Even more expansion talk - this time Pac Ten gets in on the action
by JazzyUte on Dec 16, 2009 4:57 PM MST
in Football
Email
PrintI think it's pretty much a guarantee if the Big Ten expands to twelve, the Pac Ten will follow suit. ESPN seems to back up this claim, as the conference commissioner Larry Scott once again brought up the prospects.
Of course, as we've known for a while, Utah is atop their list. Again, made evident by this quote from an unnamed athletic director of a Pac Ten school:
Bringing in Utah and Colorado might be a winner (Salt Lake City and Denver markets), and at least one Pac-10 athletic director said that's the most likely scenario. Of course, prying Colorado away from the Big 12 might not be easy.
I'm not sure they could get Colorado. However, if there is an expansion, I would be shocked if the Utes aren't at least one of the two teams asked.
With it looking more inevitable that the Pac Ten will expand sooner rather than later, what happens first - Mountain West to the BCS or this?
If there are rumblings, but nothing conclusive in terms of Mountain West inclusion, do you think Utah jumps to the Pac Ten if offered at the end of the 2011 season?
55 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
my guess is you want this to happen
i like the mwc the way it is. just add some teams and have an even 10 conferences. do away with the sunbelt or wac. maybe merge them together. make every conference 12 teams. 12 times 10 is 120. that is the number of fbs schools.
yes i am obsessive, obnoxious, in your face and all about covering the spread. those are my good qualities.
by wolfmanshowlforever on Dec 16, 2009 6:50 PM MST reply actions
I think you think the BCS wants the MWC and I don't think they do.
And I’m sorry, but if the Pac Ten calls, I’m not going to be happy if Utah turns them down on the off chance the Mountain West gets an auto-bid three or four years from now.
Really?
I’d rather be in the PAC-10 with their TV deal and bowl tie-ins.
They might have the 4th or 5th-best tie-ins among BCS conferences, but they blow the MWC’s out of the water. Rose, Holiday, Sun, Emerald, and of course Vegas and Poinsettia. And being on Fox Sports/ESPN/ABC is much more desirable than CBSC-TV and the mtn.
In terms of competition, the PAC-10 is far superior as well. The worst program is easily Wazzou. But who’s second? Arizona State? UCLA? Washington? All three of those teams would beat CSU, SDSU, UNM, UNLV, and Wyoming.
Assuming the PAC-10 is expanding, Utah will be a school they expand with, and Chris Hill should and will accept the invitation.
St Louis Game Time: Let's Go Blues!
Block U: a blog about the University of Utah
You can find me on the twitter: @achidester
Pac-10 also will get the Alamo Bowl tie-in starting next year, so the picking order would be Rose, Alamo, Holiday, Sun, Emerald/Vegas (They switch in and out), and Poinsettia. So the bowl game tie-ins will improve slightly.
It would be an upgrade for you, but the TV deal is still something most Pac-10 teams are not happy about. Hopefully it will be improving shortly.
its spelled "S-h-u-t-t-h-e H e-l-l-U-p-F-E-L-T"
Right about the TV deal.
I’d rather see a PAC-10 network before we screw with adding teams and reorganizing the conference. I know adding teams makes sense but I cringe at the though of losing the round robin schedule.
LOL! Don't complain until you see the Mountain West TV deal.
Our games are on some station most people don’t get .
We get lucky when Versus or CSTV show other games. Except Versus is now not on Direct TV.
I guess we’re just shocked when we see what other BCS conferences get in terms of coverage. We get our network games and a few others but we’re forced to do back flips during scheduling to get some games on TV.
Not that it really matters, but our game at Washington State wasn’t even televised this year. Lame!
Sounds like both conferences could use some work though.
Yeah, definitely.
I miss ESPN, but with how Boise State gets shoved to Thursday, Friday and Sunday games – I don’t miss it that much.
okay say they goto pac ten
why would they not want byu who has jake heaps and some buddies coming instead of a dan hawkins led buffalo team? colorado has been bad for years and had ncaa sanctions with gary barnett. if it happens fine with me but i like the mwc. i wonder where tcu would go. the big 12 boots baylor out and gets another tough team?
yes i am obsessive, obnoxious, in your face and all about covering the spread. those are my good qualities.
by wolfmanshowlforever on Dec 16, 2009 8:32 PM MST reply actions
Every school has to vote unanimously for conference expansion.
I don’t see the Cal schools, namely Stanford or Cal, voting to allow BYU in.
The PAC-10
Has few expansion options that represent bringing excellent research universities as well as good, well rounded, athletic programs into the fold.
If they were looking at simply making it the “Über Western Football Conference”, Boise State is a good choice to crack the lineup.
But, if they want to continue their rather excellent record of being a more complete conference athletically, and an upper tier conference academically, then BYU and Utah look to be the best fits as both Universities bring decent basketball, field outstanding gymnastic and other women’s teams, and BYU has a competitive baseball program, and good track and field programs. Boise State does not, I think, compete academically across the board with those two schools, though it is an outstanding value for a public education. The biggest knock on BSU is they have no reputation name in other programs outside of football. I wouldn’t rule out San Diego State as an option since they would be competitive in a few sports (e.g., baseball) but not dominant in any sports (keeping the elite teams where they want to be in that conference) and maintain the complexion of the conference and travel consistent with the current configuration (think sea level).
As whole programs, Boise and BYU are the best choices, San Diego State is next—Boise State is good for Football only, doesn’t have the academics University-wide, and doesn’t have the name in other programs. If the Big-12 or Big-10 make moves and start to sniff around the Utah schools, the PAC-10 will have to make their move or lose out on their best chance to expand for another decade or so. If they fail to act, they are stuck choosing between Hawaii, Boise State, Fresno, and San Diego State.
If Utah and BYU bolt to the PAC-10 and TCU heads to the current Big-12, the real loser is Boise. Left out of the big conferences again, they would be asked to help reconstitute the MWC which would then raid the WAC for their best programs but still be the red-headed step child of college athletics.
I really don’t see Boise State joining the Pac-10. Academically, they are only a few years removed from their JC roots, and athletically, they are only competitive in one sport.
its spelled "S-h-u-t-t-h-e H e-l-l-U-p-F-E-L-T"
Precisely.
The reasoning against Boise State are the precise reasons why Utah and CU make sense. Plus, the SLC and Denver markets would be great.
I don't either.
Most likely scenario sees Utah jump to the Pac Ten, maybe with Colorado or BYU and Boise State moves up to the MWC.
Everyon PAC 10 fan I know wants CU and Utah.
Those two markets/schools are a good match all around.
I’m not sure how people feel about BYU… I hope we beat them in the LV Bowl…
Ditto
St Louis Game Time: Let's Go Blues!
Block U: a blog about the University of Utah
You can find me on the twitter: @achidester
BYU though . . .
Is an historic and more natural rival for the Arizona teams and a familiar rival to Washington and UCLA. Colorado doesn’t have that history. Also, I hear a lot about the PAC-10 not wanting BYU because of their academics, while Colorado is a good school, I doubt it is so superior to BYU that the difference would be telling. In fact, I doubt it’s any better than BYU at all, if it is as good. Neither has a medical program, correct? I know there are years that BYU has research grants that compete with Utah’s or outshine them.
30 years ago you wouldn’t have compared them, today it’s a different story.
The difference is in the research aspect of its academics.
BYU just is not a research institution. Colorado is up there, though.
It's been
a long, long time since BSU was a JC, like 1965.
I think US News rectly placed them ahead of Utah as far as best buys for an education. That doesn’t mean they are comprehensively as good as a school, but they were a better deal.
I doubt the PAC-10 wants a bargain education Univiversity, but what will make BYU and Utah better choices are, besides their longer history of granting baccalaureate and graduate degrees, is their stature in athletics programs beyond football.
Typically, the Pac-10 has been fairly stringent with its membership requirements. Trying to prove itself to be the “Conference of Champions”, schools need to show they are all-around competitive, and this includes woman athletics, such as volleyball, softball, women’s basketball, and track & field. Any school entering the Pac-(Number to be determined), would be expected to be able to compete nationally, almost immediately in some sport.
While I can’t find any specific requirements for being a research institution, it is true that all the colleges are research institutions, and I would expect them to keep that going.
its spelled "S-h-u-t-t-h-e H e-l-l-U-p-F-E-L-T"
Utah's got incredible skiing and gymnastics teams.
We’ll have to restart our track and field program, but other than that we’re golden.
Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.
by displacedute on Dec 17, 2009 1:01 PM MST up reply actions
If it is sanctioned by the NCAA, I think the PAC-10 will likely be happy to sanction it. The more championships they can take claim to, the happier they are.
(Ref: Cal with Rugby; Oregon with Stunts & Gymnastics; Stanford with… a ton of sports.)
Actually, if Utah were to immediately compete in NCAA skiing, that would actually be a big boost for the Pac-10. It’s another sport where they could “pad their championship numbers” – it would bring a bit more visibility to a very small sport (From what I can tell, only 22 schools compete). The biggest drawback to it is… it’s just such a small sport and very few “big name schools” participate. (University of Colorado, University of Utah, University of Nevada), in addition to it highly unlikely ever expanding to the other teams in the conference.
its spelled "S-h-u-t-t-h-e H e-l-l-U-p-F-E-L-T"
Our women's volleyball team is pretty good
and our soccer team is decent as well (on top of women’s basketball).
the rest could use improvement.
St Louis Game Time: Let's Go Blues!
Block U: a blog about the University of Utah
You can find me on the twitter: @achidester
Women's Athletics at Utah
Are outstanding. You’d have to move our baseball program farther than all the women’s programs combined.
Be interesting to see how serious we can get about swimming, it’s a big sport in the PAC-10.
It about numbers
Population of Washington, Oregon, California, and Arizona divided by 10 is 5,359,613. This is the average population per team in the PAC10. Population of Utah is 2,736,424. Adding Utah or BYU will make the PAC 10 take a hit. The only way they would do it is if they got Colorado (pop. 4,939,456) and even then they take a hit.
Considering PAC10 expansion requires unanimous agreement I think expansion is unlikely.
California has 12.87% of the US population. Utah has 0.11% of the US population. Expansion is about money. When do you think you would expand if you were looking at money?
Why does the average population matter?
The difference for the PAC 10 is whether or not the additional 7.5 million TV sets (plus the money from a championship game) are worth the costs of splitting the pie 12 ways. Will the TV deals improve with Utah and CU enough to offset the costs? I don’t know, but that’s the question the PAC 10 is asking itself.
Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.
by displacedute on Dec 17, 2009 4:16 PM MST up reply actions
Getting into Utah and Colorado actually would have a huge impact, one bigger than the state’s population numbers. One of the more important thing is, we would have games playing during MDT/MST. That extra hour for east coast exposure would be pretty big, in terms of a monetary investment.
its spelled "S-h-u-t-t-h-e H e-l-l-U-p-F-E-L-T"
Late fall road trips to Utah and Colorado sound terrible though.
Still, an exciting thought. If we need to expand, I like those two options.
It isn't terribly cold or snowy here in the late fall.
We haven’t had a real blizzard at a home game since 2007. Which, oddly enough, came in early September against Utah State.
Colorado, though, I’m not sure what it’s like out there in Boulder.
Math is funny if used wrong.
If (and it is a big stretch), you want to use the total population of the existing PAC 10 schools as a starting barometer, why wouldn’t you also use it as the end measure as well? The “Hit” that you describe is 5.35MM population per school present to 5.11MM population if Utah and Colo were added. Using your measure, Victor Valley Community College is more qualified for the Pac-10 than the University of Washington.
The reason this doesn’t make any sense is the population centers in California are MONSTROUS. There are more people living in the bay area and in the greater LA area than the entire rest of the west combined, including Ore, Wash, Id, Mon, ND, SD, Wyo, Colo, NM, and Nev and Arizona.
The population centers around Pullman and Salem are fairly minute, dwarfed by Denver and Salt Lake.
BYU may not be a good fit because they aren’t as deep in research as Utah, Colo or most of the PAC 10 schools, and the Sunday schedule for non-football sports would have to change or BYU won’t fit.
Expansion is indeed about money, and 12 teams means a conference championship. This, not the population of Pullman or Provo is where the real cash comes from, and why, if Big 10 grows to a championship, the Pac-10 will feel the pressure too.
BYU and Research
That they are not a research school is a myth. BYU is basically a whipping boy because Mormons are accepted targets.
They are, in fact, a Tier 1 University and consistently ranked in the top 100 schools. When you consider that many of those top 100, like the entire Ivy League, are not eligible for large Athletic Conferences, it narrows it down even further/pushes them even higher up the list. This year US News ranks them at 71. Arizona State, a PAC-10 school, comes in 50 full spots lower at 121. Oregon State was not ranked as it is not even a Tier one school (it is a Tier 3 school), the University of Oregon comes in at 117. Colorado comes in at number 77. I doubt Colorado’s sports top to bottom are better than BYU which fields broad and extremely competitive women’s programs.
So, if they can carry Arizona State, Oregon State, and Washington State (106) then the PAC-10 could carry Boise (ranked higher as a school, Tier 1 institution and ranked 57) and BYU is actually a significant Upgrade.
Being a Utah alum, I am always tracking the Y to see how they are doing, academically. I know that a couple years ago Princeton Review rated them very highly and they consistently produce a larger percentage of students who go on to earn PhDs than other schools, I think they are ranked in the top ten every year. Their library and Law schools do well also.
Something else, in religions, there are more women in the LDS community who earn science degrees (e.g., biology), as I recall, than you see at mainstream US Christian or Catholic schools.
As much as I loathe the Cougars, I’ve consistently been impressed by their English Grads (my field of study).
Cheers
While i"m not one that usually will come to the defense of Oregon State, I actually have to question the legitimacy of US News rankings. Oregon State is one of the most active research institutions in the country, and are only one of two schools in the country to have all four land, space, sea, and sun-grants.
In addition, they also are a quality technical school with one of the best mechanical engineering programs in the country. If a State of Oregon high school student wanted to go to a technical school, Oregon State is one of the better ones to go to in the region.
If the question is about BYU’s qualification academically for the Pac-10, that’s a bit ridiculous. Arizona State really has the bar set for the academic level of entry – that bar isn’t exactly the biggest hurdle in membership – and definitely not a problem for BYU.
The problem for BYU will likely be over the issues of student and professor academic freedoms. Of all the schools in the country that would have “Protesting 201” as an electable, BYU is the least likely, with Berkeley, Oregon, Stanford, UCLA, ASU, and Washington making the top of the list.
its spelled "S-h-u-t-t-h-e H e-l-l-U-p-F-E-L-T"
Heh . . . seen this before
It’s a Church-run school. Rick Majerus was in trouble for his views when he was at a Catholic School. Gee, go figure.
As for protesting, protesting what? You can protest politically on that campus, but they don’t allow preaching doctrine that is directly out of line with theirs, particularly if it’s simply to raise trouble—neither do Catholic schools.
Again, with Mormons being acceptable targets, most “issues” of “academic freedom” in that state are pushed into a media circus by professional anti mormons. I know, I researched this and ended up having one anti mormon’s credentials questioned by his accrediting body as a result of his activities (he was disinvited to lecture, they determining his activities were distinctly unacademic—see the problem?). So, I mean, if you simply want to bang on people do so, but saying they are somehow bad or out of line with our society is simply inaccurate: lots of institutions and churches and schools dissociate with people who openly preach/militate against them. In fact, the accrediting organization for the Northwest reviewed BYU’s policy and said it was in line with similar institutions, the only people whining are non-affiliated, and non accrediting groups, who simply want thier personal views to predominate. BYU did not implement any policies until they were reviewed and accepted by their accerditing organization (I looked into this previously as well, like I said, having hated BYU all my life I learned something about them). BYU isn’t saying you have to change your school to fit their mold are they?
What does that tell you? If you slam the LDS, you’re given a pass because “they’re all crazy”. If you did it to Catholics or Jews, you’d be dismissed from your post at any other school, in fact you’d likely lose your job at most private sector businesses as well.
It’s called hypocrisy. The same attitude that pretends that BYU is not a research institution. They are, and more highly rated than at least three current PAC-10 members.
Saying “we can protest!” At Berkeley is kind of a, who cares, moment for me. Protesting for protesting sake is cute, but ultimately boring. We all get over the idea that we can march to teh Dean’s office with arms interlocked after college. BYU students protesting for political reasons can congregate and do so, they can petition, appeal, see their Dean, etc. But, they cannot sign an bonor code agreement and then voiolate it (even though I chide BYU about that in fun, it’s to me a question of honor that a student would sign one then violate it, I mena, what the hell would they learn by letting them get away with that?).
I always say to Mormons, Catholics, Jews, Episcopalians, Methodists, Lutehrans, Baptists . . .whatever . . .who level such claims against their schools/churches:
“If you don’t like the church, get a new one.” After all, it’s a little infantile to suggest a Church has to change for you, I man, it is their doctrine, right, not yours? If you wanta different doctrine, someone out there will let you have it I am sure.
US News is the most widely quoted review, but all reviews have certain advantages and detractors. Top to bottom though, it’s accepted as the standard for reviews, kind of the starting point with others filing in gaps on certain specifics.
How US News ranks the tiers, specifically Tier 3:
Tier 3 is approximately the next 25 percent of schools that are just beneath the numbered ranked schools in the top half in terms of their rankings in that category. In other words, schools listed in Tier 3 are ranked lower than those in the top-half but are ranked higher than those in Tier 4. Tier 4 schools are the bottom 25 percent of schools in that category in terms of their rankings. In other words, in that particular group of schools the Tier 4 schools are the lowest ranked.
So, it simply isn’t in the top half of schools. I’m sure it’s a fine school, but it’s not in the top 50%, whereas Utah, BYU, and Boise State (and Colorado) all are.
BYU still has to overcome that perception.
And I don’t see it happening.
If Colorado turns them down, BYU has a very good shot of getting a look.
But it’s:
Utah & Colorado…then maybe BYU and possibly another school.
I’m not saying the problem is because of it being a “church-run school”, nor any bias against the LDS church. Sure, there is a relationship between the LDS, and rules at BYU. It’s only natural, but the impact of those rules are what create the issues.
While most people probably couldn’t care less about BYU’s rules (myself included), some people do care about their stance on academic freedom. And I think this would be an issue and likely draw opposition from some of the Pac-10’s current members.
its spelled "S-h-u-t-t-h-e H e-l-l-U-p-F-E-L-T"
As noted
BYU’s policies were not implemented by the school until tehy were fully vetted by third party, objective observers. Specifically, their accreditor.
So, frankly it’s pissing in the wind to my mind.
People whine about BYU because they are LDS, the bias is incredible, I have one myself. I’m trying to not be biased against any school, but I still am.
There's another reason . . .
The BCS doesn’t want to get forced into a courtroom and they are lining up potential future litigants like Utah and TCU to move into BCS programs.
This may well be as much about stacking the deck in favor of teh status quo as it is thinking Utah is ready for prime time, that was my argument against inclusion last year.
It's not much of an argument against, though.
I’m selfish. If we’re in the BCS, I’ll obviously hate the system, but I’d rather hate it from the inside than hate it from the outside.
Sure
But you have to ask yourself, if we’ve been to more BCS bowls than most BCS schools, more than half the big ten combined as an example, why submit to the man?
Why justify a system we feel is corrupt by jumping in, or as others might say . . .
Why assimilate? Is resistance really futile? Come on, join the Borg CS, it’s fun!!!!
Don’t we want to remain . . .human, after all?
Because I think we can really contend for the title if we do.
If you put Indiana in the MAC, they’re not going to be any more success than they are in the Big Ten. However, take Central Michigan in the Big Ten and they quickly improve.
So many teams in the BCS don’t succeed because they’re just not good programs. Utah is a good program and with the added benefit of being in the BCS, I think they could become one of the best programs in the nation.
In fact, I’d wager we’re the 3rd best program right now in the west outside of SC and Oregon. Pretty remarkable.
Maybe
I don’t know . . .
If we were in the PAC, perhaps we’d get better recruits.
Perhaps we’d finish 2nd or 3rd annually, that’s damned good, but likely we’d detereriorate because frankly, as number 2 or 3 in the PAC 10 you’re out of the media a heck of a lot more than you are as BCS buster.
Be careful of what we wish for.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
- Urban Meyer
"Wow. Wow. Wow."
- Daryl Johnston after Utah took a 21-0 lead on Alabama in the 2009 Sugar Bowl
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
