The Future of the Holy War

Interesting article from the Trib regarding the future of the Utah rivalry game and how conference realignment rumors affect scheduling:



http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsbyusports/53508119-65/games-think-schedule-teams.html.csp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Let me sum it up really fast: there is no future because Utah will not schedule us. They are worried about getting 6 wins, so they will schedule 2 loser games to go with their 9 PAC games and 1 Big Ten game. BYU is not a loser team, so we are out.



Expect the series to go away for a few years, until Utah dips into perpetual mediocrity, and then needs the game again for local relevance. At which time I hope BYU tells them to go pound sand, or themselves. Whichever.

I responded in another thread of how ironic was that Stanford renewed their long-standing rivalry with Notre Dame through 2019. Interesting how they found a way to schedule someone they wanted to while still being so restrained by being a member of the PUKE12 conference. Utah is hiding behind a poor excuse.

Lawboy is exactly right on this.



Utah is cowardly. And realistic. They have no hope of competing in the Pac0 and know that they can only schedule cupcakes outside of conference if they hope to even sniff bowl games in the future. Their own cowardice will be the cause of their ultimate demise into obscurity.

EM_Puma wrote:
I responded in another thread of how ironic was that Stanford renewed their long-standing rivalry with Notre Dame through 2019. Interesting how they found a way to schedule someone they wanted to while still being so restrained by being a member of the PUKE12 conference. Utah is hiding behind a poor excuse.

Didn't the PAC make an exception for Notre Dame to allow teams to play them during any time of the year and not be restrained to the (screw BYU rule) no non conferance games after September? You still only get 3 nonconference games but that exception makes scheduling Notre Dame a lot easier than BYU. (It's still not a legitimate excuse. Plently of big time schools play a difficult out of conference rival every year.)



My absolute dream scenario in all of this is what Lawboy described. Utah finally just comes out and says we don't need you anymore and doesn't schedule us. BYU gets in to the BIG 12 and is competitive while Utah suffers in the PAC. Pretty soon Ute fans return to their traditions of not caring and Rice Eccles is half empty on Saturdays. Utah than ask BYU to renew the rivalry to generate local interest and sellout at least 1 time every 2 years and BYU turns them down. I can dream right?

We can play them at our house only. Take that when it happens.

scott715 wrote:
We can play them at our house only. Take that when it happens.

This or a 2 fer



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

hawkwing wrote:
Lawboy is exactly right on this.



Utah is cowardly. And realistic. They have no hope of competing in the Pac0 and know that they can only schedule cupcakes outside of conference if they hope to even sniff bowl games in the future. Their own cowardice will be the cause of their ultimate demise into obscurity.

+1! The Yewts will avoid playing & losing to BYU for 2 reasons: 1) W-L record, 2) recruiting in Utah. Being a PAC-12 team does help them tremendously. If they lose to BYU, they lose that in state sales pitch of "we're big and bad". Who cares if they're in the PAC-12, but lose to BYU. Playing BYU has no upside, with plenty of downside risk.

Stirfry wrote:
Didn't the PAC make an exception for Notre Dame to allow teams to play them during any time of the year and not be restrained to the (screw BYU rule) no non conferance games after September? You still only get 3 nonconference games but that exception makes scheduling Notre Dame a lot easier than BYU. (It's still not a legitimate excuse. Plently of big time schools play a difficult out of conference rival every year.)

Yes, but that's not my point. If it was simply an issue of time of the year to be able to schedule BYU, then that point would be valid. The point was that Stanford knows extremely well that scheduling ND as one of their non-conference games is putting them in a situation where they could lose a game where they could schedule a cream puff, but they chose not to. Same reason that Georgia (SEC) still plays GT (ACC), S. Carolina (SEC) still plays Clemson (ACC), Florida (SEC) still plays Florida St (ACC), and USC still plays Notre Dame. In each of those cases, it is for the sake of the rivalry that has been forged they they chose not to disregard, because it does make their schedule harder.



Utah is whimping out.



It made me sick to hear the tilted radio jockeys on the SL radio yesterday saying that if they were Chris Hill that this is what they would probably do. Sure, I'm a financial analyst, I understand the logic, but the bottom line is the reason in my book for Utah to not schedule BYU for any further games takes us completely away from what the reason the sport was ever created and is taking all the fun away from the game.



I'm not a fan of any of those team that are taking the high road and continuing their rivalries, but Kudos to them. They still understand why we play this game and do something about it. Utah and the PUKE-pointed radio announcers can all spin this anyway they want, but I'm not foolish enough not to call a spade a spade.

EM_Puma wrote:

Yes, but that's not my point. If it was simply an issue of time of the year to be able to schedule BYU, then that point would be valid. The point was that Stanford knows extremely well that scheduling ND as one of their non-conference games is putting them in a situation where they could lose a game where they could schedule a cream puff, but they chose not to. Same reason that Georgia (SEC) still plays GT (ACC), S. Carolina (SEC) still plays Clemson (ACC), Florida (SEC) still plays Florida St (ACC), and USC still plays Notre Dame. In each of those cases, it is for the sake of the rivalry that has been forged they they chose not to disregard, because it does make their schedule harder.



Utah is whimping out.



It made me sick to hear the tilted radio jockeys on the SL radio yesterday saying that if they were Chris Hill that this is what they would probably do. Sure, I'm a financial analyst, I understand the logic, but the bottom line is the reason in my book for Utah to not schedule BYU for any further games takes us completely away from what the reason the sport was ever created and is taking all the fun away from the game.

I agree with you a 100% on this one Puma. Utah is whimping out on this and they have a weak excuse. If a team with an SEC schedule can play FSU a PAC 12 south team can play BYU (Just ask Tim Davis which conference is more challenging :P ) It's another reason for me to hate the BCS. College football is no longer about competition.



As for the radio jockeys, the announcement 2 weeks ago that Spence Checkets was joining 1320 for the ride home was the worst news in years for local talk radio. Now the choices are the Ute homers on 700, the Ute homer from 700 on 1320, or Gordon Monson. (I'm proud to say that next months I will be 12 months of Monson free living! Ironically his column on Jim Boylen after he was fired put me over the edge but I've found out life is much better when you don't listen to someone trying to tick you off all day long)

Stirfry wrote:

Yes, but that's not my point. If it was simply an issue of time of the year to be able to schedule BYU, then that point would be valid. The point was that Stanford knows extremely well that scheduling ND as one of their non-conference games is putting them in a situation where they could lose a game where they could schedule a cream puff, but they chose not to. Same reason that Georgia (SEC) still plays GT (ACC), S. Carolina (SEC) still plays Clemson (ACC), Florida (SEC) still plays Florida St (ACC), and USC still plays Notre Dame. In each of those cases, it is for the sake of the rivalry that has been forged they they chose not to disregard, because it does make their schedule harder.



Utah is whimping out.



It made me sick to hear the tilted radio jockeys on the SL radio yesterday saying that if they were Chris Hill that this is what they would probably do. Sure, I'm a financial analyst, I understand the logic, but the bottom line is the reason in my book for Utah to not schedule BYU for any further games takes us completely away from what the reason the sport was ever created and is taking all the fun away from the game.

I agree with you a 100% on this one Puma. Utah is whimping out on this and they have a weak excuse. If a team with an SEC schedule can play FSU a PAC 12 south team can play BYU (Just ask Tim Davis which conference is more challenging :P ) It's another reason for me to hate the BCS. College football is no longer about competition.



As for the radio jockeys, the announcement 2 weeks ago that Spence Checkets was joining 1320 for the ride home was the worst news in years for local talk radio. Now the choices are the Ute homers on 700, the Ute homer from 700 on 1320, or Gordon Monson. (I'm proud to say that next months I will be 12 months of Monson free living! Ironically his column on Jim Boylen after he was fired put me over the edge but I've found out life is much better when you don't listen to someone trying to tick you off all day long)

Actually I believe that Checketts is a BYU fan, or at least he grew up one but may have been forced to not be open about it while working for 700. It still doesn't change the fact that he isn't a good radio commentator and the only reason he has a job in radio is because of his dad...

Stirfry wrote:
As for the radio jockeys, the announcement 2 weeks ago that Spence Checkets was joining 1320 for the ride home was the worst news in years for local talk radio. Now the choices are the Ute homers on 700, the Ute homer from 700 on 1320, or Gordon Monson. (I'm proud to say that next months I will be 12 months of Monson free living! Ironically his column on Jim Boylen after he was fired put me over the edge but I've found out life is much better when you don't listen to someone trying to tick you off all day long)

I very rarely drive any more during the period of sports talk radio, so yesterday was an anomoly and verification why I don't miss it at all. To their credit, I believe most were stating that they wanted to see the rivalry go on, but they were so quick to give Utah a free pass on the issue and then make fun of the end of BYU's 2012 schedule. Sickening, and they will not have my following. It's painful to listen to, like listening to liberal talk radio.



Thanks for the warning of the the further demise of Salt Lake Sports talk-radio. I'll never understand why we cannot, as the majority fan base, get what we want in this case. Boycot is our only option.

Spencer Checketts is a U grad, but not a BYU hater. His dad got his MBA from BYU, and has been asked to consult with BYU on their media deals on many occasions. I think he does a good job on the air and keeps it professional. Big improvement from Locke in my opinion. Locke wears thin quickly.

Lawboy wrote:
Spencer Checketts is a U grad, but not a BYU hater. His dad got his MBA from BYU, and has been asked to consult with BYU on their media deals on many occasions. I think he does a good job on the air and keeps it professional. Big improvement from Locke in my opinion. Locke wears thin quickly.

Is Locke gone or this is an addtion to the station?

Locke does not have his afternoon show anymore and is just doing the Jazz games. Same with Bolerjack, who was doing the afternoon show with Locke and Gerrard. I think both will continue to do spot duty, if needed, but are focusing on their JAzz broadcast duties. Boler also does some games for Fox now, and left CBS because the Jazz schedule kept him too occupied.



The 1320 afternoon show is Checketts and Gerrard now.

Lawboy wrote:
Locke does not have his afternoon show anymore and is just doing the Jazz games. Same with Bolerjack, who was doing the afternoon show with Locke and Gerrard. I think both will continue to do spot duty, if needed, but are focusing on their JAzz broadcast duties. Boler also does some games for Fox now, and left CBS because the Jazz schedule kept him too occupied.



The 1320 afternoon show is Checketts and Gerrard now.

They sold it as being the flagship station of the Jazz and this would give Boler and Locke more time to prepare for the Jazz games. My guess is you're right and they'll still do spot duty a lot.



Maybe Checketts is a BYU guy and he just did a good job at doing his job on 700 as a Ute. I'd see him more with Bill Reilly on channel 2's after the news cast show where both were there to represent the U and made no bones about it that they were Utes and not Cougars. I think he has 4-5 siblings and most have gone to the Y but Spence did go to the U and I've heard him as recently as last week using the phrase "in Kyle we trust". Hopefully he can drop the 700 charge that he has to be for the Utes quickly and can at least be in the middle.



Anyways it would be a real shame if the rivalry went away. Regional rivalries are one of the great things about college football and as college becomes more like the pros by paying players, dropping traditions, being all about the money it's going to take the charm out of it and make it into a subpar NFL.

I haven't heard why yet, but Alema Harrington also left the 1-3 PM show Powerhouse. Now that show is being called "Bags and Parks" With Ben Bagley and Tony Parks (I know, the KFAN's naming scheme for their shows shows a ton of originality). Thanks to all this, I don't even have to worry about listening to local talk sports anymore. It has become that bad. Just awful. I listened to Checketts and Gerrard for about 2 minutes before I decided that I couldn't take it. KFAN sucks, period.



As far as the rivalry goes, good riddance. I have no love for the :utard:s so I would prefer that they just go pound sand and disappear into obscurity in the PAC-None conference.

Lawboy wrote:
Spencer Checketts is a U grad, but not a BYU hater. His dad got his MBA from BYU, and has been asked to consult with BYU on their media deals on many occasions. I think he does a good job on the air and keeps it professional. Big improvement from Locke in my opinion. Locke wears thin quickly.

Sorry, but Spencer Checketts is a complete BYU hater. But he does a good job and is relatively professional. But he never misses a chance to take a dig at BYU's expense.

To be fair, Utah should do what it's doing. If Utah feels it is in its best interest to see an end to the Holy War, then they should pursue that. They need to look out for Utah above all else. Because no one else will.

SpiffCoug wrote:
To be fair, Utah should do what it's doing. If Utah feels it is in its best interest to see an end to the Holy War, then they should pursue that. They need to look out for Utah above all else. Because no one else will.

Sure, but what I can't stand, no matter where I find it, is when they don't man-up and say they don't want the chance to have their record tarnished with a possible loss to BYU. As I pointed out, most of the other REAL big boys seem to be able to look past that challenge, and they are schools that likewise are contending for national championships. Play the game because it is the right thing to do for football.



They sound like a twelve-year-old giving their first ever talk at Church and don't have any credibility or depth. Do you really think that Holmoe is simply looking for someone to schedule or does he REALLY beleive that the the rivalry should go on for the sake of why college football exists?