Roundup From BN Walk: Date With Alabama, Forced Marriage With Utah & A Fun Hypo
by Nestor on Jun 15, 2010 5:25 AM PDT
in Football
Email
Print
Slowly things seem to be settling down just a bit on college athletics news front. Due to the latest development on the Big-12 front, the conference expansion chatter as we expected turned out to be mostly hot air not amounting to all that much (except $ for Texas). Larry Scott, the Pac-10 Commissioner does deserve credit for thinking outside the box and getting after it a bit, but at the end of the day I keep thinking of what Coach always told us, "don't mistake activity for achievement."
So I will start with a bit of a scheduling note. The LA Times noted yesterday that UCLA official would contact Nebraska officials Monday to see if the Cornhuskers wish to withdraw from a home-and-home series, starting in 2012. The reason for UCLA's query is a potential "neutral site" date with defending National Champion Alabama:
The Bruins still want the game, but an opportunity to play defending national champion Alabama in a neutral-site season opener in 2012 has developed.
Playing Nebraska and Alabama in the same season would be a brutal nonconference road, especially if Texas and Oklahoma join the "Pac-Whatever." But if the Cornhuskers opt out, the Bruins and Crimson Tide probably will have a date.
A date with Alabama would be pretty sweet. Tide fans are already excited about potential revenge. But I would also hate to give a home and home date with a Big-12 program like Nebraska. As for this move, always appreciate the fact UCLA never backs down from scheduling anyone. Note we have had crazier scheduling in the past like in 2000 when for some reason we decided to take on both Michigan and Alabama in the same year (and won both of those contests). Yet in this case given the current state of our redeveloping program, playing both of them in the same year would not be a smart idea.
Moreover, we will have to see what they mean by a "neutral site." A game in the new Giants/Jets stadium would mean a ‘neutral site' game. A game in Chicago's Soldier's Field would mean a ‘neutral site' game. However, a game in either Dallas or Atlanta within or inside SEC's backyard shouldn't be construed as a ‘neutral site' game. So, I hope UCLA officials are moving about this with a little caution. Playing Alabama and interacting with the great fanbase sounds like a lot of fun. However, games should be scheduled in a way, that makes sense for the overall (re)development of our program. More after the jump.
As mentioned at the top, the so called dream scenario of expansion with Texas teams is all but dead. Colorado is in the fold, which we are all excited about. Now it looks like everyone is in a bit of rush to ram Utah into our conference. Apparently Pac-10 is "under no pressure" to add Utah, yet reporters like Jon Wilner expects the conference to "act fairly quickly":
* The Pac-10 is not under any pressure to invite Utah, but I'd expect it to act fairly quickly - there's no reason to wait, really.
When the Buffs and Utes join in 2012, the conference will be split into two six-team divisions and feature a championship game worth $10 million annually or more.
I'm not sure how the divisions will be split but have been advocating a "Zipper Plan" on the Hotline for months as the best way to satisfy the Northwest schools, which don't want to be cut off from Los Angeles.
* The per-team revenue split in a 12-school conference will be far greater than the current, grossly-undervalued total of $8-9 million but also well below the $20 million figure that was projected for a Pac-16.
How would the conference shape up in Wilner's "zipper plan" for the Pac-10:
The scenario I've always envisioned would entail splitting the league like a zipper, with the natural rivals in different divisions - but with the schedule arranged in a manner that allows them to meet every season.
In other words, something like:
* Arizona State, UCLA, Cal, Oregon, Washington and Utah in one division.
* Arizona, USC, Stanford, Oregon State, WSU and Colorado in the other.The nine-game conference football schedule would involve playing every team in your division, plus your natural rival, plus three teams in the other division.
And I'd imagine there's a way to rig the football schedule so that each NW school was guaranteed a certain number of home games with/roadtrips to USC and UCLA within a three- or four-year scheduling cycle.
Interestingly at the time Wilner went on to conclude that conference expansion was "unliklely." Well so much for that.
What I don't understand is the rush to add Utah. I remain unconvinced about the benefits of adding Utah to our conference. All the projections are just that: projections. I don't really buy the fact that Utah can bring the Salt Lake City market into Pac-10. The state still belongs to BYU. Besides the benefit here will really go to Utah, who will get to share Pac-10 revenues, while not bringing all that much into our conference.
I certainly don't see UCLA fans getting excited about taking road trips to Salt Lake City. We don't even bother to go to Pullman despite being few hours from a beautiful city like Seattle. So what makes someone think that we would be rolling into Salt Lake City for the sake of enjoying Utah's outdoors.
Utah fans will also always be more excited about potential "conference" games against UCLA than vice versa. Games like that are always about dealing with a team with perpetual chips on their collective shoulder. We never get anything out of those games.
Oh and I have to LOL about all this "excitement" around a "conference championship" game? Where is this magically ‘championship game' we are going to hold? In Vegas? The AT&T Comerica Park? The Coliseum? I am sure it is going to be just as exciting and riveting as the stupid basketball conference tournament we host every year at Staples (and no I don't think rotating this tournament in other hubs will get us all that excited about it either).
So consider me extremely unexcited about an expansion that includes Utah. Right now it feels like a forced marriage and I find all of it kind of repulsive. If Pac-10 is so anxious about generating revenues, they need to look at creative ways to put together a viable TV network. As Class of 66 noted we already have the markets but the problems concerning revenues and exposure are rooted in the following issues:
First, we have yet to market west coast sports very well. We play an exciting brand of football and basketball and don't take advantage of it in promoting TV viewership.
Second, and perhaps the biggest problem, it has been almost impossible to find our games, nationwide because of the terrible coverage we've had due to the weak contract. Can anyone say "Versus"?
I don't see how adding Utah will automatically help us solve those issues.
Lastly, speaking of "issues," stumbled into this excellent hypo - entitled ‘the shoplifting scenario' - someone flagged on Bruin Report Online's general football board:
[Y]ou take your 10 yr old son with you to the grocery store, buy your groceries and return home. a couple hours later you see him eating a candy bar and you know you didn't buy it for him nor did you have any in the house.
The next day you go to the toy store with your 12 yr old daughter, you buy some some toys and return home and a couple hours later you see her playing with a barbie doll you didn't buy for her and know she didn't have one at the house before leaving for the toy store.
As a "parent", should you have:
A. taken your son / daughter right back to the grocery / toy stores when you first observed the offense, paid for the candy bar / toys and let management know that it wouldn't happen again and administer the proper punishment to fit the offense yourself
B. turn a blind eye in hopes that it was a one time event and that it wouldn't happen again
C. point the finger at the grocery / toy stores for selling candy bars / toys and continue to let the same scenario repeat itselfIt's a question of ethics (parental control some might call it), right?
A couple days later there is a knock on your door, it's the local police dept. asking you, the parent, about the events that have taken place the last couple of days, it appears they have some good "intel" (video, witnesses, etc...) that your kids have been "shop-lifting."
There have been some interesting responses on what the parent should have done in that (instant classic) thread. If you have other ideas, feel free to chime in our thread as well.
GO BRUINS.
92 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
+1
Well done, Nestor.
There is absolutely no reason to add Utah and many to refrain.
The Big 10, which has been 11 for quite a while has not suffered the lack of a 12th team. It waited and actually married a school that will fit in and brings something to the table.
I’m not surewse need another team. (I was not sure we needed CU — but, of all the choices, that was a good one.)
Again, I’m a geezer and love tradition, so I really don’t like the “division” concept. There is an advantage to playing as many teams in your conference as possible — college sports story lines are multi-year stories. Revenge, payback — it may take as little as a year for a team to change character and be stronger; we all want to play the teams that beat us when our kids are a year older, or team a year better, etc.
Unlike pro teams, there are often major differences in college teams on a yearly basis — and I don’t want to give up seeing the story lines play out.
We’ve made our public statement. Scott has put us in the headlines. I think the exposure was more worthwhile than the potential merger.
Let’s sit back and wait until the team that really fits our conference blossoms.
sjh
Utah
N I agree the move benefits the Utes a lot more than it benefits UCLA, but where do you read that the Utah market still belongs to Byu? The local news channels have been all over this expansion talk for the past couple weeks now. I understand I am not going to change your preconceived thoughts about traveling to games here in Utah, but if anyone does come, stay up in Park City, it’s 15 minutes to the stadium and it is nothing like you thought Utah was.
Park City is all right
Salt Lake City .. not so much. Utah has always been about BYU football. Sure Utah has had a nice little run last few years. However, that IMO is not enough to merit entry into our conference.
agreed
heard BYU fans were down right ruthless the last time we were there. Pretty funny coming from a religious school.
A bruin is good forever, a Trojan is only good... ahh eff it, just use tin foil
OK, Those Two Are Utterly Despicable
That screams for a lifetime ban from all sporting events.
Oh hell, from any event.
Love My Bruins
by Bruingirl83 on Jun 15, 2010 12:19 PM PDT up reply actions
The grass is always greener...
This is why, if you already have a pretty good girlfriend, you don’t try to trade up and ask the head cheerleader to the prom. She may bat her eyes at you, but she’s only flirting with you to get the football captain’s attention. Meantime, your girlfriend is pissed and gone, and you are scrambling to find a date.
The Pac-10 had a good thing. Is the Pac-11 an improvement over that? Will becoming the Pac-12 with the added $ from a conference championship game be better than the -11, or than the original -10? I guess we are trusting Larry Scott to make that decision.
Perhaps we should have left well enough alone – as us geezers maintained from the start.
greg in denver - UCLA guy for life
that's retarded...
Staying with a woman because she’s “pretty good” and you might not get anything better – that’s retarded. You stay with a woman because she’s the best that’s out there for you – NOT that she’s the best you’re going to ever get. If you’re pining for the cheerleader, then you’re obviously not satisfied with your “pretty good” girlfriend. Why deny yourself the opportunity to find someone who you’re satisfied with; and her the opportunity to find someone who is satisfied with her. That don’t look for greener pastures mentality is exactly what results in 20-year marriages where couples hardly talk anymore, but damn-it have been married for 20-years. If people would just break it off when they realized that they weren’t going to be satisfied instead of taking the next step, because, well, it’s about that time in the relationship and she’s (he’s) stuck with me since college – if people would just break it off and look for satisfaction, then they’d at least have a chance at contentment.
What does this mean for college football? It means kudos to Larry Scott for going for the gold. We don’t know what would have happened, but we do know that we (the Pac-10) were getting the financial shaft and thus slowly slipping into irrelevance. Stagnation is death. Strife is life. When you give it a shot, you win some, you lose some; but when you just sit there, failure is imminent.
No one is suggesting we stagnate
However, progress doesn’t mean we fall all over the first option that shows up. Progress should be methodical and deliberate. It should be well thought out. I appreciate Scott’s willingness to go for it. However, he needed to do it in smart way. I found all the leaks coming through a Texas fan site last few days laughably amateurish. Clearly Scott hadn’t really thought it trough and operated in a leak proof manner.
If I were Gene Block and Dan Guerrerro, I’d demand Scott produces numbers that actually mean something before nodding off to carrying a baggage like Utah.
...
I agree that a decision to go elsewhere is more likely to result in an arguably ‘better’ position when the decision is methodical and deliberate. My point is that if you are ultimately going to die by staying where you are, then any movement is better than no movement, simply because it offers a chance (even if only a slight one) that you will improve your situation, whereas no movement = no chance = stagnation = death.
Who knows what Utah can bring. I realize this is a bad analogy, but a few years ago, who would’ve thought that (up until a few days ago, that is) the hiring of Carroll at SUC would have produced so many wins. You just never know.
For the record, I will be sorry to see the Pac 10’s round robin and non-patsy scheduling tradition go by the wayside, but whatcha gonna do? College football is not about college football anymore. It ain’t changing back. It’s time to move or die. Even guru Chow is putting spread elements into his offense. Mobile quarterbacks – who ever heard of such a thing? It’s blasphemy!
Hold it a second, hwn44
“My point is that if you are ultimately going to die by staying where you are, then any movement is better than no movement, simply because it offers a chance (even if only a slight one) that you will improve your situation, whereas no movement = no chance = stagnation = death.”
What’s the basis for the assertion that we “are ultimately going to die by staying where [we] are” in the context of adding teams? Or to put it another way, if that premise is false, then the conclusion, that any movement is better than no movement, is not necessarily correct.
And how does movement necessarily mean that we aren’t going to die? If you’re at the edge of a cliff and about to die, not all movement is necessarily good. Movement in one particular direction may have a distinctive vertical component. No one has seen the details of whatever TV deal we are supposed to get that will give us all the money there is in the whole wide world.
This hysteria about expansion seems to be a contrived crisis, rather than a real one. But then, it wouldn’t be the first of those to come along.
Anyway, hwn, what’s the evidence that you see to support your “expand or die” thesis? It seems to me that maybe the same arguments could be made for going back to the Pac-8.
Two things to look at re. 'dying where you are'
The first thing, as you pointed out Fox, is testing the assertion that the conference is going to die if no movement is made. On that one, there really isn’t much more than speculation at this point.
On the second, even if you (the earlier poster) assume that the conference is eventually going to ‘die’ without expansion, why does that mean that we have to act now? While it is possible that the Pac-10 (11) could fall significantly behind 10 years from now, there does not seem to be any immediate doom looming over the conference. Unless either an immediate benefit to the conference can be identified, or there is a real concern that the lifeboat (Utah, if one thinks Utah is ‘it’), there is no reason to make the move today, or next year. And I don’t think Utah is going anywhere right now, in case it becomes beneficial to add them in the future.
formerly bruinhoo
Moot point now, but...
Note the ever so annoying “if”, indicating that the statement is conditional. Of course, if the “if” does not occur, then the statement is meaningless. And yes, when standing at the edge of a cliff, not all movement is necessarily GOOD – but IF faced with IMMINENT destruction by standing, any movement is better (even vertically) because it at the very least offers a SLIGHTLY increased probability of bettering our circumstances. But this is just an extreme version of “you miss every shot you don’t take.” I’m of the mind that life is a game to be played, and that holding onto the ball hoping that the time will run out is a punk move – reasonable minds may differ.
And I have no “expand or die” thesis – and therefore no evidence. This is all meaningless Monday morning quarterbacking.
A bit off topic, but relevant: The football lesson that has stuck with me through life has been that if you’re gonna jump offsides, you knock both the center and the QB on their @$$3$, and damn-it, you’d better jump offsides that first play of the game!!!
Not saying to just settle
Just saying not to go for things that never should have been pursued in the first place.
If there is an opportunity for expansion that is truly better for us and is a good fit, then by all means, do it. The allegory was that the head cheerleader isn’t really best for you, and you shouldn’t make a move just because she looks hot.
I think we were fortunate that Texas parlayed expansion into a better deal for itself, because that is all that Texas was looking out for. Bringing that element would have been very chaotic for the Pac, which has actually coexisted pretty well for a long time.
greg in denver - UCLA guy for life
I think the moral of the story here is obvious
Head cheerleaders only date quarterbacks, so if you aren’t a QB don’t try.
If you have any further needs for relationship advice
post below. I can help.
The Conf
was fine the way it was! i loved that we played a true round-robin schedule.
"Success is never final, Failure is never fatal. It's Courage that count's"
John Wooden.....
Only now realizing the depts of my affinity for symmetry
A few days ago I was pumping up the idea of adding Colorado St. (who went 0-8 in the MWC last year) if it meant a 16 team conference with eight perfect pairs. I guess I’m just too North Campus for conference realignment. In this instance symmetry is not geometrical, it’s poetic.
Pac-expansion
While I was pretty excited about the idea of being in a mega-conference like the stillborn Pac-16, I must also admit that I really could not imagine what the long-term impact would have been. At the same time, I also agree that just because Texas pulled the plug on the mega-conference, we should not add Utah just to round out the conference. I do like the addition of Colorado and wish we could have expanded in a way that maintains the traditional Pac-10 regional structure – but definitely would not add Colorado State as a way of doing so.
For what it’s worth, I would keep the Pac-11 as it is until a 12th member that we REALLY want presents itself. I just don’t see enough benefit to add Utah.
As for an eventual championship game – I would say put it in San Diego. Perfect weather in late November/ December. Jack Murphy/Qualcomm Stadium would work well (if not Petco Park) and it’s neutral enough of a site.
Agree about standing pat for now until a program emerges
that fits our profile. Big-10 has been patient all these years and they ended up adding programs like PSU and Nebraska that makes sense for them. Colorado makes sense for Pac-11. Utah not so much.
San Diego could be an option but might be overkill since there is already the Holiday Bowl and some other Bowl (Poinsetta?) that slots Pac-10 teams. Not sure if that will get the fans excited.
San Diego
Yeah, that’s a good point. I hadn’t thought about the bowl games.
Isn't UCSD
talking about adding a Football team? If they ever get that going, they have good academics and a good media market.
San Diego?
You’re kidding right? Then we would be completely throwing the idea of academics out the window, not to mention its not much of an athletic department either
About the "Conference Championship Game" site
A friend was telling me that the perfect location would probably be the “possible” new Los Angeles Stadium that is going to be built for a pro-football team.
What do you guys think about that? Interesting or not?
lol
This actually seems legit thought. This project has jumped through a lot of hoops and just seems like it could be a real possibility. It’s only a matter of time when one of the NFL teams that aren’t getting a new stadium/having problems financially (ahem….Jaguars), jumps to Los Angeles.
by LoveMyBruins on Jun 15, 2010 8:32 AM PDT up reply actions
Not sure the other Pac-whatever schools would go for LA
With the basketball tourneys already in LA, I could see a demand that a football championship be held in another city.
Short term, the Cardinals stadium in Arizona would seem the most likely site. which could later be replaced or rotated with the new 49ers stadium in the Bay Area (if it actually gets built. Not holding my breath on that one). N made a good point re. San Diego already having 2 Pac-10 bowl games and an effect on local excitement. Seattle has a nice stadium (Quest Field), and would be a good host, but for the possibility of weather issues.
formerly bruinhoo
The New 49ers Stadium
Any idea on when that gets finished? I guess there is the renovated Stanford stadium as well. Then again I have never seen the bowl games in Bay Area generate a lot of excitement either.
Not anytime soon, imo
The team got a ballot measure passed in Santa Clara last week allowing them to build in that city, with a chunk of redevelopment district money + new hotel tax providing some funding of the stadium. The team still has to finance about a half-billion dollars of the construction cost, in addition to using naming rights/seat license fees at a level that seems a bit optimistic ($300 million).
New Stanford is a nice stadium, but on the small side for a championship game (even if if is all about TV), and does not appear to have the boxes/corporate hospitality that are typically associated with big game sites.
formerly bruinhoo
So
Realistically we are really left with Rose Bowl, Colosseum, Seahawk’s Stadium and may be the Broncos’ stadium. Can the Pac-10 conference sell out a championship game at that venue featuring a highly anticipated matchup between Oregon State and Utah?
I think that Glendale could still be an option
There would be enough time between a Pac-1x game and the Fiesta Bowl for basic logistics to work out. The lack of a Pac tie-in to the Fiesta could alleviate some of the San Diego-type concerns about Pac-10 fatigue, though the years in which the MNC rotates to that stadium could be a blow to local enthusiasm, which is why I see it best as part of a 2-city rotation for the game (along with Seattle/Quest, or Bay Area, or even Denver/New Mile High).
I don’t think the Rose Bowl should be in the discussion. I would rather not have the championship game at the same site as the champion’s bowl game, in the same vein as the concern with Qualcomm hosting other Pac-10 bowl games. The addition of Colorado certainly opens the door to Denver, but early December weather would lead to issues greater than those existing with Seattle.
formerly bruinhoo
Early December temperatures
in Denver can be anywhere from 60 to -10. Not very reliable.
greg in denver - UCLA guy for life
Do you think UCLA fans will travel in droves?
to a Pac-10 championship game in Glendale (or one in Seattle)? Again, I am trying to envision this strictly from the perspective of UCLA.
If we're in it?
Yes. Well, made in just one drove rather than in droves.
If we’re not in it, yawn. Wake me later.
Will the fans of team X travel to to whatever city the game is held at?
Whether it is Colorado-ASU in Seattle, or Oregon-Stanford in Glendale. I think the home team in whichever region the game is held – if that team makes the game – will sell tickets, but I don’t know if other fanbase(s) will travel, wherever the game is held. When I think of a title game, my mind goes straight to those infamous aerial shots of the ACC Championship game from a couple years ago in Jacksonville. Hell, the PR from that imo is worse than not having a game at all.
formerly bruinhoo
I don't think
you could fill a high school stadium with that match up
"Success is never final, Failure is never fatal. It's Courage that count's"
John Wooden.....
Well we could just do away with the basketball tournament altogether
by Tydides on Jun 15, 2010 9:50 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Everyone
wants to come to Los Angeles. I don’t think the rest of the Pac would really object to a big game being played in Los Angeles.
You’re right. I think they would still have the option of rotating cities and stadiums ie.Cardinals, 49ers, Seahawks, etc….
Disgusted that we don’t have a pro-football team.
by LoveMyBruins on Jun 15, 2010 10:03 AM PDT up reply actions
couple of thoughts.
I’m also a big believer in symmetry and so it would seem Colorado State must be our next invite. However, I don’t see how this helps us at all other than to maintain symmetry and natural rivalries.
I’m not sure waiting to invite a 12th team really helps us either. I don’t see how time is going to make anybody more or less attractive than they are now. Boise State would have made a nice football addition, but don’t bring much else to the conference. Gonzaga would make a nice basketball addition, but the same applies.
So who else is out there to really consider? BYU? Utah? Fresno State? Colorado State? If we’re going to raid the Mountain West, I think TCU is the best addition. But, I don’t see how taking the time to think about it would really change my perception.
The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden
"Arranged Marriage" Is Right
Ugh.
Colorado fits. Utah doesn’t. I can’t see where we’re obligated to pick up Utah, and there’s no “dowry” there, either.
Love My Bruins
Not obligated, but even numbers
make things much simpler for scheduling purposes. Utah might be the best fit out of the teams available.
It seems to me that you youngsters ought to listen to a geezer once in a while.
You teenagers ran home with your new girlfriend, and your hormones were raging, and you kept screaming how you just had to get married, you couldn’t stand to live one more second without her, and, well, and, dad, we eloped and now we’re married but it’s OK, her dad has a TV network and he’s going to give me $20 million a year.
And then you wake up one morning and you find that you don’t like the facial tattoos and the body piercings, and you wonder exactly what it was about gothic nihilists that stirred up the hormones.
Mom and dad forgave you, and you swore you wouldn’t let your emotions and your expanding hormones win out over reason any more.
But you keep going out with your same friends who write the enticing newspaper articles and you keep hanging out at the same old [note – geezer issue: where would you hang out to find a gothic nihilist? That’s the place to insert in my little essay.]
I remember like it was yesterday that I explained so carefully to my dad why it was imperative, vital, important, and totally logical why I just had to have a motorcycle. Well, I didn’t get it. Years later, I repped a motorcycle manufacturer in PI cases. I really didn’t want a motorcycle after that.
Careful, Fox
I made a similar analogy above and got a lecture on stale 20-year marriages.
greg in denver - UCLA guy for life
(That was kind of a rant, wasn't it?)
I found it to be a pretty straight-forward analogy, then…
Wham! We’ve traded in all hope for happiness and our lives are over.
Geez.
Love My Bruins
by Bruingirl83 on Jun 15, 2010 11:24 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm Not Sure Where Gothic Nihilists Hang Out, But...
Fox, you are a doggone treasure.
Love My Bruins
by Bruingirl83 on Jun 15, 2010 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions
in 2012
just wondering if anyone knows how the 2012 schedule will look like? since they added CU.
Wait to see if anyone/who else gets added to the conference.
The conference won’t be adding a 10th conference game; if anything, they will drop back to an 8-game conference schedule. Colorado joining the schedule would result in maybe having them take the place of another conference team on our schedule. If another team, such as Utah joins in the same year, we will be looking at separating into divisions, with more extensive changes to the conference scheduled (but not in how many games are played in-conference).
formerly bruinhoo
There's a case to be made for the Utes
I was uninspired about the likely addition of Utah to the conference, but in Googling them this morning, I found some points in their favor.
+ They knocked off Alabama 31-7 in the Sugar Bowl and went undefeated a couple of years ago (how quickly we, or at least I, forget such things)
+ Their football record since 2000 is 86-30
+ They’ve been to the NCAA basketball tournament 27 times
+ Their womens gymnastics team has won 10 NCAA championships
+ Unlike the Buffs, the Utes play baseball
Granted, SLC is not a city I’d want to spend much time in, but the surrounding mountains, with world-class skiing and other outdoor activities year-round, are worth a visit. And SLC is close enough to allow lots of Bruin fans to accompany their teams.
Utah wasn’t on my conference expansion dream list, but on reflection, I’d be okay with them as #12.
I don't really care for those Utes upsets
In games opponents are incredibly bored about playing them. They have had a nice run and snuck up on few after getting fattened up on MWC schedules and playing against BCS teams with chips on their shoulder. Just not impressed.
Don't forget what the Utes did in 2007 to our Bruins...
…smacked us around for 44 points IIRC. We were weak but they pasted us. Having said that, I have no interest in them being added to the Pac-11. I can’t remember if it really was an upset- – I think they had already rolled over others for big points that year. Still, no team out West except CU seems ready to join the conference at this point (i.e., that has the blend of academics and athletics to fit in).
Mixed Feelings
While I like the idea of CU being in the conference, I was at first anticipating a mass exodus from the Big 12 by Texas, A&M, TT, Oklahoma and Okie St. to create a new Pac 16. When second thoughts were had and these schools ultimately decided to stay put (for now, perhaps) I was initially very disappointed. Then, after thinking about it for a bit, I realized that MAYBE going from 10 to 16 teams MIGHT be very unwieldy and could create more havoc than originally envisioned.
On the other hand, now that we do have CU in the fold, I just don’t think we can stand pat at 11 members. I think you HAVE to even it out to at least 12. A good point was made at how the Big 10 was able to hold their hand for the right moment to present itself and bring a school like Nebraska on board. In the Pac 10’s case, however, I just don’t think they have that luxury. I don’t think Larry Scott can just sit back and hope in vain that one of those aforementioned Big 12 schools suddenly become available again. That said, while I’m not fanatical about Utah possibly coming aboard, they might be the best choice. Geographically, it can fit with CU now in the mix. And, if not Utah, then who? BYU? CSU? These latter two I could definitely do w/o.
As for TV, all I can say is, living in Big 10 country, they’ve got a good thing going with ABC/ESPN/ESPN2. Wish we could get something like that.
Los Angeles Rams and the UCLA Bruins!!!!!
by Minnesota Bruinfan on Jun 15, 2010 10:40 AM PDT reply actions
True
But even back in the early 90’s when they got PSU into the mix the REAL hope was to get ND as well. When that failed, they did make the best out of the situation.
Los Angeles Rams and the UCLA Bruins!!!!!
by Minnesota Bruinfan on Jun 15, 2010 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions
another choice
I must be missing something but why isn’t Fresno State getting a sniff? Is it purely about TV revenue? They have a strong program, rabid fan base and is locale friendly.
AND Fresno is
also what I’d call a “Dream Destination”
Is it purely about TV revenue?
Purely? No. Mostly? Yes. Also, Fresno does not fit the academic profile of the conference at all.
It was a sincere question. I didn’t know the academic standing of Utah. I do ,however ,know the academic standing of ASU and Uof A
Research Institutions
Every member of the Pac 10, as well as Colorado, Utah, and the members of the Big 12 that the Pac was looking at, are research institutions. Utah is actually among the top 50 universities in the country in terms of research dollars. Fresno State is not.
Not to sound elitist about this
But neither Cal or UCLA will ever allow a Cal State University into the Pac-whatever. Whether or not it is a good thing, it seems to me to be a class distinction of sorts among the public universities in the state, in the same way that under the state’s master plan of higher education, the CSU’s are specifically not intended to be research institutions.
formerly bruinhoo
A strong program that has never even won it's own conference?
And this is the WAC we are talking about, not even the MWC (which can at least claim to be the 5th best football conference right now)
formerly bruinhoo
Thanks JD
That was the info I was looking for.
safe to say
I won’t be traveling to Detroit for much anyways…
The issue of time
I hear a lot about how the Big 10 waited and pounced… but I guess a question to be posed is…. will there actually be better opportunities to pounce on in the future?
You’ve gotta remember, back when the Big 10 brought in Penn State in 1990, the college football landscape was very different. The SWC was on the verge of collapse and then the Texas group (thanks in no small part to the Texas state legislature) merged with the Big 8 to form the Big 12.
The SEC also had 10 teams at this time, and was looking to expand to 12 (they took South Carolina and Arkansas). The ACC had 8 teams at this time (but would soon take Florida State at 9, and took 3 more in the 2000’s to go to 12). And of course, you have the mess that is the Big East which no one wants to be a part of.
Flash forward to today, and where do we stand? Well the Big 10 has 12 teams, the SEC has 12 teams, the ACC has 12 teams, the Big 12-2 has 10 teams, and the Big East has 16 (but only 8 in football).
Obviously, outside of the Big 12-2, the Big East is on the shakiest ground. But if we’re going to wait to pounce on a team, what’s left?
Obviously we haven’t figured out teleportation yet, and we saw people complain about travel to the proposed Pac-16, so we can’t exactly poach Big East teams. Notre Dame? They managed to stay independent and didn’t blink during this entire realignment talk.
How many other universities west of the Mississippi fit the profile of Pac-10 schools: that of large, research-oriented, and participates in many sports? Texas was obviously one of them, Colorado we took, and what else? Nebraska is taken as well, and no one wants Mizzou so why would we? Kansas I could see, but I could only see if they were coming with Texas and Oklahoma and then we’d be back to the Pac-16 issues all over again.
I don’t see us raiding the WAC or MWC for anything other than Utah at this point really (BYU, CSU, and USU all have issues that won’t let them fit in the conference) because none of them are candidates.
Unless we’re waiting for the Temporary Ten’s inevitable collapse and looking to deal with Texas & Co. all over again (I’m glad though that Larry Scott stood up to their 11th hour demands), I’m not sure there are all that many viable options/schools left to wait for.
Those are good thoughts Nick
Still I don’t see how Big-Tex lasts for another 3-5 years. They are going to collapse. When they do we will be in better negotiating situation with UT with or without UT. So again bringing UT in the conference does more for them than it does for us.
Getting a conference championship game might mean some extra $ but I don’t see it sparking the Pac-10 fanbases. I certainly don’t see it sparking any of our fanbases. All this move does is bring in another team’s coaches to leach around in our recruiting backyard. I don’t really care much for that.
I see no need to pounce.
Let an attractive enough suitor come calling, and maybe we’ll talk to him. Maybe not.
Not saying we need to pounce
Question is, whether there will ever be such an attractive enough suitor again?
As stated, the Big 12-2 might be the only conference left to break up that will have compatible teams for many many years… but I’m not sure how we’d be willing to deal with them with this last fiasco. Of course, if what everyone is saying is true and eventually, be it tomorrow or in 10 years, that the era of super-conferences is coming, we might not have much of a choice unless we end up on the outside looking in
Meanwhile, the 'attractive suitor' is still sitting around
I don’t see Utah going anywhere in the near future; if 3-5 years from now, the Big X is looking stable and the Pac is starting to feel a financial effect of not having a 12th team, we can bring Utah in at that time. Unless there is a quantifiable benefit to bringing them into the fold now, I don’t see the need to make the move at this time.
formerly bruinhoo
well
This is not surprising. it seems like the pac-10 looked around and asked what school available had the best combination of football wins, market size, locale, research, academics, and facilitates. That school turned out to be Utah. Yeah, they could’ve waited…but why?
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bruins Nation
Related FanShots on Bruins Nation
![Notre Dame fan gives us a picture of "Southern cal's youth, community conscious people and church groups." [ND Nation]. For a larger version of that 'artwork' click here.
GO BRUINS.](http://cdn0.sbnation.com/fan_shot_images/126499/4482414398_e5bed14eaf_o_small.jpg)
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
