Utah to the PAC 10? Not BYU? It could happen

[accadacca]

Who has heard these rumors? :popcorn:

SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 Sports) - The University of Utah to the PAC 10? BYU to the Big 12?? It could happen.

This is all speculation...but sources are telling ABC 4 Sports that Utah will be invited to join the PAC 10 conference, but not BYU. The Cougars could wind up in the Big 12...or staying put in the MWC.

Several dominoes have to fall first, but here's how it could all play out...

The Big 10 wants to expand to a 12 team league..giving them a conference championship game in football, like the SEC and Big 12. Pittsburgh could be asked to join the Big 10..or possibly Rutgers.

The PAC 10 would then follow suit, and it would need to invite 2 schools, and it could be Utah and Colorado.

BYU would not be invited, primarily because they don't play on Sunday...and the PAC 10 has a lot of Sunday games. Officially, the PAC 10 would say Utah is a better fit, because it's a research institution and has a medical school, like most of the other PAC 10 schools...and BYU does not.

Again, this is all speculation, but the PAC 10 TV deal is about to expire, and a new TV partner would want the league to have a football championship game, which requires the league to have 12 teams.

According to Mercurynews.com reporter Jon Wilner's blog (http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2010/02/08/pac-10-commissioner-larry-scott-on-expansion-ncaa-tourney-expansion-a-pac-10-network-and-more/), PAC 10 commissioner Larry Scott said today, "We're looking at it very seriously. If we were ever going to look at expansion, this would be the logical time."

Utah and Colorado would be good fits for the PAC 10, giving the league exposure in 2 new, top 35 markets.

Utah would make that jump for several reasons, the 2 biggest being it would get them into a BCS conference, and it would be a huge boost for recruiting.

As for BYU, the Cougars could stay in the MWC, or accept an invitation to the Big 12 to fill Colorado's spot, although the Big 12 also has some Sunday competition.

If a team was to leave a conference, they would have to give a 1 year notice, so if a school was invited to join a new conference by June of 2010, it would play the 2010--2011 season in the old conference, then begin play in the new conference in the fall of 2011.

And again, if this happened, there would be more dominoes to fall. Would Boise State join the MWC...would Utah State be asked to join??? Would the MWC fall apart without Utah and BYU? It's all speculation, but once the dominos start falling, it could be very interesting.

[Iceaxe]

[B][SIZE=2]BYU would not be invited, primarily because they don't play on Sunday....

Actually.... the biggest reason for not taking Utah and BYU is money.... Utah and BYU both occupy the same TV (read advertiser) market. Colorado has a crappy athletic program and is not a great fit.... but.... they bring the large Colorado market with them so money wins out over quality of the program.

Whenever you want to know how things really work in this world just follow the money.... and the only reason the PAC 10 wants to expand is to get a Championship Game, which again, means big money....

[accadacca]

The audio was finally put up by ESPN from Colin Cowherd's radio show, so
I went in and found the three minute segment about expansion with the
Big 10 and the Pac-10. Cowherd is pretty well connected with college
football world, so take what you want from that. Below is the audio and
about Utah starts at the 2:12 mark the previous stuff is Colin talking
about U Conn to the Big 10.

Audio: http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/339963/Utah_to_Pac-10.mp3

[Scott Card]

So if Utah goes to the PAC 10, will BYU play them with the ultra stupid rule that pac 10 teams are refed by pac 10 refs only? I would be tempted to not play Utah on only that basis alone. It is a joke to play the pac 10 with their officials.

[accadacca]

So if Utah goes to the PAC 10, will BYU play them with the ultra stupid rule that pac 10 teams are refed by pac 10 refs only? I would be tempted to not play Utah on only that basis alone. It is a joke to play the pac 10 with their officials.
The best part if this goes down, is that BYU might be forced to play USU every year. :lol8:

[Iceaxe]

Utah fans.... Be careful what you wish for.... I'm old enough to remember when AZ and AZ State were kings of the WAC and BYU and Utah were mid-tier programs.

The AZ schools moved up to the Pac 8, which became the Pac 10, and were never heard from again....

[Scott Card]

I frankly don't like the idea of spliting Utah and BYU. Puts a real drag on the rivalry if it is only a non-conference game. I like the last game of the regular season with BYU and Utah when potentially all is on the line for the conference title, bowls, etc. This would all go away and if BYU plays Utah or visa versa, the game would be pre-season or during conference but with only a W to play for. I would argue this if BYU is invited to another conference w/o Utah. I love the BYU/Utah game and what is usually on the line. Heck, coaches at Utah have lived and died based on the BYU/Utah games. I actually like our conference and it looks like we are in prime position to be "the guys" to move into the BCS kingdom in 2012 is it?

Anyway, I don't like the split idea. :nono:

Like Ice, I too remember when Az and AZ St. were the kings of the hill and BYU and Utah were trying to always knock them off.

[Iceaxe]

I'd prefer to see the MWC bring in Boise St and Fresno, and dump New Mexico.

[Kent K25]

Actually.... the biggest reason for not taking Utah and BYU is money.... Utah and BYU both occupy the same TV (read advertiser) market. Colorado has a crappy athletic program and is not a great fit.... but.... they bring the large Colorado market with them so money wins out over quality of the program.

Whenever you want to know how things really work in this world just follow the money.... and the only reason the PAC 10 wants to expand is to get a Championship Game, which again, means big money....


Well put, totally agree.

[Kent K25]

I'd prefer to see the MWC bring in Boise St and Fresno, and dump New Mexico.

This too...

[live2ride]

keep the rivalry we dont need a split to make the states football season booooooring. It will be interesting to see how this pans out.

[accadacca]

Colorado just jumped ship for the Pac-10. Will Utah be next or left out of the party? http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5271438

34580

[Iceaxe]

Right now I'm thinking/hoping Utah and BYU might get used to plug holes in anther (bigger) conferance (maybe Big 12).... or... the MWC will pick up some bigger schools and become a BCS conference....

Texas to the PAC 10 is stupied.... Texas has a real sweatheart deal with the Big 12 (they get more money than the other schools). And jumping 2 times zones to play half your games would suck from a competitive standpoint.

But its really crazy right now.... kinda like musical chairs and there are a lot of schools afraid they might not have a good seat when the music stops....

[accadacca]

Sounds like the big 12 is staying together. Now will the Utes be the 12th team to fill the PAC-12?

[Iceaxe]

The PAC 10 will be a 12 team conference.... they want a huge money generating title game. Those title championship games make as much money as a BCS game. Now the only question is who gets invited to the dance and when?

[trackrunner]

it appears to be happening

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=635&sid=11197034

Utah Board of Trustees to discuss Pac-10 invite Thursday
June 16th, 2010 @ 1:28pm
By Robert Jackson, KSL.com sports writer

SALT LAKE CITY -- Finally, the speculation has ended and the question of "when" has been answered.
The Pac-10 has officially extended an invitation to the Utes.
In a notice issued Wednesday afternoon, The University of Utah's Board of Trustees will hold a public meeting Thursday at 12:30pm on the 6th floor of Rice-Eccles Stadium. There is only one item on the agenda: discussion of athletic conference.

It is expected that the Board will unanimously approve the move from the Mountain West to the Pac-10. . .
more at the link above

[accadacca]

Press conference scheduled for 1 PM tomorrow.

[Deuce]

YES!!!!!!

http://www.pac-10.org/genrel/061610aaa.html

June 16, 2010

WALNUT CREEK, Calif. -- The Pacific-10 has extended an invitation to the University of Utah to join the Conference. A press conference will take place in the Rice-Eccles Stadium tower at the University of Utah tomorrow at 1 p.m. MT/12 p.m. PT.

http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/7425/uted.jpg

[asdf]

only reason the PAC 10 wants to expand is to get a Championship Game

oh SWEET, They are finally implementing a playoff system!
The old method of "champion" by polls and other us nonsense was was getting old :naughty:

[Iceaxe]

Interesting read.... this is from Seattle.... kinda nice to know what the rest of the PAC 10 is thinking about Utah.

Pac 10 Expansion: Post Mortem
June 16, 2010

Sort of feels anticlimactic, doesn't it?
I would compare this to thinking you were getting $2,000 on your federal tax return, but after entering the numbers into TurboTax discovering that you've broken even.

Sure, people with any sort of financial acumen will tell you that's the way you should do it, why give the government an interest free loan blah blah blah. But I remember when I would get big(ish) tax returns and how exciting that was. And now that I'm older and have to pay taxes, I feel let down.

Sort of like adding Colorado and Utah, which is something that a lot of us were predicting months ago, that is before the Rape of the Big 12 came onto the scene. From a practical perspective, it made no sense. From a traditionalist perspective, it made no sense. From a logistical/travel perspective, it made no sense. But it made all the sense in the world fiscally. It made all the sense in the world competitively. It made all the sense in the world chest thumpingly.

I wanted to see it happen because I wanted the Pac 10 to set the standard. If mega expansion was to happen, I wanted the Pac 10 to lead the charge. I wanted to see it happen just because it would have been new and exciting, even if it was a pure moneygrab. I wanted to see it happen even if it seemed completely unnatural--sort of like crossing a gorilla and a polar bear--yes, it would be awesome, but it would also violate the laws of nature, next thing you know it would start raining frogs and locusts would swarm and then where would we be?

So, the Buffs and the Utes are going to make their way West. I have to say, it sounds about right. Colorado is a Western state. Utah is a Western state. If they didn't end up in the Mountain West, then they clearly belong in the Pac 10. I feel for the MWC, however, because they took a step back. Yes, they added Boise State, which was perfect. That's an awesome (football) program and it belongs in the MWC, but losing Utah is devastating. Now instead of having four dominant football programs (TCU, Boise State, BYU, and Utah) it only has three, and is back to a nine-team conference. More than ever, I remain convinced that they need to go after Houston, Fresno State, and Nevada because that would give them the requisite 12 teams (for that stupid conference championship game--admittedly a money grab, but still) and also gives them three more very strong football (and basketball) programs. It takes the sting out of losing Utah and may put them on the path to AQ status in the BCS (if that stupid system remains post 2014). Hopefully they make those moves, as it would be good for college football, and would be very interesting for hoops.

The implosion of the Rape of the Big 12 is likely going to be a net positive for the Pac 10(12). I say this because even though gaining Texas and Oklahoma would have been very interesting, just think about the colossal pain that Texas would bring to the table. They are like an extremely hot woman (which makes sense, afterall, I've been to Austin, and I'm here to tell you the following: My. Goodness). But in addition to being beautiful, Texas is also hyperaware of everyone pining for it. Everybody wants a piece of Texas. Everybody wants to associate with Texas. Everyone wants to say that they hang out with Texas. And Texas knows this. Fully. So just think about having that woman –er … program--in your conference. It would lord that over you every day. It would make sure that it got whatever it wanted. The conference title game would be at Jerry Jones's stadium. The split of money would always benefit Texas. Texas would always get top billing and first choice for game times and television exposure. Every team would genuflect to Texas because it would be in their best interest. Texas prints money. Texas is hot. Everybody knows this, most of all, Texas knows this. Not a good scenario.

So, better to allow Texas to look magnanimous and to "save" the Big 12 while pushing Nebraska out the door. Nebraska makes a ton of sense in the Big Ten. Colorado makes a ton of sense in the Pac 10. Fine. That's the way it's going to be and we'll all move on.

So, how in the world do they split this new conference up? I've heard three scenarios:

Scenario 1
The new Pac 12 Conference will split into North and South divisions with the following alignments:

North
1. Washington
2. Washington State
3. Oregon
4. Oregon State
5. Colorado
6. Utah

South
1. Cal
2. Stanford
3. USC
4. UCLA
5. Arizona
6. Arizona State

Scenario 2
The new Pac 12 Conference will split into East and West divisions with the following alignments:

West
1. Washington
2. Utah
3. Oregon
4. Cal
5. UCLA
6. Arizona State

East
1. Washington State
2. Colorado
3. Oregon State
4. Stanford
5. USC
6. Arizona

As Wilner notes, "The nine-game conference football schedule would involve playing every team in your division, plus your natural rival, plus three teams in the other division."

Scenario 3
The new Pac 12 Conference does not have divisions; it will simply be a 1-12 entity (and thus, I presume, no conference championship game?)

As noted many, many places, Scenario 1 will not fly unless UW, WSU, OSU, and UofO (the PNW schools) are guaranteed a trip to LA each year.

Here are a couple of assumptions:

Each team plays nine in-conference games
Each team plays each of its division opponents (five of those nine games)

This means that each of the schools has four games to play in the other division. So if the PNW schools need to appear in LA each year, it's going to take some creative scheduling and that means a team not named USC or UCLA will be left off of the schedule for more than one year at times (at least I think so, I'm not about to extrapolate over 20 years to see how many times UW plays Arizona, I just don't have that kind of time… nor do I think you care that much).

The zipper approach looks impractical simply because it removes the in-state rivalries, even though the teams would play each year, it would still seem very odd to have Oregon and Oregon State in separate divisions. An intra-divisional battle to represent the North or the South also adds fuel to a rivalry (as an example, I have a friend who is a University of Georgia alum, he hates Florida and Tennessee and is somewhat ambivalent toward Alabama and LSU. Why? Because Bama and LSU are in the SEC West and Florida and Tennessee are in SEC East, along with Georgia) I see no way Scenario 2 plays out.

The no-division, 12-team conference looks like the most far fetched especially with respect to a conference title game, or in other words the whole purpose for expansion.

So, Scenario 1 is the play and it looks tough--very tough. Actually since the Pac 10 was already a difficult league, and they just added a powerhouse team like Utah, it's only going to make things tougher. Look, Colorado is horrible right now, but you're crazy to think that a team with that kind of history, resources, climate, and campus (and now with clear inroads to Southern Cal) is going to remain in the gutter. No chance. None. They'll be back.

As for Utah, every team in the Pac 10 should be scared to death of them. They are a juggernaut that just gained some legitimacy in California. They have a fantastic coach who is not going anywhere. They have proven themselves on the football field in big bowl games year after year. They have a huge home-field advantage because they play at altitude (actually, same with Colorado) One word: watchout.

While this new Pac 10 is not as "sexy" as the Rape of the Big 12 (not that rape is sexy, mind you), it's going to be compelling, and with the conference title game, as lame as it is, the Pac 10 will now be relevant later in the season just as the Big Ten is going to be, and just as the SEC is currently (the ACC title game is not relevant at the moment, although I don't understand why teams out there aren't better. I remain baffled by UNC's inability to mount a dominant season. I do think that VT, Miami, and FSU will leap back into national-title-contending dominance, but I don't know if Clemson will ever be nationally relevant, and I'm not sure about Georgia Tech either… I'm fairly convinced that BC, Maryland, Duke, UVA, Wake, and NC State won't ever get there though).

I know that some folks don't like the idea of adding Utah and Colorado, thinking that it's just expansion for the sake of expansion. But like it or not, it's the prudent move. It's a move that ensures the health of the conference. These programs would not have voted for the move and Larry Scott would not have pursued the move if it wasn't going to be good for the conference (for exposure and money… which pretty much mean the same thing).

So we're not getting a $2,000 tax return, but we are investing our money wisely.

I guess that makes Larry Scott H&R Block, and I'm cool with that.

[Iceaxe]

Also.... If I were a zoobie I'm pretty sure this would be killing me..... To BYU fans this has to be like a girl thinking she is a 10 and suddenly being told she's really a 6.

[Reedus]

Also.... If I were a zoobie I'm pretty sure this would be killing me..... To BYU fans this has to be like a girl thinking she is a 10 and suddenly being told she's really a 6.


Byu never had a chance nor will ever with their stipulation of not playing on Sunday. Be interesting of who the better footbal program will be now between Boise, TCu and BYU

[accadacca]

Boise.

They will have a senior QB (and others) their first year in the MWC...

If I was the MWC I would look at adding Nevada, Fresno and I guess Houston.

[accadacca]

Got this via email from Utah...

Join Us Inside Rice-Eccles Stadium Today to Watch this Historica

Ute Fans-You are invited to celebrate this historical day with us by watching the press conference from inside Rice-Eccles Stadium on the video board. Please enter the stadium through the West gates. The press conference begins at 1:00 PM and parking will be limited. If you cannot make it to the stadium, click here to watch online. GO UTES!

[Scott Card]

Utah fans.... Be careful what you wish for.... I'm old enough to remember when AZ and AZ State were kings of the WAC and BYU and Utah were mid-tier programs.

The AZ schools moved up to the Pac 8, which became the Pac 10, and were never heard from again....

This ought to be THE concern for Utah -- a conference cipher.

Congrats Utes! Big money on the way. As a Cougar fan, I really am not that jealous, mad, or bummed. I must not be getting it or something. Everyone tells me how I ought to be jealous or mad or bummed out or something. It really doesn't bother me other than the rivalry is pretty much gone. That part bugs me. What the game will mean in the future is that we are just another non conference game for each other in the grand scheme of things.

It will be interesting to see what happens in a couple of years with the BCS review. The Utes record will still help the MWC as I understand it and we get to bring on Boise St.'s record to boost the conference stats. Could be that the MWC will also be a BCS conference shortly.

BTW, thanks for the Seattle post Ice. Interesting take. I think he was spot on about the Utes program and coach. Well, we'll see what happens. As for this year, I pick TCU to again win it all.

[accadacca]

It really doesn't bother me other than the rivalry is pretty much gone. That part bugs me. What the game will mean in the future is that we are just another non conference game for each other in the grand scheme of things.
Disagree. You think a BYU vs. Utah game is going to be just another game and not a rivalry? Sorry, your high...the stakes will be higher. :nod:

[Iceaxe]

Disagree. You think a BYU vs. Utah game is going to be just another game and not a rivalry? Sorry, your high...the stakes will be higher. :nod:

Youngin's.... :roflol:

Us silverbacks are old enough to remember when Utah's big rivalry was Utah State. Back in the day Utah State was nationally ranked and both schools were in the Skyline Conference. That used to be "The Game" to see every year.... but when the Skyline conference broke up the rivalry was soon "just anther game". Same thing will happen with BYU. It might be big for a few more years but will never be what it is now.... In a few years I'd be surprised if Utah keeps BYU on their schedule as a yearly game.

Back in the 60's and earlier Utah used to stomp BYU... then Edward's came along and BYU stomped Utah for 20 years... Utah and BYU were not a real rivalry until Mac came to Utah...

[Iceaxe]

The Utes record will still help the MWC as I understand it and we get to bring on Boise St.'s record to boost the conference stats

NOPE.... the MWC loses Utah's stat's... just like they gain Boise States.

As I see it the MWC as a whole broke about even on the deal. They traded Utah for Boise State.... six of one, half a dozen of the other....

The current BCS agreement expires soon.... when that happens I expect to see anther big shake up... if I were the MWC I'd just sit on my hands and do nothing.... certainly not add more bottom feeders.... if the MWC wants to expand they should wait for the next shake up and see which current BCS schools are left without a seat when the music stops.

[DiscGo]

My thoughts are as follows:

I'm disappointed Utah left. I don't blame them for leaving to a more prestigious conference for an extra 8+ million a year, but I'm disappointed because with Boise State there would be 4 good teams in the MWC which could have led to the MWC really being a good conference.

I'm curious what will happen going forward. Will Utah become a power house Utah team picking up their first picks of recruits in the State using the PAC-10 as a recruiting tool? Will Utah become white noise in the PAC-10 and then increase BYU's recruiting by allowing them to play for a conference title every year?

I believe this was the right move for Utah (at least for the short term) and I am curious what the long term affects will be.

[Deuce]

I have not fear that Utah will compete fine in the PAC12.... Not unlike we as the MWC have been saying our teams would do if they were in the PAC10 to begin with....

[Kent K25]

Disagree. You think a BYU vs. Utah game is going to be just another game and not a rivalry? Sorry, your high...the stakes will be higher. :nod:

The stakes are anything but higher. What used to be a regular conference championship deciding game is now a non-conference game. Nothing special. The luster will wear off rather quickly. Plus...Give them a few years and they won't even be playing each other yearly...they'll be scheduling new non-conference opponents.

[Iceaxe]

FWIW: BYU just became a pre-season game for Utah. The Utes can lose to the coug's and it doesn't hurt their chance to play in the Rose Bowl in the slightest.

Heck... if the Utes finish mid-pack in the the PAC 10 there is a good chance they will meet BYU in the Las Vegas or Poinsettia Bowl...

[Scott Card]

So you are sayin' that the MWC will continue to dominate the PAC 10 or 12 are you....:haha:

[accadacca]

So you are sayin' that the MWC will continue to dominate the PAC 10 or 12 are you....:haha:

4A vs. 5A :haha:

[Iceaxe]

So you are sayin' that the MWC will continue to dominate the PAC 10 or 12 are you....:haha:

I was just thinking about how much fun the BYU vs Utah riverly has been the past 20 years.... and how the Utes moving to the PAC will eventually change things.

The part that scares me is Utah might get to the same number of Rose Bowls as Arizona.

[Scott Card]

I know what you are saying. That is the part that I will miss too. I wonder who our new respective rivals will be? I would guess for BYU it will be Boise and then TCU but I don't see any of those games being like the Utah/BYU rivalry with the state either wearing red or blue. And who will Utah consider the one team to beat? Oregon? Colorado? Usually proximity makes a huge difference to a rivalry.

What is your take on the Rose Bowl. Doesn't that contract end in 2012 too?

[Iceaxe]

What is your take on the Rose Bowl. Doesn't that contract end in 2012 too?

The PAC 10 owns the Rose Bowl... I don't know how their current contract is written up but I'll promise you that the PAC 10 didn't give up any rights to that game.....

Remember.... the Rose Bowl has special rules that apply... even in the BCS. The Rose Bowl was the late comer to the party and the BCS had to give the Rose Bowl pretty much everything they asked for to get them to join the "mythical championship" party.

Originally the Rose Bowl... the granddaddy of all bowl games.... was supposed to match up the best team in the west against the best team in the east.... it was the original national championship game.... that is why it carries so much weight and prestige.

[accadacca]

Pac-10 busters...

http://cdn.cloudfiles.mosso.com/c54102/x2_1b3d8f3

[Iceaxe]

Look at the dog chain on that guys neck!

Don't let my wife see that.... she is always looking for a good way to keep me on the porch. :lol8:

[Scott Card]

Let's see if the Utes (and Cougs) can get past TCU before you start all this Pac 10 or 12 busting stuff. TCU in the, what? The Mountain West, is THE team to beat at present, in the Mountain West......Did I mention the MWC? :haha:

[Iceaxe]

Did you know.... that an 0-12 last place finish in the PAC 10 pays more then a 13-0 BCS busting season does in the MWC?

[accadacca]

Did you know.... that an 0-12 last place finish in the PAC 10 pays more then a 13-0 BCS busting season does in the MWC?

All aboard (BYU) the fail bus. :haha:

[accadacca]

Sources: Compromise close on Pac-10 divisions (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5677006)

The Bay Area schools, California (http://espn.go.com/college-football/team/_/id/25/california-golden-bears) and Stanford (http://espn.go.com/college-football/team/_/id/24/stanford-cardinal), appear to be the final hurdle before the Pac-10 unveils next week its two-division, 12-team setup for the 2011-12 football season.

Pac-10 athletic directors weren't able to arrive at a consensus during two days of meetings last week in San Francisco, but a compromise is in the works, according to multiple sources.

The conference would like to have a north-south split of two six-team divisions, instead of a "zipper format" that would divide the conference on an east-west alignment of every rivalry.

The schools in the Northwest will sign off on a north-south split, but want Stanford and Cal to be in their division instead of Colorado (http://espn.go.com/college-football/team/_/id/38/colorado-buffaloes) and Utah (http://espn.go.com/college-football/team/_/id/254/utah-utes) to ensure a foothold in recruiting-rich California.

However, the California schools would rather stay together, which would mean UCLA (http://espn.go.com/college-football/team/_/id/26/ucla-bruins) and USC (http://espn.go.com/college-football/team/_/id/30/usc-trojans) being with Stanford and Cal. Add southern schools Arizona (http://espn.go.com/college-football/team/_/id/12/arizona-wildcats) and Arizona State (http://espn.go.com/college-football/team/_/id/9/arizona-state-sun-devils), and the South not only would have all of California, but also a historical competitive advantage, even if the current standings show the Oregon schools atop the conference.

One source said the league has to do what's best for the overall conference, not just for the individual interests of a few schools. And to a number of the members, splitting the four California schools is a must.

If a compromise is reached, Cal and Stanford would be placed in the North division with Oregon (http://espn.go.com/college-football/team/_/id/2483/oregon-ducks), Oregon State (http://espn.go.com/college-football/team/_/id/204/oregon-state-beavers), Washington (http://espn.go.com/college-football/team/_/id/264/washington-huskies), Washington State (http://espn.go.com/college-football/team/_/id/265/washington-state-cougars). The South division would be UCLA, USC, Arizona, Arizona State and new members Utah and Colorado, formerly of the Mountain West and Big 12, respectively.

During a news conference at Oregon State two weeks ago, Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott said the league still would play nine games, with room for crossover games if rivalries are split up in divisions. UCLA and USC would have five games within the division, for instance, and still could play four of the North division teams, meaning games against Cal and Stanford could survive a realignment.

Splitting the four California schools also means two of them could meet in a Pac-12 championship game.

The north-south division alignment is an easier sell for marketing purposes. Scott said he wanted the divisions to have "competitive balance," as well as be able to "market and promote our football season in a way that's easy and logical to follow."

The "zipper" split would take each rivalry -- USC and UCLA, for example -- and divide it along east-west lines to form two divisions, with the rivals still playing each other in a crossover game. But that format hasn't had as much momentum.

The presidents and chancellors are huddling with their respective athletic directors this week before their own meeting Oct. 21 in downtown San Francisco. Scott hopes to have a news conference following the meeting to announce the divisional alignment.

The Pac-10 men's basketball media day is the following week in Los Angeles, when the conference should know by then what it will do. The consensus in men's basketball is to keep its 18-game, round-robin setup. The rivals always would play each other home-and-home. The teams would play six others twice for a total of seven home-and-home games.

That would leave four, one-game meetings per team, with the goal of splitting those into two at home and two on road. For example, Arizona could go to Oregon and then Washington State on a Thursday-Saturday trip, and host Oregon State and Washington.

There would be a rotation set up so that each team gets to play on each other's home court in a six-year period.

The future of the Pac-12 tournament is still fluid. All 12 teams will be invited. The Pac-10 still is committed to Staples Center in Los Angeles for 2011 and 2012, as the tournament is tied to the conference's television deal with Fox Sports Net. The Pac-10 will look to open up the television negotiations next year.

Andy Katz is a senior writer at ESPN.com. http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5677006

[Iceaxe]

North division
Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State, Cal and Stanford

South division
UCLA, USC, Arizona, Arizona State, Utah and Colorado

This has been my prediction from the start if it's split logically without a bunch of politics being involved. This would make the most sense in regards to travel and developing future rivalries. The AZ schools have a lot of tradition with Utah from the old WAC days and CO has a lot of tradition with Utah from the old Skyline days. There is a nice base already in place to build from.


So the way I see it you have the Oregon and Washington schools battling the California schools for what will be the final outcome. And if it's put to a straight up vote the AZ schools with Utah and Colorado will hold the swing votes?

:popcorn:

[Iceaxe]

Looks like a done deal (http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/utes/50481465-89/division-athletic-usc-league.html.csp).....

North division
Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State, Cal and Stanford

South division
UCLA, USC, Arizona, Arizona State, Utah and Colorado

[accadacca]

We shall see. If that happens then Utah did pretty well if you ask me.

[accadacca]

Kirk Herbstreit on ESPN talking about nat champ game. Says it will come down to a bunch of 1 loss teams and an undefeated BSU and Utah for the game. When he said Utah, he said "that's right, Utah, they will beat TCU this year."

[Iceaxe]

Herby is the only talking head giving Utah any respect....

On the BCS show ESPN analyst Robert Smith made the dumbass comment.... "It’s great for TCU that they have Utah on the schedule, and then they get a chance to earn some points."

This is the same clown that said Utah didn't stand a chance against Alabama in the Sugar Bowl.

[accadacca]

It's official, Utes land in Pac-12 South Division

October 21st, 2010 @ 1:08pm
By Dirk Facer, Deseret News


SALT LAKE CITY — Things will soon get a whole lot tougher for the University of Utah football team.

Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott announced Thursday that the Utes will be placed in the South Division with Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, UCLA and USC when they join the league next season.

The top finisher will then face the league's other division champ — California, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington or Washington State — in the Pac-12 Championship Game at the home of the highest-ranked team in December.

Scott made the announcement Thursday morning in San Francisco, following a meeting of the league's presidents and chancellors.

When asked if he would comment on the announcements when they were made, Utah coach Kyle Whittingham maintained his stance to not discuss on the future until this season was complete.

"Nothing. Nothing. Zero. Zip," he said following practice on Wednesday.

Earlier that day as a guest on "Jim Rome is Burning," Whittingham explained his silence on the matter.

"You don't say Pac-10 in this building," he said. "Right now it's all about the Mountain West and as soon as this season is over we'll make that transition."

Switching conferences will bring about several other changes as well.

The Pac-10's governing body (presidents and chancellors) also approved revenue sharing and basketball scheduling plans.

Revenue sharing of a yet-to-be-negotiated new television deal, which could exceed $170 million per year when it begins in 2012, will be split evenly by the 12 schools. If revenues initially fall short, a compromise was reached to give Los Angeles-area schools UCLA and USC an extra $2 million a year until revenues reach their anticipated level.

As part of Utah's deal to join the league — going to a Bowl Championship Series league from a non-automatic qualifying conference — the Utes won't receive a full share of television revenue until 2014.

On the basketball front, the presidents and chancellors approved an 18-game league schedule.

Utah and Colorado will join the Pac-10 on July 1, 2011, at which time the conference name will officially change to the Pac-12. The Utes have been in the Mountain West Conference since the league was formed in 1999, while the Buffaloes are moving over from the Big 12.

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?sid=12913317&nid=635