With all due respect to my relatives who support the school, BYU is saying some downright false and hypocritical things about Nevada when it comes to football scheduling. Read how the story is spun from the Cougar Perspective, then consider the following:
1) BYU and Nevada played in 2001 and 2002, as a part of a 3-game series (2-for-1, with 2 games in Provo and 1 in Reno).
2) In 2003 AND 2004, BYU asked Nevada to push back the date for the third game to accomodate their scheduling needs.
3) Beginning in 2005, continuing in 2006, and ending in 2007, Nevada asked to move the 2008 game to accomodate its own schedule. (Nevada was able to secure a 1-for-1 arrangement with Missouri and Texas Tech, but the 2008 Schedule was left with @ UNLV, @ Missouri, and home vs. Texas Tech... so another road game @ BYU was not a good idea in 2008).
4) BYU is now claiming that this was a surprise move, foisted on them at the last minute by the nefarious folks in Reno. That it's a breach of contract, and that they will seek to recover damages. Never mind that earlier postponements by BYU were done with shorter notice with similar effects to Nevada's schedule.
Is this not dishonest and hypocritical behavior?
3 comments:
This isn't a battle I'll take a big stand on. I won't disagree that the BYU athletic director sounded a little whiny and unnecessarily indignant. I can understand why you are annoyed. I cringed a little bit when I read it. There is, however, an important difference:
Unless I am mistaken, BYU asked Nevada's permission to push it back. Nevada said yes. The parties stipulated. No breach of contract.
Although it's true that Nevada has asked several times to push it back, BYU said no. It was within BYU's rights under the contract to do so (presumably--haven't read it myself). When Nevada couldn't secure BYU's permission, they unilaterally decided they were going to break the agreement.
Sure, there is a fair-play argument that Nevada was accommodating and BYU didn't return the favor. I don't have any background facts on negotiations between the teams after the 2002 embarrassment/triumph (depending on which perspective you take). Nevada may have had self-interested reasons for agreeing to push the game back (maybe to accomodate another BCS opponent at home). If it wasn't in Nevada's best interest to reschedule the game, they could have said no. I'm really skeptical that Nevada agreed to allow BYU to push the games back because they were being good neighbors.
I understand why Nevada did what they did, but it doesn't make any less a breach.
Unlike Tom Holmoe, I'm not mad at Nevada, however. Hawaii has shown the true way to BCS glory: schedule as many patsies as you possibly can. Now that we can schedule Idaho State or Northern Arizona or something like that, our path just got a little easier.
So, no, I don't see the hypocrisy and dishonesty at all.
I can see where you're coming from. At the very least, it shows the AD to be a rather poor sport. At least since we're able to get 1-for-1s with schools like Texas Tech and Missouri, we don't need to worry about losing potential 2-for-1s with BYU going forward.
From what I recall at the time, Nevada agreed to move the game simply to be a good neighbor... and we got stuck playing Buffalo (I think) as a result, much to the consternation of the local fans.
I remember the story when the game was postponed, because I was disappointed we wouldn't be playing BYU that year. BYU, though, was trying to build a head-turning schedule, and needed the slot for the Nevada game to get a good opponent.
I can see Nevada agreeing to push the game back with no immediate benefit in order to build an ongoing relationship with BYU, a good team close enough to home that you can play regularly, but also not a PAC-10 school (and, therefore, more beatable).
And, in Hawaii's defense, they were scheduled to open at Michigan this year. Michigan decided they wanted an easier schedule, and dumped Hawaii (picking up Appalachian State). And it really roasts my goat that Michigan (or any BCS school) tries to pave its way to the NC game by taking an easier schedule, and in the process destroyed any chance Hawaii might have had (Hawaii, who was ranked to start the season, but never got a good opponent to turn any heads) of being in the BCS Championship.
Dishonest - well, I rather don't think they're telling the whole story, but it's an omission of other facts, not an outright lie. Hypocrisy might be a bit much. But being poor sports about it... that, I can't back down from.
Post a Comment