I read repeatedly here that Utah is going to drop to the bottom of the PAC10+.

It's hard to go even one page without someone saying it.

Yet, everyone here also believes that the MWC is as good as the PAC10. That the MWC should be an AQ BCS conference.


Does anyone here see the disconnect?

Why, if Utah is competing well in the MWC, putting together a couple of undefeated seasons, would that change if the MWC is as good as if not better than the PAC10+???

Is the argument coming from the fact that folks just don't really believe "deep down" that the MWC is all that good, as good as the PAC10+, deserving of an AQ BCS position?

Or, is it just that folks want to believe that Utah's going to fall off a cliff? Why would that be the case? The recruiting will improve. The cash flow, facilities and marketing will improve. The coaching will be stable and Utah will be better able to attract/keep better assistants. There really isn't a lot of argument for Utah dropping off a cliff, IMO. Granted, KW might leave and that may all change, but I think as long as Utah has consistent coaching, Utah isn't going to drop off. Utah has competed very well against PAC10 schools at home. They have showed well on the road (admittedly, losing a few.)

Here's my take on BYU. If BYU goes to the Big12, they will compete immediately in the Big12 north, probably winning it out of the gates.