Quantcast

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
Naval Vet
Philadelphia, PA

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.

mussingaround
Palo Alto, CA

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

truecoug1
Provo, UT

@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.

truecoug1
Provo, UT

@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

@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!

Naval Vet
Philadelphia, PA

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..."

Naval Vet
Philadelphia, PA

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."

truecoug1
Provo, UT

@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.

truecoug1
Provo, UT

@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

@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!

Naval Vet
Philadelphia, PA

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...

Naval Vet
Philadelphia, PA

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.

truecoug1
Provo, UT

@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!

truecoug1
Provo, UT

@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!

Naval Vet
Philadelphia, PA

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.

Naval Vet
Philadelphia, PA

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.

truecoug1
Provo, UT

@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.

truecoug1
Provo, UT

@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!

Naval Vet
Philadelphia, PA

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.

Naval Vet
Philadelphia, PA

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?

to comment

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