(04-17-2019 01:25 PM)Wedge Wrote: The *only* reason this was ever a topic is that some conferences, as a public relations ploy, announced that every team in their conference would play at least one P5 non-conference opponent every year.
And then 10 seconds after that announcement was made, coaches who didn't want to beef up their schedules started trying to find a way around their conference's "rule". So they hatched this idea of "designated P5" opponents, where a team that didn't want to "schedule up" but already had BYU on the schedule could count BYU as their "designated P5 opponent". And then somebody added all the service academies to that "designated" list.
And then a few struggling Big Ten teams just wanted to pick anyone on their schedule and call them a "designated P5 opponent", and the Big Ten office said, fine, whatever. Which makes sense, honestly. There's no reason to insist that a team that usually finishes 6th or 7th in its division "must" schedule non-conference games against Oklahoma or Georgia, just so some conference commissioner can puff up his chest about tough schedules. The only teams for which we really care about tough schedules are teams that have some kind of a shot at winning the conference or being chosen for the playoff.
And that leads us to the conclusion that "designated P5 opponent" isn't really a thing, just like "Cocoa Puffs, a healthy way to start your day" is just advertising fluff and not really a thing.
Wedge,
This is not the real reason. The actual reason was a lack of sufficient opponents. Many P5 schools already are locked up in P5 OOC games (the famous ACC-SEC rivalries, ND California school rivalries and games with ACC schools, other built-in games like ISU-Iowa). And those who are available often don't have open dates that align, due to the conference schedules -- also many top schools lock into "Kickoff" and other neutral site games taking them off the board. So it was difficult for all the schools to find a P5 OOC opponent every year (usually jsust a couple pre-conference weekends possible to work) and still maintain 7 home games (a revenue issue).
Now if conferences like the P12, B12 and B1G were to allow schools to schedule OOC games after September (P12 only has the ND exception, and no road opponents after September, excepting ND in mid-October for Stanford/USC), there would be a lot more dates and opponents available.
(side note: B1G will almost certainly have to revisit this for Oklahoma membership --if that happens-- since Bedlam is a must for them in November; the P12 destroyed the BYU-Utah rivalry with it's restrictions on scheduling)
BYU is thus necessary due to their flexibility in scheduling. Frankly the P5 would like a 3rd counting Independent.
Now as for the "performance" issue, well, that is not really relevant. Illinois, Rutgers, Vanderbilt, Kansas and some other low performing schools in P5 count as P5 opponents. So the criteria cannot be that, or any "moving index", as games are scheduled several years in advance. BYU the argument goes, plays 5 or 6 P5 opponents most years (they have one with just 3 or 4 in there), plus a couple strong G5 opponents like Boise State thrown in (e.g., Houston, San Diego State). So their SoS is higher than nearly all G5 every year. It makes them a 'tweener.
Now Performance comes and goes. People on this board suffer from "this years results will be what happens going forward forever" mentality, and they fail to look at coaching cycles and such. BYU has opportunity to make a major Bowl with their schedule, just as Rutgers, Kansas, Vanderbilt, Oregon State and Boston College have. It comes down to execution, which means the coaching staff to recruit and deliver. BYU doesn't have that coaching staff now (and may never get it), but that is another issue.
Anyway, the biggest reason for the BYU exception is logistics. (Another factor has been the lobbying by Tom Holmoe, who is well respected by the ADs Nationally ... contrast that to Daniel J. White's whining about Florida's 2 for 1 on how to lobby the P5 successfully)