NCAA and Power 5 Conferences

[DrumNFeather]

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/11321551/ncaa-board-votes-allow-autonomy-five-power-conferences

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11320309/majority-power-five-coaches-want-power-five-only-schedules


A couple of interesting articles here...it seems inevitable that the gap will widen between the power 5 and the rest of the teams in college football. Change is a coming.

[LA Ute]

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/11321551/ncaa-board-votes-allow-autonomy-five-power-conferences

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11320309/majority-power-five-coaches-want-power-five-only-schedules


A couple of interesting articles here...it seems inevitable that the gap will widen between the power 5 and the rest of the teams in college football. Change is a coming.

I'll guarantee you that some lawyers are already thinking about the antitrust case.

[Diehard Ute]

I'll guarantee you that some lawyers are already thinking about the antitrust case.

Well yes. Lawyers are always thinking about how to get more of someone else's $$$$$ ;)

[concerned]

I'll guarantee you that some lawyers are already thinking about the antitrust case.


The NCAA and P5 conferences have been thinking up the defenses ad nauseum I'm sure, and structured this to come within a safe harbor, which of course guarantees litigation, not the reverse.

[concerned]

will be interesting to see what the Y does. They have to try to match in football, but why would the West Coast conference allow them to do so in basketball and all other sports if the other schools cant afford it and gain a huge competitive advantage?

[UtahsMrSports]

will be interesting to see what the Y does. They have to try to match in football, but why would the West Coast conference allow them to do so in basketball and all other sports if the other schools cant afford it and gain a huge competitive advantage?

The other thing to consider in football, is if the gentleman at 50 E. North Temple will sign off on this increase. Obviously, Bronco and Tom Holmoe will be, but they dont ultimately decide.

[LA Ute]

Well yes. Lawyers are always thinking about how to get more of someone else's $$$$$ ;)

:rockon:

[utefan]

Well yes. Lawyers are always thinking about how to get more of someone else's $$$$$ ;)
So is everyone else. We all work all day trying to earn a living.

[Diehard Ute]

So is everyone else. We all work all day trying to earn a living.

I don't think you got the friendly jab nature of that comment.

[LA Ute]

I don't think you got the friendly jab nature of that comment.

utefan just doesn't know how long you've been giving me a hard time about my being a lawyer. Don't worry, utefan, I stopped taking Diehard seriously years ago. I've got him right where I want him. :groin:

[sancho]

My thoughts:

1) We are really lucky the dominoes fell the way they did with us inside the Pac-12.

2) I think many of the mid major conferences will go ahead and pay out whatever the P5 decides to pay. I would be surprised if at least the MWC and AAC don't pay out. There may be some other sports dropped because of it.

3) I hate to see all of this happening to mid majors, but I do hope it hurts BYU somehow.

4) Unfortunately, I don't think it will hurt BYU. They will either be allowed to match in football only, the WCC will match in all sports, the WCC will agree to let schools decide on an individual basis, or BYU will join the MWC.

5) With the OBannon ruling going against the NCAA, there are more changes coming. Who knows what all this will eventually do to college football and basketball. I'm not sure that these sports will even be recognizable in 25 years.

[Sullyute]

5) With the OBannon ruling going against the NCAA, there are more changes coming. Who knows what all this will eventually do to college football and basketball. I'm not sure that these sports will even be recognizable in 25 years.

This is what worries me. I agree that the rules were antiquated and that some schools were making loads of money off of these kids and that it was not fair to the kids. However I hope that this does not ruin college football for me. This is one of the reasons I don't watch NFL.

[sancho]

This is what worries me. I agree that the rules were antiquated and that some schools were making loads of money off of these kids and that it was not fair to the kids. However I hope that this does not ruin college football for me. This is one of the reasons I don't watch NFL.

Yes, this ruling is a victory for the media, who have been bashing the ncaa for years. It may be a victory for some players, at least in the short term. I don't see how it's a win for us fans, though, and in the end, we're the group that matters most.

[concerned]

I thought about this some more, and decided the P5 thing is probably really good for the Y, esp. if the other conferences like the WCC allow each member to decide for itself whether to provide the stipends, etc. I am guessing that, because it is a private institution with a big alumni and donor base, as well as a recruiting base in the Church, and because it has the ESPN contract, it is in a much better position than the other non-P5 schools. This development may brand the Y as a non p-5 school, but it will also distance the Y greatly from the other non-P5 schools, such as Boise state, UConn, Cincinnati, etc. The Y can play a weak schedule and be in a strong position to claim the automatic berth in one of the former BCS bowls outside the 4 team playoff. Who else is going to be able to compete with them at this point?

The hard part will be filling up the 12 game schedule at home. Who is going to play there? The only reason would be for a team to get some ESPN exposure that they will never see otherwise. The P5 thing doesnt make it any easier.

It will also distance the Y from the other non-P5 schools and make them more attractive as a potentila member of a P5 conference.

[sancho]

I thought about this some more, and decided the P5 thing is probably really good for the Y, esp. if the other conferences like the WCC allow each member to decide for itself whether to provide the stipends, etc. I am guessing that, because it is a private institution with a big alumni and donor base, as well as a recruiting base in the Church, and because it has the ESPN contract, it is in a much better position than the other non-P5 schools. This development may brand the Y as a non p-5 school, but it will also distance the Y greatly from the other non-P5 schools, such as Boise state, UConn, Cincinnati, etc. The Y can play a weak schedule and be in a strong position to claim the automatic berth in one of the former BCS bowls outside the 4 team playoff. Who else is going to be able to compete with them at this point?

The hard part will be filling up the 12 game schedule at home. Who is going to play there? The only reason would be for a team to get some ESPN exposure that they will never see otherwise. The P5 thing doesnt make it any easier.

It will also distance the Y from the other non-P5 schools and make them more attractive as a potentila member of a P5 conference.

I think you are right. The WCC can't just vote for all-or-nothing because they would be afraid of driving BYU to the MWC.

I think there is a chance some of the mid majors just go ahead and match the P5 in spending.

If your scenario of BYU hogging all the mid major BCS bids comes true, it would be in the best interests of the MWC, CUSA, AAC, etc to just stop scheduling BYU. Unfortunately there will always be a little school willing to sell out long term community good in return for a modest immediate payday.

[DrumNFeather]

I think you are right. The WCC can't just vote for all-or-nothing because they would be afraid of driving BYU to the MWC.

I think there is a chance some of the mid majors just go ahead and match the P5 in spending.

If your scenario of BYU hogging all the mid major BCS bids comes true, it would be in the best interests of the MWC, CUSA, AAC, etc to just stop scheduling BYU. Unfortunately there will always be a little school willing to sell out long term community good in return for a modest immediate payday.
I wonder if the P5 could vote to only have P5 schools in the playoffs and bcs bowls.

[Scratch]

I thought about this some more, and decided the P5 thing is probably really good for the Y, esp. if the other conferences like the WCC allow each member to decide for itself whether to provide the stipends, etc. I am guessing that, because it is a private institution with a big alumni and donor base, as well as a recruiting base in the Church, and because it has the ESPN contract, it is in a much better position than the other non-P5 schools. This development may brand the Y as a non p-5 school, but it will also distance the Y greatly from the other non-P5 schools, such as Boise state, UConn, Cincinnati, etc. The Y can play a weak schedule and be in a strong position to claim the automatic berth in one of the former BCS bowls outside the 4 team playoff. Who else is going to be able to compete with them at this point?

The hard part will be filling up the 12 game schedule at home. Who is going to play there? The only reason would be for a team to get some ESPN exposure that they will never see otherwise. The P5 thing doesnt make it any easier.

It will also distance the Y from the other non-P5 schools and make them more attractive as a potentila member of a P5 conference.

The problem with your scenario is that I'm not sure conferences will be able to allow some teams to do it and some not to do it. The way this works is the P5 get to make rules that the rest of the NCAA will then rubber stamp. Once the rule is in place, all of the P5 conferences will be bound by that rule, and none of the other conferences will be unless those conferences choose to adopt those rules. If the rule says "all schools must provide cost-of-living stipends, 4-year scholarships, and lifetime insurance," then the MWC, WCC, and everyone else would have two choices, either require all schools in their conference to provide these benefits, or not let any of them do so.

[Ma'ake]

The lifetime health insurance for sports-related injuries is the cost iceberg that will really impact football at FCS schools and definitely reach up and bite G5 schools. Combine this with the concussion issue, and I can see the rising cognizance of sports healthcare costs could drive college football to shrink pretty quickly, especially at the Div 2 and Div 3 levels.

Also, many FBS teams have used JCs to find talent, and a lot of kids that didn't have their academics in order have gone the JC route, but this level may really get hammered if the expectation becomes widespread that schools need to take care of their former players' injuries. They're not anywhere even near the ballpark to be able to do this.

[LA Ute]

The lifetime health insurance for sports-related injuries is the cost iceberg that will really impact football at FCS schools and definitely reach up and bite G5 schools. Combine this with the concussion issue, and I can see the rising cognizance of sports healthcare costs could drive college football to shrink pretty quickly, especially at the Div 2 and Div 3 levels.

Also, many FBS teams have used JCs to find talent, and a lot of kids that didn't have their academics in order have gone the JC route, but this level may really get hammered if the expectation becomes widespread that schools need to take care of their former players' injuries. They're not anywhere even near the ballpark to be able to do this.

It will be great for insurance companies for sure. I wonder: Is the pool of insureds (college athletes) big enough to spread risk widely enough that coverage will be affordable?

[SoCalPat]

Yes, this ruling is a victory for the media, who have been bashing the ncaa for years. It may be a victory for some players, at least in the short term. I don't see how it's a win for us fans, though, and in the end, we're the group that matters most.

What group hasn't been bashing the NCAA for years?

[sancho]

What group hasn't been bashing the NCAA for years?

The fans. We may complain about the unfairness of the USC penalties in comparison to Miami and UNC, but we are generally happy with the status quo in football. Most polls show fans are opposed to changes that would professionalize college sports.

[SoCalPat]

The white fans. We may complain about the unfairness of the USC penalties in comparison to Miami and UNC, but we are generally happy with the status quo in football. Most polls show fans are opposed to changes that would professionalize college sports.

Perhaps as recently as a decade ago, you'd be right, but that's hardly the case today.

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/polls/_/category/3937

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/post/_/id/9684071/should-college-athletes-paid

You can find polls that say otherwise, but a large percentage of those in the survey do not label themselves as college sports fans, so their voices are largely irrelevant for the point you're trying to make. The Washington Post poll (the most recent and noteworthy) was taken with only 56 percent of respondents labeling themselves as college sports fans.

http://deadspin.com/poll-white-people-dont-want-college-athletes-to-be-pa-1550543270

[sancho]

Perhaps as recently as a decade ago, you'd be right, but that's hardly the case today.

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/polls/_/category/3937

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/post/_/id/9684071/should-college-athletes-paid

You can find polls that say otherwise, but a large percentage of those in the survey do not label themselves as college sports fans, so their voices are largely irrelevant for the point you're trying to make. The Washington Post poll (the most recent and noteworthy) was taken with only 56 percent of respondents labeling themselves as college sports fans.

http://deadspin.com/poll-white-people-dont-want-college-athletes-to-be-pa-1550543270

I don't care about the right/wrong question in professionalizing college sports. I think college athletes already get a TON in return for their work, but that's a different argument. All I care about is football and basketball, and I don't want them to change for the worse.

I have read serious journalists who propose models that would kill these sports as we know them. I don't want that. I don't care if the students have to settle for just scholarships and fame if it preserves a great game.

[SoCalPat]

I don't care about the right/wrong question in professionalizing college sports. I think college athletes already get a TON in return for their work, but that's a different argument. All I care about is football and basketball, and I don't want them to change for the worse.

I have read serious journalists who propose models that would kill these sports as we know them. I don't want that. I don't care if the students have to settle for just scholarships and fame if it preserves a great game.

You can cut scholarships in football from 85 to 70 and free up a significant amount of revenue for the changes that are coming in collegiate athletics. But that won't happen because the public has brought into the ridiculous idea that the quality of the game would drop, an idea that's been propped up primarily by the coaches themselves and lapped up by State U. sycophants. Hell, the NFL gets by with dressing a mere 48 players on gameday and it's the most popular league in the world.

The arguments used today against paying college players are no different than what British aristocrats used when they set up the "amateur" concept of sports in the late 19th century. It was rubbish then, it remains rubbish today.

[sancho]

You can cut scholarships in football from 85 to 70 and free up a significant amount of revenue for the changes that are coming in collegiate athletics. But that won't happen because the public has brought into the ridiculous idea that the quality of the game would drop, an idea that's been propped up primarily by the coaches themselves and lapped up by State U. sycophants.


I'm all for it, and I think the public does not care. It won't happen, though, because it would create more parity and therefore hurt the power programs.



The arguments used today against paying college players are no different than what British aristocrats used when they set up the "amateur" concept of sports in the late 19th century. It was rubbish then, it remains rubbish today.

Again, I'm not sure why I should care about the history of amateurism. Whatever the history, it led to something that worked well for me. It all seems to be crumbling now, though.

[utefan]

So if the power 5 conferences start paying athletes, does that expedite the stadium expansion?

Would the math work out? If they pay everyone on the team $5000 or whatever they're discussing, and they expand the stadium to around 60,000 or 70,000 seats, would the extra ticket sales make up the difference in operating costs?

[Diehard Ute]

So if the power 5 conferences start paying athletes, does that expedite the stadium expansion?

Would the math work out? If they pay everyone on the team $5000 or whatever they're discussing, and they expand the stadium to around 60,000 or 70,000 seats, would the extra ticket sales make up the difference in operating costs?

Those two things aren't remotely related.

The stadium will likely never expand beyond 55,000 and the money for the stipends will come from TV and playoff revenue. Ticket sales aren't a way to increase revenue. That's not what makes money.

[Scratch]

So if the power 5 conferences start paying athletes, does that expedite the stadium expansion?

Would the math work out? If they pay everyone on the team $5000 or whatever they're discussing, and they expand the stadium to around 60,000 or 70,000 seats, would the extra ticket sales make up the difference in operating costs?

If expanding the stadium would be a net revenue generator it would have happened already.

[UTEopia]

Those two things aren't remotely related.

The stadium will likely never expand beyond 55,000 and the money for the stipends will come from TV and playoff revenue. Ticket sales aren't a way to increase revenue. That's not what makes money.

I agree, the cost of a 15,000 seat expansion to 60,000 has been estimated to be 75 to 100 million. The additional revenue from those 15,000 seats, say an average of $500 per seat, per year, would be 7 million and would need to fund the repayment of bonds to fund the construction.

If they go to the full cost of attendance measurement, that would cost about 5,000 per athlete, per year. I think the U has about 400 student-athletes. That is an addition 2 million per year. If you also add the trust amount from the O'Bannon lawsuit of 5,000 per year for each football and men's basketball player, that is an additional 500,000 per year.

[concerned]

The season tickets sell at a premium CC contribution now. If supply increases, demand probably will decrease.

[LA Ute]

A must-read Chris Dufresne piece in today's L.A. Times:

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-college-football-realignment-20140817-column.html#page=1

[SoCalPat]

A must-read Chris Dufresne piece in today's L.A. Times:

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-college-football-realignment-20140817-column.html#page=1

Pretty spot on. We are truly fortunate to have landed where we did. You can make the argument that outside of Rutgers, there probably isn't a program that benefited more from realignment than Utah.

[LA Ute]

Pretty spot on. We are truly fortunate to have landed where we did. You can make the argument that outside of Rutgers, there probably isn't a program that benefited more from realignment than Utah.

And it could so easily been so different (although I am not sure how seriously Texas and the other B12 schools considered the idea of joining the PAC- 12).

[concerned]

we really did hit the hallelujah highway. Seems spot on about the Y too. As long as it has its ESPN contract it is in a much better position than the G-5's. Probably in the best position to make a big bowl game, and gets to keep all the money as an independent.

Louisville, West Virginia and Syracuse also hit the jackpot.

[sancho]

Louisville, West Virginia and Syracuse also hit the jackpot.

TCU too.

And nobody was hosed as badly as Boise.

Kansas, kstate, Iowa st, and Baylor all lucked out just as much as us with Texas not joining the pac-12.

[Utah]

Why is BYU in a better place than Boise? Doesn't Boise basically have the same deal as BYU with ESPN? Boise gets their games televised, gets more money than other MWC members, but, unlike BYU, has a shot at a BCS bowl.

[sancho]

Why is BYU in a better place than Boise? Doesn't Boise basically have the same deal as BYU with ESPN? Boise gets their games televised, gets more money than other MWC members, but, unlike BYU, has a shot at a BCS bowl.

I didn't say BYU was in a better place than Boise. I said nobody got hosed as badly as Boise. Boise was the single most successful mid-major of the past decade (yes, more than Utah and TCU). No mid major deserved to benefit from realignment as much as Boise, but they did not benefit at all. In fact, they were harmed by it.

BYU is not in a great place, but they don't deserve to be based on their recent (relevant) football history.

[Utah]

What had Boise did that Utah didn't did?

[Sullyute]

What had Boise did that Utah didn't did?

Have a player propose to a cheerleader on national tv.

[sancho]

What had Boise did that Utah didn't did?


Well, Utah, Boise, and TCU were obviously the big 3. It's splitting hairs to rank them, but here goes:

Both Utah and Boise were 2-0 in BCS games. But Boise had more of a national giant killer brand than Utah. They won those high profile early season matchups vs Oregon (twice) and VaTech. I don't think we ever even played the type of season opener that got people talking across the nation. Boise was in the national championship conversation in 2010 up until the next to last week of the season (maybe our 2008 season paved the way for that conversation to take place). Boise beat Utah twice in that era. From 2004-2010, they finished ranked #12, #5, #11, #4, and #9. We had a #4, #2, and #18 in that same span.

The argument for Utah is that we did it first, that we have the best single mid-major win of that era (Bama), and that we finished higher in the polls than Boise ever did (#2).

Like I said, splitting hairs. But Utah and TCU got in, and Boise didn't. They clearly win the "most hosed by realignment" award.

[Utah]

Well, Utah, Boise, and TCU were obviously the big 3. It's splitting hairs to rank them, but here goes:

Both Utah and Boise were 2-0 in BCS games. But Boise had more of a national giant killer brand than Utah. They won those high profile early season matchups vs Oregon (twice) and VaTech. I don't think we ever even played the type of season opener that got people talking across the nation. Boise was in the national championship conversation in 2010 up until the next to last week of the season (maybe our 2008 season paved the way for that conversation to take place). Boise beat Utah twice in that era. From 2004-2010, they finished ranked #12, #5, #11, #4, and #9. We had a #4, #2, and #18 in that same span.

The argument for Utah is that we did it first, that we have the best single mid-major win of that era (Bama), and that we finished higher in the polls than Boise ever did (#2).

Like I said, splitting hairs. But Utah and TCU got in, and Boise didn't. They clearly win the "most hosed by realignment" award.

So, basically, Boise's best accomplishment was playing in the WAC and not the MWC.

They were the most hosed, but BYU isn't far behind. To be fair to BYU, they are a much better historical team, bigger fanbase, better facilities, better market, better everything other than BCS wins.

Someone brought this point up on UF.N, and it is a very important one:

The MWC was applying for BCS status. Utah was taken from the MWC, thereby taking all its "BCS" points with it to the PAC-12. Then Boise joined the MWC, bringing back those BCS points. Then TCU and Boise were taken into the Big East to try to keep the BCS status. After that coup failed, TCU was taken by the Big 12, and Boise limped back into the MWC.

Out of mid-majors, Utah was the prize. The PAC-12 could have taken TCU or BYU or Boise and they chose Utah. The Big 12 could have taken Boise, BYU or TCU and they chose TCU.

Wouldn't getting chosen as a PAC-12 team be a better indicator of "single most successful mid-major of the past decade" than a bunch of wins over WAC teams? And to be fair about Boise's coverage, they were in a conference that had a deal with ESPN and Utah was in the mtn.

[Utah]

Have a player propose to a cheerleader on national tv.

damnit. We need to step up our game.

[Ma'ake]

This is probably the most important of our PAC seasons. We've got to find a way to fight back up into the middle and reclaim some of the buzz we had going into (what is even more so now) the highest level of CFB. We need at least 4 PAC wins.

Jay Hill was on the radio this morning, and beyond the talk about what's happening with Weber, Jay said Whittingham is one of the best Xs and Os coaches in the country, and Utah has steadily been building depth and shoring up their soft spots.

I'm more than happy not playing BYU this year or next, but we've *got* to solidify a competitive posture in the PAC, and doing so will result in (I believe) an increasingly obvious talent differential over the wannabes in Provo. This year and next, if we can battle up into the middle tier of the PAC, by the time we play BYU in 2016 at RES we should be starting to pull away even more, letting them wither and whimper as the biggest fanbase of posers in the nation.

Now that the first truly seismic shift has occurred, and it being fairly obvious that additional shifts are probably at least a few years away, and with BYU playing a significantly tougher (for them) schedule, and all the pressure in the universe on them to do what they couldn't do before, ie, make a serious splash on the national scene... it is time to see things evolve toward them becoming the Colorado Zephyrs of college football (ie, the best supported AAA baseball team in the nation).

"We may not belong in the top tier, but we're still pretty special and we're the best of the non-P5 traditional powers - we can beat Army any time!"

By the time we meet again, the upcoming inevitable conversations about the shifts in college ball, and whether BYU deserves to be in that tier... these conversations will be two years old, and I suspect BYU will continue to struggle with P5 teams, in general.

So in 2016 we'll be ready to put the hammer down, settle the question once and for all, within the State of Utah.

But we need to get our own shit together, first. I think it's doable.

[sancho]

Wouldn't getting chosen as a PAC-12 team be a better indicator of "single most successful mid-major of the past decade" than a bunch of wins over WAC teams? And to be fair about Boise's coverage, they were in a conference that had a deal with ESPN and Utah was in the mtn.

Well, clearly Utah was the most desirable addition of the Big 3. Utah was the best fit of the three by far for the Pac-12.

But if they only cared about results on the field, I think the order is BSU, Utah, TCU. I think a case can be made for any permutation, but I think Boise did a little more on the field during the BCS era than the other two.

It is dishonest to characterize Boise's success as just a bunch of wins over WAC teams. If someone said Utah's success was just a bunch of wins over MWC teams, I would object. Boise had great teams and players, and they had a good number of impressive wins. They finished ranked 5 times during the '04-'10 span, and they earned those rankings on the field.

Perhaps BYU is more deserving of P5 membership based on a bunch of stuff that doesn't matter (fanbase, stadium size, ancient history, etc). But based only on BCS-era football, Boise is the big loser of realignment, and it's not even remotely close. Cincy is in a very distant 2nd place.

[Diehard Ute]

Well, Utah, Boise, and TCU were obviously the big 3. It's splitting hairs to rank them, but here goes:

Both Utah and Boise were 2-0 in BCS games. But Boise had more of a national giant killer brand than Utah. They won those high profile early season matchups vs Oregon (twice) and VaTech. I don't think we ever even played the type of season opener that got people talking across the nation. Boise was in the national championship conversation in 2010 up until the next to last week of the season (maybe our 2008 season paved the way for that conversation to take place). Boise beat Utah twice in that era. From 2004-2010, they finished ranked #12, #5, #11, #4, and #9. We had a #4, #2, and #18 in that same span.

The argument for Utah is that we did it first, that we have the best single mid-major win of that era (Bama), and that we finished higher in the polls than Boise ever did (#2).

Like I said, splitting hairs. But Utah and TCU got in, and Boise didn't. They clearly win the "most hosed by realignment" award.

Boise was also a one sport animal.

They aren't strong consistently in any other sport, and their academic reputation isn't the greatest.

While football is king, the rest of the pieces did matter. (And so does blue AstroTurf)

[sancho]

Boise was also a one sport animal.


No doubt. I'm just talking football. Utah was clearly the best (the only) real option for the conference.

[SoCalPat]

What had Boise did that Utah didn't did?

Two missed FGs away from playing for a national title in 2009 and 2011, for starters.

[utefan]

Of the mid majors being discussed, Utah was the only one that had a lot of people saying they deserved to win the championship after the season was over. Utah getting robbed of the championship was the reason Boise was being discussed as possibly being allowed to play for one.

It's pretty clear to me who the most successful team was, and it wasn't the team that choked when given an opportunity. It was the team that won the people's championship.

[sancho]

It's pretty clear to me who the most successful team was, and it wasn't the team that choked when given an opportunity. It was the team that won the people's championship.

At least we can all agree that it wasn't TCU. Stupid frogs.

[mpfunk]

Of the mid majors being discussed, Utah was the only one that had a lot of people saying they deserved to win the championship after the season was over. Utah getting robbed of the championship was the reason Boise was being discussed as possibly being allowed to play for one.

It's pretty clear to me who the most successful team was, and it wasn't the team that choked when given an opportunity. It was the team that won the people's championship.

2008 was a hell of a lot of fun. Just a great season and one that we can always look back fondly on. The Oregon St comeback, TCU game, and the Sugar Bowl were games that I'll always remember. However, there is no way in hell that Utah was the best team in the country that year. Utah didn't deserve the MNC. Our move to the Pac-12 and TCUs move to the Big-12 has shown us that what the power conferences were telling the little guys for all these years was absolutely correct.

[mpfunk]

Wouldn't getting chosen as a PAC-12 team be a better indicator of "single most successful mid-major of the past decade" than a bunch of wins over WAC teams? And to be fair about Boise's coverage, they were in a conference that had a deal with ESPN and Utah was in the mtn.

Re-alignment had little to do with success, it was mostly about money. Utah was the best option because they brought the largest media market without the baggage that BYU brings to the table. The success is nice and something that the Pac-12 can say played a factor, but it was a money move. It doesn't prove who was the most successful non-BCS program.

[LA Ute]

Re-alignment had little to do with success, it was mostly about money. Utah was the best option because they brought the largest media market without the baggage that BYU brings to the table. The success is nice and something that the Pac-12 can say played a factor, but it was a money move. It doesn't prove who was the most successful non-BCS program.

Since when has proof had anything to do with it? :D

[SoCalPat]

2008 was a hell of a lot of fun. Just a great season and one that we can always look back fondly on. The Oregon St comeback, TCU game, and the Sugar Bowl were games that I'll always remember. However, there is no way in hell that Utah was the best team in the country that year. Utah didn't deserve the MNC. Our move to the Pac-12 and TCUs move to the Big-12 has shown us that what the power conferences were telling the little guys for all these years was absolutely correct.

Except that has nothing to do with determining who the national champion should be. Week-in, week-out is used to justify biases against smaller schools. There's no question Utah had the best resume in the country in 2008, and if you took Utah's name off everything and put Notre Dame's name in its place, not only would the Irish have been voted national champions, it would have been a near-unanimous selection.

The 2008 Utah team is a 2-TD favorite, minimum, against every Utah team that's followed since. Those lesser teams don't have a say at all in writing the book on how great the 2008 team was.

[sancho]

The 2008 Utah team is a 2-TD favorite, minimum, against every Utah team that's followed since. Those lesser teams don't have a say at all in writing the book on how great the 2008 team was.

This is how I see it as well. Boise, Utah, and TCU each had a couple of teams in 2004-2010 that would have competed for conference titles in any of the BCS conferences. No reason why the present has to take away from the past.

[Applejack]

Except that has nothing to do with determining who the national champion should be. Week-in, week-out is used to justify biases against smaller schools. There's no question Utah had the best resume in the country in 2008, and if you took Utah's name off everything and put Notre Dame's name in its place, not only would the Irish have been voted national champions, it would have been a near-unanimous selection.

The 2008 Utah team is a 2-TD favorite, minimum, against every Utah team that's followed since. Those lesser teams don't have a say at all in writing the book on how great the 2008 team was.

SoCal and I are on the same vibe on this one. Why knock Utah's 2008 accomplishment because of the lumps we've taken in 2012/13, Funk? Utah didn't pull a Hawaii in 2008 (undefeated slop).

We beat a TCU team that finished in the top 10 (losing only to us and at Oklahoma, including a 32-7 win that ended BYU's quest for perfection), we beat an Oregon State team that ended the year in the top 20, we demolished BYU post-quest (they finished in the top 25), and kicked the drawl out of an Alabama team, essentially on the road - a team that ended the year ranked #6 EVEN THOUGH THEY GOT DEMOLISHED BY UTAH! Now, unfortunately a bunch of teams had championship-caliber years in '08 (Florida, USC, Texas), so its hard for me to say that Utah should without a doubt have been #1. But Utah is undoubtedly in the never-ending discussion - don't let Cougar fans or Barry Switzer tell you otherwise.

[SoCalPat]

SoCal and I are on the same vibe on this one. Why knock Utah's 2008 accomplishment because of the lumps we've taken in 2012/13, Funk? Utah didn't pull a Hawaii in 2008 (undefeated slop).

We beat a TCU team that finished in the top 10 (losing only to us and at Oklahoma, including a 32-7 win that ended BYU's quest for perfection), we beat an Oregon State team that ended the year in the top 20, we demolished BYU post-quest (they finished in the top 25), and kicked the drawl out of an Alabama team, essentially on the road - a team that ended the year ranked #6 EVEN THOUGH THEY GOT DEMOLISHED BY UTAH! Now, unfortunately a bunch of teams had championship-caliber years in '08 (Florida, USC, Texas), so its hard for me to say that Utah should without a doubt have been #1. But Utah is undoubtedly in the never-ending discussion - don't let Cougar fans or Barry Switzer tell you otherwise.

Amen. Additionally, ask yourself this: why aren't there any post-bowl BCS standings? Even with the mandate that all coaches vote the BCS title game winner No. 1, the computers (three of which had Utah No. 1) and the Harris voters just might have been enough to put Utah at No. 1 in such a final rankings. Think of how embarrassing that would've been for the BCS.

[utefan]

2008 was a hell of a lot of fun. Just a great season and one that we can always look back fondly on. The Oregon St comeback, TCU game, and the Sugar Bowl were games that I'll always remember. However, there is no way in hell that Utah was the best team in the country that year. Utah didn't deserve the MNC. Our move to the Pac-12 and TCUs move to the Big-12 has shown us that what the power conferences were telling the little guys for all these years was absolutely correct.
Yes, I'm sure I'm with most college football fans when I say I agree with that. Although, to be fair, we also have to acknowledge that a lot of us disagreed with that at the time, and a lot still disagree with it.

It is also a great example of why and how Utah was more successful than Boise State.

The Mountain West was certainly no Pac 12, though the gap was a lot closer back then, but it was still a lot better than the WAC. Which is why the Mountain West was on the verge of getting BCS status back then, and why all the WAC teams jumped at the chance to get into the Mountain West.

Even now that the Mountain West is not as good as it used to be, Boise State still had growing pains when they moved up to the tougher conference.

So just as Utah made the case for little guys getting a shot at the championship, which almost got Boise State into the big game, Utah and TCU are now proving that the little guys never deserved it.

So if we're now acknowledging that Utah's success may not have been as great as we once thought, we absolutely have to say the same of Boise State, even more so than Utah.

[sancho]

So if we're now acknowledging that Utah's success may not have been as great as we once thought, we absolutely have to say the same of Boise State, even more so than Utah.

Again, there's no need to backwards project our current mediocrity onto our former great teams. The 2008 team had a defense full of future NFL players. That's a good team. Period. The same can be said about those great Boise State teams - they put a lot of really good players in the NFL. Those teams - along with some of the TCU teams - would have been fine in a P5 conference.

There is a difference between the big 3 (someone here called it a big 4 with BYU added, which is a whole new level of nonsense) and the undefeated Marshall, Tulane, Hawaii, Cincy, and Northern Illinois teams.

[LA Ute]

I agree with SCP that it's unsupportable to devalue the 2004 and 2008 Utah teams because of the bumpy road Utah's had in the PAC-12. The question is this: Would those 2004 and 2008 teams have fared well in the PAC? I think there's no reason to think they would not have, except for depth. If they'd had injuries to their first teams, they would probably have struggled. Without injuries they'd have done very well. It simply doesn't follow that because we've struggled in the PAC-12, those two teams weren't as good as we thought they were.

[utefan]

Again, there's no need to backwards project our current mediocrity onto our former great teams. The 2008 team had a defense full of future NFL players. That's a good team. Period. The same can be said about those great Boise State teams - they put a lot of really good players in the NFL. Those teams - along with some of the TCU teams - would have been fine in a P5 conference.

There is a difference between the big 3 (someone here called it a big 4 with BYU added, which is a whole new level of nonsense) and the undefeated Marshall, Tulane, Hawaii, Cincy, and Northern Illinois teams.
I also agree with you that our current level of success has little to do with 2008. I'll even add that Utah's first year in the Pac 12 had them within a couple of plays from playing in the Pac 12 title game.

However, I think it's probably a consensus that this year's Utah team would probably run the table in the 2008 MWC.

[Applejack]

I agree with SCP that it's unsupportable to devalue the 2004 and 2008 Utah teams because of the bumpy road Utah's had in the PAC-12. The question is this: Would those 2004 and 2008 teams have fared well in the PAC? I think there's no reason to think they would not have, except for depth. If they'd had injuries to their first teams, they would probably have struggled. Without injuries they'd have done very well. It simply doesn't follow that because we've struggled in the PAC-12, those two teams weren't as good as we thought they were.

Utah 2008 would not have run the table in the Pac. The thing is, almost no team ever runs the table in the conference - it's too deep. USC was an amazing team in 2008 and they lost to Oregon State.

But whether 2008 would have gone undefeated in the Pac-10 and whether they deserve to be in the discussion as champs are two distinct questions. Utah's resume, despite the Wyomings and New Mexicos, is comparable to the very best 2008 had to offer.
1. Florida beat Alabama and Oklahoma that year - but they did lose to Ole Miss at home (personally, I think this is the best resume of 2008).
2.USC killed some good teams (Ohio St, Oregon, Cal, Penn St), but they lost at Oregon State.
3. Utah went undefeated and beat 4 teams that ended up ranked (did I mention the Sugar Bowl?).

[Applejack]

I also agree with you that our current level of success has little to do with 2008. I'll even add that Utah's first year in the Pac 12 had them within a couple of plays from playing in the Pac 12 title game.

However, I think it's probably a consensus that this year's Utah team would probably run the table in the 2008 MWC.

I doubt this. MWC 2008 >>>> MWC 2014. MWC 2008 had four super cream puffs: New Mexico, SDSU (bad), UNLV, and Wyoming, two middling teams (Air Force & CSU) and three good to great teams (BYU, TCU, Utah). But even those cream puffs were better than today's squads: New Mexico beat Arizona (who finished fifth in the Pac10) and UNLV beat Arizona State in Tempe! I think this year's Utah team loses at least one game among BYU, TCU, Air Force, CSU.

[utefan]

I doubt this. MWC 2008 >>>> MWC 2014. MWC 2008 had four super cream puffs: New Mexico, SDSU (bad), UNLV, and Wyoming, two middling teams (Air Force & CSU) and three good to great teams (BYU, TCU, Utah). But even those cream puffs were better than today's squads: New Mexico beat Arizona (who finished fifth in the Pac10) and UNLV beat Arizona State in Tempe! I think this year's Utah team loses at least one game among BYU, TCU, Air Force, CSU.

We can debate if this year's Utah tan would lose one of those games all day long. I personally don't think it would happen. However, what can't be debated is the fact that the 2008 Utah team was quite lucky to not lose one of those games too. As I recall the TCU game was a near miracle.

No way this year's Utah team would lose to 2008 BYU, Air Force, or CSU. Do you really believe one of those teams would beat this year's Utah team if on the schedule? I don't even think 2008 TCU could come to Utah and win this season, but I'll acknowledge it's possible. 2008 BYU, Air Force, and CSU? Stranger things have happened, but it's not at all likely.

[Applejack]

We can debate if this year's Utah tan would lose one of those games all day long. I personally don't think it would happen. However, what can't be debated is the fact that the 2008 Utah team was quite lucky to not lose one of those games too. As I recall the TCU game was a near miracle.

No way this year's Utah team would lose to 2008 BYU, Air Force, or CSU. Do you really believe one of those teams would beat this year's Utah team if on the schedule? I don't even think 2008 TCU could come to Utah and win this season, but I'll acknowledge it's possible. 2008 BYU, Air Force, and CSU? Stranger things have happened, but it's not at all likely.

2008 TCU was a top ten team in the nation, at the end of the year. You think a top 10 team coming to Rice this year is a "possible" loss? I think we'd be an underdog against 2008 BYU. We'd definitely be favored against Air Force and CSU 2008, but those teams were much better than current AFA and CSU.

I think you're discounting the glory day(s) of the MWC too much.

[utefan]

2008 TCU was a top ten team in the nation, at the end of the year. You think a top 10 team coming to Rice this year is a "possible" loss? I think we'd be an underdog against 2008 BYU. We'd definitely be favored against Air Force and CSU 2008, but those teams were much better than current AFA and CSU.

I think you're discounting the glory day(s) of the MWC too much.

2008 TCU was a top 10 team, but they certainly would not have been if they played in the 2014 Pac 12. It's not a 2014 top 10 team we're talking about here. It was a down year all across the nation. 2008 TCU would probably finish 3rd or 4th in either 2014 Pac 12 division.

No way, no how, would 2008 BYU beat this year's Utah team. Go wash your mouth out with soap for even hinting at it.

[utefan]

That 2008 TCU defense is better than any defense in this year's Pac-12. And the offense was not horrible.



Ahhh, common ground. I'm with you.
2008 TCU defense was great in the 2008 MWC. In the 2014 Pac 12, 2008 TCU defense would get lit up regularly.

This 2014 Pac 12 is a much better offensive conference than any 2008 conference, let alone the 2008 MWC. How many current starting Pac 12 quarterbacks will someday be in the NFL? Certainly a lot more than 2008 TCU faced.

I'm with you that their defense was good. I just don't think it was good enough to put them above 2014 UCLA and USC in the south, or Stanford and Oregon in the north. It may or may not even put them above 2014 Washington and Arizona State. In other words, I'm not sure they could fare any better than 2014 Utah in the Pac 12.

[UtahsMrSports]

It is impossible to come to a definitive conclusion on who would do what year to year. Personally, and I will likely get barbecued for this, but I thought we were the second best team in the MWC in 2008. We made the plays when we had to to beat TCU, and I still get chills watching highlights. I just think that if 2008 Utah and 2008 TCU played 15 times, 5 at each home location and 5 on a neutral field, I think TCU wins 9 or 10.

That said, IMO, we had the resume and deserved a shot to somehow play for it all. But so did others. I tell you what though; I enjoyed the heck out of that season no matter what the pollsters said and I appreciate it even more now.

Finally, I find it silly to say that Utahs current struggles somehow invalidate that season or prove that the BCS was right all along. In two years if we go 10-2 and win the Pac-12, will that somehow retroactively prove that the 2008 should have won the title? Our 2008 resume speaks for itself.

[U-Ute]

Re-alignment had little to do with success, it was mostly about money. Utah was the best option because they brought the largest media market without the baggage that BYU brings to the table. The success is nice and something that the Pac-12 can say played a factor, but it was a money move. It doesn't prove who was the most successful non-BCS program.

For once I can appreciate BYU's quirkiness.

Thanks guys!

[Applejack]

It is impossible to come to a definitive conclusion on who would do what year to year. Personally, and I will likely get barbecued for this, but I thought we were the second best team in the MWC in 2008. We made the plays when we had to to beat TCU, and I still get chills watching highlights. I just think that if 2008 Utah and 2008 TCU played 15 times, 5 at each home location and 5 on a neutral field, I think TCU wins 9 or 10.

That said, IMO, we had the resume and deserved a shot to somehow play for it all. But so did others. I tell you what though; I enjoyed the heck out of that season no matter what the pollsters said and I appreciate it even more now.

Finally, I find it silly to say that Utahs current struggles somehow invalidate that season or prove that the BCS was right all along. In two years if we go 10-2 and win the Pac-12, will that somehow retroactively prove that the 2008 should have won the title? Our 2008 resume speaks for itself.

Maybe. TCU had a great team that year. But I think if the games are played at the end of the season, we win more than we lose.

I always thought that 2008 was an amazing defensive team (7 of our 11 starters played in the NFL: Shelby, Kruger, S. Smith, Koa Misi, McCain, Sylvester, Robert Johnson--I think RoJo is the only one who is no longer in the NFL). That defense kept us in every game early on (remember Michigan? ugh). Our offense was typical Whit/McBride: very bland, could not finish a game. So, we were just muscling through games.

But something happened at the end of the TCU game--namely, Brian Johnson became a QB genius. If you watch highlights of the 2008 games you'll see that the first 8 or so are all defense - we score 13 on New Mexico, we need lots of points late to beat Oregon State, we dominate Michigan but can't punch it in, etc, etc. Then, the last drive of the TCU game, the SDSU game (they sucked), the BYU game, and Alabama we see an amazing QB who never makes mistakes and always makes the right read. I mean, we put up 31 points on Alabama! No one (other than Florida) did that. Alabama crushed people with their defense.

To me, 2008 is a once-in-a-generation defense combined with a once-in-a-generation QB (for 3.5 games). That's why I think we could have beaten anybody at season's end.

[LA Ute]

Maybe. TCU had a great team that year. But I think if the games are played at the end of the season, we win more than we lose.

I always thought that 2008 was an amazing defensive team (7 of our 11 starters played in the NFL: Shelby, Kruger, S. Smith, Koa Misi, McCain, Sylvester, Robert Johnson--I think RoJo is the only one who is no longer in the NFL). That defense kept us in every game early on (remember Michigan? ugh). Our offense was typical Whit/McBride: very bland, could not finish a game. So, we were just muscling through games.

But something happened at the end of the TCU game--namely, Brian Johnson became a QB genius. If you watch highlights of the 2008 games you'll see that the first 8 or so are all defense - we score 13 on New Mexico, we need lots of points late to beat Oregon State, we dominate Michigan but can't punch it in, etc, etc. Then, the last drive of the TCU game, the SDSU game (they sucked), the BYU game, and Alabama we see an amazing QB who never makes mistakes and always makes the right read. I mean, we put up 31 points on Alabama! No one (other than Florida) did that. Alabama crushed people with their defense.

To me, 2008 is a once-in-a-generation defense combined with a once-in-a-generation QB (for 3.5 games). That's why I think we could have beaten anybody at season's end.

People tend to forget how much criticism BJ got until the last past part of that season (including his sophomore and junior years). Then he suddenly became an assassin. In the Bama game he was downright eerie. In a great way, of course.

[Mormon Red Death]

People tend to forget how much criticism BJ got until the last past part of that season (including his sophomore and junior years). Then he suddenly became an assassin. In the Bama game he was downright eerie. In a great way, of course.

He v played liked shit in the new Mexico game. He also ran like a ninny most of the v year but when it really mattered he came through.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

[Applejack]

People tend to forget how much criticism BJ got until the last past part of that season (including his sophomore and junior years). Then he suddenly became an assassin. In the Bama game he was downright eerie. In a great way, of course.

I'll own up to being a BJohnson critic (no surprise, right?). I always thought he was overrated as a runner and lacked a great arm (both of which were true). But the last four games of his senior year, we figured out that he was a pretty good play-caller.

This thread has pumped me up, so I just rewatched the whole TCU-Utah game! It's on youtube. Thanks Pac-12 network!

[LA Ute]

He v played liked shit in the new Mexico game. He also ran like a ninny most of the v year but when it really mattered he came through.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

His tendency to have happy feet used to drive me nuts.

[Utah]

I love the 2008 team. That defense was incredible. BUT, their schedule ruins it for me. Yeah, we three ranked teams. BUT, only BYU and TCU were ranked when we played them. OSU did end up ranked, which is good. The schedule was still weak. Look at it. There wasn't two weeks in a row when we faced BCS level teams. Not once. The schedule is actually pathetic, looking back. I can see why P5 teams get angry. We didn't accomplish anything that year. We beat a crappy Michigan team, and a solid OSU team. That's it.

No non-P5 team has done enough to deserve a shot at the playoff. Not the 2008 team, not the 2004 team. They may have been good enough to win it all, but odds are, they weren't deep enough to go undefeated through a P5 conference. Our schedule was pathetic that year. There isn't any way you can argue that.

Look at Alabama. They beat #9 Clemson, #3 Georgia, #15 LSU. We beat BYU and TCU. They played 10 BCS teams. We played two. We didn't "earn" a spot in the Sugar Bowl like Alabama did. It's just not comparable.

I'm glad we were in. I'm glad we took it to Alabama. But, my perspective is different. If BYU/Boise/USU go undefeated, do they deserve a spot in the playoff over a 10-2 Oregon, who played 8-9 RANKED teams? Hell no.

It sucks, it isn't fair, but it is what it is. It's not fair to have USU run through a shit schedule and reap the reward, when Oregon did the work to make the playoff possible.

[Applejack]

I love the 2008 team. That defense was incredible. BUT, their schedule ruins it for me. Yeah, we three ranked teams. BUT, only BYU and TCU were ranked when we played them. OSU did end up ranked, which is good. The schedule was still weak. Look at it. There wasn't two weeks in a row when we faced BCS level teams. Not once. The schedule is actually pathetic, looking back. I can see why P5 teams get angry. We didn't accomplish anything that year. We beat a crappy Michigan team, and a solid OSU team. That's it.

No non-P5 team has done enough to deserve a shot at the playoff. Not the 2008 team, not the 2004 team. They may have been good enough to win it all, but odds are, they weren't deep enough to go undefeated through a P5 conference. Our schedule was pathetic that year. There isn't any way you can argue that.

Look at Alabama. They beat #9 Clemson, #3 Georgia, #15 LSU. We beat BYU and TCU. They played 10 BCS teams. We played two. We didn't "earn" a spot in the Sugar Bowl like Alabama did. It's just not comparable.

I'm glad we were in. I'm glad we took it to Alabama. But, my perspective is different. If BYU/Boise/USU go undefeated, do they deserve a spot in the playoff over a 10-2 Oregon, who played 8-9 RANKED teams? Hell no.

It sucks, it isn't fair, but it is what it is. It's not fair to have USU run through a shit schedule and reap the reward, when Oregon did the work to make the playoff possible.

Woah. This is crazy talk.

1. Why would it be better to beat someone who is ranked when we play them rather than at end of the season? That is a Cougartale. Alabama beat #9 Clemson the first game of the season. Way to go! Never mind that Clemson finished 4-4 in the ACC (that loss to Wake stings), they were ranked on the first day of the season. Crowing about the ranking of a team on the day you play them is a classic BYU move.

2. Punishing non-BCS teams for not playing BCS teams is the most circular argument in the circular logic of college football rankings. Utah 2008 didn't earn a spot because they didn't play BCS teams, never mind that two of the non-BCS teams that they beat were higher quality wins than nearly any BCS team had.

3. No one is arguing that Alabama shouldn't have been in a BCS bowl. Alabama was ranked #1 for a big chunk of the season until they lost the SEC championship game. (Did I mention they were then destroyed by Utah?). Are you arguing that some 10-3 team should have played in a BCS bowl instead of Utah? If so, I have bad news for you:

Oregon is the most likely "snub" from 2008. Oregon's best prebowl win was Oregon State, a team that Utah also beat. Oregon shamefully lost to a non-BCS team (Boise at home), went to 2OT against a 4-8 Purdue team and lost to USC (a true championship-type team) by 34 points. If your argument is that Oregon (with three losses and a best win comparable to Utah's third best) is more deserving than Utah in 2008 because it played Washington (0-12), Washington St (1-11), UCLA (4-8), and ASU (5-7, lost to UNLV) rather than CSU, New Mexico, Wyoming, and SDSU, I don't know what to tell you.

[LA Ute]

Interesting interview with Dan Wolken about the Big 12 expanding. I don't think the SLC sports talk guys got the answers they wanted about BYU and the Big 12.

http://kfanav.s3.amazonaws.com/20160114_011416_Dan-Wolken-WEB.mp3

[kccougar]

Interesting interview with Dan Wolken about the Big 12 expanding. I don't think the SLC sports talk guys got the answers they wanted about BYU and the Big 12.

http://kfanav.s3.amazonaws.com/20160114_011416_Dan-Wolken-WEB.mp3


That was a highly entertaining interview. I subscribe to his opinion about BYU as much as to his idea that the floundering Pac12 Network could be sold off to some nameless cable provider for $1B !

[LA Ute]

That was a highly entertaining interview. I subscribe to his opinion about BYU as much as to his idea that the floundering Pac12 Network could be sold off to some nameless cable provider for $1B !

Right!! It's worth at least $2 billion.

[U-Ute]

I didn't listen to the interview, but are you saying you believe BYU to the Big12 is imminent?

A short paraphrasing/summary. It is worth the listen. It is highly entertaining.



PK: "So, what do you tell BYU fans about expansion? They just need to wait it out until -"

Dan Wolken [interrupting PK's question]: "Nobody wants BYU. If they were wanted, they'd already be in."


It gets better from there. My guess is Wolken has had it with BYU fans online.

[Solon]

A short paraphrasing/summary. It is worth the listen. It is highly entertaining.



It gets better from there. My guess is Wolken has had it with BYU fans online.

This was probably the argument that the Big-12 took to the meeting this week:

Big 12: "We can't expand. Look what we have to choose from! The Assistant AD at San Diego State told us that BYU is difficult to deal with!"
All other Conferences: "Solid points. Vote for a CCG with 10 teams!"

(I tease, I tease.)

[Mormon Red Death]

This was probably the argument that the Big-12 took to the meeting this week:

Big 12: "We can't expand. Look what we have to choose from! The Assistant AD at San Diego State told us that BYU is difficult to deal with!"
All other Conferences: "Solid points. Vote for a CCG with 10 teams!"

(I tease, I tease.)
http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/blogsbyusports/52865439-65/byu-conference-diego-san.html.csp

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

[Solon]

http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/blogsbyusports/52865439-65/byu-conference-diego-san.html.csp

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Oops. She was/is the Associate Athletic Director, not the Assistant Athletic Director.
I guess she's tenured or something.

[Ma'ake]

I heard most of the Wolken interview - he basically said, "I've got to be honest (regarding BYU's chances to the Big-12), even though I know I'm setting myself up for serious amounts of online abuse".

The other notable part of the interview is how cable-cutting is altering the sports world, and how the Big-10 contact coming up will be the precedent. Known information, but it's the TV contract angle that is the problem for BYU, though pretty much nobody in Cougardom acknowledges it.

Cougar fans learned the Big-12 TV contract is not a set revenue amount that everyone's splitting, ie, if the Big-12 expands, the per-school revenue stays more or less the same. The new teams would not dilute the money for everyone else.

"Smoke!"

But the Sunday play aspect of the TV contract has been completely ignored. In the age of cable cutting, does anyone think the Big-12 would crack open the existing contract to renegotiate for one school to be exempt from the (admittedly small) chance the TV partners would want a Sunday matchup?

BYU might be hungry enough to agree to no Big-12 TV revenues until the contract expires in 2025, or maybe a half share, or some lesser amount, but even then, the Big-12 would be taking aboard a school that would weaken their negotiating position for the next contract.

The fascinating part is the reaction to the Big-12 championship game exception, from "thought leaders" in the BYU ecosystem like Dick Harmon and Wrubell: "The Big-12's exemption hurts BYU's chances to get invited, near term, but the door is not closed!"

Utah going to the PAC-12 is the biggest reason the Utah-BYU rivalry has gotten nastier - eg, the demise of CUF - but the shameless peddling of "hope" as a narcotic has made things worse for BYU fans, it seems to me. Guys getting in and out of the koolaid line over & over again is eery to watch.

Here's a PhD thesis there for the taking: "Group identification and the impact on the individual - examining the 'Holy War' rivalry between Utah and BYU"

Very interesting parallels to "Trumpism", in my judgement, and I don't mean that in a negative way. Trump's ability to defy gravity is explained by widespread cognitive dissonance among his base, based on underlying emotion and group identity.

[U-Ute]

This article by Faux Pelini is awesome.

The NCAA's satellite camps controversy, explained as simply as it possibly can be (http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2016/4/21/11478272/ncaa-satellite-camps-recruiting-jim-harbaugh)


The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is dedicated to the well-being and lifelong success of college athletes. We know this because someone typed it on the NCAA's web page and something similar is posted on Wikipedia.

Another thing the NCAA is dedicated to is generating large piles of money from things like the college basketball tournament and the College Football Playoff. The TV contract for the NCAA basketball tournament was renewed just last week for $8.8 billion, which the NCAA will pass along to student-athletes in the form of free hotel WiFi.

A must read.

[U-Ute]

NCAA overturns itself on the satellite camps.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/15420705/ncaa-overturns-ban-satellite-camps-wants-recruiting-review

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

This is pretty interesting. Fresno State will be considered a Power 5 school by the Big 10. A certain program we're pretty familiar with is currently going through an identity recalibration.

http://www.mwcconnection.com/2016/10/23/13364748/fresno-state-considered-power-five-program-by-big-ten


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk