I don’t see expansion working unless the Pac 10 gets Utah and Colorado to commit to the conference. They are the best overall fit and will further the vision of the Pac 10 Conference. We’ll see what Larry Scott can get done, but I am hopeful that we will see a Pac 12 over the next two or three years.
Grading Potential Pac 10 Suitors (The Left Coast Bias) (emphasis added)
about 2 years ago
Nestor
19 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Thanks for the link
I agree with the write up. Just a quick question: any reason in particular why you didn’t add emphasis to the Utah part? Oversight or just that you don’t think that Utah is important to any expansion? Thanks!
For me
There should be no expansion without Colorado. Period. This should be Colorado + 1 approach. I don’t really care about Utah. I rather have Colorado State.
Settling for Colorado + 1 ....
seems, well …. rather Dorrellian. If the big one (Texas) is in play, we should be all-in that contest. And since a Texas defection might spell the end of the Big 12, we should be putting out feelers to Oklahoma and Nebraska, as well as Colorado. Our compromise position should be Texas + Colorado. Short of two schools of that stature, I see absolutely no upside for expansion.
by snorkeldorf on Feb 11, 2010 11:51 PM PST up reply actions
As I said
I really am concerned about Colorado. Other states, I don’t care about so much. I don’t really care much about road trips to Norman or Lincoln. Texas is not coming to the Pac-10. It is not going to happen. Shooting for them and wasting resources on that pursuit is delusional.
With all due respect
I don’t think the PAC powers-that-be will be swayed by your preferences for road trips.
And why not go after Texas? If we think like a small conference and don’t even try to compete with the Big 10, then we are doomed to remain an afterthought when all the other major conferences go through their seemingly inevitable realignments into so-called “Super-Conferences.” It would be exactly akin to Dorrell not even trying to compete for Cheatie’s recruits.
Hey, I’m just trying to think like a University President as the “Left Coast” article on conference expansions inspired me to do. Our TV contract is up for renewal in the near future. The WWL is looking to expand its presence on the West Coast and is flush with cash. If we could lure Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Colorado into a PAC-14 super-conference with guarantees of a big payout from an ESPN TV contract that would far exceed the current payout of the Big-10 network, why wouldn’t this at least pique their interest?
PAC 14 North: UW, WSU, Oregon, OSU, CU, Oklahoma, Nebraska
PAC-14 South: UCLA, $UC, UA, ASU, Cal, Stanford, Texas
For football, yearly games with division members and three games with teams from the opposite division on a rotating basis (exception: Texas/Oklahoma rivalry game would be guaranteed every year and Texas could schedule Texas A&M non-conference). Conference championship game at end of season between N and S division winners for the automatic Rose Bowl berth.
For Basketball, yearly home-and-home games with every division member. One game yearly with teams from the opposite division. PAC-10 championship tournament at the end of the season with initial pairings matching cross-divisional opponents worst vs. first.
When teams from the East travel West, they could always be guaranteed the earlier
starting times.
If I were ESPN, I would shell out big for that contract. If I were a fan, these matchups would be uber-compelling on a national level. If I were a University President, the money would just be too huge to pass up.
Call me delusional, but the more I think about this, the less it seems like a pipe-dream. If we’re going to even consider expansion, the time will never be more ripe, nor the prize any bigger. We can’t afford not to at least try for it.
Thanks for the offer, I'm going to go ahead and call you delusional
After these past couple of years, why in the sam hill would TX, OK and NE join the Pac-10? I get why you want them to join (and I do love your spirit, but the way) – what’s in it for them? I don’t see us endearing us to quality schools like Utah and Colorado after we make it painful obvious that TX et al were really our first choices. Our cozy lil’ Pac-10 is just fine with me, but of all of the other options that have been discussed, Utah and Colorado just make the most sense (and also happen to be who I voted for before reading the solid rationale presented on BN – got lucky on that one). After that we can work our way east – first OK and TX, then onto ND and Penn St. Call it reverse manifest destiny. Sorry – just had to…
Also, Utah would give it's collective left one to come to the Pac
The Buffs are already in a BCS conference, albeit as perennial doormats
Utah and Colorado
I was originally for Utah and BYU, but I’m really buying into the Utah and Colorado additions. Getting the Denver and Salt Lake markets will be huge.
"I never watched baseball on TV. It's slow and boring. I'm not a fan. Never was." - Jeff Kent
Someone on BRO ...
linked up the Jon Wilner column on the same topic. It’s probably already linked here but I didn’t see it easily.
Wilner, I think, comes to the same conclusion. Utah and Colorado make the most sense. The issue would be convincing Colorado to come.
Utah and BYU makes no sense because it’s the same TV market.
Wilner notes that the existing schools need to find two partners who increase the TV revenue enough to make it worth splitting the TV revenue 12 ways instead of 10. He also says that Colorado has little interest, but that things could change if Texas goes to the Big 10 with Texas aTm.
Just to throw this out: What about Utah and Rice or or Utah and Houston? The reason I bring those two in is because both are in Houston Texas and that’s a huge television market. I know that Rice is not a powerhouse, but academically it’s a very good school with research and all that other stuff. I don’t know about Houston, but I assume it’s a good enough school.
I was going to bring up SMU (in Dallas) but according to Wilner the “secular” Pac 10 is unlikely to go after a school with a religious affiliation (which also hurts BYU).
I think the answer
is that you know Rice isn’t much athletically (and thus as far as TV viewership) and you know little about Rice. I know that you must be a pretty big sports fan to be on here, much less a front-pager. I’m not at all trying to attack you in any way, simply pointing out that if we as hard-core fans aren’t very aware of these programs, they aren’t going to provide the increased revenue that Wilner speaks of.
If Texas goes to Big Ten
and all of these are big IF’S…but if they did – then I would think that it is potentially open season on all Big 12 schools. That would be bad news for Utah, but if the Pac could then get Colorado and a Nebraska or Oklahoma (or maybe bad news for Colorado too?), then geography be damned. I don’t know where NE or OK stand academically, and I know that they do not have the TV market of a Denver, but they do have a “brand” with a following that stretches well past their state borders for TV deal clout……
Free Brandon Wood!
Colorado is the bull's eye...
Getting Texas would be like throwing a dart and accidentally killing Bin Laden.
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.
