Fire Ty

[Applejack]

A very good question. He's has more experience as a head coach, albeit at a smaller school, than anyone on BYU's staff right now. He has more experience as a college coach overall than anyone on BYU's staff right now except Kaufusi.

Not counting this year, counting GA experience but not counting "director of player development" or "director of football operations" positions:

Coach	HC Experience	Coordinator Experience	Other Experience
Kalani Sitake	1	6	7
Ilaisa Tuiaki	0	1	8 + 2 in high school
Ty Detmer	0	1	4 in high school
Ed Lamb	7 + 1 year as assistant HC	3	4
Ben Cahoon	0	0	2
Steve Clark	0	7	3 + 3 in high school
Mike Empey	1	8	2 in High School
Jernaro Gilford	0	0	4
Steve Kaufusi	0	0	22
Reno Mahe	0	0	1

But whether he is a "good coach" in the pantheon of coaches is a question that's essentially unanswerable at this point.

Thanks. From this list, I think it is fair to conclude that he is the most experienced of an extremely inexperienced group of coaches. I'm not a byu fan, but if I were () I would hope that "he has coached before" would be a necessary but not sufficient requirement for the head coach.

[creekster]

I thought there was a “privacy of your own home” exception.

Not officially. As a practical matter? Perhaps.

[BigFatMeanie]

Is Ed Lamb a good coach?

A very good question. He's has more experience as a head coach, albeit at a smaller school, than anyone on BYU's staff right now. He has more experience as a college coach overall than anyone on BYU's staff right now except Kaufusi.

Not counting this year, counting GA experience but not counting "director of player development" or "director of football operations" positions:

Coach	HC Experience	Coordinator Experience	Other Experience
Kalani Sitake	1	6	7
Ilaisa Tuiaki	0	1	8 + 2 in high school
Ty Detmer	0	1	4 in high school
Ed Lamb	7 + 1 year as assistant HC	3	4
Ben Cahoon	0	0	2
Steve Clark	0	7	3 + 3 in high school
Mike Empey	1	8	2 in High School
Jernaro Gilford	0	0	4
Steve Kaufusi	0	0	22
Reno Mahe	0	0	1

But whether he is a "good coach" in the pantheon of coaches is a question that's essentially unanswerable at this point.

[frank ryan]

I thought there was a “privacy of your own home” exception.

There isn't.

[Green Monstah]

That isn't the only restriction, if he isn't LDS he must abide by the honor code. So that eliminates every coach that isn't married (with the possible exception of an asexual coach), every coach that likes coffee, and every coach that enjoys a delicious craft beer.

I thought there was a “privacy of your own home” exception.

[Applejack]

If there is ever going to be a non-LDS HC at BYU, then the Ed Lamb credentials are as good as it gets.

Is Ed Lamb a good coach?

[Omaha 680]

Is the requirement that BYU head coaches be active members of the church policy or doctrine?

[Crockett]

The best coach on BYU's staff right now is Ed Lamb. He should be the head coach if it wasn't for current TR requirement. He obviously doesn't have a problem with the Honor code as his wife is LDS, his kids are raised in the church and he's a BYU graduate and current BYU employee.

If there is ever going to be a non-LDS HC at BYU, then the Ed Lamb credentials are as good as it gets.

[BigFatMeanie]

The best coach on BYU's staff right now is Ed Lamb. He should be the head coach if it wasn't for current TR requirement. He obviously doesn't have a problem with the Honor code as his wife is LDS, his kids are raised in the church and he's a BYU graduate and current BYU employee.

[MartyFunkhouser]

The only restriction for a coordinator is if he is LDS he must be card carrying. I think if BYU is serious, which I don't believe they are, their pool for coordinators is big enough to find one.

That isn't the only restriction, if he isn't LDS he must abide by the honor code. So that eliminates every coach that isn't married (with the possible exception of an asexual coach), every coach that likes coffee, and every coach that enjoys a delicious craft beer.

[BigFatMeanie]

So if we are going to get rid of a couple of P5 games on the front end and replace them with G5 then why not just play in a conference? That way we can have regional rivalries, conference awards for players, and a conference championship?

We're going in circles now. Here is the link to my post above http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthr...=1#post1343764 where I explicitly lay out the logic for why the current level of exposure and money are better than regional rivalries (hint: we're already playing them), conference awards for players, and a conference championship.

I agree with some of your statements. Other statements I would like to see evidence or arguments to support them.

• I agree with your choice #3. That means I would've expected us to go 9-4 against this year's schedule, maybe 8-5. We are likely going 3-10. BYU shouldn't go 3-10 ever, regardless of conference affiliation or independence.
• I agree that independence was worth the gamble. It looked pretty close to paying off for a while there.
• I agree that Big-5 conference opportunity is over in the short term, but I disagree that the Big 5 conference opportunity is over permanently (I'm assuming you are implying such). 2023 could be a seismic shift for all of college football and I think BYU could be in the realignment picture at that time.
• Do you have any evidence/arguments to support your assertion that the ESPN money will be "significantly reduced"?
• Do you have any arguments beyond "something to play for" for your assertion that BYU would be better served in a (non-Big 5) conference assuming the ESPN money isn't significantly reduced?

I agree that there is some small validity to the "rivalries and something to play for" argument. The issue is whether "rivalries and something to play for" outweighs the reduced exposure and reduced money? I assert they don't based on the following points:

1. We already play our true rival each year as Independents (Utah).
2. We already play the regional pseudo-rivals each and former conference foes (Utah State, Boise State, SDSU, UNLV, Hawaii, SJSU, Nevada, etc.) as Independents.
3. We can soften the schedule and rebuild as easily as an Independent as we could in a conference. A conference doesn't necessarily make it easier to soften the schedule. In fact, a conference could actually make it harder depending on upon the strength of the conference in a given year. Being an Independent doesn't mean we are forced to schedule LSU, Mississippi State, and Wisconsin in the same year.
4. The money in a conference is certainly less.
5. The exposure in a conference is certainly less.

So, I put my 5 points up against the fuzzy benefits of "rivalries and something to play for" that you are asserting and conclude that as long as the ESPN money and exposure don't change significantly, being Independent is a better option than joining a non-Power 5 conference. If the ESPN money and exposure do change significantly then I would most likely change my position and agree with you. Until then, I think my analysis is sound. But feel free to point out any flaws you see in my analysis.

If you honestly think the addition of conference awards for players and a conference championship game are enough to offset less money and less TV exposure to play teams we're already playing, then we'll never agree.

[Goatnapper'96]

Who would options to replace Ty at this point?

The only restriction for a coordinator is if he is LDS he must be card carrying. I think if BYU is serious, which I don't believe they are, their pool for coordinators is big enough to find one.

[frank ryan]

Who would options to replace Ty at this point?

[Shaka]

The onus is on me to explain how BYU could achieve schedule balance as an Independent? LOL, OK.

BYU has already proven it's adept at scheduling the non-P5 teams during the conference play (October/November) part of the season as evidenced by all the Independent schedules to date and their schedules. There is no reason to load up 3 or 4 Power5 teams for the September games. It's just as easy to schedule a few more non-P5 opponents for the other games.

Looking at the 2018 schedule: If you want to achieve schedule balance, there is no reason to schedule @Arizona, Cal, @Wisconson, @Washington all before October. 1 of them would be fine and would provide the balance you are looking for. There are plenty of non-P5 teams that could be scheduled instead of 3 P5 teams.
Looking at the 2019 schedule: If you want to achieve schedule balance, there is no reason to schedule @Tennessee, USC, and @Washington all before October. Again, 1 of them would be fine and provide the schedule balance that you and Fly and Goat want.
Looking at the 2020 schedule: If you want to achieve schedule balance, there is no reason to schedule Michigan State, @ASU, @Minnesota all in September, with Missouri and @Stanford thrown in later in the year for good measure. One of the three P5 teams in September would be fine.

Independence didn't force BYU to schedule so many P5s in the first part of the schedule. BYU is playing a heavier P5 schedule than they would get in the MWC because they WANT to, not because Independence has forced them to.

Q.E.D.

NOTE: I am not saying BYU should cancel already contracted games in 2018/2019/2020, although they would need to if they joined a conference. I am saying that BYU isn't forced to schedule like they have been and that it's perfectly reasonable for them to schedule fewer P5 opponents because they rarely play P5 opponents in October or November anyway.

So if we are going to get rid of a couple of P5 games on the front end and replace them with G5 then why not just play in a conference? That way we can have regional rivalries, conference awards for players, and a conference championship?

[Flystripper]

FIFY.