BYU Going Independent And What It All Means
BYU is now in the West Coast Conference, and now it is time to break it down what it means. First off here is the official statement from the the Mountain West and the only mention of BYU is in the title:
MWC Official Statement on BYU Departure
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. - "Since its inception, the Mountain West Conference has worked strategically to grow and strengthen the league, in order to position itself at the highest level of intercollegiate athletics," said MWC Commissioner Craig Thompson. "Our Board of Directors' diligent exploration of options to advance the membership's objectives is ongoing. This includes conversations with our television partners to address issues of mutual importance, as well as determining the optimal configuration for the Conference and investigating the possibility of various collaborative alliances. We look forward to the future with great excitement - particularly welcoming recent additions Boise State, Fresno State and Nevada into the Mountain West."
Looks like a bunch of hate going on between the Mountain West toward BYU. Now, everyone knows my opinion that I think BYU should have stayed until December of 2011 to see if the league would have become a BCS league. However, according to SB Nation's BCS Evolution the Mountain West can still qualify for a petition to the BCS:
To be guaranteed an AQ for 2012 and 2013 the MWC must be in the top 6 in the average of the highest ranked team and the average computer ranking, and above 50% in the adjusted top 25 performance ranking.
The MWC will not make this in the average computer ranking, and would not have with BYU. Fresno State and Nevada are practically inconsequential. They will be in the top 7 and are on pace for the top 5 in the highest ranked team criteria. This makes them eligible to petition for an exemption.
Before BYU left the MWC's numbers were strongly supported by the strong showing in the adjusted top 25 performance criteria, which they were leading. They are still on pace for well above the 50% cutoff. Falling to #5, and in the thick of it for that much, makes the numbers look less cut and dry.
If the MWC can maintain or improve these numbers for the next two years they should be a close call for an AQ in 2012 and 2013.
This does make some sense since the only number that changes is the average ranking per team, but unless the bottom of the Mountain West all have amazing seasons, plus the ACC or Big East take a huge nose dive the Mountain West will not be granted a petition to be allowed into the BCS.
Why Go Independent
My gut reaction is that BYU wanted to make a splash and not be left behind as Utah was headed off to the Pac-10 and all the benefits that go with being in a BCS league. BYU has been used to casting the shadow over Utah, but recently the Utes have been moving up with their two BCS wins and then ultimately overcast BYU by going to the Pac-10.
The television deal was a mess from the beginning as BYU and Utah took less money for the benefit of the league to have the option to add more games on television on a larger scale to the nation. Comcast never got their act together and never added The Mtn. on a basic tier to their east coast subscribers even though they owned the channel.
High definition finally came to the league on a part time basis two years ago with this year being the first time all games will be on high definition. Mounting problems of distribution by The Mtn. and CBS College was getting to BYU and they wanted more. The building of their new media center to go along with BYU-TV had the administration salivating over the possibility of broadcasting all of BYU's sports in high-def and to a much larger fan base.
The money that the television deal was only providing each team just under two million dollars a year, and compare that to the $15 million or so Utah would be getting made BYU jealous. The expected deal BYU is getting from at least ESPN is maybe four million dollars and maybe upwards toward eight million from Fox Sports and BYU-TV, but that is still at least half of what Utah is getting.
Their was hope that the television deal was getting better as CBS was airing a regular season basketball game over the air, so there was a chance that football could shortly be seen on CBS. Or there is the mega merger between NC Universal and Comcast which could have put games on NBC, but these are all speculation and BYU just got tired of waiting for the big payoff.
MWC release says it has consulted with it's TV partners on the future. In other words, Comcast wouldn't budge with concessions for BYU.
Scheduling
The deal with the WAC had BYU getting four to six guaranteed games every year, but now with the WAC falling apart who will BYU play in football. In 2011 BYU has only three games scheduled and with the Utah game still in flux it will be interesting to see how BYU can get nine games in the next year. BYU may still get play some WAC teams at least in 2011 which will help.
What a lot of people want to see is if BYU can schedule quality opponents in late October and November. If they schedule FCS opponents or teams from the Sun Belt to fill out their late season schedule how is that better then what they are in now.
Money weighs out if it means that BYU will be playing games against Louisiana Tech, New Mexico State, and others of that ilk. ESPN most likely will help BYU schedule quality late season games since they will be a business partner and want good games to program. The schedule will be an issue that and to think BYU will get a home and home against and SEC team those people are crazy. Here is a great tweet that sums up BYU's scheduling.
So what are the chances of UF playing new indie BYU? Same as chances of BYU visiting the Swamp w/no return game for $700,000.
As Sheldon Cooper on the Big Bang Theory would say: Bazinga!

That is my point the scheduling will be basically the same for BYU in the next few years. Yes, they can say they are on ESPN but that is about it. Plus, BYU-TV will be just as hard to find if not harder in comparison to the other channels since it is not near any other sports channel, and the casual football fans will not seek out BYU games unless their team is playing the Cougars.
SB Nation's BYU site Vanquish The Foe sums it up nicely on the football side:
I am no longer the fan of independence I once was. For the football team it presents a challenge in motivation and the essence of college football...There is no conference championship to be won. That means the sole motivator every year is going to be a BCS game and the only championship you can win is a National Championship. In the last 10 years BYU has won 4 MWC titles. They have only won 1 National Championship in the school's history. They have not been ranked in the top 10 at the end of the year in over 20 years. To me it takes a big punch out of the recruiting pitch. You can no longer show off those MWC conference rings and tell kids that BYU is always in the hunt for a championship.
Will it Work?
I am not concerned about the scheduling of the football team. They will find teams to play. They will most likely force games with other independents to be at the back end of the schedule so as to not disrupt other school's conference play. They will gain more national exposure, but have to keep winning 10+ games a year in order to garner the respect they are seeking.
I see this as a 2-3 year play to build national prominence and then they will look to affiliate themselves with a bigger conference, possibly the BIG 12 when they move to make a Super Conference.
I complete agree with VTF about this because yes they will be getting a lot more money then they currently do in the Mountain West, but what happens if BYU starts of 1-3 or something not so good what is there to go for a mediocre bowl game and no conference championship. This is a risk that BYU is taking, they are going for the all mighty dollar and more exposure by being on ESPN, BYU-TV and perhaps Fox Sports Rocky Mountain.
Their ultimate goal is to get to a BCS league, because in 'The Project' had a five year deal for BYU being in the WAC, and their hope was that either the Big XII came their way to get back to twelve teams or create a new league that would be BCS worthy. BYU will be back in a league by 2016, what league no clue since the college football landscape will definitely change again and BYU will be drug back in.
In the mean time BYU most likely not have any special deal to gain a BCS bid like Notre Dame or even be able to be in the top 12 as a non-BCS bid like they were eligible in the Mountain West. Now, the only auto bid comes with being one or two, and we all know that is a long shot, so BYU can only be chosen as an at-large team by being in the top 14. The only way BYU will be chosen is if they are in the top five and there are no eligible teams, just like Boise State was picked last year. This has actually happened to BYU in the past way back in 1996 where they were 6th in the country and were passed over the top bowls in what was known as the Bowl Coalition and ended up in the Cotton Bowl.
Basketball coach Dave Rose got thrown under the bus and is leaving a league that had four NCAA bids to a league that on a good year gets two bids. The only decent teams are Gonzaga and Saint Mary's and that is it. Now compare that to good teams as San Diego State, UNLV, and New Mexico. BYU fans who will get all pumped for this just remember your rival Utah is also going to San Francisco but is playing Cal and Stanford while BYU is playing the San Francisco University. How about Los Angeles, well Utah is playing UCLA and USC while BYU is playing Pepperdine and LMU. The picture is clear, and BYU hoops should be aware of being a great team in a so-so league. Just look back at Utah State a few years back who had 25-28 wins and was in the top 25 but was left out of the NCAA tournament.
I am not blaming BYU for looking out for number one, but they still could have left in 2011 after the BCS numbers came out to see if the Mountain West was a BCS league, and if they were a BCS league then the money would increase and exposure. If not then BYU could go independent because that option is not going anywhere.
No matter how one looks at it BYU was all about making the most money, and Randy Moss says it best.
Follow Mountain West Connection via Twitter and Facebook for News Quick Hits and Random Nonsense.
81 comments
|
Add comment
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
This pretty much sums it up
Great article…
Mountain West Connection - The best site for MWC Sports.
UNLV is going all the way this year!
I'm pretty sure BYU ended the year ranked #6 in 1996.
Still awhile ago, but not more than 20 years ago.
yes they did
But I’d rather finish around 10th or so and make the BCS instead of getting passed over like they did in 1996 where they went to the Cotton Bowl and not in the Fiesta or Sugar Bowl.
Mountain West Connection The best site for MWC sports!
by Jeremy Mauss on Aug 31, 2010 10:04 PM PDT up reply actions
And Wyoming finished 10-2 and got passed over by every bowl.
That was the year Notre Dame declined bowl invites because they didn’t get an invite that was ‘good enough’ for ND. I’m still bitter about how that all worked out. Especially since Wyoming should have beaten BYU in that WAC champ game.
(Thrilling end, though.)
by David Hooper on Aug 31, 2010 10:19 PM PDT up reply actions
I remember
BYU celebrated on a big play and some lineman thought to call a timeout with a second or two left.
Mountain West Connection The best site for MWC sports!
by Jeremy Mauss on Aug 31, 2010 10:31 PM PDT up reply actions
I have to disagree with your characterization of the WCC
I would say the top three of the new WCC would rival the MWC. The combination of St. Mary’s, Gonzaga and BYU outclass SDSU (who lost to St. Mary’s), UNLV and UNM (who each had to eek out wins over perennial WCC also rans San Diego and Santa Clara). Andy Katz (who is a pretty smart guy I think) says something similar in his write up of the BYU switch:
“The three-team top tier of Gonzaga, BYU and Saint Mary’s should challenge a number of conferences like the MWC, the A-10 and C-USA that are outside the power six for top-three elite teams. "
Top to bottom yes the MWC is better definitely. But the WCC is no slouch and is certainly better than the WAC which is on life support at the moment. Not to mention the recruiting ground that the WCC offers to it. As for the other sports not sponsored by the WCC they can join the MPSF. In fact many members of the Mountatin West compete in the MPSF in sports not sponsored by the Mountain West like Soccer.
I don’t know if going independent is the right move for BYU and only time will tell if they actually have the cache to pull it off. But the WCC is not a hard landing.
Great, but they don't just play the top teams in the conference
They have to play the entire conference.
The MWC had the 6th best RPI last season, the WCC was 13th. That’s a big difference and come selection Sunday, that difference could mean an invite to the Dance or the NIT.
When all is said and done however
The MWC’s RPI is going down with the addition of Boise State (#203) and Fresno St (#190) and losing BYU (#23) . . . I am still not saying the WCC is better than the MWC though
Fresno's temporarily down.
I think Fresno’s basketball history will put them in the middle-range of the conference (top 75 or top 100). Boise may suck forever, but they’re worth the tradeoff (as was TCU).
Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.
by displacedute on Sep 1, 2010 10:37 AM PDT up reply actions
in the past three or so years
the WCC has improved but they are traditionally a one bid league. With BYU a two bid league, but I keep bringing up Utah State in the Big West they were a top 25 team, lost in the conference finals, and did not get in.
Just sayin’
Mountain West Connection The best site for MWC sports!
by Jeremy Mauss on Aug 31, 2010 10:13 PM PDT up reply actions
Good Analysis ....
I agree that BYU is positioning itself (hoping) for a spot in the BIG 12, when and if they decide to expand. I’m sure they have a long term plan …. you do have a long term plan, right BYU? However, I’m not sure they are a good fit geographically. I think Air Force and TCU and even Houston (commuter school label and all) have a better shot at the BIG 12 than BYU does.
unless any of those schools
are worth $15 million a year in extra TV money than I don’t think the Big 12 will be adding them.
Colorado Rockies correspondent at My Team Rivals (www.mtrmedia.com/rockies) and my own site Rockies Reporter (www.rockiesreporter.wordpress.com) and one of the top Rockies writers at the Bleacher Report.
by Redhawk on Aug 31, 2010 9:28 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Texas
Texas will never allow another Texas school into the Big XII.
And Redhawk’s right… unless they can bring in $15 mil./year, there’s no way they get added.
The only way a team like BYU, TCU, Houston, etc. makes it into the Big XII is if Texas joins the Pac-Whatever or goes independent.
by VA Libertarian on Aug 31, 2010 9:47 PM PDT up reply actions
They certainly won't bring in $15 mil a year to a conference if they're broadcasting on BYU-TV.
Much like the Texas deal, BYU will not want to share their personal station revenue with the rest of a conference. It’d be kinda hard for Texas to argue that point.
by David Hooper on Aug 31, 2010 9:53 PM PDT up reply actions
Hey Redhawk,
maybe a little more smoke regarding your idea for BYU and Notre Dame possibly joining Big 12 as new North teams I’m thinking. First obvious smoke is no BCS “sweetheart deal” for BYU giving them the same status as Navy and Army making it harder for them to make it to BCS series than what they had in MWC which makes little sense for BYU to do if not positioning for move to Big 12. Some more smoke, I did not think ND had any incentive to join before, with BCS deal, TV deal, and great schedule but as you pointed out the scheduling could be the one thing to mess up their good thing—Big Ten teams refusing to play them would be a real problem I think and I came across this— http://www.offtackleempire.com/2010/8/27/1653922/michigan-hints-that-it-may-want-a#comments I was not sure before, but the Big Ten will go to a nine game conference schedule—a mistake I think. The more I think of BYU and ND becoming North teams, the more it seems to make sense. ND could anchor North where Nebraska could not. Both have tradition, but Nebraska is not in a fertile recruiting area (the state or surrounding states) and ND (Chicago, Ohio, Penn, Mich) is and also recruits well nationally and would help to start to balance things out between the divisions in regard to recruiting. One example is that for ESPN 150 numbers, adding verbals for 11 class back to 06 class, UT=64, Okl.=33, Neb=5 (North anchor with most tradition), and ND=34 even though they have been terrible most of that time. I remember you thought 16 teams are really a bad idea and I agree—mostly for scheduling problems. ND would be allowed to have TV network same as BYU same as UT as you pointed out also. I think Big 12 is shaky right now, but such a move could help solidify it and remove the idea of 16 team expansion from coming back.
interesting points
Could happen if the super-conferences never form.
Mountain West Connection The best site for MWC sports!
by Jeremy Mauss on Aug 31, 2010 10:15 PM PDT up reply actions
and I think the Super-Conference idea died this summer
There are a lot of issues with Super-Conferences.
First…not so easy to move schools around like bloggers do on the net
2nd…the money from the TV Networks actually went to keeping the Big 12 alive…and NOT to the Pac-16. If the Networks want more conferences which means more programming for everyone, then it will be hard to get big
3rd: Regional rivalries and Travel matter, as does being in a conference with similar type schools. The Super-Conferences throw that out the window
BYU, Notre Dame, and UT would form a loose alliance of independents…BUT with the back up of having a conference for scheduling. Unlike the MWC, the Big 12 might make sweetheart TV deals, as they already have uneven revenue sharing.
I’m not saying BYU and ND will happen…just that those are the only 2 that make ANY sense and add enough money to make expansion viable for the Big 12
Colorado Rockies correspondent at My Team Rivals (www.mtrmedia.com/rockies) and my own site Rockies Reporter (www.rockiesreporter.wordpress.com) and one of the top Rockies writers at the Bleacher Report.
Notre Dame to the Big 12?
I kinda doubt that. I mean, I see the point, but Notre Dame still has longstanding series with Navy, Army, and USC beyond the usual Michigan, Mich. State and Purdue series. They basically already have a conference schedule.
I’m not doubting the possbility, though. Anymore, anything could happen. I just think it’s an odd thing to bet on today.
by David Hooper on Aug 31, 2010 10:22 PM PDT up reply actions
Laughable
No way.
Notre Dame’s not going to play an annual schedule with BC, USC, Navy, etc. and a Big XII schedule. Nor would they ever want the travel issues (particularly for their non-football sports).
They’re far more likely to join the Big East, if anything. But my money stays on the notion that they remain independent.
by VA Libertarian on Aug 31, 2010 10:29 PM PDT up reply actions
thanks!
it’s a crazy idea at first glance…but at 2nd it makes much sense.
The only area I disagree with you is “The Big 12 is shaky”. Only shaky in that they could lose 2 marquee schools (Texas to Indy and A&M to the SEC) but I think that is doubtful as UT has the same issues going independent as they do joining a conference (Texas State Legislature approval)
The Big 12 Core (KU, Kstate, Iowa St, Mizzouri, OU, Ok St, Tech, Baylor) aren’t going anywhere. The league might not be as sexy or profitable, but they will stay together. I mean the MWC wasn’t killed when they lost 2 of their 3 top marquee teams. Is the MWC as sexy today as it was 6 months ago? No…but it’s still a strong conference.
Colorado Rockies correspondent at My Team Rivals (www.mtrmedia.com/rockies) and my own site Rockies Reporter (www.rockiesreporter.wordpress.com) and one of the top Rockies writers at the Bleacher Report.
Good points,
and I will qualify by saying “The Big 12 seems shaky” because of events that unfolded this Summer—UT was in NCG, everything seemed cool and then it was not and all the issues with revenue sharing, who was going where, ect.—everything seems fine now for instance, but you do make good points with core staying together and going nowhere—really happy to stay together after facing what could have happened to them, and right now Big 12 is still very strong with ten members, and totally agree when you look out there for someone to join, BYU and ND are as good as any to look at. ND needs the schedule they do have and if it is threatened (Big 10 scheduling and Pac 10 may go to nine also), then for the first time, they do seem to be somewhat vulnerable. I think losing consistent annual games with Mich/Mich St./Purdue right there in their own backyard along with an occasional game with other Big 10 foes would be significant. For ND, non-football sports/travel concerns could be an issue for joining Big 12, but I would argue that football is by far the real money maker and other North schools are close enough. What are your thoughts on this issue?
Travel costs are a major issue, that most people don’t consider. Travel is actually a huge part of an athletic budget. But so is having a core schedule especially in football already built in. If ND starts to lose those games, than they might look at a conference.
ESPN seems to be behind a lot of the conference moves, trying to get schools away from Fox who wants to have national college football games, and CBS-Sports which has programming ESPNU would like to have. So…adding ND to ABC/ESPN, and taking them away from NBC makes sense they would pay for it
Adding ND, even giving them allowances to keep some games for their own revenue, makes sense. And that deal would be liked by BYU as well. And would be liked by Texas and Oklahoma too.
The Big 10+ would NEVER do that and I don’t think the Big East would either. That leaves the Big 12 as the only conference option for Notre Dame, if they need a conference for scheduling.
However, if the Big 12 did add Notre Dame and BYU I don’t think a conference n/s split is a natural conclusion. The Big 12 REALLY is excited about the current 10 team set up and no Conf. Championship game and the round robin idea.
Watching the 12-Pac and the Big 10 struggle to come up with a good conference alignment is funny…cause the Big 12 dealt with that, and it was so bad, all the power went south, and Nebraska left, and Colorado’s program was decimated. 12 team conferences with splits, isn’t what it’s cracked up to be.
Colorado Rockies correspondent at My Team Rivals (www.mtrmedia.com/rockies) and my own site Rockies Reporter (www.rockiesreporter.wordpress.com) and one of the top Rockies writers at the Bleacher Report.
Yeah
It’s really not all it’s cracked up to be. It only seems to work well in the SEC, which has a pretty good natural balance (LSU, Alabama as powers in the West, with Auburn and Arkansas historically strong; Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee as powers in the East).
The ACC split, for example, has not only been awful – it’s confusing. Years later and I still forget who’s in which division.
by VA Libertarian on Sep 1, 2010 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions
when the Big 12 split happened
the power was really in the north. Nebraska, and Colorado and K-state. OU was down, as was texas to lesser degree.
14 years later and it’s a different story.
Colorado Rockies correspondent at My Team Rivals (www.mtrmedia.com/rockies) and my own site Rockies Reporter (www.rockiesreporter.wordpress.com) and one of the top Rockies writers at the Bleacher Report.
Historically
The power was in the South from the beginning.
Texas, Oklahoma, and A&M are all historic football powerhouses. The only ‘historic’ powerhouse the North had was Nebraska.
Now, I don’t dispute that the north had a little more going for it the year it formed, but I don’t think it had the edge overall. Few people really thought Texas & OU would be down forever, especially since a lot of their woes came after periods of probation.
by VA Libertarian on Sep 1, 2010 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions
It is all about recruiting and it begins and ends with the State of Texas...
people knock the ACC, but a North/South split would have been disastrous from a recruiting standpoint with Mia and FSU both in talent rich Florida and it is only five years in and both divisions are very competitive and balanced in regard to recruiting between the divisions. These are the ESPN 150 numbers adding verbal to date for 2011 class and then back to 06 class.
Coastal: Miami = 35, NC = 17, Vir Tech = 7, Vir = 3, Ga. Tech = 3, Duke = 0
Atlantic: Fl St. = 32, Clem = 28, Maryland = 7, NC St. = 3, Wake = 1, BC =0
People complain that those teams with more talent have not won—well, it you have more talent you should win as it works well for UT, OU, Ohio St., USC, Penn State. When Florida St. gets pounded in Tallahassee by Wake and loses often to Wake this would be like UT losing to Iowa St. often or USC losing to Wash St. often—should not happen right. I think in the near future things in ACC will look more to form with Bowden out and Miami coming around.
I don't disagree
I’m merely pointing out that the ACC’s division split is confusing for the non-ACC fan, because it’s hard to remember who’s in which division.
The SEC is the only conference that splits pretty evenly, and that’s just pure luck for them.
Personally, I hate 12-team conferences, and I hate the geographic spread most conferences have. Given that this is college athletics, I’d rather see conferences that made a little more geographic sense.
by VA Libertarian on Sep 1, 2010 12:05 PM PDT up reply actions
The great thing about the SEC is from...
La/Ark to SCar and then down through Florida there is good high school recruiting—with great recruiting in Florida/Ga. Not to mention the boarder states of Texas in West and NC/Vir in East which would make most combinations work well including the convenient east/west split that has worked so well. But, you are right, I have looked at those ACC divisions a lot recently and I still have to think about it a bit when trying to remember who goes where—LOL.
Agreed
Interestingly enough, one of the things that actually holds back the MS & SC schools in college football is their state population size versus their major university split. Small states like SC & MS divide their resources, fandom, and recruits among a small population. In contrast, a state like LA, which is roughly the size of SC, sees its loyalty go to only 1 major program (LSU). Just imagine what it’d be like if there were no Mississippi State or Clemson in existence… hot damn!
by VA Libertarian on Sep 1, 2010 12:23 PM PDT up reply actions
Even worse,
imagine if there were no Florida State or Miami.
by David Hooper on Sep 1, 2010 12:30 PM PDT up reply actions
Hahahaha
Oh, my. Florida has the size and resources to support multiple college teams, however.
by VA Libertarian on Sep 1, 2010 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions
And even the SEC split came at a cost.
When Arkansas and South Carolina joined, the divisional alignment put Georgia and Tennessee in the East with Alabama and Auburn in the West, even though those were four very passionate co-rivals. The UGA/Auburn game and the UT/Alabama game are annual interdivisional games, but the UT/Auburn and UGA/Alabama games lost a lot of meaning.
No free lunch, I guess.
by David Hooper on Sep 1, 2010 12:29 PM PDT up reply actions
Quite true
All the more reason I’m not a fan of the 12-team conferences.
I actually think South Carolina never should have left the ACC way back in the day, but that’s not a popular opinion in SEC country. :)
by VA Libertarian on Sep 1, 2010 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions
Other than the political posturing of it all, I don't think too many SEC teams would mind
if you took South Carolina back. And it would make the Clemson rivalry just a little more interesting. But I can see that. And while we’re at it, the SEC and ACC should swap SoCar for Georgia Tech.
The only real loss to the SEC would be that recruiting foothold thing, which may be just a bit overplayed anyhow.
The Big XII
I wouldn’t be surprised to see Texas try independence and then that conference will get WAC’d too.
BYU leaving out of jealousy?
A little short sided don’t you think? You’ve been saying that quite a bit but I assure you it’s not out of jealousy. Here’s a few reasons to consider:
1) The media center has been under construction for a couple years before any peep about Utah going to the Pac10.
2) As you’ve even stated before, BYU has been exploring independence for years. Again, long before any peep about Utah going to the Pac10.
3) The Pac10 has a completely different agenda that has nothing to do with sports that prevents BYU from ever going to the Pac10. It wasn’t an option for them and it never will be until they allow some changes in their conference.
I think you’re mistaking emotions for business. No doubt Utah has the better situation, one BYU fans would gladly accept, but jealousy holds ZERO weight in BYU’s decision to go Indy. BYU’s decision to bolt has nothing, NOTHING, to do with jealousy of Utah. BYU is jumping because they are recognizing that without Utah there’s no reason to stick around and hope for BCS to the MWC. Why not jump and make 5-7x’s what they’d be making in the MWC?
Your assurance means nothing since you are not the one making the decision.
1. the Media center was more likely built for other broadcasting needs, ie General Conference.
2. lunatics( or if you prefer the ‘more out there’ members) in the fan base talking about independence hardly equals ‘exploring’. Y fans are always talking about this but former AD Glen Tucket said even as little as 3 years ago that it could take a decade to go independent. And that the scheduling of opponents needed more time to get a good schedule. Y fans typically always start talking about independence about the same time that the Pac makes some statement indicating that they’re not goint to add BYU. This is the first straw they grab for when the Pac hurts thier feelings again.
3. this does not help your argument in any way. It only points out one of the reasons that Y fans would be bitter.
Emotions have wieght in business, if you believe otherwise you must be completely ignorant of human behavior. Holmoe has as much as admitted that the Y’s feelings were hurt when the U left. (while talking about continuing the rivalry.) BYU can’t recognize that without Utah there is no reason to stick around and hope for a BCS AQ for the MWC, because there IS a reason, it was and probably still is a real possibility. Why not jump? There is only 1 reason TO jump and it’s short sighted, while there are many reasons not to that’s why. BYU will fire Holmoe within 5 years and be casting around for a new conference.
My assurance does mean nothing, but you Utes flatter yourself a bit much
1. More likely? Not according to Tom Holmoe’s press conference. Who wants to watch General Conference in HD on 5 channels? Come on NC Ute. Think about it.
2. So the lunatics were right all along. Yes it’s been speculated for years, BYU’s finally moving forward with it.
3. I can tell you I’m one Y fan that’s not bitter about not getting an invite to the Pac10. I may be bitter about BYU not getting an invite to the Big12 but not bitter about the Pac10, it never was an option.
Sure BYU was hurt by Utah going, but those emotions played no part in their decision to jump as well. BYU’s not out to play “keeping up with the Jones”, they’re taking advantage of what they feel will get them to the next level. BYU plays assurances, not possibilities. The MWC offers assurances but so does independence, plus it offers a lot more money.
If you're not bitter you're pretty much the only one.
Tom Holmoe can say whatever he wants, football may have been a component, but GC is far more important to the church.
BYU fans have been talking about joining the Pac 10 for 30 years! I grew up in the shadow of the Y, I’ve heard all the delusional BYU fans trumpeting the Y’s ‘impending’ invite for most of my life.
The lunatics were right because this is a LUNATIC MOVE!
Look I’m a BYU fan myself and I can’t help but be terrified by this decision. It’s probably one of the biggest gambles in college football history. I hope it works, really I do, but I have SERIOUS doubts. The problem is that BYU fans are too busy beating thier chest (as always) to see the truth, your schedule is gonna be hurt by this, your BCS chances are going to be hurt by this, BYU sports as a whole will be hurt by this even if football ends up being successful.
You're insane if you think that they'll be making 5-7 times what they were making in the MWC.
They were making about 2 million dollars per year in the MWC. There is no way they are going to make 10-14 million dollars a year as an indy. I see maybe 5-6 million at first, but as the team’s credibility starts to drop when they schedule the big name teams and lose to them, the big name teams will no longer schedule them. That gives no reason for ESPN to keep BYU on and the 4 million dollar contract with them will go bye bye as soon as it expires. BYU-TV is almost impossible to find – even on Cable. I have every single channel for Cox Digital Cable and I had a really hard time finding BYU-TV. And that was on cable for a team in the League’s footprint… The only reason I was searching for the game because there was a BYU basketball game on that channel and that was the only thing going on in the MWC that night. People on the east coast aren’t going to care for BYU games on BYU-TV and they aren’t going to just stumble upon it like they would if it were in the sports channel range on DirecTV.
Both the TV deals for BYU as an independent will be worth much less money after a couple of years and they will be back to making what they were in the MWC… without any conference schedule. In the meantime the MWC will have gained a BCS AQ without them and won’t want them because they’lll be searching for a home during the next BCS Evaluation period, Their stats will hurt the MWC’s chance of hanging on to that bid.
Now onto why we will gain the bid without them… We are still in the top 5 in two of the three qualifying categories and ahead of the ACC in those categories as well, if the league as a whole steps up, as expected, then they will easily take BYU’s place to keep us ahead of the ACC in those categories. Air Force could easily go for 9-10 wins this season. Wyoming will step up to 8 or 9 wins. San Diego State will become a bowl team. UNLV has a new coach in Bobby Hauck and looked what happened with Wyoming last season when they brought in a new coach. Obviously TCU and BSU are going to have outstanding seasons. I really believe that the rest of the MWC can pick up the slack.
Mountain West Connection - The best site for MWC Sports.
UNLV is going all the way this year!
I'm giving this comment as a reaction to your title
ESPN themselves have said the deal with BYU is reportedly somewhere between 4-6. That alone sets us at 3-4x’s the amount from the Mtn. Then throw in that with BYU’s on tv network will produce advertising revenue and you can figure a few more million there ($3m according to BYU sources). So let’s see, 4-6m + 3m = 7-9m.
It’s inaccurate to say they were $2m, everyone in the league made $1.2.
Kind of funny you say BYUtv is hard to find on cable! Hahaha! It’s a free channel on every major cable or satelite company. You must have been mistaking BYUtv for the Mtn.
As for your speculation for BYU’s football future I’ll just say that’s your opinion. But there are people smarter than you or I who have this mapped out pretty well for the future. Speculate all you want but I’ve found that when people try to make non-factual statements about the future it tends to come back and bite them.
Fuzzy math, friend
The money isn’t just $1.2 million. Every time a MWC team gets a BCS bid (which has happened often), that revenue gets split among conference members. Yes, some of that money gets split with other conferences, but last year the MWC took in $9.8 million from the BCS, which is an additional $1.09 or so per team.
That means teams made about $2.3 mil last year.
Also, $3 mil. seems a little high from BYU’s network.
by VA Libertarian on Sep 1, 2010 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions
$3 million seems like a lot.
It appears ESPN is paying about $1.5 million per home game for the marquee games. So ESPN will pay $4-$6 million depending on how many games they broadcast.
If ESPN broadcasts 4 home games, then BYUTV will have 2-3 left (and they’ll all be garbage like SJSU and Weber State). Those games aren’t worth $1 million each in advertising if the ESPN games are only worth $1.5. $1 million for both games (or $1.5 if they have 3) eems more likely.
Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.
by displacedute on Sep 1, 2010 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions
Check your facts friend
When a non-BCS Team gets a BCS bowl it is not split with the conference, it is split with ALL non-BCS teams. It was a couple hundred thousand at best.
by vaughnzipper on Sep 1, 2010 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions
Check your facts, pal
It’s not split evenly. It’s like you don’t even try to check what you say with reality.
The MWC made $8.5 million when Utah went to the Sugar Bowl:
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/4675/mountain-west-leads-all-non-aq-s-in-bcs-revenue
And $9.8 million last year:
http://www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=4856975
Proving you wrong seems to be all too easy.
by VA Libertarian on Sep 1, 2010 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions
This is rich!!!!
If you actually read the article you’d see that Utah got $6m of that $8.5m! Hahahahaha!
To quote my good friend VA “It’s like you don’t even try to check what you say with reality… Proving you wrong seems to be all too easy.”
by vaughnzipper on Sep 1, 2010 12:54 PM PDT up reply actions
Um, no...
“Conversely, Utah reported about $3.1 million in total net revenue,” and that was of the $6 million the MWC received for Utah getting into a game.
9% of all BCS revenue is also evenly split among all non-BCS schools, upping every team’s total. ("That amount was on top of the more than $9.6 million the five conferences earned from their 9 percent share of BCS revenue. ")
Reading comprehension, friend, reading comprehension.
by VA Libertarian on Sep 1, 2010 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions
Uh oh vaughn. No "mea culpa" for being outed as wrong?
I love that he threw up the “reading comprehension” and then clearly misread the articles. Irony, thy name is vaughn.
Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.
yeah free channel #987 or whatever. heck I'm lds and I don't even know which one it is.
and besides that, they are going to have to renegotiate everything will all the networks to make BYUtv a for profit channel as it’s basically PBS now. Maybe they’ve already done that, we can only hope, but this feels like a knee jerk reaction.
good points
the casual fan will not find the game on BYUTV
Mountain West Connection The best site for MWC sports!
by Jeremy Mauss on Sep 1, 2010 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions
Yes, but it's there
That’s more than the Mtn can say.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s no ESPN (eventhough the quality will be up to par with them) but at least it’s being broadcast. Again, that’s more than the Mtn can say.
by vaughnzipper on Sep 1, 2010 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions
The casual fan won't even watch BYUTV
Why would they? Sure, BYU fans will, but I’m under the impression that the marquee games will be on ESPN.
Why on earth would I watch BYU vs. San Jose State on a channel I didn’t even know I had?
by VA Libertarian on Sep 1, 2010 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions
BYU fans could find the mtn if they wanted.
I don’t know why BYU fans seem to think BYUTV is anything new. BYU fans will watch it (just like they did the mtn on DirectTV), and the rest of us won’t. Will it increase viewership for BYU? Maybe by a couple thousand people who didn’t know anyone who had DirectTV or weren’t willing to switch themselves, but basically the same people will watch BYU on BYUTV as watched them on the mtn.
Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.
Sorry, I haven't gotten to check this thread as of late
and am just now getting around to replying to your comment.
As VA Libertarian pointed out, the amount of money everyone in the league made last year was 2.3 million, not 1.2. That means 3-4 times that is 6.9 to 9.2 million, not 4-6 million. Now um, onto that assumption of 3 million dollars of advertising money from BYU-TV. I’ll go over later in the comment about how not many people will be watching BYU-TV for football games. With people not watching BYU-TV, advertising money will be nowhere near that. The ESPN deal will vanish once the football success disappears as well.
It is hard to find on cable. To say that it is a free channel on every major cable or satelite company is ridiculous. I have to pay for the “religion pack” on Cox in order to get BYU-TV on Digital Cable. That also means that I have to pay for a DVR in order to get it. For it to be free on Cox is ridiculous. And last time I checked, you don’t automatically get BYU-TV on DirecTV with the basic-basic package… That means you have to pay for another package in order to get BYU-TV. And just a suspicion, but since it is not near the sports channels, it is probably not part of the Sports Pack. DirecTV and Cable do not have the channel in an easy to find place or in a package that sports fans will buy. Advertising is directly related to how many viewers you get. With the channel being in a hard to find place and not being on the package that sports fans are going to get, viewers of college football games will be very low, meaning the advertising money will be very low…
And your original comment said 5-7 times. That is 11.5-16.1 million bucks, not the alleged 7-9 million you had proposed.
Mountain West Connection - The best site for MWC Sports.
UNLV is going all the way this year!
I think it is a component
Utah left and BYU was left behind with Utah getting a much better situation. The timing is impecable and it is hard to see it is not a move based on Utah’s earlier move.
BYU has always explored independence and this timing for them makes the most sense.
Mountain West Connection The best site for MWC sports!
Wow
That’s pretty good! Did you happen to catch any financial details, or how many games ESPN would be broadcasting?
by VA Libertarian on Sep 1, 2010 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions
I think they must have talked about it in the press conference that I missed.
All I heard was just what I posted. I’m sure there will be more details soon.
He's obviously going to paint a rosy picture for the press now,
but he sounds really confident in the BYU brand.
And there won’t be mid-week games. Only Thursday, Friday, Saturday.
Not every home game.
I didn’t watch the press conference, just read the recaps in the SLC papers, but 3 games minimum and up to 6 games. If the BYU home games in October and November are BYU-SJSU, BYU-USU and BYU-NMSU, look for those to be on BYUTV.
I thought I heard them say there might be Monday or Tuesday games (no Sundays, obviously). Maybe I misread that somewhere.
Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.
It's technically 4 games minimum.
ESPN has first dibs on all home games. But they don’t have to actually choose all of them. And from everything I’ve heard, definitely no Monday-Wednesday games. Though I don’t know whether or not that’s actually in the contract.
Three on real ESPN/ESPN2 and one on ESPNU.
So you’re right, 4 minimum, if you include the ESPNU game.
But not “all home games” unless ESPN decides they want them.
Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.
And I just realized the press conference was going on.
Dang it. If anyone knows of any archive video of it, I’d appreciate it.
I missed it as well
But from everything I read there was no financial picture painted.
Holmoe did say that it was not a stepping stone for BYU though, it’s the real deal.
For those who think BYU’s not worth it I would recommend revisiting your thoughts. An 8 year deal is not messing around.
by vaughnzipper on Sep 1, 2010 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions
Women's soccer coach really excited about the WCC.
Apparently they’re one of the top conferences in the country.
Heh. I love having conversations with myself.
Anyway, found a link with a few details (pretty bare bones, though). One interesting note is that BYUtv will have the rights to rebroadcast ESPN games on the same day.
Sounds like the deal with the WAC is mainly to help scheduling in 2011 & 2012
since it will take time to build up the schedules. Doesn’t sound like it’s intended to be long term.
Since there's no video of the press conference yet
I’m perusing Greg Wrubell’s tweets. Interesting that 58% of BYU alumni live in the WCC footprint (myself included). Lots of other tidbits there.
LOL.
Just heard an interview with Trevor Matich (sp?) on ESPN radio (he’s an ESPN analyst and BYU alum). It was a great listen. At the end, they asked him if he was excited, and he said “Very excited and terribly terrified.” That pretty much sums it up for me, too.
There are a lot of pros for BYU in the switch.
And a lot will be lost. Such decisions are rarely obvious.
by David Hooper on Sep 1, 2010 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions
Great work!
That’s quite an interesting/good deal for BYU!
by VA Libertarian on Sep 1, 2010 12:47 PM PDT up reply actions
Video of the press conference now available
(Man, I really need to get some work done. Got to leave early for a baseball game, too.)
Even on DirecTV. I moved out to Alabama about a month ago and DirecTV only shows The Mtn. in HD if you’re in a MWC Market (i.e. Salt Lake City, San Diego, Las Vegas). Not to mention that I couldn’t even get The Mtn. in HD on Cox cable when I lived in Vegas, although the quality of the Standard Definition is very improved now.
-————————————————————————————————————————————-
pass4sure 642-062 | pass4sure HP0-Y30 | pass4sure 000-104 | pass4sure 000-106 |

by 




















