BYU, Independence, and Integrity
by daedalus17 on Aug 19, 2010 3:20 PM PDT
Email
Print
I am upset with BYU right now. I really think they acted in a sneaky, backhanded, selfish nature. Their quest for independence could have gone the honorable route, but it didn't. Not only did BYU try to leave, they tried to sabotage the teams they left behind. They knew the MWC fallback plan because they have been inside spying on MWC board meetings. They turned MWC enemy and showed up to MWC meetings acting the sheep.
Here is what BYU did:
1) They decided to leave. I can understand taking this position, they are a BCS quality school and undervalued. The MWC has an open door policy, this is fair.
Now the part that I have a problem with:
2) Common courtesy would say they would notify the MWC of their intentions. They did not do this.
3) They took the lack of notification a step further and spied from the inside. BYU has been in MWC board meetings. Not only did they not notify the MWC of their intentions, they used this time to act as a double agent and spy on their new MWC "enemies" while the other schools still thought they were "friends" and "partners". This way they know the details of any MWC emergency plan should a team like BYU decide to leave the MWC.
4) BYU used this inside information against the MWC in backroom deals behind closed doors with an enemy conference. They contacted the WAC and got WAC member institutions to sign a $5 million exit fee poison pill in order to ruin the MWC emergency fall back plan.
5) Then they further aggravated the situation by doing a piss poor job at screwing the mountain west over. Why, because Fresno and Nevada still came to the MWC, even though BYU had preset the traps.
6) Now because BYU played with fire they burned the WAC. I personally have been hoping to see some good years ahead for Utah State. Now the Aggies are in a world of hurt.
I compare this to a divorce. BYU knew the divorce was coming, but it was in their best interest to continue to sleep with the current wife and the girlfriend at the same time. All the while not letting the current wife know he was sleeping around. Because the current wife was not suspecting mischief it was easy to solidify the position of the new marriage by sneaking money from the couples emergency funds account. This way after the divorce the ex-wife wouldn’t be able to recover and he would be much better off in the new marriage.
Even though I am a Utah fan I have always cheered for BYU. I grew up a Cougar fan before I attended the U of U. I have not always agreed with LDS positions when they get political; however, I always have wished them well. I have enjoyed the fun nature of the rivalry with my BYU friends.
I was fine with the rumors floating around of BYU independence. In fact, I was hoping BYU would be successful if they tried going independent. I didn’t know if they would be; however, I wished luck for them.
Now I am disgusted. Maybe I am just bitter because I really did have an ex-wife cheat with somebody who claimed to be my best friend. In my book, you don’t sleep with somebody new until your current partner knows. Once your current partner knows it is fair because they can act appropriately, but sleeping with the girlfriend is off limits while you are still sleeping with your wife. If BYU had notified the MWC before sleeping around I would have been fine with all of this. They didn’t notify the MWC, instead they acted as a double agent. Every step they took to undermine the MWC recovery plan while pretending nothing was amiss was not only classless, it lacked integrity.
86 comments
|
Add comment
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I don't see it this way at all.
If the Y was/is seriously considering going independent it would be foolish of them to not try to protect themselves in this way. Talking to the WAC about contingencies and suggesting a buy out is nothing short of self preservation. BYU has also been very up front about having intentions of exploring thier options. Holmoe said over a month ago that BYU was going to explore thier options, and when questioned about independence he said that it would be an option that they would consider. But apparently most of us, and commish CT were two busy geeking over the rest of the shake ups in the college landscape to take them at their word.
Remember at the end of the day, for the people actually making the decisions, this is business not personal. They will do what is best for them and no one else.
I agree that this was business.
I can understand everything that BYU did from a business standpoint. Yes, the correct thing to do would have been to be more open with the MWC about their considerations of going independent. They didn’t have to tell them about the idea of shuttling the remaining sports to the WAC, though.
But it’s one of those situations where the process looks a whole lot more rational and mundane in the meeting room than it does on the press wire. BYU doesn’t look very good on the PR front, and they shouldn’t.
That said, I’m also upset with BYU over the whole thing, but much of that stems from being a Wyoming alum who briefly saw a really cool conference come crashing down. I’m also a little frustrated with Utah for leaving, though I don’t fault them at all.
We’ve allowed money to become a huge influence in college football, and this is a side effect. Sure, it may be the bed of a harlot, but we as fans built that very bed and sleep in it every night.
by David Hooper on Aug 19, 2010 7:05 PM PDT up reply actions
Curious why you don't fault Utah at all
but suddenly when BYU pursues a better avenue for them they become the villain?
FYI, BYU has been very vocal about exploring Independence. This has been a rumor circulating throughout the BYU boards for quite some time. No way Craig Thompson was blindsided by this. If so, the MWC might want to look into replacing the guy for lack of involvement and stupidity.
by vaughnzipper on Aug 20, 2010 12:05 AM PDT up reply actions
The one key difference
I don’t fault BYU for what they did except one area. Their timeline.
BYU was negotiating contracts with an enemy conference. If they notify the MWC they are leaving and do this I don’t have a problem. Saying that someday in the future they may explore independence is not the same as a notification.
My opinion:
The MWC is a group of partners in a business contract with a very liberal exit policy. I don’t have a problem if you exercise the exit policy and then go on to make deals to help yourself, even if it is not in the best interest of your ex-partners. My problem is that BYU never exercised the option to exit. In fact they still haven’t done this.
What BYU did wrong:
BYU specifically made the WAC members sign a contract (a $5 million exit fee) BEFORE they exited the existing contract with the MWC. You can not in good faith sign contracts with you competitors whithout notifying your current partners that you are no longer a partner.
Again, Change the timeline so that BYU notifies the MWC that they are not partners going forward and I would have no problem with what they did. Going behind your partners back and signing deals with competitors, I do have a problem with.
Not sure where you got this "contract" from?
Zero reports have indicated BYU signed ANYTHING.
I agree that it would be appropriate for BYU to notify the MWC if they intended to leave. What negates the whole argument is that because BYU has not given notice that they are leaving who’s to say that they are? Merely putting out feelers for what the possibilities are outside of the conference does not say anything about BYU intending to leave.
Let me give you a scenario. I’m assuming you’re not 16 years old and that you have a few years under your belt. I hope you have a job right now, and if you do have a job but were interested in a new one would you tell your boss? Not until you have receieved an offer, decided to leave, and put in your 2 weeks would your boss even know that you were leaving. AND if you did receive that offer and still decided not to take it would you tell your boss? Think about that.
That is exactly what BYU and the MWC are facing right now. I think people need to take a step back before they jump at BYU for merely exploring other options.
by vaughnzipper on Aug 20, 2010 4:20 PM PDT up reply actions
Same answer as I did below
The WAC signed this deal last FRIDAY. Carl Benson admitted in his press conference that they have been working with BYU since July. BYU needed an assurance that WAC teams wouldn’t leave if they came. That is why the contract was signed by the WAC members for BYU.
Correct, BYU never signed. They had it written up though. How else do you think I know the 2011 BYU football schedule in the WAC
• BYU at Fresno State;
• BYU at Hawaii;
• Utah State at BYU;
• Nevada at BYU;
• San Jose State at BYU;
• New Mexico State at BYU.
Still no contract
merely an offer. It becomes a contract when BYU signs.
by vaughnzipper on Aug 20, 2010 5:19 PM PDT up reply actions
Remind me to never go into a business deal with BYU fans
Anything goes in your book. Even if you are still under contract.
They did get the WAC to sign a contract last Friday with a verbal agreement done. They even had a written agreement ready to sign that the WAC was able to see. They couldn’t sign it yet though BECAUSE THEY WERE STILL UNDER CONTRACT WITH THE MWC. That would have been illegal to have contracts with two people at the same time for the same product. That is why is wasn’t signed. I did exist though, and the WAC contract was only signed because it existed with a verbal promise to sign.
Because you're showing you do not understand the definition of a contract, here you go...
Contract - In law, a contract is a legally binding agreement between two or more parties which, if it contains the elements of a valid legal agreement, is enforceable by law or by binding arbitration.
Given that the WAC is not pursuing legal action against BYU that would be the strongest indicator that BYU did not come up with the plans, did not sign a contract, and did not break any laws.
by vaughnzipper on Aug 21, 2010 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions
I love it, you copy and paste from wikipedia and say you are the expert.
Maybe you should read on past the first sentence…“As long as the good or service provided is legal, any oral agreement between two parties can constitute a binding legal contract”
Do you seriously continue deluding yourself that BYU did not promise to enter the WAC if they signed this contract?
See, I choose to back up my point
By providing other sources. You on the other hand choose the TMZ route and think that everything you say is valid and factual.
Again, I’ll direct you to my comment below. Why is the WAC not taking legal action against BYU?
by vaughnzipper on Aug 21, 2010 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions
Here is my point backed up.
The verbal agreement is that BYU would join the WAC as long as no teams left the WAC conference. The WAC has no standing to sue BYU. The WAC didn’t live up to their end of the bargain because two teams left. Therefore, the WAC is in breach of contract. BYU would be the one who could sue the WAC.
BYU won’t sue because it will make them look bad; they will get bad press. A lawsuit would highlight in the press my main point here: They shouldn’t have been making back room room deals with the enemies of their partners. Jesus didn’t stab his partner in the back, Judas did.
however
If that is the case then Nevada will not have to pa the $5 million penalty since they did not sign anything. Also, having a 2011 schedule set up with WAC teams and BYU football is a pretty strong indicator.
Rationalize all you want
Mountain West Connection The best site for MWC sports!
by Jeremy Mauss on Aug 20, 2010 9:21 PM PDT up reply actions
Side note
I think Fresno St. and Nevada also acted wrong. They gave the impression to the rest of the WAC that they would not leave if invited to the MWC.
If you don’t intend on living up to the deal, then don’t sign it. Nevada not signing it doesn’t count. They verbally signed it. Your word should matter. The deal wasn’t just the $5 million exit fee. It was an agreement among partners to stand together in the face of an invite from competition.
Wrong
Depending on the terms of the contract a verbal agreement is considered binding. I’m going to assume this is the case given that the WAC is taking legal action.
by vaughnzipper on Aug 21, 2010 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions
Whoa
Wait a second. Don’t talk out of both sides of your mouth. What about the Verbal agreement that BYU had with the WAC? You are saying that doesn’t count as a contract and this does?
Have you ever read the definition of double think? Maybe you should read 1984.
You lack some serious common knowledge
Why is the WAC not pursuing legal action against BYU? Please explain why. That’s right, because there was no verbal or written agreement .
by vaughnzipper on Aug 21, 2010 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions
You are delusional
Do you honestly believe the WAC would not have signed the $5 million exit fee if BYU was not asking for it in order to join the WAC.
1) Carl Benson admitted to working with BYU since July
2) Comments from the WAC parties have come out and said they signed the deal last friday. The reason they signed it was because they knew adding BYU would make their conference stronger.
As for point two that would be counted as consideration. Consideration is the concept of legal value in connection with contracts. It is anything of value promised to another when making a contract.
Just because BYU is not being sued does not mean they did not enter into a verbal contract. Or is in now legally required that you must be sued for breaking a verbal contract in order to have it count as a contract?
Yup
and until you have proof your point is pure speculation on all fronts.
You do understand that a verbal agreement to a contract is valid in most cases right? You’re also saying that Benson and the WAC could be out of a job in a year and that BYU is to blame for all of it but they aren’t going to take legal action against BYU for destroying the conference? That Benson guy must be a pretty passive dude.
by vaughnzipper on Aug 21, 2010 12:22 PM PDT up reply actions
What is the WAC going to sue for?
The verbal agreement is that BYU would join the WAC as long as no teams left the WAC conference. The WAC has no standing to sue BYU. The WAC didn’t live up to their end of the bargain because two teams left. Therefore, the WAC is in breach of contract. BYU would be the one who could sue the WAC.
BYU won’t sue because it will make them look bad; they will get bad press. A lawsuit would highlight in the press my main point here: They shouldn’t have been making back room room deals with the enemies of their partners. Jesus didn’t stab his partner in the back, Judas did.
Are you trying to say Utah did not do these thing before giving notice and joining the Pac10?
Rationalize all you want. BYU is simply doing their homework to determine if that would be the best route. Having a mock schedule put together does not solidify anything. See BYU likes to use their brain by going thru different scenarios (probably hundreds) to determine the best route for their program and you guys take that as spying or entering contracts?
I’ll bet you guys buy the first house or car you saw. No sound judgment was used.
by vaughnzipper on Aug 21, 2010 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions
You missed the boat
Of course Utah did the research. I don’t have a problem with reaseach. I have a problem with action in the form of contracts behind closed doors. Here is the difference.
1) They let the MWC know well in advance that it might happen
2) When they did it they had a press conference open to the public for all to view the contract being signed.
3) There was no back door deal to make sure Boise St. couldn’t join the WAC if Utah left.
It was a contract
I found a better quote for you. I know you will think it still insn’t true. you are in denial.
Benson said the decision to ask for a $5 million buyout came from him and BYU.
“BYU recognized the need for the binding agreement to protect against exactly what happened,” Benson said.
From the mouth of thw WAC commissioner. BYU recognized the need for the binding agreement. Now do you think they had a verbal contract?
Your whole argument is negated
by the simple fact that Thompson said they hadn’t even thought about pursuing UNR or FSU until the last 48-72 hours (or in other words, Monday or Tuesday). Well after the agreement was laid out in front of the WAC schools. BYU wanted to ensure the WAC had a conference to go to. Had BYU simply left the MWC for the WAC both conferences would still be intact. You have CT and CSU football to blame for the panic they’ve created, not BYU.
Glad to see NC Ute agree and for stepping back and looking at it the way it is. Business.
Not really
Thompson also said that the MWC brought up expansion at every board meeting in recent history.
You changed the meaning of what he said. He said that they didn’t pursue giving an actual invite to UNR or FSU until the last 48-72 hours. This just amplifies my point. BYU was in the meetings where they discussed expansion. BYU knew that the MWC backup plan was to invite these teams because they had inside knowledge. That is what you do with current business partners, you share confidential information.
BYU used this confidential information and went into a secret meeting with the WAC to sign a $5 million exit fee penalty to prevent the MWC from using their backup plan. Yes, just like the MWC replace Utah with Boise St., they also had a backup plan if BYU left. BYU knew that if they notified their partners that they were no longer partners, then their WAC backup plan wouldn’t be as nice.
The MWC thought they were still partners while BYU was getting contracts signed in the WAC to ruin the MWC backup plan!!!
Scorched earth policy?
No matter how you look at it, it was unethical what BYU did. To work secretly with another conference that would throw your own under the bus is simply wrong, WRONG, WRONG! To leave for the conference to better yourself is one thing, but to screw over your fellow team members by preventing or hampering them from rebuilding is wrong.
What is they call a pig with lipstick on it?
typical byu. do as i say, not as i do. me think they broke their own honor code.
harvey unga paid the price and now byu should too. peace.
I'm all about covering the spread and moneylines. Glory favors the bold. Chance favors the prepared mind. Luck, well i have that too. University of Utah goes to the Pac-12 conference in 2011. I expect them to compete immediately for the conference CG. Brock Lesnar will defeat Cain Velasquez. Womens MMA, the next big thing in sports. 2 weeks till the first game of college football. UTAH vs Pitt. September 2nd 2010.
by wolfmanshowlforever on Aug 21, 2010 9:25 AM PDT up reply actions
sarah palin.
I'm all about covering the spread and moneylines. Glory favors the bold. Chance favors the prepared mind. Luck, well i have that too. University of Utah goes to the Pac-12 conference in 2011. I expect them to compete immediately for the conference CG. Brock Lesnar will defeat Cain Velasquez. Womens MMA, the next big thing in sports. 2 weeks till the first game of college football. UTAH vs Pitt. September 2nd 2010.
by wolfmanshowlforever on Aug 21, 2010 9:25 AM PDT up reply actions
The MWC gets screwed?
How would BYU leaving have screwed the MWC? The bid for a BCS guarantee was just as hurt when Utah left. If BYU did have a hand in making the WAC a firmer conference, how does that hurt the MWC? The MWC would be fine with 8 teams; they were that way from ‘99 to ’04. If they didn’t want to stay at 8 teams, they could’ve easily looked to Tulsa or Houston or UTEP. There were still options to expand. The MWC would’ve been fine without BYU.
As far as notifying the MWC of their intentions, they never actually moved. They still needed to get approval from the LDS church, which was a major barrier, and we will never know really how close the deal was to being done. They still had 2 weeks until the deadline to notify.
Be pissed off at BYU all you want, but the MWC knew very well that BYU was exploring all it’s options. It said so many times. The MWC even said they were a 9-team league for the foreseeable future. It is interesting that you aren’t mad at the league for gutting the WAC and leaving them to die. I guess it’s just too easy to hate BYU.
Mark, Cougar for Life
Mountain West Connection - The best site for MWC sports!
The MWC knew BYU was exploring options
They did not know that BYU was signing contracts in secrecy with the competition.
You have to notify your partners before you sign contracts with your partners competition!!! There is a reason BYU did this in secrecy, they knew what their partners backup plan was. The wanted to stop this backup plan before their partners knew they weren’t partners anymore.
Assumptions
You act as if BYU drew up the contract and shoved it in the face of every WAC school. I somewhat doubt BYU had much of anything to do with getting the entire WAC to sign this agreement. The member schools all have a vested interest in the integrity of their conference, and I’m sure Benson was aware of contact between the MWC and WAC schools and wanted to firm up the commitment among the member schools. Heck, Benson may have come up with it himself to make the WAC more alluring to BYU.
Also, BYU never signed a contract. They most definitely would’ve notified the MWC if they had come to a firm decision and signed a contract. You really need to give this up and move on.
Mark, Cougar for Life
Mountain West Connection - The best site for MWC sports!
You should do some research, you are assuming BYU is innocent.
The WAC signed this deal last FRIDAY. Carl Benson admitted in his press conference that they have been working with BYU since July. BYU needed an assurance that WAC teams wouldn’t leave if they came. That is why the contract was signed by the WAC members for BYU.
Correct, BYU never signed. They had it written up though. How else do you think I know the 2011 BYU football schedule in the WAC.• BYU at Fresno State;
• BYU at Hawaii;
• Utah State at BYU;
• Nevada at BYU;
• San Jose State at BYU;
• New Mexico State at BYU.
You should do some research; you are assuming BYU is guilty.
Most of our culture believes that someone is innocent until proven guilty. Produce solid proof that BYU had an oral agreement and I would bet most of those disagreeing with you would shut up.
No one is disputing the fact that the WAC and BYU had talked. Certainly the WAC wanted to have BYU, and BYU had concerns about joining the WAC. The WAC did things to alleviate those concerns, such as taking steps to ensure the conference stayed intact and letting them know exactly what to expect schedule-wise.
Of course they had all the details drawn up; you’d be an idiot to enter a business agreement without all the details firmed up. BYU would definitely need to know what kind of schedule to expect vis a vis home and away games and what kind of travel costs would be incurred.
The link you posted below doesn’t indicate that the conference’s self-imposed exit fee was part of an agreement with BYU.
Mark, Cougar for Life
Mountain West Connection - The best site for MWC sports!
Try this one then. The WAC commissioner clearly admits it in his press conference.
Benson said the decision to ask for a $5 million buyout came from him and BYU.
“BYU recognized the need for the binding agreement to protect against exactly what happened,” Benson said.
Will you still deny it when it comes out of the mouth of the commissioner of the WAC? BYU asked for a binding agreement to protect themself from the MWC. They were still partners with the MWC at this time!!!! The deal was done in secret to BYU’s MWC wouldn’t know they were doing this.
they were apart of it
and they brought up the idea. BYU was trying to protect their back and have a league to go to. Had the WAC had a stiff penalty in place this could have been done in the open and not in secret meetings.
Mountain West Connection The best site for MWC sports!
by Jeremy Mauss on Aug 20, 2010 9:23 PM PDT up reply actions
Interestingly
I do not have a problem with the fact that BYU brought up the idea first. Talk is cheap, it happens. My problem started at the point a contract was signed. (I know BYU didn’t sign it, see other responses to why I still fault them for it.)
Anyone else confused
The guy tried to support his point by contradicting himself. Inteligent.
by vaughnzipper on Aug 21, 2010 10:47 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
You are definitely confused
I never said BYU couldn’t explore options. I said BYU crossed the lines when they started making contracts that hurt their existing business partners.
From the mouth of Carl Benson. The point of of the $5 million exit fee contract was because of an agreement with BYU to join the conference.
Why was BYU making secret deals with the competition while they were still in an existing partnership!!!
Notify your current partners you are leaving BEFORE you finalize an agreement with the competitor.
Again I say
Show me ONE signed “finalized” contract and I’ll admit I’m wrong. You have nothing but speculation to stand on right now.
by vaughnzipper on Aug 21, 2010 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions
How about Carl Benson admitting they had a deal with BYU in his press conference...
Go listen to it!!! If you want to go the easy way here is an article.
My guess is you still won’t believe it.
And I quote
“Benson said the original plan was to have a football scheduling agreement with BYU that would include between four and six games against WAC teams each year.”
A plan to have an agreement. Not an agreement between BYU and the WAC. You pick and chose what you want to see and hear.
by vaughnzipper on Aug 21, 2010 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions
Did I call it? Yes I did. You can't believe the truth staring you in the face.
Why did you skip the first paragraph that said this?
the day that began with a potentially “beneficial” agreement to add BYU’s non-football sports "disintegrated due to the selfish action of two WAC schools…
Carl Benson is mad because Fresno and Boise St. ruined the agreement with BYU. Just go listen to the press conference.
I'd like to know where you got your info from jeremy
On how BYU brought up the idea? I love how athe utes are just trying to crucify BYU in anyway they can.
I would guarantee that BYU did not come up with the idea but instead the WAC did to be proactive and show BYU they’ll do whatever it takes to get BYU to join. Because of both of your guys lack of evidence to prove BYU is the one that came up with idea or was behind the whole thing you have nothing bit rumors and speculation to stand on.
Good riddance utes.
by vaughnzipper on Aug 21, 2010 10:45 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
we will prosper without you and don't be surprised if we get houston, utep, tulsa or smu.
b/c i have heard some rumblings that the big east is going to take east carolina and southern miss. the college football drama continues. as the college football world turns.
I'm all about covering the spread and moneylines. Glory favors the bold. Chance favors the prepared mind. Luck, well i have that too. University of Utah goes to the Pac-12 conference in 2011. I expect them to compete immediately for the conference CG. Brock Lesnar will defeat Cain Velasquez. Womens MMA, the next big thing in sports. 2 weeks till the first game of college football. UTAH vs Pitt. September 2nd 2010.
by wolfmanshowlforever on Aug 21, 2010 9:28 AM PDT up reply actions
Have you even read the replies above?
I am not talking about the bid for the BCS. I am talking about secret deals with a competitor behind closed doors.
Your second paragraph demonstrates my point. They have never moved. They are still in a partnership with the MWC. Why were they working with another conference to prevent the MWC from reacting to their move while the were still in a partnership!!
1) Saying, "We are exploring all possibilities" is not notification you are leaving!!
2) Saying, "Independence is an option" does not give notification of negotiations with competitors. Independence does NOT equal joining with the competition.
You last paragraph demonstrates even further that the MWC was tricked by BYU. From your own words…
The MWC even said they were a 9-team league for the foreseeable future.
Wait, what?
So saying “we are exploring all possibilities” doesn’t give notification of negotiations with other conferences? I’m not sure what the heck else that would mean.
Independence, in this sense, would definitely imply that they were looking at other conferences for the rest of their sports. Nobody is really independent in basically every sport other than football.
I will agree with you that saying “we are exploring all possibilities” isn’t notification that you are leaving, but they didn’t leave. If that is all that was said before they left, then people would understandably be upset. BUT THEY DIDN’T LEAVE. They hadn’t taken any action (no press conference scheduled, the coach didn’t know, associate AD was golfing), therefore they were still exploring possibilities and the MWC was still a 9-team league for the foreseeable future.
Mark, Cougar for Life
Mountain West Connection - The best site for MWC sports!
They were two timing
Don’t join in a contract that with the enemey of your partners. You should sever your relationship with your partners before you do this:
Benson said the decision to ask for a $5 million buyout came from him and BYU.
“BYU recognized the need for the binding agreement to protect against exactly what happened,” Benson said.
Still didn't join a contract
They didn’t sign a contract or anything. They “recognized the need for a binding agreement”. Is there something dishonest about that?
I guess what you wanted to happen was for BYU to leave the MWC and tell everyone that the rest of their sports were without a conference as well. THEN they would talk to the WAC about being a home for the rest of their sports. Not only would that be incredibly risky, but criminally stupid. Had that happened, Holmoe would’ve most likely been fired.
How about you move out of your house, and put all your stuff out in the middle of the street, and THEN start looking for a new place or a storage area or something? Because, of course, finding another place to live before you move out of your current residence is “dishonest.”
I still maintain that BYU never entered into any agreement with the WAC. If that was the case, wouldn’t Benson be just as mad at BYU as he was at Nevada who did have a verbal agreement with the WAC?
Mark, Cougar for Life
Mountain West Connection - The best site for MWC sports!
Explanation of this whole stupid argument
How about you move out of your house, and put all your stuff out in the middle of the street, and THEN start looking for a new place or a storage area or something? Because, of course, finding another place to live before you move out of your current residence is "dishonest."
He didn’t mean it that way. What he meant was that if you are going to sell your house and move, then you put your house up for sale, notify everyone you are leaving and then you start looking for a home before the house is sold.
BYU started looking for a new house before they put the one they were currently living in up for sale. Now in real life, that’s not illegal and there is nothing wrong with that, but in conference membership it is different. When you are going to leave a soon-to-be BCS Conference for another one and basically completely destroy its shot at the BCS, at least notify them so that they can start scrambling for replacements to try and catch up in the BCS Stats.
If this info about the secret meetings with the WAC and BYU going independent hadn’t leaked out and BYU left the conference at 11:50 P.M. on August 31st, then we would have all been pissed and wondered why we weren’t given the chance to try and recoup courtesy of BYU.
The point is BYU may not have been trying to maliciously do exactly that, but I think they knew what they were doing when they thought this through. So no, BYU did sign any contract with the WAC because it would have been illegal. But they were morally wrong when it came to what they knew they were doing and still tried to do it.
Mountain West Connection - The best site for MWC Sports.
UNLV is going all the way this year!
Totally understandable
Yeah, had BYU announced that they were leaving at 11:50PM on August 31st, the MWC would have a good reason to be pissed. Do you think they would’ve done that? The MWC had researched exactly which teams they would invite to replace anyone who left. It didn’t take long at all for the invites to go out to Fresno, Nevada and Utah State. The MWC knew that BYU was considering leaving; they said as much numerous times. They were prepared, and if BYU had pulled the trigger on going independent (something they still needed to get approval from the LDS church to do), they would’ve immediately notified the MWC, who in turn could’ve invited the next school on their list of candidates.
The entire argument against BYU is predicated on the idea that the deal was already done. They hadn’t done anything. They were most likely in the stage of finalizing any details, but there will still significant hurdles to overcome, and until they were, nothing was going to happen. Can you imagine the chaos that would’ve been unleashed had BYU announced they were leaving, only to encounter some obstacle that would prevent that from happening? Call BYU evil all you want, but they did exactly what they should’ve done to protect the interests of the school and the conference.
Mark, Cougar for Life
Mountain West Connection - The best site for MWC sports!
Sometimes, when you are in a contract with a partner your options are limited by this contract
Now if you exit the initial partnership, then more options become open to you. BYU would have done nothing wrong if they had left the initial partnership first.
BYU would have also done nothing wrong If the WAC had signed the $5 million exit fee on their own without prompting from BYU. The problem is that the only reason the WAC members signed this contract is because they had a verbal contract with BYU. The verbal contract was more than verbal too. They had details written down to review. The 2011 football schedule is part of the details from the contract that were written down and have leaked to the media.
Details do not imply a contract
You’re still saying the only honest thing to do was to leave the MWC and THEN start talking with other conferences? Again, Holmoe would’ve been fired.
Are you also saying the only reason the WAC members signed the contract was because BYU had a verbal part in it? It seems to me that the WAC had every reason to propose and sign that contract regardless of BYU. Were the talks with BYU a motivating factor in signing this contract? They may well have been, but to say BYU had verbally agreed to join on this one point is ludicrous.
The details were there to give BYU an idea of what this option would mean for them. The WAC is geographically diverse, and saying that they’ll get 4-6 games could mean anything from 4 home games to 6 away games to places like Hawaii and Louisiana. Throw in the NCAA’s concession to teams traveling to Hawaii and you may even need to schedule a 13th game, which, if this were for the 2011 season, would mean starting the search now. Just because details of a deal were written down doesn’t mean there was any contract or any agreement.
Mark, Cougar for Life
Mountain West Connection - The best site for MWC sports!
Seriously
Nothing will phase you. The evidence is overwhelming. Talk about blind faith. Your logic goes like this…
BYU was involved → BYU is always innocent → All facts pointing to BYU not being innocent are false.
Here is more proof. I highly doubt you will see the forest through the trees though if you still deny it at this point. The Utah State athletic director posted an open letter on their website regarding what went down.
From the open letter:
As part of the WAC’s conversations with BYU, the current eight conference members (excluding departing Boise State) agreed to remain together as a conference for at least five years.
Quite the opposite
You are seeing a few trees and implying the forest. No commitment was made by BYU. The quote you use out of that letter says that there were conversations with BYU, no agreements or commitments or anything. The quote also states “the current eight conferences members agreed” to the membership penalty. BYU didn’t sign that, nor did they make any verbal agreement with the WAC stating that if they signed this membership penalty agreement that BYU would join them.
The line right after the one you quoted says, “This stability was important to BYU, to other current members, and would have been critical as other expansion options were explored.” BYU was understandably concerned about the integrity of the league, but so were the current members of the WAC, and the agreement would’ve been critical as other options were explored. Attracting BYU wasn’t the only reason for this agreement, and BYU did nothing dishonest in having a conversation with the WAC about the WAC’s future as an athletic conference.
Also, when you find something new to share, like that letter, you don’t need to post it all over this thread.
Mark, Cougar for Life
Mountain West Connection - The best site for MWC sports!
What planet do you come from?
You are looking at a forest and seeing the ocean.
The WAC signed the $5 million exit fee contract for BYU. How on earth do you not see that? There literally is nothing that could change your mind. The quote you try to use only backs up my point. You even go so far as to say this quote proves BYU was not involved:
"This stability was important to BYU, to other current members, and would have been critical as other expansion options were explored."
Clearly this quote shows BYU was involved. The WAC signed the $5 million exit fee to create stability. Did you not read the part about how this stability was critical to BYU for expansion? Why would it be critical to BYU if they didn’t have an agreement? The WAC signed the contract for BYU AND themself.
You saw how the stability provided by the $5 million exit fee was critical for the WAC for expansion. Why not look at the rest of the sentence? It said it was critical for both BYU and the WAC. It takes TWO parties to sign a contract for expansion. They were BYU and the WAC. Both parties were cited as saying this contract was critical for their agreement. If BYU wasn’t a party in it, they wouldn’t have mentioned it being critical to BYU.
Additionally, the document says this:
"In a 12-hour period we have gone from looking forward to participating in an expanded WAC with a bright and prosperous future to one of some uncertainty."
They said this because they were certain BYU would join in an expanded WAC if they signed this $5 million exit fee contract. Why were they certain? Because they already had an agreement finalized. Details of this agreement have leaked onto the web. Nothing became uncertain until Fresno and Nevada broke the agreement they had with BYU.
BYU's involvement
BYU’s involvement in getting the buyout signed was most likely a precondition to entering more serious negotiations with the WAC. They understandably wanted assurances that the WAC would be around for some time.
Both parties were cited as saying this contract was critical for their agreement.
Everything that has been released has been from the WAC side. Is there a citation for BYU’s side of this? I haven’t seen it.
If BYU wasn’t a party in it, they wouldn’t have mentioned it being critical to BYU.
It was critical to their negotiations with BYU, in that BYU wasn’t going to continue negotiations until these assurances were made. The document only says this was a part of the WAC’s conversations with BYU, not an agreement or contract or anything.
They said this because they were certain BYU would join in an expanded WAC if they signed this $5 million exit fee contract. Why were they certain? Because they already had an agreement finalized.
If they had an agreement finalized, why wasn’t this memorandum of understanding (basically a letter of intent) signed? It seems to me that signing that letter would be a finalized agreement. Anything short of that couldn’t be called finalized, and wouldn’t have been much of an agreement. If this letter had been signed, they would’ve notified everyone of their intentions. They would’ve still gone through a due diligence period (probably lasting only a week or two at most) and then a final contract would’ve been signed. Negotiations had become serious, but no agreements, implied or otherwise, had been made.
Mark, Cougar for Life
Mountain West Connection - The best site for MWC sports!
The contract is now public and undisputable.
Salt Lake Tribune Publishes the Contract.
Somehow I think you will still find a way to deny this contract was signed for BYU. You won’t understand this contract would never exist if BYU didn’t ask for it as part of their secret contract negotiations with the WAC. You will go back to the following logic: BYU was involved → BYU is always innocent → All facts pointing to BYU not being innocent are false.
It is clear to any sane person that BYU and the WAC were in secret contract negotiations. They were far enough along that they had a verbal agreement together. Part of this verbal agreement was that the WAC would make an assurance that no team would leave if BYU joined.
The details of this signed contract by the WAC are proof that they were signing as part of a larger agreement with BYU. The purpose of this contract is to fulfill a requirement of their agreement with BYU.
Whereas, the WAC wishes to take steps to make such minimum assurances to BYU so that a contract with BYU may be completed:
They are clearly promised seasons with BYU in this contract. Why do this if you don’t already have a deal done and ready to sign with BYU.
3. The terms of this resolution shall become effective immediately. It is understood that the agreement regarding athletic seasons contemplated with BYU will extend through the time frame July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2016 or as extended, or if terminated in accordance with paragraphs 4 and 5 herein.
Clearly this contract is part of an agreement between the WAC and BYU. Read the first sentence of this quote.
4. The WAC and its members and BYU, agree that all current members of the WAC (except Louisiana Tech and Boise State, which has already given notice of its withdrawal) will not join any other conference or athletic conference from the date of adoption of this resolution through June 30, 2016, contingent upon BYU agreeing that it will not join any other conference or athletic conference from the date of entering a contract with the WAC through June 30, 2016.
If BYU leaves the WAC this contract is terminated. Proof they would not sign this if they were not getting something from BYU in return. The contract is not even valid without BYU.
6. In the event that any current WAC member, (except Louisiana Tech or Boise State), or BYU leaves the WAC in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 5 herein, the terms of this resolution are terminated.
The arguments made that the WAC was doing this on their own to protect themself are not valid. They clearly did this as part of an agreement with BYU.
This is getting ridiculous
Did you think I wouldn’t follow that link? It’s not a contract, but merely the WAC’s buyout resolution.
The WAC wanted to “make minimum assurances to BYU so that a contract may be completed,” meaning they didn’t have a contract. The phrase “…regarding athletic seasons contemplated with BYU” indicates that they had talked and contemplated seasons with BYU, but no agreement had been reached.
Paragraph 4 is the closest you get, but it is contingent upon BYU entering a contract, which never happened and which was still in question. If it weren’t in question, the word ‘contingent’ in there would’ve been meaningless.
I agree that the WAC did this with the ongoing negotiations with BYU in mind. But no agreement, verbal or otherwise, had been reached. It may have been forthcoming, but never came to fruition due to Nevada and Fresno coming to the MWC.
It is clear that you cannot convince me, and try as I might, you are very set in the idea that BYU acted dishonestly and without integrity. As much as I’m sure we’re enjoying this conversation, this is the last I’m going to post on this thread.
Mark, Cougar for Life
Mountain West Connection - The best site for MWC sports!
You are right, it is ridiculous…
That you don’t think the link is a contract.
In law, a contract is a legally binding agreement between two or more parties which, if it contains the elements of a valid legal agreement, is enforceable by law.
This resolution fits into the definition of a contract.
Paragraph 4 isn’t just close, it spells it out clearly.
The WAC and its members and BYU, agree that all current members of the WAC …will not join any other conference …
Paragraph 6 is clear too.
In the event that any current WAC member, (except Louisiana Tech or Boise State), or BYU leaves the WAC…the terms of this resolution are terminated
You are in denial. You read the above and still said this:
no agreement, verbal or otherwise, had been reached.
Again, let me point out your logic: BYU was involved → BYU is always innocent → All facts pointing to BYU not being innocent are false.
Maybe someday you should try coming to a conclusion based on facts instead of forcing the facts to line up with your preconceived conclusion.
I have to agree with the zoob on this one
This resolution was intended to give BYU confidence to continue to follow through with negotiations and does not constitute a contract with BYU. It does constitute a contract between the WAC schools, but it’s shaky even there since it’s contingent on BYU signing an agreement with the WAC. Which they never did. So not only is this not a contract with BYU, it’s not even a valid contract between the WAC schools unless BYU suddenly signs with them in the next 5 days.
When negotiating a contract it is common for one or both side to offer and give assurances to the other party as a means to bring both sides closer to an agreement. Those concessions do not constitute a completed agrement and either or both sides can still walk away at any time. Every business does this and does it descreetly. That’s how business works. I don’t see any fault with what the Y did. I do find offence in them being zoobs, but that’s another story. xD
They tried their best though
Even more information is still leaking. The sltrib has emails through the freedom of information act.
It is clear that they were working their hardest to finish the deal in secrecy and have it signed before anyone knew. BYU tried to get the final signature in secrecy, they just couldn’t. Once Craig Thompson (their partner at the time.) found out about the deal he reacted. The only reason the deal wasn’t signed is because their partner found out about the secret deal with the competition first.
Really, I wouldn’t even have a problem with the secret deal if it didn’t have a contract that hurt their partners AFTER they left. Go secret all you want, but you shouldn’t:
1) Lay land mines for your partners after you are gone.
2) Attempt to have everything signed before you partners know you were even working with the enemy.
The reason it had to be in secret from their partners is because they were trying to prevent their partners from being able to react.
Another analogy. If a man knows he wants to get a divorce with his wife. He knows they both want their cabin and will be unwilling to give it up. He also knows his wife has the upper hand to get it in divorce court. Is it ok if he tries to sneak behind his wife and sell it to his girlfriend? His wife knows the marriage is shaky, but has no idea the husband has already decided to call it quits.
Lets say he tries to do this; however his wife finds out and prevents the sale a day before the deal closes. He tried to do it but didn’t finish. Doesn’t mean he didn’t do anything wrong. He still tried to leave a landmine behind and prevent his ex-partner from getting the cabin by making a sneaky deal before she knew of the separation.
Now if the husband was just making a deal to rent an apartment after he told his wife he wanted a divorce, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. This deal didn’t leave a landmine behind. He didn’t hurt his current partner by doing this, he only prepared for the separation.
It is a very fine line and BYU crossed it.
Now the whole topic is played though. It is time to move on.
Nothing will penetrate your delusion
1) The title of your post, “still didn’t join a contract”
2) Your first paragraph, They "recognized the need for a binding agreement".
3) A contract was signed by WAC members last Friday. For consideration, BYU promised they would join the WAC if no teams from the WAC left.
I guess I'm delusional
Sure, I guess I’m delusional for thinking that a contract or agreement doesn’t exist absent any concrete information. Do you have any proof that there was a contract? Do you have any proof that BYU verbally agreed to anything when they “recognized the need for a binding agreement”? Do you have any proof that BYU promised anything to anyone?
I’m sure you’ll drag out all the stuff you’ve said before, but none of that is proof of any agreement, merely ideas being tossed around about BYU’s future. I’d wager that you’ll never be able to provide any solid proof of anything you’ve accused BYU of. However, I’m sure you’ll still think you’re right and that anyone who disagrees with you is delusional.
Mark, Cougar for Life
Mountain West Connection - The best site for MWC sports!
The evidence has been concrete
But for you, I give you more. An open letter posted officially on the Utah State website by their athletic director.
As part of the WAC’s conversations with BYU, the current eight conference members (excluding departing Boise State) agreed to remain together as a conference for at least five years.
Give it up already!
First off, BYU was giving the MWC advance notice. It’s not like they would have become an idependent this season. They wouldn’t become an independent until 2011. So that’s 1 full year advance notice, is that enough for you?
Secondly, they were not trying to screw over the MWC. Why do you have such a hard time understanding this concept. Every sports team at BYU except football was going to join the WAC. They knew if they left the MWC there would be a great chance the WAC would be raided. In an attempt to prevent that they made sure the early exit penelty was in place. Again, they were not trying to scew over the MWC but simply trying to protect their own interests.
Finaly, how were they spying? This isn’t war or a game of chess. And how many big secrets has the MWC come up with over the last two months that they don’t want the rest of the world to know about? Stop trying to act like they were some sort of double agent. If you really want to be mad at someone, be mad at Utah. If they hadn’t left, BYU wouldn’t be talking about being an independent. So enough already! Your arguments are boardering on conspiricy theory nonsense.
Don't trust this guy. He lies.
Disagree
1) Saying you are exploring your options is very different then signing contracts with the competition in secrecy. There is nothing wrong with BYU exploring options. There is something wrong with signing contracts with the competition that hurts their partners BEFORE they notify thier partners they are not partners anymore.
You keep saying BYU signed contracts
I’d love to see one. Just one!
by vaughnzipper on Aug 20, 2010 10:05 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Clarification
The WAC signed a $5 million exit fee contract. They only did this because they had an oral contract that BYU would join the conference if they did. Carl Benson admitted in his press conference that he has been working with BYU since July.
Last Friday the WAC met to sign the $5 million exit fee contract. At the time they signed the contract they knew the reason was because they had an agreement with BYU to enter the WAC if they did. There was already an oral contract with BYU, otherwise the WAC would not have signed this contract.
One more thing
BYU said that they may go independent. This notification is NOT the same as saying they are going to work with the WAC to sign secret deals.
Disagree continued...
2) I know they weren’t trying to screw the MWC. They were just looking out for themself. I wouldn’t have a problem with this if they were honest about it. Why did they know the WAC might be raided, because they had inside knowledge. They have been at the board meetings where conference expansion was mentioned. That is whey they knew they had to be sneeky about getting the $5 million exit fee.
3) How did they spy? The MWC was discussing conference expansion at their board meetings. BYU attended knowing they were going to join with the WAC. In fact they were in contract negotiations with Carl Benson at the time. They knew their loyalties were to a new conference. Instead they stayed and played double agent.
I think I get it
You think that the MWC was talking about including Fresno St and Nevada in the MWC so BYU tried to sabatage their plans. If that’s what you think then you should be included in the movie “Dumb and Dumber”. If that’s not what you were thinking than I apologize up front. The MWC had absolutly no plans to expand further. They only invited Fresno and Nevado in an attempt to stop BYU from leaving. So what inside information did BYU use against the MWC? They simply made the logical conclusion that if they left the MWC would try to steal some more teams from the WAC. No inside information was necessary. Anyone with limited intelligence would know that is what would happen. If you can’t see that than you lack limited intelligence. If you can see that than I’m not sure what your argument is.
Don't trust this guy. He lies.
My main issue is they were in a partnership
Do you believe that people who enter into a partnership are not protected from their partners working with the competition? Is there any protection from your partners working against you?
The MWC has a very liberal exit policy. I would not have a problem if BYU notified their partners that they were going to use this. The key is that there should be be no contracts signed due to your negotiations with competitors while you are still in a contract with your partners.
1) Saying, “We are exploring all possibilities” is not notification you are leaving
2) Saying, “Independence is an option” does not give notification of negotiations with competitors. Independence does NOT equal joining with the competition.
3) BYU never notified their partners that they were in actual negotiations with competitors. They would not need to do this if they notified their partners they would exercise the exit policy; however, they didn’t give this notification either.
4) The WAC only signed the $5 million exit fee penalty because BYU promised they would join the WAC if they did. BYU essentially had an oral contract with the WAC. If the WAC signed this $5 exit fee, then BYU would join the WAC as a member as consideration. They even had details of this oral contract written down ready to sign. Details of the oral contract with BYU have already leaked out in print. The 2011 BYU WAC schedule is an example of this.
so basically byu acted like tiger woods did?
i think tiger woods is scum. peace.
I'm all about covering the spread and moneylines. Glory favors the bold. Chance favors the prepared mind. Luck, well i have that too. University of Utah goes to the Pac-12 conference in 2011. I expect them to compete immediately for the conference CG. Brock Lesnar will defeat Cain Velasquez. Womens MMA, the next big thing in sports. 2 weeks till the first game of college football. UTAH vs Pitt. September 2nd 2010.
by wolfmanshowlforever on Aug 21, 2010 9:21 AM PDT reply actions
I have to admit I laughed out loud when I read this
I compared what they did to infidelity because they are similar, but I do see the difference. What BYU did was wrong, but I don’t think they are scum.
Nice post though. I really did enjoy the laugh.
and tiger is paying the price. no major wins in 10 straight majors and i think his last regular season win was 1 year ago.
plus i think his wife is going to receive something like 500,000,000 dollars. will byu go into the same kind of funk tiger did. only time will tell. good article.
I'm all about covering the spread and moneylines. Glory favors the bold. Chance favors the prepared mind. Luck, well i have that too. University of Utah goes to the Pac-12 conference in 2011. I expect them to compete immediately for the conference CG. Brock Lesnar will defeat Cain Velasquez. Womens MMA, the next big thing in sports. 2 weeks till the first game of college football. UTAH vs Pitt. September 2nd 2010.
by wolfmanshowlforever on Aug 21, 2010 9:39 AM PDT up reply actions
BYU has a new mascot, they are now the Tigers
Unfortunately it is teams like Utah State and Idaho that will really pay the price. I hear BYU asked the WAC to adopt a theme song. Burning down the house, by the talking heads.
When BYU played with fire they accidentally burned down the WAC.
that made me laugh and what is funny about burning down the house is the talking heads lead singer
david bryne? he wrote the lyrics for that song and you could say he had a big influence(maybe even stole the idea) from the king of funk george jones. i think that is what his name is?
I'm all about covering the spread and moneylines. Glory favors the bold. Chance favors the prepared mind. Luck, well i have that too. University of Utah goes to the Pac-12 conference in 2011. I expect them to compete immediately for the conference CG. Brock Lesnar will defeat Cain Velasquez. Womens MMA, the next big thing in sports. 2 weeks till the first game of college football. UTAH vs Pitt. September 2nd 2010.
by wolfmanshowlforever on Aug 21, 2010 10:05 AM PDT up reply actions
daedalus17yrsold
You are important to college football because you are the 17 year old fan who’s dad buys tickets and takes him to the games and buys him a t-shirt and hat too. So it’s good you have passion about the sport because it takes people like you and your dad for college football to survive. Someday your will take your own little daedalus jr to games in Salt Lake City. So being a fan is good.
That said, you’re still just a huge University of Utah fan who hates BYU. (Kind of like Texas and Texas A&M… Utah is BYU’s rival and a Utah fan’s favorite teams are the Utes and anybody BYU is playing) Anyway, as you sit at your computer in your Transformer underwear, you keep posting uninformed, Utah lovin’ and BYU hatin’ opinions. Since you’re a teenager, I guess it’s cute. You don’t know how negotiations, contracts or for that matter college football works other than the teams you hate and love. Again, cute. Just like when you yell “Sucks” after Cougar fans yell “BYU.” Kinda cute. And we do need fans like you because you and your dad keep college football strong. But know that Informed People are just wanting your dad to put you in timeout.
by Informed Person on Aug 21, 2010 11:10 AM PDT reply actions
You don't know what the hell you are talking about.
Your user name is “Informed Person”. Then you go on to call yourself an informed person in your post.
First lets look at the definition of informed: “having or prepared with information or knowledge.”
Second lets point out everything you you said and determine if it was based on being informed.
1) I am not 17, my birthday is on on the 17th of October. I am 35 years old. You didn’t have a clue what you were talking about.
2) My father has never bought me tickets to a football game and has never bought me college gear. I do buy tickets and buy college gear on a regular basis. You didn’t have a clue what you were talking about.
3) I have no children and never will. You didn’t have a clue what you were talking about.
4) I am a huge U of U fan. You saw the obvious writing on the wall, the first and ONLY FACT in you post.
5) I do not hate BYU. I have paid to go to multiple BYU games. I watched all BYU games and rooted for them to win all of them except when the play the U. I am willing to criticize them if they make a mistake, but I don’t hate them. I consider them like a brother that I sometimes have a disagreement with. I have purchased BYU gear and worn it as recently as a few weeks ago. I have a lot of family who are BYU fans who I enjoy discussing the Cougs. We fight in fun, but it is truely just fun. You didn’t have a clue what you were talking about there either.
6) You assummed my favorite team is anyone BYU is playing. Wrong again. You really like restating your uninformed positions.
7) I have never owned transformer underwear. Uniformed again.
8) You claimed I am uninformed. I followed the MWC press conference with Fresno, Nevada, and Fred Thompson. I also followed the Carl Benson WAC press conference. If you wanted to be informed you would have listened and picked out the facts that were available in these press conferences. Again, you made an uninformed claim.
9) Again, I am not a teenager. You continue to restate uninformed opinions.
10) You claim I don’t know negotiations and contracts. I have had graduate level classes on negotiations. I have also had law classes in college. I have a business degree and had to take business law. I am not a lawyer so I asked my wife, who is a lawyer, to verify facts. I really did know what I was talking about. You were uninformed again.
10) I never have and never will, yell “sucks” after cougar fans yell “BYU”. Again, you are uninformed.
11) My dad doesn’t keep college football strong. He has probably never even seen a college football game in his life. he has never bought anything to support college football. Amazing, who would have guessed that you would be uniformed again.
So lets review all of your informed opinions:
1) You called me a fan of the Utes.
You need to get a clue. If you want to call yourself “Informed Person” you should think of trying to say something informed in your posts. Seriously, try stating a fact. It would be fun.
I love that you already commented to his post
Then came back several hours later to write a novel about your childhood. You’ve been stewing over this for hours.
You’ve got issues bro. I’m going to do you a favor and not respond to your comments above. You clearly ignore facts and you take your speculation as the real story of what’s happened (happening) despite your limited facts and common knowledge.
Do yourself a favor and seek help. I’m venturing to guess that your bad luck with marriage had more to do with your unwillingness to accept the truth and know when to back down from a fight than your wife’s sudden infidelity. Seriously, for your health I’m not going to argue with you anymore.
by vaughnzipper on Aug 21, 2010 9:50 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
You think I ignore the facts
You deny BYU had an agreement with the WAC in posts above. I found a better quote for you. I know you will think it still insn’t true. you are in denial.
Benson said the decision to ask for a $5 million buyout came from him and BYU.
“BYU recognized the need for the binding agreement to protect against exactly what happened,” Benson said.
You will still deny that BYU wasn’t involved in a verbal contract though.
You clearly know what you are talking about
My birthiday is on the 17th. I am actually 35.
True I am a big U fan. False, I don’t hate BYU. I am upset at BYU for not acting in an honest manner.
Actually, I think BYU deserves better, I really believe that. If you rank BCS school football attendance BYU falls in the top 1/3 of BCS schools. They are being shafted by the BCS. I don’t have a problem with them trying to find a way to fix that. Independence might be a good way for them to fix this inequity. It is probably their bests option.
I still wish well for the team too, even if I am overly critical sometimes. It may shock you based on some of my other posts, but I actually root for BYU to win their games when they play teams other than Utah. I watched all of BYU games last year. I have never gone to a Utah bowl game, but I have gone to a BYU bowl game (largely due to work issues, but sadly still true).
I would have been fine with all of this if BYU was honest about the way they did it.
if vz bugs you too much ask him about byu's lacrosse team?
i’ll back you up.
I'm all about covering the spread and moneylines. Glory favors the bold. Chance favors the prepared mind. Luck, well i have that too. University of Utah goes to the Pac-12 conference in 2011. I expect them to compete immediately for the conference CG. Brock Lesnar will defeat Cain Velasquez. Womens MMA, the next big thing in sports. 2 weeks till the first game of college football. UTAH vs Pitt. September 2nd 2010.
by wolfmanshowlforever on Aug 21, 2010 10:58 PM PDT up reply actions
Or ask him about U of Washington's History
everyone who read that thread will have your back. This guy needs to take a xanax, or roll a big ol’ spliff…anything to take the edge off. He seems a bit whacked.
I think BYU had no choice
Yes, they did this backroom deal to protect themselves when they go independent to half their schedule filled out. The reason is because getting 12 teams each year to play you is tough. Had they said we are going independent and then made a deal with the WAC who knows if Thompson would have added those teams he still may have even before knowing BYU was going to partner with the WAC.
A 2011 mock schedule is evidence enough for me that this was basically a done deal yes not completely but any rational person would see this deal as done. Yes, I would assume BYU going to the WAC was a done deal, and who cares if they actually signed something they were going to the WAC.
Mountain West Connection The best site for MWC sports!
True
BYU was really in a tough spot, it was a catch-22 position. Damned if you do and damned if you don’t. The only way I see they could have gotten around this is by waiting more time. They moved too quickly. There were no good deals for BYU to choose from. Their options were:
1) Stay in the MWC. (They continue to let their partners share revenue they generate. Plus they are limited in the amount they are able to generate because of the MWC TV contract.)
2) Exit the MWC. (A questionable deal with the WAC behind closed doors is required.)
There was a choice, there just weren’t any good choices. Another season in the MWC could have given them more time to exit without questionable dealings. Unfortunately they would have to accept the shaft for an extra year if they did that.
The leaks on the TV deal with ESPN really show how BYU is getting the shaft by staying in the MWC. I have heard possibly $4 million for 4 home games. Plus revenue from two more home games on BYUTV.
It seems to me that all the talks that BYU can’t go independent are unfounded. I think they would succeed at it. That is why I think ultimately BYU will go independent. I would guess that the future Texas game in Provo will be played on ESPN. That won’t happen under the current MWC contract.
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Latest Y! Sports Blogs from Yahoo! Sports
- Did Budweiser exploit beer league hockey players in its Super Bowl commercial hit?
- Act of sportsmanship highlights player’s return from a stroke
- Jon Jones misses his friendship with Rashad Evans
- Wild’s Marek Zidlicky drinks Lou’s Kool-Aid, waives no-trade for Devils
- Georgia school voluntarily forfeits playoff spot rather than play team involved in football brawl
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
