5 not-so-obvious moments in Utah's Pac-12 invitation

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Utah'95 FPO, AE
    July 5, 2011 5:42 a.m.

    It's in vogue to predict that power teams like Texas and USC will leave their conferences and become independents, but I don't think it will happen.

    Most of us agree that money is one of, if not THE key factor. Last year, ESPN reported that Texas was second only to Alabama for the amount of money generated in athletics. Since then, the Big 12 agreed to let them take more than an equal share of the conference money AND to allow UT to start their own sports network.

    The Longhorns just got richer.

    USC was already in the top 15% of earners in NCAA athletics. As a member of the Pac-12, they just got richer because of the conference's new lucerative TV deal.

    The Trojans just got richer.

    BYU increased their TV revenue significantly by partnering with ESPN as a football independent. But with the new TV deals that Texas and USC have in place, there isn't the same amount of upside for them in becoming independents.

    Good luck, Utes. You are in a great position. Make the most of it.

    Good luck, Cougars. I'm anxious to see how the independence experiment works out.

  • JDL Magna, UT
    July 4, 2011 7:42 p.m.

    I have to agree with Sammyg on this one. I expect there will be several independent football universities in the next 4-5 years and that will be sufficient to have a great late October and November schedule.

    To date there are 4 independents. U of Texas is next with Oklahoma close behind then USC and Nebraska for a total of 6 high quality programs. I expect AFA will also bail the MWC to join the other Service academies in a TV deal making a total of 9 independents.

    Call me crazy but the final bust for the BCS will be a BYU / Notre Dame NC game.

  • sammyg Springville, UT
    July 4, 2011 1:33 p.m.


    To answer your question, I doubt it but we will never know will we? And what difference does it make?

    Independence as opposed to staying in the MWC? That's a no brainer.

    Much criticism has been stated over these next couple of seasons with the cupcakes that will come to LES. Hastily put together schedules with little option for anything else but there are some very good quality teams to play on the road.

    Better to play cupcakes than be one! Right Utah?

  • '90Cougar Hampstead, NC
    July 4, 2011 4:07 a.m.

    Bluto, Sammyg, and ThomasJefferson,

    Would BYU have turned down an invitation from the Pac-10?

  • TJ Eagle Mountain, UT
    July 2, 2011 12:54 a.m.

    Great article. Not the same old garbage but some new information that helps make the wait for football bearable.

  • sammyg Springville, UT
    July 1, 2011 9:02 p.m.


    BYU's particular demographics made it an easy transition to independence. Others will follow.

    Once the BCS is either busted up or forced to create a true championship series you will see others bail on their conferences and seek stronger SOS through an independent schedule.

    After BYU gets through these first two seasons there will be a sharp increase in the SOS.

  • aljmac Salt Lake City, UT
    July 1, 2011 8:42 p.m.

    Bluto, nice bit of speculative non-history you have there.

    As long as we're throwing out baseless theories, I believe Utah was always part of the plan. That is, Utah and CU were always going to come in as a pair--at 12 OR 16. In the PAC, where geographical pairs are the lifeblood of the conference, who was he going to pair CU up with? TT? Baylor? Wrong, and wrong again. While it's all speculation, I think Utah was more in the plan on Scott's side of the table than was being reported by UT's puppets. Scott knew Utah was more valuable than TT or Baylor once he already had the big fish of UT and OU (and a partner for each).

    But, we'll never know. Unless you want to believe everything that came out of the UT side was gospel truth. What reason is there to believe that? They were only half the equation. Scott was the one holding the cards all along. Want to know why? Let's see if UT and OU are in the PAC anyway in 10 years, or so.

  • tdlawton Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 1, 2011 6:46 p.m.

    Hmm I think Bluto is a loyal fan, but not a fan of the University of Utah.

    I to think a local University has fans that seem to suffer from delusions of grander, but I don't think it is Ute fans.

    I would say that the "Titanic mentality" is more likely held by the folks that think the entire College Football world is going to bend to their "independence."

  • Bluto Sandy, UT
    July 1, 2011 6:15 p.m.

    If Baylor had been accepted with the addition of 6 Big-12 Teams to the Pac 10 Conference, Utah is still in the MWC.

    Once Commisioner Scott realized that a Religious School like Baylor was in the mix, and the untenable position that created for the School Presidents, Scott then pre-emptively invited Colorado, as to wedge Baylor from the discussion.

    What Scott did not factor in, was the fact, that the Texas Legislature was not about to let Texas or any other State school go anywhere without Baylor.

    Gov. Richards pulled a similiar stunt when BYU was in the original mix of the New Big-12 Conference.

    Once Scott overplayed his hand, excluding Baylor, the other Texas schools were a no go as per the Texas Legislature. It was only then that Utah became the last choice for the backup plan of 12.

    Ironically Utah can thank a Faith Based School for their invitation.

    Utes need to understand, simply belonging is not enough. Vanderbilt, Baylor, Wazzu, Iowa State, Northwestern, Rutgers, South Florida, UConn, Indiana etc. also belong.

    And nobody considers them Elite either.

    Titanic's maiden voyage had her partiers also, like Titanic, the Utes are headed for an Iceberg.