Was BYU Dishonest?

Several MWC blogs are accusing BYU of being more unethical than is usual for realignment. I know they're biased and we're biased, but as objectively as you can, was BYU "honest in its dealings with its fellow schools?"



The accusations (including the latest revelations out of Boise State):

- BYU never told the rest of the MWC of their intentions before they leaked

- BYU intentionally put the kibosh on MWC's AQ hopes by orchestrating the $5M WAC buyout deal



My thoughts:

- BYU (and Utah) have been publicly complaining about the mtn/comcast for years. Everyone knew they were looking for any possible way to get out.

- BYU has been mulling independence for years, so the MWC always knew that was a possibility

- Hair's trip East shows that he knew what the issue was and was trying to work out a way to keep BYU (btw has anyone heard what came of that meeting?)

- We just don't know who said what when?



Let's say BYU decided to be transparent, and told the Hair and the MWC prez' in July that they were through with the comcast/mtn deal and wanted broadcast concessions or would soon be developing a plan for independence. Would that have accomplished anything? IIRC, BYU and Utah have made such threats before, and their bluff was always called. I think BYU figured they needed to have the straight flush in hand before going all in. (sorry, can't think of a poker analogy for the UNR/FSU play :-) )

I've voiced it on other threads that the real traiters or duplicitous actors are FSU and Reno. They promised BYU they would work to keep the WAC viable, then bailed at first opportunity.



If BSU fans are complaining that BYU wasn't candid, where does that leave BSU and when they left the WAC? Were they candid up front that they were planning to leave before being invited by the MWC? Did they tell the WAC they were contemplating leaving? Why is BSU's situation different than BYU's?



How did BYU hurt the MWC by requesting evidence of commitment by asking for the $5 million buyout close of all WAC members? Neither FSU nor Reno were part of the MWC at the time so how does that hurt the MWC?



Also, had BYU been transparent, it would have been leaked and BYU would have been blamed for hurting the MWC either way. They are damned if they do, damned if they don't.

bplewe wrote:
Several MWC blogs are accusing BYU of being more unethical than is usual for realignment. I know they're biased and we're biased, but as objectively as you can, was BYU "honest in its dealings with its fellow schools?"



The accusations (including the latest revelations out of Boise State):

- BYU never told the rest of the MWC of their intentions before they leaked

- BYU intentionally put the kibosh on MWC's AQ hopes by orchestrating the $5M WAC buyout deal



My thoughts:

- BYU (and Utah) have been publicly complaining about the mtn/comcast for years. Everyone knew they were looking for any possible way to get out.

- BYU has been mulling independence for years, so the MWC always knew that was a possibility

- Hair's trip East shows that he knew what the issue was and was trying to work out a way to keep BYU (btw has anyone heard what came of that meeting?)

- We just don't know who said what when?



Let's say BYU decided to be transparent, and told the Hair and the MWC prez' in July that they were through with the comcast/mtn deal and wanted broadcast concessions or would soon be developing a plan for independence. Would that have accomplished anything? IIRC, BYU and Utah have made such threats before, and their bluff was always called. I think BYU figured they needed to have the straight flush in hand before going all in. (sorry, can't think of a poker analogy for the UNR/FSU play :-) )

If BYU never told any of the MWC their intentions, then how did it get on CSU's twitter? And wouldn't it be BSU, not BYU, who is responsible for the $5 mil buyout? Imagine that you're a salesman who has been in the game for forty years, building up your client base and making tons of money for your company. You sell three times as much as the rest of the salesmen on staff, but you all get paid the same. You finally decide "Hey, I can buy the product and sell it myself and make a lot bigger of a profit. It will add some complication to my life and make things a little more tricky, but it will make my long years of hard work payoff a lot more because I've already built up my client base." Would it be unethical, sneaky, or backhanded for you to leave the company that was taking advantage of you and go sell on your own? HELL to the NO! It would be business, plain and simple.

- If some of the idiots on rumorboard knew about BYU going independent weeks and even months in advance, Hair Thompson and the rest of the MWC had to have known. BYU didn't just decide to go independent a few days ago



- BYU did not try to bring any MWC teams with them to the WAC



- BYU may have weakened the MWC by leaving, but UNR and FSU literally destroyed their conference and betrayed their conference-mates by leaving the WAC... as well as backstabbed BYU





It is absolutely ASTOUNDING how unfounded and hypocritical the accusations being made toward BYU are right now. If any other team in the conference had done this, there's no way the hate would be as intense. This is just everyone's big excuse to voice their hate towards BYU and the mormon religion.

Question: Was BYU dishonest



Answer: No



Ok, we can lock this thread down now!

Craig Thompson has been dishonest throughout this entire process: http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=166191575996&ref=ts" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Let's assume for a moment that BYU was dishonest. The real question is, was that wrong? And I will contend that, on multiple occasions (Abraham telling people his wife is his sister, Nephi pretending to be Laban, Captain Moroni using strategem to "attempt to deceive the defense", etc.), God has commanded people to be dishonest to further His purposes. I will also contend that if BYU Football wasn't one of those purposes, BYU wouldn't have a football team, or require the head coach to be interviewed by an apostle before hiring him.



If BYU actually was dishonest, you can bet they had a very good reason to be.

If you've ever quit your job to take a better, you know that you don't tell everyone everything. e.g. you wouldn't tell your boss that the real reason you'll be out of the office this Thursday is for an interview with a competitor UNLESS you were just angling him for a raise. QED if you tell you tell your boss you're interviewing elsewhere he'll assume you're trying to play him.



If everyone in the world were your friend and wanted to help you then sure, shout it from the rooftops that you want to go independent. But not everyone in the world is your friend and 99% of the time they're out to get theirs ... from you, if possible. So while it's still important not to become a monster to kill a monster, you'll be dead in a week if you act out some naive version of the ideological high-road.

BYU was not dishonest. Since when is it required that a "business" be completely transparent in all its dealings? When my company at the time bought another chain of jewelery stores, nobody outside the boardroom knew about it. Then "bam" the offer was done, the papers signed and we owned another 100+ stores. Had they told others about it, it would have surely been in the news and I am positive we would have never been able to buy those stores because first their stock would have skyrocketed to an obscene and unrealisitc level, second our main competitor would have lobbied their friends in government to block it as well as taking whatever steps they could to block it, and third people in that chain could have set things up such that they could have made their business much less appealing. So tell me was that a dishonest thing to do? H E double toothpick NO. The same goes for BYU, Hair and the rest knew BYU was very unhappy with having to put up with the paltry amounts that the MWC was bringing in and now with Utah getting a HUGE raise to their ahtletic programs, BYU MUST act to stay viable. And now with this little stunt perpetrated by Hair involving FSU and NEV, he probably forced BYU to leave. Now the take home is going to be even less for all those who remain. The MWC has been an anchor on BYU for far too long and now they act indignant. When someone calls you something it isn't true unless you make it true. So for teams labled mid-major many are now living up to that moniker.

Italics wrote:
It is absolutely ASTOUNDING how unfounded and hypocritical the accusations being made toward BYU are right now. If any other team in the conference had done this, there's no way the hate would be as intense. This is just everyone's big excuse to voice their hate towards BYU and the mormon religion.

Word. It's just like anything else, like Utah fans not taking exception with BYU's lack of "Academic Freedom", or the Pac10 thinking BYU wouldn't be a good fit "culturally", or Baptists in Tennessee not wanting a Mosque in their town because Islam "doesn't promote women's rights", or, or, or.

CougarPeasant wrote:
If BSU fans are complaining that BYU wasn't candid, where does that leave BSU and when they left the WAC? Were they candid up front that they were planning to leave before being invited by the MWC? Did they tell the WAC they were contemplating leaving? Why is BSU's situation different than BYU's

BSU wasn't working backroom deals. The WAC has known for years BSU's intentions to leave to the MWC when given the opportunity. The problem for BSU is that it required an invite. They couldn't just leave with nowhere to go. The fact that this all came out for BYU through a CSU leak makes it appear extremely dishonest. Whether it was or not "avoid the appearance of evil".



And btw, I have never seen such rediculous justifications in my life!



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

BTIB wrote:
I have never seen such rediculous justifications in my life!

For what it's worth, I've never seen such ridiculous spelling in my life. Well, except for comments on YouTube videos... ;)

I don't know that BYU did anything dishonest necessarily but I found this post in the reader comments in the Trib interesting-



The WAC (and to a lesser extent BYU) better be watching its back. If they pursue the buyouts from the two schools they may well be looking at a tortious interference lawsuit. If you look at the facts believed to be known at this point you have the WAC colluding with BYU, requesting a buyout clause from its member schools on BYU's behalf. Mind you BYU is not a member of the WAC. It seems pretty obvious that the WAC owes a greater duty to protect the interests of its member schools than it does the interests of BYU. It should be fun to see where this goes.



What do our attorney friends on the board think of this take?

MTM wrote:
I don't know that BYU did anything dishonest necessarily but I found this post in the reader comments in the Trib interesting-



The WAC (and to a lesser extent BYU) better be watching its back. If they pursue the buyouts from the two schools they may well be looking at a tortious interference lawsuit. If you look at the facts believed to be known at this point you have the WAC colluding with BYU, requesting a buyout clause from its member schools on BYU's behalf. Mind you BYU is not a member of the WAC. It seems pretty obvious that the WAC owes a greater duty to protect the interests of its member schools than it does the interests of BYU. It should be fun to see where this goes.



What do our attorney friends on the board think of this take?

I'm no attorney, but I'm pretty sure that the buyout clause could easily be argued to be for the protection of ALL the members of the WAC, as they were at the 8 team minimum for football. Losing any of them puts the conference at risk of folding. The one that leaves would benefit greatly compared to all the others, and the buyout would soften the blow. Plus, the WAC staying together would have given the conference the added benefit of potentially adding BYU - without the buyout clause, it was less likely that they would reap that benefit together when the MWC counterattacked. The WAC was acting in its interest and the interest of its members when it tried to put this deal together, even if you take BYU completely out of the equation.

"BYU is dishonest"



The people who make comments like this, are those whose school doesn't have options, like we do. ;)

MTM wrote:
I don't know that BYU did anything dishonest necessarily but I found this post in the reader comments in the Trib interesting-



The WAC (and to a lesser extent BYU) better be watching its back. If they pursue the buyouts from the two schools they may well be looking at a tortious interference lawsuit. If you look at the facts believed to be known at this point you have the WAC colluding with BYU, requesting a buyout clause from its member schools on BYU's behalf. Mind you BYU is not a member of the WAC. It seems pretty obvious that the WAC owes a greater duty to protect the interests of its member schools than it does the interests of BYU. It should be fun to see where this goes.



What do our attorney friends on the board think of this take?

I am an attorney and I;d say their is ZERO chance this type of suit happens. Karl Benson already said the WAC will not pursue any legal claims against BYU, and no one else could. The MWC certainly could not. This is a non-starter.

Lawboy wrote:

I don't know that BYU did anything dishonest necessarily but I found this post in the reader comments in the Trib interesting-



The WAC (and to a lesser extent BYU) better be watching its back. If they pursue the buyouts from the two schools they may well be looking at a tortious interference lawsuit. If you look at the facts believed to be known at this point you have the WAC colluding with BYU, requesting a buyout clause from its member schools on BYU's behalf. Mind you BYU is not a member of the WAC. It seems pretty obvious that the WAC owes a greater duty to protect the interests of its member schools than it does the interests of BYU. It should be fun to see where this goes.



What do our attorney friends on the board think of this take?

I am an attorney and I;d say their is ZERO chance this type of suit happens. Karl Benson already said the WAC will not pursue any legal claims against BYU, and no one else could. The MWC certainly could not. This is a non-starter.

I entered into an agreement to buy a car. Two days later I decided I didn't like the payments a different dealer had the same car for less money, and he'd throw in oil changes for life. But because I already bought my car I couldn't take advantage of the second offer.... sounds like grounds for a tortious interference suit according to this genius :roll: :whistle:

I think BYU was FINALLY honest with themselves and the MWC.

They were finally honest that they think the MWC does not look out for BYU.

They were finally honest that the Mountain Television Network is a bad network that does not provide BYU with commensurate coverage.

They were finally honest that more than half the conference has been riding BYU's coattails for the last 40 years.

They were finally honest that the money they make from the MWC is considerably less than they could make on their own - even if it was just a local tv deal.

They were finally honest with their fans that it was time to put BYU's interests ahead of Utah's, Utah State's and other schools in the region.

They were finally honest that BYU has the capability to take care of themselves.

They were finally honest that other schools throughout the region will still want to play BYU and that scheduling wouldn't be as daunting as it's being portrayed.

They were finally honest that BYU can more on its own than can with the MWC.



If anything BYU has been nothing BUT honest. And it should be pointed out that BYU hasn't said much of anything. Why? Because they don't want to be dishonest. The situation is not set in stone and the dynamics can still change. So in order to prevent false and dishonest information from being disseminated by BYU, they are choosing to stay honest by staying silent.

BTIB wrote:

If BSU fans are complaining that BYU wasn't candid, where does that leave BSU and when they left the WAC? Were they candid up front that they were planning to leave before being invited by the MWC? Did they tell the WAC they were contemplating leaving? Why is BSU's situation different than BYU's

BSU wasn't working backroom deals. The WAC has known for years BSU's intentions to leave to the MWC when given the opportunity. The problem for BSU is that it required an invite. They couldn't just leave with nowhere to go. The fact that this all came out for BYU through a CSU leak makes it appear extremely dishonest. Whether it was or not "avoid the appearance of evil".



And btw, I have never seen such rediculous justifications in my life!



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

Yay, another 17 year old ute troll on the board :roll:

Schmoe wrote:

CougarPeasant wrote:
If BSU fans are complaining that BYU wasn't candid, where does that leave BSU and when they left the WAC? Were they candid up front that they were planning to leave before being invited by the MWC? Did they tell the WAC they were contemplating leaving? Why is BSU's situation different than BYU's

BSU wasn't working backroom deals. The WAC has known for years BSU's intentions to leave to the MWC when given the opportunity. The problem for BSU is that it required an invite. They couldn't just leave with nowhere to go. The fact that this all came out for BYU through a CSU leak makes it appear extremely dishonest. Whether it was or not "avoid the appearance of evil".



And btw, I have never seen such rediculous justifications in my life!



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

Yay, another 17 year old ute troll on the board :roll:

Actually I think he's a Boise State Donkey troll.



Not much difference.