Expanding To Pac-12? No To Utah, Perhaps Intrigued With Colorado
by Nestor on Feb 10, 2010 6:53 AM PST
in Football
Email
PrintSo the new Pac-10 brass is now openly talking about expanding the conference. From the Daily News today:
Scott (Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott) said there have been "no serious discussions" with any schools. He said the primary factor in the decision will be finding schools that fit into the conference culturally and academically.
"I know that's of paramount importance to our presidents and chancellors," Scott said. "There are other economic and athletic considerations such as increased costs that would be involved, increased travel that would be involved, splitting the pie in more ways.
"You look at how that is offset against potentially greater revenue, potentially greater exposure into more markets, possible recruiting opportunities, the impact on media negotiations generally. There's a whole analysis you would go through in terms of cost benefit."
I think those factors sound about right. The chatter is hot about Utah and Utah State joining the conference. Honestly this is something that doesn't get me very excited.
I personally have always been ambivalent about the idea of expanding the Pac-10. I like it the way it is right now. I do believe the Pac-10 needs to adapt to sign of the times and work to secure meaningful TV contracts (which the previous commission did a horrible job securing). However, I am not sure that goal entails rushing to prostitute Pac-10 out like other power conferences so that it could have a championship game? More thoughts including a poll after the flip.
To me the reason why Pac-10 has always been so special is because we have those end of the year natural rivalries between Southern Cal-UCLA, Cal-Stanford, ASU-UA, OSU-UO, and UDub-WSU. There is something magical about the last regular season game for every Pac-10 team (sans SC which sometimes has ND as the last game) that gets so fired up for the inter-state, inter-region, or in our case the inter-city games. That's what makes the conference fun. Then again I guess I am too much of a traditionalist, because part of me wishes the Rose Bowl just dumped it's alliance with the BCS nonsense, and went back to the old arrangement of Big-10, Pac-10 showdowns.
I realize an addition of Utah and Utah State keeps that symmetry that current exists in the Pac-10. Yet I still don't care for it. I am not sure it is all that exciting to think about Pac-10 road trips to Salt Lake City and Logan (I mean comeon). Not sure adding these schools make any sense from the TV perspective because Utah's TV market doesn't seem all that big of a deal considering the low population density in that state. Moreover, it doesn't make any sense to add these schools from recruiting standpoint because Pac-10 schools are doing just fine recruiting in that region without them. Last year it was UCLA nabbing the number one high school recruit out of Utah (XSF) and this year it was Oregon (getting Heimuli over UCLA).
It also sounds like Nuss from CougCenter is with me on this as he is firmly against expansion:
Count me among those fundamentally opposed to expansion, mostly for this reason: The only benefit gained by adding two more schools to the conference is to increase football revenue. I understand football drives the money-making bus in the world of college athletics, through both television contracts and bowl games, but such a move does nothing to enhance the conference in any other meaningful way. Without getting into the long, drawn-out, self-righteous, moralistic reasons for my opposition, I'll just leave it at this: It would undeniably detract from just about everything I love about the set-up of our conference, both in football and in every other sport.
Essentially, you'd be selling your soul to appease a football system that might not be around in 10 years, anyway. And I think that's pretty dumb, especially when I'm not convinced that adding two teams is going to increase the value of the product enough to offset the loss of what makes the Pac-10 unique.
Can't agree more to that. So count me against firmly against Pac-10 expansion with just schools from Utah. Yes, I am not all that interested in having BYU in the Pac-10 either. Provo is again not exactly a great place for a road trip and culturally BYU is not going to be a fit for Pac-10 conference.
Now, if the Pac-10 were dead set on expanding, I think the most logical way to expand it would be to add two prominent schools from another relatively populated Western State with a big metro region that has a high profile college football culture, so that the conference can be symmetrical in it's regional divide, and maintain it's end of the season rivalries. If there were to be a Pac-10 expansion, to me Colorado-Colorado State would be the other logical choice. CU-CSU's fierce and intense natural rivalry would reach a whole new dimension under the glare of the Pac-10. The addition of those two teams would also add Denver as another huge Metropolis TV market in the conference in addition to Seattle, Bay Area, LA, and Phoenix. Still this just an idea since I am not sure whether Colorado or Colorado State meets Pac-10 standards as research institutions.
Anyway, I will attach a poll to this post to see where everyone here is on this issue with regards to Utah schools (Note to Utah fans, don't try to game this poll by posting this on other message boards, we are just interested in feedback from readers here). I imagine we are going to have lot more stories on this topic in the coming months.
GO BRUINS.
183 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I was on ralphie report earlier
tge site for colorado and they were talking about a rivalry with UCLA. what is this based off of?
great post that gets me thinking...
I’d prefer to stay at 10 teams and I wish all the other conferences would go BACK to being smaller with more intimate rivalries. Unfortunately I just don’t think that’s where everyone is headed. As a result, I’m not opposed to the idea of expanding (and adding a championship game in football). I just can’t seem to think of a solid combination that makes the most sense for the conference. All of the suggestions in your poll, N, have positives but none jump off the page to me as a perfectly logical move. I guess at first blush, the biggest issue is academics. I think the Pac 10 has a standard on which it should not waver so my initial reaction is to support a Colorado/BYU addition. That way we maintain our academic standards and still add 2 well rounded athletic programs. We also add the largest geographic area for recruiting/tv exposure.
One more point, the argument that SLC or Provo are not good road trip cities makes me want to kick WSU out…
by DoubleTroubleBruin on Feb 10, 2010 7:24 AM PST reply actions
Do you have another combination in mind that we can include in that poll?
I can still add 3 more combinations and it’s still early in this poll. So if you think there was a glaring omission let me know. I assumed a combination like Utah State/Colorado State just doesn’t make any sense.
Colorado is most appealing to me
as it adds the largest market in that region, Denver. I have my issues with pretty much everybody else (including Boise State, who was not mentioned).
Is it ridiculous to suggest we lower our standards and add FOUR teams (Colorado, Colorado State, Utah and BYU), and split the conference into 2 divisions?
by DoubleTroubleBruin on Feb 10, 2010 7:41 AM PST up reply actions
I am with you
I thought about Boise State but didn’t bother including them. No thanks to the stupid blue turf.
I disagree
Though it is not a good reason to decide whether or not to select a school for your conference, I would not be truthful if I didn’t admit that one of the reasons I would rather have Colorado in our conference over any school in Utah is for the road trips. As someone who makes one or two road trips EVERY season (recently including Seattle, South Bend, Knoxville, the Arizona trip every year, and will be headed to Austin next year), I would have no interest in making a trip to Utah. I think that should be a factor, given we have the choice. It makes the argument even stronger for CU or CSU when we compare media markets between Colorado and Utah.
by rgalloucla on Feb 10, 2010 8:39 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
Utah - BYU
I’ve thought about this for two years now and as much as i love the fact that everyone in our conference in football plays each other each year and at the end of the season we have a true regular season champion, if we want to compete with the SEC and Big 12 we need to expand. Utah vs. BYU is the big game in Utah, not Utah St., they call this game the Holy War, they’ve played almost 100 times, one is a public school (utah) and the other private school in BYU which is similar to how SUC and UCLA and Stanford Cal etc. work. But most importantly these two programs have proven records to compete nationally in football (they finished #12 and #18 in football this year and #2 and #25 last year), and this year i believe both of these teams are sadly better than anyone in the pac-10 in hoops this year. With that extra “big conference title game” win at the end of the year and two programs who can compete nationally in a variety of sports i think this makes the most sense.
BYU
A school that openly discriminates on the basis of religion is perhaps not the right cultural fit for Pac-10. I would be strongly against any expansion involving BYU.
But Utah's academics don't seem to fit either, right?
by DoubleTroubleBruin on Feb 10, 2010 7:33 AM PST up reply actions
"academics"
Well there is that school across town and also West Coast “Ivies” such as Arizona State. :-)
I think in terms of academics it probably means what those schools bring to the table as research institutions (measurable by grants etc). I strongly believe BYU doesn’t fit with the rest of the Pac-10 because of cultural issues. Besides can you imagine going to Provoh and “tailgaiting” over there?
we DROVE to pullman once in the early 90s
and i’m just now warming up…
by DoubleTroubleBruin on Feb 10, 2010 7:48 AM PST up reply actions
Uhh
BTW my bad for spelling Provo wrong … it always takes a while for coffee to kick in the am. I am sure somewhere BYU fans are really hurt over it (doubt they would get worked up over a measly blogger’s typo).
i actually thought it was intentional
sort of like d’oh!?!
by DoubleTroubleBruin on Feb 10, 2010 8:22 AM PST up reply actions
Tailgaiting at Provo...
would consist of burgers, steak, and then washing it down with Nyquil to get you buzz on.
+1
Some laws in Utah need changing if people are going to spend vacation time there.
dark ages
you guys are living in the dark ages
by lifeofabruin on Feb 10, 2010 6:55 PM PST up reply actions
Championship Game Venue
Where would the conference championship game be played? The Rose Bowl…that would be a likely choice, but would that diminish actually playing in the Rose Bowl Game? What other venues are possible? I don’t think the craposeum would be in the mix because it’s old and no luxury boxes…Qualcomm? No, too far… Candlestick Park? Oakland Coliseum? Who knows…
But if Ed Roski ever gets his hands on a NFL team, LA Stadium would be the best option.
my venue guesses
Phoenix – Arizona Cardinals stadium. Most likely of the now existing stadiums. Quest Field in Seattle is the only other realistic option, but weather issues drop it.
The proposed LA stadium and the 49ers planned new stadium near San Jose will be strong choices if/when they are constructed.
formerly bruinhoo
by Patroclus on Feb 10, 2010 10:21 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
While it would be cool to have it right in LA
I think that San Francisco (if they ever get the stadium) is the best place because it is central.
The other consideration is whether it should be in the city of a team. Maybe a neutral city is best for fairness sake? If that is the case, how about San Diego and my favorite choice…Las Vegas. If Utah and Colorado come in, it sticks Vegas right in the middle of a lot of schools, the stadium can be upgraded some, it has all the accommodations necessary and IT’S VEGAS.
For everything UCLA baseball, visit my UCLA baseball twitter.
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Feb 10, 2010 2:39 PM PST up reply actions
Geographic issues
I do believe that the SF Bay Area is the ideal location for a game; central location plus the promise of a new stadium to host the game (assuming the 49ers make it past either the Santa Clara or SF City council). Without the new stadium, it gets a bit trickier – Candlestick Park ‘could’ be an option, but the facility is substandard at best (excluding consideration of the main tenants, it rivals the LA coliseum in sheer crapitude) and Oakland is not that much of a better stadium. Not up to hosting what would be marketed as the showcase event of the Pac-10 conference.
The rest of the Pac-10 might have a problem with a football title game in the LA area. Particularly with the men’s b-ball title game @ Staples and the conference’s Rose Bowl tie-in, there may be a concern with concentrating too many events in LA. San Diego might be acceptable, but conference politics might favor a non-SoCal venue (or a venue rotation)
formerly bruinhoo
i have to admit it
i did tailgate there a few years ago when we played there. they have some of the nicest fans(before and after our miserable loss). we ended up going to a bbq at the alumni center before the game and they had free burgers and ice cream! but absolutely no alcohol anywhere. even better, inside the stadium they didnt have regular coke, everything there was caffeine free! other than those things i have more cultural issues with that school across town.
A religious school
that discriminates on the basis of religion? That is HORRIBLE!
end sarcasm
They are up front about it and kids have the choice of hundreds of universities across the country to attend. I think you’re being a little over sensitive…In UCLA’s case we’d be playing against them, so it isn’t like UCLA kids (our any other school in the PAC) would be impacted by this in any way. Furthermore kids in UTAH have two other major public universities to choose from if BYU is not to their liking (even though like 99.999999% of that state is LDS).
As far as a cultural fit, is USC a good cultural fit? USC is a private school that allows neptotism and $$ to guide their admissions process, which seems at least as dubious as religious discrimination, and yet, I’d miss USC as an arch-enemy.
The main problem with BYU is that they don’t play on Sundays which would mean a lot of the women’s sports events would have to be rescheduled to accommodate BYU.
by captainqtp on Feb 10, 2010 2:31 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Additionally
I sure hope the conference commissioner and powers that be are not making this decision based on trend lines from last 3-4 years.
Texas almost part of the Pac10
Didn’t Texas almost become part of the Pac10 yrs ago but it fell through because too many schools wanted to join also and that’s what killed the deal?
leave it alone
I like the idea of everyone playing each other.. Would we be able to drink at the tailgate in Utah? LOL
"Success is never final, Failure is never fatal. It's Courage that count's"
John Wooden.....
I posted this in the FanShot...
But I guess more people will read it here…
If and when this does happen, 2 years from now, 10 years from now, whenever…
Utah and Colorado are the most logical choices. The research programs are definitely there. The facilities are there. It makes sense as far as market share.
Fresno St., SDSU, and CO St. can’t hold a candle to the academics even ASU and they do not have the post-graduate programs that all other institutions offer. They also lack some of the facilities necessary to compete in a major conference.
CU has sent more astronauts into space than any other institution (18). Utah has a top-notch hospital. I know literally nothing about BYU and their academics but there are plenty of reasons why they wouldn’t be a first choice in an expansion, mainly religous affiliation…
I would personally like to hear Air Force in the mix with Colorado. Not that it would likely happen, but it does spare the geographic uniqueness of the conference and would save on travel costs. Air Force fits the "image" of the PAC 10 as far as academics, et al. As well, I am 45 minutes from EITHER Boulder or Colorado Springs and honestly could not imagine if our Bruins came here every other year for football and every year for basketball. If it does go down, BNers are always welcome at the home of Mr. and Mrs. BruininDenver. We would probably by a new home just to accommodate friends…
(ADDED) To the comment about CRN and the CU rivalry… while that will be a huge reason to begin the rivalry, here’s something to chew on… Dan Hawkins is gone baby gone if he has a losing season this year… Eric Bieniemy (Now with the Vikes) is being tossed around as a replacement – an unlikely choice as he has no Head coaching experience. There is a Bruin that visits Bieniemy twice a year up in Boulder – none other than our MJD. He is pining for Bieniemy here and has been on local talk radio twice expressing how much he’d love to see EB in Boulder.
Also, how many guys have left (or tried to leave) Boulder for UCLA in the last three years?
I've never thought about Air Force before
It’s an interesting thought
by AllHailMightyBruins on Feb 10, 2010 8:11 AM PST up reply actions
"CU has sent more astronauts into space than any other institution"
Stands to reason. Would-be astronauts in Colorado are a mile closer to space than are astronauts from any other state.
They actually have a commercial about that
LOL. Another plus for CU – Berkeley fans would travel in droves. Not sure how the VW buses handle in the mountains though.
by BruinInDenver on Feb 10, 2010 8:15 AM PST up reply actions
I love the Air Force idea
Would give us two Colorado schools and a military academy that can be good at football at times.
The buffs would work...
I just don’t see any of those other schools being a great fit. Also, with a two-division conference, would our fan-beloved 9-game schedule disappear, too? With an 8-game conference schedule, the pac-10 would become cupcake central, much like the SEC and B-12. I think that would suck…
9-game schedule is likely going away regardless
I love the 9-game, everybody playing everyone else schedule, but my feeling (take it for what it is worth) is that the 8-game will be ressurected, due in part to the cupcake issue and due to the extra conference game (and resulting losses) hurting teams in the rankings and possible bowl implications.
formerly bruinhoo
by Patroclus on Feb 10, 2010 10:30 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
Expansion kills fairness in scheduling
As it is now, every Pac-10 football team plays every other Pac-10 team exactly once in a season. Throw in 3 non-confererence games, and you have a very tidy and very balanced 12-game schedule. Very fair.
Now, expand to 12 teams. Unless you want to drop 2 non-conference games, you can’t play everyone in the Pac-12. So, any team that doesn’t have to play the strongest teams has an unfair advantage.
Then, there’s what it does to non-football sports, as well. I don’t like the idea, no matter who the proposed expansion teams are. Then again, I didn’t like inter-league baseball games for much the same reason, and you see how influential this view was.
I'm a traditionalist like you...
but I think expansion is pretty much inevitable at some point in the next couple of years. Nothing about the Utah schools interests me. I like U of Colorado and one other from that state, perhaps Colo St, but BruinInDenver’s Air Force suggestion is worth consideration.
Ya... I'd rather keep it at 10 as well
but if we do expand, I want to be 2 rivals with history so we can keep the rivalry week traditions going.
It doesn't really have to be that way
There are many interconference rivalries as a result of realignments, including Florida-FSU, Georgia-Georgia Tech, Clemson-South Carolina, Kentucky-Louisville…
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
I would personally love to see Air Force and CU
I have my own reasons, but I cannot see why they would not be considered at the very least. I’d take them over CSU and Utah in a heartbeat…
i support CU
but they’ve already voted down jumping to the Pac10 on at least one occasion (back in 94) so this may just be an academic discussion.
by DoubleTroubleBruin on Feb 10, 2010 8:26 AM PST reply actions
It's a different climate now
with so many other conferences looking at possible realignment, especially with the fallout that would happen if the “Big 10+1” becomes the “Big 10+2”. (Hmmm…they’d need a new name. Ideas?)
Scheduling
I would imagine it would break down like this:
North
Washington
Washington St.
Oregon
Oregon St.
Newbie #1
Newbie #2
South
Cal
Stanford
UCLA
SUC
Arizona
Arizona St.
The North and South divisions would play each team in their division, and one team from each “pair” in the other division, alternating home and away each year. For example, UCLA would play Washington at home year 1, Washington St at home year 2, Washington away year 3, etc. There would be one less conference game, and one more non-conference game.
The sentiment here pretty much matches my own. I am not keen on expansion, but it appears necessary in order to compete with the SEC and Big 12. The problem is, the Pac-10 doesn’t seem to have any perfect fits for the symmetrical scheme and geography.
However, this decision this about $$$, and it wouldn’t make any sense to pick a school simpy because they have a rivalry with another school. I doubt that Utah St and Colorado St bring anything to the table besides rivalries with Utah and Colorado, and Utah St might not even bring that.
Utah, BYU, and Colorado each bring television markets. Utah and Colorado are in Salt Lake City and Denver, respectively, and BYU has a huge LDS following. I’m sure the Pac-10 will look at all sorts of raw data regarding possible expansion, but make no mistake, the decision will be based on $$$.
by AllHailMightyBruins on Feb 10, 2010 8:30 AM PST reply actions
Think you got it right
I like the way the Pac 10 is structured right now with logical matches for each member. I would like to keep it that way but the decision is about $ as others have noted and thus, Utah & Colorado are the most attractive options IMO. If expansion is necessary in order to increase revenue/exposure/etc., I’m all for it.
Although it resulted in a true champion, the round robin format has hurt the Pac 10. We’ve pretty much beat each other up and haven’t been able to get a 2nd team into the BCS. Expanding and playing 8 conference games and 4 non, should help the conference overall.
On academics - just food for thought
I posted a version of this in the FanShot thread, but want to add to revise it.
I found a 2008 report on The Top American Research Universities.
http://mup.asu.edu/research2008.pdf
Here are their composite rankings using nine indicators (not numerically ranked):
In the overall top 25, by count of number of top 25 appearances in the nine indicators:
9 of 9: Stanford
7 of 9: Cal, UCLA, UW
5 of 9: Texas
4 of 9: u$c*
2 of 9: Arizona
1 of 9: Colorado
In the overall #26-50, by count of number of #26-50 appearances in the nine indicators:
2 of 9: ASU, Utah
(Nestor will be surprised to see both Arizona schools in the overall top 50, as was I.)
None of the other Pac-10 members or potential candidates rank in the overall top 50.
- – - – - – - – - – -
Here’s their ranking based solely on overall research expenditures in 2006:
1. Johns Hopkins (by a huge margin – not Pac interest, just surprised me: almost 2x the #2 school)
3. UCLA
6. UW
8. Stanford
18. Cal
19. Arizona
28. u$c*
64. Colorado State
65. Colorado
67. Utah
82. ASU
84. Wazzu
87. OSU
106. Utah State
151. San Diego St.
165. Oregon
166. UNLV
BYU is not in this top 200, and on the other indicators basically only shows up on annual giving and number of National Merit Scholars.
Don't denigrate UNLV's research expenditures
because if it hits, wow is it ever a huge jackpot.
by Fox 71 on Feb 10, 2010 8:36 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I've mentioned this before but . . .
If we were to expand and add a Championship Game, I would prefer a vertical split to the conference than a traditional North/South one. In other words, Stanford on one side, Cal on the other; UCLA on one side, South Central on the other. a conference split along rivalry lines would make for an interesting dynamic if teams had a rematch for the conference championship. Throw in a neutral field, and you’ve got dynamite.
The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden
Thought about it too
but if we split the conference vertically, we’d have scheduling issues like before when we played 8 conference games a year. For instance, we’d play 5 teams in our division, suc and either 2 or 3 games with the other division. Whether the conference decides on 2 or 3 in addition to your rival, it still results in a scheduling discrepency as well as issues on competitive fairness.
Thanks KSBruin
Answers the question that others had about research, etc. and what CU or Utah could bring to the PAC 10 in terms of Academics.
I have already told my Boss that if CU and Air Force were to join, I would quit and open up a B&B equidistant from Boulder and CO Springs. He told me he’d float the down payment without hesitation :).
TV market size
Source: Nielsen Media Research, Inc., September 2009
http://www.tvb.org/rcentral/markettrack/us_hh_by_dma.asp
2. LA (5,659,170 TV households)
6. SF/Oakland/San Jose (2,503,400)
12. Phoenix (1,873,930)
13. Seattle/Tacoma (1,833,990)
16. Denver (1,539,380)
22. Portland (closest to Corvallis) (1,188,770)
31. Salt Lake City (944,060)
66. Tucson (465,100)
75. Spokane (closest to Pullman) (419,350)
92. Colorado Springs/Pueblo (334,710)
119. Eugene (241,730)
Even with a million TV households in the SLC area, I’m still all in favor of two schools in Colorado if we expand. CU and CSU are only 40 miles apart; that certainly matches our geographic pair system. The Air Force Academy is about 75 miles from CU, so that works as well. I know we can find two schools in Utah, I just don’t think that’s the way to go.
KS
The datas you have pulled in (research rankings/TV market rankings) merits another fanpost on its own.
I think you take the two best schools
regardless of how they fit with each other.
BYU is totally off the table. Its a fraud of an academic insitution that spews out revisionist history and fake archeological work to support the claims of it’s church founder. Never mind the unrepentant history of racism, lack of diversity, and current sexism and homophobia they actively support.
I like Utah and Colarado. Both are decent programs, both would bring in new markets, and they could easily develop a natural rivalry.
by silverlakebruin on Feb 10, 2010 9:10 AM PST reply actions
How that school
is an accredited institution is beyond me. They belong in a league of their own with Oral Roberts University. It’s a disgrace. If they ever join the Pac-10, I will go on a hunger strike.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Expansion is necessary
The question is not whether to expand. The Pac-10 said no to expansion in the 90s and has fallen (further) behind the other pre-eminent conferences in the two major sports. Expansion is a must. Get on the train or it’ll leave you in its dust.
No, the question is which two schools are the right fit athletically, academically and geographically. I had initially thought that Utah and BYU were the right fit. They certainly are a good fit athletically (perenially good football and basketball teams) and are probably the best fit geographically (close to each other, close a major airport, closer to the Pacific Coast). But BYU is not a good fit academically—not a research institution and too many restrictions based on religion.
Utah State is a nonstarter. It’s athletic program is too far from Pac-10 caliber to consider it.
Then I got to thinking that “geographic proximity” does not necessarily mean “a bus ride away.” Pullman is so far from Seattle that it may as well be in Idaho (indeed, the WSU campus is about 10 miles from the University of Idaho). It is difficult to see a benefit in pairing Pullman and Seattle. As such, we do not need to place an arbitrary distance limitation between the two schools.
With that in mind, Utah (which I still like because it has the top athletic program of any Mountain or Pacific coast state “research” institution that is not already a member of the Pac-10) and Colorado are the two best choices. SLC to Boulder is an easy, commercially available flight because they are near two major US airports. You would add two top 30 TV markets. Colorado and Utah are not necessarily rivals, but they are a natural geographic rival as the top public universities of neighboring states that are competitive with one another. They would still be able to play their in-state rivalry games in their out-of conference schedule, much like Clemson-USC, G Tech-UGA, and Florida-Florida State.
Finally, I would argue that removing the round-robin football schedule (as much as it does create a true champion) will benefit the conference. That extra game serves to penalize the Pac-10 when BCS at-large bids are at stake because voters and computers rank teams primarily based on # of losses and the round robin gives our conference 5 extra losses among its teams. That extra loss means that a team that is good enough to be 10-2 ends up 9-3 and out of the BCS picture.
I don't agree
I think the reason for the Pac-10 falling behind has to do with TV rights and exposure. Expansion will do nothing to solve that if the TV issue isn’t fixed first. And once the TV issue is fixed, I see no need for expansion.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Why would CU leave...
the lucrative Big12 to join the expanded Pac10? They are in the North Division, the weaker of the two divisions. What would the benefit be for them to jon the Pac10? I doubt very much they would get more money, or prestige, by joining the Pac12. The Big12 is a cash cowI, and rightly or not , sportswise, as far as the perception of the rest of the nation is concern the Big12 has more cache than the Pac10.
As far as football recruiting is concerned,
I’ve noticed that recruits that get offers from most of the Pac-10 schools, a lot of the time have Colorado on their offer lists, or schools of interest (Paul Richardson and Espenesa come to mind for this year’s class). We lost Darrell Scott to Colorado and Josh Smith and Maiava both transferred to UCLA from CU. I feel like CU is a natural fit in that respect. Also, CU has that “west coast surfer brah” feel to it with all the snowboarder bros there, LOL.
"We should have a banner up there: the only team to make the tournament without a coach." -- Baron Davis, remembering his "coach" at UCLA
by inhowlandwetrust on Feb 10, 2010 9:50 AM PST reply actions
I realize
what my dad posted earlier on this topic was posted somewhere first, but looking at what is happening now, he was not to far off with ANYTHING he said…
by NotMaltBaa on Feb 10, 2010 9:52 AM PST reply actions
Actually
This is a four year old topic on BN. We are bringing it up now because we have seen some interesting signals from the conference commissioner, not some Dad of a random internet blogger.
serious question
do you expect brand new members to go search the archives four years back to find out if a topic had been discussed or not?
by NotMaltBaa on Feb 10, 2010 10:04 AM PST up reply actions
I'm so glad
That you place your dad in the same level of importance, relevance-wise, with the Pac 10 commissioner. That’s not arrogant or self-aggrandizing at all. No, your dad’s problem was that his post was inappropriate in that it added nothing to the conversation that hadn’t already been discussed. In addition, the timing was inappropriate as no news had come out about expansion in a very long time. Now there is news, directly from the mouth of the person charged with handling matters of expansion, so the discussion is once again relevant.
didnt
say anything of that sort but ok buddy… dont understand where all of this hostility comes from… acoonamatada
by NotMaltBaa on Feb 10, 2010 2:06 PM PST up reply actions
You and your dad more than burned the bridges as far as civility
With your attitudes when you first came here. I see no reason to give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re here to participate in good faith.
I also notice you didn't address the counter argument
detailing why your dad’s post was inappropriate at the time, and instead went into deflection mode with your victim complex crap. Typical.
no
i am just choosing not to get into it with you guys again because i know nestor will come in here and find some way to say that i was being rude to “moderators” and when others are spitting venom right now… not me. i just thought it was just odd how fellow bruins we treated when no ill will was meant upon the “integrity” of this website.
by NotMaltBaa on Feb 10, 2010 2:16 PM PST up reply actions
acoonamatada?
I doubt many of us speak much Swahili, but really?
Hakuna matata, though. Vaiyah condeeos.
greg in denver - UCLA guy for life
My 2 Cents......
The only other additions that make sense geographically and also adds a large TV market would be UNR and UNLV. Las Vegas is a large TV market over 1 million people and the Reno market while much smaller covers a large area. Both would offer great amenities for travel and tailgating. Both schools are geographically well situated for traveling for all schools.
I’m not familiar with the acedemics of both schools so they might not fit the profile we would be looking for. UNR’s and UNLV’s proximity to gambling might not lend itself to joing the Pac-10.
As to my preference, I would like to see the Pac-10 stay just as it is. I’m against conferences expanding just so they can have 2 divisions and then have a playoff game at the end of the season. It totally makes the whole thing into an excuse to make money just like the Pac-10 Basketball tourny.
Just Not That Fond Of Expanding Pac 10
Pac 10 NEEDS to get better TV deal FIRST before they can even go into the notion of possible expansion. The conference’s TV deal/exposure right now is abysmal thanks to Tom Hansen.
Just on the issue of expansion itself, why does the Pac 10 NEED to do it? WHY would it want to? I think the set-up right now is just fine. The Big 10, on the other hand, does need to get that 12th team and it should be Notre Dame.
Los Angeles Rams and the UCLA Bruins!!!!!
by Minnesota Bruinfan on Feb 10, 2010 10:22 AM PST reply actions
To make this work
It has to add value
1. New markets, TV revenue
2. Make a big splash nationally and open up new recruiting
My least concern, but it is a concern with the Pac 10, is educational quality and adding research institutions. For this reason, Boise State, Fresno State, San Diego State are definitely out.
New Mexico doesn’t add anything in terms of new markets. UNLV is a growing market, but doesn’t really meet the criteria.
Colorado is obvious. I’m not all that thrilled about adding Colorado State or Air Force, although they might be better than any option from Utah.
In terms of broadening national appeal, recruiting, and revenue, the other option has to be a school in a Texas media market. The public Texas schools are out. The private schools in Texas might be the way to go. Baylor seems like an intriguing choice and it is a good university with good research and a respectable sports program. It’s not in a major Texas market.
Rice is good academically, has a very strong baseball program, and is in a major media market.
TCU, SMU, and Houston are in major media markets, but don’t bring a lot else although all have had at least some history of football success.
Nebraska would be huge in terms of football but I don’t see it happening.
SMU
is the U$C* of Dallas. You’d be surprised how many kids from the OC go there, they view it as another country club similar to U$C*.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Well, we could always be like the Big '10'...
take Colorado and have 11 schools…
but still call it the ‘Pac-10’.
Ok, my dumb attempt at a joke…but I’m still puzzled why it’s called the Big10. And If they add another, will they call it the Grande12 (just to avoid confusion)?
Let's get creative
I think the consensus is Colorado is the only easy choice.
So why not do what the Big East does and have a football-only and basketball only school for the 12th team?
Football: Boise State (I know you hate the blue turf, but they’re a major program nationally)
Basketball: Gonzaga (they can be Wazzou’s traveling partner, going from Seattle-Denver may actually be easier than Seattle-Pullman)
Yes, it would be weird, but we’d add a great team for each sport.
Just realized CU is in Boulder
Not Denver — How far is Boulder from Denver? (How far is it to get to?) That makes my idea more complicated.
Denver airport
First time I flew into Denver, I had no clue how the heck to get out of there. I assumed it was like LAX, just walk out…it took me a while to figure out that I had to ride the subway to get to the main terminal in order to get out…
...and then catch another flight
just to get to the city. F Peña’s family got rich when the airport was built about 20 miles from anything, while the rest of us just got speeding tickets trying to get there and back.
greg in denver - UCLA guy for life
Boise State will never happen
Pac 10 doesn’t want them because of academics. Also, Boise really adds nothing in terms of media markets.
Gonzaga doesn’t even have a football program. Not an option. Also, we don’t need the Spokane media market, already have it and it’s not really what the Pac 10 needs
You're right
My idea was more of a dream than practical. I’ve always been curious about how Boise would do in Pac-10 (or Gonzaga, for that matter).
My favorite practical idea is Colorado and Air Force. Adds Denver, which I’m pretty sure is a growing market.
This is a very difficult situation. The Pac 10 will eventually expand, it is a fact it will happen sooner rather than later. My ideal would be Texas Tech and Tcu but I do not think it will happen, do to Tcu’s basketball team and Techs academics. Utah and CU seem to be ideal. I think BYU does not fit the mold of a Pac 10 school. The key will be not to rush it. If we could bring in a school from Texas that would be a great market to grab.
Utah would add competitiveness
I’m from Utah and go to UCLA so obviously this is homerish but they have won 2 BCS bowls which is 2 more than UCLA and they have beaten Pac-10 competition on a regular basis. I’m opposed to USU because they have an awful football program but Utah would add some serious depth. BYU agreeably is not a good fit for the Pac and neither is USU I think this is all a lot of talk and nothing will come of it though
Utah is probably the least bad option
Of the Mountain West type programs, but the Pac 10 should think bigger
I always wonder about this
Whenever expansion comes up people talk about program strength as a criteria for adding a school. So we hear about how good Boise State and Utah are and how we should add them. Isn’t that a negative though? Haven’t we had major problems beating these teams? What’s so wrong with bringing in a team that is an easy win for everyone in the conference? Let’s get a Vandy or Baylor. Let’s get a Mississippi State or Iowa State. If we are going to expand then let’s do it for completely selfish reasons. Who cares about helping Utah get in a championship game?
Yet another reason why
I wish the Colorado and Air Force idea would happen. Add a major market, a big-name school and a military academy, that while they often have good years, should be beatable by any Pac-10 team.
yep
I’m with you on both. Only other upgrade would be a few Texas schools but really, only for recruiting.
by littlebrother on Feb 10, 2010 11:16 AM PST up reply actions
I would hope that the Pac 10 worked from basketball and non-rev sports then outward.
CSULB (yeah, I am an alum) and CSUF would make decent additions. They already have basketball teams that have made the NIT and NCAA tournament (LBSU did last year – LBSU the name of the sports program, CSULB the naming convention for the university), both have extremely competitive baseball programs, and both have programs that are competitive in other non-rev sports.
I would hope that the Pac 10 looked into the idea: It could minimize travel for other Pac 10 teams, add schools from the LA basin, which has the population to support these additions, and keep in tact the Pacific part of the Pac 10 (last I checked, Utah is in another time zone – and frankly another life zone as well). From where I sit, the east coast starts at the Colorado river, and I don’t like an east coast bias from pollsters.
I realize that neither of these additions would excite the media, but the Pac 10’s lack of media contract is a result of poor management rather than lack of product, IMO. After a period of time, the conference could look into football additions
When they talk about expanding to make a TV package more attractive
It’s pretty much about football. For that reason, those two schools are non-starters. There’s no reason to invite all the drawbacks of expansion if we can’t significantly boost the main reason for expansion.
I absolutely understand that is the case.
However, that is not what Pac 10 commissioner Larry Scott says in his brief statement.
Now I have been a sports fan long enough to know how to read between the lines, and football is king. Though there are only about 20 or so programs that make money in the country (old statistic I vaguely recall – please don’t expect me to source that one), I seriously doubt there are any local-ish programs that can add revenue and excitement to secure a TV contract rivaling the SEC.
In my opinion, a huge part of the disparity for the Pac 10 versus east coast conferences is that the hype is generated on the east coast. I am a west coast fanatic, because I believe that the west coast is not taken seriously. Hell, a lot of the reporters have gone to bed before west coast action is finished.
I am merely suggusting that the Pac 10 consider phasing in additional teams. I really expect that within 20 years there will be about 4 or 5 regional super conferences, though I hope not.
I saw that statistic just yesterday I think
It might be in the fanshot I put up, I don’t remember. Anyway, the commish can say what he wants, but he still has to run these ideas past the university presidents, and let’s be honest, we both know they’re going to say exactly what I just said: No football, no way.
I think you’re looking at this the wrong way, because this isn’t about how expansion would benefit the teams coming on board, this is about how it would benefit the existing 10 teams, and CSULB and CSUF, sad to say, add virtually nothing of value to the existing 10. Those schools are very regional, in a region that is already well covered. If you’re right about “super conferences” in 20 years, I’d expect schools like that to be one of the last ones on board with the Pac 25 or whatever, rather than the first ones.
Concur.
I am sure you are right, I lead with my heart. But that, my friend, is why I (and everyone here), is a fanatic!
Didn’t see your fanshot, or I would have referenced it. Always enjoy your comments, btw.
It will be football driven if it happens
Cal State schools without football programs are not legitimate candidates
This new commissioner is really good.
He is such a major upgrade from the incompetent former guy. Plus he just brought in a top, top guy who has a track record of huge success at other “top” conferences.
You don’t have to be a brain surgeon to see the writing on the wall. These two experts know what works,in getting fabulous TV contracts, in dramatically increasing revenue. They are are signalling the future.
It’s called expansion. Do I personally like it? No. Is it necessary. Yes, if we want to stop our never-ending toilet bowl contracts and start getting our second and third place teams into January 1st bowls instead, unless we’re happy with the Nut Bowl and the Vegas Bowl and the John Hancock third tier bowls.
I trust these gentlemen, based on their track records, to expand to the best possible schools. That will depend on:
1. Who is willing.
2. Geography
3. Athletics
4. Academics
5. Market share
6. Fan travel
7. Travel experience.
Ideally, Texas and Colorado would be a huge money makers, right? And fit all the other factors, except the first two. Think about it. Would either really want to leave the Big 12 which is already very successful? Would either really want to travel to the West Coast for so many of their regular season games? I don’t hink so. Hope I’m wrong, because that’s my ideal twosome. But it ain’t gonna happen with either IMO for those two reasons alone:money for them and geogrpahy.
So the focus has to be closer, which really means Utah. Both Utah and BYU are top football powers. Both are huge rivals. Both are connected to a large TV market. Their fans travel like crazy. Face it. If the PAC was starting from scratch, they’re much better than some of the schools in the PAC right now in a number of categories. Certainly, the football prowess of the conference goes up, way up, immediately.
As for academics, I dunno. In my profession I have met scores of lawyers and judges who are LDS and/or went to BYU and believe me, they were as good as anybody else. Frankly, I didn’t know BYU was deemed such a religious pariah by some people. After all, UCLA has had tremendous basketball and football rivalries with that school over the years. Has anyone protested or said we became tainted by playing them back to back? I must have missed it.
Would I have a problem going to Salt Lake City? No. Provo, maybe. Enough to prevent me from traveling with my Bruins to see them stomp ’em in football? No.
That’s my two cents. My basic point is to support the new commish and his right hand man in doing what they think is necessary to make the PAC 12 what it should be, the best athletic conference in college.
GO BRUINS!
by uclahy on Feb 10, 2010 11:49 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
How do we know CU isn't willing?
Maybe they’re sick of being a second class citizen in their own conference which is largely dominated by the Texas schools and OU. Grabbing both Utah schools just seems really unappealing. I mean, getting a stranglehold on the “giant” Utah market instead of possibly going after the much larger Denver market? The Las Vegas audience isn’t even that much smaller than SLC, and at least it’s a lot closer than Utah or BYU. If CU is unwilling to make the move, then we should probably take a look at one of the schools in Nevada along with Utah before looking at BYU so we can at least expand the footprint of the conference in two places instead of one.
We’ve seen encouraging signs of Scott’s decision making, but we certainly won’t have blind faith in him, especially on matters that affect all the members of this conference in such a profound way.
In addition
If we did have to “double dip” in a state, it’d definitely be Colorado over Utah. I’d rather have two Utah teams over two Nevada teams though.
If CU is willing
I think it’s a great fit even though it’s football team is down for now. I just don’t see how they make more money over all coming way out west, especially without a natural rival. So I was really thinking CU and Texas would be ideal together because they would be natural rivals, too. I should have expressed that.
Recruiting might take a hit too.
Being more towards the Midwest, I would say most of the recruits they would target have grown up dreaming of playing in the Big 12 and playing against the Nebraska’s and the Oklahoma’s. CU might not be attractive to them anymore if all their games are now out west and they only occasionally play the Big 12 teams everyone else watches.
Too much missing from CU
No baseball, no men’s volleyball, no softball, no men’s or women’s gymnastics, no men’s soccer, no men’s or women’s water polo.
CU Football had one quick run (and 5 downs) under McCartney but is otherwise historically bad. Basketball is no better.
CU offers the Pac-10 nothing more than a new TV market. San Diego offers about the same potential market with better geography and travel issues.
The Pac-10’s round-robin format makes its conference record more meaningful than divisioned conferences with champioship games. Expansion destroys this.
It is discouraging that there is so much consideration and even enthusiasm to expand the Pac-10 when the only benefit would be financial, and even this benefit is speculative.
Other than the Texas schools, the addition of CU, BYU, Air Force, Utah, or any of the other schools discussed (and why is no one mentioning Hawaii?) will do nothing to increase interest and coverage of the conference from a national standpoint. The West Coast is ignored because of the tilt in population and media in the country to the East Coast and time zone changes.
But if it happens, anyone who BruinInDenver doesn’t put up can stay with me.
greg in denver - UCLA guy for life
As much as I'd love to see Hawaii in the mix
That’s a logistical nightmare. San Diego is an interesting possibility that doesn’t seem to be seriously considered. My guess is that in order to make our overall “portfolio” of teams more nationally appealing, we have to expand the footprint of the conference, and all of the San Diego schools are about as regional as you can be.
Agreed about San Diego being regional
But no one west of Texas that would increase the PAC’s national appeal. Nobody on the East Coast or Midwest is tuning into Colorado or Utah or Idaho or Nevada now, so none of those states/schools offer the PAC anything other than its local region anyway.
greg in denver - UCLA guy for life
We already have San Diego
We don’t need SDSU to be the prominent conference for that market.
But Boulder is so much fun!
Don’t spoil the party gbruin because we want fat tires and Buffalo Burgers!
Boulder is a hellhole
and makes Berkeley look cosmopolitan and sophisticated.
And Fat Tire is brewed in Ft Collins, the home of CSU. So let’s annex the Rams, and I’ll buy the beers and buff burgers for anyone making the roadie!
greg in denver - UCLA guy for life
Hey! Leave Berkeley alone!!
It’s got Pyramid Brewery!!!
Also, Boulder’s stadium is pretty sweet from what I hear. Good scenery.
"We should have a banner up there: the only team to make the tournament without a coach." -- Baron Davis, remembering his "coach" at UCLA
by inhowlandwetrust on Feb 10, 2010 2:19 PM PST up reply actions
Does Sonoma State have a D-1 athletics program?
If not, can we make it one. Because if we are counting breweries as part of the criteria, the hwy 101-corridor through Sonoma County has Berkeley, Ft Collins, and basically the entire country beat.
formerly bruinhoo
Boulder's stadium
is awesome. It is all brick and incredible with great views from the worst seats.
Some of CU’s fans, though, are truly obnoxious. Not ALL of them, for those who missed the word “some” in my previous comment.
How about going international?
Perhaps this is too far out an idea, but what about the University of British Columbia (http://www.ubc.ca) ?
UBC supports a wide range of men’s and women’s sports and has won numerous Canadian championships. Most likely the competition in Canada is weaker than that in the NCAA, but I doubt UBC would be any worse off the WSU.
UBC meets the academic and research criteria as it is a highly ranked university (http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/Rankings2009-Top200.html ).
+1
"We should have a banner up there: the only team to make the tournament without a coach." -- Baron Davis, remembering his "coach" at UCLA
by inhowlandwetrust on Feb 10, 2010 2:16 PM PST up reply actions
Wow! That's thinking outside the box!
Good for you! While wer’e at it, how about McGill University as the rival. It’s Montreal, but boy is it beautiful, at least in the summer!
Summer in Montreal...ugh!
I’ve been to Montreal, to visit my wife’s family, in the summer and in the winter seasons, and I’m no fan of heat and humidity! The beauty of Montreal was outweighed by the unbearable heat and humidity. However, I did love it there during the winter months, so a roadtrip to Montreal would be nice, eh.
I went in April one year for a family reunion.
It was gorgeous and perfect weather. Probably just dumb luck.
Simon Fraser University, another highly ranked university located near Vancouver, would be a natural rival to UBC.
Both UBC and SFU are looking to join the NCAA. Under an NCAA pilot program they would have to join as Div. II schools, but they could eventually move to Div. I. I suspect that would be accelerated if the PAC-10 were interested in those schools.
I suspect the Denver and SLC markets are more desirable than the Vancouver market though.
Expand or Not to Expand, that is the Question
The results of those who voted above, seem to prefer the combination of Utah and BYU.
My guess is based on the prejudice about religion by some of the posts above are made by those who do not want to face the fierce athletic competition these two organizations would bring to the conference. Let’s face it, they are getting far more recognition in the post bowls and in the national polls than the Pac 10 schools. My big fear is they would have a huge advantage in that both schools are located at a mile high elevation. Having played for UCLA and played in Salt Lake City, I can tell you for us sea level creatures having only a day or two to adjust to the elevation, we are at a huge disadvantage. In spite of that advantage, I say BRING IT ON. Sportswise the competition would be good for the league and great for college football.
'CaptainJack65'
Jack Metcalf
notwithstanding the confusing grammar
In re:
My guess is based on the prejudice about religion by some of the posts above are made by those who do not want to face the fierce athletic competition these two organizations would bring to the conference
I’m going to go ahead and say my guess is that you are absolutely wrong.
by britishbruin on Feb 10, 2010 2:52 PM PST up reply actions
Expansion won't harm the rivalries
I’m not for it, and I’m not heavily against it (if it’s necessary for the Pac 10 to finally get serious exposure), but I’m not worried about the rivalry factor. All the regional rivalries in our conference will be intact. My preference for expansion is Utah/Colorado, and they can each play their rivalry games every year like Florida/Florida St., Georgia/Georgia Tech, etc. If anything it will make their overall schedules better, making the rivalry one of the non-conf games.
As long as Cal/Stanford is in the same subdivision as us, all the other second-tier rivalries (Cal-UCLA, Washington-Oregon) will also be intact.
Increasing fan interest and value
Boise State and fresno State. BYU besides its previously mentioned shortcommings limits scheduling wiyh no Sundays. That is there business and their right just as it is for us to say we schedule you play or forfeit. Boulder is a hell hole but has anybody been to Pulman
While I would love love love BSU in the Pac 10
As I live here in Boise and would love seeing UCLA up here, it just doesn’t work. TV market is to small, academic standards while not bad don’t match up to the others in the Pac10. Plus BSU would probably only initially be competitive in Football. Basketball here is a joke, and I’m not sure how the other athletic programs are. That would change over time as being in the Pac 10 would draw more recruits here, but it will take a while.
Plus most of the rumors around here are of BSU leaving the WAC with some combination of Fresno or Nevada and joining the MWC to make it a super conference with 12 teams and a conference champ. Now the Big 10 and/or the Pac 10 expand and start the expansion nuclear war that has been mentioned in other articles that may change things, but that’s how they stand now.
Not getting the argument against BYU
Who cares if they’re Mormons? Last time I checked, our offensive coordinator and starting quarterback are Mormans. I’m pretty sure that most of you are hoping that a certain Morman left tackle will be coming back to us in two years.
Who cares about BYU’s academics? The P10 is an ATHLETIC conference in which only one school in which we are connected with institutionally is a member. However, even if we were looking at academics, BYU is hardly the the crock institution that is being depicted (e.g., #71 overall in USN&WR, top 10 library in Princeton Review, “designated as a research university with high research activity by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching”, top 5 undergrad business program by BusinessWeek, etc."
Who cares that Salt Lake is a smaller market than Denver? Denver is a pro sports town first. Salt Lake just has the Jazz. That’s why BYU plays in a 65,000 seat stadium and Colorado plays in a 53,000 seat stadium.
I posted this in the old thread: BYU's "Honor Code"
*I* ran over George Tirebiter.
by Bruins102NCAA on Feb 10, 2010 1:42 PM PST up reply actions
And they make fun
of Islamic fundamentalists…
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
I don't believe it's that the school is religious per se
But the religious aspect of it is too pervasive. There are the longstanding issues of academic freedom, and as others have mentioned in this thread and others, the no sports on Sunday ban would just F with a bunch of our non revenue sports. BYU is more trouble than it’s worth IMO.
The rescheduling part
seems like the biggest deal… but honestly I don’t think it is huge. Seem like that could be worked around…
Plus
We can nab the Salt Lake City market with Utah and not have to touch BYU. Adding two teams, one of which is rather unpalatable to many, to double down on a tiny market like Salt Lake City when we could add a much bigger market in Denver in addition to SLC just seems to be bad business sense.
agreed on both points, T
if the PAC just has to have SLC, get it with Utah, and without the hassles and conflicts that come with BYU.
But I still say, adding the SLC market to the PAC-10 doesn’t get us a better national TV contract or a single additional viewer on the East Coast. BSPN isn’t going to open the checkbook for the PAC because we add Utah and CU, or any other duo out west.
Now if we added Boston College and Syracuse, they would back up the armored truck yesterday.
greg in denver - UCLA guy for life
TCU will join the Big 12 if they have an opening
From what I’ve read. Don’t know about their academics or religiosity.
Other Texas schools won't allow it.
The don’t want another Texas school competing with them for in-state recruits.
Its all about TV markets and expanding the pie
Utah and Colorado, please
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, SBN's Oregon Ducks blog
On a side note...
The thing I find odd is the near disregard for the the Big 12. All the chatter (or just pure speculation) about Colorado a potential target for the Pac and Mizzou a potential target for the Big Ten. Am I missing something, does the North division somehow miss out on any revenue streams that the South has (other than strength of teams)? Or is just the bad luck of the geograpiy they reside in?
I mean afterall, it’s division 1 football! It’s the Big 12! It ain’t intermurals brother…it ain’t intermurals.
Free Brandon Wood!
revenue sharing not equal
Found this info here. I don’t know how we do it, considering that article says only the Big Ten shares revenue equally. Would CU would gain more by switching to the Pac 10? I don’t know. Is money the only reason?
Wasn’t there also rumbling about how the South schools make all the calls? That the conference is centered more and more in Texas? There seems to be high support for the idea from CU fans. I know fans don’t make things like this happen, but there has to be good reasons for them to support the idea.
I think I am going to get around to that argument
I like Colorado. I could be persuaded about Utah (just no way no how to BYU).
I'm going to put together a post arguing for expansion
I’m not really sure if I believe in it or not, but I’m going to make the argument and see if I can convince myself. Maybe I’ll be able to persuade you on Utah as well.
For everything UCLA baseball, visit my UCLA baseball twitter.
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Feb 10, 2010 3:28 PM PST up reply actions
Craziest idea yet
If we’re really going after TV:
Notre Dame
Boston College
We get the Midwest and NorthEast
/dreaming
The Pacific 12, of course
Is it less wrong than the Big 10’s 11 teams?
Either that or Pacific-Atlatnic Conference?
No worse than the old NFC West division
Which at its craziest featured: San Francisco, St Louis, New Orleans, Atlanta, and Carolina (Charlotte).
formerly bruinhoo
Not that crazy
A similar idea was proposed back in 1959.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1070115/1/index.htm
Interesting
wouldn’t expect to see you here.
Boo on Owa for making Nestor happy
—Dave
Addicted to Quack, SBN’s Oregon Ducks blog
In response to:
I hate Nestor
by royrules22
doesn’t everybody?
—Dave
Addicted to Quack, SBN’s Oregon Ducks blog
and also
I don’t know
has much as I dislike Lane Kiffin, Nestor may be worse.
—Dave
Addicted to Quack, SBN’s Oregon Ducks blog
I don’t know Nestor from Adam, but having followed this blog for several years, I’m surprised to see all this hate you have towards him. From what I’ve read on this blog, it seems he’s tried to be quite nice. From Nestor:
Check out the cool new online digs for Oregon Ducks at Addicted to Quack. And the prolific Duck bloggers from ADQ were kind enough to answer some of our queries heading into Bruin’s most important game of the season
our friends over at Addicted to Quack
Well the bloggers at best Ducks online community around – Addicted To Quack
by truebluebruin on Feb 10, 2010 4:39 PM PST up reply actions
I would love to see Air Force in there
I am sure there a numerous strikes against them as a potential member, but I feel like they bring some kudos to the conference, and I think they would bring a ton of support to games, given the proximity of large air force bases to LA (and a spread of air force bases near pretty much all the other cities in which Pac-10 schools are based). If we want to take Colorado as one of the schools, I’d personally rather take Air Force as their ‘rival’ school than any of the other options.
I think it would be pretty interesting
to see Fresno State and Boise State come over to the pac-10. I know their media markets do not exactly compare to pac-10 schools, so this deal is highly unlikely; but watching that rivalry is pretty entertaining. Not to mention, both of those schools are pretty good at giving pac-10 schools a run for their money during non-conference games.
Utah and BYU
I don’t think there’s much problem with Utah being in the Pac-12 at all. BYU is a bit more difficult, as it’s in the same market as Utah and has religious issues. Nonetheless, I can’t see Colorado switching conferences. Utah State and Boise State aren’t really comparable academic institutions to the Pac-10 at all, and Utah State isn’t good at sports.
Options people have mentioned in the past include the Nevada schools: Nevada and UNLV. I am opposed to this idea but I figure some might be interested, so I am bringing it up.
"I never watched baseball on TV. It's slow and boring. I'm not a fan. Never was." - Jeff Kent
from purely a sports and rivalry perspective
I think Utah/BYU would be the nobrainer.
by britishbruin on Feb 10, 2010 4:03 PM PST up reply actions
Air force will never happen they simply cannot go after the same recruits and they don’t want to. They do not send people to the NFL they send them to the middle east. Speaking as a service member IMHO the generals who run that place know they can put up a fight on any given wekend but every week the talent simply won’t be there. On top of that these are proud people who will not join a confrence simply to get pummeled every week. Not to mention they are alredy tied in as far as non confrence goes to play the other academies for the commander and chiefs trophy.
I think you sell the service academies - and the Mountain West - short here
The Air Force results last year:
9/05 Nicholls State 1-0 (0-0) W 72-0
9/12 @ Minnesota 1-1 (0-0) L 20-13
9/19 @ New Mexico 2-1 (1-0) W 37-13
9/26 San Diego State 3-1 (2-0) W 26-14
10/03 @ Navy 3-2 (2-0) L 16-13 OT
10/10 No. 10 TCU 3-3 (2-1) L 20-17
10/17 Wyoming 4-3 (3-1) W 10-0
10/24 @ No. 18 Utah 4-4 (3-2) L 23-16 OT
10/31 @ Colorado State 5-4 (4-2) W 34-16
11/07 Army 6-4 (4-2) W 35-7
11/14 UNLV 7-4 (5-2) W 45-17
11/21 @ No. 22 Brigham Young 7-5 (5-3) L 38-21
12/31 vs. Houston 8-5 (5-3) W 47-20
What stands out? They got fairly handled at BYU, but lost 4 other games on the road by a touchdown or less, two of them in overtime, two of them to solid ranked teams with the other two being a major conference team in Minnesota and a solid Navy team that beat Notre Dame. They also handled a decent Houston team.
The fact that they do this in a unique way – and without going after the recruits that the rest of the Pac-10 go after – is an added selling point. Raising the profile of a (say) Utah by bringing them into our conference also raises their competitiveness going after recruits.
by britishbruin on Feb 10, 2010 4:00 PM PST up reply actions
I’m not selling them short or the mwc short I think Utah could defenitley cut the mustard so to speak but UCLA who was 8th in the Pac 10 goes 10-2 on that schedule easy. Air force just will not be able to go out there and win on a weekly basis in the PAC 10
by Marine bruin on Feb 10, 2010 4:06 PM PST up reply actions
totally disagree
no way we would have come away with just two losses playing home (my bad above) to TCU, @BYU, @Utah, just to name three games that last year’s UCLA team would probably have lost (imho). I think we would have lost a lot of the same games Air Force lost (not just those above, necessarily), and I don’t know if would have beaten last year’s Houston team.
6-2, 5-3, 5-3 in the MWC over the last 3 years seems equally if not more respectable than going 5-4, 3-6, 3-6 in the Pac-10 over the last 3 years (which isn’t meant as a knock on CRN, but as praise for Air Force)
by britishbruin on Feb 10, 2010 4:17 PM PST up reply actions
Look I may have been slightly optimistic saying 10-2 but again it’s one thing to pull off a big win every now and again and another to play the big boys week in and week out. They just won’t have the size to hold up
by Marine bruin on Feb 10, 2010 5:39 PM PST up reply actions
I say this because the military has weight standards their lines simply won’t hold up and as we have learned if the line doesn’t hold neither will whatever is behind it
by Marine bruin on Feb 10, 2010 5:42 PM PST up reply actions
I still don't buy
that they wouldn’t want to play in the conference due to fear about being pummeled every week. Given the relative strengths of the Pac-10 and MWC, I grant you that Air Force might win fewer games, but I don’t think it’s prohibitively different. Having said that, I have no idea what incentive Air Force has to be in one conference rather than another. Would increased national TV exposure help with getting more young men and women to apply to the Academy, and/or help with West Coast recruiting? I have no idea. Does the AFA care about TV revenue?? Again, no idea.
by britishbruin on Feb 10, 2010 6:18 PM PST up reply actions
BB
You have brought up good points and we have stayed civil I still don’t agree with you, but good debate anyway. The answer to your question is no they do not benefit from tv $ because they are a goverment funded school in every sence of the word so that money goes to uncle Sam and then is probally re alloted to all the academies. Like I said the Generals in charge don’t want to be on tv unless they are winning, so if they feel like they can’t it will not be as attractive to them as other mid majors.
by Marine bruin on Feb 10, 2010 6:53 PM PST up reply actions
ok
Not trying to win an argument here, but one other thing is interesting to me – do many kids find themselves choosing between attending different military schools? E.g. are Army, Navy and Air Force competing for the same set of recruits, or does Army not appeal to the kids who are interested in Air Force? I don’t know if there are any kids out there who think they want to go into the military, and would like to go to the military school with the highest profile sports teams. Then you might think it would be cool for Air Force if they could get recruits who might otherwise go to Army/Navy. Again, just throwing ideas/questions out there now rather than trying to persuade you of anything.
by britishbruin on Feb 10, 2010 8:33 PM PST up reply actions
BB
Great point. That being said most academy officers in the Corps are the worst. But moving on I think these kids who go to the academies have their heart set on one service. Pilots go to airforce, people from Texas go to army and Navy gets all the entitled kids who put their careers way in front of their mens well being. But all seriousness aside I suppose it could make a difference. Then again they play for 4 years then go to their service for 6. So with some kids ya but most will be thinking of the battlefield over the Playing field
by Marine bruin on Feb 10, 2010 9:55 PM PST up reply actions
ROFL
Looks like Utah State fans are trying to game this poll:
http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=208&f=2746&t=5600850
So we pretty much can discount the numbers of Utah/Utah State combination at this point.
Here's the solution
He said the primary factor in the decision will be finding schools that fit into the conference culturally and academically.
It’s obvious. Eliminate $c* and ASU.
Right there, Comissioner Scott gives us grounds for kicking them out. Nobody with any sense of decency shares any cultural similarities with the Trogans. And unless you include ASU’s contributions to the lucrative pole dancing industry, their academics cannot be considered an asset.
We maintain the LA and Arizona markets through UCLA and The Standard. Then we expand back to 10 by adding any 2 schools of our choosing, thus enhancing our market share while preserving the round-robin format in a 10 team conference, and the rest of the country tunes in every week out of respect for our wisdom and character.
greg in denver - UCLA guy for life
I like the idea of contraction better than expansion
Go back to the Pac-8. Kick the south central community and ASU out for academic reasons.
How about a reverse expansion
Back to the Pac-8. Then we schedule big non-conference games (no cupcakes) and get huge revenue that way.
Surprisingly
despite their well-earned rep as a party school, ASU has some pretty strong academics for those who seek to partake. See a couple of my lengthy posts today or the fanshot I’ll be putting up shortly.
Yahoo's Jeff Eisenberg's take:
Breaks down the Pac-10’s likely priority in teams by mentioning a couple pros and cons for each.
Seems pretty accurate. Maybe he reads BN.
My "wishlist teams"
(1) teams from Texas ( TCU, Texas Tech, Houston, etc)
(2) Utah / Colorado
(3) Nevada schools
I am biased I know,
but I came to the conclusion of Utah and Colorado a few weeks ago in my series on potential conference realignments.
Guess I was a bit ahead of the curve on this one ;)
If the BIG 12 can rob the BIG 12 of Texas, Colorado would jump to the PAC 10 in a heart beat.
BCS Evolution -- Punctuating the Equilibrium - twitter
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bruins Nation
Related FanShots on Bruins Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
