Pac-10 Chancellors give Green Light for expansion
by BruinFaithful on Jun 6, 2010 5:54 PM PDT
Email
Print
Very interesting developments indeed. ESPN is reporting that the Pac-10 Chancellors and Presidents have given Pac-10 Commissioner Larry Scott the authority to explore any and ALL expansion options. The Big12 has given Missouri and Nebraska a deadline of Friday to decide if they are staying or leaving. This could create a HUGE vacuum, which could fragment the Big12 and open the door for Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Colorado to reportedly join the conference. This would create a SUPER Pac16 Conference. I say, let's do it. Here's the link.
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.
10 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Don't be short-sighted, Commissioner Scott
If expanding to 12 is good, then expanding to 16 is better, and expanding to 40 or 50 would be lights out. Anything for revenue. Never mind history. That’s for geezers. Todays Facebook and Tweeter generation have a memory only as long as the memory on their cell phone holds out. Heck, let’s have 75 or 80 teams. We can have each season last all year. Think of the revenue of a one-game season, then a sextuple-elimination tournament. The revenue and the ratings would ….
I think I’ve made my point.
I'm not sure how I feel about expansion...
… but strictly from a historical perspective, is this any different from expansion from the PCC/AAWU/Pac-8 to the Pac-10 by including ASU and UofA? (I know the PCC was dissolved so I guess retaining that is out).
I’m actually honestly asking, btw. I don’t know what the impetus was for expansion in ’78. Perhaps some of the more historically astute Bruins might know what drove that.
Go Bruins!
I thought it was a mistake to add the two Arizona schools.
It’s the PAC 10, with “PAC” short for Paciric. Pullman isn’t particularly close to the Pacific, but the Pacific is ostensibly near Washington’s western border. (I say ostensibly because I’m not sure the fog ever actually lifts to allow verification.) Arizona has, in fact, nothing. It had nothing to offer when they joined us in whatever year it was (must have been after 71.)
By the way. How exactly did going from the Pac 8 to the Pac 10 help us again?
You know, if it’s just about revenue, the school is missing another great source. There are plenty of rich people who have children who aren’t too bright. Just let it be known that if you’re rich and you pay enough, your kid could have a UCLA degree. Think of the revenue that would generate. Of course, my degree would become tainted, and the school would start looking like the cesspool by Figueroa. But None Of That Matters As Long As We Generate Revenue.
So far, the only rationale offered for expansion is increasing revenue. Can anyone articulate even one reason why the university experience of Joe Bruin would be enhanced? Is there a reason for expansion outside an expected revenue increase?
And on that note, how much of a revenue increase is necessary? If there is no increase, then do we do it?
Let’t call it like it is. This is a revenue device. Sort of the same way ladies of the evening sell their integrity for increased revenue.
As mentioned before, I’m no history buff. The expansion happened in 1978 (two years before I was born, and frankly didn’t pay any attention to college sports till i started @ UCLA 2 years later). Was curious what the undertones were around there.
This to me seems a lot like an escalating arms race – a league of 10 just wouldn’t be able to compete with 2-3 other “superpowers” without expansion. While we’d be fine at first, we’d certainly be looking at scraps for coverage as contracts get renegotiated.
Go Bruins!
At this point
expansion kind of feels like getting breast implants to get respect…
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
by tasser10 on Jun 6, 2010 8:43 PM PDT via mobile reply actions
It's time...
…to expand. It could be against the history and/or the academics, but to remain at the elite level in today’s college athletics you’ve to have money – even playing always within the rules, like UCLA does -, and media exposure. And this expansion could provide all this to UCLA and the Pac10(16) so….get it done!
I'm with Fox.
I think it’s delusional to think Texas or Oklahoma would join the Pac 10. I think that IF Nebraska were to leave the Big 12, the Big 10 would make more sense for them geographically.
I’m still pulling for BYU & Utah. I’ll settle for Colorado & CSU. But, I think Colorado & Utah would be a mistake.
The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden
I'm new to BN, but
I have been following everything posted. I probably would not like it, but I’d be okay with the expansion if it keeps the regional rivalry pairs like UCLA and $C, Cal-Stanford, etc.
However, I like the current Pac-10 because each conference team plays every conference opponent, giving us a true conference champion.
But can you imagine a mega-conference with UCLA, Texas, OU, and all the other schools… that may shift the balance of power from the SEC to the Pac-10/Pac-16.
"The true athlete should have character, not be a character."- John Wooden
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.
