The Big 12 expansion groundswell

[beefytee]

No, I don't think they should accept the current TV deal. I think Boise St. has set the precedence for BYU maintaining their current tv deal and giving that up is a non-starter. Any money outside the TV deal is only going to be gravy as BYU doesn't really have access to any currently. At least not that I can think of. The bowl games (the ones BYU has access to anyways) cost more to go to than they are paid.

[lambdacoug]

Might? You did meet one of the Gracies.

You just might be right.

[BYUMizzou]

Friend of a friend attended a booster meeting with Pres. Kustra of BSU. Friend told me that his friend said that Kustra said BSU, CSU, BYU, and one other school (he couldn't remember which) are locks for the PAC when they expand in a few years.

I don't think the PAC expands again for anything short of (a) college blue-bloods (ND, Oklahoma, Texas), (b) someone (ESPN?) paying the PAC truckloads of additional cash for expansion and additional content, or (c) someone holding a gun to the heads of Larry Scott and the Presidents of the existing PAC schools.

Conferences expand for a couple of reasons. Either it gives them more leverage for negotiating TV deals (Rutgers/Maryland), or the conference can pick up a high-caliber team that increases the prestige of the conference (which also helps financially), or they do it out of survival like the B12 did when it took WV and TCU. I can also see the B12 expanding for the purpose of getting a CCG.

I think the idea that just because one conference goes to 14 or 16 teams, that other conferences will mindlessly follow along is pure nonsense.

[Guest]

When we were trying to move to the WAC, the MWC said no to any special treatment for BYU like BYU keeping basketball and non-revs to the MWC and to a scheduling agreement in football.

Then they turned around and gave Boise special treatment when they crawled back after the Big East debacle, so Boise will have the chance to make more than the rest of the schools because they're the most attractive TV option.

I have yet to see a game that we've scheduled that we couldn't schedule as a member of the MWC, but I am not sure I really want to play all of those schools on equal terms.

To be fair, it wasn't the MWC turning down a special deal, it was Comcast. Comcast wanted to try and save the Mtn, so they couldn't willing give up their major asset (BYU games). Once BYU left, the Mtn died. Without Comcast in the equation, which was using BYU to sell cable packages in Utah, the MWC is now able to make some concessions. There appeared to be clear signals, in comments made after we announced Independence, that the MWC had tried to negotiate but Comcast kept the MWC from allowing them from giving the concessions BYU wanted (right to games not on the Mtn, replay rights for BYUtv, etc). In the case of Boise, CBS agreed to give up the rights to Boise home games as long as they were given the rights to all Boise away conference games.

It also helped that Boise had actually left the conference, and this was a negotiation to get back in, rather than a negotiation to keep them -- meaning it was a negotiation to increase the MWC TV inventory with Boise games, rather than a negotiation to keep the rights to those games.

BYU likely would be able to keep their ESPN deal if they returned to the MWC, as well as a guarantee to have their rights negotiated separately in the future (much like Boise has). I think it is a good question if BYU could keep the money from the deal, there is a good chance the MWC would insist on adding it to the money from the MWC TV deal and then splitting it among the teams. OTOH, with the bonus system (extra money for every game on "national" TV -- ESPN/2 or an OTA network), BYU would still make more than the other teams in the MWC (other than perhaps Boise).

I'm not saying we should go back to the MWC, just that it isn't entirely fair to blame the MWC for not giving concessions. As for the new playoffs, we would get better access to the "BCS level" games as a member of the MWC. It wouldn't be the Rose Bowl -- it will likely be looked at as a "second tier" BCS game -- but it would provide more money to BYU, especially since the MWC is allowing teams to keep half the money they receive for playing in a bowl. On the flip side, most years our chances of getting into a playoff game would not be as good as our SOS would be hurt by playing an MWC conference schedule; not that we have a great chance either way (based on history).

[pellegrino]

Friend of a friend attended a booster meeting with Pres. Kustra of BSU. Friend told me that his friend said that Kustra said BSU, CSU, BYU, and one other school (he couldn't remember which) are locks for the PAC when they expand in a few years.

start tracking the airplanes to PVU!

[The_Douger]

To be fair, it wasn't the MWC turning down a special deal, it was Comcast. Comcast wanted to try and save the Mtn, so they couldn't willing give up their major asset (BYU games). Once BYU left, the Mtn died. Without Comcast in the equation, which was using BYU to sell cable packages in Utah, the MWC is now able to make some concessions. There appeared to be clear signals, in comments made after we announced Independence, that the MWC had tried to negotiate but Comcast kept the MWC from allowing them from giving the concessions BYU wanted (right to games not on the Mtn, replay rights for BYUtv, etc). In the case of Boise, CBS agreed to give up the rights to Boise home games as long as they were given the rights to all Boise away conference games.

It also helped that Boise had actually left the conference, and this was a negotiation to get back in, rather than a negotiation to keep them -- meaning it was a negotiation to increase the MWC TV inventory with Boise games, rather than a negotiation to keep the rights to those games.

BYU likely would be able to keep their ESPN deal if they returned to the MWC, as well as a guarantee to have their rights negotiated separately in the future (much like Boise has). I think it is a good question if BYU could keep the money from the deal, there is a good chance the MWC would insist on adding it to the money from the MWC TV deal and then splitting it among the teams. OTOH, with the bonus system (extra money for every game on "national" TV -- ESPN/2 or an OTA network), BYU would still make more than the other teams in the MWC (other than perhaps Boise).

I'm not saying we should go back to the MWC, just that it isn't entirely fair to blame the MWC for not giving concessions. As for the new playoffs, we would get better access to the "BCS level" games as a member of the MWC. It wouldn't be the Rose Bowl -- it will likely be looked at as a "second tier" BCS game -- but it would provide more money to BYU, especially since the MWC is allowing teams to keep half the money they receive for playing in a bowl. On the flip side, most years our chances of getting into a playoff game would not be as good as our SOS would be hurt by playing an MWC conference schedule; not that we have a great chance either way (based on history).

I see your points, but I'm not willing to go back to the MWC for the chance at a BCS game should we have a nice year and also have a better year than Cincinnatti and whoever else we're in competition with for that game.

[Guest]

I see your points, but I'm not willing to go back to the MWC for the chance at a BCS game should we have a nice year and also have a better year than Cincinnatti and whoever else we're in competition with for that game.

I agree, I don't want to go back to the MWC. While I'd like one of the Big 5 conferences, since it doesn't seem likely for now, I think we should ride Independence as long as it is feasible.

[Shaka]

I agree, I don't want to go back to the MWC. While I'd like one of the Big 5 conferences, since it doesn't seem likely for now, I think we should ride Independence as long as it is feasible.

I'm on the fence but leaning towards independence. My fear is that it isn't going to be feasible for more than a couple of years.

[Flystripper]

On the flip side, most years our chances of getting into a playoff game would not be as good as our SOS would be hurt by playing an MWC conference schedule; not that we have a great chance either way (based on history).

I completely reject this notion. In most years Independence will not be better than an MWC schedule. The 2014 schedule is the anomaly. In most years, an MWC SOS should at worst be equal to independence as long as BYU schedules quality games with its 4 OOC slots each year. The ONLY benefit of independence in my opinion is money. Money is important, but I don't cheer for it on Saturdays.

[pellegrino]

I'm on the fence but leaning towards independence. My fear is that it isn't going to be feasible for more than a couple of years.

so long as we can schedule 3-5 big names every year and have 1-3 of them at home then I think it will be feasible. This will depend on whether or not the big 5 conferences schedule 9-10 conference games and/or each other exclusively. The B10 has started down that path, I don't know that other conferences will follow.

[Shaka]

so long as we can schedule 3-5 big names every year and have 1-3 of them at home then I think it will be feasible. This will depend on whether or not the big 5 conferences schedule 9-10 conference games and/or each other exclusively. The B10 has started down that path, I don't know that other conferences will follow.

There are other signs too such as the MWC and PAC12 possibly signing an OOC scheduling agreement. Such an agreement could take away another pool of schedule fillers that's a cut above the Weber State and Idaho .

I don't think three big games is enough. If we play Texas, ND, and Ol' Miss followed by a slate consisting of schools like Weber State, Idaho, New Mexico State etc.... it will get old. Also I've personally lost patience with no good games in the late fall.

[pellegrino]

There are other signs too such as the MWC and PAC12 possibly signing an OOC scheduling agreement. Such an agreement could take away another pool of schedule fillers that's a cut above the Weber State and Idaho .

I don't think three big games is enough. If we play Texas, ND, and Ol' Miss followed by a slate consisting of schools like Weber State, Idaho, New Mexico State etc.... it will get old. Also I've personally lost patience with no good games in the late fall.

The only good game we had in the fall pre-indy was the Holy War. That ship has sailed and Larry Scott won't let it come back to port. Other than that we have never really had a good November schedule.

As for three big names not being enough. What is the difference, really in the quality of schedules we had in the MWC and what we have now? IMO, it's that there was history between those schools. They all hated us, and even if they were the crappiest D1 team that year they played their guts out and altogether too often made what should have been a blowout a close game.

I just don't see much difference between teams like NMSU/Idaho St. and UNLV/Wyoming (sorry landpoke).

oh, and I don't believe the rumors about the MWC having some scheduling arrangement with the PAC.

[BigFatMeanie]

No, I don't think they should accept the current TV deal. I think Boise St. has set the precedence for BYU maintaining their current tv deal and giving that up is a non-starter. Any money outside the TV deal is only going to be gravy as BYU doesn't really have access to any currently. At least not that I can think of. The bowl games (the ones BYU has access to anyways) cost more to go to than they are paid.

Cool, so we agree then. Unless/until the MWC steps forward with an offer that lets BYU keep their current TV deal, BYU is better off in Indy than in the MWC.

[Shaka]

The only good game we had in the fall pre-indy was the Holy War. That ship has sailed and Larry Scott won't let it come back to port. Other than that we have never really had a good November schedule.

As for three big names not being enough. What is the difference, really in the quality of schedules we had in the MWC and what we have now? IMO, it's that there was history between those schools. They all hated us, and even if they were the crappiest D1 team that year they played their guts out and altogether too often made what should have been a blowout a close game.

I just don't see much difference between teams like NMSU/Idaho St. and UNLV/Wyoming (sorry landpoke).

oh, and I don't believe the rumors about the MWC having some scheduling arrangement with the PAC.

I think the Utah game was enough to make the late fall crapfest tolerable. I think UNLV/Wyoming is a cut above the Idaho/NMSU. I remember times when both of those schools have figure into exciting conference races. Also I don't mind playing UNLV because I'd much rather do a roadie to Vegas than New Mexico or Idaho. (Pardon me GN and sons of the 208)

I also think not having a conference title to chase after is a tough thing. Everyone has a different opinion on that issue but for me it's tough to swallow. I think for many potential recruits it will be as well.

[byu71]

Cool, so we agree then. Unless/until the MWC steps forward with an offer that lets BYU keep their current TV deal, BYU is better off in Indy than in the MWC.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. It is odd to think I used to be so into BYU football that right about now I was wishing the spring and summer away. I was nightly reading TBS for anything I could get and my brother and I would waste hours on the phone even in the non-season.

I want the Spring and Summer to go by very, very, slowly and at the same time I am genuinely excited for this upcoming season and glad I spent the dough on tickets. Looks like next year I will be back to DVDing the games and watching them when I get home after golf.

That is how I suspect it will go from now on. Buying tickets every few years.