DavidDempster;360261 said:

---

invite BYU to join them?

Put aside the issue that BYU teams don't play on Sunday.

[1] What does BYU bring to the Big XII that the Big XII could possibly want?
[2] Why would BYU accept a clearly subservient role to Texas and Oklahoma in the Big XII when they might have a bigger presence in a re-combined WAC/MWC?
[3] If BYU is at all serious about going independent or simply leaving the MWC, how would that help them gain entry to the Big XII if, in fact, this is their ulterior motive?

---

1) maybe the B12 wants to get back up to 12 in order to hold a CCG. BYU is positioning itself by showing its clout.

2) in this case, being the little fish in a big pond might be an upgrade

3) they can build up their own network with their faithful LDS base and sell that to the B12. It's not a huge network, but it's more pull than what half the B12-2 teams have. They'd be watching more Longhorn games in Samoa...

Based on what their fans have said over the years, the B12 has long been BYU's goal, which they view as a more compatible cultural fit and realistic goal than the P10 (compare Baylor, which only allowed on-campus dances a few years ago, to our alma mater...)


So there's one more plus to adding Utah, it pretty much absolves the Pac-10 from the burden of taking on BYU. This weakens the political argument of the likes of Sen. Hatch as Utah now has more BCS programs than Idaho, NM, NV, WY and Montana combined.

ColoradoBear1;360337 said:

---

BYU has no right to the same terms as ND. Aside from the NCG, the bowl games are exhibitions. If they don't want BYU, I don't see how that's any different than any other bowl game filling their slots due to contractual obligations.

---

I'm talking specifically about the BCS. And yes, it is different from bowl games filling their contractually obligated slots. By the way, before the BCS, there were no contractually obligated slots. A small minority of games took specific conference winners. Most games didn't. That's how we got into the Citrus Bowl in 1990. I miss those days...

Quote:

---

How is BYU going to challenge? In the courts? ridiculous. is orin hatch going to raise a stink?

---

Honestly? Yes. I can't claim to be an anti-trust expert, but I think the BCS is very ripe for a challenge on anti-trust grounds, and a BYU vs. ND comparison could be a compelling one. I know the BCS has managed to skate its way out of this type of noise before, but that doesn't mean it will always be able to do so.

At the end of the day I can't quite imagine BYU actually bringing a case, though, which does make me wonder what exactly they think they are up to. They would have to get something better as an independent than the current "mid-major" BCS guarantee, which seems unlikely without something dramatic happening.

I can't see BYU ever joining the PAC-10, possibly the BIG-12 (10) but as someone else has said TCU and Houston who used to be in the old SWC have a better chance than BYU. BYU reminds me of Fresno St., there are schools that will play them but not at FSU. If BYU goes independent their first three or four games could be against a BCS team but the rest of the year would be the likes of So. Mississippi, Troy, Bowling Green etc. A SEC team can fill their stadium with Chatanooga or Georgia Southern and get an easy win, why play BYU. BYU is not ND and never will be. As an independent I don't think they can play enough quality teams to get a top five ranking in the BCS poll. I really think it's a bluff by BYU, or they are a lot dumber than I think they are.

elpbear;360351 said:

---

I'm talking specifically about the BCS. And yes, it is different from bowl games filling their contractually obligated slots. By the way, before the BCS, there were no contractually obligated slots. A small minority of games took specific conference winners. Most games didn't. That's how we got into the Citrus Bowl in 1990.

---

The BCS has contracts with it's constituent bowls, the 6 major BCS conferences, TV networks and ND. It's a lot more complex obviously, but the bottom line is that the BCS has a contractual obligation to ND due to mutual agreements that will never exist for a team like BYU. Never.

Essentially, the BCS is a contract on top of other contracts - I believe that if the BCS were to disband, the Rose Bowl would still have contracts with the Big Ten and Pac 10 to play.

And yes bowls had contractual tie ins before 1990 - in the case of the citrus bowl, the ACC provided clemson.

elpbear;360351 said:

---

At the end of the day I can't quite imagine BYU actually bringing a case, though, which does make me wonder what exactly they think they are up to. They would have to get something better as an independent than the current "mid-major" BCS guarantee, which seems unlikely without something dramatic happening.

---

You are right that they must be up to something - but I think that BYU could try to pull something in the courts or in congress which would be absolutely a ridiculous waste of time. Then say it were determined that BCS access is a school's right- there is no way Texas stays in the Big 12. And other schools will follow. Pretty soon it won't be that great to be an independent and BYU will be in the same place it is now, something between the 50th and 70th most important football team in the land.

Are they trying to maneuver into the big 12? here is what texas fans thing of it:

http://www.shaggybevo.com/board/showthread.php/69998-BYU-set-to-go-Independent-in-Football-as-stepping-stone-into-the-Big-XII

They have the same feelings on no sundays as we do.

I just was reminded that Tom Holmoe is the BYU AD. haha. They will no doubt mess this one up big time.

LafayetteBear;360397 said:

---

IMO, if BYU was willing to abandon its ban on Sunday games (who knows if that will ever happen, but the prospect of joining a BCS conference might induce it to do so)

---

I agree that the sunday issue is HUGE - especially in non-rev sports. These are college athletes we are talking about. To take one of two days a week when students don't have to miss class to compete and not use it is just not going to work. Hell it's going to be big in revenue sports too - basketball TV slots on Sunday are most definitely needed to maximize content on a conference network.

And BYU is never going to drop the sundays off.

Why would a conference let them in without football? Why would the BCS grant them access (and if the BCS did, wouldn't teams with a bad BCS situation be going independent and looking for the same deal).

I think the story may have legs in a "Ugly, unemployed man mulls divorce from current wife, but only if Jennifer Aniston agrees to marry him" kind of way. What BYU wants and what they can get are two dramatically different things, IMO.

Latest report:

Done deal: BYU to go independent in football

Quote:

---

Brigham Young University will leave the Mountain West Conference, go independent in football and rejoin the Western Athletic Conference in all non-football sports beginning in the fall of 2011, The Salt Lake Tribune confirmed Wednesday morning.

According to a source in the WAC office, BYU will seek final approval for the moves from its owner, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, either today or Thursday. Pending approval, a press conference is planned for early next week. But because of media reports that broke late Tuesday night, that timetable may change.

"In light of the media leaks, it may be expedited a bit," the source told The Tribune.

---

BearSD;360415 said:

---

Latest report:

Done deal: BYU to go independent in football

---

Article says that BYU agreed to play 4 WAC schools in football every year. Pretty bad move on their part. Something that works for Notre Dame's independent status is that they play 2 or 3 Pac-10 and 3 or 4 Big-10 schools every year. ND's schedule strength I imagine is close to the average BCS school's schedule strength in most years.

So who's the MWC going to invite to replace them? Heard they've already approached Nevada and Fresno St...

Big East allows ND to "park" its non-football teams because it helps keep the conference stronger than if it didn't have Notre Dame, particularly in basketball.

The Big East may also be speculating that if ND eventually decides to join a conference, that the Big East will be a strong candidate on ND's radar.

I see the WAC in a similar relationship to BYU.

Laughing at BYU right now. If they had stayed, shut up, they would have been part of a BCS-level conference in 2012. Instead, BYU going independent effectively ensures that the Pac-12 doesn't have any competition west of the Missouri for the next 20 years (And don't say the new Big-12 is any excuse for a BCS-conference, it will implode).

OskiDeLaHoya;360431 said:

---

Article says that BYU agreed to play 4 WAC schools in football every year. Pretty bad move on their part. Something that works for Notre Dame's independent status is that they play 2 or 3 Pac-10 and 3 or 4 Big-10 schools every year. ND's schedule strength I imagine is close to the average BCS school's schedule strength in most years.

---

A couple more interesting points - the article says Boise St could go back to the WAC with no penalty (how crazy would that be) and that all the remaining WAC schools agreed to a $5 million dollar exit penalty which is higher than, say, the B12 penalty given the athletic budgets/revenues of the WAC schools. Not sure how willing the league is to cover that amount since the MWC TV payout was around $2 million and total payout was $4 million per.

BUT if the MWC watched the Larry Scott vs the Big 12 closely, they would know that if the WAC falls below 6 members with 5 a year history, it can no longer be considered a conference and the speculation was that the buyout penalty might no longer apply. So the MWC should invite at least three members of the WAC. If three leave, the WAC is TOAST. Even if the buyout money applies, it would make sense because it would help ensure the MWC's future.

Maxer says Nevada and Fresno have been approached. Get one or two more on board - San Jose St? New Mexico State? Get ruthless MWC, or your days could be numbered. BYU could be marooned VERY, VERY easily. With 4 teams extra the MWC could have a CCG like everyone else. With three teams added, they could save a space for BYU to come crawling back because a three team loss is enough to burn the WAC to the ground.

Oh man that would be so hilarious. BYU leaves for a conference that doesn't exist. Well at least for their non-rev sports.

I guess in the sprit of their ancestors, it was "Pac-10 or Bust".

This is really surprising. I guess they figure that they can make more money on their own.

I wonder who will agree to play them? The other conferences are coming our way in requiring nine-game conference schedules. Schools losing a guarunteed cupcake OOC game will be hard pressed to take on the usually formidable BYU. There is some appeal to making one's own schedule, I suppose. But, it still takes two to tango.

If I have done the math correctly, the MWC will reduce to 8 member schools for the 2011 season after adding Boise State and losing Utah and BYU.

If I'm the MWC, I do think about adding WAC schools to get to 12, not 10. And I assume that BYU is gone. In doing so, the objectives are to strengthen the conference and reap the money available from a CCG. If I can also bring about the demise of the WAC, so be it.

[U]My top candidates:[/U]
Fresno State
San Jose State
Nevada
New Mexico State
Utah State
possibly Hawai'i.

Hawai'i is a complex decision because of travel costs, and also because leaving them out could leave them out in the cold. I doubt that anyone wants to be known as killing off Hawai'i's football program or contributing to its demise when it's a given that their location presents a significant disadvantage. It's such a significant disadvantage, that for teams visiting Hawai'i, the NCAA allows an exempt game for a regular season game. No other FBS school has that exemption.

On the other hand, maybe the MWC doesn't have the heart to boldly forge ahead with plans for a super-conference. Or maybe they'v been caught flat-footed.

Precisely what I thought CB1: BYU may have jumped the gun and ended up shooting itself in the face.

Also, I agree that the MWC should get ruthless to ensure its survival. They can slam BYU at the same time. And if Boise State decides it doesn't want to play, then eff 'em. In a scenario where WAC membership falls to 5 or fewer schools in football, the Broncos need the MWC more than the MWC needs them.

that the NCAA/BCS will ever give BYU the same kind of special deal that Notre Dame gets.

The NCAA already bends over and takes it in the backside from BYU by making special arrangements so they don't have to play on Sundays and by allowing the eligibility clock to stand still while their players spend two years on missions.

DavidDempster;360326 said:

---

Independence seems to hinge on whether or not the BCS will give BYU terms similar to Notre Dame's in qualifying for a BCS bowl.

What's BYU's next best option? Working to make a super-conference out of the MWC and the WAC, however that might be achieved. A super-conference has a shot at an automatic BCS bid; the MWC and the WAC alone do not.

---

As for a "super conference" of WAC and Mountain West teams Wyoming would not be left out. That is something you need to rethink.

DavidDempster;360449 said:

---

If I have done the math correctly, the MWC will reduce to 8 member schools for the 2011 season after adding Boise State and losing Utah and BYU.

---

Just said that the MWC could kill the WAC by taking three, but seeing that the MWC will have 8 schools in 2011, the WAC could kill the MWC by taking three as well. Hmm. Wonder if the WAC could get a better TV deal from ESPN than the pi$$ poor MWC has now with the MTN and comcast- highly doubt it.

I think you are right about the MWC/WAC super conference - yes they did this before with the 16 team WAC, but that was too many teams. But by essentially dropping the 4-5 weak programs from the WAC - that would make possibly stronger 12 team conference. The MWC might not want to be a 12-team conference and divide limited $$ more ways, but they should be on notice that their existence depends on being bold.

WAC teams would have to pay $5 million each to move to the MWC, but MWC teams don't have to pay anything to move to the WAC.

Reportedly, the WAC made the $5 million buyout pact to entice BYU into the deal that's on the table now, to assure BYU that WAC teams would not move to the MWC after BYU moved to the WAC.

If Boise moves back to the WAC, and BYU is in the WAC for every sport but football, and Utah is gone to the Pac-12, why would any other WAC team move to the MWC? More likely that MWC teams would move to the WAC, and it won't cost them to do so.

GldnBear71;360458 said:

---

that the NCAA/BCS will ever give BYU the same kind of special deal that Notre Dame gets.

The NCAA already bends over and takes it in the backside from BYU by making special arrangements so they don't have to play on Sundays and by allowing the eligibility clock to stand still while their players spend two years on missions.



As for a "super conference" of WAC and Mountain West teams Wyoming would not be left out. That is something you need to rethink.

---

but it seems to me that you have some hostility towards BYU.

It seems unlikely that BYU would get the same deal from the BCS that Notre Dame gets. As others have pointed out, BYU isn't Notre Dame.

My list of schools that might be invited to form a new super-conference of MWC and WAC schools is speculative; I've said so. But I don't know why Wyoming would be necessarily included in such an alignment. If you know of something that distinguishes Wyoming from Colorado State, for instance, in a way that makes them more desirable, I'd love to learn what it is.

BearSD;360467 said:

---

WAC teams would have to pay $5 million each to move to the MWC, but MWC teams don't have to pay anything to move to the WAC.

Reportedly, the WAC made the $5 million buyout pact to entice BYU into the deal that's on the table now, to assure BYU that WAC teams would not move to the MWC after BYU moved to the WAC.

If Boise moves back to the WAC, and BYU is in the WAC for every sport but football, and Utah is gone to the Pac-12, why would any other WAC team move to the MWC? More likely that MWC teams would move to the WAC, and it won't cost them to do so.

---

If the WAC actually has plans to poach the MWC, the fear of being poached should be enough for the MWC to help eat some or all of the $5 million for the WAC teams leaving. With BYU separate for football, the WAC doesn't have much chance of getting a good TV contract... though if they do get a TV contract that can support 12 teams better than the MWC can support their current members, there will be no stopping teams from jumping the MWC ship. Either way the situation is unstable, and it just can't last for that long before one conference crushes the other.

Without a Notre Dame-style deal with the BCS, their only automatic path to the BCS would be by being #1 or #2 in the championship game. They still would be eligible for at-large selection like anyone else, but could be rejected even if they are undefeated and ranked #3. For other bowls, they could latch on to the WAC's tie-ins, like ND does with the Big East, but the WAC's tie-ins are quite unimpressive. They could instead do what Army and Navy do, make a preseason deal with a single bowl that they will automatically go to if they are bowl-eligible and not in the BCS.

BearSD;360467 said:

---

WAC teams would have to pay $5 million each to move to the MWC, but MWC teams don't have to pay anything to move to the WAC.

Reportedly, the WAC made the $5 million buyout pact to entice BYU into the deal that's on the table now, to assure BYU that WAC teams would not move to the MWC after BYU moved to the WAC.

If Boise moves back to the WAC, and BYU is in the WAC for every sport but football, and Utah is gone to the Pac-12, why would any other WAC team move to the MWC? More likely that MWC teams would move to the WAC, and it won't cost them to do so.

---

drops to fewer than six football schools? Does it still apply? I'd guess probably not.

Here's where it might fall apart: assume that the MWC is able to hold onto Boise State. If the MWC can successfully persuade 4 WAC schools to join the MWC and create a super-conference, the WAC is dead as a football conference because the WAC's football membership will be 4 schools; that's 2 fewer than the mandatory minimum of 6 schools.

ColoradoBear1;360479 said:

---

If the WAC actually has plans to poach the MWC, the fear of being poached should be enough for the MWC to help eat some or all of the $5 million for the WAC teams leaving. With BYU separate for football, the WAC doesn't have much chance of getting a good TV contract... though if they do get a TV contract that can support 12 teams better than the MWC can support their current members, there will be no stopping teams from jumping the MWC ship. Either way the situation is unstable, and it just can't last for that long before one conference crushes the other.

---

The MWC paying a WAC team's $5 million buyout makes sense... except that MWC schools (Boise for sure, maybe UNLV, SDSU, or New Mexico as well) who have the opportunity to move to the WAC for free won't want to pay Fresno and Nevada to join them in the MWC when they can all be together in the WAC at no cost. For example, if you are Boise and UNLV, and your options are

(1) WAC with BYU (w/o football), Hawaii, Fresno, Nevada, San Jose, Utah State, New Mexico State, Louisiana Tech
(2) MWC with Colorado State, Air Force, Wyoming, SDSU, TCU, New Mexico, Fresno, Nevada

... would you want to pay a few million for option (2)? They look roughly equivalent to me. Not sure if any difference is worth paying for.

Also, $5 million is a price that a Pac or Big Ten school could pay if it had to, but for an athletic department at Wyoming or Colorado State, that's money they don't have and have no prospect of raising.

I agree that it's unstable and that further movement is inevitable if BYU finalizes this deal.

DavidDempster;360492 said:

---

drops to fewer than six football schools? Does it still apply? I'd guess probably not.

---

That is the heart of the issue - everyone suggested that there would be no buyouts in the Big 12 breakup if enough teams left to disband the league. That would all depend on how the contracts and league charter were written. It could also be very different because the Big 12 would have had a majority of the teams leaving (at least 7 of 12) , where the MWC/WAC could be disbanded with only 3 of 8 teams leaving.

I feel like a redneck watching a NASCAR race - all I want to see is a humongous wreck and will actually be disappointed if I don't see one of these leagues go poof.

OskiDeLaHoya;360345 said:

---

3 - BCS bowls: BYU wants a similar deal to ND. That is, if they're in the top 8, guaranteed BCS bowl. I don't see that happening. No way ND agrees. What happens if both are in the top-8 but BYU is higher? We'd never hear the end of it.

---

If I were the NCAA I would pass a ruling that made it mandatory for all Independents to play each other each season...a veritable round-robin if you will. That would generate tie-breakers amongst the Indies and have them knock each other off in years of mutual parity.

Even if schedules are set in stone, give them all permission to play a 13th game for awhile to squeeze in a game against a fellow Indy.

For example, Notre Dame vs. BYU every year would be for a chance for hypothetical Indy supremacy and a BCS bid.

Just an idea.

BearSD;360501 said:

---

(1) WAC with BYU (w/o football), Hawaii, Fresno, Nevada, San Jose, Utah State, New Mexico State, Louisiana Tech
(2) MWC with Colorado State, Air Force, Wyoming, SDSU, TCU, New Mexico, Fresno, Nevada

... would you want to pay a few million for option (2)? They look roughly equivalent to me. Not sure if any difference is worth paying for.

---

Idaho, Utah St, and La Tech are dead weight for sure and SJSU and NMSU are marginally better, Hawaii is decent, but the travel is so expensive they might be worse financially than Idaho, Utah St and La Tech.

If the WAC were to poach 3 teams from the MWC, the remaining 5 would be much worse off obviously, but would those three that move over be any better off? Of the two choices above, (2) is far better for a TV money and competition standpoint - if TV contract were to be bid out right now. Every MWC school might agree eat part of the buyouts in the short term under the pretense that they'd make it up in the long run. The MWC contract seems particularly bad, but if the WAC can get a better on now and without BYU football, then the MWC could beat the WAC amount if they waited. But we'll see how panicky these teams are.

The MWC will take Fresno and Nevada - hell, maybe they will help pay the buyout. Fresno already said they were going (in some rumors). That is a conference that could actually get to BCS autobid territory if Boise holds firm. That kills BYU going independent. I could see them also going after UTEP and/or SMU to get to 12, or Houston. If they wanted to take maybe Hawaii, they would have 14 decent teams. BYU would be out in the cold, as would the rest of the WAC. If they held to 12, they could pick up some of the pieces of the Big 12 when it collapses in five years.

BYU is just acting like a big baby. Utah is getting all of the press in Utah, and they just could not stand it. Actually, it makes Utah's move look really really good.

ColoradoBear1;360502 said:

---

I feel like a redneck watching a NASCAR race - all I want to see is a humongous wreck and will actually be disappointed if I don't see one of these leagues go poof.

---

You were not disappointed.