The Big 12 expansion groundswell

[Maximus]

Southern Miss, Brett Favre's school, is cool but what is up with scheduling Weber St and playing them in September? I could see playing them in November and maybe in October but September?!?

we already have the great home schedule of...OSU and crap. We didnt need any more good home games.

[Maximus]

Every single one of these arguments about scheduling are based on one of two things...

-Something HASN'T happened yet, so we're jumping to conclusions that it WON'T happen, even though the administration that actually puts the schedules together assures us that things will be fine after 2012.

or...

-We're not playing as many BCS games a year as we subjectively decide we should.

Both of those are pretty flimsy arguments, IMO. But, this thread has been hijacked enough, so that's all I will say on the matter.

How many do you think we should be playing at home every year (BCS teams that is)

[Flystripper]

Southern Miss, Brett Favre's school, is cool but what is up with scheduling Weber St and playing them in September? I could see playing them in November and maybe in October but September?!?

There is no excuse for scheduling them in the first half of the season. The fact that they did this is probably the single biggest warning sign that Indy scheduling will not work in the long run.

[shoganai]

There is no excuse for scheduling them in the first half of the season. The fact that they did this is probably the single biggest warning sign that Indy scheduling will not work in the long run.

If it was for 2014 I would agree with you. But, the fact that it's 2012 makes it meaningless, IMO.

We knew from the start that 2011 and 2012 would be a little shoddy, and there was no way around that. Nothing about this year's or next year's schedules can be extended to long-term trends, IMO, simply because the number of teams available on such short notice is literally almost zero.

And, I would actually argue that (H:A ratio notwithstanding), our admin actually exceeded expectations in the schedules they have for this year and next.

[Flystripper]

If it was for 2014 I would agree with you. But, the fact that it's 2012 makes it meaningless, IMO.

We knew from the start that 2011 and 2012 would be a little shoddy, and there was no way around that. Nothing about this year's or next year's schedules can be extended to long-term trends, IMO, simply because the number of teams available on such short notice is literally almost zero.

And, I would actually argue that (H:A ratio notwithstanding), our admin actually exceeded expectations in the schedules they have for this year and next.

Why would the front half of our schedule be shoddy? Ever?

[Cougarmandias]

In many respects it is an upgrade but right now there is no indicator that the home schedule will provide very interesting matchups from the middle of October through the end of November.

As far as the postseason goes, one or two big October and November match-ups are how you make your case to the voters. It helps if those matchups are occasionally at home.

Oh, but I forgot, as an Independent we don't care about the voters because we automatically get in if we win our conference.

Independence is better than the MWC but it has its flaws. I doubt it can by anything more than an expedient in the long run.

[shoganai]

How many do you think we should be playing at home every year (BCS teams that is)

Since you asked...

In all, I think BYU should schedule a minimum of four BCS teams, and a maximum of about six. But, there needs to be a more micro breakdown:

1. I think about once per year we should try to schedule an "elite" BCS team - a team like Texas or Wisconsin that is a regular Top 15, conference title contender. Some years maybe we'll feel like we can do two of these games, but that's pushing it, IMO. We'll be favored to lose these games most of the time, but we can win them occassionally.

2. I think we should play an equal number (1-2 a year) of lower-tier BCS teams - Baylor, Washington State, Wake Forest. These are teams we can reasonably expect to beat most years, but they still come from major conferences.

3. I think we should try and get about 2-3 teams more or less on par with (and including) Utah. These are your mid-level teams like Arizona, Missouri that we can reasonably hope to split with on average.

So, at a minimum that gives us four - one we'll most likely lose, one that we'll probably win, and a couple that are 50/50.

At a maximum it's six - one or two we'll likely lose, one or two we'll probably win, and 2-3 that are 50/50.

That leaves us 6-8 additional games - I suspect that three of those will be taken Hawaii, Utah State, and Boise State (rumblings of a long-term series with them are getting louder) every year. I also believe we'll have a couple of regular rotating series with some of our old MWC rivals eventually. Which leaves us 1-3 games to tour some less-traveled non-BCS ground, and probably the occassional FCS game.

I'm confident there are those on the board who feel like this schedule isn't good enough, and that BYU should play more top-tier teams, but I think we're asking for trouble if we over schedule ourselves right now. Maybe we can look to beef things up five-plus years down the road, but I think what I described above is appropriate for the present time.

EDIT: I see you were specifically asking for how many at home - I think we should reasonably expect about half of those to be at home. So 2-3 a year.

[Surfah]

Dallas Morning News saying Big 12 Directors about to hold a teleconference.

[shoganai]

Why would the front half of our schedule be shoddy? Ever?

I dunno. Ask whatever dolt put our 2008 schedule together with an opener against Northern Iowa.

[Coach McGuirk]

Dallas Morning News saying Big 12 Directors about to hold a teleconference.

got the call in number and pin?

[TripletDaddy]

got the call in number and pin?

I havent heard it called a "teleconference" in years. At least they aren't doing a "webinar"

[Donuthole]

Since you asked...

In all, I think BYU should schedule a minimum of four BCS teams, and a maximum of about six. But, there needs to be a more micro breakdown:

1. I think about once per year we should try to schedule an "elite" BCS team - a team like Texas or Wisconsin that is a regular Top 15, conference title contender. Some years maybe we'll feel like we can do two of these games, but that's pushing it, IMO. We'll be favored to lose these games most of the time, but we can win them occassionally.

2. I think we should play an equal number (1-2 a year) of lower-tier BCS teams - Baylor, Washington State, Wake Forest. These are teams we can reasonably expect to beat most years, but they still come from major conferences.

3. I think we should try and get about 2-3 teams more or less on par with (and including) Utah. These are your mid-level teams like Arizona, Missouri that we can reasonably hope to split with on average.

So, at a minimum that gives us four - one we'll most likely lose, one that we'll probably win, and a couple that are 50/50.

At a maximum it's six - one or two we'll likely lose, one or two we'll probably win, and 2-3 that are 50/50.

That leaves us 6-8 additional games - I suspect that three of those will be taken Hawaii, Utah State, and Boise State (rumblings of a long-term series with them are getting louder) every year. I also believe we'll have a couple of regular rotating series with some of our old MWC rivals eventually. Which leaves us 1-3 games to tour some less-traveled non-BCS ground, and probably the occassional FCS game.

I'm confident there are those on the board who feel like this schedule isn't good enough, and that BYU should play more top-tier teams, but I think we're asking for trouble if we over schedule ourselves right now. Maybe we can look to beef things up five-plus years down the road, but I think what I described above is appropriate for the present time.

EDIT: I see you were specifically asking for how many at home - I think we should reasonably expect about half of those to be at home. So 2-3 a year.

That's ideal, and what I believe they thought they could do when they went indipendent. However, what they've since learned is that they're aren't going to get any of those BCS games when conference play is in full swing, and the number of BCS teams willing to do an actual home/home is miniscule. Also, they assumed the BYU-Utah game would stay as the last game of the season, and it hasn't. So not only does BYU end up with a less-than-pleasing home slate, but there are no games late in the year to keep BYU on the national radar.

[Uncle Ted]

Chip Brown update...

11:45 AM - All 10 members of the Big 12 will be on a conference call at noon today.

I'm being told Baylor has no intention of agreeing to sign a waiver releasing the Southeastern Conference from potential litigation over its relationship with Texas A&M.

Baylor may even be trying to rally schools from the Big 12 to its side, such as Iowa State, Kansas and Kansas State, sources said.

[Flystripper]

I dunno. Ask whatever dolt put our 2008 schedule together with an opener against Northern Iowa.

That was when we had a conference schedule and I was not happy about Northern Iowa. Not happy at all.

Once BYU made the decision to go Indy it absolutly can't afford to put these shitty games in the front half of the season. BYU knows this, and the fact that they put WSU on the front half is evidence that they could not get anything better. If they can't do better than WSU in the front half of the season with 2 years to try and get a better 1 for 1, then the scheduling outlook is very very dim.

Another thing, if you don't want BYU to play more than 6 BCS teams in a given season then can see why you don't want to join a BCS conference.

The Pac 12 plays at least 9
The Big 12 plays at least 8
The Big 10 plays at least 8
the SEC plays at least 8
The ACC plays at least 8
The Big East plays at least 7

I guess you don't think BYU belongs...

[Blueintheface]

That was when we had a conference schedule and I was not happy about Northern Iowa. Not happy at all.

Once BYU made the decision to go Indy it absolutly can't afford to put these shitty games in the front half of the season. BYU knows this, and the fact that they put WSU on the front half is evidence that they could not get anything better. If they can't do better than WSU in the front half of the season with 2 years to try and get a better 1 for 1, then the scheduling outlook is very very dim.

Another thing, if you don't want BYU to play more than 6 BCS teams in a given season then can see why you don't want to join a BCS conference.

The Pac 12 plays at least 9
The Big 12 plays at least 8
The Big 10 plays at least 8
the SEC plays at least 8
The ACC plays at least 8
The Big East plays at least 7

I guess you don't think BYU belongs...

If you don't know why they scheduled Weber St early in the season yet than you are late to the party...think Big.