Quantcast
Sports

BYU football: Cougars make 3 significant announcements on media day

Comments

Return To Article
  • truecoug1 Provo, UT
    July 1, 2013 3:15 p.m.

    @Uteology

    Wow...so Wiscougarfan asks MyPerspective to cite actual evidence that any BYU fan has dreamed of being in the PAC 12, and the best that you can come up with is an old Utah football coach's perception of BYU? And not only that, but it's one in which you're not even sure if McBride's referencing BYU fans, or the BYU administration, or the BYU coaches?

    That was a pretty weak attempt at citing evidence.

    As for me, I'm extremely happy that BYU is independent. I have never dreamed about BYU going to the PAC 12. It'd be a horrible fit culturally, and there's no way that the PAC would consider it on that alone. I think BYU to the Big XII would be cool, but I really do like independence, and what it has done for BYU in expanding their brand and increasing their exposure.

    Looking forward to the season.

    Go Cougars!

  • Uteology East Salt Lake City, Utah
    July 1, 2013 2:52 p.m.

    @Wiscougarfan

    please cite actual evidence that ANY real BYU football fan has ever dreamt of joining the PAC 10.

    -----------

    According to Ron McBride:

    "In the early years, I think BYU felt that they had outgrown the conference and their people were talking about how BYU would go to the Big 12 or the Pac-10.

    They used to come into the Utah game always talking about who they would be playing in their bowl game.... When we started beating them, they stopped talking about their bowl game."

    I'm not sure if McBride was referring to players, coaches, administration, fans, or combination.

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    July 1, 2013 7:29 a.m.

    Untruthful Machine:

    I say again, Baylor was NEVER part of the original plan! NEVER!

    Baylor might have been part of the plans for some Texas legislators. They might have even been part of Texas' plans. But they were NEVEER part of the Pac-10's. The Pac-10 proposed the merger to Texas and Texas A&M. They were interested in Oklahoma. Tx. Tech was a school the Pac-10 would have been willing to put up with if that was what it'd take to get Texas. THOSE were the Big 12 South schools the Pac-10 petitioned. They did NOT petition Baylor. Baylor injected THEMSELVES into the discussion, and thought they could bully/anklebite their way into the "Pac-16" the same way they bullied/anklebit their way into the Big 12. But it was a FAIL! Because while the "Pac-16" was in Baylor's plans, Baylor was never in the Pac-10's.

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    July 1, 2013 7:20 a.m.

    Cougsndawgs:

    "Everyone knows the PAC wasn't getting Oklahoma without OSU. The discussions were with OSU included, nowhere did I see them not in the discussion during the original push for expansion to 16."

    Yes you did. You stalk me enough to have seen all articles I posted on these threads on WELL more than one occasion. OSU was part of the plan at first, but by the time Scott and Pac-10 were ready to had out invites, it was reported that OSU was NOT getting an invite.

    "That's why in 2011 Oklahoma applied WITH OSU...they were never leaving without them."

    Just because OU applied with OSU in 2011, that does NOT support that the Cowboys would have been invited had Texas opted to move west. There are 2 points that you need to pay attention to in this matter:

    (1) In 2011, the Pac-12 did NOT petition OU and OSU to apply. The petition was OU and OSU to the Pac-12.

    (2) The Pac-12 DECLINED their application.

    Being "rejected" in 2011 does not insinuated OSU was wanted in 2010.

  • SLC BYU Fan Salt Lake City, UT
    June 30, 2013 10:00 p.m.

    More misconceptions from posters who know NOTHING about why leagues expand and if school governance boards will allow it.
    1-BYU isn't going ANYWHERE but maybe back to the MWC by 2016 with their current governance board lineup, some of whom feel BYU should be more like the smaller liberal arts oriented WCC schools. This more than anything shot down the BYU opportunity back in September/October 2011 to get invited to the Big 12.
    2-Utah was a solid backup plan to be a second school to accompany Colorado who wanted to move to the Pac-12 for several years, particularly since the Arizona schools joined the league as far back as the late 1970s.
    3-Of any Pac-12 schools not part of the AAU currently, Utah has the best odds of landing in that eleite group since they're the only one of the 4 that has a medical school. This is why it was easy for Pac-12 presidents to settle on Utah. It requires a unanimous vote by Pac-12 bylaws to epxand and accept an institution. BYU, Boise State, Baylor & Okalhoma State NEVER has such support. End of discussion as per Larry Scott.

  • Cougsndawgs West Point , UT
    June 30, 2013 10:41 a.m.

    guitarboy:
    Also "directly" to the point is that BYU is 7-4 against the PAC prior to Utah joining, while Utah is 4-3 (since 2005). As I pointed out to AZUTE in another thread this is the only fair comparison that leaves out his "week in week out grind" excuse. Still advantage BYU. It won't change ute trolls from skewing, distorting, bait and switching, and changing the parameters to be more favorable to their crimson reality.

  • guitarboy South Jordan, UT
    June 29, 2013 2:20 p.m.

    Wiscougarfan you nailed it on the head.

    Wiscougarfan writes: "The actual 'head-on' and 'direct' answer [to guitarboy's questions] is Utah was 11-14 against PAC12 foes from 2005-2012, and 4-3 prior to joining the conference. See, that was easy."

    BYU, is 9-7 since 2005, against PAC teams.

    And Wiscougarfan you are correct, I chose 2005 because that is when Bronco and Kyle both started coaching. I was laughing hard when I was asked why I chose that year. The answer should be obvious to any Utah or BYU fan. It was easy for you, Wiscougarfan, to know the answer.

    I actually like Utah. I feel they would have probably beaten Florida in a bowl in 2008, and taken the national championship instead of ending the season #2, if they had not been discriminated against and shafted by the BCS. But it is some of Utah's online fans that, well, yeah.

  • Cougsndawgs West Point , UT
    June 29, 2013 10:14 a.m.

    MyPerspective:
    "Comments like this are hard for me to read through my tears of laughter. Wow, you people are still steamed because your 30 year old dream of being in the Pac was stolen by your neighbors. I have to say this much for you Cougsndawgs...you got the research institution part right. The rest of your post is nothing more than excuses. Ah, yes...byu, always the victim".

    Steamed? Nope. Excuses? Missed again. If you read my post I was responding to NV saying the PAC10 wanted Utah. What he failed to state was that they needed a 12th team to fill a slot for a CCG and there were no better research institutions geographically than Utah and Colorado. So because of their snooty academic requirements they HAD to take a couple of programs lacking in "athletic prowess" (see Rutgers & Maryland...same scenario). They wanted the Denver and SLC markets and tier 1 research schools so they got stuck with U. I'm happy for Utah being in the PAC, I really am, but I've never desired that for BYU. I'd prefer the Big 12 which is a much better cultural fit than the hippy tree-hugger league.

  • Wiscougarfan River Falls, WI
    June 28, 2013 10:16 p.m.

    RE: MyPerspective

    "Comments like this are hard for me to read through my tears of laughter. Wow, you people are still steamed because your 30 year old dream of being in the Pac was stolen by your neighbors."

    I can't speak for others, but my hope has always been the Big 12. It's unlikely we'll ever get an invite, but that would be my "dream." Here's a challenge for MyPerspective or any other troll... please cite actual evidence that ANY real BYU football fan has ever dreamt of joining the PAC 10. You can check the archives here in DesNews that go back several years. I would love to read those comments. According to you there must be many, I'd like to see ONE. Cheers in advance.

  • MyPerspective Salt Lake City, UT
    June 28, 2013 10:00 p.m.

    Cougsndawgs

    "SoColorado and Utah were "tier 1" research schools and the only ones that made geographical sense, and weren't religiously affiliated schools (TCU would never be "wanted" by the PAC for this reason, despite having as much or more "athletic prowess" as Utah). they HAD to take U or not have a CCG. Spin it how you want, that is the only reason Utah is in the PAC12."

    Comments like this are hard for me to read through my tears of laughter. Wow, you people are still steamed because your 30 year old dream of being in the Pac was stolen by your neighbors. I have to say this much for you Cougsndawgs...you got the research institution part right. The rest of your post is nothing more than excuses. Ah, yes...byu, always the victim.

    The Pac-12 and Big10 are taking byu's bowl slots. Who will you blame for that? Hint: look no further than Holmoe's independence experiment. LOL!!

  • Marked it Down Park City, UT
    June 28, 2013 9:38 p.m.

    Truth Machine

    "The source said there was not much enthusiasm for a full-blown merger or for the league to go to 12 schools by adding Colorado and Utah."

    Despite the spin from the hill, it's obvious that the PAC 10 had to hold their collective nose when they decided to invite Utah.

  • Reno Cougs Fan 68 Reno, NV
    June 28, 2013 9:07 p.m.

    Howard S,

    Thanks for trying but BYU has not had a losing season yet as an Indy/Wacer unlike the Utes have had both years in the PAC12!!!

    So you are wrong about BYU but dead on about Utah being a bottom feeder!!!

    Go Cougs!!!
    Go Utes!!!

  • Cougsndawgs West Point , UT
    June 28, 2013 7:14 p.m.

    Wiscougarfan:
    Lol. Buckle Up Wisky...we all know it's not over yet. There's still more left in the spin cycle. I'm just glad you have more patience than I do to deal with all the tangents and changes in argument and shadow dancing.

  • Just the FAX Olympus Cove, Utah
    June 28, 2013 6:44 p.m.

    Wiscougarfan

    Reasonable answers to an unreasonable critic.

    The line of demarcation in Utah sports history is interesting.

    Nothing before 2004 counts in football; nothing since 2005 counts in basketball.

  • Wiscougarfan River Falls, WI
    June 28, 2013 5:51 p.m.

    RE: AZUTE1

    Here’s the list you asked for

    Wins: Arizona (3-8, 2005), UCLA (6-7, 2007), #18 Oregon State (9-4, 2008), Cal (8-5, 2009), Oregon State (3-9, 2011), Arizona (4-8, 2011), UCLA (6-8, 2011), Washington State (4-8, 2011), Cal (3-9, 2012), Washington State (3-9, 2012), Colorado (1-11, 2012)

    Losses: UCLA (7-6, 2006), Oregon State (9-4, 2007), Oregon (10-3, 2009), USC (10-2, 2011), Washington (7-6, 2011), #22 Arizona State (6-7, 2011), Cal (7-6, 2011), Colorado (3-10, 2011), Arizona State (8-5, 2012), #13 USC (7-6, 2012), UCLA (9-5, 2012), #8 Oregon State (9-3, 2012), Washington (7-6, 2012), Arizona (8-5, 2012)

    Winning percentage of all the PAC 10/12 teams Utah has faced: 149/158 (.485)
    Winning percentage of all the PAC 10/12 teams BYU has faced: 93/107 (.465)

    BYU vs. PAC 10/12 teams with winning records: 3-6 (.333)
    Utah vs. PAC 10/12 teams with winning records: 2-12 (.143)

  • Wiscougarfan River Falls, WI
    June 28, 2013 5:50 p.m.

    RE: AZUTE1

    “I'm curious to know why you feel 2005 is the "appropriate" cut-off point? Why not go back to 2003? Or, how about covering all 15 BCS Era seasons? Why stop at 2005? What's so special about 2005? How about listing, while you're at it, the names of each school beat and their final records/each season you reference?”

    The reason he and the rest of us use 2005 as a guideline is because if we go back further than Ute trolls give us a hard time for living in the past and if we only use the last two seasons trolls are upset because it doesn’t include their two good seasons. 2005 is reasonable to any college football fan because it is the beginning of the Mendenhall/Wittingham era.

  • Wiscougarfan River Falls, WI
    June 28, 2013 5:44 p.m.

    Just caught up on the guitarboy/AZUTE1 "debate."

    Guitarboy "You also evaded and did not answer (perhaps out of insecurity or fear) my question: What is the UofU's record against PAC teams since 2005?"

    AZEUTE1 “Actually, I answered it head-on in my explanation of the difference in playing PAC-12 schools in a week-in, week-out grind as opposed to just simply playing against them every once in a while, which you evaded me on. Was it out of insecurity or fear?”

    And later

    “Again, I answered you directly, yet you refuse to acknowledge it. Are you afraid to acknowledge it?”

    This is a perfect example of what a troll is. To a Ute troll “head-on” and "direct" means I don't have to answer your question because it doesn’t work for me so I’ll change the subject instead. Note: even with him changing the subject guitarboy still wrote reasonable responses to his questions (way to go Guitarboy!).

    BTW, The actual “head-on” and "direct" answer is Utah was 11-14 against PAC12 foes from 2005-2012, and 4-3 prior to joining the conference. See, that was easy.

  • Wiscougarfan River Falls, WI
    June 28, 2013 5:31 p.m.

    RE: AZUTE1

    “There's an enormous difference in playing against PAC-12 schools in a week-in, week-out grind than it is to play against them in a "hit-and-miss" scenario where they get sandwiched in-between the bottom-feeders typically constituting 2-Star byu's schedule.”

    Nice try… in the last two years BYU has played 4 PAC12 teams “sandwiched” by the following weaklings: ranked Texas, UCF, Weber State, Ranked Boise State, ranked Utah State, ranked Notre Dame. We did sandwich bottom dwelling OSU with SJSU and ISU and opened 2012 with pancake WSU, but the outcomes of those games were never in question (even Utah can beat those teams).

  • Truth Machine Salt Lake City, UT
    June 28, 2013 5:29 p.m.

    Navel Vet

    "Baylor was NEVER part of the original plan! NEVER!"

    Not entirely true.

    According to OrangeBloods, which broke the original PAC 10/Big 12 South merger story, on Saturday, June 5, 2010, Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott laid out several possible expansion scenarios to his league's athletic directors during conference meetings in San Francisco.

    According to a source with knowledge of the Pac-10 meetings, Scott made cases to: stay at its current 10-school membership; merge with the entire Big 12; invite six schools from the Big 12, as long as it included Texas; or invite Colorado and Utah.

    The source said there was not much enthusiasm for a full-blown merger or for the league to go to 12 schools by adding Colorado and Utah.

    Scott also laid out two plans that would involve the six-team invitation to schools in the Big 12. One that included Colorado and one that replaced Colorado with Baylor along with the other members of the Big 12 South.

    It's clear that the Utes simply got lucky that things worked out for them; there was never much enthusiasm for adding Utah. Fans around the league still feel that way.

  • CO Ute PARKER, CO
    June 28, 2013 5:12 p.m.

    This is a nice pick up for the Y and especially to help with a strong November game. However it is still a 2 for 1 deal which seems to be the trend for the Cougs when they schedule the big boys. (Some of you can rant all you want but the U didn't need a 2 for 1 to get Michigan on the schedule.)

    p.s. to guitarboy - the ESPN relationship has absolutely has nothing to do with the strength of your team. It has everything to do with the fact that there are millions of Mormons across the country and many of them will watch the Y games regardless of their record, talent level, or the team they are playing. That's a good thing for the Y but doesn't in any way mean they have a strong team.

  • Cougsndawgs West Point , UT
    June 28, 2013 4:28 p.m.

    Naval Vet:
    Everyone knows the PAC wasn't getting Oklahoma without OSU. The discussions were with OSU included, nowhere did I see them not in the discussion during the original push for expansion to 16. That's why in 2011 Oklahoma applied WITH OSU...they were never leaving without them. I know there were contingencies on OSU becoming a tier 1 institution if it all went through, but nowhere did I see them left out of the discussion.

  • NightOwlAmerica SALEM, OR
    June 28, 2013 3:25 p.m.

    There was never an original plan to invite Baylor to the PAC. That started with crying politicians with ties to the school attempting to ride the coattails of Texas in the move.

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    June 28, 2013 2:44 p.m.

    Cougsndawgs:

    "When TAMU became skittish, Scott visited Kansas to try and evaluate their interest instead. In the end, had Texas accepted and TAMU remained behind, it would have been between Kansas and Utah for the final 16th spot (Kansas is AAU, larger fanbase)."

    Between Utah and Kansas, it isn't known who would have taken the 16th spot, but that fact of the matter is nothing more than immaterial splitting of hairs. Had Kansas been the 16th team, Utah would have been the 15th. Had Utah been the 16th team, then Kansas would have been the 15th.

    CU took the 1st spot, so had Texas accepted, they would have taken the 2nd. Spots 3 and 4 would have gone to Oklahoma and Tx. Tech. Oklahoma St. wasn't getting an invite, so Utah and Kansas would taken the 5th and 6th.

  • AZUTE1 Mesa, AZ
    June 28, 2013 11:38 a.m.

    Correction--

    "....my direct-response to his question AND refuses...."

  • AZUTE1 Mesa, AZ
    June 28, 2013 11:28 a.m.

    guitarboy--

    "Let the record reflect that AZUTE1 (weewilly), lover of all things vN, refuses to tell us what Utah's record is against PAC teams since 2005, or even from 2005-2010/11 (i.e. excluding Utah's PAC years in a weak PAC division, which AZUTE seems to think that is too hard)."

    Let the record reflect, guitarboy has refused to acknowledge my direct-response to his question refuses to acknowledge any/all of what I've stated in relation to it!

  • guitarboy South Jordan, UT
    June 28, 2013 11:09 a.m.

    BYU is 9-7 against PAC teams since 2005. See Wednesday's DN article "BYU, USC announce 3-game football series, first BYU home game in 2019."

    BYU will see Utah in September, and then we will see how well placed AZUTE1's evasiveness is.

    Let the record reflect that AZUTE1 (weewilly), lover of all things vN, refuses to tell us what Utah's record is against PAC teams since 2005, or even from 2005-2010/11 (i.e. excluding Utah's PAC years in a weak PAC division, which AZUTE seems to think that is too hard).

  • AZUTE1 Mesa, AZ
    June 28, 2013 11:02 a.m.

    guitarboy--

    I'm curious to know why you feel 2005 is the "appropriate" cut-off point? Why not go back to 2003? Or, how about covering all 15 BCS Era seasons? Why stop at 2005? What's so special about 2005?

    How about listing, while you're at it, the names of each school beat and their final records/each season you reference?

  • AZUTE1 Mesa, AZ
    June 28, 2013 10:55 a.m.

    guitarboy--

    "BYU is 9-7 against PAC teams record since 2005. See Wednesday's DN article "BYU, USC announce 3-game football series, first BYU home game in 2019." What is Utah's record against PAC teams since 2005? Or 2005-2010/11 (if you want to exclude Utah's PAC years, since you seem to think that is too hard). Are you afraid to answer?"

    Again, I answered you directly, yet you refuse to acknowledge it. Are you afraid to acknowledge it?

  • AZUTE1 Mesa, AZ
    June 28, 2013 10:52 a.m.

    guitarboy--

    "That said, things are turning."

    How do you figure? The gap is widening rapidly in recruiting [19 of 2-Star byu's 28 commits in 2013 were rated 2-Stars by Scout, for instance, and 2014 is headed into the same, exact direction] and it was only 2 years ago that UTAH annihilated 2-Star byu on their homefield, 54-10! Even with numerous key-starters out last season, UTAH still had a commanding lead in the 4th-QTR of the game, 24-7, before taking their foot off the pedal and committing unforced-errors, which allowed 2-Star byu to stay in the game longer!

    This is not a debate 2-Star byu fan is even remotely capable of winning!

  • guitarboy South Jordan, UT
    June 28, 2013 10:47 a.m.

    (continued) AZUTE1 (weewilly), lover of all things vN:

    Those who slobber all over themselves trying to convince others Utah football and it's cute little 45,000 seat stadium and 3-point wins over BYU (but the 54-10 debacle in Provo was a definite huge win by Utah), make it far superior to BYU, seems like they protest too much.

    Utah is, for now, a better football team than BYU, primarily due to the recent won-loss record: Utah is 4-1 of the last five, and the last three in a row.

    But that does not mean Utah is 4-star and BYU 2-star. If BYU is 2-star, why does BYU have a multi-million dollar contract with EPSN, and a better record over 16 games against PAC teams than Utah since 2005?

    BYU is 9-7 against PAC teams record since 2005. See Wednesday's DN article "BYU, USC announce 3-game football series, first BYU home game in 2019." What is Utah's record against PAC teams since 2005? Or 2005-2010/11 (if you want to exclude Utah's PAC years, since you seem to think that is too hard). Are you afraid to answer?

  • AZUTE1 Mesa, AZ
    June 28, 2013 10:44 a.m.

    guitarboy--

    "You also evaded and did not answer (perhaps out of insecurity or fear) my question:

    What is the UofU's record against PAC teams since 2005?"

    Actually, I answered it head-on in my explanation of the difference in playing PAC-12 schools in a week-in, week-out grind as opposed to just simply playing against them every once in a while, which you evaded me on. Was it out of insecurity or fear?

  • AZUTE1 Mesa, AZ
    June 28, 2013 10:38 a.m.

    anti BCS/guitarboy--

    [Cont'd]

    Although a slight upgrade in strength, not even 2-Star byu's 2013 schedule constitutes a legitimate week-in, week-out grind! This is something entirely foreign to 2-Star byu! 2-Star byu's 2013 schedule is ripe with weeks-off in-between their tougher games! See UTAH's 2013 mid-season 8-game strength for a comparison!

    Phil Steele's 2013 SOS has UTAH's ranked precisely at #12 and 2-Star byu's precisely at #49, the latter falling barely inside of the nation's Top-50%!

  • guitarboy South Jordan, UT
    June 28, 2013 10:38 a.m.

    AZUTE1, lover of all things vN:

    Some of the facts you allege, are true. Some are not.

    You are correct that playing within the PAC conference, means playing more PAC teams more often.

    You are also correct that Utah is 8-3 against BYU in the past 11 years. That is the main reason why I believe Utah football is, for the past 10 years, better, than BYU football.

    That said, things are turning. The last two games at RES were in doubt until after the final play of the game. But there is also something to be said for who is the most recent winner. That is, again, Utah. Therefore, Utah has the better football team until proven otherwise. We'll see you in September. Anyone from either team who expects a win, should temper their words.

    You forgot to mention that the MWC had a winning record against the PAC 12 at the date BYU and Utah exited the MWC.

    You also evaded and did not answer (perhaps out of insecurity or fear) my question:

    What is the UofU's record against PAC teams since 2005?

    (continued)

  • AZUTE1 Mesa, AZ
    June 28, 2013 10:25 a.m.

    anti BCS/guitarboy--

    There's an enormous difference in playing against PAC-12 schools in a week-in, week-out grind than it is to play against them in a "hit-and-miss" scenario where they get sandwiched in-between the bottom-feeders typically constituting 2-Star byu's schedule. The former not only requires a higher level of overall-talent but, more importantly, it requires BCS-level depth. These 2 things are precisely what UTAH's currently addressing in their BCS recruiting-classes as they transition into The PAC-12.

    Despite this all-important difference, 2-Star byu can still only beat 2 PAC-12 schools which finished at the very bottom of the conference standings in 2011 OSU and 2012 WAZZU and got absolutely brutally curb-stomped at home by the only 2 PAC-12 schools which finished the season with a winning record, 2011 UTAH and 2012 OSU, to the tune of 96-34!

    The 5th-game was yet another loss to UTAH, making 2-Star byu 0-2 against UTAH!

    UTAH has now won 3 straight over 2-Star byu, 4 of 5, 8 of 11 and owns the overall record by miles and miles, 56-34-4!

  • Cougsndawgs West Point , UT
    June 28, 2013 9:46 a.m.

    Naval Vet:
    I actually agree with everything you said until this: "And by the time the Pac-10 was ready to extend invites, UTAH was in w/ or w/o Texas".

    It is, in fact true that actual invites were already extended to CU and Texas. But Creative Arts had a much bigger vision, which Scott liked and embraced. It was then thought that going to a Super 16 conference was the ultimate goal, so TT, TAMU, Oklahoma, and OSU were also considered as contingents with Texas. This would have been the 16 teams CAA and Scott wanted. Later in negotiations TAMU balked and openly stated their affinity for the SEC instead (it's still not known whether they would have actually gone with the others had Texas accepted the PAC10...they were on the fence). When TAMU became skittish, Scott visited Kansas to try and evaluate their interest instead. In the end, had Texas accepted and TAMU remained behind, it would have been between Kansas and Utah for the final 16th spot (Kansas is AAU, larger fanbase). When Texas said no, the PAC HAD to invite Utah as their only viable "tier 1" school to hold a CCG.

  • guitarboy South Jordan, UT
    June 28, 2013 9:31 a.m.

    *2005 (correcting typo below)

  • guitarboy South Jordan, UT
    June 28, 2013 9:24 a.m.

    vN,

    The Cougars have faced teams from the Pac-12 Conference 16 times under head coach Bronco Mendenhall and have earned a 9-7 record since 2005. See Wednesday's DN article "BYU, USC announce 3-game football series, first BYU home game in 2019."

    What is the UofU's record against PAC teams since 1005?

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    June 28, 2013 7:24 a.m.

    anti BCS:

    "Sorry, that's complete revisionist history. The original plan was for the entire Big 12 South (Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Baylor, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State) to merge with the PAC 10."

    Baylor was NEVER part of the original plan! NEVER! You made that up. And YOU'RE calling out UU702 for "revisionist history"? Typical hypocrtitical coug.

    The "original" plan was CU and Texas....back in 1995. When that didn't take, the Pac-10 held at 10 teams until flirting with expansion again in discussions 14-yrs later. In those later discussions, the Pac-10 considered CU and Texas as their first choice, but figuring Texas was a long shot, also discussed....UTAH as part of their expansion plans.

    Later options included dropping Utah and CU in favor of Texas and Texas A&M, but that was ALSO considered a long shot.

    The raid on the Big 12 South (CU, Tx, Tx Tech, Tx A&M, Okla, and OSU) wasn't dreamt up until Scott hired Creative Artists Agency (CAA), but Utah had ALREADY been in discussions for MONTHS!

    And by the time the Pac-10 was ready to extend invites, UTAH was in w/ or w/o Texas.

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    June 28, 2013 7:12 a.m.

    MacNasty:

    "Saying toosmartfroryou is revising history is astoundingly ironic considering that you are delving into revisionist history. The PAC 10 wanted the Texas teams, but the Texas legislature basically said the PAC takes Baylor or no deal."

    Seriously? YOU'RE accusing UU702 of"revising history" with THAT historical revision? The Texas legislature successfully pulled that stunt on the Big 8 when they tried expanding to a 10-team league with Texas and Texas A&M back in 1995, under the direction of the late Gov. Richards and late Lt. Gov. Bullock. But that was the last time it worked. There never WAS any legislation in Texas mandating Baylor follow the Longhorns to the Pac-10. You made that up. You "revised history".

    Typical hypocritical coug.

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    June 28, 2013 7:11 a.m.

    nottoosmartforUtes:

    "Hey, Naval, I love your revisionist history."

    MY "revisionist history"? MINE? YOU'RE the one rewriting the end of the Pac-10's overtures to the Big 12 as "Larry invited Colorado and 5 teams from the Big 12, Colorado accepted and the Texas/Oklahoma types told them what they could do with their invitation."

    And that's most definitely NOT how it all went down.

    Scott only invited 2 Big 12 teams: CU and Texas. CU said "yes"; Texas said "no". No other Big 12 team was invited, as their invitations were predicated solely on what Texas opted to do. Texas was the "big fish" here. A&M wanted nothing to do with the Pac-10, and Oklahoma was really the only other Big 12 school that the Pac-10 "wanted". Tech and State (who was getting cut out of the deal anyway) were only Texas/Oklahoma coattailers. When OU and OSU reapplied to the Pac-12 a year later, the Pac-12 DECLINED their application. Essentially, "no Texas" = "no other Big 12 team(s)".

    And YOU'RE accusing ME of "revisionist history"?

    Typical hypocritical coug.

  • poyman Lincoln City, OR
    June 28, 2013 1:45 a.m.

    navel, Apparently you are the only one that doesn't know that Utah was invited to the PAC10 after Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M, and Texas Tech turned down the invitation to solidify the Big 12 or because they prefered a membership in the SEC... Colorado accepted and the conference had to scrample for a 12th member and that's how y'all got invited... Had the Board of Trustees been open minded about Religious Schools, you probably would have had to wait till BYU turned them down.

    As far as Utah being considered a more storied program than BYU I simply have to chuckle... Why is it that U-trolls can't deal with reality?...BYU has a larger fan base and a larger following... They have owned Utah over the past 40 years... From 1972 to 1993 Utah lost 18 of 20 games and never had a better season record than BYU... In fact the series since 1972 (when Edwards took over to the present) is BYU 26 Utah 15... And only 8 times in the entire 41 years did Utah have a better record... BYU's program has been rated one of the top 15 programs in the country.

  • anti BCS Anaheim, CA
    June 27, 2013 11:52 p.m.

    UU702

    "PAC10 invited Colorado and 4 other Big12 teams to join (OU,OSU, UT, TAMU), the 5th team was the focus of much discussion including Utah and Kansas."

    Sorry, that's complete revisionist history. The original plan was for the entire Big 12 South (Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Baylor, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State) to merge with the PAC 10. A couple of PAC schools objected to the PAC inviting private, religiously-based Baylor, so Colorado was quickly invited to shut Baylor out of the merger. Then Texas A&M pulled out of the deal and Larry Scott was forced to settle for Utah as the "best available player".

    "Utah will beat USC AGAIN, before BYU even plays them..."

    Don't count on it. The Utes have only beaten ONE USC team with a winning record in their entire history, and that was nearly a hundred years ago, in 1916.

  • anti BCS Anaheim, CA
    June 27, 2013 11:24 p.m.

    AZUTE1

    LOL at the delusional spin of the PACy-WACer.

    BYU is 2-3 (40%) versus the PAC, but unlike the Utes in 2012, BYU faced FIVE Top 25 teams; the Utes only two.

    Utah is 7-11 (39%) versus the PAC, but unlike BYU, the Utes lost to TWO PAC teams with LOSING records, including Colorado(3-10) one of the worst teams in the country and a team that hadn't won a road game in over FOUR YEARS!

    While BYU has finished in the Top 25 and won two bowl games, the lowly Utes haven't received a single vote in either poll and couldn't even beat the only WAC team on their schedule to qualify for a bowl.

    Utah fans cluelessly beat their chests about bowl winning teams that weren't even good enough to finish in the Top 25 - one mediocre team beating another mediocre team in a bowl doesn't make the winner any less mediocre just because the game was played in a bowl.

    Despite your whiny SOS excuse making, BYU has finished with better records and higher rankings than the sorry Utes in both of the last two seasons.

  • brownderby Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 27, 2013 10:19 p.m.

    @UU702
    Show me when and where Lawrence Welk is on BYUTV. Search far and wide and report back.

  • lloyd braun ogden, utah
    June 27, 2013 10:14 p.m.

    Blah, blah, blah. These posts give me a headache. Who's better? We're better. They're better. I am tired of hearing about the conference garbage, and who gets to play USC. I like to watch head to head, and for the last little while, Utah is a better team. BYU might be some day, but for now, BYU doesn't beat Utah very often. That's what I look at. How about cheering for the team you like, and don't worry about what the other team's doing. Be a fan, not a whiny fanatic.

  • Cougsndawgs West Point , UT
    June 27, 2013 8:24 p.m.

    Naval Vet:
    "The Pac-10 had to have a 12th team to hold a CCG, but that doesn't mean they HAD to have Utah. They could have chosen ANOTHER Tier-1 Reseach institution within their footprint. Colorado St. and New Mexico were Tier-1 too ya know".

    Really? Colorado has more fans in the Denver market than Colorado State, and is an AAU school, so the PAC went with them. Albuquerque also isn't as large as Salt Lake City in terms of market. Obviously the choices were limited for the PAC in regards to tier 1 research schools. Congratulations for beating out Colorado State and New Mexico. I repeat the PAC HAD to take U to have a CCG, and "athletic prowess" had nothing to do with it.

  • AZUTE1 Mesa, AZ
    June 27, 2013 5:57 p.m.

    midpacmajor--

    "AZUTE1

    Jealous of a team that hasn't been ranked since joining the PAC and couldn't beat the only WAC team on their schedule in order to qualify for a bowl???

    LOL!

    If I were U, I'd focus exclusively on whether or not PACy WACer U will ever beat a conference foe with a winning record.

    At least ASU went to a bowl."

    Oh the irony! This is coming from a fan of a 2-Star team which can never beat UTAH and can only beat usu at home!

    2-Star byu is 2-3 against PAC-12 teams and hasn't had to face any in a week-in, week-out grind, mind you! They've only beat 2 teams which finished at the bottom of the conference standings and they've been utterly destroyed at home by the only 2 teams which finished the season with a winning record, to the tune of 96-34! Finally, they're 0-2 against UTAH! Priceless! I absolutely love it! Keep 'em coming!

    p.s. In 15 BCS seasons, UTAH is 10-1 in bowl games, while 2-Star byu has struggled to even reach 6-5!

  • midpacmajor Salt Lake City, Utah
    June 27, 2013 5:24 p.m.

    AZUTE1

    Jealous of a team that hasn't been ranked since joining the PAC and couldn't beat the only WAC team on their schedule in order to qualify for a bowl???

    LOL!

    If I were U, I'd focus exclusively on whether or not PACy WACer U will ever beat a conference foe with a winning record.

    At least ASU went to a bowl.

  • AZUTE1 Mesa, AZ
    June 27, 2013 4:03 p.m.

    STuFOO--

    "I guess I am not alone in not caring about utah."

    Yet, you dedicate your entire Novel to none other than UTAH. Oh, the irony!

    I'm a long-time ASU season ticket holder and know their fanbase well. Their palpable jealousy/envy is rooted in the fact that they've been a complete zero on the national stage during this current BCS Era, with their 15 seasons consisting of 6 losing seasons, 3 seasons finishing at .500 and one streak of going bowl-less for 3 consecutive years. In fact, beating a Navy team last season, which got brutally curb-stomped by each decent team they faced, was their 1st bowl game win since '05!

    In general, anybody can claim anonymously online they heard anything they wish to claim, but what's clear here is the byu fanbase at-large is equally jealous/envious of a team in UTAH which absolutely/completely owns 2-Star byu!

    If I were you, I'd focus exclusively on whether or not 2-Star byu will ever beat a decent team other then getting lucky to barely beat usu by 3-PTS at home! LOL

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    June 27, 2013 4:00 p.m.

    STuFOO:

    And I'm guessing that I'm not alone in thinking you made that whole scenerio up. I know a few Pac-12 alumni back here on the East coast, and NONE of them have issues with the Utes.

    I can't say the same for their opinions of USC though.

  • STuFOO Korea, AE
    June 27, 2013 3:42 p.m.

    Flew back to the states to do some business deep in PAC 12 country. I learned a couple of things.

    First, I foun+d out why u fans come to BYU boards to tell BYU fans why they are superior. Because when the venture out into their own conference boards they get thumped by PAC 12 posters.

    Second, people hate utah. Everyone at the event, USC, ASU, CAL, UCLA, UofA, and Oregon fans and alumni hate utah fans. They all said the same thing, their fans were arrogant and filled with themselves over their 2 BCS wins. An ASU fan put it best "Big deal, in 2008 and 2004 they may have beat a BCS team in a bowl, but still played all the other games in the MWC."

    Third, they do not respect the u. None of them even cared. In fact, two of the season ticket holders for USC said they chose that week to go back east for another game because and I quote "who cares about utah?"

    I guess I am not alone in not caring about utah.

  • AZUTE1 Mesa, AZ
    June 27, 2013 3:41 p.m.

    Naval Vet
    Philadelphia, PA

    "MacNasty:

    'With USC taking on BYU in November, that shoots down Utah's excuses about scheduling problems; especially in November.'

    No it doesn't. Our 'excuse' to not play you is because you're not that important to us anymore. The Utah/Indy-WAC rivalry renewal is YOUR goal. Not ours. If you REALLY wanted our series to continue, you should have begged Holmoe to accept that very same 2-for-1 deal you were offered by the Trojans. Once you all agree to that same 2-for-1 deal, THEN we'll put you on the schedule. We MIGHT even decide to play you in November.

    First 2-for-1, then we'll talk."

    And you've done all of this in Rush-like fashion, with half your brain tied behind your back! LOL....Outstanding work!

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    June 27, 2013 3:27 p.m.

    MacNasty:

    "With USC taking on BYU in November, that shoots down Utah's excuses about scheduling problems; especially in November."

    No it doesn't. Our "excuse" to not play you is because you're not that important to us anymore. The Utah/Indy-WAC rivalry renewal is YOUR goal. Not ours. If you REALLY wanted our series to continue, you should have begged Holmoe to accept that very same 2-for-1 deal you were offered by the Trojans. Once you all agree to that same 2-for-1 deal, THEN we'll put you on the schedule. We MIGHT even decide to play you in November.

    First 2-for-1, then we'll talk.

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    June 27, 2013 3:09 p.m.

    CougFaninTX:

    "Tell me about this "boatload" of 2 for 1s."

    Happily...

    Since leaving the MWC to play WAC football, the cougars have inked deals with 15 teams from BCS leagues (and I'm counting Houston despite the fact you scheduled them when they were "midmajors", and that they'll be dropping back down to "midmajors" after this year). Of those 15 teams, you have 4 "One-offs" and 5 "2-for-1" arrangements. That's the majority of your "relevant opponents". Seriously...nine out of 15? That's a firesale.

    You seem to have forgotton about your one-offs with Ole' Miss (2011) and West Virginia (2016), and your 2-for-1s with Wisconsin (2013, 2017, 2018) and Arizona (2016, 2018, 2020).

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    June 27, 2013 2:42 p.m.

    BigCougFan:

    "Imagine how this can effect recruiting. A HS Junior who plans on a mission will be excited to know who he gets to play when he's Junior or Senior in 2019."

    I'm imagining that if a HS Junior was that excited about playing USC, he'd be much more inclined to sign with Utah, since at least then he'd face off against the Trojans 4 times instead of just once.

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    June 27, 2013 2:39 p.m.

    poyman:

    "They are the ones who got the AQ invite (even though it came as a result of 5 other programs turning the PAC10 down)"

    The only Big 12 teams invited by the Pac-12 were CU and Texas. When Texas balked, no other invitations went out. Furthermore, Chip Brown reported Utah was Pac-XX bound with or without Texas, so....epic fail!

    "I find it a bit humorous that these folks come on here and talk tough yet BYU has statistically cleaned their clock over the years"

    I find it even MORE humorous that you Indy-WACey fans try talking tough to Utah while the UTES are the one who statistically cleaned YOUR clocks over the years. Don't forget who has the 22-game lead in the overall series, and who has the better record over these past 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 yrs. And even IF the Indy-WACers upset their big brother in the Fall, you'd STILL be on the losing end of the overall series, and over the last 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 yrs.

    And WE'D still be playing in YOUR first choice of conferences. Haha!

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    June 27, 2013 2:28 p.m.

    Cougsndawgs:

    "WRONG. They HAD to have 12 programs to hold a CCG which Scott wanted."

    The Pac-10 had to have a 12th team to hold a CCG, but that doesn't mean they HAD to have Utah. They could have chosen ANOTHER Tier-1 Reseach institution within their footprint. Colorado St. and New Mexico were Tier-1 too ya know.

    The Pac-10 chose Utah (and Colorado) because they WANTED to. Not because they HAD to. Don't be so frantic and emotional.

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    June 27, 2013 2:09 p.m.

    Nice spin, UU702, regarding Lawrence Welk. (I'll give you that.)

    All your friends certainly picked up that I hit the "1" instead of the "2" in my post. Wow, like that's a really important point and none of them have ever hit the next key.

    So to make you feel better: CORRECTION- "USC is guaranteed 5 wins in their next games played in SLC between now and 2023."

    Utes would rather be in the Pac Basement and beat BYU and go bowling at Orchard Lanes every year they play than actually have a winning program. Well, two-out-of-three isn't too bad for the upcoming season, since you play in Provo this year and Heaps is history. (No one ever said "Thanks" for his giving you the game...he was very generous with the ball, giving it to the Utes numerous times.)

    Just keep those banners hanging all around town. I guess you didn't hear that the BCS has become irrelevant. News travels slowly in the PAC 12 Conference of Champions and Chums. You'll get the idea in December, sitting around Orchard Lanes, asking for the TV channel to be changed from ESPN to something less painful to watch.

  • MacNasty Rexburg, ID
    June 27, 2013 2:05 p.m.

    UU702 @ 1:117 pm

    Saying toosmartfroryou is revising history is astoundingly ironic considering that you are delving into revisionist history. The PAC 10 wanted the Texas teams, but the Texas legislature basically said the PAC takes Baylor or no deal. Since the PAC10 has a real bigotry against religious schools (like Baylor) the deal fell apart.

    Utah was plan B or even C. Colorado made sense in the fact that it brought with it the Denver market. Utah was picked as a placeholder in order for the PAC to have a championship game. That UU702, was Utah's only value. Utah certainly was not selected based on overall athletic performance.

    Bottom line is if the PAC10 would have taken Baylor, Utah would still be in the MWC. The only thing the last two years have shown is the Utah is a run of the mill "mid-major" participating in a major conference.

    Ps. With USC taking on BYU in November, that shoots down Utah's excuses about scheduling problems; especially in November.

  • UU702 Layton, UT
    June 27, 2013 1:17 p.m.

    toosmartforyou, you revised the history...PAC10 invited Colorado and 4 other Big12 teams to join (OU,OSU, UT, TAMU), the 5th team was the focus of much discussion including Utah and Kansas. Utah was always in the mix, was creative enough to offer a progressive financial membership, and had a long term view. BYU alienated the Big12 over their beloved tv station. Result...Utah will beat USC AGAIN, before BYU even plays them and The Lawrence Welk show still has a home on byutv.

  • AZUTE1 Mesa, AZ
    June 27, 2013 1:14 p.m.

    toosmartforyou

    "UU702, you missed the headline......it will likely be: 'USC guaranteed 5 victories between now and 2013 when they play Utah in SLC.'"

    Those 5 games better get played quickly! LOL

    2-Star byu is winless all-time against USC, to the tune of 77-28, and 2-Star byu loses to UTAH, annually! Makes perfect sense! LOL

  • Koloss Hampton, VA
    June 27, 2013 12:59 p.m.

    toosmartforyou,
    Thanks for saying USC is guaranteed 5 victories between now and this year. You're making a whole lot of sense. You can read what you have typed before you click submit. You know that, right? Well, at least your name is ironic.

  • Cougarista Salt Lake City, UT
    June 27, 2013 12:58 p.m.

    Thanks Bronco and Tom. Playing good football, providing a superior education and all this in an uplifting environment is unique among universities today. Keep it up.

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    June 27, 2013 12:35 p.m.

    UU702, you missed the headline......it will likely be: "USC guaranteed 5 victories between now and 2013 when they play Utah in SLC."

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    June 27, 2013 12:28 p.m.

    Hey, Naval, I love your revisionist history.

    "The Pac-10 invited us to join their conference because they WANTED to. Not because they HAD to."

    Larry invited Colorado and 5 teams from the Big 12, Colorado accepted and the Texas/Oklahoma types told them what they could do with their invitation (read between the lines) so YES, the PAC 11 needed one more team to get to hold a Conference Championship Game so they HAD to invite Utah, a patsy that would be fodder for the likes of USC. To make it attractive, they greased the schedule that first year so Utah would make it and it was all coming together until the Utes LOST to Colorado, the worst road team in the nation, in SLC. And they had Norm Chow for OC, not Doman. Way to go Utes!! Now everyone except the big-banner installer boys in SLC are laughing at the Utes.

    You can't write this stuff......too funny.

  • UU702 Layton, UT
    June 27, 2013 11:56 a.m.

    In other news...USC will be visiting Salt Lake City 5 times between now and 2023!

  • AZUTE1 Mesa, AZ
    June 27, 2013 11:21 a.m.

    "At their media day Wednesday morning inside the BYU Broadcasting Center, the Cougars announced a three-game series with USC, a new affiliation with the Poinsettia Bowl, and a new three-year contract extension for head coach Bronco Mendenhall."

    Absolutely priceless! Thank you for the outstanding news!

  • CougFaninTX Frisco, TX
    June 27, 2013 10:43 a.m.

    @navyvet - "The Indy-WACers signed a boatload of one-offs and 2-for-1s."

    Three questions.

    Who is an Indy-WACer? I sort of got your bitter jab the past two years, but it makes no sense going forward. Utah is playing Utah State and Fresno State - does that make U a PAC - WACer? Try to come up with something new.

    How have you done against WAC teams? Remind me of the Utah vs Utah State score or the Utah vs Boise State score. Watch out for Fresno St. Good thing U are not in the WAC.

    Tell me about this "boatload" of 2 for 1s. There's Texas, Notre Dame and USC that are 2 for 1s. And Michigan and Nebraska that are one and dones. Five teams over a decade - is that a boatload? There's probably a couple more teams that we would do a 2 for 1 with - Ohio State, Alabama, etc. But it will not be U.

  • Warrior Parent Belle Glade, FL
    June 27, 2013 10:11 a.m.

    It is becoming more and more evident that Gary Andersen was the genius of Utah Football...
    Watch Utah go 6-6 or 5-7 in 2013 which will leave them fishing or skiing during bowling season

  • poyman Lincoln City, OR
    June 27, 2013 9:21 a.m.

    So you did it again Deseret News... I post a comment that is critical of Holmoe (and I'm a BYU fan) and you don't publish it, nor do you tell me in an email that it's rejected... I love BYU but I firmly believe that Holmoe is hurting our program as the AD... I site reasons for this comment and you guys simply can't handle any criticism of an Administrator... Y'all need to come down off your high horse... I said nothing wrong, and the comment specifically dealt with these announcements.

  • Cinci Man FT MITCHELL, KY
    June 27, 2013 9:17 a.m.

    Cougs, put it on the field. Pre-season talk doesn't work with me anymore. I look forward to the games. Work hard, don't talk loud.

  • BlameItOnTheOfficials Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 27, 2013 7:51 a.m.

    Good news from our brothers down south. Keeping a strong schedule and having a worthy opponents just makes it sweeter when we beat you.

    congrats on 3 good news points!

  • BigCougFan Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 27, 2013 7:47 a.m.

    RE: NeilT

    "It is hard to get excited for something that is six years away."

    Are you kidding me? This is great. Imagine how this can effect recruiting. A HS Junior who plans on a mission will be excited to know who he gets to play when he's Junior or Senior in 2019.. He'll be excited to commit to the Y knowing he gets to play great competition.

    I'm very excited for this and think it will be great for the program.

    Don't pay attention to the red trolls - they live in a great and spacious building and can only find pleasure in tearing down a successful program in an attempt to make their bottom of the PAC ranking seem better than it is.

    GO COUGARS!

  • RedBlood Bountiful, UT
    June 27, 2013 6:12 a.m.

    Sounds like the media day was enjoyable. Watching USC run onto the field at RES was a very cool experience and watching the game was even funner. Although these games for BYU are a long way out, it is indeed something to look forward to. Congrats to Holmoe and the Cougar faithful for the continued success they are having in augmenting their schedule with much better, quality opponents. Although the week to week grind can be challenging, as we are learning in the PAC-12, it is much more enjoyable to play up than down. BYU's schedule looks really nice this year and November admittedly looks great. Good luck to the Cougars except for on 9/21 !

  • poyman Lincoln City, OR
    June 26, 2013 10:50 p.m.

    I like the opponent (USC) but I would prefer a 1-1-1 with the third game at a neutral site... I wish we could negotiate for positions in better bowls... And, I am happy for Bronco on the Contract Extention...

    As a BYU fan I have alot of pride in what this program has done over the years and I wear my BYU clothing every game day with pride (and I'm 60)...

    I chuckle at the U-trolls that spend more time on BYU articles than they do on Ute articles... That smacks of jealousy and I don't get why... They are the ones who got the AQ invite (even though it came as a result of 5 other programs turning the PAC10 down)...

    I bought all of my NCAA FBS mags this past weekend and I find it a bit humorous that these folks come on here and talk tough yet BYU has statistically cleaned their clock over the years... One of the four mags I bought predicted winners of every 2013 FBS game... BYU is picked to beat Utah and finish 8-4... Utah is expected to win only 3 games (WeberSt, WSU, and Colorado) 3-9.

  • wwookie Payson, UT
    June 26, 2013 10:36 p.m.

    Great news for the cougars. Tôo bad these games are só far into the future. At least bronco is still here.

  • Beck to Harline Provo, UT
    June 26, 2013 10:22 p.m.

    Great news as far as the USC deal is concerned. Makes sense financially, makes sense as far as scheduling goes...hopefully USC is back in the top 10 at the END of the season by then..I only wish it was much sooner than 6,8, and 10 years away...but either way, kudos to Tom Holmoe for getting a reputable PAC12 team wavered to play BYU in late November. That's something that Chris Hill hasn't been able to work out with the Com. Scott yet, for whatever reason......

    Poinsettia Bowl- meh. Great city to play in, but hopefully we don't make a habit out of the Poinsettia Bowl...I don't want that be the Vegas Bowl 2.0.

  • idaho cougar fan Twin Falls, ID
    June 26, 2013 10:15 p.m.

    Hard to be super excited about a game 6 years away, but it will help pave the way for other games with Pac-12 opponents. LOVED the post where Utah is USC's Wyoming on the schedule. So true!

  • SLC BYU Fan Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2013 9:25 p.m.

    @Harvester of Eyes:

    Just maybe BYU can reschedule a 3 game series with Washington that will include a neutral site game in BC Place Stadium in Vancouver, with talk of a game on foreign soil for BYU. Canada has the most out of the U.S. BYU alumni of any country. The southen Alberta crowd will flock to Vancouver to see such an event...nearly happened for Calgary back in 1999.

  • SLC BYU Fan Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2013 9:20 p.m.

    I've NEVER seen more misconceived remarks from people who fail to look at what contibuted to this series with USC and why BYU accepted a 2 for 1.
    1.-Notre Dame without question called upon BYU for help since this was the ONLY way they could continue the series with USC through 2023.
    2-Pat Hayden, the AD at USC has MUCH MORE power than Chris Hill at Utah to get Pac-12 Commish' Larry Scott to support a waiver of the post-September scheduling rule for OOC games.
    3-BYU can make a case for future waivers with the Pac-12 which just might include future second week in October dates to play Utah after 2016.
    4-Utah will NEVER get a 2 for 1 deal to keep BYU on the schedule (even Chris Hill will tell Ute fans this is "Fantasyland" thinking).
    5-There is a movement in the top 5 leagues of Division 1/FBS to no longer schedule FCS opponents.
    6-Utah State can book their bus charters to Salt Lake City & Provo to play Utah & BYU since no future games will be played in Logan beyond this year.

  • Howard S. Taylorsville, UT
    June 26, 2013 9:11 p.m.

    @Striker

    "So glad the bottom feeders aren't on the schedule much."
    ********

    So you're you'd rather be the bottom feeder than play the bottom feeder.... Right?

  • 3grandslams Iowa City, IA
    June 26, 2013 9:00 p.m.

    BYU continues to schedule the big boys in November for years! Nice work Cougs! Very fun day today and we had it all to ourselves!

    BYU continues to lead and get bigger.

  • WACPaddingOurSchedule pocatello, ID
    June 26, 2013 8:47 p.m.

    Striker
    Omaha, NE
    Poinsettia? Oh well.

    Love the game with USC during Thanksgiving!

    I'll never forget how BYU was only down 3 in the 4th quarter at #1 USC when USC was the king of the sport. Just wish they could have pulled out the win, but too many FG and not enough TDs.

    I'm so glad we're not stuck playing West teams. BYU gets to play consistently at places like VT, GT, ND, Florida. The list goes on and on. It's nice to get a big boy in the West now and then still. Arizona and USC...two of the better teams in the PAC South. So glad the bottom feeders aren't on the schedule much.

    ________

    That's it, you are glad BYU is playing teams around the country?
    How about "we need to beat ranked teams on national TV. Our record the past several years is lousy."
    Or "when will we stop signing 50-1, 4-2, or 2-1 contracts?"
    "Is BYU even interested in playing for a national title?"

  • 54-10 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2013 8:34 p.m.

    These announcements are huge and will change the landscape of NCAA football forever.

  • Howard S. Taylorsville, UT
    June 26, 2013 8:30 p.m.

    No bowl game option in 2014 for BYU?

    Tom Holmoe better get on the phone with uncle ESPN.

  • NeilT Clearfield, UT
    June 26, 2013 8:29 p.m.

    2019. This is 2013. That is only six years. I will be retired by then. Or perhaps the world as we know it will no longer exist. Sorry for the sarcasm. It is hard to get excited for something that is six years away.

  • Cougsndawgs West Point , UT
    June 26, 2013 8:07 p.m.

    Naval Vet:
    "The Pac-10 invited us to join their conference because they WANTED to. Not because they HAD to".

    WRONG. They HAD to have 12 programs to hold a CCG which Scott wanted. Colorado and Utah were "tier 1" research schools and the only ones that made geographical sense, and weren't religiously affiliated schools (TCU would never be "wanted" by the PAC for this reason, despite having as much or more "athletic prowess" as Utah). So they HAD to take U or not have a CCG. Spin it how you want, that is the only reason Utah is in the PAC12. If you honestly believe it had anything to do with "athletic prowess" I have a tropical island in Alaska I'd like to sell you (remember they invited Colorado and said it was "athletic prowess" for them too. Lol).

  • Striker Omaha, NE
    June 26, 2013 7:55 p.m.

    Poinsettia? Oh well.

    Love the game with USC during Thanksgiving!

    I'll never forget how BYU was only down 3 in the 4th quarter at #1 USC when USC was the king of the sport. Just wish they could have pulled out the win, but too many FG and not enough TDs.

    I'm so glad we're not stuck playing West teams. BYU gets to play consistently at places like VT, GT, ND, Florida. The list goes on and on. It's nice to get a big boy in the West now and then still. Arizona and USC...two of the better teams in the PAC South. So glad the bottom feeders aren't on the schedule much.

  • JDL Magna, UT
    June 26, 2013 7:40 p.m.

    Three great announcements!

    USC is a great series and it demonstrates the respect each program has with the other and the same can be said about ND, Texas, BSU and many many more storied programs.

    The bowl alliance is also a great get and again demonstrates the respect bowls have for BYU.

    These announcements obviously sting some on the hill to think that the real programs in the PAC have enough clout to schedule late November OOC games with BYU. The attempt to be-little BYU, an OOC team for scheduling a 2 for 1 with USC is extremely childish on its face. As much as I'm honored, as a fan to be included in USC's circle, I'm equally ashamed of utah, that with all her arrogance would shun Big Brother at the pre-supposition that she has arrived.

  • Who am I sir? Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 26, 2013 7:23 p.m.

    Congratulations! I was happy to hear some good news for the cougar fans I know. And I personally was happy for the Y. After all we may only be playing each other only once in a while going forward.

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    June 26, 2013 7:16 p.m.

    Cougsndawgs:

    The Pac-10 invited us to join their conference because they WANTED to. Not because they HAD to.

    The Pac-10 never even considered the Indy-WACers because they DIDN'T want to. Not because they were compelled to look elsewhere.

    The Indy-WACers signed a boatload of one-offs and 2-for-1s, not because you WANTED to, but rather because you HAVE to. We don't. That's why OUR date with Michigan -- who as a BigTen member DOESN'T "HAVE to" play us -- is a Home-&-Home, whereas YOUR date with Michigan is a very midmajorey "one-off". Haha!

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    June 26, 2013 7:12 p.m.

    JinSoCal:

    "Is it really a Home-&_Home if you lose every game?"

    Home-&-Home games are when one game is played in your stadium, and one game is played in your opponent's stadium. Whether one wins or loses is irrelevant over this particular matter.

    And for what it's worth, Utah is 1-2 vs USC over our last 3 games. The Indy-WACers are 0-3 vs. the the Utes, and had NEVER beaten the Trojans in their entire football playing history. So I really wouldn't go there with the "los[ing] every game" trash talk.

  • Cougsndawgs West Point , UT
    June 26, 2013 6:48 p.m.

    Naval Vet:
    Yeah, and in the MWC we had home and homes with Wyoming...not because we wanted them but because they were in conference. U are Wyoming to USC, they have h vs h with U because they HAVE to. "Haha"

  • souptwins Lindon, UT
    June 26, 2013 6:29 p.m.

    Only because they have no choice. But, they don't mind. It got them their conf. championship game and easy wins so it's worth it.

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    June 26, 2013 6:28 p.m.

    El Chango Supremo:

    Vacated wins aren't defaults to the other team. If the 2005 game WAS vacated (and I don't know if it was), then USC would be 1-0 rather than 2-0 vs. the Indy-WACers.

  • El Chango Supremo Rexburg, ID
    June 26, 2013 6:25 p.m.

    Oops, I take that back. USC's game against BYU in 2004 was not vacated. USC is up 2-0 on BYU all time.

  • JinSoCal sandy, UT
    June 26, 2013 6:24 p.m.

    Naval Vet
    you don't play for the Utes. Is it really a Home-&_Home if you lose every game?
    Sincerely,
    please stop saying We unless you are on the team.

  • El Chango Supremo Rexburg, ID
    June 26, 2013 6:22 p.m.

    I believe BYU and USC split their first two meetings on account of USC's 2005 season being vacated by the NCAA.

  • Down under Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2013 6:10 p.m.

    Who needs the BCS. BYU has a great schedule and a great bowl affiliation.
    Someone tell me where the #12 seed Utah would go bowling this next season?
    I love my independance, especially since the BCS is dead next year.

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    June 26, 2013 5:58 p.m.

    A 2-for-1 with the Trojans? Haha! We get them Home-&-Home. We get Home-&-Homes with Arizona too. The Indy-WACers? Not so much.

    Edge: Utah.

  • Harvester of Eyes Vancouver, BC
    June 26, 2013 5:54 p.m.

    Can't wait until the season starts and all the pre-season talk ends! It will be an exciting year for sure.