Comments about ‘Underneath the logo: BYU contract with Nike delivers recruits in addition to apparel’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, March 29 2013 11:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Cougars1
Bluffdale, UT

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.

Cougars1
Bluffdale, UT

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.

Naval Vet
Philadelphia, PA

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

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.

Cougars1
Bluffdale, UT

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

truecoug1
Provo, UT

@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."

truecoug1
Provo, UT

@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.

Cougars1
Bluffdale, UT

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.

NightOwlAmerica
SALEM, OR

BYU = no plan or even a backup plan.

Cougars1
Bluffdale, UT

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.

Naval Vet
Philadelphia, PA

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

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

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

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

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

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.

mussingaround
Palo Alto, CA

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.

Naval Vet
Philadelphia, PA

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.

Naval Vet
Philadelphia, PA

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

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.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments