The Independent Expansion Groundswell

[scottie]

I disagree (and note I didn't say "to bad teams"), I think they absolutely care about conference championships. Just my opinion, of course.

'06 and '07 are pretty good examples (good examples of what? who knows, LOL) -- both years the Cougs started out 1-2 then went undefeated in the MWC.

[Uncle Ted]

It would be funny if all of this was set off by a hacked CSUFootball twitter account. One would think that ESPN's Andy Katz and FoxSports' Jeff Goodman would have other sources.

[Uncle Ted]

BYU has "nothing to say right now"

BYU athletic director Tom Holmoe "has announced publicly that we are looking at every option. And that's where we are," Tittle said. "We don't have anything else to say about it right now. We are not going to be making comments about it all day long, I can tell you that right now. It is raging, and I know it is probably going to get worse.

[...]

"To my knowledge, there is no press conference on Thursday," Tittle said. "I am playing golf with some of our top corporate sponsors today. I probably wouldn't be doing that if we had a press conference scheduled in the morning."
Andy Katz of ESPN.com added this report this morning to a report last night that says sources are telling him the move is imminent.
Said Tittle: "I have no idea where he is getting that from.....I will say it again: As Tom [Holmoe] indicated a month ago, we are exploring all of our options. We are continuing to do that. That's all we are saying right now. That's all there is to say."

[SCcoug]

Harmon just said on Fresno sports radio that if the other MWC presidents don't agree to BYU's demands they'll go independent. He gave it 85-90% chance that they don't go along and BYU bolts.

[scottie]

I think someone asked about this earlier, but this was a tweet from ESPN's Joe Schad:

ND gets automatic bid if Top 8 w 9 wins. But Navy and Army don't have that provision (must be Top 2).

[ERCougar]

'06 and '07 are pretty good examples (good examples of what? who knows, LOL) -- both years the Cougs started out 1-2 then went undefeated in the MWC.

Right, but what I'm saying (and there's no way to prove this--just my gut instinct) is that the reasons fans still cared is that they could tell we still had a decent team, not whether we'd win the MWC. If those two losses had been to bad teams, and then we had gone on to win a bad MWC, the fans' interest would have been pretty minimal. I'm guessing there are prior year examples to illustrate this.

[UtahDan]

You guys keep throwing these blanket statements out without any specifics. I've heard good answers to both scheduling issues and TV issues. What else is left? The loss of the Vegas Bowl? Ouch.

What are the good answers to scheduling you have heard? I haven't followed it completely but here is what I got persuaded by:

http://www.cougarboard.com/noframes/...tml?id=5738157

I did just read the DesNews column. It sounds like the gist of this is that BYU is going to rejoin the WAC for all intents and purposes, except as to football where it will now have to make its own schedule and hope that somehow it will be easier to get to a BCS. Is there more to it than that?

With TCU and BSU both looking poised to make BCS runs and with the argument for an auto-bid for the MWC still looking possible this seems like a big silly gamble to me. Tell me why you think it would be a good idea. You have obviously kept up with it.

[ERCougar]

What are the good answers to scheduling you have heard? I haven't followed it completely but here is what I got persuaded by:

http://www.cougarboard.com/noframes/...tml?id=5738157

I did just read the DesNews column. It sounds like the gist of this is that BYU is going to rejoin the WAC for all intents and purposes, except as to football where it will now have to make its own schedule and hope that somehow it will be easier to get to a BCS. Is there more to it than that?

With TCU and BSU both looking poised to make BCS runs and with the argument for an auto-bid for the MWC still looking possible this seems like a big silly gamble to me. Tell me why you think it would be a good idea. You have obviously kept up with it.

For the love of all that is holy, can we just make this a sticky :

http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showpost.php?p=404808&postcount=26

is the a pretty good answer to the scheduling question.

Your MWC autobid is a decent point and in my mind, the only valid downside to making the move.

[Jeff Lebowski]

For the love of all that is holy, can we just make this a sticky :

http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showpost.php?p=404808&postcount=26

is the a pretty good answer to the scheduling question.

Your MWC autobid is a decent point and in my mind, the only valid downside to making the move.

You keep linking to that post as if the post makes some kind of persuasive argument. It doesn't.

[LiveCoug]

You keep linking to that post as if the post makes some kind of persuasive argument. It doesn't.

Agreed. That's not that great of a schedule.

[scottie]

Right, but what I'm saying (and there's no way to prove this--just my gut instinct) is that the reasons fans still cared is that they could tell we still had a decent team, not whether we'd win the MWC. If those two losses had been to bad teams, and then we had gone on to win a bad MWC, the fans' interest would have been pretty minimal. I'm guessing there are prior year examples to illustrate this.

Option A (in the MWC): Start 1-2 against bad teams, go on to win the MWC

Option B (Independent): Start 1-2 against bad teams, go on to... win some more games

So what are you saying?

[ERCougar]

Agreed. That's not that great of a schedule.

But it's no worse than our current schedule, with absolutely no favorable ESPN assumptions. I'd say it's better.

All I'm doing is answering the concern that we'll never be able to schedule anyone. We can reproduce the same type of schedule and make more money doing it.

[Top Ute]

Same organization, same anti-competitive purpose, different name.

When it comes to a lawsuit, what matters is what did the BCS know and when. Go back and look it up. In 2001, at the moment when the BCS bowl bids were announced, BYU was undefeated and ranked in the top 5. Later that same day, with Luke Staley out with an ankle injury and Reno Mahe injured in the first few plays of the game, they lost in a massacre at Hawaii, and then lost their final bowl game to Marshall (?). It turns out that sans-Staley, BYU wasn't that good. But tht's not part of the BCS 'calculation.'

The BCS showed it's anti-competitive stripes when it declined to invite an undefeated BYU team. They should've had their asses sued off because of it.

And yes, Utah should be ever gratefult ot BYU for paving the way for their BCS invites. Great teams had been left out of the equation before, but the BCS began to understand that they had both public opinion and the law against them, so they opened up their boys club to kids from the other side of the tracks...

The rules in 2001 said you had to finish Top 6 in the BCS standings. BYU wasn't there, having been ranked only as high as 8th. And Utah actually made it in the top 6 in both years, one when you had to finish top 6, the other when it was only top 12.

The claims that BYU "paved the way" for Utah has no merit. We did what you couldn't.

[jay santos]

Harmon just said on Fresno sports radio that if the other MWC presidents don't agree to BYU's demands they'll go independent. He gave it 85-90% chance that they don't go along and BYU bolts.

Here it is, folks. This is what it's all about.

[LiveCoug]

But it's no worse than our current schedule, with absolutely no favorable ESPN assumptions. I'd say it's better.

All I'm doing is answering the concern that we'll never be able to schedule anyone. We can reproduce the same type of schedule and make more money doing it.

But at least we can compete for a championship. If we make a change, I want it to be BETTER. If it's just financially better, I couldn't care less. As a fan, I want better access, schedule etc. If we can't do that, why move?