Why Utah may yet stay in the MWC

[Riff Ram]

The pac 10 invited CU at least in part to help Dodds fade heat over abandoning Balor. No doubt at that time the PAC 10 felt they'd take Utah to get to 12, or if someone fell out of the TX group, so taking CU seemed like a safe move.

Now that Dodds and the 7 dwarfs have embarrased the PAC 10 very publicly, you know the decision to take CU is being questioned very seriously on the west coast.

The PAC 10 is a proud group of schools, who were pushed to expand for the prommised big dollars, against their better judgment, by an agressive new commissioner. Word is, they were never particularly in favor of a cchamtionship game--the usual reason to get to 12.

I suspect there is now a serious push back from the PAC 10 rank and file, who are now questioning why CU is in the club, and why on earth they should now split their pie potentially 12 ways by adding Utah--if no big play to get to 16 with two new flagships is in sight. And by the way, I bet most AD's now think they have been played for fools by UT.

In this new reality, the natural reaction after being screwed over, and the prudent play as well, is for the Pac 10 to stand pat--work CU into the schedule for 2011 (easier to schedule 11 than 12) and wait to see what's on the horizon in a year or two.

So--human nature--and the desire to push back on the commishioner who messed up--tells me that there is maybe a 40 to 50 % chance Utah stays.

 

[Dogfrog]

QUOTE(Riff Ram @ Jun 15 2010, 10:36 AM) [snapback]579622[/snapback]
The pac 10 invited CU at least in part to help Dodds fade heat over abandoning Balor. No doubt at that time the PAC 10 felt they'd take Utah to get to 12, or if someone fell out of the TX group, so taking CU seemed like a safe move.

Now that Dodds and the 7 dwarfs have embarrased the PAC 10 very publicly, you know the decision to take CU is being questioned very seriously on the west coast.

The PAC 10 is a proud group of schools, who were pushed to expand for the prommised big dollars, against their better judgment, by an agressive new commissioner. Word is, they were never particularly in favor of a cchamtionship game--the usual reason to get to 12.

I suspect there is now a serious push back from the PAC 10 rank and file, who are now questioning why CU is in the club, and why on earth they should now split their pie potentially 12 ways by adding Utah--if no big play to get to 16 with two new flagships is in sight. And by the way, I bet most AD's now think they have been played for fools by UT.

In this new reality, the natural reaction after being screwed over, and the prudent play as well, is for the Pac 10 to stand pat--work CU into the schedule for 2011 (easier to schedule 11 than 12) and wait to see what's on the horizon in a year or two.

So--human nature--and the desire to push back on the commishioner who messed up--tells me that there is maybe a 40 to 50 % chance Utah stays.


It's interesting how this current Big 12 exercise seems to have direct links back to the SWC breakup. At that time, initially Pac 10 wanted CO and TExas I believe, and Texas wanted to go. At the same time, A&M wanted to go to SEC. Texas legislature stepped in, demanded they stay together, and the Big 8 invite was concocted. It's almost like both UT and A&M have had buyers remorse all these years and wanted to fully explore what they missed.

 

[ShreveFrog]

Except for this tweet two hours ago from Joe Schad at ESPN:

@schadjoe The recent to visit to Utah by Pac-10 Commissioner Larry Scott is sign of where the conference likely turns next

 

[KillerFrog InD KitchenSink]

QUOTE(Riff Ram @ Jun 15 2010, 10:36 AM) [snapback]579622[/snapback]
The pac 10 invited CU at least in part to help Dodds fade heat over abandoning Balor. No doubt at that time the PAC 10 felt they'd take Utah to get to 12, or if someone fell out of the TX group, so taking CU seemed like a safe move.

Now that Dodds and the 7 dwarfs have embarrased the PAC 10 very publicly, you know the decision to take CU is being questioned very seriously on the west coast.

The PAC 10 is a proud group of schools, who were pushed to expand for the prommised big dollars, against their better judgment, by an agressive new commissioner. Word is, they were never particularly in favor of a cchamtionship game--the usual reason to get to 12.

I suspect there is now a serious push back from the PAC 10 rank and file, who are now questioning why CU is in the club, and why on earth they should now split their pie potentially 12 ways by adding Utah--if no big play to get to 16 with two new flagships is in sight. And by the way, I bet most AD's now think they have been played for fools by UT.

In this new reality, the natural reaction after being screwed over, and the prudent play as well, is for the Pac 10 to stand pat--work CU into the schedule for 2011 (easier to schedule 11 than 12) and wait to see what's on the horizon in a year or two.

So--human nature--and the desire to push back on the commishioner who messed up--tells me that there is maybe a 40 to 50 % chance Utah stays.

I could see that. I also could see them say, "it's not our ideal outcome, but we are at 11, we need one more for a champ game and we look like a fool with our pants on the ground at 11. Let's bite the bullet and get to 12."

 

[50FT FROG]

QUOTE(ShreveFrog @ Jun 15 2010, 03:44 PM) [snapback]579632[/snapback]
Except for this tweet two hours ago from Joe Schad at ESPN:

@schadjoe The recent to visit to Utah by Pac-10 Commissioner Larry Scott is sign of where the conference likely turns next

think that visit was either yesterday or the day before - before everything fell apart.

 

[Planks]

I'd put the chances of Utah not recieving an invite at 10%. I think if they weren't interested in going to 12, they wouldn't have added CU. And yes, they may have been expecting the big 12 south teams, but if that was their only goal, they could have waited until the big 12 south teams had already agreed to joint to invite CU. I think the early addition of CU is a sign that they were expanding to 12 or 16 no matter what.

 

[froginaustin]

If Utah does jump to the PAC, it will be very interesting to see whether or not they go to a divisional format for football, and what those divisions might be. For that matter, their scheduling discussions might be entertaining for outsiders no matter how they do it.

We've heard all this stuff about the northern schools wanting to play at least once a year in L.A.-- isn't that the reason that they ended up with that nasty, unpopular round robin schedule?

So what now, PAC? Do you use "zipper" divisions? We've seen how popular that's been in the ACC. Or draw up divisions that keep the northern schools up north, for years at a time? Or a Big Televen-style schedule?

 

[Delmonico]

QUOTE(ShreveFrog @ Jun 15 2010, 10:44 AM) [snapback]579632[/snapback]
Except for this tweet two hours ago from Joe Schad at ESPN:

@schadjoe The recent to visit to Utah by Pac-10 Commissioner Larry Scott is sign of where the conference likely turns next


Utah as #16 and Utah as #12 are two entirely different scenarios. Remains to be seen where the Pac10 turns. Could be Utah, but it could also be back to the drawing board.

 

[Delmonico]

QUOTE(Planks @ Jun 15 2010, 10:48 AM) [snapback]579637[/snapback]
I'd put the chances of Utah not recieving an invite at 10%. I think if they weren't interested in going to 12, they wouldn't have added CU. And yes, they may have been expecting the big 12 south teams, but if that was their only goal, they could have waited until the big 12 south teams had already agreed to joint to invite CU. I think the early addition of CU is a sign that they were expanding to 12 or 16 no matter what.



CU was cover for UT so they could tell baylor they tried and failed to bring them along. Scott already thought he had a deal with UT to go to 16.

 

[50FT FROG]

QUOTE(RSF @ Jun 15 2010, 03:50 PM) [snapback]579642[/snapback]
CU was cover for UT so they could tell baylor they tried and failed to bring them along. Scott already thought he had a deal with UT to go to 16.

agreed

 

[Dogfrog]

QUOTE(ShreveFrog @ Jun 15 2010, 10:44 AM) [snapback]579632[/snapback]
Except for this tweet two hours ago from Joe Schad at ESPN:

@schadjoe The recent to visit to Utah by Pac-10 Commissioner Larry Scott is sign of where the conference likely turns next


Is this the same Joe Schad who declared yesterday morning that UT to Pac 16 was "imminent"? These guys are making it up as they go.

 

[Frog89]

Does Utah bring enough to the Pac 10? That's the question. There's a reason UT, A&M and OU don't want to expand this new scaled down conference and have to split a pie more ways than 10. How much more money will Utah generate for the Pac 10?

 

[gdu]

QUOTE(RSF @ Jun 15 2010, 10:50 AM) [snapback]579642[/snapback]
CU was cover for UT so they could tell baylor they tried and failed to bring them along. Scott already thought he had a deal with UT to go to 16.

That was almost certainly part of the reason, but there had to be a back-up plan as well, though I kinda hope there wasn't bc it is pretty funny to think that anothe conference would take a team with blah athletics and a budget in shambles just to not have to take Baylor.

 

[gdu]

QUOTE(Dogfrog @ Jun 15 2010, 10:55 AM) [snapback]579648[/snapback]
Is this the same Joe Schad who declared yesterday morning that UT to Pac 16 was "imminent"? These guys are making it up as they go.

true, but at least he also tweeted this:

Florida and TCU only two schools to play in BCS bowl and World Series and win national title in third sport
about 1 hour ago via txt

 

[FrogBones]

QUOTE(KillerFrog InD KitchenSink @ Jun 15 2010, 10:45 AM) [snapback]579633[/snapback]
I could see that. I also could see them say, "it's not our ideal outcome, but we are at 11, we need one more for a champ game and we look like a fool with our pants on the ground at 11. Let's bite the bullet and get to 12."


What happens if the pac 11 goes to 12 and in the first PAC 12 championship game Utah upsets USC to keep USC out of the national title game? Do you think the PAC 11 really wants to risk having their best team lose out on a shot a NC every single year? I don't think so. Then on top of all that not only is each pac 10 team going to get less money every year now because of the colorado debacle, if they add utah it will be even less. Honestly, the pac 10 would be stupid to add utah right now. If I were them I would cut my losses and stick with 11, or if they never got anything in writing then I would tell colorado to bugger off.

The only problem with the logic of the above quote: as someone else posted in another thread, is that the only championship game that makes money is the SEC's. Why do you think the new big 12 is so happy to stay at 10? It's because they know that a championship game does not make money every year for the conference, and can often lead to your best team not being in a national championship(nebraska and the phantom one second cough cough). They know. The Pac 10 doesn't have a damn clue because they have never had a conference championship game.

Now, if the Pac 10 gets a new tv contract this may all change, but nothing, and I mean nothing right now suggests the Pac 10 has even begun to figure out a new tv contract, especially now that the pac 16 will not happen.

 

[Nick Danger]

QUOTE(ShreveFrog @ Jun 15 2010, 10:44 AM) [snapback]579632[/snapback]
Except for this tweet two hours ago from Joe Schad at ESPN:

@schadjoe The recent to visit to Utah by Pac-10 Commissioner Larry Scott is sign of where the conference likely turns next

Joe Schad? You mean the ESPN's Joe Schad? The one that tweeted that the collapse of the Big-12 was "imminent"... that Joe Schad? :dry:

 

[Delmonico]

QUOTE(tcugdu @ Jun 15 2010, 10:57 AM) [snapback]579653[/snapback]
That was almost certainly part of the reason, but there had to be a back-up plan as well, though I kinda hope there wasn't bc it is pretty funny to think that anothe conference would take a team with blah athletics and a budget in shambles just to not have to take Baylor.



That's just it. I don't think they did have a backup plan, because none of the other scenaios got them to where they felt they needed to be - close to the Big 10 and SEC. Scott and Weiberg pushed all-in on this one, and Dan Beebe drew to an inside straight on the river.

Another reason I think they'll stay at 11 is the idea that, while the Big 12 may have survived, they're not stable, and we could be going thru this again in a few years. As the saying goes, sometimes its best to keep your powder dry.

 

[FrogBones]

QUOTE(RSF @ Jun 15 2010, 11:04 AM) [snapback]579665[/snapback]
That's just it. I don't think they did have a backup plan, because none of the other scenaios got them to where they felt they needed to be - close to the Big 10 and SEC. Scott and Weiberg pushed all-in on this one, and Dan Beebe drew to an inside straight on the river.

Another reason I think they'll stay at 11 is the idea that, while the Big 12 may have survived, they're not stable, and we could be going thru this again in a few years. As the saying goes, sometimes its best to keep your powder dry.


I agree completely. Since the beginning I have viewed all of this as a poker game between conferences. And your analogy is spot on.

 

[Metropolis777]

FWIW,

The academics (Stanford & Cal) aren't exactly enamored with what Utah brings to the table. Additionally, Washington, Wazzu, Oregon, Oregon St, Arizona, and Arizona St all will lose presence in California in any divisional realignment in the Pac 12. Without the Big 12 South schools, there's no concession of Texas recruiting. Of the 10 current Pac 10 schools, 8 of them have real problems with Utah being added. Are these problems big enough to make any of them vote against Utah (need unanimous vote in Pac 10 for expansion)? I don't know. But, it is worth acknowledging.

 

[Dogfrog]

QUOTE(RSF @ Jun 15 2010, 11:04 AM) [snapback]579665[/snapback]
That's just it. I don't think they did have a backup plan, because none of the other scenaios got them to where they felt they needed to be - close to the Big 10 and SEC. Scott and Weiberg pushed all-in on this one, and Dan Beebe drew to an inside straight on the river.

Another reason I think they'll stay at 11 is the idea that, while the Big 12 may have survived, they're not stable, and we could be going thru this again in a few years. As the saying goes, sometimes its best to keep your powder dry.


Possibly Utah further commits them to a direction they never wanted or intended to go.