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
truecoug1
Provo, UT

@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.

truecoug1
Provo, UT

@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

@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

@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!

Naval Vet
Philadelphia, PA

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.

Naval Vet
Philadelphia, PA

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

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".

truecoug1
Provo, UT

@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.

truecoug1
Provo, UT

@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

@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

@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

@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!

Naval Vet
Philadelphia, PA

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.

Naval Vet
Philadelphia, PA

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

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

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

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.

truecoug1
Provo, UT

@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.

truecoug1
Provo, UT

@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

@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.

to comment

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