CougarCorner

the chicken and egg argument over which comes first

In this case, they both grew together.

Schmoe wrote:

Gunk wrote:Okay, so let me get this right. When evaluating the strength of BYU football it's okay to include weak FCS teams that can barely get the ball over the line; however, when evaluating BYU basketball it's inaccurate to factor in 200 D1 schools that can "dribble." Huh?

Your prejudice for football is really showing.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

You've just deconstructed your own argument, let me show you.

Okay, so let me get this right. When evaluating the strength of BYU basketball it's okay to include the 200 weak middle-of-nowhere teams that can barely get the ball through the hoop; however, when evaluating BYU football it's inaccurate to factor in the 122 FCS teams that consistently play and upset FBS schools. Huh?

Your prejudice for basketball is really showing.

See, we're going around in circles and you misunderstood what I was saying. Really, what I am saying is that if you consider how poor the bottom 2/3 of basketball is, and you're counting them in the percentages for how well basketball is doing, you also must include all the Div-1 schools in football when considering the percentages of how well the football team is doing. I really am proud of the basketball team, I brag about them all the time quietly getting it done and not getting enough credit. But when you look at rough numbers, the teams have achieved about equally and there is much more complaining, pressure, and expectations on the football team.

Fair enough.

So let's remove the bottom 200 in basketball. That gives you 150 teams. Likewise then let's remove the bottom dwelling football teams. How many legit football teams does that leave you? Probably 50; 75 tops. Top 25 in football is still an "easier" accomplishment.

But, for fun let's also factor in FCS teams and basketball teams that can barely dribble. There are 119 Division 1A football teams and 122 FCS teams for a total of 241 teams. Top 25 would put a team in the top 10%. Basketball still comes out ahead with the Top 25 comprising the top 7%.

But...when determining the Top 25 in football, FCS teams are not considered. FCS teams don't go to bowl games. The FCS has a 20-team playoff. So, when determining the Top 25 in football the AP, ESPN, BCS, etc. only look at 119 schools. However, when looking at the Top 25 in basketball, 345 schools are considered. I think it makes most sense to look at the same field of contenders the polls look at, don't you?

These aren't "rough" numbers. These are the numbers and no matter which way you look at them whether conservatively or liberally, Top 25 ranking in basketball is still a higher accomplishment than Top 25 in football.

Post season in football is an entirely different beast than basketball. So what's the equivalent comparison? IMO it's a BCS bowl as those are the only post season bowls where a team has to be in the top to attend. 10 teams (currently) make a BCS bowl; that would be the top 8% of Division 1A teams. 65 teams make the NCAA basketball tournament; that would be the top 18%. Once a basketball team makes it past the round of 64, they are within the top 9%. So maybe the fairest comparison is a BCS bowl vs the Round of 32 in the NCAA tournament.

Basketball has done that twice in the last 3 years. Football hasn't made a BCS bowl.

Gunk wrote:

hawkwing wrote:an Independent deal with ESPN, every home game nationally televised, most on ESPN. That's a huge amount of progress, a lot of it brought by those 10 win seasons that you seem to think are so irrelevant.

I don't think they are irrelevant. I do, however, think that basketball is out performing football on a national level.

I also think our football deal with ESPN is more related to the size of our fan base and the amount of eyeball$ we're able to bring in. So, I guess we're back to the chicken and egg argument over which comes first, healthy fan base brings success or success brings healthy fan base. For the record, I think it's success.

Every home game is not nationally televised. It's televised on BYUtv or ESPN, both require cable subscriptions unless you happen to live in Utah and get BYUtv over the air. National television would be CBS, NBC, ABC, or FOX. True, every basic cable package includes ESPN, though the same can't be said for BYUtv. Again, when was the last time BYU football played on national television in the post season?

Okay, if you want to include only over the air broadcast television stations as national television stations that's fine. I was counting stations that are broadcast on every cable/satellite company.

But, if that's the case, only one team in the nation has all of their home games nationally televised. Only 1 other had all of their games televised on channels that are included in the majority of all homes. Pretty great position to be in.

Gunk wrote:

Schmoe wrote:

Gunk wrote:Okay, so let me get this right. When evaluating the strength of BYU football it's okay to include weak FCS teams that can barely get the ball over the line; however, when evaluating BYU basketball it's inaccurate to factor in 200 D1 schools that can "dribble." Huh?

Your prejudice for football is really showing.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

You've just deconstructed your own argument, let me show you.

Okay, so let me get this right. When evaluating the strength of BYU basketball it's okay to include the 200 weak middle-of-nowhere teams that can barely get the ball through the hoop; however, when evaluating BYU football it's inaccurate to factor in the 122 FCS teams that consistently play and upset FBS schools. Huh?

Your prejudice for basketball is really showing.

See, we're going around in circles and you misunderstood what I was saying. Really, what I am saying is that if you consider how poor the bottom 2/3 of basketball is, and you're counting them in the percentages for how well basketball is doing, you also must include all the Div-1 schools in football when considering the percentages of how well the football team is doing. I really am proud of the basketball team, I brag about them all the time quietly getting it done and not getting enough credit. But when you look at rough numbers, the teams have achieved about equally and there is much more complaining, pressure, and expectations on the football team.

Fair enough.

So let's remove the bottom 200 in basketball. That gives you 150 teams. Likewise then let's remove the bottom dwelling football teams. How many legit football teams does that leave you? Probably 50; 75 tops. Top 25 in football is still an "easier" accomplishment.

But, for fun let's also factor in FCS teams and basketball teams that can barely dribble. There are 119 Division 1A football teams and 122 FCS teams for a total of 241 teams. Top 25 would put a team in the top 10%. Basketball still comes out ahead with the Top 25 comprising the top 7%.

But...when determining the Top 25 in football, FCS teams are not considered. FCS teams don't go to bowl games. The FCS has a 20-team playoff. So, when determining the Top 25 in football the AP, ESPN, BCS, etc. only look at 119 schools. However, when looking at the Top 25 in basketball, 345 schools are considered. I think it makes most sense to look at the same field of contenders the polls look at, don't you?

These aren't "rough" numbers. These are the numbers and no matter which way you look at them whether conservatively or liberally, Top 25 ranking in basketball is still a higher accomplishment than Top 25 in football.

Post season in football is an entirely different beast than basketball. So what's the equivalent comparison? IMO it's a BCS bowl as those are the only post season bowls where a team has to be in the top to attend. 10 teams (currently) make a BCS bowl; that would be the top 8% of Division 1A teams. 65 teams make the NCAA basketball tournament; that would be the top 18%. Once a basketball team makes it past the round of 64, they are within the top 9%. So maybe the fairest comparison is a BCS bowl vs the Round of 32 in the NCAA tournament.

Basketball has done that twice in the last 3 years. Football hasn't made a BCS bowl.

Okay, so basketball was able to make it past the first round, meaning that they were able to play to prove their worth. Football doesn't have that luxury, but would've had a good run at it in both Hall and Beck's senior season. Football has only polls, which are more a reflection of the entire body of work during the season, whereas decent basketball programs (those that make the tourney) play to prove themselves and keep their season alive, meaning it's more of an indication of how good a team has become by the end of the season. It's apples and oranges, really. Oh, and FCS schools are eligible to receive votes in polls, they just never do because they're no good, just like the 200 bottom-dwelling basketball programs BYU can choose to play against each season.

hawkwing wrote:But, if that's the case, only one team in the nation has all of their home games nationally televised. Only 1 other had all of their games televised on channels that are included in the majority of all homes. Pretty great position to be in.

I'm not talking about home games. All I'm talking about is post-season games. Football hasn't played on a national level. Basketball does.

Gunk wrote:

hawkwing wrote:But, if that's the case, only one team in the nation has all of their home games nationally televised. Only 1 other had all of their games televised on channels that are included in the majority of all homes. Pretty great position to be in.

I'm not talking about home games. All I'm talking about is post-season games. Football hasn't played on a national level. Basketball does.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

I think it is important to point out that Bronco's best years/teams came with mostly Crowtons recruits. On top of that, an offense that sported Hall, Collie, Pitta and Unga was unable to break into the BCS, a crying shame and a big hit to Bronco, considering they all went on to the Pros, two of which becoming proven commodities in the NFL.

Football has done pretty well. Basketball has done better.

jacksonman wrote:I think it is important to point out that Bronco's best years/teams came with mostly Crowtons recruits. On top of that, an offense that sported Hall, Collie, Pitta and Unga was unable to break into the BCS, a crying shame and a big hit to Bronco, considering they all went on to the Pros, two of which becoming proven commodities in the NFL.

Football has done pretty well. Basketball has done better.

Shhhh, Jacksonman, you'll only upset them.

I really don't get the push back. I have no problem admitting BYU men's volleyball is more successful than basketball. Admitting such doesn't jeopardize my endearment for basketball or its coach.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Isn't it nice to root for a school where the argument is, "which team is most successful" rather than, "which team is worst." Personally, I think that the two sports are so different that it is apples and oranges. Basketball requires 5 players. You can field a good team with 1 star and 6 solid players. You can win a championship with 3 future NBA players and 4-5 roleplayers. Football requires a minimum of 23 players (11 offense, 11 defense and someone to kick the football) and that assumes a kicker that can double as a punter, a center that can long snap, etc. If you have a few stars on the team, the team could be good or it could be awful. Basketball has a playoff system, football, not so much (even with the 4 team "playoff"). Due to the relative small size of the teams, there is much more parity in basketball. Due to the nature of football, position changes are possible to field a complete team. You can turn a running back into a linebacker, you can never turn a basketball center into a point guard.
I'm just glad I get to watch them both play now.

Gunk wrote:

jacksonman wrote:I think it is important to point out that Bronco's best years/teams came with mostly Crowtons recruits. On top of that, an offense that sported Hall, Collie, Pitta and Unga was unable to break into the BCS, a crying shame and a big hit to Bronco, considering they all went on to the Pros, two of which becoming proven commodities in the NFL.

Football has done pretty well. Basketball has done better.

Shhhh, Jacksonman, you'll only upset them.

I really don't get the push back. I have no problem admitting BYU men's volleyball is more successful than basketball. Admitting such doesn't jeopardize my endearment for basketball or its coach.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

The issue wasn't which team has done better; it was whether Coach Rose is held to a different standard than Coach Mendenhall. Even if you assume that basketball has done better than football, that doesn't disprove Bib's "original" post on this (which I agree with, even though I love both coaches the same).