Utah to the Pac 10 A BCS bowl?

[1992heritage]

The Utah Utes have been on the outside looking in when it comes to automatic berths in the BCS bowls. They have been able though, in the last few years, to make it to 2 BCS bowls under the current system. They will make a lot more money in the Pac 10, but they may not ever make another BCS bowl game once they join the Pac 10. The competition over-all is going to be much tougher. Winning the championship and a BCS bowl berth may just become a dream.

[Eric]

Agreed.

Sometimes the lack of competition can work to a team's benefit. I don't see Utah being much more than a mid-level Pac-10 team like Oregon State or Arizona State in the future who may get lucky one year, but overall won't compete with Cal, UCLA (assuming Neuheisel gets his act together), Oregon, or USC.

[Spence]

The Utah Utes have been on the outside looking in when it comes to automatic berths in the BCS bowls. They have been able though, in the last few years, to make it to 2 BCS bowls under the current system. They will make a lot more money in the Pac 10, but they may not ever make another BCS bowl game once they join the Pac 10. The competition over-all is going to be much tougher. Winning the championship and a BCS bowl berth may just become a dream.

I'm not sure you can look at it that way. Utah wants to raise the bar for themselves. Maybe it works out maybe it doesn't, but when you infuse money into a good system already - good things can happen.

[Vileborg]

I understand Utah's jump to the PAC-10 so they will go to a BCS bowl and have BCS clout but I agree that they will have less of a chance of success. They now get to be destroyed by a 1-10 stanford team to ruin their NC hopes (Ala USC). They now are eligible to get sucker punched by Colorado. (thought I was going to say Orgeon, didn't ya?) Colorado has ruined many perfect seasons, and while they don't seem intent on personal glory they are pretty good at stealing others. I don't think Utah has the toughness to handle the PAC-10 but at least now we will know for sure how they stack up.

I feel for Boise St. as Utah would have given the some credibility on their schedule, not a whole lot, but some.

[Brian Roastbeef]

I don't know that Utah will handle the PAC-10 as well as Boise would have. I'd think that with Boise in the MWC that it is a good fit for pretty much all teams in there. Boise, TCU, Utah, and BYU now all have more credibility to their schedules, whomever wins among them.

The problem is that the conference now should get BCS status, but they probably won't. In reality I think they are heading into year 3 of a 4 year evaluation process in being considered for it. With the whole thing at best an uncertainty, what is best for Utah? They go to the PAC-10, they probably aren't playing for the Rose Bowl, but even if they do get sucker punched by Stanford or Colorado, the Holiday Bowl or even the Alamo Bowl could be a realistic opportunity. It depends on how teams like Cal, Oregon St., Colorado are that season.

If they stayed in the MWC, its likely what, the Las Vegas Bowl as Boise gets the nod by the BCS? That's the #5 Bowl for the PAC-10...

As much as I'd have liked to see them stay in the MWC, it doesn't look like too good of a prospect even with Boise strengthening the schedule. The BCS path is still hard, but the rewards of falling short are so much less.

[Eric]

I don't know that Utah will handle the PAC-10 as well as Boise would have. I'd think that with Boise in the MWC that it is a good fit for pretty much all teams in there. Boise, TCU, Utah, and BYU now all have more credibility to their schedules, whomever wins among them.

The problem is that the conference now should get BCS status, but they probably won't. In reality I think they are heading into year 3 of a 4 year evaluation process in being considered for it. With the whole thing at best an uncertainty, what is best for Utah? They go to the PAC-10, they probably aren't playing for the Rose Bowl, but even if they do get sucker punched by Stanford or Colorado, the Holiday Bowl or even the Alamo Bowl could be a realistic opportunity. It depends on how teams like Cal, Oregon St., Colorado are that season.

If they stayed in the MWC, its likely what, the Las Vegas Bowl as Boise gets the nod by the BCS? That's the #5 Bowl for the PAC-10...

As much as I'd have liked to see them stay in the MWC, it doesn't look like too good of a prospect even with Boise strengthening the schedule. The BCS path is still hard, but the rewards of falling short are so much less.

I think Utah has done more than Boise has in advancing the strength of the non-BCS powers, just due to the number of wins they've racked up against BCS teams. Boise has a little more shaky reputation in that department. However, I think the MWC should get proactive and steal the best from the WAC and some from C-USA. They should consider adding Houston, Nevada, Fresno State, SMU, Tulsa, or any combination of those 5. I think if they did that, they could get that BCS status.

Anyway from Boise's perspective, even though they're on the outside looking in at the BCS still, the Mountain West is a stronger conference than the WAC. Instead of Utah State and San Jose State weighing down your SOS, you'll get to be playing better teams in Colorado State, Air Force, and Wyoming. The meat of the MWC is much better than the meat of the WAC, the top teams in the MWC (those I guess now only being BYU and TCU) are much better than the top two in the WAC (Fresno, Nevada), so this is a bonus for Boise.

If they want to ramp up the SOS and have it respectable, I think they can do that now. With BYU and TCU as conference foes, they still have four open games to take on teams like Virginia Tech, Oregon State, Oregon, etc.

[Brian Roastbeef]

Well with the MWC looking to gain BCS status you have to think that they would want to expand and keep up their numbers. I agree with pretty much all of your possibilities other than to say that they probably don't want to go to 16 yet. Pick the bones of the Big 12, WAC, C-USA to get to 16 when everybody else is and you're keeping up. Do it now when everybody else has stopped and you'll just attract comparisons to the WAC of the 90s.

Fresno, Nevada would be good additions for Boise. Then they'd have their two natural new rivals of TCU and BYU, along with their old top two from the WAC.

Throw Idaho into the mix of possibilities as well as there is probably going to be some strong pressure in Boise to get them to the MWC to keep the two teams together. Unfortunately unless they are on an upswing, they won't help the MWC SoS... (8-5 last year, but not so good over the past decade)

And yeah, Boise can't take their new stronger conference schedule as an excuse to take it easy out of conference, though to their credit they haven't necessarily shown the desire to do so. Oregon-Boise in particular has the potential to make for a good long term rivalry.

[Eric]

Well with the MWC looking to gain BCS status you have to think that they would want to expand and keep up their numbers. I agree with pretty much all of your possibilities other than to say that they probably don't want to go to 16 yet. Pick the bones of the Big 12, WAC, C-USA to get to 16 when everybody else is and you're keeping up. Do it now when everybody else has stopped and you'll just attract comparisons to the WAC of the 90s.

Fresno, Nevada would be good additions for Boise. Then they'd have their two natural new rivals of TCU and BYU, along with their old top two from the WAC.

Throw Idaho into the mix of possibilities as well as there is probably going to be some strong pressure in Boise to get them to the MWC to keep the two teams together. Unfortunately unless they are on an upswing, they won't help the MWC SoS... (8-5 last year, but not so good over the past decade)

And yeah, Boise can't take their new stronger conference schedule as an excuse to take it easy out of conference, though to their credit they haven't necessarily shown the desire to do so. Oregon-Boise in particular has the potential to make for a good long term rivalry.

Yep, I agree. I guess it depends on what their long-term goals are. If the Big 12 dissolves, then they're going to want to jump on Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas State, and maybe Missouri. However, in 2010 they're only going to have 9 teams, so I think adding Nevada would be a great idea to add to that UNLV/Nevada rivalry. Adding Fresno could give them a bigger footprint in California and adding SMU would give TCU their rival in-conference.

There's a lot of ways they could go with this, but my guess is they may add one team in the intermediary and wait for the Big 12 to go by the wayside.

[Grayghost]

To be honest, the MWC should have moved sooner to add Boise, and perhaps two others, say, two years ago. Unless they can pull in two other decent programs, say Nevada and Tulsa or Houston, I dont see them getting BCS status with the loss of Utah. But, if the Big 12 folds like everyone thinks is going to happen, and the super conferences are formed, the BCS is dead anyway and it is a moot point. The next two years will be interesting.

[billybud]

Boise is the loser in this...they move to a stronger conference just as a conference big boy leaves. Utah and Boise in the MWC would have made a much better conference.

[Dossenator]

Boise is the loser in this...they move to a stronger conference just as a conference big boy leaves. Utah and Boise in the MWC would have made a much better conference.

I could not agree more. Having Utah, Boise, and TCU at the top of the conference sure does look nice. Too bad Utah jumped ship.

[donovan]

Boise lost big. And.....if the Sunday play, mainly basketball, issue gets resolved..BYU will also jump...highly unlikely it gets resolved soon.

[Derek]

I think the downfall of USC will help Utah. That is about the only team that was regularly better than Utah.

They will definatley benefit financially, but I doubt they will run the table the way they used to.