CSNbbs

Welcome to summer! That's now 18 threads on page 1 started by KC!

Who was telling me that Utah wasn't an attractive option for the Pac 10/12?

(06-16-2010 05:48 PM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ]Who was telling me that Utah wasn't an attractive option for the Pac 10/12?

That was me, Utah was the PAC-10 backup option when all attempts at Texas were exahusted.

Texas to PAC-10 is not permanantly dead either at this point.

(06-16-2010 06:06 PM)Airport KC Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-16-2010 05:48 PM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ]Who was telling me that Utah wasn't an attractive option for the Pac 10/12?

That was me, Utah was the PAC-10 backup option when all attempts at Texas were exahusted.

Texas to PAC-10 is not permanantly dead either at this point.

It is dead. I could have told you(and may have) that Texas was NEVER going to go to the Big 10 OR PAC-10. Too many non-southern teams. Much like Marshall they have a southern identity and that is where they wanted to be. They were just using the talks as leverage to get they wanted in the Big 12.

(06-16-2010 06:06 PM)Airport KC Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-16-2010 05:48 PM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ]Who was telling me that Utah wasn't an attractive option for the Pac 10/12?

That was me, Utah was the PAC-10 backup option when all attempts at Texas were exahusted.

So you're acknowledging that you were wrong? They did indeed attract the PAC whatever-it-is-now.

(06-17-2010 06:29 AM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-16-2010 06:06 PM)Airport KC Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-16-2010 05:48 PM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ]Who was telling me that Utah wasn't an attractive option for the Pac 10/12?

That was me, Utah was the PAC-10 backup option when all attempts at Texas were exahusted.

So you're acknowledging that you were wrong? They did indeed attract the PAC whatever-it-is-now.

Torch had Utah as the #1 choice and he shunned Colorado.

I had Texas/Texas A&M as the top 2 choices, which ended up being pretty much the top 2 choices for the PAC-10.

PAC-10 jumped on Colorado in wake of the Baylor threat to make sure it kept that TV market away from the MWC.

Utah to PAC-10 has not picked up a lot of fan fare but overall they bring quite a lot to the table. Salt Lake City is actually the #31 TV market. The Utah basketball program will add a lot to the PAC-10.

I suspect Utah football in the short term will be able to contend for PAC-10 titles, not sure about long term. Think about Louisville to the Big East, the first few seasons they were rolling in football coming in from a peak level out of CUSA then they tailed off.

Utah basketball though I think is very sustainable and the MWC BB conference in most years was just as good as the PAC-10. Short of Kansas Utah is one of the better bb moves.

(06-17-2010 08:24 AM)Airport KC Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-17-2010 06:29 AM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-16-2010 06:06 PM)Airport KC Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-16-2010 05:48 PM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ]Who was telling me that Utah wasn't an attractive option for the Pac 10/12?

That was me, Utah was the PAC-10 backup option when all attempts at Texas were exahusted.

So you're acknowledging that you were wrong? They did indeed attract the PAC whatever-it-is-now.

Torch had Utah as the #1 choice and he shunned Colorado.

I shunned Colorado?

I simply said I didn't see why Colorado would choose to leave the Big 12.

The Pac 10 and Colorado were talked about when I was at ASU...15+ years ago. I had no doubt the conf was interested in CU, I just couldn't figure out why CU would leave. In the end, it still isn't clear.