Deseret News | Pac-10 will snub BYU, Utah

Reader comments
Dick Harmon: Pac-10 will snub BYU, Utah

324 comments | Read story

Page:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Next >

Madrybeg | 12:15 a.m. July 7, 2008

I am tired of hearing about the expansion ideas of Pac 10. There are good teams in this region of the country. Everyone is so wrapped around trying to get into the BCS there is very little talk of making this conference better than the Pac 10. I think, best case scenario, the MWC should expand to Fresno St., Boise St., Nevada, New Mexico St. and concentrate itself on making this region good.

BEVO Buttish | 12:24 a.m. July 7, 2008

I think that BYU and Utah would actually help the PAC 10 to gain respect for the east coast media mongrols. BYU is well respected (for the most part) they do have a national championship in football and are returning to the national scenes again. Utah brings in a good football program but their strong point is the basketball program although they are in a rebuilding stage right now. Weak points- BYU is not considered a research institution since they focus mainly on undergraduate studies. Utah does not have a good reputation for game attendance especially on the road. BYU needs to win some NCAA tournament games in BBall. Utah needs to become more consistent in football. One good season doesn't mean a whole lot.

Old | 1:08 a.m. July 7, 2008

This is an old, old, old, old, old story which we've heard before -- 5 times a year, every year.

Comments continue below

This again? | 1:08 a.m. July 7, 2008

Harmon: I am glad and disappointed you brought this up. I am glad you did so that folks will stop thinking that it is going to happen. I am disappointed because those in the bubble we call the Wasatch Front will start talking about it again. Whether it happens or (most likely) not, we need to focus on making our own teams and our crappy conference better rather than squeaking by against unranked teams in our mediocre bowl games.

Well, my insomnia is gone. All the U and Y fans can go back to calling each other names instead of putting in an honest day's work. Yeah, yeah, zoob, yewt, 4 and 18, 34-31, TDS and pumping gas, whatever. I hope you all get diarrhea.

Go Utes!

New Yorker | 6:15 a.m. July 7, 2008

Who cares? The Pac-10 is only about themselves. Give BYU or Utah the same dollars and they will fare very well against the p-10. They don't want to spread around the money and they are afraid of additional competition.

keep dreaming | 6:34 a.m. July 7, 2008

I have to laugh at the fact that some people actually believe that Utah and BYU would actually make good additions to the Pac 10. You guys play in a crappy conference full of crappy teams. I really enjoy reading these comments after articles here on desnews.com. Especially byu comments. Heck, now that you have Riley Nelson (he'll definitely be better than that Tebow guy) on your team I have you playing for the national championship for at least three years.... keep dreaming. Enjoy playing in the JV games while real conferences keep playing in the games that get noticed and watched cough cough the mountain.

Anonymous | 6:51 a.m. July 7, 2008

So the members of the PAC 10 are just selfish and greedy because they won't let BYU and Utah in? Sort of like the Mountain West and Utah State, I guess.

The PAC 10 is a private organization. They can let in anybody they want.

Name Change | 6:54 a.m. July 7, 2008

BYU and Utah aren't even on the Pacific Coast... They don't fit the conference name anyway.

Anti-BCS | 7:01 a.m. July 7, 2008

BCS has got to go... that's the thing that blocks other colleges like BYU, UNLV, and other mid-levels not getting a fair chance to a bowl such as Rose Bowl. Turn it into a playoff-berth playoffs. That way, everyone will truly get a fair chance for every sports championship, especially Final Four! Did you see how the fans react to Final Four? A lot bigger audience than bowl games!

BYU Utah not deserving | 7:02 a.m. July 7, 2008

Please neither school is deserving of PAC-10 status. Both schools are relatively weak and would not add aything to the conference. Stick in the Mountain West where you can play on the Mountain.

sob | 7:03 a.m. July 7, 2008

start beating pac 10 teams on a regular basis
then who cares what they think of themselves

Jaggers | 7:13 a.m. July 7, 2008

We don't need the stinkin' Pac 10. GO MWC.

metamoracoug | 7:32 a.m. July 7, 2008

It's entirely about money and successful programs. Both BYU and Utah do an amazing job with the limited budget they have to work with. But why would the monopolistic BCS be motivated to share any of the hog trough with the "mid-major" schools. Just getting them to allow ONE non-BCS school to crash their big party each year took a fantastic effort -- owed in large part to the thrashing Utah gave Big Least conference Pitt.

Bottom line is $$$. What's fair, what's in the best interest of the student athletes, takes a back seat to pulling down the big bucks for the BCS.

true blue | 7:43 a.m. July 7, 2008

whether they make good additions or not I would much rather have USC, Oregon, UCLA, Washington, etc.... coming to town every other year than wyoming sdsu csu unm etc......Like harmon said they would make better additions than Oregon State or Washington State.

TrueBlue | 7:46 a.m. July 7, 2008

The Big 12 would be a much better and more lucrative conference to join than the Pac 10. BYU needs to set it's sights on the Big 12.

Joe W. | 7:48 a.m. July 7, 2008

The ONLY good thing about joining the Pac-10 would be taking advantage of their HOMER, corrupt referees (you know, the ones that travel with the team)!

Re: keep dreaming | 7:54 a.m. July 7, 2008

What a loser.

Re: Name Change | 7:57 a.m. July 7, 2008

Stupid argument.

When did Arizona move to the Pacific Coast? Or, San Diego St. or TCU to the Rocky Mountains?

SJ Bobkins | 8:09 a.m. July 7, 2008

If every conference required the unanimous vote of every member to admit a new team especially an "upstart wishing to go uptown," there wouldn't be ay more expansion or rearrangement period.
In 1976 the PAC-8 cheery picked the WAC for ASU and UA although they were after ASU solely and had to take UA to make it work. Then in the late 80's they made an offer to Texas and Colorado somehow thinking that they were such a great and gloried bunch that teams would leave their current conference and geographical areas. I spoke with a former AD and a former ASU president, (Coors) who told me that the conference didn't see either BYU or Utah as fitting the academic and research models the PAC-10 represents. (Don't argue with me, I didn't say it.) Secondly, why admit schools with a small TV market or why admit both BYU and Utah when they get the audience with BYU alone? Then you get the argument of further splitting the bowl monies. All current teams can go bowling if they have 6 wins, you don't increase the bowl income from adding new members.

Not for BYU | 8:09 a.m. July 7, 2008

BYU will never be admitted to the Pac-10. They are known only as a undergrad school, not good enough academically at the graduate level/research etc...which the PAC 10 requires. Utah however would make it in. Im a fan of neither teams, but yes they are good enough to compete, esp football.

Go MWC!!! | 8:10 a.m. July 7, 2008

I agree w/ Jaggers. It makes more sense for the MWC to BECOME a BCS conference rather than wait for a BCS conference to include one or two of our teams...especially since they have no intention of doing so. Hey, if the Big East gets to be a BCS conference, why can't we...and for that matter, why not the WAC? Both the MWC and the WAC - top to bottom - measure up quite well against them. If we have to ASK for permission to join, and can be refused based on ambiguous criteria, then the BCS can fairly be identified as a cartel, subject to a congressional hearing, and subsequent legal procedings.

Re: TrueBlue | 8:16 a.m. July 7, 2008

The Big XII already has the 12 teams necessary for a conference championship. Why would they expand? What need would that fulfill? In retrospect, perhaps the Big XII would have been better off without Iowa St, but they're way past that now. It's too late for change. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

AZ Cougar | 8:20 a.m. July 7, 2008

This whole discussion is pointless. BYU will never join a conference that requires Sunday play. In the former WAC and now in the MWC BYU was/is the school driving all the conference decisions. Our best hope is that the BCS will finally crumble under its own weight and be replaced by a playoff. (Even here in PAC 10 Arizona most people hate the BCS) Then we can compete for the big prize and still control our Sunday play.

Devil | 8:21 a.m. July 7, 2008

Oh please! I am a ASU Sundevil and Utah and BYU can't measure up to even the bottom of the barrel Pac10 teams. In a University culture thats all about the allmighty buck, Utah especially has little to offer a major conference financially. One good year in football (2004) does not constitute a good program. It can't fill its own stadiums much less one several states away. BYU is definatly more attractive financially and has a faithful LDS following in the West, but still has to prove that they can compete with the big boys and not just the likes of New Mexico and San Diego State. Every year in every sport a Pac10 team is in the hunt for a national championship. Why would a major conference that is so competitive and doing so well choose to include another University to have a piece of thier pie? If BYU could prove itself over the next several years I could possibly see it but the Utes are dead in the water and a non-issue over the past several years in all of its major money making sports. Sorry Utes, a little reality check is in order.

A Better Idea | 8:24 a.m. July 7, 2008

Instead of moving Utah or BYU to the Pac-10 why doesn't the MWC try and real in Boise State. Their athletic program has gained national recognition now. It would make the MWC that much stronger. TCU, Utah, BYU, BSU usually have good team. Wyoming and Air force can produce quality teams as well. And not to forget that UNLV could easily become a national basketball power here soon. It would make it tough for the BCS to not include the MWC champ if BSU was in the MWC.

article | 8:25 a.m. July 7, 2008

The article that Dick is referring to is not anywhere near as well researched or balanced as he is pretending. The author spends two pages putting makeup on a pig. He uses ancient stats to try to inflate the importance of BYU football. He discounts location right out of the box. Ditto venue. He ignores the possibility of Colorado. He refuses to discuss the fact that BYU is not a research I school. It was another shameful plea from a BYU homer.

All conferences should be 10 schools.

Chuckle, snort | 8:26 a.m. July 7, 2008

So if I'm reading between the lines correctly: The presidents of ASU, Oregon State, and Washington State actually believe their schools are all stronger academically than BYU or Utah?

Uh huh. And purple cows give chocolate milk!

There's not now, nor has there never been, any sense in hoping for a Pac-10 invite for BYU and Utah. Better to build the MWC case for an *athletically* strong conference.

Academically... uh, well, the MWC has UNLV, Wyoming, and San Diego State. Not exactly any Cal-Polys in that bunch. Yet the Pac-10 isn't as great top-to-bottom academically as its presidents would like to believe, either--see above.

Silly stuff--but athletic conferences are only loosely about academics, anyway. The Pac-10 and MWC alike should drop the pretense that school has anything to do with it.

Re:Devil | 8:26 a.m. July 7, 2008

Are you serious. ASU is terrible at basketball and has had a couple decent football teams in the last 15 years. Sorry Sun-Devils, were not scared of you, in fact either Utah or BYU would steam-roll you this year.

Mewtyewt | 8:28 a.m. July 7, 2008

This is non-news. Neither BYU or Utah will ever be invited to be a part of the PAC-10, and it doesn't matter. Aside from their respective top two or three schools, both conferences are awash in mediocrity.

To keep dreaming - 6:34 a.m. | 8:30 a.m. July 7, 2008

Sounds like someone didn't watch the Las Vegas Bowl last year. But just refresh your memory:

BYU 17 UCLA 16

Oh, and of course there was the Las Vegas Bowl two years ago.

BYU 38 Oregon 8

I still remember a few of the Oregon coaches talking about how it was beneath them to even have BYU on their schedule.

And as for Utah, 7-0 in bowl games since 1999, including wins agaist USC, Pittsburgh, Georgia Tech and Southern Mississippi.

So to all of you PAC-10 fans who talk about who BYU and Utah are crappy teams, just admit it. Dick Harmon is right. This has nothing to do with quality of play, but everything to do with $$$$$$$$$$.

Go Utes! | 8:30 a.m. July 7, 2008

Utah has beaten USC, UCLA, CAL, OREGON, WASHINGTON ST, ARIZONA and STANFORD all in the past 8 years in football. If we had Arizona State and Washington on our upcoming schedule we would beat them. We're ready for the Pac 10. (We'll beat Oregon St this year)

McKay | 8:33 a.m. July 7, 2008

Purely from an athletic standpoint; not factoring in academics and such... rather than joining the corruption of the pac 10, I would rather see the MWC add Boise State and Fresno State. Football wise, that would create a conference that in my opinion would be better than the Big Least, and equivalent with the pac 10, the little 10/11 and not too far behind the Big 12... the SEC is in a different league in my opinion. Like others have already posted, I'm tired of the talk of joining these other conferences... screw the pac 10, upgrade the product we already have and then beat them on the field/court

Clark Larsen | 8:35 a.m. July 7, 2008

I'm a die hard BYU fan. BUT FROM NOW ON, whenever the Utah Utes play a school from the PAC-10, I will gladly shout, "GO UTES! GO UTES! GO UTES!"

And that goes for you money grubbers over in the Big 10, Big 12 and Southeastern Conference as well!

CougarFan | 8:39 a.m. July 7, 2008

I believe, if I am not mistaken, that the main reason BYU has not been seriously considered by the PAC 10 or the Big 12 is due to concerns over academic censorship. Neither conference wants to have to deal with a member-school that is under scrutiny over academic censorship.

Ric--Y Grad & P-10 fan | 8:43 a.m. July 7, 2008

As a grad of the Y and a native of Washington state, I think the idea of BYU and Utah joining the Pac-10 would be AWESOME! It would give The Y and Utah a chance for more national recognition and would let the Pac-10 make tons of money with a conference championhip playoff game in football.
GO FOR IT! IT BLESSES EVERYONE!

Henry Drummond | 8:47 a.m. July 7, 2008

Let's not kid ourselves, everyone including BYU and Utah are in this for the money. Let's also admit that most fans are in it to see their team win. Given the choice of seeing their team finish in the lower half of the PAC with six or seven losses each year or seeing their teams clean up on lesser competition, we already know which would be more popular.

As long as fans reward home schedules that include such football giants as Weber State or Northern Iowa neither program will ever be taken seriously anyway.

To Devil - 8:21 | 8:50 a.m. July 7, 2008

Your comments were more hilarious than anything I've read in the funnys this year.

Are you serious? You honestly think BYU and Utah, "...can't measure up to even the bottom of the barrel Pac 10 teams?"

I remember, a few years agao, hearing something similar from a few coaches at the University of Oregon, just before they played BYU in the Las Vegas Bowl. Guess what happened? BYU WON BY 30 POINTS!

Just admit you refuse to share the money you make from your little collusive agreement with the other major conferences, ABC, ESPN and the big bowl games.

hmmm | 9:07 a.m. July 7, 2008

If this was about college athletics this is an easy sell. Utah presents challenges because they don't bring much that matters (attendance and TV audience). It doesn't help that their success in recent years is more tied to two coaches than any legacy. BYU is no powerhouse, but can bring the TV and fans anywhere in the West. Both schools compete just fine in all sports to fit with any conference in the country. What the PAC-10 can't admit is the fact that they are a second tier conference relying on their history rather than the present. They are not the SEC, but they think they are. This excuse about academics is a red herring. Why not pick some other stat that has NOTHING to do with the argument? The next will be the religious argument. The fact is, while they are wearing out their mirror they have sold themselves out. It will take time, but they have diminished their brand by joining the BCS. Fans that knew what the rose boll is are dying every day and the younger generation will support the national college view, not the PAC-10 BIG-10 thing.

I agree...all about the $$$ | 9:07 a.m. July 7, 2008

I'll admit that neither BYU or Utah would be considered powerhouses, but neither does ASU,WSU,OSU or Arizona (football). ASU had a good season last year, but look at their coach - Dennis Erickson. In a year or so it will come out that ASU has violated NCAA rules and they'll go back to being a mediocre team. Every so often the above listed PAC-10 teams have good football teams and good basketball teams (Arizona being the only exception), and I'd argue the regularity of those good teams are similar to the regularity of the good basketball/ football teams that both BYU and Utah occasionally enjoy.

ASU and Arizona were once part of the WAC, and neither academic institution is much better than either BYU or Utah. In fact, I'd argue that the academics at both BYU and Utah are as good, if not better, than those at ASU, Arizona, WSU, OSU or Oregon.

It has nothing to do with the quality of the programs or the institutions, but has everything to do with the money.

EL | 9:16 a.m. July 7, 2008

What about swap outs. BYU with the draw should entice the BCS confrences. I could see the PAC dropping the celar dwellers and putting in BYU. To heck with the BYU-UofU rivalry, I am sick of the garbage and Religous bigotry in this one, let it take a break!

BYU-to-PAC

Nathaniel | 9:19 a.m. July 7, 2008

Harmon is right. It is unlikely the Pac-10 is going to come knocking in the near future. I think the U and the Y could bolster their case if they improved their "other" sports - the Olympic ones that few people care about.

In the meantime, the MWC should expand to 12. Boise State has been practically begging to be let in. It's about time that the MWC did it. And we could finally bury the ridiculous notion that the WAC is a better football conference.

Cosmo | 9:19 a.m. July 7, 2008

CougarFan wrote:

"I believe, if I am not mistaken, that the main reason BYU has not been seriously considered by the PAC 10 or the Big 12 is due to concerns over academic censorship. Neither conference wants to have to deal with a member-school that is under scrutiny over academic censorship."

Unfortunately, I have read the same thing. I really think that once BYU can address the "academic censorship" issue head-on and honestly, the Pac 10 and the Big 12 will issue invitations to BYU.

Tuffy Parker | 9:22 a.m. July 7, 2008

The vast majority of the posters here are missing the point. Perhaps Dick Harmon is dancing around the point trying to get enough words to make an article. Here's the scoop:

PAC 10 will not invite BYU, Utah nor anyone else to join their conference unless their it brings significantly more money to the collective It has nothing to do with athletic parity, nothing to do with academics, nothing to do with research nor anything else but money.

If Utah or BYU or anyone else could increase each schools share of the pie by $5 million each year, the invites to join are going out by FedEx for delivery yesterday.

You can talk all you want about athletics, academics and location, but like many other things in today's world, it all boils down to money.

BTW, Utah & BYU would likely be in the top half or even top third of the PAC 10 in FB & BB each year with an occasional conference championship. Unfortunately, we'll likely never find out. Utes dressing up in Cougar blue singing 'Rise and Shout' is more likely.

Phoney Baloney | 9:24 a.m. July 7, 2008

It's ALL about $$$$$$$.

The arguments that BYU and Utah aren't good enough academically, athletically, whatever, are meaningless. Playing a more competitive schedule, consistently beating Pac-10/BCS teams, improving attendence, doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is whether expanding the Pac-10 is in the best self-interest of the current members of the conference, that is, whether it will put more $$$$$$ in their pockets.

Just as the Arizona schools did when they joined the Pac-8, BYU and Utah would quickly become just as competitive in the Pac-10 as any current member.

Cytrixx | 9:40 a.m. July 7, 2008

I always laugh when this comes up! Every year PAC 10 fans clamor that BYU will not do well in their conference but we consistently beat them in all sports except Basketball and are 50/50 in football. We never give credence to the other sports because they arent the money makers but they would make the Pac 10 stronger. As for the education aspect of it the Pac 10 schools do have the research money and sharing would be difficult but BYU and Utah does its share of research. The bottom line overall is sharing money.

Ratman | 9:47 a.m. July 7, 2008

Tuffy Parker and Phoney Baloney are right on the mark.

All this other talk is beside the point. Cosmo, censorship is not the reason for exclusion, nor are competitiveness, academics and the rest.

Get over it. Utah and BYU are stuck on the outside.

To the Big 12 | 9:47 a.m. July 7, 2008

As long as we are dreaming, I would much rather see BYU play in the Big 12 rather than in the PAC 1+9.

FRAZZLE | 9:49 a.m. July 7, 2008

I think people are a little too optimistic that a play-off system would somehow make the college football post season fair for everyone. NCAA sports take care of the big conferences. If a playoff system were created, it would still heavily favor the big 6. BYU and Utah would still in some way be on the outside looking in. In other words discussions about these two schools joining the PAC 10 would still go on and on.

motivation | 9:49 a.m. July 7, 2008

Until there is a compelling motivation to expand, the PAC 10 will never do it. Its not personal, its just that the current set up already works so well. Why mess with a good thing?

Funny comments | 9:51 a.m. July 7, 2008

It's funny to read all the BYU / Utah fans here writing about how some teams in the Pac-10 only have good years only some times. This is what's referred to as "the pot calling the kettle black". Yes, BYU has won games against Pac-10 teams in recent years but that doesn't automatically mean they'd be competitive as a member year in and year out. And yes they beat Oregon in a bowl game ... after Dixon was out for the season. Give me a break.

BYU will get their chance to show how awesome they are on Sept 12, 2009, when they come to Tempe to play the glorious Sun Devils. (I wonder why, in their awesomeness BYU agreed to be an early season lackey to ASU.)

Page:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Next >

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.