The Pac-Ten continues to cut off its nose to spite its face
by JazzyUte on Jun 11, 2009 3:24 AM MDT
in Football
170 comments
It isn't a surprise that the Pac-Ten has once again rejected the possibility of expanding into Utah. They've been fairly consistent in their wanting to keep the ten-team structure. Unfortunately, whether they want to admit it or not, that structure continues to cost the conference in both national success and perceived standing.
The problem with the Pac-Ten is that not many programs recently have been able to carry their own weight. Instead, the perception around the nation is that the conference is USC and Those Other Guys. That works for USC, to an extent, but how much does that actually benefit the conference? I think if you look at the past few seasons, you'll see the answer is not much.
It doesn't help because the other Pac-Ten programs outside of USC just don't have the clout at the national table to bring the needed respectability to the conference. So when the Trojans do lose a game, they're instantly removed from the national championship picture, even though an SEC or Big 12 team is still well-positioned after their first loss.
We saw first-hand last season at just how big of a disadvantage a program like USC is when fighting other one-loss teams for a spot in the national championship game. Right now, whether the Pac-Ten schools really want to admit it, their conference is no more respected on the national stage than the Big East and ACC.
Much of this has to do with the fact that there has not been a consistent second team in the Pac-Ten since the Trojans began their dominating run in 2002.
It's true programs like Cal, Oregon and Oregon State have been able to rattle off a few 10-win seasons, but their inability to really push beyond that and contend for a championship themselves really has hindered the entire conference. Because of this, when USC does lose to a conference foe, they take a harder hit than if Oklahoma, Texas, Florida and even Ohio State would when they lose in conference play.
So what does this have to do with Utah and possible Pac-Ten expansion?
Well one way to undo a negative perception is by changing that perception. The Pac-Ten needs more talent at the top to really balance out the struggles of Washington State, Stanford and the Arizona schools. Frankly, right now, there just isn't enough outside of USC to really elevate the conference.
Of course, I understand it isn't that easy. I get that the Pac-Ten doesn't feel expanding is viable at this point and I don't like pimping the Utah program out knowing full well most Pac-Ten fans don't want them in their conference. It's a harsh reality and I get it. I get that that they would easily rebuke my claim by pointing to the fact that the conference is extremely rife with parity and bringing Utah into the fold would only add to it. It's something I actually agree with. Outside of USC, there is extreme balance between the likes of Cal, Oregon and Oregon State. But I think that speaks more for the current state of each program than the future prospects of the Pac-Ten.
On a whole, I do believe the Utah football program is well positioned to succeed at a higher level. The transition might take a couple of years, but in a half-decade, it's not hard for me to see the Utes as a consistent threat to USC. Now let me make this clear, I am not suggesting Utah could dethrone the Trojans, but I do believe they would be well suited to contend for an undefeated season and a national championship. The last time a team not named USC did that in the Pac-Ten late into the year was Oregon in 2001, quite a while ago.
I guess what gets me the most is that the Pac-Ten, specifically the Trojans, make a big stink about constantly being marginalized by the other BCS conferences and yet they don't seem to want to do anything about it. Instead, they expect those other conferences to change, conforming more to what they've established and it just isn't going to happen.
The lack of a conference championship really hinders the conference when it comes to laying a foundation for a national championship berth. Now the Trojans do face UCLA during the first week of December -- generally around the time of the SEC championship game, however, that doesn't really get to the root of the problem. The SEC championship acts as a thirteenth game for a team that might be in line for the championship. Their opponent also is generally higher rated and more respected than the current Bruin program. Now obviously USC can instantly boost its stock if their crosstown rival becomes good again, but that still doesn't account for losing an extra game. And whether they want to believe it or not, 13-0 or 12-1 looks better than 12-0 or 11-1.
If the Pac-Ten is realistic about reshaping its image, and who knows, maybe they're not, then they're going to have to address the possibility of expansion. An expansion that includes Utah will instantly bring a program that already could outperform Washington, Washington State, Stanford, Arizona, Arizona State and dare I say both Oregon schools. That most certainly would bolster their standing nationally and provide true competition for the Trojans, who are sinking in the pool of perception under their current structure.
0 recs |
170 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Good article.
I think you’re right on the mark…
by The_Kaiser on Jun 11, 2009 11:29 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Not going to happen anytime soon
They’re first going to try and find out if they can take care of a lot of this by rectifying other problems — specifically, television exposure and bowl alignments. They’ll give the new commish time to fix those things, then see how that turns out. If the conference is still getting killed in 10 years, then they might think about expansion.
Everyone always points to expansion as some kind of panacea, but for every SEC and Big 12, there’s the Big East and ACC. I don’t think the Pac-10 looks at those conferences and says, “That’s great! That’s what we want!” — the last time a team from one of those conferences competed for a national championship was Miami in the 2002 season. Lack of expansion doesn’t seem to have hurt the Big Ten, you know.
And therein lies the answer: Expansion doesn’t solve the problem; better teams does, either real or perceived (hello, Big Ten!). There could be an argument to be made that adding Utah would do exactly that, but the Pac-10 is going to do everything it can to solve its problem in football with the 10 teams it’s got first.
by Nuss on Jun 11, 2009 1:00 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you.
The only way the Pac-Ten expands is if they’re forced and they won’t be forced anytime soon. If they can fix these problems without adding another team or two, then obviously Utah becomes less desirable of a program and everything I suggested really isn’t up for debate anymore.
by JazzyUte on Jun 11, 2009 1:46 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Contending with USC
What you fail to realize, as do most Boise State honks, is that the Pac 10 schedule from top to bottom is way tougher than the Mountain West or WAC. Yes, Utah beat Oregon State last year. But when you only have a couple tough conference games to prepare for, getting “up” for a Pac 10 team is a much easier undertaking. Utah would find itself no better than a middle of the road team if they were to join the Pac 10, and it’s fans would soon be pining for the “good ol’ days” of the Mountain West.
by Fish4646 on Jun 11, 2009 1:36 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't fail to realize this at all.
In fact, I suggested as much above.
However, no one can deny that there is a huge dropoff after USC and has been for some years now.
That just isn’t the case in other BCS conferences. Oregon and Cal and Oregon State, while good, still aren’t at the level nationally or even in their own conference, to contend yearly with the Trojans.
This parity has been a problem for the conference and I understand it seems a bit illogical to accept the idea of parity and then embrace expansion in the same breath. However, I do believe — unlike you — that Utah can rise above those middle of the pack programs.
Of course, it’s all moot speculation anyway, because as I admitted, expansion just isn’t going to happen.
by JazzyUte on Jun 11, 2009 1:45 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess we'll see how you stack up to the Ducks this fall.
I don’t think you’re giving Oregon schools enough credit.
First, USC has not won in the state of Oregon for the last three years. Second, the Ducks have been in the BCS hunt, and even positioned to play in the NC game very recently. Without a few key injuries (e.g., Dixon) and some questionable selections by the BCS system, Oregon has consistently been in the hunt for BCS bowls. Both Oregon and Oregon St have a much harder path to a BCS game than Utah. Getting up for big games week in, week out, and also playing very challenging out of conference schedules is much harder than playing one, or maybe two BCS-caliber teams per year. Third, at least with respect to Oregon, Utah does not have the same overall caliber of athletes. If you compare our rosters, there is a big disparity in the overall speed and talent.
I’m not saying Utah isn’t a good program, I have plenty of respect for the Utes. In fact, I would welcome their entry into the Pac-10. That said, I doubt Utah would be a serious threat to USC, and would probably be somewhere in the bottom third of the Pac. Your win over OSU was impressive, but it was a last minute comeback at home – its just my opinion, but I would think OSU would win that match up more often than not. The coming matchup with Oregon will be interesting, but I doubt it will be as close as some think. See you in Autzen & Go Ducks!
by swe410 on Jun 11, 2009 4:26 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
This comment sounds a lot like what ’Bama fans were saying prior to the Sugar Bowl…especially the: “Utah does not have the same overall caliber of athletes. If you compare our rosters, there is a big disparity in the overall speed and talent.”
I guess we will see how Utah compares this fall.
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." - George Washington
by Hockey Beard in SLC on Jun 11, 2009 10:49 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
USC
I think if you give Utah a few years in a BCS league which would include the perks of getting the added money from BCS games, and in recruiting Utah could be like Cincy who was in C-USA then to the Big East and won the title last year.
I know the Pac-10 is much better and USC is very dominant but if you gave Utah a few years with the perks I have no doubt they could be in the same class as Oregon. Also, I disagree that Oregon has a tougher time to make the BCS. A non-BCS league team so far has proven they must be undefeated, while BCS league teams can have as many as 4 loses (2007 Illinois).
by Jeremy Mauss on Jun 15, 2009 8:49 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Doesn't work that way.
You hear this argument all the time from fans of non-AQ programs…well if we were in the Pac10, with all the money and recruits we would rise to the top in just a few years. Yeah right, what a crock. What you over look is the money isn’t that much and neither is the recruiting bump. Fact is most of the money an athletic department get is from ticket sales and donors, not from conference revenue sharing (this is even more true in the Pac10). As for the recruits, yes there would be a bump. However that bump is not likely to be anywhere near overcoming the increase in competition. This is what the AZ schools found out rather quickly. Fact is there are haves and have nots in talent within AQ conferences. So you are not fighting Nevada for kids, now you are fighting WSU and UA. The fact you are in the Pac10 doesn’t suddenly mean you will be fighting USC and UCLA for every kid.
Actually Illinois only had three losses when they were picked, not four. On top of that, it was the only time that happen so to use it as an example isn’t really worth much. There are plenty of one loss AQ teams that have been passed over to prove the opposite point.
by ev on Jun 16, 2009 11:38 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
List of 3+ loss BCS participants:
4 loss teams:
Virginia Tech 9-4 2009 Orange Bowl W
FSU 8-4 2006 Orange Bowl L
FSU 9-4 2003 Sugar Bowl L
3 loss teams:
Illinois 9-3 2008 Rose Bowl L
Pttsburgh 8-3 2005 Fiesta Bowl L
Kansas State 8-3 2004 Fiesta Bowl L
LSU 9-3 2002 Sugar Bowl W
Purdue 8-3 2001 Rose Bowl L
Stanford 8-3 2000 Rose Bow L
Syracuse 8-3 1999 Orange Bowl L
Three years had 4 loss teams, all from the ACC. 2006-2007 is the only year that did not have any teams with 3+ losses in a BCS bowl. All together these undeserving teams have posted a 2-8 record.
Illinois is unique because they did not win their conference. The list of 2 loss teams in the BCS is long, includes many more non conference champions and features a national champion. Utah would certainly be in the mix for these spots in the PAC 10 with expected records on a good year at or above 10-2.
One thing being ignored in the entirety of this discussion is that Utah would increase the odds of the PAC 10 having 2 teams qualify for the BCS.
by utesfan100 on Jun 16, 2009 12:21 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
The problem
is that every single one of those teams you list, with the exception of Illinois, won their conference. Moreover, Kansas St, FSU, and LSU earned those bids by beating teams with superior records in conference championship games. Va.Tech beat a team with an equal record.
I understand the point you’re making, but complaining about 3/4-loss teams making BCS bowls after winning conference championships while at the same time agitating for Utah and some other unknown team to join the Pac-10 in order to give the P10 a conference championship is a position that has some serious internal contradictions.
by Nashville on Jun 16, 2009 1:07 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
Pointing out teams that won their conference but had 3-4 losses doesn’t help his point. Those teams are in anyway.
Exactly how is adding Utah going to help the pac10 get a second team in the BCS? The conference with the most 2nd teams is the Big10 and they don’t have 12 members or a CCG. If you want to look at the Big12 or SEC, it’s often the team not in the CCG that is being picked as a 2nd team. That is because they have a great record, in part from being a 12 member conference. However that doesn’t help Utah’s case to join the Pac10, any team would do the same. Utah’s case is hurt because they don’t generate more revenue than they take…my original point made days ago.
by ev on Jun 16, 2009 2:32 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
My point...
The claim that Illinois was the only 3 loss team was false. I also mentioned that they were the only case that did not win their championship.
I personally don’t like the idea of Utah going to the PAC 10. Not for football. I think we are better served in the MWC. I like to think that…
2009 Sugar Bowl : MWC : Utah :: 1926 Rose Bowl : SEC : Alabama
Now back to how Utah would help the PAC 10. How many times has a conference earned a spot other than the 6 guaranteed conference champions (28 total slots)?
Big 10: 7
Big 12: 6
SEC: 6
Notre Dame: 3
MWC: 2
PAC 10: 2
WAC: 2
If Utah was in the PAC 10 the odds for the #2 PAC 10 team (whether that is Utah, Oregon or whoever) making the BCS would be increased, likely at the cost of the Big 10.
Frankly, I like Utah’s BCS odds in the MWC. A MWC champion is just as likely to go to the BCS as the PAC 10 #2. If the MWC picks up Boise State I would see little reason (in football) to consider a move.
by utesfan100 on Jun 16, 2009 3:43 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Okay, I get you now
I appreciate the explanation.
The Big 10’s high number of at-large bids are due to two elements. Through 2002-2003, they were likely the strongest conference. Second, their schedule works out so two teams don’t play each other every year so there’s less inter-conference cannibalization.
The Pac-10 could do something similar by going back to an 8 game schedule. One team will be missed, and some teams will play only seven conference games.
I agree that Utah’s got a better shot – since 2004 rules change – in the MWC. That automatic bid, at least in 2004, prevented a Pac-10 team from making it.
by Nashville on Jun 16, 2009 4:31 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're right
It doesn’t work that way. If we were in the Pac-10, the football entropy infecting it would drag us down. Please, look elsewhere for your teams. Please, please.
by MeanBobMean on Jun 16, 2009 12:37 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sort of
The Big East is not the perfect comparison, though I cede the point that Cincinnati is a good example of the trend you’re forecasting. Remember that in 2003-2004 people were discussing whether or not to take away the Big East’s automatic bid. West Virginia’s excellence in that time did away with that talk, but now that RichRod’s left, it’s not inconceivable that such discussions will crop up again. The Big East is just not all that strong.
Second, Illinois didn’t earn their 4th loss until the Rose Bowl. They were 9-3 going in, which was possible because everyone outside of Ohio St. – whom Illinois beat – had two losses. Furthermore, two of those losses were to Michigan and Missouri, strong bowl teams.
Third, Cal got excluded from any BCS games in 2004 despite only having a single loss, to the #1 team on the road no less. And the reason they were excluded was because Utah had taken up an automatic bid. So, the BCS isn’t quite as unfair as you’d like us to believe.
by Nashville on Jun 16, 2009 12:53 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wrong target
The reason the Pac10 doesn’t expand is money, there are not two schools out there that add more than they take in revenue sharing even with a CCG. On top of that, many of the ills you speak of can be fixed without expansion. Going back to an 8 game schedule (yes I know it was voted down) and having all the teams not named USC schedule their OOC lighter will result in higher rankings and more prestige. Keep in mind, the other conferences didn’t expand for competitive reasons, but for more money. Until the money is right, it’s not going to happen.
by ev on Jun 11, 2009 1:45 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
I would say that's part of it.
But the point wasn’t to lay out every reason why they’re not expanding and show why holding firm with their current structure is actually hurting the conference.
The Pac-Ten needs a Second Team to step up. The SEC has LSU to balance Florida (and hell, Georgia, too). The Big 12 has Texas to balance Oklahoma. The Pac Ten? Well Oregon, but again, they lack the consistency to really be that Second Team. I think many thought Cal could position themselves a couple of years ago, but outside of that early run in 2006, they’ve stumbled.
So until that Second Team comes, they’ll continue hurting their standing nationally. Maybe expanding and getting Utah or Boise State or BYU or even Colorado won’t address that, but I’ve got to think it’ll instantly make the conference appear tougher than it currently is and right now, that is a perception battle the Pac-Ten is losing.
by JazzyUte on Jun 11, 2009 1:49 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kinda agree
I think if the Pac-10 expands they would need to get Colorado and Utah, but I just wonder how hard it would be to pry Colorado from the Big XII. The revenue is less, but I wonder if the Pac-10 gets a better TV deal could persuade the Buffs because travel would be better, and when money is the thing the less travel for all sports could be a key.
by Jeremy Mauss on Jun 15, 2009 8:50 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Colorado
You can’t get Colorado out of the Big12, they make too much money there. On top of that Utah brings little to the table, clearly not enough to cover what they will take in revenue sharing. The paring of Utah with CU doesn’t work, the schools are too far apart. The cost to the rest of the conference in non-revenue sports travel would be huge. Non-starter.
by ev on Jun 16, 2009 11:30 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
What a flight of fancy
FIrst off, expansion requires TWO schools, not just Utah. If you think the PAC-10 doesn’t want Utah, they really don’t want BYU and its academic quackery in aid of authenticating the Book of Mormon. My bet would be a minimum of six votes against admitting BYU.
So who would be an otherwise worthwhile pairing with allegedly secular Utah, since a CCG cannot be held by an eleven team league? Would the powers that be in Utah even let Utah accept a Pac-10 invite were BYU to get the cold shoulder? Raiding the Big XII for a disenchanted Colorado program and the MWC for Colorado State is the better model. Better TV and recruiting demographics along with avoiding the LDS problem.
Then there is the whole “Utah would contend with USC” claptrap. What is the basis for that? You needed a last minute eleven point comeback to beat the Beavers at home last season and OSU is a legendary “sucks on the road” squad OOC. They beat you in Corvallis rather handily and it is extremely likely that Oregon will take you behind the woodshed at Autzen this season. It is an enormous step up from playing Wyoming and Air Force to playing USC anywhere, let alone at the Coliseum, or Cal at Memorial, Oregon at Autzen, or even OSU at Reser, (as you already found out). Yes, every once in awhile, probably schedule dependent on years you get USC at home, you’d have a chance to make noise. Congratulations, you’d be in the same pickle as everyone else.
The Pac-10’s teams outside of Watts have struggled with Pete Carroll’s dominance for pretty much seven of eight years now. Despite the resurgence of USC, other Pac-10 teams have been positioned for possible BCS bids, (Cal 2004, Oregon 2005) but have been overlooked for the same cynical reasons as would Utah would be in an AQ conference, You cannot bring enough eyeballs to televisions or fans to overbook metropolitan Phoenix for the Fiesta Bowl to pick you over the less deserving Notre Dames or Ohio States of the world if you are merely positioned as an at large possibility. Utah is not better than Oregon, Cal, or Oregon State. Without past threats of political intervention, you’d have had no shot at a BCS game at all. In an AQ conference like the Pac-10, your program is even less attractive as a bowl team than is Cal, Oregon, Oregon State, and certainly Washington if/when they right their ship because the Bay Area, Willamette Valley, and Seattle all have much larger TV markets than does the entirety of Utah.
So, you add nothing in terms of competitiveness over standing pat. You cost in bringing yet another program recruiting “big time” in California and in the money distros for bowl splits. And you offer next to nothing in terms of enhanced TV contract revenue or recruiting territory.
What was the argument for bringing in Utah again?
Roses Ain't Orange!
by Canard on Jun 11, 2009 1:57 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
I hate this teams are flat our better in the pac-10 arguement
7-2 vs PAC 10 members, 10-5 vs all BCS teams, 28-13 overall.
3 teams in the top 25 of the final BCS standings
The MWC holds its own
That defeat to OSU in reser you must remember both our starting running and starting quarterback went out with freak injuries on the first two posessions
by dubxute on Jun 11, 2009 2:15 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nothing like looking at a single season to get an overall picture...
Showing how good the MWC played against the Pac10 last year isn’t proving anything other than last season. It sure doesn’t prove how Utah and BYU would perform if they were members, and it sure doesn’t prove the Pac10 should expand. Good for the MWC, they had a great season. Now come up with some more stats to show the Pac10 should expand and Utah/BYU are the teams that they should add.
by ev on Jun 11, 2009 2:23 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
kind of hard to pull
stats about how well we would perform if we were members of the pac-10 seeing as how we have never been members its all hear say… so if thats what your asking me to do ok the utes would be 13-0 every season
by dubxute on Jun 11, 2009 2:31 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
just making a point
The point is whether or not the Pac10 should expand or not. Proving how well the MWC did against the pac10 in a single season isn’t doing that. Can Utah, TCU, BYU or some of the other MWC teams win against a Pac10 opponent, of course. But that doesn’t prove they could play well in the Pac10, it only show what can happen on any given Saturday. Wouldn’t a better idea be how well those teams have played against the Pac10 over a longer period of time. It’s at least a better stat.
by ev on Jun 11, 2009 2:42 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
well if ya have the numbers handy
I would like to see i was just going off what i could recall
by dubxute on Jun 11, 2009 2:56 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually just checking media guides
i found out that utah is 57-91-3 all time against the pac-10 thats a .626 winning percentage
by dubxute on Jun 11, 2009 2:59 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
That is backwards...
You have the winning percentage backwards. Still Utah has done well over the last say 10 years. More like .500 which is much more like what they would do if they joined the Pac10. Utah is a very good program, no doubt about that. However the idea they would become anything more than a mid-level team if they joined lacks any foundation.
by ev on Jun 11, 2009 3:04 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Math
Maybe in Utah that passes for Math, but out here in California that’s more like a .377 winning percentage.
My son, if and when I have one, will play for the California Golden Bears.
by GoldenTorero on Jun 11, 2009 3:11 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here is an entire link full.
Utah is now 6-3 vs. PAC 10 in last 9 tries
BYU is now 5-4 vs PAC 10 in last 9 tries
by utesfan100 on Jun 11, 2009 3:20 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't ride the MWC's jock for forays against UCLA and AZ
We’re talking about the Utes.
Freak injuries? The difference would have then been that you’d have played on in a real league and your season would have been largely unsalvageable. That’s reality in a big boy conference.
Roses Ain't Orange!
by Canard on Jun 11, 2009 2:28 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
maybe not freak
but the injuries happened and the utes perform just fine against the rest of the pac-10 UCLA came to utah ranked 4th in the land and what did they end up with a QB run through a meat grinder
by dubxute on Jun 11, 2009 2:33 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't you agree, though, we'd have more depth in a real league?
That’s why I hate this argument. Our recruiting patterns are hindered, whether people want to admit it or not, by the fact Utah doesn’t play in a BCS conference.
So yes, you’re right, over a prolonged season, with our current roster, Utah would probably face more injuries and struggles than if they were in the Mountain West. It isn’t a surprise, though, because they just don’t have the depth to contend with those programs over the course of a season.
But if you put Utah into a BCS conference, that depth instantly becomes a non-issue because now they’re capable of out-recruiting other BCS programs simply because they are BCS.
I mean, even Washington and Washington State have been bringing in better classes than Utah because they’re BCS, but that doesn’t mean they’re better than the Utes. Put Utah into the BCS and I’d be surprised if they couldn’t recruit with the top-level schools.
by JazzyUte on Jun 11, 2009 2:38 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe, but by how much...
The idea that just being in a BCS conference means riches and blue chippers isn’t all some think it is. There are still haves and have nots within BCS conferences. The real question is would Utah become a have or have not inside the Pac10? Just being in a BCS conference doesn’t mean it will level you within the conference. Would the increase in recruiting offset the increase in competition? ASU thought so. They came to the Pac10 after winning WAC title after WAC title. They came in with many advantages some existing pac10 teams didn’t have. Yet in 30 years they have averaged a 5th place finish and only three titles (only two of which lead to Rose Bowls).
by ev on Jun 11, 2009 2:49 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep. The ASU fans still ask themselves where it all went wrong.
Apparently they to should be better than the Oregon schools, only they aren’t.
The moral of the story is that the Trojans have always been the bete noir of the Pac-10. EVERYONE ELSE in the league has taken a turn over the past two decades being the counterweight and none has been able to sustain it.
If and when a Pac-10 team breaks the USC death grip on the crown, do we get credit? Nah. “USC is down.” You can’t really win.
In the early 90s the #2 was Washington. They shared a national title.
A few years later it was ASU’s QBs and AZ ’s “Desert Swarm” for a spell
Then it was UCLA on a defenseless burst of old school WAC football.
Stanford snuck in as champs in a year everyone sucked and ultimately got Willingham the ND gig. Suckers.
Then Wazzu, Washington, Oregon State and Oregon hairballed it for awhile.
Then Pete Carroll locked it all down again.
Then Cal started making noises but no breakthrough.
Then Oregon and Oregon State kicked at the door to no avail.
And here we are going into 2009, another window of opportunity for Cal and Oregon.
Roses Ain't Orange!
by Canard on Jun 11, 2009 3:07 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cincy
Just look at Cincy at South Florida. After a few years they became competitive in their new BCS leagues and used the advantages to a BCS bowl for Cincy and USF nearly was in the national title game.
by Jeremy Mauss on Jun 15, 2009 8:56 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bad analogy
Cincy has done better because the Big East is worse, not becaue they got better. Last year, their best year, they got boat raced by Oklahoma and UConn…UCONN!. They also got spanked by Va-Tech in their biggest game of the season. I wouldn’t be using them as an example of anything after just one good season.
South Florida? You have to be kidding, they have topped out at mid-level.
by ev on Jun 16, 2009 11:27 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ok...
FIrst off, expansion requires TWO schools, not just Utah. If you think the PAC-10 doesn’t want Utah, they really don’t want BYU and its academic quackery in aid of authenticating the Book of Mormon. My bet would be a minimum of six votes against admitting BYU.
This is a Utah blog and why I pretty much only focused on the Utes. I don’t need to be making arguments for another program out there. They can do that on their own. With that said, no one wants BYU. Hell, I’m sure even BYU students don’t actually want BYU.
So who would be an otherwise worthwhile pairing with allegedly secular Utah, since a CCG cannot be held by an eleven team league? Would the powers that be in Utah even let Utah accept a Pac-10 invite were BYU to get the cold shoulder? Raiding the Big XII for a disenchanted Colorado program and the MWC for Colorado State is the better model. Better TV and recruiting demographics along with avoiding the LDS problem.
Allegedly secular? I don’t even know what that means. Are you suggesting the University of Utah is actually a privately run Mormon college?
And I think the Colorado model would be effective, except I’m not a Colorado blogger, so why should I focus on that? This is all summer speculation on my part, since I’ve already conceded your conference won’t expand.
Then there is the whole "Utah would contend with USC" claptrap. What is the basis for that? You needed a last minute eleven point comeback to beat the Beavers at home last season and OSU is a legendary "sucks on the road" squad OOC.
So because we didn’t win by a large enough margin, that is total proof Utah couldn’t contend with the likes of USC?
I guess I could suggest Oregon wouldn’t be able to contend with the WAC, since they lost — at home — to Boise State. But then you’d see how that logic can get a bit faulty, right?
Would Utah instantly contend for a Pac-Ten championship? Probably not. I said as much above. But they’ve done more in the last twenty years than a good deal of the Pac-Ten programs and that’s without actually playing in a BCS conference.
They beat you in Corvallis rather handily and it is extremely likely that Oregon will take you behind the woodshed at Autzen this season. It is an enormous step up from playing Wyoming and Air Force to playing USC anywhere, let alone at the Coliseum, or Cal at Memorial, Oregon at Autzen, or even OSU at Reser, (as you already found out). Yes, every once in awhile, probably schedule dependent on years you get USC at home, you’d have a chance to make noise. Congratulations, you’d be in the same pickle as everyone else.
You got me on that one. Utah lost to Oregon State at the start of the 2007 season. Well like I said, what does that actually have anything to do with the topic at hand? Are you suggesting the only way Utah would ever have a case is if they were undefeated against the Pac-Ten? Well then you’re right, I can’t make a case for the Utes then. In fact, no one could.
But that isn’t the point and you know this. What Utah did in 2007 is no more important than what the Trojans did in 2001 against the Utes (a loss, I might add). Or what Utah did against Oregon in 1994. They’re just games in the past and each of those games could be negated by a time where Utah actually did manage to win.
But I shouldn’t point to the fact that the Pac-Ten was abysmal against the MWC last year and only made it respectable with an Arizona victory over BYU in the Las Vegas Bowl. That wouldn’t be right and I’m sure you’d run off a list of excuses for that, correct?
Well there you go. Head-to-head counts, but for how much and how much more so than say recent success, whether on the field or in terms of recruiting?
The Pac-10’s teams outside of Watts have struggled with Pete Carroll’s dominance for pretty much seven of eight years now. Despite the resurgence of USC, other Pac-10 teams have been positioned for possible BCS bids, (Cal 2004, Oregon 2005) but have been overlooked for the same cynical reasons as would Utah would be in an AQ conference,
I agree with this. I think USC is burned by perception and maybe Utah wouldn’t address that entirely, but you cited two seasons where the Trojans MADE the national championship game. Why did they make the title game? Maybe it’s because they went undefeated, but it also has a lot to do with the fact Cal and Oregon stepped up both years.
Now 2005 is important, because that’s the last time the Pac-Ten had a program that contended blow to blow with USC (even though the Ducks got their butt kicked by the Trojans earlier in that season). Since then, Cal and Oregon positioned themselves but injury and mistakes forced them to flame out before the season ends. It’s not a coincidence the Trojans haven’t been back to the national championship game since that 2005 season, even though they have the record for it.
Yes the Trojans have themselves to blame for some of this (2006, namely, when all they needed to do was beat UCLA and they were in), but for the past two seasons now they’ve been left out of a title game, even though they’ve had no more losses than the eventual champions.
How many more seasons will it take before the Pac-Ten realizes it has a problem on its hands?
Surely even you can admit this perception is hurting the conference, right? I mean, you yourself pointed to two years where a second team stepped it up and while it might not have provided the conference with another bid to a BCS bowl game, at least it got their best team into the national championship game. Now, they can’t even do that.
So, you add nothing in terms of competitiveness over standing pat. You cost in bringing yet another program recruiting "big time" in California and in the money distros for bowl splits. And you offer next to nothing in terms of enhanced TV contract revenue or recruiting territory.
I’ll concede the latter point, I won’t, however, concede your first. I mean, this is all speculation and I don’t see anything in your post that points to Utah hurting the competitiveness of the Pac-Ten. Does that automatically mean they’d make the conference extremely better? No, but it’s not like it’ll happen anyway, so who’s being hurt by this discussion?
Seriously, it’s summer. I have nothing to talk about on my blog until fall ball starts. I’m just throwing around some ideas to pass the time. I know they’re not going to happen. I know the Pac-Ten doesn’t want Utah. I know the Pac-Ten isn’t going to expand and I know there are a ton of questions left unanswered. But I do think the conference continues to hurt itself by not adjusting to the times and will only be left out of the national picture until they do something about it.
Maybe expanding and taking Utah isn’t the answer, but then again, maybe it is.
by JazzyUte on Jun 11, 2009 2:26 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting comments
Utah has certainly been the class of the MWC since 2004, and maybe even earlier. They really only came to my attention thanks to Alex Smith and their undefeated season. Thank you too for inspiring an interesting discussion about all of this.
However, I think you have lost sight of, or potentially never seen, just how lopsided the margin between the MWC and the Pac-10 has been during the past 10 years, which we’ve agreed is the MWC’s renaissance.
From 1998-2007, i.e. the first 10 years of the BCS, the MWC has gone…….20-42. That is less than .333%. Add in last year’s exceptional results, due to playing primarily the dregs of the conference, and it rises to 27-44, or .380%. Better, but you’re still losing 6+ out of every 10. I don’t know how many of those 27 wins are Utah’s – and it may be a substantial number – but if you’re speaking of conference-level competition these figures do a fine job explaining just how vast the gulf in competition is between the MWC and the Pac-10.
by Nashville on Jun 12, 2009 9:55 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dont forget injuries
Dont forget that in that Oregon State game Utah lost its QB Brian Johnson, RB Matt Asiata, and WR Brent Casteel their top 3 players.
by Jeremy Mauss on Jun 15, 2009 8:59 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Like Oregon . . .
And BSU last year. I expect the Ducks to repay the Broncos in kind this year.
by MeanBobMean on Jun 16, 2009 12:33 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agree (about BYU) and Disagree...
I agree that BYU wouldn’t fit for the PAC-10 for a number of reasons (non-secular, non-research institution, won’t play on Sundays, etc.). I guess that’s what you mean you refer to the “LDS problem”?However, your option of Colorado and CSU is a head scratcher. If the PAC wanted to bring in competitive teams, then neither Colorado school holds a candle to what Utah provides across the board. Alternatively, if they want to expand based on markets (i.e. TV sets), why would they go after two Colorado schools? Getting the U. of Colorado essentially gives them the whole Colorado market with or without CSU. The better option would be to bring in Colorado and Utah. That way they get both the Colorado and Utah markets, and probably a good portion of the intermountain west region.
As for you comments regarding the compeitiveness of the PAC vs. the MWC, I think your argument is about 5-10 years too old. If you haven’t noticed, the MWC has been very competitive against the PAC lately and was arguably the stronger conference across the board last season.
by Ute94 on Jun 11, 2009 2:38 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
The rest of the Pac-0 is based upon natural rivalry pairings
Since BYU is unacceptable, CU-CSU already play annually.
Roses Ain't Orange!
by Canard on Jun 11, 2009 2:56 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
While I'm sure the Colorado Chamber of Commerce applauds your efforts...
I seriously doubt the PAC-10 would consider CSU because of the fact that they already play a game with Colorado annually and reside in the same state. IMHO, the PAC would take BYU before taking CSU, and taking BYU would be a stretch for them. At the end of the day, I think the PAC would probably have Utah and Colorado at the top of their list of “realistic” candidates, and then would need a list of safety schools in the likely event that Colorado didn’t want to leave the Big 12.
Regardless, the question is probably moot. I doubt the PAC-10 will expand. I think the best move for Utah would be for the MWC and WAC to merge into one 10-12 team conference. The new conference would be stronger than the PAC top to bottom and would eventually receive an automatic BCS auto bid.
by Ute94 on Jun 11, 2009 5:52 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
That is actually the draw for CSU
The fact they are the natural rival to CU is the draw, The Pac10 is made up of pairs of in-state rivals. That CSU already plays CU every year is a plus, not a minus.
by ev on Jun 11, 2009 6:45 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I never said it was a minus..
I just think you are taking the “natural rival” argument a bit far in trying to fit CSU into the equation. CU and CSU are rivals by virtue of being in the same state (much like Utah and Utah State), but I don’t think either would consider each other their main rival. I know that CSU’s chief rival is Wyoming.
I understand natural rivalries have been important to the existing PAC and its formation, but if they had to expand, I really don’t think they take an unqualified CSU school just because it is in the same state as CU.
by Ute94 on Jun 12, 2009 2:34 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
That is just half of the issue
The other half is the pairing of in-state teams for non-revenue sport travel expense. Teams travel in pairs and usually stay in one central location. For example, when the LA schools play the AZ schools on basketball, they both head out and stay in Phoenix. On Thursday USC will play ASU, and UCLA wil bus to UA. They stay in town on Friday and on Saturday they do the opposite. There is a huge economy in expenses when doing that. Something that can’t be done when considering Utah and Colorado. Now expand that from just basketball to all the non-revenue sports.
The Pac10 is unique in all their teams are paired with in-state rivals. That is something they really like.
by ev on Jun 13, 2009 9:53 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree and disagree
I wanted to point out that, IMO, many of these comparisons between the conferences are shortsided and, in the end, moot anyways. Saying that that Utah could hang in the Pac because the MWC was successful last year is meaningless. It was one year against many of the underpeforming Pac10-ers, and one would have to be delusional to argue that the MWC is as competitive as the Pac 10 trending over longer time periods. And, I dont think anyone is making that argument. Conversely, denying that Utah would not have been in the top 2-3 of the Pac 10 is similarly a case of ignoring the reality. Utah has proven to be a tough opponent (an understatment last year) recently. But none of this really matters. Looking at recent win-loss trends are not paramount to whether expansion would add competitive teams, money, and prestige to a conference lacking in all 3 areas.
And to the early comment that the MWC “was arguably the stronger conference across the board last season” I again point to shortsidedness, (and would add that making the “across the board” argument is not the way to put down the Pac 10, as we are recgonized as the most well rounded conference is total championships—hence the stupid self imposed, yet accurate “Conference of Champions” moniker). Whether or not that was even true between both conferences last year is a matter we can even debate further, but thats not the point of this post or thread.
I find the idea of expanding the Pac 10 both fascinating and necessary. I’ve often brainstormed teams that would make reasonable additions 1. Fresno St-SDSU/Nevada-UNLV? thats stretching it as these schools are rarely (not always but oftentimes) even close to BCS caliber in either of the 2 sports and adds 0 to our geographic fanbase 2. Utah-BYU? Better, but BYU has its issues, and LDS concerns cannot be ignore plus how much $ would that actually bring in 3. Colorado-CSU? CSU simply is not up to Pac 10 standards in probably any sport. Money and region wise make sense, but not at the cost of the doormat CSU would be. 4. Utah-Colorado? Now this makes the most sense financially, competitively, and geographically speaking. The one issue? As pointed out above—they are not natural rivals—a nice symmetry that Pac 10 fans appreciate and probably demand upon expansion. Whether or not an intense rivalry can be cultivated between these 2 teams is not for me to say, but it is not as obvious as perhaps Pac 10 fans would like. And maybe thats a superficial reason not to add the teams, but its still a consideration.
My view: Utah and Colorado make the most sense. They add competition, TV markets, and geographic expansion. I respect both programs (Utah’s especially) and sorely want the Pac 10 to reach the national level or respect it deserves. Hopefully, this can happen in the not so far off future.
by NorCalBruin08 on Jun 12, 2009 11:24 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good comments...
Just to be clear, when I discussed the MWC being arguably better than the PAC-10 last year, I was only referring to football, not all athletics. I realize that the MWC doesn’t compete with the PAC to that extent.
by Ute94 on Jun 12, 2009 2:21 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who's the real Colorado rival?
Colorado over CSU: 59-20-2
Colorado over Utah: 30-24-3
Certainly Utah has historically played closer to Colorado’s level.
The Utah-Colorado rivalry will be restored in 2012.
by utesfan100 on Jun 13, 2009 12:29 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
The fact you make that last statement says all we need to know.
Clearly from the stats you list, CSU is CU’s rival. That they go out of their way to play each other, but not Utah is proof.
by ev on Jun 13, 2009 1:36 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow.
“Utah is not better than Oregon, Cal, or Oregon State. Without past threats of political intervention, you’d have had no shot at a BCS game at all. "
Excuse me, sir. It was Utah who broke the unfair BCS barrier without any political threats and it is Utah who has 2 BCS Bowl victories (which by my count is greater than Oregon’s and Oregon State’s). The BCS system was set up so Utah and other non-AQ teams would not get into BCS bowls. A non-AQ team had to be ranked 6th or higher in or higher to get into a BCS bowl. It would force the team to have two extremely successful season with the latter one being undefeated. However, Utah did the impossible in 2004. After a successful 10-2 2003 season (which included beating the Duck…cough cough), Utah destroyed every opponent on their schedule and went undefeated in 2004. The BCS had to accept Utah since it was ranked higher than 6th. But, they screwed Utah by letting them play Pitt. Utah destroyed Pitt but they should have played Auburn. After the successful 2004 season and a Fiesta Bowl victory by a lowly non-AQ team, then the barrier was lowered.
As for the 2008 Utes, we heard it all from people like you. Alabama is going to destroy them. They have no right to be there. The SEC has too much speed and talent. As it turned out, Utah had to much speed for Alabama. So take your “you wouldn’t do well here” #$%^ and shove it up your @#$.
by FederalUte on Jun 11, 2009 3:54 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
You go on enjoying being Boise on steroids.
Everyone else not living in your fantasy land knows the score. You wouldn’t compete in an AQ conference week in and out, season in and out like the blogger assumes. It’s freaking ludicrous. It is much simpler for you and the Boises of the land to put all of your efforts into one “huge” OOC game, one rivalry game, one game against your league contender and one bowl game rather than have to run an actual gauntlet.
If former WAC superpower ASU has taken from 1978 until this minute to never become the rival of USC, it wouldn’t happen for Utah either.
See you in September for your one huge OOC game. It must be nice having all of October off like you do.
Roses Ain't Orange!
by Canard on Jun 11, 2009 6:16 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oregon is not a bigger game for us than BYU or TCU
Utah does not get “up” for two games a year. They have the same problems every program has. They have trap games where they overlook a team they shouldn’t. They have rivalry games that fans talk about all year. And we have several big games that decide the fate of the conference championship.
Oregon will be a big game—the biggest in September, but come the end of November it will just be another game. That’s not true of the BYU and TCU games.
by Ute in DC on Jun 11, 2009 6:27 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
By November it'll be just a game because
it will have been your only challenge to date through November 14, 2009.
That’s scandalous.
Roses Ain't Orange!
by Canard on Jun 11, 2009 7:42 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
What exactly are you arguing?
If it’s so scandalous then what is the solutiont? To prevent Utah from every playing a harder schedule? The whole point of Utah joining the Pac-10 is to upgrade the schedule. You apparently want to prevent that, but at the same time be outraged at the ease of Utah’s schedule.
These MWC teams you completely dismiss, they do occasionally win a game or two. If the difference between the MWC and the Pac-10 were as vast as you seem to think, the middle teams in MWC would never beat anyone in the Pac-10.
The MWC is a good conference. It’s not as good (most years) as the Pac-10, but the gap is narrowing. The population of the mountain region is growing faster than the Pacific coast. If the Pac-10 keeps pretending like it’s 1979 and USC is fresh off its third MNC in six years, then it’s only a matter of time until the rest of college football leaves them behind.
by Ute in DC on Jun 12, 2009 12:11 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
The point of the entire article was that Utah brings something to the Pac-10 that it lacks
Which was identified as increased competitiveness. That was anything but proven. Jazzyute went so far to say that Utah was better than the current contenders to USC. That was laughable. One cannot simply look at the one year where the Pac-10 struggled out of the gate and Utah had a dream season to make the determination. As my other post tried to get across, everyone in the Pac-10, even Stanford, has taken multi-year turns shooting at the king.
The Pac-10 “also rans” are the only teams not named Texas to hand USC a loss since the 2005 season. USC’s destiny was out of its hands for major portions of both 2007 and 2008.
When was the last time SDSU or Wyoming was a threat to take the MWC? CSU?
Yes, the bottom of the Pac-10 was legendarily dreadful last season. Historically, that is not the case over the last decade. The WSU Cougars had three 10 win seasons around the beginning of the decade. Today they can’t buy a break. By comparison, SDSU has been absolutely dreadful for all of this decade and doesn’t present a serious challenge to ever take the conference.
The Pac-10 isn’t preventing Utah from playing a more competitive schedule in some active campaign to suppress the Utes. The Pac-10 doesn’t need you, especially for the misinformed “reasons” that Jazzyute put forth.
If Washington and UCLA can get their acts together, a top half of the conference being USC, Oregon, Cal, UW and UCLA all ranging from scary great to competitive against anyone most years would be quite difficult enough without the Utes.
And there is no way no how that the Utes could go undefeated against the top half of the Pac-10 if even USC only rarely accomplishes that feat.
Roses Ain't Orange!
by Canard on Jun 12, 2009 8:48 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Colorado State has 3 conference championships in the programs 10 year history
That fact that you lump them in with the conference dogs just shows how ignorant you are of the level of competition in the MWC.
And yes SDSU and Wyoming have not been in contention for a while, but someone has to be at the bottom of the conference.
The point of the entire article was that Utah brings something to the Pac-10 that it lacks
He had a second argument too, which was a conference championship game puts the Pac-10 champion in the spotlight one more time and gives them another victory over a ranked team. Also, the Pac-10 hasn’t had two teams in the BCS since the 2002-03 season.
by Ute in DC on Jun 12, 2009 4:45 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
How do you know?
This is all specultion…what makes you think you KNOW that Utah wouldn’t be able to compete week in and week out? Last time I checked everyone KNEW Utah couldn’t beat Alabama…it was just impossible, right? What was it Daryl Johnston said before the Sugar Bowl? Utah doesn’t have the depth? Alabama wouldn’t recruit any players that played on Utah’s team? Look what happened. Alabama came out and looked foolish going down 21-0 before they knew the game had started.
GO UTES!!
by Jman87 on Jun 12, 2009 12:28 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
REALLY!
Again look at what Cincy did?? They were nothing in C-USA and then after a few years win the Big East. If you give Utah the perks of being in a BCS league within a few years they would be near the top. Right now the Utes are a better program then both Arizona and Washington schools, UCLA, Stanford,and Oregon State.
They are equal with Oregon and Cal (I think I am being generous on Cal), The only school currently superior is USC.
Give the Utes the advantage of being in a BCS league and they will be near the top shortly. What do you expect for them to turn into Duke, Iowa State, Syracuse.
by Jeremy Mauss on Jun 15, 2009 9:05 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ummm.
While I think your main point has some value, continuing to reference Cincy’s conquering of the Big East is taking away from your argument. That Cincy was able to take the Big East speaks more to the absolute ludicrous state of the “football” that is played there. Yes, Cincy did well to be successful so soon, but the Big East is a complete joke and should be stripped of its BCS automatic bid at this point. Aside from WVU, recent powers include Rutgers, Cincy and South Fla. Saying Utah could win the Pac 10 because Cincy decided not to be as bad as its conference buddies is an argument that has no merit.
Also, I would again point to the shortsided-ness in these claims that Utah is better than so many of the Pac 10 teams. Just because you guys have been (very) successful of late, does not mean you clearly have a better program than everyone outside of USC.
by NorCalBruin08 on Jun 16, 2009 10:49 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Equal is right
Utah is so equal that they have gone 7-7 against the Pac-10 in the last 10 years. This despite typically having only 1 game a year to get up for a year. In those three years in which they’ve played more than 1 game, they have gone at best .500 (twice), and once went 0-3.
Their history, keep in mind that means more than just last year, suggests that Utah would finish 4-5 to 5-4 in the Pac-10. So, the proper team to compare yourself to would be Arizona.
by Nashville on Jun 16, 2009 1:14 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Second team
Granted the conference needs a second team. That position historically has been taken by UCLA and UW, however those are both down on their luck. That won’t last forever and to expand in the hope of creating a second team isn’t the right answer. The second team will rise on it’s own, the only question is who it will be. Adding Utah and BYU doesn’t mean one of them will become that second team. No need to force the issue and at the same time hurt the conference economics.
by ev on Jun 11, 2009 1:58 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree fully.
And like I said, expansion isn’t going to happen, so it’s all just speculation on my part.
If the Pac-Ten can get that second team, then everything will work out and there won’t really be a need for Utah or another team, unless the Big Ten expands to 12.
With that said, how much longer does USC have to wait? UCLA might turn it around with Slick Rick. Washington is a mess right now. Washington State is coming off a near-winless season. Arizona State looked prime for a resurgence, but fell off badly last year. Arizona? Maybe Mike Stoops finally has it figured out. Cal? Well are these recent struggles just a minor dustup or are they going to return to their historical lows? Stanford is just not going to be able to do it at the national level.
That leaves the Oregon schools. I’d wager if there is going to be a team to contend in the future with the Trojans, it’s either the Ducks or Beavers. But neither have been able to really distance themselves from the middle of the conference. Maybe they can and maybe they’re more primed for this than Utah, but until it happens, it’ll still be USC and Those Other Guys.
by JazzyUte on Jun 11, 2009 2:34 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
The inevitable conclusion you won't face is that you are pining to be one of Those Other Guys
You wouldn’t fare any better week in and out than any other Pac-10 contender to USC. Everyone who tries needs three things.
1) The home game against the Trojans.
2) Avoid the injury bug,
3) Have excellent depth.
4) Not finish co-champs with the Trojans w/o the tie breaker.
Most outsiders don’t realize this but the 2007 Ducks were #2 in November of that year and had beaten top 10 USC and top 10 ASU in consecutive weeks.
But by that time, just on the offense, we had lost:
3 starting wide receivers,
Our second option at running back, Jeremiah Johnson, who put up over 1200 yards in ’08.
Our primary back-up at QB during a practice injury in October.
And J-Stew was running up 1700+ yards on a toe that would require off season surgery.
And then we lost Dennis Dixon of course. How many teams in the MWC can lose over half of their offensive production and then still absolutely kill their bowl opponent?
There is nothing remarkable about Utah’s depth that argues they’d annually compete with USC for the Pac-10 title.
Roses Ain't Orange!
by Canard on Jun 11, 2009 2:50 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oops, make that four things. LOL.
Roses Ain't Orange!
by Canard on Jun 11, 2009 2:51 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've mentioned this a few times.
You seem to gloss over it.
I also mentioned the Oregon schools were primed to move up and contend with USC. However, they haven’t and I don’t buy the Pac-Ten can’t have two extremely great teams. But since the Trojans began dominating, that just isn’t the case.
Sure, you can concede Utah would slip and join the middle of the conference, but I can assume the exact opposite. Plus, I do believe a split conference would ultimately squash the parity. As long as it’s balanced, at least (unlike the Big 12, but if Colorado and Nebraska ever get it together, that won’t be a problem anymore).
The way the Pac-Ten and Big Ten are set up allows for more parity and expanding to twelve teams would help in that regard.
by JazzyUte on Jun 11, 2009 4:01 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I love it...
All of you Pac-10 fans will say Utah lost to Oregon State in 2007 and we defend it by saying we lost our quarterback and running back and you say that’s not good enough but now your back here stating Oregon was great if they just didn’t go through injuries they would have been in the NC game.
By the way, in 2007 Utah lost Asiata, Casteel, Boone, Brian Johnson, Robert Johnson, and others all throughout the season…started the season 0-2, moved to 1-3…and still ended up 9-4, beating Navy in our bowl game.
GO UTES!!
by Jman87 on Jun 12, 2009 12:22 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
What else is USC to do?
The Trojans can’t leave and go somewhere else and they can’t go independent. Fact is they have no other choice but to wait and hope. Other than that, they can just keep pushing for the Pac10 to go back to 8 conference games. That would help a little.
by ev on Jun 11, 2009 2:52 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Down on their luck . . ."
Well, they stink really.
Oregon’s been the second team for a long time but can’t get a national name which is a travesty and they got screwed—as did the PAC-10—in 2002. But there is no consistency in the Pac-10. Oregon loses to Oklahoma in a bowl when they are ranked far ahead of them. That stuff kills a conference’s image.
Until you guys get your lower level teams to beat the same in other conferences, your mid level teams to do same, and three teams every one fears, no one will respect you. Need Cal to go out east and smoke Virginia and Wake once in awhile. Oregon to do to Ohio State what it did to Michigan (Congrats again Ducks on smashing the Wolverines in ’07).
Until then, you guys are the stepsisters no one invites into the real party.
by MeanBobMean on Jun 12, 2009 3:07 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
This entire thread presumes it would be better for Utah to be in the PAC 10 than the MWC
I stand by the potential expressed as follows:
2009 Sugar Bowl : MWC : Utah :: 1926 Rose Bowl : SEC : Alabama
by utesfan100 on Jun 11, 2009 3:25 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm starting to think I'd rather stay in the MWC now...
At least our goon fans are Holier Than Thou (well outside of BYU)
by JazzyUte on Jun 11, 2009 3:58 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Utah can do no better than where they are.
In the current climate of the BCS and “national perception” ruling the sport, it is far better to be a big fish in a small pond (exposure), than to be another also ran in the Pac-10 (less exposure).
Would the Utes have been in a BCS bowl last year had they been in the Pac? No.
Why again do teams like Utah and Boise St continue to lobby to be brought into the Pac-10? Their recruiting may “instantly change,” although probably not to the degree that they are hoping for, but the competition would also instantly change, and both teams would instantly go from “player” on the national stage to “middle of the road BCS team.” That is of course assuming that they are good enough to consistently be in the upper half of the Pac-10. It makes no sense, especially for them.
by QuizzApologist on Jun 11, 2009 3:41 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
No?
Really? Do you know for a fact that Utah would have not been in a BCS bowl last year? No, you do not know. Because we all know Utah had no reason to be on the same field as Alabama.
by FederalUte on Jun 11, 2009 4:22 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's not really the point.
Utah had 2 very mediocre showings against Weber St and Air Force prior to the OSU game. If either of those had been against 8/10ths of the Pac-10, you lose one or both of those games. You would have lost to USC. Thus, not in a BCS bowl.
If I’m being charitable, maybe Utah goes 7-2 in the Pac-10 last year, beats out Oregon for 2nd and goes to the Holiday bowl. I have doubts about that though. OSU finishes 3rd the last two seasons, and cleans Utah’s clock one season, and takes them to the wall the next. Putting the schedule of each team before and after the games aside, I just didn’t see the talent on the field for Utah, in either game, to be as good as you think they would be in the Pac.
No offense, but your better off where you are.
by QuizzApologist on Jun 11, 2009 8:03 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Weber State was not a close game
It was not on tv so you wouldn’t know, but Utah had a 30 point lead with 10 minutes to go in the fourth quarter when they put their third strings in. WSU scored two more touchdowns (with its starters playing against Utah’s backups) to make the game seem closer than it was and “only” lose by two touchdowns.
If I’m being charitable, maybe Utah goes 7-2 in the Pac-10 last year, beats out Oregon for 2nd and goes to the Holiday bowl.
And you know this how? Because you’re omniscient? Excuse me if I completely dismiss your opinion as Utah has heard this for years. “Utah will be lucky to score 10 points against Alabama.”
“No way does Michigan lose two home openers in a row.”
“Utah is reeling. Their athletes just can’t compete with Louisville.”
We’ve heard this stuff so often that it’s become passe. The fact of the matter is you DON’T know how Utah would have done last year in the Pac-10 and no one will ever know. What we do know is that Utah has a winning record versus BCS teams over the last decade (including the Pac-10).
by Ute in DC on Jun 11, 2009 11:59 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
What do YOU think Utah would have done?
In the Pac-10 last year?
Do you really think they would have won it all?
You’re right, it really doesn’t matter what I read your fans saying about both the Air Force and Weber State games. What matters is hearing you explain how the Utes would have beaten USC and then lost, at most, one Pac-10 game last year.
I don’t care that Utah has a winning record vs BCS teams over ten years, I want to know if you actually think Utah would have been in a BCS bowl last year if they had to play ten BCS opponents in one year?
by QuizzApologist on Jun 12, 2009 3:04 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
USC would have
Won the Pac-10 championship last year and won the national title.
They did not get that chance because Utah wasn’t in the conference to make USC’s championship meaningful.
So, the thread title is right on: you guys keep pissing in your shoes and complaining you feel wet.
;-)
by MeanBobMean on Jun 12, 2009 3:15 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nice.
One problem, if Utah is in USC’s hypothetical half of the Pac-12, chances are they aren’t even playing in the conference championship game. There’s a good chance they wouldn’t have made the game had they been in the opposite half of the conference. But whatever, right?
I’m sorry, who’s complaining again? I’m confused.
by QuizzApologist on Jun 12, 2009 3:42 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not us
We’re not complaining, we’re just pointing out the bleeding obvious. We finished higher than anyone in the Pac-10, we’re just talking about how weird it is, it’s the Pac-10 folks who are up in arms: they feel they are under appreciated but aren’t intelligent enough to do something about it.
If you’ve read my positings you know I am not interested in being in any conference that thinks it poops ice cream. Why suck up to Big daddy and his little planets when you can rule the roost from where you are?
Utah doesn’t need a National Title to feel complete like many in the Pac-10 do. I am not one who feels we were screwed, I think the Pac-10 needs to grow some hair and start making some noise to be relevant nationally, or get help from teams like us who are doing that with far fewer resources. I’d prefer to be left out of the Pac-10.
by MeanBobMean on Jun 15, 2009 7:36 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Huh?
Where do you get this stuff? You’re not complaining? This entire thread from start to finish is one big complain-fest, started by a Ute fan complaining about the Pac10.
I might have some interest in reading your other posts, if you weren’t projecting a bunch of BS on to our conference. So, if we don’t want to expand, we must think we “poop ice-cream”? You really think Utah brings more street cred than Cal, Oregon, Oregon State? Man, the kool-aid is flowing freely in Salt Lake. Bringing Utah into the Pac10 solves nothing for our conference. Reworking our bowl alignments does, however, and we are working on that.
Enjoy ruling your roost.
by QuizzApologist on Jun 17, 2009 4:36 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
BS?
I live in the east, teh eastern US. Midwest, etc. thinks very little of the Pac-10.
What I’m saying is, you guys are talking smack but you’re being laughed at not by Utah, not by me, but by the rest of college ball.
It’s hard apparently for Pac-10ers to see, but out here it’s fairly obvious.
So, I’m not interested in us putting on the clown suit, I’d rather see us try ot grow a program and knock som heads in on occasion. We win we win, we lose we lose, I don’t care.
by MeanBobMean on Jun 19, 2009 9:47 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bowl Games...
Exactly how did that weak Pac-10 do last year in Bowl Games?
Yeah… pretty good huh?
Ever look at the NCAA Strength of Schedule information? Look at the past 5 years and look at the fact that the Pac-10 overall plays a tough schedule compared to the MWC.
Pac-10 teams play a tough schedule and they consistently end up beating up on each other. They play an entire Conference schedule, unlike every other BCS Conference. If you want to see more Pac-10 teams competing for a National Championship then they ought to go back to an 8 game Conference schedule and all the Pac-10 teams should add another weak opponent like Weber State, Utah State, or San Diego State…
It would allow the teams to recover and rest and pad their schedule with additional wins between Pac-10 Conference games.
In the end, College Football is a business. Utah brings no additional Revenues compared to the overall expenses the other 10 teams would incur by adding the Utes.
End of story.
by RealityChecker on Jun 11, 2009 3:52 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
I got your reality check right here
And MWC was 7-2 against the Pac-10 last year.
And Utah has a 7-0 bowl streak
And Utah is 63% against BCS teams since the inception of the BCS
And Utah is 2-0 in BCS games (Fiesta and Sugar)
Utah and another team would bring a conference championship game to the Pac-10. It would give more exposure to the Pac-10 and add one more game.
by FederalUte on Jun 11, 2009 4:19 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
The ACC might say otherwise..
You only have to look at the ACC, a conference set up much like the Pac10, to see that a CCG doesn’t mean additional exposure. Their CCG is a disaster and a running joke every year. The Pac10 is too spread out for a CCG to be a success. Keep in mind the Pac10 already plays a national TV game on championship weekend. Finally, that one extra game for two teams takes away a bye week for everyone. The SEC hates this and asked the NCAA to extend the season one more week. They got laughed at.
by ev on Jun 11, 2009 4:57 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
ACC
But the ACC has had FSU and Miami fall apart recently, Clemson has been the most overrated team in College Football, and Virgniia Tech can’t get over the hump.
So what you’re saying is:
If yo’ve got only so-so teams ina BCS conference, for god’s sake don’t play a championship because we’ll all have at least three losses?
by MeanBobMean on Jun 12, 2009 3:18 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Missed the point.
The ACC CCG doesn’t work because the teams are too spread out, not because a few of their programs are on hard times. The SEC CCG works because they have a central location to play it and all the conference teams are close enough their fans can drive there. Even the Big12 CCG has problems when they choose a sit that is not centrally located.
You play a CCG to make money, however Pac10 projections show it’s a loser. That is why they don’t have one. It would get them little in additional TV exposure. They already have a national TV game on championship weekend. The stadium would look like the ACC one, 2/3rd empty. They would lose money on that too.
Until the money is right, there is no reason for the Pac10 to expand. Utah and BYU would cost more than they bring in.
by ev on Jun 13, 2009 9:46 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
No
You play a CCG ot get recognition and propel a team into higher rankings and hoped for NC for your conference. Making money is nice, but it’s nothing compared to what you can gain in national prestige for your conference.
Yes, the SEC tend to do everything in their backyards, that is called homer queen mentality, and no I’m not impressed by it.
by MeanBobMean on Jun 15, 2009 7:39 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
You have that backwards.
If the SEC or Big12 didn’t make money on their CCG, that game would be gone tomorrow. In fact the Big12 coaches even voted to get rid of their CCG, only problem is the ADs voted for it to stay. A CCG has and will aways be a money game, it’s the reason it was created and it’s the only reason it stays.
Fact is Utah brings nothing to the table, there is no reason to consider then if the Pac10 were ever to expand.
by ev on Jun 15, 2009 9:20 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
False
Making money is an addedd bene, not the reason they do it. Any major college game sold at, or near, capacity makes money, your logic is inane.
You’re right, you don’t need us, continue to devolve further and further into mediocrity without us, please. We’d never get a BCS consideration if we had that “Pac-10” label around our necks.
It’s become a death knell for football program marketing.
Make all the money you want, I’d rather be poor than suck.
;-)
by MeanBobMean on Jun 16, 2009 12:20 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Incorrect
If the SEC and Big XII championship games were created subsequent to the formation of the BCS, I’d say you might have a point.
But they weren’t. And you don’t.
The SEC in its present form was created in 1992. The BCS didn’t come into existence until 1998. Even the Bowl Alliance, the progenitor of the BCS minus the P10 and Big10, didn’t exist in 1992. That didn’t come until 1995. There was no “Mythical National Championship Game” for the SEC or BigXII to try and play themselves into. What did exist then, as now, were the enormous revenue streams that come from hosting an additional game in a central location featuring two of the better teams in the 12-team conference. Something the ACC didn’t really consider when they created a conference that stretched from Miami to Boston. Oops. Epic Fail.
The rest of your comment is obviously insubstantial, though you did spell ‘knell’ correctly, so I guess you’ve got that going for you.
by Nashville on Jun 16, 2009 1:33 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Heh
Yep, keep whistling fellers, that graveyard is spooky when you walk past.
The Pac-10 will never be considered an equal to those other conferences, never. Your comment on the SEC? Meaningless. If they had no CCG and you guys did? They’d call you inferior for doing it that way.
You boys in the Pac-10 are clueles as to what College Ball thinks of y’all. I’d rather have Utah be the lone ranger every few years then be thought of a has been who had ot suck up the conference no one the rest of the nation respects to try and gain credibility.
See, i like the Pac-10, I think it’s a fine conference, but college football thinks else and I’ll take my chances outside y’all’s system and reputation, thanks very much.
by MeanBobMean on Jun 19, 2009 9:59 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I will interpret the lack of a reply to my central point, that CCGs are about revenue and not BCS positioning, as a concession of its accuracy.
However, I think you paint a fair picture of the Midwestern and southern attitudes toward Pac-10 football. As I live in the South, it’s definitely something that I’ve come up against.
The nation has a generally schizophrenic attitude to the Pac-10. They recognize that USC is the best team of the decade, better than Florida, Georgia, LSU, or even Texas. But, to make the fact that USC has won 90%+ of their games since 2002 less astonishing, they make light of the Pac-10 as the Pac-1, Little9, 9 Dwarves, etc. Now, you and they are fully correct to point out most Pac-10 schools aside from UW, UCLA, and USC have very little tradition, but fortunately the conference has “created” some new winning traditions in that time.
Oregon, OrSt., they’ve both won BCS bowls. Cal has had two 10 win seasons in 5 years. UW and UCLA have both hired energetic and talented recruiters and appear to be improving significantly. Arizona St.’s coach has won two MNCs. Stanford is on the verge of making a bowl game for the first time since 2001.
Respect for the Pac-10 is coming, maybe as soon as this year.
by Nashville on Jun 19, 2009 9:04 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nope on CCG
As for positioning for the BCS the bottom line is the conferences out here, ACC and SEC went into it as a means to attract attention to their conference champ, money was always the 2nd consideration as far as everything I ever read (here in Tallahassee). It’s always been about providing such a powerful argument that your guy really was that great, so great as to withstand a conference playoff, that they had to be a contender for the NCG. Adding teams meant more revenue, more xposure, and a CCG meant even more exposure—revenue comse with that, but exposure trumped revenue. No conference is averse to making more, but to say “that’s the real motivation” is not provable, it’s your opinion, and it’s a perfectly good one. In fact, that they have a playoff to win the conferences flies in the face of all BCS logic about how no playoffs can ever be held because of interest, revenue, effects on students, etc.
So what BCS conferences are really saying is “they work, they make money, but we can’t ever do that . . .” which is kind of a weird argument, don’t ya think?
Besides, all I hear from you Pac-10 men is how much money y’all have and how great that is, and Utah just is money hungry. Why not make more than if that is what a CCG is about? I mean, your arguments on this board, and I mean all pac-10 folks not just yours, means that while it’s all about revenue, you don’t want to generate more because that is all that would mean?
See the problem. Y’all’s logic is wanting.
Pac-10 might get more respect soon, but we’ve been hearing that for awhile too.
Pac-10 has to schedule the best SEC teams (top half) and beat their asses properly more often than not. There is a greater burden on the PAC-10 to show why it is relevant, it aint fair, we’all know about that, but that’s the way it is right now.
Good luck on next season, if your guys come together as your coach is predicting, you’ll have a very fine team.
by MeanBobMean on Jun 22, 2009 10:31 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not even close.
The CCG was created for the sole reason to generate revenue. The Big12 and SEC have admitted that many a time. If what you said was correct, the Big12 coaches would never have voted to get rid of their CCG.
The problem for the Pac10 would be the same one with the ACC, their CCG isn’t sold anywhere near capacity. Fact is it’s money loser. The idea that just having a CCG mean it will be sold out (or near too) is absurd. The ACC proves this point year after year. Hell the Big12 even proves if from time to time. Only the SEC is selling out every year and that is because they have a unique set up with a compact conference and central location for the game.
The Pac10 is so mediocre they had 4 ranked teams including two in the Top10.
by ev on Jun 16, 2009 2:43 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep
You got two top ten teams and no invite to the NCG why?
Because they love your support and not you. USC doesn’t have to be as good as Florida to get an invite, they have to be so much better than anyone on the card it’s sick.
Oregon or anyone else? Forget it. You’d have to win all your games by 30 points and have an insane strength of schedule after winning two road games in the SEC to get an invite—they think that little of you guys.
You guys are never going to get respect from the SEC and they have way more power in college football.
The ACC CCG isn’t sold out because they’ve had mediocre teams play recently. 8-3 vs 8-3 for the crown of the Nancy Boy Trophy doesn’t sell seats, I agree. If two teams come in 10-1, or 11-1 and 12-0, watch what happens.
I’m not your problem, your BCS cabal is and you guys will always be USC and “someone else we can’t quite recall . . .” in that setup. You’ll get your odd bone, but you’ll never be the SEC or Big 12, never to those guys.
But if trying to look down your nose at Utah helps, by all means, go for it.
by MeanBobMean on Jun 19, 2009 9:55 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lets take a longer look that one year
Pac-10 had a down year in 2008 & MWC had a good year, but one year is hardly a good data set to base a decision.
Take a look at the 5 year non-conference records of the two Conferences.
5 years OOC Records ( vs. FBS opponents)
2008
Pac-10 17-17 MWC 22-12
2007
Pac-10 23-12 MWC 19-17
2006
Pac-10 20-12 MWC 15-19
2005
Pac-10 20-9 MWC 14-17
2004
Pac-10 22-13 MWC 14-17
Total Last 5 Years
Pac-10 102- 63 (.618) MWC 84-82 (.506)
Over that same time frame, the Pac-10 was 15-0 vs. FCS/D-1aa opponents while the MWC was 19-3 vs. FCS / D-1aa opponents.
But as I wrote before, it is moot as the Pac-10 doesn’t think Utah is worthy to be in the Pac-10. The Pac-10 is more than football. It is a combination of other sports(men’s & women’s), and pride in academics research as a whole. Utah is a fine public University and has had sporadic success in both academics & athletics, yet as a whole doesn’t live up to Pac-10 standards.
In regards to academic research…. Two words… Cold Fusion.
by RealityChecker on Jun 11, 2009 4:59 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Academic research includes allowing researches to make mistakes. If your only counterpoint to Utah’s world class research facilities is a snafu a couple researches made 20 years ago, then you must know you really don’t have a leg to stand on.
by Ute in DC on Jun 11, 2009 5:09 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Honestly, as a Pac-10er, I don’t know how we can preach academics when we are in the same conference as Wazzou and Arizona St. Arizona St?!?!?! How do you not get in there! They tried to have a 100,000 student enrollment!
We all dream of being a child again, even the worst of us, the worst... perhaps... most of all.
by chowder on Jun 11, 2009 5:24 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
To be fair..
This 63% is good. I am not arguing that. But BCS teams play BCS teams at least 8 times a year (pac 10 plays at least 9), plus whether or not they are game enough to schedule BCS teams in OOC. Winning 63% against a schedule full of BCS teams (and not against 1 or 2 or 3) is remarkably mediocore. Still bowl bound and certainly not weak, but really, really nothing to boast about.\
I have never understood why its ok for non BCS teams to celebrate going .500 or a little better. Great, then you’d be decent in a BCS conference. Congrats. (And I will repeat, Utah was a great team last year, I am not arguing that they would have been a middle of the pac (pun intended) team in last years specific example).
by NorCalBruin08 on Jun 12, 2009 11:51 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
BCS teams play . . . .
That’s a title, not a meaningful comment.
That’s like Saying “But Utah is Utah you see!”
So what? If BCS teams like the BigEast’s suck, branding yourself as BCS is meaningless. Think Kentucky, Miss State, the entire Big east, Duke, Clemson every other week, or soe of these other so called teams like the bottom 8 of the Big Ten, half the Big-12 etc., are really meaningful to that statement?
You’re not saying “BCS teams play the top tier nations in the top 25 each year” because the vast majority of teams both BCS and non BCS are not that freaking amazing man.
I could set up a schedule where Boise state would run the table on BCS teams every year, including 4 from your conference. So what?
See, the myth is that BCS means something besides horde it all for us and screw the nation as we see fit NC wise.
What is hilarious is that the SEC sees to it that the Pac-10 gets screwed the most and has you guys making their arguments for them!
Cheers man, have fun with that, you Pac-10 guys look good in dresses.
;-)
MeanBobMean
Not Pro Pac-10, not till they grow enough hair to tell the BCS to get lost.
by MeanBobMean on Jun 12, 2009 2:42 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
You are misconstuing my argument
I 100% agree that “BCS team” in and of itselfs means nothing. Zero. I personally think the BCS is a racket, and is more focused on ratings and sponorships and attendance rather than putting good teams on the field to settle who is best. The Big East is a joke of a football conference and should have their automatic bid revoked. I am aware that if Utah or Boise St were to play the Wash schools, any of the Big East, Duke, Ioaw State, etc, they could easily go undefeated and at worst lose maybe 1 or 2. But, unfortunately, you don’t get to pick and choose which BCS teams to play (Notre Dame and their recent scheduling, excluded) when you are in a conference. So unless Utah wants to join the overcrowded and underperforming Big East, you wont get to go undefeated or close to it year in and year out, as you suggest you could playing BCS teams.
In every conference outside of the Big East, there are some decent to great teams. And, for the purposes of this thread, the Pac 10 contains the country’s most stable, dominant team of the 2000s. So, Utah would not be able to skip SC, and Oregon/Ca/OSU if they were to receive a bid to join the Pac. So, whats your argument in regards to Utah if they were to join the Pac 10?
I don’t have a hard on for BCS labeled teams. Try not to infer things that are not there. Thanks.
by NorCalBruin08 on Jun 16, 2009 11:03 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
damn my spelling. and lack of previewing.
by NorCalBruin08 on Jun 16, 2009 11:03 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cool mate
Spell checking is not for manly men such as us!
Understood, thanks.
by MeanBobMean on Jun 16, 2009 12:21 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not as good
As we’ve done for 8 straight years.
But I understand the angst.
by MeanBobMean on Jun 16, 2009 12:31 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, first, you have the assumption that expansion will be a great thing for the conference, and will lead to more great teams. I don’t know where you’re coming up with that assumption. I mean, hell, look at the ACC. They expanded, and are a joke. Expansion would not in any way solve the “problem” of USC winning the Pac-10 year in and out. You act like the Pac-10 needs to “get with the times” and expand, but the only conference to do that recently has completely imploded and is mired in mediocrity.
Next, how would Utah even solve this? Utah is a solid program, but coming into the conference would be no better than 5th immediately, and possibly worse when it finally faced a top 50 schedule. Also, if you’re basing Utah’s supposed dominance on last year’s performance, if there’s anything that can be taken from Utah last year, it’s that they would not have gone through one of the major conferences undefeated. There’s simply too many good teams with talent in the major conferences. Utah, while ending up 2nd in the final polls, overachieved greatly throughout the year. Their S&P+ placed them as the 16th best team in the country. Good, but nowhere near close to even pushing a USC or top level program. If anything, Utah would add to the mediocrity in the conference, while Oregon, OSU, Cal, Utah, and a few others schools beat each other up all season.
If the Pac-10 were to expand, Utah would be a solid choice. But I don’t see how expansion solves anything, nor how the alleged problems would even have a good chance of being solved by expansion.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
by jtlight on Jun 11, 2009 4:20 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
+1
except that the ACC is dreadful, I think they are average.
We all dream of being a child again, even the worst of us, the worst... perhaps... most of all.
by chowder on Jun 11, 2009 5:23 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Utah's schedule last year was ranked 56 and we went 13-0.
Let’s pretend we’d played in the PAC 10 last year, and we’ll rank our games from easiest to hardest vs. our actual schedule. We’ll keep the same OOC, but move Oregon State to the conference schedule and we’ll cut out Weber State and play all 10 PAC 10 teams.:
12- Hypothetical game: Washington; Actual game: Weber State. Result? WIN
11- Hypothetical game: Utah State; Actual game: Utah State. Result? WIN
10- Hypothetical game: Michigan; Actual game: SDSU. Result? WIN
9- Hypothetical game: Washington State; Actual game: Michigan. Result? WIN
8- Hypothetical game: UCLA; Actual game: Wyoming. Result? WIN
7- Hypothetical game: ASU; Actual game: New Mexico. Result? WIN
6- Hypothetical game: Stanford; Actual game: UNLV. Result? WIN
5- Hypothetical game: Arizona; Actual game: CSU. Result? WIN
4- Hypothetical game: Oregon State; Actual game: Air Force. Result? WIN
3- Hypothetical game: Cal; Actual game: Oregon State. Result? WIN
2- Hypothetical game: Oregon; Actual game: BYU. Result? possibly a loss.
1- Hypothetical game: USC; Actual game: TCU. Result? probably a loss.
So that’s at least a 10-2 Utah team. Is the schedule tougher in the Pac 10? Maybe a little. Is it a top 50 schedule? Maybe. Where would that put Utah? Tied for 2nd in the PAC 10.
Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.
by displacedute on Jun 12, 2009 4:33 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
So they go 10-2 at the high water mark for the past few years. I don’t see how that solves anything. How does that elevate the better teams in the Pac-10? It seems like that simply perpetuate the current “problem.”
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
by jtlight on Jun 13, 2009 9:47 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or . . .
They go 12 and 0 instead of 11-1 like your champs did. No one knows.
Utah might have gone 9-3 against other opponents, we’ll never know. We know only one thing:
Utah won their games, USC and Florida did not.
If you have another hypothetical point, by all means make it, I tend more toward facts.
by MeanBobMean on Jun 15, 2009 7:42 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK, as I pointed out before…based on statistical analysis, Utah was the 16th best team in the country. They overperformed against their numbers last season (just as baseball teams overperform their expected W-L).
This isn’t to take anything away from their season. They went 13-0. They won their games and USC and Florida did not. But at the same time, that does not help their case that they would elevate the competition in the Pac-10. Statistically, in their 4 year high point (which I think most teams of the Utah, Oregon, Cal, Ore St variety can expect), they would have been the 3rd best team in the Pac-10.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
by jtlight on Jun 15, 2009 8:16 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
One other thing. Utah’s performance in straight up wins and losses is in no way predictive of how they would do in another schedule. That’s why you have to use statistics that try to even those things out. Those are the facts necessary. You need to use information that is predictive, not simply the most base result.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
by jtlight on Jun 15, 2009 8:18 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well . . .
Predictive datasets indicated that we did not have the talent to hang with Alabama, period. That’s based entirley on a subjective grading process. The problem you have is a subjectively derived system is being used to project probabilistic outcomes.
So, while that’s all cool for the nattering nabobs of BCSism, I gotta say:
Sure, based on that, why did we bother to show up for the ’Bama game at all? Why not just deposit the check and forego the travel expenses?
As my note points out, we don’t know, you don’t, I don’t. Utah might have more talent than anyone supposes, then again, it may have simply been we’ve gelled completely in 2 recent years and will never repeat it. These next three seasons will tell.
by MeanBobMean on Jun 16, 2009 12:26 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually...that's totally false....
Those datasets show that Utah was 16th, Alabama was 9th. That’s very close, and Utah should have gotten more credit going into that game than many people gave them.
I also think that the whole “with the numbers, why show up and play argument” is totally asinine. It’s very tough to outperform for an entire seasons. Any team can win any game. But it’s also about probabilities. Utah would have had a better chance to beat Alabama that it would BYU, but worse chance than beating USC, etc. It’s pretty simple.
And as far as not knowing, umm, yeah, no one can KNOW anything, but you sure as hell can try to venture a guess, and when you look at stats that do their best to eliminate strength of schedule advantages and disadvantages over an entire season, you get a much better idea of where a team should end up. Now, again, teams can over and underperform on this, and you never know for sure how anything will turn out.
But my original point was still never addressed. The entire point of this piece was written on the assumption that Utah would suddenly push the Pac-10 to this next level and elevate the best teams, which is not supported by any single fact. In my opinion, at best, Utah is at the same level of Oregon, Oregon State, Cal, etc. That’s at best. So that just leaves us with the same “problem” of a bunch of teams that can’t break through.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
by jtlight on Jun 16, 2009 4:08 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
9th and 16th?
And yet, everyone said “Well, only 16th because they play in a pansy league, Alabama at 9th and Utah at 16th means 10-20 point Alabama victory.”
Come on mate, yes we “should” have gotten respect, the Pac-10 should get more, again though, I’m talking about the fact of what did and will occur, not what “should” be.
Oregon needs to bitch slap the snot out of Boise State at Boise, that will help immensely. Then, if the pound us a few weeks later, the Pac-10 should start making noise early. Problem is, Oregon does not have a national marketing tradition like SEC, so a mediocre SEC team will always be considered superior to a great or superb Oregon one.
So, given that, why should Utah want to be in the Pac-10? We making noise on our own. I like it like that. Not everything should be about money.
by MeanBobMean on Jun 19, 2009 10:05 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
MOOT POINT
The Pac-10 Teams don’t want the Utes.
Next Subject :)
by RealityChecker on Jun 11, 2009 4:25 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
I think most Ute fans would agree with that...
I also think many would support the MWC and WAC merging into a 10-12 team conference that would ultimately be stronger than the PAC-10 top to bottom. If I were the PAC-10, I would be more worried about that very real possibility than which teams they don’t want to allow in their conference.
by Ute94 on Jun 11, 2009 6:15 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not a worry.
The Pac10 would have no worries about a MWC/WAC merger and no they would not become stronger. To many of the Pac10 teams have natural advantages over any of a new conference members. They sit in larger recruting areas, stadiums and athletic budgets than the vast majority of a new conference member would every have. Schools like USC, UW, UCLA, Cal, and Stanford have huge donor bases, money that makes up the largest part of an anthletic budget. Outside of Utah, BYU and maybe TCU, no one is in the same area as the lower Pac10 schools except for WSU.
Didn’t many of the MWC and WAC teams belong to the same conference at one time? Seems they didn’t like each other then, doubt much has changed.
by ev on Jun 11, 2009 6:55 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
No. The MWC teams broke away from the WAC...
due to too much dead weight in the conference at the time, but both conferences have changed a lot since then, with each adding stronger members. What I’m talking about is taking the best of the WAC and the best of the MWC and merging them together. With the MWC being very competitve against the PAC by itself, adding the best WAC teams would create a stronger conference than the PAC-10, at least on the field. Sure, the PAC will always have built in advantages of population bases and recruiting areas, but athletic budgets and stadiums would equalize if and when the MWC/WAC conference likely received auto-bid BCS money. Regardless, population doesn’t make a better conference. If they did, then the Big East would be one of the best conferences in America.
by Ute94 on Jun 12, 2009 1:57 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Doesn't work that way.
Pointing out how well the MWC did in one season against the pac10 isn’t proving your point. Even so, much of those wins were the top of the MWC beating the bottom of the pac10, not really proof of anything other than good teams can beat bad ones. Better to look at a 5 or 10 year span for each of the programs you plan on in your new conference. BSU, Fresno State, Hawaii, Nevada all have losing records against the pac10 (in fact so do the MWC teams). Boise State beat Oregon last year, but then they lost to a horrible UW the year before. See what I mean?
Adding BCS money (and it’s not a sure thing a combined MWC and WAC gets an auto bid), wouldn’t even come close to closing the game in athletic budgets. The largest source of income to an athletic department is ticket sales and donors. The Pac10 would continue to have a huge advantage in both of those regardless.
The Big East isn’t a good example (although they do have a great BCS record), as high school football isn’t a huge thing for them for much of the area. A new MWC/WAC isn’t competing against the Big East but the Pac10 and Big12. Huge difference.
by ev on Jun 13, 2009 9:38 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree with a merger!
But a game with the MWC champion vs. the WAC champion the first Saturday of December(before Bowl selection) might be a very interesting idea…
by utesfan100 on Jun 13, 2009 12:37 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
get real
the reason usc is #1 with a few distant #2s is that usc is 3 deep with 5 star recruits
the best players on the west coast would rather cheer for usc than play for other schools
I think that will change in another year or two as great HS players watch usc great athleats neveer get on the field.
but Utah?
What the heck? They would just end up being another Washington state – where it doesn’t matter what they do because top recruits don’t want to play there.
by tehpeople on Jun 11, 2009 4:58 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Have you ever been to Salt Lake City?
The Oregon schools’ campuses are in Corvallis and Eugene, which are not exactly metropolises. Salt Lake City is more cosmopolitan than you think and it’s growing quickly. Recruits will continue to come—especially LDS kids.
by Ute in DC on Jun 11, 2009 5:06 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Utah sitting in Salt Lake City doesn't help...
The thing with the Pac10 is many of there schools are in major cities. Salt Lake City is competing against Los Angeles, the Bay Area, Seattle and Phoenix. When looked at that way, it’s not a big selling point. The Oregon’s and Wazzu sell the opposite product, the college town. Arizona doesn’t sell anything, no one wants to be in Tucson.
by ev on Jun 11, 2009 5:16 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Phoenix is a giant retirement home.
Unless they love golf, there is more for an 18-23 year old student to do in Salt Lake City than Phoenix. Seriously.
by Ute in DC on Jun 11, 2009 5:23 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
You clearly have never been to the ASU campus.
Looks like the Playboy Mansion and Bourbon Street all rolled into one. That place draws coeds from around the country. The real question is how do they not get more 18 year old bluechippers given what they have to offer.
by ev on Jun 11, 2009 5:34 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Never been to the playboy mansion
but it must not be all it’s cracked up to be because all ASU induced in me was a desire to snooze.
It’s not even in the same ballpark as Bourbon Street.
by Ute in DC on Jun 11, 2009 5:43 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well let me tell you sonny boy,
If you ever do get the chance to visit the Playboy mansion, don’t pass it up. You won’t be sorry. Bourbon Street might be a stretch, but Mill Street on Friday and Saturday night is a dream destination for any young man. Don’t forget about the ASU cheerleaders doing porn…
by ev on Jun 11, 2009 5:49 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is true, they are a lock to finish in the top ten of everyone’s party school list.
We all dream of being a child again, even the worst of us, the worst... perhaps... most of all.
by chowder on Jun 11, 2009 5:51 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
With Regards to Potential Recruits
Oregon St. doesn’t pull in the big name recruits, Riley is able to find what he needs and coach them up, and Oregon has Nike and their facilities to help lure recruits in spite of the subpar locale. What does Utah bring that can offset their subpar location?
Yes, Utah might bring some LDS, but I don’t think they can count on non-LDS. Look at Wazzou, they are on a downward spiral, because their location can’t pull any good recruits. Utah will be able to snag a recruit or two every class, but not enough to compete with the Pac-10 consistently.
We all dream of being a child again, even the worst of us, the worst... perhaps... most of all.
by chowder on Jun 11, 2009 5:20 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Huh?
Are you confusing BYU with Utah? Most of the Utes team in non-LDS. As far as recruiting, obviously Utah has done just fine with two BCS wins in the last 5 years as well as a pretty good record head to head against the PAC 10.
by Ute94 on Jun 11, 2009 6:09 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
There are a lot of LDS players on the football team
Fifty-five players and half the coaching staff are members of the LDS. Forty-seven players are returned missionaries, a two-year service to the church that takes them out of college that Whittingham encourages.
That makes over half the team LDS. That’s a bit of a recruiting advantage when Utah tries to lure LDS players. With a growing membership size of the LDS church, that’s not a bad thing.
by Ute in DC on Jun 11, 2009 6:21 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's surprising, if true...
However, I’m guessing the bulk of those athletes have to be walk-ons and practice squad guys. I’d have a hard time believing that even a quarter of the “lettermen” are LDS guys.
by Ute94 on Jun 12, 2009 2:16 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ever heard the phrase "Jack-mormon?"
by utesfan100 on Jun 13, 2009 12:39 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Most of those kids aren't Jack Mormons
Look how many RMs on that team.
by MeanBobMean on Jun 15, 2009 7:43 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Same song different year
People have been saying the bluechipper would head somewhere other than USC for 5-6 years now. Still isn’t happening, their ‘10 class is already starting to fill up with 4 and 5 star kids again. Fact is a 5 star kid isn’t afraid of the depth chart and he isn’t afraid of other 5 star kids on the depth chart.
Not get on the field, you must have forgotten the 85 scholarship limit. Everyone gets on the field at USC, whether they stay there or not depends on how hard they compete. No one rides the pine at USC, every year they have one of the highest number of lettermen.
by ev on Jun 11, 2009 5:09 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cal fan thinks alike
http://www.californiagoldenblogs.com/2008/10/29/649181/carp-s-crazy-thoughts-for
http://www.californiagoldenblogs.com/2009/4/28/857429/carp’s-crazy-thoughts-for-a-t
I’ve picked Utah to either be the team to replace Wazzu, or expand along with either Colorado, Boise St, or BYU. Personally, I’d like to add Colorado to the mix, and Buff fans are on board too.
Oh yeah, the Pac10 Commish is now lead by a Harvard tennis champ who’s claim to fame is Women’s Tennis.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
by carp on Jun 11, 2009 7:38 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Dream a little dream...
The Coogs are never getting kicked out of the Pac10. Believe it or not, UW would never let them go and the state of Washington would make it a requirement on UW (a Pac10 charter school). Boise State isn’t qualified on so many different levels to even consider them is a joke. Colorado isn’t leaving the Big12, the money difference is huge. BYU would never get the ok from Stanford, the Trees would veto the idea at the start.
The Pac10 would only consider a pair of in-state schools, and it has to do with the non-revenue sports.
by ev on Jun 11, 2009 8:00 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with pretty much everything you say except this:
Well one way to undo a negative perception is by changing that perception. The Pac-Ten needs more talent at the top to really balance out the struggles of Washington State, Stanford and the Arizona schools. Frankly, right now, there just isn’t enough outside of USC to really elevate the conference.
the implication is that adding Utah means that USC isn’t the undisputed top team, but I see Utah as being on the level of Cal, OSU and Oregon, but not USC, so it’s not solving the “USC and the 9 dwaves” stupidity.
Also, I’m not sure if you considered this, but the Pac-10 will also strongly resist expansion because adding more teams would ruin the home and away pod schedule that works really really well for basketball.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
by norcalnick on Jun 11, 2009 8:17 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Utah needs the PAC-10...
much more than the PAC-10 needs anything from Utah. The state of Utah does not bring anything to the table that the PAC-10 needs. In fact, they would force the rest of the conference to cut up their share of the cash in 12 ways instead of 10. Meanwhile, the state of Utah is not a national ratings prize. It is not going to bring in enough TV or other revenue to make up for losing that money. Besides, the PAC-10 is nicely structured as it is. We play all of the other schools in both football and basketball. It makes for a legit conference champion. Other conferences may be stupid enough to go for the conference championship games, but the PAC-10 has wisely stayed away from that nonsense. Our regular season matters. You have to be good all year long to be called the champion of the Conference of Champions. The only unwise move the conference has made on the front is resurrecting the basketball conference tourney. It’s unnecessary.
Keep the PAC-10 as-is. We don’t need Utah. Utah is just desperate for an “in” into the BCS. The funny thing is, where would all of their “principles” go if that happened? Supposedly the BCS is evil because it mistreats the likes of Utah. So, why do you want to be party to a system that your admin has been beating up for years? Isn’t that, dare I say, a bit hypocritical?
by azshadowwalker on Jun 12, 2009 5:50 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Really?
Desperate for a “BCS in”?
Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha.
From an Arizona school?
The BCS uses you and laughs (See Oregon, 2002 and USC, 2008 etc.) and you think you have soemthing we don’t have and that we’re fishing?
You guys are toads for the SEC to setup, screw, and make fun of, nothing more. If your commissioner wasn’t an idiot, he’d have called bullshit a long, long time ago.
by MeanBobMean on Jun 12, 2009 2:27 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bigger picture
So at what point is someone going to acknowledge that football isn’t the only sport played in the Pac-10? Admittedly it’s the biggest, most lucrative one. But what would adding in Utah, much less BYU, CU, etc., do to the Pac-10’s status as one of the elite basketball conferences in the nation? What kind of impact would the extra travel have on those programs who already run seriously in the red like baseball, softball, soccer, and the likes? Unless you take a look at the big picture it’s about as rooted in reality as arguing whether or not the Florida Gators could have beat the Detroit Lions last year.
by socaldawg on Jun 12, 2009 11:51 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Good points
It’s a fine Baseball conference as well. Swimming, track, womens gymnastics, fine conference.
by MeanBobMean on Jun 12, 2009 2:28 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well
The east coast, Midwest, and the South has an enormous Bias against the west coast teams, period. But guess what? They don’t want to schedule The Ducks or Beavers early in the season, and they sure don’t want a home and home, guess why? They don’t want to lose. Why don’t they do a home and home with Cal or USC? They are afraid.
Florida is playing this year out of conference, all at home:
Troy State
Southern Charleston
Florida International
Florida State (I live in Tallahassee, FSU is dying off fast—they aint a challenge).
My sense is ultimately? Football is not really as important to us in the west as it is in the South, East, and Midwest. It just aint. So the PAC-10 can continue to be irrelevant or not, but it is their choice to make. Their way out is making the whole conference schedule against Midwestern and Southern teams each year and start winning some games. Otherwise, they’ll always be disrespected.
This Ducks guy has the problem many ducksters have: they want a national championship and are upset they can’t seem to get one. They feel they were screwed in 2002—they were, unquestionably, but then: they should not have let Stanford beat them either. They have built a very fine team several times just to see it lose a game it could have won. They have an enormous chip on their shoulders which is funny because to me, Oregon’s always been a mellow, who cares much about Football place. Seems there are some fans that cannot understand that short of changing their entire culture into SEC west they won’t contend for the NC. Is that what Oregon wants? To be Auburn west? You my friends are welcome to it.
The idea that BYU isn’t a real school is childish. If that’s the level of intellectual acuity applied to dialogue in that conference, we don’t want to be in the PAC-10. This from a man, me, who hates BYU.
by MeanBobMean on Jun 12, 2009 2:21 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Utah
Well socaldawg, Utah still has competetive swimming. Apart from football Utah fields fairly competetive teams. Utah’s men and women’s basketaball teams have regularly enjoyed top 25 rankings, with a men’s final four appearance in 1998. Overall, the university has 7 men’s and 11 women’s varsity teams. Athletic teams include men’s baseball, basketball, football, golf, skiing, swimming/diving, and tennis and women’s basketball, cross country, gymnastics, skiing, soccer, softball, swimming/diving, tennis, track and field, and volleyball. Gymnastics is definately our most elite sport, with our recent teams narrowly missing out on a nc to Georgia two years in a row. I’m not sure what other colleges have varsity skiing teams besides maybe boulder, but I’d imagine they’re fairly competetive with such easy access to the best snow and terrain in the U.S. (2 years ago I went skiing on the 4th of July at Snowbird). Anyways, I’m against joining the Pac10, I think our best shot at another BCS is right here in the MWC.
by SLC_UTE on Jun 12, 2009 2:56 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
The only PAC 10 championship sport Utah does not field a team for:
Crew.
Anyone got a boat?
by utesfan100 on Jun 13, 2009 12:59 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Name 2 PAC 10 schools that have been to more than 1 BCS bowl.
Utah has won 2.
Utah is 6-3 vs. the last 9 PAC 10 foes. This suggests Utah could earn 9 or 10 wins with a PAC 10 schedule.
Utah is not at a level where they can consistently beat USC. They can compete with Oregon, Oregon State, ASU, UCLA and California for the #2 spot and a potential BCS at large berth.
Utah certainly can compete against Stanford, Arizona, WSU and Washington.
Using the three criteria the BCS uses to measure conferences for automatic qualification consideration over the last four years to rank the individual teamswe get this list of PAC 10/MWC/WAC teams:
PAC 10: USC
WAC: Boise State
PAC 10: Oregon
MWC: TCU
PAC 10: Oregon State
PAC 10: California
PAC 10: Arizona State
MWC: BYU
PAC 10: UCLA
MWC: Utah
WAC: Hawaii
PAC 10: Arizona
--No longer Bringing BCS merit——
WAC: Nevada
WAC: Fresno State
MWC: Air Force
PAC 10: Stanford
MWC: New Mexico
PAC 10: Washington State
MWC: CSU
PAC 10: Washington
WAC: Louisiana Tech
MWC: Wyoming
WAC: San Jose State
MWC: SDSU
MWC: UNLV
WAC: Utah State
WAC: Idaho
Utah does not have the consistency to really make the claims we want to yet. You have to love the trend line though.
by utesfan100 on Jun 13, 2009 12:58 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
It's one thing to play a single game, it's another to play a full schedule
The fact Utah can get up for a game with a Pac10 team, isn’t proof they can beat several in a row. The beauty of the Pac10 is the lower teams beat the upper ones all the time. Again this reminds me of the talk from ASU fans before the joined the pac10…
You can’t use the BCS criteria for a conference on a single team. Doesn’t work that way.
by ev on Jun 13, 2009 1:41 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Still false
That’s such a canard. Every Pac-10 team would/could lose on any given week to MWC teams, so what’s your point? That yours is a “BCS” schedule? What absolute rubbish: most of your teams are also rans and has beens. Wow, what says more about the marvelous BCS then it has a great amount of dregs to fill the win columns for the BCS haves. You guys are mostly fodder. So is our conference. So your point is what? That more money makes you cooler? Why do we out recruit most Pac-10 teams in terms of guys who actually play and win games then so consistently?
Utah might maintain its quality, it might not: we don’t know. But you also know for a fact that Utah “got up” for every game in its schedule including several bowl teams and ranked teams. No one in your conference “got up” for every game.
Your only argument is that Utah had a better year, you are correct, we did. So your point is what? That you’re speculating that the grueling Wash/Wash State swing woud wear us down?
That we’d overlook someone? Maybe we would, maybe not—you are speculating mate, your conference schedule is interestig because of one team, period. The rest is OK, but not terrifying.
Speculation is fun yes, but meaningless: here’s one, Utah joins teh Pac-10, out recruits the schools that can’t win becaus ewe show we can win, and Utah’s talent pool within three years is as good as USCs and for twenty years it is one or the other for the Pac-10 crown with the restof you guys falling farther behind each year and that, my friend, is what terrifies you: that another school would come in and the rest of you would be shoved lower down the ladder. It’s all speculation mate.
Maybe we’d be bottom feeders, maybe not: you’re farting higher than your ass bud, you have no way of knowing. This mythology of BCS conferences hasn’t been shown in head to head, so please don’t waste our time with unsubstantiated speculation.
Wyoming beat Tennessee—at Tennessee. Tennessee should leave the SEC because their out of their depth according to your hypothesis.
by MeanBobMean on Jun 15, 2009 7:59 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yup
Remember in 2007 when Colorado State nearly bear Cal, until the Bears were saved by DeShawn Jackson
by Jeremy Mauss on Jun 15, 2009 9:09 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Every Pac-10 team would/could lose on any given week to MWC teams, so what’s your point? That yours is a "BCS" schedule? What absolute rubbish: most of your teams are also rans and has beens. Wow, what says more about the marvelous BCS then it has a great amount of dregs to fill the win columns for the BCS haves.
What does it say about the virtuous, overlooked MWC that its white knight, its champion, can only muster up a .500 record against those ‘also rans and has beens?’ That outside of its chosen one, the conference loses 65% of its games against the ‘great amount of dregs…fill[ing] the win columns [of] the BCS haves?’ (Of course, when these teams play the MWC it’s the loss column that tends to fill.)
You guys are mostly fodder. So is our conference. So your point is what? That more money makes you cooler? Why do we out recruit most Pac-10 teams in terms of guys who actually play and win games then so consistently?
That must be a recruiting measure that the rating services haven’t figured out yet. “Guys that actually play and win games so consistently.” Here’s what’s true. Utah has an excellent .744 win pctg. since 2002. They also have done very well against AQ teams, going 14-6 in that time period. But, that obscures a serious deficiency, that almost all those games were won at home. Utah is 3-6 against AQ teams on the road. Not only that, their three wins were in 2004 @Arizona (final record 3-8), 2007 @Louisville (final record 6-6), 2008 @Michigan (final record 3-9).
If they’re playing in a big boy conference, they’ll have to do a little better than that on the road.
Maybe we’d be bottom feeders, maybe not: you’re farting higher than your ass bud, you have no way of knowing. This mythology of BCS conferences hasn’t been shown in head to head, so please don’t waste our time with unsubstantiated speculation.
Hasn’t it though? Maybe you didn’t bother to read the other posts I’ve made with the relevant statistics. So, the MWC’s record against AQ conferences 1999-2007 going alphabetically, ACC to SEC:
ACC: 6-8
Big10: 5-14
Big12: 16-25
Big East: 3-5
Pac-10: 20-42
SEC: 4-9
Aggregated: 54-103
So, in 157 games over 9 years, the MWC had a .344 win pctg. But, we can’t make any kind of guess on how Utah would fare if they switched to a grown-up league because that would merely be rank speculation.
I said it elsewhere, and I think you agree, but stay in the MWC. You’ll actually have a chance to play in a BCS game from time to time.
by Nashville on Jun 16, 2009 2:39 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure
Because UNLV and Wyoming get invited to the SEC to play. Because every MWC team has to travel, home and homes happen but are rare. We played what, 10? 20 Big ten teams in their houses with none at ours? When Utah cared not for football yet those teams lived and died by it? When we recruited mainly in state at the time? Against teams that paid their players in those days?
Your stats are pristine, your logic superb, how did I miss it in all the actual facts? Most of the “Aweseom reputations” in college ball were built in an era of home queen gaming and cheating your ass off recruit wise.
What could impress me more than that? Or, are you saying there is someone who would argue the SEC, Big 8, and old SWC were not corrupt as hell for what, 40-70 years?
Look, I ask my SEC buds: “Do you really think that your records would be as awesome if you left your home towns, played fewer than 8 home games annually, traveled as much as we do to play.?”
All said No.
It’s a fait accompli my friend, and no, I don’t want Utah to become a homer queen money machine national power, not even, not kind of. I vote no to being a wanker.
Who wants to be that?
Again though, you have zero idea what would happen if we joined your league, you can’t know, you have a belief system.
That’s nice for you, seriously, but until 8 or so years ago, Utah never cared to have a decent football team, not once. Now we do, and oops, we’re better every year. Parity is rising in CFB and guess what? Those who held sway for decades are whining.
Oh well, as to other people who live in the glory days of the past I say to you: “You’ll always have that, good luck with it!”
by MeanBobMean on Jun 19, 2009 10:19 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I said this above
I’ll say it again.
Look at the MWC’s performance as a conference in the 11 years of the BCS against the Pac-10. They’ve gone 27-44. That’s a .380 win pctg. Now I went back to ‘99 and looked at every single game that Utah played against a Pac-10 team. That tells me two things. One, how well Utah has done against the Pac-10 in the last 10 years. Two, how well Utah’s main competition, the MWC, has done against the Pac-10 in the last 10 years. The results don’t strengthen your case.
Utah has gone 7-7 in that time span against Pac-10 teams. They have never recorded more than a single win in either 2000, 2001, or 2007, the three years in which they’ve played multiple Pac-10 teams. Their respective records in those years were 0-3, 1-1, 1-1. Maybe it’s just me, but “second teams” in the conference usually go better than .500. One other thing to keep in mind is that 5 of their 7 wins came when all they had to do was get up for a single game.
Now, the MWC’s results in that time span, excluding Utah’s results. 20-37. That’s a .351 win pctg. Terrible. Certainly there are inequities between the two conferences in budgets, facilities, recruits, and opportunities, but not such that a gap like that will be erased thanks to joining a BCS conference. Furthermore, the Pac-10 itself is at a bit of a disadvantage to the Big 10 and SEC in its football revenue, and frankly its facilities. Yet it holds a winning record over both of those conferences in the past 11 years.
Bottom line: Thank you to JazzyUte for posting an interesting what-if scenario. It’s generated some great traffic and passionate comments. However, the evidence is coming down against it being a good idea. My frank opinion is that Utah is much better off staying in the MWC where it has the chance to regularly go undefeated and make BCS bowls. Even last year it probably wouldn’t have risen above 3rd in the Pac-10, depending on whether it played at Autzen and at Memorial Stadium in Berkeley.
by Nashville on Jun 13, 2009 2:18 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agree
True, in the past the Pac10 has certainly demonstrated their dominance but give credit to last year’s MWC teams for being able to get up and actually win games against PAC10 teams. Hell even our worst team, Wyoming, went into SEC country and beat a bad Tennessee team. I doubt UCLA could have said the same if they were playing @ Tennessee. It may have been a “good” year for the MWC and a “down” year for the Pac10, but I’d argue the MWC conference as a whole is improving. Should we incorporate 3 more decent teams, say Boise State, Fresno, and Hawaii, set up conference champion game, and we may have a shot at an automatic BCS bid in 10 years.
That being said, Utah shouldn’t worry about vying for a PAC10 spot (I think we all know if they called it wouldn’t take much convincing). We should worry about making the MWC better, getting rid of the Mountain Network and put our games on espn for more national exposure.
by SLC_UTE on Jun 13, 2009 8:13 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
True
But the BCS only considers a 4 year cycle, and in that time the MWC has proven themselves to be credible.
by Jeremy Mauss on Jun 15, 2009 9:10 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Please elaborate. I’m not sure what you mean by that?
by Nashville on Jun 16, 2009 2:40 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think he means something like this.
has an estimate of the four year averages of the conferences using the BCS criteria for automatic qualifications and a ranking of the teams using those same criteria.
While the MWC proved itself credible in 2008 we are going to need to sustain that level of success for a year or two to make significant progress.
by utesfan100 on Jun 16, 2009 3:57 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
MWC vs PAC 10 rivalry bad for western football?
Last year Utah based the PAC 10 to show they should be just as good as the top PAC 10 teams, excluding USC until after the Sugar Bowl. The MWC argued hard that it was beating the PAC 10 on the field, which was used by the national media to undermine the PAC 10.
The PAC 10 pointed out the historical data showing the MWC to be a flash in the pan. They argued that the MWC was little more than a one year blip in the radar. This then helped the national media to undermine the MWC.
This year, MWC and PAC 10 fans alike, need to point out how both consistently beat the west coast teams when they meet on the field. Together, the two premier western conferences were 7-1 in bowl games against other conferences. Once we establish western football’s dominance, then we can argue about how much better the PAC 10 is than the MWC.
by utesfan100 on Jun 15, 2009 12:02 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
As a Trojan Student and Utah Fan
I would love to see UTAH come into the Pac-10 and I agree that it is ridiculous that USC immediately loses its national title chances when it loses an early road game even when every other team in the hunt also has 1 loss (on a similar note i think its just as ridiculous that a proven, undefeated team such as Utah also loses out on that chance to play for the national title). Having Utah in the pac-10 would help both schools and I would love to see it happen, heck the Big 10 has 11 teams!
Fight On!
2009 Angels Season: Let's Do This For Nick
by trojanangelfan on Jun 16, 2009 1:24 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
USC
Got screwed, period.
Florida beat a weaker OU team. The Pac-10 is not being given due consideration for how tough it is.
When Florida schedules OOC games outta Florida for ten years, I’ll care (Florida = 18 straight years without an out of conference game outside the state—either at home or Tallahassee, Miami, Jacksonville). Until then . . .
by MeanBobMean on Jun 16, 2009 12:30 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Outperforming Oregon schools
Utah could become a contender, but they aren’t going to step into the meat grinder that is the Pac-10 and instantly rise to the top. In the Pac-10, you don’t get to play San Diego State, Air Force, Wyoming and New Mexico. BYU — a perennial Mtn. West powerhouse — needed a favorable call and a last-second extra point to beat an awful Washington team last season. I know that has nothing to do with the Utes, but I think it says something about strength of schedule when you compare the two conferences. Having said that, I think the Utes could have success in the Pac-10, but to suggest they could step in and immediately surpass the Oregon schools is laughable.
By the way, your Utes are in for a rude awakening, courtesy of “those other guys,” on Sept. 19 in Eugene.
by DuckStuckinUtah on Jun 17, 2009 2:44 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Dunno bout that
Athough your stadium is one heck of a place to play due to the noise I think Oregon needs to figure out its QB situation before they will start giving too many people “rude awakenings”…. then again I am a Trojan so who knows who our QB will be
2009 Angels Season: Let's Do This For Nick
by trojanangelfan on Jun 19, 2009 1:35 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I recall after the OSU game . . .
The announcers said:
USC should win out with one loss, Utah may win out, but Utah has a tougher row to hoe. They all agreed.
Some meat grinder. You guys didn’t have to play Utah and TCU’s defense last year. Think you were working with lots of injuries? Play TCU sometime in lieu of Stanford or Arizona or Wash St. Or Washington . . . .
You may have noticed that TCU held Boise to under 300 yards, how did your defense do against them?
Maybe it was simply last year, yes, SDSU is never that good, no one knows why. Tell you what though, you guys better beat the hell out of Boise State (I’m hoping you do) and Utah (I’m thinking you will beat us handliy), if you don’t, your year will again be riven by mediocrity and there are only so many seasons of that one gets without fading, ask FSU. Recruits start to sense that you’ve shot your wad after awhile. If they see Boise and Utah winning? Your “but this is the Pac-10!” shiny chime starts to fade.
by MeanBobMean on Jun 19, 2009 10:29 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Block U
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 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.
