Really not that bugged

I have to preface this thread by stating that perhaps I am just gearing myself up for disappointment (should the utes to to the Pac-whatev) but as of right now I'm really not that bugged. From all I have read about the conference speculation expansion from the Big-10 to Big XII to Pac-1 to sec and MWC I really think I won't be too worked up by them leaving. Here are my reasons (justifications) in no particular order:



1) The Holy War will b tempered some (I hope)

2) Maybe, due to pac officiating problems, Bronco will think twice about adding the utes to our schedule.

3) We should offer them a 2 for1 just to spite them and withdraw the offer if they don't accept. :lol:

4) We still have a better chance of running the table or close to it in the MWC than the pac-whatev or the Big XXII as this freshmen class improves.

5) Adding CU and with the usc problems in my opinion the conference is on its ear and will take awhile to recover. Were utah to enter this season I'd say they would have struck at the right moment. But if they enter with CU in 2012 we not only get their record toward the BCS auto bid but they also enter when ucs is coming off their punishment and just might start to gain strength again just in time to kick the ute trash.

6) I still think we will beat them to most of the in-state recruits. Just a hunch but I think Bronco's philosophies won't be changing anytime soon and there just aren't that many good players/ym who love the utes.

7) One more thing, if we keep up the annual rivalry, it boosts our sos and will hurt theirs. :lol: (allegedly)



In the meantime...

Go Cougs!!!

J. Child

Ammon, ID

If the Utes defect to the PAC-10 then I think the MWC has a slim-chance-to-none of becoming an AQ conference.



That said, the winner of the MWC is still likely to be highly competitive for an at-large berth for a BCS bowl game, especially if that winner is TCU, BSU, or BYU.



And if the Utes are so disillusioned as to think they'll be playing for a national championship sometime this century then I said good riddance to bad bong resin.

CAFB_04-12 wrote:

..... If the Utes are so disillusioned as to think they'll be playing for a national championship sometime this century then I said good riddance to bad bong resin.

Absolutely. Good bye. Good riddance. I hope the Yewts get the invite & accept - so their arrogant self image can be dashed up & down the coast. It will be interesting to see if they even get an offer. Very speculative!!

8)

Hear me out:



The PAC has always been against a conference championship game, that's why they haven't added members since the late 70's. So for them to go against this sentiment it would have to be for something HUGE. That's why the invites to the 6 Big 12 teams came. There were also rumors that the new PAC-16 would still not even have a conference championship game, this falls in line with the anti-championship game sentiment.



They hit a snag when Baylor started making a fuss and threatening to have the Texas Legislature force the PAC to take Baylor along with the other Texas schools. This has already happened once, it is how Baylor is a member of the Big 12 now. Fearing this the PAC jumped the gun and officially offered the most eager school of those offered: Colorado. They offer Colorado in hopes of pushing Baylor out of the mix. What other reason does the PAC have for offering Colorado? Geographically it is out of the way. Academically Colorado SUCKS as their football and basketball teams are currently under academic duress. Athletically they haven't been a major player in a decade. Sure they have the #18 market but is that worth adding another piece to the pie?



The Texas package doesn't join the PAC. The Colorado plan backfired and left the PAC with a less then ideal school and a less then ideal situation.



But if the newly formed Big 12 stays pat with 10 and doesn't have a conference championship game then who is to say that the PAC wouldn't stay pat and not have a conference championship game either? Do you see what I am saying? The PAC doesn't have to add a twelfth school and since the Big 12 isn't maybe the PAC is thinking that they don't have to either.

CannonCougar85 wrote:
Hear me out:



The PAC has always been against a conference championship game, that's why they haven't added members since the late 70's. So for them to go against this sentiment it would have to be for something HUGE. That's why the invites to the 6 Big 12 teams came. There were also rumors that the new PAC-16 would still not even have a conference championship game, this falls in line with the anti-championship game sentiment.



They hit a snag when Baylor started making a fuss and threatening to have the Texas Legislature force the PAC to take Baylor along with the other Texas schools. This has already happened once, it is how Baylor is a member of the Big 12 now. Fearing this the PAC jumped the gun and officially offered the most eager school of those offered: Colorado. They offer Colorado in hopes of pushing Baylor out of the mix. What other reason does the PAC have for offering Colorado? Geographically it is out of the way. Academically Colorado SUCKS as their football and basketball teams are currently under academic duress. Athletically they haven't been a major player in a decade. Sure they have the #18 market but is that worth adding another piece to the pie?



The Texas package doesn't join the PAC. The Colorado plan backfired and left the PAC with a less then ideal school and a less then ideal situation.



But if the newly formed Big 12 stays pat with 10 and doesn't have a conference championship game then who is to say that the PAC wouldn't stay pat and not have a conference championship game either? Do you see what I am saying? The PAC doesn't have to add a twelfth school and since the Big 12 isn't maybe the PAC is thinking that they don't have to either.

Your comments about Colorado are absolutely incorrect, the Pac10 did not invite COL solely to prevent Baylor. Colorado was part of both approved expansion plans from the conference meeting in San Francisco the weekend before last. This is why COL was offered first, because they are a piece of all Pac10 expansion plans AND it also nuked the Baylor whining right then and there, two birds with one stone.

I agree that they will try to get one Big 12 team and get the rest of them to cave in and join them.

I'm not so sure Purple, Andy Katz and I appear to share the same inkling on this as was quoted on another thread,

"If Scott is rebuffed by the Longhorns and thus by the rest of the Big 12 South schools and is forced to then just take Utah for the 12th member it would be a major disappointment. Industry sources told Katz that a Pac-12 that just adds Colorado and Utah doesn't increase the value that much for the league in a traditional model of seeking a new television deal. The best-case scenario for the Pac-10 is to come home with Texas, a Pac-16 and a new television network that would rival the Big Ten network. "



http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5282178

Adding the Denver and SLC markets does help the PACx, though. SLC does not hurt either. The Big 12 took a hit for losing Denver, by about 8-10% of a TV deal, per reports. Obviously, not as big of a splash as Texas and OU, but still not bad. Plus, Denver and SLC are growing, so a good add now and later.