Defining Success as an Independent

[All-American]

It's always a risky proposition thinking about the long-term in the wake of a short-term blow, but for all of the hand-wringing and dejection that comes from dropping a close game to your rival, I get the sense that the real disappointment is what this loss says about the state of the program and the path on which it lies. I wonder how much of the despondency is a result of novelty. Independence is a new game for us, and we aren't all that sure how to play it. Part of being a fan of an independent BYU is a new understanding of what makes for a successful team and program.

It was admittedly simpler to define a successful season back when we were in a conference. LaVell's primary goal each year was the conference championship-- outright, if not at least a share. If we lost a game or two, we would fight to stay in the hunt; if we lost many more, we would fight to place as respectably as possible. At the very least, we always knew that we could play to beat Utah at the end of the year. In some years, we were also good enough to make a splash on the national scene and end the year with a great ranking.

So how do you define success now?

I think BYU's model for success has to be Notre Dame. I don't mean to say that BYU is Notre Dame any more than I think that Utah is SC; just that their model for success is the same. Utah wants to beat all of its conference opponents, win the PAC championship, and go to the Rose Bowl, same as SC.

Notre Dame's definition of success is much less definite. Notre Dame is out to win national championships, but it hasn't had one since 1988. It hasn't really been in the national championship discussion since 1993, when it finished #2. Since that year, it has finished in the top ten only once (in 2005, finishing 9th after getting blown out in the Fiesta Bowl), and it has never lost less than three games. In spite of that, Notre Dame clings to independence with everything it has. Either they're in perpetual denial of being nationally irrelevant (and there's an argument to be made there), they've given up on being successful, or they have a much more expansive definition of success than the top spot of the poll.

Part of that is the number of rivalries that they've fostered over the years: Navy, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan State, Stanford, USC, Pittsburgh, BC. No matter how many games they've lost, they always have something to play for-- namely, the next game. Notre Dame's idea of a successful season is to play big games and win them. BYU's definition of a successful season will be a lot more clear if it can developing regional and national rivalries which always give them something to play for, and if it can continue to schedule big names.

(As an aside on the big game idea, a part of me thinks that the 2009 Oklahoma game did more to change the way the BYU administration thinks of success than anything else that has happened to the program since Bronco took over. One big win did more to excite the fan base than any number of beatdowns of Wyoming and UNLV ever could. I doubt they have the gumption to go independent if it wasn't for that game.)

Or maybe I'm wrong, and BYU's venture as an independent will only be considered successful once it gets us into the Big 12.

So I throw it out to you. What does success mean to BYU?

[byu71]

First I would ask what you mean by how does "BYU" measure sucess.

There is BYU, the BOT. Unlike many institutions sucess is measured quite differently. That is the bottom line reason the FB program on the field at the U has caught and in my opinion surpassed BYU. If USU could keep someone like Anderson, I wouldn't even argue that in years to come USU will catch BYU.

In other measurements BYU has advantages like ND, not to the same degree of course, but advantages.

History as a nationally recognized program. A strong fan base that will remain loyal for reasons other than wins and losses. They will continue to long for whatever national recognition they once had and that too will keep them hanging in there.

Like ND, BYU's following outside of the strong loyal base will continue to decline. I will bet ND does not attract the same TV audiences it once did. If I could choose who I would like to see play in LES, ND is not even in the top 10, maybe not even the Top 20.

Like ND, the bottom line is $$$$$$. As long as they can parlay the reputation and loyal fan base into more $$$$ than being in a conference, that will be the preference.

It is about the fans who believe in what the "BOT's" vision of what they want out of the program. How strong is that part of the fan base vs the drop off in enthusiasm of the fans that seperate a college FB program from their religious or ideological beliefs. I think Harvard was once a FB program on the national stage, if there was such a thing as the national stage back then. They chose academics over athletics.

The future will be interesting to watch. ND has a much bigger resevoir to draw on to maintain their independent path. It will be interesting to see if the FB following for BYU can be maintained while they obviously have decided that excellence on the field is not a priority.

[USUC]

First and foremost, I think most of the hand wringing and dejection coming from the fan base has a lot to do with being dominated, both on the field and off the field, by their rival. Second, the uncertainty associated with this program and its future is taxing for fans (which is compounded by Utah's invitation to the PAC-12). BYU is in a precarious situation. If they lose, they become irrelevant. Right now is not the time to be irrelevant. Utah could suck it up for 10 years straight and they could regroup, refocus, and come back. They are protected because of the PAC-12. BYU doesn't have that luxury. The fan base feels this uncertainty and its driving them into a neurotic frenzy.

I think the fans definition of success is staying relevant, winning at least half of your big games, and at least wining half of the games against Utah. Granted, this is my definition of success. I don't care about the lack of conference championships. I just want good memories of great wins and to be able and throw something back at the Ute fan base once in a while. That's it.

[byu71]

f success is staying relevant, winning at least half of your big games, and at least wining half of the games against Utah. Granted, this is my definition of success. I don't care about the lack of conference championships. I just want good memories of great wins and to be able and throw something back at the Ute fan base once in a while. That's it.

This describes it for me as a fan. The loss to Utah was close. I look forward with anticipation to the games with GT, BSU, ND, OSU and USU (geez I never thought I would say that). The first 4 I would consider as very good wins, who knows as the season plays out a couple might be great games. The rest of our season is throw away games and I don't count them in measuring success.

So a successful season would be winning 3 of those 5 games, I still am not going to elevate USU to that level. WE have lost one of them. WE go 3-1 against ND, OSU, GT and BSU and win all the rest of our games against what should be inferior programs and we will have a successful year, at least in my mind.

I thought 10-2 this year was a no brainer with all the returning talent we had and a Sr. QB. I am now not so sure.

[Flystripper]

There is no realistic definition of success for BYU as an independent that sits well with me. A BCS invite would be a good definition of success, but that is not going to happen for BYU as an independent.

I would accept inclusion in the national discussion as a decent measure of success but this is also not likely as an independent.

For me, independence is a colossal mistake and a near certain failure. I am already losing interest in a big way.

[USUC]

There is no realistic definition of success for BYU as an independent that sits well with me. A BCS invite would be a good definition of success, but that is not going to happen for BYU as an independent.

I would accept inclusion in the national discussion as a decent measure of success but this is also not likely as an independent.

For me, independence is a colossal mistake and a near certain failure. I am already losing interest in a big way.

I understand your position but there is no way we come close to getting any of those things if we had stayed in the MWC or gone to the Big East, in my opinion at least.

[jay santos]

If the fans care about football in November, then it's a success.

[Flystripper]

I understand your position but there is no way we come close to getting any of those things if we had stayed in the MWC or gone to the Big East, in my opinion at least.

I would not define success the same way if we were a part of a conference.

[myboynoah]

Winning games and finishing as a ranked team with occasional forays into the top ten.

I was thinking the other day how much better this is than the MWC because we are no longer tied to UNLV, SDSU, New Mexico, etc.

[Flystripper]

Winning games and finishing as a ranked team with occasional forays into the top ten.

I was thinking the other day how much better this is than the MWC because we are no longer tied to UNLV, SDSU, New Mexico, etc.

instead we are tied to Idaho, New Mexico State, Weber State, Utah State, and San Jose State.

Give me UNLV, SDSU, New Mexico and Wyoming...at least there is history of rivalry.

[byu71]

Winning games and finishing as a ranked team with occasional forays into the top ten.

I was thinking the other day how much better this is than the MWC because we are no longer tied to UNLV, SDSU, New Mexico, etc.

Is your contempt for those school based on how they act or their ranking as a FB program on the field?

I would also ask about the winnning of games. If we could schedule 11 games with teams say of USU and Hawaii calibre and say the Utes and we win 11 of them and end up ranked, is that success?

The reason for my question is not to say that isn't OK for someone to feel that way, but I wonder how much of the fan base would be satisified with that.

[smokymountainrain]

I haven't read much of the previous posts, but I did catch quickly where flystripper said he would say a BCS bowl invite would make sense, but that won't happen as an independent. I may not understand fully what he meant, but if BYU had gone undefeated this year, they would be in a BCS bowl game with this schedule. Easy. Perhaps he is saying BYU as an independent will never be good enough to go undefeated with a schedule such as this one. If so, he's probably right.

I define success similar to if BYU were in a conference. Obviously a BCS bowl is the easy definition of success, but it's not the only definition. If BYU finishes this season 11-1, they could be top 10, maybe top 15 with wins against good BSU, GT, ND and USU teams and I would consider that a success. Being in a conference wouldn't change that.

Outside of a BCS bowl game I would ask myself the following question: What is the final record at the end of the year and who did they beat? That's the formula and I go from there.

[Topper]

The ND model for success sounds great in principle but in practice is a non-starter. First, ND has eighty to ninety years to establish great rivalries and to continue them so that the national fanbase continues to follow them.

BYU has one rivalry of interest and very little time to develop others. Success can only be defined by wining some games of national interest and landing in a better conference.

[myboynoah]

instead we are tied to Idaho, New Mexico State, Weber State, Utah State, and San Jose State.

Give me UNLV, SDSU, New Mexico and Wyoming...at least there is history of rivalry.

No, we're not tied to them. We are not in their league. Big difference.

Is your contempt for those school based on how they act or their ranking as a FB program on the field?

I would also ask about the winnning of games. If we could schedule 11 games with teams say of USU and Hawaii calibre and say the Utes and we win 11 of them and end up ranked, is that success?

The reason for my question is not to say that isn't OK for someone to feel that way, but I wonder how much of the fan base would be satisified with that.

Winning the MWC always came with "but look at the league." It has nothing to do with how they act; it has everything to do with their performance ont he field.

Thank you for saying it's OK for me to feel the way I do. Naturally I want to win games against the best competition. I also realize that putting together a schedule isn't easy and you need some crap games sprinkled in. Winning and finishing ranked seems to be the best measure of success. Beyond that, what does the fanbase want? To go back to the MWC? Join the BE? I'd rather see where Independence takes us.

[Topper]

No, we're not tied to them. We are not in their league. Big difference.



Winning the MWC always came with "but look at the league." It has nothing to do with how they act; it has everything to do with their performance ont he field.

Thank you for saying it's OK for me to feel the way I do. Naturally I want to win games against the best competition. I also realize that putting together a schedule isn't easy and you need some crap games sprinkled in. Winning and finishing ranked seems to be the best measure of success. Beyond that, what does the fanbase want? To go back to the MWC? Join the BE? I'd rather see where Independence takes us.

Two consecutive losses to Utah thus far.