The Independent Expansion Groundswell

[Uncle Ted]

Eborn's blog...

Y. to WAC deal not dead, yet

As bleak as the outlook may seem at the moment, a source familiar with the negotiations between BYU and the WAC that nearly brought the Cougars back to the conference said talks continue and that ESPN is still in the picture.

There are, however, numerous scenarios that might play out.

The source said BYU is still virtually committed to going independent in football but is negotiating its best scenario for the other teams -- that could mean going ahead with its plan to join the WAC but with new partners thanks to the 11th-hour defections of Fresno State and Nevada, staying in the MWC for all sports but football or getting major concessions from the MWC regarding television revenue.

The source said ESPN and BYU are reaching out to schools in the WAC as well as potential conference partners from the MWC and C-USA. Though the source did not confirm when asked, C-USA schools that would fit into a WAC/BYU footprint include SMU, Houston and UTEP.

[Uncle Ted]

This quote from EBorn makes me wonder if Texas got USC to play USU and there is a good ole boys network going on...

As for Utah State's part in the developments, the source said the Aggies and BYU -- as much as some may find it hard to believe or even accept -- have formed a partnership of sorts to work toward a mutually beneficial arrangement that ultimately will lead to a conference partnership with BYU an independent on the football field.

[Moliere]

Eborn's blog...

Y. to WAC deal not dead, yet

I'd love for byu to be in same conference as Houston......for obvious reasons.

[LA Ute]

BYU.

Well-played, my friend.

Wouldn't this be the case no matter how BYU left? The MWC is up a foul creek because Utah and BYU want to leave, not because BYU wants to leave.

OK, I fully recognize that I may be missing something. But BYU tried to leave the MWC and also make sure that WAC schools would not leave the WAC to take BYU's place in hte MWC. BYU's desire to assure itself the WAC would remain stable is understandable, but it's also understandable that the MWC schools would see that as BYU thumbing its nose at its soon-to-be-former conference - a sort of "the devil take the hindmost" attitude. Add to that the exit clause for an AQ conference and it looks a little like BYU was doing what was best for BYU, with no regard to anyone else. You have to recognize, I think, how that looks to others. The BYU fans here who want to claim that their school's behavior in the matter is absolutely unassailable are being pretty unrealistic, I think. Reasonable people can disagree about this.

[YOhio]

OK, I fully recognize that I may be missing something. But BYU tried to leave the MWC and also make sure that WAC schools would not leave the WAC to take BYU's place in hte MWC. BYU's desire to assure itself the WAC would remain stable is understandable, but it's also understandable that the MWC schools would see that as BYU thumbing its nose at its soon-to-be-former conference - a sort of "the devil take the hindmost" attitude. Add to that the exit clause for an AQ conference and it looks a little like BYU was doing what was best for BYU, with no regard to anyone else. You have to recognize, I think, how that looks to others. The BYU fans here who want to claim that their school's behavior in the matter is absolutely unassailable are being pretty unrealistic, I think. Reasonable people can disagree about this.

Shot birds flutter.

[creekster]

Wouldn't this be the case no matter how BYU left? The MWC is up a foul creek because Utah and BYU want to leave, not because BYU wants to leave.

It feels like I was just insulted here, but I am not certain.

[creekster]

Well-played, my friend.



OK, I fully recognize that I may be missing something. But BYU tried to leave the MWC and also make sure that WAC schools would not leave the WAC to take BYU's place in hte MWC. BYU's desire to assure itself the WAC would remain stable is understandable, but it's also understandable that the MWC schools would see that as BYU thumbing its nose at its soon-to-be-former conference - a sort of "the devil take the hindmost" attitude. Add to that the exit clause for an AQ conference and it looks a little like BYU was doing what was best for BYU, with no regard to anyone else. You have to recognize, I think, how that looks to others. The BYU fans here who want to claim that their school's behavior in the matter is absolutely unassailable are being pretty unrealistic, I think. Reasonable people can disagree about this.

This is very amusing. Tell me in whose interest was Utah acting when ti left to go to the Pac-whatever (see that SU? I said PAC-WHATEVER!)? Utah acted in its own interest and who else's interest? You are at least the second person that has trotted out this canard as though it might be important (by their company you shall know them?). Yes, BYU acted in its own interest! You would have to be afflicted with the most sever case of Mormon guilt ever seen to think that they were required to do anything else.

But they didn't lie about it, they didn't say they wouldn't and do it anyway, and they were very straightforward in their goals and purposes, as was Utah when it left, BTW. SO if BYU's actions aren't 'unassailable' then neither were Utah's and neither were yours when you chose the type of cereal you were going to have for breakfast.

[LA Ute]

This is very amusing. Tell me in whose interest was Utah acting when ti left to go to the Pac-whatever (see that SU? I said PAC-WHATEVER!)? Utah acted in its own interest and who else's interest? You are at least the second person that has trotted out this canard as though it might be important (by their company you shall know them?). Yes, BYU acted in its own interest! You would have to be afflicted with the most sever case of Mormon guilt ever seen to think that they were required to do anything else.

But they didn't lie about it, they didn't say they wouldn't and do it anyway, and they were very straightforward in their goals and purposes, as was Utah when it left, BTW. SO if BYU's actions aren't 'unassailable' then neither were Utah's and neither were yours when you chose the type of cereal you were going to have for breakfast.

I think it's funny that you all want to equate the simple acceptance of an invitation to a more prestigious conference (Utah moving to the PAC) with a relatively complex deal that went to considerable lengths to benefit BYU at the expense of other schools - with whom BYU was involved in not one, but two common enterprises. Was it unethical? No. Is it high-handed, leaving at least a bad taste in the mouths of everyone disadvantaged by it? Arguably yes. This reminds me of the Max Hall rant fiasco. You guys not only can't bring yourselves to admit his tirade was the least bit objectionable, but attack as fools anyone who seems to think it might have been. :rant:

[creekster]

I think it's funny that you all want to equate the simple acceptance of an invitation to a more prestigious conference (Utah moving to the PAC) with a relatively complex deal that went to considerable lengths to benefit BYU at the expense of other schools - with whom BYU was involved in not one, but two common enterprises. Was it unethical? No. Is it high-handed, leaving at least a bad taste in the mouths of everyone disadvantaged by it? Arguably yes. This reminds me of the Max Hall rant fiasco. You guys not only can't bring yourselves to admit his tirade was the least bit objectionable, but attack as fools anyone who seems to think it might have been. :rant:

How was it ever at the expense of other schools? Because they would be left behind? And that is EXACTLY what Utah did. Just because a silver spoon was placed in Utah's mouth and BYU has to earn its living the old fashioned way (backroom deals) doesn't mean there is any significant difference as to the effect it had (or might have as to BYU) on other schools. Wyoming and landpoke are just as screwed either way. Well, maybe not landpoke, but i dont wanto to talk abotu that here.

Yes, a THOUSAND times yes! BYU ACTED IN IT'S OWN INTEREST! It's about stinkin' time from my POV. I just hope they stick with it.

Interesting Max hall reference. I had no idea he was still such a big burr under your blanket.

[Clark Addison]

I think it's funny that you all want to equate the simple acceptance of an invitation to a more prestigious conference (Utah moving to the PAC) with a relatively complex deal that went to considerable lengths to benefit BYU at the expense of other schools - with whom BYU was involved in not one, but two common enterprises. Was it unethical? No. Is it high-handed, leaving at least a bad taste in the mouths of everyone disadvantaged by it? Arguably yes. This reminds me of the Max Hall rant fiasco. You guys not only can't bring yourselves to admit his tirade was the least bit objectionable, but attack as fools anyone who seems to think it might have been. :rant:

Wait, just to be clear, are you saying that Utah was completely passive, and simply accepted an invitation that they did nothing to secure? There were no contacts, no negotiations, no aggressive attempts to secure what was best for Utah?

I fail to see how what Utah did was different than what BYU did, and I fail to see how what either of them did was wrong.

[LA Ute]

How was it ever at the expense of other schools? Because they would be left behind? And that is EXACTLY what Utah did. Just because a silver spoon was placed in Utah's mouth and BYU has to earn its living the old fashioned way (backroom deals) doesn't mean there is any significant difference as to the effect it had (or might have as to BYU) on other schools. Wyoming and landpoke are just as screwed either way. Well, maybe not landpoke, but i dont wanto to talk abotu that here.

Yes, a THOUSAND times yes! BYU ACTED IN IT'S OWN INTEREST! It's about stinkin' time from my POV. I just hope they stick with it.

But it's the Lord's University! Besides, the Harvard of the West might act that way, but the Notre Dame of the West wouldn't. Then again, Brigham Texas Dame Wannabe University might.

Interesting Max hall reference. I had no idea he was still such a big burr under your blanket.

BTW, with me it's never been about Max. That was just his foolish rant. I happily wear the "Max HallHates Me" t-shirt my son gave me. It's been about how no one on this board (on the BYU side) ever had the spine to admit Max might have displayed even a tiny bit of poor sportsmanship. Or are you now willing to step up?

[Coach McGuirk]

I think it's funny that you all want to equate the simple acceptance of an invitation to a more prestigious conference (Utah moving to the PAC) with a relatively complex deal that went to considerable lengths to benefit BYU at the expense of other schools - with whom BYU was involved in not one, but two common enterprises. Was it unethical? No. Is it high-handed, leaving at least a bad taste in the mouths of everyone disadvantaged by it? Arguably yes. This reminds me of the Max Hall rant fiasco. You guys not only can't bring yourselves to admit his tirade was the least bit objectionable, but attack as fools anyone who seems to think it might have been. :rant:

Max Hall Rant? Wow. You are gonzo. So because the contracts were complete in one scenario and the other required negotiation and formation of something new, that is what you see as high-handed?

How dare the Utes leave the MWC thinking they are all prestigious and whatnot leaving everyone disadvantaged!

You are delusional.

[LA Ute]

Wait, just to be clear, are you saying that Utah was completely passive, and simply accepted an invitation that they did nothing to secure? There were no contacts, no negotiations, no aggressive attempts to secure what was best for Utah?

I fail to see how what Utah did was different than what BYU did, and I fail to see how what either of them did was wrong.

You keep inserting words like that. I'm not saying that. Here is what I am saying: In the court of public opinion, BYU looks high-handed. No one (other than BYU fans) has accused Utah of that over the PAC10 move. Take a look at the MWC board or other MWC schools' boards and see if I am not right about both things.

Max Hall Rant? Wow. You are gonzo. So because the contracts were complete in one scenario and the other required negotiation and formation of something new, that is what you see as high-handed?

How dare the Utes leave the MWC thinking they are all prestigious and whatnot leaving everyone disadvantaged!

You are delusional.

This episode and the Max Hall rant are such good examples of why BYU fans seem unwilling to admit anything negative about BYU. I think it comes from the Church's sponsorship or something.

[creekster]

You keep inserting words like that. I'm not saying that. Here is what I am saying: In the court of public opinion, BYU looks high-handed. No one (other than BYU fans) has accused Utah of that over the PAC10 move. Take a look at the MWC board or other MWC schools' boards and see if I am not right about both things.

So you are basing your opinion of BYU's actions on posts from fan boards of other MWC schools? I can see how you reached your conclusion, given that these fans all held BYU in such high regard before this all happened.

Come on LA, admit it, BYU wasn't 'wrong' or 'unethical' or even high-handed, unless you mean by seeking the best deal it could for itself through negotiations between consenting adults it was high handed. I suppose Utah said "gosh Larry Scott, thanks for the invite but I am not sure we want to take all that money every year, we really should be thinking about the other schools in the conference, and maybe we could toss some to our old MWC buddies because, gee whiz, we sure wouldn't want to act in our self interest here, would we?"

Max hall has NOTHING to do with this. If you want to look for apologists, start another thread.

[creekster]

This episode and the Max Hall rant are such good examples of why BYU fans seem unwilling to admit anything negative about BYU. I think it comes from the Church's sponsorship or something.

You should visit the Foyer more often