If the key audience is the Twitterverse, CougarBoard, talking heads on ESPN or college football fans in general, then the message that was heard was basically, "BYU had a chance to beef up their schedule and the didn't, they can talk the talk, but they are afraid to walk the walk". That sounds bad.

If the key audience is other AD's that Tom Holmoe has to work with, then the message was, "BYU will work with you behind the scenes to make things happen, but will never divulge what goes into the making of the sausage". And while BYU needs partners to work with, it won't be walked all over. There has to be give and take on both sides." This is a perfect message for that audience.

If the key audience is the CFP Committee, who knows exactly what the message is they received. My hunch is that that group is probably a little more thoughtful than the first group, and a little less worried about ongoing dealings with BYU than the second group.

That Tom Holmoe didn't win the battle with the first group is of roughly zero importance. Makes BYU fans mad, because you get dirt kicked in your face by the the social media warriors and the popular press (including some of Utah's finest radio hosts), but in the end, doesn't really matter with respect to your broader goals.

President Hinckley was a master at this. Never responded to the half-truths, lies and calumny that was hurled his way or in the direction of the Church. Responded positively to things (and people) that mattered. When his time came, he told his side of the story of things (like the interview with Mike Wallace) in a way that was non-confrontational to others and allowed him to speak to the things that were most important. But, once again, he didn't lose a whole lot of sleep over creating a line-by-line defense of every narrative that had been put out there by those that were either enemies of the Church, unwilling to seek out the real truth of the stories, or were simply desirous to create controversy for the Church.