Hawaii Warriors Football

We have already started to see what we are to expect from the conference realignment.  When Fresno State and Nevada left the WAC, the WAC was left with only six teams, and they had absolutely nowhere to look for new teams from the football championship division(FBS).  

If the WAC wants to continue being a conference in the football championship division, they must look at all of their options.  Assuming that they will not be able to steal any teams from the Mountain West or Conference USA, their only option will be to promote the better west coast football championship subdivision(FCS) teams.  That list includes: Cal Poly, Montana, Webber State, Montana State, Portland State, and Idaho State.  Giving them 12 teams and the option of having a conference title game.

That group of teams keeps the travel low for the conference, and gives you some natural rivalries. Also all of these programs are near the top of the FCS. 

As for when the Pac 10 makes an offer to Boise State and the Big 12 takes TCU,  the Mountain West could also look to promote teams from the FCS, but what is much more likely is that they will either attempt to take more teams from the WAC. I have no idea who they would take; however, the team that makes most sense is Hawaii. 

After bringing in Hawaii, they may still want to add one more team.  Now they could attempt to bring in the University of Texas El Paso, which will most likely work for both sides.  

In addition to the Big 12 adding TCU, they will probably look to bring in one more school.  The second team being added to the Big 12 will most likely be Houston.  Houston brings very solid football and basketball programs.

Losing Houston leaves Conference USA looking for one team to add. Since they have no other option but to promote a FCS team, Stephen F. Austin will get the call up.

Seeing that they need a conference championship game the Big East will have to look to bring in four more football programs.  Since they already have sixteen teams for basketball, they will look to bring those who have football into the league.  The one obvious team will be Villanova, who is a top FCS program.   As for the other three teams, they will most likely have to attempt to steal teams. and this whole process will just continue and continue.  

 That whole process will just continue and continue until we have very little identity left in each conference.  I think the realignments are inevitable, and will cause many of the better FCS programs to play with the big dogs.  

The promoting of FCS schools is only possible due to how many great athletes america is producing these days.  If you were to go look at the recruiting classes of the best FCS teams, you would find that they get really good players that slide through.  If we're having good to great players sliding through, I feel like we have an obligation to give them the opportunity to play at the highest collegiate level.

It was expected for the Hawaii Warriors to lose this game to the USC Trojans.  

You add in the fact that they were 0-6 against against the Trojans before the game even started would almost make anyone cringe to think the Warriors had a chance to beat the Trojans.  Guess what, the Warriors had their chance and they didn't take the bull by the horns in this game.

Let's just get the bad things that went on during the game out of the way first that cost the Warriors the game.  The defense was horrible.  Utterly horrible.  I saw this coming as I pointed out in my previous article that the biggest weakness to the Warriors defense was the run defense.  

I also pointed out that the Trojans were going to test and expose the Warriors run defense and boy was I proven right as the Trojans steamrolled from 246 rushing years. The key for the Warriors to winning the game didn't depend on the Warrior offense as they are able to pass the ball on any team.  

The Warriors didn't do much to force three and outs or turnovers.  When you play a team like the Trojans, one forced turnover isn't enough to put them out.  Due to the Trojans having the ability to move the chains on the ground, it made it easier on QB Matt Barkley to throw the ball against single coverage nearly all night as the Warriors struggled to stop the run with eight-to-nine men in the box for majority of the game.  

All it took for the Warriors to make Trojan QB Barkley's night a terrible one is to force him to beat them through the air, only if the running game was shut down.  They just couldn't get it done. 

This is what I believed gave the Warriors a shot at beating the Trojans, the passing attack of Bryant Moniz and the "pistol" run and shoot offense.  The Warriors pretty much beat up the hell out of the Trojans secondary.  There is no way to deny it.  The Warriors put up 459 yards through the air.  What impress me the most is the fact that the Warriors offense also put up 129 yards rushing on the ground.  That offensive total came out to 588 yards against a USC Trojan defense.  

The surprise of the evening was how well the offensive line for the Warriors were playing.  You also add into the fact that the often mobile Warrior QB Bryant Moniz got yardage on the ground if no one was open and often kept plays alive.  

All in all, the Warriors have nothing to be ashamed of.  

They gave USC everything they had and then some.  The final score was 49-36.  You consider all the talk of the Western Athletic Conference being weak, I believe that Lane Kiffin will think twice on ever believing Hawaii or any of the teams in the WAC are weak.  

The Warriors did well and I think they'll do great this season, especially preparing to spoil Boise State chances of going for a BCS Championship Game.  I'd love nothing more for the Warriors to send Nevada, Fresno State, and Boise State a lovely Hawaiian beat down as they make their way out of the WAC.  

GO WARRIORS!!!!

I'll say it.  

The Hawaii Warriors should and WILL beat the No. 14-ranked USC Trojans.  Don't ask me why.  I just have that feeling.  There are a couple of things working in favor of the Warriors, which is rare when you're considering the team that's playing them is the USC Trojans.  

The first thing is the coaching.  I believe that Greg McMackin and Lane Kiffin haven't been that successful as head coaches as of late; McMackin knows what he's getting out of his Warriors versus Kiffin who is in his first year as a USC head coach.  

Kiffin is still working out the "kinks" in installing his offense with a young QB running the show; defensive coordinator Monte Kiffin is still looking for the personnel to fit his Tampa-2 scheme.  

The new Hawaii offensive coordinator doesn't need any introduction, as he was a former QB in the Hawaii run-and-shoot offense.  He is more qualified for the job because he has experience in the offense.  

The battle of the Warriors offense going up against the Trojans defense will be very interesting.  The defense of the Trojans on the secondary level is very young and inexperienced.  That should work in the favor of the Warriors offense where they return an experienced group of wide receivers led by slotbacks Greg Salas and Kealoha Pilares.  

The X-factor in the Warriors offense against the Trojans defense will be the offensive line.  The Warriors have lost some linemen, but if there is one thing that'll help the Warriors it's the comfort in having a QB like Bryant Moniz who can scramble and gain yardage on the ground.

The USC Trojans will feature a strong ground-and-pound attack against a Warriors defense that proved to be very weak last year.  That's going to be the strength of the Trojans.

Here is a quick view of what the game plan will be for both teams.

USC will be relying on pressure against the Warrior offense to help its inexperienced secondary.  They will also rely on the running game to keep the high scoring offense of the Warriors on the sideline.  

The key for the Warriors to win is on offense.  If the O-line and Byrant Moniz will be able to keep the offense going, the Warriors won't be stopped in the passing game.  

Also, if the offense is able to keep scoring, it'll force the Trojans to abandon their running game in order to go score for score with the Warriors offense and the strength of the Warriors defense is the pass defense.  

With safeties Mana Silva and Spencer Smith leading the back-end, Lametrius Davis and Jeramy Bryant playing the CB position, the secondary will be strong against second-year Trojan QB Matt Barkley.  

I believe the Warriors will win as I don't believe the Trojans have a likely chance due to all the uncertainties facing them.  I will stay up for the Hawaii game as I would love for them to make a statement for the strength of the WAC against BCS conferences.  I'll BBQ and enjoy this game on ESPN, as I stay awake for the start of the game, all the way in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.  GO WARRIORS!

I love to educate, debate, analyze, problem solve, and reason when it comes to football in general.  When it comes to college football, there are sometimes far too many variables to consider when you look at what is a great team much less a great conference.  The myth that I do hate the most is the whole greatest conference foolishness.  When Boise State made the Fiesta Bowl twice and Hawaii made the Sugar Bowl, I've heard, like many, from all these ESPN analysts and such, that these teams from the WAC can't compete with the likes of Georgia, Oklahoma, or TCU. 

The reason for why they argue the WAC is a weak conference is because they don't play good competition.  What that sounds like, in my interpretation, is if you're not in the BCS conferences, your conference is weak.  That is the dumbest argument for some of these suppose "expert analysts" to come up with.  Does the BCS sign their paycheck?  C'mon now.

So the theory for Hawaii being undefeated in the WAC because of weak competition combined with a loss to Georgia, because they were superior, is valid.  But what do they say of Boise State's win against Oklahoma?  

If analysts want to argue that these teams have better recruits, who's to say that they'll end up any better than the recruits from "lesser conferences".  Last year BCS National Champion Alabama had an 11th ranked 2006 recruiting class by Rivals.com and yet won the big game over 10 other teams with better recruits.  Undefeated Boise State was ranked 70th in recruiting according to Rivals.com in 2006 and yet they beat up on BCS teams just fine.  There are a bunch of examples like this.

I find it utterly funny that these BCS conferences are the very ones trying to recruit teams from lesser conferences.  If the BCS wasn't running the show, conferences like the WAC would have been a stronger conference than the Pac-10.  People forget that the WAC had Arizona, Arizona State, BYU, Utah, Colorado State, and Air Force Academy amongst many other teams.  That's a pretty strong conference if you add in recent departing teams from the WAC like Boise State, Fresno State, and Nevada.

The only reason why these teams even consider leaving the WAC isn't because of the competition, but the money.  The BCS hogs all the cash and if you're one of the teams in the BCS and any team in your BCS conference goes to the major bowl games, your team and conference get loads of money.  You can have a terrible team in the BCS like Vanderbilt and Duke but if any other team gets to the bowl game, even the losing teams in the conference gets money.  Money in turns can help the Universities improve not only their sports, but also their academics to make their school more attractive to potential future students.  If the BCS wasn't here, conferences like the WAC would still be strong as we know it.

Getting away from the point, a good team is a good team regardless of what division they play in.  Boise State can hang with any team in the BCS conferences.  Fresno State would provide the ACC with more competition than half of the teams in that conference. Hawaii would give the Big East teams as hard a time, as not many of them face a pass happy team like the Warriors.  Nevada would give teams in the Big Ten some tough competition.

For all you analysts that say that teams from the WAC can't compete with suppose "stronger" conferences need to stop drinking that BCS kool-aid.  Give the conference some credit instead of bashing them because they don't have the historical football significance of the SEC or the ACC in the BCS.  History have no bearing on who's on the field and the WAC have proven more than enough times in the past that they can hang with the best of them.

The Hawaii Warriors have some things that can make them special this upcoming season. After a tough 2009 season that had shown many promises of a great start to the season, the Warriors faltered to a 6-7 record with many injuries.  I saw no excuse for the Warriors to not succeed last season despite the injuries.  Why?  

The WAC announced a moratorium on expansion recently. They will not be adding any new football members for now.  I am disappointed that the WAC did not choose to add any non-football members either.

I understand the logic of postponing a move to a larger football membership rather than trying to force such an expansion to occur today, but I am disappointed by the move, as it was apparently in part mandated by a lack of support from key member institutions, specifically Hawaii and Fresno. 

At least some boosters and employees at both schools imagine their invitation to the MWC is just around the corner: "It has to be, doesn't it?"

Delusions of Grandeur

I really like both schools, but expecting this is crazy. They have carried this delusion with them of favored status in the eyes of the MWC for years.

There is no reason to believe either school is ahead of Houston, Tulsa, or even SMU today in the eyes of the MWC leadership.

Now it appears the WAC is also gambling that if BYU is taken by the Big 12-2, the WAC will be able to cherry-pick what is left of the MWC. It isn't a ridiculous theory, but how likely is it really?

The assumption is that without BYU, the schools that make up the MWC would look around and realize they are in no better shape than the WAC schools and bail on the Mtn network. That assumes that unlike the WAC schools' leadership, the MWC schools' leadership is not delusional.

How likely is that?

The MWC has been chasing BCS status for years. For most football fans, that already puts the MWC schools' presidents' sanity in question. 

Is it really logical to assume they will suddenly stop and give up, retreating back to the WAC? 

Or is it far, far more likely that the MWC will grab Fresno and perhaps even Nevada, really putting the WAC in a bind, and then continue to chase its goal, leaving the WAC to rebuild with more FCS upgrades?

The moratorium is good PR but a bad strategy

A moratorium on WAC expansion may be an understandable short-term strategy, but I would argue it is at best a short-term strategy. It is useful in that it gets the media to stop talking about "how far the WAC has fallen," but that is about it.

It does take the focus off the fact that if the WAC had pressed UNT for an immediate in or out vote, UNT might have again turned down the WAC. UNT stated they wanted to have their program go through an assessment by an independent consultant (who, as it turns out, used to work for C-USA). That was viewed as a process that might take a few months and delay any decision by UNT.

Conferences generally require notification of departure for new conferences by mid- summer.

The Sun Belt would require notification of UNT leaving by July 1. The WAC probably wanted an answer in a similar time frame. UNT was just not going to hit that deadline. UNT was just unwilling to work in the window the WAC hoped.

It seems likely UNT would want to put their best foot forward for possible C-USA membership. There is also probably some desire to showcase New Mean Green Stadium and the optimal turnout numbers that it is likely to bring in its first season in UNT's push to achieve their publically stated primary goal of earning Conference USA membership. The stadium will open for the 2011 season.  

As a UNT fan who follows realignment and UNT fairly closely, I could totally see UNT moving up from the Sun Belt to the WAC. The statements by UNT's interim president express what seem to be a sincere desire to talk to any and all other conferences.

But on the same token, that president was part of the leadership that formed C-USA. That may be the very reason he was selected as the interim president. UNT is going to go for C-USA membership first. 

The other WAC candidates are all FCS members. Currently there is a moratorium on FCS to FBS upgrades that will be in place until 2011. If that moratorium is not extended and the rules are not modified, it looks like those upgrades will take a minimum of two years beyond that point.

Basically, if UNT wasn't going to immediately agree to join as team No. 9 until after the 2011 football season, the WAC had little reason not to impose a face-saving moratorium on football expansion to end media speculation (and conference bashing) for the time being.

But it doesn't change the WAC's current reality.

The WAC needs more FBS schools. They need split-division scheduling to cut travel costs that threaten New Mexico State, San Jose State, and hobble the competitiveness of UH and La Tech. And they need TV markets.

None of that happens if Fresno and Hawaii don't grow a pair and assume leadership of the conference. The other schools look to them for direction, but both schools refuse to shape conference policy and lead the conference to a brighter future.

Think about the WAC as a business

What if FBS football conferences were Honolulu-based construction companies?

There would be six very strong firms (representing the BCS conferences) building major hotels, one solid company (the MWC), two struggling companies with some good investor potential (C-USA and the WAC), and two companies that survive from job to job doing renovations (the MAC and Sun Belt).

If the WAC were this struggling Honolulu construction company with good potential, they would effectively be approaching investors (potential expansion candidates) and then in the same sentence telling those investors "but our two main investors are thinking of liquidating their stock and buying into our main competitor (the MWC)". 

How does that allow for WAC expansion? How can one realistically expect the best possible candidates to put their somewhat stable athletic programs at risk and buy into the WAC?

If the WAC was a boat floating down the Mississippi, Fresno and Hawaii would be two rednecks in the back taking turns blowing holes in the boat with their shotguns.

Really, it needs to stop.

Fresno State's failure to lead

For the last few years the WAC has been hamstrung by the Big Three's (Boise State, Fresno State, and UH) refusal to even pay lip service to ruling out the MWC and committing to the WAC.

This article is mostly aimed at UH because frankly, at this point, Fresno State is the WAC school in the driver's seat as far as MWC inclusion goes. Because of that, I don't think you can expect true leadership from Fresno State. 

If any school from the WAC will be admitted, it will be Fresno, as they have the best combination of a strong football program, reasonable travel, and a good market. It is hard to imagine Fresno State taking a true leadership position in the WAC and at least paying lip service to denying interest in the MWC.

That said, I think the WAC could ask for Fresno State to at least try to take more of an on-the-field leadership position a la Boise State and play a more engineered schedule like Boise has done in the past instead of Fresno State's old "anyone, anytime" scheduling philosophy.

A change in philosophy along those lines, turning 8-4 records into 10-2 to 12-0 records, would improve the perception of Fresno State to the MWC by increasing their value in BCS automatic qualifier conference computations.

This would also help the WAC by creating the perception of a very strong upper tier in the conference.

With no condemnation implied, that, and not actively campaigning against expansion, is likely as much leadership as can the MWC can ask or expect from Fresno State today.

UH is another story.

Hawaii's failure to lead

As someone who grew up on the Big Island, I have been following the happenings in the WAC with bated breath. 

Independence Lemmings

I was greatly disappointed to see talented and respected local editorialists like the Star-Advertiser's Ferd Lewis talk about Hawaii leaving the WAC to go independent like that would be the obvious optimal path forward for the school.

He recently tried to push the idea of UH becoming an FBS independent even after UH AD Jim Donovan told him flatly, "It (independence) is not an option for me as the WAC stands now." Donovan did at least throw Lewis and the independence folks a bone by going on to say, "...But if dramatic changes came, we'd have to look at all of our options and see what is best for the state, the school and the program."

Lewis took that response as a cue to not so subtly push the argument that UH should leave the WAC for independent FBS football status and Big West membership in all other sports, perhaps taking the interpretation that "dramatic changes" in the WAC meant large-scale expansion.

I can't guarantee that isn't what Donovan meant, but based on what I have gleaned from years of following realignment, I'd argue Donovan probably meant the more innocuous interpretation of "if the WAC collapses, we might look at independence." ADs tend not to draw those kinds of lines in the sand.

The idea is that Hawaii would rejoin the Big West for all other sports, something that might not be a given either. The Big West is comprised of California public schools. California has a lot of budget issues.

When posed with this scenario in preparation for Lewis' article, Big West Commissioner Dennis Farrell told Lewis the Big West has a moratorium on expansion, and he also added that the Big West hadn't added anyone since 2001-2002. He did go on to say, "Hawaii certainly does have a great history with the Big West with their women's programs and we have a great affinity for their program and people over the years," but it still seemed like a friendly "no thank you."

Adding travel to Hawaii is not something any conference wants to do and at budgets in the non-BCS AQ FBS level and below is something most schools in those conferences aren't certain they can bear.

Lewis did mention the idea of UH subsidizing travel for Big West schools. One gets the feeling that may have been discussed with Farrell off the record.  

UH does not have to do that in the WAC. Maybe that can get UH back into the Big West, but would higher TV payouts exceed those new costs to help the bottom line? It is hard to assume that is correct logic.

One cannot totally blame writers like Lewis or UH fans for embracing this idea. It is an idea that has been around for a while and has been embraced by key employees of the athletic department, like influential former football coach June Jones.

Jones recently visited the islands and took the opportunity to throw a little more gas on the independence fire.

"I've talked about independence for 10 years. There's a lot of interest in that TV slot, the last game. Hawaii has a unique slot, and FOX, ESPN, Comcast, a lot of people are looking for programming. I've thought being independent is the direction to go toward for a long time, with the rest of the sports in the Big West..."

As almost an afterthought Jones did casually end the quote with a "don't blame me if it blows up in your faces disclaimer": "...Of course you're taking a chance with scheduling. You just never know how it will work out, but it's worth really taking a good look at."

I know the Big West is a fairly competitive conference for some sports. It still looks a lot like selling out your other programs to go all in on a gamble that may not work to improve your football program.

I am not really surprised a football coach would strongly push that or that an AD would apparently be on the opposite side of that argument. 

UH has the most to lose if the WAC collapses

The real truth is that Hawaii has the most to lose of all the WAC schools if the WAC fails. The conference assures them they will have a certain number of home games against FBS opponents each year that they don't have to bribe anyone to land.

If the WAC goes away, barring UH going on a 25-1 or better run over the next two years and becoming another Boise State-level factor in the BCS AQ calculations for this BCS evaluation interval, Hawaii isn't going to get a MWC offer. 

There are reasons Hawaii was left behind when the gang of five left the WAC. Travel was expensive, and Hawaii owns a tiny DMA. Those factors are still in place.

A much more likely scenario if Hawaii was suddenly without the WAC is that Hawaii will have to pay ALL of their opponents to come to play Hawaii. UH and the state doesn't have the money for that.

The thought is that ESPN will make up that money by unloading fat cash on UH to land late night games. While in general the late night game argument is a strong potential argument for Hawaii, considering the potential ratings and the limited schedule, big payouts seem unlikely.

It seems a very risky move.

Additionally, just talking about it probably destabilizes the WAC a bit more. One has to think the comments from pie in the sky Hawaii fans in response to this article have to piss off fans and employees of their conference mates.

(Again, to be fair to the people at UH, AD Donovan obviously tried to shut the door on this argument, but Lewis wrote the article anyway, apparently trying to gin up support for this possibly reckless maneuver. That said, this thought clearly has advocates among current and past employees of the UH athletic department. Former coach June Jones was—and is—an advocate of this approach, and it seems likely others in the athletic department probably have steered Lewis in this direction over the years.)

UH and its fans need to be advocating the path that allows the WAC to climb out of its slow erosion. Independence should be a last resort, as it will always have the current viability. Building up the WAC means adding markets and building conference loyalty through various means.

The WAC without Boise is in a situation they haven't been in for years. Logically, all mathematical chance of them being in the hunt for a BCS slot is gone.

That isn't a sad thing. That gives the WAC the freedom to chase big markets even if that means adding FCS schools without fear of a loss of short-term stature. The MWC doesn't have the freedom to do that.

The lessons of UH's past failures to lead

UH needs to realize they are the University of Texas of this conference.

Like UT and the Big 12, UH has the ability to make this conference. But that alone is not enough; UH also needs to realize they have been breaking the WAC for almost a decade.

UH didn't swear its allegiance to the WAC and the 2003 "Benson Plan," and as such, members drifted from the WAC to CUSA rather than from CUSA to the WAC.

Karl Benson was working on a deal to pull Houston, Tulane, and possibly TCU from CUSA to form a 12-member, two-division WAC. It would have had nice markets and cost-saving split-division travel.

His efforts required the WAC to show solidarity to impress the potential candidates.

UH was unwilling to write off their hopes of MWC membership and as such would not commit to the WAC. More to the point, they wouldn't even pay lip service to committing to the WAC. With UH leading the way, SMU and Nevada also voted against committing to the WAC.

There was a perception that if UH had gotten on board, Benson would have been able to land all 10 votes. If that occurred, the WAC had a good shot of landing Houston and Tulane to get to a split-division 12-team WAC.

The vote failed, sending the message that the WAC was not stable, thwarting the desires of the WAC's central privates and Houston and Tulane to be part of a central division of the WAC.

Shortly thereafter, SMU, Tulsa, and Rice moved to CUSA. A little after that, UTEP left for CUSA too. Now Benson's proposed central division is the CUSA West.

Since then Benson has not been able to secure commitments to the conference as UH, Fresno, and Boise have all lusted for MWC inclusion.

It all started because UH refused to lead.

UH needs to get their house in order

Institutionally, UH needs to get rid of the termites in it's house.

The powers that be at UH need to stress to all members of the athletic department the importance of vocalizing support for the WAC on and off the record.  Talking down the WAC only minimizes local support for continuing WAC membership and creates media fodder for WAC detractors.

It reduces the WAC's chances of success.

UH only has a few options.  With the loss of Boise, UH is on to Plan B - maximize the WAC.  Plan C is probably go independent for football and agree to pay for opponents' travel to join the Big West.  If Plan C fails and there is a Plan D, that plan may be dropping football.

To jump from Plan A to plan C knowing that it would likely kill the WAC is just crazy.

Everyone in UH's athletic department needs to be strong WAC advocates on or off the record. 

And the AD needs to politely ask June Jones to shut his trap on the subject. 

If athletic department employees can't bring themselves to do it for the betterment of the WAC, the University. and the state, one would have to think they could do it to save their jobs and their co-workers' jobs.  Afterall if they move to plan C and it fails, the athletic department will have to contract.  Athletic department employees may be forced to move out of state to continue their careers.

It is time to grow up and lead

Is the WAC a great conference? No.

Is it a shadow of its former self? Yes.

But it doesn't have to stay that way.

Right now the WAC has next to no native TV markets of note. To generate TV revenue, the WAC is totally reliant on ESPN turning one of their schools into a national curiosity like ESPN did with Boise State.

Adding big TV markets could change that equation. The lead the MWC has over the WAC in TV revenue generation is not that substantial. New TV revenue could fuel league-wide competitiveness.

The MWC is very much limited by who they can rob from the WAC and still improve their BCS AQ math, so the WAC has a lot of leeway here. 

The WAC could target schools like Sacramento State or UNT that offer good TV potential but might in the short term max out as a seven- or eight-win team in the WAC. The WAC could rest comfortably knowing the MWC will be very limited with what actions they can take in response to those kinds of moves.

But in order for that to occur, the leaders in the WAC have to actually lead for once.

They have to show some solidarity. They have to bless expansion to add TV markets and reduce travel costs by creating divisional play, even if that means confirming a short-term loss of stature. 

The WAC may not be able to afford the loss of a UH or Fresno State, but at eight members, they also cannot afford the loss of a New Mexico State or San Jose State to a potential downgrade over travel and attendance reasons.

For once, the leaders of the WAC have to have Karl Benson's back and not just use it as a place to store their knives.

I am not a Utah Utes hater.  Really, I'm not.

My parents live in Utah, and in my travels to Utah I have found the people to be immensely friendly and decent people.  I wish all residents of Utah the very best in life.  Truly.

I also think Utah should be in a BCS conference yesterday, along with BYU. 

So why am I against Utah getting an invitation to the Pac-10? 

Well lets start by turning that argument around.  What does Utah bring to the table?

I will concede right off the top that Utah has a well run athletic program featuring strong teams in both money sports and can recruit well enough in the region to probably be top-25 competitive in the Pac-10.

The rest of the picture is pretty ugly though.

I do not see Utah as a program likely to get an influx of top California talent by joining the Pac-10.  I think ideally a 12th Pac-10 team should be competitive today with the rank and file of the Pac-10 (Utah succeeds here).  I think that team should be able to ramp up their quality and depth of talent through tapping California recruits allowing them to have a shot at running the table tomorrow against the greater depth of talent in the Pac-10.  I don't see this happening with Utah.  In fact, I can see their talent level falling off considerably if they leave BYU behind to a non-BCS fate.

(To be fair, this is my impression.  Utah does have a number of Californians on their roster today, but my take is that splitting the state's talent with BYU as they do, they have to try to get talent where they can.  California is a nearby state with tons of untapped 2 star talent who would love a scholarship somewhere.  Certainly any school will land a 3 start talent or better from time to time, but I question whether the Utes are pulling top talents from California or whether they are just mostly filling out the back end of their roster with guys.  Even if they are doing better in that regard toady than I credit them, will they in the Pac-12?  Can they land Pac-10 quality from California vs. a Washington, Oregon, or Colorado?  I question that.  I think you will see a lot of the higher end Californian talent that enjoy the mountains and mountain sports going to the culturally more compatible University of Colorado.)

The Pac-10 currently has (with Colorado) 11 state flagships, second schools, and elite private schools from states with a combined 59 million people.  Utah offers the Salt Lake City market...which is actually all of Utah.  Only 2.8 Million people in Utah, and the Utes are the No. 2 school in the state.

Financially it appears to be a questionable move.

Let's say the Pac-10's new target is attempting to match the SEC's $17 million payout per school by starting a network, or more likely as the number of members is smaller now, trying to match the ACC's $13 million per school per year payout as a content provider for a network.

First, why is there any reason to believe a network is going to give $13 million per year for Utes games?  Secondly, why is there any reason to believe adding another mountain time zone team is going to help the Pac-10's time zone problem, allowing their other teams to earn $13 million TV payouts?

Utah does nothing to fix the Pac-10's time zone issues.

(Some of you may be unfamiliar with the Pac-10's time zone problem. If the Pac-10 starts games in the evening to draw the best crowds, the games start at 9 or 10 in the Eastern Time zone—where two thirds of Americans live.  If they start them early to have a shot at that TV audience, they lose gate attendance to outdoor activities, family outings, and the like. 

Additionally, they are located as far away from the Each Coast as they could possibly be, so the number of Pac-10 fans in the eastern time zone is probably less than any other BCS conference. They are at a unique disadvantage among BCS conferences in revenue generation in the two main revenue sports).

The measurables imply that the payout for a Pac-10 championship game would likely get consumed by giving Utah a TV share.  If that's the case, then in no uncertain terms the Pac-10 should not invite Utah.

Consider the potential downside.

The Mountain West Conference might lose out on a BCS bid if they lose Utah.  That's a very real possibility. This could be a hotly contested move as there doesn't appear to be an inclination from the Big 12 to add BYU.

Does the Pac-10 really want to go through the same kind of squabbling they just endured in Texas to add a school that may not add the kind of value a Pac-10 member should? 

Plus, how does adding Utah work in terms of the conference?  A plan reportedly being considered is to put the Northern schools in the same division with Utah and Colorado.

This is an insane squandering of resources.

All of those schools (with the previously mentioned exception of Utah) are at least partially reliant on California recruiting to play at a somewhat high Pac-10 level.  The two schools staying with the California schools in this scenario (Arizona State and Arizona) haven't shown any consistent ability to recruit California at a level that allows them to compete for titles with any consistency.

This would likely lead to a total collapse of the northern division—Utah excepted—and a partial collapse of the southern division, hurting future TV negotiations.  Another division scenario that was allegedly promised to Colorado is to put Colorado in a mountain division with both LA schools .  While this is a little better, it still cuts the recruiting potential of all Pac-10 schools.

Maximizing resources.

For the Pac-10 to really work, out of state fallen powers Washington and Colorado as well as current semi-powers Oregon and Oregon State have to have good regular access to Northern and Southern California recruits.

This suggests two courses of action.

1) Stay at 11 and play as many conference games as possible.

If you think about it, this is an attractive option and may be the Pac-10's best solution. 

In football terms, it would maximize conference value to play 10 conference games, if the rules allow. (I am unclear on this.  They clearly allow nine, so at least nine in-conference games should be scheduled each year).

After all, replacing an OOC game versus, say, Wyoming or Nevada, with a Pac-10 opponent—even Washington State—is revenue positive and a saleable TV gain.

In basketball, where 11 teams would create difficult scheduling, a team could always be added as a single sport associate member—perhaps Utah Valley University, Weber State, or the University of Denver—to offer a travel partner for Colorado. 

(While none of these schools may be appealing adds to Pac-10 fans, remember these are associate members and wouldn't enjoy full membership privileges.  The Pac-10 has a number of single sport associate members, most with sub-caliber academics today.  This would only be different in that it would be in a revenue sport).

2) Invite a peer school that offers some added money-making potential as team 12.

Adding Utah is a surrender to small time thinking; The upside is minuscule.

I have three teams that I would submit as alternate 12th members over Utah.  None of them are US News Tier One schools  (a ranking system that focuses on undergraduate education, peer reviews, and high school GPAs and test scores), but then again Utah barely hits that criteria themselves.

(Utah tied for 126th on their list of doctorate granting national universities with a score of 34 out of 100.  The cut off point for tier one were schools tied for 128th with a score of 33).

Every doctorate granting national university that scored 32 or less was lumped in as "Tier Three" or "Tier Four" (US News doesn't believe in a "Tier Two" ranking, so all schools in the second quarter of their "national university" rankings—like Utah—receive "Tier One" classifications).

Two of the three schools hold their own with Utah as a research university.  Utah did $248 million in research in 2006 (which puts them ahead of Pac-10 research butt draggers Arizona State, Oregon, Oregon State, and Washington State). 

1) Hawaii

I think Hawaii is the smartest play for a 12th Pac-10 school.

Why Hawaii?

For a number of reasons.

Geography. Hawaii is a perfect western counterbalance to Colorado in the east.  Why is this important?  Because it allows for a very fan-digestible alternating biannual membership shift strategy to manage division play in the revenue sports.

What? An unforced "zipper approach" to conference division.

Let me explain.  Lets say you start off 2012 with Hawaii and Colorado as conference poles.  All the other teams are split up logically to allow the best chance of a dominant  team to emerge (Washington and Colorado in opposite divisions than USC for example), a balancing of the state flagships in each division, and to allow all teams at least one annual California game (a biannual away game in the Bay Area and a biannual away game in Los Angeles) to protect their California recruiting.

so...

West
Hawaii
USC
ASU
Stanford
Oregon
Washington State

East
Colorado
UCLA
Arizona
Cal
Oregon State
Washington

In two years you swap the other five schools, so Colorado plays the USC group in division.  This protects the rivalries that exist that make the Pac-10 valuable and the hub system highlights the strength of your legacy conference pairings.

(The league could always play non-revenue sports with straight geographic divisions to save a few more pennies).

In addition, I would recommend playing four (or more, if allowed) out of division games as well.  Echoing pro football, these would act as tie-breakers in case team's finish with the same in division record. 

This allows teams to play most of the Pac-10 every year and everyone plays their in-state rival.

Standard 12-team, two division conferences arranged by geography hurt conferences by killing money-making rivalries.  This strategy would address that problem until a later, larger expansion takes place.

By having a western team and and eastern team this makes total sense to Pac-10 (and national) fans.  It won't be a ridiculous mess that fans sneer upon as contrived and "Mickey Mouse", like the ACC's "zippered" divisions.

Recruiting. Being able to guarantee a recruit a trip to Hawaii at least once in his career would give the Pac-10 a little edge versus schools in other BCS conferences. Colorado would travel to Hawaii biannually in rivalry week, creating even more of a hook for recruiting and helping to restore Colorado as a national power.  Hawaii would draw a lot of California talent.  No doubt about it.  The place is paradise with surfing, diving, hiking, as well as a potent high flying offense.  Hawaii in the Pac-10 would pull Pac-10 level talent.   Just like Colorado, it's very easy to imagine Hawaii showing dramatic improvement in their talent level in the Pac-10.

Hawaii's on-the-field potential. Hawaii pulls talent from California already, just like Colorado and Utah, but even more so.  Hawaii has 29 Californians on their current roster.  Hawaii is already competitive with low end Pac-10 teams.  They have a recent BCS Bowl trip on their resume. (Sadly a very bad matchup against a Georgia team that had ridiculous depth of quality defensive talent for a even a top SEC team.  The run and shoot is all about tiring out a secondary and forcing less comptent defensive backs on the field for easy scores as the games progress.   That was not happening against Georgia.)  The Hawaii home field advantage is one of the best in the country and could easily make Hawaii a regular near the top of the Pac-10 standings.

Attendance.  Hawaiians worship the Pac-10, they really do.  They drew 42,000 to watch Washington State two years ago, and they drew 50,000 for Washington the year before. Those were not great Pac-10 teams and Hawaiian fans ate them up. I grew up in Hawaii and I can assure you everyone in the Islands would walk on broken glass if it meant the Warriors could join the Pac-10.  Hawaiians love USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Washington, Oregon, and all the rest. 

That would be a far cry from conservative Utah where the next sentence would be "Where's BYU's invite?" followed by accusations of religious discrimination or possibly lawsuits for hurting the MWC's BCS argument due to...wait for it... long standing religious discrimination against BYU and the LDS Church.  Heck, Utah's attendance could actually substantially decrease in the Pac-10 over a Mormon Utes fan pushback.  That wouldn't happen with Hawaii.

Time Zones. While Utah is a time zone neutral, Hawaii is actually a time zone positive. It is immensely counter-intuitive, but that crappy midnight starting Hawaii evening game has no competition on TV.  ESPN kinda likes Hawaii for this reason - live football content in the middle of the night, with no competition.  Adding Hawaii gives the Pac-10 a chance to play an early afternoon game in Colorado or Arizona—admittedly not ideal—a prime time game in the pacific time zone and then a night game in Hawaii.  It offers a triple header at the cost of one conference slot.

Travel.  While travel is expensive, what fan doesn't want to take a trip to Hawaii every four years to see his team play?  Additionally, Hawaii is used to covering all or part of visiting teams' travel.  If that was a condition of their inclusion and they were still getting a $13 million TV  check, I'm sure they would agree it's a fair price for inclusion.

Market.  While the Hawaii market is even less media relevant than Salt Lake, remember there is a very high number of Asians, Samoans, and Pacific Islanders who live there.  It's very easy to imagine the Pac-10 being broadcast across the Pacific, in Asia, New Zealand, and Australia in the future if they add Hawaii. (Hawaii actually has an Australian football player on their roster today).  

Hawaii is Asia's gateway to the US and the hub of the Pacific.  The Pac-10 could evolve into the world's american football conference.  It would be a very small investment for a very, very large potential return in terms of merchandise sales.  Utah does not offer anything like this potential.

Public relations.  The Pac-10 has taken a PR beating over the attempted raid of UT, OU, and A&M.  Reports that the move was eventually taken down by conglomeration of people, many of whom reportedly had no vested interest in any of the schools involved or sports in general suggests those people didn't understand the limited options to address the financial issues facing the Pac-10. These well-meaning meddlers see the Pac-10 as a predatory conference.  Adding Utah after a battle with the state and the LDS Church won't help that perception and in fact could get those people involved again, creating the potential for another blockage of Pac-10 efforts.

Adding a school like Hawaii sends an entirely different message.  The perception from many is that Hawaii doesn't merit the slot due to poor academics, market size, and that the state and university are both too poor.  The addition of a poor school from a primarily non-white state where all of the populace welcomes the offer is a much better PR move for the Pac-10 than ripping the Utes away from BYU.

Research.  Hawaii did $249 million in research in 2006, just a little better than Utah.  While geology departments and paleontologists at Pac-10 schools would find research dollars in Utah's inclusion, I suspect far more research dollars could be generated by Hawaii's inclusion. 

They have the potential of being a research revenue magnet for the Pac-10.  Most fans don't know this, but research dollars dwarf athletic dollars.  (UCLA finished third in the nation in total research dollars in 2006 with $823 million; UT lead the nation in athletic dollars with a mere $138 million last year.)  

Hawaii offers lots of natural reasons to do cooperative research with Pac-10 schools. Hawaii has species of animals and plants that only exist on the islands.  The conditions on the islands have long made it an idea location for astronomers. Weather and oceanographic studies are natural avenues.  Solar technology development research would be sensible as could studies of harnassing volcanic activity.  There is plenty of Japanese business investment suggesting the potential for large amounts of private research dollars. Plus...The President is from Hawaii.  That never hurts.

Hawaii may not be the grand slam adding UT would have been, but adding Hawaii has the chance to be a financially ridiculous home run for the Pac-10. 

Utah is more of a bunt for a single.

2) New Mexico

While more of a 13th school really, they are a pretty decent candidate in their own right.

Geography. If the ultimate goal is to eventually add Texas' 24.7 million residents and their TVs, UNM makes a ton more sense than Utah.  You could add the Lobos now and in five to 10 years when the Big 12 implodes over jealousy over UT's $45-50 million combined TV revenue, the Pac-10 will seem a lot less frightening and alien to Texans.  The geography is poor in the short term.  A zippered divisional setup would appear just as awkward and forced to the fans as with Utah.

Recruiting and on-the- field competitiveness. UNM may be able to pull some extra recruits out of Texas by being in a higher profile conference, but really their value won't be tapped until the Pac-10 has some Texas schools in the conference with the Lobos.

Attendance.  Nothing to write home about, but they do have a large city with no pro competition.  The conditions are there where they COULD draw a lot better in a better conference, but I think that would be tied to better talent and stadium upgrades.  They have a very strongly supported basketball program and would make a contribution there.

Time zone.  Peer to Utah; time zone neutral.

Travel.  Distant but not horrid for the West Coast.

Markets.  There are two million people in New Mexico, but there's also El Paso/Jaurez (2.3 million people) just south of the New Mexico border.  A Pac-10 UNM might draw strong viewership in that area and could be a key to opening the door to Pac-10 broadcasts in Mexico.

Research. At $181 million in 2006, UNM trails Utah but does a decent amount of research.  Although they are a rival of Arizona, a UNM addition would be all about setting the Pac-10 up for another shot at the Texas Market.

3) Texas Tech

In order for the Pac-10 to be able to match SEC-type payments as a content provider, they likely have to have good central division sites to broadcast games to the eastern time zone.   In order to land Big 10-type payments as a network owner, they likely have to secure a very large number of viewers.  The surest way to do these things is to add UT. 

As the article linked above stated, there appears to be a near illuminati massed against the Pac-10 adding UT at this time as it would trigger a number of conference shifts. 

The Pac-10 could offer Missouri in an attempt to totally destabilize the Big 12 and skunk that TV deal, but that probably wouldn't work out for the Pac-10 in the environment that exists today.

The next best step to achieve that ultimate central time zone goal, believe it or not, may be adding Texas Tech.

I would never have recommended offering Tech prior to UT signing with the Pac-10, but now that the deal has collapsed it might be time to do just that.

Of all the Texas schools, Tech had the most to gain in the short term by joining the Pac-10.  They are trying to become the state's third public "Tier One Research University" (different from the US News "Tier One") and they need to get up to $100 million in annual research to reach that goal.  They are $49 million short in annual research dollars. 

Considering how hard Tech is pushing on that front, being part of a conference that really pushes to secure research dollars could give Tech a shortcut to that goal.  Being the third public in Texas behind A&M and UT to secure that designation would give Tech something of real substance academically to build on.

That is something Tech fans understand.

Of all the schools in the failed move, Tech and Oklahoma State fans are the most disappointed because they know it would have been a great move for their universities ...and they also know they may get left behind next time.

OSU likely can't move to the Pac-10 without OU and OU doesn't want to move without UT. (OSU also provides a little less that is sellable to Pac-10 membership).

Tech on the other hand could be allowed to move by UT and A&M because of Texas politics regarding the state's dearth of "Tier One Research Universities," because neither one wants to be shackled to Tech as they feel they are in the Big 12, and because, frankly, the Red Raiders are replaceable.

Tech offers West Texas DMAs (an area UT and A&M combine to already offer) and has their largest alumni base in DFW (an area OU, UT, and A&M fan bases combine to already offer).

The loss of Tech is not going to cut any of the remaining Big 12 schools' TV payouts.

If handled deftly, adding Tech could set up the Pac-10 perfectly for landing UT & A&M in the future.

I would see if there is interest by Tech officials (off the record) in going it alone in the Pac-10 for a few years.  Perhaps a call to Texas Tech System Chancellor Kent Hance would be in order.

If there is, I would call UT's President and have a very frank but friendly discussion with him.  If the Pac-10 were to take Tech, that would potentially open a slot that Arkansas (arguably UT's second biggest rival behind OU) could fill.  With Arkansas bringing a new market in, the TV value of the Big 12 contract could be amended to pay Arkansas at a level equal to their SEC share or more and potentially pay the big 3 slightly more.

(Remember when Arkansas joined the SEC, they felt UT would be right behind them.  Deloss Dodds had pushed for SEC inclusion and then A&M had tried to force their way in via the state legislature.  At that point UT's president and the academics at the school reached the conclusion that the SEC was academically insufficient for UT and since that leaked to the fans, that has pretty much been the stance of UT administrators and fans ever since.  It is a hard condemnation to step back from.)

Arkansas will draw in a ton more money and travelling fans playing UT, A&M, OU, OSU, Missouri, Kansas State, and Kansas than they do in the SEC. 

Arkansas has not been a consistent national power and title contender since they lost their in-conference exposure to top Texas recruits.  Arkansas is just not making up the talent difference trying to recruit from SEC territory.  They are still an outsider.

It is telling that their ex-coach is more successful at Mississippi - a longtime SEC doormat than he was at Arkansas.

Stealing Arkansas would send a very clear message to football watching grunts that in football terms the SEC may be a notch below the Big 12-2 as the football king -kicking the legs out from under A&M's SEC argument and reaffirming that UT drives the UT/A&M car.

In exchange for this PR gift to UT and the membership of the Big 12-2, The Pac-10 should ask UT to loudly publicly support the move, UT to commit to continue to play Tech OOC, and for UT to privately and publicly push Big 12 members A&M, OU, Arkansas, and Oklahoma State to continue to schedule tech regularly out of conference, protecting Tech from a possible attendance collapse.

Why does that help the Pac-10?  Well for a number of reasons. 

If presented by a skilled PR man, it can be sold in Texas as the Pac-10 very benevolently coming to the rescue of poor Tech in their Tier One hunt as Tech was promised membership and then the Texas big wigs ripped it away. 

Tech has the potential to show improvement quickly.  They have been very diligently pumping money in to improve their academics for over 2 decades.  As driven as they are about research today, they can likely quickly achieve that "Tier 1/Research University" status (and perhaps even squeak into the US News " Tier One" status if Tech also raised their entrance scores) in the Pac-10. 

Texans would very clearly see the value Pac-10 membership brings.

Additionally that would make the expansion where the conference consumes a chunk of the Big 12-2 - including a few lesser academic schools in order to land UT - far less of an academic black eye for the Pac-10.

It would allow a Tech vs. USC or UCLA showcase game each year in Dallas.  Tech drew 70K+ in Dallas to play Baylor.  One would have to think they could sell at least that many tickets to see either LA school on an annual basis.

Tech becoming the state's third public "research university" could create a perception that Tech would be "narrowing the academic gap" on A&M by being in the Pac-10, which would break down a lot of Aggie resistance to the idea of the Pac-10.

It can break down the idea of the Pac-10 as some harmful distant element that lead A&M to take the actions that played so much of a role in eventually skunking this deal.

It would give the Pac-10 a large Texas public school in conference who could have representatives pushing for UT and A&M to join them, rather than no advocate and the much smaller private Baylor attempting to pull UT and A&M away.

When the Big 12-2 does implode, the Pac-10 would be perfectly situated to pick up the pieces. Moreover, they would have maximized the value of the schools to be added, turned those schools away from the SEC, weeded off a little of Baylor's leverage in state, and built Texan support for the idea.

Now lets get into the brass tacks.

Geography.  Travel would be hard using the hub alignment.  It would confirm all of the scary scenarios that have been thrown out recently and as such I don't think it would be wise to use it with Tech in the conference.  On the positive side Tech does give you a platform to start Pac-10 evening games that are timed right for East Coast audiences.  That is a big value gain as it gives the Pac-10 a good platform from which to sell the national name brands of the Pac-10 - Stanford, USC, UCLA, and Washington to the east coast in a near capacity prime time game.

Recruiting. Tech is not likely to do any better recruiting in the Pac-10.

On-the-field competitiveness. Tech is almost always a little above .500 and a bowl team.  They may drop off a bit, but that general level of competitiveness probably doesn't change in the Pac-10.

Attendance. Tech has averaged about 50,000 fans per game for the last decade in spite of being an outlier in the Big 12.  If Tech is able to play schools like UT, A&M, OU, and OSU out of conference, it is very possible their attendance will actually go up.  If they can't, it will likely drop a good deal.

Time Zones. As mentioned above, Tech provides a positive time zone gain.

Travel.  Travel would be rough as a distant outlier in a conference with too few members to be split sensibly.

Market. Tech's native DMA is not significant, but their largest alumni base is in Dallas/ Fort Worth, a DMA with over 6 Million residents.  As Tech students follow football in great proportions, that alumni base, combined with Pac-10 fans would provide the Pac-10 media relevance in DFW.

Public Relations.  This could be a public relations grand slam, greasing the way for a future UT & A&M add;  This could also be a PR nightmare.  It all depends on the skill of the people in charge.

Research.  Tech is the worst research candidate of the lot.  Tech's research total rivals Oregon's - the worst in the Pac-10 by far in that regard - but the Red Raiders might very well be the most driven school to increase their research of all of the Pac-10's options.  In the Pac-10 that could be a very positive influence on the conference's research ass draggers.

Expansion or not,  the Pac 10 should be OK.

Considering the way the Big 12 got a home run TV deal, due to what may have been something along the lines of collusion with the networks—if not intimidation of the networks—I think the Pac-10 will find negotiating their next TV deal a lot easier than it looked 6 months ago—after all, I am sure none of the networks that foamed at the mouth over the implosion of the Big 12 want the Pac-10 inviting Missouri...

It likely won't be a Big 12 or SEC level, but given their time zone issues, I think the Pac-10 would be OK with a deal that pays teams in the ACC level at this point. That should be achievable.

 Last Season, Hawaii loss or got smashed by teams that ran the ball. All except for Navy, which we won. My question is, will things change this year? 

 Hawaii got pounded on the ground for a total of 2,624 yards and 33 touchdowns. Scoring just 37 TD Offensively last season, no wonder we had a losing record. Going against a team like Hawaii, everyone knows time management is a key. The offense is capable of scoring very quickly, so the fewer touches the offense gets, the better chance the other team has to stay close or win. We got pounded by Wisconsin for 301yd and 7TD, Navy 248yd and 2TD..Yes, these 2 schools are traditional running teams, so lets look what teams from the WAC did: Nevada- 312yd 2TD, Boise- 193yd 1TD, Idaho- 194yd 4TD, Fresno- 277yd 4TD, Louisiana Tech- 352yd 3TD. Its a trend that WAC teams are running on us because it seems we cant stop it. Will it change this year? 

 This years defensive team looks good on paper, and should be good if they can stay healthy. DE Paipai Falemalu, Elliott Purcell, Liko Satele all had playing time last season and The Advertiser is projecting that Charleston Southern transfer Kamalu Umu will be starting opposite of Paipai Falemalu. DT also has a good rotation with Vaughn Meatoga, Haku Correa, Geordon Hanohano and Kanilea Tuipulotu who has returned to the islands and was a beast on the Kahuku DL. With Blaze Soares leaving a new face needs to be made in the LB department. Last season Corey Paredes started and Brashton Satele is coming back for another year, so only strong-side LB is up for competition. Brashton is a unique athlete standing at 6'1 246lbs and running a 4.59/4.6 40yd time at UH Pro Day, he should be a force if he stays healthy. Davis, Bryant, Spencer and Silva should be improved and  solidify the secondary. We know some of them can rush the passer, but can they stop the run? 

In less than 5 months, we will find out. And what better competition to prove it against, than the USC Trojans. Do you think the Warriors will be able to do it?

HAWAII 34 Utah St. (-2.0) 32

Hawaii has averaged 6.7 yards per play this season while allowing 6.2 yppl, yet the Warriors have been out-scored by an average of 21.5 to 32.9 due to turnovers (-1.4 per game), poor special teams, and the inability to score when they get close to the goal line (just 3.4 points per trip inside the 20 yard line).

Hawaii is generally going to throw more interceptions than an average team because they throw the ball so often, but their 1.6 offensive fumbles per game is just random bad luck (they had 7 in the first 2 games and just 6 in the last 6).

Special teams may not be as much of a problem against a Louisiana Tech team that is even worse in special teams and scoring in the red zone may also not be a problem against a Utah State defense that has given up 5.9 points per red zone trip by their opponents (21 TD's and 4 FG's in 27 RZ opportunities), which is very high.

Hawaii isn't as good offensively with Bryant Moniz at quarterback, as Moniz has averaged his 6.4 yards per pass play against teams that would allow 6.7 yppp to an average quarterback while injured starter Greg Alexander was averaging an incredible 8.5 yppp in the first 4 games of the season before getting injured (against teams that would allow 6.7 yppp). Utah State's defense has trouble defending the pass (7.2 yppp allowed to teams that would average just 5.9 yppp against an average team), which is ideal for Hawaii's pass-heavy attack and the Warriors should score more often when they're knocking on the door.

Utah State's better than average offense (5.7 yards per play against teams that would allow 5.5 yppl to an average team) should also perform well against a Hawaii defense that rates at 0.8 yppl worse than average. However, my math model projects Hawaii to have a 480 yards to 451 yards advantage in this game.

Utah State is projected to have a 1.0 turnover advantage and my model would favor Hawaii by 2 points given each team scores as efficiently as expected given the stats. However, the current line of Utah State by 2 1/2 would be correct if Hawaii continues to struggle in the red zone, although I don't think that will be the case.

I think a line of pick is a fair line and Utah State applies to a negative 12-48-1 ATS subset of a 63-142-3 ATS situation that is based on last week's close loss to Fresno State, which could prove to be disheartening to a 2-6 team that had high hopes of making it to a bowl game this season. I'd consider Hawaii a Strong Opinion if the line goes up to +3 or more.

Read more on my website www.drbobsports.com

I have 6 NCAA Best Bets and 5 NCAA Strong Opinions this week, and 3 NFL Best Bets and 2 NFL Strong Opinion!

Read an article about me in the Wall Street Journal

Follow me on Facebook and Twitter for updates on Best Bet releases

I'll admit it.  I am a bigger fan of Greg McMackin than I am of June Jones.

I'd like to see McMackin make it in Hawaii.  I'd like to see him outpace Jones, but so far the results aren't there.

McMackin has made some admirable changes.  He seems to hold his players more accountable that Jones generally did.  When they travel to the mainland, McMackin dosen't just accept the jet lag.  He demands they suck it up and play hard, something that Jones rarely did.

He has also made some big mistakes. I personally think taking a salary that was almost 50% more than June Jones's last salary was a bad idea in that it put a target on him from day one.  

I know the university and the state felt pressure to prove they weren't cheap after Jones's scorched earth exit, but McMackin would have done far better to publically insist on a salary that was not a cent more than the 800K or so Jones earned in his last season until McMackin earned more with his performance. 

New Coaches need time more than up front money and a move like that might have given him a few more years cushion.  An additional 400K in the school recruiting budget wouldn't hurt a new coach either.

The slur against gays he used in reference to Notre Dame also earned him some enemies he didn't need.  I am sure he would love a redo on that moment as well.

Still, I am convinced he is a good hearted guy and a good coach. I'd like to see him step from June Jones' shadow at UH.

I think for him to do it, he has to break from Jones' blueprint.  He can't be a better June Jones than the former coach was at UH, so why try?

The slide

Since former record setting JUCO QB Greg Alexander went down, Hawaii has lost four straight vs. the best teams in the conference.

This may be disappointing, but it wasn't unexpected.

Fresno, Idaho, and Boise are the best teams in the conference and Hawaii always struggles in Nevada.

Now the Warriors are entering a much more manageable part of the schedule.

They host WAC cellar dwellers Utah State and New Mexico, make their shortest plane trip to play a San Jose State team that appears to have collapsed, host Navy and end with Wisconsin, two teams that will be suffering major jet lag.

As amazing as it is to say, 7-6 may still not be out of the question, but the coaching staff has to get the offense to develop an offensive identity.

They need to move even further away from June Jones' philosophy and run the ball.

The Warriors can run the ball and should

Consider the offensive numbers from the last 4 games.

10/10 Fresno State 2-3 (0-2) L 42-17 24/52 283 2/2 18 rushes 85 yards 4.7 per carry
10/17 @ Idaho 2-4 (0-3) L 35-23 31/45 367 1/1 24 rushes 77 yards 3.2 per carry
10/24 No. 4 Boise State 2-5 (0-4) L 54-9 27/47 174 1/3 18 rushes 93 yards 5.2 per carry
10/31 @ Nevada 2-6 (0-5) L 31-21 29/49 374 3/2 20 rushes 118 yards 5.9 per carry

UH is getting marginal QB play and is still calling the games like Greg Alexander is throwing the ball.

The Warriors are throwing 50 passes a game and running 20 times a game.

That needs to change. These QBs need much more support from the running game.

Jones never ran the ball.  To his credit McMackin does have his teams run a little.

He needs to do more of it.  A 40 pass to 30 run mix would serve Hawaii a lot better.

There is no reason why this Hawaii team shouldn't end this season with, say, 1,200 rushing yards.  They are currently on pace for 851 yards.

In spite of having a pipeline of big quality linemen, Jones never committed to running the ball with any regularity.  As a result, the Warrior's top end under Jones was always capped.

Jones is great at winning games vs. sub-BCS opposition.  McMackin's teams could have a higher upside than Jones's if they can run the ball as well as pass it.  If an opponent taking away the pass no longer causes a Warrior implosion, UH will be a tough play for schools at any level.

Hawaii has a decent pair of backs with reasonable size this year.  Leon Wright-Jackson and Alex Green are capable backs.

Use them.

Worth it for the recruiting dividend alone

Hawaii has always had trouble recruiting top runners. 

No top RB is going to want to play for a school that doesn't even break 1000 yards rushing as a team.  No Texas All-American RB is going to play for a school that rushes for 800 yards as a team in a season.  That needs to change.

The run and shoot should be just as good of a running set as any spread. It has been a great platform for top running backs at the highest level.

UH will never land a Barry Sanders if they only run for 800 yards as a team in a season.

Jones simply ignored the running game.  His intransigence with regards to running the ball cast a shadow over UH's running back recruiting efforts.

Hawaii should be an easy sell to top RBs.  Play in paradise.  Earn the starting job and you can run for 1000-1500 yards vs. 7 in th box on every down.  Go into the NFL with less wear on your body (from playing against smaller defensive players) than other backs.

It should be an easy sell, but because of Jones' passing myopia it is not.  Time to walk away from that.

For this year's success and for future recruiting, Hawaii has to run the ball.

Brent Rausch or Bryant Moniz?

And then there is the question of who should play QB.

Sophomore Moniz is a short mobile winner from the island. Moniz is not a train wreck as a starting QB.  He is serviceable and seems to get a little better each game, but is not currently what one would want from a starting QB in a pass heavy offense.

Junior Rausch was a three-star JUCO QB who had some playing time before Alexander claimed the starting job last year.  Rausch earned the backup job over the off-season before breaking his pinkie.  He is healthy now.

I suspect Rausch won't be worse than Moniz, so why not give him the Utah State game to make a claim on the job?

(I am not really advocating Rausch, more stating that there is little potential downside and possibly quite a large upside in giving him a half or even the full Utah State game.)

If Rausch has a dominant performance, the job is his and Moniz becomes his Tyler Graunke.

If Rausch is just average, then his shot is gone and the team goes with Moniz with his additional year of eligibility. 

If Rausch struggles and the game is close at the half, Moniz get the second half and the rest of the season.

Just don't stretch it out.

Next year

How great would it be to see an experienced senior dominated WR unit led by Kealoha Pilares, Rodney Bradley, Greg Salas, and Malcolm Lane team with an experienced, established QB AND a returning say 800-yard rusher in Sr. Alex Green?

Come on Coach McMackin. Step out of that shadow.