|
|
Post by goaztecs on Jun 12, 2010 20:18:07 GMT -8
Hopefully none.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2010 21:52:28 GMT -8
Wyoming? Where? To FCS? We'll lose Utah
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecTom on Jun 12, 2010 22:00:48 GMT -8
None
|
|
|
|
Post by Fred Noonan on Jun 13, 2010 8:28:42 GMT -8
This is a terribly unsettled dynamic right now, so anything I would add is a scientific wild assed guess. Rather than do that I'll just say that my "gut" tells me that no matter what, Utah is gone. The Fred Noonan School of Navigation  |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Jun 13, 2010 15:09:44 GMT -8
I think it would be foolish for any of the MWC teams to bolt now that we've got Boise State. This conference is very strong, and if we can pick up a couple more strong teams then the conference is almost as good as the Pac-96 (or whatever they'll end up being). Utah would have a far greater chance of winning a conference title in the MWC than they would the Pac-32.
Being huge fish in a decent sized pond (and one that's getting bigger) or a medium sized fish in a huge pond - that's what they've got to choose between.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2010 15:26:02 GMT -8
I think it would be foolish for any of the MWC teams to bolt now that we've got Boise State. This conference is very strong, and if we can pick up a couple more strong teams then the conference is almost as good as the Pac-96 (or whatever they'll end up being). Utah would have a far greater chance of winning a conference title in the MWC than they would the Pac-32. Being huge fish in a decent sized pond (and one that's getting bigger) or a medium sized fish in a huge pond - that's what they've got to choose between. The choice is between more money or less money. Sports or sports success has nothing to do with it. If the PAC offered us tomorrow, we'd be gone by Tuesday. I'm not certain why anyone would think Utah views the situation differently. |
|
|
|
Post by sancarlosaztec on Jun 13, 2010 16:07:47 GMT -8
Absolutely. What I can't understand is why the Pac-X would offer Utah? Why would they want them? Academically they don't measure up. Athletically they don't measure up. Population wise they don't measure up. From a tv market perspective they don't measure up. They don't need Utah from recruiting perspective. There is really no good reason to add Utah. So why are they in the conversation at all? But if the PAC-X does offer Utah, the Utes would be stupid not to take the offer and run with it. Yes, life in the PAC-X would suck for Utah in terms of competitiveness and control (things they have in the MWC), but they would have access to so much more with the money and affiliation. So by all means they should take it, and if they do they will eventually grow in ways that bring value to their new conference. That of course will be five to ten years down the line. I think it would be foolish for any of the MWC teams to bolt now that we've got Boise State. This conference is very strong, and if we can pick up a couple more strong teams then the conference is almost as good as the Pac-96 (or whatever they'll end up being). Utah would have a far greater chance of winning a conference title in the MWC than they would the Pac-32. Being huge fish in a decent sized pond (and one that's getting bigger) or a medium sized fish in a huge pond - that's what they've got to choose between. The choice is between more money or less money. Sports or sports success has nothing to do with it. If the PAC offered us tomorrow, we'd be gone by Tuesday. I'm not certain why anyone would think Utah views the situation differently. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jun 13, 2010 16:40:09 GMT -8
>>>What I can't understand is why the Pac-X would offer Utah? Why would they want them?<<<
To destabilize the MWC.
>>>Academically they don't measure up.<<<
Sez who? Justify, please.
>>>Athletically they don't measure up.<<<
Seems to me they are doing fairly well, despite the disadvantages of being in a "mid-major" conference.
>>> Population wise they don't measure up. From a tv market perspective they don't measure up. They don't need Utah from recruiting perspective. There is really no good reason to add Utah. So why are they in the conversation at all?<<<
Mostly true, but if inviting Utah will help destroy those pesky California ex-PCAA programs that refused to take the dive like Long Beach and UOP did, it will be worth it.
JMHO.
|
|
|
|
Post by 83aztec on Jun 13, 2010 20:12:58 GMT -8
I'm hoping we lose Wyoming to the WAC  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2010 20:48:01 GMT -8
I originally voted none and I'm sticking with it. I think the Pac-10 invites Kansas...
|
|
|
|
Post by sancarlosaztec on Jun 13, 2010 20:53:49 GMT -8
My opinion. Utah is a fine academic institution. It is not my intention to put them down. However, when you compare Utah to the kind of institution the PAC schools perceive themselves to be it is a mismatch. The PAC has invited and accepted schools in the past who's academics don't match this perceived academic standard. So, I guess I shoudn't be surprised. In fact, the agenda you suggest (keep the little ex-PCAA schools down) is the closest thing to a reason I have heard to date. Its just that in this endgame playing out before us today the stakes are so high that I have a hard time believing the PAC would make such a mistake just to keep the foot on the throat of the little guy. Of course if there is collusion at play here across conferences (BCS involvement?) then some of this makes more sense. Finally, yes Utah athletics is doing well for a second tier major. But they are no PAC school. Football before Meyer was successful but pedestrian. In my opinion Utah football could return there (pre-Meyer) very easily. Don't get me wrong. McBride was no slouch, but he wasn't Urban Meyer or even Kyle W. And before McBride? Basketball had very nice success under the walking heart attack, but now, after consecutive sucky coaching hires, their program is really in danger of becoming irrelevent nationally -again. Overall their fans travel well and really do a good job of supporting their teams. Again, Utah is a great fit for the MWC. They will have tough times for a decade in a super PAC conference. They won't care so much because of the extra $$$. >>>What I can't understand is why the Pac-X would offer Utah? Why would they want them?<<< To destabilize the MWC. >>>Academically they don't measure up.<<< Sez who? Justify, please. >>>Athletically they don't measure up.<<< Seems to me they are doing fairly well, despite the disadvantages of being in a "mid-major" conference. >>> Population wise they don't measure up. From a tv market perspective they don't measure up. They don't need Utah from recruiting perspective. There is really no good reason to add Utah. So why are they in the conversation at all?<<< Mostly true, but if inviting Utah will help destroy those pesky California ex-PCAA programs that refused to take the dive like Long Beach and UOP did, it will be worth it. JMHO. |
|
