What are the cures for BYU Sports?

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865696928/Time-for-BYU-basketball-to-move-on.html



Robinson's op-ed seems to mirror those seen elsewhere. This topic has been debated on these boards many a time. I'd like to suggest two issues that BYU really needs to resolve and (perhaps most importantly) share their resolution with the fan base:



1. Identify the purpose of their athletic programs. BYU sports continues to spend and act like they don't care about results, but then do things to try and convince the fan base that they do. They upgrade facilities, but don't look for changes from the programs themselves. If they are OK with the status quo and only being relevant every now and then, just say so! Otherwise, it leaves those of us who support these programs in a quandary. It may in fact be the right move to just acknowledge that BYU is not in the business of being a Sports powerhouse, and that sports is an entertaining diversion, but not a primary concern for this university. Or at least try to act consistently!



2. LDS requirement for head coaches. This requirement consistently limits the pool of possible coaches, forcing BYU to regularly advance people who may not be fully qualified. There is no reason that a non-LDS coach could not accept the Honor Code as part of his required mandate. This would allow BYU to use its superior facilities and fan base to attract up-and-coming coached who see BYU as a step to bigger things. The limitations on coaches really shrink the pool of available options, and may be leading us to keep coaches longer than we should simply because we do not have good options available.



I'm sure many people disagree with me on these issues, and I certainly may be wrong, but I'd rather see BYU try some different options rather than stay with status quo on what appears to be a sinking ship.

Maybe they should change the rule to an asst head coach needs to be LDS. Plus lay down the rules for the non LDS coach like no practices on the Sabbath and to allow the asst HC to handle HC issues.

"Mediocrity" I would have assumed that Doug Robinson knew what that word meant. Apparently he doesn't. I stopped reading at the end of the first sentence. I don't need to encourage someone to ignore reality in order to push his uninformed agenda.

ABYUFAN wrote:

"Mediocrity" I would have assumed that Doug Robinson knew what that word meant. Apparently he doesn't. I stopped reading at the end of the first sentence. I don't need to encourage someone to ignore reality in order to push his uninformed agenda.

Then you missed the part where he addressed the arguments pro and con and made a pretty compelling argument backed up by numbers to support that characterization.



But hey, nobody can make you listen to what you don't want to hear.

Didn't someone else write a very similar article?

Robinson says it was a mistake to leave the MWC. That’s easy for him to say when he doesn’t have to worry about money and balancing budgets. I know there are pros and cons, but I think it is irrefutable that BYU gained money and exposure in football by going independent and planning to go to the WAC for its other sports until the MWC invited WAC teams to join it in an effort to stymie BYU’s plans. The bottom line is the MWC freeloaded on BYU for years and BYU opted for a future they thought (we all thought) would be better. Going back to the MWC might be better but for football too? Less money vs a more competitive BB conference? I think good arguments can be made both sides. I don’t think BYU did these things so they could be mediocre.

Setting expectations with fans is a double edged sword.



If BYU tells fans sports aren't that big of a priority it will help temper fans' frustrations but BYU will lose fans. Fans will become even more apathetic. The school isn't in it to win, so why should we. High-caliber athletes, not that we get a lot of them, will also be less inclined to come to BYU. Why play for a school that isn't in it to win it.



I suspect what we have is something that often happens in the corporate world. A product division or group may not be the highest priority for a company, but it is the highest priority for that division VP. The brethren probably just want to be relevant. If BYU never makes it to the NCAA tourney again but puts up solid seasons without controversy, the BOT would be fine. Holmoe on the other hand wants fans in the seats. He wants BYU competitive.



A corporation will rarely say publicly a product or division is less of a priority. Doing so would be like signing a death warrant for that division. We won't hear this from BYU, and that's a good thing.



As for hiring non-LDS coaches, I don't get the rule. BYU hires non-LDS professors (at least they used to). So why not head coaches?

snoscythe wrote:

"Mediocrity" I would have assumed that Doug Robinson knew what that word meant. Apparently he doesn't. I stopped reading at the end of the first sentence. I don't need to encourage someone to ignore reality in order to push his uninformed agenda.

Then you missed the part where he addressed the arguments pro and con and made a pretty compelling argument backed up by numbers to support that characterization.



But hey, nobody can make you listen to what you don't want to hear.

. I'm fine hearing truth. This ain't that.

ABYUFAN wrote:

ABYUFAN wrote:

"Mediocrity" I would have assumed that Doug Robinson knew what that word meant. Apparently he doesn't. I stopped reading at the end of the first sentence. I don't need to encourage someone to ignore reality in order to push his uninformed agenda.

Then you missed the part where he addressed the arguments pro and con and made a pretty compelling argument backed up by numbers to support that characterization.



But hey, nobody can make you listen to what you don't want to hear.

. I'm fine hearing truth. This ain't that.

That's quite the judgement from someone who states they didn't read the full article...



If you didn't read the full article, you missed this:

The WCC is dragging down the BYU program (not to mention Gonzaga and Saint Mary’s). The Cougars just finished Year 7 in the league and nothing much has changed. Since leaving the MWC for the WCC, the Cougars have slipped to a level rarely seen at BYU.



How bad is it? The Cougars were reportedly a late addition to the NIT — a sixth seed in an eight-team region. They were, in other words, one of the last picked for a tournament that is no more than a consolation prize for schools that didn’t qualify for the 68-team NCAA Tournament. The Cougars did nothing to show they deserved better. They checked out of the NIT after one game, just as they did last season.



Ignore BYU’s annual 20-win seasons. As noted here previously, it’s an outdated benchmark in the era of 35-game seasons and it’s especially meaningless when you consider the weak schedule BYU plays.



The Cougars ranked 75th in the College Basketball Power Index — just behind South Dakota and Northern Kentucky — and their schedule ranked 103rd. This marks the third time in three years they had to settle for an NIT berth and the fourth time in six years — the worst stretch at BYU since the late '90s (and you’d have to go back to the early '70s to find another like it).



The Cougars have made the NCAA’s field of 64 teams once in the last six years. They have never won the WCC championship, finishing third five times and second twice.

The 20-win benchmark is fools gold. No one else had as many chances to win it against as many sub-200 teams as Rose has had.



34 game seasons between 1970 and the end of the Steve Cleveland era? - 2 out of 35 seasons - 1992-93, 1990-91 (both seasons were 34 games only after conference tourneys and 2 NCAA games).



34 game seasons during Dave Rose era? - 10 out of 12 seasons. The other two seasons were 2005-06 (29 game inaugural season) and 2008-09 (33 games NCAA 1st round exit). Dave Rose gets 34 game seasons with first round conference and NIT exits in the same season.



Yeah, some people want to say that "mediocre" means average, and BYU is #75 out of 347 Division I teams.



They (you?) can go ahead and compare BYU to the teams comprising the America East, Atlantic Sun, Big Sky, Big South, Big West, Colonial Athletic, Horizon League, Metro Atlantic, Missouri Valley, Northeast, Ohio Valley, Patriot League, Southern, Southland, Southwestern, Sunbelt, and Summit League teams and feel good about the status quo because BYU is better than 95% of the Omaha Mavericks and Central Arkansas Bears of the world. And we'll continue to win 20 games every season if we stay in the WCC and play a bunch of losers in schedule-to-win preseason games.



Meanwhile, I'd prefer to compare BYU to the major and mid-major conferences, where BYU ranks in the 3rd quartile over the last 4 seasons -- below the dictionary definition of "mediocre".



You see, average is defined in comparison to something. You keep on comparing our musk to a landfill, and you can convince yourself it smells pretty dang good.

snoscythe wrote:

snoscythe wrote:

"Mediocrity" I would have assumed that Doug Robinson knew what that word meant. Apparently he doesn't. I stopped reading at the end of the first sentence. I don't need to encourage someone to ignore reality in order to push his uninformed agenda.

Then you missed the part where he addressed the arguments pro and con and made a pretty compelling argument backed up by numbers to support that characterization.



But hey, nobody can make you listen to what you don't want to hear.

. I'm fine hearing truth. This ain't that.

That's quite the judgement from someone who states they didn't read the full article...



If you didn't read the full article, you missed this:

The WCC is dragging down the BYU program (not to mention Gonzaga and Saint Mary’s). The Cougars just finished Year 7 in the league and nothing much has changed. Since leaving the MWC for the WCC, the Cougars have slipped to a level rarely seen at BYU.



How bad is it? The Cougars were reportedly a late addition to the NIT — a sixth seed in an eight-team region. They were, in other words, one of the last picked for a tournament that is no more than a consolation prize for schools that didn’t qualify for the 68-team NCAA Tournament. The Cougars did nothing to show they deserved better. They checked out of the NIT after one game, just as they did last season.



Ignore BYU’s annual 20-win seasons. As noted here previously, it’s an outdated benchmark in the era of 35-game seasons and it’s especially meaningless when you consider the weak schedule BYU plays.



The Cougars ranked 75th in the College Basketball Power Index — just behind South Dakota and Northern Kentucky — and their schedule ranked 103rd. This marks the third time in three years they had to settle for an NIT berth and the fourth time in six years — the worst stretch at BYU since the late '90s (and you’d have to go back to the early '70s to find another like it).



The Cougars have made the NCAA’s field of 64 teams once in the last six years. They have never won the WCC championship, finishing third five times and second twice.

The 20-win benchmark is fools gold. No one else had as many chances to win it against as many sub-200 teams as Rose has had.



34 game seasons between 1970 and the end of the Steve Cleveland era? - 2 out of 35 seasons - 1992-93, 1990-91 (both seasons were 34 games only after conference tourneys and 2 NCAA games).



34 game seasons during Dave Rose era? - 10 out of 12 seasons. The other two seasons were 2005-06 (29 game inaugural season) and 2008-09 (33 games NCAA 1st round exit). Dave Rose gets 34 game seasons with first round conference and NIT exits in the same season.



Yeah, some people want to say that "mediocre" means average, and BYU is #75 out of 347 Division I teams.



They (you?) can go ahead and compare BYU to the teams comprising the America East, Atlantic Sun, Big Sky, Big South, Big West, Colonial Athletic, Horizon League, Metro Atlantic, Missouri Valley, Northeast, Ohio Valley, Patriot League, Southern, Southland, Southwestern, Sunbelt, and Summit League teams and feel good about the status quo because BYU is better than 95% of the Omaha Mavericks and Central Arkansas Bears of the world. And we'll continue to win 20 games every season if we stay in the WCC and play a bunch of losers in schedule-to-win preseason games.



Meanwhile, I'd prefer to compare BYU to the major and mid-major conferences, where BYU ranks in the 3rd quartile over the last 4 seasons -- below the dictionary definition of "mediocre".



You see, average is defined in comparison to something. You keep on comparing our musk to a landfill, and you can convince yourself it smells pretty dang good.

Ding ding ding! I've basically been ridiculed on this board for saying as much. A whole bunch of empty wins don't mean much when you're consistently missing out on the tournament, and missing out by a wide margin, and with the most talent that we've had in a long time.

Which poll is the best for measuring where we stand? RPI or some other. There are a lot of those rankings. I think BYU should be top 75 every year and more often then not be top 50.

snoscythe wrote:

snoscythe wrote:

"Mediocrity" I would have assumed that Doug Robinson knew what that word meant. Apparently he doesn't. I stopped reading at the end of the first sentence. I don't need to encourage someone to ignore reality in order to push his uninformed agenda.

Then you missed the part where he addressed the arguments pro and con and made a pretty compelling argument backed up by numbers to support that characterization.



But hey, nobody can make you listen to what you don't want to hear.

. I'm fine hearing truth. This ain't that.

That's quite the judgement from someone who states they didn't read the full article...



If you didn't read the full article, you missed this:

The WCC is dragging down the BYU program (not to mention Gonzaga and Saint Mary’s). The Cougars just finished Year 7 in the league and nothing much has changed. Since leaving the MWC for the WCC, the Cougars have slipped to a level rarely seen at BYU.



How bad is it? The Cougars were reportedly a late addition to the NIT — a sixth seed in an eight-team region. They were, in other words, one of the last picked for a tournament that is no more than a consolation prize for schools that didn’t qualify for the 68-team NCAA Tournament. The Cougars did nothing to show they deserved better. They checked out of the NIT after one game, just as they did last season.



Ignore BYU’s annual 20-win seasons. As noted here previously, it’s an outdated benchmark in the era of 35-game seasons and it’s especially meaningless when you consider the weak schedule BYU plays.



The Cougars ranked 75th in the College Basketball Power Index — just behind South Dakota and Northern Kentucky — and their schedule ranked 103rd. This marks the third time in three years they had to settle for an NIT berth and the fourth time in six years — the worst stretch at BYU since the late '90s (and you’d have to go back to the early '70s to find another like it).



The Cougars have made the NCAA’s field of 64 teams once in the last six years. They have never won the WCC championship, finishing third five times and second twice.

The 20-win benchmark is fools gold. No one else had as many chances to win it against as many sub-200 teams as Rose has had.



34 game seasons between 1970 and the end of the Steve Cleveland era? - 2 out of 35 seasons - 1992-93, 1990-91 (both seasons were 34 games only after conference tourneys and 2 NCAA games).



34 game seasons during Dave Rose era? - 10 out of 12 seasons. The other two seasons were 2005-06 (29 game inaugural season) and 2008-09 (33 games NCAA 1st round exit). Dave Rose gets 34 game seasons with first round conference and NIT exits in the same season.



Yeah, some people want to say that "mediocre" means average, and BYU is #75 out of 347 Division I teams.



They (you?) can go ahead and compare BYU to the teams comprising the America East, Atlantic Sun, Big Sky, Big South, Big West, Colonial Athletic, Horizon League, Metro Atlantic, Missouri Valley, Northeast, Ohio Valley, Patriot League, Southern, Southland, Southwestern, Sunbelt, and Summit League teams and feel good about the status quo because BYU is better than 95% of the Omaha Mavericks and Central Arkansas Bears of the world. And we'll continue to win 20 games every season if we stay in the WCC and play a bunch of losers in schedule-to-win preseason games.



Meanwhile, I'd prefer to compare BYU to the major and mid-major conferences, where BYU ranks in the 3rd quartile over the last 4 seasons -- below the dictionary definition of "mediocre".



You see, average is defined in comparison to something. You keep on comparing our musk to a landfill, and you can convince yourself it smells pretty dang good.

I read the article after you accused me of avoiding things that I don't like. Let's look at what you highlighted ....

The WCC is dragging down the BYU program (not to mention Gonzaga and Saint Mary’s). The Cougars just finished Year 7 in the league and nothing much has changed.

So BYU is simultaneously being drug down, but not changing - how is that even possible?

How bad is it? The Cougars were reportedly a late addition to the NIT — a sixth seed in an eight-team region. They were, in other words, one of the last picked for a tournament that is no more than a consolation prize for schools that didn’t qualify for the 68-team NCAA Tournament..

So we're basing our opinion on a rumor? And it's a stupid opinion at that... BYU, without any seniors, makes it to the NIT and the problem is that they didn't make it in to a higher seed? Come on - this is just lazy writing.

Ignore BYU’s annual 20-win seasons. As noted here previously, it’s an outdated benchmark in the era of 35-game seasons and it’s especially meaningless when you consider the weak schedule BYU plays...

This piece of creative writing is the best. - since BYU joined the WCC the team has averaged 24 wins a season - so mentioning that BYU plays more games, and then taking 4 wins a year away from the team is intellectually dishonest. If he had a valid point he wouldn't have fudged the games per year up and the number of wins per season down.

The Cougars ranked 75th in the College Basketball Power Index — just behind South Dakota and Northern Kentucky — and their schedule ranked 103rd

So his definition of "mediocre" is to have the win total in the top twenty percent and the strength of schedule in the top 30 percent... Clearly that is not what that word means.

And we'll continue to win 20 games every season if we stay in the WCC and play a bunch of losers in schedule-to-win preseason games.

Well, we kind of have to play Utah, they're our rival... Maybe they didn't play UMass, Alabama or Princeton in the pre season, and I only dreamt it this year... (and again, nice job of supporting your position by magically taking 4 wins away from the team this year.)



By the way - you didn't mention these gems...

And yet they have every advantage over the rest of the WCC. It’s not even close.



BYU’s Marriott Center has a seating capacity of 19,000, and fills them night after night.

BYU's average attendance is about 73% of capacity... in seating numbers that's "filling" the seats, but in wins, BYU's win total beats that 73% mark and is somehow considered "mediocre." The inconsistency is glaring.



Also

Well, they’re small, but at least they’re old and outdated and fairly empty on game night.

List of WCC gyms that are outdated - St. Mary's. End of list. Honestly it's like he's never bothered to go to a game. How many WCC gyms have you been to? Living in California I've had the opportunity to go to many of them, and they are just fine.



This one made me laugh pout loud...

With its ties to the LDS Church, BYU has an international reach that no other school in the league (if not the country) can match.

Yep - the Mormon church has everything over the Catholic church - sheer numbers alone dictate that! And the honor code makes recruiting the athletes here EVEN EASIER!



I've got no problem reading things that I don't agree with. I do it for a living. What I have a problem with is wasting my time on lazy intellectually dishonest writing - an that's exactly what this piece was.

Robinson assumes that BYU could go back to the MWC for BB; otherwise why write the piece? But he does not wrestle with the issue of whether it is best for BYU to go back for ALL sports. Not clear the MWC would take BYU back for BB only. And at least to me it is not clear that overall for BYU going back to the MWC is a plus. It might be, but there are real negatives. I did get a chuckle with his statement that BYU has global reach in recruiting athletes and that is an advantage over other schools....we played a St. Mary's this year where 3 or 4 of their starters are Australians....Virtually every WCC team has at least one foreign born player on their team. We have no inside track on foreign athletes

You call it intellectually dishonest. I call you a disingenuous reader and intellectually immature debater.

ABYUFAN wrote:

The WCC is dragging down the BYU program (not to mention Gonzaga and Saint Mary’s). The Cougars just finished Year 7 in the league and nothing much has changed.

So BYU is simultaneously being drug down, but not changing - how is that even possible?

Here's a reading comprehension error. The WCC has not changed. It is an anchor. It is dragging down BYU. One thing doesn't change, but that continues to effect a change on another thing.

How bad is it? The Cougars were reportedly a late addition to the NIT — a sixth seed in an eight-team region. They were, in other words, one of the last picked for a tournament that is no more than a consolation prize for schools that didn’t qualify for the 68-team NCAA Tournament..

So we're basing our opinion on a rumor? And it's a stupid opinion at that... BYU, without any seniors, makes it to the NIT and the problem is that they didn't make it in to a higher seed? Come on - this is just lazy writing.

"Reportedly" as in reported by members of the media. The NIT has autoqualifiers--if you win your regular season conference championship, but do not win an auto-bid to the NCAA in your conference tournament, you get an autobid to the NIT. BYU was a 6-seed --- the lowest seeded non-autoqualifier in the NIT field, meaning they were the last selected, and even that only came because the Georgia players voted to not play in the NIT, opening up a final "at-large" slot for BYU. Do you have anything other than your own opinion to the contrary, or did you just engage in lazy writing?



https://cougarsportswire.com/2018/03/11/byu-basketball-can-thank-georgia-bulldogs-for-2018-nit-bid/

Ignore BYU’s annual 20-win seasons. As noted here previously, it’s an outdated benchmark in the era of 35-game seasons and it’s especially meaningless when you consider the weak schedule BYU plays.[/b]..

This piece of creative writing is the best. - since BYU joined the WCC the team has averaged 24 wins a season - so mentioning that BYU plays more games, and then taking 4 wins a year away from the team is intellectually dishonest. If he had a valid point he wouldn't have fudged the games per year up and the number of wins per season down.

The benchmark used on the other side of the debate has been Rose's string of 20-win seasons, not his average win total.



https://twitter.com/975Hans/status/971766865168076800



https://twitter.com/byu/status/437438723135778816



He's not discounting wins, he's directly addressing the opposing argument.



The 34 game seasons was my own mark--my bad. I think you are mistaking my arguments for his in some cases. To make you feel better about 35 win seasons and how that totally vindicates Rose where 34 game seasons couldn't, here are the 35 game seasons:



1970 through Steve Cleveland = zero.

Dave Rose era = seven.



Oh, wait, that's even worse....

The Cougars ranked 75th in the College Basketball Power Index — just behind South Dakota and Northern Kentucky — and their schedule ranked 103rd

So his definition of "mediocre" is to have the win total in the top twenty percent and the strength of schedule in the top 30 percent... Clearly that is not what that word means.

Yay!!! We're better than a laundry list of conferences and teams no one has ever heard of!!! USA! USA! USAI :roll:

And we'll continue to win 20 games every season if we stay in the WCC and play a bunch of losers in schedule-to-win preseason games.

Well, we kind of have to play Utah, they're our rival... Maybe they didn't play UMass, Alabama or Princeton in the pre season, and I only dreamt it this year... (and again, nice job of supporting your position by magically taking 4 wins away from the team this year.)



By the way - you didn't mention these gems...

UMass.....erm....they ended the season 13-20 and 10th in the A-10 conference.

Alabama......uhhh.....they thumped us.

Princeton? The ended 13-16 and also lost to juggernauts like Dartmouth, Columbia, and Brown.



I'm not sure what you're hoping to gain by reminding me about those games.



If not mentioning "gems" in our non-conference slate disqualifies an argument, how come you didn't bother to bring up Mississippi Valley State, Niagara, Illinois State, or Idaho State? Does that "didn't mention these gems" line cut both ways? Funny thing is, a number of those teams actually put together better seasons than UMass or Princeton.

And yet they have every advantage over the rest of the WCC. It’s not even close.



BYU’s Marriott Center has a seating capacity of 19,000, and fills them night after night.

BYU's average attendance is about 73% of capacity... in seating numbers that's "filling" the seats, but in wins, BYU's win total beats that 73% mark and is somehow considered "mediocre." The inconsistency is glaring.

Again, if you want to include all the turd conferences in the comparison to boost BYU above 73% turdy schools, have at it. I'll stick with comparing BYU to majors and mid-majors.

Some of the stats seem to be abused a bit in this article. For example:

This marks the third time in three years they had to settle for an NIT berth and the fourth time in six years — the worst stretch at BYU since the late '90s (and you’d have to go back to the early '70s to find another like it).

This is in fact the only time in BYU's history that BYU has gone to the NIT in 4 out of 6 seasons.



Now if what he's really talking about is times that BYU made the NCAA tournament 2 times or less out of 6 seasons, you can count the following:



1. 2017-18

2. 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 (a span of 6 seasons where you could have made the same claim or worse at the end of the year, including 4 seasons with no NIT at all)

3. 1985-86, 1986-87

4. 1974-75, 1975-76, 1975-76, 1977-78, 1978-79, 1979-80 (a span of 6 seasons where you could have made the same claim or worse at the end of the year, and not to mention there were 6 years in the 70's with zero appearances in any tournament)



So there are seasons in the 2010's, 2000's, 1990's, 1980's, and 1970's where you could make the claim that BYU has only made the NCAA tournament 2 times or less out of a 6 year period.



To be fair though, the NCAA tournament has expanded over time (32 teams in 1975, 64 teams in 1985, 68 teams in 2011), so making the tournament should theoretically be easier nowadays. I'd be curious to see how many more division 1 basketball programs there are now-a-days compared to the 1960's.

I automatically don't trust anyone that says the WCC gyms are fine. Even my wife who knows very little about sports laughs at their gyms when we see them on TV. Seriously, I've seen small high schools with better gyms.

byufan4ever wrote:

I automatically don't trust anyone that says the WCC gyms are fine. Even my wife who knows very little about sports laughs at their gyms when we see them on TV. Seriously, I've seen small high schools with better gyms.

I'll take the opinion of people who have been to the gyms over those who might have glanced at them on TV

All gym size does is give you a quick and dirty feel of the administrative and fan support of a program.



Small ratty gym = lack of interest and investment.



I don't have to take a road trip to see in person the half-empty wooden bleachers in a high school sized gym I see on TV to make that call.



But, for what it's worth, I've been to nearly every gym in the WCC, and I heartily agree with Robinson and byufan4ever, and I still think they are for the most part minimum-investment facilities that are ratty and small.



Dives work in mexican food and barbeque, but only if the product can impart a sense of nobility to the humble beginnings. That's not the WCC.

Just a few points, and then I'll let it rest. I don't have to be right. I'm fine with people having a different opinion than I do.

snoscythe wrote:

The WCC is dragging down the BYU program (not to mention Gonzaga and Saint Mary’s). The Cougars just finished Year 7 in the league and nothing much has changed.

So BYU is simultaneously being drug down, but not changing - how is that even possible?

Here's a reading comprehension error. The WCC has not changed. It is an anchor. It is dragging down BYU. One thing doesn't change, but that continues to effect a change on another thing..

That's a nice try but it's actually not true. BYU's first year in the WCC it finished 26-9 with a first four NCAA tournament game, and had seniors Noah Hartsock and Charles Abouo. 7 season later, the WCC has "dragged the Cougars Down" to having an NIT game (rather than a first four NCA tourney game - hardly a "dragging down") BYU has no seniors this year. BYU has never missed the post season in the WCC. So I guess that your reading of this piece is that the WCC has "dragged BYU down" to a two game swing between the seasons.



But that still doesn't make any sense. Robinson claims that the WCC has been "dragging down" Gonzaga and St. Mary's. Gonzaga is in it's forth or fifth consecutive Sweet 16. They were in the national championship game last year. How exactly are they being "dragged down"?



St. Mary's was the regular season and tournament champion in BYU's first year. The WCC had three teams in the NCAA's This year, St. Mary's scheduling kept them out of the NCAA tournament, BYU had no business being in the NCAA tournament but you and Robinson think that it's somehow the WCC's fault? Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't - but if one has an eye equally critical to the MWC as to the WCC it is clearly supportable that the MWC is not the answer.



In BYU's first year in the WCC the MWC had four schools in the NCAA tournament in the last three years the MWC has had one team in the tournament twice (each time going 0-1.) Since BYU left the MWC the entire conference has 8 NCAA tournament wins. 8. Total. Just 8.



In that time, the WCC has 18. During BYU's WCC years the WCC has sent one team to the NCAA tournament exactly the same number of times that the MWC has. (despite having fewer schools) If your standard is NCAA tournament wins (not just appearances) then clearly the MWC would be a huge step down. If your goal is just NCAA appearances, then the MWC may arguably have a marginally better chance of getting you there - but it is clearly trending down. Stated another way the MWC would be a bigger anchor than the WCC is and it isn't even close. So if my reading of Robinson's piece is wrong, then so be it. I misread an incorrect premise. He is still wrong.

snoscythe wrote:

How bad is it? The Cougars were reportedly a late addition to the NIT — a sixth seed in an eight-team region. They were, in other words, one of the last picked for a tournament that is no more than a consolation prize for schools that didn’t qualify for the 68-team NCAA Tournament..

So we're basing our opinion on a rumor? And it's a stupid opinion at that... BYU, without any seniors, makes it to the NIT and the problem is that they didn't make it in to a higher seed? Come on - this is just lazy writing.

"Reportedly" as in reported by members of the media. The NIT has autoqualifiers--if you win your regular season conference championship, but do not win an auto-bid to the NCAA in your conference tournament, you get an autobid to the NIT. BYU was a 6-seed --- the lowest seeded non-autoqualifier in the NIT field, meaning they were the last selected, and even that only came because the Georgia players voted to not play in the NIT, opening up a final "at-large" slot for BYU. Do you have anything other than your own opinion to the contrary, or did you just engage in lazy writing?

Well, I'm not actually a writer for a living. If you say that I should only hold a professional writer to the same standards of an anonymous internet poster then we should all be prepared for much much less information being shared. That said, again, he's basing his position on conjecture of something that "might" have actually happened. The fact of the matter is - BYU DID make the NIT this year, irrespective of how close it may have come to not making it, the team did make it. And BYU has made it to the post season in every year that it has been a member of the WCC. That was not the case in the MWC.

snoscythe wrote:

And yet they have every advantage over the rest of the WCC. It’s not even close.



BYU’s Marriott Center has a seating capacity of 19,000, and fills them night after night.

BYU's average attendance is about 73% of capacity... in seating numbers that's "filling" the seats, but in wins, BYU's win total beats that 73% mark and is somehow considered "mediocre." The inconsistency is glaring.

Again, if you want to include all the turd conferences in the comparison to boost BYU above 73% turdy schools, have at it. I'll stick with comparing BYU to majors and mid-majors.

He's the one that brought up the filling the 19,00 seat stadium - not me. I'm assuming that we agree that he is way off the mark on this point.





My final question to you is whether you believe that the problem with BYU basketball is with Dave Rose or the WCC. If it's Dave Rose, how does changing conferences help?

snoscythe wrote:

All gym size does is give you a quick and dirty feel of the administrative and fan support of a program.



Small ratty gym = lack of interest and investment.



I don't have to take a road trip to see in person the half-empty wooden bleachers in a high school sized gym I see on TV to make that call.



But, for what it's worth, I've been to nearly every gym in the WCC, and I heartily agree with Robinson and byufan4ever, and I still think they are for the most part minimum-investment facilities that are ratty and small.



Dives work in mexican food and barbeque, but only if the product can impart a sense of nobility to the humble beginnings. That's not the WCC.

for what it's worth - I disagree...



Here's where I have been and I am aware of no public high school facilities even close to these; each of these site also show much more than "minimal investment"



http://www.usdtoreros.com/facilities/jenny-craig-pavilion.html



https://university-operations.scu.edu/facilities/space-data/building-information/leavey-event-center/



http://aurora-development.com/portfolio/pepperdine-events-center/





http://www.pacifictigers.com/information/facilities/spanos/index



https://www.usfca.edu/virtual-tour/main-campus/war-memorial-gym