I posted this message way below in response to a message from Kawai stating that Utah was the fourth most likely next entrant to the Pac 10 after Texas, Colorado and BYU, but it also addresses some points made here recently by some BYU trolls/carpetbaggers:

Texas, Colorado or BYU in the Pac 10 before Utah? When hell freezes over.

Are Texas and Colorado higher on the Pac 10's list than Utah? Well, no duh. The Pac 10 covets, would sell its soul, for Texas or Colorado. Both mirror the Pac 10's archetypical school in virtually every way--leading public institutions with the full gamut of sports programs, strong football traditions, superb infrastructure including big, state of the art football stadiums, and top notch, varied graduate and research programs.

The Pac 10's keen interest in, and efforts to woo Texas and Colorado, are very old news. However, if Texas and Colorado were interested in joining the Pac 10, the deal would have been consumated long ago, without delay, precisely because Texas and Colorado are such great schools. Neither Texas nor Colorado has shown the slightest interest in the Pac 10 for various reasons, no doubt not the least of which are the geographic expanse lying between Texas, Colorado and the West Coast, and traditional rivalries and other close associations among schools in the Big 12, a very robust conference.

As for BYU, BYU will NEVER receive serious consideration from the Pac 10; the Big 12 would be a much better fit. BYU's strong Mormon affiliation and culture are alien to such Pac 10 power houses as UCLA, Cal, Stanford, and Washington. It's true that the Big 10, which mirrors the Pac 10 in many respects, has pursued Notre Dame. But there is no parallel in the country to the depth and extent of the Mormon Church's control over and involvement in BYU. Leading Catholic shools such as Notre Dame or Georgetown are "Catholic" only because they were founded by Catholic orders, because their Regents and alumni choose to call these schools such, and because part of their faculty is comprised of Catholic clergy, usually a minority. (When I was at Georgetown law school 13 to 15 years ago, there was only ONE professor who was a Catholic priest, the predominant religion among professors was Judaism, and there was a Gay and Lesbian student organization, much to the displeasure of more conservative elements of the Catholic alumni.) All Catholic schools, except maybe Catholic University of America, are privately financed, and not subject to control from Catholic hierarchy.

The Mormon Church finances BYU's operations much as the State of Utah finances the University of Utah, Mormon "General Authorities" sit on BYU's Board of Regents, its President is a General Authority, and its students must swear an oath to abide by Mormon standards. BYU rejects all federal grants, contracts, and other funding, which is integral to the vibrancy of any school's graduate or research programs, in order that it may be free of any government control. Thus, for example, BYU has revoked tenure of, and expelled professors who spoke out in favor of a woman's right to have an abortion. (The First and 14th Amendments would preclude Utah from doing the same even if it were so inclined.) As a result, in comparison to the University of Utah, BYU's graduate and research programs are insignifacant. Such a culture is anathema to the Pac 10.

News reports have dismissed BYU as a Pac 10 candidate precisely because it is not categorized as a "research institution." BYU devotes the lion's share of its limited resources to its respectable (albeit tightly controlled by the Church) undergruate program (BYU has a very modest endowment compared to most private schools, including leading Catholic shools). Then there is BYU's tortured historical relatioinship with some pac 10 schools--in the 1970's Stanford foreswore ever playing BYU again because of the Mormon Church's practice at that time of withholding of its priesthood from African Americans.

Thus, clearly it is Utah, even though overall it does not yet measure up to Colorado or Texas, that is the most likely next entrant to the Pac 10. In my view, Utah's main drawback is its mediocre football tradition and following. Utah is far and away the most important research institution in a vast four state region. Utah has a medical school, and science and fine art programs, that are in some respects world class, and respectable law, business and engineering schools. Utah's basketball program (basketball does not take a back seat to football in the Pac 10 because of UCLA's superior tradition) towers above Texas' or Colorado's, and, for that matter, any Pac 10 team's, except UCLA's or Arizona's. A good place for Utah to sart in bringing its football program up to snuff would be to win its first football conference championship since the early 1960's!

Both the PAC 10 and the Big 12 play basketball on Sunday. What do you think their response would be if BYU said they would like to join but the league would have to make accomodations to the Y so that they wouldn't have to play on Sunday? When do you think that the Bretheren would allow Sunday play just to join a better conference? One can make all the other arguments, but until one of the above questions is answered with a "yes", the Y ain't goin' nowhere.

Much of your post is accurate, and just let me state before I continue that I do know from personal conversations what I am speaking of concerning this matter. The Pac-10 will expand to 12 teams so they can have a championship game for football. There's too much money for them to not do that. They are considering several schools for when that time happens. Colorado and Texas are the two they covet. It won't happen with Texas, adn an outside that Colorado will come on board. There is a lot of pressure for them to add San Diego State. That might happen. BYU is the other school high on their list. In fact if it was up to the athletic directors BYU would already be in the PAC10.

However, many of the school presidents are opposed to BYU joining the conference. There are two simple reasons why BYU is very high on the athletic directors list. For one when BYU comes to town they sell more tickets. Last time BYU played at UCLA they brought 20,000 fans. That's a lot of money for the coffers. With the large churhc population in California, Arizona and Washington, athletic directors recognize that there is a lot of interest for BYU within the PAC10 cities. The second reason the AD's want BYU is because of ratings. They are all aware of, and it has been discussed in their meetings, that BYU controls the Salt Lake market as far as ratings go. They know that the 1-26 BYU basketball team had better ratings then the Utes with Van Horn who were ranked in the top 5 in the country. Trust me, they pay attention to these things. BYU is also perceived to be more of a national draw due to the numbers of mormons throughout the country, plus the fact that the church is growing fairly rapidly is not lost on them. Obstacles to BYU joining the PAC10 are the academic points which you discussed, plus the fact that there is some heavy bias towards the mormon church from a couple of presidents of PAC10 schools.

Now where does Utah fit into this. The only strength that either the presidents or the AD's see is a solid basketball program. However, there is a strong feeling that this is a short term phenomenon due to Rick Majerus. It is also widely believed that he won't be here for much longer, and once he leaves the program will return to mediocrity. So, from an athletic standpoint (and academics are nice, but athletics and money are the real driving forces here), what does Utah offer long term for the PAC10? The way the AD's and presidents see it: nothing. No football tradition or large following of fans. No national audience. Not a lot of fans in the PAC10 cities. Second school as far as ratings go in the Salt Lake market, and a basketball team that it is believed has no chance of becoming a permanent national power. IF the AD's have their way, BYU will join the PAC10, along with either San Diego ST, Colorado, or believe it or not possibly Hawaii. However, that is unlikely because there are two presidents who have vowed that they will never let BYU in. In the next couple of years, once the current television contracts expire things are going to get real interesting, and college football as we know is going to change drastically. It will be interesting to see where the pieces fall.
 

Your ponderous overview of possible PAC expansion deserves a response in four areas:

1. Texas and Texas A&M were both "offered" PAC admission five years ago.....With the demise of the SWC the interest was very real and would have happened except of the "Texas Tech" problem......The Texas House Speaker is a Tech grad and he has made it very clear that any conference alignments must include Tech.....The fear then was the Aggies and Longhorns would bolt and with the Arkansas departure Tech would be left standing alone....Thus the PAC overture was killled and the Big 12 was the end result.....Distance was never an issue.....

2. The claim that Colorado is a research university is laughable.....Colorado has long had one of the lowest admit standards in the west and for many years was the haven for many west coast players who could not meet PAC entry standards.....The Big 8 by the way changed many of those standards with the formation of the Big 12 muchs to the angst of Nebraska, Kansas State, and Colorado..... Colorado is not considered a leading western university by any standard you wish to apply.....

3. Basketball despite your assertion does take a backseat in the PAC to football in one very important area.....money.... No need to really discuss that issue because we all know that it is money and tv markets (more money) that is behind conference expansion (Notre Dame to the Big 10 for example)and the BCS emergence... If you are still skeptical....call Barbara Hedges at Dawgville and ask her how much of their 75 million expansion program is being funded through footbal (98%)....and then ask how much of that 25 million they have in cash reserves are football dollars????.....By the way, her number is 206-543-2212....or bhedges@u.washington.edu

4. The anti BYU fervor of the 70's is long over....especially in the PAC....Stanford was the only school to specifically begin a pogrom against BYU and their religious beliefs......behind then Stanford president Richard Lyman.....who was the classic liberal and hit on a hot button.... Today....Stanford's best b-ball player (Madsen) is LDS and LDS players not only dot all Stanford teams....but are actively recruited by Stanford as they are by all other PAC schools.... On the football front UCLA and Washington have both had long running football series with BYU for several years and ASU is now scheduling them......Your anti BYU fervor in the PAC is not evident at at least four PAC schools...

Finally.....there has been much discussion about a Texas - Colorado push...now that Tech is secure in the Big 12....but many doubt Texas would really leave unless A&M joined in.....This leaves Utah...... Regardless of your views about the control the Mormon church exercises over BYU.....There will be no PAC expansion that favors Utah over BYU.....This will never go over politically in Utah.....PAC presidents know this and ultimately this is the Utah albatross....If they want the PAC....then they have to figure out how to exticate themselves from the BYU issue....and as you noted get a lot better in football.....

I know Ute fans are making a lot out of the fact that they have a game with WSU......WSU is a bottom tier PAC team.....Games against the top tier teams with a measure of success are more realistic if Utah wants to be taken seriously as something other than a basketball and gymnastics school.... But then we have already had that discussion about how irrelevant the Sears Cup is.....Not in the PAC where six PAC schools finished in the top 20.....

For the most part your entire post fails to hit any of the issues raised by previous posters, in fact, most of your points are calculated, direct misses. Only a few of your points "merit" discussion, and the the remaining portions smell of subjectivity.

In many respects, Utah is not only a superior research institution--indeed, as Seattle noted, one of the most important research institutions in the west, if not the entire united states (as evidenced by its top ten ranking in funding)-- to the University of Colorado (as you noted), but offers equal or better opportunities in every area that the PAC 10 would be interested in, except market. The command of the Denever region and its proximity is the main reason Colorado remains a top priority for PAC 10 suitors. That is obvious. As Seattle noted, no duh. That is the only reason Colorado has been said to be preferred over Utah, with Utah coming in a close second. As for Texas, Texas is largely a dead issue. There is little reason for Texas to make a lateral move, (a step down in terms of football) now that the BIG 12 has solidified. In fact, for Texas to opt out of the BIG 12 and move to the PAC 10 would not only diminish traditional Texas rivaries, but would limit instate recruiting efforts, principally in football... The prospect of Texas and Texas A&M joining the PAC ten is nil...mainly for lack of interest from Texas....

Second, Seattle's whole post with respect to BYU raises the "institutional" problems of BYU joining the PAC 10, not specific animus toward the Mormon religion. There IS a distinction, despite your failure to acknowledge such. While it is true that the "anti BYU fervor of the 70's is long over....", you fail to address any of the issues raised by Seattle and others. It is irrelevant that "LDS players... dot" various PAC 10 teams. DUH!!!! If that was a problem, Utah wouldn't be considered for the same reasons BYU would supposedly be excluded. The question is whether the academic leadership of the PAC 10 is willing to accept the watered down academics and regiorous academic freedom restrictions at BYU, and the church influence over every day decisions. The church's involvement is unprecedented, and greatly troublesome to leading academic institutions like Cal and Stanford, not to mention the Washington and Arizona's of the world. The lack of any significant institutional research is equally troubling, if not ultimately the deciding factor.

The bottom line is that academically, Utah is by far the best fit. The only real claim that BYU has as far as academic superiority to Utah is higher undergraduate admissions standards. Legislative fiat would easily remedy this failing of the U. From there, the logical nexus is Utah, in a choice between BYU and the U. As Seattle noted, the immense research infrastructure is a major advantage for the U. Also, Utah would bring a world renowned modern dance program, a top graphic design, creative writing, and medical department, as well as a nationally repected engineering, computer science, law, and finance program, with a myriad of other respected departments...not to mention professors with large discretion, and differing view points.

Third, athletics. The fact that PAC 10 teams have scheduled nonconference games in football does not ameliorate this institutional problem. In fact, it is another justification for the lack of need to acquire BYU (its only true benefit being a fading football program that can generate television revenue). In any event, Utah has scheduled Stanford, Oregon, and Washington State in the recent past in football, and will play UCLA, USC, Arizona, and Oregon in the near future. Similarly, BYU's recent Sears Cup success has little importance. You yourself acknowledge that revenue is a key, and moderate success in volleyball, track and field, and a few minor sports is nothing to get overly excited about. Utah would offer 3 national power programs (gymnastics, skiing, and basketball), with a combined 23 NCAA championships, 17 more than all sports combined in the history of BYU. A softball team that frequently visits the NCAA tournament, a competitive women's basketball program, and a number of programs that, while not as good as their BYU counterparts, can atleast compete with them. As far as ratings go, the only clear area that BYU has beat Utah is instate ratings. Utah has fared very well on national television games in basketball, and has done comparable to BYU in regionally televised football games, and they have traveled better than BYU to bowl and NCAA tournament games. Further, this instate disparatiy in fan support can easily sway one way or the other with a change in winning (e.g., Utah basketball), and with an increase in the calibre of teams Utah would be playing. The instate fan support is not fixed. While there will always be a natural propensity for Utahns to cheer for BYU (as well as out fo state mormons), the prospect of PAC 10 play would go a long way in alleviating this disparity. the out of state LDS population (some of who in the west are themselves Utah graduates, not only help BYU but help Utah as well.

Lastly, as far as your assertion that UTAH to the PAC 10 would never go over politically in Utah, in a word, hogwash. While it is true that rural legislators have had measured hostilities toward the U, local political AND religious leaders would likely be emphatic about such a move....only time will tell, but i'd hedge your bet....

Legal Ute

All of the articles are well writen and appear to be well informed. However, not one mentioned the possibility of the Y and the U going to the Pac 10 together. To start off, a look at the simple geographics of the Pac would suggest that both schools go in together. Two schools in Oregon, two in Washington, two in Arizona, and the rest in California. The points of all the articles have merit, except for the mention of Hawaii and SDSU as possible Pac teams. I'm sorry but that is laughable. One has a football team on life support, and the other has a basketball program in the same condition. Besides, if Hawaii isn't good enough for the MWC, do you really think the Pac would come calling? I doubt it.

My point with this whole thing is to simply not dismiss the possibility of both Utah teams making the jump to the Pac 10. Both schools compliment one another and I don't think the powers that be in the Pac would want to split the state when it could have it whole. Colorado is the variable that could disrupt the "Two school theory", as the arguments for Texas not coming seem the most sound, and any other possible schools were dispatched above.

Maybe we should all just hope the MWC does well enough that we won't want to join the Pac. Yeah right. Go Utes!

Last modified .