Was BYU Dishonest?

westidahocougar wrote:

westidahocougar wrote:
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.

1. BYU did what? Demise of the MWC? The MWC would be fine without BYU, the only thing that is going to fail without BYU is the MTN, and I say good riddance. Even the other MWC presidents might be happy about that one.

2. SECRET =/= DISHONEST. What other option does any school have to improve its standing in a bad situation? Tell everyone they're working out a deal to exit the conference and go to the WAC in other sports? We see now what the MWC did with that information when they got it. Stupid, stupid idea.

3. RUMORS of SDSU and UNLV. Until it's substantiated you might as well support your arguments with Samuelson's rumored screaming tantrum as well. Besides, let me point out that the MWC destroying the WAC may have been underhanded, BUT THAT'S NOT THE SAME THING AS DISHONEST.

4. What does this have to do with BYU being dishonest?



Anyway, this is all silly speculation you're making since BYU hasn't said ANYTHING yet. In fact, they haven't DONE anything either, other than looking into potential deals they could work out.



And by the way, I hope you're never my boss or in a position to make important business decisions for my company, because you're going to screw it up big time if you use this sort of crap logic.

BYU did nothing to lead to the demise of the WAC. The WAC will die because of the dishonesty of Fresno and Nevada. You could argue BYU leaving was actually strengthening the MWC since it would be one fewer mouth to feed. The MWC would have been at 8 teams, which is still a viable number for a conference.



As I stated earlier in this thread, I think BYU has finally been honest.

I have apparently found the ultimate arbiter of “honesty” and it is westidahocougar. Tell me westidaho, do you always drive the posted speed limit? Do you come to a full and complete stop at every stop sign? Do you pronounce the number “0” as zero and not “oh” ? If not, then you too are dishonest, and, as such, need to be addressed by “those who are in charge”

If BYU is guilty of "dishonesty" then every business in America is going straight to hell for taking "dishonesty" to inconceivable new extremes.

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.

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.

Remind me to never do business with you because you don't have a clue.

Sammich wrote:

Schmoe wrote:

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.

1. BYU did what? Demise of the MWC? The MWC would be fine without BYU, the only thing that is going to fail without BYU is the MTN, and I say good riddance. Even the other MWC presidents might be happy about that one.

2. SECRET =/= DISHONEST. What other option does any school have to improve its standing in a bad situation? Tell everyone they're working out a deal to exit the conference and go to the WAC in other sports? We see now what the MWC did with that information when they got it. Stupid, stupid idea.

3. RUMORS of SDSU and UNLV. Until it's substantiated you might as well support your arguments with Samuelson's rumored screaming tantrum as well. Besides, let me point out that the MWC destroying the WAC may have been underhanded, BUT THAT'S NOT THE SAME THING AS DISHONEST.

4. What does this have to do with BYU being dishonest?



Anyway, this is all silly speculation you're making since BYU hasn't said ANYTHING yet. In fact, they haven't DONE anything either, other than looking into potential deals they could work out.



And by the way, I hope you're never my boss or in a position to make important business decisions for my company, because you're going to screw it up big time if you use this sort of crap logic.

Thanks for your business advice.



Here is where your logic and answers to my statements are wrong-



1) Evidence is coming out that shows BYU's intentions were to not only exit the MWC, but to disable their (MWC) ability to remain as a viable conference. I don't thing any leftover MWC presidents would be happy about that one, regardless of the TV deal.

2) What "bad situation" is BYU really in? Of course the TV deal isnt ideal. Nobody in the conference likes it. But we signed it and if we didnt take the time to review what we signed, than shame on our administration. Just like the honor code says, if we agree to something than we fulfill that agreement. What part of the honor code allows "underhanded" breaking of contracts. Isn't there something that talks about drawing a circle on the ground, and never going outside of that if a promise had been made? I committed to that at BYU, apparently that is not applicable to the athletic program.

3) Like I stated, it is a rumor. That is not the base for my argument. I have sources on my other argument as well, though the source wishes to remain anonymous. You tend to believe anything that promotes BYU even without a source, but anything negative that doesn't cite a source gets scorned. That could be construed as hypocrisy. And sorry, underhanded is synonymous with dishonest.

4) Tell me how BYU is being lauded for their honesty in this situation? Silence doesnt mean honesty. Facts are out, the problem is our administration is now in an akward spot because of the "apparent dishonesty" of the situation. That, more than anything else, is possibly the reason for silence to this point. Was there not a press conference scheduled for last Thursday? Why did that never happen?



I dislike your personal attacks. I am not trying to hurt anyone on the board, I really don't care. I am worried more about the reputation of BYU, my alma mater. To blindly think that these events have not cast a shadow over the athletic program or university (or church) is naive.

gmj81 wrote:
If BYU is guilty of "dishonesty" then every business in America is going straight to hell for taking "dishonesty" to inconceivable new extremes.

And so is the Church because they often plan out, sometimes for years in advance, where they are going to place temples and meeting places without telling zoning commissions and city/government leaders.

By Westidahos argument then the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is also dishonest.



Think about when the church builds temples. Does the church point out and announce every single tract of land that they are considering for a new temple? No they don't at all. Nobody hears about a new temple until after the building permits are already completed. Why does the church operate in this fashion? The reason is simple. If the church announced every piece of land they were considering then they are opening themselves up to people complaining about and/or suing over a certain piece of land. But if the church does it in darkness then they are able to go ahead with their plans without interference.



Is it dishonest? NO.

Is it shady in any manner? NO.

Is it illegal? NO.



This is exactly what BYU did with this independent deal. Did BYU point out and announce every single option that they were considering? No not at all. Nobody heard about it until is was already finished. Why does BYU operate in this fashion? The reason is simple. If BYU announced every option and plan they were considering then they are opening themselves up to people ruining and/or destroying that option. But if BYU does it in darkness then they are able to go ahead with their plans without interference.



Is it dishonest? NO.

Is it shady in any manner? NO.

Is it illegal? NO.

Rather than personally attack me, making fun, poking at my business knowledge, using justifications, etc., etc., why dont you all counter my arguments of dishonesty with arguments to how BYU has been forthright and honest in all these dealings?

westidahocougar wrote:
Rather than personally attack me, making fun, poking at my business knowledge, using justifications, etc., etc., why dont you all counter my arguments of dishonesty with arguments to how BYU has been forthright and honest in all these dealings?

See above. :)

westidahocougar wrote:
Rather than personally attack me, making fun, poking at my business knowledge, using justifications, etc., etc., why dont you all counter my arguments of dishonesty with arguments to how BYU has been forthright and honest in all these dealings?

What you call "personally attacking you", others would call "questioning your unsubstantiated definition of honesty". If you get to define "dishonesty" any old way you choose, then you'll be able to call anyone you want dishonest. If you are forced to use an objective standard of honesty, then you'll not be able to do so. However, when being forced to use an objective standard for defining honesty (or, "dishonesty") you call it a personal attack. Simply put, you don't want an answer to your question, what you want is acquiescence.

Your #1 is the most retarded thing I've ever heard. What exactly did BYU do to try to "disable their (MWC) ability to remain a viable conference" and how could BYU have left the conference and avoided it at all? The reason why people are saying that the MWC would die is because BYU provides the "eyes" for the conference and to a smaller extent because without BYU's numbers, the MWC's AQ hopes dies too. BSU actually improved upon the numbers that Yewtah departed with. But BYU is the only reason any network has ever wanted to sign the MWC to a contract. Or at least a contract worth more than just mere pennies. I think that is a dumb argument frankly, because I think that the MWC with TCU, BSU, AFA and a host of other improving programs would still be better than the WAC (even if they had retained FSU and Nevada). But the fact remains, all BYU wanted to do was get out of a conference that didn't care about it's most important (in terms of value) member and there is no arguing that point. In terms of competition throughout ALL sports and in terms of viewers, not even Yewtah or TCU came close to providing the MWC with the numbers BYU did. BYU wanted out but they didn't do anything to hurt the MWC except for wanting out which admittedly would "hurt" the MWC but not kill it by any stretch of the imagination.

hawkwing wrote:

If BYU is guilty of "dishonesty" then every business in America is going straight to hell for taking "dishonesty" to inconceivable new extremes.

And so is the Church because they often plan out, sometimes for years in advance, where they are going to place temples and meeting places without telling zoning commissions and city/government leaders.

How dare they?!! My testimony is lost!

Outside of MWC territory, how has this hurt BYU's reputation? Plus, all MWC hate BYU anyway because we kick their trash regularly. go look at the MWC title total for all sports, and BYU DOMINATES. Riddle me this--was Texas reputation hurt during the latest go round in the Big 12? Absolutely not. The minnows in conference got all worked up over it because their source of revenue flexed its muscle and potentially could have nuked their interests because they are not viable on there own. Same thing here. BYU is flexing and the other minnows are all getting upset because they can not get scraps anymore from the big dog. And in the end, BYU is harmed absolutely ZERO in the picture.



The only one being dishonest about this is westidahocougar, who really couldn't give a leap about BYU. The facade is really wearing thin. You are a BSU homer, and honestly, BYU owes them NOTHING. And if you find BYU dishonest, so was BSU when they left the WAC for the MWC. because they had secret meetings with Hair Thompson first, planned out all teh details and signed a deal prior to telling the WAC. Boise State is dishonest and just all respect under your logic. Except they didn't. And neither has BYU.

westidahocougar wrote:
1) Evidence is coming out that shows BYU's intentions were to not only exit the MWC, but to disable their (MWC) ability to remain as a viable conference. I don't thing any leftover MWC presidents would be happy about that one, regardless of the TV deal.

Please show at least one piece of evidence that BYU was not only thinking about going independent, but also wanted to destroy the MWC. Any links?

westidahocougar wrote:
2) What "bad situation" is BYU really in? Of course the TV deal isnt ideal. Nobody in the conference likes it. But we signed it and if we didnt take the time to review what we signed, than shame on our administration. Just like the honor code says, if we agree to something than we fulfill that agreement. What part of the honor code allows "underhanded" breaking of contracts. Isn't there something that talks about drawing a circle on the ground, and never going outside of that if a promise had been made? I committed to that at BYU, apparently that is not applicable to the athletic program.

Lots of teams in the conference like the TV deal. They get their games on TV and make more money than they would be making with ESPN. Only the top teams in the conference are getting the shaft. Besides, as BYU has stated numerous times they legally do not feel like the MTN has lived up to its obligations outlined in the conference. BYU has a responsibility to stand up for what is right and make sure that those obligations are fulfilled or the contracted is voided. You're accusations that the athletics department is underhanded or breaking contracts has been shown time and again to be false.

westidahocougar wrote:
3) Like I stated, it is a rumor. That is not the base for my argument. I have sources on my other argument as well, though the source wishes to remain anonymous. You tend to believe anything that promotes BYU even without a source, but anything negative that doesn't cite a source gets scorned. That could be construed as hypocrisy. And sorry, underhanded is synonymous with dishonest.

How can anyone expect us to take anonymous sources on the internet as credible? Especially from someone who has no track record of having reliable inside information? It would be dangerous and dishonest for anyone here to accept your source without question. You have yet to even answer the question of the position of the source as was brought up in another thread. Depending upon the relationships your source, if one exists, will have their experience colored by that perception. Or are you saying only BYU fans view things filtered through their own perceptions?

westidahocougar wrote:
4) Tell me how BYU is being lauded for their honesty in this situation? Silence doesnt mean honesty. Facts are out, the problem is our administration is now in an akward spot because of the "apparent dishonesty" of the situation. That, more than anything else, is possibly the reason for silence to this point. Was there not a press conference scheduled for last Thursday? Why did that never happen?

What facts are out? That BYU began working a deal with the WAC. Is there anything inherently dishonest about that? Absolutely not. I am not aware of any other facts that are out, if so, please provide links to those facts.

westidahocougar wrote:
I dislike your personal attacks. I am not trying to hurt anyone on the board, I really don't care. I am worried more about the reputation of BYU, my alma mater. To blindly think that these events have not cast a shadow over the athletic program or university (or church) is naive.

You quoted Sammich when you posted this. I don't think there is a poster on this board less likely to attack a person personally. He answered numerous of your accusations and asked you for citations of your claims. That does not constitute a personal attack. You have made allegations of dishonesty, it is your responsibility to provide evidence of those claims. If you cannot do so do not expect your theories to hold much water.

westidahocougar wrote:
1) Evidence is coming out that shows BYU's intentions were to not only exit the MWC, but to disable their (MWC) ability to remain as a viable conference. I don't thing any leftover MWC presidents would be happy about that one, regardless of the TV deal.

This is patently false. BYU leaving the MWC in no way, shape or form disables the MWC's ability to remain as a viable conference. They would still have a TV contract and still the requisite numbers to be considered a legtimate athletic conference.

Furthermore, the MWC has tried to use BYU as an Oxen to pull the conference forward. None of the other top four teams in the conference have had as few games on VS and CBS-CS and as many games on the Mtn as BYU the last four years. Hmmm... Why could that be? Because they know that BYU's fans are the only way they get further distribution. But why would you want to screw over one of your insitutions and their fans that way year after year by giving them limited visibility of their team? Yeah, nothing the MWC has done has ever "hurt" BYU (tic).

[quote="westidahocougar]

Thanks for your business advice.



Here is where your logic and answers to my statements are wrong-



1) Evidence is coming out that shows BYU's intentions were to not only exit the MWC, but to disable their (MWC) ability to remain as a viable conference. I don't thing any leftover MWC presidents would be happy about that one, regardless of the TV deal.

2) What "bad situation" is BYU really in? Of course the TV deal isnt ideal. Nobody in the conference likes it. But we signed it and if we didnt take the time to review what we signed, than shame on our administration. Just like the honor code says, if we agree to something than we fulfill that agreement. What part of the honor code allows "underhanded" breaking of contracts. Isn't there something that talks about drawing a circle on the ground, and never going outside of that if a promise had been made? I committed to that at BYU, apparently that is not applicable to the athletic program.

3) Like I stated, it is a rumor. That is not the base for my argument. I have sources on my other argument as well, though the source wishes to remain anonymous. You tend to believe anything that promotes BYU even without a source, but anything negative that doesn't cite a source gets scorned. That could be construed as hypocrisy. And sorry, underhanded is synonymous with dishonest.

4) Tell me how BYU is being lauded for their honesty in this situation? Silence doesnt mean honesty. Facts are out, the problem is our administration is now in an akward spot because of the "apparent dishonesty" of the situation. That, more than anything else, is possibly the reason for silence to this point. Was there not a press conference scheduled for last Thursday? Why did that never happen?



I dislike your personal attacks. I am not trying to hurt anyone on the board, I really don't care. I am worried more about the reputation of BYU, my alma mater. To blindly think that these events have not cast a shadow over the athletic program or university (or church) is naive.[/quote]

[quote="westidahocougar]

Here is where your logic and answers to my statements are wrong.[/quote]



1. BYU did nothing that would have caused the MWC to crumble but the MWC did do something that can and may lead to the demise of the WAC. There were still Eight teams and that is enough. ;)

2. Like it or not Utah is a major rival for in-state recruits, tv sets, and just about everything that makes a program a success. Utah has now upped their revenew over 10 fold. Should BYU sit back and just watch? NO. They are taking action that must be taken to ensure the product they produce does not diminish. As for the contract, I haven't read it myself so I don't know the specific terms but I would imagine that by leaving the conference the deal is null and void for them a la Utah going to the Pac-0. But I guess you do know the terms since you say that to leave the conference is against the agreement. So did MTN file their breach of contract suit vs FOX, Utah, and the Pac-0 yet? I haven't read about it yet. Maybe they are waiting to file it next year. :roll:

3. Poppycock nuff said

4. Organizations can and in most cases must discuss and plan future courses of action in private - not "secret" . Did you know at my company we had our executive meeting on Monday where we actually discussed future plans? Nothing was "secret" per se, but also everything except the lunch menu, was confidential. Do you think we want our biggest competitors learning what we are thinking or planning so they can react to them and possibly disrupt those plans? Of course not. So just because administrators at BYU met in private and have been investigating options, it doesn't make them dishonest nor unethical. Those two adjectives more closely discribe Nevada and Fresno St. Did BYU tell the MWC they would not look at becoming independent? Did they say they hadn't or wouldn't contact ESPN or the WAC? I wasn't on the phone with all the Presidents so I wouldn't know but maybe your buddy was on the phone and he would know? My gut feeling is BYU said nothing of the kind.



BYU is doing what BYU must do. They cannot sit back while schools like UNLV, New Mexico, and SDST do nothing to add value to the MWC but moreso detract from it by ensuring the MWC will never be an AQ conference. Utah has upped the ante so now BYU must act or they could possibly lose out in the long run. The money that Utah is going to get is absurd compared to what BYU will be getting. But with independence BYU could go from the 1.4 million to 6 to 8 million per season from the TV contract for first run showings of the games. You can include the advertising on the channel for replays also if BYU so chooses since they will probably own the rebroadcast rights. Spare me the sappy attempt to put down BYU and its administration, they are weak and ineffectual arguments.

The bottom line is that BYU has to do the best for the "them and theirs". If they feel they could be making more money/exposure/BCS games in another situation, they have every right to pursue that. Just like FSU and Nevada had every right to leave the WAC and pay the $5 million to improve their situation in the MWC. As long as they abide by all the rules of the contracts previously set in place, they can be at no fault. And so far, BYU has more than abided by the contracts previously set in place, even when the other parties haven't. It's time for them to look out for #1.

If anyone is dishonest here westidahocougar, it's you, not BYU. You are grossly misrepresenting the facts.