Neverending Mountain West region college football thread

[scottharding]

All is right in Utah tonight.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by Stenar

This is for the BYU fans:


• Video Link

OOOOOOOhh! That's cold Stenar


But seriously, I would boast more about this severe ownage, but I've been ready for a new rival since before this season started.

BYU and the UofU have less and less in common as the years go by. For a rivalry to be good there needs to be similarities and competition on much more than the football field. BYU should go to the Big 12 because those are it's peers. The UofU belongs with the research schools. Schools that are working on new kinds of medicines, composites, genetics, etc, instead of family studies and accounting.

It was fun while it lasted BYU, but I think we knew this day was coming. It's time to go our separate ways. And it's time for the UofU to find a worthy opponent, both on the field and in competing for federal research grants.

[gusam26]

ohhhhh my 54-10 owned..

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

And it's time for the UofU to find a worthy opponent, both on the field and in competing for federal research grants.

Find? Found.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Find? Found.

And it's time that the UofU found a worthy opponent, both on the field and in competing for federal research grants.


I'm not 100% sold on Colorado yet. Only time will tell; I want this rivalry to be constructed from the bottom up, not issued from the top down.


At least this year, unless you guys get incrementally better at a faster pace, you will not be competition for the Utes on the football field .


Colorado and Utah have some very obnoxious fans. So it should be fun either way.

[bunt_q]

We took care of our token Mountain West (or sorry... ahem... "independent") rival as well.

But go ahead, underestimate us... newbies...

[Comrade]

[SLC Projects]

Or this.......


KSL.com


And this is in Provo out of all places.

[s.p.hansen]

I'm really not excited about the prospect of a PAC 16.

I just don't see how Texas, which has been used to being the boss and bossing people around, would be able to cope with the fact that the PAC 12 is controlled by California. Why do we want to bring this drama upon us? Because of the nature of the PAC 12 there is no threat of it being ransacked if it doesn't come up with 16 members.

Right now there are 65 BCS schools, if we eventually end up with four conferences with 16 teams there would only be 64 with a big cap sealing it off.

Thank goodness Utah got in while such a move was possible! Let's hope that if we add 4 more that we don't just end up seeing the most powerful members on the coast eventually cutting free and doing their own thing.


While I'm complaining I would also like to add that our potential pod consisting of Colorado, Utah and the two Arizonas, would officially highlight one of the least interconnected regions in the United States via Interstate Freeways.

[bunt_q]

Woody Paige on realignment - http://www.denverpost.com/paige/ci_18933163

[bunt_q]

Okay, so the more I read/listen today, it's sounding like this PAC-16 and pod setup is all but inevitable. So, each team will play its three pod-mates every year, plus 2 teams from each of the other three pods on a rotating basis, for the same 9-game conference schedule. That gets everybody to Cali once per year. Lots of debate still on how to set up a conference championship game (pods in divisions), but I don't much care about that, yet. I am more interested in the pods... The most obvious being discussed is this:

East: OU, OSU, Texas, Texas Tech
Mountain: CU, Arizona, Arizona State, Utah
Cali: USCl, UCLA, Cal, Stanford
Northwest: Washington State, Oregon, Washington, Oregon State

But ESPN is reporting this:

East: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech
South: Arizona, Arizona State, USC, UCLA
Central: Cal, Colorado, Stanford, Utah
Northwest: Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State

Okay Utah (and fellow CU fans). Which do we like better?

[TonyAnderson]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

I'm really not excited about the prospect of a PAC 16.

I just don't see how Texas, which has been used to being the boss and bossing people around, would be able to cope with the fact that the PAC 12 is controlled by California. Why do we want to bring this drama upon us? Because of the nature of the PAC 12 there is no threat of it being ransacked if it doesn't come up with 16 members.

Right now there are 65 BCS schools, if we eventually end up with four conferences with 16 teams there would only be 64 with a big cap sealing it off.

Thank goodness Utah got in while such a move was possible! Let's hope that if we add 4 more that we don't just end up seeing the most powerful members on the coast eventually cutting free and doing their own thing.


While I'm complaining I would also like to add that our potential pod consisting of Colorado, Utah and the two Arizonas, would officially highlight one of the least interconnected regions in the United States via Interstate Freeways.

I think the point of the 16-team conferences is to hold down schools such as Utah. And more importantly schools like Oregon St, Washington St., etc. If you think it's hard to compete for a BCS slot (or recruiting, or facilities, or whatever) with USC, Oregon, Washington and Co, just imagine with USC, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Washington and Co. Middle-tier and lower teams like Utah, Arizona, Washington St, and the rest will suffer. This is the same for each new 16-team conference.

It used to be every few years a team like Washington St., or Uconn, or Illinois could make a BCS game. I think the 16-team conferences intend to change that. But you still get equal share of money ...for now.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I am more interested in the pods... The most obvious being discussed is this:
Mountain: CU, Arizona, Arizona State, Utah

But ESPN is reporting this:
Central: Cal, Colorado, Stanford, Utah

Okay Utah (and fellow CU fans). Which do we like better?

Hm. Lifeless Arizona desert or San Francisco bay area. Think think think. Such a difficult choice.

[Cirrus]

PS: How about an official Hippy Pod consisting of CU, Oregon, Cal, and... who'd be the 4th? Washington maybe?

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Okay Utah (and fellow CU fans). Which do we like better?

Well, in one you guys have a chance of being half-ass decent, in the other you end up as the perennial doormat.

Unfortunately, the scenery sucks far, far worse in the pod option where CU has a chance. Except for this scenery:


Link

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

East: OU, OSU, Texas, Texas Tech
Mountain: CU, Arizona, Arizona State, Utah
Cali: USCl, UCLA, Cal, Stanford
Northwest: Washington State, Oregon, Washington, Oregon State

But ESPN is reporting this:

East: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech
South: Arizona, Arizona State, USC, UCLA
Central: Cal, Colorado, Stanford, Utah
Northwest: Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State

Okay Utah (and fellow CU fans). Which do we like better?

Either way we get screwed on recruiting because of a more limited presence in Southern California.

The best choice between the two is by far the Colorado, Utah, Stanford, Cal combo. I would be able to visit my Bay Area family AND see my Utes play! Mobility between Utah and the Northern California - Colorado pod would be much easier as well (for Utah).

[bunt_q]

No way, I can drive to Arizona, even in the winter most of the time.

Under no circumstances do I ever, EVER attempt to drive between the Bay Area and Colorado. The last time I tried that, I had to detour through Bakersfield... BAKERSFIELD, and then on to, naturally, Arizona, to get back. (Once I've gone that far out of my way, why risk I-70?) Never ever again.

I'm torn between Wong's very compelling argument up there, and the allure of the Bay Area (although... Stanford? Eh...)

But if we're deciding on mobility, Arizona wins for us, hands down (flights too - cheap cheap to Phoenix). Not my fault your city doesn't merit a southerly interstate connection.

[bunt_q]

We're mostly all flying anyways, so what does distance matter? I say we carve up California. And go for "balance." If nobody's happy, we have a successful compromise, right?

Pod 1: UCLA, Texas Tech, Washington, Colorado
Pod 2: USC, Oklahoma State, Oregon, Utah
Pod 3: Cal, Oklahoma, Washington State, ASU
Pod 4: Stanford, Texas, Oregon State, Arizona

[Cirrus]

I don't think the Arizona pod would be any easier to win than the Bay Area pod in the long term. Right now yes, but not forever. Stanford and Cal are both programs that over the long term have had far more bad seasons than good ones. Go back to the 90s and they were both horrible, but Arizona State was in the Rose Bowl.

The Pac is the most competitively balanced major conference. USC is usually good and Washington State is usually bad, but even they swap from time to time. We can expect Texas and Oklahoma to just about always be good if they join (ugh), but we don't want to be in their pod anyway.

I say the more pacific coast we can get in our pod, the better.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

We're mostly all flying anyways, so what does distance matter? I say we carve up California. And go for "balance." If nobody's happy, we have a successful compromise, right?

Pod 1: UCLA, Texas Tech, Washington, Colorado
Pod 2: USC, Oklahoma State, Oregon, Utah
Pod 3: Cal, Oklahoma, Washington State, ASU
Pod 4: Stanford, Texas, Oregon State, Arizona

Whatever bunt, whether you guys deserve it or not, you are going to be our conference "regional rival ." We have that whole PAC 12 regional network project to see through.

And, while many alumni fly, think about all the poor Utah college bros out there carpooling. Think about them!

I-80 isn't that scary anyway. You get to drive 85 miles per hour most of the time. The biggest danger on that straight of a road is falling asleep, a problem that can easily be resolved by driving faster which gives you a nice adrenaline rush.