Colin Cowherd: Sources put Utah in the Pac-Ten
by JazzyUte on Apr 20, 2010 2:49 PM MDT
in Football
Email
PrintUPDATE: Cowherd on Kall 700 said Utah will be a member of the Pac-Ten soon. How soon? Well who the hell knows. But the Big Ten expanding is forcing the Pac-Ten's hand and it's Utah. Colorado might be the second option, but it's not entirely out of the question that the Pac-Ten just expands to 11 teams for the time being.
On his radio show today (sorry, no link), Colin Cowherd said his sources say Utah to the Pac-Ten is not only a lock, but a done deal and announcement is forthcoming.
I expect a bit more clarification around 3:30, as Kall 700's Bill Riley will have him on his show this afternoon. You can listen live here around that time.
Oh baby!
49 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
not to rain on anybody's parade but i'll believe it when i see it.
I'm all about covering the spread and moneylines. I was building a house, I don't deserve this, deserves have nothing to do with it. Bang. "Unforgiven" I drink your milkshake. I drink it up! "There Will BE Blood". Hell is just a word, the reality is much much worse." Event Horizon". Now remember, when things look bad and it looks like you're not gonna make it, then you gotta get mean, I mean plumb, mad dog mean. cause if you lose your head and you give up then you neither live or win. That's just the way it is. "The Outlaw Josey Wales".
by wolfmanshowlforever on Apr 20, 2010 3:13 PM MDT reply actions
Concur...
Cowherd is a blowhard and I don’t trust anything he says.
That’s not to say it won’t eventually happen though. Many have speculated on this. It’s just that hearing Colin say it doesn’t give it any more validity to me.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
Link from MWC Connection
http://www.mwcconnection.com/2010/4/20/1433157/audio-espns-colin-cowherd-says
RIP Nick Adenhart. 4/9/09
Jazzardous Materials... because I'm not good enough to stick with the big boys
I'm on Twitter
i said the same thing there and so did one of the guys running the blog.
it might happen, it might not.
I'm all about covering the spread and moneylines. I was building a house, I don't deserve this, deserves have nothing to do with it. Bang. "Unforgiven" I drink your milkshake. I drink it up! "There Will BE Blood". Hell is just a word, the reality is much much worse." Event Horizon". Now remember, when things look bad and it looks like you're not gonna make it, then you gotta get mean, I mean plumb, mad dog mean. cause if you lose your head and you give up then you neither live or win. That's just the way it is. "The Outlaw Josey Wales".
by wolfmanshowlforever on Apr 20, 2010 3:55 PM MDT up reply actions
dude i found a link where you said to avoid Percy Harvin in last years draft! I thinks thats hilarious!
I bleed gatorade and poop pigskins
by Yardpenalty.com on Apr 20, 2010 6:09 PM MDT up reply actions
Heres the link where UtesFan89 busted out that comment.
http://www.catscratchreader.com/2009/2/22/768016/panther-news-nuggets-from
I bleed gatorade and poop pigskins
by Yardpenalty.com on Apr 20, 2010 6:11 PM MDT up reply actions
Though I tend to lean more on the cautious side, my intuition tells me that there has been far FAR too much smoke for there not to be fire in this instance.
Pensburgh.com
I like it. Bill Guerin’s uppercut is so awesome it wins fights he’s not even in.
- OlenWhitaker
"...as a matter of law, the house is haunted."
- Judge Rubin, New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Stambovsky v. Ackley, 572 N.Y.S. 2d 672
by Hockey Beard in SLC on Apr 20, 2010 9:39 PM MDT reply actions
Colin Coward
..can it come from more of a utah hater?
i’ll believe it when i see it
Didn't PAC-10 already say . . .
. . . that neither Utah nor BYU, nor even Colorado could bring in enough revenue to justify expansion for their inclusion? The only realignment is the big Ten and that will happen within next two years.
Big Ten’s TV package means that even crappy Big Ten teams make several million more than any Big 12 teams do. Can Missouri or Nebraska turn down a 7-10 million dollar annual raise? Will Texas sit on the sidelines while two good programs bolt or will they bolt ot teh SEC or PAC-10? It is rumore dthat the Big Ten might go to as many as 18 teams, that owuld mean the detah of the Big East, harpooning the hell outta the Big 12, and maybe the ACC as well.
Can Pittsburgh turn down 10 million free dollars annually? Would Utah? Hell no. They wouldn’t care if it meant 5-7 for life if it brought 10 extra million annually into the school.
The Big Ten has accelerated their realignment, the PAC-10 wants Texas, who they have offered before, as Texas actually brings in bucks (enough to enhance revenue acros the board for the PAC-10). If the big-12 takes a big enough hit, the SEC and PAC-10 will race to scavenge the best programs off the Big-12, they will not rush to bring in Utah and BYU unless they need some more teams for balance, and if Colorado can show more revenue they will get the nod over either Utah based team because: if you have to travel to Texas you can travel to Colorado as well.
Looks like Utah and Boise will get left off any realignment, time for BSU to jump to the MWC and we make our own conference that simply cannot be left out of BCS consideration.
The only thing that Utah might get is if enough Midwestern teams wanted us to make a new Big-12 (say Oklahoma stayed ot build around). Boise and Utah might make good additions to such a conference as would Air Force and CSU (Wyoming brings nada to the table).
The scariest relaignment scenario is the super conference scenario where the top 64 revenue programs make 4 new 16 team conferences: Utah would not be invited. They would leave the NCAA, set up their own playoff, and by themselves suck about three fourths of all cash, perhaps more, outta college football.
here is a scenario that is playing out on a syracuse blog.
someone wrote that he does not think the big east will even exist in a few years. that could be great news to the mwc b/c it’s the league we are compared too. if they don’t exist i would hope we would get their/our aq bcs conference status. so let the big ten raid the big east just like the acc did and let’s see what happens.
I'm all about covering the spread and moneylines. I was building a house, I don't deserve this, deserves have nothing to do with it. Bang. "Unforgiven" I drink your milkshake. I drink it up! "There Will BE Blood". Hell is just a word, the reality is much much worse." Event Horizon". Now remember, when things look bad and it looks like you're not gonna make it, then you gotta get mean, I mean plumb, mad dog mean. cause if you lose your head and you give up then you neither live or win. That's just the way it is. "The Outlaw Josey Wales".
by wolfmanshowlforever on Apr 21, 2010 3:52 PM MDT up reply actions
I don't think that helps us.
The BCS can never have fewer than 5 conferences, or more than 7. But if the Big East stops existing then they’ll have 5, and they won’t need to add us. In addition, now we have to compare favorably to a stronger set of conferences (SEC, ACC, B10, P10, B12) without getting the easy target of the Big East.
Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.
by displacedute on Apr 21, 2010 5:05 PM MDT up reply actions
Actually, no.
The PAC 10 said that they’re looking at expansion and are considering all options for improving their TV revenue. Their TV deal comes up for renegotiation next year, so if they’re going to improve the TV deal with expansion, they need to expand now, not in 2 years.
No one has said that the numbers don’t work. They only thing we’ve heard is that they’re looking into it. The “inside sources” (both from Colin and from other individuals I trust, like the Utezone writers and some utefans posters) say that the invite is already a done deal and the announcement should come soon.
Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.
by displacedute on Apr 21, 2010 5:00 PM MDT up reply actions
I give you both correct points.
Mean Bob is representing the PAC 10’s stand a couple of years ago. Their stand has noticeably softened, especially with the new commissioner, as pointed out by displaced.
BCS Evolution -- Punctuating the Equilibrium - twitter
the meetings are being held at the royal palms resort. that is either miami or arizona?
bill hancock said the mwc could/should get aq bcs conference status in 2012. that is an interesting year b/c jim delaney said the big ten expansion is 12 -18 months down the road. hmmmm.
I'm all about covering the spread and moneylines. I was building a house, I don't deserve this, deserves have nothing to do with it. Bang. "Unforgiven" I drink your milkshake. I drink it up! "There Will BE Blood". Hell is just a word, the reality is much much worse." Event Horizon". Now remember, when things look bad and it looks like you're not gonna make it, then you gotta get mean, I mean plumb, mad dog mean. cause if you lose your head and you give up then you neither live or win. That's just the way it is. "The Outlaw Josey Wales".
by wolfmanshowlforever on Apr 22, 2010 2:07 PM MDT up reply actions
Actually . . .
While the PAC-10 did look at the three schools recently, the following has subsequently been reported:
Like the Big Ten, the Pac-10 began exploring expansion last winter for much the same reason — to better position itself for upcoming television negotiations. The most viable candidates were believed to be Colorado, Utah and BYU. However, there’s been little-to-no news since then, with sources telling Jon Wilner of the San Jose Mercury News that it’s unlikely any of the schools in question would generate a significant per-team revenue increase.
The one school the Pac-10 would really like (and has tried before to get) is Texas, but much like with the Big East and Notre Dame, the Big 12 would have to endure significant damage for the Longhorns to consider such a drastic move.
From that piece: My belief, unchanged over the past few weeks, is that Colorado-Utah is more realistic than Colorado-BYU … although still not as realistic as no expansion.
Oh, most of that is
quoted verbatim form the Sports Illustrated series of articles about expansion. The second paragraph should have also been in italics (quote).
dan beebe of the big 12 is not going to go down without a fight.
alot of people agree it might be the big 12 that disappears but on espn dan beebe had a statement and he had contingency plans on how to save his conference. i guess if all the teams other than okie and texas don’t like the money they get the commish of the big 12 is willing to work on it to be more fair. i could see the big east go down b/c three teams have already been picked off but i think the big 12 will put up a fight if some other conference comes calling.
I'm all about covering the spread and moneylines. I was building a house, I don't deserve this, deserves have nothing to do with it. Bang. "Unforgiven" I drink your milkshake. I drink it up! "There Will BE Blood". Hell is just a word, the reality is much much worse." Event Horizon". Now remember, when things look bad and it looks like you're not gonna make it, then you gotta get mean, I mean plumb, mad dog mean. cause if you lose your head and you give up then you neither live or win. That's just the way it is. "The Outlaw Josey Wales".
by wolfmanshowlforever on May 5, 2010 12:23 PM MDT up reply actions
Right
They said they were looking a few months back. They have looked.
Scuttle butt is a no go on all three teams. Washington and Oregon teams won’t allow a north south split in the conference so most likely shake out is zero expansion for the PAC-10 unless somehow by a miracle Utah and the Buffs can show how we will bring millions into the conference: that won’t happen.
Utah wants PAC-10 membership so we can get more money, we don’t bring money to the table at all.
Again, MeanBob, how do you know?
Utah to the PAC 10 definitely means more money for Utah, but that doesn’t mean it means less money for the other members. If the PAC 10 is worth $100 million per year in TV revenue, and the PAC 12 (including a championship game) is worth $135 million (and the game itself is almost certainly worth $10 million) then the PAC 10 would definitely expand, since that’s another $1 million per year for each school, and increased potential. That’s true whether or not Utah’s budget goes from $10 million to $35 million per year.
Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.
by displacedute on Apr 22, 2010 9:56 PM MDT up reply actions
MeanBob has long been against Utah going to the Pac-10. (Remember this thread?) Those of us who want to go to the Pac-10 tend to see the evidence we want to see, and MeanBob sees the evidence he wants to see. I doubt you are going to get him to change his mind.
And
The big guys just keep crushing us financially, we will have ot seek it. I am against it on principle in terms of what we could do on our own and how much bettr that makes us (doing it alone as a small school? Way cooler than being one of th dynasty of jerk conferences).
But realistically? We’d go in a heatbeat if offered.
you can add me as being someone who does not want to go to pac-ten.
i say our commissioner craig thompson needs to be pro-active and make a move before the big ten or pt does. let’s expand to 12 teams, take boise, fresno (cali market) and houston, (texas market) and beat everyone to the punch. we already have a better head to head vs the pac-ten in the last two years. 13-11 and i believe it will continue. i rather beat the chumps who think they are superior than join them. peace. screw the pac-ten.
I'm all about covering the spread and moneylines. I was building a house, I don't deserve this, deserves have nothing to do with it. Bang. "Unforgiven" I drink your milkshake. I drink it up! "There Will BE Blood". Hell is just a word, the reality is much much worse." Event Horizon". Now remember, when things look bad and it looks like you're not gonna make it, then you gotta get mean, I mean plumb, mad dog mean. cause if you lose your head and you give up then you neither live or win. That's just the way it is. "The Outlaw Josey Wales".
by wolfmanshowlforever on Apr 27, 2010 11:52 AM MDT up reply actions
Using the Assumption that Population = Money Making Potential
This article shows the population per school gap, between Utah and the Pac-10. Basically, each Pac-10 school currently accounts for an average of 4.8 million people. Exempting the California schools, each Pac-10 school accounts for 2.4 million people. Utah accounts for 2.2 million, and over the next 20 years that gap will grow. Specifically, the Pac-10 numbers will be 7.1 mill & 4.0 mill (no Cali.), while Utah accounts for 3.4 million.
http://www.californiagoldenblogs.com/2010/3/29/1371535/demographics-and-revenue-a-revue
PS: I know the method is imperfect, but I believe it still yields a ballpark estimate on school value in relation to each other.
But it ignores the conference championship game.
Even the ACC championship game (a widely-recognized failure) is worth approximately $6 million per year in TV revenue for the ACC. Add attendance, naming rights, concessions, etc. and that number for the PAC 10 is likely to be $10-$15 million (including the TV). So the fact that Utah is “below the line” (so to speak) is irrelevant. The question that needs to be asked is not “does Utah bring more money than it takes”. The question is as follows:
Is the per-school share in the PAC 10 less than the per-school share in the PAC 12?
Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.
by displacedute on Apr 23, 2010 12:51 PM MDT up reply actions
So what?
That championship game has to overcome how much they now have to kick out to Utah and Colorado.
Alos, you’re renogiating a contract for TV right? They say add in those two schools and we’ll increase your revenues the next few seasons by 5 million annually due to households. You say, “OK TV exec guy, figure it without Utah and Colorado?” They say, we’ll increase your revenue by 10 million annually since we don’t have to water down ad prices due to crappy markets like Utah. Or they say OK, 4 mill anually—again split between how many teams? 5 by 12 or 4 by 10?
See the problem? If we remian outside the Conference and generate a superb program, so good that the nation clamors to se us, we can do two things: market ourselves to a bigger conference, get bigger contracts for ourselves, go independent, get our other teams into the WAC a la Notre Dame. Win win.
See, I think you're wrong about what we can do in the MWC.
You’re right, we can continue producing a superb program and market ourselvs to the people, but there are only two options for “bigger conferences”: the PAC 10 and the Big 12. If the PAC 10 doesn’t want us, the Big 12 certainly won’t. Utah can’t go independent and the MWC is never adding Notre Dame. Even if the MWC gets AQ status, the revenue will continue to be WAY below the PAC 10.
Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.
by displacedute on Apr 23, 2010 2:59 PM MDT up reply actions
The gap may grow, but you, yourself acknowledge some of the limitations using straight population growth
Most of California;s growth, and much of Arizona’s, is from immigration. According to the Census Bureau, in 2000, 26.2% of California’s population was foreign born. Arizona was 12.8%, Oregon 8.5%, and Washington 10.4%, while Utah only had a foreign born population of 7.1%.
There is nothing wrong with that, but immigrants are less likely to have any interest in American football. much less the local team. Advertisers do not care how big a state’s population is but rather how many people are watching a particular program.
Most of Utah’s growth is through the high birth rate. See this good post by JDurrant on Utefans.net. Advertisers crave young people and Utah has the youngest population in the nation. Utah’s median age is 27.1 years old. The national median is 35.3 years. (Census Bureau Map).
Furthermore, most people in Utah have at least some interest in BYU or Utah — especially when they play each other. People from Pac-10 states do not tend to be as keyed into the local teams. Not all population is the same. The rabid nature of Nebraska fans give them a national following, while no university in New York state really has a national following. I am not arguing the population is irrelevant. Just that it’s not determinative.
Furthermore, you are using 2000 census numbers, which are now 10 years out of date. Utah’s 2009 population was 2,784,572. See the United States Census Bureau estimates. That’s a delta of 551,403 in nine years. By 2009, Utah was was already about half-way (okay, only 44%) to meeting the census bureau’s 2030 projection of 1,252,198 growth. Based on local newspaper reports, I believe the census bureau will be revising their estimates upwards for Utah when the 2010 numbers are available.
In absolute numbers here are the deltas for the population of Pac-10 states from 2000-2009.
Arizona: 1,465,146 (per school 732,573)
California: 3,090,016 (per school 772,504)
Oregon: 404,258 (per school 202,129)
Washington: 770,074 (per school 385,037)
Utah is keeping pace with Oregon and Washington while falling behind California and Arizona, where there are the highest foreign born populations.
If they can make mony off us
More money per team than they can without us, chances are good they’ll do it, simple as that. If they cannot, no way in hell.
No one is disputing that
Population, demographics, and fan base are just some of the measures that the Pac-10 will be looking at to determine whether or not they can make more money with Utah than without.
Right
And they looked during the winter, and the answer right now is no.
Things could occur to change that, the bIg Ten has tossed a wrench into it all with 1) their huge TV deal and 2) their stated expansion goals.
But as we speak, no, we’ve been conclusively ruled out as being worth it.
That’s all I’m saying. The future, who knows.
How do I know?
We don’t have enough of a media market in Utah. No analysis has ever concluded we did, if you know of one I’d love to see it because we could use the money and it would give us a recruiting push. The big crunch re expnsion is for renegotiating current TV contracts, not a playoff game in the conference and again:
The individual members have to agree to the addition of any teams and the northern teams will not forego having USC and UCLA revenues in the form of not getting them each year. Oh, also, Oregon, OSU, Wash and Wazzu don’t go into LA anymore how does that affect their recruiting? So they shouold vote ot make Utah’s team better so they can get screwed financially and talent wise?
See, the playoff “might” bring in revenue (I would agree it most certainly would), but that has to offset for Washington State what they lose playing a game in the Coliseum or having USC at their place.
So say because they add us they go to a plus one playoff, right? Say that brings in 10 million extra, right? Now split that between 12 teams and subtract for Washington State and Oregon State, Oregon and Washington their lost revenues (no extra money for a game in LA), plus subtract out your revenues that you might have had if you did not have to give part of the TV royalties to Colorado and Utah.
It’s like this: we make 150 million with Utah and split it 14 ways = 12.5 million each right? Or, scrap Utah and a playoff and only make 140 million divided by 10 = 14 million each.
Tell me why they would do it? As it all looks right now?
No way in hell they want us, will require some miracle inclusion of much, much more money because presidents would trade recruting off if the cash was there IMO.
But you're guessing.
All of those numbers (150 v. 140) are complete guesses. Maybe the numbers are more like $100 million without CU and Utah and $150 million with CU and Utah. The the PAC 10 expands, right? I mean, you’re going from $10 million a year to $12.5 million a year.
The point I was trying to make is that none of us know what the numbers are, but the estimates I’ve seen mean the championship game itself (without including the Utah and CU viewers, who will actually INCREASE the value of the TV deal) is somewhere between $10 million and $20 million (including the TV revenue and the revenue from the game itself). So Utah and CU do not have to add very much to the TV deal itself, because the championship game (even a “failure” like the ACC championship) is so valuable.
Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.
by displacedute on Apr 23, 2010 2:56 PM MDT up reply actions
Well
You provided the figure, I just did the math for you. See, a playoff only adds x on top of what exists previously, right? So if a conference makes 1 million or 1 billion annually is meaningles in terms of our analysis: it is how much extra does expansion bring and does that extra amount not only cover the two new teams but provide enough revenuse to make it worth it. You divide the pie by 12, not 10 so you have to make at a minimum 20% extra annually.
How could Utah’s paltry media market exponentially increase the amount of cash the conference brings in? It makes no sense.
The conference will negotiate a TV contract and have to decide do Utah and Colordo as options create larger per team revenue share or smaller? Now, if we actually could by some miracle pull off bringing in so much more money they had to have us, you’re still going to have to convince the northern division of the new conference that not playing in LA regularly is better for them with the money than without it.
I mean, it isn’t just money, it is simply mostly about money. Say Wash State can make more off TV with Utah by 125,000k annually. Say they make 500K by playing in LA every year and they get recruiting exposure, why would they do it? Why vote to include Utah?
Look at the PAC-10’s #1 choice for expansion: Texas. Compare that media market (Austin, Dallas, Forth Worth, Sabn Antonio) to Utah’s (Salt Lake, some of Provo and Ogden, and say St. George).
Also, the PAC-10 is exploring launching its own network. Where that would leave us (better off or worse) is anyone’s guess. It really makes far, far more sense for the PAC-10 to dump Washington State and add Utah.
Read teh San Jose Mercury Article
In it they note specifically that the PAC-10 currently nets 100 million off their TV contract and they want 150-175 before adding anyone else in. So, if you add in Colorado and Utah you have ot get about 200 million to make it worth it. He makes the same argumnt I do, and notes another real problem:
* Procedural issues require six votes and constitutional issues need eight. But I’ve been told that all 10 schools must sign off on expansion, which means that one president could put the kibosh on the whole thing.
- Here are the specifics on the dollars, which are the key to everything.
The Pac-10 currently generates about $100 million in annual revenue while the Big Ten and SEC are both over $200 million.
The number I keep hearing out of Pac-10 circles is $150-$175 million — the presidents want another $5 – $7.5 million per school. They understand that the conference might not equal the Big Ten, but they want a 50 percent increase — if not more.
So in regards to expansion, the central question becomes: Would adding two teams create so much more net revenue that the 1/12th splits are greater than the 1/10th splits?
Texas and the PAC-10
Apparently Texas was all for being in the PAC-10 previously, and the PAC-10 wanted Texas when the SWC folded. One problem: Standford vetoed it. Why i do not know, but therein lies the problem. It might have been because Texas and Texas A&M may come as a package. Regardless, the PAC-10 is petitioning to have the NCAA drop the requirement of 12 teams for a playoff. This means what?
No expansion required which, apparently, as long as they get a new contract that pays them decently, they will be fine with. They can play their regular schedule, have a championship game, and as noted previously, open their own network for PAC-10 sports.
They’ll make more money that way then they would offering Utah and Colorado.
A Quick Note
According to an interview last year with the then exiting Pac-10 Commissioner, in regards to expansion he said:
“Probably not. If Division I-A stays basically in the same structure, I don’t think so. The reason a conference expands is to get more football TV homes for television purposes. Short of going to Texas which we tried to do in the early 90s, there is no other institution that brings more TV homes than our average.
“Our TV area is about 18 million (viewers). We need someone with more than 1.8 million TV homes. The state of Texas has about seven percent (of the total viewers). That works but nothing else really works.”
http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/6270202/15729736
According to Nielson (as of Sept. 2009), Salt Lake City is the 31st media market with approximately 944,060 households. Denver is 1,539,000.
It ultimately boils down to one thing: We need them a lot more than they need us.
But I firmly believe the voters and the suits would take Utah a lot more seriously for a title if we were to go undefeated in the Pac-10 instead of a revised MWC. If Utah recieved the call, I guarantee you Utah would jump on in a heartbeat. Even if we were to expand with teams like BSU, Fresno St. and Nevada, do you honestly believe that puts us on the same level as the Pac-10 or the Big-12?.
I’m not pro-BCS, I’m just a realist. Even if we expand, it will take some time for a revised MWC to earn the respect of college football. Let us not forget also that Utah is not the only team that is being considered. If we lose BYU or TCU to the Big-12, what does that do for the MWC chances of BCS status? (even if we do add Boise St. in the mix).
I just believe the ceiling is much higher for us in a Pac-10 avenue…but like MeanBob said, It would require all the teams in the PAC-10 to okay it, (which is a long shot to say the least)….but IF it could happen, good things would happen if we held our own in the PAC-10.
I do agree with Colin about recruiting though
Recruiting at Utah would indeed improve overnight for the sole reason of exposure: If were playing top tier teams like USC and Oregon on a yearly basis, four and five star athletes would be more inclined to play for Utah.
Yep
And that is why PAC-10 schools would rather get the NCAA to approve their playoff with 10 teams than allow Utah: Utah would start competing for recruits with them more and more, and would suck revenue away form them. Texas brings revenue and opens recruiting up for them.
hit the nail on the head and usc would never approve. they know if they go undefeated they goto the bcs ncg
why: because of tradition, california’s 38 million population(which translates into tv ratings) and they love an east coast/west coast rivalry. you know the ncaa wants a usc vs any top in the sec team b/c they can never agree on a regular game. i want to stay in the mwc and beat the pac-ten. we are 13-11 in last two years (including bowl games). i’m on alot of college football blogs and the sec blogs give the mwc much more respect than just three years ago. that win over bama was huge. if we continue beating the pac-ten the rest of the nation will notice too.
I'm all about covering the spread and moneylines. I was building a house, I don't deserve this, deserves have nothing to do with it. Bang. "Unforgiven" I drink your milkshake. I drink it up! "There Will BE Blood". Hell is just a word, the reality is much much worse." Event Horizon". Now remember, when things look bad and it looks like you're not gonna make it, then you gotta get mean, I mean plumb, mad dog mean. cause if you lose your head and you give up then you neither live or win. That's just the way it is. "The Outlaw Josey Wales".
by wolfmanshowlforever on Apr 28, 2010 2:11 PM MDT up reply actions
any top team
I'm all about covering the spread and moneylines. I was building a house, I don't deserve this, deserves have nothing to do with it. Bang. "Unforgiven" I drink your milkshake. I drink it up! "There Will BE Blood". Hell is just a word, the reality is much much worse." Event Horizon". Now remember, when things look bad and it looks like you're not gonna make it, then you gotta get mean, I mean plumb, mad dog mean. cause if you lose your head and you give up then you neither live or win. That's just the way it is. "The Outlaw Josey Wales".
by wolfmanshowlforever on Apr 28, 2010 2:11 PM MDT reply actions
The Pac-10 may have to suck it....
The suits didn’t want Utah to go to the BCS in 04’ but in the end they gave in not because they wanted to but because it was necessary to keep the BCS in tact . I think the same thing would apply to the Pac-10 if the Big-10 (or whoever else breaks this expansion stalemate) forces their hand. Like I said before, we need them a whole lot more than they need us but business is business. I believe in the end the Pac-10 will have to up the ante whether they like us or not.
One of the big reasons I want to see the Pac-10 scenario happen is because Utah could step up and face quality competition in bowl games as well as regular season. I love the fact we have a winning streak in bowl games but the catch-22 is that we win most of these bowl games against 4th or 5th place Pac-10 teams. Unless we go undefeated our reward in winning the MWC is a lower tier team of an over-rated conference? (Yes, I did just call the Pac-10 over-rated). Call me a cynic but I don’t think the MWC will survive this expansion war with all it’s pieces in tact .
and i say after all this big talk only notre dame will be added to the big ten
kinda like the ncaa saying there might be a 96 team ncaa march madness tourney and all we got was three more teams.
I'm all about covering the spread and moneylines. I was building a house, I don't deserve this, deserves have nothing to do with it. Bang. "Unforgiven" I drink your milkshake. I drink it up! "There Will BE Blood". Hell is just a word, the reality is much much worse." Event Horizon". Now remember, when things look bad and it looks like you're not gonna make it, then you gotta get mean, I mean plumb, mad dog mean. cause if you lose your head and you give up then you neither live or win. That's just the way it is. "The Outlaw Josey Wales".
by wolfmanshowlforever on Apr 29, 2010 11:41 AM MDT up reply actions
Maybe
But I think Notre Dame thinks it’s current situation is just fine. Think about it: They can schedule whoever they want and they have a free ticket to the BCS if they go undefeated. Why on earth would they want to change that? ND has given the cold shoulder to many conferences offering them a place. Why would they do it now?
Yes
Notre Dame’s current situation may be fine. But, if the big Ten raids the Big East, damaging it, ND loses a home for all non football sports. That makes joining the Big Ten much more a possibility (although ND might shift other sports into say the ACC or something, maybe. If the SEC goes bonkers and raids the ACC, which they will try if the Big Ten gets 3-5 teams bigger, then all hell breaks loose.
according to last year by the espn experts. (so called experts) said if n.d. went 9-3 they could
make a bcs game. they are "the " bcs team. they are pretty much guaranteed to make a bcs bowl game if they went 10-2. i saw their schedule for this year. many big ten teams and a couple of pac-ten teams and then utah, navy and pitt and a few others.
I'm all about covering the spread and moneylines. I was building a house, I don't deserve this, deserves have nothing to do with it. Bang. "Unforgiven" I drink your milkshake. I drink it up! "There Will BE Blood". Hell is just a word, the reality is much much worse." Event Horizon". Now remember, when things look bad and it looks like you're not gonna make it, then you gotta get mean, I mean plumb, mad dog mean. cause if you lose your head and you give up then you neither live or win. That's just the way it is. "The Outlaw Josey Wales".
by wolfmanshowlforever on May 3, 2010 11:22 AM MDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
- Urban Meyer
"Wow. Wow. Wow."
- Daryl Johnston after Utah took a 21-0 lead on Alabama in the 2009 Sugar Bowl
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
