PDA

View Full Version : BYU, Utah to the PAC-12



The Rambam
12-08-2008, 04:30 PM
http://www.sportsbybrooks.com/utah-byu-brings-pac-12-football-into-21st-century-21278

Talking about the Portland paper article you have seen, this commentary is different, and even more positive for BYU.

He has Boise St. and Fresno St. going to the Mtn. West to replace the Utah losses.

I think the MWC should also grab Nevada, UTEP and Houston to make another 12 team league which would be BCS caliber.

Heck, if BYU and Utah don't get invites to the PAC-10, I think the MWC should add Boise St., Nevada and Houston and have a 12 team league.

SeattleUte
12-08-2008, 04:32 PM
Something I've never gotten a straight answer to, would Colorado go to the Pac 10 if invited?

TripletDaddy
12-08-2008, 04:34 PM
So in other words, nothing new to report on this topic.

SeattleUte
12-08-2008, 04:36 PM
So in other words, nothing new to report on this topic.

Can you give me a straight answer to my question?

TripletDaddy
12-08-2008, 04:40 PM
Can you give me a straight answer to my question?

My comment was not directed at you, fyi.

But no, I cannot. How in the world can anyone on a message board answer that question?

My best guess is that Colorado has no reason to move to the PAC10. It is fine just where it is now. Switching laterally won't turn Colorado into a juggernaut.

However, BYU and Utah moving to the PAC would drastically alter everything about those schools, at least athletically. It would be an epic event for both Utah schools.

SeattleUte
12-08-2008, 04:42 PM
My comment was not directed at you, fyi.

But no, I cannot. How in the world can anyone on a message board answer that question?

My best guess is that Colorado has no reason to move to the PAC10. It is fine just where it is now. Switching laterally won't turn Colorado into a juggernaut.

However, BYU and Utah moving to the PAC would drastically alter everything about those schools, at least athletically. It would be an epic event for both Utah schools.

I think if there were a strong second team the Pac 10 would take Utah. I don't think BYU is a candidate because of history like Prop 8 and also its weak reputation for research and graduate schools. You can call this bigotry or irrelevance all you want but it matters to the people making the decisions, i.e., the academic administrators.

That's why I ask.

TripletDaddy
12-08-2008, 04:49 PM
I think if there were a strong second team the Pac 10 would take Utah. I don't think BYU is a candidate because of history like Prop 8 and also its weak reputation for research and graduate schools. You can call this bigotry or irrelevance all you want but it matters to the people making the decisions, i.e., the academic administrators.

That's why I ask.

Well, unless the PAC breaks with its geographic approach, then adding Utah and Colorado makes no sense. The PAC has gradually expanded, pretty much always adding pairs. The AZ schools are the most recent example.

BYU is definitely a candidate. The PAC schedules games with BYU annually...in fact, multiple times a year.

The academics issue I won't indulge because your premise is silly.

venkman
12-08-2008, 04:58 PM
Good to see the "I cant, I'm Mormon" girl again.

She's hot.

Solon
12-08-2008, 05:02 PM
The PAC has gradually expanded, pretty much always adding pairs.

Who knows? Give it 30 years and it'll be Utah State and UVU.

The Rambam
12-08-2008, 05:18 PM
Something I've never gotten a straight answer to, would Colorado go to the Pac 10 if invited?

I think the probably would go with Utah if asked. JMHO, but I would rather face Oregon and USC as the top teams in my conference than try to run through Nebraska, Texas, aTm, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, OkSt, Kansas, and KState every year. Your chance of a bowl game are much higher in the PAC10 than in the BIG12 IMHO.

Plus, lots of travel to California and Arizona instead of those depressing trips to Manhattan Kansas and Lincoln Nebraska and Lubbock Texas.

This wouldn't be a tough call for me if I were Colorado.

Texas would never leave--to deep of rivals with OK and aTm. But Colorado just might jump.

I personally think if the PAC 10 wants to add two teams they offer Colorado and Utah. Why take on the religious baggage that comes along with BYU?

The BIG12 might take BYU, but probably wouldn't and instead add TCU or Houston or UTEP or Memphis instead.

But the MWC would then add Boise St., Fresno St., Nevada and Houston/Hawaii and be a BCS conference anyway. That wouldn't be the best case, but acceptable from where I sit.

ERCougar
12-08-2008, 05:23 PM
Well, unless the PAC breaks with its geographic approach, then adding Utah and Colorado makes no sense. The PAC has gradually expanded, pretty much always adding pairs. The AZ schools are the most recent example.

BYU is definitely a candidate. The PAC schedules games with BYU annually...in fact, multiple times a year.

The academics issue I won't indulge because your premise is silly.

Why is his premise silly? It seems like it comes up every time this issue's discussed in any depth. I hope it's silly, as I would LOVE to join the PAC 10.

SteelBlue
12-08-2008, 05:24 PM
Didn't Colorado turn down the Pac-10 once before?

TripletDaddy
12-08-2008, 05:31 PM
Why is his premise silly? It seems like it comes up every time this issue's discussed in any depth. I hope it's silly, as I would LOVE to join the PAC 10.

His premise that BYU's academics are inferior to Utah's academics.

Utah is a crappy state school with no admissions standard.

BYU is a decent private school with high admissions standards but little academic freedom in the arts.

The PAC is an athletic conference, not an academic conference. If academics were an issue, AZ, U of A, WSU......they would not be in there. And if Prop 8 were an issue, the PAC would stop scheduling games against us.

ERCougar
12-08-2008, 05:49 PM
His premise that BYU's academics are inferior to Utah's academics.

Utah is a crappy state school with no admissions standard.

BYU is a decent private school with high admissions standards but little academic freedom in the arts.

The PAC is an athletic conference, not an academic conference. If academics were an issue, AZ, U of A, WSU......they would not be in there. And if Prop 8 were an issue, the PAC would stop scheduling games against us.

Isn't the issue graduate/research programs and academic freedom issues (more specifically, the latter)?

Regarding Prop 8, scheduling us yearly is very different from embracing us as one of their own.

I'm honestly not sure why or if any of these issues should matter to an athletic conference, and maybe they don't, but there are many things about California that I don't understand. :)

TripletDaddy
12-08-2008, 05:58 PM
Isn't the issue graduate/research programs and academic freedom issues (more specifically, the latter)?

Regarding Prop 8, scheduling us yearly is very different from embracing us as one of their own.

I'm honestly not sure why or if any of these issues should matter to an athletic conference, and maybe they don't, but there are many things about California that I don't understand. :)

These are definitely the core issues.......according to people on internet message boards.

Since most of these folks have not yet spoken to the Chancellors or Regents about this, I wouldn't put too much stock in what they say.

Like you said, the PAC is an athletic conference. It doesn't matter what BYU's law school rank is. It doesn't matter that Utah has a medical school.

Again, the notion that superior academics are a requirement are completely blown out of the water when you look at the PACs current alignment as well as its most recent expansion. The 2 AZ schools do not fit the criteria of academic powerhouses, nor does WSU or OSU. Oregon and a tier below Washington, imo. At the top of the PAC heap, you have SC/UCLA, and then Cal and Stanford. The top 4 are miles away from the rest in terms of academics and reputation.

I am simply pointing out the to opine that the PAC cares about academics and then to mention Utah but not BYU is basically a joke. Or, silly.

ERCougar
12-08-2008, 06:06 PM
These are definitely the core issues.......according to people on internet message boards.

Since most of these folks have not yet spoken to the Chancellors or Regents about this, I wouldn't put too much stock in what they say.

Like you said, the PAC is an athletic conference. It doesn't matter what BYU's law school rank is. It doesn't matter that Utah has a medical school.

Again, the notion that superior academics are a requirement are completely blown out of the water when you look at the PACs current alignment as well as its most recent expansion. The 2 AZ schools do not fit the criteria of academic powerhouses, nor does WSU or OSU. Oregon and a tier below Washington, imo. At the top of the PAC heap, you have SC/UCLA, and then Cal and Stanford. The top 4 are miles away from the rest in terms of academics and reputation.

I am simply pointing out the to opine that the PAC cares about academics and then to mention Utah but not BYU is basically a joke. Or, silly.

I hope you're right. Because I don't see the academic freedom issue at BYU being solved any time soon.

SteelBlue
12-08-2008, 07:22 PM
I noticed while perusing the UA board today that some posters were referring to BYU and Utah as future conference mates. I've never seen that before. One poster was saying "I'm going to hate having BYU in this conference as much as I hate ASU." What is spurring such talk outside of the usual delusional Y/U fans?

HuskyFreeNorthwest
12-08-2008, 09:16 PM
http://www.sportsbybrooks.com/utah-byu-brings-pac-12-football-into-21st-century-21278

Talking about the Portland paper article you have seen, this commentary is different, and even more positive for BYU.

He has Boise St. and Fresno St. going to the Mtn. West to replace the Utah losses.

I think the MWC should also grab Nevada, UTEP and Houston to make another 12 team league which would be BCS caliber.

Heck, if BYU and Utah don't get invites to the PAC-10, I think the MWC should add Boise St., Nevada and Houston and have a 12 team league.

Why does the P10 want to expand? Perhaps USC does because of the boost that the false conf championship games gives you at the end of the year. But for the other 8 schools that aren't in LA why do they want to give up a trip to LA every year? For money? Maybe WSU, nobody else.

I don't see the P10 wanting to water down the conf to make more money. When I look at the football and basketball rosters of ASU, UA, Stanford, Cal, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington and WSU I see a lot of Southern California kids. You are going to tell 4 of those teams that "To bad you don't get that recruiting trip and hometown game for those LA kids anymore." Well there you go 4 votes against expansion.

Also the P10 already has a championship game, it just happens every week. That is what happens when you play a round robin football schedule.

SeattleUte
12-08-2008, 09:51 PM
The PAC is an athletic conference, not an academic conference.

Now this is downright silly. You're just wrong. The academic identity is integral to a conference's make up, at least for some of them. The Pac 10 and the Big Ten pay a ton of attention to the Ivy model.

Insofar as academics are concerned, it's not all about how hard or easy it is for freshmen to be admitted. In that regard, in any event BYU's admissions standards are no tougher or a lot less tough than Stanford, Cal, Washington, USC and UCLA. Utah's are comparable to the remaining four, and Utah's graduate programs and research surpass the Oregon schools and ASU. In any event, big public schools have a different mission than BYU.

And yes, the religious baggage is fatal to BYU. The Pac will never admit a school with no "academic freedom" in the arts and sciences. You're got to be kidding.

I didn't think anyone would even seriously debate the foregoing point.

SeattleUte
12-08-2008, 09:56 PM
These are definitely the core issues.......according to people on internet message boards.

Since most of these folks have not yet spoken to the Chancellors or Regents about this, I wouldn't put too much stock in what they say.

Like you said, the PAC is an athletic conference. It doesn't matter what BYU's law school rank is. It doesn't matter that Utah has a medical school.

Again, the notion that superior academics are a requirement are completely blown out of the water when you look at the PACs current alignment as well as its most recent expansion. The 2 AZ schools do not fit the criteria of academic powerhouses, nor does WSU or OSU. Oregon and a tier below Washington, imo. At the top of the PAC heap, you have SC/UCLA, and then Cal and Stanford. The top 4 are miles away from the rest in terms of academics and reputation.

I am simply pointing out the to opine that the PAC cares about academics and then to mention Utah but not BYU is basically a joke. Or, silly.

USC is a fine school but I think you've got red and gold glasses on. Washington is better academically by almost any measure. Take a look, for example, at the med school rankings. The depth and breadth of Washington's graduate programs in the arts and sciences far surpass USC's. UCS is nowhere near the other three California schools in academics.

SeattleUte
12-08-2008, 10:00 PM
3D, it's not about freshman test scores or admission rates. It's about culture, stupid. You're asking eight of the most powerful instutions in among the bluest states in the union (I'm ignoring the AZ schools for argument's sake) to ignore the LDS Church's history re gays, blacks, the lack of depth and freedom in the arts and sciences, the social conservativism, refusal to play on Suday, etc. BYU is anathema to them.

You need to bone up on history and become a student of the Maxwell talk.

Donuthole
12-08-2008, 10:06 PM
You need to bone up on history and become a student of the Maxwell talk.

Perhaps you need to bone up on cliches, because you seem to be overusing this one, of late.

TripletDaddy
12-08-2008, 10:07 PM
USC is a fine school but I think you've got red and gold glasses on. Washington is better academically by almost any measure. Take a look, for example, at the med school rankings. The depth and breadth of Washington's graduate programs in the arts and sciences far surpass USC's. UCS is nowhere near the other three California schools in academics.

COuld be, my point is not to rank SC vs the others. It is to illustrate the fallacy that academics dictate admission into the PAC.

I can point to the previous expansion from 6 to 8 (Oregon and OSU) and then 8 to 10 (UA and ASU)...all of those schools suck academically compared to the other members. Also, other schools such as Idaho and Montana used to be in the PAC.

Really, other than your own personal belief, you have nothing empirical that supports the notion that high academic standards are required to be admitted into the conference. I can point to the prior 2 expansions that debunk that lie.

Also, as I stated before, if high academic standards are required, then Utah is toast. And if academic freedom is an issue, than BYU is toast.

PS did you know the SC has the second largest research endowment in the entire PAC? I usually don't pay strict attention to your claims because you are often off or incorrect. Since you provided no real rankings other than the medical school for Washington, I will simply assume you are making up more stuff. I notice how you conveniently ignore law school rankings and MBA rankings (both of which are clearly higher than UW), Viterbi Engineering school rankings, and with regards to the arts, SC and NYU are the top film schools in the country. I know SC's accounting school is definitely ranked higher than UW. back to the drawing board, or at least provide some actual rankings.

TripletDaddy
12-08-2008, 10:11 PM
3D, it's not about freshman test scores or admission rates. It's about culture, stupid. You're asking eight of the most powerful instutions in among the bluest states in the union (I'm ignoring the AZ schools for argument's sake) to ignore the LDS Church's history re gays, blacks, the lack of depth and freedom in the arts and sciences, the social conservativism, refusal to play on Suday, etc. BYU is anathema to them.

You need to bone up on history and become a student of the Maxwell talk.

Of course you ignore the Arizona schools for argument's sake...the Arizona schools (the PAC's most recent expansion) fly in the face of your entire argument.

Nobody is arguing that BYU or Utah are better than Cal, Stanford, SC, UCLA, and even UW.

If the PAC wanted great academic culture, they would not have headed out to Tucson and, in particular, Phoenix.....a school whose admissions standards are almost as low as Utah's. And you know full well that pretty much anyone is admitted into the U.

SeattleUte
12-08-2008, 10:16 PM
COuld be, my point is not to rank SC vs the others. It is to illustrate the fallacy that academics dictate admission into the PAC.

I can point to the previous expansion from 6 to 8 (Oregon and OSU) and then 8 to 10 (UA and ASU)...all of those schools suck academically compared to the other members. Also, other schools such as Idaho and Montana used to be in the PAC.

Really, other than your own personal belief, you have nothing empirical that supports the notion that high academic standards are required to be admitted into the conference. I can point to the prior 2 expansions that debunk that lie.

Also, as I stated before, if high academic standards are required, then Utah is toast. And if academic freedom is an issue, than BYU is toast.

PS did you know the SC has the second largest research endowment in the entire PAC? I usually don't pay strict attention to your claims because you are often off or incorrect. Since you provided no real rankings other than the medical school for Washington, I will simply assume you are making up more stuff. I notice how you conveniently ignore law school rankings and MBA rankings (both of which are clearly higher than UW), Viterbi Engineering school rankings, and with regards to the arts, SC and NYU are the top film schools in the country. I know SC's accounting school is definitely ranked higher than UW. back to the drawing board, or at least provide some actual rankings.

As you see, even though BYU and USC are private schools, and they in theory ought score big points from more restrictive admissions standards, USC's college's ranking is not materially different from Washington's, and Utah's, Oregon's and WSU's are not materially different from BYU's:

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/college/national-search/c_final_tier+1

TripletDaddy
12-08-2008, 10:25 PM
As you see, even though BYU and USC are private schools, and they in theory ought score big points from more restrictive admissions standards, USC's college's ranking is not materially different from Washington's, and Utah's, Oregon's and WSU's are not materially different from BYU's:

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/college/national-search/c_final_tier+1


SC and UW are 27 and 41. You say they are not materially different.

SC and FUCLA are 25 and 27. You say they are miles apart.

Checkmate. Go to bed .

SeattleUte
12-08-2008, 10:50 PM
SC and UW are 27 and 41. You say they are not materially different.

SC and FUCLA are 25 and 27. You say they are miles apart.

Checkmate. Go to bed .

Among research institutions UCLA is no. 4 overall, and Washington is no. 8. Washington's annual research budget is $708 million, USC's is $445 million. Washington is ranked in the top 25 in 7 research categories, USC only 4. UCLA's annual research budget is $785 million, and it is in the top 25 in 7 categories.

USC is ranked no. 26 overall in research. Talking about USC's endowment is comparing apples to oranges because USC is private. UCS, as I said, is a fine school across the board, but only ranks no. 5-6 academically in the tough pac 10.

Arizona is ranked no. 20 overall in research, with a $534 million research budget.

http://mup.asu.edu/research2007.pdf

Paruse this report and you'll see that many of your assumptions, including about, say, Arizona, are wrong wrong wrong.

Utah by the way is more than respectable, ranked no. 63 overall, compared to, say, 167 for Oregon.

Like I said, it's about culture. BYU is nowhere to be found in this report. I can't hardly think of any four year schools in major conferences that aren't.

SeattleUte
12-09-2008, 08:55 AM
Just for good measure, here are the preeminent law school rankings using various objective criteria to render permutations:

http://www.leiterrankings.com/new/index.shtml

HuskyFreeNorthwest
12-09-2008, 09:04 AM
Just for good measure, here are the preeminent law school rankings using various objective criteria to render permutations:

http://www.leiterrankings.com/new/index.shtml

Are you using that link to argue for BYU as academic or against it? Since BYU is the highest MWC school on that list.

TripletDaddy
12-09-2008, 09:20 AM
Are you using that link to argue for BYU as academic or against it? Since BYU is the highest MWC school on that list.

Let me give you a tip about this board HFN. When SU and I are debating, and nobody else is commenting, that means that they agree with me.

Donuthole
12-09-2008, 09:49 AM
Let me give you a tip about this board HFN. When SU and I are debating, and nobody else is commenting, that means that they agree with me.

Lol. Almost as funny as the first time I heard that.

Jeff Lebowski
12-09-2008, 10:03 AM
At the risk of hijacking the SU-DDD debate (which I am enjoying immensely), can someone please explain to me why the PAC-10 would want to expand to 12 teams?

Surfah
12-09-2008, 10:06 AM
At the risk of hijacking the SU-DDD debate (which I am enjoying immensely), can someone please explain to me why the PAC-10 would want to expand to 12 teams?

To add a championship game like all the other conferences.

il Padrino Ute
12-09-2008, 10:06 AM
At the risk of hijacking the SU-DDD debate (which I am enjoying immensely), can someone please explain to me why the PAC-10 would want to expand to 12 teams?

They don't want to do it. Not at all.

But I think that the other BCS conferences will eventually put pressure on the PAC 10 to do so, as well as pressure on the Big 10 to expand. All for conference championship sake.

il Padrino Ute
12-09-2008, 10:08 AM
To add a championship game like all the other conferences.

Interesting you say that. I think the PAC 10 doesn't want to expand because it doesn't want a conference championship game.

TripletDaddy
12-09-2008, 10:08 AM
At the risk of hijacking the SU-DDD debate (which I am enjoying immensely), can someone please explain to me why the PAC-10 would want to expand to 12 teams?

In the past several years, SC has been bumped out of the championship game picture when a championship game in the final weekend could have really helped the cause immensely. Oregon, as well.

Also, there has been some talk in SEC and B12 circles that it is unfair that SC perennialy challenges for the title while not having to play a dangerous championship game in the final weekend, like others have to play.

But those really are the reasons I have heard discussed.

TripletDaddy
12-09-2008, 10:10 AM
Interesting you say that. I think the PAC 10 doesn't want to expand because it doesn't want a conference championship game.

In the case of the Pac, a championship game is redundant. All the teams already play each other. What is the point of replaying a game every year?

The difference between the PAC and B12 and SEC is that all the teams don't play each other.

It would be interesting to hear someone articulate a good reason in favor of a championship game when all the teams already play each other. Does the MWC need a championship game? What for?

il Padrino Ute
12-09-2008, 10:13 AM
In the case of the Pac, a championship game is redundant. All the teams already play each other. What is the point of replaying a game every year?

The difference between the PAC and B12 and SEC is that all the teams don't play each other.

It would be interesting to hear someone articulate a good reason in favor of a championship game when all the teams already play each other. Does the MWC need a championship game? What for?

I'm not saing the PAC 10 needs a championship game. I believe it doesn't want one and will only expand because of pressure from other conferences to do so and that reason would be to force the PAC 10 into having a championship game.

TripletDaddy
12-09-2008, 10:16 AM
I'm not saing the PAC 10 needs a championship game. I believe it doesn't want one and will only expand because of pressure from other conferences to do so and that reason would be to force the PAC 10 into having a championship game.

The PAC doesnt want to expand because it wants to keep revenue distribution as is, instead of thinning the pie.

There is no fear of a championship game. this makes no sense as a conference. Regardless of a championship game, the PAC still gets an autobid because someone from the PAC has to win the championship game. It isnt like a champ game will result in no PAC team getting into the big money bowls.

SipiTau
12-09-2008, 10:16 AM
I'm not saing the PAC 10 needs a championship game. I believe it doesn't want one and will only expand because of pressure from other conferences to do so and that reason would be to force the PAC 10 into having a championship game.

I think you'll see the PAC 10 pull out of the BCS before it expands & adds a championship game.

SeattleUte
12-09-2008, 10:19 AM
DDD, here are the med school rankings. See the Pac has four in the top ten. Washington is no. 6 in research and no. 1 in primary care. Utah is in an elite class here. Clearly strong Pac 10 academics is not a California phenomenon.

http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/grad/med/search/

TripletDaddy
12-09-2008, 10:26 AM
DDD, here are the med school rankings. See the Pac has four in the top ten. Washington is no. 6 in research and no. 1 in primary care. Utah is in an elite class here. Clearly strong Pac 10 academics is not a California phenomenon.

http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/grad/med/search/

I've already mentioned the U med school, which is a great program.

Are you now simply trying to prove UW's academic credentials? Because you are doing a lousy job proving that Utah and BYU are not in the same academic class as PAC 10 schools.

SeattleUte
12-09-2008, 10:36 AM
I've already mentioned the U med school, which is a great program.

Are you now simply trying to prove UW's academic credentials? Because you are doing a lousy job proving that Utah and BYU are not in the same academic class as PAC 10 schools.

You said Pac 10 academics was a California aberration. It's not. The Pac 10 top to bottom is not the Ivy League, but the Pac 10 is the second strongest conference in the country academically. It cares a lot about its academic image and all of the Pac 10 schools are expected to fit a certain type. Utah fits that model, BYU doesn't; BYU is way out there in that respect. The Big 10 and the Big East are similar, but the Pac 10 regards itself as really shining brightest in this respect, i.e., outstanding academics and outstanding sports.

Again, it's the culture; it's a type of university. Maxwell in his speech said it all (what an interesting artifact that speech is; thank you LA!). Universities are much about secularism; there is plenty of religious study, even divinity degrees. But religions are studied objectively as historical phenomena.

Ask Jim Herrick or Don James if the Pac 10 is strictly an athletic conference and who holds all the power.

SeattleUte
12-09-2008, 10:38 AM
I think you'll see the PAC 10 pull out of the BCS before it expands & adds a championship game.

You may be right. Athletics is not the most important thing to the Pac 10.

TripletDaddy
12-09-2008, 10:45 AM
You said Pac 10 academics was a California aberration. It's not. The Pac 10 top to bottom is not the Ivy League, but the Pac 10 is the second strongest conference in the country academically. It cares a lot about its academic image and all of the Pac 10 schools are expected to fit a certain type. Utah fits that model, BYU doesn't; BYU is way out there in that respect. The Big 10 and the Big East are similar, but the Pac 10 regards itself as really shining brightest in this respect, i.e., outstanding academics and outstanding sports.

Again, it's the culture; it's a type of university. Maxwell in his speech said it all (what an interesting artifact that speech is; thank you LA!). Universities are much about secularism; there is plenty of religious study, even divinity degrees. But religions are studied objectively as historical phenomena.

Ask Jim Herrick or Don James if the Pac 10 is strictly an athletic conference and who holds all the power.

I didnt say that. I ranked the PAC schools and put the California schools ahead of the others. If you rank all 10, there have to be winners and losers.

You sent me a link to med schools and cited that UW has a nice ranking. I dont even need links to know that the 4 California law schools and MBA programs are ahead of all the other PAC schools.

You keep bringing up academics. I keep saying that academics would not prevent BYU or Utah from being admitted. Maybe prevent Fresno State, but not BYU or Utah, as evidenced by the admission of the Arizona schools.

Compare the academics at the Arizona schools, WSU, OSU, and Oregon with BYU and Utah. And I am talking all around academics, not the fact that Oregon might have the premiere woodsmanship and logging program in the country. You linked university rankings previously and that linked showed that BYU and Utah ranks favorably compared to several current PAC10 schools.

HuskyFreeNorthwest
12-09-2008, 10:51 AM
At the risk of hijacking the SU-DDD debate (which I am enjoying immensely), can someone please explain to me why the PAC-10 would want to expand to 12 teams?

Dude, here is a post I put in a different thread about why the non-LA based schools are opposed to expansion.

http://cougaruteforum.com/showthread.php?p=10182#post10182

SeattleUte
12-09-2008, 10:54 AM
I didnt say that. I ranked the PAC schools and put the California schools ahead of the others. If you rank all 10, there have to be winners and losers.

You sent me a link to med schools and cited that UW has a nice ranking. I dont even need links to know that the 4 California law schools and MBA programs are ahead of all the other PAC schools.

You keep bringing up academics. I keep saying that academics would not prevent BYU or Utah from being admitted. Maybe prevent Fresno State, but not BYU or Utah, as evidenced by the admission of the Arizona schools.

Compare the academics at the Arizona schools, WSU, OSU, and Oregon with BYU and Utah. And I am talking all around academics, not the fact that Oregon might have the premiere woodsmanship and logging program in the country. You linked university rankings previously and that linked showed that BYU and Utah ranks favorably compared to several current PAC10 schools.

Ultimately it's about culture. If BYU followed my ten point plan, which includes:

removing all LDS church GA's from the board of trustees, installing a secular board,

erecting a fire wall between the LDS church and BYU governance,

eliminating dependence on the mother church for any funding and raising a respectable endowment,

eliminating the Honor Code and allowing gay student organizations,

begin accepting federal grants and contracts for research,

and adopting a formal policy of academic freedom,

BYU would be a strong candidate for Pac 10 admission. This is the Notre Dame and Georgetown model. I wish that would happen, because as I've said Utah only lacks a strong partner for admission, in my opinion.

Jeff Lebowski
12-10-2008, 11:18 AM
Ultimately it's about culture. If BYU followed my ten point plan, which includes:

...

begin accepting federal grants and contracts for research,

.....



Just nitpicking a bit, but BYU does in fact accept federal research money. That is a common misconception.

SeattleUte
12-10-2008, 11:29 AM
Just nitpicking a bit, but BYU does in fact accept federal research money. That is a common misconception.

I know, but does it accept hundreds of millions of dollars like Utah? Last I checked it was around $10 million. If it's going to fudge on its reputed independence from government, why not go whole hog? I don't understand.

pelagius
12-10-2008, 11:44 AM
You said Pac 10 academics was a California aberration. It's not. The Pac 10 top to bottom is not the Ivy League, but the Pac 10 is the second strongest conference in the country academically. It cares a lot about its academic image and all of the Pac 10 schools are expected to fit a certain type. Utah fits that model, BYU doesn't; BYU is way out there in that respect. The Big 10 and the Big East are similar, but the Pac 10 regards itself as really shining brightest in this respect, i.e., outstanding academics and outstanding sports.


Not if you include all the universities that have been part of the Big 10. Then the Big 10 is clearly better.

CJF
12-10-2008, 11:49 AM
Ultimately it's about culture. If BYU followed my ten point plan, which includes:

removing all LDS church GA's from the board of trustees, installing a secular board,

erecting a fire wall between the LDS church and BYU governance,

eliminating dependence on the mother church for any funding and raising a respectable endowment,

eliminating the Honor Code and allowing gay student organizations,

begin accepting federal grants and contracts for research,

and adopting a formal policy of academic freedom,

BYU would be a strong candidate for Pac 10 admission. This is the Notre Dame and Georgetown model. I wish that would happen, because as I've said Utah only lacks a strong partner for admission, in my opinion.

Did you learn to debate from exUte?

TripletDaddy
12-10-2008, 11:50 AM
Not if you include all the universities that have been part of the Big 10. Then the Big 10 is clearly better.

I agree! Stay at OSU!

pelagius
12-10-2008, 11:52 AM
I agree! Stay at OSU!

Only if said school rejoins the conference. I have mentioned this a few times in my negotations with OSU. So far, no luck, but I remain hopeful.

Jeff Lebowski
12-10-2008, 12:11 PM
I know, but does it accept hundreds of millions of dollars like Utah? Last I checked it was around $10 million. If it's going to fudge on its reputed independence from government, why not go whole hog? I don't understand.


BYU has never claimed "independence from government". It's not really a case of BYU turning federal money away, as much as not chasing it more. It is a matter of mission. The Board of Trustees (i.e., top-level church leaders) have decided that BYU's mission is to be a top-notch undergraduate teaching institution with a few areas of excellence in graduate programs. Given the fact that BYU is largely supported by tithing donations, they feel that this is the most appropriate strategy since it allows the BYU experience to be available to as many church members as possible.

The funding is $15-25M per year if I recall correctly. Chump change.

Personally, I would love to see BYU expand its graduate research programs, but I am not in charge.

SeattleUte
12-10-2008, 12:20 PM
BYU has never claimed "independence from government". It's not really a case of BYU turning federal money away, as much as not chasing it more. It is a matter of mission. The Board of Trustees (i.e., top-level church leaders) have decided that BYU's mission is to be a top-notch undergraduate teaching institution with a few areas of excellence in graduate programs. Given the fact that BYU is largely supported by tithing donations, they feel that this is the most appropriate strategy since it allows the BYU experience to be available to as many church members as possible.

The funding is $15-25M per year if I recall correctly. Chump change.

Personally, I would love to see BYU expand its graduate research programs, but I am not in charge.

BYU should raise tuition, pursue federal money, build an endowment. Of course it shoud reject tithing funds as well as governance by those who old the pruse strings.

SeattleUte
12-10-2008, 12:22 PM
Not if you include all the universities that have been part of the Big 10. Then the Big 10 is clearly better.

They are very close if not comparable today. Who are you talking about? University of Chicago?

pelagius
12-10-2008, 12:30 PM
They are very close if not comparable today. Who are you talking about? University of Chicago?

Ya the Monsters of the Midway, they left the conference in 46 but I think they still have the contractual right to rejoin the conference (could be wrong about that but I think that's right).

Jeff Lebowski
12-10-2008, 12:30 PM
BYU should raise tuition, pursue federal money, build an endowment. Of course it shoud reject tithing funds as well as governance by those who old the pruse strings.

That would require those who are currently in charge to sever the ties and walk away. The same organization that built the university. It would also fundamentally change the mission. Not bloody likely.

Either way, this wouldn't happen unless there was a strong push for such a change from the university's constituents (faculty, students, alumni, church members, etc.). That's not happening.

Mormon Red Death
12-10-2008, 12:32 PM
In the case of the Pac, a championship game is redundant. All the teams already play each other. What is the point of replaying a game every year?

The difference between the PAC and B12 and SEC is that all the teams don't play each other.

It would be interesting to hear someone articulate a good reason in favor of a championship game when all the teams already play each other. Does the MWC need a championship game? What for?

There are 15 - 20 million reasons why a championship game makes sense.

HuskyFreeNorthwest
12-10-2008, 12:37 PM
There are 15 - 20 million reasons why a championship game makes sense.

Unless that is per school, that is not anywhere near a value at what each school would be giving up to have a fake champion crowned in football.

SeattleUte
12-10-2008, 12:38 PM
That would require those who are currently in charge to sever the ties and walk away. The same organization that built the university. It would also fundamentally change the mission. Not bloody likely.

Either way, this wouldn't happen unless there was a strong push for such a change from the university's constituents (faculty, students, alumni, church members, etc.). That's not happening.

I agree. The members and alumni could change it but don't want to. I don't understand it. They must put something in your all's sacrament water.

Reminds me of how there were only about a dozen women who identified themselves as LDS who spoke out against Sister Beck's admonitions to women.

Mormon Red Death
12-10-2008, 12:48 PM
Unless that is per school, that is not anywhere near a value at what each school would be giving up to have a fake champion crowned in football.

Currently the Pac 10 contract is 88million or 8.8 million per team. Lets say you add BYU and Utah and add a champ game for 13.7 million that means you only need to get 3.9 million more in revenue (added bowls, and increase in contract due to more teams) to make the move cash neutral. Additionally, every team gets 4 conference home games each year and half the teams have an additional spot to have an extra home game each year. Its pretty clear the money would be better for them if there was a PAC 12

TripletDaddy
12-10-2008, 01:10 PM
Currently the Pac 10 contract is 88million or 8.8 million per team. Lets say you add BYU and Utah and add a champ game for 13.7 million that means you only need to get 3.9 million more in revenue (added bowls, and increase in contract due to more teams) to make the move cash neutral. Additionally, every team gets 4 conference home games each year and half the teams have an additional spot to have an extra home game each year. Its pretty clear the money would be better for them if there was a PAC 12

In a 12-team format, of course i get the need for a championship game. The current critique, as it stands, is that the PAC does not play a championship game, which is then inherently unfair. As it stands, with 10 teams, there is no purpose to be served by playing a championship game. All teams have already played each other. You would simply be replaying one game from the regular season every year. It makes no sense.

In stead, the PAC chooses to play a respectable OOC schedule and build its exposure.

I like the fact that everyone plays each other. The non-California schools like that, as well. There is no way the non-California schools are going to want to be omitted from playing in SoCal for $3-5M extra dollars a year. SoCal is the lifeblood of the entire PAC10 conference.

Mormon Red Death
12-10-2008, 01:27 PM
I like the fact that everyone plays each other. The non-California schools like that, as well. There is no way the non-California schools are going to want to be omitted from playing in SoCal for $3-5M extra dollars a year. SoCal is the lifeblood of the entire PAC10 conference.

That is an easy appeasement.

1) There are 7 conference Home games in SOCAL and when you add in the two Socal schools that makes 9 and leaves 3 left out in the lurch. Make a stipulation That byu and utah only get one game in SOCAL Each year which leaves two teams out of the loop. Have a pre conference game for each of these teams in San Diego's new stadium against MWC or WAC teams as their first game of the year.

TripletDaddy
12-10-2008, 01:29 PM
That is an easy appeasement.

1) There are 7 conference Home games in SOCAL and when you add in the two Socal schools that makes 9 and leaves 3 left out in the lurch. Make a stipulation That byu and utah only get one game in SOCAL Each year which leaves two teams out of the loop. Have a pre conference game for each of these teams in San Diego's new stadium against MWC or WAC teams as their first game of the year.

Problem solved!

SeattleUte
12-10-2008, 02:01 PM
The argument has progressed from "Why would the Pac 10 want Utah?" to "Why would the [smug and insular] Pac 10 want to expand?"

I like that.

TripletDaddy
12-10-2008, 02:03 PM
The argument has progressed from "Why would the Pac 10 want Utah?" to "Why would the [smug and insular] Pac 10 want to expand?"

I like that.

Your summation is about as accurate as your reference to some alleged Utah/Kentucky basketball rivalry.

SeattleUte
12-10-2008, 02:28 PM
Your summation is about as accurate as your reference to some alleged Utah/Kentucky basketball rivalry.

Your attempted trolls of me have taken on a twang of desperation. I see them as boomerang trolls not requiring any response.

I like that. I suppose I should in part thank Whit for this new found power over you.

Fiyero
10-06-2009, 07:45 AM
Heck, if BYU and Utah don't get invites to the PAC-10, I think the MWC should add Boise St., Nevada and Houston and have a 12 team league.

Houston is having a good year.