# Utah in the "big leagues"



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

From a KSL Article describing Utah's deal with the Pac-10 (http://www.ksl.com/?sid=12913317&nid=635)



> Revenue sharing of a yet-to-be-negotiated new television deal, which could exceed $170 million per year when it begins in 2012, will be split evenly by the 12 schools. If revenues initially fall short, a compromise was reached to give Los Angeles-area schools UCLA and USC an extra $2 million a year until revenues reach their anticipated level.
> 
> As part of Utah's deal to join the league - going to a Bowl Championship Series league from a non-automatic qualifying conference - the Utes won't receive a full share of television revenue until 2014.


What a sweet deal. Got to keep SoCal in the money huh? The Utes sold the kitchen sink for this deal in my opinion. Whoever was negotiating for them created absolutely no value in the Utah brand and walked away with a terrible result for the school. And as a Utah taxpayer funding the University, I'm kind of angry about it.

Obamacare is going to kick in before the Utes get to sit at the table with the big kids. :roll:


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

And why shouldn't they get to keep more? They're the lions share of the tv revenue market.... You can't say that Arizona is bringing as much money to the table as USC so it makes sense they'd want a bigger cut, at least for a little while. The Utah brand has been established as much as possible this decade.... fortunately for Utah, they were able to move up in the college football world and gain an opportunity for an automatic bid, gain more income, a bigger audience for Utah football and more respect on the national level because of who they've affiliated themselves with. Thank God they didn't do something silly to diminish brand recognition like stepping off as independents.


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

So basically, you are saying that Utah brings nothing to the table, they are just going to be a punching bag with a little bit of street cred for the rest of the conference to beat up on?

I'm scared, are we agreeing here?

Utah football will get more respect on the national level because they've affiliated themselves with Arizona, ASU, Washingtons etc.? Yeah.

Also, did you notice that all of those teams are in the West where no one cares about Utah football.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Dodger said:


> From a KSL Article describing Utah's deal with the Pac-10 (http://www.ksl.com/?sid=12913317&nid=635)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are the only one I had heard that didn't think this plan was great. Your post comes off as a pissed off jealous BYU fan....oh wait that what you are.  :mrgreen: :lol: When Utah first announced they were going to the PAC-12 they knew they wouldn't get full share for a few years, which is only fair. You can't expect to come into a league that has built up a name for itself and immediately reap the same benefits as all the original schools. You have to put your time in to earn your share. Even saying that, they will make more off of that the few years when they don't receive a full share than they did in the crappy MTN deal. Utah is already seeing great recruiting just by the simple fact that they are now in the PAC 12. Look how well Utah does with average recruits, imagine what they can do with good recruits.

Also you have to keep USC happy, they are one of the reason the PAC-10 is on the map as one of the best conferences in the country. Also Utah ended up in a sweet conference, with USC, Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, and UCLA. They get to play USC every year, that is worth a lot in its self. Now sit back and look at this deal logically, I think you will see it for what it is worth, a great deal for Utah.


----------



## gitterdone81 (Sep 3, 2009)

As much as I love our challenged brethren who are yewt fans, I would take a few year cut back, which would still increase annual income, to eventually become a full member. Utah is dramatically improving their options. The best thing for them, when they fall flat on their face, and are competing annually with Washington State, they will still get their piece of the pie.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

gitterdone81 said:


> As much as I love our challenged brethren who are yewt fans, I would take a few year cut back, which would still increase annual income, to eventually become a full member. Utah is dramatically improving their options. The best thing for them, when they fall flat on their face, and are competing annually with Washington State, they will still get their piece of the pie.


You forgot Colorado in the bottom feeders also. :mrgreen: :lol: Utah may end up in the bottom, but I would be surprised. I am not arrogant enough to say they will come in a dominate the PAC-12, that isn't going to happen, the PAC-12 is pretty tough from top to bottom. Their bottom dwellers are still a hell of a lot better than the MWC and WAC bottom feeders.

Both BYU and Utah took a tougher road, but they can both reap big benefits if things go well. Utah just has the cushion if they start sucking they still get lots of money. 8)


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Much as I love my Cougars, this is a great move for Utah. Even before the big share kicks in, they'll still do better than in the MWC - without question. And I also think that Utah will compete for the Pac-12 title next year. While I hate them enough to pour root beer on the families of players, the Utes have an exceptional football program right now. It is not a stretch by any means to think they can win the Southern Division next year. The two best teams this year are in the north so that helps Utah. Much as I'd love to slam Utah, I've got to tip my hat to them on this one. It will be very good for them, and also very good for college football in Utah in general.


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

jahan said:


> You are the only one I had heard that didn't think this plan was great. Your post comes off as a **** off jealous BYU fan....oh wait that what you are.  :mrgreen: :lol: When Utah first announced they were going to the PAC-12 they knew they wouldn't get full share for a few years, which is only fair. You can't expect to come into a league that has built up a name for itself and immediately reap the same benefits as all the original schools. You have to put your time in to earn your share. Even saying that, they will make more off of that the few years when they don't receive a full share than they did in the crappy MTN deal. Utah is already seeing great recruiting just by the simple fact that they are now in the PAC 12. Look how well Utah does with average recruits, imagine what they can do with good recruits.
> 
> Also you have to keep USC happy, they are one of the reason the PAC-10 is on the map as one of the best conferences in the country. Also Utah ended up in a sweet conference, with USC, Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, and UCLA. They get to play USC every year, that is worth a lot in its self. Now sit back and look at this deal logically, I think you will see it for what it is worth, a great deal for Utah.


To be clear, I am not jealous. Nor do I have any animosity towards the Utah football program.

My only point was that they sold their souls to make this deal happen. I agree that the Pac-12 will be better for Utah in the long run but they will pay a heavier price than they should have had to pay to make it happen.

I also seem to recall a lot of people complaining about the BCS being unfair for the past few years because it gives preferential treatment to favored schools. But now, it seems, that Utah is just fine with giving the LA schools preferential treatment so it can get its seat at the table. If preferential treatment was unfair in the BCS, it is unfair in the television contract.

All I'm saying is that, even if this is a better deal than the MWC had, it is still a pretty crappy deal for the Utes.


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

GaryFish said:


> Much as I love my Cougars, this is a great move for Utah. Even before the big share kicks in, they'll still do better than in the MWC - without question. And I also think that Utah will compete for the Pac-12 title next year. While I hate them enough to pour root beer on the families of players, the Utes have an exceptional football program right now. It is not a stretch by any means to think they can win the Southern Division next year. The two best teams this year are in the north so that helps Utah. Much as I'd love to slam Utah, I've got to tip my hat to them on this one. It will be very good for them, and also very good for college football in Utah in general.


I don't think that saying something negative about Utah's deal implies anything with respect to BYU. In fact, I never mentioned BYU. I approached this whole deal through a financially negotiation perspective. My analysis is legit, even though I'm not a Utah fan.

I agree that moving to the Pac-12 is a good step for Utah. But they are still getting a raw deal.

They got membership in the Pac-12, without all of the rights and privileges of membership, in exchange for not getting paid (equally) until 2014 and for subsidizing the LA schools until 2014. That sounds like they got taken to the cleaners.

It is my personal opinion that Utah will have a harder time in the Pac-10 than they have had in the MWC. I don't see them winning the Southern Division next year. All of the other teams will be looking to "welcome" Utah to the conference and make a particular effort to "put them in their place." I'm not saying that they Utes can't show up, I'm don't anticipate them doing that well for the next few years as new members of the PAC.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

Dodger said:


> So basically, you are saying that Utah brings nothing to the table, they are just going to be a punching bag with a little bit of street cred for the rest of the conference to beat up on?


Basically yeah... at least early on... and it could be longer than that. Sure, they'll win a couple games but they're not going to march right in and win the conference championship. I do think that the Utes are going to have a much tougher time in the Pac 12 than folks are expecting... much tougher. That will be a rough stretch for Ute fans, I'm sure. I'm just going to enjoy being along for road trips.... lots of good stadiums to visit in the southern division.

As much as my friends would like to paint me as a die hard Ute fan now.... :roll: I'm not. I picked the lesser of two evils in my opinion to watch on Saturday while I'm here. Scenery is great, beer flows like water, and we have some crazy old gal leading cheers below the band.... not bad, not bad. I could be watching some dude dressed like a kitten in an outfit that fits better as an old beat up pillow on my MIL's torn up living room couch.


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

Riverrat77 said:


> Dodger said:
> 
> 
> > So basically, you are saying that Utah brings nothing to the table, they are just going to be a punching bag with a little bit of street cred for the rest of the conference to beat up on?
> ...


I'm scared. We are agreeing.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Riverrat77 said:


> Dodger said:
> 
> 
> > So basically, you are saying that Utah brings nothing to the table, they are just going to be a punching bag with a little bit of street cred for the rest of the conference to beat up on?
> ...


Dude you are so full of **** on multiple levels. :mrgreen: First Utah will do well in the PAC-12, I don't think they will win the conference championship, but there is a good chance they will win their Southern Conference Title. Second, I am an Ute fan and I have never rushed the field. Anyone who rushes the field is a fan, so quit your hard nosing and admit it. Everyone hear knows you are an Ute fan, no need to hide it anymore. :lol:


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

jahan said:


> Dude you are so full of **** on multiple levels. :mrgreen: First Utah will do well in the PAC-12, I don't think they will win the conference championship, but there is a good chance they will win their Southern Conference Title. Second, I am an Ute fan and I have never rushed the field. Anyone who rushes the field is a fan, so quit your hard nosing and admit it. Everyone hear knows you are an Ute fan, no need to hide it anymore. :lol:


We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think Utah will do well at all at least in their first year and very probably in the next couple as well. People will be doing their best to "welcome" the new guys. I wouldn't call it rushing the field.... I jumped the fence to the field... and then waited for a friend to make her way down as well. The other fans I was with... "real" Utah fans... they were long gone by the time I walked out to the party. :lol: I went because my friends bailed... and it was one hell of a rush, but I was secretly hoping the Beavs would win the game. Rushing the field after THAT would have been awesome....er.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Even if Utah is subsidizing the LA area teams as outlined, they are still getting more money than they get from the MWC. So even if getting hosed by the Pac-12, that beats getting hosed by the MWC.


----------

