Comments about ‘BYU football to receive 6-figure payout from first game of Arizona series’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, May 14 2013 12:45 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
casual observer
Salt Lake City, UT

Sounds as if the PAC 12 recognizes BYU as a big draw money tree even if they passed them over because of their religious convictions.

Who am I sir?
Cottonwood Heights, UT

A PAC-12 opponent willing to play the Y! If: Arizona projected to make 50% more and be given twice as many complimentary tickets and PAC-12 has media rights. I thought it was interesting the Y's copy of the contract was shown. That way any hand written comments as to why it was structured with a "neutral site" (in Arizona) would not be shown. If they had been some might considered this a two for one contrary to the Y's position of never again accepting such an agreement. Love it! Note: all games in September. I thought only Utah wouldn't schedule them in November.

Frisco, TX

Love the neutral site games. I went the BYU vs TCU game at Cowboy stadium in 2011. There were as many BYU fans as Horned Frogs. I'm sure BYU will be well represented at this neutral site game also.

If BYU had stayed in the MWC, and played Wyoming; I wonder what the payout would be? And would I rather travel to Phoenix or Laramie? I'm sure by the time we get to 2016, the schedule will look a lot like the 2013 schedue, which is just as good as a Big12 or PAC schedule.

Don't get me wrong; I'd still prefer to be in the Big12, but Indy is so much better than MWC for football.

Smart Aleck
Vancouver, WA

BYU is willing to trade some of the payoff for exposure in a market with high concentrations of U of A alum and BYU alum. It perpetuates BYU's philosophy that scheduling The Cougars can be lucrative because exposure, not money, is BYU's primary motivation. This is one of the best examples of how BYU's quest for home-home-neutral series is supposed to work.

Ronald Uharriet
SWun City, Ca.

If giving the better deal to the BCS teams is what we have to do, in order to be able to play them, so be it.

It is worth the trade difference in order to get the exposure.

Once we start winning those BCS teams on a consistant basis, that will be the time
that we can start demanding equality. Until than, perhaps we are not equal.

We should not complain until we can show that indeed we can win as many games or more vs those BCS
that now get the better pay.

Don't we get the better deal when we play teams like Idaho, Idaho State, UNLV. If not, perhaps we should.

Ronald Uharriet
SWun City, Ca.

If all were perfect and all was fair in college football, which it isn't, we should complain about the uneven payout and advantages all going to Arizona including money, free tickets and State that the neutral playing field is being played in,
(Arizona and not Utah, or Nevada).

Since the happenings in college football are not always fair, perhaps, we should not complain when a team with greater National Respect, i.e. a team from a BCS Conference, plays a Mid Major Team, be that Mid Major Team coming from a Mid Major Conference or be they an Independent, I think that the Mid Majors should not complain and accept the unfairness as a fact that part of the privilege of playing the BCS team is to compensate that BCS team as indicated in the posted contract.

My question is: When BYU plays teams like Idaho or Idaho State, do we get an advantage? Is our share of the pot larger than that of Idaho or Idaho State or other lesser schools? Do we get more free tickets? Do we get the advantage of where the games are played in the series?

Naval Vet
Philadelphia, PA

So Arizona gets to play TWO games in AZ to only ONE game in Utah, they get twice as many comp tickets as their opponent, scheduled to receive a 45% HIGHER payout, and they get to play the first two games of the series up front instate?

Sure looks likes like little brother got the shorter, "mid-majorey" end of the deal to me. Thanks Ryan Carreon! I got a good chuckle out of your article. Were you laughing while you were writing it?

Naval Vet
Philadelphia, PA


"I'm sure by the time we get to 2016, the schedule will look a lot like the 2013 schedue, which is just as good as a Big12 or PAC schedule."

Nope. You're '13 schedule is most certainly NOT Pac-12/Big 12 worthy. There appears to be way too many mid-majors on it to be in the same elite BCS class as the Pac-12/Big 12. I'm sure your '16 schedule will be just as mid-majorey, if not moreso.

Columbia, MO

This payout is as good as many bowl games. The exposure for BYU is actually better than a game in Tucson and I'm glad that there will be Big 12 referees. No more PAC12 homecooking from the officials.

Y Grad / Y Dad
Richland, WA

I'm glad so many ankle-biters are enjoying so much trying to rile the true blue by pointing out what this is not, rather than what it is.

How much will Utah earn that weekend?

How many sets of eyes will watch Utah's game that weekend?

And IF Arizona backs out of the third game, how much will Utah earn that year for not playing somebody?

Now, for the record, I don't care about the answers. I don't care what Utah is or isn't doing, who they are or are not playing and how much they are or are not making. It appears Arizona is VERY happy to be playing BYU. Playing BYU is big money.

Where is your NC?
Denver, CO

Naval Vet,

You're right, BYU's '13 schedule with 4-5 ranked teams on it isn't better than your Pac 10+2 schedule with 2 ranked teams. Utah, CO, and WSU are to the Pac 10 what WYO, UNM, and UNLV were to the MWC. Shoot, you don't even have the second toughest schedule in the state!

Naval Vet
Philadelphia, PA

Where is your NC?:

To what rankings were you referring? Neither the AP nor the Coaches polls have been released yet, and the only polls I'd seen thus far were titled "Way too early...".

Hold you're horses. Phil Steele will release his preseason publication in about 5-wks. Then we'll know. And I'll betcha he ranks our SOS as tougher than yours, and you'll run off and change your handle to another name.


Not sure why anyone says that BYU gets the worse deal here. You can't tell from the term sheet who gets the better deal. All of the commenters have only mentioned the revenues. What about the expenses? Surely there are real expenses right?

Who pays those? Oh, it says right there, AZ pays most of the expenses. HMMMM...... well then, is it possible that BYU walks away with more in profits?? It's impossible to know from just this sheet.

But ignoring expenses when trying to calculate profit seems a bit silly to me.

Mesa, AZ

I chuckle at byu fans on this thread referencing, in an obviously vain attempt, a "comparison" of our respective schedules and the strength of each. Please. Two Top-5 teams in Stanford/UO, alone, dwarf the entirety of byu's schedule. We all witnessed in conclusion of this last season how utterly unworthy ND was, for instance, of ever legitimately being even remotely considered to be at this same Elite level. No amount of Spin comes close to altering this proven fact.

Has byu succeeded in enhancing their SOS, on paper, for 2013? Certainly, nobody disputes this, but they, unequivocally, don't face a true, relentless week-in, week-out grind of a schedule, whatsoever. For comparison, just simply reference our six-game stretch, midseason, in 2013, as clear evidence.

This leads up to the three-game series this article dicusses. AIl know byu has a good size chunk of their fanbase down here in PHX-Metro, but where do think the vast majority of ua students relocate to, upon graduating from ua? Michigan? Florida?

Not only is their fanbase enormous down here, but the figures discussed within this article further cement how utterly one-sided it is, in BCS ua's favor.

let's roll

The BCS is dead. Its funeral will be in January. So why are people still talking about BCS conferences as if the term carries any relevance?

The landscape of college football will shortly look much more like March Madness than the BCS. While Football will never have a 64 team tournament, I suspect they'll be at 8 (and then 12 and then 16) sooner rather than later and there will be multiple paths to qualify...and if I am to believe those who trumpet what a daunting death march a PAC-12 schedule is, the more feasible path to selection may be an Independent schedule with a couple of high profile wins.

Any reasonable observer would agree the likelihood of BYU or Utah getting in the tournament anytime soon is a long shot, but it's time to acknowledge that membership in the PAC-12 may be more of an impediment to Utah's chances than an advantage.

It's far more likely that either Utah or BYU would qualify for the tournament as an Independent with two signature wins than it would be that either one of them would win the PAC-12. BYU may indeed have the easier path.

Springville, UT

I'm humored by the remarks over SOS by our little sisters up north.

The poor Utes were so eager to play 'big boy' football and now they bring up the sad fact that their SOS is tough. That must be 'code speak' for an excuse to losing a lot of games.

And here comes the opportunity for BYU to play its best schedule ever and we have jealous Utesies worried about it.


Howard S.
Taylorsville, UT

BYU will likely lose money on the "neutral" site game.

First, BYU has to pay its own travel costs.

Second, in order to balance the home/away schedule Tom Holmoe will have pay an FCS team to come to LES on a one and done basis.

At best the Cougs break even.

Not only does AZ get more money for the neutral site game they won't have the same level of travel costs, and the PAC12 owns the broadcast rights.

These are the kinds of one-sided deals BYU has to agree to with its weaker negotiating position against the big boys.


Where's your proof. What are the travel expense of the Cougs? You really think they are over $800k?
Also, what are AZ costs to host the event? What is their advertising budget etc.
Do you know your statement to be true or are you estimating? If they lose money I'd like to know.

River Falls, WI


"Has byu succeeded in enhancing their SOS, on paper, for 2013? Certainly, nobody disputes this, but they, unequivocally, don't face a true, relentless week-in, week-out grind of a schedule, whatsoever."

Seriously? Well, let's see, the most criticized part of BYU's schedule has always been November scheduling, so let's use that as a comparison...

Utah's 2013 November games: ASU, Oregon, WSU, Colorado.
BYU's 2013 November games: Wisconsin, Idaho State, Notre Dame, Nevada

Now, I agree that Utah's schedule for 2013 is pretty solid and the six week grind you referenced (which includes BYU) will certainly be tough. But you can't honestly say that BYU isn't facing an equally tough slate. Texas, Boise State, Wisconsin, and Notre Dame are as good or better than the top four teams the Utes face. Both teams are looking at very difficult schedules for 2013.

Mesa, AZ


"Seriously? Well, let's see, the most criticized part of BYU's schedule has always been November scheduling, so let's use that as a comparison...

Utah's 2013 November games: ASU, Oregon, WSU, Colorado.
BYU's 2013 November games: Wisconsin, Idaho State, Notre Dame, Nevada"

November? No, it's been the entirety of their schedule which has consistently been under scrutiny. Last year was merely an extreme ex RE: Nov, but byu's sched is punctuated with weeks off in between their tougher games, annually. 2013 is no exception, with two strategically placed bye-weeks prior to games against UTAH/WISC, MTSU GT from the weak ACC, UH, ID ST and a UNR team whose time in the sun has clearly run its course, particularly with breaking in a brand-new HC in replacing their legend.

to comment

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