The gap is growing wider between the haves and the have nots.I'm just glad I'm on the "have" sideLong live
the BCS conferences!
I'm ok with things are as they are in college football.
For once I agree with Chris B. .......but only if he is talking about morals and
values. The gap IS growing wider between the haves and have nots.However, I believe he may be mistaken as to who the "haves" actually
are. I think a lot of the BCS schools and conferences have shown which side of
the ledger they are on. It's a shame that so many will trade their
integrity and values for a bag of silver.
And the purpose of this article is??
Yeah Cris B, you must love to "have" the chance to sit on the couch to
watch bowl season/march madness. So fun.
@IRS AgentWhy did byu leave the MWC? They didn't want to share
their bag of silver.Why did byu sign a contract with ESPN? Bag of
IRS Agent: "I think a lot of the BCS schools and conferences have shown
which side of the ledger they are on." Why do you focus on bcs schools and
conferences? We’ve allowed it to become money-driven - byu
traded it's integrity to MWC (and Utah St) for a contract (bag of silver)
with ESPN We’ve allowed it to become TV-driven - Apparently,
you forgot about byu's never ending "Quest for Attention"We’ve allowed athletic programs or football programs to mean more to a
university than what the university was really supposed to be all about - byu is
sports, sports, sportsBased on the aforementioned, byu is not in a
BCS conference but has taken the same road and should also be the subject of
your remarks. Rise and shout!
ThomasJefferson:The MWC did not collapse. In fact, it has never been
healthier and I find it incredibly ironic that BSU would rather be in the MWC
than continue their relationship with ESPN. Hilarious. But you people think
you have something special. Here's the real issue:"I
understand how disappointed people were that they [Utah] got in the Pac-12 and
we're not. We still have to be as good as we can." -Tom Holmoe,
Deseret News, August 16, 2012byu fans are aching to be in a BCS
conference. You know it, Holmoe knows it, D. Harmon knows it, even ESPN talked
about during the Utah game in 2011. If independence is so great, why does
cougar nation get spun into a tizzy every time a new conference realignment
rumor surfaces? Why does the media hound Holmoe for information on expanding
conferences? Enjoy whatever it is you get out of the arrangement
byu has. Just know that there isn't a Ute on the planet that would trade
places with byu.
College assistants can recruit better than Supreme Court Justices and therefore
they are paid more. Sounds fair.
what poor journalism - either that or just poor headline selection. You have to
read four or five paragraphs to even get to what the headline was talking about.
Bemoaning the "bad direction" of college football DH cites Utah and Utah
State as examples...But not BYU?Funny...
Poor Harmon. Still has to jab at Utah for taking BYU off the schedule. Bitter
Dick I really don't know if you feel this way or you are just spouting some
sour grapes because you beloved BYU is now falling behind. Did you have the same
opinion in say 1984 when the cougars had the largest sports budget and were
spending more than anyone in their conference? I don't recall your
editorials then that things were our of WAC? (pun intended) This is the first
year Utah will start out earning and spending in their sports budget compared to
BYU is this really what has changed your view?
MyPerspectiveSalt Lake City, UTActually, the only thing that
prevented the total collapse of the MWC was that the Big East beat them to it.
And whether they survive or not depends on how long before Boise gets a better
offer.But, credit due, the MWC went out and got some quality teams
to improve what was left of the stock. Can't say the same for the PAC.
@MyPerspective"Enjoy whatever it is you get out of the
arrangement byu has. Just know that there isn't a Ute on the planet that
would trade places with byu."Agreed, and there isn't a coog
on the planet that wouldn't trade places with Utah.Go Utes. Go
Pac12. Go Elite Conferences.
You would think that an article like this would shut up the Ute fans that
continually crow that they are in the Pac 12. I'll take the Y's
indenpendence every day over being a second rate sports program in a second rate
"Major" conference.The Utes are the poster children for
following the money.Everyone should have stayed in the MWC. They
would have been far better off. Especially since MWC teams, even prior to the U
and the Y leaving had winning records when matched against BCS conference teams.
They especially beat up on the Pac 10. That continues today.
Snyder is right, but it started when we began staffing football teams with
people in school only for football. They allowed players to skip class and
looked the other way when someone did the homework and tests for the players.
The general decline of our society, due to liberal Democrats, has been the major
factor in he destruction of the conferences. Honor and tradition have no place
with liberals. Sure, money is a factor because our values have changed. In
time, the big schools will leave the NCAA and make their own grouo. They will
come to rival the NFL allowing players to play for the school for years and they
will be paid to play.
I might as well start coaching at a high school in three years and I will make
big money in the have not league would make me happy and my wife can just
retired from this low paying job as a teacher. Remember that coach at Florida
Gulf Coach who was making big money being a Stock Market in NY? So why not. Yes
coaches are making big $$$ and you saw it when Coach Alford took ten years
contract with NM and moved on to ucla.
There's not a mid-major on the planet that wouldn't of jumped at the
chance to join the Pac12. Byu should of stayed in the MWC along with BSU and
TCU. They would have AQ status by now. Holmoe and the byu fan base regret their
knee-jerk reaction to Utah leaving.
@Wayne RoutNothing wrong with that as long as they have the fans to
support it. An NFL quality team up on the hill. Yea!
ChrisB is very excited about his BCS membership now, but he could be singing a
different tune come 2014 and the new 4+1 model. The BCS says that conference
champions will be selected for those games. However, the following scenario
could happen: You have an undefeated SEC team and an 11-1 SEC team, two other
BCS conference champions who are 11-1 and let's say Utah wins the PAC-12
and they go 10-2. The BCS will take the 12-0 and 11-1 teams and the PAC-12
champ who went 10-2 won't be invited. The BCS wants the teams that bring
them the most money, and if they feel that a BCS conference champ won't
bring them the most money they will not be invited.
ekute, BYU left the MWC because fans like me couldn't watch most of their
games. The TV rights to the mountain west channel were a joke and you know it. I
saw every game last year. Unlike the years under the MW channel. It was a joke.
THAT IS WHY THEY LEFT.
Maz-was-right proclaims "the MW channel. It was a joke. That is why they
left."Now that the television rights are corrected and a new contract
with ESPN makes the games available, are you saying that BYU should ask to get
back into the MWC?Tom Holmoe would probably appreciate "get us
back into the MWC" calls instead of those "why aren't we in the Big
BYU would be any league's choice if they would play on Sunday and became a
secular institution. Even ute fans know that.
Flashback:"Especially since MWC teams, even prior to the U and
the Y leaving had winning records when matched against BCS conference
teams."Not so little brother. Utah and TCU were the only non-AQ
teams that had overall winning records vs. BCS competition.
Funny how when Ute fans were part of the MWC, they hated the BCS. Now that they
have joined the PAC-12, they are all in favor of the "elitist" order.
As a BYU fan, I would love to be in the PAC-12 and I am happy that Utah was able
to join, but lets please remember, the only reason Utah was invited, was because
Texas declined. It wasn't like Utah was the 1st choice of the PAC-10, and
the PAC-10 just had to have Utah to be complete. BYU has made the best of a bad
situation that was "forced" on them when Utah left. I can't wait
for the schedule they play this year. P.S. can we please stop calling them
"student-athletes"? It really should be called an internship for the
Obama10:You're late to the discussion. That whole "Utah
was only invited because Texas declined" rumor had already been debunked.
Texas' decision impacted Utah's membership only in that Utah wound up
joining a "Pac-12" rather than a "Pac-16", but Utah was
"Pac-??" bound with or without the Longhorns. It's time you just
came to grips with the fact that Utah was "wanted" whereas you were not,
and never will be. You're mid-majors forever. All your spinning to the
contrary is just motivated by sour grapes.
@NavalVet "That whole "Utah was only invited because Texas declined"
rumor had already been debunked."Can U show me where that has
been debunked? As I recall, we had a nice long discussion about this on a
different article, a discussion in which U got schooled. There is nothing to
show that Utah was in the PAC regardless of whether Texas accepted their
invitation or not. The only thing that U were going off of was a Chip Brown
article that states that Utah would get into the PAC if Texas accepted their
invitation and IF Texas A&M backed out of the deal.There was no
indication that that would happen, as A&M stuck with the Big XII for another
year before it left for the SEC, nor was there any indication that Utah was a
lock to the PAC even if Texas accepted. Moreover, Chip Brown has
already proven that he's not the most reliable source (Notre Dame Olympic
Sports to Join Big XII, BYU and Pitt likely targets for Bix XII expansion,
etc).Obama10 has it right, and there are plenty of ESPN articles to
back him up.Stop being so "frantic and emotional".:)
truecoug1:We DID have a nice long discussion, but it was YOU who got
schooled. And don't even start with me regarding semantics, because there
was nothing more to suggest that Utah would NOT have been invited to the Pac-16
had Texas chosen to accept the Pac-10s offer.That Chip Brown article
was AFTER everything played out, so there wasn't any "projecting"
going on like your aforementioned "potential" Big 12 expansion
programs.The Chip Brown didn't say Utah would be invited
"IF" A&M backed out of the deal because A&M had already
committed to leaving for the SEC should the Pac-10/Big 12 South merger come to
pass. So there WAS no "if". The Pac-10 had room for 6 schools. Their
top choices were (1) Texas, (2) Tx. A&M, (3) Tx. Tech, (4) Colo, (5) Okla,
and (6) UTAH. Brown's article stated Okla. St. was getting nudged out.
Kansas was the team that was going to replace A&M.Neither Okla,
Tx. Tech, Kansas, nor Okla. St. would be allowed to join the Pac-10/12 without
Texas, but clearly, Utah didn't have that problem.
@ekute ""Agreed, and there isn't a coog on the planet that
wouldn't trade places with Utah."Count me as a Cougar fan
on the planet who wouldn't want to trade places with Utah. I love where
BYU's at as an independent. It allows terrific exposure for the school and
what it represents (look at the Ziggy Ansah story where ESPN interviewed the
missionary that baptized him in Ghana along with KVN, or the Craig Cusick story,
when ESPN interviewed him after he hit the game-winner against USU right after
learning that his dad had cancer, or the Brandon Davies situation during
Jimmermania. I don't think any of those situations would have received the
same kind of publicity if BYU didn't have its relationship with ESPN that
came about from BYU football going independent).BYU didn't go
independent for the money. Y would BYU need the money? It's a
church-owned and operated institution subsidized by church funds, meaning that
it has all the money it needs. It was also one of the few schools operating in
the black in its athletic department even BEFORE going independent.
@ekuteMoreover, the PAC is just not a good cultural fit for BYU.
There are far too many schools in the PAC who have compromised their standards
for the sake of winning (USC and Oregon...heck, even Utah is under investigation
for possibly covering up abuse allegations for their swimming coach), and the
PAC commissioner recently made it clear that he isn't going to take
responsibility for any wrong-doings by an already embattled officiating core by
letting the head officiating coordinator get away with "jokingly"
telling the referees at the UCLA/Arizona gam thate he'd give $5000 to any
official who T'd up Sean Miller.Not a good precedent being set.
Contrast that with BYU kicking Brandon Davies off of the basketball
team in the middle of BYU's best season in 25 years for violating the honor
code. BYU refused to compromise their standards for the sake of winning.Now, I'm not saying that BYU's perfect. But I am saying that
I'm glad we are independent and not associated with the PAC 12. BYU's
a unique school with a unique mission, which makes independence a perfect fit
for BYU.And I love it.
@NavalVetI'm not getting into this with you again. I will once
again point out your inconsistencies and call it done (for anyone interested and
with nothing better to do, check out the comments for the "Underneath the
Logo: BYU contract with Nike delivers..." by the D News for the full
breakdown of NavalVet's arguments getting picked apart. It's pretty
epic).You said "because there was nothing more to suggest that
Utah would NOT have been invited to the Pac-16 had Texas chosen to accept the
Pac-10s offer."Yes, there was plenty. Here are some articles
for you to look up (again): ESPN, "Texas move helps Big XII survive",
ESPN "Scott: Deal with Big XII wasn't assumed", and ESPN
"PAC-10 invites Utah as 12th member". All of these clearly show that
Utah was turned to AFTER Texas declined, none of them list Utah as an original
candidate for expansion, and one of them "Deal with Big XII wasn't
assumed" clearly states that Utah was Plan B.So there's
point number one.
@NavalVet continued"The Chip Brown didn't say Utah would be
invited "IF" A&M backed out of the deal..."Yes, it
did. From the Chip Brown article "How the Big XII came back to life",
we find this line: "If A&M was a no-show, the Pac-10 would add
Utah."Clear as day.On to the next: "because
A&M had already committed to leaving for the SEC should the Pac-10/Big 12
South merger come to pass." No, they hadn't. The AD for
A&M insisted the Aggies were on board with the PAC-10/BIg 12 merger.
Officials from Texas felt that A&M was going to fall through, but NOBODY
knew what they were going to do. Hence Chip Brown using the conditional "IF
A&M was a no-show". A&M stuck with the Big XII for another year
before leaving for the SEC, so who's to say they wouldn't have stuck
with the original plan? So there was clearly an "if".
@NavalVet "[The PAC 10's] top choices were (1) Texas, (2) Tx. A&M,
(3) Tx. Tech, (4) Colo, (5) Okla, and (6) UTAH."Please show me
ANY article that states that. The Chip Brown one sure doesn't, nor do any
of the ESPN articles that I have referenced.On to the next point."Brown's article stated Okla. St. was getting nudged out.
Kansas was the team that was going to replace A&M." Again,
that's another blatant fabrication. Here's what the article actually
says: "[The Pac 10] wanted to substitute Kansas for Oklahoma State late in
the process...And now Scott and Weiberg were looking to dump Oklahoma State in
favor of Kansas." The PAC really wanted to replace OSU with Kansas. IF
Texas A&M backed out, the PAC would add Utah.So again, there is
nothing that shows that Utah was in with or without Texas. The ONLY reason Utah
got into the PAC was because Texas declined. If Texas had accepted, Utah would
only have gotten in IF Texas A&M backed out.And again, this is
all according to a guy who stated that Notre Dame's Olympic sports were
heading to the Big XII.Great source.
@NavalVet "Neither Okla, Tx. Tech, Kansas, nor Okla. St. would be allowed to
join the Pac-10/12 without Texas, but clearly, Utah didn't have that
problem."Nope, since Utah was the back-up plan, and was only
getting in to the PAC 12 if Texas declined their invitation, which is what
happened. All of the ESPN articles that I have referenced clearly
state this. You're basing your whole reasoning on a guy who thought that
Notre Dame's Olympic Sports were going to the Big XII, and who said that
BYU and Pitt were the most likely targets of expansion for the Big XII. And the
best part is, Chip Brown's article doesn't even help your case. It
states that the only way Utah gets into the PAC, even if Texas accepted, was if
A&M backed out.Utah was the back-up plan. Even according to
Chip Brown, U were a back-up plan. Be happy. As I've stated
before, I think that the PAC 12 and Utah are a great fit, and I love BYU as an
independent.But please stop trying to spin something that simply is
not true.Go Cougars!
truecoug1:"All of these clearly show that Utah was turned to
AFTER Texas declined,..."None of those articles stated Utah was
turned to "BECAUSE" Texas declined. They only stated Utah was invite
"after" Texas declined. Texas was invited "after" CU, but that
doesn't insinuate the Pac-10 preferred CU to UT. The order of invitations
was irrelevant.I already showed you where to look, but you just
didn't want to believe what had been written. I showed you where Utah and
CU were being discussed by the Pac-10 prior to CAA's idea of raiding the
Big 12 South. I showed you where Oklahoma St. was not going to be allowed to
ride in on Texas or Oklahoma's coattails. I showed you Texas declining a
2nd courtship by the Pac-12, and the Pac-12 subsequently declining Okla. and OSU
if Texas didn't come. Kansas was never revisited. Utah got in with or
without Texas. In all your walls of text, nowhere could you support that
Utah's invitation to the Pac-10 was predicated on Texas declining.
Nowhere. Utah was no backup plan.
@NavalVet Your spin really is incredible. Let me break it down for
you:"Texas was invited "after" CU". No
they weren't. The six Big XII schools all were invited at the same time.
Colorado just pulled the trigger first. "I showed you where Utah
and CU were being discussed by the Pac-10 prior to CAA's idea of raiding
the Big 12 South."Yes, and I showed you where BYU and Utah were
also being discussed as potential expansion candidates. But what does any of
that have to do with Utah getting in to the PAC even if Texas accepted?"I showed you where Oklahoma St. was not going to be allowed to ride in on
Texas or Oklahoma's coattails. I showed you Texas declining a 2nd courtship
by the Pac-12, and the Pac-12 subsequently declining Okla. and OSU if Texas
didn't come."So? The issue in question was the original
expansion. The PAC was looking to take six schools from the BIg XII (CU, UT,
Texas Tech, OU, OSU, and TA&M). It was a package deal, and I already showed
you where a PAC AD said that Texas and TA&M were the big prize.
@NavalVet continuedSo even if OSU wasn't going to be part of
the package, Kansas was going to take their place, not Utah. Your only source
for all of this is Chip Brown, and he made it clear that Utah would only get in
IF Texas A&M backed out (and NOBODY knew what they were going to do).That is the ONLY mention of Utah being included in the original Big 12
expansion, and it's conditional, and also just goes to show that Utah WAS a
backup plan.If you want more proof of that, here are some other
articles supporting what Obama10 and I have been saying:ESPN, Scott:
Deal with Big 12 Wasn't Assumed: "The next part of PLAN B fell into
place hours after Scott spoke to the AP, when the Pac-10 announced it had
invited Utah to become its 12th member." (emphasis added).DenverPost, "PAC-10 eyes Utah, but Utes don't have an invite
yet": "Utah has become the FALLBACK PLAN for the Pac-10, which failed to
expand to 16 teams after Texas and four other Big 12 South schools decided
Monday to remain in the Big 12." (emphasis added)
@NavalVet continuedHeck, even the SL Trib, the biggest Ute homer
paper, says that Utah only got in because Texas and the other schools backed
out:SL Trib, "Utah football: Utes tabbed for PAC-10?":
"A last-ditch effort to save the Big 12 appears to have saved Utah's
chances of joining the PAC-10. Once seemingly headed to be locked out of the
conference expansion frenzy, the Utes now are thought to be the favored team to
be the 12th team to join the conference."So we have ESPN calling
Utah a PLAN B, the Denver Post calling them a "fallback plan", and the
SL Trib saying that Utah's chances to get into the PAC have been saved
because the BIg 12 remained intact.Basically, the national media all
recognize and understand that Utah was a backup plan. Other columnists,
including those from the Trib, understood that Utah lucked into the PAC. The
only one who doesn't is some guy in PA who wants so badly for Utah to be
considered more relevant than they are.There is NOTHING to show that
Utah was definitely in the PAC even if Texas accepted their invite.Game over.U lose (again).
@NavalVetSo I have now provided proof from several different
articles from several different sources that state that Utah was a backup plan,
and that their chances of getting in to the PAC 12 were saved because the Big 12
remained intact.U have yet to provide ANYTHING to support your
argument that Utah was definitively joining the PAC 10 even if Texas accepted
their invite. Every article U have provided has been proven to support my
argument.So unless U provide proof in your next posting that states
that Utah was going to get in to the PAC even if Texas had accepted their
invite, I will have to assume that U accept defeat.If U do not post
again, I will also accept that as your admittance of defeat.U were a
backup plan. U are now as relevant as Colorado, WSU, Indiana, and all of those
other 'amazing' schools in 'power' conferences.The only difference is that U are currently running your football facilities
from a trailer park.That's just hilarious!Go
@NavalVet "None of those articles stated Utah was turned to
"BECAUSE" Texas declined. They only stated Utah was invite
"after" Texas declined."Wow, you're joking, right?
Ok, so if Utah was supposedly part of the Big XII expansion, and if Utah was
getting in whether Texas accepted their invite or not...why wasn't Utah
listed as part of the expansion teams in any of those articles? And why were
they then mentioned as "the next team the PAC would turn to for
expansion" AFTER Texas declined the invite, keeping the Big XII intact? Why
wasn't Utah mentioned in the same breath as Texas and OU and all of the
other Big XII teams if they were definitively getting in?ESPN makes
it very clear that Utah was only regarded as a candidate for expansion AFTER
Texas declined.So it's very simple. Please show me an article,
ANY article, that mentions Utah joining the PAC definitively along with all of
the other Big XII teams during the original expansion, and I may change my
mind.Wait, you can't? Curious.U were a backup
plan. Everybody else around the country knows this. Why don't U?
truecoug1:Nice deflection. I already showed you those articles.
You however have not shown anything that said had Texas joined the Pac-16, Utah
would have remained in the MWC. The onus is now on YOU to provide proof. Not
me. I already provided evidence on my part. I need to see a legitimate article
that said Utah only got in to the Pac-12 "BECAUSE" Texas declined.
THAT's the argument you Y fans are desperately trying to make a case for,
so THAT's the link you are being tasked to produce. You may not
use "evidence" that says Utah was invited "AFTER" Texas
declined. That point(less) does not establish a direct cause and effect, and
nobody is disputing the order of invitations anyway. I need to see sufficient
support that plainly states that if Texas joined the Pac-16, Utah remains in the
MWC.Utah was no backup plan, and "everybody else around the
country" does NOT know otherwise. Only cougar fans have managed to convince
themselves of this fantasy.
@NavalVetAnd boom goes the dynamite. New post by you, no new
articles supporting your position. Your concession of defeat is accepted.
@NavalVet "You however have not shown anything that said had Texas joined
the Pac-16, Utah would have remained in the MWC."Yes I have.
Every ESPN article has talked about the expansion candidates being six Big XII
schools-UT, Texas Tech, OU, OSU, CU, and TA&M. If Texas had joined the PAC
10, bringing those other schools with it, there would have been no room for
Utah. So where would Utah have gone?You started this whole thing
saying that Utah would have gotten in to the PAC 10 with or without Texas. I
have shown how that argument is invalid. There is NOTHING to show that Utah was
definitively getting in to the PAC if Texas had accepted.The SL Trib
article states that the Big XII remaining together saved Utah's chances of
getting in to the PAC 10. You can believe whatever delusion U want, but the
evidence is clear and U haven't been able to refute any of it.
@NavalVet "Utah was no backup plan, and "everybody else around the
country" does NOT know otherwise."Lol, why don't U tell
that to the ESPN writers who called Utah a "Plan B", or John Henderson
from the Denver Post who called Utah a "fallback plan", or Kevin McGuire
from examiner.com who had this gem to say: "Utah would be a nice addition to
the Pac-10, even if it is a back-up plan." (Rumor: Utah to Pac-10
"merely a formality").Like I said, EVERYBODY understands
that Utah was the back-up plan. Everybody also understands that Utah only
received their invite BECAUSE Texas and the other schools backed out. If Utah
was going to get in to the PAC WITH Texas, why weren't they invited with
the Longhorns?"Only cougar fans have managed to convince
themselves of this fantasy."Pretty sure the people who wrote
those articles were not BYU fans. I'm also sure that U are the only one
who has convinced himself of the fantasy that Utah would be in the PAC even if
Texas accepted their invite.Poor guy.Once again,
I'm going to go drink my victory Dr. Pepper 10.:)Go
Is it better to compete with the Washington State Cougars to stay out of the
basement of the Pac12? It may be fun now because Hill and co. are counting the
money, but will it be better after five more years of basement dwelling. It
seems to me that this year is very critical for the Utes and if they don't
do well, better hope that the fans can be satisfied with a big rivalry win over
Fresno State...because it doesn't get any better.
truecoug1:I skimmed through all your latest walls of text and
noticed that you did not/could not provide any substance that had Texas accepted
the Pac-10's invitation, Utah would have remained in the MWC. I thought
not. Case closed. You -- and all your fellow frantic and emotional cougar fans
DESPERATELY trying to pass of Utah's Pac-10 invitation as the lucky fill-in
to the Longhorns' absence -- lose!"Boom goes the
Monte Kiffin left USC last January, so he can't be the highest paid
assistant since he already has a job in the pros. Did Snyder say how much of
his salary he gave up for the good of the school? I didn't think so. He
also is the coach who brings in so many players who can't perform in the
classroom. Check out his team's number of junior college players.
@NavalVet "and noticed that you did not/could not provide any substance that
had Texas accepted the Pac-10's invitation, Utah would have remained in the
MWC."Again, I've provided plenty of substance, you've
just chosen to ignore it. SL Trib: ""A last-ditch effort to save the
Big 12 appears to have saved Utah's chances of joining the PAC-10. Once
seemingly headed to be locked out of the conference expansion frenzy, the Utes
now are thought to be the favored team to be the 12th team to join the
conference."ESPN: "Earlier in the week, Texas, Oklahoma,
Texas A&M, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State recommitted to the Big 12 instead
of hopping to the Pac-10. That left the Pac-10 in need of another member to
reach the 12 required to hold a football championship game."Again, if Texas had accepted the invite and "hopped" to the PAC 10
with all of the other Big XII teams, then how does Utah get into the PAC?
@NavalVet So here's what I will do: I will admit that there is
nothing that EXPLICITLY says that if Texas had accepted their PAC invitation
then Utah would have remained in the MWC (implicitly, there is plenty), if you
will admit that there is nothing that EXPLICITLY says that Utah would have
joined the PAC even if Texas had accepted the PAC 10 invite. U must also admit
that the media views Utah as a "back-up", "Plan B", or
"fallback" to the PAC's expansion (since that has already been
proven).Either way, U lose the argument. U said that "Utah was
in the PAC ??? regardless of what Texas did". All I had to do was show that
there is nothing that explicitly states that. Your statement is based purely on
supposition by a guy who was sure that Notre Dame's Olympic sports would
join the Big XII and even then, as has been proven, it was conditional on Texas
A&M.U were not assured of getting in to the PAC even if Texas
had accepted. U were a backup plan, and everyone besides U can see that.U lose (again).(guzzles Dr. Pepper 10).:)
"ekuteLayton, UT@IRS AgentWhy did byu
leave the MWC? They didn't want to share their bag of silver.Why did byu sign a contract with ESPN? Bag of silver."Incorrect. BYU simply wants to be on TV in hopes of spreading the word of
their faith. If they were after the bag of silver, wouldn't they have put
aside any conditions (ex. guaranteed television appearances) and done whatever
was required to join the Big 12?This is probably quite frustrating
for actual football fans but, it's the case.
"Utah and TCU were the only non-AQ teams that had overall winning records
vs. BCS competition."This is definitely a thing of the past, at
least in the case of Utah. TCU however remained competitive despite having a
team decimated by suspensions and injuries.
Naval, why is it imperative that you try to prove something to BYU fans?
Utah's in a good place now conference affiliation wise so why aren't
you off bothering CU fans? Also, comparisons between BYU and a
state run institution and really any other private run institutions of
comparable size really don't work. I can say that as a BYU fan who is not
an active Mormon, I'm quite annoyed by it but, the fact is the LDS church
is far less concerned about being or remaining a football power than the fans
are. If they really cared a school of that size who has had pretty good success
would not be on the verge of oblivion when it comes to football.
truecoug1:"I will admit that there is nothing that EXPLICITLY
says that if Texas had accepted their PAC invitation then Utah would have
remained in the MWC..."Then I rest my case. Neither you nor any
of your other Indy-WACey fans can support that "the only reason Utah got
invited to join the Pac-10 was because Texas declined." Case closed.
@NavalVet "Neither you nor any of your other Indy-WACey fans can support
that "the only reason Utah got invited to join the Pac-10 was because Texas
declined.""And U can't support your claim that Utah was
in the PAC even if Texas accepted, while I have shown plenty of support for why
Utah wasn't getting in even if Texas accepted.I've already
detailed what happened according to ESPN and other sources. CU, UT, and the
other Big XII schools received invites to join the PAC. CU jumped the gun and
accepted their invite. Texas and the other Big XII schools banded together for
a more lucrative deal in the Big XII and declined, leaving the PAC at 11 members
instead of the 16 it was shooting for. When that happened, Utah was invited.There were no assurances that Utah would get in if Texas accepted.But can believe whatever U want. I'll just stick with the media,
the Denver Post, the SL Trib, examiner.com, etc about how Utah was a back-up
plan and a fallback for the PAC. That's the perception, which U
haven't (and can't) refute.Game over. U lose (again).
It's a shame that money has tainted universities the way it has. But,
there is a solution. Pool ALL collegiate sports money together. Arrive at a
graduated scale to distribute funds based on enrollment and graduation rates
(not just for athletes but grad rates for the entire university). Share money
based on the scale. If collegiate sports are truly to be a source of pride for
the school then let's make it that way again and profitshare. And
don't just share with schools that have sports programs but share with all
colleges and universities.Go ahead and shoot this down, I don't
care. Let's make the university experience back into an academic one.
Finally, "The king has no clothes." Snyder said it all. Until schools
adopt the Ivy League model, football profits will dominate college policy and
mentality. For those who don't understand, please read about Auburn,
Alabama and the entire SEC, Penn State, USC, Oregon, et al.
ekute from Layton, UT, says "Holmoe and the byu fan base regret their
knee-jerk reaction to Utah leaving." What part of the fan base has he (or
she) talked to? I could hardly see a BYU game (any sport) on TV while BYU was
in the MWC. I'm thrilled to be able to see BYU on TV. I can now even
watch baseball, soccer, volleyball, etc., and I'm enjoying it greatly.
Braden Gall of Athlon Sports has posted an article giving his opinion on the 25
greatest football dynasties of the AP Poll era. While any such list is
debatable, he recounts some tremendous accomplishments by legendary head coaches
and their teams. LaVelle Edwards and BYU come in at #25 for a period that ended
in 1985. I searched hard but failed to find the Utes on this list.