Quantcast
Sports

Underneath the logo: BYU contract with Nike delivers recruits in addition to apparel

Comments

Return To Article
  • truecoug1 Provo, UT
    April 5, 2013 3:30 p.m.

    @Naval Vet "You know you lost. But go ahead and drink your Dr. Pepper."

    It's clear that this isn't going to end. U have to get the last word in, even though your arguments have been shredded to pieces, and I won't back down from my position.

    So let me make it simple. You claimed earlier that it was hypocritical of me to ask U to provide articles and evidence that corroborated your statements without me having to do so. I have since that time referenced two new ESPN articles that supported my position.

    U have yet to provide anything new (which I find extremely hypocritical). So if U make another post WITHOUT providing a reference to an article that explicitly states Utah and Colorado were the original, bona-fide expansion targets of the PAC, or that Utah was in the PAC whether Texas accepted or not, I will accept that as U conceding defeat and that U were wrong.

    If U do not comment, I will accept that as proof that U lost.

    Good luck.

    Game. Set. Match.

    Go Cougars!

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    April 5, 2013 1:37 p.m.

    You know you lost. But go ahead and drink your Dr. Pepper.

  • truecoug1 Provo, UT
    April 5, 2013 12:55 p.m.

    @NavalVet

    And the best part of this all is that U haven't been able to respond to any of my arguments or points, because U KNOW I'M RIGHT.

    The ESPN articles DO detail what happened. The PAC 10 wanted to take 6 teams from the Big XII. They only got Colorado and had to turn to Plan B, Utah. There is NOTHING in ANY of the ESPN articles to suggest that Utah was in whether Texas accepted or not. Rather, they make it very plan that the PAC only turned to Utah AFTER the Big XII teams fell through.

    And boom goes the dynamite!

    U have got nothing. Everything U have tried to show as 'fact' was simply speculation, twisted by U to make it appear true (conveniently leaving out the Texas A&M condition, backtracking to Utah being preferred over OSU, then backtracking to "Well, CU and Utah are IN the PAC 12" which has nothing to do with the original argument).

    Lol, this has been thoroughly entertaining!

    I'm going to go enjoy a nice victory Dr. Pepper 10.

    Woohoo! Great day to be a Cougar, as always!

  • truecoug1 Provo, UT
    April 5, 2013 12:50 p.m.

    @Naval Vet "You call my articles "pure speculation", but those same articles had born out what actually happened. Utah and CU DID join the Pac-10."

    Yes, they did. And if the argument in question was whether Utah and Colorado joined the PAC 10 or not, then U would obviously win that argument (but lose your other ones, since U would be changing the original point).

    But it wasn't. And U know it, which is why U keep dodging it, or pretending that your original arguments never happened.

    I have already shown U how U lost. Colorado and Utah DID join the PAC 10...however, Utah only was approached and joined AFTER the Big XII deal fell through (showing that Utah was not the original candidate for expansion, which was pure speculation).

    U then said Utah was in whether Texas accepted or not. I showed U, from the very article U used to support your claim, that that wasn't true, it was based on Texas and Texas A&M (and, again, was pure speculation).

    All fabrication. All spin. Nothing else to back it up but more spin and denial.

    U lost, Naval. Accept it, and move on.

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    April 5, 2013 12:25 p.m.

    truecoug1:

    "U have asked me to provide proof that shows Utah was not an original candidate for expansion....I have done that (see all of the ESPN articles)."

    And I have shown you articles from ESPN, CBSSports, and Orangebloods. You call my articles "pure speculation", but those same articles had born out what actually happened. Utah and CU DID join the Pac-10. Those other Big 12 schools did NOT. That add more credibility to MY articles than yours. And speaking of yours, how can you suggest that my articles were "pure speculation" while yours were NOT? You can't. In fact, the only reason why my articles can be refuted as "pure speculation" is because my version of events had played out. Yours was....pure speculation.

    What is not pure speculation is that while I had pointed out your faulty logic, strawman arguments, changed arguments, and quoting me out of context, you respond with more of the same faulty logic, strawmen, changed arguments and quoting me out of context. You essentially admitted you were wrong when you resorted to circling back and arguing points already refuted. Your defeat is accepted.

  • truecoug1 Provo, UT
    April 5, 2013 11:21 a.m.

    @Naval Vet

    I know that U will never acknowledge defeat. But I don't need U to.

    The mere fact that U have yet to show any corroborating articles or statements (after the ones that U were using blew up in your face), and the fact that I HAVE provided more evidence to show that your arguments were baseless and false, is more than enough to show me that U have conceded defeat. U have been trying to save face by throwing out statements like "Utah was preferred to OSU" and "There would be two spots open for Utah to fill", when there is no factual basis for them, and actually evidence to the contrary.

    So I accept your defeat. I know it must be hard for U, since U want so badly for Utah to appear relevant, to make them out as something they aren't. But I'm sorry. U were Plan B for the PAC, as ESPN stated.

    Utah is as relevant in football as Colorado, WSU, Indiana, Kentucky, Kansas, etc. The only big difference is none of those other programs is currently running their football program out of a trailer park.

    Go Cougars!

  • truecoug1 Provo, UT
    April 5, 2013 11:08 a.m.

    @NavalVet

    U have asked me to provide proof that shows Utah was not an original candidate for expansion.

    I have done that (see all of the ESPN articles).

    The only thing U are going off of is a Graham Watson article where she says "But those who followed Colorado’s journey to the Pac-10 know that that deal had been in the works since October, which makes this quote from Utah spokesperson Liz Abel regarding Pac-10 expansion interesting:

    "Right now for us, it's the same as it was eight months ago," she said."

    Again, Watson's piece is pure speculation (and it's also interesting to note that Watson was fired from ESPN one month after she wrote that article...) and there is nothing to show that the PAC 10 intended to originally expand to Colorado and Utah as the 11th and 12th members. In fact, we have as a fact that the original two invitations were to Colorado and Texas.

    So U lost that argument.

  • truecoug1 Provo, UT
    April 5, 2013 11:04 a.m.

    @NavalVet

    Original Argument #2: "Utah was in the PAC 10 whether Texas accepted their invite or not." Again, that is not true. Your only support for that argument comes from the Chip Brown article that we have talked about. In that article, Brown specifically states that Utah was only in IF Texas A&M backed out. It was conditional, and NOBODY knew what A&M was going to do. A&M said they were on board from the get-go. They were then on board with with keeping the Big XII intact. They didn't move to the SEC until September of 2011, 1 year after the original expansion.

    So again, U have nothing to show that there was any guarantee that Utah would be in the PAC whether Texas accepted the invite or not, even though I have given U ample opportunity to present articles or quotes that support your position.

    U haven't, because there aren't any.

    Game. Set. Match.

  • truecoug1 Provo, UT
    April 5, 2013 11:00 a.m.

    @NavalVet "My points have been very well supported..."

    No they haven't. I already spelled this out for U, but I'll do it again, because this is EXTREMELY entertaining for me:

    Original Argument #1: "Colorado and Utah were the original candidates for expansion." As I have already shown, they were not. The bona fide, original candidates for expansion, were Colorado and Texas, since they were the first ones to receive invitations from the PAC 10 (ESPN, "Texas move helps Big XII survive"). Also, there's this gem from ESPN "Scott: Deal with Big XII wasn't assumed": "The Pac-10 did land one Big 12 school in Colorado. The next part of Plan B fell into place hours after Scott spoke to the AP, when the Pac-10 announced it had invited Utah to become its 12th member."

    Again, U were not the original candidate for expansion. The Big XII schools were, as I have already shown, and has been well documented by the articles I have referenced in ESPN.

  • truecoug1 Provo, UT
    April 5, 2013 9:42 a.m.

    @NavalVet "(2) Had I argued the the Pac-10 also preferred KU to OSU, that would have been a strawman since the point I was addressing wasn't that OSU > KU."

    Nope, U were arguing that Utah was preferred over OSU, which I have already shown was not the case, and something that U completely made up.

    Again, show me in an article, ANY article, where it says that Utah was preferred over OSU in the original expansion. U can't, because it doesn't exist, which is why U have yet to reference any other article than the ones U already have.

    And the best part is your main article, the Chip Brown article, directly refutes that point, when he says that the PAC "preferred Kansas over OSU."

  • truecoug1 Provo, UT
    April 5, 2013 9:39 a.m.

    @NavalVet "Now you're just circling back and arguing points already refuted."

    Exactly, I'm arguing your original arguments that I have already refuted. Thank you for finally conceding defeat!

    "(1) The Pac-10 DID prefer Utah to OSU, so that part was not false."

    No, they didn't. Where does it say that? This is the third time I've asked you to corroborate something U said from the articles that U have provided, and U have yet to show me any of them. If the PAC-10 did prefer Utah to OSU, why was OSU among the original teams that Chip Brown and ESPN both cite as the original candidates for expansion? And why does Chip Brown then say, after the PAC started souring on OSU, that the PAC preferred Kansas to OSU? Why doesn't he say that the PAC preferred Utah to OSU? And why was Utah NEVER included in that list of Big XII teams, if they were preferred over OSU?

    And why does ESPN report that only AFTER the Big XII deal fell through, that the PAC then turned to Utah to fill out their conference at 12 members?

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    April 5, 2013 7:01 a.m.

    truecoug1:

    YOU have lost all the arguments. Now you're just circling back and arguing points already refuted. And as for your "@NavalVet 'No, that source did not say that. That source said the Pac-10 preferred Kansas to Oklahoma St.'...Exactly, Which is the point I was trying to make, since that directly contradicts your statement 'Not Oklahoma St. They were getting pushed out of the deal. The Pac-10 preferred Utah to OSU'," comment, that is another frantic and emotional quote taking me out of context. My "Not Oklahoma St." comment was in response to the quoted comment directly above it where you listed OSU as part of the already refuted Pac-10 expansion targets.

    Note:

    (1) The Pac-10 DID prefer Utah to OSU, so that part was not false.
    (2) Had I argued the the Pac-10 also preferred KU to OSU, that would have been a strawman since the point I was addressing wasn't that OSU > KU.

    My points have been very well supported, but yours had not. And here you are expecting MORE proof. You've already lost. You lost days ago.

  • truecoug1 Provo, UT
    April 4, 2013 6:18 p.m.

    @Naval Vet

    So let me make it perfectly clear for U.

    Original Argument #1: "Utah and Colorado were the original candidates for the PAC 10 expansion." That has been refuted. The original candidates for expansion were Colorado and Texas, who both received official offers from the PAC to join their conference. Colorado accepted theirs, and Texas declined. The PAC then turned to Utah to fill out a 12-team conference. This has been well-documented in several ESPN articles I have already mentioned. That is what actually happened. Everything else is speculation and rumor.

    Original Argument #2: "Utah was in whether Texas accepted or not." Again, that has been refuted. According to your "source", they were only in if Texas accepted and IF Texas A&M backed out of going to the PAC 10. There was NO guarantee that Utah was in if Texas accepted or not. Chip Brown details all of this, and even then, his credibility has been called into question with some of his breaking stories since that time (Notre Dame olympic sports headed to Big XII, e.g).

    Those are the facts. U lost. My work here is done.

    Go Cougars!

  • truecoug1 Provo, UT
    April 4, 2013 6:07 p.m.

    @NavalVet "YOU have yet to show any article that supports YOUR claim that Utah & CU were NOT the bonafide, original candidates for the Pac-10's expansion"

    I already have. Review the ESPN articles that I have referred to. ALL of them talk about the PAC 10 turning to Utah AFTER the Big XII expansion.

    Please show an article that specifies that Utah was in discussions with the PAC in October of 2009. Utah never said they were in discussion with the PAC 10 until after the Big XII deal fell apart. Graham Watson quotes a Utah spokesperson saying "We're in the same situation we were in 8 months ago", namely, NOTHING. No invites, no discussions...nothing.

    Like I said before, I'll be waiting with bated breath.

  • truecoug1 Provo, UT
    April 4, 2013 5:56 p.m.

    @NavalVet "If the Pac-10 didn't want Utah, Utah wouldn't have been invited."

    Now who's changing the argument? The original arguments have been that Colorado and Utah were the original candidates for expansion (they weren't, as has been proved) and that Utah was in whether Texas accepted the invite or not (which also wasn't true, as has been proved). I have never argued that the PAC 10 didn't want Utah. I've refuted your arguments and have stated that Utah was the backup plan to the preferred choice for the PAC.

    The fact remains that if the six teams from the Big XII, from some combination of Texas, Texas Tech, OU, OSU, Kansas, CU, and Texas A&M, had gone to the PAC 10, Utah would have been left out. The only way Utah would have gotten in to the PAC was conditional on Texas AM, and nobody knew what the Aggies were going to do.

    Plus, this is all coming from a source who we have already seen has proven unreliable (Notre Dame Olympic Sports to Big XII, BYU, Pitt likely to Big XII).

  • truecoug1 Provo, UT
    April 4, 2013 5:26 p.m.

    @NavalVet

    U have lost the arguments. U have provided no other sources to back up your claims, other than Chip Brown's article (an unreliable source, but one that, ironically, supports what I've been saying all along) and Graham Watson's speculative opinions that Utah and Colorado were the logical choices for expansion from the beginning.

    Please show me any article that refutes all of the articles that I have posted and that explicitly states that Utah was contacted in October of 2009 about joining the PAC 10 and that they were guaranteed to be in the original PAC 10/Big XII expansion even if Texas had accepted.

    I'll be waiting with bated breath.

  • truecoug1 Provo, UT
    April 4, 2013 5:23 p.m.

    @NavalVet "No, that source did not say that. That source said the Pac-10 preferred Kansas to Oklahoma St."

    Exactly, Which is the point I was trying to make, since that directly contradicts your statement "Not Oklahoma St. They were getting pushed out of the deal. The Pac-10 preferred Utah to OSU".

    U have lost all credibility. U have run around in circles, trying to conjure up something that isn't there.

    ""There is little talk about Texas and Texas A&M to the Pac-10, for now," while there was plenty of talk about Utah and CU."

    Isn't it fascinating that, even though there was so much "talk" and speculation about Colorado and Utah, that Utah only received their PAC 10 invitation AFTER Texas and Texas A&M and the BIG XII opted to stay together?

    Curious.

  • truecoug1 Provo, UT
    April 4, 2013 5:08 p.m.

    @NavalVet "I showed that KU was expected to replace OSU...AFTER...A&M already made it clear they weren't going to join the Pac-10."

    Again, where does it say any of that? Here's the actual quote from the article: "Texas was really starting to feel queasy now, sources said. UT officials knew deep down Texas A&M wasn't coming to the Pac-10, despite Bill Byrne's assurances, according to sources. And now Scott and Weiberg were looking to dump Oklahoma State in favor of Kansas. If A&M was a no-show, the Pac-10 would add Utah."

    Again, Texas is assuming that A&M isn't going to the PAC 10, despite Bill Byrne's assurances that they were on board. A&M never made it clear they weren't going to join. Chip Brown is going off of sources, the same sources that told him Notre Dame's olympic sports were coming to the Big XII. NOBODY knew what A&M was going to do at that point, made clear by the statement "IF A&M was a no-show, the PAC-10 would add Utah".

  • truecoug1 Provo, UT
    April 4, 2013 4:58 p.m.

    @NavalVet " The Pac-10 counted on Utah from the get-go."

    I'm sure they did...as a backup plan, if Plan A fell through. All U need to do is check out the ESPN articles. Check out the "PAC-10 invites Utah as 12th member" ESPN article, dated June 17, 2010 at 12:06 AM ET.

    A couple of gems from the article: "Utah is poised to become the 12th member of the Pac-10, as the conference quickly pivoted Wednesday to invite the Utes after being turned down by Texas and four other members of the Big 12 two days ago."

    "There had been speculation on Tuesday that Utah would be the NEXT school to be approached by the Pac-10." (emphasis added)

    "Earlier in the week, Texas, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State recommitted to the Big 12 instead of hopping to the Pac-10. That left the Pac-10 in need of another member to reach the 12 required to hold a football championship game."

    Game. Set. Match.

  • truecoug1 Provo, UT
    April 4, 2013 4:53 p.m.

    @NavalVet "It proves that expansion was planned BEFORE the wholesale raiding of the Big 12 South. It proves that with or without Texas, the Pac-10 expands. And Graham Watson article tipped her hand to Utah's candidacy as tied to CU all along."

    No, it proves that the PAC wanted the Big XII teams, which is why it waited to hand out official invitations to Colorado until the discussions with the Big XII, and that it had a backup plan, which was Colorado and somebody else. The Graham Watson article doesn't say anything about Utah's candidacy. It just shows that Colorado was in discussions with the PAC 10 in 2009, and that Utah was in the same situation they were 8 months, namely, on the backburner and without an invite.

    Like I said, all of these articles are just proving my point. Utah was the backup plan. They weren't getting into the PAC if Texas and the other Big XII teams accepted their invitation. The only way was if A&M backed out, and even that is just speculation from an already unreliable author.

    Game over. U have lost both arguments, and no amount of spinning will change that.

  • truecoug1 Provo, UT
    April 4, 2013 4:43 p.m.

    @NavalVet "If the Aggies did NOT choose to join (which we know to have been the case, there would have been 2 open spots in a Pac-16 scenerio. I'd mentioned that "2 open spots" several times now."

    Where? Where does it say any of that? Chip Brown, who you've been basing all of this off of the whole time, laid out a very clear timeline. In it, he details the original six Big XII teams going to the PAC 10 as CU, Texas, Texas Tech, OU, OSU, and either Baylor or Texas A&M. Attention turned to A&M. He then talks about how the PAC cooled on OSU and wanted Kansas instead.

    So we now have Texas, Texas Tech, OU, Kansas, CU, and Texas A&M. He then talks about how the AD for Texas A&M insisted that they were onboard for the PAC 10 from the get go, but officials from Texas started feeling like they weren't going to come through. If they didn't, then Utah would take their place.

    All conditional, and it once again shows that Utah was a backup. But nowhere does it say there were two slots open.

    That's all U.

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    April 4, 2013 3:54 p.m.

    truecoug1:

    "U have yet to show any article that supports your claim that Utah AND Colorado were the bona fide, original, dyed in the wool candidates for the PAC 10 expansion."

    I HAVE showed you SEVERAL articles. You just chose to invalidate them because you can't admit when you're wrong.

    On the OTHER hand...

    YOU have yet to show any article that supports YOUR claim that Utah & CU were NOT the bonafide, original candidates for the Pac-10's expansion, but were rather the booby prize following a failed attempt at Texas. I find it highly hypocritical that I should be required to provide MORE facts than I already had when YOU have failed to produce ANY in support of your anguished wish.

    Pretend all the fantasy you want, but I had shown more convincingly that Utah was not only NOT the backup plan for the Pac-10's inevitable expansion, but rather in the works before Creative Artists Agency dreamt up the plan to grab all those Big 12 schools.

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    April 4, 2013 3:46 p.m.

    truecoug1:

    "U purposely leave out the statement 'IF Texas A&M was a no show' then Utah was in, which shoots down your original argument in the first place."

    No. I showed that if A&M was a no show, there would be TWO spots open in a Pac-16 arrangement. I showed that KU was expected to replace OSU...AFTER...A&M already made it clear they weren't going to join the Pac-10. I moved that had A&M opted to join, then it would have been Texas, TT, A&M, Okla, CU, and Utah. Without A&M, it would have been Texas, TT, Okla, CU, Utah, plus one other Big 12 team...most likely KU. And THAT argument shoots down your straw argument above.

    "U...try to use OU/OSU being denied membership to the PAC 12 in 2011 as proof that Utah was in, regardless of the Texas' decision in 2010."

    How is that spin? Utah WAS invited in 2010. Oklahoma was NOT invited in 2011. If the Pac-10 wanted Utah, they'd get Utah. And they did. If the Pac-12 wanted Okla, they'd have Okla. But they didn't. That's not spin.

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    April 4, 2013 3:39 p.m.

    trucoug1:

    "How? In what way does that show any of that?"

    If the Pac-10 didn't want Utah, Utah wouldn't have been invited. The BigTen made 11-team league schedules work for nearly 2 decades. The Pac-10 acknowledged that Texas and A&M were longshots, yet that didn't deter them from invited CU. The Pac-10 counted on Utah from the get-go. And for someone whose trying to portray Utah as "backing in" to the Pac-12, while not also accusing Oklahoma, Tx. Tech, or Kansas of the same, it seems rather selective to me. The fact is, as I had already stated, no Texas...

    ...no Tx. Tech.

    ...no Oklahoma.

    ...no Kansas.

    But the same cannot be said for Utah. Game. Set. Match.

    "What [CU's talks with the Pac-10 back in 2009] have to do with Utah?"

    It proves that expansion was planned BEFORE the wholesale raiding of the Big 12 South. It proves that with or without Texas, the Pac-10 expands. And Graham Watson article tipped her hand to Utah's candidacy as tied to CU all along.

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    April 4, 2013 3:33 p.m.

    truecoug1:

    "And again, they weren't CONSIDERED, they were RUMORED"

    So you're suggesting that everybody BUT the Pac-10 considered Utah for the Pac-10. Nope. The Pac-10 had their eye on Utah all along.

    "...the kicker is from that Dennis Dodds article that U referenced, where a PAC 10 AD explained why Utah and CU WEREN'T a good idea for expansion."

    Nope. That one Pac-10 AD only stated that Utah and CU wouldn't get enough eyeballs in reference to a television audience. S/he didn't say we weren't a good idea. It only suggested Texas and A&M were the obvious homerun, but again, nobody is arguing that the Pac-10 would have preferred Utah and/or CU to Texas and/or A&M. The kicker was that this article stated plainly:

    "There is little talk about Texas and Texas A&M to the Pac-10, for now," while there was plenty of talk about Utah and CU.

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    April 4, 2013 3:26 p.m.

    truecoug1:

    "Then why did U make this false statement earlier? 'Not Oklahoma St. They were getting pushed out of the deal. The Pac-10 preferred Utah to OSU.' April 4, 10:35 AM."

    That post was a "what if" scenerio should A&M have opted to accept the Pac-10's invitation. Of course they didn't opt-in. They opted out. And that was BEFORE Kansas was being looked to replace OSU. That 10:35 am post indicated Utah got the #6 IF the Aggies JOINED! If the Aggies did NOT choose to join (which we know to have been the case, there would have been 2 open spots in a Pac-16 scenerio. I'd mentioned that "2 open spots" several times now.

    "According to your one source, the PAC-10 preferred Kansas to Utah."

    No, that source did not say that. That source said the Pac-10 preferred Kansas to Oklahoma St.

  • truecoug1 Provo, UT
    April 4, 2013 1:41 p.m.

    @NavalVet

    U have yet to show any article that supports your claim that Utah AND Colorado were the bona fide, original, dyed in the wool candidates for the PAC 10 expansion. Oh sure, you've shown us articles on people's OPINIONS, or that they were rumored to be the leading candidates. I've shown U articles of other people's OPINIONS on who should be in the PAC.

    And the best part is that every article U have shown us has promptly blown up in your face. The PAC 10 AD explaining why CU and Utah wouldn't be good fits. Graham Watson explaining that AFTER the Big XII deal fell through that the PAC would have to look another direction for expansion, and that Utah made the most "logical choice".

    All U have to do is follow the ESPN timeline of events (or Chip Brown). It's pretty simple. The first two official invitations were to CU and Texas. Take away all of the other speculation (or leave it) and that fact remains, which means that Utah was NOT one of the original candidates for expansion.

    Believe your fantasy all U want, but U were a backup plan.

    Go Cougars!

  • truecoug1 Provo, UT
    April 4, 2013 1:40 p.m.

    @NavalVet

    Let me recap all of your spin. U claim that Utah was into the PAC XII regardless of Texas' decision. This is ALL based on a Chip Brown article. U purposely leave out the statement "IF Texas A&M was a no show" then Utah was in, which shoots down your original argument in the first place.

    Spin number one.

    When confronted with that statement, U immediately go about-face and make this statement "Not Oklahoma St. They were getting pushed out of the deal. The Pac-10 preferred Utah to OSU", and then moments later, when I point out that the PAC 10 actually preferred Kansas to OSU, not Utah to OSU, U make this statement "The Pac-12's short flirtation with Kansas replacing OSU had no impact on Utah."

    So why did U say the PAC preferred Utah over OSU?

    Spin number two.

    U then try to use OU/OSU being denied membership to the PAC 12 in 2011 as proof that Utah was in, regardless of the Texas' decision in 2010.

    Spin number 3.

    As I mentioned before, it's really entertaining. Please, keep it going.

    Go Cougars!

  • truecoug1 Provo, UT
    April 4, 2013 1:32 p.m.

    @NavalVet "It does have some bearing. It showed that...

    (1) If Utah could get in the Pac-12, but Oklahoma & OSU could not...
    (2) and if Utah had been considered as a potential expansion target PRIOR TO the consideration of those other Big 12 schools not-named Texas...

    ...that Utah did NOT back in, but were part of the expansion process all along."

    How? In what way does that show any of that? The ONLY thing that it shows me is that the PAC didn't want OU and OSU at that time and that Texas and Texas A&M were the preferred targets all along, that there was a package deal in 2010 that would have included Oklahom and OSU (or OU and KU) and that when that deal fell through, it opened the door for Utah to get in.

    It then tells me that the PAC was content at 12 teams in 2011.

    "CU was reported to have been in discussions all the way back to 2009."

    What does that have to do with Utah? Answer: nothing. You're grasping at straws now.

  • truecoug1 Provo, UT
    April 4, 2013 1:24 p.m.

    @NavalVet "he Pac-12's short flirtation with Kansas replacing OSU had no impact on Utah."

    Then why did U make this false statement earlier? "Not Oklahoma St. They were getting pushed out of the deal. The Pac-10 preferred Utah to OSU." April 4, 10:35 AM.

    According to your one source, the PAC-10 preferred Kansas to Utah. You're backing up and changing arguments faster than a desperate defense attorney.

    "Again, I already showed you where it was reported that Utah (and CU) were considered before the Pac-10 turned their focus on the Big 12 South."

    And again, they weren't CONSIDERED, they were RUMORED. Graham Watson said they were the logical choice on June 15 AFTER CU had accepted their invite and AFTER Texas had rejected. Well, that's her opinion. Ray Rotta of the San Francisco Chronicle thought Utah and BYU should be considered. I've already pointed to other people who thought Utah and Utah St. might be the ones. All speculation.

    But the kicker is from that Dennis Dodds article that U referenced, where a PAC 10 AD explained why Utah and CU WEREN'T a good idea for expansion.

    Game. Set. Match.

  • truecoug1 Provo, UT
    April 4, 2013 1:21 p.m.

    @NavalVet

    Your spin is so unbelievable, it's mind-boggling.

    I haven't changed any argument. Your initial argument was that Utah was in to the PAC 12 whether Texas accepted or not. U conveniently left out the caveat that that was only true (according to Chip Brown) if A&M declined to join the other Big XII teams and opted out of going to the PAC XII.

    U then make this statement: "By the time Scott was looking to trade OSU for KU, A&M had already made it clear they weren't going to the Pac-10." That's not true. Texas THOUGHT they weren't going to the Big XII, but A&M's AD had reassured everyone that the Aggies were still on board. So again, that's speculative at best.

    NOBODY knew what the Aggies were going to do at the time. Don't let hindsight bias cloud your judgement.

    So again, your initial argument that Utah was in the PAC 12 regardless of Texas' decision was wrong. There is NOTHING to show that that's the case. The ONLY spot they could have taken was the Aggies' and nobody knew what they were going to do.

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    April 4, 2013 12:51 p.m.

    truecoug1:

    "Whatever the PAC did at that point has no bearing on the original expansion and the argument in question."

    It does have some bearing. It showed that...

    (1) If Utah could get in the Pac-12, but Oklahoma & OSU could not...
    (2) and if Utah had been considered as a potential expansion target PRIOR TO the consideration of those other Big 12 schools not-named Texas...

    ...that Utah did NOT back in, but were part of the expansion process all along.

    CU was reported to have been in discussions all the way back to 2009, so the Pac-10 was planning to expand. With or without Texas (and/or A&M). There's nothing to salvage. U lost. Game over.

    "...this is the same Chip Brown who thought BYU and Pitt were the best candidates for the BIG XII"

    And they WERE candidates. As were Louisville, Cincy, BSU, and AFA. Just because they didn't get "invited", doesn't mean they weren't "considered candidates".

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    April 4, 2013 12:49 p.m.

    truecoug1:

    "There is NOTHING definitive to show that the PAC 10 intended to take Colorado and Utah as their original candidates of expansion. You're basing your argument off of pure speculation."

    Again, I already showed you where it was reported that Utah (and CU) were considered before the Pac-10 turned their focus on the Big 12 South. So there is CLEARLY more evidence to support my argument than yours. It's laughable that you would consider my argument as "pure speculation", yet declare Utah as the Pac-10's back up plan as fact.

    "U can ignore those facts all U want, but it still remains that the PAC wanted Texas and Texas A&M...Game. Set. Match."

    You can try to change your argument all you want, but it still remains that...

    (1) No Ute fan ever claimed Utah was preferred over Texas and/or A&M.
    (2) You were proven wrong in that Utah (and CU) wasn't the Pac-10's original expansion target.

    Game. Set. Match.

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    April 4, 2013 12:43 p.m.

    truecoug1:

    "There was no guarantee that Utah was in the PAC 12 if Texas accepted the invite."

    Yes there was. From the very beginning, "A&M to the Pac-10" was a longshot. Not because they might not get accepted, but because everybody knew the Aggies were set with either staying in the Big 12 or going to the SEC. It looks like might be trying to change your argument from there being no guarantee that Utah gets the Pac-10's last invite if Texas accepts the invitation to there being no guarantee that Utah gets the Pac-10's last invit if Texas A&M accepts the invitation.

    But even then you'd be wrong. The Pac-12's short flirtation with Kansas replacing OSU had no impact on Utah. By the time Scott was looking to trade OSU for KU, A&M had already made it clear they weren't going to the Pac-10. So there's no evidence to suggest that had A&M wanted to defect with the rest of the Big 12 South's schools that it would have been Texas, TT, A&M, Okla, CU, and Kansas.

  • truecoug1 Provo, UT
    April 4, 2013 11:34 a.m.

    @NavalVet

    And finally, your whole argument is based on one line from a Chip Brown article. Even putting aside the fact that the statement was conditional and just proves once again that the Utes were a backup plan if A&M failed to join the PAC, this is the same Chip Brown who thought BYU and Pitt were the best candidates for the BIG XII and who told everybody that Notre Dame was moving its olympic sports to the Big 12. So his statements are speculative at best.

    Great source. LOL!

    U have anything else? Because this is just pure entertainment.

    U are in the PAC 12. Be happy. U are as relevant as WSU, or Kansas, or Indiana, or Colorado, or Duke (except, not even Duke, since they actually made it to a bowl game this last year). Be happy with that, too. It's what U signed up for.

    Go Cougars!

  • truecoug1 Provo, UT
    April 4, 2013 11:16 a.m.

    @NavalVet "Okla. and OSU reapplied for admission the Pac-12 and were denied. Why...if Utah was admitted?"

    As U are well aware, that was a year after the original expansion. As I've shown ad nauseum, Texas and Texas A&M were the preferred choices of expansion for the PAC 10. When Colorado accepted the invite, and Texas declined their official invitation, the PAC was left with 11 teams and needed to get to 12. So they turned to Utah. Oklahoma and Oklahoma St were never the prize, so when they reapplied for admission a year later, they were subsequently denied by the PAC. If Texas had come calling as well, I'm sure the PAC would have made some concessions.

    However, the point is moot, since Utah was in the PAC 12 already, having backed into it as I have previously shown. Whatever the PAC did at that point has no bearing on the original expansion and the argument in question. You've been trying to deflect, twist words, and leave out quotes this whole time to try to salvage your argument.

    There's nothing to salvage. U lost.

    Game over.

    Go Cougars!

  • truecoug1 Provo, UT
    April 4, 2013 11:11 a.m.

    @NavalVet "Again, that was NOT your point. Your point was, "There's NOTHING to support your argument that Colorado and Utah were the original candidates for expansion"."

    And like I've pointed out time and again, there ISN'T. Look at my posts from April 2, 2013 5:36 and 5:47 PM, as well as my post April 3rd, 2013, 12:27 PM. There are rumors that the PAC 10 was looking to expand and Colorado and Utah were possible options, along with Utah and BYU, and Utah and Utah St (among other teams).

    There is NOTHING definitive to show that the PAC 10 intended to take Colorado and Utah as their original candidates of expansion. You're basing your argument off of pure speculation. Then according to U, BYU and Utah St should also be considered as original expansion candidates for the PAC.

    U can ignore those facts all U want, but it still remains that the PAC wanted Texas and Texas A&M. When that failed, they had to fill that 12th spot. U backed in.

    Game. Set. Match.

    Go Cougars!

  • truecoug1 Provo, UT
    April 4, 2013 10:59 a.m.

    @NavalVet "Not Oklahoma St."

    Again, that's according to Chip Brown, and then according to him, the PAC was looking at adding Kansas to replace OSU. So even though you're dodging it (as you've been doing this whole time, as well as conveniently taking things out of context and using the information that "supports your argument, which is HILARIOUS), according to your only source that supposedly supported your argument, the Utes were in if Texas accepted their invite and ONLY if Texas A&M backed out. And nobody knew what they were going to do at the time.

    Also, the ESPN article still states the original 6 teams of the Big XII as the PAC's preferred expansion targets. So either way, if U go with Chip Brown or ESPN, U lose. There was no guarantee that Utah was in the PAC 12 if Texas accepted the invite.

    Sorry. U lose. Go ahead and twist info and take things out of context all U want, but the fact remains that U don't have a leg to stand on. Utah was a backup plan. U backed into the PAC.

    Game over.

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    April 4, 2013 10:50 a.m.

    truecoug1:

    "...it once again just proves my point. Utah was never the first choice, nor were they the preferred one."

    Again, that was NOT your point. Your point was, "There's NOTHING to support your argument that Colorado and Utah were the original candidates for expansion". There's a big difference between "original candidate(s)" and "first choice". No Utah fan had ever argued that the Pac-10 preferred Utah over Texas or Texas A&M, and you know that. You know you lost the argument, so now you're trying to change it. But you can't. I'll just keep on cutting and pasting your words. You were wrong.

    "Interesting that Utah enter the picture only AFTER all of the other specified teams are out of it."

    Wrong! While it's true that Utah was officially invited after Texas opted to stay put, I had already proved that Utah (and CU) had entered the Pac-10's picture BEFORE they dreamt up the idea of raiding the Big 12 South. You had not been successful proving the contrary. Utah was no back up plan.

    Okla. and OSU reapplied for admission the Pac-12 and were denied. Why...if Utah was admitted?

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    April 4, 2013 10:35 a.m.

    truecoug1:

    Sorry truecoug1. You LOSE! If A&M had have opted to migrate to the Pac-10 as part of a 16-team league, there would have still been one spot open. Texas + A&M + Tech + Okla + CU = 5 teams. Scott never had designs on a Pac-15. Utah gets the #6 spot.

    "Scott's plan was to add Texas (with Notre Dame the big prize in the conference expansion game) along with its main Big 12 South rivals -- Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M and Texas Tech."

    Not Oklahoma St. They were getting pushed out of the deal. The Pac-10 preferred Utah to OSU. And Notre Dame was approached, but never seriously considered. If they wouldn't join the BigTen, why would they have considered the Pac-10. The BigTen is the only (FBS) conference with more stringent academic requirments than the Pac-10, and they make more geographic sense. Furthermore, they have more BigTen "rivals" than they do with the Pac-10.

  • truecoug1 Provo, UT
    April 3, 2013 8:50 p.m.

    @NavalVet "Now what DOESN'T exist, are any current articles which suggest had Texas accepted the Pac-10's invitation, that Utah would still be in the MWC."

    True, since Texas didn't accept the PAC 10 offer, so it's all a moot point. However, the ESPN article "Texas move helps BIg XII survive" makes it pretty clear: "As for the Pac-10 and Scott, who was trying to pull off a bold move that would have dramatically changed the landscape of college sports, they are left looking for at least one more member to get to 12 by 2012 when Colorado is set to join.

    Scott's next target? Utah from the Mountain West Conference would seem a likely candidate.

    Scott's plan was to add Texas (with Notre Dame the big prize in the conference expansion game) along with its main Big 12 South rivals -- Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M and Texas Tech."

    Interesting that Utah enter the picture only AFTER all of the other specified teams are out of it.

    Backup plan.

    Case closed. Game over. U lose.

    I love BYU as an independent. I love Utah in the PAC 12 (perfect fit, as I mentioned).

    Life's good.

    Go Cougars!

  • truecoug1 Provo, UT
    April 3, 2013 8:44 p.m.

    @NavalVet

    I finally found the Chip Brown article. Great find. Here's the phrase the you left out with the cute ...: "If A&M was a no-show, the Pac-10 would add Utah." The one piece of evidence that supposedly supports your position that Utah was in even if Texas accepted their invitation actually hinges on what Texas A&M was going to do and nobody knew what they were going to do at the time.

    Bill Byrne, A&M's AD, assured everyone they were on-board for the PAC 12. Texas was feeling like the Aggies were leaning towards the SEC. But we have to take all of this with a grain of salt, since this is coming from the guy who thought that Notre Dame's olympic sports were headed to the Big XII, and who thought BYU would get a Big XII invite.

    However, it once again just proves my point. Utah was never the first choice, nor were they the preferred one. They were a backup plan IF Texas A&M backed out (according to Brown) and IF Texas backed out.

    We all know what happened.

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    April 3, 2013 1:40 p.m.

    truecoug1:

    "The whole point of the argument was to show that Utah was a back-up plan to the Texas/Big XII/PAC 10 merger."

    But your point was flawed. That 16-team merger included 4 (CU, Texas, TT, and Okla) - not 6 - Big 12 South schools. That left 2 open spots, and Utah needed only 1.

    Additionally, everybody knew that without Texas, there would be no Tx. Tech. But without Texas, there obviously WAS a Utah.

    Following Oklahoma's renewed interest and application to join the Pac-12 in the fall of 2011, we soon learned that without Texas, there would be no Oklahoma either. But again, Utah didn't need any Longhorn coattails to scoot in the back door to the Pac-10/12/16. TT and Okla were the ones trying to "back in to the PAC". Utah got in through the front.

    And the Y didn't. And THAT's really the REAL issue here. You guys live under the crushing weight of Ute-envy, so you desperately try to downplay your big brother's inclusion. Poor Indy-WACer.

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    April 3, 2013 1:33 p.m.

    truecoug1:

    "...that they were always preferred over every other school..."

    Now you're just putting words in my mouth. That's called a strawman. You don't win an argument that way. It's clear that you now know that you've lost.

    "There is nothing to suggest that Utah was in whether Texas accepted or not, other than some supposed article..."

    What do you mean "supposed article"? I already gave you the names, authors, dates, and publications. If you can't find those articles at the top of your google search engine, it's because you willfully refused to look. You can't win an argument that way either.

    Now what DOESN'T exist, are any current articles which suggest had Texas accepted the Pac-10's invitation, that Utah would still be in the MWC. Again...the Pac-10 was prepared to offer up to 6 invitations. We know that CU, Texas, Tx. Tech, and Oklahoma were 1, 2, 3, and 4 (not necessarily in that order). We know that Utah was 6. We don't know who 5 was, but we do know that A&M declined it.

  • truecoug1 Provo, UT
    April 3, 2013 12:42 p.m.

    @NavalVet "For some reason, the Chip Brown article can't seem to make it past the moderators."

    I'm sure it doesn't (roll my eyes). Naval, I'll say it once again, and then I'm done with this whole thing. I don't care if U have a fantasy that Utah was always beloved by the PAC XII, that they were always preferred over every other school, that they would have been in whether Texas accepted or not.

    I've laid out everything that actually occurred. There is nothing to suggest that Utah was in whether Texas accepted or not, other than some supposed article written by a man who also said that BYU was the next sure thing in the Big XII, an article that I can't find and that U conveniently can't seem to post.

    I've detailed what actually happened, according to ESPN. U backed in to the PAC. But U are in the PAC 12. Be happy about it. U both are perfect for each other, as I've detailed below.

    Go Cougars!

  • truecoug1 Provo, UT
    April 3, 2013 12:27 p.m.

    @NavalVet "No, the Dennis Dodds article was great since it just DISPROVED your point. And your point was: "There's NOTHING to support your argument that Colorado and Utah were the original candidates for expansion"."

    And there isn't. Utah and Colorado were RUMORED to be the leading candidates for expansion. They weren't the only teams to be RUMORED, however, as I have already shown. On top of it, Dennis Dodds interviewed a PAC 10 AD who pointed out the problems with Utah and Colorado and how the PAC's main goal was Texas and Texas A&M.

    Hence, no invitations were issued to either Utah or CU until the Big 12 arrangement, when Colorado was issued an invitation as part of the Big 12 package deal. When it fell through, Utah was invited as the back-up plan.

    The whole point of the argument was to show that Utah was a back-up plan to the Texas/Big XII/PAC 10 merger. And they were. They wouldn't be in if Texas had accepted their official invite and the Big XII deal had gone through.

    And U have yet to disprove that.

    Go Cougars!

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    April 3, 2013 12:13 p.m.

    truecoug1:

    For some reason, the Chip Brown article can't seem to make it past the moderators. I don't know why. Here it is again...

    Google "Chip Brown Orangebloods How the Big 12 came back to life Jun 15, 2010"

    "...what we KNOW is that on June 10, 2010, CU accepted an invite to become the 11th member of the PAC, and then on June 15, Texas shocked a lot of people by declining an invitation to become the 12th member of the PAC. Utah accepted their invitation on June 17, two days after it was clear that the Big XII would stay together as a conference."

    CU was the 1st school offered. Does that mean they were the Pac-10's most desired school? If not, then the last school offered doesn't mean they were the least desired. Utah's acceptance on the 17th was inevitable, whether or not Texas joined. Whether we'd be the 12th team in a Pac-12 format, or the 16th team in a Pac-16, we were in. And THAT's the point. Stop trying to change the argument.

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    April 3, 2013 11:02 a.m.

    truecoug1:

    "The Dennis Dodds article is great, since it just proves my point with this gem: 'Utah and Colorado are the most widely mentioned Pac-10 additions...'"

    No, the Dennis Dodds article was great since it just DISPROVED your point. And your point was: "There's NOTHING to support your argument that Colorado and Utah were the original candidates for expansion".

    You were wrong.

    I'll get back to right after lunch...

  • truecoug1 Provo, UT
    April 3, 2013 10:15 a.m.

    @NavalVet final

    Again, what we KNOW is that on June 10, 2010, CU accepted an invite to become the 11th member of the PAC, and then on June 15, Texas shocked a lot of people by declining an invitation to become the 12th member of the PAC. Utah accepted their invitation on June 17, two days after it was clear that the Big XII would stay together as a conference.

    We also know from that Dennis Dodds article that U referenced (thank you for that, by the way) that Utah and Colorado were not the preferred choice by the PAC, and that Texas A&M (and subsequently Texas) were the real prizes. However, once that all fell through, the PAC had no choice but to turn to Utah to fill out the 12-team conference as it stands today.

    As I've said before, I think it's great that Utah is in the PAC 12. Culturally and academically, they are a great fit (especially after seeing Larry Scott cover for Ed Rush and Chris Hill covering for the swimming coach...it's a match made in heaven!)

    But U were never the preferred, or first, choice. Sorry.

    Go Cougars!

  • truecoug1 Provo, UT
    April 3, 2013 10:12 a.m.

    @NavalVet continued

    I can't find the Chip Brown article that you talked about, but the fact that it was written in March 2010 and that you're very obviously pulling that quote out of context (and from a comment section in a message board? That's obviously legit) shows that it has no value whatsoever, especially since Brown was the one who broke the news in June of the PAC 10 looking to become the PAC 16 with 6 Big XII teams (Colorado, Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, OSU, and Baylor or Texas A&M).

    You've been adamant that OSU, Baylor, and Texas A&M were out of the picture, but everything from ESPN to Orangebloods from the period between June 1, 2010 and June 15, 2010 specifies otherwise, and there is NOTHING during that time period to suggest that Utah would replace either of those teams if the PAC 10 didn't take them.

    Everything that we KNOW I have detailed below. Everything that U have referenced has just been people's speculation and U have yet to prove, or show, any legitimate article that shows that Utah would have been part of the initial PAC 10/Big XII expansion in June 2010.

  • truecoug1 Provo, UT
    April 3, 2013 10:06 a.m.

    @NavalVet

    Not sure what you're trying to prove with those articles. The two Bleacher Report articles are speculation that Utah and Colorado were possible targets for expansion by the PAC 10 (which I had already said they were, along with Utah and BYU, and Utah and Utah St., among other teams). The one by Noah Pinto suggesting possible divisions in a PAC 16 including Utah with Big XII teams is just as speculative as Greg Swaim's article entitled "Weighing in On Big 12 Expansion" in February 2012 detailing possible divisions in the Big XII that included TCU, BYU, and Louisville.

    The Dennis Dodds article is great, since it just proves my point with this gem: "Utah and Colorado are the most widely mentioned Pac-10 additions but there is doubt whether the schools could add enough revenue to make expansion worthwhile. 'The conventional wisdom is Utah and Colorado doesn't get you enough eyeballs,' one Pac-10 AD said referring to a potential television audience. 'The home run is obviously Texas-Texas AM.'

    Obviously, Utah AND Colorado were not the preferred choice, nor were they the first choice.

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    April 3, 2013 7:32 a.m.

    truecoug1:

    "There's NOTHING to support your argument that Colorado and Utah were the original candidates for expansion."

    You read the Graham Watson article. Did you also read the end of the article? It talked about CU's discussions with the Pac-10 back in late 2009, and tipped their hand to Utah's situation as well.

    Here are a few more (with Google search engine requirements):

    (1) "Should Texas Help Form the Pac 16?" by Noah Pinto, Bleacher Report, Mar. 8, 2010...
    Noah projected Utah in the "Mountain Subgroup" (w/ CU, Ariz, and ASU), and Texas in the "Red River Subgroup" (w/ A&M, Okla, and OSU).

    (2) "Rumor: Utah and Colorado To the Pac-10" by Brian Nelson, Bleacher Report, Feb. 8, 2010...
    Note the date: February 2010. Now note the date on (3) below...

    (3) "Pac-10 and Big 12 talk about future partnership", by Dennis Dodds, May 7, 2010, CBS Sports...
    "Utah and Colorado are the most widely mentioned Pac-10 additions...There is little talk about Texas and Texas A&M to the Pac-10, for now."

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    April 3, 2013 7:11 a.m.

    truecoug1:

    "Please provide any actual facts or articles that support your claim that Utah was in the PAC 12 even if Texas had accepted an invite."

    I already did. The Chip Brown Orangebloods article referenced back on Mar. 31st @ 10:05 am (pg 4 of the comment section):

    "...Scott and Weiberg...in the courtship of the Big 12...wanted to substitute Kansas for Oklahoma State late in the process...Scott and Weiberg were looking to dump Oklahoma State in favor of Kansas...the Pac-10 would add Utah."

    "You conveniently neglected to include this gem from the very beginning of that same article: 'With news that the Big 12 will remain intact with 10 members, the Pac-10 will be looking for a 12th member to round out its conference.'"

    That wasn't a convenient omission. That was deductive math. Had Texas, TT, Oklahoma, and [one other Big 12 team] opted to join CU in the Pac-16, Graham Watson would have written "With news that the Big 12 South teams will leave the Big 12, the Pac-10 will be looking for a 16th member to round out its conference..."

  • truecoug1 Provo, UT
    April 2, 2013 5:55 p.m.

    @NavalVet

    U backed into the PAC 12. But U are in. Be happy with your BCS membership. I'm happy for Utah, I think it's great for the state. I'm also extremely happy with BYU's situation as an independent.

    So U have three choices. U can either keep whining and stomping your feet, making baseless comments on how Utah was in the PAC regardless of Texas' decision. U can look for any actual articles to support your argument (perhaps you'll succeed where I've failed, though I doubt it). Or U can accept the fact that, as per usual, U lost this argument and U can run away with your tail between your legs.

    Judging by your last comment on this article (and from past history), I'm going to assume you'll do the latter.

    Go Cougars!

  • truecoug1 Provo, UT
    April 2, 2013 5:47 p.m.

    @NavalVet continued

    Before June 2010, a lot of people speculated about Pac 10 expansion. People thought Colorado and Utah were logical choices (Graham Watson article), but others speculated it could be BYU and Utah (Ray Ratto, San Francisco Chronicle, PAC 10 considers becoming PAC 12"), and some people thought Utah and Utah St. might be a possibility (BruinsNation: "Expanding to PAC 12? No to Utah, Perhaps Intrigued with Colorado".

    So there was a lot of speculation. But the timeline I laid out before is what actually happened. The PAC wanted Texas. In order to get Texas, they would have had to add Texas Tech, Oklahoma, OSU, Colorado, and Texas A&M or Baylor as well. Colorado accepted their invitation to put the PAC at 11 teams. When Texas declined their invitation, the PAC 10 was left with 11 teams and had to find someone to fill that spot. That fell to Utah.

    U were a backup plan. I have not seen any article to suggest that Utah would have replaced ANY of those Big 12 teams if Texas had accepted their PAC 10 invite.

  • truecoug1 Provo, UT
    April 2, 2013 5:36 p.m.

    @NavalVet

    Your argument is baseless. Please provide any actual facts or articles that support your claim that Utah was in the PAC 12 even if Texas had accepted an invite. Otherwise, I'll have to assume that you're just being "frantic and emotional".

    Your whole argument is based off of a Graham Watson article where she says that Colorado and Utah are "logical choices" for the PAC 12. You conveniently neglected to include this gem from the very beginning of that same article: "With news that the Big 12 will remain intact with 10 members, the Pac-10 will be looking for a 12th member to round out its conference. That member will likely come from the Mountain West."

    Wait a second: you've been telling us all along that Utah was clearly the choice for the PAC 10 from the get go, even before all of the Big 12 talk. That same article you've been using to 'support' your argument clearly states that with the Big 12 staying intact, the Pac-10 will look for a team, presumably from the MWC.

    There's NOTHING to support your argument that Colorado and Utah were the original candidates for expansion.

  • mussingaround Palo Alto, CA
    April 2, 2013 4:09 p.m.

    navelet

    Your recruiting is vastly over-rated.

    We love that despite your PAC 10.2 membership, you're still completely obsessed with a program that continues to outperform U where it really counts, on the field.

    Top 25 Finishes
    Bronco 5
    Kyle 3

    Top 15 Finishes
    Bronco 3
    Kyle 1

    10+ win seasons
    Bronco 5
    Kyle 3

    Conference Championships
    Bronco 2
    Kyle 1

    A couple of down-to-the-wire wins and one turn-over plagued blowout doesn't change the fact that BYU has produced better overall seasons as an Independent than the Utes have managed in the PAC 10.2.

    2011
    #25/#26/#34 BYU(10-3) > unranked/#39 Utah(8-5)

    2012
    unranked/#26 BYU(8-5) bowl winner > unranked #61 Utah(5-7) bowl no show

    Two bowl wins > one
    One Top 25 finish > none

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    April 2, 2013 2:43 p.m.

    Cougars1:

    From the looks of my response to mussingaround, it looks like the moderators don't want our dialogue to continue**. If you (or any other Indy-WACer) wants proof that Utah was Pac-XX bound with or without Texas, you'll have to meet me in another public forum. You'll always find me as either "Naval Vet" or "Naval_Vet"

    ** I had left you 2 messages prior to responding to mussingaround.

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    April 2, 2013 2:04 p.m.

    mussingaround:

    Wherever echelon Utah is doomed to fall in the Pac-12 in the recruiting wars, it'll still DWARF the classes Mendenmidmajor will be bringing to Provo.

    I might also note that joining the Pac-12 hadn't hurt the quality of our recruits over recruiting as a MWC member, so your point that is you have no point.

    P.S.: I love that our Pac-12 membership still drives you guys crazy. It's like beating you guys "54-10" every day for the past 3 years.

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    April 2, 2013 2:01 p.m.

    Cougars1 (cont.):

    With A&M refusing to consider joining the Pac-10, and with Oklahoma St. being shown the door, that left 2 spots remaining in the Pac-16, and Utah only needed 1.

    Once Texas opted to decline Scott's overtures in favor of remaining in the Big 12, that took all the other teams off the table. Except Utah was still in.

    A year after those Big 12 teams opted to remain in the Big 12, they revisited the option to join the Pac-12. Texas still wanted what they couldn't have, and without Texas, Texas Tech does not get an invitation. Oklahoma and Okla. St. reconsidered and petitioned the Pac-12 for membership...

    ...but were denied.

    The Pac-12 wanted Texas. If they could get Texas, they'd take Tech and Oklahoma. Without Texas, no Oklahoma, and no Tx. Tech.

    Yet, as I told you earlier, without Texas, Utah still got the invite.

    Conclusion: Indy-WACers jeering at Utah as some fallback plan are just exposing their anguished envious insecurity. Utah was shown to be a "desirable" program having "earned" their invitation, with or without Texas; not some ankle-biting plan "B".

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    April 2, 2013 1:53 p.m.

    Cougars1:

    "It establishes the fact that in hindsight Larry Scott was seeking to add 6 Big-12 schools before considering Utah."

    It did not establish that at all. And as for hindsight, I already showed you an ESPN article by Graham Watson that established Utah as a potential new member before any of the Big 12 South schools were even considered.

    Now I am not saying the Pac-10 preferred Utah over Texas or Oklahoma, so let's not try to take this debate in that direction. All I'm saying is...

    ...with or without Texas, Utah still gets the Pac-10's invite.

    Period.

    If you want to refute that, please keep all point relevant to that argument. Otherwise, you're admitting you lost the argument by trying change its parameters.

    There were 6 spots open. Larry chose CU first, but not because they were their primary target. That target was Texas. The Pac-10 would have like A&M and Oklahoma, but A&M didn't like the Pac-10. The Pac-10 did NOT want Tx. Tech or Okla. St. They were just "unwanted baggage". Utah was desired over TT and OSU, but Texas was desired over Utah.

  • mussingaround Palo Alto, CA
    April 2, 2013 12:38 p.m.

    navelvet

    After all of your weak, whiny spin, bottom line is Utah simply got lucky that the PAC 10 - Big 12 South merger fell through forcing Larry Scott to improvise with plan c or d or e. It's clear that the Utes are nothing more than filler, a whipping boy for the big boys of the conference to pad their conference win totals. You're hopelessly doomed to 9th through 12th place recruiting classes, sealing Utah's fate as a perennial conference bottom dweller, often not even capable of qualifying for a bowl.

  • Cougars1 Bluffdale, UT
    April 2, 2013 12:06 p.m.

    Naval,

    Nice try. I love how you arbitrarily declare victory. That's very humorous. I go to that article for reasons that are obvious to all but you. It establishes the fact that in hindsight Larry Scott was seeking to add 6 Big-12 schools before considering Utah. That was his primary objective. It's really very simple to understand.

    You bring up an article that Brown wrote after Scott realized Colorado was the only Big-12 school he was going to get.(getting the others depended on what Texas decided to do) I went to an article written previous to any that outlined that the original intent was to add 6 Big-12 schools. That article happened to be written by Brown, who you claim the most correct of all, which is why I used it. This was all explained by truecoug and backed up with quotes and references to several articles.

    It is very baffling that the red paint is so thick on the goggles as to comprehend this, but I digress. You have yet to show me an article that states that Utah was part of any group of 6 schools the PAC wanted to add.

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    April 2, 2013 10:53 a.m.

    Cougars1:

    "That's hilarious since one of your arguments was that one of the articles I used came out after the Utes were already in the PAC. That article was more recent than yours."

    What does that 2011 article have anything to do with whether or not Utah would have received an invitation to the Pac-10? Are you having difficulty differentiating the Pac-10's overtures to Texas and Oklahoma in 2010 from their revisitation a full year later (as cited in that ESPN article you referenced), after Utah had already been invited? Or maybe you're trying to obscure the facts? Or had you recognized you had already lost the argument, so in typical cougar fashion, are now attempting to change the parameters of the argument? What's your deal?

    And yes, Browns article trumps Kunnath's because it was the more recent version, and one that followed what "actually happened" after all motions had played out.

  • Cougars1 Bluffdale, UT
    April 2, 2013 10:07 a.m.

    Naval,

    That's hilarious since one of your arguments was that one of the articles I used came out after the Utes were already in the PAC. That article was more recent than yours. On top of that the articles to which truecoug and I referred were written by a blogger who you hailed as more credible than the author of an article I used. Ancient? Call it what you want, but that article which you call ancient actually came out just days before the invitation was given to Utah. I am getting a good laugh out of your flawed arguments which would mean that the only one who is frantic and emotional is you. Let me add to that that you are using circular reasoning and a great deal of spin.

    The sad thing is that I don't want you to stop. It is very amusing to see things through your Crimson goggles.lol

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    April 2, 2013 9:45 a.m.

    Cougars1:

    Your "abundance of articles" were flawed in that they were (1) taken out of context, (2) chronologically more ancient and full of speculation than my more recent ones, and (3) backed up by your own frantic emotion, as well as pro-cougar moderators reticence to post a slew of clear-cut refutations exposing the weakness in both your's and truecoug1's arguments.

  • Cougars1 Bluffdale, UT
    April 2, 2013 7:46 a.m.

    Naval,

    truecoug and myself have shown an abundance of articles and outlined a chronological order that backs up our position very clearly. It is clear to any one reading this that all you have done is cherry pick articles and misinterpret in order to back u your position.

    It is clear to anyone reading as to whose head is where.

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    April 2, 2013 7:28 a.m.

    truecoug1:

    "On June 17th, two days AFTER Texas declines an OFFICIAL invitation to become the PAC 10's 12th member...Utah accepts an official invitation to join the PAC 12 and take the place Texas was supposed to have filled."

    Again, Utah did NOT backfill Texas' place in the Pac-10. That ESPN quote you cited was taken out of context. You're attempting to portray the Big 12 South's decision to remain in the Big 12 as impacting Utah's invitation. It didn't impact Utah. I already showed you that. We were in with or without Texas. That article never stated Utah was only admitted BECAUSE Texas remained in the Big 12.

    Furthermore, that article mentioned CU, OU, Okla St, TT, Texas, and A&M. But A&M was never really a viable option since they had no designs to go to the Pac-10 in the first place. So the best you could argue would be that Utah backfilled A&M's spot. Except I already showed you that OSU was getting cut out of the deal, so again...

    ...Utah was in ANYWAY!

    Cougars1:

    Time to pull your head out of the sand.

  • Cougars1 Bluffdale, UT
    April 1, 2013 10:28 p.m.

    Night Owl,

    You don't build a high definition studio that, according to ESPN executives, rivals their studio in Mass. without a plan or a backup plan. The PAC had a backup plan, which is smart. What was Ur backup plan? The MWC? Utah fell into a great situation, and they earned it. Why do some Utah fans have such a hard time embracing it and moving on. From the looks of it BYU is not in Ur rear-view mirror; they are squarely in front of U.

  • NightOwlAmerica SALEM, OR
    April 1, 2013 8:33 p.m.

    BYU = no plan or even a backup plan.

  • Cougars1 Bluffdale, UT
    April 1, 2013 4:52 p.m.

    truecoug1,

    Well put. Those were some of the articles I was going to go to next, but you did a better job with the chronological order than I could have. You would have had to have had your head in the sand when that whole thing went down not to know that Utah was always the bac-up plan.

  • truecoug1 Provo, UT
    April 1, 2013 4:03 p.m.

    @NavalVet continued

    On June 17th, two days AFTER Texas declines an OFFICIAL invitation to become the PAC 10's 12th member (thus keeping the Big 12 intact and rendering the PAC 16 plan impossible), Utah accepts an official invitation to join the PAC 12 and take the place Texas was supposed to have filled.

    From the ESPN article entitled "Utah Utes excited by Pac-10 acceptance", it states: "The Pac-10 was courting a good chunk of the Big 12 but was turned down when Texas decided to stay put. Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, and Texas A&M also decided to stay in the Big 12, which will be down one school when Colorado joins the Pac-10 in either 2011 or 2012."

    So there's the timeline. ESPN all but states it at the end there that that PAC 12 was looking to add a big chunk of Big 12 teams, but it was turned down and thus had to turn to Utah to fill out a 12-team conference.

    Back-up plan.

    Nothing to be ashamed of, Utah's in the PAC 12, which I think is great for the state of Utah.

    But U were a back-up plan.

  • truecoug1 Provo, UT
    April 1, 2013 3:53 p.m.

    @NavalVet "Back up plan? Nope. Sure doesn't look that way."

    Nice spin, as always. However, Utah was very much the backup plan.

    In June 2010, there was speculation that the PAC 10 would expand to sixteen teams, taking six teams from the Big 12: Texas, Texas Tech, Colorado, Oklahoma, OSU, and either Baylor or Texas A&M (this from your very own Orangeblood.com). Colorado was the first domino to fall, accepting an official PAC 12 invite on June 14. From the article "Colorado leaves Big 12 for PAC 10" from ESPN comes this quote: "A source with direct knowledge of the Pac-10's discussions about adding more Big 12 teams told ESPN's Joe Schad on Thursday that from the Pac-10's perspective, it's "simply a matter of who signs next." No mention of Utah.

    On June 15, the startling announcement comes that Texas and the rest of the Big XII are going to stay put. From the ESPN article "Texas move helps Big 12 survive" we find this gem: "The Texas announcement came shortly after Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott confirmed that Texas had declined an invitation to become the 12th member of his conference."

  • Cougars1 Bluffdale, UT
    April 1, 2013 3:03 p.m.

    Correction on my last post.(if the moderator posted it) They would have 7 of the top 20 TV markets in the new conference.

  • Cougars1 Bluffdale, UT
    April 1, 2013 2:42 p.m.

    Naval,

    If you read the article he is very clear that he is talking in retrospect; as in hind sight is 20/20.

    The article referenced from Orangebloods.com is one of Chip Brown's posts from the very beginning of the PAC expansion talks. Chronologically speaking, if you want to live and die by what Chip Brown says, well then I guess this excerpt trumps anything else when talking about which teams were targeted first by the PAC for expansion. The idea was that by adding those teams mentioned they would be able to cover the top 20 TV markets in the U.S.. Something that could not be done by adding Utah.

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    April 1, 2013 1:51 p.m.

    Cougars1:

    There is nothing laugable about Chip Brown's version being more accurate than Kunnath's. If you need proof, we have the final answer. Just look to see whose version inevitably panned out.

    Edge: Brown.

    "By the way, Utah isn't mentioned anywhere in this article.Texas, OU in active Pac-12 talks dated Sept.19, 2011"

    I don't know what point you're trying to make. Utah wouldn't have been mentioned in expansion talks back in Sept. of 2011 because they were already a Pac-12 member. Our invitation was back in June 2010, and our first day as an official Pac-12 member was July of 2011. Utah's failing to be mentioned in an article about Texas and Oklahoma 2 months after officially joining is of no consequence.

  • Cougars1 Bluffdale, UT
    April 1, 2013 1:48 p.m.

    Here is a piece from Rivals.com's Texas site Orangebloods.com

    Because it appears the Pac-10, which has its meetings in San Francisco starting this weekend, is prepared to make a bold move and invite Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Colorado to join its league, according to multiple sources close to the situation.

    You being so high on Rivals I figured this would be a little easier to accept.

  • Cougars1 Bluffdale, UT
    April 1, 2013 1:32 p.m.

    Naval,

    I see you need a class in reading comprehension. You saying that Chip is more accurate than Kunnath is laughable. Kunnath's article, if you had read it points out inaccuracies in Brown's reporting. Also, you should be backing up Kunnath since he writes a blog for a fellow PAC-12 paper.(Cal-Berkley) Brown proved that he was making things up and trying to get ahead in the reporting process when he claimed to break the story that BYU and Air Force would be invited to the Big-12 thereby ruining any credibility that ESPN may have given him.

    It is, and has been very clear to all that Larry Scott's original desire was to add Texas, Colorado, Oklahoma State, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, and Texas Tech. with Kansas and Utah as an alternate. There is another article by espn to back that up. By the way, Utah isn't mentioned anywhere in this article.Texas, OU in active Pac-12 talks dated Sept.19, 2011

    Why the heartbreak? I have stated that Utah earned and deserved it's invite. Once again, props to Utah.

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    April 1, 2013 10:56 a.m.

    Cougars1:

    That Jun. 13th blog you referenced by Avinash Kunnath stated the following:

    "Texas Tech and Oklahoma State remain firm in their commitment to the Pac-10, but they're pawns in this game. If Texas and Oklahoma make a surprising about-face and leave for the SEC, then it's hard to say whether the invitations will stay open or commissioner Scott will look elsewhere."

    Chip Brown's article was dated Jun. 15th. In other words, it was the more RECENT article; written when more facts were present. Chip Brown was also featured on Sports Illustrated ("How Chip Brown stole the Big 12 spotlight; Erin Andrews' payday", by Richard Deitsch, Wed, Jun. 23, 2010) for his accurate coverage of the whole Pac-10/Big 12 South courtship. Nobody wrote anything about Kunnath's (clearly less accurate) musings.

    Brown > Kunnath

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    April 1, 2013 10:34 a.m.

    Mt Rushmore:

    "Utah was invited as the last choice filler, when all of the teams that the PAC 10 really wanted turned their backs on the PAC."

    You're too late to the party. I had already proved that Utah was the original option to be invited to join the Pac-10 before the Big 12 schools were even thought up (see Graham Watson article), and also provided you proof that the Utes would have joined the Pac-10 had they opted to expand to 16 teams as well (see Chip Brown article). Your silly little outburst was nothhing more than pure bitter, frantic and emotional jealousy. How embarrassing for you.

  • WACPaddingOurSchedule pocatello, ID
    March 31, 2013 11:27 p.m.

    SportzFan
    Salt Lake City, UT
    motorbike

    With Texas they'd have likely invited others before Utah. This would've been to satisfy Texas and made sense because of natural rivals.

    -----

    And the PAC wanted Colorado and invited Utah as the consolation bundle when the liberals wouldn't accept BYU...

    ________________

    The PAC 12 did not want BYU because they are not a research institution. Go ahead and play the anti-religion card. It's important to point out here the there are LDS students at every PAC 12 school. And very likely people working at most if not all of them as teachers and staff. So you can only play the anti-religion card to a point.
    Like it or not, the PAC 12 has a set of guidelines for membership. Same with the BIG 10 and others.

    BTW. Colorado owns BYU. The Cougars are 3-8-1 all time against them!

  • motorbike Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 31, 2013 10:53 p.m.

    Cougars1

    You said: "Speaking of spin. Wiscougarfan never anything about actual, or official invites. You were the one who spun that."
    _____

    Uh, let me help you out ... here are actual comments by Wiscougarfan:

    "...the only BCS conference to INVITE Utah was the PAC 10, after several other teams declined..." - Obviously this reads as declining an INVITE since that's what he was talking about.

    Another: "BYU, on the other hand, also had one invite... from the Big East." - Again, the word INVITE, even though Tom Holmoe made it clear no invitations have happened.

    Another one: "The PAC 12 INVITED Texas, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, and Colorado before they invited Utah." - There's that word again ... INVITED.

    Can I be any more clear? I know it's convenient for you to spin it as though I'm obsessed with BYU, but like I said, I had no need to comment until I saw some of the garbage coming out of BYU fans' mouths about Utah. So who's obsessed? I don't think it was me who was spinning that my team got an invite that they never received.

    I hope that helps.

  • Mt Rushmore Arlington, VA
    March 31, 2013 7:14 p.m.

    motorbike

    The Utes are proving that it's possible to be completely irrelevant even in a big boy conference.

  • Cougars1 Bluffdale, UT
    March 31, 2013 6:25 p.m.

    Speaking of spin. Wiscougarfan never anything about actual, or official invites. You were the one who spun that in after the names of "several" schools from the Big-12 were provided per your request. I am afraid that your obsession is getting the best of you. Remember, YOU are the one on a BYU article obsessing over what teams have received ACTUAL invites.

  • Cougars1 Bluffdale, UT
    March 31, 2013 6:01 p.m.

    motorbike,

    The only one spinning is you and your buddy from back East. Need I remind you that you are on an article about BYU's Nike contract for apparel trying to argue a technicality in wording. I have never said schools were invited. If I did I apologize. I have only stated who Larry Scott's first choices were for expansion and Utah was never his first choice.

    I think sky2k1 gives a very good explanation as to how invitations to join conferences go down. You are just trying to confuse "official invitation" with how the whole process really works.

  • motorbike Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 31, 2013 5:51 p.m.

    Cougars1

    You have spun yourself in silly circles and are trying to put words in my mouth that I never uttered.

    I have continually talked about ACTUAL invitations. I could care less about articles of endless speculation. We all read the countless articles and some of that info was true and some has been the furthest from the truth. This is exactly why I've been dealing in FACTS on this thread whereas you, Sportzfan and Wiscougarfan continue to spin away from those facts.

    I'll ask you all one more time ... find me proof that any institution had an ACTUAL invite to join the PAC-12 other than Utah, Colorado and Texas. That's right, there aren't any. Anything else beyond that is rumor and speculation - to which I'm sure some is true, but never materialized to an INVITATION.

    Let me make myself absolutely clear, my only reason for piping in was to correct Wiscougarfan on the misleading phrasing of his comment. BYU has not had an invite from a BCS conference, and there were not several invitations prior to Utah in the PAC-12. Sorry, just dealing in facts.

  • Mt Rushmore Arlington, VA
    March 31, 2013 4:28 p.m.

    navelvet

    What was the title, date, author, and publication that said that being a perennial conference bottom dweller in any conference made U relevant?

    The truth is, the Utes haven't done anything to make the PAC 10.2 more competitive. In fact, the ONLY Utah program that has added anything to the conference is the Red Rocks.

    In the two major sports, the Utes are 7-11 in football, and 8-28 in men's basketball, nothing more than well paid whipping boys for the big boys of the conference.

    Utah was invited as the last choice filler, when all of the teams that the PAC 10 really wanted turned their backs on the PAC.

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    March 31, 2013 2:42 p.m.

    Cougars1:

    What was the title, date, author, and publication that listed Kansas as A&M's first choice? Because the article I read that mentioned Kansas was the Chip Brown article I referenced. And in that article, Kansas was the the team the Pac-12 was trying to dump Okla. St. for, with Utah still a patty of the original Pac-16 (Tex, TT, Okla, OSU, CU, Utah).

  • Cougars1 Bluffdale, UT
    March 31, 2013 2:39 p.m.

    Gotta love the double standard of the moderator;)

    Naval,
    The article referred to in the above comment is in the SB Nation. Written by Avinash Kunnath and published on June 16,2010. It's a good read. You using Chip Brown as a source is very amusing as he was the first to report that the Big-12 would be offering an invite to Air Force and BYU. I don't even have to tell you how that turned out.

    motorbike,
    Talking smack? As you can see, there are plenty of holes in the comments made by your buddy.

  • Cougars1 Bluffdale, UT
    March 31, 2013 1:12 p.m.

    Naval,
    Not to be misunderstood. I am happy for Utah and their new place in the PAC-12. I will be the first to say they earned it outright. As a BYU fan, I wish BYU were in a power conference, but I am a realist and don't see that happening anytime soon. On the other hand, I love Independence and the schedule that Tom has put together for 2013. I just hope he can keep it up. Props to the Utes.

  • Cougars1 Bluffdale, UT
    March 31, 2013 1:02 p.m.

    As is stated in the article I referenced; Texas A&M was on Scott's original wish list with Kansas as an alternate if A&M bolted to the SEC. By the way, it took me 1 minute to find that article and there are more articles that back it up.

  • SportzFan Salt Lake City, UT
    March 31, 2013 11:04 a.m.

    motorbike, "Oh the jealousy from down south" -- on a BYU article? Seems like the obsession here is obvious to all but the oblivious.

    Naval Vet, "Join the Navy and see the world," but focus and obsess on BYU...

  • motorbike Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 31, 2013 10:32 a.m.

    Naval Vet,

    Way to lay it down, you speak the truth and leave little room for question marks - yet our blue brothers will still deny everything you've said. Oh the jealousy from down south.

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    March 31, 2013 10:06 a.m.

    Wiscougarfan:

    Per Graham Watson at ESPN (MWC plays waiting game with Utah, June 15, 2010):

    "This is what we all talked about when conference expansion first became a trending topic. Colorado and Utah were the logical choices for the Pac-10, and with Colorado already committing...it's just a matter of time until Larry Scott and Co. come knocking if they haven't already."

    Back up plan?

    Nope. Sure doesn't look that way.

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    March 31, 2013 10:05 a.m.

    Wiscougarfan:

    "The PAC 12 invited Texas, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, and Colorado..."

    Not so. Texas A&M had never received an invitation to join the Pac-10. A&M was very clear from the beginning that it was Big 12 or SEC for them.

    Chip Brown at Orangebloods.com detailed the following:

    "...Scott and Weiberg...in the courtship of the Big 12...wanted to substitute Kansas for Oklahoma State late in the process...Scott and Weiberg were looking to dump Oklahoma State in favor of Kansas...the Pac-10 would add Utah."

    It's also important to note that the Pac-10 was looking to add Tier-1 Research Institutions, and neither Tx. Tech nor Okla. St. fit that mold. However, Texas did, and they were the big fish. If adding TT and OSU got them the Longhorns, the Pac-10 would acquiece. Make no mistake, the Pac-10 didn't want TT or OSU. They wanted Texas and Oklahoma.

    They also wanted Utah and CU. We both DID fit within their academic, athletic, and cultural conceptual model.

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    March 31, 2013 9:38 a.m.

    CougFaninTX:

    "U had 0 good years in the WAC and 2 good years in the MWC."

    What a frantic and emotional thing to say. Utah won the Liberty Bowl, and back in '64, and also had a Top-10 finish in '94 -- where they beat 4 teams finishing ranked in the final polls. And that was just our WAC years. Utah also won 4 MWC championships, so obviously, we had more than just 2 good ones.

    However, what you don't seem to understand is, there ARE no "legacy" teams from the WAC. And there ARE no "legacy" teams from the MWC. Utah and TCU were the most successful MWC football programs with 4 conference championships, and 2 BCS bowls. Both teams have now moved on to relevant leagues, and neither are "legacy" programs. The cougars are only legendary in their own minds.

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    March 31, 2013 9:28 a.m.

    Mark321:

    "BTW, Utah State owns Utah."

    WACPaddingOurSchedule was referring to SJSU's all time record vs. the Y. And they DO own the Indy-WACers. What is Utah State's all time record vs. the U? Care to respond, or will you be running away in the face of truth and accuracy?

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    March 31, 2013 9:20 a.m.

    Wiscougarfan:

    "...the only BCS conference to invite Utah was the PAC 10, after several other teams declined and the PAC was desperate to get a companion school for Colorado, another cellar dweller. I have not heard of any other BCS conference even considering Utah."

    First of all, Utah's invitation to the Pac-10 was not predicated on what Texas ultimately decided to do. The Pac-16 would have been the Pac-10 + (11)Texas, (12)Tx. Tech, (13)Oklahoma, (14)Oklahoma St**, (15)Colorado, and (16)UTAH.

    Secondly, what difference does it make that the only relevant conference to invite Utah was the Pac-10? Think about it. If Utah had been invited to join the Pac-10, Big 12, BigTen, Big East, ACC, or SEC, who do you think would have been our first choice?

    Answer: Pac-10.

    So essentially, your point is that you had no point.

    **Chip Brown from Orangeblood reported the Pac-10 was maneuvering to drop OSU in favor of Kansas. But Utah was still in.

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    March 31, 2013 9:08 a.m.

    Wiscougarfan:

    "If by 'Power Conference' you mean 'BCS' than BYU has exactly the same number of invites as the Utes"

    WACPaddingOurSchedule wasn't talking about the BCS. The conference nicknamed the "Big [L]East" is not a power conference. Back when the Indy-WACers were being vetted for admission, that conference's BCS status was in serious jeapardy. At that time, the Big [L]East had lost every charter member school save Temple, and were desperate to bring in....Boise St. However BSU required a travel partner, and that's when the Big [L]East acquieced to the cougars. However, it's important to note 2 things here:

    (1) The Big [L]East didn't want the cougars. It wanted the Broncos. The Broncos wanted the cougars, and insisted the Big [L]East allowed you to ride in on their coattails.

    (2) The Big [L]East lost their "power conference" designation. So to that point, you do NOT have the same number of power conference invitations as your big brother. You have 0.

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    March 31, 2013 8:55 a.m.

    Y Grad/Y Dad:

    "Did you note that some of your precious loot depends on actually playing in a bowl?"

    That depends on which "precious loot" you were referring. Utah gets paid whether or not we play in a bowl game via our ESPN/FOX television contract. However, if you were referring to our Under Armor contract, our contract is estimated to be near $2M. Our lack of postseason last year cost us a whopping...

    ...$15K.

  • SportzFan Salt Lake City, UT
    March 31, 2013 2:53 a.m.

    motorbike

    With Texas they'd have likely invited others before Utah. This would've been to satisfy Texas and made sense because of natural rivals.

    -----

    And the PAC wanted Colorado and invited Utah as the consolation bundle when the liberals wouldn't accept BYU...

  • sky2k1 Provo, UT
    March 31, 2013 2:35 a.m.

    I believe the problem about arguing over official invites is that official invites generally only come once the conference knows that it will be accepted. Does anyone really think that there was no discussing before the invitations were made? It's kind of like asking someone to marry you -- you've generally had lengthy discussions beforehand and decided to follow that path before making it official by asking. I imagine the same thing happened with the conference realignment, although there is no way to really ever know.

  • Cougars1 Bluffdale, UT
    March 30, 2013 8:49 p.m.

    motorbike,

    You can't dismiss history on a technicality. Were there official invites? Nobody knows. The point is(and well documented) that inviting Utah was, in actuality, an alternate plan. But, have fun in denial. I hear it's hot this time of year.

  • motorbike Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 30, 2013 8:35 p.m.

    Wiscougarfan

    You're hilarious. Again I ask you to point me to an exact source that states an ACTUAL invite (not speculation as you've been talking about) that was made to any of the schools you listed.
    AGAIN I'll state that the PAC-12 wanted Texas. With Texas they'd have likely invited others before Utah. This would've been to satisfy Texas and made sense because of natural rivals. However, when Texas didn't jump, the PAC-12 went a different direction rather than inviting the teams Texas would've likely brought with them.
    Now those are the facts.

    Cougars1,

    See above comment.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    March 30, 2013 7:58 p.m.

    @ TrueBlue

    Five ranked teams, and four others that finished ranked well over 150. BYU basically had 5 bye weeks last year. My point still stands.

    @ CougfaninTX

    Utah won 4 MWC titles and finished ranked 5 times, just like BYU. Plus Utah held a 7-5 series advantage over BYU during the MWC era. From 1999 to 2010 BYU was building a brand as the second best team in the state. That trend seems to be continuing judging by the results of the last two Holy Wars.

    @ Mark321

    Utah holds a 70-28 advantage over U-State, and Utah has won 12 of the past 13 games (with an average margin of victory of 24 points). The one loss was on the road in OT. You have a weird definition of the word "owns"

  • ekute Layton, UT
    March 30, 2013 7:01 p.m.

    Trade schedules and Utah would of been in a BCS bowl last year and the year before. Go Utes

  • Cougars1 Bluffdale, UT
    March 30, 2013 6:52 p.m.

    Wiscougarfan,

    Asking an anti-BYU troll to be objective is like asking a fish to stay out of the water.

    motorbike,

    A healthy debate is great, but at least be realistic...or better yet, at least act like you were around and reading the paper, or listening to the radio when the invite to Utah went down. It is common knowledge that Larry Scott's primary objective was to create a 16 team Super Conference with the original PAC-10 members and 6 members from the Big-12. Everything hinged on the decision Texas made.

  • Wiscougarfan River Falls, WI
    March 30, 2013 6:19 p.m.

    RE: Motorbike

    Trying googling "PAC 10 invites_______ (name of any of the schools I mentioned)" and you will find numerous articles detailing what direction the PAC was going prior to Utah's invitation. Typical is something like this (from ESPN)... "While Colorado is in and Utah is a top alternative candidate [to the five schools mentioned earlier], it's also possible that the Pac-10 would make a play for Nebraska or another Big 12 school instead of Utah." True, the PAC was most interested in Texas, but that doesn't mean they preferred Utah to any of the other schools.
    Also, I never said it was a "long list of teams", I said "several" and I still believe that six could be considered "several." As before I applaud Utah for getting an invite and accepting it.
    You can also google "BYU Big East invite" and find several articles that discuss that reality as well. I know that all the national media syndicates must be wrong and all the anti-BYU trolls must be right, but I at least try to stay objective.

  • deductive reasoning Arlington, VA
    March 30, 2013 5:14 p.m.

    Mark321

    Beating ranked teams doesn't mean much when you're seldom able to finish the season ranked.

    BYU has almost as many AP Top 25 finishes in the last 7 years, as the Utes have in the ENTIRE history.

    btw, didn't you spend bowl week watching from the couch because you weren't capable of beating the ONLY WAC team you played.

    BYU opponents will refer to BYU as a nationally respected program with a host of great quarterbacks, a great fan base, and a previous national champion.

    Utah opponents will refer to Utah as a program that had a couple of great seasons, but is no longer anymore competitive than they were during their WAC days.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    March 30, 2013 5:12 p.m.

    The Nike on the jersey have delivered so many top notch recruits. It's been huge. Top recruits just love Nike more than about anything else.

  • motorbike Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 30, 2013 12:56 p.m.

    Wiscougarfan

    Go ahead and show is all where all the teams you mentioned denied an invite to the PAC-12.

    Sorry but you're doing what many of your brethren do, stretch the truth. While its certainly true that the Pac-12 wanted Texas, and would've liked Oklahoma to join them as a natural rival, there were never official invites to the other schools you mentioned. In other words, the PAC-12 was interested first and foremost in Texas, without them they had other primary objectives which is where Colorado and Utah came into the picture.

    Even with your stretching of the truth, that sure isn't a long list of teams "invited before Utah" now is it?

    By the way, I'm awfully curious as to which BCS conference "invited BYU." We've been told by BYU officials that no invitations have ever been made. Stretching again?

  • CougFaninTX Frisco, TX
    March 30, 2013 11:36 a.m.

    Navy - U are right that BYU built its brand in the WAC and MWC. Unfortunately, Utah is still trying to build a brand. U had 0 good years in the WAC and 2 good years in the MWC.

  • Mark321 Las Vegas, NV
    March 30, 2013 11:17 a.m.

    @ WACPaddingOurSchedule

    Nah. BYU opponents will refer to them as a WAC team next year. If you want real respect, win games against ranked teams on a regular basis.

    BTW, San Jose St. owns BYU.

    ____________

    BTW, Utah State owns Utah.

  • TrueBlue Orem, UT
    March 30, 2013 10:22 a.m.

    2fer

    "If that were true, playing Alabama and 11 FCS teams would be considered an extremely difficult schedule."

    Two word: Reading comprehension

    TheSportsAuthority mentioned TEAMS, as in plural, as in FIVE Top 25 teams.

    -----

    "Army and Yale both completely dwarf BYU in every single category you mentioned."

    True, but the luster of their legacies faded over half a century ago.

    Unfortunately for U, you have no legacy, past or present.

    BYU has been a perennial Top 25 program since 1977 (18 Top 25 finishes in the last 35 years - over 50%)

    Utah has NEVER been a perennial Top 25 program, EVER!

  • Wiscougarfan River Falls, WI
    March 30, 2013 9:57 a.m.

    RE: Motorbike

    "Please take a minute to clarify which teams were part of the "several" you mentioned."

    Unlike trolls (who never respond to the point made in any reasonable post) I am happy to clarify for you. The PAC 12 invited Texas, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, and Colorado before they invited Utah. Yes, Utah received one BCS invite, just like BYU did. Congratulations. The difference is that Utah welcomed the opportunity to become a conference doormat, because it meant more money and exposure (which, by the way, are great reasons--they did the right thing). Meanwhile, BYU turned down the opportunity to be at the top of a declining conference in favor of independence--also a good move.

  • Cougars1 Bluffdale, UT
    March 30, 2013 7:51 a.m.

    Naval,

    We could probably have a civil dialogue, as I happen to agree with you on many issues.

    1.Utah has a much bigger advantage over BYU recruiting because of PAC membership.
    2.That is shown by their steady separation in recent recruiting classes.
    3.BYU has played a WAC heavy schedule for the last few years.

    The only problem is that it is difficult to have such a dialogue with someone whose only goal is to denegrade and name call when talking about the team I support and cheer for.
    Good luck to Utah in the PAC-12. They need to do well for all the other mid-major teams. We need a true playoff in football.

  • Silent Lurker Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 30, 2013 7:51 a.m.

    How can this makes a big difference to recruits? Nike has 75-80 percent of all schools under some kind of agreement or contract. It's not like BYU is the only school with a Nike contract.

  • Cougars1 Bluffdale, UT
    March 30, 2013 7:49 a.m.

    "That hasn't changed. You left the MWC, and aligned yourselves with the WAC. You hauled in WAC-ish recruits. Perhaps it is YOU who needs to do a little research. My facts are straight, and irrefutable."

    Research? Irrefutable facts? The only FACT is that you are continually on BYU articles coming up with names to call your rival, and making up stuff that is generally very juvenile and childish.

    As for recruiting, I love that Dave Rose continues to own that team on the hill with PAC recruits with his WCC recruits. The same goes for soccer, track, volleyball, et all.

    This year is actually the first year Utah should see the benefits of recruiting in the PAC. The kids recruited from their first year in the PAC should be Juniors or Redshirt Sophomores. I hope they are able to have a breakthrough year in the PAC.

    BYU will not see the results of Independence for 2 more years because of missions. It will be interesting to see how they do as they have not done as well recruiting.

  • SLCWatch Salt Lake City, UT
    March 30, 2013 1:12 a.m.

    @two fer

    Actually if you want to talk Legacy...Yes, Yales and Army's are greater than BYU's in Football. They are storied programs. By the same standard however BYU is way ahead of other local teams. It's called a Legacy for a reason.
    And BYU fans are very aware of where their team is at...Thank you for caring.
    We are all aware of the Sagarin Ratings from 2008 to 2012. Take some time to look them up.
    BYU had a turn of fortune for sure having been #32 improving to #15 but then a bad year made them #45. Fortunately they have since steadily improve going up to #34 in 2011 then up again to #26. So yes, BYU fans know the team is not where it wants to be but it is going up again. Should we look at any other Teams?

  • WACPaddingOurSchedule pocatello, ID
    March 30, 2013 12:13 a.m.

    Lightening Lad
    Austin , TX
    Nike is in business to make money, not to play nice and give schools lots of money. BYU has the 43rd largest fan base in college football, that's all that matters. BYU has an easily identifiable uniform, national brand that sells everywhere, (been to Disneyland lately, BYU all over) a helmet logo voted by ESPN readers as "a top 10 tradition, you keep" Boise St has the #2 fan market in the intermountain west with 400.000 compared with BYU's 875,000 (NY Times geography of college sports)

    ____________

    From what I saw:

    Boise St is around 484,000 and BYU at 709,000.

  • WACPaddingOurSchedule pocatello, ID
    March 29, 2013 11:59 p.m.

    Mark321
    Las Vegas, NV
    What will all the Ute trolls do when the WAC conference goes away to oblivion for football? There will be no WAC teams left. I guess they can say BYU plays a Mountain West schedule, but that wouldn't make sense with the irrelevant talk since it was the Utes who won 2 BCS bowl games playing a Mountain West schedule.

    _________

    Nah. BYU opponents will refer to them as a WAC team next year. If you want real respect, win games against ranked teams on a regular basis.

    BTW, San Jose St. owns BYU.

  • WACPaddingOurSchedule pocatello, ID
    March 29, 2013 11:49 p.m.

    Gone fishin
    Murray, UT
    Funny how an article about BYU gets flooded with Utah trouble makers. I rarely see the same with a Utah article. Thanks Utah fans for showing your true colors. I guess when you can't support your own team but turn your rage to your big brother down the road, who is by the way the only team in the west still playing basketball.

    ___________

    News to me. Santa Clara and Weber State are still playing as well. Do they not count as western teams?
    Funny how an articles about Utah get flooded with BYU trouble makers.

  • Lightening Lad Austin , TX
    March 29, 2013 11:38 p.m.

    Nike is in business to make money, not to play nice and give schools lots of money. BYU has the 43rd largest fan base in college football, that's all that matters. BYU has an easily identifiable uniform, national brand that sells everywhere, (been to Disneyland lately, BYU all over) a helmet logo voted by ESPN readers as "a top 10 tradition, you keep" Boise St has the #2 fan market in the intermountain west with 400.000 compared with BYU's 875,000 (NY Times geography of college sports) My first degree was from ASU, large school but after switching to the trident as its logo rather than Sparky the Sun Devil, very few could possible recognize any ASU uni or helmut. I own nothing in the new colors, UGLY. Find something good, stick with it, sell lots of stuff and Nike pays, simple. Texas has it right selling 3 to 1 over A&M. If Texas isn't Nike's biggest account Ohio St must be, likely in the $5 range. If Boise gets $1.8, my guess would be BYU is in the $2.2 to $2.5 mil range, a little more than Ore St.

  • Mark321 Las Vegas, NV
    March 29, 2013 10:30 p.m.

    What will all the Ute trolls do when the WAC conference goes away to oblivion for football? There will be no WAC teams left. I guess they can say BYU plays a Mountain West schedule, but that wouldn't make sense with the irrelevant talk since it was the Utes who won 2 BCS bowl games playing a Mountain West schedule.

  • motorbike Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 29, 2013 9:37 p.m.

    Wiscougarfan

    "...the only BCS conference to invite Utah was the PAC 10, after several other teams declined..."
    ______

    Please take a minute to clarify which teams were part of the "several" you mentioned.

    That's what I thought. And by the way ... of the "several teams", not one of them was named BYU.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    March 29, 2013 7:20 p.m.

    @ TheSportsAuthority

    Army and Yale both completely dwarf BYU in every single category you mentioned. So I guess that means they are still superior to BYU?

    Like it or not BYU has done nothing of significance lately, or in the past 15+ years for that matter. I know you're about to start talking about 'ranked finishes', but that just proves how mid-majory BYU really is. Do you think fans of real legacy programs (i.e. Michigan, Alabama, Texas, etc.) brag about having three ranked finishes in the past five years?

    Utah isn't a legacy program either, but most Ute fans realize that. A lot of BYU fans still seem to be in denial about where their program stands in the current landscape of CFB.

  • BlueHusky Mission Viejo, CA
    March 29, 2013 6:36 p.m.

    Lord have mercy ... another debate on the records of BYU versus Utah. In SoCal everybody has heard of BYU. They're on TV all the time in football and basketball. Number 1 in Volleyball. Final 4 NIT. Good women's teams.

    Utah is almost never on TV, at least TV that I can get in Orange County. And when they are on, they're getting beaten by USC, UCLA or someone.

    Luckily, in the BYU game, the winning field goal try doinked, or U would not even have that ugly win to brag about.

    Get some dignity, Christina and Navel. You look silly always trying to denigrate BYU.

  • Winglish Lehi, UT
    March 29, 2013 6:05 p.m.

    Relevant to the topic of the article, I had roommates at Utah State who played on the basketball team. They got Reebok bags full of Reebok gear from time to time. They basically wore a different free Reebok polo style shirt every day, new shoes all the time, etc. It was nice for the players because due to the NCAA's ridiculous rules they could not hold jobs that made more than a few thousand a year. A couple of the players were married and their wives had to work full time to support the family because the men would have been in violation of NCAA rules if they worked hard and made enough to support their family outside of basketball season.

  • Gone fishin Murray, UT
    March 29, 2013 5:53 p.m.

    Sports Authority,

    Well said and AMEN. The numbers speak for themselves.

  • Gone fishin Murray, UT
    March 29, 2013 5:51 p.m.

    Funny how an article about BYU gets flooded with Utah trouble makers. I rarely see the same with a Utah article. Thanks Utah fans for showing your true colors. I guess when you can't support your own team but turn your rage to your big brother down the road, who is by the way the only team in the west still playing basketball.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    March 29, 2013 5:19 p.m.

    @ phoenix

    "It's the best teams on your schedule that really determine how difficult your schedule is."

    If that were true, playing Alabama and 11 FCS teams would be considered an extremely difficult schedule. It's the week in/week out grind that makes a schedule difficult, which is the reason Utah's SOS has been quite a bit higher than BYU's in the past two seasons. Four teams on BYU's schedule finished ranked quite a bit higher than 150, therefore as a whole it was not a difficult schedule.

  • Sambonethegreat Logan, UT
    March 29, 2013 5:19 p.m.

    Sheesh, it's just an article about Nike and BYU. This hardly seems worth getting worked up over.

    And FWIW, I think Utah and BYU have a comparable SOS next year.

  • TheSportsAuthority Arlington, VA
    March 29, 2013 5:09 p.m.

    WACpaddled

    "...after 40 plus years, BYU is still on the outside looking in. No official power conference invite."

    It's laughable that our little friends on the hill keep beating this drum when they know perfectly well that Utah's invite to a big boy conference had absolutely NOTHING to do with Utah's johnny-come-lately, flash in the pan football prowess or their train wreck of a basketball program.

    BYU's legacy in football will NEVER be matched by the Utes.

    National Championships
    BYU 1
    Utah 0

    Heisman Trophy Winners
    BYU 1
    Utah 0

    National Individual Award Winners
    BYU 15
    Utah 0

    National College Football Hall of Fame Players
    BYU 6
    Utah 0

    AP Top 25 Finishes
    BYU 17
    Utah 5

    Utah has no legacy, that's why the Utes switched to UnderwearArmor. They knew they'd never even be a 2nd tier Nike program.

    Call us when Utah's players win their first national award of any kind.

  • Cougars1 Bluffdale, UT
    March 29, 2013 4:10 p.m.

    wacpaddled,
    The irony is that you are posting on a article about BYU. Are you sure you aren't on the inside looking out with jealous eyes? Actions speak louder than words.

  • Austin Coug Pflugerville, TX
    March 29, 2013 4:05 p.m.

    @ Duckhunted

    Wrong. BYU having the ability to keep information private is part of the package of being a private institution. I love how you take "lack of information" and use it try and prove something. I have no idea how much BYU's contract is with NIKE and neither do you.

  • BYUalum South Jordan, UT
    March 29, 2013 3:51 p.m.

    This is an article about Nike and BYU and the great partnership they have. Why does the DN allow such bashing? Stay to the topic, and do not allow these trolls to post such negative comments.

    Go Cougars!

  • Wiscougarfan River Falls, WI
    March 29, 2013 3:50 p.m.

    RE: WACPaddingOurSchedule

    "Yet phoenix and the other wishful fans, after 40 plus years, BYU is still on the outside looking in. No official power conference invite."

    This schtick is gettting old. If by "Power Conference" you mean "BCS" than BYU has exactly the same number of invites as the Utes: one. After 40 plus years (which is silly because the BCS has only been around, what, 15?), the only BCS conference to invite Utah was the PAC 10, after several other teams declined and the PAC was desperate to get a companion school for Colorado, another cellar dweller. I have not heard of any other BCS conference even considering Utah.
    BYU, on the other hand, also had one invite... from the Big East (when they were a BCS conferenec). BYU declined and has done o.k. but not great as an independent. Yes, most will agree that if the Big 12 offered BYU would come running, but that has not and likely will not happen. Despite this BYU has managed to put together an amazing schedule after just a couple years as an independent. It's good to be a Cougar!

  • Duckhunted provo, UT
    March 29, 2013 3:13 p.m.

    Irrelevant,

    That is a convenient way to say you don't sell as much as a national brand should!!!

  • WACPaddingOurSchedule pocatello, ID
    March 29, 2013 2:59 p.m.

    Yet phoenix and the other wishful fans, after 40 plus years, BYU is still on the outside looking in. No official power conference invite.
    And their legacy is sooooooooo great, that Nike does not consider them a tier 1 school.

    Ouch!!!

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    March 29, 2013 2:07 p.m.

    phoenix:

    "BYU has still been more successful than the Utes and their 'PACishness'."

    Yes, we know. Ute fans are not arguing that the Indy-WACers have been a lot more successful vs. NM State, Idaho, Idaho St, and Weber St, than we have been vs. USC, Washington, or Arizona St. But if you're interested in comparing our two programs, ask yourself this...

    "Who had been more successful vs. the other?" In other words, which of our two teams is 2-0 vs. the other, and which is 0-2? The 2-0 team is unquestionaably the better team. All you have to do is just figure out who was the 2-0 team.

    I already know who it is. Do you need any help with that?

    "Unlike the Utes, BYU wasn't denied a bowl berth last season because the Cougars LOST to the only WAC team they faced."

    USU wasn't the only WAC team we faced. We faced (and beat) another one on Sept. 15th.

  • Christy B Salt Lake City, Utah
    March 29, 2013 2:06 p.m.

    I have to agree with my little sister, BYU is the BEST Independent team in Utah, no doubt; the Cougars were also the 2nd BEST team in football, regardless of category, in 2012.

    Per Sagarin
    #19 Utah State(11-2)
    #26 BYU(8-5)
    #61 Utah(5-7)
    #179 Weber St(2-9)

    At least we're still good enough to beat the Wildcats in football; not so much in basketball, but at least we're trying harder with coach k.

  • Y Grad / Y Dad Richland, WA
    March 29, 2013 1:54 p.m.

    NV

    What brand are you building as a member of a REAL conference? A BCS conference? A relevant conference?

    That's right. BYU is the Band of Brothers, and the PAC whatever Utes is the Brand of ...

    You fill in the blank. First word that comes to mind is "losers."

    Did you note that some of your precious loot depends on actually playing in a bowl? Any bowl would be a good start, BCS would be great. Hmmmmm. And post-season basketball.

    It's a shame, really. I honestly believe Ur football and basketball teams will turn it around. But some "fans" will just continue to be turned around.

  • jdub1942 PROVO, UT
    March 29, 2013 1:47 p.m.

    BSU is a very small school, even though they have come to fame, they are not overflowing with cash and don't care much weight. I'm sure they are also very happy with what they get from Nike.
    I think BYU's contract is probably closer to ASU's contract, ASU has a decent fan base, are in in the Pac-12,could be more could be less.
    In conclusion I have no Idea what I am talking about.

  • Irrelevant Provo, UT
    March 29, 2013 1:46 p.m.

    @Duckhunted

    Please read the article then you'll see that the Y is a private funded university therefore they aren't required to disclose any information they don't want to.

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    March 29, 2013 1:35 p.m.

    Cougars1:

    "How did Utah do when they were in the WAC."

    We sucked! But then we joined the MWC, got better recruits, and then got better. In fact, we won 2 BCS bowls while there, and finished in the Top-5 twice. The cougars went the other way, never again finishing in the Top-10 like your other BCS busting brethren TCU and Boise St. Then again, that must partially explain why the cougars went BACK that way, when winning in the MWC was no longer an option for them (they were only options for TCU and BSU).

    "If BYU has WAC recruits, based on your argument, then Utah would still have MWC recruits as they have only played 2 years in the PAC."

    Yep. We've even said as much. However, Utah's Pac-12 recruits are now about the same number as our MWC recruits. That's a step UP from where we were. Your recruits were a step DOWN.

    Pac-12 Football recruits > MWC Football recruits > WAC/Indy-WAC Football recruits

  • Vladhagen Salt Lake City, UT
    March 29, 2013 1:11 p.m.

    The bumble B buzzes over to BYU once again. There must be something about the beauty of BYU that attracts his buzzing bumbling little beaty eyes. Didn't Mr. B and his comrades lose to USU last season? I guess that must have been a oversight on his part. Surely he wouldn't just throw yet another silly one of his claims on the table without backing it with some data would he?

  • phoenix Gilbert, AZ
    March 29, 2013 1:11 p.m.

    Naval Vet

    For all of BYU's "WACishness", BYU has still been more successful than the Utes and their "PACishness".

    2011 #25/#26/#34 BYU(10-3) > unranked/#39 Utah(8-5)
    2012 unranked/#26 BYU(8-5) bowl winner > unranked/#61 Utah(5-7) no bowl

    Unlike the Utes, BYU wasn't denied a bowl berth last season because the Cougars LOST to the only WAC team they faced.

    BYU's 2012 schedule - FIVE Top 25 teams:
    - #3/#4 Notre Dame, #16/#17 Utah St, #18/#14 Boise St, #20/#19 Oregon St, #21/#21 San Jose St

    Utah's 2012 schedule - TWO Top 25 teams:
    - #16/#17 Utah St, #20/#19 Oregon St

    It's the best teams on your schedule that really determine how difficult your schedule is.

    Team Y playing two teams ranked #1 and #119 would have an average schedule of #60
    Team U playing two teams ranked #59 and #61 would have an average schedule of #60

    Which team has the more difficult schedule?

    Answer that question truthfully and you'll understand why BYU had a much more difficult schedule in 2012, than Utah.

    For team not playing a "real" schedule - see mirror!

  • Cougars1 Bluffdale, UT
    March 29, 2013 1:00 p.m.

    Naval,
    Seems I struck a nerve. How frantic and emotional of you. BYU built it's brand as a member of both the WAC and the MWC. Please read the comment by phoenix. It speaks volumes. Irony- you making fun of BYU for having "WAC" recruits. How did Utah do when they were in the WAC. That's right, 2 WAC championships. If BYU has WAC recruits, based on your argument, then Utah would still have MWC recruits as they have only played 2 years in the PAC. That does explain why they have yet to beat a PAC team with a winning record.

  • phoenix Gilbert, AZ
    March 29, 2013 12:52 p.m.

    Duckhunted

    "Please quote actual dollars that each program gets...not that the nike swoosh draws recruits!!"

    Why are the kids on the hill are so obsessed with $$$, yet care so little about on-field success?

    After almost two full years in the conference, Utah's men's team still haven't finished in the upper half of the conference in ANY sport:

    7-11 in football
    8-28 in basketball

    -----

    btw chrissy,

    BYU won NINETEEN WAC championships
    Utah only won TWO

    It's laughable that you would disparage BYU "contending" for a WAC championship year in and year out, when the Utes haven't been a year in and year out contender for any conference championship for for more than 60 years.

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    March 29, 2013 12:40 p.m.

    Cougars1:

    "The WAC diatribe coming from you and Naval is not only old, but outdated. BYU plays 0 WAC schools in 2013."

    No, the "WAC" comments are most certainly NOT outdated. They're very current. Y fans like to talk about their "brand", but that brand wasn't built playing the kind of schedule you'll be facing in the Fall. It was built on beating up the weakest teams in the WAC. That hasn't changed. You left the MWC, and aligned yourselves with the WAC. You hauled in WAC-ish recruits. Perhaps it is YOU who needs to do a little research. My facts are straight, and irrefutable.

    Try playing a season with a "real" schedule...

    ...and THEN talk.

    Until then, you're WAC-ish.

  • Duckhunted provo, UT
    March 29, 2013 12:31 p.m.

    Please quote actual dollars that each program gets...not that the nike swoosh draws recruits!!
    CHIRP CHIRP!!

  • Cougars1 Bluffdale, UT
    March 29, 2013 12:33 p.m.

    Chris,
    The WAC diatribe coming from you and Naval is not only old, but outdated. BYU plays 0 WAC schools in 2013. You and your buddies need to do a little research before you continue with the same old, and tired rhetoric.

  • Austin Coug Pflugerville, TX
    March 29, 2013 12:06 p.m.

    @Duckhundted

    Your ignorance is showing. This is a series. If you want the USU and Utah articles, go back a few days.

  • Irrelevant Provo, UT
    March 29, 2013 11:48 a.m.

    @Duckhunted

    "Just another unbiased reporting by the DN.. They should rename the paper byudn!!"

    yet again we have another ute fan that can't understand why the Dnews favors BYU so much. lets set the record straight....... The church owns both, therefore BYU gets more attention. by the way you don't have to read a BYU article, the SLtrib is interesting too, sometimes.

    I really love the obsession Chris has with the Y. I'm beginning the sense some jealousy.

  • Duckhunted provo, UT
    March 29, 2013 11:44 a.m.

    Just another unbiased reporting by the DN.. They should rename the paper byudn!!

  • morganh Orem, Utah
    March 29, 2013 11:24 a.m.

    Hey Chris,

    Here is a list of some of the other schools that use Nike. Oregon, Stanford, Florida, Georgia, TCU etc... How many of these schools are in BCS conferences?

  • Cool Cat Cosmo Payson, UT
    March 29, 2013 11:13 a.m.

    They "contendend" just fine, which is more than the PAC-12 floor-mate Utes can say. How's the Ute postseason going again? ...oh, wait, sorry.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    March 29, 2013 11:04 a.m.

    This relationship has helped establish BYU as a WAC contendender year in and year out. Best independent team in Utah, no doubt.