CougarCorner

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:

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.

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.
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.