Non-Conference Scheduling rumors

[shoganai]

I wonder who Shog thinks killed Kennedy? He obviously loves conspiracies.

It's not a theory. It's a fact. Talk to the right person up on the hill and they'll tell you all about it. It's not even that big of a secret anymore. Dr. Hill won't address it directly because it would piss off some ALUFs with influence. But it's hardly a hidden conspiracy.

The Pac-12 CEO is trying to solidify a market share monopoly - the best and most obvious strategic move for his business looking beyond 10 years, since his BOD won't allow a merger or a footprint expansion.

And the idea that the Pac has this "new" scheduling limitation is completely false. They have always only played three non-conference games. They switched to 9 conference games when the NCAA went to a 12-game schedule in 2006. Before that they played 8/3.

Personally I don't know why U fans are so quick to defend this. Why is the Pac-12 attempting to marginalize the only competitive threat in its footprint such a bad thing from their perspective? There shouldn't be any need to justify or dismiss it. It's BYU's problem. Not theirs...

[shoganai]

It's also worth noting that the WSU-BYU contract was entered in December 2011, well after the P12 would have blacklisted BYU as a possible opponent. Furthermore, when the 2013 game was pushed back, WSU wanted to play the game in 2016, but BYU insisted on 2019, so it was BYU, not WSU or the P12 pushing that game back so far.

This is not correct.

BYU had a deal to play Wazzu worked out well before then. The talks had happened quite a while earlier, but the series was on the books to go down in 2015 and beyond. Before it was announced they came back and decided to move the dates up to 2012-13. This was done at the specific request of ESPN, to help BYU fill in some holes in the first two years of indy. Here is a link documenting most of this info...

http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile2/5...think.html.csp

Wazzu's decision to push back the return trip has nothing to do with Pac-12 politics, and actually helped BYU because it opened up a spot for a new series with Virginia. I only mentioned it in the CB post to highlight the general absence of Pac-12 teams - a staple of BYU's schedules going back decades.

[Scratch]

This is not correct.

BYU had a deal to play Wazzu worked out well before then. The talks had happened quite a while earlier, but the series was on the books to go down in 2015 and beyond. Before it was announced they came back and decided to move the dates up to 2012-13. This was done at the specific request of ESPN, to help BYU fill in some holes in the first two years of indy. Here is a link documenting most of this info...

http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile2/5...think.html.csp

Wazzu's decision to push back the return trip has nothing to do with Pac-12 politics, and actually helped BYU because it opened up a spot for a new series with Virginia. I only mentioned it in the CB post to highlight the general absence of Pac-12 teams - a staple of BYU's schedules going back decades.

A couple of things. The article makes clear that there had been discussions to play a series later, but nothing was signed. It was NOT "on the books." Per ESPN's request, the discussions for the series changed and the series was moved up to 2012-2013. In other words, in late 2011, Wazzu and BYU were discussing a future series. Nothing had been agreed to. The contract was actually signed in December 2011. In other words, either WSU ignored Larry Scott's directive re: playing BYU, or no such directive existed. There was no legacy contract in place for those games.

Furthermore, you stated the Wazzu had pushed the series back indefinitely. This is not correct; first, the return game is under contract for 2019, which is not "indefinite." Second, Wazzu wanted to play it earlier, and asked to play it earlier, but BYU refused and instead insisted on 2019.

[shoganai]

A couple of things. The article makes clear that there had been discussions to play a series later, but nothing was signed. It was NOT "on the books." Per ESPN's request, the discussions for the series changed and the series was moved up to 2012-2013. In other words, in late 2011, Wazzu and BYU were discussing a future series. Nothing had been agreed to. The contract was actually signed in December 2011. In other words, either WSU ignored Larry Scott's directive re: playing BYU, or no such directive existed. There was no legacy contract in place for those games.

Furthermore, you stated the Wazzu had pushed the series back indefinitely. This is not correct; first, the return game is under contract for 2019, which is not "indefinite." Second, Wazzu wanted to play it earlier, and asked to play it earlier, but BYU refused and instead insisted on 2019.

Larry Scott has never issued a directive to all conference members regarding BYU, nor did I ever say he did. You extrapolated that on your own.

However, your deep concern for the intricacies of BYU's series with Wazzu is admirable, if not factual.

[smokymountainrain]

[Scratch]

Larry Scott has never issued a directive to all conference members regarding BYU, nor did I ever say he did. You extrapolated that on your own.

However, your deep concern for the intricacies of BYU's series with Wazzu is admirable, if not factual.

Here is what you said:

"BYU is more or less blacklisted by the rest of the conference."

"it would only make sense that we'd have more interest than ever before from these ADs. But, there is nothing. Larry Scott has his reasons, and they are good ones from his perspective, but it's clearly hurting our scheduling prospects."

"It's not a theory. It's a fact. Talk to the right person up on the hill and they'll tell you all about it. It's not even that big of a secret anymore."

I'd also be curious to know which part of my post re: the Wazzu series was factually incorrect.

[Indy Coug]

Here is what you said:

"BYU is more or less blacklisted by the rest of the conference."

"it would only make sense that we'd have more interest than ever before from these ADs. But, there is nothing. Larry Scott has his reasons, and they are good ones from his perspective, but it's clearly hurting our scheduling prospects."

"It's not a theory. It's a fact. Talk to the right person up on the hill and they'll tell you all about it. It's not even that big of a secret anymore."

[Flystripper]

Here is what you said:

"BYU is more or less blacklisted by the rest of the conference."

I guess he meant less blacklisted

[shoganai]

Here is what you said:

Larry Scott wants Utah to downplay and eventually kill the Holy War, and the trickle-down effect is that BYU is more or less blacklisted by the rest of the conference (i.e. it wouldn't play well politically for Arizona State to suddenly contract a four-game series with us while at the same time the commissioner is telling Utah to cut us loose).

Let me know if that statement is too difficult to understand and differentiate from a directive to all schools. I can rewrite a more simple version if need be. I completely understand that, like athletic recruiting, it will take some time for UU students to match the level of their Pac-12 counterparts academically.

[Scratch]

Larry Scott wants Utah to downplay and eventually kill the Holy War, and the trickle-down effect is that BYU is more or less blacklisted by the rest of the conference (i.e. it wouldn't play well politically for Arizona State to suddenly contract a four-game series with us while at the same time the commissioner is telling Utah to cut us loose).

Let me know if that statement is too difficult to understand and differentiate from a directive. I can rewrite a more simple version if need be. I completely understand that, like athletic recruiting, it will take some time for UU students to match the level of their Pac-12 counterparts academically.

I would consider being blacklisted (whether it is "more blacklisted" or "less blacklisted") as being functionally equivalent to a directive. That kind of goes along with the "list" part (it's tough to make it on a "list" without some sort of "directive"). Merriam-Webster online's first entry for directive is "serving or intended to guide, govern, or influence." Please let me know how it is possible to take being "blacklisted" as not meaning to at least serving to intend, guide, govern or influence.

I guess my academic background is truly falling short, because I would appreciate some additional guidance from you concerning how what you wrote would not constitute an attempt to guide, govern, or influence.

[shoganai]

Merriam-Webster online's first entry for directive is "serving or intended to guide, govern, or influence."

You seriously looked that up in the dictionary just now? You really shouldn't let this bug you so much...

[Scratch]

You seriously looked that up in the dictionary just now? You really shouldn't let this bug you so much...

It took about 8 seconds, and thanks for the concession. I just wanted to make sure that my inferior academic background hasn't led me astray.

Still curious as to how my summary of the Wazzu series is wrong.

[jay santos]

I could easily see an off the record discussion with Pac 10 AD's and the commish.

Larry Scott: "BYU owns the Utah market, and we want it. Our strategy is to let BYU die a slow death with their independence thing. We already see a slow shift to Utah over BYU in the Utah TV market. We want to encourage that trend. They depend on Pac teams for their scheduling, so if you want to support your new Utah brother, it would be a good show of support to stop scheduling them. Utah plans to cut them off. But we don't want this to get out and make us look like jerks. It could back fire. So do what you want to do, but that's my stance on it."

[shoganai]

It took about 8 seconds, and thanks for the concession. I just wanted to make sure that my inferior academic background hasn't led me astray.

Still curious as to how my summary of the Wazzu series is wrong.

Just in that it was agreed to before it became un-PC to schedule BYU. I have no idea when they actually decided to fax the contract over, but with the agreement made in principle and ESPN pulling the strings, it really didn't matter.

You'll have to take my word for it since I can't link to my sources.

[Portland Ute]

Larry Scott: "BYU owns the Utah market, and we want it.

Except that really isn't true.

Maybe we define "own" in completely different ways.

Regardless, if his strategy is what you say it is...