Poll: Is Tom Holmoe a liar?

Some on the internet are insinuating or calling Tom Holmoe a liar because his story and explanation of what happened during the expansion talks doesn't match what was going around from insider information.



It begs the question, do you think Tom Holmoe is lying about what happened in the expansion talks?

NO he isn't. In the same way that any coach when asked about an opponent goes into caoch speak about how well coached the opponent is, the match-up issues they present, the ability of certain skill positions. They are not lying either. But..well..you know. Bigger picture usually not being stated. With good reason.

I want to point out to, that this poll isn't intended as a dig at anyone here. If anything it's a bit of mocking at a couple of twitter personalities who are not users of this forum.

Insider information...please...how many on this and other boards quoted their inside sources about upcoming announcements and big news? I'm with Tom. Do what you think is best and I'll be there for my team and school.

Lawboy wrote:
NO he isn't. In the same way that any coach when asked about an opponent goes into caoch speak about how well coached the opponent is, the match-up issues they present, the ability of certain skill positions. They are not lying either. But..well..you know. Bigger picture usually not being stated. With good reason.

exactly. holmoe has said things before that were just not true. It is not that he is a liar it is the nature of his job. It like when candidates say they have no plans for running for president while they are unofficially amassing donors and supporters and and organization.



I think it is naive to just take holmoe's word at face value on these things. I know that is the mo of some on this board. I take what he says as one more piece of the puzzle. what he says is more valuable than what tdawgcoug says though, obviously.

why would he lie?

save face?

get us into a conference?

save his job?

save the church?



none of those seem like terribly compelling motives.

I hate all of the "Insider" information that comes out. It's completely unverified, and sometimes designed to put BYU in a bad light. I'd trust his non-anonymous explanation before any of these "insiders".

I'm still sticking to this:

SpiffCoug wrote:
I have an inside source that says that he is the ONLY inside source that has any real knowledge of the situation.



My source further says that some of those claiming they have inside sources may be making up their inside sources and may not actually have an inside source.



Finally, my inside source believes anyone who thinks they can believe inside sources, should probably stop, since every other inside source likely isn't all that inside.

He's not a liar. More of a salesman or politician.

byutx wrote:
He's not a liar. More of a salesman or politician.

In other words, he's worse? ;) :lol:

My instinct isn't to blindly trust Holmoe. My instinct is to trust Holmoe unless someone else gives me a better reason not to trust him. The Wilners, deepthrowts, and Chip Browns of the world don't do that.



My gut feeling is this: if Holmoe doesn't want something to get out to the public, he won't have to lie because he's perfectly comfortable not saying anything. I get jonnylingo's analogy, but Holmoe doesn't HAVE to hold pressers like a coach does. If he wants to skirt an issue, he has that luxury.



If the Big XII HAD progressed as far as we thought it would, and Holmoe wanted to cover that up to save face/keep future possibilities open, he could've talked about the Big XII in the vaguest possible terms. Instead, he simply stated that the talks never really reached the negotiation stage.



A good example of what Holmoe will do with sensitive information can be found when he discusses what exactly caused the "impasse" with the Big East. He never really stated outright what that was.

SL Trib's Scott Pierce believes so in his article today where he says (once again) that BYU didn't get the B12 invite because they wouldn't give their TV rights away. This after TH said emphatically last night that the subject was NEVER brought up with the B12. Once again some great journalism from the Trib.

EM_Puma wrote:
SL Trib's Scott Pierce believes so in his article today where he says (once again) that BYU didn't get the B12 invite because they wouldn't give their TV rights away. This after TH said emphatically last night that the subject was NEVER brought up with the B12. Once again some great journalism from the Trib.

Scott Pierce thinks Whitney is a good show, too. What does he know?

Holmoe, a liar, no...of course not. Is he being forthcoming? Doubt it.



I'm sure BYU has it's reasons, but the school is hardly a beacon of transparency. BYU wants to control the message and their image as much as possible, so we hear only what they want us to hear.

I will give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he is telling the truth the best he feels he can. What bothers me is that his statements are so contorted and are on the edge of not even making sense. After he says something I am left confused about what he was trying to say. And if he meant what he said why didn't he just come straight out and say it instead of making meandering statements? If he is just trying to be discreet, it is not working. Neither is it helping his credibility. Maybe he just isn't any good at communicating.

tww wrote:
I will give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he is telling the truth the best he feels he can. What bothers me is that his statements are so contorted and are on the edge of not even making sense. After he says something I am left confused about what he was trying to say. And if he meant what he said why didn't he just come straight out and say it instead of making meandering statements? If he is just trying to be discreet, it is not working. Neither is it helping his credibility. Maybe he just isn't any good at communicating.

It's because his hands are tied, yet he knows he has to say something.



If BYU was proactive and open from the start, they wouldn't have to schedule special interviews complete with vague statements purposefully designed to give off an appearance of a response but actually say nothing. It's an archaic way to communicate.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

I don't think he lied, but to steal an old Seinfeld line, he yada yada'd the best part. He makes it sound like there was a brief phone conversation with the Big 12, when in reality several reliable (not internet posters) sources had them in talks for weeks. I will buy that TV contacts didn't come up in those discussions.



I believe nothing he said last night was a lie. I believe the entire context was missing. I will also say there is nothing wrong with that.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

hawkwing wrote:

He's not a liar. More of a salesman or politician.

In other words, he's worse? ;) :lol:

Oochie! Ouchie! That went clear to the bone! Ha-ha-ha-ha! :lol: :lol:

You guys make me laugh. For weeks, nothing but bellyaching both on CC and in the media in general that BYU isn't commenting on expansion rumors. So Tom Holmoe makes a poor decision to humor the BYU "fans" demanding a statement and is immediately branded a liar or hedger or whatever. BYU is under no obligation to us to make any statement whatsoever, and I for one hope that we never again hear TH or BM speak about conference realignment unless it is to announce BYU's entry into a conference.