|
|
Post by fanhood on Jun 16, 2010 5:29:12 GMT -8
I find it sad that only six months ago, Utah fans, and MWC fans alike were laughing at the PAC 10. We were mocking them for how easily we as a conference beat them down in Bowl Season. All of us, almost to a man, claimed that in a few short years, the MWC would have AQ status, and would surpass the Pathetic 10 when it comes to prestige. Now that Utah is on the verge of an invitation, those same Utah fans are making the typical BCS statements of "Welll the conference is better top to bottom" or "The Pac 10 just has great academics." What??? What the hell changed? If you read the comments below the SL Tribune articles, most Utah fans are jumping for joy. What happened to your belief that the MWC is better? Will the money not eventually come if we stay together?
Admittedly, I am not a college administrator. But, as a fan of SDSU, if the Aztecs were to be invited to the Pathetic 10, I would hope SDSU officials would say no. I hate that damn conference.
|
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Jun 16, 2010 5:39:13 GMT -8
You'd think that if the source yesterday who said Utah had alerted the MWC that they were accepting a Pac Ten invite that a credible source would have picked it up by now...
|
|
|
|
Post by retiredaztec on Jun 16, 2010 5:54:02 GMT -8
This "grand vision" the PAC-10 had, to end up with Colorado and (possibly) Utah as additions. With all due repect, I think the MWC come out better adding BSU.
|
|
|
|
Post by haleiwaaztec on Jun 16, 2010 7:21:05 GMT -8
oncesdsportstown brought up a point I have not considered, that the Pac 10 may not have completely given up on Texas as their 12th team (and maybe the others to get to the 16 they want). There is nothing that is requiring them to add a team right now. From what I read, Colorado can't leave until 2012 anyway so the Pac 10 can wait a year and still add Utah so both teams start in 2012 together.
I still think an invite comes soon for Utah, but I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't happen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2010 8:53:07 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by retiredaztec on Jun 16, 2010 10:04:30 GMT -8
Little blurb in the SLTRIB this morning said PAC-10 Commish Larry Scott denied a report that the PAC-10 will extend an invite to Utah at a news conference earlier today. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2010 10:20:29 GMT -8
I think everybody is going to be more careful about this stuff now that Joe Schad said Monday morning that the Pac-16 was definitely going to happen. Schad not only works for the World Wide Leader, which supposedly gives him credibility, he supposedly also had not just one, not just two, not just three, but four sources for that. But about Utah, consider this. Not only was CU AND Utah the rumor for a couple months, it makes zero sense for the Pac to stay at 11. So I think there have probably been a couple details to straighten out. Probably like an entrance fee. The MWC supposedly charged TCU $1M and will charge Boise something. Word is CU owes the Big 12-2 a hefty $15M exit fee so it wouldn't surprise me if the Pac would therefore waive whatever its entrance fee would be in the case of CU. However, the MWC has no exit fee so the question is whether Utah should have to pay something to the Pac if CU isn't having to. Just a guess but I think it's some small last minute detail like that which is holding things up. |
|
|
|
Post by some_aztec on Jun 16, 2010 10:38:13 GMT -8
I think everybody is going to be more careful about this stuff now that Joe Schad said Monday morning that the Pac-16 was definitely going to happen. Schad not only works for the World Wide Leader, which supposedly gives him credibility, he supposedly also had not just one, not just two, not just three, but four sources for that. But about Utah, consider this. Not only was CU AND Utah the rumor for a couple months, it makes zero sense for the Pac to stay at 11. So I think there have probably been a couple details to straighten out. Probably like an entrance fee. The MWC supposedly charged TCU $1M and will charge Boise something. Word is CU owes the Big 12-2 a hefty $15M exit fee so it wouldn't surprise me if the Pac would therefore waive whatever its entrance fee would be in the case of CU. However, the MWC has no exit fee so the question is whether Utah should have to pay something to the Pac if CU isn't having to. Just a guess but I think it's some small last minute detail like that which is holding things up. Why does it make zero sense for the Pac-10 to stay at 11? The Big-10 did it for a long time, and if their eventual goal is Texas, then it would make sense to leave those spots "open" for Texas to dictate the terms. Besides, Utah will be available to them in another year or two (no BCS qualifiers to worry about), unless the Big-12 decides to expand... |
|
|
|
Post by mojo on Jun 16, 2010 10:39:09 GMT -8
Jim Trageser of the North County Times makes a good argument this morning for BYU and Utah staying in the MWC. Among other things he sez:
Chief among the reasons schools like Brigham Young and Utah (and San Diego State, in periodic moments of grandiose irrationality) might want to join the Pac-10 are the prestige and cash flow attached to being a member of a BCS conference. It's pretty simple in the Pac-10: Win the conference, go to the BCS. No polls to worry about, no computer rankings to sweat over. Just go win the conference.
But if the Mountain West gains the same automatic qualification for its champion, where's the motivation to jump to the Pac-10? Do you want to play SDSU and Nevada-Las Vegas on the way to the conference title and a BCS berth, or USC and Oregon?
All things being roughly equal, the Mountain West schedule is going to provide an easier path to the BCS than a Pac-10 slate. Hard to see any school wanting to make that trade.
Contact staff writer Jim Trageser at 760-740-5408.
It would certainly be a tougher road to a conference championship in the Pac whatever than the MWC!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2010 10:44:27 GMT -8
Why does it make zero sense for the Pac-10 to stay at 11? The Big-10 did it for a long time, and if their eventual goal is Texas, then it would make sense to leave those spots "open" for Texas to dictate the terms. Besides, Utah will be available to them in another year or two (no BCS qualifiers to worry about), unless the Big-12 decides to expand... Well, you almost answered your own question as to why the Big Ten had 11. That is because at the same time Penn State was offered and accepted, ND was offered and declined and for years the Big Ten hasn't added a twelfth member as a way of telling ND they are still wanted. As to Utah going to the Pac now, there's a reason the Big Ten has decided to finally stop waiting for ND: the value of a conference championship game. The Big 12 hasn't really profited much from that but unlike the Big Ten, the Big 12 doesn't have its own network. And just like the Big Ten, the Pac is intent on starting IT'S own network. I'm not trying to argue with you. I'm just saying that although I hope Utah stays in the MWC, I think they'll be gone soon. If not immediately, by August 31 of this year at the absolute latest. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2010 10:47:41 GMT -8
Jim Trageser of the North County Times makes a good argument this morning for BYU and Utah staying in the MWC. Among other things he sez: Chief among the reasons schools like Brigham Young and Utah (and San Diego State, in periodic moments of grandiose irrationality) might want to join the Pac-10 are the prestige and cash flow attached to being a member of a BCS conference. It's pretty simple in the Pac-10: Win the conference, go to the BCS. No polls to worry about, no computer rankings to sweat over. Just go win the conference. But if the Mountain West gains the same automatic qualification for its champion, where's the motivation to jump to the Pac-10? Is he serious? Even if the MWC gains AQ status, its members will still receive considerably less TV revenue than Pac members. Right now, the amount per school is about $1.2M per year for MWC members and $5.8M per year for Pac members. Utah isn't going to pass up the chance to quintuple its TV revenue and SDSU wouldn't either if the opportunity presented itself. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2010 10:49:45 GMT -8
You'all may be right that Utah will go to the Pac 11 but, besides making it an even number, I still don't see what use Utah is to that conference. I can not imagine that having Utah will allow them to generate a larger TV contract than they will already get. (Also, there is some question if the schools even want a conference championship game.)
|
|
|
|
Post by PQ Aztec on Jun 16, 2010 12:00:47 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Fishn'Aztec on Jun 16, 2010 12:02:47 GMT -8
All the ADs were at the conference or meetings along with Big Hair while Scott sat home plotting how to get dose yoots!  |
|
|
|
Post by Fishn'Aztec on Jun 16, 2010 12:26:22 GMT -8
Man I just heard Moos on the radio that guy wants those road trips to CA intact with a 2 division lineup. Interesting also is that the pac?? doesn't equally share TV revenues the big dogs eat first!  |
|
|
|
Post by Village Aztec on Jun 16, 2010 13:45:48 GMT -8
So do we schedule Utah and get a big turn out of fans?
If you were Utah you would rather go to San Diego and play for recruiting. You would not want to go play BYU and get your ass kicked.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fishn'Aztec on Jun 16, 2010 13:51:12 GMT -8
So do we schedule Utah and get a big turn out of fans? If you were Utah you would rather go to San Diego and play for recruiting. You would not want to go play BYU and get your ass kicked. Nope! Don't have them back until they stink! I just hope the AZTECS can kick Boylen's BB ass when he visits Viejas this fall and we can give him a proper send off! |
|
|
|
Post by Borg on Jun 16, 2010 13:58:35 GMT -8
Nope! Don't have them back until they stink! I just hope the AZTECS can kick Boylen's BB ass when he visits Viejas this fall and we can give him a proper send off! I think everyone is gonna kick Utah around in basketball this coming year. Their team was decimated by deserters...Boylen was left with no one...he's in total rebuild mode..from scratch. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2010 14:08:16 GMT -8
For the Pac: As Rod Gilmore said, given where we all thought three days ago that the Pac would be today, adding just Utah is immensely underwhelming. For Utah: I don't get all the hate from fanhood and others. As ESPN also pointed out, Utah has earned the promotion. Want to be a hater? Hate on SDSU for not coming within even the same galaxy of accomplishing what the Utes have done. (Sorry, fellow Aztecs, but that's the truth.) |
|
|
|
Post by aztecdew on Jun 16, 2010 14:38:16 GMT -8
For the Pac: As Rod Gilmore said, given where we all thought three days ago that the Pac would be today, adding just Utah is immensely underwhelming. For Utah: I don't get all the hate from fanhood and others. As ESPN also pointed out, Utah has earned the promotion. Want to be a hater? Hate on SDSU for not coming within even the same galaxy of accomplishing what the Utes have done. (Sorry, fellow Aztecs, but that's the truth.) Hey, love my Aztecs, but way too much whinning about our state of affairs. Let's congratulate Utah for winning their way into the PAC10. I keep saying, we need to take care of business and make sure we are not the anchor for the MWC. We have the potential ... we do not have time on our side ... the time is now. If I was the MWC, I'd put us on the clock ... and when the next expansion wave comes and we haven't produced, we'll be playing in the WAC (if they'll have us) ... and we'll have no one to blame except ourselves. Regarding our nine team conference, obviously we don't have to expand ... but it sure makes sense to expand to 10 by adding Houston. Isn't Houston the 10th largest TV market and 4th or 5th largest city in the country. The potential for revenue is good, increased viewership, and recruiting. Houston is well financed with new facilities in the works. We don't want to expand past ten at this time. Sorry, I know there are some emotions out there and I would also like to have a rivalry with FSU ... but it's not the right time. It's all about increasing the revenue for the conference so that it's solid ... and then it's up to our members to build and sustain strong programs (e.g., SDSU). It certainly is easier to pick off the top two or three in a weak conference versus a strong conference with five or more strong members. We may never be a BCS conference ... but at least we could have a respected conference. The PAC10 will continue to expand ... and we better be prepared! |
|
