The above sbnation post presents some interesting arguments. However, I think it, along with many of the comments on the article, fail to see one key factor in the realignment developments.
First, Colorado is going to need, and probably would request, a 'travel partner' in the league. Otherwise, they'd be left out by a large distance from any of their colleagues in the PAC while waiting for more teams to be invited in the future. Utah would be a good fit for a regional rival for CU.
But even more importantly, the PAC cannot let Utah get away, and here's why. The PAC invited 5 schools other than CU to come from the Big 12: Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Oklahoma and Oklahoma St. However, it seems that A&M was not really keen on moving to the PAC even if the other 4 teams did. So, I think the PAC would have had to revise their offer even if the 4 teams would have decided to leave the Big 12. Which means the PAC would have likely added Utah anyway as a replacement for A&M going to the SEC.
Now with the possibility of the Big 12 remaining for at least a while (although the whole thing seems like smoke and mirrors), the PAC should just get Utah while they can so that as they wait for the inevitable demise of the Big "Texas" 12, CU will at least have a close rival, and, they will already have the teams they need to have when the 4 Big 12 teams become available again and A&M makes their eventual move to the SEC.
I suspect this is the thinking behind Larry Scott kicking around the idea of an invite to Utah.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
