Strength of Schedule and other observations

Not that it matters, and it will probably fall substantially over the next few weeks, but Jeff Sagarin’s SOS for games played so far this season has BYU at #1. The rest of the teams fall below BYU in most rankings, so theoretically BYU should be able to run the table. However, as was noted on anther discussion board, it is likely that the DCs for the remaining teams have also picked up on the fact, noticed by Michigan, that you can know exactly what play BYU will run by observing where the running acks line up in relation to Mangum. I hope that Anae has figured this out as well.

LOL…

How many years has he been coaching football? 30+? It seems like that is something you would realize is easy to figure out… that when you line up the offense in a certain formation and run a particular play out of that formation and do the same thing for basically every formation and every associated play, that your opponent might notice a trend, both on film and during games. It sure makes a DC’s job easier. I will acknowledge that Michigan has a good defense and an even better coach, but that game was ridiculous.

Being conservative and stubborn is great if you are an OL coach because that is how you want your O-line to play… consistent, stubborn and boringly effective. It just doesn’t work for an offense overall, particularly against a big, physical team. You have to be creative, innovative and willing to try something different, if what you are doing isn’t working. I’m not sure BYU is capable of that with the offensive philosophy they utilize. It isn’t all on the OC though, the QB needs to make better decisions, something that has been tougher the last few games because of what happened the first two games. Note to Mangum - the hail mary bomb to the endzone is not a high percentage throw.

To your point though, it does say something that BYU’s schedule to this point has been a tough one… it indicates that they have lots of injuries and look worn out a lot of the time. :smile:

I was talking to knowledgeable football fan today who has no connection to BYU. He said, “Hey, I was watching your game Friday night cuz it was the only one on (score one for Indy/ESPN); I noticed on a couple drives it seems like BYU likes to pass the ball down the field but then likes to run it up the middle in the red zone. What’s up with that?” I told him I may need to get back to him later with an answer.

I am sure that there is software that Anae can use to show predictable plays from particular formations because you can bet your bottom dollar that other teams DCs has that software.

Hahaha…

as if you didn’t know the answer already. :wink:

I get the same comments from peeps who know I am a BYU fan. If the casual fan sees it, you understand real quickly why us hardcore fans get so frustrated with it.

I can relate to Anae though, in my own life we are a lot alike… being almost paralyzed by the fear of failing that you are afraid to try anything different.

Maybe that is why he drives me nuts… because he is a lot like I am.

JIm H: “They have lots of injuries and look worn out a lot of the time.” This is a mid-major team trying to play with the big boys too often. Four straight tough ones wears and tears. Then there are teams like Baylor rated in the top five that played four patsies in a row. Until or IF BYU ever gets into a P-5 conference it will take at least four years until they can get competitive, provided that BYU can recruit top rated recruits. I stated during and after the UCONN game that it is very doubtful that BYU can ever recruit the dept of an Alabama or Oklahoma or a UCLA or a Michigan. I don’t think that P-5 recruiting depth is in the BYU DNA. We are an RM, good studen,t moral school that will have trouble recruiting the top level P-5 recruits to obtain the four level of players that is necessary to play with the big boys. BYU will maybe be able top consistently recruit three stars and a limited number of four stars, but not consistent enough to recruit four levels of top players.

txcoug: Several things have to come together for BYU to be able to attract enough 4 and 5 star players. NONE OF THEM ARE EASY - obviously or they would have been accomplished already. 1) Hire a HC who can turn a mid-major program into a top tier program - but there are few of them, non-LDS much less LDS coaches. One example of such a coach would be an ethical Urban Meyer (he is not ethical and I doubt there are any of those coaches in the country). Unfortunately Bronco and Anae are not those kind of coaches. 2) Get into a P5 conference. 3) Modify the Honor Code in some fashion but for ALL students, not just for athletes or non-LDS students. My personal opinion is to abolish the HC. The HC did NOT make me abstain from tobacco, alcohol or other drugs, or premarital sex when I was at the Y. My own moral code prevented me from those actions. There are people actively attending the temples who stray from our moral beliefs and there is no HC on the planet that can actually make students behave morally. I am spending more time on the HC than I intended. The various BYU athletic teams can have their own rules of conduct. I think it will take those 3 things and maybe more before the Y can recruit enough top level talent to handle a P5 schedule and rise and stay at or very near the top, both in FB AND BB.

Jim: BYU is worn out because of our lack of roster depth and physical status. It is not because we don’t have a good physical conditioning coach. It is because of the BYU DNA, a team dominated by RM’s. Most RM’s take a full year to two years to physically recover from a two year missions.A few people like are freaks, like Mangum, who are more physically fit earlier than the average RM. I don’t think that BYU will have a different DNA. We are what we are. Our coaches will always be good LDS men, not necessarily the genius coaches like a Jim Harbaugh.
So the BYU DNA, including coaches doesn’t allow for the Art Bryles, or Bob Stoops or Harbaugh killer instinct
leadership except for once in a while exceptions like Taysom Hill and Tanner Mangum. Tanner Mangum brings up the play of his teammates, it is an exception, not the generality.

This from the Deseret News:

"For the first time all season, the BYU defense expects to have all of its starters healthy and playing when the team kicks off against Cincinnati this Friday.

“Mendenhall stated that defensive backs Michael Shelton and Jordan Preator are expected back after serving a one-game suspension last week while linebacker Harvey Langi, who sat out last week’s game with injury, is also expected to return. Cornerback Micah Hanneman, who left the East Carolina game with an injury, is expected to return as well.”

Hopefully we see a difference, particularly with pass defense.

That’s encouraging, because Nacua, who has been a real playmaker at FS, looked completely lost at corner Saturday. To be fair to him, the entire defensive backfield was a disaster. Even when we did cover guys, our DBs simply didn’t make plays. ECU even threw a short TD pass on a play where they lined up double wide right and we didn’t even cover up the inside receiver. Things like that made it look pretty obvious we were unprepared. Not Nick Howell’s best day.

Kay,

Are you jesting?

Check out #36 below.

The numbers to the right of a team’s schedule strength are its rank of schedule - (in parentheses) - and its record versus teams in the rating’s CURRENT top 10 and top 30 respectively.

Teams that appear to be tied to two decimal places in a given column are actually
different when carried to more decimal places in the computer’s internal arithmetic.

The PREDICTOR, is such that the score is the only thing that matters.
PREDICTOR is also known as PURE_POINTS, BALLANTINE, RHEINGOLD, WHITE OWL
and is a very good PREDICTOR of future games.

GOLDEN_MEAN also utilizes the actual SCORES of the games in a different way but is also completely SCORE BASED
and thus should be a good match for the PURE POINTS in terms of predictive accuracy for upcoming games.

The RECENT, is score-based and weights RECENT play more heavily than earlier games. Its effect will become
more pronounced the longer a season goes if a given team happens to have an upward or downward trend.

The overall RATING is a synthesis of the three different SCORE-BASED methods, PREDICTOR(PURE_POINTS), GOLDEN_MEAN,
and RECENT and thus should be a good predictor in its own right.


College Football 2015 through games of October 17 Saturday
RATING W L T SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10 | VS top 30 | PREDICTOR | GOLDEN_MEAN | RECENT
HOME ADVANTAGE=[ 2.66] [ 2.66] [ 2.66] [ 2.66]
1 Alabama A = 95.56 6 1 0 76.51( 7) 0 0 0 | 3 1 0 | 94.01 2 | 95.34 1 | 96.67 1
2 Baylor A = 94.40 6 0 0 60.91( 105) 0 0 0 | 1 0 0 | 94.67 1 | 94.69 2 | 94.25 2
3 TCU A = 90.98 7 0 0 68.69( 52) 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 | 88.35 7 | 91.45 3 | 92.99 3
4 Oklahoma A = 89.73 5 1 0 72.44( 31) 0 0 0 | 2 0 0 | 90.77 3 | 89.41 7 | 89.15 7
5 Ohio State A = 89.41 7 0 0 66.34( 68) 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 | 86.66 11 | 89.95 5 | 91.52 4
6 Clemson A = 89.37 6 0 0 70.89( 40) 1 0 0 | 1 0 0 | 88.09 8 | 90.31 4 | 90.25 6
7 Utah A = 88.84 6 0 0 76.71( 6) 0 0 0 | 2 0 0 | 88.72 5 | 89.59 6 | 88.92 10
8 Stanford A = 88.59 5 1 0 73.77( 21) 0 0 0 | 2 0 0 | 87.98 9 | 88.52 10 | 89.00 8
9 Notre Dame A = 88.26 6 1 0 73.72( 23) 0 1 0 | 1 1 0 | 87.51 10 | 88.63 9 | 88.76 11
10 LSU A = 87.93 6 0 0 72.61( 28) 0 0 0 | 2 0 0 | 83.96 17 | 89.25 8 | 91.24 5
College Football 2015 through games of October 17 Saturday
RATING W L T SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10 | VS top 30 | PREDICTOR | GOLDEN_MEAN | RECENT
HOME ADVANTAGE=[ 2.66] [ 2.66] [ 2.66] [ 2.66]
11 Florida State A = 87.35 6 0 0 66.79( 66) 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 | 85.18 14 | 88.22 11 | 88.92 9
12 Florida A = 87.01 6 1 0 75.65( 12) 0 1 0 | 2 1 0 | 86.03 12 | 87.19 12 | 87.68 12
13 Michigan A = 86.96 5 2 0 72.53( 30) 0 1 0 | 0 2 0 | 90.08 4 | 86.19 14 | 85.38 17
14 Iowa A = 86.07 7 0 0 71.36( 36) 0 0 0 | 1 0 0 | 84.53 16 | 86.70 13 | 87.15 14
15 Southern California A = 85.76 3 3 0 75.66( 11) 0 2 0 | 0 3 0 | 88.42 6 | 84.86 18 | 84.37 19
16 Texas A&M A = 84.94 5 1 0 73.19( 26) 0 1 0 | 1 1 0 | 83.29 19 | 85.60 16 | 86.10 16
17 Oklahoma State A = 84.85 6 0 0 67.35( 62) 0 0 0 | 1 0 0 | 82.67 22 | 85.78 15 | 86.41 15
18 Mississippi A = 84.19 5 2 0 66.42( 67) 1 0 0 | 1 2 0 | 85.42 13 | 84.14 19 | 83.49 20
19 Michigan State A = 83.86 7 0 0 68.43( 57) 0 0 0 | 1 0 0 | 79.37 33 | 85.28 17 | 87.60 13
20 Georgia A = 83.53 5 2 0 69.33( 46) 0 1 0 | 0 2 0 | 81.72 25 | 83.87 20 | 84.79 18
College Football 2015 through games of October 17 Saturday
RATING W L T SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10 | VS top 30 | PREDICTOR | GOLDEN_MEAN | RECENT
HOME ADVANTAGE=[ 2.66] [ 2.66] [ 2.66] [ 2.66]
21 Wisconsin A = 82.90 5 2 0 63.84( 87) 0 1 0 | 0 2 0 | 82.30 23 | 82.70 22 | 83.30 21
22 California A = 82.56 5 1 0 72.54( 29) 0 1 0 | 1 1 0 | 82.89 20 | 83.01 21 | 82.38 24
23 Tennessee A = 82.32 3 3 0 76.76( 5) 0 1 0 | 1 2 0 | 83.84 18 | 81.98 23 | 81.46 26
24 Mississippi State A = 82.12 5 2 0 68.45( 56) 0 1 0 | 0 2 0 | 81.29 28 | 81.94 24 | 82.66 22
25 Boise State A = 81.52 5 2 0 68.29( 59) 0 0 0 | 1 0 0 | 85.02 15 | 81.25 25 | 79.73 30
26 UCLA A = 81.08 4 2 0 74.34( 17) 0 1 0 | 0 1 0 | 81.47 27 | 81.12 26 | 80.85 27
27 North Carolina A = 80.73 5 1 0 62.26( 100) 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 | 82.12 24 | 80.74 27 | 79.95 29
28 West Virginia A = 80.39 3 3 0 75.24( 14) 0 2 0 | 0 3 0 | 82.85 21 | 79.97 30 | 79.05 35
29 Washington A = 80.21 3 3 0 77.15( 4) 0 0 0 | 1 2 0 | 81.67 26 | 80.01 29 | 79.39 34
30 Memphis A = 79.51 6 0 0 65.92( 72) 0 0 0 | 1 0 0 | 79.38 32 | 80.50 28 | 79.60 32
College Football 2015 through games of October 17 Saturday
RATING W L T SCHEDL(RANK) VS top 10 | VS top 30 | PREDICTOR | GOLDEN_MEAN | RECENT
HOME ADVANTAGE=[ 2.66] [ 2.66] [ 2.66] [ 2.66]
31 Oregon A = 79.01 4 3 0 70.91( 39) 0 1 0 | 1 2 0 | 74.66 53 | 79.78 31 | 82.39 23
32 Texas Tech A = 79.00 5 2 0 68.88( 50) 0 2 0 | 0 2 0 | 79.28 34 | 79.19 35 | 78.84 36
33 Utah State A = 78.94 4 2 0 70.97( 38) 0 1 0 | 1 2 0 | 79.78 31 | 79.06 36 | 78.46 37
34 Duke A = 78.77 5 1 0 61.06( 104) 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 | 80.69 29 | 78.36 39 | 77.69 41
35 Pittsburgh A = 78.76 5 1 0 71.25( 37) 0 0 0 | 0 1 0 | 77.42 43 | 79.69 33 | 79.67 31

36 BYU A = 78.72 5 2 0 75.64( 13) 0 0 0 | 1 2 0 | 77.51 40 | 79.63 34 | 79.53 33

37 Auburn A = 78.69 4 2 0 73.75( 22) 0 1 0 | 0 2 0 | 74.41 55 | 79.72 32 | 82.01 25
38 Toledo A = 78.27 6 0 0 58.44( 113) 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 | 78.85 35 | 78.79 37 | 77.93 38
39 Arizona State A = 78.17 4 3 0 73.65( 25) 0 1 0 | 1 3 0 | 75.33 51 | 78.51 38 | 80.20 28
40 Nebraska A = 77.83 3 4 0 71.44( 35) 0 0 0 | 0 1 0 | 78.10 37 | 77.06 43 | 77.68 42

I also look at Sagarin all the time. My comment about the number one SOS was written two weeks ago, when BYU’s SOS was #1. Now that they are playing the easier part of their schedule, the SOS is guaranteed to drop.