Should we or shouldn't we?

I am definitely of the the opinion that BYU should not return to the MWC as has been suggested here in this article https://www.ksl.com/?sid=34609208 and here http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865628161/Brad-Rock-Mountain-West-not-worse-for-BYU-than-Wagner.html.



This has been topic fodder for local radio hosts during the long down time right now. The suggestion seems to be to go back to the MWC and get to and win a few NY6 games and then hope for an invite to a big conference.



The initial response from most BYU fans is "why would BYU give up the money to go back?" Honestly it was mine. Boise St went to a NY6 game, and they only brought in $3.5 million from TV and bowl money, all sports. BYU in football brings in MINIMUM $5 million in TV money. So a minimum 30% cut doesn't work.



But as a fan, why should we really care how much money our team brings in? None of it comes back to us. Sure, it helps us "compete", but we see no direct value from it.



Ben Anderson seems to believe that Utah and TCU won their way into their conferences by having undefeated seasons and winning BCS games. While the winning didn't hurt those schools, it clearly wasn't what got them in. TCU being a Texas school got them in and Utah being the non-religious owned school in the Utah market got them in as a partner to Colorado.



I had a twitter exchange with Anderson pointing out that Boise has now won as many BCS/NY6 games as Utah and TCU did combined, and no one is inviting them. His retort was they were invited to the Big East when it was a BCS league. And you know what? He was right....what he forgets is so was BYU. BYU turned it down upon learning that the AQ status was going away.



So if getting an invite at some point was/is the goal, BYU has accomplished as much as BSU...and for that matter SDSU and Tulsa, who never won a dang thing. So winning isn't the only thing that matters.



I think BYU will get in or stay out of the top of college football just as easily from their position right now as an independent as they would as a member of a G5 conference.

:skeptic: So in Brad Rock's world we never played teams like Eastern Washington (October 20) Eastern Illinois, or had annual 55+ to 10 or less blowouts against UNLV?



We've had dogs coming to Provo since before Brad Rock started working, and yet he beleives thatt that will change if we go BACK to the MWC, where we had them coming here when we were thre the first time?



This article is stupid. The only times that BYU has been shut out of a major Bowl when it belonged in one was in 2001 when it was IN the MWC and was told that it would not be major bowl eligible irrespective of the Hawaii game. And in 1996 as a member of the WAC. There is zero evidence that BYU WOULDN'T go to a major Bowl game if it were deemed worthy. To say that goign to the MCW makes any sence is seriously wrong-headed, and the debate isn't even close. Being paid less for less exposure, less opportunity to play in front of the nation and less control of who we play for a trade off of perhaps a one-year flash inthe pan? C'Mon. In the MWC BYU going 2-1 v. Texas doesn't happen. I'll take a Wagner as a trade off; we've played teams like that late in the year at home before.

In the MWC you could have New Mexico, UNLV, and Wyoming on the schedule who are (by definition) dogs. Many of the games on the independent schedule have buyout clauses if BYU drops the game--which would be hugely expensive if you look at the number of games that need to be bought out to get down to the standard 4 game OOC schedule. Its fun for the sports media to talk about while waiting for something else to come up but in reality I don't see how it could work--maybe after the ESPN deal is up in 2018 and BYU is still not getting a P5 invite.

Fido wrote:
In the MWC you could have New Mexico, UNLV, and Wyoming on the schedule who are (by definition) dogs. Many of the games on the independent schedule have buyout clauses if BYU drops the game--which would be hugely expensive if you look at the number of games that need to be bought out to get down to the standard 4 game OOC schedule. Its fun for the sports media to talk about while waiting for something else to come up but in reality I don't see how it could work--maybe after the ESPN deal is up in 2018 and BYU is still not getting a P5 invite.

Please no. I miss playing Air Force and I miss San Diego State (although I'm glad we don't play them) outside of that I wouldn't trade our independent schedule and a small chance at a NY6 game for a MWC schedule and a better chance at a NY6 game. We'll either be good enough or not. At least lets be entertained for 12 games.

BYU should never under any circumstance go back to the MWC.

If a P5 Conference invite does not come and independence proves unsustainable, BYU will form a new conference and poach MWC teams to try to make a new P6 conf, just like they did when they left the WAC to try to create something greater.

Sno is right. If we created a new conference, it would almost always get the G5 NY6 invite.

IMO, the biggest issue with independent schedules is that we no longer get Utah in Provo as the last game every other year and Utah St. is no longer THREE-for-one(!).



The landscape has changed and we just aren't going to get either of those matchups the way we used to. Going back to the MWC isn't going to change that. At all.



As has been stated, most pre-Indy home schedules included one "P5" opponent (mostly mid-level PAC 10 opponents) and a generous helping of Wyoming, UNLV, New Mexico, and SDSU.



A return to the MWC would again give us that generous helping, especially of Wyoming and New Mexico. Equals with Utah St.



Independence is sustainable. We just need to let our focus and expectations, especially with regards to Utah, evolve with the landscape.



I like the budding rivalry with Boise St. If we pull off the win this year, I contend that it will have officially become a legit rivalry. That series will provide some legitimacy for the both of us. This can help heal the sting from the lessening of the Utah rivalry.



The Utah St. game has actually become an exciting matchup. Although, we eventually need to get back to a 2-for-1 scenario.



We have 2 or 3 PAC 12 teams on future schedules in most years - including Utah - but also some fun USC and Stanford matchups - a la Notre Dame. In fact, played the same weekend when Notre Dame is playing USC or Stanford in California.



We have multiple SEC and B1G matchups. Missouri, LSU, and Mississippi St. coaches are calling us a good opponent and game to look forward to.



The ACC has dubbed us a Power 5 opponent.



Personally, Holmoe is doing a great job. I would like to foster some rivalries with Houston and UCF. Cincinnati and ECU have potential too. And, don't forget Memphis. Whenever we get them on the schedule, THAT will be a game to circle.



And, I would like to get some payday games against MWC and other G5 opponents - like many Power 5 programs do. BYU pays Savannah St. and Wagner what? $500K? Ohio St. pays the likes of Buffalo, SAN DIEGO STATE, and FAU about $1 million for a payday home game.



BYU's athletic department made a 6 million profit last year. Why can't we put a little of that towards attracting a Buffalo or San Diego St. or Florida Atlantic to Provo for a one-and-done payday game? Much better matchup than Savannah St. or Wagner.

BYU's athletic department made a 6 million profit last year. Why can't we put a little of that towards attracting a Buffalo or San Diego St. or Florida Atlantic to Provo for a one-and-done payday game? Much better matchup than Savannah St. or Wagner.

I think it has to do with putting the game on KBYUtv. Not sure why we negotiated that. Maybe to get the tv station established. Pay a Buffalo and put it on ESPN to pay the payday and have a nicer game.

frdbtr wrote:
BYU should never under any circumstance go back to the MWC.

Amen to that. Why in the world would any fool, once they left an abusive relationship, go back into it? IIRC, the Mtn. West did all they could to make our life miserable.

When Bronco/Holmoe say independence is not sustainable, they are talking compared to P5 money. So you go P5 over indy every day of the week. But at least under current conditions, indy is better than the MWC every day of the week. So that won't change unless circumstances drastically change. If it became desirable to be in a league instead of staying indy and no P5 conference option was available, I think a "best of the rest" league is most desirable because you avoid the current abusive environment that is the MWC. And the best of the AAC in an eastern division and the best of the MWC in a western division wouldn't be horrible.

Fido wrote:
When Bronco/Holmoe say independence is not sustainable, they are talking compared to P5 money. So you go P5 over indy every day of the week. But at least under current conditions, indy is better than the MWC every day of the week. So that won't change unless circumstances drastically change. If it became desirable to be in a league instead of staying indy and no P5 conference option was available, I think a "best of the rest" league is most desirable because you avoid the current abusive environment that is the MWC. And the best of the AAC in an eastern division and the best of the MWC in a western division wouldn't be horrible.

In sum, P5>Sustainable Independence>Best of the Rest>MWC. However, P5>Best of the Rest>Unsustainable Independence>MWC.



As anyone can plainly see, there is no circumstance that warrants a return to the MWC. It is P5, sustainable indepedence, new conference where BYU can set up its TV rights, or bust.



The real question for me is what makes independence sustainable or not? I don't think BYU is losing a ton of kids that would have gone there but for being independent. The recruiting hasn't really changed. If the talent level is roughly the same, and BYU is operating in the black, what makes independence unsustainable? Are P5 teams going to stop scheduling BYU? We have seen an increase there, not a decrease. Are they talking about the P5 eventually breaking away from the NCAA? What makes the current model unsustainable?

Cougarfan87 wrote:

When Bronco/Holmoe say independence is not sustainable, they are talking compared to P5 money. So you go P5 over indy every day of the week. But at least under current conditions, indy is better than the MWC every day of the week. So that won't change unless circumstances drastically change. If it became desirable to be in a league instead of staying indy and no P5 conference option was available, I think a "best of the rest" league is most desirable because you avoid the current abusive environment that is the MWC. And the best of the AAC in an eastern division and the best of the MWC in a western division wouldn't be horrible.

In sum, P5>Sustainable Independence>Best of the Rest>MWC. However, P5>Best of the Rest>Unsustainable Independence>MWC.



As anyone can plainly see, there is no circumstance that warrants a return to the MWC. It is P5, sustainable indepedence, new conference where BYU can set up its TV rights, or bust.



The real question for me is what makes independence sustainable or not? I don't think BYU is losing a ton of kids that would have gone there but for being independent. The recruiting hasn't really changed. If the talent level is roughly the same, and BYU is operating in the black, what makes independence unsustainable? Are P5 teams going to stop scheduling BYU? We have seen an increase there, not a decrease. Are they talking about the P5 eventually breaking away from the NCAA? What makes the current model unsustainable?

I haven't read a lot about why it is unsustainable but my impression is independence while acting (i.e. spending) like a P5 is probably unsustainable. Independence while acting like a G5 i'd guess would be very sustainable as long as fans don't lose interest.

Stirfry wrote:

Fido wrote:
When Bronco/Holmoe say independence is not sustainable, they are talking compared to P5 money. So you go P5 over indy every day of the week. But at least under current conditions, indy is better than the MWC every day of the week. So that won't change unless circumstances drastically change. If it became desirable to be in a league instead of staying indy and no P5 conference option was available, I think a "best of the rest" league is most desirable because you avoid the current abusive environment that is the MWC. And the best of the AAC in an eastern division and the best of the MWC in a western division wouldn't be horrible.

In sum, P5>Sustainable Independence>Best of the Rest>MWC. However, P5>Best of the Rest>Unsustainable Independence>MWC.



As anyone can plainly see, there is no circumstance that warrants a return to the MWC. It is P5, sustainable indepedence, new conference where BYU can set up its TV rights, or bust.



The real question for me is what makes independence sustainable or not? I don't think BYU is losing a ton of kids that would have gone there but for being independent. The recruiting hasn't really changed. If the talent level is roughly the same, and BYU is operating in the black, what makes independence unsustainable? Are P5 teams going to stop scheduling BYU? We have seen an increase there, not a decrease. Are they talking about the P5 eventually breaking away from the NCAA? What makes the current model unsustainable?

I haven't read a lot about why it is unsustainable but my impression is independence while acting (i.e. spending) like a P5 is probably unsustainable. Independence while acting like a G5 i'd guess would be very sustainable as long as fans don't lose interest.

My guess is it's unsustainable because we can't get great home schedules year in and year out. We have great games and good overall schedules, but our Indy money is tied to our ESPN Contract which derives it's value from our home games. If we have 4-5 bad match ups every year we are doomed.

Except ESPN is very happy with what BYU provides them as far as covering open windows in their schedule, so they don't necessarily care who the opponent is.



Also, BYU fans don't seem to care which teams BYU plays at home. In 2012, attendance was higher for a season which included Washington St, Weber St, Hawaii, USU, Oregon St, and Idaho when compared to 2013 with Texas, Utah, Midd TN, Ga Tech, Boise, and Idaho St. Clearly 2013 had "better" teams on the home schedule.

stuckinbig10country wrote:
Except ESPN is very happy with what BYU provides them as far as covering open windows in their schedule, so they don't necessarily care who the opponent is.



Also, BYU fans don't seem to care which teams BYU plays at home. In 2012, attendance was higher for a season which included Washington St, Weber St, Hawaii, USU, Oregon St, and Idaho when compared to 2013 with Texas, Utah, Midd TN, Ga Tech, Boise, and Idaho St. Clearly 2013 had "better" teams on the home schedule.

I don't have any data to back me up, but my gut tells me our attendance correlates better with weather, time of day, and record/ranking than quality of opponent.

Another interesting point: In his state of the program with the local media, Dr. Chris Hill said that the TV money received by Utah for this past year was $17 million, all sports. I believe this is the first year where Utah got a full share. The Big 10, SEC,and even the Big 12 are distributing over 20 million per team.



BYU's minimum take from ESPN is 5 million per year. Add another $2 million (conservative estimate) for all the sponsorships for the 1 BYUtv game per year plus all of the replays (replays are a freaking cash cow for BYU), and $1 million from the WCC TV contract. That's a minimum of $8 million a year from just TV. (Remember, BSU played in a NY6 bowl last year and didn't even get our base amount with ESPN for football over all their sports.) Also, this is just for the home games. BYU gets TV money (LSU, WVU games) or an appearance fee (Missouri) for every neutral site game, so the TV money could go up depending on the agreement.



I know the $9 million a year between BYU and the Pac 12 schools is a lot...but it's not as bad as we previously thought it might be (and is likely closer, since ESPN has picked up more games than minimum contracted each year of the contract).



What I worry about is how much of the overhead BYU has had to pick up not being in a conference. Officials, travel costs (some of which was subsidized by the conference), production costs, etc. I wonder if it's these things that make Independence unsustainable.



Also, I think Bronco's 3 years remark was aimed at BYU's TV partner more than anything.