Had they been up front with their stories instead of waiting until after they were exposed they'd be 100 times more believable.

1. "It's not really even a question because - AGAIN - BYU, Bronco, Anae and Holmoe all said that it wasn't true. I don't understand why you want to hang onto that fantasy. Do you think it helps with your anti Bronco stand?"

- Of course they say that, it's part of the damage control. Gary Crowton was allowed by BYU to resign but that doesn't change the bottom line that he no longer had a job. He was getting fired. BYU is nice that way.

Some people prefer to put their head in the sand and live a life of naivete and will quibble over the semantics. The bottom line is the bottom line.

2. "And one other thing that refutes your opinion - Holmoe has said publicly that Bronco is 100% in charge of his coaches. He even said why - because he was not fully in charge at Cal and it was a terrible situation."

- of course he's going to say this, it saves face for Bronco and helps prop up an embattled coach.

3. "At some point you need to start believing the words people are saying."
Two of the main motivators for people to avoid the truth in what they say is to protect someone's self-esteem and to make someone else feel better. When there's more at stake (could be due to money, being in the public eye, etc), it's more likely to happen. Parents start this practice with their kids at an early age. I don't know if you're old enough to have any kids of your own but when you do eventually get married someday and have your own kids and you start telling them about Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, etc you'll be doing it because it makes you feel good and it makes them feel good. If your kid later on gets into sports and is average (which most kids are) and they ask you how they did are you going to reply with honesty ("you were very average son!") or tell them they did "pretty good" or "great"?

(*cough*naive) Nobody is immune to prevarication. It doesn't make them evil if they do.