Will Utah to the Pac-10 Cost BYU and the Mountain West a BCS Bid?

I want to start by disclosing one not so secret fact—I personally think adding Utah is a big mistake for the Pac-10.

I am against the move from the perspective of one who likes the Pac-10. As I wrote yesterday, I think Hawaii brings a ton more value than Utah to the Pac-10 in spite of Utah's more developed money sports programs.

That said, I am also one who thinks Utah and BYU should be in a BCS conference together...yesterday.

So I am against this on both sides.

Reports are out there presently that the Utes are prepared to accept the offer.

The state of Utah may want to think twice about letting this happen.

I think Utah joining the Pac-10 might just kill the Mountain West Conference's very real hopes of landing a BCS conference automatic qualifier slot.

Let's look at the math.

As Bleacher Report scribe Crayton has traced out in a number of articles, the Mountain West Conference's fate in terms of being included as a BCS conference will likely come down to a vote by a BCS committee.

The MWC added Boise State to eliminate the WAC as competition for a potential seventh BCS slot, as the WAC based on Boise State's presence was also statistically in the running for consideration by that committee.

With two candidate conferences, it opened the door for the BCS to say, "We can't decide between you, so we won't admit either conference."

Adding Boise State helped more in a national perception stance and in terms of putting pressure on the committee than it did changing the MWC's math.

The loss of Utah would wipe away any significant math gain adding Boise State did anyway to the MWC's stature. 

In terms of the people who run the bowls who are half of the BCS equation, the MWC would have effectively just traded out a team that drew 45,155 per game last year for a team that drew 32,782 per game. Are the bowls who likely are the main force that has been against MWC inclusion more or less likely to vote for the MWC now?

The reason the BCS is set up as it is without the MWC receiving an AQ slot is so the BCS can try to worm their way out of inviting a 10-1 MWC champ Wyoming or San Diego State team to a BCS bowl. They can still invite a TCU, BYU, or Utah, but they aren't bound to invite any MWC team that cannot draw a crowd.

Are the BCS schools going to vote for MWC inclusion knowing they will have to share the BCS revenue with another conference mouth?

BYU and their fans have been screaming discrimination for 20-plus years, and they still aren't part of the in crowd. If their inclusion goes to the BCS committee and the committee says no, what will BYU do? Scream discrimination? Yeah, that works. Very effective strategy.

The best shot the MWC has is making the committee face scrutiny from the public. If the committee has to weigh the merits of a MWC that includes teams that in a pre-BCS era would have been considered as co-national champions who were arguably screwed in 2004, 2006, 2008, and 2009, that is a tough sell to the public.

Removing Utah removes two of the strongest teams (2004 and 2008) and significantly diminishes that argument.

If Utah truly thinks they are far and away the Pac-10's best candidate for a 12th team, then why not wait a few years? Why couldn't the MWC say, "Stay with us until 2015, and then you can leave if the Pac-10 still wants you. Help us earn our BCS slot and then go with our blessings if you still want to go."

This Utah to the Pac-10 move may be one that the state might want to really consider blocking.

Then there is what happened in the background to kill the UT deal.

Lost in the headlines was an article that should disturb the hell out of the MWC membership.  It said that basically a swarm of "unaffiliated parties" rose up and put pressure to get that Big 12 TV deal done to prevent massive realignment. (I am guessing politicians and network bigwigs tied to the Big East and ACC probably were part of this.)

Consider those parties effectively took on the Pac-10. What if those parties basically encouraged the Big Ten not to take Rutgers for a couple years, as that would likely trigger the same kind of realignment in the ACC and SEC?

I don't think Rutgers to the Big Ten is as much of a slam dunk today in general as it appeared three months ago. The Big Ten is generally quite a conservative conference in expansion terms. They don't have to make their move now.  They are making money hand over fist.

Adding Nebraska makes the western Big Ten watchable for the rest of the nation and raises their advertising revenue greatly. They can afford to pull in fat money, evaluate the success of the Nebraska add and a Chicago-based title game on their own merits, and wait out ND and UT until Irish and Longhorn greed cannot take it any longer.

If the Big Ten chooses to wait, then the ACC is not going to feel as if they have a free ride to raid the Big East. They already have a nice TV deal. The hunger isn't there. Without big realignment, the SEC won't feel motivation to really push for expansion.

So where does that leave the MWC?

Still at seventh in the eyes of the bowls and seventh in what might very likely be a six-horse race to be an AQ conference.

Opportunities lost

The door closed on the MWC's best chance to get into the BCS last Sunday when the Big 12-2 decided to stay together.

I can't fault the commissioner of the conference for this. Clearly the logic provided by his office (add Missouri and Kansas to increase the odds of BCS automatic qualifier inclusion) was sound.

When the ACC gutted the Big East, the BCS coalition appeared to have written the rules to help the five remaining Big East schools stay in the AQ group. It is very likely that adding two strong, well-attended, longtime BCS football programs in Kansas and Missouri would have dramatically helped the MWC's cause, even if it went to committee.

The problem with the strategy is that this was not a quick solution. Kansas and KSU are perceived to be tied at the hip by Kansas politics. This would not be like a far superior academic conference like the Pac-10 offering Kansas a slot. The MWC adding Kansas without Kansas State might have stretched on for months.

Adding Kansas, KSU, and Missouri would have likely meant a quick approval. All three schools believed they had no other BCS options. The legislature in Kansas would have been satisfied as they would feel with all three schools in, the MWC would assume the Big 12's AQ slot. With the Kansas schools in and a likely AQ slot pending, Missouri would have bought in.

From there Houston would be a safe, better than BCS neutral add, leaving the conference with 14 members.

Why did that offer not happen? I am going to credit that to the presidents and athletic directors of the "Gang of Five" (BYU, Utah, CSU, Air Force, and Wyoming) who run the MWC, rather than the commissioner, as commissioners generally make recommendations and universities make decisions.

The word out of the MWC last week was that the conference did not want to go beyond 12 members. Why is that? Well, one would speculate it was because the Gang of Five had a horrible time in a 16-member WAC and do not want to go back to that type of scenario.

They wrongly guessed that the Big 12 was doomed and that Kansas and Missouri would jump at a chance to join their conference.

See, this is a big problem with the MWC. They think they should be a shark (a BCS AQ conference), but they don't think like sharks.

The Pac-10 going to 16 and taking on Texas Tech, OU, and OSU in order to box in UT (and maybe A&M)? That is thinking like a shark.

The ACC stealing Miami and friends from the Big East?  Shark thinking.

The leadership of the MWC think more like big goldfish. Oh sure, they are opportunistic bottom feeders, but when that bleeding shark is in the water, they think, "Ew! Blood!" instead of, "Man, that smells good! I want a piece!"

That brings us to Utah

Will the presidents of the MWC wave enthusiastically as Utah sails away to the Pac-10, likely taking BYU and the MWC's hopes of securing a BCS bid with them?

Probably.

Update: On my way to work I just heard that Utah has officially accepted the Pac-10's invitation.  Could this still be stopped by the state legislature?  I suspect it could, but the news is out there, so the clock is ticking on BYU if they are going to make a play.