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
Farmington, UT

It's a fact that Utah was #12 of 12 when making up the PAC 12. How can you say they were "always in" the mix when there was a hesitation before they were officially invited? They are tied for last place with the smallest stadium in the PAC 12. In fact, they don't even have the largest stadium in Utah although it is bigger than USU's. Colorado fans are into the Broncos, Nuggetts and Rockies. I don't see or hear about any of them drooling over the Buffs and their lousy program. So I guess maybe the PAC 12 got a championship game, a great TV deal and two new "botton feeders." It remains to be proven differently on a week-to-week basis that the Utes can play with the big boys and not just win a bowl game where they were overlooked by the competition. Last year they got lucky in 4 games and showed their weakness against a few better teams. Good luck in the PAC 12--hope it was worth the money because that's all either you or they got out of it.

Salt Lake City, UT

A True Summary Of Facts:
1) One team from Utah is a Pac 12 member.
2) The other team will never progress if it can't let go of #1

Farmington, UT

@ Moderate:

I agree with you. Utah is in the PAC 12 and USU should just forget about playing them.

Oh, you meant BYU? I think they have split with the Utes. I see no reason to continue the (new) rivalry game as BYU has nothing to gain by playing it. Or the other (old) rivalry game (U of U vs USU) for that matter. BYU used to be able to brag that they stopped Utah from winning a conference championship, or visa versa, but the historical members of the PAC 12 will do that now each year in a fairly routine manner. No one else need apply, except Colorado. They need to beat Utah as badly as Utah will need to beat them.

Highland, UT


That really wasn't a knock on Utah although I can see how you took it that way. The rejection by Texas and the other Big12 schools was an embarrassment to the pac10 as they fancy themselves the ultimate conference. Taking Utah was in part, not completely but in part, to save face from that rejection.

But ultimately it doesn't matter because it went the way it went and Utah is now a pac10 member and will get all of the benefits of that membership. If wilner is correct then it is undeniable that the additions of Utah and colorado add monetary value so whatever the anciliary reasons for all that happened really are ultimately Utah and colorado have earned inclusion.

But I do believe the rejection from the Big12 schools was an ebarrassment for the pac10 but they still seem to have bounced back nicely.

South Jordan, UT


Who cares what you think? Is Oregon one of the PAC 12 elite?The 9-15 bowl record is very impressive. How many bcs bowls has Oregon won? I can count the victory on one finger. For an elite program, your record against Utah or BYU for that matter is not impressive either. Not as elite as most would think The dogs from Utah have actually accomplished more with less. Without Phil Knight, Oregon would simply be no better than Eugene Community College. Utah may be a dog right now but our dogs will be more competitive than most of the conference of champions. Won't it be fun having Stanford playing in snow on December 7 for the championship?

Murray, UT


"no one in Oregon is excited about Utah and Colorado joining"

Well, at least two people are excited, the Presidents of Oregon and Oregon State Universities who voted to admit Utah and Colorado.

By the way, Utah and Colorado have been in the expansion talks for your conference since the days when Tom Hanson was your commissioner. Just be glad that a state with 3.5 million people like yours has two PAC 12 teams as members.

Frisco, TX

@ dutchman and gonefishn

You were both close, but you both missed it. The PAC16 expansion included Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Colorado. When Big12 was formed, Texas legislature forced the conference to take Baylor over TCU. They were very clear this time around that Baylor would again stay in the same conference as Texas.

Again, this is not a knock on Utah. I'm sure that any school from a non-AQ conference would accept an invitation to join the PAC12. I'm just saying that I don't think the PAC10 ADs and Presidents would have approved expansion if they knew they would only end up with Colorado and Utah. The wanted Texas and the treasure chest that would have come with it.

Whether you want to believe it or not, Colorado and Utah are also not the reason for the huge TV deal. The only thing these schools bring (financially) is the opportunity for a conference championship game and the money that comes with it.

Murray, UT


You are spinning the same refrain that has been discredited for several months now. My information comes from the stellar reporting of Chip Brown of Austin, Texas who covers the Big 12-2. His reporting on how the whole expansion thing went down between the PAC 10 and Big 12 was based on several interviews with the Texas AD DeLoss Dodds and all the AD's in the Big 12. But I have learned that fans like yourself will keep spinning it your way regardless of more accurate reporting because you want to believe what you want to believe. I stand by my posted comment because it agrees with what Chip Brown reported. The other fact is that the PAC 10 presidents were considering Utah and Colorado for expansion back in 2004 and that is based on statements made by former PAC 10 commissioner Tom Hanson. The deals are done. There is a PAC 12. Utah and Colorado are in. You need to move on.

Salt Lake City, UT


Not according to Chip Brown, from orangebloods. He was one of the closest reporters to the deal and said Utah always had a seat.

Also, the Pac 10 presidents approved each expansion scenario, so they knew that Utah Colorado as additions was a possibility, and unanimously approved it. This is all information that has been out there for almost 1 year. Please educate yourself on it.


There is evidence that the Pac 10 had been considering adding Utah for several years. Isn't it possible that Larry Scott decided to "swing for the fences" by offering Texas a spot in response to the quickly-changing landscape in the Big 12 (Nebraska moving to the Big 10, and Colorado committing to come West)?

I'm a lifelong Utah fan, but I admit freely that Texas would have been a better addition to the Pac 10 than Utah. According to several sites, the Longhorns are the "most valuable" NCAA football team - they would be more desirable than ANY TEAM, to any conference.

The possibility that the Pac 10 may have factored in weakening the quickly improving MWC in their decision-making is something I had not considered. It is an interesting theory.

Frisco, TX

Since I can't add links on here, please research LA Times, June 9, 2010 article title Pac-10 poised to become 16-team conference. You will see that Utah was not part of planned Pac-16. There are direct quotes from Larry Scott, not a reporter.

After you've read it, and recognize that I am correct, I will be happy to move on.

Salt Lake City, UT

CougFaninTX, you shouldn't lie and give a good way to look up your reference.

I did google the LA times blog post by Chris Dufresne, "Pac-10 poised to become 16-team conference."

There was not a single direct quote from Larry Scott. The closest that it came to was the blogger saying, "Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott said last week that the league was working on possibilities that could be revolutionary."

CougfanTX, you are just ANOTHER cougar fan who is willing to lie to attempt to make Utah look bad.

Frisco, TX

@daedalus10, I'm not sure why you and some of your friends are so defensive about this issue. I'm not trying make Utah look bad. I'm just stating a fact that Utah was not part of the original 6 teams planned for PAC16 expansion. Think about it . . . if Utah was at the top of their list regardless of whether it was to be a 12 or 16 team conference, they would have gotten an invite at the same time as Colorado.

Here's another article if you didn't believe the LA Times article. Please google, Pac-10 Conference poised to invite 6 Big 12 Conference teams
and read the ESPN article.

Salt Lake City, ut

Dude Baylor was never apart of the deal what are you talking about? The PAC would never allow a faith based university in like Baylor. Thats the biggest reason why byu wasnt invited. You can thank Stanford for that cougar fans.
Also your sources arent very good. Did you read the last part of the LA Times? It says even if Texas and others decide to stay in the Big 12, the Pac-10 would still make a move to expand by two schools sources.
Utah has been on there radar for a long time, Scott knew that Texas A&M would not join the conference because of offer from the SEC. Utah would have been apart of the super conference. I am not most like Ute fans I would have liked byu coming over with Utah it would have been great for both schools but again because its owned by the church it was a huge no from the officials at Stanford.

Frisco, TX

Two hundred words is not enough for the full story that was spread over many weeks, and many proposals.

PAC16 - The first proposal (probably from Texas) was for Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Baylor, UO, and OK ST. PAC wouldn't take Baylor and made the switch / offer for Colorado. That move was probably the demise of the possibility of the PAC16, because Texas legislature was going to put up a fight to keep Baylor with Texas. Texas A&M was then being lured by SEC, and Utah become the possible replacement.

When PAC16 fell through, Colorado had already been offered. PAC12 still wanted Texas (with Colorado). When Texas rebuffed, Utah was offered and that's that.

Provo, UT

Of course it is worth it, why wouldn't it be! Especially when you are depended on others.

Cottonwood Heights, UT

BluCoug I think the word your looking for is dependent, I guess the PAC10 was right about BYU academically.

to comment

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