The Pac-10 Cannot Expand Without Both Utah and BYU
by T Kyle King on Feb 14, 2010 5:00 AM EST
in Football
117 comments
Since I raised the issue of Big Ten expansion last night, I suppose it’s only fair that I mention the much more immediate likelihood of Pac-10 expansion while I’m at it. There has been talk to the effect that it’s Colorado or it’s no one, but I disagree, for three reasons. These are they:
1. With Missouri strongly in play as a Big Ten expansion candidate, the Big 12 cannot afford to lose Colorado. Since neither Notre Dame nor Texas represents a viable option for the Midwestern BCS league, the Big Ten’s best bets are Missouri and Pittsburgh. While the Panthers make the most sense in many respects, Mizzou offers the only sensible geographic fit. The Big 12, knowing it soon may have to replace one of its member institutions, cannot countenance dropping down to ten teams.
Since the Pac-10 is likely to try poaching Colorado before the Big Ten is prepared to make what almost assuredly would be a successful push to add the Show Me State to its coverage area, the Big 12’s top priority must be to keep the Buffaloes in the fold. Despite the desirability of the St. Louis media market, Colorado would be both easier and more important to retain in the current conference.
The border war between Kansas and Missouri means a great deal to both schools, but the Jayhawks already have a natural conference rival in Kansas State. This is not the case for Nebraska, which annually ends the season in a widely-televised Thanksgiving game against the Buffaloes and does not have another natural rivalry of national significance now that the divisional split has divorced the Cornhuskers from the Sooners.
Missouri is not new to the conference, as the Tigers joined in 1928 what was to become the Big Eight, but the program is nouveau riche, having until recently been noteworthy mostly as a doormat and as a stepping stone for coaches such as Frank Broyles, Dan Devine, and (egad!) Woody Widenhofer. Despite toiling in the Mountain States Conference until 1948, Colorado has since the late 1980s been by far the superior program. The Big 12 would be better off with the Buffs and better able to keep Colorado from bolting, which is bad news for the Pac-10.
2. Structurally, the Pac-10 is predicated upon paired rivalries. If the Pacific Coast conference operated in a vacuum, bringing in Colorado and Utah might make the most sense . . . but Pac-10 expansion is occurring not in a vacuum, but in a context. That context is this:
Cal-Stanford. UCLA-USC. Oregon-Oregon State. Washington-Washington State. Since 1978, Arizona-Arizona State. Northern California, Southern California, Oregon, Washington, and Arizona are represented in pairs. Bringing in Colorado and Utah in tandem with one another would represent a stark departure from every previous move the Pac-10 has made.
A BYU-Utah pairing, by contrast, would be perfectly consistent with the league’s past practices and a natural extension of the course the conference charted when the Sun Devils and the Wildcats were brought on board. Tossing the Buffaloes and the Utes into the mix with the current Pac-10 would create a jumble, whereas inviting both major Beehive State programs would create a seamless transition. After a series of public relations disasters for the league, from the recalcitrance to surrender its hold on the Rose Bowl to a series of bad postseason tie-ins and television contracts, the Pac-10 needs to handle expansion professionally and correctly. Too many questions are raised by the issue of what to do with Colorado and Utah.
3. The Pac-10 cannot afford to leave the Mountain West in a viable position to become a BCS automatic qualifier. Let’s not kid ourselves; Pac-10 expansion has been a part of the college football conversation for a while now, but what pushed that issue to the front burner was the MWC’s strong push for full-fledged major-conference status. After decades of hegemony as the West’s only top-tier power, the Pac-10 is not prepared to share its stature with an upstart league inside its own geographic footprint.
That makes it imperative that the Pacific Coast conference completely undermine the Mountain West’s chance at joining the big boys formally. The Pac-10’s addition must be the Mountain West’s subtraction, and not just because "if you can’t beat ‘em, get ‘em to join you" represents a sensible maxim for bolstering the Pac-10’s reputation.
The loss of Utah alone would wound the MWC, but not fatally. If BYU and TCU remained, the Mountain West would be in a position to snag Boise State from the WAC and perhaps Houston from Conference USA to keep the dominant mid-major league’s permanent BCS bowl hopes very much alive. A bigger and better Pac-10 would not be better off having to share Bowl Championship Series status with a bigger and better Mountain West.
If, on the other hand, the Pac-10 poached both Brigham Young and Utah from its neighboring mid-major conference, the Broncos would have far less incentive to leave the WAC for the Mountain West. The departures of two of the MWC’s top three programs might even signal the death of the league and allow the Western Athletic Conference to reabsorb what remained of value in the Mountain West, which spun off from a WAC to which Texas Christian belonged for the five years just prior to the turn of the 21st century.
The Pac-10 cannot merely injure the Mountain West as a potential BCS competitor; the Pac-10 must land a killing blow. Poaching Utah would leave a scar, but BYU must be grabbed, as well, if the West Coast league intends to remain the only perennial BCS power on the block. Cultural and religious objections to the inclusion of Brigham Young will not be enough to overwhelm the Pac-10’s justified fear of a Mountain West with a guaranteed major bowl slot.
At the end of the day, the addition of BYU and Utah would be easier, would perpetuate the league’s traditional practices, and would keep the MWC at bay. Bringing in Colorado would be tougher, would represent a break with the past that carried a whole host of difficulties, and would fail to address the threat that moved conference expansion to the front burner in the first place. If the Pac-12 does not include both the Cougars and the Utes, there is no good reason why it should not remain the Pac-10.
Go ‘Dawgs!
0 recs |
117 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Some really good points about the Pac 10s strategy in expansion. As a TCU fan, I hope that Colorado and Mizzou both bolt and Arkansas decides to stay put. However, I don’t think there’s much chance of that happening, so keeping the MWC together for long enough to get the BCS qualification is the key.
Looks like I missed one:
I tried to do a fairly comprehensive survey of the discussions going on in the blogosphere, but it appears I missed linking to this one.
Evidently, great minds think alike. My bad for missing it.
Go 'Dawgs!
This whole thing....
is fascinating to me. Not because I care about the Pac 1 + 9 or the Big Ten(11), but because of the domino effect if either of them actually pull this off, especially snagging a Big 12 team. If a Big 12 team goes, I would think that Arkansas will be getting a call from Big 12 officials within 5 minutes. Which of course opens up a whole new can of worms. So then the SEC poaches someone, maybe Clemson. That leaves an opening for the ACC, etc, etc.
That being said, I’ll believe either of these self-important conferences expands when I see it. Both of them love them some them and are going to act like they are doing someone a favor by letting them join their conference. BYU to the Pac 10 is as culturally a bad fit as you can get. Colorado has a hell of a lot more in common with Berkley and UCLA than BYU does.
The irony in all this is that as far as deciding a conference champion, the Pac 10’s round robin set up is actually the most fair.
The Pac “1+9” has 114 NCAA team national titles. How many does yer conference have? UCLA alone is the only school with over 100.
oops
Little typo there that should read 414 national titles, and I’ll save you the trouble of looking it up. UGA has 37 team national titles and the SEC has 168
Good save
We were all running to google to see how many women’s crew and fencing titles we had lying around. Forget Pac-10 expansion. You should just go into the next TV negotiations and demand to get paid like a champion. See how that works out for you.
by GwinnettGamecock on Feb 15, 2010 12:29 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Yikes.
Granted, the “Pac 1 + 9” bit is more than a little unfair, even when seen in the obvious light of a comment addressed to football only (and not to any of the 414 national team titles boasted by Pac 10 schools). And I’ll further grant that, once you eliminate UCLA’s 40 or so national championships won for sports in which UGA doesn’t even field teams, it’s still a lot.
But you raise an interesting point: conference alignment is, in fact, more than football. We tend to get a little single-minded in this part of the world.
That's true . . .
. . . but the Pac-10 needs to lighten up more than a little bit. The fact that Stanford is a Directors’ Cup powerhouse proves how silly the Directors’ Cup is.
Here is where Brian Cook’s point about SEC recruiting rankings needs to be applied to Pac-10 championship claims: learn to divide. You can’t simply look at the number of championships in isolation; you have to look at the number of sports in which those schools field teams to see how competitive they are on a team-by-team basis. Outside of men’s basketball, Georgia, for one, is faring pretty well by that reckoning.
Also, “NCAA team championships” is a nifty sleight of hand for avoiding counting national championships won in football, the engine that drives virtually all sports programs.
Go 'Dawgs!
Fencing!
And hey, I think Vandy won an NCAA championship in women’s bowling a few years ago. Seriously.
by NCT on Feb 14, 2010 7:19 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
They did!
Vandy won the bowling title in 2007, meaning they won a title before Ole Miss.
All-time Recognized NCAA Titles (all sports):
Vandy – 1
Ole Miss – 0
Sorry, that’s just funny.
Fake Pundit. Real Fan.
http://www.andthevalleyshook.com
Ha!
And in a comparison that’s more meaningful to me from a geographical (and rivalry (rivalrous?)) standpoint, Vandy has as many NCAA team championships as Georgia Tech, which won their first and only such championship in women’s tennis, also in 2007. And Tech won theirs on UGA’s campus in a season in which their team lost the only head-to-head match with Georgia.
I can always find a way.
Eh.
If the Pac 10 grabs Colorado and Utah, and the Big Ten grabs Mizzou, then I don’t think the Pac 10 needs to be worried about the MWC at all, because the Big 12 will grab the MWC powers they don’t to get back up to 12… which probably dooms the WAC indirectly as the top of the conference bolts to get the MWC to 9 to 12 schools.
I just have to agree with the dominant position
BYU will never get the invite, because its both a small religious themed university, and it is not known as a high quality academic school. I just don’t see BYU getting the invite. It makes sense, but when was the Pac-10/Big-10 all about rationality?
um ...
[BYU] is not known as a high quality academic school.
For all the talk about the Pac 10’s high academic standards and with all due respect to most of the league (esp. Stanford, Cal, Washington) … that ain’t exactly the Harvard of the Pacific Northwest they’re runnin’ up there in Corvallis.
Exactly
BYU is a better school than it is given credit for being, as ably demonstrated here.
The Pac-10 lost the right to raise this argument more than three decades ago. Arizona’s and Arizona State’s 1978 academic standards weren’t exactly up there with Cal’s and Stanford’s.
Go 'Dawgs!
Fair enough
But if Emory (who I grant is much, much less religiously focused than it ever was previously) wanted into the SEC, would you say yes?
Or how about Liberty?
No, but that would be based on athletic quality, not on religious background
As a Methodist, I have plenty of theological differences with the Latter-Day Saints. However, when Georgia agreed to play a football game against BYU in the early ‘80s, we weren’t asking the Cougars to get us into Heaven, we were asking them to send their football team to Athens to face our football team.
I don’t see where the two things have anything to do with one another. “We would like our athletic teams to compete with your athletic teams on the field of play on a regular basis under the aegis of a common organizing body” simply isn’t the same thing as, or even related to, “We agree with your political and philosophical views.”
I would think that, right now, while the Olympics are going on, it would be more apparent than ever to everyone that agreeing to play against each other in sports has no bearing upon our political, religious, and other differences.
Go 'Dawgs!
You Do Realize
that BYU encourages its students to leave for two years and distribute a thoroughly racist text and testify of its veracity? I am fully confident that you condemn such actions.
by Brian Rostron on Feb 14, 2010 11:24 PM EST up reply actions
BTW
Did you notice that the LDS church set up a stake (their mission centers) in Africa recently? Interesting. I wonder how they will explain the inherent racism of the movement’s founder through the mid 70’s here in the United States away when they view those cursed by God and attempt to convert them (that was their position, not mine)?
BTW
Actually the LDS church is one of the fastest growing faiths in Africa. and I’m afraid that you your “objective” analysis about the racism isn’t exactly inline with the biggest academic conference on Mormonism held at the smithsonian institute several years ago.
The movements founder was not racist, opposed slavery and ordained black priests. Hear it from black members themselves www.blacklds.org.
by Dustin Draper on Feb 19, 2010 7:11 PM EST up reply actions
Comp. Lit. Major
This message board is really comical to me. Did you know that BYU has the #1 undergraduate Comparative Literature program in the country according to ACLA (American Comparative Literature Association). as a product of this program I think I can speak with a little intellectual experience about the Book of Mormon. It’s not racist, in fact it promotes exactly the opposite claim. The thing is you have to read the whole book before you draw any conclusions about race in the book. Just because the book describes racial segregation doesn’t make it racist. Actually the dark skinned people in the book in the end were the more righteous group.
by Dustin Draper on Feb 19, 2010 7:19 PM EST up reply actions
Validation comes in many forms
No one did anything with the South Africans during apartheid. I would want similarly no interaction with groups I deem socially dangerous. I have no interesting in playing Scientology’s eventual football team (the Fightin’ Thetans) either.
Many schools in the Pac-10 may not want to enter into a contract with a group prone to making boneheaded political moves that draws massive scorn (i.e., the massive response against LDS involvement in California’s Prop 8), especially when their alumni are generally viewed (as you so succinctly put it re: California’s faculty) as liberal hippy-dippy types who are prone to boycotting.
This, and other comments like this throughout this thread...
… come dangerously close to the line where you have crossed over from merely criticizing an institution (and a group of religious adherents as a whole) based on a political stance to blatantly advocating discrimination against them based on their religious beliefs.
Though I do know quite a bit about Mormonism, I cannot speak intelligently on whether or not its religious teachings are racially discriminatory. I suspect that if they were spreading racially-motivated propaganda during the civil rights era in the United States, though, it was likely to be no worse than such propaganda being preached from many mainstream Protestant Christian pulpits during the same time. It’s also worth noting that even if you were referring to the 1870’s in your earlier comment, the movement’s founder, Joe Smith, was no longer alive during that time.
(I also suspect that if the LDS church as a whole were openly discriminating against racial minorities, they would not be allowed to participate in NCAA-sponsored athletic events.)
I’m not an administrator of this site, and I shun political discussion on a sports blog just like Kyle does. I take exception, however, to your inflammatory, accusatory comments, followed by the suggestion that an entire group of people should be excluded from society because of their religious beliefs. We live in America, Jack.
by vineyarddawg on Feb 15, 2010 1:40 AM EST up reply actions
Well
The good thing about our country is that there is nothing illegal or wrong with criticizing a religion. Freedom of religion means we have the freedom to criticize what we see as wrong or illogical. Just like I disdain much of the SBC for its backwards political and social views, I can express my dislike of the LDS church for its history of intolerance and organized opposition to social progress (take that for what you will).
However, my point about the LDS church and its history of racism is not meant to be inflammatory or accusatory, but factual. While I am admittedly no expert on the LDS church itself, I have spent time studying it, along with my specialty (Early Gnosticism and its impact on the Gospel of John, yeah, that’s right). If you examine most objective studies of the history of the LDS church, they will discuss the fact that the church as a historical entity was unabashedly racist for the majority of its history. Fortunately for its modern conception, in roughly (I’m not getting the book off the shelf for this) the 1970’s, the then Prophet (an office akin to the leader of the church, like the Pope in Catholicism) had a revelation one night wherein God told him that African-descended peoples were no longer to be excluded from the Priesthood (the title for all male, initiated believers). Prior to this, however, there was no entrance for the people the church saw as lesser human beings.
Now, regardless of its history, the fact is also that the modern LDS church is no longer a discriminatory body. This is a clear fact. An analogy (and only that, this is solely meant to be an EXTREMELY clear statement) to my original point would be something similar to a National Socialist party rising in prominence in Germany today. Were Jewish Germans to join, they would obviously have to consider the history of a group with that name before deciding whether the modern version was worthy of their membership. They would weigh the past transgressions of a party against its modern form before deciding. Similarly, any people of non-European (although really the idea is they’re Jewish descended) descent obviously need to weigh the sins of the LDS church in the past against the good it may be doing today (and I do not discount the work that LDS missionaries do in the world, either).
Gospel of John
But isn’t John the most “divine” of the four? I mean, it was pretty clear that its author was aiming at the heart of Jewish theology from the beginning (so to speak) when he used the same words as the existing holy scripture. And for me, when I was making the transition (-ish) back to Christianity from Buddhism, John was by far the most challenging. I found Mary’s and Thomas’s gospels much easier to digest.
My apologies for the deviation.
On point, I’m awfully suspicious of the LDS church (and, by extension, BYU), myself, for many of the same reasons I’m suspicious of ORU and Liberty. I think a distinction can be made between the politically leftward leanings of a university’s faculty and a mission statement of another that gets interpreted to suppress open expression of ideas, even though there may be analogous overlap.
I have my doubts
John’s position in the early church is extremely fragile, with a noticable lack of commentaries on John from “accepted” church fathers until roughly the 180’s. However, Valentinian sources had begun commenting on John much earlier, and there is much debate about whether or not the author of John came from a community that eventually fractured into two halves, one proto-orthodox and one proto-gnostic. Most of this comes from the massive amount of similarity between John’s language and the language used by some gnostic groups to describe the transcendent, non-corporal Jesus they believed in. John, as you mention, has long been known as the “divine” gospel, and it’s this quality that causes the most trouble, since the Synoptic seem to avoid using terms so highly Christological about Jesus (save for Mark, who debatably has the 2nd highest christology behind John).
Also
It doesn’t hurt that the Johannine letters depict a group of believers attempting to twist the Evangelist’s words. This may have been an early effort to fight what became a heretical movement.
For the record . . .
. . . I didn’t call the Cal faculty “liberal hippy-dippy types.” I quoted your reference to Pac-10 faculty as having been caricatured as cardboard cutouts of hippies taped to ACLU cards, or suchlike.
Go 'Dawgs!
In this case
I didn’t say you did, I said “generally.” And I think the general perception of teachers is often as liberal stereotypes. But I did not say you said that.
I think there is an obvious reason
Kyle believes this should not be an issue, while leaders of some Pac-10 schools reportedly believe it to be a dealbreaker. There is a sense of cultural elitism attached to some beliefs which seems to overwhelm any respect for diversity of opinion.
Even within the college football blogosphere, it is increasingly clear that many blogs which hint of left of center political views are much less tolerant of divergent political views and less consistent in their treatment of political posts than blogs which hint of right of center views.
by GwinnettGamecock on Feb 15, 2010 12:41 AM EST up reply actions
I think Larry Summers might have something to say . . .
. . . about respect for diverse viewpoints at elite academic institutions such as Harvard.
Go 'Dawgs!
Interesting counterpoint
This article may not help the argument that Utah should be in over BYU, but still, this has got to say something: http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-utah-school15-2010feb15,0,906102.story
When 12th grade is optional…
There are major problems with high school as presently constituted
I don’t know that eliminating the twelfth grade is a solution, but the state of American education is such, and the studies showing the flaws in many of the assumptions about the scheduling and institutional arrangements of high school which we hold sacred merely because we have always done it that way are so numerous, that radical proposals to alter education cannot be dismissed out of hand.
Go 'Dawgs!
I don’t know that eliminating the twelfth grade is a solution either, but my father went to school in GA when there were only eleven grades. I mentioned this to a brilliant teacher of mine and he said that the 12th grade was mostly unnecessary. This surprised me, because he was such an advocate of book learnin.’
by Vinings Dog on Feb 15, 2010 11:29 PM EST up reply actions
Also, for what it's worth . . .
. . . the third year of law school used to be optional, too. I’m not entirely convinced that the legal profession has been markedly improved by the gradual pushing back of eligibility to sit for the bar exam (my class was the first that had to wait until after graduation before taking the bar) or by the general transition away from apprenticeship as the fundamental basis for legal education. A great deal of learning occurs outside of classrooms, including most of the preparation for life.
Go 'Dawgs!
I don't know that this is necessarily a bad idea
It was my experience as both a student and HS teacher that JR year widely acknowledged as the most challenging year of school, while SR year was a chance to relax and focus on college applications. I took one serious class as a SR, and I was a good enough student to earn several scholarship opportunities. While I get the argument for further social development and maturation, a significant number of students are academically prepared for college after their JR year of high school.
by GwinnettGamecock on Feb 15, 2010 7:57 PM EST up reply actions
Maybe.
I’m sure I could have completed my “core curriculum” in three years of high school (especially considering I fell into a gap when students in Georgia weren’t especially encouraged to take a foreign language, and I didn’t). But I am very grateful that I doubled up on math one year, took an extra year of chemistry, added music theory, and used up an additional period of each day for various music classes and yearbook staff. Ah, my inner Type A is so long gone (he writes on a college football blog when he should be working).
You know they aren't really eliminating it
Just encouraging students to finish up in 3 years. I don’t see how that’s a bad idea. Hell they already give scholarships to students that do that.
by commodore_dude on Feb 16, 2010 10:55 AM EST up reply actions
Not quite right
Might want to fact check…
“small religious themed university” Enrollment runs about 34K. I dont think that small by any university standards (larger than UofA, WSU, Oregon, OSU). Religiously themed ok.
“not known as a high quality academic school”
According to US News and World Reports BYU is a Tier 1 school ranked #71 or ranking places exactly in the middle of the PAC with only Stanford, UCLA, USC, Washington, & Cal ranking higher.
BTW the JD and MBA programs are both highly ranked and respected.
So at the end of the day BYU may not be the best choice for the PAC 10 but dont dismiss them because of size or academics.
by Jarrett Hamilton on Feb 15, 2010 12:44 AM EST up reply actions
Fair enough
The last thing I saw stated that enrollment was closer to 20k. If they’re truly that large, then that argument is obviously wrong.
The academic portion is, as has repeatedly been pointed out, meant to reference their status as a non-research facility. This is the part I think that is more clearly in the minds of the Pac-10 people who dismiss BYU out of hand. I’m not sure what the difference is, truly, when as many have also pointed out, Arizona and ASU are not (from what I’ve been told) high quality academic institutions, either.
BYU is actually an excellent academically
BYU actually ranks very high academically, higher than many schools in the PAC 10. It is considered a research institution according to Carnegie (very high research activity). But it isn’t designed as a primary research school. Its designed as an undergraduate school to farm students out to graduate schools. But it does very well academically. Its incoming freshman have the same ACT and GPA score averages as Berkeley.
by Dustin Draper on Feb 19, 2010 7:05 PM EST up reply actions
2 things
BYU’s Business and Law schools rank among the top 50 in the nation, and within those programs some of the degrees rank #1. They don’t have a medical school but to say they aren’t quality is half retarded.
While it is a religious school it’s anything but small. BYU holds 30,000+ students a semester and because of their religion being nationwide they have a great footprint of fans everywhere.
by vaughnzipper on Feb 20, 2010 9:51 AM EST up reply actions
On the other hand...
… if the Pac10 actually did successfully pursue Utah and Colorado, followed by a Big 10 pilfering of Missou, it could possibly open the Big 12 up to one of those radical realignments that could really drive increased traffic to SBNation, if you know what I mean.
This is how I see it going down if the Big 12 loses both Colorado and Missou:
- About 30 seconds after Missou leaves, Dan Beebe (Big 12 commish, assuming he’s not fired for losing 2 teams) picks up the phone and offers to back up an armored car full of unmarked bills to the athletic offices in Fayetteville, along with a possible promise to cede some land in Oklahoma and Texas to the state of Arkansas if they break ranks in the SEC to come to the Nouveau Big 12.
- Unless they want to make a highly improbable run at Boise State, the only other likely alternative for the new twelfth team would be Texas Christian.
- Adding two teams that fall below the current North/South line would require a redrawing of division lines, which could lead to the following divisions (listed alphabetically):
Big 12 North
Iowa State
Kansas
Kansas State
Nebraska
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Big 12 South
Arkansas
Baylor
TCU
Texas
Texas A&M
Texas Tech
This would renew the annual Oklahoma/Nebraska rivalry, keep the Bedlam rivalry intact for OU, and as long as Texas is their permanent rival from the south, the Red River Shootout is also preserved. It also makes the Big 12 North suddenly respectable again, which is something everyone in Big 12 country would should welcome.
This would leave an opening in the SEC, which could be filled by… wait for it… Clemson. Clemson joins the SEC East, Tennessee is realigned to the SEC West, and everyone is happy.
Of course, Arkansas could be replaced by Houston, which would still make for a good Big 12 lineup. That would not get Clemson into the SEC, though… so I very much prefer the former option.
Well, then...
… upon further reflection, I find that I have posted a comment that’s all about the Big 12 and the SEC in a Pac 10 expansion thread. How’s that for east coast bias?
by vineyarddawg on Feb 14, 2010 2:03 PM EST up reply actions
I'd love to see that happen
Even Ken Hatfield knew that trading Arkansas for Clemson was a step up, and he was an Arkansas alum.
However, everyone in the Natural State is thrilled at the Hogs’ SEC affiliation, and a depleted Big 12 wouldn’t be able to offer the one thing that would make the Razorbacks make the great leap backward: money.
It’d be great, but, alas, it won’t happen.
Go 'Dawgs!
Why
Would Tennessee be in the West and Vanderbilt in the East? That doesn’t make any sense. More-better (as they say) to move Kentucky west.
Tennessee's natural rivals are in the West
The Volunteers have much, much more history with Alabama and Auburn than with Georgia and Florida. The Plainsmen likewise have as much tradition with Georgia and Florida as with any Western Division team other than Alabama, and I would stake the Bulldogs’ rivalry with Auburn against the Crimson Tide’s rivalry with Auburn any day of the week and twice on Saturday. (I hate Auburn.)
The case for that proposition was made here.
Go 'Dawgs!
I didn't see that you had replied...
… by the time I got around to actually pressing the “post” button. We both agree, though… Big Creamsicle belongs in the west.
by vineyarddawg on Feb 14, 2010 8:53 PM EST up reply actions
Still
Doesn’t mean we should be like the Big Tweleven. Just because they can’t count and society is okay with it doesn’t mean we should ignore geography.
Some degree of ignoring geography is compulsory
There’s no way to draw a straight north-south line that divides the conference both evenly and sensibly. Competitive balance and historic rivalries matter, too, especially since Arkansas is our only true outlier in terms of travel distance.
Go 'Dawgs!
Kyle has discussed this at great length in the past...
… but the short answer is that most of Tennessee’s natural ties are to the western division. It might not be geographically correct, but Tennessee’s biggest rival historically has always been Alabama, and they had played Auburn, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, and LSU with far greater frequency than they had played Georgia or Florida prior to 1992. In fact, prior to 1992, Big Orange had played Georgia Tech (43 times) more than twice as much as the Red and Black (20 times).
by vineyarddawg on Feb 14, 2010 8:49 PM EST up reply actions
Truthfully
This is what made the Tech people playing Rocky Top in 2007 as we left the stadium even more maddening. They were a huge rival, and now Tech fans were playing their fight song to rub in our missing out on the championship game (after we beat Tech, too). Such a frustrating move by the Tech fans.
It's par for the course
Don’t expect logic or historical knowledge from the folks who run the band or the scoreboard at Bobby Dodd Stadium. They’re like the St. Simons guy over at the Journal-Constitution website . . . it’s “45-42” when they win and “11-2” when they don’t.
Go 'Dawgs!
BYU will never get a Pac-10 invite
Even beyond the legitimate academic arguments (sorry, but they are nowhere near being on the same plane as Utah or Colorado), nobody is going to accommodate them not being willing to play on Sundays, and the loonies in the bay area will sure as hell never go for it. I think BYU has a shot at a Big 12 invite to replace Colorado, but only if they’re unable to add any more Texas schools – TCU, Houston and SMU all make much more sense. The MWC will be hurting if they lose more than 1 school after the AQ conferences expand, but I think they can still swing it if they choose wisely in expanding to 12.
What are you basing the (lack of) academic arguments on?
According to US News, BYU is ranked #71 among National Universities. Colorado is 77, and Utah is 126. Among current Pac-10 schools, Washington is higher, but WSU, both Oregon schools, and both Arizona schools are much lower (than BYU). I know US News is fraught with all kinds of issues and means next to nothing — but if they are based on anything at all, the “nowhere near being on the same plane” statement has to be incorrect.
I’ve seen the “BYU isn’t academically there” argument repeated lots of places, but with no evidence cited. I’m not sure if it’s coastal bias, anti-Mormon bigotry, or what (and I’m certainly not trying to accuse you of something like that, because I’m sure you either have some evidence or just picked this up elsewhere)… but I’m curious where this comes from.
It's not that they're a bad school
It’s that they’re not a major research institution (they don’t have much in the line of grad schools, and don’t have med school, though their law and business schools are well-regarded). But the other sticking point is that BYU won’t play games on Sunday (not a big deal for football or for Pac 10 basketball — which plays its conference games on Thursdays and Saturdays traditionally — but it is an issue for other sports).
There's a reason...
we’re trying to get a medical school.
by commodore_dude on Feb 15, 2010 11:08 PM EST up reply actions
Question
I’ve never really understood the current “solution” to this problem. If the Medical school opening here in Athens is going to be an MCG extension, how does UGA get credit for it?
I’m pretty sure it will be more than an MCG extension. It will be a joint project, at least, with tie-ins to UGA’s extensive life science programs.
Is that what's keeping us out of the Association of American Universities?
Given the list of schools that are there already, I was rather surprised Georgia wasn’t there. That’s no slight to the schools that are in the AAU, but, frankly, Georgia’s just as good as many of them on the established criteria.
Plus which, if we joined, I could write a satirical piece on how the Big Ten is considering inviting Georgia to join! Hey, it wouldn’t be any dumber than asking Texas or Nebraska. . . .
Go 'Dawgs!
Heck...
… with all the snow, Georgia’s looking like a Big 10+1 state already…
by vineyarddawg on Feb 16, 2010 8:31 AM EST up reply actions
I've suspected that's the case.
Considering UGA is very unusual in its lack of a medical school, I’ve long believed that it was a big part of keeping us out of the AAU. I, too, have looked over the criteria, and considering the number of Natial Academies members, the amount of federal research grant money, and the like, etc., I’ve also wondered if someone has a personal grudge. If Bama’s invited before we are, I might have to write an angry letter (but come to think of it, Alabama’s medical school is separate from the Tuscaloosa campus, too). As far as I can tell, Bama is our closest “competition” for third place in the academic-reputation pecking order (emphasis on reputation, without regard for the actual rigor and production of the various institutions — I think the only thing all of us would agree on is that there’s Vandy, then there’s everyboy else), and I’d still place UGA firmly ahead.
I also find it a little surprising that Georgia Tech isn’t a member, as I’d think allowances should be made for specialty schools. I note that both Cal Tech and MIT are on the list. And whereas MIT is known for its excellence in programs not traditionally associated with technical schools (anthropology and linguistics come quickly to mind), GT has branched out with strong programs in life sciences and business.
But here’s something to consider: Florida joined the AAU membership ranks ten years before Emory. You can draw your own conclusions, if any, from that.
Several things:
1)It not a research institution (carnegie classification)
2)Doubts about academic freedom.
Doubts about academic freedom?
I doubt seriously whether the BYU faculty is any more singleminded in its political bent than the Cal faculty.
Go 'Dawgs!
Hilarious
I love things that consider professors to be single-minded liberals. My guess is that 90% of the people that went to college never got to know their professors well enough to realize that these people aren’t cardboard cutouts of hippies taped to ACLU cards. Every once in awhile you find highly educated people who consider things objectively and try to make rational decisions.
And then you’ve got the great majority of Americans who have no respect for teachers and continue to demean them with stereotypes.
I'm not sure that Kyle would take too kindly to being called a "thing."
Also, I don’t believe that he was specifically making the claim that the Cal faculty were single-minded liberals. He specifically said that the BYU faculty was no more single-minded than Cal faculty. Which also means that a similar amount of diversity would abound at both places.
by vineyarddawg on Feb 14, 2010 8:51 PM EST up reply actions
I have plenty of respect for teachers
My wife, my wife’s sister, my wife’s sister’s husband, my wife’s mother, my grandmother, one of my aunts, two of my uncles, and several of my cousins are or were teachers. I completed most of the coursework toward an M.Ed. degree in the education school in Athens (including my practicum, my student-teaching, and the Georgia Teacher Certification Test). I have plenty of respect for teachers.
It is not stereotyping to note that a 2001 survey by the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA found that 42 per cent of faculty members described themselves as liberal, 34 per cent called themselves middle of the road, and less than 18 per cent characterized themselves as conservative.
I spent my undergraduate years in the political science departments of Clayton State College (now Clayton State University) and the University of Georgia. I was taught by many very good professors, none of whom were “cardboard cutouts of hippies taped to ACLU cards,” but many of whom talked openly enough about their political views to make it clear which way they leaned. One professor at Georgia regularly referred to Ronald Reagan as “the movie actor, the painted doll, the idiot.” Another openly described himself as a socialist.
Those professors I came to know well personally were active in Democratic Party politics; when I went to the Sooner State with one such professor last Labor Day weekend, he gave me a tour of the Oklahoma State campus that included showing me where he demonstrated against the Vietnam War and where he marched following the assassination of Martin Luther King. I am unaware of my having been taught by any political science professor who would have described himself as a conservative or as a Republican.
No, they didn’t try to “brainwash” me, and all of them were qualified to hold the positions that they held. However, there’s just as much stereotyping involved in assuming that every professor in Provo is a right-wing religious nut as there is in assuming that every professor in Berkeley is a left-wing political activist . . . which is the whole point I was trying to make in my previous comment.
Go 'Dawgs!
Ha, I see what you did there
By noting that BYU is a religious school, just as you say I miss characterized your comment, you do the same to mine. I never stated that “every professor in Provo is a right-wing religious nut,” I just pointed out that in contrast to the rest of the current makeup of the Pac-10, I did not see them inviting a smaller, less academically rigorous religious university to join.
And I take back my statement about your comment on the teachers, I misread it, clearly, considering the point made clearly by vineyardawg. My mistake.
There Are Obvious Academic Freedom Problems
The problem is not with BYU’s faculty, but with the administration. Phi Beta Kappa has repeatedly rejected BYU’s applications for a chapter because of the absence of intellectual and academic freedom. BYU is still censured by the American Association of University Professors for its lack of academic freedom.
by Brian Rostron on Feb 14, 2010 11:21 PM EST up reply actions
There's a valid point
I hadn’t realized that, and I appreciate your calling it to our attention, because that is a relevant datum.
I would ask, though—-and I’m not trying to be snarky here; I genuinely am not familiar with the American Association of University Professors—-what other schools has the AAUP censured for lack of academic freedom?
Once again, I would point to the Larry Summers example. Did the AAUP take a position on the overblown reaction to his benign and scientifically supportable yet politically incorrect statements?
Go 'Dawgs!
http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/about/censuredadmins/default.htm
I click-through to the bases for censure likely is warranted. I didn’t have time. It’s a long list.
I hate to keep stating that I am not Mormon apologist...
… but in the interest of full disclosure, I feel obligated to point out that there are 47 colleges and universities currently on the AAUP’s “Censure list.” That list of institutions includes such diverse names as the Catholic University of America, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Savannah College of Art and Design, the entire State University of New York system, Charleston Southern University, the University of New Orleans, and… Brigham Young University.
So, it appears that merely being on the AAUP list does not necessarily mean that you should be ostracized from all major NCAA athletic events. SUNY-Buffalo plays football in Division I-A (sort of), and UNO has been a Division I baseball power in the Sun Belt.
by vineyarddawg on Feb 15, 2010 11:56 AM EST up reply actions
Well ...
I think before we start drawing conclusions about the lengthy list, we should recognize that the reasons for censure are varied.
And I’m not sure anyone suggested that “merely being on the AAUP list” means you should be ostracized from all major NCAA athletic events. I believe it was brought up as a factor that indicates a reason (a reason specific to the discussion) why a particular athletic conference might be disinclined to extend a membership invitation to a particular school.
Agreed.
You have to look at the entire picture… and that’s really the only point I was trying to make. Well, that, and the point that discriminating against an institution based almost entirely on the fact that they have weird religious beliefs is just plain wrong.
by vineyarddawg on Feb 15, 2010 2:43 PM EST up reply actions
But I'm not so sure.
Given the chance, I’d discriminate against institutions based entirely on the fact that they have weird religious beliefs. I don’t think any government should, however. And, perhaps, neither should the NCAA. The Pac 10? That’s less troubling to me for some reason. Freedom of association (and dissociation) and all that, maybe?
Agreed on both counts
I don’t think the Pac-10 should discriminate upon those grounds, but the Pac-10 certainly should be able to discriminate upon those grounds if it so chooses.
I will grant that the AAUP had legitimate grounds for questioning the availability of academic freedom at BYU, but I question how much academic freedom anyone expected to receive as a faculty member at a school with an active religious affiliation. The professor in question told students it was all right to pray to their “Heavenly Mother” in addition to their Heavenly Father. No one reasonably believes that is consistent with Mormon theology (or, for that matter, with the theology of many, if not most, mainstream Christian denominations).
My point is not to enter into a debate over whether that theology is good or bad; it is simply to point out that there is a limit to the amount of academic freedom any faculty member reasonably anticipates being afforded at a school with a specific church affiliation.
If the Pac-10 is uncomfortable with that, the Pac-10 is within its rights to look elsewhere. However, I wonder how many Pac-10 institutions define “academic freedom” broadly enough to allow a Larry Summers to make the sorts of statements as a faculty member on their campuses that he made as president of Harvard.
Go 'Dawgs!
In my opinion, Kyle’s stated opinion above is much more narrowly focused than the point you were originally ostensibly trying to make. Kyle stated that although he doesn’t necessarily agree that it is ok to discriminate against BYU on religious grounds, as a private entity, it is the Pac-10’s right to do so if they so chose. (This is a position I also agree with.)
One of your first posts in this thread made a questionable (at best) claim as to the poor academic quality of BYU’s educational programs. After that, you went on to imply that any school with a religious affiliation should be excluded from major collegiate athletics simply because of that affiliation. You then went on to claim that BYU is a small school, like TCU, which it is not.
Later in the thread, you resorted to simple insults to try to get your point across, saying that “if [I] watch[ed] college football enough to notice,” that I would know that there were a significant number of college football games played on Sunday. That, too, is a factual inaccuracy, since only 7 out of the 800+ games in the 2009 season, less than 0.9%, were played on a Sunday. The personal tone of your response was also questionable, and I felt (and still feel) justified in claiming that it sunk to the level normally occupied by the trolls that visit the blog every now and then.
In retrospect, if I made a hasty generalization about your intentions, I apologize. I believe my reaction is understandable and justifiable, however. We all have bad days, and maybe you were having a bad day that day. And maybe I was having a bad day in not simply putting up with a short-tempered response and letting it drop. I admit that I usually try to correct factual errors when I see them (and appreciate when people correct mine), and I do not react well when it is implied that I am a rank amateur who has no significant knowledge of and pays no real attention to college football.
by vineyarddawg on Feb 16, 2010 4:08 AM EST up reply actions
I think blackertai was referring to my comment, above, in your and my exchange about discriminating against schools with weird religious beliefs.
Ah.
I stand corrected. I think the analogy still stands, though, when your argument is substituted for Kyle’s.
by vineyarddawg on Feb 16, 2010 8:34 AM EST up reply actions
I think the general premise of this is right
…but I quibble with some of the minor points. First of all, “The border war between Kansas and Missouri means a great deal to both schools, but the Jayhawks already have a natural conference rival in Kansas State.” is a serious understatement, at least based on what my KU alum friend has told me. Mizzou IS the team against which Kansas measures itself, and I think analogizing this to something like a Georgia/Florida/Ga Tech situation (my initial inclination) actually might still undervalue the KU-MU rivalry. (Recall that “Border War” isn’t just sports hyperbole — these two states actually had military clashes in the run-up to the Civil War! And yes, they do still care.) Of course, Mizzou apparently isn’t letting that get in the way of a Big Ten courtship, so even though Kansas will be royally pissed, the Tigers could still bolt and play the Jayhawks as a non-conference opponent anyway, like UGA/Tech and UF/FSU do. But I don’t think KU would be any less upset than Nebraska would be at losing Colorado.
You’re absolutely right about the paired rivalries, and I think a Holy War addition to the Pac 10 would be great to see. But I’m not so sure it isn’t the Big 12 that has as much to worry about as the Pac 10, with respect to a strong MWC. The MWC has three teams in current Big 12 states, vs. one in the current Pac 10 footprint (the mighty San Diego State). And while Texas and OU have nothing to worry about, Utah and TCU with BCS AQ status has to strike fear into the Texas Techs and K-States of the world as much as it does in Corvallis or Seattle. I think both Western BCS leagues need to fear (and destroy) the MWC.
And that’s why, despite what a lot of Dawg fans wouldn’t mind seeing, Arkansas and Clemson are totally irrelevant to this discussion. If Mizzou drops the Big 12 for greener snowier pastures, the Big 12 would be crazy not to reach out to TCU — they’d be grateful for the opportunity (unlike Arkansas, which probably would have to lose money to make the deal happen), they’re competitive in football now and in a major market (so they should be able to stay good), and (in conjunction with a Utah and/or BYU move) it would strike the death blow to the MWC and to BCS expansion for at least a decade. And it’s not as if there’s no history there — TCU, like Arkansas, was a member of the Southwest Conference (joined in 1923), and unlike the Hogs, TCU stayed on til the bitter end. While TCU doesn’t add a TV market that the Texas schools didn’t already have, it’s not like Little Rock is a big metropolis. I just don’t see any reason why a rational Big 12 would try to outbid the SEC when it has a great option sitting right there in the heart of Texas.
Again
Because like BYU, TCU is a relatively small school with low enrollment (as a private school). Most conference teams that do well are generally large, state schools that get huge enrollment (see all the good teams in the Big-XII and SEC, vs the bad, in Vandy and Baylor).
Arkansas doesn’t bring a huge media market, but they give the Big-XII something TCU doesn’t, large numbers of alumni views with interesting historical matchups (see Arkansas vs. TAMU in the Jerry Bowl). TCU is smack dab in the middle of what is already solidly Big-XII country, and its small alumni base contributes little to the overall status of the conference. Plus, Oklahoma and Texas would be wary of inclusion, since the Big-XII is not revenue equal, and any team that consistently does well gets more money. TCU and its coach are proven winners, who could in theory take that money out of OU and UT’s pocket, which is not popular.
Couldn't disagree with you more, Kyle
the Pac-10 cannot afford to expand with both Utah and BYU. It makes no sense. Expansion is about markets, and doubling up on a middling Salt Lake market makes zero sense. Denver is the gold mine here. Utah is just along for the ride. If there is Pac-10 expansion, Colorado will be involved or it makes no financial sense for it to happen. The only other possibilities are Colorado State, UNLV, or New Mexico, but there are a myriad of reasons that those are risky. BYU will NEVER, EVER get a Pac-10 invite.
Here’s my full writeup which explains in much more detail. Basically, without Colorado, ther eis no reason for Pac-10 expansion to happen. And, FWIW, nobody in Pac-10 land is scared of the MWC.
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, SBN's Oregon Ducks blog
Thanks, Dave
I appreciate the link, but, as I hope you saw, I linked to your piece in the posting above.
If the Pac-10 isn’t scared of the MWC, it should be. A bad TV contract, bad bowl tie-ins, and a poor recent record in head-to-head meetings with the Mountain West have put the Pac-10 in a vulnerable position that will be made dramatically worse by the presence of another automatic-qualifying league in the Pac-10’s back yard.
If the Pac-10 isn’t scared of the MWC, why has conference expansion suddenly been pushed to the front burner, just as the Mountain West is getting ready to move up to permanent big-boy status?
Go 'Dawgs!
I'm no Mormon apologist...
… but I would like to point out that BYU brings a much wider audience than merely Salt Lake City or Utah. BYU is to Mormons what Notre Dame is was to Catholics, and it has a much wider following than one might think.
Utah is over 70% Mormon, but several other western states have significant Mormon populations, as well. Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada, Arizona, and Hawai’i all count greater than 5% of their citizenry as magical underwear wearers. Adding BYU to the Pac 10 would bring those ardent supporters into the fold.
by vineyarddawg on Feb 14, 2010 8:28 PM EST up reply actions
And exactly how many college football games...
… are played on Sunday? Football brings the money, and football is played on Saturday.
by vineyarddawg on Feb 14, 2010 8:52 PM EST up reply actions
Well, since you asked...
… it appears that during the entire 2009 Division I FBS season (over 800 games), exactly 7 matchups were played on a Sunday. Of those 7 games, 2 were played on the season’s opening weekend and 2 were bowl games. Also worthy of note is the fact that none of the Sunday games involved Pac-10 teams, but one did involve a team from the Mountain West Conference, to which BYU is currently affiliated. The 7 games in question are:
- Colorado St. @ Colorado – 9/6/09
- Ole Miss @ Memphis – 9/6/09
- Marshall @ Central Florida – 11/1/09
- Nevada @ San Jose St. – 11/8/09
- East Carolina @ Tulsa – 11/15/09
- Southern Miss vs. Middle Tennessee State – 12/20/09 (New Orleans Bowl)
- Clemson vs. Kentucky – 12/27/09 (Music City Bowl)
You know, blackertai, you’ve been around here for a while, and you’ve never sunk down to troll level before. In fact, as I recall, you’ve made many positive contributions in the past. It surprises and disappoints me, therefore, that you need to resort to insults and attempted intimidation to try and make your point. Can we try to raise the discourse back up to a reasonable level?
by vineyarddawg on Feb 15, 2010 2:43 AM EST up reply actions
Your argument is off
I wasn’t insulting you, but like your witty statement I responded to, I was pointing out that there were enough games for me to have seen 5 of the mentioned games. I’m only a Falcons fan, and outside of their games, the only football I want to watch is CFB. Therefore, I watched as much as was possible (including Thursday AND Friday games!). You seem to view my comments much more negatively and charged than I intend them.
Also
I don’t appreciate your insinuation. I don’t see how expressing my opinion about a topic I’m interested in makes me a “troll.” That seems unfair. My comments are not about anything that isn’t either true or my opinion. If, as has occurred in the comments above, someone proves me wrong, I’m more than happy to admit it. I think you need to keep the ad hominem’s in the bag until I start deserving them.
One college football game that isn't played on a Sunday . . .
. . . is the Chick-fil-A Bowl, which is a condition placed upon the former Peach Bowl by virtue of Chick-fil-A’s sponsorship of the game. The reasons for this are explicitly religious in nature, as they follow Truett Cathy’s company-wide policy of keeping the restaurants closed on Sundays. I mention that to point out that preserving the Sabbath isn’t exclusive to BYU.
Since vineyarddawg is right that only a handful of college football games are played on Sundays and BYU’s policy therefore would have only a minimal impact, if at all, I’m wondering whether this would matter on a practical level. Offhand, the only college sport I can think of that routinely plays games on Sundays is baseball, which features weekend series on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. It appears that BYU plays its weekend series on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday instead. How big a deal is that in the Pac-10, where some schools (Arizona State, Oregon State, USC) take their baseball very seriously and some others (Oregon) have made it an afterthought or failed to field teams altogether? (That’s not a rhetorical question, by the way.)
Go 'Dawgs!
The Pac-10 is not going to expand just to help out the BCS
And yes, it does appear that the pac-10 likes to have geographical partners, But its been 30 years since the last expansion. BYU/UTAH makes no sense, as it only delivers one market, and then you have to split the $$$$ 12 ways.
No way possible does the pac-10 expand with 2 Utah schools.
Colorado is in the AAU
So, it fits the bill where the association with Berkeley, Arizona, UCLA, Stanford, Oregon, USC and Udub are concerned. (Yeah, Wazzu, ASU and Oregon State aren’t exactly lighting it up on the academic side, sure). But CU is AAU, and Utah could well be on its way (it has all the pieces). As institutions, CU and UU are better fits with the Pac10 than BYU.
Of course, the MWC could go out and add Nevada, Fresno State and, say, Houston to get to 12 and pre-empt the wannabe raiders.
not drunk, just overserved
by Gen. Stoopnagle on Feb 15, 2010 5:31 PM EST reply actions
Wouldn't work
At least, not in terms of holding off raid attempts in the short term. No MWC team would decline a Big 12 or Pac 10 invite. Heck, no WAC team would turn down an MWC invite (LA Tech would if they were logical, but they haven’t swapped conferences with UTEP, so it’s clear that they’re not). No Big East team would turn down a Big Ten invite, and most would not turn down an ACC or SEC invite (the ’Ville would not turn down a Big 12 invite, either).
I mean, the MWC could hope an expanded MWC got a BCS bid and that would go a long way to making staying vs. going to the P10 or B12 a much tougher decision, but without that? It’s a no-brainer to go.
If my Orange got a Big Ten invite, despite no tradition with any Big Ten team except Penn State, and despite long-standing rivalries with the remaining old Big East teams, we’d accept right away. A lot of fans would grumble, but the administration wouldn’t think about it very long.
Demonstratably Incorrect!
“No Big East team would turn down a Big Ten invite”
Notre Dame has been doing it for years.
No real Big East team, anyway :)
I mean, they just don’t want to admit they’d usually finish 4th in the conference at best…
Go Cougs
I hope you won’t mind an overly-lengthy posting from a Cougar fan. I have found this forum rather intriguing. I can assure you one guy is more interested in my underwear than I am in his. Some readers will not agree with anything I post, but I hope someone will consider this post insightful (though clearly and admittedly bias).
I appreciate the fairness some posters have given to BYU’s academics. Of the three grueling years I spent studying law at BYU, I can’t remember a day when I wished that the faculty would just make the program a bit more rigorous. BYU’s law school is ranked about 34th in the country (depending who you ask) and is only 30 years old. Some academics consider that impressive. In addition, if you look at LSAT scores and undergrad GPA average, BYU’s program is the 6th hardest law school in the country to get into. I am not claiming BYU is academically superior to the likes of Stanford; BYU has just earned the respect informed individuals give to several of its programs.
There is absolutely no way to minimize the fact that BYU is sponsored by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – nor would I want to do so. The affiliation with the Church provides BYU’s sports programs with financing and fan base. I am willing to bet that the athletic directors at Washington, UCLA and Arizona would admit that playing BYU is good for ticket sales. Why do you think BYU was invited to play OU at the new Cowboy’s stadium last year? It wasn’t because our Sunday meetings are riveting, nor because the Mormon Tabernacle Choir can really belt out an impressive rendition of "I Heard the Bells On Christmas Day."
Some posts imply that Mormons are racists. While you can likely find some racists at any school in the country, racism is simply not tolerated by the vast majority of the student body at BYU. Many BYU students have lived in foreign countries (as missionaries) and have some respect for cultural and racial differences. Additionally, many BYU students didn’t grow up in the protective bubble of BYU – they know something about being on the receiving end of discrimination. Please don’t misjudge what I am saying. I am not trying to equate racial discrimination with modern religious discrimination; I am simply saying that as a body, most BYU students understand something of the need for common decency.
BYU is the second largest private school in the country. With more than 34,000 students, it is just a bit larger than USC. USC does have a far greater number of graduate students. I will also admit that USC tends to be a "wee bit" better at football most years. However, BYU also has a good football tradition. It is not enough to point out that Lavell Edwards Stadium seats more than 64,000 people. You should know that anybody who wants decent season tickets had better order them the day they go on sale. If you ever get the chance to see your favorite team play BYU in Provo, you won’t soon forget the backdrop of the towering Wastach Mountains. You don’t have to be Mormon to find the location inspiring.
Agreed
Much obliged, CougarProps. Thanks for dropping by and taking part in the conversation.
Go 'Dawgs!
Thanks, CougarProps
I wish, in retrospect, that I hadn’t made the glib underwear remarks. I did not anticipate that such a heated discussion would arise around LDS religious beliefs, so I was trying to create a little light-hearted humor. Alas, it is impossible to un-post words that have already been posted.
I’ve been to Provo and visited Lavell Edwards Stadium on a non-gameday, and I can vouch for the inspirational nature of the setting. I also found the stadium to be surprisingly intimate and cozy for a 60,000+ seat stadium, and the natural backdrop can’t be beat. I wish I could have witnessed a game… I have no doubt that it would be a memorable experience. (As it turned out, I was in town on a gameday weekend, but the only team from the area playing a home game was Utah State. So, I trekked up to Logan to watch them play Boise State, and had a great time. Romney Stadium in Logan, UT, is also a surprisingly great setting for a game.)
Without specifically commenting on the tenor of this thread, I have been surprised at the amount of vitriol and anger that I have seen directed towards Mormons in general. In my experiences, I have not met a generally more agreeable, pleasant group of people, and though I vehemently disagree with some of the tenets of the LDS church, I cannot find fault with the comportment of any of the Mormons I have personally known.
by vineyarddawg on Feb 16, 2010 8:58 AM EST up reply actions
Good insight
It seems like my comments about academics were tied to some sort of dislike for the school or mormons in general, simply not the case. I think it would be cool to have Utah and BYU in the Pac-10, but the bottom line is large portions of the administration, student body and local populations around several of the current schools DO have this dislike, and you need a unanimous vote to get admitted. The MWC seems like a good fit from an outsider’s perspective, I just don’t think any other conference is going to support the Sunday thing. Wish y’all all the luck in getting a Big 12 invite if expansion heats up, though, that would be cool!
by commodore_dude on Feb 16, 2010 11:00 AM EST up reply actions
Thanks, Coog
I think the point here about BYU’s reputation isn’t about the rigor of the student experience. That’s the general public perception, but I think in the administration buildings across these campuses the view is somewhat different.
It is, in part, about the student inputs (what does each class look like academically?); but it’s also about the research agendas and capabilities of the institutions. My guess is that for the Pac-10 presidents, it’s what is this going to do for our reputation in the higher education community? For partnerships in emerging areas of basic and applied research? How will our faculties react? Yeah, there are a healthy number of faculty on the Berkley campus who are going to get their panties in a wad over BYU’s perceived conservatism; but they aren’t the decision-makers. So it’s all political to a degree, but it’s much more about the overall academic (teaching/research/service) profile of the institutions considered.
Not only that, but the California publics are probably going to look at the question of revenues very closely. They’re in practical upheaval over their budgetary crisis. What BYU would bring is that – pardon the analogy – Notre Dame type of following. I’m guessing that Mormons everywhere have some affection for BYU regardless of attendance, so that the potential market dispersed across the west and the country for BYU football is pretty good.
I don’t think anyone can argue that Colorado isn’t a better fit, but BYU wouldn’t be all bad.
not drunk, just overserved
by Gen. Stoopnagle on Feb 16, 2010 12:46 PM EST up reply actions
Well
I would just like to point out that I nowhere called the modern LDS church racist. I stated the fact that church doctrine was, for much of its history, racially oriented against non-white members. The fact is also that the church is not the same on a number of earlier beliefs. My point was not ever “oh they’re all racists,” but that people would have to come to terms with the racial history of the institution’s backing church. I apologize for the misunderstanding.
Thanks for the response vineyarddawg
I appreciate your gracious response, vineyarddawg. Thank you for taking the time to reply.
I am a bit embarrassed by my own typos; I suppose it is always risky to post at midnight and make claims of academic achievement.
Commodore_dude may be right that BYU’s position on Sunday play may hurt its chances with some folks. I understand that a league cannot change all of its own policies to incorporate one team. What happens when a Seventh Day Adventist does not want to play on Saturday? For lack of any alternative, he may have to opt out. BYU has, on rather rare occasions, forfeited tournament games. However, BYU has also had a long and effective history of scheduling games with high caliber teams while avoiding Sunday play. For example, BYU’s volleyball team is generally rather competitive. California teams (i.e. Pepperdine, UCLA, etc.) come to play BYU in volleyball. It just seems to work because there are six other days in a week, and the opposing team generally needs some variation in its own schedule.
One of the most interesting aspects of being a church-sponsored school is that some amount of hypocrisy will inevitably arise. Our players, like those of other teams, will occasionally be involved in on-field and off-field antics. Our athletic administration will eventually be embarrassed by some scandal. Our fans are often less than Christian in their actions. By and large though, you can expect the Cougars to bring a pretty good game and to be mindful of sportsmanship.
Just chiming in here
RE:
This is not the case for Nebraska, which annually ends the season in a widely-televised Thanksgiving game against the Buffaloes and does not have another natural rivalry of national significance now that the divisional split has divorced the Cornhuskers from the Sooners
I don’t think it necessarily has to be about national significance, but, to underscore an important point, the regional significance may matter more: For instance, NU/KU, and MU/NU are particularly contested, even without the OU game. Border games are never to be despised, particularly in a part of the country that, like the State of Alabama, really has nothing else to hang their hats on other than amateur collegiate athletics.
"Hush now, let it go now. I know it's time to go. Time to let this fall from my hands" VNV Nation, "From My Hands"
by Stuck in the Plains on Feb 17, 2010 4:50 PM EST reply actions
Good point
As someone who takes the Bulldogs’ rivalries with teams in neighboring states (Auburn, Florida, Clemson, and Tennessee) more seriously than I take Georgia’s in-state rivalry with Georgia Tech, I cannot disagree with your point.
Go 'Dawgs!
The claim that BYU wouldn’t be accepted by the PAC-10 because of their religious background shows the ignorance of most people here. Perhaps it would interest people to know that the Pac 10 has tried to recruit both BYU and Utah before, at the same time they got Arizona State and Arizona. BYU said they would join the Pac 10 if the Pac 10 wouldn’t force them to play games on Sunday. Remember the current Pac 10 contract requires games to be Wednesday and Sunday for basketball. When the Pac 10 said no to that, BYU chose to remain in the WAC. Utah, not wanting to lose their biggest rival, also chose to stay in the WAC. The Pac 10 has no chance of claiming Utah without getting BYU as well, and the Pac 10 has no chance of getting BYU unless they renegotiate with FSN to move games from Sunday to Saturday.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Dawg Sports
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
