What's new
By:

The Final Nail In The Utah-BYU Coffin?

7StraightIsGreat

7StraightIsGreat

Well-Known Member
https://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/7396843/big-ten-pac-12-grow-scheduling-partnership

So the Pac 12 and Big 10 have now entered into an agreement that will allow for crossover scheduling in all sports. Due to contracts, it will take football a little while longer to be on board, but within 5 years each Pac 12 school will have 1 Big 10 school on the schedule. This even furthers my belief that the Utah-BYU rivalry will go away.

At first, that seems unthinkable, but if you look at what we currently know it doesn't seem like a stretch at all: Chris Hill has made it clear that he'd like to see Utah adopt a yearly schedule that included 7 home games (very hard to do if you're playing a yearly home-and-home with BYU). He has also made it clear that with Utah playing 9 conference games each year, he'd like to see the 3 out of conference games include 1 "big" game with 2 cupakes mixed in. Also the fact that the Utah-BYU series is only under contract for 1 more game is very telling IMO. I could easily see Utah's "big" out of conference game becoming the yearly match-up with a Big 10 school. That only leaves 2 out of conference games and I'm sure Utah is very wary about over-scheduling their program.

This is going to sound somewhat snotty, but I really don't mean it to: Sometime in the near future, Utah could be looking at a schedule that includes: USC, Oregon, Stanford, Washington and the likes of Nebraska, Michigan, Ohio State, etc. At that point, don't you want 2 cupcakes on the schedule? Not only that, but do you really even need to play BYU with a schedule like that? For a BYU fan that takes offense to that line of thinking, all I ask of you is to picture BYU in the same scenario. Lets say BYU had gotten into the BIG 12 and then they announced a partnership with the SEC. If BYU had 10 games per year already lined up with Big 12 and SEC opponents, does it make much sense for them to be scheduling a very losable game against a Pac 12 school?
 
jazzman12 said:
https://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/7396843/big-ten-pac-12-grow-scheduling-partnership

So the Pac 12 and Big 10 have now entered into an agreement that will allow for crossover scheduling in all sports. Due to contracts, it will take football a little while longer to be on board, but within 5 years each Pac 12 school will have 1 Big 10 school on the schedule. This even furthers my belief that the Utah-BYU rivalry will go away.

At first, that seems unthinkable, but if you look at what we currently know it doesn't seem like a stretch at all: Chris Hill has made it clear that he'd like to see Utah adopt a yearly schedule that included 7 home games (very hard to do if you're playing a yearly home-and-home with BYU). He has also made it clear that with Utah playing 9 conference games each year, he'd like to see the 3 out of conference games include 1 "big" game with 2 cupakes mixed in. Also the fact that the Utah-BYU series is only under contract for 1 more game is very telling IMO. I could easily see Utah's "big" out of conference game becoming the yearly match-up with a Big 10 school. That only leaves 2 out of conference games and I'm sure Utah is very wary about over-scheduling their program.

This is going to sound somewhat snotty, but I really don't mean it to: Sometime in the near future, Utah could be looking at a schedule that includes: USC, Oregon, Stanford, Washington and the likes of Nebraska, Michigan, Ohio State, etc. At that point, don't you want 2 cupcakes on the schedule? Not only that, but do you really even need to play BYU with a schedule like that? For a BYU fan that takes offense to that line of thinking, all I ask of you is to picture BYU in the same scenario. Lets say BYU had gotten into the BIG 12 and then they announced a partnership with the SEC. If BYU had 10 games per year already lined up with Big 12 and SEC opponents, does it make much sense for them to be scheduling a very losable game against a Pac 12 school?
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is that you are afraid of BYU. Check.
 
Scat said:
So what you're saying is that you are afraid of BYU. Check.
Click to expand...

I knew that was the angle some BYU fans would try and take. Thank you for being so predictable.

In truth, Utah has fared quite well against BYU in recent history and think that trend will only continue (Utah will win by double digits next year up at RES). There's no reason what so ever to be "afraid" of BYU. However, what I am "afraid" of is Utah having 11 really big games on a 12 game schedule (yes, I think you have to count every Pac 12 game as a "big" game). That's alot to ask of any team and IMO sooner or later it could take a toll and quite possibly cost you a shot at a really special season. If you're a BYU fan, and you're still having trouble understanding that, lets use a different team as an example: If Utah had 9 games against Pac12 schools and 1 game against a Big10 school already lined up, I would be concerned/perplexed if they went and added a Virginia Tech or Texas A&M to the schedule. It doesn't mean that I'm "afraid" of my team playing VaTech or A&M in and of itself, it simply means that overscheduling is possible no matter how good your team is, and I'd hate to see Utah do that.
 
Since Scat played the role let me play the U fan role, so what JM12 is really saying is that this guarantees the rivalry game will continue can't think of a bigger instate cupcake then TDS.
 
I'm sure this thread is going to turn into a lot of rivalry **** talk (as it should), but before it does, I think it should be pointed out how shrewd of a move this was by both the Pac 12 and Big 10. If you read the article it talks about how this move basically improves the footprint for each conference without having to deal with all of the headaches of further conference expansion. Larry Scott is an effing genius.
 
jazzman12 said:
I'm sure this thread is going to turn into a lot of rivalry **** talk (as it should), but before it does, I think it should be pointed out how shrewd of a move this was by both the Pac 12 and Big 10. If you read the article it talks about how this move basically improves the footprint for each conference without having to deal with all of the headaches of further conference expansion. Larry Scott is an effing genius.
Click to expand...
I saw the update on my phone and hadn't read the article yet but when I first saw it I thought if this is another way albeit smaller way to do what super conferences might do. Would make sense for the Big 12 to try and do that with the SEC or ACC since it has been weakened with losing several teams, geographically it would make more sense for the ACC and SEC but I don't think the SEC would want to as it would help the ACC more and for that same reason may not want to with the Big12 so I guess to me the Big12 and ACC would be the most likely.
 
You're really trying to carry this narrative, aren't you? It seems like we get one of these topics weekly. Won't ever happen.
 
Any team who schedules a D-1AA opponent is cowardly.

I was deeply ashamed the couple years Colorado did it, though Colorado typically has the balls to never do it.
 
Duck Rodgers said:
You're really trying to carry this narrative, aren't you? It seems like we get one of these topics weekly. Won't ever happen.
Click to expand...

Just reporting the news. Also, feel free to show all of the posts on this subject that I bring up "weekly". For the record, I had a strong hunch that this rivalry game would go away for a period of time, but now that you say it "won't ever happen", I'm absolutely certain it's going away. Your predictions are the kiss of death. Don't you find it strange that the schools haven't committed to a longer term contract yet? BYU can get a 10 year commit out of Boise State, but can't seem to get the same out of Utah. It seems like everything is trending in the direction of these 2 not playing. Maybe Utah re-ups for the next few years before the Big 10 scheduling hits, but I doubt they'd do anything else beyond that. I also wouldn't be suprised to see Utah walk away from it after the 2012 game.
 
I think it's a no brainer that the rivalry is set to end. The writing was on the wall anyway, but this Big 10 agreement just about puts the nail in the coffin.

Additionally, this move probably forces Notre Dame to finally join the Big 10. It will be tougher for them to schedule the Big 10 and Pac 12 teams as an independent in the future. If they join the Big 10, they can keep playing all of those teams.
 
Interesting stuff from Chirs Hill in todays SLtrib, only furthering the notion that the rivalry game is about dead.....


Each Pac-12 team is supposed to have a Big Ten team on its non-conference schedule by 2017. However, that matchup could come much, much sooner for the Utah Utes, according to Hill.
The only non-conference teams the Utes have on their future schedules is a Sept. 15 game against BYU next year and a three-year agreement with Utah State for the 2012-through-2014 seasons, giving the Utes some wiggle room when it comes to scheduling opponents.
"We left it open by design," Hill said. "We were hoping and anticipating the new TV contract might bring some new opportunities that would help us grow some national exposure and this agreement could help us maybe do that sooner rather than later."
Hill said he has heard some Big Ten teams, including Michigan, are interested in scheduling Pac-12 teams soon but stopped short of saying a deal with the Wolverines might be in the works.
The Utes opened their 2008 season with a 25-23 win over Michigan in the Big House.
"This is a good thing for all our sports," he said. "It makes sense to schedule a team like Michigan or a Big Ten team like that because it would be an exciting thing, but it also makes scheduling difficult in some respects, we have to make sure we schedule ourselves to a point where we help our teams too."
To that point, Hill doesn't want to create a schedule that would be too challenging for the Utes. That concern could mean the rivalries with Utah State and BYU are in more jeopardy than they already were.
"I haven't had a chance to talk to (BYU athletic director) Tom Holmoe or (Utah State athletic director) Scott Barnes yet," Hill said. "I don't want to give people the wrong impression but we've said all along we don't know what different opportunities are going to
Click to expand...

I know that some fans will be upset when it goes away simply because of tradition, but I'm fine with it. As I've gotten older, the word "tradition" seems to hold less and less of a meaning. It's basically another way to describe something that you're used to simply because it happens over and over again. I don't need a victory over BYU to validate a successful season for the Utes. In fact, with the way alot of the fans act on both sides, I think it might actually be a good thing the game went away for awhile. Plus, who wouldn't rather see Michigan or Ohio State on the schedule? If Utah's new scheduling desires force BYU out of the equation, I'm fine with it.
 
Bottom line is Utah is going to be losing a lot of games for years to come regardless of who they are playing each year in and each year out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top