Innocent question. Why the dislike for Utah? I haven’t paid enough attention to the PAC 12 situation but I was under the impression that Utah would be a natural fit as a rival for BYU, similar to the ISU/UI.
Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)
- Thread starter ISUcyclones11
- Start date
They have made it very clear that they are too good for the big XII. That we would be a step down.
IMO they feel the Big10 might still be an option based on the strength of their football program and location in SLC. Can't blame them if they think the Big10 takes 6 Pac12 teams. Especially if Cal and/or Stanford aren't committed to college athletics with the portal and pay-for-play.
I also feel the vitriol of the BYU & Utah rivalry is displayed on national social media and the most negative fans get the biggest platform. Just think of the social media battles between Cyclone and Hawk fans during CyHawk week and we have seen this for 5 months with Big12/Pac12 realignment.
In the end, the TV folks will decide where Utah ends up.
Personally, I feel people are letting emotions cloud their reasoning if they don't view Utah as one of the most desired Pac10 schools by the TV folks. Right behind Oregon & Washington. Money matters, so eyeballs matter.
It’s just as stupid as the PAC media mafia saying “SDSU made the title game in basketball this year so obviously they bring value!”.
A nice little run of football seasons doesn’t matter. Sports are transactional. One scandal or one coaching change can completely change the trajectory of the results on the field. Media companies know this. The Big 10 didn’t care about Nebraska football results, they cared about their huge cultish fan base and the brand.
What has made the big XII stable is there isn’t any teams actively dropping their pants for other conferences. We all know we are tweeners. Utah would be constantly looking for greener grass and create instability. Why I think Utah is not worth it. They would be similar to the current remaining 8 of the big 12 so it would t help us much.
Utah is a tweener, they just don't realize it. They have only been a P5 school for like 10 years.
I agree with you though, the stability we have is due to the parity of the schools.
Pittsburgh would be a solid addition. Good football & basketball & a rival for WVU. I’m not high on the remaining PAC 12. West Coast is focused on Pro teams.
About 90% of Utah’s fans are still hung up on a fever dream that the B12 is worse than the MAC. Rivalry rage gone stone cold stupid. They thought they beat BYU permanently through realignment and now they very very clearly did not. The thing I don’t get is they apparently aren’t happy just being in the #3 conference with BYU, they needed to be in P5 and BYU independent and irrelevant. They can’t even pretend anymore that P10>B12 without being a pathetic joke.
I’m sure the decision makers don’t think that way, but the UU fans and their media sure do.
Personally…just HFCS…I see the Big 12 already has the entire state of Utah and BYU brings more national/international eyes so I don’t think Utah are as valuable long term as Arizona/Colorado. I think the Big 12 has the option to take or leave them. Because their AD has been in good shape I say take them, if their AD had been struggling like Colorado’s I’d be in the “pass” camp.
AZ, Colorado and Pitt fit the footprint and culture of existing Big 12 the most without overlapping markets or adding teams that could get an SEC/B10 invite any second.
Others that have mark against them:
Utah - overlap in a small market the B12 already owns
ASU - overlap in a medium sized market the B12 would be adding anyway
SDSU - region of country where people do not watch college sports really at all (I live there)
Cal/Stanford - Same as above where nobody likes/watches sports but also B10
Wash/Ore - want B10, chance they get it
Memphis/Louisville - fit in some ways but overall program/market probably doesn’t add enough
Assorted Big East basketball/Gonzaga - too much of an unknown, I really have no idea
There are probably other ACC teams that will surely be leftovers some day that could be a fit too. Maybe a VTech, who knows. Those three at the top are just ‘fit like a glove’ adds.
The Pac12 teams are not going anywhere until they actually find out how much the next TV contract is going to be and where it will be shown. Everyone is just waiting for that announcement, and one has to think that since they keep pushing the date back, there just is not much out there for the league, otherwise they would have a deal done by now.
Letting this go on is great of the B10, they want the ACC teams, but will take but UW and UO, but they are on the backburner for now. It doesn't hurt or help the B12 either way, they have are at 14 for another season, then drop by to 12, by then, everyone will know how much the P12 contract is worth, and then teams will start to make their decision to leave or stay.
Letting this go on is great of the B10, they want the ACC teams, but will take but UW and UO, but they are on the backburner for now. It doesn't hurt or help the B12 either way, they have are at 14 for another season, then drop by to 12, by then, everyone will know how much the P12 contract is worth, and then teams will start to make their decision to leave or stay.
A mostly to-the-side thought experiment, I've pondered this for several months. What if the OUT to SEC and USC/UCLA to Big Ten had been announced/leaked in roughly the same time frame ... how might Big 12 have reacted for invitations? Would it still have added a couple of the New 4, then wait on PAC, or go to PAC first?
The PAC schools aren’t going anywhere until they get a deal officially presented OR they run out of time to make a conference change for 2024-25. Yeah, their current contract isn’t up for another 14 months, but if they’re going to make a move, things have to be in motion well ahead of that, probably within the next 2 months.
Step #1 of making a move is signing into the B12 deal and GOR, which closed the door on anything the PAC might drag in late. If they pass the date where they can make a conference move, they’re stuck with whatever the conference can get for the duration of the next deal. It’s hard to imagine there wouldn’t be a GOR. That’s a mighty risky move to take knowing it’s very likely a deal hasn’t been presented because it’s markedly worse than what the B12 got.
I’d still give the B12 better odds to emerge stronger in that scenario.
The PAC would have 2 things working against it:
- A few members (WA, OR) dragging their feet on signing a new deal in hopes they get a B10 invite too.
- A few members (Stanford, Cal, Utah) nixing new members for different reasons. I could see them taking Kansas, but…that’s about it.
Houston would’ve been added no matter what. Pac is stupid to not have added Houston proactively when their competitive profile was slipping. Others who knows.
The “4 corners” people talk about would’ve instead been AZ/CO/Houston and a debate about the other 1-3 targets with the Utah schools and asu still in there but not a slam dunk. My guess is UCF maybe still in AAC.
I tend to think if they get close to what the B12 received, that all the schools would just as soon stay instead of leaving. The problem with that is that both Washington and Oregon are looking to jump ship, so that puts the rest of the conference in a dilemma, because neither Washington nor Oregon are going to sign a new GOR with the league, unless its very short, 3/5 years. Without a GOR again, more pressure on the other schools, no one wants to be left out and schools will jump before that happens, taking a lesser deal if necessary to make sure they stay in the now P4.
I'm kind of at the point I don't want any of them. None of them are worth much outside of OR and WA, and even then those are damn near like going to Asia. Colorado and Utah are worthless. Maybe the AZ schools I would be ok with...I just don't see any value in any of those pac schools.
There’s value in stability. There’s value in having more teams like the B1G and SEC do, so they can have more teams with 0-2 losses and look even better on paper. There’s value in adding more markets(not like it was previously but still has some value). With the ESPN escalators for current P5 schools, there’s no harm in expanding(assuming Fox agrees or another parter is added which could lead to more $). I’d rather not let the B1G and SEC continue to run away. Add the four corners if you can and have more “good” teams because not everyone has to play the actual good teams and we have more teams with good records. That’s how they’ve done it, it’s what we need to do.
The TV Networks aren't looking for parity, they are looking for schools that can draw in national audiences. A casual fan is much more attracted to watching a top 10-15 team vs a top 30-50 team.
Plus Utah v BYU would be a solid rivalry game.
Parity is nice but it doesn't get CFB fans excited. Remember the Big12 needs to compete with Big10 and SEC for casual FB fans.
In regard to having eye open beyond Big12, that's reality and holds true for every Big12, Pac12 or ACC school. Plus the realignment craze has probably 2 rounds left- the Pac12 phase and then the ACC phase so Utah isn't going to drive instability.
Unfortunately for the Big 12, parity is what we have to sell for football. "Every game means something, a dog fight."
That's a nice idea but there has to be more. Just like men's basketball the Big12 has to make its mark on the national stage.
The Big12 needs to have elite teams that can earn bids for the 12 or 16 team playoff. If the Big12 consistently only gets 1 playoff bid- the Big12 is going to become irrelevant in a decade.
The 6 auto qualifiers is only certain for 2024 & 2025. It's naive to think the Big10 & SEC aren't going to try to dominate the playoff spots and the potentially $2B.