenure or something unions or Obama would say.

I hope I heard him wrong.

However, as always the bottom line is if he wins, who cares what he says. However, if we lose I hope he doesn't say playing players who put in their time is more important than winning.

[Jacob]

Didn't he say that he'd give the edge to the player who has more experience and who has demonstrated hard work and loyalty, BUT ONLY IF the 2 players he was deciding between were essentially even?

That seems eminently fair to me and a good way to run a program. I can't see a thing wrong with that.

[Indy Coug]

of something I heard yesterday in an interview with Bronco. I just caught part of it, so it may be out of context and maybe someone heard the whole thing.

What I heard him say was that there could be a player who is younger and better, but that he also has to take into consideration a player who has put in the effort for several years and what he owes to that player in determining who is going to play. Something like that.

It really sounded to me like he was saying he would play the lesser player on the field because of time served.

Here is where I would take a different view. These are kids who are past little league or even High School. In the real world, you are paid on performance, not on time served. Those who take the opposite view fall behind on the competitive field. It sounds like teacher tenure or something unions or Obama would say.

I hope I heard him wrong.

However, as always the bottom line is if he wins, who cares what he says. However, if we lose I hope he doesn't say playing players who put in their time is more important than winning.

Just keep in mind he acknowledged being comfortable with the distinct possibility that 50 of the 64 man traveling squad this year would be freshmen and sophomores.

[byu71]

Just keep in mind he acknowledged being comfortable with the distinct possibility that 50 of the 64 man traveling squad this year would be freshmen and sophomores.

I have that in mind. I remember where I heard it. He was talking to PK. PK was asking about Heaps and Riley and if the evaluation could end up going on all year. Bronco said yes.

As I remember, Bronco then talked about young players in general and mentioned all the young players traveling as you just stated.

He then said something to the effect the evalutation also involves not only who is the best player, but who has put in their time. I got the drift he was talking in generalities here and not about Heaps and Nelson specifically.

I will go to 1320 and see if they have the intereview and make sure I heard right.

[beefytee]

I think there is value to what Bronco is trying to say.

Crowton had a strict play the best player no matter what policy and it became a mess.

There is something to be said of someone who puts in their time and effort and is able to execute. They won't always have to be looking over his shoulder to see if they will get pulled.

[Jacob]

I have that in mind. I remember where I heard it. He was talking to PK. PK was asking about Heaps and Riley and if the evaluation could end up going on all year. Bronco said yes.

As I remember, Bronco then talked about young players in general and mentioned all the young players traveling as you just stated.

He then said something to the effect the evalutation also involves not only who is the best player, but who has put in their time. I got the drift he was talking in generalities here and not about Heaps and Nelson specifically.

I will go to 1320 and see if they have the intereview and make sure I heard right.

I saw the interview on KSL TV. It may have also been on Wrubell's blog.

[Goatnapper'96]

I have that in mind. I remember where I heard it. He was talking to PK. PK was asking about Heaps and Riley and if the evaluation could end up going on all year. Bronco said yes.

As I remember, Bronco then talked about young players in general and mentioned all the young players traveling as you just stated.

He then said something to the effect the evalutation also involves not only who is the best player, but who has put in their time. I got the drift he was talking in generalities here and not about Heaps and Nelson specifically.

I will go to 1320 and see if they have the intereview and make sure I heard right.

I think the point is that he is debating some core fundamentals that he believes in, but for him this year are somewhat mutually exclusive of each other. He references three specifically. They are:

1.) The goal to win now.
2.) What is best for the long term health of the program.
3.) Protecting the program's culture.

He says that if he goes with some of his young players it might have a negative effect upon this year's win-loss totals, but that it might better prepare the program for the future. He also says that he thinks it is important for the culture to maintain an attitude of hard work and paying one's dues.

I really think that he wants BYU's success more than you do. I also think he likely has more invested and to gain than you do. I further believe he has, in addition to more riding on his decisions, more knowledge, capacity and experience. However, I expect you to pull string about him more frequently than he will pull string about you. In the end it is likely you both will pull string far more frequently than manly-men should pull string. Given how highly I think of both of you, it becomes something very hard for me to endure.

[byu71]

I think the point is that he is debating some core fundamentals that he believes in, but for him this year are somewhat mutually exclusive of each other. He references three specifically. They are:

1.) The goal to win now.
2.) What is best for the long term health of the program.
3.) Protecting the program's culture.

He says that if he goes with some of his young players it might have a negative effect upon this year's win-loss totals, but that it might better prepare the program for the future. He also says that he thinks it is important for the culture to maintain an attitude of hard work and paying one's dues.

I really think that he wants BYU's success more than you do. I also think he likely has more invested and to gain than you do. I further believe he has, in addition to more riding on his decisions, more knowledge, capacity and experience. However, I expect you to pull string about him more frequently than he will pull string about you. In the end it is likely you both will pull string far more frequently than manly-men should pull string. Given how highly I think of both of you, it becomes something very hard for me to endure.

Actually, you don't have to endure anything. I am so misunderstood.

My bottome line is, and I have said this many times, Bronco is the head coach. He is a far better head coach than I ever will be. His job and reputation is on the line with BYU's success. Heck for me, if BYU isn't successful I can always go root for the Utes. You do know I got my MBA from Utah.

Here is where there may be a philosophy change. If I thought for the long term health of the program and a "WINNING" program I would play players who put in their dues, that is what I would do over the better player. I should define better player as the one who performs best, not necessarily the more talented player because they don't always perform best.

However, I am also not a we lost a couple of games because we put our hardest workers and guys who put their time in on the field. I measure success in W/L, not how nice a guy and how principled I was doing it. I would run the score up on someone if it helped my back up QB and not give it a second thought. I would let my kid keep pitching even when the other team would put their subs in.

I didn't have my team steal home base though once I was up 20 runs.

[wuapinmon]

of something I heard yesterday in an interview with Bronco. I just caught part of it, so it may be out of context and maybe someone heard the whole thing.

What I heard him say was that there could be a player who is younger and better, but that he also has to take into consideration a player who has put in the effort for several years and what he owes to that player in determining who is going to play. Something like that.

It really sounded to me like he was saying he would play the lesser player on the field because of time served.

Here is where I would take a different view. These are kids who are past little league or even High School. In the real world, you are paid on performance, not on time served. Those who take the opposite view fall behind on the competitive field. It sounds like teacher tenure or something unions or Obama would say.

I hope I heard him wrong.

However, as always the bottom line is if he wins, who cares what he says. However, if we lose I hope he doesn't say playing players who put in their time is more important than winning.

Whoa, tenure is earned by solid performance, not time served. I agree with your point though. At this level, the better player plays. Not everyone is Rudy.

[byu71]

Whoa, tenure is earned by solid performance, not time served. I agree with your point though. At this level, the better player plays. Not everyone is Rudy.

My apologies. I admit I don't understand tenure.

Oh, I wonder if BYU had gone with the, go with those who have paid their dues philosophy, if Bronco would have still been the coach or would it have been Reynolds.

[Katy Lied]

I think you misunderstand this situation. Its not like Riley's a scrub with tenure. He's a scrappy, stick-with-it player. Just when you think Heaps is the far better QB, Riley is in there scratching and clawing to stay competitive. And he has gotten better, just like Heaps has gotten better.

Irritated as I am that someone dares stand in the way of the annointed one, I still have to reluctantly admire Riley for how well he has competed. And he has done everything the coaches have asked. How much better can anyone else do?

This is why Bronco is reluctant to shove Riley under the bus. Perhaps he understands that however much the team suffers under the rotating QB scenario, they are also benefiting from a shining example of "the Bronco way." Coach just cannot bring himself to look the other way when a kid is doing all he can to compete.

And its not like the QB derby doesn't benefit Heaps as well. Let Heaps fight for the crown, and let him learn that maybe there are some occasions where a backup is a good thing. And maybe Riley's ability to pick himself up and keep going when everyone tells him all is lost will come in handy some day.

[byu71]

I think you misunderstand this situation. Its not like Riley's a scrub with tenure. He's a scrappy, stick-with-it player. Just when you think Heaps is the far better QB, Riley is in there scratching and clawing to stay competitive. And he has gotten better, just like Heaps has gotten better.

Irritated as I am that someone dares stand in the way of the annointed one, I still have to reluctantly admire Riley for how well he has competed. And he has done everything the coaches have asked. How much better can anyone else do?

This is why Bronco is reluctant to shove Riley under the bus. Perhaps he understands that however much the team suffers under the rotating QB scenario, they are also benefiting from a shining example of "the Bronco way." Coach just cannot bring himself to look the other way when a kid is doing all he can to compete.

And its not like the QB derby doesn't benefit Heaps as well. Let Heaps fight for the crown, and let him learn that maybe there are some occasions where a backup is a good thing. And maybe Riley's ability to pick himself up and keep going when everyone tells him all is lost will come in handy some day.

In no way was I trying to belittle Nelson. For all I know, he might be the "best" QB right now. I hope the kid who is the best player plays. Whether he is a hyped kid, walk on, or been there the longest is irrelevant in my mind. That is what I was trying to say.

I hope I also made it clear, my opinion is just an opinion and irrelevant compared to what Bronco decides.