Was BYU Dishonest?

MTM wrote:
I don't know that BYU did anything dishonest necessarily but I found this post in the reader comments in the Trib interesting-



The WAC (and to a lesser extent BYU) better be watching its back. If they pursue the buyouts from the two schools they may well be looking at a tortious interference lawsuit. If you look at the facts believed to be known at this point you have the WAC colluding with BYU, requesting a buyout clause from its member schools on BYU's behalf. Mind you BYU is not a member of the WAC. It seems pretty obvious that the WAC owes a greater duty to protect the interests of its member schools than it does the interests of BYU. It should be fun to see where this goes.



What do our attorney friends on the board think of this take?

The first question would be: Which contract or economic relationship was interfered with? At best, I would say the MWC interfered with Fresno State's and Nevada's contract with the WAC. But, if they pay the buyout, who cares? The contract would be followed.



Requesting that the WAC and its members enter into a contract is not interference and it is not unlawful...it is a request.



Plus, where's the indication (let alone evidence) that BYU had anything to do with the WAC buyout agreement? If anything, it would have been ESPN, but it was more likely Karl Benson ensuring the future of the conference.



What you have here is a school that was looking for options (BYU) and a conference that was looking for security (WAC) and a second conference that was trying to improve its situation (MWC). Please explain where there is even a contract in this scenario? The WAC contract is irrelevant, other than the fact that the WAC has a contract with Fresno State and Nevada that it can and should enforce.



Even if BYU did strongly suggest that the WAC enter into the buyout agreement, it was the WAC and its members that signed. Unless BYU coerced Fresno State into signing the buyout agreement (ie, held a gun to their heads), this is just smoke! Just because you have alleged "colluding" and a contract, does not mean that there was any kind of interference, let alone tortious interference.

YNot wrote:

I don't know that BYU did anything dishonest necessarily but I found this post in the reader comments in the Trib interesting-



The WAC (and to a lesser extent BYU) better be watching its back. If they pursue the buyouts from the two schools they may well be looking at a tortious interference lawsuit. If you look at the facts believed to be known at this point you have the WAC colluding with BYU, requesting a buyout clause from its member schools on BYU's behalf. Mind you BYU is not a member of the WAC. It seems pretty obvious that the WAC owes a greater duty to protect the interests of its member schools than it does the interests of BYU. It should be fun to see where this goes.



What do our attorney friends on the board think of this take?

The first question would be: Which contract or economic relationship was interfered with? At best, I would say the MWC interfered with Fresno State's and Nevada's contract with the WAC. But, if they pay the buyout, who cares? The contract would be followed.



Requesting that the WAC and its members enter into a contract is not interference and it is not unlawful...it is a request.



Plus, where's the indication (let alone evidence) that BYU had anything to do with the WAC buyout agreement? If anything, it would have been ESPN, but it was more likely Karl Benson ensuring the future of the conference.



What you have here is a school that was looking for options (BYU) and a conference that was looking for security (WAC) and a second conference that was trying to improve its situation (MWC). Please explain where there is even a contract in this scenario? The WAC contract is irrelevant, other than the fact that the WAC has a contract with Fresno State and Nevada that it can and should enforce.



Even if BYU did strongly suggest that the WAC enter into the buyout agreement, it was the WAC and its members that signed. Unless BYU coerced Fresno State into signing the buyout agreement (ie, held a gun to their heads), this is just smoke! Just because you have alleged "colluding" and a contract, does not mean that there was any kind of interference, let alone tortious interference.

You nailed. Great analysis.

BYU could come out and announce that every dime they make in athletics will be donated to charity and people would still find a way to be mad about it. People would say it's just a PR move or that BYU is self-righteous. People are just hyper-critical of BYU for some reason. Even people within our own fanbase.



Some kid on the football team gets in trouble and the media jumps all over it and is highly critical of BYU. People in our own fanbase say that it reflects poorly on the church and that BYU should just do away with athletics.



There are even Utah State fans who are blaming BYU for destroying the WAC.



Fact is that no matter what BYU does there will be somebody somewhere that is mad about it.

Scenario:



I make an offer to buy a business for $XX mm. The deal requires that all current assets are part of the transaction and we agree in principle. Two days before sale, the business is approached by someone else with a better offer. The business decides that they will decline and go with my original offer. They don't approach me with the information and continue with our agreement



The morning that I am meeting with the business owner, I find out that the two largest customers have bailed, which comprise 80% of the business. I call the business owner and say that since his business does not include the original assets, the deal is no longer valid. It would be crazy to buy a business that is now 20% of what it was two days before. The business owner then goes to all his friends claiming that I am the reason that his business failed.



I "honestly" couldn't care less if USU, BSU, or Utah fans (or any other) think BYU was dishonest. My experience has been that the the thoughts and arguments of the insanely stupid really don't matter.



USU got screwed over by FSU and Reno, but it is more fun going after BYU. Whatever makes you feel better.

Had BYU left the MWC it would have been left with 8 schools, still a viable conference.



Had any school left the WAC they would not have been a viable conference. The $5 million buyout seems to have been in the best interest of the WAC, regardless of whether or not BYU might join them. Most conferences have a buyout clause and I don't think BYU made them do it.



I have a hard time imagining a WAC board meeting going like this "BYU is toying with the idea of joining us in non-football sports, and they proposed a $5 million buyout so they know we are viable." But even if it did go down like that, why on earth would Fresno State and Nevada agree to it, knowing that a spot would be opening up in the MWC. If it was BYU's idea then Benson must have brought it up prior to telling the rest of the board that BYU was considering a move.



Also, I swear that shortly after Boise State joined the MWC an article came out with Benson saying BYU would be more than welcome to join the WAC in non-football sports. I remember talking to my wife about it and hour ludicrous it was. Plus there was tons of talk about BYU going independent, with Holmoe saying BYU was going to explore all their options.



And now people think BYU is stabbing the MWC in the back?! BYU wasn't scuttling the MWC. The MWC with Fresno State and Nevada scuttled the WAC and BYU's plan.



It would be like talking to your boss about not getting paid enough. Then your co-worker gets a new job getting paid tons more money so you tell everyone that you are going to explore your options. You find another job that will pay you significantly more and when your boss finds out he poaches the best workers from the other company to force that company out of business. And you are the dishonest one. Oh and by the way, your boss still won't give you a raise.

You can't exactly be dishonest about something unless you have done or said something. There has been no press release from BYU about any of this - to answer the question, NO!

Nope.



BYU never said, "We'll do XYZ," and then proceeded to do ABC. That, would be dishonest. Doing what you think is best for school and fans is the right thing to do. Who cares if it upsets the peanut gallery.



Am I the only one that gets annoyed by these threads suggesting that because we're Mormon BYU is somehow held to a different standard when taking care of business. Nothing shady happened! Just because we didn't get up on the roof tops and shout for the whole conference to hear what we were planning/considering doesn't mean we're dishonest. Said it in another thread, that kind of thought is exactly why people think Mormons are stuck up.

It would be nice to be on the dishonest side for once. :)

If we have to ask ourselves that question, arent we leaning towards being dishonest?



BYU obviously hasnt stated anything, but there is plenty of evidence out there to support that we were less than forthright in our dealings.



Business decision or not, I am embarrassed by the fact that we have to ask ourselves and justify our "dishonesty".



I think Holmoe may be in a little too deep here.

westidahocougar wrote:
If we have to ask ourselves that question, arent we leaning towards being dishonest?



BYU obviously hasnt stated anything, but there is plenty of evidence out there to support that we were less than forthright in our dealings.



Business decision or not, I am embarrassed by the fact that we have to ask ourselves and justify our "dishonesty".



I think Holmoe may be in a little too deep here.

Haha :lol: :lol: :lol:



The only reason we have to ask ourselves this is because of you and other Boise fans who got their panties in a wad at the thought of joining a BYUless MWC. Anyone with any sort of intellectual honesty recognizes that BYU has done absolutely nothing dishonest in this case.

hawkwing wrote:

If we have to ask ourselves that question, arent we leaning towards being dishonest?



BYU obviously hasnt stated anything, but there is plenty of evidence out there to support that we were less than forthright in our dealings.



Business decision or not, I am embarrassed by the fact that we have to ask ourselves and justify our "dishonesty".



I think Holmoe may be in a little too deep here.

Haha :lol: :lol: :lol:



The only reason we have to ask ourselves this is because of you and other Boise fans who got their panties in a wad at the thought of joining a BYUless MWC. Anyone with any sort of intellectual honesty recognizes that BYU has done absolutely nothing dishonest in this case.

Nice. You always have to pull out the "you and other Boise fans" card. Why dont you answer my question? Had Utah pulled the same stuff we did, we would all be all over it.



I am a proud BYU grad, but feel that our athletic department was less than honest in this whole situation. Is there a difference between honesty and intellectual honesty? Does intellectual honesty trump plain old honesty in dealing with our fellow men?



Are there two separate questions when you get your recommend renewed? Are you honest? Sure. Are you intellectually honest? Of course.



Rather than explain to me that I am bitter about BYU leaving the MWC (I think we are better off in the current MWC, fwiw) as a Boise fan, why can't we look on this situation with honesty, not justification?

westidahocougar wrote:

westidahocougar wrote:
If we have to ask ourselves that question, arent we leaning towards being dishonest?



BYU obviously hasnt stated anything, but there is plenty of evidence out there to support that we were less than forthright in our dealings.



Business decision or not, I am embarrassed by the fact that we have to ask ourselves and justify our "dishonesty".



I think Holmoe may be in a little too deep here.

Haha :lol: :lol: :lol:



The only reason we have to ask ourselves this is because of you and other Boise fans who got their panties in a wad at the thought of joining a BYUless MWC. Anyone with any sort of intellectual honesty recognizes that BYU has done absolutely nothing dishonest in this case.

Nice. You always have to pull out the "you and other Boise fans" card. Why dont you answer my question? Had Utah pulled the same stuff we did, we would all be all over it.



I am a proud BYU grad, but feel that our athletic department was less than honest in this whole situation. Is there a difference between honesty and intellectual honesty? Does intellectual honesty trump plain old honesty in dealing with our fellow men?



Are there two separate questions when you get your recommend renewed? Are you honest? Sure. Are you intellectually honest? Of course.



Rather than explain to me that I am bitter about BYU leaving the MWC (I think we are better off in the current MWC, fwiw) as a Boise fan, why can't we look on this situation with honesty, not justification?

Intellectual honesty is greater than honesty. So I don't understand how you're trying to twist this to say that intellectual honesty is somehow less honest? Being intellectually dishonest is trying to twist facts in your mind to make something honest appear dishonest. The idea that BYU was dishonest in this whole affair can only come through intellectual dishonesty.



BYU has no agreement to not explore it's other options. BYU has been completely upfront and forthright about how disappointed it has been with the television exposure and that it was exploring every option available. What more could they have done? Should they honestly announce every single plan and investigation it is going to pursue?

westidahocougar wrote:
If we have to ask ourselves that question, arent we leaning towards being dishonest?



BYU obviously hasnt stated anything, but there is plenty of evidence out there to support that we were less than forthright in our dealings.



Business decision or not, I am embarrassed by the fact that we have to ask ourselves and justify our "dishonesty".



I think Holmoe may be in a little too deep here.

Again, you come on here with baseless rhetoric. Where is your evidence? What has BYU done that might be dishonest? Articles? Statements? Anything? I didn't think so.

Schmoe wrote:

If we have to ask ourselves that question, arent we leaning towards being dishonest?



BYU obviously hasnt stated anything, but there is plenty of evidence out there to support that we were less than forthright in our dealings.



Business decision or not, I am embarrassed by the fact that we have to ask ourselves and justify our "dishonesty".



I think Holmoe may be in a little too deep here.

Again, you come on here with baseless rhetoric. Where is your evidence? What has BYU done that might be dishonest? Articles? Statements? Anything? I didn't think so.

Agree. Where is everyone getting these assumptions that BYU was dishonest?

Probably from the same places that imply that BYU is claiming they're on par with Notre Dame.

kitic77 wrote:
Probably from the same places that imply that BYU is claiming they're on par with Notre Dame.

WHAT!??? If I understand you correctly, you're saying that those who Claim that BYU was dishonest are actually, in fact, themselves being dishonest!! :roll: WOW! :whistle: how's THAT for irony (tic) ;)

ABYUFAN wrote:

Probably from the same places that imply that BYU is claiming they're on par with Notre Dame.

WHAT!??? If I understand you correctly, you're saying that those who Claim that BYU was dishonest are actually, in fact, themselves being dishonest!! :roll: WOW! :whistle: how's THAT for irony (tic) ;)

I guess. But mainly it seems there is a lot of allegations, quotations and innuendo being laid at BYU's feet inaccurately. BYU never claimed to be Notre Dame, yet that seems to be the pervailing wisdom in the media. BYU has yet to leave the MWC conference and yet the world is reacting that the Cougs have stabbed them in back. BYU has yet to say ANYTHING on the situation yet people are clamoring as if BYU hasn't shut up about it in three months.



There seems to be a lot of hatred and bias being spewed at BYU and media are simply using this opportunity to ratchet it up a few notches.

Westidaho,



Don't you have a "Prop Hate" sign that you need to be finishing up somewhere?



Then you can get together with all your phony-mormon friends and talk in hushed whispers about how the church and it's leaders have overstepped the boundaries once again.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Schmoe wrote:

If we have to ask ourselves that question, arent we leaning towards being dishonest?



BYU obviously hasnt stated anything, but there is plenty of evidence out there to support that we were less than forthright in our dealings.



Business decision or not, I am embarrassed by the fact that we have to ask ourselves and justify our "dishonesty".



I think Holmoe may be in a little too deep here.

Again, you come on here with baseless rhetoric. Where is your evidence? What has BYU done that might be dishonest? Articles? Statements? Anything? I didn't think so.

I really appreciate all the bashing. Thanks. I don't think that any of my concerns are due to baseless rhetoric. My concerns are more about the image of the church through the reckless actions of our (BYU's) athletic department.



No evidence? Here are the facts of this whole situation. I agree that BYU has not said anything or issued any statements officially declaring intent. But in a court of law, the intent would be proved by the facts that have come out.



1) BYU was to announce going independent in football, and play in bb in the WAC

2) BYU had drafted up agreements with WAC commissioner Karl Benson as to the details and exposure

3) BYU had discussed agreements with Utah State about basketball and football games based on this plan

4) BYU had some hand in developing buyouts with members of the WAC

5) BYU had contacted WAC and MWC bowl tie ins to ensure their selection

6) Details of what the WAC/BYU had agreed upon are now out, public knowledge

7) BYU had expressed dissatisfaction with the current MWC TV deal, numerous times, as did other schools.



Here are the rumors



1) BYU contacted SDSU and UNLV to move to the WAC

2) BYU thinks they are the Notre Dame of the West - dumb rumor created by BYU haters

3) BYU expected BSU to stay in the WAC

4) BYU is working with Texas to develop a TV broadcasting partership

5) BYU is reacting to Utah going to the PAC-10



Here is the dishonesty



1) BYU negotiated with and determined the fate of the WAC and demise of the MWC while currently a member of the MWC

2) BYU's plans were "secret" dealings that were not made known to those who BYU is under ethical obligation to be affiliated with - i.e., the remaining members of the MWC.

3) Had BYU's plans worked (and the rumors of SDSU and UNLV being true) the MWC would have been destroyed and the remaining teams would have had limited options for advancement. Again, BYU is under no contractual obligation to the MWC, but unlike other schools being invited into other conferences, BYU's alleged plans were to proactively disable and ruin conference they helped create, to their own benefit.

4) Since Nevada and Fresno were also dishonest, certain schools in the WAC have been destroyed. BYU, Fresno, and Nevada are all partially to blame for the demise of the remaining programs in the WAC. Again, all of this in the name of exposure and money. (Nevada and Fresno are not religious schools nor do they abide by a strict honor code, as BYU proclaims to). Now, some of the teams in the WAC need to go away, but there are solid programs that are now left to wither in the wind - Hawaii, Utah State, La Tech.



Here are my thoughts



1) BYU does not appear to be honest and forthright in this situation, according to actual facts that have come out.

2) BYU has a much larger target on their back due to religious standards and affiliations, so when there is an appearance of dishonesty, it gets blown out of proportion.

3) If BYU football is an avenue to "show off" the church in any way, than the actions taken have backfired, and created more angst and hate than was already there.

4) This may not be a big deal in a couple weeks, but I feel that this whole situation from Pres. Samuelson through the AD has been handled poorly, giving a bad image to the church.

5) What is church leadership ultimately going to do to clean up the situation? Despite some of us thinking it is not a mess, it is, and something needs to be done, some statement, anything to improve PR.



Thats all, take it for what its worth.