Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: NFL Roundtable: Which Draft Pick Is Most Likely To Bust?

Now that the dust has settled... thoughts on football independence

From the FanPosts...

VTFers have surely read some commentary from different sources on the big decision. Most people probably have some feelings about the move. I'm curious to get your take on several questions regarding the move.

1) Was the move driven more by access issues or by financial considerations?
2) With Utah gone, what was the likelihood of the MWC getting AQ status had BYU stayed?
3) How difficult will scheduling turn out to be? How will our SOS be affected by independent status?
4) Assuming we can put a decent schedule together, what is the biggest downside to football independence?
5) Does indepence help or hurt our chances of making a BCS bowl?
6) Will we find successful BYU teams left out in the cold come bowl time? Will we negotiate a bowl deal where we can get an automatic invite based on bowl eligibility or some other measure of success?
7) What does BYU do if a Big-12 invite comes within the next couple of years?

I'll leave my thoughts after the jump, but consider the questions before you continue. I'd love to hear what others think.

Star-divide

First, a couple of general comments. I think the jump to independence was our only move, especially after the Fresno and Reno MWC invites and all the BYU-hate that was being spewed by our "friends" in the MWC after the possible move became public knowledge. Independence is unquestionably the financially prudent move. The few who are framing this move as "greedy" are ridiculous. The athletic departments of the MWC cellar dwellers are not the BYU charities of choice. I do think that the BYU fans who don't believe this move was a response to Utah's move are fooling themselves. I would absolutely not have been in favor of a move to independence if Utah is still a MWC member. The fact that BYU was exploring the move for years does not indicate they would have acted had Utah not acted first. No one can blame Utah for moving to the PAC-10 and they have a far less uncertain future in a BCS conference than what faces BYU (for example, it is certain they won't sniff a conference title for a long time). Utah is in a great situation. It was certainly unfortunate for a school like Utah State, but their fate was determined by the actions of FSU and UNR far more than it was determined by BYU. Lastly, the reports of the demise of BYU basketball as a result of this move are greatly exagerrated. The basketball team, like the other teams, will be fine.

Now to the questions...

1) Was the move driven more by access issues or by financial considerations? Obviously, both were significant factors, but when Craig Thompson was asked what were BYU's conditions for staying, his answer was the right to re-broadcast games on KBYU. As a BYU fan living in an area where I could not watch BYU games without changing my cable provider and losing other programming that I valued equally highly, access will be the most significant thing to me. Also, living in a WCC town, access has not just improved on TV for football games. In my case, it has improved for all sports participating in the WCC.

2) With Utah gone, what was the liklihood of the MWC getting AQ status had BYU stayed? It was a great weekend this past weekend for the MWC...  FOR THE TEAMS AT THE TOP! Poor UNM! The top few teams were always going to give the MWC some respect and keep it in the AQ discussion, but the bottom teams were always going to keep us on the outside looking in. The good ol' boys club in the BCS are not looking to share the wealth. Adding FSU and UNR made it a certainty we would be left out.

3) How difficult will scheduling turn out to be? How will our SOS be affected by independent status?  This is the rub. I think we'll be fine, but it remains to be seen if we can put a quality schedule together, especially during the heart of conference seasons. As difficult as this may turn out to be, we had to step into the darkness, roll the dice, whatever other cliche you like. The reality of not doing so was too unpleasant to not take the risk. As far as strength of schedule goes, I hope we have as our goal, for the first couple of years, to attempt to keep a similar SOS as what we have had in the MWC. We don't need to play a ranked team every week to be relevant. In fact, the quickest way to become irrelevant is to go 3-9 like ND did a few years ago. We wouldn't be treated nearly as kindly as the Irish were in that situation. As time moves on, replace some of the bottom tier teams with more middling teams and SOS will be looking good. I don't buy we are ready for an SEC level schedule.

4) Assuming we can put a decent schedule together, what is the biggest downside to football independence? To me this is easy to answer. Not having a conference title to play for is going to take a little bit of fun out of the games. Each game will not have greater significance than a win or loss. This hasn't seemed to put too much of a damper on the interest ND receives, but I'll miss watching those conference standings.

5) Does indepence help or hurt our chances of making a BCS bowl? Who cares! Anybody reading VTF is passionate about BYU football and we have never been to a BCS bowl. Sure it would be nice for the national exposure and a little respect, but the BCS should have had virtually no impact on the independence decision. Also, it seems the chances are the same as they have always been. No MWC team that has made it to a BCS bowl game, made it because of their conference affiliation. They made it in as an at-large. How has that changed for BYU? Perhaps more TV exposure will actually help. The BCS has always been a little about football and a lot about how to share the money. Independence is certainly going to help BYU receive its share without getting the BCS conferences to agree to share the wealth.

6) Will we find successful BYU teams left out in the cold come bowl time? Will we negotiate a bowl deal where we can get an automatic invite based on bowl eligibility or some other measure of success? Are the bowls still trying to make money and draw decent TV ratings? If that is their goal, they will find a place for BYU. The Cougars are a far better draw than half of the teams that end up going bowling. There is risk that a successful BYU team could be left out, but most years there are spots that conferences can not fill. BYU will be at the top of every one of the lower-tier bowls' wish lists if their conferences tie-ins don't pan out. Is our worry that the bowl we go to won't be as prestigious as the Las Vegas Bowl? Really? Plus, not sharing the bowl payday with a conference is a nice perk. I think the bowl situation will work out find, but Tom... ESPN... you are not done yet. Let's get something worked out to get an automatic invite based on some measure of having a successful season. You would think someone would want a tie-in with BYU over the 4th place team in Conference USA.

7) What does BYU do if a Big-12 invite comes within the next couple of years? I think we would rejoin an AQ conference in the future assuming it is the right situation. If the Big-12 were to come to us with an invite in the next year or 2, I think it would be a no-brainer to join, but we would need to examine a couple of factors before doing so. We would need to be confident that the Big-12 was looking like a stable conference with a bright future. We would also, I think, need to be sure we have treated the WCC fairly. The WCC has given our non-football teams a reasonably soft landing spot. Sure it is not perfect, but we need to make sure the WCC receives a benefit from the relationship with BYU. I think we should be committed to the WCC for at least 5 years. That doesn't mean that the non-WCC sports couldn't join the Big-12 sooner. Football, track, swimming ect could join the Big-12 at any time, but not the other sports. I know that big time college athletics is a cut-throat world, but BYU needs to act with more character than other schools might be willing to act.

The next logical question is, is a Big-12 invite forthcoming? I think that they do not want us, but they are trying to decide if they need us. My worry is that they only need us if they are in trouble. Will Texas, Oklahoma, and A&M all be heading to other conferences? Will Texas and Oklahoma be skimming all the profits off of the top of the conference bank account and leaving just scraps for the rest of the conference? Will Texas, USC, Hawaii and other teams that are discussing it end up going independent, making independent scheduling far easier? I can see a situation where teams like Texas, Oklahoma, A&M and possibly other join other conferences and the left-overs of the Big-12 look to join forces with the upper half of the MWC. Would BYU want to be a part of that conference if it had AQ status?  Bottom line is if the Big-12 is extending an invite, we might want to proceed with caution.

It's an interesting time to be a Cougar fan. Let me know your thoughts on football independence.

This is a FanPost of the Vanquish The Foe community. This post does not necessarily reflect the views of VTF or of SB Nation

Comment 6 comments  |  1 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

bcs

I think the move helps us getting into a BCS game

by BYUfanCo on Sep 11, 2010 11:46 AM PDT reply actions  

Rec'd

This is a terrific FanPost. Keep up the good work Blue2th, I enjoyed your breakdown;)

by sroufe on Sep 13, 2010 1:18 PM PDT reply actions  

Look at BSU

Everyone is saying that it’s going to hurt our BCS chances but I’m just not seeing it. If we run the table we’ll get in. BSU has done it twice (and a third this year) by playing 1 or 2 big games and then a loaded WAC schedule. BYU will get in if they win their 3-4 big name games and the rest of the little WAC ones. Being in the WAC or MWC doesn’t change anything, win and you’re in.

by vaughnzipper on Sep 13, 2010 7:05 PM PDT reply actions  

Great read
. I do think that the BYU fans who don’t believe this move was a response to Utah’s move are fooling themselves. I would absolutely not have been in favor of a move to independence if Utah is still a MWC member.

Agree with this. However, on a more subtle note. I think it’s the questioning of the motivation that irks me and others that defend this. I don’t think it was out ‘jealously’ or ‘trying to keep up with the Jones’" per se, but rather it had EVERYTHING to do with THE MWC being exactly where it was BEFORE adding Boise St. A bubble, fringe AQ conference. Once Utah bolted the MWC had nothing to offer BYU and in fact was more of an anchor to them progress. This move has EVERYTHING to do with progress. Accessibility, financial viability and progress-ability in football and recruiting as well were all the motivating factors. Getting BYU to the point where they can play and compete for a National Championship and promote the school, church and football team.

Those spewing the MW hate are just jealous. Even though Utah was the first to bolt, somehow BYU lands the ‘blame’ for the continued mid-major status of the MWC.

I’d argue that the MWC WITH UTAH and BYU would have become a better football conference than the PAC-10 and as good in Basketball and most other sports. The Pac-10 only has one thing to offer Utah and that is IMMEDIATE $$$ and accessibility(let’s face facts. THe MTN tv agreement had as much to do with the decisions of BYU and UTah as anything else.)

Had Utah held down the fort and moved forward with the Mountain West conference, it likely could have become the premiere sports conference of the west. BYU, UTah, TCU, BSU, FSU, Nevada and AF is a GREAT top 6 of the conference. If those 6 schools are in your top 2 tiers then you’re a strong conference with a strong SOS. But UTah left, and dismissed the MWC hope of becoming relevant in the BCS discussion. So BYU gets the blame for Utah’s decision? NO! Utah started this and BYU simply ENDED it. It was a pipedream with a slight chance had BYU stayed. BYU is just playing their odds and they surely reacted to the Utah choice, but it had NOTHING to do with ‘jealously’ and EVERYTHING to do with the ability to progress as an institution.

by Smills9133 on Sep 15, 2010 6:36 AM PDT reply actions   1 recs

Great comments!

The move by Utah isn’t criticized because most admit that they would have accepted had the invite come their way. Utah moves into a situation with less uncertainty. BYU is criticized because of pre-existing anti-BYU sentiment AND because BYU is moving to a situation with a significantly greater uncertainty. What the critics fail to recognize is that that uncertainly is less foul than the status quo. BYU has made that very clear by their actions.

While BYU’s move had nothing to do with jealousy, it is reasonable to question the motives of the critics. Why can Utah make a move that they deem to be in their best interest, while when BYU does the same thing the “boos” rain down? Didn’t both moves weaken the MWC? Could the jealousy be on the part of the critics. Too many beat downs by the men in blue?

by Blue2th on Sep 15, 2010 9:20 AM PDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to Vanquish The Foe, the BYU sports blog at SB Nation. Home of the Rise & Shout Podcast. Follow us on Twitter

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Sb_nation_avi_1_small
CFB Relegation Series
Sb_nation_avi_1_small
Don't Be Surprised if Cusick Doesn't Get a Scholarship
Kurtis08_small
BYU Basketball going forward
Small
Musings from the 81 Notre dame game

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

VTF on Facebook

Vanquish the Foe on Facebook


Managing Editor

Sb_nation_avi_1_small Brett Hein

Byu_old2_small Zach Bloxham