Why Utah may yet stay in the MWC

[713frog]

QUOTE(Metropolis777 @ Jun 15 2010, 11:07 AM) [snapback]579669[/snapback]
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.


metropolis...u may wanna change ur signature now...

 

[KillerFrog InD KitchenSink]

QUOTE(RSF @ Jun 15 2010, 11:04 AM) [snapback]579665[/snapback]
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.

By far the most compelling argument. The Big 10 did fine for years with 11.

 

[gdu]

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.

Then why was everybody talking about CU and UU to the Pac WELL before Texas + 5 was ever mentioned? Don't you think LS probably at least considered that possbility at some point?

 

[Zammers]

I think the Pac-10 only wanted to expand because they felt they had to respond to the Big Ten expansion. In other words they didn't want to get left behind. But with the Big 12 dropping back to 10 teams maybe the Pac-10 doesn't feel that pressure anymore and wants to sit tight until another expansion period (probably not too far away with Big12). They may feel they can always go get Utah whenever that time comes.

 

[Zammers]

Sorry double post......however, two of my signature pic is better than one

 

[froginaustin]

QUOTE(Zammers @ Jun 15 2010, 11:19 AM) [snapback]579684[/snapback]
I think the Pac-10 only wanted to expand because they felt they had to respond to the Big Ten expansion. In other words they didn't want to get left behind. But with the Big 12 dropping back to 10 teams maybe the Pac-10 doesn't feel that pressure anymore and wants to sit tight until another expansion period (probably not too far away with Big12). They may feel they can always go get Utah whenever that time comes.

But it's being gossiped that Utah has given notice of withdrawal to the MWC. If true, then the PAC12 has arrived.

 

[Dogfrog]

Let me throw this out there too. Another scenario not likely, but for the same reasons I believe the SEC should be interested in TCU, why not the PAC 10 take TCU instead of Utah? Now, maybe the middle word in our name is a problem for Cal, but I don't think we carry the same kind of dogma luggage that BYU or Baylor carry, if that makes any difference. USC was founded with Methodist affiliation. The point is, if they feel at some point that they have no option but to go to 12, our success and our location brings the same marketing advantages to PAC 10 as it does to SEC. Don't tell me we don't bring the DFW market. It doesn't matter, the PAC 10 schools will do that. Having schools like USC, UCLA, Ariz, and ASU coming in to DFW every other year brings real value to the PAC. Moreso than SLC IMO. We are a 2.5 hour flight plus a 20 minute bus ride away.

 

[windfarm]

Wondering if there will be any consideration of adding Utah to give CU a rival of sorts. As it stands, there is no school that CU will play in the Pac 10 that is less than a 15 hour drive (Tempe being the closest I think), with most being further. However, I'm not sure the other schools will care too much about that.

I do think that the Pac 10 may step back for a bit and think this over. I heard on twitter that they wouldn't have to invite Utah until 2011 to have them start in the Pac 10 at the same time as CU. Seems like its in their best interests to step back and let things simmer down for a while.

 

[HG73]

If invited, Utah will dominate the pac10. They will be in a division with the Washington and Oregon schools. UCS is about to start their five year probation. The Washington and Oregon schools will only get to visit LA every fourth year. Colorado doesn't begin to deliver the Denver market, and Utah represents less than half of the #31 SLC market. The pac10 has just been humiliated by ut. Larry Scott better hope he has a long contract.

Now to the big12-2. How do you think Missouri, ISU, Kansas and KSU like ut? Not much. How long will those schools stay in the big12-2? Only until they can find a better deal. Aggies are aggies, blew their big chance to join the best conference in the country for more money and give the finger to ut. This hot mess only gets better as time goes on.

And TCU is off to the CWS and just went to their first BCS bowl. Things will turn out for us.

 

[Zammers]

QUOTE(froginaustin @ Jun 15 2010, 11:21 AM) [snapback]579689[/snapback]
But it's being gossiped that Utah has given notice of withdrawal to the MWC. If true, then the PAC12 has arrived.


Gossip means nothing to me after the last two weeks

 

[Delmonico]

QUOTE(tcugdu @ Jun 15 2010, 11:17 AM) [snapback]579681[/snapback]
Then why was everybody talking about CU and UU to the Pac WELL before Texas + 5 was ever mentioned? Don't you think LS probably at least considered that possbility at some point?


Considered and rejected, so I've been told by people with better connections than I have.

 

[FrogBones]

QUOTE(tcugdu @ Jun 15 2010, 11:17 AM) [snapback]579681[/snapback]
Then why was everybody talking about CU and UU to the Pac WELL before Texas + 5 was ever mentioned? Don't you think LS probably at least considered that possbility at some point?


Because they got blinded, just like all the other conferences, with potential big $. Now as the dust begins to settle, over the last week or so conferences have begun to realize that expansion makes less sense than they originally thought. Now, with the new big 12(10) securing an even better tv deal than what the PAC 10 already has, they could have sat down at a table to renegotiate with only 10 teams to get a similar contract to what the Big 12 2.0 is about to announce with fox. But, adding Utah adds little in terms of TV for the pac 10. Sure your gonna get the state of Utah, but how many tv sets are their in Utah?

 

[Delmonico]

QUOTE(froginaustin @ Jun 15 2010, 11:21 AM) [snapback]579689[/snapback]
But it's being gossiped that Utah has given notice of withdrawal to the MWC. If true, then the PAC12 has arrived.



It was also gossiped that the UT move to the Pac 10 was imminent....and that was just 24 hours ago.

 

[froginaustin]

QUOTE(RSF @ Jun 15 2010, 11:26 AM) [snapback]579700[/snapback]
It was also gossiped that the UT move to the Pac 10 was imminent....and that was just 24 hours ago.

My point precisely. :blink:

 

[HFrog1999]

Hopefully something sours the deal. I can't see USC wanting to play a conf champ game to go to the Rose Bowl. However, USC won't be going to any bowls for 2 years.

 

[Delmonico]

QUOTE(froginaustin @ Jun 15 2010, 11:29 AM) [snapback]579703[/snapback]
My point precisely. :blink:



Huh?

 

[Dogfrog]

QUOTE(RSF @ Jun 15 2010, 11:25 AM) [snapback]579698[/snapback]
Considered and rejected, so I've been told by people with better connections than I have.


Besides, everybody has a conversational backup plan in a negotiation, to show the other party that they can't corner you, whether it's real or not. "We have a viable plan to go to 12." I'm betting PAC 10 deeply regrets the CO invite.

 

[FrogBones]

QUOTE(HFrog1999 @ Jun 15 2010, 11:29 AM) [snapback]579704[/snapback]
Hopefully something sours the deal. I can't see USC wanting to play a conf champ game to go to the Rose Bowl. However, USC won't be going to any bowls for 2 years.


Your right about USC on both counts, but the PAC expansion is not going to go into effect until 2012 at the earliest. According to big 12 reports Neb will be in the big 10 in 2011 and colorado will be in the PAC starting in 2012. USC post season ban is for only two years which I assume means they can't play in bowls for the upcoming 2010 season and 2011. If I am wrong about that someone please correct me. With that said, you better believe USC has a word to say in expansion, and you better believe that USC does not want to play a championship game in order to get the rose bowl or the NC game.

 

[HToady]

Two days ago everybody was going to 16 team mega conferences with playoffs imminent.

Today the desire is to "skinny" down to avoid a conference championship game?

How odd this whole thing is.....

 

[windfarm]

While Pac 10 may regret CU invite, it should work out fine for them in the long run. CU gets tons of students from those states, and so I think it will be beneficial for all involved, especially if CU ever revives their program.

That said, I think there has to be some serious concern about bringing in Utah and having them dominate football. Pac 10 football hasn't been much better than the top 4 in the MWC the past few years, IMHO. Their second place schools with 2-3 losses have been trying to get into BCS games by saying "we're the Pac 10," with little else to back it up.