The "where BYU will live/die?" thread

[Viking]

This is a utah board and i respect that. I actually think it's great this place exists. Thanks for having me.

BYU will always be your rival. No matter if you don't play them in a given year, they will be your sworn and hated enemies. As an no-mo'-mo', I sympathize with the anti-Zoob sentiment. BYU is a gawd-awful place and I hated nearly every moment of it.

Many of you will say, "who cares" (god love you, SU). And good on ya for it. However, we know deep down...you want to know.

Where will byu land? Will they manage to destroy a franchise? Will it be the Pac14 or the Big12/14?

My money is on the Pac14 (BYU + Air Force, football only) but I could be surprised by a Big 12 invite with AF.

College ball is a saturday sport and any expansion from here will clearly be football-only, thus I don't think "Sunday play" can be used an excuse.

Repeat: look for BYU to be playing Utah again consistently in Novembers in the Pac14 starting in 2014. That's my somewhat-enlighted guess.

[Virginia Ute]

I think they will flop around for a few more years as an independent and in the WCC, then they will end up back in the Mtn West Conf. I don't think the P12 expands unless it takes some Texas schools.

[Hadrian]

It seems to me that the PAC wants universities that
a) have a large or growing market
b) are secular research universities

As such, I think UNLV has a better chance at getting into the PAC than BYU, especially if they build that new stadium they've got planned.

[Diehard Ute]

It seems to me that the PAC wants universities that
a) have a large or growing market
b) are secular research universities

As such, I think UNLV has a better chance at getting into the PAC than BYU, especially if they build that new stadium they've got planned.

UNLV would really have to change to get a look IMO.

[FountainOfUte]

Here's the order I see it in:
1) Joining/organizing a new league that is made up of the better parts of the MWC, BE, and maybe CUSA. This will happen if BSU, SDSU, Cincinatti, and a few others get itchy feet and want to create the unofficial "6th best conference."
2) Re-join the MWC
3) A very outside shot at the Big 12

I just don't see the PAC ever happening for BYU, and not for the typical reasons of Sunday play, liberal bias, etc. I just don't think if super conferences happen that things break BYU's way for a PAC slot. On another thread on the PAC12board I went through a scenario of creating four 16-team conferences the way I think they'd break. I kind of started with what I thought the SEC and B1G would do and went from there. The PAC won't (that is, won't ever have to) invite BYU. We'll stay smaller at 12 or 14 before taking BYU, and we'll be just fine. There will never be a "need" to add them and they'd never add enough to justify it.

With all of that said, I think I'm one of the rare breed Utes who would wholeheartedly welcome the zoobs into the conference. I think it would be great. While I'm not a fan of expansion for the PAC, if it must happen, my dream expansion is UT, OU, KU, and BYU. 'Horns and Sooners are paired up. The Buffs and J-Hawks renew an old Big 8 brotherhood, and the Utes and Cougs get back together.

[SoCalPat]

This is a utah board and i respect that. I actually think it's great this place exists. Thanks for having me.

BYU will always be your rival. No matter if you don't play them in a given year, they will be your sworn and hated enemies. As an no-mo'-mo', I sympathize with the anti-Zoob sentiment. BYU is a gawd-awful place and I hated nearly every moment of it.

Many of you will say, "who cares" (god love you, SU). And good on ya for it. However, we know deep down...you want to know.

Where will byu land? Will they manage to destroy a franchise? Will it be the Pac14 or the Big12/14?

My money is on the Pac14 (BYU + Air Force, football only) but I could be surprised by a Big 12 invite with AF.

College ball is a saturday sport and any expansion from here will clearly be football-only, thus I don't think "Sunday play" can be used an excuse.

Repeat: look for BYU to be playing Utah again consistently in Novembers in the Pac14 starting in 2014. That's my somewhat-enlighted guess.

If/once Boise State or any other MWC team makes it into a playoff and makes a deep run, BYU will rejoin the MWC as soon as it will let them.

Going independent was never about making the athletic (or football) program stronger. It was done to appease the fanbase (with an improved schedule, something BYU has in spades for at least this upcoming season) and the balance sheet (the ESPN deal isn't nearly as profitable as some say, but it beats what the MWC was offering) by giving the appearance of relevancy. At the same time, the timing was perfect for BYU to sow its oats and see what it could do by striking out alone. Independence has been far from the disaster some thought, but it becomes an immediate disaster once Boise State or SDSU (heaven help us all!) is playing for a spot in the national title game while a 10-win BYU team is left with the Fight Hunger or Poinsettia bowls.

[UteBeliever aka Port]

It seems to me that the PAC wants universities that
a) have a large or growing market
b) are secular research universities

As such, I think UNLV has a better chance at getting into the PAC than BYU, especially if they build that new stadium they've got planned.

I think UNM might be more likely than UNLV or BYU.... or Boise.

[Tacoma Ute]

I think UNM might be more likely than UNLV or BYU.... or Boise.

I think UNM and UNLV could both get in in a few years but only if they significantly uprade their football progams by the time the PAC starts looking.

[NorthwestUteFan]

UNLV's billion dollar upgrade, including a fantastic new stadium on campus, will certainly help. Winning ~36 games over the last decade is not very attractive to the PAC.

UNR might be a better fit academically, but I just don't see it for the same reasons why Stanford, USC, and the UC teams (Cal, UCLA) won't allow in the CAL State teams (SDSU, Fresno, San Jose, etc).

[big z]

UNLV's billion dollar upgrade, including a fantastic new stadium on campus, will certainly help. Winning ~36 games over the last decade is not very attractive to the PAC.

UNR might be a better fit academically, but I just don't see it for the same reasons why Stanford, USC, and the UC teams (Cal, UCLA) won't allow in the CAL State teams (SDSU, Fresno, San Jose, etc).

Weren't the plans for the stadium down in LV cancelled? I thought the funding for it fell through?

[Jarid in Cedar]

Repeat: look for BYU to be playing Utah again consistently in Novembers in the Pac14 starting in 2014. That's my somewhat-enlighted guess.

Beating this tired drum to a new audience, eh?

[big z]

The Pac-12 expands if and only if (1) there is a way to make more money or (2) superconferences become a rule and expansion is not optional. (1) only happens if Texas is involved, which seems very unlikely now. So, if (2) happens, and the conference HAS to expand, and no current BCS teams are on the table, the options are:

1 - Go for the best football programs available (in order): Boise State, SDSU, Houston, BYU, Hawaii, Fresno, SMU, SJSU, USU - has anyone else been ranked this decade?

2 - Go for the biggest remaining new western markets (in order): SMU, Houston, San Diego, UNLV, UNM, Hawaii, Nevada, Fresno St

3 - Complete the collection of state flagship schools: UNM, Boise St, UNLV, Hawaii

4 - Go for the best venue - UNLV, SDSU,.....?

5 - Go for the best academic, cultural fit - UNM, UNLV, Hawaii,....?

6 - Add basketball - UNLV, UNM, SDSU, BYU, Boise St, Nevada, USU

Some combination of the above would be the criteria. Personally, I would take UNLV, UNM, Boise, and one other from either Hawaii or SDSU. You have to think long term and hope that UNLV/UNM can improve in football. They clearly have the most potential to add money. Boise has the most potential to add football accomplishments. I'm not sure that BYU brings much - no new market revenue, no recent on field success, not a good venue, not an academic fit.

One thing's for sure - the next 5 years are important for the MWC teams and BYU. They should be thinking of these years as a try out.

I don't see the PAC taking a secular school. The Zoo has a better chance rejoining the MWC that it does the PAC.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Weren't the plans for the stadium down in LV cancelled? I thought the funding for it fell through?

Cancelling a debacle like that project in the middle of a massive real estate crash and a localized depression in LV seems the only sensible thing to do.


Beating this tired drum to a new audience, eh?

New audience, new drum. Last time the Big 12 was a lock.

The truth is the powers that be don't seem to care about BYU-Provo having a conference affiliation unless they can control the TV product to some extent (i.e. streaming all of the home games on byutv in real time - can't do that with an existing league TV contract and that may be a deal killer for future TV contract negotiations).

Word is they're are somewhat dismayed that most of their games on ESPN have been sponsored by companies who produce mild barley drinks.

[Jarid in Cedar]

New audience, new drum. Last time the Big 12 was a lock.

BYu to the Pac-14 and playing Utah in November was a Viking prediction during the B-12 firestorm last time around.

[Sheik Yerbouti]

My money is on the Pac14 (BYU + Air Force, football only) but I could be surprised by a Big 12 invite with AF.



Air Force??? Football only? You are dreaming.

[Flystripper]

BYu to the Pac-14 and playing Utah in November was a Viking prediction during the B-12 firestorm last time around.

Yep. He also had Big 12 and Big East predictions thrown in there for good measure. All of his bases were covered.

[Scratch]

This is the option that makes the most sense to me.

I also agree that the outside shot at the Big12 is still there. It depends on Boise State. If they continue to field top 10 teams, they will be attractive to the Big12, and they will need a travel partner. BYU could conceivably get in on their coattails. But it seems more likely that the Big12 expands to the east.

The B12 won't do anything until the ACC is either blown up or it becomes clear that the ACC is going to hold together. The B12 has stabilized to the point that it doesn't have to make any more desperation moves (which is how I would describe TCU, given the fact that TCU has a small fan base and didn't add a market). It's not going to add BYU or Boise (or anyone else) as long as there's a decent chance that the ACC is going to explode and teams like Clemson and FSU could be available. Until then, the B12 will sit tight. Also, the ACC will stick around until the B1G and SEC decide to expand. In other words, the B12 won't expand unless and until the SEC and B1G expand, and until those conferences all expand there won't be pressure on the P12 to get bigger than 12.

To me, this means there is almost no way BYU ends up in the B12, and if it ever does end up in the P12 it won't be for a long time and will only be because the other conferences force the issue.

[concerned]

The B12 won't do anything until the ACC is either blown up or it becomes clear that the ACC is going to hold together. The B12 has stabilized to the point that it doesn't have to make any more desperation moves (which is how I would describe TCU, given the fact that TCU has a small fan base and didn't add a market). It's not going to add BYU or Boise (or anyone else) as long as there's a decent chance that the ACC is going to explode and teams like Clemson and FSU could be available. Until then, the B12 will sit tight. Also, the ACC will stick around until the B1G and SEC decide to expand. In other words, the B12 won't expand unless and until the SEC and B1G expand, and until those conferences all expand there won't be pressure on the P12 to get bigger than 12.

To me, this means there is almost no way BYU ends up in the B12, and if it ever does end up in the P12 it won't be for a long time and will only be because the other conferences force the issue.

TCU was not a desperation move; it was a strategic move. The Kansas and Oklahoma schools wanted TCU over BYU for the same reason that Utah wanted to be in the PAC 12 south. With the departure of A&M, they wanted another Texas school so they would not get hurt in recruiting Texas players--they want to play as many games in Texas as possible, and not be at a disadvantage to the other Texas member schools.

And the entire conference did not want to risk the SEC establishing another beachhead in Dallas by taking TCU.

[Scratch]

TCU was not a desperation move; it was a strategic move. The Kansas and Oklahoma schools wanted TCU over BYU for the same reason that Utah wanted to be in the PAC 12 south. With the departure of A&M, they wanted another Texas school so they would not get hurt in recruiting Texas players--they want to play as many games in Texas as possible, and not be at a disadvantage to the other Texas member schools.

And the entire conference did not want to risk the SEC establishing another beachhead in Dallas by taking TCU.

It was a desperation move, and BYU would have been a desperation move. The B12 was in big trouble, it looked like there was a decent chance it was about to collapse and they needed another warm body to stabilize its numbers. You are right as to why they went with TCU over BYU, but compared to what may be available in the future (ACC leftovers) it was a desperation move.

[Scratch]

I agree but have one comment - it could be the B12 that blows up the ACC. The Big12 could start the next round by offering FSU/Miami. And why not? They would make more money and add potential national championship caliber teams. They would add a recruiting hotbed and a huge media market. And why wouldn't FSU/Miami accept? They would make more money. Maybe the travel issues would be enough to keep them in the ACC.

I don't think it could be the B12. The fact is, for the current ACC schools, the ACC is a better option than the B12. Travel issues, academic, and conference equality (that is, not being in Texas's conference) are all significant issues. And frankly I'm not sure the money in the B12 would be that much better, what with the unequal revenue sharing.

[SeattleUte]

This is very simple and my BYU friends will comfirm I've been saying it for years (so far as I know I was the first in these boards to say BYU going to the Pac 12 was impossible, and back then this was a concept most BYU fans and even ALUFs rejected). BYU will not go to the Big 12 -- ever -- for the same reason the Pac 12 didn't want it. It's too closely tied to the LDS Church. THere isn't as much difference as people might suppose between U. Texas and Cal. "No Sunday play is problem" is code for this.

If BYU adopts a secular board, cuts all management and fiscal ties to the LDS Churcy, eliminates the Honor Code, and starts playing on Sunday, that will be a step in the right direction toward Big 12 admission.

[Sheik Yerbouti]

If BYU adopts a secular board, cuts all management and fiscal ties to the LDS Churcy, eliminates the Honor Code, and starts playing on Sunday, that will be a step in the right direction toward Big 12 admission.

You have given BYU fans hope.

[Flystripper]

This is very simple and my BYU friends will comfirm I've been saying it for years (so far as I know I was the first in these boards to say BYU going to the Pac 12 was impossible, and back then this was a concept most BYU fans and even ALUFs rejected). BYU will not go to the Big 12 -- ever -- for the same reason the Pac 12 didn't want it. It's too closely tied to the LDS Church. THere isn't as much difference as people might suppose between U. Texas and Cal. "No Sunday play is problem" is code for this.

If BYU adopts a secular board, cuts all management and fiscal ties to the LDS Churcy, eliminates the Honor Code, and starts playing on Sunday, that will be a step in the right direction toward Big 12 admission.

I agree BYU is screwed when it comes to conference affiliation. It is what it is. I get mocked on CUF/CS because I advocate for eventually going back to the MWC, but I will be right in the end. Independence is not a good long-term solution. Sure we are making money now, but how long will ESPN continue to pay us for a sub-par product?

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I agree BYU is screwed when it comes to conference affiliation. It is what it is. I get mocked on CUF/CS because I advocate for eventually going back to the MWC, but I will be right in the end. Independence is not a good long-term solution. Sure we are making money now, but how long will ESPN continue to pay us for a sub-par product?

I believe as long as BYU maintains decent ratings in their broadcasts, ESPN will continue to feed them scraps as an independent. But I agree with you. BYU is screwed. They are in no man's land. And that will never change given the structure and ownership of the LDS Church. Nobody's going to say it, but they are a pariah. The MWC will be willing to take them back because it is "home" and they still have friends (rivalries) there that would want to play them. But as far as hoping that the PAC or B12 will come-a-calling anytime soon?....Snowball's chance in hell.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Jeez, can you imagine a MWC with Utah, BYU, Boise, San Jose, San Diego, and USU? That would be a fairly solid football conference in addition to being the kick ass basketball conference it already is.

ETA: I am happy in the PAC and don't want to go back, but that would be an interesting MWC nonetheless.

[Utah]

I don't get why everyone thinks if the SEC and B1G go to 14 or 16 teams, the other conferences will "have" to expand as well.

There is ONE thing driving all of this: TV Markets. That's why conferences are expanding. Now, other than Texas and Oklahoma, what market is attractive to the PAC-12?

Also, why in the world would the SEC care if the PAC-12 is at 12 teams or 16? In fact, it is better for the SEC to have the PAC-12 at 12 teams rather than 16, because if the PAC-12 stays at 12 teams, all that means is that Oregon will have to play USC more often than Alabama will have to play Florida. The PAC-12 staying at 12 means more losses for PAC-12 teams which means every other conference looks better.

NONE. The PAC-12 won't expand unless Boise, Las Vegas, Albuquerque, etc get big enough to warrant expansion OR Texas agrees to COMPLETELY change how they run their football program and become an equal (so, it ain't happening. Texas is who BYU thinks they are in terms of conference relationships and money, etc).

So, reason #1 the PAC-12 won't expand: There isn't a tv market to warrant expansion.

Reason #2 why it won't be BYU: The PAC-12 already has the Provo market. BYU is irrelevant when it comes to $$$'s. And no, BYU's "national" fanbase won't sway the PAC-12.

Reason #3 why it won't be BYU: The PAC-12 isn't willing to deal with Texas and told Freaking TEXAS no thanks. Why would they want to deal with BYU and their demands when BYU brings NOTHING Utah doesn't bring (actually, BYU brings less than Utah, because BYU has all the disadvantages of Utah's cold weather, and comes into the conference with a glass ceiling in recruiting due to it's honor code).

What I see happening is the SEC and Big 12 and B1G eating up what's left of the ACC. They will all have between 14-16 teams. I see the PAC-12 staying at 12, until another market grows enough to justify adding into the PAC-12. And Provo ain't that market.

As far as the rivalry goes, fogettaboutit.

It's dying. It will be dead in a few years. I would not be shocked if the 2016 game never happens. Also, I don't see the LDS church getting behind their sports like BYU fan does. The WCC is a TERRIBLE conference and slap in the face to that basketball program. I could easily see the Church leaving BYU Indy, support waining, and then in 5+ years, dropping sports like they have at all their other universities. Especially if Utah State can take advantage of the void BYU would leave behind. All the zoobs could go jump on that bandwagon, hate all their hated "non-rival" rivals (Wyoming, Boise St, UNLV, whoever), and still hate Utah. A match made in heaven, especially considering BYU is a basketball school now. They are Utah State.

Utah will survive not playing BYU every year. In fact, my hate for ASU and Washington is quickly catching up, and I really don't like Colorado that much either.

[Flystripper]

I don't get why everyone thinks if the SEC and B1G go to 14 or 16 teams, the other conferences will "have" to expand as well.

There is ONE thing driving all of this: TV Markets. That's why conferences are expanding. Now, other than Texas and Oklahoma, what market is attractive to the PAC-12?

Also, why in the world would the SEC care if the PAC-12 is at 12 teams or 16? In fact, it is better for the SEC to have the PAC-12 at 12 teams rather than 16, because if the PAC-12 stays at 12 teams, all that means is that Oregon will have to play USC more often than Alabama will have to play Florida. The PAC-12 staying at 12 means more losses for PAC-12 teams which means every other conference looks better.

NONE. The PAC-12 won't expand unless Boise, Las Vegas, Albuquerque, etc get big enough to warrant expansion OR Texas agrees to COMPLETELY change how they run their football program and become an equal (so, it ain't happening. Texas is who BYU thinks they are in terms of conference relationships and money, etc).

So, reason #1 the PAC-12 won't expand: There isn't a tv market to warrant expansion.

Reason #2 why it won't be BYU: The PAC-12 already has the Provo market. BYU is irrelevant when it comes to $$$'s. And no, BYU's "national" fanbase won't sway the PAC-12.

Reason #3 why it won't be BYU: The PAC-12 isn't willing to deal with Texas and told Freaking TEXAS no thanks. Why would they want to deal with BYU and their demands when BYU brings NOTHING Utah doesn't bring (actually, BYU brings less than Utah, because BYU has all the disadvantages of Utah's cold weather, and comes into the conference with a glass ceiling in recruiting due to it's honor code).

What I see happening is the SEC and Big 12 and B1G eating up what's left of the ACC. They will all have between 14-16 teams. I see the PAC-12 staying at 12, until another market grows enough to justify adding into the PAC-12. And Provo ain't that market.

As far as the rivalry goes, fogettaboutit.

It's dying. It will be dead in a few years. I would not be shocked if the 2016 game never happens. Also, I don't see the LDS church getting behind their sports like BYU fan does. The WCC is a TERRIBLE conference and slap in the face to that basketball program. I could easily see the Church leaving BYU Indy, support waining, and then in 5+ years, dropping sports like they have at all their other universities. Especially if Utah State can take advantage of the void BYU would leave behind. All the zoobs could go jump on that bandwagon, hate all their hated "non-rival" rivals (Wyoming, Boise St, UNLV, whoever), and still hate Utah. A match made in heaven, especially considering BYU is a basketball school now. They are Utah State.

Utah will survive not playing BYU every year. In fact, my hate for ASU and Washington is quickly catching up, and I really don't like Colorado that much either.


I think you are right for the most part but some of your comments are clouded by your views of BYU as a Utah fan.

1. BYU and its fans by and large are not deluded into thinking that they are Texas in terms of power, money, influence, and market.

2. Do you mean the Pac12 and its networks are shown in the UC or that Utah pulls better ratings than BYU in the UC? I am not sure I agree, but either way I concede it is a meaningless answer since the UC has no influence on what the Pac12 will do.

3. BYU is not irrelevant when it comes to $. If they were irrelevant ESPN would not have a contract with them. The correct question is if BYU is incremental to what the Pac 12 already has. I don't know if that answer is clear. Since it isn't clearly incremental I can see why the Pac 12 would not jump to add BYU given the other issues it has. I do agree that BYU's "national" fanbase won't sway the Pac12.

4. No need to use shout your caps. BYU has things that Utah does not have (a national fanbase), but I agree that the things that they have are not meaningful to the Pac12

The amount of "zoob" dislike in your post reduces the persuasiveness of your mostly astute arguments. I get it. This is a Utah site and your rhetoric will play here but I thought I would just give my own 2 cents.

[FountainOfUte]

Jeez, can you imagine a MWC with Utah, BYU, Boise, San Jose, San Diego, and USU?

SDSU, SJSU, and USU? Are you kidding? Because two of those three finally had good seasons for the first time in like... ever, and the Aztecs are finally rediscovering that they're located in paradise and a football recruiting hotbed? No thanks.

I'll confess, I wanted to see Utah/BYU/TCU/BSU duke it out in a regular season round robin in the worst way. Would have been fun.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I could easily see the Church leaving BYU Indy, support waining, and then in 5+ years, dropping sports like they have at all their other universities.


lol. This has been stated enough here that it is obviously the official Ute fan wet dream.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

lol. This has been stated enough here that it is obviously the official Ute fan wet dream.

That's just, like, your opinion man.

[Jeff Lebowski]

That's just, like, your opinion man.

Shut up, Donny. You are out of your element.

[Jarid in Cedar]

lol. This has been stated enough here that it is obviously the official Ute fan wet dream.


Not enough to cause a wet dream, but the ensuing fireworks that would accompany the enusing meltdown would be well worth the price of admission

[Pelado]

I could easily see the Church leaving BYU Indy, support waining, and then in 5+ years, dropping sports like they have at all their other universities.

370

[Utah]

I think you are right for the most part but some of your comments are clouded by your views of BYU as a Utah fan.

1. BYU and its fans by and large are not deluded into thinking that they are Texas in terms of power, money, influence, and market.

Huh. Rumors of the Big 12 getting sick of BYU's demands, rumors of BYU demanding rights to all home games from the Big East, BYU demanding to keep their own tv network and games...sounds likes Texas to me.


2. Do you mean the Pac12 and its networks are shown in the UC or that Utah pulls better ratings than BYU in the UC? I am not sure I agree, but either way I concede it is a meaningless answer since the UC has no influence on what the Pac12 will do.

The PAC-12 is shown in Provo. Adding BYU to the PAC-12 adds $0 in tv money. Until BYU adds money, they are irrelevant. And no, a elder's quorum in Minnesota where they all meet at the second counselor's house because they are too cheap to pay for the upgrade package doesn't add money.


3. BYU is not irrelevant when it comes to $. If they were irrelevant ESPN would not have a contract with them. The correct question is if BYU is incremental to what the Pac 12 already has. I don't know if that answer is clear. Since it isn't clearly incremental I can see why the Pac 12 would not jump to add BYU given the other issues it has. I do agree that BYU's "national" fanbase won't sway the Pac12.

BYU is irrelevant in this situation. BYU is relevant because BYU will get more viewers on a Thursday/Friday night at 8:30 pm than some MAC school. BYU is irrelevant to the PAC-12, because adding BYU to the PAC-12 REDUCES the payout to each team, therefore to consider them is stupid.


4. No need to use shout your caps. BYU has things that Utah does not have (a national fanbase), but I agree that the things that they have are not meaningful to the Pac12

LOL @ national fanbase. Good for you if you believe that. If they have that national fanbase, then Independence will work out fantastic for them. They will become ND, win 10 games a year, and do what they do best. If not, they will go back to the MWC or some other crap conference.


The amount of "zoob" dislike in your post reduces the persuasiveness of your mostly astute arguments. I get it. This is a Utah site and your rhetoric will play here but I thought I would just give my own 2 cents.

Like a typical zoob, you don't argue my points, you put words in my mouth and then try to argue those points. For example, your #2 point is completely off-topic. Not once did I mention ratings in UC. #3 is irrelevant because I never brought up ESPN. ESPN and the PAC-12 seeing BYU's value are two completely different things. #4 - I wasn't meaning to shout, just emphasize how terrible of a conference the WCC is. The MWC is light years ahead of that conference, and it was a slap in Rose's face to drop down like that (again, you don't actually address my points).

The amount of "zoob" in your post shows that at least my two cents have some value to them.

[Jarid in Cedar]

First, flystripper is far from a zoob.
Second, if you have to use that term in an argument, you have basically conceded that you have lost.

[SeattleUte]

lol. This has been stated enough here that it is obviously the official Ute fan wet dream.

I don't care about BYU.

[LA Ute]

BYU's sports future and the priesthood for women are both in the same category: It's up to the FP and Q12.

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Partially, but I don't think BYU sports is a big agenda item for that group.



I think most (read: all) BYU fans would be shocked that the FP and Q12 as a collective body don't give two shits about BYU athletics.

[LA Ute]

Partially, but I don't think BYU sports is a big agenda item for that group.

In reality, BYU's sports future depends on their own on-field performance as well as on the commissioners, ADS, and presidents in various football conferences.

All I am really saying is that BYU sports won't go away without the approval of that governing group. Not exactly a gutsy prediction on my part.

[LA Ute]

This is a dumb thread.

[SeattleUte]

I think most (read: all) BYU fans would be shocked that the FP and Q12 as a collective body don't give two shits about BYU athletics.

This is an ALUF myth. Of course they care. BYU sports is one of the LDS Church's most visible brands, and in a generally positive way. We are not talking about the Dalai Lama here. They are ambitious for the institution.

BYU's structural problems that preclude it from membership in a major conference exist not because the LDS church leaders don't care about football or have decided to deemphasize it, like the University of Chicago. They exist because of the fact BYU is just a department of the LDS church. LDS church leaders would love to have it both ways but they can't. This is the old LDS schizophrenia -- wanting to be of the world but remain peculiar.

[Sheik Yerbouti]

This is an ALUF myth. Of course they care. BYU sports is one of the LDS Church's most visible brands, and in a generally positive way. We are not talking about the Dalai Lama here. They are ambitious for the institution.

BYU's structural problems that preclude it from membership in a major conference exist not because the LDS church leaders don't care about football or have decided to deemphasize it, like the University of Chicago. They exist because of the fact BYU is just a department of the LDS church. LDS church leaders would love to have it both ways but they can't. This is the old LDS schizophrenia -- wanting to be of the world but remain peculiar.

I agree...my original comment had a purposeful sardonic tone to it for the reasons you stated. Most fans outside the faith recognize BYU's football program and the success it has had in the past. They care more about protecting the brand and clean image than any on field success. Hence my "two shits" remark.

[kccougar]

This is a dumb thread. ;)...


I think that's the direction they're going, but I suspect they'll stop short of FCS or lower. They may strive to be like Air Force or the other service academies: standing for something important and trying hard to be competitive, but accepting that they'll probably never be top-notch. That will take many people outside the BYU Board of Trustees a long time to accept.

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Hmmm....

http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releases/2013/03/espn-and-mountain-west-conference-announce-multiyear-rights-agreement/

[Flystripper]

Huh. Rumors of the Big 12 getting sick of BYU's demands, rumors of BYU demanding rights to all home games from the Big East, BYU demanding to keep their own tv network and games...sounds likes Texas to me.

Rumors? I never bought into those rumors too much. If BYU had an opportunity to get in the Big 12, I believe they would have taken it. If there is ever an opportunity to join that conference I believe that BYU will fall all over themselves and do whatever is required to get in. (with the exception of agreeing to Sunday play which they will never do though I wish they would). BYU does not think they are Texas and the lion share of its fan base knows they are not anywhere near Texas. Rumors are not convincing to me.


The PAC-12 is shown in Provo. Adding BYU to the PAC-12 adds $0 in tv money. Until BYU adds money, they are irrelevant. And no, a elder's quorum in Minnesota where they all meet at the second counselor's house because they are too cheap to pay for the upgrade package doesn't add money.

Thank you for answering my poorly worded question. I do agree that the PAC 12 believes that BYU would not be a net financial gain to the conference, or at the very least that adding BYU is not a significant financial benefit that justifies having to put up with all of its icky religion and its values. All of this is before we discuss who else BYU would have to be paired with in order to get the conference. There are not any good options for Pac12 expansion. That is all that really matters. You will get little argument from me there. I agree that the Pac12 is not adding BYU unless it happens under laughably unlikely hypothetical situations.

You said that BYU was irrelevant when it comes to money. I guess you meant that they were irrelevant to the PAC12. I will stop getting caught up in semantics, but the word irrelevant seemed purposefully inflammatory word choice. I get it you are a Utah fan you are conditioned to treat BYU fans a certian way, but you may want to pause and consider that you might be interacting with different sort of person than those you encounter on CB.




BYU is irrelevant in this situation. BYU is relevant because BYU will get more viewers on a Thursday/Friday night at 8:30 pm than some MAC school. BYU is irrelevant to the PAC-12, because adding BYU to the PAC-12 REDUCES the payout to each team, therefore to consider them is stupid.

Thanks for giving us credit for Thursday and Friday night! I wish we were high enough profile to still get Thursday night prime time billing. I am not sure any team (without a reworking of the current TV contract) would increase the payment to all the conference members...so everyone is irrelevant to the Pac12!




LOL @ national fanbase. Good for you if you believe that. If they have that national fanbase, then Independence will work out fantastic for them. They will become ND, win 10 games a year, and do what they do best. If not, they will go back to the MWC or some other crap conference.

Patronize much? Independence will not work out well for us in the long-run for a multitude of reasons, none of which are a lack of a relative national following. Look, I don't have any delusions that BYU has even a fraction of a national following compared to ND. I don't know any BYU fans who think that way. But you don't get an ESPN contract without being able to pull ratings (albeit in less competitive time slots) The service academies have national followings, but only BYU was able to get a deal with ESPN. As I said before BYU's "national following" (notice the quotes) will not be enough to get them in any major conference.




Like a typical zoob, you don't argue my points, you put words in my mouth and then try to argue those points. For example, your #2 point is completely off-topic. Not once did I mention ratings in UC. #3 is irrelevant because I never brought up ESPN. ESPN and the PAC-12 seeing BYU's value are two completely different things. #4 - I wasn't meaning to shout, just emphasize how terrible of a conference the WCC is. The MWC is light years ahead of that conference, and it was a slap in Rose's face to drop down like that (again, you don't actually address my points).

The amount of "zoob" in your post shows that at least my two cents have some value to them.

Not a fan of the WCC. I hate the decision to go independent though it has become a near financial necessity.

Your post did have value and it plays well to a ute audience. I do understand this is a Ute board. I was only offering some perspective in discussing this with people that might not just simply nod their head in agreement and slap you high five while muttering "typical zoobs".

I am a "zoob" you got me figured out. You showed me! I am totally roasted.

[SeattleUte]

I doubt any care enough to be able to name 3 starters.

They are very old.

[SeattleUte]

Hmmm....

http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releases/2013/03/espn-and-mountain-west-conference-announce-multiyear-rights-agreement/

BYU was hurt by Utah's admission to the Pac 12, but the self-inflicted wound of leaving the MWC may have been worse. It was like, "You left me darling so now I'm killing myself."

[Flystripper]

Hmmm....

http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releases/2013/03/espn-and-mountain-west-conference-announce-multiyear-rights-agreement/

fantastic news... one step closer to coming back home

[LA Ute]

;)...

Predicting it will happen is far different from hoping it will happen. I just don't think the BOT wants to pay the price necessary for BYU athletics to compete at the highest levels -- e.g., compete for a BCS championship. If they did, BYU would be in the Big 12 now, Bronco wouldn't be saying football is the 5th priority, and Honor Code violations would be winked at. It seems pretty clear to me that BYU's owners have said success is great, but only within the parameters they've set. I think that means you'll be Air Force someday. There's nothing wrong with that.

For the record, I do not hope that happens. There are too many people I care about who's be unhappy about it. But I think it will happen.

[Utah]

The scenario people are talking about is 4 conferences of 16 breaking off from the NCAA. That is the only scenario where the Pac-12 HAS to expand unwillingly. And it's an extremely unlikely scenario. So, yes, this is all very hypothetical and unlikely.

Yeah, but there just aren't enough teams out west to justify a 16 team west division. I wonder if they did take 64 teams, if they would re-do the divisions. I don't see them leaving out an East coast market just to make sure that Las Vegas or Albuquerque gets in.

Either way, BYU is still screwed. I honestly think that the playoff has made it even harder for non-BCS teams to get access, and I think BYU is slowly tempering expectations and will cut off the sports program in the next 10-15 years.

[Hot Lunch]

Hmmm....

http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releases/2013/03/espn-and-mountain-west-conference-announce-multiyear-rights-agreement/

I swore I was told that when BYU left the MWC, that the MWC would surely die. I guess they​ were wrong.

[Utah]

The nonAQ access to BCS games is actually easier, but nonAQ access to the actual playoff games is darn near impossible. I can see a future where BYU is able to reach BCS games somewhat regularly. I can also envision your best-case scenario. We'll see what happens.

Yeah, I meant the playoff access is impossible for BYU or any other non-BCS team to get in.

[UteBeliever aka Port]

Jeez, can you imagine a MWC with Utah, BYU, Boise, San Jose, San Diego, and USU? That would be a fairly solid football conference in addition to being the kick ass basketball conference it already is.

ETA: I am happy in the PAC and don't want to go back, but that would be an interesting MWC nonetheless.

Two of these things are not like the other....

Also, why include Utah but not TCU?

[NorthwestUteFan]

And TCU.

[UteBeliever aka Port]

And TCU. Well done!

;)

[LA Ute]

How do you figure? BYU was never invited into that conference.

I think we all know that an invitation is the last step in the negotiation process. I've no doubt there were serious discussions and that BYU could have been invited if they had really wanted to be. But because BYU wanted to remain BYU (and they get integrity points from me for that) they never got to the invitation stage. As for the rivalry thing, I love to beat BYU and I don't shed tears when they lose to others (I do feel bad for individual players and for the BYU fans I like), but I don't get any jollies from the possibility of catastrophic damage to their athletic program. I will admit that I kind of like not having to think about them as much as we used to when in the same conference.

[LA Ute]

Really? I have serious doubts that they could have been invited. I have never seen or read anything that indicates there were any real discussions between the two. I have read a million rumors to that effect, and none of them make sense. No, in this case, the simplest answer is also the most likely - The Big12 wanted TCU and West Va more than they wanted BYU. There were no concessions BYU could have made to change that because those two teams just made more sense for the Big12.

We'll never know, but the information that came my way seemed pretty credible and suggested that serious discussions were held. But there's no sense arguing about it. I'm happy as can be for my Utes to be in the PAC-12.

[UtahsMrSports]

I don't get why everyone thinks if the SEC and B1G go to 14 or 16 teams, the other conferences will "have" to expand as well.

There is ONE thing driving all of this: TV Markets. That's why conferences are expanding. Now, other than Texas and Oklahoma, what market is attractive to the PAC-12?

Also, why in the world would the SEC care if the PAC-12 is at 12 teams or 16? In fact, it is better for the SEC to have the PAC-12 at 12 teams rather than 16, because if the PAC-12 stays at 12 teams, all that means is that Oregon will have to play USC more often than Alabama will have to play Florida. The PAC-12 staying at 12 means more losses for PAC-12 teams which means every other conference looks better.

NONE. The PAC-12 won't expand unless Boise, Las Vegas, Albuquerque, etc get big enough to warrant expansion OR Texas agrees to COMPLETELY change how they run their football program and become an equal (so, it ain't happening. Texas is who BYU thinks they are in terms of conference relationships and money, etc).

So, reason #1 the PAC-12 won't expand: There isn't a tv market to warrant expansion.

Reason #2 why it won't be BYU: The PAC-12 already has the Provo market. BYU is irrelevant when it comes to $$$'s. And no, BYU's "national" fanbase won't sway the PAC-12.

Reason #3 why it won't be BYU: The PAC-12 isn't willing to deal with Texas and told Freaking TEXAS no thanks. Why would they want to deal with BYU and their demands when BYU brings NOTHING Utah doesn't bring (actually, BYU brings less than Utah, because BYU has all the disadvantages of Utah's cold weather, and comes into the conference with a glass ceiling in recruiting due to it's honor code).

What I see happening is the SEC and Big 12 and B1G eating up what's left of the ACC. They will all have between 14-16 teams. I see the PAC-12 staying at 12, until another market grows enough to justify adding into the PAC-12. And Provo ain't that market.

As far as the rivalry goes, fogettaboutit.

It's dying. It will be dead in a few years. I would not be shocked if the 2016 game never happens. Also, I don't see the LDS church getting behind their sports like BYU fan does. The WCC is a TERRIBLE conference and slap in the face to that basketball program. I could easily see the Church leaving BYU Indy, support waining, and then in 5+ years, dropping sports like they have at all their other universities. Especially if Utah State can take advantage of the void BYU would leave behind. All the zoobs could go jump on that bandwagon, hate all their hated "non-rival" rivals (Wyoming, Boise St, UNLV, whoever), and still hate Utah. A match made in heaven, especially considering BYU is a basketball school now. They are Utah State.

Utah will survive not playing BYU every year. In fact, my hate for ASU and Washington is quickly catching up, and I really don't like Colorado that much either.

I havent read the rest of the thread, only up to this point. So maybe someone else has called you out on this, but this is pretty dumb. Its just anti-BYU rhetoric. Who cares, let it go, man.

[LA Ute]

I haven't read the rest of the thread, only up to this point. So maybe someone else has called you out on this, but this is pretty dumb. Its just anti-BYU rhetoric. Who cares, let it go, man.

:clap:

[SavaUte]

That's not fair. He made plenty of good points in there among the anti-BYU stuff. Besides, anti-BYU stuff is like fiber - you should have a little every day to keep regular.

I'm with mrsports.

The less I hear about byu the better. They aren't like fiber, they are like.... something that doesn't matter

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

I'm with mrsports.

The less I hear about byu the better. They aren't like fiber, they are like.... something that doesn't matter

Should have gone with riboflavin, wth even is that?

[Virginia Ute]

Maybe that's what I like about it. It's dumb enough for me to understand. Refreshing after getting beat down over in those smart religion threads.


LOL I can relate to this.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Should have gone with riboflavin, wth even is that?

Riboflavin is Vitamin B2 and is needed to metabolize fats, proteins, ketones, and carbs.

But I will repeat the general sentiment that the BYU fans on this site are our invited guests and many of them are also our friends in real life. The word 'zoob' is unnecessary, and as a pejorative does not apply to the posters of the Cougarish persuasion.

[LA Ute]

Riboflavin is Vitamin B2 and is needed to metabolize fats, proteins, ketones, and carbs.

But I will repeat the general sentiment that the BYU fans on this site are our invited guests and many of them are also our friends in real life. The word 'zoob' is unnecessary, and as a pejorative does not apply to the posters of the Cougarish persuasion.

I agree. Also, I think we ought to stop speculating (often gleefully) about the total demise of BYU athletics. It's dumb and kinda mean-spirited.

[Jarid in Cedar]

I agree. Also, I think we ought to stop speculating (often gleefully) about the total demise of BYU athletics. It's dumb and kinda mean-spirited.

But it is fun to watch some folks squirm and take it seriously. I also injected grasshoppers with lighter fluid and ortho weed killer when I was a child.

[UtahsMrSports]

I dont mind the word "zoob" if it is in reference to a specific person i.e. "A friend of mine is a total zoob"......but referring to the entire group as that is over the top. Its one of the reasons I avoid UFN and CB like the plague, name calling and broad generalizations run rampant and it kills discussion.

[Jarid in Cedar]

I dont mind the word "zoob" if it is in reference to a specific person i.e. "A friend of mine is a total zoob"......but referring to the entire group as that is over the top. Its one of the reasons I avoid UFN and CB like the plague, name calling and broad generalizations run rampant and it kills discussion.

I think if you are trying to dismiss everything someone says simply by calling them a single name (in this case, zoob), then you are basically saying that I am not smart enough to win this discussion, so I am going to call you names instead

[LA Ute]

But it is fun to watch some folks squirm and take out seriously. I also injected grasshoppers with lighter fluid and ortho weed killer when I was a child.

:D But isn't that an early sign of sociopathic tendencies? And now you're saving lives. Go figure.

[LA Ute]

You've hit on the key word, "fun." I don't begrudge any fan his or her fun, and the rivalry is fun. I just have more fun over my guys winning and succeeding than I do with schadenfreude. I love to whoop it up after a win but I don't like to rub it in. It's not a moral issue, just a preference. I'm probably just getting old.

[USS Utah]

I love some good natured rivalry fun.

I stopped seeing good natured fun about five years ago. Maybe its still out there, but it is getting harder to find.

[Jarid in Cedar]

I stopped seeing good natured fun about five years ago. Maybe its still out there, but it is getting harder to find.


Not going to find it easily online. Friends at work, etc. is the bastion of that type of fun.

[LA Ute]

You have to make it yourself.

True. I have close friends who are BYU fans, and we have lots of fun with the rivalry. But generally, it is not easy to do.

[U-Ute]

I find the "bringing TV market $$" argument as a pro for Utah fans ludicrous.

What we brought was a 12th team that allowed a championship game worth millions. We were the least objectionable option in that regards. Utah is a school that is respected in academics, and we work hard to compete in athletics. We were a good fit from a culture perspective. We certainly didn't bring millions of viewers, but we weren't a black hole either.

That pretty much sums up the conference's priorities in choosing schools when expanding.

[LA Ute]

Bingo. Colorado was a no brainer. After that, it's "who among the remaining options brings the most and matches the best?" Utah and BYU were really the only options for the next team (unless they decided to go all-in on football and invite Boise State), and in any category of importance, Utah either tied or beat BYU. Utah had more recent success on the field, brought the same (small) media market, and was a better academic fit. That made Utah a no-brainer as well.

I think you are right, except that BYU was never in the picture, at least while Larry Scott has been heading up the conference.

[Scorcho]

Viking,


I think it's too difficult for Utah fans to be objective about this and you won't get an unbiased response from most of us. Judging by the responses so far, I think the sting of being little brother to BYU in football for so long has jaded my generation (fortunately, this doesn't look to be as big an issue for later Utah generations).


Clearly, if you simply look at fan-base, viewers and alumni in the PAC-12 footprint, BYU would have been a better choice than Utah to join the PAC-12. Fortunately for Utah, the PAC-12 considered overall best fit when making it's decision.


I could see BYU joining as the 13thor 14th member of the PAC-12 (although I think the Big XII is much more likely). No doubt BYU is a valuable commodity and will one day end up in a conference again.

[Viking]

Expansion talks back. I don't believe the B12 will settle for anything less than Florida as choice #1 for the +2 teams.

I think it's ultimately very good for BYU and either AF or Boise, who get a default bid for foozball only into the Pac14

[SoCalPat]

Expansion talks back. I don't believe the B12 will settle for anything less than Florida as choice #1 for the +2 teams.

I think it's ultimately very good for BYU and either AF or Boise, who get a default bid for foozball only into the Pac14

If the Pac-12 ever goes to 14, I would expect BYU, Boise State, UNLV and New Mexico to engage in some kind of Loser Leave Town-Barbed Wire-Steel Cage-Stepladder Death Match to grab either of those bids (I think CU would engage in similar tactics to block CSU from ever getting in).

If I'm a BYU fan, I fear my school/church is too beholden to BYUTV to give up those third-tier rights.

If I'm a UNLV fan, I have little to worry about if the new stadium plans actually come to fruition. I think the lack of a natural rival within the league becomes less significant as the league becomes more geographically diluted.

If I'm a Boise State fan, I worry about the total package beyond football

If I'm a New Mexico fan, I worry about the ability of the football program to grow into something past Washington State.

Football is driving the train, but the strong football schools have big question marks attached to them. Meanwhile, the weaker football programs have their strengths virtually everywhere else. If you could combine BYU's stadium, Boise's football program, UNM's academics and overall athletic balance and UNLV's location and hoops history/arena, you'd have a monster Pac-12 program.

[LA Ute]

Would the PAC-12 work with BYU on Sunday play?

[Scratch]

The death match is now. The next 5-10 years are the tryout for those teams. BYU has a great opportunity this season with a good schedule and a good defense. Boise has to stay on top of the nonAQs and has to stay in the top 25. Like you said, UNLV just has to build the stadium. And UNM just needs Albuquerque to remain a big city.

I agree with LA - BYU's bigger issues are Sunday play and lack of a new media footprint. I don't buy for a second that they would let BYUTV get in the way of membership in the Pac12 or Big12. I know there were many unsubstantiated rumors that they turned the Big12 down based on BYUTV, and I don't buy those rumors at all.

But why in the world would the Pac-12 consider 14 teams? Now that the ACC put the breaks on expansion, there's no reason in the foreseeable future. The two 14 team conferences look unwieldy and a little foolish.

This is right. As long as the ACC can hold together, the only possible expansion would be the B12 deciding to go to 12 teams for a championship game. Obviously, if that happens, BYU will be a strong possibility.

[concerned]

This is right. As long as the ACC can hold together, the only possible expansion would be the B12 deciding to go to 12 teams for a championship game. Obviously, if that happens, BYU will be a strong possibility.

If the Big XII goes to 12, the Y still has the Sunday play issue (unless football only). But they now have the liablity of a distant geographic island. the conference has to go east to find one travel partner for WVA; if they do, it doesn't make a lot of sense to then admit the Y, 1000 to 1500 hundred miles distant from everybody.

And none of the candidates increases the revenue pie enough to put any additional money in the current members pockets, even with a conf championship game. The conference is essentially already being paid for a championship game (b/c their original tv deal was included the game at the time and was not reduced); the game itself is not going to add that much money.i

[Scratch]

If the Big XII goes to 12, the Y still has the Sunday play issue (unless football only). But they now have the liablity of a distant geographic island. the conference has to go east to find one travel partner for WVA; if they do, it doesn't make a lot of sense to then admit the Y, 1000 to 1500 hundred miles distant from everybody.

And none of the candidates increases the revenue pie enough to put any additional money in the current members pockets, even with a conf championship game. The conference is essentially already being paid for a championship game (b/c their original tv deal was included the game at the time and was not reduced); the game itself is not going to add that much money.i

It wouldn't add much money now, but doesn't that deal run out in a few years? Also, if the big dogs in the league decide that they are going to be better off in the playoff picture with 12 (say a couple of years where 2 SEC teams, the P12 champ, and the B1G champ make the playoffs) then money could become a secondary concern.

I'm not saying the B12 is definitely going to expand or anything like that, all I'm saying is that if the ACC holds up, I don't see anyone else significant expanding except possibly the B12. Now, no one from the P12, B1G, or SEC would ever join the B12, nor would anyone from the ACC unless the ACC is crumbling, which looks like it won't happen if there is a grant of rights in place.

So if the B12 does decide to expand, for whatever reason, what are the best options? I think you have UConn, Cincy, and USF to the East, and BYU, UNM, AFA, CSU, UNLV, and BSU to the West. The WVU addition may be enough to go with Cincy and UConn for geographic purposes, but if they want good football you couldn't beat BYU and BSU.

[jrj84105]

Cincinnati is the largest city in Ohio, covers a metropolitan area that extends into N Kentucky, has some pretty strong academic programs, and has been pretty successful recently in football. The ACC has closed ranks and further defections look improbable. With WV on an island in the East I think the odds of Cinci being left out of any BigXii expansion while the ACC GoR is in place is <1%. That would leave the remaining potential members, including a very attractive UCONN program, to compete for the final spot. I don't see it happening for BYU.

Retrospectively, I still think BYU missed a great opportunity. The point in time was when the Texahoma 4 move to the PAC was looking probable and Kansas/Kansas state were looking at the Big East as a fall back postion. That was the time point when Texas was also flaunting the possibility of independence in order to gain favorable terms from the PAC or BigXII. It was at this point that BYU went indy buoyed by a long term scheduling agreement with UT, and I think with some expectation that UT would be joing the ranks of independents. At the time, I was telling my BYU fan friends not to trust UT and that BYU's best bet was to get with Boise, Kansas, and Kansas St and jump to the Big East. Despite the BigXii ultimately holding together, I think the wisdom at the time would have been for KU/KSU to make that move. I actually think that that Big East with BYU, TCU, Boise, KU, KSU, (plus Baylor or Houston) would have been at least temporarily stable and a better launching pad for future realignment than Indy.

[Viking]

Would the PAC-12 work with BYU on Sunday play?

Not many opportunities for sunday football games in college.

$$ will drive this, I bet...which is why Florida is such a rich market for the +2 for the B12...or maybe +1 from a FL school + a UConn type...something with big market scale...

Since super conferences will happen, geography just won't matter other than whether your mkt is big enough. Should be interesting to see how this plays out over time.

[LA Ute]

Not many opportunities for sunday football games in college.

$$ will drive this, I bet...which is why Florida is such a rich market for the +2 for the B12...or maybe +1 from a FL school + a UConn type...something with big market scale...

Since super conferences will happen, geography just won't matter other than whether your mkt is big enough. Should be interesting to see how this plays out over time.

You're right, football-only membership solves the Sunday issue. Would BYU want that? Would the PAC-12? I don't think that conference has ever had partial members. As far as $$ goes, what does BYU bring to the PAC-12 table?

[Mormon Red Death]

You're right, football-only membership solves the Sunday issue. Would BYU want that? Would the PAC-12? I don't think that conference has ever had partial members. As far as $$ goes, what does BYU bring to the PAC-12 table?

The obvious next selection for the PAC 12 if they ever expand will be Hawaii. New market for the PAC 12 network and five extra games for the PAC 12 network to broadcast. Obviously football only

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

[OrangeUte]

Will the PAC 12 ever really expand? It seems to me that unless they get Oklahoma and/or Texas that expansion doesn't really add anything to the conference. Hawaii would open a new market and byu would add a large fan vase, but I can't see those additions really adding much. For some reason the PAC seems very stable as it is currently constituted. Nobody is likely to bolt or go independent and the schools seem content with one another.

[Viking]

You're right, football-only membership solves the Sunday issue. Would BYU want that? Would the PAC-12? I don't think that conference has ever had partial members. As far as $$ goes, what does BYU bring to the PAC-12 table?


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324391104578225802183417888.html

Based on this data, BYU is certainly not a detraction to the Pac12. Accretive? Only in the scenario where super conferences take hold and the "playoff" system takes the form of each Super Conference holding a conf championship. Then each of the four to six super conferences send their champ to the two or three round national championship tournament. The Pac would want 14 teams, I would imagine, in this scenario.

Of course, this is precisely what I think will happen. Football only.

[LA Ute]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324391104578225802183417888.html

Based on this data, BYU is certainly not a detraction to the Pac12. Accretive? Only in the scenario where super conferences take hold and the "playoff" system takes the form of each Super Conference holding a conf championship. Then each of the four to six super conferences send their champ to the two or three round national championship tournament. The Pac would want 14 teams, I would imagine, in this scenario.

Of course, this is precisely what I think will happen. Football only.

Who knows? You may be right. But it would be a huge departure for the PAC-12 to have a football-only member. I think it's unprecedented. Not sure BYU's "intrinsic worth" (as measured by an assistant professor at IUPUC) is sufficient to get the snobbish PAC-12 to make that move, especially for a religious school without a serious national research profile. Not knocking BYU, just trying to assess the situation realistically.

[LA Ute]

I should add that, as I've said many times, I have always wanted both Utah and BYU in the PAC. I know this is an unpopular view among may Ute fans.

[LA Ute]

Not only would BYU to the Pac-12 be good for BYU, it would be bad for Utah (the school, the team, and the state). That's a double whammy.

It is an emotional thing with me. I get why it isn't in Utah's best interest.

[UteBeliever aka Port]

You're right, football-only membership solves the Sunday issue. Would BYU want that? Would the PAC-12? I don't think that conference has ever had partial members. As far as $$ goes, what does BYU bring to the PAC-12 table?

Boise is currently a member of the PAC12 in wrestling.


I should add that, as I've said many times, I have always wanted both Utah and BYU in the PAC. I know this is an unpopular view among may Ute fans.

It's unpopular because it would be a net negative for the University of Utah. We are already seeing recruiting shift towards Utah. The revenue Utah is going to see from the PAC12 is going to DWARF BYU and that will lead to even more of an advantage in recruiting, facilities and marketing. We are also seeing a fairly visible shift in fan interest towards the U. (within the state) in the past 10 years, even moreso since the PAC12 announcement. That will lead to more money, more fans, more seats, more support.

The best thing for the U. would be for BYU to continue to marginalize itself while Utah builds its brand in its home market. I don't think we've even begun to see the end of the "shift" in recruiting in the state and in the fan support. That is only going to grow as Utah comes into its full share of PAC12 money and is playing legitimate home schedules year after year while BYU is struggling to find opponents in October and November.

I ask you, LA, why disrupt that?


*personal note*

I've been fairly consistent in saying to BYU fans that I don't think the PAC12 is out of question in their futures. I really do think that with certain realignments in the college landscape, the PAC12 might be forced into the position of "choosing the lesser of evils". Do they want to add Boise or BYU? BYU is all around a much better academic institution and has better overall athletics. If the PAC12 doesn't get Texas and Oklahoma but are forced to expand, they may have to hold their noses and pick programs like BYU and even New Mexico. I think New Mexico *might* have a place at the table. It's the biggest market in the West not currently in the PAC12 footprint. They have a medical school. They do research. IIRC, they have some ties to Los Alamos labs. I don't think UNM is out of the question. They certainly have a much better academic profile than Boise and their sports programs don't bring a lot less to the table than Boise.

If there is an expansion of the 12, I'd personally rather see it include regional programs like UNM, Boise, BYU or even UNLV or Colorado State than bringing in programs like OU and Texas that just seem like an odd fit geographically and "culturally." Travel for fans would be a lot easier, too.

[LA Ute]

Port, you're 100% right. My head agrees with you. My heart is wistful about the rivalry. But what I really want is Utah's success, and having us in the PAC and them independent helps that a great deal.

I still don't know of the PAC ever having a football-only member.

[Jarid in Cedar]

That's the funny thing about a rivalry. The end goal is to stomp the opponent into obscurity. But when that comes, you find yourself without a rival. See LSU/Tulane.

It's the "Megamind" effect.

I loved that show. I think full, utter destruction its a good plan.

[Mormon Red Death]

Yes, the dream is for the state of Utah to become a one team state, like Ohio, Louisiana, Wisconsin, Alabama, etc. We're a long way away from that, but it would be a tremendous thing for the state and for our team. Can you imagine the state of Utah unified behind one team? It's such a polarized, contentious state in so many ways. One of the only things I've seen with a unifying effect on this polarization is Utah football. Just look that this board and at Utefans.

BYU is certainly on the short list if the Pac-12 is forced to expand. I personally would go with UNM, UNLV, Boise, and Hawaii if four more were necessary for some reason (secure the flagships of all western states). This forced expansion idea seems much more remote now than it did a few years ago. Of course, with all the changes lately, who knows?

Alabama is not a one team state you forgot auburn. Perhaps you were thinking arkansas?

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

[Viking]

I happen to be in Salt Lake for a family event and was at the U for my nephew's youth football game today. I agree with the sentiment that Utah is going to scream past BYU in the next ten years when the real $$ starts pouring in from the Pac12. BYU is screwed and better hope for something akin to what Utah has.

[UteBeliever aka Port]

I happen to be in Salt Lake for a family event and was at the U for my nephew's youth football game today. I agree with the sentiment that Utah is going to scream past BYU in the next ten years when the real $$ starts pouring in from the Pac12. BYU is screwed and better hope for something akin to what Utah has.

Youth football in May?

[GarthUte]

Youth football in May?

There is youth indoor football (http://www.eteamz.com/uyifl/) going on right now.

[Utah]

The PAC-12 won't expand unless Texas and Oklahoma are involved, or Las Vegas/Alburquerque/Boise/other western city get big enough to raise revenue for each team, which probably won't be for a long time.

BYU is screwed when it comes to the PAC-12.

Also, why would the PAC-12 ever be "forced" to expand? Having a smaller conference only hurts the conference. All it means is Oregon has to play USC more frequently than than Alabama has to play Florida. No conference is going to "force" the PAC-12 to expand, especially if it means the PAC-12 makes less money.

Also, I hope Utah wins the "rivalry" game this year. Then we can dump this stupid game that does NOTHING for Utah (no national recognition, no jump in the polls, no extra time on Sportscenter, NOTHING) and does everything to hold Utah back (if we lose we suck in the nation's eyes and have to deal with zoobs, it IS a rivalry game, takes a lot out of this team, and is a guaranteed loss the week after). It's time to move on. It's been fun, time to move on. Utah is bigger and better than this game.

[UteBeliever aka Port]

The PAC-12 won't expand unless Texas and Oklahoma are involved, or Las Vegas/Alburquerque/Boise/other western city get big enough to raise revenue for each team, which probably won't be for a long time.

BYU is screwed when it comes to the PAC-12.

Also, why would the PAC-12 ever be "forced" to expand? Having a smaller conference only hurts the conference. All it means is Oregon has to play USC more frequently than than Alabama has to play Florida. No conference is going to "force" the PAC-12 to expand, especially if it means the PAC-12 makes less money.

Also, I hope Utah wins the "rivalry" game this year. Then we can dump this stupid game that does NOTHING for Utah (no national recognition, no jump in the polls, no extra time on Sportscenter, NOTHING) and does everything to hold Utah back (if we lose we suck in the nation's eyes and have to deal with zoobs, it IS a rivalry game, takes a lot out of this team, and is a guaranteed loss the week after). It's time to move on. It's been fun, time to move on. Utah is bigger and better than this game.

Several external factors could "force" the PAC12 to expand.

[SeattleUte]

Isn't it clear the Pac will never consider BYU. Hell will freeze over before BYU is invited to the Pac. It will never happen. EVER. Unless the entire BYU instution changes fundamentally, at a genetic level. You all know what I mean. Had it been a strictly football decision BYU would have been a better choice than Utah. BYU is repulsive to the Pac. Count us Utes now as part of this attitude. Right?

[Viking]

Isn't it clear the Pac will never consider BYU. Hell will freeze over before BYU is invited to the Pac. It will never happen. EVER. Unless the entire BYU instution changes fundamentally, at a genetic level. You all know what I mean. Had it been a strictly football decision BYU would have been a better choice than Utah. BYU is repulsive to the Pac. Count us Utes now as part of this attitude. Right?

I think that attitude is a little outdated. The pac will take byu only if and when it has to take byu.

byu, though, is a dying program.

[wuapinmon]

Isn't it clear the Pac will never consider BYU. Hell will freeze over before BYU is invited to the Pac. It will never happen. EVER. Unless the entire BYU instution changes fundamentally, at a genetic level. You all know what I mean. Had it been a strictly football decision BYU would have been a better choice than Utah. BYU is repulsive to the Pac. Count us Utes now as part of this attitude. Right?

Repulsive? Come on!

[Utah]

Several external factors could "force" the PAC12 to expand.

I gave my reasons why no one would "force" the PAC-12 to expand. Please give me yours. And, "because everyone else is doing it" isn't good enough.

[Utah]

And BYU will keep going to bowl games every year. With the new playoff, access to non-playoff BCS games is easier than before for nonAQ teams.

If BYU keeps scheduling schedules like this, bowl games will be as tough for them as it is for us. BYU has these games that they could lose next year:

Virginia
Texas
Utah
Midd Tenn State
Utah State
Georgia Tech
Boise
Wisconsin
Nevada
Notre Dame

That is 10 games they could lose. They have NEVER played a schedule this tough.

Also, bowl access for BYU has NEVER BEEN HARDER. They have ZERO bowl contracts after this year. There is close to ZERO chance they get into a BCS game and an even smaller chance they make the playoffs.

There is a reason why ND has joined forces with the ACC. Independence is an outdated model.

For you people that think a playoff selection committee would pick an undefeated BYU team over a SEC/PAC-12/B1G/Big 12 team you are nuts. They had a mock selection committee on ESPN Radio the other day and the big argument they had was whether ND was a 4 seed or if Texas A&M deserved to be in over ND. If ND goes undefeated and is on the bubble, BYU has NO shot.

The ironic thing was, most of the panelists pointed to the fact that ND struggled against BYU as to why they do t deserve to be in the playoff. BYU is NOT the national, relevant team BYU fan wants you to think they are. They aren't even at Boise's, TCU's or Utah's level.

[Viking]

A little dramatic. BYU is what it has always been - a good, but not great, football program. BYU just had a player drafted in the first round, and will probably have another next year. Van Noy could be an all-american. And BYU will keep going to bowl games every year. With the new playoff, access to non-playoff BCS games is easier than before for nonAQ teams.

It's a slow death, but death nonetheless when compared to our past.

If Utah can improve its academics in a meaningful way, it would be pretty unstoppable in the state.

[UteBeliever aka Port]

I gave my reasons why no one would "force" the PAC-12 to expand. Please give me yours. And, "because everyone else is doing it" isn't good enough.

As much as I'd love to give a serious response to such a condescending demand from a poster from such a presumptuous name, I'll just defer to your great wisdom and well-reasoned position and *agree* that nothing will ever force the PAC to expand. Ever.

[LA Ute]

I've said this before. If BYU remains independent, it will be like one of the service academies - more like Air Force than the others. Their main claim to fame will be to stand for something. That's what their Board of Trustee wants. They'll be competitive almost every year, will regularly go to minor bowls and may once in a while go to a major one. I don't see BYU football going away.

[Utah]

I've said this before. If BYU remains independent, it will be like one of the service academies - more like Air Force than the others. Their main claim to fame will be to stand for something. That's what their Board of Trustee wants. They'll be competitive almost every year, will regularly go to minor bowls and may once in a while go to a major one. I don't see BYU football going away.

Would your scenario still get support from students, fans and donors? That program spends a lot of money and their followers believe they are a national team that the nation cares about.

If BYU did become Air Force, support would disappear overnight. Especially if Utah is doing well. Heck, if Utah State makes a BCS bowl or two, BYU will die. It could be argued that out of three DI schools, BYU is in the worst position potential wise.

They have the worst bowl access, the worst recruiting advantage, a tougher time scheduling (a 2-1 with Arizona?!?), and so on. Not only does Utah have a huge advantage to top dog status, Utah State could really hurt BYU fan if they take advantage of being in the MWC.

What would happen to BYU if USU and Utah made a BCS Bowl in two years?

[USS Utah]

Would your scenario still get support from students, fans and donors? That program spends a lot of money and their followers believe they are a national team that the nation cares about.

If BYU did become Air Force, support would disappear overnight. Especially if Utah is doing well. Heck, if Utah State makes a BCS bowl or two, BYU will die. It could be argued that out of three DI schools, BYU is in the worst position potential wise.

They have the worst bowl access, the worst recruiting advantage, a tougher time scheduling (a 2-1 with Arizona?!?), and so on. Not only does Utah have a huge advantage to top dog status, Utah State could really hurt BYU fan if they take advantage of being in the MWC.

What would happen to BYU if USU and Utah made a BCS Bowl in two years?

Gary Anderson did a great job in Logan, but aren't you getting ahead of yourself?

[FountainOfUte]

I don't see BYU football going away.

I'm LDS so I may be a bit biased in the way I see things going but the LDS church is only growing. When I was in high school in the early 90s, I seem to recall church membership being about 9 or 10 million. In the last General Conference it was just shy of 15 million. Now the church is seeing significant growth in missionary work (I know its a peak now that will taper off soon, but I don't think missionary #'s will drop back to the level before "the announcement" regarding missionary age a few months ago). Meanwhile, LDS members tend to have more kids than the average American or even international family.

Long story short, the LDS church could be at 25 million in 20 years from now. BYU won't get much bigger from a brick and mortar standpoint, but the international demand to get in from a growing church will continue to grow. BYU will have a better and better pool to pull from for sports scholarships. Look at Ziggy as a small Exhibit A of what I'm talking about. I think he was a recent convert in Ghana.

I don't see BYU or its sports going anywhere.

Also, like LA, count me as one who sort of wouldn't mind seeing BYU in the PAC or Big 12.

For the time being though, I do agree that Utah will build a significant lead in the arms and PR race against BYU. A lead that may take a very long time for BYU to make up.

[LA Ute]

Would your scenario still get support from students, fans and donors? That program spends a lot of money and their followers believe they are a national team that the nation cares about.

If BYU did become Air Force, support would disappear overnight. Especially if Utah is doing well. Heck, if Utah State makes a BCS bowl or two, BYU will die. It could be argued that out of three DI schools, BYU is in the worst position potential wise.

They have the worst bowl access, the worst recruiting advantage, a tougher time scheduling (a 2-1 with Arizona?!?), and so on. Not only does Utah have a huge advantage to top dog status, Utah State could really hurt BYU fan if they take advantage of being in the MWC.

What would happen to BYU if USU and Utah made a BCS Bowl in two years?

I don't know. It wouldn't give me pleasure to see BYU football disappear from the face of the earth. I think it's kind of silly to fantasize about such things. I also think, however, that BYU's owners don't care nearly as much about national acclaim for its football program as BYU's fans do, and the minute the BOT decided that BYU football has stopped advancing the school's mission, or has in any way became an obstacle to the mission's advancement, it would end.

I'd just rather focus on supporting Utah football and helping it become as great as it can. What happens to BYU is beyond our control, but we Ute fans, I am happy to say, don't have to worry about our Board of Trustees pulling the rug out from under our program. :D

[LA Ute]

Long story short, the LDS church could be at 25 million in 20 years from now. BYU won't get much bigger from a brick and mortar standpoint, but the international demand to get in from a growing church will continue to grow. BYU will have a better and better pool to pull from for sports scholarships. Look at Ziggy as a small Exhibit A of what I'm talking about. I think he was a recent convert in Ghana.

I love beating BYU as much or more as any Utah fan, but Fountain makes a good point here. Predictions of doom for BYU sports may end up looking foolish someday if the church gets big enough that there is a large pool of gifted LDS athletes (mainly we are talking about AA athletes right now) to supply a lot of serious speed and athleticism to BYU. Its status as the school for slow white guys may change someday.

Meanwhile, Utah's job for now is to keep the pedal to the metal and leave BYU as far behind as possible!

[LA Ute]

My hope is that as the church grows, more members will understand that it's fine (and often advantageous) to not go to BYU. My fear is that the opposite will happen.

It will be interesting to see how the BYU BOT decides to handle the pressure to become elite.

[Viking]

I don't understand what the academics has to do with football. I also think you underestimate the academics at the U, unless by academics you really mean "admission standards."

It's simple: if you can have an institution that's an athletic power + great academics, you get the dominant university in the state. That's what UT is to me (I'm from Dallas). Michigan is another example...amongst many others.

I'm unfamiliar with the exact quality of Utah academics, but my sense is that it is mediocre (I generally find BYU to be mediocre as well, though there are pockets of excellence). I know my great great grandpa was JT Kingsbury and thus the school must be worth a damn, at least. I know that a bunch of utes are basically amongst the best small cap investors in the world, too.

I can't ever see myself sitting in red, cheering for the utes (my primary allegiance is to the 'Horns!) but I cheer your successes.

[LA Ute]

Hey, we have a Nobel prize winner!

[Viking]

You are a pretty tough critic. Compared to UT-Austin, 99% of schools are mediocre. But after a handful of exceptional state schools, Utah is right there. If the top 1% of research professors get jobs at the Michigans, Harvards, and Texas' of the world, the next 1-2% populate the Utahs, Arizonas, and LSU. In my field, there are leading, known professionals at the U.

There are 1,000 ways of measuring university quality, and the U is far above average in most of them. But, yeah, if the only criteria is how a school compares to Austin, Texas will win most matchups.

BYU is a different animal altogether, but I can't imagine many people would classify it as mediocre.

I could be wrong; it's been nearly 20 years since I graduated from BYU and I have practically zero academic interactions with anyone there other than a couple of econ professors we use to model FX rate outcomes from time to time.

As an econ grad, I'm super biased in thinking it's one of the great pockets of places to study at BYU. I remain bitter, however: I was near the top in my graduating class yet received few university honors. Why? Because I was in the College of Family, Home and Social Sciences, where I technically competed for honors against glorified home ec and underwater basket weaving majors. :)

[Hadrian]

At this stage, I think BYU football has plateaued. I don't think they'll get much bigger on the football scene because they're limited by independence and tough instate competition. However, I don't think fans are just going to abandon their team anytime soon. They won't sink away just because the other instate teams have success. They will always be a good program with a pretty big fanbase.

I do think, however, because of the P12 membership Utah has a higher ceiling. Unless BYU turns it around soon, Utah will inevitably outspend and outrecruit them in Utah. And even though BYU is an LDS institution, Utah can also offer a lot for LDS recruits and may end up even being more appealing to out-of-state LDS members (e.g. Gaius Vaenuku).


Hey, we have a Nobel prize winner!I actually saw him at the Field House the other day working out.

[SeattleUte]

I agree that it won't happen, but your reasons are wrong. If BYU were a football juggernaut like Notre Dame, the Pac-12 would have invited them years ago. It's not the religion. It's the fact that BYU doesn't add money or football strength to the conference.

Ah, the lies we tell ourselves are the hardest to see. So you really believe that Utah and not BYU was invited to the Pac 12 because Utah adds more football money and more football strength than BYU would have? Some things are more important than football, believe it or not. And great universities fancy themselves being all about such things.

[SeattleUte]

I think that attitude is a little outdated. The pac will take byu only if and when it has to take byu.

byu, though, is a dying program.

It's not outdated. Why else do you think the Pac 12 didn't invite BYU? BYU football is dying for the same reason that any theocracy is dying in this age.

[LA Ute]

I actually saw him at the Field House the other day working out.

When I am in SLC over the holidays I always work out at the Fieldhouse. He is there every day.

[Viking]

It's not outdated. Why else do you think the Pac 12 didn't invite BYU? BYU football is dying for the same reason that any theocracy is dying in this age.

There's no doubt a strong faction within the Pac12 that would never vote for BYU for the reasons you have implied. It's not unanimous and may only be a slight majority at this point.

My view--and I'm an ex-mo--is that judging the school aside from anything on the football merits is simply irraltional--and outdated.

[LA Ute]

Many left-leaning academics look at BYU and see a version of Bob Jones University, or maybe Liberty. Unfair, but it probably was a factor.

[LA Ute]

By the way, the idea that the PAC-12 chieftains sat down with a list of schools and crossed off BYU is simply baseless. When Larry Scott said the conference would consider expansion, Hill immediately called Mike Bohn, the Colorado AD, and asked if he was in. Bohn said yes, and Hill then set up lunch for the two of them with Scott. The discussions with Utah/Colorado were ongoing from then on. The Texas-Oklahoma/PAC-16 dalliance upset that for a while, but as soon as those discussions flamed out Scott went right back to Hill and Bohn. BYU was never in the discussions.

[LA Ute]

That's conspiracy theory talk. No, what they had was a tie between two schools that deliver the same market. As tiebreakers, they take the team that (1) had had more recent success on the field and (2) was a better fit culturally.

Left leaning poly sci professors had nothing to do with these decisions. Money had everything to do with them. Again, Notre Dame is a perfect example. Does anyone in the world believe that the Pac-12 would not take Notre Dame? If the money is there, the invite is there.

I think BYU's religious sponsorship was probably one reason BYU was never considered, that's all. And BYU and Notre Dame are not the same.

[Viking]

By the way, the idea that the PAC-12 chieftains sat down with a list of schools and crossed off BYU is simply baseless. When Larry Scott said the conference would consider expansion, Hill immediately called Mike Bohn, the Colorado AD, and asked if he was in. Bohn said yes, and Hill then set up lunch for the two of them with Scott. The discussions with Utah/Colorado were ongoing from then on. The Texas-Oklahoma/PAC-16 dalliance upset that for a while, but as soon as those discussions flamed out Scott went right back to Hill and Bohn. BYU was never in the discussions.

If this is true, you guys should take Rice and Eccles off the stadium and replace them with Hill.

[LA Ute]

If this is true, you guys should take Rice and Eccles off the stadium and replace them with Hill.

It was just a matter of positioning. If the PAC-12 was going to expand with schools that made regional sense and fit the PAC-12 academic profile, Utah and Colorado were pretty much the only games in town. Hill had been positioning Utah for that moment for years.

[jrj84105]

I think BYU's religious sponsorship was probably one reason BYU was never considered, that's all. And BYU and Notre Dame are not the same.
BYU's problem is not religious sponsorship, it is the lack of academic freedom and censorship that come with that sponsorship. Displeasure among faculty at peer institutions would not be limited to the liberal political science crowd. That's the biggest difference between BYU, Notre Dame, and most modern religious schools.

[SeattleUte]

BYU was never in the discussions.

Of course.

[SeattleUte]

If this is true, you guys should take Rice and Eccles off the stadium and replace them with Hill.

You missed his point.

[SeattleUte]

BYU's problem is not religious sponsorship, it is the lack of academic freedom and censorship that come with that sponsorship. Displeasure among faculty at peer institutions would not be limited to the liberal political science crowd. That's the biggest difference between BYU, Notre Dame, and most modern religious schools.

BYU is a department of a religion. The LDS church's highest leaders are BYU's trustees. There's no other purported university that's a department of a religion. Does BYU have gay student organizations like Georgetown and Notre Dame do? Lack of religious feedom is just a symptom of a root pathology. If it weren't for the intimate association with the mother Church there woudn't be these attributes that the Pac 12 finds unacceptable.

[LA Ute]

BYU's problem is not religious sponsorship, it is the lack of academic freedom and censorship that come with that sponsorship. Displeasure among faculty at peer institutions would not be limited to the liberal political science crowd. That's the biggest difference between BYU, Notre Dame, and most modern religious schools.

I don't disagree. It's not the fact of BYU's religious sponsorship, it's the nature of the sponsorship. BYU is tightly tied the LDS church, and its mission is to advance the church's mission. As a member of the church I don't have a problem with that, but I can see how the PAC-12 would. I don't know how big a factor the church ownership was, but I think it was a factor. When it comes to the PAC-12 BYU is like a zebra that wants to join a herd of horses. There's nothing wrong with being a zebra, but as much a zebra might resemble a horse, it's still a zebra.

[LA Ute]

Exactly, if you have 11 horses, and you need to be a group of 12, and the state of Utah has one horse and one zebra, you take the horse unless the zebra is made of solid gold. Since both the horse and zebra were just little skinny flesh and bone beasts of burden, they took the horse. But if that zebra had been made of gold...done deal.

I don't think so but like, that's just my opinion, man. Who is to say you're not right?

I prefer to think of Utah as a young horse that's growing into its frame, with potential to be a pretty good racing thoroughbred someday. :D

[SeattleUte]

Exactly, if you have 11 horses, and you need to be a group of 12, and the state of Utah has one horse and one zebra, you take the horse unless the zebra is made of solid gold. Since both the horse and zebra were just little skinny flesh and bone beasts of burden, they took the horse. But if that zebra had been made of gold...done deal.

You are an original kind of BYU apologist, I'll say that for you. Where is this coming from other than your imagination? Nowhere, that's where. You're making all this up out of nothing.

Here are the hard, cold acts. BYU has a fan base multiples the size of Utah's, a heisman trophy winner, a national championship, many many more conference titles than Utah, two Super Bowl champion quarterbacks, etc. Decades of national prominence while Utah couldn't win ameasly WAC title -- for over 40 years. What is Utah's football history and tradition? Before 2003, ZIP.

Yes, what I've just said is debatable. Somewhat. I little bit. Maybe.

But here's what's crystal clear, an irrefutable, hard FACT. BYU has NEVER been on the Pac commissioner's white board. NEVER. BYU has never been considerd for membership by the Pac, not even a little.

Here's the blunt truth that you're deluding yourself out of accepting. Stanford, Cal, Washington, UCLA, USC, would not be caught dead in a conference with a university soiled by a history of racism, homophobia, junk scholarship and academic authoritarianism like BYU -- all of which BYU is quite unapologetic about.

You also totally overestimate the importance of football's finances. Here are the football programs' profits:

http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/50853/pac-12-not-in-the-money

These are like small businesses. Do you know what Stanford's endowment is? What is Washington's or Utah's (for that matter) annual academic budget?

[UteBeliever aka Port]

You are an original kind of BYU apologist, I'll say that for you. Where is this coming from other than your imagination? Nowhere, that's where. You're making all this up out of nothing.

Here are the hard, cold acts. BYU has a fan base multiples the size of Utah's, a heisman trophy winner, a national championship, many many more conference titles than Utah, two Super Bowl champion quarterbacks, etc. Decades of national prominence while Utah couldn't win ameasly WAC title -- for over 40 years. What is Utah's football history and tradition? Before 2003, ZIP.



Funny....reading this thread and your repeated assertions that Utah would not have been chosen based on football had led me to the same conclusion about you.

This decision was made in 2010, not 1985. I realize you and LA are both much older than many of us and went to school and came of age at a time when BYU was clearly a better football program, but BYU and Utah have been, if anything, even, in football, since Ron McBride arrived on the Hill. Since 2002, Utah has been CLEARLY better.

I think LA's nostalgia for the continuation of the rivalry and his desire to see BYU in the PAC12/Big12 is born from the same place as your insistence that BYU was clearly a better choice in terms of football.

[SeattleUte]

Funny....reading this thread and your repeated assertions that Utah would not have been chosen based on football had led me to the same conclusion about you.

This decision was made in 2010, not 1985. I realize you and LA are both much older than many of us and went to school and came of age at a time when BYU was clearly a better football program, but BYU and Utah have been, if anything, even, in football, since Ron McBride arrived on the Hill. Since 2002, Utah has been CLEARLY better.

I think LA's nostalgia for the continuation of the rivalry and his desire to see BYU in the PAC12/Big12 is born from the same place as your insistence that BYU was clearly a better choice in terms of football.

You're always somewhat slow. My post wasn't about whose football tradition is superior. My post was about how at no time has BYU been of any interest whatsoever to the Pac 12. It's not because BYU's football isn't pac 12 viable.

BYU fans seem to get and accept this.

[SeattleUte]

Yes, at the time of expansion, the two schools were equal in terms of how much the Pac-12 would bring in. Utah was far ahead in terms of on field performance. Utah was a large state school. Of course BYU was not considered. If all this had happened in 1988, yeah, maybe BYU gets in.

If I'm making too big a deal of the money, it's only because money has driven every ounce of the crazy expansion that has swept across all of college football. Seattle is certainly making too much of BYU's religious affiliation. The Pac-12 wouldn't think twice about adding BYU if BYU had a great team and/or a ton of money. BYU has been seriously considered for both the Pac-10 and the Big12 at various times in the distant past. Even if Stanford et al were really as repulsed by BYU as suggested, they are certainly not as principled as suggested.

Here's a new theory. All the lawyers, businessmen, and doctors around here are in professions obsessed with money. I think the corruption they see makes them hope that academics is less sullied. Well, it aint. Money drives all university decisions too, even for the places with large endowments.

As Rutgers' recent admission to the Big 10 shows, to the extent it's a football decision, it's not about recent on field success. It's about how many fans. BYU has a lot more of them than Utah.

[SeattleUte]

BYU has been seriously considered for both the Pac-10 and the Big12 at various times in the distant past.

This is BS. BYU has never been considered one whit by the Pac 12. Cite? It has never been "seriously considered' by the Big 12. Cite? Neither conference wants BYU for basically the same reason.

I realize you have a interest in obscuring the real reason BYU can't find a major conference that wants it, and that disregard of empeirical evidence is probably deeply engrained.

[Flystripper]

This thread is interesting to read from the perspective of as ex mo BYU fan. From my perspective and biases SU is killing it.

[LA Ute]

It is funny to think of Sancho as a BYU apologist.

[SeattleUte]

This thread is interesting to read from the perspective of as ex mo BYU fan. From my perspective and biases SU is killing it.

Some Ute fans would rather Utah be a better football school than morally superior to BYU. I can't figure out why.

[Mormon Red Death]

Some Ute fans would rather Utah be a better football school than morally superior to BYU. I can't figure out why.

Because they are fans of the football team?

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

[Scratch]

As Rutgers' recent admission to the Big 10 shows, to the extent it's a football decision, it's not about recent on field success. It's about how many fans. BYU has a lot more of them than Utah.

It's not about the number of fans, in the current TV landscape of conference networks and conferences competing for prime viewing slots, all that matters is markets. BYU and Utah both deliver the same thing, for these purposes. Sancho is right; it is irrelevant to the P12's bottom line if BYU has a lot more fans in Southern California, the Pacific Northwest, and Gilbert Arizona. It is also irrelevant if BYU has more fans in Dallas, Kansas City, and Boston, as there are not even close to enough to change the cable companies' and TV Networks' approaches to those markets.

Also, I read this thread as Seattle acting as the biggest BYU apologist. He's wildly overestimating the size and value of the BYU fanbase. There are going to be a lot more people (read: Mormons) who identify themselves as BYU fans outside of Utah, but the vast majority of them don't care enough about college sports to make a meaningful financial dent in any way. Despite BYU fans' claims to the contrary, this is borne out by BYU's lackluster bowl ratings, road attendance, and merchandise sales.

[Flystripper]

That puts both you and Seattle in the camp with the many wacky conspiracy theory BYU fans whose persecution complexes have them convinced that Stanford academics do nothing all day but sit around and think about how to keep BYU down. "It's true, I have a cousin who goes to Stanford, and he had dinner with the Stanford board of trustees, and he excused himself to go to the restroom, and then he found a secret tunnel to a room full of plans on how to keep BYU football out of the Pac-12."

No, in this case, the simplest explanation is the right one - BYU didn't add more money/prestige than Utah, so they went with the better team.

I don't think they sit around all day and think about BYU. I don't think they ever think about BYU.

[SoCalPat]

Wow ... I can't believe what I'm about to say. But SU has largely owned this thread when he's stuck to the true matter at hand.

The Pac-12 has never considered BYU for membership, and without a massive change in the attitude of BYU at the presidential level (which will never come), BYU will never get in. I can't believe how much people forget in such a short period of time -- Colorado's invite came before ours because that was the Pac-12 saying "Over our collective dead bodies" to the Texas schools fighting for Baylor. Baylor was never getting in and neither was BYU. When it comes to connecting the dots, this is as easy as it gets. Expansion was going to go to 16 teams or to 12. We know Baylor was outright rejected under any scenario and we know BYU was never in the discussion. The timing of the Colorado invite tells us all we need to know on that matter.

If there could be anything learned from the summer of 2010, it's that academics don't mean THAT much to the Pac-12, as it was ready to bring on Texas Tech and Oklahoma State (two schools clearly inferior to Utah). BYU's saving grace for future Pac membership is that there is momentum to get control of collegiate sports back to the athletic directors, and not university presidents, because the NCAA's shortcomings are even more exposed when you have people with zero background in athletics making key decisions. If that happens, and it's a decision made first and foremost about athletics, I could see BYU being a part of the conversation. But the competition will be fierce -- there are plenty of good arguments out there for other Western schools as well.

[Dawminator]

Also, I read this thread as Seattle acting as the biggest BYU apologist.

Funny, I read this thread as Seattle showing that he hates religion more then BYU football. He built up BYU football, simply to tear down the religion that goes with it. If football over there is so great, and they have tons of fans, then they didn't get into the PAC-10 because of the LDS Church. He was just basing his argument to build support for BYU football as the lesser of two evils as it gave him an opportunity to attack the LDS Church. I also find it fun that one of the posters who agreed with him is a self identified ex-mo BYU fan.

I think I agree with Sancho, if BYU brought more money then they are in. I do agree with SU, however, in that culture plays a roll. I just don't think it would have been a big deal if the money they brought was significantly more than with Utah...pretty much like Sancho said.

[Scratch]

Wow ... I can't believe what I'm about to say. But SU has largely owned this thread when he's stuck to the true matter at hand.

The Pac-12 has never considered BYU for membership, and without a massive change in the attitude of BYU at the presidential level (which will never come), BYU will never get in. I can't believe how much people forget in such a short period of time -- Colorado's invite came before ours because that was the Pac-12 saying "Over our collective dead bodies" to the Texas schools fighting for Baylor. Baylor was never getting in and neither was BYU. When it comes to connecting the dots, this is as easy as it gets. Expansion was going to go to 16 teams or to 12. We know Baylor was outright rejected under any scenario and we know BYU was never in the discussion. The timing of the Colorado invite tells us all we need to know on that matter.

If there could be anything learned from the summer of 2010, it's that academics don't mean THAT much to the Pac-12, as it was ready to bring on Texas Tech and Oklahoma State (two schools clearly inferior to Utah). BYU's saving grace for future Pac membership is that there is momentum to get control of collegiate sports back to the athletic directors, and not university presidents, because the NCAA's shortcomings are even more exposed when you have people with zero background in athletics making key decisions. If that happens, and it's a decision made first and foremost about athletics, I could see BYU being a part of the conversation. But the competition will be fierce -- there are plenty of good arguments out there for other Western schools as well.

Pat, I don't see what Baylor has to do with BYU never being a candidate. BYU delivers a lot of things Baylor does not (and Baylor delivers some things that BYU does not). I don't see the fact that both BYU and Baylor are religious schools as necessarily being the link. I suppose it could be, but to me it's more meaningful that Baylor doesn't bring any real value to the P12, either alone or along with the other Texas schools. Again, if Baylor had Notre Dame's history, national fan base, etc., do you really think the P12 would have acted preemptively to cut them off?

I don't think there's any doubt that BYU's "issues" made them much less appealing to the P12, which certainly played in our favor, but to claim that there is no scenario where BYU could have gotten in seems like a stretch (of course, now the likelihood of them ever getting in is even more significantly decreased due to the fact that the P12 already has the Utah market).

[UteBeliever aka Port]

Also, I read this thread as Seattle acting as the biggest BYU apologist. He's wildly overestimating the size and value of the BYU fanbase. There are going to be a lot more people (read: Mormons) who identify themselves as BYU fans outside of Utah, but the vast majority of them don't care enough about college sports to make a meaningful financial dent in any way. Despite BYU fans' claims to the contrary, this is borne out by BYU's lackluster bowl ratings, road attendance, and merchandise sales.

:clap:

[Flystripper]

I don't hate the Mormon church despite being an ex-mo. Let me just first say that Utah has a very good football program with tremendous recent success. Your football success played a significant part in your admittance to the conference. Without Utah's BCS success I don't there there is much of a chance that you guys would have been considered for the conference despite your cultural alignment with the PAC.

If the decision to add Utah to the PAC was based on delivering the Utah media market then I am not sure the PAC would have added either either BYU or Utah because the Utah market is hopelessly split, and neither school will consistently deliver a majority share any time soon. The days of BYU's domination in that regard are long gone, but but I don't see much more erosion in interest or ratings as long as they field a team. The pissing match between between fans who argue about which school delivers more money is funny to me. Fans pick and choose what they want to believe. BYU fans point to their ESPN contract. Utah fans point to the PAC inclusion. BYU fans then counter with attendance and stadium size while Utah fans point to Neilson ratings for bowl games. To be perfectly honest if the PAC really wanted all Utah's media market then they would have added both BYU and Utah. It appears that the the PAC was satisfied with half the Utah market with hopes that BYU will just go away some day.

The PAC wanted CU. The problem they had was that CU had zero viable partners. (CSU is not a viable PAC school IMHO) So it came down to Utah (and some want to believe BYU). Both schools deliver half of the Utah market. Both schools can point to football success. Both schools have decent facilities. One school is a cultural fit and the other is not. Boom! Congrats Utah you are in.

Personally I don't think the PAC ever had/has to do a side by side comparison of Utah and BYU, because I think BYU's cultural warts were/are significant negatives to university presidents who ultimately made/make the decision.

[LA Ute]

Even though everyone wants to talk about the past (whether BYU had a chance to get into the PAC-12) this thread began as a question about the future of BYU sports. That was already a bit trollish, but no matter; I think it is silly for Utah fans to worry about that question, since we have no control over it anyway. What do we have some ability to influence is Utah athletics. We can support it in many ways -- especially by donating to Utah athletics. The Utes need the money. Utah ought to keep the pedal to the metal and try to put as much distance as possible between it and BYU, its chief in-state competitor, for as long as it can.

As for Utah, BYU and the PAC-12, there are only a few people on earth who know the whole story. In fact, Larry Scott may be the only one who does, from the PAC-12's standpoint. Everyone's just speculating based on fragmentary information, including me. Fact is, we are in, they are not, so let's make the most of it and leave them in the rear-view mirror. I'm ready to leave my wistfulness about the rivalry there too.

[San Diego Ute Fan]

Even though everyone wants to talk about the past (whether BYU had a chance to get into the PAC-12) this thread began as a question about the future of BYU sports. That was already a bit trollish, but no matter; I think it is silly for Utah fans to worry about that question, since we have no control over it anyway. What do we have some ability to influence is Utah athletics. We can support it in many ways -- especially by donating to Utah athletics. The Utes need the money. Utah ought to keep the pedal to the metal and try to put as much distance as possible between it and BYU, its chief in-state competitor, for as long as it can.

As for Utah, BYU and the PAC-12, there are only a few people on earth who know the whole story. In fact, Larry Scott may be the only one who does, from the PAC-12's standpoint. Everyone's just speculating based on fragmentary information, including me. Fact is, we are in, they are not, so let's make the most of it and leave them in the rear-view mirror. I'm ready to leave my wistfulness about the rivalry there too.

:clap:

And....Once again, LA Ute is the voice of reason. Thank you.

[Flystripper]

Since this thread is about the future. BYU is what it will always be.

[Flystripper]

There is no such thing as a half market. A market has been "delivered" if/when the local cable companies add the Pac-12 network. In that sense, either Utah or BYU would have delivered the SLC market. For that reason, BYU's national fanbase is not enough to deliver a market and is therefore irrelevant to expansion decisions.



In this case, the presidents signed off on the idea of expansion, and then told Larry Scott to go get whoever made the most sense financially.


The market is two things. Footprint/subscriber base and ratings/ad dollars. Utah delivers the footprint but only half the potential market will actually tune in or subscribe to the network.

[Scratch]

I don't hate the Mormon church despite being an ex-mo. Let me just first say that Utah has a very good football program with tremendous recent success. Your football success played a significant part in your admittance to the conference. Without Utah's BCS success I don't there there is much of a chance that you guys would have been considered for the conference despite your cultural alignment with the PAC.

If the decision to add Utah to the PAC was based on delivering the Utah media market then I am not sure the PAC would have added either either BYU or Utah because the Utah market is hopelessly split, and neither school will consistently deliver a majority share any time soon. The days of BYU's domination in that regard are long gone, but but I don't see much more erosion in interest or ratings as long as they field a team. The pissing match between between fans who argue about which school delivers more money is funny to me. Fans pick and choose what they want to believe. BYU fans point to their ESPN contract. Utah fans point to the PAC inclusion. BYU fans then counter with attendance and stadium size while Utah fans point to Neilson ratings for bowl games. To be perfectly honest if the PAC really wanted all Utah's media market then they would have added both BYU and Utah. It appears that the the PAC was satisfied with half the Utah market with hopes that BYU will just go away some day.

The PAC wanted CU. The problem they had was that CU had zero viable partners. (CSU is not a viable PAC school IMHO) So it came down to Utah (and some want to believe BYU). Both schools deliver half of the Utah market. Both schools can point to football success. Both schools have decent facilities. One school is a cultural fit and the other is not. Boom! Congrats Utah you are in.

Personally I don't think the PAC ever had/has to do a side by side comparison of Utah and BYU, because I think BYU's cultural warts were/are significant negatives to university presidents who ultimately made/make the decision.

As far as the P12 was concerned, either BYU or Utah would "deliver the Utah market." The fact that it is split is irrelevant for the P12's purposes. Again, all that matters is the ability to force the market in question into a higher tier on cable platforms and get games into the better slots on the better networks. Either BYU or Utah would accomplish this goal for Utah markets. Having either on board would get cable (and satellite companies that contract with the P12) to put the P12 network onto a higher tier all throughout the Utah market. Similarly, it would assure that when ESPN or ABC or whoever is splitting up the map to decide which markets are getting the UCLA-Utah game (or, frankly, whatever P12 game is the big network game at that time) and which markets are going to get the Ohio State-Wisconson game, the Utah TVs will all get the P12 game on the more preferred platform. Therefore, either BYU or Utah delivered the market, and either would essentially deliver the market equally.

[Scratch]

The market is two things. Footprint/subscriber base and ratings/ad dollars. Utah delivers the footprint but only half the potential market will actually tune in or subscribe to the network.

1) That's not really true, as each fan base will generally follow the other team as well, so it's going to be way more than half, and
2) The dollars that are associated with ratings/ad dollars are dwarfed by orders of magnitude when compared with the other items described herein.

[Flystripper]

Subscriber base is obviously important (especially to a fledgling network) but if you think ratings are not important to cable networks then you are not really familiar with the business.

[Flystripper]

Scratch is right. Jon Wilner of the San Jose newspaper has beaten the topic to death. The money comes from high tier cable subscriptions and ad dollars. You get both of those with either BYU or Utah. Adding both does nothing.

Why do you think the SEC doesn't add FSU? FSU has a national following and a HUGE Florida fanbase. But the SEC already owns the Florida market. So when they expanded, they went to Texas and Missouri.

What I am saying is that your ad dollars and subscriptions are not what they could be with both schools. I know the metrics. I have been valuing media company's for a living for nearly 20 years.

[SeattleUte]

This guy (rabid BYU fan) had a source on the board of trustees with whom he has a very close relationship. He was giving us real time updates that were ahead of any news that were always verified as correct.

http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthread.php?18919-The-Pac-10-expansion-groundswell&p=372257&viewfull=1#post372257


New news:

Utah and the Pac couldn't finalize terms early enough for the vote today. There are a few issues still out there. They believe they will have a vote at 7:30 tomorrow and then a dog and pony show at 3:30 with everyone invited. Right now all is a go. Only concern is the disgust the Pac, particularly Cal, has with BYU. Cal representatives expressed that they would have rather left the Pac-10 than let BYU in because of the religious issues they have with BYU. It is possible that if Cal finds out how LDS the U really is, they may dig in their heels.

The condition regarding expansion of the stadium by 20K is confirmed. The North stands would need $100 mil. because of the road and the renovation of the field house but the south stands already have the foundation to support the new seats.

The U made a condition that they would be allowed to schedule BYU whenever they wanted in the season (similar to USC/ND scheduling). So far, the Pac is very, very happy with the product they are getting.

This rings true to me.

[Scratch]

This guy (rabid BYU fan) had a source on the board of trustees with whom he has a very close relationship. He was giving us real time updates that were ahead of any news that were always verified as correct.

http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthread.php?18919-The-Pac-10-expansion-groundswell&p=372257&viewfull=1#post372257



This rings true to me.

Wait, hasn't most of the speculation in that post already been proven to be wrong?

[SeattleUte]

Um, he's sick. My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw Ferris pass out at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it's pretty serious.

Go ahead and keep lying to yourself, but notice what happened to BYU fans when they did this. I'm not going to disclose the source other than to say it's a trustee, and the relationship is as close as it gets except wife or child or parent. Do I need to point out that the verifiable information in that post turned out to be 100% true, and none of it was in the news at that time.

[SeattleUte]

Wait, hasn't most of the speculation in that post already been proven to be wrong?

No. It's all proven correct, actually.

[Flystripper]

No, I must have been unclear. It's not number of subscriptions - it's getting the companies to carry the channel. Comcast or Time Warner or whatever they have in Utah now carries the Pac-12 network because Utah is in the Pac-12. The market has been delivered. If BYU closes tomorrow (I can dream, right?), and all the state starts following Utah, the financial impact to a future Pac-12 media deal is marginal.

What you are saying is that Time Warner or Comcast etc don't care about actual subscribers to the networks on their platform and that that they only care about subscriber base when negotiating with new networks. I completely disagree with that notion. You believe that delivering only half of the potential market to Time Warner as actual subscribers would not impact negotiations of the Pac 12 contract? My take away from this is that the Utah market is likely somewhat insignificant to the overall negotiations of the PAC 12 contracts so that delivering 50% or 100% is not all that material. Given what I have seen, I can believe that, but that notion also supports the idea that other factors might have been at play here.

[Scratch]

No. It's all proven correct, actually.


The condition regarding expansion of the stadium by 20K is confirmed. [FALSE - this idea has been debunked numerous times, and is also debunked by the fact that the U is doing numerous other things before expansion. I also believe that Hill has said the P12 insisted on those other upgrades, but not the stadium. Furthermore, even the hypothetical expansion that has been discussed is by about 10K-13K; I've seen nothing even close to 20K.]

The U made a condition that they would be allowed to schedule BYU whenever they wanted in the season (similar to USC/ND scheduling). [FALSE - haven't we seen multiple reports where the U has said that we can't schedule BYU whenever we want, and that we have to abide by the P12's scheduling issues?]

[Utah]

BYU's future - if they keep their mid-major scheduling tactics their future will be the same as their past. Lots of 10 win seasons, lots of losses to Utah, lots of chest thumping and overall douchey-ness.

If they decide to go with a more BCS-caliber schedule, they will become a mid-level BCS. Lost of 5 to 7 win seasons and crappy bowls. Their fan base will erode away and in 10 years no one will care, ala Air Force.

[LA Ute]

No. It's all proven correct, actually.

Not so. And much of it was incorrect at the time published. Like most such third- or fourth-hand information, it was partially or substantially correct, but not completely. You've no doubt seen that phenomenon many times in your line of work.

[Solon]

BYU's future - if they keep their mid-major scheduling tactics their future will be the same as their past. Lots of 10 win seasons, lots of losses to Utah, lots of chest thumping and overall douchey-ness.

If they decide to go with a more BCS-caliber schedule, they will become a mid-level BCS. Lost of 5 to 7 win seasons and crappy bowls. Their fan base will erode away and in 10 years no one will care, ala Air Force.

I don't really give a rip about byu football. I have friends and family members that love the team, so I try to keep my rivalry-contempt in check.

But it's probably worth remembering that there is no guarantee that yesterday's great teams will continue in popularity. It might take 2 or 3 generations, but programs rise and programs fall. After all, Army was once a college football powerhouse (T-formation, anyone?), and Yale used to have the biggest stadium in the country. (http://www.buildings.yale.edu/property.aspx?id=21)

I'm not saying that this is where the byu is headed, just that we often forget the long-term view (in favor of a shorter-term view of a generation or so) when we're discussing things like "traditional powers."

[SeattleUte]

I don't really give a rip about byu football. I have friends and family members that love the team, so I try to keep my rivalry-contempt in check.

But it's probably worth remembering that there is no guarantee that yesterday's great teams will continue in popularity. It might take 2 or 3 generations, but programs rise and programs fall. After all, Army was once a college football powerhouse (T-formation, anyone?), and Yale used to have the biggest stadium in the country. (http://www.buildings.yale.edu/property.aspx?id=21)

I'm not saying that this is where the byu is headed, just that we often forget the long-term view (in favor of a shorter-term view of a generation or so) when we're discussing things like "traditional powers."

This is why nobody should consider inviting Boise -- which has for a few years been a freak of nature -- to a major conference. It's the product of one great coach, like Wyoming in the sixties.

My only point is that if you compare Utah and BYU based on football facts alone, Utah is not so clearly superior that on that basis alone Utah gets invited and BYU isn't even in the discussion.

[SeattleUte]

Funny, I read this thread as Seattle showing that he hates religion more then BYU football. He built up BYU football, simply to tear down the religion that goes with it. If football over there is so great, and they have tons of fans, then they didn't get into the PAC-10 because of the LDS Church. He was just basing his argument to build support for BYU football as the lesser of two evils as it gave him an opportunity to attack the LDS Church. I also find it fun that one of the posters who agreed with him is a self identified ex-mo BYU fan.

I think I agree with Sancho, if BYU brought more money then they are in. I do agree with SU, however, in that culture plays a roll. I just don't think it would have been a big deal if the money they brought was significantly more than with Utah...pretty much like Sancho said.

Tell me which of these BYU features you support and makes me against religion for condemning (for convenience I've numbered them):


[1] racism, [2] homophobia, [3] junk scholarship and [4] academic authoritarianism like BYU -- all of which BYU is quite unapologetic about.

[GarthUte]

SU, you don know that bigotry is not an admirable trait, don't you?

[Dawminator]

Tell me which of these BYU features you support and makes me against religion for condemning (for convenience I've numbered them):

Haha. Nice try. As an avid Utah fan and BYU alum I can outright say that BYU the institution is neither the first nor the second. You may think that they are, but they aren't. Just because you don't like the LDS Church's stance on homosexual sexual activity doesn't mean that they are homophobic and dislike gay people.

[SoCalPat]

Religion is not why the Pac-12 did not want Baylor. The Pac-12 did not want Baylor because Baylor added nothing. No football relevance to speak of, no new media market, no money. CU offered football tradition and a new large market. Of course they wanted CU more. No brainer.

That Texas Tech was palatable to Pac-12 powers, while Baylor wasn't, strongly undercuts your argument. It's not religion per se that kept Baylor out, just like religion alone didn't keep BYU out. It's the appearance of having religion run academia that has some Pac-12 schools slamming the brakes and putting the car in reverse.

Your Notre Dame analogy is horrible (I realize you're certainly not the first one to have tried using it). Catholics have proven over time to be far more secular than Baptists or Mormons, and at the primary education level, are a virtual feeder system into institutions of higher education. If I'm a Notre Dame graduate, the comparison to Baylor and BYU is insulting.

Again, as long as the NCAA listens to presidents first, athletic directors last, BYU will never get into the Pac 12. If ADs start having a say, the Big 12 is a more viable option.

[SeattleUte]

That Texas Tech was palatable to Pac-12 powers, while Baylor wasn't, strongly undercuts your argument. It's not religion per se that kept Baylor out, just like religion alone didn't keep BYU out. It's the appearance of having religion run academia that has some Pac-12 schools slamming the brakes and putting the car in reverse.

Your Notre Dame analogy is horrible (I realize you're certainly not the first one to have tried using it). Catholics have proven over time to be far more secular than Baptists or Mormons, and at the primary education level, are a virtual feeder system into institutions of higher education. If I'm a Notre Dame graduate, the comparison to Baylor and BYU is insulting.

Again, as long as the NCAA listens to presidents first, athletic directors last, BYU will never get into the Pac 12. If ADs start having a say, the Big 12 is a more viable option.

I can't believe I'm saying this but GREAT POST.

[SeattleUte]

It's not that Texas Tech was palatable. It's that Texas Tech was a deal breaker for the Texas schools who wanted to maintain some sense of geography. The Pac-12 knew that Baylor was not a deal breaker, so they wisely added CU to remove Baylor from the discussion. Again, they were maximizing profits. It was a good move, and I'm not sure it wasn't suggested by the Texas cabal as a way to shut Baylor up.

The Notre Dame analogy is fine if you take it for what it's worth. Catholics have many of the same objectionable beliefs that Mormons do. The Catholic church was heavily involved in the Prop 8 fight, Notre Dame regularly takes controversial stances, etc. Yet it seems unanimous around here that any conference would happily add Notre Dame. So maybe Notre Dame isn't half as bad as BYU - so what? At that point, they've already established that they will sell out their principles; it's just a matter of price.

It's like the old prostitute joke:

A very wealthy man walks into a bar and sees a beautiful
woman sitting at the bar. He walks up to her and asks her
if he can buy her a drink. She accepts and he sayes to her,
"I can't help but notice that you are exceptionally
beautiful. I am an extremely wealthly man and was wondering
if you would consider sleeping with me for one million dollars."
She thinks for a moment and replies:
"Well, yes...I accept."
The man sayes, "Would you sleep with me for ten dollars?"
She sayes, "What do you think I am, a WHORE???"
He sayes, "We've already established than, NOW, we are
negotiating the price!"


What a deep philosophical question. If BYU offered each Pac 12 institution $1 billion, would the latter abandon their principles? If yes, how much less would it take? If no, how much more?

[SeattleUte]

Haha. Nice try. As an avid Utah fan and BYU alum I can outright say that BYU the institution is neither the first nor the second. You may think that they are, but they aren't. Just because you don't like the LDS Church's stance on homosexual sexual activity doesn't mean that they are homophobic and dislike gay people.

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/faithbased/2012/03/mormon_church_and_racism_a_new_controversy_about_o ld_teachings_.single.html

Also, though not really mentioned in this article, Mark E. Peterson's August 27, 1954 speech (given in response to Brown v. Board of Education) on the BYU campus is probably the most flagrantly racist narrative in the U.S. that I'm aware of since the end of the Civil War.

The time is not far off where opposition to gay marriage will be regarded by mainstream Americans as bigoted -- if we are not there arlready.

I think there is also a lot of sexism but let's defer that for now.

[Dawminator]

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/faithbased/2012/03/mormon_church_and_racism_a_new_controversy_about_o ld_teachings_.single.html

Also, though not really mentioned in this article, Mark E. Peterson's August 27, 1954 speech (given in response to Brown v. Board of Education) on the BYU campus is probably the most flagrantly racist narrative in the U.S. that I'm aware of since the end of the Civil War.

The time is not far off where opposition to gay marriage will be regarded by mainstream Americans as bigoted -- if we are not there arlready.

I think there is also a lot of sexism but let's defer that for now.

I agree SU. But I think there are two things worth noting. I don't think the LDS Church is against gay marriage...at least not in the way they have been portrayed. I do not speak for the Church, but I have it on two different points of good authority that the LDS Church would not be opposed to it if religious institutions were given certain guarantees. I have been told by constitutional law experts that there is no way the government could force the LDS church to perform gay marriages. They have no answer to the legality of using tax exempt status as a weapon, however. Reasonable minds can disagree on that, but do think I can say with reasonable certainty that the LDS Church would not oppose a civil union status for all marriages (gay or straight) and thus satisfy the equal protection clause. Now, the second thing worth noting, IMNSHO, is that I think you are right about how society is going to label people who they view as against the LGBT movement. I suppose I will be thrown into the mix, even though I am in no way homophobic because I think any sexual activity outside of a husband and wife is a sin. Everybody wants to be liked, but I have come to terms with it.

As for the racism...I don't doubt or dispute that there have been racist leaders of the LDS church. It is sad. But it is in the past. I have no problems saying BYU is not a racist institution.

[Scratch]

Apparently "is" and "was" are synonyms. You learn something new every day. I'm fascinated by the fact that we can apparently take anything that was ever said on the UCLA and Cal campuses and deduce those institutions' (and the state of California's) current positions on whatever social matter was discussed. I assume the same goes for whatever has been said on the campus of the Stanford Indians can be impugned to the current institution, as well as the current Stanford Board of Trustees.

[UteBeliever aka Port]

This is why nobody should consider inviting Boise -- which has for a few years been a freak of nature -- to a major conference. It's the product of one great coach, like Wyoming in the sixties.



I hate Boise as much as any football program.

That being said, you show just how little you really know about college football.

Seriously, can someone buy this man a clue?

[Jeff Lebowski]

This thread is hilarious.

[LA Ute]

This thread is hilarious.

Go away. We need time to work through our pathologies.

[SeattleUte]

I hate Boise as much as any football program.

That being said, you show just how little you really know about college football.

Seriously, can someone buy this man a clue?

So you reject Solon's point? Just because you say so doesn't make it so. Boise already dropped a notch in a greatly depleted MWC. It didn't beat a single ranked team and tied with San Diego St. and Fresno for the tite.

I now you're not 15 years old so must remember when Boise was little more than a Community College.

[SeattleUte]

This thread is hilarious.

No it's sad and alarming that Portland "hates" Boise. I can't imagine hating an entire school.

[UteBeliever aka Port]

I hate Boise as much as any football program.

That being said, you show just how little you really know about college football.

Seriously, can someone buy this man a clue?


No it's sad and alarming that Portland "hates" Boise. I can't imagine hating an entire school.

You really need to slow down when you read and take in what is being said.

[UteBeliever aka Port]

This thread is hilarious.

I would think any BYU fan would feel the same way you do.

[Jeff Lebowski]

No it's sad and alarming that Portland "hates" Boise. I can't imagine hating an entire school.

lol.

Keep 'em coming, buddy.

[USS Utah]

This thread is hilarious.

I would have gone with "boring".

[LA Ute]

I would have gone with "boring".

"Tedious" would do, too.

[USS Utah]

"Tedious" would do, too.

"Banal". "Pedantic".

[Applejack]

This thread is hilarious.

:highfive:

Highlights so far:

1. SU's brilliant trolling. He has Utah fans defending BYU's morals AND its football tradition. This my friends, is a master at work.
2. Dawnminator claiming that the LDS church is not against gay marriage.
3. Viking playing the role of Vice-President of the anti-BYU club.
4. People simultaneously (a) posting a lot in this thread and (b) complaining about this thread.

[Viking]

No it's sad and alarming that Portland "hates" Boise. I can't imagine hating an entire school.

I rarely laugh out loud, but this was fantastic.

[Viking]

:highfive:

Highlights so far:

1. SU's brilliant trolling. He has Utah fans defending BYU's morals AND its football tradition. This my friends, is a master at work.
2. Dawnminator claiming that the LDS church is not against gay marriage.
3. Viking playing the role of Vice-President of the anti-BYU club.
4. People simultaneously (a) posting a lot in this thread and (b) complaining about this thread.

i am not anti byu. Count me as a member of the loyal opposition.

[LA Ute]

i am not anti byu. Count me as a member of the loyal opposition.

Ah. That explains why you came to a Utah board and asked for opinions on the future of BYU athletics. Clearly you were looking for ideas to use in your loyal opposition. What better place to find them? ;)

[Flystripper]

He would have posted it on CS if...

[Utah]

I don't really give a rip about byu football. I have friends and family members that love the team, so I try to keep my rivalry-contempt in check.

But it's probably worth remembering that there is no guarantee that yesterday's great teams will continue in popularity. It might take 2 or 3 generations, but programs rise and programs fall. After all, Army was once a college football powerhouse (T-formation, anyone?), and Yale used to have the biggest stadium in the country. (http://www.buildings.yale.edu/property.aspx?id=21)

I'm not saying that this is where the byu is headed, just that we often forget the long-term view (in favor of a shorter-term view of a generation or so) when we're discussing things like "traditional powers."

Wasn't Tulane or Tulsa class of the SEC and they decided they were too big for the SEC and they went Independent? How did that turn out for them? Ha ha.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Wasn't Tulane or Tulsa class of the SEC and they decided they were too big for the SEC and they went Independent? How did that turn out for them? Ha ha.

Tulane

[LA Ute]

By the way, all you killjoys can back off. What I said here is what I really think -- we ought to concentrate on supporting the U., not worry about BYU. That said, these boards are about having fun. If people are enjoying themselves, let them. The idea that boards like this are places to show one's superior wit, knowledge, or sophistication; or to play mind games, is a weird legacy from CougarGuard and the old CUF. Let's reject that mindset and enjoy ourselves here.

[SeattleUte]

I would think any BYU fan would feel the same way you do.

More than anything else, PU cares about what BYU fans think of him. He used to go to Cougarboard and belittle Majerus trying to make friends there.

He's only embarrassed because I'm highlighting reasons for Utah's admission to the Pac 12 that the Cougarboard BYU fans have identified and believe are wrong reasons. But even among them only the most unsophisticated would call it bigotry.

Don't hate what you are, PU. Be proud that our U. of Utah has been all these years a bulwark against and contrast to what BYU has stood for. Be proud that the Pac 12 admission is only symbolic of a broader, all-encompassing triumph.

[UteBeliever aka Port]

More than anything else, PU cares about what BYU fans think of him. He used to go to Cougarboard and belittle Majerus trying to make friends there.


Oh good lord. This inaccurate bullshit again.

You really are relentless.

"More than anything else..." lol :rolleyes:

[GarthUte]

Oh good lord. This inaccurate bullshit again.

You really are relentless.

"More than anything else..." lol :rolleyes:

SU can't help himself. Narcissists are incapable of admitting when they're wrong.

[SoCalPat]

Wasn't Tulane or Tulsa class of the SEC and they decided they were too big for the SEC and they went Independent? How did that turn out for them? Ha ha.

Tulane was never the class of the SEC, or at least not after WWII. It won three SEC titles, none after 1949 and as a private school, would never gain the fruits of desegregation like the SEC's state schools would. It probably saw what Georgia Tech did, which left the SEC to go independent about five years previously, and thought it could do likewise. The big difference, obviously, is that Tech got into the ACC in 1978, while Tulane football didn't get into a conference until the formation of C-USA nearly 20 years later.

With the obvious benefit of hindsight, Tulane's decision is much more related to the University of Chicago -- an original Big 10 member which dropped sports altogether. Both schools did so in order to uphold what they believed was a more pure academic mission, but neither could've seen in a million years the growth of collegiate sports and the benefits they would've received by simply standing pat.

[SoCalPat]

What a deep philosophical question. If BYU offered each Pac 12 institution $1 billion, would the latter abandon their principles? If yes, how much less would it take? If no, how much more?

FWIW, the U.'s total endowment is a little more than half that amount. Think of how long it took to build that, then ask yourself what you'd be willing to do to triple it instantly.

[Viking]

Ah. That explains why you came to a Utah board and asked for opinions on the future of BYU athletics. Clearly you were looking for ideas to use in your loyal opposition. What better place to find them? ;)

I have no animosity for you LA. I simply was curious about what the Utes thought. I don't really post here actively, which mirrors my activity since 2008 in my "non-jerk" CS account...very little

[SeattleUte]

Oh good lord. This inaccurate bullshit again.

You really are relentless.

"More than anything else..." lol :rolleyes:

A cursory search on CB reveals dozens of your sycophantish posts trashing Majerus over many years. Some Ute fan.

http://www.cougarboard.com/board/search.html?thread=0&relevance=0&author=Portland+Ute&text=Majerus&categories=1,2,3,4,5,39,41,6,42,43,44,45,46,47,48, 49,16,17,31,18,21,40,51,14,27,28,29,30,7,19,23,52, 24,35,50,33,8,38,20,25,32,13,26,34,36,9,37&searchid=3703981038

[USS Utah]

By the way, all you killjoys can back off. What I said here is what I really think -- we ought to concentrate on supporting the U., not worry about BYU. That said, these boards are about having fun. If people are enjoying themselves, let them. The idea that boards like this are places to show one's superior wit, knowledge, or sophistication; or to play mind games, is a weird legacy from CougarGuard and the old CUF. Let's reject that mindset and enjoy ourselves here.

+1.

[LA Ute]

I have no animosity for you LA. I simply was curious about what the Utes thought. I don't really post here actively, which mirrors my activity since 2008 in my "non-jerk" CS account...very little

I share your non-animosity. I was just poking you a bit about what looked like a very effective bi of trolling.

[U-Ute]

Back on topic...

A: In my rear view mirror.

Much like USU was the past and BYU became our future, now BYU is our past, and the PAC-12 is our future.

[Viking]

I share your non-animosity. I was just poking you a bit about what looked like a very effective bi of trolling.

I figured. Yes, I guess one interpretation of what is now the most replied to thread in this forum--and is entirely about BYU--is in fact a troll. But, it's not. Unfortunately, my CS experience was a carry-over of my CB experience, which was like transforming into a 13-yr old again. That, and my best buddy trolling using my account, made for a non-representative-of-viking-in-real-life-portrayal. This is place, while it holds very little natural interest to me beyond some basic discussions, is my normal, grown-up self.

I'm even identity agnostic at this point...something I would not have been on CS (which was not just because of juvenile behavior, but also because my buddy wasn't willing to disclose his name, too). Life goes on.

[Scorcho]

this thread has become weirder than a three dollar bill

[LA Ute]

this thread has become weirder than a three dollar bill

532

[SeattleUte]

this thread has become weirder than a three dollar bill

It's LAUte. If he's involved the threads tend to wind up in la la land.