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 "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

@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

@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

@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

@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

@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!

Naval Vet
Philadelphia, PA

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

@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?

truecoug1
Provo, UT

@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

@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

@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

@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

@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!

Naval Vet
Philadelphia, PA

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

@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.

truecoug1
Provo, UT

@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!

Naval Vet
Philadelphia, PA

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

truecoug1
Provo, UT

@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!

to comment

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