2-for-1's: Insulting to Bronco?
by Layton on Sep 15, 2009 8:17 AM PDT
Email
Print
Oh, really. In yesterday's press conference, Bronco mentioned something to the fact that BYU is now at the level to where they're "insulted" by any team in the nation requesting a 2-for-1 with BYU, meaning the other team gets two home games to BYU's one.
"We’re having a very difficult time where they acknowledge we’re a team that should play home and home, most of the time they want 2-for-1. I’m not really willing to go 2-for-1 any longer. Even though that is a philosophy that we once had, I think our program has a different level of credibility that’s been earned. And the teams that suggest 2-to-1 I take as an insult. When you have the chance to have Florida State – a team of the caliber – that is willing to play and then come to LaVell Edwards Stadium is an awesome thing and I think it’s something that the program has earned over a long period of time."
There are very few teams in the nation (i.e. USC, Florida, Notre Dame) that have the kind of power to request those types of games, and BYU apparently thinks it deserves to be in that group. I don't agree with this, and I don't think BYU has been at a consistently high-enough level, nor do they have the national power (TV ratings, legendary history, etc.), to where they should be saying "no" to high-profile teams because they won't play home-and-homes. Having said that, Bronco certainly has every right to feel "insulted"--he can feel whatever he wants to feel. And, if in a few years BYU has done what it is doing so far this year, and what it has done somewhat consistently over the last few years, then he would have a logical gripe. Until then, and until they're in the BCS as an automatic qualifier, BYU needs to keep playing the high-profile teams wherever those teams want to play.
Your thoughts? Is BYU to the point where they have every right to say "no" to the USCs and Notre Dames of the college football world IF those teams won't visit LES?
photo courtesy of The Deseret News
23 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Well....
Can I say that we are considered among the elite’s such as USC, Texas, or Florida? No. Do we deserve more respect than teams like UTEP, SJSU, or La Tech? Absolutely. Those 2-1’s are for the smaller teams that haven’t had a program that’s been a threat in the last 25 years to get the chance once a decade to schedule a big name. We are WAY beyond that! We’ve proven that we can go in and win those games. We show up in the top 25 every year so I don’t think other teams should look at us as an easy win. Just ask UCLA last year and OU this year.
Agreed
BYU IS better than those teams you listed, but when all is said and done they’re still on the same level fighting for the same things (AQ-BCS and fighting for consistent respect). Here’s the issue, to say “no” as Bronco said he would from now on (except under circumstances like the Oklahoma game) when a chance presents itself to play an “elite” team because of a 2-for-1 issue is stupid and program damaging, especially when those are the teams you need to play to get what you’re fighting for.
I think Bronco is trying to leverage BYU's and the MWC's status right now.
He knows this is a good opportunity to get what is a fair deal. If he can’t fill up the schedule with enough top programs, their 2-for-1 offer will still likely be there.
And for what those schools pay to have other schools come in, Bronco would be crazy to let that revenue and national exposure slip away. I think he is just posturing at the moment.
by Wilder. on Sep 15, 2009 9:39 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Right
In my view this is a lot of “posturing” as well…
Vanquish the Foe, a BYU Cougars blog at SB Nation
Not "Very few"
Just about any team in a BCS conference has enough clout to demand home-and-homes. Consider the Penn State vs. Pitt conundrum: Pitt (of all places) finds it insulting that PSU would want a 2-for-1, but Pitt doesn’t fill their stadium (which isn’t even theirs) half the time. Pitt isn’t exactly BYU when it comes to football, but because they’re in a BCS conference they can get away with such a request.
Exactly
Pitt is unjustly insulted…much like BYU is. Perhaps when the MWC becomes an AQ, like I said in the post, they will have a legitimate gripe.
I need some enlightening as I don’t know about their history, but do Penn St and Pitt play each other every year as kind of an in-state rivalry deal? If they do that would be the reason, along with the BCS argument, why they play home-and-homes.
Replying to Myself
I can’t beleive I’m replying to myself, but even as an AQ-BCS, Pitt is unjustly insulted by 2-for-1’s because they just aren’t good. BYU, though much better than Pitt and a great football program, can’t be “insulted” with 2-for-1’s as a mid-major—they need to play whomever they can when the chance arrives. When they become a BCS team, and play at a true BCS level (i.e. not the Big East or ACC), they then can have the luxury of saying yes or no to high-profile teams.
Not Yet
Until Oklahoma, BYU hadn’t beaten a ranked team outside of the conference in forever. Winning 10 games three years in a row is cool, beating Oklahoma is cool, but suddenly demanding that 2 for 1s go away? I don’t know that the program is there yet.
One of the things I like about USC is their “we’ll go anywhere at the start of the season and play anybody.” I’d rather see BYU adopt this attitude, even if it means playing 2 away games over a 3-5 year period against the same big-time team. If we can take the home game in between, and get at least 1 out of 2 of the away games, that’s big. If we do that for the next 5 years and stay in the Top 25 and consistently beat ranked teams outside of the conference, then we’re going to have the 1 for 1 status we crave.
Good Politics
I’m not sure whether he meant it this way or not. But when Bronco said that he would be insulted, it makes people think about it.
Sometimes becoming elite is a matter of demanding it. We all know that sports is far too often like life where performance is only part of the battle. Often times, it’s about perception. If Bronco can change that perception by demanding it, even when it’s probably not yet reasonable, why not?
Possibly a brilliant political comment.
by killroyboy on Sep 15, 2009 11:58 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Rec'd
for the strong opinion, the logic to back it up…nice work…
Vanquish the Foe, a BYU Cougars blog at SB Nation
did anybody see the sagarin ratings?
usc number 1, byu number 2 and boise state number 3. great news. i believe the coaches poll is only 1/3 of the bcs poll that comes out on october 18th(around that time frame) i think the bcs computers will like both byu and boise if they take care of business. we can fixed that said problem from above by putting boise state in the mwc. it’s a no brainer. then everybody has to rotate home and home situatiions. 5 teams in the sagarin ratings plus tulsa knocking on the door. i hope tulsa does well vs okie. i would love to see six teams from non bcs conferences in all the polls. ramble on!
by wolfmanshowlforever on Sep 15, 2009 2:15 PM PDT reply actions
Simulated BCS standings
Here are the best simulation of what the BCS rankings would look like that I know of.
While not as nice as Sagarins, they are certainly better than previous year for the conferences without automatic qualifications.
2:1 what?
The only team we have traded 2:1 with in the last 15 years is ND.
We have scheduled 1:1 with USC, PSU, Georgia Tech, multiple PAC10 schools.
We have gone out to play teams without trade backs. Florida State and Alabama. However we have teams come to Provo without going there, Miami. Perhaps this was a direct response to ND. Maybe they had just called to try and get on the schedule.
No so fast!
Your argument is accurate with the exception of Miami—BYU first visited them in 1988 to fulfill the home and home.
Stadium Size and TV deals.
This is what drives home and home deals.
I strongly feel that the number of home games between to teams should be close to the ratio of the average attendance figures of those teams. Maybe if a school has a 100,000+ stadium would a 2 for 1 be reasonable for BYU.
BYU should turn the table and look at offering 2 for 1’s with solid WAC, C-USA and MAC teams with an attendance less than 40K. This is most of them.
Is a home and home with Tulane or Tulsa any less insulting that a 2 for 1 with USC?
The top BCS teams rarely play eachother OOC for a reason. They get too much money from the home games. If BYU feels they are at this level, and I think they are, they should be increasing thier income base with home games, just like the big name programs do.
Nicely Put
I could be wrong but wasnt the recent USC series a home and home? An SEC team would never consider even a 2-1 well maybe Arkansas, and the all of a sudden world traveler Georgia. If they could get a 2 for 1 with certain SEC teams that would be great since they think they are the end all of football. Teams that I would consider for a 2-1 in the SEC are Florida, LSU, Alabama, and Georgia. Anyone else in that league would be a home and home.
BYU should be selective about doing 2 for 1’s but by no means are not at the level to only take home and home
by Jeremy Mauss on Sep 16, 2009 3:25 PM PDT up reply actions
everyone knows the sec teams almost always get 7 or 8 home games every year
they think it’s their birthright. they are always bragging they have the best winning percentage. i wonder why. i actually like urban meyer but his athletic directer and his university do not like to go out to the west coast. check the last 20 years. tennessee, lsu and georgia have been traveling more lately. the other nine teams not so much.
by wolfmanshowlforever on Sep 17, 2009 8:46 PM PDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
