Is It Time For BYU To Go Independent?
As I was watching (I discovered that Time Warner has CSTV for $2/mo) BYU dismantle the top defense in the Mountain West by scoring 55 points I became increasingly frustrated by the fact that BYU is stuck in this crappy, go-nowhere conference. The conference champion plays in the Las Vegas Bowl against the fifth-place Pac 10 team (or something like that).
That’s pathetic. And insulting.
Why is BYU even part of a conference anyway? Is it money? A friend of mine last night suggested it’s because within the conference they share revenue. If that’s the case then BYU is the Yankees. No way is Wyoming and UNLV bringing in the same kind of dough BYU is.
If they went independent would they get less money? BYU travels pretty well, is that not enough? Even if they hung out in the west?
Lastly, what needs to happen to get them into the Pac 10? That conference hasn’t expanded for a couple decades while the other major conferences have within the past ten years. Isn’t a larger conference better for revenue and exposure? BYU would be a boon to all those teams in Washington, California, Oregon and Arizona.
Are there real answers out there aside from speculation?
1. BYU isn’t strongenough for the Pac-10. This is there first good year in several, and the program just can’t compete with the Pac-10 schools. Utah had a stronger case for joining a stronger conference a couple of years ago when they went undeafeated and crashed the BCS. And look where they are today. I think it would be great if both BYU and Utah joined the Pac-10, but it would mean years of mediocre footbal for both teams before they could catch up.
2. BYU stays in the MWC for financial reasons. Going independent isn’t a financially viable option for most schools. And while BYU may draw Mormon fans wherever they go, you know what the say about the traveling zoobies, right? They take with them a copy of the 10 Commandments and a $50 bill, and they don’t break either. Cheap skates, all.
Comment by Chris Williams — November 10, 2006 @ 1:06 pm
Chris,
BYU has been consistently strong (less the last few years). They have a long tradition of going to bowl games. I’m not bringing this up because of this year only, otherwise I’d try to make the case for Boise State as well. I’m all for Utah coming with them. But I don’t think it would take years to catch up. The only teams in the Pac 10 who have been consistent year after year after year are USC, UCLA, Washington, maybe Cal, maybe Oregon. BYU would be much more valuable to the Pac 10 than Baylor, Iowa State, Duke, North Carolina, UConn, and Vanderbilt are to their respective conferences (in football only, basketball is a different animal).
You’re right about the fans being cheap, it’s an interesting point. Alcohol ads are useful to only half of those attending/viewing.
Comment by Rusty — November 10, 2006 @ 1:18 pm
Scheduling (unless the school happens to be Notre Dame) becomes hugely problematic for an independent. The independents usually end up playing killer schedules with almost all games on the road a long way from home. The few independent schools out there play only four or five home games. Schools in the same region are loathe to schedule independents that might be competitive for fear of harming their recruiting so even a competitive independent ends up doing a lot of traveling to fill out a schedule. Before Miami became a member of the Big East back in the early 1990s it played almost all of its away games outside of the Southeast. Its schedule typically included teams from the Midwest and Northeast. Florida refused to play Miami at all and Florida State only started the annual contest in 1987 (I think) when it was an independent too.
It’s also conceivable that an independent 10-2 BYU could get shut out of a bowl all together. Virtually every bowl has tie-ins with conferences. If all of those conferences had qualified bowl teams to fill all their slots an independent BYU could be left out in the cold.
I’d like to see one of two things happen. Have BYU and Utah be invited into the PAC10 or have the MWC invite Fresno State, San Jose State, and Boise State into the conference. The first is likely never to happen. The second is a real possibility if the MWC made an effort and would dramatically boost the MWC’s own prestige and competitiveness.
Comment by endlessnegotiation — November 10, 2006 @ 1:24 pm
You need to look past just football, guys. I’ve been saying this for a long time. BYU competes in more sports than just about any other school in the country–and competes well. Think about volleyball. It’s one of the top grossing sports in the Pac-10. Why wouldnt they want the team that won the National Championship just a few years ago?
As far as football goes, BYU would be more consistent in a better conference. And they would definitely be better than Stanford, Oregon St., the Arizona schools (yeah, I know we lost to Arizona, but seriously, if we played them again, we’d win by 3 TD’s). Cal sucked before Tedford got there, and we almost beat them a year ago.
I basketball we’d compete very well. We’re certainly better than Oregon St., Wash St., Cal, USC, and probably AZ St. The problem would be the no Sunday games.
As more and more conferences turn to a conference championship game, which is an absolute money-making machine, the Pac-10 will follow suit–just as they did by finally adding a conference basketball tournament.
BYU Football could probably survive as an independent but the other sports would need to stay a part of the MWC just like ND and the Big East. It doesn’t hurt that Notre Dame has a lucrative TV contract, though.
Comment by Tim J. — November 10, 2006 @ 1:31 pm
Off topic, but I love this line from the Wyoming coach after the game:
“Both teams had the Midas touch — everything they touched turned to gold, and everything we touched turned to mufflers.”
Comment by KMB — November 10, 2006 @ 1:45 pm
BYU is not a strong enough school academically to be in the PAC 10. Utah is. Unfortunately for Utah, BYU doesn’t have enough serious graduate programs. It would stick out like a sore thumb academically in the PAC 10, and neither school is getting into the PAC 10 without the other.
Also something that rarely gets mentioned is that BYU athletics was hurt by the priesthood ban in that there were schools that refused to play BYU because of perceived racism. Stanford only played BYU in football in the last few years, and had actively avoided doing so previously. I am not sure that even if BYU had the academics needed for the other PAC 10 schools to accept them that the schools would be ready to do so because of that history which lives on in some minds.
The only incentive for the PAC 10 would be to be big enough to have some sort of conference championship game at the end of the season. I never heard any mention of bringing in either BYU or Utah when I was in college, and I was a pretty active sports fan. PAC 10 fans didn’t even think about either school, except for BYU in men’s volleyball, and Utah in basketball and women’s gymnastics.
Comment by a random John — November 10, 2006 @ 2:20 pm
BYU has played Cal, USC, Arizona, Washington and Stanford in the last two or three years. Before that, I distinctly remember playing UCLA several times and I remember Detmer beating Wash. St. I don’t think it’s a problem and have never heard of it being so.
I’m not sure what academics has to do with athletics. Athletics is about one thing right now–money. BYU and Utah would bring that in with a large alumni and a strong TV audience.
Again, if the Pac-10 wants to go to 12 teams and have a championship game, the only real choices are BYU and Utah. Below that would be Fresno St., Boise St. (though they offer nothing beyond football), possibly Hawaii, and maybe Colorado if the Big 12 goes a different route.
Comment by Tim J. — November 10, 2006 @ 2:29 pm
Tim J,
PAC 10 schools consider themselves to be research universities. I find it amusing that BYU’s academics (which is where the focus ought to be) are in this case hurting its athletics (where the real emphasis lies for many.)
Comment by a random John — November 10, 2006 @ 2:52 pm
The Academic comment is unfounded. In both undergraduate and graduate schools, BYU is comparable.
Look at entrance exam scores. Look at job placement numbers. Lookat BYU placement of undergraduates in prestigious national graduate programs (including its own) Look at research dollars. Look at research earnings. Look at graduate school rankings Business/law/Accounting and BYU excells. Engineering? Second only to Stanford…depending on the type of engineering.
I’ve absolutely no idea where Utah finds an argument for academic superiority. Medicine? umm BYU doesn’t have a medical school. Perhaps the Middle Eastern studies program is distinctively better at the UofU.
The U is great. I won’t call BYU better. But BYU is academically competitive to PAC ten schools in every important way.
Comment by Sam — November 10, 2006 @ 2:55 pm
I’m still not seeing where BYU’s perceived academic deficiencies would somehow hurt there athletic opportunities.
What if the MWC added 3 more teams to get a championship game. TCU was certainly a step in the right direction, thought they slipped this year. But getting Boise St. would be huge! Fresno St. would also make sense, but this year they are sucking hard. The 12th team is the one I’m having trouble thinking of. Hawaii? Houston? Idaho (Don’t laugh. Dennis Erickson is their coach).
Comment by Tim J. — November 10, 2006 @ 3:02 pm
If the MWC is looking for three WAC defectors, they ought to get Boise, Fresno, and UTEP. They are three decent [football] programs with decent coaches.
Comment by HP — November 10, 2006 @ 3:08 pm
“No, we don’t want BYU to play us in football on a regular basis…their graduate history program isn’t as good as ours.”
Sorry ARJ, I’m not buying it.
Comment by Rusty — November 10, 2006 @ 3:08 pm
Rusty, lol.
HP, I forgot about UTEP. Good pick, though I don’t see Price staying too much longer. But that would be a helluva conference, and hard to ignore.
Right now, we’re projected to go to the Las Vegas Bowl to play Wash. St. or Oregon St. Whoever signed this deal for the MWC should be shot!
Meanwhile, Boise St. is headed to the Fiesta Bowl against either Notre Dame or Texas. We need Boise St. to lose, the only chance being at Nevada in the season finale–which isn’t out of the question.
Comment by Tim J. — November 10, 2006 @ 3:17 pm
I have heard that BYU’s poor graduate programs is why they aren’t even considered for the Pac-10. Yes BYU has graduate programs but outside of business oriented programs it doesn’t have any serious programs. i.e. the kind that appeal to the internal politics at big schools. Yes one can say this is irrational. But most judgments along these lines are irrational. It’s about power and prestige. And BYU simply isn’t perceived as prestigious. Utah is in a better situation simply because of their medical school which is quite famous. Further Utah had those couple of good seasons and is well known in basketball.
Yes other sports like volleyball or lacross count. But let’s be serious, it’s ultimately about basketball and football.
Now I agree it’s silly. BYU often has more BYU fans at away games than their opponent. That’s certainly often the case at MWC games where it sometimes seems like even away games are nearly equivalent to home games. And look at the turn out for some Pac-10 teams. It’s embarrassing at times. (Look at say Cal games)
Saying that BYU fans are cheap is true to a point. But Las Vegas loves BYU to go there for bowl games because they still draw more fans than most other schools. Yeah there isn’t as much gambling and I’m sure the strip clubs don’t do as well. But they still buy meals and often stay at a hotel. And importantly they buy tickets.
As to bringing more teams to the MWC – I’d favor Boise. I’m not as sure about Fresno and Utep. I’d kind of like to kick out a few teams though and send them to the WAC.
Comment by Clark Goble — November 10, 2006 @ 3:32 pm
BTW – I also agree it’s a bit premature to say BYU is ready for the PAC-10 based upon this season. Let’s see how we do next year when Brown and Beck are gone and we have a green QB.
If we can manage to be in the top 20 for several seasons in a row then I think we’ll have something. But acting like this is the BYU of the late 80′s is a bit premature. We we’re erratically good in the mid to late 90′s and then had one good season under Crowton and a whole slew of bad ones.
As for Utah, I think a good case could be made that Utah’s success depended upon a fantastic coach. That’s not a knock on Wittingham who clearly is still learning. (And has made some unfortunate gaffes) But I think it unreasonable to expect him to match BYU. I hope he does, mind you. It’d be huge for the conference. But I don’t think it’s going to happen.
Comment by Clark Goble — November 10, 2006 @ 3:37 pm
Didn’t Wittingham’s Utes beat the Cougs last year? I think the difference between the two teams this year is talent on the field more than coaching. Bronco has no more head coaching experience than Kyle.
I think both the Utes and the Cougs would suffer if they had to play a full Pac-10 schedule year in and year out. They may do well over the course of several seasons, but they are, on balance, playing much weaker schedules than Pac-10 teams.
I’m all for bringing Boise into the MWC.
Comment by Chris Williams — November 10, 2006 @ 4:03 pm
Chris, outside of the running game – which admittedly makes a huge difference – I don’t think the Utes are less talented this year than last. I think many problems were their coming out “weak” and not on their game and then a bunch of unfathomable public criticisms and “passing the blame” comments by their coach.
Certainly Bronco has had no more coaching experience than Wittingham and even less than Crowton. But he’s managed to calm the team down, deal with discipline problems and instill a winning attitude. Further his consistency in dealing with the press is amazing and much to be contrasted with Wittingham.
This is not to say Wittingham can’t improve. I think some Ute fans who are for throwing him under the tire are just off their rocker. But then I honestly thought Crowton was treated unfairly as well. Realistically though Wittingham needs to be careful not to lose his team the way Crowton did or else there is no coming back.
Comment by Clark Goble — November 10, 2006 @ 4:23 pm
The PAC-10 will take Utah before it takes BYU.
Why must we have this expectation that BYU is ever going to be more than it is today? At one time, Harvard was a consistent national power. So was Army and Navy.
Comment by queuno — November 10, 2006 @ 4:26 pm
queuno,
I think it’s a package deal. If the Pac-10 takes Utah or BYU, the other is coming along, too.
The problem is that BYU isn’t given a chance to be a national power in the MWC as the NCAA is currently constituted.
10 years ago, had you told me USC would be the best team of the new decade, you would’ve been laughed at. Same with Oklahoma.
Comment by Tim J. — November 10, 2006 @ 4:34 pm
Go Aggies!
Comment by ECS — November 10, 2006 @ 5:17 pm
Any discussion of academics on this thread is ludicrous. We’re talking about football, men.
Comment by Mark B. — November 10, 2006 @ 5:19 pm
I believe its’ early to say BYU football is back. However, I believe Mendenhall’s complete philosophy, and growth in our natural recruiting pool, will result in us saying we’re not back, we’re beyond where we were. This is a team that simply outplays its opponents instead of outhinking them with new offenses that win with average talents.
Some rejoinders:
7 I distinctly remember playing UCLA several times and I remember Detmer beating Wash. St.
BYU played UCLA 7 times and won all but the last 6 games. We won the first 37-35, in 1983. Combined scores were 127-228.
About any school can remember beating Wash St.
14. Yes BYU has graduate programs but outside of business oriented programs it doesn’t have any serious programs. i.e. the kind that appeal to the internal politics at big schools.
Well said!
BYU often has more BYU fans at away games than their opponent.
As we would expect.
15 I also agree it’s a bit premature to say BYU is ready for the PAC-10 based upon this season. Let’s see how we do next year when Brown and Beck are gone and we have a green QB.
Very well said — unless you foresee Max Hall threatening Detmer’s records.
18 Why must we have this expectation that BYU is ever going to be more than it is today? At one time, Harvard was a consistent national power. So was Army and Navy.
And the first Heisman was won by Jay Berwanger of CHICAGO.
Comment by manaen — November 10, 2006 @ 5:29 pm
LOL. OK, you got me Manaen on the fan bit. But I found it amazing that at CSU and Air Force there appeared to be more BYU fans than local fans. I’ve been told that this was true at many other games. Even where the fan base isn’t that dominate there still are a surprising number of fans who come to the away games.
Although to be fair, I’m told that there were a ton of Utah fans at the UCLA game. But that’s the problem. Utah and BYU have the majority of the support. It seems like other teams don’t quite get the local support the two Wasatch front teams get.
Comment by Clark Goble — November 10, 2006 @ 5:59 pm
My point with the Harvard-Army-Navy (and now Chicago, thanks for manaen) comparison is that there is absolutely no law of the universe that says that just because BYU was successful in the 70s and 80s (and for a couple of years in the 90s) and won a mythical national championship, that they are destined for glory in the 00s.
Trouble is, most BYU fans seem to think that there is some cosmic right to annual Top-15 rankings and a Pac-10 bid. I think that BYU fans should be VERY happy that they are as successful as they are without slipping into the moral morass that is most of the BCS.
My prediction is that they’ll have 3, maybe 4 years a decade in which they are in Top-20 material. Beyond that? Who cares? It’s all fun and games.
And yes, I’m a proud, multi-generational BYU alum.
Comment by queuno — November 10, 2006 @ 6:14 pm
[By the way, I wasn't taking a gratuitous shot at BYU with the "mythical" comment. All Division 1-A football national championships are "mythical" national championships ... but I still don't favor a playoff.]
Comment by queuno — November 10, 2006 @ 6:18 pm
I don’t think most fans think there is a right. I do think they think BYU ought be trying to achieve that.
Comment by Clark Goble — November 10, 2006 @ 6:34 pm
Of course, Chicago (just a few years after Mr. Berwanger won the Heisman), had the good sense to see where football was taking the school, and ended the program.
That allowed Enrico Fermi to use a room under the west stands of Stagg Field for his experimental nuclear reactor, where the first controlled fission reaction occurred in 1942. And that led, indirectly, to the U.S. Army’s 66th Infantry Division not having to participate in an invasion of Japan, and that saved my father from a substantial risk of being killed in that invasion.
So, see what good comes from dumping the football program?
Comment by Mark B. — November 11, 2006 @ 7:31 pm
BYU used to have a nuclear reactor on the south side hill. I was quite saddened when it removed. BYU’s football stadium used to have as a claim to fame the largest collection of dinosaur fossils in the world. Although I believe most were moved.
Comment by Clark Goble — November 11, 2006 @ 9:37 pm
Mark B.,
I’ll concede that all discussion of academics on this thread by people that didn’t attend a PAC 10 school and don’t know the mindset of that conference is ludicrous.
Comment by a random John — November 12, 2006 @ 12:50 pm
If it’s any consolation I had a friend who played for Cal and I had to constantly listen to him drone on about how BYU wasn’t a real team because they didn’t have the schedule the Pac-10 did and then all the reasons why BYU would never be accepted by the Pac-10.
Comment by Clark Goble — November 12, 2006 @ 11:31 pm
Cal sucks.
Comment by a random John — November 12, 2006 @ 11:54 pm