Non-Conference Scheduling rumors

[wapiti]

I'm pretty skeptical of us continuing to get 2/1 with USU.

Depends on whether USU can stay competitive. My guess is the loss of Anderson and the competition of the MWC will put them back in their rightful place and they will back to 2/1 agreements with BYU.

[LA Ute]

To paraphrase:

1) The local media likes to make fun of some Ute fans that do dumb things connected to the rivalry
2) Don't want being seen with BYU too much to hurt street cred
3) The national media doesn't give credit for wins against BYU
4) Even though people have suggested marginalizing BYU, that would never make sense for institutions of higher education

Responses:

1) I think that's been mentioned
2) Self-aggrandizement probably does sound better than marginalizing an opponent
3) B.S.
4) It wouldn't surprise me if this has happened in the past - anyone have examples?

Hey, I made a serious effort. You don't have to agree with it.

[Donuthole]

OK, I will take a shot at this. Remember that I want the annual rivalry game to continue and am sad it will not continue. I wish the U's leadership would find a different approach.

Here are my speculative thoughts as to how the U. got to its current decision.

Pretend you are David Pershing, the U.'s president. You've been at Utah since 1977 and have a deep understanding of its needs and culture at all levels, and you understand the State of Utah and its unique culture pretty well too -- you've raised your kids there, you've taught thousands of local students as a much-loved and respected engineering professor, and you've generally been part of the community.

Now you're deciding, with your Athletics Director and Special Assistant, on whether to reduce the U.'s level of engagement with BYU in intercollegiate athletics. You decide that it's in the U's best interests to take a step back. You won't stop playing BYU in football, you just won't play every year. You'll play them once annually in basketball. You know this will anger some people but you decide to go ahead anyway.

In addition to the PAC-12 scheduling issues that Chris Hill raises, in making this decision you consider the following:

• You can't win the P.R. war in this case. You're the president of the state's flagship public university and in the eyes of many of the state's citizens (including the state legislature, which supplies a significant amount of your funding) you are an undesirable part of the state's culture and stand in the way of BYU, which is the dominant religion's flagship university. The annual rivalry football game, unlike any other rivalry in the country, is deeply infused with religion and the resulting bitterness. You are the "bad guy" in the unfortunately named Holy War. You know that often (maybe more often than not) your supporters are involved on incidents that the local news media love to dwell on. (They have to sell advertising, after all.) Does your university really need this right now?
• You don't think so. You have a mission to fulfill and there are all kinds of new possibilities. Your university just joined the PAC-12 and are loving the connections that now gives you to universities like Stanford, Cal, USC, UCLA, and Washington. You've seen applications from out-of-state students increase by 30% already. You have a Nobel Prize winner. Membership in the Association of American Universities will probably come soon. Does it help your university to be seen as mired in an often petty rivalry with BYU? Or would you rather try to distance yourself from that and be perceived on a higher plane? You decide the latter is the way to go.
• Athletically, as a PAC-12 member now you know you have a huge challenge ahead. Your athletics budget, which was at or near the top of your old league, is now dead last in the PAC-12. Does it help your university to be seen as on a par with BYU? If you beat them in a game you get little credit because you're supposed to beat them. If they beat you, it's an even bigger win for them because you're a PAC-12 school. (This, of course, is not necessarily true in any given year; it's just a practical reality because of the way the news media outside Utah sees the matter.)
• Has anyone suggested to you that this is a good way to "stick it" to BYU? Maybe, but you know that higher education doesn't work that way, especially in Utah. For one thing, you know that what goes around, comes around, and that Utah and BYU need each other on certain levels. You know the two schools have cooperated on hundreds, if not thousands, of projects over the decades and have, at least at the leadership level, a mutual respect and understanding of one another's respective missions as institutions, and of the reality that both universities live in the same ecosystem to a large extent. It's foolish for them to be "shafting" each other. It's not something you take seriously. EDIT: Following long-standing tradition, you probably discussed this decision with BYU's president before you announced it.

OK, that's one way of looking at it. I'd like to see more, rather then less, engagement between the two schools and the two sides of the Utah culture clash. But it looks like the Utah leadership has decided that taking a break is best. I disagree but I can see how they might come to that conclusion, and they may well turn out to be right in deciding this is best for the U.

Meanwhile, BYU will be fine. It has enormous resources (both human and financial, not to mention spiritual) at its disposal and does not need to play Utah every year to fulfill its mission with great success.

I don't know these things to be true with every fiber of my being, but I think I have sized up the situation right.

I'll be back after I don my asbestos suit.

lol

[The_Douger]

Depends on whether USU can stay competitive. My guess is the loss of Anderson and the competition of the MWC will put them back in their rightful place and they will back to 2/1 agreements with BYU.

That could certainly be the case. The Aggie fans I talk seem adamant about wanting to go 1/1 in the BYU series, and they claim there's pressure from the fanbase put on their AD to make it 1/1.

I hope we keep it as a 2/1. We'll need it if we keep making all the uneven agreements with name teams like we've been doing.

[Pelado]

Hey, I made a serious effort. You don't have to agree with it.

You did make an effort. For that, .

[LA Ute]

lol

.

[YOhio]

OK, I will take a shot at this. Remember that I want the annual rivalry game to continue and am sad it will not continue. I wish the U's leadership would find a different approach.

Here are my speculative thoughts as to how the U. got to its current decision.

Pretend you are David Pershing, the U.'s president. You've been at Utah since 1977 and have a deep understanding of its needs and culture at all levels, and you understand the State of Utah and its unique culture pretty well too -- you've raised your kids there, you've taught thousands of local students as a much-loved and respected engineering professor, and you've generally been part of the community.

Now you're deciding, with your Athletics Director and Special Assistant, on whether to reduce the U.'s level of engagement with BYU in intercollegiate athletics. You decide that it's in the U's best interests to take a step back. You won't stop playing BYU in football, you just won't play every year. You'll play them once annually in basketball. You know this will anger some people but you decide to go ahead anyway.

In addition to the PAC-12 scheduling issues that Chris Hill raises, in making this decision you consider the following:

• You can't win the P.R. war in this case. You're the president of the state's flagship public university and in the eyes of many of the state's citizens (including the state legislature, which supplies a significant amount of your funding) you are an undesirable part of the state's culture and stand in the way of BYU, which is the dominant religion's flagship university. The annual rivalry football game, unlike any other rivalry in the country, is deeply infused with religion and the resulting bitterness. You are the "bad guy" in the unfortunately named Holy War. You know that often (maybe more often than not) your supporters are involved on incidents that the local news media love to dwell on. (They have to sell advertising, after all.) Does your university really need this right now?
  
  
• You don't think so. You have a mission to fulfill and there are all kinds of new possibilities. Your university just joined the PAC-12 and are loving the connections that now gives you to universities like Stanford, Cal, USC, UCLA, and Washington. You've seen applications from out-of-state students increase by 30% already. You have a Nobel Prize winner. Membership in the Association of American Universities will probably come soon. Does it help your university to be seen as mired in an often petty rivalry with BYU? Or would you rather try to distance yourself from that and be perceived on a higher plane? You decide the latter is the way to go.
  
  
• Athletically, as a PAC-12 member now you know you have a huge challenge ahead. Your athletics budget, which was at or near the top of your old league, is now dead last in the PAC-12. Does it help your university to be seen as on a par with BYU? If you beat them in a game you get little credit because you're supposed to beat them. If they beat you, it's an even bigger win for them because you're a PAC-12 school. (This, of course, is not necessarily true in any given year; it's just a practical reality because of the way the news media outside Utah sees the matter.)
  
  
• Has anyone suggested to you that this is a good way to "stick it" to BYU? Maybe, but you know that higher education doesn't work that way, especially in Utah. For one thing, you know that what goes around, comes around, and that Utah and BYU need each other on certain levels. You know the two schools have cooperated on hundreds, if not thousands, of projects over the decades and have, at least at the leadership level, a mutual respect and understanding of one another's respective missions as institutions, and of the reality that both universities live in the same ecosystem to a large extent. It's foolish for them to be "shafting" each other. It's not something you take seriously. EDIT: Following long-standing tradition, you probably discussed this decision with BYU's president before you announced it.

OK, that's one way of looking at it. I'd like to see more, rather then less, engagement between the two schools and the two sides of the Utah culture clash. But it looks like the Utah leadership has decided that taking a break is best. I disagree but I can see how they might come to that conclusion, and they may well turn out to be right in deciding this is best for the U.

Meanwhile, BYU will be fine. It has enormous resources (both human and financial, not to mention spiritual) at its disposal and does not need to play Utah every year to fulfill its mission with great success.

I don't know these things to be true with every fiber of my being, but I think I have sized up the situation right.

I'll be back after I don my asbestos suit.

You're a multi-tool player in disingenuous apologetics. College sports, politics and religion. Impressive.

[LA Ute]

You're a multi-tool player in disingenuous apologetics. College sports, politics and religion. Impressive.

It's dirty job but someone has to do it.

[Paperback Writer]

To paraphrase:

1) The local media likes to make fun of some Ute fans that do dumb things connected to the rivalry
2) Don't want being seen with BYU too much to hurt street cred
3) The national media doesn't give credit for wins against BYU
4) Even though people have suggested marginalizing BYU, that would never make sense for institutions of higher education

Responses:

1) I think that's been mentioned
2) Self-aggrandizement probably does sound better than marginalizing an opponent
3) B.S.
4) It wouldn't surprise me if this has happened in the past - anyone have examples?

Cold Fusion? Going from memory, there was supposed to be publications submitted at the same time by researchers at Utah and BYU that were related. Utah discovered Cold Fusion and jumped...

Speaking of research and AAU membership, I hope Utah is invited into the club someday. But I fear that the elite are wanting to make the club smaller rather than expand. Georgia Tech and Boston U. have been invited recently so there's hope. Another concern with Utah joining the AAU is that when that time comes, admission to U. of Utah might be on par with BYU or even more selective. Comes with the territory.

[Rickomatic]

That could certainly be the case. The Aggie fans I talk seem adamant about wanting to go 1/1 in the BYU series, and they claim there's pressure from the fanbase put on their AD to make it 1/1.

I hope we keep it as a 2/1. We'll need it if we keep making all the uneven agreements with name teams like we've been doing.

How could Aggie fan be putting pressure on the AD when they don't show up to games? GA was on record stating the team need more (better) support. The BYU at Logan is usually the only sellout of the year. The didn't have a sellout this year after the great season they had in football.

[The_Douger]

How could Aggie fan be putting pressure on the AD when they don't show up to games? GA was on record stating the team need more (better) support. The BYU at Logan is usually the only sellout of the year. The didn't have a sellout this year after the great season they had in football.

Didn't the Utah game sell out?

I'm just repeating what I've been told. I want to keep playing them 2/1. I thought they gave horrible support to their team this year. There's no reason they shouldn't be selling the place out with a team that went 11-2.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

I'd be speculating but it isn't hard to come up with some. Remember, I want the annual game and I disagree with the decision. But my reasons are all emotional. Maybe you guys should sit down, pretend you are the U's president and A.D., and make a list of rational reasons why Utah should continue the rivalry just as it has been for all these years. Then see if you can come up with any "cons" to go with the "pros," and decide whether there might be a glimmer of rationality in the decision.

The U's leadership thinks there isn't much of a need to schedule BYU. I certainly can't say that is an irrational decision. I understand it completely. It's not without its pitfalls of course because if Utah continues to have seasons like it had this year, then a rivalry game becomes more important as something play for during the season.

But let's just identify the reality of why the decision was made -- a) Utah feels it doesn't need to schedule BYU at all; and b) Not scheduling BYU may marginalize BYU and allow Utah to both gain more market share and win more recruiting battles.

The way I look at it is if Utah's AD wasn't looking to gain market share and boost recruiting over its main in-state rival, then he probably isn't doing his job right. That said, the strategy is not without its pitfalls. BYU has a strong enough schedule over the next couple years that winning 10+ games with that schedule puts BYU in a good position to remain a relevant program even with independence. If that combines with Utah continuing its ASU trajectory (something I predicted btw), then all of a sudden a rivalry game with that 10+ win out of conference team starts looking pretty good when the rabble gets bored with 6-6 seasons.

[YOhio]

But let's just identify the reality of why the decision was made -- a) Utah feels it doesn't need to schedule BYU at all; and b) Not scheduling BYU may marginalize BYU and allow Utah to both gain more market share and win more recruiting battles.

No. Stop being so cynical. Didn't you read LAU's post? It's because Utah doesn't want to be the 'bad guy' in the Holy War anymore.

[LA Ute]

No. Stop being so cynical. Didn't you read LAU's post? It's because Utah doesn't want to be the 'bad guy' in the Holy War anymore.

Don't you be dissing CMBF. His is the only serious attempt at responding to my post yet. [EDIT: Pelado seemed at least half-serious.]

[Cougarmandias]

OK, LA Ute, if I read you right you're saying that Utah is trying to reinvent itself. Which is plausible enough.

In some aspects, there's not a whole lot of daylight between "Utah trying to reinvent itself" and "Utah trying to marginalize its in-state competition."

Which makes it even more plausible, IMHO.