Homoe tells ESPN BYU is open to Football only inclusion.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/17127391/byu-notifies-big-12-interest-joining-conference-open-discussing-football-only-option



So how do we solve the Sunday play issue if that is a problem? It really is only the championships that play on Sunday. There are a hand full of lessor sports. Some ideas 1) keep them in WCC and only move the ones with no conflict 2) get Big12 to change schedule 3) not participate in the tournament, 4) play the tournament as scheduled and if BYU gets to the Sunday game then the commissioner replaces us with one of the 2 previous round teams in the tournament in our spot. Then the next year the BIG12 changes the schedule to accommodate no Sunday play for that sport.

Doesn't seem like the opening gambit of a front-runner....

Yeah, I don't like this.

I have no problem with what Holmoe is doing. BYU has a stigma in some circles of being difficult to work with. Holmoe is being honest, open, and upfront about being willing to work to a solution. The only thing off the table is Sunday play.



BYU is not in a position where they should be playing hard to get. This may be the one and only chance at something like this left.

http://newsok.com/article/5510957?utm_source=NewsOK.com&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=ShareBar-Twitter



Sounds promising.

Schmoe wrote:
Yeah, I don't like this.

We can't risk not getting our foot in the door. Saying that we're agreeable to do football only might actually give us a better chance at getting in with all sports, in the short and long term.

Raiderboy wrote:

Yeah, I don't like this.

We can't risk not getting our foot in the door. Saying that we're agreeable to do football only might actually give us a better chance at getting in with all sports, in the short and long term.

Why would Holmoe state this publicly instead of simply bringing it up with the conference? I don't like that we're creating the perception of essentially grovelling at the feet of the Big XII when we're far and away the best candidate for expansion -- it makes us look desperate and weak.

Schmoe wrote:

Schmoe wrote:
Yeah, I don't like this.

We can't risk not getting our foot in the door. Saying that we're agreeable to do football only might actually give us a better chance at getting in with all sports, in the short and long term.

Why would Holmoe state this publicly instead of simply bringing it up with the conference? I don't like that we're creating the perception of essentially grovelling at the feet of the Big XII when we're far and away the best candidate for expansion -- it makes us look desperate and weak.

I think it makes us look flexible and easy to work with.

^^^ This.



At the end of the day, BYU Admin/Tom Holmoe can say they made it as easy as possible to select BYU (willing to negotiate on virtually everything except Sunday play).



The only other non-starter I can imagine is that BYU would want to refuse certain advertisements on campus (e.g. alcohol and tobacco) during conference events.

BlueK wrote:

Raiderboy wrote:

Yeah, I don't like this.

We can't risk not getting our foot in the door. Saying that we're agreeable to do football only might actually give us a better chance at getting in with all sports, in the short and long term.

Why would Holmoe state this publicly instead of simply bringing it up with the conference? I don't like that we're creating the perception of essentially grovelling at the feet of the Big XII when we're far and away the best candidate for expansion -- it makes us look desperate and weak.

I think it makes us look flexible and easy to work with.

Again, why does it matter if the general public think this or not? As long as Holmoe makes this known to the Big XII brass, they know, and they're the only ones that matter.

Schmoe wrote:

Schmoe wrote:

Schmoe wrote:
Yeah, I don't like this.

We can't risk not getting our foot in the door. Saying that we're agreeable to do football only might actually give us a better chance at getting in with all sports, in the short and long term.

Why would Holmoe state this publicly instead of simply bringing it up with the conference? I don't like that we're creating the perception of essentially grovelling at the feet of the Big XII when we're far and away the best candidate for expansion -- it makes us look desperate and weak.

I think it makes us look flexible and easy to work with.

Again, why does it matter if the general public think this or not? As long as Holmoe makes this known to the Big XII brass, they know, and they're the only ones that matter.

Stating things publicly can put pressure on the people listening because it removes the ability for them to come out and say "we didn't select so and so because they were not flexible". I don't see this as a desperation move, but a negotiation tactic. I think it is a good move. I still feel like BYU will be a long shot to get invited. I bought the expansion BS last time hook line and sinker and this time I am going to sit back and just watch what happens.



Edit: also it allows us to keep a good relationship with the WCC because it gives the impression that we are not desperately trying to get out of their conference.

It's all about football not the WCC.

scott715 wrote:
It's all about football not the WCC.

It's all about BYU sports and hurting what appears to be a good relationship with the WCC is a bad idea if we don't get an invite.

Schmoe wrote:

Schmoe wrote:

Schmoe wrote:
Yeah, I don't like this.

We can't risk not getting our foot in the door. Saying that we're agreeable to do football only might actually give us a better chance at getting in with all sports, in the short and long term.

Why would Holmoe state this publicly instead of simply bringing it up with the conference? I don't like that we're creating the perception of essentially grovelling at the feet of the Big XII when we're far and away the best candidate for expansion -- it makes us look desperate and weak.

I think it makes us look flexible and easy to work with.

Again, why does it matter if the general public think this or not? As long as Holmoe makes this known to the Big XII brass, they know, and they're the only ones that matter.

I thought that Tom came off looking a little insecure. That's just me.



But the wisdom I see in publicly stating our flexibility is beating others to the punch. By others I mean schools (fans) who will use a public forum to disparage BYU.

Ygridiron4ever wrote:

BlueK wrote:

Raiderboy wrote:

Yeah, I don't like this.

We can't risk not getting our foot in the door. Saying that we're agreeable to do football only might actually give us a better chance at getting in with all sports, in the short and long term.

Why would Holmoe state this publicly instead of simply bringing it up with the conference? I don't like that we're creating the perception of essentially grovelling at the feet of the Big XII when we're far and away the best candidate for expansion -- it makes us look desperate and weak.

I think it makes us look flexible and easy to work with.

Again, why does it matter if the general public think this or not? As long as Holmoe makes this known to the Big XII brass, they know, and they're the only ones that matter.

I thought that Tom came off looking a little insecure. That's just me.



But the wisdom I see in publicly stating our flexibility is beating others to the punch. By others I mean schools (fans) who will use a public forum to disparage BYU.

Ding ding ding! Holmoe effectively addressed the questions already on people's minds. Time to sit and stew, and wait for then see about an invite. Not much to do now other than to keep stating the case why BYU is the #1 for expansion.

Schmoe wrote:
I don't like that we're creating the perception of essentially grovelling at the feet of the Big XII when we're far and away the best candidate for expansion -- it makes us look desperate and weak.

I think, unfortunately, that's the reality.



If BYU gets in, which I think the chances are not great, it will be football only. The sunday play issue will doom the other sports, the conference is not going to be willing to change things just for BYU.



Will be interesting to see how this all shakes out.

If Sunday is an issue how about taking the sports that has no conflict and keep the rest in the WCC?

If Sunday play is an issue, then BYU wasn't wanted in the first place. Zero football or men's basketball conference games were played on Sunday in the Big XII last year. It was something like 1% in women's hoops.



check out this article from SB Nation

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2016/7/25/12261532/byu-no-sunday-rule-big-12



Key quotes: "The biggest conference tournaments in men’s basketball usually end on Selection Sunday, right before the NCAA Tournament field gets set. But the Big 12’s tournament typically ends on the Saturday of that weekend. That still means no Sunday final and virtually no change required for BYU to fit in."



"Some sports do require special circumstances, but BYU’s proved willing to take on most of the inconvenience itself."

hypercoug wrote:

I don't like that we're creating the perception of essentially grovelling at the feet of the Big XII when we're far and away the best candidate for expansion -- it makes us look desperate and weak.

I think, unfortunately, that's the reality.

This may be the last time there is an opening to a Power 5 conference. If the Big 12 goes to 14, then only the Pac 12 doesn't have 14 teams, and so our last hope would be the liberal schools of the Pac 12 letting us in. And we have seen that once you are in, you are in forever. No one is talking about kicking weak schools out. If there is a time to grovel I think this is it.



And I think BYU is in this for the exposure and not the money. It would not surprise me if BYU offered to take hardly any money at all until the next media contract. If it is the last seat at the table, what wouldn't you do except give up no-Sunday play?