Why Utah may yet stay in the MWC
- Thread starter Riff Ram
- Start date
Genbukan
Full Member
HOpe they stay .... I enjoy the rivalry with them and I think there is a mutual level of respect.
OTOH - if they get an offer they'll be gone before the ink is dry. It would be hard for anyone to turn down an increased of TV money from 1.3 mill to over 10 mill (even with the existing PAC 10 contract).
We just gotta keep winning. The new Longhorn 10 conference shouldn't be around for more than five years IMO.
OTOH - if they get an offer they'll be gone before the ink is dry. It would be hard for anyone to turn down an increased of TV money from 1.3 mill to over 10 mill (even with the existing PAC 10 contract).
We just gotta keep winning. The new Longhorn 10 conference shouldn't be around for more than five years IMO.
Is there any possibility that the Pac 10 takes back their invite to CU? I mean, an invite isn't an actual contract, right? if this were to possibly happen, what would become of CU? Would the Big 12 take them back or would they be left without a conference? Would MWC jump at the chance for another large state school, even if we already have two other Colorado based schools? If we did offer and they accepted, would we have a roll call for people making the trip up for the Great American Smokeout?
Not sure if the Big 12-2 would take CU back, but I doubt that it will be an issue.
The MWC would love CU (even though they'd be a weak football addition), but they would never go that route because they want to be affiliated with other large research universities. They also don't want the yearly CSU game to actually have consequences, since they can't seem to win that with much consistency anymore.
The MWC would love CU (even though they'd be a weak football addition), but they would never go that route because they want to be affiliated with other large research universities. They also don't want the yearly CSU game to actually have consequences, since they can't seem to win that with much consistency anymore.
dweller
New Member
QUOTE(RSF @ Jun 15 2010, 04:04 PM) [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 the new big 12 is not stable, KU, KS, Baylor, and Iowa St are going to be looking over their shoulder from now on, they know they are expendable. Mizzu is still going to eye the big 10 (12) and hope for a future invite.
Also all the money talked about currently is PROJECTED amounts, what happens if it does not materialise? Or proves not to be sustainalble?
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 the new big 12 is not stable, KU, KS, Baylor, and Iowa St are going to be looking over their shoulder from now on, they know they are expendable. Mizzu is still going to eye the big 10 (12) and hope for a future invite.
Also all the money talked about currently is PROJECTED amounts, what happens if it does not materialise? Or proves not to be sustainalble?
Once again--never inderestimate the human factor, of how miffed and embarrased the PAC 10 schools are fter being used and abandoned by UT.
You know they invited CU, and went so public with their courtship of the tx ok schools, only after being assured by Dodds the deal would be done.
When proud people get humiliated--just what happened here--the result is always for them to point fingers at the leadership, newly energize the opposition that was already in place, and often to result in a "let's stop right now--no more good money after bad" mentality.
The more I think about it, the more I think the PAC 10 will now see no reason to rush into adding Utah. Moreover, since the Big 10 is playing a waiting game, why in the world should the pac 10 rush to further divide their pie.
Utah, we know, is a wonderful conference mate. But to the Pac 10, they are seen as, well, just a MWC school with bad uniforms, who can be added at any time later.
You know they invited CU, and went so public with their courtship of the tx ok schools, only after being assured by Dodds the deal would be done.
When proud people get humiliated--just what happened here--the result is always for them to point fingers at the leadership, newly energize the opposition that was already in place, and often to result in a "let's stop right now--no more good money after bad" mentality.
The more I think about it, the more I think the PAC 10 will now see no reason to rush into adding Utah. Moreover, since the Big 10 is playing a waiting game, why in the world should the pac 10 rush to further divide their pie.
Utah, we know, is a wonderful conference mate. But to the Pac 10, they are seen as, well, just a MWC school with bad uniforms, who can be added at any time later.
halfwaytoheaven
Active Member
QUOTE(dweller @ Jun 15 2010, 11:53 AM) [snapback]579736[/snapback]
Also all the money talked about currently is PROJECTED amounts, what happens if it does not materialise? Or proves not to be sustainalble?
That's the real question. I can't shake the feeling that either someone paid way more money than they really wanted for Big 12 football, or Beebe just made up some numbers to keep his job. UT may end up being the one regretting its decision. One way or another, they'll end up in a different conference in a few years. Or independent.
I really can't blame Larry Scott. Snagging Texas is about the only way the Pac-10 can keep up with the Big Ten and SEC, so that's what he went for. If he had landed UT, it would have been like the chess club president going home with the prom queen. Quite a coup.
My biggest regret in all of this is that a piece of my cable bandwidth is likely going to be taken up by this "Longhorn Sports Network." Gag me.
Also all the money talked about currently is PROJECTED amounts, what happens if it does not materialise? Or proves not to be sustainalble?
That's the real question. I can't shake the feeling that either someone paid way more money than they really wanted for Big 12 football, or Beebe just made up some numbers to keep his job. UT may end up being the one regretting its decision. One way or another, they'll end up in a different conference in a few years. Or independent.
I really can't blame Larry Scott. Snagging Texas is about the only way the Pac-10 can keep up with the Big Ten and SEC, so that's what he went for. If he had landed UT, it would have been like the chess club president going home with the prom queen. Quite a coup.
My biggest regret in all of this is that a piece of my cable bandwidth is likely going to be taken up by this "Longhorn Sports Network." Gag me.
QUOTE(Genbukan @ Jun 15 2010, 11:42 AM) [snapback]579719[/snapback]
HOpe they stay .... I enjoy the rivalry with them and I think there is a mutual level of respect.
OTOH - if they get an offer they'll be gone before the ink is dry. It would be hard for anyone to turn down an increased of TV money from 1.3 mill to over 10 mill (even with the existing PAC 10 contract).
We just gotta keep winning. The new Longhorn 10 conference shouldn't be around for more than five years IMO.
I do think that if Utah gets an invite they will probably go. But, honestly, I don't see them getting an invite right now. I base this on my evaluation of all the variables that are available to the public right now. If the pac 10 has a new sweet tv deal in the works behind closed doors then my position might change. But, I also believe that if the PAC had a new tv deal, even remotely in the works, then they would have already taken Utah.
FWIW chip brown just said on espn that because of the new tv deal, and because it will take a while to go into effect, that the new big 12-2 will delay all of conference expansion for at least a decade. I take that statement with a massive grain of salt.
QUOTE(GoFrogYourself @ Jun 15 2010, 11:47 AM) [snapback]579725[/snapback]
Is there any possibility that the Pac 10 takes back their invite to CU? I mean, an invite isn't an actual contract, right? if this were to possibly happen, what would become of CU? Would the Big 12 take them back or would they be left without a conference? Would MWC jump at the chance for another large state school, even if we already have two other Colorado based schools? If we did offer and they accepted, would we have a roll call for people making the trip up for the Great American Smokeout?
If they never signed a contract, then, yes I do think the PAC might rescind the offer, and no I don't think the Big 12-2 would take colorado back because of the ten team format they are now "solidly" behind. I believe the MWC would think about colorado but I don't know if we would invite because the only reason to would be to reach 12 and have a championship game, but who else would we add? Fresno? SMU? no I think we would stick with ten
HOpe they stay .... I enjoy the rivalry with them and I think there is a mutual level of respect.
OTOH - if they get an offer they'll be gone before the ink is dry. It would be hard for anyone to turn down an increased of TV money from 1.3 mill to over 10 mill (even with the existing PAC 10 contract).
We just gotta keep winning. The new Longhorn 10 conference shouldn't be around for more than five years IMO.
I do think that if Utah gets an invite they will probably go. But, honestly, I don't see them getting an invite right now. I base this on my evaluation of all the variables that are available to the public right now. If the pac 10 has a new sweet tv deal in the works behind closed doors then my position might change. But, I also believe that if the PAC had a new tv deal, even remotely in the works, then they would have already taken Utah.
FWIW chip brown just said on espn that because of the new tv deal, and because it will take a while to go into effect, that the new big 12-2 will delay all of conference expansion for at least a decade. I take that statement with a massive grain of salt.
QUOTE(GoFrogYourself @ Jun 15 2010, 11:47 AM) [snapback]579725[/snapback]
Is there any possibility that the Pac 10 takes back their invite to CU? I mean, an invite isn't an actual contract, right? if this were to possibly happen, what would become of CU? Would the Big 12 take them back or would they be left without a conference? Would MWC jump at the chance for another large state school, even if we already have two other Colorado based schools? If we did offer and they accepted, would we have a roll call for people making the trip up for the Great American Smokeout?
If they never signed a contract, then, yes I do think the PAC might rescind the offer, and no I don't think the Big 12-2 would take colorado back because of the ten team format they are now "solidly" behind. I believe the MWC would think about colorado but I don't know if we would invite because the only reason to would be to reach 12 and have a championship game, but who else would we add? Fresno? SMU? no I think we would stick with ten
Definitely puts things in an interesting situation, as the potential instability of the Big 12 lite leads one to think all this realignment could happen again in the next 1-4 years. However, will the Pac 10 forgive and forget to eventually make a superconference and grab UT et al.? I think they probably would, but might take a few years.
Have to really wonder, is the Big 12 lite any better off than the old SWC? That conference had strong programs in UT, A&M, Houston, & for a while, Ark. Now, the Big 12 lite has UT & OU, some decent but not amazing programs, and a quite a few football bottom dwellers.
I still think they are going to have trouble keeping TV deals, when at least 5 of the teams are not even contenders in any given year.
Have to really wonder, is the Big 12 lite any better off than the old SWC? That conference had strong programs in UT, A&M, Houston, & for a while, Ark. Now, the Big 12 lite has UT & OU, some decent but not amazing programs, and a quite a few football bottom dwellers.
I still think they are going to have trouble keeping TV deals, when at least 5 of the teams are not even contenders in any given year.
Dogfrog
Active Member
QUOTE(dweller @ Jun 15 2010, 11:53 AM) [snapback]579736[/snapback]
I agree the new big 12 is not stable, KU, KS, Baylor, and Iowa St are going to be looking over their shoulder from now on, they know they are expendable. Mizzu is still going to eye the big 10 (12) and hope for a future invite.
Also all the money talked about currently is PROJECTED amounts, what happens if it does not materialise? Or proves not to be sustainalble?
The TV money is a real puzzle here. Hard to believe that over the course of a few days Beebe was able to finalize a hard contract from a TV network and that all the schools just had to show up and sign on Monday. Something is missing. UT is smart and I just don't see them making a deal based entirely on conversation. I just don't see how they got this finalized so quickly.
I agree the new big 12 is not stable, KU, KS, Baylor, and Iowa St are going to be looking over their shoulder from now on, they know they are expendable. Mizzu is still going to eye the big 10 (12) and hope for a future invite.
Also all the money talked about currently is PROJECTED amounts, what happens if it does not materialise? Or proves not to be sustainalble?
The TV money is a real puzzle here. Hard to believe that over the course of a few days Beebe was able to finalize a hard contract from a TV network and that all the schools just had to show up and sign on Monday. Something is missing. UT is smart and I just don't see them making a deal based entirely on conversation. I just don't see how they got this finalized so quickly.
QUOTE(Dogfrog @ Jun 15 2010, 11:22 AM) [snapback]579692[/snapback]
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.
Are you flying into Meacham or Alliance?
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.
Are you flying into Meacham or Alliance?
QUOTE(Dogfrog @ Jun 15 2010, 12:06 PM) [snapback]579756[/snapback]
The TV money is a real puzzle here. Hard to believe that over the course of a few days Beebe was able to finalize a hard contract from a TV network and that all the schools just had to show up and sign on Monday. Something is missing. UT is smart and I just don't see them making a deal based entirely on conversation. I just don't see how they got this finalized so quickly.
Why is everyone missing the big matchups here? This is big TV money people! Basically any game that ISU & KSU play in are likely to set cable viewership records.
The TV money is a real puzzle here. Hard to believe that over the course of a few days Beebe was able to finalize a hard contract from a TV network and that all the schools just had to show up and sign on Monday. Something is missing. UT is smart and I just don't see them making a deal based entirely on conversation. I just don't see how they got this finalized so quickly.
Why is everyone missing the big matchups here? This is big TV money people! Basically any game that ISU & KSU play in are likely to set cable viewership records.
froginaustin
Active Member
QUOTE(FrogBones @ Jun 15 2010, 12:04 PM) [snapback]579753[/snapback]
. . .
If [CU & the PAC] never signed a contract, then, yes I do think the PAC might rescind the offer, . . ..
I'm decades away from the creative hypotheticals of law school contracts and b-law classes, but whether there's a signed paper or not, and whether or not every important detail has been hashed out or not, the PAC made an offer and CU sure as hell acted on the offer to its detriment (withdrew from the old B12). The PAC might possibly shed CU, but not without a ton of unpleasantness.
. . .
If [CU & the PAC] never signed a contract, then, yes I do think the PAC might rescind the offer, . . ..
I'm decades away from the creative hypotheticals of law school contracts and b-law classes, but whether there's a signed paper or not, and whether or not every important detail has been hashed out or not, the PAC made an offer and CU sure as hell acted on the offer to its detriment (withdrew from the old B12). The PAC might possibly shed CU, but not without a ton of unpleasantness.
QUOTE(Dogfrog @ Jun 15 2010, 12:06 PM) [snapback]579756[/snapback]
The TV money is a real puzzle here. Hard to believe that over the course of a few days Beebe was able to finalize a hard contract from a TV network and that all the schools just had to show up and sign on Monday. Something is missing. UT is smart and I just don't see them making a deal based entirely on conversation. I just don't see how they got this finalized so quickly.
Here is my guess at an answer to your questions.
I believe that some of the TV networks have been involved in this from the very beginning. I have no proof because all these meetings are being made in private, but that is my belief. When you have tens and hundreds of million's of dollars at stake, you find a way into the meeting.
Joe Schaad on ESPN this morning said that the TV networks stopped a massive college football expansion because of
A. Some TV networks would have lost money and games to show had the big 12 folded and they would have sued the conferences that were to blame. That is what he said in summary
B. It is more profitable and better TV viewing to have a Big 12 survive for the TV networks, than to have 4 16 team super conferences where we would have had maybe one interesting matchup a week in the entire country. Remember, had the PAC 16 happened UT and USC would have played in the regular season only once every three years.
C. The TV networks looked at what was about to happen with the four 16 team super conferences and they realized that their would be a huge drop in intriguing match-up's. Far less non-conference games. Far less non-conference games that mean anything (say goodbye to games like UT-Ohio state or USC-Ohio state) and they knew that the product on the field would decrease in value, because honestly had the super conference's come into effect, college football would get a lot more boring. And the TV people do not like boring. Boring leads to low ratings. Low ratings lead to less profits.
thats what I think, but I could be completely wrong, what do I know, I am just a TCU fan with a computer
The TV money is a real puzzle here. Hard to believe that over the course of a few days Beebe was able to finalize a hard contract from a TV network and that all the schools just had to show up and sign on Monday. Something is missing. UT is smart and I just don't see them making a deal based entirely on conversation. I just don't see how they got this finalized so quickly.
Here is my guess at an answer to your questions.
I believe that some of the TV networks have been involved in this from the very beginning. I have no proof because all these meetings are being made in private, but that is my belief. When you have tens and hundreds of million's of dollars at stake, you find a way into the meeting.
Joe Schaad on ESPN this morning said that the TV networks stopped a massive college football expansion because of
A. Some TV networks would have lost money and games to show had the big 12 folded and they would have sued the conferences that were to blame. That is what he said in summary
B. It is more profitable and better TV viewing to have a Big 12 survive for the TV networks, than to have 4 16 team super conferences where we would have had maybe one interesting matchup a week in the entire country. Remember, had the PAC 16 happened UT and USC would have played in the regular season only once every three years.
C. The TV networks looked at what was about to happen with the four 16 team super conferences and they realized that their would be a huge drop in intriguing match-up's. Far less non-conference games. Far less non-conference games that mean anything (say goodbye to games like UT-Ohio state or USC-Ohio state) and they knew that the product on the field would decrease in value, because honestly had the super conference's come into effect, college football would get a lot more boring. And the TV people do not like boring. Boring leads to low ratings. Low ratings lead to less profits.
thats what I think, but I could be completely wrong, what do I know, I am just a TCU fan with a computer
QUOTE(froginaustin @ Jun 15 2010, 12:14 PM) [snapback]579765[/snapback]
I'm decades away from the creative hypotheticals of law school contracts and b-law classes, but whether there's a signed paper or not, and whether or not every important detail has been hashed out or not, the PAC made an offer and CU sure as hell acted on the offer to its detriment (withdrew from the old B12). The PAC might possibly shed CU, but not without a ton of unpleasantness.
um, this entire fiasco has been wrought with unpleasantness. did you listen to the pissing match between UT and the aggies last week?
I'm decades away from the creative hypotheticals of law school contracts and b-law classes, but whether there's a signed paper or not, and whether or not every important detail has been hashed out or not, the PAC made an offer and CU sure as hell acted on the offer to its detriment (withdrew from the old B12). The PAC might possibly shed CU, but not without a ton of unpleasantness.
um, this entire fiasco has been wrought with unpleasantness. did you listen to the pissing match between UT and the aggies last week?
Merch Frog
Turd
QUOTE(Metropolis777 @ Jun 15 2010, 04:07 PM) [snapback]579669[/snapback]
FWIW,
The academics (Stanford & Cal) aren't exactly enamored with what Utah brings to the table.
Source?
FWIW,
The academics (Stanford & Cal) aren't exactly enamored with what Utah brings to the table.
Source?
macaroni
Member
QUOTE(windfarm @ Jun 15 2010, 10:37 AM) [snapback]579713[/snapback]
Pac 10 football hasn't been much better than the top 4 in the MWC the past few years, IMHO.
Not much better? Pac10 has been much worse than MWC the past few years. We are 8-5 over them in the last two years, and that includes a 59-0 drubbing of UCLA. With USC on probation, Utah has a much easier BCS path in the Pac.
Pac 10 football hasn't been much better than the top 4 in the MWC the past few years, IMHO.
Not much better? Pac10 has been much worse than MWC the past few years. We are 8-5 over them in the last two years, and that includes a 59-0 drubbing of UCLA. With USC on probation, Utah has a much easier BCS path in the Pac.
