The Hair flinches first

33311710 wrote:
To any one who still wants to stick around in the MWC if they give us broadcasting rights - you need to go spend about an hour on mwcboard.com and see what your conference brothers think about you.



That'll cure your desire to stick around. I know it has mine. Screw the MWC, screw hair, screw CSU, UNLV, SDSU, Wyoming, TCU, BSU, New Mexico, and especially screw Fresneck and freaking RENO! (note: I don't say screw you to the AFA...sorry, can't talk trash against them).

fortunately the posters on teh board are morons who don't understand anything nor have the power to make decisions. the mtn dies if byu leaves. the mwc becomes much weaker and less intersting as well. while they hate us it would be a big loss for them. this decision can't be an emotional one but a business one. i agree with craigo 100 percent. if we get broadcasting rights we stay. to leave after getting those is stupid. there is too much risk and potential downside of going indy to justify it if we get most of what we wanted in the first place.

CannonCougar85 wrote:

dude, byu is not going to the big 12 any time soon unless somethign dramatic changes. 2016 is the earlies it is going to happen. taht is why byu made the deal with the wac for 5 years. when the big12's tv is up then maybe.

I'm not so sure that BYU actually made a deal for 5 years. From what I have read the WAC made a deal to stick together for 5 years. They didn't make a deal with BYU for 5 years. Am I wrong?

yes that was the deal. read the reports from the usu pres. that was the agreement. byu was involved in the year wac stick together agreement.

jonnylingo wrote:

jonnylingo wrote:

dude, byu is not going to the big 12 any time soon unless somethign dramatic changes. 2016 is the earlies it is going to happen. taht is why byu made the deal with the wac for 5 years. when the big12's tv is up then maybe.

I'm not so sure that BYU actually made a deal for 5 years. From what I have read the WAC made a deal to stick together for 5 years. They didn't make a deal with BYU for 5 years. Am I wrong?

yes that was the deal. read the reports from the usu pres. that was the agreement. byu was involved in the year wac stick together agreement.

Yeah BYU was involved but that doesn't mean they signed any contract. The 5 year contract was an agreement for the 8 WAC members to stick together. It was not a 5 year contract with BYU.



This is from the USU press statement from yesterday:

As part of the WAC's conversations with BYU, the current eight conference members (excluding departing Boise State) agreed to remain together as a conference for at least five years. This stability was important to BYU, to other current members, and would have been critical as other expansion options were explored. WAC members signed a letter of commitment that included a $5M membership penalty.

http://www.utahstateaggies.com/genrel/081910aab.html

CannonCougar85 wrote:

CannonCougar85 wrote:

dude, byu is not going to the big 12 any time soon unless somethign dramatic changes. 2016 is the earlies it is going to happen. taht is why byu made the deal with the wac for 5 years. when the big12's tv is up then maybe.

I'm not so sure that BYU actually made a deal for 5 years. From what I have read the WAC made a deal to stick together for 5 years. They didn't make a deal with BYU for 5 years. Am I wrong?

yes that was the deal. read the reports from the usu pres. that was the agreement. byu was involved in the year wac stick together agreement.

Yeah BYU was involved but that doesn't mean they signed any contract. The 5 year contract was an agreement for the 8 WAC members to stick together. It was not a 5 year contract with BYU.



This is from the USU press statement from yesterday:

As part of the WAC's conversations with BYU, the current eight conference members (excluding departing Boise State) agreed to remain together as a conference for at least five years. This stability was important to BYU, to other current members, and would have been critical as other expansion options were explored. WAC members signed a letter of commitment that included a $5M membership penalty.

http://www.utahstateaggies.com/genrel/081910aab.html

I understand that but to BYU it was important that wac was going to be stable for at least 5 years. they were in on the talks and behind that agreement. whether they signed it or not is not the point. the point was that byu wanted it to be a five year agreement.

cannoncoug is right. Hence why byu owes the WAC no money if we decide to stay in the MWC.

CannonCougar85 wrote:
Craigo you still haven't addressed my question.



What are the minimum concessions that the MWC can offer BYU in order for you to be okay with staying in the MWC? I want specifics.

That's a good question cannon, and one I'm thinking deeply about. However, it's also a decision that I couldn't make without knowing all the details, options, and possibilties which obviously I'm not privy to.



I do have friends and relatives much closer to the situation that do have a better idea and those would be the ones I would lean on to get an idea of whether or not BYU is or isnt' getting a good deal. Currently they're all in the dark too.



Often we dont' really get to know if a good deal was made until after the fact when all the cards are laid out on the table. But at some point we'll know if what the MWC offered (if anything) was good enough to stay or not.



My point in all of this is that even BYU isn't immune to making a poor emotional decision (Ellaine Michaelis firing and the way BYU handled it was an example given earlier). In the event that they make such a decision, IF the MWC has made a healthy concession and they still choose to go independent (knowing that the WAC situation is now off the table) I'd have a very very hard time supporting that.



The devil is in the details and I don't know them right now, but I assure you that we will in the future, particularly if this thing goes awry.

craigoscarson wrote:
Agreed. Now the painful nuts and bolts of negotiation are going on. My prayers are that BYU can make a good clear headed, unemotional, business decision. I'm about 98% sure they will. I'm about 50% sure that the MWC will do the same.



Independence is inevitable if the MWC doesnt.

Given the MWC's responses thus far, I think your percentage attached to the MWC for making level-headed, unemotional decisions to be considerably high.

kitic77 wrote:

Agreed. Now the painful nuts and bolts of negotiation are going on. My prayers are that BYU can make a good clear headed, unemotional, business decision. I'm about 98% sure they will. I'm about 50% sure that the MWC will do the same.



Independence is inevitable if the MWC doesnt.

Given the MWC's responses thus far, I think your percentage attached to the MWC for making level-headed, unemotional decisions to be considerably high.

You might be right, I would assume that if you grabbed someone by the balls, that even the dumbest person might decide to do the right thing.



I dont' think it's that Hair Thompson has a high pain tolerance, but it's entirely possible he doesn't have balls.

craigoscarson wrote:

craigoscarson wrote:
Agreed. Now the painful nuts and bolts of negotiation are going on. My prayers are that BYU can make a good clear headed, unemotional, business decision. I'm about 98% sure they will. I'm about 50% sure that the MWC will do the same.



Independence is inevitable if the MWC doesnt.

Given the MWC's responses thus far, I think your percentage attached to the MWC for making level-headed, unemotional decisions to be considerably high.

You might be right, I would assume that if you grabbed someone by the balls, that even the dumbest person might decide to do the right thing.



I dont' think it's that Hair Thompson has a high pain tolerance, but it's entirely possible he doesn't have balls.

So....he's sackless? ;)



I don't know, though - raiding the WAC as quick as he did was pretty ballsy. I don't approve of it, and it was pretty vengeful and reactionary, but bold nonetheless.

redneckjedi wrote:

kitic77 wrote:

Agreed. Now the painful nuts and bolts of negotiation are going on. My prayers are that BYU can make a good clear headed, unemotional, business decision. I'm about 98% sure they will. I'm about 50% sure that the MWC will do the same.



Independence is inevitable if the MWC doesnt.

Given the MWC's responses thus far, I think your percentage attached to the MWC for making level-headed, unemotional decisions to be considerably high.

You might be right, I would assume that if you grabbed someone by the balls, that even the dumbest person might decide to do the right thing.



I dont' think it's that Hair Thompson has a high pain tolerance, but it's entirely possible he doesn't have balls.

So....he's sackless? ;)



I don't know, though - raiding the WAC as quick as he did was pretty ballsy. I don't approve of it, and it was pretty vengeful and reactionary, but bold nonetheless.

Bold, and for the short term, maybe necessary, but for the long term...STUPID. RENO? They'd rather have RENO in the conference than negotiate TV distribution with BYU? Freaking idiots.

Italics wrote:
cannoncoug is right. Hence why byu owes the WAC no money if we decide to stay in the MWC.

When did we give notice that we were leaving? I am under the impression that if BYU says nada for the next few weeks they are and have been in the MWC. Is there something official from BYU out there that I missed?

33311710 wrote:

craigoscarson wrote:

craigoscarson wrote:
Agreed. Now the painful nuts and bolts of negotiation are going on. My prayers are that BYU can make a good clear headed, unemotional, business decision. I'm about 98% sure they will. I'm about 50% sure that the MWC will do the same.



Independence is inevitable if the MWC doesnt.

Given the MWC's responses thus far, I think your percentage attached to the MWC for making level-headed, unemotional decisions to be considerably high.

You might be right, I would assume that if you grabbed someone by the balls, that even the dumbest person might decide to do the right thing.



I dont' think it's that Hair Thompson has a high pain tolerance, but it's entirely possible he doesn't have balls.

So....he's sackless? ;)



I don't know, though - raiding the WAC as quick as he did was pretty ballsy. I don't approve of it, and it was pretty vengeful and reactionary, but bold nonetheless.

Bold, and for the short term, maybe necessary, but for the long term...STUPID. RENO? They'd rather have RENO in the conference than negotiate TV distribution with BYU? Freaking idiots.

Not only that, but it would have saved the conf $5-10 Mil to boot.

craig, you make some good points. I enjoy your posts because they are thorough, generally well thought out, and you speak your mind without flinching. Your threat at the end of your first post does come across like you are going spite BYU just to show them if they don't see the "most obvious choice" that you do. Please remember, and forgive me to all who read this board, that BYU is a Church institution first and foremost and any decision they make will likely be based on what is best for BYU as an institution, not for BYU, an athletic powerhouse. In that light, there is actually merit in going to the WCC, but I don't think it is the best option.



I agree with you that should BYU get what they were looking for in going independent, meaning control over their own TV rights, then yes, they should stay in the MWC as other options will come up in time that will be just as easy for BYU to pursue even had they gone independent. I think BYU is really looking for a glide path to the BIG12, which will eventually HAVE to expand back to 12 teams and BYU is on that team to be added later list. It also depends upon what ESPN will do for BYU should they go independent. Will they set BYU up on their football schedule so that is no worse, but most likely better, than what they currently face in the MWC and what they've been able to do on their own OOC??? Meaning, will ESPN get BYU games against top and middle BCS AQ programs to compensate not playing in the MWC? If BYU gets 5 games against AQ programs and 4 games against WAC teams, then the remaining against MWC or CUSA caliber programs, I could live with that instead of playing in the MWC.



We still don't know what BYU's options really are, other than what their competitors have leaked and we all know the truth is going to be closer to BYU's truth than that of their rivals.

CougarPeasant wrote:
craig, you make some good points. I enjoy your posts because they are thorough, generally well thought out, and you speak your mind without flinching. Your threat at the end of your first post does come across like you are going spite BYU just to show them if they don't see the "most obvious choice" that you do. Please remember, and forgive me to all who read this board, that BYU is a Church institution first and foremost and any decision they make will likely be based on what is best for BYU as an institution, not for BYU, an athletic powerhouse. In that light, there is actually merit in going to the WCC, but I don't think it is the best option.



I agree with you that should BYU get what they were looking for in going independent, meaning control over their own TV rights, then yes, they should stay in the MWC as other options will come up in time that will be just as easy for BYU to pursue even had they gone independent. I think BYU is really looking for a glide path to the BIG12, which will eventually HAVE to expand back to 12 teams and BYU is on that team to be added later list. It also depends upon what ESPN will do for BYU should they go independent. Will they set BYU up on their football schedule so that is no worse, but most likely better, than what they currently face in the MWC and what they've been able to do on their own OOC??? Meaning, will ESPN get BYU games against top and middle BCS AQ programs to compensate not playing in the MWC? If BYU gets 5 games against AQ programs and 4 games against WAC teams, then the remaining against MWC or CUSA caliber programs, I could live with that instead of playing in the MWC.



We still don't know what BYU's options really are, other than what their competitors have leaked and we all know the truth is going to be closer to BYU's truth than that of their rivals.

CP, something like that isn't done out of spite. Boosters vote with their dollars, and yes, even at BYU they listen. I didnt' say I wouldn't love BYU or that I wouldn't follow them.



I also did not say that I believe that all decisions made at BYU are divine inspiration or what's best for BYU, particularly when it pertains to athletics. I do not believe that.... and while I think they have a great track record, they're not immune to bad decisions or bad emotional decisions.



Most of the updated athletic facilities on campus were not built because of inspiration; they were built because hard working people that loved BYU donated their resources to them. Is there a price on fanship? I'm not sure.



I know many on this forum didn't travel to Dallas for the Oklahoma game, etc. for financial reasons. Does that make them less of a fan? I dont' think so, but I do know that BYU wanted them there



Does a donor or booster that normally writes checks to BYU or gives their resources less of a fan if they decide not to give any more than the average casual fan? I dont' think so



Do fans and donors make a difference, do they vote with their dollars and time, and do they have a right to exercise that? Absolutely, in fact when I couldn't be at the MWC basketball tourney a couple years back I made sure that butts were in seats, because it makes a difference.



(again ask Gary Crowton and Val Hale about fanship when mistakes are made)



My point was not that I would stop loving BYU (it's in my blood, it's part of me) but that if the MWC were to make palatable concessions to keep BYU and BYU said, "you know what, you guys have been jerks to us, we're leaving anyhow." that I could not in good conscience support that.



For one, this is all hypothetical so it's amazing that the only thing that really got anyones attention was the fact that I believe that donors have rights too and that the actions of BYU affect how donors respond. This is nothing new, and I assure you that Tom Holmoe has taken the temperature of the biggest donors in BYUs pocket for that very reason; in fact some multi-millionaire donors were in alaska with some former BYU athletes for a trip less than a month ago. I can only imagine what the topic of conversation was.

craigoscarson wrote:



For one, this is all hypothetical so it's amazing that the only thing that really got anyones attention was the fact that I believe that donors have rights too and that the actions of BYU affect how donors respond. This is nothing new, and I assure you that Tom Holmoe has taken the temperature of the biggest donors in BYUs pocket for that very reason; in fact some multi-millionaire donors were in alaska with some former BYU athletes for a trip less than a month ago. I can only imagine what the topic of conversation was.

The only thing that got my attention was that you are on a message board talking about it. Yes boostes talk with their money, but if they are powerful enough to talk with their money in any influential way they are telling it to Holmoe via email or telephone and not to ABYUFAN via message board. At least that what I should have been saying, had I been more clear in my meaning

ABYUFAN wrote:

For one, this is all hypothetical so it's amazing that the only thing that really got anyones attention was the fact that I believe that donors have rights too and that the actions of BYU affect how donors respond. This is nothing new, and I assure you that Tom Holmoe has taken the temperature of the biggest donors in BYUs pocket for that very reason; in fact some multi-millionaire donors were in alaska with some former BYU athletes for a trip less than a month ago. I can only imagine what the topic of conversation was.

The only thing that got my attention was that you are on a message board talking about it. Yes boostes talk with their money, but if they are powerful enough to talk with their money in any influential way they are telling it to Holmoe via email or telephone and not to ABYUFAN via message board. At least that what I should have been saying, had I been more clear in my meaning

Ah, so you don't think that Tom has gotten an email from my family? You'd be wrong.



A message board does one thing that one on one with administrators doesn't. It gives you a chance to float your feelings to others. Like CP said, I've never been afraid to post a differing opinion and negative feedback bothers me very little. However, the point of this post is and has been that the MWC might just offer palatable concessions and if this happens, many of us believe that it's a no brainer to accept and potentially a gigantic mistake not to.

Quite possibly in your scenario, if the MWC gives us tv rights then we should stay. Personally, I can't make that decision because I don't know what else is going on. Perhaps independence is still the best move because of increased exposure and it could lead to a Big12 invite down the road. If BYU intends to go independent no matter what, then they should say so and not negotiate for something they don't want.



These issues are complex and I don't pretend to know more than they do.

Perhaps the "negotiations" are still for BYU to go Indy in football but have the other sports remain in the MWC with BYU gaining broadcast rights for some of their BBall games.

craigoscarson wrote:
CP, something like that isn't done out of spite. Boosters vote with their dollars, and yes, even at BYU they listen. I didnt' say I wouldn't love BYU or that I wouldn't follow them.

If BYU were a typical college, I would agree 100%, but it isn't. Many boosters, especially the big $ ones, give because they love BYU and the Church that sponsors it. They also know that their donations can be used for some other reason than originally contemplated if the Board of Trustees, IE, the Brethern, say so. No booster will ever dictate terms to BYU on what is best for the university under those circumstances. The Church would reject the donation before it would be controlled by the wishes of the donor.



There are some who give solely for the joy of sports, but they are the exception, rather than the rule. Most give because it's the flagship university of their religion.

I also did not say that I believe that all decisions made at BYU are divine inspiration or what's best for BYU, particularly when it pertains to athletics. I do not believe that.... and while I think they have a great track record, they're not immune to bad decisions or bad emotional decisions.

I agree, not all decisions are divinely inspired, but one of this magnitued will be run up the flagpole for salutes and approval by the BOT will be required before BYU goes independent. All the more reason for BYU to think through this clearly, so a bad decision is not made. I doubt BYU is acting on emotions on this matter. The focuse of the BOT is to maximize positive exposure whether it's through academics, sports, or ecclessiastic opportunities.

Most of the updated athletic facilities on campus were not built because of inspiration; they were built because hard working people that loved BYU donated their resources to them. Is there a price on fanship? I'm not sure.

Are you sure these donations did not come from inspiration? Where did they get the idea to donate such great sums to the Lord's university? Of course, many give out of love for their alma mater, but many love BYU because of its relation to the Church they love even more. It's what makes BYU so unique over most other universities.

I know many on this forum didn't travel to Dallas for the Oklahoma game, etc. for financial reasons. Does that make them less of a fan? I dont' think so, but I do know that BYU wanted them there

Does a donor or booster that normally writes checks to BYU or gives their resources less of a fan if they decide not to give any more than the average casual fan? I dont' think so

And if the University asked these same donors to donate for another cause at BYU other than sports, how many would? I would suspect most would. I've donated to both athletic and non-athletic programs, with more going to the non-athletic side than the other.

Do fans and donors make a difference, do they vote with their dollars and time, and do they have a right to exercise that? Absolutely, in fact when I couldn't be at the MWC basketball tourney a couple years back I made sure that butts were in seats, because it makes a difference.

BYU is more about the Church than it is about sports. Sports is used as a means to an end.

(again ask Gary Crowton and Val Hale about fanship when mistakes are made)

And yet, out of the "mistake" of Crowton, BYU now has Mendenhall as coach. Out of adversity comes growth. ;)

My point was not that I would stop loving BYU (it's in my blood, it's part of me) but that if the MWC were to make palatable concessions to keep BYU and BYU said, "you know what, you guys have been jerks to us, we're leaving anyhow." that I could not in good conscience support that.

BYU would not act in a knee-jerk fashion regarding something as important as whether BYU should go independent in football and change conference alignment for other sports. I just don't buy it and a true fan of BYU would more than likely agree on that.

For one, this is all hypothetical so it's amazing that the only thing that really got anyones attention was the fact that I believe that donors have rights too and that the actions of BYU affect how donors respond. This is nothing new, and I assure you that Tom Holmoe has taken the temperature of the biggest donors in BYUs pocket for that very reason; in fact some multi-millionaire donors were in alaska with some former BYU athletes for a trip less than a month ago. I can only imagine what the topic of conversation was.

And all Holmoe has to say is, "The Board of Trustees want to use your contributions for this instead of for sports," and the donors would nod approvingly. That is the difference between BYU and other universities.



All that said, I agree with you overall. I really think if BYU gets the concession for broadcast rights that they were seeking in independence, then they should stay in the MWC and work to get the MWC AQ status in the BCS. Further, we still do not know what BYU is planning to do overall or what their options are. We speculate, but we just don't know and I suspect what they decide will be best for the university in the long run, even if it doesn't appear that way on its face. Guess I am one of those naive glass 1/4 full koolaid drinking optimistic mormonmatons. 8)

kiwibacon wrote:

cannoncoug is right. Hence why byu owes the WAC no money if we decide to stay in the MWC.

When did we give notice that we were leaving? I am under the impression that if BYU says nada for the next few weeks they are and have been in the MWC. Is there something official from BYU out there that I missed?

BYU actually gave notice to Hair and the MWC that they were leaving awhile ago... I don't think you need me to explain to you what happened from there. I'm pointing out that if BYU had signed/agreed to staying in the WAC for the next 5 years, they would technically be required to may the $5 million for cutting things off.