Pac-10 Expansion: Facts and Figures
by BillyZoom on Dec 17, 2009 2:18 PM PST
Email
PrintThe recent announcement by the Big 10 that it would explore expansion has once again created a bit of discussion about the future of the Pac-10. One would have to think that if the Big 10 did expand to 12 teams (Missouri has already expressed interest) and added a conference title game... that the Pac-10 would have to seriously consider expansion as well.
Lots of names always get thrown out there... Colorado, Fresno State, BYU to name a few. Obviously, this is not only about football and basketball. The university presidents of the member schools will strongly consider "academic fit", looking for schools that meet the league's academic profile. But another big factor will have to be expanding the Pac-10 conference "footprint" in a meaningful way.
Here are the most likely candidates as I see them...
1. COLORADO (Big XII) - Good football tradition. 1990 Nat’l Champs, played in 4 Big XII title games but diminishing returns under Dan Hawkins. Hoops program not as strong, with just 3 NCAA appearances this decade.
Academics: US News Ranking: 77, which is higher than current Pac-10 member schools Oregon, Arizona, Arizona State, Oregon State and Washington State.
CU delivers Denver, a growing city and #18 TV market in the US, and expands the Pac-10 footprint all the way to the Rocky Mountains. Likely that CU would strongly consider a move…Buffs are tired of a Big XII run by the Texas schools, while the state of Colorado is more aligned culturally, socially etc. with Oregon/California/Washington than it is with Kansas/Nebraska.
2. UTAH (Mountain West) - very good football program, two undefeated seasons this decade and 2-0 in BCS games. Solid basketball program, went to ’98 Final Four and 6 NCAA appearances this decade.
Academics: US News Ranking: 126 – It is a Tier 1 university with a ranking comparable to Arizona State and higher than Oregon State.
Salt Lake City is a growing city and TV market # 33, comparable to San Diego. Utah would jump at a chance to move from the Mountain West to more prestigious BCS conference. If added to the Pac-10 with Colorado, the league expands it’s footprint to cover the entirety of the western United States, from the Rockies to the Pacific. The Pac-10 would dominate the West. CU/Utah would be travel partners and natural geographic rivals as the league’s two “mountain” schools.
3. BYU (Mountain West) - very strong tradition in football. Quarterback U., ‘84 Nat’l Champs and a Mountain West power. Solid basketball program with 7 NCAA appearances this decade. Enormous national following due to the school's relationship with the Mormon faith. A poor man's Notre Dame.
Academics: US News Ranking: 71. Better than 5 current Pac-10 schools.
Brigham Young has never been shy about its desire to join the Pac-10. BYU brings the same advantages as Utah but the school’s religious affiliation is probably a non-starter for the conference.
4. BOISE STATE (WAC) - Football program is a model for non-BCS success. Other athletic programs, including basketball, are probably not Pac-10 caliber
Academics: US News Ranking: 57. Surprisingly high ranking would place this Tier 1 university smack dab in the middle of the Pac-10.
Unfortunately for the Broncos, Boise State resides in TV market # 110. Adds next to nothing in terms of exposure or new viewers, and does not expand the conference footprint in a meaningful way.
5. FRESNO STATE (WAC) - Football program has some big wins this decade, but Pat Hill’s Bulldogs have never won a WAC title. Academically, FSU is a Tier 4 school, which almost certainly eliminates it from Pac-10 expansion plans.
Additionally, Fresno is the #55 televison market in the US. Certainly not a new market, as the city is already within the Pac-10 footprint and the region is heavily recruited by Pac-10 schools and delivers little in terms of additional viewers. Anyone still want the Bulldogs?
6. SAN DIEGO STATE (Mountain West) - Football and basketball programs are not strong. San Diego is already a Pac-10 city, residing within the league’s footprint, recruited heavily by member schools and hosting the Holiday Bowl. Academically, San Diego State is Tier 3, which probably eliminates it from league consideration.
7. TEXAS (Big XII) - Cannot imagine any scenario where the Longhorns would leave the Big XII for the Pac-10. They run that conference, and have already spurned Pac-10 advances.
8. TEXAS A&M (Big XII) – See Texas.
9. TCU (Mountain West) – Great football program. Delivers Dallas/Fort Worth is the #6 TV market in the country, and would open up the state of Texas to the Pac-10. But the former Southwest Conference member is supposedly tops on the waiting list for a bid from the Big XII should that league lose teams like Missouri to the Big 10. Lower academic ranking than Utah.
10. SMU (Conference USA) - Also in Dallas, # 6 TV market. Conference USA member. Once great football program has never recovered from first and only NCAA Death Penalty. # 68 in US News rankings. Have never heard any mention that SMU would be interested in Pac-10 membership.
As stated above, the two most likely and attractive candidates are Colorado and Utah. That combination meets the Pac-10's academic and athletic requirements while bringing Denver and Salt Lake City, the # 18 and #33 TV markets, into the league. A Colorado/Utah would be travel partners in basketball, and would form a natural geographic rivalry in most sports as the league's two "Mountain" schools.
Bottom line? If you're going to expand, the addition of CU and Utah seems to best fit with the Pac-10's unique academic/athletic profile while increasing market share and fan base, bring in a lot of television sets and expanding the league's footprint from the Rockies to the Pacific.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.
86 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Josh and I had a debate on expansion in last night's football podcast
Formerly ryebreadraz
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Dec 17, 2009 2:23 PM PST reply actions
Isn't Pittsburgh the best candidate for the Big 10?
Adds a second Pennsylvania school, rivarly with Penn State, Solid football and basketball programs, etc.
I hate the expansion idea, but I think I am running against the course of history. Its really similar to the BCS: lets put money over the best way to determine a champion. In our case it would be by removing the round robin and instead instituting an unbalanced schedule.
"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"
by silverlakebruin on Dec 17, 2009 2:25 PM PST reply actions
Pitt will certainly be a candidate for the Big 10
I think that Missouri and Pittsburgh would be the two strongest candidates for Big 10 expansion. Notre Dame tops the wish list, but I think that’s pretty unlikely.
I think we're going to see an unbalanced schedule soon
whether we expand or not. It just doesn’t make sense to make things tougher on ourselves when nobody else in the country it doing it and the coaches hate it.
Formerly ryebreadraz
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Dec 17, 2009 2:34 PM PST up reply actions
Demise of the round robin
It is definitely the best way to determine our conference champion, but I agree that it will disappear. We beat up each other for nine games instead of the seven or eight like other conferences. We lose the ability to play national powerhouses like UT-Chattanooga. The round robin is by far the most entertaining and competitive option but without a doubt creates a competitive disadvantage.
I just went to grad school at Indiana and neither Ohio State or Michigan ever visited Bloomington. Penn State came once. It was very disappointing as a fan of college football losing the opportunity to see those two historic programs in a convenient forum.
It would be much nice if we had a playoff
with the conference champions in the 6 major conferences, and two at larges based on the highest ranked not in those six.
Then, every conference could do whatever it wanted to determine its champion
"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"
by silverlakebruin on Dec 17, 2009 11:07 PM PST up reply actions
Playoff has to include every conference winner
Which means more than 8 teams.
Formerly ryebreadraz
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Dec 17, 2009 11:37 PM PST up reply actions
I think you mean should
not has to.
I don’t think the winner of Conference USA or the MAC deserves an automatic bid..
"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"
by silverlakebruin on Dec 18, 2009 12:54 PM PST up reply actions
The point of a playoff is to make it fair
Every team should have control of its own destiny, keep winning and you’ve got a shot. If you don’t include every conference winner then how do you make sure that every team can win out and win the national title?
Formerly ryebreadraz
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Dec 18, 2009 2:23 PM PST up reply actions
Not sure how many playoff advocates agree with you...
I agree with you. IF you are going to have a playoff system, every team must have a route into it. I don’t see many people advocating an all-in playoff though. People seem more concerned about making sure that the supposed third placed team doesn’t get hosed (e.g. unbeaten Auburn left out the year $C crushed Oklahoma), and care a lot less about making sure all teams have access. People keep advocating a four team playoff, even in a season where 5 teams finished unbeaten…
by britishbruin on Dec 18, 2009 3:04 PM PST up reply actions
BYU and Utah
If there’s an expansion, BYU and Utah make the most sense at an athletic level, as both teams field competitive teams in many sports and have traditionally been two of the best mid-majors in the conference. Also, that allows the Pac-10 to keep its unique in-state rival system. Academically, Utah will pose some problems, so I’m not sure how well that part will work out.
"I never watched baseball on TV. It's slow and boring. I'm not a fan. Never was." - Jeff Kent
"two teams, same state"
Why would you add two teams from the same media market? What’s the upside? Certainly there isn’t one financially speaking. One of the things you want to do is add televisions and market share. Denver is the #18 media market. I think trying to stick with the “two teams, one state” thing means leaving a lot of money on the table. And that’s what this is about. Money.
BYU is definitely attractive because of their enormous following, academic ranking and athletic prowess, but their religious affiliation would be a huge hurdle for them to overcome in terms of admission to the league.
That said, I think Colorado and either Utah or BYU is the most attractive option for the Pac-10 at this time.
Colorado
It’s a minor quibble, but I’ve never liked the idea of adding Colorado. To me it’s to far east to be considered a “Pacific” school. I definately think BYU/Utah should be one of the teams with my preference being Utah. Living in Boise, I’d definitely want Boise State as the second, although if I’m honest with myself and still lived in Portland or Seattle, I wouldn’t be as in favor of it although I wouldn’t be opposed either.
As for BSU’s other programs not being Pac-10 caliber, I think their inclusion in the league would change that in a fairly short time. Going from being a mid-major school to a BCS one would definitely change the caliber of recruits that would be willing to come here. Although they’re down right now, WSU has attacted it’s fair share of quality recruits and Pac-10 titles, and I would think getting them to come to Boise over Pullman would be a easier proposition.
The problem with BSU
Is that I see a lot of positives for BSU in the event that they are added. I don’t see a lot of positives for the conference as a whole. Colorado makes a lot more sense than BSU as it brings more than a football team to the table. This is from a guy that likes the BSU program, smurf turf and all, and isn’t much of a Colorado fan either. But if we look at it purely from a standpoint of bettering the conference, CU is hands down the better choice.
Agreed
Colorado definately brings more to the table than BSU. I just have my own selfish reasons for wanting them included, plus my minor issue with CU being to far East to be a Pacific school. When I think of the Pac-10 I think West Coast, and while they aren’t that near to the coast most people associate Idaho and Utah as being “Western” states. Once you get into Colorado the thinking becomes “MidWest”.
Another thing to consider is would BSU even accept an invite? Right now they are constantly in the national discussion which is a huge marketing advantage for the school and the football program. If they were just another Pac-10 school the talk wouldn’t nearly be as great as they wouldn’t be going 12-0 year in and year out anymore. Most of the rumblings I’ve been hearing here in Boise is about us leaving the WAC for the MWC in a year or two to make that conference stronger and then they would have a 12 team conference with a title game.
BYU and Utah
have the cachet, the natural rivalry, and the academic stature to fit in, but they are just too darn far away to reasonably be considered “Pacific Conference” schools. Nevada (Reno) and UNLV would be more geographically desirable, but they fail every other criteria. Boise State and Colorado as a pair? Again, too far away, but besides that, I just don’t see them adding any value to our conference.
Too far away?
Not sure what you’re basing that statement on…
Utah and BYU are in Salt Lake City, which is 689 miles from Los Angeles. That is closer to LA than Eugene (857 mi), Seattle (1135 mi) or Pullman (1234 mi)> Also closer to Phoenix and Tucson than any of the Northwest schools.
Denver (1,003) is only slightly further than Eugene and also closer to LA than either Seattle or Pullman.
Colorado, with Denver’s #18 TV market, and either Utah or BYU (market #33) are imo, the only viable candidates for Pac-10 expansion
Too far away from the Pacific Ocean
And they are in a different time zone. At least the Arizona schools are in the same time zone almost half the year. I don’t think we need expansion at all and haven’t seen an argument here yet that warrants it. I am convinced that with proper marketing, that which was so sorely lacking under the previous PAC-10 administration, the expansion issue will be moot.
Agreed
BYU and Utah makes the most sense. In addition to adding a title game in football, it would work well with the scheduling in basketball, where road trips involve 2 games in the same region.
We could rename the conference the “12 Pac”, which has a nice, catchy sound to it, no?
The conference could be broken down to the 6 Pac North and the 6 Pac South:
North:
Wahington/Washington St.
Oregon/Oregon St.
Stanford/Cal
South:
UCLA/SC
Arizona/Arizona St.
Utah/BYU
I think this is a great idea.
"I don't forget very much" Rick Neuheisel, 11/28/09
I'm probably in the smallest of minority
thinking that not only do we not need an expansion, but also that we should get rid of the Arizona schools…I never fully understood how they fit in. Not that it will ever happen, but it is still what I believe would be best.
More teams means a smaller share
for each of the member school, there would have to be some kind of built in incentive to add another school. So unless the Pac-10 itself needs to add markets to expand its tv contracts than expansion of the conference itself wouldn’t help.
"If you don't take out his battery, he's going to keep going all day."
You could make the argument
That bringing in some bigger name schools to the conference increases the attractiveness for a big national TV contract. ESPN looks pretty crowded, but who knows, maybe we could sign a deal with a broadcast network like CBS has with the SEC. I have no idea if that’s even in the realm of possibility. It probably isn’t. But I hope our new commissioner is leaving no stone unturned because the FSN deal is utter garbage.
University of Nevada (Reno)?
Can’t figure out what it’s US News ranking is, but a solid basketball program, and their football team is coming up. It’s more West than the Utah schools or Colorado.
by Westwood Wizard on Dec 17, 2009 3:43 PM PST reply actions
I like the idea
My personal preference would to bring UNR and UNLV. We add Reno as a media market, which isn’t great, but we also add LV, which is pretty substantial. Obviously, having young guys travel to LV for games presents interesting problems for the coaching staff to address, and both UNR and UNLV aren’t particularly strong, academically or athletically, but geographically it makes sense (it’s just as “Pacific” as Arizona), the distance isn’t too bad, and to be honest, it puts two lower-end programs in the conference. There’s nothing wrong with having a school to beat down on (read: Kentucky in the SEC, Indiana in the Big 10, half of the Big East and ACC) to help out the ol’ W-L record.
If I was running the show, you’d have a Pac-12, divided into two divisions (I’m sure I’ve come up with some other stupid proposal on BN before, but whatever, this is my current feeling on the subject):
Pac-12 North: UW, WSU, UO, OSU, Cal, Stanford
Pac-12 South: UCLA, U$C, ASU, UA, UNR, UNLV
I know Reno is further north than both Berkeley and Palo Alto. Get over it. I want to keep the in-state rivalry pairings together, so I’m not going to make Stanford a “South” team because Palo Alto is further south than Reno.
Every year, you play the five teams in your division. So we’d see U$C, ASU, UA, UNR, and UNLV every year. You get three of the six other teams. The next year, you play the other three. That leaves every team with 4 non-conference games to bring us up to the grand total of 12. If you want to schedule some cupcake like SJSU, great. If you want to bring in some powerhouse like Texas or Florida, great. I think the schedule flexibility with the extra non-conference game would be nice and could allow us to play some interesting programs.
Think long-term. If CRN gets this program to where we want it: where we’re competing for the Pac-10, Rose Bowl, and national title game on an annual basis, we’ll need to schedule big-time marquee opposition to keep our SOS up and win over those fickle-ass poll voters. Four non-conference games gives us that kind of flexibility.
To follow up on my post
When I say you’d get three of the other six teams, you wouldn’t play both teams in a rivalry pair. For example, if this was in place, in 2010, UCLA would play:
U$C, ASU, at UA, at UNR, UNLV, at Cal, OSU, at UW
The following year, in 2011, the Bruins would face:
at U$C, at ASU, UA, UNR, at UNLV, Stanford, at Oregon, WSU
The following year, in 2012, the Bruins would face:
at U$C, ASU, at UA, at UNR, UNLV, Cal, at OSU, UW
The following year, in 2013, the Bruins would face:
U$C, at ASU, UA, UNR, at UNLV, at Stanford, Oregon, at WSU
This way you always have 4 in-conference home games and 4 in-conference away games, while alternating the home and away for the out-of-division schools.
Or if you add two schools better than UNLV and UNR
you can schedule nobodies and win out to play for a national title. Winning over fickle voters is simple: win. If anything has been made clear, the current system does not reward playing a tough schedule.
As for bringing in a good program, yes you can bring in Texas, but do you really think Florida would take that game? They haven’t played a OOC game outside of the state since 1991.
Formerly ryebreadraz
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Dec 17, 2009 9:21 PM PST up reply actions
Agree that UNLV and Nevada aren't good fits at all
Neither passes academic muster and they don’t really expand the conference footprint in any appreciable way… Las Vegas is only TV market #42. while Reno is TV Market # 108.
Again, from a financial standpoint, the only viable candidates in my opinion are Colorado, Utah and BYU.
Also, as pointed out below...
…the Pac-10 does have certain academic standards it tries to hold to. Even though we have party schools in the conference (I’m talking to you ASU), all 10 schools enjoy pretty solid academic freedom, something not true of BYU. That makes me a little uncomfortable bringing them into the conference.
by Bellerophon on Dec 18, 2009 12:02 AM PST up reply actions
Oh I know...
…Florida wouldn’t play it. I just used them as an example. In hindsight, I should have said Texas, Ohio State, Oklahoma, etc., but Florida was the first “big-name” that came to mind.
What I like about UNR and UNLV is that geographically, it makes sense. It keeps the Pac-10/12 as the five western-most states in the lower 48. I also like our unique inter-state rivalries. We could do BSU and Idaho, but Idaho is really terrible, the media market additions are terrible, and well, I don’t think the BSU thing will last forever. Colorado and Colorado State? Ehh, I’ll pass on those two mediocre programs (I know UNR and UNLV are more mediocre, but still), which really only add Denver to the conference’s media market. BYU and Utah would be good, and I like the idea of bringing in both Salt Lake City and the worldwide Mormon viewing base, but when you put it on a map, it looks kind of weird, with the Utah states separated out from the rest of the conference (I know that’s incredibly fickle, but dammit, it’s my criteria and I’m asthetic when it comes to stuff like this…part of the reason I love North Campus).
Also, I have my own selfish reasons. If UNR was in the conference, that’s maybe 3 or 4 hours from me. It’d give me two UCLA football games I’d get to see every other year: at UNR and at either Cal or Stanford.
While LV and Reno aren’t the biggest media markets, they’re certainly bigger than places like Tuscon, Corvallis, and Pullman.
by Bellerophon on Dec 18, 2009 12:00 AM PST up reply actions
A couple of points
1. Utah borders Arizona so it would not be separated from the rest of conference. And Colorado borders Utah, so no problem there either.
2. Expansion cannot be obsessed with trying to shoehorn in a school like Colorado State to satisfy the “two schools, one state” thing. Better for the league to take in the two biggest TV markets available… i.e. Colorado (Denver) and Utah/BYU (SLC) and letting those “mountain schools” become travel partners and establish a rivalry. Bordering states and a games between two flagship state universities like Colorado and Utah/BYU would be a natural. Oregon and Washington hate each other. It could certainly happen with Colorado and Utah/BYU.
3. You can have Tucson, Corvallis and Pullman in the Pac-10 because you have LA, the Bay Area, Seattle and Phoenix. What you can’t do is invite more Pullmans and Tucsons into the league. Reno is a joke and the league can live without Las Vegas when there are much better alternatives. And Boise? Smaller than Reno with zero cache if the football program comes down to earth.
And when you say about Colorado, “it only adds Denver” you’re ignoring the fact that its the # 18 TV market and steadily growing. Same can be said of Salt Lake City, market # 33.
Only markets that can deliver market share and a lot of television should be considered. If you add Denver and Salt Lake City, you expand the conference footprint from the Rockies to the Pacific. The conference would basically dominate the entire western United States, adding a huge number of fans and televisions.
Your premise assumes...
…that market share and TV revenue are the only two considerations in the equation. I understand Utah and Colorado would technically border each other, and through Utah, Arizona. I get that. It still looks odd with Nevada being a big hole in our map. It’s a stupid reason, I get that, but hey, I like good-looking geography man.
The biggest problem I have with your plan: unless you bring in both Utah and BYU, you’re forcing a rivalry to grow where one didn’t naturally exist. That seems contrived and fake: trying to get two schools to “develop”
a rivalry. I’d rather bring in an existing rivalry. For the reasons I discussed below, I don’t think BYU is a good fit for the conference, given its history with academic freedom and very close association with a powerful church.
That would thus leave Colorado and Utah and I don’t feel like there is much of a rivalry there and saying they could develop one just seems very fake. It wouldn’t be the product of natural develop (as is the case with us and U$C and Cal/Stanford), but be a product of marketing and conference necessity. That’s lame.
Moreover, even if we do bring in the real rivalry, BYU and Utah, then you’re only really adding one media market: SLC, which I think isn’t as good as bringing in both LV and Reno.
You can’t just “establish” a rivalry and I think it’s shoehorning more than bringing in UNR and UNLV.
First of all, I'm not pushing expansion. It just looks like a reality
And my premise certainly does not “assume that market share and TV revenue are the only considerations”. I listed other factors like academics and athletics in my OP.
But let’s look at your own arguments against my own proposal, which is that the 3 best options for expansion are Colorado, Utah and BYU.
First, you admit that state borders and leaving a “hole” in the league map is “stupid”. I agree. It’s irrelevant. Second, you don’t want BYU. I stated that BYU’s religious affiliation would be a hard to sell to some, if not all of the conference members.
Now to your rivalry argument. A CU/Utah rivalry would be a product of marketing? Not sure how marketing is relevant here at all. To me, you have two flagship state universities in bordering states, two states that are very different in a lot of ways… culturally, politcally, etc. I had a long talk with a head coach from one of the schools in question about expansion, and he felt that if Utah and Colorado joined the league together they would most definitely develop a rivalry once they started playing each other every year. How do we know that he isn’t right?
Beyond that, you make it sound like Nevada/UNLV is Alabama/Auburn. Is there a Nevada/UNLV rivalry? Never seen that game on TV, never once heard it discussed or talked about, and I am a huge college football fan. Anyone here able to tell me the score of this year’s game without using Google? Seems like you’re overselling it.
But he worst part of Nevada/UNLV is that it ignores economics. By passing over the two biggest markets for two considerably smaller ones (Reno is a joke, as bad as Tucson), you’re “stepping over dollars to pick up dimes” and literally leaving millions of $$$ a year in revenue on the table.
But for the sake of argument, let’s consider Nevada and UNLV anyway. Academically, neither passes muster… Reno is Tier 3, UNLV is Tier 4. Athletically they’re average, with little meaningful tradition and football programs that are nothing more than second division. Financially, they don’t expand the league footprint, don’t add a significant number of television or increase market share.
So basically, the only thing I can see these schools seem to have in their favor is that they satisfy the same state requirement. And I just don’t think that’s good enough for membership in a premier conference like the Pac-10.
Since you insist...
…on discussing this in a serious manner, no more goofing around then. I’m not accusing you of pushing expansion, but I am accusing you of only considering market share and TV revenue, at least in the context of our discussion. Yes, you’ve listed academic factors in your original post, but you more or less ignored those in coming to your final three of Colorado, Utah, and BYU:
[T]he only viable candidates in my opinion are Colorado, Utah and BYU.
And:
Only markets that can deliver market share and a lot of television should be considered. If you add Denver and Salt Lake City, you expand the conference footprint from the Rockies to the Pacific.
Now, as a lot of other posters have pointed out, the Pac-10 doesn’t need to expand. The easiest solution for the conference is to renegotiate our current television deals. It shouldn’t be too hard to improve on the garbage that Tom “The F**king Idiot” Hansen left us with. So, I think you’re putting too much emphasis on the economic aspect of expansion. You’ve used the economics to cut the list of potential candidates down to Colorado, Utah, and BYU. If the academic factors had as much weight, BYU would never have made that far. Hell, they’re the only school that operates with the kind of academic freedom you’d expect to see at any of Europe’s universities during the Middle Ages.
As to the rivalry aspect, you can’t be too big of a college football fan, because UNR-UNLV have an actual rivalry game (the Battle for Nevada) where they play for an actual object (the Fremont Cannon). For sure, it’s not Auburn-Alabama, or UCLA-U$C, but that’s an unfair comparison. Not every rivalry is going to be one of the most storied super-rivalries. And your attitude is pretty elitist. UC Davis and Sac State have a rivalry (the Causeway Classic), but I’m sure most people have never heard of it. Doesn’t matter to Aggies and Hornets whether you know about it or not, but they have their rivalry, so your awareness of a rivalry is, well, not relevant. Back the point, UNR and UNLV do have a history and an existing rivalry.
Once you eliminate BYU for the obvious academic freedom issues/weird non-fit with the current conference, you’re left with Colorado and Utah, which you postulate will develop some kind of “mountain school” rivalry. You back that up by assering that either Dan Hawkins or Kyle Whittingham agree with you. That’s all well-and-good, but the opinion of one head coach doesn’t speak for the fan base both both schools. On a side note, if you’re backing your argument with Hawkins’ opinion, that’s sad. The dude is a moron and terrible as a coach. Maybe that’s why you’re not naming which of the two it is.
You ask “how do we know [this unnamed coach] isn’t right?” How do you know he is? Utah and Colorado don’t have a rivalry. You can have them play each other every year, but it won’t take. Utes will always hate BYU first and foremost, no matter what you do. You claims:
To me, you have two flagship state universities in bordering states, two states that are very different in a lot of ways… culturally, politcally, etc.
That’s a load of hogwash. UCLA is very different from Arizona and Oregon. They’re both bordering states. They’re both flagship state universities. We play them every year. I dislike those schools, but I wouldn’t call it a rivalry. Our rivalries? U$C, and to a lesser extent, Cal (the whole inter-UC thing, you know). Some coach somewhere can postulate he thinks it’ll take, but I call bulls**t. Rivalries are something that has to develop naturally, and you may think nothing of it, but the UNR-UNLV rivalry is real.
Colorado and Utah? The only place that rivalry would “exist” would be in the minds of the guys marketing the expanded conference. It’d be an artificial rivalry, one created by conference necessity, and like I said, that’s a weak reason for a rivalry.
Your biggest strike against UNR and UNLV is economics and academics, but like I said earlier, economics is a non-factor to me, given the fact one our current options is to negotiate a better TV contract (and I think N and others have made good points re: keeping the conference as it is and hunting a better contract). As for academics, yes, neither school is a premier public university, but neither is WSU, OSU, or ASU. Yes, these schools have room to grow, but I think membership in a BCS conference will expand their visibility and drive their development to stronger institutions. We hate to admit it, but UCLA’s reputation wasn’t built on academics alone: our athletics program and the visibility it brought helped boost interest in the university, making our univerisity more selective, giving us better, more gifted students. In a time when state funding for the UC continues to disappear, UNR is relatively well-funded (ranking 62nd out of 553 public universities).
Athetically, the two schools are just as “average” as OSU and WSU. Yeah, UNR has no titles to brag about, but UNLV has 2, just one shy of OSU’s 3 and even with WSU’s 2. And it’s not like a school like Utah (with 20 titles) is really going to boost the athletic prestige of the conference (seeing how 19 of those titles come in either skiing or women’s gymnastics).
In my opinion, you’re putting too much on the economic side of it. I don’t think the conference needs to expand, from a financial point of view. We do need to seriously work on our current TV contracts, because right now, we’re getting f**ked from behind, thanks to ol’ Dumbass Hansen. Since I don’t feel any pressure to expand, it gives me more latitude to select from.
If given the choice, I’d rather leave the conference as it is, than shoehorn in some contrived bulls**t “rivalry” like Colorado-Utah.
by Bellerophon on Dec 19, 2009 10:22 AM PST up reply actions
So let's see...
Using your argument, the Pac-10 should invite UC Davis and Sacramento State into the league. They meet all your criteria… they have an existing rivalry, Davis is an academic superior to either Nevada school and Sac State will improve just by joining the league. Athletic prestige isn’t really there, but not much worse then Reno. And we don’t have to worry about adding market share, television etc. because economics is a non issue in your opinion.
So there we have it. UC Davis and Sacramento State.
It wasn’t Dan Hawkins, btw. Nice try, though.
A strawman?
Come on, you know you can do better than that. Obviously, I’m not advocating for UCD and CSUS to join the Pac-10. They sort of need to do the whole escape from D-1AA first (which I think UCD could do with time, given the size of the university, but that’s another story).
If UCD was a D-1A program, I’d rather have them in the conference than any of the above schools: I think it’d be solid having every UC football program in one conference. That’s if, and only if, UCD was D-1A, which they’re obviously not.
My point is that my criteria isn’t the same as yours: I don’t think the economic realities dictate expansion, so I think the conference can pick and choose who it brings in. Obviously, Utah and Colorado are more marquee names, but I think trying to stick them into some kind of contrived “mountain school” rivalry is, well, contrived at best.
Moreover, you are completely missing my point re: UNLV and UNR using the prestige of the conference to improve their position. Both schools are in a radically better position to do so than CSUS. Both schools are recognized D-1A schools, well-funded, and likely to benefit from the eventual economic recovery and growth in the LV metro area (which is one of the fastest-growing areas of the U.S.). More Nevadans (if that’s what they’re even called), means more students going into the UN system and more of a tax base to support a growing pair of universities. I think outright dismissing both schools is pretty elitist on your part.
Your argument makes it sound like the only consideration is economics and in light of that, yes, Colorado and Utah make the most economic sense. My point is that economics shouldn’t be the only factor, and like I and others have argued, there’s no financial necessity to expand.
I think your argument doesn’t hold weight when examined and all you can come up with is some soft-ass strawman argument?
Give me a break dude. That’s weak.
by Bellerophon on Dec 19, 2009 10:26 PM PST up reply actions
Moreover...
…if we use your criteria, looking at market share and the economic/financial factors only, then the best schools for Pac-10 expansion is any college in the New York metro area, the Philly metro area, the Houston metro area, the Chicago metro area, and any school in the Detroit metro area.
That conference would be what? UW (Seattle), Cal (SF/Oakland), Stanford (SJ), UCLA, U$C (LA), ASU (Phoenix), UH (Houston), Northwestern (Chicago), Rutgers/Army (New York Metro), Temple (Philly), and Michigan (Detroit).
Now that’s how you make a lame strawman argument.
by Bellerophon on Dec 19, 2009 10:32 PM PST up reply actions
Not sure why you...
keep misstating my position regarding economic factors. From the OP on down, I have stated that the league will use a number of factors… academic fit, athletics and economics. To keep insisting that the only thing I’m considering is economics is silly and misrepresents what I have said from the beginning.
I thought it was solely economics, too, Billy
If it’s not economics, then again I can’t figure out why you want to expand, How does a championship game help UCLA? How does UCLA benefit by not playing every other team in the league? It sounds like you want expansion just for the sake of expansion. It doesn’t sound like a good idea to me other than increasing the potential economic pie to be divided up. As mentioned elsewhere, I think having a larger economic pie just means more money for just$c* to bribe athletes and agents and runners and handlers, etc. So I’m against your idea for several reasons.
Again, I'm not pushing expansion
but if it’s going to be seriously considered by the league then you can expect the conference is going to use a number or criteria… from athletics to academics. which I broke down in the OP. Also part of the equation is economics. If you’re going to be splitting up the pie by 12 instead of 10, the markets need to make sense and benefit the league financially.
But if you’re really against expansion “because a larger economic pie just means more money for just$c* to bribe athletes and agents and runners and handlers, etc” then I assume you’re not taking this discussion seriously anyway.
Yes, we understand...
…that you’re not pushing expansion, and yes, we get that the conference will consider a number of factors, but what both Fox and I are saying, if you’d actually read our comments, is that your analysis and your elimination of all teams but Colorado, Utah, and BYU appears to be based predominately (perhaps solely) on the economic/financial basis.
Like I pointed out above, it was you who said:
Only markets that can deliver market share and a lot of television should be considered. If you add Denver and Salt Lake City, you expand the conference footprint from the Rockies to the Pacific.
And:
[F]rom a financial standpoint, the only viable candidates in my opinion are Colorado, Utah and BYU.
To us, it looks like your argument for those schools is based on the financial situation rather than the other factors, because BYU sure as hell doesn’t pass the academic criteria. The only uniform factor of those schools (besides being “name brand” type schools) is the economic/financial factor: they both bring in large television markets.
The point I’ve been trying to make, time and time again (which is obviously falling on deaf ears with you), is that there really is no financial need for the conference to expand. The conference doesn’t need to expand. If it wants to expand, I think the conference has more flexibility than you make the case for. I don’t think we’re forced into Colorado and Utah, but have much more options. We could bring in two more teams, even teams in small markets, and still negotiate a better television deal than we currently have.
you continue to debate me...
on a position that I don’t hold.
If you read the OP, I stated clearly that the combination of athletics, academic profile and economic benefits is why I think Colorado and Utah are the right fits. You keep cherry picking snippets of posts, instead of reading the original post where I ranked the candidates in terms of athleitcs, academics and finances. Fresno State got dinged because they failed in all three categories, a Tier 4 school in a small market with a football team that has never won the WAC. So they’re out. Not sure how that makes it all about economics.
I don’t think the league should expand either, especally if the proposed candidates don’t fit the academic profile, add nothing athletically and are small markets that make no sense financially. I’ve been saying that all along.
And we get it. You disagree. Really no reason to expand on it.
Negative
If that was your position, you should have made that clear. The original post is not at all clear as to what your position is.
In laying out the ranking, you stated (emphasis added):
The university presidents of the member schools will strongly consider “academic fit”, looking for schools that meet the league’s academic profile. But another big factor will have to be expanding the Pac-10 conference “footprint” in a meaningful way.
The way the original post is phrased it indicates that the conference (read: university presidents) will look at academic fit. Then you interject with your thoughts, by stating that in addition (hence, the “but”) to the university presidents’ academic considerations, there is an economic component.
You then go on in the thread to continually highlight the merits of each school predominately on the economic/financial/television aspect, with de minimis discussion on the other factors.
A fair reading of your original post and the thread does not show you stating “clearly” your belief that all factors are relevant. Rather, a fair reading makes it look like your place a very heavy emphasis on the economics.
If that’s not your position, that’s fine with me. My point is that I don’t think the economics is a significant factor and I don’t think folks should think that the expansion of our television market is a make-or-break factor. I’d rather us bring in a natural rivalry with teams that are nearby and likely to be interested in joining the conference.
Utah may be interested in the Pac-10, but the Pac-10 isn’t interested in BYU, and I think Colorado isn’t going to leave the Big-12.
Most likely result? No expansion, and hopefully, a better television deal.
Billy, I am taking it seriously
I don’t think the idea is a good one. I think it’s a bad idea when there are teams in your conference who you don’t play in a particiular year. I think it’s a bad idea to have a conference championship game or, as we now have, a conference tournament in b-ball. You have made it clear that the economic part of the equation is not the biggest thing in your decision-making matrix, but it is surely a big part.
Could UCLA (and 8 of the other schools) use the incremental dollars? I’m sure. But just$c* is awash in money, and we all know what they do with a lot of those dollars. I see no reason to give them more money to use improperly. I am absolutely serious about that. Al Qaida has lots of AK-47’s now. More than they need. But it’s still a bad idea to give them more AK-47’s.
My argument disappears if the ncaa grows even mustard-seed sized cojones, but that seems unlikely to take place during my lifetime.
I think
the money situation and expansion talk will be forgotten once the Pac-10 negotiates a tv contract that isn’t as depressing as the one we have now
I'm still reluctant to endorse the idea myself
But as I said in a comment above, adding a Colorado or a Utah/BYU that has some national cachet could make the Pac 10/12 package attractive enough to land that TV contract that you’re talking about.
Personally, I'm against expansion
What will make it worth it IMO though is if we can drastically increase our TV money, which would likely have to come with expansion and a Pac-10 Network. It would be a major boon for the conference and if we could put together expansion, TV network and a title game all in one offseason, I think it could be great for the conference. Making it all come together though would be very difficult and may not be feasible so until I know it’s feasible, I’m anti-expansion.
Formerly ryebreadraz
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Dec 17, 2009 3:58 PM PST reply actions
Me, too.
“If it ain’t broke …” Also, I’d like to give our new PAC-10 commish some time to work his magic vis-a-vis a new TV contract and/or new bowl alignments.
If you want a comparison
Each Big 10 team is getting $20 million a year in TV money between their network and TV deals. Now, I don’t expect the Pac-10 to match that, but getting in the neighborhood would make it worth the expansion. Whether or not we can is worth exploring though.
Formerly ryebreadraz
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Dec 17, 2009 6:11 PM PST up reply actions
I don't see why we couldn't ...
we’ve got a fantastic brand as it stands. A decent marketer couldn’t help but work wonders with it.
I think expansion is a positive
with a few if’s. IF it brings drastically more revenue from TV (as you mention) and I would add bowl tie ins (which I think it would). The other is IF is if the BCS expands to another game to include the Cotton Bowl in the new Dallas Stadium. I throw that one in there because an argument made against expansion constantly is that if the Pac continues to place 1 only team in BCS bowls, then it is the same $$ getting spread to more schools.
Now the second IF isn’t a necessity if the “drastic” TV revenue/bowl tie ins/conference championship gains well more then compensate for a potential smaller cut per school for the BCS.
Free Brandon Wood!
Forgot to add the point
that the assumption is that the PAC would likely (hopefully) get 2 teams into BCS consistently with an additional BCS game.
Free Brandon Wood!
This has obviously been a really hot topic for SMU fans as well
thought this was a pretty interesting take on expansion in all of the major conferences form bleacher report.
William Doolittle at your service, a.k.a. will do.
i read ponyfans regularly
which is a pretty good blog, but its nothing like this blog. The SBN format has got the best formatting, commenting, look, etc. Its not even close. Also the work you guys all put in is unbelievable, and the community that’s been created here is testament to all of your hard work.
I would love for SMU to have an SBN Blog, but I don’t think we’re ready. I think we need a couple more successful seasons before Dallas really starts believing we can actually rise from the ashes. But I believe it will happen. Our aim is to start “acting top 25” in everything we do. Facilities, public relations, recruiting, attitude, it all has to improve if we want to get back to where we were, and we need to do it the right way this time. Things like the Bush library and the proposed indoor football and tennis facilities will help, along with our new crum basketball facility. There’s also no reason SMU should ever bottom feed in CUSA basketball, I really think we have more to offer than any other school in this conference. I’m not sure Doherty is the guy, but I’ll save you all from that ramble.
Anyway, if things go the way we are hoping they will, maybe we’ll have a good SBN community like this one. I’m certainly not qualified to moderate a blog, but maybe in the future, like when I’ve graduated haha. I’ll say this though, the sky is the limit for the blogging world, and if SMU does start an SBN blog, I think they, or any school, could learn a lot from this site.
William Doolittle at your service, a.k.a. will do.
This type of scenario makes
an easy argument for the addition of a 5 BCS game (in Dallas) at the end of the current BCS deal – assuming there in no move to a playoff….
Free Brandon Wood!
Why is this resurfacing?
The Pac-10 does not need to expand. They need a better TV contract, but that shouldn’t require expansion to accomplish. There is integrity and fairness in the round robin format in basketball and football that would be lost with additional teams. Split conferences and championship games are a cash grab and a joke from a competition standpoint. Why are we talking about this again?
greg in denver - UCLA guy for life
by gbruin on Dec 17, 2009 7:24 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Cash Grab AND Exposure
and thats the bottom line people running the show care about……
Free Brandon Wood!
Because the Big 10 is considering it
and if they do expand, the Pac-10 will be the only conference that cares about football without a conference title game, leaving us at a competitive disadvantage. We can get a better TV contract from an exposure point of view, but how about from a monetary point of view? Expansion, which would bring in additional TV markets would allow us to both increase our exposure and revenue.
Football’s round robin schedule will be gone soon, expansion or not, so bringing that into the discussion is useless. You can argue on behalf of basketball, but if you want better TV, then you have to be willing to make sacrifices. Cooperating with TV networks and dumping the constant Thursday/Saturday’s is one of the things that will have to change if we want to match the exposure of other conferences and expansion would allow a Pac-10 Network to survive, giving the non-revenue sports greater exposure.
Formerly ryebreadraz
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Dec 17, 2009 7:50 PM PST up reply actions
Yep
Count me as someone who is strongly against expansion. I like the Pac-10 as it is in terms of school makeup.
I don’t like the round robin scheduling because it always screws our teams. I think the most important issue for Pac-10 in near future is to get out freaking TV Ks improved. As we have discussed numerous times they are horrible.
That said, I really appreciated BZ’s effort in this fanpost. He came here with something he thought through instead of putting up a sloppy, lame fanpost.
What if expansion was explored
and it was found that expansion could bring us an extra $5 million a year, a Pac-10 Network and better TV exposure? I don’t want expansion because everyone else is doing it, but I think it may be the key to things like that and if that were the case I’d be in favor of it. Would you?
Formerly ryebreadraz
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Dec 18, 2009 12:27 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah may be
I think it really depends on what it will mean for the conference in terms of exposure and revenue. Haven’t seen anything out there that had made the idea of expansion attractive to me.
I'm not a fan of expansion
unless it can bring in a bunch of positives, which include the things I mentioned above. I think that it’s possible that those things could come with expansion though and I think it would be irresponsible of the Pac-10 not to explore expansion. Do the work and research to quantify the positives and negatives, then make a decision. I say no, but I can be convinced.
Formerly ryebreadraz
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Dec 18, 2009 2:25 PM PST up reply actions
No
It’s just a warning to everyone…always.
In all seriousness, I was reading Ben Franklin’s autobiography for the 5,000th time and found it appropriate.
Formerly ryebreadraz
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Dec 18, 2009 3:25 PM PST up reply actions
Cool to hear you like BF
Most people just know the cartoon from the John Adams series and don’t know it’s true background. Ben is my 1st cuz, 8 X removed (his mom and my 6th gr-grndm were sisters) so I try to read up on him too.
Franklin is undoubtedly my favorite person in history
Above all else, he’s the type of guy I’d love to sit down and have dinner with. Besides being brilliant, his sense of humor was second to none.
Formerly ryebreadraz
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Dec 18, 2009 4:09 PM PST up reply actions
The dude was pimp as well...
…for a bald guy with glasses and a pot belly, the dude pulled a lot of chicks. Good for him.
Sense of Humor
I presume you have a copy of “Fart Proudly”?
As far as linkbruin’s question re: syphilis, I have never read anything about that.
Well, we’ve sidetracked this post more than enough. Ryan, as a moderator, can you view my private email address? You may also be able to “decode” it… I’ll drop you a line at your aol addr
Bob
I'm only in favor of expansion if it promotes fairness,
i.e. it makes a playoff a real possibility. I’m just sick of feeling unsatisfied at the end of the season every year.
William Doolittle at your service, a.k.a. will do.
Athletic Success
I’ve always thought of the Pac-10 schools also as strong athletic schools, so IF we were to expand, and I’m against it, I’d be for those schools with strong athletic along with academic success. The number of NCAA championships by school as presented by the op, including most popular sport:
1. Colorado, 21, Skiing 16
2. Utah, 20, Skiing 10.
3. BYU, 9, W. Cross Country, 4
4. Boise St, 1, Football (Div 1AA?)
5. Fresno State, 2, Softball/Baseball
6. San Diego State, 1, M Volleyball
7. Texas, 39, M. Swimming 9
8. Texas A&M, 5, Softball 2
9. TCU, 1, W. Golf
10. SMU, 4, M Outdoor Track 2
By Comparison, the two worst Pac 10 Schools are:
Oregon State 3, Baseball 2
Washington State 2, Boxing/M Indoor Track
Of the 110 Suggested Teams
There is no greater rivalry than Utah/BYU. They hate each other as much as we hate SUC,
The Pac-10 consists of great cross town or in state rivalries. If forced to expand I would go with adding Utah/BYU. The only caveat being it is a lot tougher on the low elevation schools when traveling to Utah which is about 1 mile high. And when they travel to the lower elevation they have oxygen to burn.
I don’t understand what religion has to do with a couple of the comments above. Please explain.
'CaptainJack65'
Jack Metcalf
Religion and BYU
One potential issue – academic freedom
by SuperBruinMan on Dec 17, 2009 11:35 PM PST up reply actions
Religion
BYU’s religious affiliation is going to be an issue for the Pac-10. SuperBruinMan’s post on “academic freedom” in Provo is just one of many concerns the Pac-10 would have with BYU.
And whether it’s right or wrong, a lot of people consider the Mormon faith to be controversial.
It'd be odd
The conference is made up of 8 public universities and 2 private universities with no real religious affiliation. Although both Stanford and U$C had some connection to a church/religion at some point in time, it was pretty minimal, and both schools today are solidly secular private universities.
BYU would be, whether right or wrong, somewhat of an odd duck in the conference given the very close ties to LDS church.
by Bellerophon on Dec 18, 2009 12:05 AM PST up reply actions
Can you imagine the Stanford band visiting BYU every other year?
That would certainly bring attention to the conference!
by Westwood Wizard on Dec 18, 2009 11:47 AM PST up reply actions
A Modest Proposal...
Personally I can’t stand the thought of ending the round robin, as someone will always gain an advantage. (E.g., UCLA will always play illegally-recruited/highly paid Trojan thugs, whereas will miss WSU every other year or so.) But if we have to do something, it should be the following:
CLEAN AND SMART DIVISION
UCLA
Cal
Stanford
Arizona
Oregon
Washington
UNCLEAN AND/OR UNSMART DIVISION
USC
ASU
WSU
OSU
UNLV
SMU
This way even if the NCAA puts the latter Division’s champion on probation (not allowed for SC, but proven time and again for ASU, UNLV, SMU), the former Division can send someone admirable to the BCS Championship. Of course the cheats would have to play each other every year, somewhat compensated for by waiver of the requirement that their players need attend class or take tests themselves.
I assure you SMU has cleaned its act up now.
Believe it or not I’ve heard some players say we’ve gone too far the other way. (and I think EVERY school that is having any success bends a rule or two here and there) That said, I cant promise anyone that some of the big SMU boosters from the 70s and 80s wont try to weasel their way back in. But, while the old SMU was perfectly fine with fitting into that SUC/Miami stereotype, I think it desires to more like Vanderbilt now.
William Doolittle at your service, a.k.a. will do.
Behavior of our peers: Big 10, ACC and Big East
In the current climate, SEC will always get prime TV viewing / money, and favorable BCS/AP treatment. Big 12 seems to be typically considered the second big conference, based on Oklahoma and Texas; the Pac-10 doesn’t get put in the same ballpark as either of those conferences in terms of cachet and national interest, and all the attendant benefits.
Looking at what the other conferences do: I think the Big 10 schedule is ridiculous and not optimal for national exposure and respect – round robin skipping two opponents each year and finishing early – but they do have the revenue of the Big 10 Network
Lesson learned: your own TV network is good (d’uh).
The Big East and ACC are an interesting comparison for the way they have gone about things. ACC expanded to 12, added a championship game… but no-one watched this year’s championship game because it was scheduled against the Texas-Nebraska game. Also doesn’t help when two teams who already played each other end up going head to head in the championship game (can’t legislate that), and when the favorite lost the previous week to a middling SEC team (as a conference, you probably could do something about this through scheduling…).
Lesson: championship games do not guarantee positive exposure; given our championship game would probably end up scheduled against either the SEC or Big-12 championship game (on PST, we can’t play the game before the SEC game, and playing after the Big-12 game would make it ludicrously late into the night for anyone on the East coast), we could easily find our putative championship game marginalized most years.
Big East: doesn’t have a championship game, plays a full round robin, BUT scheduling of games is designed with maximum exposure in mind, with strongest teams kept apart until the end of the season. This helps in two ways, when they make the correct prediction
1) your best teams remain unbeaten in conference for a longer time; by default they end up becoming ranked before playing each other. Additionally, top players’ stats are padded, creating more Heisman buzz, which is good for your conference, and
2) the last round-robin game is a de facto championship game between teams that haven’t played each other earlier in the season. (They also have the geographic luxury of being able to schedule that final game in the early time slot before the SEC title game.)
The conference also plays meaningful games on Thursdays when other conferences aren’t playing which boosts exposure. (This isn’t so easy/effective for us due to PST, though making sure at least one meaningful game is played on Thanksgiving (or maybe the day after Thansgiving??) could be a good idea)
Lesson from Big East: there are smarter ways of managing a round robin format to increase exposure.
Relevance to Pac-10: we ought to consider our own TV network and consider restructuring our round robin, and not see expansion and championship game as an exposure/respect panacea. Personally, I like our rivalry game against $C as the last game of the season for both teams, but given that didn’t happen this year I am open to more creative scheduling (maybe all rivalry games are the penultimate game of the season, unless the predicted top two ARE a rivalry game, in the event of which all rivalry games the last game of the season)
Lots of posts generates sensory overload
I lost track of the major premise. Why do we think we have to exxpand the Pac 10 to the Pac 12 (and if the Pac 12 is good, wouldn’t the Pac 14 be even better?) What is the great benefit to UCLA in such a deal? I don’t exactly see any such benefit.
The biggest benefit of a championship game 12/teams
Is the extra money derived from such a game.
2 teams get to play an extra game, the tickets plus the TV revenue probably add several hundred thousand in additional revenue for every team in the conference which would otherwise not exist.
The SEC Championship game
Raises $14 million in revenue, out of a total of $161 million in revenue.
Pac-10 has a total of $93 million in revenue.
I think there's a downside to something that generates more revenue.
At just$c* it will be used to make sure more “student athletes” have black landrovers and plasma tv sets.
I’m only partially kidding. If everyone played by the rules, I would be all for generating more revenue. But under the rocket scientists in charges of the ncaa, more revenue for just$c* just means more into their slush fund and bribery fund, and they already have plenty.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
