BYU's players, age, etc...

S

Sports Forum West

Varsity Lurker
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
71
BYU\'s players, age, etc...

I've read a lot of interesting posts from people regarding BYU's team. Yes they are on average a little bit older than most teams. about 1/2 their players (which is an historically high percentage) now serve missions for their sponsoring church. However lots of young people do similar work weather they are Latter-day Saints, Baptists, etc. It's hard work, but not athletic work. Physically speaking, they return out of condition and often never play again as they are just incapable of returning to pre-mission levels of athleticism. So about 30-40% of their kids never get back into a program. Their mission service is more likely a hendrance and not a help. While those that do come back to play have I think a mental advantage, it is physically no advantage and potentially disruptive to the natural progression of a team. This year, BYU has a deep, talented and mature defensive squad... but offensively, they are mostly freshman and sophmores... and in terms of games played, very green. They have excellent running backs and a talented group of receivers that once again, the media has typically slated as slow and white... which will again as other mythologic ideas work as it has in 30/31 years to BYU's favor. For a purportedly slow white team they score a lot of touchdowns.
 
Re: BYU\'s players, age, etc...

Originally posted by Sports Forum West:
I've read a lot of interesting posts from people regarding BYU's team. Yes they are on average a little bit older than most teams. about 1/2 their players (which is an historically high percentage) now serve missions for their sponsoring church. However lots of young people do similar work weather they are Latter-day Saints, Baptists, etc. It's hard work, but not athletic work. Physically speaking, they return out of condition and often never play again as they are just incapable of returning to pre-mission levels of athleticism. So about 30-40% of their kids never get back into a program. Their mission service is more likely a hendrance and not a help. While those that do come back to play have I think a mental advantage, it is physically no advantage and potentially disruptive to the natural progression of a team. This year, BYU has a deep, talented and mature defensive squad... but offensively, they are mostly freshman and sophmores... and in terms of games played, very green. They have excellent running backs and a talented group of receivers that once again, the media has typically slated as slow and white... which will again as other mythologic ideas work as it has in 30/31 years to BYU's favor. For a purportedly slow white team they score a lot of touchdowns.
Click to expand...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">I think it's going to be a low scoring game with everything I have seen. I dont know what the O/U is but I dont see a shootout like Gailey said it would be late last week. Thanks for your insight. What is your take on the score, from all that you know between the 2 teams? thanks
 
Re: BYU\'s players, age, etc...

My take... I was predicting early on out west that this game would be low scoring. Bot so sure now. Auburn vs. USC and BYU at USC may also be low scoring. However, BYU really has the makings of a dominating defense and GT still has plenty of horses to do the same. BYU has a huge advantage in that they are use to scoring, use to moving the ball downfield in big chunks and use pushing people around in Provo. Recent losses on TECH's defensive line are going to negate the advantage they had over BYU's untested line. Remember those lineman lack game experience, but not practice time in their red-shirt years. I see either a low scoring game with the last team that has the ball winning if teams simply play poorly from the get go. But the last two years, BYU started out like gangbusters offensively and this year, they probably have a defense to go with their semi-green offense. Finally, they have gone from one of the worst special teams units to I think one of the top ten nationally this year. They can both punt and place kick with great distance. In that respect, BYU has a big advantage. I think they win and Tech has difficulty getting untracked against their 3-3-5 defense. As big and experienced as TECH's offensive line is, they are not use to playing that type of defense and BYU's secondary is exceptional as well. Honestly, as we get closer to game time I think BYU probably wins by a rubber score (about 31-17). But it could just as easily be the other way around. If Bolbo has a great game, opens up the run because of his passing, and if Tech can get to BYU's quarterback, then 31-17 the other way is possible, but not likely. BYU seems really healthy right now - they were not last year. Health favors them at home.
 
Re: BYU\'s players, age, etc...

Originally posted by Sports Forum West:
My take... I was predicting early on out west that this game would be low scoring. Bot so sure now. Auburn vs. USC and BYU at USC may also be low scoring. However, BYU really has the makings of a dominating defense and GT still has plenty of horses to do the same. BYU has a huge advantage in that they are use to scoring, use to moving the ball downfield in big chunks and use pushing people around in Provo. Recent losses on TECH's defensive line are going to negate the advantage they had over BYU's untested line. Remember those lineman lack game experience, but not practice time in their red-shirt years. I see either a low scoring game with the last team that has the ball winning if teams simply play poorly from the get go. But the last two years, BYU started out like gangbusters offensively and this year, they probably have a defense to go with their semi-green offense. Finally, they have gone from one of the worst special teams units to I think one of the top ten nationally this year. They can both punt and place kick with great distance. In that respect, BYU has a big advantage. I think they win and Tech has difficulty getting untracked against their 3-3-5 defense. As big and experienced as TECH's offensive line is, they are not use to playing that type of defense and BYU's secondary is exceptional as well. Honestly, as we get closer to game time I think BYU probably wins by a rubber score (about 31-17). But it could just as easily be the other way around. If Bolbo has a great game, opens up the run because of his passing, and if Tech can get to BYU's quarterback, then 31-17 the other way is possible, but not likely. BYU seems really healthy right now - they were not last year. Health favors them at home.
Click to expand...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Dude, Ball is QB, B"i"lbo is a WR. Where have you been? Based on that, I say GT takes it to the house and wins by 3 TDs.
 
Re: BYU\'s players, age, etc...

Dude, you seem to know BYU stats/history better than Tech's. Who's side are you on?
 
Re: BYU\'s players, age, etc...

My apologies, I did mean BALL and was thinking the names and positions reversed...

I think if GT scores three TD's on BYU with BALL it will be due to exceptional line play. However, you should be realistic. BYU's defense has been facing what is historically one of the most prolific offensive minded programs in the entire game. I doubt they feel like Tech is much more different than facing many average offenses from other conferences.

Furthermore, BYU plays in the west were offense is king, not because defenses are weak, but because offense tends to form the philosophic underpinning to most PAC-10, MWC and WAC programs. You can't just look at the stats and say a southern based team like Auburn or Georgia is a better defense because they give up only 250-300 YPG. How many teams do they face which throw the ball 35-40 times/game. Rushing teams shorten games, fewer plays and lower d-stats which makes them appear much stronger than they might really be. Oklahoma University use to find this out all the time. They would play nine rushing teams and face 52-57 plays per game, give up 250 yards and everyone would say, WOW&gt; Then they would face a lowely Kansas team that threw the ball 40 times and they would occasionally lose because their players just didn't know what to do against an 85 play offense (long game). BYU played OU once and defeated them 31-6 and that was merciful. I am not saying that will happen here at all. But your comment seems a bit misguided. BYU's offense generates a much higher YPP average and TYPG average? Far fewer overall. While I think TECH has a huge advantage with it's experienced offensive line, the fact is, BYU has a lot of advantages which probably offset that including their own offensive line which is equally large and strong, just a little green at two positions. I think if Tech can run on BYU, shorten the game and not turn the ball over, they have a good shot at winning.
 
Re: BYU\'s players, age, etc...

Stingman wrote...

Dude, you seem to know BYU stats/history better than Tech's. Who's side are you on?

My apologies, I don't take sides as I am a football writer. My look at the game is as an outsider. I am far more familiar with the PAC-10, WAC and MWC than the ACC and Georgia Tech, but grew up a huge Tech fan... just not myopic. Hope that's OK.
 
Re: BYU\'s players, age, etc...

Im sure thats Gaileys gameplan..To run the football and shorten the Game..At least that has been his MO throughout his coaching career..That would make most sense because we have a VERY good starting 11 on Defense BUT very LITTLE depth..All year long we need to win time of possession in order to be successful....
 
Re: BYU\'s players, age, etc...

One problem with shortening the game (catch 22 I suppose) is it only works if the defense can keep BYU from scoring. BYU wins a lot of games where they do not control the TOP number, or if they do; it's because they so dominated an opponent they are rushing the ball throughout the 4th quarter. BYU tends to get away from their own strengths to shorten games when they are ahead in stead of throwing the ball no matter what the way Miami, Florida and Florida State will. They lack a "killer instinct" at times. For TECH, winning the rushing battle is key. But what if BYU stops the rushing attack and lengthens the game? Then what? Ball will have to hit receivers in a packed secondary that is use to facing frankly a much better air attack day in and day out in practice. So I agree, TECH has to run effectively. If they don't, then it could be a long night for the gold and white.
 
Re: BYU\'s players, age, etc...

Sports Forum...I think the WHOLE KEY to this game IS REGGIE BALL...If he is as fast as everyone says..You will see that to be the great equalizer..Much like Michael Vick...Speed kills and especially at QB..There arent too many QBs that can run a 4.4 40..That is very hard to defend.....
 
Re: BYU\'s players, age, etc...

It's true there aren't a lot of QB's with that kind of speed. However BYU has one, their second stringer BECK who runs a 4.5 so it isn't like they can't prepare for a ball. By the way, they are equally optomistic about BECK's feet and abilities to run the option, but then that takes us back to game preparation and what BYU sees year in and year out. The offensives in their conference are so diversified. Air Force has had some success agains BYU in recent years, but the long tradition is for BYU to shut them down, There have been years when Air Force averaged close to 400 YPG on the ground, but drew blanks against BYU. They just know how to stop an option. In this case, I think Ball is much more dangerous because he can throw the ball or motor with his feet. But he's still pretty green and a game isn't the same as practice. Let's see what he can do. Speed isn't everything. You can make the wrong choice and run into trouble just as easily as you can escape it.
 
Re: BYU\'s players, age, etc...

You state, "Furthermore, BYU plays in the west were offense is king, not because defenses are weak, but because offense tends to form the philosophic underpinning to most PAC-10, MWC and WAC programs."

Without trying to appear too conceited, comparing the ACC with the MWC and WAC is a joke. And don't get offended by my statement, it's pretty much widely held by everyone but the homers in those conferences. The PAC-10 is closer but still nothing to rave about.

Based on your logic, anyone who plays a "west" team should be killed. The last time I checked, the SouthEast and Northeast pretty much dominate college football.
pat.gif


You also state that "BYU's defense has been facing what is historically one of the most prolific offensive minded programs in the entire game. I doubt they feel like Tech is much more different than facing many average offenses from other conferences."

The same thing was true last year and look where that got them.

Luckily, we're going to find out who's blowing smoke on Thursday.
 
Re: BYU\'s players, age, etc...

BTW, I do agree that the Vegas odds are the most reliable predictors.
 
Re: BYU\'s players, age, etc...

Dear Friend,Sports Forum West:

You said of ByU
"They can both punt and place kick with great distance. In that respect, BYU has a big advantage."

In all honesty in that height/altitude, I think you will really see some tremendous punting and kicking from Georgia Tech as well. Ipso Facto: YOur kicking game will not be an advantage, and maybe even inferior to ours.

Best wishes, enjoying your posts:
 
Re: BYU\'s players, age, etc...

Sports Forum West, your quote:


"So about 30-40% of their kids never get back into a program."

That means that 60 to 70% of the older men do get back into a (the) program. Come on, this is just sideways whining at best: Please, cut us a break on the "Spin line".... All of us are not engineers, but all of us can do simple math, calculation, and figuratations.
wink.gif


Facts are, FWIW, you have in most cases, matured individuals playing against youngsters. That's okay, we are not big into excuses at G.T.; we will still show up with a feeling that we are capable of Whupping you!! And if we are playing a game, where we are getting a few breaks, then you guys better "justforgetit".
grin.gif
 
Re: BYU\'s players, age, etc...

First of all BYU isn't my program, but a program out west and I am close to most of these schools. I know BYU's program really well. In all fairness, there are simply a LOT of myths about southern football versus northern football versus western football. Actually the game changes a little more by region as a result of philosophy and climate, not so much because of the quality of athletes. No, the WAC and MWC are not on the same level as the PAC-10, but not far off either and the PAC-10 is certainly no worse than the ACC, maybe in some respects much better because of the quality of the skill players seen there up and down their rosters. Look, I don't want to get into a p-match over this or that. Philosophy or style of play in a region often dictates much more than what you think. There have been years when an Alabama team played far more like a PAC-10 team than a traditional SEC team save Kentucly and Florida. NCState throws now, but where did they get their present offense? From a former BYU OC.

You guys are engineers and well know there is always an opposite to everything. If a team plays mostly rushing opponents (most of the BIG-12 and much of the SEC is like that) they are going to dominate defensive statistics on a national level. But that doesn't mean they are great defenses per se. Florida State didn't drop that far in quality. It's just that the ACC started really lighting up the scoreboard with variable offenses, pro sets and a lot of wide open football. Clemsen probably still can't throw the pig worth beans, but the rest of the conference sees the value in offense and that means longer games, more plays and higher defensive stats, but not necessarily worse defenses.

Defenses no matter how good are always at a disadvantage to good offenses. As for the ACC historically, aside from FSU, there have been many times in the past 20 years when many of us writers thought the old core WAC members (now the MWC where BYU plays) were as good or better. We aren't at CBS or ABC. We don't have a BCS budget to promote. We can be honest and to be honest, their kids who run 4.4 40's and stand 6'3" and weight 235 are just as real as yours or any one elses. I think we all make the mistake at times by assuming that we have in whatever region we are in, some specially endowed gift that just makes us better. But the reality is, what every region has is storied tradition of one form or another and since the east tends to think of the country as anything in Texas, California and whatever is east of the Mississippi, a lot of good football gets forgotten or un noticed.

It's easy to assume or make the mistake of thinking that the size of a television market makes you better... it just gets your local team more national pub. I follow these programs out her pretty well and they play in different conditions, more difficult in some respects, less difficult in others.

Other than a BYU or some of the PAC 10 teams, most get very few home games against BCS type programs. All travel great distances to games, often covering several time zones even in their leagues. Few play patsy non-league schedules like MOST SEC teams do. They don't play 8 to 10 games at home or where a road trip is a few hours on a bus. They play in some of the most adverse conditions in late October and November. Ever play in laramie in November, (driving wet bone chilling snow, 7200 ft elevation with 20% less oxygen)? Look I love GT. I am a huge tech fan, but dissing BYU when you barely defeated AT HOME their worse team in 30 years just doesn't seem like a good idea. That's my take.
 
Re: BYU\'s players, age, etc...

To get back to the core of your post which was concerning the age difference of BYU and a team such as GT. Tech this year similar to many teams is pretty young. While BYU even if they start a true freshman will be approximately 20 to 21 years old, if red shirted then 22 or possibly more years old. To make this short there is a heck of a difference maturity and probably physicaly between a 22 to 24 than an 18 to 19 year year old. I still propose the NCAA put an age limit on players. How old was the FSU QB a few years back 26 or something like that? Men playing against boys.
 
Re: BYU\'s players, age, etc...

Dear Sports Forum West :

1st. please forgive me for jumping into a post foolishly show my ignorance, in that I falsly id'd you.

2nd. No matter what you say, in my mind estimation, and over the years; I think there is ample evidence that Southern Football is superior to all other regions. We (Southeast) have the best athletes in the USA. Not talking about conferences, just regions. Even, leaving out Texas, we still surpass the U.S. using any guage of atheletic superiority.

3rd. You said: "I don't want to get into a p-match over this or that."

4th The coaches matter; but the material mattters most: Southeast material is far superior to any in all other parts of the country. Check the teams of the S.E.,and then the teams that prosper with S.E. talent.

5th. No way.....(my opinion vs. yours( but, no way!!!!! Just look to who the players are that make impact upon the pros.

6th. "since the east tends to think of the country as anything in Texas, California and whatever is east of the Mississippi, a lot of good football gets forgotten or un noticed." Simply stated: I disagree.

7th. Your statement: "Look I love GT. I am a huge tech fan, but dissing BYU when you barely defeated AT HOME their worse team in 30 years just doesn't seem like a good idea. That's my take."

Now, dear Western friend (I mean that genuinely; not facetiously), In All truth: was that the worst team in 30 years for BYU? If So, ole Gary would now be back down south where you got him fromand where he belongs.) "BArely": I agree.

You are a good sport. It is no doubt that you might just blow us out on Thursday night. Till then however: I believe, the best football players reside within the states of GA,Fla,S.C,La.,Miss.,& Ala. (will even deliberately exclude TExas (strong as they are).
Best statess for College Football players: Florida, Texas, Georgia, South Carolina (in my estimation, period.) Cannot explain it; it is just true. And if we had regional teams instead of college teams: We would whupp the world!!! Sorry for the cockiness, just half way joshing and half way trying to answer all of your excellent posts.
smile.gif
(Please for give all spelling errors, we do not have a spell check).
 
Re: BYU\'s players, age, etc...

Dear Sports Forum West :

1st. please forgive me for jumping into a post foolishly show my ignorance, in that I falsly id'd you.

2nd. No matter what you say, in my mind estimation, and over the years; I think there is ample evidence that Southern Football is superior to all other regions. We (Southeast) have the best athletes in the USA. Not talking about conferences, just regions. Even, leaving out Texas, we still surpass the U.S. using any guage of atheletic superiority.

3rd. You said: "I don't want to get into a p-match over this or that." Neither do I: you are a true gentleman. I must however, continue to state, my convictions.

4th The coaches matter; but the material mattters most: Southeast material is far superior to any in all other parts of the country. Check the teams of the S.E.,and then the teams that prosper with S.E. talent.

5th. No way.....(my opinion vs. yours( but, no way!!!!! Just look to who the players are that make impact upon the pros.

6th. "since the east tends to think of the country as anything in Texas, California and whatever is east of the Mississippi, a lot of good football gets forgotten or un noticed." Simply stated: I disagree.

7th. Your statement: "Look I love GT. I am a huge tech fan, but dissing BYU when you barely defeated AT HOME their worse team in 30 years just doesn't seem like a good idea. That's my take."

Now, dear Western friend (I mean that genuinely; not facetiously), In All truth: was that the worst team in 30 years for BYU? If So, ole Gary would now be back down south where you got him fromand where he belongs.) "BArely": I agree.

You are a good sport. It is no doubt that you might just blow us out on Thursday night. Till then however: I believe, the best football players reside within the states of GA,Fla,S.C,La.,Miss.,& Ala. (will even deliberately exclude TExas (strong as they are).
Best statess for College Football players: Florida, Texas, Georgia, South Carolina (in my estimation, period.) Cannot explain it; it is just true. And if we had regional teams instead of college teams: We would whupp the world!!! Sorry for the cockiness, just half way joshing and half way trying to answer all of your excellent posts.
smile.gif
(Please for give all spelling errors, we do not have a spell check).
 
Re: BYU\'s players, age, etc...

"First of all BYU isn't my program, but a program out west and I am close to most of these schools."

Well, whether it is or not, if you look like an apologist, sound like an apologist, smell like an apologist, you are an apologist. Perhaps your west coast living has influenced you more than you know.

"Philosophy or style of play in a region often dictates much more than what you think. There have been years when an Alabama team played far more like a PAC-10 team than a traditional SEC team save Kentucly and Florida. NCState throws now, but where did they get their present offense? From a former BYU OC."

No one is arguing that the different regions tend to have different playing styles (although, as you point out, more and more conferences are mixing it up). Who cares where it comes from. Winning is really all that counts.

"As for the ACC historically, aside from FSU, there have been many times in the past 20 years when many of us writers thought the old core WAC members (now the MWC where BYU plays) were as good or better."

Who would that be? Exactly how many national championships have Colorado State, Wyoming, Air Force, UNLV, New Mexico, San Diego State, Utah, and BYU won? Come on, compare apples to apples. Sure there have been years when CSU or BYU was a good team, better than many of those in the ACC, but comparing select teams at the top of your conference with teams on the mid to bottom of ours is irrelevant.

"We aren't at CBS or ABC. We don't have a BCS budget to promote. We can be honest and to be honest, their kids who run 4.4 40's and stand 6'3" and weight 235 are just as real as yours or any one elses."

Let's be honest, a couple of kids having stellar stats do not make a conference. First you need a lot more of those kids on EACH team and a system that brings out their skill level. Please don't tell me that you think the MWC recruits are anywhere near the kids recruited by those in the power conferences. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy--the MWC is underrated, undertelevised, undereverything, so the major recruits (by and large) stay away. I don't say this as an insult, we at GT see our fair share going to the super-power schools within the power conferences. Hopefully, that can change.

"But the reality is, what every region has is storied tradition of one form or another and since the east tends to think of the country as anything in Texas, California and whatever is east of the Mississippi, a lot of good football gets forgotten or un noticed."

Reality is history and history is not up for debate. When people think of great college football teams, they think Notre Dame and Alabama (and GT
) because of their history. Who in the MWC has that kind of history?

"It's easy to assume or make the mistake of thinking that the size of a television market makes you better... it just gets your local team more national pub."

I'm sure there are good teams in the MWC, but they are on a different playing field. As many have discussed (even on this board), the non-BCS teams may be getting a raw deal. But history almost always validates that treatment. Look at how many non-BCS conference teams go undefeated and move up the national rankings to only go down in flames at the end of the season. And, by the way, the same Vegas odd makers that you think are so accurate, consistently pick the much-lower ranked BCS opponents to win and win handily. Do you think they have an agenda against the MWC? Or do they look at the objective characteristics of the teams?

"Look I love GT. I am a huge tech fan, but dissing BYU when you barely defeated AT HOME their worse team in 30 years just doesn't seem like a good idea. That's my take."

I'm not dissing BYU. I'm merely explaining what is reality. Don't shoot the messenger. If the MWC wants credibility, it has to do more than produce one or two teams every other year that can compete on a national level. Consistency. You can blame whoever and whatever you want, but it will always come down to the teams within the conference stepping up and winning. No one's going to help the MWC do it, least of all any of the BCS teams.

BTW, good teams sometimes barely win (and sometimes lose) games versus much worse teams. You should know that being a sports writer better than most.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top