The PAC 10 expansion groundswell

[Surfah]

I'm with the redundancy police redundancy police.

Posting from my phone and scrolled right past that reply.

[UtahDan]

So I talked to my source again and here are some additional details.

The USC trustees met today. It was announced in that meeting that the member institutions of the Pac 10 had approved an offer being made to Utah so long as Utah agreed to meet certain requirements such as increasing stadium size. He wasn't clear on what else there was.

At this point the details are being hashed out between Pac 10 officials and Chris Hill and Michael Young working together. It is anticipated that these terms will then be approved by the Utah board of trustees and a committee of the Pac 10 at which point the official offer will be extended. The trustees at USC were told that the Utah trustees would vote on the official offer as soon as tonight but not later than tomorrow. An announcement will be made once that has occurred.

I'll let everyone know if I hear anything else.

[Mormon Red Death]

So I talked to my source again and here are some additional details.

The USC trustees met today. It was announced in that meeting that the member institutions of the Pac 10 had approved an offer being made to Utah so long as Utah agreed to meet certain requirements such as increasing stadium size. He wasn't clear on what else there was.

At this point the details are being hashed out between Pac 10 officials and Chris Hill and Michael Young working together. It is anticipated that these terms will then be approved by the Utah board of trustees and a committee of the Pac 10 at which point the official offer will be extended. The trustees at USC were told that the Utah trustees would vote on the official offer as soon as tonight but not later than tomorrow. An announcement will be made once that has occurred.

I'll let everyone know if I hear anything else.

The espn ticker is saying the pac-10 is inviting utah.

[FMCoug]

So I talked to my source again and here are some additional details.

The USC trustees met today. It was announced in that meeting that the member institutions of the Pac 10 had approved an offer being made to Utah so long as Utah agreed to meet certain requirements such as increasing stadium size. He wasn't clear on what else there was.

At this point the details are being hashed out between Pac 10 officials and Chris Hill and Michael Young working together. It is anticipated that these terms will then be approved by the Utah board of trustees and a committee of the Pac 10 at which point the official offer will be extended. The trustees at USC were told that the Utah trustees would vote on the official offer as soon as tonight but not later than tomorrow. An announcement will be made once that has occurred.

I'll let everyone know if I hear anything else.

Awesome! Utah will have to give away even more free tickets!

[Shaka]

So I talked to my source again and here are some additional details.

The USC trustees met today. It was announced in that meeting that the member institutions of the Pac 10 had approved an offer being made to Utah so long as Utah agreed to meet certain requirements such as increasing stadium size.
.

The invitation should be rejected because that stadium is an Olympic landmark and shouldn't be messed with.

[YOhio]

The invitation should be rejected because that stadium is an Olympic landmark and shouldn't be messed with.

Totally agree. That the Utes would even consider desecrating the memory of the 2002 Olympics speaks volumes to how low they've sunk.

[FMCoug]

Totally agree. That the Utes would even consider desecrating the memory of the 2002 Olympics speaks volumes to how low they've sunk.

Seriously ... what a bunch of ingrates. The only reason they have the 40K seats they do now is thanks to good old fashioned bribery.

[MartyFunkhouser]

No they will be in the exact same position they are in now. Top of the Mountain West year in and year out, double digit win seasons, still get the top LDS kids, bowl game every year, and still only make about 1 million per.

Utah will be middle to lower half of the Pac-10 most years with an occasional top 3 finish, double digit wins every 10 years or so, still not get the top LDS kids, bowl games every other year at best, and make about 20 million per.

Good thing as a fan we do not see any of that money, so I like BYUs position.

Yep, it is official you are BYU's version of Top Ute.

[New Mexican Disaster]

Yep, it is official you are BYU's version of Top Ute.

Supposing that the Utes were in the Pac-10 this year North Division with OU, OSU, UW, WSU, and Colorado where do you think that they would finish?

It seems to me they would be battling for 3rd with UW and hoping that they did not draw SC, UCLA, or AZ on the road. The Utes do have a good young team this year, but there will be lots of middle of the pack finishes for them in the new conference. I think that this is indisputable.

It is also indisputable this is not an amazing opportunity for the U. But the booby prize of staying in the MWC will allow BYU to continue to cruise along as it has-until maybe a Big 12 invite comes along. So there is comfort in thinking we'll still win a lot of games against a lower level of competition while the highs for the U might be higher but there will probably be a longer waiting period between them.

[Flattop]

Totally agree. That the Utes would even consider desecrating the memory of the 2002 Olympics speaks volumes to how low they've sunk.

Maybe we should just take the fieldturf out and put the ice back in.

[myboynoah]

Sorry folks, took the family to Disney Sea today. Utah looks closer to taking its Native American moniker to the conference of Stanford and Cal. I wonder if a name change is one of the Pac-10's demands?

Anyway, more feedback from Pac-10 towns.

Greg Hansen: Colorado, possibly Utah won't help Pac-10 much

Colorado brings little to the Pac-10. No baseball, no softball, no swimming, a basketball team that averaged 6,267 fans and almost no new money.

Utah would bring even less. The Utes wouldn't help to solve the raging financial crisis at Oregon State, Wazzu and ASU.

We take it on good faith that Scott has more to his expansion tour/marketing outreach than Colorado and Utah. We take it that the presidents and chancellors of the Pac-10 didn't give Scott all of that power merely to add teams with less presence than Oregon State.

The Pac-10 can use a bump in glamour, and especially one at the bank, but I don't see how Colorado or Utah can help either. I'm aware of the negative variables and politics about adding BYU, but the Cougars have a history, a brand and a presence that neither Utah nor Colorado can touch.

- - - - - -

In sports, CU is vanilla ice cream.

The most famous man in the history of Utah sports is Rick Majerus. Big dude. Lived in a hotel. Told lots of funny stories. If Utah enters the Pac-10, can it arrange to get Majerus back?

If Colorado is vanilla ice cream, Utah is snow melting on the sidewalk.

Adding Colorado, and possibly Utah, puts the Pac-10 in a neutral negotiating position with more partners in the split. When Scott goes to market next year, the TV people at ABC, ESPN and Fox Sports Net next year will see what they've always seen. Colorado and maybe Utah won't generate more money.

[myboynoah]

More feedback.

Why Should The Pac-10 Rush To Add Utah When The Big-Tex (12-2) Is Still Unstable (Not Likely Viable)?

I will try to string together my general thoughts on expansion later. However, for now I have a very basic question. What is the rush to add Utah to Pac-10? What do we lose by waiting another year or two? It sure doesn't sound like we have not heard the last of conference re-alignment.

- - - - - -

It sure doesn't look like the situation has gotten any more stable as that conference around Texas is built on a house of cards. So with all that swirling in the background, why should Pac-10 be any hurry to add Utah in our conference (which is looking pathetically and grossly desperate to get in our conference)?

Why shouldn't we let this scenario play out for a little longer and let this Big-Tex conference implode in next 2-4 years (if not sooner). Seems to me the more prudent course would be for Larry Scott to focus on shoring up a TV contract and I don't see addition of Salt Lake City market being pre-requisite in getting the actual market value of our conference. Clearly we are part of a conference that everyone wants in.

- - - - - -

Once again it seems like we are going to be just fine if we sit tight with our 11 teams and watch this Big-Tex conference implode in next few years. Then we will be in even stronger position (assuming Scott has been able to secure more sensible TV Ks) to add teams no, 12 (or 13, 14, 15, and 16) from even a better bargaining position. So the rush to add Utah just doesn't make any kind of sense. It certainly doesn't sound all that exciting and creative either.

[Uncle Ted]

Sorry folks, took the family to Disney Sea today. Utah looks closer to taking its Native American moniker to the conference of Stanford and Cal. I wonder if a name change is one of the Pac-10's demands?

Anyway, more feedback from Pac-10 towns.

Greg Hansen: Colorado, possibly Utah won't help Pac-10 much

I think this guy is a little harsh on Utah ("melting snow on the sidewalk", LOL) but is dead on about BYU and Colorado. The Big 12 is happy to be rid of Colorado.

It is going to be interesting to see how much value adding CU and Utah will bring when the TV contracts are renewed. Any value they add will be mostly thanks to Utah. The Pac-10 should have added BYU and Utah. The rival game alone would have added a lot of value.

[myboynoah]

So I talked to my source again and here are some additional details.

The USC trustees met today. It was announced in that meeting that the member institutions of the Pac 10 had approved an offer being made to Utah so long as Utah agreed to meet certain requirements such as increasing stadium size. He wasn't clear on what else there was.

At this point the details are being hashed out between Pac 10 officials and Chris Hill and Michael Young working together. It is anticipated that these terms will then be approved by the Utah board of trustees and a committee of the Pac 10 at which point the official offer will be extended. The trustees at USC were told that the Utah trustees would vote on the official offer as soon as tonight but not later than tomorrow. An announcement will be made once that has occurred.

I'll let everyone know if I hear anything else.

UD, did your source elaborate on the other "requirements" for Utah?

Also, the stadium size requirement seems odd given smaller stadiums already exist elsewhere in the Pac-10. Why that one? How many more seats does Utah need to add? Seems trivial to me.

Who would pay for modifications to RES? Would that fall upon the taxpayers of Utah? Or private donations?

[UtahDan]

UD, did your source elaborate on the other "requirements" for Utah?

Also, the stadium size requirement seems odd given smaller stadiums already exist elsewhere in the Pac-10. Why that one? How many more seats does Utah need to add? Seems trivial to me.

Who would pay for modifications to RES? Would that fall upon the taxpayers of Utah? Or private donations?

Your concern for the Pac 10 is touching. Maybe its really not such a good idea and we should say no.