Comments about ‘Red roundup: Was Pac-10 expansion worth it?’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, May 11 2011 12:00 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Salt Lake City, UT

All commenters should note from the get go that Jon Wilner, although a good writer, has been looking for a reason that the Pac 10 should not have expanded from the get go. He is still yet to find one, so hopefully he buries this hatchet.

If you use his logic he presents here, the Pac 8 should have never expanded to the Pac 10. Read Wilner's blog comments, and you'll see there are a lot of people who are fans of the Pac that are all for the expansion.

Joe Schmoe
Orem, UT

It's going to be an interesting year for Utah.

Salt Lake City, UT

Wilner's math does not add up. $50 million divided by 12 is $4.16 million in added value per team per year by adding CU and U of U. Even if you back out the $14 million for the championship game you are left with an added value of $3 million per team at minimum.
Wilner has been all over this story but it seems he is bending his own numbers to lessen the value.

Doylestown, PA

I was pleased that the PAC 10 decided to expand, but disappointed that BYU was not included. It would have been more logical than adding Colorado whose long time tradition looked eastward.

Nampa, ID

I like that there was an expansion. I was having a hard time watching the pac-10, but since utah was added I have more incentive to do so now. I know BYU is said to have the mormon following, but Utah has so many mormon fans that they'll have fans every where they go and they will tune in when televised. Colorado has a great tradition that will get a boost from this move. I think everyone in the PAC benefits from this.

Highland, UT

Well if wilner is correct and it increased the value to each school by $800,000 then it was probably worth it. The shear size of the tv payout to all of the schools in the pac10 makes that seem like a pittance but when you consider that all any of the mwc teams get from the mountain is 1.2 mil per year $800,000 is alot of money. That is also as much as most low tier bowl payouts per team. So yes based on that you would have to say it was worth it so long as the entire reason for it was to maximize the dollars each school receives.

Now does it help tv ratings? That is certainly up for debate. Does it increase the strength of the conference in athletics? That is debatable as well. Will the other pac10 schools eventually regret it? That remains to be seen.

But based on dollars received for this current deal then yes it looks like it was the right thing to do. Especially once the big12 teams rejected them since they needed to try and save some face after that embarrassment.

Cedar Hills, UT

It was worth it for the U and Colorado! Both schools are rollen in the dough now. If I were one of the other original pac 10 schools I would see my normal payout go down because of the expansion.

Frisco, TX

Let's be honest . . . PAC10 really wanted the University of Texas and were willing to expand to a 12 or possibly 16 team conference to get them. The singular goal with expansion was University of Texas, not Colorado or Utah.

They offered Colorado first because they knew Colorado would accept. PAC10 hoped that with Nebraska and Colorado leaving the Big12, Texas would feel compelled to move with fear of the conference falling apart.

When Texas rebuffed the PAC10, it didn't make sense to stick with an 11 team conference. They had to find a 12th team to at least get a conference championship game, and we all know Utah was selected.

Let's be honest, if the PAC10 AD's and Presidents had known that expansion was only Colorado and Utah, none of them would have been in favor. Neither school is responsible for the huge TV contract. Financial this expansion hurts the other schools. USC (and maybe others) are already asking for a higher percentage of the new TV deal with the threat of exploring independence or another conference.

This is not intended to be a knock against Utah, just a summary of the facts.

Murray, UT


I like you and I was really enjoying your positive post for a change and then came this, "Especially once the big12 teams rejected them since they needed to try and save some face after that embarrassment." You always have to get in at least one negative zinger don't you?

I did appreciate your candor recently on how BYU funds its outstanding athletic facilities with big time help from the LDS Church. That was a real eye opener for me.

Danbury, CT

Utah was an afterthought in this although they have made themselves interesting with 2 big BCS wins and Final 4 appearance. I didn't realize WSU, OSU and UA were huge research institutions. I've been around and over recruiting in several multinationals (including big Pharma) and these schools never jump out for their research reputation. I think it is a smoke screen for the University Presidents' bias vs. Mormons. Research prowess is never mentioned in any other BCS conference. Give me a break!!!!

Murray, UT


I guess the old adage is true that if you repeat something often enough it will suddenly become a fact. This has been covered ad nausea but here it goes again: In the end, all that matters is that there were only two possible scenarios and they both included Utah. Utah was in, no matter which way it would have played out. If Texas said no it was going to be the PAC-12 with Utah and Colorado. If Texas said yes it was going to be the PAC-16 with Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Utah, and Colorado. Texas A&M was NEVER going to join the PAC under any circumstances, so it's irrelevant to consider an impossible scenario. Again, Texas A&M was not coming and Scott knew that. The only scenarios that were ever actually possible were PAC-16 with Utah or PAC-12 with Utah. Scott was never going to invite Kansas. That was a rumor of desperation floated by the Kansas athletic department and was never going to happen. Can we put this issue to rest now?

Eagle Mountain, UT

Utah especially came out smelling good on this one. Whatever the reason, it happened and it will be huge for them. If they can take advantage of the chance they have received and place in the top 3 in Football and eventually in Bball, they should be able to build a top notch program.
Good luck to them.

Veritas Aequitas
Fruit Heights, UT

This is an example of Win-Win.

PAC got the money from the championship game, and Utah received the money from the PAC TV contract.

Both sides win.

Now, Utah needs to produce on the field and they have the upside of exposure, the Rosebowl, and recruiting, and never have to travel to Laramie again.

Nobody can kid anyone on this one. Utah was the only viable option for Larry Scott. The BCS wins and research facilities put them in the position to be here.

Utah deserves it.

Salt Lake City, UT

You are not correct, The Pac was going to expand with or without Texas. The Texas angle was not being persued until the Big 12 started to self destruct. Texas then became the big fish and Utah took a back seat. With that said many national articles at the time stated that even if Texas went to the Pac 12 / 16 the Pac did not want Kstate, Kansas (kansas committed to kstate to not leave them), Mizzou, Baylor, Texas Tech, Iowa State. Nebraska went to the Big 10 and Colorado was in the PAC to be joined by Texas, Texas A&M, OKLA, OKLA State and Utah.

WSU, OSU, and UofA are very large land grant, state universities that are research institutions, similar to most schools in the conference, Fact.
"Bias vs. Mormons" = sour grapes. Don't be a victim

Cottonwood Heights, UT

"USC (and maybe others) are already asking for a higher percentage of the new TV deal with the threat of exploring independence or another conference."

Is this a "summary of the facts."

care to show us any credible source from USC or any other PAC 10 school thats saying this for the record?

Saint George, UT

San Jose Mercury News writer...

San Jose St. is in the PAC 12?

When San Jose St. becomes a member of the the PAC 12 (13,14,15,16), Wilner will have an opinion that matters.

Until that happens, go back to the WAC...

Magna Ute Fan
Magna, UT

Wow. Duckhunter and TJ seem so reasonable and non-provocative today. How refreshing.

Iowa City, IA

Veritas: ditto.

As far as "worth it": only time will tell. Of course, it's guys like Wilner who are supposed to analyze in depth. But his article? How is that even printable? It's neither entertaining nor practical...I made it half-way through and said "why am I reading this?" (much like you are doing with my post right about now). He's going a long, long, long way to prove a point that's well, pointless.

Let's look at the SEC. They expanded to 12 by adding Arkansas and South Carolina. Neither have won the conference, though the Hogs went to a BCS bowl last year. But it would be hard to argue that their addition has hurt a conference that was already pretty strong. By creating the divisions and the conference championship game, the BCS era became (ahem, as much as I can't stand it) the SEC era.

The PAC-12/Larry Scott, as well as Delaney/Big-10, are simply copying a business model that has worked before.

My hunch is that it will work out just fine.

Sherwood, OR

Dutchman, gonefishn-

Yeah sure, the PAC10 started expansion saying, "Let's get Utah and anyone else that will come." The truth is all the hot chicks said no so we got what we got. The PAC10 knew they could offer Utah a can of Alpo and they'd come running. Frankly, no one in Oregon is excited about Utah and Colorado joining at the expense of our teams losing the yearly USC/UCLA home and home matchups. While the TV deal is great, we could have ended up with more per team without expansion. The games they will televise pretty much shows how much TV execs think the two newbies will add to the bottom line; one for Colorado (against USC) and zilch for Utah.

Springville, UT

"Wow. Duckhunter and TJ seem so reasonable and non-provocative today. How refreshing."


"The truth is all the hot chicks said no so we got what we got. The PAC10 knew they could offer Utah a can of Alpo and they'd come running."

LOL x 10

Funniest comment yet on the expansion... from a PAC-10 perspective.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments