Non-Conference Scheduling rumors

[Top Ute]

when did AFA get a 1:1 with ND?

Since the dawn of time.

http://cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div...trictions=none

[LiveCoug]

Shoganai, you can say whatever you want to LiveCoug. You don't have to agree to disagree, you can tell him to stick it. He is not a moderator and has zero ability to do anything to you here.

I banned him on cougarboard for disagreeing with me here. No biggie.

[shoganai]

I banned him on cougarboard for disagreeing with me here. No biggie.

I have an in with some mods over there. I'm pretty sure I can get that overturned

[KillerDog]

There is a comment above regarding BYU and Utah playing later in the year and the Pac-12's role in that. I have it on the best possible authority that Utah had a condition when it negotiated to be admitted to the Pac-12. In fact, if I recall correctly, it might have been the only deal breaker condition. The condition was that Utah get the same deal with BYU that USC has with Notre Dame. This allows Utah to put BYU into the schedule wherever they like without getting Pac-12 approval. In other words, the early season schedule is what BYU and/or Utah want. The Pac has nothing to do with it.

[Coach McGuirk]

There is a comment above regarding BYU and Utah playing later in the year and the Pac-12's role in that. I have it on the best possible authority that Utah had a condition when it negotiated to be admitted to the Pac-12. In fact, if I recall correctly, it might have been the only deal breaker condition. The condition was that Utah get the same deal with BYU that USC has with Notre Dame. This allows Utah to put BYU into the schedule wherever they like without getting Pac-12 approval. In other words, the early season schedule is what BYU and/or Utah want. The Pac has nothing to do with it.

Your source could be correct. But after listening to Larry Scott in interviews, he certainly doesn't mention BYU/UTAH as an exception to the rule as he does USC/ND or STAN/ND.

[shoganai]

I have it on the best possible authority that Utah had a condition when it negotiated to be admitted to the Pac-12. In fact, if I recall correctly, it might have been the only deal breaker condition. The condition was that Utah get the same deal with BYU that USC has with Notre Dame. This allows Utah to put BYU into the schedule wherever they like without getting Pac-12 approval. In other words, the early season schedule is what BYU and/or Utah want. The Pac has nothing to do with it.

Based on what you know, why do you think Holmoe publicly stated that he was trying to convince the Pac-12 - not Utah - to make a "special deal" (as he put it) to let them play in November?

Everybody knows that BYU wants this game played in November. I guess I can conceive of Utah changing their minds and wanting it earlier in the season, but why would they have made it a non-negotiable condition in the first place, if they were that wishy-washy about it?

[TripletDaddy]

There is a comment above regarding BYU and Utah playing later in the year and the Pac-12's role in that. I have it on the best possible authority that Utah had a condition when it negotiated to be admitted to the Pac-12. In fact, if I recall correctly, it might have been the only deal breaker condition. The condition was that Utah get the same deal with BYU that USC has with Notre Dame. This allows Utah to put BYU into the schedule wherever they like without getting Pac-12 approval. In other words, the early season schedule is what BYU and/or Utah want. The Pac has nothing to do with it.

USC and Notre Dame do not schedule each other whenever they want. They play the same dates every other year, give or take a week.

[Portland Ute]

There is a comment above regarding BYU and Utah playing later in the year and the Pac-12's role in that. I have it on the best possible authority that Utah had a condition when it negotiated to be admitted to the Pac-12. In fact, if I recall correctly, it might have been the only deal breaker condition. The condition was that Utah get the same deal with BYU that USC has with Notre Dame. This allows Utah to put BYU into the schedule wherever they like without getting Pac-12 approval. In other words, the early season schedule is what BYU and/or Utah want. The Pac has nothing to do with it.

Regardless of who wants it early in the season, Utah or the PAC12, it is as it should be. It should remain early in the season unless other concessions are made.

As much as I'd like to believe Utah had some "dealbreakers" when "negotiating" with the PAC12, I have to believe Utah pretty much just nodded and agreed. Although, the fact that there is equal revenue sharing, Utah gets some money this coming season, etc. all seem to mean that there were other considerations made for Utah.

I can't believe that anyone at the U. said, "Hey, look, if you don't let us play BYU whenever we want, then....screw you. Take your PAC12 prestige and the 20+million and shove it!!!"

If that happened...wow.

[falafel]

Regardless of who wants it early in the season, Utah or the PAC12, it is as it should be. It should remain early in the season unless other concessions are made.

Concessions? Like what?

[Portland Ute]

Based on what you know, why do you think Holmoe publicly stated that he was trying to convince the Pac-12 - not Utah - to make a "special deal" (as he put it) to let them play in November?

Everybody knows that BYU wants this game played in November. I guess I can conceive of Utah changing their minds and wanting it earlier in the season, but why would they have made it a non-negotiable condition in the first place, if they were that wishy-washy about it?

Shog, not to start another round of slug fest, but what is in it for Utah to play the game late in the year?

I know, I know...this is going to sound pretty elitist, but BYU is much more in need of a late November game with a quality opponent than Utah is. BYU is much more in need of HOME games with quality opponents than Utah is.

As a U. fan, I think the U. should keep the game in September unless BYU wants to make some sort of concessions to get the game moved to November. By concessions, I mean a much larger ticket allotment when the game is at LES, some cash if the game is at LES and on ESPN or maybe a 3-4 scheduling deal.

Utah has no reason to move the game. The move to November at this point benefits only BYU and it would be a HUGE benefit to BYU.

I think, to some degree, the rivalry in the state of Utah is a zero-sum game and it's a cutthroat world. Utah has some leverage here and I think they ought to use it.

[Portland Ute]

Concessions? Like what?

A much bigger ticket alotment at LES, a cut of the ESPN TV money for that game, a cut of the gates at LES, a 3 for 2 schedule.

If BYU doesn't want to move it, then leave it in September.

Utah has no need or motivation to move the game. BYU would benefit greatly. Utah has some leverage here.

[falafel]

A much bigger ticket alotment at LES, a cut of the ESPN TV money for that game, a cut of the gates at LES, a 3 for 2 schedule.

If BYU doesn't want to move it, then leave it in September.

Utah has no need or motivation to move the game. BYU would benefit greatly. Utah has some leverage here.

I'm not sure BYU would benefit "greatly." Besides the fact that BYU will have a harder time filing the November schedule, what great benefits will BYU get by moving the game?

[Top Ute]

Concessions? Like what?

We jumped through the hoops (axed Boise State and paid a buyout, allowed ISU a no-return date) to play in Provo in 2011, and did that in a span of a few months. I think it's safe to say we're not going to go to those lengths to play in 2013. Since BYU has two years to make it work, I don't expect a problem.

I wouldn't call them concessions, but the Pac-12 is going to give us an open week in either the 3rd or 4th Saturday in September. If BYU wants to play Utah, it will leave those dates open. If it doesn't, it won't.

[Top Ute]

A much bigger ticket alotment at LES, a cut of the ESPN TV money for that game, a cut of the gates at LES, a 3 for 2 schedule.

If BYU doesn't want to move it, then leave it in September.

Utah has no need or motivation to move the game. BYU would benefit greatly. Utah has some leverage here.

We will never play BYU on anything other than a home-and-home basis. It's time to end that pipe dream. And the "leverage" you speak of just isn't significant enough to start playing the heavy. Yes, BYU has to show a spirit of accommodation for 2013, but after that, the ledgers are balanced.

[falafel]

We jumped through the hoops (axed Boise State and paid a buyout, allowed ISU a no-return date) to play in Provo in 2011, and did that in a span of a few months. I think it's safe to say we're not going to go to those lengths to play in 2013. Since BYU has two years to make it work, I don't expect a problem.

I wouldn't call them concessions, but the Pac-12 is going to give us an open week in either the 3rd or 4th Saturday in September. If BYU wants to play Utah, it will leave those dates open. If it doesn't, it won't.

Okay, I understand the wrangling to get the 2011 game done. But that sounds more like a problem for the U, not a benefit to BYU. Beyond 2013, are there really any great benefits to BYU that aren't available to Utah for playing the game in November?