Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Cybear

Utah and BYU make the PAC 10... 12

22 posts in this topic

With all of the BCS Conferences expanding to 12 teams and making megabucks with their conference championship games before playing 6 teams deep into megabuck bowl games, doesn't it make sense for the U and the Y to do what it takes to make that natural transition to the PAC 10?

I can see it now: BYU vs USC on the gridiron! The Utes vs Arizona in hoops! Every year instead of once in a blue moon! Important games all season long! National media coverage! No more feeling left out and being labeled "mid major"!

Let's get this done or we'll be forever wishing that we had. Just look at Arizona and Arizona State. I doubt they long for the good old days of the WAC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Well I can't admit to knowing much about BYU and U of U. They are both D1 teams right? Are they trying to join the Pac 10, It would definately give them much wider notariety than playing for a more obscure D1 conference.

I assume if they are joining, and this is controversial, that there has to be someone raising a stink about them joining a bigger rank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I can't admit to knowing much about BYU and U of U. They are both D1 teams right? Are they trying to join the Pac 10, It would definately give them much wider notariety than playing for a more obscure D1 conference.

I assume if they are joining, and this is controversial, that there has to be someone raising a stink about them joining a bigger rank.

I don't know that there is any ground-swell of support for or against applying for PAC-10 membership. It's clear that Arizona and Arizona State benefitted greatly when they left the WAC and joined the PAC-10. Their actions were in no way improper, but when they left, it destroyed the WAC.

If, as one would anticiapte, the PAC-10 expands to 12 members in order to cash in on the huge payouts a conference championship football game brings, there will be no later opportunity for the U or the Y to join a major conference if they are not invited to join the PAC-10. My thoughts are that the "politicking" needs to be underway now in order to assure the we are not left out...unless of course one prefers to play San Diego State instead of USC. The alternative is to go 10-1 in the Mountain West instead of perhaps, 7-4 in the PAC-10 and then to kid oneself that the 10-1 record is something special.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's probably not going to happen until the Big Ten adds another team. Pac-10 + Big 10 + Rose Bowl runs college football, and was the final step in the formation of the BCS.

The Mountain West has a chance to grow into a formidable league in the future with additions of Fresno St., Boise St., Hawaii, Nevada and/or UTEP. If no bigger conferences take BYU/Utah (which looks probable considering the situations of the Big XII and Pac-10), the Mountain West is their only viable option. All the MWC states are growing at unreal rates, so maybe in 20 years, it will have a TV and attendance base to stand on it's own. It would be best to eliminate the WAC by either consolidating or just taking its best teams. Until then, I don't see how both can co-exist as major players in a relatively sparsely-populated region.

The MWC has enough flagship institutions to make a BCS-level league, and will exceed the quota if they add WAC state flagships. The only thing now is for the states to continue growing, and for the schools to grow their fanbases to a BCS level. It's really not that far off if you take a look at MWC attendance figures. Multiple schools are over 35K in football and 8K in basketball attendance. The league is just behind the lowest BCS leagues in both sports attendance-wise, though nowhere near the top dogs.

Both Utah and Nevada should be 3M people strong by 2015, and New Mexico will be 2-2.5M. Colorado is nearing 5M, and even rural Wyoming (the school is close to Denver) is starting to grow a little. California will be 40M, and houses large portions of MWC alumni, as well as Texas. Texas should be over 25M. Though the MWC in no way controls these states, or anywhere close, the presence of SDSU and TCU is still there, and both have good athletic histories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's probably not going to happen until the Big Ten adds another team. Pac-10 + Big 10 + Rose Bowl runs college football, and was the final step in the formation of the BCS.

The Mountain West has a chance to grow into a formidable league in the future with additions of Fresno St., Boise St., Hawaii, Nevada and/or UTEP. If no bigger conferences take BYU/Utah (which looks probable considering the situations of the Big XII and Pac-10), the Mountain West is their only viable option. All the MWC states are growing at unreal rates, so maybe in 20 years, it will have a TV and attendance base to stand on it's own. It would be best to eliminate the WAC by either consolidating or just taking its best teams. Until then, I don't see how both can co-exist as major players in a relatively sparsely-populated region.

The MWC has enough flagship institutions to make a BCS-level league, and will exceed the quota if they add WAC state flagships. The only thing now is for the states to continue growing, and for the schools to grow their fanbases to a BCS level. It's really not that far off if you take a look at MWC attendance figures. Multiple schools are over 35K in football and 8K in basketball attendance. The league is just behind the lowest BCS leagues in both sports attendance-wise, though nowhere near the top dogs.

Both Utah and Nevada should be 3M people strong by 2015, and New Mexico will be 2-2.5M. Colorado is nearing 5M, and even rural Wyoming (the school is close to Denver) is starting to grow a little. California will be 40M, and houses large portions of MWC alumni, as well as Texas. Texas should be over 25M. Though the MWC in no way controls these states, or anywhere close, the presence of SDSU and TCU is still there, and both have good athletic histories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the Pac10 taking SDSU and expanding to 11, before they take both Utah and BYU. Also SDSU is an associate member already. Again BYU and Utah wouldn't have traveling partners.

Pac-10-USA-states.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
'No argument with your assumptions about probable regional growth, simply an observation. Having grown up in the South and having attended two BCS Conference schools, I think it's fair to say that BCS schools are never going to let another conference in on the cash and they're not going to dump the BCS in order to be "fair". For good or ill, the perception exists that a win in a non-BCS Conference is not the same as a win in a BCS Conference. So why fight it.

The ACC, SEC and Big 12 all have Conference Championship games which produce huge amounts of revenue for their member institutions. The NCAA is adamant that a conference must have 12 schools in order to have such a game. That means that the PAC 10 must become 12 sometime soon, else they senselessly forfeit revenue needed to fund such things as their non-revenue generating sports programs and their Title IX obligations.

One may salivate over the BYU -Colorado State game, but I think you'd have to say that the smart move is to do whatever it takes to join the PAC 10 before someone else gets asked to the prom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a good idea. Just this past year I think it hurt the Big Ten by not being a little larger and having a championship game themselves. I think it would also make sense for the Pac 10 as well. Both those teams would seem to fit okay to me. The only other possible team I could think of offhand might be New Mexico. I don't know if I could see New Mexico State being added though. I suppose you might also need to at least consider Boise State as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I dunno about both BYU & Utah, but Utah and Nevada would appear to make logistical sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dunno about both BYU & Utah, but Utah and Nevada would appear to make logistical sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They don't thought, because they aren't traveling partners. You would need two schools to beable to travel together, the PAC10 more than any other schools relys on traveling partners and those expenses. No schools are really close, except SDSU, and they could maybe get USD in if they wanted another team. BSU has no chance without a traveling partner UofI isn't good enough academically or athletically. The same goes for Nevada, they could travel with UNLV, but UNLV doesn't have the academic standards. BYU and Utah, but then Utah has the problem of accepting 85% of its students. Airforce would be an option in Colorado, but when you look at traveling partners again you have Colorado and Colorado St. both accepting 90% and 87% respectivelly. I see it impossible unless it is SDSU and USD to be honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please correct me if I am wrong, but are you suggesting that Utah and possibly BYU lack the academic credentials to qualify fo PAC 10 consideration, but SDSU and UC-Davis do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you say traveling partnes, Im assuming your basing this on the non major sports such as volleyball, swimming, track, etc.. correct?

If so, then yes, Nevada and Utah don't fit geographically. Perhaps that's why the Pac-10 hasn't expanded, there are not many ideal pairs to invite within the league, unless the school comes from a current member state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Utah and BYU both lack the standards, do research, PAC10 has been looknig at SDSU for awhile, and their admission are currently at 44%, but USD (University of San Diego) is at 55%, but they would easily redo admissions standards to join the Pac10.

Utah accepts 85% which i said earlier, and BYU accepts 78%. Those numbers are to high for their standards.

The average admissions is 50%, also the schools with higher admissions, Oregon offer a lot to the conference ( Nike ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I had thought that the concern surrounding PAC 10 expansion involved institutional athletic qualification for membership and the expectation that particular institutions would bring along the money that drives big time intercollegiate programs through their bowl appearances and their likelihood of making the hoops field of 64. If the threshold issue is academic, then it ought to be explored in more detail. Please make the case that USD and SDSU are academically ready for the big leagues, but BYU and U of U are not. I suppose that admission rates are fair game, but let's consider a more comprehensive common denominator. For starters, where, for example, are SDSU and USD ranked on the US News list of major universities? Where do their major graduate programs (law, medicine and business, etc) rank?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Looked at Utah and BYU

UTAH:

selective (beyond undergraduate :dontknow: ) *don't know how that would effect them*

large public university

stadium sizes comparable to PAC10

Ranked best US Universities #120

Athletics decent

endowment: 358 million

BYU:

more selective (big plus)

very large private university

stadium sizes larger than average (big plus)

Ranked best US Universities #70

Athletics besides the big 2 are excellent

endowment: 590 million

Utah State:

most selective (on par with most pac10 schools)

very large public university

stadium size football to small, basketball on par

Ranked best US Universities Top Tier (1-50)

Athletics are decent

endowment: 97 million (low)

Overall I see a lot of downs for Utah, I just don't think they would fit. The only good thing is that as far as traveling they are a 50 minute drive apart.I could see BYU going to the pac10 the only down I see is if they are some how trying to stay away from private/schools with a religious denomination. Otherwise I could see Utah State and BYU moving to the pac10. If Utah had a few things change I would actually say Utah and Utah St. I think if Utah St. expands their stadiums and grew a larger endowment they would a good fit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think state size and TV market are the biggest things. Right now, Utah is sitting at close to 2.5M, and based on an average of about 3 per household, that's around 800K TV households (the official Nielsen market stretches into Nevada and Wyoming, and covers most of Utah).

I think Utah will be 3-4M people in 2020, barring some absurd spike in population growth. Considering that the states of Iowa, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Oregon, Mississippi, West Virginia, Connecticut, Kansas, and Nebraska are all under 4M, that's plenty to support a top level college program or two.

In addition to those < 4M, there are 5 BCS school states within 4-5M, and 6 in the 5-6M range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Looked at Utah and BYU

UTAH:

selective (beyond undergraduate :dontknow: ) *don't know how that would effect them*

large public university

stadium sizes comparable to PAC10

Ranked best US Universities #120

Athletics decent

endowment: 358 million

BYU:

more selective (big plus)

very large private university

stadium sizes larger than average (big plus)

Ranked best US Universities #70

Athletics besides the big 2 are excellent

endowment: 590 million

Utah State:

most selective (on par with most pac10 schools)

very large public university

stadium size football to small, basketball on par

Ranked best US Universities Top Tier (1-50)

Athletics are decent

endowment: 97 million (low)

Overall I see a lot of downs for Utah, I just don't think they would fit. The only good thing is that as far as traveling they are a 50 minute drive apart.I could see BYU going to the pac10 the only down I see is if they are some how trying to stay away from private/schools with a religious denomination. Otherwise I could see Utah State and BYU moving to the pac10. If Utah had a few things change I would actually say Utah and Utah St. I think if Utah St. expands their stadiums and grew a larger endowment they would a good fit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You correctly noted the University of Utah's academic rank as # 120 in the US News survey, but may I note that this rank places it as tied with the University of Oregon and ahead of both Washington State, Arizona State and, dare I say it, San Diego State.

What is your source for information which suggests that the PAC 10 wishes to stay away from schools with a religious affiliation? For example, one would have to think that the University of Notre Dame, the quintessentially religiously affiliated major university, would be a feather in any conference's cap, so to speak. What is it about the dollars from bowl games and field of 64 appearances that BYU (or any other sectarian institution for that matter) might offer the PAC 10, that he PAC 10 would find repugnant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not saying they want to, I jsut noted that they only have 2 private schools. USC and Stanford. I am not sure if they do that for a reason, or they have another reason why? And like i said that 120 is mostly for postgraduate work, their undergraduate programs are not top tier. But as I was saying, I just thought it was unique they had no religious affiliations, and I know in college athletics private/public is a hard enough issue... The big schools such as USC and Stanford that have good donators make a big difference. A lot of private institutions do not have the money. (most private schools are in private dominated conferences, it is hard to compare donations to donations & state funding.) BYU does have the endowment, and Notre Dame is a completely different story. Overall though, I think BYU is the best fit if they can find a good partner. I think Utah is a few years away if they start worknig on improving those few things.

For some reason everyone here hates SDSU, but the PAC10 loves them, and if SDSU jsut had a partner they could of been in the conference a few years ago. The new baseball stadium, the football team on a rise, and the basketball team was a peak team.

also here is a list why the love SDSU (biggest is the research and observatory)

http://advancement.sdsu.edu/marcomm/news/sdsufacts.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see the Pac10 taking SDSU and expanding to 11, before they take both Utah and BYU. Also SDSU is an associate member already. Again BYU and Utah wouldn't have traveling partners.

Pac-10-USA-states.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They don't thought, because they aren't traveling partners. You would need two schools to beable to travel together, the PAC10 more than any other schools relys on traveling partners and those expenses. No schools are really close, except SDSU, and they could maybe get USD in if they wanted another team. BSU has no chance without a traveling partner UofI isn't good enough academically or athletically. The same goes for Nevada, they could travel with UNLV, but UNLV doesn't have the academic standards. BYU and Utah, but then Utah has the problem of accepting 85% of its students. Airforce would be an option in Colorado, but when you look at traveling partners again you have Colorado and Colorado St. both accepting 90% and 87% respectivelly. I see it impossible unless it is SDSU and USD to be honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.