Utah in an expanded PAC 12 wouldn't be even close as good as being independant.
Utah would become irrelevant, is what it means.
Much better to fight this new, insidious, exclusionary college football club
from the *inside*, not the *outside*. ;)
The Utes would end up NOT playing a WAC regular season schedule for the right to
play a C-USA postseason.So it's looking pretty stable for Utah.
Johnny Triumph posts "Utah would become irrelevant, is what it
means."No, that's only what you hope.Sour grapes,
No room for independent BYU on the schedule. With 16 team conferences comes
requirements to play probably 10 or 11 conference games instead of the
obligatory 9 games in a 12 team conference. There won't be room on the schedule
for teams to play BYU even if the games are on Espn. BYU better give up the
fantasy of doing everything their own way and not be dictated to by getting into
one of the super conferences. That is the only way to a national championship
and filling up the schedule.
So many questions, so few knowns. What I am most grateful for is,
from all articles I've read, Utah is part of the future. Regardless of whether
there is any change, whether the Big 12 disintegrates or becomes the big ?,
whether there will be four sixteen team conferences, whatever, Utah is a part of
it. They are not faced with the possibility of being left out or left in
obsecurity playing Idahos on ESPN.Whatever the future of college
football, the U on the Hill will shine bright.
DutchmanWhen has Utah ever been in contention to win a national
championship?There's only one team in the PAC 12 that has ever won a
concensus national championship (finishing #1 in both the AP and Coaches
polls).BYU has more concensus national championships than the other
eleven PAC 12 teams combined.
"Where would Utes land in Pac-12 shake-up?"Similar place -
middle to bottom of the PAC.
The Utes would end up something like the Washington Generals in a Harlem
Globetrotter game... on several weekends.
@ mussinaroundYou have to remember that your "National
championship" was really no accomplishment. BYU went undefeated by beating
no one ranked in the top 25 at the end of that year. Beating the worst Michigan
team in 30 years in the Holiday bowl is nothing to beat your chest about. Oh, and go search google and type in "top ten most undeserving
national titles" and BYU is number one.I don't get why BYU fans
beat their chests so hard about this monumental achievement (haha) that was last
century. Anyone with a brain could tell you that even Utah's 2008 team was
better than BYU's 1984 squad. Keep on saying that BYU has
accomplished more than most teams in the PAC-12, we all need a good laugh.GO UTES!!
The Utes are in good shape, and possibly lucky to have the Big 12 implode AFTER
their marquee teams first spurned the PAC. Otherwise the Utes might not have
been invited to the PAC as numerous articles at the time mentioned (though it is
hard to believe that in the long run, a team from the Salt Lake market wouldn't
be invited as one of the top 64 teams). BYU being or not being
invited to the party would still be based on Sunday play and religious issues,
rather than on record or popularity. BYU easily falls into the top 32 schools
based on record and/or rankings and/or ratings. (Though not being included to a
NATIONAL group based on a religious reason would be justifiable and winnable
cause for a discrimination lawsuit. The PAC can get away with it as a regional
mussingaround | 6:46 p.m. Aug. 16, 2011 Palo Alto, CA "When has
Utah ever been in contention to win a national championship?"2008, when after they clobbered Alabama in the Sugar Bowl they finished #2 in
the AP, the only undefeated team in the country. They had 16 first place votes a
a total of 1,519 points to Florida's 1,606 (who incedently beat Alabama by fewer
points a few weeks earlier---their only common opponent).More
questions from Palo Alto?
MiP"2008, when after they clobbered Alabama in the Sugar Bowl
they finished #2 in the AP"Your argument completely destroys
every claim jealous Utah fans have made that BYU has no chance of winning a
national championship as an independent.First of all, the Utes
finished 6th in the final BCS standings -- not even close to qualifying for the
BCS championship game.Second, the Utes finished 4th in the official
BCS final poll, the Coaches poll.
SouthernUtahUteA national championship is always a huge
accomplishment; a concensus national championship is an even bigger
accomplishment. EVERY major selecting organization of the day selected BYU as
the national champions of 1984.The rules for winning the AP national
championship in 2008 were identical to the rules in 1984.BYU
finished #1Utah finished #2#1 > #2always
has been; always will bedespite the feable efforts of jealous
naysayers on the hill to try to rewrite history
Full respect to teams like tcu or Pitt who have multiple NC' s but don't put it
in your face. You see, these two teams know their NC's are important but simply
not relevant as it pertains to the modern era and especially the bcs era. These
two teams have however been to a bcs game, something that is currently relevant.
SportsFan,***Your argument completely destroys every claim jealous
Utah fans have made that BYU has no chance of winning a national championship as
an independent.***Didn't you just explain exactly why BYU has no
chance of winning NC as indy when you stated:***First of all, the
Utes finished 6th in the final BCS standings -- not even close to qualifying for
the BCS championship game.Second, the Utes finished 4th in the
official BCS final poll, the Coaches poll.***So, if Utah couldn't
get into NC game being undefeated more than once, then why would byu? I haven't
even mentioned that the best team byu could beat in the last 13 years was Utah
at #18. What makes you think they could beat a #1 team?I'm not
trying to "hate byu", I just don't understand why the popularity
contest vote of 1984 is so much better than Utah's 2004 and 2008 undefeated
seasons. Yes, I understand Utah wasn't VOTED #1 in the polls as byu was lucky to
do. Yes byu has a pretty little trophy. Did byu deserve it? No more than Utah
deserved an NC in 2004 and 2008.
SportsFan, My argument was that Utah has come close to "playing
for" a national championship, not that they won one. Even in
the BCS era, there have been split national champions. In 2003, LSU was crowned
the BCS national champion, by means of the coaches poll, and USC was crowned AP
national champion. (As an aside, I find it ironic that some BYU fans would pick
a poll AP/coaches when it's convinient---Utah finished ranked in the coaches
poll last year, yet most Coug fans will quote the AP, in which Utah would have
been unranked/"26"...but I digress).You are right, the
Utes were 6th in the final BCS poll of 2008, meaning they wouldn't play in the
BCS NC game (how close 6th is to "playing for the NC" is debatable).
But by beating Alabama they made it very interesting in the final AP which, as
mentioned before, is not afraid to split the NC. I'd say second qualifies for
"close." If you think playing in a "NC game" is the
criteria, then 1984 wasn't legitamate as BYU played in the Holliday Bowl. But it
was, because of voting---as you said.My logic stands.
SportsFan:"the Utes finished 4th in the official BCS final
poll, the Coaches poll."The Coaches poll is not "the
official BCS...poll". It is a "contributor" to the BCS Poll;
along with the Harris, and a bevy of computer polls. The The Final BCS Poll is
tabulated BEFORE the bowl games. That is done because the sole purpose of this
poll is to determine who will play for the NC. After all the bowls have been
played, they do not re-rank the teams. There is nothing "more
official" about the final Coaches poll than the final poll in the AP.
bla bla bla bla bla bla and more bla bla bla......from both sides. Grow up!
Utes shouldn't take Montana State lightly even though they've never lost to
them. Montana State has beaten the Cougars 6 times, so magic happens.
mussingaround,My original comment: "No room for independent
BYU on the schedule. With 16 team conferences comes requirements to play
probably 10 or 11 conference games instead of the obligatory 9 games in a 12
team conference. There won't be room on the schedule for teams to play BYU even
if the games are on Espn. BYU better give up the fantasy of doing everything
their own way and not be dictated to by getting into one of the super
conferences. That is the only way to a national championship and filling up the
schedule."You veered off course bringing Utah into the
discussion. I didn't mention anything about Utah but they do have a path to a
national championship game. Tell me how BYU in a 64 team set up in four 16 team
conferences gets a path to the national title game and how they fill a schedule
as an independent when most teams will be playing 10 or 11 games in their own
conferences. Stay on subject and answer the question if you can.
The Pac-12 might have the advantage in 16-team expansion over the Big 12 because
the Pac-12 has proactive Scott while the Big 12 has reactive Beebe.If the Big 12 had any brains, they'd be the first BCS conference to expand to
16 teams. That'd leave the Pac-12 without any good expansion options.For sure, A&M is leaving the Big 12 for the SEC. Just a matter of how
soon.Lucky Pac-12. What with having Scott instead of Beebe.
What I don't like about the possible division alignment is the Utes wouldn't be
playing in Southern California as much and that would hurt recruiting. I would
prefer to keep the North and South divisions by putting a couple of the midwest
schools in the North. We'll see what happens.