I'm personally responsible for the move to Independence

[MikeWaters]

Well, perhaps not, but I think my correspondence with Tom Holmoe in 2007 demonstrates that 1) I may have been ahead of Tom on what a disaster Comcast/MTN has been, and 2) that Tom has been plotting and thinking about BYU-TV since 2007 if not much before. And that BYU has come around full circle and decided that national exposure is more important than odd start-times. I.e. catering to the mission of the church is more important than worrying about blue-hairs.

I'm not in the habit of publishing private correspondence from good folks like Tom. But given that so many of these are published on internet forums, I don't think Tom really has/had the expectation of privacy. Moreover I have carefully reviewed his email, and I don't believe there is anything here that puts Tom or BYU in a bad light. If anything, it makes him prescient (except for thinking the MTN might dig itself out of the hole it created).

From November 2007:

Me:

Dear Tom,

The mtn situation concerns me mostly because it reduces the stature of BYU sports. For Dick Vitale to be saying "Plaisted, the best big man you've never heard of" is really an indictment of how BYU has been able to market itself. So I am of the opinion that national distribution of the mtn is of small consequence, because BYU would still remain OUT of the limelight on an obscure channel that no one turns to.

Instead of completely blowing everything up, one solution would be for the MWC to partner with another conference (BCS) to create a new channel, similar to the Big 10 channel. I grew up in Texas and follow A&M somewhat. A&M had 3 games this year that were not any kind of TV (including PPV). One of those games was A&M vs. Nebraska. It's pretty amazing to me that two schools with that sort of following can't watch their team on TV. There is money being thrown away there.

What would this channel offer a BCS conference? It would allow greater coverage of lower profile games (which to be blunt would be much higher draws in my opinion than even mid-tier MWC games).

What does the mtn/comcast/MWC offer a BCS conference? It offers a channel that is already in place (surely it would be renamed). It has expertise, infrastructure, and the beginnings of distribution. It has the money as well. And I am guessing that there aren't too many entities that are wanting to back these types of channels, one conference at a time.

The MWC partnering with the Big 12 for example, suddenly you have a much larger footprint, and you become a channel that fans around the country are aware of. You are no longer a specialty channel catering to a small dedicated group of fans. You are now a destination channel. You are a channel that gets flipped to.

This would be contingent on the mtn/comcast being interested. If they were not interested and the MWC were to reform to get out of the mtn contract, then a partnership with a BCS conference would still make sense in my opinion.

I'm trying to think out of the box here. Thanks for you time.

Tom's reply:

Thanks for your feedback. I can tell you that EVERY conference is looking at the model that the MWC started and the Big 10 followed suit with. Some will not be in too big of a hurry because they are top dogs with companies such as CBS, ESPN or ABC. But all of them see the potential for more exposure and better revenue. I like the concept of the Mtn and the Big Ten Network, it’s just that the “execution” stinks. If the Mtn. goes national, will it remain obscure? I would think many people feel BYU-TV might be obscure but it reaches over 45 million homes on satellite and cable? A new partnership that involved combining conferences is interesting. That is basically what ESPN started. It took them a while to ramp up but look what they’ve got now. Possible? We are evaluating our opinions at this time to look out for the best interest of our school and our fans.

My reply to Tom:

Thanks Tom for your reply. I know you care about BYU and very clearly you care about BYU fans.

Yes, I think the Mtn will be obscure even with 100% penetration. I have friends who are football fans who still think BYU is in the WAC. In my opinion BYU-TV is obscure as well. The only time I hear about people watching BYU-TV outside of the occasional sports rerun is when the occasional 80 year old RS sister bears her testimony and it somehow transitions into the shows she watches on BYU-TV.

What I want is for BYU to be part of the national scene, as much as it can, given the limitations of being in the MWC. I have been following reports on coach's changes very closely. There are lots of names being thrown around, and unfortunately Bronco's isn't really among them, whereas Chris Peterson at BSU, for example, is being mentioned often. I don't want Bronco to leave, but when Bronco is discussed and contacted by elite programs, that helps raise the stature of BYU. Harvey Unga shouldn't be an unknown. Max Hall should be getting discussion in 2008 about being a Heisman candidate in 2009. Trent Plaisted should be a household name among serious college football fans by the end of the season. I fear none of this will happen without more exposure than the mtn/CSTV/Versus can bring us.

The rise of Boise State has coincided with the decline of BYU, and I believe media has everything to do with it. Boise State is on TV when there are very few games on. Thursday night on ESPN. Friday night. We used to be that team. I understand the desire to play on Saturdays. But we still played two (?) Thursday night games, only on an obscure channel with much lower ratings than if we had been on ESPN. I understand the desire for good start times, but this contract doesn't guarantee that. I was going to take my family to the Tulsa game, but the wife vetoed it due to the 8pm central start time, too late for my toddlers. A Saturday game on an obscure channel that competes with 6 other games going on at the same time just doesn't bring BYU any media attention. Thursday at 8pm on ESPN2? Suddenly you are in the mix.

I'm worried that there is a whole generation of kids for whom BYU doesn't exist. I was one of those kids that was toted to the stake center to watch games. When I was a kid I was razzed by my junior high coach for wearing a BYU shirt, and by others as well. I worry about a world where that razzing never happens, because kids don't know who BYU is.

I understand the need to put people in the stands with convenient start times and the need to keep the department in the black. But the opportunity cost is so great, it's staggeringly large, and I'm afraid we are not going to discover the cost until it is too late.

Back to partnering with conferences, even a three-conference deal might be useful. The way I understand it, most conferences don't contract exclusively with one network. ESPN/ABC says that they contract for X games and gets their pick, and then perhaps regional FOX has a contract for their choice of remaining games. If it is correct that the games that have been passed over by ESPN and regional networks are up for grabs, that's where the two or three conference network could step in immediately. I have zero experience in the area, and I'm interested in change now, not the change that might occur when the Big 12 renegotiates with ESPN.

Now what is interesting if my idea of combining with other conferences comes to pass. Not in the form that I suggested, but in some kind of collaboration with the University of Texas and other schools. Combining broadcast resources with bigger schools that need BYU's expertise/equipment/know-how.

Also interesting that my idea of Boise State having become the new BYU ha now come full circle. Boise State will disappear into Comcast and BYU will be featured on ESPN.

We are entering a brave new world. See, good things happen when people listen to me.

[Yz1]

Excellent work.

Now put your correspondence skills to work getting us some quality competition.