NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Thu Aug 28, 2014 10:15 pm

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2014 11:16 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm
Posts: 1705
Notre Dame is much more skilled at being "manipulative"....

Wonder how much the "we won't play sports on Sunday" is hurting BYU's chances of joiniing a Power 5 conference ?
It does not come in to play regarding Football, but it can be a scheduling PITA for other sports....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2014 9:30 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 10:30 am
Posts: 1370
Location: Baltimore, MD
It can't help ... and it won't change.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2014 1:18 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 10:45 am
Posts: 202
Academically, BYU fits well for the PAC. USNEWS Rankings (PAC & BYU):

#5 Stanford (AAU)
#20 California (AAU)
#23 UCLA (AAU) & USC (AAU)
#52 Washington (AAU)
#62 BYU
#86 Colorado (AAU)
#109 Oregon (AAU)
#119 Arizona (AAU)
#121 Utah
#128 Washington St
#142 Arizona St & Oregon St

Athletically, BYU would probably be middle of the road in football and basketball. Despite their schedule, which I know can make a big difference, they haven't had a losing regular season since 1973 if you exclude the Gary Crowton years in the early 2000s. They are usual contenders for an NCAA bid in basketball.

Regionally, BYU would obviously be more Eastern than most of the PAC, but would complement Utah which would open up a 14th spot for another more Eastern/Mountain school like Colorado St, New Mexico, Boise St, Nevada, UNLV, or whoever they would choose. They'd probably consider new markets, similar schools, flagships, etc.

Realistically, I don't see this happening for many reasons such as the no games on Sunday rule among others.

Considering the possibility - however slight - of the XII staying intact for whatever reason (expansion by addition of AAC schools or ACC dissolution, or anything else), the PAC may want to consider balancing the hassle of BYU's scheduling requirements and being the only 12-member league in the next few years. I don't think it would be an issue, but what if it was?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2014 2:51 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1539
BYU is fine with the traditional academic measures of admission standards, library holdings, spectrum of majors, etc. BYU is also undergraduate focused. The concerns of the PAC12 go beyond the 'no Sunday play' factor. BYU has a theological dimension inter-woven in their curriculum which progressive educators perceive as a particular religious indoctrination that goes along with views about intolerance and unscientific research and instruction. To add to that, BYU are activists when it comes to certain social and cultural issues, and have not hesitated to engage in political causes that many in academia support the other side or prefer to avoid the taints involved on an institutional level.

The B12 and the ACC have some religiously affiliated members. But BYU is their own brand, and those outside of the LDS church can be conflicted about embracing some major differences in theology. And this reaches beyond those that view all religion as suspicious. In the Mountain-West region, the LDS church is strong in numbers and influence. That's where BYU has built their strength and projection. Obviously BYU thinks they have out-grown those limits, given that the MW is not accepted into the power 5 types. Along with Utah departing to the PAC12, the reasons BYU went fb independent are obvious. I tend to wonder though, had BYU actually stayed in the MWC, would the B12 actually be more positive about courting BYU? BYU did not present their change as a step in transitioning to a new all-sports conference. And, perhaps out of necessity, they placed their non-fb sports in a conference comprised of other religious schools.

I appreciate the mindset that it is about sports, and folks should be accepting of differences when it comes to practices of faith. However, BYU can't have it both ways by expecting others to have an inclusive attitude, while they demand accommodations that are fundamentally attributed to a theological base. And when it comes to major conferences such as the PAC12, it's not just about sports.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2014 3:26 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 10:45 am
Posts: 202
sec03 wrote:
BYU is fine with the traditional academic measures of admission standards, library holdings, spectrum of majors, etc. BYU is also undergraduate focused. The concerns of the PAC12 go beyond the 'no Sunday play' factor. BYU has a theological dimension inter-woven in their curriculum which progressive educators perceive as a particular religious indoctrination that goes along with views about intolerance and unscientific research and instruction. To add to that, BYU are activists when it comes to certain social and cultural issues, and have not hesitated to engage in political causes that many in academia support the other side or prefer to avoid the taints involved on an institutional level.

The B12 and the ACC have some religiously affiliated members. But BYU is their own brand, and those outside of the LDS church can be conflicted about embracing some major differences in theology. And this reaches beyond those that view all religion as suspicious. In the Mountain-West region, the LDS church is strong in numbers and influence. That's where BYU has built their strength and projection. Obviously BYU thinks they have out-grown those limits, given that the MW is not accepted into the power 5 types. Along with Utah departing to the PAC12, the reasons BYU went fb independent are obvious. I tend to wonder though, had BYU actually stayed in the MWC, would the B12 actually be more positive about courting BYU? BYU did not present their change as a step in transitioning to a new all-sports conference. And, perhaps out of necessity, they placed their non-fb sports in a conference comprised of other religious schools.

I appreciate the mindset that it is about sports, and folks should be accepting of differences when it comes to practices of faith. However, BYU can't have it both ways by expecting others to have an inclusive attitude, while they demand accommodations that are fundamentally attributed to a theological base. And when it comes to major conferences such as the PAC12, it's not just about sports.


I agree. BYU wanting their cake and eating it too, so to say, is the minority bullying the majority. The PAC is an organization comprised of mostly similar-minded institutions. They have as much of a right to deny BYU because of BYU's attributes as BYU has to hold those attributes. While the XII has private institutions based in faith (Baylor and TCU) - they aren't extreme like BYU.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 9:45 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm
Posts: 7397
NBCSports article discussing possible future conference destinations for BYU FB at http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.co ... e-extended


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 11:01 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1539
The fb HC has gone on record expressing a desire to join the B12. That is a development in itself, and an admission BYU does have scheduling worries and fears the results of potentially not being included in any new super-division.
If BYU cannot work their way into a power conference (B12) for now, they should try a scheduling agreement with a power conference if that can be achieved. With the B12 at 9 round-robin games, the conference may not have a big incentive even to do that.
That said, the B12 may need to really address a return to 12 members and the CCG. They are trying again to have that CCG with their lesser number.
BYU has a respectable case that it may be the best overall program in the Rocky Mountain region and continues to be so for the future. There's no B12 footprint there, particularly with Colorado having left. The B12 can make that ultimately profitable if they wanted to do so. It's yet to be seen if Bowlsby shall exert some labor on this, beyond the standard, status-quo, comfort zone comments.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 1:30 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:26 pm
Posts: 388
Will BYU special conditions turn off B12?

I think so.

They will end up with AAC


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 1:46 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:33 am
Posts: 292
Location: Austin, Texas
ctx48c wrote:
Will BYU special conditions turn off B12?

I think so.

They will end up with AAC


Would the AAC be any better than the MWC?
I can't see BYU choosing the AAC over the MWC.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 3:04 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:47 am
Posts: 662
Location: Columbus, OH
mozilla wrote:
ctx48c wrote:
Will BYU special conditions turn off B12?

I think so.

They will end up with AAC


Would the AAC be any better than the MWC?
I can't see BYU choosing the AAC over the MWC.


The AAC would offer them that national schedule they are craving--at least more national than what the MWC has to offer. The bottom of the AAC is also, theoretically, a lot stronger than the bottom of the MWC. I think BYU messed up by making heavy handed demands the last time they Big 12 called them. That bridge might be burned now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 9:48 pm 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman

Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 9:34 pm
Posts: 37
I just can't see BYU going anywhere, and the no Sunday play rule has very little to do with it.

Overall, they do have a unique fan base that is national, but smaller than most Power 5 schools.

If the Pac-12 had an interest in them, they likely would've at least been considered as part of the proposed Pac-16 before or after Texas A&M was out. Ideologically they just don't mix well with any Pac-12 schools.

Certain Big 12 schools might be interested in BYU, but the conference footprint would stretch too far, plus Cincy, UCF and USF all have more growth potential.

BYU turned down AAC when it was the Big East, and that was with Boise State and SDSU joining to have 2 good regional football games. There's no way they'd join a weaker version of it now.

I don't think BYU is willing to go back to MW simply because of how it would look. They may be playing a lot of football games with MW members, but Utah State is always on the schedule and everyone they're playing except for UNLV was in the WAC when BYU went indy.

Other conferences just aren't options. They're in the extremely stable West Coast Conference for everything else, which really is a top mid major conference. They have their own TV network and can get just about anyone they want to play in Provo. That's better than most schools, and with their situation they should be happy they are where they are.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 10:31 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:26 pm
Posts: 388
BYU turned the BE down.
That was before P5 games got hard to get.
BYU already has bowl arrangement with the AAC.
AAC will give a football only membership with special arrangements.
Also they want a route to the national championship game.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 07, 2014 10:50 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1539
fighting muskie wrote:
I think BYU messed up by making heavy handed demands the last time they Big 12 called them. That bridge might be burned now.


Concur Muskie, that's a significant point.

BYU's big problem is that their President and AD (with input from their coaches), need to be allowed to negotiate these decision. It's the frontline people close to the situation that have a full grasp in understanding BYU's options that need to drive the decision-making. Their elders in the LDS upper hierarchy have good intentions as to what they see as best for BYU athletics, but have assumed too much in terms of BYU's perceived desirability to others. Control is very centralized and matters such as conference affiliation get meshed with other agendas external to BYU's athletics.

(Recall big elements of the Illinois legislature recently advocating that another Illinois school join the B1G? Governing bodies, public and private, loose or tight, can deliver opinions and decisions while being under-informed and not understanding appreciably how the system actually works. We've seen politicians advocating for a action on behalf of a particular school, but not fully recognizing his/her influences have limits with outside constituencies and organizations. Oftentimes, leverage has to be more than something perceptual.
Such can work---as with the Virginia Governor getting VPI into the ACC back in 2003. But it takes one who knows well the gamesmanship involved and had real leverage.)

A BYU representative has little to no flexibility in negotiating the no-Sunday-play issue. The policy is tied to theological practices. Even to change or adapt to new broadcasting/TV methodology would have to go through a rigorous process at the higher authoritative levels.

Beyond the no-Sunday-play factor, there has been an ongoing complaint that other schools have directed at BYU for years. Due in part to BYU's missionary requirements, BYU tends to field comparatively older players on average. This matter may now not be so intense given the adjustments made in NCAA transfer and period of eligibility rules and red-shirting. Still, those subtle complaints shall flare from time to time.

BYU has some strong merits and it would be nice to see them included instead of seeing biases (internally and externally) hampering their opportunities. But BYU certainly has to understand, that they will need to adapt more to the system than the system adapting to them. If BYU cannot find more flexibility, they'll stay right below the top echelon in a constant state of looking-in and being frustrated.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2014 4:08 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1539
Here's a piece by Berry Tramel (6/16/2014) offering a perspective pertaining BYU's quest for an association with the B12. One can have a differing view on some of Tramel's OU-oriented takes related to prior expansion, but the below article contains a rendering of a well-articulated viewpoint from one BYU fan:

http://newsok.com/big-12-expansion-more ... le/4919388


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2014 4:59 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:26 pm
Posts: 388
Does Texas want BYU?

No


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
 

 




Looking for College Sports apparel? Support our partner:








Support Our Partners: Search Engine Marketing - Search Engine Optimization - Search Engine Training - Online Marketing for Restuarants

Subway Map Shirts - Food and Travel

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group