Quantcast
Sports

Pac-12 eyes regular season games, TV deals in China

Comments

Return To Article
  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    July 10, 2013 8:49 p.m.

    "No, the conference isn't trying to add another team."

    It isn't that we're against expansion.

    There just aren't any worthy teams until you get to Texas and Oklahoma. I could still see them joining the Pac 12 at some point in the future.

    There is no question the Pac 12 is a more high profile league than the Big 12.

    I love the Pac 12!

    Go Utes!

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    July 10, 2013 8:52 p.m.

    I wonder if the WAC/WCC/MWC has the clout to do something like this.

    LOL

  • Who am I sir? Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 10, 2013 10:25 p.m.

    Looks like the millions of BYU fans in China will be able to see and cheer for a team from Utah after all!

  • Cougsndawgs West Point , UT
    July 10, 2013 11:21 p.m.

    Who am I sir:
    "Looks like the millions of BYU fans in China will be able to see and cheer for a team from Utah after all!"

    What team from Utah? The article doesn't mention any teams from Utah on the PAC12s China plans thus far, unless I missed something.

    Chris B:
    "There just aren't any worthy teams until you get to Texas and Oklahoma. I could still see them joining the Pac 12 at some point in the future".

    Texas already rejected the PAC12 because they can have more clout and money now in the Big 12 than they ever would have had in the PAC. Now before any ute fans start their schpeel about the PAC rejecting Texas...no, Texas told the PAC what they wanted, the PAC was unwilling to make concessions and Texas didn't budge in their demands. Probably glad they didn't because they are making an enormous amount of money without the left coast hippy league now. Btw, the Big 12 has the highest per team payout of any conference, so the networks obviously don't agree with your opinion of the PAC12 vs the Big 12. "LOL"

  • ekute Layton, UT
    July 11, 2013 2:02 a.m.

    A sensible, well thought reality to "expand the conference brand".
    Not some whimsical, highfalutin, overinflated pipe dream.

    Go Utes.
    Go Pac12.

  • gdog3finally West Jordan, Utah
    July 11, 2013 5:36 a.m.

    This is interesting. Although the PAC has the money to do this, I wonder if the payoff will be something worth the university presidents approval and Scott's vision (whatever it is).

    Will this influence other power conferences to spend their efforts exploring this? I sort of doubt that one. Still, realize that where SEC football is religion, the overall sports program quality trails the PAC.

    Utah is trying to build their programs to climb up the conference ladder, but they still compare well with many other BCS conference schools in athletic achievement. Being at the bottom of the PAC doesn't mean Utah's gymnastice program isn't elite, and has been for 30+ years. Those types of examples make Utah a better fit for the PAC than many others all around. BYU fans forget that about Utah, because BYU has many sports (golf and volleyball to name a few) that are in the upper echelon. My point? Hate not my friends. On second thought, that sounds like advice from the least interesting man in the world. Dissect that one twilight zoners.

  • Dutchman Murray, UT
    July 11, 2013 8:46 a.m.

    University of Utah trustees signed off on a plan in March 2013 to open its first international branch campus in South Korea in a project subsidized by the South Korean government. President David Pershing at the U and the other PAC 12 presidents are the ones pushing Larry Scott on this endeavor because they see the academic and research benefit of being actively involved in the pacific rim. This is a lot more than an athletic move.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    July 11, 2013 8:56 a.m.

    I thought we were the only TV in China.

  • WACPaddingOurSchedule pocatello, ID
    July 11, 2013 9:08 a.m.

    Cougsndawgs
    West Point , UT

    Chris B:
    "There just aren't any worthy teams until you get to Texas and Oklahoma. I could still see them joining the Pac 12 at some point in the future".

    Btw, the Big 12 has the highest per team payout of any conference, so the networks obviously don't agree with your opinion of the PAC12 vs the Big 12. "LOL"

    ______

    Not for long. The next SEC deal will make them #1 in TV payouts per team.

    When you combine conference revenue from bowl games, TV payouts, and NCAA tournaments:

    1. Big 10
    2. Pac 12
    3. ACC
    4. SEC
    5. Big 12
    9. MWC

  • Cougsndawgs West Point , UT
    July 11, 2013 10:45 a.m.

    WACPaddled:
    "When you combine conference revenue from bowl games, TV payouts, and NCAA tournaments:
    1. Big 10
    2. Pac 12
    3. ACC
    4. SEC
    5. Big 12
    9. MWC"

    This is actually a ranking by total revenue, not a per team payout as I was discussing. What many people forget is that the Big 12 teams own their own 3rd tier rights and make enormous amounts of money on those rights. When avg 3rd tier rights are taken into consideration, the Big 12 is still number 1, followed closely by the B1G. However I do agree that when the SEC signs their deal they will surpass the Big 12. All that said, the PAC12 will be 4th, which hardly supports Chris Bs assessment of where the conferences stack up.

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    July 11, 2013 12:21 p.m.

    Cougsndawgs:

    "Btw, the Big 12 has the highest per team payout of any conference, so the networks obviously don't agree with your opinion of the PAC12 vs the Big 12. 'LOL'"

    That sounds "made up". Last I heard, the Big 12 inked a 13-yr $2.6 billion deal. That breaks down to $200 million/yr; ultimately $20 million/team annually.

    The Pac-12 signed a 12-yr $3 billion deal. That breaks down to $250 million/yr; ultimately $20.83 million annually.

    The Pac-12's agreement was signed back in May of 2011. The Big 12's was done in Sept. of 2012. So despite negotiating with the networks nearly a year and a half after the Pac-12 did, they STILL got a smaller deal. $20M < $20.83M. You're gonna need to back that "highest per team payout of any conference" up with something that can be verified.

    Can you? Or did you frantically and emotionally make that up?

  • VegasUte Las Vegas, NV
    July 11, 2013 12:26 p.m.

    Cougs - you really arguing per school payouts from conferences? Nobody here cares what the WCC conference pays out, so why do you care so much that you have to comment on this story?

    And - PLEASE - stop confronting Chris B! You only encourage him!!

    Go Utes!! Onward and Upward!!

  • CougFaninTX Frisco, TX
    July 11, 2013 12:27 p.m.

    On June 22, DNews printed an article about BYU scheduling international games. Several Ute fans ridiculed the idea. Now that the PAC is looking at the idea, U think it's a great idea?

    @chris b - "I wonder if the WAC/WCC/MWC has the clout to do something like this." I don't know, but I do know that BYU has the clout to do something like this and is a step ahead of the PAC.

    Watching Tyler Haws play in the World University games in Russia on ESPN shows me know that there is an appetite for American sports across the pond.

  • VegasUte Las Vegas, NV
    July 11, 2013 12:28 p.m.

    Nice post Dutchman. I hope the pacific rim endeavor really pays off. Guillermo Del Toro makes good movies!

  • VegasUte Las Vegas, NV
    July 11, 2013 1:16 p.m.

    CougFaninTX: "Several Ute fans ridiculed the idea"

    Let me guess, Chris B was one of them. Just like little ducky will be ridiculing this story. Don't link all Utah fans in with the postings of trollers, just like I won't hold you accountable for what the little duck says. You can be an intelligent poster, but your credibility fails when you come on to a completely Utah story (although the word "university" does appear in this article, it is neither preceded nor followed by the words "brigham" or "young") simply to combat Chris B. Chris B loves to get under thin skin, and you are obliging him.

    Go Utes! Onward and Upward!

  • Uteology East Salt Lake City, Utah
    July 11, 2013 1:48 p.m.

    @CougFaninTX

    On June 22, DNews printed an article about BYU scheduling international games. Several Ute fans ridiculed the idea. Now that the PAC is looking at the idea, U think it's a great idea?

    -------------

    That article was about BYU playing football games overseas. I don't think many people outside of the US give a diddly tech about American football. That article clearly said that no team was interested in playing a football game overseas:

    "For Holmoe, it’s a tantalizing idea — playing a college football game in a place like Mexico City, London, Berlin or Beijing... I would be really excited about that, but there aren't a lot of other teams that are excited about that. People don't want to do that.”.

    "But I do know that BYU has the clout to do something like this and is a step ahead of the PAC."

    BYU is a step ahead of the PAC-12 in what? Brand?

  • Uteology East Salt Lake City, Utah
    July 11, 2013 1:55 p.m.

    @Cougsndawgs

    Texas told the PAC-12 what they wanted and the PAC-12 "LOL".

    When they stopped "LOL" they said no thanks. We'll let the BIG 12, which was on the verge of collapsing, deal with your demands.

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    July 11, 2013 2:13 p.m.

    @vegas ute

    fail

    So in the article a few weeks ago about Tom Holmoe being "intrigued" with scheduling international games we had the following utah "fan" comments.

    "The Deuce

    Do you get the feeling that the wheels are starting to come off the bus. First, you go independent without thinking about scheduling. Now the AD starts to think about taking college football to regions that would be more interested in a soccer game than a football game."

    "Ernest T. Bass

    We already own viewership in China. If we could schedule games in Canada we could own three countries thanks to the ESPN contract."

    "Who am I sir?

    One more article about BYU's scheduling. In this one Mr. Holmoe is intrigued. In others he is interested, pleading, critical, etc"

    "ImaCaMan

    To our one billion fans in China- here we come!"

    Interesting how the utah "fan" take on this is different when it is the pac12 talking about doing it. Oh and by the way, BYUtv is already available in china but it is nice to see that larry scott and the pac12 pay attention to what BYU is leading in and try to follow suit.

    LOL!

  • Cougsndawgs West Point , UT
    July 11, 2013 3:33 p.m.

    Naval Vet:
    "That sounds "made up". Last I heard, the Big 12 inked a 13-yr $2.6 billion deal. That breaks down to $200 million/yr; ultimately $20 million/team annually".

    Forbes: "Because the Big 12 only has 10 teams, each school's share is $26.2 million, which is the most per school in the major conferences". Or just go to the Forbes article: "Big 10 Tops Revenue List, But Big 12 Richest League Per School".

    The above quote can be found at Sports Illustrated, Sporting News, CBSSports, College Confidential, SBNation, etc. You became "frantic" (again) and didn't take into account bowls, or NCAA didn't you? Again the B1G was highest overall, but the Big 12 highest per school, and after the SEC signs their deal, the PAC12 will be all the way back at #4 per school.

    VegasUte:
    "And - PLEASE - stop confronting Chris B! You only encourage him"

    I agree, I should know better. Thanks for reminding me lol.

  • BruinRay97 San Diego, CA
    July 11, 2013 5:55 p.m.

    "Texas told the PAC what they wanted, the PAC was unwilling to make concessions and Texas didn't budge in their demands." With all due respect sir, the only sticking point in 2012 was that UT had started negotiations with ESPN to form The Longhorn Network. The Pac12 presidents did mot approve of this, because of the impending Pac12 Network, and voted NOT to proceed with the expansion. In 2010, Texas declined an invitation because it did not agree with equal revenue sharing with fellow conference members. As far as Big12 making any significant amount on money on 3rd tier rights, the demand isn't there yet, according to several publications. I am in agreement with you concerning any Big12 schools joining the Pac 12. It's NOT going to happen. In my opinion, the Pac12 made an EPIC mistake in not inviting the Oklahoma schools last year. That didn't even get a vote, just a polite "no thank you". Maybe the Pac learns from their mistake and extends your fine school an invite?

  • Cougsndawgs West Point , UT
    July 11, 2013 6:25 p.m.

    BruinRay
    "the only sticking point in 2012 was that UT had started negotiations with ESPN to form The Longhorn Network. The Pac12 presidents did mot approve of this, because of the impending Pac12 Network, and voted NOT to proceed with the expansion. In 2010, Texas declined an invitation because it did not agree with equal revenue sharing with fellow conference members."

    With all due respect, 2010 was when UT was in discussion with ESPN and building the LHN, and it was still for this reason that Texas declined the invitation. Because the PAC10 presidents, as you stated, didn't approve of their desire for unequal revenue sharing due to the soon-to-be-formed LHN. The LHN had been up and running for 2 years in 2012...or maybe you meant 2010? Either way the LHN was always the sticking point...in both 2010 & 2011.

    I do agree that not admitting the Oklahoma schools was a mistake for the PAC12. As far as BYU ever being invited to the PAC12...won't ever happen as long as BYU is a privately owned religious institution (which is fine with me...I'd prefer the Big 12).

  • let's roll LEHI, UT
    July 11, 2013 6:33 p.m.

    Best wishes to the PAC-12 in their athletic diplomacy endeavors.

    Never a bad idea to try to build bridges.

  • BruinRay97 San Diego, CA
    July 11, 2013 6:52 p.m.

    You are correct. I keyed in erroneous info., but still, no "list of demands". UT is like a high maintenance girlfriend. In any case, some concessions are going to have to be made by the Pac if they are ever going to expand. There aren't very many candidates out there to choose from. As for the Big12, it is a fine league. Really stable after their latest acquisitions.

  • EdGrady Idaho Falls, ID
    July 11, 2013 7:48 p.m.

    I see no reason why the utes should not become bowl ineligible in Asia as well as in California, Arizona, Washington and Oregon.

  • MyPerspective Salt Lake City, UT
    July 11, 2013 7:50 p.m.

    Cougsndawgs
    "As far as BYU ever being invited to the PAC12...won't ever happen as long as BYU is a privately owned religious institution (which is fine with me...I'd prefer the Big 12)."

    Well, Cougsndawgs, the Big 12 isn't calling either.

    As far as your assertion regarding the Pac-12 not inviting byu...the issue has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that byu is a privately owned religious institution. byu has neither the research base or the breadth and depth in academics that the Pac-12 wants in it's member institutions. The bar is too high for byu. Run along.

  • Cougsndawgs West Point , UT
    July 11, 2013 8:24 p.m.

    MyPerspective:
    I can promise you one other thing along with death and taxes...the PAC12 will NEVER invite a religiously owned conservative university, regardless of it's research or academic reputation. I know you can't stand the thought that your beloved conference has no political or social agenda, but you need to wake up to reality (telling people to run along that are trying to give you a dose speaks volumes about your lack of awareness to reality in this regard).

    As for academics, it's true that Utah is a tier 1 research school, and deserved to be invited to the PAC12 considering what the conferences desires were for expansion. I've said this on several occasions. Don't confuse my realistic assessment of the utes conference as a statement that Utah didn't belong or didn't deserve their invite. I was simply pointing to the reality that BYU will never be invited, regardless of what they do or change academically, because they don't fit the PACs political or social profile. As for the Big 12...you may be right, or you may not be...we shall see.

  • Dutchman Murray, UT
    July 12, 2013 8:15 a.m.

    CougsnDawgs,

    I agree with you that BYU will never be invited to the PAC 12 but not for the reasons you state. Everyone of or almost everyone of the PAC 12 schools has had a Mormon president and an active Mormon at that. Even very liberal Colorado had Gordon Gee. Washington currently has Michael Young. The whole California higher ed system which includes Cal and UCLA was led for many years by David Gardner, a BYU grad and former U president. Arizona State had G. Homer Durham who later became as LDS general authority. I could go on and on. The point is that PAC 12 schools through their hiring practices for top positions and their politics are not anti Mormon. I believe the main reason BYU did not get an invite and will not get an invite and I have stated this before, is that the league already has two private universities, Stanford and USC, with all the attendant well heeled alumni and financial resources that private schools can command and the rest of the public universities did not and do not want to contend with a third private school.

  • Bleed Crimson Sandy, Utah
    July 12, 2013 9:42 a.m.

    @ Cougsndawgs

    "I can promise you one other thing along with death and taxes...the PAC12 will NEVER invite a religiously owned conservative university, regardless of it's research or academic reputation. I know you can't stand the thought that your beloved conference has no political or social agenda"

    BYU fans really need to stop using the religious discrimination card as an excuse for not being invited to join the Pac-10. Religion has nothing to do with why the Pac-10 wanted Utah and not BYU. The Pac-10 has made it very clear their looking for tier 1 research universities. Utah is and BYU is not! You can bet your house that the Pac-10 would invite Notre Dame to join the league if they're willing to give up their independence. Plus Notre Dame meets all the requirements including being a tier 1 research university. Also Notre Dame brings tons of value to any conference which makes them desirable. BYU brings hardly any value and is not desirable for any conference to invite them. (except a desperate Big East).

  • Dutchman Murray, UT
    July 12, 2013 11:04 a.m.

    Bleed Crimson,

    BYU certainly brings value and they would be great addition to a conference. Their athletic facilities and teams are top notch. Geographically BYU does not work for the Big 12. And as I stated if the PAC 10 before expansion had no private schools already in the league I believe BYU would have been invited to join the PAC 12. The Sunday play issue would have been worked out. I do agree with you that BYU fans need to get over the religious persecution thing as the reason BYU was not invited. It is just plain not the reason. And as for BYU being too conservative politically for the PAC 12 I would just point out that the BYU J. Reuben Clark Law School puts out more than its fair share of ACLU attorneys with at least two of the past executive directors of the Utah ACLU graduating from BYU law school. There are a few other bastions of liberalism on the BYU campus that could be pointed out but there is not enough room here. So, let's dispense with the argument that BYU is too conservative or religious to have been invited to the PAC 12.

  • Cougsndawgs West Point , UT
    July 12, 2013 12:09 p.m.

    MyPerspective:
    "BYU fans really need to stop using the religious discrimination card as an excuse for not being invited to join the Pac-10. Religion has nothing to do with why the Pac-10 wanted Utah and not BYU. The Pac-10 has made it very clear their looking for tier 1 research universities".

    I never said BYU should have been in above Utah. I've also pointed out on several occasions that tier 1 research was one of the reasons BYU was not included, while Utah was. I'm not suggesting that being a religiously private school is ALL that kept BYU out, but to believe it has nothing to do with their exclusion is also naive. ND will never be in the PAC12 because they are a religiously owned private school, despite their tier 1 academic status (PAC12 still prefers AAU over tier 1 btw). ND would certainly add value but the PAC has shown they will take their research and political fit over value, when they took Utah. BYU would have brought a larger fanbase, and more money...so it's obviously not just about athletic value.

  • Dutchman Murray, UT
    July 12, 2013 12:47 p.m.

    CougsnDawgs,

    You seem pretty convinced that religion played a role in BYU not being invited to the PAC 12, maybe not the entire role, but a role. I provided some evidence to the contrary. I would be interested in your evidence. I have suggested this to BYU fans before but had no takers. Demand to see under the freedom of information act all the emails and communications between the PAC 12 presidents during the the time of conference expansion and let's read once and for all what they discussed and said to each other about expansion and the candidate schools under consideration. You should want to know. I challenge you to go for it. ND did not get invited because geographically the Olympic sports do not work although for football they could have made that work but the PAC 12 is all about Olympic sports as well as football. It had nothing to do with ND being a religious private school although as I have pointed out the conference did not want a third private university.

  • Naval Vet Philadelphia, PA
    July 12, 2013 2:39 p.m.

    Cougsndawgs:

    I stand corrected. The Pac-12's "television deal" pays each member institution more annually than our Big 12 counterparts, but "overall", the Big 12 does indeed gross over 3.5% more per-school than the Pac-12...

    ...which translates roughly to nearly 292.3% more than the Indy-WACers.

    "LOL"

  • truecoug1 Provo, UT
    July 12, 2013 2:57 p.m.

    @Dutchman "You seem pretty convinced that religion played a role in BYU not being invited to the PAC 12, maybe not the entire role, but a role. I provided some evidence to the contrary."

    Here are a couple of quotes from national sports writer about religion and the PAC 12 who might disagee with you:

    Berry Trammel, The Oklahoman: "And no way is Baylor attractive to the Pac-10. The Pac-10 always has been allergic to Brigham Young, another church-based school. Baylor is the nation’s largest Baptist university. A Baptist friend of mine says Baylor actually is quite liberal in Baptist eyes, but I don’t think that’s a concept Berkeley recognizes, liberal Baptist."

    Matthew Smith, Scout: "BYU comes with its own set of issues. They won’t play sports on Sundays, they’re a very religious university (which is NOT a good cultural fit with the Pac-10))"

    Kate Shellnutt, Houston Chronicle: "“The Pac-10 does not want Baylor. Nearly nothing would shock me more than an official from Cal or Stanford actually voting for a Baptist university to join the Pac-10.”

  • truecoug1 Provo, UT
    July 12, 2013 3:01 p.m.

    @Dutchman

    So this isn't just a BYU fan, "religious persecution" thing. Most everyone outside of the PAC knows that the PAC is not going to invite a religious institution to join them. It's just not a good cultural fit for them.

    I don't have a problem with that, the PAC can do whatever they want.

    But if you really think that religion had nothing to do with BYU, or Baylor, never being considered for expansion by the PAC 12, then you have your head in the sand.

    Go Cougars! And best of luck to the Utes in the PAC.

  • Cougsndawgs West Point , UT
    July 12, 2013 3:53 p.m.

    Dutchman:
    I was actually going to respond to your post but got held up. I think you make some very good points, and obviously are trying to analyze this objectively, so I appreciate your perspective.

    The fact that PAC12 schools will hire administrators that are LDS says nothing of what they will do regarding affiliations with institutions...thats an apples to oranges comparison. If an individual is a good executive and has good academic credentials you hire them to do a certain job because you feel they'll do it well. Going into business and having partnerships with another institution or entity is something entirely different. I'm sure you can see that. As far as politics, I beg to differ that at least Stanford and Cal do not espouse or want anything to do with the LDS' political views on prop 8, etc, and by extension BYU's.

    I think it may be fair to say that I might be pressing too much on the PAC12's anti religious stance, while you may not be taking it into account enough? Fair? If nothing else there's certainly the perception that the PAC12 wants no religious schools, as truecoug pointed out.

  • Dutchman Murray, UT
    July 12, 2013 4:09 p.m.

    TrueCoug1,

    Thanks for the statments from sports writers but that is all they are, someone's opinion. Apparently, the PAC 12 schools have no problem hiring Mormon presidents. That seems odd. I am sure they admit Mormon students as well. Or do you think they are excluded? Do some research since you guys are convinced there is a Mormon bias at these schools. What is the Mormon makeup of the studentbody and the faculty? Find some actual statements from the league presidents that indicate a religious bias. The Houston Chronical guy mentioned Cal. Funny thing, David P. Gardner, a BYU grad and active Mormon at one time supervised the Chancellor of Cal. Yes, and Tom Holmoe was the head football coach at Cal. But we all know Cal is a bunch of Mormon haters. Bring forth some hard evidence to support your position. I don't think my head is in the sand on this one.

  • Cougsndawgs West Point , UT
    July 12, 2013 4:21 p.m.

    Naval Vet:
    "...which translates roughly to nearly 292.3% more than the Indy-WACers".

    Really? You must be higher up in the organization than me, because last I checked BYU doesn't release what they make from ESPN. Not that it matters, money has never been an issue for BYU...why do you think they have the facilities they do? MWC money? "LOL".

  • truecoug1 Provo, UT
    July 13, 2013 9:47 a.m.

    @Dutchman "Do some research since you guys are convinced there is a Mormon bias at these schools."

    Where did I say there was a Mormon bias at these schools? I quoted some national sports writers who talked about how neither Baylor nor Brigham Young would be included in the PAC because of religious affiliation, thus being bad cultural fits. Baylor's a Baptist school, not a Mormon school.

    And of course there aren't official statements from PAC league presidents saying the PAC wouldn't include religious universities. They'd be fired in a heartbeat. But actions speak louder than words. I find it fascinating that during the initial expansion talks between the PAC and the Big XII, Baylor was never considered as a serious candidate by the PAC. It's interesting that the PAC appears willing to have compromised their academic, tier 1 research institution requirement since OSU was widely reported as being part of the six teams the PAC would take from the Big XII.

    But Baylor was never mentioned. And, of course, neither was BYU.

    Curious...

  • truecoug1 Provo, UT
    July 13, 2013 9:52 a.m.

    @Dutchman

    My whole point was to illustrate to you that the perception around the country of the PAC 12 is that they won't include religious universities in any expansion scenario. It's not just a Provo, "Mormon persecution" stance, as you seem to think it is.

    So to sum up, whether or not the PAC really would be willing to invite religious universities, the perception is that they will avoid them like the plague. And the PAC has done nothing to refute that perception in any of its expansion opportunities.

    I'm not saying that religion was the sole factor for BYU, or Baylor, not being considered for expansion by the PAC. But I definitely feel like it was a contributing factor (and it appears there are several sports writers who would agree with that).

    But I'm happy that BYU is an independent. I feel like it will help them more long-term in getting the BYU brand out there more than being in the PAC would. I also think that the PAC and Utah are a great match, and I wish the Utes all the best in their PAC 12 endeavors.

    Go Cougars!

  • Who am I sir? Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 14, 2013 2:40 p.m.

    An article in the "other paper" on this topic said, "It is important to remember that Scott works for the presidents of the conference's member schools. They like the ideas of collaborating in research and attracting students from China. That's why they're on board with these plans, for reasons beyond the sports component."

    The PAC-12 is more than the "Conference of Champions"! All twelve members are listed in the top three rating organizations* of world's top universities. In fact 8 (and the University of Utah is one of the 8) of the 12 are listed in the top 134, 82, or 256 depending on the rating service. (This is also the top 55, 59, or 47 universities in the United States!)
    The PAC-12 - what a conference!

    * Academic Ranking of World Universities, Time Higher Education-world university rankings; and QS World University Rankings

  • PG #1 FAN Lindon, UT
    July 15, 2013 6:50 p.m.

    The Pac 12 should try to get their games on TV in the United States of America before they go looking to expand viewership to people that really don't care. Oops nobody here cares for Pac 12 games either. That explains why Utah is on TV maybe twice a year and never nationally.

  • Pavalova Surfers Paradise, AU
    July 30, 2013 11:49 a.m.

    Maybe the U can win a conference game after all...against the Chinese.