Non-Conference Scheduling rumors

[TripletDaddy]

What does everyone think of the Home/Home/Neutral method for scheduling the big teams? Personally, I like it. Each team gets to play at home, and then the neutral game (assuming a big stage game like BYU/OU) brings national focus and a big payday.

I assume the neutral site will generally favor the other team, but BYU fans will represent well regardless of location, and it is a reasonable concession to grant the big name opponents that we would be trying to land.

I would like to see more truly neutral fields, though. And maybe even a few that favor BYU. Not sure that is possible, though.

The payouts will be nice.

And playing on TV and against so many different big name teams will be attractive to recruits.

[Paperback Writer]

True. The Big12 really proved to be a tour de force for the Sooners. We won almost as many titles as all the other teams combined, and 7/11 of the last RRRs.

I'm not so sure it was the Big 12 that proved to be a "tour de force for the Sooners" as much as it was Bob Stoops. OU was perhaps a greater tour de force under Barry Switzer in the Big 8. OU just happened to be in the Big 12 when Stoops came to Norman.

Barry Switzer (1973-88) 16 seasons:
10 outright Big 8 championships; 2 other shared Big 8 titles; 3 National Championships (1974, 1975, 1985)

Those-who-shan't be named (1989-98) 10 seasons - 7 in Big 8; 3 in Big 12:
zero conference titles - 3 losing seasons in the Big 12 (1996-98)

Bob Stoops (1999-present/2010) 12 seasons
7 Big 12 conference titles; 4 appearances in National title games; 1 National Championship (2000)

[KillerDog]

Look guys, I'll tell you what I know and I'll give you enough information so that those of you who know anything about me can recognize that this is legit.

When the U was negotiating with the Pac-10 and the Pac was doing their due diligence, they were meeting with a group of people. In that group was a man I know. During breaks in the negotiations, I would talk to that man. After the deal was struck, he told me what went down. He told me of Utah's concerns and of Utah's positions. He said there was only one deal breaker and it was the ability (flexibility) to schedule BYU. He said Utah insisted and the Pac agreed that Utah should have the same deal with the Pac in relation to BYU that USC has in relation to Notre Dame. He described that deal as "the ability to put BYU in the schedule each year before any other games are scheduled." He further said it was a condition because the people that mattered wouldn't go for the Pac-10 absent BYU without some assurance that the BYU rivalry would continue without break. The current game is scheduled when it is because it was what the two schools collectively decided was best. Future games will be scheduled in the same manner. These two schools, according to my friend, are so intertwined that it would severely damage either school to separate them. He called them conjoined twins.

This isn't speculation based on public posturing. This isn't information from a cousin's cousin. This is information I heard directly from a man who sat at the table and voted for the move to the Pac-10. Since my conversations with him I've had things he told me which are not publicly known verified by the Utah coaching staff and athletic deparment members. They all seem surprised by the knowledge. As a result, I have additional reason to trust the information.

I'm not saying the rivalry game will be in November or anything like that but if it isn't, it won't be because of the Pac-10. It will be because of BYU and Utah, their needs, internal dynamics, and donor pressure.

For those of you who think Utah is "above" BYU and will dictate the terms of engagement from now on, you don't understand the dynamic between the schools that well. For those of you who think BYU is "above" Utah and looking for a reason to stop the relationship, you are out of your minds too. I understand Utah to the Pac-10 strained the relationship a bit because of the understandings of the parties but the relationship is still as strong as a relationship gets in the universe of college relationships.

[Babs]

I'm not so sure it was the Big 12 that proved to be a "tour de force for the Sooners" as much as it was Bob Stoops.

OU was perhaps a greater tour de force under Barry Switzer in the Big 8. OU just happened to be in the Big 12 when Stoops came to Norman.

Barry Switzer (1973-88) 16 seasons:
10 outright Big 8 championships; 2 other shared Big 8 titles; 3 National Championships (1974, 1975, 1985)

Those-who-shan't be named (1989-98) 10 seasons - 7 in Big 8; 3 in Big 12:
zero conference titles - 3 losing seasons in the Big 12 (1996-98)

Bob Stoops (1999-present/2010) 12 seasons
7 Big 12 conference titles; 4 appearances in National title games; 1 National Championship (2000)

I suppose you're right. The Sooners' utter domination of the Big 12 still pales in comparison to its success in some of the earlier eras. But I'd say winning 7 of the last ten conference titles still counts as a tour de force.

(Incidentally: by definition, a team's coach cannot be its tour de force.)

[Paperback Writer]

Look guys, I'll tell you what I know and I'll give you enough information so that those of you who know anything about me can recognize that this is legit.

When the U was negotiating with the Pac-10 and the Pac was doing their due diligence, they were meeting with a group of people. In that group was a man I know. During breaks in the negotiations, I would talk to that man. After the deal was struck, he told me what went down. He told me of Utah's concerns and of Utah's positions. He said there was only one deal breaker and it was the ability (flexibility) to schedule BYU. He said Utah insisted and the Pac agreed that Utah should have the same deal with the Pac in relation to BYU that USC has in relation to Notre Dame. He described that deal as "the ability to put BYU in the schedule each year before any other games are scheduled." He further said it was a condition because the people that mattered wouldn't go for the Pac-10 absent BYU without some assurance that the BYU rivalry would continue without break. The current game is scheduled when it is because it was what the two schools collectively decided was best. Future games will be scheduled in the same manner. These two schools, according to my friend, are so intertwined that it would severely damage either school to separate them. He called them conjoined twins.

This isn't speculation based on public posturing. This isn't information from a cousin's cousin. This is information I heard directly from a man who sat at the table and voted for the move to the Pac-10. Since my conversations with him I've had things he told me which are not publicly known verified by the Utah coaching staff and athletic deparment members. They all seem surprised by the knowledge. As a result, I have additional reason to trust the information.

I'm not saying the rivalry game will be in November or anything like that but if it isn't, it won't be because of the Pac-10. It will be because of BYU and Utah, their needs, internal dynamics, and donor pressure.

For those of you who think Utah is "above" BYU and will dictate the terms of engagement from now on, you don't understand the dynamic between the schools that well. For those of you who think BYU is "above" Utah and looking for a reason to stop the relationship, you are out of your minds too. I understand Utah to the Pac-10 strained the relationship a bit because of the understandings of the parties but the relationship is still as strong as a relationship gets in the universe of college relationships.

Thanks for sharing that info. However, I'm having trouble reconciling the statement that "BYU and Utah can play any time they want" with the realities of PAC-12 scheduling and network revenues. As most already know, the PAC-10 is based on season ending rivalry games: USC-UCLA; Cal-Stanford; Wash-WSU; Oregon-OSU; Arizona-ASU. If Utah-CU is not played the last date of the regular season because of BYU-Utah then that will force CU to play an OOC opponent for the last game and there's no one out there that will draw stronger than Utah-Colorado. And after Thanksgiving is no longer an option now that there will be a PAC-12 CG; teams have to complete their regular season by Thanksgiving. I just don't see how the PAC-12 and networks do not have a say-so in scheduling Utah-BYU earlier in the season. Perhaps the two schools are free to schedule any week prior to "rivalry week" but I can't see the PAC-12 allowing BYU and Utah to schedule their rivalry game Friday, 11/25/2011 and giving Colorado a bye week.

I suspect the Networks have a big say in scheduling rivalry week and perhaps they have calculated that the potential audience for Utah-Colorado will be larger then Utah-BYU on Thanksgiving weekend. They probably figure the audience for BYU-Utah will be the same no matter when it's played - but it does take away from the historic rivalry. Not trying to dismiss the info that Killer Dog has shared. Just trying to square it with how PAC-10 scheduling has worked in the past. Perhaps Notre Dame is the wild card and they schedule a Notre Dame-USC or Notre Dame-Stanford game during rivalry week which will free up UCLA or Cal to play Colordo and thus free up Utah to play BYU at the end of the regular season.

[creekster]

Maybe that is how it went down, like KD said, and then once Utah was in and it came time to approve the new TV contract the dollar signsz persuaded them to give up on that commitment.

[Portland Ute]

Look guys, I'll tell you what I know and I'll give you enough information so that those of you who know anything about me can recognize that this is legit.

When the U was negotiating with the Pac-10 and the Pac was doing their due diligence, they were meeting with a group of people. In that group was a man I know. During breaks in the negotiations, I would talk to that man. After the deal was struck, he told me what went down. He told me of Utah's concerns and of Utah's positions. He said there was only one deal breaker and it was the ability (flexibility) to schedule BYU. He said Utah insisted and the Pac agreed that Utah should have the same deal with the Pac in relation to BYU that USC has in relation to Notre Dame. He described that deal as "the ability to put BYU in the schedule each year before any other games are scheduled." He further said it was a condition because the people that mattered wouldn't go for the Pac-10 absent BYU without some assurance that the BYU rivalry would continue without break. The current game is scheduled when it is because it was what the two schools collectively decided was best. Future games will be scheduled in the same manner. These two schools, according to my friend, are so intertwined that it would severely damage either school to separate them. He called them conjoined twins.

This isn't speculation based on public posturing. This isn't information from a cousin's cousin. This is information I heard directly from a man who sat at the table and voted for the move to the Pac-10. Since my conversations with him I've had things he told me which are not publicly known verified by the Utah coaching staff and athletic deparment members. They all seem surprised by the knowledge. As a result, I have additional reason to trust the information.

I'm not saying the rivalry game will be in November or anything like that but if it isn't, it won't be because of the Pac-10. It will be because of BYU and Utah, their needs, internal dynamics, and donor pressure.

For those of you who think Utah is "above" BYU and will dictate the terms of engagement from now on, you don't understand the dynamic between the schools that well. For those of you who think BYU is "above" Utah and looking for a reason to stop the relationship, you are out of your minds too. I understand Utah to the Pac-10 strained the relationship a bit because of the understandings of the parties but the relationship is still as strong as a relationship gets in the universe of college relationships.

I am stunned that there are significant numbers at either school that believe that their survival depends on the other school.

Since I'm a Utah fan, I am saddened that people at the U. believe that they "need" BYU. It shows a mindset that is stuck in the 1970's and 1980's.

There must be some kind of fantastic secret combinations going on for this kind of thinking to persist.

I'm not saying that I believe that "Utah officials" need to believe they should dump BYU, but I am stunned that on the verge of the biggest moment in Utah athletics there were actually people that were so pussy whipped by BYU that they would have backed away from the PAC12 had the PAC12 said "no, you can't."

If that had happened, those people would have deserved to be shot in the knees, had their balls ripped off and fed to them through a a straw.


I believe you, but the mindset, to me, is unbelievable. Since, I believe you, I am beside myself.

Going to the PAC12 was the move, with or without the ability to play BYU in the future.

[myboynoah]

I am stunned that there are significant numbers at either school that believe that their survival depends on the other school.

Since I'm a Utah fan, I am saddened that people at the U. believe that they "need" BYU. It shows a mindset that is stuck in the 1970's and 1980's.

There must be some kind of fantastic secret combinations going on for this kind of thinking to persist.

I'm not saying that I believe that "Utah officials" need to believe they should dump BYU, but I am stunned that on the verge of the biggest moment in Utah athletics there were actually people that were so pussy whipped by BYU that they would have backed away from the PAC12 had the PAC12 said "no, you can't."

If that had happened, those people would have deserved to be shot in the knees, had their balls ripped off and fed to them through a a straw.


I believe you, but the mindset, to me, is unbelievable. Since, I believe you, I am beside myself.

Going to the PAC12 was the move, with or without the ability to play BYU in the future.

Settle down, PU. By the time these meetings were being held Utah had the PAC by the short hairs. Scott had gone to Texas and had been dealt with in the Texas way. He had no options. Utah people saw their advantage and pressed it.

[shoganai]

I am stunned that there are significant numbers at either school that believe that their survival depends on the other school.

Since I'm a Utah fan, I am saddened that people at the U. believe that they "need" BYU. It shows a mindset that is stuck in the 1970's and 1980's.

There must be some kind of fantastic secret combinations going on for this kind of thinking to persist.

I'm not saying that I believe that "Utah officials" need to believe they should dump BYU, but I am stunned that on the verge of the biggest moment in Utah athletics there were actually people that were so pussy whipped by BYU that they would have backed away from the PAC12 had the PAC12 said "no, you can't."

If that had happened, those people would have deserved to be shot in the knees, had their balls ripped off and fed to them through a a straw.


I believe you, but the mindset, to me, is unbelievable. Since, I believe you, I am beside myself.

Going to the PAC12 was the move, with or without the ability to play BYU in the future.

Here's the dirty little secret Portland. The powers that be that KillerDog briefly allude to are either a part of, or strongly connected to the Board of Trustees at BYU.

I have a feeling that a lot of people don't realize how strong the influence from Temple Square still is on the U. Conversely, I have very good knowledge that there is some real truth to the long rumor that BYU once upon a time strongly insisted that Utah be included in discussions around Big 12 inclusion, but that's a conversation for another day.

The debate about who needs who, and how the schools would survive if the other were to cease existing is also one for another day. But the mindset you describe is held by very high people in high places.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

I am stunned that there are significant numbers at either school that believe that their survival depends on the other school.

Since I'm a Utah fan, I am saddened that people at the U. believe that they "need" BYU. It shows a mindset that is stuck in the 1970's and 1980's.

There must be some kind of fantastic secret combinations going on for this kind of thinking to persist.

I'm not saying that I believe that "Utah officials" need to believe they should dump BYU, but I am stunned that on the verge of the biggest moment in Utah athletics there were actually people that were so pussy whipped by BYU that they would have backed away from the PAC12 had the PAC12 said "no, you can't."

If that had happened, those people would have deserved to be shot in the knees, had their balls ripped off and fed to them through a a straw.


I believe you, but the mindset, to me, is unbelievable. Since, I believe you, I am beside myself.

Going to the PAC12 was the move, with or without the ability to play BYU in the future.

Ask Iowa State how great it is to be out on an island without a rival. These people making these decision are smarter than you. You're not going to be able to form some contrived rivalry with Colorado. Colorado v. Nebraska was supposed to make up for the loss of Oklahoma v. Nebraska and the only thing that succeeded in accomplishing was help Nebraska feel like it had zero allegiance with the Big 12. And unlike Colorado v. Utah, Nebraska and Colorado actually had some history.

[oxcoug]

Look guys, I'll tell you what I know and I'll give you enough information so that those of you who know anything about me can recognize that this is legit.

When the U was negotiating with the Pac-10 and the Pac was doing their due diligence, they were meeting with a group of people. In that group was a man I know. During breaks in the negotiations, I would talk to that man. After the deal was struck, he told me what went down. He told me of Utah's concerns and of Utah's positions. He said there was only one deal breaker and it was the ability (flexibility) to schedule BYU. He said Utah insisted and the Pac agreed that Utah should have the same deal with the Pac in relation to BYU that USC has in relation to Notre Dame. He described that deal as "the ability to put BYU in the schedule each year before any other games are scheduled." He further said it was a condition because the people that mattered wouldn't go for the Pac-10 absent BYU without some assurance that the BYU rivalry would continue without break. The current game is scheduled when it is because it was what the two schools collectively decided was best. Future games will be scheduled in the same manner. These two schools, according to my friend, are so intertwined that it would severely damage either school to separate them. He called them conjoined twins.

This isn't speculation based on public posturing. This isn't information from a cousin's cousin. This is information I heard directly from a man who sat at the table and voted for the move to the Pac-10. Since my conversations with him I've had things he told me which are not publicly known verified by the Utah coaching staff and athletic deparment members. They all seem surprised by the knowledge. As a result, I have additional reason to trust the information.

I'm not saying the rivalry game will be in November or anything like that but if it isn't, it won't be because of the Pac-10. It will be because of BYU and Utah, their needs, internal dynamics, and donor pressure.

For those of you who think Utah is "above" BYU and will dictate the terms of engagement from now on, you don't understand the dynamic between the schools that well. For those of you who think BYU is "above" Utah and looking for a reason to stop the relationship, you are out of your minds too. I understand Utah to the Pac-10 strained the relationship a bit because of the understandings of the parties but the relationship is still as strong as a relationship gets in the universe of college relationships.

This post represents much of what is desirable about a good message board. K Dog - thank you for verifying my belief that if I check CUF enough times in one day someone will say something that is more interesting than my comments on Cheetos and Strawberry Rhubarb Pie.

[kccougar]

Here's the dirty little secret Portland. The powers that be that KillerDog briefly allude to are either a part of, or strongly connected to the Board of Trustees at BYU.

I have a feeling that a lot of people don't realize how strong the influence from Temple Square still is on the U. Conversely, I have very good knowledge that there is some real truth to the long rumor that BYU once upon a time strongly insisted that Utah be included in discussions around Big 12 inclusion, but that's a conversation for another day.

The debate about who needs who, and how the schools would survive if the other were to cease existing is also one for another day. But the mindset you describe is held by very high people in high places.

Exactly. At the highest level of Utah booster/administration, the relationship between the two schools is really quite incestuous.

[LiveCoug]

PU is too caught up on the word "need". Neither team "needs" the other, per se. It's more of a loyal sibling relationship that is at work here. Why that offends PU so, I have no idea.

I get the feeling that PU doesn't like BYU, but what do I know.

[Jacob]

He said Utah insisted and the Pac agreed that Utah should have the same deal with the Pac in relation to BYU that USC has in relation to Notre Dame. He described that deal as "the ability to put BYU in the schedule each year before any other games are scheduled." He further said it was a condition because the people that mattered wouldn't go for the Pac-10 absent BYU without some assurance that the BYU rivalry would continue without break. The current game is scheduled when it is because it was what the two schools collectively decided was best. Future games will be scheduled in the same manner. These two schools, according to my friend, are so intertwined that it would severely damage either school to separate them. He called them conjoined twins.

The bolded statement makes reason stare. There is no way BYU wanted that game in September. No friggin way. End of story.

So, either your source is inaccurate in that regard, or the guys in charge of scheduling at Utah don't give a damn about what it's "conjoined twin" would like to do regarding scheduling. Certainly "the two schools" didn't "collectively decide" that the early September date was best. Best for Utah, but almost the last resort for BYU.

"Listen Tom, it's either in September or we don't play next year."

This is all IMHO, of course.

[myboynoah]

PU is too caught up on the word "need". Neither team "needs" the other, per se. It's more of a loyal sibling relationship that is at work here. Why that offends PU so, I have no idea.

I get the feeling that PU doesn't like BYU, but what do I know.

Yeah, he sure came over here and pooped a big one in BYU's Independent Scheduling rumors thread. It's very disruptive to the normally collegial atmosphere that exists here on CUF, unlike CB and that horrid, horrid UteFans.net.

It takes time.