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

[accadacca]

Who has heard these rumors?

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, 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/33..._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.

[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.

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

[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.

[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

[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.