can addition of Utah to Pac 10 generate enough revenue

[forgottenera]

Can the addition of Utah to the pac 10 generate enough new funds to warrant the other schools taking a 1/12 over a 1/11 share, even with a champ game?

 

[FROGLEGHOP]

I doubt it.

 

[50FT FROG]

QUOTE(forgottenera @ Jun 15 2010, 01:21 PM) [snapback]579432[/snapback]
Can the addition of Utah to the pac 10 generate enough new funds to warrant the other schools taking a 1/12 over a 1/11 share, even with a champ game?

the only conference championship game that makes money is the sec ..... acc is losing it's shirt on their game and the big 12 was essentially breaking even.

 

[Sponger]

good questions....I can't see it. I wouldn't think the SLC TV market plus the champtionship game comes close to covering it what it would take to increase the revenue. And I would think the other teams would want a lot more revenue, not just a little more. Having to play a conference champtionship game makes a semi-tough PAC-11(12) that much harder for them to get into the BCS Champtionship game.

 

[Delmonico]

I think its telling that Larry Scott even mentioned that a Pac-11 is an option. That tells me its more than an option. Maybe its just wishful thinking, but if Utah were on their radar as a 12th team (as opposed to a 16th), wouldn't there be an offer within 5 minutes of UT's rejection? Even as damage control?

 

[JimSwinkLives!]

QUOTE(forgottenera @ Jun 15 2010, 08:21 AM) [snapback]579432[/snapback]
Can the addition of Utah to the pac 10 generate enough new funds to warrant the other schools taking a 1/12 over a 1/11 share, even with a champ game?

 

[JimSwinkLives!]

QUOTE(forgottenera @ Jun 15 2010, 08:21 AM) [snapback]579432[/snapback]
Can the addition of Utah to the pac 10 generate enough new funds to warrant the other schools taking a 1/12 over a 1/11 share, even with a champ game?



I keep going back to the P10 conference meeting two weeks ago. Larry Scott proposed several expansion options to the presidents/chancellors, one of them was the Utah/Colorado option. It got virtually no support at all, so I have to believe that adding Utah would be viewed as an abject failure by the conference. When Scott commented that the P10 might stay at eleven members, I believe there is a chance that Utah might not be leaving the MWC.

 

[FROGLEGHOP]

Without adding the extra teams to get to 16, I bet the PAC-10 may regret taking Colorado now. With the way the PAC -16 would have been configured, virtually all of the traditional rivalries would have been left intact. If they add a 12th team and split into 2 divisions, or do not play a complete round robin format every year, some rivalries will likely be disrupted, similar to the ending of the Nebraska - OU rivalry caused by the formation of the Big 12.

 

[Frog89]

Not sure what Utah brings to the Pac 10 except to take more of every team's share. But if Utah gets offered, they be foolish not to jump at it.