Did adding them hurt or help the PAC?
I would argue that they hurt the PAC 12 when we added them.
If you think about it, when the PAC added Colorado and Utah they added two markets, but how valuable is the SLC and Denver market?
Secondly, by elevating Utah to a power five school, we created another team to compete with for recruits.
Third, by adding Colorado and Utah, it gave them more recruiting advantages in California, where the other PAC 12 schools need to own I. Order to compete. The PAC gained two markets to recruit from that produce relatively little talent on an annual basis.
Lastly, had we just stayed the PAC 10, went to conference games and filled the rest of the schedule with two power 5 schools and two group of 5 schools. Overall, I think our conference would have been in much better shape.
I would argue that they hurt the PAC 12 when we added them.
If you think about it, when the PAC added Colorado and Utah they added two markets, but how valuable is the SLC and Denver market?
Secondly, by elevating Utah to a power five school, we created another team to compete with for recruits.
Third, by adding Colorado and Utah, it gave them more recruiting advantages in California, where the other PAC 12 schools need to own I. Order to compete. The PAC gained two markets to recruit from that produce relatively little talent on an annual basis.
Lastly, had we just stayed the PAC 10, went to conference games and filled the rest of the schedule with two power 5 schools and two group of 5 schools. Overall, I think our conference would have been in much better shape.
