plays an Alabama than if they play Idaho State. I deduce that from the CBers who seem to want to shy away from a crack at 'Bama this year...or lobby against our recent tough September schedules because they are too worried about injuries for the remainder of the season.

Obviously across the board...a Bama or LSU has bigger/faster/stronger guys at every position than Idaho State or Weber State. But at what point do you say the physics of football are the same when you hit someone or get hit regardless of what school or conference they are from? Or ARE they the same? If I'm a BYU RB...am I more likely to blow out my knee against a P5 tackler/defense than a G5 one? Isn't football...at the end of the day...a contact sport and it's a given/assumed risk that injuries happen?

As to those aforementioned who bemoan the fact we usually arrive in November with a lot of injuries resulting in patchwork lineups...given our current circumstances where we have no title to play for...and once we lose one game...the only thing really left on the table for us is bowl eligibility...why WOULDN'T we want to line up and play as many of the big boys as TH can schedule for us as opposed to a less demanding schedule of more Libertys and UMASSes etc?

Yes...schedules like last year's and the one we had for this year are high-risk but they also carry the potential to be high reward. Every single player I've ever heard interviewed claims they love to play the marquee programs as per Tonga's recent tweet. I tend to take them at their word.

Thoughts?